March 12, 200916 yr But KJP makes an interesting point that there are other entities that can apply for these rail funds. Ultimately though, doesn't the General Assembly have to appropriate operating funds? Is that true with ODOT's allocation of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds? I don't recall the General Assembly being involved with the decision last fall to use CMAQ funds to bail out existing public transportation systems in NE Ohio. And that was a stretch because CMAQ isn't supposed to be used for existing transit. There are precedents for using CMAQ for intercity rail, including Maine's Downeaster service and NCDOT deciding to use CMAQ funds for its third round trip between Charlotte and Raleigh starting later this year. And these are funds that the highway folks have been clamoring for. The fact that there were still substantial CMAQ dollars left of ODOT books as of late last year makes me wonder if ODOT or applicants to ODOT are coveting these funds. So let's put 'em to good use! The CMAQ scheme is a wierd one: bus replacement is considered a capital cost, though some might argue otherwise. And bus replacements qualify for CMAQ because the newer models are always cleaner, air quality wise, than the buses they replace. For a new rail startup like the downeaster, CMAQ can be used for capital costs plus three years of operating costs (to kindof get it up and running). That 3 year operating cost is the only such provision for operating in the federal aid program. There are CMAQ funds "on the books" because for the most part CMAQ is suballocated to Ohio MPO's, and they are very slow to utilize CMAQ.
March 12, 200916 yr BTW, after looking over one of my previous messages, I meant to say that "And these (CMAQ $$) are funds that the highway folks have NOT been clamoring for." Same deal with most MPOs, as you've pointed out. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 13, 200916 yr The main issue with going through TRAC is that TRAC is broke. The current Tier I projects are being pushed back to meet budget constraints and with each delay the cost of these projects increase. The administration also sees the possibility of stimulus funds for the 3-C project (i.e. no local match (state funds) are required). Hence, the reason for pushing it through this way instead of the TRAC process. There is a misconception that the TRAC is "broke," as ODOT is 1) still doing hundreds of millions a year in major capacity projects, and 2) the stimulus funding (especially for rail) only adds to the TRAC/ODOT financial picture. Plus there is a reauthorization bill on the horizon, and it is a good bet that there will be more rail program funding in that bill. But KJP makes an interesting point that there are other entities that can apply for these rail funds. Ultimately though, doesn't the General Assembly have to appropriate operating funds? I'd say it is more than a misconception. The link below is a financial presentation about ODOT revenues and expenditures for the upcoming years (thru 2015). At the bottom of slide 34 of 39 you will see the Major New program "zeroes" out in 2011. This is just a forecasting and could change, the point is that as recently as 2005-06, ODOT was spending $600-$800 million on Major New (TRAC) projects. This level of spending has receded rapidly and looks like that trend will continue. One thing about the Reauthorization, the feds can pass as large a spending as they wish, but if the state is limited in their matching funds, ODOT will be not be able to take advantage of the larger reauthorization bill. I agree in that I expect this reauthorization bill to have more emphasis on transit and rail - this was evident in the stimulus bill. The issue of the solvency Highway Trust Fund still exists.
March 13, 200916 yr The main issue with going through TRAC is that TRAC is broke. The current Tier I projects are being pushed back to meet budget constraints and with each delay the cost of these projects increase. The administration also sees the possibility of stimulus funds for the 3-C project (i.e. no local match (state funds) are required). Hence, the reason for pushing it through this way instead of the TRAC process. There is a misconception that the TRAC is "broke," as ODOT is 1) still doing hundreds of millions a year in major capacity projects, and 2) the stimulus funding (especially for rail) only adds to the TRAC/ODOT financial picture. Plus there is a reauthorization bill on the horizon, and it is a good bet that there will be more rail program funding in that bill. But KJP makes an interesting point that there are other entities that can apply for these rail funds. Ultimately though, doesn't the General Assembly have to appropriate operating funds? I'd say it is more than a misconception. The link below is a financial presentation about ODOT revenues and expenditures for the upcoming years (thru 2015). At the bottom of slide 34 of 39 you will see the Major New program "zeroes" out in 2011. This is just a forecasting and could change, the point is that as recently as 2005-06, ODOT was spending $600-$800 million on Major New (TRAC) projects. This level of spending has receded rapidly and looks like that trend will continue. One thing about the Reauthorization, the feds can pass as large a spending as they wish, but if the state is limited in their matching funds, ODOT will be not be able to take advantage of the larger reauthorization bill. I agree in that I expect this reauthorization bill to have more emphasis on transit and rail - this was evident in the stimulus bill. The issue of the solvency Highway Trust Fund still exists. There is a peculiar history of ODOT financial planning that is not well understood. Until the late 1990s, there was no financial plan/forecast. Once forecasts were started, they revealed shortfalls in major/new funding, just a few years out. Every forecast since 98 has shown it. But the future is rarely as dim as the conservative fiscal forecasts due to several reasons: lower than anticipated bid prices, higher revenues, cost savings, and federal reauthorizations that typically increase funding. Our present history is no exception: construction inflation has eased (a US 24 project came in 20% under engineers estimate on Wednesday, according to the Blade); ODOT staff is down to about 5500 (authorized for 6000); and the Obama administration showered the state with $900 million in transportation stimulus funds (plus discretionary rail programs). ODOT's budget presentation is proof: it notes that its business plan projected a 09-11 "shortfall" of $1.1 billion, but now that "shortfall" is only $274 million. Which doesn't include the stimulus largess. Some uninitiated folks have mistaken budget imbalances and transportation programming (and over-programming).
March 13, 200916 yr ^No arguments that the budget is historically conservative for those reasons you stated. However, it is also important to note why the 09-11 shortfall was decreased from $1.1B to $274M: 1)there was a carryover from previous years that is not projected to be sustained and 2)the schedule for Major New projects was altered. These projects did not go away and will still need to be constructed as per the legislature before any Tier II or "new" projects are constructed. They are just getting more expensive to construct. I also go back to an earlier statement about the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund - the HTF was running short on funds prior to the economic downturn and has only worsened (less VMT = less gas tax money). There was always an optimism with the reauthorization bill because of the new funding, but from the talks I have heard this optimism is not there because of the issue with the HTF. Time will tell... I do think this reauthorization will be a stark difference in priorities from the previous bills. I think the recent statements by the administration (federal and state) have shown that more emphasis will be placed on rail and transit. Projects such as the 3-C, streetcars, light rail, etc should see more attention. The stimulus bill gives credence to these thoughts, but it will be interesting to see how the issue of funding is dealt with at federal and state levels.
March 13, 200916 yr But the future is rarely as dim as the conservative fiscal forecasts due to several reasons: lower than anticipated bid prices, higher revenues, cost savings, and federal reauthorizations that typically increase funding. Our present history is no exception: construction inflation has eased (a US 24 project came in 20% under engineers estimate on Wednesday, according to the Blade); ODOT staff is down to about 5500 (authorized for 6000); and the Obama administration showered the state with $900 million in transportation stimulus funds (plus discretionary rail programs). The only problem is that I don't see this continuing. As the world economy recovers, so will the demand for all the basic materials of construction and, therefore, the costs. That coupled with the huge increase in our nation's debt service, which was more than 10% of the Federal Budget last summer, and the looming obligations to fund mandatory social programs for the elderly, and I don't see the Federal government continuing to fund discretionary projects let alone increasing funding. For the most part we're all behaving as though the economy will recover and it will be business as usual. IMHO this is a dangerous delusion.
March 13, 200916 yr Does this discussion really belong on the ODOT Policy thread? It's getting a little away from the topic of the 3-C Corridor.
March 14, 200916 yr Here's a "Mayor's Letter" of support that can be distributed: Deleted because this isn't the final version...
March 14, 200916 yr Mayors, Other Local Officials Voice Support for Passenger Rail Service in Ohio Columbus, Ohio- Several Ohio mayors and local officials today announced their support for restoring passenger rail service in Ohio. Governor Ted Strickland announced in his 2009 State of the State address that he would work to restore passenger rail service in Ohio through the 3-C Corridor (Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland) for the first time since 1971. The officials, listed below, represent major metropolitan areas as well as smaller communities that would be affected by 3-C Corridor start-up service or future high-speed rail expansion in Ohio. The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) is seeking the General Assembly's support in order to send a strong signal to the federal government that Ohio is serious about competing for $9 billion in federal stimulus resources specifically targeted toward rail investments. A list of endorsements from officials across the state, as well as additional information on passenger rail in Ohio, is included below: Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson Columbus Mayor Mike Coleman Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin Lima Mayor David Berger Springfield Mayor Warren Copeland Cincinnati City Council Cleveland City Council Columbus City Council President Michael Mentel Delaware City Council Delaware Mayor Windell Wheeler And the commissioners of Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton and Montgomery counties Additional Information on Ohio Passenger Rail Service Trains running along the 3-C Corridor will use existing rail lines. It will cost an estimated $250 million in federal stimulus resources to begin operation. ODOT and ORDC estimate a cost of $10 million a year to operate the 3-C Corridor. $10 million a year represents just a fraction (0.13%) of the state's $7.6 billion biennial transportation budget. An estimated 4,000-6,000 jobs will be created for the construction of the 3-C Corridor. Another 10,000 positions will be generated in and around the stations, through office, retail and other service-related positions. The 3-C Corridor will reach 5.9 million Ohioans, nearly 60 percent of our population, who live within 15 miles of the rail line. According to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 8.6 percent of Ohioans do not drive, due to physical limitations or financial reasons. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/Mayors,OtherLocalOfficialsVoiceSupportforPassengerRailServiceinOhio.aspx
March 14, 200916 yr Ohio governor says rail project needs $250M Associated Press - March 13, 2009 7:15 PM ET COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland says the state could restore passenger rail service with $250 million in federal stimulus money. Strickland's administration released the estimate Friday. Trains would run along existing freight tracks connecting Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland, with the eventual goal of making the service high speed. http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=10004259
March 14, 200916 yr This is a prime example of why lobbyists and special interests should not be setting transportation policy. Rail system would be another drain on state budget Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:56 AM The Strickland administration has introduced a transportation budget that proposes a new transportation alternative, intercity passenger rail, for the state. Earlier in his administration, Gov. Ted Strickland announced that Amtrak would perform a study to examine the viability of a passenger-rail line connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Even before that report's findings are issued, the legislature is being pressed to evaluate an expensive, long-term commitment on the part of the state. We do have another source, however, from which to draw information. In July 2007, the Ohio Rail Development Commission issued a report titled "The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study." The study indicates total cost to build the conventional-speed (not the high-speed) rail scenario in the 3-C corridor is $661 million in 2002 dollars. Given the inflation we've seen in the past seven years, cost to construct today would be more than $1 billion. The study found that only 1.95 percent of the trips made between the cities will use passenger rail and, with a conventional-speed train, travel time would be greater when compared with a trip by automobile. If you don't travel that corridor, tough luck. No matter where you live in Ohio you'll get to pay for passenger rail, because, as the director of the Ohio Department of Transportation stated in budget testimony, ongoing operation of the service would have to be subsidized because it will never pay for itself at the fare box. We are all familiar with the age-old debate over Amtrak and how heavily it is subsidized by the federal budget. In effect, the state of Ohio now wants to build its own version. We're going to get Ohio-trak and all of the budget problems that it entails. Every year, the state will have to come up with more money to subsidize the passenger-rail system. Meanwhile, the condition of the highway system will continue to deteriorate as money generated by highway users will be funneled into passenger rail. As with any vision that brings new services to people, there are positive aspects to passenger rail. If there would be significant ridership, there would be environmental enhancements. However, ridership projections do not support receiving these potential benefits. Initial construction, ongoing operations and spin-off opportunities will support jobs, but one would be hard-pressed to make the argument that the number of jobs created by passenger rail would be more numerous than those afforded through other wise investments of the same amount of money. Other countries such as China are moving aggressively forward with passenger rail. Creation of our interstate highway system required similar vision. In both instances, the vision is and was based on a national perspective. If passenger rail is a high priority for the Obama administration, then the planning and funding for passenger rail should be developed from that perspective. To throw $8 billion out to all the states in the economic-stimulus package without a national plan and priority means none will be successful at making passenger rail work. If the $8 billion were systematically used to make entire sections operational and integrally linked for a continuous system, the financial outcomes would be much more favorable. The planning for passenger rail should not be a state or even regional decision. So why would the residents of Ohio want to spend more than $1 billion for Ohio-trak, a system for very few riders that does not get them to their destination quicker, with an operating cost that they will have to cover in perpetuity from already-scarce state funds? We wouldn't make that kind of investment in our personal lives. Why should the state do it? Given our state's already strapped financial position, I believe the vast majority of us do not want to introduce yet another large drain on the budget. For those who agree, we need to let our legislators know. Confronted with the will of the people, armed with the facts, our elected officials will have to take heed before indenturing taxpayers to such a scheme. CHRIS RUNYAN President Ohio Contractors Association Columbus http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/03/14/Runyan_SAT_MUST_ART_03-14-09_A13_EVD7BRU.html?sid=101
March 14, 200916 yr A list of snarky cheap shots. It's interesting to note that the same Ohio Contractors Association that Mr. Runyan represents is also on record, in writing, in support of the veryn Ohio Hub Plan he quotes in his letter today.
March 14, 200916 yr This was not pleasant to read with my oatmeal this morning. It is just so dissembling.
March 14, 200916 yr This is a prime example of why lobbyists and special interests should not be setting transportation policy. Rail system would be another drain on state budget Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:56 AM The Strickland administration has introduced a transportation budget that proposes a new transportation alternative, intercity passenger rail, for the state. Earlier in his administration, Gov. Ted Strickland announced that Amtrak would perform a study to examine the viability of a passenger-rail line connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Even before that report's findings are issued, the legislature is being pressed to evaluate an expensive, long-term commitment on the part of the state. We do have another source, however, from which to draw information. In July 2007, the Ohio Rail Development Commission issued a report titled "The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study." The study indicates total cost to build the conventional-speed (not the high-speed) rail scenario in the 3-C corridor is $661 million in 2002 dollars. Given the inflation we've seen in the past seven years, cost to construct today would be more than $1 billion. The study found that only 1.95 percent of the trips made between the cities will use passenger rail and, with a conventional-speed train, travel time would be greater when compared with a trip by automobile. If you don't travel that corridor, tough luck. No matter where you live in Ohio you'll get to pay for passenger rail, because, as the director of the Ohio Department of Transportation stated in budget testimony, ongoing operation of the service would have to be subsidized because it will never pay for itself at the fare box. We are all familiar with the age-old debate over Amtrak and how heavily it is subsidized by the federal budget. In effect, the state of Ohio now wants to build its own version. We're going to get Ohio-trak and all of the budget problems that it entails. Every year, the state will have to come up with more money to subsidize the passenger-rail system. Meanwhile, the condition of the highway system will continue to deteriorate as money generated by highway users will be funneled into passenger rail. As with any vision that brings new services to people, there are positive aspects to passenger rail. If there would be significant ridership, there would be environmental enhancements. However, ridership projections do not support receiving these potential benefits. Initial construction, ongoing operations and spin-off opportunities will support jobs, but one would be hard-pressed to make the argument that the number of jobs created by passenger rail would be more numerous than those afforded through other wise investments of the same amount of money. Other countries such as China are moving aggressively forward with passenger rail. Creation of our interstate highway system required similar vision. In both instances, the vision is and was based on a national perspective. If passenger rail is a high priority for the Obama administration, then the planning and funding for passenger rail should be developed from that perspective. To throw $8 billion out to all the states in the economic-stimulus package without a national plan and priority means none will be successful at making passenger rail work. If the $8 billion were systematically used to make entire sections operational and integrally linked for a continuous system, the financial outcomes would be much more favorable. The planning for passenger rail should not be a state or even regional decision. So why would the residents of Ohio want to spend more than $1 billion for Ohio-trak, a system for very few riders that does not get them to their destination quicker, with an operating cost that they will have to cover in perpetuity from already-scarce state funds? We wouldn't make that kind of investment in our personal lives. Why should the state do it? Given our state's already strapped financial position, I believe the vast majority of us do not want to introduce yet another large drain on the budget. For those who agree, we need to let our legislators know. Confronted with the will of the people, armed with the facts, our elected officials will have to take heed before indenturing taxpayers to such a scheme. CHRIS RUNYAN President Ohio Contractors Association Columbus http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/03/14/Runyan_SAT_MUST_ART_03-14-09_A13_EVD7BRU.html?sid=101 ^Pure stupidity; and we wonder why Ohio's in the mess it's in... This rail project is a line-in-the-sand moment for this deeply troubled state. If the knuckle-dragging Republicans are successful in killing this project, then I won't hold out much hope for Ohio. And it will be as much OUR fault for letting them do it, as there's. (and yes, I've written several letters/emails myself).
March 14, 200916 yr A list of snarky cheap shots. It's interesting to note that the same Ohio Contractors Association that Mr. Runyan represents is also on record, in writing, in support of the veryn Ohio Hub Plan he quotes in his letter today. Hmmm... sounds like ORDC needs to leak that little factoid to the Dispatch. Actually, how do we go about a public records request for that document??? I'd be glad to send it to the dispatch.
March 14, 200916 yr For one thing...the OCA endorsement is listed on the Ohio Hub website. Link to the pdf: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/Ohio%20Hub%20Resolutions%20%20Letters%20of%20Support/OhioHubResolutionsLetters.pdf
March 15, 200916 yr The sad thing is that he gets 666 words to express his one-sided opinion (talks about the Amtrak subsidy but fails to mention that the annual Federal share of the road subsidy is $40 billion), but the Dispatch limits letters to the editor to 200 words, in most cases. Perhaps someone from All Aboard Ohio could ask for space for a rebuttal.
March 15, 200916 yr Although this is flagrant editorializing by giving 600 words to the road building lobby (the Ohio Contractor's Association? Please...), I can't entirely disagree with it. Would I really take a train from Cincinnati to Columbus? I'm far more concerned about rail transit within metros. I wanted to see a group of $1 Billion minimum-operable-segment grants given out to metros like Cincinnati, Columbus, Orlando, Vegas, and others who failed to muster local-match segments. After that, I think the priority should be high-speed regional rail hubs that compete with regional airways. Something like Cleveland to Chicago, not Cleveland to Columbus. Or Orlando to Atlanta, not Orlando to Tampa. And those would be best administrated at the national level, like the writer says. Respond as you will, but I've devoted my life to smart-growth planning and transit, and I just don't think that statewide rail plans are the right piece of the puzzle right now.
March 15, 200916 yr Actually, I think a lot of college students would use these trains regularly. I think folks outside of Columbus underestimate the connectedness of the Ohio population. OSU could practically keep the trains full just sending folks back and forth to Cincy and Cleveland and points beyond. Columbus has become even more of population hub than ever before and thus folks here have connections throughout the state. Columbus needs to be on a train line and if you are connect up Columbus to the rail network, it would only make sense to connect with the other major cities in the state/region (Cincinnati, Cleveland and later Toledo, Chicago, Pittsburgh). It would also allow most of Ohio to feed into a national system to go east or west (along the Great Lakes lines or the Cardinal though from Columbus it would hard to rationalize that trip). Columbus also happens to be the city with the greatest growth in the state (whether that can continue is another issue).
March 15, 200916 yr An op-ed response to the OCA is in the works. Civvik... I understand what you're saying, but intercity passenger rail...either conventional speed or high-speed is what provides the connectivity between metro areas and their local transit systems, bikeways, airports and...yes...even highways.
March 15, 200916 yr ^Agreed. Total transit connectivity is key so you can't look at local transit, regional rail and Amtrak in isolation -- indeed, even highway transp is tied in, esp as it feeds train/transit lines with, preferably, high-density, mixed use parking garages. Indeed, the preferred 3-C route has a station at Hopkins airport tying in the trains to planes... Civvik, one thing you're missing, as most highway/anti-transit advocates (of which I'm NOT including you) miss, is that even though you/they may not use the trains, many others will which will make driving less road-congested for you.
March 15, 200916 yr ^Agreed. Total transit connectivity is key so you can't look at local transit, regional rail and Amtrak in isolation -- indeed, even highway transp is tied in, esp as it feeds train/transit lines with, preferably, high-density, mixed use parking garages. Indeed, the preferred 3-C route has a station at Hopkins airport tying in the trains to planes... Civvik, one thing you're missing, as most highway/anti-transit advocates (of which I'm NOT including you) miss, is that even though you/they may not use the trains, many others will which will make driving less road-congested for you. Agreed! If I could take a train from Cincinnati to Youngstown, I would, even if it took more time than a car. I HATE the 4.5 hour drive to my parent's house near Youngstown. In a train, at least I could do some other work and be productive.
March 15, 200916 yr Actually, I think a lot of college students would use these trains regularly. I know I would. I would love just to take PARTA or my car to a station in Akron (is there even going to be in a stop in Akron?) and take the train to Mansfield/Galion. I hate driving and a train would be an awesome alternative.
March 15, 200916 yr Respond as you will, but I've devoted my life to smart-growth planning and transit, and I just don't think that statewide rail plans are the right piece of the puzzle right now. All I can say is that what you say runs counter to actual experience in states which already support passenger trains. People are riding in droves and the same thing will happen here if trains start running.
March 15, 200916 yr I sent an email about a month ago to Rep Fende and Senator Grendell and received an email AND a phone call from Rep Fende earlier in the week. Turns out she used to live on the same street as me and she is/was good friends with my parents and recognized my last name in the email. No one was home for the call but she did leave a message saying that she does support the project and will keep us updated. Anyway, here's the email i received back from her office: Dear Mr. cardsnxtyr, Representative Fende received your e-mail requesting her support in pursuing a modern passenger rail service for Ohio. She asked me to contact you and let you know that she supports this initiative and that it was part of the transportation budget (House Bill 2) recently passed in the House of Representatives. Currently, the budget is in the Ohio Senate and the Representative encourages you to contact Senator Timothy Grendell to continue your support for the initiative. His contact information is as follows; Senator Timothy Grendell Telephone: 614/644-7718 Email: [email protected] Thank you for contacting Representative Fende’s office and please feel free to contact us again with any questions or concerns. Carpe Diem, Neil Waggoner Legislative Aide to Representative Lorraine M. Fende Ohio House of Representatives (614) 466-7251
March 15, 200916 yr ^An AAO rebuttal is a great idea... KJP? Noozer? It's coming, trust me. What's really interesting about this is that All Aboard Ohio came out in support of the gas tax increase that the OCA pushed for under the Taft administration.
March 15, 200916 yr Here's the final version of the Mayor's letter. Please distribute. The moment for passenger rail in Ohio is NOW. This and the resolution that was posted a couple of weeks ago must be spread far and wide: March 15, 2009 The Honorable Thomas F. Patton Senator, Ohio Senate District 24 Chair, Highways and Transportation Committee Senate Building Room 140, First Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Re: Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland Corridor Passenger Rail Service Dear Senator Patton: As Mayor of the City of ____________ _____, I wish to express my support for the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland (3C) passenger rail corridor proposal. As you know, this is the first step toward implementing the Ohio Hub Plan, which when completed will connect all of Ohio's major cities with each other and connect Ohio with neighboring states with fast, frequent, rail passenger service. Ultimately, the Ohio Hub will also connect with several international airports, thus enhancing Ohio's connection to the global economy. Other states that have invested in passenger rail corridors have realized economic benefits that exceed the costs of the initial investment and on-going operating support. The proposed $250 million investment in conventional speed (79-mph) 3C Corridor services will likely result in the creation of 6,000 new jobs; $195 million in earnings and $625 million in business sales according to the US Department of Commerce RIMS II economic impact model. According to the economic impact studies completed for the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) under Governor Taft’s Administration, the Ohio Hub at full build out will generate over 16,000 jobs, increase property values throughout the state, and generate economic benefits in excess of $17 billion. This includes $9 billion in direct user benefits, $3 billion in new development near stations and increased air traffic at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport adding another $1 billion in direct economic impact. In addition, Ohio has over 100 companies that provide products and services to the rail industry employing thousands of union laborers. If anything, investment in passenger rail will enhance the state's finances over the long run. The 2001 Tracking Ohio Poll shows that Ohioans want more travel choices. Two studies conducted by the ORDC show that the Ohio Hub Plan at full build out will be used by 9.3 million passengers annually. The 3C Corridor would account for nearly one-third of that total ridership. Initially 3C Corridor trains will need to be subsidized. But the economic payback has exceeded the cost in every other state that has funded passenger rail service. The returns come in the form of increased state revenues from sales taxes, incomes taxes and local property taxes, which are deposited into the state and local treasuries and not the farebox. Furthermore, ORDC has determined that at full build out, Ohio Hub train revenues will cover operating costs. At a recent event at Union Station in Washington, DC, Vice President Joseph Biden strongly defended the government subsidies that go to the nation’s rail system and said he was “tired of apologizing for help for Amtrak….Every passenger rail service system in the world relies on subsidies. We subsidize our highways and airports more than we subsidize Amtrak. So let's get something straight here. Amtrak has not been at the trough. Amtrak has been left out of the trough. Amtrak has been left out much too long.” The Vice President went on to say that Amtrak is “an absolute national treasure and necessity.” I agree. Ohio needs a 21st Century transportation system and the economic development that will result from investing in passenger rail. Ohio also needs to diversify its transportation system to provide people with more travel choices particularly when airlines and Greyhound are cutting services to small cities and towns throughout the country and in Ohio. Passenger rail service can enhance the competitiveness of Ohio's economy and increase the productivity of business travelers and students, reduce energy dependency, reduce air pollution and carbon emissions, and improve mobility for Ohio's aging population and the 8.5% of Ohio households that do not own cars. Generally, the 3C service will enhance the quality of life of all of Ohio's citizens. I urge you to support this important investment in Ohio's future just like I do. Sincerely, Mayor cc: Senator Steve Buehrer Senator Capri Cafaro Senator Gary Cates Senator Teresa Fedor Senator David Goodman Senator Bill Harris Senator Tim Schaeffer Senator Nina Turner Senator Jason Wilson
March 15, 200916 yr Here is a link to The Nature Conservancy's legislative page. It includes links to Ohio legislative district maps, and to legislator contact info: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ohio/misc/art23236.html
March 15, 200916 yr Here's some key legislative people to push on 3-C: OHIO SENATE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - 9 Patton, Chair Buehrer, Vice Chair Turner, Ranking Minority Cates Schiavoni Gibbs Wilson Goodman Schaffer HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Hagan, Chair Combs, Ranking Member Mallory, Vice Chair Balderson Bolon McClain Carney Ruhl Domenick Uecker Foley Zehringer Yuko TRANSPORTATION AND JUSTICE SUBCOMMITTEE (of the House Finance and Appropriations Committee) Ujvagi, Chair McGregor, Ranking Member Carney Grossman Skindell
March 15, 200916 yr ^An AAO rebuttal is a great idea... KJP? Noozer? It's coming, trust me. What's really interesting about this is that All Aboard Ohio came out in support of the gas tax increase that the OCA pushed for under the Taft administration. Stances like that might change in light of the attitude of OCA. I'd bet there's a good chance there might be a different approach by All Aboard Ohio and its friends and allies.
March 16, 200916 yr Civvik, There's lots of pieces to the transportation puzzle that are needed in this state. Intercity rail is one of them. Urban rail (which requires more subsidies than intercity rail) is another. Regional bus services are still another. Now is the right time for intercity because there is funding to provide intercity rail. These funds can be used to provide infrastructure improvements not only for intercity rail, but regional rail and notably for freight rail (that needs to get more play!!). Ohio will have the makings of a stronger steel transportation spine linking the state's three largest cities (and the state's three largest economic engines). This is a great way to help grease those engines in environmentally sustainable ways at little or no cost to Ohio taxpayers. In the future, if we haven't totally scared off (or pissed off) all our young people by then, we will have to pay this inflation-adjusted expense with a greater share of Ohio dollars. This need isn't going away. It's only going to get worse as the number of Ohioans 65 and older increase, as we sprawl and isolate more low-income Ohioans, as we congest highways more, and as we fail to meet more EPA standards more. The inability of the General Assembly to grasp these issues (let alone deal with them) is a big reason why the state's economy was in the toilet long before the national economy followed it there. Wouldn't it be great if Ohio could help show the nation how to get out of it? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 16, 200916 yr http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2009/03/16/ddn031609trainsxxmg.html Case for trains just keeps getting better By Dayton Daily News Editorial Board Monday, March 16, 2009 The debate about passenger trains in Ohio has been transformed. More precisely, it has arrived. Even last year, passenger trains were hardly more than a glimmer in some eyes. Now Republicans and Democrats in Columbus are at each other's throats about the issue. ...... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 16, 200916 yr Here's some "man on the street" interviews in Cleveland. The second person interviewed works for the law firm Tucker & Ellis -- one of the largest campaign contributors to Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Tom Patton who is antogonistic toward passenger rail. KJP ________________ The Big Issue: Rail options Would you take a passenger train to Columbus or Cincinnati from Cleveland? http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20090316/MULTI/903169983 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 16, 200916 yr The debate - as well as the studies that are already going on and might still be slated - will fail to answer some questions. There are no experts on the future. If gasoline costs $4 or $5 a gallon, trains have will have more passengers than if it costs $1.50 a gallon. ... The more attention that quickly turns to these and other aspects of the train issue, the better. If 3C is going to happen, now appears to be the time, because of the stimulus money and memories of $4-a-gallon gas. The editors should Google "contango oil" or, better yet, look at the following article: http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/January/contango.html The largest oil companies in the world have already filled up land-based storage tanks and are paying $46,000/day to rent 1 million barrel tankers to store oil for sale at higher prices in the future. Why are oil prices so low? Two theories. One is that oil producers are heavily leveraged in stock which is down 44% from their peak. A credit crunch may be forcing them to sell at less than peak prices because consumer demand is down (hence, the surplus to contango). The other theory, which is held by many analysts, is that world oil production has already peaked for the forseeable future. Both may be true. In any case, $4/gallon for gasoline is not simply a memory and our politicians are deluding themselves (and us), if they don't think that we'll see these prices, again, in the next few years.
March 16, 200916 yr Another link that might get people thinking: http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Advance%20Copy_Feb09.pdf This bipartison commission on surface transportation is recommending a shift to pay-as-you-go taxes to fund the Highway Trust. The free ride may soon be over.
March 16, 200916 yr Tom Patton, chair of the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee, is rumored to be planning to strip the ODOT bill of all rail funding in a bitter political fight with the governor. Only the future of jobs-producing rail projects, the mobility of Ohioans regardless of their financial or physical ability, and Ohio's ability to weather the next spike in gas prices is at risk in this political showdown. Since Patton is a committee chairman, you are a constitutent of his regardless of where you live. So if you haven't contacted his office, please do so now! Telephone: (614) 466-8056 Email: [email protected] Message: I support funding for the development of railroads in Ohio, including passenger rail improvements in the 3-C Corridor and across the northern part of the state. Both will also benefit rail freight service with passing sidings, extra main tracks, Quiet Zones, and interactive Positive Train Control signaling to meet federal safety requirements five years early. Ohio will have one of the safest, most modern rail systems in the nation to benefit our economy, our travelers, our freight shippers and our environment. Your leadership is needed to tap available federal funding now or else Ohio will have to use precious state funding later for these needed improvements. I will remember your vote the next time I vote. Thank you for taking the time to contact Senator Patton! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 16, 200916 yr I just called Patton's office and got Patton himself. He first said he is a supporter of rail, and then railed against rail for about 10 minutes (1,110 passengers a day, 3 1/2 hour trips, $60 million subsidies, yada yada yada) before I got my chance to make a pitch. He tried to cut off the call, saying he answered the phone himself and gave me his time. "With all due respect, sir, you took my call and then expressed your opinion and didn't give me a chance to express mine." So I did get a few more minutes of his time, but his mind is obviously made up.
March 16, 200916 yr Here's mine. I'm going to call him too but I'm guessing he won't answer his phone again this afternoon... Senator Patton: Frankly I'm dismayed at your stance regarding funding for the development of railroads in Ohio, including passenger rail improvements in the 3-C Corridor and across the northern part of the state. As I'm sure you are aware, Ohio is a transportation cross-roads for the movement of freight (both by rail and over the road carriers) and it would seem, according to what I have read, that you would prefer to keep up stuck in the same old same old mode of continued highway expansion while states around us move to modernize and upgrade rails systems to efficiently move people and freight in the 21st century. I for one am tired of subsidizing unsustainable transportation infrastructure in this state and the federal level while being told that there's no place for rail improvements at the funding table. We can't even keep the bridge on I-90 (a mainline coast to coast interstate highway) fully open and in good repair. What does this say about the evolution of our transportation system in Ohio over the past 50 years? It says to me that we're heading in the wrong direction. Why is it OK to subsidize highways and airports but not rail improvements? I would much prefer to travel to Columbus (which I do at least monthly) with my laptop out getting some work done on a train than via the mind-numbing drive down I-71 that is, as of now, my only option. Thanks for you time. redbrick Fairview Park
March 16, 200916 yr Called and emailed, General KJP. Me too, but he's probably tired of hearing from me.
March 16, 200916 yr Rough draft of the followup letter I'm sending to Patton. Comments? Suggestions? I want to keep it short -- less than one page. Dear Sen. Patton, Thank you for taking my call late on Monday afternoon. I appreciated your time, but I wanted to take the opportunity now to briefly touch on a few more pro-rail arguments, since our time on Monday was limited by your meeting. In short: I believe a rail system in Ohio is worth the investment for many reasons. 1) More and more Ohioans want inter-city passenger rail as one of their transportation options. In a 2001 statewide survey conducted by Ohio State University, 80 percent of respondents favored or strongly favored passenger rail service in Ohio, and 84 percent said they very likely or somewhat likely to ride Ohio trains if they were available. 2) The upward trend and fluctuation of gas prices makes the future of current levels of auto use uncertain – and likely makes the rail option even more popular. 3) Rail has the potential to move far more people far more cost-effectively than any other mode of travel. As it is, we throw billions upon billions into highways that remain congested and in need of billions in upgrades. 4) Ohioans do not choose to drive among the 3-C cities. They drive precisely because they have no other choice. 5) Despite the uncertain costs of rail, now is the time to begin the state’s investment. There is federal money available to pay most of the cost, and the cost will go higher if we put this off until later. 6) Passenger rail is about the future – not nostalgia. Many of the Ohioans who now want rail were not even born the last time trains ran on the 3-C corridor. They see trains not as nostalgic, but as cutting edge. If Ohio does not offer trains, they will go to states that offer them a better future. I could go on and on with reasons to support passenger rail in Ohio. But the main point is that now – when federal aid is available and gas prices are a burden and the economy is struggling – is best chance Ohio will ever get to invest in a basic service from which we can build a faster, more-modern rail system. If we fail to move forward now, we will fall behind states that are looking to the future.
March 17, 200916 yr Senator Patton: I have read and heard with great dismay your opinions and statements concerning the possibility of rail passenger service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. It seems you have reached a predetermined conclusion, based on some shaky assertions. I won't get into a point-counterpoint discussion, but let me put this in personal terms. I regularly drive I-71 between Columbus and Cleveland. I know every pothole and crack in the road and am on a first name basis with the Highway Patrol. Sometimes it's a pleasant ride, other times it's a harrowing, white knuckle experience. I can't read, use the phone or a laptop while I drive. I must focus of the back end of the semi that's in front of me. Sometimes the trip is in about two hours and 15 minutes, others, it's up to four hours. I never know. and then there's the ever-present construction. Give me a break! I want a choice. I am tired of having to drive this road and I bet there are a LOT of others who feel the same way. Just once I'd like to ride a train arrive and rested instead of frazzled. Please, please, please give us a choice. Other states have passenger trains, what's so unique about Ohio? Is it our naysaying attitude? We can do better than that. Sincerely, Buckeyeb
March 17, 200916 yr Good letters, one and all. The best letter is the one that is sent. I just called Patton's office and got Patton himself. He first said he is a supporter of rail, and then railed against rail for about 10 minutes (1,110 passengers a day, 3 1/2 hour trips, $60 million subsidies, yada yada yada) before I got my chance to make a pitch. He tried to cut off the call, saying he answered the phone himself and gave me his time. "With all due respect, sir, you took my call and then expressed your opinion and didn't give me a chance to express mine." So I did get a few more minutes of his time, but his mind is obviously made up. Wow, you should feel so honored that he gave you his time! In reality, his statement tells you all you need to know about the guy. He isn't a legislator -- he doesn't care what people think. THAT is the true definition of an idealogue. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 17, 200916 yr Good letters, one and all. The best letter is the one that is sent. I just called Patton's office and got Patton himself. He first said he is a supporter of rail, and then railed against rail for about 10 minutes (1,110 passengers a day, 3 1/2 hour trips, $60 million subsidies, yada yada yada) before I got my chance to make a pitch. He tried to cut off the call, saying he answered the phone himself and gave me his time. "With all due respect, sir, you took my call and then expressed your opinion and didn't give me a chance to express mine." So I did get a few more minutes of his time, but his mind is obviously made up. Wow, you should feel so honored that he gave you his time! In reality, his statement tells you all you need to know about the guy. He isn't a legislator -- he doesn't care what people think. THAT is the true definition of an idealogue. What a jerk. To those of you who might not have written, go ahead. He's the Chair of the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee, so he should hear from all of us. Let's make the guy miserable. Keep writing and calling!
March 17, 200916 yr Ohio passenger rail support growing, GOP skeptical By STEPHEN MAJORS Associated Press Writer COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A growing coalition is lobbying for Ohio to build passenger rail along its major cities in the face of skepticism among Republican lawmakers. A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday finds that 64 percent of Ohio voters support passenger rail service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Gov. Ted Strickland, environmentalists, some Ohio mayors and Democratic lawmakers support it. The Democratic-controlled House has passed a transportation budget enabling Ohio to compete for $250 million in stimulus funds to build the rail. Republicans who control the Senate are skeptical about the plan's feasibility and cost. They planned to meet Tuesday afternoon to decide its fate. A vote of the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee is also scheduled. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OH_PASSENGER_RAIL_OHOL-?SITE=WCMHTV&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
March 17, 200916 yr The full Quinnipiac College poll.... (part of a larger overall poll on Gov. Strickland's performance) Link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1276 Interesting breakdown of numbers....even a majority among Republicans polled. 51. Governor Strickland is proposing passenger train service between Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Dayton. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? WtBrnAgn Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl Good idea 64% 56% 75% 59% 62% 65% 57% Bad idea 29 38 18 33 33 26 37 DK/NA 7 6 7 8 5 9 7 Cntrl NrthE NrthW SthE SthW WstCnt Good idea 52% 70% 60% 62% 66% 65% Bad idea 41 23 32 32 31 26 DK/NA 7 8 7 6 3 9 AGE IN YRS....... INCOME............. NoColl College 18-34 35-54 55+ <50 50-100 >100K Degree Good idea 73% 62% 61% 66% 60% 65% 63% 67% Bad idea 19 33 31 25 35 33 30 28 DK/NA 9 5 8 9 5 2 8 5 52. If train service between these cities is established, how likely would you be to use it - very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely or not likely at all? WtBrnAgn Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl Very likely 18% 12% 24% 18% 18% 19% 11% Smwht likely 28 25 31 29 29 26 25 Not too likely 14 17 10 15 13 14 15 Not likely at all 39 46 35 37 40 39 49 DK/NA 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 Cntrl NrthE NrthW SthE SthW WstCnt Very likely 19% 19% 15% 7% 20% 18% Smwht likely 22 33 29 16 24 29 Not too likely 12 14 10 17 16 14 Not likely at all 46 33 43 59 40 39 DK/NA - 1 2 1 - 1 AGE IN YRS....... INCOME............. NoColl College 18-34 35-54 55+ <50 50-100 >100K Degree Very likely 21% 20% 16% 17% 18% 24% 16% 24% Smwht likely 31 29 25 29 26 33 27 31 Not too likely 15 12 14 14 16 11 13 15 Not likely at all 33 38 43 40 40 31 43 29 DK/NA - - 1 1 - - 1 1
Create an account or sign in to comment