If the majority of Americans were for a high speed rail system, you can bet that Congress would act on it. Sadly, the majority of Americans don't even know about high speed rail, unless they study it or have seen it in Europe or Japan.

 

    If you want to make comparisons between the United States, Europe, and Japan, it's a given that Europe and Japan have better passenger rail systems. But let's not get too excited bashing the United States. How do their highways compare? Their airlines? Their freight railroads? Their postal systems? Their ports and harbors? Every place has advantages and disadvantages. I would prefer to keep an open mind and focus on good things instead of bashing other countries' infrastructure.

 

    Back to the topic of Midwest rail, the biggest obstacle seems to be cultural issues rather than technical or even financial ones. As a culture, we have decided to build highways and purchase private automobiles, even more so in the Midwest than on the East or West coasts. Historically, the midwest is where mass-produced cars were first developed, and continue to be built on a massive scale here. From this point on, it's difficult to switch because the current system has so much momentum. Quite frankly, if I wanted to live in a place with high speed rail, or even a local rail transit system, it would be much easier to simply move to a place that already has it than to wait until one is built here. Thus, I'm not sure that high speed rail will ever catch on here, as much as I wish it would happen.

 

    "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson

 

    In an earlier post, I mentioned frequency as opposed to speed. Maybe we have our sights set too high, and we need to think smaller. The Amtrak Cardinal is a joke, with just three trains a week in either direction, and frequently running up to 10 hours late. (No offense to the good people at Amtrak - most of this is out of their control). If we merely had a conventional passenger railroad that connected the major cities with a frequency of 3 or more trips a day, and it ran on time consistently, I would probably use it. In fact, I would travel more. Ohio people are now more likely to fly to Cancun or Las Vegas than they are to drive to the opposite corner of the state for a holiday just because it's easier to get there. People go where the transportation is, not the other way around.

 

    So, where do we go from here? I honestly don't know, but maybe the best chance is to forget about a connection to New York and all of this super high speed technology for the moment and take another look at the concept with Chicago as the hub - what was the name of that concept?  - with a focus of providing service as frequently as possible (10 trains a day, say), with shorter, slower (80 mph, say) conventional trains with amenities such as food service, telephones, etc. If it is successful we could always work on increasing the speed later. Sorry, I still don't have my hopes very high. Comments?

Eigth & State.... have you read the Ohio Hub Study by the Ohio Rail Development Commission? It calls for much of what you call for in your post.  You can access it at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/ and click the link for the Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail / Ohio Hub Rail Plan

 

I would disagree, however, that our dependency on cars is entirely cultural.  It took a long, hard political battle before the US Highway system was first built in the early 20th Century, and an equally hard political battle to create the will to build the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's.  We face the same challenge now with improving our rail system for both passenger and freight.

 

Simply moving to a place that already has good rail service or local light rail is not an option for many Ohioans, unless you live along the North Coast or in Cincy (and I agree with you on the abysmal "Cardinal").  

I agree wholly that the first step is to develop the Ohio Hub system. Just as the Europeans first developed the Trans-Europe Express network in the 1960s, so must we to learn to walk before we can run when it comes to passenger rail service. Plus, such networks provide distribution and feeder capabilities for the super-speed Chicago - East Coast route I suggested.

 

Let's not forget that, while the East Coast never lost their fast, frequent service along the Northeast Corridor, the West Coast developed theirs since the 1980s. Critics there said rail would never work in a car-crazy state like California. Now, most routes offer 6-12 trains in each direction, traveling at starting point to end point average speeds of about 50-60 mph. The frequency of service was the key to developing ridership and, moreso, a political constituency for even better service.

 

Now, California is looking at taking the next step -- to developing a 200 mph route linking Los Angeles with San Francisco, with faster services on existing routes to San Diego, Sacremento and elsewhere, at a cost of some $35 billion.

 

Evolution, not revolution, is the key. But I posted this notion of a super-speed route between Chicago and the East Coast as a suggestion of keeping an eye on a longer-term prize and to show what is technologically possible. While the Ohio Hub system will provide the state with measurable economic benefits, I strongly believe an East Coast-Chicago super-speed route will have a similar impact Ohio as the canals did two centuries ago - without risking bankrupting the state as the construction of the expensive canals did. It was a risky, visionary investment that took Ohio's geographic potential and turned the state into an economic powerhouse.

 

We need not take such a revolutionary leap with fast trains, however. Use existing assets and resources, with some additional help from the federal government, to evolve to the next step, and additional motivation for continued evolution will likely occur.

 

    Just a note about comparisons with California.

 

    California is an immigrant state. While Ohio cities were losing density as people moved from the urban core to the suburbs, California cities were gaining density despite a similar number of people moving from the urban core to the suburbs due to foreign immigration. L.A. is even denser than it was in the 1950's. In fact, according to Wendell Cox, L.A. is the densist city in the United States!

 

      (It depends on the boundary that you choose, of course. I'm sure areas of Manhattan are denser. Maybe he means L.A. has the largest area of a certain density. In any case, there are a lot of people there.)

 

    Culturally, a lot of those foreign immigrants came from Japan and other Asian areas that were used to using public transit.

 

    Technically, the California cities are basicly in a line along the coast. Same with the east coast cities. The Midwest cities are more or less in a network. It takes fewer miles of track to connect all the cities in a line than it does in a network.

 

    Politically, all of the California cites are in the same state. The Midwest is divided between lots of states. Say we were to build a line between Chicago and Cleveland. Who is going to pay for it? The feds?

 

      So, don't get me wrong - I wish I could travel by high speed rail, but my point is that California is a bit different than the Midwest.

 

   

News

OHIO RAIL

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

50 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 644-0306 telephone or fax (614) 728-4520

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                      

January 4, 2006

CONTACT: Stu Nicholson

614-644-0513                 

 

Major Railroads Support Ohio Hub Plan

“Best New Year’s Present Ohio Could Get” says ORDC’s Seney

 

(Columbus) – If a passenger rail plan can get a Hollywood movie-style review, the Ohio Hub Plan just got “Two thumbs way up” from two major partners in the plan. 

 

“ORDC is to be commended for its work and vision in undertaking this ambitious initiative” – John M. Gibson / VP of Operations Research & Planning, CSX Transportation

 

“... a good start.  It outlines a bold approach to implementing regional passenger service...” – Bill Schafer / Director of Corporate Affairs, Norfolk Southern Corporation

 

“This news is the best New Year’s present Ohio could get”, says ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney. “To have two of the nation’s premier freight railroads make these statements is a powerful answer to those who ask ‘do the railroads support the Ohio Hub Plan?’ But this support didn’t come without laying a solid foundation in the planning process.  The railroads have been a part of planning the Ohio Hub from the very start and they have helped make it one the strongest, most innovative regional rail plans in the nation.”

 

Seney says the two letters of support from NS and CSX doesn’t mean there aren’t still details to be worked out.  “After all,” says Seney “this is a little like building a swimming pool in your next door neighbor’s back yard and inviting the rest of the neighbors to swim in it.  You’d better talk to your neighbor in advance and make sure not only if they’re okay with your plan for their property, but that there is a significant and positive benefit in it for them.”

 

 

In both letters, the two railroads, which are also the dominant freight railroads that serve Ohio, say details need to be worked out as to route alignments, infrastructure needs (bridge, tunnel, track and signal improvements) and the potential impact of having 6 to 8 high speed passenger trains a day operating in the freight railroad-owned corridors. 

 

“The potential benefit for the freight railroads is a major reason we were able to bring them to the planning table in the first place”, says ORDC”s Seney.  “They have basically told us that running passenger trains on their corridors can be done, as long as there is no interference with their freight trains.”

 

In fact, says Seney, the Ohio Hub Plan calls for reducing or eliminating many of Ohio’s railroad “bottlenecks” in or near the large urban areas and upgrading tracks, bridges and signals so both passenger and freight rail traffic can move faster and in greater numbers than they are now able to do.  “This is absolutely necessary if we are to grow Ohio’s economy.  The end result of the Ohio Hub Plan must be positive for all parties involved, because increasing the ability to move more people and freight makes our state a stronger competitor for new business and jobs, and brings prosperity with it”, says Seney.

 

 

(The Ohio Rail Development Commission is an independent agency operating within the Ohio Department of Transportation.  ORDC is responsible for economic development through the improvement and expansion of passenger and freight rail service, railroad grade crossing safety and rail travel & tourism issues. For more information about what ORDC does for Ohio, visit our website at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/ )

 

 

Noozer, would you be able to post the full letters from CSX and NS? The quotes you posted sound only lukewarm to me, and make no mention of the impact that the Ohio Hub could have on adding through capacity for freight traffic. Did they say much more along those lines?

The Harris Poll® #14, February 8, 2006

 

Americans Would Like to See a Larger Share of Passengers and Freight Going By Rail in Future

Safety and energy efficiency seen as top priorities for future of passenger transportation

 

As personal travel and freight transportation grows in the future, the American public would like to see an increasing proportion of that traffic going by rail. Commuter and long-distance trains top the list of nine modes of transportation that adults would like to see "have an increasing share of passenger transportation." When it comes to freight, railroads top the list of six modes of transportation that adults would like to see "have an increasing share of all goods and commodities movements in the United States."

 

These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,961 U.S. adults conducted online by Harris Interactive® between December 8 and 14, 2005.

 

Key findings from this survey include:

 

The modes of transportation which the largest numbers of adults would like to see "have an increasing share of passenger transportation" are:

 

Commuter trains (44%)

Long-distance trains (35%)

Local bus service (23%), and

Airlines (23%)

 

The transportation modes which the smallest numbers of adults would like to see have a bigger share of passenger traffic are:

 

Long-distance bus service (6%)

Pedestrian travel (8%)

Long-distance travel by car (10%)

Local travel by car (11%), and

Travel by bicycle (11%)

 

Freight railroads (63%) come far ahead of all other modes that adults would like to see have an increasing share of freight transportation. They are followed by:

 

Air freight (35%), and

Trucks (24%)

 

The modes which the smallest numbers of adults would like to see have an increasing share of freight transportation are:

 

Inland barges (8%)

Pipelines (13%), and

Coastal shipping (17%)

 

Of a list of six possible priorities for the future of passenger transportation, the top priorities chosen by the largest number of adults are:

 

Safety (47%)

Energy efficiency (44%), and

Cost (29%)

 

Responsibility for the Transportation System

 

This survey also included questions on who should be "mainly responsible for maintaining and improving the transportation system" both, "in your community," and "in the nation as a whole." Overwhelmingly, the public thinks that these are government responsibilities rather than something the private sector should be mainly responsible for. However, the level of government seen as having this responsibility varies greatly for local and national transportation. Specifically:

 

State government (36%) and local government (27%) are seen by the largest numbers of adults as having the main responsibility for "maintaining and improving the transportation in your community." Fewer think that the federal government (16%) or private companies (10%) should have this responsibility.

 

When it comes to the transportation system "in the nation as a whole," two-thirds (68%) of adults believe this should be a responsibility of the federal government. Relatively few see this as the responsibility of state government (13%), local government (2%) or private companies (8%).

 

These results show that for most adults, transportation is a "public good" for which government has the primary responsibility. However, that does not mean that they are opposed to the private sector providing much of the actual transportation; only that they believe that government, not the private sector, should make transportation policy.

_______________ 

 

The Harris Poll® was conducted online within the United States between December 8 and 14, 2005 among 1,961 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents? propensity to be online.

 

In theory, with probability samples of this size, one could say with 95 percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S. adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Unfortunately, there are several other possible sources of error in all polls or surveys that are probably more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. They include refusals to be interviewed (nonresponse), question wording and question order, and weighting. It is impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors. This online sample was not a probability sample.

 

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

Some good news to pass along: ORDC study of adding two more routes to the Ohio Hub Plan is progressing.  Though no firm ridership numbers have yet been determined, a preliminary report reportedly shows there is a potential ridership base to support both proposed routes.  Those additional routes are:

 

Pittsburgh-Columbus-Lima-Fort Wayne-Chicago

Columbus-Toledo-Detroit

 

With the proper infrastructure upgrades, trains will also be competitive with cars and will actually beat motor vehicle travel times substantially on several legs of these routes.

Article published Mar 11, 2006

All aboard? Passenger rail possible in Newark

NEWARK ADVOCATE

 

NEWARK — Licking County residents someday may be able to take the train to work in Columbus, a Reds game in Cincinnati, the Rock ’n’ Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland or a Steelers game in Pittsburgh.

Newark is projected as a possible stop on the Ohio Hub rail system, possibly using the former Pennsylvania Station on Walnut Street. The stop could provide economic benefits to the city as well, bringing new visitors to town.

 

Read more at:

 

Kent Mallett can be reached at (740) 328-8545 or kmallett@newark advocate.com.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060311/NEWS01/60311001/1002

Glad to hear the local response was positive.

Some VERY GOOD news!

______________________

 

April 26, 2006

 

CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR SAY OHIO NEEDS PASSENGER & FREIGHT RAIL PLAN

“Ohio Hub Plan” Gains Support

 

(Columbus) – All Aboard Ohio’s Second Annual Rail/Transit Legislative Summit got an unexpected highlight today as gubernatorial candidates Ken Blackwell and Ted Strickland both voiced support for the Ohio Hub Plan and the effort to secure funding to move the plan into the important Programatic Environmental Impact Study (PEIS) phase.

 

The Ohio Hub is the Ohio Rail Development Commission’s (ORDC) plan for a statewide network of high-speed passenger rail service and expanded capacity for rail freight. It has been in the planning stage for three years, but could take a huge step toward becoming reality if federal funds can be obtained to begin and complete the PEIS.  A funding request for $5.8-million dollars over two years is currently before Congress, through Congressman Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), Chairman of the House Railroads Subcommittee.

 

“I’m very pleased to hear these candidates support our efforts” says ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney.  “Redeveloping and expanding the capacity of Ohio’s railroads under our Ohio Hub Plan creates jobs, economic development and, at a time when gasoline prices are very much top of mind, rail is the most fuel and emissions efficient way to move people and freight” says Seney, “and that’s why it must be a major issue in this year’s election campaigns.”

 

The Blackwell endorsement came in faxed announcement that was read to over 100 attendees at the Rail / Transit Legislative Summit held by All Aboard Ohio, the state’s only passenger rail advocacy organization.  Strickland’s support of the Ohio Hub Plan was announced by Columbus City Council member Kevin Boyce, speaking on behalf of the Strickland campaign.  State Senator Joy Padgett, the running mate of gubernatorial candidate Jim Petro spoke in favor of rail development to promote new business and jobs though not specifically endorsing the Hub Plan.

 

The Blackwell statement reads: “Secretary of State Blackwell supports advancing the Ohio Hub passenger/freight rail plan through the programmatic environmental review.  Ohio will benefit from this action by keeping the plan moving forward toward a funding ready project in anticipation of approval of national passenger rail development legislation.”

 

Kevin Boyce told the audience that Congressman Strickland has a history of showing support for passenger rail as a Member of Congress and supports the Ohio Hub Plan “because good public transportation connects people with jobs and jobs with people.”

 

ORDC Director Seney also addressed the audience, thanking All Aboard Ohio and other rail advocates for their support of the Ohio Hub Plan.  He also asked them to show support for two concurrent resolutions in the Ohio House and Senate asking for Ohio legislators to support ORDC’s funding request in Congress.  The resolution’s sponsors are State Senator Kirk Schuring (R-Canton) and State Representative Larry Flowers (R-Canal Winchester).

 

(The Ohio Rail Development Commission is an independent agency operating within the Ohio Department of Transportation.  ORDC is responsible for economic development through the improvement and expansion of passenger and freight rail service, railroad grade crossing safety and rail travel & tourism issues. For more information about what ORDC does for Ohio, visit our website at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/ )

It sounds like Blackwell would just like to study it, and may build something if federal legislation is set up to pay for it.  Strickland may want it built regardless of federal legislation. 

 

For those closer to the politics...is that an accurate statement?

Regardless, the fact that it's even on his radar is a pleasant surprise.  This is one place where having a Republican backer (LaTourette) is quite significant.

if anyone can, latourette can rock that congressional funding thru.

 

all good news indeed.

At least the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram picked up the story.  Has anyone seen it elsewhere?

 

 

Trains would connect Ohio, other states

Adam Wright

The Chronicle-Telegram

 

A railway connecting Lorain County to Detroit, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Toronto might sound pretty good right now to travelers, given rocketing gas prices.

 

That’s exactly what officials at the Ohio Rail Development Commission are hoping as they inch toward implementing a regional train system to connect systems already in place in states surrounding Ohio.

 

Ohio lags behind the rest of the country in mass transit, said agency spokesman Stu Nicholson, and the United States as a whole is nearly prehistoric in its rail development compared to the rest of the world. “We’re so far behind the curve, it isn’t even funny,” he said.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.chroniclet.com/Daily%20Pages/Local/Html/local2.html

 

“This project can give more people purchasing power, especially the urban poor, and can disperse sprawl,” he said.

 

That's not what I said. What I said was that rail service can get the urban poor to suburban jobs, that region's purchasing power was being dispersed by sprawl and that this rail project can concentrate development around stations to give the poor easy access to jobs at stations. I didn't realize what I said was that complicated. No wonder why people hate the media.

This guy had no clue.... he meant well... but no clue.

He also got the name of the Chicago train system wrong calling it Metro instead of Metra.

And he said I was an advocate of roads?

 

OK, I think we all agree.... flog him.  :-o

Unfortunately, this just shows that when your news reporters -- true to their form in a State that's indifferent to transit -- clearly clueless about rail passenger service, they are inept in conveying to the public actual facts about the benefits of transit and can easily be swayed by naysayers who, like the reports themselves, operate in a vacuum of information.

It also shows we need to do a better job of educating them about our issues.... letters to the editor, direct feedback to the reporters, etc.

I sent an e-mail to the Chronicle. But I see from their website that this reporter wasn't listed. I suspect that means he's either a freelancer or he's just new and the website listing hasn't been updated.

 

By the way, if you care to chime in on that article...

 

 

Patti Ewald

Managing Editor

Chronicle-Telegram

[email protected]

More good news....

 

 

 

May 5, 2006

Ohio Hub May Benefit From Freight Rail Project

 

ORDC sponsorship of CSX intermodal project carries positives for passenger rail plan

 

 

(Columbus) – ORDC Commissioners have voted unanimously to allow ORDC to sponsor a CSX railroad plan to build a bypass track and a high capacity intermodal freight yard at the railroad’s Parsons Avenue Yard in South Columbus.  CSX is applying for funding through ODOT’s Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC).

 

In addition to the immediate improvements to Parsons Yard, the CSX project would also improve the flow of rail traffic through downtown Columbus, Buckeye Yard in West Columbus and northwest through the communities of Marysville, Ridgeway and Mount Victory.  These improvements would involve increasing clearances for double-stack container trains, building new passing sidings and new connections to other CSX rail corridors.

 

“What these improvements will also do is help create a rail traffic flow that will facilitate the kind of high-speed passenger train service we are planning under the Ohio Hub Plan”, says ORDC Executive Director James Seney. “We want to see more projects like this around Ohio, because they help ease or remove rail bottlenecks and create a rail system that better accommodates freight and passenger rail.  What’s more, these are the kind of projects for which Ohio can capture the costs as a potential state match for any future federal dollars, if a federal passenger and freight rail funding and development program is passed and enacted by Congress and the President.”

 

The proposed improvements to the CSX Parsons Yard would help CSX deal with what has become the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. rail industry: container freight.  Currently, CSX handles the loading / unloading of rail containers at its Buckeye Yard facility which has become overcrowded and requires hauling containers in and out by truck to a storage facility over a mile away.  That truck traffic is putting an increasing load on local streets and Interstates, and is causing delays for shippers who demand faster service.  A new “lift” facility at Parsons Yard would allow not only more room, but would enable an increase from around 135,000 “lifts” of containers and trailers annually that are currently handled at Buckeye yard to an estimated capacity of 450,000 “lifts” at the proposed Parson Yard terminal.

 

The cost of the Parson Yard facility is an estimated at between $65 and $75 million and could take up to two years to build.  Additional track improvements through Columbus, Marysville, Ridgeway and Mount Victory would bring the total project cost out to an estimated $100 million.

 

ORDC became involved in the project because in order to apply for funding from TRAC, CSX had to have a public entity as a sponsor.  Since the project has potentially statewide implications and benefits, ORDC is the logical sponsor.

Okay, so we would have this basic Ohio Hub route structure:

 

Toronto-Niagara Falls-Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland

Cleveland-Columbus-Springfield-Dayton-Cincinnati

Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Cleveland

Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit

 

Plus:

 

Pittsburgh-Columbus-Lima-Ft. Wayne-Chicago

Columbus-Marysville-Kenton*-Findlay-Toledo-Detroit      *reference point. Not a station.

Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago (Midwest HSR Initiative)

Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago (Midwest HSR Intiative)

 

What's Missing:

 

No Detroit-Cincinnati route. Suggestion: Use the Kenton-Bellefontaine-Springfield line, a lightly used, downgraded railroad to bridge the gap in ORDC's map. I don't think Columbus-Toledo-Detroit will be near as viable as a stand-alone corridor, unless it is melded with other routes, such as Detroit-Cincinnati and Columbus-Chicago. Thus the route could be: Detroit-Toledo-Bowling Green-Findlay-Kenton-Bellefontaine-(West)Springfield-Dayton-Middletown-Cincinnati.

 

No direct access to Akron from the east. Would it make sense to resurrect the old Erie between Cleveland (gets us off the busy NS Ravenna-Cleveland line) to Warren and Youngstown, with a branch from Warren to Akron via Kent?

 

No direct access from Akron from the west. would it be possible to run from Columbus to Akron via CSX and the W&LE?

 

None of these would use high density Class One freight lines with all of their capacity problems. At some point, ORDC is going to nail down its route structure and it should be their policy to try to stay off mainline railroads as much as possible. Is there going to be any public input? Thoughts?

 

 

Unless demand for a Detroit-Toledo-Cincy route bubbles up from the communities along the line.  That's why The Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago route (via Lima / Fort Wayne) and Columbus-Toledo-Detroit are being studied for addtion to the Hub master plan.

 

Detroit-Toledo-Columbus is actually a fairly viable route on it's own, with stops in two college towns (Bowling Green & Findlay) that can generate reasonably good ridership.

 

The danger with trying to create a web of routes is that it may actually slow down the system.  Many of these lightly used routes would require far more reconstruction than meets the eye. The Hub Plan works because it uses primarily the main freight routes, which generally have the room to include high speed passenger rail service. That's also the reason the major Class-1 railroads are willing to work with ORDC on the plan.  It not only improves conditions for passenger rail, but for the freights as well.  Moving most of the Hub trains onto secondary rail routes would likely not interest the Class-1's; afterall, they are secondary for a reason.

 

There will be more public input meetings around the state when ORDC takes the Hub plan into the environmental impact study phase, assuming federal funding for it is approved.

Hey Nooz...

 

Not being critical...I just wondered particularly why Detroit-Cincy wasn't in the mix. I guess that can come later...and probably will if the initial round of routes are a success. Hell, I'm just happy SOMETHING is happening! Interesting bit about class I RR participation...not long ago, they were saying "Not on MY railroad!" The times, they are a-changin'...

Just an FYI....

 

The Ohio Senate Highways & Transportation Committee will vote tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon on SCR-30, a resolution of support to Congress on behalf of the Ohio Hub Plan.  The resolution supports the ORDC request for federal funding for the first year of the Environmental Impact Study.

 

Committee Chairman Sen. Armbruster said he believes it will pass without debate. There should be more details available by late Tuesday.

 

A concurrent resolution is moving through the Ohio House, sponsored by Rep. Larry Flowers.  Reportedly he is asking perimission from the Speaker to take it directly to the floor for a vote, as he has 25 co-sponsors.  In both cases, support for the resolutions is bi-partisan.

Thanks for the update, KJP!

The Ohio Senate Highways & Transportation Comittee approved the resolution unanimously.  It now goes to the full Senate for a floor vote.  The concurrent resolution in the Ohio House may come up for a vote yet this week. 

 

Let your state reps know how you feel.

 

If passed by both houses in the Ohio General Assembly, the resolutions of support will then be sent to Ohio's delegation in Congress (both House & Senate members).

which will basically just add fuel to the fire, right?  I mean, is there any reason why our reps wouldn't support this?

I don't know... The last time we sought legislation from the Ohio General Assembly (to have Ohio join the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission at the break-back sum of $19,000), Rep. Jim Trakas of Independence was one of only a few Ohio reps to vote against it. I don't remember who the others were, but they were downstate.

 

Trakas is (was?) chair of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party. Next time anyone sees him, tell him better rail service is important to you!

It's looking like both the Ohio House and Senate will vote next Tuesday on their respective resolutions of support for the Ohio Hub Plan.  It has strong bi-partisan support in both houses, including from some of the more conservative members.  Check with your state rep..... if they voted for it, make sure you thank them.

The Ohio senate voted today ... I guess the senators really gnashed their teeth over this one! (NOT)

______________

 

 

NEWS

OHIO RAIL

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

50 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 644-0306 telephone or fax (614) 728-4520

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                May 24, 2006

 

Ohio Senate Passes Ohio Hub Resolution

Asks U.S. Congress to Approve Funding For Environmental Impact Study of High-Speed Passenger /& Freight Rail Plan

 

(Columbus) – By a vote of 33 to 0, the Ohio Senate today voiced emphatic support for advancing the plan to bring high speed passenger service and greatly expanded capacity to move more freight by rail.  The resolution asks Ohio’s delegation in the U.S. Congress to support a request by the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) for $2.5 million dollars to move the Ohio Hub Plan into the critical Environmental Impact Study (EIS) phase.

 

Even before the vote, well over 20 Ohio Senators had signed on as co-sponsors to the resolution, whose chief sponsor was Sen. Kirk Schuring (R-Canton).   

 

“Few things send a stronger message to Ohio’s members of Congress than when their counterparts in the Ohio Statehouse say with one voice that a project like the Ohio Hub is important to our state’s economy, our ability to create jobs and improve our quality of life,” says ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney.  “The Ohio Senate not only has my thanks at this show of support, but deserves the thanks of all Ohioans for today’s vote.”

 

The ORDC funding request is scheduled to be considered Friday by the U.S. House Appropriations Committee as part of the overall FY-07 transportation request by Members of Congress.  Three Ohioans sit on that committee, Congressman David Hobson (R-7th District), Congressman Ralph Regula (R-16th District) and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-9th District).

 

If it becomes part of the House Appropriations transportation request, the legislation would then go to the U.S. Senate where it would also go through the Committee process, possibly a House-Senate Conference Committee and consideration by the full Senate.

 

ORDC’s request for $2.5-million would be for one year, allowing the EIS process to begin. If the request is approved, work on the EIS could begin early next year.  It would require a second funding request to complete the EIS phase.

 

It is during the Environmental Impact Study that ORDC can begin to identify and solidify such elements of the Ohio Hub Plan as the actual route system, station locations, frequency of train service and, most importantly, the infrastructure needs to build the Hub system: bridges, new track, utilities, right-of-way preservation, etc.

 

“Today’s vote doesn’t mean we’ll have passenger trains running tomorrow”, says ORDC’s Seney, but it does mean that Ohio legislators strongly believe that there should be a ‘tomorrow” where all Ohioans will have the choice of riding the train for business or pleasure.”

 

###

Fantastic...step by step...33-0 is a pretty sound majority!

Right on.

 

More good news.  The Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce has included (prominently) "implementation of the Ohio Hub Plan" as part of it's draft transportation agenda.  This means it will now officially be part of their lobbying effort at the Statehouse and in Congress, as well as any legislation that will create the much-needed federal rail infrastructure funding program.

Have Cleveland & Cincinnati's COC's made similar moves?

Fantastic news, KJP.  I was glad to see that one in my Inbox!

Shucks, Grasscat, it t'was nothing (ie: others in All Aboard Ohio and at the ORDC deserve credit for a 33-0 passage).

 

Have Cleveland & Cincinnati's COC's made similar moves?

 

Cincinnati COC had intercity rail as one of their priorities, but I haven't been involved in that end of the state for a few years, so I don't know where things stand. The guy who was big for us at Cincy COC was Thomas Ewing. Don't know if he's still there.

 

Since Cleveland's COC (the Greater Cleveland Growth Association) doesn't get into infrastructure advocacy anymore, that kind of advocacy would likely belong to TeamNEO. I haven't had much contact with them, but I suspect I might have more if regional rail is to go anywhere in NEO.

Can this broad based support of Ohio Hub/ORDC be used to support regional rail/spin-off here in Cleveland?  ... even on routes where it's, for the most part, unlikely Hub trains will run (the routes to Lorain and CVSR come to mind)?

Yes.  This is exactly what needs to be done to advance commuter rail plans like Lorain-Cleveland and others into formal planning and engineering: much like what is being done with the Ohio Hub.  But we have to approach it with the undertsanding that it won't happen overnight, because the funding process alone requires thorough planning by whatever local entities are involved.

 

One advantage that commuter rail projects have is that they are eligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) $$$. That gives the locals a pot of funding to tap into.

Given that it's election year,... a little political arm-twisting in order, eh, noozer?

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/vuchic_letter/

 

Open letter to USDOT Secretary Mineta from Univ. Penn. engineering professor Vukan Vuchic.  Dr. Vuchic is a highly-regarded transportation  expert.  He slaps Norm's face pretty well with his remarks.  There are lessons from this for Ohio Hub too.

I've seen that letter and it is a stinging indictment of the Bush Administration policy ... or lack of one ... on passenger rail and railroads in general.

 

Clvlndr.... you are absolutely right that it's time to do some political arm-twisting.... whether it's the incumbents or their challengers.  Ask what their position is on the Ohio Hub Plan or just on improving access to passenger rail for Ohioans. If they don't know, ask them why they don't know.  Don't let them go off on some diatribe about how gasoline prices are too high or anything else that amounts to nothing more than a diversionary argument.

 

The question they need to be dragged back to each time is" "What are you doing to increase the transportation options for all of us?"

Article published Jun 26, 2006

Rail advocates, users see hope in expanded service

By Jim Carroll

[email protected]

 

 

Stuart Nicholson says people in Ohio and Erie share a similar problem with rail passenger service.

 

"If you want to ride passenger trains you better live like a bat - you have to get up in the middle of the night," said Nicholson, a spokesman for the Ohio Rail Development Commission.

 

Read more at:

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006606260464

^---- Those numbers are very telling.

www.allaboardohio.com

 

Ohio Hub Plan Future Moves to DeWine and Voinovich

Written by: Dominic J. Liberatore: Executive Director, All Aboard Ohio

 

Recent efforts to advance the development of the Ohio Hub Plan have failed in the US House of Representatives, despite the strong support of All Aboard Ohio, and numerous other advocates.  Seeking to secure statewide congressional support for an appropriations request for the Ohio Hub Plan, Assistant Director Andrew Bremer and I took a trip in late April to Washington D.C. to meet with key Congressional staff.  We asked for their support of Congressman LaTourette’s Appropriations request, which should have been included in the Fiscal 2007 House Transportation Appropriations bill.  It was not.

 

The Programmatic Environmental Impact Study (PEIS) funding request submitted by LaTourette would have advanced the Hub plan to its next stage of development. The PEIS is a critical and required step in order to secure the federal funding needed to develop a system of passenger trains for Ohio.

 

However, there is a possible light at the end of the tunnel. The Senate has yet to finalize their appropriations request for 2007 and both of our Senator’s offices have a copy of the request.

 

If you would like to see the Ohio Hub Plan become a reality, please call Senator Mike DeWine’s office and ask him to include the appropriations request for the Ohio Hub Plan in his additions to the FY07 Appropriations bill. His contact information is http://dewine.senate.gov/

 

You should also contact Senator Voinovich’s office and ask him to do the same thing. His contact information is http://voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

 

To view a copy of the appropriations request we need to have funded in order to advance the development of passenger trains for Ohio and the region, please visit

http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/images/uploads/PEIS_study_funding_request.pdf

 

Please visit www.allaboardohio.com for updates, links and membership information!

i just fired off 2 emails.  hopefully this helps. 

An event coming up re: The Ohio Hub Plan for high speed passenger & freight rail service:

Ohio Hub Station Location & Economic Development Workshop

 

Friday, July 14th

9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

RSVP Deadline Extended!!

 

Registration: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM

Columbus/Worthington Holiday Inn

175 Hutchinson (North on US 23 at I-270 in Worthington)

Registration fee: $35

(Continental Breakfast & Lunch Included)

 

The day the first high speed passenger trains of the Ohio Hub System roll into your city is not the time to unlock the old depot or break ground for a new train station. It’s also not the time to be planning for the type of retail, office and residential development that grows up around a train station.

 

That time is now.

 

The Ohio Hub passenger and improved freight rail system is a potentially strong generator of business, development and jobs in and around where the trains will stop in your community.  In fact, our planning teams are already seeing positive indications in a number of Ohio cities.  How does your community stack up?

 

Join us and a panel of national experts to get answers to those questions and more, including:

 

• What makes the best location for a station? (It may not be the obvious choice.)

• What kind of retail, office & residential development can you expect… and where?

• How have other cities across the U.S. seized economic development opportunities around train stations?

 

The answers are just part of what we hope you’ll take home from this workshop … and put into action. It is important your community send at least one representative to learn more about this initiative so your area can start taking appropriate action.

 

Please fill out the enclosed reply form and submit $35 per person by July 10th to ORDC.

For additional information, please contact Wende Jourdan at (614) 728-9497 or by e-mail at [email protected]. The time to begin planning for Ohio’s transportation future is now… and that future will be riding on steel rails.

 

 

 

Please fill out the following and mail, with your $35 payment per person, to the address below.

 

_______ Yes, I will attend the July 14th Ohio Hub workshop

 

_______ No, I can’t attend, but please keep me involved by sending me updates and notifying me of meetings in my area

 

 

Name__________________________________________

 

Title___________________________________________ 

 

Organization____________________________________

 

Address________________________________________

 

Phone_________________________________________

 

E-Mail_________________________________________

 

Please make check payable to “State of Ohio Treasurer” and mail to:

(We will also accept payment at the door as long as you RSVP in advance)

 

Ohio Rail Development Commission

Attn: Wende Jourdan

LeVeque Tower

50 W. Broad Street, Suite 1510

Columbus, OH  43215

 

I just sent that around to my planning buddies throughout the state.  We're all meeting up in Pittsburgh that weekend, though, so we won't be able to make it!  Bummer...

Looks like a good event. Here's the agenda:

 

Ohio Hub Workshop:

Ohio Hub Station Location & Economic Development

July 14, 2006

9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

(Registration 8:00 to 9:00 AM)

Columbus/Worthington Holiday Inn

175 Hutchinson (North on US 23 at I-270 in Worthington)

Registration fee: $35

(Continental Breakfast & Lunch Included)

 

Draft Program

 

8 – 9 a.m. Registration, continental breakfast

 

9:00 a.m. Welcome, meeting purpose, program review – Marie Keister,

Engage Communications, Facilitator

 

9:05 a.m. Trains Revitalize Communities and Attract Jobs – Scott Bernstein,

President, Center for Neighborhood Technology

 

9:45 a.m. Anticipated Ohio Hub Economic Impacts–

Jim Seney, Executive Director, ORDC

Alex Metcalf, President, TEMS

 

10:45 a.m. BREAK

 

11:00 a.m. Doing the Deal: How Communities Seize Opportunities – Phil

Hanegraaf, Vice President, HNTB 

 

Noon LUNCH

 

12:15 p.m. Announcements (during lunch)-- Marie Keister

 

12:17 p.m. Design Challenge: Local AIA Railroad Station Design Competition --

Diane Deane, Executive Director, AIA Columbus Chapter

 

12:20 p.m. Economic Benefits from Maine to Boston - Patricia Douglas, Executive Director, Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority

 

1:15 p.m. Your Vision: Making It Happen – Marie Keister, ALL (interactive session and discussion)

 

2:00 pm The Experts Respond

 

2:45 pm Next Steps/Action Items: Marie Keister

 

2:55 pm Closing Remarks: Jim Seney

 

3:00 pm Adjourn