Well put, KJP.

 

BTW: on the Hamilton vs. Oxford point.  Keep in mind that the City of Hamilton declined to invest anything in its existing (and run down)station, so Amtrak decided to withdraw service.  Oxford on the other hand, actually wants Amtrak and is willing to go the extra mile to become the regional stop for the Cardinal.  It is also a very pro-active move, as Oxford also sits on what will be the Chicago-Indy-Cincy leg of the Midwest Region Rail System (hi-speed passenger rail). 

 

Go Oxford!

That's one optional route for the Cincy - Indy - Chicago service. The other is the former New York Central route via Lawrenceburg (site of the casino), Greensburg (Honda's site for its new plant), Shelbyville (site of, well, Shelbyville) and Beech Grove (site of Amtrak's biggest locomotive and railcar maintenance facility).

 

The route through Oxford is owned by CSX -- not exactly passenger train-friendly. The route through Greensburg is owned by a short-line railroad. As you know, they tend to be more supportive of trains that have windows and people peeking out of them.

 

Wonder if the line through Greensburg will get upgraded with Honda's decision to open a plant there? If so, will the Cardinal stay on the route through Oxford? Hmmm....

It's a safe bet the line through Greensburg will be heavily upgraded, just as was done around Honda's plant in Marysville when it was being developed.  One of Honda's requirements is not just to have access to rail, but to have good rail service.

 

If Indiana's DOT puts the same effort into that line as Ohio did, it could have some very positive implications for passenger service as well.

Hey all you activist-minded Urban Ohioans... Get your city councils, county commissioners, service organizations and other groups to pass this resolution in support of the Ohio Hub System. If you want to contact someone at the Ohio Rail Development Commission first, call them at (614) 644-0306. If you'd like someone to speak to your council, group, etc., give the ORDC a try or call All Aboard Ohio's Columbus office at (614) 288-6005.

 

Here's the draft resolution....

 

 

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF OHIO

PASSENGER RAIL DEVELOPMENT

 

WHEREAS, the Ohio Rail Development Commission and the Ohio Department of Transportation have completed a feasibility analysis of a regional passenger rail system and increased freight rail capacity in Ohio; and

 

WHEREAS, the study concludes that the Ohio Hub would strengthen Ohio’s competitiveness by:  improving the State’s position as a strategic distribution and logistics center, slowing the growth of congestion, increasing the reliability of energy-efficient rail operations and instituting modern passenger rail service as an integral part of a national passenger rail network; and

 

WHEREAS, the Ohio Hub breaks from the long-standing Amtrak model and suggests a policy that invests in the nation’s railroads to achieve public benefits and to generate significant local economic development activity; and

 

WHEREAS, investing in high-speed passenger rail service and improved freight rail capacity would create thousands of new construction jobs, permanent operating and indirect jobs, increase demand for U.S. manufactured materials and supplies, concrete and steel, and would provide more energy-efficient transportation options for moving people and freight; and

 

WHEREAS, the proposed Ohio Hub improvements would increase capacity for growing volumes of freight, remove railroad bottlenecks and improve operational fluidity while having a positive affect on highway capacity, shipping rates and business expansion; and

 

WHEREAS, each local passenger rail station location will have the potential to capture million’s of dollars of investments in commercial, office and residential development in transportation opportunity districts and as rail-oriented development projects; and 

 

WHEREAS, the Ohio Hub study concludes that high-speed passenger rail is not only feasible, but will attract over 3-million riders a year, and

 

WHEREAS, funding is needed to advance the environmental and project development process to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to resolve decisions regarding project location, railroad capital improvements, community priorities, to preserve critical rights-of-way and capture on-going state transportation investments; and

 

WHEREAS, a federal funding partnership will be required to make this rail investment program possible, but this partnership is hampered by the fact that predictable federal funding is only available to construct all other modes of transportation except rail;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that ________________ does hereby request that the Honorable Governor Bob Taft direct and fund the Ohio Rail Development Commission to complete a Tier 1 Programmatic and Environmental Impact Statement on all feasible passenger rail corridors in Ohio; and

 

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that we call upon Ohio’s Congressional delegation to establish a federal program with the long-term funding necessary for full federal participation; and

 

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that suitable copies of this resolution be delivered to the Governor of Ohio, each member of the Ohio congressional delegation, and the Ohio Rail Development Commission.

 

###

I know of at least one citizen's group in Vermilion that will be bringing this resolution before the City Council on Thursday.

I originally posted this (within the context of a C-A-C discussion in the Lorain-CLE commuter rail thread), but discussion of this is more appropriate here:

 

I realize that it's challenge enough to just get the Ohio Hub as now proposed built, but I think at some point ORDC sould consider starting some of the Ohio Hub trains in Canton utilizing the proposed C-A-C route. 

 

Extensions like this to intercity rail corridors is not something that hasn't been done elsewhere.  Some of the Detroit-Chicago Amtrak trains begin and end in Pontiac, some of the San Diegans between LA and San Diego go as far north of LA as San Luis Obispo, so there is successful precedent.  It would be nice to start and end a couple of the CLE-DET and CLE-BUF trains in Canton, and some of the CLE-CHI ones under the Midwest Rail proposal too.  I would have to think that this would add significant ridership to the system. 

 

Maybe they could do this as a "Phase II" of the Hub plan.  It would be a lot harder for the NIMBY's in Silver Lake to fight the state, let alone on an interstate passenger rail service-- it would fall under the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution.  Extend the Hub to Canton after the rest of it is built, then add C-A-C commuter trains. 

 

 

I agree. Consider also that the first VIA trains out of Toronto actually start their journeys on the opposite side of Toronto. I.E., the Montreal-bound train starts not from downtown Toronto, but from Aldershot near Hamilton. Conversely, the westbound Windsor train starts on the east side of Toronto, at Oshawa. In Ohio, morning 3-C Corridor trains could start in Painesville or, at the south end of the route, in Lawrenceburg or maybe in Louisville or Lexington. And, as you noted, Chicago- or Detroit-bound trains from Cleveland might start in Akron or Canton.

An Ohio Hub related TOD note:  ORDC is commiting $20,000 to cover a share of the cost of a detailed area development plan around the Toledo Union Station.  Also joining in commiting $$$ to the project are the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) and the Toledo Area Rapid Transit Authority (TARTA). 

 

TARTA has already selected a large empty lot near the station for a new paratransit garage and client in-take facility.  They are designating an additional $23,000 to identify development possibilities that could further improve and upgrade the immediate area around the Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza where the train station is located.  This could include retail, office and residential development.

 

The next step is to engage the City of Toledo and the Toledo-Luca County Port Authority.  If you are familiar with the area, it has been a mixed bag of mostly run down or abandoned properties, as well as a sizeable rail yard to the north and east of the station that is available for development.

 

ORDC is also working on making this a pilot program for station area development projects at cities that may be stops along the planned Ohio Hub system.

 

These developments grew out of an ORDC workshop on "Station Area Development" held in Columbus this past July.

New approach needed for high-speed rail development in US, says ITI

 

In a speech delivered to the Indiana High Speed Rail Association, Gil Carmichael, senior chairman of the board of directors of the Intermodal Transportation Institute (ITI) at the University of Denver, said he believes a partnership between the states and private enterprise is the best hope for successful high-speed rail development in the US. (11/2/2006)

 

According to Carmichael, high-speed rail marketing initiatives in the US are badly misplaced. The US Dept of Transportation (DOT) has remained on the sidelines during the intermodal revolution, and since DOT has very little influence in Washington, any meaningful legislative agenda that would develop successful high-speed rail in the US must come from a joint relationship between the states and the private sector.

 

“The ‘single mode mindset’ of Capitol Hill really has not changed during my lifetime,” said Carmichael. “Very few members of Congress are even aware of the scale and impact of the freight intermodal revolution of the past 25 years; so when they talk about high-speed rail or claim to be pursuing intermodal legislation, they are really continuing to vote for highway projects only.”

 

Carmichael identified Amtrak as one of the federal government’s great failures in developing a viable high-speed rail network, citing its structural flaws, internal problems and non-competitive operating costs.

 

Carmichael said that high-speed rail projects should be intermodal in nature. “Intermodalism is clearly being handled better by the states and the private sector than the federal government,” he said. “The intermodal freight system in this country, which has no authority from DOT, works because it is customer-designed and customer-driven. By contrast, the commercial passenger system in this country currently is neither.”

 

He said that states and private enterprise must work together to conduct in-depth feasibility studies for such projects. “We must have far more extensive, real-world marketing analyses done that consider a broad range of economic, geographic and urban density factors if we are to avoid unintentionally designing failure into our high-speed rail projects.”

 

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

www.eyefortransport.com is a FREE information portal for the freight transportation industry loaded with case studies, white papers, Q&A with industry leaders, features and editorials and latest freight news updated daily. We also produce global events focusing on how new technologies change the freight industry. For more information go here: www.eyefortransport.com/upcomingevents.shtml

 

give it to me straight -- this inter city ohio hub is not going to ever happen in our lifetimes is it?

 

i'll bet if we are lucky we'll get some commuter rail & rapid expansion, a c-a-c line and maybe some starter light rail in the two other "c's," but that's it. not bad, but strictly local stuff.

 

i bet the backward hick bums in odot or whoever would build and manage it are too entrenched and auto-centric to take real action on an all ohio rail and regional plan anytime soon. how many statewide auto plants have to close and highways built and rebuilt for no reason before the politicians get off the auto-centric stance? ugh. sorry for the downer.

 

 

You're asking someone to predict the future?

 

Sounds like you had something bad in your coffee this morn. Here's a prediction:  today, I will do something positive for passenger rail in Ohio. Over the weekend, I will do some more. And I'm pretty sure, assuming I don't get hit by a bus or fall down the stairs, that I will do something on Monday that builds on what I did the previous days.

 

Here's another prediction: if there were just a half-dozen people like me in Ohio doing this stuff on their own free time (and there are), then we will be a lot closer to realizing the Ohio Hub in a few weeks, months, years than we are now.

 

So what did you do to support the Ohio Hub today?

I have sought ought candidates (such as Ted Strickland) who have given vocal support for either passenger rail in general or the Ohio Hub in particular.  It is not too late to find out where the candidates in your area stand.  They will be in your districts trying to get your vote..... make them earn it by getting their position on this issue.... especially those running for the Ohio General Assembly.  If they give you a blank stare or a non-specific answer, ask them why they don't support Ohioans having more ttransportation choices. 

 

Thanks KJP !

Kudos to both KJP and Noozer for the previous two posts.  Here's hoping that there are more than a half-dozen other Ohioans out there working like you!

Kudos to both KJP and Noozer for the previous two posts.  Here's hoping that there are more than a half-dozen other Ohioans out there working like you!

 

There are more than just a half-dozen, but still more are needed.  The more people involved, the sooner the date comes that we can all buy a ticket. 

I had just posted some encouraging specifics from the incoming Strickland-Fisher administration's "transition" website. But I see gildone had beat me to at

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=11118.msg140890#msg140890

 

The transition website:

 

http://govelect.ohio.gov/Vision/RevitalizingOurCitiesandTowns/tabid/63/Default.aspx

 

 

The Columbus City Council will approve a resolution of support for funding the Ohio Hub Plan at its regular meeting this Monday, Nov. 20th.  The resolution was sponsored by Maryellen O'Shaughnessy and she managed to get everyone of her fellow Council members to co-sponsor it as well.

Here's the text from the agenda highlights.  Congrats!

 

http://council.ci.columbus.oh.us/Asset/iu_files/highlights/highlights20061120.pdf

PROMOTING PASSENGER RAIL: The Ohio Rail Development Commission recently completed a feasibility analysis of a regional passenger rail system and increased freight rail capacity in Ohio. Councilmember O’Shaughnessy offers a Council Resolution supporting a proposed Ohio Hub rail effort, urging the state and federal governments to invest in high-speed passenger rail service and improved freight rail capacity throughout the Buckeye State.

I wonder when the much awaited economic impact analysis of the Ohio Hub will be completed...

ORDC had it's Columbus Economic Impact meeting today and I'm told it was very productive.  Only ones left are for Cleveland and the Akron-Canton-Youngstown area.

 

BTW: Columbus City Council passed the resolution of support for the Ohio Hub in a unanimous vote.

What about Cincy, Dayton, and Toledo?  Are these public meetings of some kind?

ORDC had it's Columbus Economic Impact meeting today and I'm told it was very productive.  Only ones left are for Cleveland and the Akron-Canton-Youngstown area.

 

I did not know these were taking place.

The meetings are being put together by the two teams of consultants doing the economic impact survey.  They choose the meeting sites and ORDC suggests key leaders to invite from each community and the region around it, which can include invitees from local and county governments, chambers of commerce, private business, construction & building trades, etc.

 

It's been a slow process, but should be worth the wait.  If you recall statements made by the former ORDC Exextive Director, James Seney: the aim was to take the economic numbers from the initial Ohio Hub Study and "drill down a bit deeper" to bring those numbers closer to what they mean to individual communities. From what I understand, the response (for the most part) has been positive.

 

Hopefully, I can get some better detail soon and pass it along.

Thanks!

How do we amend our constitution to rid ourselves of this lame-brain spending limitation?  Why does Ohio always seem the most backwards of the Great Lakes/North Central States and yet we're the most developed?  I constantly stay ashamed of this state.

How do we amend our constitution to rid ourselves of this lame-brain spending limitation?  Why does Ohio always seem the most backwards of the Great Lakes/North Central States and yet we're the most developed?  I constantly stay ashamed of this state.

 

In the 1950's, the people in Ohio did the exactly the same thing that people did in 40-some odd other states:  They voted in favor of a state constitutional ballot initiative to restrict the use of gasoline taxes to the construction and maintenance of public highways (Actually, Ohio's was pretty restrictive in that almost any excise tax on motor vehicles can only be spent on public highways).  At the time, I'm sure it seemed reasonable. 

 

The only way to change it is to put it to the voters again with a constitutional ballot initiative.  However, any effort would have to be well timed and VERY well funded.  The Ohio road contractors alone can easily summon several million dollars to defeat any such initiative., not to mention the American Highway Users Alliance and possibly even AAA, although AAA pulled out of the AHUA a few years ago.    Any group that tries to do this, better try to get at least $4-5 million in the bank ahead of time for the PR war that would ensue. 

 

It may be better to go after a portion of motor vehicle excise taxes (gas tax, or whatever), say some sort of minimum percentage, like 15 or 20%, for transportation alternatives.  Still, it will take a lot of money to win the PR war. 

 

 

Although I have a lot of respect for Jim Seney and what he's done-- launching the Ohio Hub Plan and doing the right things to start organizing the support effort behind the scenes-- I disagree with privatizing the Turnpike.  Right now the t-pike is a revenue-neutral endeavor.  It covers all of its costs.  The only way for a company to start making money off of it, plus pay its taxes (if there are any levied on it...) is to raise the fares and go after the salaries and benefits of the t-pike workforce, who would all be privatized along with the turnpike.  In Indiana, their turnpike fares went up by what, 30%? 

 

It will force truckers back onto the secondary roads again after the speed limit increase and fare restructuring brought many of them back to the turnpike.  Plus, it will be a European consortium that gets the profits thus adding to our trade deficit. 

 

I'm all for turning every mile of interstate in America to publicly-owned toll roads and turning more bridges into publicly-owned toll bridges, but not for privatizing them to a foreign company (or even a domestic one, for that matter). 

The constitutional amendment in Ohio (and as Gildone notes, in dozens of other states) was sought to ensure a better bond rating and interest rate on highway construction bonds. The federal government has no such restriction on gas taxes however.

Gildone.... I agree.  Indiana is reportedly already seeing truck traffic leave the Indiana Toll Road.  Privatizing always sounds good, but the reality is too often far different than the intent.

Sounds like it could be a nice bonus for the Rickenbacker Intermodal Hub.

 

Actually, if the Pittsburgh-Columbus-Lima-Ft Wayne-Chicago route gets built, there is a good chance that there will be a passenger station serving Port Columbus. 

 

As part of the Ohio Hub study has there been location studies for a passenger station at CMH? 

There has been no formal location study, although the Airport Authority does have a preference (in its long-range plan) to run rail service directly to and through the terminal. That could be somewhat of an engineering challenge, since it would require getting rails to a terminal surrounded by runways.

 

International Gateway (the main access road)would allow one access, but to allow an East-West route to flow through the terminal would meanhaving to re-connect with the current Panhandle Line for through rail service.

 

But nothing can get nailed down until the Ohio Hub Plan can be funded to begin an Environmental Impact Study, where such requirements are identified in detail.

is there anything to ensure that the train stations will be located in downtown areas?

The Ohio Hub Plan calls for both downtown and suburban station locations.  Hard to have one without the other, because you have to make such a service as convenient as possible to potential passengers. That said, it is possible that the traditional locations for the train station in some cities may have changed over the years due to growth patterns and the way the economic center of the city may have shifted.  There would still be a downtown stop, but perhaps not where the "old depot" is (or was). 

 

Columbus is a good example.  Union Station was torn down in the mid-1970's, but the original site has either benn built over with new development or local streets and highways.  It's possible that the new station would have to be moved a little further West to near the Arena District, where land and access is more readily available.  What's happened in Columbus is also a good example of why we need to insist that our local and county leaders do all they can to preserve existing and former railroad rights-of-way.  Once they're gone, they're usually gone for good.

Same deal with Cleveland Union Terminal. You'll never get a passenger train in there again, at least from the west. The new federal courthouse tower was built on the right of way of the west approach.

 

We've lost the best location for a station in Youngstown -- the former Erie Station, located on the YSU side of downtown. The Erie right of way has been filled in and stuff built on it, including the Museum of Science and Industry. The next-best right of way through Youngstown, the Lake Erie & Eastern, is steadily being sold off piecemeal and its right of way excavated and developed for new uses.

 

Cincinnati Union Terminal is a difficult place to get more passenger trains into, what with the physical and traffic growth of the adjacent Queensgate Yard. Not the best site for a train station anyway. The construction of highways and urban renewal has eliminated the once great city neighborhoods CUT was built next to, and has separated CUT from downtown a couple miles away.

 

Steadily, we're losing our options for rebuilding what we never should have lost.

We've lost the best location for a station in Youngstown -- the former Erie Station, located on the YSU side of downtown. The Erie right of way has been filled in and stuff built on it, including the Museum of Science and Industry. The next-best right of way through Youngstown, the Lake Erie & Eastern, is steadily being sold off piecemeal and its right of way excavated and developed for new uses.

 

What's going to end up being the best place left for a station in Youngstown?  My understanding is that Y'town is very supportive of the Ohio Hub.  Why are they letting their best station sites slip away?

I think the convocation center is the best site, along the former PRR (now Norfolk Southern) right of way. The best part of this is that Ohio Hub trains can reach the NS right of way from multiple rights of way. An introductory level of service can access the NS from the B&O on both sides of downtown (or the B&O station could be used). For a fully built-out service, the NS can be accessed from the abandoned P&LE on the east side of the city and the intact portions of the LE&E to the west.

Columbus is a good example.  Union Station was torn down in the mid-1970's, but the original site has either benn built over with new development or local streets and highways.  It's possible that the new station would have to be moved a little further West to near the Arena District, where land and access is more readily available. 

 

What are the locations being looked at in the Arena District?  I had always thought the location for the COTA Multimodal Transit Terminal (NW corner of Nationwide and High) was an ideal location since it could serve light rail, commuter rail, and intercity rail.

That site still isn't out of the question, but it would be a difficult and expensive engineering problem to solve on couple of levels:

 

1. The site sits virtually on top of a major railroad junction where four different lines cross.  The railroads will not allow passenger trains to stop (even briefly) at that point because it forces them to stop every freight train in the area until the stopped train moves on.  It is also a very busy junction.

 

2.  The railroad right of way has been narrowed both by encroaching development (the Columbus Convention Center especially) and an access road that runs behind the Convention Center.  It ispossible to reclaim that roadway for additonal rail capacity, but you also have to replace the road access which could be done by elevating the roadway around the site.  Also not an inexpensive fix.

 

Keep in mind that nothing is written in stone, but there are two plots of vacant land on either side of Neil Avenue and North of the railroad overpass that crosses Neil Avenue.  This land would provide ample space for a station, parking and possibly even a spur track that would allow a passenger train to make it's stop off of the main rail line, so it wouldn't interfere with freight trains. 

 

That site could also serve future light rail and even the Downtown Streetcar (which calls for a future route that would serve the Arena District.  It's also easily accessible from I-670 and SR-315, as well as local streets.

 

I saw on the Ohio Hub web page that a presentation was given by the AIA Columbus group at the Station Development Workshop in June.  It looks as though they will be having or have had a design competition.  Not sure if anyone on this board went to the workshop, but if you did, what type of design competition is this? 

 

I am assuming it is a Rail/Multimodal Station design competition.  If so, does anyone know if the general public will be able to view the design/conceptual drawings? 

 

There is a design competition being sponsored by the AIA Columbus Chapter.  For contact info go to: www.aiacolumbus.org

 

The competition will take place in March and will focus on a downtown Columbus site, a site at East 11th Avenue and the railroad tracks (near the State Fairgrounds and a third site in the Linworth area along SR-161.  The aim is to not only site and design a multi-modal transportation center within the context of these sites, but also to envision the kind of development that could grow around that site.

Interesting blog on the Ohio Hub and even more interesting are the many comments that followed:

 

http://activerain.com/blogsview/34707/The-Cleveland-Hub-Initiative

 

The woman who wrote this is a realtor at Howard Hanna in Cleveland. She contacted All Aboard and I will follow up with her. I hope to get her recruited to the advocacy effort.

Aside from having some numbers wrong, she recognizes and apparently supports some key issues in the Ohio Hub Plan.

 

It's encouraging to see her level of interest and that she's willing to spread the word via her blog.  I know of another realtor in the Dayton area who shares her interest in the Hub plan. It'd be interesting to see them network among that community.

Everyone should write to our Senators regarding this important bill that is coming through!  Here is some info on the bill and its relevance, as well as, a sample of what you can use to send to our Senators (or if you're from another state..send it to yours)!

 

Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Trent Lott (R-MS), Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

and Ted Stevens (R-AK) have re-introduced The Passenger Rail Investment and

Improvement Act (S. 294) . The bill reauthorizes suitable funding for Amtrak

and creates a new state/federal partnership for passenger rail development.

Passage of this bill is crucial to the development of the Ohio Hub Plan as a

stable, dedicated funding source.

 

This is basically the same as the version of S.1516 that passed the Senate

November 3, 2005, by a vote of 93-6 as an amendment to the Budget

Reconciliation Act, except that the new version updates the authorization

years to FY08-12, makes technical corrections, and adds the Commerce

Committee's entire rail security package (passenger and freight).

 

Please contact Senators Brown and Voinovich and urge them to join as

co-sponsor to S. 294. The Senate website is http://www.senate.gov for

finding the Senators' phone numbers, web sites and other contact

information. Alternatively, the Capitol Hill switchboard 202-224-3121

connects to any office.

 

For this effort, telephone is best.  However, a sample message to your

Senator is below:

 

(Be sure to include your mailing address to prove that you are a

constituent)

 

Dear Senator:

 

Please support Amtrak’s fiscal 2008 funding request and ensure that the

Fiscal 2007 funding Continuing Resolution be free of micromanaging language.

While I understand that the federal budget is tightly constrained and that

pressures to cut spending are strong, slashing Amtrak funding when America

needs passenger rail the most would be a mistake.  Indeed, Amtrak’s

operating funds request is down over the past three years: all increases in

spending are for capital investments.

 

I also urge your support for the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement

Act, S. 294.  The bill, introduced by Senators Lautenberg and Lott, provides

real, meaningful reform for Amtrak and a federal-state partnership for

capital investments, which is enjoyed by the other modes of transportation.

Please co-sponsor this bill.

 

Thank you for considering my views.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

<Name>

<Organization>

<Title>

Thanks for the previous post UncleRando :clap: :clap:

 

Senate Bill 294 could have a significant and positive impact on the Ohio Hub Plan by creating the long-needed, state-federal matching funding mechanism for rail projects. If you are writing to Ohio's Senators, we need to really drive home what it means to Ohio in terms of energy conservation, air quality, jobs and business development as well our own mobility.

 

I would take your letters a step further and send one to Governor Strickland urging him to express his support to Senator's Voinovich and Brown, as well as his former fellow Members of Congress (the House needs to pass this bill too).  The Governor has already supported the Ohio Hub Plan during his campaign, so make sure you thank him for that support as well.

I sent the following letter-to-the-editor to the Plain Dealer.  Who knows if they will print it or not...

 

I am pleased that in his State of the Union address President George W. Bush called for reducing in America’s gasoline consumption.  However, it’s going to take more than ethanol and higher efficiency standards for cars to do it, and it isn’t just the president’s proposals that fall short.  Democrats too seem to think that reducing oil consumption begins and ends with alternative fuels and higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. 

 

Meaningful, permanent reduction in gasoline use will only occur when Americans are given efficient, competitive alternatives to driving.

 

The best place to start is by rebuilding our intercity passenger rail system.  It is an international embarrassment that the richest, most powerful country in the world spends less on its rail system than many developing nations. 

 

We must also expand mass transit options like commuter rail and encourage land use patterns that are less car-dependent. 

 

If our elected officials were serious about reducing gasoline consumption, the Bush administration would not have cut the federal funding formula for mass transit projects from an 80% federal match to 50%, and the Democrats in Congress would be calling for its restoration. 

 

They would also stop bickering about Amtrak and pass the Passenger Rail Investment Act which makes meaningful, realistic reforms to Amtrak and establishes a federal funding formula for intercity passenger rail that is on par with highways and aviation.

 

Our over dependence on oil has placed us in a precarious situation with respect to our economy and our security.  We need to get realistic about the solutions.  So far, no one in Washington really is.

 

Out of curiosity, why didn't you take the opportunity to plug the Ohio Hub?

Out of curiosity, why didn't you take the opportunity to plug the Ohio Hub?

 

I was trying to stay general about the connection between transportation and gasoline use and keep the letter short as short letters are more likely to be published. 

I don't fault your effort, because more of us need to write strong, intelligent letters like this... but, yes, I'd have pumped the Ohio-Hub more.  Actually, other parts of the country (the East, Chicago, Michigan and other Midwestern states) are putting more money into Amtrak through their state apparatuses.  Ohio remains, probably, the lone Eastern/Midwestern industrial state that doesn't fund Amtrak services, locally.  We're a backward state and the heat must be put on our LOCAL leaders to support such a positive initiative as the Ohio-Hub... because other states and regions are literally leaving Ohio in the dust.

Ohio and Indiana. See the graphic I posted at:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2068.msg158065#msg158065

I have heard some rumblings that the ORDC was getting close to release the updated Ohio Hub report.  I even saw in a recent City of Lima Newsletter that the routes between Columbus - Chicago and Columbus -Detroit fared well in the preliminary analysis and that Lima may have a public meeting in March??  I was interested to hear if any of the other posters of this board had heard when the updated report would be released and if there would be another round of public meetings in the towns/cities where the additional routes would be routed through.

THIRD ANNUAL OHIO RAIL/TRANSIT LEGISLATIVE SUMMIT

Wednesday, March 7th 2007

9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

 

Columbus YWCA/ Huntington Hall

65 South 4th Street

Columbus, OH 43215

 

 

9:30 a.m.  - Registration: light breakfast will be offered

 

 

10:00 a.m. - Noon:  Morning consists of a series of invited speakers:

 

Joseph L. Calabrese, General Manager/CEO; Greater Cleveland RTA

• Public Transportation Needs and Funding

 

Matt Dietrich, Interim Executive Director, Ohio Rail Development Commission

• Current Developments of Ohio Hub Plan Update

 

Kimberly Gibson, Vice President, All Aboard Ohio

• Ohio General Assembly: All Aboard Ohio Legislative Appeal

 

Noon - 1:00 p.m.: Catered Lunch

 

Featured Speaker:

Art Guzzetti, Director of Policy and Advocacy, American Public Transit Association

• Public Transportation Needs and Funding: Opportunities for the new Congress

 

 

1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Legislative Visits

State House and Senate visits will be scheduled for attendees after lunch.

 

Members: $50 ($25 is tax-deductible)

Non-Members : $75 ($50 is tax-deductible)

 

Fee for Non-Members includes a one year membership to ALL ABOARD OHIO!

 

For more information, please call 614-228-6005.

Please register early, space is limited!

 

Online Registration will soon be available via Paypal at www.allaboardohio.org or call 614-228-6005 or e-mail [email protected]