There was a time when the operative word in "investigative reporting" was "investigative". That was before the news media decided that they were in the entertainment business instead of the business of informing the citizenry.

 

For example, the teaser starts with the following:

 

1997: $6 million spent.

 

2002: $6 million spent.

 

2010: $25 million spent.

 

Insofar as I am aware, the $25 million has not been spent. And assuming that the numbers for 1997 and 2002 represent expenditures for passenger rail travel, then between 1997 and 2010, $12 million was spent or, less than $1 million/year. Compared to what? How about the amount of money spent to change all the signs, stickers, certificates, stationary, etc., in that same period everytime there was a change in who were the elected officials? How about the amount spent on Ohio's roads, highway patrol, airports, etc.?

 

In addition, they are mischaracterizing the $25 million as being spent by Ohioans. In reality, it is $25 million spent ON OHIO!

 

Finally, some points made by a respondant to the original article (and, I think, already articulated in this forum) include:

 

1. Only 85 cents of every dollar in taxes that Ohioans pay to the Federal government are returned to Ohio. Turning down the 3C funding is turning down Ohioans share of what they paid into.

2. The $25 million is actually a bonus paid to grant recipients which allows them to fast track a funding request by using a multi-tiered approach to facilities planning. Under the multi-tiered approach, the states are able to apply using preliminary data while deferring the final studies until after the award has been received. Once awarded, the Federal government picks up the tab for Tier II.

 

In other words, under a non-tiered system, Ohio would have had to complete the studies/planning using $25 million more out of its own pocket. Under the multi-tiered system. Ohio gets the completed studies/planning for $25 million less!

 

Show me the downside, here? I am at a loss to find it.

 

 

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/04/24/passenger-rail-project-loses-steam-under-scrutiny.html?sid=101

 

The usual load of horse-puckey from the biggest rail opponent in the state. I have just one question for Husted. If the state is in such dire straits, where is his lofty concern over the $1.2 billion we spend to subsize highways every year? We hear nothing about that, but if we follow his arguments to their logical conclusion, we should double the state gas tax to make up the shortfall, make the Interstates into toll roads and go to a mileage based tax on vehicles.

 

Furthermore, we should have the Highway patrol paid out of user fees and not precious general revenue funds which should be used to balance the state budget. here's an idea: let's have the highways live within their means and have ALL general revenues go to make up the budget shortfall. that might be anough to balance the budget. While we are at it, we should dedicate 10% of state transportation dollars to non-highway public transportation. that's how many people who don't have a car in Ohio and that would mean $450 million for transit and rail. Current spending is a pittance: $11 million for transit and nothing for intercity rail.

 

What we have today is not a system, but a highway monoply. Don't drive? Too bad.

 

Husted is being disengenous when he feigns concern over "money losing" trains. In his myopia, he swats the rail flea, while ignoring the highway elephant.

 

NBC4....where accuracy suffers.

U.S. high-speed rail's ship finally comes in

 

By John Rosenthal

Special to The Washington Post

Sunday, April 25, 2010; F05

 

Like the gleam on the tracks from an oncoming locomotive, high-speed rail transportation in the United States may be finally coming into sight. Before the end of the decade, rail backers promise, Americans will be traveling on bullet trains, the way Europeans and Asians have been doing for half a century. At speeds of up to 220 mph, high-speed rail will make it possible to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours, or half the time it takes to drive. Tampa to Orlando will take less than an hour, or 35 percent faster than by car. You'll be able to get from Chicago to St. Louis in less time than it takes to fly -- after you factor in the hours spent getting to and from distant airports and the hassle of getting through security 90 minutes before your flight.

 

The myriad benefits of high-speed rail have long been apparent to anyone who has ridden Japan's Shinkansen trains or France's TGV. These so-called bullet trains are faster than driving, more comfortable and convenient for short distances than flying and, because they run on electricity, don't rely on foreign oil imports. Trains arrive in downtown city centers and are usually linked to public transit.

 

"High-speed trains consume less fuel, produce less carbon dioxide, and promote urban redevelopment, which has broader environmental benefits," said Kevin Brubaker, deputy director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago, which has worked to build civic support throughout the Midwest for investment in rail transportation. "We see high-speed rail as a way to improve mobility while improving the environment."

 

Full story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/22/AR2010042205923.html

 

There was a time when the operative word in "investigative reporting" was "investigative". That was before the news media decided that they were in the entertainment business instead of the business of informing the citizenry.

 

Well there are two options. We can rely on publicly funded news like NPR and PBS, which critics will always say is one breath from state-run-media. Or we can have private, for-profit news, who's evolutionary endpoint is almost always idiotic sensationalist entertainment, because that's what seems to be the most profitable.

 

I kind of agree with both criticisms, but I feel like I get the best journalism from NPR, so...

Thanks KJP. That makes a lot of sense and confirms my suspicions. What I don't understand is that Strickland is going to have $400,000,000.00 of candy to pass out. It all doesn't have to go to Democrat donors. Why can't he offer some of it (half of it?) to Republican road contractors? What is it I am not getting?

 

The State is likely guided by a bidding process. It is not the responsibility of the State to tell road builders to retool for other development; it is the responsibility of the business to adapt to market forces.

 

At least that is what a true Republican would say.

 

 

Well, I'm not a true Republican so I can say otherwise.

Rail proposal stirs dreams in Riverside

Urban design students encourage residents, officials to imagine development options.

By Thomas Gnau, Staff Writer

Updated 1:54 AM Sunday, April 25, 2010

 

RIVERSIDE — A group of Kent State University urban design graduate students encouraged a small group of Riverside officials and residents to think big Saturday, April 24, asking them to re-imagine the area near where a stop of the 256-mile Ohio 3-C passenger rail line may be built.

 

The identified Riverside site is about a half-mile northwest of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, north of Harshman Road and Springfield Street, off Huberville Avenue. Another stop near Sixth and Ludlow streets in downtown Dayton has also been identified.

 

Called the “Wright-Patterson-Riverside Station,” the Riverside plan inspires talk among city officials of a 44-acre mixed-used development, complete with possible six-story buildings and a runway, lined with airplanes and stretching from north of Springfield Street to museum property. Earlier this year, Riverside entered into a contract with Forest City, a national developer based in Cleveland for a master plan.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/rail-proposal-stirs-dreams-in-riverside-670982.html

<u><b>Register by April 30 to Discuss How High-Speed Rail Will Drive Ohio's Economic Recovery!</b></u>

 

<i>The European-American Chamber of Commerce hosts transatlantic rail conference featuring high-powered industry experts and stakeholders; USDOT Deputy Secretary Porcari and Ohio DOT Secretary Molitoris to offer insight. All Aboard Ohio is a sponsor of event.</i>

 

Focusing on regional and federal implications for the 3C rail corridor and beyond, the European-American Chamber of Commerce (EACC) will host an Urban and Regional Public Transportation Conference bringing together a renowned group of international, national and regional experts in public transportation and high-speed rail.

 

On May 5th, USDOT Deputy Secretary Porcari, Ohio DOT Secretary Molitoris,  American Public Transportation Association, FirstGroup America, Siemens, GE and the City of Cincinnati as well as representatives from England, France, Germany and Spain will gather in Cincinnati to discuss high-speed rail and its associated implications for Ohio and the Mid-west region.

 

The all-day conference will be followed by the prestigious EACC Gala Dinner with Mr. Stephen Robillard, Vice President High Speed Rail USA, Siemens Mobility Division, as the guest of honor and keynote speaker.

 

Registration Closes - This Friday April 30th at 5:00 pm

For more information and to register, go to:

https://www.europe-cincinnati.com/index.php?id=1886

It's not the 3C Quick Start...but the attached photo shows that passenger trains can and do run on the 3C corridor.  This is the NS's annual Kentucky Derby Special, bound for Louisville (KY) and....oh look, isn't that downtown Columbus in the background?

 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=322037&nseq=9

Great photo! Too bad the weather wasn't sunny or that would be a better view with the sun behind the photographer. Still a great pic!

 

EDIT: I see another photographer got a shot of it on the 3C Corridor at Alton just west of Columbus' Buckeye Yard... http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=322036&nseq=1

 

Plus others got photos of it elsewhere in Ohio and Pennsylvania (http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?road_number=NS 4271). Based on these photographs, the train originated in Altoona, went through Pittsburgh, then up through Canton and Mansfield before joining the 3C Corridor at Crestline. That route is probably faster than the more direct Panhandle Line via Steubenville, Coshocton and Newark owing to its lack of a signal system and average track conditions.

Honestly, I think the idea of "high speed rail" in the U.S., outside of the eastern corridor and maybe the west is a pipe dream if we are talking bullet train speeds.  The infrastructure costs for the grade separated right of way alone completely blows the ROI out of the water.  Further, I don't really see why we need it.  89 mph average speeds would beat the pants off auto travel and with Talgo/Fiat style tilt trains is doable on existing tracks with no additional right of way purchase necessary.  I know Canada did this in the 60's 70's and passenger acceptance of rail was high.  This would have the best ROI so why are we (or some) trying to sell the public on 3c as a first step to bullet trains.  We don't need them and the public certainly wouldn't want to pay the price. 

I think there will come a time when high speed trains make much more economic sense than air travel for long trips. I'm not sure when that will be.

 

If we don't have high speed trains at that time, it will be like reverting back to old technology. The effective size of the country will be greatly expanded, and business will be impeded.

 

Then we'll be stuck trying to build it all at once.

Since there's been some discussion about the ROI (Return on Investment) from high-speed rail on the 3C thread, I thought it was worthwhile posting the executive summary of the Ohio Hub economic impact study of the ROI of a fully developed 110-MPH system in Ohio and the Great Lakes Region.

 

It's not a "bullet train" scenario....but it shows there is a considerable economic return on what would be a greater, incremental investment in faster trains.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/Ohio%20Hub%20Summaries/OhioHubEconomicImpact.pdf

 

The link to the full economic impact study:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/HighSpeedPassengerRail/Pages/OhioHubOverview.aspx#

So this discussion doesn't get too far off the topic of the 3C, I have posted the results of the economic impact study of the Ohio Hub Plan from the ORDC website on the Ohio Hub thread:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1414.1320.html

I'm pretty sure tedolph was talking about true high-speed rail.

Rail Plans Raise Hope and Doubts

Financing, Other Hurdles Loom

 

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Bond Buyer

By Audrey Dutton

 

WASHINGTON — Never before in the U.S. has there been such a push to develop high-speed rail, with Congress and the Obama administration providing funds and new programs that could ultimately get the trains up and running here as they are in other advanced countries.

 

But doubts remain about how to finance a world-class rail network, where to find a reliable revenue stream, and whether states can surmount legal and financial hurdles before time-sensitive grants disappear and the momentum fizzles.

 

High-speed rail proponents have pushed for years for an American version of the so-called bullet trains that rush passengers across East Asia and Europe. The U.S. trains would not be typical intercity passenger rail routes, but rather a national web of corridors connecting major cities in about a dozen regions.

 

Full story at: http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/119_329/rail_transportation_bill_high_speed-1011398-1.html

Someone asked me who funds the Ohio State Highway Patrol. It used to be funded out of the gas tax but lawmakers wanted that money for road construction.

 

Note that phony fiscal conservatives, who are so concerned about how the state can possibly afford the $17 million for 3C and show no interest in funding transit, have no concern where $26 million per year will come from to pay for the highway patrol! Consider.....

 

The highway patrol's budget for 2010-11 biennial is $636 million or an average of $318 per year for the two years.

 

My research shows there are three sources of funding for the Ohio State Highway Patrol:

 

Wholesale and Retail Motor Fuel Evaporation Tax Credits - $18 million per year

Drivers license/registration late fee - $26 million per year (based on final three months of 2009)

General revenue fund - $274 million

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/state_lawmakers_interested_in.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Irate motorists have state lawmakers in both parties in full backpedal as they consider rolling back a new $20 fee for drivers more than seven days late renewing their driver's licenses or registering their cars.

More than three dozen House lawmakers, most of them minority-party Republicans, are sponsoring a bill that would repeal the $20 late fee -- which netted $6.4 million during the final three months of 2009.

However, the legislation offers no way of raising the $19 million to $30 million a year for the State Highway Patrol that the fee was expected to generate.

I've brought this up before but it was never answered.  Is the highway patrol just a money sink?  What sort of revenues do they generate from issuing citations?  Yes, $318 million per year is a lot, but that's an unfair number to throw around without including income/revenue as well.  It would be the same if the yearly cost of the 3-C project was thrown around without including the revenue from ticket sales. 

If I recall correctly, citations are paid to local courts (municipal, township etc). What they do with it is not known. But I have never heard of local courts paying for highway patrol expenses. But I'm pretty sure the patrol keeps the proceeds of stolen items they seize, after they are sold at auction.

 

Remember, the Ohio Highway Patrol was funded by the gas tax. Lawmakers wanted that money to build roads and pushed most of the highway patrol's expense onto the general fund.

 

My point is that up to $30 million of the highway patrol's budget is being funded by the late fee which Republican lawmakers are seeking to abolish without offering a way to make up for the cost. So either the patrol's budget will take a $30 million hit, or the general fund will.

 

And they have the gall to feign shock at the 3C's $17 million cost. See my issue?

Yes! Spend money to build a temporary train station in... Bond Hill... If they are looking to woo the public, especially those in Cincinnati, Bond Hill is not the prime location for such a station. It's close to Sharonville, inconvenient to anyone in downtown (or northern Kentucky) and is money wasted for a temporary station.

 

Council backs Bond Hill train station

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 28, 2010

 

Passengers hoping to board new trains to Columbus and Cleveland at Union Terminal may have a long wait after Cincinnati City Council Wednesday recommended construction of a temporary station in Bond Hill that could be in use for up to 20 years.

 

Shortly after council's decision, other Greater Cincinnati leaders sought to derail it by saying they plan to encourage the state officials who will decide where to build a local station as part of a $400 million passenger rail system to consider another location in the Fairfax/Wooster Pike area.

The CUT planning and project development process is trailing the 3C Quick Start project development process by about one year. If that continues, a temporary station for Cincinnati may get one-year's worth of use out of it.

Yeah, I don't understand why they want the Bond Hill location, when Sharonville is out there actively promoting their station already. The Bond Hill station, while temporary, is designed to last 20 years. Unless we want the 3C line stopping three times in 20 miles...

Especially since Bond Hill is still on the wrong $%&@ rail line.  At least Sharonville is "on the way" to Union Terminal. 

Why not build the station out East near Lunken (since we can't do Union Terminal just yet) and encourage a light rail/DMU commuter line along the oasis tracks to the transit center. We could built eastern corridor commuter rail and connect that out to the 3C.

Bond Hill is more accessible to more folks in the region (especially coming from the 71 corridor) than anything at Sharonville. The West Siders benefit most strongly from the CUT, but Bond Hill would still be decent location for them. I'd don't like the Little Miami Valley stop. It is just too far away for the high density of population in the region, which are much closer to 71 and 75.

One big factor, I think, is how long it will realistically take before CUT becomes viable. If within a few years, it might be best to just end the line at Sharonville for the time being. If, on the other hand, a CUT stop is 10 or so years away, an alternative stop is probably prudent.

 

Many cities have multiple train stations, so a 20-year station may well turn into a permanent fixture if, in 20 years, rail transportation picks up the way most of us expect it to.

 

As for the best location of a temporary station? I'm not really sure. I see pluses and minuses of all those discussed. It would be nice to have some experts lay out on the table a pro/con analysis of all the potential locations. I'm afraid decisions are being made without much attention to detail.

 

Bond Hill is more central, closer to I-71 and dense population. A Lunken station would tie rail to air, at least to a small degree, and lend itself to an easy (relatively) light rail stop coming from downtown. If the temporary station becomes permanent, I can see both possibilities being complementary to CUT.

 

Edit: If the Enquirer were worth its salt, it would provide us with such a pro/con analysis of station locations. Instead, the paper cannot get beyond disputes about whether the money that is available should be available, and provoking the lowest level of discourse possible among readers in the comments section. Basically, the paper functions as a tabloid rag, turning the issue into a gossip feast, rather than a tool towards/for an informed citizenry.

Someone asked me who funds the Ohio State Highway Patrol. It used to be funded out of the gas tax but lawmakers wanted that money for road construction.

 

Note that phony fiscal conservatives, who are so concerned about how the state can possibly afford the $17 million for 3C and show no interest in funding transit, have no concern where $26 million per year will come from to pay for the highway patrol! Consider.....

 

The highway patrol's budget for 2010-11 biennial is $636 million or an average of $318 per year for the two years.

 

My research shows there are three sources of funding for the Ohio State Highway Patrol:

 

Wholesale and Retail Motor Fuel Evaporation Tax Credits - $18 million per year

Drivers license/registration late fee - $26 million per year (based on final three months of 2009)

General revenue fund - $274 million

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/state_lawmakers_interested_in.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Irate motorists have state lawmakers in both parties in full backpedal as they consider rolling back a new $20 fee for drivers more than seven days late renewing their driver's licenses or registering their cars.

More than three dozen House lawmakers, most of them minority-party Republicans, are sponsoring a bill that would repeal the $20 late fee -- which netted $6.4 million during the final three months of 2009.

However, the legislation offers no way of raising the $19 million to $30 million a year for the State Highway Patrol that the fee was expected to generate.

 

The Highway Patrol's costs should come out of the gas tax, as it did for years and the current $318 million from the general fund should be dedicated to developing non-highway transportation (i.e. transit, rail passenger, bike and ped facilities). KJP tells me that about 8% of Ohio's residents have no vehicle and if we took that percentage and subtracted the money that represents, that's probably about what it costs to fund the Patrol.

 

People who do not drive are disenfranchised by the highway monopoly. :x

^ Why just gas taxes? Why not revenue generated by the highway patrol? The goal should be to make highway costs explicit by making highways more self-sufficient. Siphoning money from the highway patrol into municipal budgets just clouds the issue more, making funding inexplicit and enabling public delusions of cost and benefit.

 

Also, this is off-topic...probably should go into the Actual cost of driving thread.

What revenue would the highway patrol generate? Taxes imposed upon drivers?

Guys...this really belongs on the ODOT policy thread....

 

Back to the 3C....

 

Has anyone considered that Bond Hill might someday make a good commuter or light rail stop when the 3C trains eventually shift to CUT?

What revenue would the highway patrol generate? Taxes imposed upon drivers?

Citations, fines, seizures.

 

Has anyone considered that Bond Hill might someday make a good commuter or light rail stop when the 3C trains eventually shift to CUT?

I have. This is one kind of thing the public should be talking about. Why aren't the newspapers talking about such things? Everything is so one-sided and short-sighted, makes me sick.

Yup.... some folks can't see any farther into the future than what's on their wristwatch.

Has anyone considered that Bond Hill might someday make a good commuter or light rail stop when the 3C trains eventually shift to CUT?

 

It's still on a different rail line though, that's what makes it such a head banger.  Now it might, MIGHT be possible to detour back to the Mill Creek Valley via the former B&O through Norwood, but that's quite a detour.  Has there even been any further clarification to where exactly this Bond Hill station would be?  If it was along the former B&O near where Showcase Cinemas used to be, that might make a little sense as a future commuter station, but the only other possible location seems to be near Cincinnati Gardens and Langdon Farm Road.  There's no real logical commuter rail path to there. 

 

The idea about some sort of light rail connection to Lunken is also stop-gap.  The reason Lunken was picked over the Boathouse is because of NIMBY opposition along Riverside Drive and because of the cost to further upgrade the rest of the Oasis tracks to downtown.  Light rail may or may not be more amenable to those people, but the tracks would still have to be upgraded regardless.  Only with light rail, that's a whole new project to be developed, and by the time all is said and done the 4th main down the Mill Creek Valley could be in operation.

 

Whether the temporary station is Bond Hill, Lunken, or somewhere in between, the issue is that it's still tens of millions of dollars that could instead be going to a Union Terminal solution.  Union Terminal may not be achievable right away, but this temporary station is going to be boondoggle-ized by all the naysayers out there, especially since they're of dubious value for future passenger use.  As I already mentioned, Bond Hill seems an unlikely candidate for a commuter station.  Something in the Columbia-Tusculum/Lunken/Linwood area probably would be, but for both stations the money is being spent on the wrong end of the line.  The connections to downtown don't exist, and those are the difficult ones.  It's the same "let's do the easy part first" mentality that helped destroy the subway plan back in the 1920s. 

 

So yes, Sharonville sucks, but at least it's on the way to Union Terminal, not down some separate branch line.  Sharonville could even stay in use when Union Terminal is finally reached, but that's unlikely to happen with the other stations without some sort of shuttle run.  It just makes more sense to save up the money to put towards the solution everyone seems to want, rather than throw it at a temporary solution that has little other use down the line. 

Yup.... some folks can't see any farther into the future than what's on their wristwatch.

 

No, it's just a terrible location, period. It offers no usable function after the temporary stop is removed. It cannot even be used for light rail (even with the last plan that failed). It's just a 20-year stop-gap (defined as such by the city), even though any CUT improvements could be done by say, 2014. I'd rather have the 3C end at Sharonville than waste money on a temporary station that offers no real advantages short-term or long-term.

I don't have a Cincinnati map in front of me, but I assume by the comments I read that Bond Hill is off the 3-C line. If that's the case, i think it makes more sense to terminate temporarily at Sharonville and run shuttles from there to various Cincinnati locations. Also, if there is any local transit nearby, it could be rerouted to serve the station.

 

This would save the $30 million or so which would be necessary to reach Lunkin. I'd rather plow that money into getting to CUT. KJP figured the cost of getting there to be about $80 million and if we use the Lunkin money, we need to make up $50 million.

 

Once trains did begin to serve CUT, Sharonville could be a suburban stop for 3-C trains, much like New Carrollton, near Washington. KJP and I were there once years ago and watched as a never ending procession of trains, buses,Metro trains and shuttles picked up or dropped off hundreds of people. It was very quiet and efficient.

My understanding is that the county port authority which is sponsoring the CUT-Fourth Main project really isn't all that interested in CUT. It's just a small sidelight to their main interest which is to enable more freight flowing in/out of Queensgate.

 

CUT-Fourth Main is probably more than $80 million. It could be much more. But the Fourth Main portion may be only $85 million. If so, 80 percent of that is $68 million (approximate federal share), leaving $17 million for the non-federal share. NS and CSX might split most of it, say $7.5 million for each, leaving $2 million for Indiana-Ohio.

 

Any passenger-specific costs, such as those relating to the station itself, layover tracks, servicing facilities, etc. could be paid for out of the $30 million saved by not going to Lunken. In fact, I'd use a good portion of that to build a passenger-only bypass of Sharonville Yard on the west side via old hump yard and add any other track-capacity improvements between Evendale and Winton Place.

"We’ve put almost all of our resources into roads," LaHood says. "If the commitment when President Eisenhower signed the interstate bill had been to high-speed inner-city rail, we'd be in the same position Europe and Asia are in today." ....USDOT Sec. Ray LaHood.

 

Quote is from an interview with National Public Radio:

 

Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126263488&sc=emaf

My understanding is that the county port authority which is sponsoring the CUT-Fourth Main project really isn't all that interested in CUT. It's just a small sidelight to their main interest which is to enable more freight flowing in/out of Queensgate.

 

CUT-Fourth Main is probably more than $80 million. It could be much more. But the Fourth Main portion may be only $85 million. If so, 80 percent of that is $68 million (approximate federal share), leaving $17 million for the non-federal share. NS and CSX might split most of it, say $7.5 million for each, leaving $2 million for Indiana-Ohio.

 

Any passenger-specific costs, such as those relating to the station itself, layover tracks, servicing facilities, etc. could be paid for out of the $30 million saved by not going to Lunken. In fact, I'd use a good portion of that to build a passenger-only bypass of Sharonville Yard on the west side via old hump yard and add any other track-capacity improvements between Evendale and Winton Place.

 

and there we are. problem solved.

I'd argue that if we took what we ultimately spent on the Interstate Highway System and other limited-access roads and divided it equally among high-speed rail, conventional rail, urban rail transit, bus systems AND limited-access roads, we'd be the in same enviable transportation position Europe and Asia are in today.

See how easy that was? OK, next problem... ;)

See how easy that was? OK, next problem... ;)

 

Now to get them to actually DO that. 

 

 

"Leaving $2 million for Indiana-Ohio."

 

  Indiana-Ohio probably doesn't contribute very much to the traffic in Queensgate percentage-wise, but they do have trackage rights in the congested area.

 

  During the stadium campaign, Indiana-Ohio made an effort to reestablish the old front street line linking the Oasia line from the boathouse to Queensgate. At least that line would take a little traffic off the third main area.

 

A heads-up that the NBC affiliate in Columbus, OH (WCMH-TV, channel 4) plans to run a story about "$35 million spent on railroads in Ohio since 2002. Where's the Train?" It runs sometime today, I think, and looks like a hatchet job that will only confuse minor investments in Ohio's freight lines and industrial spurs with the currently proposed 3-C passenger corridor. A $35 million investment doesn't get you a mile of road, and it doesn't get you much more than that in terms of new railroad either.

 

Channel 4 calls itself "Where Accuracy Matters." Let's see....

 

Contact the newsdesk at:

Phone: (614) 263-5555

Fax: (614) 263-0166

E-mail the newsdesk at: [email protected]

^http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/apr/29/nbc-4-investigates-millions-more-spent-study-passe-ar-63849/

FYI. Some of this is being paid for with stimulus funds, not gas taxes. And our gas tax revenues aren't sufficient to maintain what we have now, according to this week's new report from AASHTO. Boy, it's a good thing roads are "free".....

 

 

3C Corridor Interstate highway, major-new projects (2008-2015)

 

 

I-71/I-90 Innerbelt reconstruction in Cleveland (6 miles):

2004 ODOT estimate of $800 million, quadrupled to $3.5 billion in 2010, or $583 million per mile.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Department_of_Transportation

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/04/chances_for_a_great_i-90_bridg.html

 

I-70/I-71 split reconstruction in Columbus (3 miles):

2004 ODOT estimate of $434 million, quadrupled to $1.69 billion in 2009, or $563 million per mile.

Source: http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/16-billion-for-downtown-split/

 

I-75 Downtown Dayton sub-corridor improvements-all three phases (3 miles):

2007 ODOT estimate of $656 million, or $218.7 million per mile

Source: http://www.mvrpc.org/subCorr/

 

I-75/I-275 Reconstruction and lane additions (26 miles) from Sharonville to Franklin:

2009 ODOT estimate of $349 million, or $13.4 million per mile

Source: http://www.bceo.org/construction.html

 

I-75 Mill Creek Expressway reconstruction project (5 miles):

2010 ODOT estimate of $532 million, or $106.4 million per mile

Source: http://www.i75millcreekexpressway.com/

 

I-71/I-75 Brent Spence Bridge replacement in Cincinnati (1 mile):

2004 ODOT estimate of $750 million, more than doubled/tripled to between $2 billion to $3 billion in 2010, or $2.5 billion per mile

Source: http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2010/04/brent-spence-concepts-soon-to-be-three.html

 

TOTAL:   $9.227 billion over 44 miles, or $210 million per mile

^http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/apr/29/nbc-4-investigates-millions-more-spent-study-passe-ar-63849/

 

What an incredibly lame excuse for investigative reporting.  If you follow the dollar amounts in their story, they don't even add up close to $35-million spent on passenger rail in Ohio. It's like the reporter was flailing away with no focus on the story.  It wasn't even a good NEGATIVE story...it was worse....it was boring.

 

NBC4: Where Accuracy Suffers.

Let them know...

 

Community relations:

[email protected]

 

News comment:

[email protected]

 

NBC4 Investigates:

[email protected]

 

Vice President/General Manager:

E-mail Dan Bradley:

[email protected]

IIRC, the latest the 3C money can be spent (allocated?) is 2012.  Is that correct?

2017

Sharonville lays out passenger rail plan

By Kelly McBride Reddy, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 30, 2010

 

Sharonville is on track to bring to the city a passenger rail system that is expected to stimulate tourism, real estate and employment to the city and surrounding areas.

 

The city's Chamber of Commerce held an information session April 29 at Scarlet Oaks, where representatives from the Ohio Rail Development Commission, the Ohio Department of Transportation and development groups explained the rail project and plans for Sharonville.