This is also critical as we consider what transportation options to invest in -- more highways which foster more sprawling suburbs? Or more rail, transit, cycling and walking that foster more vibrant urban settings? Private capital follows public capital, and Ohio is falling behind in offering city-building transportation infrastructure. KJP

__________

 

Take note, companies: Young workers want urban jobs

by Jonathan Hiskes

29 Apr 2010 1:41 PM

 

Businesses ought to consider locating in walkable, culturally diverse city centers because that's where young workers want to be, according to some liberal commie rag printed on recycled draft cards. No, scratch that, this argument comes from the Harvard Business Review (http://hbr.org/2010/05/back-to-the-city/ar/1).

 

An article in the May issue opens with the news that United Airlines is moving its headquarters to downtown Chicago from the outer-ring suburb Elk Grove, while Quicken Loans plans to build headquarters in downtown Detroit.

 

"These companies are getting a jump on a major cultural and demographic shift away from suburban sprawl," writes Assistant Editor Ania Wieckowski. "The change is imminent, and businesses that don't understand and plan for it may suffer in the long run."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-29-take-note-companies-young-workers-want-urban-jobs/

Conference to focus on high-speed rail

By Barry M. Horstman • [email protected] • May 2, 2010

 

If a conference similar to one to be held Wednesday in Cincinnati returns in a few years, Ohio Transportation Director Jolene Molitoris might not have to factor rush-hour traffic conditions on Interstate 71 into her travel plans in deciding how to get here from Columbus.

 

And that is exactly the point of the all-day conference, where American and European transportation experts will examine the economic and public transit implications of high-speed passenger rail for Ohio as the state moves ahead with its proposed $400 million 3-C rail system linking Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland.

 

Sponsored by the European-American Chamber of Commerce, the conference is expected to draw about 350 people to the Westin Hotel, Downtown, for a series of panel discussions on local, regional and federal high-speed rail plans.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20100502/NEWS01/5030330/

An op-ed by Senator John Carey. He offers some valid questions except for the one about PB giving money to Linking Ohio. Fourteen major engineering firms having experience in passenger rail planning donated money to the Linking Ohio campaign. So no matter what firm ODOT recommended, it probably would have had a link to Linking Ohio...

 

Many questions without answers still attached to Ohio rail project

BY JOHN CAREY • May 5, 2010

 

On April 19, my colleagues and I on the state Controlling Board considered a controversial request from the Ohio Department of Transportation to approve a contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff, a New York-based construction management company, for $25 million to conduct an environmental and engineering study in support of the Governor's proposed 3-C rail line linking Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton.

 

The Strickland administration has said this preliminary work will help to provide more detailed answers about ridership, cost and other outstanding questions regarding passenger train service.

 

While I am open to exploring transportation alternatives for Ohio, including rail, I voted "no" for ODOT's request because I believe this contract -- and the answers that agency officials provided to basic questions about it -- does not pass the smell test.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20100505/OPINION02/5050318/1014/OPINION/Many-questions-without-answers-still-attached-to-Ohio-rail-project

 

  ^--- Wow! John Carey accuses Parson's Brinkerhoff of DELIBERATELY underestimating costs on the Big Dig in Boston in order to persuade officials to award the design contract to PB.

 

 

A response from All Aboard Ohio to Sen. Carey's op-ed:

 

Rail project would provide economic payback greater than costMay 6, 2010

 

State Senator John Carey's May 5 op-ed offers some valid questions about the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati passenger rail project.

 

One that is not valid, however, is about Parsons Brinckerhoff giving money to our Linking Ohio campaign.

 

Full response at: http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20100506/OPINION03/5060308/1014/OPINION/Rail-project-would-provide-economic-payback-greater-than-cost

The letter writer is a former Mansfield resident who now resides in Hawaii, but visits home frequently....

 

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20100503/OPINION03/5030314/1014/OPINION/3-C-rail-system-would-be-good-for-travelers-economy-environment

 

3-C rail system would be good for travelers, economy, environment

 

May 3, 2010

 

Although no longer a resident of Ohio, I was born

and raised in Mansfield. Most of my family still

reside there and I visit Mansfield and with them as

frequently as possible.

 

I am writing to express my support for Ohio's

proposed 3-C High Speed Rail System which would

connect Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland.

 

As I presently reside in Hawaii, when flying to Ohio

for visits, my initial Ohio destinations are either the

Cleveland or Columbus airports. I then rent a car at

one of these arrival points and drive to Mansfield on

Interstate 71. After 12 or more hours of flight and

layover time, the drive to Mansfield for me is

fatiguing and dangerous due to the high volume of

car and truck traffic.

 

Full letter at above link:

^Thanks for sharing, but can someone please pay a visit to the comments section and educate the uninformed posters? Thanks in advance.

From the letter:

 

"I am writing to express my support for Ohio's

proposed 3-C High Speed Rail System"

 

"Only a modern high-speed passenger rail system connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland will ease this untenable situation"

 

Someone needs to educate the letter-writer too.   

What's stopping all of you from educating them? You all know much more about 3C than the Average Joe out there, and certainly more than the people posting at those newspaper forums!

327 - Did you read the comments? Even you would have to agree that some of the posters were being irrational.

 

KJP - Well, I had to go to class and haven't had internet access since I posted that earlier. I felt it would be better if someone addressed them sooner rather than later.

 

Well, I was in Youngstown! So there! :)

Well, I had to make mulitple posts (there is a 1000 character limit), but I addressed some of the posters.

 

 

 

327 - Even you would have to agree that some of the posters were being irrational.

 

Yes, of course. 

 

But I don't believe those people are all that persuadable, so I pray for the serenity to accept that I can't change such fools.  I believe there are enough people who are supportive, or at least open to the idea... that the proper focus should be on pleasing them, on bringing them the rest of the way.  In other words, don't get so pissed off at the haters that you miss this comment:

 

*****

 

"Here's my take on the 3-C idea, and this is coming from a railfan. I think it could be a good thing, but only if done right. There are too many loose ends for this project. While Amtrak is supposed to have priority over freight trains, that rarely happens. Track capacity would need to be improved. Improving the tracks to increase speeds would reduce delays as well. Issues regarding transportation at the stops needs addressed since renting a vehicle would seem to reverse the benefits of taking a train. A realistic schedule that wouldn't leave huge gaps between train arrivals and give passengers more flexibility in terms of choosing when to ride. From what I've read on this topic, only a small number of trainsets are planned for the start up, which would leave huge gaps in the schedules. I've been hearing about the 3-C Corridor idea since the mid-80s. It just seems like they're running in circles doing the same studies over and over and ignoring the other concerns on this whole project."

The reason why there are huge gaps in the schedule is because the operating subsidy isn't large enough to support more frequent service. Is spending $17 million per year too much and getting only three daily round trips? Or would we rather spend $30 million per year and get five or six daily round trips? Are we politically ready to spend that much to get that much? Is the market ready for that much train service right away? Those are the issues that ODOT/ORDC and Amtrak have grappled with.

327 - I just wanted to address some of the misinformation that was in the other posts. I know that a lot of them can not be persuaded, but I hope that some will read what I posted and change their minds or think about the topic more. I won't loose any sleep if my efforts are of no use; I also believe that there are enough people who support this. As for your last statement, I am not pissed off and notice how I said:

some of the posters were being irrational.

So, there was really no need for you to provide that quote because I never said that all of the posters were irrational or that not one of them had a valid point.

The quote was just for reference, in case someone posted in between.  I suppose you didn't neeeeeeed to ask if I'd bothered to read the comment section.  Note that I cut that part out. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I like what you did there.  Very nice work.  It's important for people to see that supporting rail is a sensible and mainstream thing to do.  Those most likely to be swayed are the ones who didn't post anything, but they may read what others have posted, and they're better off encountering a balanced discussion. 

 

My point is (and has been) that comments like the one I highlighted tend to get lost in the firefight.  That guy wants 3C to happen, and wants it to work, but he's frustrated that consumer perspectives don't seem to carry the weight they deserve. 

 

Meanwhile, the original letter is pimping 3C as "modern high speed passenger rail" and he's in for a sad trombone moment when he finds out that was dropped from the plan 20 years ago.  The founding premise of ORDC was dropping "modern high speed" from the plan.  I believe that was a huge mistake, and I don't believe anything in politics is ever a moot point. 

 

I'd be happy enough if Molitaris would make a public commitment to proving that this plan will be sufficiently useful for Ohioans who want to ride it... like our friend in Mansfield, who needs a reliable way to get from CMH airport to the station and from the Mansfield stop to his destination... instead of constantly reiterating how "successful" other systems are in other states.  That's tangential.  We're talking about this proposal, in this state. 

I'd be happy enough if Molitaris would make a public commitment to proving that this plan will be sufficiently useful for Ohioans who want to ride it... like our friend in Mansfield, who needs a reliable way to get from CMH airport to the station and from the Mansfield stop to his destination... instead of constantly reiterating how "successful" other systems are in other states. That's tangential. We're talking about this proposal, in this state.  

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment that the official promotion of this project has been lackluster. I also wouldn't disagree that Strickland and Molitaris should be arming themselves with some of the talking points contained in the opinion pieces posted by KJP and others instead of trotting out the same old rhetoric.

 

But the experience of other states where modest intercity rail projects have resulted in significant public and private investment, increased ridership and increased capacity is hardly tangential unless you assume that Ohioans are unique among Americans in their preferences for transportation. In point of fact, to accept the worst case scenario that the naysayers are putting forth, that no one will ride it and it will drain millions of dollars, annually, from the state coffers with no appreciable benefits, you have to take, as a matter of fact, the notion that what has worked, elsewhere, cannot work in Ohio.

 

And then, of course, you'd have to prove it.

 

Under the current plan, Ohio will get $400 million over the next three years, if it goes forward with the entire project. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Ohio is on the hook for $17 million a year for 20 years (in 2010 dollars), that means that Ohio is being given $400 million, today, for which it will only have to "pay back" $340 million over 20 years.

 

In other words, the state, at worst, nets $60 million.

 

Who wouldn't take an offer like that?

 

1. The correct spelling of the ODOT Director's name is Molitoris.

 

2. Totally agree with seanmcl...that success in other states is hardly "tangential".  Quite the contrary, those successes show that the incremental approach to passenger rail development can and does work.  In fact, I know of no other state where such a plan, once implemented, has not worked and worked well.

Thank you for the spelling correction.

 

If America's current intercity rail system works so well, then why the big to-do about rebuilding it?  We can't have it both ways.  Either the system needs an extensive overhaul, or the system is already a success.  These two claims are not compatible.

 

And we've had substantial discussions here about how Ohio's lack of local transit spending per capita IS unique, particularly among urban states.  We can't claim that Ohio is obnoxiously and outrageously unsupportive of mass transit, and then claim that Ohio is equal and identical to states that aren't. 

Thank you for the spelling correction.

 

If America's current intercity rail system works so well, then why the big to-do about rebuilding it? We can't have it both ways. Either the system needs an extensive overhaul, or the system is already a success. These two claims are not compatible.

 

And we've had substantial discussions here about how Ohio's lack of local transit spending per capita IS unique, particularly among urban states. We can't claim that Ohio is obnoxiously and outrageously unsupportive of mass transit, and then claim that Ohio is equal and identical to states that aren't.

 

It's not that black & white...

 

No one is saying intercity rail system works well.  It is what it is..... good and bad.... which means it (like any other transportation system) always has room for improvements.  For example, most of the major highway projects in Ohio and elsewhere don't involve a lot of new roadway corridors.  Most are actually fixes of earlier poor designs or to deal with increased traffic.

 

The passenger rail systems in other states are successful, but even they are having to change and grow with the increase in demand for more and better service. Success doesn't mean a state gets a passenger rail corridor up and running, pats itself on the back and then walks away saying "mission accomplished".  It's been pretty well documentsed that the 3C Quick Start is just what the name indicates.... it's a "start".  More and better service will grow from it and ridership will increase accordingly...as it has in 15 other states.

 

As far as transit spending, Ohio does grossly underspend compared to similar urbanized states. I have seen transit funding from the General Assembly do nothing but shrink over the past deacde, even though Ohio has several major densly-populated cities and numerous suburban and rural transit systems that provide at least on-demand transit service.

If America's current intercity rail system works so well, then why the big to-do about rebuilding it? We can't have it both ways. Either the system needs an extensive overhaul, or the system is already a success. These two claims are not compatible.

 

In logic, this is known as the "straw man fallacy"; you misrepresent your opponent's position and then argue against it. No one has said "America's current intercity rail system works so well". In fact, it is pretty much admitted by proponents of investment in passenger rail that it doesn't work well, which is why we need greater investment.

 

What has been said, and which is provable, is that successful models of intercity passenger rail built using an incremental approach exist and these models suggest that a similar experience may been seen with the 3C Quick Start in Ohio.

 

If you want to argue against that, fine, but then you must show evidence which has more weight that "I don't think that anyone will ride it."

 

Speaking of straw men, I've never come close to saying "I don't think anyone will ride it."  You're confusing me with Bill Harris.  The point I've been trying to make is that people who aren't anti-rail at all, and who raise issues about this plan from the perspective of actively wanting to ride it and wanting it to do well, are treated like sworn enemies. 

 

It's like we have to agree 100% with all the talking points or we're automatically tea baggers.  If I think the Browns should pass instead of run on 3rd & 5, and you don't, that doesn't make either one of us into a Steelers fan.  As for the bit you quoted, I'm pointing out what I think is an inconsistency, one that may be hurting our common cause.  If you have a different opinion OK.  But don't jump from there to claiming I'm on the other team.  That seems counterproductive.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's a great thing to do to people.

 

For the record:  I DO think people will ride this, if built, as currently planned.  I intend to ride it myself.  I agree with every global point that's being made about the importance of developing passenger rail.  I just think there are some aspects where we could do better, where we could greatly enhance both the immediate and long term outcomes.  I do think there's a certain amount of risk in pursuing it in the exact manner it's being pursued with no changes at all to the approach.  But overall, I do expect the plan to get done and to succeed.

Geez 327....let's back off the footbal metaphors and the assumption we all think you're "on the other team".  That never entered my mind.  All that seems is being said here is that the inconsistency you are trying to point out is either not being clearly defined or doesn't exist.

 

Again, no one here is claiming there is a perfect system.  Most advocates who post here will be the first to say that Amtrak itself has some serious short-comings, many of which can be traced to decades of being under-funded by Congress and successive White House Administrations.  It is that very under-funding that moved many states to either pony up their own funding or cobble together limited federal funds from "pots" like CMAQ or FTA programs.

 

The fact remains that what has worked in 15 other states can work here in Ohio.  It's worth noting that most of these 15 states got funding in the same stimulus program from Ohio got $400-million for the 3C Quick Start...the difference is that those 15 states are now expanding and improving their service.  But I have been told by at least two state-level passenger rail executives in California and Maine that they "envy" (both used the same word) Ohio for having what they view as an ideal corridor for a start-up such as the 3C.

I will attempt to define it more clearly.  I'm not able to fully harmonize this:

 

[W]hat has worked in 15 other states can work here in Ohio. 

 

with this:

 

As far as transit spending, Ohio does grossly underspend compared to similar urbanized states.

 

Ohio is different from many (otherwise similar) states, and not in a way that favors this undertaking.  Not in a way that suggests that the same incremental approach-- unmodified-- will work as well here as it has in other states that offer better local transit.

 

Much as I'd like to do it... jumping straight to high speed is not the only possible way around this problem.  Another way, a cheaper and more plausible way, would be coordinating aggressively with local transit services to ensure that nobody is ever left hanging when their plane or train arrives.  That raises issues of dealing with multiple agencies with multiple schedule priorities, so it's not exactly a silver bullet. 

 

A related thought, perhaps less plausible but more promising, would be scaling back the statewide length of the line and using some of that fundage instead to purchase local transit vehicles for the dedicated purpose of feeding 3C.  Don't even brand them under county agencies... brand them as part of 3C.  They would shuttle people (exclusively) between 3C stations and likely destination areas which may be in high demand but are tough to reach via existing local transit services.  That doesn't solve everyone's problems either, but it gets us closer to being on par with other states in which low-speed intercity lines have done OK.

 

These are just ideas.  I'm not trying to condemn the 3C plan by suggesting them, but I do feel as though end-user concerns need a second look and higher priority as we move forward.  Ohio's transit situation is simply not comparable to that of other states.  Ohioans are acutely aware of this distinction... moreso than any analyst who's never waited for a bus in Cleveland on Sunday.  Amtrak's one-size-fits-all strategy is not inherently flawed... I just don't think it's as applicable to Ohio as it may have been elsewhere.  The transit gap is the reason.  I think we need to get creative in addressing it. 

http://www.examiner.com/x-23537-Columbus-Government-Examiner~y2010m5d6-USDOTs-Procari-applauds-3C-at-Cincinnati-rail-event-tells-states-regions-get-your-act-together

 

USDOTs Procari applauds 3-C at Cincinnati rail event, tells states, regions 'get your act together'

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - In Cincinnati Tuesday to deliver a keynote speech to rail backers and boosters that included Ohio's transportation director, a prominent Cincinnati City Councilman, public policy pundits and eager experts from both foreign high-speed train companies and American design and build firms hoping to take advantage of $8 billion and more in federal funds President Obama will spend as the first down payment on a decades-long national passenger rail network, John D. Procari, Deputy Secretary of Transportation for the U.S Dept. of Transportation, told his luncheon audience that those states and regions who "get their act together" will be the winners in the evolving plan to weave high-speed rail into the fabric of the nation's changing transportation infrastructure systems.

Ohio is different from many (otherwise similar) states, and not in a way that favors this undertaking. Not in a way that suggests that the same incremental approach-- unmodified-- will work as well here as it has in other states that offer better local transit.

 

An assertion, not a fact. Back up your assertions with facts.

 

Much as I'd like to do it... jumping straight to high speed is not the only possible way around this problem. Another way, a cheaper and more plausible way, would be coordinating aggressively with local transit services to ensure that nobody is ever left hanging when their plane or train arrives. That raises issues of dealing with multiple agencies with multiple schedule priorities, so it's not exactly a silver bullet.

 

Again, apples and oranges. Are municipalities linked by 3C likely to have in place all of the feeder systems likely necessary to maximize utilization on Day 1? Probably not. Newark Airport was built LONG before commuter rail made it possible to get there. Same with O'Hare. So what?

 

Ohio's transit situation is simply not comparable to that of other states...

 

Again, facts, not opinions, please. It sounds interesting to say it but until you document what makes Ohio different from any other state that has tried this approach, your assertions have no more weight than anyone else's.

 

 

seanmcl, if we assume arguendo that Ohio's local transit funding compares favorably with other states... then you're absolutely right: I don't have a leg to stand on.  But it's not like you're a fountain o'facts either.  No small irony.  Instead you keep insisting that my opinions are opinons, which is obvious.  Of course they're opinions.  I'm just a dude, like yourself, making posts on the internet.  Get comfortable with that and we'll move on.

 

Moving on... this site is loaded with material, stats even, that back up my spurious claims of Ohio's inadequate local transit funding.  It's a fairly regular discussion topic.  RTA hangs "educational" signs about this in their trains.  Are you sure you want to keep going down this road?  Wouldn't it be preferable to engage my ideas... or someone else's maybe... in a more constructive give and take?  You've chosen to hammer at the least controversial aspect of my post.  What are you trying to prove?  I don't understand your motivation.   

Moving on... this site is loaded with material, stats even, that back up my spurious claims of Ohio's inadequate local transit funding.  It's a fairly regular discussion topic.  RTA hangs "educational" signs about this in their trains.  Are you sure you want to keep going down this road?  Wouldn't it be preferable to engage my ideas... or someone else's maybe... in a more constructive give and take?  You've chosen to hammer at the least controversial aspect of my post.  What are you trying to prove?  I don't understand your motivation.    

 

Huh? I'm not hammering "the least controversial aspect" of your post (if I knew what it was). I assume that you mean to say that the lack of local transit funding will somehow hamper 3C. I don't, necessarily, accept this but this but I won't argue it as it is a chicken and egg issue. One might, just as easily, assert that 3C will stimulate the development of collateral, feeder, transit systems and there would be experience to back that up.

 

You do, however, repeat this claim:

 

Ohio is different from many (otherwise similar) states, and not in a way that favors this undertaking.  Not in a way that suggests that the same incremental approach-- unmodified-- will work as well here as it has in other states that offer better local transit.

 

Fine. How? How is Ohio different in a way that doesn't favor this undertaking? Let's see some facts so that there is something other than your opinion to debate. There is no point in "engaging" ideas if they are not grounded in fact. We might as well debate what Ohio would be like if cars had warp drive.

 

Welcome back, 327!  :wave:

Yes. This is a non-debate. If you wish to pursue it, try using PM and spare the rest of us.

The reason why there are huge gaps in the schedule is because the operating subsidy isn't large enough to support more frequent service. Is spending $17 million per year too much and getting only three daily round trips? Or would we rather spend $30 million per year and get five or six daily round trips? Are we politically ready to spend that much to get that much? Is the market ready for that much train service right away? Those are the issues that ODOT/ORDC and Amtrak have grappled with.

 

It's a tough call.  I think timing is probably more important than frequency, and more revenue neutral as well.  Have we seen a study yet that examines the most likely uses for 3C, i.e. the most likely purposes of 3C patrons?  Schedule decisions should probably come down to that.  There will be outliers, like the guy flying in from Hawaii, but trends are likely to emerge.  Obligatory football example:  There are a lot of NFL fans in Columbus.  The dispatchers at the freight RRs might as well prepare for that right now.

Here are two unfortunate bills that could get worse with mischevious anti-3C amendments....

 

OHIO HOUSE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE

 

Tue., May. 11, 2010, 4:00 PM, Hearing Room 121

 

SB116  RAILROADS (BUEHRER S) To authorize the PUCO to hear complaints, regarding a railroad's failure to properly sustain certain areas near its tracks and to authorize forfeiture for noncompliance and to update certain provisions of law governing railroads.

 

            Second Hearing, Proponent Testimony

 

 

OHIO SENATE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

 

Wed., May. 12, 2010, 3:30 PM, South Hearing Room

 

SB179  AMERICAN RECOVERY/REINVESTMENT FUNDS (GRENDELL T) To prohibit spending American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds on signs that identify the source of specific project funding and to declare an emergency.

 

            Second Hearing, All Testimony, POSSIBLE VOTE

SB116 RAILROADS (BUEHRER S) To authorize the PUCO to hear complaints, regarding a railroad's failure to properly sustain certain areas near its tracks and to authorize forfeiture for noncompliance and to update certain provisions of law governing railroads.

 

So the supposedly "business friendly" Republicans are now going to subject the railroads to the whims of every jurisdiction through which pass it's tracks? A cynical interpretation would even be worse.

 

SB179 AMERICAN RECOVERY/REINVESTMENT FUNDS (GRENDELL T) To prohibit spending American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds on signs that identify the source of specific project funding and to declare an emergency.

 

Gee, and this would have nothing to do with the fact that this is a mid-term election year, would it?

 

Of course, I'd be happy if there was a complete ban on the use of taxpayer money to create any sign which could be used for political  purposes (including signs welcoming people to Ohio which have the name of the governor). But a counter argument could be made that such signs are necessary to inform the people how, where and by whom their money is being spent

 

More Ohio myopia. The only good thing I can say is that since Democrats control the House this will likely not see the light of day. Even if it passed both houses, the Governor would veto this.

SB116 doesn't sound so nuts.  The snippet we've got here says the freight companies (who aren't exactly widows and orphans) need to maintain their property or they risk forfeiting it.  This is neither draconinan nor revolutionary.  Of course the snippet suggests a lot more TBD, and we don't know exactly what. 

 

If Ohio gained ownership of its rail corridors, and the lessor/lessee relationship were flipped, would that not be beneficial for passenger rail?  As it stands now we're at the mercy of private sector decision-makers, who are obligated to please their customers and shareholders before they lift a finger to help passenger rail.

You are dreaming if you think the railroads are going to do anything that causes them to lose control over corridors they own.  So don't look for a whole lot of rail corridor to land in the State of Ohio's hands.

 

That said, the railroads have plenty incentive to do more than just "lift a finger to help passenger rail".  There will be huge dollars spent on upgrading the 3C (and other corridors in the future) with new track, signals, etc, in order to enable passenger rail.  These same improvements will increase capacity and flow for the freight railroads as well.  Both NS and CSX have already lifted more than finger to help passenger rail by issuing letters in support of the 3C project. The freight railroads have actually expressed interest in operating the 3C.

 

The attitude of the freight railroads toward passenger service is much better than it was a decade ago.

SB116 doesn't sound so nuts.  The snippet we've got here says the freight companies (who aren't exactly widows and orphans) need to maintain their property or they risk forfeiting it.  This is neither draconinan nor revolutionary.  Of course the snippet suggests a lot more TBD, and we don't know exactly what. 

 

If Ohio gained ownership of its rail corridors, and the lessor/lessee relationship were flipped, would that not be beneficial for passenger rail?  As it stands now we're at the mercy of private sector decision-makers, who are obligated to please their customers and shareholders before they lift a finger to help passenger rail.

 

Three words: Ain't gonna happen. Interstate commerce trumps state and local law. That's why St. Louis area Missouri has dumped its trash in Illinois for years, despite efforts of residents to stop it.

 

this is just more Tea Party/Republican delusional thinking.  :?

Let me get this straight: as a result of a Republican action, private property could be taken by the state? If the Democrats did this, how do we think the Republicans would respond?

SB116 doesn't sound so nuts.  The snippet we've got here says the freight companies (who aren't exactly widows and orphans) need to maintain their property or they risk forfeiting it.

 

No, the forfeiture refers to the penalty for non-compliance, not forfeiting the property.

 

Furthermore, the law adds provision that each day in which the property is not in compliance represents a separate violation. The new law does not require that the notice of violation be directed to an officer of the corporation and, in fact, allows it to be delivered to a track supervisor. Under the old law, if the railroad didn't comply, the local jurisdiction had the obligation to perform the required work and then could pass the cost plus interest through to the railroad. Under the new law, the local authorities simply file a complaint with the PUC.

 

What this does is increase the threat of nuisance complaints since the the municipality no longer has the burden of completing the work and then asking for reimbursement. Prior to this, the municipality needed to determine that the improvements/maintenance was necessary enough that they needed to do this, themselves.

 

I'm not getting behind a bill that I've only read one sentence about.  And yeah, I doubt a Republican bill would ever really lead to state ownership.  But the fact remains that Ohio is split about 50/50, with its population on a southern trend, so if we can't work with Republicans in some way we're sunk.  In a general sense, I support removing burdens from municipalities.  I don't see why they should have to fix problems caused by private companies and wait for a bill to be paid.  We're getting closer to a situation where our municipalities can no longer do that financially.

 

Again, it's not necessarily a good bill and it may be a very bad one.  Summary descriptions of bills are often misleading.  But we do not want this project to become a partisan pissing contest at the state level.  To the extent that it already is, we need to take steps to find common ground.  It does us no good for 3C to be viewed as a "liberal plan" supported primarily by outsiders and enthusiasts.  All these people who we find so nuts and so wrong... we need them.  We might not be able to do this without them, at least some of them.   

 

Not to belabor a point that is getting far afield of 3C, there are a few points worth remembering.

 

First, the days of the Robber Barons are over, not that this is particularly good since, in their heyday, the railroads were one of the country's largest employers. Today's railroads are not "widows and orphans" but they are businesses that need to make a profit and pay taxes to every municipality in which they have a right of way.

 

Businesses looking to remain profitable have to look at all costs including the cost of complying with mandates.

 

While I agree that under the old system, the municipalities carried the burden of financing the maintenance/upgrade and getting paid on the back end the new system, potentially, swings to far the other way in absolving the municipality for any responsibility.  All the muni needs to do is notify the railroad that they desire improvements and if they don't like the response they can file a complaint with the PUC. Ignoring, for a moment, the likelihood that the tracks existed long before the municipality, this is a no-risk proposition for the municipality and has the potential to lead to nuisance complaints which will drive up costs.

 

Not only that, but the law no longer requires what amounts to a legal notification to be made to an officer of the company. Now it is sufficient to notify a supervisor.

 

If that same logic were applied to civil suits, it would be sufficient to tell a Wal-Mart manager that you were suing the company for sex discrimination.

 

The sponsor of the bill noted that drafted this legislation in response to a complaint made by a single county engineer who was frustrated that the railroad was not responding to his requests to clear vegetation. It was not clear from the press release whether the county engineer was even justified in his requests, nonetheless, this becomes a problem requiring legislative action?

 

Legislation should require a little more forethought than this.

 

 

Thanks. But my point for posting those bill summaries was to give a heads-up that some anti-3C amendments may be added to them. We'll see what happens...

Let me get this straight: as a result of a Republican action, private property could be taken by the state? If the Democrats did this, how do we think the Republicans would respond?

 

But its different when Republicans do it. Then it's OK! :roll:

Thanks. But my point for posting those bill summaries was to give a heads-up that some anti-3C amendments may be added to them. We'll see what happens...

 

Understood. My point was a little more subtle, specifically, that as an example of private enterprise freed from onerous government regulation, the railroads should be a poster child for American political conservatism. Yet SB 116 is clearly anti-railroad in that it puts the burden of proof on the railroads in disputes regarding ROW maintenance and safety.

 

 

FRA seeking comment on HSR track and vehicle standards    

Monday, May 10, 2010 

 

The Federal Railroad Administration has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend two existing rules, “Track Safety Standards” and “Passenger Equipment Safety Standards,” specifically, those sections applicable to high speed and high cant deficiency train operations. FRA said it is modifying the existing rules “in order to promote the safe interaction of rail vehicles with the track over which they operate.”

 

FRA’s proposed changes “would revise existing limits for vehicle response to track perturbations and add new limits as well,” the agency published in The Federal Register. “The proposal accounts for a range of vehicle types that are currently used and may likely be used on future high speed or high cant deficiency rail operations, or both. The proposal is based on the results of simulation studies designed to identify track geometry irregularities associated with unsafe wheel/ rail forces and accelerations, thorough reviews of vehicle qualification and revenue service test data, and consideration of international practices.”

full story at:

 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/fra-seeking-comment-on-hsr-track-and-vehicle-standards.html

Given the debate on these pages over projected speeds of 3C trains, I thought this piece from the Chicago Sun Times was particularly good in pointing out that it isn't always about speed.

 

Speed thrills, but delays matter

CHICAGO TO ST. LOUIS RAIL | Planners see upgrades in equipment, track as keys to success

May 10, 2010

BY MARY WISNIEWSKI The Ride

 

I recently took a trip on Amtrak's "Lincoln Service" to see how that $1.2 billion in high-speed rail money would be spent.

 

I was curious because compared with the massive high-speed rail bridges being built in China, the plans for the Chicago/St. Louis route seem prosaic -- better signaling, track improvements -- yawn! As critics of the Obama administration's rail plan point out, Illinois isn't getting 220 mph bullet trains; we're getting Amtrak trains going at most 110 mph, as fast as the fastest passenger trains ran in the 1930s. Why the fuss?

 

I got a better lesson than I expected. On the return trip, while my Chicago-bound train was on a siding, waiting for a southbound train to pass on the route's single track, the southbound got hit by a car in Pontiac.

 

The non-fatal accident stranded both trains for four hours. I spent a contemplative afternoon watching pheasants in a stubbled cornfield.

 

Full story at: http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/2253816,CST-NWS-ride10.article#

Given the debate on these pages over projected speeds of 3C trains, I thought this piece from the Chicago Sun Times was particularly good in pointing out that it isn't always about speed.

 

Or at least not about top speed. It's about average speed. It's why VIA's 95 mph Toronto-Montreal trains beat Amtrak's 150 mph Boston-New York trains. VIA's fastest trains average 73 mph; Amtrak's Acela averages just 65 mph.

 

The reason? VIA's trains only slow down for station stops. Amtrak's trains slow down/speed up for stations, sharp curves, old bridges, miles of bad catenary wires and many more right of way deficiencies. Since there's never enough money to do everything you want, Illinois is smartly dealing with the deficiencies first.

High-Speed Rail Lobbying Campaign Revives the “$4B” Rallying Cry

by Elana Schor on May 11, 2010

 

The lobbying coalition that helped prod Congress into approving $2.5 billion for high-speed rail last year -- twice as much as the Senate had originally set aside -- today kicked off a new campaign urging lawmakers to approve $4 billion for bullet trains next year and $2.6 billion for Amtrak.

 

At an event in the capital's Union Station, groups as disparate as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the infrastructure reform advocates at Transportation for America linked arms to push for the maximum amount of federal funding, as well as a dedicated long-term source of high-speed rail revenue.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/05/11/high-speed-rail-lobbying-campaign-revives-the-4b-rallying-cry/

I don't the Acela's Average speed is really 60-70 i put it at 90-110mph along most of the corridor and tops 130-50 after hours which is 11pm-5am.  Hopefully with all the upgrades going on it should be 150 average by the end of the decade and with the New Fleets up to 200mph Tops.... :-D

Where should temporary rail station go?

City council wants it in city; county

commissioner prefers east side

 

By Jessica Brown • [email protected] • May

11, 2010

 

Where should local officials put a temporary

train station for Ohio's planned intercity

passenger rail?

 

That question has prompted a mini tug-of-war

between Cincinnati City Council and a Hamilton

County commissioner, who plans to bring up the

issue Wednesday.

 

Full story at: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100511/NEWS0108/5120363/Where+should++rail+station+go?