I know this is old news, but Joe Calabrese is heading the statewide transit group Ohio Public Transit Association (see press release below). There is now a push by OPTA to get the state to commit about $200 million per year for transit (up from the current $16 million, or even the $40 million provided just five years ago) to bring us up to par with our neighboring states. Perhaps half of that $200 million would be for operations and the other half for capital. Negotiations may ultimately provide a different number.

 

Anyway, I'm starting this string to get ideas and discussion about the current state of transit funding in Ohio and am anticipating there will be news coverage of OPTA's push to change the pathetic levels of funding to something more respectable.

 

Here's the release....

____________________

 

RTA News

May 19, 2006

 

Joe Calabrese elected head of state transit group

 

CLEVELAND – Joe Calabrese, CEO and General Manager of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), today was elected President of the Ohio Public Transit Association (OPTA).

 

Other officers elected at the annual meeting:

 

Vice President: Charles Odimgbe, CEO and Executive Director, Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA), Canton

Secretary: Rich Schultze, Executive Director, Greene County Community Action Transportation System (CATS), Xenia

Vice President, Small Urban/Rural Systems: Kristena Fenelson, Transit Director, Geauga County Transit, Chardon

Vice President, Associate Members: Khaled Shammout, Senior Transportation Planner, TransSystems Corp., Dublin

 

Calabrese has been active in OPTA since coming to RTA in 2000. He previously served two terms as President of the New York State Public Transportation Association, the largest state trade association of its kind in the nation.

 

Calabrese wants to work with State officials to increase funding for public transit. In recent years, that funding has been cut by 63 percent.

 

Calabrese, a public transit veteran of more than 30 years, is also on the Board of Directors of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

 

Most transit systems in Ohio belong to OPTA. Member agencies serve more than 500,000 Ohioans daily.

 

For more information:

 

Go to www.ohiopublictransit.org

Call 614-481-9500

Send e-mail to [email protected]

And with state funding in hand, local transit agencies can leverage federal transit dollars, including from a new $200 million program called Small Starts (ideal for projects like Cleveland-Lorain regional rail, the Columbus streetcar, Cincinnati's transit efforts and Toledo's central circulator streetcar). While the U.S. House proposed to zero-out Small Starts, there is an effort underway in the Senate to restore some funding for it....

___________________

 

Please note that the House has left $183.6 million unearmarked while the Senate has left $100.9 million unearmarked.  Thus, while the two houses did not specifically fund the Small Starts program, there is room on both bills and during conference to designate funding for Small Starts.  The Senate is expected to pass the bill in September. Conference is not expected until after the November elections as the bill will likely be included in an Omnibus Appropriations bill.

 

If you have Senators that support Small Starts, please contact:

 

Jeff Boothe

Executive Director

Community Streetcar Coalition

2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100

Washington, DC  20006

Direct 202-828-1896

Fax    202-955-5564

Email  [email protected]

 

Approach senators about speaking with TTHUD Subcommittee Chairman Kit Bond about making monies available for Small Starts in the final conference bill.  In addition, a letter should be sent from both the House and Senate urging that monies be set aside for Small Starts projects.

Contact Jeff Boothe to if you would be willing to contact your Congressional delegation.

By comparison, when Ohio spent $20 million on public transit in FY 2003 (about $1.81 per capita), the District of Columbia spent $198 million, or $352 per capita (DC gov't spending per DC resident, not Metro spending).  Granted, we don't have a dedicated local funding source, like RTA does, but we certainly pay a much larger share in fares.

 

Ohio spent less on public transportation per capita than such urban powerhouses as Delaware, North Carolina, Vermont, Indiana, Iowa, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Kansas.

 

More good stuff here:

 

http://downloads.transportation.org/scopt-funding_survey.pdf

States like Wyoming aren't dense so public transportation isn't as efficient, so it means a higher cost.

It seems like funding for transit has fallen as Ohio's population base has shifted from Cities to Townships.

States like Wyoming aren't dense so public transportation isn't as efficient, so it means a higher cost.

 

There are plenty of urban areas where transit is expensive to provide, namely dial-a-ride services for the handicapped (essentially equivalent to rural transit), which is often supplemental to fixed-route service.

 

How do you justify a city of 565,000 spending 10 times more than a state of 11 million? 

 

New Jersey, a smaller state in area with 8.6 million people, spent more than 40 times as much as Ohio, or 52 times more per person.

 

No matter how you slice it, Ohio has terrible transportation policy for a heavily urbanized state, and the funding to match it. 

I'm not an expert on public transportation but I agree that Ohio doesn't spend enough money to fund it. I was simply providing a possible reason (or atleast part of the reason) why. If ridership is lower in Wyoming and buses have to be driven farther because of less density, when gas and maintenance on buses as well as a constant driver are still required, that could be part of the reason.

Why doesn't Ohio use BONDS? Colorado has and has been very successful.

I think KJP's point (and Joe C's as well) is that transit needs a steady, reliable funding stream (as do highways in Ohio), so local transit systems don't have to continuously go back to voters to pass sales tax levies or bond issues.  As long as the bulk of transportation spending in Ohio goes toward highways almot exlcusively, transit at all levels (big, moderate or small city) will continue to provide service that reflects the lack of decent funding.

 

Identifying and securing a funding source will be the challenge that Ohio legislators will throw back at Joe C. and the folks at OPTA. Much as I'd like to see the issue dealt with, I am not optimistic that the current legislature will do anything until after the November election.

Thanks, Noozer. It seems this discussion had taken some bizarre turns since I posted those first two messages.

 

First, let's look at what states comparable to Ohio (in terms of population, density and multiple urban centers) are putting into transit (we'll get to the metro spending later). The chart Dan supplied is good, and shows what the state governments in...

 

Michigan - $207.8m

Minnesota - $229.2m

North Carolina - $91.65m

Pennsylvania - $823.8m

Wisconsin - $108.9m

 

...are providing compared to Ohio's meager $20.7m (in 2003). My understanding is that those numbers are roughly about the same today -- though Ohio's continues to fall.

 

As for the metro area spending, comparing D.C. to Ohio is not a good comparison. The point is not to compare a city to a state, but to compare a state to a state. Use Virginia if you want to make a good point -- and there is a good point to make, as Virginia provided $131.5 million to transit in 2003.

 

Comparing transit funding within Cleveland to D.C.'s, that's not so different. GCRTA's annual budget is about $250 million, but they also have to make up for the lack of state help (as does every other transit agency in this state). And that's the point I'm trying to get at with this thread. They have to go it alone, and are limited in their ability to expand to better serve their regions.

 

States like Wyoming aren't dense so public transportation isn't as efficient, so it means a higher cost.

 

Actually, it means there's almost no transit service in Wyoming compared to what Ohio has. Where there is less density, there invariably is less transit, and thus less transit funding. Ohio, as the 7th most populous state in the nation, ranked 23rd in the nation in total transit funding provided by the state.

 

That stinks. And you thought Ohio only wasn't able to figure out how to fund education? Guess again. We can't figure out how to provide for balanced transport choices within our urbanized regions either.

Ah, now we're getting into semantics, aren't we KJP?

 

 

 

I don't understand. Compare a city to a city, and a state to a state. How is that semantics?

One could make the argument that DC is almost a state. Still, it really isn't an accurate comparison to compare its transportation spending to that of a true state, since it is an entirely urbanized district.

Here's an insane little thought that fell out of a breakfast table discussion; using COTA's shameful recent abandonment of proposed light rail in Columbus, what use would a referendum serve? You know, get this baby on the ballot.

 

The cynical part of me says it would be a disaster; our meager efforts to enlighten the populace would be overwhelmed by the highway building constituency floating a well-funded armada of lie-filled stink balloons out there. The optimistic side says that gas pains and a growing discontent with the direction of the country might foment a light rail revolution at the ballot box.

 

Win or lose, the angry young me says it's better to be slaughtered kicking and punching in broad daylight than to be smothered quietly in your crib. And right now, it's very, very quiet in the nursery.

I don't understand. Compare a city to a city, and a state to a state. How is that semantics?

 

Well, we *do* have our own DMV, you know.  :-)  Actually, DC is an odd duck because it functions as a city, county, and a state. 

 

I'm sure if you took the numbers for DC's transit funding, and compared them to the combined city/county/state funding for Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati, we're still spending a buttload more money per-capita. 

 

Mind you, since we don't have a dedicated source of revenue (like Cuyahoga County's 1% sales tax levy for RTA) the District transit spending comes directly from the General Fund.  In that regard, it really isn't all that different from how the State of Ohio funds transit.

 

Let's not lose the important point, though:  for a heavily populated and urbanized state, Ohio invests very little money in transit--even compared to Michigan, which aside from Lansing and Ann Arbor, has third-world public transportation.  The transit advocacy group in Detroit (TRU) loves to complain that the state constitution puts a cap on transit funding of 10% of all transportation funding.  That's still 10% more than Ohio allows.  With combined with the excessive highway spending, is it any wonder that Ohio's cities have lost so much urban character?

 

I know I'm preaching to the choir.  I just hate it when numbers confirm how backward Ohio's priorities are.

Poll: transit aid wanted, no taxes

Survey says Virginians oppose remedies pressed by politicians

BY JEFF E. SCHAPIRO

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, August 1, 2006

 

 

Most Virginians say the legislature should fix transportation. They just don't want to pay for it.

 

The Times-Dispatch Poll shows two in three voters want the General Assembly to address road-and-rail problems. However, Virginians oppose most solutions pressed by lawmakers and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, including new taxes and spending cuts.This story can be found at: http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149189719856&path=%21news&s=1045855934842

 

 

Super. Lets improve transit WITHOUT paying for it. Federal grants please?

Kingfish... that may not be that far-fetched.  Given that buses run on (and depend upon) streets that are built and re-built with local and state dollars, why don't local transit systems capture the investment of these dollars as a local match to leverage against larger $$$$ from the FTA? Think of the $$$ being invested in the Euclid Corridor.  Think of the $$$ Columbus spent on improving North High Street in 2005 through the Clintonville area (which included new concrete bus pads for COTA stops).

 

See where I'm going with this?  It's a way to stretch limited $$$ into more $$$.

See the series of articles I posted a few days ago in the Cleveland-Lorain Commuter Rail thread. Many of those articles note that transit investments, especially for rail transit, are increasingly being financed by private investments in transit-oriented developments along the proposed rail corridor.

 

Using the existing, locally funded roadways is an excellent idea for funding transit investments. But federal funding is incredibly difficult to secure. And next year will be the last that the federal Highway Trust Fund, from which most federal transit capital grants are sourced, will have a positive account balance. Barring significant additional revenues, the HTF is projected to have a deficit of more than $2 billion in 2008, that is projected to worsen to nearly $22 billion by 2012. Federal funding for highways and transit will have to be cut in half in order to avoid the deficits -- or more revenue sources are needed.

 

I just finished researching and writing an article about this impending crisis for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association newsletter. I would encourage all of you to learn about this serious problem by visiting:

 

http://www.surfacecommission.gov/

^ Harrowing news about the trust fund. Time to switch to a percentage-based gas tax, everyone. That's how they do it in Michigan, I believe, but that money is strictly for roads.

 

But back up to funding rail with Federal money, should those dollars continue to exist, I say to all localities: jump into the trough NOW! Here's an item I came across in TRAINS magazine. (Yes, TRAINS magazine; my son's a train fanatic. So what if he's only three. You should see all the great pictures):

 

Utah Transit Authority on June 19 received a $489 million Full Funding Grant Agreement from the U.S. Department of Transportation for its FrontRunner commuter service. The 44-mile line will link Weber County (Ogden) and Salt Lake City, and is expected to open in late 2008.

 

There's also an explosive article on the FRA upholding the safety remote-control switching despite the mixed factors of rising accidents and dropping injuries, but I'm saving that for a different forum.

Harrowing news about the trust fund. Time to switch to a percentage-based gas tax, everyone. That's how they do it in Michigan, I believe, but that money is strictly for roads.

 

Actually, Michigan's gas tax is fixed at $0.19875/gallon.  Constitutionally, Michigan is prevented from spending more than 10% of its transportation budget on transit (This provision dates to the 1950s).  There was an increase passed around 1997, I believe, which was written such that all of the gas tax increase had to be spent on roads.  Therefore, the actual percentage of Michigan's transportation dollars spent on transit is about 8%. 

 

 

Ah, I stand corrected. My mind was clouded by my old bosses' mewling about the windfall the state was reaping from the gas tax, and how they needed to cap it in order to control gas prices.

 

Incidentally, he drove a Dodge Dakota, his wife, a Hummer.

Wow. Let's see.... Oil prices have contributed to more than a $1.50-worth of increase since only last year and the state gas tax has risen by just six cents over the last three years (to the painful sum of 24 cents). So, it's pretty clear that's where the problem lies!

 

And, I'm not sure I understand how turning the roadways of this state into an imitation of the moon's cratered surface is a good idea. But since they have such heavy-duty, gas-hogging, ready-to-run-off-road vehicles, I guess they just don't care!

^The scary thing about the old boss was that he was the publisher of a newspaper. The "cap-the-gas-tax" issue was the only one he seemed to care about, and he spewed his twisted views with a vengeance from the editorial page. What a creepy, misguided loser he was.

 

And, I'm not sure I understand how turning the roadways of this state into an imitation of the moon's cratered surface is a good idea.

 

I suppose once the roadways are finally obliterated, people might be more open to the alternatives.

 

Hmm. There's got to be a better way.

Catch this news from next door in Pennsylvania.... Once again, Ohio gets embarrassed by it's neighbors....

 

August 7, 2006

Pennsylvania plans transit and rail freight spending

railwayage.com

 

Pennsylvania's Transportation Commission has approved a four-year investment program that includes $9.4 billion for public transit improvements and $174 million for freight rail projects. The new plan, announced Aug. 3, also lists $9 billion for highways and bridges and $614 million for aviation projects.

 

Pennsylvania is perennially short of funds to carry out its transportation plans. A report is due Nov.15 from the Transportation Funding and Reform Commission, which Gov. Edward G. Rendell created in 2005 to explore funding mechanisms.

 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml

I guess I shouldn't be shocked, but I am anyway. Nice find, Noozer.

I think most of Michigan's transit budget goes to subsidizing Amtrak routes to Chicago.  They have 3 dead end routes (Pontiac, Detroit, Grand Rapids) that would probably be cut if it wasn't for the states heavy subsidy(Although I believe the Detroit route connects to VIA Rail Canada...so t's not really a true dead end).  Ohio doesn't need to subsidize Amtrak because the routes pass through to points east.  So comparing MI to OH is not really a good comparision.

The Detroit-Chicago route has no state funded trains (in terms of operating subsidy) but the state has put some bucks into upgrading stations and bringing the section between Kalamazoo, MI and Porter, IN up to 110 mph standards. Only one of the Chicago-Detroit trains has a schedule that allows a connection with VIA's Windsor-Toronto service, but requires a taxi ride across the border or a few bus transfers. But you are correct that the other two Michigan routes (Chicago-Grand Rapids and Chicago-Port Huron) are state subsidized and are in constant jeopardy because their funding is subjected to the whims of the political process -- just as Amtrak is every year in Washington D.C.

Ohio doesn't need to subsidize Amtrak because the routes pass through to points east.  So comparing MI to OH is not really a good comparision.

 

Okay, then.  Let's make a comparison of Ohio to Illinois.  Would that be better for you?

 

The reality is, no state needs to subsidize Amtrak service.  Some choose to do so, though, because they know it's a better investment than say, widening I-71 for it's full length.

What other cities does Amtrak serve in Ohio other than Cleveland?

^A resounding NOT Columbus, that's for damn sure.

Bryan, Toledo, Sandusky, Elyria, Alliance, Cincinnati

Lakeshore Limited(CHI to NYC) and Capitol Limited(CHI to DC)

Bryan, OH (BYN)

 

Toledo, OH (TOL)

 

Sandusky, OH (SKY)

 

Elyria, OH (ELY)

 

Cleveland, OH (CLE)

 

Alliance, OH (ALC)

 

Cardinial/Hoosier State(CHI to DC then NYC)

 

Cincinnati - Union Station, OH (CIN)

 

(When I rode this one to Cincy, I could have sworn it stopped in Hamilton...but the station is not listed on Amtrak's website)

 

Man, right now, all I can do is dream about KJP's proposed high-speed rail plan.  I'd love to be able to get on a train and go back to Cleveland for a weekend.  But there's only one train a day.  And it takes 12 hours. 

 

Yuck.

 

 

Also, along the Cardinal route, several cross-river stations serve Ohio cities, such as:

 

Mayville KY station --> Aberdeen, OH

South Portsmouth KY station --> Portsmouth, OH

Ashland KY station --> Ironton, OH

Huntington WV station --> Chesapeake/South Point, OH

 

(When I rode this one to Cincy, I could have sworn it stopped in Hamilton...but the station is not listed on Amtrak's website)

 

It did, but not anymore. Hamilton was dropped as a station because of low ridership. Think about that. Hamilton, with a population of 61,943 in 2005, couldn't generate as much ridership as towns in West Virginia having less than 1/10th the population. The reason? The Cardinal (operates only three days a week) serves West Virginia cities in daylight hours and served Hamilton between 3-4 a.m. in both directions.

 

There is some interest in putting a station on this same at Oxford to serve Miami University, but the city, Amtrak, CSX, and the Federal Railroad Administration are haggling over platform heights to meet ADA requirements. Make the platforms level with the train's floor, and wide freight loads on CSX can't get past. Make the platform low, and it won't meet ADA requirements. Build another, passenger-only track at the station, and the city can no longer afford to pay for the station. Sometimes ADA regulations prevent access!

 

Rant over...

KJP, how does ADA treat low-platform stations?  Are they grandfathered in?  I've been at low platform stations (say, Alexandria, VA) where the conductors help handicapped and elderly people board and alight.  Never mind that some of these stations on the NE Corridor (like Alexandria) also serve as commuter rail stations.  I don't see how a low-platform Oxford station would be such a problem, especially since it would see (at most) one train a day (for now). 

I've taken VIA rail from Windsor (Walkerville) to Toronto several times. Platforms there vary from station to station, but their trains are equipped with hydraulic lifts to accomodate handicapped passengers. Obviously ADA has no impact in Canada, but it seems to be a workable workaround. I know ADA standards are very strict when it comes to public places, but city buses aren't expected to level up with a platform to accept special-needs passengers. A strong case could be made for the lift-compromise. The multi-agency grab ass games described above seem like a budgetary stall tactic to me.

I wrote an article recently for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association newsletter on this issue. I can post the unedited copy when I get home from work. It answers some of the questions posed here.

These proposed ADA platform standards are pretty uniformly opposed by State DOT's, passenger rail advocacy groups and even some advocates for the handicapped.  The general opinion of all of these groups is that adopting these proposed standards by the FRA would actually make rail travel less accessible for the disabled.  It's not just the cost, but the fact (as KJP has mentioned) that it is an engineering nightmare that would conflict with the movement of freight trains is problematic.

 

There are far better and easier ways to accomplish access challenges.  Many stations already have either ramps or lift-mechanisms (such as you can find in Cleveland's Terminal Tower RTA station.

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission is also recommending against the proposed FRA rule changes. 

 

Here's the unedited article...

___________________

 

Federal platform regulations may not be on the level

May have serious impacts on the viability of some train services

By Ken Prendergast

 

Should access to passenger trains by disabled persons be ensured through better train design, or by uniform station platform standards? According to new, more specific “level boarding” federal regulations, the answer is the latter.

 

A number of rail industry officials, state officials and advocacy groups said that choice poses operational and financial hardships that could affect the viability of some commuter and intercity train services, both current and proposed.

 

The end result is that disabled persons, for whom the regulations are intended to give greater access, could become less mobile if fewer stations or train frequencies can be afforded, said Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. He and other critics of the federal regulations stress that they fully support the need for level boarding, but that it should be achieved with greater emphasis on better rolling stock, rather than by changing fixed facilities.

 

But federal regulatory officials say that critics of the regulations are overreacting and should note that there are numerous, flexible ways of adhering to the level-boarding standards. Critics counter that meeting and maintaining the federal definition of level boarding on a consistent basis is virtually impossible.

 

The more specific regulations -- 49 CFR Part 37, Appendix A, §10.3.1(9) -- were issued Sept. 1, 2005 at the behest of the Federal Transit Administration’s Office of Civil Rights, which oversees disabled passenger access to all common-carrier modes of transportation. They made more specific rules adopted in 1991, which followed the passage of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990.

 

The level-boarding definition specifies a horizontal gap of no more than 3 inches between the edge of the platform and the train’s doorway, and a vertical gap from the top of the platform and the floor of the train’s doorway of no more than 5/8 inches (or 1.5 inches for existing trains serving new stations).

 

Also, the clarified rules are more expansive, by requiring that every car on a passenger train be accessible to disabled patrons -- called full-length level boarding. Under the old rules, at least one rail car had to be accessible. Lastly, there must be a 6-foot clearance between the trackside edge of a platform and any obstruction, such as a stairwell, elevator shaft or seating.

 

Michael Winter, director of the FTA’s Office of Civil Rights did not return calls seeking comment. Paul Griffo, FTA’s associate administrator for public relations, referred inquiries about the regulations to the FTA Web site.

 

“Level boarding for all cars of a train is significant because, if passengers with disabilities are unable to enter all cars from the platform, the passengers will have access only to segregated service. This would be inconsistent with the nondiscrimination mandate of the ADA,” according to a written statement by the FTA.

 

Ironically, the FTA acknowledges that it won’t always be feasible for affected parties to meet and maintain level boarding.

 

“Freight rail track sharing, ballast compression and tamping, track and wheel wear, and/or rail car sway or roll contribute to this infeasibility,” the FTA statement said. But another factor complicates matters.

 

“There are also different boarding levels for different types of (passenger) cars which can operate on the same track, or even the same train,” said Jonathon Hutchison, a planner with the Oregon Department of Transportation. He is chairing a committee of multiple state departments of transportation and Amtrak to design the next generation of single-level passenger cars. “True level boarding isn’t operationally feasible. What is the happy medium?”

 

The current standard for platform surface height is 4-8 inches above the head of the rail. Doorway floors in Amtrak’s Superliner cars are 15 inches above the rail and, for Amfleet/Horizon cars, it’s 51 inches. FTA’s regulations do not allow for a passenger to step down, or for a wheelchair to roll down from a station platform into a rail car.

 

“The regulations are written in such a way that no car complies with it,” said John Roach, president of Roach Consulting Inc. in St. Louis, who prepared the bid specifications for the new Gateway Transportation Center.

 

Those specifications had to be changed with more expensive ones to meet the more detailed regulations. Getting the waiver from the FRA also delayed the station’s opening by months. Other projects have experienced similar delays, given the sheer number of station projects that must be reviewed and the limited FRA staffing to review them. Critics noted that there are far fewer types of train equipment, and they can be more effectively regulated and altered if they fail to comply.

 

The new level-boarding rules acknowledge that all the real-world complications are causing their infeasibility and, that on a case-by-case basis, disabled access can be addressed by adding lifts, extendable bridge plates, mini-highs (sections of platforms that ramp up higher than the rest) or other components to the trains or platforms. In those situations, the Federal Railroad Administration may issue a waiver.

 

“If someone files a lawsuit, it (the waiver) doesn’t fully protect you,” Roach added. “It also creates a situation where they (the FRA) are a potential defendant.”

 

But, in mixed-traffic environments, where there are freight trains, including over-dimensional loads, the FTA and FRA recommend that level boarding be assured by other, more expensive options. Those solutions may involve building a station-only siding track or a gauntlet track that, when having interlocked turnouts at each end, could add millions of dollars to the cost of building or retrofitting each station.

 

“In considering the facts at a given station, FTA and FRA do not view the fact that providing full-length level boarding may entail some disadvantages or additional costs, standing alone, as demonstrating infeasibility,” the FTA statement said.

 

“I think it (level boarding) has huge implications for stations, equipment, tracks, signals and the overall planning efforts for the Ohio Hub,” said Don Damron, passenger rail planner for the Ohio Rail Development Commission. The Ohio Hub System, undergoing economic-impact planning by the ORDC, is a proposed $3.2 bilion network of 110-mph passenger trains and improved freight capacity on 860 route miles serving 22 million people in four states as well as Ontario. More than 30 train stations are envisioned.

 

For the Ohio Hub System and other new rail services that will require stations to be constructed, the federal level-boarding requirements may make some of those stations too expensive. Depending on the projected ridership at those stations, some may not get built if there’s another station within a “reasonable” proximity, Harnish said.

 

Other critics are even more outspoken.

 

“All of the options for meeting level-boarding requirements are wholly and completely unacceptable for safety reasons,” said D.J. Mitchell, assistant vice president of passenger operations at Burlington Northern Santa Fe. “They create opportunities for mistakes.”

 

Recently, a BNSF freight train went into a passenger siding at the Norwalk, Calif. station when a dispatcher forgot to line the switches for the main track. Other times, Mitchell said, dispatchers forget to line the switches for the siding and the passenger train takes the main track, requiring the train to either back up or board passengers from a wooden platform across the siding.

 

“The way it used to work is that we would meet with the disabled community and ask them what is the best way to meet their needs,” Mitchell said. “We can accommodate them in a thousand ways, just don’t do it with the physical plant. But some guy in the federal government decides they know how to do it best.”

 

“Unfortunately, people have chosen not to read the regulations the way they were intended,” said Richard Cogswell, program manager of railroad operations in the FRA’s passenger programs division. “Freight is not as big an issue as people make it out to be. There’s some routes where they’ve never had an over-dimensional load. Then we say ‘hey fellas, don’t waste your money.’ You have to look at each route and each set of circumstances.”

 

He pointed out the need to evaluate each site on its unique characteristics, including the frequency that over-dimensional freight loads travel past a given station.

 

Mitchell noted that, where mixed traffic is on the platform-adjacent track, platforms taller than 18 inches violate BNSF’s freight clearances. He was also concerned that extendable platforms can fail and be struck by freight trains.

 

“The regulations interfere with interstate commerce. But if you go to the STB (Surface Transportation Board), you will lose. If that’s the case, we’d rather not have to deal with passenger trains,” Mitchell said.

 

“It’s the kind of thing that’s done by a (presidential) administration who is not in favor of these things (passenger trains),” Roach said. “And they don’t bring any money with the regulations.”

 

All agree that level boarding is desirable. But the critics are nearly unanimous in arguing that the new, more specific federal regulations should be revisited to address train equipment, not station design.

 

To leave the regulations as they are, they further argue, may end up making less mobile a growing segment of the population for whom the regulations were intended to mobilize. Yet, the only thing mobilized thus far is the debate on how to best accomplish that worthy goal.

 

END

Cash-strapped RTA wants more state money

 

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

James Ewinger

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Article Removed

Pollster Adam Davis spoke to the Portland City Club's Friday Forum recently on the topic of the disconnect between leaders and the public (as he put it, between the edges of the bell curve and the bell). Ray Polani did ask the transportation question, and the answer was reasonably encouraging. You can hear it here http://www.portlandtransport.com/audio/polani_davis_20060512.mp3 (MP3, 2.9M, 3 min).

 

Adam's main points:

 

• People are becoming more inclined to support investment in transit versus highways.
  
• Many have moved here from regions that have tried spending big bucks on highways, with little benefit.
  
• Gas prices are making people rethink investment.
  
• The public still wants a balanced system.
  

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061006/NEWS11/610060354/-1/NEWS

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

Article published October 6, 2006

 

Board petitions state to boost transit funds

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

 

Facing spiraling operating costs and a constrained ability to raise fares or local taxes, the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority joined several other Ohio transit agencies yesterday in calling on state leaders to establish a dedicated source for transit funding.

 

With an Ohio Constitution that forbids using motor fuel tax dollars for public transportation, state transit funding competes with schools and social services for dollars from Ohio's general fund.

During tight budgets over the last five years, Ohio transit subsidies fell from $43.4 million in 2001 to $16 million this year, according to the Ohio Public Transit Association.

 

Tight budgets?? That is the same old bogus argument we always hear. What we really have is failure of state elected officials to do anything besides fill the pockets of special interests.

 

Hey all you legislators out there...how about opening your eyes and actually DOING something for the good of Ohio??

 

Our schools are a disgrace, good jobs are leaving, good people are leaving, we don't have enough transit or rail service, our cities need help, our farmland is disappearing and even our forests are being threatened by the Emerald Ash borer. Ohio is becoming third world and we continue to sit on our hands. :x

 

10/19/2006

Laketran may seek dedicated funding  

By: Mark Tuscano

[email protected]

 

 

Reduced funding to Ohio's public transportation system leads board to consider money request

 

 

About two-thirds of Laketran's annual $11.4 million budget supports Dial-a-Ride, a program that primarily serves the elderly and disabled, many of whom would not have access to transportation if it weren't for that on-demand service.

 

http://www.news-herald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17348239&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21849&rfi=6

 

Statewide sales tax increase would fund public transit

Thursday, June 3, 2010

By KELLY METZ

[email protected]

 

ELYRIA — Lorain County commissioners said they would support a statewide quarter percent sales tax increase for public transit if it appears on the 2012 ballot.

 

The possibility of the tax increase is being researched by the Greater Ohio Policy Center and the tax would provide a dedicated funding stream for transit systems across the state, said Lavea Brachman, co-director of Greater Ohio.

 

Commissioner Betty Blair said Greater Ohio is starting the research now so when the time comes, “they can build a campaign.”

 

Full story at:

 

URL: http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/06/03/news/mj2829482.prt

 

Interesting idea. Might be a tough sell to the rural counties, though, since they'd be paying a tax that largely benefits the cities. (I realize the cities are the economic engines of the state and that improved public transit in the cities will benefit all of Ohio, but that's a tough sell to make to a skeptical public.)

This would be huge if it passes.

 

I really hope we see a statewide transit plan that shows various scales of rail transit (High Speed, light rail, streetcars) in conjunction with improved bus/van transit in more rural areas.  I dont think people will support a big idea without a visual representation of it.

Maybe an metropolitan tax should be used.

Interesting idea. Might be a tough sell to the rural counties, though, since they'd be paying a tax that largely benefits the cities. (I realize the cities are the economic engines of the state and that improved public transit in the cities will benefit all of Ohio, but that's a tough sell to make to a skeptical public.)

Wait a minute we support the rural area's already.