A snarky aside . . . I always thought that we should just widen 75 to 18 or so lanes through Dayton as punishment for the number of times I've been forced to sit in traffic on my way to points north of the city. I know that means that Dayton will be a mere shell of its former self, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

One OKI forum

 

edit:  still looking

 

 

 

As an individual that was at the Dayton meeting on the 22nd and heard the comments of the invited speakers, I think you are way off in claiming there was a negativity against rail. In fact Policinski mentioned it would take $7 billion to build the Ohio Hub and that combined with the other needs of the state regarding transportation it would be a tremendous task to fund those needs. All of the speakers talked of the needs of their particular area and rail both passenger and freight were mentioned. The primary focus was to emphasize there are huge needs and there needs to be open discussion on how to finance the projects and reduce the time to build them. And widening I-75 is an enormous priority because of the volume of traffic that uses it both freight and passenger - not only for this area but as a connector from Mich. to Fla.

Maxito, thanks for your feedback. However a friend of mine who serves on the ODOT panel also informed me of silence on rail issues (except for the lone comment by Policinski that the Ohio Hub was "too expensive") and the historical overdependence of the region on I-75 (based on the comments of those in attendance).

Your ODOT friend on the panel is incorrect - Policinski only mentioned it cost about $7 billion to build nothing about it being too expensive. He also mentioned the importance of rail to move freight and about a light rail proposal for SW Ohio. It's too bad that was not provided to you in the feedback and that there was only silence on rail. I also believe Roxanne Qualls talked about the proposed streetcar plan that is currently being discussed for downtown Cincinnati, I guess that wasn't heard either.

My friend is not from ODOT, but is a member of the Task Force and I trust his asessment.  Mr. Policinski is very pro-rail when it comes to freight, but is much less enthusiastic about rail for carrying passengers.  The fact that he mentioned a light rail project does not make him a rail advocate, only that he acknowledges that such a project proposal exists.  Where were he and other local officials when light rail was on the ballot several years ago and was defeated by a campaign based largely on misinformation and led by several local public officials?

 

Kudos to Roxanne Qualls for talking up the streetcar plan.  I met her at the first Task Force meeting and she also "gets" the need for intercity passenger rail and how it would fit in to an integrated transportation network.

 

Also, no slam meant on the need for I-75 to be improved.  I've driven it and it is well over its capacity.  But the unfortunate tendency of many local officials is to think in terms of highway-based solutions as the only solution.  That's not what this Task Force is about and simply recommending more asphalt & concrete is not what they want to hear.

 

This Task Force was convened to develop and recommend mult-modal solutions and ways to fund it.

 

BTW: Welcome to the forum Maxito.  Good to have you on board.  A dissenting viewpoint is always welcome when it advances the discussion on a topic and yours does that.

But the unfortunate tendency of many local officials is to think in terms of highway-based solutions as the only solution.  That's not what this Task Force is about and simply recommending more asphalt & concrete is not what they want to hear.

 

Right on.  It's way past time to start thinking outside the highway-only box.  Cincy-Dayton needs the Ohio Hub, just as much, if not more than widening I-75.  It's time to start moving traffic off the highways and onto the rails. 

 

Also, I hate to say it but considering we're staring down the barrel of Peak Oil, how many more highway projects do we really need?

There are really two kinds of highway projects  . . . one is adding capacity where people don't live so areas can be opened up to develop, this needs to stop and that money needs to dry up. The second is fixing poorly built roads so people can efficiently move around the country, this includes fixing roads that were piss-poorly designed in the first place or making sure that capacity reasonably matches the folks ALREADY in an area. I'm fully okay with ODOT fixing these situations - 75 through Dayton and 71/70 through Cbus.

Right...and that is one of the aims of the Task Force as well: a "fix-it first" strategy toward existing roadways.  Lord knows we have a lot of secondary rural roads, U.S. Highways (off the Interstate system) and major city arterial streets that are in dire need.

 

But as Gildone mentioned, all of this has to be viewed in the light of what is happening with fuel prices and that means putting $$$ where it's most needed and that doesn't always mean a fix to the Interstates. It could mean increasing capacity on a parallel route that reduces traffic on the nearest Interstate.

 

BTW: there is talk beginning to bubble up about making some improvements to the Norfolk Southern rail line between Columbus and Cincinnati that would have major impact on reducing truck traffic on I-71, 70 and 75.

And Dayton is one of the biggest pinch points on NS. It would be great to see the whole thing double-tracked again.

I think in theory an intercity passenger rail system sounds great, however when that theory hits reality it is difficult to see it being self sufficient. The overhead costs are tremendous and in reality the ridership numbers are tough to see being able to support the costs. You may want to dust of the ODOT study that was done in the mid-90's when the department was looking to widen I-71. A pretty comprehensive study was done because the public liked the idea of passenger rail between Cleveland and Columbus. However, when the ticket costs ($54 one-way or close to it) and travel time (about 4 hours one-way) were identified the public lost interest pretty quick. However, urban passenger rail/light rail could potentially be workable because of the density of the population that would use it. Unfortunately, this may also be problematic when you hear of the financial troubles that the D.C. and Chicago systems have had - even with the volume of people that use those systems.

Maxito, I'm one of the people who was directly involved in the 2-C (Cleveland - Columbus) effort, as are several other people on this forum. Please be aware that the data you are using isn't correct.

 

You are correct, however, that train service would need to be subsidized, just as trains in every other state and nation, and indeed every mode of transportation is subsidized but in different and various ways. God, I've been writing and saying this for 20 years to each person newly introduced to the issue. Sometimes I think I need to get some text and copy and paste it, or have a tape recorder to play the educational answer!....

 

+ Passenger trains use railroads owned by private corporations which pay property taxes ($500 million a year and rising -- an expense highway and aviation users don't pay);

 

+ Railroad stations were typically built, owned and maintained by railroad companies or other private entities which demanded a profit margin, paid property taxes, depreciation and insurance. They are expenses few highway and aviation carriers have to pay and pass along to their users. Even in communist China they are financing the construction of a highway system from leases to private companies that will operate the highways. In the capitalist U.S., we do it in a more communistic way -- governments finance, build, own, maintain highways in perpetuity. Ditto for airports. Many of us pay for those roads and airports every April 15th, not when we use them. How's privately owned railroad infrastructure supposed to compete with that?

 

+ Use railroads that pay interest on debt to finance track maintenance and improvements (an expense highway and aviation users don't pay because their rights of way are financed not by private lenders, but by huge tax-supported, government-held trust funds);

 

+ The air traffic control system is funded by more than $2 billion per year in general fund subsidies. Imagine Amtrak getting $2 billion in any year, let alone just to expand its dispatching system. NASA and military aviation research programs provide significant technology transfer benefits to commercial aviation.

 

+ Must compete with less energy efficient highway and aviation modes which benefitted from massive subsidies to the oil industry. Those subsidies, estimated at more $200 billion per year (with some estimates exceeding $1 trillion) reduced energy prices by more than half of their retail values.

 

+ Passenger trains must use privately owned railroad tracks and related facilities that are wholly responsible for paying depreciation, insurance and security costs of owning their rights of way and expected to incur a profit margin on top of all of that (these are financial considerations that highway and aviation users either don't pay and/or share with multiple users; there is, of course, no profit margin expected with highway and airport infrastructure since it is government owned, but railroad infrastructure is expected to be a profit center -- a devastating double standard!!).

 

+ And, of course, with railroads being privately owned and highways and airports publicly owned, governments rarely (if ever) had to rationalize the preservation of highway and airport infrastructure during economic downturns. Meanwhile railroads typically had to downgrade or eliminate track during such downturns. Once each downturn was over, the highway and aviation system was a little larger, more extensive and stronger while the railroad system was less extensive and weaker.

__________________

 

Let me remind you that only one of the Cleveland - Columbus options, with no track improvements, resulted in a four-hour running time. Other options resulted in running times as little as 2 1/2 hours, downtown to downtown. Boarding at a suburban station like Crosswoods or Berea/Hopkins areas would mean a trip to the other metro area's downtown would be slightly more than 2 hours.

 

The rail fare was $54 round trip, not one way (Amtrak fares are typically 15-20 cents per mile). That compares quite favorably to the $135 round trip cost of driving (see AAA data) and the $600 round trip cost of flying Cleveland-Columbus (Continental Airlines air fare).

 

Thus, I would encourage you to dust off the 2-C Corridor study which was completed in 2000 as a result of the I-71 widening. When done, the I-71 widening will cost more than $500 million and produce no net benefits in terms of reduced travel costs, reduced travel time, increased productivity for Ohio travelers and resulted in diminishing returns on ODOT's investment for each new lane it adds to a given highway.

 

All the I-71 widening did was make Ohio more dependant on a single mode of transportation, further isolate Ohio's aging and low-income populace, make us more vulnerable to higher oil prices, threaten more of Ohio's precious agricultural and natural areas with wasteful sprawl and create more infrastructure for ODOT to maintain which it cannot afford.

 

But if this is the legacy they want to lead, I'll be happy to let them to stay drunk on pavement -- if not for the fate of the rest of us.

Ohio has the best transportation system in the world, just as long as you can drive:

_____________

 

Toledo Blade - 5-16 Travel from Toledo difficult, expensive 

 

Recently, my wife had a meeting in Cincinnati and I wanted to join her but had a meeting in Toledo the day after she was to leave. Our plan was to find a way to Cincinnati for one of us so we didn't have to drive two cars. Just for giggles, I searched my options and what a surprise I found.

 

Flying from Toledo to Cincinnati was going to cost over $800 and take me from Toledo to Detroit to Cincinnati. So I said well, maybe Amtrak. Amtrak was even more interesting: It goes to Chicago first before heading toward Cincinnati.

 

Then I remembered the Megabus, but I quickly found that the Megabus does not head south.

 

Our conclusion was that even though you want to support transportation from Toledo and whether you are planning a trip out of the country, out of state, or in-state, you cannot get from Toledo to anywhere. The sad fact is, it probably is quicker and cheaper to drive to Detroit, or in this case Cincinnati.

 

Mike Lawrence

Lambertville

BTW: The Ohio Hub was a direct outgrowth of the old 2-C / I-71 plan.  It took the bones of the plan and fleshed it out into a long-term vision of what passenger rail travel should be in Ohio: fast, frequent trains in multiple corridors and allowing same day travel in Ohio and the region.

 

And don't forget one major fact,  intercity passenger rail and mass transit in this country has been grossly underfunded for decades, leaving states, local municipalities and/or transit systems to cobble together funding.  As KJP pointed out, that lack of a strong federal funding program for rail has put it at a disadvantage to heavily subsidized highways and aviation systems.

 

Despite this, passenger rail ridership is demonstrably strong and rapidly growing in states like California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Maine, Washington, Pennsylvania, New York.  And each time service improvements have been made, the ridership increases have gone up accordingly.  Illinois just saw mid-level, double-digit increase on all of it's state-supported lines.  But state dollars can only go so far.

 

In the context of what's going on in Ohio, that's why the Transportation Priorities Task Force was created... to look for and develop better ways of funding transportation on a multi-modal basis.

The reality is because the U.S. is so spread out passenger rail is not convenient for a high majority of travelers. It can work in areas with condense population i.e. Europe and Japan and our urban centers. Just look at the numbers more people use their cars or fly because of the convenience. You are correct on the subsidization of the highways it's called the gas tax paid for by people that use the facilities. And regarding sprawl you are not going to stop people from living where they want to live and in most instances the highway network does not utilize the build it and they will come philosophy which is illustrated in the choke points that are created by new travel patterns.

The depressing thing is that Ohio has the geography that should support a high quality rail system (which once did of course). California is the only state with a geography remotely similar to Ohio. The rest of the states have fewer population centers and larger areas of rural population that can't provide full utilization of a system or they are so dominated by one city or region that the rail ends up taking redistributing funds from one part of the state to pay for transit in other parts (usually poor to rich).

 

Edited to add: People will make different decisions when gas stays above $4 a gallon. Many of the decisions will likely include the ability to be close to efficient and affordable mass transit. The most efficient remains rail when it comes to fuel use (especially electrified rail).

This is Jerry Masek with the Greater Cleveland RTA. Good discussion here. I just learned that all future public meetings will be from 5-8 p.m., not 4-8 p.m., as was originally announced.

I think the price of gas needs to continue to rise to really have an effect on the choice of mode a traveler uses. While $4 is much more than we have ever seen, it still isn't that much of a sacrifice for most people to absorb. If there is an impact to the cost of consumer products (which more than likely will happen) because of the costs of logistics, people will make different choices. However, it will be not to travel for vacation, less trips to the movie theatre, shopping malls and places like that.

The reality is because the U.S. is so spread out passenger rail is not convenient for a high majority of travelers.

 

The US has spread out because of cars.  Now that gas prices are rising, you may see that change.  The eastern half of the US really isn't all that spread out, and the Ohio Hub would connect large population centers distributed similarly to many European cities.

 

Just look at the numbers more people use their cars or fly because of the convenience.

 

The only reason it is more convenient to drive is because we DON'T HAVE a good rail system.  If we had a 150 MPH train many more people would use it.  I know I would use it for nearly all my trips (except to the West Coast).

 

You are correct on the subsidization of the highways it's called the gas tax paid for by people that use the facilities.

 

The gas tax doesn't even come close to covering the cost of road repairs and construction.  The rest of the money comes from all of us.

 

And regarding sprawl you are not going to stop people from living where they want to live

 

Of course we're not, but gas prices may.  Also, we shouldn't be ENCOURAGING sprawl as we have been.  We are just trying to be ready for the effects skyrocketing gas prices will have on us.  Even die-hard suburbanites may have to live somewhere they don't want to.  (Hey, I'd love a Victorian mansion in Newport, RI but I just can't afford it.)

I'm a bit confused please tell me where the additional money to fix the highway system if not from the gas tax. While gas has risen dramatically it still does not contend with prices in Europe and Japan.

 

Speaking of Japan the reason the rail system works there is the result of several factors. High insurance rates, most of the major thoroughfares are toll roads, gas prices that are significantly more than here, and population density about 3/4 of the U.S. population on a land mass roughly the size of California.

 

Not to mention that system was built from the ground up after WWII.

 

Maybe you should take the sprawl discussion and tell the farmers to stop selling their land that helps promote the movement of people into the rural setting and away from urban cores.

If we would index the gas tax to the price of gas rather than the quantity of gas purchased that would start the process of getting the taxes aligned with costs. They have higher taxes, which we may very move toward especially if a party gains control in the fall that seeks to limit carbon use.

 

If we stopped building roads to service those farms, the farmers would find that their land holds it greatest value as a farm rather than as a location for speculative development.

 

As has been mentioned on this list many times before, Ohio has remarkably similar demographics to France when it comes to population density and similar forces that allow for useful rail transit.

I'm a bit confused please tell me where the additional money to fix the highway system if not from the gas tax. While gas has risen dramatically it still does not contend with prices in Europe and Japan.

 

I'll let you read the first two Google hits, there's plenty more...

 

Minnesota:

 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadconstruction/it_takes_time/funding.html

 

Virginia:

 

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/road-funding-itll-take-more-raising-gas-tax

 

In both these states, a significant chunk of funding seems to come from "the general fund".

 

I couldn't immediately find anything (I'm at work, I'm not going to be a super-sleuth right now) about Ohio's funding other than that the gas tax is the "primary" source of funding, meaning that plenty of tax dollars are being funneled in from other sources when considering the massive amounts we spend on roads.

 

Not to mention that system was built from the ground up after WWII.

 

We wouldn't be averse to that idea here!  Good luck getting the funding for THAT though!

The argument about the U.S. being to spread out to support passenger rail is more than a bit weak.  As much as Amtrak's long-distance trains are maligned, the fact is they are booked solid and most of the passengers don't go from end-point to end-point.  They travel between points within the route, just as people would use more traditional short-haul corridors East of the Mississippi River.

 

A short-haul corridor is what a rider defines.  It has independent ultility to those riders and, for many out West, it is their only alterntive to driving huge distances to travel for business, pleasure or even to reach quality medical care or a better education.

 

If you want to talk population density as a factor, Ohio has a greater population density than the nation of France.... and France supports one of the p best high-speed rail systems in the world (along with sharing an intergrated system with the rest of Europe).  They, too were able to build from the ground up after the RAF and US 8th Air Force all but obliterated the old infrastructure.  But even The Marshall Plan only put back what they once had.  It took a commitment on the part of the people and their governments to buld something bigger and better. 

 

We have not had that kind of commitment here at either the state level (until recently) or at the federal level (ever.... although that is now changing in Congress).

Maxito, we have discussed all these issues before on various threads here at UrbanOhio, including a lengthy discussion that urban sprawl, highway development, and the growth of aviation was not the result of the free market but of direct intrusion by government forces at the behest of a few emerging special interests more than 60 years ago. But I encourage you to visit the following thread to engage in that discussion:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7292.0.html

 

For a discussion of what replaces the gas tax, see:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14971.0.html

 

For everything else, try the search function first. All the answers to all your hollow assumptions are here on this fine forum, my friend.

 

BTW, if you visit Europe (perhaps you have), you will find that America east of the Mississippi River isn't too much different than Europe. The spacing of cities 50-100 miles apart in this country is very similar to Europe, where I was surprised to discover how much rural land they have. I was also surprised to see how little traffic congestion they have outside their cities -- a writer once noted that while Europe has urban density, America has travel density.

 

And don't tell me Americans prefer driving compared to Europeans. We're all sheep. We travel the way the system has shepherded us. Europeans use their rail system for 15-20 percent of all intercity trips. When Americans go to Europe, 15-20 of them buy the Eurail pass -- many don't (so the share is likely higher than 15-20 percent). We traveled without the Eurail pass, and were amazed to by surrounded by Americans on all the trains we took. Gee, maybe when we're not being forced to drive everywhere, we actually use the options available.

I can't speak for other states but there is no general revenue money in the state budget that goes to fund state road projects period. The two revenue sources are the state and federal gas tax. The license and title fees primarily got to the highway patrol and local governments (for their road projects).

 

I would even venture to guess that there is no state that a significant chunk of general fund money goes to state road projects but what the definition of significant may differ among the masses.

 

Europe does have a very fine passenger rail system and living in old urban areas (like, 500 years old) is quite popular there. however the passenger rail bias in Europe transport policy has come at the expense of freight rail – far more European freight moves on its overburdened highway system than here. This makes road congestion across the pond much worse than here, and consequently, makes passenger rail more attractive.

 

It is important that a federal strategy be developed similar to the one used to build the interstate system. It would be great if there were enough resources to fully fund all projects rail, water, air and highway but realistically that will not happen. So priorities are established and those priorities are determined through much debate and weighing where the greatest useage occurs - which is the highway system that serves as the skeleton of our nation for both freight and people movement. That system can be subsidized with alternative modes but they will serve as alternatives not the primary source for travel because the bottom line is businesses will ship on the most cost effective/profit generating mode and people will use the most convenient and least costly mode.

 

 

Hey KJP thanks for the links and for the suggestion to try a search. I've been involved with Transportation for a long time and have heard these unrealistic plans based on trumped up numbers and lower than estimated costs. However, like I posted previously when the theory that is boasted so highly meets the reality we have to live in the fantasy just doesn't work. Pieces in the right circumstances might but the trouble is these ideas that are being advocated are so far out there they are impossible.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think a bigger problem that has kept these proposals from advancing in Ohio is the horrific misunderstanding of what's been proposed, the skepticism based on bad information and a general unwillingness to try new things.

 

Many of my friends with whom I went to college 20 years ago have left Ohio because they got tired of seeing other states developing cool, diverse transportation systems, nurturing vibrant urban neighborhoods and keeping positive attitudes about their futures. I've stayed in Ohio because I don't give up so easily and when our state's naysayers argue that I'm off my rocker for continuing the fight, I know I must be doing something right.

Hey KJP thanks for the links and for the suggestion to try a search. I've been involved with Transportation for a long time and have heard these unrealistic plans based on trumped up numbers and lower than estimated costs. However, like I posted previously when the theory that is boasted so highly meets the reality we have to live in the fantasy just doesn't work. Pieces in the right circumstances might but the trouble is these ideas that are being advocated are so far out there they are impossible.

 

Far out?  Europe (where it does work) is fantasy land?

 

I've been involved with Transportation for a long time

 

Seemingly with ODOT.  It's a shame when the policy-makers have a biased opinion and throw out wild claims and mischaracterizations without any facts to back them up.

 

EDIT: By the way KJP, when did the Sprawl of It All thread come back?

The Sprawl of It All thread was brought back after I complained about it being deleted prematurely. You may recall that a few people turned it into a pissing contest. Of course, when I complained to the moderators, they made me a moderator. Next time I'll keep my mouth shut....

I think in theory an intercity passenger rail system sounds great, however when that theory hits reality it is difficult to see it being self sufficient. The overhead costs are tremendous and in reality the ridership numbers are tough to see being able to support the costs. You may want to dust of the ODOT study that was done in the mid-90's when the department was looking to widen I-71. A pretty comprehensive study was done because the public liked the idea of passenger rail between Cleveland and Columbus. However, when the ticket costs ($54 one-way or close to it) and travel time (about 4 hours one-way) were identified the public lost interest pretty quick. However, urban passenger rail/light rail could potentially be workable because of the density of the population that would use it. Unfortunately, this may also be problematic when you hear of the financial troubles that the D.C. and Chicago systems have had - even with the volume of people that use those systems.

 

Maxito, I don't know you, but let me set you straight about a few things. First, NO mode of transportation is truly self-sufficient. Not air. Not rail, not transit and certainly not highways. To expect rail passenger service to be profitable when all other modes are heavily subsidized flies in the face of reality. BTW, how profitable are airlines these days?

 

Secondly, I was a part of that study of rail service between Cleveland and Columbus that you mention. Rail fares were envisioned at near bus levels of about $18  one way and the trip time was to have been about 2-1/2 hours. I don't know where you get your information from, but it's just flat-out wrong.

I'm not sure how the highways are subsidized outside of the gas tax which is paid by those that use the roads - maybe you could provide some specifics on that.

 

Also sorry BB you are just wrong about the 2C initiative - it may have been envisioned that the ticket cost would be $18 and trip time of 2 1/2 hours at the beginning of the study in 1998 but the conclusion was the ticket price was three times that and the trip time almost double.

 

The following information was specific to the study done by the I-71 Corridor Rail Demonstration Committee and resulted in the Ohio Rail Development Commission recommending against pursuing this particular project in the spring of 2000. Please remember these are late 90s early 2000 dollars.

 

Intercity rail Original Estimates Study Results

Capital and Equipment $32 million $50 million

Operating costs   $6 million   $6 million

Revenues   $3 million   $1.5 million

Ridership per year 130,000 80,000

 

And for your information there was well-rounded participation on the I-71 Corridor Rail Demonstration Committee from a variety of interested parties including ODOT, ORDC, Amtrak, other railroads, and affected city and county officials, metropolitan planning organizations, transit authorities, and federal agencies. So the decision was not made by solely by those that are in love with highways.

 

I addressed the highway subsidies earlier. I guess if you don't like what's said, you can always deny no one said it. Ignoring highway subsidies and zeroing in on rail subsidies is like ignoring the 800-pound gorilla and instead swatting the fly. It always boggles my mind when you highway uber alles types cling to this mode as the source of freedom in America. I think a half-million adult Ohioans that don't have cars might disagree, yet they're still paying for roads and parking they don't use.

 

The simple fact is highways users don't have to pay direct costs that railroad users do. Please refer to my earlier message on this. And I didn't even get into things like free parking, zoning that complicates or excludes non-auto use, excessive pavement and sprawling development patterns increasing stormwater management costs, environmental costs, etc etc. I suspect you among those who claim rail and transit investments are social engineering while highways and aviation are the free market. So when are rail and transit going to get their tax-supported trust funds provided by the government? We've been asking for this for decades.

 

With regards to 2-C, you're not looking at the same report I'm looking at Maxito. And you need to know that BuckeyeB was on the 2-C committee, Noozer and I were paid staffpersons (and still are though Noozer works for a different but related employer).

 

The reason why the 2-C project was rejected by then-ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney was because of CSX's demand for a second main track between Shiloh and Greenwich costing $27 million. That cost component put the project over the $50 million capital cost threshhold set by ODOT at the outset. Furthermore, operating just two round trips a day wouldn't cause enough of a shift to rail that ODOT was hoping for. Instead four daily round trips or more were estimated to have the desired impact but would certainly cause a capital cost much higher than the initial ODOT threshhold. Also, the data showed the financial performance for the trains would be much better if they began in Cincinnati and operated crossstate.

 

So that's when Seney offered the Ohio Hub System with a desired service levels of 5-10 daily round trips at 110 mph, and with much emphasis on removing freight rail traffic choke points.

 

None of this is unique to Ohio. In fact we're the ones who have fallen behind 14 other states that have state-supported passenger rail service, half of those with less population than Ohio. But if Ohio wants to fall behind the competition for jobs, mobility, traveler productivity and travel affordability, it won't be for my lack of trying.

BTW, if we're going to continue to debate the 2-C project, I ask that you move it to the ORDC/Ohio Hub thread.

 

We can continue to debate here which transportation modes are being helped by the government as it's an applicable topic for this thread.

Regarding the June 17 Task Force meeting here...

 

RTA is doing a major communications push to get the word out. Here is a copy of a letter from Joe Calabrese to community leaders and elected officials. It contains some subcommittee recommendations, and urges people to attend and give quality testimony. I thought the contents of the letter would interest members of this forum.

----

Public transit in Ohio is in crisis. At a time when demand is growing and high gas prices are here to stay, transit systems across Ohio are being forced to cut service to balance their budgets.

 

RTA is no exception, as the end of 2007 marked five consecutive years of ridership growth with a five percent cut in service. Some transit systems in Ohio have been forced to cut up to 50 percent of their service.

 

The good news is that we now have a wonderful opportunity to impact funding for public transit in the State of Ohio. We need your help to take full advantage of it.

 

Governor Strickland and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) have created a comprehensive Task Force to examine transportation needs, its economic impact and new ways to fund these needs.

 

The Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force is bringing all Ohioans to the table to explore a broad spectrum of transportation issues facing our state. With your input, we can prioritize how Ohio balances the movement of people and freight, promotes safety and reduces congestion, creates jobs and encourages responsible growth, helps to building sustainable communities and links all modes – connecting highways to rail, aviation, water ports and public transit.

 

The Task Force has scheduled a series of seven public meetings around Ohio to gather input from consumers and public officials. Our regional meeting is:

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, FROM 5-8 P.M.

 

Joseph E. Cole Center

Cleveland State University

3100 Chester Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44115

 

We would be delighted if you, or your representative, can come to the meeting and make brief remarks on what public transit means to your community. We also ask that you post the attached flyer on community bulletin boards in your city.

 

Our goal is to show Task Force members both quality of testimony, and quantity in numbers of persons attending. We want to show them how important public transit is in the lives of all Ohioans – the transit dependent, and those who choose public transit because it saves money, is safe, reliable and good for the environment.

 

As you may know, I am the current President of the Ohio Public Transit Association (OPTA). On the Task Force, I was asked to serve as vice chair of the Multi-Modal Transportation Subcommittee. Here are some of our recommendations.

 

1. Having a public transit network is not an option, but a necessity.

 

More than 60 percent of all trips on public transit in Ohio are work-related. In rural areas, more than 60 percent of all trips serve senior citizens or the disabled, and 20 percent of senior citizens do not drive. Transit agencies also provide low-cost transportation to thousands of students, thus saving Boards of Education millions of dollars. On a national basis, public transit reduces our dependence on imported oil.

 

2. Additional State funding must be provided so that transit systems can retain existing customers and attract new customers.

 

In Ohio, transit systems serve more than 500,000 customers daily, and remove more than 100,000 cars from the highways. This reduces congestion and pollution for everyone, and greatly improves the quality of life for all Ohioans. In recent years, State funding to public transit has been reduced by 63 percent, and is now about 3 percent of an agency’s budget. Nationally, State funding levels average 23 percent. This low level of State funding has placed a much greater strain on local resources, and most systems in Ohio have either increased fares, reduced service, or both. Without additional funding, service cuts will continue.

 

3. While rising fuel costs have driven more to use public transit, these same costs have also significantly increased transit expenses.

 

At RTA for example, my budget for diesel fuel in 2004 was approximately $4 million, while my projected expenses for diesel for 2008 is $20 million.

 

This is a critically important time for public transit and we now have a critically important opportunity. We now have a seat at the table. We have the full attention of the State government, and we need to make the most of it.

 

We look forward to seeing you at the June 17 public meeting, and to hearing your testimony. Working together, we can help bring about policy changes that will positively impact Ohioans for generations to come.

 

If you have any questions, or if there is anything I can do to help, please contact me. For information on the Task Force, visit http://transportationfortomorrow.ohio.gov.

One last note to Maxito: KJP has summed up very well what went on with the 2-C Committee, so I'll let his comments be the last word on that.

 

Whatever your philosphy might be on rail does not really matter anyway. We are being pushed by events (high oil prices, environmental, congestion concerns) to such a degree that a shift to rail is inevitable.

 

We are already seeing this in the record-breaking ridership for Amtrak, which is handling 29 million passengers this year. This is after five consecutive years of new ridership records. Amtrak is now handling as many passengers as the private railroads did in 1971, with only a third as many trains.

 

Same for transit, which is breaking ridership levels from 1959, when there was far more transit available. Transit ridership gains are now outpacing auto gains.

 

In fact, a recent article says auto use is declining because of high gas prices, dropping more than 4% over the last year.

 

Your future has a train in it.

PLEASE NOTE: the start time for this meeting has been changed back to 4:00pm (which was the original start time)

 

Regarding the June 17 Task Force meeting here...

 

RTA is doing a major communications push to get the word out. Here is a copy of a letter from Joe Calabrese to community leaders and elected officials. It contains some subcommittee recommendations, and urges people to attend and give quality testimony. I thought the contents of the letter would interest members of this forum.

----

Public transit in Ohio is in crisis. At a time when demand is growing and high gas prices are here to stay, transit systems across Ohio are being forced to cut service to balance their budgets.

 

RTA is no exception, as the end of 2007 marked five consecutive years of ridership growth with a five percent cut in service. Some transit systems in Ohio have been forced to cut up to 50 percent of their service.

 

The good news is that we now have a wonderful opportunity to impact funding for public transit in the State of Ohio. We need your help to take full advantage of it.

 

Governor Strickland and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) have created a comprehensive Task Force to examine transportation needs, its economic impact and new ways to fund these needs.

 

The Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force is bringing all Ohioans to the table to explore a broad spectrum of transportation issues facing our state. With your input, we can prioritize how Ohio balances the movement of people and freight, promotes safety and reduces congestion, creates jobs and encourages responsible growth, helps to building sustainable communities and links all modes – connecting highways to rail, aviation, water ports and public transit.

 

The Task Force has scheduled a series of seven public meetings around Ohio to gather input from consumers and public officials. Our regional meeting is:

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, FROM 5-8 P.M.

 

Joseph E. Cole Center

Cleveland State University

3100 Chester Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44115

 

We would be delighted if you, or your representative, can come to the meeting and make brief remarks on what public transit means to your community. We also ask that you post the attached flyer on community bulletin boards in your city.

 

Our goal is to show Task Force members both quality of testimony, and quantity in numbers of persons attending. We want to show them how important public transit is in the lives of all Ohioans – the transit dependent, and those who choose public transit because it saves money, is safe, reliable and good for the environment.

 

As you may know, I am the current President of the Ohio Public Transit Association (OPTA). On the Task Force, I was asked to serve as vice chair of the Multi-Modal Transportation Subcommittee. Here are some of our recommendations.

 

1. Having a public transit network is not an option, but a necessity.

 

More than 60 percent of all trips on public transit in Ohio are work-related. In rural areas, more than 60 percent of all trips serve senior citizens or the disabled, and 20 percent of senior citizens do not drive. Transit agencies also provide low-cost transportation to thousands of students, thus saving Boards of Education millions of dollars. On a national basis, public transit reduces our dependence on imported oil.

 

2. Additional State funding must be provided so that transit systems can retain existing customers and attract new customers.

 

In Ohio, transit systems serve more than 500,000 customers daily, and remove more than 100,000 cars from the highways. This reduces congestion and pollution for everyone, and greatly improves the quality of life for all Ohioans. In recent years, State funding to public transit has been reduced by 63 percent, and is now about 3 percent of an agency’s budget. Nationally, State funding levels average 23 percent. This low level of State funding has placed a much greater strain on local resources, and most systems in Ohio have either increased fares, reduced service, or both. Without additional funding, service cuts will continue.

 

3. While rising fuel costs have driven more to use public transit, these same costs have also significantly increased transit expenses.

 

At RTA for example, my budget for diesel fuel in 2004 was approximately $4 million, while my projected expenses for diesel for 2008 is $20 million.

 

This is a critically important time for public transit and we now have a critically important opportunity. We now have a seat at the table. We have the full attention of the State government, and we need to make the most of it.

 

We look forward to seeing you at the June 17 public meeting, and to hearing your testimony. Working together, we can help bring about policy changes that will positively impact Ohioans for generations to come.

 

If you have any questions, or if there is anything I can do to help, please contact me. For information on the Task Force, visit http://transportationfortomorrow.ohio.gov.

I love moving targets....

There is now pseudo commuter rail between Akron and Canton starting in June for 5 days a week! :clap:

Its actually just expanded Scenic rail but its seriously encroaching on commuter..  2 trains a day leave Canton with one leaving at 9am from Canton and a return to Canton at 5:15 from Akron.

Many downsides:

  $15 a trip although they say you get the return trip included as well as free transfers.  I'm guessing its a day pass.

  Only Wednesday thru Sunday are when the trips take place.

  Three months only.  They are studying to see how popular this is and its set to end in August.  Its supposed to cost CVSR $80,000 to do this.

 

I don't know if multiple day passes can be purchased.

 

If this were to leave anywhere from 7:15-8:15am, I think this would get heavy usage.  Thats when rush hour is and I-77 is packed.  It would be really awesome to get a month pass for $150-200 and free transfers on Sarta or Metro.

Could you post that at the CVSR thread?...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3566.0.html

 

This thread is about statewide transportation policies, not actual services. Thanks!

http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/News/2008/06/05/24939/

 

Public transportation could return to the railroad

Published: Thursday, June 5, 2008

Last Modified: Thursday, June 5, 2008, 12:06:03am

Caitlin McGlade / For The Post / [email protected]

 

The rising cost of gasoline has forced the Ohio Department of Transportation and counties in the state to rethink modes of transportation and the highway system.

 

The Transportation Priorities Task Force, a state organization that evaluates transportation options, organized a meeting yesterday with Southeastern Ohio representatives and citizens about possibilities such as railway systems.

 

“It is interesting that we are looking into going back to railways, like we did 50 years ago,” said Athens City Street Director Andy Stone.

 

Using railways more often would have environmental and safety benefits, said Scott Varner, deputy director of communication with ODOT. Railways can move a load for 400 miles on one gallon of gas and fewer semi-trucks on highways will be safer for smaller vehicles on the highway.

 

ODOT is working on a $500,000 study with the Ohio Rail Development Commission to research the feasibility of using railways not only as freight carriers but as public transportation, Varner said.

 

The study will address whether the state would need to build more railways or use current ones, he said.Athens County has existing railways used for freight, but people stopped using railways like these for public transportation as individual vehicles became more widespread, said Bob Eichenberg, Athens County planning director.

 

“This is one of the biggest mistakes as a society,” he said, adding that a 100-car train can transport the same amount as 870 semi-trucks.

Citizens are very car dependent because the county is so rural and the population density is low, he said.

 

“We have isolated pockets of people that have great needs,” said Councilwoman Chris Knisely, D-at large, adding that many people in the county cannot afford to drive to work or even to doctor appointments because of gas prices. The city has relied too much on private organizations and churches to transport Athens County citizens to doctor appointments, she said.

 

While improving countywide transportation, citywide systems also need repair, said Mayor Paul Wiehl.

 

“We have a bus system that runs once an hour when you can walk across town in an hour,” he said, adding that the city only has five buses, which shut down at 7 p.m.

 

The Athens County Regional Planning Commission will continue to work on a plan to improve public transportation for another year, Eichenberg said. The plan includes promoting bicycle use, improving road maintenance, installing more sidewalks and using railways.

 

“We have an educated work force but access to jobs is challenging because of the cost of driving,” Stone said.

 

While railways are a possibility, Varner said that ODOT does not advocate them as the sole transportation option. ODOT is focusing on finding the best combination of multiple forms of transportation including pedestrian, highway and railway usage to meet citizens’ needs.

http://www.riderta.com/PDF/InsideRTA/Insider_6-08.pdf

 

The June issue of Inside RTA has been posted. It contains important information on the June 17 ODOT public hearing.

ODOT is working on a $500,000 study with the Ohio Rail Development Commission to research the feasibility of using railways not only as freight carriers but as public transportation, Varner said.

 

Is this part of the Ohio Hub efforts or an separate study?

The $500K are ODOT planning funds (federal dollars) that will help underwrite the cost of the study of Amtrak "start-up" service in the 3-C.  It is not connected to the Ohio Hub Plan, although the start-up service could be seen as building the market for future high-speed service under the Hub Plan.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080609/NEWS11/806090331/-1/NEWS

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

Article published June 9, 2008

 

TARTA exec seeks money for bus service

He wants more state funds

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

Soaring fuel prices are prompting more people to use public transportation, but Ohio's spending on buses and trains isn't keeping up, a local transit official says.

 

The state's per capita support for buses and rapid-transit trains ranks it with rural states like West Virginia and South Dakota, not peers like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois, according to James Gee.

 

Mr. Gee, general manager of the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority, plans to address that issue tomorrow afternoon at an Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force meeting in Nitschke Hall at the University of Toledo.

 

 

......

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWS11/806110453/-1/NEWS

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

Article published June 11, 2008

 

Planners urged to boost public transit

State task force has open session at UT

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

A future Ohio will have more extensive public transportation, both within and between its cities, and a growing economy based on its location and transportation assets, if speakers at a forum conducted by a state planning task force yesterday at the University of Toledo have their way.

 

"I could really like living in this town if we had a decent bus system," Rebecca Wood, who moved to Toledo from Cleveland in 2000, said while addressing the Ohio's 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force.

 

But right now, she said, living in Toledo without a car "is like being on parole or house arrest, except you haven't done anything wrong."

 

 

.....

Easily in excess of 150 people at the Columbus public meeting for the 21st Cent. Transportation Priorities Task Force.  Some of the strongest themes from both the presentations and comments from the general public in order of number of mentions:

 

1. More and better public transit

2. The Ohio Hub & passenger rail

3. Bikeway and pedestrian improvements

4. Change the Ohio Motor Vehicle Fuels Tax to fit the times (that included a comment that it should be indexed with the price of gasoline and support more than just highways)

5. Develop a "fix-it-first" highway policy

6. More intermodal movement of freight

7. More consideration for disabled and their travel needs

 

What was interesting ... and oddly funny... was the presentation by Columbus real estate developer and COTA Board member Robert Weiler, who spent his entire alloted time extolling the virtues of more and better highways and how they allowed Columbus to expand, create jobs, beget shopping malls, etc... which led to more interchanges, more shopping malls, etc.  He was absolutely sincere in his feeling that Columbus and Central Ohio wouldn't be where it is today with out the Interstates and interchanges and that the city and region owed its economic fortune to it.

 

While I don't question that highways led to hugely significant economic development, in the process, Weiler also unintentionally described his own role in creating the very sprawl that besets us today and is compounded by rising fuel prices.  He finished his presentation by extolling what a wonderful thing Polaris is and how he can't wait for the next big development down the road.

 

At no time did he even mention any other mode, even the very buses he oversees as a member of the COTA Board of Trustees.  Listening on the whole time at bthe head speakers table was Task Force member and commitee co-chair.... COTA CEO Bill Lhota.

 

Again, somewhat comically, Weiler was followed by Kevin Brubaker of the Chicago-based Environmental Law & Policy Center, who proceeded to refute everything Weiler extolled.  Brubaker complemented the Task Force for recognizing the we cannot "build our way out of congestion and that Ohio should adopt a "fix-it-first" highway policy.  He also have a strong endorsement of both the Ohio Hub Plan and Governor Strickland's 3-C Corridor Amtrak "start-up" initiative, and stated it is vital that all of these new and better transportation options need to interconnect if they are to generate both positive economic development and reduce fuel consumption and combat global warming.

 

He urged the Task Force to advance the Ohio Hub into the Environmental Impact stage as soon as possible in order to take advantage of the federal dollars that could be created under the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act.

Please tell me there are transcripts somewhere.

The entire session was recorded both on audio & video.  You might want to check the Task Force website to see if it will be shown.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/21ctptf/

5. Develop a "fix-it-first" highway policy

 

I don't want to ask a dumb question... but I'm not particuarly transit savy like some of you... what exactly is a "fix-it-first" highway policy?

On June 17, RTA is extending service on the free E-Line trolley from 3:30-9 p.m. to the ODOT meeting site at 3100 Chester Ave. If you don't mind walking a block, you can also ride any bus down Euclid Avenue, get off at the East 30th Street station by TV-5. The meeting runs from 4-8 p.m.