Ohio's Slow Train Plan Likely Not Fast Enough to Snag Much HSR Funding

Ohio's Slow Train Plan Likely Not Fast Enough to Snag Much HSR Funding

US DOT Unveils Grant Criteria for High-Speed Rail Corridors

With States Paying Operating Costs, Can Ohio Handle it?

by John Michael Spinelli

June 17, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced in April their new vision for developing high-speed rail in America. The troika of leaders outlined a collaborative effort among the Federal Government, States, railroads, and other key stakeholders to help transform America’s transportation system through a national network of high-speed rail corridors.

The US Department of Transportation announced Wednesday the application requirements, procedures and evaluation criteria that would identify which of four funding tracks rail projects from states would qualify for.

While the Midwest Corridor is among the ten high-speed rail corridors the Obama administration and the Federal Railroad Administration have identified, Ohio may be riding in the caboose based on its failure after nearly 42 years of little or no passenger rail service and on the ability of its imploding budget to handle the costs of operation, which DOT said falls squarely on state shoulders.

With about $3.2 billion dollars in budget adjustments starring down Gov. Ted Strickland and Columbus lawmakers, the news of how grim state services could get real fast would argue that Ohio needs to think twice or more about spending unknown millions on a yearly public subsidy for a slow train to the past, that seems to fall short of many DOT funding criteria when those funds could go instead to shore up government services or to pay for basic social services for needy Ohioans hit hard during this Great Recession.

Ohio is like every other state who since the announcement by Obama that $8 billion in stimulus money would be offered as a down-payment on his vision that America can have Euro-style trains flashing across the nation has cultivated its own dream of re-establishing passenger rail service, more than four decades after the last train running from Cincinnati in the southwest to Cleveland in the northeast stopped service.

Strickland and his transportation director, Jolene Molitoris, have been boldly promoting a revival of passenger rail service that would top out at 79-mph but only average 57-mph and take over six hours to make a one-way trip along the so-called 3-C Corridor. The duo had repeatedly said start up costs would be about $250 million until last week, when Strickland upped that figure to $400 million. For rail watchers, the increase of $150 million with nothing to point to was a red flag signaling that the numbers for the plan, until they are backed by real bids, will be as slippery to grasp as holding mercury in your hand. But those figures will likely not be known for years to come, based on the state master rail plan date of 2025, when we'll know whether all the time and investment put into it has been worth it.

But a preliminary review of DOT's evaluation criteria show Ohio may not be as thrilled with what it gets after states like California, Illinois, Texas or Florida take the lion's share of federal funds that will be handed out by DOT in round one this September.

A harbinger of things to come arrived in the form of an AP article that reported that the Obama administration informed Ms. Molitoris, the first woman to head Ohio's $7 billion Transportation Department (ODOT), that she should not spend $57 million of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dollars on more studies, including about $7 million for the HUB or high-speed rail plan. Federal officials said she should spend it instead on actual ready-to-go infrastructure projects.

Other troubling hurdles ODOT will have to overcome include describing the public return on investment, including factors such as what the transportation benefits will be, the purpose and need of the 3-C Corridor, whether a Service Development Plan is in place and, most importantly, identifying the source of operating costs for the system, which cannot come from ARRA funds but fall to states to provide.

So while nearly all Ohio cities will not become stops on the ODOT's slow train to the past, many small town mayors still harbor dreams that their community will not only be a stop but that the train will bring jobs and prosperity along with riders to their towns.

The irony of this fallacy is that high-speed trains can not travel at high-speeds if they make too many stops along the way. This point was confirmed recently when a spokesman for the Ohio Rail Development Commission issued a reminder that the more small towns that think they should be on the train route, the slower the train will be. Some small-town mayors want a train to pull into either an old, nonfunctional station or one they don't have the money to build.

But DOT makes it clear that trains that cannot hit 110-mph will take a backseat to those that can, such as the California high-speed rail project which wants to connect Los Angeles with San Francisco with trains that run above 200-mph.

Other criteria Ohio and other states will have to meet relate to economic development or jobs created especially in economically-distressed areas, energy efficiency and how it will make communities more livable.

Moreover, additional success factors such as Ohio's track record of comparable projects or reasonableness of schedule and availability of operating financial support could side-trackODOT, which is still waiting for results contained in a special study on ridership due this summer.

Molitoris, the first woman to head the FRA back in the early 1990s, has often said the 3-C is a great business opportunity even though she has had little in the way of firm or fast figures to back up her upbeat assessment of a passenger rail ride that must share existing freight tracks and will go slower than a car would and take 30 percent more time to do it in.

A possible speedbump for ODOT's slow train to the past is the mandate included in the HSR guidelines that require it to produce a National Environmental Policy Act report, that shows it has considered "reasonable alternatives," which it said is "typically conducted during the environmental review process."

The 3-C Corridor won't quality for Track 1 funding because it's not ready to go, or shovel-ready in Washington parlance, it cannot produce the kind of leverage with non-federal investments. projects this category smiles on and because it can't be completed within two years of the award.

For Track 2 projects, which focuses on collective efforts and requires a Service Development Plan be in place, including a business and investment justification with sufficient project cost and benefit estimates -- such as purpose and need, service and operations plan, and prioritized capital investment plan for infrastructure, fleet and stations/facilities, project management, stakeholder agreements and a financial plan for funding both capital and operations.

Buckeye leaders may fall into Track 3 funding, designed to build a pipeline of future high-speed inter-city rail projects by funding planning activities for applicants at an early stage of development. Fifty percent non-federal funding is required, and participation in this category is a prerequisite for participation later in Track 1 and 2 funding. Track 4, the final category, time-lines for project completion are set at 5 years.

In the end, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican and former congressman from Illinois, will have final say. The FRA said it may at its discretion not ward all $8 billion, so funds for potential future rounds of solicitations and awards that which occur after 2009 will be available.

DOT's guidelines say there is no predetermined allocation between Tracks 1 and 2 or between this and any future solicitations, and that all such distributions will cumulatively reflect the nature and timing of the selected applications.

Excluded from funding is commuter rail passenger transportation, which DOT defines as “shorthaul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations.” It said Federal funding for commuter rail projects is available from Federal Transit Administration programs.

DOT noted that Amtrak may enter into a cooperative agreement with one or more States to carry out an eligible project.

As for innovation, the 3-C Corridor plan hardly seems able to make an water-tight case that it is pursuing new technology and innovation where the public return on investment is favorable, while ensuring delivery of near-term transportation, public and recovery benefits.

In answering the question about whether such a plan would promote domestic manufacturing, supply and industrial development, including U.S.-based equipment manufacturing and supply industries, much of the rail equipment used on the 3-C Corridor will come from overseas. Unlike this scenario, an innovative, advanced-train technology as has been patented by Tubular Rail of Texas, could be manufactured nearly entirely within Ohio's borders.

While Ohio mainstream media sources faithfully print the talking points of state transportation officials without questioning them on their sources or statements, which performs a disservice to the readers who need to know real facts and not fantasy, this correspondent knows that Ohio's slow train to the past, while romantic to some, is a bad idea at a bad time.

John Michael Spinelli is a Certified Economic Development Financing Professional, business and travel writer and former credentialed Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is registered to lobby in Ohio and is the Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. Spinelli on Assignment is syndicated by Newstex.com, can be followed on Twitter at OhioNewsBureau and available for subscription to Kindle owners. To send a news tip or make comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com
The Impact of IMPACT