Will Lack of Curiosity Doom Ohio to Turtle Train Technology?

Will Lack of Curiosity Doom Ohio to Turtle Train Technology?

Senators, Representatives Express Curiosity in Tubular Rail

" Trackless Train" Company to Meet with Development Officials to Talk Jobs, Economic Development

by John Michael Spinelli

April 30, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: Curiosity, it's long been said, killed the cat. But can lack of curiosity kill a state? For a state like Ohio, where legendary inventor heroes like Orville and Wilbur Wright and Thomas Alva Edison were born, believing the train technology of 1934, when the Burlington Zephyr, the first Diesel-electric streamliner in the US, topped out at 112 mph on a dawn to dusk run between Denver and Chicago, is as good as it gets does not bode well for its future.

Why would a state who says they champion innovation and name programs after the Wrights and Edison want to squander a billion or more dollars on a slow, costly system built on train-museum-era locomotives that even in 2010, when the first train may crawl out of hibernation to cross the state diagonally for the first time in 41 years, average 20 mph less than the Zephyr did on its historic run during our Great Depression?

It's a question that needs to be asked. Given Ohio's rhetoric on innovation and funding schemes designed to court the most innovative advancements in all industries, why is transportation reform such a taboo subject?

What state would want to broadcast to the world that it's stuck in the past when it comes to energy, education, medicine, information or any other industry for that matter? But that position, blindly defending old technology, is exactly what Gov. Strickland and his Transportation Director, Jolene Molitoris, are doing by refusing to consider any train technology that doesn't look, sound or perform like railroads from days of yore.

But a growing chorus of state senators who know the proposal to fund a train to the past, as many say the 3-C Corridor proposal is, is a bad idea at a bad time are penning letters of curiosity in anticipation of a meeting next week between Tubular Rail and state development officials is a no cost, no obligation query that should challenge the status quo on how we think about train technology.

Robert Pulliam, inventor and founder of Tubular Rail , based in Houston, Texas, will arrive in Columbus next week to make his case for why his patented technology, featured in the Discovery Channel show called "FutureTrains," can create manufacturing jobs and spur economic development while transporting people and goods in new ways.

As one connected statehouse insider said recently, if the state is going to spend all this money, shouldn't we at least buy something that's fast? By its own admission, the 3-C Corridor or Turtle Train, will only average 57 mph, a pathetic pace that will take longer than driving from Cleveland to Cincinnati, via Columbus and Dayton, and will leave passengers to fend for themselves once they reach their destination.

Sens. Jason Wilson (D-30th), ,Tim Grendell (R-18th) and Karen Gillmor (R-26th) have expressed their curiosity about Tubular Rail in a letter to Mark Barbash, Interim director of the Ohio Department of Development.

Verbal commitments for similar letters have been received from Sens. Fred Strahorn (D-5th), Robert Schuler (R-7th), John Carey (R-17th), Ray Miller (D-15th) and Tim Schaffer (R-31st) and Reps. Bob Hagan (D-60th) and Todd Book (D-89th). The bi-partisan lineup of senators and representatives curious about Tubular Rail's technology shows the bi-partisan nature of the need to reform transportation.

Sen. Gillmor, of Tiffin, has already written an article on why Ohio isn't likely to see so-called high-speed trains, like are common in Europe, here anytime soon. In her article, she says the proposal for a publicly subsidized passenger rail system is "undercooked" and missing many details that "confirm a rail system is needed or supported by the taxpayers who would foot the bill."

What we do know, she writes, is that officials say the system would cost $250 million to launch and require a state subsidy of $10 million each year. Continuing, she notes that, based on studies conducted by the Ohio Rail Commission in 2004 and 2007, "the system would likely cost be between $1 billion and $1.3 billion after adjusting for inflation and only run "at speeds of up to 69 miles per hour along existing freight tracks," a speed that is "unlikely to be much faster than highway travel."

Gillmor and other members of the General Assembly who are asking development officials to be as curious about Tubular Rail as they are, are in line with the campaign goals of Transportation for America, a coalition of housing, environmental, public health, urban planning, transportation, equitable development and other organizations who say Americans need transportation options that are "cheaper, faster and cleaner" than the current system of transportation they say leave "too many older, younger and rural Americans stranded."

Ohio needs to be future-ready. By developing and employing a new, energy efficient train transportation system that could reduce road congestion, travel fast, go places where conventional railroads cannot, and be built by Ohio manufacturers, Buckeyes can stake a claim on their future without waiting for some other state, or country, to do the heavy lifting first.

Being a leader means doing something first. Ohio, who has yet to walk away from its reputation as a "rust-belt" state and who frets each day that more more layoffs from automakers will further complicate its already shaky budget picture, should spend a little time, and maybe even a few funds to see of Tubular Rail technology is all Mr. Pulliam and others say it is.

The Wright thing to do is be curious. Gov. Strickland and Director Molitoris would do well to be more curious. Lack of curiosity could kill the state.

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. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Ohio, Nation Less Religulous

Ohio, Nation Less Religulous

Atheists, Humanists No Longer Fear Their Secular Orientation

by John Michael Spinelli

April 27, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: As the high tide of Republican control of government in Ohio and the nation recedes from the sea change made possible by the onset of the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, is the related retreat of religion among Americans being filled in part by atheists who no longer fear proclaiming their secular orientation?

The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS ), performed in 2008 by investigators at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn, shows Americans are "slowly becoming less Christian," not because the dominant religious sect in America is being threatened by other world religions but from a general "rejection of all organized religions."

Whether "Religulous," the documentary spoof released in 2008 about the absurdity of religion in general and the sheer goofiness of some true believers in particular, was a factor in the ARIS survey can only be attributed to either divine intervention sheer speculation. But such a movie would have been impossible to produce or show in public in decades past and would have been difficult to distribute just a few years ago. The times are indeed a changing

Other celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens , who believes religion poisons everything, or Richard Dawkins , who said he is against religion "because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world," have helped lead the charge out of the pew and into the public square, where others of their ilk will gather to brandish their status as non-believers.

Principal ARIS investigators Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, who conducted this third landmark series of large, nationally representative surveys that track changes in the religious loyalties of the U.S. adult population within the 48 contiguous states from 1990 to 2008 and that collected answers from over 54 thousand participants, said people who identified themselves as not being affiliated with any religious group grew by almost 20 million adults since 1990, or a rise from 8.2 to 15 percent of the total population.

More worrisome for traditional believers in "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost," or as Bill Maher, the force behind Religulous, calls them, "people who believe in talking snakes." is that that figure rises to nearly 20 percent, or one in five adults, if those surveyed who didn't know their religious identification (0.9) or who refused to answer their key question (4.1) is included in the "None" category.

In a related story about the coming out party many atheists who once kept silent on the topic of religion for fear of being socially ostracized or hurt professionally are experiencing, Laurie Goodstein, of the New York Times , writes that the new-found bravery by a growing number of non-believers to proclaim their secular, humanist leanings is refreshing and beckons others to do the same.

More than ever, Goodstein says, America’s atheists are "linking up -- on the Internet, in bars, advertising on billboards and buses and in other ways" -- and speaking out in the same way gay-rights advocates have done for decades in their plight to gain legal and social legitimacy.

One reason atheists have become bolder of late to stand up and be counted, is reaction and fallout to eight years of the George W. Bush administration who overtly embraced and invited the religious right -- who in recent years were strong enough to nominate and elect public officials at all levels of government -- to participate and share in the re-creation of government in their image.

And while an avowed atheist probably still has little chance of being elected to any office let alone a national one, the days of cowering in a closet are over. Atheists as a group still rank lower than any other minority or religious group, according to ARIS. But their gains, exemplified by a once unthinkable advertising campaign that says "Don't Believe in God? You Are Not Alone," may affect the coming war between Republicans, who believe staunchly in Jesus but who show little sympathy for helping individuals who are treated unkindly by fate and circumstance, and Democrats, who are seen by more young people especially as more socially conscious and sympathetic to the plight of those less fortunate.

In Ohio, where the Christian right has had a major impact on state laws, from the regulation of adult entertainment businesses to passing a statewide amendment to the Constitution in 2004 that banned gay marriage , the resurgence of Democrats in the guise of a new governor and a new majority in the Ohio House of Representatives may bode ill for Republicans who find themselves on the defensive as the human wreckage of job losses resulting from a dystopian economy many blame them for piles up below executives and general assemblies who are being thrashed for not budgeting for their needs.

In their statistics on states, ARIS investigators show Ohio's "Nones" category more than doubled, from 8 to 17 percent, between 1990 and 2008. Similar gains by atheists were seen in Ohio's neighbors, Illinois (13), Indiana (15), Michigan (16) and Wisconsin (15).

Among the surveys highlights are that 76 percent of American adults identify as Christians, down 10 points from 1990 and that 34 percent considered themselves in 2008 to be "Born Again or Evangelical Christians." Catholics declined in New England states and in New York but rose in California and Texas where Hispanics are on the rise.

ARIS said that based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification in 2008, 70 percent of Americans believe in a personal God, while about 12 percent are atheists (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure), and another 12 percent are deistic (a higher power but no personal God).

ARIS broke out 31 categories of religious traditions from Catholic to Baptist to Pentecostal, to Buddhist, Muslim or Jehovah's Witness. There was no category for "Born Again Pagans" or "The Church of Dark Energy," two traditions I hope to lead one day.

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. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Ohio Chugs Forward on Billion Dollar Train Museum Plan

Ohio Chugs Forward on Billion Dollar Train Museum Plan

State Rail Planners Silent on Future Costs

Should All Taxpayers or Just 3-C Corridor Cities Subsidize Slow Train Plan?
by John Michael Spinelli

April 20, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: During a visit last week to Detroit, where Ohio Governor Ted Strickland heard in first person from executives of General Motors that its Chevrolet Cruze will be built at Lordstown in northeast Ohio near Cleveland, he took a spin in two new advanced technology vehicles. One was an electric-powered truck cab made by GM, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and one was a new fuel efficient engine produced by Ford, whose financial health is far better than either GM or Chrysler, who soon may also be seeking last rights. Together, about 250 thousand Ohio jobs are tied to Detroit's Big Three automakers.

Governor Strickland, a first-term governor gearing up for re-election in 2010, was no doubt impressed with the advancements in car and truck technology embodied in the new-century vehicles he drove.

A DECADE AND A BILLION DOLLARS TO BUILD A TRAIN MUSEUM

But as the first Democratic governor in 16 years of a state hard hit by the loss of 150 thousand or more manufacturing jobs this decade alone, and that was among the only three states not to recover from the recession of 2001 and whose official unemployment rate last week reached 9.7 percent , the highest in 25 years, why would the good governor push a billion dollar plan to reestablish train-museum era locomotives that won't be pulling out of any railroad stations for years to come, and that when they do, will only average 57-mph, a speed so slow that it'll be a state-sized equivalent of the kind of kiddie train that runs in circles around zoos?

With a transportation department (ODOT) that has soaked up billions of tax dollars every two years for decades, why would Strickland be so ill informed about advancements in train technology that he should be interested instead to clinging to 100-year old slow, costly trains?

Is he misinformed because ODOT'S new duo of co-deputy directors don't know anything about railroads or train technology? Maybe he's being sidetracked by a director that while she once administered the Federal Railroad Administration and is credited for improving Amtrak's customer service , is not an engineer by training and has never run a railroad? One simple explanation is that the Ohio Rail Development Commission, which has been tinkering for decades with patch-ups of a quilt of shrinking freight rail tracks, has its engine up its caboose, despite having studied the matter ever since the last passenger train that crossed the state diagonally stopped running 41 years ago. A second simple reason for misinforming Gov. Strickland is to keep under wraps the real costs of the system. When real bids come, they will likely trigger a ferocious backlash of opposition from taxpayers who are their jobs, lives and futures with each passing day and will not be in any mood to financially fuel a debt train to the past just so a few people can ride them.

THE REALITY OF REAL RAIL COSTS

As a refresher course on real rail costs you won't hear from either ORDC or the media, digest these numbers before rushing where angels fear to tread: High-speed rai (HSR)l - $40 to $80M/mile - (German [maglev] - $77M/mile); Commuter rail (Existent track) - $24 million/mile; Urban light rail - $30 to $60 million/mile - (Houston - $37 M/mi). When an ORDC spokesman was asked by one reporter whether faster trains would require new tracks that cost considerably more, despite years of time and millions spent on consults to study the issue, he could "not give an estimate" to the question. Being silent on future costs is always a bad sign. It should be a big red flag for Strickland, lawmakers and Ohio taxpayers that danger lies ahead. Floridians have already recoiled from the sour news about the real costs of real HSR and California, which barely passed a nearly $10 billion bond plan that will only cover one-quarter of the system envisioned by its HSR authority, may find a new ballot issue that reverses the vote in November.

What ever the reasons are behind Strickland going down the wrong track at a time when President Barack Obama is doing a 180 degree turnaround from President Bush on restoring passenger trains to Ohio by budgeting $8 billion now and $5 billion more over five years, he should be as excited about learning about other advanced train technology as he was tooling around in new vehicle products from GM or Ford.

NOT ALL MEDIA LAZY ON HSR

Part of the problem is the utter failure of the media to report on views other than what government spokespeople, paid to defend the status quo, are saying about upgrading freight rail tracks to one day accommodate high-speed trains. The "news" in newspaper seems unimportant to many reporters who regurgitate government talking points on HSR no matter how lame or lacking in solid evidence they are.

Case in point, The Columbus Dispatch ran yet another article on Ohio's misguided effort to spend a billion plus dollars on pushing a slow train to the past. ODOT spokesman Scott Varner went unchallenged by the reporter when he declared upgrading old freight rail tracks will lead to HSR. "That's how you get to these higher speeds -- you start with conventional speed," Varner, who should know better, said.

Varner's statement is just false. But lazy media types who refuse to include opposing views do a big disservice to their readers, who are as well intentioned as Ohio's good governor but as in the dark as he is about the potential for new-century transportation technology that is faster, greener, less costly and less disruptive to the environment than freight-rail trains or even Euro-style trains that travel at speeds exceeding 200-mph or more.

But some reporters do understand the dynamics of HSR as envisioned by Obama. They know it is woefully underfunded -- a national system could exceed $1 trillion -- and that, as proposed, will never allow really fast trains to run on really slow tracks, which by the way are way beyond capacity for existing freight rail traffic that is expected to increase.

Mark Stencel, a Congressional Quarterly columnist , made it clear in this piece. An editorial in The Oregonian said what other reporters refuse to say, which is conflating the U.S. and European standards for high speed rail is like "calling dial-up Internet service 'high-speed' and therefore fast enough." Investors Business Daily editorialized that federal funding is a fraction of what is needed to properly build out a separate, dedication track system for high-speed trains. It also said "People are likelier to ask the tough questions about cost-effectiveness when they know the costs are being paid straight from their pockets," a call to fund it by increased gas taxes, as is done in Europe and elsewhere, or by cities who stand to benefit from rail traffic, like Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland in the case of Ohio.

CLINGING TO OLD TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY NOT SMART

Robert Pulliam, inventor and founder of Tubular Rail , an advanced train technology company based in Texas, said government officials should spend more time "stretching the dollar rather than the truth." Pulliam's Tubular Rail, while yet "unproven technology," showcases what leaders like Strickland and others should be be opting for as a way to bring needed jobs and economic development to his state, which is gasping for help in these areas.

Walt Brewer, writing in the Voice of San Diego, offers sound logic about why a military-style process should be applied to transportation technology because it supports military needs in many areas.

"Why don't we have an equivalent interactive overview for the nation's future transportation facilities and operations supported by objective facts based analysis?" he asks. He notes that "'Blue Ribbon' Committees have dealt more with raising funds to continue more of the same roads and transit, without identifying technology driven major new systems intended to absorb inevitable growth, and reduce energy use, land use and pollution. Transportation clings to concepts 100 years or more old."

Brewer opines that national highway support comes from one agency and is unrelated to the one supporting mass transit. "Clearly there is need for coordinating investments into different modes reflecting cost effective facts based analysis taking advantage of new technologies beginning to appear."

OHIOANS, NATION WILL WAKE UP WHEN THEY LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT HSR

In his written statement supporting Obama's plan for restoring passenger rail service, Gov. Strickland said this: "When completed, the Ohio Hub will connect Ohio communities with each other and with neighboring states, including the three federally-designated high-speed corridors that will link Cleveland and Cincinnati to Chicago, and link Cleveland and Cincinnati via Columbus."

One Ohio blogger, who notes that just when the Federal government is ready to push this green technology, the state "isn’t ready with plans to put us on the map." David Esrati writes at Dayton OS that "It’s critical for Ohio’s future to have solutions that aren’t based on cars. Right now, our elected officials should be scrambling to Washington to get our high-speed rail line on their radar."

When Ohioans know specifics related to cost and time, the "when" in Strickland's statement on the Ohio Hub Plan - a fantasy document by some accounts -- will change to "why do it" when less expensive, far faster and greener energy train technology exists now to challenge the slow train-museum plan to the past that achieves none of the goals supporters of HSR rail say are needed going forward.

John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional, business and travel writer and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is also Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Obama Outlines Plans for High-Speed Trains

Obama Outlines Plans for High-Speed Trains

Is Rebuilding Slow Train Network Really Right for the Future?


by John Michael Spinelli

April 16, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: President Barack Obama provided a broad outline Thursday to bring high-speed rail to America. Joined in Washington before his trip to Mexico by Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Obama called upon Americans to "make no little plans" on restoring passenger rail service and then forecasted that his commitment to fund higher speed trains will result in a "new foundation for lasting prosperity."

Mr. Biden, known for using the nation's only high-speed train in operation, Amtrak's Acela line, to commute to and from his home in Delaware to the nation's Capitol as a U.S. Senator, said his comments would be shorter than his train trip. LaHood, an Illinois Republican and former congressman, said today's announcement would not be possible but for the help of Obama and Biden, who he characterized as "two rail men" who supporters of passenger rail owe a debt of gratitude to for including high-speed rail funding in the recently passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or the stimulus bill.

Biden said that while much attention has been placed on the recovery part of ARRA, funding for high-speed rail will focus on its reinvestment half. In that context, Obama said, "We need a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century," adding that high-speed rail will reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil, and improve the environment.

In a coordinated announcement yesterday covered by the Associated Press, the governors of eight Midwestern states announced that they are joining forces to "boost their chances of getting a cut of $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail." Among the mix of state chief executives was Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who would like to see restoration of passenger train service connecting Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati after 41 years of inactivity. Ohio Republicans, who control the state senate, are leary of Strickland's passenger rail plan because it relies too heavily on one-time federal stimulus bill funding and because they think ridership is not sufficient now to justify the over $1 billion in funding needed to build out the so-called 3-C Corridor route. The first passenger train is not expected to run until late 2010, and that scenario is contingent upon other factors that may or may not play out as predicted.

Even more worrisome for Strickland and his transportation department director is the report in the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer today by State Auditor Mary Taylor that Ohio's 2012-2013 biennial budget may be as much as $8 billion out of balance. Using Strickland's own revenue forecasting numbers, Taylor, the only Republican to hold statewide office, said relying on one-time federal stimulus funds to close gapping holes in the budget, as is being done for the next two-year budget, "is setting up lawmakers to raise taxes two years down the road by relying so heavily on one-time money." Funding for the slow train to the past Strickland wants to build is totally dependent upon a budget that will not be negatively impacted by state funding for restoring passenger rail service. Taylor's report shows that that scenario is a fantasy.

Saying the nation's aging infrastructure is hindering growth, Obama pointed to other countries like Spain, France and Japan where high-speed rail is a viable transportation standard. "This is not a fanciful pie in the sky vision of the future," he said, noting that its "happening elsewhere, not here." The nation's chief executive, who expressed his interest in high-speed rail during his swing through Europe recently, painted a picture of "whisking along at 100-mph" that while it sounds fast to Americans, is in reality very slow when compared to Euro-style trains that reach speeds of 200-mph or even slower when compared to Japanese magnetic levitation bullet trains that easily reach speeds exceeding 300-mph.

The president said first round funding will concentrate on improving existing lines to make trains faster, while second round funding will identify corridors for world class high-speed rail.

Reading from prepared remarks, Obama said funding will be distributed soley on merit, not political considerations. He emphasized that no funding decision have been made so far, but likely routes will be found in the Northwest, Florida, Gulf Coast states, New England, the industrial heartland centered around Chicago and California, which he said recently passed a nearly $10 billion bond package for bullet trains running between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Doing what he has done before on other topics, Obama took the arguments of his critics and provided responses to each of them. Maybe his most compelling argument was that Abraham Lincoln, while fighting a Civil War to keep the Union together, was also focused on connecting the nation from East to West and became a driver of the build-out of the first transcontinental railroad that finished after his death in Utah in 1869.

The announcement by the Midwest governors said "faster trains would include boosting regional economies, as well as reducing highway congestion and U.S. dependence on foreign oil."

As exciting as President Obama's announcement today was, the reality of the situation was expressed by Kevin Brubaker of the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago, who said the $8 billion "isn't nearly enough to transform U.S. passenger service." Brubaker, who said getting eight governors to agree where to go to church is a challenge, said their joining of forces on rail, while being good news, is "not a realistic expectation right now given the federal funding."

The AP reported that authorities warned that Illinois won't get trains traveling more than 200 mph, the speed of some already in Europe and Asia. Such a system, according to the unnamed authorities, would require dedicated lines, ones with far fewer stops and without the multitude of crossing so common along U.S. railway lines.

And therein lies the rub over high-speed rail. It sounds good, but until and unless Americans are ready and willing to increase their taxes many fold, the massive funding needed to build a separate, dedicated system of tracks capable of handling Euro-speed trains, America will end up spending decades and billions rebuilding a slow system of trains that won't be profitable because ticket prices will never be high enough to cover the capital, operational and maintenance costs of these trains. And until sufficiently high speeds are achieved, such that the same journey by car can be cut in half, all taxpayers will be forced to subsidize the transportation preference of a very few travelers who can afford the cost of traveling by train.

And with estimates of a quarter million or so people joining in yesterday's so-called teabag protest parties against more government spending, it's not likely that individuals will choose to increase their tax rates to pay for high-speed rail given the staggering cost in time and money needed for this kind of transportation.

John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional, business and travel writer and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is also Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Is Ohio Getting Railroaded by an Expensive, Slow Train to the Past?

Is Ohio Getting Railroaded by Slow, Costly Train to the Past?

Addiction to Cars, Planes, Limited Funding Obstacles to High Speed Trains, Experts Say

Opeditude by John Michael Spinelli

April 10, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: A lot of digital ink has been spilled of late by Ohio's mainstream media and blogger community about whether resurrecting passenger rail service diagonally across the state is a good or bad decision. Given the state's ongoing fiscal failings, the debate about whether it will ever amount to anything more than a slow train to the past, even after a decade or more passes and over a billion in additional federal and state funding is thrown at it, is absolutely critical. But to make sense of it, facts and views other than those routinely posited by government officials is sorely needed.

I reported in early April that Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, supported by his Democratic homies and even some Republicans, agreed to retain in the recently passed $9.6 billion state Transportation Budget the expensive commitment to resume passenger rail service that will link, after 41 years of no rail cars but lots of studies, Cleveland to Cincinnati via Columbus and Dayton or the 3-C Corridor. Since then slow slow freight trains creep along the 260-mile swath of surface-grade steel rails that runs in close proximity to 5.9 million people or 60 percent of Ohio's population.

Speaking to a townhall meeting of mostly young people in Strasbourg, France, last week, President Barack Obama expressed to his audience his desire to emulate European-style high-speed trains back home. "One thing that, as an American who is proud as anybody of my country, I am always jealous about European trains," CNN reported Obama saying. "And I said to myself, why can't we have -- why can't we have high-speed rail? And so we're investing in that as well?"

Such fresh thinking on rail, when compared to the lack of same from former President George W. Bush, who showed no interest in passenger rail, has rightfully generated a runaway train of buzz. Conventional railroad advocates and special interests are actively lobbying public officials to blow their whistle for patching up an old, costly, slow system that will be even older in 2025 when outdated plans say the old system connecting major Midwestern cities including Chicago will be built out. Don't ask about cost. No one knows. But well-paid consultants are probably working on the right answers. The growing legion of supporters for the slow train to the past include the usual suspects of chambers, planning groups, corporate and community groups, who know little about railroads except that a sluice gate of federal funding is open, spewing billions for special-interest consultants to who want officials, great and small, to think their village, town or burg will some day be a stop on the high-speed rail (HSR) line.

But what's really coming down the track, unfortunately, is a slow, costly train to heartbreak city. Americans, who are not being well serviced by media that either doesn't understand the facts about rail or is to co-opted to challenge the misleading misinformation being trotted out by government spokespeople, should know that unless they are willing to increase their federal, state and local tax burden by multiples, the fantasy of whisking along at speeds nearing 200-mph as you enjoy a beverage as trains in Europe, Japan or China routinely do, will be just that -- a fantasy.

It just will not be in the cards for a state like Ohio, who may be looking at budget red ink for years to come, to deliver on what state officials routinely say is such a good business decision that taxpayers can expect to both pay a minimum of $10 million a year in public subsidy and not really ride it for maybe ten years or more. When states like California, which recently passed a $9.5 billion HSR bond issue, or Florida, which made a statewide commitment to HSR in 2000 only to reverse itself in 2004 when the bids came in twice what the public was told, show how many box cars of money will be needed to chase the European model, Ohio should perk up and take notice. If it doesn't, the light at the end of the tunnel will be that of an oncoming debt train, and Ohioans will be riding coach on it for years to come.

But while media stories about HSR and "bullet" trains abound these days, one expert says not only are European and U.S. high-speed standards different, but that the money Obama has to offer isn't enough to "build a single system, or to dramatically increase existing train speeds."

Joseph Vranich, The author of "End of the Line: Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America's Passenger Trains" and a former Amtrak public affairs spokesman, says the illusion of Euro-style HSR here is a mismatch. "We're not Europe. We're not Japan. We're looking at shorter travel times, through population densities that are much higher," Vranich told the AP. While $8 billion may sound like a lot, Vranich was not optimistic. "Here's what's going to happen: The (Obama) administration will issue these funds in dribs and drabs — to this project and that project — and the result will be an Amtrak train from Chicago to St. Louis that takes maybe 15 minutes off the travel time."

Another natural supporter of passenger rail, Ross Capon of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, someone who believes that "anything is better than nothing," sees other reasons why HSR won't happen anytime soon. Capon told Deborah Hastings of the AP that Americans are wed to their cars and enjoy planes. "The reason why high-speed rail has never taken off is because this country is determined to live on cheap gasoline and airplane travel," he said, adding, "It's very likely that all of the money will go to significant improvements of existing tracks. It's not going to build bullet trains." But purpose-driven, exorbitantly expensive tracks are indeed what bullet trains need to run on.

The misleading and false notion that upgrading freight tracks to accommodate high speed trains may be behind the announcement Friday by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), who along with his state Congressional Delegation is asking the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, another son of Illinois, to support their effort to revive the passenger rail car manufacturing industry in Illinois.

To really have a European-style high-speed train system here, a new, separate and independent system of rails must be built. That won't happen. And since the rail system we have is designed for freight, conventional trains that will run on them at conventional speeds could use American made passeenger rail cars.

According to a media release from Durbin's office, the U.S. Department of Transportation recently announced that $90.8 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been committed to rehabilitating train cars in the United States and returning them to service - the average age of an Amtrak car is now 25 years.

"It is time to establish rolling stock manufacturers here in the United States," Durbin wrote. "Although we no longer manufacture passenger rail cars in Illinois, Illinois is still home to a vibrant rail industry that has the capacity to quickly modify existing facilities to accommodate the production of passenger rail rolling stock."

Durbin believes the "time is ripe to harness Illinois' position and to capitalize on the massive new investment into intercity passenger rail. With the Department's assistance we could bring good paying jobs to the United States while advancing cleaner, cheaper and greener transportation options for Americans."

Laudable on its merits, Durbin's call to start manufacturing on rail cars in Illinois points out the unavoidable fact that the tsunami of federal dollars washing over America for rail infrastructure projects will be shipped overseas to countries like France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Japan and China, where advanced train technology is headquartered in the handful of companies who can build really fast trains. For a global scorecard of who the big players are, this Business Week article identifies the major players. One of them, Siemens, was found guilty of orchestrating a vast, global sytem of bribes that were budgeted for like any other line of expense.

Ohio transportation director Jolene Molitoris, who directed the Federal Railroad Administration as its first women administrator but who never run a railroad, testified in Washington recently along with Joe Boardman, President and CEO of Amtrak, who actually runs a railroad - Amtrak, established in 1971. Boardman testified that the train of the future must be safer, improve operations, equipment and signaling; it must uppdate our plant and be financially healthier; it must al be for the nation and the environment by being greener, reduce emissions and reduce demand for imported oil. The 3-C Corridor train Molitoris supports accomplishes none of these goals, but will cost consumer billions and take decades to fully bloom if it ever does.

In his presentation before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development of the Committee on Appropriations, Boardman identified six conventional railroad bridges built before the Model-T in 1908 that while still in use, will cost many billions to replace in order that conventional steel-wheel train technology can still run. Such expenditures would be obviated if an advanced train system like Tubular Rail is used, because TR technology doesn't need roads or bridges to work. Moreover, visionary, future-designed TR technology can be built in America instead of other countries like Canada or France, where key parts for the Amtrak's Acela train, the only high-speed train in America, were purchased, respectfully, from Bombardier and Alstrom.

Interviewed by ABC news, Amtrak's Boardman said, "The track that's out there today ... for most of it we can't go over 79 miles per hour." Boardman, who acknowledge that upgrading current freight-rail tracks will only permit trains traveling at 110-mph, said President Obama "is not talking about high-speed rail -- those are those bullet trains in Japan and France" and that it will take much more money than the government has allocated already to truly bring about high-speed rail.

"We are not going to see 200 miles per hour trains with an $8 billion investment," Boardman said, reported by ABC news. The Economist, in an aptly named article, "Slower than a speeding bullet," makes the same argument in correctly comparing high-speed to medium-speed trains.

Molitoris, whose claim to fame is improving Amtrak cutomer servic, continues to misguide other state officials and the general public into thinking erroneously that all high-speed standards are the same. But that's not the case. European high-speed trains run at speeds of 125-mph or more, while American high-speed starts out much lower at 90-mph. The slow, heavy train Director Molitoris gushes over will only average 57-mphs, a tortoise-like pace when compared to other technologies like Maglev, TGV or Tubular Rail.

It's not too late, thought, to stop Ohio from getting railroaded. For that to happen, Gov. Strickland and members of the General Assembly must be given a full spectrum of technology choices to choose from other than a slow train or no train. Companies with innovative ideas are out there. Not to include their potential in the debate is short sighted at best and reckless at worst. In no other industry is the status quo so fiercely defended as it is in transportation. If the average citizen, taxpayer or elected public official was given a choice between candles and electricity, hotair balloons and planes, stagecoaches and cars, galleons and cruise ships, who would choose the former? What would happen if pharmaceutical companies stopped making new drugs to cure sickness or prlong life, or Internet developers stopped developing?

Would we think that's a good thing? Hardly, so why do we say old, slow, expensive surface-level steel-rail trains is the best we can do?

Contrary to inventors and innovators who constantly look for the new, new thing, it appears some transportation officials, in Ohio and elsewhere, think early 20th century train technology is as good as it gets. If speed makes trains competitive with cars and planes, Ohio's slow train to the past is a bad alchemy of wasted dollars and time.

John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional, business and travel writer and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is also Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Strickland, Lawmakers Climb Aboard Slow Train to the Past

Strickland, Lawmakers Climb Aboard Slow Train to the Past

New Train Technology Company Says Ohio Headed Down Wrong Track



Opeditude by John Michael Spinelli

COLUMBUS, OHIO: After weeks of political bickering over a $9.6 billion Ohio Transportation Budget that included a controversial plan to return antiquated passenger trains to the old freight rails that connect Cleveland with Cincinnati via Columbus, it appears both Democratic Governor Ted Strickland and Republican lawmakers area ready to board their slow, expensive train to the past.

The main talking point touted by government officials and their spokesmen, dutifully regurgitated without challenge by the media, was the "very rough" estimate of $250 in federal economic stimulus money to re-start the debt train to the past. The debt associated with this ill-defined, costly train is the estimated $10 million annual operating subsidy Ohio will be forced to supply for decades to come. This figure, along with the misleading statement that pricy upgrades to existing freight tracks over many years will eventually accommodate high-speed trains by 2016 at the earliest, were purposely downplayed to mainstream media sources that either didn't know the right questions to ask or were to castrated to challenge these estimates, which cannot be substantiated by any independent source even many studies undertaken over four decades.

While Republican legislators did challenge Strickland and his new transportation director, Jolene Molitoris, a former Federal Railroad Administration Administrator, on the real demand for and cost of passenger rail service and whether this is the right time to enter into such a big-ticket spending plan given the state's ailing economy and cascading budget shortfalls, the Controlling Board,a bi-partisan, bi-cameral group that approves certain state expenditures, did agreed to allow the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), through its captive agency on rail service, The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC), to contract with the Woodside Consulting Group for $450,000 (downsized from $750,000 earlier in the year) in federal funds to prepare an analysis on railroad capacity. Woodside is to submit its findings by June 30, 2009.

Published reports quoted an ODOT spokesman saying construction costs for the return of passenger rail service were "very rough" estimates (translation: we don't know but it will probably cost more) and, therefore, not listed on the re-start funding request to the Controlling Board, now controlled by Democrats.

ODOT and ORDC want to spread $21 million in consulting contracts around to 42 consulting firms during 2009. Studies generally reflect the agenda of those paying for them, so one could conclude this is merely a way to fix the facts to the misguided policy to resume old train technology.

Media reports consistently failed to inform Ohioans that another $800 million or so will be needed to make this plan work. For their financing scenario to hold water, ORDC, defending its out-dated and inaccurate Hub Plan, says 80 perent of furture costs must come from Washington. This condition is pure fantasy, given how broke Washington is and how broke Ohio is to do much more itself. One Ohio blogger, David Esrati of Dayton OS , while he didn't talk about the full costs of the train or its ongoing subsidy or the liability (indemnification of the freight railroads) the state will assume for accidents that occur between freight and passenger trains running on the same track, he did say that if they don't go as fast as the Euro-style train he rode on between Paris and Long, the "slow train might as well be no train at all." Those like Mr. Esrati and me, who have not followed in lock step with administration officials and their supporters, have had to express contrary views in different ways.

The story by AP reporter Matt Leingang that appeard in the Newark Advocate about the competition Ohio finds itself in among other states with rail service far more advanced, may cause a pause for Ohio officials who know their plan will be idled if they don't get some of the $8 billion in stimulus money for rail projects.

The AP report said Illinois wants $500 million to upgrade Amtrak's Chicago-to-St. Louis passenger service so trains can zoom at up to 110 mph. New York Gov. David Paterson wants stimulus money to upgrade crossings so some trains could go from 79 mph to 110 mph within five years. Federal standards for high speed start at 120-mph. In California, where voters in November approved borrowing $9 billion to begin building a train that can reach 220 mph, the state has outlined $2 billion in rail projects that could be started before Sept. 30, 2012, the deadline for committing the $8 billion.

Ohioans, Leingang wrote, had a chance in 1982 to raise the state sales tax 1 percent to build an $8 billion high-speed rail system modeled after those in Europe. But they turned it down.

Molitoris, the first woman to head the FRA and ODOT, showed her commitment to rail when she testified this week to a House subcommittee studying high-speed rail.

While her commitment is what the press focuses on, its the technology that's key. Which technology is chosen determines costs, times and turnout of riders. The question is not whether passenger rail should return, it should. The question is what technology are you going to use.

If Ohio chooses, as it appears it will do, an old, slow, heavy and costly surface rail system, then that will be a bad decision that will haunt Ohio for decades to come. Molitoris and Gov. Strickland should be investing in future, not past, train technology.

As the Director of Ohio Operations for a new train technology company, Tubular Rail , we believe Ohio's decision to jump aboard the slow train it seemed destined to fund is the wrong decision at the wrong time. With alternative train technologies to choose from, it's unfortunate that state officials are so stuck in the past.

The New York Times reported today that China wants to be the leader in electric vehicles. Times reporter Keith Bradsher said China is "behind the United States, Japan and other countries when it comes to making gas-powered vehicles, but by skipping the current technology, China hopes to get a jump on the next."

Ohio is curiously incurious about new transportation technology. If the pharmaceutical industry were as innovation averse as Ohio transportation officials are to new train technology, aspirin and penicillin would be the best tools we have to overcome sickness.

By choosing the old train technology it has in this Transportation Budget, Ohio will only become more uncompetitive as other states or countries, like China, want to leap frog to the future. Being a leader means going first, not waiting for the all-safe siren to sound. No guts no glory. And Ohio needs some glory these days, what with jobs tied to Detroit's Big Three hanging in the balance and Ohio manufacturers, whose ranks were thinned by nearly 27,000 jobs in 2008, need a new industry to make parts for.

Charles Kettering, the Ohioan who invented the electric car ignition and got a suburb of Dayton named after him said of where his focus is, "My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there." Ohio leaders should heed his call to look forward not backward. Their decision with this Transportation Budget tells tell the world Ohio would rather look to the past for inspiration than to the future where innovation resides.

John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional, business and travel writer and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is also Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com