Many Not On-Board Slow 3C Train to the Past

Many Not On-Board Slow 3C Train to the Past

Comments on Passenger Rail Ohio Rail Chiefs Would Rather You Not See

by John Michael Spinelli

September 1, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: With visions of high-speed sugar plum fairies dancing in their heads, fueled by the $8 billion in high-speed rail funds designed to launch America's version of bullet train systems that run in Europe and Asia, Ohio communities, large and small, are being asked to support the resurgence of passenger rail service while also being told their community will not be a stop on a train that will travel slow and take nearly seven hours to traverse the state diagonally from Cincinnati to Cleveland with stops in Dayton and Columbus in between.

Even though a small community like Galion is being asked to jump on board the slow train to the past even though it has been told it will not be a stop of the 3C corridor train, as the Ohio Department of (Existing) Transportation calls the 250-mile line it needs $400 million to launch in 2011 at the earliest, the comments left at the state's Web site for the 3C are far from positive, as who take the time to scroll through some of the unflattering comments included in this column.

Even thought Ohio's mainstream media has performed as an adjunct public relations department for ODOET because it refuses to ask even simple, challenging questions to state rail bosses, who seem single-minded on pursuing a plan that conservatively is pegged to cost $1.53 billion, and that's just for initial capital costs, which doesn't include an on-going public subsidy to cover operating, maintenance and borrowing costs. Spinelli on Assignment reviewed upwards of 2,000 comments to glean those comments ODOET will never show you, because they ask critical questions that state rail bosses cannot answer yet. And even if they could, those answers would poke huge holes in the assumptions and projections being cast far and wide to accent the positive and eliminate the negatives surround this rail project.

There were hundreds of comments on the 3C Web site that ranged from being curious to being adamantly against the idea. The following represent a small portion of this category of comments. By reading through them, though, Ohioans will better understand that they need to learn more than they are being told today about the cost of passenger rail and what the source of Ohio's huge share of these costs will come from.

So, without further delay, here's an SOA sampling of the "3C is not Me":

Ohio is one of the largest states in the country, with three major urban centers, over 20 of the world's largest companies, and proximity to Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington and so forth. Economic development and opportunity would be tremendously enhanced by high-speed rail, not low-speed rail. Ohio--and the rest of the country--must not plan for the short-term, but the long-term, and develop extremely high-speed rail that does more than transport people in Columbus to Cleveland at 79 mph. Look at the success that Japan, China and France have had in developing rail that is actually high-speed. Building slow rail will be inherently unpopular because of time. Time trumps all; the ability to do work on a train will be nice, to be sure. But people still want to get to destinations faster, for cheap, and with maximum convenience. If we're going to do this--and we must--let's do it right. Let's develop high-speed rail. Japan's got trains that go over 300 mph. And we're going to dabble in trains that go 79? Let's leap ahead, not crawl forward.

That ODOT should stick to highway maintenance in this time of economic hardships. This is hardly the time to be expanding a program which stage gas taxes cannot legally be spent on to support once implemented. Let this money go to programs already established.

This should not be a federal or state undertaking. If the market demanded it, we would already have it. Look at the ridership of COTA in Columbus! It is used heavily one time a year (Red White and Boom) and sporadically system-wide the rest of the year (OSU Football games organized by OSU) and few other events. I would be disappointed to see tax dollars go towards this plan.

This model will not work. During the quick start phase you will not see a bonanza of ridership because a MAJORITY of the state will elect to use the quicker, less expensive method - the automobile. Since you won't see this huge influx of riders that you are predicting, you won't be able to justify the demand for high speed as your plan is laid out. Let's see - Would I want to travel Columbus-Cleveland to watch the Indians with my family of 3? Yes. Would I want to sit on a train for 3.5 hrs instead of 2.5? Maybe once, and never again. Would I want to pay $60 train fare (pulling that number out of the sky, but I bet it's on the low end) vs. $35 to gas up my car? No.

That available times and stops do not take longer than what it would normally take to travel by car. The more stops the more likely the trip will take longer. Time and cost efficency will be key.

Waste of time and money. Rail service has never been the answer to efficient travel. It failed years ago. Why on earth would it be revived except to get federal stimulus money. No one even thought about this until monies became available and everyone wanted their "fair" share.

That 110 mph is embarrassing. We can afford a few less F22s and get at least 200mph trains

Stop wasting our money! Amtrack is not able to operate without tax payer dollars, and it seems like more every year. Why support a project that will not be self-sufficient and require more state dollars once the federal stimulus money runs out?

Please don't just fund a study, actually do something. Get us high speed rail service between Cleveland Columbus and Cinci. I studied in europe, and I saw what wonders a good train service does. If the idea is a piecemeal approach, it's doomed to failure. INVEST in high speed, people will take it, and make sure it is REASONABLY priced! If i can get from cleveland to columbus for 50 bucks, and faster than in a car, I AM SOLD! No one takes regular trains, and no one will. They are slow, uncomfortable, and associated with people with low socio ecobomic backrgonds. Normal middle class people don't like that. A high speed train would give everything we need!

I appreciate what you are trying to do but a state like Ohio that has excellent transportation systems already in place and relatively low traffic, DOES NOT NEED high speed trains. Lets use this money elsewhere.

It is mind boggling that, residing in the largest industrialized economy of the world, I am utterly unable to employ a mode of travel that is ubiquitous throughout all other nations.

It's a waste of tax dollars.

Seems to me that the federal government has only mucked up the rail systems it already funds and controls. I don't see a rail system in Ohio being any better - and with far less population desity to make it financially worthwhile.

I think if it were profitable, a business would have already created it.

Stop wasting taxpayer money. If this is a worthwhile service, allow private investors to get involved and run it profitably. Taxpayers are already subsidizing Amtrak, and should not be forced to subsidize Ohiotrak.

This a black hole for government waste!

I'm just not sure it's convenient enough to attract ridership

Please save your money. This is the 2000's not the 1800's. Americans do not want to take trains, aside from the occassional novelty, outside of the East Coast. This proposal will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions, and Ohio cannot afford to subsidize this program, it can barely pay its own bills. Please spend the money on the East Coast, where it may make sense.

The point I would like to get across is that funding must be generous so that the trains can begin operation quickly and at a high quality of service. Getting adequate funding will be crucial in making trains competitive with the personal automobile.

Each of the "benefits" applies to the sales pitch for intercity bus service and that has been a disaster in every Ohio city. The only way people use bus or the proposed train service would be if gas were incredibly expensive. That's why train service works in other countries(!) its NOT because of the supposed benefits. This is an unnecessary project with limited potential. A classic waste of money.

If it won't be self-supporting, it shouldn't be built.

Quite honestly, I find it very hard to believe that this is a feasible project. Don't we have more worthwhile projects on which to spend our money? It seems apparent that these trains will never run at capacity. Hopping in your car will be more convenient, faster and, above all, cheaper. The general public is opposed to this idea and the state should quit trying to shove it down our throats.

The proposed option is significantly slower than car travel, and each of the cities on the corridor has limited intra-city transportation options. The reason the NE Corridor is successful is that the major cities along the route (Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC) all have mass-transit available once you arrive at the destination. None of the 3C corridor cities have significant infrastructure in place, indicating that the venture would be unsuccessful.

Once the passengers get off the trains how are they then going to get to their final destination? Seems to me the local infrastructure needs to be in place first. Taking a cab is expensive and the COTA bus is not user friendly. I would rather see a subway system first. And many communities do not even hade sidewalks for people to walk from a station to their home.

As cincinnati is experiencing budget cuts in essential areas such as police and fire services, I would rather see funds used in support of keeping those jobs rather than used for light rail which would offer limited appeal/use. With police cuts, the crime and violence will increase and no one will be traveling to cincinnati anyhow.

We have crumbling cities, people hungry and on the streets and no jobs. If this is your president's idea of stimulus, then forget it. These jobs last only a short time till constuction and just a few people to maintain and operate. We do not need more criminals having an easy way into Columbus to attack our citizens, we have enough crime without importing it. Besides what would they come to Columbus for? To see the grassy park left where the only shopping at City Center used to be in downtown? Everything closes at 6pm, nothing worth seeing here. Could have used the old City Center instead of building a new building to house city offices on High St. What a waste of money then paying another half million to tearr down City Center when there are many other buildings you could use sitting empty down town in crime-ville. Use your heads not your political asparations and gains to lead. What a mistake. Like raising income tax 1/2 percent, you are driving people out of the area with this. How you going to collect taxes if people are leaving...rea with this. How you going to collect taxes if people are leaving...

It was stupid to take out rails to begin with we cannot afford this now how will it get paid for you politiciansn are so damn nuts

I am for this but am not sure why??? IT sounds good BUT can it be self-sustaining? I don't think so. It has to be fast, convenient, and clean--sorry--don't let this turn into a Greyhound bus program. Ohio needs jobs and this would help, but will people in rural communities drive an hour to get a train for a trip they could have driven in two hours (Hillsboro to Columbus via train with a Cincy connection). If this only caters to metro inhabitants it will not work. And great sections of the state are going to be truly left out. Like I say, I support it but am not sure why.

One word - Amtrak. It will be cost prohibitive to build and require subsidies forever because it will not generate enough ridership to support itself.

Toledo should be included.

You are 30 years behind

It has no probability of success

Either build a modern, efficient, and very fast train system or don't build it at all. If people are given an inexpensive and faster alternative to driving their car, you better believe they will take advantage of it.

I do not think adding to the federal deficit by soliciting stimulus funds should be the way to pay for the rail system. Although I think it is important I think that our infastructure that is already in place should be taken care of first. Right now we need to cut back in funding and I do not support stimulus money which in turn will add to the taxes that I am already paying!

It’s pointless if all this gets you is "getting to my destination as fast as I would in a car" as question 10h says. The only way this venture can be in any form viable is if it is much, much faster than driving. High speed rail or nothing. Does anyone actually commute all the way across Ohio on a daily basis? I doubt it. But if this allows someone to live in Cleveland and work in Columbus (without a very difficult commute) then this can be a great resource for the state. Please only consider putting stations in the downtowns of our great cities. Our urban downtowns have seen a huge amount of public and private investment for centuries and it is a crime when private and public interests alike turn their backs on them. They are great places; they are easy to get to; they are the core hubs of business in our state; and they are the geographical centers of our major metropolitan areas. Highly improved public transit between them would provide an immense benefit to their economies at a time when it is needed most. Finally, while the temporary construction jobs to build this massive infrastructure project are important, it is the long term economic growth, private development, private industry job creation and retention that are the key factors to this issue. If the Federal government is handing out free money to fund projects like this, than we should build it, but build it the right way. Build it in a way that shows Ohio is an intelligent and progressively growing state that knows how to efficiently spend government stimulus grants to maximize potential growth in our private sectors. Make Ohio a place that people want to invest in again.

Ohio has little viable rail service. We don't take Amtrack from Cincinnati to Chicago, because the rails are poor and the train is side lined whenever a non-passenger train needs to pass. This makes the trip incredibly long! Ohio needs ways to rely more on other forms of transportation besides the car.

It is a huge waste of MY tax money!!! Can't you guys come up with something a little better than this idea???????????????????????
It will not pay its' own way and will have to be subsidized by tax payers who wont use iit.

Quick start won't do much - it would be faster to go by car

I think it is a failure waiting to happen. Unless cities have clean, safe, efficient and easy to use local public transportation, connecting the Three-Cs won't make a difference. People will still chose to drive for about the same time, the same money, but with more flexibility when they arrive.

Rail service will divert state funds, which are shrinking, away from more important issues now for a long-shot route like the 3C that few will ride but all will be expected to pay for to build it and subsidize it over time. The same agencies and some of the same people who looked on as passenger rail service vanished are now asking the public to let them bring it back, when they have done nothing for decades but plan and study with nothing to show for it.

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 and is available for subscription (99 cents/month) to Kindle owners. His tweets on Twitter can be followed @OhioNewsBureau. To send a news tip or to make a comment, email him at: ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Ohio Spending Panel OKs $200K More for Slow Train to the Past Project

Ohio Spending Panel OKs $200K More for Slow Train to the Past Project

Outsourced California Rail Study Firm Outsources Work to $300/hour Consultant

State Spending Priorities Called into Question as Initial 3C Rail Study Reaches $650,000

by John Michael Spinelli

August 27, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: The split vote last Monday by a bi-partisan legislative spending panel, over whether Ohio rail chiefs should be given another $200,000 on top of the $450,000 they received in late March to fund a California firm's assessment of the capacity and capital costs associated with Gov. Ted Strickland's idea to start running passenger rail trains between Cincinnati and Cleveland, raises questions of whether this project has merit at a time when Ohio's budget is under terrible pressure and if the Controlling Board will become a back-door to increased agency funding reduced during the regular budget cycle?

The Controlling Board, housed in the Ohio Department of Budget and Management and controlled by the administration of Democratic Gov. Strickland, is an insider's agency that rarely gains coverage by the media other than when spending on hot topics like casino gambling, slot machines or special counsel for special projects comes before its bi-weekly schedule. Ohio news media did take note that state agencies whose funding was reduced in the recently completed budget cycle, that ended on July 17 when Strickland signed a budget some say will lead to thousands fewer state workers and job losses by agencies whose state funding was cut sharply, are using the sleepy spending panel as a back-door method to add to their budgets.

In the case of the request by the Ohio Department of Development (ODOT) and its captive rail agency, The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) that asked for and received another $200,000 for critical work its needs before it can apply for high-speed rail (HSR) funds from Washington on October 2, the Controlling Board may find itself in the news more often as it becomes a new battleground to tussle over projects that really do need more funding or whether projects like the 3C railroad project, that Republicans in general and Republicans on this panel in particular say is not only not in demand but will spend precious dollars that could be spent on more pressing priorities, like funding food banks, children's health programs, libraries, services for the elderly and the sick, should slow down and wait for better times or better train technology.

Public information submitted (#90) to the Controlling Board by ODOT/ORDC to add another $200,000 to the $450,000 the panel approved in late March, shows the small, four-person California firm, Woodside Consulting, that state officials said they had chosen to perform analysis of the "capacity and capital costs" associated with the re-establishment of passenger rail trains along a 250-mile route connecting Cincinnati with Cleveland with stops in Columbus and Dayton along the way because only they could do it, will now outsource the state's outsourced work to other consultants, one of whom will charge $300/hour, a rate that even high-priced lawyers doing special counsel work for the Ohio Attorney General would envy.

Calls for comments to the three Republicans who voted against the rail consulting funding request Monday, State Senators John Carey (17th Dist), Mark Wagoner (2nd District) and House Representative Jay Hottinger (71st District), were not returned to Spinelli on Assignment in time for this column. However, a staffer for Hottinger who said he was familiar with his boss's general thoughts on the issue of high speed rail, said his boss believes their is little real demand for this project and that a train system like the one that runs in the nation's capital would be better suited for Ohio, as it would help move people from suburbs to city centers, a decision that might actually lure some drivers to abandon their cars for a commuter train.

In ORDC's pre-application to the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) that asks for more than $5 billion of the $8 billion being offered nationally for such projects, Ohio said its 3C plan would conservatively cost $1.53 billion. This figure, some rail observes say, will rise much higher if and when real bids are ever received. Bids to build HSR in Florida -- recall that the International standard for HSR is 167-mph or more-- were nearly double what proponents said they would be when they convinced Floridians in 2000 to have the state make a commitment toward Euro-style trains. In 2004, when the jaw-dropping bids came in from foreign companies that control the fast train technology, Floridians reversed their commitment in another statewide vote. The lesson from Florida, and now from California, where a slim margin of voters last November authorized the sale of $10-billion in bonds to pay one-third the total cost of the state's $45 billion HSR package and where a lawsuit filed recently by opponents of one part of the plan to adjust the route has been upheld by a county judge, should not be lost on regular Ohioans or their leaders.

Amid the fanfare and fever surrounding the prospect of HSR coming to a state near you, a vision that has every township official thinking their location will be a HSR stop and the riches brought in from the talking point that economic development will occur from it, more and more national voices are making clear arguments that are popping the myth bubble expanding around HSR. It may rub some rail proponents the wrong way, but its a message more people need to hear before they are lead to far down the primrose path.

The lesson may play out in Cincinnati, one big C in the 3C rail route. Residents of the Queen City opposed to a trolley project, that has already escalated in estimated cost from $123 million to $185 million, are pushing a charter amendment that if passed this fall would prevent any rail projects going forward without a vote of the public. The hometown newspaper, Gannet's conservative Cincinnati Enquirer, wrote a no-holds editorial calling for a halt to the trolley project. Proponents of trolleys running in a mostly Downtown loop argue not doing it will show how opposed to progress Cincinnati will be. Advocates to stop the trolleys in their tracks say its another boondoggle waiting to happen. Their argument is mostly centered on the health of city finances. Until Cincinnati city finances are flush again, such that it doesn't have to lay off workers or reduce funding for important programs, only then should such a project be discussed.

The implication for ODOT/ORDC is that passage of the charter amendment will help derail their hell-bent push to start the 3C because voters will have to vote again to authorize the building or updating of rail lines into the city.

Critics of the 3C plan, which if it ever gets started -- rail officials say with great uncertainty that their "quick start" train may not run until the fall of 2010 or even 2011 and that the train won't be in full bloom until 2015 -- say the speed will be so slow -- averaging only 57-mph because this train, by necessity, will be forced to share freight rail tracks with freight rail trains. Ohio rail officials are caught on the horns of a dilemma -- they want to encourage support for the plan but at the same time they must tell some officials they won't be a stop on the route. By themselves, freight trains had over 100 accidents in one year in Ohio, according to the FRA. It follows that collisions between passengers and freight will happen.

One key question state rail chiefs or even lawmakers are not asking, is who will be liable for such crashes? Indemnification, the technical name for who pays for accidents when they happen, is an issue, that like the capacity and capital costs Woodside is to produce, state rail chiefs don't want to talk about. State supporters of the costly train to the past would rather oversell its benefits -- one favorite talking point is that rail nodes will foster economic development, but it's a talking point any mode of transportation can make, so its not unique to the 3C -- and undersell the cost to build it, the cost to operate it, the ridership numbers who will use it and how much Ohio will need to subsidize it because it won't be a money maker.

Another critical aspect of the 3C is who should really pay for it, as this article about the debate over the cost of transportation in Virginia demonstrates. Should everyone or just users be stuck with the bill? State rail proponents would like everyone to pay for it even though only a few will actually pay the ticket price to ride nearly seven hours from one corner of the state to another. They are having a hard time making their slow train appear competitive with traveling the same distance by car. Those in the know in Ohio know that even when a rider gets from point A to point B, the public transportation infrastructure that awaits them in any Ohio city has a lot to be desired. State lawmakers have reduced state funding for public transportation by more than 60 percent since 2000, so who's fooling who here?

One funding options state rail officials would rather not discuss is asking those cities who want to be a part of the route -- Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland -- and those riders who want to ride it to pay for it. Most of Ohio will not be close to it and few Ohioans will not ride it. So why should they pay for it? Tolls and user fees are popular forms of paying for infrastructure, as those of us who follow infrastructure bills in Congress know. James Oberstar (D-Minnesota), the reigning wonk on transportation infrastructure, knows everything about how transportation modes can operate seamlessly but he falls short on how to pay for it all. With the nation all lathered up over growing deficits made real by spending on tax cuts, war and now maybe health insurance reform, the appetite to have Washington dole out trillions more for roads, bridges, airports or trains and train stations is surely souring. States like Ohio will be left to their own devices and political wills to fund their own infrastructure.

As the races for various public offices in 2010 come closer, the wisdom or folly of pushing the 3C slow train to the past will gain more speed. Gov. Strickland will have to defend it while his opponent, possibly John Kasich , a former Ohio Congressman know for his attention to balanced budgets, low-taxes and deficit hawk sentinel, could use it to show what a waste of funds it will be and ask where, exactly, Strickland expects to come up with Ohio's share of hundreds of millions, maybe billions, for a project that would necessarily have to usurp money from more important state priorities.

But until the un-electeds like the leaders of ODOT and ORDC are reigned in by their boss, they will continue to make unsubstantiated arguments for their slow train to the past and spend money as if it was delivered in a box car from CSX, all because they have control over it. Voters will be left at the train station (most communities don't have and can't afford to build) as they watch slow trains that won't go any faster than Civil War era trains chug away from them on routes to yesteryear.

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 and is available for subscription (99 cents/month) to Kindle owners. His tweets on Twitter can be followed @OhioNewsBureau. To send a news tip or to make a comment, email him at: ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Why Not Fund Ohio's 3-C Turtle Train with Video Slots?

Why Not Fund Ohio's 3-C Turtle Train with Video Slots?

Strickland's Policy Switch on Slots Would Let Rail Passengers Spin Their Wheels Too

by John Michael Spinelli

June 21, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: The Great State of Ohio has failed four times over nearly two decades to convince its voters to allow casino gaming interests to set up shop inside its borders. From former Republican Gov. George Voinovich to today's Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, the mantra of one chief executive after another has been that gambling is a bad idea that would make the poor poorer, unlock the door to criminals and crime and enrich gaming interests at the expense of state coffers, which would be hard pressed to fund services to combat the social ills opponents of gambling say would be unleashed if the Satan of sin is allowed to run wild here.

Yet despite the moral hazards opponents of gambling predict would happen if slot machines or casino-style gambling were to come to a state already surrounded by states that allow them, the announcement last week by Strickland's budget mavens that Ohio's next budget, which by law starts July 1, has a $3.2 billion hole in it, has caused the good Governor, who has long opposed gaming and gambling, to turn the other cheek by signaling he is ready to permit the state's seven horse racing tracks to add video slot machines to their operations. Unable to resist the lure of maybe as much as $765 million coming to the aid of future budgets, by holding his nose on the ascent of maybe 14,000 one-armed bandits into Ohio's frantic search for public revenues, Strickland can no longer backtrack now that the slot machine proposal is out of the barn.

While the topic of video slot machines has percolated throughout Buckeyeville for a while, the question that sounds like a joke but which might be one practical way to fund Strickland's proposal to spend millions the state doesn't have on a slow train to the past that would chug diagonally from Cincinnati to Cleveland over more than six hours is to replace passenger seats with video slot machines. Doing so would be a perfect passenger-rail user fee, one that would allow those riding the rails to spin their wheels and have their losses fund the slow train to the past, whose need and ridership are simple but important questions state transportation leaders cannot answer with certainly but only with estimates that will only lead to real jaw-dropping if and when any real bids are let and returned.

This kind of user fee, which Washington is smiling on more and more as once dependable road and bridge funding sources like the Highway Trust Fund go broke as driver's drive less and fewer gas taxes are collected, would also liberate the rest of Ohio's taxpayers, who don't live along the corridor and who won't be using the train for various reasons, from funding the $1 billion-plus plan for a train that will only average 57-mph and will take until 2025 to be fully realized as out-dated plans project.

While it sounds like a joke to spend so much one-time federal stimulus money on a train loaded with slots, the idea was raised in all seriousness by one railroad historical society that said Strickland should do just that. One person who attended the meeting and contacted SOA, said the Ohio-only train could have the on-board slots so that the revenues would stay in the state. How would an intercity or interstate train handle slot business when traveling through states that don't permit gambling? Simple, just turn off the power to them while the train is in that state.

For such a sky-high price tag, Ohio's train to the past would be slow. Over the projected six hours or more it would take paying passengers to traverse the approximately 250 miles between Cincinnati and Cleveland, they could spin their wheels while the train spun it's steel wheels. If Lady Luck wasn't riding with them, so much the better for Ohio coffers.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and desperate times have come to Ohio. If a Methodist minister like Strickland who has long viewed gambling as a secular revenue trap and a Biblical moral hazard can reverse course on it, maybe it's not such a far-fetched joke to think that locomotives running on steel wheels can also have scores of other kinds of spinning wheels on it, too.

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 @OhioNewsBureau and available for subscription to Kindle owners. To send a news tip or make comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

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

Tubular Rail, the Valley of Death and Helping a Hurt Ohio

Tubular Rail, the Valley of Death and Helping a Hurt Ohio

"Trackless Train" Company Wins State Support for Ohio Supply Chain in Bid for DOE Energy Funds

TR technology as Cool as "Making a Rock Float."

by John Michael Spinelli

June 2, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: Officials from Tubular Rail, the "trackless train" company from Texas, had reason to smile last week. After eights months of seeking an audience with Gov. Ted Strickland's development staff to introduce them to the company's patented technology that reorganizes the essential elements of conventional railroads by eliminating the need for tracks or bridges, a letter of general support from Ohio was issued that signaled state officials are ready to help the company build an Ohio supply chain for both its transformational prototype and for the next generation of trains it believes will become the fourth transportation industry, after trains, cars and planes, that promises to become a new standard for America and the world.

With the understanding that "a significant portion of the components for both the demonstration and commercial system can be sourced in Ohio," StevenSchoeny, Director, Strategic Business Investment Division, affixed his name to a letter than informed company officials that "the Ohio Department of Development is prepared to work with Tubular Rail and your suppliers in Ohio to take advantage of Ohio's economic development programs to build your supply chain capacity."

The announcement Monday by General Motors that it was entering bankruptcy court where it will reinvent itself in a final turnaround effort to remain a viable auto-manufacturer in the U.S, makes the hunt for new jobs that much more compelling. Ohio has everything to gain and nothing to lose from taking an interest in the birth and development of a new industry, as Tubular Rail thinks of itself.

Combining GM's announcement yesterday that its future reorganization plans will cost Ohio another 1,000 jobs with Tuesday's announcement by NCR that it will relocate its headquarters from Dayton to Georgia, taking about 1,300 jobs with it, and adding it to the dour backdrop that more than 300,000 jobs have been lost on the watch of Gov. Ted Strickland, elected in 2006 on the campaign promise to turnaround Ohio, solidifies the expectation that the state's unemployment, now above 10 percent, will continue to tick upwards.

And now that John Kasich, a former Ohio Congressman and investment banker, has declared he will challenge Strickland in 2010 and whose campaign slogan is "A New Way, A New Day," the race is on to see which man can best restore jobs and prosperity to a once mighty industrial state bobbing in a sea of red ink.

GM's bitter-sweet news makes Ohio's rough road to recover even rougher. The Hobson's Choice now, exacerbated by an imploding economy that has triggered a range war in Columbus over how to balance the budget by the next fiscal year, which starts June 11, pits Democrats, who want to fill a current and growing budget gap with billions in one-time stimulus funds, and Senate Republicans, who are ready to wield a big ax and lop off even more state-funded programs, better syncing future state expenditures with expected shrinking revenues.

Amid this economic turmoil in Ohio, Tubular Rail has submitted an application to the federal Dept. of Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, which is offering up to $20 million per project for new energy ideas that are so "transformational" they will "disrupt the status quo" so much that a new industry standard will emerge.

From the DOE grant guidelines: "Often, a technology is considered transformational when it so outperforms current approaches that it causes an industry to shift its technology base to the new technology. The Nation needs transformational energy-related technologies to overcome the threats posed by climate change and energy security, arising from its reliance on traditional uses of fossil fuels and the dominant use of oil in transportation."

With their Ohio letter in hand, company officials added the Buckeye State to the list of team members located in Texas and Ohio that it hopes will catch the eye of DOE grant staff.
If Tubular Rail is passed through to the next round of the , when a full 150-page application will be completed,

"This project effectively creates a 'fourth form' of transportation, one that will have the impact today that the locomotive, Model T and Kitty Hawk had in their day," according to Robert Pulliam, inventor of TR technology and president of the company.

Pulliam, born and raised in Detroit but now residing in Houston, Texas, said the two mile prototype system will be proof-positive that a new "Green" industry addressing Green House Gas emissions, oil imports, infrastructure costs and job creation is upon us.

Tubular Rail's goal, according to Pulliam, is to build a transportation system that reduces the cost of installation and the affect of infrastructure impact, yet achieves the energy efficiencies inherent in steel railway systems.

Pulliam said the "Pecos Project" will be a full-scale operating system to test and prove all components, reconfiguring the essential functional elements of the rail-bed and train. It reverses orientation of steel rail and steel wheel by ingeniously putting the rails on the car and propulsion on the supports or O-Ring stanchions.

The stated goal of the program is to take an "immature technology that promises to make a large impact on the ARPA-E Mission areas...and develop it beyond the 'valley of death' that prevents many transformational new technologies from becoming a market reality."

As stated in its grant guidelines, DOE's goal is to provide funding such that a company like Tubular Rail, which already has preliminary engineering and patents in hand, can overcome the later phase of the "valley of death" by funding the technology (component, system, hardware, software, or other) that must be matured to the point that it can transition into industrial development and deployment.

The Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth College, which performed work for Tubular Rail, contrasted and compared TR technology with current convention railroad technology. "We strongly believe in the spirit of Tubular Rail and would like to see the project receive funding soon," theThayer report concluded. It added, "An improvement upon conventional technology is necessary because existing technologies for high-speed and urban transit are expensive, difficult to build through populated areas, and more environmentally unfriendly. In summary the basic advantages of Tubular are an initial investment 54 percent less than the competition,operations 450 percent more efficient than conventional technology and emits 35 percent less CO2 than other forms of transportation." Simply put,Thayer said "Tubular Rail is a viable option for the future of the rail industry".

What does all this mean for Ohio? Jobs, jobs, jobs. Ohio, by agreeing to have its name added to TR's list of potential partners, puts itself in a prime position to seize the day on the birth and development of a new transportation industry. Although TR's prototype will be built in Texas, Ohio can still be home to another Wright Brother's Kitty Hawk moment, TR's 1st commercial passenger.

With daily announcements of job losses battering the spirit of state leaders, workers, their family and friends and the communities they live in, any lift Tubular Rail can give to the Birthplace of Aviation should befacilitated no matter the cost. But helping TR out means state leaders and the citizenry at large need to re-think how they think about rail. Locomotive engines guided by tracks in the ground have been around for a long time. But the new paradigm, as invented by Mr. Pulliam, takes those relationships apart and puts them back together differently, but uses readily available technologies.

Frank Sonzala, a TR board member from San Antonio who is also a proven entrepreneur and patent holder, says the simple concept behind the company's game-changing technology is tantamount to "making a rock float." With Ohio sinking like a rock, it's letter of support is one small step for a state sinking beneath the waves of the Great Recession, but one giant step for Tubular Rail.

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

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 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