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

Strickland's Folly

Strickland's Folly

Ohio Budget Short on Dollars for Slow Train to the Past

It's a Question of Priorities

by John Michael Spinelli

August 5, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: Two weeks ago Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and his Director of Transportation (DOT) were among the gaggle of governors attending the high-speed rail summit in Chicago, where a pack was entered into by eight Midwest governors to form a united front for purposes of garnering as much of President Barack Obama's $8 billion in high speed rail funding as possible. With his DOT Director Jolene Molitoris in tow, Strickland became a signatory to a Midwest agreement to promote regional passenger rail and Ohio’s 3C Corridor, an approximately 270-mile trip plan to re-establish passenger trains connecting Cincinnati to Cleveland via Dayton and Columbus that's conservatively estimated to cost a cool $1.53 billion.

The purpose of the rail summit's memorandum of understanding is to coordinate regional efforts to secure federal funding for development of the Chicago Hub High-Speed Rail Corridor, which includes as a peripheral route the 3C Passenger Rail Plan Strickland and Molitoris have been promoting, despite hard evidence that ridership for it is even minimally plausible and that it will not further decimate a state budget that limped its way with one-time federal dollars and a variety of account gimmicks and fee increases to a state of balance.

In 2010, when the next exercise in balancing a state budget takes place, Obama dollars may not be available like they were for this budget and expected declines in tax revenue will further exacerbate a meltdown of state finances, making it hard to justify spending any on a rail plan that would make little sense even if times were good, which they are definitely not.

"Ohio’s central location makes our state the connection between the Chicago Hub to the west and the Northeast Corridor to the east,” Strickland said in a media release touting why he and Molitoris are behind the push to snag some of the $8 billion dedicated to fund high speed rail.

Ohio junior Senator Sherrod Brown also offered his support of the collaborative effort later in the day. "You can’t have a nationwide passenger rail system without Ohio,” he said, adding, "This agreement, coupled with new federal funds through the economic recovery package, will make the 3C corridor one step closer to becoming a reality. High-speed rail is critical to the long-term economic competitiveness of our region. By connecting Ohio’s largest cities with others cities in the Midwest, we can bring jobs and economic development to our state.”

Strickland and state transportation officials have said without being challenged that "restoring passenger rail service at conventional speed is Ohio’s first step toward implementing a high speed rail network connecting Ohio to the Midwest and the rest of the country." While it sounds good that existing freight tracks can be upgraded to accommodate fast trains, the reality is that that cannot happen. Real high speed trains need specially designed "purpose driven" tracks to handle the speeds trains in Europe handle every day. These kind of special tracks are especially expensive, but numbers for high speed rail are rarely mentioned because they present a story of cost that states like Ohio simple cannot handle, given the state of most state budgets. Ohio officials have said that their slow passenger train to the past will only average 57 mph and only reach a top speed of 90 or 100 mph after billions of dollars of freight-rail upgrades and years to do it.

As for the governors who did sign the memorandum of understanding -- Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Iowa Governor Chet Culver, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley -- more voices are emerging that think they are the ones who will be taken for a ride.

Even though the media has performed as a dutiful lapdog for the hollow talking points of train advocates who overemphasize the benefits and downplay the costs to all taxpayers, some contrarian voices can be found that paint a far less rosy picture, one everyone should be aware of.

Steve Staneck, a research fellow at the Chicago Heartland Institute, recently wrote in the Alberta Lea Tribune that "If there truly were enough consumer support for high-speed rail, governments would not be involved. Private companies would provide the service and pocket the profits." Noting that the combined state deficits of the governors who signed the Midwest rail summit pack is over $28 million, Staneck chides the federal government for telling everyone not to worry about its $2 trillion budget deficit this year, and a national debt that has more than doubled to $11 trillion in the past eight years. "The government will print the money, or borrow it, or tax for it, future generations be damned," he shouts.

Another naysayer voice, that of Randal O'Toole from the CATO Institute, says of what happens when the dog catches the car: "Once we start building high-speed rail, you can expect local politicians to demand these gaps and others be filled at your expense. And don’t be surprised when the government asks you for another $1,000 or so in about 30 years to rebuild what will then be a worn-out system." O'Toole asks what all this money will produce. "Unless you live in California," he says, "don’t expect super-fast bullet trains. In Florida the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) is considering trains with top speeds of 125 miles per hour. In most of the rest of the country, the FRA is merely proposing to boost top speeds of Amtrak trains from 79 to 110 m.p.h. A top speed of 125 m.p.h. means an average speed of only 75 to 85 m.p.h., which is hardly revolutionary. Many American railroads were running trains nearly that fast 70 years ago."

Even the Gray Lady is starting to discuss the realities of real high speed rail and what it means to all of us in a multi-part series that reveals the high cost of Euro-speed trains.

The ride Strickland and any other governor vying for a taste of federal high speed rail dollars cannot afford to take is the real cost of building Euro-style train systems. Ohio's rail plan says in clear language that it cannot happen if any contribution from the state would have a negative impact on the general fund budget of the state. In coming to terms with Republican leaders in the legislature, Strickland had to agree to a $3.2 billion budget patch that included $933 million in revenue from adding video slot machines to Ohio's seven racetracks that some critics say is an over estimate. Republican legislators criticized Strickland for using about $7 billion in one-time federal stimulus dollars, and said the next budget will be further out of whack and won't be able to rely on more federal funding.

With the specter of losing 30-40,000 more jobs, as agencies cut back staff because their state funding was cut back, the question of priorities needs to be raised. For every $1 Ohio would spend for its Harry Potter magic trick of a train system, its one less dollar that can be spent on social safety net services or any other service important to the state. Whether the 3C becomes a campaign issue in next year's race for governor is a matter of speculation. But the rising tide of dissatisfied voters who see high speed rail as a boondoggle that will only benefit consultant and lobbyists for status quo rail stems is a sign that the more voters learn about it the less they think it's a priority.

State transportation officials have already said the system will never break even and in fact will need a yearly public subsidy, an amount they say they are looking to find. Current sources for that subsidy, which is pegged on the low end at $10 million annually, may come from usurping revenue vendors pay ODOT to have their business name on highways signs and from charging exorbitant prices to riders for food and beverage sold on-board the train.

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

Strickland Admits High-Speed Rail Won't be High-Speed Anytime Soon

Strickland Admits High-Speed Rail Won't be High-Speed Anytime Soon

GOA Says FRA High-Speed Rail Initiative a "Vision...not a strategic plan."

Chicago-St. Louis Rail Corridor Gains Speed as 1st Route for Midwest Corridor

An Opeditude by John Michael Spinelli

June 25, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: Calling into a rough and tumble, shock-jock radio show broadcasting from Cincinnati Wednesday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said Ohio needs to be included in the passenger rail system known as the Midwest Corridor, but admitted that Ohio's system would only run at slow, conventional speeds "in the near term" and that if ridership was poor, real "high-speed trains would not run in Ohio."

Strickland, a first-term Democratic Governor readying to mount a second-term campaign in 2010, spoke for a few minutes on the powerful station, answering a couple questions on his most recent proposal to plug a $3.2 billion hole in the next state budget, which by law is to start July 1. As Strickland and the Ohio House and Senate wrestle to find accommodation with each other on hundreds of differences between versions of the state budget each chamber passed in the preceding month, the political drama of who will win the day, and at what cost, is only starting to unfold. If this state budget were a weather event, high tides and fierce winds can be seen approaching on the horizon.

Eddie and Tracy, the hosts of the radio show heard on WLW700am, set the stage prior to Strickland calling in by stating their hostility for the Governor's passenger rail proposal. Jibberjabbering to kill time until they could throw questions at Strickland, the duo demonstrated their anti-rail plan bias, saying everyone they had talked to thought his idea to resuscitate long-dead passenger rail service between Cincinnati and Cleveland via Columbus or the 3-C Corridor was "a horrible idea." Others have said that if a billion dollars is going to be spent on it, it ought to at least be fast. But speed, the one essential ingredient that will attract riders, will be absent. Based on speed calculations from the Ohio Department of Transportation, the passenger train will only average 57-mph, a truly turtle pace.

Buoyant and optimistic despite the sour, declining economic health of the state and its next budget, Strickland again repeated his warning that if Ohio didn't take advantage of federal stimulus dollars being handed out by President Barack Obama's administration for the development of high-speed rail (HSR), Ohio will "be an island...because we won't be hooked into a system that involves entire Midwest."

Talking in general terms, Strickland said that if people had real choices of other modes of transportation, "they wouldn't need a car." But Ohio has cut its funding for mass transit by 60 percent over the last decade and intra-city/regional bus service is only poor at best, if it exists at all. Responding to the simple question of what's the economic upside to the state for a first-phase, conventional speed passenger train system that will cost a minimum of $1 billion to build, all the upbeat Governor could say is that all Ohio's "sports teams are urging him to proceed." One can only wonder how enthusiastic those sports team would be if they had to reach into their wallets to pay for it. Such user-fee revenues are fast becoming a tool of choice Washington is looking to more and more, as its spending comes into question by many who say huge deficits will break us all over time.

But even given what he called "modest" yearly public subsidies the system would need to cover its costs, Strickland said investing in passenger rail is less costly that investing in highways. But roads and bridges are what tie us together now, and as cars become more fuel efficient and cooler in terms of technology, drivers will opt for the privacy and convenience of their cars instead of trains that, after a six hour or more slow ride to the past, will dump them in urban cores where other transportation modes are slim to none, affectively marooning them at their destination.

"We won't establish high-speed rail in the near term," said Strickland, adding that spending upwards of $400 million was a "fairly modest first-step that would establish regular-speed [@ 79-mph] rail service." But putting the caboose before the engine, Strickland, whose job approval numbers have been ebbing as Ohio continues to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs on his watch, said, "if people didn't support it to justify further investment, then we wouldn't have to go to high speed." But for Strickland and his railroad advisers at ODOT, top high-speed means reaching 110-mph, a far cry in reality and cost from the HSR speeds Euro-style trains reach, which top out at 220-mph or more. But even with slick trains that fly along specially built, exorbitantly priced tracks that by design minimize cross traffic or signaling, even France's famous TGV trains have average speeds of 120-mph or less for their trips, according to reputable rail sources.

Strickland likely had not read through the seven-page testimony given Tuesday by Susan A. Fleming, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues for the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safey, and Security, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the US Senate.

If Strickland or his Director of Transportation have read it, then they know the GAO has concluded that, while the potential benefits of HSR projects are many, "these projects--both here and abroad-- are costly, take years to develop and build, and require substantial up-front public investment, as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies."

Furthermore, Fleming said President Obama's allocation of a paltry $8 billion for HSR is more a "vision...than a strageic plan," and that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the agency his Director of Transportation headed during the Clinton Administration, has "not established clear goals for the federal government in high-speed rail--other than establishing a 'longer term goal of developing a national high-speed intercity passenger rail network of corridors'--and does not define a clear federal role for involvement in high-speed rail projects other than providing Recovery Act funds."

Fleming said the $8 billion allocated to HSR development is "only a small fraction of the estimated costs for starting or enhancing service on the 11 federally authorized high-speed rail corridors." Sustained funding for HSR will come at the cost of taking federal funds away from other national priorities like health care, national defense, and support for ailing industries, which Ohio has a lot of these days, as Detroit's Big Three automakers try to reinvent themselves or face extinction in the marketplace.

Even though the 3-C Corridor is on the periphery of the federal Midwest corridor, the heart of this system is Chicago, which all train watchers expect to benefit from handsomely, given President Obama's long ties to Illinois and the Windy City, his home prior to the White House.

Making the point that Ohio, where passenger trains stopped running nearly 42 years ago and whose rail plans are so ill formed when compared to plans of states around it, likely won't fair well in snagging any meaningful Obama dollars, the governors of Illinois and Missouri, Quinn and Nixon respectively, have teamed up to lobby for an important share of Midwest Corridor funds to complete a high-speed train route connecting Chicago to St. Louis. For Michigan Governor Jennifer Grandholm, Chicago is at the other end of a HSR route from Detroit. And for Ohio, Toledo should be more energized to connect to this route, because it will be a long, long time [if ever] until it is connected to an intra-state line that would link it to Columbus, the middle C on the 3-C route.

The fanfare of returning passenger rail service to Ohio has caused state and local officials to day dream about their village or burg being a stop on the HSR network. With the absence of state dollars in the near- or long-term to properly fund the astronomical amount needed to build a system that will still need public subsidies for as far as the eye can see into the future and that will never have the ridership capacity to make it eve break even because it will be so slow and time consuming, Strickland and his Transportation Director will need more than pom-poms and smiles to convince hard working Ohioans [those who still have jobs] that they should build and subsidize a system that only a handful of riders will ride.

The Buckeye Institute, a fiscally conservative research outfit based in Columbus, entered the fray over HSR yesterday, when it said the vision of licky-split passenger trains is just too costly to all of us and that few people would ride even fewer miles each year. Much of what the BI said appears to be sourced to Randal O'Toole, of the Libertarian think tank The Cato Institute, who makes a strong case against HSR but fails to identify viable alternatives.

But if Ohio is so desperate for cash that it is ready to shutter many of its libraries, eliminate basic health care coverage to many of its poor including children by cutting Medicaid payments and taking away food from food banks, is it really a smart move to venture down a costly path to subsidize freight rail companies who own tracks passenger trains must run on when so many other human safety nets have such gaping holes in them?

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

American Idol for Train Transportation Needed in Ohio

American Idol for Train Transportation Needed in Ohio

Strickland Increases Cost, Time for 3-C Rail Plan

Texas TV Covers "Big Dig" for TR Technology Prototype

by John Michael Spinelli

June 10, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: In Washington Tuesday with other state officials like Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan who hope to snag a share of federal stimulus dollars to spend to launch a comeback for passenger rail service, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Jolene Molitoris, the state director for transportation, have revised the cost upward and pushed back the time to connect Cincinnati to Cleveland by rail, according to one published report.

"If we don't do this we will be left behind," Strickland told Ohio reporters at the state's Washington office before his meetings with the federal officials," as reported by The Columbus Dispatch. "Ohio will be an island in the middle of this nation without passenger rail service -- we will not be appropriately connected to a system that will be broad-based, and it would be intolerable for us."

The Washington bureau chief for "Ohio's Greatest Newspaper" reported that Strickland, who knows his Republican challenger for re-election in 2010 is John Kasich, and Molitoris , whose confirmation to her post will be considered this week by the Republican-led Ohio Senate, are still tap dancing around the cost and time-frame to return passenger rail service to Ohio via the existing network of freight tracks that cannot handle high-speed trains. Jonathan Riskind of The Columbus Dispatch reported the duo saying the cost to launch their runaway train to the past has escalated from $250 million to $400, while pushing its launch date back another six months to the first quarter of 2011. Strickland said the costs could be less, depending on findings from a passenger rail study to be finished this year by Amtrak. He didn't say and no reporter asked if they might also be more.

3-C CORRIDOR PLAN NOW MORE COSTLY, LATER TO ARRIVE

Hedging on the costs of an idea that has turned into a runaway policy train Strickland, Molitoris and supporters of the slow train to the past are stuck on, the governor told Riskind that "it wouldn't require too much in the way of state funding for annual operation costs - in the neighborhood of $10 million or less."

Keep in mind that Strickland and House Democrats who support the so-called 3-C Corridor rail plan are engaged in a battle royal with Senate Republicans over Ohio's worsening budget picture, which some sources say could require a $2-billion patch job just for the current fiscal year that expires at the end of June. Combining this sour situation with the growth in Ohio's jobless benefits and a shrinking state GDP, why are Gov. Strickland and Director Molitoris so headstrong about a rail plan that doesn't deliver speed but will still cost a lot and may not be fully functional, if ever, for decades to come?

Draconian cuts wait in the wings for various state programs and agencies. Eschewing a public subsidy as far as the eye can see for a train system that few will ride even though all tax payers will be tapped to pay for it appears both tone deaf to economic reality and blind to the dangers of politics, especially if Kasich and Republicans decide to make the 3-C rail plan a campaign issue that shows just how far out of touch the good governor and his eminence gries are with newer, faster, greener train technologies.

Molitoris, appointed by President Clinton in 1993 to be the first woman Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, has been the Casey Jones of Ohio's ill-conceived passenger rail plan, high-balling a likely $1 billion investment plan down a freight track that will never accommodate truly high speed trains that need separate, purpose-driven tracks on which to attain truly high speeds as Euro-style trains do.

In a separate story this week showing the advantage of a grade-separated system like Tubular Rail offers over the surface-based system state officials want to push, a tractor-trailor ran into a CSX train in Worthington, Ohio, a suburb of Columbus. Such a collision is impossible with TR technology.

AMERICAN IDOL FOR OHIO TRANSPORTATION

Ohio should do for train transportation what American Idol does for singers who think they have talent, namely, sponsor and conduct an audition for any train or transport technology that thinks it has a smarter, faster, greener, emission free, affordable and less disruptive idea to current infrastructure when compared to current technology to come forward and audition for state leaders and their technology advisers, who would give them fair and balanced consideration and select those they want to "pass through to Hollywood" for further R&D funding or even outright investment in, so Ohio could enter the future confident that they had found a future-ready train system it would use to create jobs and spur economic development.

At a meeting recently between officials of Tubular Rail, a Texas-based company who holds patents for its "trackless train" technology, and top officials for the Ohio Department of Development, the idea to use ODOT's pavilion at the Ohio State Exposition and Fair to showcase advanced transportation technologies -- like Tubular Rail, Monomobile, MegaRail, Personal Rapid Transit or other innovative systems -- was well received by Mark Barbash, ODOD's interim director at the time. Barbash no longer is heading ODOD due to IRS tax problems that arose after Tubular Rail met with him on the 6th of May.

DC CONSIDERS GAS TAX, VMT OPTION

Lurking on the periphery of this discussion, as The Hill reports, is the notion favored by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) that an expanded federal transportation bill should be funded by a boost in the gas tax or a "vehicle miles traveled" tax, two ideas that while they may be needed to replenish an otherwise depleted Highway Trust Fund, Republicans will hang Democrats with it if they actually become part of the bill.

Molitoris oversaw an Ohio committee that looked into the future of state transportation planning and saw a need for increasing the state gas tax as a reliable, sustainable means to fund a so-called seamless inter-modal transportation committee. A couple hours after she made the major finding of her committee public, Strickland, a gun-rights supporter, shot it down like a low flying duck at close range. The Governor took apart in a few minutes what the committee had spent months devising as their big idea for funding Ohio's transportation future.

TUBULAR RAIL IN TEXAS

Meanwhile in Pecos, Texas, Tubular Rail inventor and founder Robert Pulliam caught the attention recently of two mainstream media stations who assigned TV crews to cover the digging of a hole that the Mayor of Pecos, Richard Alligood, said could turn the small West Texas town into a "center of transportation," if Tubular Rail is on the winning end of a $20 million federal Department of Energy grant it applied for two weeks ago.

In a letter dated early June to Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn about Tubular Rail's plans to build its prototype in Pecos, Robert M. Tobias, Jr., Executive Director of the Pecos Economic Development Corporation, says his group is working in partnership with the Governor’s Office, Texas A&M, Texas Transportation Institute, TXDOT and other state and regional partners "to bring these types of projects to fruition." News reports said 150 jobs could come to Pecos if TR technology takes off. In a related story, ODOD told TR officials it is ready to help the company build a supply chain of Ohio manufacturers, who stand to benefit should the DOE grant for energy projects that "disrupt the status quo" find its funding footing.

Tobias correctly notes that having the research funds to test this technology "is an integral component of moving this opportunity forward." Continuing, he says the recent announcement by President Obama on making funds available to transportation projects of this type "could serve as the impetus" to TR technology rising from the scrub brush landscape of the test-track facility located close by. "Therefore, your support and assistance in connecting this transportation project to research funding is greatly appreciated," Tobias told a staffer in Sen. Cornyn's office.

Watch the reports here:
CBS 7 West Texas, Midland-Odessa
http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=12513

NBC 9 West Texas, MIdland-Odessa
http://www.kwes.com/global/category.asp?c=163304&clipId=&topVideoCatNo=121765&topVideoCatNoB=83259&topVideoCatNoC=83262&topVideoCatNoD=138849&topVideoCatNoE=124443&clipId=3824569&topVideoCatNo=121765&autoStart=true

As Ohio's political range war rages over whether Strickland let Dayton-based National Cash Register be lured to Georgia or whether the company's move was already a done deal, Ohio officials know that companies, by and large, are not beating a path to their door despite Strickland's cryptic comments today about landing one that will bring jobs here. Accordingly, state officials ought to consider all comers, like Tubular Rail, and consider what its advanced train technology can do for the state's future, instead of being stuck in the past of status quo technology that will only lead us back to the past even as we move forward in 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. 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