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

Shovel-Ready Infrastructure Not Necessarily Future-Ready Infrastructure

Shovel-Ready Infrastructure Not Necessarily Future-Ready Infrastructure

Funding Shovel-Ready Projects May Only Dig Nation's Car-Centric Hole Deeper

with John Michael Spinelli

Columbus, Ohio: Even though Washington has approved $17 billion in TARP funding to Detroit's Big Three car makers to tide them over to spring, the news that one renowned billionaire investor has dumped his considerable holdings in Ford, whose stock has plummeted this year and now resides at about $2, should be a tale of caution for public officials, from president-elect Barack Obama and a new Democratically controlled congress who want to open the flood gates on massive spending on infrastructure to under-gird its economic recovery plan, to consider the best interests of the nation as it chooses between infrastructure projects ready for a shovel and projects that are ready for the future.

Economic development professionals and public policy makers have rounded up thousands of conventional infrastructure projects, the vast majority of which are about roads and bridges and by extension cars, as projects that but for the lack of a shovel could create jobs quickly.

With the American economy in a tailspin of such velocity that nearly 2 million jobs have been lost in 2008, it is clearly appetizing that car-centric projects involving roads and bridges move to the front of the class ofObama's stimulus package. But the question being raised by a growing chorus of economy watchers is whether throwing billions of dollars into convention projects is wise? The need for the nation to find a better, more affordable and realistic road to mass transit, which is growing in popularity as family and community budgets tighten in the wake of job losses from companies that have thrown in the towel, is clear.

In Ohio, for example, the state department of transportation proudly announced it performed 493 road and bridge projects this year. The same can probably be said for the other 49 states when it comes to road versus non-road projects. A new report issued by a 62-member task force to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland about the "crisis" state of state transportation efforts, offers guidance on spending. But the guidance, sadly, is for conventional, past-ready projects that some critics of "shovel-ready" projects would say spends good money on old infrastructure that will only gobble up more funds in a handful of years because their life-span is short and repair and maintenance will soon be needed.

Chester Jourdan, executive director of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and a task force member, said the report represents a long-overdue attempt to "move the state beyond its traditional role as builder and fixer of highways to one as a strategic creator of interconnected public transit, rail, road and water routes that can boost economic development," according to Columbus Business First (CBF).

“Not everything in the report will be put into law, implemented or passed tomorrow,” Jourdan told CBF. “But there are some tremendous opportunities for Ohio to do some things that are significant, bold and innovative.”

High sounding as the report is, it reflects many of the committee's agendas, which appear mired in expanding on conventional, old-school technology. One would be hard pressed to find language in the report that opens the door to include or embrace outlier technology like Tubular Rail or PRT or Monomobile . All three of these "unproven" technologies, as their critics would say of them, are advancing to proof-of-concept [PRT will soon be seen at Heathrow Airport outside London, England]. For supporters of "proven" technology like steel-wheel-on-rail trains, which is proving that building tomorrow's transportation infrastructure based on yesterday's technology is outrageously costly at a time when Ohio, among other states and the nation, is using a straw to breath because its budget is so far under water, with little expectation that new jobs can roll in any time soon.

So while a specific infrastructure project may be "shovel ready," by its very nature it may not be "future ready." Building advanced transportation systems that avoid the pitfalls of current, conventional technologies -- costly, difficult to build and environmentally unfriendly -- seems a wiser, more prudent tact to take for the tsunami of funding Washington will wash over the nation in 2009 to reclaim prosperity and the middle class jobs that are key to it.

Both Tubular Rail and Monomobile represent outlier technologies that have an uphill climb before them. State bureaucrats, totally risk averse by nature, only seem interested in fully baked cakes -- late stage commercialization in program talk -- and don't seem too eager to help start-up companies gain the traction they need to show their technologies may be eminently cheaper than conventional transportation infrastructure, not to mention quicker to be built which translates into new, sustainable jobs. But as Malcolm Gladwell points out in his trilogy of books on the unforseen phenomenon of why new, small events can suddenly bloom into game changers [Tipping Point, Blink and Outlier], a new idea like Tubular Rail, prominently featured in the Discovery Channel's episode on future trains that will air in January, that uses readily available existing technology in a new way isn't shovel-ready but it is "future-ready."

Hungry lobbyists representing the infrastructure status quo will use their sharp elbows to eat up as much of Obama's infrastructure stimulus package as it can, despite the fact that putting money into their agendas may only dig us into a deeper hole because it furthers our dependence on cars and the roads and bridges they need to operate. The same will be true for rail, which is using its capacity for freight. High speed rail on conventional tracks, while it sounds good, is just too expensive. California voters who approved a $9.5 billion bond package this November for only a quarter of the state's projected 800-mile system [close to that of France] will find out that build out costs will be double or triple the cost sold to them, and that's after they settle lawsuits with the Union Pacific railroad over use of their tracks.

The Wright Brothers invented heavier-than-air, controlled flight in 1903. If Orville and Wilbur were to show up today to ask Ohio development officials for money for their outlier technology, the Wrights would be wrong in thinking Ohio would give them a dollar since their invention wasn't in the "late stages of commercialization" and they couldn't bring $3 in investments for every $1 of state funds. So while Ohio, which worries over loosing more of the 250,000 jobs directly or indirectly tied to the Big Three of Detroit, claims itself on its license plate as the "Birthplace of Aviation," it hasn't recognized that a new industry, like Tubular Rail, which can be every bit as powerful as planes or cars, can be had for a song, creating many new jobs in Ohio for former Chrysler, Ford or General Motors employees who have either lost their jobs or soon will be seeking state unemployment benefits.

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

Republican Senators Intercept Hail Mary Pass to Detroit

Republican Senators Intercept Hail Mary Pass to Detroit

Can Train Innovation Like Tubular Rail Ride to the Rescue?

Transportation Infrastructure Key to Jolt Economy

OhioNewsBureau

with John Michael Spinelli

Columbus, Ohio: The news late Thursday that a handful of southern Republican senators, whose political motivation was nothing less than busting the United Auto Workers Union, were able to quash a meager $14 billion bridge loan to Detroit's Big Three automakers Democrats and a lame duck White House were able to arrive at despite President Bush's reluctance to help the industry from driving off a financial cliff is bad news for middle class families.

The inability of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford to receive even bare basic funding begs the question of can America invent a new industry, equal to planes and cars, that can revive a nation now that domestic car makers may be soon asking for their last rights.

As Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc., the "trackless train technology" company from Houston, Texas, the news that Senate Republicans successfully stiff armed Detroit, while disheartening to states like Ohio and Michigan because it means more workers, families and the communities they live in will be further harmed, is the latest sign that new industries offering new jobs must be found to keep the very fabric of our society together.

This report, therefore, continues my exercise in advocacy journalism. The the rising tide of interest by federal and state officials to jolt our cardiac arrest economy to life, through large and immediate investments in transportation infrastructure, amplifies my arguments advanced in previous posts like "Time Right to Shake Up Detroit," "Living La Vida Local" and "Columbus to Paris: Attitude Not Miles Key," a trio of essays that advocate for smarter, affordable alternatives to our car-centric transportation system.

Cars haunt and hinder us as we look to upgrade or build from scratch effective, energy efficient mass transportation systems that don't abandon past technology but don't overlook, discount or block future technology either. Previous civilizations constructed huge, massively impressive and functional infrastructure. For China it was the Great Wall. For Rome it was networks of aqueducts. We must do the same. But what will be our great infrastructure achievement be? Energy or transportation? Or both?

The weekly announcements of hundreds of thousands of Americans are loosing their jobs is as painful to the body politic as passing a kidney stone is to an individual. Claims for unemployment benefits surged to their highest in 26 years, according to the US Labor Department, which reported that jobless benefits in the week ending Dec. 6 rose to a seasonally adjusted 573,000 from an upwardly revised figure of 515,000 in the previous week. This figure is 48,000 in excess of what Wall Street economists expected. With total job losses in 2008 nearing the 2-million mark, President-elect BarackObama's plan to create 2.5 million during his first term, principally through massive investments in infrastructure - roads, bridges, water and drainage systems - is both bold and necessary.

As recently as yesterday, Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, where about 250,000 auto-related jobs hang in the balance, gave his residents a bitter pill to swallow, as he explained what cuts he would have to make if the state is confronted with balancing a budget for 2009-10 that could be more than $7 billion, the highest budget gap in state history.

Spending more money at a time when America is broke seems the only remedy to put the nation back to work, echoing what was done by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to lift America from the strangle hold the arms of the Great Depression had on it. But unlike FDR, Obama won't have a world war riding to his rescue. But that's a good thing. The war we must fight now that will create for us the number of jobs that World War II created for the nation then is a war on foreign energy sources that can only be won when we develop our own sources of renewable energy and a means to distribute and use that power in new, innovative ways.

President-elect Obama's appointment Thursday of Stephen Chu to lead the US Department of Energy is good news. Chu is director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics. Reuters reported that he was an early advocate for scientific solutions to climate change. Having a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics running the national department of energy is a revolutionary selection, when compared to picking from a pool of energy lobbyists or former politicians as President Bush liked to do. And Obama could have selected a well-seasoned administrator, as he's done with his other teams like foreign relations or economics. The turnaround of picking a working scientist likeChu is exactly the kind of change Obama said he would bring to Washington. Leadership is most cost-efficient when it comes from the top. Upward leadership from the ranks is important too, but that takes time; and time is a precious commodity these days. When a leader likeChu , whose groundbreaking is all about converting sunlight to electricity, then to chemical power that could then be used to fuel America, not only points the way forward but is inclusive enough to fund inventive, innovative independents to join in, its a breath of fresh air and inspiration and should not go unnoticed by transportation officials, who should consider using technology that may not be conventional, especially when it comes to trains. The train that left the station last century may not be the same train that pulls into the 21st Century station.

The resurgence of talk about reviving train traffic in America is starting to work its way into the minds of the mainstream media. A case in point was today's Washington Post editorial "Invest in Mass Transit" whose subtitled "Far sighted way to jolt the economy" reflected the reality that voters, expressing their will on Election Day by approving most transportation issues, are ready to pay for mass transit.

"Nationwide, voters approved over 70 percent of major transportation-funding measures, according to the Center for Transportation Excellence. That's double the rate at which ballot initiatives are generally approved, and it is even more impressive because gas prices were already declining." [Washington Post ]

Citing significant rises in public mass transit over a half year, it argues that politicians should make infrastructure improvements a key component of any economic stimulus bill. In September the House passed a bill on mass transit that was "haphazardly crafted," according toWaPo , which said would "jump-start ready-to-go transit projects that cash-strapped states had shelved." Continuing, it said these approved but idle projects "would not reward the best projects, only the ones that were ready to begin." The editorial wisely cautioned lawmakers to "give priority to projects that are environmentally friendly and that encourage smart growth."

Everyone at Tubular Rail Inc, where the technology developed and patented by inventor and company founder Robert Pulliam is featured in the Discovery Channel's forward-looking NextWord episode called "Future Train," believes "trackless train technology," which reforms the relationship between wheel and track, can contribute to achieving both energy and transportation goals. TRI has been seeking its "Kitty Hawk" moment to show, through a working "proof of concept" model in Ohio or Texas, that conventional railroads, grade-level steel on steel technology is not only costly but difficult to build and environmentally unfriendly. As well known as traditional trains are and as powerful as their lobby is, the question is, is it smart or affordable to pursue them, especially as public coffers drain dry? Instead, if an affordable, energy efficient, job-producing system whose capital costs could be 60 percent less that conventional train technology, shouldn't it be given its turn at bat in the sweepstakes of public-private funding?

And as America braces for hundreds of thousands or maybe millions more in job losses if a federal bridge loan to Detroit's Big Three automakers fails, as was announced Friday because a handful of Republican senators from southern states with foreign car manufacturers located in them effectively killed the helping hand, what will the next generation of jobs these laid off workers can apply for?

New train technology today is as revolutionary as the untested technology two brothers from Dayton worked on in their bicycle shop at the turn of the 20th century. Orville and Wilbur Wright, the bicycle brothers who birthed controlled, sustained flight in 1903, were hard working inventors of their day whose persistence and perseverance eventually took off despite little interest by the press and no financial assistance from government. They two bachelors winged their way into history at a windy, secluded beach at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, where they turned their glider into a self-powered airplane and made history in the process.

We can only wonder if the fanciful invention Orville and Wilbur worked on at their own expense over several years would turn the heads of state development directors, who in a state like Ohio, where jobs are leaving with few taking their place, seem only to be interested in innovations that are in the "late stages of commercialization" and that can leverage state dollars by a factor of two or three. If Orville and Wilbur showed up today with their invention in Ohio -- whose license plate slogan "The Birthplace of Aviation" memorializes their work -- they wouldn't fair well, as government officials are averse to risk. And lifting a heavier then air machine off the ground for sustained periods was indeed risky.

Tubular Rail's "trackless train technology" is a perfect example of a transportation technology that Obama's infrastructure spending program could make real.

But risk is in the eye of the inventor. The Wrights were not wrong about their own research. Pulliam of Tubular Rail has nurtured his "trackless train technology" along much as the Wright's did in their time, only Pulliam wants to invite the world to his coming out party in contrast to the Wrights, who were far more circumspect about public scrutiny than isPulliam . But Ohio may loose out to Texas in landing a new industry of future trains. Texas may get the jump on jobs Ohio sorely needs if Buckeye officials, both public and private, don't get on board a new train for a new century.

John Michael Spinelli is a former Ohio Statehouse government and political reporter and business columnist. To send a tip of comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com