COLUMBUS, Ohio (CGE) - Governor-elect John Kasich, leaving Tuesday for San Diego to attend the Republican Governors Association, is being courted by rail backers of Ohio's 3C passenger train project, through the launch of a Facebook page, to change his mind.
Kasich courted
"Let him know you support this important infrastructure project!" the Facebook pages says. Ohio 3C rail backers argue that "Ohio has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build rail service between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati that will connect our state to the Midwest and East Coast regional rail networks."
Ohio's public and private sectors have had 40 years to build the 3C, but over the course of four decades, the route remains dead despite claims that a half-million riders harbor pent-up demand to ride a train whose one-way trip time is over five hours and whose average speed has been upgraded from 39 to 50-mph.
The train project that must share low-rated rails with very slow moving freight cars was awarded $400 million in February by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the federal agency designated to administer $8 billion in high-speed rail funds, which were included in the nearly $800 billion plus in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
On the Facebook page, 3C backers correctly warn, "we are in danger of losing this economic development project to another state."
Kasich, from the start of his campaign, said the slow train is "dead" on his watch. In one of his first acts as Governor-elect, Kasich asked Strickland to stop contractors from spending as much as $25 million on engineering and design work, and then called on U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to allow Ohio to re-route the funds for more important road and bridge work. In LaHood's diplomatic yet stern return letter, he reminded Kasich that the funds are earmarked for trains, and that funds given to Ohio or any other state, like Wisconsin, that chooses to use them for any project other than their intended purposes would be reclaimed by FRA.
States like New York, Illinois and even Florida has asked LaHood to re-direct any returned train funds from Ohio or other states to their train projects, which in comparison to Ohio's 3C, can justifiably use the title "high-speed" because they will indeed travel at speeds over 125-mph. European and Chinese bullet trains routinely clock speeds in excess of 220-mph.
Facebook page lacks Ohio Hub Study information
But while 3C backers continue to say spending $400 million in taxpayer funds will create thousands of jobs and link Ohio to a larger Midwestern Railroad System, the numbers they are not talking about, but which are spoken of indirectly in Ohio's Hub Plan, show the project isn't feasible in light of the new reality of both federal and state budgets.
The most critical fact is based on the assumption by Ohio rail officials that the feasibility of the 3C is only possible if 80 percent of the estimated 3C capital expenditures come from Washington. The 20 percent of funding Ohio is responsible for is similarly impossible given the new state of the state's dire finances.
As the call for cuts in budget expenditures reverberates as loudly in Columbus as it is in Washington, the 80/20 split between federal and state funding is nothing but a good dream gone bad.
With a new class of elected officials headed to Washington to cut spending, even renewal of the surface transportation bill, in normal times a big bi-partisan bill, is in jeopardy. Even long-term Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar, the most transportation savvy Member of the House, was defeated in the 2010 mid-term elections. Republicans, who won back the House by a wide margin, generally ran in opposition to high-speed rail, arguing the long distances and extreme costs of rail make it a poor choice for Americans, whose use of roads and airplanes dwarf those of rail, despite an uptick in Amtrak ridership.
Ohio Hub Study nuggets:
The first glaring acknowledgment that the 3C is not feasible but for big handouts from Washington is front and center on one ODOT 3C-related Web page.
From ODOT 2007 Hub Study: “Gem Public Sector Services concludes that construction of high-speed passenger rail is economically feasible and justifiable assuming an 80% federal construction match. By feasible, we believe the economic benefits justify the investment and the project will not be a burden on the State biennial budget."
The study, an update from 2002 that offers one caveat after another on various critical aspects of building the 3C, cautions that all estimates are in 2002 dollars and could be 30 percent or more below or above real numbers. Prices, as we know, have not dropped 30 percent, or for that matter, any percent in the recent past for rail, a form of transportation experts say is the most expensive with the return on investment. Such damning arguments argue for why Ohio spending its $400 in federal largess is the trap door to a money pit of monumental size that Ohio leaders like Kasich and others now know state taxpayers cannot afford.
A quick glance through the Ohio Hub Study's Technical Memorandum & Business Plan show other areas where the money pit opens up wide.
Train Control (Signals and Communication): FRA regulations require that trains operating in excess of 79 mph, employ advanced signal systems that provide cab signaling and automatic train protection or automatic train stop
functions. Such track circuit based systems in use today are very expensive to construct and maintain.
Infrastructure Improvement Costs: The capital cost estimates in this report are presented in 2002 dollars, which are the same units used in the earlier 2004 Ohio Hub report and in the MWRRS plan. However, it should be noted that construction and materials costs have increased significantly since the development of the original plan. ODOT has seen significant increases in construction costs in the last three or four years.
Capital cost categories include trackwork, passenger stations and support facilities, turnout switches, bridges under, bridges over, roadway/railway crossings, signals, curves. 3C 79-mph capital cost estimates are $723 million. For 90-mph, 3C corridor capital costs are $755,912,000. The original 3-C Study proposed adding new track capacity along 108 miles of the 258-mile corridor. The Ohio Hub Study suggests adding a new track along the entire length of the corridor, 158 miles of which would be high-speed with a centerline offset of 28-feet. For the High-Speed Scenario, this increased the estimated cost for 3-C infrastructure to $1.166 billion, or about $4.5 million per mile.
Trainsets: 300-seat trains cost $17.9 million each. The fleet cost for the original Ohio Hub system is $250.6 million. Adding the three incremental corridors would require 11 more trains, bringing the total capital requirement to
$447.5 million. For a 79-mph service using smaller 200-seats trains, the cost would be $350 million.
Costs for Access to Railroad Rights-Of-Way: Track capacity constraints and bottlenecks create unreliable conditions where train delays often become unavoidable. While federal regulations give passenger trains dispatch priority, railroad dispatchers often encounter congestion where it becomes difficult to control traffic and adhere to Amtrak’s timetables. In some cases, Amtrak will offer the railroads a payment to provide on-time passenger train performance. Amtrak’s payments do not include an access fee for the use of a railroad’s tracks or its rights-of-way. Amtrak’s federal statutory right-of-access has never required such a payment, and therefore, Amtrak avoids paying a fee or “rent” for occupying space on privately held land and facilities. While Ohio Hub partner States may choose a different course, the final determination of what Ohio passenger rail interests will pay host freight railroads for use of their tracks and rights-of-way will ultimately be accomplished through negotiations. A placeholder fee is included in this report as a shadow cost for what future negotiations might yield. 3C costs for right-of-way are $70,754,000.
Positive Train Control: The costs for the installation of Positive Train Control and improved grade crossing warning systems account for the majority of the additional costs of the High-Speed Scenario. The costs for building new 110-mph Class 6 track are not that much more than 79-mph track, although high-speed track does cost more to maintain when it is in
operation. The cost differential for upgrading the 3C Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati route from 79-mph to 110-mph is significant because of the large number of highway/railroad grade crossings over this route. For most routes, the difference in cost between the Modern and High-Speed Scenarios is generally small and is due to the assumption that additional tracks would be added under both speed scenarios. In most cases, a 79-mph track was added for additional capacity along the routes evaluated under the Modern Scenario.
The 3C infrastructure capital cost is $1,166,488 in 2002$ (or $1,516,434 if costs have risen by 30 percent or more as the study warns)
State Cost Shares: The only corridors that Ohio can develop on its own would be the 3-C, Columbus to Toledo, and
perhaps a portion of the Panhandle line from Newark into Columbus. All the other Ohio Hub corridors require the cooperation of other states, which accounts for the other 24% of the total Ohio Hub cost. Ohio’s share of the total investment for rail infrastructure would be $3.15 billion for Ohio Hub segments, and $0.47 billion for the MWRRS segments, coming to a total of $3.62 billion. Adding the 19% additive for land, trains and a maintenance base would bring Ohio’s total cost to $4.31 billion. However, it is not anticipated that Ohio would have to cover all these capital costs out of its own budget, but that some level of Federal grant assistance would also be available.
Study conclusions and key findings:
A 110-mph upgrade more than doubles consumer surplus and environmental benefits without proportionately raising capital or operating cost. Therefore, 110-mph produces much higher cost benefit ratios than a 79-mph option.
Challenges:
Federal funding: Securing federal funding requires the states to form a strong coalition to advocate for funding to
the U.S. Department of Transportation and its agencies as well as the U.S. Congress, particularly to obtain the 80/20 federal match assumed in the Financial Analysis. A grassroots effort to promote the project to the state leadership, local communities, businesses, Congress and other interested groups will need to be undertaken to gain funding support.
Long-term debt: The issuance of long-term debt requires advance financial planning by each state and significant coordination among the states. Modifications to state laws and debt ceilings might be required by some states’ legislatures. Additionally, some states might not possess the expressed authority to issue bonds for transportation purposes. Consequently, appropriate actions would need to be taken by these states to obtain this authority or identify an alternative financing strategy.
Freight railroads: A critical component of the Ohio Hub implementation is the use of freight railroad tracks and rights-of-way for passenger services. While Amtrak has the right to operate on lines owned by the freight railroads, capital investment in, and operation of, the Ohio Hub System must be carefully integrated with the needs of the railroads to secure their cooperation and support for
Click 'Subscribe' above to have the next Columbus Government Examiner column delivered to you via email. Read more stories on people, politics and government in Ohio here, or on Facebook or Twitter. Send news or tips to ohionewsbureau@gmail.com
