Picture of the Day

Leave a comment

The Goodyear Blimp over the Ford exhibit tent at Airventure ’10 

Advertisements

Enroute to KOSH via KRFD

Leave a comment

Getting There

The short version of our trip to Rockford IL can be described thusly:

Looping Around the Weather

Walter arrived a bit past 4pm and after a quick load of the airplane and kiss from my Sweetie we were off to Rockford IL (KRFD). The skies were beautiful in Columbus but according to Walter’s XM weather feed (on his carefully constructed Notebook computer in the cockpit) there was bad weather ahead.

This meant going around. And in an airplane, going around can mean the long way around. First we were sent to KELSI intersection.

Radar picture of weather

On the display, the ① is our destination. The red stuff is <b>bad</b> and that little plane to the right is us heading for same.

Then, when the red flashy bits started covering that we were rerouted to Peoria. I wondered what Judy was thinking, knowing she was following our route on FlightAware. But, by going south we skirted the storm and as it went East we came in behind it and landed at Chicago-Rockford Airport (KRFD).

B2OSH

Our trip to Oshkosh was part of a larger group: “Bonanzas to Oshkosh”. Walter has owned a Beechcraft Bonanza for some time and has been a member for a while now. The group goes together for comradery, to make a big splash and because it’s the one time they can talk aviation without loved ones heading for the hills. B2OSH had arranged with UPS at the airport to allow us to park in front of their hangar. Alas, the weather had pushed Walter and I far past the deadline so we wound up parking in front of the Emery  hanger. The wonderful folks at B2OSH had already started the soiree but there was plenty of delicious food and drink (not to mention lots of discussions of matters aviation).

A bad situation loomed, however! The original plan was for the 100+ strong B2OSH group to fly in formation to Oshkosh the next day. However, rains had made the campground impassable. The standard briefing was already scheduled for tomorrow at 10am so contingencies would be made then. In the meantime, we were to assume that the formation would be postponed one day to Sunday.

Our accommodations

Where we stayed will remain nameless. A shuttle bus was provided by B2OSH to two of the main hotels – one near the field and another a few miles away in town. Unfortunately, our hotel was not on the list of ones visited. It was only after much pleading and cajoling that we were able to change the driver’s worry about talking us to a worry that we’d report him. Still, he wouldn’t bring us to the front door; only to the end of the block.

The desk clerk was a 19 yr old who looked like he would have rather been anywhere else and after he checked us in we shared the sentiment. Our mood was not helped by the signs which, if believed, told us our room did not exist. Finally, we went back down stairs and an even younger lady who was there on her night off – presumably flirting with our slacker desk-clerk, showed us to our room.

To Walter’s concern (and my relief) the front desk clerk informed us that he was booked solid the next day. Taking a page from my consulting days I whipped out my credit card and Hilton points number (I have super-deluxe status with them) and made a reservation for the next night at a Hilton Garden nearby. Not only was it nicer but I would earn Amtrak miles.(!!!)

With plans “A” and “B” set we retired for the evening.

The ABCs of 3C – A Political Roadmap to Rail Service

1 Comment

What follows is a research paper for my English composition class outlining a possible political approach to passing the 3C proposal

A concerted political campaign is required for 3C to pass and be successful

The ABCs of 3C – A Political Roadmap to Rail Service

There is a proposal to build an inter-urban rail between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland.  While many plans have been proposed to implement such a link a recent disbursement from the American Recovery and Reinvestment act of 2009 has moved the matter forward.  But the plan is in danger of failing due to lack of political support and a dearth of details.  A concerted political plan will be required if an efficient rail link is to be brought to fruition.

The need for a concerted political strategy becomes clear when one sees how the public debate as calcified into a series of “playbacks” – prepared responses to whatever question is proposed.  Early in the process, in an effort generate “ball park” estimates concerning costs and timing the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) asked Amtrak for a draft proposal for rail service between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland.  The results of this report, despite being firmly stamped “Draft” and suffused with warnings that the results are quite preliminary (variances on costs are estimated at 30%) are being quoted by both sides as being firm facts.   (Frank, Lander & Hillblom, 2009, p 2)

One can tell the prejudices of the speaker just by which facts are cited.  Any mention of “39 MPH” or the estimated $17 million in subsidy that will be required each year places the speaker in the “anti” camp. (Examiner.com 2010)  Similarly, someone in favor will invariable state that the federal government is picking up the starting costs and that 478,000 people a year will use the service (“One Vote Margin lets 3-C rail plan move ahead” 2010).  These statements are repeated as fact even as they are likely wrong.  The 39 MPH estimate is due to slow orders around Springfield due to the condition and curvature of the tracks – travelers to Cleveland will see much better speeds. (Franke, p 5) The Amtrak report suggests that minimum capital costs of $517 million will be needed to start the service – much more than the $400 million earmarked to the state by the ARRA.  Both the subsidy level and ridership are predicated of variable factors Amtrak does not address.  For example, Amtrak’s proposed schedule works around the freight railroads.  (Franke, p 12) This points out to a drawback in the foundation document – key decisions are assumed rather than taken.

Two of the most important factors that will determine the attractiveness of rail service is its path and schedule.  In the case of what path to take Amtrak assumes the “shortest, most direct route from Cleveland to Cincinnati” (Franke p 5).   This is a change as most studies in the 1970s and 1980s presumed a route through Youngstown.  (ODOT, 2010, p10-2).  The schedule is built around the freight railroads’ needs instead of the potential needs of passengers.  What the state of Ohio received was the answer to the questions they asked rather than the answers they needed.

To get a better handle on operational questions and costs the ORDC requested that a more customary study be done by Parsons Brinkerhoff Inc., a noted consultancy on infrastructure with expertise in rail.  Unfortunately, Parsons Brinkerhoff was also party to a group in Ohio, Linking Ohio, lobbying in favor of the 3C proposal.  This brought predictable complaints with “(s)keptics of the rail effort question(ing) how a company that is actively lobbying for passenger rail can complete an objective study on the issue” (“One-vote margin lets 3-C rail plan move ahead”, 2010, para 11).  This further hardened positions on both sides of the issue.

The ORDC presented the proposal for the full study to the Ohio Controlling Board with a $25 million price tag.  The Controlling Board reviews all expenditure involving capital projects.  Such was the animosity over the project that the top Republican, State Sen. David Goodman (R-New Albany) spent a good portion of the meeting arguing that a super-majority (2/3rd vote) would be needed to approve the study in an effort to kill it which fits into the partisan breakdown of supporters and opponents (“One-vote margin lets 3-C rail plan move ahead”, 2010).  Republicans are arguing that this will be an expensive boondoggle that will only serve a fraction of the Ohio population.  Democrats are arguing that Ohio needs transportation alternatives and inter-urban rail service, even at slow speeds, is the bare minimum acceptable.  What is noteworthy is that both assertions could be true depending on how inter-urban rail is deployed.

With the public debate so hardened then without some change in the dynamic the contents of this study will be irrelevant.  Expending federal money requires a 2/3rds vote of the Control Board and, without Republican support, it will lack the votes to pass.  Also, the key, highly political decisions concerning route, scheduling, consist and other matters are still not being made at ODOT.  The appropriation passed was vague and I have been told by Jodi Elsass-Locker, Assistant Legal Counsel at the Ohio Department of Transportation that the instructions to Parsons Brinkerhoff are not readily available (personal communication, June 4, 2010).  $25 million seems a large sum for a document both politically and operationally irrelevant.

For proponents of the 3C concept, the idea of Republicans after spending 18 months running down the idea having a sudden, Damascene conversion in an election years in unlikely in the extreme.  There needs to be a plausible narrative that would allow someone such as Senator Goodman to vote in favor of something he was speaking against a few months earlier.  Fortunately, a method presents itself by which the political problems can be solved at the same time the project can be made operationally sound.

The first step is to acknowledge the shortcomings of the Amtrak report.  At an operational level this would allow the state to challenge some of the assumptions Amtrak made as well as lay the groundwork for opponents today (of the Amtrak proposal) to become supporters (of a new proposal) in a short time frame.  The critique of the Amtrak report’s shortcomings should be done by the ODOT but if it is not it can also be done by pressure groups.  Continuous refutation of the “39 MPH” mantra should be refuted along with the notion that the start-up costs are “free” because they are paid by the federal government.  In this way, by breaking both “playbacks” it would make the pro-3C camp look thoughtful and reasonable and, by extension, make the anti-3C group look unthinking and intransigent if they do not change their approach.

Hand in hand with acknowledging the Amtrak report’s shortcomings is to begin to add rigor, or the perception of rigor, to the process going forward.  This process is highly political and the idea that important decisions can be left to “the report” is risible.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that the level of support, regardless of party, from Akron-Canton and Youngstown area legislators would rise if the route were moved to go through that section of the state.   The state could begin to demand concessions from Amtrak concerning the operation of the line to make ODOT look as if it were in charge.  Most importantly, the freight railroads, the companies whose property the state will be using for this service, need to be made enthusiastic supporters of 3C.

Freight railroads will always say they are in favor of passenger rail; they have no choice.  Federal law grants Amtrak the right to run service over any freight line so long as an appropriate rent is paid (Wilner, 1994, p99).  Amtrak also has the right to forcibly purchase rail lines if it so chooses.  Given that Amtrak has this level of power to publicly snub passenger rail would require a brave freight railroad indeed .  Less publically, however, freight railroads have been known to delay passenger trains even though, under the law, they are supposed to give them priority.  They can schedule maintenance at inconvenient times and otherwise make passenger service unappealing.

Fortunately, there are steps that would both bring the freight companies and Republicans to support 3C.  According to the Amtrak report, among the upgrades required are thoase would also help freight railroads. An example is two rail junctions in downtown Columbus.  According to the Amtrak report Columbus already “has some of the highest rail traffic congestion in the state” (Franke, p6)

Trains coming south from Worthington to the proposed station at the Convention Center pass though a complex junction known as Control Point 138 or “CP138”.  The two tracks under the Convention Center today are actually run by two different railroads: the north one by Norfolk Southern and the south one by CSX.  Heading south just across the Scioto river is another intense bottleneck for the railroads at CP139 which is known colloquially as “Scioto Junction”.  Fixing these two areas would be helping the freight railroads (who are Ohio businesses and employers), help the environment and make freight transit through the Capital more efficient.  This could be the common ground where pro-3C groups can meet with pro-business groups.  It would lay the groundwork necessary for 3C without necessarily prejudicing the outcome in favor of passenger rail.  Proceeding forward in this way benefits the freight railroads and the 3C outcome.

None of the steps outlined requires special knowledge or office.  It doesn’t matter who, be it the head of ODOT, the Governor, or pressure groups, takes the political lead on 3C so long as someone does.  The hallmark of this approach is factual rigor – it puts a line underneath the frozen positions of the past and wrong-foots attempts to continue in that vein.  The process needs to be transparent with concrete proposals made by the political lead, with due consideration to political realities, and not assumed by an engineer in a far off office.  This process will provide a good chance that 3C not only passes into being but is a success.

Airline – Railway connection through the pocketbook

Leave a comment

The good news is I have over 55,000 Amtrak Guest Rewards points.  The bad news is that I’ve moved to the second largest city (Phoenix AZ is the largest) without Amtrak service.  The nearest stop is Cincinnati, 2 ½ hours away, and even that is no prize; they have one train that stops at 3 in the morning.  After some research, one possible answer presented itself: through booking with Continental Airlines.  Continental has a deal with Amtrak where one can book through Newark (EWR) to trains stations up and down the northeast.  But, while this seems a good idea in theory there is a hitch in practice.

I picked random dates next month for a round-trip from Columbus (CMH) to Stamford CT (ZTF).  I made sure to have a Saturday stay over.  The results were as follows.

Screen capture of EWR to ZTF

Yes, you read that correctly: $1,764.45!!!  And that’s just for bog-standard, cattle-car economy class before the nickel-and-dime fees begins (baggage fees, landing fees, fee fees).  So for giggles I checked what the same trip would be breaking out the two legs (breaking legs is quite common in New Jersey, I’m told).

For the same Continental round trip flight (air only) I found:

Which is actually reasonable for the round-trip.  Typically the flights run between $250 – $400 (not including add-on fees).  Then I queried the Amtrak portion of the flight:

Incidentally. the Amtrak website has a much better interface.  As you can see, the results were  $65.  If I wanted to spend another $26 I could make the rail portion “Business Class” which would mean a free soda and New York Times.  This is clearly absurd.  Booking the two travel legs separately turns a $1,764.45 flight into a $433.40 flight.  I can’t see how Continental and Amtrak have the neck to charge over $1,300 for the “privilege” of interconnecting their flights.  And yet, Amtrak proudly announces this “service” in their on-board and mail shot advertisements.  This is a shame because otherwise AGR is one of the more generous travel programs available.   It is cynical stunts like this that turns off the general public to mass transit in general and Amtrak in particular.

Identify the ham

Leave a comment

Identify the ham
Originally uploaded by tlillis4

A fun picture taken at the Cincinnati Shakespeare Company. Judy and I went to see “An Ideal Husband”.

“To love oneself is to begin a lifelong romance”

%d bloggers like this: