seanmcl

The problem with relying on fuel efficiency standards to decrease consumption is that the prime determinants of fuel efficiency are the habits of the driver. I can get 50+ MPG with my Highlander Hybrid but I rarely do because I cannot afford to drive that way. On the turnpike I am routinely being passed by people driving hybrids going 20 MPH above the speed limit. Even accounting for the changes in how the EPA calculates MPG, I'm not sure that we could expect to see much of a decrease in fuel consumption, especially if the thought of driving a more fuel efficient car makes one think about driving more, farther or faster.

One of the sticking points that keeps coming up is the following from the FRA: The source of which can be found here: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRDev/HSIPR_Guidance_6-16-09-WEB.pdf Now, this document is a template and the language, above, is suggested language for the agreements between the Feds and the states. It seems to me, however, that Ohio can't really commit to all of Phase 3 until the Phase 2 analysis is complete and that, since the application includes a specific request to fund additional studies ($25 million), it cannot really be expected that Ohio would have to return that, even if Phase 3 is never completed. In other words, is there any good reason not to authorize the $25 million for the completion of the Phase 2 studies?

Who is ODOT bashing? Critics of 3C continue to insist that roadways are paid for by user fees. This simply isn't true. Critics also complain about the estimated state subsidy for 3C. That subsidy, as well as the costs for the Quick Start, are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of major highway projects across the state. What is being "bashed" is the head in the sand argument that says "we can't afford passenger rail" while billions are being spent to maintain the roadways, some of which we wouldn't need if we had alternatives. Possibly, but not because of a decrease in the population. http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html

Does anyone know of a link to the actual agreement between ODOT/ORDC and USDOT/FRA regarding the 3C Quick Start? Not the proposal, itself, but what was actually the agreement.

Brutus: You have made the statement that 3C is "too expensive" (compared to what or by what standard?), "impractical" (by what definition?) and that it is too slow (but no slower than any other similar start up in the rest of the United States). On what basis? You have training in survey methodologies such that you can be seriously critical of those who do? What is flawed about the methodology used in Ohio? Actually, this has been well studied by Don Pickrell from the Urban Mass Transit Association and the reasons are a bit more complicated than what you stated, however, many of the failings of early models in the US were due to flaws in the methodology which have been identified and mitigated in more recent ridership surveys. And while it is the case that it is MOST problematic to get accurate projections of lines not in operation, it is also the case that, in some instances, ridership has actually exceeded projections. The Keystone Corridor is one example in the US of which I am aware (I am sure that there are others), as well as the TGV-A in France. Suffice it to say that statements like "most projections" and "vastly overstated" are irrelevant. If the methodology is not the same, then what does it matter what someone else did? Not uniformly true. In any event, many of the early (two decades old) ridership projections did not take into account such things as a sudden increase in gasoline price such as we saw very recently, nor did they take into account changing demographics. I keep reading this but ask from where you draw this conclusion and how do you define "significant" and "ongoing"? Rhetoric is fine but how about some facts. "Pragmatic" is not the same as "short sighted". This project has the potential to change the way that Ohio does business like no other which has been proposed. In exchange for a $400 million investment in the state, the state has to cough up $17 million/year for three years (and maybe not even that much). You mean to tell me that you would not spend $17 in order to make $400?

In other words, the experience of the entire rest of the country is meaningless if it doesn't agree with your opinion. Or maybe Ohio is someplace where the experience of others doesn't apply. You know, if Ohio were such a model of economic success without intercity rail, I might be willing to question why do we even need it (at lest until gas prices rise above $10/gallon by which time it will be too expensive to build). But when you are scraping the bottom of the economic barrel it is not the time to argue that you are doing everything right.

The problem is that most of the other ARRA HSR project funds were either given to areas which sought to improve existing service, meaning that people knew what they were getting and wanted more and better of it, or in areas where the need (demand) for alternatives to automobile transportation were obvious. Ohio's problems were that 1) there was nothing to compare the planned service to and 2) not enough people believe that the demand will be there once the service is started. It is hard to sell a vision when so many people fail to realize how it can help them.

With all due respect (since I don't know what was your source), the "Quick Start" refers to quickly establishing the 3C using conventional speed (up to 79-mph) as a means of getting Ohioans used to the concept of practical, intercity rail. Insofar as ORDC is concerned, it was never meant to construe going straight from nothing to HSR and there are no official publications from ORDC or ODOT to the contrary. ORDC realized that true HSR was a multibillion dollar project and a hard sell in a state which has no real intercity rail and is hurting, economically. The "Quick Start" was intended to give people a glimpse of what is possible. Having lived in Pennsylvania, I have watched the evolution of the Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg-Philly), from a moderately slow passenger rail to a line approaching 110-mph. It took time but the point is that even at the lower speeds, people took the rail instead of the road and increasing the speed of line has only resulted in both a growth in ridership and in the number of trips/day. You never would have sold people on what exists, today, if you hadn't already shown them what could be using conventional service. Again, the official Ohio Hub plan spells out exactly what steps must be taken and why. This has never been a secret and people who profess to be disappointed have only themselves to blame. It has become very convenient for the opposition interests to blurt out "you lie" everytime they see someone proposing a change to the way that we do business. But in this case, the roadmap was there for all to see and how the $400 million was to be used is described in painstaking detail. No one has suggested that. In fact, one of the reasons that the 3C ROW was chosen was because it represented the best possible option for true HSR. Many of us, myself included, would have preferred going through Akron/Canton both because I live there and because this would have added an additional population center but it was not practical given the long term goal of HSR between the 3Cs. Again, the ORDC roadmap spells out exactly what are the challenges and obstancles to HSR but does not conclude that it is unachievable. If the $400 million does nothing more than increase the average freight speed through the 3Cs it will have made Ohio more competitive in terms of intermodal freight, saved lives through reduction or elimination of grade crossings and improvements in track conditions, provided thousands of Ohioans with jobs they might otherwise not have. Shortly after turning pro, Tiger Woods complained to Arnold Palmer that he couldn't live the life of a normal 20-year old. Palmer retorted, "You're not a normal 20-year old. You've got millions in the bank. If you want to be a normal 20-year old, start by giving it back." So, Ohio, you don't want the $400 million and what comes with it? Give it back!

You seem to think Ohioans are too stupid to be informed or can't read. Here is the link to the ORDC document containing information on the 3C "Quick Start". http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Documents/Ohio%20State%20Rail%20Plan%20Chapters%209%20and%2010.pdf It contains a lot of good information on prior efforts at HSR in Ohio (which include calculated costs from a few decades ago), but, more importantly, is this: And, a little further down, under "Cleveland to Columbus" The document goes on to describe how other sections of the route will need to be upgrade to support 79-mph and what needs to be done to support speeds of 90-mph and 110-mph. Where is the subterfuge? The supposed sleight of hand? This document is available, to the public, on the ORDC web site. So the real problem that you seem to be describing is that, in your view, Ohioans would rather let someone else do their thinking for them then educate themselves as to what their government is trying to do? How can you honestly say that Ohioans have been misled when the Ohio Hub plan clearly and unambiguously spells out what many of us have been saying on this board? It is all there for anyone to read and has been since before the application for funding was made and the funds approved.

327, the only "evidence" that you have provided that this investment "doesn't directly carry over to high speed" is your interpretation of clause in a Memorandum of Understanding that leaves open the issue of shared track for passenger trains operating above 90 MPH. In fact, all of the proposed uses of the $400 are contained in the Act 49 and the ARRA. In your mind, perhaps. I prefer to stick with the law and statute as they are written. What are the distinctions to which you refer? You make it sound like one plan would take us to Mars, the planet, and the other to Mars, Pennsylvania. We are talking about the same rights of way, the same track (in many, if not all cases, that remains to be seen), the same grade level crossing eliminations, the same improvements to stations, etc. Nearly everthing necessary to make 90 MPH safe will be used to support 110 MPH service. So where are the distinctions? In other words, you have created the straw man out of the facts and then wish to debate it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't convince him that he is thirsty.

Try reading the relevant text from the ARRA which states "projects that support the development of intercity high speed rail service" http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111cIq4qW:e286436: and Title 49, Subtitle V, Part D, Chapter 261, Subsection 26101 which describes the funding priorities under HSR http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/usc_sup_01_49_10_V_20_D_40_261.html There is nothing that is being planned or done in Ohio which is inconsistent with either of these. When you take the time to understand them. No one with an ounce of intelligence actually believed that you could get there by splitting up $8 billion between competing states. The purpose of the funding was the development of HSR not the completion of it. To suggest that the people of Ohio were lied to is disengenuous just as it would be disengenuous to suggest that President Eisenhower lied to the people when he proposed the Apollo moon missions because we wouldn't get there for another 10 years.

Not at all. It is very likely the case that conditions are such that in some sections of the ROW there will be the need for passenger service to run in a sealed corridor and in others, not. For example, an intermodal yard will likely be bypassed via separate track and there may be some curves or crossings where this is necessary as well. The MOU states, simply, that a separate agreement will be needed for service exceeding 90 MPH, not that such a agreement will never be reached. Nor does it state what would be needed to get agreement. View the MOU for what it is, a statement of conditions to which both parties are agreed. That sounds a lot more than a glass half full than a glass half empty.

Funny that he didn't mention that part of the high cost of the California HSR is the cost of complying with California Earthquake codes, a problem that shouldn't exist in Ohio.

First, the document that he refers to is a Memorandum of Understanding which, in many cases, is not an enforceable contract. In fact, parties typically enter an MOU instead of a contract if what they are attempting to codify is that to which they have agreed in pursuit of a common objective. And, in this case, the section that he quotes ends with "unless otherwise mutually agreed between the parties." Taken as a whole and in context, I don't see what is the big deal. CSX is expressing safety concerns related to the use of shared track for trains traveling over 90 MPH and ODOT concurs that this should not be assumed as part of the agreement. It leaves open the possibility that shared track could be used for passenger service greater than 90 MPH but stops short of saying that it will be.

Tell you what, DanB, I can give you a bunch of stories. Stories of people with diabetes who would cut their pills in half and take them half as often as prescribed because they couldn't afford them. Stories about people hospitalized with respiratory insufficiency because they couldn't afford their asthma medications. Believe me, it happens. The problem with the health care bill is that it could have done much more with so much less. It should have (and in some cases, did): 1. Ban experience rating. All subscribers pay the same fee. 2. Eliminate the antitrust protections currently afforded health insurance. 3. Eliminate state regulation of health insurers and make it Federal. 4. Eliminated tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance and tax it as you would wages or salaries. 5. Placed a cap on non-economic damages for malpractice. Item 4 would force more people to truly look at the cost of their health plans which, in the case of employer-provided health care, comes out of their wages. Items 1, 2, and 3 would not only allow for greater competition, it would provide an impetus to consolidation of health plans. A larger risk pool means that the overall cost goes down. Item 5 would help to address defensive medicine. You don't need a big bill to do any of these things. Instead, what we have is a huge bill which will, eventually, get us there but not without unnecessary cost, pain and suffering.

Actually, I take that route quite often and the timing makes sense from one perspective, namely, that most of the trip is during non-business hours. The solution to the problem that you mention would be shorter runs that depart and arrive at different times, say, Cleveland to Chicago, Cleveland to Pittsburgh, Cleveland to DC, rather than to change the Capital Limited. As an example, look at the Silver (Atlantic Coast) Service where you have multiple trains but some, like the Piedmont and the Carolinian, only run on part of the course. These will likely come about naturally once improvements have been made to these corridors. Ideally, there would be dedicated track for passenger rail which would allow for more flexible scheduling. The problem, of course, is the old B&O route through the Allegheny Mountains which really limits how fast the DC to Pittsburgh segment can be. It is a beautiful trip, though.

One thing that I miss, however, are movies in the club car. Instead, you rent personal DVD players. My wife and I would often bring a bottle of wine and some cheese and crackers to watch whatever was on (on the Capital Limited, it was frequently an Adam Sandler movie). Back in January of 2007 we were marooned for a couple of hours near the Sand Patch. There were a bunch of railfans going to a convention in DC many of whom had their own radios so we got regular updates as to how much longer we were going to have to wait. They ran out of the family movies so they started showing some unedited Adam Sandler such as Happy Gilmore and The Waterboy but nobody complained about the language. Communal movies were especially fun during the long trips out West since it was one of the few times that you actually got to know your fellow passengers outside the dining car. Nowadays, people just sit there with their headphones gazing out the windows. Once of the nice things about the Westbound train is that it leaves in the late afternoon and Union Liquors sells half bottles of Belvedere vodka in Union Station which is just about the right amount for two Martini's. During 2007-2008 I traveled that route at least once and sometimes twice a month so I got to know the porters, some by name. One fellow I had so regularly that when he knew that I was going to be in his car he would leave a bucket of ice for the drinks.

Gee, not one cent of the tax on the gasoline that goes into my lawnmower, benefits my lawn. And as far as I am aware, railroad diesel fuel taxes don't go to the railroads. Cigarette taxes don't go to tobacco growers and liquor taxes don't go to vintners and distillers. Doesn't seem fair.

I knew how far the drive would be. But it didn't hit me how boring it was going to be to drive, alone, and try to make it straight through with minimal sleep. It wasn't a double-decker in 1986, at least not the train that I rode. In fact, it still had a dome car though trying to get a seat in the dome during the day was almost impossible. People who were traveling together would end up saving seats while the others went to lunch. If you were alone, you were out of luck. The only showers were the combined shower/toilet in each of the rooms (like on the Viewliners). That was why it was such a nice gesture for Len to offer to let me take a shower as it was an empty room for that leg of the trip and my using it meant that he had to clean it twice between occupants. I tipped him well, of course.

In 1986 after finishing my residency in Internal Medicine, I decided to drive from Pittsburgh to California via Chicago (where my brother lived). I was about 60 miles West of Chicago when I saw that it was nearly 1000 miles to Denver and decided that I was crazy. I stopped at a phone booth (they still existed) called Amtrak and learned that I had about 90 minutes to catch the California Zephyr so I raced back to Chicago, parked at the Hilton and scrambled to the train. They only had sleeping accomodations available for the first night of the trip so I booked that. The first night I laid awake watching the farmlands and silos as we passed them, being amazed at the views of the towns that you never got from the highway. My porter's name was Len Dawson and that was back in the days when most porters actually cared about and took care of the passengers. He was going as far as Salt Lake City but I had to move into coach at Denver and I remember commenting to him that I wished that I had been in First Class long enough to get a shower. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon he finds me in coach and passes me a note to tell me that there was a shower free in first class if I wanted it. He even handed me a towel and washrag when I came back to use it. I never saw him, again which was too bad since I wanted to thank him for all of his efforts. I took the Southwest Chief back. They had a Native American guide who got on in Flagstaff and gave a talking tour of the desert between Flagstaff and Alburquerque. In Missouri we actually passed by a tornado which was, maybe, 10 miles or so from the train. The conductor never, once, mentioned it although the passengers were a bit concerned. Three summers ago I took the Silver Meteor from DC to Charleston (repeatedly), and I could swear that this was the same rolling stock that I had taken to California in the 80s.

I realize that you were being sarcastic, but in case you weren't, pollution from horse drawn carriages reached such a critical stage that in 1898 there was an international conference held to discuss what to do about it. It is totally impractical to consider horses and buggies where competition for feed would drive food prices sky high. In addition, you have the problem of methane and manure.

Train delay turns finger-licking good http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10038/1034183-258.stm Scott Hay, 52, a truck driver and husband of a restaurant cashier, was preparing to haul the $1,400 order (catering discount included) in his pickup to the stranded train. Earlier in the afternoon, he dropped off cases of soda and water and took the onboard chef to a local supermarket to shop for ingredients to make breakfast for passengers preparing to settle in for the night. I'd call this Amtrak and Passenger Rail News.

Thanks for thinking of us. As an aside, the Eastbound Capitol Limited passed through here, about 8 hours late, but it still made it. I wish that I had had a camera as the way that it stirred up clouds of snow was eerily impressive. In contrast, ALL bus routes, save one, were canceled for today. And the airport was, essentially, closed. The streets and highways were impassable and, driving to the local gas station to get diesel for my generator (while dodging falling tree limbs), I sorely wished that I was sipping wine on that train, even if it was headed to DC which was forecast to get as much as 31 inches.

I agree with the ugly part and it seems that part of Amtrak's issue with DMUs is crashworthiness, something that was not a problem for Colorado Railcar. The report, I think, seemed to suggest that there might be a role for DMUs to play on shorter routes requiring no more than four cars and that these might be a way to start up new service over existing track, quickly. The report does suggest that due to differences between traditional Amtrak operations and operations (including maintenance), of DMUs, they are not necessarily a good fit within Amtrak's current framework. However, the report did leave open the idea that states might take the initiative with the development of DMU routes and this, in turn, might make it more feasible for Amtrak to be involved. In part it is a chicken and egg kind of problem. Amtrak doesn't want them unless there is sufficient demand and nobody is going to build them without demand but a successful "demonstration" project might be sufficient to get the ball rolling. The question is, who is going to risk building the stock without a significant commitment from buyers (the report estimates a minimum of 100 units), but who will commit to the deployment without guarantees that the equipment will be there? It seems to me (and, I think, others have mentioned) that 3-C is a potential for DMUs because more frequent trains will probably mean lower ridership per train (though higher ridership overall). DMUs could scale, better, and be more cost effective than traditional locomotive sets especially when you are trying to build your ridership. And if ridership increases to the point where more traditional units would be needed, the DMUs could be shifted to developing new routes such as Cleveland-Akron-Canton, etc.

Interesting read, especially the part about DMUs. The report seems to suggest that US Railcar could have really good opportunity if they could start up production, quickly and soon.