gildone

Let's see: $4.8 billion for a 1,270 mile system. That's $3.78 million per mile. Most highway bridges cost what, $4 or 5 million for a small one? The Ohio Hub sounds like a real bargain to me for the amount of transportation we're getting. One additional question: Does the Columbus-Lima-Ft. Wayne-Chicago route assume rebuilding that inactive line through Porter, Indiana? Seems to me that's a necessity, given all the rail congestion in Chicago.

Does it have to be the entire corridor, or could we start with the first two C's-- Columbus-Cleveland and tie them into Buffalo? Then add Columbus Dayton-Cincinnati shortly thereafter? If ORDC's enabling legislation isn't too tight, this might be a possibility if it's a cheaper way to get something up and running by the end of Strickland's first term. Of course, if the cost is similar, then it would make perfect sense to go 3-C first. By the way, I thought one of the most expensive segments of the entire system was Cleveland-Toledo because the Sandusky causeway will require a 3rd track, not to mention that flyover that's needed over the CSX track just a mile or so east of the Toledo station. That's why I suggested Cols-Cle-Buf.

I'm to the point where I find a car anything but liberating. To each his own...

My last good trip on a train was on the Pennsylvanian a few months before they annulled the train at PGH. It was actually on time. I sat in that big seat stretching to reach the footrest on the seat in front of me (I'm 6' tall). I read and listened to CD's as the scenery went by. I haven't been so relaxed while traveling since and won't be again until we have service in Ohio I can actually use. A good trip on a train is the best relaxation therapy there is.

Ok, say we get SB 294 passed this year, and we get an earmark for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Study for the Ohio Hub. This means in two years we're ready to go into Final Engineering and Design (i.e. construction). Rumor has it that Gov. Strickland wants some leg of the Ohio Hub up and running by the end of his first term-- which is entirely possible in the scenario I've outlined above. Which leg should be the first leg? I would think whichever one is going to give us the most bang for the buck and, at a minimum, bring service to Columbus. Should it be the entire 3-C? Or should it be something that ties a good portion of Ohio into an existing corridor in another state? Something like Columbus-Cleveland-Buffalo, which would tie Ohio into the Empire Corridor. Is the infrastructure work needed for Columbus-Cleveland-Buffalo is cheaper than for the entire 3-C? If so, I'm inclined to say that COL-CLE-BUF should be the "inaugural leg". But I'm no expert on this stuff, so what do others think?

an AAO blog would be great. I think most of AAO's issues get covered here in this and in the Amtrak thread, but an AAO thread here would be fine with me too.

The land grants weren't free. In exchange for them, which mostly benefited the western railroads, and about 1/2 at that, the railroads had to give the federal government discounted shipping rates. Congress determined in the 30's that the railroads had, by then, re-payed this debt to the federal government many times over. It's also important to note that not all lines, even back then, were profitable. There were regional lines that never made money, but they fed into profitable mainline services. With US mail contracts, the intercity passenger rail system as a whole was moderately profitable, but still not all lines were, and freight was always the bread and butter of the railroads. Without mail contracts many more intercity lines would have been unprofitable. Way back then, there was also a business reason to run good passenger trains-- the railroads were the most powerful industry in America and running good passenger trains bought them a lot of public goodwill throughout the 19th century, but that public goodwill began to fade by the early 20th century and were one of the reasons people-- particularly farmers because they were getting hosed by the railroads with respect to shipping rates-- began clamoring for roads and an alternative to the huge monopoly the railroads were.

This might make things easier. This is the table of contents of just the rail transit and freight rail portion of the act: You can get to everything here. You have to search on "Progress Act" then choose the result that says HR 1300: http://thomas.loc.gov/ TITLE V--TRANSIT PROMOTION AND RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT Subtitle A--Transit SEC. 501. INCREASE AND EXPANSION OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED MASS TRANSIT FRINGE BENEFITS. SEC. 502. GRANTS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. SEC. 503. STUDY OF FUEL SAVINGS FROM INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. Subtitle B--Secure Access for Commuter Rail SEC. 511. SHORT TITLE. SEC. 512. FINDINGS. SEC. 513. RAIL TRANSIT ACCESS. `CHAPTER 285--RAIL TRANSIT ACCESS `Sec. 28501. Definitions `Sec. 28502. Shared use of rail carrier trackage by mass transportation authorities `Sec. 28503. Shared use of rail rights-of-way by mass transportation authorities `Sec. 28504. Applicability of other laws `Sec. 28505. Standards for Board action SEC. 514. RAIL TRANSPORTATION POLICY. Subtitle C--Intercity Passenger Rail and Rail Bond Program SEC. 521. CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE; STATE RAIL PLANS. `CHAPTER 244--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE CORRIDOR CAPITAL ASSISTANCE `Sec. 24401. Definitions `Sec. 24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service `Sec. 24403. Project management oversight `Sec. 24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of grant project `Sec. 24405. Grant conditions `Sec. 24406. Authorization of appropriations. SEC. 522. STATE RAIL PLANS. `CHAPTER 225--STATE RAIL PLANS AND HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS `Sec. 22501. Definitions `Sec. 22502. Authority `Sec. 22503. Purposes `Sec. 22504. Transparency; coordination; review `Sec. 22505. Content `Sec. 22506. Review SEC. 523. RAIL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM. `Sec. 24910. Rail cooperative research program SEC. 524. HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY RAIL FACILITY BONDS. `Sec. 26106. High-speed rail infrastructure bonds SEC. 525. TAX CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED HIGH-SPEED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS. `SEC. 54A. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED HIGH-SPEED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS. Subtitle D--Energy Supply and Freight Rail SEC. 531. SHORT TITLE. SEC. 532. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK. `CHAPTER 223--CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK `Sec. 22301. Capital grants for railroad track Subtitle E--Rail Reliability SEC. 541. RELIABILITY OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION OF ENERGY SUPPLIES.

This is just Subtitle C. Lots of other energy efficiency and alternative energy related stuff in the bill: H.R.1300 PROGRESS Act (Introduced in House) `CHAPTER 244--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE CORRIDOR CAPITAL ASSISTANCE `Sec. `24401. Definitions. `24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service. `24403. Project management oversight. `24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of grant project. `24405. Grant conditions. `24406. Authorization of appropriations. `Sec. 24401. Definitions `In this chapter: `(1) APPLICANT- The term `applicant' means a State (including the District of Columbia), a group of States, an Interstate Compact, or a public agency established by one or more States and having responsibility for providing intercity passenger rail service. `(2) CAPITAL PROJECT- The term `capital project' means a project or program in a State rail plan developed under chapter 225 of this title for-- `(A) acquiring, constructing, improving, or inspecting equipment or a facility for use in or for the primary benefit of intercity passenger rail service, expenses incidental to the acquisition or construction (including designing, engineering, location surveying, mapping, environmental studies, and acquiring rights-of-way), payments for the capital portions of rail trackage rights agreements, highway-rail grade crossing improvements related to intercity passenger rail service, security, mitigating environmental impacts, communication and signalization improvements, relocation assistance, acquiring replacement housing sites, and acquiring, constructing, relocating, and rehabilitating replacement housing; `(B) rehabilitating, remanufacturing or overhauling rail rolling stock and facilities used primarily in intercity passenger rail service; `© costs associated with developing State rail plans; and `(D) the first-dollar liability costs for insurance related to the provision of intercity passenger rail service under section 24404. `(3) INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE- The term `intercity passenger rail service' means transportation services with the primary purpose of passenger transportation between towns, cities and metropolitan areas by rail, including high-speed rail, as defined in section 24102. `Sec. 24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service `(a) General Authority- `(1) The Secretary of Transportation may make grants under this section to an applicant to assist in financing the capital costs of facilities and equipment necessary to provide or improve intercity passenger rail transportation. `(2) The Secretary shall require that a grant under this section be subject to the terms, conditions, requirements, and provisions the Secretary decides are necessary or appropriate for the purposes of this section, including requirements for the disposition of net increases in value of real property resulting from the project assisted under this section and shall prescribe procedures and schedules for the awarding of grants under this chapter, including application and qualification procedures and a record of decision on applicant eligibility. The Secretary shall issue a final rule establishing such procedures not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this chapter. `(b) Project as Part of State Rail Plan- `(1) The Secretary may not approve a grant for a project under this section unless the Secretary finds that the project is part of a State rail plan developed under chapter 225 of this title and that the applicant or recipient has or will have the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the project, satisfactory continuing control over the use of the equipment or facilities, and the capability and willingness to maintain the equipment or facilities. `(2) An applicant shall provide sufficient information upon which the Secretary can make the findings required by this subsection. `(3) If an applicant has not selected the proposed operator of its service competitively, the applicant shall provide written justification to the Secretary showing why the proposed operator is the best, taking into account price and other factors, and that use of the proposed operator will not unnecessarily increase the cost of the project. `© Project Selection Criteria- The Secretary, in selecting the recipients of financial assistance to be provided under subsection (a), shall-- `(1) require that each proposed project meet all safety and security requirements that are applicable to the project under law; `(2) give preference to projects with high levels of estimated ridership, increased on-time performance, reduced trip time, additional service frequency, or other significant service enhancements; `(3) encourage intermodal connectivity through projects that provide direct connections between train stations, airports, bus terminals, subway stations, ferry ports, and other modes of transportation; `(4) ensure that each project is compatible with, and is operated in conformance with-- `(A) plans developed pursuant to the requirements of section 135 of title 23, United States Code; and `(B) the national rail plan (if it is available); and `(5) favor the following kinds of projects: `(A) Projects that are expected to have a significant favorable impact on air or highway traffic congestion, capacity, or safety. `(B) Projects that also improve freight or commuter rail operations. `© Projects that have significant environmental benefits. `(D) Projects that are-- `(i) at a stage of preparation that all pre-commencement compliance with environmental protection requirements has already been completed; and `(ii) ready to be commenced. `(E) Projects with positive economic and employment impacts. `(F) Projects that encourage the use of positive train control technologies. `(G) Projects that have commitments of funding from non-Federal Government sources in a total amount that exceeds the minimum amount of the non-Federal contribution required for the project. `(H) Projects that involve donated property interests or services. `(I) Projects that are identified by the Surface Transportation Board as necessary to improve the on time performance and reliability of intercity passenger rail under section 24308(f). `(d) Amtrak Eligibility- To receive a grant under this section, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation may enter into a cooperative agreement with 1 or more States to carry out 1 or more projects on a State rail plan's ranked list of rail capital projects developed under section 22504(a)(5) of this title. `(e) Letters of Intent, Full Funding Grant Agreements, and Early Systems Work Agreements- `(1) The Secretary may issue a letter of intent to an applicant announcing an intention to obligate, for a major capital project under this section, an amount from future available budget authority specified in law that is not more than the amount stipulated as the financial participation of the Secretary in the project. `(2) The Secretary may make a full funding grant agreement with an applicant. The agreement shall-- `(A) establish the terms of participation by the United States Government in a project under this section; `(B) establish the maximum amount of Government financial assistance for the project; `© cover the period of time for completing the project, including a period extending beyond the period of an authorization; and `(D) make timely and efficient management of the project easier according to the law of the United States. `(3) The total estimated amount of future obligations of the Government and contingent commitments to incur obligations covered by all outstanding letters of intent, full funding grant agreements, and early systems work agreements may be not more than the amount authorized under section 24406, less an amount the Secretary reasonably estimates is necessary for grants under this section not covered by a letter. The total amount covered by new letters and contingent commitments included in full funding grant agreements and early systems work agreements may be not more than a limitation specified in law. `(f) Federal Share of Net Project Cost- `(1)(A) Based on engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, and information on the expected use of equipment or facilities, the Secretary shall estimate the net project cost. `(B) A grant for the project shall not exceed 80 percent of the project net capital cost. `© The Secretary shall give priority in allocating future obligations and contingent commitments to incur obligations to grant requests seeking a lower Federal share of the project net capital cost. `(2) 50 percent of the average amounts expended by a State or group of States (including the District of Columbia) for capital projects to benefit intercity passenger rail service in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be credited towards the matching requirements for grants awarded under this section. The Secretary may require such information as necessary to verify such expenditures. `(3) 50 percent of the average amounts expended by a State or group of States (including the District of Columbia) in a fiscal year beginning in 2008 for capital projects to benefit intercity passenger rail service or for the operating costs of such service above the average of expenditures made for such service in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be credited towards the matching requirements for grants awarded under this section. The Secretary may require such information as necessary to verify such expenditures. `(g) Undertaking Projects in Advance- `(1) The Secretary may pay the Federal share of the net capital project cost to an applicant that carries out any part of a project described in this section according to all applicable procedures and requirements if-- `(A) the applicant applies for the payment; `(B) the Secretary approves the payment; and `© before carrying out the part of the project, the Secretary approves the plans and specifications for the part in the same way as other projects under this section. `(2) The cost of carrying out part of a project includes the amount of interest earned and payable on bonds issued by the applicant to the extent proceeds of the bonds are expended in carrying out the part. However, the amount of interest under this paragraph may not be more than the most favorable interest terms reasonably available for the project at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary, that the applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking the most favorable financial terms. `(3) The Secretary shall consider changes in capital project cost indices when determining the estimated cost under paragraph (2) of this subsection. `(h) 2-Year Availability- Funds appropriated under this section shall remain available until expended. If any amount provided as a grant under this section is not obligated or expended for the purposes described in subsection (a) within 2 years after the date on which the State received the grant, such sums shall be returned to the Secretary for other intercity passenger rail development projects under this section at the discretion of the Secretary. `(i) Public-Private Partnerships- `(1) IN GENERAL- A metropolitan planning organization, State transportation department, or other project sponsor may enter into an agreement with any public, private, or nonprofit entity to cooperatively implement any project funded with a grant under this chapter. `(2) FORMS OF PARTICIPATION- Participation by an entity under paragraph (1) may consist of-- `(A) ownership or operation of any land, facility, locomotive, rail car, vehicle, or other physical asset associated with the project; `(B) cost-sharing of any project expense; `© carrying out administration, construction management, project management, project operation, or any other management or operational duty associated with the project; and `(D) any other form of participation approved by the Secretary. `(3) SUBALLOCATION- A State may allocate funds under this section to any entity described in paragraph (1). `(j) Special Transportation Circumstances- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall allocate an appropriate portion of the amounts available under this section to provide grants to States in which there is no intercity passenger rail service for the purpose of funding freight rail capital projects that are on a State rail plan developed under chapter 225 of this title that provide public benefits (as defined in chapter 225) as determined by the Secretary. `Sec. 24403. Project management oversight `(a) Project Management Plan Requirements- To receive Federal financial assistance for a major capital project under this chapter, an applicant must prepare and carry out a project management plan approved by the Secretary of Transportation. `(b) Secretarial Oversight- `(1) The Secretary may use no more than 0.5 percent of amounts made available in a fiscal year for capital projects under this chapter to enter into contracts to oversee the construction of such projects. `(2) The Secretary may use amounts available under paragraph (1) of this subsection to make contracts for safety, procurement, management, and financial compliance reviews and audits of a recipient of amounts under paragraph (1). `(3) The Federal Government shall pay the entire cost of carrying out a contract under this subsection. `© Access to Sites and Records- Each recipient of assistance under this chapter shall provide the Secretary and a contractor the Secretary chooses under subsection (b) of this section with access to the construction sites and records of the recipient when reasonably necessary. `Sec. 24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of grant project `Notwithstanding the requirements of section 24402 of this chapter, the Secretary of Transportation may approve the use of capital assistance under this chapter to fund self-insured retention of risk for the first tier of liability insurance coverage for rail passenger service associated with the capital assistance grant, but the coverage may not exceed $20,000,000 per occurrence or $20,000,000 in aggregate per year. `Sec. 24405. Grant conditions `(a) Domestic Buying Preference- `(1) REQUIREMENT- `(A) IN GENERAL- In carrying out a project funded in whole or in part with a grant under this chapter, the grant recipient shall purchase only-- `(i) unmanufactured articles, material, and supplies mined or produced in the United States; or `(ii) manufactured articles, material, and supplies manufactured in the United States substantially from articles, material, and supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States. `(B) DE MINIMIS AMOUNT- Subparagraph (A) applies only to a purchase in an total amount that is not less than $1,000,000. `(2) EXEMPTIONS- On application of a recipient, the Secretary may exempt a recipient from the requirements of this subsection if the Secretary decides that, for particular articles, material, or supplies-- `(A) such requirements are inconsistent with the public interest; `(B) the cost of imposing the requirements is unreasonable; or `© the articles, material, or supplies, or the articles, material, or supplies from which they are manufactured, are not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and are not of a satisfactory quality. `(3) UNITED STATES DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `the United States' means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia. `(b) Operators Deemed Rail Carriers and Employers for Certain Purposes- A person that conducts rail operations over rail infrastructure constructed or improved with funding provided in whole or in part in a grant made under this chapter-- `(1) shall be considered an employer for purposes of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.); and `(2) shall be considered a carrier for purposes of the Railway Labor Act (43 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). `© Grant Conditions- The Secretary shall require as a condition of making any grant under this chapter that includes the improvement or use of rights-of-way owned by a railroad that-- `(1) a written agreement exist between the applicant and the railroad regarding such use and ownership, including-- `(A) any compensation for such use; `(B) assurances regarding the adequacy of infrastructure capacity to accommodate both existing and future freight and passenger operations; and `© an assurance by the railroad that collective bargaining agreements with the railroad's employees (including terms regulating the contracting of work) will remain in full force and effect according to their terms for work performed by the railroad on the railroad transportation corridor; and `(2) the applicant agrees to comply with-- `(A) the standards of section 24312 of this title, as such section was in effect on September 1, 2003, with respect to the project in the same manner that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation is required to comply with those standards for construction work financed under an agreement made under section 24308(a) of this title; and `(B) the protective arrangements established under section 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 836) with respect to employees affected by actions taken in connection with the project to be financed in whole or in part by grants under this chapter. `(d) Replacement of Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service- `(1) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL PROJECTS- Any entity providing intercity passenger railroad transportation that begins operations after the date of enactment of this Act on a project funded in whole or in part by grants made under this chapter and replaces intercity rail passenger service that was provided by Amtrak, unless such service was provided solely by Amtrak to another entity, as of such date shall enter into an agreement with the authorized bargaining agent or agents for adversely affected employees of the predecessor provider that-- `(A) gives each such qualified employee of the predecessor provider priority in hiring according to the employee's seniority on the predecessor provider for each position with the replacing entity that is in the employee's craft or class and is available within 3 years after the termination of the service being replaced; `(B) establishes a procedure for notifying such an employee of such positions; `© establishes a procedure for such an employee to apply for such positions; and `(D) establishes rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. `(2) IMMEDIATE REPLACEMENT SERVICE- `(A) NEGOTIATIONS- If the replacement of preexisting intercity rail passenger service occurs concurrent with or within a reasonable time before the commencement of the replacing entity's rail passenger service, the replacing entity shall give written notice of its plan to replace existing rail passenger service to the authorized collective bargaining agent or agents for the potentially adversely affected employees of the predecessor provider at least 90 days before the date on which it plans to commence service.

Any plans for Cleveland-Columbus service? Until the Ohio Hub gets up and running, I need something better than the lousy schedules offered by Greyhound.

Kunstler's information is likely coming from here: Saudi Arabian oil declines 8% in 2006 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325 Since none of us here claim to be experts, if you have a problem with the argument, you should probably contact the person who posted this piece on The Oil Drum, discuss it with him, then let us know what you find out. Last year a former Saudi Aramco VP said on many occasions that the promises Saudi Arabia was making about how much oil the kingdon was planning to increase production over the next few years weren't achievable. I for one don't believe the Saudi's. They've always been very fuzzy about their true reserve data, and as the world's swing producer for so long, they have every interest in trying to keep the illusion of that alive for as long as possible. Only time will tell. Some oil industry insiders are starting to think that Saudi Arabia's recent announcement of production cuts (a month or so ago, and it was an announcement by Saudi Arabia for their own production, not OPEC as a whole, as I recall) is due to production declines and their argument that prices were getting too low was just cover. The truth will only come with time.

The Apollo Alliance-- a national group pushing for energy independence-- has connected the dots between excessive auto-mobility and energy use. They advocate intercity rail, more urban mass transit, and better designed cities as important parts of the solution for our energy problems. They are getting national media attention and gaining clout. Several governors and many members of Congress are working with the group. They have issued a "New Energy For America" report which includes a 10 point plan to help the nation acheive energy independence. http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/ApolloReport%5F022404%5F122748%2Epdf Point #7: Improve Transportation Options: Increase mobility, job access, and transportation choice by investing in effective multimodal networks including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects. Several Democratic governors unveiled a four point initiative with the Apollo Alliance to advance clean energy and and new jobs. It included several pieces of model legislation to help American achieve energy independence and deal with climate change. One of the act is "The High Performace Cities Act" which emphasizes smart growth and investing in high speed rail and mass transit. General info on the initiative: http://www.apolloalliance.org/stateleadership/ High performance Cities Act (one of the pieces of model legislation under the initiative): http://www.apolloalliance.org/stateleadership/hpcities.cfm Some interesting economic and job numbers in Ohio for their proposals too: http://www.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/Ohio/index.cfm

Take a look at this. Congress is starting to connect the dots between energy and transportation. See the area I highlighted in red. The House energy bill (Program for Real Energy Security Act) proposes grants for commuter rail and mass transit. :clap: House Democrats unveil new energy plan By Chris BaltimoreThu Mar 1, 4:03 PM ET Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday unveiled a bill that would spend about $15 billion to double U.S. automobile fuel efficiency, expand ethanol distribution and build more mass transit. The so-called "Program for Real Energy Security Act," to be introduced next week, is the second energy bill Democrats have proposed since taking control of Congress in January. The House in January passed a bill that would roll back energy industry tax breaks and force companies to pay more drilling royalties, valued at $14 billion over a decade. That bill has not seen action in the Senate yet. The new bill, backed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) and about 100 other lawmakers, could form the basis of energy legislation House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) wants to call for a vote before the chamber recesses in August. The bill would fund research into ways to double U.S. automobile fuel efficiency, focusing on hydrogen, fuel cells, plug-in hybrids and other high-tech ideas. It would give grants to build more public transit and commuter rail systems, Hoyer said. It also would reimburse companies for installing new pumps at service stations to dispense gasoline blended with 85 percent ethanol, as well as tanks to hold the fuel, which because of its corrosive properties cannot be stored with gasoline blended only from crude. Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, senior Republican on the House Energy Committee, called the bill a "starting point for real energy legislation," but criticized Democrats for not backing more supply-oriented ideas like drilling for oil in Alaska or the offshore waters where energy exploration is now banned. "We'll need to sort out costs and benefits, see what can be accomplished without forcing people to change the way they live, and figure out how new technologies can be made affordable," Barton said. The bill takes a different tack than a plan proposed by President George W. Bush in January which calls for Congress to require a five-fold increase in ethanol use by 2017. "It's very nice to produce biofuels but if we can't deliver them to energy users, they won't be helpful," Hoyer said. Boosting the so-called "renewable fuels standard" to require more ethanol use and requiring U.S. automakers to make more fuel-efficient cars are "possible add-ons" to the bill, he said. Hoyer said the bill also would offer a stimulus to help rail freight shippers build more tanker cars to transport ethanol. Railroads and tanker trucks are the primary way of transporting ethanol, which cannot be shipped in the U.S. pipeline network.

Two comments: 1. Isn't this strategy going to cost more in the long run? You can only milk the deferred maintenance cow for so long. 2. Isn't this also an accident waiting to happen-- such as if a bus breaks down on the freeway?

David: Your logic is not flawed. It's entirely sound, which is why it's not widespread in Congress ;) I am encouraged by the SB 294 hearing, but I still don't see anyone in Congress connecting the dots between rising oil prices, global warming, energy independence and that investing in transportation alternatives to the automobile--particularly rail-- is part of the solution to all three. They all seem to think that these problems begin and end with ethanol and more efficient cars.

^My problem is that I've lost all patience. I'm tired of reading about news of new rail routes and systems everywhere but Ohio... I know I need to be more patient, it's just getting more and more difficult.

Some of the mainlines earn an above-the-rail profit-- the TGV type stuff-- but these same mainlines rely on an extensive network of money-losing regional and feeder routes to feed passengers into them. As a whole, none of the EU rail systems earn a profit either. David Gunn testified in Congress that no passenger rail system in the world earns a profit, but as usual, nobody listened to him. Look at what they are doing now-- tinkering around with the food service to try to save money. Food service was never a profit center for the privately run passenger trains. It was a way to entice passengers. At this point, the only way Amtrak can trim operating costs is if we invest in the infrastructure to raise average speeds and eliminate freight interference. This would significantly reduce running times and save crew costs, money and hotel rooms Amtrak has to pay for missed connections, etc. But what does Congress care about? Food service. It's like a doctor telling a patient: what's causing your headaches is a brain tumor. Take aspirin.

^just scanned through quickly, nothing noteworthy. He dissed much of the bill and parroted the Administration line about how Amtrak has drifted from its mandate to be a for-profit corporation, etc, etc. ad nauseum. They are so clueless. No common carrier passenger system is profitable when all costs are considered. Amtrak has costs like infrastructure, maintenance-of-way employees, police officers, etc that no other common-carrier passenger company has and they expect them to make a profit? I could go on, but won't...

^you will KJP. That's for sure. I've only ever ridden on Italy's system which isn't as fast as France or Germany's, but the ride is still smooth, comfortable and fast. Visiting Europe, however, ruined me. The vibrant, walkable city centers, easy to use public transit, being able to so easily get around without a car. So much of America imprisons you in a car it makes me want to scream sometimes. A couple of years ago, I was in Lourdes, France (for reasons beyond my control, I didn't ride any trains, there, unfortunately). The one thing I noticed the most was a complete lack of a the constant low-level din of traffic noise in the background that I've heard all my life in the US no matter where I've lived (which has always been in Ohio). Car traffic was so light (comparatively) in the city it was unbelievable. Of course this isn't true everywhere in Europe, (Rome, for example is the noisiest city in Europe and it certainly lives up to that reputation) but Lourdes, even with the hordes of tourists (of which I was one), was, well, quiet.

Witnesses at this hearing included: Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, FRA Administrator Joseph Boardman, Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant, Wisconsin DOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi, and Oregon DOT Rail Administrator Kelly Taylor. I wonder what Boardman had to say?

^but what about the 26th St yard?

It's sad that the former communist nation has such ornate, pleasing subway stations the richest country in the world doesn't have anything that comes close. I guess they did something right. I seem to recall reading that Russia finished electrifying the trans-siberian railway (Moscow to Vladivostok--sp?). Only something like 1/3 or 1/2 was electrified until recently. We have 100+ year-old catenary on parts of the NEC...

It would be nice if our legislators understood this already, but most don't seem to get it. We need more rail capacity yesterday.

I these things all over the place in the central residential neighborhoods in Vancouver, BC. They really do work to slow traffic down.

Have they started any of the station construction yet?