All-Aboard Ohio Summit 2007

Summary from Noozer

 

 

Overall, the 2007 All-Aboard Ohio Legislative Summit not only was well-organized, but drew an impressive array of participants and provided some excellent presentations. 

 

Among the participants were the CEOs of both the Greater Cleveland RTA and Toledo Area RTA, representatives from COTA, several transportation engineering firms, MPOs, advocacy groups for the disabled and vision-impaired, the Ohio Public Transit Association, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Ohio Environmental Council as well as All Aboard Ohio Board Members.  My impression is that this was a group of people who, when they went over to the Statehouse to visit their state Senators and House Representatives, they would not be easily dismissed and would in fact get and hold the attention of their reps and/or staff.  They were certainly armed with some very solid messages from the presentations at the morning session.

 

Greater Cleveland RTA GM/CEO Joe Calabrese led off the morning with (his quote) the same power-point I brought here last year.  But his point was that the funding picture for public transportation in Ohio had not changed substantially in the past year.  Ohio is still far behind states like Pennsylvania, Illinois and Michigan in per capita state funding of public transportation. 

 

Calabrese argued that even a fractional increase in state funding would be an improvement, but even that would still leave us far behind our neighboring Midwest states. 

 

ORDC Acting Executive Director Matt Dietrich provided an update on the Ohio Hub Plan: the news being that the Final Report on the Ohio Hub Study is complete and under staff review, as is a separate, detailed Economic Impact Report.  But there were still some very good updated numbers he was able to convey.

 

The addition of three new routes to the Hub master route plan: Pittsburgh-Columbus, Columbus-Chicago and Columbus-Toledo-Detroit.  That increases the size and reach of the projected Ohio Hub System

 

Increases the system from 860-miles to 1,270 miles

Serves 46 station stops (up from 32)

Serves a population base of 22-million in four states and the Canadian province of Ontario

Projected investment increases from $3.2-Billion to $4.8-Billion for a fully built system at 110 mph.

 

Dietrich made the point that we need to begin considering plans like the Ohio Hub in terms of being an essential transportation investment:

 

Development of expanded rail corridor capacity is critical to adequately address current and future challenges to our ability to move people and freight and ease capacity issues on other modes.

Such an investment is just as critical to answer energy, air quality and economic development challenges: rail is still the most fuel efficient and emissions efficient way to move large quantities of people and freight.

 

Dietrich said the Ohio Hub is an essential investment with a significant return on the investment (ROI) system wide:

 

6,600 Construction jobs

16,500 Indirect jobs tied to development

1,500 permanent railroad jobs

$3-Billion dollar increase in property values

$120 to $610 annual household income increase

Over $3.1-Billion in joint development potential

Dietrich detailed ORDCs next steps:

 

Finalize the Ohio Hub feasibility study: We have to get beyond the question of whether the Ohio Hub is feasible and show why an investment in rail needs to be done.

Bring partner states and railroads back into the planning process by updating them on the final report and economic impact numbers.

Meet with new ODOT leadership to determine opportunities for partnering and advancing passenger rail and increased freight capacity.

Continue to work with Governor Stricklands staff to seek and secure federal funding for a Programatic Environmental Impact Study to confirm routes and station locations.

Secure a record of decision from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), preserve existing railroad rights-of-way and leverage state dollars.

 

 

Dietrichs ask of the audience was the following:

 

Let local media know of your support of the Ohio Hub Plan through op-ed columns, letters to the editor, on-line comments to media websites and responses to TV and radio stories.

Let local civic, business and government leaders and state legislators know you support the Ohio Hub and more transportation choice.

Let members of Congress know you support legislation like U.S. Senate Bill 294 (Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act) and the newly-introduced U.S. House Bill 1300 (`Program for Real Energy Security Act' or the `PROGRESS Act'). Both bills would put significant dollars into state-generated passenger rail plans.

 

All Aboard Ohio Board Member Kimberly Gibson wrapped up the morning session by detailing what the ask should be from the audience to their legislators at the Statehouse. 

 

We the people, she said, referring to a banner with All-Aboard Ohios new slogan, want more transportation choices.  Gibson also echoed earlier speakers in re-emphasizing the points that this is about more than just mobility.  It is, she said, every bit as much about reducing energy consumption, improving air quality, creating more jobs through the economic development that inevitably springs up along passenger rail corridors.

 

She also made the point that the Strickland/Fisher Administration is committed to the development of a more diversified transportation system for the very reasons cited above.  She said the administration recognizes the ties between transportation, economic development and its impact on the array of quality of life issues, and that both ODOT and the Ohio Department of Economic Development are expected to work collaboratively toward these ends.

 

The keynote speaker of the day was Art Guzzetti, Director of Policy and Advocacy for the American Public Transit Association.

 

Also hitting on the tie between public transportation and economic development, Guzzetti opened by saying that advocates need to carry the message that Transportation choice is all about prosperity.  And he indicated that message is beginning to be heard in Congress, pointing to legislation like S-294 and HB-1300.  But it is just as valid a point to bring up in statehouses like Ohios.

He says S-294 has legs and stands the best chance of any passenger rail legislation in recent history.

 

He touched on several other points worth noting:

 

Transportation Security:

 

For all of the fuss and resources being poured into aviation security, virtually nothing is being dedicated to beefing up security for our railroads.

 

Currently, Guzzetti says per capita spending by the TSA looks like this:

Aviation $9.00 per capita

Rail Less than one-cent per capita

 

Energy Consumption:

 

70% of petroleum use is tied to transportation

One-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from motor vehicles

1.4-Billion gallons of fuel is saved annually by the use of existing public transportation, despite its being underfunded at the state and federal levels.

That 1.4-billion gallons, says Guzzetti, is roughly equivalent to the following:

300,000 motor vehicle fill-ups a day

30% of the oil we import from Kuwait

1 full oil tanker leaving a foreign port for the U.S. every 11 days.

If the U.S. converted its entire fleet of motor vehicles to burn alternate fuels, it would save less than 1/5th of what existing public transportation saves.

 

Rail Capacity:

 

Noted that the recent trend among cities seeking to divert/detour hazardous material shipments via rail around their metro areas is raising the question of what impact may that have on capacity issues for both passenger and freight rail?  Does it open up some corridors while creating the need for more on others?

Rail corridor capacity has been eaten up by the growth in freight traffic, but that any increase in rail capacity must benefit both freight and passenger.  He even suggested that the Railroad Investment Tax Credit being sought by the freight railroads must include a benefit for passenger rail expansion.

 

Highway Trust Fund:

 

Guzzetti acknowledge there is a lot of talk about raising existing tolls or instituting tolls on new or existing highways that do not currently have them.  If that is being pursued by any state, he suggests that advocate must insist that revenues from these tolls must be designated for transportation corridors and not just plowed back into highways.

 

The same should apply, he says, to proposals to institute VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) fees for motorists or any new increases in gasoline taxes.

 

He says even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is an organization not noted for increasing taxes, has recently been quoted in their publications that government should raise taxes if need to improve transportation.  He says state and local chambers are also sending the same message because they realize that anything that hamstrings all modes of transportation is bad for business.

 

****************************************

 

All in all, a very good and productive meeting.

 

 

TO THE MODERATER: Would it be possible to start an All Aboard Ohio thread?

Starting a thread is easy to do. Just go the page where all the transportation topics are listed. Toward the upper right-hand side of the page, you will see a tab marked "New topic." Click on that. Then, fill in the blanks.

Gildone... You are correct in saying that the Ohio Hub service to Chicago... which would also include the Midwest HSR route from Chicago to Cincy (via Indy) are likely the last to happen, precisely doe to the bottlenecks in and around Chicago.  That's why CREATE has to be a Midwest priority for every state in the region.

 

Unfortunately, when Chicago rebuilt after the Great Fire in the 1880's, the city fathers laid out a plan for a primarily rail-based system to once again make Chicago a major transportation hub.  It was an aggressive and successful plan.  But who among those in the 1880's could forsee the eventual overlay of early highways and then an Interstate Highway System, and then rapidly expanding suburban streets and mass transit?

 

Here we are over a century later and our job is to try to untangle the gridlock.  But make no mistake, we have serious bottlenecks right here in our own front yard.... mini-Chicagos ... like Toledo, Cleveland, Berea, the causeway across Sandusky Bay, Downtown Columbus, Cincinnati.....

 

That's a major reason in favor of the Ohio Hub.  It forces the issue of why we need to expand and streamline rail capacity in Ohio and the Midwest. 

By the way there is a way to expand capacity between Cleveland and Toledo without touching the Sandusky Bay causeway...

 

When NS acquired its parts of Conrail in 1999, it built two connecting tracks along the former Conrail mainline between Cleveland and Toledo. One is at Vermilion, the other at Oak Harbor. The result is that a CLE-TOL freight train doesn't have to go via Sandusky anymore though most do since it is a faster, more direct route. But some of the non-time sensitive traffic, like unit coal/grain/ore trains and manifest freights might go via the newly opened route through Bellevue. More could go that way if more passing sidings plus some capacity in the Bellevue vicinity is added.

 

But, in effect, the bypass of Sandusky Bay has already been opened up by these two track connections. And it can serve as a third main track for a large portion (roughly half) of the CLE-TOL segment. Remaining third mains can be built from Oak Harbor to just east of Toledo (22 miles) and from Vermilion to Cleveland via Berea (38 miles). Although nearly 20 of the 38 miles between Vermilion and Cleveland has passing sidings or secondary tracks along it that could be linked up and upgraded to create the third main.

Don't know if this goes here, but my mom said she and my dad saw an Amtrak passenger train on the tracks near Heinen's in Hudson. Lived there several years and have never seen Amtrak on the rails through town...

The Ohio Hub plan uses diesel locomotives (like Amtrak) does it not?  I see artwork with streamlined trains with electric catenaries on their website that confuse me.

The Ohio Hub would use modern diesel technology.  The photos are of electric locomotives, but the look and style of the diesels is virtually identical.

 

KJP.... good point on those two "bypass" corridors.  But given the growth of freight traffic we're facing now, even flipping traffic over to another corridor is only a temporary fix.  It would, however, buy some time while effoirts get underway to expand some of the other corridors.

Don't know if this goes here, but my mom said she and my dad saw an Amtrak passenger train on the tracks near Heinen's in Hudson. Lived there several years and have never seen Amtrak on the rails through town...

 

It was Amtrak's late-running Capitol Limited, which has one eastbound and one westbound train each day between Chicago and Washington DC via Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and a bunch of other stations. Hudson isn't a station stop, but the east/west trains go through there every night. For more information on the Capitol Limited, see

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Horizontal_Route_Page&c=am2Route&cid=1081256321384&ssid=133

 

The Ohio Hub plan uses diesel locomotives (like Amtrak) does it not?  I see artwork with streamlined trains with electric catenaries on their website that confuse me.

 

Amtrak uses electrically powered trains on the Northeast Corridor between Washington DC and Boston. About 60 daily round trips are offered on some or all of that route. Here's what the two principal types of their Northeast Corridor trains look like...

 

Acela Express:

 

Acela Regional:

An excellent report on what states are doing to advance passenger rail from the Midwest Council of State Governments:

 

http://www.csgmidwest.org/MemberServices/Publications/FLMW/2007/0307.pdf

More evidence that Washington is beginning to connect the dots.

 

FOR RELEASE  Contact: Dennis Watson

03/09/2007 (Friday)  (202) 245-0234

No. 07-15  FIRS 1 (800) 877-8339

  www.stb.dot.gov

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON RAIL ENERGY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

 

The Surface Transportation Board announced today that it is seeking public comment on the desirability of establishing a rail energy transportation advisory committee to provide independent advice and policy suggestions to the STB on issues related to the reliability of the rail transportation of resources critical to the Nation's energy supply, including, but not necessarily limited to, coal and ethanol.

 

 

Specifically, the STB seeks the views of the rail and energy industries--and interested persons and parties--on the potential utility of establishing such a federal advisory committee. Additionally, if such a committee were established, the STB seeks comment on its appropriate scope, optimum size, and potential membership to reflect an appropriate and balanced cross-section of participants.

 

 

The agency believes that an advisory committee consisting of a balanced cross-section of rail and energy-industry stakeholders could serve as a means of fostering open, effective communication among industries, persons, and parties on such issues as rail performance, capacity constraints, infrastructure planning and development, and effective coordination among suppliers, carriers, and users of energy resources.

 

 

In announcing the agency's request for comments, STB Chairman Charles D. Nottingham stated:

 

"The success of our national energy policy and related job creation and economic growth will increasingly depend on the rail industry's ability to meet energy producers' growing demand for efficient rail transportation service. A new advisory committee would improve lines of communication among the energy sector, railroads and the federal government and would assist the STB in making well-informed policy decisions and recommendations on these vital matters."

 

 

The STB requested public comment and provided full details for comment submission in its "Decision" in the proceeding entitled "Establishment of the Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee," STB Ex Parte No. 670, issued today, March 9, 2007. That decision is available for viewing and downloading via the agency's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. A printed copy of the STB's decision also is available by contacting ASAP Document Solutions, 9332 Annapolis Rd., Suite 103, Lanham, MD 20706, telephone (202) 306-4004, or via [email protected].

 

 

### 

 

Good news for rail in Ohio.

 

The Governor's budget is recommending an additional $2 million in GRF Grant funds for freight rail projects.  That would bring the GRF total for ORDC to $4.7 million per year.  This will put ORDC closer to it's original authorized funding level ($6-million/year) than it has been in several years.  Though those dollars will go toward freight rail projects....most of those projects also go toward increasing the capacity to move freight and, even on a local level, that takes truck loads off the highway.

 

 

 

 

Got this from Noozer earlier today:

 

 

NEWS

OHIO RAIL

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

50 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 644-0306 telephone or fax (614) 728-4520

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                             

Date: April  20, 2007                                                     

CONTACT: Stu Nicholson

614-644-0513

 

MIDWEST REGIONAL RAIL ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT RELEASED

Enhanced passenger rail service could generate $23.1 billion benefit in Midwest

Ohio would see $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion in user benefits

 

Fast, frequent passenger rail service can translate into substantial economic benefits to users, communities and states served by it according to a new report issued by the nine states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin) participating in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative planning effort. 

 

Enhanced passenger rail service being planned under the proposed 3,000 mile Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) could generate $23.1 billion in user benefits from time savings, congestion relief and emission reductions during the first 40-years of the project.  For Ohio, the benefits total between $1.2 billion and $2.3 billion, in addition to creating 3,520 new permanent jobs and generating $55 million in extra household income.

 

“This report shows that investing in frequent and reliable passenger rail services pays significant returns beyond creating greater mobility for moving people and goods,” Ohio Rail Development Commission Acting Director Matt Dietrich said.  “This report is also confirming the preliminary economic impact numbers we are seeing for our own Ohio Hub System, which would connect the MWRRS system with planned and existing rail systems on the East and Mid-Atlantic Coast.”

 

Dietrich says details of the Ohio Hub Economic Impact Report should be ready in a few weeks for public release.

 

The MWRRS Report notes that the investments in passenger rail provide a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.8, which indicates that for each dollar spent on the system, one dollar and eighty cents is returned in benefits, one of the highest returns for any regional rail system in the U.S.

 

The report also shows that development of the Midwest Regional Rail System would create 57,450 new jobs, provide just over $1 billion in extra household income across the nine-state region, and provide $4.9 billion in increased joint development potential for the 102 cities with MWRRS stations. 

 

The proposed MWRRS would consist of a 3,000-mile network with a hub in Chicago.  The service would offer travelers the benefits of trains operating at up to 110-mph, providing travel times that are competitive with driving; increased trip frequencies; improved on-time performance; and new trains with modern amenities.  One of those routes would also serve the Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland market, while a second would connect Cincinnati with Chicago.

 

Several communities throughout the nine-state region are already making plans to expand their stations and provide multi-modal connections with buses, taxis, and other modes.  These improvements encourage development of nearby properties.  The resulting increase in property values is referred to as “joint development potential.”  Joint development potential for MWRRS communities has been estimated at $4.9 billion.

 

 

 

 

Increased MWRRS joint development potential in Ohio ranges from $238.9 million to $360.4 million.  Estimates for Ohio communities include:

 

Cincinnati $119 - $179 million

Cleveland $74 – $111 million

Toledo $35 - $53 million

Elyria $5 - $8 million

Sandusky $3 - $5 million

Defiance $2.9 – 4.4 million

 

Brochures summarizing the findings of this report are available from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation by calling 608 266-9498.  The entire report is also available on the web at: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/index.htm

###

(The Ohio Rail Development Commission is an independent agency operating within the Ohio Department of Transportation.  ORDC is responsible for economic development through the improvement and expansion of passenger and freight rail service, railroad grade crossing safety and rail travel & tourism issues. For more information about what ORDC does for Ohio, visit our website at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/)

 

 

Interesting website .... www.modeshift.org ....  the author is a friend of mine who has also done work for the Michigan Land Use Institute and free-lances for a number of newspapers.

 

Build High Speed Rail in the Midwest

April 23rd, 2007

Keith Schneider

modeshift.org

 

Since 1996, nine states in the American Midwest have been gradually inching forward on a proposal to establish a 3,000-mile high speed train network linking 100 of the region’s big and small cities. Chicago would serve as the hub of the The Midwest Regional Rail System. Spokes would include Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Columbus, Des Moines, and many other large cities served by trains capable of traveling 110 mph, which would make the travel time and ticket prices downtown to downtown more competitive than on an airplane.  In 2004, a feasibility study found that purchasing the 63 train sets needed to operate the system would cost $1.1 billion, and upgrading the existing tracks to accomodate high speed rail would cost a little more than $20 million a mile or $6.6 billion. The expense of building the system would be 80 percent federal and 20 percent

 

In essence, for the same cost as building less than 120 miles of new Interstate freeway, the Midwest could design, construct, and operate a 21st Century passenger rail network that would make the region’s transportation system competitive with that of western Europe. Moreover, the feasibility study predicted that the system would generate so much passenger traffic, over 10 million riders a year, that annual revenue by 2014 ($528 million) would exceed the operating and maintenance expense ($453 million).

 

The Midwest Regional Rail System represents what is arguably the most economically, environmentally, technically, and culturally sound public investment under discussion in the nine–state region. But for more than a decade it’s been almost entirely just that, a discussion. No surprise. The barrier that prevents the idea from doing much more than creep forward is money. Neither the Federal Railroad Administration, nor any of the Midwest states have $700 million laying around for passenger rail in the Midwest. When it comes to big transportation investments, the region and the Federal government are still wedded to energy-wasting, environment-damaging, culturally dislocating highway construction.

 

Proponents of the regional high speed rail network, particularly the departments of transportaton in Ohio and Wisconsin, are not giving up. This month, the Wisconsin DOT published a reader-friendly economic analysis that takes into account the systems’ Mode Shift benefits. The study by the Frederick, Maryland-based Transportation Economics Management Systems found the system would reduce energy use and global climate change emissions, conserve land, and improve the ability of cities to design new communities and job centers around train stops. The system would generate 15,000 jobs a year during the decade of construction, and produce more than 57,000 related permanent jobs in the region, said the study’s authors. The high-speed network also would add $22.2 biilion in new economic activity. Almost $5 billion of that figure comes from transit-oriented development around stations.  In other words, the Midwest Regional Rail System could produce a convenient, efficient, job-producing passenger rail network that replaces the slower and less robust Amtrak system, and prepares the country’s heartland to speed out of the 20th century.

 

Judging from how Americans are flocking to trains, and developers are surrounding station stops with new transit-oriented housing and business construction, the Midwest is likely to be just as  eager to invite high speed rail into its midst. Texas is considering a high-speed rail system that would link San Antonio to Ft. Worth and Dallas, and Killeen and Temple to Houston.  Southern California is experiencing record ridership on its rail lines between Los Angeles and San Diego. The Boston to Washington corridor continues to attract ever larger numbers of riders.

 

Last month I was in Salt Lake City for the New York Times and found ample evidence of the market’s embrace of rail transportation and transit-focused development. More than $1 billion in new housing and retail development is planned or under construction around the Salt Lake Valle’s rail stops.  Salt Lake City and its closest suburbs in 1999 finished the $520 million, 19-mile, 23-station TRAX system, which carries more than 55,000 riders a day, well ahead of ridership projections. Voters have also repeatedly passed sales tax increases, including one approved last November, to spend $2.5 billion more in the next decade to complete 26 additional miles of light rail, 88 miles of heavy commuter rail line and nearly 40 extra station stops. The only American metropolitan area that is building more regional rapid transit capacity is Denver, which is constructing a 151-mile system.

 

Last year, Amtrak ridership reached a record 69,000 riders a day on 300 trains. The greatest growth rates occurred among the 23 short-distance routes where states contribute money to Amtrak and dictate routes. Of the 11 routes that saw the fastest increase in ridership, three were in the Midwest, including the Blue Water train that links Chicago to Michigan (10.9 percent increase), the Chicago to St. Louis train (8.3 percent) and the Hiawatha that ties Illinois to Wisconsin (10.5 percent).

 

Summed up: High speed passenger rail is a smart investment for this century. Every candidate running for statewide office, and every presidential candidate that campaigns in the delegate-rich Midwest ought to be asked their position on constructing a regional high speed rail network. The Midwest Regional Rail System, more than any highway, needs to be built.   

 

http://www.modeshift.org/

 

This is good news for both Amtrak and for state-generated passenger rail plans like the Ohio Hub.

 

Press Release of Senator Lautenberg

 

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=273085&

 

Lautenberg Bill To Revitalize Amtrak Moves Forward, Heads To Senate Floor

 

Integral Part of $19.2 Billion Package Will Put Nation's Passenger Rail

System Back On Track 

 

Contact: Michael Pagan (202) 228-6393

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Legislation Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Trent

Lott (R-MS) sponsored to authorize full funding for America's passenger rail

needs for the next six years today was approved unanimously by the Senate

Commerce Committee and moved one step closer to becoming law. Sens.

Lautenberg and Lott authored similar legislation in 2005 that was approved

by the Senate by a vote of 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of

Representatives. The Lautenberg-Lott measure -- the Passenger Rail

Investment and Improvement Act of 2007 -- would authorize $11.4 billion in

federal funds for Amtrak and other rail passenger rail programs over six

years.

 

Sens. Lautenberg and Lott have also proposed providing another $7.8

billion over six years for passenger rail development through the issuance

of federal bonds to States and Amtrak This proposal is awaiting

consideration by the Senate Finance Committee.

 

The funds would be used to implement a comprehensive plan to revitalize and

reform Amtrak that would enhance security, put new on-time service standards

in place and make fundamental operational reforms in order to provide the

best quality service to its passengers. In addition, the legislation would

put the passenger rail system on solid financial footing with predictable

levels of capital and operational funding, a debt refinancing plan, and a

new financial accounting system. 

 

"After several gloomy years, the future of America's passenger railroad is

bright. Our legislation will provide the necessary resources to bring Amtrak

up to speed as a real alternative to taking a plane or driving a car," said

Lautenberg. "People in New Jersey rely on Amtrak and want to be sure that

the system will be there for them in the future. With this plan, it will." 

 

More than 25 million Americans ride Amtrak every year, and with the

increased congestion in America's airports and on its highways, passenger

rail is a vital alternative for intercity travel throughout the country. 

 

The Lautenberg plan contains the following provisions:

 

Funding Levels -- the six-year authorization plan, coupled with the

bonding proposal, would fully-fund Amtrak by authorizing $3.2 billion a year

for six years: $1.9 billion in annual appropriations and another $1.3

billion annually in bond authority. 

 

New State Grant Program -- included in the $3.2 billion annual total is

an average of $237 million in capital grants to states. 

 

Improving the Northeast Corridor

 

Northeast Corridor up to State-of-Good Repair -- the bill will provide

sufficient funding (100 percent federal) and direction to bring the

Northeast Corridor up to a "state-of-good-repair," including vital tunnel

life safety work in the Hudson River Tunnels. 

 

Improve Governance of Northeast Corridor -- the bill would improve

governance in the Northeast Corridor by giving States like New Jersey a

bigger voice in infrastructure and operations decisions. 

 

Amtrak "Reform" Provisions to Reduce Annual Appropriations

 

Operational Reforms -- the bill reduces Amtrak's annual appropriations

need by requiring certain reforms, expected to reduce Amtrak's operating

costs by 40 percent over the life of the bill. 

 

Debt Refinancing - the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to

attempt to refinance Amtrak's $3 billion in outstanding debt. 

 

New financial accounting system - the bill requires a new financial

accounting system for Amtrak to provide more transparency and better control

costs. 

 

Provisions that will Improve Rail Service

 

New Service Quality Standards - the bill would improve service for

passengers by requiring new standards for service quality (on-time

performance, on-board and station services, cost recovery, connectivity,

etc.) and by requiring periodic reporting of Amtrak's performance of these

measures by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

 

Improve Delays -- the bill would authorize the federal Surface

Transportation Board to issue fines to freight railroads who delay Amtrak

trains. 

 

Sets a Level Playing Field for Competition -- the bill ensures that any

private entity who competes against Amtrak complies with the same federal

laws that apply to Amtrak. 

 

Other Provisions: Security and Board of Directors

 

Amtrak Rail Security -- the bill includes a security title, which will

require important rail security improvements to the entire U.S. rail system.

 

 

Restructure Board of Directors -- the bill would restructure the board

of directors by ensuring a bipartisan 9-member board of qualified members.

The bill is cosponsored by 37 Senators. ### 

 

 

First in war, first in peace, 13th (maybe) in high speed rail

By Bill Vantuomo / Editor / Railway Age Magazine

 

It is nothing short of a national shame—our inability as arguably the world’s most formidable economic and military force to build the kind of high speed passenger rail system that is revolutionizing ground transportation in the rest of the developed world and providing vast populations with the gift of mobility. Two recent events underscored the distance we have to go to catch up: The French setting a new world rail speed record with a TGV, and China becoming the 12th member of the elite group of countries that operate high speed trains.

 

So the French have the world’s fastest train—big deal, right? That’s really not how to look at it. Attaining a velocity of 357.2 mph with steel-wheeled technology (so much for maglev) is less important as a speed record than as an indication of how much national pride the French have in their TGV. That pride, which you find across the board, from the prime minister to the workers sweeping the station platforms, ultimately translates into investment capital for SNCF, huge contracts for Alstom, Bombardier, and all the other railway suppliers involved in building and running the TGV—and a way to move people with near-airline speed and at the same time decongest dangerously crowded airways and highways.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.railwayage.com/A/xfromtheeditor.html

 

We need to contact our state senators to ask that they support Gov. Strickland's proposed $2 million increase in ORDC's budget.  The Ohio House stripped the funding from the budget, but the Senate may restore it.  The Senate is going to be holding a hearing in a couple of weeks about ORDC.  Let's turn our words here into action!

 

I received the following e-mail a few days ago:

 

 

You might call ORDC “the little engine that could”.  That’s a reputation the Ohio Rail Development Commission could be said to have earned over the last several years: getting the most out of our often limited funding to advance a variety of freight rail projects that have helped Ohio’s economy grow, attracted new business and jobs, retained existing jobs and put more of Ohio’s rapidly increasing freight traffic off our congested highways and move faster and better by rail.

 

Since FY 2001, ORDC freight rail programs have:

·        Positively impacted over 156,000 jobs in Ohio

·        Preserved and rehabilitated 293 miles of rail line, and

·        Help secure the movement of over 120,000 carloads of freight

 

Already, ORDC staff is working on 15 projects for fiscal year 2008. Preliminary estimates suggest these projects will require approximately $2.3-million of support from ORDC.  We estimate this kind of essential transportation investment will:

·        Leverage approximately $70.4-million of additional investment of private sector dollars in Ohio’s rail infrastructure

·        Create 673 new jobs

·        Retain 651 existing jobs

·        Preserve and rehabilitate 43.5 miles of Ohio rail lines

 

Keep in mind that ORDC is often the only public source of funding for rail infrastructure improvements necessary to support critical economic development projects.

 

2007 was appearing to be a turnaround year for ORDC’s funding, with Governor Ted Strickland proposing a modest $2-million dollar per year increase in ORDC’s budget over the next two years.  These dollars can have an immediate and larger impact than ever before on ORDC’s mission. But those proposed dollars were removed recently by the Ohio House from their version of the budget bill.

 

There is, however, a chance to restore all or part of that funding before a final budget is approved by the Ohio General Assembly.  The Ohio Senate is about to begin hearings on their version of the budget bill.  We are asking you to send a message of support for ORDC to your members of the Ohio Senate.

 

The message is this: If Ohio is to effectively and significantly address the challenges of growing our economy, creating jobs, reducing traffic congestion, improving our air quality and truly reducing our dependence on oil: then Governor Strickland’s proposed $2-million dollar budget increase for ORDC must be viewed as an essential investment toward meeting these challenges.

 

Ask your State Senator to consider these facts:

 

·        The average railroad freight car may take up to the equivalent of three trucks off of our highways, reducing both traffic congestion and the cost of wear and tear on our highways.

·        A fully-loaded, 100-car, “double-stack” container train (two freight containers per car) takes 200 long-haul trucks off of our highways, conserving fuel and reducing diesel emissions.

·        Improving Ohio’s rail system and increasing its capacity reduces shipping costs for existing Ohio shippers and makes Ohio a more attractive location for new business and jobs.

 

ORDC’s goal is to do even more, including advancing our “Ohio Hub Plan” to create a statewide and regional high-speed passenger rail network and expand capacity to move even more freight by rail.

 

Your message of support, whether it’s via postal mail, e-mail or phone call to your State Senator, can help get this important work done.

 

Here is the link to find your State Senator:

 

http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/ 

I was browsing through the MPO sites today and came across a few items pertaining to the Ohio Hub. 

 

The MORPC link is to their monthly policy committee meeting.  The Ohio Hub was on the agenda because a resolution of support for the project was being discussed. 

 

http://www.morpc.org/web/calendar/meetings/Policy/05-10-07PolicyPacket.pdf

 

The interesting thing to me in the packet of information was the updated map (p. 8 is the start of the Ohio Hub information) of the Ohio Hub and potential commuter routes near the 3 C’s.  The Columbus system appears to be (dare I say) a regional system.  The route I found appealing was the Zanesville-Newark-CMH-Columbus route.  This route would be (at least partly) on the state-owned Panhandle line and directly connect semi-large communities (Zanesville, Newark, Pataskala, Gahanna) to Central Ohio’s two largest economic centers – downtown Cbus and CMH.  There has been a lot of discussion in Newark and Zanesville about getting their downtown areas revitalized and a commuter rail station would go a long way in their efforts.  Will the updated Ohio Hub report include ridership numbers for the potential commuter routes?

 

Just curious – has anyone heard if the resolution was passed by MORPC?  I assume that it was given their lobbying for regional transportation alternatives.

 

 

The TMACOG link is to their quarterly rail committee meetings. 

 

http://www.tmacog.org/TransportationMeetings/Passenger_Rail/April%202007/April%202007%20Notes.pdf

 

The interesting tidbit is that it appears the first phase (?) of a environmental impact study is nearing a beginning - a federal earmark is being sought for the study.  According to the notes, the first phases of the Ohio Hub to be studied are the 3C’s and the PIT-CLE-TOL-DET corridors.  The 3C corridor is obvious, but I am guessing the second portion is due to higher ridership estimates or less expensive track reconstruction?? 

 

The resolution in support of the Ohio Hub was passed unanimously by the MORPC board.  The reswolution supports the effort to get initial funding for a high-level EIS (Environmental Impact Study) of the Ohio Hub System.

 

The ORDC has submitted a funding request through both Cong. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo and Cong. Tim Ryan of Youngstown.  The PEIS would be for a "first phase of the Hub Plan, which would be:

 

.... the 3-C Corridor (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati)

.... Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Cleveland

.... Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit

 

I'm told that ORDC has already gained the support of Cong. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and that both Kaptur and Ryan are actively lobbying their colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this because it has significant statewide impacts on the economy and jobs, as well as addressing the obvious mobility and environmental issues.

 

That commuter route between Zanesville-Newark & Columbus cames as a bit of surprise from the updated Hub study, when ORDC decided to add a Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago route.  According to ORDC's passenger rail planner, the ridership showed consistently strong numbers in that short corridor.  If you've ever driven it during peak hours, it is a very heavily traveled commuter corridor, so it stands to reason that a lot of those folks would take a train if given the option.... especially with gas prices being what they are.

 

 

ORDC Commissioners this afternoon offered the position of ORDC Executive Director to Mike Bradley, who is currently with the Central Ohio Transit Authority.  I know Mike very well and he has a solid background in rail, having had a long career with Conrail before coming on board at COTA to develop their light rail plan: a very good plan, even though the current powers-that-be took light rail off the table. 

 

The position has been open since the retirement last year of long-time Executive Director Jim Seney.

 

The job offer is contingent upon contract negotiations between the Commission and Mike, but this is generally though of as a very good pick-up for ORDC. Among Mike's achievements at COTAwas an excellent regional freight rail study of Central Ohio, and his efforts (twice) in getting the LRT plan through the very detailed and difficult Environmental Impact Study and getting an FTA "Recommended" rating for the LRT project.  This kind of experience may prove key in advancing the Ohio Hub Plan.

 

More later as I am able to learn the details.

^Thanks for the update on the Executive Director position for ORDC.  Sounds like the exhaustive process will be paying dividends.

 

After looking at the updated Ohio Hub map from the MORPC meeting, a question about one of the station locations came to mind.  Sandusky is noted as one of the potential stops and it seems to make sense considering it has existing station, the Sandusky station provides both access to Amtrak and the local busses, and the large tourist attraction (Cedar Point).  However, to me anyways, the location of the station also has some negatives – distance to attractions, another mode of transport would be needed to get to the CBD and/or Cedar Point, and an apparent lack of TOD developable land.  My thought was that instead of Sandusky, Port Clinton may be better served by an Ohio Hub station – a station could be located in the CBD, Port Clinton has a large tourist attraction (Put-in-Bay) as well, and Port Clinton is trying to redevelop their downtown too.  Obviously, Port Clinton does not have an existing station, but it appears that one could be located along the same line and in the CBD.

 

Maybe the northern UO posters that are more knowledgeable than I could shed some light on the possibility of locating a station in PC rather than Sandusky??

 

I want to echo Noozer's comments about Mike Bradley. I've known Mike for a number of years and found him to be very open to whatever solution will work. In other words, he's a classic outside the box thinker. He also has a long background as a railroader. He knows the industry and isn't likely to be put off by any obstacles they may put up. That he was able to get CSX, a railroad famous for recalcitrance, to sign off on a radical plan to trade its Galion-Columbus line for a new intermodal yard in Marion, built with public dollars, shows his skill. This is exactly what is needed.

 

I also think Mike will move ahead very quickly once he gets the lay of the land and has input from others.

I agree Mike Bradley was indeed a very good choice on the part of the Commission.  He won a lot of respect from the freight railroads by the way he handled the COTA light rail plan. 

 

Former Director Jim Seney did a great job getting the background work done for the Ohio Hub.  The plan ready for the next level and Bradley is the right person at the right time to pick up the ball and take it there. 

 

Add in a very supportive gubernatorial administration and the current movements in both houses of Congress on passenger rail  (i.e. SB 294, Title V of HR 1300, etc) and the stars are aligning very well for passenger rail in Ohio. 

Yeah, let's hope we don't do a Barney Fife and shoot ourselves in the foot! :lol:

The reswolution supports the effort to get initial funding for a high-level EIS (Environmental Impact Study) of the Ohio Hub System.

 

The ORDC has submitted a funding request through both Cong. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo and Cong. Tim Ryan of Youngstown.  The PEIS would be for a "first phase of the Hub Plan, which would be:

 

.... the 3-C Corridor (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati)

.... Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Cleveland

.... Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit

 

I'm told that ORDC has already gained the support of Cong. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and that both Kaptur and Ryan are actively lobbying their colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this because it has significant statewide impacts on the economy and jobs, as well as addressing the obvious mobility and environmental issues.

 

This is very good news and I think it should be supported by all of us. AAO should mount a campaign to make this happen.

 

That commuter route between Zanesville-Newark & Columbus cames as a bit of surprise from the updated Hub study, when ORDC decided to add a Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago route.  According to ORDC's passenger rail planner, the ridership showed consistently strong numbers in that short corridor.  If you've ever driven it during peak hours, it is a very heavily traveled commuter corridor, so it stands to reason that a lot of those folks would take a train if given the option.... especially with gas prices being what they are.

 

I'm not surprised. Look at the demographics. Many of these people can barely afford to drive and are really being squeezed by high gas prices. I remember reading an article that said the Zanesville transit system was doing a brisk business for that reason and that was when gas was much cheaper than it is now.

Yeah, let's hope we don't do a Barney Fife and shoot ourselves in the foot! :lol:

 

"My bullet...where's my bullet?!??!"    :lol:

 

 

sorry... just a little comic relief...

I like Mike personally. Professionally, I think he's an excellent choice for the same reasons stated above. He also has a good rapport with folks involved in rail projects around the state, not just in Columbus.

 

Sandusky is noted as one of the potential stops and it seems to make sense considering it has existing station, the Sandusky station provides both access to Amtrak and the local busses, and the large tourist attraction (Cedar Point).  However, to me anyways, the location of the station also has some negatives distance to attractions, another mode of transport would be needed to get to the CBD and/or Cedar Point, and an apparent lack of TOD developable land.  My thought was that instead of Sandusky, Port Clinton may be better served by an Ohio Hub station a station could be located in the CBD, Port Clinton has a large tourist attraction (Put-in-Bay) as well, and Port Clinton is trying to redevelop their downtown too.  Obviously, Port Clinton does not have an existing station, but it appears that one could be located along the same line and in the CBD.

 

I, too, have questions about the location of the existing station in Sandusky. It's a great historic facility, was nicely renovated about a decade ago and has the Sandusky Transit System as a tenant for its administrative offices and bus garage. Some routes begin carrying customers from there, so there's an intermodal linkage. The station is about 5-10 blocks south of Sandusky's central business district -- a bit of a hike for older people, suburbanites and people with luggage (though a transit link would correct that). There isn't much right around the station -- the tourist sites are farther east.

 

Thus, I think a better location for a Sandusky station would be to the east side of town, near the causeway entrance to Cedar Point from US 6. The tracks are just south of US 6 at that spot, where there also happens to be hotels, restaurants and resorts. It's also farther away from a potential rail freight choke point a couple miles west.

 

There might be a possibility for having two stations -- one for Sandusky at the causeway site and a seasonal stop in Port Clinton. The PC stop could be built where the old station stood -- on an elevation section of right of way next to the downtown district. The Put-In-Bay Jet Express boat arrives and departs about 2-4 blocks north of the tracks, at the north end of downtown. Most could walk to it with luggage; others could get a small shuttle vehicle of some kind, even a for-hire Cushman cart! Port Clinton is 12 miles by rail from the existing Sandusky station site and perhaps 14 miles from the Sandusky causeway site.

 

There's options to consider, and I suspect the next phase of Ohio Hub planning will do just that...

If the old Sandusky station could be used, a more sophisticated shuttle system to and from Cedar Point and other Sandusky attractions could be set up, thus expanding their local transit system.  If you want to see a model for such a system, take a look at the transit system that runs in and around Bar Harbor, Maine.  The entire system is run on a very tight schedule that is managed by a GPS system. They run their buses on 10 to 15 minute headways and they are almost always precisely on time. Each stop has a digital read-out of when the next bus is due.  LL Bean's foundation underwrites most of the annual operating costs.  The fare box takes voluntary donations and does quite well.  I've ridden the system and it works very well.

 

It would be interesting to get Cedar Fair management engaged in such a way, as it would be to their direct benefit, especially at a time when gasoline prices could be eating into their visitor base.

Having stations in both cities presents a problem if you're planning a 110-mph system as envisioned in the Ohio Hub.  PC and Sandusky are so close that the train would barely get going when it would have to stop.  Too many stops takes away the speed adavantage of faster trains.  Now, it's possible both cities could be served by a mix of local trains, but having both as high-speed station stops would be a problem.

This new website from Bombardier (which manufactures high speed passenger trains & locomotives) does one of the best jobs of "connecting the dots between improving passenger rail and everything from global warming to energey conservation to economic development.  It is a very well done website and provides some very good links to sources of infomration on the impacts of improved rail and transit.

 

http://www.theclimateisrightfortrains.com/en/1_0/1_19/index.html

 

 

The economic impact numbers for the proposed Ohio Hub System have been posted onm the project website ..... www.ohiohub.com ....  and the numbers are very good for both Ohio and the region that would be served by the Hub system.

 

Here's a direct link to a pdf file summary of the numbers:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Ohio_Hub_Economic_Impact_One-Page_Summary.pdf

Are the ridership and economic development number for the Ohio Hub system only?  Would it be accurate to take the Ohio Hub ridership estimate (6.5M) and add on the ridership estimate for the MWRRI?

 

Assuming the numbers in this report are reflective of the original Ohio Hub system where Columbus had only one route, the ridership and economic development numbers should look very favorably/impressive when the other three routes are added.

The Ohio Hub numbers are for the original Hub System plan and are separate from those in the economic impact study for the MWRRI.  Combined, these are awesome numbers and it's safe to say that with the addition of three more routes to the Ohio Hub, these numbers will grow.

Updates from ORDC on the Ohio Hub Plan has been posted to the website - the full economic analysis and the evaluation of the methodology used by the consultant to create the report.  There are also some new maps posted in the "Maps" section of the site.  Some of the maps show an "Indianapolis Shortcut" jutting out from Dayton.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/theproject.html

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/maps.html

I was trying to figure out why cincinnati's numbers were lower than cleveland and columbus for ridership, I would guess that it is because cincinnnati's airport isn't in the plan as it is in kentucky

Cleveland Hopkins Airport would be a separate station stop from downtown Cleveland's (the ridership data for downtown Cleveland was in the summary document you saw). The rail line that would carry trains for the 3-Corridor, as well as to Toledo and Detroit (plus existing Amtrak trains to Chicago) passes within 500 feet of Hopkins' long-term parking deck, which is connected to the main terminal by moving walkways.

 

Cincinnati's ridership is projected to be less because it is the end point of one route in the Ohio Hub System. Downtown Cleveland is the proposed hub for four routes -- to Columbus and Cincinnati, to Toledo and Detroit, to Youngstown and Pittsburgh, and to Buffalo and Toronto.

 

Columbus' high ridership estimate is due to the fact that it is Ohio's most popular destination for Ohio-related business travel (including for government-related travel). Ohio State University's presence is also a significant factor in the ridership estimate. And, these ridership estimates for Columbus will only increase once the projections come in for the three new route additions to the Ohio Hub System -- Columbus to Toledo and Detroit, Columbus to Lima, Ft. Wayne and Chicago, and Columbus to Newark, Steubenville and Pittsburgh.

 

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative's proposed route between Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago was not part of the Ohio Hub ridership estimates, except where through-Cincinnati travel is concerned.

KJP is right on the money. Cincy's numbers may be low, but when you add the numbers from the Midwest Regional Rail trains, those numbers will increase.  Toledo's numbers will also increase from having both MWRRI and Ohio Hub traffic into their stations.

A very interesting and well done op-ed on the need for more and better passenger rail in the U.S.[b]

 

Talgo 200 shows value of high-speed rail

 

By JOHN M. CRISP

Scripps Howard News Service

Monday, June 18, 2007

 

A few weeks ago I rode the Talgo 200, which leaves six times a day from the Atocha train station, near the center of Madrid, Spain, and arrives in Cordoba, 250 miles away, precisely two hours later.

 

The Talgo races through the Spanish countryside at around 140 mph, but the ride is extremely smooth, quiet and comfortable. Passengers walk through the train easily, to the dining car, to the bar, or to the restroom. The seats recline and have plenty of legroom. Each car has ample room for luggage. Some passengers read, some sleep and some watch the movie, in this case, Steve Martin in "Cheaper by the Dozen," dubbed in Spanish.

 

The young Madrilenos sitting across from me were on their way to Malaga, on the Costa del Sol. Their tans indicated that this wasn't their first journey from Madrid to a Mediterranean beach. He dozed and listened to his iPod; she watched part of the movie and finished her book. The map indicates that the trip from Madrid to Malaga should take 6-1/2 hours by car; on the Talgo, at 140 mph, it should be less than four.

 

After two hours of watching farmland, flowers and hills covered with olive trees, I stepped off the train in Cordoba, just a short walk from the center of the city.

 

Why don't we have this kind of luxury in the United States?

 

Many of the obstacles to high-speed rail service in this country are outlined in extraordinary detail in a report that experts Allison de Cerreno and Shishir Mathur prepared for the Mineta Transportation Institute last fall. De Cerreno and Mathur examine the few areas in our country where high-speed rail has been reasonably successful, as well as other places where it has failed, usually because of insufficient financing, a failure of leadership or political will, or lack of the clear authority needed to implement the projects.

 

But I suspect that the biggest obstacles are philosophical. Long ago, our country made a commitment to the freedom, flexibility and privacy that the automobile provides, and we've subsidized that commitment with cheap gasoline and the construction of an extraordinary road system. Because our train and bus service is generally inconvenient and uncomfortable, for many Americans, as well as for nearly all societies that have developed a sizable middle class, the automobile is, by far, the preferred means of transportation for all but the longest distances.

 

But is this a preference that we can continue to afford? The automobile's contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is well documented, and as cars proliferate in China, India and elsewhere, half measures like hybrids and higher gas-mileage standards are unlikely to resolve the essential dilemma, the fact that the world cannot tolerate an unlimited number of cars. All of the problems associated with the internal combustion engine -- petroleum depletion, traffic congestion, global warming --show every prospect of getting worse.

 

A carefully planned network that integrates electricity-based high-speed rail with efficient local transportation could make a significant contribution to the resolution of these problems. The Europeans are way ahead of us on this.

 

Unfortunately, for many Americans global warming and petroleum depletion are abstractions, problems that may need resolution in some distant future, but which are unlikely to cause us to change our current behaviors and preferences in any significant way.

 

So consider the comfort, safety and speed that trains like the Talgo could provide, as well as much more efficient energy use and a cleaner environment. In spite of our deep commitment to and affection for automobiles, they're not inevitable; our society has the capacity to make other choices. But taking any other route requires the will to creatively re-think our whole approach to transportation at a national level, an undertaking that could represent the most significant challenge that our society has ever faced.

 

(John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. E-mail him at [email protected].)

 

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/24343

The National Association of Railroad Passengers embraces the very concept being developed under the Ohio Hub Plan and Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.  This is an encouraging and significant development.

 

National Association of Railroad Passengers Unveils Proposal for More

Extensive Passenger and Freight Rail Network

 

--NARP marks 40th anniversary with call for renewed federal/state

commitment to the nation's rail system--

 

For Immediate Release (#07-10)

 

Washington, D.C., June 25, 2007 - With the average price of gas expected

to top $4 per gallon in the near future, and travelers facing gridlock

on the roads and in the skies, the National Association of Railroad

Passengers (NARP) on its 40th anniversary today outlined a vision to

strengthen America and provide people with more transportation choices.

NARP's proposal will expand and modernize the country's intercity rail

system, helping to reduce both the nation's carbon emissions and its

dependence on oil and facilitating the efficient movement of people and

goods. 

 

NARP, the largest national membership advocacy organization for train

and rail transit passengers, is calling on America to adopt a nationwide

"grid and gateway" train network.

 

The gateways are major terminals, in many cases served by short- and

medium-distance higher frequency and higher speed services, and the grid

is an expanded national passenger train network connecting all major

metropolitan areas. The vision also includes a dramatic improvement in

linkages between airports and intercity rail, a concept where the U.S.

lags as far behind Europe as in passenger rail development generally.  A

map of the proposed "grid and gateway" network and information on its

benefits are available at www.narprail.org (click on the big 40th

anniversary banner in the center).

 

"In the near future, road and air congestion, worldwide competition for

oil, and growing environmental concerns will make $4 a gallon gas seem

cheap, today's traffic jams modest, and affordable flights a distant

memory," said George Chilson, president of NARP. "Modernizing our rail

network through a public-private partnership in which the federal

government takes the lead is one of the most effective things we can do

today to ensure our quality of life tomorrow. The U.S. is falling

further behind the rest of the world in building a modern rail system.

We know what is coming. We have an obligation to act now before it is

too late."

 

NARP's goal is to have a nationwide "grid and gateway" system fully in

place in the next 40 years, which can be achieved by utilizing existing

resources.  Public policy should:

 

* Incorporate existing services, rail lines, and rights of way as well

as corridor proposals already underway by states, localities, and

freight railroads into a comprehensive national system;

 

* Upgrade bottlenecks and capacity-constrained corridors already

identified as causing congestion for passenger and freight rail; and

 

* Support and enable future high-speed service in the most heavily

traveled corridors.

 

According to Ross Capon, executive director of NARP, "Increasing the

federal commitment to a national network will make rail service more

attractive to shippers and travelers - giving people a safe, convenient,

affordable, environmentally sound and energy-efficient alternative to

flying and driving.  It is in the national interest for the U.S. to get

started now on a serious expansion of rail that is long overdue."

 

Over the past 40 years, efforts by NARP's members have not only fought

off attempts to eliminate Amtrak funding, but have resulted in

improvements to rail travel in the U.S. including increased attention to

on-time performance by passenger and freight railroads, better-designed

equipment and amenities on Amtrak trains, and new or reintroduced

passenger rail corridors in Maine, California, Illinois, Washington and

elsewhere.

 

About NARP

 

NARP is the largest national membership advocacy organization for train

and rail transit passengers. We have worked since 1967 to expand the

quality and quantity of passenger rail in the U.S. Our mission is to

work towards a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network

that provides a travel choice Americans want. Our work is supported by

over 23,000 individual members. www.narprail.org.

# # #

 

Media contacts:

Ross Capon or David Johnson for NARP

(202) 408-8362 (Capon cell 301-385-6438)

[email protected] 

 

 

If the latest predictions regarding oil supplies are correct, we need this to be completed in a hell of a lot less than 40 years. 

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2689#more

excerpt:

 

"The most common response I get to all of this is simply denial. The reserve situation "can't be that bad". All I can tell you is what the mathematical models are telling me. In a nutshell, I think that the reserve situation is that bad, and I think that we are facing the near certainty of rapidly declining net export capacity worldwide.

 

"While reasonable people can disagree on what the annual and monthly production data are telling us about our proximity to Peak Oil, in my opinion it is a virtual certainty that Peak Oil, from the point of view of importers, is here. This virtual certainty is due to the absolutely lethal combination of flat to declining crude oil production in exporting countries and the (sometimes rapidly) rising domestic consumption in exporting countries, resulting in sometimes catastrophic declines in oil exports. For example, based on EIA data, net total liquids exports by the UK dropped at an annual rate of 60% per year from 2000 to 2005.

 

"In effect, in my opinion the very lifeblood of the world industrial economy is draining away in front of our very eyes. The only question is how fast the patient is bleeding to death.

 

"Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you wuz warned."

 

Jeffrey Brown is an independent petroleum geologist in the Dallas, Texas area. His e-mail address is westexas[at]aol.com.

A hearing is scheduled tomorrow for the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials - the hearing is entitled Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail.  The link below will take you to the Transportation/ Infrastructure committee's homepage, which has a link to tomorrow's web cast and summary of subject matter at the top.  Generally, each witness' presentation is posted to the web as well in case you miss the web cast.

 

http://transportation.house.gov/

 

A link to the above mentioned NARP proposal for a national passenger & freight rail network.... and more details on each element of their proposal:

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/list/C50/

 

If you are familiar at all with the Ohio Hub Plan, the NARP proposal will read as very similar.  It's nice to see NARP finally embrace the concept we in Ohio have been planning for several years. They have had an organizational tendency over the past several decades to be almost too Amtrak-centric and seeming to never have a perspective that ventured beyond Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.

 

This new proposal represents a major change in that prior focus and it is a welcome and timely change, as we need a major national advocacy group to step up on behalf of the rail planning efforts of what are now 30 out of the 50 states.

THE HANNAH REPORT - Thursday, June 28, 2007

 

Rail Development Study Says Ohio Hub Could Bring $9 Billion in Benefits

 

A recently completed study by the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) on a plan to establish a high-speed passenger rail system in Ohio shows it could create 16,700 new jobs and bring $9 billion in benefits over the project's 30- year life.

 

Just months after a Midwest rail development group released a report showing the economic impact of passenger rail, the ORDC study also shows promising numbers for the Ohio Hub system.

 

According to the ORDC, the project will create 7,100 construction jobs  and generate a $1.84 billion increase in householdincomes related to construction, manufacturing, health care, retail

trade, and professional, financial, and insurance services.

 

The study is based on an 860-mile "Cleveland Hub" with four lines  radiating from Cuyahoga County to Cincinnati, Detroit,Pittsburgh, and Toronto. The full system calls for 1,270 miles of

passenger rail and 46 stations in Ohio.

 

The forecast predicts the following:

 

· Annual riders to and from a station in Cincinnati in 2025 would exceed

900,000. The downtown development potential from the station would

range from $330 million to $470 million, and up to 1,390 new local jobs would

be created.

 

· Annual riders to and from a station in Columbus would range around

1.11 million, with up to $340 million in downtown development potential

and up to 1,925 local jobs created.

 

· Annual riders to and from a station in Cleveland would be around 1.10

million, with up to $520 million in downtown development potential

and up to 1,910 local jobs created.

 

· Annual riders to and from a stations in Toledo and Dayton would be

around 640,000, with the potential for over a 1,000 local jobs created.

 

The study also shows the Ohio Hub would have an annual economic impact on state tourism by generating 320,000 new overnight trips; creating the potential benefit of short-haul freight rail operations in the range of $3-6 billion; and spurring an average energy savings of approximately 9.4 million gallons of fuel.

 

Already in the planning stages, the ORDC is planning to proceed with an environmental impact study, which could also help determine where upgrades and improvements need to be made on the current rail system that the Ohio Hub plan will utilize.

 

Stu Nicholson, spokesman for ORDC, said officials are seeking $5 million from Congress to pay for the environmental impact study.

 

He said ORDC hopes to fund the $4.9 billion project without having to go to taxpayers for money, or at

least by minimizing the amount taxpayers would provide. Nicholson estimated that if the full funding is available, the project could be built within 10 years, with the first service

beginning in three to four years.

 

Encouraging news. Thanks

The federal "earmark" request to fund the Environmental Impact Study of the Ohio Hub is up for a vote on Wednesday morning in the U.S. House.  The "earmark" request  is for $5-million and is sponsored by Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and Congressman Tim Ryan.

 

There is also an earmark request being sponsored by Congresswoman Betty Sutton to fund an alternatives analysis of the Cleveland-Lorain "West Shore" commuter rail proposal.

 

Added Note:Both earmarks are part of the House Transportation/Housing & Urban Development Appropriations Bill (or THUD for short).

 

Both of these projects are well worthy of a phone call or e-mail to your Member of Congress if you want to significantly advance the development of intercity passenger rail and commuter rail in Ohio.

 

You can link to the office of your Member of Congress at:  http://www.house.gov/

 

That link will get you to both the e-mail and/or office phones of your representative.

 

A tip:  Congressional staff are usually the one's answering the phones and e-mails.  What makes an impression is the volume of calls/e-mails rather than a long-winded message. Keep it simple.  Let them know that you support these funding requests, urge them to support it and thank them for that support.

Can the earmarks be referenced to a particular bill, or are they standalone?

They are part of the Transportation & Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill (or THUD for short).

A tip:  Congressional staff are usually the one's answering the phones and e-mails.  What makes an impression is the volume of calls/e-mails rather than a long-winded message. Keep it simple.  Let them know that you support these funding requests, urge them to support it and thank them for that support.

 

correction. Strike the usually. Staffers and aides are the ones answering the phones.

 

Tip, ask for the policy analyst responsible for advising the MC on matters of Transportation.

Good points! Thanks!

On a side note, I thought I would share that I contacted my House (R-Chabot) and Senate (R-Voinovich) representatives about these rail initiatives.  This was about 3 or 4 months ago if I remember correctly, but I just got a response back last week from Senator Voinovich (NOTHING FROM CHABOT  :x).  His staff basically gave me the runaround with the response, but said that they would "keep my thoughts in mind on upcoming initiatives."  Whatever that means.

Not surprised at Chabot's lack of response.  Remember, he was at the forefront of those opposing light rail in Cincinnati, so it shouldn't be surprising he wouldn't respond about any other rail projects. I guess at least he's consistent.... albeit a transportation troglodyte. :bang:

 

Voinovich is at least neutral on the subject of rail.  But that's also puzzling since he is also very much on record as being pro-economic development and rail is certainly economic development-friendly. Go figure.  :wtf:

 

But I have heard some very pro-rail comments from... of all people... Cong. Jean Schmidt.  She was the keynote speaker at the recent dedication of a major rail project at Loveland in Montgomery County and I know her staff has made inquiries about the Ohio Hub. 

 

There's always hope.... sometimes where you least expect it.