Many Ohioans don't have any idea -- I'm one of those who do, having traveled in Europe.

 

What Europe (and California) did was to first develop their local transit services and conventional-speed intercity passenger train system to provide the foundation for the high-speed rail system. Those bus, regional commuter rail and intercity rail systems provide the local and regional rail/transit traffic connectors/feeders to the high-speed line. Without them, people will have to drive to the high-speed rail station. And when people start their trips in cars, they are more likely to stay in the cars out of convenience, lazyness or simple habit -- especially when they live in car-dependent suburbs and no transit-supportive developments exists.

 

If you look at the San Jose station video, all those terrific light-rail, BART subway, Caltrain commuter train and intercity Amtrak train resources are there before the elevated high-speed tracks and station get built on top of them. There's a message in that: that a hierarchy of transportation connectors is essential to the high-speed rail system success. It's also important for creating a public constituency that supports a much larger investment for a high-speed line.

 

And we have very few of those foundation building blocks in place here in Ohio. We need to build them first before plunking down the big bucks for a high-speed system.....

 

+ We need streetcars in Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton and Toledo.

+ We need to finish building the Waterfront Line in Cleveland.

+ We need to develop a regional rail system in the Greater Cleveland-Akron-Lorain-Mentor area.

+ We need to start conventional-speed Amtrak services in the 3-C Corridor.

+ We need to start conventional-speed services in the Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh Corridor.

+ We need to start conventional-speed services in the Chicago-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland corridor.

+ We need to start conventional-speed services in the Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati corridor.

+ We need to start conventional-speed services in the Chicago-Fort Wayne-Lima-Columbus corridor.

+ We need to start conventional-speed services in the Cleveland-Buffalo-Hamilton-Toronto corridor.

+ We need to start conventional-speed services in the Detroit-Toledo-Columbus corridor.

+ And ditto for the Columbus-Pittsburgh corridor, the last of the Ohio Hub or Midwest Regional Rail Initiative routes.

 

Then we'll have something similar to what California has, or what Europe had 30 years ago, or what Taiwan or South Korea or China or Russia had until recently....

 

When you're so far behind, there's a lot to do.

 

Is there a reason why a Detroit-Toledo-Dayton-Cincinnati-and(Lexington-Knoxville-Atlanta-Florida) isn't usually mentioned on routes that would get lots of usage.

 

On a snarky aside, I think it is in the interests of Ohioans of all stripes to minimize the number of Michanders on our roads and the best way to do that would be to get them on a train in Detroit and not let them off until they get to Florida (Ontario folk as well).

^^Maybe I need to clarify my post a little – the point I was trying to make was that these visualizations go further (at least for me) than static renderings during public outreach sessions and on project web sites.  Whether it is the Ohio Hub, Columbus Streetcar, light rail or other rail projects, these types of graphics show how the infrastructure fits in with the urban (and rural) landscape.  Many of the comments I have seen on the rail projects dealt with how it will look. Seeing an Ohio Hub train pull into the Arena District station and how the station interacts with the existing development and proposed streetcar line(s) would go a long way during presentations and also on the web site.  The same can be said about Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo or the other proposed stations.

 

I’m not trying to say we need to replace the Ohio Hub plan with European-style 200-mph high speed rail.  I agree that a comprehensive rail infrastructure (conventional regional rail, light rail, increased bus, streetcars, etc) needs to be in place before a large investment is made in high speed rail.  When I saw the images/graphics posted on the California site, I thought this could be a powerful to use when promoting the Ohio Hub and other rail initiatives. 

 

On a snarky aside, I think it is in the interests of Ohioans of all stripes to minimize the number of Michanders on our roads and the best way to do that would be to get them on a train in Detroit and not let them off until they get to Florida (Ontario folk as well).

 

 

110% agree,  LOL!!!

Is there a reason why a Detroit-Toledo-Dayton-Cincinnati-and(Lexington-Knoxville-Atlanta-Florida) isn't usually mentioned on routes that would get lots of usage.

 

Good luck convincing Detroit to buy into a new system that lessens people's dependence on cars.  Toledo-Dayton-Cincy-Lexington(or Louisville) seems more likely to me.

 

On a snarky aside, I think it is in the interests of Ohioans of all stripes to minimize the number of Michanders on our roads and the best way to do that would be to get them on a train in Detroit and not let them off until they get to Florida (Ontario folk as well).

 

Nah, they can use the roads all they want.  We just need to toll the highways so that they pay for the use while travelling through the state.  :-D

Is there a reason why a Detroit-Toledo-Dayton-Cincinnati-and(Lexington-Knoxville-Atlanta-Florida) isn't usually mentioned on routes that would get lots of usage.

 

I've wondered this myself.  It seems to me that after the 3C corridor, the I-75 corridor is the most important within the state.  Maybe I-80/I-90/whatever that Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland-points beyond corridor is more important.  Why does the Ohio Hub plan have a Detroit-Toledo-Columbus corridor, instead of just bringing that down to Dayton and letting Dayton be the transfer point east?  That's the way the highways go, and I suspect that's the way a lot of business travels as well.  Lima and Dayton trump Marion and bunch of other towns in middle Ohio that no one has ever heard of.

 

I suspect it doesn't get much play because Cincinnati is the largest City in Ohio on the I-75 corridor, and I think we all know how insular Cincy is when it comes to considering itself alongside the rest of Ohio.  But to connect the third, fourth and fifth biggest cities in the state along one of the most heavily traveled north/south corridor in the country seems like it should be a high priority for passenger rail advocates in Ohio, despite the airy and slightly vainglorious self-regard the Queen City often displays.

I suspect it doesn't get much play because Cincinnati is the largest City in Ohio on the I-75 corridor...

 

I fixed your post, but in the process I think I proved you right on your opinion of Cincinnatians.  Oh well....  :evil:

Cincinnati isn't the largest City in Ohio on the I-75 corridor?

It is.  But recent census results pegged the Cincinnati metro as the largest in Ohio overall, albeit barely.  I was just being a jerk, that's all.  It's certainly the largest on the I-75 corridor.

I came across the updated website for the California High Speed Rail project…wow!

 

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx

 

Wow, watching these videos is inspiring...but here's a great quote from Fran Florez, Vice-Chairperson of the California High Speed Rail Authority, "The options are either expand the highways, expand the runways and expand the airport gates all at a cost of over $82 billion. We can build a high speed train for half that cost."

 

This is a serious point that is true in most places in the US. People just need to accept that loss of freedom when they switch from a highway to a train. An example of this here in Milwaukee is the KRM Rail. We were hoping to build a commuter rail from Kenosha through Racine to Milwaukee (which would connect to the Chicago Metra in Kenosha) at a cost of approx $330 million. The state denied any funding and the project was stalled. At the same time, the state approved a $1.9 billion plan to expand the freeway from Milwaukee to the Illinois state line along the same corridor. And the part that really gets to me is that they keep justifying the cost of the freeway expansion by saying, "there are no other transit alternatives." WTF!?! It's not like the KRM plan wasn't widely known and debated. It's just plain idiocy.

 

 

PS - Isn't Toledo larger than Cincy?  The city proper I mean.  It's sad to think, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

^^Maybe I need to clarify my post a little the point I was trying to make was that these visualizations go further (at least for me) than static renderings during public outreach sessions and on project web sites. 

 

No need to clarify. I got your meaning, and I apologize because my response came across as preachy after 25 years of dealing with the high-speed-rail-or-nothing crowd. Fortunately, they've been pretty absent since the mid 1990s.

They are about even, though we really won't know until 2010. Cincinnati's economy while weak has been quite a bit stronger than Toledo's over the last 8 years. Cincy has also had more redevelopment within city boundaries so I suspect Cincy will come out ahead of Toledo.

This is an action alert distributed by the Environmental Law & Policy Center. They are a terrific, well-funded Midwest-based organization that takes a moderate stance on environmental issues. I encourage you to react to this action alert........

 

For more details and Congressional contact information, visit:

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/oberstar

 

Support High-Speed Rail

 

Greetings,

 

Two important new bills have been introduced in Congress to advance passenger rail nationwide.  The first reauthorizes Amtrak and provides $14 billion over five years for intercity train operations and about $350 million per year in grants to states to improve rail service.  The second provides $12 billion in new investments in high-speed rail.

 

Please ask your Member of Congress to co-sponsor this important legislation.

 

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s):

Your Congressperson

 

Below is a sample letter (though please add your own brief personal experience [bad trips, rising prices, etc.] on why you would use quality train service if made available):

 

Subject: Please co-sponsor H.R. 6004 and H.R. 6005

 

Dear [decision maker name inserted here],

 

With gas prices approaching $4/gallon and skyrocketing airfares, Amercans need an affordable transportation alternative.

 

Passenger rail can provide this alternative while helping solve global warming. Current rail service produces 60% less global warming pollution than cars. High-speed rail service is 3 times as energy efficient as cars and 6 times as efficient as planes.

 

I therefore urge you to join as a co-sponsor of H.R. 6004 ("RIDE-21") and H.R. 6005 (the "Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008").

 

 

Sincerely,

 

[Your Name]

Good post.  One tip though, if I may be so bold...

 

You might want to tailor the part about global warming to your audience.  As someone who is an anthropogenic-global-warming skeptic, I recognize that just mentioning the words "global warming" can turn some people off to the rest of your message.  It's just such a hot button issue right now and a lot of people don't want to hear about it anymore, and consequently, they irrationally tune out anything related to it.  So, if you know that your Congressman is a global warming believer, you could score points with that topic.  But if you think that your Congressman is a global warming skeptic, you might change the reference to something more concrete and less touchy like smog prevention, traffic congestion, or encouraging tourism between nearby cities.  Everyone can get behind those topics.

Yes, by all means. It's your letter! You should write it any way you want.

Progress on federal passenger rail legislation, as reported by the NARP website ( www.narprail.org )

 

On Tuesday, May 20, at 2:30 PM, the House T&I Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will mark up H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.  

 

The mark-up will be web cast on the committee web site.  This bill was introduced May 8, and was the subject of a subcommittee hearing on May 14.  The video of that hearing, links to witness statements, and “full summary of subject matter” are available here.

 

The bill is significant partly because of its co-sponsorship.  It was introduced by full committee chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) on behalf of himself and the subcommittee chair Corinne Brown (D-FL) and the ranking members John Mica (R-FL, full committee) and Bill Shuster (R-PA, subcommittee) and 34 other original co-sponsors.

 

During the hearing, Amtrak President and CEO Alex Kummant gave a forthright, pull-no-punches answer when Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) observed, “There is a lot of talk about construction of a new ARC [Hudson River rail] tunnel going into the City, and I just want to know what impact it’s going to have on Amtrak. And are you going to be able to work with New Jersey Transit when this is done?”

 

Kummant:  “Our biggest concern is the total capacity on a north-south basis through New York. And so, I think a legitimate question to ask is, ‘Is there going to be a tunnel that reaches into Penn Station and allows the total Northeast Corridor capacity to expand?  Or is it only something for New Jersey going into the City?’ I think that’s something we continue to have fairly strong feelings about and would like to continue a dialogue on…If there is an overall design and structure that precludes any capacity expansion on north-south, I would say that’s an issue for the entire region. It’s not just Amtrak’s issue, and that’s something we need to be talking about.”

 

Shortly after the above exchange, Chairwoman Corinne Brown (D-FL) asked, “Mr. Kummant, the intercity passenger rail opportunities that are present along the Southeast Corridor to improve connections and improve our economics along the East Coast, do you want to respond to that?”

 

Kummant said that, for example, if he was given $10 or $20 billion, “one of the first things I would look at, actually, is going South, rather than necessarily changing things in the North.  We obviously want to do all the state of good repair [NEC and existing system], but we all know that DC to Richmond is one of the most congested corridors in all modes in the country, and would be a very natural place to put capital in.  And then, you frankly imagine an electrified system from DC down to Atlanta.  North Carolina has a wonderful rail program and I’m sure would embrace that.  I think of it in tranches from DC to Richmond, Richmond to Charlotte, Charlotte to Atlanta.  But I think that would be an enormous opportunity for the whole region and tie these high-growth population centers.  And then we truly have an Eastern Corridor, not [just] a Northeast Corridor.  So, I think that would be an enormous opportunity.”

 

As we reported last week, Oberstar also introduced H.R. 6004, again on behalf of himself and Brown/Mica/Shuster.  This bill is known as RIDE-21 (the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century).  It would provide for bonds for high speed rail (including Maglev) and for the Alaska Railroad to be issued by a state, group of states or interstate compact.  For each year from FY2009 to FY2018, there would be $1.2 billion in tax exempt bonds and $1.2 billion in tax credit bonds.  H.R. 6004 will not be marked up on May 20.

 

Towards the end of Wednesday’s hearing, Chairman Oberstar reported that he had met with House Ways & Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), who “is very supportive” of the tax credit bonds (for HSR) but reported that the Congressional Budget Office requires offsets of at least $4 billion.  Said Oberstar, “Our two committees will have to work on that.  That wasn’t the answer I was hoping for.”

 

mistake post... I replied in the GCRTA thread, where what I have to say is more relevant. 

From a national point of view, hard to argue with Feagler.  We've got the most regressive transit/transportation policy in the industrialized world.

Testimony of Wisconsin DOT Sec. Frank Busalacchi re: HR-6003 (The Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act):

 

TESTIMONY

Before the United States House Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and

Hazardous Materials

On HR-6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008

and HR-6004, the

Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century

by

Frank J. Busalacchi

Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition

Thursday May 14, 2008

 

Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Schuster and Members of the Committee, my name is Frank Busalacchi. I am Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. I am also a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

 

I am pleased to testify today on the need to reauthorize Amtrak and to provide funding for new passenger rail initiatives that will help address the current and long-term mobility needs of our growing and aging population.

 

HR-6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, and HR-6004, the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE-21), are both critically important. The enactment of these bills will allow Members of Congress to begin the process of investing in passenger rail, a mobility option that our citizens are choosing in record numbers. The recent growth in Amtrak ridership should be a clear message to Congress: we need more passenger rail service and we need to start building it now to keep up with the demand for services.

 

In the 2008 Presidential Campaign, passenger rail is an emerging issue. As Senator Barack Obama remarked at an informal luncheon in Indiana this month, “The irony is with the gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service… We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it is a perfect time to start talking about why we don't have better rail service. We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn't have high speed rail…” The Senator’s recognition of the need for expanded passenger rail service to address national goals related to energy and mobility offers a glimmer of hope for the future of intercity passenger rail in our country. Congress must act on this legislation now to build the foundation needed for the expansion of passenger rail.

 

Since 2002 when the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act expired, Amtrak has been subsisting on annual federal appropriations subject to congressional and federal agency oversight, with no stability in funding. The Administration has shown no leadership on rail finance, starving Amtrak each year in its budget bill. Congress has had to come together on this issue every year to provide adequate funding to keep Amtrak moving.

 

The Amtrak reauthorization bill will end the year-to-year cobbling together of the finances of a major corporation. The legislation encourages and funds state investments in passenger rail. It provides stable funding for Amtrak and policy provisions to assure Amtrak service will expand

and Amtrak’s financial accountability will improve.

 

The bill aligns federal policy with the demand from our citizens for improved and expanded intercity passenger rail service.

 

Several factors support increased investment in this mobility option. Perhaps the most obvious is the fact that gasoline prices are quickly approaching $4.00 per gallon, and oil prices have more than doubled in 18 months. These bills have been in process for some time, yet their introduction now is timely. It will take time as well as funds to get more rail service on the ground. While we wait for the funds, other forces are pushing us to create federal policies to increase investment in passenger rail service:

 

Despite the federal government’s focus on targeted congestion relief, bottlenecks are still occurring, congestion is growing, and we are faced with the challenge of global warming. In urban areas, building more highway capacity is often extremely expensive and difficult to accomplish. The availability of passenger rail funding will give decision-makers another option for solving their transportation problems. With passenger rail on an equal footing with the other modes in which the federal government invests heavily, decision-makers can select the transportation option best suited for a given situation rather than the only option that offers federal funding assistance.

 

The expansion of intercity passenger rail could have a positive impact on global warming since the average intercity passenger train generates 60 percent fewer CO2 emissions per passenger-mile than the average auto and half the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of an airplane. Since 1990, U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have grown an average of 1.2 percent annually; and the transportation sector contributes about one-third of those emissions.

•

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the fourth and final draft report in its “Climate Change 2007” series. The report1 recommends that governments adopt policies to mitigate or reverse the impact of GHG emissions on our climate and that these policies align land-use and infrastructure planning to reduce transport emissions. The report encourages a modal shift from road transportation to rail and public transportation systems to offset the projected growth of global emissions or to reduce emissions below current levels.

 

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report,” Draft Copy, November 16, 2007.

•

The projected growth in the U.S. population will only exacerbate the impacts of congestion and air and water pollution that comes from increased motor vehicle emissions. Our population is expected to reach 450 million by 2050, up 150 million people from 2007. Among age groups, growth will be highest in the over 55 population segments, and these segments will be most in need of mobility alternatives to the automobile.

•

The nation’s federal policy and funding approaches have led to a disinvestment in passenger rail over the past 50 years. At one time, rail routes comprised the backbone of our transportation network. The freight railroads are investing in their infrastructure, but according to a recent freight rail analysis,2 the return on investment to the railroads would not justify the level of investment needed to serve shippers and passenger rail. We must create a healthy, vibrant passenger and freight rail system that provides a key mobility option for people and freight.

•

Only a limited number of states will be able to increase passenger rail service on their own without a federal funding partner. When the Amtrak reauthorization legislation is enacted, with its 80/20 grant program to the states for capital investment, the states can begin to implement their passenger rail service plans, providing a long awaited modal choice for their citizens.

•

It is time to create a truly multi-modal transportation system that addresses the national priorities of energy conservation and global warming and provides funding for passenger rail that is predictable, stable and environmentally responsible.

 

The National Commission’s Multi-modal Vision

 

As a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, I had the opportunity to share my perspective and goal for a new direction in national transportation policy – one that includes a federal/state funding partnership for intercity passenger rail similar to the partnerships that exist for highways, transit and aviation.

 

The Commission was charged with analyzing information to project the nation’s transportation needs over the next 50 years. For highways and transit systems, this exercise was easier than for rail. We had the benefit of highway and transit data collected by US DOT over many years. For freight and passenger rail, the Commission relied on Commissioner Matt Rose and me to compile needs information.

 

I engaged a working group to provide an intercity passenger rail analysis. The group mapped a vision of the national rail system in 2050 and determined cost estimates to achieve that vision. It focused on city-to-city connections in corridors of 500 miles or less. It should be noted that the 2050 map is illustrative only as individual states will be responsible for their own rail plans. Many states are already working on estimates and plans for new passenger rail service. With federal support and the enactment of the Amtrak reauthorization legislation, these states will be empowered to implement their rail plans.

 

It was in response to testimony from state and local officials asking for additional public investment in rail that the Commission adopted intercity passenger rail as part of its multi-modal vision for the future. We submitted our report, “Transportation for Tomorrow,” in December 2007.3 The report provides a new, multi-modal 50-year vision for the nation’s transportation system, including recommendations for passenger rail expansion.

 

Wisconsin’s Intercity Passenger Rail Experience

As Secretary of Wisconsin DOT, I know firsthand that the American public is clamoring for the expansion of passenger rail services. Our state provides financial support to Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service, which operates on the Milwaukee to Chicago corridor. Since 1989, we have committed over $100 million in capital and operating support for existing and future Amtrak service. This includes annual operating support, new or renovated stations, rail corridor acquisition, crossing improvements, and planning studies.

•

Wisconsin works in partnership with the state of Illinois to provide annual operating support for Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service. We contributed approximately $6.4 million last year. Governor Jim Doyle and the Wisconsin State Legislature included an additional $500,000 annually ($1 million total) in Wisconsin’s 2007-09 biennial budget to add an additional rail car to address capacity issues, including standing room only on many peak period trips. With the continuing increases in ridership, despite the extra car just added, capacity is again

 

The state of Wisconsin is exploring adding another car, but equipment may not be available.

•

Wisconsin has undertaken three major station development projects for Hiawatha Service customers. In 2005, we opened a new passenger rail station at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport. In 2006, the Village of Sturtevant replaced a 100-year-old station with a brand new facility. In 2007, we completed a $17 million renovation of the downtown Milwaukee station. This award-winning project provides a new multimodal facility for Amtrak trains and Greyhound buses, along with commercial development opportunities.

•

Wisconsin has also invested funds to look to the future. Our state has conducted an environmental assessment of a project to expand service from Milwaukee to Madison. We have invested $7 million in state funds to purchase and preserve 32 miles of this 85-mile rail corridor for future passenger rail service.

The public has responded positively to the state’s investments. Last year, Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service carried 618,000 passengers – an all time record and a 55 percent increase in just six years. With Amtrak providing excellent service from Chicago to Milwaukee and with engineering plans on the shelf and ready to go, the demand is strong to expand service another 90 miles to Madison, Wisconsin’s state capital.

 

National View

 

The 31 states in the States for Passenger Rail Coalition appreciate the priority the House is giving to passenger rail legislation this year. Current Hiawatha operations and future service expansions in Wisconsin and other states will depend upon Amtrak’s continued financial stability. We cannot afford to allow Amtrak to languish each year in an ad hoc appropriations process without the multi-year funding framework and vision that this reauthorization bill provides.

States cannot be expected to partner with the federal government and Amtrak to support and expand passenger rail service in the United States when the long-term viability of its partner is uncertain. These bills provide the funding and policy framework needed to allow states to invest in expanded passenger rail service.

 

Key Provisions of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (HR-6003)

 

The federal funding authorized by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 over the next five years will insure a sound financial foundation for Amtrak operations in the Northeast Corridor, for Amtrak’s long-distance trains, and for Amtrak partnerships with states in regional corridors.

A new emphasis on partnerships among Amtrak, the states, and the federal government is reflected throughout the bill. The states can only step up and work with Amtrak to build a world-class passenger rail system for this country when an adequate federal-state funding and policy partnership is provided.

Amtrak’s financial stability is of paramount concern to states that support Amtrak operations financially.

 

This bill authorizes adequate operating funds for all of Amtrak’s activities. The $3 billion authorized over five years for operating grants provides the proper framework for appropriators to eliminate the annual uncertainty of whether Amtrak services will be cut.

 

A total of $6.7 billion is authorized over five years for Amtrak and the states to address their sorely needed capital equipment and infrastructure needs. The bill provides capital funds to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair and to address equipment shortages on other Amtrak routes, including state-supported corridors. The existing equipment on state corridors dates from the mid-1980’s and is ready for replacement. In some cases, state initiatives to add service have been thwarted for lack of equipment.

 

The states are ready to begin working with Amtrak immediately to develop specifications and procure equipment for use in state-supported corridors, where Amtrak’s ridership growth has been high. The $5 million in grants authorized under The Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool recognizes this need and the role of the states in determining, along with Amtrak, the types of equipment that will be needed.

 

The Amtrak reauthorization bill recognizes the need for state representation on the Amtrak Board. It recognizes the need to develop an equitable and uniform methodology for allocating capital and operating costs among the states and Amtrak. In establishing planning requirements for states, it recognizes the importance of “grandfathering” existing state plans so that states ready to proceed with projects will not be delayed.

 

The Act also recognizes the importance of on-time performance, which is influenced by Amtrak (the operator) and the freight railroads (the principal dispatcher of Amtrak trains). Most importantly, the bill provides capital resources for passenger and freight infrastructure improvements to address capacity problems and to maintain and improve on-time performance.

 

Another issue facing Amtrak, states, and localities is the need to modernize stations to the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The bill provides funding to address these needs.

 

Finally – and most importantly from a state perspective – the bill recognizes the need for a federal/state capital program to expand and improve the current Amtrak system. HR-6003 recognizes this need by authorizing a total of $4.2 billion in 80/20 federal/state grants for needed infrastructure and equipment. Of these funds, $2.5 billion is provided in 80/20 grants to states for a variety of intercity passenger rail improvement projects; and $1.7 billion is provided for state high-speed rail projects where speeds are expected to reach 110 mph. Many states such as North Carolina, Washington State, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin already have well developed plans for 110 mph service in regional corridors. The bill recognizes that, from a policy perspective, we must put federal funding for intercity passenger rail development on a level playing field with the highly successful federal funding partnerships that exist for highways, aviation and transit.

 

Key Provisions of the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (HR-6004)

 

In addition to the Amtrak reauthorization bill, the House has introduced the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century, which provides additional capital resources for states. In particular, it provides $12 billion in tax credit bonding authority to states over 10 years for passenger rail infrastructure and equipment. These bonds are unique in that they can be structured to provide up to the equivalent of 60/40 federal/state grants at current interest rates.

 

This legislation also authorizes $560 million over eight years for 50/50 grants to states for planning and development and $240 million for passenger rail technology development. The United States is far behind other countries in developing advanced technologies for signals, communications, and energy-efficient propulsion systems needed for the development the next generation of passenger rail transportation systems.

 

Looking to the near future, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission on which I serve recommends that a comprehensive 80/20 grant program for intercity passenger rail development be included in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. The Commission recommends that the federal fuel tax be expanded to provide a dedicated multi-year funding source for intercity passenger rail development as well as for the other surface transportation modes. Its recently released report recommends the inclusion of $5 billion annually for these state grants in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.

 

As the House moves ahead on HR-6003 and HR-6004, I respectfully ask this committee to continue its efforts to provide a dedicated, multi-year passenger rail capital program to fund the nation’s intercity passenger rail needs.

Everyone should understand, however, that enacting these bills will not result in more or improved passenger rail service overnight. These bills will jump start the process. It will be several years before we see more equipment running on current and new routes, carrying more passengers to and from their destinations in an energy-efficient, environmentally friendly way. For this reason, it is especially important that these bills be enacted this year.

 

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Schuster, and the co-sponsors of HR-6003 and HR-6004 for recognizing what we in the states have seen first-hand – the demand for fast, efficient train service by our citizens. Working together, the states and the federal government can address the mobility needs of our growing and aging population and, at the same time, address the national priorities of energy conservation and global warming. It is time to provide funding for intercity passenger rail that is predictable, dependable and environmentally responsible.

Toledo on Track for High-Speed Rail

By John Krudy

Toledo Free Press Staff Writer

[email protected]

 

Government officials in Ohio and Toledo are planning an Ohio Hub of high-speed trains that could link Toledo to Detroit, Cleveland and national rail networks.

 

"The whole idea is to get the plan ready to the point that the minute federal funds become available, we can say, 'fund me,'" said Transportation Project Manager Diane Reamer-Evans of the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG). "I think we'd be in a position to compete."

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=7865

Letter to the editor in today's Plain-Dealer:

 

Politicians overlook the value of rail lines

Friday, June 06, 2008

 

In 2007, airplanes burned up 740 mil lion gallons of jet fuel sitting on run ways because of flight delays, according to Sen. Charles Schumer in a congressional report released last month. The report also said flight delays severely impact the economy. The cost is projected to be in the billions this year, based on current fuel prices. The study blamed bad weather and overscheduling for most delays. Schumer said the oil producers should boost output to lower prices. Now we all know that you can't change the weather and OPEC is not going to increase production or lower prices.

 

When are the politicians going to get it into their heads that if they paid as much attention to passenger rail as they do to airlines, we'd have a cheaper, cleaner and safer form of travel with the capability of reaching every city, town and village in the nation?

 

James J. McGill

 

http://www.cleveland.com/letters/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1212741142106540.xml&coll=2

here is a letter to kunstler:

 

Jim,

 

Below is one of the many "news flash" items I get from the local union reps.

 

I thought this was worthy of your time and attention, due to the fact it so accurately sums up the REAL problem our nation faces with any immediate passenger train introduction.

 

In the most simplistic of explanations, we've not only scrapped route miles, but also the vital subcomponent of track density on what routes are still extant. In scrapping the density we've created a physical rail plant that by its very design makes no allowance for passenger trains to do what they are supposed to do; pick up and drop off passengers without bringing everything else to a stop!

 

Just this past twenty four hours I took a load of Honda automobiles down to Cincinnati. Upon arrival in Cincinnati, I parked my train at "Tower A", next to a tied-down (parked and crewless) coal train. The coal train was sitting on the only remaining track with platform, of what was once a 26 track with platform and concourse attached to the Cincinnati Union Terminal. In effect there was no freaking way for any passenger trains to pick up or disembark passengers, on the only fucking platform in all of Cincinnati! Not until that coal train had a crew and then possibly, maybe by chance, get clearance to move on and out of the way.

 

In reality, beyond what the 'news flash" talks about, I'm telling you the freight railroads have left only the bare minimum track density needed to accommodate the few intercity Amtrak trains still operating.

 

(signed)

 

"Anonymous"

 

And there lies both the curse and blessing of trying to re-develop passenger rail in Ohio and the U.S.: we have lost capacity due to decades of down-sizing and consolidations by the railroads.  This is not entirely the fault of the railroads, as economic forces (not the least of which was competition from heavily subsidized highways) forced them to trim their "linear factory" (rail corridors) from multiple tracks down to two or one.

 

The blessing is that the railroads held on to most of the right-of-way: the land on which the extra tracks once ran.  That gives us the opportunity to build back some of that capacity.  Sadly,some major rights-of-way are gone forever.... Columbus-Indianapolis, for instance.

 

Much of the Ohio Hub Plan is based on building back the capacity on existing rail corridors.

^This is great news! Can you imagine how much more we would get to know each other's cities and learn to appreciate them more?

 

If we had a 3C line, I can see us having a switch in residents as well. Some people from Cincinnati might be more likely to move to Cleveland or Cbus, or vise versa.

Kudo's to Sarah Hollander at the P-D. Good quotes from Cong. LaTourette.

Legislation working its way through Congress - the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act - has local rail advocates almost giddy with excitement.

 

So, are you giddy or what?

I kinda am, but I am not going to hold my breath, just in case. 

So, are you giddy or what?

 

Not yet. The bill hasn't gone to conference committee.

 

The committee hasn't reported out the final bill.

 

The final bill hasn't been passed by both houses.

 

Bush hasn't vetoed it yet.

 

Both houses haven't overridden the veto and passed it into law.

 

The appropriations bill to actually spend the money at the authorized level hasn't been written yet (and seldom are appropriations made at the authorized level -- Amtrak has been authorized by past reauthorizations to receive nearly $2 billion per year and gotten only half of that).

 

The appropriations bill hasn't been passed by both houses, gone to conference committee and the final bill passed.

 

The President hasn't signed the appropriations bill.

 

Ohio hasn't conducted the environmental impact analyses necessary to be eligible for federal construction funds.

 

Ohio hasn't applied to receive federal capital funds nor identified the non-federal source of capital funding yet.

 

Ohio hasn't identified the source of operating funding for the trains yet, nor gotten the OK from the Ohio General Assembly to spend it.

 

The freight railroads haven't yet agreed to let Amtrak use their tracks at the times and frequency of service Amtrak might want to use them.

 

And there's a million little steps in there left to do.

 

Yeah, this is a pretty good start. But I'm not giddy yet. Been burned waaaay too many times before. There's still a lot left to do.

All the more reason we as advocates need to be pushing our state and federal legislators to get off the dime and push through the steps you just described.

Still, you have to take this one step at a time, and this is a definitely a step in the right direction. 

The most encouraging thing to me is that this legislation has strong bi-partisan support: enough to tell "Shrub" (Bush) to go stick it.

Also, tune in Thursday at 9 a.m. to WPCN for the Sound of Ideas and its reporters notebook. One of the reporters who will be participating is the Plain Dealer's Sarah Hollander who says rail passenger service is a likely topic.

 

Go to:

http://www.wcpn.org

As a frequent Republican basher, I've got to give GOPer Steve LaTourette is due as one of the hippest elephant on trains and transit.  Wish more of his Red brethren would follow his lead.

LaTourette has always been a strong supporter of rail in general and passenger rail in particular. 

Any wild guesses on how much a ticket would be? Cleveland to Columbus? To Cincy?

 

Obviously, this is way premature, as KJP noted in his masterful layout of the major steps in the bureaucratic process, but I can dream about it, right?

I would hope between 30 and 50 dollars depending on the lead time for the ticket purchase.

There would also likely be a graduated fare structure: frequent riders, seniors, students, business class....etc.

At that price point, I imagine it would be fairly popular. I know I would use it -- probably every single line since I have buddies in each city on that initial map.

 

I'll reserve any excitement until the money is in the bank.

I would hope between 30 and 50 dollars depending on the lead time for the ticket purchase.

 

Thats way to much, even for a round trip.  I would say $17-$20 ONE WAY tops.  Hell if you can go from NYC to Trenton for $13.00, I wouldn't expect our rail to be more that $20, considering is a longer trip.

The cheapest Amtrak fares I could find from New York City to Trenton (58 miles) is $34 one way. Are you referring to New Jersey Transit fares? If so, that's not a good comparison. Amtrak is going to use its pricing methodologies for 3-C Corridor, not NJT's.

 

However, 59 cents per mile is awfully high compared to Amtrak fares I'm accustomed to. So I checked some Midwest travel markets served by Amtrak....

 

Cleveland - Chicago (341 miles) = $47 one way, or 14 cents per mile;

Cleveland - Pittsburgh (140 miles) = $22 one way, or 16 cents per mile;

Detroit - Chicago (281 miles) = $27 one way, or 10 cents per mile;

 

The average of these is 13.33 cents per mile.

 

Cleveland to Columbus is 135 miles

 

So, based on the above, a one way Amtrak fare of $18 from Cleveland to Columbus might be appropriate. Even if it was 16 cents per mile, that's $21.60 one way.

The cheapest Amtrak fares I could find from New York City to Trenton (58 miles) is $34 one way. Are you referring to New Jersey Transit fares? If so, that's not a good comparison. Amtrak is going to use its pricing methodologies for 3-C Corridor, not NJT's.

 

However, 59 cents per mile is awfully high compared to Amtrak fares I'm accustomed to. So I checked some Midwest travel markets served by Amtrak....

 

Cleveland - Chicago (341 miles) = $47 one way, or 14 cents per mile;

Cleveland - Pittsburgh (140 miles) = $22 one way, or 16 cents per mile;

Detroit - Chicago (281 miles) = $27 one way, or 10 cents per mile;

 

The average of these is 13.33 cents per mile.

 

Cleveland to Columbus is 135 miles

 

So, based on the above, a one way Amtrak fare of $18 from Cleveland to Columbus might be appropriate. Even if it was 16 cents per mile, that's $21.60 one way.

 

Yeah...I was using NJ Transit numbers. 

The cheapest Amtrak fares I could find from New York City to Trenton (58 miles) is $34 one way. Are you referring to New Jersey Transit fares? If so, that's not a good comparison. Amtrak is going to use its pricing methodologies for 3-C Corridor, not NJT's.

 

However, 59 cents per mile is awfully high compared to Amtrak fares I'm accustomed to. So I checked some Midwest travel markets served by Amtrak....

 

Cleveland - Chicago (341 miles) = $47 one way, or 14 cents per mile;

Cleveland - Pittsburgh (140 miles) = $22 one way, or 16 cents per mile;

Detroit - Chicago (281 miles) = $27 one way, or 10 cents per mile;

 

The average of these is 13.33 cents per mile.

 

Cleveland to Columbus is 135 miles

 

So, based on the above, a one way Amtrak fare of $18 from Cleveland to Columbus might be appropriate. Even if it was 16 cents per mile, that's $21.60 one way.

 

Would Round Trip between Columbus and Cleveland be $43.20 or would it be less?

Sometimes there are round trip discounts, but not usually in coach/economy class.

If we presume that motoring traffic is going to continue to trail off (off 4% vs. last year IIRC), congestion should be lessening.  That would mean that intercity busses could "make good time" since they won't be slowed by traffic congestion.

 

How do rail advocates make the case for rail in the state of Ohio where we already have a complete highway system?  According to the $4/gallon thread http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16454.0/msg,297316.html , the efficiency of rail is only a quantum increment better than a passenger bus.  (Sorry if this has already been written, I could not think of how to search for the previous discussion on bus vs. rail.)

From the Executive Summary PDF on the Ohio Hub site:

 

"Passenger train fares will also be competitive with air travel and have the potential to generate

revenue in excess of the rail system’s operating costs. Ohio Hub tickets would cost 24 to 37 cents

per mile - 50 percent higher than current fares on Amtrak’s long distance trains, but still less

expensive than Amtrak’s Northeast corridor (NEC) fares."

 

Then it listed "Sample Estimated Fares between Major Stations (in 2002$)" -  Cleveland to Columbus round trip was $50.

How do rail advocates make the case for rail in the state of Ohio ...

 

Because the ridership estimates for rail are higher than they are for bus.

Listen to it here at:

http://www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/soi/12359/

 

Reporters’ Roundtable

Thursday, June 19

Barack Obama takes the lead against John McCain in the latest poll of Ohio voters...independents though say they'd be less likely to vote for him if he puts Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Also in the news ...the Cleveland Museum of Art passes a fund-raising milestone; High-speed rail gains ground in Congress and Ohio may benefit; lawmakers in Columbus consider regulating how many patients a nurse can serve. Join the discussion on Sound of Ideas reporters roundtable Thursday at 9:00 on 90.3.

 

 

Guests:

Bill Cohen, correspondent, Ohio Public Radio Statehouse News Bureau

Stephanie Warsmith, politics reporter, Akron Beacon Journal

Sarah Hollander, reporter, The Plain Dealer

Steven Litt, art and architecture critic, The Plain Dealer

Even though it didn't really happen at the last energy crisis (probably because the bad memories of the last period of rail transit was still fresh and the rationalization of the rail industry was still in the future), I'm glad that energy prices rather than congestion is driving the development of rail this time around.

 

The point about congestion lessening is always the challenge is in arguing for alternative transit because people will start driving again if the roads clear up. The contrast with energy prices is that even if prices stabilize the cost rationale doesn't change all that much. 

The "game changer" is the price of gasoline. 

BTW: The next edition of Feagler & Freinds on WVIZ-TV will feature a discussion of passenger rail in Ohio and what the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act may mean for Ohio.

 

http://www.wviz.org/index.php/WVIZ/feagler/

 

Feagler & Friends airs:

WVIZ/PBS: Fridays - 8:30 PM, Saturdays - 8:00 PM, Sundays - 11:30 AM

The Ohio Channel: Mondays - 1:30 PM | 9:30 PM, Tuesdays - 5:30 AM