Feagler has generally liked passenger rail, but he isn't aware of many reasons for it. He also takes a negative stance as his default position. But I'm hopeful his support for passenger rail will allow him to keep an open mind.

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.)

 

Speed plays a role, too.  Even "low speed rail" can go up to 85 mph, much faster than an interstate bus.

Reviving the rails

Funding, new goals for Amtrak could improve Americans' travel options

Friday,  June 20, 2008 2:58 AM

 

The five-year, $15 billion funding bill for Amtrak that Congress passed last week is a landmark: For the first time in years, the national passenger-rail system has a future with some promise.

 

Because the bill sets some money aside as matching funds for states to request, Ohioans finally could see some improvement in rail service from and between Ohio cities.

Read more at:

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/06/20/amtrak.ART_ART_06-20-08_A10_I2AHD0O.html?sid=101

 

Listen to it here at:

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

 

Reporters Roundtable

Thursday, June 19

....High-speed rail gains ground in Congress and Ohio may benefit .... Join the discussion on Sound of Ideas reporters roundtable Thursday at 9:00 on 90.3.

 

 

They spent about a half-hour discussing rail and transit. I encourage you all to listen. Again, mostly positive calls from listeners.

 

Regarding population density consider there are 14 states which have funding partnerships with Amtrak to operate train their states. Ohio, the seventh most populous state and the ninth most densely populated, is the most densely populated state without such a partnership.

Fares are only part of the equation, as is travel time.  You have to figure out ground transport on both ends of the service.

The "game changer" is the price of gasoline.

 

even more pressing may be the price of diesel

^Does the Ohio Hub plan assume electrification? 

No. You have to have a lot of trains in order to make electrification cost-effective. the cost of electrifying a rail line costs about $1 million per track-mile. It takes a great deal of rail traffic volume to pay off the fixed costs of building and maintaining the catenaries that support the overhead wires, plus the substations, etc. One rail line in Ohio where that probably makes sense is Norfolk Southern's Chicago-East Coast route via Toledo, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. It already has 70 trains per day with up to 90 over some sections.

Fares are only part of the equation, as is travel time. You have to figure out ground transport on both ends of the service.

 

As long as it's not grotesque -- i.e. airport travel -- then this is less of an issue for me. I'm saving two hours of driving that it would take to get from Cleveland to Columbus. I can spend that time effectively on the train whereas I can't in the car.

It should be possible to run trains at the upper limit of the Midwest High Speed Rail plan (110MPH) without recourse to electrification.

 

It is entirely possible, given the proper imrprovements to track, signals and other infrastructure, as well as eliminating rail bottlenecks where passenger & freight trains get backed up and cause delays.

 

The kind of investment that S-294 / HR-6003 could make possible would have the net effect of greatly streamlining how our national rail system moves.

Many of the UK's diesel-powered trains cruise at 125 mph, like the ones we took in March between Briston and London. The trains run every 10 to 30 minutes and cover the 200-mile distance (same as from Cleveland to Dayton) from Bristol and London in 1 hour and 45 minutes. That's an average speed of 114 mph. The round trip fare was 20 pounds ($40 US).

 

To see my pictures of these trains, go to:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15600.msg267136.html#msg267136

Maybe we can get back on the train

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Dick Feagler

Plain Dealer Columnist

 

Come out to Bay Village and drive down Porter Creek Parkway in the Huntington Reservation. At the bottom of a gentle hill you will see some old pillars that look like a branch office of Stonehenge.

 

It's not a spot for tourists. But it's worth a look. Those pillars held up a trestle for an Inter-Urban line that, 70 years ago, shuttled Cleveland passengers all the way from downtown Cleveland to Toledo. On rails.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/dick_feagler/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1214037155320080.xml&coll=2

On track for a comeback

Ohio must make the most of rail's resurgence

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Elizabeth Sullivan

Plain Dealer Columnist

 

A train whistle blared just as Marc Magliari answered the phone, ob scuring the Amtrak spokesman's words.

 

A hokey special effect in the Amtrak office? Not hardly.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/esullivan/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1214037030320080.xml&coll=2

^LOVE the idea of high speed rail to Chicago from Cleveland.  I agree it would then be something to build off of.  I've flown and driven to Chicago and the best way to go would be rail.  There would be a LOT more Chicagoans coming to Cleveland+ for weekends and events too.  Probably then an influx of people moving here from Chicago once they realize how inexpensive things are and how easy it is to find a parking space.

If they're taking the train here, why do they need a parking space?

 

I'm glad she wrote the column, but it contained way too many of the stereotypical inaccuracies we see in pieces by newbies to the issue. I'll be nice to her in my e-mail though, as I detect some interest by her in this issue.

I think a major point she misses is that the freight railroads are okay with having passenger trains in their corridors as long as they see a benefit in terms of being able to move more freight with as little interference as possible.  That's one reason the NS and CSX are supportive of the Ohio Hub: it also expands capacity and improves the rail infrastructure.

 

But yes, KJP, be diplomatic in your response.  I sense she is a potential ally.

I have a good personal example of the benefit of the OHio Hub....

 

We're fast approaching the end of the fiscal year where I work.  I've been busy this week trying to finalize items I need to before 6/30, I have to have my office packed up by Friday because of remodeling that's going on (it's taking longer than I expected), and I have an important meeting in Columbus tomorrow. 

 

I haven't had the time I would have liked to this week to prepare for the meeting.  I'm prepared enough to get by adequately, but I still could have used a couple more hours. 

 

Now, I have to blow 2 1/2 hours driving to Columbus in the morning, when if we had the Ohio Hub fully built out by now instead, I could drive 5 minutes to the Hopkins airport station, hop a train, and finish my preparation for this meeting, maybe even have a few minutes to catch my breath before I enter a room full of attorneys for the meeting.  On the way back tomorrow afternoon, I could catch up on e-mail, voice mail, and end of the year paperwork, but no, I have to pound I -71 for another 2 1/2 hours. 

 

Between the motorpool car cost, gas, and lost productivity, it costs my employer somewhere in the neighborhood of $250.00 to send an employee (traveling alone) to our main office in Columbus.  The gas and car costs alone are just over $100.  What would a round trip ticket on the Ohio Hub be?  $50?  $60

 

 

 

 

^ very good example.

 

for some comparison it's under $15 off peak and under $20 peak to ride one-way from nyc penn station to montauk on the eastern tip of long island, which is 100 miles or so.

Outstanding post Gildone ! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

Trust me, I know the same level of frustration.  Rock on!

 

:banger:

I think that makes a good article for a certain newsletter!

06/28/2008

Plans gather steam for passenger train  

John Arthur Hutchison

[email protected]

 

As the price of gasoline continues to rise, the idea of passenger rail systems are gaining momentum in Ohio.

 

Read more at:

 

To view the ORDC plan, visit www.ohiohub.com.

 

http://www.zwire.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1698&dept_id=21849&newsid=19812024

 

 

06/28/2008

 

U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township, was involved when NOACA studied the commuter rail feasibility study.

He advocated for the project, but said there were numerous issues that arose that caused the idea to fade.

 

For example, during public meetings hundreds of people complained about having a train system come through their town or back yards.

 

Huh!?  Isn't local service the point?  I thought the purpose of rail was serving towns not for it to avoid them?  The writer presents this NIMBY foolishness as a legitimate "problem".  I know we must be patient with people to a degree, but if we begin seriously coddling this kind of thinking, serious passenger rail will continue to be a dream in this wayward state.

 

Don't forget, this was several years ago and a lot has changed.... as in $4.00 gas that even the NIMBY's are having to pay.  KJP can best enlighten us as to the history here.

^No question, noozer.  I just wish the article -- otherwise very upbeat, esp viz the Passenger Rail Investment Act -- had not posited the irrational NIMBY fears of rail routing near towns and "their backyards" as a problem.  The problem was the PEOPLE not the rail route... A better approach would have been to examine their mindset and how it’s obsolete and not anything that realistic should (I sure hope not) arise to block the Ohio Hub.

 

As for insurance, it's often an issue, but transit agencies persevere.  When I lived in DC, at times it seemed like VA-Railway Express would never materialize because of battles with the RR over insurance.  ... but, today, we have a successful commuter rail in No.Va, and I believe it's expanding... We sometimes here in Ohio (not you, of course) look at these obstacles as insurmountable and are easily deterred.  We must look though (as I'm sure AAO is) at the lessons learned in No. Va and elsewhere as to the issue of insurance....

 

It would be nice if Ohio would, for once, act and not react to out-of-control petrol.  But, as long as we get state/local passenger rail, I won't quibble w/ how we get it.

 

By the way, a representative of the Ohio Rail Development Commission will be on the Wills & Snyder morning show at WTAM 1100-AM to discuss the Ohio Hub, 3-C Corridor and intercity passenger rail. He will be on at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

 

Don't just listen in. CALL IN! Don't wait for the haters and negative-nancy's to speak up before you call -- it will be too late. You'll never get on the air.

 

Talk Show: 216-578-1100

Toll Free: 1-888-723-WTAM

06/28/2008

Plans gather steam for passenger train  

 

U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township, was involved when NOACA studied the commuter rail feasibility study.

 

He advocated for the project, but said there were numerous issues that arose that caused the idea to fade.

 

... Plus, existing rail lines are now running at near full capacity with freight, and enormous liability insurance policies would need to be taken out to operate, LaTourette said.

 

"You have to have liability insurance and permission of railroads, and they are under no obligation to do so," he said. "Anyone who wants to run, it would have to get a half billion in insurance."...

The US public assumed the liability (insurance) risk for nuclear power generation in the last Cheney/Bush energy bill.  Why should not the public assume the liability risk for the trains?  (Rhetorical question).

Why can't the NIMBY communities (ie Bay Village-the Monaco of the North Coast... :roll:) just not have a station.  If it's such a big deal to have commuter rail run through their city (because no other city world has commuter rail running from wealthy suburban communities to an urban center), skip them but don't let the rest of the region suffer from their arrogance/ignorance.  They're so well off anyways that $5/gallon gas shouldn't deter them from driving to work or even to Lakewood to ride the train. 

 

Of course this isn't solely a NEO state of mind but I would like to think we're more progressive and practical than this...

Tell the mayor and the city council that. I doubt they read UrbanOhio.

If they change their minds, they could always pony up for an in-fill station.

 

 

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1315181

 

WOSU News

 

Trains Can Provide Options for Commuters

Lauren Schmoll

 

COLUMBUS, OH (2008-07-09) "I rode from Chicago to New York City on passenger trains. The wife and I in the 50's we rode the Newark trains to Washington DC."

 

Carl Winegartner is a railroad historian from Newark. He has fond memories of his days riding trains and working on them.

 

Read more at the URL above

 

Our view: Trains could be route to new jobs, too

By Dayton Daily News

Editorial

Friday, July 11, 2008

 

Maybe the old adage about what's good for General Motors being good for the country should get a tweaking: what's good for the former GM worker is good for the country.

 

On first reading, two recent stories in this newspaper might suggest a struggle that is beyond winning. First, a report Friday, July 4, by business reporter Tim Tresslar told of the millions upon literal millions of square feet of plant space either already empty or due to turn fallow when, as announced, DHL and GM cease area operations.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2008/07/10/ddn071108trainsxxcs.html

We've got to get these media folk to realize the $5 billion sticker price isn't for the starter system. That price tag is likely a mere 10 percent of the full build-out cost.

Already communicated that to the editorial folks at the DDN.  But, overall, a good editorial.  I particularly liked the quote from the union rep at the end.  They really grasped what passenger rail development can mean beyond just the running of more and better trains.

Good. I also liked the union rep's quote. And I shared the article with those at Peakoil.com which they posted on the home page.

Just got this news release from Senator Sherrod Brown's office.  Though it covers the 2-C portion of the 3-C corridor, keep in mind that the ORDC has asked each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation to support a portion of the funding for environmental impact studies of the corridors in their districts.

 

It's also worth noting that this appropriation is not a done deal.... it still has a lengthy legisative process to go through and there are no guarantees until a full federal funding bill is passed and signed. But this is still good news.

 

Brown Announces Senate Appropriations Committee Approval of $500,000 for Cleveland-Columbus Rail Corridor Environmental Impact Study

Funding Will Contribute to Development of Interstate Rail Transport System

July 18, 2008

 

 

WASHINGTON, DC – United States Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $500,000 to study the environmental impact of a more than 1200 mile interstate rail network between Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and parts of Canada. The funds were included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2009.

 

“A regional transportation network linking Ohio and other states is an important step in opening Ohio to increased economic opportunities,” said Senator Brown. “This study is a crucial part of a long-term plan to support and expand domestic and international transportation.”

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission and the Ohio Department of Transportation have studied the feasibility of expanding transportation capacity by improving the regional railroad system known as the Ohio Hub Plan, for both passenger and freight trains. These federal funds will be used to continue that study by taking a look at the environmental impact of an Ohio rail network. That network would interconnect with the proposed Midwest Regional Rail System, New York’s Empire corridor, Pennsylvania’s Keystone corridor, and the VIA Rail in Canada. The system would be integrated into the region’s air, highway, and local transit networks.

 

The funds were included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2009. The bill passed the Appropriations Committee and will now head to the Senate floor for a full vote. The bill will then proceed to the House-Senate Conference Committee before final passage in both chambers, and will then be sent to the President to become law.

 

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=1bf9f7aa-affd-4c84-8e6d-56c3194c0f89

Awesome. Now we need like amounts for Columbus - Cincinnati, Cleveland - Detroit and Cleveland - Pittsburgh. After completion of those studies, then we'll be ready to receive federal engineering and construction funds.

Awesome!  I hate all this red tape though.  Seems they could be doing something that doesn't require a study.

Like what, going potty? Wiping their nose? Sleeping?  :-D

Don't forget, this was several years ago and a lot has changed.... as in $4.00 gas that even the NIMBY's are having to pay.  KJP can best enlighten us as to the history here.

 

I just re-read the executive summary...page 5 had the estimated fares between major stations.

 

For example, Cleveland-Columbus was $50 train ticket, $44 Auto Per Car (business), based on the 2002 $0.325 IRS standard mileage rate, which is now up to $0.585.    So 44/0.325*0.585 = $79.2...hmmm...yeah, I say take the train...can we skip the study and go right to construction?

And the $50 was based on fares of about 18 cents per mile, about at the top end of Amtrak's fare structure for coach seating. But some Amtrak fares are much cheaper, such as Chicago-Detroit fares which are less than 10 cents per mile. So we'll have to see what fares are ultimately offered.

Since S-294 can one day be the source of primary funding for the Ohio Hub, I thought I'd post this report from the NARP Hotline here:

 

On July 22, the House of Representatives passed by voice vote a procedural motion to send the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act to conference committee.  From here on out, the bill will be referred to as S. 294; H.R. 6003 technically no longer exists.

 

The House has appointed their conferees.  They are: House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) and Representatives Corrine Brown (D-FL), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Bruce Braley (D-IA), Michael Arcuri (D-NY), John Mica (R-FL), Tom Petri (R-WI), Steve LaTourette (R-OH), Henry Brown (R-SC), Bill Shuster (R-PA), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA).  The Senate should appoint its conferees soon.

 

If one of the above legislators is your Representative in Congress, please reach out to him or her and urge for a speedy conference that preserves the best features of each bill and protects the veto-proof majority of support that the bill now enjoys.

 

Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) told Reuters on July 22 that an infrastructure stimulus package of nearly $15 billion could be considered in the House soon.   The bill would include an immediate infusion of $250 million for Amtrak and $4.07 billion for transit.  The Senate Appropriations Committee postponed markup of its version of a second stimulus measure that was supposed to take place this week.

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_563/

As of today, S-294 is on hold due to the actions of a single Senator.  I got the following in an e-mail from States for Passenger Rail.

 

S 294 (Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act): On Saturday (July 26) Senator Coburn (R-Oklahoma) objected to Senate Majority Reid’s request for unanimous consent to name conferees to S 294.  As a result, conferees were not named.  Future actions are yet to be determined.

^Ah.. Tom Coburn.  He must object to S. 294 as pork.  He considers himself a crusader against wasteful spending.  Some of the stuff he's done, I admire, but sometimes, he carries it too far... this is a perfect example. 

^What exactly is this bill?  Are there multiple bills present in congress that effect amtrack and rail at the moment?  Is this the big one?  I'm having a hard time following all the politics.

 

 

S.294 is the "big one" -- it's the five-year Amtrak reauthorization which sets budget ceilings for Amtrak over that term. That includes for capital investment which could be a substantial increase and permit service expansions nationwide -- including in Ohio.

It sets up the federal matching funding program (80-20%  fed to state split)under which the Ohio Hub would be built.  S-294 is vitally important.

Spotted this on the website for the National Association of Railroad Passengers:

 

Congress is in recess through next month (Senate reconvenes September 8, House, September 9).

 

Late last week, amidst gridlock over energy policy, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) announced that a group of 10 centrist senators, five from each party, had agreed on a “New Energy Reform Act” that would, along with allowing new domestic oil drilling, push for alternative fuels. Unfortunately, the plan does not provide funding for energy-efficient passenger trains, which should be central to any long-term energy solution.

 

Please urge your Senators and Representative:

 

to approve $1.9 billion for passenger trains in Fiscal 2009—the Amtrak request plus $100 million to put more cars back into service;

 

to give final approve to the S.294 passenger train authorization bill;

 

and To reach a compromise on energy—preferably including passenger trains—if that’s what it takes to break the legislative logjam.

 

A list of Senate and House contacts can be accessed at:

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main/act

Politicians discuss high-speed rail proposal

Youngstown Vinidcator

Published:Wednesday, August 13, 2008

 

YOUNGSTOWN — The potential of high speed passenger trains becoming a reality in the Valley was discussed by U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, Mayor Jay Williams, Mayor Michael O’Brien of Warren and members of the Ohio Rail Commission during a press conference at 11 a.m. today.

 

The project is part of the Ohio Hub which has been in motion since 2000, said Matthew Dietrich, executive director of ORDC.

 

 

For more on this story, see Thursday’s Vindicator or vindy.com

 

http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/aug/13/politicians-discuss-high-speed-rail-proposal/?newswatch

Valley officials take steps to bring high-speed trains

High-speed trains in the Valley would travel from Cleveland to Pittsburgh.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

 

By KATIE SEMINARA

 

YOUNGSTOWN — Within seven to nine years, Valley residents might have the ability to jump a train to the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh and then make it up to Cleveland for a Cavaliers game in the same day.

 

High-speed trains that travel at 110 mph are in the works for the region and would run from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, with a few stops in between.

 

Read more at:

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/509317.html?nav=5021