I hope the Lott-Lautenberg bill passes next year.  We desperately need the constant stalemate regarding Amtrak to end, otherwise we'll never get an expanded, modernized passenger rail system.  35 years of this baloney is enough.  We need real progress for once.

 

  The truth is, long-distance trains are primarily for leisure travel, while the NEC trains are at least 50% business travel.  It's a whole different ball of wax, so direct comparisons are difficult, at best.

 

 

Actually, not necessarily true and a common misconception of northeasterners.  You can make that argument for many sleeping car passengers and some coach travelers, but not as many as you might think. 

 

I road the Empire Builder in 2002.  The seat tags in coach (which have the passengers' city/town of destination written on them) were noticeably different every few hours. That means people got on and off everywhere along the route.  They weren't leisure travelers, but were simply trying to get somewhere.

 

Even in the sleeping cars, I met a variety of people.  True, some were going to Glacier National Park and wanted a "land cruise" but there were plenty of people who had destinations beyond the train but didn't want to fly because of age or ailment or other reasons. 

 

Granted, for me it was my honeymoon, but our destination wasn't the train, it was to connect to a ferry in Seattle so we could get to Vancouver Island.  We could have flown, but didn't want the hassle.  After a hectic pace in the weeks prior to our wedding, we decided that the last thing we wanted to do the day after was to be herded around like cattle and shoe-horn ourselves into an airline seat for the 6+hour flight (including layover in Chicago).  True, we wanted to slow down and catch our breath, but that's not the same as what you're implying for leisure travel (without the train, we probably would have left on a plane a day later).  As I said, our destination was beyond the train.  The "leisure" was just an incidental benefit as far as we were concerned. 

 

When the Pennsylvanian operated between Chicago and Philly, I used to ride it between Cleveland and Johntstown 2-3 times per year to visit my mother. She used it to come to Cleveland too.  I wasn't after leisure (nor was she), I was after  comfortable, convenient way to get from Point A to Point B.  I've ridden the Capitol Limited to DC three times.  Each time it was to attend a conference (two in DC, one in Baltimore).  I wasn't after leisure travel, but an alternative to flying.  One time, my mother and future mother-in-law were both having major surgery within several days of each other in Johnstown and Toledo, respectively.  I rode the train from JST to TOL to be with my soon-to-be fiancee during her mother's surgery.  With all the stress, there was no way I could have handled driving and flying would have been a real hassle and very expensive with multiple connections.  The train saved my rear-end. 

 

In the west, LD trains are a lifeline to many towns and small cities.  Especially on the Empire Builder route and even more so in the winter time.  In the winter time up there, drifting snow often closes the interstates in North Dakota and eastern Montana.  Flights are expensive and are few and far between.  That train is very important to those states. 

 

LD trains have an important role to play in stitching rural communities together (many of which have no bus or air services), and providing access to large cities.  If we were ever to build all the proposed corridors east of the Mississippi, their role will only become more important to stitch the corridors together and provide connecting passengers to them.   

 

The problem, as KJP pointed out is that there aren't enough of them.  More routes are needed as well as more frequencies.  One train a day doesn't provide much of an option for people, especially if the train arrives in the middle of the night.  Ideally, the western LD routes should each have two round trips roughly 12 hours apart so that everyone has at least one daylight round-trip available to them.  People are more willing to accept a night time trip one way provided that have a daylight trip on the other way, so ridership would most definitely go up considerably.  I would also add that the infrastructure isn't adequate for decent speeds and on-time performance.  That needs to be improved too.

Well said and well reasoned.

Gildone, I completely agree with you.  I would never fly back home to Cleveland if there were actually decent rail service.  One train a day and a 12-hour trip time don't make it worthwhile to visit for a weekend--especially if a plane ticket costs the same as a train ticket.

 

I'd gladly make the hour drive to Bryan, Ohio to catch the train for trips to Cleveland, especially in winter, if the times were reasonable (and predictable). A dream come true would be the restoration of service through Fort Wayne between Cleveland and Chicago over NS's former Nickel Plate route; the station is just a few blocks from my house.

 

I think a lot of people would like to have some of the shorter-haul trains back, too. About 1978 I had the great pleasure of riding the now-deceased Hilltopper between Kenova, WV and Washington, D.C.. Departure was about 5 a.m., a bit of a stretch, but the train (2 Amfleet coaches and an F40) ran precisely on time and carried a lot of people. It was a Sunday, and on the western end of the line many of the riders were families going to the next town to attend church or join relatives for dinner.

 

NS (N&W, then) is up-front about its preference to not host passenger trains, but on that train they still did it right. I was carrying a scanner (with earpiece, thank you), but I didn't have much to listen to except for dispatchers & freight trains in the vicinity of yards. The train simply ran on time and about the only thing I heard between conductor and engineer was a "That'll do" as they spotted the train at station platforms, and a "Highball" when the passengers were all detrained/boarded.

One of the Ohio Hub routes would connect Cleveland and Chicago via Fort Wayne.

 

And actually, the NS today is one of the Class 1 Railroad most willing to consider passenger trains in their corridors.  Both the NS and CSX have signed letters of endorsement of the Ohio Hub Plan and favor continued development of the plan.  The only thing the railroads want in return are suuificant improvements to the corridors that will create grater capacity for their freight traffic and as little conflict as possible between the freight and passenger traffic: both of which can be dealt with effectively under the Hub Plan.

 

The biggest obstacle to all of this is at the federal level and the lack of any kind of a funding and development program for rail projects that is on a par with what we invest in our highways and aviation system.

December 16, 2006

President of Amtrak Is Said to Oust 5 of Its Top Officials

By MATTHEW L. WALD

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — In an unusually large management shake-up, the new president of Amtrak fired four top officials Friday and put a fifth in a 90-day temporary position, current and former officials of the railroad said.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16amtrak.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fW%2fWald%2c%20Matthew%20L%2e&oref=slogin

 

Let the housecleaning begin!  Let's just hope this isn't also a house-wrecking.

This is sounding a little scary; whenever something/someone seems to be too good to be true, it/they usually are.

 

I like most of what he's saying; he sounds like he really wants to make passenger rail a significant part of the country's transportation infrastructure. It's so out of character for a Bush appointee, though, that I feel apprehension that he's either a wolf in sheep's clothing, or has a short tenure ahead of him (see Gunn, David L.).

 

Perhaps W has his hands full dealing with the adjustment of expectations and strategy in Iraq, though. He finally seems to comprehend that he's taken a severe smack upside the head in the elections.

 

As for the GAO recommendation that long-distance trains be discontinued, GAO pronouncements seem to be driven either by an obvious agenda or staggering cluelessness.

 

I recall a GAO study many years ago that said that the idea of high-speed trains should not be pursued, because Americans didn't ride them. Other than the possible exception of the Northeast Corridor, which was somewhat of a stretch then, Americans didn't have high-speed trains to ride. Duh!

 

Don Phillips, co-author of the article above, doesn't sugar-coat things; I respect his assessments.

Kummant seems to have a decent grip on what needs to be done.  The proof is in the follow-through. He seems to favor the elements of Senate Bill 1516, which is referred to in this article (though not by the bill name).  What this bill does is two-fold:

 

1.  It establishes a long-term (five-year) funding plan for Amtrak, which eliminates the ridiculous annual budget re-authorization that made Amtrak such a political yo-yo for it's first 35 years.  This brings stability and that breeds confidence among passengers and vendors who do business with Amtrak.

 

2. It also establishes that matching federal / state funding program that will be instrumental if we are to have any hope of building regional rail plans such as the Ohio Hub.

 

Kummant's statements are certainly encouraging.

Posted on Fri, Dec. 29, 2006

Fort Wayne News-Sentinel 

A guest column by Anthony B. Hausfeld

 

AutoTrain would be great idea for travelers in Midwest, too

 

The “snowbird” exodus to Florida has already begun. There are the “short-timers” and the “extended-timers,” all heading south from Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and many from Canada. The two distinct groups face a common challenge: how best to accomplish the 2,000-mile-plus round trip. For some it is rather routine, but for others it becomes a major transportation decision that involves lodging, convenience, cost, stress and endurance. If you have never experienced traveling Interstate 75 on a 1,000-plus mile jaunt with small kids, you have probably missed one of the great endurance challenges of a lifetime. Not to mention witnessing gridlock and/or a serious vehicle accident with traffic backed up for miles or driving at night in a rainstorm through Atlanta.

 

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/16344654.htm

There was an effort in the early 1990s to restore the Midwest-Florida Auto Train service, but the capital cost ($200+ million) and a lack of federal funding for Amtrak caused the idea to fade away.

 

BTW, here's something from NARP on Amtrak service during the last Colorado blizzard and the current one.......

 

Amtrak kept running during last week's Denver blizzard. Some of you

complained that the media didn't pay enough attention to this. The ABC

television news did have a good segment which gave Amtrak credit. As of

Thursday it was still viewable at

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2744510 Last week, Amtrak

apparently added no extra capacity; NARP complained. Now, with another

blizzard bearing down on Colorado, Amtrak has added some Chicago-Denver

coach seats.

I read the Kummant story and was encouraged by his positive responses. We'll just have to see how things go.

 

Midwest Auto-Train: This would be a good thing, but the cost would be high and it would have to be a one-night out setup if it was to be a success. That probably would mean Cincinnati-Sanford.

Well, if it were constructed to get the average speed up to 65-70 mph, wouldn't that be an overnight run from Chicago?  Of course, that takes money, which just isn't there right now. 

 

The Toledo Port Authority did a study several years ago of a Toledo-Sanford auto train.  The results were quite a bit better than they expected, and it revealed that half of the passengers would be from Canada.

Getting an average speed of 65-70 mph would be awfully tough in the rough terrain in the 475 rail miles between Cincinnati and Atlanta. The existing freight lines on this portion are suffering from serious traffic congestion, so we're probably talking about putting down lots of double-track, easing some curves and installing a cab-signal traffic control system to get those kinds of average speeds. Now we're probably looking at something at least $2 million per mile -- that's worth doing if we're going to have more than a half-dozen passenger trains per day (not just not an Auto Train), plus expanding freight capacity, to also ease the burden on parallel interstates. Not impossible. Just wanted to provide a taste of what might be involved.

If my recollection is correct, poor track conditions, slow orders and maybe even a couple of costly derailments were what brought an end to the midwest auto train from Louisville, as well as the Floridian. By the time the Floridian died, Lance Armstrong could have beaten it from Indianapolis to Louisville on his bike.

 

Given its railroad history and existing lines, I think Fort Wayne would be a possible midwest hub. The NS former Nickel Plate (Chicago - Cleveland - Buffalo) and former Wabash (Detroit - Kansas City) cross here and connect with the NS north-south line that runs through Queensgate in Cincinnati. In addition, there's the former PRR (Pittsburgh Fort Wayne & Chicago) main line now owned by CSX and leased to Chicago Fort Wayne & Eastern, that has been single-tracked. There are vacant or underutilized industrial sites with interstate highway and rail access that might be suitable for auto train staging.

 

Capacity improvements like those cited above by KJP would be needed, but the existing lines are all in excellent condition and capable of carrying quite a lot of traffic.

Yep, I remember the derailments. It killed the then-private Auto Train Corp. I was visiting Amtrak's Beech Grove shops outside Indianapolis in 1983 when the old Auto Train car carriers were coming in. They had that awful purplish striping on them!

 

And the east-west lines may have a decent amount of capacity (whether they have spare capacity is debatable), but the north-south lines south of Cincinnati and Louisville certainly don't. They are mostly single-tracked, with lots of twists and turns, and slow running. They never had the industrial traffic on them that the east-west lines through Ohio and Indiana had and were therefore never built with the same kind of track capacity as our northern lines. The L&N and Southern did have a fair bit of mineral and petroleum traffic on them, though. Now, most of CSX and NS's traffic is automotive and intermodal -- and growing as fast or faster than the southern cities they serve. There was an article recently in Trains magazine about the single-track NS line through Chattanooga and how its 30+ trains daily is clogging the hell out of it (compare that to the NS line through Waterloo, IN, Toledo and Cleveland with 80+ trains daily!). That second track and flat running sure makes a world of difference.

 

Sorry for the run-on, but it continues to amaze me how much rail traffic is growing. I doubt the average person even notices.

Without supporting infrastructure, the auto-train idea isn't feasible. Add to that the cost of equipment, probably 5 sets of 10 cars each, plus two locomotives and we end up with a capital cost of about $120 million. The political will isn't there to support that.

 

I'd rather see us look at ways to get real service to places like Ohio. How about extending existing trains into the state or revamping the Chicago-east coast service to better serve the have-nots?

 

Then there things like the Ohio Hub plan and the Midwest Regional High Speed Rail Initiative. If we get support for those things, THEN an auto-train makes sense, if layered on other existing infrastructure and services.

 

I might add that we really do have a need for more Chicago-east coast service as a part of the development of corridors in the region. Two Chicago-east coast trains (Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited) is just not enough.

Ever notice how all the good Amtrak news never occurs in Ohio?  The last good news we had was in 1998.  It has been all bad news since...

Good news about Amtrak in Ohio? That'll be the day! There has to be real service here for anything good to take place. All we have is middle-of-the-night "Draktrak."  :x

It seems, unless the Ohio Hub Plan flies (see: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1414.0), you're not likely to see improvement in Oiho.  Ohio's traditionally been an state that, while industrially strong, is anti-progressive, even backwards re: positive public works projects like train and public transp.  Too much squabbling and fiefdom mentality among the cities.  Almost all our neighbor states have regional funding for passenger rail -- even Indiana (for South Shore Line commuter district in Northern Ind).

 

... but now is clearly the hour to act on Ohio Hub with a Dem power structure in statewide.  It should be the time to really push the rail agenda here... If not now, probably never for this sorry state.

It will be uphill for anything other than highways. Doesn't mean we should give up, but the task is daunting.  :-(

No, certainly you're right; if anything, it is time to really fight for things like Amtrak... politically, we're as Amtrak-friendly a state as we'll be in forseeable times.

Good news about Amtrak in Ohio? That'll be the day! There has to be real service here for anything good to take place. All we have is middle-of-the-night "Draktrak."  :x

 

Yep, the last good news was the extension of the Pennsylvanian to Chicago which brought Ohio it's first daylight service in how many years?  Of course you got to Chicago and Philly at crappy hours, but Toledo to Harrisburg, the schedule were good.  That train lasted what, 4 years? 

It started in November of 1998 and ended in February 2003.

Rolling stock located for possible initiation of daylight service in Ohio:

 

Hey, it's daylight service!  :clap:

There's no really good alternative to daylight schedules, but an interim or stopgap measure might be set-out cars. Back in the day, the Nickel Plate ran a set-out sleeper between Fort Wayne and Cleveland. There was significant business travel between those two points, probably from GE, and the overnight accomodation was popular for business travelers. The eastbound sleeper was spotted at the depot in Fort Wayne, connected to station steam and power for heat/light/air conditioning, and an attendant was on board.

 

Cleveland-bound travelers could check in after 8 p.m. and go to bed whenever they liked. At the time, there were restaurants and entertainment spots near the depot. An eastbound train picked up the car late at night and arrived in Cleveland in the wee hours, where the sleeper was set out at the station. I think passengers had until 7 a.m. or so to detrain and go about their business.

 

The same concept would work with a coach, for passengers who don't want to or can't shell out the premium fare for sleeping accomodations.

 

I have a vague feeling I may have posted this comment before. If so, please excuse and chalk it up to senile babbling.

I didn't realize NKP did that on such a short-distance market, but as I write this, I recall seeing in Pennsylvania RR timetables that the PRR offered set-out sleepers between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. My father traveled with his father between Cleveland and New York City on New York Central, and boarded a set-out sleeper at Cleveland Union Terminal. They never felt the car being switched onto a New York City-bound passenger train. When they woke up in the morning, they raised the blinds to reveal the banks of the Hudson River speeding by their window. Now that's civility.

 

For that to work on Amtrak, I think some attention has to be paid to increasing the capacity of the existing freight railroads and get contracts with them that are based on fully allocated costs rather than the so-called "avoidable costs" their existing contracts are based on. And the set-out sleepers might work best for travelers going from Chicago to Cleveland because the time difference means having to wake up awfully early to catch a flight at Midway or O'Hare to make an early meeting in Cleveland (or fly the night before and spend a night in a Cleveland hotel). Amtrak could offer joint ticketing with an airline so travelers could take the train in one direction and fly in the other, and still get the round-trip discount.

 

 

Amtrak could offer joint ticketing with an airline so travelers could take the train in one direction and fly in the other, and still get the round-trip discount.

 

Funny you mention that, since *Continental* already does code shares with Amtrak from East Coast Cities (I believe Wilmington to New Haven) for flights out of its Newark hub. 

Amtrak could offer joint ticketing with an airline so travelers could take the train in one direction and fly in the other, and still get the round-trip discount.

 

Funny you mention that, since *Continental* already does code shares with Amtrak from East Coast Cities (I believe Wilmington to New Haven) for flights out of its Newark hub. 

 

That was aimed at USAir since Newark and Philly (this be worded wrong) since they share airspace in New Jersey and Continental is trying to break USAirs philly hub.

My point is, I think Continental would be amenable to future air/rail codesharing agreements since they already have one in place with Amtrak.

My point is, I think Continental would be amenable to future air/rail codesharing agreements since they already have one in place with Amtrak.

 

I agree, but I think its based on government approval, as they cannot code share out of all markets/cities on the NorthEast Cooridor.

I agree, but I think its based on government approval, as they cannot code share out of all markets/cities on the NorthEast Cooridor.

 

Unfortunately.  It would be easier to take the train to EWR for a Europe-bound trip, instead of a 30 minute flight!

In the late seventies didn't Amtrak run a transcontinental sleeper by way of a set-out in New Orleans? If I remember correctly, it arrived in the evening on one train and sat overnight, where passengers could use it as a hotel and go out on the town, and then the continuing train picked it up in the morning.

 

I think Amtrak and one of the airlines offered the "train one way / fly the other" package at one time, too, didn't they? I'm thinking it might have been United Airlines, because I remember telling someone that I'd prefer to take the train going and return by air, because although I might reach my destination late, there was some chance my luggage would arrive with me.

I agree, but I think its based on government approval, as they cannot code share out of all markets/cities on the NorthEast Cooridor.

 

Unfortunately.  It would be easier to take the train to EWR for a Europe-bound trip, instead of a 30 minute flight!

 

Yeah, often that scheduled 38 minute flight (actual flying time) ends up being hours!

 

Honestly, the longest I can stand being on the train is 1 15 minutes, which is the time it takes to go from NYC to Philly.

 

I find I get more work done, flying, than on the train.

Boom times for passenger trains

Billions of dollars in improvement capital is in sight for America’s passenger rail business, and for once Amtrak seems headed for the winners’ circle.

By Luther S. Miller, Senior Editorial Consultant

railwayage.com

 

The passenger rail industry is once again a growth industry, a proposition amply supported by the glowing health and steady expansion of rail transit across the continent (see “ A December to remember,” p. 22.) In recent years, though, it has been necessary to amend that statement with the caveat that Amtrak is, of course, an exception. A company under sentence of dismemberment, if not death, cannot sensibly be said to be in a growth mode.

 

 

http://www.railwayage.com/A/feature2.html

Amtrak could offer joint ticketing with an airline so travelers could take the train in one direction and fly in the other, and still get the round-trip discount.

 

Funny you mention that, since *Continental* already does code shares with Amtrak from East Coast Cities (I believe Wilmington to New Haven) for flights out of its Newark hub. 

 

CAL also "codeshared" with a bus service from Newark to Allentown-Bethlehem PA back in the 90's. It may still be in effect now, I don't know. They're pretty creative in trying to get people to EWR.

Amtrak could offer joint ticketing with an airline so travelers could take the train in one direction and fly in the other, and still get the round-trip discount.

 

Funny you mention that, since *Continental* already does code shares with Amtrak from East Coast Cities (I believe Wilmington to New Haven) for flights out of its Newark hub. 

 

CAL also "codeshared" with a bus service from Newark to Allentown-Bethlehem PA back in the 90's. It may still be in effect now, I don't know. They're pretty creative in trying to get people to EWR.

 

They offered bus service to/from Cleveland as well, in addition to dropping service to Akron.  The Bus services stopped after 9/11

From the NARP Hotline.... www.narp.org

 

Prospects look good for revival of the Lott-Lautenberg Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (Amtrak Reauthorization). 

 

In addition, the Washington Post on Tuesday reported, “House Democrats are crafting an energy package that would roll back billions of dollars worth of oil drilling incentives, raise billions more by boosting federal royalties paid by oil and gas companies for offshore production, and plow the money into new tax breaks for renewable energy sources, congressional sources said yesterday.” Consider urging your representative to fight to broaden the use of tax breaks to include passenger rail, given Amtrak’s superior energy efficiency.

 

More broadly, reach out to your legislators—especially if they are freshmen.  Ask them to support a higher level of funding for Amtrak and to urge their leadership to take up an Amtrak reauthorization bill.

 

The 110th Congress was sworn in on Thursday. Among the many tasks facing legislators is passage of some type of measure to fund the government for the remainder of Fiscal 2007, and beginning work on the Fiscal 2008 funding bills.  Regarding 2007, appropriators are negotiating programs individually, reportedly with most programs set to receive at least what they got in FY 2006.  That would mean at least $1.3 billion for Amtrak, $200 million better than the $1.1 billion level in the current continuing resolution.  Amtrak hopes for at least $1.4 billion. 

 

The federal transit program has a different situation.  American Public Transportation Association President William Millar says a freeze at FY 2006 levels would cut transit $475 million below the FY 2007 leveled supposedly guaranteed in SAFETEA-LU.

 

 

Noozer:  I hope NARP is right about the Lott-Lautenberg bill.  The structural changes to Amtrak and federal transportation policy in this bill are crucial if we are ever to move forward with modern passenger rail in this country.  It stuns me how the US can be so advanced and so backward all at the same time...

Me too.  But with a new majority in both Houses of Congress, I think we've got the best chance in decades to get some significant and realistic rail funding legislation passed: SB-1516 (Lott-Lautenberg) among them. 

 

But what's even more encouraging are th "signals" being sent by Amtrak's CEO (Kummant), which seems to indicate that if Congress acts on SB-1516, the Administration isn't going to oppose it.

The follopwing is also good news for stae-generated rail plans like the Ohio Hub:

 

Rail Passengers Support Reintroduction of Rail Passenger Bill

 

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, January 16, 2007--#07-01

Contacts: Ross Capon, David Johnson 202-408-8362

 

 

Washington, D.C.--Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Trent Lott (R-MS), appearing at a joint news conference this noon at Washington Union Station, announced that they were introducing today their Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. The new bill, S. 294, is similar to S. 1516 in the last Congress, except for changes in the dates and technical amendments. S. 294 also includes the rail security package that the Senate has passed unanimously three times, most recently as H.R.4954, the SAFE Port Act (109th Congress).

Both senators alluded with humor to the change in control on Capitol Hill.  Lott said the bill "used to be Lott-Lautenberg. Now, it's Lautenberg-Lott. We never miss a step...There are some things in Washington that are truly bipartisan, including transportation...There are limits to how many lanes we can build, how many planes we can fly."

 

Lautenberg said, "We have a chance to get Amtrak back on track...The future of Amtrak is looking bright...Congress is ready to pass a bill to revitalize Amtrak...I chair the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine.  This bill is my top priority."

 

NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon said, "We applaud the continued, strong, bipartisan work of Senators Lautenberg and Lott to get this reauthorization passed. This lays the foundation for meaningful federal support for state corridor development. It also should encourage the appropriations committees to focus on funding and not on micromanaging legislative provisions."

 

[More comments by the two senators from today's news conference are at http://www.narprail.org, look for the "What's Hot?" feature on the right side of the page.]

 

# # #

The provisions in this bill are a vital first step to really start moving things forward with intercity passenger rail.  It makes some important structural changes to Amtrak and requires USDOT to develop a national transportation policy-- something they were supposed to do when they were created in the 60s, but never did. 

 

What can you do for the revolution today:  Easy-- ask your Reps and Senators to support this bill (although I don't think it has been introduced in the House yet, but it will be). 

It's interesting to note that Ohio has three Members of Congress (the House side) on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee:  Cong. Steve LaTourette from Northeast Ohio.... Cong. Zack Space from Central Ohio... and Cong. Jean Schmidt from Southwest Ohio.  That literally covers the representation in the 3-C (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) Corridor, which will likely be the first of the Ohio Hub Corridors to be built.

 

All three need to hear from us about Senate Bill 249 and the need to support it on the House side.

Posted: Tuesday, Jan 16, 2007 - 07:58:38 am CST

 

States step up to fund Amtrak service, but want federal match

 

By SARAH KARUSH

Associated Press Writer

 

The Pacific Surfliner, running from San Luis Obispo, Calif., down the coast to San Diego, is Amtrak's second-most popular route, with nearly 2.7 million passengers last year.

 

But one thing sets it apart from most other trains run by the federally funded passenger railroad: It's paid for by the state of California.

 

http://newstribune.com/articles/2007/01/16/news_state/349state33amtrak.txt

Kempton and Tai said any legislation that is passed should take into account past investments by states, so that those that did step up to fund Amtrak in the past are not penalized. They said one way to do that would be to provide them with a more generous match in the beginning.

 

Glad to see they're keeping that provision. Noozer, in this new bill, are you aware of how far back are state investments eligible as contributions to leverage federal funds?

 

For those who don't know, Ohio has spent tens of millions of dollars on most of the Ohio Hub corridors to build road-rail overpasses/underpasses. Those should count toward the state's share to leverage federal funds once the Ohio Hub is funding eligible.

 

Outside of Amtrak's busiest route - the northeast corridor from Boston to Washington - the state corridors are the biggest success stories. They provide a stark-contrast to the railroad's long-distance trains, which many critics believe should be eliminated because they are costly and attract comparatively few riders.

 

Not true! Long distance trains are very well patronized and bring in about half of Amtrak's ticket revenue. More media BS.

Yep. The Lake Shore Limited carries as many people as some corridor routes with multiple-daily trains. It's just the media making assumptions based on facts that they don't have. (And don't use that damn cliche about what happens when someone makes an assumption!)

The original Lott-lautenberg Bill (SB-1516) allowed states to grandfather state funds spent on passenger rail infrastructure back to the year 2000.  I haven't seen anything to indicate that has changed.

 

Given that ODOT has funded numerous grade separation projects and that ORDC has completed over 1,000 grade crossing safety upgrades (new lights and gates) on mostly potential passenger rail corridors.... this alone could amount to a sizeable potential "match" for federal dollars.  It wouldn't be enough top build the entire Ohio Hub, but it would be a very good start.