Hat tip to Noozer who pointed us to a Cleveland Plain Dealer article that has a nice summary of the recent passage of SB-6003, and what it means to Ohioans. I’ll just say this about the title…If $4.00 gasoline is a “nightmare”, then I suppose high-speed rail in Ohio qualifies as a “dream”. I can’t wait until it’s the “norm”, and folks start questioning the highway network we keep expanding.
Congress revives high-speed rail dream for Ohio
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Sarah Hollander, Plain Dealer ReporterIf the state could write its own ticket, trains traveling 110 miles an hour would whisk passengers between major and minor cities throughout Ohio.
But at billions of dollars, an extensive high-speed rail network always seemed ambitious at best, unrealistic at worst. Until now.
Legislation working its way through Congress - the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act - has local rail advocates almost giddy with excitement.
The act proposes an up to 80 percent match to help states create or improve passenger rail service.
It also provides $350 million per year in competitive grants for states and Amtrak, specifically for high-speed rail projects.
“This is a huge step,” said Stu Nicholson of the Ohio Rail Development Commission. “A bill like this could make the difference between a plan and a project.”
With gasoline prices soaring, the time is right for rail alternatives, he said.
The legislation, if it stands, signals a landmark shift in national policy toward supporting rail, said Rep. Steven LaTourette.
The act proposes a federal-state partnership that’s more commonly associated with highway projects, he said.
LaTourette, a Bainbridge Township Republican, foresees focusing on one route, possibly a line through Cleveland and northern Ohio, first. Providing clean, fast, convenient service could drag more people out of their cars and encourage further rail investments, he said.
“Imagine if [rail] becomes as popular as it is in Europe and Asia,” he said.
Ohio began working on the hub plan more than a decade ago with a mission to improve both passenger and freight rail service.
The plan includes more than 1,200 miles of track and 46 stations. The seven corridors would connect to planned or existing networks in neighboring states and southern Ontario.
I just don’t know why they stopped at 110 mph for their “high speed rail” solution. After just getting back from Europe and riding several trains at over 180 mph, 110 mph seems like a slow speed for newly constructed lines. It might not matter too much if travelling from Cleveland to Columbus. But it might make a difference going from Cleveland to Cincinnati, or Buffalo to Cincy, for example.
High-speed rail in the European or Pacific Rim sense of the phrase will eventually happen in the United States, but the cost in land acquisition and construction costs make it difficult to build in the short-term. That’s why most states (Ohio included) are defining “high speed” as 110. That over 30 mph faster than conventional Amtrak speeds (79mph). It might be more properly termed “High-performance” passenger rail.
People also get way to caught up in travel times and forget that even a moderately faster time on a train is also “productive” time that is gained over what one can do (at least safely) while driving a car: (using a laptop, talking on a cell phone, watching a DVD, prepping for a meeting in the destination city).
BTW: 110 mph will get you from Columbus to Cleveland in just under and hour and half. I’ll take that over having to drive I-71 any day.
http://dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/06/20/amtrak.ART_ART_06-20-08_A10_I2AHD0O.html?sid=101
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.
Following years of surviving, just barely, on year-to-year appropriations, Amtrak finally can plan for expansions and equipment upgrades. As the quality of air service falls, the price of gasoline rises and Americans demand more transportation alternatives, the timing is right.
President Bush has threatened to veto the measure, but both houses of Congress passed it by veto-proof margins. Increased support for Amtrak in Congress isn’t surprising, given the public’s growing interest in rail travel.
Amtrak ridership reached a record of 25.8 million passengers in the past year. May’s numbers were up sharply from the year before: The number of passengers grew by 12 percent and revenues climbed by 16 percent.
Even if the bill’s full $15 billion eventually is appropriated, it won’t begin to cover all the equipment replacement and new service that Amtrak customers and cities without any service would like to see, but it’s a step forward.
The Ohio Rail Development Commission is ecstatic, hoping some of the state-grant money might come to some of the items on the commission’s long wish list. It includes re-establishing passenger-train service to Columbus, which has had none since 1979, and developing several corridors for higher-speed trains — not the bullet trains of Europe, by any means, but those that could provide efficient trips at speeds of up to 110 mph. The commission has identified desired corridors, including a 3-C route connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, plus four routes from Cleveland and three from Columbus to regional destinations.
The bill also represents a fundamental shift in philosophy regarding passenger rail: No longer does Congress demand that Amtrak become self-sustaining, a feat that has not been achieved by any of the world’s major rail systems, and none of them face the challenges confronting Amtrak in a car-dominant society. Instead, the bill establishes a goal for Amtrak of better service, which riders would attest is greatly needed.
Some performance problems, including hours-long delays common on cross-country routes, can be blamed in part on extra hurdles the system faces. A key one is that many of its routes use tracks owned by freight railroads, meaning that if schedules conflict, Amtrak trains must wait for the freight trains to pass.
If passenger rail is to become a significant option for Americans, Amtrak’s efficiency and customer service will have to improve. The bill’s requirements for greater accountability and standardized business practices throughout the agency should help with that goal.
[...] Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH 15th) in response to a letter of thanks that I sent her for voting Yea on H.R. 6003: The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. It may not be a deeply personal letter, but at least it lets her constituents know where she [...]