Is Ohio Getting Railroaded by Slow, Costly Train to the Past?
Addiction to Cars, Planes, Limited Funding Obstacles to High Speed Trains, Experts Say
Opeditude by John Michael Spinelli
April 10, 2009
COLUMBUS, OHIO: A lot of digital ink has been spilled of late by Ohio's mainstream media and blogger community about whether resurrecting passenger rail service diagonally across the state is a good or bad decision. Given the state's ongoing fiscal failings, the debate about whether it will ever amount to anything more than a slow train to the past, even after a decade or more passes and over a billion in additional federal and state funding is thrown at it, is absolutely critical. But to make sense of it, facts and views other than those routinely posited by government officials is sorely needed.
I reported in early April that Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, supported by his Democratic homies and even some Republicans, agreed to retain in the recently passed $9.6 billion state Transportation Budget the expensive commitment to resume passenger rail service that will link, after 41 years of no rail cars but lots of studies, Cleveland to Cincinnati via Columbus and Dayton or the 3-C Corridor. Since then slow slow freight trains creep along the 260-mile swath of surface-grade steel rails that runs in close proximity to 5.9 million people or 60 percent of Ohio's population.
Speaking to a townhall meeting of mostly young people in Strasbourg, France, last week, President Barack Obama expressed to his audience his desire to emulate European-style high-speed trains back home. "One thing that, as an American who is proud as anybody of my country, I am always jealous about European trains," CNN reported Obama saying. "And I said to myself, why can't we have -- why can't we have high-speed rail? And so we're investing in that as well?"
Such fresh thinking on rail, when compared to the lack of same from former President George W. Bush, who showed no interest in passenger rail, has rightfully generated a runaway train of buzz. Conventional railroad advocates and special interests are actively lobbying public officials to blow their whistle for patching up an old, costly, slow system that will be even older in 2025 when outdated plans say the old system connecting major Midwestern cities including Chicago will be built out. Don't ask about cost. No one knows. But well-paid consultants are probably working on the right answers. The growing legion of supporters for the slow train to the past include the usual suspects of chambers, planning groups, corporate and community groups, who know little about railroads except that a sluice gate of federal funding is open, spewing billions for special-interest consultants to who want officials, great and small, to think their village, town or burg will some day be a stop on the high-speed rail (HSR) line.
But what's really coming down the track, unfortunately, is a slow, costly train to heartbreak city. Americans, who are not being well serviced by media that either doesn't understand the facts about rail or is to co-opted to challenge the misleading misinformation being trotted out by government spokespeople, should know that unless they are willing to increase their federal, state and local tax burden by multiples, the fantasy of whisking along at speeds nearing 200-mph as you enjoy a beverage as trains in Europe, Japan or China routinely do, will be just that -- a fantasy.
It just will not be in the cards for a state like Ohio, who may be looking at budget red ink for years to come, to deliver on what state officials routinely say is such a good business decision that taxpayers can expect to both pay a minimum of $10 million a year in public subsidy and not really ride it for maybe ten years or more. When states like California, which recently passed a $9.5 billion HSR bond issue, or Florida, which made a statewide commitment to HSR in 2000 only to reverse itself in 2004 when the bids came in twice what the public was told, show how many box cars of money will be needed to chase the European model, Ohio should perk up and take notice. If it doesn't, the light at the end of the tunnel will be that of an oncoming debt train, and Ohioans will be riding coach on it for years to come.
But while media stories about HSR and "bullet" trains abound these days, one expert says not only are European and U.S. high-speed standards different, but that the money Obama has to offer isn't enough to "build a single system, or to dramatically increase existing train speeds."
Joseph Vranich, The author of "End of the Line: Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America's Passenger Trains" and a former Amtrak public affairs spokesman, says the illusion of Euro-style HSR here is a mismatch. "We're not Europe. We're not Japan. We're looking at shorter travel times, through population densities that are much higher," Vranich told the AP. While $8 billion may sound like a lot, Vranich was not optimistic. "Here's what's going to happen: The (Obama) administration will issue these funds in dribs and drabs — to this project and that project — and the result will be an Amtrak train from Chicago to St. Louis that takes maybe 15 minutes off the travel time."
Another natural supporter of passenger rail, Ross Capon of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, someone who believes that "anything is better than nothing," sees other reasons why HSR won't happen anytime soon. Capon told Deborah Hastings of the AP that Americans are wed to their cars and enjoy planes. "The reason why high-speed rail has never taken off is because this country is determined to live on cheap gasoline and airplane travel," he said, adding, "It's very likely that all of the money will go to significant improvements of existing tracks. It's not going to build bullet trains." But purpose-driven, exorbitantly expensive tracks are indeed what bullet trains need to run on.
The misleading and false notion that upgrading freight tracks to accommodate high speed trains may be behind the announcement Friday by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), who along with his state Congressional Delegation is asking the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, another son of Illinois, to support their effort to revive the passenger rail car manufacturing industry in Illinois.
To really have a European-style high-speed train system here, a new, separate and independent system of rails must be built. That won't happen. And since the rail system we have is designed for freight, conventional trains that will run on them at conventional speeds could use American made passeenger rail cars.
According to a media release from Durbin's office, the U.S. Department of Transportation recently announced that $90.8 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been committed to rehabilitating train cars in the United States and returning them to service - the average age of an Amtrak car is now 25 years.
"It is time to establish rolling stock manufacturers here in the United States," Durbin wrote. "Although we no longer manufacture passenger rail cars in Illinois, Illinois is still home to a vibrant rail industry that has the capacity to quickly modify existing facilities to accommodate the production of passenger rail rolling stock."
Durbin believes the "time is ripe to harness Illinois' position and to capitalize on the massive new investment into intercity passenger rail. With the Department's assistance we could bring good paying jobs to the United States while advancing cleaner, cheaper and greener transportation options for Americans."
Laudable on its merits, Durbin's call to start manufacturing on rail cars in Illinois points out the unavoidable fact that the tsunami of federal dollars washing over America for rail infrastructure projects will be shipped overseas to countries like France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Japan and China, where advanced train technology is headquartered in the handful of companies who can build really fast trains. For a global scorecard of who the big players are, this Business Week article identifies the major players. One of them, Siemens, was found guilty of orchestrating a vast, global sytem of bribes that were budgeted for like any other line of expense.
Ohio transportation director Jolene Molitoris, who directed the Federal Railroad Administration as its first women administrator but who never run a railroad, testified in Washington recently along with Joe Boardman, President and CEO of Amtrak, who actually runs a railroad - Amtrak, established in 1971. Boardman testified that the train of the future must be safer, improve operations, equipment and signaling; it must uppdate our plant and be financially healthier; it must al be for the nation and the environment by being greener, reduce emissions and reduce demand for imported oil. The 3-C Corridor train Molitoris supports accomplishes none of these goals, but will cost consumer billions and take decades to fully bloom if it ever does.
In his presentation before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development of the Committee on Appropriations, Boardman identified six conventional railroad bridges built before the Model-T in 1908 that while still in use, will cost many billions to replace in order that conventional steel-wheel train technology can still run. Such expenditures would be obviated if an advanced train system like Tubular Rail is used, because TR technology doesn't need roads or bridges to work. Moreover, visionary, future-designed TR technology can be built in America instead of other countries like Canada or France, where key parts for the Amtrak's Acela train, the only high-speed train in America, were purchased, respectfully, from Bombardier and Alstrom.
Interviewed by ABC news, Amtrak's Boardman said, "The track that's out there today ... for most of it we can't go over 79 miles per hour." Boardman, who acknowledge that upgrading current freight-rail tracks will only permit trains traveling at 110-mph, said President Obama "is not talking about high-speed rail -- those are those bullet trains in Japan and France" and that it will take much more money than the government has allocated already to truly bring about high-speed rail.
"We are not going to see 200 miles per hour trains with an $8 billion investment," Boardman said, reported by ABC news. The Economist, in an aptly named article, "Slower than a speeding bullet," makes the same argument in correctly comparing high-speed to medium-speed trains.
It's not too late, thought, to stop Ohio from getting railroaded. For that to happen, Gov. Strickland and members of the General Assembly must be given a full spectrum of technology choices to choose from other than a slow train or no train. Companies with innovative ideas are out there. Not to include their potential in the debate is short sighted at best and reckless at worst. In no other industry is the status quo so fiercely defended as it is in transportation. If the average citizen, taxpayer or elected public official was given a choice between candles and electricity, hotair balloons and planes, stagecoaches and cars, galleons and cruise ships, who would choose the former? What would happen if pharmaceutical companies stopped making new drugs to cure sickness or prlong life, or Internet developers stopped developing?
Would we think that's a good thing? Hardly, so why do we say old, slow, expensive surface-level steel-rail trains is the best we can do?
Contrary to inventors and innovators who constantly look for the new, new thing, it appears some transportation officials, in Ohio and elsewhere, think early 20th century train technology is as good as it gets. If speed makes trains competitive with cars and planes, Ohio's slow train to the past is a bad alchemy of wasted dollars and time.
John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional, business and travel writer and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is also Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com
Posts
