Ohio Chugs Forward on Billion Dollar Train Museum Plan

Ohio Chugs Forward on Billion Dollar Train Museum Plan

State Rail Planners Silent on Future Costs

Should All Taxpayers or Just 3-C Corridor Cities Subsidize Slow Train Plan?
by John Michael Spinelli

April 20, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: During a visit last week to Detroit, where Ohio Governor Ted Strickland heard in first person from executives of General Motors that its Chevrolet Cruze will be built at Lordstown in northeast Ohio near Cleveland, he took a spin in two new advanced technology vehicles. One was an electric-powered truck cab made by GM, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and one was a new fuel efficient engine produced by Ford, whose financial health is far better than either GM or Chrysler, who soon may also be seeking last rights. Together, about 250 thousand Ohio jobs are tied to Detroit's Big Three automakers.

Governor Strickland, a first-term governor gearing up for re-election in 2010, was no doubt impressed with the advancements in car and truck technology embodied in the new-century vehicles he drove.

A DECADE AND A BILLION DOLLARS TO BUILD A TRAIN MUSEUM

But as the first Democratic governor in 16 years of a state hard hit by the loss of 150 thousand or more manufacturing jobs this decade alone, and that was among the only three states not to recover from the recession of 2001 and whose official unemployment rate last week reached 9.7 percent , the highest in 25 years, why would the good governor push a billion dollar plan to reestablish train-museum era locomotives that won't be pulling out of any railroad stations for years to come, and that when they do, will only average 57-mph, a speed so slow that it'll be a state-sized equivalent of the kind of kiddie train that runs in circles around zoos?

With a transportation department (ODOT) that has soaked up billions of tax dollars every two years for decades, why would Strickland be so ill informed about advancements in train technology that he should be interested instead to clinging to 100-year old slow, costly trains?

Is he misinformed because ODOT'S new duo of co-deputy directors don't know anything about railroads or train technology? Maybe he's being sidetracked by a director that while she once administered the Federal Railroad Administration and is credited for improving Amtrak's customer service , is not an engineer by training and has never run a railroad? One simple explanation is that the Ohio Rail Development Commission, which has been tinkering for decades with patch-ups of a quilt of shrinking freight rail tracks, has its engine up its caboose, despite having studied the matter ever since the last passenger train that crossed the state diagonally stopped running 41 years ago. A second simple reason for misinforming Gov. Strickland is to keep under wraps the real costs of the system. When real bids come, they will likely trigger a ferocious backlash of opposition from taxpayers who are their jobs, lives and futures with each passing day and will not be in any mood to financially fuel a debt train to the past just so a few people can ride them.

THE REALITY OF REAL RAIL COSTS

As a refresher course on real rail costs you won't hear from either ORDC or the media, digest these numbers before rushing where angels fear to tread: High-speed rai (HSR)l - $40 to $80M/mile - (German [maglev] - $77M/mile); Commuter rail (Existent track) - $24 million/mile; Urban light rail - $30 to $60 million/mile - (Houston - $37 M/mi). When an ORDC spokesman was asked by one reporter whether faster trains would require new tracks that cost considerably more, despite years of time and millions spent on consults to study the issue, he could "not give an estimate" to the question. Being silent on future costs is always a bad sign. It should be a big red flag for Strickland, lawmakers and Ohio taxpayers that danger lies ahead. Floridians have already recoiled from the sour news about the real costs of real HSR and California, which barely passed a nearly $10 billion bond plan that will only cover one-quarter of the system envisioned by its HSR authority, may find a new ballot issue that reverses the vote in November.

What ever the reasons are behind Strickland going down the wrong track at a time when President Barack Obama is doing a 180 degree turnaround from President Bush on restoring passenger trains to Ohio by budgeting $8 billion now and $5 billion more over five years, he should be as excited about learning about other advanced train technology as he was tooling around in new vehicle products from GM or Ford.

NOT ALL MEDIA LAZY ON HSR

Part of the problem is the utter failure of the media to report on views other than what government spokespeople, paid to defend the status quo, are saying about upgrading freight rail tracks to one day accommodate high-speed trains. The "news" in newspaper seems unimportant to many reporters who regurgitate government talking points on HSR no matter how lame or lacking in solid evidence they are.

Case in point, The Columbus Dispatch ran yet another article on Ohio's misguided effort to spend a billion plus dollars on pushing a slow train to the past. ODOT spokesman Scott Varner went unchallenged by the reporter when he declared upgrading old freight rail tracks will lead to HSR. "That's how you get to these higher speeds -- you start with conventional speed," Varner, who should know better, said.

Varner's statement is just false. But lazy media types who refuse to include opposing views do a big disservice to their readers, who are as well intentioned as Ohio's good governor but as in the dark as he is about the potential for new-century transportation technology that is faster, greener, less costly and less disruptive to the environment than freight-rail trains or even Euro-style trains that travel at speeds exceeding 200-mph or more.

But some reporters do understand the dynamics of HSR as envisioned by Obama. They know it is woefully underfunded -- a national system could exceed $1 trillion -- and that, as proposed, will never allow really fast trains to run on really slow tracks, which by the way are way beyond capacity for existing freight rail traffic that is expected to increase.

Mark Stencel, a Congressional Quarterly columnist , made it clear in this piece. An editorial in The Oregonian said what other reporters refuse to say, which is conflating the U.S. and European standards for high speed rail is like "calling dial-up Internet service 'high-speed' and therefore fast enough." Investors Business Daily editorialized that federal funding is a fraction of what is needed to properly build out a separate, dedication track system for high-speed trains. It also said "People are likelier to ask the tough questions about cost-effectiveness when they know the costs are being paid straight from their pockets," a call to fund it by increased gas taxes, as is done in Europe and elsewhere, or by cities who stand to benefit from rail traffic, like Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland in the case of Ohio.

CLINGING TO OLD TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY NOT SMART

Robert Pulliam, inventor and founder of Tubular Rail , an advanced train technology company based in Texas, said government officials should spend more time "stretching the dollar rather than the truth." Pulliam's Tubular Rail, while yet "unproven technology," showcases what leaders like Strickland and others should be be opting for as a way to bring needed jobs and economic development to his state, which is gasping for help in these areas.

Walt Brewer, writing in the Voice of San Diego, offers sound logic about why a military-style process should be applied to transportation technology because it supports military needs in many areas.

"Why don't we have an equivalent interactive overview for the nation's future transportation facilities and operations supported by objective facts based analysis?" he asks. He notes that "'Blue Ribbon' Committees have dealt more with raising funds to continue more of the same roads and transit, without identifying technology driven major new systems intended to absorb inevitable growth, and reduce energy use, land use and pollution. Transportation clings to concepts 100 years or more old."

Brewer opines that national highway support comes from one agency and is unrelated to the one supporting mass transit. "Clearly there is need for coordinating investments into different modes reflecting cost effective facts based analysis taking advantage of new technologies beginning to appear."

OHIOANS, NATION WILL WAKE UP WHEN THEY LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT HSR

In his written statement supporting Obama's plan for restoring passenger rail service, Gov. Strickland said this: "When completed, the Ohio Hub will connect Ohio communities with each other and with neighboring states, including the three federally-designated high-speed corridors that will link Cleveland and Cincinnati to Chicago, and link Cleveland and Cincinnati via Columbus."

One Ohio blogger, who notes that just when the Federal government is ready to push this green technology, the state "isn’t ready with plans to put us on the map." David Esrati writes at Dayton OS that "It’s critical for Ohio’s future to have solutions that aren’t based on cars. Right now, our elected officials should be scrambling to Washington to get our high-speed rail line on their radar."

When Ohioans know specifics related to cost and time, the "when" in Strickland's statement on the Ohio Hub Plan - a fantasy document by some accounts -- will change to "why do it" when less expensive, far faster and greener energy train technology exists now to challenge the slow train-museum plan to the past that achieves none of the goals supporters of HSR rail say are needed going forward.

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