Strickland Admits High-Speed Rail Won't be High-Speed Anytime Soon

Strickland Admits High-Speed Rail Won't be High-Speed Anytime Soon

GOA Says FRA High-Speed Rail Initiative a "Vision...not a strategic plan."

Chicago-St. Louis Rail Corridor Gains Speed as 1st Route for Midwest Corridor

An Opeditude by John Michael Spinelli

June 25, 2009

COLUMBUS, OHIO: Calling into a rough and tumble, shock-jock radio show broadcasting from Cincinnati Wednesday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said Ohio needs to be included in the passenger rail system known as the Midwest Corridor, but admitted that Ohio's system would only run at slow, conventional speeds "in the near term" and that if ridership was poor, real "high-speed trains would not run in Ohio."

Strickland, a first-term Democratic Governor readying to mount a second-term campaign in 2010, spoke for a few minutes on the powerful station, answering a couple questions on his most recent proposal to plug a $3.2 billion hole in the next state budget, which by law is to start July 1. As Strickland and the Ohio House and Senate wrestle to find accommodation with each other on hundreds of differences between versions of the state budget each chamber passed in the preceding month, the political drama of who will win the day, and at what cost, is only starting to unfold. If this state budget were a weather event, high tides and fierce winds can be seen approaching on the horizon.

Eddie and Tracy, the hosts of the radio show heard on WLW700am, set the stage prior to Strickland calling in by stating their hostility for the Governor's passenger rail proposal. Jibberjabbering to kill time until they could throw questions at Strickland, the duo demonstrated their anti-rail plan bias, saying everyone they had talked to thought his idea to resuscitate long-dead passenger rail service between Cincinnati and Cleveland via Columbus or the 3-C Corridor was "a horrible idea." Others have said that if a billion dollars is going to be spent on it, it ought to at least be fast. But speed, the one essential ingredient that will attract riders, will be absent. Based on speed calculations from the Ohio Department of Transportation, the passenger train will only average 57-mph, a truly turtle pace.

Buoyant and optimistic despite the sour, declining economic health of the state and its next budget, Strickland again repeated his warning that if Ohio didn't take advantage of federal stimulus dollars being handed out by President Barack Obama's administration for the development of high-speed rail (HSR), Ohio will "be an island...because we won't be hooked into a system that involves entire Midwest."

Talking in general terms, Strickland said that if people had real choices of other modes of transportation, "they wouldn't need a car." But Ohio has cut its funding for mass transit by 60 percent over the last decade and intra-city/regional bus service is only poor at best, if it exists at all. Responding to the simple question of what's the economic upside to the state for a first-phase, conventional speed passenger train system that will cost a minimum of $1 billion to build, all the upbeat Governor could say is that all Ohio's "sports teams are urging him to proceed." One can only wonder how enthusiastic those sports team would be if they had to reach into their wallets to pay for it. Such user-fee revenues are fast becoming a tool of choice Washington is looking to more and more, as its spending comes into question by many who say huge deficits will break us all over time.

But even given what he called "modest" yearly public subsidies the system would need to cover its costs, Strickland said investing in passenger rail is less costly that investing in highways. But roads and bridges are what tie us together now, and as cars become more fuel efficient and cooler in terms of technology, drivers will opt for the privacy and convenience of their cars instead of trains that, after a six hour or more slow ride to the past, will dump them in urban cores where other transportation modes are slim to none, affectively marooning them at their destination.

"We won't establish high-speed rail in the near term," said Strickland, adding that spending upwards of $400 million was a "fairly modest first-step that would establish regular-speed [@ 79-mph] rail service." But putting the caboose before the engine, Strickland, whose job approval numbers have been ebbing as Ohio continues to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs on his watch, said, "if people didn't support it to justify further investment, then we wouldn't have to go to high speed." But for Strickland and his railroad advisers at ODOT, top high-speed means reaching 110-mph, a far cry in reality and cost from the HSR speeds Euro-style trains reach, which top out at 220-mph or more. But even with slick trains that fly along specially built, exorbitantly priced tracks that by design minimize cross traffic or signaling, even France's famous TGV trains have average speeds of 120-mph or less for their trips, according to reputable rail sources.

Strickland likely had not read through the seven-page testimony given Tuesday by Susan A. Fleming, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues for the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safey, and Security, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the US Senate.

If Strickland or his Director of Transportation have read it, then they know the GAO has concluded that, while the potential benefits of HSR projects are many, "these projects--both here and abroad-- are costly, take years to develop and build, and require substantial up-front public investment, as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies."

Furthermore, Fleming said President Obama's allocation of a paltry $8 billion for HSR is more a "vision...than a strageic plan," and that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the agency his Director of Transportation headed during the Clinton Administration, has "not established clear goals for the federal government in high-speed rail--other than establishing a 'longer term goal of developing a national high-speed intercity passenger rail network of corridors'--and does not define a clear federal role for involvement in high-speed rail projects other than providing Recovery Act funds."

Fleming said the $8 billion allocated to HSR development is "only a small fraction of the estimated costs for starting or enhancing service on the 11 federally authorized high-speed rail corridors." Sustained funding for HSR will come at the cost of taking federal funds away from other national priorities like health care, national defense, and support for ailing industries, which Ohio has a lot of these days, as Detroit's Big Three automakers try to reinvent themselves or face extinction in the marketplace.

Even though the 3-C Corridor is on the periphery of the federal Midwest corridor, the heart of this system is Chicago, which all train watchers expect to benefit from handsomely, given President Obama's long ties to Illinois and the Windy City, his home prior to the White House.

Making the point that Ohio, where passenger trains stopped running nearly 42 years ago and whose rail plans are so ill formed when compared to plans of states around it, likely won't fair well in snagging any meaningful Obama dollars, the governors of Illinois and Missouri, Quinn and Nixon respectively, have teamed up to lobby for an important share of Midwest Corridor funds to complete a high-speed train route connecting Chicago to St. Louis. For Michigan Governor Jennifer Grandholm, Chicago is at the other end of a HSR route from Detroit. And for Ohio, Toledo should be more energized to connect to this route, because it will be a long, long time [if ever] until it is connected to an intra-state line that would link it to Columbus, the middle C on the 3-C route.

The fanfare of returning passenger rail service to Ohio has caused state and local officials to day dream about their village or burg being a stop on the HSR network. With the absence of state dollars in the near- or long-term to properly fund the astronomical amount needed to build a system that will still need public subsidies for as far as the eye can see into the future and that will never have the ridership capacity to make it eve break even because it will be so slow and time consuming, Strickland and his Transportation Director will need more than pom-poms and smiles to convince hard working Ohioans [those who still have jobs] that they should build and subsidize a system that only a handful of riders will ride.

The Buckeye Institute, a fiscally conservative research outfit based in Columbus, entered the fray over HSR yesterday, when it said the vision of licky-split passenger trains is just too costly to all of us and that few people would ride even fewer miles each year. Much of what the BI said appears to be sourced to Randal O'Toole, of the Libertarian think tank The Cato Institute, who makes a strong case against HSR but fails to identify viable alternatives.

But if Ohio is so desperate for cash that it is ready to shutter many of its libraries, eliminate basic health care coverage to many of its poor including children by cutting Medicaid payments and taking away food from food banks, is it really a smart move to venture down a costly path to subsidize freight rail companies who own tracks passenger trains must run on when so many other human safety nets have such gaping holes in them?

John Michael Spinelli is a Certified Economic Development Financing Professional, business and travel writer and former credentialed Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is registered to lobby in Ohio and is the Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. Spinelli on Assignment is syndicated by Newstex.com, can be followed on Twitter @OhioNewsBureau and available for subscription to Kindle owners. To send a news tip or make comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Is Ohio Getting Railroaded by an Expensive, Slow Train to the Past?

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.

Molitoris, whose claim to fame is improving Amtrak cutomer servic, continues to misguide other state officials and the general public into thinking erroneously that all high-speed standards are the same. But that's not the case. European high-speed trains run at speeds of 125-mph or more, while American high-speed starts out much lower at 90-mph. The slow, heavy train Director Molitoris gushes over will only average 57-mphs, a tortoise-like pace when compared to other technologies like Maglev, TGV or Tubular Rail.

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