01-29-2010, 11:36 AM
From nothing to high speed rail is a big jump.
Here in Ohio, we will be getting about $400mm to upgrade existing lines to reestablish passenger rail between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. Max speed will be 79mph. Not high speed, but an alternative to the stress of driving. Currently Interstate 71 (which connects the three C's) is at capacity in many stretches, so rail makes sense here.
I think reestablishing medium speed rail such as the above is a good compromise, but Amtrak tells us that we'd get more riders with high speed.
I personally am a fan of re-establishing routes on abandoned rights of way from my city (Columbus). This wouldn't be high speed, but you'd get the benefit of not having to build right of way from scratch - you'd be leveraging works that were built when labor was a LOT cheaper! I also think it would be beneficial to establish these routes OFF of current commute paths; people who are interested in commuting by train would drive development of new residential areas that are centered on rail. A big complaint against rail is that it is not convenient to where people currently live - cars have scattered us, and that's a valid complaint. The idea above would allow car-centric communities to stay that way, or have more time to change to other modes of transportation.
Unfortunately, I don't think most of the U.S. likes to plan for development in that manner. Subsidizing rail to nowhere would be a very hard sell!
Here in Ohio, we will be getting about $400mm to upgrade existing lines to reestablish passenger rail between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. Max speed will be 79mph. Not high speed, but an alternative to the stress of driving. Currently Interstate 71 (which connects the three C's) is at capacity in many stretches, so rail makes sense here.
I think reestablishing medium speed rail such as the above is a good compromise, but Amtrak tells us that we'd get more riders with high speed.
I personally am a fan of re-establishing routes on abandoned rights of way from my city (Columbus). This wouldn't be high speed, but you'd get the benefit of not having to build right of way from scratch - you'd be leveraging works that were built when labor was a LOT cheaper! I also think it would be beneficial to establish these routes OFF of current commute paths; people who are interested in commuting by train would drive development of new residential areas that are centered on rail. A big complaint against rail is that it is not convenient to where people currently live - cars have scattered us, and that's a valid complaint. The idea above would allow car-centric communities to stay that way, or have more time to change to other modes of transportation.
Unfortunately, I don't think most of the U.S. likes to plan for development in that manner. Subsidizing rail to nowhere would be a very hard sell!
Matt Goodman
Columbus, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio