Last week the Obama Administration announced that a plan to link Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland (the 3C corridor) with passenger rail will receive $400 million in federal funding. This huge step for the project that has been deemed the "Ohio Hub" may help get the project completed by 2012. I'm ecstatic to hear this news, as I have taken independent research hours where I researched the feasibility and consequences of this project. I'd like to use this week's post to lay out what I deem to be the pros and cons of the Ohio Hub.
Personally, I think an Ohio rail network is a great idea; as it will help encourage smart growth and higher densities. The inter-connectivity of the state will help individual cities get their plans for light rail off the ground, which will ease congestion and help cluster development around stops. The whole thing is great for the environment and national security as it (in conjunction with a larger national focus on rail) will help decrease our dependence on oil.
Unfortunately, not everyone exhibits the same enthusiasm for passenger rail as I do. In the state of Ohio we spend hundreds of millions on highway maintenance annually, yet a vocal opposition has formed against the $17 million annual running cost of the passenger rail system. How does this even make sense? Our auto-centric culture has come to view highway expenditures as "investment," but at the same time they view transit expenditures as "subsidies." For the auto industry to complain about the cost of this project to government is really the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, funding for this project and other rail projects would be easy to obtain if we made a small change to the Ohio Constitution. Currently, it is written into the state constitution that the $.28 per gallon gasoline tax MUST be used to fund highways. If this was expanded to include all forms of transportation it would allow for more innovation and a wider array of transportation options.
I am not, however, completely satisfied with the project as it is currently being carried out. My biggest complaint is that the passenger rail will have a maximum speed of 79 mph, with an average speed of about 39 mph. Ideally, this system could be upgraded in the future to a truly high speed rail system. A system with a maximum speed around 120 mph would offer travel times that would be more attractive to commuters and tourists. A second complaint of mine is that as in the past, southeastern Ohio is completely left out of the transportation picture. The Appalachian region of Ohio has always suffered from poor accessibility and only recently has received a modest amount of highway upgrades. An Oh
io passenger rail network that included service from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh or from Columbus to Charleston, West Virginia by way of Athens would benefit this portion of the state dramatically. Of course I'm biased, as I obviously have ties to this region. Let me know what you think!Photo Sources
Top: Columbus Dispatch
Bottom: High speed train; Paris, France; Wikimedia Commons
I think this is such good idea. The only major problem I have with it is the speed thing. It doesn't seem like as many people would want to take a train that is slower than a car even if it is more cost effective. I know I personally would rather get somewhere faster even if it benefits me less. If the amped up the speed and made it more like the TGV in France they would get way more people wanting to take advantage of this mode of transportation.
ReplyDelete