Students who celebrated the announcement of a passenger rail between Ohio’s largest cities might not want to sell their cars just yet.
Ohio’s 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail Plan still includes a number of unanswered questions. Details from an ongoing study might determine whether the plan will come to fruition.
Opponents on the state controlling board say that if the study does not meet their concerns, the project will not get the votes it needs to pass. If it does not pass, Ohio will have to return the $400 million awarded to the state by the federal government.
Gov. Ted Strickland announced in January that Ohio would receive $400 million in federal stimulus funds to pay for rail service between Ohio cities. However, several newspapers reported at the time that the money was for a high-speed rail, which it is not.
The $400 million was earmarked to re-establish a medium-speed passenger rail between the three Cs, Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, with stops in Dayton. The 3-C corridor hasn’t had a passenger rail since 1971. Project opponents have cited rail speed, train schedules, ridership figures and cost in their objections.
Proponents hope the feasibility and environmental study being done by consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff will ease some of those concerns.
In an April 16 letter to Strickland, Ohio Senate President Bill Harris questioned Strickland’s proposed transition from medium-speed to high-speed rail. Harris doesn’t believe Amtrak’s finding that there will be 478,000 annual riders, said Harris’ spokeswoman Maggie Ostrowski. He also thinks the projected $17 million in annual subsidies Ohio is expected to pay is unrealistically low, Ostrowski said Monday in an e-mail.
Once Parsons Brinckerhoff completes its study, Ohio Controlling Board will vote on whether the 3-C plan will be implemented. The Controlling Board is a seven-member bipartisan spending panel.
The board’s April 16 vote approved spending $25 million of the $400 million for the study. The vote passed by a 4-3 margin, which was divided along party lines. Democrats comprise four of the seven seats, though that could change in November’s election.
The vote following the feasibility study will require a supermajority, meaning five of the seven members will have to vote in favor of the project for it to pass.
April’s vote might have been closer than expected because of controversy surrounding the study itself.
The use of federal stimulus dollars requires a study, but the cost is not predetermined. Ohio was able to decide what it would spend on the study. However, Parsons Brinckerhoff was chosen to complete the study without a public bidding process. In his letter to Strickland, Harris questioned the decision.
“The companies ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation) hand-selected to conduct the study are not only on board with passenger rail in Ohio, they are corporate sponsors of ‘Linking Ohio’ and the public relations campaign to gin up support for this project,” Harris said. “How can we trust any data they provide when they are receiving a total of $25 million in unbid contracts and behind the public relations campaign?”
Strickland’s administration has said all along that Harris’ concerns are legitimate, Ostrowski said. However, Strickland has focused on what the rail can do for Ohio’s economy.
Strickland’s administration points to the 220,000 college students who live within 10 miles of the eight proposed 3-C stations. Ridership rates in other states show that having a high concentration of colleges and universities near routes is a strong component of successful rail programs, said Allison Kolodziej, deputy communications director for Strickland’s office.
Kolodziej said that a 2007 study by the Columbus Chamber of Commerce found that having a multi-model transportation system is an important factor in attracting and retaining young professionals.
“Brain drain” is something Ohio has been dealing with for years.
“We’re already losing young people,” said Jennifer Evans-Cowley, Ohio State associate professor and section head of City and Regional Planning. “I certainly get the concerns about this particular proposal, but if it’s not this, what is it? And who is going to pay for it?”
If the Ohio Controlling Board votes against the 3-C plan after the feasibility study, the state has to return the remaining $375 million, according to the Federal Railroad Administration.
Ohio can only use the $400 million for this particular project. More than a few opponents of the current plan have called for skipping medium-speed rail in favor of high-speed.
The 3-C plan tops out at 79 mph; to be called high-speed, trains must travel at 110 mph. High-speed rail can cost more than $20 million per mile of track.
If you look at high-speed rail and light rail, an incremental approach is the only way to finance it, Cowley said. She cited Phoenix, Ariz. and Dallas, Texas, two cities that have had success building rail infrastructure step-by-step. You will never get at one time the billions and billions of dollars necessary for big projects to function in a high-capacity way, she said.
Part of the challenge of the 3-C plan is getting people to understand that it is simply the first step in passenger rail in Ohio, said Devan Willemsen of the Ohio Environmental Council. She and Cowley each mentioned how difficult it is for a city such as Columbus to be instantly plugged into a larger rail network without strong local transit. A longterm successful 3-C plan would require significant expansion of local transit systems, Cowley said.
The Ohio Hub is a series of proposed corridors and stations connecting Ohio to East Coast and Midwest states, Willemsen said. She said that a corridor has to prove itself before improvements are made. If the 3-C corridor is a success, high-speed rail could follow.
Rail is the right direction; it’s the way to go, said Ryan Friedberg, a third-year in city and regional planning.
“We’re throwing a lot of money into our roads and highways,” he said. “In the long run it seems less expensive to pay for maintenance of rail than to rebuild highways every few years.”
The rail debate is far from simple. As Ohioans wait for results from the Parsons Brinckerhoff study, there are a number of concerns to be addressed. How they are addressed might determine how future Ohio generations will travel the state.
