Article published February 13, 2009
Lawmakers skeptical of 'Three C's' passenger rail
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEF
COLUMBUS - Gov. Ted Strickland's plan to aggressively pursue restoration of passenger rail service between Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland drew skepticism yesterday from lawmakers who have his $54.7 billion budget proposal in their hands.
"I want to see a very high priority given on [road] infrastructure before I am of the opinion that rail, as far as passengers, is something that is going to be beneficial to the state," Rep. Cheryl Grossman, a suburban Columbus Republican, told Ohio's new transportation director, Jolene Molitoris.
"From the information that I've been able to obtain, every rail system in this country is subsidized with the exception of two," she said. "If that's not a huge red flag … I don't know what is."
Another member of the House Finance Committee, Rep. Barbara Sears (R., Sylvania), told the director she was excited about the idea, but expressed concern that Toledoans most familiar with rail are not immediately included. And she questioned whether taking a train from Toledo to Columbus by way of Cleveland makes sense.
"We probably have one of the more convoluted drives down here with our 32 lights on U.S. 23 the last 30 miles of our drive," she said. "I think you're missing a lot of the boat by taking people who have some familiarity and connection with [rail] and excluding that group, and sending us to Cleveland to come to Columbus, which would be even longer than the 32 lights."
The Finance Committee is holding hearings in anticipation of fashioning its answer to Mr. Strickland's two-year budget proposal and a separate transportation budget plan fueled primarily by motor-fuel taxes and fees.Mr. Strickland seeks legislative approval to proceed on an aggressive timetable to get a slower-speed passenger train running by 2010 between the "three C's" on existing track now used solely by freight trains. That would mean making whatever upgrades are necessary within two construction seasons.
The budget also seeks authority to continue studying other corridors contemplated by the Ohio Hub study. That study ultimately envisions high-speed service connecting multiple cities and states, including direct service between Toledo and Columbus.
"If I could say that we had an unlimited supply of budgetary opportunity, maybe we could do everything all at once," Ms. Molitoris told Ms. Sears.
"It is a frustration, because I certainly would like to put [Toledo] in there immediately," she said. "What we're trying to do is get trains and people on the track as soon as we can to begin to create that culture in our state and give people choice."
Members also struggled with the fact that they are being asked to authorize a two-year plan without being told how much restoration of passenger service on the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland line will cost. Those numbers are expected when Amtrak completes a study in July.
Ms. Molitoris, conceding that ridership alone is unlikely to cover the cost, emphasized that the Ohio Constitution bars use of state gas tax revenue on such a project. That most likely leaves the state's share of federal funds as the most likely revenue source.
"We are prepared to have very serious discussions about the fact that Toledo ought not to be left out as the site where the largest number of passengers board the Amtrak train system in the state of Ohio," said Rep. Peter Ujvagi (D., Toledo), the new chairman of the committee's transportation subcommittee.
"I think a very strong case can be made that Toledo should be first among equals in that sense," he said.
Contact Jim Provance at:
jprovance@theblade.com
or 614-221-0496.
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADVERTISING SECTIONS
|
|
|
|
More columnist stories |
|
|
|
|
News Headlines
Business Headlines
Sports Headlines
Features Headlines
|
|
|
Search
advertisement
