Outside Erie

21 Responses to “High-Speed Rail Plan Gains Momentum”

1. George Vietze
   October 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am

   Certainly high speed rail will add to the many assets of Erie, Pa. and because of Erie’s location and demographics of the hub of NW Pennsylvania any plan for high speed rail will most likely include Erie.
   It is because Erie is located where it is and the demographics surrounding this area and the hotel rooms, Convention Center, attractions, Casino, Waldemeer, Presque Isle beaches, Warner Theatre, Splash Lagoon, Family Sports Park, ball park, Tullio Center and on and on that makes the whole worth more than the sum of the parts that will attract even more visitors. High speed rail would add another important dimension to our economy and would be a welcome
   addition to our growing economy. To demand that every public funded project have its own ROI is overlooking the fact that the total of all the assets in Erie add to our quality of life and hopefully will attract more employment and visitors and business. That is not to say that spending should not be prudent and not wasted and that every project should have real economic studies to support justification but part of that analysis is the long term benefit to the community.

   I would believe that the capital cost of high speed rail could not be justified based upon ticket sales or rider participation but if the total economic impact over time as to its benefit to the total economy of the entire area and if the Federal and State government participates in those costs it could go a long way towards directing a greater portion of the market to the area being served than would otherwise by the case and boost the economy of the entire area.

2. Peter Panepento
   October 7th, 2008 at 10:21 am

   I received this note from Dave Skellie, who thinks we should divert the money from the runway project into developing this rail line:

   “Access via a fast train to Cleveland, Buffalo and beyond would be a huge advantage to Erieites. I think that the neighborhood around the RR terminal would become a destination point for new residential and commercial development, so it would become advantageous to efforts to revitalize our downtown. Also, as you may recall, the Erie Airport runway had two options, one shorter and one longer. I believe we need the shorter runway extension, but the longer version may have been over optimistic. Wouldn’t it have been great to apply the $ difference toward a quick rail route.”

3. John Vanco
   October 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am

   The plan that Andrew Bremer presented does indeed include Erie as a stop on the Cleveland-Toronto corridor. But, that is not the priority corridor for All Aboard Ohio. Their studies have shown that the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland corridor should be their first priority. This, obviously, would not include Erie.

   Progress on plans for high speed rail corridors will depend on support at the federal level. This plan is on a scale with the development of the national interstate highway system, and it cannot happen without coordination and commitment from the highest level. It will only move forward if the next President embraces high speed rail the way Eisenhower embraced the interstates. Obama has spoken enthusiastically in favor of a high speed rail system and has supported Amtrak. McCain has consistently opposed Amtrak, focusing on automobile-based transportation. Of course, what happens after the election is anybody’s guess. Al Gore was a big rail supporter, but there was no progress on that front during the Clinton administration.

4. Jim
   October 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am

   I believe Dave is right on the mark, but I also believe it is too late. Erie, for whatever reason, is committed to that runway extension. The powers to be cannot and will not admit a mistake. But Dave is right, and people in Erie have been writing and talking about the need for improved rail service for years, especially I believe Ken Springirth.

   As one who absolutely refuses to fly in or out of Logan, Amtrak is the only way to get to and from Boston.

5. AM
   October 7th, 2008 at 11:30 am

   As my family’s Erie roots span many generations, I’ve been told that one of the reasons downtown Erie died was that the city politicians wouldn’t allow I-90 to be built closer to downtown. And perhaps the Bayfront Highway was a 30-year delayed attempt to catch up on missing out. I hope Erie learns from this past transportation mistake, and gets itself in the plans for a high-speed rail stop. This is an opportunity not to be missed, and the benefits are numerous (and obvious.)

6. julio c reyes
   October 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am

   Peter,

   I guess I posted my original comment yesterday out of place under the tourism topic. So, I will copy it here.

   _____________________________________________________

   It seems that we might have some help from the outside with better ideas about mass transportation in the region.

   I hope this guy is right and then when I am ready to cash in my investment in Erie a few years (15-20) from now is worth it a little more.

   http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081006/NEWS02/310069940

   ______________________________________________________________-

   I will also say that hopefully, our pseudo leaders, politicians and local business groups better start talking to the people in Ohio and make a budget to hire lobbyist both in Harrisburg and Washington to be able to play in this game.

   Otherwise other municipalities like Summit, North East, or Fairview will get preferential treatment and will develop the train stop between Ohio and Buffalo.

   Keep in mind that even if the other municipalities get a stop rather than Erie it will be good for all of us the alternative will be that there is no stop in PA.

   Just for the record, one of the Eeriest moments in my life that I remember was about 25 years ago the first time I step out of the train in the Erie Depot (as the old timers called the Erie train Station) and saw the train leave the station in the middle of the night sometimes between 2 or 4 in the morning. I knew then I was walking into another dimension.

   Hopefully, things will change and our stop schedule will be at a decent time or better yet if we could have multiple stop times.

7. Dale Hannah
   October 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

   Fast, reliable, and convenient rail service is the way to go!!! And Julio, North East would welcome the opportunity to become the main stop in Pennsylvania. We already have a great Railway Museum, and plenty of room to locate a major station.

8. Wizo
   October 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

   Ever since I spent a semester abroad, I’ve dreamed of two ‘tracks’ of rail that are necessary, based on the efficient European model, where high speed regional commuter rail systems connect with localized light rail systems. I was always amazed at how I could affordably get to any one-horse town on the continent without ever using the highways. Now, I can’t even visit my college roommates in Cleveland by rail, unless I want to leave at 1:36 AM. I can’t even make it for last call and nobody will pick me up at 3AM. To get back to Erie I have to hop on in C-Town at 6:20AM. It’s a chicken-and-the-egg scenario where the demand isn’t developed and neither are the options. Erie to Pittsburgh? Amtrak says “Sorry, we cannot find train service matching your request.” Third world countries have more to offer.

9. Heavy D
   October 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

   It will never happen in any meaningful way. The cost of running the track and getting the right of ways is simply too great. Planes fly over obstacles; trains need bridges and tunnels and more. Not too mention even when you do have the flat land how much to buy the rights to it? We think buying the land around the airport was a hassle; imaging getting the use of hundreds of miles of land for this project.

   I, too was impressed by the European example ( I took the chunnel train from London to Paris and it was amazing.) BUT they built ,and reserved for all time, their tracks over a hundred years ago when there were no environmental concerns and the law was geared for the train companies not the land owners. Plus Europe is WAY smaller.

   One more big factor is security. Stopping a plane in flight is almost impossible, stopping a train going over 100 MPH is easy: any fool can drag a large chunk of metal on the tracks ( ANYWHERE on the hundreds of miles of track) and be a successful terrorist.

   We are better off putting the money into the Ferry. ( I’m kidding!)

10. john morris
    October 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    I hate to say that I am pessimistic on this but I am. Of course, rail would be good for Erie– even better moderate speed passenger rail. The problem is that nobody in America is willing to make choices– or to allow the market to make rational choices either. We don’t have the money for fancy highways- often to and through nowhere, fancy airports, and high speed rail. Personally, I think the choice in most cases, is that rail is the best and certainly the most pro urban option for Erie. Most travel in the sub 1000 mile range best done by rail unless there are important obstacles like water and moutains in the way. Remember that rail was the major form of transport until the government decided it knew better than the market. Now whatever rail we get, is funded with the leftovers after the government has paid for the bad investments– that it will never admit were bad.

    The last two debates laid out the problem. When the candidates are told that choices must be made, they run away from the problem.

    One last point. Rail cannot be looked at in the same way as highways in terms of it’s impact on a downtown. It is always pro urban and pro density because it can put lots of people in an area with little impact. With a highway, the road is just the start of the problem, since you then have to deal with the impact on all feeder roads, traffic and massive parking impacts.

11. Radio Free JoJo
    October 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    I do love the idea, but I don’t think it will be successful. Think a moment about where people need to go when they fly. They don’t usually need to go from one rust belt community to another one, they are usually going to a very major metro, or somewhere down south for a convention or business meeting.
    I know its a blanket statement, but, for example, if I were to go to all of the conventions that I was interested in this past year, I would be going to Chicago, Austin, Nashville, Oklahoma City, and San Diego. Cleveland, Detroit, or Toledo aren’t even in the mix. Maybe an intermodel model of train to airport would be utilized, but that would just encourage the downfall of the smaller airports.
    BTW, you think that rail service is bad here, consider a big city like Nashville, once a great strategic rail center, has no Amtrak service!

12. john morris
    October 8th, 2008 at 4:58 am

    The potential impact on urban property values is potentialy huge– perhaps enough to fund the project.

    Here’s a link to a post I did on the Pittsburgh Metroblog about transit in Hong Kong. The basic concept is the same– the operator gets the bulk of it’s profits from land development along it’s lines. That’s right, this kind of project could possibly be funded by a private operator but only if one allows that operator and others to create dense, mixed use developments at and near train hubs.

    http://pittsburgh.metblogs.com/2007/08/26/transit-profits-in-hong-kong/

    Radio Free Jo Jo, you are right, at this point there is a pretty slim amount of economic and social connection between rust belt cities. Lack of solid transport links might be the main reason for this. The Boston, NY, Philly, Baltimore, DC corridor gives one some idea of the potential upside from even remotely decent rail service. Personally, I don’t think one should get hung up on “high speed”, as in space age bullet trains. The distances involved don’t allow or require that kind of speed; just something moving in the 70+ mph category would be huge.

    The statement that America is too big for practical train travel does not fly. Most people live in regions well within rail distance from each other– the east coast corridors, the “rust belt/ great lakes region; the San Diego, LA, San Fransisco metroplex, gulf coast region etc…. The distances within these regions is right for rail.

13. George Vietze
    October 8th, 2008 at 7:48 am

    John Morris’s post is the most practical response. Allow private developers with governmental incentives to privately develop high density mixed use projects as appropriate to each submarket and a high speed rail system could work. The Governor of Pa. is on a path of re-developing the potential future economy of this state and has the vision to put together the necessary political ingredients to make this work for Pennsylvania. This additional access to Erie would be an economic boost for our economy. Are the participating markets progressive enough, on a practical basis, as Pennsylvania to make this happen?

14. Bob Huber
    October 8th, 2008 at 9:15 am

    This is exciting. As you know, I spent four years at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. I loved traveling by train. I drove often to Harrisburg. I often thought that a train trip would give me 12+ hours for work, reading, discussing, etc. This would really help our region. Bob Huber

15. Wizo
    October 8th, 2008 at 10:36 am

    Additionally, many airlines are cutting flights to/from second and third tier cities, leaving travelers with one less option. Can you buy a commercial flight to Pittsburgh now?

16. john morris
    October 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am

    I don’t know if it will work. Hong Kong’s model is for intra city transit, although I think the rail operator it merged with is more like commuter rail. I do think this is the right way to be thinking about it. Transit/rail improvements specifically benefit the owners of property near the stations by bringing in lots of people while allowing maximum use of space.

    I want to say that I am not in favor of the government imposing a national system. The country is big and rail or the same type of rail will not work everywhere. Amtrak is chained to operating too many non viable lines, taking cash away from the critical corridors where rail would work. We all know about the East Coast rail and perhaps about Cal Trans but rail is having a big impact on Chicago—Milwaukee too and plans are in the works to link Madison and Minneapolis into that network. California seems to have critical momentum behind some kind of high speed system.

    The really big problem is that in an age of looming budget problems, the political pressure will place the highways first. Another major problem is Amtrak itself which won’t move forward and won’t get out of the way.

17. Jim
    October 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    As one who traveled extensively by rail in the 1950’s and 60’s, while my grandfather was employed with a railroad, the business travel on the 20th Century Limited from Chicago to Boston/New York City was enormous.

    As a kid we used to use the train to go to Cleveland for baseball and football games, Chicago for grandpa’s business meeting, as well as east to both New York, again for grandpa’s meetings, or Boston for Pop’s concerts. I still use Amtrak when going to Boston or NYC. The trip from Albany to NYC along the Hudson is wonderful.

    Europe uses train travel very successfully. The tunnel train from England to France is a tourist destination in itself. I know many Erieites who have taken a day trip to Paris on that tunnel train while visiting London on business.

    I really don’t know of a less expensive way to transport weight per mile than rail, people are the same as freight. As for time, with the number of delayed and canceled flights, increased time as a result of airport security, and the refusal to expand air transportation ground facilities to streamline the process, rail has become a much more popular mode of transportation. No longer is it simply vacation or retiree travel. Amtrak is setting new records.

18. john morris
    October 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    The latest post on my blog by a freind just happens to be a review of Pittsburgh’s new bus station/ transit hub. The writer who has lived here 5 years considered moving here after an extended layover in town back when the classic train station was still open. One of her points is that rail stations are a chance for cities to sell themselves to travelers– in a way airports never can be. You can fly out of Dallas 50 times and never know Dallas.

    Ever wonder why so few cities in America have youth hostels while every European city and even small towns have them? Rail is the reason.

    http://diggingpitt.blogspot.com/2008/10/transportation-hub-links-us-to-world.html

19. Wizo
    October 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    Would it then be reasonable to assume that if the U.S. had even a decent rail system, Europeans would be more apt to backpack the U.S., as many American students do in Europe? It would infuse a lot of tourist dollars into the economy.

    Eurail’s current offer is 21 days for the price of 15 at $475 for a youth pass (under 26). That allows you to get on and off any train at any time in most of the Euro countries. I think that is cheaper than when I was there in 2001, which is a heck of a deal. I remember we only had to pay extra for a sleeper car.

20. john morris
    October 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Yes, that is what I assume. Rail would greatly enhace the chances of casual tourism into cities because rail takes one into a city in a way nothing else can. Does I 95 make one want to visit Bridgeport or the Jersey Turnpike make one want to drop in on Newark? Providence is actually pretty awesome but driving through it on 95 makes it seem ugly. Even better, imagine Providence with no I 95 and just great rail– 5 times better at least.

    NYC gets this type of tourism.

21. MGR
    October 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    The potential of tying together the cumulative skills and services from Rochester to Cleveland and down to Pittsburgh would have an unprecedented impact on the region. In reality, we are all a phone call or e-mail away from one another, but true collaboration still requires a physical interaction most of the time, call it a human social trait. The real problem with this proposal is the high infrastructure cost for a mere 110 mph transit medium. It is a non-starter at anything less than 250mph.