A 21-member committee formed of local government officials and appointees from the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, it set priorities in its first couple of meetings. In the long run, the goal would be [...]]]> The Journal Star reports (no link — it’s a “First in Print” article) that a new passenger rail advisory group has been formed:

A 21-member committee formed of local government officials and appointees from the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, it set priorities in its first couple of meetings. In the long run, the goal would be passenger service that links downstate’s three Amtrak lines with service from Galesburg to Champaign. That starts with service from East Peoria to Normal.

The article is by columnist Terry Bibo, and unfortunately she doesn’t list any members of the committee other than Tazewell County board member Dean Grimm (who’s the chairman) and Tri-County Regional Planning director Terry Kohlbuss. It might be helpful to know who is making these decisions.

You might think from reading the quote above that the committee only wants to see rail service between East Peoria and Normal, but not so fast:

[T]ransportation officials are applying for a $160,000 grant for alternatives analysis. The grant would look at possibilities from carpooling to buses to rail service.

Kohlbuss is quoted later as saying he sees it as “a ramp-up process” to increase the number of rail users and build up demand. Grimm recognized the need for public support, saying, “I would hope people in Peoria — in central Illinois — value passenger train transportation. That’s the only way this is going to fly.” State Sen. Dave Koehler and Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis are reportedly already on board with the committee’s goals. I heard that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was on the radio this morning singing the praises of this plan as well. (LaHood, you may recall, used to be against rail service, saying people should just drive to Bloomington.)

My take: This is terribly disappointing in so many ways, I hardly know where to start.

On the positive side, I want to say that I’m glad our local leaders are focusing more attention on passenger rail. We need our local leaders’ buy-in so that the money can be appropriated and the project can happen. That there’s a committee formed is a good start in principle, although I would like to know who exactly is on it.

I knew a committee was being formed and expressed interest in being on it myself, but obviously the decision was made not to include me. That’s a little disappointing, given that I’ve started a grassroots organization called the Peoria Passenger Rail Coalition and have talked to the Mayor and Kohlbuss about my interest in working with them. But hey, they have their reasons (probably very good ones) and it’s their right to choose who they want and don’t want on their committee. I have no complaint about that.

I do have a complaint about their plans, however.

First of all, the timing is unfortunate. There is still an Amtrak-IDOT study pending that’s looking at the feasibility of establishing Peoria-Chicago passenger rail service. We really should see the results of that study before we assume it can’t be done and start looking at least-desired options. I fear this new development could influence the current study — perhaps even lead to its abandonment — if IDOT and Amtrak feel the political will is gone for a Peoria-Chicago connection.

Secondly, the plan itself is flawed. There is no demand of which I’m aware for rail access to Bloomington. If you’re going to Bloomington, you’re going to need a car in order to get around their sprawling city (likewise for anyone from Bloomington who would be traveling to Peoria). If you’re coming from Chicago, it’s reasonable to take the train and rent a car or take the bus in Bloomington. But it would be absurd to take the train from Peoria to Bloomington and then rent a car or take the bus. We’re so close to Bloomington that people traveling there are going to drive, period. It’s simply not a viable rail destination from Peoria.

Equally implausible is that sufficient numbers of people will want to take a train to Bloomington simply to connect with a Chicago- or St. Louis-bound train. To be sure, there would be some ridership for such a service, but not enough to sustain it. It would add time and cost that could be saved by driving to Bloomington and parking for free at their Amtrak station. How many Peoria residents already drive to Bloomington to take advantage of cheaper airfares and free parking at the Central Illinois Regional Airport? The same thing would likely occur here.

At least there’s a reason to go to Bloomington — to catch another train. Looking at it the other way, why would anyone want to travel from Bloomington to Peoria? Or East Peoria, for that matter. I mean, is there any chain restaurant or big box store in East Peoria that Bloomington doesn’t already have? What’s the attraction, exactly?

The most dangerous thing about this plan, however, is Grimm’s final quote — remember he said, “I would hope people in Peoria — in central Illinois — value passenger train transportation.” What this means is, if the Peoria-Bloomington rail link is a failure (as I believe it would be), then our local officials are going to believe that means people in Peoria and central Illinois don’t value train transportation. And that would be a travesty.

Central Illinois does value train travel, and will use train transportation — but only if it’s a viable route that goes where we want to go. We don’t want to go to Bloomington. We want to go to Chicago. Establish Peoria to Chicago passenger rail service and you will see success.

I talk to a lot of people who would like to have train service in [...]]]> As you may have read in today’s Journal Star, I’ve started a grassroots organization for the purpose of advocating for passenger rail service between Peoria and Chicago. It’s called the Peoria Passenger Rail Coalition, and it’s free to join.

I talk to a lot of people who would like to have train service in Peoria, but there doesn’t seem to be any kind of organized effort to quantify the demand. That’s a problem, because if our elected officials think there isn’t much demand, they won’t appropriate the money for renewed rail service. So, the purpose of the organization is to raise public awareness of the benefits of passenger rail service to the Peoria region, gain public support for passenger rail service, and successfully persuade state and federal lawmakers to appropriate the necessary funds to make passenger rail service to Peoria a reality.

Here’s some more information from an article I wrote last year for InterBusiness Issues:

Why Bring Amtrak to Peoria?
Amtrak ridership is up nationwide, and Illinois is no exception to that trend. Amtrak reports that ridership on trains between Chicago and St. Louis “was up 16.5 percent in Fiscal 2008 over 2007. Ridership increased 18.5 percent on the Chicago-Carbondale route, was up 19.8 percent on the Chicago-Quincy route, and grew 25.9 percent on the Hiawathas.” This trend continues in 2009. In January, ridership between Chicago and St. Louis was up 12 percent over the same period in 2008, according to figures released by IDOT. [Update: The trend continues even in 2010, with monthly ridership levels 11 to 20 percent higher than 2009.]

More people are choosing to travel by train, and more communities are requesting passenger rail access. Amtrak recently completed studies on adding train service to Rockford and the Quad Cities. Peoria, with the third-largest metropolitan statistical area in the state—over 370,000 residents—would be a natural addition as well.

Restoring passenger rail service to Peoria would connect our population to the national rail transportation system. Travelers from Peoria could go anywhere in the U.S. that Amtrak serves—and just as importantly, travelers from all over the U.S. could come to Peoria. Peorians traveling to Chicago by train would benefit from low fares (significantly cheaper than the cost of driving to and parking in Chicago) and no traffic congestion. By leaving the “driving” to Amtrak, transit time can be used for work or leisure. Likewise, college students, businessmen and women, and tourists will find Amtrak to be a convenient way to travel to Peoria and enjoy our community. Bringing Amtrak and its ridership into the community will have a positive economic impact on the region.

There are also environmental benefits to passenger rail service. The U.S. Department of Energy found that Amtrak is more energy-efficient than either automobile or commercial air travel. “Amtrak energy intensity was 2,935 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per passenger-mile and commercial airlines were 3,587. Commuter rail was 2,751 and automobiles were 3,549 BTUs,” according to the DOE’s Transportation Energy Data Book. By taking the train, we can lower the carbon footprint of our trips. It is simply more energy-efficient to take the train directly from Peoria than to drive to Chicago, or even Normal or Galesburg, to catch the train there.

Nationally, a greater emphasis is being placed on sustainable transportation networks—with less dependence on the automobile, and thus, less oil consumption and dependence on imported oil—and passenger rail is part of that national strategy. Last October, Congress passed and the president signed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, which authorized $13.1 billion for Amtrak over the next five years. The recent stimulus bill included $1.3 billion in additional Amtrak funding, as well as $8 billion for high-speed rail. Locally, Senator Durbin has been supportive of adding new service to Illinois cities and improving existing service, and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission’s long-range transportation plan lists as a top priority: “connect with Amtrak.”

Finally, consider that transportation is an essential service, imperative for the safety and mobility of Illinois citizens. Improving our transportation options improves our overall infrastructure, and our economy benefits from the jobs brought by infrastructure improvement. The economy is also helped by making our city more attractive to potential employers and employees, who are increasingly looking for greener cities in which to live and work.

I’m hopeful that we can convince community leaders to settle for nothing less than reestablishing direct rail service between Peoria and Chicago. Unfortunately, the trend lately has been toward a lesser goal: connecting Peoria with Normal. It seems the community leaders are now seriously considering train service that would simply go from Peoria to the Normal Amtrak station, at which point passengers will have to disembark and wait for a connecting train to complete their trip. That’s a recipe for failure.

There are many benefits of taking a train to Chicago: it’s cheaper than parking and avoids a lot of traffic congestion, just to name a couple. But what benefits are there of taking a train to Normal? Parking is free and there’s no congestion between our two towns. Instead of saving time, it would actually add time to the trip. That alone will depress ridership. But ridership would also be low because there’s not much population on the Norfolk Southern line that runs between Peoria and Bloomington. A train from Peoria to Chicago could hit many underserved communities, picking up much needed ridership.

The fact is, people don’t want to take a train to Normal. They want to take a train to Chicago. You wouldn’t want to take a flight to Bloomington’s airport and switch planes to continue on to Chicago, but that’s exactly the kind of service that’s being considered for passenger rail. I hope this disastrous plan for new rail service is abandoned, and direct rail service to Chicago is once again pursued.

If you feel the same way, I would encourage you to add your voice to the coalition.

Vision for a New Era in Rail Entails Clean, Energy-Efficient Option for Travelers

Thursday, April 16, 2009 (Washington, DC) — President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood, announced [...]]]> It looks like the United States is finally going to get serious about modernizing its train system. Here’s a press release I received yesterday:

Vision for a New Era in Rail Entails Clean, Energy-Efficient Option for Travelers

Thursday, April 16, 2009 (Washington, DC) — President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood, announced a new U.S. push today to transform travel in America, creating high-speed rail lines from city to city, reducing dependence on cars and planes and spurring economic development.

The President released a strategic plan outlining his vision for high speed rail in America. The plan identifies $8 billion provided in the ARRA and $1 billion a year for five years requested in the federal budget as a down payment to jump-start a potential world-class passenger rail system and sets the direction of transportation policy for the future. The strategic plan will be followed by detailed guidance for state and local applicants. By late summer, the Federal Railroad Administration will begin awarding the first round of grants.

Additional funding for long-term planning and development is expected from legislation authorizing federal surface transportation programs.

The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service.

With a boost from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Obama administration launched a competitive process to drive local communities to develop their high-speed rail potential. The President, Vice President and Secretary of Transportation are urging states and local communities to put together plans for a network of 100 mile to 600 mile corridors, which will compete for the federal dollars. The merit-driven process will result in federal grants as soon as late summer 2009.

President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail mirrors that of President Eisenhower, the father of the Interstate highway system, which revolutionized the way Americans traveled. Now, high-speed rail has the potential to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, lower harmful carbon emissions, foster new economic development and give travelers more choices when it comes to moving around the country.

“My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come,” said President Obama. “A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve. High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

“Today, we see clearly how Recovery Act funds and the Department of Transportation are building the platform for a brighter economic future – they’re creating jobs and making life better for communities everywhere,” said Vice President Biden. “Everyone knows railways are the best way to connect communities to each other, and as a daily rail commuter for over 35 years, this announcement is near and dear to my heart. Investing in a high-speed rail system will lower our dependence on foreign oil and the bill for a tank of gas; loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways; and significantly reduce the damage we do to our planet.”

“President Obama’s vision of robust, high-speed rail service offers Americans the kind of travel options that throughout our history have contributed to economic growth and enhanced quality of life,” said Secretary LaHood. “We simply can’t build the economy of the future on the transportation networks of the past.”
The plan identifies two types of projects for funding. One would create new corridors for world-class high-speed rail like the kind found in Europe and Japan. Another would involve making train service along existing rail lines incrementally faster.

Under the plan, high-speed rail development will advance along three funding tracks:

• Individual Projects. Providing grants to complete individual projects that are “ready to go” with completed environmental and preliminary engineering work – with an emphasis on near term job creation. Eligible projects include acquisition, construction of or improvements to infrastructure, facilities and equipment.
• Corridor programs. Developing entire phases or geographic sections of high-speed rail corridors that have completed corridor plans, environmental documentation and have a prioritized list of projects to help meet the corridor objectives.
• Planning. Entering into cooperative agreements for planning activities (including development of corridor plans and State Rail Plans) using non-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) appropriations funds. This third approach is intended to help establish a structured mechanism and funding stream for future corridor development activities.

###

A Vision for High-Speed Rail in America
Highlights of Strategic Plan
April 16, 2009

This plan outlines the President’s vision to build a network of high-speed rail corridors across America. It is the first high-speed rail requirement under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 0f 2009 (ARRA).

• VISION — Proposal is to transform the nation’s transportation system, by rebuilding existing rail infrastructure while launching new high-speed passenger rail services in 100-600 mile corridors that connect U.S. communities. Similar to how interstate highways and U.S. aviation system were developed in 20th century: partnership between public sector and private industry, including strong Federal leadership that provided a national vision.
• OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS MOVING AHEAD OF SCHEDULE TO STAND UP THIS NEW PROGRAM — Strategic rail plan issued just 58 days after passage of ARRA, before the Congressional deadline. Application procedures expected to be published also before Congressional deadline-this spring. First round grant awards expected to be announced before the end of this summer, up to three years ahead of the schedule required by law.
• COMMITMENT TO HIGH-SPEED RAIL — Unprecedented $8 billion investment in high-speed rail: $8 billion in ARRA considered a down payment on a national network of corridors, along with $1 billion per year for at least 5 years (proposed in FY 2010 budget). Completion of vision will require long-term commitment from both the Federal Government and States.
• BENEFITS OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL — Promotes economic expansion (including new manufacturing jobs), creates new choices for travelers in addition to flying or driving, reduces national dependence on oil, and fosters urban and rural community development.
• HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS GREEN — Today’s intercity passenger rail service consumes one-third less energy per passenger-mile than cars. It is estimated that if we built high-speed rail lines on all federally-designated corridors (on map), it could result in an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of CO2.
• TRANSPARENT APPROACH — projects selected for funding based on merit/benefits of investment.
  • First round of applications will focus on projects that can be completed quickly and yield measurable, near-term job creation and other public benefits.
  • Next round to include proposals for comprehensive high-speed programs covering entire corridors or sections of corridors.
  • Additional funds will be available for planning to help jump-start corridors not yet ready for construction.
• Ten major corridors are being identified for potential high-speed rail projects:
  • California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)
  • Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC)
  • South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)
  • Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, , Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)
  • Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville,)
  • Florida Corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami)
  • Southeast Corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville)
  • Keystone Corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)
  • Empire Corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo)
  • Northern New England Corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)

  Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor (Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, New Haven, Providence, Boston) to compete for funds for improvements to the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service, and for establishment and upgrades to passenger rail services in other parts of the country.

• OUTREACH — Administration will take a collaborative approach to formulate program; will work with stakeholders to gather feedback on strategic plan and help shape the program.

…the study being done by Amtrak on the feasibility of Intercity Rail Service between Chicago and Peoria will be further delayed possibly to July.

The study was supposed to be released [...]]]> David Jordan at Peoria Station has the scoop.

…the study being done by Amtrak on the feasibility of Intercity Rail Service between Chicago and Peoria will be further delayed possibly to July.

The study was supposed to be released this month.

“It’s going to take an enormous amount of money,” he said Tuesday, emphasizing that previous attempts to provide passenger rail to the area failed largely because of an inability to offer a more “efficient” way to travel to Chicago. [...]]]>

Restoring passenger rail service to Peoria is “cost prohibitive” and “impractical,” according to U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood.

“It’s going to take an enormous amount of money,” he said Tuesday, emphasizing that previous attempts to provide passenger rail to the area failed largely because of an inability to offer a more “efficient” way to travel to Chicago. “If you cannot get people into Chicago on a train quicker than by driving, it’s impractical to think people (will travel on a train).”

LaHood, R-Peoria, said if local leaders want to enhance Peoria’s passenger rail options, they should look at supporting existing Amtrak stations in Normal and Galesburg.

“Those of us in Peoria who wanted to take advantage of that will want to promote bus service (to either Bloomington/Normal or Galesburg),” said LaHood, whose congressional position allows him to facilitate discussions on regional transportation priorities and seek federal funding for projects.

LaHood also described himelf as a strong supporter of Amtrak, the nation’s intercity passenger rail system, and called legislation passed by Congress last year authorizing $13 billion over five years to Amtrak “a very good bill.”

I see. LaHood is for Amtrak in smaller metropolitan statistical areas like Galesburg and Bloomington, but for Peoria — the fourth-largest MSA in Illinois — the bus will do.

At his confirmation hearing, LaHood spoke the lingo of sustainability and livability, of the need to build new infrastructure and the importance of Amtrak, “the lifeblood of many, many communities around the country,” he was quoted as saying in the New York Times. It’s hard to square this rhetoric with LaHood’s comments from a year and a half ago. Denying intercity rail to such a large population so that their only options are to drive or take the bus is not sustainable thinking. Claiming that bringing Amtrak to Peoria is too expensive without even waiting for a feasibility study to be completed is prejudicial.

So how are we to explain LaHood’s testimony? Is he changing his mind, or just adopting language he doesn’t fully understand/believe because it’s what the senators want to hear?

Durbin’s bill provides funding to encourage manufacturers currently supplying passenger rail cars overseas to open modern facilities here. And it provides a tax incentive for private domestic businesses to re-enter the [...]]]> U. S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the “Train Cars Act” (S.3360) on Tuesday in the Senate. The State Journal-Register explains what the bill proposes:

Durbin’s bill provides funding to encourage manufacturers currently supplying passenger rail cars overseas to open modern facilities here. And it provides a tax incentive for private domestic businesses to re-enter the passenger rail equipment business and rebuild facilities and train cars in the United States.

The legislation also would create a trust fund to replace the nation’s train cars by transferring one-quarter cent of the per-gallon motor fuel tax into the trust fund for three years. That would generate about $400 million a year, Durbin said.

It’s good to see more funding being proposed for passenger rail service. Whereas the federal government provides tens of billions of dollars for highways and airports, Amtrak has been treated as the redheaded stepchild, getting a mere $1 billion each year, even as they stave off annual efforts from the White House to cut off funding altogether. With gas prices on the rise, rail ridership is rising dramatically, and more funding is being proposed both in Congress and at the state level.

Amtrak and IDOT are currently studying the feasibility of Peoria-Chicago passenger service.