High-speed rail discussions need to address key issues

High-speed rail discussionsneed to address key issues
EDITOR:
The article published Nov. 30, "Plan seeks to expand rail travel," caught my eye. It seems that we have one more in the succession of such plans for rail passenger service in Ohio. This one is more comprehensive than many of the past, but it also appears to suffer from the same flaws.
First, nothing was said about Ohio's primary need -- the need for daylight local service between Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron and Pittsburgh. High-speed rail is a nice, romantic-sounding concept, but it should be icing on the local service cake. Romanticism does not pay. High-speed service should be built on top of a strong local service.
Second, high-speed rail? Is that fine-sounding figure of 110-mile per hour the expected average speed, or the possible top speed? Considering the currently available rights of way, even the latter may not be possible.
Third, what about the costs? To have real high-speed service, they will need to pay for many things. Some of these include the elimination of all (!) grade crossings, double and possibly triple tracking the corridors, smoothing out the curves, concrete ties, no right-of-way grades over 1 percent. If all the money proposed for studies over the past 20 years had been used to construct such a system, we could have had one up and running.
Fourth, getting people to ride it. It should be clearly and visibly better than driving one's auto to a given destination. It needs to be reliable, with at least a 90 percent on-time record. It should be affordable. Considering that the today's equivalent of the 1949 passenger coach rail fare between Cleveland and Cincinnati would be from $120 to $150, despite the desired goal of having the service pay for itself, subsidization is inevitable. And if it is truly supposed to be a long-distance high-speed service, it needs to be of a greater convenience than the airlines.
Finally, the commitment needs to be a very long-term one. People won't ride it if they feel that it will be yanked from under them next year, or in five years, by politicians who can't see more than five seconds into the future.
JEROME K. STEPHENS
Warren
Considering gasoline froma different perspective makes it look like a bargain
EDITOR:
The consensus among the motoring public seems to be that gasoline prices are exceedingly high. Yet a tidbit in the Nov. 29 edition of Science News could serve to soften things a mite.
A new Carnegie Institution analysis suggests that every gallon of gasoline is derived from an amount of ancient vegetable matter equivalent to a 40-acre wheat field. The oil, we know, had its genesis millions of years ago, in the remains of small aquatic plants -- the carbon-based remains having been very slowly changed by heat and pressure into powerful fossil fuel.
Many plants decompose promptly, and the carbon returns to the natural cycles. And since plants are only about half carbon, it's calculated the carbon in a single gallon of gasoline corresponds to a staggering 89 metric tons of ancient plant matter!
To the more indulgent personalities among us, this may mitigate the high cost of gasoline. Now, where's the pundit who can explain, apart from taxes, the high cost of a gallon of wine?
WILLIAM DAUENHAUER
Willowick