tt342998

Work on high-speed rail set to begin this year By Richard N. Velotta Thursday, March 25, 2010 | 6:03 p.m. Environmental approvals for the proposed $4 billion DesertXpress high-speed rail project between Las Vegas and Southern California are taking longer than expected, but executives with the project said Thursday they expect construction to begin this year. "It's all just process and working through the details," DesertXpress Enterprises President Tom Stone said in a media briefing on the project. "No environmental showstoppers have been identified." Last year, developers of the 185-mile rail line that would link Las Vegas with Victorville, Calif., said they hoped they would get final environmental approvals by the end of the first quarter of 2010 and that they would be able to break ground by summer. But Stone said the process is running three to four months behind what they had hoped, although they still expect a groundbreaking before the end of the year. READ FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/25/work-high-speed-rail-set-begin-year/

McClain pursues downtown vision BY KENT MALLETT • Advocate Reporter • March 28, 2010 NEWARK -- Visitors entering downtown Newark using the new Ohio 16 exit ramp should see appealing developments and landscaping, then an attractive streetscape all the way to The Works museum. That's part of the vision of developer Jerry McClain, who also suggests roundabouts on the Licking County Courthouse Square and a restoration and redevelopment of northwest Park Place buildings. McClain, who spent $3 million to buy 14 properties and demolish old, dilapidated buildings along Locust Street, wants to finally accomplish many of the downtown objectives discussed in meetings for more than 20 years. FULL ARTICLE: http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20100328/NEWS01/3280311

ODOT Questioned On Company Selected To Lead Passenger Rail Study By Patrick Preston | Investigative, Political Reporter Published: March 25, 2010 Updated: March 25, 2010 http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/News/local/article/ODOT_Questioned_on_Company_Selected_Lead_Passenger_Rail_Study/34038/#comments COLUMBUS, Ohio—Plans to bring passenger rail service to Ohio are on hold as Republicans question the reliability of ridership and cost estimates. Ohio received $400 million in federal funding to develop passenger rail service between Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland. The Ohio Department of Transportation needs Republican approval to spend $25 million for final design, engineering and environmental studies of the 3C rail project. ODOT leaders are relying on a design firm’s estimate that passenger rail would attract 478,000 riders in the first year. But critics argue those numbers can be skewed to rally public support. And some Republicans say the consulting company selected by ODOT to carry out the next round of studies and analysis has a vested interest in moving the rail project forward.

The 3-C project, Cincy Streetcar, and CUT 4th main line rail project all recieved high rankings. I think the Cincy streetcar project actually rated highest off all new TRAC projects. The CUT 4th main line rail project got TRAC funds for the study phase, but it was also ranked highly.

ODOT has released the latest draft TRAC listing. I posted this on the ODOT Policy Discussion thread, but it pertains to the 3-C (especially the 4th main line rail project for CUT). http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4500.msg471842.html#msg471842 TRAC list: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Pages/Default.aspx

The new draft TRAC list was released today...Cincinnati streetcar folks should be encouraged. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Pages/Default.aspx

I'm sure it is located in the various news articles, but what is the scope of this project? In particular, how far west does the Alternative Analysis go? Does it go to the Sandusky/Port Clinton area?

LaHood to Airlines: Get Onboard the High-Speed Train The airline industry was left fuming last year when some $8 billion on federal stimulus money was appropriated for high-speed rail while air-traffic control modernization got no new funds. Airlines see high-speed trains as competition that could further erode their customer bases, and they were left befuddled how rail projects decades away could be “shovel ready’’ when the next-generation air-traffic control system that airlines say will reduce delays and boost air-travel capacity didn’t get any action from the Obama Administration. http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2010/03/09/lahood-to-airlines-get-onboard-the-high-speed-train/

^Does West Virginia (or counties of WV) support the commuter rail service (MARC) in a similar way to the South Shore RR ? I am assuming that that service is regulated by FRA.

Onorato unveils plan to solicit private investors for Downtown-Oakland transit corridor Pittsburgh Business Times Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato announced Wednesday he is launching an effort to solicit private investors and partners to improve "transit connectivity" between Downtown Pittsburgh and the city's Oakland neighborhood. Creating a Downtown-Oakland transit corridor has been on the agenda of Onorato's Transportation Action Partnership for some time. He created the partnership in March 2006, and the group spent more than a year evaluating existing transportation studies and identifying projects that could improve mobility and promote economic development within the county. http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/02/22/daily28.html

A high-speed rail station proposal from Helmut Jahn: Not perfect, but it gets the civic debate on the right track Chicago architect Helmut Jahn has a promising but imperfect plan for a high-speed rail station in Chicago. It’s not much more than a sketch, certainly not a finished blueprint. Yet it deserves to be taken seriously, if only because it should kick-start a much-needed debate over the right place for the hub of the Midwest’s just-funded high-speed rail network. Jahn, who has long excelled at transportation facilities, has prepared the plan for Reuben Hedlund, a civic-minded zoning lawyer who headed the Chicago Plan Commission from 1991 to 1997. Hedlund does not appear to be in a position to profit from the project, which he calls the Daniel Burnham Central Station in honor of the great turn-of-the-century Chicago planner. So the proposal can be considered clean, even if it would likely send the values of nearby properties skyrocketing. http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2010/02/a-highspeed-rail-station-proposal-from-helmut-jahn-not-perfect-but-it-gets-the-civic-debate-on-the-r.html

Very true and it would be interesting to hear his comments on that issue. Certainly, commuter rail projects should provide both traffic benefits and economic development benefits. His comments are interesting in that what appears to be the one republican vote up for debate is the guy that sits in a district that could possibly have a strong commuter rail market (Newark to Columbus) that provides traffic and economic development benefits. It has the appearance of a "quid pro quo."

^Even more intersting (to me anyways) is Rep. Hottinger's view of seeing more planning for commuter rail projects.

House OKs formation of regional authorities By JIM PROVANCE BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEF COLUMBUS - The Ohio House yesterday overwhelmingly voted to authorize regional agencies that would have the power to impose tolls or share tax revenue to make priority roads, interchanges, bridges, and other transportation projects a reality. But first, lawmakers had to get beyond a skirmish between urban centers and suburban and rural areas over a last-minute provision that would give preference to areas that have roads, water, and sewer infrastructure in place. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/NEWS24/1210373/0/OPINION03

Man, can we get the Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor added in there?!?! :wave: Sorry, my once-a-month trips to Pittsburgh make me a little biased for that corridor service to be built. :wink:

Ohio's rail project might be worth financial risk Newark Advocate There's a certain nostalgic feel to the idea of hopping on a train in Columbus and riding to Cleveland or Cincinnati for a ballgame, weekend visit or business meeting. But we're worried not many Ohioans will buy tickets when the state's 3-C rail project launches in 2012 because of $400 million in federal stimulus funds as part of President Barack Obama's $8 billion nationwide high-speed rail project. Ohio's initial rail offerings will be quite weak in the eyes of consumers who almost always will pick the easiest, fastest and cheapest option for travel, especially in our quick-paced modern world. http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20100207/OPINION01/2070315/1014/OPINION/Ohio-s-rail-project-might-be-worth-financial-risk

^^^^the short answer is that is possible (see Florida's route), but not an easy thing to do. One of the biggest obstacles (engineering-wise) to overcome is the horizontal alignment issues. Most interstates are design for 70-75 mph, whereas high speed rail is anywhere from 150-220+ mph. This difference leads to significant differences in curvatures and superelevation - those differences could lead to significant costs. Secondly, the median width must be present - I believe that Florida is using 44-foot wide median to construct HSR. In rural areas, this median width may exist, but it would be difficult to find this median width in urban areas. There are also vertical clearance issues - it would need to be determined if existing interstate bridges would be tall enough to accomodate train clearance and/or catenary clearance. I'm not saying that using interstate ROW should not be considered, but it come at a hefty cost as well. My main concern would be how to transition from highway ROW to the center-city areas that pasenger rail is meant to serve.

On the subject of schedule, I seem to remember AAO proposing an alternate schedule. Does anyone know where I could find that proposal? I searched this site and AAO's site without any luck.

Yes, it is a TRAC project http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-02.pdf

As I understand it, the 3-C Quick Start is being built mainly in existing rail right-of-way, which allows for less environmental work. Essentially, the project is built within disturbed earth. Higher speed service requires ROW, bridge overpasses, stream mitigation, wetland mitigation, air studies, noise studies, and on and on... To just purchase ROW for a future service, all the those studies need to have been completed and accepted at the federal level. Ohio has not done that, but we are on our way to completing those studies. Those planning constraints plus the timeline constraints of ARRA funding contributed to the service that is being proposed.

My guess is that it could not per the NEPA planning process. To purchase ROW for a service above the 3-C Quick Start the environmental studies required have yet to be completed. The money for additional studies in the 3-C corridor and other state corridors has been allocated by ODOT in the TRAC process - hence, it did not make sense to apply for these types of funds. KJP raises good points as far as the successful state corridors, but the simple truth is the Ohio has not done enough in the environmental and preliminary engineering phases to move to higher speed rail corridors. The states that received funds for higher speed rail (CA, FL, IL) have all completed these studies to at least the point of being able to purchase ROW.

The winning designs as well as some notable designs have been posted to the web site: http://clevelandcompetition.com/gallery-09.html

There are probably many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is the timeline requirements for these ARRA projects. The ARRA (stimulus) project requirements carry rigid timelines that dictate what projects can be constructed. The point of the ARRA funding was to get people working as fast as possible - not build the long term projects unless they had already been through the environmental/right-of-way/design phases. ORDC/ODOT and partners should be commended for putting together the environmental documentation in time for the 3-C Quick Start project. To build higher speed rail (110 mph service as proposed in the Ohio Hub) would require a more robust environmental documentation and ROW purchase. These two phases alone would be 3-5 years prior to construction. As an example, a new bridge spanning the Scioto River in Columbus may be needed for the 3-C in the Ohio Hub plan. This project alone may require 5 years to get through environmental/ROW/design phases and that is being very optimistic. The ARRA funding does not allow for these types of timeframes. Quite honestly, the 3-C Quick Start is the best possible service to be expected from ARRA funding given where Ohio was in the project development phases.

Draft of the Statewide Rail Plan was released today: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Pages/default.aspx

Proposed rail system could exclude Athens Jessica Holbrook • Staff Writer • [email protected] In the next few weeks, the federal government will decide whether to fund a project that would connect Ohio's three largest cities by passenger train - but the proposed plan leaves Athens out of the loop. The 3C "Quick Start" Passenger Rail Plan would connect Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by train beginning in early 2011. It would revitalize a rail corridor that hasn't been used since 1971, said Stu Nicholson, public information officer for the Ohio Rail Development Commission, a division of the Ohio Department of Transportation. The 3C line, named for the cities it connects, would be part of the proposed Chicago Hub Network, a nationwide plan to link the Midwest with high-speed rail. http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=30193