maybe you shouldn't have lived a 3 hours commute from your job

 

you're just splitting hairs now.

 

whatever.  I'm not 3 hours away from the destination, road conditions / traffic sucks.

now are you STILL gonna say "don't live 3 hours from your job"?  or must i post it even simpler than that. -_-

 

Anyways I don't have time for your crap Pope.  Never did.  I'm just gonna drop it and continue with some of the better things in this thread.

 

 

three hours is a measurement of time, not of distance.

maybe you shouldn't have lived a 3 hours commute from your job

 

you're just splitting hairs now.

 

whatever.  I'm not 3 hours away from the destination, road conditions / traffic sucks.

now are you STILL gonna say "don't live 3 hours from your job"?  or must i post it even simpler than that. -_-

 

Anyways I don't have time for your crap Pope.  Never did.  I'm just gonna drop it and continue with some of the better things in this thread.

 

 

three hours is a measurement of time, not of distance.

 

yeah, just like the opposite of light years

I'm actually sold on most of the routes in the image.  I also think Dayton should not be skipped in a Cincy>Detroit line.  Perhaps, we could implement a triangle route of Cincy>Dayton>Columbus, rinse repeat. Or something larger, say Cincy>Indy>Dayton>Columbus>Louisville>Lexington, rinse-repeat. ;p

 

I'm also just curious as to why there is no 275/beltway route.  Maybe it is excessive, but I believe the alternative transit along the route should be considered. 

 

KJP and Jmeck, your thoughts?

 

because suburban to suburban rail doesn't make any sense.  You would have to assume the suburban stations are park and rides so you get of in the middle of a big lot and walk to where?  and since you had to drive to the suburban station anyway you might as well drive.

I'm also just curious as to why there is no 275/beltway route.  Maybe it is excessive, but I believe the alternative transit along the route should be considered.

 

The idea of HSR beltways is interesting, but could not functionally work.  The trains would not be able to reach the speeds that make them 'high speed'...and for a route like that to be viable there would have to be frequent stops.  A light rail line would be more functional for this purpose, but the concept is still off.

 

In addition, people don't use beltways as direct routes per se.  They use them to avoid other routes, for a quicker and more non-direct solution.  Therefore for rail transportation it would just make sense to do the quick AND direct route and cut out the superfluous non-direct nature of the beltways.

The TGV has a "belt line" of Paris, more of a bypass actually. On that bypass around the east side of the city is EuroDisney.

This discussion is getting sloppy because we're talking about a few different things.  Acela-type tilting trains max out at around 150mph and in the case of the Northeast corridor have no dedicated track.  They also only reach speeds above 125mph for relatively brief sections of the corridor and don't average above 100mph on any segment of their operation.  According to wikipedia the narrow spacing of some parallel tracks prevents the cars from tilting on the Metro North-owned trackage just north of NYC and old low-tension overhead wire prevents high speed elsewhere.   

 

TGV runs entirely on exclusive and completely grade separated tracks between major cities and operates at conventional speeds on various branch lines allowing one-seat rides to distant parts of the country.  Therefore the TGV network looks enormous on maps when in fact only some of it is actually dedicated high speed ROW.  I think the TGV trains have come to replace most domestic passenger trains in France so even though you might get on a TGV train it might not actually operate at top speed.  The TGV does NOT go through the Channel Tunnel, that is a British train, and there is no high speed link between France and Spain. A tunnel under the mountains would require something about as long as the Channel Tunnel:

 

 

 

>also just curious as to why there is no 275/beltway route.  Maybe it is excessive, but I believe the alternative transit along the route should be considered.

 

Commuter rail perhaps feeding to radial lines heading downtown, but there isn't much suburb-to-suburb rail commuting going on anywhere in the world that doesn't pass through a downtown area first.  Bypassing smaller cities with high speed rail (placing stations either on the periphery of smaller cities or reaching downtown stations with a wye from the mainline) makes a ton of sense for true high speed operation since the faster these things go the more noise and wind they make aside from the tighter turns required in developed areas.  Which smaller cities would be skipped for express service depends entirely on how big-time new service would be and to what extent the stop would slow service due to local conditions. 

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that that high speed rail doesn't beat door-to-door travel times at shorter distances like Cincinnati > Dayton depending on where exactly in each place a person is traveling from and to.  Above 100 miles, that's where HSR begins to solidly beat cars and airplanes for door-to-door times.  When a train can cruise at 200mph, it's incredible to think that one could scoot across Ohio in just a little over an hour, but without dedicated ROW's to city centers it's more like two hours. 

 

Another interesting to think about is potential operations -- the faster trains travel the fewer necessary to move the same number of people and the more people will be attracted to the service.  For example, a Cincinnati > Chicago with departures on the hour would need just four trains if the run took 2 hours whereas six trains would be needed for 3 hour runs. 

 

 

...'ll be riding Koln-Frankfurt in May -- first on the old line down the Rhine valley,

 

That used to be called the Rhinegold Express.  One used to take steamer excursions upriver to, say Koblenz, and then the train on the return trip.

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

The idea of running a TGV past Dayton via 675 is cool, as one could put the Dayton station in the vicinity of the Dayton Mall or maybe even over in that edge city in Beavercreek (or have a Dayton-South & a Dayton-North station)...

 

I lean more to the Dayton Mall location as there is a lot of offices in that area already, so this could help the area turn into even more of an edge city. 

 

Whoever submitted that to Wikipedia is wrong. The reason why Acela trains can't tilt is because Amtrak asked the trainsets to be built wider than the original design specifications. The Acela was a technical disaster because Amtrak f*cked it up by frequently changing the specs on the manufacturer Bombardier. Despite that, Acela trains have the capability to operate at up to 165 mph.

 

And the reason why Acela can't get up 135 mph on sections south of New York or above 90 mph on the section between New York and New Haven is because the overhead catenary structures can't handle the stress of higher speeds. That's not a function of the tilt train technology. The Talgo 350, for example, has a designed top speed of 350 km/h (219 mph) but has reached "only" (340 km/h) 212.5 mph in tests. It is for the new Madrid-Barcelona line.

This Colonge-Frankfurt line looks interesting.  I looked it up on Wiki and it goes through some hilly country, parts of the Westerwald and Taunus ranges, and I think through the Kannebecker Land, which is the old W German potterys district (think Zanesville or West Liverpool). Montabaur would be that station.

 

Another station is Limburg, which has a spectular autobahn bridge over the Lahn Valley (and a nice old romanesque cathederal, too, set on a crag).

 

 

 

 

 

for getting high-speed trains into and out of places like cinci and pitts hows about looking further abroad than france or germany.....----> shinkansen! 40+yrs of on-time and safe high speed rail in japan and over 6B passengers cant be wrong! unfortunately, putting underground and elevated track into the mix is an expensive answer, but it can be done.

 

mount fuji, cherry blossom trees in bloom & the shinkansen

....a very iconic japanese scene!

maybe someday we can have a pic of buckeye trees and the ohio bullet train?

By the way here is the solitary photo I have of I-71 between Cincinnati and Louisville.  It's at least this hilly for nearly the entire distance between the two cities on the Kentucky side of the river.  The scenery is never quite dramatic but the hills don't let up until about 20 miles outside Louisville.  There is one railroad tunnel visible from I-71 near Carrolton and I don't know if there are any others along the way. 

 

 

From what I remember of the landscape between Paris and Lyon is that the line ran through extremely broad valleys that really don't have any comparison here.  The land is never completely level but rises very gradually up to very rounded ridges in a way much less severe than the Appalachian foothills shown in the picture, even though we don't think of those kinds of hills as particularly serious or exotic.  There is though a fairly substantial ridge just north of Lyon and the line climbs and passes through a tunnel of maybe a mile in length before coasting down to Lyon.  There might have been one more climb just north of this one but this is the only major topographical feature of the Paris-Lyon line that I remember.  What's really amazing though is when you enter the tunnel you're in the gray drizzle of northern France and when you come out it's summer.  It gets progressively more arid and subtropical as you head further south, but coming out of that tunnel it's like someone flipped a switch.   

 

Also I forgot to mention that a station location that has been mentioned for intercity rail in Cincinnati is behind the old B&O warehouse just east of the Brent Spence Bridge and within walking distance of downtown.  The Riverfront Transit Center could serve as a rail terminal for two tracks but I sort of suspect that its construction was a sham kick-back that was rushed through after construction of the overall expressway project had begun without any real intention of future rail use or even serious use by buses.   

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=cincinnati&om=1&z=17&ll=39.097145,-84.522682&spn=0.006303,0.014881&t=k&iwloc=addr

 

And here is a photo of the area:

 

 

Edit.  My bad. 

Here is a HSR network that is supported by the some national organization...I forget their name now:

 

And here is a possible system for the Midwest...I find this one quite outrageous.  I don't know how in the heck the state of Illinois has 8 rail stations and 4 bus stations while Ohio only has 3 rail stations and 4 bus stations.  I'm sorry but Cbus has got to have a stop if Carbondale, IL has one.  Hell there is more rail coverage in Iowa than Ohio!!!  But here it is anyways:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/onepagers/midwest.html#mwmap

Yes I agree.

 

Ohio is a 3 city state, all of equal importance. Also there is no linkage to detriot? This particular plan is too chicago centered.

That plan was developed intentionally with a Chicago focus. It doesn't mean it's bad, it was just the Chicago interests that led it. As complement to that plan is the Ohio Hub. It has only one Chicago route in it -- Columbus-Chicago. The rest are focused on Ohio -- hence the name, the Ohio Hub System.

Thats fine, but there still seem to be a couple unneccesary routes on this map:

 

Chicago > Quincy??

Chicago > Carbondale??

 

These routes don't even lead to a larger metro area....thats it Quincy/Carbondale.  I just don't see how the costs of those lines would be outweighed by the benefits.

Comparing metro regions populations, it's easy to forget how big Detroit is and that it's still by a wide margin the second largest destination in the region despite its decline.  So after Chicago, Detroit should be the second focus of a Midwestern network (i.e. Cincinnati > Detroit is a greater priority than Cincinnati > Cleveland).   

 

Chicago - 9~ million

Detroit - 4.5

St. Louis - 2.7

Cleveland/Akron - 2.7

Pittsburgh 2.4

Cincinnati - 2

Indianapolis - 1.9

Columbus - 1.7

Milwaukee - 1.5

Louisville - 1.2

Dayton - .8

 

Thinking of Chicago as hub of a midwestern system and Atanta of a southeastern system, the greater population density of our area becomes quite clear:

 

Atlanta - 4.5-5 million

Charlotte - 1.5

Nashville - 1.4

Jacksonville - 1.3

Birmingham - 1.2

Memphis - 1.2

Knoxville - .7

Chattanooga - .4

Huntsville - .3

Montgomery - .3

 

Route distances:

Chicago > Detroit = 270~ miles

Chicago > Atlanta = 650~ miles

 

Chicago > Altanta via Indy, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga picks up approximately 5 million more people so it actually makes a fair amount of sense.  There'd also be almost no difficult terrain except in the Chattanooga area. 

 

Detroit makes for a good rail destination but not necessarily a hub. The lack of population centers to the north and the presence of large lakes to the northeast and southeast confines its potential as a hub. Also, most of the principal rail lines pass south of Detroit.

 

Thats fine, but there still seem to be a couple unneccesary routes on this map:

 

Chicago > Quincy??

Chicago > Carbondale??

 

These routes don't even lead to a larger metro area....thats it Quincy/Carbondale.  I just don't see how the costs of those lines would be outweighed by the benefits.

 

Both of those routes have more passenger trains and ridership than any in Ohio. The Chicago-Quincy route has 2-4 round trips per day and Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale route has 3 daily round trips. Only one Ohio Amtrak route has as many as two daily round trips -- Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago. Outside of Northern Ohio, no part of the state has any Amtrak service except for the thrice-weekly middle-of-the-night train service through the SW corner of Ohio with a stop Cincinnati.

 

The reasons why those Illinois routes have good train service is because the trains run on well-maintained fast railroads, there is little common-carrier (bus, plane) competition, the state provides financial support to those services and each route has a number of univerisities along them with much of their student populations coming from Chicago.

 

True Detroit is a dead-end unless a connection is made to Toronto but it'll be the #2 origin and destination and very inexpensive to reach as compared to Minneapolis and only 50 miles north of the main east/west line.

 

Also there has been talk since around 1998 of an Atlanta > Chattanooga high speed link. High speed between Chattanooga and Nashville is hampered by the spectacular ridges that hug the Tennessee River. Also former mayor Corker is now a U.S. Senator.

 

City Wants On Chicago-To-Atlanta Passenger Train

posted January 15, 2002

 

Chattanooga is broadening its vision - from being a hub of an Atlanta to Chattanooga high-speed passenger rail line to being a part of a much-longer Chicago to Atlanta passenger line, Mayor Bob Corker said. Members of the City Council endorsed his approach and authorized the city to spend up to $100,000 on the effort.

 

...........

True Detroit is a dead-end unless a connection is made to Toronto but it'll be the #2 origin and destination and very inexpensive to reach as compared to Minneapolis and only 50 miles north of the main east/west line.

 

Then we just need that VIA Rail Corridor to "get up to speed" so to speak. And we can all be happy to get to toronto in shorter times. Well maybe for detroiters.

Millions Projected to Use High-Speed Trains Daily Ridership and Revenue Forecast Demonstrate

Articles / dBNews Sacramento

Date: Monday, March 05, 2007 02:41:03

 

SACRAMENTO -- Today California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Board members received positive news of potential ridership with 2.5 million daily trips projected for the electric, 700-mile high-speed train system.

 

This means ridership could exceed 100 million in 2030 translating into revenue projections of approximately $3 billion annually in 2030, reports Maren Outwater, principal of Cambridge Systematics.

 

 

...........

 

http://sacramento.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=110369&type_news=latest

^I wonder if the high speed line, as it makes its various stops in the LA area for example, would be used as a commuter rail line in this model. 

 

Here are some shots of the Alameda Freight Corridor.  This 10-mile, 3 track trench cost approximately $700 million.  If this high speed line is built across the LA basin, there's a good chance it'll be built at least partly in this fashion.  Putting a third or fourth parallel track for local commuter use next to high speed tracks would be a lot cheaper than building a completely independent grade separated commuter line, perhaps this is part of what is included in those ridership numbers.  Of course there's opportunity for this same type of local/regional combination in the midwest too.  I don't know what speed the freight trains travel through this trench or what limitations there are for HSR speeds in a trench like this.  Air pressure restricts top speeds in tunnels but probably not in open cuts like this.       

 

 

 

That is a neat concept!  I never have thought about this before...simply lowering the rail row below grade to allow for free movement.  This would also eliminate the pesky horns and other noises used to signal an approaching train.  Here is another picture I found on the website...it gives a good idea for the scale:

 

Here is another view of the system:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alameda/images/2-alameda-corridor.jpg

 

Visit the website for more information:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alameda/index.html#alameda7

A very good op-ed piece from someone who lives in one of the cities on a projected Ohio Hub Columbus-Chicago route.  He hits on a number of valid themes on why passenger rail makes sense and is deserving of the investment of more $$$$$$$$

 

U.S. needs high-speed rail

Alternative to flying would help environment, economy

By Dr. Phillip Wright

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/16837073.htm

 

A recent report in the Wall Street Journal described China’s plans for a huge upgrade of its rail system. Among other growth-oriented upgrades, it intends to add 4,340 miles of new, high-speed track dedicated to passenger traffic by 2010. Some parts of the system will have trains exceeding 200 mph. Europe has had high-speed trains for decades over much of the continent. The Japanese have had high-speed trains, in excess of 200 mph, for decades as well. All of these countries, especially China, as they anticipate growth, see a strong rail system (passenger and freight) as an indispensable part of infrastructure, necessary to compete in world markets.

 

The U.S., however, languishes in the backwaters of rail development. We have a few hundred miles of “high-speed” passenger rail from Washington, D.C., to Boston. Even that train speed maxes out at 150 mph, averaging significantly slower.

 

There are numerous reasons we need better rail service. Recent headlines reported seven- to 10-hour waits on the tarmac for a number of planes. What wasn’t mentioned was the many more planes that sat on the tarmac for three to four hours – some, like the one I was on, then came back to the gate and didn’t even take off.

Our hub airports are overcrowded. Security is a pain. Air travel (and for that matter, car travel) consumes much more fuel per passenger mile than rail travel. Rail also has the advantage of going from city center to city center, with no long cab rides to town from the airport and back again.

 

Opening the Baker Street Station in downtown Fort Wayne would do more to increase the vitality of the downtown area than a stadium or any of the Harrison Square projects being offered now. How did the rest of the developed world surpass us in this category? While Washington insists that the U.S. rail system have lower and lower subsidies, all of the other countries see it for what it is: an investment in the future. While our government keeps pushing Amtrak to be independent, other governments pour billions into rail growth and development. It is odd that our leaders feel that rail travel should not cost the government anything when they pour billions into more roads, expensive airports and Transportation Security Administration staff.

 

We need good high-speed rail as an alternative to flying. As a security concern, when the air system is down, we could count on a robust rail system to keep us going. Snow and rain don’t slow rail travel. High-speed rail does get slowed when it has to share tracks with freight, so it has to have separate tracks, but that is a worthwhile investment. The speed requires gentler curves and elevations rather than crossings. So initially, big investment is needed. No one but government can do this.

 

At a time when the U.S. desperately needs energy independence, rail travel is ideal. If we had visionary leadership in Washington, we could move forward with this important building block to our economic competitiveness in the world. And we could do it with a fraction of the money we have poured down the drain each of the last few years in Iraq.

 

Phillip Wright is a Fort Wayne physician. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette.

 

This is just Subtitle C.  Lots of other energy efficiency and alternative energy related stuff in the bill: 

 

H.R.1300

 

PROGRESS Act (Introduced in House)

`CHAPTER 244--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE CORRIDOR CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

 

`Sec.

 

`24401. Definitions.

 

`24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service.

 

`24403. Project management oversight.

 

`24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of grant project.

 

`24405. Grant conditions.

 

`24406. Authorization of appropriations.

`Sec. 24401. Definitions

 

`In this chapter:

 

`(1) APPLICANT- The term `applicant' means a State (including the District of Columbia), a group of States, an Interstate Compact, or a public agency established by one or more States and having responsibility for providing intercity passenger rail service.

 

`(2) CAPITAL PROJECT- The term `capital project' means a project or program in a State rail plan developed under chapter 225 of this title for--

 

`(A) acquiring, constructing, improving, or inspecting equipment or a facility for use in or for the primary benefit of intercity passenger rail service, expenses incidental to the acquisition or construction (including designing, engineering, location surveying, mapping, environmental studies, and acquiring rights-of-way), payments for the capital portions of rail trackage rights agreements, highway-rail grade crossing improvements related to intercity passenger rail service, security, mitigating environmental impacts, communication and signalization improvements, relocation assistance, acquiring replacement housing sites, and acquiring, constructing, relocating, and rehabilitating replacement housing;

 

`(B) rehabilitating, remanufacturing or overhauling rail rolling stock and facilities used primarily in intercity passenger rail service;

 

`© costs associated with developing State rail plans; and

 

`(D) the first-dollar liability costs for insurance related to the provision of intercity passenger rail service under section 24404.

 

`(3) INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE- The term `intercity passenger rail service' means transportation services with the primary purpose of passenger transportation between towns, cities and metropolitan areas by rail, including high-speed rail, as defined in section 24102.

`Sec. 24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service

 

`(a) General Authority-

 

`(1) The Secretary of Transportation may make grants under this section to an applicant to assist in financing the capital costs of facilities and equipment necessary to provide or improve intercity passenger rail transportation.

 

`(2) The Secretary shall require that a grant under this section be subject to the terms, conditions, requirements, and provisions the Secretary decides are necessary or appropriate for the purposes of this section, including requirements for the disposition of net increases in value of real property resulting from the project assisted under this section and shall prescribe procedures and schedules for the awarding of grants under this chapter, including application and qualification procedures and a record of decision on applicant eligibility. The Secretary shall issue a final rule establishing such procedures not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this chapter.

 

`(b) Project as Part of State Rail Plan-

 

`(1) The Secretary may not approve a grant for a project under this section unless the Secretary finds that the project is part of a State rail plan developed under chapter 225 of this title and that the applicant or recipient has or will have the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the project, satisfactory continuing control over the use of the equipment or facilities, and the capability and willingness to maintain the equipment or facilities.

 

`(2) An applicant shall provide sufficient information upon which the Secretary can make the findings required by this subsection.

 

`(3) If an applicant has not selected the proposed operator of its service competitively, the applicant shall provide written justification to the Secretary showing why the proposed operator is the best, taking into account price and other factors, and that use of the proposed operator will not unnecessarily increase the cost of the project.

 

`© Project Selection Criteria- The Secretary, in selecting the recipients of financial assistance to be provided under subsection (a), shall--

 

`(1) require that each proposed project meet all safety and security requirements that are applicable to the project under law;

 

`(2) give preference to projects with high levels of estimated ridership, increased on-time performance, reduced trip time, additional service frequency, or other significant service enhancements;

 

`(3) encourage intermodal connectivity through projects that provide direct connections between train stations, airports, bus terminals, subway stations, ferry ports, and other modes of transportation;

 

`(4) ensure that each project is compatible with, and is operated in conformance with--

 

`(A) plans developed pursuant to the requirements of section 135 of title 23, United States Code; and

 

`(B) the national rail plan (if it is available); and

 

`(5) favor the following kinds of projects:

 

`(A) Projects that are expected to have a significant favorable impact on air or highway traffic congestion, capacity, or safety.

 

`(B) Projects that also improve freight or commuter rail operations.

 

`© Projects that have significant environmental benefits.

 

`(D) Projects that are--

 

`(i) at a stage of preparation that all pre-commencement compliance with environmental protection requirements has already been completed; and

 

`(ii) ready to be commenced.

 

`(E) Projects with positive economic and employment impacts.

 

`(F) Projects that encourage the use of positive train control technologies.

 

`(G) Projects that have commitments of funding from non-Federal Government sources in a total amount that exceeds the minimum amount of the non-Federal contribution required for the project.

 

`(H) Projects that involve donated property interests or services.

 

`(I) Projects that are identified by the Surface Transportation Board as necessary to improve the on time performance and reliability of intercity passenger rail under section 24308(f).

 

`(d) Amtrak Eligibility- To receive a grant under this section, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation may enter into a cooperative agreement with 1 or more States to carry out 1 or more projects on a State rail plan's ranked list of rail capital projects developed under section 22504(a)(5) of this title.

 

`(e) Letters of Intent, Full Funding Grant Agreements, and Early Systems Work Agreements-

 

`(1) The Secretary may issue a letter of intent to an applicant announcing an intention to obligate, for a major capital project under this section, an amount from future available budget authority specified in law that is not more than the amount stipulated as the financial participation of the Secretary in the project.

 

`(2) The Secretary may make a full funding grant agreement with an applicant. The agreement shall--

 

`(A) establish the terms of participation by the United States Government in a project under this section;

 

`(B) establish the maximum amount of Government financial assistance for the project;

 

`© cover the period of time for completing the project, including a period extending beyond the period of an authorization; and

 

`(D) make timely and efficient management of the project easier according to the law of the United States.

 

`(3) The total estimated amount of future obligations of the Government and contingent commitments to incur obligations covered by all outstanding letters of intent, full funding grant agreements, and early systems work agreements may be not more than the amount authorized under section 24406, less an amount the Secretary reasonably estimates is necessary for grants under this section not covered by a letter. The total amount covered by new letters and contingent commitments included in full funding grant agreements and early systems work agreements may be not more than a limitation specified in law.

 

`(f) Federal Share of Net Project Cost-

 

`(1)(A) Based on engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, and information on the expected use of equipment or facilities, the Secretary shall estimate the net project cost.

 

`(B) A grant for the project shall not exceed 80 percent of the project net capital cost.

 

`© The Secretary shall give priority in allocating future obligations and contingent commitments to incur obligations to grant requests seeking a lower Federal share of the project net capital cost.

 

`(2) 50 percent of the average amounts expended by a State or group of States (including the District of Columbia) for capital projects to benefit intercity passenger rail service in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be credited towards the matching requirements for grants awarded under this section. The Secretary may require such information as necessary to verify such expenditures.

 

`(3) 50 percent of the average amounts expended by a State or group of States (including the District of Columbia) in a fiscal year beginning in 2008 for capital projects to benefit intercity passenger rail service or for the operating costs of such service above the average of expenditures made for such service in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be credited towards the matching requirements for grants awarded under this section. The Secretary may require such information as necessary to verify such expenditures.

 

`(g) Undertaking Projects in Advance-

 

`(1) The Secretary may pay the Federal share of the net capital project cost to an applicant that carries out any part of a project described in this section according to all applicable procedures and requirements if--

 

`(A) the applicant applies for the payment;

 

`(B) the Secretary approves the payment; and

 

`© before carrying out the part of the project, the Secretary approves the plans and specifications for the part in the same way as other projects under this section.

 

`(2) The cost of carrying out part of a project includes the amount of interest earned and payable on bonds issued by the applicant to the extent proceeds of the bonds are expended in carrying out the part. However, the amount of interest under this paragraph may not be more than the most favorable interest terms reasonably available for the project at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary, that the applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking the most favorable financial terms.

 

`(3) The Secretary shall consider changes in capital project cost indices when determining the estimated cost under paragraph (2) of this subsection.

 

`(h) 2-Year Availability- Funds appropriated under this section shall remain available until expended. If any amount provided as a grant under this section is not obligated or expended for the purposes described in subsection (a) within 2 years after the date on which the State received the grant, such sums shall be returned to the Secretary for other intercity passenger rail development projects under this section at the discretion of the Secretary.

 

`(i) Public-Private Partnerships-

 

`(1) IN GENERAL- A metropolitan planning organization, State transportation department, or other project sponsor may enter into an agreement with any public, private, or nonprofit entity to cooperatively implement any project funded with a grant under this chapter.

 

`(2) FORMS OF PARTICIPATION- Participation by an entity under paragraph (1) may consist of--

 

`(A) ownership or operation of any land, facility, locomotive, rail car, vehicle, or other physical asset associated with the project;

 

`(B) cost-sharing of any project expense;

 

`© carrying out administration, construction management, project management, project operation, or any other management or operational duty associated with the project; and

 

`(D) any other form of participation approved by the Secretary.

 

`(3) SUBALLOCATION- A State may allocate funds under this section to any entity described in paragraph (1).

 

`(j) Special Transportation Circumstances- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall allocate an appropriate portion of the amounts available under this section to provide grants to States in which there is no intercity passenger rail service for the purpose of funding freight rail capital projects that are on a State rail plan developed under chapter 225 of this title that provide public benefits (as defined in chapter 225) as determined by the Secretary.

`Sec. 24403. Project management oversight

 

`(a) Project Management Plan Requirements- To receive Federal financial assistance for a major capital project under this chapter, an applicant must prepare and carry out a project management plan approved by the Secretary of Transportation.

 

`(b) Secretarial Oversight-

 

`(1) The Secretary may use no more than 0.5 percent of amounts made available in a fiscal year for capital projects under this chapter to enter into contracts to oversee the construction of such projects.

 

`(2) The Secretary may use amounts available under paragraph (1) of this subsection to make contracts for safety, procurement, management, and financial compliance reviews and audits of a recipient of amounts under paragraph (1).

 

`(3) The Federal Government shall pay the entire cost of carrying out a contract under this subsection.

 

`© Access to Sites and Records- Each recipient of assistance under this chapter shall provide the Secretary and a contractor the Secretary chooses under subsection (b) of this section with access to the construction sites and records of the recipient when reasonably necessary.

`Sec. 24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of grant project

 

`Notwithstanding the requirements of section 24402 of this chapter, the Secretary of Transportation may approve the use of capital assistance under this chapter to fund self-insured retention of risk for the first tier of liability insurance coverage for rail passenger service associated with the capital assistance grant, but the coverage may not exceed $20,000,000 per occurrence or $20,000,000 in aggregate per year.

`Sec. 24405. Grant conditions

 

`(a) Domestic Buying Preference-

 

`(1) REQUIREMENT-

 

`(A) IN GENERAL- In carrying out a project funded in whole or in part with a grant under this chapter, the grant recipient shall purchase only--

 

`(i) unmanufactured articles, material, and supplies mined or produced in the United States; or

 

`(ii) manufactured articles, material, and supplies manufactured in the United States substantially from articles, material, and supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States.

 

`(B) DE MINIMIS AMOUNT- Subparagraph (A) applies only to a purchase in an total amount that is not less than $1,000,000.

 

`(2) EXEMPTIONS- On application of a recipient, the Secretary may exempt a recipient from the requirements of this subsection if the Secretary decides that, for particular articles, material, or supplies--

 

`(A) such requirements are inconsistent with the public interest;

 

`(B) the cost of imposing the requirements is unreasonable; or

 

`© the articles, material, or supplies, or the articles, material, or supplies from which they are manufactured, are not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and are not of a satisfactory quality.

 

`(3) UNITED STATES DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `the United States' means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

 

`(b) Operators Deemed Rail Carriers and Employers for Certain Purposes- A person that conducts rail operations over rail infrastructure constructed or improved with funding provided in whole or in part in a grant made under this chapter--

 

`(1) shall be considered an employer for purposes of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.); and

 

`(2) shall be considered a carrier for purposes of the Railway Labor Act (43 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).

 

`© Grant Conditions- The Secretary shall require as a condition of making any grant under this chapter that includes the improvement or use of rights-of-way owned by a railroad that--

 

`(1) a written agreement exist between the applicant and the railroad regarding such use and ownership, including--

 

`(A) any compensation for such use;

 

`(B) assurances regarding the adequacy of infrastructure capacity to accommodate both existing and future freight and passenger operations; and

 

`© an assurance by the railroad that collective bargaining agreements with the railroad's employees (including terms regulating the contracting of work) will remain in full force and effect according to their terms for work performed by the railroad on the railroad transportation corridor; and

 

`(2) the applicant agrees to comply with--

 

`(A) the standards of section 24312 of this title, as such section was in effect on September 1, 2003, with respect to the project in the same manner that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation is required to comply with those standards for construction work financed under an agreement made under section 24308(a) of this title; and

 

`(B) the protective arrangements established under section 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 836) with respect to employees affected by actions taken in connection with the project to be financed in whole or in part by grants under this chapter.

 

`(d) Replacement of Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service-

 

`(1) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL PROJECTS- Any entity providing intercity passenger railroad transportation that begins operations after the date of enactment of this Act on a project funded in whole or in part by grants made under this chapter and replaces intercity rail passenger service that was provided by Amtrak, unless such service was provided solely by Amtrak to another entity, as of such date shall enter into an agreement with the authorized bargaining agent or agents for adversely affected employees of the predecessor provider that--

 

`(A) gives each such qualified employee of the predecessor provider priority in hiring according to the employee's seniority on the predecessor provider for each position with the replacing entity that is in the employee's craft or class and is available within 3 years after the termination of the service being replaced;

 

`(B) establishes a procedure for notifying such an employee of such positions;

 

`© establishes a procedure for such an employee to apply for such positions; and

 

`(D) establishes rates of pay, rules, and working conditions.

 

`(2) IMMEDIATE REPLACEMENT SERVICE-

 

`(A) NEGOTIATIONS- If the replacement of preexisting intercity rail passenger service occurs concurrent with or within a reasonable time before the commencement of the replacing entity's rail passenger service, the replacing entity shall give written notice of its plan to replace existing rail passenger service to the authorized collective bargaining agent or agents for the potentially adversely affected employees of the predecessor provider at least 90 days before the date on which it plans to commence service.

 

 

^longest post ever!

This might make things easier.  This is the table of contents of just the rail transit and freight rail portion of the act:

You can get to everything here.  You have to search on "Progress Act" then choose the result that says HR 1300:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

 

TITLE V--TRANSIT PROMOTION AND RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

Subtitle A--Transit

 

      SEC. 501. INCREASE AND EXPANSION OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED MASS TRANSIT FRINGE BENEFITS.

 

      SEC. 502. GRANTS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

 

      SEC. 503. STUDY OF FUEL SAVINGS FROM INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

 

Subtitle B--Secure Access for Commuter Rail

 

      SEC. 511. SHORT TITLE.

 

      SEC. 512. FINDINGS.

 

      SEC. 513. RAIL TRANSIT ACCESS.

 

`CHAPTER 285--RAIL TRANSIT ACCESS

 

      `Sec. 28501. Definitions

 

      `Sec. 28502. Shared use of rail carrier trackage by mass transportation authorities

 

      `Sec. 28503. Shared use of rail rights-of-way by mass transportation authorities

 

      `Sec. 28504. Applicability of other laws

 

      `Sec. 28505. Standards for Board action

 

      SEC. 514. RAIL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.

 

Subtitle C--Intercity Passenger Rail and Rail Bond Program

 

      SEC. 521. CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE; STATE RAIL PLANS.

 

`CHAPTER 244--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE CORRIDOR CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

 

      `Sec. 24401. Definitions

 

      `Sec. 24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail service

 

      `Sec. 24403. Project management oversight

 

      `Sec. 24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of grant project

 

      `Sec. 24405. Grant conditions

 

      `Sec. 24406. Authorization of appropriations.

 

      SEC. 522. STATE RAIL PLANS.

 

`CHAPTER 225--STATE RAIL PLANS AND HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

 

      `Sec. 22501. Definitions

 

      `Sec. 22502. Authority

 

      `Sec. 22503. Purposes

 

      `Sec. 22504. Transparency; coordination; review

 

      `Sec. 22505. Content

 

      `Sec. 22506. Review

 

      SEC. 523. RAIL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

 

      `Sec. 24910. Rail cooperative research program

 

      SEC. 524. HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY RAIL FACILITY BONDS.

 

      `Sec. 26106. High-speed rail infrastructure bonds

 

      SEC. 525. TAX CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED HIGH-SPEED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS.

 

      `SEC. 54A. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED HIGH-SPEED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS.

 

Subtitle D--Energy Supply and Freight Rail

 

      SEC. 531. SHORT TITLE.

 

      SEC. 532. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK.

 

`CHAPTER 223--CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAILROAD TRACK

 

      `Sec. 22301. Capital grants for railroad track

 

Subtitle E--Rail Reliability

 

      SEC. 541. RELIABILITY OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION OF ENERGY SUPPLIES.

Whew!  Reads like the closing credits for the movie "Ten Commandments".  But seriously, this is great news to see the House finally getting on the stick and doing something concrete: a credit to Nancy Pelosi being true to her word to get meaningful legislation introduced on energy issues.  The way they tied in more diversified transportation into the bill is a very welcome sign.

 

Let your Member of Congress know how you feel!

>If passenger rail isn't profitable in Europe, then it probably will never be profitable here.

 

Well all types of passenger rail DID make money in the United States for 100 years until the government took over the business of building roads, highways, and subsidized airports (although to be fair many railroads were given land for their lines and facilities).  How the heck can they be expected to compete with what people perceive to be free and a right?  The commuter interurbans and even first subway lines in New York and Boston were built by private companies. 

The land grants weren't free.  In exchange for them, which mostly benefited the western railroads, and about 1/2 at that, the railroads had to give the federal government discounted shipping rates.  Congress determined in the 30's that the railroads had, by then, re-payed this debt to the federal government many times over.

 

It's also important to note that not all lines, even back then, were profitable.  There were regional lines that never made money, but they fed into profitable mainline services.  With US mail contracts, the intercity passenger rail system as a whole was moderately profitable, but still not all lines were, and freight was always the bread and butter of the railroads.  Without mail contracts many more intercity lines would have been unprofitable. 

 

Way back then, there was also a business reason to run good passenger trains-- the railroads were the most powerful industry in America and running good passenger trains bought them a lot of public goodwill throughout the 19th century, but that public goodwill began to fade by  the early 20th century and were one of the reasons people-- particularly farmers because they were getting hosed by the railroads with respect to shipping rates--  began clamoring for roads and an alternative to the huge monopoly the railroads were. 

You said pretty much what I was going to say! And well said.

Some very interesting thoughts from a major passenger rail equipment manufacturer.  Evene though the story starts talking about light rail, it presents some intriguing thoughts on public-private partnerships to build high-speed passenger rail.  Followed by a summary of this week's ALL ABOARD OHIO Legislative Summit in Columbus, which I attended.

 

Date posted online: Saturday, March 03, 2007

Siemens CEO: High-speed rail needs private money

Olympic dreams could spur on rail links

BY KEITH BENMAN

[email protected]

219.933.3326

 

 

Public-private partnerships, like that proposed for building the Illiana Toll Road, could be the catalyst for making high-speed rail fly in the Midwest, according to the CEO of the United States' leading maker of light rail vehicles.

 

"In any environment where money is short, you have to go with a P3 (public-private partnership)," Siemens CEO Oliver Hauck said Friday at Munster's Center for Visual and Performing Arts. "And money seems to be short all over right now."

 

Hauck spoke to about 75 people at the Chicago Area Business and Transportation Luncheon put on by the Indiana High Speed Rail Association and other organizations.

 

Siemens Transportation Inc. is the leading producer of light rail vehicles in North America, with more than 900 vehicles ordered in the United States and Canada. Hauck has been with Siemens since 1982, emigrating from Germany to the United States to work for the company's U.S. operations in 1985.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2007/03/03/business/business/doc52d3e7cd231ee3c086257292007b4c7c.txt

 

*******************************************

 

All-Aboard Ohio Summit 2007

Summary from Noozer

 

 

Overall, the 2007 All-Aboard Ohio Legislative Summit not only was well-organized, but drew an impressive array of participants and provided some excellent presentations. 

 

Among the participants were the CEO’s of both the Greater Cleveland RTA and Toledo Area RTA, representatives from COTA, several transportation engineering firms, MPO’s, advocacy groups for the disabled and vision-impaired, the Ohio Public Transit Association, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Ohio Environmental Council as well as All Aboard Ohio Board Members.  My impression is that this was a group of people who, when they went over to the Statehouse to visit their state Senators and House Representatives, they would not be easily dismissed and would in fact get and hold the attention of their “reps” and/or staff.  They were certainly armed with some very solid messages from the presentations at the morning session.

 

Greater Cleveland RTA GM/CEO Joe Calabrese led off the morning with (his quote) “the same power-point I brought here last year”.  But his point was that the funding picture for public transportation in Ohio had not changed substantially in the past year.  Ohio is still far behind states like Pennsylvania, Illinois and Michigan in per capita state funding of public transportation. 

 

Calabrese argued that even a fractional increase in state funding would be an improvement, but even that would still leave us far behind our neighboring Midwest states. 

 

ORDC Acting Executive Director Matt Dietrich provided an update on the Ohio Hub Plan: the news being that the Final Report on the Ohio Hub Study is complete and under staff review, as is a separate, detailed Economic Impact Report.  But there were still some very good updated numbers he was able to convey.

 

The addition of three new routes to the Hub master route plan: Pittsburgh-Columbus, Columbus-Chicago and Columbus-Toledo-Detroit.  That increases the size and reach of the projected Ohio Hub System

 

• Increases the system from 860-miles to 1,270 miles

• Serves 46 station stops (up from 32)

• Serves a population base of 22-million in four states and the Canadian province of Ontario

• Projected investment increases from $3.2-Billion to $4.8-Billion for a fully built system at 110 mph.

 

Dietrich made the point that we need to begin considering plans like the Ohio Hub in terms of being “an essential transportation investment”:

 

• Development of expanded rail corridor capacity is critical to adequately address current and future challenges to our ability to move people and freight and ease capacity issues on other modes.

• Such an investment is just as critical to answer energy, air quality and economic development challenges: rail is still the most fuel efficient and emissions efficient way to move large quantities of people and freight.

 

Dietrich said the Ohio Hub is an essential investment with a significant return on the investment (ROI) system wide:

 

• 6,600 Construction jobs

• 16,500 Indirect jobs tied to development

• 1,500 permanent railroad jobs

• $3-Billion dollar increase in property values

• $120 to $610 annual household income increase

• Over $3.1-Billion in joint development potential

Dietrich detailed ORDC’s next steps:

 

• Finalize the Ohio Hub feasibility study: “We have to get beyond the question of whether the Ohio Hub is feasible and show why an investment in rail needs to be done.”

• Bring partner states and railroads back into the planning process by updating them on the final report and economic impact numbers.

• Meet with new ODOT leadership to determine opportunities for partnering and advancing passenger rail and increased freight capacity.

• Continue to work with Governor Strickland’s staff to seek and secure federal funding for a Programatic Environmental Impact Study to confirm routes and station locations.

• Secure a record of decision from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), preserve existing railroad rights-of-way and leverage state dollars.

 

 

Dietrich’s “ask” of the audience was the following:

 

• Let local media know of your support of the Ohio Hub Plan through op-ed columns, letters to the editor, on-line comments to media websites and responses to TV and radio stories.

• Let local civic, business and government leaders and state legislators know you support the Ohio Hub and more transportation choice.

• Let members of Congress know you support legislation like U.S. Senate Bill 294 (Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act) and the newly-introduced U.S. House Bill 1300 (`Program for Real Energy Security Act' or the `PROGRESS Act'). Both bills would put significant dollars into state-generated passenger rail plans.

 

All Aboard Ohio Board Member Kimberly Gibson wrapped up the morning session by detailing what the “ask” should be from the audience to their legislators at the Statehouse. 

 

“We the people…,” she said, referring to a banner with All-Aboard Ohio’s new slogan, “want more transportation choices.”  Gibson also echoed earlier speakers in re-emphasizing the points that this is about more than just mobility.  It is, she said, every bit as much about reducing energy consumption, improving air quality, creating more jobs through the economic development that inevitably springs up along passenger rail corridors.

 

She also made the point that the Strickland/Fisher Administration is committed to the development of a more diversified transportation system for the very reasons cited above.  She said the administration recognizes the ties between transportation, economic development and its impact on the array of quality of life issues, and that both ODOT and the Ohio Department of Economic Development are expected to work collaboratively toward these ends.

 

The keynote speaker of the day was Art Guzzetti, Director of Policy and Advocacy for the American Public Transit Association.

 

Also hitting on the tie between public transportation and economic development, Guzzetti opened by saying that advocates need to carry the message that “Transportation choice is all about prosperity.”  And he indicated that message is beginning to be heard in Congress, pointing to legislation like S-294 and HB-1300.  But it is just as valid a point to bring up in statehouses like Ohio’s.

He says S-294 “has legs” and stands the best chance of any passenger rail legislation in recent history.

 

He touched on several other points worth noting:

 

Transportation Security:

 

For all of the fuss and resources being poured into aviation security, virtually nothing is being dedicated to beefing up security for our railroads.

 

Currently, Guzzetti says per capita spending by the TSA looks like this:

• Aviation $9.00 per capita

• Rail Less than one-cent per capita

 

Energy Consumption:

 

• 70% of petroleum use is tied to transportation

• One-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from motor vehicles

• 1.4-Billion gallons of fuel is saved annually by the use of existing public transportation, despite its being underfunded at the state and federal levels.

• That 1.4-billion gallons, says Guzzetti, is roughly equivalent to the following:

…300,000 motor vehicle “fill-ups” a day

… 30% of the oil we import from Kuwait

… 1 full oil tanker leaving a foreign port for the U.S. every 11 days.

• If the U.S. converted its entire fleet of motor vehicles to burn alternate fuels, it would save less than 1/5th of what existing public transportation saves.

 

Rail Capacity:

 

• Noted that the recent trend among cities seeking to divert/detour hazardous material shipments via rail around their metro areas is raising the question of “what impact may that have on capacity issues for both passenger and freight rail?”  Does it open up some corridors while creating the need for more on others?

• Rail corridor capacity has been eaten up by the growth in freight traffic, but that any increase in rail capacity “must” benefit both freight and passenger.  He even suggested that the “Railroad Investment Tax Credit being sought by the freight railroads must include a benefit for passenger rail expansion.

 

Highway Trust Fund:

 

Guzzetti acknowledge there is a lot of talk about raising existing tolls or instituting tolls on new or existing highways that do not currently have them.  If that is being pursued by any state, he suggests that advocate must insist that revenues from these tolls “must be designated for transportation corridors and not just plowed back into highways.

 

The same should apply, he says, to proposals to institute VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) fees for motorists or any new increases in gasoline taxes.

 

He says even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is an organization not noted for increasing taxes, has recently been quoted in their publications that government should “raise taxes if need to improve transportation.”  He says state and local chambers are also sending the same message because they realize that anything that hamstrings all modes of transportation is bad for business.

 

****************************************

 

All in all, a very good and productive meeting.

 

BTW: Kudos to All Aboard Ohio for a great summit!

I wonder if it's time for an All Aboard Ohio thread (at the very least) or an AAO blog? Thoughts anyone?

I wonder if it's time for an All Aboard Ohio thread (at the very least) or an AAO blog? Thoughts anyone?

 

an AAO blog would be great.  I think most of AAO's issues get covered here in this and in the Amtrak thread, but an AAO thread here would be fine with me too.

Ok, say we get SB 294 passed this year, and we get an earmark for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Study for the Ohio Hub.  This means in two years we're ready to go into Final Engineering and Design (i.e. construction).  Rumor has it that Gov. Strickland wants some leg of the Ohio Hub up and running by the end of his first term-- which is entirely possible in the scenario I've outlined above. 

 

Which leg should be the first leg?  I would think whichever one is going to give us the most bang for the buck and, at a minimum, bring service to Columbus. 

 

Should it be the entire 3-C?  Or should it be something that ties a good portion of Ohio into an existing corridor in another state?  Something like Columbus-Cleveland-Buffalo, which would tie Ohio into the Empire Corridor. 

 

Is the infrastructure work needed for Columbus-Cleveland-Buffalo is cheaper than for the entire 3-C?  If so, I'm inclined to say that COL-CLE-BUF should be the "inaugural leg". 

 

But I'm no expert on this stuff, so what do others think?

By State Statute in ORDC's enabling legislation, the 3-C must be the first corridor in which to establish passenger rail service..... so the question in my mind is this: can another (perhaps shorter) corridor like Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh, which is already set up for passenger rail be added into the mix at a more reasonable price tag?  Or perhaps an additional train between Cleveland and Chicago?

 

Does it have to be the entire corridor, or could we start with the first two C's-- Columbus-Cleveland and tie them into Buffalo?  Then add Columbus Dayton-Cincinnati shortly thereafter?  If ORDC's enabling legislation isn't too tight, this might be a possibility if it's a cheaper way to get something up and running by the end of Strickland's first term.  Of course, if the cost is similar, then it would make perfect sense to go 3-C first.

 

By the way, I thought one of the most expensive segments of the entire system was Cleveland-Toledo because  the Sandusky causeway will require a 3rd track, not to mention that flyover that's needed over the CSX track just a mile or so east of the Toledo station.  That's why I suggested Cols-Cle-Buf.

 

I think the legislation is pretty clear on it being the whole 3-C Corridor, but like any law, it could all be up for interpretation.  But my guess is that it's the whole 3-C either way.

 

You're right on Cleveland-Toledo being expensive, but not only because of the need for more capacity over Sandusky Bay, but also at Cleveland over the Cuyahoga River.  The lift bridge is only two tracks wide and with the anticipated traffic increases we're seeing for freight alone, that too is a rail bottleneck. 

I am a neophyte to this but very interested. I have a question, regarding the discussion on which 'leg' to start with. It's about the West Shore Corridor Plan. Arent' regular rail lines going to be used for that and isn't that project pretty much getting a green light? If so, at least the part of the 'leg' up to Lorain (I've even seen Vermillion listed as a possible 'future' addition to the WSP) done, which means only Lorain to Toledo? Just curious.

The Cleveland-Lorain project has gotten a lot of support and some intially favorable comments from NS, the railroad that owns the tracks. It's a different line than that used for current and future Cleveland-Toledo service. That line, also NS, runs via Berea and Elyria and is very heavily used main line railroad. The two lines do cross at Vermillion, so it might be possible for some trains to pass thru Lorain and on to Toledo, I don't think many will for various reasons.

By State Statute in ORDC's enabling legislation, the 3-C must be the first corridor in which to establish passenger rail service..... so the question in my mind is this: can another (perhaps shorter) corridor like Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh, which is already set up for passenger rail be added into the mix at a more reasonable price tag?   Or perhaps an additional train between Cleveland and Chicago?

 

 

Noozer is correct. The enabling legislation specifies the entire 3-C Corridor as the first route to be established. I think this should be the case anyway, since the corridor is entirely within Ohio and thus would be simpler to start because you don't have to work with other states. I also think it's better to do the Hub Plan in chunks rather than try to do the entire thing at once.

 

Let's hope Gildone's scenario is right on...that S.294/H. 1000 passes and we finally start getting some real dollars for rail. Then we can get the engineeering work done and start moving dirt.

 

So, if I were running things I'd go after the 3-C first, but also go after low-hanging fruit in the form of easily extended trains, such as the Pennsylvanian. I'd be very opportunistic.

 

Also...I think All Aboard Ohio will have to formally endorse the Hub Plan and then build a coalition to get it done. This is the sort of service we need in Ohio and while we can speculate about what Amtrak does with its current service, that won't address our needs. So from here, I'd say the Ohio Hub has to be AAO's primary focus.

 

Looking a bit farther down the road, AAO has to become the focal point of a call for real, comprehensive, long term transportation reform.

Here's what the law says...

 

In the Ohio Revised Code, Sec. 4981.04 (A) "The Ohio Rail Development Commission shall prepare a plan for the construction and operation of an intercity conventional or high speed passenger transportation system in this state. The system shall be constructed and operated by the commission. The plan for construction and operation shall be based on existing studies, and shall state that the system's initial route will connect Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati and any points in between those cities determined by the commission..."

 

It doesn't say the first passenger trains provided through the ORDC's actions shall link the 3-Cs. It says that in the ORDC's plans, there needs to be some text in there saying the first route will be the 3-C Corridor.

 

If Amtrak wants to extend trains to Ohio irrespective of the Ohio Hub planning process, and ORDC financially supports those efforts as an action separate of Ohio Hub, that's entirely legal.

Let's see:  $4.8 billion for a 1,270 mile system.  That's $3.78 million per mile.  Most highway bridges cost what, $4 or 5 million for a small one?  The Ohio Hub sounds like a real bargain to me for the amount of transportation we're getting.

 

One additional question:  Does the Columbus-Lima-Ft. Wayne-Chicago route assume rebuilding that inactive line through Porter, Indiana?  Seems to me that's a necessity, given all the rail congestion in Chicago.

 

Not sure about the line through Porter.  As for Amtrak extension: let's not get ahead of ourselves.  The advantage of Ohio Hub trains over an extended Amtrak route is that Ohio controls the trains and sets their schedules and routes. An extended Amtrak route is still under the control of Amtrak and, as has been amply shown by them in the past: what Amtrak giveth, Amtrak can taketh away.

 

Assuming S-294 or HB-1300 passes and is made law, I would rather see Amtrak take their increased funding and concentrate on improving service and increasing frequencies on their existing routes.  The provisions in these bills that would benefit the states would allow state-generated rail plans to concentrate on regional rail corridors that feed into the larger national system.

noozer:  do you think you could find out about the Porter line?  I'm interested to know how we can add 8-10 round trips per day (16-20 trains total) in and out of Chicago on an already congested line.  If Ohio picks up the CLE-TOL-CHI route, then your adding another 16-20 trains in and out. 

I'll do some checking on it.  But the issue is greater than just the Porter line.  Getting the CREATE project to untangle the highway/transit/rail bottleneck in Chicago adequately funded and underway is the ultimate key. Even Ohio Hub trains to Chicago (as you point out) have little chance of succeeding if they either can't get into Chicago or can't depend on reliable schedules due to rail traffic tie-ups.

 

But I will try to get an answer for you on that Porter, Indiana line with my sources.

I can tell you about it. It's called the South of The Lake Bypass, and Indiana DOT did a study on a it a couple of years ago. Amtrak also quietly bought some property to implement it in the hopes that federal funding would be available to finish the job. Of course, the federal funds never materialized.

 

The actual routing uses a former Michigan Central (later NYC, P-C and then Conrail) line west of Porter and south of the Norfolk Southern mainline. It included putting the Michigan corridor trains on a flyover above the NS main as well as over the CSX main (twice -- once in the area of Willow Creek east of Gary and the other near Clark Junction west of Gary). From Hammond into Chicago, additional tracks would be laid next to the NS main with another flyover built at Englewood. The Englewood flyover was/is part of CREATE. I believe the cost of the South of the Lake Bypass was about $1 billion.

My question is whether or not the Ohio Hub project assumes the bottlenecks and the Porter line will be fixed. 

 

Looks like the Ohio-Chicago services will be the last ones done for the Ohio Hub. 

This is one reason why I think we have to focus Ohio Hub on the 3-C Corridor first. At least we are in control of the situation here. Not so once you cross state borders. This south of the lake bypass is a situation that cries out for federal leadership, since we are talking about interstate commerce. Hopefully, if S.294/H.1300 passes and survives the possibility of a Bush veto, we'll get some money to do this. It would make a huge difference.