March 7, 200817 yr Thats probably not the best way to be running track to Cleveland, through Silver Lake. There are so many at grade crossings along that route along very busy roadways and intersections. That wasn't going to be a commuter line. That was a wine and dine train that goes to Hudson and then back or vice versa. I thought it was intriguing yet pretty lame and potentially dangerous as it would be going across a lot of crossings where a train hasn't passed in 20 years. I wouldn't want to be eating fondue on that train... Definitely the way to go to Cleveland is up the gut through the Cuyahoga Valley. I think it would be possible and preferable to get over 60mph+. Going through Northern Summit Co.'s built out suburbia that hasn't seen a train in a generation come through it and would expect, should one appear, to be rolling at 25-35mph tops. In comparison the CVNP is pretty desolate. People do expect to see trains at the crossings albeit slow ones. Maybe thats the question could newer, faster, commuter trains freely ply the CVSR rails during the weekdays and make space for the slower trains on the weekends?
March 7, 200817 yr This is good news, indeed. The Dick Celeste episode just goes to show that having a Dem Gov doesn't necessarily mean we'll have a transit/rail friendly pol. We should have had 3-C's 20 years ago, but the state was tied up with that High-Speed rail study which, of course, went nowhere except for lining a bunch of consultant's pockets. Celeste's tacit opposition is parallel to the Acela episode in Amtrak's NE Corridor where the extension of electric rail to Boston (from New Haven) was on the way to reality under Carter (Dem) but stopped by Reagan (Republican) and took 2 decades to reach fruition, under Clinton (Dem)... Strickland with this pronouncement, though, seems to restoring the Dems as being more rail friendly; certainly moreso than that idiot Bob Taft. We know, however, in this most conservative of northern states, however, such a position (by Strickland) doesn't come without political risks. But at the very least, it's obvious having the state's lead pol verbally in our corner is light year's better than having him (or her? ... oh, sorry, this is Ohio Tuesday's Hillary primary vote, notwithstanding)... We can only hope for the best.
March 7, 200817 yr We know, however, in this most conservative of northern states, however, such a position (by Strickland) doesn't come without political risks. C'mon man, Indiana is right next door.
March 7, 200817 yr From this morning's Columbus Dispatch: Strickland on board effort for 3-C corridor He consults Amtrak on starting intercity rail Friday, March 7, 2008 3:10 AM By Jim Siegel THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH THE HOT ISSUE If Ohio had passenger train service connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, would you use it? Click here to comment http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/07/hotissue_rail.html State officials have talked about it for a good two decades, and now Gov. Ted Strickland is taking steps toward creating a passenger rail corridor connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. Read more at: http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/07/ChooChoo.ART_ART_03-07-08_B2_EK9IMTN.html?sid=101
March 7, 200817 yr From this mornings Cincy Enquirer. Kudos to Strickland! http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/BIZ/803070348/1076 Ohio awaits Amtrak study BY MARGARET A. MCGURK | [email protected] Ohio will have to wait its turn before Amtrak returns a verdict on prospects for high-speed passenger rail service linking Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland. Five other states are in line already awaiting reports like the one Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland recently requested on the viability of high-speed passenger rail in the "3-C Corridor," including Springfield and Dayton. Ohio's report will be ready in 12 to 18 months, said Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari. Read more at ther URLK above.
March 7, 200817 yr The timing is so right for this. Finally, people are seriously considering rail as a viable means of transportation.
March 7, 200817 yr 03/07/2008 Strickland looking for Amtrak to link state's 3-C corridor BRIAN ROSS , Morning Journal Writer COLUMBUS -- Travelers who use Interstate 71 to get between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati could get another mode of transportation a a few years. Governor Ted Strickland has asked Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant to begin passenger railroad studies on the 3-C corridor, as a potential rail connection between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati is called. Read more at: http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19368583&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46371&rfi=6
March 7, 200817 yr Strickland wants Amtrak to study rail service with Springfield stop By Samantha Sommer Staff Writer Springfield News Sun Friday, March 07, 2008 SPRINGFIELD —Passenger rail service that could possibly connect Springfield with some Ohio cities isn't about nostalgia, a state rail commission spokesman says. Read more at: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/06/sns030708train.html
March 7, 200817 yr "This is an incremental start,'' said Ken Sislak, board member of All Aboard Ohio -- a non-profit organization focused on public transpiration and passenger rail service throughout the state. ''I think the 3-C corridor is a great idea.'' Nice job, Morning Journal. Most of the articles have been pretty decent. This one was pretty sloppy. And it's All Aboard Ohio. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 7, 200817 yr www.allaboardohio.org ALL ABOARD OHIO APPLAUDS GOVERNOR STRICKLAND AND ORDC FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact information: Andrew Bremer, Executive Director [email protected] w: 614-228-6005 c: 614-657-4184 March 7, 2008 Columbus, Ohio Options for Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati Service Sought (Columbus, OH) All Aboard Ohio is grateful to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland for asking Amtrak to investigate the potential ridership and costs of starting fast, convenient and modern passenger rail service in Ohio’s busiest and most populous travel corridor. Starting passenger train services on existing, high-quality freight railroad tracks linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati means that congested freight infrastructure “choke points” will need to be addressed. The ultimate goal of this effort is for Ohio to encourage and accommodate more economic growth in an energy efficient, environmentally friendly manner. Train stations will be located in walkable town centers and serve as magnets for private investment and local transportation. With fuel prices at record highs, rail traffic is also at or near record highs. Amtrak in 2007 carried more travelers than in any single year in its 36-year history. U.S. freight railroads carried more carloads of traffic in 2006 than at any time in the industry’s 170-year history; 2007 was their second-busiest year. “Travelers and shippers who are mindful of their finances are increasingly turning to railroads for their transportation needs,” said All Aboard Ohio Executive Director Andrew Bremer. “If Ohio wants to compete for residents and businesses, Ohio needs to ensure that this mode of transportation is available to its citizens, visitors and shippers, too.” Fourteen states already have partnerships with Amtrak to provide passenger train services and to improve and modernize rail infrastructure in those states. As the seventh-most populous state in the nation, Ohio is also the most populous state which does not yet have a service partnership with Amtrak. Columbus is the most populous metro area in the nation without any regularly scheduled passenger trains. The Greater Dayton-Springfield area is in America’s top-10 largest population centers with no passenger trains. Cincinnati has Amtrak trains only three days a week, all in the middle of the night. Cleveland and Toledo have slightly better passenger train services. In addition to downtown stations in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, other potential stations could be located at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Galion, Delaware, Columbus-Crosswoods, Springfield, Middletown and Sharonville. The Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati (3-C) Corridor, which is wholly within Ohio, is being targeted by the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) as part of its comprehensive Ohio Hub System rail plan. Other Ohio Hub routes are interstate, such as Cleveland - Youngstown - Pittsburgh and Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit, and are being sought jointly by ORDC, regional and state transportation agencies and federal officials. “I applaud Gov. Strickland for taking this first step and showing leadership in recognizing the potential of rail development in Ohio,” Bremer added. “Many other states have already seen remarkable benefits from the implementation of passenger rail services with Amtrak from Maine all the way to California.” More than 50 million people travel in Ohio’s 3-C Corridor each year, mostly by car. The Ohio Department of Transportation spends more than 98 percent of its annual $3.8 billion budget on highways. Options to driving are either inconvenient, expensive or both. A round-trip flight between Cleveland and Columbus, with a two-week advance purchase, costs more than $600. For bus travel, Greyhound’s nationwide service cuts have left many Ohio cities with fewer or no buses. For example, it is impossible to arrive in Cleveland or Columbus by Greyhound bus before 10 a.m. (when many business meetings start) if someone departs from either city after 4:30 a.m. “On the train, business travelers, college students, seniors, tourists and others can work, sleep, socialize, read, watch a DVD or enjoy a snack and beverage while traveling affordably, comfortably and rapidly,” Bremer said. “This isn’t an amenity when Ohio’s competition is already offering it. Passenger rail is an essential service for improving the quality of life and economic future for Ohioans.” A 2001 survey by the Ohio State University showed 74 percent of Ohioans believed that improved passenger train services would improve their quality of life, and 80 percent of Ohioans want the state to develop passenger train services. #### "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 7, 200817 yr How exactly will the 3-C work? Is it seriously going to use existing track? Or is there a push to make seperate tracks? I am hoping we will do something to similar to what California is trying to go for with there high speed rail initiative. I like how they are going to have separate grades to eliminate car traffic from going over tracks. I also like how they have four tracks, two dedicated to freight, and the other two dedicated to passenger rail. Check the video out if you haven't already at... http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
March 7, 200817 yr I think it is a must for this to be HSR...I just don't know if you will see people abandon their beloved cars and degrading airport security for trains unless they truly offer something different than existing Amtrak service. HSR would be a hot news item, they would be something new for the region and would offer time advantages over other forms of transportation.
March 7, 200817 yr OK, stop with this. I encourage you to check out ridership numbers of Amtrak services in other states like Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, California, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, etc etc. Most of these trains' top speed are 79 mph. Surveys showed that the trains' speed isn't the most important factor in attracting ridership, but fares and number of departures. No high-speed rail passenger service in the world started out as high speed. It started out as a conventional speed service that steadily increased the number of departures, increased speeds, attracted development and local transportation around stations. When the conventional speed rail line became saturated, that's when the high-speed line was built. To build a high speed rail line in a state where urban densities are so low and local transportation so limited will require long lead times before enough ridership can be generated to justify the massive expenditure of high-speed rail. All that for trying to have a fast train, when speed isn't the biggest, or even second biggest consideration for travelers in short-haul markets. There have been no exceptions, that I'm aware of, to the formula of creating high-speed rail: You build small at first, affording as much as the political constituency will allow. You expand the constituency in stages, building up the market and the critical mass necessary to afford bigger and bigger investments, enabling more services and faster trains. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 7, 200817 yr What's the downside of having the 3C corridor connect Dayton and Akron as well? Past studies have shown that the longer routing via Akron would cause ridership from Cleveland to drop farther than the increased ridership from Akron would make up for. So you're getting less ridership and revenue for a route that's longer, involving more start-up costs and more day-to-day operating costs. Running through Dayton is not an issue. That's where the 3-C Corridor mainline is routed and thus where the highest quality tracks are located. It would more difficult and expensive to rebuild backwater rail lines to avoid going through Dayton, and which won't save you much travel time. ...the cincinnati to cleveland trip would take longer Past studies have shown that the longer routing via Akron would cause ridership from Cleveland to drop farther than the increased ridership from Akron would make up for. So you're getting less ridership and revenue for a route that's longer, involving more start-up costs and more day-to-day operating costs. The way to get Akron tied into the Ohio Hub is, once the CLE-BUF, CLE-TOL-DET, and CLE-TOL-CHI corridors are up and running, is to extend say 2 of the round trips per day from these routes down the C-A-C corridor. I'm not sure of the best way to tie Akron into points south via the Ohio Hub.
March 7, 200817 yr ^^ I'd consider a 79mph or even 60 mph average speed over the 3C corridor to be plenty high speed right now. As long as it takes the same or less than taking the car (ideally a 1/2 less or more to make up for the next set of connections taking the train requires) it should get plenty of ridership.
March 8, 200817 yr OK, stop with this. I encourage you to check out ridership numbers of Amtrak services in other states like Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, California, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, etc etc. Most of these trains' top speed are 79 mph. Surveys showed that the trains' speed isn't the most important factor in attracting ridership, but fares and number of departures. No high-speed rail passenger service in the world started out as high speed. It started out as a conventional speed service that steadily increased the number of departures, increased speeds, attracted development and local transportation around stations. When the conventional speed rail line became saturated, that's when the high-speed line was built. To build a high speed rail line in a state where urban densities are so low and local transportation so limited will require long lead times before enough ridership can be generated to justify the massive expenditure of high-speed rail. All that for trying to have a fast train, when speed isn't the biggest, or even second biggest consideration for travelers in short-haul markets. There have been no exceptions, that I'm aware of, to the formula of creating high-speed rail: You build small at first, affording as much as the political constituency will allow. You expand the constituency in stages, building up the market and the critical mass necessary to afford bigger and bigger investments, enabling more services and faster trains. But why take the train when the car goes just as fast? If you wait to build the high, high speed, then you may run into the same problem we have now with highways. Most highways were built for a certain capacity to be obtained by a certain time and they had the intention of expanding them in the future if there was need. Often when that capacity was met (faster than what was previously thought I believe) we were hard pressed to find the funds to make it happen. Didn't the Columbus 70/71 split reach capacity in the early 90's and we are just now finishing the final stages of planning? Also, California is jumping right into the high speed rail and there density is lower than ours (this is an assumption seeing as though California the state is so vast and the major cities are so far apart). If California can do it than why can't we? Also, wasn't it mentioned on this thread somewhere that Ohio has the same population density as France? We have a lot potential I believe for high speed rail given the current air travel conditions. Ohio has a lot of major cities for one state: Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and other decent sized cities as Dayton, Toledo and Akron. Indiana has Indianapolis (Fort Wayne-maybe). Illinois has Chicago. Michigan has Detroit.
March 8, 200817 yr 1. It's not just a matter of speed, it's also about being able to use your travel time as you wish. If you're traveling on business, the train gives you the advantage of using that time productively instead of trying to multi-task while driving..... which has already been well-established as a major contributor to traffic accidents. 2. As KJP pointed out so well, no nation has been able to built true HSR without first growing their conventional systems and gradually increasing speeds. HSR also requires a didicated right-of-way, which no freight railroad is about to give up... at least not without great expense... leaving the only alternative to build entirely new right-of-way and having to acquire land through either purchase or eminent domain. The political battle alone would likely kill the effort. 3. HSR will happen in North America, but until we build a public awareness of what good passenger rail can be, the general public will never be able to wrap their minds around high-speed rail. Most of us on this forum are well aware of what true HSR is like, but the majority of Americans have never traveled overseas and seen HSR first-hand.
March 8, 200817 yr And California didn't just jump into high-speed rail. That ignores more than $3 billion worth of capital and operating cost investments made by the state since the early 1970s, with more than $2 billion of that investment made since 1990. And that's just for the Amtrak intercity rail services -- it doesn't include the billions more invested in light rail transit, heavy rail subway/metro, and regional commuter rail systems. These local connections are essential to having a density of traffic feeders into a high-speed rail system. And speaking of density, San Francisco has 16,634 residents per square mile, Los Angeles has 7,873/sq. mi., Oakland with 7,127/sq. mi., Fresno with 4,315/sq. mi. and "little" Bakersfield (OK, it's got 300,000 people -- more than Dayton or Akron) has 2,184 people per square mile. Of the 3-Cs, Cleveland has the highest population density with 6,167 people per square mile. Consider what has happened since 1971 in California, thanks to state programs that invest more than any other state in Amtrak passenger rail services. Yet top train speeds are limited to 79 mph with end-to-end average speeds of about 50 mph...... Los Angeles - San Diego (Pacific Surfliner-south): trains per day 1971 - 5 1980 - 14 1990 - 18* 2000 - 22* 2008 - 22* * Does not include frequent LA-Oceanside Metrolink and San Diego-Oceanside commuter trains. Los Angeles - Santa Barbara - San Luis Obispo (Pacific Surfliner-north): trains per day 1971 - 2 1980 - 2 1990 - 6* 2000 - 10* 2008 - 12* * Does not include frequent LA-Oxnard Metrolink commuter trains. Bakersfield - Fresno - Oakland/Sacramento (San Joaquin Corridor): trains per day 1971 - 0 1980 - 4 1990 - 6 2000 - 10* 2008 - 12* * Does not include frequent Amtrak Capitol Corridor service between Oakland and Martinez (33 miles of shared route and five shared stations). San Jose - Oakland - Sacramento (Capitol Corridor): trains per day 1971 - 3 1980 - 4* 1990 - 4* 2000 - 14* 2008 - 36/26*+ * Does not include frequent Amtrak San Joaquin Corridor service between Oakland and Martinez (33 miles of share route and five shared stations). + 36 trains weekdays, 26 trains weekends/holidays Also, note that a new regional commuter rail service was initiated in the Bay Area since 1990 and which links up other Amtrak services, light rail transit and the Caltrain commuter rail line. The Altamont Commuter Express offers 8 trains per day between San Jose - Pleasanton - Stockton. The CalTrain service between San Jose - San Francisco is the type of very frequent service one would expect to see around Chicago or on the East Coast. It offers 98 passenger trains per day over most of this 80-mile route. Considering that the proposed high-speed line would operate via the San Joaquin Corridor and travel up the CalTrain route into San Franscisco, and that significant intercity and regional commuter rail services have been developed especially since 1990 to build the market and increase local transportation connections at both ends, perhaps you might wish to reconsider suggesting that California is jumping right into high speed rail. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr Hey Slippery, I like your passion. But I think noozer is right, here. We've been there done that with High Speed rail in the 1980s and, well, look what we have to show for it. We had nothing (to speak of) to build on in terms of passenger service. Let's build a conventional 3-C's corridor and the Ohio Hub, first and, I'm sure some day, these routes will blossom into HSR ... maybe sooner than any of us anticipate... ... btw, while you're right that, overall, Ohio has more population density than Cali, 277.26 to to 233/sq mile, its massed in two relatively small areas of the State: northern Cal, around Sana Fran, and Southern, btw LA and San Diego. Ohio, with big cities, obviously, has no metro area that comes close to matching LA, Sana Francisco or Sana Diego in pop and density.
March 8, 200817 yr Some views of California's Amtrak trains.... Santa Ana sure has a pretty station: Business class on the Pacific Surfliner between San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San Diego: The LA-San Diego was rebuilt with concrete ties (plus Automatic Train Stop signaling), allowing trains to hit 90 mph on some sections: California has spent a great deal of money on its stations: This is Anaheim: San Jose, where CalTrain commuter, ACE commuter and Amtrak Capitol Corridor trains keep things quite busy: Oakland's new Jack London Square station : San Diego's station, where frequent Amtrak, Coaster commuter trains and San Diego light-rail trains all converge: Sacramento's train station sees 30-40 passenger trains per day, and will soon see its light-rail system extended to this 1920s-built station. It pays to have passenger train in a state's capital city: Any questions why they call this route/service the Pacific Surfliner? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr And in case still shots don't do it for ya. Here's California in motion, with new trains, tracks, stations and more, paid for mostly by the state of California.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar3CSfQq9bw&feature=related The last two videos show how much money California has spent. These rail lines used to be just one- or two-track railways. Now they're three and four tracks wide, with advanced signaling systems. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr That third video is significant in another way. That entire area at Emeryville, California didn't exist a few years ago. It was one of the biggest "brownfield" sites in California. It was cleaned up... the train station was built... and now it is a shining example of rail-oriented development with a mix of retail, residential and office development that has grown up around the train station.
March 8, 200817 yr FYI: Today's Elyria Chronicle Telegram gives a "rose" to Governor Strickland for asking AMTRAK to restore passenger rail to Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinati. EDIT: BTW, that fourth and last video was shot at Commerce, Calif. There were two freight trains working local industries/shippers (you could hear one right at the station and the other in the distance). The point is that enough tracks were provided by the state for that passenger train to sail through there at top speed without impacting the two freight railroad's operations. That needs to happen here in Ohio if we want attractive passenger train service and fluid freight railroad traffic -- both for the sake of the state's economy. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr It would be nice to have a rail plan in Ohio. As far as Akron, I don't see it needing to be a destination as part of the Ohio Hub. A rail link with Medina should suffice. I think there should be an Akron Hub of light rail going to Kent, Medina, Cleveland, and Canton. Most of the rail is already in place and in Metro RTAs hands or little used by a railroad company.
March 8, 200817 yr I know noozer is right. I would just like to see high speed rail in ohio long before I die. :-) I am really excited though with where things have gone in the last couple of weeks. Now, where should Columbus put it's train station. I think it should be on West Broad St, just West of Vets. Memorial Hall. It should be the Franklinton's equivalent of the Arena District's Nationwide Arena.
March 8, 200817 yr Now, where should Columbus put it's train station. I think it should be on West Broad St, just West of Vets. Memorial Hall. It should be the Franklinton's equivalent of the Arena District's Nationwide Arena. Haven't been to C-Bus in a while -- and I really need to get down there with all the great things I'm hearing happing there -- but is the area where the old station was torn down still viable? I know it was along High Street and, if I'm not mistaken, near both the major downtown mall and the base of Short North. There used to be a number of live railroad tracks there, now used for freight, of course ... Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, seems like that would be a great spot for a new station.
March 8, 200817 yr Where to put the Columbus train station is going to be a tough question. There are ideal locations, and then there are affordable locations. The ideal location, at High Street, probably isn't feasible due to the amount of freight traffic converging there. Thus, in my humble opinion, the next best location might be just southwest of there: What the area looks like now -- with ample room for adding station platforms and for the construction of a walkway over the tracks for rail travelers and arena visitors: Then there's this site, which I consider too far away from Columbus' central business district. But it offers a very low cost station site for a Cleveland - Columbus train. But if trains are to be extended to Dayton and Cincinnati, then the cost of this site goes up tremendously because new railroad bridges have to be built over other rail lines and over the Scioto River. For that reason alone, I hate this site: "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr ^ Re: Columbus train station location... That will be a tough one. There are not too many locations avilable and each one has its problems. The problem with the Vet's memorial location is that here we are in the middle of a busy railroad junction. The freight railroads don't like trains stopping there and tying things up. The most likely location? Who knows? Probably the place just west of the Arenas where Neil Ave ducks under the railroad, but here again, there's a problem. To go west from there to dayton and Cincinnati, you have to build a complete new right of way and bridge over the Scioto to get back on the 3-C main. That's costly. Ironically, there WAS a bridge over the river (the old NYC- Big Four bridge), but that was demolished for---you guessed it---a road: I-670. Now we might have to pay to replace it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
March 8, 200817 yr Ha ha...KJP puts up a message on the same subject at the same time!!! My ideal solution: Saw off about 60 feet of the Columbus Convention center and build the station where Union Station once stood...as God intended!!! Actually, that's not as silly as it first appears. For one thing, it's a LOT cheaper than building a new bridge across the Scioto. For another, that roadway over the tracks is hardly used and the convention center could be rebuilt around a new station. This would give the convention center a truly unique advantage: trains right into their basement, with hotels and the convention center proper only steps away---and---it would be right on the main north-south axis: High St. Might as well dream a good dream.
March 8, 200817 yr How do these potential stations line up with the potential Columbus streetcar routes?
March 8, 200817 yr If we have a station on High St., we interface directly with the main streetcar corridor. Other sites would be off-corridor for the most part. Hey KJP...can you give an aerial shot of the convention center???
March 8, 200817 yr The area around the old Union Station site is problematic due to the buildings and roadways that have been developed around it. Not saying it couldn't be done, but it would take some major re-engineering of rail & highway traffic flow. The site KJP had in the aerial shot of the Marconi Blvd area would be good, but for the fact it sits in between two rail junctions and the freight railroads would probably never allow passenger trains to stop at that point. Sadly, there's no room to add a siding where a train could pull off the main. The Neil Ave. site in the Arena District allows for multiple tracks to be re-installed that would enable passenger trains to pull off the main for stops. Neil Avenue is also one the list of expansion routes for the streetcar (CincyInDC :wink:).
March 8, 200817 yr The site KJP had in the aerial shot of the Marconi Blvd area would be good, but for the fact it sits in between two rail junctions and the freight railroads would probably never allow passenger trains to stop at that point. Sadly, there's no room to add a siding where a train could pull off the main. Nearly every location in downtown Columbus is severely constricted. Buildings and roads have encroached on the right of way almost everywhere. The only exception to that is the Arena-west/Neil Ave site.
March 8, 200817 yr Here's an overview of potential station sites. The other thing to consider is the long-term station site should be at a location where it could also be accessible to future train services to Toledo, Pittsburgh and the 3-C trains, and not force a train to make a time-consuming back-up move. That greatly restricts the options, which become evident in this image... And at BuckeyeB's request, here's an overhead view of the convention center area... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr Greetings from Dayton. This is my first post on Urban Ohio. I've been wondering where the train station would be situated in Dayton, Any thoughts? Actually, does anyone know where the old station used to be?
March 8, 200817 yr Welcome aboard, murf! Don't be a stranger! See the former Dayton Union Station site at the upper right. This graphic was just a jotting of mine and doesn't represent anything official... Here's a close-up of the eastern fourth-fifths of the Dayton Union Station site. The station was demolished in the late 1980s... This is what the station used to look like back in the day.... Daytonians welcoming home the Wright Brothers in 1909 (a bit of irony in that). This was before the railroad tracks and platforms were elevated above street level... Then there was this proposal by the city of Dayton in the late 1980s to link a rail station with the city's new transportation center that included the Greyhound station and walkways to the convention center, hotels, etc. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr Thanks for the info! The location of the old station is more clear now. One can see it on Virtual Earth.. where the tracks separate into a pattern reminiscent of a station. The Transportation Center is still present downtown and houses the Greyhound station.
March 8, 200817 yr I have a more general question--and please correct any of my assumptions. The main reason for Amtrak's existence is that private rail companies were abandoning passenger service since it was a money pit, right? So what do the agreements that Amtrak and what are now freight rail companies stipulate? What ensures that the freight rail companies have to play nice when government wants to expand (or restart) passenger service? Does it just come down to $? Is that what ensured cooperation?
March 8, 200817 yr Amtrak has, for lack of a better term, a type of eminent domain under federal law which gives it the right to access any railroad property it wishes. In exchange, Amtrak must compensate the property owner in a fair manner. Amtrak also cannot cause hardship on the property owner -- the property owner must have sufficient liability protections, and the presence of Amtrak passenger trains or other passenger activities cannot restrict the business operations of the property owner. On the other hand, the property owner cannot place undue restrictions on Amtrak in an attempt to deny Amtrak access to its property. But Amtrak has separate agreements with each property owner over which its trains operate, but there are some similarities between the agreements. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 200817 yr So it sounds like agreements need to be carefully crafted when it comes to infrastructure improvements to avoid conflict, since by default freight will always win out over passengers. thanks
March 8, 200817 yr The Transportation Center station proposal predates the 1980s. It was first floated in the late 1960s as part of an urban design scheme. ..you can see the curved platforms just below the "Convention Center"
March 8, 200817 yr Sacramento is an interesting case of a city that rejected an aggressive LA-style freeway system for light-rail. Sacto does have freeways, of course, but a lot less of them than it would have. So now they are doing commuter rail, too. I think one of those commuter lines runs up to Roseville and even up to Auburn up in the foothills.
March 8, 200817 yr I'm wondering if a Cincy/Hamilton/Middletown/Dayton run might make sense as a starter line for SW Ohio, since there already is good freight track between these cities? Then make the connection to Cols at a later date?
March 8, 200817 yr ^---- The existing freight tracks in Cincinnati / Hamilton / Middletown / Dayton are extremely busy. I think it would make a good starter line if a right-of-way were available.
March 8, 200817 yr Anyone know where I can find a good picture of that old Columbus Train Station on W. Broad St. The one that looks like a Chinese Pagoda?
March 8, 200817 yr SlipperyFish Here are some current and older shots of the Toledo&Ohio Central Depot....
Create an account or sign in to comment