Keep in mind that some of the survey work for the 3-C has already been done with the Ohio Hub Study, since the 3-C is the spine of the larger planned system.  That may help reduce the time factor of the Amtrak study.  Also, Amtrak has a fairly good track record (okay, sorry for the rail pun) of getting these studies done quickly.  I mean, these guys are pros and they know what to look for and what it will take to bring a rail line into shape for passenger rail.

 

And consider the politics of this.  I think the Governor would like to have something either already up and running, or at least under construction by the end of his first term, which is about 3 years away.

 

If we can get some solid legislation passed in DC to support passenger rail development, the funding question will at least be partially answered as well.

 

There is reason to hope we will see this sooner rather than later.

^ Agreed

 

The political angle is interesting, but for that political angle to succeed we really need to see a new progressive administration.  Amtrak is good at some things, but their budget has been less than adequate lately.  Further, the current administration has been less than supportive. 

 

I am hopeful, but this will still require some serious advocacy.

You nailed it.... it will be all about advocacy....and that includes pinning down every incumbent legislator or candidate for their position on passenger rail and creating more transportation options.

Another thing to consider is that the Governor's bond "Build Ohio Jobs" bond proposal will deal with some of the key infrastructure bottlenecks that the Ohio Hub and even preliminary 3-C passenger service needs. 

 

If the legislature doesn't give him the bond, it's going to be on November's ballot.  Thus it's going to take some time for the financing to come through and for the infrastructure work to get started.  Therefore,the 18-month time for the Amtrak study doesn't really hurt anything in the overall scheme of things. 

 

 

A pretty basic story, but one corrrection.... Ohio Hub maximum speeds would be 110mph and not 90. 

 

Other than that, the story details an upcoming event in Toledo that should be worth attending.

 

High-speed trains could be in Toledo's future

By Brandi Barhite

Special Sections Editor

[email protected]

 

The latest in extremely high-speed rail transportation will be the focus of a presentation at 11:45 a.m. March 27 at the Toledo Club.

 

The presentation will simulate the experience of riding the rails at more than 360 mph.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=7422

^ Actually, it looks like they're saying that the minimum speed would be 90 mph. 

 

 

What's up with this line though?:  "The presentation will simulate the experience of riding the rails at more than 360 mph."

 

I'm no expert, but is that even possible?

Yes it IS possible. here are a couple of Youtube vids:

 

 

the train is going 358 mph

Wow.  I'm sold.  Okay, when do we start building?  :-D

One short segment in the first video reveals how hellish loud that thing is. It's like a jetliner at ground level!

 

That would be a major consideration in determining routes for high-speed rail; we have so much sprawl that except in sparsely-populated regions of the western U.S. there'd be a lot of NIMBY resistance most places.

 

The 90-110mph trains, on the other hand, are comparatively quiet if run on welded rail with concrete ties and a good roadbed, and even quieter if electrified. They make a pretty good whoosh at close range, but not the jetliner roar that carries over distances.

^ Yeah, that was pretty load.  But I'm guessing that it's quieter at lower speeds, which could be used near cities/suburbs, leaving the option for the higher speeds when the train is in more remote areas.

Keep in mind this run was partly a publicity stunt to show off the capabilities of the TGV. In everyday service, they run at about an 180 mph top speed.

 

We are a LONG way from building anything like this in our country. Here, we have the problem of funding such a big-ticket item and the fact that too many areas have no service whatsoever. The TGV was built on an already existing base of conventional services and transit. We have little of that and need to focus on getting real service to the masses before we embark on things like the TGV.

 

Still, that's not to say we shouldn't be looking ahead. At some point, I'd like to see a New York-Chicago TGV as was proposed by KJP. That would cut the travel time to six hours and a lot of off line cities could be reached on conventional railroads, just as the TGV itself does.

 

Maybe KJP will send us a link for his idea (hint, hint).

... We are a LONG way from building anything like this in our country. Here, we have the problem of funding such a big-ticket item and the fact that too many areas have no service whatsoever. The TGV was built on an already existing base of conventional services and transit. We have little of that and need to focus on getting real service to the masses before we embark on things like the TGV. ...

 

I agree. Even though there's a public fascination, maybe infatuation, with high speed rail, stemming largely from reports of what other countries have, I think the love affair would grow cold pretty abruptly if the taxpaying public were confronted with the cold reality of the price tag.

 

I agree with the realistic thinkers who say that we need to start with something achievable with current infrastructure and technology, and grow it until there's a constituency that demands the dramatic, exciting technology. People are ready for alternatives to flying and driving, and they would embrace 90-110mph trains, or even 79mph trains if the trains ran frequently, on time and at useful times. Those are achievable goals that won't inflict paradigm shock on taxpayers.

 

Rebuilding our passenger rail service could be have big benefits for efforts to rebuild America's industrial base, too. Even now there's a large equipment deficit that doesn't allow much room for breakdowns or accidental damage, and the construction of an expanded fleet of new equipment would provide a lot of high-quality jobs.

Excellent point rob.... imagine being able to re-activate one of the big Ford plants near Lorain and begin manufacturer passenger rail cars.  Not a big change from what these autoworkers used to do: fabricating metal, running wires and technology, welding it to a frame and putting on wheels... in this case.... steel wheels.

Point to consider: Amtrak's 2,000 car passenger car fleet is older now that it was at the time when it took over operations from the freight railroads in 1971. It's worn out and it needs to be replaced. On top of that, Amtrak could carry at least twice as many passengers as it does not on its present routes. That implies a new fleet of 4,000 cars. That does not even get into all these requests for new service Amtrak is now getting or major initiatives such as the Ohio Hub plan, Midwest HSR, etc.

 

We do not have the capacity to build these cars (and locomotives). That means we will have to start from scratch, by reusing abandoned factories, which must be rehabbed and retooled. Under the best-case scenario, it would probably take two years before new cars started to roll out of any plant.

 

I can see a need for thousands of new passengers cars, especially IF we do end up in a peak oil scenario in a few years. This would be a logical place for the UAW to step in and start to help push for the new jobs that would be created by building these cars.

 

This is one place where the state of Ohio can make a case for itself and should start working with others to create a better future for its residents. Ohio can literally pull itself out of its doldrums by embracing a move to a society that is far less dependent on oil.

Even though there's a public fascination, maybe infatuation, with high speed rail, stemming largely from reports of what other countries have, I think the love affair would grow cold pretty abruptly if the taxpaying public were confronted with the cold reality of the price tag.

 

Interesting how no one thinks twice about the cost of a new highway-- some of which can run over $100 million per mile in urban areas where land needs to be acquired-- or an airport, but if it's rail, the price tag always seems to be an issue.  Drives me nuts...

 

IF we do end up in a peak oil scenario in a few years.

 

It's more of a question of when.

Interesting how no one thinks twice about the cost of a new highway-- some of which can run over $100 million per mile in urban areas where land needs to be acquired-- or an airport, but if it's rail, the price tag always seems to be an issue.  Drives me nuts...

 

Ahh, but you see, there's a difference. If we're building a highway or an airport, we're <i>Investing</i> in America's Future. <wave flag> :clap:

 

If we're trying to raise the quality of rail service above a third-world level, we're <i>subsidizing</i> choo-choos for railfans. <sneer or scowl>  :x

 

Sorry. I should go to bed now.

I just got back from Europe (England) last night and am sadly adjusting to life of forced auto dependency. We did do some driving in the UK, as well as taking trains, buses, subways, cabs and LOTS of healthy walking. At one point, we were driving along the six-lane M5 in western England (Exeter area) which parallels the rail line from Plymouth to London. It's not one of England's principal main lines, but it's still pretty busy with passenger trains every 20-30 minutes or so.

 

Anyway, we're driving along in heavy traffic at nearly 80 mph when I see someone standing on a bridge over the adjacent rail line. I figure he's a rail buff ("trainspotter" in the British version of English). Before I could pull out the video camera, a Cross Country services train overtook us at 100 mp+.

 

Here's two Cross Country services trains (in foreground) I photographed at Bristol station. IMHO, these would be great trains for the USA, including in Ohio...

 

Sold!  We'll taken two dozen.

 

Would that we could right now.  How long are the corridors these trains serve? And how frequent is their service?

The line through Torquay where we stayed has trains from three different routes on it. One of them is London to Paignton which are about 200 miles apart. That route is one of those which sees the trains shown above (called the Voyager, made by Bombardier) at Bristol Temple Meads Station (in fact, the train at right is going to Paignton - per its destination sign).

 

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_220

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_221

 

They typically operate in four or five car sets -- all cars are powered, providing faster acceleration but more noise/vibration. During peak travel times, I saw two train sets coupled together to create 10-car trains (I presume the doubled sets can still be operated by one driver). The four-car Voyager sets are Class 220 with the newer five-car Class 221 Super Voyager sets offering tilt-train capabilities to take curves at higher speeds.

 

As for how frequently they run, they traveled through Torquay every 20 minutes or so in each direction. That doesn't include the Exmouth to Paignton trains which operate roughly every 30 minutes and use self-propelled RDC-type trains.

 

Here's the schedules for the Torquay area in which we stayed:

 

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/LondonDevonCornwall.pdf

 

Here's a four-car Class 220 Voyager set, operated by Virgin near Edinburgh:

 

Here's a five-car Class 221 Super Voyager at Camborne Station near Penzance:

 

One short segment in the first video reveals how hellish loud that thing is. It's like a jetliner at ground level!

 

That would be a major consideration in determining routes for high-speed rail; we have so much sprawl that except in sparsely-populated regions of the western U.S. there'd be a lot of NIMBY resistance most places.

 

The 90-110mph trains, on the other hand, are comparatively quiet if run on welded rail with concrete ties and a good roadbed, and even quieter if electrified. They make a pretty good whoosh at close range, but not the jetliner roar that carries over distances.

 

I cannot watch this video as my work does not allow it because of bandwidth issues.  If it is what I think it is, and I think it is, then you have to realize that there was a jet flying along side the train getting video coverage of it.  The loud noise you hear is probably that of the jet flying over the fixed location camera.

 

I certainly hope that trains aren't that loud, if they are, we have one heck of a fight to put up to get something like this built.

This is Jerry Masek, a public information officer for RTA.

 

Someone asked me:

"Do you know what Joe Calabrese's position is on the Governor's 2-C/3-C proposal and the Ohio Hub? I've heard that Joe expressed some "concerns" about it at the recent NOACA meeting that included a presentation from ORDC on the subject. The only thing is that I didn't hear what those concerns were, if any."

 

Joe Calabrese wrote this answer. I am posting it here, because of  widespread interest in the topic.

----

 

I am a really big supporter of public transportation, including intercity rail, and yes,  I did express some concerns:

 

#1 - Before the State undertakes this endeavor, it should do what it can to improve funding to the 60 existing public transit systems in Ohio first. Nearly every transit system in Ohio has had to cut service and raise fares in recent years, largely due to the fact that State of Ohio funding to public transit has been reduced by 63% since 2002.  Compared to neighboring states of like population, the average State funding allocated to public transit is approximately $750 million, compared to Ohio's $16.3 million. This has led to service cuts of 33% in Akron and 25% in Youngstown, two of the hardest-hit agencies. Cleveland's cuts have been in the 5-7% range.

 

#2 - Viable urban public transit systems are very important to the success of the intercity system, because they will serve either the beginning and end of most intercity trips, or maybe both. You must be able to get to the rail station, and then from the rail station to your destination. More reasoning for better transit funding.

 

# 3 - The presentation (and the report) assumes that the Ohio intercity rail system will be profitable. Based upon what I know, this is highly unlikely, as the best transit systems/rail systems in the world only recover a percentage of their costs. I truly do not know of any that makes a profit, let alone a projected cost/benefit ratio of 1.56 as stated in the report. My comment at NOACA was that this report has to be "Bullet Proof" to be credible. Most (including me) would take serious exception with this pro-forma. I think it was also stated that this proforma does not include on-going maintenance costs. Who then will pay for them, which will be substantial.

 

# 4 - The presentation said that Ridership in Ohio would approach current AMTRAK ridership numbers.  I don't think that this passes the "Bullet-Proof" test either.

 

The bottom line is that if we are going to do this, we need to do it with our eyes open and with realistic and credible  facts. If there is no support for the project with the facts, it shouldn't be done. If we decide to move ahead with overly optimistic assumptions, it will only hurt this project, and hurt the reputation of all of public transportation, for years to come.

 

I am not saying that anyone tried to mislead, but after all the modeling is done, and the numbers are the numbers, we might want to do a reality check. If we still feel that these numbers are good numbers, we have a lot of educating to do. We should also look at the worst-case numbers as well, and have a contingency plan.

 

Joe Calabrese

I know that we're going to get some folks saying that Joe is being anti-rail, but I don't think that's the case.  I think he's misunderstanding a few things-- like the "profitabiliy" of the Ohio Hub and the ridership numbers, and I also think he's missing the bigger picture here, but I don't think he's being anti-rail.  I'll respond in detail when I have time...

 

 

I think Joe Calabrese makes some valid points, and in any case, he doesn't sound anti-rail; he just sounds cautious about heavy financial commitment to it at the expense of other components of a system that provides an alternative to fly-drive.

 

His concerns about the health of local transit are very relevant; Ohio's population centers aren't the only ones whose transit systems face operations funding crises (for example, Chicago & Pittsburgh), and he's spot-on with his statement about the importance of arriving intercity passengers being able to connect with transit that can take them to their local destinations. Local transit is a significant component of what makes the city-center to city-center capabilities of passenger trains so attractive.

Here's some of the Voyager class trains in action in the UK. They'd look real nice speeding between cities in the 3-C Corridor:

 

 

 

On-board the Voyager train (6 mins):

 

 

And a montage of Voyager train video shorts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CiB2pBjTc0&feature=related

^ Makes me wanna cry!

 

This evening the Indiana High Speed Rail Association is holding a public rally in Fort Wayne at Andorfer Commons on the Indiana Tech Campus, from 5 - 7 p.m. I have such a busy social calendar, but I'm going to try to squeeze some time out of my schedule to stop in for a little while.

I think Joe Calabrese makes some valid points, and in any case, he doesn't sound anti-rail; he just sounds cautious about heavy financial commitment to it at the expense of other components of a system that provides an alternative to fly-drive.

 

His concerns about the health of local transit are very relevant; Ohio's population centers aren't the only ones whose transit systems face operations funding crises (for example, Chicago & Pittsburgh), and he's spot-on with his statement about the importance of arriving intercity passengers being able to connect with transit that can take them to their local destinations. Local transit is a significant component of what makes the city-center to city-center capabilities of passenger trains so attractive.

 

I understand where Joe is coming from but, I think his concern that the 3-C/Ohio Hub project will take money away from public transit is unfounded.  By taking this stance, I think Joe is missing the bigger picture and unintentionally creating division. 

 

The best way to increase awareness of the need to increase transit funding is to increase the constituency for public transit.  The Ohio Hub will feed thousands of people  into the public transit systems of every major city in Ohio.  Many of those will be people who have never thought about using transit.  This is an effective way to drive home the point that we need better transit funding because it puts the issue in front of people through direct, personal experience.  It's much easier to convince the public that something is needed if they are able to put it in a personal context.  Without personal experience, the issue is far less concrete in people's minds and therefore less convincing.  This in turn only makes the task of building public support that much more difficult. 

 

I'm going to write Calabrese a letter that includes the above points. 

 

Oh, regarding the ridership numbers... they were validated by Wright State/GEM Public Services which is comprised of conservative economists, including Sam Staley who is (or at least was at one time) with the libertarian-minded Buckeye Policy Institute. 

One short segment in the first video reveals how hellish loud that thing is. It's like a jetliner at ground level!

 

That would be a major consideration in determining routes for high-speed rail; we have so much sprawl that except in sparsely-populated regions of the western U.S. there'd be a lot of NIMBY resistance most places.

 

The 90-110mph trains, on the other hand, are comparatively quiet if run on welded rail with concrete ties and a good roadbed, and even quieter if electrified. They make a pretty good whoosh at close range, but not the jetliner roar that carries over distances.

 

I cannot watch this video as my work does not allow it because of bandwidth issues.  If it is what I think it is, and I think it is, then you have to realize that there was a jet flying along side the train getting video coverage of it.  The loud noise you hear is probably that of the jet flying over the fixed location camera.

 

I certainly hope that trains aren't that loud, if they are, we have one heck of a fight to put up to get something like this built.

This evening I saw the video at full resolution on a theatre screen, with good sound. It's pretty amazing.

 

You're right about the sound coming from the jet plane.

Joe C does raise some valid issues, esp regarding a serious study of maintenance costs.  No question All Aboard and political advocates need to line their ducks in a row and have zero loose ends critics may try and pull.  But from all I’ve seen, AAO has been doing a pretty good job on this score, but I’m sure there’s always room for some improvement however incremental it may be … I do have issues with Joe’s comments re profitability.  While no one should expect 3-C rail swim in red ink from the start, the idea of profitability being a potential deal breaker misses the mark; I think that's the thinking that has dogged the larger Amtrak for years, esp under the Bush Admin.  As much, really more, concern needs to be paid to how this 3-Cs line impacts/improves the overall financial viability of the State as opposed to the profitability of the service itself.

From what I've read, the Illinois model of state-assisted Amtrak service is a success.  Ohio would do well to use that as a model.  I recently drove from Cincy to South Dakota (fun trip--had to be done by auto), and the Illinois state road maps actually had an inset with a map of Ill. Amtrak service/corridors.  Train service on a highway map.  Applause ILDOT! 

 

^That's pretty cool!

Here's the schedules for the Torquay area in which we stayed

Torquay, by the sea?  I know a nice place!

I do have issues with Joe’s comments re profitability.  While no one should expect 3-C rail swim in red ink from the start, the idea of profitability being a potential deal breaker misses the mark; I think that's the thinking that has dogged the larger Amtrak for years, esp under the Bush Admin.  As much, really more, concern needs to be paid to how this 3-Cs line impacts/improves the overall financial viability of the State as opposed to the profitability of the service itself.

 

 

Nobody ever said that the 3-C start-up service was going to make money and no one has even said the Ohio Hub will be profitable prior to its full build out.  The studies indicate that the full build-out at the estimated ridership will have a positive operating ratio.  That only means it will be profitable if you don't include infrastructure, rolling stock, and stations. 

 

It is my understanding that ORDC has run the numbers six ways from Sunday trying to get them to come out with something other than a positive operating ratio, but the numbers keep coming out positive.  Furthermore, the numbers assume higher track usage fees paid to the host railroads than Amtrak pays.  Amtrak only pays the host railroads the "avoidable costs" they incur if they didn't have to run the trains.  The Ohio Hub assumes fees at fully allocated costs. 

 

All this aside,  whether or not the trains are going to be profitable is the wrong discussion to have, as clvlndr indicates

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published March 28, 2008

 

High-speed rail not on region's fast track

California likely test bed, expert says here

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

High-speed passenger-rail is an almost certain part of the Great Lakes region's transportation future, but a modern system's construction somewhere else in the country - possibly California - is a likely prerequisite, an official with a major high-speed train manufacturer told a group of local officials and rail advocates yesterday.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS11/803280353/-1/NEWS

 

Please know that all posts that pertain to the Joe Calabrese's letter are being read by him, and he appreciates the "healthy discussion." (his words)

As much, really more, concern needs to be paid to how this 3-Cs line impacts/improves the overall financial viability of the State as opposed to the profitability of the service itself.

 

I agree. One of the basic expectations of government is to provide transportation infrastructure. We would not have an economy if we were unable to move people and goods. It seems increasingly important for today that we need to diversify our modes of transportation for the American economy to remain stable.

Except in railroading, private enterprise typically provides the infrastructure, public funding provides the passenger trains. Its the exact opposite for every other mode of transportation which makes it hard for many policymakers to understand why you're asking them to pay for buying trains and provide operating funding. The short answer is because we're not asking them to own and maintain railroad infrastructure, although we are asking them to invest in increasing the traffic-handling capacity of a private good.

Though in the context of his meeting regarding the funding of the Downtown Columbus Streetcar Plan, Mayor Michael Coleman also stressed the point that the streetcar needs to be part of an integrated rail & transit-based transportation system. In particular, he twice made a strong statement about the need to get passenger rail back in operation in the 3-C Corridor and is supportive of Governor Strickland's request to Amtrak to examine what needs to be done to make it happen.

 

 

Wonderful to hear. Wonder if he would be willing to host a meeting of mayors from along the 3-C Corridor -- or even a series of meetings to organize grassroots support for the project? My thinking is something like this: One month, the mayor of each 3-C city hosts a local stakeholders meeting to organize outreach and coordinate grassroots educational activities. The next month, the mayor (or his/her designee) goes to Columbus to give and receive updates and insights from the other mayors as to their activities. The meeting schedule alternates from month to month.

Glad to see this quote from the mayor at:

 

http://www.theotherpaper.com/top3-27/substory1.htm

 

“It is the first step toward many more steps in the future: rapid transit, light rail, a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati rail line,” he said. “This is our first a step in a longer journey.”

Wonderful to hear. Wonder if he would be willing to host a meeting of mayors from along the 3-C Corridor -- or even a series of meetings to organize grassroots support for the project? My thinking is something like this: One month, the mayor of each 3-C city hosts a local stakeholders meeting to organize outreach and coordinate grassroots educational activities. The next month, the mayor (or his/her designee) goes to Columbus to give and receive updates and insights from the other mayors as to their activities. The meeting schedule alternates from month to month.

 

That is a GREAT idea!!!

Wonderful to hear. Wonder if he would be willing to host a meeting of mayors from along the 3-C Corridor -- or even a series of meetings to organize grassroots support for the project? My thinking is something like this: One month, the mayor of each 3-C city hosts a local stakeholders meeting to organize outreach and coordinate grassroots educational activities. The next month, the mayor (or his/her designee) goes to Columbus to give and receive updates and insights from the other mayors as to their activities. The meeting schedule alternates from month to month.

 

That is a GREAT idea!!!

 

 

I Concur!!

I also think it is a good idea.

 

But I think a single summit will be enough of a challenge to pull off, given that you have to coordinate the schedules of multiple mayors (and staff.... they always bring staff).  Monthly meetings are a bit much to ask and creating a fresh agenda for each is an even bigger task. I mean, even the U.S. Council of Mayors only meets once or twice a year.

 

My advice: go with what is possible and see where it leads.  I would rather see a meeting of the Mayors with the aim of drafting and issuing a joint statement of support for the funding and development of more and better rail-based passenger transportation: intercity, commuter rail, light rail & streetcars.  That statement should go to the Governor, General Assembly and Ohio's Congressional delegation.

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS11/803280353/-1/NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published March 28, 2008

 

High-speed rail not on region's fast track

California likely test bed, expert says here

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

High-speed passenger-rail is an almost certain part of the Great Lakes region's transportation future, but a modern system's construction somewhere else in the country - possibly California - is a likely prerequisite, an official with a major high-speed train manufacturer told a group of local officials and rail advocates yesterday.

 

"The first step is getting that first 125-mph line," Charles Wochele, vice president of marketing and new business development for train-builder Alstom, told a luncheon audience of about 50 at the Toledo Club.

 

Wochele and Hodges both made their presentations, and Wochele showed his high-speed video, the previous evening (Mar 26) before an audience that I'd guess was about 125-150 people in the Cinema Center auditorium at Indiana Tech in Fort Wayne.

 

Wochele is an articulate, dynamic and persuasive speaker, and the video on a theater screen at full size and full resolution is pretty stunning. His statement that high-speed rail is in the midwest's future, but will probably have to happen somewhere else first, indicates that he's been briefed on the midwestern mindset.

 

Indiana needs to stop being a stumbling block. It stands in the way of other states' efforts to build a system that connects with Chicago, and for as long as I can remember attempts at grass-roots organizing in this state have fallen flat after a short time.

For those wondering about the Riverfront Transit Center in Cincinnati...there's actually less track missing between active rail and the west entrance of the Transit Center than the overall length of the Transit Center. 

 

This photo is taken from beneath the C&O RR bridge approach...the connection between an existing spur (what formerly fed riverfront yards) and the Transit Center would be built directly under and in line with the overpasses at left. 

 

There would be a grade crossing here at Central Ave...the entrance to the transit center isn't visible in the shadow but you're looking right at it:

From The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (of which Ohio is a member through the ORDC):

 

www.miprc.org

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACTS:

March 20, 2008 Laura Kliewer, director 630/925-1922

Senator Fred Risser 608/266-1627

 

Wisconsin joins the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission

 

Lombard, IL—Gov. Jim Doyle today signed Senate Bill 72, making Wisconsin the tenth state to join the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact. The goal of the compact is to promote the development and implementation of improvements to intercity passenger rail service in the Midwest.

 

“We welcome Wisconsin to the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC), and look forward to working with the Legislature and the governor to strengthen both that state’s passenger rail system and the entire region’s,” said the compact commission’s chair, state Rep. Charlie Schlottach of Missouri.

 

SB 72 enjoyed strong bipartisan support and passed unanimously out of both chambers’ transportation committees. “I believe joining the compact will help Wisconsin in our efforts to promote the growth of rail as a viable transportation alternative for the residents of our state,” said Wisconsin Senate President Fred Risser, the bill’s author and a long-time advocate of passenger rail transportation.

 

“As fuel prices rise and congestion increases, a healthy passenger rail system can be a vital component of the nation’s future transportation system,” said Rep. Eugene Hahn, the bill’s lead author in the Wisconsin Assembly. “Working together with other states will put Wisconsin and the entire region in a better position to address challenges on this issue.”

 

Midwestern states have developed two complementary plans, the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) and the Ohio Hub, to significantly improve passenger rail service in the Midwest and link the region to the Northeast. These plans are the result of years of planning, and significant investments by the states.

 

“With all the states that are planning the MWRRS and the Ohio Hub projects now members of the compact, we can move forward with a truly unified voice in stating that passenger rail is and should be a critical component of a strong transportation system for the future of the Midwest,” says Laura Kliewer, MIPRC’s director. “Increasing and improving passenger rail service in our region makes economic sense, it’s good for the environment, and it can play a strong role in easing congestion – plus, it’s just a great way to travel. Midwestern states, by joining together under a compact agreement to move passenger rail development forward, are on the cutting edge of transportation policy in the nation.”

#

The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission, created by an interstate compact in 2000, brings together the region’s leaders to advocate for expansion of and improvements to the Midwest’s passenger rail system. The commission seeks to provide a unified voice for the region in calling for federal support of passenger rail development as a key component of a strong, multimodal transportation system for the future. The states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin are MIPRC members.

For those wondering about the Riverfront Transit Center in Cincinnati...there's actually less track missing between active rail and the west entrance of the Transit Center than the overall length of the Transit Center. 

 

This photo is taken from beneath the C&O RR bridge approach...the connection between an existing spur (what formerly fed riverfront yards) and the Transit Center would be built directly under and in line with the overpasses at left. 

 

There would be a grade crossing here at Central Ave...the entrance to the transit center isn't visible in the shadow but you're looking right at it:

 

If they build that transit center any time soon than I am SOL when it comes to parking.  :-P

^ Actually, the transit center is already there.  It's just that there's no rail to connect it to!  From what I understand, it's essentially a special event stop for buses currently.  I'd love to see it become something more, though.

Can any of these state stimulus funds be used for 3-C Corridor? .....

 

Infrastructure:

 

Logistics and Distribution, $100 million -- will help spur job creation through investing in infrastructure that can be used to expand and support businesses that move and distribute products. Ohio's central location in the nation makes it a perfect location for a growing logistics and distribution industry.

 

Local Infrastructure, $400 million -- will be used to help build important local infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, sewers and water systems.

As I've read the plan, any funds would likely go toward the movement of freight, including rail.  But the $$$$$$directed at improving the flow of rail freight can be aimed at rail bottlenecks around Ohio that would also (in effect) enable and benefit passenger rail.

 

So, it follows that since there are several such rail bottlenecks along the 3-C, some of them could be addressed at least in part with these infrastructure dollars.  I am assuming these state dollars could also be leveraged for larger federal dollars as well.