May 4, 200916 yr If the Cleveland station isn't a demo, redesign and rebuild I'm going to lose it. Well, since the city will get $20 million from the county so it can take over the convention center, the city will have some money to build an extension of Mall C northward to link downtown with its lakefront attractions and to put a train station in the base of the extended mall.... Of course, $20 million won't cover that cost -- $100 million might. But the $20 million could provide a local share to leverage federal transit/rail funds for the station/mall extension. In reality, the $20 million will probably be used to pay for more safety workers, but one can dream....... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 4, 200916 yr I'm actually okay with Union Terminal not serving as the station - if we ever move toward a serious high-speed system then we can look again, but I'd actually rather it be closer to downtown (like the train stations were prior to the building of Union Terminal). We've discussed this, but there are a lot of benefits traffic-wise to bringing trains in from the east side rather than down the Mill Creek.
May 4, 200916 yr The center entrance makes the look like the double decker commuter cars they use in Chicago. I think this might be a different design, though.
May 5, 200916 yr Wherever the station ends up in Cincinnati, it must become a bustling center of economic activity with excellent connections to public transit. Visit Union Station in Washington, DC, or just about any Hauptbahnhof (central station) in any city in Germany to see the potential. Making Cincinnati's station more than just a place to catch the train is critical. All of the sites people have listed will require substantial transformation to make this happen, but I'm not opposed to a short-term (several years) location while a real station plan is developed. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if this very issue has already been studied to death.
May 5, 200916 yr some news from the PD: Amtrak may include stop near Hopkins airport on Cleveland-to-Cincinnati route Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter May 05, 2009 04:00AM The proposed passenger train route from Cleveland to Cincinnati may include a stop at an RTA rapid station near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and one in Grafton in Lorain County, according to a report released by Amtrak. The route recommended by Amtrak is part of its ongoing study of providing rail service along existing freight tracks across the state. More at Cleveland.com http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/05/amtrak_may_include_stop_near_h.html
May 5, 200916 yr Amtrak's current Cleveland station near Cleveland Browns Stadium would be expanded I wonder if this means we'll get a real train station or just an AmShack+.
May 5, 200916 yr Amtrak plan skips Elyria stop Matt Leingang The Associated Press COLUMBUS — Amtrak recommends restoring passenger rail service among Ohio’s major cities by bypassing the grandest train station left in the state. Getting new passenger trains into Cincinnati’s Union Terminal, a 76-year-old landmark known for its bold Art Deco style and enormous rotunda, would require extensive capital improvements and add to freight congestion already in the area, according to Amtrak’s preliminary study, which recommends building a new train station on the city’s riverfront instead... ...The proposed route would bypass Elyria and Akron on the northern leg in favor of a more direct route linking Cleveland to Columbus. Post edited 9-4-09 to comply with terms of use http://elyriachronicletelegram.oh.newsmemory.com/
May 5, 200916 yr Wherever the station ends up in Cincinnati, it must become a bustling center of economic activity with excellent connections to public transit. Visit Union Station in Washington, DC, or just about any Hauptbahnhof (central station) in any city in Germany to see the potential. Making Cincinnati's station more than just a place to catch the train is critical. All of the sites people have listed will require substantial transformation to make this happen, but I'm not opposed to a short-term (several years) location while a real station plan is developed. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if this very issue has already been studied to death. Agreed. Of the alternatives being studied for the new (hopefully temporary) station, I think Riverfront Transit Center is the only one that really makes sense in terms of convenience to downtown. The locations to the west of Paul Brown Station and over by the Montgomery Inn, while technically still downtown, don't put Amtrak passengers within easy walking distance within the main business district and existing bus lines. RTC is also the only one of the three locations that is located directly on the proposed streetcar route. As a bonus, it's already been built for this purpose and offers shelter from the elements. If Amtrak decides to build a station elsewhere, Cincinnati will have not one, but two facilities built as train stations that don't serve that purpose.
May 5, 200916 yr Some of you Cincinnatians may be very familiar with this site, but I found it particularly helpful to see what the track/site conditions are like (and what existed decades ago) along the Oasis Line from near the boathouse east along the Ohio River to the Linwood where the I&O connects with NS..... http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/prr/large-1.html The photos don't start getting into the present-day route until you get to the mid-30s of more than 100 photos. After that, most of the rest of the string of photos follow a different route east of the route 3-C trains would use. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 5, 200916 yr May 5, 2009 Rail proposal bypasses Mansfield By LINDA MARTZ News Journal MANSFIELD -- Amtrak's recommended passenger rail route through Ohio would run through Galion, Crestline and Shelby -- but bypass Mansfield. The preliminary study would run trains at speeds up to 79 mph, along existing freight tracks connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. Gov. Ted Strickland wants the passenger rail project funded with federal economic stimulus money. The Ohio Rail Development Commission hired Amtrak to conduct the preliminary study. Amtrak recommended following the Norfolk Southern line between Cincinnati and Columbus, then the CSX line north to Cleveland, commission spokesman Stu Nicholson said. Read more at: http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/905050316/1002/Rail+proposal+bypasses+Mansfield
May 5, 200916 yr Rail planners looking at cheapest route Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:07 AM By James Nash THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH Ohio rail planners are valuing speed and simplicity over scale in envisioning a medium-speed passenger-train system connecting the state's major cities. Rail planners have scratched possible connections to Akron and Elyria in northeastern Ohio and have decided that the route would end at a new train station in Cincinnati rather than that city's venerable Union Terminal. Records released yesterday by the Ohio Rail Development Commission show that train planners are leaning toward the simplest and fastest route connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. Trains would reach speeds as high as 79 mph along the 245-mile route. Factoring in slowdowns and stops, officials said the entire trip would take about six hours. Read more at: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/05/05/copy/TRAINS.ART_ART_05-05-09_B1_NRDOQB0.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
May 5, 200916 yr Are there really going to be stops in Greenwich, Shelby, Crestline, and Galion? Considering how close and low population those towns are, couldn't they cut that down to 1 or 2 stops and make the Cleveland to Columbus leg substantially faster?
May 5, 200916 yr I would prefer it if they kept the Shelby station because without it, I wouldn't take the train to Cleveland I live on the east side of Mansfield and it would be more feasible for me to drive to Shelby and then take the train to Cleveland...wait, it would probably be faster if I just skipped the 3C altogether and drove to the Puritas station in Cleveland. Oh, and to get to Cbus, by the time I would get to Galion or Shelby, I would be halfway to Cbus. As for the Crestline and Greenwich stations, yeah they should be cut.
May 5, 200916 yr Seriously, why are there so many stops between Cleveland and Columbus? I've never even heard of 2 of the 4 towns.
May 5, 200916 yr Are there really going to be stops in Greenwich, Shelby, Crestline, and Galion? Considering how close and low population those towns are, couldn't they cut that down to 1 or 2 stops and make the Cleveland to Columbus leg substantially faster? Those are just "possible" stops and not necessarily locked in.
May 5, 200916 yr Seriously, why are there so many stops between Cleveland and Columbus? I've never even heard of 2 of the 4 towns. An over-inflated sense of importance?
May 5, 200916 yr U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan said he's opposed to federal funding for the proposed rail project. "The questions that remain are: will it sustain itself without ongoing government subsidy, and why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical our area?" Gee, and he thinks Ohio would have so many suppliers to the automotive industry if it weren't for government subsidies, interest free loans, taxpayer-funded infrastructure improvements, tax credits for research and development and the bailout of GM using tax dollars? Perhaps he thinks that these same suppliers would be incapable of retooling to serve other industries. Maybe GM will bring back the Pontiac brand along with Saturn, Hummer, Opel, Saab or that the US market share for US made automobiles will increase above the 50% where it is now. Or maybe Jordan will vote for a single payer system which would remove the burden of health care costs from industry making it more competitive. Nahhh!
May 5, 200916 yr Boathouse area. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 5, 200916 yr Where in the hell is there room for a high-speed rail station near the Montgomery Inn Boathouse? There is less room there than there is at the Riverfront Transit Center which would provide a covered station in the heart of Downtown Cincinnati.
May 5, 200916 yr The other benefit of bringing it on the East side of Dt is that this is the nicest side of town and Mt. Adams is essentially walkable - talk about the best located neighborhood in the midwest. While that spot isn't as close to the core, it is already been substantially given life. It also is basically tied into extent urban fabric whereas Union Terminal is as isolated as its ever been. The Riverfront Transit Center would be nice, but this is good to start.
May 5, 200916 yr Where in the hell is there room for a high-speed rail station near the Montgomery Inn Boathouse? There is less room there than there is at the Riverfront Transit Center which would provide a covered station in the heart of Downtown Cincinnati. At the foot of the purple people bridge where the condo towers (forget the name of that development) were supposed to go?
May 5, 200916 yr There are problems with making a passenger station meet ADA design standards work in the Riverfront Transit Center.
May 5, 200916 yr Where in the hell is there room for a high-speed rail station near the Montgomery Inn Boathouse? There is less room there than there is at the Riverfront Transit Center which would provide a covered station in the heart of Downtown Cincinnati. Rando.... this is not necessarily the location for a high-speed passenger rail station. It is simply the best alternative (in Amtrak and ORDC's view) for bringing conventional speed (79mph) passenger service into downtown Cincinnati. CUT is not out of the picture for future use, but it will take a huge effort to deal with the rail bottleneck in and around Queensgate Yard in order to engineer and construct a "fix".
May 5, 200916 yr There's certainly room for something simple, functional and attractive like Nashville's new depot... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 5, 200916 yr I've scanned a couple images of what's been lost at Union Terminal. These are from the book Eyewitness on Cincinnati by former Cincinnati Post photographer Jack Klumpe (published by the Cincinnati Post, 1985).
May 5, 200916 yr An excellent article by the noted author Richard Florida: May 4 2009, 8:00AM Science / Technology Mega-Regions and High-Speed Rail by Richard Florida for The Atlantic Monthly The Obama administration recently pledged $8 billion for high-speed rail. While just a fraction of the overall stimulus package and just a drop-in-the-bucket of what is needed to build a real national high-speed rail network, the funds generated considerable hub-bub and outright jubilation among regionalists, environmentalists, energy efficiency advocates, and those who have long fought for improved U.S. rail transit. It also has encouraged a mad political scramble for funds as regions position for federal monies. In Canada, there is a mounting drumbeat for high-speed rail connecting Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec cities and also for connecting Vancouver to Seattle. Read More at: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/richard_florida/2009/05/mega-regions_and_high-speed_rail.php
May 5, 200916 yr And today, that entire concourse over the tracks is gone and a freight yard now exists. In June of 1942, CUT was listed as the 4th busiest train station in the Midwest... 112 passenger trains per day. It was also the busiest in Ohio... followed by Columbus (73 trains), Toledo (70 trains), Cleveland (68 trains) and Akron (40 trains). (Source:Railroad History Magazine)
May 5, 200916 yr It should be noted that in 1942, neither the Erie Railroad's 12 trains per day or the Pennsylvania Railroad's 20 trains per day served Cleveland Union Terminal. And while Erie would relocate its trains to CUT just after the war, the PRR never did bring its Cleveland trains to Terminal Tower. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 5, 200916 yr Greenwich pop 1525 Grafton pop 2302 (plus prisoners) [Potential 3-C slogan - Ride the train to see your locked up baby daddy!] Crestline pop 5088 My criteria - if a town hasn't been worthy of an "Ink" photo tour, it's not worthy for a 3-C station...
May 5, 200916 yr If the US ever builds a serious high-speed rail system, there will need to be some tough decisions about which cities get stops and which ones don't. There will probably need to be some sort of firm criteria like, no city with a population less than "x" gets a station, and no two stations can be less than "x" miles apart. Otherwise, every congressman will insist that every little podunk town in his district gets a stop, especially if his cousin happens to be a contractor in one of them. France had this issue when building the TGV system... There are apparently two towns a ways outside of Paris that could each qualify for a stop, but they couldn't both have a stop because they were too close together. The SNCF "compromise" solution was to build the station in the middle of farmland roughly halfway between the two towns.
May 6, 200916 yr Germany essentially has multiple layered systems on the same tracks. A local train stops at every stop. A regional train bypasses most stops and stops only at the main stops. You might have to change trains to get where you want to go. There are options. I wouldn't worry too much about where the stops are located until we actually get something running.
May 6, 200916 yr I remember a quote from the the time that Cincinnati Union Terminal opened. Throngs of people came to see the new station's opening ceremonies. One person turned to B&O President Daniel Willard and "A lot of people came today!" Willard replied: "Yes...in their cars!" Already the auto was casting its shadow over the railroads.
May 6, 200916 yr A comment on the proposed Amtrak station site. This is about the best we can expect, given the circumstances. CUT is impossible to get into, unless a LOT of money is spent. Amtrak could have proposed ending the 3-C runs at Sharonville as a temporary measure. I'm glad to see that isn't the case.
May 6, 200916 yr Word on the Cincinnati railroad forum is that the track on the Oasis line to the boathouse is so slow that it will add an hour to the trip. Of course, given enough money it could be rebuilt. According to "The Railroad and the City" by Gary Condut the Cincinnati Union Terminal was sited poorly, so much so that the previous situation was actually superior.
May 6, 200916 yr Germany essentially has multiple layered systems on the same tracks. A local train stops at every stop. A regional train bypasses most stops and stops only at the main stops. You might have to change trains to get where you want to go. There are options. I wouldn't worry too much about where the stops are located until we actually get something running. I think most European countries are set up this way. Italy has Eurostar trains (ES*) and Eurostar Alto Velocita (on new high speed lines) which stop only in major cities, InterCity (IC) trains which stop in major and a few medium sized cities, and local trains (Diretto and Regionale) that stop at almost every town with a railway station. In some areas, there are two different of rights of way. One for the ES* and IC and one for the Diretto, Regionale, and freights. Anyway an ES* from Rome to Florence, for example, takes 1h 39m, IC 2h 52m, and Regionale: 3h 42m I was looking at the Trenitalia website and became envious, then depressed.... apparently, when the new high speed line connecting Rome-Florence-Bologna-Milan opens, there will be 51 trains per day between Rome and Milan-- a distance of ~300 miles. 19 of those will be ES-AV. Cleveland to Cincinnati is ~250 miles. Really puts that 2-3 round trips per day on the 3-C in perspective, doesn't it?
May 6, 200916 yr So outside of the ADA accessibility issues what else is problematic with using the Riverfront Transit Center? I would think the central and prominent location, its covered station design and direct connection to the future streetcar system would make this site the #1 option. This would, in my opinion, give the station a "big city" feel and make it most functional for those looking to get around without a car or at least with minimal use of a car.
May 6, 200916 yr What are the ADA issues at Riverfront? Given that it's a fairly new facility and that meeting ADA standards would have been required for even getting a building permit or federal funding, I find it hard to believe the issues are all that major. Certainly any required ADA-related upgrades would still cost far less than building an entire new station elsewhere. Even if my dream scenario comes true and Union Terminal becomes a stunning high-speed rail hub, I think the Riverfront Transit Center could still have a role to play in intercity rail because of its location. Think of Back Bay station in Boston, which is much more convenient to parts of downtown Boston than South Station. South Station is still the primary destination for Boston-bound intercity trains, but most trains also stop at Back Bay on their way to/from South Station... I think RTC could serve a similar role in Cincy, especially if trains are coming in from the east on the Oasis line. Germany essentially has multiple layered systems on the same tracks. A local train stops at every stop. A regional train bypasses most stops and stops only at the main stops. You might have to change trains to get where you want to go. There are options. I wouldn't worry too much about where the stops are located until we actually get something running. True... The Northeast Corridor pretty much operates this way as well. The Acela stops at the major destinations while Amtrak regional trains and commuter trains serve the intermediate stations.
May 6, 200916 yr Whoa whoa whoa -- The "Boathouse" station would use the Oasis tracks as its approach to Cincinnati, a completely different line than one to either Union Terminal or the Longworth Hall area. Technically the Riverfront Transit Center can be approached from either side, but from the "Boathouse" direction it would have to at the very least cross Broadway and Pete Rose Way. A daily train scheduled around 6-10pm could cause havoc if an event is letting out at the same time since the approach would be very slow. If big-time passenger rail returns to Union Terminal, I think the only way to do it is for the passenger tracks to be elevated above the freight yard below. Newark, NJ's Penn Station is elevated in this manner. The original CUT layout had 8 platforms and 16 tracks. I don't think we'd need more than 4 tracks for a long, long time.
May 6, 200916 yr >Word on the Cincinnati railroad forum is that the track on the Oasis line to the boathouse is so slow that it will add an hour to the trip. Of course, given enough money it could be rebuilt. The current speed limit is 12mph for a distance of about six miles between downtown and Lunken Airport. There is basically zero traffic on this line, but it is still active. I think one or two short trains per week haul scrap from that operation next to Ted Berry Park. Also, streetcars *NEVER* served CUT. Yes, they were intended to and the decorative aluminum can still be seen on their bridges over Dalton St., but the tracks were never laid. Ironically, this is one of the most prominent vestiges of Cincinnati's disassembled streetcar system. Also, CUT's former parking garage was taken over by the Cincinnati Children's Museum. The parking garage was accessed inside the Dalton St. tunnel. Meanwhile, thousands of underground parking spaces are under construction adjacent to the Riverfront Transit Center.
May 6, 200916 yr I'm aware that streetcars never served CUT. The important thing is, there's a provision for streetcars built into the facility that could someday be utilized. As for parking, I doubt there will ever be a shortage of it at CUT, given those huge surface parking lots on either side of Ezzard Charles Drive. Even if those sites are eventually developed, multi-story garages could easily be incorporated into whatever gets built. As others have mentioned, the freight operations behind CUT are the big impediment, but I don't think even that issue is insurmountable given some creativity and lots of money.
May 6, 200916 yr What are the ADA issues at Riverfront? Given that it's a fairly new facility and that meeting ADA standards would have been required for even getting a building permit or federal funding, I find it hard to believe the issues are all that major. Certainly any required ADA-related upgrades would still cost far less than building an entire new station elsewhere. Federal funds were used to construct the transit center, which means that ADA compliance was a requirement for the project. I would find it hard to believe that ADA compliance was not met as part of the FWW project for the surrounding area. I apologize in advance for my lack of Cincinnati knowledge, but why would CUT be considered the long term station location? To me the station needs to be close to downtown or The Banks area. It would be quite a walk/bike ride from CUT to the CBD or The Banks area. This gap could be cut down by a transit connection, but it seems a more central location would be more beneficial. By placing the multimodal hub near the Riverfront area, riders have easy access to the proposed streetcar, pro sports facilities, mixed-use development, etc.
May 6, 200916 yr Ideally, a passenger terminal would be located as close to fountain square as possible. Cincinnati Union Terminal is a long walk from fountain square.
May 6, 200916 yr CUT makes sense only because it is a big cool old station, little else recommends it. If I'm spending money on rail service for the U.S., I start with good trains and enough of them with decent service that runs on time. In terms of stations, they have to be better than a bus terminal but not by much - if they were new, clean, and had a little of modern architectural touches rather than vibe waiting room for a prison which bus stations often have. When air travel goes away then we can start figuring out big stations for most cities in the U.S.. Until then, give me the trains then worry about nice stations. Good enough is a good place to start.
May 6, 200916 yr Union Terminal would be fine as long as (this is key) there is a fast and frequent transit link to downtown, and preferably to the airport as well.... Here in NYC, there are no mainline railroad stations located within miles of the financial district, but people are able to commute from Penn Station, Grand Central, Hoboken, and Flatbush Terminals via PATH and the subway. Similarly, London is served by a multitude of train stations located around the periphery of the central part of the city, all connected via the Tube and Thameslink trains. True, those are much bigger cities than Cincy, but I think the physical distances between the train stations and downtown can be comparable. I think Riverfront Transit Center is fine for the short-term, but if intercity passenger rail really takes off again in the US, I don't think RTC will have the capacity to deal with more than a few trains per day, and it has no room to expand.
May 6, 200916 yr I tend to agree with Living in Gin. There is no reason that we could not link Union Terminal with downtown via streetcar, light rail or even subway. There could be light rail from UT that heads to the RTC, and dare i say it, a subway connection with the existing tunnels at Ezzerad Charles and Central Parkway. If the West End/ Queensgate is ever going to become a viable neighborhood again it needs assets. Union Terminal could be that asset, but we need to think big. The west end could be a hub for new commercial development with green and white collar jobs. The biggest obstacle of making that area viable is minimizing the psycological barrier between there and Downtown, that is I-75.
May 6, 200916 yr The ADA issues in the RTC are related to the platforms which would be up to 6+ feet above the existing sidewalks and elevators to the surface. It could be reconstructed but it is not simple or inexpensive which is what Amtrak is looking for in the near term. There are also constraints on the track getting to the RTC from the Boathouse.
May 6, 200916 yr Word on the Cincinnati railroad forum is that the track on the Oasis line to the boathouse is so slow that it will add an hour to the trip. Of course, given enough money it could be rebuilt. Upgrading the Oasis Line to passenger standards is part of the plan for 3-C service.
Create an account or sign in to comment