That is the line that got a big old wad of Obama cash, right?

 

Yea...the orgy of spending if you will. 

Why the hell is money being spent on the Oasis line when it is unsuitable long-term?

 

Here are some obvious problems:

1. Travels through a primarily residential area for six miles.  The return of daily rail traffic will both slow the redevelopment of the area and discourage wealthy people from living there. 

2. It's in the flood plain.  Granted, it will only be flooded on average once every 20-30 years, but still.

3. No direct connection to an Ohio River bridge.  There are presently no plans in the central riverfront park plans to rebuilt the riverfront connection track that shut down around 1988.  A train destined for Louisville will have to take a 10+ mile detour up to Norwood.     

4. Sends the price of the Oasis bike trail through the roof since it will have to be built through private land along the riverfront, not parallel to the tracks. 

5. With Amtrak coming to town, there might not be enough capacity near downtown to handle passenger trains and commuter trains that have been planned for this line for over a decade.  The combination of Amtrak & commuter rail will mean quite a bit of noise for residents unaccustomed to almost any rail traffic.  These people are wealthy and if they're irritated by railroad noise that's bad news for the rest of the city.

6. The presence of Amtrak probably prevents light rail service on this same line, forcing commuter rail, which has not been the plan. The plan has been diesel light rail, which is cheaper than commuter rail. 

This is a huge opportunity for the use of Union Terminal in the future.  Should we really be using stimulus money for the construction of a *new* terminal elsewhere in the city?  Essentially, that money would go down the toilet within a decade, if later efforts would attempt to bring high-speed rail to Union Terminal.  Shouldn't one of the worst bottlenecks in the country be *resolved* with stimulus money?  If not now, when?

 

I agree with one of the articles, saying that bypassing Union Terminal would be much to the detriment of the landmark and the city as a whole.

 

Building a new terminal is a waste of money.  At least with resolving the bottleneck and rebuilding a concourse at Union Terminal, we'd be using the money wisely and for the long-term.

 

Extraneous costs:  new terminal, new parking facilities, flood plain incorporation into the design...all for the cheapest short-term solution?  Give me a break.

How about a new terminal in Norwood with a subway to downtown?

How about a new terminal in Norwood with a subway to downtown?

 

Which would probably cost more than a billion dollars.

 

I'm growing tired of the Sim City-type brainstorming or that this city continues to conjure.

I agree.

I don't think a new rail terminal in Norwood is the right answer, but I don't have a problem with "Sim City-type brainstorming" in general. If anything, I think Cincinnati has had far too much in the way of timid, overly-cautious thinking over the past 30 years and not nearly enough in the way of bold vision regarding the future of mass transit in the city.

I'm ok with a "temporary" station elsewhere as an incremental step toward a more visionary plan to bring passenger trains back to CUT.  Remember, we're rebuilding passenger rail service on a line that hasn't seen regular passenger service since before Amtrak.  That's neither easy or cheap. 

 

If the Oasis line is used, it will have to be re-built.  Since we're only talking 2-4 trains per day to start, light rail service (perhaps utilizing DMUs) could still operate.  So, what you have the potential two things accomplished for the price of one.  Then, at some point in the future, when the problems at CUT can be dealt with, 3-C trains can access CUT and you still have light rail service on the Oasis Line.  I think that's a pretty good deal.

 

I also think we all need to have some patience.  We can have a bold vision and goal for having the 3-C (and eventually Cincinnati-Chicago trains) serve CUT, but given the funding realities and the general political mentality that still exists regarding passenger trains, the incremental approach is the most efficient and cost effective way to approach this. 

 

It would be different if the Administration had dedicated $25 or $50 billion for "high speed" rail.  Then we would be able to make the case to take a grander step and ask for more money.  But they didn't appropriate $50 billion.  We got $8 billion to divvy up among 20 or so states outside the NEC.  Ohio will be lucky to get the $250 million it is requesting.  That's the money we will have to work with, if we get it.  So that means, we need to formulate the first step of the vision within this reality. 

 

 

Very well put. Let's not get so hung up on getting into CUT right off the bat. That can come later and it should.

 

We are lucky to be where we are. :-)

 

    There's some discussion on the other board about putting the station in West Chester, with plenty of parking. There is also some discussion of relocating the Amtrak Cardinal stop away from Cincinnati Union Terminal to the Riverfront Transit Center. The trackwork would be easy, but it would require additional movements.

 

    Also, there is apparently a right-of-way or easement between the Riverfront Transit Center and the Oasis line, so the legal aspects of connecting the two have already been worked out.

I'm not opposed to additional stations in Sharonville or West Chester.  But it's preposterous to suggest West Chester as the terminal station. 

 

The easement you speak of does in fact exist and prevented recent development of the wedge of land between Pete Rose Way and the Third St. Viaduct.  I believe the Montgomery Inn people were looking to develop that property but gave up at least in part due to that problem. 

I'm not opposed to additional stations in Sharonville or West Chester. But it's preposterous to suggest West Chester as the terminal station.

 

The easement you speak of does in fact exist and prevented recent development of the wedge of land between Pete Rose Way and the Third St. Viaduct. I believe the Montgomery Inn people were looking to develop that property but gave up at least in part due to that problem.  

 

When Amtrak's Cardinal served Hamilton prior to 2005, it was scheduled to travel the 24 miles from Hamilton to Cincinnati Union Terminal in 52 minutes northbound, 49 minutes southbound. That's not bad considering the serious freight train traffic congestion from Queensgate Yard north to Ivorydale.

 

We need to keep in mind that the Cardinal operates only three times a week, so its impact on freight traffic was/is minimal. 3-C Corridor trains would travel 4-6 times per day through this choke point. Past estimates of 3-C Corridor assumed 50 minutes to travel between Sharonville and CUT -- that was before freight traffic growth shot way up, though it has fallen off a but. The 50 minutes was proposed because, on some days you might make it the run in 20 minutes. Other days it might take the full 50. So you schedule for the 50 -- or add track capacity.

 

Unlike many places where tracks can be restored on vacated track beds, that's not the case here. Tracks added here must be built on new rights of way, with new earthen fills, retaining walls (including next to Mill Creek), bridges, and property acquisitions/potential demolitions. The latter items would trigger an environmental review which would eliminate any hope of getting a startup service running by 2011.

 

Furthermore, considering the extent of potential construction involved, the cost of this construction could be in the range of $10 million to $30 million per mile. At least seven miles of new railroad construction could be involved -- do the math! The goal is to startup 3-C Corridor for $250 million -- not to get trains running between CUT and Sharonville for $250 million. This is not the kind of extensive construction you do for three daily round trips for a state's first entry into the passenger rail field. If, for whatever reason, the state can't turn to the Oasis Line and upgrade it to get into downtown Cincinnati in an hour or less, then the state may have no choice but to make Sharonville the southern terminus for 3-C Corridor.

Then it isn't the 3-C train, it would be the 2C's and an S train.

Since when is advertising wholesome?

SORTA has no easements east of Broadway but much of the land is controlled by the City of Cincinnati or ODOT.

Then it isn't the 3-C train, it would be the 2C's and an S train.

Well technically the train is going through Crestline, so there's your third C. No one really cares about going all the way to Cincy do they?  :-P

This is why the trains are a joke.  More than an hour just to get out of the city, if you can even get to the city!  Fine for people who have nothing but time, but most people have a life.  Time is money!  Oh, that's right, the "self proclaimed experts" will tell you you can use all that time to get your work done!

Perhaps if people had trains, transit and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that saved them time and money from having to drive everywhere in their cars (their second-largest expense), they wouldn't be defaulting on their credit cards or seeing their homes foreclosed upon.  :-o

Perhaps if people had trains, transit and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that saved them time and money from having to drive everywhere in their cars (their second-largest expense), they wouldn't be defaulting on their credit cards or seeing their homes foreclosed upon.  :o

 

Amen!!  Amen!!  Deacon KJP  Amen!!

Time is money, yes.  So if you're a business person travelling to Columbus, you could work for 2.5 hours on the train from Cleveland instead of not doing anything for 2 hours driving yourself down or wasting 3 hours out of your day to fly the 20 min. flight.

Like it never takes an hour to get out of Cincinnati on 75 or 71 due to the traffic.

Damn, dmerkow, you're good!  :clap:

DanB, have you ever ridden on a train in the Eastern Corridor or in Europe?  If not, then quit posting here. 

We're not in Europe, although I know some of you wish you were.  Please don't tell me what to do.

Two deep breaths for everyone.  Don't make me start using my mod powers and giving people time outs.

So you're admitting you don't know what you're talking about?  Because to a person rail opponents, be it intercity passenger or city transit lines, are far less informed about the technology, the funding, and the politics.  I've never met anyone who was anti-rail and anti-city who knew close to as much as myself or other vocal proponents about these issues.  Clowns like Peter Bronson keep writing anti-rail columns because they're paid to do so and don't know what they're talking about.  I've met the man, discussed rail with him, and he's a horribly under-informed ideologue incapable of nuanced thought.  And he wears a cheesy leather jacket. 

 

 

I just don't see it happening in my lifetime, nor yours.  Look at all the bickering that's going on right here in UO about where this train should stop;  CUT, Boathouse, or the riverfront transit center.  We couldn't even build a few buildings on the riverfront in the past 10 years, and UO members are still arguing about the design!

 

My opinion isn't going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind.  I would love trains that ran like the ones I traveled on in Japan, maybe even whatever you are talking about in Europe.  I just see that as something that can only happen if it makes traveling easier than by car.  My reasons for saying I wouldn't want to ride the 3-C train are the same for flying within the state or just outside.  It takes too long, and it is too inconvenient.  Others have described how miserable the trip to Chicago can be, but at least that inconvenience is worth it with the Chicago traffic.  We don't have anything like that in Ohio.  Besides, there is no money!!!!!

 

You guys have to stop taking everything so personally.

I just don't see it happening in my lifetime, nor yours. Look at all the bickering that's going on right here in UO about where this train should stop; CUT, Boathouse, or the riverfront transit center. We couldn't even build a few buildings on the riverfront in the past 10 years, and UO members are still arguing about the design!

 

My opinion isn't going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind. I would love trains that ran like the ones I traveled on in Japan, maybe even whatever you are talking about in Europe. I just see that as something that can only happen if it makes traveling easier than by car. My reasons for saying I wouldn't want to ride the 3-C train are the same for flying within the state or just outside. It takes too long, and it is too inconvenient. Others have described how miserable the trip to Chicago can be, but at least that inconvenience is worth it with the Chicago traffic. We don't have anything like that in Ohio. Besides, there is no money!!!!!

 

You guys have to stop taking everything so personally.

 

you are absolutely right for your own personal realities.  imo, what is missing in ohio is choice.  the state needs to provide a choice for people incapable of driving whether young, old, disabled, or whatever reason, as well as those who choose not to drive, whether for business or pleasure.  even fully implemented, the 3C rail corridor will probably have more than 99%+ of the trips taken by car in the near term.  this shouldn't discount the benefits, both in terms of mobility, economic development and environmental benefits that the rail corridor can provide for our state.

 

3 years from now, you and many others will continue to drive.  however, many people who couldn't previously travel this corridor, will also be spending money and conducting business along the corridor - i think this is a good thing for the state.

OK.... this thread is bordering on getting personal....let's tone it down, shall we... or I will start removing posts.

 

DanB's desire for making the leap to true high-speed passenger trains like they have in Europe or Japan is a comment I hear a lot.  I'm with you on that wish.

 

But the political and financial reality in this nation is that it's going to take an incremental approach to faster and better trains.  In fact, that is exactly how Europe and Japan achieved what they have today.  Some of that is due to having no choice but to build their systems back gradually after being bombed into oblivion by the US Army Air Force and the RAF in World War II, but they used those conventional speed systems as the foundation for the HSR trains they operate today.

 

Anolther related point:  I have seen a few posts bemoaning the estimate of 6-hours to travel by rail in the 3-C.  First...it's an estimate.  The required environmental and engineering work has even been done to determine how rail infrastructure upgrades will impact that time frame. Second... The majority of passengers will likely not be traveling the entire corridor every time they ride: only portions of it.  If a Columbus to Cleveland or Columbus to Cincy running time can be brought up to even 2 1/2 hours, that is actually pretty competitive with driving time...given highway travel stops and traffic conditions.

 

urbanlife makes a well-taken point about being able to use that drive-time more productively.  This isn't just supposition.  It is actually happening on corridors in at least 14 other states that have done what Ohio is trying to do in the 3-C.

Others have described how miserable the trip to Chicago can be, but at least that inconvenience is worth it with the Chicago traffic. We don't have anything like that in Ohio.

 

Interesting point, but why does Chicago have so much traffic? Or, to put it another way, what caused Chicago to become the major city that it is? Transportation, of course. Cheap, convenient transportation (or the lack, thereof) is what makes or breaks a city and the wrong investment can kill a city. Many midwestern downtowns are dying or already dead in part because we built roads out to distant farmlands where property was cheap making fortunes for the Simon and DeBartolo families (while taxpayers picked up the tab for the infrastructure improvements which made such developments possible). Zoning ordinances which required developers to allocate so many spaces for free parking per square foot of retail space (advocated by the automobile industry), meant that cities could no longer compete for retail dollars. As downtown retail revenues decline, retailers close making the downtown a less attractive place to live. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

I lived near Chicago during the widening of the Kennedy and Dan Ryan expressways. As we now know, adding capacity to roadways does not relieve traffic congestion, it simply allows the same roads to hold more cars, which is what happens. We also know that as population density increases, vehicle ownership goes down and as vehicle ownership goes down, the preference for public transportation increases. Urban planners talk about Transit Oriented Development but that is exactly what a city was.

 

This could be posted in "What other states are doing...." but I'm posting it here because we could face some of the same pushback here in Ohio. We all need to be ready for it.

_________________

 

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asecsunrail-post-mortem-050309050309may03,0,3360634.story

 

How SunRail Failed

Posted: May 4th, 2009 09:27 AM EDT

 

Dan Tracy

Orlando Sentinel (Florida)

 

 

FLORIDA - SunRail was, in the language of the state Legislature, a heavy lift.

 

By the legislative session's 60th and final day, the bill to authorize the proposed Central Florida commuter train might as well have weighed as much as a diesel locomotive, or roughly 200 tons.

 

It was weighted down by a dogged opponent, Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, who harped on proposed state payments of more than $600 million and preferable insurance treatment as a "giveaway" to the giant CSX Corp.

 

...........

This could be posted in "What other states are doing...." but I'm posting it here because we could face some of the same pushback here in Ohio. We all need to be ready for it.

 

The crux of the issue, IMHO, is in this single sentence:

 

'In the end, Constantine had what he called "a 15-minute argument." By contrast, he said, Dockery's pitch "takes 15 seconds."'

 

All you need to do is to associate (health care reform, public transit, HSR) with (socialism, corporate giveaway) and you're finished.  People in states with shrinking economies and high unemployment perceive users of rail (in particular) as a special interest.

 

I used to review grant applications for the Federal Gov't as well as a state supported stimulus economic stimulus group. In interviewing applications we frequently used the term "elevator speech" meaning that if you couldn't reduce your pitch to something which would fit into the time that it would take to ride from the ground floor to the office in an elevator, your message was too complicated.

 

I don't see an easy way around this. It is hard to get people to be that forward thinking when they are looking at the news that Severstal and Arcelor-Mittal are idling plants in the US.

 

 

(/quote)

Interesting point, but why does Chicago have so much traffic? Or, to put it another way, what caused Chicago to become the major city that it is?

 

From a long-time source of mine in Chicago (an ex-reporter), I am told that Chicago's prominance as THE hub of transportation in the Midwest (if not the whole nation) can be traced back to the Chicago Fire of the 1880's.  The destruction was so vast and complete that it gave city and state officials the silver lining of having a clean slate on which to redesign the city.  They very deliberately made sure that all mode of transportation of that day...rail, canals and roadways...focused on Chicago: that nothing move in or out of the Midwest without going through Chicago.  Since, then, of course, that same design has been overlayed by the U.S. Highway System, the Interstates and commercial aviation. 

 

But it is interesting that what has blessed Chicago with great growth and prosperity over the years is now the very thing that is choking it...too much traffic all coming together in a confined area.  That is why Amtrak and commuter trains have such problems moving in a timely fashion in and out of Chicago.  They have not only freight trains to deal with, but many places where railroads cross highways and local streets.

I don't see an easy way around this. It is hard to get people to be that forward thinking when they are looking at the news that Severstal and Arcelor-Mittal are idling plants in the US.

 

If you are hungry, eat. Thus, if your steel mills are idle, give them business. What are trains made out of and what do they run on?

 

How's that for an elevator speech?

 

From a long-time source of mine in Chicago (an ex-reporter), I am told that Chicago's prominance as THE hub of transportation in the Midwest (if not the whole nation) can be traced back to the Chicago Fire of the 1880's. 

 

Tell your friend (I know who that is!!  :-P ) the Chicago Fire was in 1871. And Cincinnati and St. Louis had a shot at being the nation's rail center, but Chicago went after the railroads with a vengeance (and probably a shitload of bribes!).

As I recall from long-ago readings of Cincinnati history, Cincinnati initially spurned the railroads because they were convinced that trains were a boondoggle, and that riverboats and the canal would always be the dominant form of mass transit to/from the city.

 

The more things change...

Tell your friend (I know who that is!!  :-P ) the Chicago Fire was in 1871. And Cincinnati and St. Louis had a shot at being the nation's rail center, but Chicago went after the railroads with a vengeance (and probably a sh!tload of bribes!).

 

Well, as you know, it worked both ways. The railroads extorted cities over whether the rails would run through them. This was one of the reasons why they were hated by the agricultural Midwest and why trucking became so popular (Midwesterners were more interested in trucks than it telephones since a telephone wouldn't get your crops to market).

 

Towns like Crestline existed as watering stops for the steam engines. I actually always liked that route from Pittsburgh to Chicago, more than I like the current route, but the downside was the number of small towns that you had to pass through at relatively low speed.

 

I like your elevator speech but it would be especially effective if Strickland could say that X% of the steel products used in the 3-C Corridor project would be produced in Ohio. A real deal-breaker would be to find out that the 3-C trains were made in Germany, Sweden or Japan.

 

 

Cincinnati's problem was one of geography and labor/logistics. The hills and river have made it harder to be a hub - especially in an East-West world (we can compete in North-South world better). At the moment that Chicago was seizing the dominant space in the Midwest (Erie Canal, Great Lakes, New York City Money), Cincinnati's logistics industry was notoriously inefficient and probably mildly corrupt. Goods tended to sit in trains for awhile or get stolen. Remember there was lots of need for moving stuff around the various train lines at the time. The problems of rail in Cincinnati are age-old.

As I recall from long-ago readings of Cincinnati history, Cincinnati initially spurned the railroads because they were convinced that trains were a boondoggle, and that riverboats and the canal would always be the dominant form of mass transit to/from the city.

 

Possibly, the Miami and Erie Canal provided a link between the Ohio River at Cincy and Lake Erie at Toledo but, like other parts of the Country, rail was fast approaching. The canal was finished in 1840 but the Little Miami railroad was chartered in 1836 and train service to Sandusky was available by, I believe, 1866 (perhaps, before).

I agree, though, that the city pinned its future on access to the Ohio River.

 

Until 1865, Cincinnati made a lot of money as the primary mercantile city in the north-south trade in the west. Then we had a little Civil War thing that destroyed Cincy's markets to the south from which the economic power in America moved north toward the Great Lakes connected through to New York City. Nature's Metropolis lays it all out.

Cool discussion. I encourage someone start a thread devoted specifically for it such as "Railroad History."

It's a myth that Cincinnati fought against railroads, after all it did build a 300 mile railroad to Chattanooga in the 1870's with municipal bonds and retains ownership. 

 

OK....let's get the discussion back on the subject of the 3-C.

This is why the trains are a joke.  More than an hour just to get out of the city, if you can even get to the city!  Fine for people who have nothing but time, but most people have a life.  Time is money!  Oh, that's right, the "self proclaimed experts" will tell you you can use all that time to get your work done!

 

North Carolina's state funded corridors take longer than driving (at least an hour end to end), but that hasn't stopped people from riding the trains-- in fact, they ride them in droves.  Don't take my word for it, contact Patrick Simmons with NCDOT who oversees the corridors.  The story is similar in many of the other 13 states that fund rail corridors.  Drive time is definitely a consideration for passengers, but it's not the make or break one that it is assumed to be. 

 

It seems like there is a persistent idea out there that Ohio is attempting something new and untested (It's especially rampant in the media). The fact of the matter is, Ohio is following a model that has is already proven successful in 14 other states.  The same criticisms that are being raised now in Ohio have already been raised elsewhere and shown to be wrong:  "No one's going to ride!", "The trains are too slow!", "People aren't going to get out of their cars!", yada, yada, yada... :sleep:

^Yet our population and population density is the highest of any inland state -- denser than states that already have this type of rail service. 

Exactly!  5.8-million people live within 20 miles either side of the 3-C Corridor.  I'd call that a pretty decent potential passenger base by anyone's standards. We sit within 24 hours of 2/3rds of the North American market.  And Ohio is already a strategic link in the freight rail network....no accident that both CSX and NS have built  or are building major intermodal freight yards here.  Ohio can be that link for the national passenger rail network as well.

Just wait. Before they build the train, people will complain that it's a costly boondoggle that nobody will ride. After they build it, people will complain that it's too crowded and that the trains aren't fast enough and don't run often enough. Mark my words.

They'll complain that their town should have a station, but then complain at all the other towns with stops.

 

True.  The complaints we have to deal with now (like the ones like DanB has) are the most important, though.  If advocates don't get the message through that 1.  Ohio is not doing anything new or mysterious; 2.  There is a solidly proven track record in 14 other states for what ORDC is proposing; and 3.  All of the complaints that are being raised have been raised in these states and proven wrong, it's going to be that much harder to get the handful of transportation troglodytes in the Ohio Senate to approve the operating funds. 

 

The media has been a particularly tough nut to crack with this. I know that they are being told this, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through when they publish their stories. 

 

Ok, I'll step down off of my soap box  :speech:

>The media has been a particularly tough nut to crack with this.

 

City Manager Milton Dahoney *hand-delivered* high quality footage of the Portland Streetcar to 3 or 4 of the Cincinnati TV stations, and they all keep using footage of old streetcars and swoop in from commercials with "Are Streetcars Returning to Cincinnati?!".  That is the kind of crap these rail projects have to deal with. 

Actually, I hand-delivered DVD's of current Amtrak trains to several stations here in Columbus and at least two have used it in recent stories.