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

 

Furthermore, 8.5 percent of households in the state don't have cars. The percentages are higher in the cities (25% in Cleveland, 20% in Cincinnati, 19% in Dayton, 13% in Columbus). Many more households must share one car among persons of driving age and often that car is not reliably maintained for long-distance driving. Unfortunately, the Census doesn't measure this data.

 

Add to that the 13 percent of Ohio's population that's 65 years and older (yes, Ohio's senior population is larger than the total population of 10 states). The U.S. Census predicts Ohioans 65 years and olders will comprise 20 percent of the population by 2030. As we get older, our endurance to drive long distances diminishes, as does our ability to react quickly to avoid accidents, as well as our ability to see obstacles ahead -- all essential to highway driving. All of us will face this.

 

Also, many diabetics (which comprise 6 percent of the population) have been ordered by their doctors to not drive. My friend's wife is one of them and is she only 55 years old. My father is another though he is 80.

 

But think about those numbers....

 

By 2030, perhaps one-third of Ohio's population will be limited in their mobility due to physical or financial reasons.

 

Think also about what that will do to Ohio's economy!

 

What are we doing about it? Trying to build more roads? Making cities less transit-friendly? Would we rather provide public assistance to these people to subsidize their economic isolation or would we rather provide them with transportation so they can continue to particpate in the state's economy and remain independent.

 

Think about how you would feel because someday you will be one of them.

I deleted our previous exchange, but kept the following because it lends to the 3-C discussion. But I still can't figure out why you like coming to this forum and mix it up with people who don't share your ultra right-wing beliefs. Either you're really into political S&M or you're a fascist spy!  :evil:

 

My grandfather wouldn't be very proud of the railroads of today.

 

Yep, that whole thing of carrying more freight tonnage in 2006 (2007 was #2) in any other year in their entire 180-year history with more return on their capital investment, fewer employees, fewer track and fewer accidents is a real source of shame.

 

And passenger railroads (intercity and commuter railroad) in the U.S. in 2008 carried a total of more than 400 million riders. That works out to 17 billion passenger miles, the greatest volume since the early 1960s. Truly shameful.

Happy National Rail Day!!!

My map....

 

 

And my letter....

 

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/05/10/opinion/mj1015778.txt

 

 

 

 

LETTER: Passenger rail stop in Grafton or Wellington more cost-effective

Published: Sunday, May 10, 2009

 

To the Editor: While we all want as many passenger trains as possible to serve our new Lorain County Transportation Center in Elyria, it's a reach to suggest that Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati passenger trains should go out of their way to serve it. That was the message of your May 6 editorial. I encourage the editors to break out their handy road atlas and follow along with me.

 

The Elyria route option involves using the Norfolk Southern line from downtown Cleveland, past Hopkins Airport, through Berea and west to Elyria. Amtrak's East Coast-Chicago trains take this route. When they find a clear path through the maze of 100 freight trains per day, Amtrak trains can clip along at 79 mph. When they can't, they're delayed for lack of passing sidings. Adding at least one passing siding to ensure 3-C trains stay on-time will be needed here, costing about $5 million to $10 million.

 

The Lorain County Transportation Center in downtown Elyria's may need perhaps $2 million for passenger trains to serve it. After serving downtown Elyria, some 25 rail miles from downtown Cleveland, Amtrak trains would turn south on a newly restored track connection to a CSX branch line. To build this track connection, where none had previously existed, would require the demolition of the large Elyria Foundry Co. and the relocation of the plant. Cost of the track connection could easily be about $25 million or more. Displacement of property owners for a federally funded transportation project also would trigger a federally required environmentally review, delaying the start up of service by one to three years past the 2011 start.

 

Such an environmental review will encourage identification of route alternatives that don't result in the displacement of property owners. Even if this routing were still preferred, passenger trains would be limited to 10 mph through this area because of the track connection's tight curvature.

 

Now on CSX track heading southeast, Amtrak trains could travel at 79 mph south to Grafton — only after this deteriorated, eight-mile long rail line is extensively rebuilt, signal systems added, and grade crossing improvements made. Given the amount of work needed, this is easily a $10 million to $20 million project.

 

Once in Grafton, which is 25 miles from Cleveland via CSX's direct, high-quality mainline Amtrak trains would need to switch back on the traditional 3-C Corridor which it left behind back in Berea. That means the construction of another track connection. To do this, it means the demolition of the Spitzer car dealership on both sides of Ohio Route 57 and the construction of a substantial bridge over the East Branch of the Black River. While there is an interesting plot line from a passenger rail line demolishing a car dealership, the possible $20 million cost of this track connection makes it even more cost-prohibitive.

 

That's especially true considering that this option would add some eight miles, perhaps 10 minutes to the travel time between the major cities of Cleveland and Columbus and roughly $75 million to the estimated $250 million start-up cost. That extra eight miles could also add about $700,000 per year in train operating costs.

 

A more cost-effective solution is to provide a Lorain County station with free parking on the direct Cleveland-Columbus CSX mainline route at either Grafton or Wellington. Both of those communities are already served by regularly scheduled Lorain County Transit bus routes to Elyria.

 

But if you want more passenger trains to and through Elyria — which All Aboard Ohio does — there are other routes in the state's proposed Ohio Hub system that are more appropriate. Ohio Hub routes using the rail corridor through Elyria would provide service to Toledo, Detroit, Chicago to the west and, in the opposite direction, to Buffalo, Pittsburgh and the East Coast. I hope those are services which we can all agree make much better sense for Elyria.

 

Kenneth Prendergast, executive director, All Aboard Ohio!

Seems like too many stops.  I say pick either Greenwich or Wellington and scratch Grafton and Galion.

Ditto on picking between Greenwich and Wellington and scratching Grafton, but keep the Galion stop.

Similar thoughts except I think a Wellington stop since its such a cool town and a Gallion stop to appease the Mansfield/Gallion politicians would be good.  It also would be doable to catch the train there from an Akron/Canton perspective to Columbus and more likely Cinci from Gallion if need be. 

Go with Wellington - its proximity to Oberlin College could increase ridership by students who currently use Lorain County Transit to Hopkins and then transfer to RTA to access Amtrak.  LCT could easily coordinate a route from Lorain/Elyria to coincide with the 3-C train schedule.

I think it should be kept to a minimum of stops, so the Wellington and Grafton alignment keeps them at a minimum and decently spaced.  I have a great fear that there are going to be too many politicans that are going to be appeased with a stop and create a 10hr ride from cleveland to cincy.

I think it should be kept to a minimum of stops, so the Wellington and Grafton alignment keeps them at a minimum and decently spaced.  I have a great fear that there are going to be too many politicans that are going to be appeased with a stop and create a 10hr ride from cleveland to cincy.

 

My fear exactly.

The dots are reference points not stations, although some may be station stops.

The following is from one of All Aboard Ohio's members. I fear Patton has fallen off the deep end....

 

Ken,  Yesterday --- a group of teachers went to lobby the OHIO State Legislature- I went to vist Senator Tom Patton --- He spouted  alot of information --- very angry -- that no ONE would ride trains --- information was  2007 -- cost too much money --- need to build new tracks --- costs -- very few people would ride the trains -- old fashioned way of travel ......

This annual report from AAA shows it costs three times more to drive than it does to take the train (Amtrak fares are about 15 cents per mile, another reason why Amtrak broke ridership records for the last six years!).....

 

http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=4&ArticleID=672

 

 

Contact: Christie Hyde

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 407-444-8003

 

Despite lower fuel prices, AAA reports costs to own, operate vehicle remain constant

Orlando, Fla. - 4/8/2009

 

Motorists spend 54 cents per mile on average according to AAA’s 2009 edition of “Your Driving Costs,” only 0.1 cent drop from 2008 

 

AAA’s 2009 edition of “Your Driving Costs” shows the average cost of owning and operating a new car in the U.S. has remained relatively unchanged despite lower fuel costs. The average cost for a new sedan driven 15,000 miles per year is 54 cents per mile, only 0.1 cent less than reported in 2008.

 

“While motorists are experiencing relief at the pump, those savings have been countered by revised Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy estimates and increases in vehicle ownership costs such as insurance premiums, depreciation, finance charges and other fees and taxes,” said AAA Automotive Vice President Marshall L. Doney.

 

New sedan costs average $8,095 yearly

 

AAA estimates the cost to own and operate a typical new sedan driven 15,000 miles yearly is $8,095, only $26 less than last year’s estimated cost of $8,121. Small sedan costs were unchanged at 42.1 cents per mile, or $6,312 annually. Medium sedan costs dropped 1.1 cents per mile to 54.0, or $8,105 per year, thanks to maintenance cost savings and lower depreciation. However the costs for large sedans rose 0.7 cents per mile to 65.8, or $9,870 yearly, due largely to increased depreciation.

 

SUV costs drop, minivan’s jump

 

SUV owners, whose vehicles get lower fuel economy, benefitted most from the drop in fuel prices. Their estimated operating costs dipped 1.3 cents per mile to 68.4 cents, or $10,259 per year, despite a relatively large increase in depreciation and insurance premiums. Meanwhile, minivan costs jumped 1.2 cents per mile to 58.8 cents, or $8,815 yearly. The growth is due to cost increases in every area except fuel and included the largest rise in depreciation of any vehicle class.

 

New EPA baselines provide better “real world” results

 

AAA’s 2009 edition of “Your Driving Costs” uses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s revised fuel-economy estimates that are intended to better reflect “real world” results.

 

“AAA was a strong advocate for updating the EPA’s guidelines for calculating fuel economy so new car buyers could have a realistic estimate of a vehicle’s miles per gallon before their purchase,” Doney said. “The ability to use EPA estimates more closely based on ‘real world’ conditions in our calculations has made ‘Your Driving Costs’ an even more valuable tool for consumers.”

 

Understanding the calculations

 

AAA’s calculations are based on both operating and ownership costs that include:

 

Operating Costs: Fuel, Maintenance and Tires

 

Ownership Costs: Insurance, License, Registration, Taxes, Depreciation and Financing

 

The costs are based on typical use of a vehicle for personal transportation over five years and 75,000 miles of ownership. Fuel costs were based on $2.30 per gallon, as reported by the AAA Fuel Gauge Report (AAAFuelGaugeReport.com) in late 2008.

 

AAA’s analysis covers vehicles equipped with standard and optional equipment. The driving costs in each category are based on the average expenses for five top-selling models selected by AAA. The models included in the study are:

 

Small Sedans: Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra and Toyota Corolla

 

Medium Sedans: Chevrolet Impala, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima and Toyota Camry

 

Large Sedans: Buick Lucerne, Chrysler 300, Ford Taurus, Nissan Maxima and Toyota Avalon

 

SUVs: Chevrolet Trailblazer, Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota 4Runner

 

Minivans: Chevrolet Uplander, Dodge Grand Caravan, Kia Sedona, Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna

 

“Your Driving Costs” availability

 

A hard copy of the “Your Driving Costs” brochure is available upon request, and subject to availability, from local AAA clubs. The brochure also can be downloaded free of charge from the AAA Exchange at AAA.com/publicaffairs.

 

As North America’s largest motoring and leisure travel organization, AAA provides more than 51 million members with travel, insurance, financial and automotive-related services. Since its founding in 1902, the not-for-profit, fully tax-paying AAA has been a leader and advocate for the safety and security of all travelers. AAA clubs can be visited on the Internet at AAA.com.

 

###

The following is from one of All Aboard Ohio's members. I fear Patton has fallen off the deep end....

 

Ken,   Yesterday --- a group of teachers went to lobby the OHIO State Legislature- I went to vist Senator Tom Patton --- He spouted  alot of information --- very angry -- that no ONE would ride trains --- information was  2007 -- cost too much money --- need to build new tracks --- costs -- very few people would ride the trains -- old fashioned way of travel ......

 

Yeah, but he tells the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Ohio should spend $86-million to widen I-71 in rural Morrow County so he doesn't have to drive in a rush hour traffic jam to and from his district when the General Assembly is in session.

 

Next time, Senator...take the train.  Ooops, that's right... you think its a waste of $$$

 

  :roll:

We need to get anti-progress assholes like this out of office.

I sent that AAA release to Patton with my new comments prefacing it.

The following is from one of All Aboard Ohio's members. I fear Patton has fallen off the deep end....

 

Ken,   Yesterday --- a group of teachers went to lobby the OHIO State Legislature- I went to vist Senator Tom Patton --- He spouted  alot of information --- very angry -- that no ONE would ride trains --- information was  2007 -- cost too much money --- need to build new tracks --- costs -- very few people would ride the trains -- old fashioned way of travel ......

 

Yeah, but he tells the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Ohio should spend $86-million to widen I-71 in rural Morrow County so he doesn't have to drive in a rush hour traffic jam to and from his district when the General Assembly is in session.

 

Next time, Senator...take the train.  Ooops, that's right... you think its a waste of $$$

 

  :roll:

Not even rush hour traffic. I'd disagree with him, but understand his position if traffic backed up there every day, but it only backs up on holiday weekends and weekends with an OSU or Browns game. That he seriously thinks its worth spending $86 million to avoid traffic jams for about 86 hours a year, plus the added maintenance of patching, and plowing it, but doesn't think that subsidizing the operating costs for the 3C is a good idea, astounds me. Especially since the the 3C will probably remove a good number of people from the traffic jam.

Speaking of OSU and Browns games, what would the local transit options be (if necessary) to get to games in Columbus and Cleveland?  Cincinnati's option (assuming a riverfront station) is fairly simple: walk to PBS or GABP.  This of course assumes schedules are conducive to gametimes. 

The Amtrak station in Cleveland is right next to Cleveland Browns Stadium.

And for Indians/Cavs games the Waterfront line drops you at tower city and it is a short walk from there to the Jake/Gund err Progressive Field/Q.

And for Indians/Cavs games the Waterfront line drops you at tower city and it is a short walk from there to the Jake/Gund err Progressive Field/Q.

 

Or people could just stroll south on East Ninth.

Especially since the the 3C will probably remove a good number of people from the traffic jam.

 

Let's not weigh the value of the 3-C Corridor passenger rail service based on its impacts on I-71. The rail service can stand on its own merits, including economic development, traveler savings, environmental improvement and traveler productivity. If the decision on whether to build I-71 was based on the decision of its impacts of emptying passenger trains and historic towns in favor of sprawling areas, it would never be built (to say nothing of the fact that I-71 was initially considered to be built as a toll road, but the Ohio Department of Highways didn't think it would generate enough traffic to be self-supporting).

 

However, the 3-C Corridor is likely to make a significant dent in reducing I-71 truck traffic, which more seriously damages pavements and bridges. By my estimates, there are 235 different freight trains per day using some or all of the 3-C Corridor. According to the American Association of Railroads, one freight train removes up to 280 trucks from the highways. It's important for the state to invest in the 3-C Corridor to keep those 65,800 daily truck loads on trains rather on 3-C Corridor highways. Now, some of the engineering experts out there are predicting that, as an average experience nationwide, the combination of new passing sidings with the installation of Positive Train Control can increase line capacity by up to 15 percent. Both of these investments are likely for the 3-C Corridor rail passenger service. That investment could allow the 3-C Corridor to remove about 9,870 trucks per day from 3-C Corridor highways.

 

Think about that in terms of its impact on the long-term sustainability of the gas tax, which in Ohio fails to keep up with rising highway costs. Each year, Ohio's gas tax would have to be raised another seven cents (yes, cumulative) to keep up with ongoing maintenance. Thus, shifting freight from highway to rail also shifts right of way maintenance costs from government-owned and financed highways to privately owned and financed rail.

nice blog posting I stumbled across talking about high speed rail in Cleveland

 

What High Speed Rail in Cleveland Might Look Like

Published by Rob Pitingolo on May 13, 2009 at 4:15 PM

 

I haven't yet commented on Obama's "Vision for High Speed Rail" because my feelings are mixed. I do think that big inter-city transit projects can be beneficial, but I'm fearful that if we don't do them correctly, they will wind up as major boondoggles. As you can see, the Vision calls for big rail expansion in the Midwest, including an alignment from Cleveland to Cincinnati via Columbus (also called the 3-C corridor).

 

 

According to this article from The Plain Dealer, Governor Ted Strickland is already pushing for an Amtrak passenger rail service on the 3-C corridor, including a joint station near i71 and West 150th that would connect the 3-C corridor to RTA's Red Line. The route would continue to an "expanded" version of Amtrak's existing station on Lake Erie. This map shows the likely 3-C alignment in blue and the RTA Red Line in red.

 

(Click to Enlarge)

 

This map is a zoomed in version showing the downtown Cleveland Amtrak alignment, again in blue, and the RTA Red Line alignment.

 

(Click to Enlarge)

 

Inter-city rail service derives value from the fact that it can take people from the center of one city to the center of another. It eliminates the need to travel to the outskirts of the city to get to an airport or spend a ton of money on a taxi to get to your final destination. The other major benefit of rail service is that it has many connections to local transit service.

 

Consider the case of the Acela Express line, which is typically considered the single instance of successful high speed rail in the United States. At the northern-most end of the line, Boston's South Station provides connections to Boston's Red Line (heavy rail), Silver Line (BRT), a number of commuter rail lines and bus lines. In New York, Penn Station connects directly to the Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, subway lines, local bus routes, Greyhound and Megabus. In Philadelphia, 30th Street Station serves SEPTA and New Jersey Transit rail lines, and has bus, subway, and trolley connections. In Washington, Union Station has a direct connection to the Metro's Red Line, MARC commuter rail, VRE commuter rail, and local and regional bus lines.

 

Back to Cleveland.. Under the above alignment, the 3-C corridor would connect to the Red Line near the airport and (possibly) the Waterfront Line at the Lakefront station, assuming the Waterfront Line isn't eliminated by the time 3-C begins service. It would have no direct connection to the Healthline and no direct connection to any of the downtown bus lines. The Lakefront Amtrak station is basically in the middle of nowhere and Amtrak would have to do some serious work to make a connection that would be walkable from downtown.

 

Ideally, the 3-C Corridor would be routed into Tower City and provide a direct connection to all three local rail lines, the Healthline, and all the downtown bus lines. Tower City is exactly the type of station that high speed rail is supposed to be centered around. I don't know if it isn't being considered for political reasons, cost reasons, engineering reasons, or whatever, but my fear is that building a rail corridor using the proposed alignment will doom the entire project to immediate and long-lasting failure. And that's bad for everyone, but particularly for Cleveland.

 

http://blog.robpitingolo.org/2009/05/what-high-speed-rail-in-cleveland-might.html

 

nice blog posting I stumbled across talking about high speed rail in Cleveland

 

Back to Cleveland.. Under the above alignment, the 3-C corridor would connect to the Red Line near the airport and (possibly) the Waterfront Line at the Lakefront station, assuming the Waterfront Line isn't eliminated by the time 3-C begins service. It would have no direct connection to the Healthline and no direct connection to any of the downtown bus lines. The Lakefront Amtrak station is basically in the middle of nowhere and Amtrak would have to do some serious work to make a connection that would be walkable from downtown.

 

Ideally, the 3-C Corridor would be routed into Tower City and provide a direct connection to all three local rail lines, the Healthline, and all the downtown bus lines. Tower City is exactly the type of station that high speed rail is supposed to be centered around. I don't know if it isn't being considered for political reasons, cost reasons, engineering reasons, or whatever, but my fear is that building a rail corridor using the proposed alignment will doom the entire project to immediate and long-lasting failure. And that's bad for everyone, but particularly for Cleveland.

 

http://blog.robpitingolo.org/2009/05/what-high-speed-rail-in-cleveland-might.html

 

 

You can't get into Tower City unless you spend at least a billion. For one thing, the new federal courthouse blocks the west approach. For another, you'd have to build miles of new rail lines just to get to the terminal. It might have made sense, for the reasons the author lays out, but that was before the site was redeveloped.

 

The Lakefront site is easily accessible by rail and can be expanded as well. It's easy to get to by car and the Waterfront line connects also (gives the waterfront line a reason to exist). Bus lines could be extended to serve the location as well.

 

The site could be redeveloped as a mixed use facility tying the North Coast Harbor, Browns stadium, Great Lakes Science Museum, Rock n Roll Hall of Fame with Mall C and the old convention center. This could all be done in conjunction with the proposed medical mart development and hi rise housing. Where else could you get up, shower and go downstairs to work, see the sights or catch a train to dozens of cities or ride RTA to wherever you want to go? This could easily become hot property.

As BuckeyeB noted, it will be very difficult and costly to get railroad passenger trains back into Tower City Center. And they cannot use the existing tracks into Tower City. Transit vehicles are one thing, but FRA-compliant intercity passenger trains is another. The two types of vehicles are not compatible in mixed traffic due to vast weight differences and the ability of a transit vehicle to protects its riders in a collision with a much heavier railroad vehicle, even a passenger train.

 

Mr. Pitingolo should ask the Ohio Rail Development Commisison or All Aboard Ohio for more information about why certain routings and stations site are being considered and others aren't. I'm noticing a lot of sloppy blogging and journalism lately where the writers assume that none of these options haven't been looked at. They then come up with unworkable ideas that mislead the public, and then those of us who have looked at these issues many times before are forced to write responses like this multiple times.

 

Folks like Mr. Pitingolo have their hearts and interests in the right place. I want to help them use that interest in productive ways. Therefore, please do a little research to see if the question has been posed before. If you don't find the answer, ask around. Then write.

KJP, I tried to make the point fairly explicit in my blog post that I don't know exactly why Tower City is out of the question. To suggest that I assumed the Tower City option hasn't been considered at all is simply false. Yes, I understand that this topic could have been more thoroughly researched - and I had a hunch that cost and engineering concerns took Tower City out of the question - but a major value of blogging is the ability to tap into the collective knowledge of people like yourself who know the answers to these questions. I'm a little disheartened that this discussion couldn't have taken place on my blog. I'm not closed to new viewpoints but few have chosen to contact me directly to talk about them.

Hey Rob...I'll have to check out your blog. Don't be disheartened. We just heard about you. And don't take us too seriously. Welcome to UrbanOhio! :wave:

KJP, I tried to make the point fairly explicit in my blog post that I don't know exactly why Tower City is out of the question. To suggest that I assumed the Tower City option hasn't been considered at all is simply false. Yes, I understand that this topic could have been more thoroughly researched - and I had a hunch that cost and engineering concerns took Tower City out of the question - but a major value of blogging is the ability to tap into the collective knowledge of people like yourself who know the answers to these questions. I'm a little disheartened that this discussion couldn't have taken place on my blog. I'm not closed to new viewpoints but few have chosen to contact me directly to talk about them.

 

Lil Rob (we have another Rob, so be default, you're lil Rob.  BTW, are you sweet and innocent?) don't take things personal, we have a lot of passionate, in the know people on the board who work with various organizations to better Cleveland.

 

Once, you've been here a while you'll be better able t distinguish the various personalities of the forumers.

 

Welcome.

That ought to scare him off forever!!!!

I'm a little disheartened that this discussion couldn't have taken place on my blog.

 

Actually I'm a little partial to this site, but I'm glad you found your way here. And don't be a stranger, despite my initial harsh treatment of you. If you thought I was harsh, wait 'til you get a load of DanB.

I'm a little disheartened that this discussion couldn't have taken place on my blog.

 

Actually I'm a little partial to this site, but I'm glad you found your way here. And don't be a stranger, despite my initial harsh treatment of you. If you thought I was harsh, wait 'til you get a load of DanB.

 

That ought to scare him off forever!!!!  :-P

My two sense said:

 

That ought to scare him off forever!!!!

 

DanB Said:

 

That ought to scare him off forever!!!!

 

Is there an echo in here??!! :-D

My two sense said:

 

That ought to scare him off forever!!!!

 

DanB Said:

 

That ought to scare him off forever!!!!

 

Is there an echo in here??!! :-D

 

 

Linking Ohio through the power of rail

http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/66ohiorail.aspx

 

Imagine traversing the state of Ohio with an array of high-speed trains connecting Cincinnati to Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland at speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (mph) within the next 10 – 15 years. That's the goal of All Aboard Ohio, a non-profit advocacy group working to establish a modern, consumer-focused, statewide passenger transportation network that provides Ohioans with safe, efficient and cost-effective travel choices.

 

Initial goals set by All Aboard Ohio include reintroducing rail transit between Ohio’s three major metropolitan areas. Dubbed the 3-C Corridor, the new transportation route is part of the Ohio Hub plan and would impact nearly two-thirds of Ohio’s sizable population with an alternative, cost-effective and speedy mode of transport connecting the state's Northeast and Southwest corners.

 

At the present time, Ohio is moving forward with its plans as the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) outlines the details of its new passenger and high-speed rail development program. Initially funded by $8 billion from the stimulus, it will undergo review by Congress. President Obama has since proposed $1 billion per year for high-speed rail development in his transportation budget.

 

The Ohio DOT is moving forward with a study by Woodside Consulting Inc. that will simulate railroad traffic flows along the 3-C Corridor, and it plans to apply for stimulus funding for the Corridor as soon as that study is complete (expected in July). If ODOT wins a stimulus grant, Ohio law requires that a supermajority vote (5-2) of the State Controlling Board be given before funds are used to acquire property for any rail project.

 

Ohio has a population density greater than that of the country of France, though 8.5 percent of its households live without a car, with the greatest proportion located in urban centers like Cincinnati and Cleveland. Additionally another 13 percent of Ohioans are over the age of 65. As baby boomers continue to age, that number is expected to grow to 20 percent of the state’s population by 2030. Ken Prendergast, executive director of All Aboard Ohio, says that when you combine those two demographics, you have about a third of the state’s population in need of a long-distance transportation alternative to the automobile.

 

Prendergast imagines the 3-C Corridor starting out with eight to ten daily round trips traveling between Cincinnati and Cleveland at average speeds of 80 mph, resulting in a one-way trip time of 3 hours and 15 minutes (compared to roughly 4 hours by automobile).

 

In addition to the time savings, riders would also benefit from cost savings. AAA estimates that a typical sedan costs $0.70 per mile to operate, whereas the average Amtrak ticket cost in the Midwest weighs in at only $0.15 per mile. With this existing pricing model, a rail trip between Cincinnati and Columbus would cost a passenger just under $40 round trip.

 

Potential station locations are currently being discussed. In Cincinnati, a recent study has demonstrated that although Union Terminal is now one of the busiest freight yards in the nation, routing passenger rail service there would be tricky because there are no remaining right-of-way rails for additional traffic. Further, building additional rail lines could be costly.

 

Prendergast suggests a less expensive alternative could include an eastern approach that would utilize the existing Oasis Line. This route would require track upgrades but would improve track reliability and speed as well as reduce initial start up costs. A station could then be located near the Montgomery Inn Boathouse or even the underused Riverfront Transit Center if it is determined that the facility could support such a system.

 

The approach to implementing this type of high-speed rail system in Ohio will be similar to the approach used elsewhere throughout the country. The furthest along in the process is California, where state leaders have systematically invested in their rail infrastructure in order to provide the necessary upgrades for high-speed rail service of up to 110 or 120 mph.

 

In Ohio, travelers will initially see a system with peak speeds of 80 mph, due to regulations that require signals to be in place for any system that travels over that speed. Prendergast calculates that starting at lower speeds will reduce start-up costs from an estimated $2 billion to the current $250 million proposal on the table.

 

In Illinois, the state transit system is currently running five daily round trips at an average speed of 79 mph. The state is in the process of increasing that service to eight daily round trips at top speeds of 110 mph. “They’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars already and built up a track record with the feds,” says Prendergast.

 

In the end, the high-speed rail service could dramatically change the way Ohioans move and live their lives. “If it’s part of an overall transportation system that include buses, light rail, intercity trains and streetcars that connect Ohioans to airports and job centers as a whole network, it will be attractive to young people and our city centers will be much more dynamic,” asserts Prendergast.

 

Prendergast goes on to say that this is something that will help connect the poor and working class to an affordable means of quick and reliable transportation that has not existed here before. Additionally, Ohio's economy and environment will benefit from the reduction in automobile traffic while making the state more attractive to talent seeking transportation alternatives.

 

"We need to do this in Ohio to keep our cities vibrant. Otherwise more than a third of our population will be left out," says Prendergast.

 

 

Decent article. Thanks!

Good article, but much of the planning credit goes to the Ohio Rail Development Commission and not ODOT.  To be sure, ODOT is very supportive, but the ORDC is the lead agency when it comes to passenger rail planning.

The guy that wrote that article stole KJP's avatar and drew blue lines all over it!

Ohio well-positioned to get rail funds

Gov. Strickland had made trains a priority before stimulus; study of route under way

By Jessica Heffner

Staff Writer

Updated 7:08 AM Wednesday, May 20, 2009

 

Butler County is poised to play a central role in a passenger train system meant to connect the state from Cincinnati to Cleveland.

 

Through a study conducted by Amtrak for the Ohio Rail Development Commission, a preferred route for the rail system, dubbed the 3-C Corridor, would include at least one station stop in Middletown on the route, which would run from Cincinnati through Dayton, Columbus and then on to Cleveland. Hamilton has been named as a possible alternate stop, mostly due to the requirement to switch rail line companies to travel through the city, which could cause delays, said Marc Magliari, media relations manager for Amtrak.

 

While there would be plenty of benefits to the rail system, there are still plenty more hurdles to overcome before it’s full-speed ahead.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/ohio-well-positioned-to-get-rail-funds-126266.html

 

Noteworthy that among 22  ARRA federal stimulus funded rail-related projects approved by the Ohio Rail Development Commission members Thursday (May 21st) is:

 

$7-million dollars for the Programatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) of 4 of the 7 Ohio Hub high-speed rail corridors:

 

Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati

Cleveland-Pittsburgh

Cleveland-Toledo

Columbus-Toledo

 

This is a separate funding issue from the funding for the conventional-speed (79 MPH) start-up service in the 3-C Corridor.... and did not need legislative approval, since the funding was already in hand as part of over $700-million in ARRA stimulus funds allocated to ODOT for transportation projects statewide.  The 3-C start-up is part of the funding request for the second round of federal stimulus dollars.

Riverside hopeful for passenger rail stop

By Jim DeBrosse

Staff Writer

Updated 2:22 PM Sunday, May 24, 2009

 

RIVERSIDE — On Springfield Street across from the U.S. Air Force Museum, an empty access road dead-ends into a single railroad track.

 

Here among the weeds and the honeysuckle, Riverside officials see a windfall for both their city and the region — a train stop for the 3-C Corridor passenger rail being planned from Cincinnati through Dayton on up to Columbus and Cleveland.

 

Riverside City Manager Bob Murray envisions hundreds, even thousands of passengers loading and unloading here each day to visit the state’s top public tourist attraction or to commute to jobs at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/riverside-hopeful-for-passenger-rail-stop-132142.html

Advocates say rail service would put Ohio on the map

By Jim DeBrosse

Staff Writer

Updated 9:27 PM Sunday, May 24, 2009

 

Fourteen states now have state-supported Amtrak passenger service, including Ohio’s neighbors Michigan, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Until last fall’s economic dive, all three states have seen steady and even double-digit growth in train ridership since 2003, according to Amtrak data. All three are expanding their rail systems.

 

“I think we’re seeing a Renaissance of rail travel, not only in Illinois but across the country,” said George Weber, chief of railroads for the Illinois Department of Transportation. Illinois’ three rail routes moved 1.5 million people last year at a state operating cost of $28 million, he said. “We’re still seeing double-digit (ridership) growth on some routes.”

 

But will it work for Ohio?

 

Rail advocates here shout yes, especially now that billions in federal stimulus money will soon be dispersed for rail development. After 30 years of state rail studies, they say Ohio is primed for its own state-funded 3-C Corridor system from Cincinnati through Dayton, Springfield and Columbus and on up to Cleveland. After all, they argue, 5 to 6 million people live in the cities and counties along that 260-mile route, a far denser population than many in-state systems.

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/advocates-say-rail-service-would-put-ohio-on-the-map-132158.html

 

But outspoken rail critics, such as state Sen. Tom Patton, R-Strongsville, argue that trains work best in states with large metropolitan areas, like Chicago and Philadelphia, where the hassles of traffic congestion and the cost of parking make rail an attractive alternative. “That’s not the situation in Ohio,” he said. “This is a solution in search of a problem.”

 

Sounds like he's allowing the Ohio Contractor's Association air their position through him. 

 

Too bad when it comes to this issue, he wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on the leg. 

Sorry I'm posting late, but I'm glad someone posted the DDN article.

 

Anyways, I'm happy to hear that there would be 2 stops in the Dayton metro area, and that one of those is guaranteed for the CBD.

 

However, I am torn on whether Rvierside or Fariborn should get a stop. If Riverside got a stop, it might bring families and tourists to the line (and to the Air Force Museum), but if Fairborn got the stop, then it might bring more business travellers to WPAFB. Either would be good, but if there was some way that they could serve both needs, that would be awesome.

THE RAIL WORLD

A Vibrant US Train Industry Would Employ More People Than Car Makers Do Now

Posted on Tuesday May 19th by Yonah Freemark

The Infrastructurist

 

Everyone knows America’s passenger train system is pathetic by international standards, so President Obama’s $13 billion commitment to build a national high-speed rail network has come as a wonderful surprise.

 

It also raises the question of whether a reinvigorated rail industry could, with the car industry and several airlines drifting into bankruptcy, be the next great hope for keeping people employed in this country?

 

Read more at:

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/05/19/a-vibrant-us-train-industry-would-employ-more-people-than-car-makers-do-now/

Already posted it at:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2068.msg398904.html#msg398904

Doesn't hurt to post it here as well.

I'm wondering if it may be possible to alternate stops when the trains get up to the full 8-10 per day frequency.  4-5 stop at Riverside, the other 4-5 at Fairborn?

Put it in Fairborn, charge a $1 adult admission to the museum to pay for a trolley.  But really if either gets a station I won't be looking forward to crawling between that and the Dayton station.

^This is my thought.  Why not just build a light rail line from dayton CBD to Faiborn/Riverside and be done with it.  Less stops on the maine line and everyone is connected.

As service is ramped up, you will likely see the addition of local and express service, which will allow more communities to have a stake as a local stop, if not as a  stop for express service.