Many do feel that way, but skepticism has always kept high-speed rail projects from becoming reality where there was no conventional rail precedent. Yes, always. No high-speed rail service has ever been developed anywhere in the world without a conventional-speed precedent.

 

Ohio has its own record of failure without a conventional-speed precedent: high-speed rail initiatives either on the ballot, the general assembly or in the court of public opinion failed in 1977, 1982, 1986, and 1992.

 

Ohio is 0-4.

 

I think the proven approach -- the building block approach -- should be given a try.

Just got an e-mail that the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission, comprised primarily of state legislators, will hold its Fall 2009 meeting October 15 & 16 in Columbus.

 

 

For more information, contact:

 

Rep. Charlie Schlottach

Chair, MIPRC

 

Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission

The Council of State Governments

701 E. 22nd Street, Suite 110

Lombard, IL  60148

Phone:  630/925-1922

Fax:  630/925-1930

Visit our website at:  www.miprc.org

We don't have the money for high speed at this point and we don't know the extent of ridership to maximize our investment. I agree with KJP gotta start somewhere and putting some trains on the tracks is far more important than creating the ideal system.

We don't have the money for high speed at this point and we don't know the extent of ridership to maximize our investment. I agree with KJP gotta start somewhere and putting some trains on the tracks is far more important than creating the ideal system.

 

I disagree with what you typed, but I think I understand what you are trying to say.

 

I would put it like this.

 

We've go to start somewhere.  We're putting trains on rails.  Initially we wont have high speed trains, but we're laying the foundation for a solid rail transportation system.

FYI..........

 

Voices of More Ohioans to shape Ohio’s 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail Plan

For Immediate Release: August 26, 2009

 

CONTACT: Stu Nicholson

[email protected]

614-644-0513

 

COLUMBUS (Wednesday, August 26, 2009) - On-line, on the phone, on the radio, and in person - more Ohioans are making their voices and opinions heard on Ohio’s 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail Plan.

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) are gathering broad public input on the 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail Plan, which will connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati as part of the nationally-prioritized Chicago Hub Network.

 

Public input and expert technical analysis are helping ORDC and ODOT identify the most viable routes for the initial 79-mph 3C “Quick Start” service. With funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 3C “Quick Start” plan would have conventional-speed passenger service running by as early as 2011, generating jobs and economic development, and putting travel choice in reach of more than 60 percent of Ohio’s population.

 

Thousands of Ohioans across the state have already proclaimed, “Ohio’s 3C is Me!” by logging on to 3CisME.ohio.gov, an online portal to find the latest news and share public comments on passenger rail. The website has registered more than 5,000 hits since its launch in July.

 

Today, ORDC and ODOT are adding several more ways for Ohioans to provide comment and learn more about the passenger rail proposal:

 

Statewide radio - a public service announcement is now airing on approximately 200 radio stations in Ohio in cooperation with the Ohio Association of Broadcasters (attached).

 

3C is Me Hotline - can be reached toll-free 24 hours a day at: 1-877-7-3CisMe (1-877-732-4763).

 

3CisME.ohio.gov - provides an overview of the plan, provides access to presentations and study documents, and invites comment through an online survey. Please note that Internet access is also available at public libraries.

 

Public meetings – in September, there will be public open-house meetings in each of the 3Cs. Each open house is located on a bus line and is accessible for people with disabilities. The meetings will be held from 4-7 p.m. at:

 

• Columbus – 4-7 p.m. Sept. 15, King Arts Complex, 867 Mt. Vernon Ave., Columbus. (Served by COTA routes 6, 16, 81.)

 

• Cleveland – 4-7 p.m. Sept. 16, Cleveland Airport Holiday Inn, 4181 W. 150th St., Cleveland. Served by RTA routes 66X (Red Line Rapid), 70, 78 and 809.

 

• Cincinnati – 4-7 p.m. Sept. 17, City Hall Council Chambers, 801 Plum St., Cincinnati.  (Served by Metro routes 1, 6, 10, 32, 33, 40X, 49 and 50.)

 

People with special communication needs who are interested in attending the public meetings should contact Miranda Terrill at Murphy Epson at [email protected] or (614) 221-2885 at least 48-hours in advance.

 

ORDC and ODOT will use information collected from the public comments to finalize Ohio’s application for stimulus funding, which is due by Oct. 2.

 

###

 

For more information, contact Stu Nicholson, Ohio Rail Development Commission, at (614) 644-0513 or Scott Varner, ODOT Communications, at (614) 644-8640

 

Additional information can be found at http://3CisME.ohio.gov

Is it just me, or is that an odd place for the Cleveland location?

Because it's across the street from the 3C Corridor tracks? Across the street from the Red Line's Puritas station? Across the street from a potential 3C "Quick Start" station? And next to an exit off I-71, the major transportation route linking the 3C's?

 

Any more questions??  :wink:

Please note the bulleted item below in bold. Could Ohio do this with 3C? Or to improve stations and track capacity on existing Amtrak routes? Or to fund the Ohio Hub Environmental Impact studies? Or all of the above!

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-25-construction-stimulus_N.htm

 

Aug 26, 2009

Building slump stretches stimulus money

By Brad Heath, USA TODAY

 

WASHINGTON — Federal stimulus money will pay for hundreds of extra roads, bridges and buildings this year because almost all of that work has been far less expensive than expected.

 

....

 

• This year's road projects in Oregon came in $43 million under budget, and the state plans to use most of that money to buy new rail cars for Amtrak passenger trains, says state Transportation spokesman Dave Thompson.

 

"We were guessing they'd come in a little under, but we were very surprised by how much," he says.

 

.....

Editorial:

Trains can pick up speed with time

By the Dayton Daily News | Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 05:41 PM

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2009/08/25/editoriall_trains_can_pick_up.html

 

taking the train allows one to make better use of travel time;

 

 

I don't see why this point is not emphasized more in the ongoing debate.  I have to travel on occasion to Columbus and Cincinnati for business.  I usually drive, but if the train were an option I would take it for that reason alone.  I could use the time on the train to be productive and prepare for the job ahead. 

You mean like this? OK, so I turned this innocent photo taken aboard one of the 40 daily Bay Area-Sacramento Amtrak trains into a Public Service Announcement for 3C "Quick Start"......

 

LMAO !

You could really run with this. I like it!

hahahaha I thought that was Charlie Sheen for a second

I actually think an ad campaign run along those lines would do well and could change a few minds, especially because the pro-rail folks can sometimes seem as hectoring and humorless as the anti-rail crowd (nobody on here of course).

I actually think an ad campaign run along those lines would do well and could change a few minds, especially because the pro-rail folks can sometimes seem as hectoring and humorless as the anti-rail crowd (nobody on here of course).

 

I also think it would drive home the most important point (at least to me).  Yes, it may take you a little longer (at first at least) to get there by train, but you don't have to drive.  5 hours working/sleeping/relaxing/eating/drinking is more productive than 4 hours driving plus 1 hour working/sleeping/relaxing/eating/drinking.

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/siemens-deutsche-bahn-plan-joint-effort-to-tap-u.s.-hsr-market.html

 

Aug. 27, 2009

Siemens, DB plan joint effort to tap U.S. HSR market 

 

Siemens AG, through its Siemens Transportation Systems subsidiary, and German Rail (Deutsche Bahn, or DB) have announced a joint effort to tap the potential U.S. market for high speed rail.

 

Spokespeople from both companies say the Obama Administration’s commitment to grow HSR in the U.S. made such a joint venture practical.

 

Germany’s Der Spiegel reported that Siemens would supplyhigh speed ICE-3 trains and transport technology, while Deutsche Bahn would offer itself as a qualified operater of any U.S. HSR route. DB’s position could be the more problematic of the two, since numerous U.S. private concerns, as well as Amtrak, presumably would compete for such a role.

Train’s first phase may bypass Middletown and Hamilton

By Josh Sweigart, Staff Writer

1:06 PM Thursday, August 27, 2009

 

HAMILTON — Butler County commissioners literally underlined their preference this morning, Aug. 27, for a rail stop in Middletown over Hamilton on a planned cross-state passenger train.

 

Current plans call for the maiden voyage of the 3-C train to breeze past both cities with stops only in Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and nearby suburbs. Stops in areas such as Middletown would be added later.

 

......

 

Find this article at:

http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/trains-first-phase-may-bypass-middletown-and-hamilton-269076.html

 

I'm not familiar with the actual tracks planned to be built or devoted to the the 3C plan ... would stops in Middletown and/or Hamilton involve going far out of the way?  Or is it more just a concern about increasing the total route travel time (i.e., from Cincy to Cleveland)?

 

I ask because the stations themselves can be very cheap to build, and of course, getting more people within easy reach of a train station would logically boost ridership.  Hamilton and Middletown probably wouldn't need flashy stations with lots of staff.  However, if it would seriously impact the cost of the project in other ways, I can see the reticence to burn a lot of cash up front putting stations in smaller towns right away.

I'm surprised the article didn't mention the reason why.... Planning can be completed by Oct. 2 for 3C "Quick Start" if planners focus on station site selection for the big cities and their suburbs. But if site selection for stations in Middletown/Hamilton, Springfield and North Central (Galion, Crestline or Shelby) is included, the amount of work will be too much to meet the Oct. 2 application deadline to get federal funding for the 3C service.

 

Site selection planning will be done for the other three areas and if funding is secured for the 3C "Quick Start" then those stations will be added.

Dayton is the fastest route. It has the tracks that are in excellent condition, its rail traffic control signal systems are modern and capable of handling trains at up 79 mph and, most importantly, its right of way was engineered for 80+ mph speeds because this was traditionally the main passenger rail corridor between Columbus and Cincinnati.

 

The only other alternative routing is more direct, but not THAT much more direct... CSX's Midland Subdivision which it has leased to RailAmerica, a regional freight railroad. That line is, at best, good for 40-50 mph. Its tracks are in average/good condition. I don't believe it has a signal system in place. And it's just 10-15 miles shorter than the route through Dayton. Given the amount of upgrading this line requires and that the largest city on this line is Washington Court House, with just 22,000 people (Wilmington has only 12,000), it makes much more sense to go through Dayton, which has a metro area population of nearly 1 million.

This might help boost that knowledge....

 

South half of the 3C Corridor (red shows the likely alignment):

 

North half of the 3C Corridor (red shows the likely alignment):

 

Here's a study in contrasts of Cincinnati - Columbus rail infrastructure. OK, what's wrong with this picture of this Indiana & Ohio RR freight train on CSX's Midland Subdivision, crossing the Little Miami River in Loveland? Plenty. The rails appear to be lighter-weight, perhaps 115 pounds per yard, and are a mix of jointed and welded rails. The tracks are not heavily ballasted, as evidenced by the drop off the bridge. The curve (also called a spiral) is pretty tight and it's not even superelevated (banked) to counter the tightness of the curve. Despite the proximity of visual obstructions, such as the bridge and curve, the nearby grade crossing does not appear to have gates. The fact that there are leaves on the tracks tells me that the line is either not heavily used or the train speeds are pretty slow here (less than 20 mph) or both. All those factors combined makes this not a very good railroad for passenger rail absent major upgrading or realignment:

 

 

Compare that to this trackage. This is Norfolk Southern's Dayton District, a beautiful piece of railroad from a perspective of physical condition. The first photo is at West Jefferson, between Columbus and London, shot this past April. What's great about this picture is that, even with the modest gradient (the dip) in the right of way, the tracks are as straight as an arrow. The rails are continuously welded, heavier duty - probably 132 pounds per yard, and in great shape with very little deviation apparent in this telephoto shot. The tracks are signaled in both directions (called bi-directional signaling) and even though this is a New York Central-based system from more than 40 years ago, it appears that is a newly installed signal mast (look at the white concrete base and the new ballast piled up around it -- and old mast would be on a rust-dripped concrete base with the ballast flat). Don't confuse that with the masts and posts for the automated equipment identification readers on both sides of the track. They scan tags with magnetic data encoded on them to identify each rail car (for cargo tracking purposes). And it's a nicely ballasted (it's piled high!) right of way with good visibility for motorists at the crossing which has flashers and gates) and no leaves or other debris along the right way, which tells me NS trains really roll fast through here (I'm told 50-60 mph is the norm):

 

 

OK, here's one more picture on NS's Dayton District, this time shot at Plattsburg, OH, between Springfield and London, on Nov. 13, 2008. Same deal as in the West Jefferson photo -- heavy-duty welded rails, no dips or mis-alignments, lots of ballast and well tamped (note the top of the ties are flush with the top of the ballast, strongly suggestive of maintenance-of-way crews who really care about their work). But the difference maker is the engineering of this railroad alignment. Look at that curve! A passenger train could easily take that gradual curve at 100 mph. If the curve is super-elevated (banked) or if the passenger train was equipped with tilt-train technology, or both, the passenger train could probably take that curve at better than 125 mph. That's what makes this picture (and this right of way through Dayton) so special:

 

 

BTW, thanks to the photographers at Railpictures.net for capturing some great scenes of modern Ohio railroading!

After the 3C has been established, is the yellow route the one they would use for Akron to have rail access? If so, why would they skip Mansfield and Ashland (the route a little way south from the Greenwich route). They would be bypassing a population of about 140,000(combined pops of Ashland and Mansfield metros), which I think would be a shame.

Here is a more detailed map of the rail lines between the North Central Ohio area and Greater Cleveland:

 

 

Here's a larger image of the above:

http://members.cox.net/peepersken/Railmap-Akron3Crouting1.gif

 

The above map shows all current and former railroad lines (it doesn't show former electric interurbans which are displayed on updated versions of the SPV Railroad Atlas booklets). Solid lines represent currently (as of the mid-90s) intact or active railroad rights of ways. Dashed lines represent abandoned/removed railroad rights of way.

 

I have no doubts that using the former Erie Railroad mainline via Mansfield, Ashland and Akron, and then a mix of rail lines from there to downtown Cleveland makes sense -- especially for a high-speed rail service. Since segments of the Erie RR are either abandoned or used only for branch-line/industrial access services, when stitched back together they offer a largely freight-free rail corridor for fast passenger trains. But by the same argument, given the poor conditions of the Erie RR right of way, it's not suitable for a start-up level of service.

 

And if I'm going to run Cleveland - Columbus passenger trains via Canton, I'd route the trains through Newark, Coshocton, New Philadelphia. The tracks from Hudson south to Canton need serious improvements. Akron Metro RTA and CVSR have made a good start improving the tracks south of Akron for CVSR's low-speed tourist train to Canton. But if we're going to further improve this line, do it for high-speed rail (and ensure it has enough capacity for commuter rail). Besides, a 3C routing through both Mansfield and Canton starts to get pretty convoluted.

I like BuckeyB's idea of connecting Akron to the 3-C by waiting for the 90 mph build-out of the CLE-PGH and 3-C corridors and connecting Akron via a DMU between Ravenna and Galion.  The DMU could easily be coupled to the corridor trains giving Akron service to both YTO-PGH and Galion-Columbus-Dayton-Cinci. 

I'm doing a little research on Greyhound, the only real alternative to driving in the 3C Corridor, and I found this from a month ago. Yep, it's a long one...

______________

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090725/NEWS01/907260380/-1/today/Ride+to+Cleveland+and+find+America

 

Ride to Cleveland and find America

By Cliff Radel • [email protected] • July 25, 2009

 

This is the last story in the Ticket to Ride Sunday series that explored bus travel from Cincinnati, fares and where people are traveling and why.

 

You know you're in for a bumpy ride when . . .

 

The guy in the next seat just finished taking a bath in the bus station's restroom sink . . .

 

The majority of passengers carry luggage bearing the brand names Hefty and Glad . . .

 

People from the Boulevard of Broken Dreams board the bus in hopes it's bound for Easy Street.

 

Welcome to the world of bus travel via Greyhound. This is the bus line Paul Simon rode - following hundreds of other songwriters - when he "boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh" so he could "look for America."

....

Ohio passenger rail advocates rush to meet requirements to apply for stimulus funds for 3C Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati route

Posted by Karen Farkas / The Plain Dealer September 02, 2009 22:00PM

Categories: Real Time News

 

Ohio passenger rail advocates are moving at breakneck speed to fulfill requirements to apply for up to $450 million in federal stimulus money to provide service from Cleveland to Cincinnati...

 

CLICK ON THE LINK TO SEE THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

 

---

How to comment

 

By phone: 1-877-732-4763.

 

Online: Go to 3cisme.ohio.gov. A survey is included.

 

In person: Attend a public meeting from 4 to 7 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 16, at the Airport Holiday Inn, 4181 West 150th St., Cleveland. The location is served by RTA's Red Line rapid and several bus routes.

---

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/09/ohio_passenger_rail_advocates.html

awesome.  I took the survey.  :-)

I am definitely not a plan of this project, though to be fair I'm against any use of this ridiculous stimulus plan.  However, my umbrage with the 3-C rail project is there are already bus destinations that take you to these places in addition to the 79 mph being quite a bit lower than our European counterparts.  If we can't afford to do it right, we shouldn't do it at all.  Is there even really a demand for a train connecting the three cities?

I am definitely not a plan of this project, though to be fair I'm against any use of this ridiculous stimulus plan.  However, my umbrage with the 3-C rail project is there are already bus destinations that take you to these places in addition to the 79 mph being quite a bit lower than our European counterparts. If we can't afford to do it right, we shouldn't do it at all.  Is there even really a demand for a train connecting the three cities?

 

This is not sarcasm, but have you read any post in this thread?  :wtf:

 

Doing it as planned, is doing it right.

 

You and people like you say, that we're not producing a product that runs at the speed/rate as other cities.  Did other cities open and operate at the speeds frequencies they are operating today?

I am definitely not a plan of this project, though to be fair I'm against any use of this ridiculous stimulus plan. However, my umbrage with the 3-C rail project is there are already bus destinations that take you to these places in addition to the 79 mph being quite a bit lower than our European counterparts. If we can't afford to do it right, we shouldn't do it at all. Is there even really a demand for a train connecting the three cities?

 

(1) I agree about the 79MPH cap.  However, an earlier poster on this board (KJP, maybe? ... can't click back once I've started writing a post in Quick Reply ...) did make a reasonable argument that conventional-speed tends to precede high speed, and that it's politically impractical to skip straight to high-speed, much as the thought of leaping straight to world-leader status appeals more to me.

 

(2) Yes, there is demand for a train connecting the three cities if the stops are in places people actually want to go ... particularly the airports.

 

(3) I agree that the stimulus was a travesty, but now that it's passed, it's passed.  The debt is already incurred.  Also, even though I favor a balanced budget amendment, this is something the would be an appropriate use of public funds and I'd support even in the context of a government that lived within its means and proper constitutional role.

Demand?

 

There are 6-million Ohioans living within 15 to 20 miles of the 3C Corridor who have no other alternative but to drive if they want to anywhere outside of their home towns to travel within Ohio or in the Midwest.  Intercity bus service is greatly diminshed from what it was and doesn't even serve small-town America any more.  Flying over short haul distances is either too expensive, non-existant or just too much of a hassle.

 

If not for a similar stimulus plan back in the early 1950's (also during a similar down economy I might add), we wouldn't have the Interstate Highway System we have today.

 

As for speed: it's a "start-up" !  The stated goal opf the plan is to add more train frequencies and increase speeds.  Our "European counterparts" didn't just make the leap to 250MPH TGV's.  They started incrementally...just like Ohio is doing.

 

BTW: the current on-line poll on the 3c Is Me website has registered over 4,100 respondents and 95% favor the incremental start-up in the 3C.

^I used to take Greyhound home from Pitt just about every break. Let me tell you, bus and train service are two different things. I hated riding the bus. Greyhound buses were always crowded, very uncomfortable and not very clean. However, I took Amtrak home a couple times for about the same price, and the experience was ten times better. I could actually stretch legs and enjoy my trip. In my opinion, riding a bus for three hours is never enjoyable or comfortable. Therefore, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

I didn't see this addressed upthread and it may be a silly question, but can the 3-C funding be broken apart? That is, could the project receive partial federal funding, and in that case, would the DOT expect states to either pitch in more substantial local funding or to only develop one segment of a proposed route? I ask because, in reviewing rail proposals from other states, it appears that some are requesting far, far, far more than what would be their proportionate scale and seem to be operating under the assumption that only segments of their proposals would be funded. Washington State, for instance, is submitting proposals totaling roughly $1 billion ... an eighth of total funding available. But it appears that they are prioritizing specific components and segments, were they to receive partial funding. To date, I haven't seen a prioritization of specific activities for the 3-C. Ohio's proposal seems much more realistic a choice for total funding, but I do wonder, in the event of partial funding, whether Ohio might focus exclusively on CIN to COL or COL to CLE or whether there is some alternate strategy in mind for partial funding. I also am curious as to whether DOT is requiring that kind of prioritization as a component of the application.

Demand?

 

There are 6-million Ohioans living within 15 to 20 miles of the 3C Corridor who have no other alternative but to drive if they want to anywhere outside of their home towns to travel within Ohio or in the Midwest. Intercity bus service is greatly diminshed from what it was and doesn't even serve small-town America any more. Flying over short haul distances is either too expensive, non-existant or just too much of a hassle.

 

If not for a similar stimulus plan back in the early 1950's (also during a similar down economy I might add), we wouldn't have the Interstate Highway System we have today.

 

As for speed: it's a "start-up" ! The stated goal opf the plan is to add more train frequencies and increase speeds. Our "European counterparts" didn't just make the leap to 250MPH TGV's. They started incrementally...just like Ohio is doing.

 

BTW: the current on-line poll on the 3c Is Me website has registered over 4,100 respondents and 95% favor the incremental start-up in the 3C.

 

I'm going to preface this comment w/ the declaration that I know NOTHING about trains.

 

.....Now, could the reason the Europeans started at 79mph, be that is was quite a few years ago and the technology at the time made is substantially more cost effective. I just feel that a train that runs only slightly faster than highway traffic will be a hard sell, especially when patrons will have to pay for place to park their cars when they leave. I am huge supporter of efficient, mass-transit (this proposal specifically) but i think the powers that be will need to break the 100mph barrier to get overwhelming community support.

I just took the survey and was very happy about question #4;

While ODOT and ORDC are seeking federal stimulus funds for the 79 mph hour 3C “Quick Start” service now, they are also developing plans for higher speed trains – operating at up to 110 mph – in the 3C corridor and elsewhere throughout Ohio.  Which route identified below would you be most likely to ride?

While I'm not opposed to the 3C, I have very little intention of riding this train myself. I'm far more interested in the Cleveland to Youngstown to Pittsburgh train and was happy they asked about that.

hubz1124 .... The reason Europe and japan were able to start incrementally is thanks (in part) to the Allied air forces during World War Two.  They had to literally rebuild what they had, which was already a fairly efficient and fast system of conventional trains.  With the backing of their governments, they improved technology and increased speeds.  As those speeds topped the 125 MPH limit, they began to grade-separate rail corridors and create dedicated high-speed lines that could accomodate today's trains.

 

I'm condensing a lot of history in one paragraph, but that's essentially how they progressed.

 

And keep in mind that speed between cars and trains isn't the only consideration in being competitive.  The amount of time on the train (as opposed to that driving a car) is YOUR time to spend as you wish: to work, relax, walk around, read a book, grab coffee or a meal, whip out the laptop and take care of business or make a Facebook or UrbanOhio post...none of which can be done safely while driving.

 

I travel on business for about 25% of my job, nearly all of it involves driving and that is simply lost and completely unproductive time both for me and for my employer.  A typical trip to Toledo, Cleveland or Cincy will kill about five hours (round trip) out of typical 8 hour day.  I'd much rather have that time to do work on the way up, tie up any loose ends on the way home...and maybe grab a beer in the cafe car.

Me too ... that's what I voted for, as it's the best link for my personal travel needs, and I think it's the most critical link for connecting Ohio to the east coast.

I am still not impressed by this project.  I haven't bothered reading all of the literature and discussion on it, but I can tell you that 79 mph is simply not acceptable when you can essentially take the interstate at similar speeds but for comparable or less cost.  My concern with this project is that it has an "If you build it, they will come" premise that isn't convincing or worked in the past (Flats line).  Why hasn't any private investor come forward with a similar plan if this will be cost effective and profitable?  The $400 million or so will only go so far - who will fund it after the money runs out for costs like fuel and maintenance?  What will be the estimated annual costs of such maintenance after the stimulus money runs out?  Would we even consider a project of this magnitude if it came not out of "free stimulus money" but instead state and citywide funding?     

 

Of course taking a train is generally nicer than a bus, and one can get more work done on these trains rather than driving the distance.  There are clear benefits with this trainline, but I'm trying to look at it from a realistic viewpoint.  I keep thinking back to the Flats train line, which I'm sure was exciting when first broached and implemented, but look how fast that turned into a giant embarrassment.  When we're talking about this kind of taxpayer investment, you have to be somewhat skeptical and not build stuff for the sake of building stuff (which I get is the point of the stimulus, however nonsensical that is). 

 

Maybe someone here can convince me of the project's merit, but at this point I am not convinced.

I am still not impressed by this project. I haven't bothered reading all of the literature and discussion on it, but I can tell you that 79 mph is simply not acceptable when you can essentially take the interstate at similar speeds but for comparable or less cost.  My concern with this project is that it has an "If you build it, they will come" premise that isn't convincing or worked in the past (Flats line).  Why hasn't any private investor come forward with a similar plan if this will be cost effective and profitable?  The $400 million or so will only go so far - who will fund it after the money runs out for costs like fuel and maintenance?  What will be the estimated annual costs of such maintenance after the stimulus money runs out?  Would we even consider a project of this magnitude if it came not out of "free stimulus money" but instead state and citywide funding?     

 

Of course taking a train is generally nicer than a bus, and one can get more work done on these trains rather than driving the distance.  There are clear benefits with this trainline, but I'm trying to look at it from a realistic viewpoint.  I keep thinking back to the Flats train line, which I'm sure was exciting when first broached and implemented, but look how fast that turned into a giant embarrassment.  When we're talking about this kind of taxpayer investment, you have to be somewhat skeptical and not build stuff for the sake of building stuff (which I get is the point of the stimulus, however nonsensical that is). 

 

Maybe someone here can convince me of the project's merit, but at this point I am not convinced.

 

With those two glaring things highlighted....you should take the time to educate yourself.  A wealth of information has been posted and outlined.

 

It doesn't make sense - actually it makes perfect sense - that you can say you don't understand when the information is right at your finger tips.  ::)

^ Couldn't have said it better myself, MTS.

I am still not impressed by this project. I haven't bothered reading all of the literature and discussion on it, but I can tell you that 79 mph is simply not acceptable when you can essentially take the interstate at similar speeds but for comparable or less cost. My concern with this project is that it has an "If you build it, they will come" premise that isn't convincing or worked in the past (Flats line). Why hasn't any private investor come forward with a similar plan if this will be cost effective and profitable? The $400 million or so will only go so far - who will fund it after the money runs out for costs like fuel and maintenance? What will be the estimated annual costs of such maintenance after the stimulus money runs out? Would we even consider a project of this magnitude if it came not out of "free stimulus money" but instead state and citywide funding?

 

Of course taking a train is generally nicer than a bus, and one can get more work done on these trains rather than driving the distance. There are clear benefits with this trainline, but I'm trying to look at it from a realistic viewpoint. I keep thinking back to the Flats train line, which I'm sure was exciting when first broached and implemented, but look how fast that turned into a giant embarrassment. When we're talking about this kind of taxpayer investment, you have to be somewhat skeptical and not build stuff for the sake of building stuff (which I get is the point of the stimulus, however nonsensical that is).  

 

Maybe someone here can convince me of the project's merit, but at this point I am not convinced.

 

Like the same private investor that stepped up to build I-71?

^That's exactly what I was thinking.  If we don't get this thing rolling we're going to be pretty upset with ourselves in 20 years or so when gas prices are soaring and we have no alternative modes of travel between the major cities in Ohio. 

 

In regards to the waterfront line... correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't that built under the assumption that it would be part of a future extension east or as part of a downtown loop?  You've got to start somewhere and hopefully, someday, the waterfront line can be turned into a downtown loop and garner significantly higher ridership... especially if the FEB takes off.

Opposing this project because it won't serve your needs is one thing. Perhaps you don't think it is fast enough, or your final destination isn't near the station (or even a transit line that passes near the station), or you just like having the control of your car's steering in your hands. Those are all truly legitimate reasons. Yet many Ohioans who don't live near the 3C Corridor and won't use it still think this is a good project.

 

But if you oppose because you don't like the federal stimulus, to me that's a poor reason. The $8 billion for rail is going to get spent. There are $102 billion worth of requests for it from 40 states. Ohio may have a leg up on most projects because we're going to have environmental documentation for this project completed. Many requests lack that. And you have to have that documentation to be eligible for federal funds. So if the money is going to get spent, and it will, let's get it spent in Ohio.

 

If you question the demand for this service but then ask why can't we have high-speed rail instead, I believe that is a counter-intuitive thought process. No one has committed the high price (perhaps $50 million a mile) to build a 150-200 mph HSR line linking the 3Cs unless there is certainty there is demand for train travel. There are studies which show that there is demand. Despite that, Ohio is 0-4 on high-speed rail. We also know from studies that there is demand for convention-speed trains though less so. But the cost is less too. But until we get something up and running, it's all just theoretical.

 

What is the risk if this fails to attract ridership? Virtually zero. Ohio ends up cancelling its lease on the trains or selling the equipment to another state. Four of the six stations can continue to be transportation centers and/or park-n-rides for local transit agencies (one of them at Crosswoods/I-270 already is, and the train station would be added on to it). One of the other two stations is Cleveland's already existing Amtrak station. The last would be Cincinnati's Boathouse station which was, and can continue to be used as a station for occasional train excursions. All the tracks to be used by 3C trains are along routes already owned and operated by freight railroads. The tracks, including planned new passing sidings, will help the freight railroads operate more efficiently -- with or without 3C passenger trains. Ohio can easily walk away from this if it doesn't work.

I'm going to preface this comment w/ the declaration that I know NOTHING about trains.

 

.....Now, could the reason the Europeans started at 79mph, be that is was quite a few years ago and the technology at the time made is substantially more cost effective. I just feel that a train that runs only slightly faster than highway traffic will be a hard sell, especially when patrons will have to pay for place to park their cars when they leave. I am huge supporter of efficient, mass-transit (this proposal specifically) but i think the powers that be will need to break the 100mph barrier to get overwhelming community support.

 

Did you know that 90 percent of the route miles of Europe's passenger rail system is rated at 100 mph or less? And less than 5 percent is rated at more than 150 mph? Indeed, most of it is 80-100 mph. And there are basically two reasons it is even that high:

 

1. Europe's freight trains are much lighter and more scarce than ours. Lighter, faster freight trains mix better with light, fast passenger trains. And since there are fewer freight trains in Europe, they don't interfere so much with fast, frequent passenger trains.

 

2. The U.S. government has a 79 mph speed limit on all railroad tracks that lack a signal system that interacts with the locomotive's controls. So if the engineer fails to respond to a signal, the signal system stops the train. In Canada, the speed limit in the absence of such a system is 95 mph. In the UK it's 125 mph. Adding these signal systems typically costs about in excess of $200,000 per track mile.

 

Europeans don't ride trains in huge numbers because they are terribly fast. They ride them because they are cheap, plentiful and reliable. Cost, frequency and reliability trumps speed with almost all travelers --except business travelers. Its why California has the highest rail ridership in the nation outside of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor even though its trains have average speeds of just 50 mph.

 

BTW, high-speed rail isn't a new technology. American and European passenger trains on the busiest routes (like New York - Chicago and London - Edinburgh) were regularly traveling at 100 mph or more before World War II. The U.S. government's 79 mph restriction put the brakes on our trains.

Well put on both posts KJP.

Is there even really a demand for a train connecting the three cities?

 

I'd use it as I travel to each of the other C's on business and would use the free time to prep.   

Is there even really a demand for a train connecting the three cities?

 

I'd use it as I travel to each of the other C's on business and would use the free time to prep.   

 

You know what?  I get more work done on the train/plane.  I'm not distracted by UrbanOhio.  LOL

I'm always worn out after driving to Columbus. Even if the weather or traffic is fine, it still takes me a while to "shake off the road" and get my mind on the meeting. When the traffic or the weather is bad, I'm usually so wired when I get to my destination that I just want to punch someone.  :-D

 

When I'm on a train, I like to veg out, hypnotize myself as I stare at the passing scenery, and listen to hypnotic train-riding trance music. Here are samples of what I listen to:

 

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I am still not impressed by this project.  I haven't bothered reading all of the literature and discussion on it, but I can tell you that 79 mph is simply not acceptable when you can essentially take the interstate at similar speeds but for comparable or less cost.  My concern with this project is that it has an "If you build it, they will come" premise that isn't convincing or worked in the past (Flats line).  Why hasn't any private investor come forward with a similar plan if this will be cost effective and profitable?  The $400 million or so will only go so far - who will fund it after the money runs out for costs like fuel and maintenance?  What will be the estimated annual costs of such maintenance after the stimulus money runs out?  Would we even consider a project of this magnitude if it came not out of "free stimulus money" but instead state and citywide funding?     

 

Of course taking a train is generally nicer than a bus, and one can get more work done on these trains rather than driving the distance.  There are clear benefits with this trainline, but I'm trying to look at it from a realistic viewpoint.  I keep thinking back to the Flats train line, which I'm sure was exciting when first broached and implemented, but look how fast that turned into a giant embarrassment.  When we're talking about this kind of taxpayer investment, you have to be somewhat skeptical and not build stuff for the sake of building stuff (which I get is the point of the stimulus, however nonsensical that is). 

 

Maybe someone here can convince me of the project's merit, but at this point I am not convinced.

 

KJP already addressed this well, but I'm going to add my 2 cents....

 

I hate to have to keep repeating this... starting at 79 mph is a successful model that has been done in 14 other states that fund passenger trains.  Many of those routes are still only operating at 79 mph.  The Downeaster in Main operates at 69 mph. Ohio isn't doing anything new, untested, or unproven. One example:  in North Carolina, their two state funded corridors both take longer than driving, but they are popular.  There are plans to speed them up, but the fact that they haven't been yet hasn't prevented people riding them in healthy numbers. 

 

By the way, I already have at least 7 instances this year when I would have used the 3-C, and that doesn't count additional trips I probably would have made just because the train would be there.

 

The Downeaster in Main operates at 69 mph.

 

It's 79. They spent $50 million on the tracks to get it up to that speed (but still had to fight Guilford freight RR to get the 79 mph authorization)....

 

http://www.downeastriders.us/resources/030201de.pdf