It's interesting to hear Cincy talk about the difficulty at Union Station in dealing w/ heavy freight traffic.  In Cleveland during WWI, the Van Sweringens sold the public on their Public Square Union Station over the Daniel Burnham plan to crown his famous Mall, in large part, because the Mall RR tracks were choked by ... freight traffic....

 

... fast forward to the late 20th/early 21st Century, and because of a lack of vision, planning, coordination and leadership (<-- should be Cleveland's post WWII moto, actually), Cleveland's forced to abandon any plans for its Union Station/Tower City -- the best located (center of town) and a specially, passenger-only built egress/ingress ROW (on top of being at the city's central Rapid Transit station) primarily because we stupidly built a Federal Courthouse building (we really didn't need) blocking the westbound entrance to the station area... so that, now, almost a century later, Cleveland is building its 3-C terminal in an area of busy freight traffic a good distance away from the (Tower City) transit/accessible, center of town.  I suppose Cleveland's planned North Coast terminal has more track space than Cincy's Union Station, but obviously, the City by the Lake doesn't win any genius-planning awards either.

The long-term solution for Union Terminal, when HSR is initiated to Chicago, is going to be station tracks elevated above the freight yard. They will have to be quite high to allow double stacking beneath.  Luckily there is just enough space to allow this climb between CUT and the Western Hills Viaduct. 

 

However this elevation makes a lot of sense because it functionally recreates the separate passenger rail approach to the Southern RR bridge that was built in 1933.  I do think continuation of the service south with a station in Florence, KY makes a whole lot of sense if it can be done without having to build a new railroad bridge. 

 

 

Didn't I read here that CSX (or whoever) already wants a new Ohio River crossing? 

 

It would be nice to need something like this (I took this from the ICE on the approach to Cologne):

 

I don't know anything about that.  There are two active double-track RR bridges in Cincinnati, the C&O and the Cincinnati Southern.  They were both built in the 1920's.  I don't know if either are close to the end of their useful lives, but they are certainly both heavily used.  I think I heard they each handle over 30 freight trains per day.  These trains travel really slowly to reduce vibrations on the bridge and because they're hauling a mile of stuff up a 1-2% grade.  Passenger trains are obviously much lighter so could cross them quickly.  I've never actually seen The Cardinal so I don't know how fast it crosses the C&O bridge. 

 

Sorry, this is from last week, but I just saw it on my news clips as it was updated today (nice misspelling of Amtrak, and that Amtrak didn't generate the ridership data--AECOM did as its estimates have a rate of accuracy within a 4% margin of error)....

 

Friday, March 5, 2010  |  Modified: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 8:00am EST

Commercial Real Estate

Rail boom? Experts, retailers see different sides of coin

Business First of Columbus

by Brent Wilder For Business First

 

Ohio may not yet be all aboard for passenger rail service that would route riders to and through the Greater Columbus Convention Center. But if it does happen, there doesn’t seem to be much excitement that it will translate into retail development to serve what Amtrack projects as 260,950 passengers who would use the Columbus hub each year.

 

If a plan to implement $400 million in federal stimulus funding for passenger rail is approved by the state Controlling Board – and there are doubts it will be approved – Ohio would launch so-called “medium-speed” rail by 2012, linking Cleveland, Dayton, Columbus and Cincinnati. That would bring passengers through the convention center and, it’s hoped, provide a lift to retail tenants in the building and in the neighborhood.

 

The proposed convention center hub would require a station build-out at ground level at the back of the building to access the existing rail spur on the property.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/03/08/focus5.html?b=1268024400^2987991

I think I've asked this twice before, but nobody responds.

 

Can anyone provide car or plane trip statistics in the I-71 or 3C+D corridor?

Yes, but bear in mind I'm doing this from memory. This is intercity-only annual data....

 

Car: about 4 million trips

Bus: about 300,000 trips

Air: 30,000 to 60,000 trips

I think I've asked this twice before, but nobody responds.

 

Can anyone provide car or plane trip statistics in the I-71 or 3C+D corridor?

 

See page four- http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/show/gasfinnercityrail

 

That was about five minutes of searching on google.

The problem with that map is that it shows all trips on I-71, trucks, plus commuter plus intercity. In the metro area sections of I-71, the daily traffic counts are in the 80,000 to 100,000 range. In the rural sections midway between the metros, the daily counts fall as far down as into the 30,000s. I remember reading from the 2-C Corridor rail project report that nearly 4,000 people travel daily between Cleveland and Columbus. A like amount travel between Columbus and Cincinnati. Dayton trips add still more. The total daily travel between the 3Cs + D is about 10,000 people.

 

EDIT: That map is useful, however. It shows the overall density of travel, notably in Ohio, parts of Michigan and Indiana. It also shows that travel between Cleveland and Chicago or Cincinnati and Chicago tends to fall in or near Indiana. That doesn't mean that rail development from Ohio to Chicago isn't worthwhile, but it does suggest that regional or intercity traffic is high within Ohio. So not only does Ohio have high population density, it has high travel density.

I agree with you about Bond Hill, I don't see how it would really benefit the community since the station would still only be temporary, and would most likely be a park-n-ride type situation with some buses and taxis.

 

But the bigger picture is this: Cincinnati Union Terminal is our train station, judged by the American Institute of Architects to be one of the 100 most architecturally significant buildings in the United States. It already hosts (some) Amtrak service to Chicago and Washington. With modifications, the Terminal can handle more business, and the major tenant there, the Cincinnati Museum Center, welcomes more trains. And if we were ever to get trains to the south -- to Louisville and Atlanta, say -- they would have to come out of CUT because there is no rail bridge east of Cincinnati's central riverfront.

 

Here's my question:  Is there a real problem with having several stations in a given Metro area?  Taking Cincy for example, It seems to me that stations at Sharonville, Bond Hill, CUT & the Airport could all potentially be beneficial.  Clearly CUT is a necessary station, because the vast majority of corporate headquarters, cultural insitutions etc. are closest to that site.  Also, you can't let an awe-inspiring first impression like that go to waste.

 

But having multiple stations in the metro area strikes me as encouraging more people to use Rail.  Also, how expensive are these stations anyway? (I literally don't know)  Most stations in Europe strike me as glorified sheds or big subway platforms.  I understand that we can't have a station for every city on the route, but three or four well organized and punctual embarkation points in a major metro could possibly be just as good or better than one big one.

A few stations are probably be a good thing, but only if they're on the same line.  If Sharonville ends up being the temporary Cincinnati station for a few years, it would would probably be worthwhile to keep it as a station even after the terminus is finally extended to CUT.  The same can't be said for Bond Hill or Lunken though, since they're on a different route. 

Consider the Chicago-Detroit Corridor....

 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249201067028&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_W22.pdf

 

Metro Detroit has five stations: Dearborn, Detroit, Royal Oak, Birmingham and Pontiac. You could say Metro Detroit has seven stations if you include the DetroitCMSA cities of Ann Arbor and the "tour group only" stop at Greenfield Village!

 

This is the 2009 ridership at all seven Detroit CMSA stations:

 

Ann Arbor - 133,454

Birmingham - 18,695

Dearborn - 72,407

Detroit - 60,684

Greenfield Village - NO DATA

Pontiac - 14,512

Royal Oak - 29,382

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

Total 2009 Detroit CMSA ridership - 329,134

 

SOURCE: http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/MICHIGAN09.pdf

A few stations are probably be a good thing, but only if they're on the same line. If Sharonville ends up being the temporary Cincinnati station for a few years, it would would probably be worthwhile to keep it as a station even after the terminus is finally extended to CUT. The same can't be said for Bond Hill or Lunken though, since they're on a different route.

 

Bond Hill isn't on the same line as Sharonville?

The lines split south of Sharonville.  The point is that Bond Hill (at least as we understand it) is not on the same line as CUT. 

Okay, thanks.  So what is the direct line between Sharonville and CUT?

Okay, thanks.  So what is the direct line between Sharonville and CUT?

 

It's the former Big Four/New York Central line, and south of NA Junction it's the former Baltimore & Ohio to Columbus.  I marked it in blue on the following map.  The red route is the Indiana & Ohio Oasis line, formerly the Pennsylvania Railroad's Richmond Division between Mill and Valley junctions and  the Little Miami Railroad mainline south of Valley.  If a Bond Hill station is built on the Oasis line, that's still a long detour away from the route to Union Terminal. 

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?gl=us&om=0&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=39.191553,-84.469414&spn=0.194244,0.312424&z=12&msid=103871532514751842563.00048189ce2e12bca3b05

I thought you all might find this interesting. I scanned this from the mapping appendix of the 1980 Ohio High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger Program, by the Ohio Rail Transportation Authority and engineering firm Dalton Dalton Newport.

 

Overview of the Cincinnati - Dayton - Columbus section.....

 

 

Mill Creek valley detail.....

 

I think I've asked this twice before, but nobody responds.

 

Can anyone provide car or plane trip statistics in the I-71 or 3C+D corridor?

 

See page four- http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/show/gasfinnercityrail

 

That was about five minutes of searching on google.

 

Don't get pissy with me, young man. I'm the only one who's allowed to chastise people for being lazy.

 

I've seen the graphic before that you are referring to, and want to believe there must be more comprehensive information for Ohio, from All Aboard Ohio or a similar entity. In fact the document you linked doesn't mention Ohio by name at all.

Interesting that the previous plan uses the former Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton near Cincinnati, whereas the current proposal uses the former Big Four.  I wonder what prompted choosing one over the other.  In fact, I wonder why the 3-C trains couldn't follow the directional running strategy NS and CSX use today, though it would preclude having any stations between Cincinnati and Middletown. 

 

Can you post a larger view of the Cincinnati-Dayton section?  It looks like they were maybe planning for some extra connecting tracks south of Middletown and perhaps somewhere in Lockland or farther north?  Something about it just doesn't add up right.

Yes, but bear in mind I'm doing this from memory. This is intercity-only annual data....

 

Car: about 4 million trips

Bus: about 300,000 trips

Air: 30,000 to 60,000 trips

 

Gracias

Interesting that the previous plan uses the former Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton near Cincinnati, whereas the current proposal uses the former Big Four.

 

 

The 1980 high-speed plan (one of four in Ohio that didn't go anywhere because it proposed to go from 0 mph to more than 150 mph) followed the old B&O north of Winton Place (NA Jct) because there were/are fewer industries along it that the railroad served.

 

And if you'll note, the proposed high-speed line was elevated on a bridge for SEVEN MILES starting just south of Winton Place to avoid crossing streets and freight tracks at grade. Earlier I noted that Parsons Brinckerhoff believed it might be necessary to add capacity from CUT to Evendale at $25 million per mile -- at grade and along the former NYC/Big Four -- for 3C Quick Start. Anyone care to hazard a guess on what it would cost to build a seven-mile-long elevated HSR line above the B&O mainline?

Anyone care to hazard a guess on what it would cost to build a seven-mile-long elevated HSR line above the B&O mainline?

 

Probably less than the whole I-75 widening and Brent Spence Bridge replacement is going to cost. 

Can you post a larger view of the Cincinnati-Dayton section?  It looks like they were maybe planning for some extra connecting tracks south of Middletown and perhaps somewhere in Lockland or farther north?  Something about it just doesn't add up right.

 

The source document intentionally blurs the original map to emphasize the sectionals. The 1980-proposed HSR line followed the B&O northward (including a suburban stop at I-275) and the veered generally northward after crossing Crescentville Road but before entering the Fairfield corporate limits. The HSR line then would travel generally northward across country and rejoin the B&O alignment where the B&O starts to again follow the Great Miami River on the east side of Trenton....

 

Ok, that helps.  Thanks for the clarification. 

With respect to adding Cincinnati stations or stations anywhere else for that matter ... the main thing we're fighting with this plan is the slow speed. Adding stations will slow it down even more.

Anyone care to hazard a guess on what it would cost to build a seven-mile-long elevated HSR line above the B&O mainline?

 

Probably less than the whole I-75 widening and Brent Spence Bridge replacement is going to cost.

 

But that's an investment. Public funding on rail is a subsidy.....

 

ORDC press releases cross-posted from the Amtrak thread.....

 

Two Ohio Amtrak Routes to Get Performance Evaluation

Ohio’s existing train stations show 10 percent increase in ridership

 

COLUMBUS (Wednesday, March 10, 2010) - With more than 128,000 riders getting on Amtrak trains in Ohio last year - up 10 percent from the year before - the nation’s largest passenger rail operator is looking for ways to improve customer service on two of its three long-distance routes through Ohio.

 

The efforts are part of Amtrak’s multi-year Route Performance Improvement program. Amtrak shared an update on the program with the Ohio Rail Development Commission and the Ohio Department of Transportation earlier this week.

 

“Amtrak long-distance trains are running strong,” said President and CEO Joseph Boardman. “We are making changes, improving our service, and passengers are responding favorably,” he said, noting that total ridership on Amtrak’s 15 long-distance trains reached nearly 4.2 million in fiscal year 2009.

 

Upcoming performance reviews of five national system routes will include the “Cardinal” - a tri-weekly train between Chicago, Washington DC and New York City that serves Cincinnati - and the “Capitol Limited” - a daily train between Chicago and Washington DC with stops in Toledo, Sandusky, Elyria, Cleveland and Alliance.

 

Amtrak reported 128,174 total riders at Ohio train stations in 2009, a 10 percent increase from ridership rates in 2008. The busiest Ohio stations in 2009 were in Toledo with 54,488 riders and Cleveland with 39,371 riders.

 

These upcoming reviews will focus on all elements of train service that impact the passenger experience: employee-passenger interactions, staffing levels, food service and amenities, equipment cleanliness and reliability, stations, and schedules.

 

“We are very pleased that Amtrak is undertaking this review and support it as it is consistent with our statewide passenger rail strategy to work together toward better service on the existing long distance train routes through Ohio”, says Ohio Rail Development Commission Executive Director Matt Dietrich. 

 

Dietrich pointed out that service improvements at both Cincinnati and Cleveland will be even more important as Ohio gets passenger trains rolling again between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati with the 3C “Quick Start” project.

 

In January, Ohio received $400 million in federal stimulus funds to connect cities along the 250-mile 3C corridor with passenger trains running up to 79 miles per hour. Independent ridership estimates show that more than 478,000 riders would use the 3C “Quick Start” in the first year of operation.

 

###

While use of Amtrak trains to/from Ohio stations grew 10 percent, driving in Ohio declined 1.57 percent, or 1.7 billion vehicle-miles, in federal fiscal year 2009 (Oct. 1-Sept.30 -- same as Amtrak's accounting period). This was during the worst of the nationwide recession and in spite Ohio's middle-of-the-night train service. I think this strongly suggests Ohioans will ride expanded, daytime train service in even greater numbers. The first priority for travelers is low cost which modern passenger trains, especially on the 3C Corridor, offer to Ohioans. 3C fares (Amtrak Midwest: 8-14 cents/mile) will be one-fifth the cost of driving (AAA and IRS: 54 cents/mile).....

 

For Ohio 2009 driving data, see the FHWA data summarized here:

http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/Ohio%20driving%202009.pdf

Q&A: Rail veteran tackles 3C Corridor's burning questions

Gene Monteith

Thursday, March 11, 2010

 

In January, Gov. Ted Strickland announced that Ohio had received $400 million in federal stimulus money to develop a "3C Corridor" passenger rail system linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. Immediately, questions flew: Will the trains go fast enough? How many stops? Who will ride it? Will the benefits be worth the money? hiVelocity caught up with James E. Seney, who served as executive director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission under former Gov. Bob Taft. Seney, who oversaw the Taft Administration's original Ohio Hub rail plan to link Ohio to midwestern and east coast lines, says all questions are valid -- but that the availability of federal funding and the economic development benefits of passenger rail present an opportunity that's too good to pass up.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.hivelocitymedia.com/features/SeneyQA3_11_10.aspx?utm_campaign=Soaring%20ahead&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_term=Q%26A%3A%20Rail%20veteran%20tackles%203C%20Corridor%27s%20burning%20questions

ODOT Director Molitoris quoted here:

 

Railroad comeback called economic key

Potential benefits touted at seminar at Valparaiso U.

 

March 12, 2010

 

BY AMY LAVALLEY, POST-TRIBUNE CORRESPONDENT

VALPARAISO -- Joe Krause, sporting an Amtrak "Tracks are Back" button, foresees a shift in the mission and membership of the Indiana High Speed Rail Association, which is hosting its 11th annual Golden Spike Seminar at Valparaiso University.

 

"We're starting to see a change from persons who are rail fans to persons who are rail advocates," said Krause, a West Lafayette resident who is on the rail association's board of directors.

 

 

Full story at: http://www.post-trib.com/news/2098582,vrail0312.article

 

  Anyone else notice that the HSR plan from 1980 shows a new line in a tunnel section under Hopple Street? i can't figure out what the reasoning for the tunnel was. I assume that it was to avoid a grade crossing with either a street or another railroad.

"You neglect northern Kentucky residents."

 

  Neither the 3-C line nor the Cincinnati Streetcar are proposed to go to Kentucky.

 

  It is certainly feasible for a new light-rail line from Sharonville to downtown Cincinnati to be extended to Kentucky.

"You neglect northern Kentucky residents."

 

Neither the 3-C line nor the Cincinnati Streetcar are proposed to go to Kentucky.

 

It is certainly feasible for a new light-rail line from Sharonville to downtown Cincinnati to be extended to Kentucky.

 

He just means that a northern suburbs station may be more convenient for the people who live in Sharonville or West Chester or Reading, but it's less convenient for those coming from Kentucky.  I don't know what the actual center of population concentration here is (it of course varies depending on what areas you decide to include like Hamilton and Middletown etc.) but I don't think it's really much farther north than Cross County Highway.

 

Maybe a picture will describe this concept better.

 

 

    Today, we have a workable plan to bring the 3-C line to Sharonville. The drawback is that it doesn't get to Cincinnati, either to CUT or downtown. Except for a few folks who live within walking distance of the station, everyone will have to drive or take a taxi to Sharonville. We don't even have a bus route there.

 

    In the through stop cities, Columbus, Dayton, Springfield, etc., the stop can be placed anywhere along the route. It might as well be in the center, to optimize access for the most people.

 

    In the terminal cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland, the optimal point isn't necessarily in the center. It is on the edge nearest the center of the 3-C line. The last thing you want your riders to do is travel in the wrong direction to get to the station.

 

    I am not familiar with the situation in Cleveland, but in Cincinnati we don't have a good route between Sharonville and Cincinnati. We are going to have to build a new route.

 

    I see our choices as:

    1. Rehabilitate the Oasis Line from Sharonville to Downtown

    2. Add a 4th main from Sharonville to CUT

    3. Construct new light rail on a new right of way from Sharonville to Downtown including a stop at U.C.

 

    There is no reason why we can't build all three eventually. They do not exclude each other. The question is which one to build first.

 

 

With respect to adding Cincinnati stations or stations anywhere else for that matter ... the main thing we're fighting with this plan is the slow speed. Adding stations will slow it down even more.

 

But if you have a third of the metro area riders trying to get on a three stations instead of all of them trying to get on at one station, it seems to me that there's a distinct possibility that total boarding time could actually be lower.  They're probably going to have to drive slower through the metro area anyway, so you might not be sacrificing much in those terms as well.  I just guessing, I obviously have no idea.  But I wouldn't be surprised if other places have this worked out as well.

 

I would disagree that the main thing we're fighting with this plan is slow speed.  The main thing we're fighting is the "Why the hell should I take the train when I already have a car?" (as well as "Why the hell would I want to go to Cleveland", but that's a different issue).  What we want to change that to is "Why the hell would I drive when I can take the train and the wife can drop me off at the station in 15 minutes?"

In some places Amtrak provides dedicated Thruway Bus Service to connect major-city stations with outlying destinations. I've used it, and it works well. Typically it's an across-the-platform or right-outside-the-front-door transfer with nice, clean, comfortable buses. It's not like getting packed onto a Greyhound with smelly drunks and squalling babies.

 

[ ... ]

I would disagree that the main thing we're fighting with this plan is slow speed.  The main thing we're fighting is the "Why the hell should I take the train when I already have a car?" ...

 

A significant market for 3C trains may be people who now fly between destinations in the 3C Corridor for private or public business purposes, or who used to fly but switched to driving after the hassles of air travel became too inconvenient. As someone pointed out earlier, they're already accustomed to driving to airports that aren't near the city core or residential neighborhoods.

Perhaps a small portion of the market will consider the train at the outside. So what happens if only 10 percent to 15 percent of the more than 11,000 people traveling daily between the 3Cs take the train? At 12 percent, we end up with 1,320 riders per day. That's 481,000 riders per year, pretty much the same 478,000 riders AECOM estimated for the first year of 3C.

 

AECOM's ridership estimates are accurate to within a +/- 4 percent margin.

481,000 / 40 people per bus = 12,025 bus trips per year or 33 trips per day.

 

  Suppose a new, state-funded bus route was initiated on parallel highways.  Running speed 60 mph, 30 trips per day, or better than an average of one per hour.

 

    I know that people prefer rail, but what would the expected bus ridership be? What can we get for $400 million? Has anyone made a comparison? Just asking.

 

If it takes eight trains to handle the same ridership as 33 buses, anyone see why rail makes more sense?

 

And will as many people ride buses? Buses are not an equal trade out.

Anyone who thinks buses are an equal trade out for trains obviously has either never ridden a train or never ridden a bus.  It's a night and day difference in terms of comfort and travel enjoyment.

 

The advantage, though, KJP to having 33 trips vs. 8 trips (asusming the costs are similar) is that you have a much greater choice in deprature time.  There is more flexibility in scheduling.

 

What would be ideal is if we had the need for 33 rail trips per day. :)

"Buses are not an equal trade out."

 

I didn't say that they were. I was just asking if there are any ridership projections to make a fair comparison.

 

For the same cost, which will attract more riders, bus or rail? Alternatively, for the same ridership, which mode is less expensive?

 

 

 

The cost analysis would be an interesting exercise for which I don't have time.

 

I think you'd lay out $300K - $350k each, minimum, for good used Prevost or MCI coaches five years old or newer, with restrooms and 55 seats, if you could find enough of them. I don't know what the price would be for new ones, but I'm guessing close to a half a million each.

 

The demand probably wouldn't be spread evenly over 24 hours, so it would require considerably more than 1 departure per hour during high-travel times of day. Add in turnaround time to dump toilets and clean buses, and that would take a lot of buses and a bunch of people to do the work, plus a large, capable service facility somewhere in the system.

 

I don't know of there are any statutory hours-of-service rules for drivers, but you'd have to schedule your drivers so they'd be back in their home depot for downtime, in order to avoid paying per diem for meals and lodging.

 

Motorcoach travel time might be competitive with 3C startup travel time, but as 3C evolves I think train trip times will become shorter than any that can be attained legally and safely with rubber tires on pavement. Buses do offer flexibility to adjust service levels over different route segments according to fluctuations in demand between weekdays and weekends, but for the longer rides they can't begin to match the comfort of train travel. Compared with trains buses are claustrophobia-inducing, and if you end up with a seatmate who smells bad or is obnoxious, it's not as easy to get up and go somewhere else.

 

If both types of transport were to provide stations in equally-convenient locations, I think rail would hands-down win the competition for ridership. Rider preference for rail over bus has been proven in many commuter and local-transit systems, and probably would be even stronger with longer-distance travel.

 

    Half a million dollars each for, say, 50 motorcoaches = $25 million dollars. Replace them on a 10 year cycle, and you have $25 million dollars/10 years = $2.5 million per year just for vehicles.

 

    Figure one trip each way per driver per day (not sure if this exceeds maximum hours per day or not.)  33 drivers per day, each driver works 240 days per year, and gets paid $50,000 per year. Assume the driver is half of the operation cost.

 

33 * 365/240 * $50,000 * 2 = $5,018,750 per year.

 

So, $7.5 million per year could do the job. The average cost per motorcoach is $7.5 million / 50 buses = $150,000 per bus.

 

According to the Queen City Metro web site, Metro operates 394 buses with a total budget of $94 million per year, for an average annual cost of $239,000 per bus; a little higher than the calculation above but in the same ballpark. Using the same unit cost for the 3-C line, a 50 motorcoach system would cost $239,000 * 50 = about $12 million per year.

 

 

   

 

The Cincinnati station discussion is interesting. But there's an option we've been omitting and/or forgetting. Keep in mind this is option would come after the fourth main is built into Queensgate. The four-tracked main line could be used by 3C trains to access CUT or it could be used to access the site recommended by a 2004 study by the City of Cincinnati's Department of Transportation & Engineering, conducted at the request of City Council. Nine locations in the city were analyzed. But the recommended site was immediately north of Longworth Hall, a former Baltimore & Ohio RR warehouse along West Pete Rose Way, between Gest Street and Brent Spence Bridge....

 

 

 

The good parts about this site are that it's the closest site to downtown that can be accessed by all existing and future passenger train services. All station trackage would be new and passenger-only, thus stopping passenger trains at Longworth Hall would cause no interference to freight traffic. And it is a large site, allowing at least seven or eight station tracks, which is plenty for future expansion.

 

The bad parts are that it is next to the Ohio River and subject flooding -- my solution is to raise the station site about 15 feet to make it a little less vunerable to flooding. The other downside is it's separated from downtown by the approaches to the Brent Spence Bridge. Below is my suggestion on how to overcome this negative -- an enclosed moving walkway, or series of walkways, totaling 1,200 feet long over the highway....

 

 

 

And there is a way for truly high-speed passenger trains to access this site by no longer using any active freight tracks, including the CSX right-of-way widened to four main tracks (I'm sure CSX, NS and I&O will all find a way to use the fourth main track into Queensgate). So here is the passenger-only route, which would use the former B&O main abandoned circa-1970 when it concentrated all freight traffic on the east side of Mill Creek into Queensgate Yard....

 

 

So, in this scenario, the staging would be....

 

1. Get the fourth main track and other capacity enhancements in place to get 3C "Quick Start" trains into CUT or Longworth Hall so 3C trains can serve either site in Cincinnati on/near their first day of service.

 

2. CUT could be the interim station. Longworth Hall could be the permanent station. If Longworth Hall is the permanent station, and high-speed passenger rail service from Dayton to Cincinnati is introduced, the four-track-main could still be used. But the former B&O on the west side of Mill Creek could instead be redeveloped with a high-speed passenger-only rail corridor. The four-track-main could be a secondary passenger route in case of emergency, maintenance or other contingencies.

>The main thing we're fighting is the "Why the hell should I take the train when I already have a car?" (as well as "Why the hell would I want to go to Cleveland", but that's a different issue).

 

That's it exactly.  Everyone is fixated on speed and limited departures because the average person can see no advantage over driving their car along our free interstate highways. If we were starting a service with 150mph+ trains leaving every hour on the hour, those issues would vanish and the central debate would be capital and operations costs.  People could then clearly see the advantage of taking the train and the value in paying for a ticket to do so.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we go again. No, the main thing we're fighting are state officials who don't yet realize that for any state to get anywhere with rail means starting out modestly and evolving from there. The 3C "Quick Start" is a 25 percent downpayment on a higher-speed rail service.

 

Geez, you'd think we never paved two-lane country roads before we built the interstate highway system....

Regarding KJP's proposal, the proximity of the C&O bridge approach to this location was one of the main functional problems of the old Central Union Depot, which was just two blocks east of here at 3rd and Central (in fact, the foundation of the old station building remains at the corner):

 

 

 

Anyway, the problem is that even though trains from the C&O bridge ended up almost right on top of the station, they were a good deal above it and there was no good way to get them down to station level without going halfway to the Mill Creek Valley and then backing up into the station.  This is why they built their own little station at about the same height as the bridge, by buying an old row house on 4th Street. 

 

 

Notice the Dunnhumby building to the left in the above shot. 

 

So that's still an issue today, and it was a problem with the L&N trains getting into the Pan Handle station at Sawyer Point too.  There used to be another track that descended to ground level at the Gest Street bridge following your through route with the arrows.  To avoid having to make weird movements to pull a train into the stub end of a new station, it would probably be necessary to have C&O trains to stop on the through track.  The only problem is that it might be too steep.  I don't know if it's kosher for trains to stop at a station on a slope like that. 

 

Flooding is an issue, as you mentioned, and I don't know that raising the grade of the terminal would do much since the approach tracks would still get inundated during high water.

 

One thing about your passenger route up the Mill Creek Valley doesn't take into account is that although it bypasses all the freight yards, it still needs to use the congested 3-track approach between Spring Grove Avenue/I-74 and Ivorydale.  Ideally they'd be able to reuse the whole CH&D route from Ivorydale to downtown, but the section that's been pulled up in Northside, Spring Grove Cemetery, and Winton Place would be quite difficult to put back, especially considering all the grade crossings (and I assume NIMBY opposition) in Northside.  The tracks west of the Mill Creek itself also have no access to Union Terminal whatsoever. 

One thing about your passenger route up the Mill Creek Valley doesn't take into account is that although it bypasses all the freight yards, it still needs to use the congested 3-track approach between Spring Grove Avenue/I-74 and Ivorydale. Ideally they'd be able to reuse the whole CH&D route from Ivorydale to downtown, but the section that's been pulled up in Northside, Spring Grove Cemetery, and Winton Place would be quite difficult to put back, especially considering all the grade crossings (and I assume NIMBY opposition) in Northside. The tracks west of the Mill Creek itself also have no access to Union Terminal whatsoever.

 

I agree.  There's not much south of Harrison, but I feel that there would be some strong opposition to HSR through Lower Price Hill and Northside, particularly with at grade crossings.

 

Here we go again. No, the main thing we're fighting are state officials who don't yet realize that for any state to get anywhere with rail means starting out modestly and evolving from there. The 3C "Quick Start" is a 25 percent downpayment on a higher-speed rail service.

 

Geez, you'd think we never paved two-lane country roads before we built the interstate highway system....

 

I don't think we're are actually in disagreement.  The point is that everyone can get why you'd want to take a train that goes 150 MPH, whereas if we know the train is going around 70 or 80 MPH, it's going to take a little more convincing or word of mouth.  My point was that making it easier to get to the station by having more of them might actually increase potential ridership at little to possibly no actual increase in waiting times at stations.  Even if more stations would slow the train down it still might be worth it.

Thanks for the background -- and especially the great photos! On the birdseye view at Bing.com, it's apparent that there was a track switching off from C&O on the bridge to the inside of the curve. Not only are there bridge deck support structures which indicate this, but there is a ramp structure still intact slightly lower than the remaining two C&O main tracks. This ramp is the location where I proposed putting a station platform on this track. If the gradient is too steep here, then it might be eased off a bit by either closing Gest Street at the former crossing or by keeping the ramp a little farther north (by perhaps 10-20 feet) so Gest can cross it at an elevated grade.

 

I was worried about the approach tracks flooding, especially below the single-tracked C&O bridge which the Cardinal uses and the bridge crossing Mill Creek just below the flood gate. The approach tracks go in and out of areas protected by the flood wall. Alternatives could include relocating the flood wall$ or keeping intact a station facility built at CUT (pre-Longworth) for flooding emergencies. A two- to three-track station might suffice in a pinch.

 

One thing about your passenger route up the Mill Creek Valley doesn't take into account is that although it bypasses all the freight yards, it still needs to use the congested 3-track approach between Spring Grove Avenue/I-74 and Ivorydale. Ideally they'd be able to reuse the whole CH&D route from Ivorydale to downtown, but the section that's been pulled up in Northside, Spring Grove Cemetery, and Winton Place would be quite difficult to put back, especially considering all the grade crossings (and I assume NIMBY opposition) in Northside. The tracks west of the Mill Creek itself also have no access to Union Terminal whatsoever.

 

True, I wouldn't even consider trying to put back the former B&O past the cemetery and through all those grade crossings. So if you look on satellite and birds-eye views, if the three-track mainline (and even if a fourth-track was added) was realigned closer to I-75, there is room to get a double-track mainline through between the freight railroad and Mill Creek.

 

Instead, my biggest concern is getting a true high-speed line through Elmwood Place and Arlington Heights. The B&O (CH&D) may be the better option. Some suggest the B&O (now I&O) through Madeira but that's an awfully rugged, twisting line. In the future, we might have to do what was proposed in the past -- build the HSR line above the (CH&D) on a 7-mile bridge. Or we do what the Germans and French did when they had build HSR through built-up area -- tunnel below them. We can't do what the Chinese did -- tell everyone to move by the end of the week....

One thing about your passenger route up the Mill Creek Valley doesn't take into account is that although it bypasses all the freight yards, it still needs to use the congested 3-track approach between Spring Grove Avenue/I-74 and Ivorydale.  Ideally they'd be able to reuse the whole CH&D route from Ivorydale to downtown, but the section that's been pulled up in Northside, Spring Grove Cemetery, and Winton Place would be quite difficult to put back, especially considering all the grade crossings (and I assume NIMBY opposition) in Northside.  The tracks west of the Mill Creek itself also have no access to Union Terminal whatsoever.

 

I agree.  There's not much south of Harrison, but I feel that there would be some strong opposition to HSR through Lower Price Hill and Northside, particularly with at grade crossings.

 

Of course, no matter how fast the trains may get, they're not going to be at anything near high-speed this close to downtown, regardless of the route.  I would bet 45 mph is the absolute maximum south of I-74 and possibly even St. Bernard.