Folks who live in the suburbs where public transportation is not available chose to live there. They can move to the city if they want to.

 

People move to the suburbs for many reasons not related to transportation.

 

I would argue that people move to the suburbs only for reasons related to transportation.  If it wasn't for the current transportation regime, the suburbs as they are would not exist.

 

Artificially cheap transportation is one reason people CAN move to the suburbs, but there are many other reasons they wish to do so.

 

But anyway, I see I opened a can of worms.  Back to the 3C...

OK back to speed... transit is competitive if it can get you to your final destination at a comparable cost and speed.  [. . .]  You would not have this problem if you drove, which for most people is well worth the premium. 

 

[. . .] Ohioans are used to driving among the 3Cs, which confers advantages upon arrival, and I don't see this service offering anything competitive with that preference. 

 

If every decision in life was based on time alone, then you might be right.  But there are other advantages to rail that you are overlooking, and I suggest that they are enough to overcome some of the inconvenience of limiting yourself to a train schedule and limited route.

 

My plumber charges me a lot more, but let's just say I can sit at a desk and do work for $100 an hour.  Preparing tax returns, insurance contracts, legal documents, reviewing medical charts, sales reports, whatever.  I can drive from Cleveland to visit clients in Cincinnati in about 4 hours.  That's $400 down the drain, plus wear and tear and car insurance and gas, etc.  After the meeting, I get to drive home again, arriving thoroughly exhausted and having accomplished nothing outside of however long that meeting lasted.  (I've actually done it, and I don't enjoy it one bit.)  Now, if I have to stop for dinner or bad weather or an accident, the trip takes even more time, and if traffic is heavy I might not be delayed but more stressed.  Going to the meeting costs me $800 plus the cost of the car and any tolls or parking costs that I have to pay, and I didn't get any work done while I was driving.  The eight-hour round trip isn't much of a "day off."

 

Or, after the 3C is online, I can catch a bus down to the station ($2, one hour lost, -$100), hop on the train for four (+$400) or five (+$500) hours, and take a taxi to the client (-$100) before returning on the same route.  Where, maybe instead of working the entire time I can have a nice dinner, a drink, catch up on sportscenter or take a nap.  I may not arrive home completely fresh, but I would feel a lot better than if I had driven, and I would have gotten something else accomplished (sportscenter!) (no, the $400-$500 of work done) other than just the meeting.  (I've actually done this too in England.  The trains weren't very plush, but as nice as the few Amtrak trains I've ridden.) 

 

When I drive, I get to come home and then have to spend those four or five hours doing that work that I could have done on the train.  So even if the cost of the train and connecting transportation washes out the money I made working on the train, I now have more time to spend with friends or family, or to do additional work.  I gain "time" which I never have enough of, so the trip is very much worth it even if it doesn't seem to be as convenient or takes a little longer.

 

When train service has been introduced in other states where their residents were also only used to driving, there was low number of passengers at first that increased over time.  I am not aware of any new service being added in a state and then the number of passengers decreased over time.  Ohioans may be used to their cars now but when they experience the advantages of train travel it seems like it will become popular here too.  Just because Ohioans are used to driving the 3Cs doesn't mean that Ohioans will continue to only drive the 3Cs.

 

Granted, not everyone wants to stick to a schedule, but some Ohioans want the option and have been asking for it for a long time.  We are glad to see it coming to fruition.  If you prefer the independence of your own car, you should be glad that we are taking ourselves off the highway, and that you'll have another option should you need it. 

 

Note that Dayton-area officials are working on an exciting Livable Communities initiative with the support of ODOT, and development around 3C stations isn't just talk...

 

http://www.mvrpc.org/sgi/

 

...there are also properties changing hands around the three stations in the Miami Valley (Downtown Dayton, Riverside-AFB and Springfield) and development plans emerging. One that is particularly exciting is a proposed $50 million hotel and conference center at the Riverside-AFB station site. The developer specifically noted that station as his reason for choosing that site.

 

Yes, this development might have happened anyway. But where? And would it have been developed in a sprawling, land-eating way without 3C? Or would it be more compact, pedestrian-friendly and sustainable with 3C?

Foraker I prefer the train.  I take the train to work every day and I drive maybe once a week, sometimes less.  It's not an either-or proposition, that one must approve of 3C or be opposed to rail.  These false dichotomies are very damaging to the causes we all believe in.  Not everyone believes equally in every aspect of every common cause, but that doesn't make them enemies.  It is possible to critique the 3C plan while wanting rail to succeed in Ohio.  It is even possible to make these critiques out of genuine concern for the future of rail in Ohio.  If we treat everyone who raises these concerns like they're the enemy, we will create enemies where they didn't previously exist. 

 

There certainly will be people for whom working during the trip more than makes up for the logistical disadvantages presented by 3C.  As a rail booster I'm concerned that there aren't enough of these people in Ohio.  The logistical disadvantages present an absolute barrier, at least for some trips, regardless of which option people may personally prefer.  As local transit improves and sprawl reverses itself, these barriers will fall.  I just hope we haven't soured Ohio voters on intercity rail in the meantime.

It is possible to critique the 3C plan while wanting rail to succeed in Ohio. It is even possible to make these critiques out of genuine concern for the future of rail in Ohio. If we treat everyone who raises these concerns like they're the enemy, we will create enemies where they didn't previously exist.

 

But there is a point where we have to say, OK, go with it. I'd like to see another round trip added, but that depends on the freight railroads. It's their tracks. We may have to wait until we see how the recommended track capacity additions combined with the first few round trips integrate with the existing freight schedules before adding more trains.

 

I just hope we haven't soured Ohio voters on intercity rail in the meantime.

 

The opposite typically occurs. Users ride it and say "Now I get it. This is would be even better with more, faster trains, plus bigger stations and even more local connections." The basic train service creates a stronger, louder public groundswell for those improvements. It is no longer an abstract idea but something real. For many people, imagining is the hardest part.

  "Why this focus on buses, especially from someone who is so interested in speed?"

 

    Look at it from the Reagan perspective. Ronald Reagan once criticised a new mass transit line, in L.A., I believe, by dividing the construction cost by the number of daily riders. "It would have been cheaper for the government to buy each one a limo."

 

    Are there flaws in his argument? of course. The limo doesn't drive on air; the highway is funded with public money. Still, the basic person isn't an infrastructure nerd and doesn't know the difference.

 

    Are you not surprised that based on the calculations I presented that Ohio could initiate a new bus service with 33 departures per day for just $12 million a year? Yea, Yea, I know "never send a bus to do a train's job." Trains are definitely more comfortable. But hey, I'd take the bus to Cleveland.

 

    So what do you say to the politician who says, "It would be cheaper to initiate a new bus service?"

^

Plus, the limo has to be replaced every ten years. Trains can last forever.

Sorry, it's difficult to remember who the "I'm FOR rail transit" people are vs. the ones who say "I'm FOR rail transit" but in reality aren't. 

 

Please forgive me if that's off-topic.

 

 

So what do you say to the politician who says, "It would be cheaper to initiate a new bus service?"

 

Mode    BTU per Passenger Mile

Bus      4,235

Train    2,650

 

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml

 

You could start with that.

I think all bus systems should be replaced with rail...just sayin'

So what do you say to the politician who says, "It would be cheaper to initiate a new bus service?"

 

That you've left out a number of important pieces of information.... What funding source would you tap? Does that funding even exist? We have $400 million for 3C, another $2.5 billion to tap this year, another $1+ billion coming in 2011, and up to $50 billion for high-speed rail from the next six-year surface transportation reauthorization (based on the House version). Would the same number of people ride buses as they would trains? What is the prospect for 110 mph bus service? Where's your bus maintenance facilities? Crew bases? What are their capital and operating costs? Do the bus stations in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati have the capacity for this expanded service? If not, what's the capital and operating costs for these? What about stations in Sharonville, Middletown/Hamilton, Riverside-AFB, Springfield, North Columbus/Crosswoods area, Mansfield, SW Cleveland? What are the capital and operating costs for these facilities to handle up to 33 buses per day? What will the running times be if the buses have to get on/off the interstates, head up to the center of these towns, then return to the Interstate? Will the added operating costs of these side trips into towns make those trips worthwhile?

 

And, most importantly, why is everone else looking at rail and not expanded intercity buses on their state's most populous intercity travel corridors? Perhaps we're just smarter here in Ohio than everywhere else......

 

I'm pretty sure that would be answer. Or something like it.

Well, here is a good question:

 

What do you say when you have private enterprises taking up the role of formerly government-funded intercity buses and trains that went financially insolvent decades ago?

 

Not arguing that point, but it is a valid question. Why take, for instance, a train from Cincinnati to Chicago, which would cost more and take longer, than the private-venture MegaBus option that currently exists? (And MegaBus is no Grayhound.) Or in the 3C's case, if MegaBus operated a profitable route from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Interstate 71, with smaller buses that would run to say, Dayton via Interstates 75 and 70, would we be talking about the 3C right now?

Well, here is a good question:

 

What do you say when you have private enterprises taking up the role of formerly government-funded intercity buses and trains that went financially insolvent decades ago?

 

Not arguing that point, but it is a valid question. Why take, for instance, a train from Cincinnati to Chicago, which would cost more and take longer, than the private-venture MegaBus option that currently exists? (And MegaBus is no Grayhound.) Or in the 3C's case, if MegaBus operated a profitable route from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Interstate 71, with smaller buses that would run to say, Dayton via Interstates 75 and 70, would we be talking about the 3C right now?

 

What is the fastest a bus can go? What is the fastest a train can go? How do we get fast trains? By building up to them. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to see how other states and regions are doing it and succeeding at it.

 

Even on routes that have Amtrak AND Megabus service on them (Cleveland - Chicago, St. Louis - Chicago, Minneapolis - Milwaukee - Chicago, Detroit - Chicago), the ridership on both has risen. Meanwhile, Michigan trains that started out at 79 mph are now cruising at 95 mph on some sections and will be increased to 110 mph later this year. Chicago-Milwaukee 79 mph trains will be extended to Madison over a 110 mph route thanks to stimulus money. Chicago-St. Louis (which recently had just three daily round trips and is now up to five) just got stimulus money to increase speeds from 79 mph to 110 mph over much of its route.

 

Did the presence of a bus make any of this evolutionary advancements in rail service unecessary?

 

Every piss-poor, shit-kicking third world country has bus service. Apparently we don't think much more of ourselves here in America to deserve better than that.

Well, here is a good question:

 

What do you say when you have private enterprises taking up the role of formerly government-funded intercity buses and trains that went financially insolvent decades ago?

 

Not arguing that point, but it is a valid question. Why take, for instance, a train from Cincinnati to Chicago, which would cost more and take longer, than the private-venture MegaBus option that currently exists? (And MegaBus is no Grayhound.) Or in the 3C's case, if MegaBus operated a profitable route from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Interstate 71, with smaller buses that would run to say, Dayton via Interstates 75 and 70, would we be talking about the 3C right now?

 

It's primarily because buses can never reach the speeds of trains.  That's a tough comparison to make when we're looking at 45 mph trains indefinitely... but with higher speeds in the equation, it's not an equation at all.  Bus service would be utterly non-competitive with high speed rail.  Megabus may eke out a bargain-basement niche, like Greyhound vs. the airlines, but that's about it.  With the addition of robust local transit systems, and an uptick in gas prices, driving could also become non-competitive with HSR.  People are fundamentally rational and will flock to the most practical option presented.

The top train speeds in this project are 79 mph.  Why does everyone feel compelled to dwell so much on the "average" train speed.  What do we suppose the "average" bus speed is when they have to get off the highway, travel through traffic, stop at stations, drop off, reload, travel back through traffic, and get back on the highway.  Probably not much more than 45 mph.  Cars don't even have a "average" speed of 79 mph on the route. People will focus on what they want to focus on to see their own point of view.

The top train speeds in this project are 79 mph.  Why does everyone feel compelled to dwell so much on the "average" train speed.  What do we suppose the "average" bus speed is when they have to get off the highway, travel through traffic, stop at stations, drop off, reload, travel back through traffic, and get back on the highway.  Probably not much more than 45 mph.  Cars don't even have a "average" speed of 79 mph on the route. People will focus on what they want to focus on to see their own point of view.

 

50 average mph is an industry standard for estimating highway travel times for fully loaded trucks.  50 is intentionally conservative... trucks will usually beat the estimate.  Top speed is irrelevant because it so rarely comes into play, particularly over hundreds or thousands of iterations.  The "average" figure automatically accounts for typical stops and slowdowns, without having to predict each one separately. 

 

Average speeds mean more here because the difference between the top and the average is so vast.  The top speed of a given car may be 120 but who cares.  You can't use that figure to estimate travel times.  Obviously to get from 79 max to 45 avg, there's a lotta stopping going on, and it can't be going 79 all that often.  But with dedicated hi-speed passenger lines, the top speed would come into play much more... as there would be less and less workaround involving freight trains.   

 

As for buses, I would guesstimate their average speed at less than 50, maybe less than 40.  This is premised on an assumption that bus drivers, carrying human cargo, are less likely to speed than your typical trucker... and also that their stopoffs are longer.

that's fine.  point being there seem to be a lot of people that enjoying using the "average" speed of trains, and the "top" speeds of other modes of transportation.

Wow, everyone seems so grumpy today. The sun is out. Spring is here. The state has $400 million to start a rail project. Smile folks and make the best of things.

Or drink green beer!

^

Still cloudy in SW Ohio. Always cloudy in SW Ohio, even when the sun's out.

Move to Cleveland, it's a beautiful day here! :)

A cloudy day in Cincinnati is still better than a sunny day in Cleveland. :)

An August Day in Cincinnati is 1 Kajillion times worse than an august day in Cleveland.  Humidity sucks!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kajillion

 

*looks around nervously for mods*

 

So, 3C...kajillion...a kajillion dollars would be nice so we could get 220 MPH trains into CUT.

An August Day in Cincinnati is 1 Kajillion times worse than an august day in Cleveland. Humidity sucks!

 

That would be true if you didn't have to spend your day in Cleveland.

The top train speeds in this project are 79 mph. Why does everyone feel compelled to dwell so much on the "average" train speed. What do we suppose the "average" bus speed is when they have to get off the highway, travel through traffic, stop at stations, drop off, reload, travel back through traffic, and get back on the highway. Probably not much more than 45 mph. Cars don't even have a "average" speed of 79 mph on the route. People will focus on what they want to focus on to see their own point of view.

 

For some odd reason my Nissan tracks its historic average speed, which last time I checked was 41 miles an hour.

Just an FYI for anyone wondering about how fast a bus is, I spent about a minute looking at Greyhound.com and can see that of the 6 busses listed for tomorrow from Cleveland to Cincinnati, the average travel time is about 5 hours and 7 minutes. Using 250 miles (according to Google Maps) that works out to 48.8 MPH.

How many stops do they make? FYI 3C trains will average 45 mph (48 mph from Puritas to Sharonvile) and initially make eight stops for a fare of just under what Greyhound charges.

 

So there.  :-P

How many stops do they make? FYI 3C trains will average 45 mph (48 mph from Puritas to Sharonvile) and initially make eight stops for a fare of just under what Greyhound charges.

 

So there. :-P

 

+ a refreshment car

+ wifi

+ being able to stand up and walk around

 

 

^

 

Plus: No security hassles, being able to show up at the last minute to board, being able to take several pieces of luggage onto the train or check it.

How many stops do they make?

Just Columbus and Dayton,

FYI 3C trains will average 45 mph (48 mph from Puritas to Sharonvile) and initially make eight stops for a fare of just under what Greyhound charges.

So there. :-P

When you get off Amtrak you have that old person smell, when you get off Greyhound you have that unbathed homeless person smell. You can't forget to include that in the comparison. That and you can go use the restroom as needed.

I don't think there's any question that 3C, at any speed, will dominate Greyhound.

I don't think there's any question that 3C, at any speed, will dominate Greyhound.

I think that in some people's minds there is a question, but considering the speed and price are pretty close even in the start-up version and the hours of operation for the 3C will probably be more convenient, it should draw a large number of riders from Greyhound even without the advantage of being a train that you can stand up and move around on.

Editorial: Way to go | The Columbus Dispatch

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/03/17/way-to-go.html?sid=101

 

Good editorial, but does the Dispatch know that 3C trains could save taxpayers millions per year in state employee travel costs?

 

See the State employee travel savings section starting on Page 8 of this report:

 

Operation: Sustain Transit (funding suggestions for Ohio urban and intercity transit):

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Operation-Sustain%20Transit.pdf

 

The problem isn't the lack of options to pay for 3C.

How many stops do they make? FYI 3C trains will average 45 mph (48 mph from Puritas to Sharonvile) and initially make eight stops for a fare of just under what Greyhound charges.

 

So there.  :-P

 

+ a refreshment car

+ wifi

+ being able to stand up and walk around

 

- screaming children you can't get away from

 

+ nearly unlimited baggage allowed (compared to other modes of transportation)

Ooops. I missed this one! Note that Forest City Enterprises is developing the station-area development plan. No wonder Al Ratner is interested in 3C.....

 

State aids city to get 
rail station plan going

By Margo Rutledge Kissell, Staff Writer

1:54 PM Wednesday, March 3, 2010

 

RIVERSIDE — Riverside officials are elated the state of Ohio is working to identify $465,000 in federal funding to help the city develop a master plan for the area around a proposed rail station.

 

Montgomery County also is pledging $100,000 toward creating that city plan, County Commissioner Debbie Lieberman said.

 

This news comes in the wake of the recent announcement about the 256-mile 3-C passenger rail corridor — so named for its anticipated route connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati — including two proposed Dayton area stations. One is at Sixth and Ludlow streets in downtown Dayton and the other is in Riverside across from the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/community/dayton/state-aids-city-to-get-rail-station-plan-going-578369.html

Every piss-poor, sh!t-kicking third world country has bus service. Apparently we don't think much more of ourselves here in America to deserve better than that.

 

A lot of those piss-poor, sh!t-kicking third world countries also have rail service. Sure it's overcrowded, shared with livestock and with people hanging out the doors and on the roof. That's the case on trains and buses both. But at least they have options.

I'm told today's meeting between ODOT and Senator Harris was productive. Below is the email ODOT sent out today, which includes a copy of the response to Senate President Harris' questions about passenger rail. To see ODOT's 21-page response (2.6MB), I've posted it to: http://freepdfhosting.com/143c4b0955.pdf

___________________

 

Good afternoon,

 

Earlier this afternoon, Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jolene M. Molitoris met with Ohio Senate President Bill Harris to follow up on his recent letter aimed at improving the understanding of Ohio’s passenger rail project. The meeting was productive, as Director Molitoris offered additional information about the effort to restore daily passenger service between Ohio’s major cities and bring to our state a proven generator of economic development and jobs.

 

Attached to this email is a copy of the formal letter shared with Senate President Harris, House Speaker Budish, and other members of the General Assembly. Three highlights you’ll want to note are:

 

1. ODOT is asking Senate President Harris to support the Controlling Board’s release of $25 million in federal stimulus funds. These funds would allow the state to complete the final environmental study, engineering and detailed design work which will provide all the necessary details Ohio needs to make confident decisions going forward. Once the information is obtained during this next phase of work, Director Molitoris pledged to again confer with the Legislature and stakeholders before advancing to the construction phase of Ohio’s passenger rail plan.

 

2. Director Molitoris shared with Senate President Harris the results of a recent state survey by ODOT and the Ohio Rail Development Commission showing 225 Ohio companies that currently supply or contract with the railroad industry. Director Molitoris noted that these businesses were not just along the 3C corridor, but employed Ohioans all across the state. With more than 26,000 employees, these companies are gearing up for more investment, as part of the growing national investment in passenger rail.

 

3. Today’s response also included two support letters from Ohio’s freight railroad partners in developing this passenger rail project. Director Molitoris made clear that the efficient movement of freight is essential to Ohio's continued leadership in logistics and distribution, and the passenger rail initiative will do nothing to diminish that leadership. Norfolk Southern and CSX have been cooperative in Ohio’s effort and pledge their continued support.

 

As Director Molitoris states in the letter, the answers are fact based and indicate ODOT’s commitment to delivering the highest quality project to bring economic development and jobs to Ohio.  If you have any questions regarding ODOT’s letter, please contact me at 614/644-8640 or by email. Additional information can also be found at http://3CisMe.ohio.gov.

... As for buses, I would guesstimate their average speed at less than 50, maybe less than 40.  This is premised on an assumption that bus drivers, carrying human cargo, are less likely to speed than your typical trucker...

 

You might be surprised. I have a vivid memory of a ride on Trailways between Milwaukee and O'Hare in the early '90s. I was in the right front seat where I could see the driver and dashboard. Once he got to the Interstate, he pretty much turned 'er loose. I watched the speedometer needle hang right on 90mph almost all the way, and most of the trip was in the left lane. The only times he took his foot out of it was when he came up behind slower car traffic that he couldn't pass, and then he'd ride their bumper and blast the horn. I think it was a case of road rage that day, but the bus handled the speed just fine; very steady ride.

 

The intercity buses used to be built with big slab of concrete between the frame rails for stability. I don't know if they still build them that way, but I wouldn't be surprised. The Eagles that Trailways used to build in Texas in the 70s - 80s were a German design created for autobahn service, and the drivers often didn't go for the top gear until 70mph.

 

When I was in my early twenties, our neighbor was a state trooper. We lived just off Indiana 1, part of the route that Trailways used for multiple daily runs Detroit-Memphis. Neighbors all complained about how fast the drivers went in those big, tall GM coaches with the fluted stainelss-steel sides and tiny windows up high. The troopers said they didn't bother them so long as they kept it to 80 or below (on a well-maintained two-lane, asphalt-paved highway). One of the drivers I rode with said they averaged 9mpg with 37 passengers. Amazing machines.

 

I know. Off topic. Sorry. :|

To get back on topic, another selling point to the public that was mentioned earlier (by KJP, maybe?) is that 3C connects at Cleveland with the rest of Amtrak's national network. On some European trains, through cars are run to various destinations on multiple trains so that passengers don't have to transfer between trains. With enough demand and with compatible equipment, a traveler might book sleeping-car accomodations in Cincinnati for travel to New York.

 

When his train from Cincinnati arrives in Cleveland, nevermind that it's the middle of the night. Unless he's a train nut like me, he won't even wake up when is car is uncoupled and switched into a different train. Passengers crews can make that move with nary a lurch nor bump.

 

As an added convenience, set-out sleepers can be used. It was common practice on many railroads in their hey-day. In Fort Wayne, the Nickel Plate parked a Cleveland sleeper on a siding at the station, connected to station power and heat, and with a car attendant on duty. Passengers could check in any time after 8pm, and then either board or go for dinner or drinks or a movie at any of the many nearby attractions, and then turn in whenever they pleased.

 

When the train arrived from Chicago, the sleeper was coupled in. In Cleveland, the car was set out at the station, and the train continued eastward. Passengers had until 7am to clear out. Roomettes and bedrooms all had washbasins and toilets, and in most major stations one could rent a dressing room to freshen up before the day's business, if necessary.

 

As speeds and frequencies increase, there will be less need for sleeping cars, and trains might be five cars instead of the twelve to fourteen that are common with today's heavy, conventional-speed, once-daily or thrice-weekly long-distance trains. One train might run Cincinnati-Columbus and then diverge through Lima and Fort Wayne and run all the way to Chicago. Another might diverge at Columbus and run to Pittsburgh, and yet another might run all the way to Cleveland and then continue to points east on the Water Level Route.

 

As ridership increases, demand will bring improvements in speed and frequency, and those will encourage more people to ride. The 3C Bus discussions, at least all the comments that I've read, are based on the estimated ridership at startup. The potential for growth of train ridership on 3C, I think, far outstrips anything that might be expected for bus ridership, and possibly could overwhelm a bus service's ability to accomodate it.

 

  Hey guys - thanks for the lively discussion.   

 

  What's the projected operating cost per year of the 3-C again?

http://www.theoec.org/PDFs/PressReleases/3-17-10_3CPress%20Release.pdf

 

ODOT Delivers Solid Case to Move Forward with 3C Rail Plan

OEC urges Ohio General Assembly leaders to give a green light to investing

$25 million in engineering and design work

Statement of Ohio Environmental Council’s Deputy Director Jack Shaner on ODOT

Director Jolene Molitoris’ letter regarding 3C passenger rail proposal delivered today

to Ohio Senate President Bill Harris:

 

“Senate President Harris has asked good, hard, fair questions. And ODOT has responded

with good, credible, fact-based information.

 

Even more questions and information exchange opportunities will occur in this important

debate—that’s fair game.

 

But Ohio should not risk passing up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to invest in the

future vitality of our state. Nearly every state in our region is moving forward with plans

for an interconnected Midwest passenger rail system. Ohio should get on board and not

watch this train of economic prosperity and environmental benefit pass us by.

 

We urge Ohio’s legislative leaders to give a green light to ODOT’s request to spend $25

million of the $400 million federal stimulus award for the final environmental study and

engineering and design work.

 

These critical studies will provide definitive and detailed information about what it will

take to complete the 3C rail project. Ohio should take this sensible next step right away.

 

The experience of states with state-funded passenger rail systems suggests that Ohio has

much to gain from moving forward. Now is the time to act.”

 

-end-

One that is particularly exciting is a proposed $50 million hotel and conference center at the Riverside-AFB station site. The developer specifically noted that station as his reason for choosing that site.

 

Yes, this development might have happened anyway. But where? And would it have been developed in a sprawling, land-eating way without 3C? Or would it be more compact, pedestrian-friendly and sustainable with 3C?

 

It would have happened anyway since Riverside wanted to re-develop the site.  It is directly across from  the gate to the Air Force Museum, so a primo locatin of leisure travel/tourism.  It just so happened that railroad ran right by it.  So a fortituous circumstance.  This has a lot of potential for overnight tourist train riders on a quick vacation...families, retired military, aviation buffs, if a shuttlle bus could be arranged to go the museum and back.

 

 

As an added convenience, set-out sleepers can be used. It was common practice on many railroads in their hey-day. In Fort Wayne, the Nickel Plate parked a Cleveland sleeper on a siding at the station, connected to station power and heat, and with a car attendant on duty. Passengers could check in any time after 8pm, and then either board or go for dinner or drinks or a movie at any of the many nearby attractions, and then turn in whenever they pleased.

 

When the train arrived from Chicago, the sleeper was coupled in. In Cleveland, the car was set out at the station, and the train continued eastward. Passengers had until 7am to clear out. Roomettes and bedrooms all had washbasins and toilets, and in most major stations one could rent a dressing room to freshen up before the day's business, if necessary.

 

There is something classy about this way of travel, checking in to your sleeping car and then going out on the town.

 

 

For those of you wondering about how ODOT & ORDC responded to Senator Harris' questions of a couple of weeks ago....have you noticed the posts from KJP?  C'mon....this is major news!

What's the deal on writer Nash looking for a one-year hiccup on Chicago-Milwaukee use while ignoring Ohio's 10 percent growth in rail ridership last year?

 

Senate leader not sold on 3C passenger rail

ODOT chief tries to unlock funding for train project

Thursday,  March 18, 2010 3:57 AM

By James Nash

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Ohio's top transportation planner delivered a message yesterday to lawmakers skeptical of the state's plan to spend $400 million on passenger rail to connect the state's major cities: Relax. We know what we're doing.

 

The 3C rail project linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati isn't a revolutionary concept, just another phase in the evolution of passenger rail across the country, Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jolene Molitoris wrote to Senate President Bill M. Harris.

 

She said data from states such as Wisconsin and Maine support the premise that nearly 500,000 Ohioans would ride the train each year and that it would spur tourism and investment along the corridor, said Molitoris, a former federal railroad administrator.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/18/copy/senate-leader-not-sold-on-3c.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Top transportation official defends rail project  

By Matt Leingang, Associated Press Writer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A plan to restore passenger train service in Ohio is economically sound and has such strong ridership potential that an early estimate of 478,000 is probably low, the state's top transportation official said Wednesday in defending the project to a key Republican skeptic.

 

Jolene Molitoris, director of the state Transportation Department, met with Senate President Bill Harris, who last month issued a list of questions he had about the project. Republican support will be critical to the project's success, and debate over the issue at times has seemed more about partisan politics than policy.

 

Molitoris said the train project, funded with $400 million in federal stimulus money, is a historic opportunity that will create at least 225 immediate construction jobs and make up for years of not investing in passenger trains.

 

Full story at: http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=newarkadvocate&sParam=33051567.story

Extremely disappointing to me that Molitaris would repeat the Chicago comparison.  Southeast Wisconsin's embrace of "medium speed" rail (what's considered slow? an average of 20?) that goes to Chicago is not a fair analogy.  3C covers larger distances at that speed, and arrives in comparatively idle inner cities offering scant local transit.  Apples and oranges.  Same problem with the Maine-Boston comparison... it arrives in Boston, not Columbus.  That changes everything. 

 

I had really hoped that Molitaris would instead highlight how close this project gets us to high speed service.  It seems like the main purpose here is to justify and defend someone's original decision to lock us into 3C, rather than to move forward on rail in Ohio by any means necessary.  That decider failed to consider how important speed would be in this corridor, this market, this electorate... and they failed to grasp why routes connecting to truly major cities are fundamentally different from this proposal.

Reading the above two stories, I am struck by how different they are in both tone and substance.  Interesting that the AP reporter was sharp enough to pick up on the fact the previous GOP administrations also tried to advance passenger rail plans with nowhere near the brouhaha from the far right surrounding it as it is today.

You know what we're up against? Look at the headlines of the stories posted above.

 

Before even reading them, I'm presented with one headline that screams, "Not Sold" and another that reads, "Defends."

 

So right away, the reader is conditioned to be skeptical of the idea, whatever its merits.

 

This is how rail issues get marginalized -- death by a thousand cuts, day after day.

 

Now I'll read the articles.