If you haven't yet made your plans for summer vacation, may I suggest some?

 

 

 

> First trip suggestion: if you've never been to the Pacific Northwest, contact John Schneider here on UO. He's already planning the next in his series of escorted tours to Portland and Seattle. Fly into Portland and take the light rail from the airport terminal right into downtown. There you'll experience a vibrant downtown with lots of shops, cafes, restaurants, housing, wonderful strolls, great biking trips (rent a bike!), streetcars and light rail. Take in the Pearl District or Chinatown near the historic train station. Experience the Museum of Contempory Craft, the nearby Ground Kontrol Classic Arcade, Tugboat Brewing or Bailey Tap Room. And, of course, no trip to Portland is complete without taking the streetcar south to ride on the Portland Aerial Tram! Then you'll hop the 79 mph Cascade service funded by the states of Oregon and Washington, maintained by Spanish train manufacturer Talgo and operated by Amtrak crews. The European-style Talgo trains automatically tilt into curves to counter centrifugal forces, have a kick-ass cafe car and offer big picture windows so you can watch the forests, ocean inlets and distant mountains of the Pacific Northwest slide by. Upon arrival in Seattle, you'll emerge into the International District, wedged between the sports stadiums and downtown. A block from the train station is the subway (shared with electric buses!) portion of the new light-rail line that takes you up to the heart of the city at Pioneer Square or University Street. Or continue to Westlake Center where you can shop at Nordstrom's, ride that city's brand-new South Lake Union Streetcar to waterfront attractions or you can board the Seattle Center Monorail to the Space Needle, science center, children's museum and amusement park. Lots of fun for the whole family!

 

 

 

> Second suggestion: Fly into St. Louis Lambert Airport. Catch the Metrolink light rail and take it all the way downtown to Arch-Laclede's Landing and take a ride up to the top of the Gateway Arch or take a "spin" on one of the Gateway Arch Riverboats -- 19th century steamer! (OK they're replicas). If you're traveling without the kids, "pay" a visit to the President Casino-Admiral four blocks north of the Arch-Laclede's station or, in the opposite direction, ease on into BB's Jazz, Blues and Soups -- part music museum and part restaurant. Walk three blocks up Pine to the subway station at 8th Street. Ride the light rail three stops to Union Station to enjoy its shops and restaurants. Walk or double back one stop on the light rail to the Civic Center stop to the adjacent Gateway Transportation Center. There, you'll catch one of Missouri's state-supported Amtrak trains, the Missouri River Runners. Head west to Kansas City on this twice-daily service. The trains pull into Union Station, which also has great restaurants and Science City at Union Station -- a 50-exhibit science center, planetarium and the Extreme Screen theater. Across the street is the large and informative World War I museum. If you've got children, take them across Main Street to Crown Center -- a city-within-a-city that's also home to Hallmark Cards. In addition to lots of shops and restaurants and hotels, there's a Fairytale Village, the Ice Terrace and Kaleidoscope, Hallmark's interactive art class where kids can show up at any time and make whatever they want.

 

 

 

> Third suggestion: fly or drive to Charlotte. If you fly, take the frequent CATS Sprinter bus (Route 5 -- runs every 20 minutes from 6 a.m. to midnight) from the airport to the Charlotte Transportation Center downtown (20-minute trip). It's right next to Time Warner Cable Arena, a block from ImaginOn (a 100,000-square-foot learning center created by the county library and the Children's Theater of Charlotte), the EpiCentre (a downtown retail and entertainment complex). Hop on the new Lynx light-rail line at the Transportation Center and ride four stops to the Bland Street Station. Within 1,000 feet is the trolley museum, Charlotte Art League, Tailgate Farmers Market, Arlington Market, Tavern on the Tracks, Jillian's and Greek Isles restaurant. Take note of all the new development springing up all around the light rail stations. There's also numerous furniture showrooms and galleries in the station area. And while you can't take that Ottoman on the train or plane, you can get great design ideas. And maybe they will ship your purchase. Head back downtown on the Lynx light rail to the Transportation Center and catch the #11 bus (runs every 10 minutes) to the Charlotte Amtrak station (trip takes about 10 minutes). Take pictures of this dink Amtrak station, as it is an endangered vestige of Charlotte's small-town past. It will soon be relocated to the planned $200 million intermodal station and park bounded by downtown/Uptown, Johnson & Wales University and Bank of America Stadium (NFL Carolina Panthers). Hop on one of the four daily round-trip trains to Greensboro or beyond it on one of the three daily round trips that continues on to Durham or Raleigh. NCDOT is adding in May more trains: departing both Charlotte and Raleigh at about noon and heading to the other city. It's quite a change from before 1991 when these cities had just middle-of-the-night Amtraks running between the Northeast and the Deep South -- sound familiar? At Raleigh, walk east two blocks to the hotels surrounding the convention center. Near the convention you can enjoy everything from Alice in Chains to the ballet to Storytime Live at the Progress Energy Performing Center. Learn about the struggles of African-Americans in the South in the late 1800s at the Pope House Museum. Enjoy a live band or comedy act at the Lincoln Theater. And be sure to stop in at Poole's Downtown Diner just one block east of the train station for some red leather banquettes, oversized blackboard menus and some large helpings of southern hospitality.

 

The point of all this is to experience what is possible with a train after these services have been around for 5-20 years. See what attractions, amenities and local transportation links have sprouted up around these state-supported train services and turned them into interconnected transportation systems that are forever evolving and growing as long as there is a state DOT and a local public-private partnership willing to nurture them.

 

 

"I find it mindboggling people don't get what is trying to be done."

 

   I am not surprised. The average Ohioan does not follow UrbanOhio. He doesn't know much about railroads, he doesn't understand the difference betweek peak velocity and average velocity, and chances are, if he's from Cincinnati he's never even been to Cleveland and vice versa.

 

 

 

What I find mind-boggling is that our elected representatives and their aides, and the media don't understand this. I don't expect the average Ohioan to delve into all of this. The average Ohioan doesn't have to, because the average Ohioan probably expects elected representatives and their aides to become informed enough to make intelligent decisions, and expects professional reporters who cover government and transportation to learn enough about these issues to write informed summaries.

 

The average Ohioan has unrealistic expectations and is being cheated.

 

The ignorance of our elected officials and the media is embarrassing and disturbing. I wonder about the future of our fair state.

By the way, if you want to see what a city that's moving forward looks like, look at what's happening with its train station. This is Charlotte's train station until 2012 (which has had just 1-3 daily round trips for much of its five decades):

 

 

This is Charlotte's train station after 2012 (including eight daily Amtrak trains and about 20 North Corridor commuter trains each weekday):

 

 

 

Or there's Miami's train station. In the 1970s and 80s, it hosted up to six daily Amtrak trains -- more than any other city in Ohio. But....

 

 

Its usage has outgrown it. The State of Florida has developed a regional rail service with half-hourly service up the coast to West Palm Beach, included laying a second main track, elevating the railroad high above navigable waterways, and building major new stations everywhere except in Miami, until now. This station now under construction near the airport will be served by Amtrak, the Tri-Rail regional service and the high-speed rail service that will follow the rebuilt corridor from West Palm Beach (shows what evolutionary rail development does for a state!)....

 

Nice piece, KJP.  I'd be thrilled to take any one of those trips this year.

 

 

    High Speed Rail in Ohio will require new right of way in many places, new grade separations, new signalling, and new track. We can obviously not afford to do all of that for $400 million.

 

    Some other things that HSR requires are a market for HSR, which may be facilitated by better connections to the stations, high density development around the stations, and above all, support of the people.

 

    If all goes well, the Quick Start plan will lead to development of better connections, high density development around the stations, and support of the people. This could take 20 years, "Quick" being a relative term.

 

I think this is the disconnect right here.  Support of the people already exists for hi-speed rail.  But Ohioans are being asked to run a 20 year gauntlet of lo-speed rail in order to get the hi-speed rail they actually want (and thought they were being sold).  It's 2010 and Ohio is being asked to accept 70s quality rail service because other states had 70s rail service in the 70s and we didn't.  Even though this is supposed to be a revolution of HSR in the USA... Ohio is expected to begin at the same point those other states did, in some cases decades ago, and follow a slow progression of service upgrades that was followed by other states under 30 years of republican anti-rail policies.  BTW you could substitute 80s or 90s for 70s and it's the same point.  The fact that other states followed a slow incremental progression during a long anti-rail era doesn't mean Ohio should do the same thing now, as part of a new program targeted specifically at HSR.

 

What's happened in those 30 years?  Ohio has gained zero interest in the old-school Amtrak approach.  Didn't like it then, still don't.  But Ohioans do travel, and they have seen HSR overseas.  They love it.  They want it for themselves, and even the most conservative among them were happy to hear that HSR development would be a national priority in this coming decade.  Only the truly deranged and the professionally interested (highway people) stand against the whole idea of rail in Ohio. 

 

The general populace wants hi-speed rail and they want it now.  This is an aging state, where people don't drive as well as they used to, and they're more than interested in the amenities that go along with rail travel.  And contrary to some people's accusations, the average Ohioan realizes how behind we are in this area and wants their state to catch up technologically.  ORDC should have more supporters than they know what to do with, and if they were prioritizing high speed rail they'd have that.  But you can barely get them to even say "high speed rail."  They're hell bent on getting Ohioans to accept the Reagan approach to rail, developed at a time when HSR was about as distant as Paris.

 

It makes no sense to build a system Ohioans don't want, or only kinda want, and use its popularity to gauge whether Ohioans are ready for the HSR system they've wanted all along.  Two different things, one's popular and one isn't.  It also makes no sense to spend 400 million on something and not use the best available technology.  If the scope of this project requires a tradeoff like using Reagan-era tech to achieve Reagan-era service levels... then the scope needs to come in a little. 

 

And the lack of hi-density development in our central cities suggests that hi-speed is even more important here, to make the service competitive with driving.  Expecting development and transit to show up as a result of building 3C is the tail wagging the dog.  Ohioans are conscious of their own urban layouts when they evaluate different rail proposals with different speeds.  They have already determined that hi-speed linkages between these cites, as the cities exist right now, would be great.  They resist low-speed rail between those same cities because it at that speed it falls short of the utility they're looking for.  Two.  Completely.  Different.  Things.  Just how hell bent is ORDC on getting Ohioans to drop their dreams of high speed and swallow this instead?                 

Nicely done KJP.  You should make this part of the public advocacy effort.  This is something that ought to be seen outside of U-O.

327,  I think you feel that Ohioans are delusional then.  I recall years past that a figure in the multiple billions was being tossed around to have some form of high speed rail.  I would not expect a mere $400 million with Ohio's underfunded rail infrastructure to add much speed to that rail.

 

Personally, I think the best narrative or way of framing this is to say we are organically growing rail in Ohio.  $400 million is the seed money.  Its the cost of setting the rights of ways, making the needed infrastructure updates, getting the actual train sets, and updating/adding the stations.

 

Additional emphasis that can be made as part of organic growth is that as Ohio has passenger rail infrastructure created, there are new opportunities to add better service out of Cleveland and Cincinnati instead of the middle of the night drops since there will be a tie-in.  Amtrak planners will see there are 500, 1000 or X number of rail passengers coming into those cities a day via train, it might be best to add new service to Indianapolis/Chicago in the daytime to Cincinnati. Or in Cleveland an additional train to Toledo/Chicago and/or from Erie/Buffalo/Albany in the daytime.

 

The point being that the 3C is not in a vacuum.  There will be other cities outside/inside of Ohio that will want to link up. The fruits of this labor will be the growing of the system to link it to other systems which will bring more passenger traffic for all systems.  So maybe we should start terming it "3C+"

Nicely done KJP. You should make this part of the public advocacy effort. This is something that ought to be seen outside of U-O.

 

Which -- the station pictures or the suggested summer travel itineraries?

I think this is the disconnect right here.  Support of the people already exists for hi-speed rail.  But Ohioans are being asked to run a 20 year gauntlet of lo-speed rail in order to get the hi-speed rail they actually want (and thought they were being sold).

 

You seem to think Ohioans are too stupid to be informed or can't read.

 

Here is the link to the ORDC document containing information on the 3C "Quick Start".

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Documents/Ohio%20State%20Rail%20Plan%20Chapters%209%20and%2010.pdf

 

It contains a lot of good information on prior efforts at HSR in Ohio (which include calculated costs from a few decades ago), but, more importantly, is this:

 

In 2009, ORDC has focused on preparation of a successful application for initial 3c start-up service called Quick Start. The Quick Start brand is intended to communicate to Ohioans that within a few short years, upon receopt of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, passenger rail service will come quickly to many residents. Concurrently, planning efforts continue for the incremental development of 3C service to reach 110-mph speeds as envisioned by the Chicago Hub and Ohio Hub plans.

 

And, a little further down, under "Cleveland to Columbus"

 

The first segment of the 3C route between Cleveland and Columbus is the NS line from Cleveland's Lakefront Station to Berea. This line is a high-density, well maintained double track line with train operations controlled by a wayside signal system. The track is physically capable of a 79 mph maximum authorized speed.

 

The document goes on to describe how other sections of the route will need to be upgrade to support 79-mph and what needs to be done to support speeds of 90-mph and 110-mph.

 

Where is the subterfuge? The supposed sleight of hand?

 

This document is available, to the public, on the ORDC web site.

 

So the real problem that you seem to be describing is that, in your view, Ohioans would rather let someone else do their thinking for them then educate themselves as to what their government is trying to do?

 

How can you honestly say that Ohioans have been misled when the Ohio Hub plan clearly and unambiguously spells out what many of us have been saying on this board?

 

It is all there for anyone to read and has been since before the application for funding was made and the funds approved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

KJP, of the $400 million, what percentage of the cost wouldn't be a down payment on higher speed rail?

 

Essentially the way I see it is that the worst case scenario is we make a $400 million down payment on a higher speed system and have a $17 million carrying cost per year (nothing compared to the $1 billion+ annual highway subsidy for Ohio). During that time Ohioans get the benefit of a conventional speed system and its connectivity.

 

On the other hand if we reject this system and construction costs inflate at over 4% per year from now until we do build the system, we essentially pay the same amount but don't get the current benefit. And that assumes there is another federal grant available.

 

 

 

As the saying goes.... "you can pay now or pay later"....but the costs always go up.

 

Given that the infrastructure improvements to the 3C rail corridor can serve as a springboard for eventual 110 MPH service in the same corridor, you could rightly say that the $400-million is a "down payment".

 

So are you now saying that 110 MPH is not inevitable because the environmental work could limit the speed?

 

How would one ever increase the speed?

 

This question is not intended to torpedo your credibility, just clarify the process. You tend to lament that nobody listens to what you say, but I am attempting to listen. Very carefully.

 

This is a big concern of mine.

 

When I first heard of this project it was advertised as "Quick Start" step to constructing high-speed rail in Ohio. As I find out more about this project, I find that it isn't as close to being constructed I had originally thought. I had thought the project was literally shovel ready, all studies done, all that was needed was money to make it happen. I have since learned otherwise.

 

Now we are being told that the high speed may not exactly be possible? Weren't we suppose to go out and push and sell the current proposal, criticized as being too slow, that this project was necessary to build in order to eventually improve these lines for high speed?

 

So the lines we may be improving may not even be upgradable to high speed? If this is true, after spending $400 million on this project we may still have to plow earth and construct brand new lines if HSR is to be achieved?

 

I hope I've got this wrong. Like others I don't want to question credibility but I will not shy away from asking questions.

 

Still looking for clarification on this.

The 3C Quick Start can begin service within three years of controlling board approval. As you know, that's pretty fast in the world of transportation development.

 

High-speeds of 90-110 are definitely possible. The specific speeds and where they can be achieved will be ID'd by the PEIS.

 

I'll produce a map to show what is possible, maybe even likely. What ultimately happens is up to state -- I cannot speak for them.

Even if it's not possible to upgrade all the 3-C quick start trackage to high speed, we still need to build the 3-C quick start line to establish traffic patterns and get the ball rolling.  As has been said over and over and over, we can't go from zero to 200 (or even 100) mph service in one move.  The feds won't fund it, and the state can't afford it, so we need to activate the corridor first to get the project going.  If we say "high speed or nothing" then we get NOTHING. 

 

There seems to be conflicting information about how much of the 3-C quick start trackage would be usable (whether physically or contractually) for high speed rail.  An earlier response suggested that only about 10% of the tracks would have to be bypassed for future high speed operations.  Even if that number balloons to 30 or 50%, what other choice do we have?  We can't say screw it, because then we get NO PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE AT ALL. 

 

If we stick with the current 3-C plan and it doesn't live up to expectations, then at least we still have lower speed service instead of no service.  The fright railroads also get upgraded facilities, which is a good thing too.  If the 3-C plan does live up to or exceeds expectations, then we start bypassing the slowest sections and upgrading the rest.  If we have to bypass large amounts of track, or build a lot of new adjacent trackage, then the freight railroads still get upgraded facilities.  Depending on how things work out, we should end up with a multi-layered system.  High speed passenger rail serves Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland, while lower speed, less expensive regional rail would serve those cities as well as more intermediate stops on the upgraded freight tracks. 

 

Again, the 3-C quick start plan is a stepping stone to future high speed rail.  There's no getting around the need for it.  People can whine and complain about its faults all they want, but without a real alternative (and "just build high speed rail now" isn't a choice) then the whining is pointless.  Even if we never get to high speed rail, I'd still rather have the 3-C stepping stone service than nothing at all. 

Let me say one more thing on this issue... The whole notion of top cruising speed is talking around the goal which is to achieve the highest end-to-end average speed. We could have top speeds of 110 mph here and there, but if we have to wait for 10-15 minutes at locations where busy freight lines cross at-grade -- what's the point of spending so much money to go 110?

 

We could have 3C trains traveling between downtown Cleveland to downtown Columbus in less than two hours and never exceed 79 mph -- if we didn't have to wait at Berea, Greenwich, Crestline or Clintonville in Columbus for freight traffic to clear if we grade-separated crossings with other rail lines. Or another choice at the outset is that we could keep those at-grade crossings and build or rebuild tracks for 110 mph in between them. We have lots of choices that are limited only by our imaginations and money.

 

There's no right way to do things -- but I do have my preferences.

When I first heard of this project it was advertised as "Quick Start" step to constructing high-speed rail in Ohio.

 

With all due respect (since I don't know what was your source), the "Quick Start" refers to quickly establishing the 3C using conventional speed (up to 79-mph) as a means of getting Ohioans used to the concept of practical, intercity rail. Insofar as ORDC is concerned, it was never meant to construe going straight from nothing to HSR and there are no official publications from ORDC or ODOT to the contrary. ORDC realized that true HSR was a multibillion dollar project and a hard sell in a state which has no real intercity rail and is hurting, economically.  The "Quick Start" was intended to give people a glimpse of what is possible.

 

Having lived in Pennsylvania, I have watched the evolution of the Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg-Philly), from a moderately slow passenger rail to a line approaching 110-mph. It took time but the point is that even at the lower speeds, people took the rail instead of the road and increasing the speed of line has only resulted in both a growth in ridership and in the number of trips/day. You never would have sold people on what exists, today, if you hadn't already shown them what could be using conventional service.

 

As I find out more about this project, I find that it isn't as close to being constructed I had originally thought. I had thought the project was literally shovel ready, all studies done, all that was needed was money to make it happen. I have since learned otherwise.

 

Again, the official Ohio Hub plan spells out exactly what steps must be taken and why. This has never been a secret and people who profess to be disappointed have only themselves to blame. It has become very convenient for the opposition interests to blurt out "you lie" everytime they see someone proposing a change to the way that we do business. But in this case, the roadmap was there for all to see and how the $400 million was to be used is described in painstaking detail.

 

Now we are being told that the high speed may not exactly be possible?

 

No one has suggested that. In fact, one of the reasons that the 3C ROW was chosen was because it represented the best possible option for true HSR. Many of us, myself included, would have preferred going through Akron/Canton both because I live there and because this would have added an additional population center but it was not practical given the long term goal of HSR between the 3Cs.

 

So the lines we may be improving may not even be upgradable to high speed? If this is true, after spending $400 million on this project we may still have to plow earth and construct brand new lines if HSR is to be achieved?

 

Again, the ORDC roadmap spells out exactly what are the challenges and obstancles to HSR but does not conclude that it is unachievable.  If the $400 million does nothing more than increase the average freight speed through the 3Cs it will have made Ohio more competitive in terms of intermodal freight, saved lives through reduction or elimination of grade crossings and improvements in track conditions, provided thousands of Ohioans with jobs they might otherwise not have.

 

Shortly after turning pro, Tiger Woods complained to Arnold Palmer that he couldn't live the life of a normal 20-year old. Palmer retorted, "You're not a normal 20-year old. You've got millions in the bank. If you want to be a normal 20-year old, start by giving it back."

 

So, Ohio, you don't want the $400 million and what comes with it? Give it back!

 

Good news! This is from a young professionals PAC group in Cincinnati......

 

http://www.cincypac.com/

 

Spring Issue Advocacy: 3 C Passenger Rail

CincyPAC Core Value Addressed: Transportation Options

 

CincyPAC has voted to endorse 3C Passenger Rail.

 

Tell your state leaders that you support rail and the benefits that it delivers. Visit www.linkingohio.com to send an email.

 

Top Level Talking Points:

 

- Jobs - Ohio remains critical to building the things our nation uses. We have the people-power to continue at this capacity.

o 255 immediate construction jobs

o 8,000 spin off jobs in small businesses, manufacturers, and retailers across Ohio

o Igniting our state's rail suppliers and contractors - 225 suppliers/contractors employing 26,000 people

 

- Growth at Station Cities

o Increase in property values by as much as 30%

o Commercial and residential development

o Travel and tourism in our state's cities

 

- Improvement to Freight - Ohio is at the center of moving goods and people from the east to west and north to south.

o By building our intercity rail, we improve the freight rail system - a cornerstone to our state's economic development

 

- Creating a Collaborative Ohio - A collaborative spirit with what's great in Ohio will elevate the unique qualities our state possesses.

o Over 40 universities and 220,000 college students with 10-miles of proposed stations

o World-class health care community

o Connecting Innovation centers and employers

o Entertainment & Tourism

 

- Safe, Reliable, Inexpensive Travel Option - People want travel options.

o 6.8-million Ohioans across 3C corridor

o   Costs for traveler would be 8½ to 14-cents per mile traveled vs. 54 to 55-cents per mile by car

o Competitive travel times

o   79-MPH passenger rail

o   Productive travel

o   Convenient connections - buses, taxis, car rental, etc. at station destinations

 

Learn more at http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103248442587&s=87&e=001zTFszANI6HOn_eSpHx6bdlVUtFdG5GV86PTMEO0h8uoXBzElZC-axEu3YkaI-4VVqbxR5NneAXBEzOMnXKaaFv48EFFj_3oJgqgndLBCX4nGozfYx6eVQGB33v_kD6LV.

CincyPAC has voted to endorse 3C Passenger Rail.

 

CincyPAC also endorsed Jason Haap for Cincinnati Public School board.  This group could hardly be considered a group that thinks things out well.  It appears as though the endorsement is a copy and paste analysis from pro-3C websites.

It appears as though the endorsement is a copy and paste analysis from pro-3C websites.

 

Well if the opposition can do it, then so can the supporters. 

When I first heard of this project it was advertised as "Quick Start" step to constructing high-speed rail in Ohio.

 

With all due respect (since I don't know what was your source), the "Quick Start" refers to quickly establishing the 3C using conventional speed (up to 79-mph) as a means of getting Ohioans used to the concept of practical, intercity rail. Insofar as ORDC is concerned, it was never meant to construe going straight from nothing to HSR and there are no official publications from ORDC or ODOT to the contrary. ORDC realized that true HSR was a multibillion dollar project and a hard sell in a state which has no real intercity rail and is hurting, economically. The "Quick Start" was intended to give people a glimpse of what is possible.

 

Having lived in Pennsylvania, I have watched the evolution of the Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg-Philly), from a moderately slow passenger rail to a line approaching 110-mph. It took time but the point is that even at the lower speeds, people took the rail instead of the road and increasing the speed of line has only resulted in both a growth in ridership and in the number of trips/day. You never would have sold people on what exists, today, if you hadn't already shown them what could be using conventional service.

 

As I find out more about this project, I find that it isn't as close to being constructed I had originally thought. I had thought the project was literally shovel ready, all studies done, all that was needed was money to make it happen. I have since learned otherwise.

 

Again, the official Ohio Hub plan spells out exactly what steps must be taken and why. This has never been a secret and people who profess to be disappointed have only themselves to blame. It has become very convenient for the opposition interests to blurt out "you lie" everytime they see someone proposing a change to the way that we do business. But in this case, the roadmap was there for all to see and how the $400 million was to be used is described in painstaking detail.

 

Now we are being told that the high speed may not exactly be possible?

 

No one has suggested that. In fact, one of the reasons that the 3C ROW was chosen was because it represented the best possible option for true HSR. Many of us, myself included, would have preferred going through Akron/Canton both because I live there and because this would have added an additional population center but it was not practical given the long term goal of HSR between the 3Cs.

 

So the lines we may be improving may not even be upgradable to high speed? If this is true, after spending $400 million on this project we may still have to plow earth and construct brand new lines if HSR is to be achieved?

 

Again, the ORDC roadmap spells out exactly what are the challenges and obstancles to HSR but does not conclude that it is unachievable. If the $400 million does nothing more than increase the average freight speed through the 3Cs it will have made Ohio more competitive in terms of intermodal freight, saved lives through reduction or elimination of grade crossings and improvements in track conditions, provided thousands of Ohioans with jobs they might otherwise not have.

 

Shortly after turning pro, Tiger Woods complained to Arnold Palmer that he couldn't live the life of a normal 20-year old. Palmer retorted, "You're not a normal 20-year old. You've got millions in the bank. If you want to be a normal 20-year old, start by giving it back."

 

So, Ohio, you don't want the $400 million and what comes with it? Give it back!

 

 

Well put....  BTW: the 3C is already a federally designated high-speed rail corridor and considered to be part of the proposed national network.

Quote from: Johio on Yesterday at 04:11:30 PM

Now we are being told that the high speed may not exactly be possible?

 

No one has suggested that. In fact, one of the reasons that the 3C ROW was chosen was because it represented the best possible option for true HSR. Many of us, myself included, would have preferred going through Akron/Canton both because I live there and because this would have added an additional population center but it was not practical given the long term goal of HSR between the 3Cs.

 

KJP says speed depends on the outcome of the environmental studies. This is what I am trying to clarify.

Definitely not unbiased seeing as the author is the Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc., but I thought I'd post it anyways.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-23537-Columbus-Government-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Gov-Strickland-ODOT-chief-losing-steam-as-critics-questions-on-3C-train-plan-mount-go-unanswered

 

Gov. Strickland, ODOT chief losing steam as critics' questions on 3C train plan mount, go unanswered

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio rail bosses from Gov. Ted Strickland to appointed leaders at transportation and rail development have been cheerleading spending $400 million in free cash from Washington on a slow and time-consuming train scheme they trumpet is only the first phase of a multi-billion plan that will demand ongoing operating subsidies for a three-city link up that Amtrak says it will operate if someone else pays for it but otherwise would not have reason to start itself.

 

KJP says speed depends on the outcome of the environmental studies. This is what I am trying to clarify.

 

I'm confused. What needs to be clarified?

High speed rail on the 3C...or any other corridor in Ohio...will depend on doing more and detailed environmental impact studies.  It doesn't happen just because the $$ are available.  The environmental work is what gets the corridor to the point where engineering and construction can take place.

 

seanmcl is also right.  HSR (110 MPH) is attainable in the 7 corrdiors that were identified in the Ohio Hub Report.  That's why the report was done.

 

The 3C Quick Start has its genesis in the Ohio Hub Plan.  It is the beginning... the starting point....for the eventual larger system.  But the Ohio Hub doesn't get done unless all of y'all bring the pressure where it needs to be placed... on the Ohio General Assembly.

 

Now on to more important issues that we can work on from here (since we aren't rail planners and engineers -- though some of you may be!). So-called "think tanks" like Buckeye Policy Institute and one of the far-right's hired guns, Randy O'Toole, is appearing in Ohio to help fight public transit and rail. To fight them, follow the money. This article helps do that........

 

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-01a.htm

 

Please share it with your networks.

 

KJP says speed depends on the outcome of the environmental studies. This is what I am trying to clarify.

 

I'm confused. What needs to be clarified?

 

My main point of confusion is that I have no experience with transit that gets increasingly faster over time. Can you please explain how the NEPA work limits speed, and how speed could ever increase beyond the "limit" imposed by NEPA.

One of the talking points for 3C is that it will create jobs in Ohio.  Can we get someone who runs a business that will benefit, in Ohio, to be the poster child for this movement?  Something along the lines of "building 3C will let me keep my company open, providing jobs for x number of employees."  If people can see how it will directly benefit people like them or their friends financially it may sway them to the "for" 3C side.

NEPA does not limit speed.  What it does is identify the current state of the "built" environment (including the condition of existing track) and that helps determine what needs to be done to bring that track (if warranted) up to conditions that allow an increase in speed.

 

The ultimate say-so on speed and track conditions come from the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and STB (Surface Transportation Board). 

NEPA does not limit speed. What it does is identify the current state of the "built" environment (including the condition of existing track) and that helps determine what needs to be done to bring that track (if warranted) up to conditions that allow an increase in speed.

 

The ultimate say-so on speed and track conditions come from the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and STB (Surface Transportation Board).

 

So to simplify, what you're saying is, the trains can go up to 79MPH. The environmental studies will reveal if they can go up to 90MPH or up to 110 MPH, structurally, and what structural modifications need to be made to do so. FRA and STB would then approve that speed.

 

As opposed to

 

NEPA will reveal that the trains can never go faster than 79MPH because of XYZ ecological impact.

And just to add to Noozer's comment about speed, let me provide a "sample" of how the coming years "could" go. Keep in mind that this is only theoretical and very optimistic (for reasons explained at the end)....

 

Spring 2010 to Fall 2010: Final environmental review and engineering for 3C Quick Start (79 mph).

 

Summer 2010 to Fall 2011/Winter 2012: Program-level Environmental Impact Study for Ohio Hub System (six corridors/segments including 3C, top speeds up to 110 mph).

 

Winter 2011: Proceed with 3C Quick Start construction.

 

Early 2012: ODOT/ORDC makes recommendation for project parameters (ie: infrastructure improvements to achieve a desired higher level of service and reduced travel times), of enhanced 3C based on findings and options in the Ohio Hub PEIS.

 

Mid 2012: ODOT/ORDC submits funding application to the FRA for preliminary engineering and project-level environmental assessment of the recommended capital improvements with a non-federal funding share already ID'd; seeks draft ruling from STB/FRA on authorized maximum speeds resulting from improvements.

 

Late 2012/Early 2013: 3C Quick Start begins service.

 

Mid 2012 or early 2013: FRA awards funding to conduct preliminary engineering and project-level environmental assessment.

 

Late 2013 or mid 2014: PE and EA completed.

 

Sometime in 2014: ODOT/ORDC submits funding application for final engineering and Tier 2 environmental documentation with non-federal funding share already ID'd; seeks final ruling from STB/FRA on authorized maximum speed resulting from improvements.

 

Late 2014 or early 2015: FRA awards funding for final engineering and Tier 2 environmental documentation.

 

Sometime in 2015: Final engineering and Tier 2 environmental assessment is conducted.

 

Sometime in 2016: FRA/STB authorizes maximum speeds. ODOT/ORDC submits funding application to FRA for construction of enhanced 3C Corridor service (and probably other corridors), with non-federal funding share identified, as well as an operational sustainability plan.

 

Late 2016 or early 2017: FRA awards construction funds, starting with release of funding for property acquisition.

 

Sometime in 2017: ODOT/ORDC orders locomotives and rail cars.

 

Sometime in 2017 or 2018: Construction begins on right of way and fixed facilities (stations, maintnenance facilities, etc).

 

Sometime in 2018 or 2019: Locomotives and rail cars delivered for testing; infrastructure improvements and signal systems are tested.

 

Sometime in 2019 or 2020: enhanced 3C service begins regular operations.

 

NOTE: there is a lot of optimism in this theoretical timeline. I'm assuming that the FRA will have the funds when Ohio wants them and they will award them to Ohio in a timely manner. And I assume that Ohio will be able to use the FRA funds when we receive them. As we've seen in the last couple of months, that isn't always the case. Then I'm assuming a manufacturer will be able to get Ohio's order onto an assembly line in a timely manner. Then there's protracted eminent domain actions regarding property acquisitions. There are always surprises involving major transportation projects. Stuff happens.

So to simplify, what you're saying is, the trains can go up to 79MPH. The environmental studies will reveal if they can go up to 90MPH or up to 110 MPH, structurally, and what structural modifications need to be made to do so. FRA and STB would then approve that speed.

 

As opposed to

 

NEPA will reveal that the trains can never go faster than 79MPH because of XYZ ecological impact.

 

A much more succinct way of putting it than what I just wrote! :)

 

One of the talking points for 3C is that it will create jobs in Ohio. Can we get someone who runs a business that will benefit, in Ohio, to be the poster child for this movement? Something along the lines of "building 3C will let me keep my company open, providing jobs for x number of employees." If people can see how it will directly benefit people like them or their friends financially it may sway them to the "for" 3C side.

 

Contrary to what a citizens journalist rag reported today (I weep for the current state of journalism), All Aboard Ohio is not an "industry front group" (if we were I'd be paid a lot more), so the "poster child" will have to be someone else. And I'm sure it will.

 

Ironically, the person who wrote the piece is an "industry front person" -- sometimes the balls on these people siphon blood from their brains.

KJP, I'm guessing this is the piece you're referring to?  Authored by John Michael Spinelli Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc.  Now this is pure, unbiased journalism at its best. <insert sarcasm smiley>

 

Plain Dealer's Larkin tees off on Strickland's 3C train scheme, hints sale is 'outright dishonesty'

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Brent Larkin, the Cleveland Plain Dealer's editorial director from 1991 until his retirement in 2009, had an early round of golf last Sunday, when he again teed off, with a vengeance and direction down the fairway that spectators expect Tiger Woods to show at this year's Masters Golf Tournament, on Ohio Gov. Strickland's scheme to spend $400 million on a slow conventional train plan the controversial editorialist called a "passenger train boondoggle."

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-23537-Columbus-Government-Examiner~y2010m3d30-Plain-Dealers-Larkin-tees-off-on-Stricklands-3C-train-scheme--hints-sale-is-outright-dishonesty

Please note today's news announcement by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The critics of 3C would like to pretend North Carolina's success with rail passenger development doesn't exist. Well, it does exist, and here's the latest example of it...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6079.msg475194.html#msg475194

 

Or go straight to the source at:

 

http://www.bytrain.org/pdf/midday_rls_schedule.pdf

KJP, I'm guessing this is the piece you're referring to? Authored by John Michael Spinelli Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. Now this is pure, unbiased journalism at its best. <insert sarcasm smiley>

 

Plain Dealer's Larkin tees off on Strickland's 3C train scheme, hints sale is 'outright dishonesty'

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Brent Larkin, the Cleveland Plain Dealer's editorial director from 1991 until his retirement in 2009, had an early round of golf last Sunday, when he again teed off, with a vengeance and direction down the fairway that spectators expect Tiger Woods to show at this year's Masters Golf Tournament, on Ohio Gov. Strickland's scheme to spend $400 million on a slow conventional train plan the controversial editorialist called a "passenger train boondoggle."

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-23537-Columbus-Government-Examiner~y2010m3d30-Plain-Dealers-Larkin-tees-off-on-Stricklands-3C-train-scheme--hints-sale-is-outright-dishonesty

 

^

 

Spinelli is bad news.

^ And he's a terrible writer. That first sentence is so compounded it should be an exotic financial product.

He's a registered lobbyist for Tubular Rail and fails to disclose that in his articles. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm wondering if that's in conflict with state ethics rules. Anyone know?

 

BTW, I am not a registered lobbyist. While I do write freelance articles for Sun Newspapers, I have refused to write about rail (or even transit!) subjects because of my full-time employment as executive director of All Aboard Ohio. I also have refused to be interviewed for Sun News articles on rail subjects as it would represent a conflict of interest. If you have any questions, please contact me or my editor Carol Kovach to confirm what I have said.

http://www.policyinpractice.org/?p=2337

 

Passenger rail will be economic engine for Ohio

by Policy in Practice on March 31, 2010

 

There has been much debate on the 3-C Plan Passenger Rail Plan which will connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. While the debate continues on the speed and costs of the rail, there has been less focus on the economic benefits this investment could have on the rail industry.

 

Ohio’s rail industry currently ranks fourth in the nation in economic output and is likely to grow with this investment.  Experts expect the size of the rail market to double in the next 5 years and to continue to grow as the US passenger rail market matures and more urban rail systems come on line.  Ohio is well suited to benefit from the national investment in passenger rail, with industrial capacity for metal fabricating and components and many existing auto and rail related manufacturers.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation reports that it has already spoken to 225 businesses, with more than 26,000 employees, who either supply or contract with the rail industry and are gearing up for this investment. These businesses are located throughout the state of Ohio and vary from larger corporations, such as Timken Roller Bearing, to small corporations who provide goods and services to Amtrak.

 

Each of these corporations sees the potential the rail investments hold and are eager to create new jobs. US Railcar Company, which recently relocated to Columbus, has expressed interest in supplying DMUs, or diesel multiple units. DMUs are currently providing passenger rail service in Florida, Oregon and Alaska. The company has secured an interim manufacturing agreement with its business partner, American Railcar Industries, to build DMUs at its Arkansas plant. US Railcar is currently working with the Department of Development to determine the feasibility of establishing manufacturing facilities in Ohio, potentially bringing 200 jobs.

 

Edison Welding Institute (EWI) has recently proposed creating a national center for high-speed passenger rail in Ohio. Dr. Dennis Harwig, the business development director at EWI, sees lots of potential for growth in the passenger rail market. He recently presented a plan to the Ohio Rail Development Commission which envisions Ohio as a manufacturing center for passenger rail and proposes the creation of an industrial supply chain to support it. Ohio’s strong manufacturing and logistics industry makes it ideally suited to serve as a hub of passenger rail manufacturing.

 

Additional information can be found at www.3Cisme.ohio.gov or www.linkingohio.com

Rail advocate raps Republicans as thwarting progress

Thursday,  April 1, 2010 11:29 AM

 

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

COLUMBUS -- The man who put together a master plan for high-speed rail in Ohio says Republican critics threatening to kill a new train service are squandering a chance to position the state for the 21st century.

 

James Seney was a Republican appointee who led the Ohio Rail Development Commission until 2006. In an interview with the Associate Press, Seney said he's stunned the project is now running into problems, since the GOP endorsed federal funding for his plan when he was in office.

 

Full story at:  http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/01/rail-advocate-republicans.html?sid=101

I think I know why so many people are afraid of rail travel! My Simpson's calendar month of April:

 

Springfield Monorail

  Train Will Not Give You Mono

Here is the full AP story as it appeared in the Springfield News Sun:

 

Architect of Ohio rail plan dismayed at stalemate

By MATT LEINGANG, The Associated Press

Updated 1:41 PM Thursday, April 1, 2010

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Republican critics threatening to reject $400 million in federal stimulus money for a high-profile passenger train project are squandering a chance to position Ohio for the 21st century, says the man who put together the state's master rail plan.

 

James Seney, a Republican appointee who led the Ohio Rail Development Commission for six years, said he's stunned the project is running into problems since the GOP endorsed federal funding for his plan when he was in office. But Seney also said the administration of Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has done a poor job of addressing critics.

 

"It's an extraordinary opportunity that's not going to come along again for a long time if Ohio drops the ball," Seney said in an interview with The Associated Press.

 

Full story at:  http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/ohio-news/architect-of-ohio-rail-plan-dismayed-at-stalemate-631346.html

Glad to see Jim Seney has come out swinging -- at both sides. It's what is needed to break the stalemate.

Prediction: State Repubs squeal until May 4th, then quietly drop their opposition to pass up $400 million.

FRA adds $115 million to HSR pot    

 

The Federal Railroad Administration has expanded its $8 billion high speed intercity passenger rail grant program by making $115 million in planning and construction project funds available. The agency has begun accepting applications for $50 million in planning project funds appropriated under the FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Act, and approximately $65 million in residual construction project funds appropriated under the FY 2009 DOT Appropriations Act.

 

Full story at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/fra-adds-115-million-to-hsr-pot.html

Below is the response I received to my e-mail letter regarding the 3C corridor (posted in this thread last Sunday).  Seems he's always raising new concerns without any information of his own to back up what he's saying.  This has really gotten tiresome....

 

March 31, 2010

Dear Mr. ------

 

Thank you for your correspondence regarding your support for the Ohio Department of Transportation’s recently announced passenger rail plan.  The 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail Corridor is an initiative aiming to implement conventional speed passenger rail connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati by 2012 via existing freight rail lines.

 

Ohio has been granted $400 million from the federal government to dedicate to passenger rail.  Unfortunately, the grant fails to cover the estimated $564 million in start-up costs (rail infrastructure upgrades, station construction, and equipment) included in the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) application to the federal government.  ODOT estimates that Ohio will also need to provide an additional $17 million per year to compliment annual revenue of the 3C “Quick Start” service.  The funding sources for both deficits are still unknown.

 

I am also concerned about the lack of data regarding potential ridership for the 3-C “Quick Start” plan, as well as the proponent’s claim that the plan will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

 

You can view ODOT’s full application to the federal government online at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/3CDocs.aspx#app.

 

The unclear nature of many key components of this program, specifically regarding financial resources, causes me great concern.

 

Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your views on this issue.  Please do not hesitate to do so in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

 

Sincerely,

Bill Harris

Senate President

Ohio Senate

 

 

Write him back and tell him.

Did it occur to Aaron Marshall that State Senator Jones was traveling at least at 78 MPH and texting while driving, as he recounted her "soccer mom smack talk" in his opening paragraphs of his story this morning?  But absolutely no recognition by Marshall of the fact that she was breaking the speed limit and texting at the same time, putting herself and everyone else at risk?

 

And then the completely unchallanged statement from Sen. Husted at the end??? :wtf:

 

 

'Snail rail' criticism dogs supporters of Ohio's 3C passenger rail plan

By Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

April 03, 2010, 5:44AM

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - State Sen. Shannon Jones had been barreling down I-71 on March 23 as she made her way to Columbus in the pre-dawn hours.

 

"Shhhh...don't tell anyone but I'm driving twice as fast on 71 to Columbus as Strickland's slow-speed rail," the Springboro Republican messaged on her Twitter account after completing her commute. "Even my soccer mom mobile can far exceed slow rail speeds," she sent a few minutes later.

 

Jones' soccer mom smack talk about the 39 mph average speed of the proposed 3C passenger rail line is one of the most persistent criticisms of the rail line championed by Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and designed to link Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

Full story at:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/04/snail_rail_criticism_dogs_supp.html

 

Can someone please do a trip comparison? I saw somewhere that the average speed via highway was not that much faster than the train. I'd bet that a Cincinnati-Cleveland drive would be a bout 45 mph avg speed, once you throw in a couple of potty stops.

 

And what's the deal with these reporters? Jones gets a pass on driving while tweeting and Husted goes unchallenged? The media must have been bought off or are totally ignorant, or both. :whip:

Did it occur to Aaron Marshall that State Senator Jones was traveling at least at 78 MPH and texting while driving, as he recounted her "soccer mom smack talk" in his opening paragraphs of his story this morning? But absolutely no recognition by Marshall of the fact that she was breaking the speed limit and texting at the same time, putting herself and everyone else at risk?

 

And then the completely unchallanged statement from Sen. Husted at the end??? :wtf:

 

 

'Snail rail' criticism dogs supporters of Ohio's 3C passenger rail plan

By Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

April 03, 2010, 5:44AM

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - State Sen. Shannon Jones had been barreling down I-71 on March 23 as she made her way to Columbus in the pre-dawn hours.

 

"Shhhh...don't tell anyone but I'm driving twice as fast on 71 to Columbus as Strickland's slow-speed rail," the Springboro Republican messaged on her Twitter account after completing her commute. "Even my soccer mom mobile can far exceed slow rail speeds," she sent a few minutes later.

 

Jones' soccer mom smack talk about the 39 mph average speed of the proposed 3C passenger rail line is one of the most persistent criticisms of the rail line championed by Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and designed to link Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

Full story at:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/04/snail_rail_criticism_dogs_supp.html

 

 

Just sent this:

 

"Shannon Jones tweets while driving at 78 mph? And gets a pass from the reporter, Aaron Marshall? She says she is driving at twice the speed of the train (avg 39 mph figure she is going by) and that means she was breaking the law by speeding at 78 mph AND tweeting at the same time, a very unsafe act. I suppose she read the paper and put on her makeup while driving also?

 

This from a state legislator. And worse yet, the reporter said nothing about that while going for the negative sound bite. While we are on the subject of average speed, what is the AVERAGE speed for a Cincinnati-Cleveland drive? I'd bet it's not more than 45 mph, once you toss in a stop for gas and remember, we are talking downtown to downtown, not suburb to suburb. Go from Fountain Square in Cincinnati to Public Square in Cleveland.

 

Quoting "Tweetie Jones" without question is bad enough, but at the end of the article we have an unchallenged quote from Sen. Husted, with the predictable negatives. First off, he quotes a memorandum, which is NOT a contract. There ARE places around the country where trains exceed 90 mph on frieght railroad tracks and any actual speeds will be based on a negotiated agreement.

 

Finally, where are the proponents? AP's Matt Leingang wrote a piece that quotes former Ohio Rail Development Commission and Ohio Hub plan architect Jim Seney (a Republican) as saying the project should proceed. He sees the value of this as does Gene Skoropowski, the former head of the Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose Capitol Corridor. Others, such as the the Ohio Environmental Council and All Aboard Ohio are left out. Why?

 

Please, let's have better research before writing."

Additional response made to reader comparing 155 mph European service with Ohio...unfavorably:

 

"Trains in Europe were not going 155 mph after WWII, when all they had was a bombed-out system and we had the greatest trains on Earth. Europeans wisely invested in their railroads for years, while we dumped our privately owned and operated trains in favor of publically supported roads.

 

THEY now have the world's greatest trains and WE have a third rate "system" that only now is beginning to see the investment which will be needed to overcome decades of neglect. THIS is why Ohio has no passenger trains between its major cities, other than middle-of-the-night Amtrak "service" in northern Ohio.

 

If we ever want to be competitive with other states and countries, we will have to make the investment in rail. The $400 million for 3-C is a start and remember this: All that naysaying negativism out there will not create one job. Not one. Ohio is already in economic trouble and throwing away this chance to advance ourselves will ensure that our state is a third rate backwater."

 

Additional:

 

"The type of high speed systems in Europe and elsewhere were built on a foundation that includes thousands of conventional speed trains. High speed rail comprises maybe 5-10% of what actually operates.

 

True high speed rail is a very expensive proposition. A study shows that a similar corridor (Chicago-St. Louis) will cost $1.2 billion to reach 110 mph, with a 4 hour trip time on conventional freight rail tracks and that 220 mph will cost ten times as much, or $12 billion for a 2 hour trip time on an all new right of way.

 

The $400 million for 3-C is a down payment toward the more reasonable 110 mph option. This is what the Ohio Hub plan calls for. The comparitively slow 3-C speed is for a startup line and schedules will get better as time goes by."

 

Here was my e-mail to Aaron. I like Aaron, but I don't know where he's coming from lately...

______________

 

So Shannon Jones was driving at 158 mph (79 mph X 2) while she was Tweeting? Did you contact the Highway Patrol to report her?

 

Aaron, what's this fascination with speed when:

 

1. Traveler surveys conducted by Amtrak show that the most important priorities for travelers are, in order: low fares, convenient departure times, reliability and then speed;

2. The 3C project that hasn't yet begun the final design phase;

3. That negotiations between ODOT, the track-owning freight railroads and Amtrak have only just now started.

 

Top speed is not relevant except only for those seeking trophies. Average speed is what counts in the travel business. Consider:

 

Toronto-Montreal

Top speed: 95 mph

End-to-end average speed: 61 to 74 mph

Distance: 335 miles

Travel time: 4.5 to 5.5 hours

 

New York-Boston

Top speed: 150 mph

End-to-end average speed: 54 to 66 mph

Distance: 231 miles

Travel time: 3.5 to 4.25 hours

 

Why did you not let someone challenge the final, inaccurate comment by John Husted? What he, Brent Larkin and the people they are listening to don’t understand is that Ohio has tried and failed four times to go from ZERO to high-speed. Or that Ohio is following a strategy of developing high-speed rail in prudent, cost-effective steps that has got Florida and California to the cusp of high-speed rail in the same manner that got Europe and Asia to high-speed rail. They are not interested in this because the people they are listening to (namely Chris Runyan at the Ohio Contractors Association -- rumored to be in line for ODOT director if John Kasich wins) don't want any passenger trains in Ohio at any speed because they are afraid we're going after "their" precious highway money.

 

BTW, you can go 110 mph on tracks used by freight trains: Section 24308 of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that if a rail carrier refuses to allow accelerated speeds on their tracks by trains operated by or for Amtrak, Amtrak may apply to the Secretary of Transportation for an order requiring the carrier to allow the accelerated speeds.  The Secretary is charged with determining whether the accelerated speeds are safe or unsafe and which improvements would be required to make accelerated speeds safe and practicable.  After an opportunity for a hearing on the matter, the Secretary can establish the maximum allowable speeds of Amtrak trains on terms the Secretary decides are reasonable. Freight railroad Union Pacific is allowing 110 mph on their tracks on a segment of the Chicago – St Louis Corridor.

 

The 58-mile section of CSX south of Galion to Columbus is a good candidate for 110 mph since CSX has only 5-10 freight trains per day on this segment. But even then, 110 mph doesn't get you much more travel time savings than 90 mph yet requires more infrastructure investment. It will become clear in the upcoming six-corridor Ohio Hub environmental impact study to start in summer, that if you stay at 90 mph by addressing the traffic choke points all along the 3C Corridor, not only do you end up with a really good average speed like in the Toronto-Montreal Corridor, but you also do tremendously good things for improving freight traffic flows and making Ohio's shippers happy. Please consider that as NS's Heartland Corridor and CSX's National Gateway corridors open up to fast intermodal freight trains after the Panama Canal is widened. 3C "Quick Start" is a win for passengers, freight and Ohio's railroad supplier industry that's the fourth-largest in the nation! If you'd like to learn more about this, please call me.

  "Traveler surveys conducted by Amtrak show that the most important priorities for travelers are, in order: low fares, convenient departure times, reliability and then speed."

 

  I generally agree with you here except that I would not put much confidence in surveys conducted by Amtrak. People will say one thing and do another.

 

  In my humble opinion, what matters most to a lot of people is the door to door travel time, including trips to the station or stop whether by car or foot. Travelling an hour in the wrong direction to the station for example is not going to be favorable for most people.

 

    An an example, suppose that a traveller has two choices to get from Loveland to downtown Columbus:

 

  1. Drive 30 minutes to Sharonville. Pay for parking, park, and walk 5 minutes to station. Wait 10 minutes for train. Stop in Dayton. Arrive in Columbus. Walk 5 minutes to destination in downtown Columbus.

 

  2. Drive direct from Loveland to Columbus on I-71. Pay for parking, and walk 5 minutes to destination.

 

  Option 1 has 40 extra minutes, not even counting the differences in distance or average running speed.

 

  If the only choices are low fares, convenient departure times, reliability and then speed, then the whole picture isn't known.

 

    I'm not saying that rail won't work in certain situation. I'm saying that the survey doesn't necessarily prove your point. We are not really comparing a slow train with a fast train; we are really comparing the railroad with the highway. Opponents don't necessarily know the difference between peak speed and average speed, or the difference between running speed and trip speed. In fact, bringing up speed in the first place may have hurt the rail cause overall.

 

    Opponents want to know, "Why should my government spend money on this project when we already have a highway system?"  Unfortunately, the message seems to be all about speed, with an environmental component, when it should be about mobility.

Here was my e-mail to Aaron. I like Aaron, but I don't know where he's coming from lately...

______________

 

So Shannon Jones was driving at 158 mph (79 mph X 2) while she was Tweeting? Did you contact the Highway Patrol to report her?

 

Aaron, what's this fascination with speed when:

 

1. Traveler surveys conducted by Amtrak show that the most important priorities for travelers are, in order: low fares, convenient departure times, reliability and then speed;

2. The 3C project that hasn't yet begun the final design phase;

3. That negotiations between ODOT, the track-owning freight railroads and Amtrak have only just now started.

 

Top speed is not relevant except only for those seeking trophies. Average speed is what counts in the travel business. Consider:

 

Toronto-Montreal

Top speed: 95 mph

End-to-end average speed: 61 to 74 mph

Distance: 335 miles

Travel time: 4.5 to 5.5 hours

 

New York-Boston

Top speed: 150 mph

End-to-end average speed: 54 to 66 mph

Distance: 231 miles

Travel time: 3.5 to 4.25 hours

 

Why did you not let someone challenge the final, inaccurate comment by John Husted? What he, Brent Larkin and the people they are listening to dont understand is that Ohio has tried and failed four times to go from ZERO to high-speed. Or that Ohio is following a strategy of developing high-speed rail in prudent, cost-effective steps that has got Florida and California to the cusp of high-speed rail in the same manner that got Europe and Asia to high-speed rail. They are not interested in this because the people they are listening to (namely Chris Runyan at the Ohio Contractors Association -- rumored to be in line for ODOT director if John Kasich wins) don't want any passenger trains in Ohio at any speed because they are afraid we're going after "their" precious highway money.

 

BTW, you can go 110 mph on tracks used by freight trains: Section 24308 of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that if a rail carrier refuses to allow accelerated speeds on their tracks by trains operated by or for Amtrak, Amtrak may apply to the Secretary of Transportation for an order requiring the carrier to allow the accelerated speeds. The Secretary is charged with determining whether the accelerated speeds are safe or unsafe and which improvements would be required to make accelerated speeds safe and practicable. After an opportunity for a hearing on the matter, the Secretary can establish the maximum allowable speeds of Amtrak trains on terms the Secretary decides are reasonable. Freight railroad Union Pacific is allowing 110 mph on their tracks on a segment of the Chicago St Louis Corridor.

 

The 58-mile section of CSX south of Galion to Columbus is a good candidate for 110 mph since CSX has only 5-10 freight trains per day on this segment. But even then, 110 mph doesn't get you much more travel time savings than 90 mph yet requires more infrastructure investment. It will become clear in the upcoming six-corridor Ohio Hub environmental impact study to start in summer, that if you stay at 90 mph by addressing the traffic choke points all along the 3C Corridor, not only do you end up with a really good average speed like in the Toronto-Montreal Corridor, but you also do tremendously good things for improving freight traffic flows and making Ohio's shippers happy. Please consider that as NS's Heartland Corridor and CSX's National Gateway corridors open up to fast intermodal freight trains after the Panama Canal is widened. 3C "Quick Start" is a win for passengers, freight and Ohio's railroad supplier industry that's the fourth-largest in the nation! If you'd like to learn more about this, please call me.

 

What's Aaron's email address?

Free parking is envisioned at smaller stations like Sharonville. And why walk five minutes to the station? It's likely you will park less than 50 feet from the station platform....

 

 

And travel time is productive time on the train so that you work, eat, study, surf the Web and, yes, Tweet at 79 mph if you so desire.

 

At $20 round trip Cincinnati-Columbus, that's worth it to me.