Congratulations are in order to All Aboard Erie for this! All Aboard Ohio assisted the creation of a new organization called All Aboard Erie which began in early 2009 and quickly rallied support in the community for passenger rail improvements in the Cleveland - Erie - Buffalo Lake Erie Corridor. So it's especially pleasing to me to see All Aboard Erie's success. Here's another article. ...

 

Pa. seeks study funds for Erie rail expansion

Thursday, May 20, 2010

By Jon Schmitz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

Pennsylvania has applied for a $1.6 million federal grant to study possible expansion of rail service between Ohio and New York State through Erie, Gov. Ed Rendell announced today.

 

If selected for the federal grant, PennDOT will put up $400,000 in state funds to complete the study.

 

"The Lake Erie Corridor has significant public support for its potential to expand rail service among Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and points beyond," Mr. Rendell said.

 

Read More At:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10140/1059613-100.stm#ixzz0oiZaD8PG

New 3C article on UrbanCincy.com by yours truly:

 

Cincinnati’s 3C Dilemma: The Way Forward

 

One day in 1934, New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia was on a TWA flight back home from Chicago, and his ticket indicated New York as the plane’s final destination. However, the plane landed in Newark, New Jersey, as that was the only airport in the New York region open to commercial aviation at the time. The stubborn mayor refused to get off the plane in Newark, insisting that he be brought to the city indicated on his ticket. “Newark is not New York,” he exclaimed. His flight ultimately continued to Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, and when the plane landed, the mayor — never willing to let a juicy PR moment go to waste — hosted an impromptu press conference to reporters about New York City’s need for its own airport. Within five years, an airport would be built in Queens that would bear Mayor LaGuardia’s name.

 

A great deal of virtual ink has been expended in recent months regarding the proposed 3C passenger rail line that will link Ohio’s three largest cities and serve as the foundation for future development of a true high-speed rail line across the state. In regards to the station location for the Cincinnati end of the 3C line, we face a dilemma not unlike the one Mayor LaGuardia faced in New York. If the rail line ends in Sharonville, does the 3C line really serve one of its three namesake C’s? Will there come a day when Mayor Mallory refuses to exit the train at Sharonville, insisting that it continue all the way into the city limits of Cincinnati?

 

Full article

Good article, David. But I'm surprised you didn't list Longworth Hall/Crosset among the station site options, as it was the site recommended in 2004 by the city's Engineering Department as the best place for a Cincinnati train station.

Is that the old Amtrak site? I didn't know they were seriously considering that site again. Presumably it would suffer the same capacity issues through the Mill Creek Valley as CUT, so why not just run the trains to CUT?

Good article, David. But I'm surprised you didn't list Longworth Hall/Crosset among the station site options, as it was the site recommended in 2004 by the city's Engineering Department as the best place for a Cincinnati train station.

 

Probably because it still requires the full extent of capacity improvements required to reach Union Terminal, plus more, just like the Riverfront Transit Center.  One other thing not mentioned is the possibility that the Bond Hill station could be built just off the mainline to CUT (at Berry Yard, right at the I-75/Norwood Lateral interchange), not requiring any rehab of the Oasis line at all.  The question remains though if the congestion between Sharonville/Mill Junction and Ivorydale Junction/NA Tower is severe enough that such a location would still be handicapped by delays.  Since the directional running of trains is mostly southbound in that stretch, I suspect it is more susceptible to delays by freight trains waiting to get into Queensgate, and that stretch could require a third main track south of Sharonville/Mill as part of the overall fourth main project. 

No, the old Amtrak is the River Road site and is farther west. Longworth Hall is the long B&O warehouse just below the Brent Spence Bridge. But yes, 3C trains would have to deal with the Mill Creek Valley congestion issues as they would with CUT. On the good side, Longworth Hall-Crosset is quite a bit closer to downtown than CUT, accessible to all potential intercity passenger rail services and even could use the former B&O main as a dedicated passenger line on the west side of Mill Creek to bypass Queensgate. On the bad side, it faces flooding risks...

 

 

 

Looking east. Longworth Hall B&O warehouse is on the right. Brent Spence is ahead...

In case of flooding, there could be limited service out of CUT. no?

 

Nevermind, I see we're on the other side of the Mill Creek.

It's funny how history bounces back and forth, since Longworth hall is only about two blocks west of the original Central Union Depot, which was at the corner of 3rd and Central.  About half of the rail lines into town used that station (though funny enough, NOT the CH&D/B&O line).  Flooding of the platforms and approaches was a primary concern, and still is, though natininja makes a good point that other arrangements can be made when necessary.  It's only a problem once every decade or two anyway. 

 

  Ugh, who wants to walk under that ugly highway infrastructure to get to downtown? Plus, it's still pretty far from downtown, especially from the concentraion of business at the 6th and Vine area.

 

  Pedestrians are very sensitive to distance. TANK buses quit using Dixie Terminal in favor of 6th Street just to save their users 2 blocks.

David is spot on.  From what has been proposed, CUT is the best bet.  Build a limited facility and roll the possible surplus into financing the 4tha main to CUT.  The money for the study has already been awarded so it is proceeding forward.  I've heard there is congestion on the Kentucky side as well but I am not sure if it affects the freight bottleneck north of CUT. 

Since the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) is mandated by the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act, it is important to see what the freight railroads are saying about the costs and who should bear or share them....

 

NS: PTC mandate accelerates track spending    

Monday, May 24, 2010 

 

Meeting the federal government's mandate for installing positive train control by the end of 2015 requires spending that goes far beyond implementation of the technology itself.

 

In a form 10K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Norfolk Southern identifies PTC and related costs and puts them into the context of total capital spending requirements.

 

“NS expects total capital expenditures for 2010 to be approximately $1.44 billion,” the filing said.

 

Full story at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/norfolk-southern-ptc-mandate-accelerates-track-spending.html

Considering where KJP drew in the location, that is probably not the hottest spot in the city. It's in an industrial park, there is little potential for future development (at this time), and the whole alignment of Interstate 75 will be shifting in the near future so whatever may be planned has to be coordinated with that project. I like the idea of having HSR end there, and I'm sold on using the former CH&D/B&O SW main, but the station itself is too far isolated physically by Interstate 75.

Yeah, it's an article from another city about another state's rail project. But it works best here....

 

Madison Magazine / June 2010

Long Train Comin'

By John Roach

 

The naysayers are going nuts with this initiative. They bellow boondoggle and demand to know who will pay for all of the tracks and cars. And fairly point to Amtrak as a post office on wheels, bleeding money at taxpayers expense, adding to an already bloated deficit.

Fine. But they are wrong. The smarter argument is that modern train travel is an investment in the interstate highway system of the new century.

 

I feel qualified to hold court on this issue. For thirteen years I drove to Chicago every single Monday morning. Now business takes me to Chicago and Milwaukee weekly. And if any of the rail critics ever bothered to look out the window of the McDonalds during their three hours of morning coffee they would notice that Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison are becoming one large market. The sooner we make travel efficient and fast between our market centers, the more vital our region will be. Better yet, Madison stands to be the biggest winner as we are the smallest market.

 

But still folks have Train Anger. To be a helpful guy, I offer you some explanations to use with Rail Haters when they foam at the mouth. Best to speak slowly when doing this.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.madisonmagazine.com/Madison-Magazine/June-2010/Long-Train-Comin-039/

After reading about the Cincinnati Enquirer's coverage of the streetcar project in the streetcar thread, now I'm worried about the article they're going to write about 3C trains in the next day or two. They were asking some "fishing" and "fill in the blank" questions.

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/may/26/nbc-4-puts-passenger-rail-test-ar-89414/

NBC 4 Puts The Passenger Rail To The Test

 

For about a year, talk around Ohio has been focused on bringing passenger rail service between Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

 

Opinions about the service have been on both sides of the tracks, with many people saying they can't imagine what that kind of service would look like.

 

So, NBC 4 decided to take a ride to Michigan, where Amtrak runs a similar train to the proposed plan in Ohio.

After reading about the Cincinnati Enquirer's coverage of the streetcar project in the streetcar thread, now I'm worried about the article they're going to write about 3C trains in the next day or two. They were asking some "fishing" and "fill in the blank" questions.

 

Who did you receive a call from, if you can remember?

^

"The train isn't faster than a car, but it is less expensive for those who ride it, and more expensive for those who don't."

 

Well, that is really easy to say, but shouldn't they do a bit more analysis? How much does a train rider/non-driver pay for the roads between Royal Oak and Ann Arbor? How much development has the rail line produced, per dollar, versus money spent on the highway (in some fixed timeframe)? What about emissions and related costs?

 

More lazy reporting, intended for a blissfully ignorant audience. Why they even bothered to send reporters to ride a train in Michigan is beyond me.

Now I'm convinced. Too many reporters in Ohio are too ignorant, too biased or too lazy to cover transportation accurately.

 

They raced from Royal Oak to Dearborn? Of course the car beat the train. It's the slowest section of the Wolverine Corridor where the train travels 19 miles in 46 minutes for an average speed of 25 miles per hour. Why couldn't the car beat the train by more? Had they raced from Dearborn to Ann Arbor, the train would have had a better shot at beating the car as it covers the 30 miles in 27-37 minutes (46-67 mph) depending on which of the six daily trains are measured.

 

And I'm sick and tired of singling out trains as the only subsidized mode....

 

The train isn't faster than a car, but it is less expensive for those who ride it, and more expensive for those who don't.

 

OK that's bullsh!t, Denise. Ohio's $17 million for 3C is less than $1.50 per Ohioan. Why single that out from the $104.34 per-Ohioan highway subsidy? Or are you going to assume that every adult Ohioan drives -- when 8.5 percent of Ohio households have no car. Or did you, like more and more reporters these days, be lazy and just assume that only trains are subsidized?

 

And why throw in there that the 3C subsidy of $17 million is a conservative number? Spare us the editorial comment. Stick to reporting the news rather than creating it.

 

You focused on the $563 million (not $1 billion) Amtrak subsidy for the entire country and ignored the $1.2 billion Ohio -- just Ohio -- subsidizes its highway system per year, according to the Federal Highway Administration. See Pew's Subsidyscope report which drew from FHWA data: http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/

 

++ How much did ODOT spend on subsidizing railroad operations last year? How about ZERO dollars. Private industry owns, maintains and finances the rail infrastructure and receives no state operating grants.

 

++ Plus you ignored the $9.2 billion in tax dollars ODOT will be spending on 3C interstates between 2008-2015. Much of that is coming from the stimulus, too, with no identified long-term funding source to operate, maintain and sustain this expanded highway infrastructure. Or do you think roads are free?

 

++ Plus you ignored the $53 billion from the federal general fund that's being used to prop up the insolvent federal highway trust fund, or just being paid directly for road projects in federal stimulus grants (including 3C highway projects) which is the same thing.

 

++ Plus you ignored the $300 million per year taxpayers shell out for the Ohio Highway Patrol which used to be paid for by gas taxes. There is $30 million annually for the patrol that's being paid for by fines on delinquent BMV fees. But why not confront Senate Republicans about why they have no problem introducing legislation to erase those fines and transfer that $30 million burden to the Ohio General Fund but scream bloody murder over $17 million for passenger trains?

 

++ Plus you ignored the little fact that the Michigan Department of Transportation doesn't even subsidize the Wolverine Corridor you rode. Or didn't that matter to you either?

 

I'm convinced that Ohio is the state of double-standards and your report is complicit in aiding and abetting that ignorance about our transportation system. Or maybe you just don't care.

 

Such sloppiness. Makes me sick.

Want a better video about what the 3C Corridor could look like. Go to:

 

http://www.viarail.ca/en/business

 

Then click on the image in the box at right, titled:

"IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM, COMFORT AND SERVICE"

Why is it that rail proponents act like the highway system and roads are only used for personal travel?  Our entire economy is based on using these roads to get goods to market. 

Uh.... DanB....have you noticed that more and more of our economy is actually moving on freight trains to get goods to market.

KJP.... e-mail Mike Bowersock and tell him exactly what you posted above.

Yes, but the trains don't deliver to the grocery stores.

And if trucks delivered food over the entire route you'd be paying a whole lot more for it.

 

The point is rail has 40 percent of the freight market and highways have just 27 percent.

 

So why do faux conservatives deny that the cost of using the roads would rise substantially if you paid the market price for it, and there would be substantially fewer users as a result? Can we agree that all public-sector funding should be withheld to all transportation modes, all transportation taxes ended, and that all roads, bridges, airports, air traffic control centers, water ports and rail lines should be sold to the highest bidders in the private sector, and if no bidders emerge then each orphaned facility should be left to rot? If not, then why do you fault the railroads for still owning their own infrastructure while every other mode is government owned? Why is it so hard to understand that roads and airports get their infrastructure subsidized so they can be used by private vehicles, while the opposite is true in the passenger rail industry simply because it grew up in different eras?

Yes, but the trains don't deliver to the grocery stores.

Yet again you are trolling.

 

If a train carries groceries 95+% of a trip, but doesn't actually carry to the loading dock behind the grocery store, that does not make road infrastructure between shipping and delivery points more integral to the trip than rail infrastructure. And, yes, that is something you were implying. We get that you are skeptical, but try harder to come up with points to be skeptical about.

 

Are you having trouble articulating what points you're skeptical about? Do you even believe what you post? Or are you just trying to play devil's advocate?

 

Not totally relevant to the topic at hand, but:

I will also point out that groceries are a special case, because shipping time is much more integral (as it relates to shipping cost), with perishable goods. Other products are probably even more likely to be shipped by train (I am speculating, I don't know stats), though that is not to say that perishable groceries aren't quite often shipped by train. (I know OJ isn't the quickest expiring of groceries, so this maybe isn't the best example, but it's a fun link. It also highlights the issue of refrigeration.)

I understand freight being shipped by train.  Thats not what we are talking about here.  We are talking a passenger rail route between Cincinnati and Cleveland.  Roads are subsidized because everyone and everything uses them.  The roads are still needed to get from the train depot to EVERYWHERE else.

 

Please stop accusing me of trolling.  Just because I might not necessarily agree with you, doesn't mean I am trolling.

 

No, everybody uses them BECAUSE they are subsidized. Highways aren't the free market. They're social engineering on a grand scale not seen even in communist countries. China is using more private financing to build its highway network than we did in ours.

 

My anger is directed at this unfuriating, careless and uninformed double-standard to which so-called fiscal conservatives hold the 3C project.

 

 

freight is also shipped on this route dan.  and the upgrades that will make passenger rail possible will also pay divedends for the freight rail roads.

 

let's please stop pretending that the only thing that happens on these tracks is some amusement park ride.

"let's please stop pretending that the only thing that happens on these tracks is some amusement park ride."

 

Please site your sources.

McCleveland, I'm glad you mentioned that. Here is All Aboard Ohio's estimation of the impact of the 3C passenger rail on 3C freight rail, and thus on 3C highway bridge/pavement conditions....

 

From this document:

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

 

Reduced highway pavement/bridge damage costs

 

In order to enable 3-C Corridor passenger rail service, the state will likely

have to use much of the ARRA (federal stimulus) grant to finance capacity

enhancements to freight railroad-owned rights of way.

 

For long periods of each day and throughout each night, there will be no

passenger trains on 3-C Corridor tracks. Technical data being amassed by

the major transportation engineering and consulting firms estimates the

construction of additional passing sidings and/or main tracks when

combined with the addition of a federally required Positive Train Control

signaling system could increase overall rail corridor throughput capacity by

15 percent. That will allow freight railroads to accommodate freight rail

traffic growth and enhance rail service reliability and efficiency.

 

Some of the freight traffic would likely come from totally new shipping

activity. However most new rail freight traffic industry-wide is likely to come

from increased market share, according to the American Association of

State Highway Transportation Officials’ Freight Rail Bottom Line Report

(see http://freight.transportation.org/doc/FreightRailReport.pdf). The

report said that this could have profound impacts by making highway

pavement and bridges last longer with fewer trucks damaging them.

 

A report by the Kansas Rural Development Council looked at impacts on

highway pavement conditions if short-line freight railroads were shut down

and rail traffic was diverted from train to truck. The report (see

http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/Rural/KansasFreight.htm) found

that pavement damage ranged from $4 to $8 per truck-mile/year.

 

That data works in reverse, too, resulting in cost savings to transportation

departments. Thus, for each truck-mile/year diverted to rail saves $4 to $8

in highway pavement damage. The Kansas Rural Development Council’s

estimate did not include damage to highway bridge structures.

 

All Aboard Ohio estimates that the 3-C Corridor right of way capacity

enhancements could allow the freight railroads to divert 400,000 truckmiles

per year to trains, saving ODOT $1.6 million to $3.2 million per year

in having to repair highway pavement damage. All Aboard Ohio used the

higher end of the range to account for the savings from reduced damage to

highway bridge structures.

 

It’s noteworthy that freight would be transferred from government-owned

and maintained highway rights of way to corporate-owned and maintained

railroad rights of way. Right of way maintenance costs would similarly be

transferred. They are now borne by taxpayers but instead would be borne

by private enterprise. That would reduce the burden on taxpayers and

should be favored by fiscal conservatives. Additional transfers statewide

(and even nationally) could help state and federal transportation

departments cope with gas tax funding shortfalls by reducing highway

maintenance expenses.

 

All Aboard Ohio calculated the reduced highway repair and maintenance

costs as follows in these 3-C Corridor operating segments:

 

Cleveland-Berea (NS Chicago Line)

Route miles: 12

Daily rail traffic: 90 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 22,500 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 270,000

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 40,500 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $324,000

 

Berea-Greenwich (CSX Greenwich Subdivision)

Route miles: 42

Daily rail traffic: 70 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 17,500 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 735,000

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 110,250 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $882,000

 

Greenwich-Galion (CSX Greenwich Subdivision)

Route miles: 24

Daily rail traffic: 30 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 7,500 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 180,000

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 27,050 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $216,000

 

Galion-Columbus (CSX Columbus Line Subdivision)

Route miles: 57

Daily rail traffic: 15 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 3,750 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 213,750

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 32,063 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $256,504

 

Central Columbus (mixed segments of CSX & NS)

Route miles: 10

Daily rail traffic: 45 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 11,250 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 112,500

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 16,875 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $135,000

 

Columbus-Dayton (NS Dayton District)

Route miles: 65

Daily rail traffic: 35 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 8,750 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 568,750

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 85,313 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $682,504

 

Dayton-Winton Place (NS Dayton District)

Route miles: 45

Daily rail traffic: 40 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 10,000 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 450,000

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 67,500 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $540,000

 

Winton Place-Cincinnati (CSX Cincinnati Terminal Subdivision)

Route miles: 5

Daily rail traffic: 100 freight trains

Equivalent truck traffic (@250 trucks/train): 25,000 trucks

Equivalent truck traffic (truck-miles): 125,000

3-C Corridor capacity enhancement (@15%): 18,750 truck miles

Annual highway maintenance savings: $150,000

 

TOTALS

 

398,251 (round to 400,000) fewer annual truck-miles.

 

Saves $3,186,008 (round to $3.2 million) in total highway repair and

maintenance costs per year.

"let's please stop pretending that the only thing that happens on these tracks is some amusement park ride."

 

Please site your sources.

 

feel free to look at the information KJP just posted.

Oh, and if you account for the duplicative rail traffic from one 3C Corridor segment to another, the 3C tracks host a daily average freight traffic level that's equivalent to 70,000 trucks per day.

 

One some of the rural sections of I-71 where there's less than 40,000 total highway vehicles daily, the 3C railroad tracks carry far more total highway-vehicle equivalents than I-71 does -- and MANY TIMES more truck-equivalent traffic.

 

Doesn't sound like an amusement park ride to me.

By the way, one thought for those "opposed" to moving forward with this project (differentiated from those that don't see a benefit to themselves but are ambivelent to the project itself).

 

If this had been presented as the federal government awarding the state of Ohio $450m to upgrade its freight rail lines.  And if we turn down that money (money we the tax payers have already given), it would simply go to another state (giving us no return on the tax $ we had already paid).  And that as an added bonus for aproximately $17m a year... closer to $3m a year the first 3 years (again using tax $ we have already paid that will go somewhere else if we choose not to use them) we can have passenger rail travel.

 

Ummm... what on earth is there to be so "against"?

"let's please stop pretending that the only thing that happens on these tracks is some amusement park ride."

 

Please site your sources.

 

I'm sorry for accusing you of trolling. I thought we all had common ground knowledge that 3C trains are to be run on tracks used for freight. Now that you know this, you must surely see why your appeal to the trains not delivering to grocery stores makes for an argument with an invalid premise.

 

Again, I'm sorry for misinterpreting your statement. I thought you were making a point about the endpoints of shipment/delivery, rather than the entire process.

Yes, but the trains don't deliver to the grocery stores.

 

Great insight into the obvious.  But that's not what I was saying.  Trucks still make the "last mile" delivery of goods, but more and more shippers are making their long-haul shipments by rail.  Why do you think Ohio is the base for a new intermodal yard (NS) at Rickenbacker Air Base near Columbus, another one under construction at North Baltimore (CSX) and a third (also CSX) planned for South Columbus?  CSX also works out of a three-year-old intermodal yard at Marion, Ohio.

 

But this is the 3C "passenger rail" thread....so let's get back on topic.

The headline is worse than the article...

 

After $25 million study, construction of Ohio rail not likely

By Danny Peterson

[email protected]

Published: Wednesday, May 26, 2010

 

Students who celebrated the announcement of a passenger rail between Ohio’s largest cities might not want to sell their cars just yet.

 

Ohio’s 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail Plan still includes a number of unanswered questions. Details from an ongoing study might determine whether the plan will come to fruition.

 

Opponents on the state controlling board say that if the study does not meet their concerns, the project will not get the votes it needs to pass. If it does not pass, Ohio will have to return the $400 million awarded to the state by the federal government.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.thelantern.com/campus/after-25-million-study-construction-of-ohio-rail-not-likely-1.1485925

BTW, Amtrak's state-corridor public operating support averages $27.31 per train-mile nationwide (http://www.amtrakoig.gov/(S(iv1ihg55esskr145ao5mwh21))/Reports%5CE-08-02-042208.PDF). 3C is 255 miles and will see six trains per day running the length of the corridor. That's 1,530 train-miles per day, or 558,450 train-miles per year. Divide $17 million by 558,450 and you get $30 per train-mile.

 

That's why the $17 million estimate is probably too high, not too low...

My original point was ON topic.  It had to do with the point that all pro-discussion of the 3C comparison to roads assumes that all road subsidies have to do with personal travel.  I was only pointing out that roads and highways are critical for our economy.  I never said that these same rails didn't carry freight, or that freight rail wasn't critical to the shipment of goods to market.  I didn't bring up freight. 

 

Whether 3C happens or not, these rails will still carry freight based on their commercial viability.

Whether 3C happens or not, these rails will still carry freight based on their commercial viability.

 

They will likely be able to carry more freight and faster if 3-C happens.  There IS a benefit for the freight component in this project as well.

 

And what does it say that trains are commercially viable even though we dump assloads more money into roads?

Dan, by bringing up groceries, you were bringing up freight.

FRA Release....http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/205.shtml

 

DOT 104-10

Contact: Mark Paustenbach

Telephone: 202-493-6024

 

Thursday, May 27, 2010 Washington, DC

Nearly $80 Million in High-Speed Rail Funds Delivered to States

Vice President Biden Praises First Round of Grants

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation today announced that nearly $80 million in grants have been delivered to states as part of President Obama's historic high-speed and intercity passenger rail program.  These grants will go toward the development of a brand new Recovery Act funded high-speed rail system in Florida as well as critical upgrades to existing passenger rail service throughout the country.

 

"Delivering these funds is an important step forward in our efforts to upgrade and transform America's transportation system, while spurring economic activity and creating jobs here at home," said Vice President Joe Biden. "Our unprecedented investment in high-speed and intercity passenger rail is not only going to provide real environmental benefits and greater convenience for travelers, but also long-term economic development for communities across the country."

 

"The President's vision for high-speed rail will forever change the way Americans travel by offering new transportation options," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.  "The grants released today are merely the very beginning of many more to follow."

 

The $80 million in funding will benefit projects in many regions of the country, including:

 

$66,600,000 for program management and preliminary engineering on the planned 168mph high-speed rail service between Tampa and Orlando, Florida. This project will create jobs and generate economic activity as 84 miles of track are constructed, stations are built or enhanced, and equipment is purchased. Along with California, Florida was the only state to submit plans to the Department of Transportation to create a brand new, high-speed rail line.

 

$6,200,000 for track relocation work in California on the Capitol Corridor which will help bring about fewer delays and faster travel times along a route that connects San Francisco and Sacramento, the state capital.

 

$5,700,000 for environmental assessments of planned new stations on the route between Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin that will host passenger rail service operating at speeds up to 110mph.

 

$1,000,000 for planning projects to improve service on the Empire Corridor in New York state. The 468-mile Empire Corridor connects all of New York's largest cities. The near-term vision for the corridor is to increase passenger train speeds to 110mph.

 

$100,000 for the creation of the first-ever rail plan for the state of New Mexico. This plan will help the state create a blueprint for passenger rail development that will eventually link major cities in the Southwest.

 

The President's $8 billion down payment for high-speed rail, which was set in motion through a long-term plan announced in April 2009, is expected to create or save tens of thousands of jobs over time in areas like track-laying, manufacturing, planning, engineering, and rail maintenance and operations. The majority of the President's Recovery Act passenger rail funding will go toward developing new, large-scale high-speed rail programs.

 

In addition to the $8 billion in Recovery Act funding, the Administration proposes a minimum $1 billion a year for five years in the federal budget to jump-start this multi-decade effort. Congress funded this program above and beyond the President's initial request and allocated $2.5 billion for Fiscal Year 2010.

 

To learn more about President Obama's Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, please visit: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/31.shtml

 

OK....back to passenger rail:

 

Check out how our neighbors up North view passenger rail as a travel option.

 

http://extranet.viarail.ca/images/Documents/video/2519_vid_haut.wmv

Check out how our neighbors up North view passenger rail as a travel option.

 

http://extranet.viarail.ca/images/Documents/video/2519_vid_haut.wmv

 

HA HA... already posted it on the previous page.

Here's two graphics from Gradling.com worth sharing....

 

http://www.gadling.com/2010/05/27/train-travel-in-the-usa/

 

This represents all railroad passengers (commuter, regional, intercity) regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration. The source of the data is the FRA:

 

This one is pretty self-explanatory:

Mo Egger from 1530 had this to say on his blog today.  I think some of us can relate:

 

Anyone who thinks this city doesn't need some sort of light rail system didn't try to drive around yesterday. Three and a half f***ing hours to drive from Sharonville, arrive in Florence, run a two minute errand, and drive back to Sharonville.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Passenger Rail Symposium, Day 1: Hooray for High Speed Rail

by Drew Reed on May 27, 2010

for Streetsblog

 

Last Monday afternoon, at the same building which one month earlier bore host to the Long Beach Grand Prix, an entirely different (and thankfully quieter) event was about to take place: the Passenger Rail Symposium. Hosted by the Community Transportation Association of America as part of the larger EXPO transit convention, this is the first year this event has been held.

 

Scott Bogren, Editor in Chief of CTAA's Rail Magazine and one of the main organizers of the event, said that he was pleased that this year's EXPO took notice of rail transportation; in previous years, the event had primarily focused on buses. But attendees seemed enthusiastic to see what the rail symposium was all about, most coming from transit agencies across the country with a few local rail fans sprinkled in.

 

Full report at: http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/05/27/passenger-rail-symposium-day-1-hooray-for-high-speed-rail/

Here is how folks in New England increasingly are getting around....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/8deecb3d42.pdf (2MB download)

I remember seeing this when NNEPRA Executive Director Patricia Quinn made this presentation in 06.  A very good background on how the Downeaster got started.

Wow, an article which attempts to be even-handed! Pretty incredible! Plus, several quotes from our own KJP.

 

Stakes huge for rail plan

Are trains the future, or a new miscalculation?

By Barry M. Horstman • [email protected]  • May 29, 2010

 

In the mid-1800s, Cincinnati guessed wrong about public transportation, betting that water would continue to be the nation's primary mode when most of the rest of America saw railroads as the future - a choice with impacts still being felt today.

 

More than a century and a half later, railroads again loom prominently on the city's horizon, with an ambitious plan for a statewide rail network offering Cincinnati, many believe, a chance to correct that historical mistake - or repeat it.

 

Read More

    "Three and a half hours to drive from Sharonville, arrive in Florence, run a two minute errand, and drive back to Sharonville. "

 

  That drive takes an hour on a good day. Who ever drives an hour for a two minute errand?