^--- Cool! So how did you manage to book this trip?

 

    Not many trains make it to the boathouse anymore but I saw one recently and it was travelling at about 5 mph.

Good, looks like the Oasis line will be used a wee bit more.

 

Am I correct in that the Berry Yard was on the chopping block anyhow? I think I came across some news about this on the CincyRails forum not too long ago. It would make sense to install a station there -- as "temporary" as it may be, given the yard's potential demise.

 

  How were they going to get to Berry Yard? Take a circuitous route through Norwood, or construct new ROW between the OASIS line and Berry Yard?

 

    Interestingly, Berry Yard is connected by an abandoned line to the former CL&N through Idlewild. Portions of the CL&N between Cincinnati and Norwood are owned by SORTA; there are a few gaps where the ROW has not been preserved. I wonder if it is feasible to extend the 3-C to downtown Cincinnati via the CL&N? Alternatively, I wonder if it is feasible to terminate the 3-C at Berry Yard and connect to downtown over the CL&N with Light Rail.

 

    Too bad the CL&N doesn't go close to U.C. Terminating the 3-C in Sharonville with light rail service between Sharonville and Downtown with a stop at U.C. east campus and west campus would be a very good situation. 

I know this is the wrong place to ask this, but I'm not sure where is appropriate. It's peripherally relevant to 3C.

 

What would Cincinnatians regard as the safest route from CUT to Northside, by bicycle, assuming arrival on the Cardinal at 1:30 a.m.?

 

  Spring Grove Avenue is probably the most direct route, and it's nearly level. I would feel as safe on Spring Grove as any other route.

 

   

 

^--- Cool! So how did you manage to book this trip?

 

The owner happened across my website and after someone else canceled he invited me along to talk about the history of the line that he runs over and that the two other guys own/operate.  Here's a few pictures I snapped.  Note that they routinely sell out, but I got there early enough that not many people were there so it was easier to walk around.  The first dining car is the one that used to be on blocks in BBQ Revue's parking lot a few years ago. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How were they going to get to Berry Yard?

 

Ultimately that remains to be seen, but there's a track connecting it with the NS line, former Big Four, that's on the way to Union Terminal.  The kicker is that the connection only ponts south, so they'd need to lay a new track so trains from the north can get in and out without having to back in.  Of course there's a building in the way.  I doubt any of this has been sorted out yet.

Glen Gardner, Public News Service - OH

Training for Increased Business

June 9, 2010

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Some business boosters in Ohio say they could really use the influx of people that passenger rail service would bring to the state's major urban areas. The 3-C project would spend $400 million in federal stimulus money to build a passenger system that links the three-C's: Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland.

 

Elan Daniel of Columbus Young Professionals says pinning all transportation plans to the automobile is a mistake.

 

"Having that diversity, just like you would have with any business mix in a city, is very important. It should be the same way with transportation options."

 

Daniel, who works in real estate and urban planning, says it's likely that gas prices will spike again, and when it does, passenger rail would be a great insurance policy for businesses in downtown areas that depend on the movement of people to survive.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/14362-1

I actually went back and dug up all of my records, and that of my prior vehicle (2001 Honda Civic), and I cannot come anywhere NEAR close to .50/mile cost for driving, even after adding fuel, insurance and maintenance. I can't even get it to peak over .20/mile. Combined, I've put on nearly 300,000 miles, and incurred no major breakdowns outside of a transmission failure, and a very minor resetting of the muffler after I ran over a deer carcass. That also includes one frontal accident ($4,000+) that actually lowered my insurance rates (at the age of 20) at my fault, and one rear accident ($4,000+) that slightly raised my insurance rates (at the age of 24) that was not my fault.

 

I actually went over this with Xavier on a conference trip to Charlottesville, Va. last year. I wanted to drive my own vehicle because I had planned on taking off two extra days to do some hiking at Dolly Sods. But even after I went to our Budgeting office and went over the numbers, and where they proved to me it would be cheaper if I did drive, I was forced to take a Chevrolet Impala. And boy, did I beat the hell out of that car on the dirt roads -- it was covered in mud and had dirt in the car's seams when it came back.

 

 

You arn't factoring in depreciation.  Your car loses about $2000.00/year in value as it asymptotically approaches $500.00 if it is still running. 

 

  Depreciation isn't necessarily linear. They say that a car loses half its value when it is driven off the new car lot. If you buy a beater at a low price and get a few thousand miles out of it, chances are that depreciation is almost nothing. If you buy a new car and drive it for 5 years and then sell, depreciation might be your single biggest driving expense.

I actually went back and dug up all of my records, and that of my prior vehicle (2001 Honda Civic), and I cannot come anywhere NEAR close to .50/mile cost for driving, even after adding fuel, insurance and maintenance. I can't even get it to peak over .20/mile. Combined, I've put on nearly 300,000 miles, and incurred no major breakdowns outside of a transmission failure, and a very minor resetting of the muffler after I ran over a deer carcass. That also includes one frontal accident ($4,000+) that actually lowered my insurance rates (at the age of 20) at my fault, and one rear accident ($4,000+) that slightly raised my insurance rates (at the age of 24) that was not my fault.

 

Yes, if you buy a beater and have few major repairs and drive it back and forth between the 3C's forever, it might work out to be cheaper than taking the train.

 

If you don't count the taxes paid to build and maintain the roadways. 

 

The state of Ohio is planning to spend around $1 billion per year maintaining its roads and bridges for the next few years.  Those are your tax dollars that we are all spending for the privilege and convenience of driving.

 

If we only look at taxes and not the cost to own a car, what if improved rail networks could cut 10% of the wear and tear on the roads and thereby reduce Ohio's maintenance expenditures by 10%?  That would be $100 million.  The $17 million operating costs for the 3C is peanuts in comparison.  So if we can improve our freight network and get passenger rail service, it's a win-win.  Fewer drivers on the interstates make the interstates more pleasant (and safer and faster) to drive on.  An improved rail network means fewer trucks on the road, which means trucking on the highways will be safer, less congested, and will experience less wear.  Everyone wins, except some long-haul truckers who will be replaced by short-haul truckers and railroad employees.

 

 

Doubling the per-axle weight of vehicles on a road increases the damage to the road by a factor of four, and the per-axle weight limit on interstate trucks is about 9 times the average per-axle weight of a car.

http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL

 

So even taking a few trucks off the road can dramatically reduce the frequency at which we have to repave our roads.  $$ in our pockets!

 

 

 

sheesh, stop making so much sense.  You must hate America or something.  :wink:

 

sorry, I'm a little punchy tonight.

 

 

 

 

  "If you don't count the taxes paid to build and maintain the roadways."

 

    The cost of driving DOES include the taxes paid to build and maintain the roadways.

 

    The AAA Cost of driving is about $0.55 per mile. This includes depreciation, fuel, repairs, insurance, and license fees. The cost of maintaining the roadways is included in the cost of fuel.

 

    If you said that it costs $0.55 per mile to drive, PLUS so many $billions per year for the state to maintain the roads, then you would be counting that cost twice.

 

 

About half the cost of maintaining the roadways is included in the cost of fuel.

 

Fix'd

 

  "If you don't count the taxes paid to build and maintain the roadways."

 

  The cost of driving DOES include the taxes paid to build and maintain the roadways.

 

The AAA Cost of driving is about $0.55 per mile. This includes depreciation, fuel, repairs, insurance, and license fees. The cost of maintaining the roadways is included in the cost of fuel.

 

If you said that it costs $0.55 per mile to drive, PLUS so many $billions per year for the state to maintain the roads, then you would be counting that cost twice.

 

Unfortunately, that's not the case.  The fuel taxes only pay about half the cost to maintain the roads.  (thank you natininja)  Income taxes make up the difference.  The income taxes are not included in the $0.55 per mile estimate.

And property taxes are used, mostly at the local level. But anyway........

Nice, succinct letter in the Dispatch this morning...

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/06/11/train-travel-works-everywhere-else.html?sid=101

Conference of Mayors Report lauds HSR    

Monday, June 14, 2010 

 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors Monday released a new report stressing the positive impact of high speed rail on various U.S. corridors, citing four specific cities as examples. The four cities—Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando, Fla., and Albany, N.Y. —could significantly benefit from high speed rail (HSR) with as many as 150,000 new jobs and some $19 billion in new business revenues created in total, the report said.

 

Prepared by the Economic Development Research Group and sponsored by Siemens Mobility, the report, conducted from January through May of 2010, assessed high speed intercity passenger rail’s economic impact on the city,metropolitan, and regional economies.  It examined job creation, the effects of improved market access, greater connectivity, work-related travel time savings, and increased income and business sales.

 

The full report can be accessed at:

 

www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail

 

More at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/conference-of-mayors-report-lauds-hsr.html

High-Speed Rivalry Picks Up Steam

As Foreign Operators and Equipment Makers Chase $8 Billion in U.S. Rail Projects, Amtrak's Role Remains Uncertain

By MELANIE TROTTMAN And PAUL GLADER

 

Foreign railway operators and equipment makers are gaining steam in the race for a chunk of the $8 billion the Obama administration has awarded states for high-speed rail projects, but Amtrak, which wants to remain the nation's sole operator of high-speed trains, risks getting left at the station.

 

On a 2½-day trip to Japan last month, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood officially hung out the welcome sign for foreign makers of high-speed passenger-rail technology to bid on the projects.

 

Mr. LaHood tried out Japan's high-speed trains, including Central Japan Railway Co.'s magnetic levitation train and East Japan Railway Co.'s bullet train, and he invited Japanese companies to "bring us your expertise" and "use American workers and American facilities."

 

Full story and on-line poll at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704463504575301051535500696.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

U.S. Mayors Focus on BP Oil Spill, High-Speed Rail, Waste, Brownfields

 

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, June 14, 2010 (ENS) - The annual meeting of U.S. mayors today unanimously passed a resolution calling for stepped up federal efforts to access, mitigate and recover from the environmental and economic damage of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

...High-speed rail will bring great economic benefits to four hub cities - Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando and Albany, according to a new report introduced today at the annual meeting (http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/documents/report.pdf).

 

In all four cities, the introduction of high-speed rail will increase jobs, wages, business sales and value-added gross regional product, the report states. When inter-city travel time is under three hours, the benefits are even greater.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2010/2010-06-14-092.html

 

High-Speed Rail Will Spur Growth in Hub Cities, Says Mayors Report (NB: Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati!!!)

June 14, 2010

By Gayathri Vaidanathan

 

Billions of dollars of new business and tens of thousands of jobs will flow to four hub cities -- Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando and Albany, N.Y. -- where plans for major high-speed rail networks are located, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

 

Their report, released in Oklahoma City today, is the first attempt to put numbers on the widely held belief that high-speed rail can stimulate local economies and act as a driver of growth. The Obama administration has invested $8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors.

 

The benefits of traveling between 110 and 220 miles per hour will mean better connectivity, shorter travel times and new development around train stations, according to the report. The changes will create 150,000 new jobs and some $19 billion in new businesses by 2035.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/14/14greenwire-high-speed-rail-will-spur-growth-in-hub-cities-65815.html

GAO: U.S. HSR funding still an uncertainty   

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 

 

A U.S. high speed rail program relying in part on state funding contributions is a problematic proposal at best, according to a report issued by the Government Accountability Office. In fact, state budget difficulties could cause delays in advancing those projects already bankrolled with startup stimulus funds from the federal government under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

 

GAO, stating what some in the rail industry consider obvious, observes that building a U.S. HSR network will require funding “far beyond the funds provided by the ARRA in a time of continuing federal and state deficits. The Obama Administration has acknowledged that the $8 billion funding package was only a “down payment” toward such a network.

 

Full story at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/gao-u.s.-hsr-funding-still-an-uncertainty.html

One of the best newspaper staff editorials I've read....

 

Editorial: Good to seek Strickland fight for rail service

By the Dayton Daily News | Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 06:29 AM

 

With a heated re-election fight looming in the fall, Gov. Ted Strickland is sharpening his appeal to voters. His message to Dayton includes a strong endorsement for the proposed passenger train linking Dayton to Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, the 3C project.

 

“No community will benefit more from that than Dayton, Ohio,” he said Tuesday.

 

In town for what amounted to a campaign stop to address a Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce breakfast, Gov. Strickland was adamant that rail service will be transformative over time and that Ohio will regret a huge missed opportunity if opponents of the idea prevail.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2010/06/23/editorial_good_to_seek_strickl.html

Editorial: Riverside shows potential of the 3C idea

By the Dayton Daily News | Sunday, June 27, 2010, 02:12 AM

 

When Gov. Ted Strickland was in Dayton last week, speaking to the Chamber of Commerce, he talked about Riverside and its connection to the 3C project. That’s the planned passenger-train service from Cleveland to Cincinnati, via Columbus and Dayton. He noted that he had personally spoken with developers from Cleveland who are interested in investing near the proposed Riverside stop.

 

That stop would, of course, be designed to bring riders to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the Air Force Museum. After all, Wright-Patterson is the largest single-site employer in the state, and the museum is the largest free attraction, not only in Ohio, as has often been said, but possibly in the Midwest.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2010/06/27/editorial_riverside_shows_pote.html?cxtype=feedbot

Good editorial. We have to start showing that putting 3C "Quick Start" trains on the tracks isn't the conclusion of the project, but the start. That not only includes speeding up the trains and running more of them as a result of the Ohio Hub PEIS now underway, but creating station-area developments and low-mileage lifestyles around the trains, connecting transit and the walkable/bikeable areas 3C will foster.

 

Think car companies are selling cars? Hell no. They're selling a lifestyle. They figured that out 100 years ago. We need to market our rail end-product much differently than we are now. I think that's happening with the thematic CYP Tech Belt rail project but not yet with 3C.

 

Riverside shows us what is possible with 3C.

Time to get moving on high-speed rail

By: Rep. Don Young

June 28, 2010 04:11 AM EDT

 

The need for high-speed rail in this country is real and urgent.

 

As airport delays increase, traffic on our roads and highways slows to a standstill and our current rail system’s highest-speed train chugs along at a pace slower than most cars, a high-speed-rail system would provide a welcome, convenient and safe alternative for American travel.

 

Over the course of many pieces of legislation, billions of dollars have been directed toward the intention of implementing a high-speed-rail infrastructure. But most of the money has gone to subsidizing the subpar system already in place.

 

Full op-ed at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39072.html

 

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) was chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from 2001 to 2007 and is now the senior Member on that committee.

I agree.  And it's good to see Strickland hitting this hard.

^IMHO, Strickland has been improving on this, but still isn't hitting it hard enough. 

An excellent examination of the role of the freight railroads in bringing back passenger rail....

 

 

States are delving deeper into high-speed rail planning, but are the host railroads onboard?

 

by Angela Cotey, Associate editor

Progressive Railroading

 

Since Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009, U.S. high-speed rail development has gone from a pipe dream to a very real possibility. The bill included $8 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger-rail projects, prompting states to scramble to get their share of the funds.

 

States that have been working on high-speed rail programs for years were anxious to show the federal government what they've done to advance their plans to date — and use it as leverage to secure more stimulus dollars. States that had been discussing whether to pursue high-speed rail put their plans on the fast track so they could cash in on the sudden availability of federal high-speed funds, as well.

 

Full story at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/pr/article.asp?id=23532

High Speed Rail Moves Forward: Federal Railroad Administration Seeks Applications for $2.3 Billion in High-Speed Rail Grants

 

FRA 07-10

Contact: Rob Kulat

Telephone: 202-493-6024

 

Monday, June 28, 2010 Washington, DC

 

Funds Complement President Obama’s $8 Billion Initial Investment to Enhance High Speed Rail in America

The Obama Administration today took the next step toward realizing its vision for high-speed rail in the United States. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will begin accepting applications for $2.1 billion in grants to continue the development of high-speed intercity passenger rail corridors.

 

In addition, FRA will make another $245 million available for individual construction projects within a corridor. Funds for both come from the FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Act. “This important step builds on the $8 billion for high-speed rail that President Obama announced last January,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “The President’s bold vision for high-speed rail is a game changer for U.S. transportation. It will not only create good jobs and reinvigorate our manufacturing base, but also reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.” “We are excited to move the President's vision on high-speed rail forward and are working quickly to get money in the hands of states,” said FRA Administrator Joseph C. Szabo. “These new funds will allow the states to further advance their high-speed rail plans and represent a commitment to developing a world-class transportation network.”

 

Applications and proposals for these latest funds will be due back to FRA by August 6, 2010. Grant awards, including the $2.1 billion and $245 million from the FY2010 appropriations, are expected to be announced by September 30, 2010.

 

In addition to the President’s $8 billion investment for high-speed passenger rail in the Recovery Act, DOT earlier this spring made available $50 million in planning funds appropriated under the FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Act, and approximately $65 million in construction funds appropriated under the FY 2009 DOT Appropriations Act.

 

A new report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that full construction of high-speed rail networks, in conjunction with healthy metropolitan economies over the next twenty years, and supportive infrastructure investments to allow high speed rail benefits to be realized, in Los Angeles, could create up to $7.6 billion per year in new business and up to 55,000 jobs; in Chicago, up to $6.1 billion per year in new business and up to 42,000 jobs; in Orlando, up to $2.9 billion per year in new business and up to 27,500 jobs; and in Albany, NY, up to $2.5 billion per year in new business and up to 21,000 jobs.

 

The Notices of Funds Availability (NOFA) are available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/477.shtml

 

 

 

Check out the commentary of MSNC's Chris Matthews on why we need high speed rail....  the video is available on this link:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-matthews/high-speed-rail-in-americ_b_630081.html

Check out the commentary of MSNC's Chris Matthews on why we need high speed rail.... the video is available on this link:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-matthews/high-speed-rail-in-americ_b_630081.html

 

It was puzzling to me when GM needed help and the government took over why Obama didn't say, OK, here's what we're going to do.  You're going to manufacture, in addition to your traditional automobile lines, rail cars for this new interstate rail system we're going to build using the billions of stimulous money we've just approved.

Missed opportunity for sure. Still not too late to do it.

Agreed, this should have been part of the bailout.  Although it also wouldn't hurt to nurture startups in industrial areas for this purpose.  Then we have GM plus a new rail industry!

I really don't want the government telling a corporation what to build. Develop a demand for the goods and suppliers will follow.

BTW: GM used to build locomotives until they spun off their EMD (Electromotive Division).  So it wouldn't be a stretch for them to get re-enganged in the rail manufacturing industry.  It's called "diversifying your portfolio"... a wise strategy for investors and just as wise as a business strategy.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — June 30, 2010

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

Executive Director, All Aboard Ohio

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

3C Corridor tracks:  The bypass off bumpy roads and burgeoning highway budgets

 

COLUMBUS – Is passenger rail good for Ohio’s roads and highways? It is, if you as a taxpayer want to reduce the cost of highway pavement and bridge repairs brought on by heavy trucks on our roadways.

 

Improving Ohio’s rail corridors to make passenger rail services like 3C “Quick Start” possible will help the freight railroads move more freight faster and better. That takes more of the crushing loads off our aging highways.

 

In fact, by 2015, the freight tracks between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati could be removing up to 5.3 million miles of truck trips from Ohio’s roads per year, saving Ohio taxpayers $42.4 million per year in reduced pavement and bridge damage, All Aboard Ohio announced today.

 

That’s especially valuable as the Ohio Department of Transportation faces a 37 percent ($588 million) increase in its annual operating, pavement and bridge preservation (Fix-It First) program budget in the 10 years between 2008 and 2017, according to ODOT’s latest Business Plan.

 

Meanwhile, flat growth in state and federal gas tax revenues from more fuel-efficient cars is colliding with rising highway expenses, including $9.2 billion worth of 3C Corridor Interstate highway projects slated for 2008-2017. A lack of revenues to keep our aging highway system from falling apart has forced lawmakers to bail-out the Federal Highway Trust Fund three times since 2008 with a total of $24.5 billion in general tax revenues. These are wake-up calls for policymakers to enact sustainable, long-term solutions.

 

“Moving more heavy trucks off government-owned and subsidized roads onto privately owned and maintained railroad infrastructure is a good way to save taxpayers’ dollars,” said All Aboard Ohio President Bill Hutchison. “And we get an introductory passenger rail service as part of the deal. We think spending up to $17 million for passenger rail operations to boost our rail freight system and save $42 million per year in highway maintenance costs is a good return on investment.”

 

While railroads have seen their intercity freight tonnage market share rise from 27 percent in the 1970s to 40 percent today, they cannot access sufficient capital to expand their capacity fast enough to tap all the growth opportunities available to them or to meet public-sector goals. This was amplified by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials in its 2005 report “Return on Investment on Freight Rail Capacity Improvement” at: http://freight.transportation.org/doc/rail/task43.pdf

 

That report found that the cost-benefit ratio was 1 to 2.06, including direct shipper benefits, cost savings for vehicles still on the road from less traffic and smoother pavement, plus other benefits throughout the economy.

 

AASHTO said “The rail industry, unlike other modes of transportation operates over infrastructure largely owned and maintained by private corporations. Like any business, railroads are motivated by shareholder value, and have therefore focused capital investments in the most profitable traffic lanes and rationalized unprofitable track. The result is a more efficient network that operates closer to capacity limits. While this may be a good business model, the rail industry is not well positioned to accommodate the anticipated growth in freight traffic and expanded role desired by much of the public sector.”

 

That same report noted that freight traffic nationwide is projected to increase 57 percent by 2020.

 

“There is a major and immediate opportunity for railroads to shift some freight currently handled by trucks back to rail,” according to the Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, 2007, conducted by TEMS Inc. “This has been difficult for rail to do on its own, because of truck traffic’s high service requirements. Since all the excess capacity has been squeezed out of today’s rail networks, the high level of traffic congestion makes it difficult for railroads to compete for such traffic. Additionally, railroads have typically not been able to generate the levels of capital funding that would be needed to enable them to build enough capacity to penetrate this market.” For more, see:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/Ohio%20Hub%20Economic%20Impact%20Studies/TEMS09FreightRailBenefits.pdf

 

But while All Aboard Ohio estimates the 3C Corridor tracks today carry the equivalent of 2.655 million truck-miles of freight per year (see: http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/3C%20freight%20usage.pdf) , the 3C Corridor could be doing so much more to remove heavy trucks from Interstates 71, 70, 75 plus urban Interstates like 270, 271, 275 and 675.

 

The Kansas Rural Development Council estimated that shifting heavy freight from trucks to trains saves taxpayers $4 to $8 per truck-mile per year in reduced pavement damage (see: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/Rural/KansasFreight.htm). Thus the 3C Corridor tracks could already be saving Ohioans $10.6 million to $21.2 million per year in reduced pavement and bridge damage.

 

The 3C Corridor’s shortcoming is that only half its 250 route-miles have two parallel main tracks, leaving the other half single-tracked. The 3C “Quick Start” passenger rail project has $200.1 million to lay 40 miles of new second main track. That would increase the double-tracked sections by 32 percent to 165 miles.

 

All Aboard Ohio prefers to see that investment before 2015 when all rail corridors that handle passenger trains or certain hazardous freight are required by federal law to have their traffic governed by an advanced signal system called Positive Train Control. The PTC system, according to the Federal Railroad Administration, safely allows trains to travel closer together – especially on double-tracked lines.

 

FRA found that a vital, moving PTC system offers a potential capacity increase of 133 percent on double-tracked rail corridors. While there would also be capacity increases on single-tracked rail corridors, the increase might be less dramatic although no estimate was given. For more on the FRA’s 2009 analysis, see: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/ord0904.pdf .

 

Since two-thirds of the 3C Corridor would offer double tracks after the “Quick Start” project is completed, perhaps the rail traffic capacity on 3C would “only” double by 2015 to 5.3 million truck-miles. But that could save Ohio taxpayers $21.2 million to $42.4 million per year in reduced pavement and bridge damage, All Aboard Ohio estimated.

 

“Reducing highway pavement and bridge damage from heavy trucks is an important public benefit and not necessarily a freight railroad benefit,” Hutchison said. “That’s why it’s important for ODOT to take the lead on these kinds of investments and for the General Assembly, in its wisdom, to support ODOT’s efforts. So even though the 3C ‘Quick Start’ is an introductory passenger rail project, there are significant, quantifiable freight and highway benefits that will result.”

 

END

The purpose of taking GM and Chrysler through a quick bankruptcy was to make sure that we didn't lose the American auto industry because those companies couldn't get short term loans because the credit markets seized up.  The same thing happened to California which is why they handed out IOU's.

 

It seems natural that a large firm like GM which is focused on building motors might want to get into the passenger rail motor business, but that's largely dependent on whether they have the money to do it.  If GM fails because no one wants to buy their cars it will be dying a slow, more manageable death, not keeling over because of something outside of its control like what happened in 2008.

And here's a related factoid from the Association of American Railroads:

 

One train can carry the load of 280 or more trucks. In 2008, 283.4 million tons of

freight originated, terminated, or passed through Ohio by rail. It would have taken

approximately 15.7 million trucks to handle this freight.

 

http://www.aar.org/~/media/AAR/InCongress_RailroadsStates/Ohio.ashx

I was conservative. I used 250 trucks as the estimate for 3C.

Heh.  Not that I dispute any of the information in that press release or disagree with its conclusions, but yike!--Wall of text!

I wish there was a shorter way of presenting it without losing the message.

intelligent stuff doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, Ken.  Sorry.

 

 

^Totally wrong.  For example:

 

"It takes balls to play tennis"

 

"Nuns do it out of habit"

 

"Friends help you move.  Good friends help you move bodies"

 

Three insightful bumper stickers that changed my life in different ways.

After rush to start 3C rail, project slows

Study hasn't started; funding hasn't arrived

Saturday, July 3, 2010  02:51 AM

By James Nash

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Some 10 weeks after lawmakers approved a $25 million study of passenger rail service linking Ohio's largest cities, the state has yet to ink a contract with the firm picked to do the study, raising fresh questions about the 2011 goal for getting the trains running.

 

At the same time, new federal regulations have complicated negotiations between states and freight railroads, on whose tracks the passenger trains would run. The issue is especially acute in Ohio, where three separate companies own track along the planned passenger route linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

State officials say they remain confident that they can reach agreements with Norfolk Southern, CSX and RailAmerica to begin running passenger trains with top speeds of 79 mph across the so-called 3C corridor by the end of 2011

 

Full story at: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/07/03/copy/afterrushto-start-3c-rail-projectslows.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

So, rail people, what's the deal? Why is this taking so long? Is the delay unexpected?

 

What are the implications of the stipulations not to use passenger rail grants to improve freight operations? Is that just hot air?

 

    Just trying to be realistic here....

 

    The 3-C passenger rail project, along with the Cincinnati Streetcar project, lacks widespread public support, and lacks a sponsor.

 

  Governments tend to be passive and reactionary. Since these are government-led projects, there is no incentive to get these projects done quickly. If there was strong business support for the 3-C, then it would have a better chance of being successful. 

 

My guess would be that the FRA is just being slow and could be overwhelmed right now with everything going on with new rail projects.  Plus, in the second paragraph, the FRA just recently changed requirements; so this could be complicating/slowing down the first part of the project.

The FRA really needs to get with the program.  They keep tightening the noose around passenger rail travel, which is already so badly choked off it's a wonder we have any left at all.

 

How the FRA is Regulating Passenger Rail Out of Existence

So, rail people, what's the deal? Why is this taking so long? Is the delay unexpected?

 

What are the implications of the stipulations not to use passenger rail grants to improve freight operations? Is that just hot air?

 

Think for a minute.  How can the infrastructure investments required to enable passenger rail service do anything but carry a significant benefit for the host freight railroads?  Despite the FRA statements, such benefits are implicit.

 

As to the slowness at both the state & federal level; consider that developing passenger rail on an aggressive schedule and over a broad scale is something new to transportation officials are both levels. Neither the FRA or many state transportation agencies are either properly staffed both in numbers and in enough people with rail development expertise.

 

Don't read a lot into the slowness beyond that.

 

My guess would be that the FRA is just being slow and could be overwhelmed right now with everything going on with new rail projects. Plus, in the second paragraph, the FRA just recently changed requirements; so this could be complicating/slowing down the first part of the project.

 

Exactly.