July/August 2011

 

The Case for Not-Quite-So-High-Speed Rail

The bad news: Republicans have torpedoed plans for American bullet trains. The good news: The Obama administration is quietly building a slower, but potentially much better, rail system.

By Phillip Longman

 

This principle is also illustrated by Amtrak’s highly successful “Cascades” service on the 187-mile line between Portland and Seattle. The Spanish-designed Talgo “tilt” train sets look futuristic, and with their on-board bistros and comfy chairs they are a joy to ride. But because they run on conventional track through mountainous country shared by freight trains, their current top speed is only 79 mph, and their average speed is just 53.

 

Still, that’s enough to make taking the train faster than driving, and ridership has swelled to more than 700,000 passengers a year. Using federal stimulus dollars plus state spending, work is currently under way to boost top train speeds to 110-125 mph, simply by adding better signaling and more sidings to let freight trains get out of the way. This incremental investment will also boost reliability and allow for increased frequency, which will further bump up ridership. But numerous studies show there is no point in making trains go faster than 125 mph on a segment this short because of the great cost involved and the limited gains to total trip times. Moreover, if a new bullet train line were built between Portland and Seattle, the tremendous cost of its construction would require fares too high for all but well-heeled business travelers to afford.

 

Read more at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/julyaugust_2011/features/the_case_for_notquite_sohighsp030492.php?page=3

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

  U.S.Department of Transportation

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, D.C.

www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm

News

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

 

FRA 16-11

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Contact: Brie N. Sachse

Tel.: (202) 493-6024

 

 

American Manufacturing Gets a Boost through a Combined $782 Million Investment in Passenger Rail Equipment

 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that California, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Missouri will receive $336.2 million to purchase next-generation, American-made trains that will run on rail corridors in those states. Previously awarded rail dollars bring the amount received by these five states and Washington State to $782 million for the purchase of 33 quick-acceleration locomotives and 120 bi-level passenger cars.

 

“Today’s announcement is all about jobs. Thanks to the leadership of the Obama Administration, these orders will pump more than three quarters of a billion dollars into the domestic manufacturing industry,” said Secretary LaHood. “And, our Buy America standard will put people to work all over the county.” 

 

California and Illinois reached cooperative agreements with the Federal Railroad Administration to begin a multi-state procurement of equipment for passenger rail corridors in California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon and Washington State.  Through a joint procurement process states will leverage these federal investments, along with state matching dollars, ensuring taxpayers receive the best possible deal while creating the necessary momentum to encourage manufacturers to build equipment in U.S. plants with American workers and suppliers.

 

“Building a nationwide rail network is critical to America’s long-term economic success.  More people are choosing to take the train and this year Amtrak is projected to set an all-time record by topping 30 million annual riders,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo.

 

Trains will be designed to travel more than 110 mph along intercity passenger corridors, and meet standards developed by the state-led, Next Generation Equipment Committee.  This will provide manufacturers with consistent specifications for all passenger trains in the United States, reducing costs for manufacturers and customers, while providing a boost to the railcar manufacturing industry.  The state partners will now begin a joint procurement process, first issuing a request for information (RFI) and then a request for proposal (RFP) to allow for an open and competitive process.  The RFI is expected to be issued in late summer 2011. 

 

A strict “Buy America” requirement ensures that U.S. manufacturers and workers receive the maximum economic benefits from this federal investment. In 2009, Secretary LaHood secured a commitment from 30 foreign and domestic rail manufacturers to employ American workers and locate or expand their base of operations in the U.S. if they are selected for high-speed-rail contracts.  In addition, in June, DOT announced a $562.9 million loan to Amtrak through FRA’s Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program to finance the purchase of 70 high-performance, electric locomotives from Siemens Industry USA, creating 250 new manufacturing jobs in California, Ohio and Georgia. 

 

The Obama Administration has invested $10.1 billion to lay the groundwork for a high-speed and intercity passenger rail network in the United States, providing rail access to new communities and improving the reliability, speed and frequency of existing lines. Of that, more than $6 billion has been obligated, with corridor projects under way in New England, Illinois, Washington State and North Carolina and stations under construction in California and North Carolina.

 

Grantee

Equipment

Total Funds

Federal Funds

Source

Obligation Date

 

California*

4 locomotives and 15 bi-level rail cars

85,000,000

68,000,000

ARRA

August 2011

 

Midwest  (Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri)

7 locomotives and 48 bi-level rail cars

268,201,084

268,201,084

ARRA

August 2011

 

California*

2 locomotives and 27 bi-level rail cars

125,000,000

100,000,000

FY2010

April 2011

 

Washington

8 locomotives and 1 train set

70,197,500

70,197,500

ARRA

April 2011

 

Illinois*

12 locomotives and 30 bi-level rail cars

233,859,431

222,166,460

ARRA

December 2010

 

*denotes state match

 

..

New, modern trains to the east of Ohio, and now to the north and west of Ohio. Just not IN Ohio.....

 

Oh, here's the link to the above press release:

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releases/fp_FRA%2016-11.shtml

An argument in favor of a Ravenna station:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/07/1004336/-Sunday-Train:-Pushing-for-a-Rapid-Rail-HSR-Station-in-Ravenna,-Ohio?via=spotlight

 

An argument in favor of a Ravenna station:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/07/1004336/-Sunday-Train:-Pushing-for-a-Rapid-Rail-HSR-Station-in-Ravenna,-Ohio?via=spotlight

 

 

A Ravenna station could become part of improved Chicago-East Coast Amtrak services, but not likely of any high-speed rail development initiative in the next few years because it would have to be state-sponsored. Why? Because the Chicago-East Coast initiative may not be dependent on a state that isn't interested in doing anything with passenger rail except perhaps killing it.

 

For more about Ravenna, see:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,12576.0.html

I thought you all might enjoy this long article of mine....

 

Where is Our Old Man Thunder?

July 21, 2011

by Ken Prendergast

 

Throughout history, there have been leaders who broke down barriers of culture, special interests, fear and ignorance to unite diverse people and powers toward a common goal. Many of these leaders have since faded into anonymity while their physical creations have stood tall.

 

In my own state of Ohio, there was Alfred Kelly, Cleveland’s first mayor and later Ohio Canal Commissioner who nearly bankrupted the young state by building a network of canals (and later, railroads). The extensive transportation networks he espoused transformed the state into an economic powerhouse that has since stagnated for want of similar leaders.

 

A century later, native Iowan Thomas MacDonald became the father of America’s national highway system through various roles, including as the first director of the federal Bureau of Public Roads in 1919. His anger over the Midwest’s roads being impassable eight months out of the year is a big reason why America now has the world’s most extensive paved highway network.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/where-is-our-old-man-thunder

Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger: U.S. Must Modernize Its Infrastructure, Invest In High-Speed Rail

The Huffington Post  Alexander Eichler 

First Posted: 8/11/11 10:31 AM ET Updated: 8/11/11 10:46 AM ET

 

With GDP languishing and job-creation rates well below what’s needed to put the economy back on track, the key to recovery lies with American infrastructure, says a bipartisan group headed by Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

U.S. infrastructure, far from being the best in the world, is due for an overhaul, says the Building America’s Future Educational Fund, a coalition that Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California, co-chair with former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. If the country’s infrastructure isn’t modernized, they say, the U.S. will lose its competitive edge.

 

“If we are going to maintain our economic dominance, we have to get on the stick and get on it fast,” Rendell said earlier this week.

 

On Monday, the BAF Fund released a report calling upon policymakers to invest $200 billion a year in infrastructure for the next 10 years, a plan it says could create nearly 5 million jobs over the next decade.

 

READ MORE AT:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/infrastructure-bloomberg-schwarzenegger-high-speed-rail_n_924280.html

http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releases/fp_DOT%20109-11.shtml

 

$28 Million DOT Grant for New Dearborn, MI Train Station Will Help Revitalize West Downtown District, Serve Henry Ford Museum/Greenfield Village

 

U.S.Department of Transportation

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, D.C.

www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm

News

 

DOT 109-11

Friday, August 19, 2011

Contact: Brie Sachse

Tel.: (202) 493-6024

 

The Michigan Department of Transportation has received $28.2 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation to consolidate Dearborn’s two passenger rail facilities into a pedestrian-friendly, intermodal station in the West Downtown section of the city.  The money will support President Obama’s vision to create livable cities and improve passenger rail service.

 

The new station will serve local residents and students at University of Michigan–Dearborn and Henry Ford Community College.  It will also accommodate tourists via a new pedestrian overpass at the Henry Ford Museum/Greenfield Village, Dearborn’s largest tourist attraction with 1.7 million visitors every year.  The intermodal facility will be designed for the planned Ann Arbor–Detroit commuter rail as well as future high-speed intercity passenger rail service.  It will also accommodate city, regional and intercity bus systems; local and tourist shuttles; bicycle and greenway linkages; and, auto, taxi, and limousine connections to Detroit International Airport.

 

The new Dearborn station will continue to serve Amtrak’s Wolverine passenger rail service, which provides three round trips daily between Pontiac, MI, and Chicago, IL.  In 2010, Dearborn’s current station ranked third in Amtrak ridership in Michigan with more than 82,000 travelers.  Contact: Brie Sachse (202) 493-6024

 

####

 

Weren't the applications for new projects due this week?  Anyone know of any midwest projects applied?

 

Governor Kasich applied to upgrade service on the NYC-Boston cooridor ;)

it is crazy that there is no rail service between cleveland, columbus, and cincinnati.

 

i would kill for a rail link between cleveland cincinnati, being able to go from downtown to downtown. it doesnt even have to be high speed, i would love something that took about the same time as driving and had reasonable fares. taking a plane doesnt make much sense and it would sure beat the hell out of greyhound.

 

what are the chances of getting amtrak to run basic service on existing lines? KJP or anyone with expertise what are the technicalities in running passenger rail between the 3-Cs, ie top speeds and what type of equipment. which trains could run into tower city and the airport?

KJP is away, but I'll take a shot at this. Since Gov. Kasich made killing the 3-C trains a high profile issue, I rather doubt we will see any moves by the state to resurrect the issue. In fact, quite the opposite. When they killed the 3-C, they also killed the study process that had been ongoing for some time. That means that any future governor will have to restart the entire process from scratch and that might take a couple of years under the best of circumstances.

 

So add it up:

 

a) Four years (at least) of Gov. Kasich.

b) Two years to restudy, assuming a go-ahead is given by an incoming governor.

c) Two additional years to do trackwork, signaling, stations, maintenance facitilies and aqcuire equipment.

 

We are probably talking ten years---under the best circumstances.

 

Had we not lost 3-C, we would be well into final engineering and construction would probably have been underway next year. Now we are probably talking about at least ten years with the loss of this initiative. This is the legacy of John Kasich.

 

As far as Amtrak is concerned, they have a lot of major issues to confront. They will not be leading any effort to bring service to Ohio.

 

Sorry to be such a pessimist, but the facts speak for themselves. If you want trains you'll have to move to a place where they already exist.

yea *sigh*

 

i guess i was just hoping that despite the HSR plan being killed we could get something running without k-sick. amtrak does have issues yes, but there has been increased ridership and more investment coming in states not named ohio. you would get riders....even just looking at the demographic of college students throughout ohio. megabus does not go between cleveland cincinnati currently and greyhound costs at least $40 one way. amtrak could be competitive in this market. something like the cascades line that operates between vancouver, bc and eugene, or would be good. nice interior with comfortable seats, wifi, business class, full power at your seat, and food on the train. i would take weekend trips to cities in ohio if this existed.

 

with the tearing down of our cities, lack of forward thinking, and poor investment in public transit i may be forced to move

 

no one man should have all that power

Hello, I'm back from overseas. When I returned, one of the items in the mail was an article forwarded to me by a past president of All Aboard Ohio. In it was an interview of Kasich in which he again decried the 3C trains' "40 mph speed" and that it would have been a drain on the state's budget -- even though revenues from the station-area development Special Improvement District at the Riverside train station would have produced more than sufficient revenues to offset any operating losses from the trains.

 

CSX killed the 3C trains. Plain and simple. CSX, the owner of the tracks north of Columbus to Cleveland, felt the 3C trains would have caused too much conflict with CSX's growing freight traffic and all the investments it was making associated with its National Gateway project. Perhaps they were right, but that's no reason to kill something. It is reason to adjust the plans, including possibly starting the train services between Cincinnati and Columbus.

 

But BuckeyeB is correct. You won't see any progress as long as Kasich is governor. "Passenger train" has become a four-letter word around him and those of like mind. When a businessman I know of spoke with one of Kasich's top advisers about two weeks ago about doing "something" with passenger rail in Ohio, his response was "Is there any place where these things are succeeding?" That's why the businessman contacted me, to supply him with with media reports of passenger rail successes. I didn't have to look far for them. Most are listed here on UrbanOhio in the "what other states are doing with rail" section. I encourage all of you to share these stories with your elected officials, too.

This what happens when you don't know enough about an issue to understand what you're saying "no" to. To Kasich & Co. a train is a train is a train....

 

What California has built vs what California has planned

Ohio's 79-mph 3C trains would be a conventional service like what California has successfully had since 1990

 

Pragmatic politicians keep their options open. Ideologues dig deeper trenches for themselves, often twisting the facts to protect themselves from criticism of their bad decisions. Gov. John Kasich is doing such today by patting himself on the back with the help of false information in attempt to show he did the right thing by killing Ohio's 3C Corridor project. Trains traveling at 79 mph would have linked one of nation's most populous travel corridors currently lacking passenger trains, and would have been wholly financially supported by revenues from Special Improvement Districts in just one city -- Riverside. Although two other cities, Sharonville and Springfield, also had station-area developments in the works.

 

Yet Kasich continues to try to derail the fact express by comparing the 3C Corridor to California's high-speed rail project.

 

Yet California has already built what Kasich has said "no" to -- his so-called "slow train." CalTrans has invested $2 billion from a voter-approved 1990 bond issue for infrastructure, stations and train equipment to provide frequent train services on existing freight rail corridors which has spurred billions of dollars of private investment in station-area real estate developments.

 

All of this now exists in California:

 

++ 36 daily trains for the Bay Area-Sacramento Capitol Corridor with average speeds of 45 mph and FY2010 ridership of 1.6 million (#3 in the nation).

++ 24 daily trains for the Santa Barbara-LA-San Diego Pacific Surfliner Corridor with average speeds of 50 mph and FY2010 ridership of 2.6 million (ranked #2 in the nation behind Northeast Corridor).

++ 12 daily trains for the Bay Area-Bakersfield San Joaquin Corridor with average speeds of 55 mph and FY2010 ridership of 1 million (ranked #4 in the nation).

 

California's track record of success with its conventional passenger rail services is shown here:

 

What California is doing now is taking the next step to high-speed rail. A 150- to 220-mph corridor that nearly two dozen nations throughout the rest of the developed and developing world have built or are building after they, also, first maxed-out the physical potential of their conventional rail services yet created a political constituency for the next, more aggressive step of high-speed rail. Indeed, no place on the planet has yet built high-speed rail without first having a successful conventional passenger rail service.

 

Ohio's 3C Corridor plan was to build that conventional service that California has already built, which is common nationwide and growing with record ridership thanks to the investment and support of 15 states throughout America. Those states seek to offer a competitive edge to businesses and to offer more attractive, cost-saving services to new residents and visitors. Ohio seems to be content with a mediocre, heavily subsidized highway system that fosters suburban sprawl and urban decay while failing to capture the imagination of young adults fleeing to places that offer choices of trains and transit which foster energetic cities.

 

Above, the Emeryville, CA station-area development. Read more about this and other station-area developments here: http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/miscellaneous/NewHome.jsp

 

Increasingly, Ohio is getting older and poorer. And both groups are being isolated by a one-size-fits-all transportation system and leaders who fear change only because they do not understand it. I encourage them to learn and will do what I can to help them learn. But continued entrenchment by falsely re-writing the definitions of high-speed rail in order to save face is not a good way to move Ohio's economy forward and to keep its citizens and businesses here, let alone attract new ones.

 

Further entrenchment in the highways-only status quo, as is evidenced below, is not helpful for Ohio's future........

 

KJP

_______________________________

 

http://blog.kasichforohio.com/?p=4182&msource=JK082211EM1

 

Lima News: Rail Price Racing Along at High Speed

 

August 17, 2011 | Tags: 3C Rail, Federal Money, Governor John Kasich, Ohio Budget, Ohio Economy, Ohio Rail — admin @ 10:11 am

Even before taking office, Gov. Kasich asked the federal government to reroute grant money earmarked for the 3C rail program in Ohio and divert it to improving infrastructure across the state. When the federal government denied his request, Gov. Kasich declined to take the grant money altogether…the reason: because it was going to become a money-sink that would cost Ohio taxpayers far more money over time. As the Lima News reports, California taxpayers were led into the trap and could be on the hook for over $6.8 Billion dollars! Read more below:

 

Amid a stagnant economy, a staggering stock market, governments at all levels straining to stay in the black and taxpayers already burdened to the hilt, the last thing Ohio needs is a commitment to spend even more. Given that, Gov. John Kasich is looking like a genius for refusing federal high-speed rail money.

 

One needs look only at California — which Ohio government more and more had begun to resemble — to see the folly of government-subsidized high-speed rail. The Golden State’s cost for a relatively small piece of the state’s overall high-speed rail pipe dream has almost doubled. The federal government isn’t picking up any of that doubling in cost, leaving already strapped California taxpayers to pay the bill.

 

Kasich and Wisconsin’s Republican governor, Scott Walker, took some heat, particularly from Democrats and proponents of subsidizing every thinkable alternative mode of transportation for refusing a combined $1.2 billion for high-speed rail. Kasich and Ohio legislative Republicans said Ohio would be on the hook for future spending to subsidize rail at a time when it barely could pay its current bills. California is proving Kasich right.

 

The latest setback for this multibillion-dollar boondoggle is the rail agency’s own “adjustment” of the cost for a small segment of the 400-plus-mile system, our sister paper The Orange Country Register reported. It is believed to cost up to $13.9 billion — $6.8 billion more than the $7.1 billion estimate — to construct tracks in the middle of the state from Merced to Bakersfield.

 

And

 

If ever there was a clear-cut case to avoid wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, this is it. The good news for Californians is that the train can be stopped before massive spending begins next year when construction on the train to nowhere is scheduled to commence. The better news for Ohioans is that Kasich stopped any such boondoggle from happening in this state before it ever had a chance to leave the federal station.

 

You can get more details from the original article here....

http://www.limaohio.com/articles/billion-70091-rail-cost.html?cb=1313422485

just throwing out a few ideas here and im sure folks have probably thought of these already but it helps me cope with the lose of the 3C  :-(.

 

Can we get some kind of non-amtrak passenger rail going in Ohio that is completely independent of the state?  At least that way there is some momentum, at least.  A couple possibilities:

 

1.  Commuter rail startup in CBus Dayton or Cincy; or even between dayton and Cincy, for example.  Columbus casino to airport would be an obvious one too.

 

2.  Excursion rail startup in CBus or Cincy similar to CVSR.

 

3.  Heritage rail trips that are tourist driven.  How cool would it be to have a steam engine or some old coaches roll up to the Columbus Convention center, for example.

Hey treesketcher, those are good ideas, and I think some sort of rail connection between Cincinnati and Dayton would be a great place to start.  The thing about excursions/heritage rail trips though is that they sound easy, but the legal/logistical hurdles are immense.  A little while back I got to have dinner with the owner of the Cincinnati Dinner Train, as well as the Midwest Regional Vice President of RailAmerica, and the General Manager of Indiana & Ohio Railway.  I got some fascinating insight into just how difficult it is to plan an excursion route, due to the horribly fragmented ownership of the various rail lines.  Even for a small regional operation like I&O, ownership is all over the place.  They own the tracks and signals, structures, etc., but a different entity owns the actual land (whether SORTA, CSX, themselves, or a subsidiary) and leases it to them.  In other instances, there are special trackage rights on unaffiliated railroads, sometimes as short as a few hundred feet, like through yards or at switching locations. 

 

What this all boils down to is that every single independent railroad owner and/or operator has different rules and regulations based on their insurance coverage and liability concerns.  A single bridge owned by some stick-in-the-mud who's not covered for passenger liability and won't allow any passenger traffic over said bridge requires that the excursion train let off all their passengers and bus them to a point farther down the line.  That's just one example of a problem situation, but there's also freight conflicts, and a plethora of other hurdles.  Unless you can get a continuous route that's operated by a friendly parent railroad, it's a monumental task.  It kind of makes the notion of nationalizing the rail system and leasing out operations to the private companies, like is done in many parts of Europe, seem like a decent idea.

great insight, I appreciate it.  I really think there is great demand for this, at least where I live in Cbus, and could be successful if those issues could be worked through.  Bummer there are so many additional barriers to the obvious physical and market-driven ones.  Just being the optimist, theres got to be some place where something like this might work. 

I've continued to urge Central Ohioans to pursue an introductory, L-shaped regional commuter rail service on existing freight tracks, from Delaware to the north, Newark to the east, and downtown Columbus at the elbow. CSX owns half of the right of way, which makes this a little complicated right off the bat (CSX is very anti-passenger). But the CSX line to Delaware along I-71 is a duplicate of another CSX line to the west of the Scioto, so the few CSX freight trains along the I-71 line might be detoured to it. In fact, during COTA's North Corridor light rail plan, COTA was ready to build for CSX the infrastructure necessary to vacate that rail line in exchange for taking ownership of it all the way to Galion (near Mansfield).

 

And as for the route from Columbus to Newark, CSX had a 50% percent ownership stake in it until 2004 when the Ohio Central acquired it (The State of Ohio owned the other 50%). About 10-15 years ago, the Ohio Central proposed operating a commuter rail service over this route but few others seemed interested in it. I hope that's still not the case.

 

A regional rail service on this L-shaped corridor would provide a significant physical and political foundation on which to build a larger regional system as well as statewide passenger rail services since the regional commuter rail and cross-state intercity passenger rail equipment, technologies and facilities are compatible.

 

Someone needs to approach COTA and MORPC to see what, if anything they're willing to do to help convene, foster or otherwise assist such a project. If some real estate, transportation construction and railcar interests got together, they would be a powerful influence to get this effort moving forward.

Columbus currently has the best layout for for a super-regional rail system (Delaware (or even Marion) to the north, Newark to the east, and Chillicothe to the south, and eventually Springfield/Dayton to the west). All are small cities with some semblance of urban cores.

I think its gotta be initiated by the private sector for any idea to have a chance of gaining momentum and turning into a legitimate concept.  Folks in the public sector seem to be gunshy from the 3C battle.  Aside from all the technical issues, from my layman's perspective, this would make some headway.

Also, the split project will begin soon.

Though directed at the Cincinnati streetcar project, this ballot issue could impact ALL rail projects in the Cincinnati area.... this, according to an analysis by the Cincinnati Enquirer:

 

 

 

September 17, 2011

 

 

How far does the streetcar ballot issue really go?

 

Wording could prevent projects until 2020

By Carrie Whitaker and Jane Prendergast

[email protected]; [email protected]

 

November's ballot issue to halt Cincinnati's streetcar plan until 2020 is written so broadly it could stop other rail projects in the city, say a majority of legal experts interviewed by The Enquirer.

 

Cincinnati voters will decide on Issue 48 this fall. But the impact of what they'll be voting on has been in dispute.

 

The author of the charter amendment's wording, Chris Finney, again insisted last week in an interview that his "objective was to limit the scope only to the bad project that's on the table at this time" - the planned streetcar from Downtown's Government Square to Over-the-Rhine, just north of Findlay Market.

 

Opposition to this ballot issue is led by a group called Cincinnatians for Progress, which formed to fight a similar charter amendment on the November 2009 ballot. That measure failed.

 

Read more at: http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110917/NEWS0108/109180336/Rail-projects-may-face-halt?odyssey=nav%7Chead

I check out the Cincy streetcar thread about once a day and see the links they're posting from folks opposing the project. It seems the same campaign of misinformation that plagued 3-C is taking over Cincinnati. I wish we could hold hands with state and local politicians, take them for a walk around New England cities, other East Coast cities and Europe to show them that all prosperous cities have access to efficient rail. Not everyone has a damn car (Just got rid of mine this weekend!).

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1948_High-Speed-Rail

 

High-Speed Rail (Policy Focus Report)

International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers

 

Author(s): Todorovich, Petra, Daniel Schned, and Robert Lane

Publication Date: September 2011

 

64 pages; Inventory ID PF029; English; ISBN 978-1-55844-222-1

 

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/download.asp?doc_id=1268&pub_id=1948

 

Abstract

 

High-speed rail has been adopted throughout the world, and is now being planned and developed in the United States. Over the past 50 years, U.S. transportation spending has favored the development of interstate highway and aviation systems. In the meantime, countries such as China, Japan, Spain, France, and Germany have been investing in modern high-speed rail systems to satisfy the travel demands of current and future generations. As the United States embarks on the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program launched in 2009, it can learn from the experiences of other countries in planning, constructing, and operating high-speed rail.

 

In 2009–2010, the U.S. Congress appropriated $10.1 billion for a new high-speed and intercity passenger rail program. Applications from 39 states requested nearly $75 billion, demonstrating broad interest in and support for this program. The available funds were awarded to dozens of conventional intercity passenger rail projects and a few dedicated high-speed rail projects in 32 states and the District of Columbia, and those projects are now moving forward. The U.S. Department of Transportation, which manages the passenger rail program, has adopted a tiered approach, which emphasizes investments appropriate to the different markets and geographies in the United States. It defines three categories of passenger rail service that are intended to work together as a network: Core Express refers to high-speed trains operating on dedicated tracks with frequent service; Regional service operates at moderately high speeds and high frequency on shared corridors; and Emerging/ Feeder service is less frequent and connects smaller and emerging markets to major markets located along Regional and Core Express routes.

 

Decades of international experience with high-speed rail suggests that it could create similar transportation, economic, environmental, and safety benefits in American cities and regions. While it requires high upfront investment, high-speed rail promotes economic growth by improving market access, boosting productivity of knowledge workers, expanding labor markets, and attracting visitor spending. When planned thoughtfully with complementary investments in the public realm, high-speed rail can promote urban regeneration and attract commercial development, as shown in several European examples. High-speed rail has greater operating energy efficiency than competing modes and takes up less land than highways.

 

The initial investment of $10.1 billion in the U.S. High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, after years of minimal federal investment, required that the federal government and participating states quickly scale up to the challenge of laying the groundwork for a foundational program and implementing it at the same time. Those states that had the staff capacity, expertise, and experience in rail planning, such as Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington, were successful in securing high-speed rail grants. However, carrying the momentum of this initial investment forward has proven to be a struggle in a difficult fiscal environment, and California is currently the only federally funded Core Express high-speed rail project moving forward. In 2011, Congress voted to strip funding from the program. The expiration of the legislation authorizing the high-speed rail program in 2013 may provide an opportunity to consider policy changes.

 

This report describes several funding strategies that have proven to be successful in other countries, and makes specific policy recommendations to better position the federal high-speed rail program for success.

 

Strengthen the federal policy and management framework by expanding the federal role in planning and prioritizing high-speed rail corridors and working with the states to secure rights-of-way.

 

Prioritize corridors that meet investment criteria by clarifying the objectives and desired outcomes of the federal program and promoting investments in those corridors that exhibit the characteristics that are indicative of success.

 

Establish new mechanisms for corridor management by developing legislation that enables the creation of public infrastructure corporations that can operate across state and national borders and attract private investment.

 

Plan for maximum land development benefits by coupling high-speed rail station investments with policies that encourage land development around station areas. In general, well-connected stations in center-city locations offer the greatest potential for urban revitalization.

 

Focus initially on the Northeast Corridor and California, which offer the best opportunities for Core Express high-speed rail service in the United States, by addressing the management and financing challenges each region faces.

 

Secure adequate and reliable funding by drawing on a full complement of potential federal, state, and private sources. Such sources could include increasing existing transportationrelated fees (such as a portion of the gas tax or ticket surcharges), creating an infrastructure bank, forging public-private partnerships, and expanding existing credit assistance programs.

 

This Policy Focus Report was a product of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Regional Plan Association and their joint venture America 2050. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has been engaged in a series of projects with the Regional Plan Association for more than a decade. The partnership spawned the national initiative known as America 2050, which is aimed at meeting the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation, in preparation for a population increase of about 130 million by 2050. A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions - large networks of metropolitan areas, where most of the population growth by mid-century will take place. Examples of megaregions are the Northeast Megaregion, from Boston to Washington, or Southern California, from Los Angeles to Tijuana, Mexico. High-speed rail is capable of linking employment centers and population hubs in corridors up to 600 miles in length in 11 U.S. megaregions.

 

This report is written by:

 

Petra Todorovich, Director of America 2050

Dan Schred, Regional Plan Association

Robert Lane, Regional Plan Association

Redirected from "What Other States are Doing".....

 

To clarify and emphasize. . . .  The only proposal that is being developed at this time is to expand CHI-NYC Amtrak service via Toledo and Cleveland. The alternative for Amtrak, if this proposal doesn't go anywhere and if Amtrak should be so inclined, is to make use of a route through Canada as its principal CHI-NYC route. My point in preparing the information below is to show that the routing via Canada is a very real and potentially attractive alternative for Amtrak to consider if our elected leaders do not act on a proposal to improve the route via Ohio.

 

The stakes are large for us.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,12036.180.html#ixzz1ZFtf8BKt

 

It's worse than that, something which I will show shortly in map form. I'm working on some messaging pieces for the media.

 

OK, here is what is happening.......

 

Chicago-Indiana State Line: Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are funding the $133 million Englewood Flyover so very frequent Metra/Rock Island line commuter trains can "fly over" the busy Norfolk Southern/Amtrak mainline on a new bridge. Although passenger train speeds will remain unchanged at 79 mph, this improvement will reduce delays and travel times by removing a significant rail traffic chokepoint.

 

Illinois State Line-Porter, IN: Indiana DOT and FRA are funding the $71.4 million Indiana Gateway project that will add passing sidings and new crossover switches between main tracks to increase the capacity and flow of traffic of the busy Norfolk Southern mainline currently used by 80-90 NS freight trains and 14 Amtrak passenger trains daily. Although passenger train speeds will remain at 79 mph, this improvement will reduce delays and travel times by adding significant new capacity for more fluid rail traffic.

 

Porter, IN-Kalamazoo, MI: Michigan DOT, Amtrak and the FRA have funded recent improvement to tracks and signals over this Amtrak-owned rail corridor, allowing passenger train speeds of 95 mph as of 2009 and 110 mph planned in 2012.

 

Kalamazoo-Detroit, MI: Michigan DOT and the FRA have or will soon receive a total of about $400 million so MDOT can buy the Norfolk Southern tracks between Kalamazoo-Dearborn, and trackage here and eastward to Detroit will be improved to permit 79 mph by 2012 and up to 110 mph before 2017. The Chicago-Detroit travel time is projected to be reduced to 4 hours, from more than 5 hours today.

 

Detroit-Windsor: The Continental Rail Gateway Coalition, a public-private group comprised of the Windsor Port Authority, Canadian Pacific Railway and Borealis Infrastructure, was created in 2010 to raise $400 million for a new rail tunnel below the Detroit River for tall double-stack freight trains. The existing, 1909-built rail tunnels could be modernized for shorter passenger trains.

 

Windsor-Chatham: The Government of Canada and VIA Rail Canada are investing $23 million for a new Windsor train station ($6M) and track and signal improvements ($17M) to raise passenger train speeds to 100 mph over this segment, owned by Canadian National Railway.

 

Chatham-Bayview Junction: Past improvements to this route permit regular passenger train speeds of up to 95 mph. A major new station in downtown London was built in 2002 for $7 million to serve its 400,000 annual riders and 16 daily trains. At Bayview, passenger trains from Windsor and London join those from Niagara Falls and Hamilton on a shared corridor to Toronto. No trains run through between Windsor and Niagara Falls, but if they did they might cover the 234 miles in about 3.5 hours.

 

Bayview Junction-Niagara Falls, ON: Past improvements to this route permit regular passenger train speeds of up to 95 mph. Additional improvements, including a new train station for Hamilton, are planned as part of an extension of GO Transit regional passenger trains eastward to Niagara Falls. This will add eight weekday trains to the four daily VIA and Amtrak intercity trains to/from Toronto.

 

Niagara Falls-Albany: New York DOT and the FRA have begun a major capital improvement program for the Empire Corridor totaling $671 million, thanks to nearly $300 million from the FRA and Federal Transit Administration. This includes the new $44 million Niagara Falls International Railway Station at the Customhouse, intermodal stations at several cities, and the Third Track Initiative for 90+ mph passenger speeds from the Niagara Frontier east to Albany alongside the existing CSX mainline. This is projected to reduce travel times from more than 5 hours to 4 on this section.

 

Albany-New York City: NYDOT, FRA and Amtrak have $58 million for station expansion at Albany/Rensselaer, with additional funding being sought for track improvements between Albany and New York City by NYDOT and Metro-North to raise train speeds from 90 mph to 110 mph. Environmental studies for this work should be completed in 2012 with preliminary engineering, funding procurement and construction to follow. Travel times will be reduced to 2 hours here.

 

 

Other recent/ongoing developments:

 

In 2000, Amtrak proposed to combine a Wolverine Corridor round trip with an Empire Corridor round trip by operating the consolidated train through Canada nonstop and closed-door so that time-consuming (one hour or more) customs inspections at each border crossing would not be needed. Changes in Amtrak management and security concerns following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 canceled this proposal.

 

In 2011, U.S. Customs officials began considering a proposal to allow Amtrak's Adirondack and Vermonter trains to New York City to operate nonstop between Montreal to the U.S./Canada border without inspection at the border. Instead, customs clearance would be conducted at the Montreal train station and the train operate nonstop without serving enroute stations in Canada. This practice has been in existence for several years on Amtrak's Cascades route between Vancouver, Seattle, Portland and Eugene. U.S. Customs gives passengers pre-clearance at Vancouver's station, with trains running nonstop to the border. See:

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/customs-revamp-eyed-for-amtrak-adirondack-3151.html

 

In 2011, Canadian and Michigan government officials began discussing linking VIA's Windsor-Quebec City rail corridor with Amtrak's Detroit-Chicago Wolverine Corridor. See: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/05/windsor_mp_brian_masse_pushes.html

http://www.windsorstar.com/Masse+steps+high+speed+rail+push/5392480/story.html#ixzz1Y5C5FgR3

 

 

NET RESULT: If a new or rerouted train between Chicago-New York City was offered via the north side of Lake Erie, rail travel times could be as little as 13.5 hours with the above improvements and  Customs procedures. Current Chicago-New York City rail travel times on the south side of Lake Erie are 18 hours, and could be reduced to 16 hours with the above improvements. Making infrastructure improvements to allow train speeds to be increased to 90 mph along the south side of the lake would reduce travel times further, possibly by another 2.5 hours to match the best possible travel time on the north side of Lake Erie.

 

Absent a response by those of us in Ohio and other states, all of the above could result in Ohio being left out of the growing Chicago-New York rail travel market. A proposal must be developed to create a public-private partnership for enhancing rail infrastructure westward from New York and Pennsylvania to Chicago on the south side of Lake Erie so that Ohio isn't bypassed on this important transportation corridor.....

 

^ That would be an appalling result. Who do we write to, other than Congress?

Congressfolks, senators, mayors and chambers of commerce in communities along the south side of the lake.

Stand Up For Trains today!

 

?? What if you could hop a train with friends in Toledo, Cleveland or other Ohio towns and reliably arrive on-time in the Chicago Loop in a few hours?

 

?? Or avoid the cost of a New York hotel by taking a comfortable hotel on rails, arriving in Midtown Manhattan by 8 a.m.?

 

?? Or how about cruising the rails at 90 mph from Toledo or Cleveland to Pittsburgh, Buffalo or Syracuse in any weather, while catching up on work, staying in touch with clients, watching a movie or browsing Facebook on your iPhone while having a drink or snack?

 

?? And do so in a world-class train where you have airline first-class leg room in a train's economy-class seat, where you can visit a cafe car at any time to socialize with other passengers over hot food or a cold beverage, with travel that's up to one-sixth the cost of flying, one-fourth the cost of driving, and up to one-half the cost of Greyhound.

 

Ready to ride? The first phase of expansion is coming

 

Amtrak in 2012 will acquire 130 cars built in Elmira, NY with some components made in Ohio and surrounding states, that will allow it to expand its existing Chicago-East Coast services and increase ridership in this market from 500,000 travelers in 2010 to a projected 920,000 riders in 2013. Additional capital funding will enable Chicago-East Coast passenger rail services to expand further, increase speeds and target rail traffic bottlenecks to benefit passengers and shippers alike. It will benefit rail industry suppliers (Ohio is the nation's 5th-largest rail industry supplier state by employment), rail freight shippers, our outstanding university system, health care industry, innovation centers, and travel & tourism with increased, low-cost access.

 

Learning to walk before we run

 

Meanwhile, at the same time, planning will start for the development of a Chicago-East Coast high-speed rail corridor with top speeds of up to 220 mph. This effort will take at least a decade to conduct all of the planning, engineering, financing, property acquisition and construction. This system will likely be built in segments, so the existing, but improved train services will feed into the completed sections, just as they have done in more than two dozen nations that already have high-speed rail.

 

Let your Congressperson and U.S. Senators know how you feel by visiting www.standupfortrains.org/. Download the sample letter or resolution, then personalize/localize it and send it to your elected leaders.

 

Support passenger rail in Ohio today!

 

WHAT IS "STAND UP FOR TRAINS"?

"Stand Up For Trains" is a special project of which All Aboard Ohio is a member to generate excitement and support around passenger rail.  All Aboard Ohio is a non-profit 501c3 organization founded in 1973 to preserve, improve and expand train and transit services in and through Ohio that gives citizens quality, low-cost transportation choices.

 

The concept of "Stand Up For Trains" is our way of expressing how this rail system will link all that is great in Ohio:

* Manufacturing

* Shippers

* Universities

* Health care industry

* Arts, entertainment, athletics, culture

* Business communities

* Tourism

 

The development of the Chicago-East Coast corridor is the first step in bringing high-speed rail to Ohio, and an important step forward in connecting the Chicago-based Midwest network to the Northeast Corridor-based network on the East Coast through a strategic passenger rail trunk line route that serves numerous intermediate travel corridors.

 

"CHICAGO-EAST COAST" PROJECT

On July 23, 2010 Amtrak placed an order for 130 Viewliner II cars worth $298.1 million with CAF USA, a fully owned subsidiary of Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles located in Elmira, New York. Railcars are being assembled in Elmira, including bearings from Canton, Ohio-based Timken; wheel bogies from Columbus Steel in Columbus, Ohio; and numerous other locally and regionally made components. This substantial investment is the just first step toward improving east-west passenger rail services through Ohio -- the nation's fifth-largest rail industry supplier state as measured by employment. There are 220 rail industry supplier companies in Ohio employing 26,000 workers!

 

Amtrak's 2012 proposals including making the Chicago-Cincinnati-Washington DC-New York Cardinal a daily train, nearly doubling ridership while improving its financial performance 31 percent. Similarly, new Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-New York service will be created by linking the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited routes with "through cars", increasing ridership and the route's financial performance by 15 percent.

 

This travel market has the potential to accommodate much more aggressive expansion, considering that the 1,000-mile Chicago-East Coast Corridor has 60.4 million people within 10 miles of the most direct, existing Amtrak route via Cleveland and Pittsburgh, compared to 56 million people living along China's 818-mile Jinghu high-speed rail corridor between Beijing and Shanghai. There are countless universities and numerous Fortune 500 companies, dozens of professional sports teams, and most major cities have local transit systems with rail service and bus rapid transit to distribute connecting passengers within their revitalizing urban cores.

 

A next phase of expansion is proposed to include major capacity enhancements to principal rail corridors and rail traffic choke points to smooth the flow of all rail traffic, especially freight. Only then may the passenger train service be expanded with:

 

+ the addition of four daily Chicago-New York round trips to augment existing Amtrak services;

+ train speeds of 79-110 mph depending on local conditions;

+ advanced-technology trains that accelerate quickly, take curves at higher speeds and use electrical power where it exists.

 

Such an expansion could offer these improvements:

 

+ Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland: expand from 2 daily round trips to 6, reduce travel times from 7 hours to 5;

+ Cleveland-Pittsburgh: expand from 1 daily round trip to 3, reduce travel times from 3 hours to 2.5;

+ Cleveland-Buffalo: expand from 1 daily round trip to 3, reduce travel times slightly from an already fast 3 hours;

+ Buffalo-Syracuse-Albany-New York City: expand from 4 daily round trips to 6 (not including already frequent service south of Albany), reduce travel times from 8 hours to 6;

+ Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Philadelphia-NYC: expand from 1 daily round trip to 3 (not including already frequent service east of Harrisburg), reduce travel times from 9 hours to 7.5.

 

 

"CHICAGO-EAST COAST" PROJECT:  ECONOMIC IMPACT

The development of the corridor will have tremendous economic impact for the Midwest-Northeast:

* Creation of 20,000 jobs (US Dept. of Commerce says $1 billion invested in passenger rail creates 20,000 jobs);

* Freight infrastructure upgrades will make shipping in and through Ohio more efficient and reliable;

* Positive impacts on property values around the rail corridor (projected 30% increase in property value);

* Revitalization of urban downtown areas with value-capture practices that sustain the passenger rail services instead of relying on endless taxpayer subsidies.

 

HOW WILL WE WIN?

Through the days of national roads, canals, transcontinental railroads, interstate highways, and federal airports, Congress decides how it will support transportation in America. The same applies to developing high-speed rail, including its prerequisite incremental approach.

 

Let's activate rail industry suppliers, college students, environmental organizations, seniors, disabled/mobility-rights groups, and more to tell our chambers of commerce, councils, mayors, commissioners, congresspersons and senators that Ohio wants rail. Let's show our  leaders the benefits to "Linking Ohio."

 

Tell our federal legislators that we want our trains! Go to www.standupfortrains.org/ today!

OKI (Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments) is hosting Open Houses for their 2040 Plan.  Some how missed the original annoucement, but the last one to appear in person is TODAY 4-7PM at:

 

Butler County Government Services

315 High St

Hamilton, OH 45011

 

If you cannot go, I encourage you writing/emailing/faxing comments to

ATTN: Regina Brock

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments

720 Pete Rose Way, Suite 420

Cincinnati, OH 45202

T 513-621-6300

F 513-621-9325

Em: [email protected]

 

If you go or write a note, here are points I encourage you to make:

 

1. Pass a resolution and incorporate high speed rail into planning, Cincinnati-Chicago and Cincinnati-Cleveland.

 

2. Initiate a mini-CREATE project to upgrade Queensgate/Gest St./Union Terminal for more fluid freight traffic and ample space for access to the terminal for passenger train service, includes rebuilding SE Connection, adding 4th Main, etc.  For info on CREATE, see www.createprogram.org

 

3. Commuter Rail between Cincinnati-Dayton/Springfield.  This is population area is approx 70mi long and around 3-3.5million in population.  Similar length and population to Seattle-Tacoma's Sounder, Albuquerque-Santa Fe Rail Runner, and Minneapolis-St. Cloud NorthStar. Could ultimately extend to CVG and DAY.

 

4. Advocate better scheduling and DAILY service for Cardinal.

 

Your comments and feedback to OKI are important.

October 13, 2011

Column | Korky Koroluk

Architects propose high speed rail in Great Lakes region

 

Two big, important ideas intersected last week at the global green-building conference in Toronto. Neither was new, although I’d never seen them bundled together.

 

One was for a high-speed rail system linking metro areas in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region. The other was for a bi-national agreement treating that same huge area as an economic unit.

 

Several years ago, the Brookings Institution, began working on the idea of creating a single economic unit out of the eight states and two provinces bordering the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, and it published several papers on the subject. Even then, the idea wasn’t new; it had been suggested several times since the end of the Second World War, although it never gained any political traction.

 

...An HSR system would provide an important part of the area’s shared infrastructure. As envisaged by Skidmore, Owens, it would provide a fast link from Quebec City, through Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, to Detroit and Chicago, with onward connections to west, south and southeast. It would also link Toronto and New York through Hamilton and Buffalo, and Chicago and New York through Toledo and Cleveland.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dcnonl.com/article/id47097/--architects-propose-high-speed-rail-in-great-lakes-region

Ohio, jobs left behind at the station

October 20, 2011 6:29 PM

Ken Prendergast, All Aboard Ohio

 

The end of September saw Michigan's Republican Gov. Rick Snyder approve a high-speed rail financing package of private, local, state and federal dollars amounting to $398.1 million. Days earlier, Michigan's Republican-dominated Senate and House approved the package by near-unanimous votes of 33-5 and 101-8, respectively.

 

State-led track improvements in Republican Indiana and Democratic Illinois are already under way to raise train speeds from 79 mph to 110 mph between Detroit and Chicago. This line, serving 17 cities in Michigan, Indiana and Illinois with up to eight trains daily, saw its highest ridership this year in four decades. Ridership will rise even higher with higher speeds.

 

“High-speed rail represents the future of passenger service in the United States,” said Michigan Republican state Rep. Mark Ouimet in a written statement. “It could usher in an economic boon as well.”

 

You'd never know it happened if you lived in Ohio, the “Hole of it All” when it comes to passenger rail development.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.limaohio.com/opinion/rail-73753-ohio-amtrak.html

I was just thinking...... Our neighboring states should let us in Ohio enjoy their passenger trains, too. Why? Because it will cost those states a lot of money if they don't.

 

Let me explain.... There is a provision in the federal Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) called Section 209. This section requires that any trains on any routes under 750 miles that aren't already being subsidized by the states they serve must become subsidized by them by October 2013. Amtrak is currently subsidizing these routes using its annual federal operating grant.

 

There are several routes in Ohio's neighboring states that are not Sec. 209 compliant according to Amtrak. I have a great map in PDF form but I have been unable to convert to JPG or GIF to post here. But these routes are the Chicago-Detroit Wolverine Corridor, New York to Buffalo/NGF Empire Corridor and the New York to Harrisburg/Pittsburgh Keystone Corridor. None of those three corridors are PRIIA Sec. 209 compliant.

 

Making them compliant would move $59.7 million in Amtrak operating and fixed asset capital charges on to the affected states: $24.5M in New York, $16.3M in Pennsylvania, $15.1M in Michigan, and $3.8M in Indiana. Linking up these corridors via Ohio would be a systematic, cost-effective plan to tap rapidly growing ridership on Chicago-East Coast trains (half-million riders in 2010, 724,000 this year, and nearly 1 million projected by Amtrak by 2013).

 

Linking up the neighboring corridors through Ohio will require significant capital investments for enhanced track capacity between Detroit, Toledo and Cleveland, and perhaps lesser capacity enhancements between Cleveland eastward to Buffalo and Pittsburgh because the passenger traffic may be divided east of Cleveland. But using the Michigan trains for the linkups will save on adding a third main track over the 234 miles between Toledo and Chicago.

 

We need to show the DOTs in those states that developing the Chicago-East Coast rail market can and should be designed in their best interests so that they can support it. I'm working on some ideas and would like some of yours.

Cleveland: Future of high-speed rail service

11:54 PM, Oct 29, 2011

 

CLEVELAND -- A meeting of the minds here in Cleveland Saturday with folks who have a need for speed. Not on the roads, but on the rails. If they have their way, connecting Chicago and New York City via Cleveland will be a reality sooner than later.

 

Twice a day, usually in the middle of the night, passenger trains stop in Cleveland during runs from Chicago to New York and Washington.

 

If the Midwest High-Speed Rail Advocates have their way, Northeast Ohio could start seeing those trains in the daylight too.

 

READ MORE AND SEE THE VIDEO AT:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=212937

Some support from the Empire State:

 

 

Routes can use additional trains

Published 01:25 a.m., Saturday, October 29, 2011

 

 

The Oct. 24 editorial, "By rail and bus, N.Y. on the right path," correctly compliments New York's congressional representatives for securing federal funds to pay for improved Amtrak service. The shift in operational control from freight railroad CSX to Amtrak and physical improvements between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady mean better passenger service in the Capital Region.

 

As you note, Amtrak carried more than 30 million passengers in its fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Amtrak reports indicate just under 2 million were on routes north of New York City.

 

 

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Routes-can-use-additional-trains-2242283.php#ixzz1cMDz6QK9

A westbound train that arrives in Chicago at noon would be nice to connect with the California Zephyr, Southwest Chief and the Empire Builder.  They depart between 2:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M..  As it is now, one must leave Cleveland at 3:45 A.M. to arrive at 9:45 A.M.  A 6:00 A.M. departure would be nicer.

 

IDOT outlines high-speed rail proposals

November 03, 2011 8:47 PM

By LINDA N. WELLER

The Telegraph

 

ALTON - The Illinois Department of Transportation held its final of five public meetings across the state Thursday in Alton regarding alternatives for locating three portions of the "high-speed" rail route.

 

The informal public meeting, at Alton Holiday Inn, 3800 Homer Adams Parkway, lasted three hours. IDOT representatives were on hand to update visitors on progress of the system's track replacement project; and to show proposed route alternatives for Alton to St. Louis, within Springfield, and Chicago to Joliet.

 

Representatives also previewed forthcoming environmental impact studies as part of the planning process for some second sets of tracks - all of which was to encourage public input. Private firms are conducting those studies.

 

 

Read more: http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/idot-61509-alton-tracks.html#ixzz1ckQZqDOn

Given the absurd fixation by rail critics on the issues of speed during the debate over Ohio's 3C project...I found this op-ed interesting.

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

Perspective: Speed thrills, but performance wins

(October 2011)   

Tuesday, November 01, 2011 

By Chris Taylor, for Railway Age

 

Woody Allen once said, “I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia.” Speed is compelling. From restaurant service to medical treatment, we use speed to define quality. Transportation is no exception. But as Allen illustrates, by focusing solely on speed you can miss other essential elements. U.S. passenger rail is a case in point.

 

Headlines often blare about the speed of European or Asian high speed trains. But those vaunted speeds are rarely sustained in practice, due to operating costs, logistic constraints, and maintenance requirements. The unspoken story is overall performance—efficient, reliable, and comfortable ways of getting passengers to their destinations, using rail as one well-integrated component of an overall journey. But performance can be hard to define and even harder to quantify. Speed becomes the defining principle by default. Unfortunately, U.S. passenger rail cannot afford to live by that definition. To advance passenger rail here, advocates should focus on high-performance rail (HPR).

 

Read more at: http://www.railwayage.com/short-line-and-regional-perspective/perspective-speed-thrills-but-performance-wins-october-2011-3663.html

This project (which also extends west of Porter to the Illinois state line) is also on the main Amtrak route from Cleveland, Toledo and other northern Ohio cities into Chicago......

 

Porter Junction rail project looks safe

By Keith Benman [email protected], (219) 933-3326 | Posted: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:53 pm

 

PORTAGE | A Republican effort to kill funding for President Barack Obama's signature high-speed rail program will not affect the $71.4 Indiana Gateway project centered on improvements at Porter Junction.

 

Money for the Indiana Gateway project, which will create 700 jobs, already has been appropriated and awarded, according to officials at the Indiana Department of Transportation and Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission.

 

"Our understanding is the Congressional action will not put those funds in jeopardy," John Swanson, NIRPC executive director, said Thursday.

 

Read more: http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/porter-junction-rail-project-looks-safe/article_a147fbfb-b7fc-5843-8f03-c189e9ebb4f3.html#ixzz1eNJ8EwI7

  $71.4 is very inexpensive for a railroad project.  :-D

Even if it were $71.4 million ( :wink: ), it would be an awfully good value for the improvements in rail traffic movement it's expected to produce.

 

On a railroad project, I think $71.4 would perhaps cover the fully-allocated cost of one bucketful of ballast rock.

Even it was just $71.4, that would still be $71.4 more than what Ohio is investing in passenger rail.

^Amtrak put up a new sign in front of Cincinnati Union Terminal. I bet that cost at least $71.4.

 

Not a peep about it in the local media, either.  :-)

Yes, I'm sure you are correct. However I was thinking more along the lines of:

 

Federal Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act (PRIIA) and American Reinvestment & Recovery Act (ARRA) High-Speed & Intercity Passenger Rail Funding accepted by the following Midwest states....

 

• Illinois - $1,734,866,660

• Iowa - $248,709,080

• Indiana - $71,364,980

• Michigan - $400,732,595

• Minnesota - $45,600,000

• Missouri - $50,900,300

• Ohio - $0

• Wisconsin - $34,055,437

 

Total: $2,586,229,052

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Awards $150 Million to Michigan to Expand High-Speed Rail in the Midwest

FRA 36-11

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Contact: Brie Sachse

Tel.: 202-493-6024

 

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today awarded $150 million to the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for a high-speed rail project that will increase the safety and reliability of Amtrak’s Wolverine and Blue Water services between Detroit and Chicago and put more than 800 Americans back to work this spring.

 

“With America’s population set to grow by 100 million over the next 40 years, high-speed rail will play a vital role in meeting America’s long-term transportation challenges,” said Secretary LaHood. “Projects like this will employ local workers, use American-made materials and lay a strong foundation for future economic growth.”

 

The grant will enable MDOT to acquire ownership over much of the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac High Speed Rail Corridor within the State of Michigan and pave the way for them to begin a track and signal improvement project between Detroit and Kalamazoo, MI, in the spring of 2012. These improvements will allow for speeds up to 110 mph on 77 percent of Amtrak’s Wolverine and Blue Water services between Detroit and Chicago, resulting in a 30 minute reduction in travel times between those destinations. Previously announced FRA investments in the line include new continuously welded rail and ties, fiber optic lines and infrastructure to support a positive train control system, rebuilding 180 highway-rail grade crossings and gates and flashers at 65 private highway-rail grade crossings.

 

The corridor will also benefit from next-generation American-made trains, funded as part of a previously announced $782 million grant that will pump new life into domestic manufacturing. States will purchase 33 quick-acceleration locomotives and 120 bi-level passenger cars to operate in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, California, Washington and Oregon.

 

Michigan is among thirty-two states throughout the U.S. and the District of Columbia that are laying the foundation for high-speed rail corridors that will link Americans with faster and more energy-efficient travel options.  To date, the U.S. Department of Transportation has invested $10.1 billion to put American communities on track towards new and expanded rail access and improved reliability, speed and frequency of existing service.

 

 

i think the 3c rail project was a bad idea..but i am pro rail..the most obvious needd is a columbus link to amtrak,why on earth is columbus excluded from amtrak??ohios most important city needs a link to pittsburgh and then to new york and west to chicago.there is really not that much need for rail between the 3 c's but there would be great demand for rail to nyc and chicago..and also cincinnati needs better service ie times.make train travel attractive and ppl will use it.

The 3C Corridor is one of the top-10 most heavily traveled intercity routes in the United States, according to the US Dept of Transportation. And the 3C project would have given Columbus Amtrak service to the east via Cleveland then through New York state -- the flattest and fastest route to the east. The link wasn't touted as much as it probably should have, but such travel would been possible had the guv kept the money to upgrade the rail lines to the same quality as the direct Chicago-East Coast lines through Toledo and Cleveland. Instead, Columbus remains the largest metropolitan area in North America and possibly the Western Hemisphere without any regularly scheduled passenger rail services, and few local officials seem interested in doing anything about changing that dubious honor. Consider this recent, sad example.... US Railcar Corp. had to ask the Toledo Lucas County Port Authority to sponsor a grant to develop a manufacturing facility in the Columbus suburb of Gahanna! Why? Because local officials wouldn't support it. If Central Ohio won't financially support passenger rail while other states/regions do, then why should passenger rail come there?

 

But why does Northern Ohio have Amtrak service? Because congressional leaders along that route, especially in Cleveland, fought for it in 1975 as Amtrak's first experimental route. Today, the Lake Shore Limited is one of Amtrak's most heavily used trains. The Capitol Limited was rerouted through Toledo and Cleveland in 1990 after track was downgraded through Canton, Mansfield and Lima.

 

Then why does Cincinnati have Amtrak service? Because Congressman Harley Staggers Sr. and Senator Robert Byrd both of West Virginia fought to include the Cardinal route in Amtrak's initial system in 1971 to link their state with the East Coast and Chicago. And they fought to keep it, albeit with service reduced to thrice-weekly operations, in the face of repeated Amtrak budget cuts in the 1980s and early 1990s. Cincinnati got and kept its trains because there was no higher quality rail route between West Virginia and Chicago.

 

No Senator or Congressional leader in Columbus has fought to keep passenger rail since Amtrak's creation 40 years ago. It's why Columbus lost the New York City-Kansas City National Limited in 1979. If a Congressman didn't fight to put or keep your city on the Amtrak route map, then Amtrak isn't going to do it for you. Same deal happened with mapping out federal highway routes. Ohio had won $400 million in no-match federal funds -- as good as it gets -- to put Columbus back on Amtrak's map. Never before has no-match federal dollars been provided for passenger rail, let alone in such large amounts. And Ohio threw it away. Why? In the hopes of getting a better deal?

 

If you want rail infrastructure that enables fast, drive-time competitive Amtrak service between Columbus and Pittsburgh to the East Coast, as well as to Columbus to Chicago, be prepared for a price tag in excess of $400 million. The highest quality, least expensive route with the greatest ridership potential for Columbus is the 3C Corridor. But if Central Ohio wants something else, then it should seek funding leveraged by some of its own because the no-match rail grants were a one-shot stimulus deal and they're all gone. Local officials should be prepared for a higher start-up cost, leveraged by a 20% non-federal funding match such as from the state or local governments (meaning if Ohio wants to reapply for a $400 million grant, it will now have to pony up $100 million of its own funding to get it). The per passenger-mile operating subsidy would be higher too, based on the Ohio Hub studies, since no Ohio-involved passenger rail route was as promising as 3C when it came to ridership, revenue or operating subsidy per passenger-mile.

 

But we keep hoping and fighting for change. And I hope you will too, including sharing some ideas on how to get train service back to Ohio's third-largest metropolitan area.

^^ I do think there is something intriguing about a Columbus to Pittsburgh connection.  The burgh is a lot harder to drive to from Columbus than Cleveland/Cincy.  I wouldnt be surprised if a startup conventional speed rail would truly be faster than driving (3-3.5 hour trip).  The route between the two cities is a lot more scenic than the 3C route too (IMO) and could draw some pure tourism traffic.  PA is a lot more rail friendly as well; might be easier to get folks on their side interested.  Just a thought.

Well, you might certainly find the railroad-owning landlord more supportive than in the 3C Corridor -- the state owns the rail line from Columbus to Mingo Junction near Steubenville. It needs quite a bit of improvements to get it up to at 79 mph. Unfortunately the last 40-some miles from Weirton WV into Pittsburgh is gone, abandoned almost 20 years ago.

 

And then there's the Ohio Rail Development Commission's enabling legislation which requires ORDC to pursue 3C first as part of a state plan. If someone else wants to initiate the project, putting ORDC in a supportive role instead of a leadership role, then that might their "out." Problem is, per Amtrak's M.O. and under federal law passed in 2008, only the public sector (states or groups of states) can initiate and sponsor intercity passenger rail projects.

i think the 3c rail project was a bad idea..but i am pro rail..the most obvious needd is a columbus link to amtrak,why on earth is columbus excluded from amtrak??ohios most important city needs a link to pittsburgh and then to new york and west to chicago.there is really not that much need for rail between the 3 c's but there would be great demand for rail to nyc and chicago..and also cincinnati needs better service ie times.make train travel attractive and ppl will use it.

 

Leaving aside any comments on which of Ohio's cities is "most important", Cleveland is already on any direct route between New York and Chicago.  Expecting them to divert the line  south to Pittsburgh and Columbus (and presumably Indianapolis) and then back north to Chicago is more expensive to build and more expensive to use. 

 

I tend to be a skeptic on the topic of 3-C high speed passenger rail because I suspect that every powerful politician on the route will lobby for a stop in their district (does anyone really think Bill Batchelder, for example, is going to want 80mph trains passing through and not stopping in Medina County?) and this would defeat the purpose of the line.

 

Nevertheless, Columbus's access to NYC and Chicago is clearly going to be a connection to that lakefront route and Cleveland makes the most sense as a connection point, whether it's for passengers or freight.

why on earth is columbus excluded from amtrak??ohios most important city

:roll:

 

Expecting them to divert the line  south to Pittsburgh and Columbus (and presumably Indianapolis) and then back north to Chicago is more expensive to build and more expensive to use. 

The Pennsylvanian already travels from NYC to Pittsburgh, it could just be extended West to Columbus, then Indy, then Chicago. It's not as far out of the way as you make it sound.