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.

 

 

The 3C tracks don't go through Medina County. They go farther west through Lorain County where the landscape is flatter. But I've suggested a stop in Grafton to catch riders from Medina County but especially from Elyria and Lorain.

 

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.

 

Sadly, the mainline that Amtrak used before 1979 between Dayton and Indianapolis is gone. The fast, double-tracked, former-Pennsylvania RR was ripped out by Conrail in 1982. The only way to get any train from Columbus to Indianapolis today is either via Hamilton or via a tiny junction called Ridgeway near Bellefontaine. Both are CSX lines -- the alleged culprit who went to Kasich and told him to kill 3C.

An interesting look back...check out the video as well.  The story does make you wonder where our spirit of innovation in rail travel has gone.

 

What can Canada's forgotten Turbo train teach us about nostalgia and innovation?

 

North America's only real high-speed train first hit the rails in 1970. An unearthed video from its launch is a reminder of the can-do energy of that 'Mad Men' era — a transformative spirit of innovation we desperately need to recapture.

 

Read more and see video at: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/what-can-canadas-forgotten-turbo-train-teach-us-about-nostalgia-and-

^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.  :-)

 

Does COAST know about this??  :-P

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

 

I saw this news story as well.  What was the outcome of the meeting?  I haven't heard much about the Chicago - NYC HSR story since.

 

I think it'd be great for Ohio to leverage it's position as being the middle of Chicago, NYC, and DC.  I've read that since the completion of the Wuhan - Guangzhou HSR in China, the big winner was Hunan province in the middle.  Businesses located there were connected to the big cities at the ends of the line but didn't have to deal with the high cost of living and property prices.  Similarly, Ohio may be able to court businesses that don't want to deal with high costs of operating out of NYC, DC, and Chicago *if* a speedy overland connection among the three exists.

Stuff is happening. Just not publicly. You may hear something more in the spring.

Does this region have high airfares between its cities? Oh yes.

 

As one might expect, airfares between most east coast and Midwest cities are horrible. the worst was a nonstop New York-Cleveland flight for $1,106! As expected, the cheapest was New York-Chicago at $134 nonstop---where the competition is. Otherwise, airfares were dismally high, usually around $400-900. The surprise to me was that usually Southwest wasn't much cheaper than the competition. In some cases, it was more!

 

This is fertile ground for Chicago-east coast overnight service---if we can add service. A trip on a Viewliner sleeper can be less than half as much as flying and without airport hassles. Many smaller cities do not have nonstop flights and are so close together that airlines' speed advantage is negated.

 

Orbitz and Southwest

 

One person, round trip with one week notice.

 

New York NY to:

 

Syracuse--$238 nonstop/$238-1159 one stop, no Southwest service

Buffalo------$258 nonstop/$258-1132 one stop, Southwest $288 & up

Cleveland--$1106 nonstop/$299-1106 one stop, Southwest $299 & up

Toledo------$434 nonstop/$434-557 one stop, no Southwest service

Chicago----$134 nonstop/$134-215 one stop, Southwest $194 & up

Pittsburgh-$222 nonstop/$222-1152 one stop,

 

Albany NY to:

 

Erie----------No nonstops/$471-508 one stop, no Southwest service

Cleveland--$990 nonstop/$367-990 one stop, Southwest $490 & up

Toledo------No nonstops/$817 one stop, no Southwest service

Chicago---$537 nonstop/$310-537 one stop, Southwest $538 & up

 

Syracuse NY to:

 

Erie----------No nonstops/$512 one stop, no Southwest service

Cleveland--$992 nonstop/465-1200 one stop, no Southwest service

Toledo------no nonstops/$1143 one stop, no southwest service

Chicago---$864 nonstop/$304-864 one stop, no southwest service

 

Buffalo NY to:

 

Cleveland--$500 nonstop/346-726 one stop, Southwest $583 & up

Toledo------No nonstops/$670 one stop, no Southwest service

Chicago---$390 nonstop/203-1036 one stop, Southwest $352 & up

 

Cleveland OH to:

 

Chicago---$336 nonstop/$336-845 one stop, Southwest $290 & up

 

Pittsburgh PA to:

 

Chicago---$381 nonstop/4230-491 one stop

Detroit-----$814 nonstop/$359-1144 one stop

From what I've been reading, it seems that after Kasich's term that another study needs to be done and more years will pass before 3C is built.  Why can't we continue where we left off?  When the next governor starts his term (hopefully Kasich is voted out at the end of this one), the 3C study won't be *that* old.  Spending more time for another study just looks like another obstacle that prevents us from getting things done efficiently.

The "shelf life" of the data in those planning work products is about five years. They may not have to start all over, but some effort would certainly have to be done to verify if any data has changed and, if so, by how much.

I think a more targeted approach to funding certain HSR corridors instead of spreading the money along several corridors would have been a able to yield more results.  Attached is a modification of DOT's HSR corridor map, with red as "priority 1" and blue as "priority 2" lines.  Grey is what is already under construction, white are the other lines already planned.  Dotted green lines are lines that are not planned but I think would make sense.

 

The reason I picked priority 1 corridors as I did was to connect America's 4 world cities, NYC, LA, Chicago, and DC.  The connection of our world cities is important from a global competitiveness perspective, as domestic and foreign companies that want to do business in (or tourists who want to travel to) our premier cities should be able to travel among our top cities quickly.

 

Fortunately, Ohio is at the center of NYC, Chicago, and DC.  I think this would justify a higher priority in project completion and Ohio would benefit from the positive spillover of increased commerce among these cities.

I just read in our current All Aboard Ohio newsletter that "Some chamber and city officials have told AAO privately that the political environment does not favor rail projects at this time".  Our question back at them should be:  "what are you doing to try to change the political environment"?  And if the answer is nothing then "Why not".  AAO can't do this stuff all by itself!  Why is it so hard to build enough consensus in this transportation-backwards state to change the conversation???

 

After all, isn't one of the functions of the Chamber of Commerce to educate politicians on what the business community sees as important to economic development in their cities?  Didn't the Columbus Chamber just last year complete a survey showing and increasing number of young professionals would like to see options to driving in Columbus?  Is the Columbus Chamber just sitting on their hands, or are they making any efforts to educate elected officials and try to change the conversation? 

 

^ As far as Columbus is concerned, it appears the environment will never favor rail, locally, regionally or nationally.

Does this region have high airfares between its cities? Oh yes.

 

As one might expect, airfares between most east coast and Midwest cities are horrible. the worst was a nonstop New York-Cleveland flight for $1,106!

 

 

Mother of god it was less than $200 in 2006! And that's without any stops.

Does this region have high airfares between its cities? Oh yes.

 

As one might expect, airfares between most east coast and Midwest cities are horrible. the worst was a nonstop New York-Cleveland flight for $1,106!

 

 

Mother of god it was less than $200 in 2006! And that's without any stops.

 

I couldn't believe it myself when I first saw it. I had to re-read it several times to comprehend what I read. That's not to say that at other times, the fare might be less. It's just what it was at that particuar moment. It does show how screwed up things are, though.

Or maybe how screwed up things have been for a long time.  Airlines are heavily subsidized and it seems that one is filing for bankruptcy on a too-frequent basis.  Something has changed, however, and flights are fuller and more expensive, which might be what is needed to keep them solvent.  It shows that short-hop flights really aren't cost-effective and flights under 2 hours ought to be served by rail.

Or maybe how screwed up things have been for a long time.  Airlines are heavily subsidized and it seems that one is filing for bankruptcy on a too-frequent basis.  Something has changed, however, and flights are fuller and more expensive, which might be what is needed to keep them solvent.  It shows that short-hop flights really aren't cost-effective and flights under 2 hours ought to be served by rail.

 

Agreed. A passenger facility charge should be imposed for all airports and the money used to leverage bonds that would pay for a revamp of the air traffic control system and a massive investment in high speed, conventional and regional rail service to replace the short haul flights. We are currently rewarding inefficiency.

Tony Dutzik, Senior Policy Analyst, Frontier Group

In the Public Interest: The Little Train that Could ... and Did

Posted: 01/27/2012

 

When President Obama took office in 2009, he brought with him the greatest hope in decades for reinvestment in the nation's passenger rail system.

 

The public focus was on "high-speed rail," but many of the investments made by the Obama administration and Congress were small-bore improvements to the nation's existing rail infrastructure designed to put reliable, quality passenger rail service within reach of more Americans.

 

Somewhere along the way, however, passenger rail became a political football, with Tea Party governors such as Wisconsin's Scott Walker and Ohio's John Kasich all but tying themselves to the tracks to prevent construction of new rail lines in their states.

 

It's time they took a second look at what they're missing, and Maine is a good place to start. Ten years in, Maine's experiment with the restoration of passenger rail service is paying big dividends, proving that passenger rail has an important place in the nation's transportation future.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-dutzik/the-little-train-that-cou_b_1236705.html

Nice guest column.......

 

Hottinger got some information incorrect in column

Jan. 29, 2012

Written by

Ed D'Amato

 

For someone who claims to have spent a lot of time evaluating the 3-C corridor rail project, Rep. Jay Hottinger either didn't understand it or was being disingenuous about it in his Jan. 24 op-ed.

 

The 3-C project was based on the Ohio Hub Plan, which outlined a phased approach to providing 110 mph passenger rail service throughout the state, with the 3-C being the first step. It was developed by the Ohio Rail Development Commission during the Taft administration with the support of the legislature. In 2006, the Ohio Senate passed Resolution No. 30, which supported seeking a federal grant to advance the planning work for the Ohio Hub. The vote was 33-0, and one of the "yays" came from Jay Hottinger. In fact, former Gov. Ted Strickland would not have been able to pursue the 3-C at all had it not been for the background work done by the Republicans who preceded him.

 

Hottinger complained about the $23 million study, but declined to mention the study was part of a required federal planning process that is similar for all transportation projects and is designed to answer the questions that people like Hottinger claim to have.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20120129/OPINION02/201290304/Hottinger-got-some-information-incorrect-column

^for those who may have missed it, here's a link to Hottinger's column last week that that this is responding to:

 

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20120124/OPINION02/201240314

In the comments to Mr. Very-self-assured Hottinger, somebody said: "adding lanes to highways can cost as much as $75 million per mile".  Does that mean that adding the third lanes to I-71 in Morrow County would cost 20 miles * 2 lanes * $75m/mile => $ 3 billion ?

 

Another way to look at it would be: can one highway bottleneck on I-71 be fixed for less than the $400 million rail subsidy?

In rural areas, probably not so expensive as $75 million per mile. BUT in urban areas, how about $210 million per mile?

 

According to ODOT’s 2010 Business Plan, the following are Interstate highway major-new projects in the 3C Corridor are underway or wholly/partially funded for the years 2008-2015…

 

I-71/I-90 Innerbelt reconstruction in Cleveland (6 miles):

2004 ODOT estimate of $800 million, quadrupled to $3.5 billion in 2010, or $583 million per mile.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Department_of_Transportation

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/04/chances_for_a_great_i-90_bridg.html

 

I-70/I-71 split reconstruction in Columbus (3 miles):

2004 ODOT estimate of $434 million, quadrupled to $1.69 billion in 2009, or $563 million per mile.

Source: http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/16-billion-for-downtown-split/

 

I-75 Downtown Dayton sub-corridor improvements-all three phases (3 miles):

2007 ODOT estimate of $656 million, or $218.7 million per mile

Source: http://www.mvrpc.org/subCorr/

 

I-75/I-275 Reconstruction, lane additions (26 miles) Sharonville to Franklin:

2009 ODOT estimate of $349 million, or $13.4 million per mile

Source: http://www.bceo.org/construction.html

 

I-75 Mill Creek Expressway reconstruction project (5 miles):

2010 ODOT estimate of $532 million, or $106.4 million per mile

Source: http://www.i75millcreekexpressway.com/

 

I-71/I-75 Brent Spence Bridge replacement in Cincinnati (1 mile):

2004 ODOT estimate of $750 million, more than doubled/tripled to between $2 billion to $3 billion in 2010, or $2.5 billion per mile

Source: http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2010/04/brent-spence-concepts-soon-to-be-three.html

 

TOTAL:  $9.227 billion over 44 miles, or $210 million per mile.

Thanks.  I recall the express lanes for I-271 were $350 million.  That would be $350m/4 lanes/20 miles => $4.4 million/mile.  They already owned the alignment, though.

And after we're all done paving the medians?

 

ODOT's Cleveland-Columbus I-71 report in the late 1990s raised that issue, and the answer prompted them to recommend instituting passenger linking Cleveland and Columbus -- along with paving the median for $500 million. After the median was paved, ODOT acknowledged it could no longer add capacity to I-71 in an affordable manner. I'll look for their exact quote sometime.

And after we're all done paving the medians?

 

ODOT's Cleveland-Columbus I-71 report in the late 1990s raised that issue, and the answer prompted them to recommend instituting passenger linking Cleveland and Columbus -- along with paving the median for $500 million. After the median was paved, ODOT acknowledged it could no longer add capacity to I-71 in an affordable manner. I'll look for their exact quote sometime.

 

And what would it cost to build I-71 today? I saw a figure of $2.3 billion, but I think that's low. I can't imagine what it would cost to carve a right of way into Cleveland nowadays. On the other hand, I-71 costs $200 million a year to maintain and that does not include snow removal, police and the State Highway Patrol.

Youth will be served by robust Ohio passenger rail

Published: Saturday, February 04, 2012, 10:45 AM    Updated: Saturday, February 04, 2012, 11:31 AM

  By Plain Dealer guest columnist

 

On Dec. 27, engineer James Shoemaker nudged the throttle of his state-owned, 3,000-horsepower locomotive, City of Asheville, to 79 mph on tracks owned and improved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Behind Shoemaker were 286 passengers on the midday Piedmont run that was added in 2010 by NCDOT.

 

"When I first moved here, the one daily Piedmont rarely filled one coach; now there are six full trains," said the former Ohioan, joking that weekend trains are called "laundry runs" because so many college students use them to visit home on weekends. "These trains are becoming a part of the fabric of life between Charlotte and Raleigh."

 

This 170-mile route has the same population density but fewer college students than Ohio's 250-mile "3C Corridor" linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/youth_will_be_served_by_robust.html

Youth will be served by robust Ohio passenger rail

Published: Saturday, February 04, 2012, 10:45 AM    Updated: Saturday, February 04, 2012, 11:31 AM

  By Plain Dealer guest columnist

 

On Dec. 27, engineer James Shoemaker nudged the throttle of his state-owned, 3,000-horsepower locomotive, City of Asheville, to 79 mph on tracks owned and improved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Behind Shoemaker were 286 passengers on the midday Piedmont run that was added in 2010 by NCDOT.

 

"When I first moved here, the one daily Piedmont rarely filled one coach; now there are six full trains," said the former Ohioan, joking that weekend trains are called "laundry runs" because so many college students use them to visit home on weekends. "These trains are becoming a part of the fabric of life between Charlotte and Raleigh."

 

This 170-mile route has the same population density but fewer college students than Ohio's 250-mile "3C Corridor" linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/youth_will_be_served_by_robust.html

 

Great op-ed! it's important that we all back up KJP by writing our thoughts in the comment section! A lot of negative comments there. KJP needs backup!

Thanks! Yes, more back up! :)

Amtrak at 110 mph in western Mich., northern Indiana

But rail crossings lack safety mechanisms planned for Illinois route

By Jon Hilkevitch, TRIBUNE REPORTER

February 8, 2012

 

Amtrak passenger trains sped up to 110 mph for the first time Tuesday in western Michigan and northern Indiana on two routes serving Chicago, officials announced.

 

But the railroad crossings lack safety mechanisms that will be installed on Illinois' high-speed corridor to prevent vehicle-train collisions.

 

The faster service, which is the first expansion of regional high-speed trains outside the northeastern U.S., is occurring on about 80 miles of a 97-mile stretch of Amtrak-owned track between Kalamazoo, Mich., and Porter, Ind.

 

Trains operating on the corridor are the Amtrak Wolverine Service between Pontiac, Mich., and Chicago via Detroit and Ann Arbor, and the Amtrak Blue Water between Port Huron, Mich., and Chicago via East Lansing.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-amtrak-high-speed-0208-20120208,0,3868789.story

I miss taking the Wolverine home when I lived in Chicago. It was a nice way to get home and not worry about driving 6 hours (especially in wintry weather). The last train left CUS right after I got out of work and I could just sit back and relax.

 

I can't wait to see how fast the whole trip is when the rest of the line is upgraded further east.

 

 

^Great news KJP although I don't know if you should be touting this as now Republican state legislatures will want to pass legislation to increase the highway speed limits to 110 mph in order to compete with trains. :wink:

^Great news KJP although I don't know if you should be touting this as now Republican state legislatures will want to pass legislation to increase the highway speed limits to 110 mph in order to compete with trains. :wink:

 

LOL. But what you've overlooked is that it is a GOP governor and legislature in Michigan (and Indiana) that has advanced this project. Although Indiana is just along for the ride by sponsoring a $75 million work of track improvements to expand traffic capacity in their state. Ironically, Indiana is probably going to lose its station stops on the Chicago-Michigan route because they're not willing to provide a few million dollars in annual operating support for this corridor.

 

Politically, Indiana = Ohio, but without trees.

Shout out to KJP on GCBL!

 

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/marc-lefkowitz/predictions-green-building-year-local-food-gets-fresh-collinwood-whats-future-firstenergy

Published: February 23, 2012 3:00 a.m.

County may look at passenger rail

Vivian Sade | The Journal Gazette

 

FORT WAYNE – The Allen County commissioners are considering taking part in a study to provide passenger train service from Fort Wayne to northern Indiana and Chicago.

 

Whether the county joins Fort Wayne, Warsaw and several other communities by contributing money for a study by the Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association will be discussed Friday.

 

“This is an opportunity to bring passenger rail service to northeast Indiana,” Commissioner Therese Brown said.

 

...The group plans to raise just over $120,000 for the rail corridor studies – $80,000 for the Fort Wayne-to-Chicago service and $20,000 each for projects to link Fort Wayne to Columbus and Toledo. The Toledo venture would include a spur to Detroit, Lanahan said.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120223/LOCAL/302239956/1002/LOCAL

To add a bit of clarification to the above article:

 

Citilink is the public transit authority that operates buses in Fort Wayne. Board president Fred Lanahan has been an advocate for bringing back passenger rail service to the city and a leader in Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association (NIPRA) from the get-go.

 

The Baker Street Station that the article refers to is not the restored former PRR station now owned by Martin Riley Architects. The article refers to Citilink's Baker Street transfer station, in the block immediately east of the former PRR station. The Baker Street transfer station had been closed for some time, although the shell of the open-sided brick shelter still stood there. The other of two 1980s transfer stations, on Superior Street, has been the main transfer point for Citilink bus routes for the last few years. I believe that when the new transfer station is opened, the Superior Street facility no longer will be used. Incidentally, the Superior Street transfer station stands on the former site of the Nickel Plate Railroad passenger station, adjacent to the elevated tracks owned by Norfolk Southern.

Compare an contrast two passenger rail stories in Ohio.  The first is one celebrating passenger rail in a community (Toledo) that supports it and wants more....

 

Exhibit at event marks Amtrak’s 40th anniversary

BY DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

In 1971, the newly created Amtrak was generally viewed from one of two angles: the salvation of passenger trains in the United States, or an orderly funeral to phase them out.

 

Forty-one years later, "America's Railroad" is still running, operating trains in 46 of the 50 states despite frequent budget battles in Washington, philosophical debates about its existence, and countless Jay Leno jokes about its trains' uneven on-time performance and occasional involvement in accidents.

 

That history is recounted in an Amtrak 40th Anniversary exhibit train that has toured the United States since last May 7 and makes its penultimate stop in Toledo today as the centerpiece of this year's local National Train Day event.

 

Read more at: http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/05/05/Exhibit-at-event-marks-Amtrak-s-40th-anniversary.html

 

The second story (no surprise) from Ohio's self-proclaimed "Greatest Home Newspaper", which has done little to support broadening and diversifying the way we need to move people with passenger rail.... but this is how the choose to "celebrate" Columbus' Bicentennial year?

 

Columbus Mileposts: May 5, 1962 | Use of ‘Beeliner’ spells end to city rail service

By  Gerald Tebben

FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH Saturday May 5, 2012 5:13 AM

 

The New York Central Railroad was “ringing the death knell of north-south railroad service through Columbus,” Columbus Utilities Director Howard Johnson told The Dispatch on May 5, 1962.

 

After the railroad cut the morning passenger train to Columbus from Cleveland, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ordered the New York railroad to restore service. The railroad responded with a “Beeliner” — a diesel-powered, stand-alone car for up to 89 passengers.

 

Johnson called the car “Toonerville Trolleylike,” and said it did not meet the city’s needs. The car was staffed by an engineer and a conductor, and had a restroom and water but no food service.

 

Johnson said the Beeliner was “lacking in comfort and safety.” If there were a collision at a railroad crossing, its fuel tanks could ignite “with disastrous results,” he said.

 

Read more at: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/05/use-of-beeliner-spells-end-to-city-rail-service.html

http://allaboardohio.org/2012/06/04/statement-on-death-of-former-ordc-executive-director-james-seney/

 

Statement on death of former ORDC Executive Director James Seney

June 4, 2012

Contact: Ken Prendergast,

Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

 

Board members and staff of the nonprofit rail advocacy association All Aboard Ohio were saddened and shocked to learn today of the death of James Seney, former executive director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission. He and a former high school classmate, Robert Foster, were killed Saturday in a boating accident at Lake of the Woods, Ontario, Canada, according to the Toledo Blade. A third man was injured.

 

Mr. Seney, 71, led ORDC from 2000-2006 under then-Gov. Bob Taft. He was mayor of the Toledo suburb Sylvania from 1977-1995. He also worked for former All Aboard Ohio board member Barry Fromm at Value Recovery Group Inc. from 2007-10. Then in 2010 Mr. Seney was elected vice chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party and re-elected two months ago.

 

“Jim Seney was a pragmatic visionary,” said All Aboard Ohio Chairman Ron Sheck of Toledo. “It was his leadership that brought us the Ohio Hub System plan and the bipartisan support for it. He understood the political and economic benefits of jointly developing rail infrastructure for freight and passengers. And he knew that it needed to be regional and evolutionary, growing from a single 79-mph route linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati to a network of progressively higher-speed routes connecting Ohio to its neighboring states and Canada.”

 

Michigan and Illinois are currently implementing similar higher-speed rail projects that will improve rail travel and add freight shipping capacity in the Midwest.

 

The Ohio Hub System plan would create a 1200-mile network of 110-mph passenger trains and enhanced freight rail infrastructure to link the improving Midwest and East Coast-based rail systems. Mr. Seney’s ability to garner bipartisan support was evidenced by the Ohio Senate’s 33-0 vote in 2006 for Senate Concurrent Resolution #30 that endorsed seeking federal funds for developing the Ohio Hub System.

 

“He was able to unify Democrats and Republicans around something that both parties could agree on – the need for more and better jobs,” said Executive Director Ken Prendergast of Cleveland. “Not only did he have a grand vision, he was able to get all kinds of interests – from highway contractors to environmentalists – to support it by focusing on the importance of jobs, sustainable economic development and how it would benefit all Ohioans.”

 

“His family and immediate friends are hurting the most from the sudden and tragic loss of this man,” Prendergast added. “But the rest of Ohio will miss him, too. It needs more people like Jim Seney, not less. I only hope that his death will motivate more people to follow in his footsteps and pursue Jim Seney’s dream in the same inclusive and determined manner in which he pursued it.”

 

Please also see the 2006 ORDC press release issued at the time of Mr. Seney’s retirement, detailing more of his lasting accomplishments.

 

END

I think it depends on the "rail." If you're talking 3C, I'm not sure it can cause that sharp contrast along party lines.

 

Most of my co-workers downtown CLE are Democrats/liberal and they were relentless bashers on the perception of it being slow speed rail.

I think it depends on the "rail." If you're talking 3C, I'm not sure it can cause that sharp contrast along party lines.

 

Most of my co-workers downtown CLE are Democrats/liberal and they were relentless bashers on the perception of it being slow speed rail.

 

Absolutely.  My experience was similar.  3C was not a very marketable concept, even for people predisposed to support rail.  IMO it was its own worst enemy.  People's rejection that was in no way a categorical rejection of rail.  For some, it obviously was, but that's not the whole story.  Same goes for the Euclid BRT, many ardent transit backers hated the idea and still hate it.  Not everything can be read as a broad ideological statement.  Sometimes a specific idea just isn't very good.  But there's always tomorrow.

Most of my co-workers downtown CLE are Democrats/liberal and they were relentless bashers on the perception of it being slow speed rail.

 

Show them this. This is the speed that 3C would have operated, which it draws 600,000 riders per year on a less populated route in North Carolina...

 

^ nice!!

Well, yes, but the 79 goes to DC and New York.

Well, yes, but the 79 goes to DC and New York.

 

79 mph as far north as DC, 100-125 mph beyond. Resurrecting the abandoned former Seaboard RR line between Petersburg and Raleigh is being planned and will have a 110 mph top speed once finished. Coupled with improvements underway north of Petersburg and it will be possible to run at speeds of up to 110 mph and more all the way from Raliegh to New York.

I think it depends on the "rail." If you're talking 3C, I'm not sure it can cause that sharp contrast along party lines.

 

Most of my co-workers downtown CLE are Democrats/liberal and they were relentless bashers on the perception of it being slow speed rail.

 

The operative word here is "perception." They were propagandized by 3C opponents in the media and Republican Party and never had the facts. 3C was to run at a 50 mph avg speed, not the 39 mph trumpeted by those trying to kill the train.

Most people would still consider 50 mph slow, since most of them go over 70 mph in their cars.

He's referring to train #79. The four other North Carolina trains (#73, 74, 75 & 76) travel only between Charlotte and Raleigh, and 75 percent of ridership on all of North Carolina's trains is between North Carolina cities. The first 3C train out of Cleveland and the last 3C train into Cleveland would have had through cars from/to New York City on Amtrak trains #48/49. Yet I suspect a strong majority of 3C's ridership would have been within Ohio, same as with North Carolina's trains.

 

Most people would still consider 50 mph slow, since most of them go over 70 mph in their cars.

 

You're not being consistent. What is the average speed of drivers? What is the average speed of trains? And speed is not the biggest issue for many Ohioans. What are productivity/time-saving benefits? What are the travel costs? What are the abilities of a given Ohioan to drive long distances?

 

The speed situation of trains vs. cars is the same situation in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and every other state with state-supported trains. Yet the people ride the trains and, more importantly, the economic benefits exceed the public-sector costs.

 

The point is that Ohio treats its transportation policies in a vacuum as if the experiences of other states in providing a range of travel choices either don't exist, don't apply to it, or those states are somehow mistaken in their policies.

 

Ask officials in other states: do you regret providing your citizens with travel choices?

I think it depends on the "rail." If you're talking 3C, I'm not sure it can cause that sharp contrast along party lines.

 

Most of my co-workers downtown CLE are Democrats/liberal and they were relentless bashers on the perception of it being slow speed rail.

 

Absolutely.  My experience was similar.  3C was not a very marketable concept, even for people predisposed to support rail.  IMO it was its own worst enemy.  People's rejection that was in no way a categorical rejection of rail.  For some, it obviously was, but that's not the whole story.  Same goes for the Euclid BRT, many ardent transit backers hated the idea and still hate it.  Not everything can be read as a broad ideological statement.  Sometimes a specific idea just isn't very good.  But there's always tomorrow.

 

I think it could have been presented better, no doubt about it. The problem was that there was a mad scramble for stimulus money for rail projects and ODOT worked its tail off to get it, only to find that that was only the beginning of a long process. They didn't anticipate the opposition and the need to build a solid business case for 3C. If developers had been brought in at the beginning and the trains viewed as a catalyst to make development near train stations possible, we might have had a different outcome. The other side of this was the blind opposition and gamesmanship of the Republicans. They probably would have been against it, no matter how it was packaged.

Most people would still consider 50 mph slow, since most of them go over 70 mph in their cars.

 

You just missed my point...that's a 50 mph AVERAGE speed, not the TOP speed. To do that, you have to run at up to 79 mph TOP speed. AAA estimates that door-to-door AVERAGE speeds for driving intercity trips is only 55 mph, not much more than for the train.

Thank you KJP, my reference there was messy.  And I'm guessing the proportion of Ohio use would have been similar to what you describe.  While I could further differentiate the 79 from the 3C, my point was that the NYC connection is a lot more enticing from a marketing standpoint.  "3C+NYC" might raise eyebrows in a way that Ohio-only destinations might not, although the timing of the NYC departure from Cleveland would still be a conundrum.

I've always loved the idea that somebody would subject themselves to driving all the way from Downtown Cincinnati to Downtown Cleveland without stopping for food, bathroom breaks or to stretch like they were doing the Cannonball Run just to beat the train by 5 mph. And that's assuming that they never hit construction or traffic jams and don't get pulled over by the State Highway Patrol for speeding.

 

Especially with children in the car. "Sorry kid, you just gotta piss your pants. I'm expressing my freedom to outrun a train."

As much as I think Ohio needs and could benefit from an intrastate passenger rail service like 3C, I don't believe this is the most realistic next step for passenger rail development for Ohio. To me, its to build on the success of existing services  linking Chicago and the East Coast. Ohioans do not think very highly of their state and its ability to support rail service in terms of finances, ridership, politics, etc. We need to develop passenger rail in Ohio in a way that minimizes the involvement of state officials -- regardless of party. That means either local/regional commuter rail or expansion of long-distance services that happen to pass through Ohio. Once we develop those foundations, then maybe we can build some branches off them.

I've always loved the idea that somebody would subject themselves to driving all the way from Downtown Cincinnati to Downtown Cleveland without stopping for food, bathroom breaks or to stretch like they were doing the Cannonball Run just to beat the train by 5 mph. And that's assuming that they never hit construction or traffic jams and don't get pulled over by the State Highway Patrol for speeding.

 

Especially with children in the car. "Sorry kid, you just gotta piss your pants. I'm expressing my freedom to outrun a train."

 

The highway portion is only part of the issue though.  Once this family gets to Cincinnati on the train, then what?  Suppose they actually wanted to go to Cheviot?  Things get complicated.  Ohio's sprawly metros and weak local transit reduce the feasibility of intercity rail for most purposes.  Unfortunately that moves the goal post, speed-wise, to get people interested.

 

However, that bathroom thing you bring up is a big deal, especially for core Republican voters.  No one likes to talk about it but...

 

As much as I think Ohio needs and could benefit from an intrastate passenger rail service like 3C, I don't believe this is the most realistic next step for passenger rail development for Ohio. To me, its to build on the success of existing services  linking Chicago and the East Coast. Ohioans do not think very highly of their state and its ability to support rail service in terms of finances, ridership, politics, etc. We need to develop passenger rail in Ohio in a way that minimizes the involvement of state officials -- regardless of party. That means either local/regional commuter rail or expansion of long-distance services that happen to pass through Ohio. Once we develop those foundations, then maybe we can build some branches off them.

 

That's pretty much where I'm at.  The prospect of local rail in Akron and Cincinnati seems like a big step to me.  More people will start to feel ownership of the concept, like they already do in Cleveland.