Wait can’t we already take a train to chicago at the convenient hour of 3am?  How is that new?  My vote because of that would be cinci.  

7 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Chicago Ft Wayne Columbus also on the list of choices. And you get 10 votes. (Nice job narrowing it down, survey maker.) I voted for all four routes touching Ohio. 

Edited October 3, 20195 yr by Boomerang_Brian

The Daily Cardinal is on there, too, guys.

Yep, we missed that AND the Columbus-Chicago route. Replaced it with a new tweet. Please vote!!

13 hours ago, audidave said:

Wait can’t we already take a train to chicago at the convenient hour of 3am?  How is that new?  My vote because of that would be cinci.  

 

Eight round trips a day at 110 mph between Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago would be new. And you should vote for 10 routes. I voted for all of those near Ohio, including those in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Surrounding Ohio with trains is almost as important as running trains to/through Ohio.

 

7 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Chicago Ft Wayne Columbus also on the list of choices. And you get 10 votes. (Nice job narrowing it down, survey maker.) I voted for all four routes touching Ohio. 

 

Yep, overlooked those. The original tweet was replaced with a new one.

15 hours ago, KJP said:

 

They were 2 for 3 on spelling Columbus correctly:

 

 

 

Voted for all four. And nothing else, in order to not dilute the Ohio votes!

^ Ha! Pretty amazing they spelled Cincinnati right and Columbus wrong.

5 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Eight round trips a day at 110 mph between Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago would be new. And you should vote for 10 routes. I voted for all of those near Ohio, including those in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Surrounding Ohio with trains is almost as important as running trains to/through Ohio.

 

 

Cleveland to Chicago at 110 mph - the linked article says it would be a 4.5 hour trip. That’s almost time competitive with flying for downtown to downtown travel once you factor in the necessary early arrival to clear security and getting from the airport to downtown Chicago. With those included, I figure 3.5 hours Cleveland to Chicago and 4 or so for the return (more time needed for security). And WAY more likely to be on time than United, not that that sets the bar very high. This service would be great. 

 

And of course the new station at Hopkins on that route would make that airport much more accessible for residents of Sandusky and Toledo. 

11 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

Cleveland to Chicago at 110 mph - the linked article says it would be a 4.5 hour trip. That’s almost time competitive with flying for downtown to downtown travel once you factor in the necessary early arrival to clear security and getting from the airport to downtown Chicago. With those included, I figure 3.5 hours Cleveland to Chicago and 4 or so for the return (more time needed for security). And WAY more likely to be on time than United, not that that sets the bar very high. This service would be great. 

 

And of course the new station at Hopkins on that route would make that airport much more accessible for residents of Sandusky and Toledo. 

Plus train travel is just more comfortable than coach plane travel.  Roomier seats and much easier to walk around and stretch you legs.  Much rather do the train if travel times are close as suggested above (as long as I don't have to leave in the middle of the night).

While there has been a steady increase in ridership, Virgin Trains (Brightline) continues to fall below projections, traffic on I-95 is still nightmarish, there continue to be accidents at urban RR crossings, despite speed reductions and a trip from MIA to WPB only cuts 10-15 minutes off of drive times.

 

They need dedicated ROWs for increased speed and a reduction in fares to increase ridership.

The fares are higher because they're unsubsidized. When the commuter service starts on FEC all the way to WPB, the ridership will kick in.  Train services usually succeed even when they're slower than driving if they have low fares, frequency, local connections and good land use around stations.

12 hours ago, KJP said:

The fares are higher because they're unsubsidized. When the commuter service starts on FEC all the way to WPB, the ridership will kick in.  Train services usually succeed even when they're slower than driving if they have low fares, frequency, local connections and good land use around stations.

 

Keep beating that drum KJP.  We need train service back in Ohio.

 

I would pay a higher fare than the cost to fly to take a train between Cincinnati and Cleveland rather than drive, even if the travel time were the same.  Why?  Because I could work, read, sleep, and get up and walk around, instead of paying attention to and stressing over traffic for four hours.  (And I was rear-ended on I-71 in an accident caused by a texting teen two cars back -- take your texting to the train and save money!)  And my parents can't drive any more, so a train at any speed would be a huge plus for them to keep traveling.  

 

 

This is more than the 3-C's but what an amazing idea to connect all of Ohio by rail...

 

 

^ It's weird how that ignores existing Amtrak lines.

It's weird how that ignores existing rail lines...period.

To be fair, reading this dude's responses to folks, it doesn't sound like he expected it to blow up as much as it did. I think it was just a fun idea that ballooned in the twitterverse (but take note, Ohio Legislators, people want rail). 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

It's weird how that ignores existing rail lines...period.

 

Indeed.  Cincinnati to Columbus via Mason, Lebanon, and Wilmington?  The way to do that would be to use the former B&O Midland via Loveland, Blanchester (no need to stop there ?), and then Wilmington to Washington Court House, etc.  There has never been any direct connection between Lebanon and Wilmington, which would require bridging the Little Miami River Gorge near the I-71 Jeremiah Morrow Bridge.   The abandoned Pennsylvania Railroad Zanesville Branch did run between *South* Lebanon and Wilmington, crossing Todd Fork and other tributaries some 18 times.  http://www.jjakucyk.com/transit/map/index.html  Best stick to the more established usable routes. 

8 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

 

Indeed.  Cincinnati to Columbus via Mason, Lebanon, and Wilmington?  The way to do that would be to use the former B&O Midland via Loveland, Blanchester (no need to stop there ?), and then Wilmington to Washington Court House, etc.  There has never been any direct connection between Lebanon and Wilmington, which would require bridging the Little Miami River Gorge near the I-71 Jeremiah Morrow Bridge.   The abandoned Pennsylvania Railroad Zanesville Branch did run between *South* Lebanon and Wilmington, crossing Todd Fork and other tributaries some 18 times.  http://www.jjakucyk.com/transit/map/index.html  Best stick to the more established usable routes. 

Great map, thanks for sharing.

8 minutes ago, GISguy said:

Great map, thanks for sharing.

 

I would hope someone with GIS in their name would appreciate it. 

This could go in multiple rail threads, but I'll post it here since the map/news was originally posted here....

 

Passenger rail system in Ohio? One ‘data nerd’ has an idea on how to make it possible.

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2019/12/05/passenger-rail-system-in-ohio-one-data-nerd-has-an-idea-on-how-to-make-it-possible/

Did you know #Ohio *almost* had fast-#rail line between #Cleveland, #Columbus, #Dayton & #Cincinnati? We're talking with Josh Lapp of @TransitColumbus about the 79 mph "#3C Corridor" @Amtrak line we'd be upgrading to 110 mph now, but it never came to be.

 

 

 

A few recent good news stories involving Ohio......

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, KJP said:

A few recent good news stories involving Ohio......

 

 

 

 

Nothing for the Cleveland area though?

Because nothing FROM Cleveland. Cleveland hasn't advanced funding-ready plans or even funding for plans.

3 hours ago, KJP said:

Because nothing FROM Cleveland. Cleveland hasn't advanced funding-ready plans or even funding for plans.

 

On 6/5/2019 at 11:38 PM, KJP said:

It wasn't intended to be a trick question. But the stations are a bottleneck. Cleveland station probably has one of the worst bottlenecks, in part because of the station design (1 platform on only 1 track), and in part because of inadequate track layout. See the All Aboard Ohio report here: 

 

White Paper: Reducing rail traffic congestion on the Downtown Cleveland Lakefront

http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WhitePaper-ClevelandLakefrontrailcongestion.pdf

 

Looks like that paper was written in 2016 -- good stuff, and not super-expensive to make significant improvements to Cleveland traffic.  Has NOACA just ignored the study results?  Are there any plans for securing any of the funding needs outlined in the white paper?!?

NOACA has ignored them. Port Authority has ignored them. Amtrak has ignored them. But we have Hyperloop!!

 

Now you know why I'm stepping away from passenger rail advocacy after 35 years. I'm still somewhat involved, but nowhere near what I was.

20 hours ago, KJP said:

A few recent good news stories involving Ohio......

 

 

 

 

All great news. Probably not feasible, but extending that Toledo line down to Bowling Green would make my train life 100% complete.

 

After six years living in Japan, it's all I can do not to project that kind of transportation system on the urban Midwest...Hourly long distance trains between 500K+ metros and university towns, coherent urban rail and bus service, high speed service between the big metros. 

Edited March 5, 20205 yr by westerninterloper

41 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

All great news. Probably not feasible, but extending that Toledo line down to Bowling Green would make my train life 100% complete.

 

After six years living in Japan, it's all I can do not to project that kind of transportation system on the urban Midwest...Hourly long distance trains between 500K+ metros and university towns, coherent urban rail and bus service, high speed service between the big metros. 

Scroll on up this page (or click this link) to see how a full build out of the Ohio Hub rail plan includes a Bowling Green station on the Columbus / Toledo / Detroit line:

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, KJP said:

Speaking of France.......

 

 

I get the point, but we also have very different "densities". France is largely built up in dense cities, even when the cities themselves are small. Ohio's cities sprawl out a lot, so intercity rail travel is inherently less convenient for many people in Ohio.

 

A much greater percentage of Ohio's land is probably considered "urban" than France's land.

In my opinion, activists need to focus way more time making cities more desirable at higher densities, with better intracity and intrametro transit services. Once people are used to - and more easily able to - travel without cars in their own cities and nearby cities, they'll be willing to travel to other cities without cars.

 

I think intercity rail is largely putting the cart before the horse. Preserving ROW and investing in some intercity rail is important, but I think it's much more important to build up our cities more densely and improve out local transit.

5 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

I get the point, but we also have very different "densities". France is largely built up in dense cities, even when the cities themselves are small. Ohio's cities sprawl out a lot, so intercity rail travel is inherently less convenient for many people in Ohio.

 

A much greater percentage of Ohio's land is probably considered "urban" than France's land.

 

How does it differ if your wife has to drive you across town to the airport, or the train station?   Either way you'd be spending way less time boarding a more environmentally sound mode of transport, that is more reliable and on-time, and rarely affected by weather.  

Just now, Cleburger said:

 

How does it differ if your wife has to drive you across town to the airport, or the train station?   Either way you'd be spending way less time boarding a more environmentally sound mode of transport, that is more reliable and on-time, and rarely affected by weather.  

 

It's not quite the same thing. If we're talking about going Cincinnati to Dayton, Cincinnati to Cleveland, Columbus to Detroit, etc, most of these trips aren't done with flights. Some business folks will fly between those cities, but it's largely faster and easier to just drive. So these regional trips shouldn't be comparing train travel to flights. They should be comparing train travel to driving.

 

But if I'm going to take a train to Indianapolis, or Detroit, or even Chicago (which is where flying starts to look more attractive), I want to make sure I am able to get all of my tasks done (whether for business or pleasure) without renting a car or waiting around for 30 minute headways on bus routes that end at 11pm. Otherwise, I'm just going to drive somewhere.

3 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

It's not quite the same thing. If we're talking about going Cincinnati to Dayton, Cincinnati to Cleveland, Columbus to Detroit, etc, most of these trips aren't done with flights. Some business folks will fly between those cities, but it's largely faster and easier to just drive. So these regional trips shouldn't be comparing train travel to flights. They should be comparing train travel to driving.

 

But if I'm going to take a train to Indianapolis, or Detroit, or even Chicago (which is where flying starts to look more attractive), I want to make sure I am able to get all of my tasks done (whether for business or pleasure) without renting a car or waiting around for 30 minute headways on bus routes that end at 11pm. Otherwise, I'm just going to drive somewhere.

A common argument in the USA, where everyone expects cheap gas to last forever.  And if it doesn't, it's our kids' problem.   Some of these things need to be choices in investment, not what is convenient today.  

6 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

A common argument in the USA, where everyone expects cheap gas to last forever.  And if it doesn't, it's our kids' problem.   Some of these things need to be choices in investment, not what is convenient today.  

 

I agree we need to start making investments in intercity rail. I'm not against that. But way more investment should be made in our cities to make us less reliant on the car for our daily needs.

 

It's going to take decades, maybe generations to move us back to a dense country where a majority of people can take transit to a major city center in 30 minutes. We need to move people in that direction or else intercity rail is going to operate one or two trains from Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland every day instead of a dozen. 

 

My only point is that we can't expect France-level intercity train service in a state that's largely sprawl with bad intracity transit. The density argument is a bad one for the metrics we are looking at in train travel. We do need to invest in ROW and the like, but we shouldn't expect a miracle without putting in the work to make our cities more livable.

 

Also, I'm going to move this discussion into the Ohio Hub topic, because this largely has nothing to do with other country passenger rail news.

30 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

I get the point, but we also have very different "densities". France is largely built up in dense cities, even when the cities themselves are small. Ohio's cities sprawl out a lot, so intercity rail travel is inherently less convenient for many people in Ohio.

 

A much greater percentage of Ohio's land is probably considered "urban" than France's land.

 

I'm sure you're aware of the reasons why. But just in case other readers aren't.... Because France nationalized its rail system as a public utility before it could decline and made public its transit systems to address inequities and enhance access. America did some of those things but only after those rail and transit systems declined so severely that the threat of their total disappearance became imminent. France also never disemboweled its cities to accommodate cars at the best of private enterprise as America did.

Edited May 5, 20205 yr by KJP

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I'm sure you're aware of the reasons why. But just in case other readers aren't.... Because France nationalized its rail system as a public utility before it could decline and made public its transit systems to address inequities and enhance access. America did some of those things but only after those rail and transit systems declined so severely that the threat of their total disappearance became imminent. France also never disemboweled its cities to accommodate cars at the best of private enterprise as America did.

 

Totally. But that leaves us in a completely different place today than we were 80 years ago. We definitely could  have a rail network similar to France with much less effort than would be required today, but our policies at the time led us down a different path. We need to rebuild our cities and get quality public transit and high density developments in our major metros before we invest a ton in intercity rail. And time is ticking because of our dependence on fossil fuels. We either get started now, or face a huge crisis in the not-too-distant future. We need to be better positioned than Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, etc if we want to be competitive in the future.

Ohio needs a jumpstart on high speed rail to actually start pursuing it. Akin to the Erie canal system was stretched to Buffalo.  Then Ohio jumped on board with gusto. With a high speed rail system pushing through Ohio from NYC to Chicago, that would be the jumpstart. 

29 minutes ago, audidave said:

Ohio needs a jumpstart on high speed rail to actually start pursuing it. Akin to the Erie canal system was stretched to Buffalo.  Then Ohio jumped on board with gusto. With a high speed rail system pushing through Ohio from NYC to Chicago, that would be the jumpstart. 

 

The good news for Ohio is that pretty much any route from Chicago to the East Coast needs to go through Ohio. So once the ball gets rolling, Ohio needs to embrace it. But for the time being, Ohio should concentrate any state funds on acquiring ROW for intercity travel and expanding intracity transit for the largest metros.

17 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

The good news for Ohio is that pretty much any route from Chicago to the East Coast needs to go through Ohio. So once the ball gets rolling, Ohio needs to embrace it. But for the time being, Ohio should concentrate any state funds on acquiring ROW for intercity travel and expanding intracity transit for the largest metros.

 

Not necessarily.  There is the potential for a Buffalo-Detroit line through Ontario instead. 

 

And if Ohio refuses to contribute funding to interstate routes, there is a possibility that Ohio would get no say in where the stations are, if any.  The train could simply travel through Ohio without stopping.  Although I would be surprised if it passed through any of the 3C's without stopping.

It's a chicken or the egg situation though. Why is Ohio more sprawling than France? Well, partly because they invested in train travel and we didn't. And now we're saying investing in train travel is "putting the cart before the horse" because we're so sprawling. An major in investment in trains would help move us toward more density.

On 3/5/2020 at 7:06 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Scroll on up this page (or click this link) to see how a full build out of the Ohio Hub rail plan includes a Bowling Green station on the Columbus / Toledo / Detroit line:

 

Ive had a copy of that map up in my office since it was released...I had just moved to BG from Japan, where never had a car and only used trains, so I was giddy thinking about being to take a train out of Bowling Green. All these years later, I think I took Amtrak from Chicago once (because I missed the Megabus) and it was three or four hours late back to Toledo. Havent ridden since, though I have looked into it from A2 to Chicago. 

 

As much as i would prefer the comfort of the train, megabus has it beat from Toledo - the bus is faster, makes fewer stops, is cheaper, and much more reliable than Amtrak. In Japan, the bus was cheaper, but had more stops, and was far slower. 

Edited May 7, 20205 yr by westerninterloper

High speed rail can be used to connect the cities of Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Akron,Cleveland, and Toledo in one large HSR system, with express service between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati also available.  Any thoughts?

1 hour ago, Julian said:

High speed rail can be used to connect the cities of Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Akron,Cleveland, and Toledo in one large HSR system, with express service between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati also available.  Any thoughts?

There are extensive thoughts in many existing threads on this forum. No need to start a new thread. I’d suggest the Ohio Hub, Northern Ohio rail corridor, anti-rail hit man, Ohio 3C Corridor, Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh Passenger rail, and probably several other threads. You can get a feel for the history, what’s been proposed in the past, and what the most likely future plans for success would be. Pay extra close attention to @KJP’s comments - he’s been an active advocate for years. 
 

Short summary - you can’t skip straight to high speed rail, and efforts to do so undermine the potential for success. Simply put - it’s very expensive so you need a strong political base. To develop that base, you start with regional rail, ideally building up to segments that can handle 79mph. (This is fundamentally what the Ohio 3C would have done, curtesy of a $400M investment from the federal government. Kasich unforgivably killed this project when he became governor under the pretense of the $17M annual operating subsidy. Had he not killed it, we’d be about 8 years into service now, with 6 trains a day each direction and taking 5:15 from downtown Cleveland to downtown Cincinnati, including stops. The money was redirected to passenger rail projects in other states.) Once you have this regional rail in place, people start using it and you begin to build a political base. You make upgrades in sections to get it up to 110mph max where you can (which is technically high speed rail, although I’m sure this isn’t what you are pushing for), trimming time off travel.  You start other regional rail lines - this is the Ohio Hub concept, as summarized in that thread. It includes a Toledo to Columbus line, a Detroit - Toledo - Cleveland line, and added service on the existing Amtrak lines (Buffalo to CLE to Toledo to Chicago, and Pittsburgh - Youngstown -CLE - Toledo. Then you build a Columbus to Pittsburgh line, which is a much bigger project because there isn’t a high quality freight line to use.  Now you have substantial ridership and therefore a good political base. THEN you can start to think about bullet trains and the like. As KJP has pointed out many times, this is the path California followed and the reason they were able to pass the bond issue to fund the California High Speed Rail. 
 

Anyway, many people on this forum would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a proper high speed rail network. We have to face the reality that we live in the USA where most people don’t have any experience with quality rail and therefore think it is a waste of money. Skipping straight to high speed rail unfortunately just isn’t feasible, unless one of us convinces Dan Gilbert that it would be a good use of his $35B fortune. 

37 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

There are extensive thoughts in many existing threads on this forum. No need to start a new thread. I’d suggest the Ohio Hub, Northern Ohio rail corridor, anti-rail hit man, Ohio 3C Corridor, Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh Passenger rail, and probably several other threads. You can get a feel for the history, what’s been proposed in the past, and what the most likely future plans for success would be. Pay extra close attention to @KJP’s comments - he’s been an active advocate for years. 
 

Short summary - you can’t skip straight to high speed rail, and efforts to do so undermine the potential for success. Simply put - it’s very expensive so you need a strong political base. To develop that base, you start with regional rail, ideally building up to segments that can handle 79mph. (This is fundamentally what the Ohio 3C would have done, curtesy of a $400M investment from the federal government. Kasich unforgivably killed this project when he became governor under the pretense of the $17M annual operating subsidy. Had he not killed it, we’d be about 8 years into service now, with 6 trains a day each direction and taking 5:15 from downtown Cleveland to downtown Cincinnati, including stops. The money was redirected to passenger rail projects in other states.) Once you have this regional rail in place, people start using it and you begin to build a political base. You make upgrades in sections to get it up to 110mph max where you can (which is technically high speed rail, although I’m sure this isn’t what you are pushing for), trimming time off travel.  You start other regional rail lines - this is the Ohio Hub concept, as summarized in that thread. It includes a Toledo to Columbus line, a Detroit - Toledo - Cleveland line, and added service on the existing Amtrak lines (Buffalo to CLE to Toledo to Chicago, and Pittsburgh - Youngstown -CLE - Toledo. Then you build a Columbus to Pittsburgh line, which is a much bigger project because there isn’t a high quality freight line to use.  Now you have substantial ridership and therefore a good political base. THEN you can start to think about bullet trains and the like. As KJP has pointed out many times, this is the path California followed and the reason they were able to pass the bond issue to fund the California High Speed Rail. 
 

Anyway, many people on this forum would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a proper high speed rail network. We have to face the reality that we live in the USA where most people don’t have any experience with quality rail and therefore think it is a waste of money. Skipping straight to high speed rail unfortunately just isn’t feasible, unless one of us convinces Dan Gilbert that it would be a good use of his $35B fortune. 

The system that this topic is regarding is one that I am working on with local representatives to get built, and regional lines of 79 MPH cannot exactly handle my planned speeds of closer to 200 MPH.  Although I do have some plans for a commuter rail system here in Columbus as well.

You can try to skip straight to high-speed rail as Texas Central Railway (Dallas-Houston) and XpressWest (LA area-Las Vegas) are attempting to do. Or as Brightline in Florida is doing. Those are happening because....

 

Dallas is now the fourth-largest metro area in the country, with Houston the fifth-largest. Both are also the two fastest growing metro areas in the country in recent years. There are 68 flights a day between HOU-DAL which are 240 miles apart. And HSR is estimated to take 14,000 cars off the roads between the two metros.

 

The airline market between the LA area (still not sure where the endpoint of XpressWest will be, but it will connect with one of the of Metrolink lines) and Las Vegas is one of the largest in the country and, in some years, has been the largest as measured in total seats (BTW, another one of the top five airline markets is Los Angeles-San Francisco). LA is the second-largest metro in the USA. Clark County, NV (Las Vegas) is the second-fastest growing county in the USA. Riverside County, CA (LA) is third. The project is aided by the availability of lots of cheap federal land on which the rail right of way can be built.

 

Miami-FLL-West Palm is the nation's seventh-largest metro area and Orlando is the nation's eighth-fastest growing. Tampa-St. Pete is the 10th-fastest growing which is why Brightline wants to go there next. Orlando is the nation's 10th busiest airport, Miami is 15th, and FLL is 18th. I'm sure there are many flights/seats between them, but I don't have numbers. Brightline can eliminate those short-hop flights, add airport capacity, and increase connectivity between them as well as to the cruise ships which dock at MIA and FLL.

 

But the big reason why these are happening is because the private sector is initiating them. In the past, the public sector initiated transportation infrastructure projects. So projects evolved in their scale based on what the rail advocacy constituency/political capacity allowed the politicians to lift. The rare exception was when railroads and interurbans were a growth industry. Contrary to popular belief, most railroads and interurbans acquired and owned their rights of way and paid taxes on them. They were private lands except in the 7 percent of land-grant routes mainly across the Great Plains and Rockies. Same deal with interurbans which used then-privately owned streetcar routes to enter most cities. The streetcar companies were responsible for maintaining the roadway between their rails.

 

So because these high-speed rail efforts are being initiated by the private sector, they are leap-frogging the evolutionary process that public sector-initiated infrastructure projects usually follow. They are not dependent on a train-riding constituency to demand ever-better rail services that beget more riders/constituents that beget bigger and more infrastructure investments that beget more riders/constituents, etc. They are dependent on shareholders. These are investors who are aware of foreign high-speed rail projects and possibly are investors in them be it in infrastructure, rolling stock, real estate, utilities, etc. And because we have a political system driven by campaign contributions, a group of powerful foreign investors including some domestic ones can initiate a public-private partnership (PPP) to achieve a major transportation infrastructure project without any passenger rail precedent to offer a lower-cost market test and basis for further development.

 

The trick is to find a private sector interest with significant resources to initiate a project. Florida has Brightline which is led by the private sector but is receiving billions in local, state and federal funds to build its Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach-Orlando route. This follows Florida giving back $2.4 billion in federal high speed rail funds at the same time Ohio gave back its $400 million. So it shows there is life after death -- IF the private sector will start a PPP rather than have the public sector initiate it.

 

So while Ohio is the nation's 10th-most densely populated state and has seven metro areas with 500,000+ people, the state has atrophied for decades. In 1982, when Florida passed Ohio in population at 10.75 million people, Ohio has since gained less than 1 million residents. Florida almost doubled in population. Texas and California have grown along similar paths. Ironically, 1982 was the year when Ohioans voted on a sales tax increase to fund high-speed rail and it was defeated 2-1. That vote was held over our heads for 20 years. We still hear about it sometimes. Yet all of polling shows Ohioans would support state efforts to help develop a fast, modern passenger rail system -- especially if it was a 110 mph network using upgraded rights of way and especially if they weren't taxed to fund it.

 

Given Ohio's recent experiences including its population flat-lining, it doesn't mean there won't be a private-sector interest to try and introduce passenger rail to Ohio. Columbus' population growth and the lack of quality transportation options to the Midwest's economic capital (Chicago) makes it a strong candidate market for a private sector passenger rail operator to enter this market. And I'm told there is one that is interested. Keep an eye on their first effort: https://wqow.com/2019/06/13/eau-claire-st-paul-passenger-rail-could-be-closer-to-reality

 

Even Amtrak is getting more aggressive in the face of private sector competition to enter markets they aren't serving. They want to get into markets like Charlotte-Atlanta, Atlanta-Orlando, Nashville to somewhere, Cleveland-Chicago, Cincinnati-Chicago, 3C and others. But they need to operate under federal policies that allow them to get into expansion mode. I wrote about that here: http://allaboardohio.org/2020/03/02/amtrak-considers-new-resources-for-new-trains-services-including-ohio/

 

Sorry for the long-winded response. Yes were in a new era in passenger rail development. Hopefully Ohio will be a part of it. Ohio could always issue an RFQ to potential development/financing/operating teams and offer a menu of existing and new incentives to the winning candidate to foster a passenger rail route(s) supported by station-area real estate developments and transit access in existing communities. That might be the best way to attract investors and development rather than waiting around to be discovered in a world of booming economies.

On 9/6/2020 at 5:53 PM, KJP said:

You can try to skip straight to high-speed rail as Texas Central Railway (Dallas-Houston) and XpressWest (LA area-Las Vegas) are attempting to do. Or as Brightline in Florida is doing. Those are happening because....

 

Dallas is now the fourth-largest metro area in the country, with Houston the fifth-largest. Both are also the two fastest growing metro areas in the country in recent years. There are 68 flights a day between HOU-DAL which are 240 miles apart. And HSR is estimated to take 14,000 cars off the roads between the two metros.

 

The airline market between the LA area (still not sure where the endpoint of XpressWest will be, but it will connect with one of the of Metrolink lines) and Las Vegas is one of the largest in the country and, in some years, has been the largest as measured in total seats (BTW, another one of the top five airline markets is Los Angeles-San Francisco). LA is the second-largest metro in the USA. Clark County, NV (Las Vegas) is the second-fastest growing county in the USA. Riverside County, CA (LA) is third. The project is aided by the availability of lots of cheap federal land on which the rail right of way can be built.

 

Miami-FLL-West Palm is the nation's seventh-largest metro area and Orlando is the nation's eighth-fastest growing. Tampa-St. Pete is the 10th-fastest growing which is why Brightline wants to go there next. Orlando is the nation's 10th busiest airport, Miami is 15th, and FLL is 18th. I'm sure there are many flights/seats between them, but I don't have numbers. Brightline can eliminate those short-hop flights, add airport capacity, and increase connectivity between them as well as to the cruise ships which dock at MIA and FLL.

 

But the big reason why these are happening is because the private sector is initiating them. In the past, the public sector initiated transportation infrastructure projects. So projects evolved in their scale based on what the rail advocacy constituency/political capacity allowed the politicians to lift. The rare exception was when railroads and interurbans were a growth industry. Contrary to popular belief, most railroads and interurbans acquired and owned their rights of way and paid taxes on them. They were private lands except in the 7 percent of land-grant routes mainly across the Great Plains and Rockies. Same deal with interurbans which used then-privately owned streetcar routes to enter most cities. The streetcar companies were responsible for maintaining the roadway between their rails.

 

So because these high-speed rail efforts are being initiated by the private sector, they are leap-frogging the evolutionary process that public sector-initiated infrastructure projects usually follow. They are not dependent on a train-riding constituency to demand ever-better rail services that beget more riders/constituents that beget bigger and more infrastructure investments that beget more riders/constituents, etc. They are dependent on shareholders. These are investors who are aware of foreign high-speed rail projects and possibly are investors in them be it in infrastructure, rolling stock, real estate, utilities, etc. And because we have a political system driven by campaign contributions, a group of powerful foreign investors including some domestic ones can initiate a public-private partnership (PPP) to achieve a major transportation infrastructure project without any passenger rail precedent to offer a lower-cost market test and basis for further development.

 

The trick is to find a private sector interest with significant resources to initiate a project. Florida has Brightline which is led by the private sector but is receiving billions in local, state and federal funds to build its Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach-Orlando route. This follows Florida giving back $2.4 billion in federal high speed rail funds at the same time Ohio gave back its $400 million. So it shows there is life after death -- IF the private sector will start a PPP rather than have the public sector initiate it.

 

So while Ohio is the nation's 10th-most densely populated state and has seven metro areas with 500,000+ people, the state has atrophied for decades. In 1982, when Florida passed Ohio in population at 10.75 million people, Ohio has since gained less than 1 million residents. Florida almost doubled in population. Texas and California have grown along similar paths. Ironically, 1982 was the year when Ohioans voted on a sales tax increase to fund high-speed rail and it was defeated 2-1. That vote was held over our heads for 20 years. We still hear about it sometimes. Yet all of polling shows Ohioans would support state efforts to help develop a fast, modern passenger rail system -- especially if it was a 110 mph network using upgraded rights of way and especially if they weren't taxed to fund it.

 

Given Ohio's recent experiences including its population flat-lining, it doesn't mean there won't be a private-sector interest to try and introduce passenger rail to Ohio. Columbus' population growth and the lack of quality transportation options to the Midwest's economic capital (Chicago) makes it a strong candidate market for a private sector passenger rail operator to enter this market. And I'm told there is one that is interested. Keep an eye on their first effort: https://wqow.com/2019/06/13/eau-claire-st-paul-passenger-rail-could-be-closer-to-reality

 

Even Amtrak is getting more aggressive in the face of private sector competition to enter markets they aren't serving. They want to get into markets like Charlotte-Atlanta, Atlanta-Orlando, Nashville to somewhere, Cleveland-Chicago, Cincinnati-Chicago, 3C and others. But they need to operate under federal policies that allow them to get into expansion mode. I wrote about that here: http://allaboardohio.org/2020/03/02/amtrak-considers-new-resources-for-new-trains-services-including-ohio/

 

Sorry for the long-winded response. Yes were in a new era in passenger rail development. Hopefully Ohio will be a part of it. Ohio could always issue an RFQ to potential development/financing/operating teams and offer a menu of existing and new incentives to the winning candidate to foster a passenger rail route(s) supported by station-area real estate developments and transit access in existing communities. That might be the best way to attract investors and development rather than waiting around to be discovered in a world of booming economies.

That’s part of the benefit of private companies working to make change.  I think you are one of the best resources here for HSR as well