Over the weekend, I had a work trip in Milwakuee for a convention. So we had to transport a minivan full of cargo from Cleveland to Milwaukee, setup, present, then Sunday at 6p, tear down, and head home. We got in at 4am this morning, plus a daylight+time zone loss, and needless to say, it sucked. I'd guess it was about an 8hour drive, considering traffic, rain, fog, stops for breaks, food, and fuel. There is a fair number of tolls on that route, (roundtrip maybe $80??), and especially through Chicagoland, a fair bit of traffic. I'm wondering if something like an "auto train", where we could have driven the van onto a train in MKE, sat in a reclining passenger seat in the train, then woke up *refreshed* in Cleveland, is something that could be feasible. (I don't know how you would otherwise transport a van-full of cargo between cities. Fedex would be way too pricey. PODS would be weird).

 

Also, does anyone know if there is a way to measure demand or potential between corridors? I suppose for certain classes of travel you would look at the number of direct/connecting flights between two airports. So, if there are 25 round trip flights between two airports, then you can score it 25. You could look at AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic, the number of vehicles that drive on highways between), and then color code the highways for the amount of vehicle throughput (green, yellow, red). Then you could see yes there is a score of x for potential between MKE/CHI, y potential between CHI/TOL, z potential between TOL/CLE.

 

For introducing / improving some sort of rail service between those corridors you could then estimate potential use if you could provide a service that someone would want to use. So, I'm guessing regular frequency, and possibly also services (auto train capacity). If you had a train that could accomplish this route 1x / day in 12 hours, then x ridership, 2x/day in 10 hours y ridership, 20x/day in 5 hours then z ridership. Then, once you have compelling modeling, you could try to drum up support for something like that. I'm interested in this demand/frequency/potential side of the equation.

The Channel Tunnel does an auto train for a distance of just 40~ miles, but of course 20 of those are under the English Channel.  Those automobiles travel at 99mph through the tunnel.  Several trains do this per hour during peak travel times. 

 

I doubt many people would do it for Cincinnati>Columbus, but that Cincinnati>Cleveland or Cincinnati>Chicago distance seems like a distance where people would be happy to keep the miles off their automobiles.  And obviously for business travel, cargo vans, etc., it opens a lot of possibilities. 

Most of the auto trains that operate, operated or were proposed to operate in this country were long distance. The reason is the labor and time involved in loading/unloading vehicles. The only auto train that operates now is from Lorton, Virginia (outside DC) to Sanford, Florida (outside Orlando). Amtrak took that over in 1983 from a private company called Auto Train that went bankrupt after a couple of derailments in the late 1970s. That was when many mainline tracks were in very bad condition. In addition to the Lorton-Sanford run, the private sector Auto Train also had a route from Louisville, Kentucky to Sanford. There have been short-lived plans to restart that route, or have it start farther north in Toledo. There also have been rumblings about an auto train from the Chicago area to the West Coast, with LA as the destination discussed most often. No enroute vehicle loading/unloading sites were ever seriously considered in these services. The only stops along the route that were considered were servicing the train (ie: refueling the locomotives, replenishing water for the passenger cars, and pumping out the sewage tanks).

The Channel Tunnel does an auto train for a distance of just 40~ miles, but of course 20 of those are under the English Channel.  Those automobiles travel at 99mph through the tunnel.  Several trains do this per hour during peak travel times. 

 

I doubt many people would do it for Cincinnati>Columbus, but that Cincinnati>Cleveland or Cincinnati>Chicago distance seems like a distance where people would be happy to keep the miles off their automobiles.  And obviously for business travel, cargo vans, etc., it opens a lot of possibilities. 

 

We've discussed this in here earlier, and I suspect it would work especially if people had access to their cars en route.  One of the biggest drawbacks of air travel is having to get to the airport and find transportation at the other end.  There's a radius where on a door to door basis, flying takes as long as driving or longer, and for Cleveland Chicago is inside it.  So is Washington DC.

^Yeah, I used to fly to LA until I realized driving from the Bay didn't take much longer when I timed my drive to avoid peak traffic conditions. Leaving San Francisco-Oakland at 2pm can get you to Hollywood or DTLA at around 8pm, thus avoiding most of the traffic jams in California. It's a 360 to 400 mile drive depending on where you're going in LA, but it honestly is better than flying. When you add up the time it takes to get to SFO/OAK, do TSA check-in, check baggage if needed, and get from LAX to other parts of LA, you're not saving much time by flying. There also is no need to rent a car if you drive your own. For business travelers, the mileage makes sense since the rates were set for higher gas prices. You make a little money off mileage on older, gas efficient cars. Since gas prices tanked, that little "bonus" is stronger. You could even drive an F-150 from Oakland to Long Beach and make money...

 

I'd say if something is within a 6-hour drive time, it makes more sense to drive, particularly if you were planning to rent a car anyway. Flying only makes sense on longer haul routes. I fly to Portland and Vegas, but not LA anymore. I'd also fly to San Diego too if needed since I'd have to drive across the entire LA metro area (playing with fire). I'm amazed there is still a puddle jumper market in Northeast and Great Lakes cities...

 

What's really crazy is when people fly from New York City to Boston! Hello, there is a perfectly good train to take!

 

All of the Great Lakes and Northeastern cities should be connected by high-speed rail. Between Chicago and New York City, you've got a ton of major cities close together. This also extends into Ontario and Quebec. I'm sure the airlines are fighting hard against this...

 

The Amtrak route along Lake Erie should certainly be high-speed rail. Almost everybody from Toledo and Cleveland would take that to Chicago. You don't need a car in Chicago.

^Yeah, I used to fly to LA until I realized driving from the Bay didn't take much longer when I timed my drive to avoid peak traffic conditions. Leaving San Francisco-Oakland at 2pm can get you to Hollywood or DTLA at around 8pm, thus avoiding most of the traffic jams in California. It's a 360 to 400 mile drive depending on where you're going in LA, but it honestly is better than flying. When you add up the time it takes to get to SFO/OAK, do TSA check-in, check baggage if needed, and get from LAX to other parts of LA, you're not saving much time by flying. There also is no need to rent a car if you drive your own. For business travelers, the mileage makes sense since the rates were set for higher gas prices. You make a little money off mileage on older, gas efficient cars. Since gas prices tanked, that little "bonus" is stronger. You could even drive an F-150 from Oakland to Long Beach and make money...

 

I'd say if something is within a 6-hour drive time, it makes more sense to drive, particularly if you were planning to rent a car anyway. Flying only makes sense on longer haul routes. I fly to Portland and Vegas, but not LA anymore. I'd also fly to San Diego too if needed since I'd have to drive across the entire LA metro area (playing with fire). I'm amazed there is still a puddle jumper market in Northeast and Great Lakes cities...

 

What's really crazy is when people fly from New York City to Boston! Hello, there is a perfectly good train to take!

 

All of the Great Lakes and Northeastern cities should be connected by high-speed rail. Between Chicago and New York City, you've got a ton of major cities close together. This also extends into Ontario and Quebec. I'm sure the airlines are fighting hard against this...

 

The Amtrak route along Lake Erie should certainly be high-speed rail. Almost everybody from Toledo and Cleveland would take that to Chicago. You don't need a car in Chicago.

 

Not that long ago TSA was trying to inflict on trains what they've done to planes, which of course benefits automobiles.  Especially considering packing and unpacking, and one still must get to station and from the arrival station to wherever it is you're going.  So it depends on the latter two, in many cases.

 

You may not need a car in Chicago proper, but in "Chicagoland" most often you do.  Plus, though I haven't been there for awhile, the last time I was cabs within the city were strictly regulated and therefore expensive.

I've read that in Michigan, the Amtrak Wolverine (Chicago to Detroit) has a plan for that to run at 110mph. Its already 110mph between Gary IN, and Kalamazoo MI, and they have funding to extend 110mph between KZOO and Dearborn (Detroit suburb). With the increased running speeds, come the ability for additional round trips, so this would be going from 2 round trips a day, to potentially 8 round trips a day. What is really compelling about Michigan's ability to sell this proposal, is how they have a chart that shows this line can be net positive, and run a surplus, if we get the speed, the frequency, the ridership. 79mph trains will need annual surplus, but 110mph trains with 8 round trips a day, is so attractive, that people will leave their cars behind, and get on board, AND it will be a profitable line. Thus, your state, your cities, your colleges, your economy is better connected, you save your people time and money, that the state won't have to subsidize this line each year.

 

http://environmentalcouncil.org/mecReports/Coast-to-CoastRailStudy-ExecutiveSummary.pdf

 

So. Anyone have any analysis of rail routes at high-er speeds through Ohio, that could be time competitive with cars, and generate an operating surplus? i.e. Lake Shore, Cardinal, Capitol Limited, 3C.    79mph, 110mph, 125, 220mph.

 

So. Which routes could generate a surplus, at speeds/frequency, and how much would initial build capital cost, and how many years (at surplus) until it would have been net positive ROI. Rail can be highly effective, especially if you can dispel the "snail rail", and get it up to speed, and as the New England corridor is proving, and the study about Michigan shows, you won't have to subsidize operation, once you get it above a certain level of service.

 

I've read about the Midwest HSR project, that one route to would be for between Chicago and Detroit, and Chicago and Cleveland, to have them both go through Toledo, and split from there. Thus, the money to upgrade tracks to get to high speeds can be Chicago to Toledo, and then less-high speeds between Toledo/Detroit, Toledo/Cleveland, and you would still have a fast enough, competitive enough, compelling service.

None can generate an operating surplus. They can create overall benefits in excess of costs which is how the rest of the world measures the success of transportation investments.

 

Major track improvements are well underway on the state's newly acquired 135-mile segment east of Kalamazoo to Dearborn. However the speeds will be limited here to 90 mph because of the bilevel train equipment chosen. It has a higher center of gravity and can't negotiate the many curves at 110 mph like the tilt trains that were rejected as a result of intense lobbying of state lawmakers by Corridor Capital LLC to select their trains.

Your wrong about the cab's they are one of the cheapest in the country and I use them more often in Chicago then other places for that reason.

One-fourth of 3C may be downgraded

kjprendergast on April 13, 2016

 

All Aboard Ohio has learned from multiple sources that CSX may downgrade its 60-mile Galion-Columbus section (called the Columbus Line Subdivision) of the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati (3C) Corridor as early as this year. This represents nearly one-fourth of the total route-miles of the overall, 255-mile 3C Corridor.

 

Downgrading could include turning off and possibly removing the automatic block signal system and not maintaining the track to Class 4 standards (60 mph for freight, 80 mph for passenger). In time, these actions may result in the track on the Columbus Line Subdivision being re-classified as Class 2 track (25 mph for freight, 30 mph for passenger). CSX has yet to announce anything officially.

 

In anticipation of an announcement, the All Aboard Ohio Board of Directors on April 12 voted unanimously on a policy statement urging regional and state public agencies, authorities and commission “to maintain and preserve the 3C Corridor rail infrastructure in its current condition or better.”

 

MORE:

http://allaboardohio.org/2016/04/13/one-fourth-of-3c-may-be-downgraded/

Plus, though I haven't been there for awhile, the last time I was cabs within the city were strictly regulated and therefore expensive.[/color]

 

My experience has been the opposite. The cities with highly-regulated cabs (which also tend to be the cities where cabs are highly used) are the ones that tend to be the cheapest. I am always surprised by how cheap NYC cabs end up being. The most expensive city where I regularly took cabs was Detroit--as you can imagine, in an auto-dominated city, cab usage was quite low and therefore was expensive.

Agreed Chicagos are even cheaper.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Plus, though I haven't been there for awhile, the last time I was cabs within the city were strictly regulated and therefore expensive.[/color]

 

My experience has been the opposite. The cities with highly-regulated cabs (which also tend to be the cities where cabs are highly used) are the ones that tend to be the cheapest. I am always surprised by how cheap NYC cabs end up being. The most expensive city where I regularly took cabs was Detroit--as you can imagine, in an auto-dominated city, cab usage was quite low and therefore was expensive.

 

"Strictly regulated" meant the supply was regulated, so there was a lot of demand.  There were some cabs that could only serve suburban locations from the airport, with strict penalties if caught.  Classic crony-capitalist setup.  I've been exclusively driving there for at least twenty years so that could have changed.

AAO starts Detroit-Pittsburgh corridor campaign! #Toledo #Cleveland #Akron #Youngstown

http://allaboardohio.org/detroit-pittsburgh-corridor-campaign/

I apologize if this is repetitive (I haven't read the whole thread), but I once read that the Cleveland-Columbus portion of the 3C route was projected to be the most used and most economically viable. Was there ever any consideration given to operating this portion only?

I apologize if this is repetitive (I haven't read the whole thread), but I once read that the Cleveland-Columbus portion of the 3C route was projected to be the most used and most economically viable. Was there ever any consideration given to operating this portion only?

 

There was -- in the late-1990s, early 2000s in response to the proposed widening of I-71 to three lanes in each direction. But the route performed even better in terms of ridership and cost-effectiveness when its endpoints were in Cincinnati and Cleveland. And even more importantly, the 3C Corridor would perform still better if there were trains to Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh and beyond to/from some or all of the 3C's.

Thanks for the insight, KJP. My thought was the price tag for just Cleveland-Columbus might not have been as scary as that for Cleveland-Cincinnati.  I live in a one-city state (Maryland); perhaps in Ohio you have to please all three C's to get anything done.

^ I wish we only had to please just the 3 C's to get something done in this state

What will this mean for TARTA transit and Amtrak passenger rail? Or will Brown be nothing but roads, roads, roads in a low-income metro that can't afford to be car-dependent?

 

State Rep. Tim Brown will lead Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments

BLADE STAFF Published on June 15, 2016 | Updated 10:24 p. m.

 

State. Rep. Tim Brown (R., Bowling Green) was chosen Wednesday to be president of the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, replacing Tony Reams, who is retiring.

 

The decision was unanimous by the TMACOG executive committee, said Craig Stough, chairman of the regional body’s board of trustees and mayor of Sylvania.

 

MORE:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2016/06/15/State-Rep-Tim-Brown-will-lead-Toledo-Metropolitan-Area-Council-of-Governments.html

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2017/02/18/report-issued-on-ohio-passenger-rail-immediate-needs/

 

Report issued on Ohio passenger rail immediate needs

kjprendergast on February 18, 2017

 

All Aboard Ohio has issued an important, detailed report and four-page summary in time for consideration by Ohio's elected officials as they consider the next two years of transportation spending. (Go to the link above to download the full report or summary)

 

The report, "Ohio Passenger Rail Assessment of Needs," shows that Ohio can begin planning, constructing or completing $23.6 million worth of passenger rail improvements sought by Ohio's communities within the time frame of the Ohio Department of Transportation's 2018-19 biennial budget. Further, All Aboard Ohio showed that more than $80 million in state funding could be available under state law to passenger rail development. No operating costs, only infrastructure planning and construction investments, were included.

 

Passenger rail service continues to be a growth industry in much of the world, including in the United States. Amtrak now covers 94 percent of its costs through revenues and the railroad broke another ridership record in Fiscal Year 2016. Passenger rail ridership in the USA has grown 50 percent since 2000 (and grown anywhere from 29 percent to 76 percent at Ohio's seven stations). If Amtrak were an airline, it would be America's sixth-largest by passenger volume.

 

The first section of All Aboard Ohio's report summarizes the stunning passenger rail progress of Ohio's neighbors and should prove sobering in light of Ohio's relative inaction to gain better rail service. Of Ohio's eight largest metro areas, only Cleveland and Toledo have daily passenger rail service, yet is scheduled only late at night. Cincinnati has thrice-weekly rail service, again only at night. Akron, Canton and Youngstown are "served" by an unstaffed station in an abandoned railroad yard in Alliance, OH. Dayton has no service and Columbus is the largest metro area is the western hemisphere without any passenger rail service.

 

Ohioans deserve better. Ohio is the nation's seventh-most populous state and its population density (Ohio, 284 persons per square mile) ranks with France (295 persons per square mile). France, of course, is home to an extensive passenger rail system a small portion of which includes the famous high-speed TGV network. Yet Ohio's travel options are very limited, slow and expensive even by U.S. standards.

 

All Aboard Ohio, a statewide nonprofit association of more than 500 citizens and business founded in 1973, is committed to encouraging improvements to passenger rail and public transportation in and through the state of Ohio. Thus, we prepared the Ohio Passenger Rail Assessment of Needs report to familiarize Ohio Gov. John Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly with the following contents:

 

+ Rail Neighbors: Ohio's neighbor states and Ontario have undertaken or are pursuing many millions if not billions of dollars worth of improvements to their passenger rail networks.

+ Ohio's Immediate Rail Needs: We took inventory of passenger rail projects being pursued in Ohio that could see construction as a result of funding from the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) 2018-19 biennial budget, now under legislative review.

+ Ohio's Future Rail Needs/Concepts: There are also long-term rail improvements around Ohio that were considered by various public jurisdictions and railroads in recent years and may require new funding to achieve.

+ Ohio Public Policy Recommendations: All Aboard Ohio also offered policy recommendations that Gov. John Kasich and Ohio General Assembly could consider during its ODOT budget deliberations in order to better facilitate passenger rail and public transportation improvements in the next two years.

 

"We look forward to continuing our dialogue with Ohio's policymakers in achieving realistic, near-term improvements to our state's transportation system," said All Aboard Ohio Executive Director Ken Prendergast. "We urge Ohioans to contact their state lawmakers in Columbus today and inform them with a short, polite message that they want better passenger rail service in Ohio."

 

CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR HERE

 

CONTACT YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE HERE

 

There is ample evidence, both in real-world examples from our neighboring states and economic impact studies of proposed Ohio services, of the benefits from investing in rail infrastructure and services. These real examples and Ohio studies show that investing in passenger rail generates long-term economic benefits that are 1.4 to 1.8 times greater than the initial investment.

 

The ongoing support produces even greater quantifiable benefits. The Michigan Department of Transportation, for example, purchases Amtrak service at $25 million per year. Yet, according to a Grand Valley State University study (commissioned by MDOT) in 2009 before the state began upgrading rail infrastructure to 110 mph, Michigan enjoyed $62 million per year in community benefits from the passenger rail services.

 

“Investing in rail service will spark economic development in communities along a corridor linking Detroit and Chicago, two vital Midwest cities. Michigan can be the centerpiece of a broader logistical connection that goes all the way from St. Louis to Chicago to Detroit and continues on to Toronto and Montreal with Detroit right in the heart of it. Rail can solve some real problems. It can be economically efficient and contribute to sustainability and also an urban lifestyle, something our young people are looking for,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

 

END

Sorry to jump in here, but I was just curious why the north central part of the 3C corridor route was chosen, rather than a different more eastern orientation from Columbus to Cleveland.  Does anyone know?

Sorry to jump in here, but I was just curious why the north central part of the 3C corridor route was chosen, rather than a different more eastern orientation from Columbus to Cleveland.  Does anyone know?

 

No need to apologize. A few posts of mine way back in this thread (like in 2009-10) addressed the issue. I could only find the one below. I didn't mention one item -- that routing via Akron caused overall ridership projections to fall. The addition of Akron riders didn't make up for the loss of Cleveland riders, even though Cleveland would still be served. The Akron routing added about an hour to the Cleveland-Columbus trip...

 

Here is a more detailed map of the rail lines between the North Central Ohio area and Greater Cleveland:

 

 

Here's a larger image of the above:

http://members.cox.net/peepersken/Railmap-Akron3Crouting1.gif

 

The above map shows all current and former railroad lines (it doesn't show former electric interurbans which are displayed on updated versions of the SPV Railroad Atlas booklets). Solid lines represent currently (as of the mid-90s) intact or active railroad rights of ways. Dashed lines represent abandoned/removed railroad rights of way.

 

I have no doubts that using the former Erie Railroad mainline via Mansfield, Ashland and Akron, and then a mix of rail lines from there to downtown Cleveland makes sense -- especially for a high-speed rail service. Since segments of the Erie RR are either abandoned or used only for branch-line/industrial access services, when stitched back together they offer a largely freight-free rail corridor for fast passenger trains. But by the same argument, given the poor conditions of the Erie RR right of way, it's not suitable for a start-up level of service.

 

And if I'm going to run Cleveland - Columbus passenger trains via Canton, I'd route the trains through Newark, Coshocton, New Philadelphia. The tracks from Hudson south to Canton need serious improvements. Akron Metro RTA and CVSR have made a good start improving the tracks south of Akron for CVSR's low-speed tourist train to Canton. But if we're going to further improve this line, do it for high-speed rail (and ensure it has enough capacity for commuter rail). Besides, a 3C routing through both Mansfield and Canton starts to get pretty convoluted.

Sorry to jump in here, but I was just curious why the north central part of the 3C corridor route was chosen, rather than a different more eastern orientation from Columbus to Cleveland.  Does anyone know?

 

No need to apologize. A few posts of mine way back in this thread (like in 2009-10) addressed the issue. I could only find the one below. I didn't mention one item -- that routing via Akron caused overall ridership projections to fall. The addition of Akron riders didn't make up for the loss of Cleveland riders, even though Cleveland would still be served. The Akron routing added about an hour to the Cleveland-Columbus trip...

 

Here is a more detailed map of the rail lines between the North Central Ohio area and Greater Cleveland:

 

 

Here's a larger image of the above:

http://members.cox.net/peepersken/Railmap-Akron3Crouting1.gif

 

The above map shows all current and former railroad lines (it doesn't show former electric interurbans which are displayed on updated versions of the SPV Railroad Atlas booklets). Solid lines represent currently (as of the mid-90s) intact or active railroad rights of ways. Dashed lines represent abandoned/removed railroad rights of way.

 

I have no doubts that using the former Erie Railroad mainline via Mansfield, Ashland and Akron, and then a mix of rail lines from there to downtown Cleveland makes sense -- especially for a high-speed rail service. Since segments of the Erie RR are either abandoned or used only for branch-line/industrial access services, when stitched back together they offer a largely freight-free rail corridor for fast passenger trains. But by the same argument, given the poor conditions of the Erie RR right of way, it's not suitable for a start-up level of service.

 

And if I'm going to run Cleveland - Columbus passenger trains via Canton, I'd route the trains through Newark, Coshocton, New Philadelphia. The tracks from Hudson south to Canton need serious improvements. Akron Metro RTA and CVSR have made a good start improving the tracks south of Akron for CVSR's low-speed tourist train to Canton. But if we're going to further improve this line, do it for high-speed rail (and ensure it has enough capacity for commuter rail). Besides, a 3C routing through both Mansfield and Canton starts to get pretty convoluted.

 

Pittsburgh to Cbus via Ytown and Akron/Canton should be its own line.

Thanks for the answer.  It's hard to tell from the maps.  It seemed like that part of the route wasn't getting close to even small downtowns like Mansfield and a more easternly orientation would service more small cities.  But I understand the access for ridership tradeoffs.

Thanks for the answer.  It's hard to tell from the maps.  It seemed like that part of the route wasn't getting close to even small downtowns like Mansfield and a more easternly orientation would service more small cities and high profile liberal arts colleges.  But I understand the access for ridership tradeoffs.

All Aboard Ohio‏

@AllAboardOhio

 

 

Scotland-

Area: 30,000 Sq Mi

Pop.: 5.4M

HSR Connected? YES

 

Ohio-

Area: 45,000 Sq Mi

Pop.: 11.6M

HSR Connected?  NO

 

Aberdeen launch for Scotland’s first HST

https://www.globalrailnews.com/2017/09/14/aberdeen-launch-for-scotlands-first-hst/

As you noted elsewhere, Ken, our neighbors to the north (that would be the Canadian province of Ontario (population (2016):13,448,494, Density, 38 (as in people) per sq mile!)) is putting us to shame in planning a HSR line from Toronto to Windsor... That one should be interesting.  Maybe someday they connect under the Detroit River, via Detroit all the way through to Chicago in a VIA/Amtrak partnership ... ah, with the USA gripped in Republicanism, this is simply pipe-dreaming.

 

... but at the very least, the Toronto-Windsor Line sure would/could jump-start the Midwest Hub planning or, maybe, serious discussion...

As you noted elsewhere, Ken, our neighbors to the north (that would be the Canadian province of Ontario (population (2016):13,448,494, Density, 38 (as in people) per sq mile!)) is putting us to shame in planning a HSR line from Toronto to Windsor... That one should be interesting.  Maybe someday they connect under the Detroit River, via Detroit all the way through to Chicago in a VIA/Amtrak partnership ... ah, with the USA gripped in Republicanism, this is simply pipe-dreaming.

 

... but at the very least, the Toronto-Windsor Line sure would/could jump-start the Midwest Hub planning or, maybe, serious discussion...

 

It's not a Republican issue, the Democrats did nothing to move any of this forward.. the Amtrak system in the Northeast is an embarrassment and 90% of that goes through Democrat strongholds and to think this would go through Detroit/Michigan which is an infrastructural and financial mess is the only actual pipe dream in your response

Yeah, only 750,000 passengers are carried each day on more than 2,200 trains on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.

 

 

And Detroit is linked by 110 mph trains to Chicago, thanks to Michigan using some of the federal funds that Ohio gave away....

 

It's not a Republican issue, the Democrats did nothing to move any of this forward.. the Amtrak system in the Northeast is an embarrassment and 90% of that goes through Democrat strongholds and to think this would go through Detroit/Michigan which is an infrastructural and financial mess is the only actual pipe dream in your response

 

An embarrassment? Not at all. I use it quite often and it's by far the best way to go from DC to NYC. 

Grasping at straws here: Would there be any possibility of seasonal rail service among the three C's? Summer tourism might make something possible, especially as Cleveland and Cincinnati add more international air routes. It could allow European visitors to see three cities - fly into CLE, go home from CVG (or the opposite), and visit Columbus by rail - perhaps a special train a couple times a week?

 

I doubt AMTRAK would be interested, but might anyone? Some Ohio tourist agency?

Due to the fixed-cost nature of rail it is harder to justify a seasonal service. Say NS requires a passenger siding of $10 million for regular service (for example). It is a lot easier to spread that cost over 365 trains per year (or more) than 20 trains over the course of the summer.

 

The other big issue you will run into with a non-Amtrak operator is insurance. I have heard Iowa Pacific was required to provide a $200 million dollar liability policy to operate the Hoosier State (using Amtrak crews). This is why a lot of seasonal excursion trips like the New River Train are run as Amtrak charters.

 

Anything is possible with enough time and money, but it would be a challenge. I could see maybe a special event Amtrak charter, or an annual train at best, but I think anything beyond that would start running into the roadblocks above.

In the USA, the owner of a railroad right of way has exclusive rights to use that right of way. So, usually the right of way owners runs their own trains over it. Could you imagine "The Greyhound Highway" or the "United Airlines Airport"? The owner has the right to refuse or negotiate with others seeking to use the right of way -- and they usually do refuse access primarily because they just want to run their own trains to meet their preferred customers' needs. Another carrier seeking trackage rights has to run their train on a schedule that doesn't interfere with existing train schedules designed around the shipping needs of existing customers. And because the railroads have eliminated so much parallel railroad infrastructure to concentrate so much traffic on so few lines to boost Wall Street-desired profit margins and cost-of-capital requirements of private lenders, it can be difficult if not impossible add more trains without negatively impacting existing rail customers, or having to add more infrastructure capacity, or having to run new trains on a very slow schedule.

 

The 3C corridor tracks are owned primarily by CSX Transportation Inc. north of Columbus and Norfolk Southern Corp. south of Columbus. Unlike publicly owned airports or highways, there is no open access. And unlike airports or highways, the owners of railroad rights of way are responsible for liability issues. So any request to right of way-owning railroads will come with a stiff price for liability insurance -- and the rates are higher for passenger trains than freight trains for what I hope are obvious reasons. The last I'd heard, a prospective passenger rail operator seeking to run trains on a privately owned railroad right of way typically has to carry about $500 million in liability insurance coverage. For a passenger rail service, whether one train a week is being offered or 50, the premiums for such a policy cost about $2 million per year. Amtrak and a few private commuter rail service contractors carry that much liability insurance.

Grasping at straws here: Would there be any possibility of seasonal rail service among the three C's? Summer tourism might make something possible, especially as Cleveland and Cincinnati add more international air routes. It could allow European visitors to see three cities - fly into CLE, go home from CVG (or the opposite), and visit Columbus by rail - perhaps a special train a couple times a week?

 

I doubt AMTRAK would be interested, but might anyone? Some Ohio tourist agency?

 

Not a bad idea.

 

However, I think running rail in the winter months would see some great value as well. One thing Ohioans do not enjoy is driving longer than they have to with snow on the ground. I would assume 9/10 Ohioans would prefer to take a train from Cincinnati to Cleveland during a snowstorm than I-71.

Ok, so I guess it's essentially hopeless.  The Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia floated the idea of running a private train from Washington, but nothing ever came of it - probably for all the reasons mentioned.

you could vote for Bill O'Neill

 

http://www.billforohio.com/the-oneill-plan-for-ohio/

 

 

High Speed Rail

[/size]Finally, I want to talk about transportation. Thirty years ago there was a feasibility study that demonstrated the economic viability of a 200 mph high speed electric train system from Cleveland to Columbus and down on to Cincinnati.  It was going to be funded by a bond issue.  Instead we built a third lane on Interstate 71.

[/size]If they can build it in China, France, Spain and California, there is no reason it cannot be done in Ohio. Let’s put Ohioans back to work, and build a fast, reliable rail network that will strengthen our transportation system, protect our environment, and make Ohio more attractive to big business.

Ok, so I guess it's essentially hopeless.  The Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia floated the idea of running a private train from Washington, but nothing ever came of it - probably for all the reasons mentioned.

 

Well, not that we know of ;-)

you could vote for Bill O'Neill

 

http://www.billforohio.com/the-oneill-plan-for-ohio/

 

 

High Speed Rail

[/size]Finally, I want to talk about transportation. Thirty years ago there was a feasibility study that demonstrated the economic viability of a 200 mph high speed electric train system from Cleveland to Columbus and down on to Cincinnati.  It was going to be funded by a bond issue.  Instead we built a third lane on Interstate 71.

[/size]If they can build it in China, France, Spain and California, there is no reason it cannot be done in Ohio. Let’s put Ohioans back to work, and build a fast, reliable rail network that will strengthen our transportation system, protect our environment, and make Ohio more attractive to big business.

 

This.  If we want people to back the plan, it has to be competitive with Spain and China.  High speed is an essential factor.

http://allaboardohio.org/2017/10/17/midwest-rail-plan-is-promising-for-ohio/

 

Midwest rail plan is promising for Ohio

kjprendergast on October 17, 2017

 

Although it is still a few months away from completion, the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) study by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and its consulting team is delivering some early returns. Those returns are in the form of ridership and operating cost-effectiveness projections that show Ohio has several potential intercity passenger rail routes deserving of strong consideration for public and private investment.

 

SEE SELECTED GRAPHICS AT END OF ARTICLE OR THE FULL PRESENTATION HERE (PDF) STARTING ON PAGE 48.

 

Indeed, one of the Ohio routes is projected to have the highest revenue-to-cost ratio of any Midwest route studied, according to preliminary data. All Aboard Ohio is already engaging stakeholders statewide to make them aware of the MWRRS findings. Please let us know of any stakeholders who should be contacted by e-mailing us at [email protected] or calling us toll-free at 1-800-464-RAIL (7245).

 

Estimates of ridership, revenues, operating costs, capital costs and benefits are being developed for multiple Ohio routes, both as stand-alone corridors and as parts of an inter-connected system. The Ohio routes in this study include:

 

+ Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago (via Greensburg, IN and/or Oxford, OH)

+ Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati

+ Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago (via Fort Wayne, IN, South Bend, IN and/or Detroit)

+ Columbus-Chicago (via Lima, OH-Fort Wayne and/or Dayton-Indianapolis)

+ Detroit-Indianapolis (via Toledo-Fort Wayne)

+ Eastern Gateways (Cleveland-Buffalo, Cleveland-Pittsburgh, Columbus-Pittsburgh, plus two that bypass Ohio – Detroit-London-Buffalo and Detroit-London, ON-Toronto-Montreal)

 

 

This study represents an update of past, Midwest network planning efforts in the 2000s and in the 1990s. Those efforts ultimately resulted in upgrading the Wolverine (Detroit-Chicago) and Lincoln (St. Louis-Chicago) corridors to 110 mph standards as well as developing new services to the Quad Cities and to Rockford.

 

The next step in the current study will be to develop some estimates of conceptual capital costs and for user (riders) and non-user (society) benefits from three different service tier options for each route. The three service tiers are:

 

+ Core Express – over 125 mph, frequent service on dedicated tracks except in terminal areas, using electrically powered trains serving major metropolitan centers, and an on-time performance goal of 99 percent.

+ Regional – 90-125 mph, frequent service on dedicated and shared tracks, using electrically and diesel-powered trains connecting mid-sized urban areas with each other or with larger metropolitan areas, and an on-time performance goal of 95 percent.

+ Emerging/Feeder – up to 90 mph, several daily trains powered by diesel on shared tracks, connecting mid-sized and smaller urban areas with each other or with larger metropolitan areas, and an on-time performance goal of 85 percent.

 

Then, the planning team will prioritize each route for investment and at what service tier would be most beneficial for investment. So while the Wolverine and Lincoln corridors have already seen significant capital improvements upwards of $2 billion in total, the study may show they are deserving of more investment to further increase train speeds and frequencies.

 

Routes not yet developed also are showing strong ridership and cost-recovery potential and are likely to rank highly in this report. Twin Cities-Rochester-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago appears to be the strongest, as-yet undeveloped route west of Chicago.

 

But east of Chicago, all of the Ohio routes are projected to earn revenues in excess of their operating costs when those Ohio routes are operated with a Regional service tier (90-125 mph) and in a network context.

 

In fact, the strongest proposed route evaluated in the entire MWRRS is a Chicago-Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh corridor network (includes branches and network connections to Grand Rapids, Lansing, Toronto and Fort Wayne). This corridor network is projected to attract 7.2 million annual riders and generate revenues that are 157 percent greater than its operating costs. This is sufficient to warrant a service tier of no less than Regional and perhaps as great at Core Express, according to the FRA’s preliminary findings.

 

But it is important for those of us in Ohio to remember that Eastern Gateway routes through Canada that bypass Ohio are also being considered by this report. While a Buffalo-Cleveland route with an Emerging/Feeder service tier is projected to attract 500,000 annual riders, the route through Canada is projected to be an even stronger network connection to/through Buffalo.

 

Although it’s not projected to be as strong as an Eastern Gateway via Pittsburgh, a route through Ontario has a political advantage. Ontario is aggressively developing passenger rail which includes planning for a 155-mph Windsor-London-Kitchener-Toronto route. Midwest routes with a Chicago hub can have their Eastern Gateway through Canada if Ohio continues to sit out the passenger rail renaissance.

 

At the next stakeholder workshop to be held Dec. 6 in Chicago, the FRA’s study team intends to release a draft, proposed Midwest regional high-performance rail network including:

 

+ Corridors with proposed levels of service

+ Potential stations

+ Capital costs, operating/maintenance costs

+ Prioritized phasing based on cost-benefit analysis

 

 

Planning documents, presentations given at the first three workshops and other materials are posted on the FRA’s MWRRS Web site at www.midwestrailplan.org. The FRA’s study team includes the Williams Sale Partnership Ltd. (WSP, based in the United Kingdom and which recently purchased U.S. engineering giant Parsons Brinckerhoff), Quetica which is a supply chain management/eCommerce consultant, and SMA Rail Consulting that provides rail consulting and internet technology services.

 

SEE GRAPHICS BELOW SELECTED FROM THE FULL PRESENTATION HERE (PDF) STARTING ON PAGE 48. CLICK ON THE IMAGES TO ENLARGE THEM.

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2017/10/17/midwest-rail-plan-is-promising-for-ohio/

Edited December 9, 20186 yr by KJP

Bill O'Neill is the man. He was my brother's nurse at Hillcrest Hospital ten years ago for some kind of broken bone, don't remember. Then he decided he'd had enough of nursing for the time being, so he became a supreme court justice. Kind of weird to have a sitting justice get all into political debates though - we need to stop electing them.

Bill O'Neill is the man. He was my brother's nurse at Hillcrest Hospital ten years ago for some kind of broken bone, don't remember. Then he decided he'd had enough of nursing for the time being, so he became a supreme court justice. Kind of weird to have a sitting justice get all into political debates though - we need to stop electing them.

I like the guy.  He's a Facebook friend because I was arguing with one of our mutual friends (another Dem) over some issue or another.  The point being is he's not a purist that won't work with the other side.

Bill O'Neill is the man. He was my brother's nurse at Hillcrest Hospital ten years ago for some kind of broken bone, don't remember. Then he decided he'd had enough of nursing for the time being, so he became a supreme court justice. Kind of weird to have a sitting justice get all into political debates though - we need to stop electing them.

I like the guy.  He's a Facebook friend because I was arguing with one of our mutual friends (another Dem) over some issue or another.  The point being is he's not a purist that won't work with the other side.

 

Perfectly sane policies like marijuana legalization and high speed rail, and then this:

 

"Take a fast food worker who is making $9.00 an hour today, raise their wages to $15.00 and I guarantee you next Saturday they will go out and buy a new Jeep Wrangler made in Toledo, Ohio."

 

I thought the dumbest thing I've heard is the idea of a $15.00 minimum wage in Ohio. Until I read the idea that someone making that  $15/hr minimum would immediately purchase a $27,000 car, and that this would be a good idea.

^ That makes me wonder if he's just pandering on other issues as well.

They all pander and they all exaggerate, but at least he's on the right track.  Wages drive the economy.

They all pander and they all exaggerate, but at least he's on the right track.  Wages drive the economy.

 

It won't work.

 

Bill O'Neill is the man. He was my brother's nurse at Hillcrest Hospital ten years ago for some kind of broken bone, don't remember. Then he decided he'd had enough of nursing for the time being, so he became a supreme court justice. Kind of weird to have a sitting justice get all into political debates though - we need to stop electing them.

I like the guy.  He's a Facebook friend because I was arguing with one of our mutual friends (another Dem) over some issue or another.  The point being is he's not a purist that won't work with the other side.

 

Perfectly sane policies like marijuana legalization and high speed rail, and then this:

 

"Take a fast food worker who is making $9.00 an hour today, raise their wages to $15.00 and I guarantee you next Saturday they will go out and buy a new Jeep Wrangler made in Toledo, Ohio."

 

I thought the dumbest thing I've heard is the idea of a $15.00 minimum wage in Ohio. Until I read the idea that someone making that  $15/hr minimum would immediately purchase a $27,000 car, and that this would be a good idea.

 

If raising wages were the solution we could just print more money...

A minimum wage worker who buys a 27,000 car is also an idiot.

This.  If we want people to back the plan, it has to be competitive with Spain and China.  High speed is an essential factor.

 

As a wise man once said “They (China) have trains that go 300 miles per hour. We have trains that go chug … chug … chug.”

China also has more privatized highways than the USA. Just because a country says communism or capitalism on its front door, doesn't mean that what is universally practiced inside.

China also has more privatized highways than the USA. Just because a country says communism or capitalism on its front door, doesn't mean that what is universally practiced inside.

 

China recently built a private tollway across Jamaica.  The Chinese company owns the land near the interchanges in the center of the island and can basically do whatever it wants with that land.  So we'll likely see Chinese-run casinos or something like that go up in the dead-middle of Jamaica.