On 6/21/2024 at 2:37 PM, E Rocc said:

The problem with high speed rail in Ohio is it would end up stopping way too many places.   For example, the chair of the Ohio House Transportation Committee is from Upper Sandusky.  You're going to bypass his area?

 

You're going to include Dayton and not Akron-Canton?

 

Like Republican passenger rail champion H. Cooper Snyder from Hillsboro to said in the 1980s, providing passenger rail will not only help the 3Cs but also the 3Ps -- Piqua, Painesville and Pickerington. He said that when a reporter asked him if Hillsboro isn't getting train service, why does he support it?

6 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

The problem with high speed rail in Ohio is it would end up stopping way too many places.   For example, the chair of the Ohio House Transportation Committee is from Upper Sandusky.  You're going to bypass his area?

 

You're going to include Dayton and not Akron-Canton?

 

No one is proposing high speed rail but regardless, I think this demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how trains work. Sure, you're not going to pass by some cities because there's a political incentive to include them but if/when expanded Amtrak and 3Cs come to Ohio, you're going to have express service that bypasses some towns like Hamilton probably. Dayton is on the line because it's Ohio's 3rd largest city IIRC and is on the preferred route. Akron doesn't have a rail line that works well for the 3C's.

 

If it were up to me, I'd work with Genessee and Ohio to upgrade the old B&O route from Cincinnati to Wilmington, Washington Courthouse and Columbus to higher speeds but that also bypasses a huge catchment area of Hamilton and Dayton.

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

If it were up to me, I'd work with Genessee and Ohio to upgrade the old B&O route from Cincinnati to Wilmington, Washington Courthouse and Columbus to higher speeds but that also bypasses a huge catchment area of Hamilton and Dayton.

In an ideal scenario the state pulls a Virginia and buys this line for a 3C line, then also runs from Cincy to Columbus through Dayton with a few more stops than the current 3C+D route. 

 

Toledo with potential connections to Cleveland with the Cleveland to Detroit line and Columbus/Cincy with the Detroit to New Orleans line(I believe this route would actually pass through Upper Sandusky).

 

Connect Cleveland/Akron/Canton by upgrading the CVSR rails.

 

That's a great base network to start future expansion from. The top 9 counties making up about 6 million people all would have stops.

Yeah again, Dayton is on the route because it's the most direct route between Columbus and Cincinnati. There's nothing particularly political about it, although there was certainly a cost-benefit analysis taken into account about stopping there. Some of y'all need to spend more time on Open Street Map looking at where rail lines actually run. They don't necessarily take the routes you'd expect them to take.

7 hours ago, TMart said:

 My recollection of that Fed offer seemed great on the surface, but would have put Ohio taxpayers on the hook for operation, cost overruns, and maintenance. . . . So turning down the offer seemed like a financially responsible decision. 

 

. . . .  Either the cost of building and operating rail service needs to come down, or the demand to use it would have to increase to make it financially sustainable. . . .

I have to disagree with your conclusions -- 1) the Fed offered to cover service for three years --  if it turned out not to be financially viable there would have been no reason to continue after three years, but the cost to get the service started was nil, there was no financial risk,  Ohio taxpayers are only on the hook for highways, which also don't pay for themselves (both the state and federal highway trust funds have been bailed out with general funds), and 2) KJP and others criticized the estimated ridership as being far too low -- if correct, ridership on the 3C+D could be far higher than those estimates, and if we had taken the Fed dollars Ohio would have had a near-zero cost test to determine whether Ohioans wanted passenger rail and whether they'd be willing to pay for it. 

 

I'd also argue that ANY train that is halfway decent will take cars off the road, making the driving experience much better for the cars that remain.

 

In sum, I strongly believe that it was a financially irresponsible decision to decline the federal dollars.

The Ohio legislature is gerrymandered to give rural Ohioans more political clout.  As a result, anything that is perceived to benefit urban centers has a very high bar to clear.  High speed rail is definitely something that would benefit Ohio’s cities.  

Since NEOtrans was down all day, I spent a few hours showing current, former and even some planned rail rights of way in the Cleveland - Akron - Canton corridor. You can zoom in to see pretty much where everything was in detail. Please don't change anything unless you ask me first. Still working on the stations and a few other pieces parts....

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1TbmCnHUDYPVqkUL12LLwYWjyvC1LHCA&usp=drive_link

 

You can see additional details in these old digitized maps here:

 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ddb0ee6134d64de4adaaa3660308abfd

10 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

If it were up to me, I'd work with Genessee and Ohio to upgrade the old B&O route from Cincinnati to Wilmington, Washington Courthouse and Columbus to higher speeds but that also bypasses a huge catchment area of Hamilton and Dayton.

 

Do both.  This route would make possible a station at Madison Rd. in Oakley and another in Loveland.  Each would make Amtrak travel super-convenient for several hundred thousand people who would otherwise have to backtrack to reach Union Terminal. 

14 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

 

It's weird that that fact didn't hurt Union Terminal when it was seeing 50+ trains a day.

 

Actually it did.  The fact that it was the wrong station location was noted by one of the railroad presidents at its dedication in 1933. 

 

The much, much better station location was where Fort Washington Way is now.  That plan was truly gigantic and would have functioned as as an intercity and interurban/commuter rail station whereas CUT cannot serve as a practical commuter rail facility. 

 

 

17 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

 

No one is proposing high speed rail but regardless, I think this demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how trains work. Sure, you're not going to pass by some cities because there's a political incentive to include them but if/when expanded Amtrak and 3Cs come to Ohio, you're going to have express service that bypasses some towns like Hamilton probably. Dayton is on the line because it's Ohio's 3rd largest city IIRC and is on the preferred route. Akron doesn't have a rail line that works well for the 3C's.

 

If it were up to me, I'd work with Genessee and Ohio to upgrade the old B&O route from Cincinnati to Wilmington, Washington Courthouse and Columbus to higher speeds but that also bypasses a huge catchment area of Hamilton and Dayton.

 

Some corrections and comments.... 

 

Dayton is the sixth-most populous city in Ohio but the fourth-most populous metro area.

 

It's actually the Genesee & Wyoming and if memory serves, its routing is only 8 miles shorter than the Dayton routing which is engineered for higher speeds. The G&W in the vicinity of Loveland would have to be completely realigned to offer higher speeds.

 

Plus Since Dayton-Cincinnati has two high-quality main lines, you have the opportunity for consolidating through-freight traffic on one of the lines and dedicating the other for fast passenger trains, at least during daylight hours. If it were me, I would make the CSX routing via Hamilton as my passenger line, but that might require some trackwork in Hamilton and, perhaps someday, a passenger flyover of NS trains using the New Castle District line. 

 

Historically, the railroads came up with some pretty bad station locations like Cincinnati Union Terminal or Buffalo Central Terminal. But it worked for them operationally. BTW Cincinnati Union Terminal saw 216 trains a day at its peak.

 

High-speed rail would do well for Ohio's largest cities. But conventional-speed rail would do well for Ohio's small towns as well. Combined with a well-designed system of feeder buses, many Ohio small towns that have become isolated since bus deregulation could become well-connected again for people of all incomes and ages.

 

Here's a couple of maps I made 15 years ago...

 

 

^ Would love to see The University of Akron and Kent State connected by rail. It just makes so much sense for the schools to pool their resources and work closer together.   

9 hours ago, KJP said:

High-speed rail would do well for Ohio's largest cities. But conventional-speed rail would do well for Ohio's small towns as well. Combined with a well-designed system of feeder buses, many Ohio small towns that have become isolated since bus deregulation could become well-connected again for people of all incomes and ages.

 

People get too focused on high speed rail in my opinion. Getting to the point where Ohio could have the equivalent of Amtrak's Lincoln Service or Wolverine would be a game changer. Getting service going and then upgrading to a 125 mph capable service would really be all that we would need here. True HSR needs to happen but it would be better for longer-distance services. 

I get envious of the UK and their 125 mph services with tilting trains. Upgrading some lines to be Acela capable would be wonderful for longer-distance service.

3 hours ago, surfohio said:

^ Would love to see The University of Akron and Kent State connected by rail. It just makes so much sense for the schools to pool their resources and work closer together.   

 

Akron Metro RTA owns a rail corridor that connects downtown Akron to near Kent. Their ownership ends at the county line, and the county line is just west of the city of Kent. And east of there, the right of way is owned by Portage County. And the track is still active from the county line east to Ravenna.

21 hours ago, KJP said:

Since NEOtrans was down all day, I spent a few hours showing current, former and even some planned rail rights of way in the Cleveland - Akron - Canton corridor. You can zoom in to see pretty much where everything was in detail. Please don't change anything unless you ask me first. Still working on the stations and a few other pieces parts....

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1TbmCnHUDYPVqkUL12LLwYWjyvC1LHCA&usp=drive_link

 

You can see additional details in these old digitized maps here:

 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ddb0ee6134d64de4adaaa3660308abfd

 

Spent a little more time adding and correcting stuff on that map. It's been fun and sad researching this. So much rail infrastructure lost to the tyranny and isolationism of the almighty car.

22 hours ago, KJP said:

Since NEOtrans was down all day, I spent a few hours showing current, former and even some planned rail rights of way in the Cleveland - Akron - Canton corridor. You can zoom in to see pretty much where everything was in detail. Please don't change anything unless you ask me first. Still working on the stations and a few other pieces parts....

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1TbmCnHUDYPVqkUL12LLwYWjyvC1LHCA&usp=drive_link

 

You can see additional details in these old digitized maps here:

 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ddb0ee6134d64de4adaaa3660308abfd

So I guess the next question is which routing is best? Personally I'm most interested in between Cleveland and Akron. 

 

How feasible would it be to add passenger only tracks on the NS Conrail section from Miles Rd to, at minimum Bedford, and realistically Hudson? I know you've mentioned before that the section north of that used to be four tracked anyway, but below that it looks to get tight in a few sections. 

 

The only other options between Cleveland and Akron are CVSR and the intriguing abandoned Lake Erie and Pittsburgh line. CVSR presents the possibility for an interesting quick win with some relatively minor improvements, but I would think it's nature will mean that it would be limited to only subpar Intercity service (that said subpar Intercity service is pretty good by US standards). Quality transit service between Cleveland and Akron would probably require new dedicated tracks. The Lake Erie and Pittsburgh right of way has the issue of not running near anything useful, so there'd be no quality intermediate stops (I'm pretty sure that's just under power lines now). 

 

I like the NS routing, but without more tracks I'm assuming it isn't feasible. From Hudson the abandoned Akron Metro Conrail line looks very appealing. 

 

In the near term the best thing is probably just to run CVSR up to downtown Cleveland, and add a few strategic double tracked sections. With any luck there'll be enough demand for inter city travel to justify a dedicated right of way and more substantial and frequent service. 

On 6/21/2024 at 11:26 AM, Htsguy said:

Oh Ken, why do you have to constantly correct the ill informed or uneducated with all your nasty facts?😉

 

I'm wrong too. 3C ranked 8th, not 10th. This was the top-10 metro-pairs with the most person trips between them two decades ago. Notice something about them? They ALL have have passenger rail or active plans to build it. In fact, most have pretty extensive passenger rail. The two city-pairs that don't (Dallas-Houston and Las Vegas-Los Angeles) are the subject of multi-billion-dollar high-speed rail development plans. One of them has started construction. The other one is in the evil empire of texass.

 

1    Los Angeles - San Diego    10,466,883    
2    Las Vegas - Los Angeles    9,120,296    
3    New York - Philadelphia    8, 476,339    
4    New York - Washington DC    7,773,377    
5    Los Angeles - San Francisco    7,049,954    
6    Sacramento - San Francisco    5,337,613    
7    Philadelphia - Washington DC    4,678,680    
8    Cleveland - Cincinnati    3,750,772 
8    Dallas - Houston    3,097,228    
9    Portland - Seattle    2,605,223    
10    Norfolk - Washington DC    2,590,212    
 

The 3C ranking is if Cleveland-Cincinnati, Columbus-Cincinnati and Columbus-Cleveland were added together. Of course, 3C would rank higher (sixth) if the city-pairs between Washington DC and New York were lumped together to take over the top spot. If you break the trio of 3C city-pairs, Columbus-Cleveland was the most heavily traveled with 1.8 million person-trips or 24th nationwide, ranked just below Austin-Dallas and just above Houston-San Antonio.

 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton train route a puzzle
By Ken Prendergast / June 24, 2024

 

Last week, a bipartisan group of Ohio Congresspersons wrote to Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Director Jack Marchbanks asking his department to include an Akron-Canton-area station stop in its upcoming passenger rail development plans. Those plans for Northeast Ohio include potential new Amtrak services from Cleveland to Toledo and Detroit, as well as from Cleveland to Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati (3C&D).

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/06/24/cleveland-akron-canton-train-route-a-puzzle/

On 6/20/2024 at 8:16 AM, PlanCleveland said:

Do you have any maps or other information from this plan? It would be fun to look at. 

 

@PlanCleveland @Boomerang_Brian  I uploaded the full 2007 Ohio Hub plan onto my site, thinking I might be able to work it into the Cleveland-Akron-Canton article somehow. Alas, it didn't happen. But here's the full plan anyway:

 

https://neo-trans.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/OhioHub-FullReport-2007.pdf

City of Hamilton advocates for dual Amtrak stops amid Ohio’s rail expansion plans

 

The Ohio Rail Commission and Amtrak have not yet decided what cities will be stops on two potential new passenger rail lines, but the city of Hamilton wants to be a destination on both lines and is making the case to officials.

 

Two routes that would hit Cincinnati each have received $500,000 to study and come up with a plan to develop the routes. One is the Cardinal line, which runs from New York to Chicago through Cincinnati. The other is an Ohio-based line known as the 3C+D line that would run between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland.

 

Conceptually, Amtrak believes the new 3C+D route would start by 2035 with three daily roundtrips, a 4 hour and 55 minute travel time between Cincinnati and Cleveland, between 400,000 and 500,000 riders annually and a $130 million economic impact.

 

The expanded Cardinal line, which only runs three days per week, would operate daily with the hopes of expanding it to four trains per day. Currently, it arrives at downtown Cincinnati’s Union Terminal in the middle of the night.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/06/26/city-hamilton-amtrak-rail-shops-cardinal-3cd-line.html

 

On 6/24/2024 at 7:36 PM, KJP said:

 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton train route a puzzle
By Ken Prendergast / June 24, 2024

 

Last week, a bipartisan group of Ohio Congresspersons wrote to Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Director Jack Marchbanks asking his department to include an Akron-Canton-area station stop in its upcoming passenger rail development plans. Those plans for Northeast Ohio include potential new Amtrak services from Cleveland to Toledo and Detroit, as well as from Cleveland to Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati (3C&D).

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/06/24/cleveland-akron-canton-train-route-a-puzzle/

I think Akron and Canton would be better developed through a network of regional rail services in the NE corner pf the State. These would be funded as transit projects since most are less than 145 miles in length and could use DMU's similar to those in the Dallas TX metroplex.

3 hours ago, neony said:

I think Akron and Canton would be better developed through a network of regional rail services in the NE corner pf the State. These would be funded as transit projects since most are less than 145 miles in length and could use DMU's similar to those in the Dallas TX metroplex.

I agree with you.  This was a "budget dream" regional map I put together a while ago using only existing rail lines to connect the majority of the NEO population.  It would put nearly 3 million people within a few miles of a rapid or commuter rail line.  All within 1 transfer of Hopkins and CAK airports, Amtrak lines, job centers, CVNP, etc. The employment opportunities, real estate development, and companies this could attract would transform the region.

 

-Darker red lines are obviously the Amtrak routes. Those smaller red lines are the existing RTA lines, with additional lines to Solon, Bedford, and the Westlake park n ride.

 

-You could add an express lane/480 route from the airport to Willoughby, but since those rails aren't in the ground now I didn't include them. 

 

-East to Painesville, then Thursday-Sunday or less frequent daily service out to the wine region, GOTL, Ashtabula, and possibly Erie.

 

-Cleveland to Akron through Kent and Twinsburg.  This would require some construction to connect the existing lines, but this route hits around 50k more people within 2ish miles of the rails and less wealthy NIMBYs than the Hudson/Silver Lake RoW.

 

-Cleveland to Canton via CVSR rail.  I think this route could have a lot of potential for employment and tourism.  Go crazy with a few of the rail cars like the Pokemon and anime cars in Japan.  Have Rock Hall, Pro Football HOF, and CVNP decorated trains and rail cars.

 

-Massillon to Kent via pieces of the above routes.

 

-Lorain commuter rail, then Thursday-Sunday or less frequent daily service out to Sandusky and the Islands.  The line out to Lorain could even have a left turn built and go down to Elyria on a line that is basically never used at this point.  That would avoid the crowded lines Amtrak takes to Elyria, and connect the 2 population centers of Lorain County.

 

-Youngstown to Lorain to act as an outer belt to make all of these lines more useful to everyone, and avoid some passengers having to take long rides with transfers in Cleveland.

 

 

The biggest problem with this map would be that Cleveland would have 3 different Downtown hubs with how everything is currently situated.  Lorain/Sandusky and Akron via Kent to Tower City, Amtrak and eastern routes to the lakefront hub(could follow red line routing into TC), then CVSR/Canton/Medina lines to the CVSR station.  I think all could be routed through Tower City and keep Amtrak on the lakefront using the WFL to connect, but I don't think it has the capacity.  Especially with all of the development coming.  But I'd love to live in a world where passenger rail capacity at Tower City is an issue.

On 6/20/2024 at 6:46 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Akron-Canton having a separate metropolitan planning organization from Cleveland is a MASSIVE problem for pursuing opportunities like this. We should be acting like one region, but too many people want to divy the region up. 

Opposing 3C&D is a good way to ensure that Akron never gets rail service. We aren’t going to get more service in Ohio until we get a good starter service. Furthermore, literally no one is saying that they only care about 3C&D. It is a potential first step for Ohio passenger rail; other steps cannot come until the first step is made.
 

If more Ohioans had insisted to leadership to get the 3C&D up and running the last time Fed money was available (13 years ago), we would be 6-8 years into that service running and we could be having serious discussions now about a proper CLE-CAK regional rail service. Much the way North Carolina and Virginia are now expanding their rail. 

 

Should Dayton and Cincinnati have a combined MPO?

1 hour ago, Miami-Erie said:

 

Should Dayton and Cincinnati have a combined MPO?

 

No. They are two entirely separate markets (DMA, etc).  The state needs to step in if we're talking statewide rail instead of worrying about the State Fish or LGBT culture wars that'll make them look bad in textbooks in 40 years.

During the original assessment, why was Sharonville selected as an initial stop, and Middletown as a future stop? This is the best I could find, which seems more vague than I would have thought.

 

.

22 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

I agree with you.  This was a "budget dream" regional map I put together a while ago using only existing rail lines to connect the majority of the NEO population.  It would put nearly 3 million people within a few miles of a rapid or commuter rail line.  All within 1 transfer of Hopkins and CAK airports, Amtrak lines, job centers, CVNP, etc. The employment opportunities, real estate development, and companies this could attract would transform the region.

 

-Darker red lines are obviously the Amtrak routes. Those smaller red lines are the existing RTA lines, with additional lines to Solon, Bedford, and the Westlake park n ride.

 

-You could add an express lane/480 route from the airport to Willoughby, but since those rails aren't in the ground now I didn't include them. 

 

-East to Painesville, then Thursday-Sunday or less frequent daily service out to the wine region, GOTL, Ashtabula, and possibly Erie.

 

-Cleveland to Akron through Kent and Twinsburg.  This would require some construction to connect the existing lines, but this route hits around 50k more people within 2ish miles of the rails and less wealthy NIMBYs than the Hudson/Silver Lake RoW.

 

-Cleveland to Canton via CVSR rail.  I think this route could have a lot of potential for employment and tourism.  Go crazy with a few of the rail cars like the Pokemon and anime cars in Japan.  Have Rock Hall, Pro Football HOF, and CVNP decorated trains and rail cars.

 

-Massillon to Kent via pieces of the above routes.

 

-Lorain commuter rail, then Thursday-Sunday or less frequent daily service out to Sandusky and the Islands.  The line out to Lorain could even have a left turn built and go down to Elyria on a line that is basically never used at this point.  That would avoid the crowded lines Amtrak takes to Elyria, and connect the 2 population centers of Lorain County.

 

-Youngstown to Lorain to act as an outer belt to make all of these lines more useful to everyone, and avoid some passengers having to take long rides with transfers in Cleveland.

 

 

The biggest problem with this map would be that Cleveland would have 3 different Downtown hubs with how everything is currently situated.  Lorain/Sandusky and Akron via Kent to Tower City, Amtrak and eastern routes to the lakefront hub(could follow red line routing into TC), then CVSR/Canton/Medina lines to the CVSR station.  I think all could be routed through Tower City and keep Amtrak on the lakefront using the WFL to connect, but I don't think it has the capacity.  Especially with all of the development coming.  But I'd love to live in a world where passenger rail capacity at Tower City is an issue.

I think one of the most interesting things to consider about potential Cleveland Akron Canton rail is how much of the route you can get with just rail whose right of way is owned by Akron Metro RTA. If you could connect Cleveland to Hudson you'd have most of the line in public hands (though I'm unsure about Akron to Cuyahoga Falls, I see conflicting information). 

 

Interestingly the same is true of Kent, and given Kent is a college town it's potentially worth the more circuitous routing.  

 

Granted it's unclear how easy it would be to get Cleveland RTA to Hudson. I think you would basically have to follow NS right of way and it isn't obvious that there's space for additional metro lines along the length of this route, even with moderate demolition it may be difficult. 

My recollection is that the Akron-Cuyahoga Falls, next to and parallel with CSX, is owned by Akron Metro. But this section of the former Pennsylvania Railroad was abandoned first with track removed and a new switch installed connecting the remaining Hudson-Cuyahoga Falls track to CSX.

7 hours ago, KJP said:

My recollection is that the Akron-Cuyahoga Falls, next to and parallel with CSX, is owned by Akron Metro. But this section of the former Pennsylvania Railroad was abandoned first with track removed and a new switch installed connecting the remaining Hudson-Cuyahoga Falls track to CSX.

Ya if you go along some parts of that RoW, the rails have been removed. Not that they can't be put back in the ground, but that will just mean more lawsuits and a decade of court battles and cost increases before anything can get started. 

So I know the Brightline Ohio talks are still just for fun, and it was previously discussed that it could terminate at Hopkins/Brook Park with Wes and Jimmy being friends along with potential issues getting the trains to Downtown. 

 

Would a new Browns Stadium/Jimmy World on Burke make it a Downtown Brightline station more likely? I know the drawbridge would still be an issue for frequent train traffic, but if Jimmy is going to be building over a billion in development there, I'm sure Wes would rather be a part of that. 

2 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

So I know the Brightline Ohio talks are still just for fun, and it was previously discussed that it could terminate at Hopkins/Brook Park with Wes and Jimmy being friends along with potential issues getting the trains to Downtown. 

 

Would a new Browns Stadium/Jimmy World on Burke make it a Downtown Brightline station more likely? I know the drawbridge would still be an issue for frequent train traffic, but if Jimmy is going to be building over a billion in development there, I'm sure Wes would rather be a part of that. 

 

If Brightline or any frequent passenger service provider had its main station on Cleveland's lakefront, it would likely require either the Lakefront Bypass or finding a way to squeeze in just one main track for passenger trains in the direction(s) from downtown they would be traveling. The most difficult direction from downtown to which to add a new main track would be to the west/southwest along the existing NS mainline to Berea. The reason is that the Red Line tracks are right up against the NS main tracks southwest of the RTA West Boulevard station. On the other side of the NS main, buildings, bridge abutments, overpasses, industrial siding tracks and the access tracks to the Rockport Yard/Cloggsville Line are impediments to adding just one passenger-only track to this segment. It looks like it can be done for one main track (for about $10 million to $20 million per mile over 12 miles) but two tracks would be VERY expensive because the I-90 and I-71 overpasses would have to have their abutments moved back at least one track space and the overhead bridge spans lengthened (or more more likely replaced). Adding one or more passenger tracks to the SW from the lakefront may also require adding another movable bridge over the Cuyahoga River at its mouth -- the busiest portion of the river. There would have to be a determination made whether to do this OR construct the Lakefront Bypass for freight trains and move them to just south of downtown, ironically using much of the trackage of the former Cleveland Union Terminal passenger trains. That means adding/rebuilding tracks, bridges and overpasses so up to 70 daily through NS freight trains can be relocated off the lakefront (leaving a few day freights that serve local shippers, the port, etc). So that again gets us to the question -- is the lakefront the best place for a passenger rail station or Tower City?

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Adding one or more passenger tracks to the SW from the lakefront may also require adding another movable bridge over the Cuyahoga River at its mouth -- the busiest portion of the river. There would have to be a determination made whether to do this OR construct the Lakefront Bypass for freight trains and move them to just south of downtown, ironically using much of the trackage of the former Cleveland Union Terminal passenger trains. That means adding/rebuilding tracks, bridges and overpasses so up to 70 daily through NS freight trains can be relocated off the lakefront (leaving a few day freights that serve local shippers, the port, etc). So that again gets us to the question -- is the lakefront the best place for a passenger rail station or Tower City?

 

AND -- is the lakefront the best place for freight rail?

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

AND -- is the lakefront the best place for freight rail?

 

Only that which is necessary to serve the port and other customers. We tend to admire and seek to replicate the lakefronts in Toronto and Chicago and to a lesser extent Milwaukee. They all have one thing in common -- few if any freight trains along it. Column idea 💡 !

The ORDC announced last week that it has selected a consultant team of HDR and HNTB for the Phase I Corridor ID Program grant-funded Service Development Planning for  both the 3C&D as well as the CLE-TOL-DET Corridors. 

17 hours ago, GHOST TRACKS said:

The ORDC announced last week that it has selected a consultant team of HDR and HNTB for the Phase I Corridor ID Program grant-funded Service Development Planning for  both the 3C&D as well as the CLE-TOL-DET Corridors. 

Where did you find this? I'm not seeing it on the news section of their website, nor is it in the agenda of the previous board meeting from May. I'm also not seeing any news item on HRD or HNTB's websites.

ORDC consultant info is posted on ODOT's procurement website.   See the following:  https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/working/engineering/consultant-services/selection-and-reports/completed-selections/06-28-24-selection

 

I'm only seeing 3C+D and HDR on that list but digging around, I found the full packet, which states that the 2 projects were to be advertised as a single contract.

One line of potential concern in the contract documents was this one, which makes me think it's a potential poison pill:

 

Quote

In addition to all FRA requirements, the SDPs must include: analysis of car-competitive travel times, no impediment of freight rail network fluidity, and a phased approach to achieve these requirements. All Step 1 deliverables must reflect these requirements, which are to be known as the “Ohio considerations.”

 

50 minutes ago, Dev said:

I'm only seeing 3C+D and HDR on that list but digging around, I found the full packet, which states that the 2 projects were to be advertised as a single contract.

One line of potential concern in the contract documents was this one, which makes me think it's a potential poison pill:

 

 

 

I don't see a problem, especially by saying "phased approach" provides an out. The 3C Quick Start in 2010 was a phased approach but only described the first phase, which made it an easier target.

The agenda for the next ORDC meeting was posted today which includes a resolution selecting HDR Engineering for both corridors, at $1 million. It does state that for "the CTD corridor, the Rail Commission is partnering with the Michigan Department of Transportation for the study." HDR will track costs for both corridors separately, to allow for the appropriate reimbursement from the FRA. It states that the scope of work and budget are still being finalized, so we don't know if any funds could be carried over to step 2 in the CID program. There were 5 firms that provided response to the solicitation.

Who's tasked with keeping Columbus' passenger rail chances on track

 

Central Ohio transit and city leaders are convening to help the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission advance the bid to restore Amtrak routes through Columbus.

 

The Central Ohio Passenger Rail Committee, a temporary select panel, conducts its first quarterly meeting Tuesday and will provide data and guide strategy through the multi-year process.

 

"The committee will play a pivotal role in evaluating and recommending passenger rail projects that align with MORPC's vision for a more sustainable and interconnected transportation network," said a statement from MORPC.

 

Columbus is along two new routes vying for infrastructure dollars to beef up intercity train travel from the Federal Rail Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each has received a $500,000 grant for an initial study period.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/07/23/amtrak-columbus-routes-morpc-committee.html

 

1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

Who's tasked with keeping Columbus' passenger rail chances on track

 

Central Ohio transit and city leaders are convening to help the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission advance the bid to restore Amtrak routes through Columbus.

 

The Central Ohio Passenger Rail Committee, a temporary select panel, conducts its first quarterly meeting Tuesday and will provide data and guide strategy through the multi-year process.

 

"The committee will play a pivotal role in evaluating and recommending passenger rail projects that align with MORPC's vision for a more sustainable and interconnected transportation network," said a statement from MORPC.

 

Columbus is along two new routes vying for infrastructure dollars to beef up intercity train travel from the Federal Rail Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each has received a $500,000 grant for an initial study period.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/07/23/amtrak-columbus-routes-morpc-committee.html

 

This is good to see and a far cry from the reception we rail advocates got back in the 1970's and 1980's, when we were about as welcome as flies at a picnic much of the time.  Let's hope the current effort will bear fruit.

Edited July 23, 2024Jul 23 by neony

I actually think the Wolfes selling the Dispatch and WBNS helped eliminate a lot of pushback. There were a lot of complaints back in the '70s to 2000s that the private sector held all the power in this town and that slowly faded as those individuals sold out to out-of-town interests or retired/stepped back.

58 minutes ago, GCrites said:

I actually think the Wolfes selling the Dispatch and WBNS helped eliminate a lot of pushback. There were a lot of complaints back in the '70s to 2000s that the private sector held all the power in this town and that slowly faded as those individuals sold out to out-of-town interests or retired/stepped back.

Yes, I recall big shots were called "The Titans" in Columbus. It was a very "Old Boy" network and the Wolfes were very conservative.

Firm selected for study of route that could bring passenger rail through Columbus

 

An engineering firm with offices in Columbus has been tapped to join the team trying to restore Amtrak service in the city.

 

HNTB Corporation will be tasked with planning and development services for the Midwest Connect route, a potential route connecting Pittsburgh to Chicago via Columbus and Fort Wayne, Indiana. The route would include stops in Marysville, Columbus and Newark.

 

The engineering firm joins a multi-entity partnership made up of the City of Fort Wayne, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/08/05/columbus-passenger-rail-progress-engineering.html

 

11 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Firm selected for study of route that could bring passenger rail through Columbus

 

An engineering firm with offices in Columbus has been tapped to join the team trying to restore Amtrak service in the city.

 

HNTB Corporation will be tasked with planning and development services for the Midwest Connect route, a potential route connecting Pittsburgh to Chicago via Columbus and Fort Wayne, Indiana. The route would include stops in Marysville, Columbus and Newark.

 

The engineering firm joins a multi-entity partnership made up of the City of Fort Wayne, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/08/05/columbus-passenger-rail-progress-engineering.html

 

Let's hope they anticipate the level of service the two routes could have. If we assume six daily round trips per corridor, we are talking about 24 arrivals and departures in a very constricted area. It can be done, but the devil is in the details.

On 8/6/2024 at 8:28 AM, neony said:

Let's hope they anticipate the level of service the two routes could have. If we assume six daily round trips per corridor, we are talking about 24 arrivals and departures in a very constricted area. It can be done, but the devil is in the details.

They will probably be 3 DRTs. Not only was that the original plan for 3C+D but the Amtrak ConnectUS plan from 2021 had that for 3C+D. Instead of pushing for more DRTs, I would rather prioritize using any political capital in making sure the routes are as reliable as possible, and that as many sections as possible get upgraded to 79 mph, while looking to see if there's an opportunity to get some sections (especially Cleveland to Columbus) up to 90 or 110 mph.

It's really uncommon for Amtrak service to be above 4 DRTs because that's when diminishing returns start to kick in, especially when we are talking about all the upfront costs to start service. The 2018 study by NIPRA for Lima to Gary shows how that escalates quickly. They studied 6 DRTs but eliminated those from consideration. Here is the math they did back then:

Unless your goal is to create economic benefits and not just a better operating ratio for the train service. Interestingly, private-sector Brightline went for economic benefits -- to enhance their properties by offering 18 daily round trips. 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Unless your goal is to create economic benefits and not just a better operating ratio for the train service. Interestingly, private-sector Brightline went for economic benefits -- to enhance their properties by offering 18 daily round trips. 

 

EIGHTEEN!!!  Wow.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

Unless your goal is to create economic benefits and not just a better operating ratio for the train service. Interestingly, private-sector Brightline went for economic benefits -- to enhance their properties by offering 18 daily round trips. 

The conversation is about an on-ongoing proposal for Amtrak service, which will be funded in part by the state of Ohio, who I assume is going to be concerned about operating ratio.

 

So how do we, as supporters and advocates for passenger rail in Ohio, push to make this the best possible service? I know you are bitter from all the previous battles you've lost, which we all appreciate you having fought, but do you have any perspective on what could be a realistic expectation for this proposed service?

For Amtrak? Sure, the usual three daily round trips at an average of 50 mph in a starter service. 

 

I raise the issue about economic impact not out of personal bitterness, but out of a desire to create a service that isn't just relevant, impactful or even transformational. I raise it because a proven private sector operator that contributes to political campaigns to get multiple daily round trips at 100+ mph is the only way we're going to get trains in this state.

 

We keep putting pennies into the Ohio passenger rail vending machine, pressing the button to get trains and nothing happens.

On 8/8/2024 at 3:17 PM, KJP said:

For Amtrak? Sure, the usual three daily round trips at an average of 50 mph in a starter service. 

 

I raise the issue about economic impact not out of personal bitterness, but out of a desire to create a service that isn't just relevant, impactful or even transformational. I raise it because a proven private sector operator that contributes to political campaigns to get multiple daily round trips at 100+ mph is the only way we're going to get trains in this state.

 

We keep putting pennies into the Ohio passenger rail vending machine, pressing the button to get trains and nothing happens.

Now wait a minute KJP we did get all those high speed rail studies between 1977 and 1992! It was either that or calls for (insert vaporware here) the latest unproven tech glitz that stole the spotlight. Add to that good old Ohio skepticism and apathy for good measure and it's easy to see how we got to where we are today. True, there is currently support for passenger rail which wasn't there before, but we are a long way from seeing the trains roll. And just because the Governor supports studies, that does not translate into a go-ahead yet. He will have to persuade a very iffy legislature to support a commitment to passenger rail, a very intangible idea here.

 

I see two possible solutions other than Ohio moving to the Amen Corner. One is to work at regional, multi-state solutions, such as the Great Lakes Authority to get around states which do not play well or to somehow entice Brightline or another operator to start service here. Both are longshots and will take time. Of the two, Brightline would be the silver bullet since they would do it all, but in either case we have to work for change.

Edited August 11, 2024Aug 11 by neony

Great thread, Tom. It was probably very frustrating rolling right past Hopkins at 79 mph on Amtrak. Or the fact that the Waterfront Line wasn't running, which would have made the downtown transfers easier. Sadly, this is amazing transit in our vast area of neglect. Nothing like this is even remotely possible in the rest of Ohio.