The Brookpark station site might work if it wasn't at the throat of Norfolk Southern's  Rockport Yard. Now, if a passenger-only track could be wedged into that web of tracks, then it might be doable. That would probably be very expensive. But, there is room for a passenger-only track across from the airport's long-term parking deck, where a passenger train can stop without interfering with the freight train traffic, which is extensive in this area. So, why not do this to create an air-rail transfer without involving a third connection?

 

As you probably know, the more times a traveler has to transfer, the less likely you're going to attract them as a customer. Cleveland Hopkins Airport is one of the few places in the country where a plane-to-intercity train connection can be made under one roof, without spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make it possible. I suspect the connection I proposed would cost less than $30 million, and a bare-bones version might cost less than $15 million.

 

As for Little Italy, I agree with you 100 percent. Sometimes, I think urban communities are so busy fighting off the bogeyman that they don't realize they're being distracted from real threats to keeping their communities viable.

 

KJP

The public will have an opportunity to give in input on plans for developing railroad passenger and freight services in Ohio at a presentation by the Ohio Rail Development Commission. The "Ohio Hub" plan would use existing funds to make $3.5 billion worth of improvements over many years to address freight train traffic congestion and provide high-speed passenger rail services to boost Ohio's economy.

 

The public can attend the presentation at any time between 5:30 and 7:30 PM, Thursday May 5, at the offices of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), at 1299 Superior Avenue, in downtown Cleveland. For more information, call NOACA at (216) 241-2414 or visit the ORDC's website at:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Programs/Passenger/Ohio%20Hub%20Page.htm

 

or the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers' site at:

 

http://www.ohioansforpassengerrail.com/hubplan.php

OHIO HUB WHISTLE STOP SEEKING RESIDENTS' INPUT

May 5, 2005

By KEN PRENDERGAST

Staff Writer

 

With Ohio’s economy flat, energy prices rising, and airlines in descent, some say now is the time get long-discussed plans for fast passenger trains up to speed.

 

A state agency agrees and is moving such plans forward. Called the “Ohio Hub,” the plan also is adding freight train projects to the mix to deal with worsening freight traffic congestion.

 

In recent months, the Ohio Rail Development Commission has been seeking public input on its Ohio Hub plan, from all corners of the state. From 5:30-7:30 p.m. today, it’s Greater Clevelanders’ turn to offer comment. A public meeting will be held at the offices of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, 1299 Superior Ave., in downtown Cleveland.

 

Past plans, though showing much promise, got derailed during the political process in Columbus. This time, state officials say they’re more interested in a modest, five-route system in which passenger trains stay below 110-mph and use existing railroad corridors. All but one of those routes would pass through Cleveland. Past plans sought an all-new network of “bullet trains,” requiring new taxes to pay for them.

 

The Ohio Hub plan, built over a period of nine years, would cost about $3.32 billion, but wouldn’t require a tax increase, said ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney. He said the proposed Ohio Hub system would use state, local and private funds to leverage federal transportation dollars.

 

“It is the second greatest ground transportation system planned for Ohio since the birth of the Interstate Highway System,” Seney said.

 

President George W. Bush proposes to slash federal funding for Amtrak, the passenger railroad. But, a number of high-ranking Republicans in Congress said they want to increase federal assistance to $60 billion for freight and high-speed passenger rail projects.

 

One of those is Cleveland-area Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-14, who chairs the U.S. House of Representatives’ Railroad Subcommittee. He said his bill, the Railroad Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE 21), would provide federal funds for the Ohio Hub, among other projects.

 

“It’s clear from the size and scope of the bill that we recognize the vital role railroads play in our national transportation system,” LaTourette said.

 

The 860-mile Ohio Hub system of freight and passenger rail corridors would serve 22 million people in Ohio, five neighboring states and Ontario. Fast passenger trains would pause at 32 stations, including downtowns, airports and smaller cities.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation said freight railroads are already turning away customers because their rail lines are too crowded, and can’t afford to build enough tracks. At current trends, ODOT predicts that rail traffic in Ohio will increase 70 percent by 2020.

 

Seney said the Ohio Hub would create more than 14,000 jobs and pump billions of dollars into Ohio’s economy. Additional tracks, signal systems, road overpasses and other facilities would be built along existing rights of way to increase each railroad’s carrying capacity.

 

The Ohio Hub plan would target existing routes from Cleveland to Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati; Toledo and Detroit; Youngstown and Pittsburgh; plus Buffalo, Hamilton and Toronto. Seney said the Ohio Hub would bridge the gap between regional rail systems centered on Chicago and the Northeast Corridor.

 

Ohio Hub trains are projected to carry more than 4 million people and several hundred million tons of freight per year. Business, labor and environmental leaders said Ohio Hub trains would remove thousands of cars and tens of thousands of trucks from congested Ohio roads each day. That would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save energy, they said.

 

“The choice between good jobs and the environment is a false one,” said David Caldwell of the United Steelworkers of America, and president of the Central Ohio AFL-CIO. “In a state where we’ve lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, we need to find real solutions to put Ohioans back to work, protect the environment, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Ohio Hub would do all three.”

 

In March, ORDC received a $500,000 pledge from the Ohio Department of Transportation to advance planning work for the Ohio Hub, to evaluate its economic and environmental impacts. Once that stage of planning is complete, the Ohio Hub would be eligible to begin receiving federal funding for engineering and construction, Seney said.

 

END

KJP -- do you have an agenda for this meeting?  Two hours seems like a long time to just listen to public comments.  Is someone presenting the Ohio Hub Plan first, then taking comments?

sorry to be negative, but let me guess how this will play out. nocoa will be all for it. then they will back down and bury it when some local politician objects. that agency does not need creativity, it needs a spine. they could do a lot more pr than offer space for a meeting!

 

still, i'm hopeful the public and ordc keep those irons to the fire with the state & feds on this!!!

 

Ok, so the meeting is officially over and you've all had enough time to commute home...so, how'd it go? 

 

I feel like I've heard this conversation for years, though, and I can't really envision this administration (Bush/Taft) being the ones to push it forward.  I'll try to stay optimistic, though!

With gas prices soaring as they are (and some say Dubya's artificially behind this to get public opinion behind a go-ahead for his much sought after Alaska drilling plan), we really need to stick this excellent plan in Taft/Bush/ODOT's face.  Get public sympathy on our side.  No longer can the naysayers claim we're trying to shove a gold-plated Maglev or even bullet train (which made sense to me) down their throats.  This is conventional diesel rail using proven technology in heavily populated corridors that have too-long been neglected -- it will be done only with some upgrades to roadbeds that already exist.

 

How can anyone with a brain in their head be against this smart plan in these crazy times?

 

I was pretty disappointed by the meetings (I attended both the 2:30 and 5:30 installments). At the other public meetings around the state, there was good media coverage beforehand, and so more than 100 people showed up at these, including in lil' ol' Youngstown (but perhaps 40-50 at each of the Cleveland events).

 

Also, at the other meetings around the state, there were lots of elected officials or their representatives, but only three total attended the two Cleveland meetings (Lorain County Commissioner Betty Blair, the mayor of University Heights and someone else whom I've never heard of before). At the Columbus meeting, there were several dozen elected officials who were enthused by what they heard. Cleveland officials heard nothing because they weren't there. That cannot be blamed on the local media however, since most elected officials were mailed an invitation using NOACA's mailing list.

 

Even wonder why Cleveland is in the shape it's in? Because local officials and the media here are asleep or might groggily say "this won't happen in my lifetime." Of course, they're right....because they're already "dead" or at least their passion is!

 

KJP

Good news from Cincyland!  The city council passed a resolution on June 22 imploring Bob Taft to fully fund the ORDC to continue its work, including economic and environmental impact studies.

 

Glad to hear they're on board.

Seems Cincinnati's council is a little slow. Taft agreed to fully fund ORDC last winter, and ODOT agreed in April to fund the economic impact study. Not sure about the status of the environmental impact study. But council's resolution is appreciated!

 

KJP

does ORDC mean ohio rail development commission? i just wanted to be sure. also is there anything i or anyone else can do to get this project going. i am a full fledged conservative reupublican and i would fully support a tri-city rail system. i just dont see why more prominent republicans support rail. rail is much better than building more lanes on freeways, especailly on I-71. i just hope this does not fall through the cracks. any more information would be greatly appreciated.

Seems Cincinnati's council is a little slow. Taft agreed to fully fund ORDC last winter, and ODOT agreed in April to fund the economic impact study. Not sure about the status of the environmental impact study. But council's resolution is appreciated!

 

KJP

 

Is there federal funding that may be needed?  The resolution mentioned that as well.

 

I think you're right about them being a little slow.  I think this think came up last year at some point and they just got around to putting their official stamp of approval on it.

I learned today that the planner who's been the Ohio Hub point-man for the Ohio Rail Development Commission made a presentation last week before Cincy council. I was told his presentation is what got council to finally pass the resolution.

 

KJP

High-speed rail plan introduced

 

By BRANDON GLENN

 

2:01 pm, September 1, 2005

 

 

 

Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell and U.S. Rep. Steve LaTourette unveiled rough plans for a high-speed passenger rail system that would connect Cleveland to Cincinnati, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Toronto.

 

But the discussion was long on hope and short on details.

 

Rep. LaTourette said the line would cost about $1million per mile of high-speed rail track.

 

He said the federal government would cover 80% of the costs, while state and local governments and other sources would have to come up with the other 20%.

 

 

When asked why this rail proposal, unlike previous ones, could happen, Mayor Campbell responded, “For the first time we see real leadership from the federal government. There’s a groundswell of support to get this done.”

 

“Absolutely, this is doable,” she said later. “I think this is exciting. It’s more than doable.”

 

Rep. LaTourette said a bill, called Ride 21, was making its way through the U.S. Congress. The bill would support $60 billion of rail construction over 10 years that would be a “beginning price tag.”

 

“It would be a good first step,” he said.

 

When asked when the plan might come to fruition, Rep. LaTourette said, “The trains’ll roll as soon as we get the money to pay for them.”

 

Rep. LaTourette drew the loudest reaction during the City Hall press conference when he said, “Can you imagine anything better than taking the train to Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, watching the Browns beat the Steelers and coming back to Cleveland?”

 

Considering the Steelers posted a 15-1 record last year while the Browns were 4-12, Rep. LaTourette’s response may have given the greatest indication of how far away the plan is from becoming reality.

 

 

Fabulous.

 

Now we're acting like a real WORLD CLASS city creating its own economy.

 

However, we must make sure we have a regional rail system in place to service the eight counties of NE Ohio.

god, could they have picked a better time in regards to the gas prices?

 

 

yea i would think gas prices could really drive a lot of support for something like this

Here is the press release of All Aboard Ohio (the group formerly known as the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers)...   KJP

__________________

 

 

A L L  A B O A R D  O H I O

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                       Contact:  Dominic Liberatore

September 1, 2005                                                              Executive Director

                                                                                         (614) 204-4628

 

All Aboard Ohio praises Cleveland Mayor Campbell for endorsing high-speed rail

 

CLEVELAND -- All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit organization, gratefully welcomed today’s endorsement by Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell of an achievable plan to develop high-speed rail service in Ohio and adjoining states. She was joined by longtime rail supporter Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Painesville), chair of the House Railroad Subcommittee, in advocating for high-speed rail as the next big transportation investment for Greater Cleveland.

 

The detailed plan, called the Ohio Hub, is proposed by the Ohio Rail Development Commission to be built in phases, beginning with 79-mph trains using existing, high-quality freight tracks to Columbus, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Toronto and Chicago. Cleveland will be the hub of a network of rail services, with train speeds safely increased to 110 mph with additional investments in infrastructure. For links to the Ohio Hub plan and maps, visit www.allaboardohio.org.

 

Both Campbell and LaTourette said the 21st-century rail network would create thousands of new jobs, increase mobility and provide an affordable travel choice in an era of rising gas prices.

 

“The success of the plan depends on having the endorsement of Cleveland’s mayor, since Cleveland will be the focal point of the Ohio Hub,” said Dominic Liberatore, executive director of All Aboard Ohio. “We are grateful to Mayor Campbell for her endorsement of a rail system that will bring Northeast Ohio into the 21st century. We are entering an era when regions reap the greatest economic rewards by being smarter in their use of natural resources.”

 

Liberatore similarly praised Rep. LaTourette for his ongoing commitment to improving passenger rail services. Most notably, Rep. LaTourette recently introduced House Bill 1631, called the Railroad Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE 21) which would provide $60 billion in federal funding for high-speed passenger rail and freight railroad infrastructure nationwide.

 

All Aboard Ohio, formerly the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers, advocates for passenger rail and transit improvements as part of an interconnected, multi-modal transportation system for all Ohioans.

 

END

Nice to see this hasn't fallen by the wayside! Way to go, LaTourette...

I just wrote him an e-mail thanking him for his efforts. Let's all do the same and show him how much support he has for high-speed rail back home. Here's the link:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=478

Click on "Send Message."

I think its great that the Mayor of Cleveland is showing intrest in High Speed Rail, but Realistically... how aggressively is the state of Ohio and the City of Cleveland going to persue this idea?

Being relatively close to the Ohio Plan, I can tell you not only is it a solid and reasonable plan, but it is getting some serious legs among our Congressional delegation and with some key state legislators.  Call your state and federal reps and let them know how you feel.

I think its great that the Mayor of Cleveland is showing intrest in High Speed Rail, but Realistically... how aggressively is the state of Ohio and the City of Cleveland going to persue this idea?

 

As aggressively as they think we want them to. Noozer's right... send an e-mail or call.

Yes, by all means, do contact them. Particular attention is needed on state legislators....

 

http://www.house.state.oh.us/

http://www.senate.state.oh.us/

 

And, by the way, I've pondered a way to get intercity high-speed trains back into Tower City Center. It would require relocating the Red Line off the Cuyahoga Viaduct. Instead, it would have go north on West 25th Street (post light-rail conversion) either as a streetcar or as a subway. Then use the subway deck of the Detroit-Superior bridge to regain access to Tower City. The Waterfront Line would have to have at least one of its access tracks realigned. Perhaps the Waterfront Line needs just one access track to Tower City?

 

That would avail the track spaces necessary for intercity high-speed rail to enter Tower City. I think six through tracks and three platforms would be sufficient. Half of the underground parking deck where the tracks used to be would have to be ripped out, with a replacement parking deck likely built above the old railroad coach yard, which today is the open-air parking lot between Tower City and Canal Road.

 

I suspect that all of this would probably cost at least $200 million and maybe as much as $600 million. This doesn't include access tracks from the east and west sides, but at least the right of way is still there. Mostly anyways. Nothing is impossible as long as someone can be found to write a check that's got enough numerals on it!

 

KJP

KJP, where are they saying the Cleveland station would be located if not in Tower City?

Though exact station locations won't be determined until the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) stage, it is generally thought that the station would be located along the Lakefront, close to where it is now.  That's also been mentioned as being part of a downtown convention center project, but all of this is very much up in the air.

 

One of the important pieces of land (possibly more important than a station location at this point) is the former Conrail E. 26th Street yard, from which Ohio Hub trains would be stored, serviced and then staged into the 3-C Corridor and the other corridors.  ORDC is currently working with local officials and ODOT to make sure the yard is not overrun by a planned highway exit and and entrance ramp that's part of the realignment of Dead Man's Curve on I-90.  This is another area where advocates need to make their voices heard with Mayor Campbell's office.  If the yard is lost, so is the only place currently known to stage corridor trains easily in to all of the planned corridors.

Very true. I didn't mean to give the impression that Tower City would be the station for the Ohio Hub System...not when restoring a single train station would cause the Ohio Hub system's total $3.2 billion cost to rise by as much as 15 percent!

 

I'm pretty sure I've posted this image on the forum before, but for those who haven't seen it yet, here it is again. This was a rendering developed by an RTA consultant who conducted an analysis of sites for a North Coast Transportation Center....

 

 

Here's some other images of potential station designs for a lakefront station that were part of an early concept for the convention center expansion....

 

 

 

 

Plus, here's some images of the East 26th Street Yard (what's left of it) that Noozer spoke of. If the original, much larger yard was restored, it should have the capability for handling the storing and servicing of all Cleveland-based Ohio Hub trains, even at full build out....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope this helps provide a little more focus to the vision and the plan. If not, just let Noozer or me know.

 

KJP

I too like Tower City as a rail terminal, but not at that expense, ... and I just don't mean dollars & cents.  Your proposal would seriously hamper the Red Line in rerouting it miles out of the way and turning it into a partial street trolley and that's not something I'm willing to even faintly consider...

 

... on the other hand, I've warmed to the idea of the lakefront station because of all the potential TOD/convention center/hotel, etc., at that site.

KJP questions:

 

1) does the Midwest Amtrak plan, per se, mean we will get some sort of commuter rail in Greater Cleveland along Amtrak's upgraded tracks?

 

2) If so, what entity would run it?  (as RTA ends at the county line).

 

3) Has commuter rail been discussed as a factor, perhaps, getting locals interested in the Amtrak plan? and

 

4) wouldn't the idea of a bi-level super North Coast terminal/station (perhaps w/ TOD) be advanced by the presence of commuter rail (along w/ Amtrak and the Rapid),... and if this approach isn't being used, shouldn't it?

This would be a situation where a California-style "joint powers authority" would be a good idea.  The Capital Corridors between Sacramento and the Bay Area is such a JPA and it is actually run by two transit authorities.  It operates very well and is steadily increasing ridership in one of the most car-dominated states in the nation.

One of the interesting things VIA Rail Canada does is to run some of their trains through Toronto to serve suburban stations on the opposite side of the city. While the goal is to increase the access points to the intercity trains, it also has the effect of offering additional commuter/regional rail service in Metro Toronto. The latter benefit is enhanced by VIA honoring GO Transit tickets on those suburban segments.

 

Noozer mentioned California, where Amtrak honors Metrolink tickets for travel within metro LA on Amtrak trains. In fact, the first "commuter trains" in LA were Amtrak trains, including a short-hop train that only went as far south as San Juan Capistrano (I believe) on the route toward San Diego (which now has 13 weekday round trips on it, not including another dozen or so Metrolink commuter trains!).

 

Going back to the Toronto experience, consider how it could work in Cleveland. A train from Chicago doesn't end at Cleveland, and instead becomes a commuter/regional train to Akron or possibly Canton. A 3-C Corridor train to Cleveland doesn't end at a North Coast Transportation Center and instead becomes a commuter/region train to Mentor. A train from Toronto pauses at downtown Cleveland before continuing on to Hopkins Airport and possibly Elyria (folks from Erie Pa or Ashtabula would like that, as they are often isolated by lake-effect snowstorms and there is lousy air service at Erie).

 

The end result is that if, say half of the proposed 5-8 daily round trips did this, the frequency of service in metro areas would greatly increase. And, it would allow the Ohio Rail Development Commission to tap federal transit funding that otherwise cannot be used for intercity rail. Until the federal government provides a capital program for intercity rail, this may be the only way we'll get federal dollars for the Ohio Hub system (unless someone like Steve LaTourette goes out and gets some earmarks for Ohio -- certainly not out of the realm of possibility).

 

KJP

Oh, this is great!  I love this conversation and I, like many of you, have been having it for years!

 

By the way, at the last Convention Facilities Authority meeting, there was mention of the CC expansion over the tracks including accommodations for a future high-speed rail/multimodal facility...

Thank you very much, gentlemen, appreciate the answers.

... btw, similar to your SoCal example, when I used to commute from Baltimore to DC via MARC, Amtrak honored weekly/monthly MARC passes during times, specifically, when MARC was not running (late evenings, all weekend) with the commuter a "step up" on Amtrak during those periods (a buck or 2, as I recall).  Of course, given the long distance nature of Amtrak, only a few of the many MARC stations were served by Amtrak... I think the same system is used on the VRE in N. Virginia out of D.C. ... bottom line is, given the frequency and quality of AMTRAK service being proposed for our area (which is not unlike what already exists in the D.C. area, particularly in the NEC), it's hard to see how commuter rail wouldn't be a key part of the Cleveland equation.  We'd have to be reeeallly anti rail to fumble that ball...

 

... that said, given our region's sorry, conservative approach to rail expansion evidenced in the past (most recently exhibited by the Kucinich "agreement" and Bath/Portage county opposition to the Cleve-Akron-Canton commuter rail proposal), I wouldn't put anything (negative) past our region -- and, for the rest of Ohio, for that matter (just ask our Cincinnati neighbors yearning for light rail about that one).

 

That's one reason why we, as advocates, must sell the concept of passenger rail as an economic development and job creation tool.  Show people and communities how they will benefit in dollars and cents and they will support the plan.  That's one reason why the Ohio Hub Plan has met with uniformly positive response all over the state .... even in Cincinnati.  At the public meeting in Cincy, the Hamilton County Engineer ... who had previously opposed the light rail levy... stood up and emphatically supported the Hub Plan on the basis of the economic impact as well as how it would reduce the load on local highways (by promoting the growth of rail capacity for not only passengerservice, but for handling more freight.).  To have someone like this stand uyp in support was nothing short of a shock ... a very good shock... but still a shock.

 

The social benefits of passenger rail will always be there.... traffic decongestion, cleaner air, greater mobility for everyone, etc.  But ya gotta sell the idea on something more concrete.  If you read the full report on the Ohio Hub on ORDC's website ... www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/ ... you will see the economic impact numbers are very positive.

NEWS                                         

OHIO RAIL

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

 

50 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 644-0306 telephone or fax (614) 728-4520

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                              Contact: Stu Nicholson

Date: September 7, 2005                                                                  (614)644-0513 

“Build It Now!”

New Report: Public Says Ohio Needs Better Passenger & Freight Rail For Greater Mobility, Economic & Job Development

 

(Columbus) --- Even before gasoline started pumping at better than $3 per gallon, Ohioans were making their voices heard loud and clear that they want more and better options to travel and ship by rail.  A new report just released by the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) underscores that public desire.

 

The report details the results of a series of statewide public meetings held by ORDC and local metropolitan planning organizations over the past year.  The report shows overwhelming support for the statewide rail plan detailed in ORDC’s Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail / Ohio Hub Plan. 

 

(The report can be accessed at the ORDC website: www.dot.oh.us/ohiorail/ )

 

“The public not only wants the option of having access to passenger rail for short to medium distance business and pleasure travel, “says ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney, “but they understand totally that investing in redeveloping and expanding Ohio’s overall rail system not only enables passenger rail but that greatly expanding the capacity for moving freight will help attract and grow both economic development and jobs.”

 

Seney says the strongest message from these public meetings was a strong sense of urgency about the need to advance the Ohio Hub Plan from the study stage to reality.  One suburban Cleveland Mayor put it bluntly, “This is the answer for Ohio’s Rust Belt.”  A Southwest Ohio County Engineer said, “We’re in a crisis right now. We need to be building this.”

Similar comments were heard all over the state: a clear recognition by a cross-section of business, government and community leaders and the general public that the Ohio Hub Plan is not only needed, but needs to be implemented, according to Seney.

 

The good news, according to Seney, is that this need is being recognized at the federal level for the first time.  Legislation that would establish a federal funding and development program is moving through both houses of Congress.  Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) has recently cosponsored Senate Bill 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, which was introduced by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MISS).  Meanwhile, Congressman Steve LaTourette is co-sponsoring HR 1631, which has very similar aims to the Senate bill.  Though the bills have some differences, Seney says he has told staff for both Senator DeWine and Congressman LaTourette that this legislation is “on the right track.”

 

 

(The Ohio Rail Development Commission is an independent agency operating within the Ohio Department of Transportation.  ORDC is responsible for economic development through the improvement and expansion of passenger and freight rail service, railroad grade crossing safety and rail travel & tourism issues. For more information about what ORDC does for Ohio, visit our website at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/ )

 

Encouraging to see this issue is gaining momentum.  Let's hope it continues and we actually see some results.

EcoCity Cleve's website has an Amtrak regional proposal to build a station across the street from Hopkins.  Does that make sense.  Wouldn't it be smarter to build a joint station just up the tracks with the Red Line?  There's a new TOD and parking garage going up their next year.  Why shouldn't Amtrak be a part of that -- passengers could simply transfer to the Rapid for a 2 min ride to directly inside the air terminal. 

 

It doesn't make sense, to me, to duplicate efforts with the proposed Amtrak station, especially given the fact that Amtrak passengers will need some form of ground transport (probably a shuttle van/bus) to reach the airport anyway... Are officials giving this any thought?

 

Could you post the link on EcoCity's site where this appeared? I suspect it was a proposal I put forth a couple years ago.

 

The reason why a station immediately opposite SR237 from Hopkins' long-term parking deck is the best location is because an enclosed walkway above the highway can offer a number of benefits. Not only does it avail a secure parking area for the station, it provides a relatively climate-protected pedestrian link to the airport terminal, via the moving walkways that link the long-term parking deck to Hopkins' terminals. While it may sound like a long distance, an intercity rail station at that location is actually closer to the main terminal than the gates in Concourse D. And, the train station has more of the distance covered by walkways than does Concourse D.

 

An intercity rail station at the Brookpark Rapid station is complicated by the access tracks to/from Norfolk Southern's Rockport Yard, where there are numerous cross-over switches. While there is room on the east side of the mainline for putting a passenger train station platform, freight trains make back-and-forth switching moves on those tracks, blocking their use by passenger trains. Thus, the only place where a station could be put is between the RTA eastbound track and the westernmost NS mainline track. That is still a very heavily used freight track.

 

NS officials have told the ORDC that they wouldn't permit a station between Rockport Yard and Berea unless a passenger-only track is built for trains stopping at the station. Fortunately, there is room across from Hopkins' long-term parking deck to build a passenger-only track and a platform that's wide enough to drop an elevator shaft and stairwell onto it.

 

Even so, NS's preference is not to have a station within several route-miles of that area unless more tracks are built. That's a tough proposition, given the lack of lateral space to work with, but like I said, there is room for one additional track in that area. To add a second passenger-only track past Hopkins will require some significant capital dollars. But that would be a small part of the Ohio Hub's final price tag of about $3.2 billion.

 

Below is an updated version of my proposal for a Hopkins Airport station....

 

 

That design was based on the high-speed rail station at Frankfurt Germany's international airport (seen across the main highway -- just like Hopkins' station would be in my proposal above)....

 

 

The Frankfurt airport station allows for structures to be built on top of it, like hotels, offices and conference centers. I did the same thing for my design, posted above....

 

 

Here are alternate sites that could be built, with the one that's a little closer to Berea offering more room for a larger station, but loses the pedestrian access (the pedestrian link to Concourse D would no longer work in a post-9/11 world, since all security screening is preferred to be done at a centralized location)....

 

 

But, of course the ultimate intercity rail station for Hopkins would be if the airport terminal is built where the IX Center now stands. Hopkins officials acknowledge this is decades into the future....

 

 

KJP

Anyone who supports upgrading and expanding our rail system in the U.S., let your congressperson know today! See the urgent message below....  KJP

_______________

 

The full Senate may consider the Fiscal 2006 Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill, possibly as early as today or tomorrow.

 

Please give the following message to your senators, substituting your own words wherever possible.

 

Dear Senator X:

 

Please support the $1.45 billion for Amtrak that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved. Please oppose any efforts to reduce this level.

 

Equally important, please work to remove from the committee's bill its crippling, "micro-managing" language regarding sleeping and dining car services.

 

If it is essential to "legislate on an appropriations bill" on this matter, please use the moderate language from S. 1516, the bipartisan authorization bill that the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved July 28.

 

Go to http://www.senate.gov and select your state from the drop-down menu. Given the uncertain nature of floor action, contact should be by phone call, fax, or e-mail (U.S. mail is not fast enough in D.C., where all mail must be security-screened, causing delays of up to a month or more).

 

Also, be patient when contacting your Senators. Many offices are now bombarded with communications about the Supreme Court nomination. If you have a hard time getting through to your Senators' Washington, D.C. offices, try their local offices. Contact information for those offices is available on Senators' websites.

 

END

Thanks for putting these threads together. BTW: The Final Report on the Public & Agency Input for the Ohio Hub Plan is available at http:/www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/

 

The previous post of an ORDC news release had an incomplete web address.

Very exciting.  Once there's a train, I won't have an excuse to never have visited Cleveland.

I did that route for four years from UC to Cleveland and took the bus a couple times, but would LOVE to have had the option to take the train!  Those Greyhound trips caused me to swear the company off for the rest of my life...

 

This sounds like it might be a little bit out of range for some college kids (and much of the remainder of the population as well), but when you consider it as an alternative to driving or flying, issues of cost, convenience and time all start to get mixed up...what is it worth to each traveler???  I'd definitely do the train before flying and if my employer was paying for it, I'd do it every time!  That, and I don't have a car, so that leaves the bus and what did I say about that earlier???

My thought is that it is, quite simply, out of range for anyone who has their own car, unless/until gas exceeds $4-6 per gallon.  Which is unfortunate.  I don't think it's going to change anyone's mindset unless there are clear personal benefits over the automobile.  The figures I saw as far as speed and projected price aren't going to make me forget my car and I hate driving more than a lot of people.

I think the option will work its way into people's schemes.  For example, if you're doing a quick trip to Columbus for work and you want to do some work on your laptop along the way, you're not going to be able to drive.  Again, the issue of who's paying for it comes into play.  The Acela Express on the East Coast would probably have never come into existence if it wasn't for the fact that most of the people who take it probably aren't paying for it.  And some of the prices that people pay for business trips on airlines is just ridiculous... this will offer an alternative to that, even if it doesn't significantly cut into the number of drivers.

It would help to know what the expected travel time between Cleveland and Cincy would be. If it's faster than driving (unlikely), that would help justify the $95 fare.

But who knows, maybe the ORDC has done research showing that people are willing to pay that rate -- it's unclear from the article. Certainly it would be within the range of business travelers, who could probably expense the trips anyway.

Travel time to Cincinnati (downtown) from Cleveland (downtown) will be about 3.5 hours. Subtract about 15-20 minutes if you are boarding at a Cleveland southwest-suburban station at Brook Park/Hopkins Airport or at a Cincinnati north-suburban station at Sharonville/I-275.

 

I agree the fares are too high. But it's also important to note these facts:

> IRS just recalculated the cost of driving at 48.5 cents per mile (up from 40.5 cents) for business travel deductibility purposes;

> Airlines charge $600 to $800 round trip, even for advanced bookings, for flights between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati;

> Amtrak Acela Express' average fare is 50 cents per mile on the Northeast Corridor.

 

That being said, the general public falsely believes the only cost of driving is the cost of gas. Business travelers who must deduct their driving expenses know better because they have to deal with the real costs of driving all the time. To me, the ORDC has two choices:  expect to provide an operating subsidy to reduce train fares in recognition of imperfect information in the travel marketplace, or undertake a marketing campaign to get the general public to understand how much it really costs them to drive their cars.

 

KJP

I love having you on our team KJP!!!

Does anyone know what's keeping the speeds down?  79-110 mph, I don't know, does that even qualify as officially "High-speed rail"?  To not offer a significanly shorter travel time probably hurts a lot, especially if the estimated times, as I assume, don't factor time needed to get to the departure point.  If it's going to be so expensive (for commonfolk looking for an alternative way to get around the state, anyway) at the very least I think it would help to offer to cut traveling times by more than 10-20%

On the subject of fares, it's safe to say that marketing the Ohio Hub service will include such things as frequent rider fares, etc... so it won't necessarily be a flat rate.  This will help to generate more ridership.  It might even be possible to work out mutual agreements with local transit system to work out transfers.

 

On the speed... 80-110 mph is still a lot faster (legally) than you can travel on any road in Ohio or the US.  While not "high speed" in the classic sense, it is still more than competitve with the automobile. And, as several have already pointed out, what used to be "driving time" would then become "productive time" that you can spend doing work, making calls, prepping for a meeting, drinking coffee or whatever... and once you get to your destination you do not have the added costs of parking your car.

"High speed" is often a relative term, but my experience is that high speed rail service is offered when train speeds reach or exceed 125 mph. But is a service really high speed if that 125 mph threshhold is achieved on, let's say 10 miles of a route, and the other 200 miles offers only 79 mph? My contention is that "high speed" should be judged on average speeds over an entire route, which is what really matters to the customer. Ironically, I've never seen a consensus in the rail community as to what average speeds should be considered "high speed." For the Ohio Hub, an average speed of 80 mph is the goal. The distance by rail to Cincinnati is 260 miles. An average speed of 80 mph gets you there in 3.25 hours.

 

To answer your question, Matches, about what is keeping the speed down -- the answer is money and the lack of a public constituency for rail.

 

To exceed 90 mph requires building passenger-only tracks, but can be built next to existing freight rail rights of way (as long as the center line of the passenger-only track is no closer than 25 feet of the center line of the nearest freight track). Full-closure crossing gates can be used where moderate to light vehicular traffic crosses the railroad. But, where vehicular traffic is heavier, or there are bad sight lines for motorists, then a grade-separated crossing is probably advisable.

 

To exceed the 110 mph threshhold requires road crossings to be grade-separated or closed. There are more than 200 grade crossings between Cleveland and Cincinnati, more than 250 between Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh and 300+ between Cleveland and Chicago. To grade-separate a crossing typically costs $3 million for a rural crossing and $7 million or more for an urban crossing. In other words, the price tag jumps by an order of magnitude when the 110 mph threshhold is exceeded.

 

If train speeds in excess of 125 mph are desired, now we're likely talking electrified trains on private right of way (ie: not adjacent to existing freight tracks). That's no so much because freight railways are curvacious, but because they typically slice right through the center of small towns and cities that will not be served by high-speed trains, so there's no reason to enter them. It will likely cost less to go around them. So now you've got costs that include intensive environment impact studies, wetland remediation, property acquisitions, earthmoving/grading/leveling, track construction, erecting overhead electric catenary wires, etc. Such costs could range from $25 million per mile in level, open country, to $85 million per mile in hilly or urban settings.

 

If we ever get to that point, we might as well build for something between 150-200 mph. But, we've tried that before and failed. The countries that have succeeded in doing that evolved to that point. They had conventional-speed trains that offered 70-100 mph service, and upgraded their infrastructure from that starting point. Keep in mind that only one-third of France's TGV network uses the newly built, 170-mph+ rights of way. Those are trunk routes that spread outward from Paris. Farther out, TGV trains branch out onto old lines that already offered 100 mph+ services, while others were upgraded to enable 135-mph speeds.

 

Start slow so we can build up the constituency and the market for more improvements, faster speeds and more trains. It's going to take decades for this nation to catch up to the rest of the modern world. If we throw a high-speed rail route (requiring 5-10 million riders per year to support it) into a auto-centric place like Ohio, I believe it will fail. Our cities lack the population densities and the ridership sources that high-quality urban transit systems feed to/from high-speed rail systems. But a lesser intensive rail service, starting with several 79 mph trains (ridership of 300,000 per year or so), and build it up to 110 mph (ridership of 1-2 million), then we'll be ready to join the rest of the world.

 

KJP