How many households in your city are without a car? Maybe more than you might expect!

 

http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/carfree-census-database.html

 

In most cities, more people are owning cars, including in cities with rising poverty. Why? Probably because they have to, what with urban sprawl continuing outward along our increasingly subsidized highways while public transportation funding is slashed.

Cross-posted from the Cincinnati streetcar thread. Please note who is behind this fight....

 

An unintended result of this initiative petition is that it would keep Amtrak train services out of the City of Cincinnati, including planned services to Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland. Those trains would have to stop short of Cincinnati, such as in suburban Sharonville and further isolate low-income travelers from using trains whose economy fares are often less than Greyound's.....

_________________________

 

 

Careful: Streetcar Petitions Can Be Deceptive

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-17917-careful-streetcar-petitions-can-be-deceptive.html

 

It’s certainly true that good people can come to different conclusions and disagree on an issue. Sometimes, however, good people are led astray by those with ulterior motives.

 

For more than a year, an unusual coalition of arch-conservatives, civil rights groups, Libertarians, Green Party members and others have joined together to mount several petition drives that have made the ballot and let voters decide on issues that otherwise would have been made by elected officials.

.......

The article below from the AARP (1.6 million members in Ohio!) also has imbedded links at this location....

 

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/oh/articles/3-c_railroad_on_track.html

 

Ohio officials hope a passenger train similar to this could be on tracks connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati within two years. Photo courtesy of Amtrak

 

The proposed route of the 3-C passenger rail would link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati with stops in Springfield and Dayton anticipated. Source: Ohio Rail Development Commission

 

Ohio

All Aboard 3-C Rail Line

By: Sarah Hollander | Source: AARP Bulletin Today | June 1, 2009

 

When Marilyn Carlson imagines visiting her niece in Columbus, she pictures boarding a train in Cleveland, socializing with fellow passengers, snacking in the food car—and independence.

 

Her reality is different. “My husband drives me or I don’t go,” said the 58-year-old Bay Village resident who recently experienced a partial vision loss.

 

Carlson belongs to a growing group of Ohioans who support the restoration of passenger rail between the state’s largest cities—Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Passenger service along the 3-C Corridor disappeared nearly 30 years ago, but Ohio is pursuing a $250 million federal grant for its return. That money would cover track and signal improvements as well as the lease or purchase of passenger cars and locomotives. Cities will have to find the money to build and/or renovate stations.

 

“I don’t think we’ve ever been as close to getting passenger rail back as we are now,” said Stu Nicholson, Ohio Rail Development Commission spokesman.

 

With $8 billion in federal stimulus money available for rail projects and Ohio’s governor and legislature behind the proposal, Nicholson can almost hear the train whistles blowing.

 

The 260-mile route, which Amtrak could be operating in as little as two years, would utilize existing freight lines. An Amtrak study due in August will help finalize route and station details. The state hopes the 3-C will lead to a regional rail system with dozens of stops and some high-speed stretches.

 

AARP supports a well-connected, national rail network as one piece of its push for livable communities. “We want people to be mobile within their communities regardless of age and physical capabilities,” said Joanne Limbach, AARP Ohio president.

 

In a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 64 percent of Ohioans consider 3-C a good idea. Of those 55-plus, 41 percent said they were likely to use it.

 

The rail commission envisions two or three trains a day in each direction traveling 60 to 79 mph. Some smaller cities, including Dayton and Springfield, may also get service. Other stops being considered include a rapid transit stop near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and one in Grafton.

 

Cleveland and Cincinnati have historic stations, although heavy freight congestion would make it difficult to route additional trains into Cincinnati’s Union Station.

 

AARP Ohio points out that passengers will need options once they arrive—safe sidewalks or bicycle trails, buses, shuttle services, commuter rail and taxi stands as well as “hover areas” or “cellphone lots” for cars where drivers can wait to pick up arrivals.

 

The lack of details on schedules, station locations, fares and operating costs makes some people hesitant to climb aboard just yet.

 

State Sen. Thomas F. Patton, R-Strongsville, chairman of the Highways and Transportation Committee, sees a significant difference between passenger rail, which is used occasionally, and commuter rail, which is used daily. He wants to make sure Ohio taxpayers don’t end up subsidizing the project once federal money runs out.

 

Ken Prendergast, executive director of the rail advocacy group All Aboard Ohio, points to potential benefits for the economy and environment. A study predicted the creation of 16,700 jobs and $3 billion in related development.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sarah Hollander is a freelance writer living in Cleveland.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/high-speed-rail-chicago-illinois.html

 

Officials: High-speed rail to be fast enough

June 1, 2009 7:19 PM

 

Faster passenger trains planned for the Midwest will not meet the top speed classification under new guidelines being devised to divvy up $8 billion in U.S. grants to upgrade tracks and buy new locomotives and coaches, federal officials said today.

 

But federal and state railroad officials attending a planning workshop in Chicago said the "emerging high-speed rail'' categorization does not represent a setback. Speed is only one consideration that will be used to judge the merits of competing projects, they said.

 

 

..........

Another one from the Midwest (the last line from the Sun Times is the funniest!)....

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/gov_pat_quinn_in_washington_fo.html

 

Gov. Pat Quinn in Washington for high speed rail sessions with Biden, LaHood, Durbin

By Lynn Sweeton June 1, 2009 6:09 PM

 

WASHINGTON--Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn heads here for a Wednesday meeting with Vice President Biden, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and other governors to map strategy for winning federal stimulus money for a Midwest high speed corridor.

 

Quinn will also be meeting with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

 

 

By the way, it appears that the State of Indiana may have awakened from its long slumber and that INDOT staff will likely make a federal stimulus application for funding to build a 40-mile-long passenger-only rail line between Porter, IN and Chicago. This would be for conventional Amtrak and high-speed trains on multiple routes (including to Toledo/Cleveland, Lima/Columbus, and Indianapolis/Cincinnati) to funnel into Chicago while avoiding congested rail freight routes. The cost of this 40-mile line will easily be $1 billion. There is interest by some to engineer this line to 220-mph standards which could cause that cost estimate to double to about $2 billion given the numerous and lengthy bridges that will probably be needed.

 

Ironically, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, not INDOT, solicited for consultants to conduct an alternatives analysis of potential alignments for this passenger-only rail line. For details, see:

 

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/business/docs/btlr01march09.doc

 

And, see page 7 for the contract award for the alternatives analysis of the South of the Lake rail corridor:

 

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/business/docs/select.pdf

 

According this document, the selected firm was Quandel & Associates which had teamed with TEMS for the last South of the Lake corridor analysis. The next two ranking consultants seeking this latest work were HNTB and Parsons. However no contract was awarded to Quandel as of April 28.

 

Hopefully something positive will come from this planning work.

The real irony of any Chicago/Midwest rail system is that Indiana is going to have carry a special burden if any Ohio cities are going to participate in any serious fashion. In fact, if it looked like Indiana was not going to invest in the necessary improvements to mitigate traffic around Chicago or to simply invest to carry through traffic, I think Ohio seriously needs to consider an alternative set of investments. Option one - closer ties to East Coast bound lines, especially as Pennsylvania looks quite serious about its investments, this might also mean leaning on Byrd to get some passenger rail on the new upgraded lines through the mtns to Cbus. Option two - consider pushing one of the 75 cities as an alternative hub to a system that is more north south directed than we have currently imagined.

An Ohio route to Chicago via Detroit (Metro Airport) is something reportedly under consideration if Indiana can't get off the dime.

I assume that line would take advantage of the investment already in Northern Indiana running from South Bend into Chicago?

 

What investment? Are you referring to the South Shore Railway? If so, that corridor is inadequate for an intercity passenger railroad operation, is too indirect in its routing, and doesn't serve Union Station which is where Amtrak wants all intercity rail services in Chicago focused so connections between intercity trains is made easier. If you aren't referring to the South Shore, I hope you enjoyed my rant.

The real irony of any Chicago/Midwest rail system is that Indiana is going to have carry a special burden if any Ohio cities are going to participate in any serious fashion. In fact, if it looked like Indiana was not going to invest in the necessary improvements to mitigate traffic around Chicago or to simply invest to carry through traffic, I think Ohio seriously needs to consider an alternative set of investments. Option one - closer ties to East Coast bound lines, especially as Pennsylvania looks quite serious about its investments, this might also mean leaning on Byrd to get some passenger rail on the new upgraded lines through the mtns to Cbus. Option two - consider pushing one of the 75 cities as an alternative hub to a system that is more north south directed than we have currently imagined.

 

The Porter-Chicago bypass is of such national importance that it has to go forward regardless of Indiana's past inaction on rail. Every route to the east funnels thru this corridor. Also, when Columbus businesspeople were asked what they wanted first, it wasn't the 3-C corridor; it was Columbus-Chicago.

 

Routes from Ohio to the east should be developed, but Chicago is the center of the midwestern universe. It's a worldwide player and we have to have good access to it. We will suffer otherwise.

 

Every state governor, legislator, US congressman and senator and anyone else who has an interest in this should make themselves heard.

http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200906020730/NEWS01/906020305

 

Crawford Co. could get piece of passenger rail action

By Terricha Bradley • Telegraph-Forum • June 2, 2009

 

GALION -- Passenger rail plans were discussed in Crawford County last week, triggering ideas for economic development and future funding of public transportation.

 

At the Palmer House restaurant, transportation experts and regional officials listened to All Aboard Ohio officers speak about the 3-C Corridor project connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton.

 

"Despite the recession, so many good things are happening with passenger rail," said All Aboard Ohio Executive Director Ken Prendergast. "What more can we do to make sure Ohio gets a piece of the action?"

 

 

...........

ODOT Plan Would Bring High-Speed Train Through Ohio Valley

Posted: 4:35 pm EDT June 3, 2009

 

Officials in Ohio are competing for federal money to build a high-speed train that will run through the Ohio Valley.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.wtov9.com/news/19648367/detail.html

The FRA has posted presentations (and one video) from the regional workshops on their web site.  These workshops have been set up to help states apply for ARRA funds for high speed rail.

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2241

June 7, 2009

 

Battle Creek Enquirer

 

Guest Column: High-speed rail deserves funding

Kirk T. Steudle

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has the potential to breathe life into high-speed rail in the Midwest. And we believe it is long overdue. In April, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, seven other Midwestern governors, and the mayor of Chicago signed a letter asking Washington for a share of recovery money to help jump-start a long-awaited dream of high-speed rail service connecting Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and all points between.

 

 

Read more at:

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20090607/OPINION02/906070308/1014/OPINION

Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator of the FRA was the guest on Let’s Talk Trains ([email protected]) yesterday. His commentary on high-speed rail was encouraging. He was one of the people looking over the French rail system.

 

Hitting on some high points-

 

The vision for the new high-speed rail system in the U.S. would not duplicate that of Europe. Europe threw freight off the railroad and put it on the highways. The U.S. on the other hand has what is considered an excellent freight rail system by comparison.

 

There would be more emphasis on eliminating bottle necks in the rail system to reduce travel time rather than operating at very high speed and then losing this advantage in certain areas.

 

The high-speed system should not hurt the private rail concerns but help it.

 

Passenger trains will operate on time and be reliable.

 

The high speed system would be built like the interstate highway system. Some areas would be upgraded first, other segments would be upgraded later. Trains including the TGV operate on very fast trackage and on what they consider conventional track that is 125 mph.

 

Maglev is under consideration but capital costs are very high although reports say operation is lower. But little was said of maglev. The host of the show thinks maglev is the "answer".

 

The shovel-ready requirement would not apply to rail projects but instead would go to projects that are ready to proceed first and the waiting period could be a year or more.

 

The stimulus funding would not necessarily be the end of rail funding for high-speed.

 

The 2 hour program is archived and is now available on iTunes or on the Lets Talk Trains website -- www.letstalktrains.us.

Strickland asking for $400 million for passenger rail

Posted by mrulon at 6/9/2009 11:35 AM EDT

 

Gov. Ted Strickland is in Washington today to lobby the Obama administration for $400 million in federal stimulus money to build the proposed high-speed passenger rail service between Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland. "Ohio and those cities represent the most densely populated part of the country that is devoid of passenger rail service," Strickland said, calling that fact "intolerable."

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=blog02&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3aec38bb2b-982e-46ba-819a-da01a547e8eaPost%3a5d65ea40-8f7f-46ad-be9e-6e2c5003ea68&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

From the PD:

 

 

Strickland seeks high speed rail dollars in Washington

by By Sabrina Eaton/Plain Dealer Washington Bureau

Tuesday June 09, 2009, 1:54 PM

 

 

 

Gov. Ted Strickland and Ohio Transportation Director Jolene Molitoris don't want to miss the federal stimulus funding train.

 

The pair spent Tuesday in Washington, working to snag $400 million in transportation money to create a high-speed passenger rail corridor that would link Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton with each other and the rest of the country. They were scheduled to discuss the issue today with Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

 

"Ohio and those cities represent the most densely populated part of the entire country that is devoid of passenger rail service," said Strickland, noting that other states are aggressively pursuing large slices of the $8 billion in stimulus money that President Obama has designated for high speed rail.

 

 

More at Cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/06/strickland_seeks_high_speed_ra.html

^I thought they were asking for $250 million?  I'm glad they are asking for more.  What's the reason for the bump up to $400 million?  Just to ask for more than you expect to get hoping that you will get what you really want? 

 

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/10/3C_RAIL.ART_ART_06-10-09_A1_FOE4PO9.html?sid=101

 

Strickland makes case for 3C rail

Governor tells feds Ohio will be 'island' without train services

Wednesday,  June 10, 2009 2:59 AM

By Jonathan Riskind and James Nash

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH 

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Gov. Ted Strickland made his pitch to federal officials yesterday for $400 million of the $8 billion in stimulus money designated for high-speed passenger rail service. He said the state would be economically adrift without it.

 

The money would more than cover the startup costs of a proposed rail system that would run through Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati and take about six hours from start to finish. State officials envision the so-called 3C rail service, which would run slightly slower than a car moving at freeway speed, as the first step in developing much-faster rail service across the state.

 

The decision on how to divvy up the rail stimulus dollars could come this summer, and the Obama administration will offer formal guidance this month to states planning to apply for the money.

 

 

Strickland asking for $400 million for passenger rail - UPDATED

Posted by mrulon at 6/9/2009 11:35 AM EDT on Cincinnati.com 

 

Gov. Ted Strickland is in Washington today to lobby the Obama administration for $400 million in federal stimulus money to build the proposed high-speed passenger rail service between Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland.

 

"Ohio and those cities represent the most densely populated part of the country that is devoid of passenger rail service," Strickland said, calling that fact "intolerable."

 

He and Ohio Transportation Secretary Jolene Molitoris are meeting with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, as well as Amtrak President Joe Boardman over the state's plan, trying to make the case that Ohio's project is a necessity.

 

"If we don't do this, Ohio will be left behind," Strickland said. "Ohio will be an island in the middle of the nation."

 

The state has until June 17 to apply for the funding, which would come out of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill President Barack Obama signed into law in February. That bill contained $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail projects nationwide.

 

Ohio's rail project was included on a list of 10 high-speed rail priorities released by the White House in April. But Strickland said he's not taking anything for granted, so he's becoming more aggressive in his advocacy.

 

"Other states are going after these resources and we cannot allow Ohio to sit on the sidelines while other states pursue this technology," he said.

 

UPDATE: House Republican Leader John Boehner of West Chester sent out a news release shortly after Strickland's visit was made public, blasting the Democratic governor for seeking the stimulus funding for the rail project.

 

"The so-called stimulus package has been a disaster in the Buckeye State, yet the Strickland administration is looking for more federal dollars to spend," Boehner said. "While hundreds of thousands of Ohioans remain out of work and companies leaving the state, the administration continues to refuse to set up an independent, bipartisan oversight board to ensure Ohioans that their precious dollars are being spent appropriately. If Gov. Strickland’s administration refuses to submit to this scrutiny, why should taxpayers agree to entrust them with millions of dollars more?"

 

Strickland said according to the state's best estimates, a $400 million investment by the federal government should get the state's three largest cities connected by rail service by the first quarter of 2011. He expects to have more up to date figures from Amtrak by the end of July.

 

The state would pay $11 million or less a year in annual operating costs for the service. He said the state also is pursuing private investment to beef up the plans.

 

Additionally, Strickland said he's talking with Amtrak officials about improving service between Chicago, Toledo and Cleveland, which could feed into the system connecting Cleveland with Columbus and Cincinnati.

 

Right now, Amtrak trains servicing northern Ohio come in the middle of the night a few times a week. Strickland said he'd like to see more trains service the stations at more convenient times.

 

"We think this is something that will be good for the traveling public, it's good for the environment and it'll create jobs," he said.

 

Strickland arrived in Washington yesterday for fundraising-related activities, although he did not detail what those were. The governor, a

Democrat, has not yet formally kicked off his re-election campaign.

 

Meanwhile, Republican John Kasich announced last week that he would seek the GOP nomination for governor. State Sen. Kevin Coughlin, R-Cuyahoga Falls, has also said that he'll run.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=blog02&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3aec38bb2b-982e-46ba-819a-da01a547e8eaPost%3a5d65ea40-8f7f-46ad-be9e-6e2c5003ea68&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

High-speed rail in Ohio? Strickland is optimistic.

By Jessica Wehrman | Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 04:53 PM

 

If all goes well, Ohio passengers could be riding the rails between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati as soon as the first quarter of 2011, Gov. Ted Strickland said Tuesday, June 9.

 

Ohio's governor was in Washington to try to ensure that all goes well. He met with the Secretary of Transportation and the president of Amtrak as part of his bid to garner $400 million in economic stimulus dollars to redevelop passenger rail service between the four cities.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2009/06/09/highspeed_rail_in_ohio_strickl.html

If it's already the "3-C and D" why not just include Akron and Barberton?  I don't think it's that much more out of route than Dayton is, and then we could have a nice jingle like "A-B-C-C-C-D me, that is how I get to thee."

327, the Akron route isn't on the direct 3-C Corridor railway while Dayton is. Don't think in terms of I-71. Think in terms of Norfolk Southern Corp. and CSX Inc. There is no added capital cost in going through Dayton vs. any alternative route that's in poorer condition. To go through Akron means the addition of a major capital expense ($200 million according to past studies) as well as increased operating expenses that aren't covered by the added passenger revenues from the added population served. Existing railroad rights of way mean passenger trains would have to go way out of their way to serve Akron vs. Dayton.

 

This map was posted earlier in this thread:

 

 

And while the purpose of this map is to quickly show the economic payback from the state/federal investment, it also shows how the overall 3-C tracks are routed:

 

Gotcha.  Thanks for the info.  Maybe Akron is something to consider if we ever get to install a new high speed system.

Please attend to voice your support for Strickland's passenger rail development plans and ask for increased state funding for public transportation! Thank you!

________________________________

 

The City Club presents Governor Ted Strickland on July 24th at the Crown Plaza - Reservations Required

 

The Honorable Ted Strickland

Governor of Ohio

State of the State

 

July 24, 2009

 

**Due to overwhelming demand, we will be taking this program on the road to The Crown Plaza-777 St. Clair Ave.

 

 

Throughout his service as a minister, a psychologist, a professor and a Member of Congress, Ted worked to exemplify those simple, powerful words. That same plaque is now in the Governor’s Office, where those same words guide Ted each day.

 

As Governor, Ted believes that Ohio government must live within its means while investing in what matters. Brought together by a sense of common purpose, legislators from both parties have worked closely with the Governor to strengthen Ohio.

 

Understanding that nothing will ensure Ohio’s future prosperity more than creating a world class education system, Governor Strickland won the legislature’s support for new funding for early care and learning, primary and secondary education, and Ohio’s public colleges and universities.

 

Sponsored by: Sisters of Charity Health System

 

Make reservations:  http://www.cityclub.org/Default.aspx?TabId=260&EventID=15237

 

FRIDAY FORUM:

$18 Member

$40 Non Member

$450 Non Profit Table of 10.

$550 Corporate Table of 10.

Reservations...... Toll-Free at 888-223-6786 or locally at 216-621-0082

http://www.cityclub.org/Default.aspx?TabId=260&EventID=15237

Wow!

 

http://www.joc.com/node/411794

 

NS Mulls Electrification; UP Looks Away

John D. Boyd | Jun 9, 2009 6:53PM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

 

Eastern carrier sees opening for electric passenger-freight lanes, UP does not

 

A Norfolk Southern Railway executive said his company is exploring the potential to eventually electrify some freight rail lines in connection with passenger rail corridors, but the chief executive of Union Pacific Railroad said he is not considering freight electrification...

 

 

If it's already the "3-C and D" why not just include Akron and Barberton?  I don't think it's that much more out of route than Dayton is, and then we could have a nice jingle like "A-B-C-C-C-D me, that is how I get to thee."

 

it seems that akron would be the better starting point, continuing to cleveland, and then from cleveland to columbus, dayton, cincinnati.  this way you get service between akron and cleveland that could be competitive for commuting, and still connect the akron region into the overall rail corridor. 

 

any idea on the cost for starting akron to cleveland corridor?  and is this being considered at all?

If it's already the "3-C and D" why not just include Akron and Barberton? I don't think it's that much more out of route than Dayton is, and then we could have a nice jingle like "A-B-C-C-C-D me, that is how I get to thee."

 

it seems that akron would be the better starting point, continuing to cleveland, and then from cleveland to columbus, dayton, cincinnati. this way you get service between akron and cleveland that could be competitive for commuting, and still connect the akron region into the overall rail corridor.

 

any idea on the cost for starting akron to cleveland corridor? and is this being considered at all?

Um, wouldn't it make more sense to have a Cleveland-Akron commuter line that's not connected to the 3C line? (That idea has been discussed, and has its own thread, but the town of Silver Lake shot it down a few years ago.) Going through Cleveland on the way from Akron to Columbus would be well out of the way: it would add to capital costs (refurbishing the line from Akron to Cleveland) , and Operating costs (extra fuel, extra hourly pay for staff).

I understand what urbanlife is suggesting, and some have suggested that some Cleveland-based trains bound for Detroit, Chicago, etc. instead originate in Akron or Canton.

 

A study done about 10 years ago estimated the start-up costs for Cleveland - Akron commuter rail at $190 million, including the construction of a third main track along 25 miles of Norfolk Southern's busy mainline between Cleveland and Hudson, a complete rebuilding of the 13-mile Akron Metro RTA-owned line between Hudson and Akron, construction of a grade-separated crossing for passenger trains above CSX tracks at Arlington Street plus a number of stations, etc. All of that for three roundtrips each weekday. It doesn't make sense for so few trains -- unless it was combined with intercity passenger rail services to Columbus/Cincinnati and possibly some trains to Youngstown/Pittsburgh.

 

Oh, and Silver Lake lost its lawsuit to block use of the inactive railroad tracks through his town. Local governments cannot thwart interstate commerce.

It doesn't make sense for so few trains -- unless it was combined with intercity passenger rail services to Columbus/Cincinnati and possibly some trains to Youngstown/Pittsburgh.

 

I think Akron and Canton need to start by having a bus connection to meet Ohio Hub trains in Clevevland bound for Detroit/Chicago and Buffalo/Toronto to start building demand for the service.  I don't know if it would make sense to run bus connections to Hudson or Ravenna to connect to a Cleveland-Pittsburgh train, but I suppose that could be considered as well. 

 

This might build demand for commuter services to Cleveland, then that $190 million starts to make more sense.  Of course, as the peak oil clamp tightens, it may make sense sooner than we might otherwise expect. 

 

Would a bus connection from Akron to Galion or Greenwich for 3-C trains make any sense? 

Ohio really needs some intercity bus routes.  I was shocked to find out that there's absolutely no regularly scheduled route to Hamilton from Cincinnati.  It seems like a no brainer. 

 

In Wisconsin, we have contracts with Lamers, CoachUSA (Wisconsin Coach Lines), and the Milwaukee County Transit System to connect most of our major systems. 

 

The DOT also puts out a Carfree Wisconsin PDF with a very helpful map of the intercity connections: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/transit/docs/1000friends-guide.pdf

 

 

Ohio could really use some of these connections. 

Gildone,

there are 5 Northcoast Express buses a day that go to Cleveland from downtown Akron.  Most of the buses are packed.  Akron Metro is getting 6 new buses this summer to replace their current Northcoast express fleet.  Here's the pdf from Metro:

 

http://www.akronmetro.org/NewslettersNCXPDF.html

 

Also there is crude excursion train service connecting Akron and Canton during the Summer on Wed-Sundays for $15 rd trip, I think, basing that on the "all day pass".

 

Here's the timetable:

Leave Canton 9am  Get to Akron at 10:10.  Depart Akron at 10:45 to Canton at 12PM

Leave Canton 3:45 Get to Akron at 5pm.  Depart Akron at 5:40 to Canton at 6:55pm

 

I'm not impressed with the CVSR website.  I think they are in serious need of some interns.

www.cvsr.com

 

 

^as Spoc would say: fascinating... The 3-C corridor would be an excellent test case for electrification (although, I'm not sure if it's all NS routing)... Anyway, any one of the Ohio Hub routes would be good test cases for the wires (save, maybe, the Buffalo/Toronto leg b/c of the light population, long distance and little relation, travelwise, btw Cleve and Buffalo)... The other routes out of Cleveland have sizable metro areas close in distance w/ significant passenger and freight traffic.  Sure would be nice if Obama could give the railroads and extra nudge by giving tax breaks for per-mile electrification... strong case for helping the environment, much like FTA's transit fare/subsidy program.

Please note that this is a public meeting and that enhanced passenger rail services proposed for three routes from Ohio (Cincinnati; Columbus/Lima and Cleveland/Toledo) into Chicago will stand to benefit greatly from this proposed project.

_____________________

 

    Dear fellow Passenger Rail Advocates:  In behalf of Rick Harnish, Exec. Director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, and John D. Langdon, Chair of the W. Michigan Regional Chapter of the Michigan Assoc. of RR Passengers, I would like to invite you to an important event in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on Friday, June 19th.  Representatives of passenger rail advocacy organizations in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio are being convened to coordinate our efforts to achieve an important goal:  the planning, design, and construction by a governmental entity of a new, high-capacity passenger train route originating in Chicago & connecting to all eastern & southern routes.  Additional goals would be for that governmental entity to make a competitive application for federal stimulus funds and for the line to be easily upgraded to 220-mph standards in the future.  The meeting will be chaired by Rick Harnish and John Langdon. 

 

    This event will be held at the historic Baker Street Rail Station at 221 W. Baker Street in downtown Fort Wayne, IN from 12 noon to 3 pm on Friday, June 19th and is sponsored by the Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association and Fort Wayne's Downtown Improvement District.  Architect Vic Martin has been kind enough to make his facility available for this meeting. Free parking is available in the parking lot immediately west of the Baker St. Station.  Initial efforts to organize this meeting date back to late last week and many of you are already aware of additional details included in earlier emails.  Please confirm your attendance via a reply email to my email address above and I will forward that information to Rick Harnish and John Langdon.  Feel free to contact me at 1-260-433-0057 (mobile) if necessary.  We hope to see you in Fort Wayne on June 19th! 

   

Sincerely,

Dr. Tom Hayhurst--CoChair of the Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association.

Is Marietta missing the train? 

The Marietta Register

Written by Tom Lotshaw   

Wednesday, 10 June 2009 

 

Parallels in Transportation History

 

Fifty years ago, Marietta was about to be forgotten by a roughly 46,000 mile Interstate Highway System that was spreading throughout the United States and being championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

            Retaining access to its original "shining highways," the flood-prone Ohio and Muskingum rivers, Marietta eventually secured its Exit One access ramp to Interstate 77 – but just barely, according to some local sources.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.mariettaregister.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1091&Itemid=61

Gildone,

there are 5 Northcoast Express buses a day that go to Cleveland from downtown Akron.  Most of the buses are packed.  Akron Metro is getting 6 new buses this summer to replace their current Northcoast express fleet.  Here's the pdf from Metro:

 

http://www.akronmetro.org/NewslettersNCXPDF.html

A couple of my coworkers take the Northcoast Express bus daily and have said it's standing room only most days. Considering passengers are paying $5 each way to stand on a bus from Akron rather than drive, I'd guess that a commuter train would be very welcome to a lot of people commuting between Akron and Cleveland.

 

A study done about 10 years ago estimated the start-up costs for Cleveland - Akron commuter rail at $190 million, including the construction of a third main track along 25 miles of Norfolk Southern's busy mainline between Cleveland and Hudson, a complete rebuilding of the 13-mile Akron Metro RTA-owned line between Hudson and Akron, construction of a grade-separated crossing for passenger trains above CSX tracks at Arlington Street plus a number of stations, etc. All of that for three roundtrips each weekday. It doesn't make sense for so few trains -- unless it was combined with intercity passenger rail services to Columbus/Cincinnati and possibly some trains to Youngstown/Pittsburgh.

Yes, but to rebut you with your own words...

But that's nothing compared to the 40,000+ people commuting between Cuyahoga and Summit counties each day! No two counties in Ohio have more commuting between them than these. About one-quarter of those are commuting to downtown Cleveland -- a perfect commuter rail market. In the NEOrail study, it was projected that about 30 percent of those downtown commuters (or 3,500 total per day) would take the train. The study was done when gasoline sold for $1.20 per gallon.

Its a perfect market for commuter rail since so many people are already commuting, many of them by bus, plus we already have the right of way. It seems to me that if the train just went to the north side of Akron (say, tallmadge ave or thereabouts), so that the above grade crossing by Arlington wasn't needed, and shared the tracks with Norfolk Southern (Busy as they may be already) we should be able to get this off the ground for a lot less than $190 Million. Also is it possible that the 13-mile stretch that Akron Metro owns could be used without a complete rebuild? I know it hasn't been maintained but, it was used as recently as the mid-90s for freight wasn't it?

 

Oh, and Silver Lake lost its lawsuit to block use of the inactive railroad tracks through his town. Local governments cannot thwart interstate commerce.

Yes, Silver Lake lost its lawsuit in '06 to prevent the dinner train, but as you know, before that they managed to convince AMATS to drop its CAC study back in '02. http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/rail/nocommuter.html

 

Perhaps we should be continuing this discussion here, here or here

No need to rebut. I do agree it's a perfect market for commuter rail. The proposal was to run three round trips for Cleveland-bound commuters and one for Akron-bound commuters. That would have attracted (if I remember correctly) about 3,500 riders a day. Spending $190 million for so few trains that would have been able to carry so few riders was a bad deal. More service was needed -- hence why I suggested included intercity rail services into the mix. But I wouldn't do with the first phases of the intercity service.

 

The $190 million start-up cost was from about 10 years ago. An estimate from 5-10 years earlier was $84 million. Yes, the cost rose that much in a short period of time.

 

However, in 1996 a scaled-down plan was proposed to the state which dropped service to downtown Akron and assumed a southern terminus station at Tallmadge Avenue. This cut the cost of the Arlington flyover and an Akron station. The number of commuter trains was reduced to 2-3 daily, all scheduled for the Cleveland-bound commuter. This removed the need for the third main track along NS from Cleveland to Hudson. Capital costs were reduced to $18.55 million, but some station costs (Hudson, SE Cleveland) were to be shouldered by the addition of daytime Cleveland - Pittsburgh rail service.

 

This was a bare-bones request by the Ohio Rail Development Commission to the State of Ohio's capital budget (it also included $16 million for 3-C Corridor, with another $16 million in start-up costs to be deferred or to be paid for by local governments, ie: stations). Gov. Voinovich's chief of staff, Paul Misfud (who was later imprisoned and then died of cancer) told the ORDC they were "in outer space" for making a capital budget request for passenger trains.

 

Privately, some at ORDC said the capital funding request was too small but if the funding was approved they would find a way to make it work. The funding was not approved due to the opposition from the governor's office. Ohio would have to wait to join the rest of the civilized world while inflation only jacked up the start-up costs over the years since.

I just found the 1995 URS Consultants study of Cleveland - Akron - Canton commuter rail. The $190 million cost I quoted earlier was for the entire CAC Corridor. Capital costs for the Akron-Canton portion were projected to cost $35 million. Thus the Cleveland - Akron portion was estimated to be $155 million -- in 1995 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $218 million today and includes no additional capital costs for routing 3-C trains via Akron, such as for restoring CSX's second main track over seven miles from Barberton to Warwick.

FYI....

 

    Dear fellow Passenger Rail Advocates:  In behalf of Rick Harnish, Exec. Director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, and John D. Langdon, Chair of the W. Michigan Regional Chapter of the Michigan Assoc. of RR Passengers, I would like to invite you to an important event in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on Friday, June 19th.  Representatives of passenger rail advocacy organizations in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio are being convened to coordinate our efforts to achieve an important goal:  the planning, design, and construction by a governmental entity of a new, high-capacity passenger train route originating in Chicago & connecting to all eastern & southern routes.  Additional goals would be for that governmental entity to make a competitive application for federal stimulus funds and for the line to be easily upgraded to 220-mph standards in the future.  The meeting will be chaired by Rick Harnish and John Langdon. 

 

    This event will be held at the historic Baker Street Rail Station at 221 W. Baker Street in downtown Fort Wayne, IN from 12 noon to 3 pm on Friday, June 19th and is sponsored by the Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association and Fort Wayne's Downtown Improvement District.  Architect Vic Martin has been kind enough to make his facility available for this meeting. Free parking is available in the parking lot immediately west of the Baker St. Station.  Initial efforts to organize this meeting date back to late last week and many of you are already aware of additional details included in earlier emails.  Please confirm your attendance via a reply email to my email address above ([email protected]) and I will forward that information to Rick Harnish and John Langdon.  Feel free to contact me at 1-260-433-0057 (mobile) if necessary.  We hope to see you in Fort Wayne on June 19th! 

   

Sincerely,

Dr. Tom Hayhurst--CoChair of the Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association.

Posted in the Amtrak and Passenger Rail News thread, but it's applicable to the C-A-C discussion here:

 

The DMU railcar does have great possibilities in a niche market, such as commuter or regional service or maybe 5 car sets in corridor service of less than 200 miles. Chicago-Milwaukee comes to mind.

 

Another possibility might be to manufacture a flat-end cab car that can be attached to a thru train to serve a secondary destination. If the New York-Pittsburgh "Pennsylvanian" was extended to Cleveland, a DMU could be a part that train's consist as far as Ravenna or Hudson. There it could be dropped and proceed under its own power to Akron, giving that city thru service it probably would not get any other way.

 

Corridor trains could do the same thing. A Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago train could drop a DMU at Toledo for Detroit, for example. Pittsburgh-Cleveland trains could drop DMU's for Akron.

 

This is very similar to what Pullman did years ago with setout sleepers or sections and it would extend the reach of passenger train service.

 

This actually isn't a bad idea, BuckeyeB.  Dropping the DMUs in Ravenna could allow the trains to serve Kent and Monroe Falls/Stow or Cuyahoga Falls on their way to/from Akron.  If people in the Akron area could get to Pittsburgh by rail, then it might help make the need for Akron to have service to Cleveland to become even more apparent. 

 

Audidave: thanks for the info about the Akron-Cleveland buses. 

KJP,  I would wonder how accurate those numbers are now.  There is constant maintenance and upgrades to various parts of the tracks throughout Summit Co.  Would some of the costs not be tied to the new bridges and grade crossing lane separations that are now in place?  For example the new NS bridge over route 82 is pretty much complete, that was a huge expense and likely would've been part of this study. Also up next is a new bridge further south on Highland Rd allowing that traffic to keep rolling irregardless.  Then there's some new quiet zones further south of that..

Posted in the Amtrak and Passenger Rail News thread, but it's applicable to the C-A-C discussion here:

 

The DMU railcar does have great possibilities in a niche market, such as commuter or regional service or maybe 5 car sets in corridor service of less than 200 miles. Chicago-Milwaukee comes to mind.

 

Another possibility might be to manufacture a flat-end cab car that can be attached to a thru train to serve a secondary destination. If the New York-Pittsburgh "Pennsylvanian" was extended to Cleveland, a DMU could be a part that train's consist as far as Ravenna or Hudson. There it could be dropped and proceed under its own power to Akron, giving that city thru service it probably would not get any other way.

 

Corridor trains could do the same thing. A Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago train could drop a DMU at Toledo for Detroit, for example. Pittsburgh-Cleveland trains could drop DMU's for Akron.

 

This is very similar to what Pullman did years ago with setout sleepers or sections and it would extend the reach of passenger train service.

 

This actually isn't a bad idea, BuckeyeB.  Dropping the DMUs in Ravenna could allow the trains to serve Kent and Monroe Falls/Stow or Cuyahoga Falls on their way to/from Akron.  If people in the Akron area could get to Pittsburgh by rail, then it might help make the need for Akron to have service to Cleveland to become even more apparent.  

 

This isn't a new idea. Years ago, the Budd Company built the SPV-2000, a DMU based on their Amfleet carbody and Connecticut bought then to put on Springfield MA-Hartford CT-New Haven CT trains. The idea was that they would be put on the rear of Boston-New York expresses for a one seat ride to Gotham. Unfortunately, the SPV-2000 had more than its share of problems and the idea was dropped.

 

In Denmark, they use a DMU that can couple up to another DMU while rolling...they don't have to stop! These cars have pillow-like black diaphragms at each end and a foldaway cab. They couple up, roll away the cab controls and away they go. I don't know if we'd ever be able to do that here because of percieved safety issues, but it can be done.

 

Anyway, despite Connecticut's problems, the idea is still a good one.

In Ohio, DMU's make sense for secondary services such as Athens-Columbus or regional services (Canton-Akron-Cleveland) or commuter (Lorain-Cleveland, Cincinnati-Middletown-Dayton) or as a section of thru trains (Ravenna-Akron section of thru Pittsburgh-Cleveland trains). The market in Ohio could be pretty good size and nationally, huge.

KJP,  I would wonder how accurate those numbers are now.  There is constant maintenance and upgrades to various parts of the tracks throughout Summit Co.

 

That's routine. Railroads do that on cyclical basis.

 

Would some of the costs not be tied to the new bridges and grade crossing lane separations that are now in place?

 

No.

 

For example the new NS bridge over route 82 is pretty much complete, that was a huge expense and likely would've been part of this study. Also up next is a new bridge further south on Highland Rd allowing that traffic to keep rolling irregardless.  Then there's some new quiet zones further south of that..

 

Those costs were no part of the estimates for upgrading. Here's what was (and what has been taken care of since 1995)....

 

Track construction (in millions)

Cleveland Line [Cleveland - Hudson]: $3.3

Akron Secondary [Hudson - Akron Jct.]: $6.5

Akron Arlington Flyover Bridge: $5

CSX CT&V [Akron-Canton]: $17.2

Stations areas Akron, Cleveland: $3.3

TOTAL TRACK CONSTRUCTION: $35.3

 

Signal system improvements

Cleveland Line [Cleveland - Hudson]: $9.6*

Akron Secondary [Hudson - Akron Jct.]: $6.9

Akron Arlington Flyover Bridge: $0.9

CSX CT&V [Akron-Canton]: $12.7

Stations areas Akron, Cleveland: $3.0

TOTAL SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS: $33.1

* This was addressed by NS which installed a cab-signal system on the Cleveland Line in 2001.

 

Structures/stations

Cleveland Line [Cleveland - Hudson]: $3.1

Akron Secondary [Hudson - Akron Jct.]: $2.7

Akron Arlington Flyover Bridge: $14.6

CSX CT&V [Akron-Canton]: $5.0

Stations areas Akron, Cleveland: $2.8

TOTAL STRUCTURES/STATIONS: $28.3

 

Third main track (all costs)

Cleveland Line [Cleveland - Hudson]: $70.3

Akron Secondary [Hudson - Akron Jct.]: $0

Akron Arlington Flyover Bridge: $0

CSX CT&V [Akron-Canton]: $0

Stations areas Akron, Cleveland: $0

TOTAL THIRD MAIN TRACK: $70.3

 

Train equipment

Not applicable to specific route segments

TOTAL TRAIN EQUIPMENT: $23

 

TOTAL COSTS: $190

Ohio towns lobby for stops on Amtrak plan

By MATT LEINGANG

The Associated Press

Updated 1:56 PM Sunday, June 14, 2009

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — As Amtrak studies a proposed passenger rail line linking Ohio's major cities, small towns along the 250-mile route are lobbying hard not to be left behind.

 

A train station is just the sort of hub that can spark new economic development, said Dave Oles, city manager in Galion, a small city about 50 miles north of Columbus that hosted a statewide meeting last month for rail advocates.

 

In Riverside, city officials already have identified a 44-acre site for a train station that would feed travelers to the U.S. Air Force Museum atWright-Patterson Air Force Base and serve as a centerpiece for a new commercial district.

 

"This rail project is a good slice of pie that everybody is after," city manager Bryan Chodkowski said.

 

Read more at:http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-towns-lobby-for-stops-on-amtrak-plan-162541.html

 

Ohio towns like Amtrak plan

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090615/NEWS01/306120021/1055/NEWS/Ohio+towns+like+Amtrak+plan

 

As Amtrak studies a proposed passenger rail line linking Ohio’s major cities, small towns along the 250-mile route are lobbying hard not to be left behind.

 

A train station is just the sort of hub that can spark new economic development, said Dave Oles, city manager in Galion, a small city about 50 miles north of Columbus that hosted a statewide meeting last month for rail advocates.

 

In Riverside, city officials already have identified a 44-acre site for a train station that would feed travelers to the U.S. Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and serve as a centerpiece for a new commercial district.

 

“This rail project is a good slice of pie that everybody is after,” city manager Bryan Chodkowski said.

 

Amtrak is studying what it would take to run 79-mph trains along existing freight tracks connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati – a project that Gov. Ted Strickland wants funded with at least $250 million in federal stimulus money.

 

President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic recovery package, signed in February, sets aside $8 billion for passenger rail projects in the U.S., something Obama sees as a down payment for a future high-speed network. The first round of funding is expected to be announced this summer.

 

Fourteen states already have contracts with Amtrak to operate passenger routes, and for some small towns, the economic benefits of having a train station stretch beyond jobs created by coffee shops and newsstands.

 

In Saco, Maine, a developer is spending $110 million to turn an old mill into condos and an office park next to a new Amtrak station that picks up travelers along a rail corridor that runs to Boston.

 

“There’s a new economic energy once these small towns become part of a larger transportation network,” said Patricia Quinn, executive director of Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which manages Amtrak’s Downeaster route.

 

An Amtrak depot that opened in 1995 in Lafayette, Ind., led to a neighboring $36 million development project 10 years later that included condos and an office park.

 

City Planner Thomas Van Horn said the depot deserves some credit, but much of the development probably would have happened anyway. The city is across the Wabash River from Purdue University, and developers were looking for new residential areas for students and faculty, he said.

 

If Ohio gets federal stimulus money to start passenger rail service, Amtrak likely would select a few intermediate stops outside the state’s major cities, said Stu Nicholson, spokesman for the Ohio Rail Development Commission, a state agency that hired Amtrak to conduct the study.

 

But too many stops would drag down travel times. Smaller towns would need to have enough ridership potential to justify a train station, he said.

 

An early estimate by Amtrak puts the entire Cleveland-to-Cincinnati trip at six hours.

Amtrak’s full study, which will include preferred stops and ridership forecasts, is expected by the end of August. Past studies have noted Berea, Galion, Springfield and Middletown as optimal stops.

 

The rail commission will make a recommendation on the number and location of train stations, and Strickland will need to sign off on the plan, Nicholson said.

In the meantime, cities in southwest Ohio such as London, Middletown, Hamilton and West Carrollton are expressing interest.

 

Fairborn’s proximity to Wright State University and the headquarters of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where the senior military leadership work, should also make the city a strong candidate, city manager Deborah McDonnell said.

 

The village council in Grafton, about 25 miles southwest of Cleveland, passed a resolution last month asking the state to consider an Amtrak station there.

 

Students and faculty at nearby Oberlin College would ride the train, said Joe Filipiak, who as chairman of the Grafton Railroad Historical Society had a hand in writing the resolution.

 

“We’re waving our flag, hoping the state knows we’re out here,” he said.

Ugh i really hope every small city does not get a stop on this line! Connect the big boys first and then later on add local lines. People will not give up their cars if this train takes longer to get from point A to B than by car.

^  That is the intent of the 3-C plan... the big cities and a few smaller city stops, but nothing that will slow the service to a crawl.

^ That is the intent of the 3-C plan... the big cities and a few smaller city stops, but nothing that will slow the service to a crawl.

 

Im fine with a few small city stops, but im afraid too many are going to want one and what the response will be when they dont. Can the small cities do anything to block this from happening if their town gets passed by??

The small town stops (with no baggage service) really don't add much time to the trip do they?  On the train to Chicago, stops like Bryan and Waterloo are probably less than a minute, and the Amtrak trains speed up and slow down fairly rapidly.  I can't imagine an extra stop adding more than about 3-5 minutes to the overall ride length.