This will always be a hard sell on the Cincy to Cleveland full line use, but it will be much more competitive getting folks in and out of Columbus. I've gotta imagine that the stop in Columbus would be rather long.

I agree initially if Columbus to Cleve or Cinci is competitive with driving before any serious capital infusions take place it should be fine.  The next goal will be to make with $100-200 million upgrades so that Cleveland to Cinci is competitive with driving.

 

Cleveland to Cinci should still be competitive with driving 4 months of the year with winter weather and other holidays. 

So, add 1 hour at each end of that trip to get door-to-door to final destination.  8 hours to Cleveland.

I think an hour at each end is a bit much, but if you want to look at it that way then lets compare that fairly.

• Google Maps says it should take 4 hours and 50 minutes to get between Downtown Cincinatti to Downtown Cleveland.
  
• If you want to add an hour to each end of the train to get door-to-door, then we should add a half hour to each end to drive from downtown to whatever location in the city you're heading to. That brings us to 5 hours and 50 minutes.
  
• At 249 miles, either you're going to have to get gas before you leave, or stop for gas on the way. Between getting off the freeway and pumping gas, you're going to have to add at least 10 minutes. That brings us to 6 hours.
  
• In 6 hours, unless your destination on the end of the route is a restaurant, you're going to have to grab something to eat. Unless you're willing to go through a drive through and eat while driving, that means a half hour. Pushing you up to 6 hours and 30 minutes.
  
• I'm going to leave out the possibility of traffic, because trains can get delayed too, though I think you're far more likely to sit still on an interstate than on the tracks, if Amtrak plans this thing correctly.
  

8 hours of reading, wandering the train, able to get up and stretch (and pee) versus 6 and a half hours mostly concentrating on the road? Seems pretty comparable. If improvements to the tracks can cut an hour off the train travel time, that would get them into the same time frame. Then, if you're going to somewhere in the city at the other end you can cut some travel time off of both and it could actually be faster to take the train.

If I was taking the train, I suppose there is some amount of time you need to be at the station prior to departure.  I was estimating, 1/2 hour to check in and secure luggage, etc.  If that was the case, I would give myself another 1/2 hour to get there to avoid traffic etc.  I am also estimating the same amount of time at the destination point to get luggage, and to either arrange for transportation or take public transportation to my final destination.

 

If I was driving to downtown Cleveland, I wouldn't need to start out in downtown Cincinnati, so that is a moot point, no need to add that 1/2 hour each way.  If I'm driving to some other point, it will be less or more than 249 miles, no additional time to get there.  Google maps must be building in these delays you speak of because it is estimating an average speed of 51 mph to travel that 249 miles.

 

All the same reasons I don't fly to Cleveland when I have the opportunity.  It is faster to drive.

 

So, add 1 hour at each end of that trip to get door-to-door to final destination. 8 hours to Cleveland.

I think an hour at each end is a bit much, but if you want to look at it that way then lets compare that fairly.

• Google Maps says it should take 4 hours and 50 minutes to get between Downtown Cincinatti to Downtown Cleveland.
  
• If you want to add an hour to each end of the train to get door-to-door, then we should add a half hour to each end to drive from downtown to whatever location in the city you're heading to. That brings us to 5 hours and 50 minutes.
  
• At 249 miles, either you're going to have to get gas before you leave, or stop for gas on the way. Between getting off the freeway and pumping gas, you're going to have to add at least 10 minutes. That brings us to 6 hours.
  
• In 6 hours, unless your destination on the end of the route is a restaurant, you're going to have to grab something to eat. Unless you're willing to go through a drive through and eat while driving, that means a half hour. Pushing you up to 6 hours and 30 minutes.
  
• I'm going to leave out the possibility of traffic, because trains can get delayed too, though I think you're far more likely to sit still on an interstate than on the tracks, if Amtrak plans this thing correctly.
  

8 hours of reading, wandering the train, able to get up and stretch (and pee) versus 6 and a half hours mostly concentrating on the road? Seems pretty comparable. If improvements to the tracks can cut an hour off the train travel time, that would get them into the same time frame. Then, if you're going to somewhere in the city at the other end you can cut some travel time off of both and it could actually be faster to take the train.

If I was taking the train, I suppose there is some amount of time you need to be at the station prior to departure. I was estimating, 1/2 hour to check in and secure luggage, etc. If that was the case, I would give myself another 1/2 hour to get there to avoid traffic etc. I am also estimating the same amount of time at the destination point to get luggage, and to either arrange for transportation or take public transportation to my final destination.

 

If I was driving to downtown Cleveland, I wouldn't need to start out in downtown Cincinnati, so that is a moot point, no need to add that 1/2 hour each way. If I'm driving to some other point, it will be less or more than 249 miles, no additional time to get there. Google maps must be building in these delays you speak of because it is estimating an average speed of 51 mph to travel that 249 miles.

 

All the same reasons I don't fly to Cleveland when I have the opportunity. It is faster to drive.

 

 

 

No matter how you slice it, there will still be thousands of people that will never consider the train.  At the same time there will be thousands of people that will prefer the train. 

I see this regularly living in Milwaukee...we have the Hiawatha Train that takes you from Westown (downtown) Milwaukee to the Chicago Loop (downtown) in 1 hour 30 min.  Google Maps has the same trip listed as 1 hour 49 min by car.  Assuming there is no traffic in Chicago (which is nearly impossible) it's still faster to take the train.  Plus, you need to spend $10-20 on parking down there. 

Despite the clear advantage the train has over the car in this situation, 9 out of 10 people I ask on the street in Milwaukee will choose to take their car.  It probably has something to do with peoples' familiarity with their cars, but I still find this astonishing.  Still, the Hiawatha has record ridership numbers and just purchased a new fleet of cars.

 

My point is that you can crunch numbers and compare apples to oranges all day, but we really won't know until it's built. 

You are right, comparing Chicago driving with Cincinnati or Cleveland, is apples to oranges.

I don't even think it's about knowing until it's built... because you are right, there will always be people like Dan that will rationalize their choice for and prefer to take cars (and that's fine)... and there will always be people like me that will prefer 100% of the time to take the train.  That's what this is about.  Choice.

I don't even think it's about knowing until it's built... because you are right, there will always be people like Dan that will rationalize their choice for and prefer to take cars (and that's fine)... and there will always be people like me that will prefer 100% of the time to take the train. That's what this is about. Choice.

 

Exactly.  We need this route, so that people will have a choice.  Our biggest problem with transportation in this country is that we choose our primary mode and then obliterate the old mode.  I hope, for the sake of people like Dan, that when we do switch over to rail being the dominant mode we don't let our roadways crumble. 

 

You are right, comparing Chicago driving with Cincinnati or Cleveland, is apples to oranges.

 

Umm...I didn't compare Chicago driving with Cincinnati or Cleveland.

 

Why does everyone continue this pointless argument and ignore the essence of it (BuckeyeB's post)?

All the same reasons I don't fly to Cleveland when I have the opportunity.  It is faster to drive.

 

All that aside, this assumes that you're okay with driving.  Personally, if everything is even moderately close to equal (time, expense, etc), I'd much prefer to fly or take a train, because I hate the hassles of a road trip.  The driving itself wears you out before you even arrive, and you still have the possibility of running into rush hour traffic or get a speeding ticket along the way.  Personally, I'd rather show up at the airport/train station, board, and then arrive in my destination city relaxed.

^ and thats fine if thats what you like.  personally I hate the hassle at the airports, or anywhere that I am not in personal control.

^ and thats fine if thats what you like.

 

If it's fine, then shouldn't we allow our preferred mode of travel to be available (and subsidized) as yours is?

^and at a fraction of the subsidy...

All the same reasons I don't fly to Cleveland when I have the opportunity.  It is faster to drive.

 

All that aside, this assumes that you're okay with driving.  Personally, if everything is even moderately close to equal (time, expense, etc), I'd much prefer to fly or take a train, because I hate the hassles of a road trip.  The driving itself wears you out before you even arrive, and you still have the possibility of running into rush hour traffic or get a speeding ticket along the way.  Personally, I'd rather show up at the airport/train station, board, and then arrive in my destination city relaxed.

 

I currently have that option!  :P  ;D  ;)  and I love it!

 

I can't say enough how convenient and stress free it is.  Well, actually I just did in the Cleveland RTA thread.  LOL

So, add 1 hour at each end of that trip to get door-to-door to final destination.  8 hours to Cleveland.

 

Depends where your door is. 

Don't compare the use of the highway system to bring the things that each of you use every day of your life, to non-freight passenger train service.

Don't compare the use of the highway system to bring the things that each of you use every day of your life, to non-freight passenger train service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(idiom)

Here's the actual press release from the Ohio Association of Regional Councils.....

 

Passenger Rail a Necessity in State Seeking Transportation Edge: Federal Rail Stimulus Money Essential for Ohio's Future

 

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio, Aug. 19 -- Seeing the promise of federal stimulus funds for intercity passenger rail, the Ohio Association of Regional Councils (OARC) today supported the state's efforts to develop a robust passenger rail system to service its residents.

 

John Getchey, president of the Ohio Association of Regional Councils, an organization of 21 regional agencies that represents more than 10 million Ohio residents, said Ohio may find it difficult to connect to a future high speed rail network if it fails to develop substantial passenger rail service in the state within the next few years.

 

"States that border Ohio are in the process of developing intercity passenger rail service. Ohio is already behind," said Getchey, also executive director of the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments located in Youngstown. "As the state pulls together its application for federal stimulus funds, we must understand that if Ohio is to leverage its considerable advantages of location and population density, it must be successful in receiving its share of the $8 billion in federal stimulus funds that have been set aside to fund rail projects."

 

Ohio is the only state in the Midwest that does not operate a state-supported passenger rail system, but that will change if Ohio is successful in receiving millions in stimulus dollars to build the 3C "Quick Start" rail corridor, which would eventually lead to high speed passenger rail. The money would improve rail lines, buy railcars and introduce up to 79 mph service along a 250-mile route that would connect Cincinnati to Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland. About 6 million people live along the route, which is one of the most densely populated rail corridors in the nation.

 

"The increased demand for improved transportation that Ohio faces is daunting," said Mark Policinski, OARC member and executive director of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. "We need to invest in transportation modes we've ignored - like rail - if we are to meet the demand to keep people and freight moving safely and efficiently in the future. The rail stimulus funds present that opportunity."

 

If Ohio receives the funding, passenger trains can be back and running by 2011, and eventually lay the foundation for a nationally planned high speed rail system where trains would travel at speeds up to 110 miles per hour and connect Ohio to Chicago, the eastern seaboard and other destinations.

 

"Right now, we're the hole in the doughnut," said Howard Maier, vice president of OARC and executive director of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency in Cleveland. "Everything around us is moving down the tracks. That's why we're pledging our resources to help the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Ohio Rail Development Commission submit the best possible application that the federal government will receive."

 

Ohio's application is due on October 2. Public meetings will be held across Ohio to gain citizen and stakeholder input into the proposed 3C "Quick Start" service and eventual high speed rail in the 3C corridor. The next step would be to consider expansion of service to include passenger rail and eventually high speed rail service on the Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh route, the Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago route, the Toledo-Columbus route and more. The next stakeholder meeting is set to take place on Thursday, August 20 at 10:00 a.m. at the Fawcett Center in Columbus.

 

OARC's mission is to coordinate voices at a state and federal level; to strengthen the role and authority of regional councils; and to collaborate, coordinate and solve problems in the areas of transportation, environment and land use planning within the framework of state policy.

 

 

                              2009 OARC OfficersJohn Getchey - President

              Eastgate Regional Council of Governments - YoungstownHoward Maier -

                                Vice-President

            Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency - ClevelandRobert Lawler -

                            Secretary/Treasurer

                Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission - ColumbusContact:  John R. Getchey, P.E.

              (330) 779-3800

 

 

SOURCE Ohio Association of Regional Councils

http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news_articledisplay.cfm?article_ID=781610201&newsedition_id=7816102&locid=2&link=news_articledisplay.cfm?article_ID=781610201%26newsedition_id=7816102%26locid=2

 

RAIL ESTIMATED TO COMPETE WITH DRIVING; REGIONAL COUNCILS ENDORSE PLAN

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission said Wednesday that early projections show travel times along a proposed passenger train route from Cleveland to Columbus would be about the same as needed to make the trip in a car.

......

 

Councils Support: Separately, the Ohio Association of Regional Councils on Wednesday went on record in support of state efforts to develop "a robust passenger rail system" to serve residents.

 

The association, an organization of 21 agencies in different parts of the state, said Ohio might find it difficult to connect to a future high-speed rail system if it fails to develop "substantial" passenger service within the next few years.

 

....

 

Three long-distance Amtrak trains currently cross Ohio. During fiscal year 2008, total Ohio station usage was 121,019, compared with 110,325 the previous year.

 

Amtrak's list of boardings and alightings, by city, for FY 2008: Alliance (3,720), Bryan (5,507), Cincinnati (15,067), Cleveland (36,977), Elyria (3,426), Sandusky (5,832), and Toledo (50,490).

Don't compare the use of the highway system to bring the things that each of you use every day of your life, to non-freight passenger train service.

 

Did you think these Interstates just popped up?

 

Yes, let's not compare our fully built out Interstate highway system that cost billions to build, millions more to maintain and still more millions to patrol to this very basic startup of rail passenger service.

 

Let's not care that massive public support for highways distorted the marketplace to the point where privately owned and operated railroads and transit systems were destroyed. Let's also not care that this massive intervention means that government has to support formerly profitable public transportation.

 

Let's also not care that because we destroyed our public transportation, we have to pay to put it all back in place. Let's also not care that most of us now have no choice but to drive, where we want to or not, whether we can afford to or not.

 

Let's not care that our "highways Uber Alles" transportation policy has led to serious problems with energy use, environmental concerns, land use issues, destruction of urban neighborhoods, displacement of those in the path of urban freeways.

 

Let's not care that the decision to build these concrete monsters was made for us by those who benefitted most from its construction: highway contractors, oil companies, auto makers and the like.

 

Let's also not care that we are now on a collision course with massive oil-related disruptions because of our overdependence on our autocentric lifestyle. Let's stick our heads in the sand (or up our wazoo) and keep motoring while the oil runs out. Let's not help ourselves by developing rail and transit so we can get around without a car.

 

You started it!  :-P

All I'm saying is that our highway system has a much more important use than the ability to get to Cleveland and back in one day.  To ignore the fact that it is what moves our economy, and to claim we need rail to move people around is disengenuous.

 

And thank you for agreeing with me, why care?

All I'm saying is that our highway system has a much more important use than the ability to get to Cleveland and back in one day. To ignore the fact that it is what moves our economy, and to claim we need rail to move people around is disengenuous.

 

And thank you for agreeing with me, why care?

 

 

You really think nothing gets shipped on rails!?!

Why does everyone continue this pointless argument and ignore the essence of it (BuckeyeB's post)?

 

Because "half an ounce of sense" doesn't get you very far? 

 

You really think nothing gets shipped on rails!?!

 

Never said that!  We are discussing passenger train service across Ohio.

All I'm saying is that our highway system has a much more important use than the ability to get to Cleveland and back in one day. To ignore the fact that it is what moves our economy, and to claim we need rail to move people around is disengenuous.

 

And thank you for agreeing with me, why care?

 

 

You really think nothing gets shipped on rails!?!

 

Both sides of the argument have points here.  You can't ignore the fact that the US highway system is a key part of our economy.  The ability to move goods quickly by ANY transportation mode is vital to an economy.  You also can't ignore the fact that the US government turned its back on rail when they began building highways.  This was extremely short sighted and we will be paying for it for years to come as we try to strengthen our rail (passenger and freight) network.  In regards to passenger rail specifically, why shouldn't they get the same government support the airlines get?  For trips under 300 miles rail should be our main source of mass transportation and should be supported accordingly.

All I'm saying is that our highway system has a much more important use than the ability to get to Cleveland and back in one day.  To ignore the fact that it is what moves our economy, and to claim we need rail to move people around is disengenuous.

 

Moves our economy? Not without the construction of intermodal ports which link the road system to inland waterways and railroads. After almost a century of competition, in 1989 the J.B. Hunt company inked a deal with BNSF which allowed Hunt trailers to be loaded directly onto rail cars. In that year, 5 railcars moved 150 trailers between California and Chicago. Today, intermodal transport is almost 70% of Hunt's net income (about 3/4 of a million shipments). Shifting 10% of truck volume to intermodal would save more than 1 billion gallons of fuel/year:

 

http://www.aar.org/InCongress/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/Intermodal%20%20Mar%202009.ashx

 

In addition, you have to consider the economic cost of moving freight from rail to road. A study done in the Midwest indicated that between 37% and 71% of the roadways servicing the same regions would experience shorter lifespans if the freight carried by the regional short line railroads were shifted to trucks.

 

The fact is that neither highways nor railroads "move our economy"; neither could sustain the economy without the other. These, and shipping via waterways, are essential to our economic future and as the price of oil rises, intermodal will even be more cost effective.

 

It doesn't take a great leap of faith to see that moving large volumes of people can, similarly, be more efficient if passenger rail were given the same support.

 

The problem, in part, is one of myopia. When I think about my washer that I just bought from Sears and will have delivered next Monday, I don't think or care about how it got to the warehouse (hint: intermodal) nor do I think about the fact that it would cost me a whole lot more if it was only my washer that was shipped to the warehouse and not the washers of my neighbors.

 

But when I think about how I am going to get from Pittsburgh to Cleveland, my concern is not about how to get 1,000 other people there, too. It should be. Finding a more efficient way to move all of us would decrease the proportional cost of my travel.

All I'm saying is that our highway system has a much more important use than the ability to get to Cleveland and back in one day.  To ignore the fact that it is what moves our economy, and to claim we need rail to move people around is disengenuous.

 

You really think nothing gets shipped on rails!?!

 

Just to be fair, a few posts earlier DanB did indicate that he was talking about passenger rail specifically:

 

Don't compare the use of the highway system to bring the things that each of you use every day of your life, to non-freight passenger train service.

Just to be fair, a few posts earlier DanB did indicate that he was talking about passenger rail specifically:

 

Understood. But, one needs to look at the big picture. For example, I think that passenger rail could very well achive the same kinds of synergies with the long haul bus companies and the short haul airlines if the infrastructure existed to support it. But the deal that created Amtrak (as well as much that happened before it) did not leave passenger rail with the same ability to recover from years of government subsidies of road and air.

 

I won't repeat what has already been discussed in great detail in this forum but there was, and is, an important economic niche for HSPR in the grand scheme of passenger transportation in the same way there would evolve an important role for rail in the truck freight market.

And thank you for agreeing with me, why care?

 

You're a funny boy, DanB. :jo:

I don't understand this obsession with drive times.  If drive time was the only consideration of travelers, then not a single one of the corridors in 14 states that did exactly what Ohio is trying to do with the 3-C-- a start-up level of service that takes longer than driving-- would have been successful.  And many of those trains STILL take longer than driving (one example: the Piedmont in North Carolina), yet the ridership keeps going up, often by double digits.  If the model didn't work nobody would be riding these trains, but they are riding them in healthy numbers.   

 

Why are some people treating this 3-C start up service like it is something new, mysterious, and unproven?  It's based on a SUCCESSFUL model that has already been proven in 14 states.  And, it's not the first time this point has been made on UO, either, yet it just doesn't seem to sink in with some.   

Good point, Gildone. We had that exact same discussion today at a strategy meeting in Columbus.

 

I've said it a million times -- speed isn't the most important factor for travelers (it is for business travelers and impatient children who ask the time-worn question from the back seat "Are we there yet?"). For most adults, the most important travel factors are, in order:

 

1. low fares

2. frequency of departures

3. reliability

4. speed

 

The rest are just part of the footnotes.

It's just an opinion.  As long as gas is still available and reasonable, I'm not taking a train to Cleveland.  I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't, but I'm not.  No matter how you slice it, it sounds like 8 hours door to door.  I'm glad ridership keeps going up and up.  I hope the train to Cleveland is full. 

 

I'm not acting like it is something new, mysterious, and unproven, but the successful model you speak of is the east coast, where there is good public transportation available when you get off the train!

Dan, it's not just the east coast locations with good transit, and this point has been made before too.  Oklahoma/Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Raleigh to Charlotte, NC are among the corridors in the 14 other states.

Discussions of general transportation policy issues were moved to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14971.0.html

 

To bring this discussion back to 3C, note that the public input hotline for the 3C Quick Start project (not the upcoming high-speed project) is:

 

Call 1-877-732-4763

 

Also note that public input continues to be gathered at the website:

 

http://3CisME.ohio.gov/

It's just an opinion. As long as gas is still available and reasonable, I'm not taking a train to Cleveland. I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't, but I'm not. No matter how you slice it, it sounds like 8 hours door to door. I'm glad ridership keeps going up and up. I hope the train to Cleveland is full.

 

I'm not acting like it is something new, mysterious, and unproven, but the successful model you speak of is the east coast, where there is good public transportation available when you get off the train!

 

I wonder why pro-driving advocates never factor in the fatigue factor when utilizing trains.  DanB, YOU are driving, meaning that if you (hopefully) arrive at you destination safely, chances are you're only good for a nap or maybe a full night's sleep.  But if you arrive via train, you are relaxed, rested and ready to engage in more activities when you disembark.  Even if it takes somewhat longer by train, you should absolutely figure in the time you are not behind the wheel while, yet, making good time to your destination...

 

... and, p.s., what others are trying to explain to you is that, once the starter 3-C trains get up and running and become a success, we very possibly will get an upgrade to the high-speed East Coast (NEC) type trains you speak of.

Well done story from this morning's CBS News "Sunday Morning".

 

 

Home Sunday Morning  Aug. 23, 2009

Time for America to Get on Fast Track?

Europe and Asia Have Advanced High Speed Rail Systems. Can America Catch Up?

By John Blackstone

 

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/23/sunday/main5260191.shtml?tag=latest

Train plan leaves out Akron, museum

By Matt Leingang • The Associated Press • August 23, 2009

 

COLUMBUS - A plan seeking federal stimulus money to restore passenger train service among Ohio's major cities leaves out Akron and a stop at the U.S. Air Force museum near Dayton, transportation officials said.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090823/NEWS01/908240324/1055/NEWS/Train+plan+leaves+out+Akron++museum

 

Wow, not including the USAF museum was a really stupid move.

 

I can understand Akron, but the USAF museum would have been a large draw for the train, especially since it's free (the museum, that is). Also would have drawn a lot of suburban families to the line, a huge plus for getting future generations used to rail. Oh well.

After seeing the intermediate stops being considered

 

A few intermediate stops are likely. Sites still under consideration for startup service include Berea, Galion, northern Columbus, Springfield, Middletown, Hamilton and northern Cincinnati, possibly Sharonville.

 

...no, I can't understand leaving Akron out.  These are five possible stops between Cincy & Dayton.  This starts to become a commuter service or some metro rail service vs a statewide regional rail thing.

 

 

OK, first let me state my general unfamiliarity with the Dayton area - have never lived there or visited much.  Now, it would seem to me that a stop near WPAFB would be a traffic generator for 3-C, not only for tourists visiting the USAF museum, but mainly because WPAFB houses lots of young airmen and families.  First, they are on relatively tight budgets for travel and may not have personal vehicles, so that would seem to make for good customers for rail service.  Secondly, they have families who visit, and friends (college-aged, budgets, +/- cars) that also probably visit.  I am unfamiliar with the 3-C routing through Dayton, or the distance between the Dayton station and WPAFB, so maybe I'm off base in my assumptions...

After seeing the intermediate stops being considered

 

A few intermediate stops are likely. Sites still under consideration for startup service include Berea, Galion, northern Columbus, Springfield, Middletown, Hamilton and northern Cincinnati, possibly Sharonville.

 

...no, I can't understand leaving Akron out.  These are five possible stops between Cincy & Dayton.  This starts to become a commuter service or some metro rail service vs a statewide regional rail thing.

 

 

 

Almost all European and Asian systems are locals, with express service overlays. It's all in the traffic control and station switching. No, you can't have the train blow through a local station at 350 KPH, but it doesn't have to stop either. On the ICE in Germany, we blew through plenty of stations on our way from Hamburg to Frankfurt.

You may find the following of interest:

 

Railroads pay more than half a billion dollars per year in property taxes on the 140,000 miles of rail routes (rights of way) they own across America. That's nearly $3,600 per route mile. The traditional 3-C Corridor route through Galion and Dayton is 260 miles. That means the freight railroads pay about $1 million per year in property taxes on their 3-C Corridor tracks and the land on which they sit.

________________

 

Railroads also invest $20 billion per year on infrastructure and equipment, financed through private equity markets, not through government held trust funds as highways, waterways and airports do. The railroads finance their equipment investments by using their rights of way as collateral, thus even their rolling stock is financially tied to their rights of way.

 

At current interest rates, the railroads spend $34.5 billion per year in interest payments and principal on their capital improvements. That's about $246,000 per route mile. For the 3-C Corridor, on a per-mileage basis, the railroads spend $64,071,429 per year on its capital improvements, $16,714,286 of which is for interest.

_____________________

 

Thus, if the 3-C Corridor railroad infrastructure was owned by the government rather than by private enterprise, it would not be responsible for paying nearly $18 million per year in interest and property taxes on that 3-C Corridor infrastructure.

Note that the Associated Press story did not say any stop has been permanently ruled out.... Wright Patterson AFB included.  Wright-Patt could very well become either a year-round or seasonal stop as service is expanded.  Remember, the 3C start-up is just that....a start.

Note that the Associated Press story did not say any stop has been permanently ruled out.... Wright Patterson AFB included.  Wright-Patt could very well become either a year-round or seasonal stop as service is expanded.  Remember, the 3C start-up is just that....a start.

 

Exactly. Let's not get too excited just yet.

A press release from Granholm the Guv....

 

http://www.michigan.gov:80/gov/0,1607,7-168-23442-220465--,00.html

 

Granholm Administration, Federal Leaders Working to Bring High-Speed Rail to Michigan

Contact:  Liz Boyd 517-335-6397

 

August 24, 2009

$800 million in initial Recovery funds sought; will help create jobs

 

LANSING - Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today announced that the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is seeking hundreds of millions of federal dollars to help bring high-speed rail service to the Amtrak Wolverine Line between Pontiac, Detroit and Chicago.  If awarded by the federal government, the funds, made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), would be used over the next two years on "shovel ready" improvements needed to bring high-speed rail to Michigan.

 

If today's grant requests are approved, they could create up to 10,000 jobs in Michigan.

 

"We are committed to bringing high-speed rail service to Michigan because of the benefit it will have for citizens," Granholm said.  "High speed rail will enhance our transportation system, create jobs and spur economic development, and help protect our environment."

 

Specifically, Michigan is applying for up to $800 million for:

 

-  track and train control improvements to accommodate improvements in capacity, speed and safety;

 

-  track and train control capital preventive maintenance, corridor acquisition, and minor operational improvements;

 

-  station work, including new station construction, renovation and rehabilitation.

 

"We envision high-speed rail service that is fast, frequent, reliable, safe and secure, and that uses modern equipment that makes arriving and departing convenient," Granholm said.  "We want to shorten the time it takes to travel from Detroit to Chicago to four hours and increase the frequency of that trip to nine times a day."

 

Granholm noted the improvements offer benefits to communities, including increased economic development around stations, a more robust connection between colleges and universities, and transportation for tourists to the Henry Ford complex.

 

The Recovery Act provides $8 billion in competitive grants to support high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects across the country.  Today's applications are the first of three expected rounds of applications for the project.  Recovery Act funding will be used to invest in critical elements of the project - including track improvements, station upgrades, signal and grade crossing improvements, and enhanced technology.

 

Joining the governor for the high-speed rail announcement were Congressmen John Dingell and Mark Schauer, members of the Michigan Legislature, MDOT Director Kirk Steudle, and local transportation leaders.  The governor and many in the group rode the Amtrak Wolverine from Dearborn to Jackson, which is part of the corridor that would be used for the high-speed project.

 

"Expanding passenger rail service relieves traffic congestion, reduces air-pollutant emissions, in addition to the economic benefits of creating jobs, expanding tourism, and increasing local investment," said Steudle.

 

Today's grant submissions are just the latest step in the state's quest to bring high-speed rail to Michigan.

         

The Michigan Department of Transportation has worked closely with the freight railroads in recent years to develop the Wolverine corridor.  Trains currently operate at speeds up to 95 mph between Kalamazoo and Niles and are expected to increase to 110 mph by the end of 2009.  Recovery Act funding would allow expansion of better train technology and increased train speeds east of Kalamazoo, while Amtrak expands the technology and increases train speeds west to Porter, Indiana., an important link on the trip to and from Chicago and cities beyond.

 

In July, Governor Granholm signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) at the Midwest High-Speed Rail Summit.  The MOU establishes a partnership among eight states to work cooperatively to fund the Midwest Corridor, a regional high-speed rail plan that will connect cities throughout the region with frequent, reliable high-speed and conventional intercity rail service.  The initiative, which includes a Michigan Detroit-Pontiac-Chicago line, is modeled after the larger vision of President Barack Obama and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to create a nationwide rail network.

 

According to the American Association of Railroads, every dollar spent on investments in our nation's railroads - tracks, equipment, locomotives, bridges - yields $3 in economic output.

 

A decision by the Federal Railroad Administration on the first round of grant applications is expected later this fall.  Once the applications are submitted, they will be available online at www.michigan.gov/mdot.

 

# # #

Appropriate........  ;)

Thanks MTS...already took care of it.

An oldie but a goody that was missed by many of us....

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2009/05/29/martin_gottlieb_train_depot_is.html

 

Martin Gottlieb: Train depot issue offers break from the bleak

By Martin Gottlieb | Friday, May 29, 2009, 11:43 AM

 

There’s something a little odd, isn’t there, about the fact that, in these times of the worst economy in memory, Dayton is starting to argue about where to put two stations in a publicly funded passenger rail system that doesn’t exist yet, hasn’t been fully designed and hasn’t been funded.

 

Jobs disappear left and right. Governments cut back on services. Charities go begging, so to speak. And yet we’re apparently getting a new train system from Cincinnati to Cleveland, though we have managed to live without one these past four decades.

 

 

.....In time, perhaps, competition for the stations will take unfortunate turns. For now though, best to embrace that oddity in these times: an actual upside.

Editorial:

Trains can pick up speed with time

By the Dayton Daily News | Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 05:41 PM

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2009/08/25/editoriall_trains_can_pick_up.html

 

The passenger rail system that Gov. Ted Strickland wants for Ohio is not a high-speed system. Building an expensive high-speed system isn’t politically practical, given the widespread skepticism about how many people would actually ride trains.

 

Train advocates have been pushing for a foot-in-the-door system. The trains would have top speeds of about 79 miles per hour. This approach has worked elsewhere, producing political support for investing in a better system.

 

A second generation of trains could go 110 mph.

 

...........

I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with this gradualist approach, actually.  Starting at 79 MPH and working up to 110 seems to be setting our sights awfully low when other countries are pushing 220 (and having good ridership on those trains by doing so).  The 220 MPH train may be more expensive to put in, but it would almost certainly get more riders because it would in fact save time over many middle-distance car trips.

 

I still think local rail, not intercity rail, is the more important first step.  However, when I do picture intercity rail, I picture real, modern, 21st-century high speed lines.  Port Columbus to Hopkins in an hour.