Ohio can do this project for $400 million by going with rebuilt or leased trains, making Sharonville the temporary southern terminus until they get the funding to go to Cincinnati Union Terminal and scaling back on a train maintenance and inspection facility in Cleveland.

 

This is stupid beyond belief.  Cincinnati is Ohio's largest metropolitan region, and outside of Columbus, is virtually the only place with a strong economy.  How in the HELL does it make sense to stop the line at Sharonville?!  I know things have to be cut to make this work, but even a full $800M for the 3C would have given us a half-ass project for the 21st Century.

 

I understand we have to work our way there, but damn, we're proposing lame ass train depots as stations for major metropolitan areas (sans Cleveland of course) running trains at speeds that won't compete with car travel time, and offering the cheapest station locations that will offer virtually no benefit to riders looking to go car-free on their trip...once again, not Cleveland of course.

I fully agree that ending the line in Sharonville would be stupid.  And I also agree that the service currently proposed will be marginally competitive at best.  But you can't blame Cleveland for Cincinnati having all those groups who actively oppose rail.  Hopefully this project is a turning point in that battle.  And I had thought that Cleveland was also getting lame-ass depots.  We just had a design competition for a new station downtown, but I thought that was... hypothetical.

I agree the Sharonville stop is absurd, but it is the only realistic end-of-the-line at the moment. Adding another main through Queensgate would be very expensive, although there are talks of using the former CH&D alignment on the west side of Mill Creek through Lower Price Hill and Northside as a way of bypassing this. The line north of the Western Hills Viaduct to the Johnson-Doppler Lumber facility was abandoned in December 2003 when the last train ran, and the tracks north of Kroger's was disused shortly thereafter. The line was downgraded in 1970 when the cut-off at Winton Place was built, and the line north of the lumber yard to the Winton Place cut-off was abandoned and removed sometime after that. It would require rebuilding the CH&D line from its terminus at the CSX Cinci Jct., and ROW purchases through Northside. And a building was built on the ROW, so that'd have to be removed.

Getting to Cincinnati Union Terminal (or anywhere near downtown) will cost at least $100 million.

 

You're probably too young to remember, but when the Interstate highway system was being built, highways would often end in the middle of fields or forests, and you'd have to get off and drive on two-lane roads for the rest of your trip. My father remembers driving the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the 1940s, which ended at the Ohio state line. My father asked the toll booth operater at the state line when the Ohio Turnpike would be built. The toll booth operator just laughed.

 

Few transportation projects get built in their entirety right off the bat. There is never enough money, even for the interstate highway system -- the largest public works project in world history.

Lets say they do put the Cincinnati stop at Lunken though. Couldn't that be an impetus to the Eastern Corridor project? Connect the 3C stop out at Lunken to downtown at the Riverfront Transit Center via light rail or DMU's?

^ Maybe :)

 

I remember various interstates that had stubs for years. Interstate 68, Interstate 64, Interstate 265 (still there...), and we still have some that exist, such as OH 126 and US 50F in Cincinnati. I'm looking at the cincyrails Yahoo Group (are you a member?) and two people basically just wrote in and said, "Use the damn Union Terminal! That's what it is there for!" I agree, but the $100 million cost is prohibitive right now.

 

--

 

For anyone that wants to trace the old CH&D, start here and work your way through the west side of Mill Creek, through the Spring Grove Cemetery and Northside.

Getting to Cincinnati Union Terminal (or anywhere near downtown) will cost at least $100 million.

 

You're probably too young to remember, but when the Interstate highway system was being built, highways would often end in the middle of fields or forests, and you'd have to get off and drive on two-lane roads for the rest of your trip. My father remembers driving the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the 1940s, which ended at the Ohio state line. My father asked the toll booth operater at the state line when the Ohio Turnpike would be built. The toll booth operator just laughed.

 

Few transportation projects get built in their entirety right off the bat. There is never enough money, even for the interstate highway system -- the largest public works project in world history.

 

So you're saying that Cincinnati is going to be left off the HSR map just like Hamilton, OH was left off the interstate map for so long?

 

$100M is a lot of money, but I would think that money could be made up else where by cutting additional stops/stations.  You're the expert on this not me, but I think you're going to see a major backlash from Cincinnati for this one.  May end up screwing yourself long-term when you need the votes to approve more money to actually make this thing high-speed.

 

But you can't blame Cleveland for Cincinnati having all those groups who actively oppose rail.  Hopefully this project is a turning point in that battle.

 

There are anti-rail groups everywhere...even in cities that actually have rail systems.  With that said, all of these anti-rail groups you speak of (which is really just one) had nothing to do with the choice to not to extend to Cincinnati.  The planners of the 3-C Corridor decided that it was not worth the money to extend into Cincinnati's center city...and like I said, I think that's something that will cost them long-term.

Getting to Cincinnati Union Terminal (or anywhere near downtown) will cost at least $100 million.

 

You're probably too young to remember, but when the Interstate highway system was being built, highways would often end in the middle of fields or forests, and you'd have to get off and drive on two-lane roads for the rest of your trip. My father remembers driving the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the 1940s, which ended at the Ohio state line. My father asked the toll booth operater at the state line when the Ohio Turnpike would be built. The toll booth operator just laughed.

 

Few transportation projects get built in their entirety right off the bat. There is never enough money, even for the interstate highway system -- the largest public works project in world history.

 

70.9 million for the 4th main alone

Rando, what I meant is that Cincy could already have local rail by now, if there hadn't been sufficient political oppostion to prevent it.  When I visit friends there, we usually avoid discussion of politics or rail because we're simply too far apart on those issues.

 

By way of analogy, if 3C ended at West 150th in Cleveland, we'd be OK because that would still be a direct link to existing local rail, connecting you with downtown and the east side.  For Cincinnati, 3C itself has to go downtown or you're not getting downtown.  As others have suggested, this issue may light a fire to get local rail built there.

 

And no... other than the head of our local transit agency, there are no anti-rail activists of note in Cleveland.  Sure there are individuals here with that mindset, and they may occasionally block specific rail expansions on a NIMBY theory, but there is no organized opposition to the base concept of building local rail.

 

I still agree with your main points, that Cincinnati shouldn't be screwed like this, and that there seem to be several extraneous service points in the current plan (including the west side of Cleveland).

If it ended at Sharonville, I can see Metro adding a direct bus route from the line to downtown.

Stopping in Sharonville is just conjecture at this point, right?  If not, that's a HUGE mistake.  I wish Cincinnati had an existing rail system that could tie in up there, but the fact that it doesn't makes extending to downtown that much more important for the viability of the system overall.

^In my eyes the defeats the point. Ride a four hair train ride from Cleveland to Sharonville only to get on a bus and sit in Cincinnati highway traffic. No matter what time of day it is, except late at night, I-75 always has some problem and over then next few years as they expand the highway, its only going to get worse.

By way of analogy, if 3C ended at West 150th in Cleveland, we'd be OK because that would still be a direct link to existing local rail, connecting you with downtown and the east side.  For Cincinnati, 3C itself has to go downtown or you're not getting downtown.

 

Sounds like we have a solution then. Run the 2-C Corridor to downtown Cincinnati and stop the Cleveland service out by West 150th and let passengers transfer to a local train to get to their final destination.

Receiving the money is good news, however I agree that from an uninformed, political point of view the Cincinnati issue is a mess. Despite the rational explanations, I don't see the general public in Cincinnati buying it. They are just going to see this as another subway or Riverfront Transit Center.

 

This will further embed the city-state mentality into Cincinnatians.  People in Cincinnati already feel distant from the rest of the state and in some cases don't even want to be associated with the rest of the state.  Prior to Governor Strickland, no one from the statehouse even gave Cincinnati the time of day.  And now as soon as we have to cut back on the plan guess who gets cut...Cincinnati.

 

If you want to grow political support for a statewide issue that is certain to come up again in future years as we try to improve the functionality of this thing, then you better not ignore Cincinnati and SW Ohio.

I don't think it is necessarily been cut out, but in order to get this service up and running per the stimulus money demands, a stop at Sharonville is the best bet to get that accomplished. Any other plan, involving the CH&D trackage, a fourth main through Queensgate, the usage of the Riverfront Transit Center or the modification of the Oasis line, will require much more extensive study and will require more money than is being appropriated right now. In addition, Cincinnati doesn't even have a plan on where the train will even stop at, which needs to be decided very soon.

But isn't Lunken Airport the currently planned terminus anyway?  I agree it's dumb, but it's much better than Sharonville.  The whole reason for choosing the east side route was to avoid the already bad rail congestion in the Mill Creek Valley.  A 4th main through the valley is already being studied as a separate project, but that's years away at best.  Bringing the old CH&D alignment back into service would be great, though I bet there'd be a lot of opposition to it in Northside.  There's only two buildings on the old right-of-way as far as I can tell, one is the self-storage place on Vandalia Avenue, and the other is a now abandoned industrial building on Powers Street next to I-74.  The highway is a bit of an issue too, as there's no underpass for the railroad.  CAGIS shows one, but since that stretch of I-74 was built in 1973, I suspect the CAGIS map was drawn based on plan drawings of the highway, but the bridge was never built since the railroad was already abandoned.

 

Anyway, I think the Lunken station is the best we can hope for right now.  There's a lot of stupid NIMBY opposition to bringing the station to the Boathouse.  Even if there wasn't, the cost to bring the tracks from Fairfax to the Boathouse up to even 45 mph condition is huge compared to the rest of the Oasis (former PRR Richmond Division) line.

Here is a High Speed Rail site of AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)

 

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/default.aspx

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-cleveland-columbus

 

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/100128_1400-HSRAwards-Summary_FRA%20Revisions.pdf

 

Sounds like we have a solution then. Run the 2-C Corridor to downtown Cincinnati and stop the Cleveland service out by West 150th and let passengers transfer to a local train to get to their final destination.

 

No, certainly not. Just as Downtown Cincy should not be slighted, nor should CLE be. The beauty of rail, compared to aviation, is that it offers city center to city center service, whereas airports are necessarily away from city centers. The line should serve all four downtowns (CCDC) or as close as possible (if that is the case with LUK for Cincy).

 

...there seem to be several extraneous service points in the current plan (including the west side of Cleveland).

 

The CLE station at W. 150 St. is not extraneous as it serves CLE Hopkins, the busiest airport in the state and the neighborhood around W 150-Puritas, with hotels and parking in its own right. For Cleveland, parking downtown is less convenient than outside of downtown and why add additional congestion downtown if a passenger is not originating or bound for it, but is in Cleveland (outside of Downtown)? I find the W 150 St. station similar to Metro-North's station at 125 St. Trains stop at BOTH 125th St. and Grand Central and 125 is a busy station.

 

We should be seeking funding sources (e.g., grants, foundations, corporate gifts) to make 3C a fully-functional and successful system that won't fail as it will include key station locations (a good location in Cincy and CLE W. 150 St. and Downtown CLE) and will have sufficient frequency (that is, not cutting 25-33% of the service before the line even opens. The greater the frequency, the more likely people will see and consider 3C as a useful and friendly option). Greater frequency will the beget even greater frequency.

If you would like to familiarize yourself with the projected 3C capital costs and where they are, see pages 9-11 at:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Documents/Ohio%20State%20Rail%20Plan%20Appendices.pdf

 

Shortening the route to the Puritas rapid station from downtown Cleveland doesn't save any money. The Downtown Cleveland station improvement funds will only shift to a West Park Yard facility to accommodate trains laying over between runs.

 

My concern, and those expressed at the public hearing in Cincinnati, was that Lunken Field is not a convenient location. Furthermore, it will involve spending $32.5 million. That's a lot of money for a temporary route. I received calls from SW Ohio media and citizens this morning wondering why money should be spent on going to Lunken when the same money has to be spent again (and then some) to go to CUT. Ironically, travelers bound for downtown, UC, Xavier, etc. will have to switch to a bus regardless of whether the Cincinnati station is at Sharonville, Lunken or CUT. Metro already has existing bus routes from each of those three locations to downtown.

 

If you would like to learn more about the funding application to develop the plan for CUT access, see:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-02.pdf

 

For All Aboard Ohio, I produced a cursory review of what might be needed to reach CUT. It is in the last few pages of a letter available at:

 

http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/AllAboardOhio_full%203C%20letter%20of%20support%20100209.pdf

 

I'm interested to hear your ideas of how we can get the start-up cost down to $400 million without sacrificing operational reliability or speed.

^Cagis was mapped, not drawn based upon plans. I-74 was built with the bridge as you suspected

see ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D08/HAM-75-PID82282/Existing_Plans/1969_Ped_Bridge_with_IR74_Mainline/const002.tif

(This link will die sometime)

The bridge was HAM-74-18.94, and I suppose it was removed sometime after CAGIS was mapped.

 

 

The general gist of what is being said by just about everyone is that this plan seems to be value engineering out its effectiveness.  We're not talking about high-speed rail, we're talking 79mph top speeds with an average much slower than that.  We're not talking about world class train stations in our major city centers, we're talking about train depots wherever they can be located the cheapest.  We're not talking about new rolling stock with modern amenities, we're talking about refurbished old rolling stock.

 

The whole point of this is to get a system in place and eventually upgrade to mid-speed (110mph) service down the road.  The whole thing has been sold as high-speed to the public with pictures of modern European style trains...instead people will be getting the same tired service they've been getting from Amtrak and will ask themselves what's the point.

 

I honestly feel this planning process is screwing itself long-term for when we'll need to come back to the voters and get support for the billion-plus dollars we'll need to actually make this service somewhat modern.

Ohio isn't doing anything differently than other states did. They all started out modestly. I'll start posting pictures to show how things evolved in those states. Hopefully it will calm some fears that have been expressed.

Ohio rail routes win $600 million in federal funds!

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — January 28, 2010

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

For All Aboard Ohio, today’s announcement by state and federal officials has been 36 years in the making. The nonprofit association which promotes passenger rail and public transportation improvements has long been urging the restoration of passenger train service in Ohio’s most populous travel corridor as a centerpiece of an interconnected, statewide transit system. But as its name suggests, the 3C “Quick Start” passenger rail plan is but a starting point for additional improvements, more rail routes and stations.

 

With $400 million from the Federal Railroad Administration, passenger rail between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati can now become a reality. Use of that funding to improve tracks, grade crossing safety and passenger rail facilities will likely require approval by the State Controlling Board. With that, Ohio will be able to catch up to competing states like North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York. They have been investing state dollars into rail passenger projects that had modest beginnings but evolved over time.

 

Not to be ignored is $204 million in federal funding awarded to Indiana and Illinois that will reduce rail traffic congestion on the busy Porter, Indiana – Chicago section of the 340-mile Cleveland – Toledo – Chicago corridor. The 40-mile Porter – Chicago segment sees nearly 100 trains per day, including 12 daily Amtrak passenger trains to/from Detroit and other Michigan cities, plus four daily Amtrak trains to/from Cleveland, Elyria, Sandusky, Toledo and Bryan. That money will pay for building longer passing sidings and building a “flyover” bridge to separate an at-grade intersection of two major railroad corridors at Englewood. Those will make Northern Ohio’s existing passenger rail services faster and more reliable, and could improve chances for adding new daytime trains.

 

“This is a time for celebration,” said All Aboard Ohio President Bill Hutchison, who has been active with the association since it began in 1974. “But we also recognize there is a lot of work left to do. We are not going to let this opportunity to catch up with our neighboring states slip by.”

 

Although Ohio originally sought $564 million from the federal government, All Aboard Ohio believes $400 million is sufficient to provide an attractive start-up 3C passenger rail service. Ohio Department of Transportation and Ohio Rail Development Commission officials will begin negotiating with freight railroads, prospective passenger rail operators, train equipment companies, municipalities, transit agencies and others to develop the final operating plan.

 

To save money, All Aboard Ohio encourages ODOT/ORDC to obtain and rebuild in Ohio second-hand rail cars and locomotives to dramatically reduce a projected $175 million equipment cost. If North Carolina DOT’s experience in rebuilding trains into like-new condition is any indication, Ohio could slash its equipment costs to perhaps less than $50 million.

 

Another area of possible savings could include scaling back a proposed $55 million train maintenance and inspection facility at Cleveland and instead seek permission to use an underutilized railroad maintenance facility in Greater Cleveland. The facility can also be used for Cleveland – Toledo – Chicago trains, plus future route extensions into Ohio from Buffalo via Erie and from Pittsburgh via Youngstown to connect with the 3C and CTC corridors.

 

Yet another possible savings could come from making Sharonville the temporary southern terminus for 3C trains until plans and funding are in hand to extend trains to Cincinnati Union Terminal. The original proposal was to terminate trains at Lunken Field which was not the favored Cincinnati terminus based on public input given at hearings last year. Instead, Union Terminal was favored but cannot be immediately afforded. Making Sharonville the temporary southern terminus could save about $30 million.

 

Those changes would allow ODOT/ORDC to make right-of-way improvements (added passing tracks, grade-crossing safety improvements, smoother tracks) and provide attractive station facilities as originally planned. All Aboard Ohio considers those as essential because right-of-way improvements will allow trains to stay on time and enable faster service shortly after trains settle into operating patterns. Attractive station facilities built in convenient locations should be kept in the plan as they will be stronger magnets for economic development.

 

ODOT/ORDC’s plan will also enable convenient train-to-transit linkages. For example, the Southwest Cleveland station will be built into the Puritas Rapid station which itself is undergoing replacement. That will enable easy access to Hopkins Airport’s main terminal, downtown/Tower City Center, University Circle and Shaker Heights. Another example is that Columbus’ station is proposed to be at the convention center. Right outside its front door are frequent High Street buses to the State House, German Village, Short North and The Ohio State University. Downtown Dayton’s proposed Main Street Station would be accessible to numerous bus routes to all parts of the city. Several Metro bus routes serve Sharonville, including express buses to downtown Cincinnati.

 

“Linking local public transit, regional buses and intercity passenger trains will create a seamless, affordable, energy efficient and statewide public transportation system,” said All Aboard Ohio Executive Director Ken Prendergast. “This is about responding to public demand for a lower-mileage lifestyle that offers vibrant, walkable town centers rebuilt around train stations and linked to stabilized transit systems. We can and must do these things if Ohio is to prosper and compete for jobs and residents in the 21st century.”

 

END

Help me because I want to understand... if you took the train to Cleveland from elsewhere in the state, why would your destination be Cleveland's airport?  Didn't you just get here? 

 

And Puritas/W150th is a suburban lite-industrial area.  It really doesn't have "destination" qualities, nor does anything nearby.  Also, serving that area =/= serving the airport.  And if someone is originating their trip from that area, it's hardly a stretch to ask them to go downtown to catch 3C, since there's already a direct rail link that's very fast.  No congestion involved. 

 

If this is to be "high speed" by any stretch of the imagination, why would we want to be measuring our station intervals in city blocks?  And I still don't get why it would ever make stops in exurbs or isolated farm towns.  If the goal is speed between the 3Cs, let's keep our eye on the ball and put every effort toward achieving speed between the 3Cs.  Cut out the fat.

 

I don't expect that we could save enough money that way to pay for extending it into downtown Cincy, but I do expect that we could cut some time off our ETAs to Sharonville.

^Cagis was mapped, not drawn based upon plans. I-74 was built with the bridge as you suspected

see ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D08/HAM-75-PID82282/Existing_Plans/1969_Ped_Bridge_with_IR74_Mainline/const002.tif

(This link will die sometime)

The bridge was HAM-74-18.94, and I suppose it was removed sometime after CAGIS was mapped.

 

Can you really be sure though?  I know CAGIS was mapped, but I can't find any evidence that the bridge ever existed except in CAGIS.  A Google Earth aerial from 1994, which predates the CAGIS data I have, doesn't show any bridge either.  Whatever the story, it's not there now, which is unfortunate. 

If you would like to familiarize yourself with the projected 3C capital costs and where they are, see pages 9-11 at:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Documents/Ohio%20State%20Rail%20Plan%20Appendices.pdf

 

So according to this, the 3-C Corridor has effectively been made the 2-CS Corridor.  ZERO money will be invested in Cincinnati itself, and if Sharonville were a quarter of a mile to the north, ZERO money would be invested in Hamilton County.

 

With that said, I see lots of improvements being made in Cleveland that are similar to the improvements needed to run the line to Cincinnati Union Terminal.  A problem I have had from the beginning is that this has primarily been planned in Cleveland and Columbus with very little engagement in Cincinnati.  The effort to get a East End/Boathouse area station was a lazy attempt that didn't seem to be thought out or discussed with Cincinnatians prior to its proposal.  The Luken Airport station location also seemed to be a lazy attempt to try to minimize any investments in metro Cincinnati by avoiding what is the most obvious station location - Cincinnati Union Terminal.

 

I don't want Cleveland to have its service cut, but I just want it to be noted that no one would suggest that either...would you KJP?  Why is the whole premise being discussed here that one day it will be an added benefit to add Cincinnati into the system once we have money.  Why not add Cleveland in later? Why not skip Dayton?

 

Like I said, the plan has reeked of Cleveland interests from day one, and I had a suspicion this would happen.  In the very documents you provided KJP, it says that utility work for a CUT station wouldn't even be completed until 2012 at the earliest...and we all know that these studies/projects don't move that swiftly.  Any who is to say that once Ohio does have money that the Cleveland interests won't again step up and say that we should then use the money to improve speed and service along the existing 2-CS Corridor, and say to hell with a CUT station.

It weird to me as well..maybe some assets were mapped into CAGIS by other methods, I don't know.

 

But, it looks like I-71 was built with the RR in mind, so it was built with enough approach embankment already to provide enough clearance for a bridge structure

Rando you're making several good points.  In Cleveland's defense I would note that it's right between NYC and Chicago, a busier corridor than any which passes through Cincinnati.  I must agree with you about Dayton.  If we're having such difficulty paying for the 3C aspect and the high speed aspect... why are we so intent on keeping the Dayton aspect, which has nothing to do with the actual purpose of the project?

EDIT

Rando you're making several good points.  In Cleveland's defense I would note that it's right between NYC and Chicago, a busier corridor than any which passes through Cincinnati.  I must agree with you about Dayton.

 

I understand that there are merits to Cleveland, but those merits aren't that much greater than Cincinnati's.  Cincinnati is right in between Washington D.C. and Chicago.  Cincinnati is also the Midwest gateway to the Southeast.  And Cincinnati's MSA is basically identical to Cleveland's...and according to recent estimates actually larger.

 

I'm with you though 327, it just doesn't make sense to turn this into the 2-CS Corridor and miss out on one of the state's biggest markets.

Here's how it is:

 

We need $70.9 million for the 4th main to CUT.

Boathouse is out for political reasons and NIMBYism.

Nobody wants Lunken and it will cost $30 million.

Sharonville will have a stop anyways.

 

 

From the TRAC application for the 4th main:

 

"The 2030 OKI Long Range Plan includes $37.4 million to construct an additional rail main line between Queensgate and Evendale in the Cincinnati area. This area would encompass the necessary improvements to both Gest Street and Queensgate Terminal."

 

"The OKI plan also includes $17.3 million for the development of high-speed, inter-city passenger service on the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland (3C) Corridor. In addition, a new high speed passenger rail line connecting Cincinnati with Chicago is being considered as part of a Midwest Regional Rail Initiative."

 

So you have-

 

$37.4 million from OKI for 4th Main

$17.3 million from OKI for 3C

$30 million from not going to Lunken

$1 million from the TRAC application

 

In total that is $85.7 million to get to CUT out of the $100 million or so needed. 

 

Sell the naming rights for $15 million, problem sovled.

This does seem to be a bit of Cleveland big-timing, though one would expect that in the current partisan atmosphere. However, if we have limited money we've gotta cut somewhere. I think the planners need to get a sense of if this is going to be a one-time investment or a true sea-change. If it has to be at Sharonville for a year or two to get the thing going, I'm okay with that, but if there isn't any real hope for future investment from state or feds then I think it has to go straight to DT Cincy (I'm not really all that enthused by CUT, it's a museum now not a serious passenger train station). I still think a mid-town stop in Norwood would be more useful than going all the way to Lunken (if you need lay over track in the Little Miami Valley that's fine, but an investment in an actual station would be better in the Norwood trough).

Rando you're making several good points.  In Cleveland's defense I would note that it's right between NYC and Chicago, a busier corridor than any which passes through Cincinnati.  I must agree with you about Dayton.

 

I understand that there are merits to Cleveland, but those merits aren't that much greater than Cincinnati's.  Cincinnati is right in between Washington D.C. and Chicago.  Cincinnati is also the Midwest gateway to the Southeast.  And Cincinnati's MSA is basically identical to Cleveland's...and according to recent estimates actually larger.

 

I'm with you though 327, it just doesn't make sense to turn this into the 2-CS Corridor and miss out on one of the state's biggest markets.

 

I think the problem is you're stuck thinking the options are - given the $400 million budget - (1) have the rail line end "close" to downtown Cincinnati and end in downtown Cleveland or (2) have the rail line end in downtown Cincinnati or "close" to downtown Cleveland.

 

Those aren't the choices.

 

The choices are (1) have the rail line end "close" to downtown Cincinnati and end in downtown Cleveland or (2) have the rail line end in downtown Cincinnati and somewhere near Columbus leaving all of Northern Ohio out.

 

The cost of extending to Cincinnati is the issue - not a choice between the two cities.

Take a look at Florida's numbers:

 

http://dscriber.com/plugins/content/external_links/frameset.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Frail_florida.pdf

 

It would be interesting to see how they came up with the funding numbers. Milwaukee-Madison corridor gets $810 million? Florida 1.25 billion?

The cost of extending to Cincinnati is the issue - not a choice between the two cities.

 

This proves my point.  From the beginning this project has been viewed as being based out of Cleveland and working its way from there.  Cincinnati is merely seen as an extension.  With that said, I think thomasbw has a good idea for how to make the CUT connection happen now-ish:

 

Here's how it is:

 

We need $70.9 million for the 4th main to CUT.

Boathouse is out for political reasons and NIMBYism.

Nobody wants Lunken and it will cost $30 million.

Sharonville will have a stop anyways.

 

 

From the TRAC application for the 4th main:

 

"The 2030 OKI Long Range Plan includes $37.4 million to construct an additional rail main line between Queensgate and Evendale in the Cincinnati area. This area would encompass the necessary improvements to both Gest Street and Queensgate Terminal."

 

"The OKI plan also includes $17.3 million for the development of high-speed, inter-city passenger service on the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland (3C) Corridor. In addition, a new high speed passenger rail line connecting Cincinnati with Chicago is being considered as part of a Midwest Regional Rail Initiative."

 

So you have-

 

$37.4 million from OKI for 4th Main

$17.3 million from OKI for 3C

$30 million from not going to Lunken

$1 million from the TRAC application

 

In total that is $85.7 million to get to CUT out of the $100 million or so needed. 

 

Sell the naming rights for $15 million, problem solved.

I just returned from the annoucement at the Statehouse--it is a very good day to be an Ohioan.

Personally, I think that if you're not going to go all the way to Cincinnati's downtown, the line should stop in Dayton, not Sharonville, and use the rest of the money somewhere else along the line.  If I have to drive all the out to Sharonville to catch a train, I might as well drive to Dayton.  This is starting to sound more and more like Cincy isn't going to be connected, unfortunately.

The cost of extending to Cincinnati is the issue - not a choice between the two cities.

 

This proves my point.

 

How does that prove your point?  They asked for $500 million to include Cincinnati but were only given $400 million.  It's not like anyone set out to exclude the city...they are just making sacrifices based on what is available at the moment.

If the city of Cincinnati is left out of the 3C (2CS) rail plan, Cincinnatians will no longer support the proposed 3C corridor. That isn't a guess, it can be nearly guaranteed. There is limited trust between Cincinnatians and the statehouse as it is, this will only make it worse.

The cost of extending to Cincinnati is the issue - not a choice between the two cities.

 

This proves my point. 

 

How does that prove your point?  They asked for $500 million to include Cincinnati but were only given $400 million.  It's not like anyone set out to exclude the city...they are just making sacrifices based on what is available at the moment.

 

So they sacrifice the most populace Metro center in Ohio.  :roll:

If the city of Cincinnati is left out of the 3C (2CS) rail plan, Cincinnatians will no longer support the proposed 3C corridor. That isn't a guess, it can be nearly guaranteed. There is limited trust between Cincinnatians and the statehouse as it is, this will only make it worse.

 

Exactly.  Cincinnatians were excited about this proposal, but as they find out that Cincinnati is in fact no longer being included that excitement will turn into the same distrust Cincinnatians have towards the statehouse.  And like I said, that could kill any future vote to get additional money to upgrade the corridor.

I'm interested to hear what KJP has to say about all this.

 

Sure, Cleveland is between Chicago and NYC but Cincinnati could be the hub between places like KY and St. Louis and points eastward like Cols and Pitt and beyond.  For Cincinnati's sake, I would hope the South could connect to the North via Cincy at some point in the future.

 

And don't dump on Dayton, if there is going to be a train running through the Dayton area (down to Cincinnati), there needs to be a stop in Dayton.

 

Cleveland also gets a lot of favor because that's Sherrod Brown's stopping ground I bet.

So when the vote comes up to "upgrade" areas to increase efficiency and extend the line into DT Cinci, Cinci people will vote against bringing this into their own downtown?  I think it's been pretty clearly stated this isn't permanent end stop.

What's funny is that Cleveland also distrusts the statehouse.  Mirror image.  There's a general sense that the assembly serves primarily rural and southern interests, and that the Hamilton County GOP essentially dictates state budget and policy. 

 

I don't think that's true, but neither is the idea that Cleveland is big-timing anyone on this project.  If favoring NEO was that much of a concern, the route would include Akron.  That's never even been suggested.  The route as planned hits 3 cities in the southern half of the state... one in the north. 

 

The idea that "3C" doesn't touch Cincinnati proper is indeed goofy, but recall that until November 2009 the future of ANY PASSENGER RAIL in Cincinnati proper was questionable.  Obviously that's not the fault of anyone here.  But it is reality.  If I were the one making contingency plans for the possiblity of 3C only getting partial federal funding, I'm probably hesitant about making a commitment to Cincinnati under those conditions... especially if the infrastructure costs are disproportionate.

So when the vote comes up to "upgrade" areas to increase efficiency and extend the line into DT Cinci, Cinci people will vote against bringing this into their own downtown?  I think it's been pretty clearly stated this isn't permanent end stop.

 

No. People who are anti-rail will cite previous promises to provide service to Cincinnati that were broken. They'll claim that the state will again break this promise to provide service to DT Cincinnati. Whether that is rational or not, we know that groups like COAST will use whatever tools they can to stop rail, including deceit.

What's funny is that Cleveland also distrusts the statehouse. Mirror image. There's a general sense that the assembly serves primarily rural and southern interests, and that the Hamilton County GOP essentially dictates state budget and policy.

 

Somebody needs to tell that to Alex Triantafilou! I doubt he knows how much power he actually yields. hehehe.

 

Is Cincinnati not going to be connected?

So when the vote comes up to "upgrade" areas to increase efficiency and extend the line into DT Cinci, Cinci people will vote against bringing this into their own downtown?  I think it's been pretty clearly stated this isn't permanent end stop.

 

Cincinnatians strongly affirmed their support for passenger rail this past November.  A special interest group did wage a referendum against all passenger rail which was rooted in Cincinnati's modern streetcar system proposal, but it was soundly defeated as I mentioned.

 

As for the temporary end stop it will probably be there for 5 years at a minimum.  Thus leaving Cincinnati 5 years behind the rest of the corridor in terms of upgrades.  Unless of course all upgrades are put on a 5 year hiatus so that money can be channeled to a Cincinnati extension.  Then if this happens, then we certainly won't be seeing 110mph top speeds within 5 years since instead we'll be using that money to get to Cincinnati.

 

The earliest estimates show 2012 before the studies are all complete for a CUT extension, and that's assuming money is in place (which is doubtful).  My prediction is that if things move forward as currently stated Cincinnati will be left off of the 3-C Corridor for a minimum of five years, and possibly longer if there is a regime change in Washington D.C.

So when the vote comes up to "upgrade" areas to increase efficiency and extend the line into DT Cinci, Cinci people will vote against bringing this into their own downtown?  I think it's been pretty clearly stated this isn't permanent end stop.

 

But it could be enough ammunition for Issue 9 to rear its ugly head again. One of the selling points of Issue 9 (that would require a public vote on expenditures relating to any rail inside the city limits) was that the train could end in Sharonville. Not that I supported that.

Well if a vote comes up that says something like "approve $100m to extend 3-C rail service from Sharronville to Cincinnati Union Terminal", and people are fooled by someone telling them "no,no that's a lie... they'll really just take that money and build a new station in Columbus"... well then they probably shouldn't be voting.

 

after reading this thread for 58 pages, i think it's easy to say that the last leg into downtown Cincinnati has ALWAYS been the most complicated and expensive piece of this puzzle.  I'd like to believe the people working on this know a hell of a lot more about it than me or most others in the forum.  If they think this is the best they can do with $400m to get this thing started then I'm pretty sure this is the best they can do.  Hell it's a START.  This should be a great day for Ohio finally pulling their head out of the sand and joining the rest of the world.  I can't believe the poo pooing going on because it isn't going to make the final 10 miles right off the bat.  Everyone knows this needs to go to downtown Cinci. And I'm sure the people working on it are smart enough to realize that if they don't appropriate funds for that leg before trying to upgrade other areas they won't get any votes from the SW portion of the state.

 

  This mentality that "well it's not in dt cinci so we shouldn't even be doing it is crazy.  I mean there were over $120 billion worth of applications for $8 billion worth of funding.  If we didn't get this $400m to START this thing, odds of having the opportunity to get this far anytime in the next couple decades probably would be nonexistant.  Sheesh.  3c START up.

My prediction is that if things move forward as currently stated Cincinnati will be left off of the 3-C Corridor for a minimum of five years, and possibly longer if there is a regime change in Washington D.C.

With all the money floating around the country from the government to keep the economy afloat long enough for it to take off on its own again, I am extremely disappointed that more isn't being channeled toward meaningful HSR for Ohio.  If this is done wrong now, it will be another generation until any 'progress' is made.  The USA will not have the money to invest in something like this when the deficit doubles in five years or triples in ten years.  NOW or NEVER.