More opposition/negative articles from major papers

 

Ohioans wonder whether new rail line will be too slow, underutilized

By Stephen Koff, The Plain Dealer

February 06, 2010, 8:55AM

 

WASHINGTON -- Seventy-nine mph is not high speed.

 

Yet that's the fastest that passenger trains between Cleveland and Cincinnati will go when they start running, possibly as soon as 2012. This puzzles and disappoints some Ohioans, especially because President Barack Obama announced new rail lines on Jan. 28 as cogs in a national "high speed" network.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/02/ohioans_wonder_whether_new_rai.html

Can't we get one of the major papers in Ohio to go to Oklahoma or North Carolina (Piedmont) and do a story about their 79 mph trains that take longer than driving and  serve mostly car-friendly cities? 

Journalists understand the issue. But their mandate is not to inform, it is to sell news.

These ran side by side in Friday's DDN:

 

Overall, passenger rail line will be good for Ohio

By the Dayton Daily News  | Thursday, February 4, 2010, 02:37 PM

 

This commentary was provided by Steve Harrod, assistant professor of operations management at the University of Dayton. He specializes in transportation issues.

 

Will the 3C Corridor be a success?

 

That depends on how you define “success.”

 

After 30 years of frustration and false starts, this train would be the first north-south passenger service in Ohio since 1971. That is an achievement in its own right.

 

It also would be the most visible passenger train in Ohio, because shockingly, it will operate during the day. Readers may be excused if they are unaware that Ohio has any passenger trains at all, as these trains slip through in the middle of the night on their way to Chicago or Washington.

 

more: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2010/02/04/guest_column_overall_passenger.html

 

3C line will probably suffer from too few passengers

 

 

Here's a local story in NC.  They're upgrading that line from 45 mph avg to 85 avg.  They received over 500 million but had asked for 5 billion, and one of their projects involves an interstate connection (to DC).  I like how the article highlights the direct economic impact of this work, something we need to do more of here.  Projecting new jobs sounds good to everybody. 

 

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6903052/

 

Oklahoma did not receive any of this money, so their 79 mph is staying that way.  I couldn't find any info on how much they asked for.  I guess this is what they get for not being a swing state.  Same goes for Michgan, really. 

 

In today's PD article, Marcy Kaptur suggested that focusing on a route across the northern part of Ohio might have made more sense than 3-C.  That would have tied in more closely with what our neighbors (to the west) are working on.  I tend to agree.  Seems to me that cities on each end of Ohio are more economically and culturally connected with nearby cities in neighboring states (Detroit, Pittsburgh... Louisville, Indy) than with each other. 

 

The PD article also portrays LaHood as basically saying "this 3-C project is what Ohio said they really wanted."  I infer from this that alternatives to the 3-C approach are at least conceivable on DC's end.   

Am I wrong in the assessment that most of the negativity seems to be radiating from Cleveland? I wonder why that would be.

Columbus Dispatch reverses course

 

Handout is off track

Editorial: Money for rail deepens federal debt, won't help with Ohio's urgent needs

Sunday,  January 31, 2010 3:11 AM

 

The Obama administration and Congress are sending a trainload of $8 billion to Ohio and various other states to spur rail development, but this is a problematic gift. This is money the federal government doesn't have, and spending it adds to the annual budget deficit and the national debt.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/31/TRAINed.ART_ART_01-31-10_G4_65GE42T.html?sid=101

 

 

A response appeared in the Dispatch this morning:

 

To The Editor,

Columbus Dispatch

 

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the article "So who's going to take the train?," which appeared Saturday, January 30, 2010.

 

First off, the schedules shown in the article are what Amtrak has proposed, not necessarily what might operate. Also, the running times themselves might differ, so it's premature to suggest that this is the last word. Final schedules will be subject to negotiations between the state, Amtrak and the freight railroads, over whose tracks the trains will operate.

 

Even so, there are a lot of us out there who would like to take a train to Cleveland and be free to relax, sleep, read, text, work on a laptop or share a meal or drink with a friend while en route. You can't do that in a car---at least not legally---without risking your life, especially in winter conditions. There are also a lot of people who can't, should not or don't want to drive. All of us want and deserve a choice.

 

Skeptics who say no one will ride the trains are wrong. The riders will come. Amtrak, which is very conservative with its estimates, projects an annual ridership of 478,000 passengers a year, as the article states. Some critics say these numbers are too optimistic, but real-life experience elsewhere shows just the opposite. In places like California, Illinois, North Carolina, initial ridership exceeded estimates and doubled, tripled or quadrupled when additional trains were put on into service. Even tiny Maine saw ridership for its Downeaster service grow 57 percent since it started in 2002 while stimulating more than $7 billion in station-area development and 18,000 jobs. All of these trains operate similarly to the proposed 3C “Quick Start” service.

 

Is this service going to be a perfect solution? No. However, it's a start for much, much more and supposed experts may sound compelling until you find evidence quite to the contrary of their false claims. All forms of travel have their strengths and weaknesses; we need different modes to meet the public’s various travel needs. Other states  -- and countries -- realize this. That's why they are investing more than $200 billion worldwide in proven steel-wheel on steel-rail projects. They realize that to be competitive, they have to develop rail passenger service along with other travel options.

 

In addition, these same "experts" claim Amtrak's numbers are  inflated, with high costs, implying some shadowy government boondoggle. For University of Southern California's Daniel J. Epstein to say that Amtrak is "a completely political animal, just as these new systems will be...rather than vibrant financial enterprises" is disingenuous. How many highways were built by private enterprise? What about airports? Air traffic control systems? Waterways? Very few were built without taxpayer dollars. Almost all were built as a matter of public policy to meet society's needs. The same applies to rail passenger trains.

 

Other proponents are pushing a Tubular Rail idea that has not been proven. There isn't even an operating prototype in existence and no one knows whether the idea would actually work even under the best of circumstances. It would be many years before such a system was certified for use, let alone built, yet conventional passenger rail technology has been proven for years and is available off the shelf immediately. You don't have to waste years testing the technology. No elected official is going to throw public money at such a dubious concept.

 

Finally, this passenger rail system has to be built as a matter of investing in our state. We need to put our people to work. Building and operating this passenger rail system will create thousands of good-paying, non-exportable jobs and will have a positive impact on Ohio's economy and this is just the beginning. We cannot let this opportunity to help ourselves slip by. Ohio is at a turning point. It can make the investment and move ahead or listen to the naysayers and slip into a third-rate status. Which will it be?

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Hutchison, President

All Aboard Ohio

 

Here's a local story in NC.  They're upgrading that line from 45 mph avg to 85 avg.  They received over 500 million but had asked for 5 billion, and one of their projects involves an interstate connection (to DC).  I like how the article highlights the direct economic impact of this work, something we need to do more of here.  Projecting new jobs sounds good to everybody.  

Hmm, that makes going from 0 to 79 mph for 400 mil. sound pretty good, doesn't it?

 

Edit: I just realized you said avg. 3C is to be more like 45 or so, right? Oops. Anyway, you're right about the need to emphasize development.

 

Oklahoma did not receive any of this money, so their 79 mph is staying that way.  I couldn't find any info on how much they asked for.  I guess this is what they get for not being a swing state.  Same goes for Michgan, really. 

Probably explains Indiana not getting anything, too. They're probably about as swing as MI, on the Red side.

 

In today's PD article, Marcy Kaptur suggested that focusing on a route across the northern part of Ohio might have made more sense than 3-C.  That would have tied in more closely with what our neighbors (to the west) are working on.  I tend to agree.  Seems to me that cities on each end of Ohio are more economically and culturally connected with nearby cities in neighboring states (Detroit, Pittsburgh... Louisville, Indy) than with each other. 

Cool story, but that discounts Columbus's relevance.

 

The PD article also portrays LaHood as basically saying "this 3-C project is what Ohio said they really wanted."  I infer from this that alternatives to the 3-C approach are at least conceivable on DC's end.    

3C makes more sense, in the context of the proposed Chicago Hub network, but if Detroit were connected to Toledo (seems sensible), another case could be made...Indy is important, but so is Detroit. Though TBH I think a connection to Indy is the most obvious first step going east from Chicago. Detroit and Cleveland are much less connected to Chicago, culturally, economically, and geographically.

Am I wrong in the assessment that most of the negativity seems to be radiating from Cleveland? I wonder why that would be.

 

Actually there is a lot of pessimism from the Cincinnati camp because of the station situation. I think overall, Ohioans are skeptical and, to me, it is understandable. Spending money on anything right now is very hot button issue.

Is the station issue resolved or not? I've heard from a few sources that CUT is all but confirmed, after the uproar that was caused.

Regarding Indiana:

 

http://www.ibj.com/federal-highspeed-rail-grants-exclude-big-indiana-proposal/PARAMS/article/16061

 

They did get screwed here, and didn't they end up going for Obama?  Looks like all they're getting is their portion of the Chicago-Detroit upgrade.  And this makes it sound like Michgan's getting at least something.  And 3-C makes more sense in the context of Chicago Hub network... to the extent it goes to Chicago, which it doesn't.  It's too bad Indiana asked for Chicago-Cleveland money and Ohio didn't.  Indiana chose not to pursue their own "3-C" option of Chicago to Cincinnati, though it seems that idea had a constituency there.  Instead they went all out for Chicago to Cleveland, and we apparently hung them out to dry by focusing instead on 3-C.

 

I feel like these efforts could have been more coordinated.  Maybe if Ohio and Indiana had asked for the same thing, both states would have ended up with something to cheer about.  As it stands, our 3-C will not connect directly with any high speed projects going on anywhere, and neither we nor 90% of Indiana will be any closer to any sort of Chicago Hub.  It's worth consdiering that in the context of the Chicago Hub plan being proposed for the entire region, Columbus and 3-C may in fact be less relevant than Chicago-Indy-Cincinnati, or Chicago-FtW-Toledo-Cleveland-eastward.     

Seems to me that cities on each end of Ohio are more economically and culturally connected with nearby cities in neighboring states (Detroit, Pittsburgh... Louisville, Indy) than with each other.

 

My intuition is that this is spot-on. BUT I'm not an expert on Ohio commerce...can anyone give travel numbers that say otherwise?

Can someone describe in some detail how the top speed of 79mph turns into the average operating speed in the low 40s?  This is an honest question (I promise, not a whine or rhetorical question) from someone who's moderately familiar with operational issues, but without much intuition how to attribute the slow average speed among: stations stops, track conditions, track curves, track inclines, sharing track with freight, etc.

 

It just seems like the way we categorize rail travel quality, by top speed, is kind of besides the point, because it doesn't have a direct relationship to average speed.  If we build the 3C quick start, I'm not sure I really care whether we reach the 110 MPH max speed benchmark if there are cheaper or faster ways to increase average speed to, say 60MPH to make the train more competitive with driving (or the bus).  I'm not suggesting there are ways- maybe boosting the speed in short stretches is the only way to get there, but am curious what the experts here think or know.

 

... Probably explains Indiana not getting anything, too. They're probably about as swing as MI, on the Red side ...

 

The Fort Wayne line is a long way from being shovel-ready (or track-laying-machine-ready); the portion of the route between Fort Wayne and Chicago is probably the closest to being ready, because it has only been a few years since it was single-tracked and de-signaled, and much of the grade is still in place and in good condition. Further, in the vicinity of Fort Wayne the ROW was acquired and developed in the early 20th century to accomodate four tracks, and at least one of the trestles was built with foundations wide enough to support the additional tracks.

 

On the other hand, much of the proposed route between Fort Wayne and Toledo has been in deplorable condition for many years, with submerged, rotted ties and barely-visible rails and no visible ballast rock or drainage in some places and a grade that has almost disappeared and probably will need to be essentially recreated..

 

Before the Fort Wayne line becomes eligible for consideration for funding under a Track 1 proposal for actual construction and operation, it must first meet the conditions outlined in INDOT's Track 2 proposal, a major portion of which is an environmental impact study. As I recall, the cost for that has been estimated at $46 million.

 

But getting back to 3C, I don't remember if, in the discussion over suiltable station locations, anyone has mentioned what I see as a critical first step. I think it's important that there be a direct connection at Cleveland with the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited. A station in Columbus convenient to major businesses and government offices probably is significant, too. Those two things immediately create an all-rail connection between Columbus and Chicago and East-coast cities. The eastward connection would make it attractive enough for some Dayton and Cincinnati travelers to drive to a station a few miles from downtown, and a dedicated shuttle bus probably would be well-received by some.

 

Farther into the future, might through cars might be run to/from Columbus or beyond, switched between 3C trains and the Lake Shore or Capitol at Cleveland? That would allow through travelers to/from points beyond Cleveland to complete their journey without changing trains.

Can someone describe in some detail how the top speed of 79mph turns into the average operating speed in the low 40s?

 

Waiting at stations, waiting for freight trains to get out of the way, waiting for switches to clear.  There's also slower zones through busy areas, tight curves that require slowing, all sorts of things. 

 

Compare it to highway travel, what is your actual door to door speed there?  Most people assume that if they drive 80 mph (even if the speed limit is 65 or 70) then that's their speed.  But take in to account the non-interstate portion of the route on either end, maybe a traffic jam or two, stopping for gas, snacks, or to go potty, and suddenly your road trip is down to an average below 60 mph. 

Can someone describe in some detail how the top speed of 79mph turns into the average operating speed in the low 40s?

 

Waiting at stations, waiting for freight trains to get out of the way, waiting for switches to clear. There's also slower zones through busy areas, tight curves that require slowing, all sorts of things.  

 

Yes, those are more or less the factors I listed in my question, but does anyone have a more detailed answer?

 

Another way of asking, what would really have to happen to get avg speeds up to 60 mph- $5B reconstruction of track beds?  Or another $400M to add some targeted sidings and signals, remove some stops (maybe an express class of service is frequency is improved), etc?

Stops at stations don't really add a whole lot of time, since they usually only stand at stations for 3-5 minutes.  It's really more a case of poor track conditions (not always track geometry, but just poor maintenance, lightweight rail, deteriorating ties, etc.) and conflicting freight trains. Even if you fixed all that, the problem then becomes track geometry and crossings.  I could be wrong about this, but I think operating over 79 mph requires fencing off the tracks and no at-grade crossings with roads or other railroads.  That's where costs really start escalating, since bridges and viaducts and the associated digging and filling eats up money like there's no tomorrow.  Also, if there's any switch/siding, the train has to slow down when moving through it, even if they're just going straight. 

 

One question I can't answer, but would love to know, is what would the average speed be for the proposed service on the same physical plant, but with zero conflicting traffic.  So if there were no freight trains causing delays, what is the theoretical maximum average speed that could be obtained? 

On the subject of schedule, I seem to remember AAO proposing an alternate schedule.  Does anyone know where I could find that proposal?  I searched this site and AAO's site without any luck.

Couldn't we minimize all these crossing/earth-moving costs, as well as the difficulty of obtaining ROW, by putting the high speed lines right next to the rural interstates?  Something similar, if no exactly so, to what Florida is doing.  There already ARE sizeable public ROWs between all these cities, so I hope we don't have to reinvent the wheel.  It seems like "quick start" is at cross purposes with the shortest path to high speed.  I'm trying to get a handle on how that transition would work.  Don't these freight-juggling workarounds soon become obsolete if the ultimate plan is to lay new dedicated track throughout the route? 

 

None of my questions here are rhetorical or (intended to be) argumentative.  I really want to understand what the next step is, specifically, and how we get from here to there.  I think the biggest barrier to widespread acceptance and support of 3-C is the sense that it's a half-measure that has no future of its own.  We need to build a clearer bridge between this and the type of service people are asking for.

 

    The next time you ride on the interstates with someone else driving, pick a distance, say 20 feet, from the edge of pavement and imagine a new railroad there. Count how many things are in the way: sign posts, fences, bridge abutments, entrance and exit ramps, steep cross grades, drainage ditches, culverts, and so on. 

 

    What would seem to be an easy solution gets expensive really quick. Where the interstate crosses another highway or railroad, there's usually a lot of stuff in the way. The big river crossings such as I-71 over the Little Miami are going to require new bridges - thats a good $20 million right there.

Eighth and State is right.  Rail in the median would be much better, because usually the bridges span those and they follow the established grade of the highway.  Unfortunately, they're not usually wide enough, and the grade of the highway may still be too steep for trains. 

On the subject of schedule, I seem to remember AAO proposing an alternate schedule.  Does anyone know where I could find that proposal?  I searched this site and AAO's site without any luck.

 

It's actually in our last full newsletter. But I'll repost it here. The formatting will not be right, though.......

 

As proposed by Amtrak:

 

            6:30A 11:30A 3:30P dp Cleveland  ar 9:45A 1:45P 6:45P

6:53A  9:53A  2:53P  6:43P “  Columbus    “  6:32A 10:32A 3:32P  7:22P

8:24A 11:24A  4:24P           “  Dayton        “            8:40A 1:40P  5:40P

10:00A  1:00P  6:00P         ar  Cincinnati  dp            7:15A 12:15P 4:15P

 

As proposed by All Aboard Ohio:

 

            6:30A 11:30A 4:00P 7:00P dp Cleveland  ar 9:45A 1:45P 5:45P 10:45P

6:53A  9:53A  2:53P  7:15P 10:15P “  Columbus    “ 6:32A 10:32A 2:32P  7:32P 10:32P

8:24A 11:24A  4:24P 8:39P             “  Dayton      “            8:40A 12:40P  5:40P 8:40P

10:00A  1:00P  6:00P 10:30P         ar Cincinnati  dp            7:15A 11:15A 4:15P 7:15P

 

However, this could dramatically increase the capital and operating costs of 3C Corridor.

Looks like a schedule made by someone on quaaludes...Duuude... :-o

^^^^the short answer is that is possible (see Florida's route), but not an easy thing to do.  One of the biggest obstacles (engineering-wise) to overcome is the horizontal alignment issues.  Most interstates are design for 70-75 mph, whereas high speed rail is anywhere from 150-220+ mph.  This difference leads to significant differences in curvatures and superelevation - those differences could lead to significant costs.  Secondly, the median width must be present - I believe that Florida is using 44-foot wide median to construct HSR.  In rural areas, this median width may exist, but it would be difficult to find this median width in urban areas.  There are also vertical clearance issues - it would need to be determined if existing interstate bridges would be tall enough to accomodate train clearance and/or catenary clearance. 

 

I'm not saying that using interstate ROW should not be considered, but it come at a hefty cost as well.  My main concern would be how to transition from highway ROW to the center-city areas that pasenger rail is meant to serve.

In Europe, a number of new high-speed lines I rode were built next to highways, not in their medians. And when I mean "next to" I'm talking within 200 to 1000 feet. And those high-speed routes were built roughly parallel to 150-year-old rail corridors that were upgraded decades ago to handle 90-125 mph trains. But they got so overcrowded that the new HSR line was built -- in stages and branching off or converging into the older lines here and there.

 

Just like our own Interstate highway system was.....

Here's an idea.  Make one side of the highway two-way and replace the other side with HSR.  Halve the Interstate budget and see what happens.  The interstate system was rammed down our throats in a much more forceful way fwiw.

Here's an idea. Make one side of the highway two-way and replace the other side with HSR. Halve the Interstate budget and see what happens. The interstate system was rammed down our throats in a much more forceful way fwiw.

On- and off-ramps would be screwed up this way. But to add to the fantasy: since only one lane would need to be dedicated to rails, any extra lanes (beyond one in each direction) could switch directions based on time of day/traffic patterns.

Running the rail line in the median would be far less complicated than running it alongside the highway. Luckily most of Ohio is relatively flat (not unlike central Florida), and Google Earth shows fairly wide highway medians on I-75, I-70, and I-71 between Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland. However, it still may be cheaper to simply upgrade conventional tracks to dedicated high-speed service, or run high-speed tracks alongside freight tracks within an existing right-of-way. That's why continued studies are needed.

 

As mentioned above, one challenge with running HSR in a highway median is that in most cases, the tracks would need to depart the median in metropolitan areas in order to get to the train station. However, the trains wouldn't be traveling at high speeds in these areas, so they could easily use conventional railroad tracks. The big expense would be if additional right-of-way is needed to connect median-running HSR lines to the mainline tracks leading to the train stations.

The difficulty with using Interstate medians is one of clearances (bridges, overpasses, etc) and the cost it would incur to retrofit those clearances.  Secondly...consider that much of the widening of I-71 over the last several years was done by using the existing median, thus narrowing it greatly.

 

One also has to consider not only the cost of obtaining new right of way, but the length it adds to the project timeline:  the environmental review is a lot more detailed, eminent domain actions can aslo add delays.

 

But if you look at most of Ohio's existing railroad rights-of-way, many still have room to add one and sometimes two more tracks...and without all of the challenges listed above.  Bottom line, keep it simple, keep it cost effective.

Most interstate highway overpasses have a vertical clearance of at least 14 feet, which should be sufficient for single-level high-speed trains. If they plan to use bilevel trains, then presumably all bets are off.

 

  Also, that "free" space in the medians and on the outside edge of highways isn't necessarily unused. Interstates are designed with space for cars to leave the road in case of an accident. Pay attention to the guardrails next time you are on the interstate.

 

  Adding rail in that "free" space would require a lot of new barriers. Besides, we don't want any interference with high speed rail whatsoever, no matter how low the probability. An automobile on the tracks could be catastrophic. Accidents at high speed are unforgiving.

Not really. Interstate 66 was battled for years through Alexandria, Virginia from the early 1960s, and as a compromise, the roadway was constructed with four lanes total instead of six to eight (and even 14 lanes in some areas). It had HOV-4 restrictions during rush hour, now down to HOV-2, but the roadway is woefully congested. Construction on the highway began in 1977 and was finished in 1982, with provisions for light-rail in the median.

 

The Metrorail Vienna Route was completed on the state highway ROW in 1986. It is a "higher speed" rail route, and ends at SR 655 in Fairlee, although there were provisions to continue the line through Interstate 66's median to Centreville. A fourth lane was added to Interstate 66, which is a HOV lane, later on.

 

The line is separated by the interstate by normal jersey barriers. There is no need for a "lot" of new barriers other than what is already required for separation between lanes when no grass median is provided. There have also been no reports of cars careening into the Metro line. Here is an image of what the barriers are -- standard issue.

 

 

 

  Oh, rail parallel to an existing highway on existing right-of-way can be done. My point is that it might be harder than it first seems. Plus, the highway departments are eyeing that space for additional lanes.

 

 

Oh, true. Interstate median widths can vary.

 

The minimum for grass medians is 36 feet, with exceptions made when grandfathering in older highways that received the interstate designation. Ohio tends to go for larger median widths, which removes the need for cable barriers, and improves upon safety and allows for later lane additions. I think it is 50 feet for interstate highways and other freeways in the state. There are areas where the median is extremely wide -- in excess of 150 feet or more, where there were projections for local/express lanes (e.g. Interstate 75 from Sharonville to Tylersville Road; near Dayton; etc.), but those setups would have been relatively short.

 

Train tracks are near 5 feet, and the typical right-of-way for a single track is 25 feet from centerline -- so 50 feet total. While they could fit within the median of an interstate highway, it would be difficult to engineer this within the existing highway configuration without conducting major earthworks and construction. The Interstate 66 example is one that was constructed after the roadway was completed, but the median was prepped for an eventual light-rail movement.

Train tracks are near 5 feet, and the typical right-of-way for a single track is 25 feet from centerline -- so 50 feet total. While they could fit within the median of an interstate highway, it would be difficult to engineer this within the existing highway configuration without conducting major earthworks and construction. The Interstate 66 example is one that was constructed after the roadway was completed, but the median was prepped for an eventual light-rail movement.

It wasn't prepped with 50 feet of right-of-way, though...nowhere near it. So what gives? Was that grandfathered in? Or is it possible to make exceptions?

 

I mean, with the 36+ feet of space on the typical grass median, there is more than enough room to do an I-66 style setup. All you'd need is guardrails and train rails. Why can't that be done?

 

Or is it just because I-66 has light rail and we want heavy rail?

That's just what the railroad owns for say, future expansion or for ditching and communication lines. Other lines -- especially ones that are older, can have much smaller widths. And there are many that have far larger widths.

 

I agree that there is enough room for such a setup on interstates, but unlike Interstate 66, Interstate 75 (north of Cincinnati) just wasn't designed for that. You'd have to construct elevated crossovers or tunnel under the existing lanes, and ODOT probably isn't likely to share off potential expansion room for that. Think of the continuing battles between Cincinnati's Park system and the Cincinnati highway department. And where would the stations be? The Interstate 66 alignment with the Metro route is very densely populated, and there are ample services and parking adjacent to the station via pedestrian crossovers, but where there are grass medians in Ohio, it tends to be very rural or suburban. You'd have to develop the infrastructure for that, and it'd probably start with conventional stations with park+ride lots.

 

  In any case, railroad tracks cost about $1 million per mile just for the track itself, including rails, ties and ballast. That gets us to $250 million for a new 3-C line before you even think about new right of way, bridges, underpasses, grading, and everything else. I think it's fair to say that we cannot build a 3-C line over interstate right-of-way for less than $400 million, no matter what the speed of the trains.

We cannot let this opportunity to help ourselves slip by. Ohio is at a turning point. It can make the investment and move ahead or listen to the naysayers and slip into a third-rate status. Which will it be?

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Hutchison, President

All Aboard Ohio

 

This really is the gazillion dollar question... "Which will it be?" Moving forward with rail one step at a time obviously so badly needed. The "choice" component alone is a compelling argument because I am one of the many who are tired of having cars and highways being our ONLY choice, in the so called 'land of choice.'

 

The attitudes that say nay are really reflective of living the suburban model for the last 50 plus years and it is time to think outside the box. How can we break through the thick headedness about this. While away at the moment.....it is so nice to not have to rely on cars to get places! The world gets it... Will we? Or will we continue to be simple minded mental midgets on the issue, as a state. I cannot bare the shame of it if it the latter.

You guys aren't stating the obvious -- that highway use is doomed to decrease due to increasing oil prices and because this state isn't growing economically or in population.  So this business about reserving medians for additional lanes is like reserving prime industrial land space for candle or horse buggy factories.  Second, when highways greater than 2x2 lanes are due to be repaved, lanes can be removed in order to free up more room for tracks. 

^ The state doesn't need to grow in population, in general...Growth beyond maturity is cancer. It is simply unsustainable and exceeds land's carrying capacity---especially with today's insatiable gluttonous lifestyles. Maybe close to 12 million was more than we ever should have had as a state, anyway. However, it would be nice to get a lot of existing population to move back in to our existing cities. Then I see more demand for better transportation options.

Ohio's rail project might be worth financial risk

Newark Advocate

 

There's a certain nostalgic feel to the idea of hopping on a train in Columbus and riding to Cleveland or Cincinnati for a ballgame, weekend visit or business meeting.

 

But we're worried not many Ohioans will buy tickets when the state's 3-C rail project launches in 2012 because of $400 million in federal stimulus funds as part of President Barack Obama's $8 billion nationwide high-speed rail project.

 

Ohio's initial rail offerings will be quite weak in the eyes of consumers who almost always will pick the easiest, fastest and cheapest option for travel, especially in our quick-paced modern world.

 

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20100207/OPINION01/2070315/1014/OPINION/Ohio-s-rail-project-might-be-worth-financial-risk

The body of this editorial really spells out why the "risk" is worthwhile. The reference to the beginnings of the Interstate Highway System is on the money.

And where would the stations be? The Interstate 66 alignment with the Metro route is very densely populated, and there are ample services and parking adjacent to the station via pedestrian crossovers, but where there are grass medians in Ohio, it tends to be very rural or suburban. You'd have to develop the infrastructure for that, and it'd probably start with conventional stations with park+ride lots.

Since where the grass medians are tends to be rural or suburban, the trains would have to come out of the medians near the cities. So the stations would basically go where they are planned to be right now.

 

I really wish they'd integrate this into the new I-75 plan; the train could make an exit right at CUT, off of 75.

The discussion here about how/where HSR will be built is premature speculation.

 

Despite (temporary) relief from rising gas prices, many routes that operate slower than 110mph and sometimes even slower than 79mph, and tacky, inconveniently-located stations, Amtrak's national ridership continues to increase

 

People I know who have ridden an Amtrak train and aren't sure whether they will incude trains in future travel plans never cite speed as the reason for their dissatisfaction, or even having to drive 20 miles to a bus shelter beside a wind-swept asphalt platform. I hear complaints about erratic schedule keeping and inconvenient arrival/departure times, along with on-board service issues like trying to get a snack three hours out of Chicago and finding everything already stowed for arrival by an attendant who seems annoyed at being asked for a (small) cup of (over-cooked) coffee.

 

Immediate 3C issues involve providing service that is pleasant and reliably on time, and that runs when people want to travel. It doesn't have to be gee-whiz stylish or high-tech so long as it's clean and looks and smells fresh, the heat or air conditioning works, and the seats are comfortable. Station amenities can come later; if the trains run on time, people won't be spending much time there. Station essentials include easily accessed, safe locations and adequate, secure, inexpensive or free parking. High-level platforms would be nice for simplifying handicapped access and expediting boarding/detraining overall.

 

Provide those things, and lots of people will ride. State and federal legislators will hear from their constituents, and true HSR will come. It's not going to happen overnight, and it's too early to speculate what economic and geopolitical realities will drive transportation policy when it does come.

That's a good point Robert.  About a year and a half ago I needed to go to Washington DC for my brother's wedding.  I really wanted to take the Cardinal.  Yes it would take a lot longer than driving, but driving 8+ hours sucks anyway.  I couldn't do it though, because the service is so infrequent I'd have needed to take extra vacation days to work around it.  If there was even one train per day I could make it work, but they can't even do that.  The frequent delays on the Cardinal (and other Amtrak) lines is also a huge problem.  If it's going to take so much longer than driving, then damn it, the trains better be on time all the time, with no exceptions. 

We cannot let this opportunity to help ourselves slip by. Ohio is at a turning point. It can make the investment and move ahead or listen to the naysayers and slip into a third-rate status. Which will it be?

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Hutchison, President

All Aboard Ohio

 

This really is the gazillion dollar question... "Which will it be?" Moving forward with rail one step at a time obviously so badly needed. The "choice" component alone is a compelling argument because I am one of the many who are tired of having cars and highways being our only choice, in the so called 'land of choice' being our ONLY choice. The attitudes that say nay are really reflective of living the suburban model for the last 50 plus years and it is time to think outside the box. How can we break through the thick headedness about this. While away at the moment.....it is so nice to not have to rely on cars to get places! The world gets it... Will we? Or will we continue to be simple minded mental midgets on the issue, as a state. I cannot bare the shame of it if it the latter.

 

Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. We are really no better than some Stalinist society, where the supreme leader decrees that we are all "free" to travel...as long as we drive.

 

Welcome to Ohio, which stands for: On Highways & Interstates Only

Re:  The proposed schedules posted above...

 

I understand that what Amtrak proposed is a DRAFT schedule. However, it is  being treated like it's set in concrete.  I blame the messaging from ODOT on this point.  They are doing a lousy job so far in staying ahead of the criticism. 

 

Still, I see two problems that need to be corrected:  Amtrak's draft is overly conservative as far as average speed.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that once $400 million is invested in the infrastructure, those running times will actually be faster than the draft.  I know that I've been one of the one's saying that other states' trains are started in the 40-50 mph average speed range and many are still in the low to mid 40s, but why dumb it down as much as they did, even for a draft?  That's one of the things that's killing this thing in the press. 

 

The other problem is those circa 3:30 pm afternoon departures from Cleveland and Columbus.  They are too early.  Even a start-up schedule shouldn't leave a gaping hole in the 4:00-5:00 pm time slot during weekdays.  One the weekends, the schedules need to be timed better for sporting events like Buckeye games.  Other states' schedules are different on the weekends, why not propose at least propose a draft for the 3-C that does the same thing? 

 

 

Bottom line:  regardless of whether or not this is a "start-up", or that the schedule is just a draft at this point, it ultimately must be better than what Amtrak currently proposes.  And.. ODOT/ORDC need to do a better job with the messaging. 

 

 

  "You guys aren't stating the obvious -- that highway use is doomed to decrease."

 

    I know that and you know that, but O.D.O.T. doesn't know that.

 

    Maybe someday we will be replacing our interstates with rail, but I think it's safe to assume that we will NOT be adding rail to the interstates within the next 10 years. For that matter, it takes 10 years for O.D.O.T. to do anything at all!

We cannot let this opportunity to help ourselves slip by. Ohio is at a turning point. It can make the investment and move ahead or listen to the naysayers and slip into a third-rate status. Which will it be?

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Hutchison, President

All Aboard Ohio

 

This really is the gazillion dollar question... "Which will it be?" Moving forward with rail one step at a time obviously so badly needed. The "choice" component alone is a compelling argument because I am one of the many who are tired of having cars and highways being our only choice, in the so called 'land of choice.' The attitudes that say nay are really reflective of living the suburban model for the last 50 plus years and it is time to think outside the box. How can we break through the thick headedness about this. While away at the moment.....it is so nice to not have to rely on cars to get places! The world gets it... Will we? Or will we continue to be simple minded mental midgets on the issue, as a state. I cannot bare the shame of it if it the latter.

 

Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. We are really no better than some Stalinist society, where the supreme leader decrees that we are all "free" to travel...as long as we drive.

 

Welcome to Ohio, which stands for: On Highways & Interstates Only

 

Precisely! There is really no difference. And the acronym for Ohio is accurately put. I have had relatives from overseas come to the N.E. Ohio region and could not believe that we did not have rail linking the many areas that collectively are the fabric that make the stitch work of one area. It was embarrassing, really. Being virtually forced to own a car in terms of transport, is a kind of tyranny to me. Call it a "transportation tyranny." Where is my 'freedom' to not have to rely on cars to get places? Oh please...will someone come and 'liberate' us from the transportation dictators and the auto only-lobby!!!

 

Okay, discussions regarding car-free lifestyles or non-3C discussion has several more approperiate threads:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.0.html

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,13901.0.html

et. al.

 

Let's keep this one on topic since it is at 70 pages already.

Just some numbers to ponder:

 

$64.73

Average dinner check at a sit-down restaurant

 

$57

Cost of entire High Speed Rail stimulus package, per taxpayer

 

---

 

$530

Cost per Ohioan of 200 MPH best-in-class 3C rail corridor at $22 Million per mile

 

$549

Cost of a 37" TV at Best Buy

 

---

 

$7,186

Current total cost of Iraq/Afghanistan conflict per US taxpayer

 

6 cents

Cost of proposed 3C yearly maintenance subsidy per Ohio paycheck every two weeks

 

---

 

General multiplier to get taxpayer population from general population: (0.45)

 

http://costofwar.com/

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892463,00.html (Paragraph 6, last sentence)

 

http://www.rimag.com/article/368127-Special_Report_2008_Top_100_Independent_Restaurants.php (Last sentence)

 

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article.php?id=1456 (Paragraph 6)

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx