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.

 

We are on topic, since the question "How do we get around once we get off the train" keeps getting thrown in our faces. It's a part of the picture and besides, there wasn't any drawn out commentary going on here, just a couple of remarks.

"orderly messageboard" "neat and tidy messageboard"

 

*snicker*

 

Anyway, there's nothing stopping Enterprise, Avis, etc. from opening a rental counter near 3C stations (or is there?).  Maybe car rental companies could use a nudge in the form of incentives? 

 

 

Civvik I like those numbers of yours.  It's all about perspective.

 

Mr. Pence I'm not sure it's premature to talk of HSR conversion.  This project is largely being sold as a precursor to HSR and most of our controversy regards the fact that it itself isn't.  All but the most fervent anti-rail posters on the newspaper sites seem amenible to HSR yet opposed to this.  I have asked several times to what extent the infrastructure work we're doing on 3-C will carry over to HSR, and what Ohio's gameplan for conversion might be.  I think these are important parts of the pitch at this point.  To the extent that anything doesn't carry over, arguments of waste will not easily go away.   

[ ... ]

 

Mr. Pence I'm not sure it's premature to talk of HSR conversion.  This project is largely being sold as a precursor to HSR and most of our controversy regards the fact that it itself isn't.  All but the most fervent anti-rail posters on the newspaper sites seem amenible to HSR yet opposed to this.  I have asked several times to what extent the infrastructure work we're doing on 3-C will carry over to HSR, and what Ohio's gameplan for conversion might be.  I think these are important parts of the pitch at this point.  To the extent that anything doesn't carry over, arguments of waste will not easily go away.

 

The current efforts to provide conventional rail won't be wasted with the advent of HSR. In other countries HSR didn't replace conventional rail. It was created from scratch as premium service running on dedicated ROW and only serving major markets, while conventional rail continues to operate on traditional, often-parallel ROW and serves intermediate destination/origin stations with lower fares.

 

In our own Northeast Corridor, Acela Express stops only at locations where there is sufficient market for fast, premium-fare service, while Regional trains provide lower-cost service and serve many intermediate points. I expect passenger rail to follow this proven format as it takes shape in the Midwest and across the country. In fact, the eventual creation of HSR may relieve running-time constraints on established conventional rail to permit the addition of stations in many smaller communities that didn't get them at the outset.

 

Edit: Added example comparison

 

For example, Boston - Washington, D.C. Acela vs. Regional

(from Amtrak system timetable, winter-fall 2007-2008

 

Cheapest Acela Fare $144

Cheapest Regional Fare $  83

 

Acela #2253 trip time 6:40

Regional #93/493 trip time 7:45

 

... Anyway, there's nothing stopping Enterprise, Avis, etc. from opening a rental counter near 3C stations (or is there?).  Maybe car rental companies could use a nudge in the form of incentives? 

 

In Fort Wayne even as train frequency dwindled, one of the cab companies had a direct phone in the station. I think a car-rental company (Hertz?) might have had one, too. Budget car-rental had an agency two short blocks away. The space outside the front door was reserved for taxis, and usually there was at least one waiting out front at train arrival times.

Just curious...what transportation options exist if you were to arrive in Cincinnati on the Cardinal?  Aside from a true friend picking you up at such a ghastly hour. 

Metro's #1 route only runs in the daytime, so it's fairly useless for catching the Cardinal. Last time I took the train to Cincy, there was a cab waiting outside. On the return trip, I had a family member drop me off.

I don't understand why Metro is so against running ONE bus through the #1 route, leaving 20 minutes after the train arrives, and arriving 20 minutes before the train leaves.  I've tried e-mail them a couple of times on this and all they write back is "This is unfeasible at the moment."  It's 3 days per week.  It would not be unfeasible in the slightest.

So are there plans to continue service on the 79 mph line even after HSR is built?  I've heard talk of upgrading THIS LINE to higher speeds and I've heard talk of the two being entirely separate animals.  Still no clarity.  How exactly does 3-C fit into our desire to achieve high speed rail in Ohio?

 

I think it will be eons before there is a significant market for the low-speed option here, and this will only be more true once a high-speed option is available.  Reorienting our cities away from cars will help but that's... a process.  I really don't think east coast or European models are relevant here because we have additional barriers to low-speed rail use (lack of density, lack of transit orientation, cultural misgivings, etc). 

 

The arguments I keep hearing in favor of doing it the way we're doing it are extreeeeeeeeeemely brooooooooad.  They don't seem at all attentive to Ohio's specific needs or desires, and they don't seem in line with what other states are doing through this program.  Given how the plan has been received thus far, is there still ZERO CHANCE that we could redo it and spend every dime from Washington on moving Ohio toward some form of HSR?  I honestly think LaHood might understand such a change.   

I don't really see HSR along the 3C Ohio for a very long time. HSR will happen first with more logical connections - the Great Lakes corridor or Cincy to Chicago. Can we please move on? The horse is dead and rotting.

>what transportation options exist if you were to arrive in Cincinnati on the Cardinal?

 

I asked them if you could take a bike on The Cardinal and nobody knew. I've had the same situation as others -- either the departure or the return date is one too early or too late to make it feasible.  Greyhound is no faster, but at least there are 5+ daily departures to the East Coast. 

 

I know I'm arguing for slow train service when I mention that, but I think people will pay more for the more civilized environment on a train.  Unless bus service is *way* cheaper than the train, people will take the train.  On the east coast there are so many bus lines, including the semi-illegal Chinatown buses, so it's amazing that Amtrak is profitable.  From what I remember it was $65 to ride Amtrak from Boston to New York but only $20 to ride the Chinatown bus. 

 

I know people who ride the Chinatown bus (and other newer bus services), and the buses still get stuck in expressway traffic plus sometimes they make unannounced stops in Philly or other places.  But most do have wi-fi. 

I don't really see HSR along the 3C Ohio for a very long time. HSR will happen first with more logical connections - the Great Lakes corridor or Cincy to Chicago. Can we please move on? The horse is dead and rotting.

 

We're spending 400 million and it's somehow wrong to want these simple answers?  There comes a point when it's insulting to tell 11 million people that they are silly for wanting to spend their rail money only on high speed applications.  If people ask how this plan would relate to the HSR future they want, those people are being a problem?  Are we just hoping that not a single one of those people votes?  What if they're motivated by a genunine interest in high speed rail, rather than by obstructionist or anti-rail sentiments?  The proper approach to public skepticism is not attacking the public for having questions, or for their failure to agree with a plan that's apparently above explanation.

 

From another angle:  It took forever to get this 400 million.  If, perchance, the end product is met with widespread apathy then we will have an even harder time getting our next capital infusion.  Isn't that possiblity worth a little due diligence now?  Isn't it worth entertaining some divergent views?  Isn't it worth examining alternative approaches in light of new information?  Isn't it worth at least dummying up an explanation of step 2, now that it's abundantly clear the public's interest begins at step 3?  Even if the customer isn't "always right," the customer is rarely so wrong that they need to be preached at. 

To view the formatted document, please find it at:

http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/index.php

and at:

http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/3C%20mythbusters.pdf

 

3C CORRIDOR

MYTHBUSTERS!

 

Background: Recent media coverage of Ohio’s proposed 3C Corridor train service appears to be feeding off itself. We are concerned about this dangerous turn as inaccuracies are starting to be reported as fact. So All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit educational organization, has prepared this document to identify those inaccuracies and share our 36 years of experience with passenger rail issues.

 

Fact-check us! We encourage it! When you go see things for yourself, you tend to believe facts more. We encourage reporters to visit other states with comparable, state-supported intercity passenger rail services. In the end, we hope you recognize that Ohio’s approach to developing passenger rail is not pioneering or risky, but is a model that has repeatedly proven itself elsewhere in the U.S. and worldwide.

 

 

THE MYTH…  Ohio’s 3C Corridor is too slow to succeed.

 

THE FACTS!  Ohio’s 3C “Quick Start” rail service is just that – a starting point. Ten states began all-new state-supported train services since the mid-1980s and all began with average train speeds ranging from 30-53 mph. Low fares (8-14 cents per mile), not speed, are the biggest draw for most rail travelers, per a California Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board study. Ohio is not unique!

 

 

THE MYTH…  Ohio is going to be stuck with this slow train.

 

THE FACTS!  Other states’ train speeds, departures and ridership increased with investment. Ohio’s will too. This year, ODOT will start environmental planning over 18-24 months so it can tap more federal funds for 90+ mph trains on five Ohio routes:  Cleveland – Columbus; Columbus – Cincinnati; Toledo – Columbus; Toledo – Cleveland; Cleveland – Pittsburgh. These investments will build on the 3C “Quick Start”!

 

 

THE MYTH…  The proposed train schedule doesn’t meet travelers’ needs.

 

THE FACTS!  It is unfortunate that Amtrak’s draft schedule, issued for planning purposes, has been considered by many as the final word. ODOT has yet to conduct negotiations with freight railroads or Amtrak to determine the final schedule, average speeds and more. The draft schedule was issued as a starting point for talks, no more.

 

 

THE MYTH…  Who will ride 3C trains?

 

THE FACTS!  The same people who are filling trains in 15 other states that sponsor intercity (not commuter!) rail. We’re talking about Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Carolina – not just the Northeast Corridor or California! In those states, ridership more than doubled since the first year because more trains and station facilities were added, trains were speeded up and services were improved. Go see for yourself who’s riding!

 

 

THE MYTH…  OK, I can’t get my editor to send me to Oregon to go ride a train. Just tell me who is going to ride!

 

THE FACTS!  OK, according to the departments of transportation in other states, the people using their trains are college students (ODOT: 220,000 students attend college along 3C), the elderly (Census: 1.1 million people 65 years+ in 3C and growing!), the car-less (Census: 500,000 people without cars in 3C for physical, economic or personal reasons), and households with just one vehicle (Census: 610,000 households or 1.5 million people). That is 3.3 million people total, or half of 3C’s population. Plus many young professionals, tourists, families, conventioneers and business travelers (especially state workers!) will ride.

 

 

THE MYTH…  Ohio should sidetrack this train for High-Speed Rail.

 

THE FACTS!  Ohio is 0-4 (1977, 1982, 1985, 1992) in trying to go from 0 to more than 110 mph. No state or nation has either. High-Speed Rail is a major investment that requires evolving a supportive culture, politics, center-city density and a network of connecting and parallel regional rail and local transit services. It takes decades for these support systems to evolve, just as it did prior to the Interstate Highway System or Europe’s HSR. California invested $2.2 billion over 30 years to develop rail to where it could pass a HSR bond issue after prior failures. Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the Pacific Northwest may be only a few years behind. Ohio is not ready to make the leap to high-speed.

 

 

THE MYTH…  If this corridor was such a draw for rail, intercity buses would be crowded.

 

THE FACTS!  They are crowded – enough that Greyhound in 2008 instituted a priority boarding fee of $5 at Cleveland and Cincinnati. Others are put on waiting lists and, if available, extra buses are chartered. Greyhound is not so interested in short-distance markets like 3C. Instead, most 3C buses travel to far-off cities like Dallas or Miami to keep more seats filled longer, blocking out Ohio riders. There is no intercity bus service to Dayton (requires a 50-minute city bus ride out to Trotwood), you cannot get to Columbus before 10 a.m. unless you leave Cleveland at 4:30 a.m., and there are no direct daytime buses between Dayton (Trotwood) and Cleveland anymore. Yet riders continue to fill the buses.

 

 

THE MYTH…  There will be no local transit when I arrive.

 

THE FACTS!  Stations are proposed to be built next to major transit services. Cleveland’s Amtrak station is served by a frequent downtown loop bus. The Southwest Cleveland stop at the Puritas-W.150th Rapid Station provides rail access to the city and airport. The Columbus station will be on the busy High Street bus line to downtown, OSU, etc. Dayton’s station will be at Main Street on multiple bus routes including electric trolleys. Both Cincinnati-area stops are next to bus routes to downtown and the universities.

 

 

THE MYTH…  This will take money from needed public transit.

 

THE FACTS!  Transit funding will not be touched. It is only 0.25% of Ohio’s $3.8 billion transportation budget. Ohio should reconsider its priorities, however, as it spends less on transit than it does on cutting grass along its Interstates. Existing federal grant dollars will be used to pay 3C’s first three years of operating costs starting in 2012. The balance, including subsequent years, will be funded from ODOT’s Logo sign program, corridor/train naming rights, advertising revenues, franchise fees for train/station concessions, wi-fi services, etc.

 

 

THE MYTH…  If 3C made so much sense, it wouldn’t need a subsidy.

 

THE FACTS!  If roads and airports were cost-effective, they would be privately owned and funded. Instead they are government controlled but private vehicles use them. It is the exact opposite with passenger rail. Nearly all railroad infrastructure is privately funded and owned, incurring huge taxes, interest and insurance costs that roads and airport don’t pay. To offset the infrastructure costs, passenger trains are government funded and owned.

 

 

THE MYTH…  Ohio lacks the population density for rail.

 

THE FACTS!  Population density is not a case for or against rail. See Norway, its 34 PPSM (people per square mile) and its excellent rail system. But we’ll play along. Ohio has 267 PPSM, similar to France’s 256 PPSM (per World Almanac) which has tens of thousands of slow and fast trains. Of America’s 17 most densely populous states, all but two have state-supported regional or intercity passenger services:  Ohio (8th most dense) and Hawaii (13th). When it comes to rail, Ohio acts like it is an island.

 

 

THE MYTH…  3C trains are too slow because they go through Dayton, and won’t carry enough people because they don’t go through Akron.

 

THE FACTS!  The Dayton rail corridor is only 8 miles longer and has 1 million more residents along it than the most direct rail corridor via Wilmington which requires more costly improvements. The Akron rail corridor is 49 miles longer than the direct route, will cost $100 million more to improve and add more than 1 hour to the 3C travel time, resulting in no net ridership or revenue gains.

 

 

THE MYTH…  These trains may create some jobs, but they’re not worth $400 million.

 

THE FACTS!  Smart Growth America, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group disagree. They say rail and transit stimulus spending creates nearly twice as many jobs per dollar as highway stimulus projects. Ohio is home to more than 100 rail industry suppliers who would rather do business in their own state than build rail systems for other states and nations. The U.S. Dept. of Commerce says the economic benefit from 3C will be three times greater than the initial capital investment. Traveler savings from having low-cost train service will pump into Ohio’s economy $111 million per year – that’s five times the state’s $17 million annual operating expense.

 

 

THE MYTH…  Ohio could end up with these trains forever!

 

THE FACTS!  Hopefully! The 3C trains will use existing freight tracks that will be improved to benefit both passengers and freight. Because of that, the 3C “Quick Start” by itself doesn’t commit the state to anything long-term. If the trains and their infrastructure are nurtured, improved, expanded and speeded up, then Ohio will probably enjoy them for many, many decades.

 

THEIR MYTHS HAVE BEEN BUSTED.

Questions and answers on Ohio's passenger train

By MATT LEINGANG, The Associated Press

12:26 PM Sunday, February 7, 2010

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The state is to get $400 million in federal stimulus money to restore passenger train service among its major cities, part of a plan to build a national high-speed rail network.

 

Ohio's project calls for a startup, 79-mph service connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati beginning in 2012. Is that fast enough? Who will ride it? Here are some answers:

 

READ MORE AT:

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/questions-and-answers-on-ohio-s-passenger-train-535157.html

 

Awesome job, KJP.

I find it interesting that the current 3-C plan and future high speed rail seem to be presented (at least in this discussion) as mutually exclusive things.  While that certainly can be the case, it doesn't have to be.  Think about it in the way many US and State highways have evolved over the years.  Many started out as simple rural 2-lane roads that went through the middle of every town, sometimes having painful jogs or other obstructions.  As time went on, those trouble areas were fixed or bypassed, thus improving travel time.  As traffic increased, some sections were widened, or maybe made into limited access freeways.  All the while, most of the original route remains in use in some way or another, whether still part of the highway or as a business spur or whatever.

 

The 3-C project is very similar.  This first step fixes bad tracks, adds a second track or sidings if necessary, unties certain bottlenecks, and gets through traffic going.  As time goes on, the other bottlenecks will be ironed out, maybe excessive curves will be bypassed with new cuts and fills, more double-track will be added, and crossings will be grade separated.  When there's a push for real high speed, some sections may need to be bypassed completely, either abandoning the old route or leaving it only for lower speed local service.  I would imagine, however, that outside of areas with difficult terrain, much of the existing right-of-way will be used for high speed rail without the need for something entirely new.  So the $400 million isn't wasted on something that won't be used in the future, it's building the framework for future infrastructure expansion. 

That is certainly one way to address the public's concerns, by portraying them all as myths in need of busting.  So any attempt to reexamine this plan is about as sensible as an old wives tale, eh?  Some of the items being dealt with here as myths cannot even be characterized as attempts to state fact; they are legitimate questions of policy that deserve a more even-handed analysis if our goal is to win friends. 

 

My closing thought (because I've got nothing left to say or ask in this thread):

 

There is no better time than now to engage the public in an honest and open two-way discussion about what Ohio's HSR future might look like, and what options we have for getting there.  My belief is that Ohio's general oppostion to rail has been overestimated, while Ohio's opposition to this particular plan has been underestimated.  And I think we're losing sight of the ultimate goal in our obsession with selling people on this particular plan.

 

The 3-C project is very similar.  This first step fixes bad tracks, adds a second track or sidings if necessary, unties certain bottlenecks, and gets through traffic going.  As time goes on, the other bottlenecks will be ironed out, maybe excessive curves will be bypassed with new cuts and fills, more double-track will be added, and crossings will be grade separated.  When there's a push for real high speed, some sections may need to be bypassed completely, either abandoning the old route or leaving it only for lower speed local service.  I would imagine, however, that outside of areas with difficult terrain, much of the existing right-of-way will be used for high speed rail without the need for something entirely new.  So the $400 million isn't wasted on something that won't be used in the future, it's building the framework for future infrastructure expansion. 

 

Exactly. This is just a first step in a long process. The funds invested will not be wasted. They will serve as a foundation for subsequent improvements. For example, the CSX line between Galion and Columbus could be acquired in a later phase and upgraded to 110 mph standards by eliminating some grade crossings, installing full-closure gates at others, adding a second track, adding new signaling and engineering the line for higher speeds by increasing superelevation on curves.

 

Some people have the mistaken impression that what the $400 million buys is all we will ever have. Not so. There will be another round of rail funding coming up and I'm sure Ohio will apply for a share of that money to start going to 90 mph top speeds.

Those operating costs are scary as hell, especially since I've so pessimistic as to people actually using the train lines repeatedly.  Unless gas really skyrockets in the next few years, I just don't see the appeal of the 3-C line.  There are too many issues - lousy schedule, slow travel time in a society that demands fast speeds, no real interest by private investors, travel issues once you actually arrive to your destination, remarkable amount of pessimism with everyone I've talked to, and I doubt there's even a substantial demand for this specific rail line.

 

Outside the novelty of the experience, I just don't see the train filled with passengers.  Something like a Megabus line - cheap, comfortable, safe, free wifi, FAST - would probably a lot more effective IMO. 

 

If we can't build it right, read FAST, then let's not do it.  Just reject the 400 million and let it go somewhere else.  Just because we romanticize the idea of rail doesn't mean it's worth increasing our local and national debts by so much.

Those operating costs are scary as hell, especially since I've so pessimistic as to people actually using the train lines repeatedly. Unless gas really skyrockets in the next few years, I just don't see the appeal of the 3-C line. There are too many issues - lousy schedule, slow travel time in a society that demands fast speeds, no real interest by private investors, travel issues once you actually arrive to your destination, remarkable amount of pessimism with everyone I've talked to, and I doubt there's even a substantial demand for this specific rail line.

 

Outside the novelty of the experience, I just don't see the train filled with passengers. Something like a Megabus line - cheap, comfortable, safe, free wifi, FAST - would probably a lot more effective IMO.

 

If we can't build it right, read FAST, then let's not do it. Just reject the 400 million and let it go somewhere else.   Just because we romanticize the idea of rail doesn't mean it's worth increasing our local and national debts by so much.

 

If you haven't already done so, I suggest you go back about a half-dozen posts and read the one by KJP, titled "3C Corridor Myth Busters." You might find it helpful to read some of the subsequent entries.

What schedule? Nothing has been agreed to. Therefore no one knows what the average speed is yet. And who among those you've spoken with knows what's actually be planned, and is instead relying on bad information from the media? See the mythbuster's piece.

 

EDIT: See my message below for what other states are doing. They are not so different from Ohio and Ohioans.

I realize many of you don't travel around to see what other states are doing with their train services, but perhaps these videos will be helpful to you while saving you some precious nickels....

 

This video show North Carolina DOT-sponsored trains arriving simultaneously at High Point, NC. This service started out with two trains and an average speed of 43 mph and 120,000 riders in its first year. Last year, it had four trains, a 53 mph average speed, and 400,000 riders. This year, it's expanding to six trains, and NCDOT just got federal money to make them run even faster....

 

 

 

NCDOT-sponsored Amtrak trains as viewed from a wheelchair passenger....

 

 

Maine DOT sponsored "Downeaster" Amtrak trains are resulting in major redevelopment around their stations. Are they high-speed? Nope. They started with an average speed of 42 mph and 290,000 riders in the first year (2002). Last year, the average speed was up to 48 mph and 2009 ridership was 460,000 passengers....

 

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2487581163844444274&hl=en&fs=true

 

 

Oregon- and Washington-sponsored Amtrak "Cascades" service linking Eugene, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. Started out with one round trip at 41 mph average speed, with 185,000 riders in the first year (1993). Now they are up to five daily round trips and an average speed of 53 mph. The "Cascades" carried 775,000 people last year!! Not bad for "snail rail"!! If you can stand the bouncy camera, this video answers "Who will ride these trains?"

 

 

Two posts were deleted, one pro-3C and the other anti-3C, to keep the temperature down.

KJP, I just read over your 3-C Mythbusters and I am becoming a believer. If similar systems have succeeded in metro's less dense than ours than there is no reason why it cannot work here. I would also like to remind people that while that trains may be slower than driving initially, at least that time can be used productively. Now if only the newspapers would take a more positive stance, the public might get behind this.

KJP, of the $400 million, what percentage of the cost wouldn't be a down payment on higher speed rail?

 

Essentially the way I see it is that the worst case scenario is we make a $400 million down payment on a higher speed system and have a $17 million carrying cost per year (nothing compared to the $1 billion+ annual highway subsidy for Ohio).  During that time Ohioans get the benefit of a conventional speed system and its connectivity. 

 

On the other hand if we reject this system and construction costs inflate at over 4% per year from now until we do build the system, we essentially pay the same amount but don't get the current benefit. And that assumes there is another federal grant available.

 

 

Just one question: how much progress have we made as a State and as individual big cities in killing initiatives and projects like 3-C in our efforts to "save money" and be "fiscally responsible?"

KJP, of the $400 million, what percentage of the cost wouldn't be a down payment on higher speed rail?

 

 

I think that's an excellent question, but the answer needs to be treated carefully, so that's why I will emphasize that this is only my personal opinion, that there are other beneficiaries to these investments, including the freight railroads, and that the state's Ohio Hub Programmatic Environmental Impact Studies will identity in the coming 18-24 months exactly what is needed to speed the trains up to 90 or even 110 mph.

 

There is a possibility that these expenses MAY not apply to a higher speed rail system for 3C....

 

+ Berea Connection Track ................ $10.8 million

+ NS/IORY Sharonville Connection ..... $20.0 million

+ IORY Oasis Line Replacement ......... $ 9.9 million

+ Cincinnati Lunken Airport Station .... $ 2.62 million

TOTAL ..........................................$43.32 million

 

Explanations.......

 

What is the Berea Connection Track? It is proposed as a 1,500- to 2,000-foot-long "pocket" track built east of Front Street to hold 3C passenger trains before switching onto either the Norfolk Southern (for northbound 3C trains) or CSX (for southbounds) mainlines. Both the NS and CSX mainlines are busy freight railroads. The Berea Connection Track will allow passenger trains to wait, if necessary, for a gap in freight traffic before proceeding into them. Most times, the passenger train probably will not have to wait, however. Still, some time (5-10 minutes?) will likely be built into the 3C schedule because there is a possibility a 3C train may have to wait on this track.

 

Other beneficiary: The Berea Connection Track would be long enough to hold short freight trains (20-25 cars) between the CSX and NS mainlines, or allow more than one freight train or more than one passenger train to transfer between the two mainlines at the same time. Thus it will increase capacity for freight traffic as well.

 

KJP's reason why this investment might not be used for higher-speed passenger rail: In my way of thinking, a Berea connecting track for high-speed operations would come from north/west side of the NS mainline to the north/west side of the CSX mainline on a "flyover" bridge engineered for 100+ speeds and require no waiting at all. This bridge is probably a $75 million to $150 million investment. I would not go to the south/west side of CSX because it would require possibly doubling the length of the Berea "Flyover", plus unecessarily bridging the W&LE at New London and because an abandoned segment of W&LE, an ideal HSR alignment next to CSX from New London to Greenwich, is on the north/west side of CSX. Yet the at-grade Berea Connection Track for 3C "Quick Start" may still be useful in a high-speed operation such as for added capacity or for local-stop services that complement the high-speed expresses.

________________

 

What is the NS/IORY Sharonville Connection? Although there are connection tracks between Norfolk Southern's Dayton District and the Indiana & Ohio Railway on the south side of the Sharonville Yard, the new connection would provide a freight-free linkage to then bypass NS's Sharonville Yard on another 3C capital improvement: a passenger-only track past the Sharonville Yard. The new connection will allow 3C trains from Dayton to switch from NS onto the IORY to get to the proposed Lunken Airport station. This connection track will probably be roughly 4,000 feet in length on a new right of way.

 

Other beneficiary: This would expand interline freight traffic capacity between NS and the IORY, including between NS's Sharonville Yard and IORY.

 

KJP's reason why this investment may not be used for higher-speed passenger rail: Hopefully a station at Cincinnati Union Terminal or possibly at the Crosset/Longworth Hall site will be chosen for a high-speed rail station. Thus this capital improvement may not find its place in a higher-speed rail system.

________________

 

What is the IORY Oasis Line Replacement? This cost component proposes replacing jointed rails on the IORY's Oasis Line with seamless welded rails which are smoother, safer, require less maintenance and could allow for increased train speeds.

 

Other beneficiary: This would definitely benefit the IORY with safer, smoother tracks and lower maintenance costs for its freight operations for possibly decades.

 

KJP's reason why this investment may not be used for higher-speed passenger rail: See the reason why the previous item, the NS/IORY Sharonville Connection, may not be needed for higher-speed rail.

________________

 

What is the Cincinnati Lunken Airport Station? This involves construction of a modest station facility, including layover tracks where terminating passenger trains can be serviced, restocked and refueled between runs.

 

Other beneficiary: Could possibly be used by IORY's excursion passenger trains.

 

KJP's reason why this investment may not be used for higher-speed passenger rail: See the reason why the previous two items, the NS/IORY Sharonville Connection as well as the IORY Oasis Line Replacement, may not be needed for higher-speed rail.

________________

 

I hope this helps answer thomasbw's good question. Again, this is only my opinion and not something that represents official policy by any organization, community or state/federal agency.

 

So as far as I can tell about 90 percent of ODOT's request will be applicable to a higher-speed rail system, although the remaining 10 percent will still have other long-term benefits.

KJP, of the $400 million, what percentage of the cost wouldn't be a down payment on higher speed rail?

 

Essentially the way I see it is that the worst case scenario is we make a $400 million down payment on a higher speed system and have a $17 million carrying cost per year (nothing compared to the $1 billion+ annual highway subsidy for Ohio). During that time Ohioans get the benefit of a conventional speed system and its connectivity.

 

On the other hand if we reject this system and construction costs inflate at over 4% per year from now until we do build the system, we essentially pay the same amount but don't get the current benefit. And that assumes there is another federal grant available.

 

 

 

As the saying goes....  "you can pay now or pay later"....but the costs always go up.

 

Given that the infrastructure improvements to the 3C rail corridor can serve as a springboard for eventual 110 MPH service in the same corridor, you could rightly say that the $400-million is a "down payment".

For those interested, CET/PBS is running "Blueprint America: Beyond the Motor City"  right now and 4:00am Wed morning, so set your DVR's.  It is all about the history of rail and where we have to go as a nation.  great doc!!!

On the other hand if we reject this system and construction costs inflate at over 4% per year from now until we do build the system, we essentially pay the same amount but don't get the current benefit. And that assumes there is another federal grant available.

 

BINGO!!!!

 

Here is how 3C could be ramped up to higher-speed service. Again, these conceptual schedules are not the position of any organization and are based on something I'd worked up several years ago before the 3C "Quick Start" idea came around though I did update and refine them a bit (note that the schedules are on two pages)....

 

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/3-C%20Corridor%20scheduleKJP.pdf

^That group of schedules or some form of it should be used to explain to the public how this line will evolve and that this is only the first step.  I think too many people think this is the culmination of passenger rail in Ohio.  Nothing could be further from the truth and that needs to be made clear.

I liked "KJP's Reasons" a lot more than I liked "KJP's Mythbusters."  Excellent work.  This gets to the heart of the matter.  If 90% of the 400 million directly applies to high speed rail, while only 10% applies exclusively to the quick-start aspect, it sounds like WE ARE in fact building high speed rail with this money... it just won't achieve high speed at the current stage.  This sounds a lot better than quick-start as a discrete project does.  The big picture here is what counts, fiscally and promotionally.

KJP, I am thinking that you need an op-ed explaining that the annual operating costs are probably less than the inflationary costs of waiting and that 90% of the funds will go directly to the bones of the 110mph system

 

Note the Ohio comment in here.....

 

Huffington Post (blog)

Modern High-Speed Rail Is a Winner for the Public -- and It's About More Than "Just Speed"

February 8, 2010

By Howard Learner

 

Investing in modern, fast, comfortable and convenient higher-speed rail service is a smart move. Better rail service will improve mobility, reduce pollution, create new jobs and spur economic growth.

 

The new federal investment is about more than "just speed" to succeed. "Modern, comfortable and convenient" count as much as "fast" for transforming our transportation system for the 21st century.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-learner/modern-high-speed-rail-is_b_452964.html

This is a truly amazing video that was posted last week on YouTube.......

 

 

I am in awe. Please share it far and wide.

Just so everyone knows ... so far as I can tell, there is no interest in Cincinnati for the Oasis Line Replacement line or for building a station at Lunken Airport, whether temporary or permanent.

 

Everyone from Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory on down (and especially rail advocates) favors bringing the 3C rail directly into Cincinnati Union Terminal. Spending the $30+ million now destined for the Oasis Line and Lunken to bring a fourth mainline into CUT instead would be a much wiser move.

 

I believe that the plan to go to Lunken has cost the plan support in Cincinnati and that it ought to be dropped as soon as possible.

It would probably be supported if they got it to the Boathouse, but that would cost even more money, and the East End NIMBYs have already made their feeling clear on the situation.  I wonder what they think about the commuter rail plans for that corridor.  It would be a shame if that ends up getting killed because of them, though is it even progressing at all at this point? 

"I believe that the plan to go to Lunken has cost the plan support in Cincinnati and that it ought to be dropped as soon as possible."

 

I'd have to wholeheartedly agree.  I was really excited about the project and talked it up with all my friends/family.  Now I'm a bit disillusioned since the project appears to be leaving Cincinnati out until the next phase.  I suppose it's good for Ohio, but I just can't get excited about a plan that was supposed to include our city and now it appears as though this is no longer the case.

^

Actually, I think the closer you get 3C Rail to the the Boathouse, the more support you lose.

 

The East Enders have been very clear all along. They favor electric rail, but they don't want diesel trains that will only stop every few miles. They see rail as a community builder. They want access at multiple points along the line.

 

The commuter rail plan in the Eastern Corridor is really a stalking-horse for bringing I-74 through Cincinnati on its way to the Carolina's under the cover of a "multi-modal solution." The highway will get built. The train won't.

 

Google "I-74 & Cincinnati" and read all about it.

The commuter rail plan in the Eastern Corridor is really a stalking-horse for bringing I-74 through Cincinnati on its way to the Carolina's under the cover of a "multi-modal solution." The highway will get built. The train won't.

 

Google "I-74 & Cincinnati" and read all about it.

Well isn't that interesting...

I'll tell you guys this.  If they build 3C to CUT I'm not going to use it to Cincy. 

 

It would still be easier to drive downtown or Findlay market area and do what I need to do there.  In fact the Streetcar would be used by me instead of 3C since I could see parking the Findlay Market area and taking it downtown and back, finishing up shopping at Findlay, or taking it up to the UC area and shopping there.

 

CUT is too out of the way to make it realistic.  Id have to take a bus or cab to get to where I want to go, or to a hotel.

 

This would be a contrast to, say, the Columbus solution, where the station is in the heart of a walkable destination area. I could take the train to Col, and walk north or south on High, even walk to the Hampton Inn  of Hyatt if I want to stay overnight. 

 

 

^ Guys let's try to move past this "here's why I wouldn't use this" stuff. That's been CLEARLY established. I'm not picking on you Jeffery, don't worry. We just need to have some faith that the system has to start somewhere, and it won't be perfect, and I have my disappointments with it just like a lot of you, but I'm also willing to put faith in the rail people who know more than me that, again we have to start somewhere and it won't be perfect.

^

Actually, I think the closer you get 3C Rail to the the Boathouse, the more support you lose.

 

The East Enders have been very clear all along. They favor electric rail, but they don't want diesel trains that will only stop every few miles. They see rail as a community builder. They want access at multiple points along the line.

 

The commuter rail plan in the Eastern Corridor is really a stalking-horse for bringing I-74 through Cincinnati on its way to the Carolina's under the cover of a "multi-modal solution." The highway will get built. The train won't.

 

Google "I-74 & Cincinnati" and read all about it.

 

Yyyyyep.

I'm sorry for Cincinnati:

 

“Sharonville will see fantastic growth as the first stop in the Cincinnati area,” said state Rep. Connie Pillich, D-Montgomery. “It will become the gateway to Cincinnati.”

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100128/NEWS0108/301280062/New-rail--All-aboard-for-%E2%80%A6-Sharonville

^

Not to worry. It's coming to Union Terminal.

^

Not to worry. It's coming to Union Terminal.

Ok, good.  I hope there's no doubt about that anymore.  Also, what about Lunken?  Are there plans to connect it to CUT somehow?

If CUT is the passenger rail hub, then there wouldn't be much need to connect to Lunken. If a regional high-speed rail system really gets off the ground, though, I'd see a need to connect CUT and CVG with reliable rail service, which would allow regional high-speed trains to serve as feeders to long-distance flights. Such an idea is far beyond the scope of the 3C project, though.

 

I don't think Lunken gets enough traffic to warrant a dedicated rail connection. That said, the Eastern Corridor project goes right past Lunken's front door, so presumably there could be a stop there that also serves the Columbia-Tusculum and/or Linwood neighborhoods.

That said, the Eastern Corridor project goes right past Lunken's front door, so presumably there could be a stop there that also serves the Columbia-Tusculum and/or Linwood neighborhoods.

Sorry if this is too far off topic.  Does the EC project actually have any legs to it?  I went to the website and I can't tell if it has updated since Aug, 2008.

Strickland Lashes Out At Critics Of Rail Plan

| NBC4i.com

www2.nbc4i.com

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland on Tuesday lashed out at critics of the state’s plan to use $400 million in federal stimulus money for a startup rail service, calling them “cheerleaders for failure.“

 

Strickland said he’s tired of people who attack every idea that comes along and always look for something negative to say.

 

“We need cheerleaders for Ohio, not cheerleaders for failure,“ said Strickland, a Democrat running for re-election. “I’m getting a little frustrated that every time an idea comes along we devote ourselves to finding all the reasons why we shouldn’t do it or it won’t work.“

 

Full story at: http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/strickland_lashes_out_at_critics_of_rail_plan/31525/

Look at the first comment (from the srticle above, pasted below) It is a poster child of how some people have no clue of the need for rail here. I did not know we were allowed to drive 79MPH and that there are no delayes in conventional auto traffic. This public is so mucked up. They are so used to living their entire lives in their car.  My concern is how can we have something traveling at 200MPH high speeds in what is a densely populaed state with many towns along the way...dioes this not present some sort of safety issue?

 

Anyway, Here is the comment 

 

"The Rail Project “Could” be a good idea. 

But, “Not” if it’s only going to go 79 MPH or to Dayton.  We can do that in our own vehicles and not have to waste time driving to the station and paying to park.

 

Now…“IF” it were a High Speed rail system that would go 150 MPH or better like the ones in JAPAN, and then go thru the 3C’s and onto Indianapolis instead of Dayton, then you might have something worthwhile.

 

Then you would even create extra revenue from people wanting to ride it just to go 150+ MPH for the thrill of it.

 

But, “IF” it’s only going to go 79 MPH….then forget about it.  Not even interested.