^

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

 

There is about $32.52 million that could be redirected to providing access to Union Terminal and expanding the station facilities there. It might be more because the proposed Sharonville Yard bypass would be on the east side of the yard where new right of way and a totally new bridge over Mill Creek would be needed. It might cost less to build the 2.1-mile passenger bypass of Sharonville yard on the west side of it, where there is an abandoned railroad hump yard and existing but unused railroad bridges over Mill Creek. This wasn't considered because the assumption was that that the new connection track would have to be built to reach the Oasis Line, and the best access for that was from the east-side passenger bypass of the yard. The cost of this yard bypass track was estimated at $27.1 million. What would it cost to built on an existing right of way on the west side of the yard? Good question!! But I doubt it would cost as much because existing right of way would be used.

 

If it saves money, and if Cincinnati leaders don't want the Lunken station, AND if the Federal Railroad Administration allows this change, then the savings might also be applied to CUT access/expansion. But this is up to Cincinnatians.

I can't recall any politician wanting a Lunken station.

But I think they wanted a station in the City of Cincinnati as soon as possible. Mayor Mallory made light of this at the Jan. 28 announcement at the Statehouse, saying something like: "We are happy that $400 million has been awarded for 3C, and we're even happier that $390 million of it will be spent in Cincinnati."

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 its 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.

 

NowIF it were a High Speed rail system that would go 150 MPH or better like the ones in JAPAN, and then go thru the 3Cs 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 its only going to go 79 MPH.then forget about it.  Not even interested.

 

 

Anyone who wants the trains should send comments of their own.

Teamsters praise new funding for high speed rail projects

 

Statement from Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa issued the following statement regarding President Obama’s announcement about the distribution of $8 billion for high speed rail projects in the United States:

 

“We represent the skilled railroad workers who build and maintain our nation’s railroad tracks and operate our freight and passenger rail network nationwide. These highly skilled Teamsters possess the skills, training and safety qualifications necessary to build, maintain and operate these new high speed rail lines and safely handle the trains along the routes.

 

”High speed rail is a crucial investment in our future and building these rail lines will create good jobs and provide working families with security.

 

“The growth and expansion of our country was partly determined by the first railroads that crossed the nation. We see high speed rail as a modern extension of those first projects.

 

“I, along with Freddie Simpson, President of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and Paul Sorrow, President of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, look forward to continuing our work with the Obama administration to preserve rail jobs and expand work opportunities for members of the Teamster Rail Conference.”

 

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters was founded in 1903 and represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. The Teamsters Rail Conference represents more than 70,000 railroad workers, including locomotive engineers and trainmen who operate the trains and maintenance of way workers who build and repair tracks, switches, and related rail infrastructure on freight, passenger and commuter rail lines across the United States.

Well, we've got funding for a $400M commitment for 3-C and it's near reality.  How close are the other 3 Ohio Hub corridors out of Cleveland to reality?  Of all the other 3, I hear the least, on this board anyway, about the Cleve-Buffalo-Toronto leg.  Is that one still considered viable?

Possibly. But the Programmatic Environmental Impact Study to identify improvements necessary for 90-110 mph passenger rail on five corridors/segments is months aways from moving forward. Those Ohio Hub corridors are:

 

> Cleveland - Columbus

> Columbus - Cincinnati

> Toledo - Columbus

> Toledo - Cleveland

> Cleveland - Pittsburgh

 

I'm hopeful either NYDOT or PennDOT will take on Cleveland - Buffalo, MDOT will take on Detroit - Toledo and INDOT will take on Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati as well as Chicago - Ft Wayne - Toledo. As you know, a PEIS is a necessary first step in the federally recognized planning process for a proposed high-speed rail project to be eligible for federal funds.

^ 98.2% of people who would be happy to try something new have no psychological motivation to rant on the internet.

Probably true! :-D

Possibly. But the Programmatic Environmental Impact Study to identify improvements necessary for 90-110 mph passenger rail on five corridors/segments is months aways from moving forward. Those Ohio Hub corridors are:

 

> Cleveland - Columbus

> Columbus - Cincinnati

> Toledo - Columbus

> Toledo - Cleveland

> Cleveland - Pittsburgh

 

I'm hopeful either NYDOT or PennDOT will take on Cleveland - Buffalo, MDOT will take on Detroit - Toledo and INDOT will take on Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati as well as Chicago - Ft Wayne - Toledo. As you know, a PEIS is a necessary first step in the federally recognized planning process for a proposed high-speed rail project to be eligible for federal funds.

 

Man, can we get the Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor added in there?!?!  :wave:

Sorry, my once-a-month trips to Pittsburgh make me a little biased for that corridor service to be built. :wink:

I'd also like to see Columbus - Lima - Ft Wayne - Chicago get in there since there is no parallel interstate highway.

Editorial: Criticism comes with job, Governor

 

On this Valentine's Day, Gov. Ted Strickland isn't receiving any love with regard to Ohio's rail plan.

 

Last week, the Democratic governor lashed out at critics of the state's plan to use $400 million in federal stimulus money for a startup rail service, explaining he's tired of people who attack every idea that comes along and always look for something negative to say.

 

For more of this story, click on or type the URL below:

 

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/02/14/opinion/nh2077360.txt

There also were anti-rail pieces in the PD today by Thomas Suddes, in a PR piece by the highway builders' publication, and last week in the Strongsville Post guest column by a guy named Tim Angbrandt who recently lost his job at a company that made components for highway construction equipment plus trucks and buses.

 

This has gone on long enough. I need everyone here respond to the incredible ignorance by our media. I can help, but I do not have enough time in my day to write all the letters that need to be written to all of the media to turn back this onslaught of ignorance. The consistency of inaccuracies and the fact that it is continuing makes it clear to me that this is part of a coordinated campaign. They are the longtime enemies of rail -- the highway builders at the Ohio Contractors Information Association, Ohio Trucking Association, the Ohio Petroleum Marketers Assocation or people on their behalf are leading this fight against us. They fear they will have share the public feeding trough with us.

 

Now is this time for all rail supporters to write letters to the editors of their local papers. Make sure they have access to the 3C Mythbusters piece available at www.allaboardohio.org. Either speak out against this BS or watch the $400 million go to another state like Michigan which has an active passenger rail development program. Fight for your trains!!!

KJP is right. IF YOU WANT THE TRAINS, step up and take the naysayers on!!!

Suddes is a jerk who, like most critics, has raised the bar for trains stupidly: if it's not Acela high-speed at 150 MPH, it's now worth building.  Oh yeah, and maybe someone should remind Suddes that to electrify 3-C, it would cost ump-teen times the $400M (and you know he'd raise holy hell in that case), and that only on a few select sections of Acela are trains zoned for 150 MPH due to the age of the infrastructure... I'm in.

Hit him, verbally speaking of course.

Suddes is a right-wing moron... I'm in.

 

That's the wrong attitude to go about it...

Suddes is a right-wing moron... I'm in.

 

That's the wrong attitude to go about it...

That is the first and probably only time I'll ever hear Suddes referred to as "right-wing."

 

Suddes ends with this:

That's why sinking $400 million in one-time federal money into state-backed passenger trains may not be Ohio's best move. And that's a fair, non-partisan question, no matter who's governor -- or wants to be.

 

That's not particularly ideological or illogical.

 

Jeffery and Johio made similar points up thread when they said:

 

I am really coming around to thinking spending this in Ohio is a waste of money.

 

I know we few, we happy few, we band of Urban Ohioans support the concept, but is there political support and ridership to really make this happen without the plug getting pulled a few years on?

 

This is my greatest fear as well. It would be much harder to pull the plug on a grandiose plan that is well underway as opposed to an incremental plan that is plodding along until more money comes down the pike. I do think there is support for high-speed rail in Ohio but not for this particular project. My father and I talked about this the other day. He (a Limbaugh/Hannity conservative) loves the idea of high-speed trains but he thinks the current plan is under-whelming and unimpressive. He doesn't mind spending money but he thinks for $400 million, you better see some results. I have a feeling a lot of independent/moderates could be swayed with a really great proposal. Instead, we are alienating them.

 

I understand that historically that rail lines have been built in incriments but I honestly believe that these unorthodox economic and political times call for an unorthodox approach.

 

Rail advocates should have known that a proposed, incremental process was going to be divisive and contentious. It probably would've made more sense to have kept the whole thing on the downlow and just lumped the spending in with some highway improvement funds and just labeled it a massive infrastructure improvement program. If the State would've said we're going to use these funds to help improve Ohio's transporation networks, a little on roads, a little on rail no one would've even batted an eye.

 

I think many of us had a lot higher, and yes, perhaps even unrealistic expectations, of what was really presented. Now that we've seen the reality, we can't help but be a bit disillusioned and wonder why.

 

I just don't want to watch trains get axed after they are implemented poorly. This might work out fine if someone in leadership explains to Ohioans why it matters.

 

Does anyone actually know how many Ohioans want this project? Maybe that should be taken into consideration? It might be a high percentage.

^which is why I changed the post... (although I still believe it)

^which is why I changed the post... (although I still believe it)

didn't see the change.  duly noted.  your belief perplexes me but such is life.

Does anyone actually know how many Ohioans want this project? Maybe that should be taken into consideration? It might be a high percentage.

 

A public poll last year that asked about the validity of the project (not how to pay for it as the last one did) showed 66 percent support. But given the lazy media reporting on this project, I don't think the public has accurate information to form a well-founded opinion.

I think public opinion is a bit muddled, because it only recently became clear that Ohio would be the only (?) state building low-speed rail as part of the national high-speed program.  It was easy enough before the awards came out to lump these ideas together, and to assume Ohio would end up going with a different plan than this one.  Also, the current fiscal situation changes things... raising the bar, if nothing else. 

 

This is why I think pro-rail publicity may need to take a different tack than it has in the past.  The arguments against it seem to skip "trains are dumb" and go directly for "we can't afford to do this, in this manner, at this time."  This suggests that the most effective counterargument would be fiscal in nature, and would highlight the project as an investment and a development tool, rather than as a usable service.  And I can't emphasize enough the need for people need to hear that there are definite plans for 1) high-speed in Ohio, and 2) connectivity between Ohio and other states.     

It is a combination of intellectual laziness on the part of experienced reporters and an almost complete unfamiliarity with any aspect of railroading in general...and passenger railroading specifically... on the part of reporters who are new to the subject.

 

What is troubling about the experienced reporters is their almost unquestioned acceptance of so-called "conventional wisdom" espoused by the critics: that people don't ride trains anymore, that 79-MPH trains are too slow, that trains and transit are somehow the only modes that require subsidies....and on and on.  The only reporter that I've observed to go the extra mile and talk to passenger rail experts outside of Ohio and examine what other states are doing has been Matt Leingang of the Assoicated Press.  Has his coverage been perfect?.... no.  But to expect perfection in covering a complex topis is a bit unreasonable.  His coverage has generally been fair, thorough and detailed.... and he hasn't taken critics or proponents comments at face value.

 

But the passenger rail cliche's I've seen and heard expressed by some reporters and columnists (like Suddes) has to be at least in part out of either an unwillingness or lack of interest in challenging their own assumptions.  That is the definition of laziness.

 

"His coverage has generally been fair, thorough and detailed.... and he hasn't taken critics or proponents comments at face value."

 

That was pretty much his M.O. when I worked with him at the Daily Kent Stater.

Ohio is not the only state building a low-speed rail program. The Cascades Corridor in the Pacific Northwest got $600 million to improve performance and expand services, but the top speed will remain 79 mph. See:  http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/eugene_seattle_vancouver.pdf

 

The St. Louis-Kansas City will receive funding for capacity enhancements, but the top speed will remain 79 mph.

 

None of the $244 million to be spent on the Detroit-Chicago corridor will be to increase train speeds above 79 mph. Instead, it is for capacity enhancements between Chicago and Porter, IN. From Porter, IN to Kalamazoo, MI, the state of Michigan has been working for 10 years on trying to get the speeds increased there to 110 mph. They increased speeds over a portion of this corridor to 95 last year, but none of this work is in the same area where the stimulus funds will be spent. In that section, top speeds will stay 79 mph.

It looks like we all need to do our best to make rail part of the multimodal transportation future of Ohio.  This will be even harder than it was getting to this point.  We have some skin in the game now and we're going to have to win over the public in any way we can. 

 

When Ohio received $400 million worth of taxpayer money, it was also given the headache of proving the longterm financial and political viability of the program in a state that is big and only sparingly dense. 

 

We're not preaching to the choir, we're preaching to the skeptical now.  Making people fall in love with trains is at least as important as making the numbers make sense.  The video KJP is a good example of the type of PR we need.  Voters give priority to things they love and things they think have tangible and intangible value.  Trains can't compete with cars in a lot of ways on paper because people can't change their perspective unless they've had a positive experience with it. That's why getting rail right on the first go is so important and that's the catch-22 of this whole situation.

Good to know, re: Cascades, Missouri, and Michgan... but how will the average speeds compare?  And is anyone else starting a new service now at the level of 3-C?  The newness of it is part of the unique challenge here.  I think future upgrades will be a much easier sell. 

 

Ohio is not "sparingly dense" at all... not like states further west, which already have rail... we have a plethora of major cities scattered around the state, and we're directly between many other key cities.  Our counties are small and many of them have sizeable county seats.  Ohio's layout and location are as well suited to rail travel as anywhere in the world.

 

However, we do lack density in our urban cores, and that is a problem for rail travel.  In related news, we also lack public transit.  Those issues can be addressed... and developing a rail system will help us in addressing them over the long term.  Unfortunately those issues also demonstrate the steepness of our political climb.  Our cities are hollow and car-dependent because that's the way people here have wanted them.  Approaches which have been "successful" in other regions may have limited applicability in this specific place and time. 

 

That thinking underlies my premise that our arguments need to be modernized and custom-tailored to Ohio's sensibilities.  As tempting as it may be, I think we need to avoid any version of "Can't you see how backwoods stupid you are?"  Legitimate concerns have been raised and they need to be addressed directly.  The people raising these concerns are more likely to back down if they can walk away feeling that they were right to raise the concerns they raised, and that these concerns are not foreign concepts to us "train people."  And they might be less likely, under those circumstances, to view our concepts as foreign.         

Cascades services started out at 41 mph average speed for the whole corridor, and 46 mph for the busiest section between Seattle and Portland. Because they now use trains that can tilt into curves, that cut the travel time by 30 minutes to offer an average speed of 53 mph. Ridership jumped from 150,000 or so in the first year to 775,000 last year.

 

Kansas City-St. Louis is 183 miles which Missouri's two state-supported Amtrak trains cover in 5 hours, 40 minutes. That's an average speed of 50 mph and its been stuck at that speed for nearly 20 years. In the early 90s KC-STL offered a 5 hour, 20-minute schedule, or 54 mph average speed. But on-time performance has dramatically improved recently, as has ridership, thanks to some federally funded capacity enhnacements.

 

The Detroit-Chicago corridor is 281 miles and offers running times of about 5 hours, 40 minutes -- an average speed of 50 mph even with the 95 mph running on the Porter-Kalamazoo segment. Ridership was about 300,000 in the 1990s but is up above 800,000 today.

 

I think ODOT has done a pretty good job in designing public transit access into the 3C service. In nearly all cities, 3C train stations will be located where the transit already is.

This article is one of the best I've seen on 3C so far:

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

 

 

The last few questions show you that this could work out well financially:

 

Q: What else is this going to cost?

A: Ohio would need to spend about $17 million to keep the service operational each year.

 

Q: Where will Ohio get the money for that?

A: State rail planners are looking at various options, including advertising and naming rights. The Ohio Department of Transportation also has money from a federal program that supports projects that reduce highway congestion and improve air quality, spokesman Scott Varner said.

 

Q: How does $17 million compare with other transportation costs?

A: Ohio's transportation budget sets aside $5.7 billion for road, bridge and highway maintenance and construction for 2010-11. Over the next 10 to 15 years, the state's three biggest projects are a $1.6 billion reconstruction of Interstate 90 in Cleveland; a $1.6 billion reconfiguration of Interstates 70/71 in Columbus; and a $2.3 billion replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, with Kentucky sharing the cost.

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

 

The Q&A says that there at least one Republican will have to vote yes on the Controlling Board to approve the spending and that the GOP said they won't object as long as the state has a solid financial plan.

 

This project is more than doable. I know of several Ohio companies that specialize in transportation wrap advertising and see no reason why each train shouldn't be 'wrapped.'

 

In nearly all cities, 3C train stations will be located where the transit already is.

 

I think the only city without adequate public transit is Sharonville, where I hope that a Metro express route will run into Cincinnati.

For the first three years, the most that Ohio will spend per year is $3.4 million. That represents the 20 percent state match needed to tap existing federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality grants for passenger rail (the same account North Carolina is tapping for their third daily round trip between Charlotte and Raleigh that will start very soon). ODOT has identified that the LOGO program will more than cover that $3.4 million maximum. As ridership develops over the first three years, Ohio will then be able to make its case to advertisers, wifi vendors, station/train retail vendors and others for business opportunities involving the train service.

 

They will comprise the mix of funding after the first three years, which is about the time the federally required planning will be done to increase train speeds to 90 mph or better.

50 average mph is a conservative number used commercially to estimate inter-city driving times, so it's a key figure in getting people to take rail over car.  Average speed is critical while top speed is comparatively irrelevant.

 

ODOT may be doing a good job tying in available transit options, but the prospect of getting to a meeting (or other destination) that's located near 270 or 271 will be daunting until there's significant local transit growth.  Coastal cities tend to be more core-centric and I think that explains their degree of rail utilization. 

 

I'm not suggesting we try to tackle the entire sprawl issue in conjunction with promoting 3-C... in fact I doubt that we should... I'm attempting to demystify the opposition's stance.  It's difficult for them to equate taking a slow train into downtown Columbus with taking the same slow train into downtown Boston.  Not only is there more to do upon arriving in downtown Boston, you have a better quality and quantity of options there for the next leg of your trip.  And, also because of its core-centricity, the chances are much higher in Boston that your ultimate destination is in or near the core.  In Columbus, chances are it's not.       

OK, right-wing, left-wing... I think we can agree, Suddes is on the wrong wing...

Obama and like-minded pols before, Bill Clinton included, honestly want/wanted to create "high-speed" train (corridors).  In fact, Clinton accomplished it by finishing off the New Have to Boston electrification, ROW improvements that created Acela -- plans that were 2 decades+ old from Carter (killed off by Reagan)...

 

But but what was a well-intended terminology ("high-speed trains") has been surreptitiously co-opted and used as a weapon against any conventional train expansion which people like KJP wisely understand you need to build on -- at least, in most cases... The 3-C route has more density than some of those out of Chicago -- more big Ohio met areas, closer together -- particularly compared to the routes south and west of Chi-town; these have been so-called "slow corridors" for years, and yet they draw passengers... to the extent, many are up for the Midwest Initiative 110 MPH upgrade.  It sure would be nice if the 3-C critics of 'slow trains vs. I-71' would do their homework.

Union Terminal can meet rail station timetable, backers say

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100215/NEWS0108/2160314/Union+Terminal+being+railroaded?

Union Terminal can meet rail station timetable, backers say"If Cincinnati must initially use a temporary station, the strong preference within City Hall is for several locations in Bond Hill close to Interstate 75."

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100215/NEWS0108/2160314/Union+Terminal+being+railroaded?

 

What I've been sayin'

Excellent news. This is what Cincinnati needs more of: People standing up and refusing to accept "no" for an answer.

Good to see the city put its foot down on the matter. It's what the "naysayers" have been saying all along --

 

"Union Terminal is such a clear choice. Listen, if we run a $400 million train through Cincinnati and don't take advantage of the obvious station location, we'll all be laughed out of town."

-Councilman Bortz

 

Build it to Union Terminal.

^ditto all of the above^  CUT is the only good choice.

Glad to see they are pushing for CUT and are not content with the Lunken site.

Ahem....

 

I-71 South Closed At S.R. 61 After Numerous Crashes

 

By Denise Yost | Multimedia Content Manager, nbc4i.com

Published: February 15, 2010

 

MORROW COUNTY, Ohio—Interstate 71 southbound is closed in Morrow County after what officials called numerous crashes due to road conditions.

 

According to officials with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, the crashes occurred around 2 p.m. Monday.

 

READ MORE AT...

 

http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/traffic/article/i-71_restricted_in_delaware_county_after_numerous_crashes/31889/

I'd argue that the riverfront transit center is the best choice, especially for connectivity reasons.  That'd be a no-brainer for people coming here for sporting events.  It has its own issues though, and CUT would be a better option for people from Cincinnati going elsewhere.  It's also the best location that's within our grasp right now, and I'm glad to see Bortz pushing for it.  It would be nice to see the transit center become the second Cincinnati station at some point in the future, especially if commuter service can be started on the corridor, but I wouldn't expect it to happen anytime soon.

^

Pretty sure you can't get the equipment into the RTC.

Yes, I know the Superliners don't fit, but is that really the most likely equipment to be used?  That is one of the problems with the transit center, but it's still something worth keeping on the radar screen. 

 

 

    There are three tracks coming down the Mill Creek Valley to get to Union Terminall.

 

    A good place to see them is from the sidewalk on the Ludlow Viaduct.

 

    I challenge anyone to stand on the sidewalk for as long as you want and record the freight trains that come through. There are very many, they are very long, and they often run very slow because they need to reduce speed to enter the yards. Often all three tracks are occupied at the same time.

 

    Now, consider that a passenger train is going to be running fast. Just say that they would operate at 30 mph - far from high speed. At a ten minute safety headway - that is, the train must be able to travel for 10 minutes at 30 miles per hour - the train needs 2 1/2 miles of open track ahead of it. That will just about reach from Ludlow Viaduct to Cincinnati Union Terminal passenger station.

 

    These are slow, very conservative numbers - and the congestion is so bad that it's just about unimaginable.

 

    Can it be done? Sure - but at a cost. How much money do you have? In order to clear the track of freight trains, what you have to do is PAY them to clear the track. That means that to pay it's way, the passenger train has to pay the railroad more than all of those freight trains do in order to use the track.

 

    A freight car charges on the order of $500 per trip. A freight train has as many as 100 cars. That's $50,000 per train. A passenger train is going to displace more than one freight train. Let's just say that it costs $100,000 to clear the rails for passenger trains. With just 6 passenger trains per day, that's $600,000 a day or $219 million per year - over half of the $400 million we are talking about for construction, not to mention operating costs!

 

    I'm working with round numbers.  I think it's clear that CUT is not a viable option for passenger rail at this point, due to congestion, unless you don't mind you passengers sitting on the train in traffic for hours, like Amtrak does.

 

   

What I'm curious about is, what percentage of those trains bypass the yards completely?  There appear to be 2 or 3 tracks for most of the length of the yards past CUT that only serve a few industrial sidings, but mainly provide a clear path to the Cincinnati Southern Bridge and the C&O Viaduct.  Are those tracks particularly congested? 

I would add that Cincinnati's problem with rail congestion in the Mill Creek valley is literally almost a 150 years old. The problems in that valley went a small way to explaining why Chicago leapfrogged Cincinnati in the post-Civil War era (it is more complicated, but it was not insignificant). Folks have been bitching about it for longer than that.

 

Moral of the story: you are not alone, your ancestors were frustrated too.

Yes, I know the Superliners don't fit, but is that really the most likely equipment to be used?  That is one of the problems with the transit center, but it's still something worth keeping on the radar screen. 

 

It's possible that double-decker US Railcar equipment will be used (I believe they are taller than Superliners). See how tall the US Railcar double-decker is compared to the other double-deck commuter rail cars in this Florida Tri-Rail train....

 

 

Here is US Railcar double-deck cars, operated as both an unpowered mid-train trailer and as self-propelled DMU (Diesel-Multiple Unit) cars during tests in Florida....

 

 

 

Yes, I know the Superliners don't fit, but is that really the most likely equipment to be used?  That is one of the problems with the transit center, but it's still something worth keeping on the radar screen. 

 

Possibly not for the currect 3C plan, but eventually it would be nice to see Cincinnati get lots of additional routes that may or may not use trains of that size.  If that's the case, using the RTC would be an impediment to such growth.  As a secondary Amtrak terminal to CUT, it's presence would likely confuse out-of-town passengers (like when Delta tried to book me on a connecting flight landing at JFK and departing Laguardia). 

 

Also, other than approaching from the east (which locals over there don't seem particularly supportive of), I don't see how getting trains to RTC is any easier than to CUT.  Personally, I agree with Bortz.  Do whatever it takes to prepare CUT for a return to service, leaving the RTC as is.  Hopefully it will eventually find use as a light rail station, although I really don't mind it as a place for charter buses to unload during events.

 

I'd love to be wrong about this because the RTC is more centrally located, but focusing on CUT seems like the better play to me.

The problem with RTC is that in order to get there from the west, you'd still have to make the same improvements through the Mill Creek Valley as you would to get the trains to CUT. To get to RTC from the east, you'd have to make improvements to the Oasis Line.

 

If it were up to me, I'd do what it takes to get 3C service to CUT, and connect CUT to downtown via streetcars and/or light rail. RTC would then be used for light rail exclusively, as it would be ideal for daily commuters coming into downtown from the rest of the city and suburbs, not to mention the sports fans and fireworks spectators, etc.

Whatever else happens, as long as we don't end up with a color scheme like this, I'll be happy.

 

 

And yes, getting to the transit center would be more work than to CUT, I just think it would be worth planning for down the road.  If by some miracle we do get commuter rail going up the Mill Creek Valley, CUT would be a lousy place for it to terminate.  Maybe that's the way to think about it.  Long-distance trains stop at CUT, but commuter trains would stop at both.  A little timing and a free trip to the transit center with a valid 3-C ticket would be a nice alternative to catching a cab or bus to get to the heart of downtown.