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.

This is my ideal as well.

I think the other issue with RTC is whether or not it's equipped to vent diesel fumes from the space. Doing so would require lots of huge ductwork and air handling units, and still isn't totally effective. (See Chicago's Union Station for an example of what happens when you have diesel trains idling in an enclosed space.) If the trains are electric, then it's a non-issue.

^

I've heard the venting isn't adequate. Also, no place for passenger amenities, access by service vehicles, etc.

^ Right... No waiting rooms, no ticket windows, no luggage facilities, no crew facilities, etc. This is why RTC would be ideal as a light rail station serving daily commuters, but not so ideal for intercity travelers.

^

Can we just all just get comfortable with the idea that the 3C needs to get to CUT? They'll figure it out if that's what the public demands.

 

    CUT is a bit far from downtown, but it has one tremendous advantage: it is a well known location with visibility from I-75 that just about everyone has been to thanks to the Museum Center. The station itself is more than adequate, and there is plenty of room for services and amenities.

 

    However, in my humble opinion it is unrealistic to talk about passenger service to CUT given the congestion problem. Those 3 tracks are busy busy busy!

If the city gets funding for the 4th main track, that could help.

I still think there's probably ways they can work around some of the congestion issues.  They can hold up waiting trains in Sharonville for instance, instead of letting them clog up the main line farther south.  An important question is how much of the traffic is on the NS (former Big Four/NYC) through Sharonville versus the CSX (former CH&D/B&O) through Glendale?  Of course the congestion is worst south of Ivorydale where those two lines merge, but might there be options for mitigating it a bit north of that junction as well?

RTC wasn't designed for high-speed rail, or for double-decked vehicles. In addition, it doesn't have sufficient venting for large diesel locomotives -- it was designed for electrically-powered light-rail.

 

As for the congestion, has there been any discussion about expanding many of the outlying yards to reduce dependence on Queensgate? Especially for intermodal?

 

  Yes, there has been discussion about expanding use of the other yards, especially Sharon Yard. The drawback of Sharon Yard is that two routes come together at the south end of the yard, whereas they need them to come together at the north end. They have to assemble trains in Queensgate in order to use either branch. There was talk about construction of a new track north of Sharon Yard, but apparently nothing came of it.

I still think there's probably ways they can work around some of the congestion issues.  They can hold up waiting trains in Sharonville for instance, instead of letting them clog up the main line farther south.  An important question is how much of the traffic is on the NS (former Big Four/NYC) through Sharonville versus the CSX (former CH&D/B&O) through Glendale?  Of course the congestion is worst south of Ivorydale where those two lines merge, but might there be options for mitigating it a bit north of that junction as well?

 

Sorry for the long message, but bear with me here....

 

Cincinnati's freight traffic flows are very unique for a privately owned rail network. CSX and NS work cooperatively to move freight trains over the other's tracks. In the past, CSX (former B&O) and NS (mix of former N&W/Pennsylvania RR and Conrail/Penn Central/New York Central) operated independently of each other between the Cincinnati Terminal area and Hamilton.

 

Today, northbound CSX and NS freight traffic use CSX's Cincinnati Terminal Subdivision between the single-tracked Winton Place interlocking (at Mitchell & Spring Grove avenues) in Cincinnati and Butler Street interlocking in Hamilton. Southbound NS and CSX trains use NS's New Castle District between Hamilton/Butler Street and the south end of NS's Sharonville Yard (CP Evendale), then switch over to NS's Dayton District between Sharonville and Winton Place.

 

It is not unusual to see one NS and one CSX freight train running side-by-side in the same direction northbound on CSX, or southbound on NS. Amtrak would have to run against the flow of most freight traffic heading northbound on NS from Winton Place to Sharonville. I do not know if NS freight traffic bound for Dayton goes on CSX or stays on NS.

 

But this directional flow (north on CSX, south on NS) is why ODOT/Amtrak proposed to build a new track connection at CP Evendale to go to Lunken and stay away from this mess. Granted, I hate the Lunken site. But to get a passenger train south of Evendale means sticking freight trains into sidings north of Evendale and/or keeping them in the Queensgate Yard until a track is clear of passenger trains. Or, it means building a third main track from Evendale to Winton Place (7 miles) where none had existed previously, and building a fourth main track from Winton Place to CUT (5 miles) where none had existed previously either.

 

I did a little back of the envelope analysis just for the Winton Place-CUT section last year and figured that the fourth main might exceed $80 million. Perhaps it might be $100 million. But I did not understand the directional running of freight traffic on the NS and CSX lines north of Winton Place until after I had done the analysis. To add a third main track here could cost $25 million per mile, or $175 million for that 7-mile section, based on a cursory analysis by Parsons Brinckerhoff. The total cost could approach $300 million for the Evendale-CUT capacity enhancement.

 

I don't mean to scare anyone. I just want to prepare you for sticker shock.

 

And, to show that a lot more information is needed for this area..... I have heard from some Cincinnatians who keep close tabs on rail traffic flows and trends. They believe the capacity issues resulting from the few trains proposed for 3C "Quick Start" could be dealt with by double-tracking 1,500 feet of the elevated CSX line through Winton Place and by removing a pinch point below Hopple Street Viaduct where three tracks narrow to two tracks for just 900 feet. These fixes won't be cheap either, but they'd be a whole lot cheaper than widening the railroad right of way for 12 miles.

 

There is still lots to learn about what might truly be needed for 3C "Quick Start" trains to reach CUT.

I have had heard that the RR's would love to get another bridge across the Ohio near the current one at the south end of Queensgate. Is there any way of working that investment into a larger investment in rail in the Mill Creek Valley and 3C (shoot Brent Spence) and getting some funding for the whole deal that could make this a truly transformational investment for the region and nation and shoot even the world?

I was able to go on one of the 1-hour heritage tours of CUT when I was there Saturday. It was crazy thinking about how busy the place was in the 30s-40s compared to what it is now. The room that was the men's lounge is now the dinky Amtrak waiting room. The rail yard that CUT operated itself extended beyond the western hills viaduct. Our tour guide said it would take Billions of dollars to build it today, IF you could find the skill and resources. What are we spending money on today that makes taking advantage of such a gem so out of the question? Our highways aren't in amazing condition, neither are our bridges, no one is building any new airports.. Yet we are scrambling to find the money to make something happen that was booming 80 years ago?

 

BTW, I highly recommend doing one of the CUT tours..I believe they are on the weekends at 1,2, and 3pm and they are completely free  :-)

Well the feds just blew $250 million on the third north/south runway at CVG, a year before Delta started pulling out.  People say "we don't have the money".  The money absolutely exists in the form of capital funds for needless airport and highway expansions. 

4th Main is $70.9 million according to their TRAC application: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-02.pdf

Friday, February 12, 2010  |  Modified: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 8:00am EST

Republicans in prime spot to derail passenger system

Business First of Columbus - by Adrian Burns

 

Republicans who have criticized a plan to develop a trans-Ohio passenger train line may be able to derail the proposal before it ever leaves the station.

 

Ohio was awarded $400 million from Congress’ stimulus program to underwrite creation of the rail system, and it can spend the money only with approval from the state Controlling Board, a seven-member group that stamps its OK on government spending requests. But that approval will require the yes vote of at least one Republican member, who would need to break ranks from the prevailing GOP opinion that the proposal would be a misguided use of taxpayer money and an unwarranted strain on the state’s troubled budget.

 

That need for support could give Republicans the leverage to push for significant changes in the passenger rail plans.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/02/15/story2.html?b=1266210000^2876861

The Republicans are saying 'NO' to something. That's new  :roll:

 

Aren't these Federal funds? Why would the state not want to accept that?

Because it would make the Democratic governor look good, and because the GOPers don't know about the extent of benefits passenger rail has created in excess of costs in other states.

The Republicans are saying 'NO' to something. That's new :roll:

 

These next few elections are definitely going to be interesting. Last night I told my dad, a staunch Republican, that I was considering voting for Strickland. Even someone like my father who tends to lean right, but grew up in cities with real public transportation, understands why having transportation options is important. I'm not a fan of everything Ted Strickland has done and tend to agree with my dad when it comes to politics, but this is a big issue for me and Kasich's outright opposition is a big turn off.

No predicament here.  It has to be Strickland and rail is the reason.  I don't like Strickland much, and as a Democrat I think his weakness hurts the party statewide... but Kasich's willful blindness spells danger.  And I'd be pretty worried if the vote were held today.   

Read the quotes from Senators Harris and Carey in the article.  It's not the usual idealogical dreck that we see from (for instance) Sen. Patton.  Harris and Carey are pretty reasonable.  I think they are saying "Give us a good reason to move this project forward and we're okay with it.

These next few elections are definitely going to be interesting. Last night I told my dad, a staunch Republican, that I was considering voting for Strickland. Even someone like my father who tends to lean right, but grew up in cities with real public transportation, understands why having transportation options is important. I'm not a fan of everything Ted Strickland has done and tend to agree with my dad when it comes to politics, but this is a big issue for me and Kasich's outright opposition is a big turn off.

 

Did the Republicans do anything to improve Ohio when they had a lock on state government from 1994-2006?  Any game changing projects?

This is from a blog, but might be worth noting. The 3C: What It Can Mean In November

 

Below is a table broken down by age group. The columns include voter interest(gaugued by total percentage who said they were "extremely" or "very" interested in voting in the fall), support or opposition to the 3-C plan, and choice for Governor.

So, looking at these numbers, what do we learn?

 

First off, and most important, those who are most supportive of both 3-C and Ted Strickland are also the age group least likely to vote in the Fall.

 

All three other age groups oppose the 3-C project, two of them significantly so. And on average, these same three age groups support Kasich by a significant 9 point margin.

 

And most importantly, they are actually going to vote.

 

Now what's interesting about these numbers is that they came out before the announcement was even made and before a massive attack by newspapers and their columnists on the plan.

 

Outside of Democratic leaders, criticism was virtually universal.

 

Here's a sampling:

 

    High-speed rail remains an enticing idea for Ohio. But this is a state where political expediency almost always trumps what's best for the taxpayers. So the rail plan rolled out by Strickland will be such a colossal failure that when the time is ripe for Ohio to consider a rail idea that is clean, fast and thoughtful, voters will still be so furious over the debacle of 2010 that they'll probably reject it." - Brent Larkin, Cleveland Plain Dealer

 

    Never mind, if you can, the money. The federal government doesn't have the $400 million. More than likely, our children and theirs will end up paying back the Chinese for the loan. And Ohio, with an impending $7 billion hole in the next two-year budget, can hardly afford the $17 million annual subsidy to operate the rail system. - Joe Hallet, Columbus Dispatch

 

    The challenge facing 3C planners is to create a system that provides convenience at a reasonable price to encourage ridership. I hope they succeed, but I’m not sure enough Ohioans will find the proposed rail system either fast or frequent enough to be worthwhile. - Michael Gorman, Dayton Daily News

 

    ...the only way huge investments like this make sense is that if they change the equation. If we can put business folks in these other cities in a fraction of the time it takes them to drive, and at a competitive price, trains might make sense. - Brian Tucker, Crain's Cleveland Business

 

Not to mention, how will voters feel in Toledo and SE Ohio when they're fully informed about how much of their tax dollars will go to fund a project they won't ever use?

 

more: http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/3-c-what-it-can-mean-in-november.html

The under-36 crowd is probably disinterested in voting because, by November, they don't plan to be living in Ohio anyway! Especially when reading the incredible ignorance of Ohio's media.

Read the quotes from Senators Harris and Carey in the article.  It's not the usual idealogical dreck that we see from (for instance) Sen. Patton.  Harris and Carey are pretty reasonable.  I think they are saying "Give us a good reason to move this project forward and we're okay with it.

 

That's a common ploy from Republicans.  We're seeing the same played out on the national level... Repubs like, say, Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe in their more moderate/liberal districts attempt to 'sound' reasonable, but then turn around and vote in lockstep with the hard right obstructionists.  Hell, we've got Voinovich who runs a similar scam here in Ohio... If these guys, like Patton or Harris and other GOPers like them really do come out and vote for 3-C after reasonably being presented the facts, I will happily eat my words... but knowing the current gutless, hypocritical, reactionary Republican party that now exists, ... I'm not holding my breath.

After hitting notify/un-notify several times in order to keep updated here with no success, I now resort to making an off-topic commit.

 

Carry on...

Read the quotes from Senators Harris and Carey in the article. It's not the usual idealogical dreck that we see from (for instance) Sen. Patton. Harris and Carey are pretty reasonable. I think they are saying "Give us a good reason to move this project forward and we're okay with it.

 

That's a common ploy from Republicans. We're seeing the same played out on the national level... Repubs like, say, Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe in their more moderate/liberal districts attempt to 'sound' reasonable, but then turn around and vote in lockstep with the hard right obstructionists. Hell, we've got Voinovich who runs a similar scam here in Ohio... If these guys, like Patton or Harris and other GOPers like them really do come out and vote for 3-C after reasonably being presented the facts, I will happily eat my words... but knowing the current gutless, hypocritical, reactionary Republican party that now exists, ... I'm not holding my breath.

 

I don't think that's true at the state level.  Republicans are generally against new spending, but within their own state they view even pork barrel projects as good for the local economy and increasing their chances of being re-elected.  On the national level, the problem is that we've got a President and majority from the same party, which typically translates into staunch opposition on every issue by the minority party, since passing things that might be successful will make it more difficult for them to increase their power base.  We've seen this play out on both sides of the isle and it's really a sad state of affairs.  All of that said, I really hope Harris and Carey don't mount any opposition to this. 

Read the quotes from Senators Harris and Carey in the article. It's not the usual idealogical dreck that we see from (for instance) Sen. Patton. Harris and Carey are pretty reasonable. I think they are saying "Give us a good reason to move this project forward and we're okay with it.

 

That's a common ploy from Republicans. We're seeing the same played out on the national level... Repubs like, say, Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe in their more moderate/liberal districts attempt to 'sound' reasonable, but then turn around and vote in lockstep with the hard right obstructionists. Hell, we've got Voinovich who runs a similar scam here in Ohio... If these guys, like Patton or Harris and other GOPers like them really do come out and vote for 3-C after reasonably being presented the facts, I will happily eat my words... but knowing the current gutless, hypocritical, reactionary Republican party that now exists, ... I'm not holding my breath.

 

I don't think that's true at the state level. Republicans are generally against new spending, but within their own state they view even pork barrel projects as good for the local economy and increasing their chances of being re-elected. On the national level, the problem is that we've got a President and majority from the same party, which typically translates into staunch opposition on every issue by the minority party, since passing things that might be successful will make it more difficult for them to increase their power base. We've seen this play out on both sides of the isle and it's really a sad state of affairs. All of that said, I really hope Harris and Carey don't mount any opposition to this.

 

I sure hope you're right.  While I want the money spent as wisely as possible, we can't sit back and allow ideologues to kill this most worthwhile program based on skewed, ignorant assessments, like those espoused in the Suddes piece... I know it's local/state vs. national, but we're in an era of loud shouting ignorance w/ the facts be damned... Look at the absurd Tea Bagger movement and the foolishness regarding the Universal Healthcare debate... And as for partisan politics, you can't ignore the fact that, more often than not, Republicans have been the anti-transit, passenger-rail party.  The examples are overwhelming...

 

Cincinnatians should be zipping along on their light rail, today, but for backwards, hard-lobbying Republicans... The State of Ohio simply can't let Republicans to kill off this project.  That means "we", as I've already contacted my rep(s) in strong support of 3-C, and will continue to do so.

The GOP has said they won't vote no on the Controlling Board if its on a solid financial footing. It took their support to get it this far through the Senate if I'm not mistaken.  If the case is made, the voters (and the GOP) won't let it die.  3C isn't that big of an investment if taken in baby steps.

All three GOP members of the CB have been supportive in the past of freight rail projects, esepcailly Carey.  Hottinger has expressed support for the Ohio Hub in the past because one of the future routes would connect Columbus & Pittsburgh via the state-owned Panhandle Line (which runs through is district).  I would classify none of them as idealogues.

I hope it gets voted down, this is a huge waste of money. The 3-C line makes absolutely no sense unless there is a decent system of urban transportation set up within the cities. Investing in light rail, and streetcars would be a bigger bang for the buck.

For me personally, I would not ever use the rail to go from Cincy to Cleveland. I can drive there in less than 4 hours, pick the time I want to leave and go directly to my destination. Why would I want to take a train that takes me twice as long and I have no choice over the time I want to leave. To me, it is no different than Greyhound.

A light rail system or streetcar is much more practical because (as in most cities), you drive to the station just outside of town and then take the train into the city. The train is more efficient because the cost to park in the city as well as the traffic makes it less time consuming to take the train. As someone who likes the idea of the train system, in all practicallity, I will not give up my car to ride it becuase it is not practical to me, and me, like probably the majority of Americans, is not going to do something simply because of some feel good principle, it has to be in my economic best interest. Unfortunately the 3c line is not.

I have reservations about 3C but still think it should happen (even if that means reallocating DOT/ODOT funds from other modes of transportation).  I'm with Brutus_Buckeye on the streetcar/light rail giving more bang for the buck though.

 

For me personally, I would not ever use the rail to go from Cincy to Cleveland. I can drive there in less than 4 hours, pick the time I want to leave and go directly to my destination. Why would I want to take a train that takes me twice as long and I have no choice over the time I want to leave. To me, it is no different than Greyhound.

 

 

Yeah, you might...under ideal conditions.  But when can anyone depend on ideal conditions...be it due to weather, traffic conditions or just the need to stop (gas, coffee, restroom, etc)...all of which will drop the average speed of the drive by car. But if you want to drive, that's fine.  No one's forcing you to ride the train. I like to drive my car, too.  I just don't want to be forced into it because there are no other options.

 

And BTW: Greyhound service is awful and a pale shadow of what it used to be.

 

I hope it gets voted down, this is a huge waste of money. The 3-C line makes absolutely no sense unless there is a decent system of urban transportation set up within the cities. Investing in light rail, and streetcars would be a bigger bang for the buck.

For me personally, I would not ever use the rail to go from Cincy to Cleveland. I can drive there in less than 4 hours, pick the time I want to leave and go directly to my destination. Why would I want to take a train that takes me twice as long and I have no choice over the time I want to leave. To me, it is no different than Greyhound.

A light rail system or streetcar is much more practical because (as in most cities), you drive to the station just outside of town and then take the train into the city. The train is more efficient because the cost to park in the city as well as the traffic makes it less time consuming to take the train. As someone who likes the idea of the train system, in all practicallity, I will not give up my car to ride it becuase it is not practical to me, and me, like probably the majority of Americans, is not going to do something simply because of some feel good principle, it has to be in my economic best interest. Unfortunately the 3c line is not.

 

This may surprise you but the rail project is being designed for more people than just you. You like your car. Lots of people don't and find driving an inconvenience, time waster, and expensive when you factor in gas, parking, and the eventual maintenance your car will receive.

 

The highways you use aren't economically feasible either. Neither are the airports. Nor seaports. All are more heavily subsidized than this rail project would be.

 

Ask anyone here, I have been a critic of the plan as proposed but I still think rail in Ohio is a good idea. The lines to Cleveland and Cincinnati will eventually branch out and connect to high speed lines to other major metropolitan areas like Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, and New York.

 

 

 

 

I second the motion. Bring on the rail. Most people in Ohio who have grown up with only the auto-dependent suburban model their whole lives, don't have a clue how far behind the rest of the planet we are in terms of this--and whats more, don't know what they are missing.

 

There are a great deal of people out here who find the car/highway thing equally NOT in our best economic sense--especially when we have to shell out oodles of money each year to maintain highways brutalized by trucks and all the other maintenance that goes with this so called "convenience" Not convenient to me to be sitting in traffic, paying the expenses of maintaining the vehicle, the roads, insurance, fuel, possible citation risk, and so on.

 

Just in litter alone, I checked with ODOT and nearly 4 million was spent on litter control--and this is an ongoing needed job---but if all the wonderful drivers out there who chose to use their car window for a trash receptacle, would learn what a garbage can is for, maybe that 4 million can be spent in other ways to offer alternative transportation options.

 

I hope it gets voted down, this is a huge waste of money. The 3-C line makes absolutely no sense unless there is a decent system of urban transportation set up within the cities. Investing in light rail, and streetcars would be a bigger bang for the buck.

For me personally, I would not ever use the rail to go from Cincy to Cleveland. I can drive there in less than 4 hours, pick the time I want to leave and go directly to my destination. Why would I want to take a train that takes me twice as long and I have no choice over the time I want to leave. To me, it is no different than Greyhound.

A light rail system or streetcar is much more practical because (as in most cities), you drive to the station just outside of town and then take the train into the city. The train is more efficient because the cost to park in the city as well as the traffic makes it less time consuming to take the train. As someone who likes the idea of the train system, in all practicallity, I will not give up my car to ride it becuase it is not practical to me, and me, like probably the majority of Americans, is not going to do something simply because of some feel good principle, it has to be in my economic best interest. Unfortunately the 3c line is not.

 

This may surprise you but the rail project is being designed for more people than just you. You like your car. Lots of people don't and find driving an inconvenience, time waster, and expensive when you factor in gas, parking, and the eventual maintenance your car will receive.

 

The highways you use aren't economically feasible either. Neither are the airports. Nor seaports. All are more heavily subsidized than this rail project would be.

 

Ask anyone here, I have been a critic of the plan as proposed but I still think rail in Ohio is a good idea. The lines to Cleveland and Cincinnati will eventually branch out and connect to high speed lines to other major metropolitan areas like Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, and New York.

 

 

 

 

I second the motion. Bring on the rail. Most people in Ohio who have grown up with only the auto-dependent suburban model their whole lives, don't have a clue how far behind the rest of the planet we are in terms of this--and whats more, don't know what they are missing.

 

There are a great deal of people out here who find the car/highway thing equally NOT in our best economic sense--especially when we have to shell out oodles of money each year to maintain highways brutalized by trucks and all the other maintenance that goes with this so called "convenience" Not convenient to me to be sitting in traffic, paying the expenses of maintaining the vehicle, the roads, insurance, fuel, possible citation risk, and so on.

 

Just in litter alone, I checked with ODOT and nearly 4 million was spent on litter control--and this is an ongoing needed job---but if all the wonderful drivers out there who chose to use their car window for a trash receptacle, would learn what a garbage can is for, maybe that 4 million can be spent in other ways to offer alternative transportation options.

 

The argument I hear all the time is that the train is going to be cheaper to maintain than roads, airports, seaports, etc. While that may be true, a long time ago we chose to hitch our wagon to the highway system and let the roads deteriorate. It proved more efficient in the US given the vast amount of land and smaller cities than Europe. Well, investing in rail will never take the place of the roads, which is the argument some people seem to make.

 

One of the underlying themes on this thread is that once the train is built, people will be free to abandon their cars and ride this wonderful train. While a few people will do that, the vast majority will not. I would even go as far as to say that many of the forumers when faced with the choice to drive to Cleveland in 4 hours or take the train in 7 for a business meeting in the Cleveland suburbs, would probably drive themselves instead of taking the train. Yes, it can supplement them, and yes in an ideal utopian world it provides another great option for the citizens of this country to be transported to and frrom.

Brutus I agree with your overall point that this won't do a lot for that many people.  I have similar reservations, and I can't see myself being able to use 3-C as currently envisioned, even if I prioritize doing so.  The logistics don't add up.  It seems to me that most Ohioans share this view, which is not in any way an anti-rail view.  A false dichotomy is emerging wherein you either agree that 3-C is a good idea, in itself, as proposed... or you're against all rail development.  This outlook is likely to invite more opposition than it overcomes.  I think most Ohioans are open to rail travel and more than ready to begin using it...

 

However, one outright "myth" that really gets to me is the idea that Ohio and America aren't dense enough for rail to work.  China only has density along its coast, yet they're running high speed rail halfway across Asia, because rail makes more sense, not less, when you're connecting distant population centers. 

 

It is only in the micro-density sense that Ohio has physical issues working against rail... as I mentioned earlier, our cities are less economically focused on their cores.  This makes transit upon arrival a bigger issue here than in other cities where Amtrak can show high utilization.  From an Ohio perspective, it would have been nice if some federal program had expanded local transit prior to the high speed rail initiative.  But no such luck.  Therefore I have doubts about getting the same results from the same approach in Ohio.  Because the modern internal layout of its cities is so suburb-oriented, Ohioans have less to gain from low-speed intercity rail.  3-C makes sense ONLY to the extent it brings us closer to a viable high-speed service.                     

Actually, I think Senator Harris raised some very good questions (see: http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2010/02/18/17letter.pdf), the answers to which will finally show Ohioans that the state has a very good plan. The Dispatch (and some ideologically driven GOPers, OK same as the Dispatch) apparently are operating under the assumption that these questions cannot be answered hence they see the questions as an "obstacle"....

 

EDITORIAL

 

Ohio train plan may never leave station

Thursday,  February 18, 2010 10:47 AM

 

Gov. Ted Strickland's much-ballyhooed plan for passenger rail linking Ohio's major cities may never leave the station.

 

Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland) today put a significant obstacle in front of the governor's plan to run trains from Cleveland to Cincinnati, with stops in Columbus and Dayton, by the end of 2012. Strickland wants to use $400 million in federal stimulus money to start the service.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/18/train-block.html

Letter to the editor from an Akron Beacon Journal reader who understands transportation:

 

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/vop/84677427.html

Brutus I agree with your overall point that this won't do a lot for that many people. I have similar reservations, and I can't see myself being able to use 3-C as currently envisioned, even if I prioritize doing so. The logistics don't add up. It seems to me that most Ohioans share this view, which is not in any way an anti-rail view. A false dichotomy is emerging wherein you either agree that 3-C is a good idea, in itself, as proposed... or you're against all rail development. This outlook is likely to invite more opposition than it overcomes. I think most Ohioans are open to rail travel and more than ready to begin using it...

 

However, one outright "myth" that really gets to me is the idea that Ohio and America aren't dense enough for rail to work. China only has density along its coast, yet they're running high speed rail halfway across Asia, because rail makes more sense, not less, when you're connecting distant population centers.

 

It is only in the micro-density sense that Ohio has physical issues working against rail... as I mentioned earlier, our cities are less economically focused on their cores. This makes transit upon arrival a bigger issue here than in other cities where Amtrak can show high utilization. From an Ohio perspective, it would have been nice if some federal program had expanded local transit prior to the high speed rail initiative. But no such luck. Therefore I have doubts about getting the same results from the same approach in Ohio. Because the modern internal layout of its cities is so suburb-oriented, Ohioans have less to gain from low-speed intercity rail. 3-C makes sense ONLY to the extent it brings us closer to a viable high-speed service.

 

I have to disagree, 327, although I understand your viewpoint.  Detroit is as sprawling and dyfunctional as any metro area w/ zero rail transit, and yet their slow (slower than 3-C) line to Chicago thru logically town Ann Arbor and a bunch of small towns in Michigan and Indiana is very successful and is ticketed to be upgraded.

 

Also, there are a bunch of myths/untruths some have raised:

 

'I'll use my car from Cleveland to Cincy."

 

Q- why are so many people talking about riding the whole length of the line when there are many interim trips from Cleve and Cincy to Columbus; the state capital in the center of the state but also the site of 55,000-student OSU.  (and college students tend to be low-percentage car owners and high-percentage transit/train users.  What about commuter-type trips from Dayton to Cincy or Columbus?

 

Q- Why do naysayers always equate driving to riding a train, where stress is lower and relaxation is higher?

 

Q- 327, why make the chicken and egg argument.  Why not say 3-C's can encourage mass/rail transit in our big cities rather than saying the trains won't be successful because of underdeveloped local transit?  And even w/o any rail building, this should, at the very least, help light the fire under state pols to increase operating funding for our local mass transit systems...

 

Q- Why not focus on the TOD/focused development potential of 3-Cs over the sprawl created by the existing all freeway system?  This should be even MORE of an issue in a struggling-financially state like Ohio?

 

Q- why are people so hyper-focused on the$400M + operating costs (yearly) for the trains, when maintaining our roads, even the parallel I-71 is so much more?

 

Just some Q's for thought...

 

To answer your questions

 

'I'll use my car from Cleveland to Cincy."

 

Q- why are so many people talking about riding the whole length of the line when there are many interim trips from Cleve and Cincy to Columbus; the state capital in the center of the state but also the site of 55,000-student OSU.  (and college students tend to be low-percentage car owners and high-percentage transit/train users.  What about commuter-type trips from Dayton to Cincy or Columbus?

 

"Whether it is Clev to Cincy or Cleve to Cbus, it is the same thing, why would the average (non-college student) person take the train when they could drive there quicker, possibly cheaper, and on their own schedule. Well there may be 55k students at OSU, the do not all come from Cincy or Cleveland and the majority of them would not be on or close enough to the train line to make it worth their while. For example, why would I drive from West Chester to Cincinnati to catch a train to Columbus (I know the train may run through West Chester but I am trying to demonstrate a point). There are not enough college students to create a critical mass to justify the cost of this boondoggle."

 

 

Q- Why do naysayers always equate driving to riding a train, where stress is lower and relaxation is higher?

 

"There are certain intangibles and benefits to riding a train or taking Greyhound, and there are certain benefits to driving. For those who would prefer to sit and not drive, then there is nothing wrong with that, it is their choice. Some people prefer to drive, that is their perogotive too. I personally think a rail system would be a nice thing to have and a good asset, however, given the cost of the project and the ROI, there are a lot of other more important ways that this money could be spent than using it on a project that will benefit only a small amount of people (unless everyone is forced to use it, which does not say much for a capitalistic society)"

 

Q- 327, why make the chicken and egg argument.  Why not say 3-C's can encourage mass/rail transit in our big cities rather than saying the trains won't be successful because of underdeveloped local transit?  And even w/o any rail building, this should, at the very least, help light the fire under state pols to increase operating funding for our local mass transit systems...

 

"It is not a chicken and egg argument & not about lighting a fire under local pols. If your best hope is putting faith in the local pols, then you will be waiting a long time. The reason why local traiins/transit work is because there is a critical mass of people within a certain distance that will supply the ridership for the train and it is more conveinient for them to take the train than to drive. People in Chicago take the train, not because they necessarily love the train, but it is a more conveinient way for them to get around town. People in Cleveland take the Rapid for the same reason, hence why the biggest crowds during non-rush hour times are people going to sporting events (more conveinient than driving and finding a parking spot). This is not the case out in the suburbs where the majority of people in Ohio live. The train serves little benefit to them because it is not conveinient for them."

 

Q- Why not focus on the TOD/focused development potential of 3-Cs over the sprawl created by the existing all freeway system?  This should be even MORE of an issue in a struggling-financially state like Ohio?

 

"There are many important issues facing a struggling state like Ohio. Most people on this forum thing the Choo Choo is the panacea to cure all of Ohio's problems. Building a train is not the cure all to Ohio's problems. THere are better ways to spend the money at this time then building the train. Maybe, if the state were not broke, the schools did not need fixing and there was a huge surplus of cash on hand, then maybe spend the money. Now is not the time."

 

Q- why are people so hyper-focused on the$400M + operating costs (yearly) for the trains, when maintaining our roads, even the parallel I-71 is so much more?

 

"Because we already have the roads and will still need to maintain them even if the trains are built. The argument that all the 3C people say is that it is much cheaper than maintaining the roads. Well, newsflash, just because we build a choo choo train does not mean that the roads are going away and everyone is going to flock to the train. The $400 million will be used to operate the train, in addition to the costs used to maintain the roads, bridges, and airports. In an ideal world, we would not have dismantled the train system 50 years ago, but we did, and even if that was a mistake, we must live with it now."

 

Just some Q's for thought...

Once you call it a "choo choo" you loose all credibility. 

 

I don't understand why people keep harping on this project.  It's been done in many other places, and it works there.  It builds the foundation for better service and increased speeds and frequency later on.  Compared to some of the massive road and bridge projects we have going here, it's really not that expensive either.  Why is Ohio so much much different that it won't work here?  The answer is that it isn't, and it will work just fine. 

Brutus, that $400mil won't be going to other stuff in Ohio if we don't build 3C. It'll go to another state.

 

I don't understand why people (mainly conservatives) are all up in arms about this; you'd think there was a plan to hand $400mil out to welfare recipients. Federal money used for state infrastructure is win-win. Remember, the track improvements help freight lines as well.

Once you call it a "choo choo" you loose all credibility. 

 

I don't understand why people keep harping on this project.  It's been done in many other places, and it works there.  It builds the foundation for better service and increased speeds and frequency later on.  Compared to some of the massive road and bridge projects we have going here, it's really not that expensive either.  Why is Ohio so much much different that it won't work here?  The answer is that it isn't, and it will work just fine. 

 

Answer: because it's Ohio.  We have a way in this State of making progress seem wasteful and evil, while lethargy and the status quo is somehow admirable.  And when you bring up success stories elsewhere, Ohioans get very insular and defensive; being the outcast, lone wolf fosters a sense of pride for too many people here...

 

... and to Brutus___ Buckeye, I found most of your answers patently ridiculous.  For one, roads are not status quo here, they keep expanding (like the so-called Opportunity Corridor and the Parma Freeway, built around a decade ago).  Both projects roughly equally and even surpassing the cost to build the entire 3-C project, although both are local roads of about 3 miles each (and both in a shrnking, poor city with a significant amount of zero-car families -- ya really wanna debate wasteful public spending, do ya?  ... And Brutus, it seems like you and your conservative viewpoint are trying to paint a black vs. white viewpoint.  Who among the pro-3-C faction advocated total non-car use, or a preference that roads disappear and everybody ride the trains?

This shouldn't be a political issue.  Any true conservative should be worried about their community's sustainability and the conservation of our wide open spaces for both farming and enjoyment.

 

To oppose 3C as we know it right now is one thing, but to oppose all non-car based transit is quite another.  Americans should be united for better transit options and a balanced economic future.

Just to comment on some of the above comments.....

 

Many people have different ideas about what they deem "progress" Many for years thought it was "progress" to build the mass road/highway system. But,as years have proven, it created a total imbalance in how we spend transportation monies--to only support all that is auto-dependent. To me, if the result was taking away the alternative diversity in transportation options--then that is not 'good progress'. Progress may not always good for everyone in other words, and sometimes it can be bad.

 

Castrating all other modes of transportation in Ohio in favor of producing a population so dependent and addicted to the auto-lifestyle to the point they cannot even fathom any other way to move, is laughable to me. Brutus' points about rail being a waste of money are very short sighted and limited to the scope of what transportation scene we have been forced to deal with for many many years. Others in places where transportation options are diverse and who know how to utilize trains would find such comments laughable and backwads. No one said that rail was going to be the cure all end all. (I thought the casino was supposed to do that! ;-) But, it is a start to get back to having some transportation options this highly populated state soooo desperately needs. You cannot say people will not ride rail when for 50 years they have been given no other choice than cars, and then expect that when the first rail comes back that everyone will turn up in droves to ride the train. It will be a slow process to get people exposed to rail...to get them to understand the benefits, and to get them back into the "habit" of using it... and to get back the know how--because stepping from the house into the car has been sooo easy.

 

I can also bet a million I don't have, that if rail had the luxury of promoting itself with the kind of money that is spent on marketing cars and planes and what we spend on roads...... you'd see more and more people stepping on the rail. Some seem to think adding rail threatens their choice of driving a car, and that  we will spend so much on maintaining it. I suggest they take a look at ODOT'S budget on maintaining highways every year! People really need to visit places where rail, auto, bus, etc...are all highly utilized and connected, to appreciate what having a viable rail system can do, HOW it works.....and its many benefits. Growing up on one model for their entire lives, cars and parking lots and highways... it will be difficult to crack through the thick heads of stubborness.

 

Oh, and  agree with Scrabble's point about creating a "BALANCED" economic future..key word, "balanced"...and building the entire transport network around auto, is not about balance.

This shouldn't be a political issue.  Any true conservative should be worried about their community's sustainability and the conservation of our wide open spaces for both farming and enjoyment.

 

To oppose 3C as we know it right now is one thing, but to oppose all non-car based transit is quite another.  Americans should be united for better transit options and a balanced economic future.

 

I really wish it wasn't political... One of the biggest conservatives in the nation; oft called the Father of modern conservatism, the late Paul Weyrich, was also one of America's biggest transit/train advocates; even founded a pro-transit website... He wrote several position papers and articles arguing transit actually helps a free market economy, not hurts it... that quality transit in our big cities helps auto traffic flow (obviously w/ less cars on roads) and people movement past crowded roads in ways that promote business productivity.  He once cited the Texas A & M University study that showed how much business productivity was hampered and lost becasue of the amount of time motorists, esp single-passenger drivers, are stuck behind the wheel in traffic... Weyrich was totally frustrated by his fellow conservatives on this issue...

 

... and yet, regardless of who Weyrich was or how logical his arguments were, you still got the same old tired rantings of his bretheren:  transit is socialist/communist; it denies the individual his freedom to drive the biggest, fatest gas guzzler of his choice, and to hell with everyone else... btw, such mindless idealogues are the same ones who argue against the need for cities at all.  Every man and woman (usual man for them) for himself...

 

It's parallel to passenger rail like 3-C.  Let's gin up the Big Lie and make it seem like this is the most God-awful public waste that has come along... The fact this one, realatively modest single train line is so controversial is depressing, in itself, to every one of use who considers him/herself a progressive.  It just sours me on Ohio just that much more.

Weyrich is a good example. When William F. Buckley, the other father of modern American conservatism, ran for mayor of New York he advocated bike lanes and he proposed an elevated bikeway on Second Avenue.  Good transit-oriented-development is good for the country and I'm sticking with that until someone proves otherwise.

 

"Whether it is Clev to Cincy or Cleve to Cbus, it is the same thing, why would the average (non-college student) person take the train when they could drive there quicker, possibly cheaper, and on their own schedule.

 

Who is the average person I keep hearing about? Never met him/her. If you mean that the average person has a car and is willing/able to drive it between the 3Cs, the demographics don't agree with you. As has been noted here before, among college students, elderly, no-car, and one-car households (ie: 1.5 million people sharing 600,000 cars), there are 3.3 million people in the 3C Corridor who fall into the little- or no-choice ridership market ready for 3C trains now. That's more than half of the 6.5 million 3C residents. The so-called "average person" may already be a minority in 3C. With the population getting older and the cost of driving growing faster than the cost of living, perhaps more people will get the message that the car-friendly culture in the 3C's is shrinking dramatically.

 

Perhaps this is why the amount of driving in Ohio fell as much as 10 percent in the years since 2005 -- and leading the national decline.

 

Well, newsflash, just because we build a choo choo train does not mean that the roads are going away and everyone is going to flock to the train.

 

No one says the roads are going away. But why should we continue to add more lane-miles when driving is declining and we can't afford to maintain the roads we already have?

 

The $400 million will be used to operate the train,

 

Nope. It will be used to build the train service. The cost estimate to operate the trains is as much as $17 million per year.

 

In an ideal world, we would not have dismantled the train system 50 years ago, but we did, and even if that was a mistake, we must live with it now."

 

Why must we live with it? Transportation is not organic. It can be added or subtracted at will, whenever conditions warrant it. Just because little ol' America, with its mere 5 percent of the world's population decided to build an energy-intensive highway-dominated transportation during the years when it was the world's largest oil producer doesn't mean it should continue to do so when it is now importing two-thirds of oil to run that transportation system.

 

We can be harmed by our decisions just as we can live with them. But either outcome is the result of choices we make, alter or reverse at any time. We possess free will. And I would hope that we stop these wild swings from one extreme of transportation modal investment to another -- domination of rail to road to ? ? ?. I think we would all agree that it is best to strive to achieve a balanced transportation system where each mode is allowed to thrive in the market segment where it makes the most sense. Ideally, I would love the market to determine that. But our transportation system became so distorted by government involvement over the past 100 years that it will be difficult to unravel it all (notice I didn't say impossible -- nothing is impossible).

 

I'm going to stop now because I'm about to take this thread off topic. If anyone wants to discuss this portion of the conversation further, check out "Rethinking transport in the USA" in the general transportation section.

^^ Sadly they fail to realize how much of a pawn we have been to the auto dominated scene and industry for years.....and that depending on the point of view, one can easily see how being given the choice to drive....and that is your only choice, in the so called 'land of choice' , is not free at all, and in fact can be seen as a sort of "transportation slavery" Additionally, they seem to fail to realize that being a bit more "social" (until that word became demonized and associated with all that is "EVIL") is more about community being independent, helping itself and being diverse--instead of getting into the economic slavery of relying on one big company to build the entire economy around to the point they fall..we all fall..and then become dependent on, or see that such has bred more a need for the "social scene" to pick us up.... that they apparently hate in the first place.

The cost estimate to operate the trains is as much as $17 million per year.

 

Basically pennies when you look at our annual highway maintenance expenditures.