alphas wrote:So the question still remains why the Cleveland-Detroit corridor over the CCC if Ohio wants to develop one? Especially if you're going to have Acela prices w/o Acela timetables. Again, is this simple politics?
"simple politics" might be an oxymoron.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
That Ohio Hub report is full of good stuff and interesting nuggets! I'll have to find time to sit down and read more of it. It's over 300 pages long!
One interesting nugget was that 110 mph max wouldn't produce any trips with avg speed >75mph. And this is in realtively straight/flat Ohio.
Another was that the fare structure would be closer to Acela than it is to NEC regional...and way more than existing LD train fares.
Also, the "CCC" corridor would be the best of all routes considered.
There's even mention of a feeder bus network ala California.
There's even a benefit/cost ratio for the whole network of roughly 1.5. Not too shabby.
Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati is a good candidate corridor. Three large cities to play connect the dots with. Flat. Straight. Good existing alignments to choose from. Good opportunities for market/route extensions.
Nothing new here, though. The NYC tried out the Xplorer on this route back in the 50s and Ohio has been talking about it for at least 25 years!
All that's missing is money!
Might be better to start with commuter rail in the 3 cities and then connect the ends to form a corridor. Feeder systems are a big part of the NEC's success (and in Far-Away land, too!)
Junctionfan wrote:Are they talking about electrical or diesel high-speed? I would recommend just making the lines better for running those P40s at their top speeds
If it is electrical, I would suggested that Ohio doesn't really constitute a high enough population density as the NEC does
Unlike for VIA Rail, Amtrak would still need to deal with the traffic crazy of junctions in the state such as Deshler and Fostoria-the worst busiest junction in Ontario is Bayview which has recently been triple tracked thanks to the government for the GO trains into Hamilton
What makes the NEC different is that those lines were always high traffic lines including the passengers thanks to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC (country capital), Baltimore and major hubs like that with millions of people in some case in just one area such as New York. I think the most populous cities in Ohio are about 300,000 if I'm not mistaken?
I am a bit skeptical of this idea for now unfortunately because it seems more like a pipe dream such as the California High Speed line-a line in earth quake country and the only reason why Japan gets away with it is because the government spends a huge amount of money on their system that would shame most operating budgets or railroads
Are they talking about electrical or diesel high-speed?
If it is electrical, I would suggested that Ohio doesn't really constitute a high enough population density as the NEC does. I would recommend just making the lines better for running those P40s at their top speeds. Between Toronto, Ontario and Montreal, Quebec, VIA rail will operate trains as fast as they are proposing but not all the time of course. I forsee several major challenges that will dramatically effect cost of this proposition.
Traffic-Unlike for VIA Rail, Amtrak would still need to deal with the traffic crazy of junctions in the state such as Deshler and Fostoria-the worst busiest junction in Ontario is Bayview which has recently been triple tracked thanks to the government for the GO trains into Hamilton. Bayview only sees about maybe 40 trains a day compare that to up to 150 a day. You are looking in some cases of trains waiting for trains and trains fouling lines to build their trains for either a pick up or drop off at a yard.
Land Availability-I haven't been all through Ohio but I have been in a few places that are fairly well built up even close to the tracks making it hard to build extra lines or even just passing sidings without expropriation of private citizen's land-an unpopular thing that people don't look favourably upon especially in the U.S. That in itself could cost tons of money especially when you get irrate citizens that want to challenge it via expensive lawsuits. Now, I don't know what Ohio State is like about preserving old right-of-ways but if they exist without being built over, it might work. However, there is the problem of is it a safety hazard. Cities and government usually needs to do assessment studies for environment impact and other impacts to see if there is any problems with the proposed site. There might be a few cases where they have to reroute a line because of safety reasons such or there maybe environmental protections that could cause legal "red lights". In some cases, extra bridges, maybe even a tunnel would have to be an idea of how to get around this which cost millions of dollar in grand total.
I am a bit skeptical of this idea for now unfortunately because it seems more like a pipe dream such as the California High Speed line-a line in earth quake country and the only reason why Japan gets away with it is because the government spends a huge amount of money on their system that would shame most operating budgets or railroads.
What load factor should I rely on? The Ohio Plan talks about 70-80 percent load factors -- how do they get that, with airline-style overbooking on peak periods and telling people they need to stay over a Saturday night to travel from Columbus to Detroit?
The 45 percent load factor, by the way, is the assumption of the PRWG of the Vision Report. 45 percent load factor does not mean that a train is underpatronized -- it means there are seats available for people at times they want to travel. The load factor is as much an operational and a service-level decision. You can operate higher load factors with people jammed airline-style into the train and with people wanting to travel at their preferred times turned away.
There is sometimes an apples and oranges comparison where the automobile is evaluated assuming a single-occupant trip while common-carrier modes are evaluated assuming every seat taken. The idea is that motorists don't bother to share rides or take passengers but that a common carrier mode such as train is automatically "shared ride" and there is no reason people cannot occupy the seats. But just as an automobile is used to carry varying numbers of people and that flexibility is part of its advantage, a common carrier mode may need to run with empty seats outside of peak times.
The context of my remarks is that while I am the local crank who keeps bringing up fuel economy, almost every advocacy discussion of trains comments on the "gas crisis" without a critical look as to whether the envisioned trains will make a meaningful contribution to reducing fuel usage.
Its like ethanol. There too, it depends on how you crunch the numbers, but even with favorable number crunching, the energy saving is small compared to the costs such as subsidies and raised food prices.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"Passenger rail is penicillin for pain at the pump," said Stu Nicholson, public information officer for the Ohio Rail Development Commission.
A consumption rate of 2.42 gallons/mile was estimated for a 110-mph 300-seat train, based upon nominal usage rates of all three technologies considered in Phase 3 of the MWRRS Study.
You're not quite evil enough. You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.
Burning 2.42 gallons (of #2 Diesel)/mile on a 300-seat train at 45 percent load factor works out to about 2500 BTU/mile. A Toyota Camry driven at legal highway speeds (we are talking Ohio, people) gets 35 MPG on gasoline -- with two people, it is using 1800 BTU/passenger mile. How the train described in the report is penicillin for pain at the pump is a good question -- penicillin is not used for treating pain anyway unless it is pain specific to an infection.
The Ohio Hub, the Mid-West and South-East High Speed Rail schemes are realistic ways of upgrading the rail system and attracting business travellers on trips of 200 -300miles who would otherwise fly. The Ohio scheme for example, seems to be a thoroughly researched and sensible proposal - 110mph diesel trains travelling along upgraded existing tracks.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/Ohio_Hub_Final_Docs/Final_Document_Rev_12_06_07/Ohio_Hub_Final_Report_12.06.07.pdf
Nice and hygienic if you ask me.
RRKen wrote:Would it stop in Deshler?????? I want to phoam.
Would it stop in Deshler?????? I want to phoam.
Oh but of course....right next to the fire pit.
Bring back high speed Baltimore & Ohio passenger train service in Ohio!
As always the benefits are way overestimated and the costs way underestimated. There's no way you get high speed rail that distance for $4B
No surprise, its the liberal/union supported candidates pushing it
Most transportation experts expect even greater mandates in fuel efficient cars to come before too long as most of the technology for cars averaging 40-50 miles (depending on the size) a gallon already exists. Probably a target date of somewhere arond 2020. That will remove the cost of gasoline as a driving force in high speed rail just about the time this system might be ready to go
If the state persists, they be smart to cut their losses and try more of a mid-speed rail project. A lot less cheaper to build and could also serve smaller communities
Of course, unless the roads are simply too congested, you could accomplish the same thing for a lot less cost by giving some subsidy to a bus company or two
If anyone thinks I'm being too negative, the late chairman of the PA High Speed Rail Commission in the mid 1980's told me his group at looked at Ohio's study and basically thought it wasn't anywhere near accurate. Based on what he told me, its doubtful Detroit/Toledo and Cleveland areas are big enough termination points for true high speed rail service
As always the benefits are way overestimated and the costs way underestimated. There's no way you get high speed rail that distance for $4B dollars. No surprise, its the liberal/union supported candidates pushing it, which Brown and Kaptur are. It definitely smells too much like pork. Most transportation experts expect even greater mandates in fuel efficient cars to come before too long as most of the technology for cars averaging 40-50 miles (depending on the size) a gallon already exists. Probably a target date of somewhere arond 2020. That will remove the cost of gasoline as a driving force in high speed rail just about the time this system might be ready to go.
If the state persists, they be smart to cut their losses and try more of a mid-speed rail project. A lot less cheaper to build and could also serve smaller communities. Of course, unless the roads are simply too congested, you could accomplish the same thing for a lot less cost by giving some subsidy to a bus company or two.
If anyone thinks I'm being too negative, the late chairman of the PA High Speed Rail Commission in the mid 1980's told me his group at looked at Ohio's study and basically thought it wasn't anywhere near accurate. Based on what he told me, its doubtful Detroit/Toledo and Cleveland areas are big enough termination points for true high speed rail service.
This article was published by the 'Samdusky Register'
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2008/01/20/front/572358.txt
Looks like good news!
Sandusky on board for high-speed rail project
By JENNIFER GRATHWOL | Sunday January 20 2008, 1:14am
SANDUSKY
City leaders are laying the tracks to connect Sandusky to the future of high-speed transportation.
High-speed passenger trains running 79 to 110 mph have caught the attention of both Ohio legislators and Sandusky City Commissioners.
At its most recent meeting, the Sandusky City Commission voted to support U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur's federal appropriation request for matching funds for the development of the Ohio Hub Cleveland-Toledo- Detroit passenger rail corridor, which would connect many Ohio cities and in the long run save Midwesterners about 9.4 million gallons of fuel.
Nicholson said if the funding can be secured, some initial passenger trains could be up and running in as soon as two years. To build the entire system, with 6-8 trains running 110 mph on seven different corridors, could take 10-11 years. The rail development commission is now in early talks with Amtrak about a partnership to utilize existing corridors. Sandusky has an Amtrak station on North Depot Street.
"It's a big step to take, but an important step," said Steve Fought, spokesman for Kaptur, D-Toledo. "It's not 'pie in the sky' anymore."
This isn't the first time Ohioans have heard talk of a high-speed rail. In 1975, the state General Assembly created the Ohio Rail Transportation Authority to develop a long-term high-speed passenger rail plan.
In 1980, the commission determined that a 1 percent increase in sales tax could finance a 600-mile system connecting 13 Ohio cities. The proposed tax increase was put on the ballot in 1982 but was defeated.
However, with rising gas prices and increasingly congested highways, the idea of high-speed passenger rail is picking up steam once again.
Late last fall, the U.S. Senate passed Bill 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, which was co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Nicholson said they expect the House of Representatives to introduce a companion bill within the month. According to the 2007 Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study, the grand total capital investment requirement including planning, engineering, design and construction costs would be more than $4 billion dollars.
Proponents of high-speed rail say the benefits will more than justify the cost, and point to examples of high-speed rail in Germany, France, China and Japan as testimonies of success.
"We're missing an opportunity by not taking advantage of this technology," Fought said.
High-speed passenger rail is also expected give a boost to the state's tourism industry to the tune of $80 million annually, according to the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Ohio now ranks number seven in the top ten list of destination states, with Sandusky's own Cedar Point being among the top attractions. The commission estimates that at least 80 percent of the overnight tourists who come to Ohio are from areas that would be connected through the Ohio Hub railway.
In addition to generating more than $23 billion dollars of revenue throughout the Midwest, the Ohio Rail Development Commission estimates that over the anticipated nine-year construction phase there will be at least 7,000 short-term jobs available. Over the long-term, they estimate the Ohio Hub project will yield 16,700 permanent jobs and raise the region's income by over $1 billion over the life of the project. According to their calculations, that will raise the average household income by at least $90."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.