The Ohio High Speed Passenger Rail Project

[Anonymous]

Over the last few months I've been reading up on a plan to develop a commuter rail corridor connecting Major cities in Ohio via a North south corridor, with the primary corridor linking Cincinnati to Cleveland, via Dayton and Columbus.
This idea has been proposed time and time again over the years, and it seems like this time we might be getting somewhere, of course that's what’s been said for awhile now. We'll see. Anyway, I was just wondering what all of you thought about this plan to connect various cities within Ohio, and possibly regionally in the future. Any input is greatly appreciated.

For more info on the Ohio passenger rail corridor:

www.ohioansforpassengerrail.com

-Nat

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NathanialTaggart

Over the last few months I've been reading up on a plan to develop a commuter rail corridor connecting Major cities in Ohio via a North south corridor, with the primary corridor linking Cincinnati to Cleveland, via Dayton and Columbus.
This idea has been proposed time and time again over the years, and it seems like this time we might be getting somewhere, of course that's what’s been said for awhile now. We'll see. Anyway, I was just wondering what all of you thought about this plan to connect various cities within Ohio, and possibly regionally in the future. Any input is greatly appreciated.


-Nat

So Nat, just how much do you think you buckeyes are willing to chip in to connect your major cities with Chicago? (across Indiana)


THAT is going to be a key to the success quotient...you gotta have a destination WORTH going to, if the resulting operation is to be a success.

And (IMO) as nice as Cincinnati and Cleveland are as cities, I just don't see the volume being there to support the mega cost...

And, while I certainly think Indiana should contribute something to the mix, why should Indiana pay a lions share of the cost to connect Cincinnati to Chicago? Sure, we lie in the middle, but, the lions share benefir falls to those at the end point Same with connecting Toledo/Cleveland to Chicago...

Should Ohio pay only for the 75 miles to get to the indiana state line and then shift the rest of the burden to Indiana for the remaining 157 miles?

[cpbloom]

Does anyone know of the traffic volume on I-71? I have always heard that it is becoming an ever increasing traffic headache and they were planning on puttting in a third lane in both directions.

But what do I know living in Columbus [:p]

[JoeKoh]

the issue has been on the back burner for sometime.but I wish I was around back in the day when the red devils were running between dayton and cincinnati.(and up to toledo too)
stay safe
Joe

[daveklepper]

I didn't ride the Red Devils in Ohio but did their reincarnation as Liberty Bell Limiteds between Philadelphia and Allentown, and I sure wi***hey were running today! Between 1947 and 1953 I probably rode them about 20 times. Also, once a freight from Allentown to Phila (Upper Darby) which continued through even after passengers had to change to the Bullets in Norristown. Charlie Houser was the motorman a bigwig in the Lehigh Valley Chapter NRHS. Richard Haymon and I rode the back platform of the three car freight train, all side door converted old wood passenger equipment. One of the Liberty Bell cars was an ex Indiana High Spped, but it to had the C&LE Cincinnati trucks so the third rail for Norristown - 69th Street could be fitted for the Philadelphia and Western.

[Modelcar]

...Like talk of new rail routes but if it would ever get serious wouldn't it be most cost effective to use existing rail routes and modify track and routes as necessary.

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Like talk of new rail routes but if it would ever get serious wouldn't it be most cost effective to use existing rail routes and modify track and routes as necessary.

Building new corridors in the glaciated flat north part of Ohio is one thing, but the populated areas and the multiple river valleys of southern Ohio (Miami, Little Miami, Whitewater, Mill Creek , etc.) will force you into existing railroad corridors. The difference in cost between new corridor and existing corridor is frightening. The Cleveland, Mansfield, Cowtown/Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati corridor has been talked-up since the late 1960's...and in deference to Joe, I always thought I-75 was busier than I-71 as a corridor.[?]

[Modelcar]

...I'm simply suggesting of use of existing rail routes {at least the ROW's}, where possible...and that might be available at the time construction might become reality as opposed to trying to create a "new" route...and as MC suggests above....very difficult to do for obvious reasons. I wonder if "it" will ever be accomplished but it's nice to think of a "new" high speed system for our 21st century to move people rapidly across the country side.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...I'm simply suggesting of use of existing rail routes {at least the ROW's}, where possible...and that might be available at the time construction might become reality as opposed to trying to create a "new" route...and as MC suggests above....very difficult to do for obvious reasons. I wonder if "it" will ever be accomplished but it's nice to think of a "new" high speed system for our 21st century to move people rapidly across the country side.

It's a mixed bag, the way I see it...

On the one hand, putting hsr into existing corridors sure seems to make sense. But, it also seems like whopping liability comes with that.

If you have 180 mph trains zipping along side lumbering freights and meandering locals making numerous set outs, How long till some high cube box car derails and tips over in front of the passenger train?

When it finally does, i think that whatever safety record accumulated up to that point will matter for naught,..because what will happen is some lawyer representing the plaintiffs will be squawking about how the HSR line was located adjacent to the freight to save the operator money,..etc funny how lawyers have such a knack for associating their clients hardships with other people's money, isn't it?

Personally, I think that the greater potential is in rebuilding abandoned corridors, maybe by tieing in certain stips to freight railroads requests for abandonments, that enough line be included to "make sense" in terms of stitching together a HSR network.

If such a plan ever did get off the ground, some of the short lines that have gobbled up secondary ROW's with strategic value, could cash in selling the portion of their plant that connects the right dots. (JMHO)

[Buckeye Riveter]

The full report, an executive report and several maps and diagrams can be found on the Ohio Rail Development Commissions web site. The url for just the report is:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Programs/Passenger/Ohio%20Hub%20Page.htm

Remember there are two plans out there, the Ohio Plan and the Midwest Plan. The actual title of the Ohio Plan is: The OHIO & LAKE ERIE REGIONAL RAIL OHIO HUB STUDY. It does discuss briefly to the tie in to the Midwest Plan.

Several public meetings were held around the State of Ohio last year about the Ohio Plan. The basis of the Ohio Plan is economics. Several of the previous comments and concerns are addressed in the full report including the speed and the frequency of the trains.

As to I-71 from Columbus to Cleveland, it is currently being widened the entire length to a minimum of three lanes north and south. Most of the widening does not involve additional new real estate because the new lane is in the median. This negates most, but not all of the environmental concerns.

[spankybird]

I-71 has already been widen to 3 lanes from Cleveland to about 40 miles south and work continues on this project.

[Anonymous]

Be careful about getting your hopes too high. When high speed rail was proposed as a way of connecting Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, and San Antonio (or Austin), Southwest Airlines went ballistic and put all of their clout into killing the idea. They get a lot of revenue from their flights between those cities and wouldn't stand for the competition.

From where I stand, especially with oil prices skyrocketing, high speed rail is looking better and better, especially for trips of 500 miles or less. Let the airlines have the NYC to LA business. That sort of long-distance travel is what they do best. But, let rail have the 500 mile routes. If we could get high speed rail that would do 150 MPH or greater, it would be a lot more efficient. Also, as oil supplies run short, rail may become the only viable option. You can run a train with electric locomotives, and you don't need petroleum to generate electricity. But that jet has to have petroleum-based jet fuel. Yes, I know that I am preaching to the choir.

[C):-)]

[Buckeye Riveter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by WetumkaFats

Be careful about getting your hopes too high.

Here in Ohio, the home of the Indians, Reds, Bengals, and Browns, hope is never raised very high. [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by WetumkaFats

Be careful about getting your hopes too high. When high speed rail was proposed as a way of connecting Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, and San Antonio (or Austin), Southwest Airlines went ballistic and put all of their clout into killing the idea. They get a lot of revenue from their flights between those cities and wouldn't stand for the competition.

From where I stand, especially with oil prices skyrocketing, high speed rail is looking better and better, especially for trips of 500 miles or less. Let the airlines have the NYC to LA business. That sort of long-distance travel is what they do best. But, let rail have the 500 mile routes. If we could get high speed rail that would do 150 MPH or greater, it would be a lot more efficient. Also, as oil supplies run short, rail may become the only viable option. You can run a train with electric locomotives, and you don't need petroleum to generate electricity. But that jet has to have petroleum-based jet fuel. Yes, I know that I am preaching to the choir.

[C):-)]

The TX HSR proposal would have been dead BEFORE arrival even if SWA had not become involved. Here are just a few of the reasons why:

1. The system was effectively entirely endpoint oriented - DAL/FTW, HOU, AUS/SAT. This is the issue that really ticked Kelleher off. It exactly replicated their major in-state route structure and virtually nothing else, and clearly was conceived by SWA as just another way to put them out of business. But there was also a significant exception in the route structure - a stop at DFW, where it got to serve all of the competition that had endorsed the Wright Amendment, opposed any expansion of SWA or operations at Love Field (for the latest wrinkle on this one, see www.setlovefree.com) and had tried to put SWA and other competitors out of business in various markets for years (remember, AA got caught re antitrust in other markets running off even other majors, and Braniff, TI and Continental were nailed for conspiracy in the very early SWA days). If government tried to do this to your business, you'd be howling too!

2. See Item 1. The system was virtually entirely endpoint oriented. It missed a lot of intermediate population and cities who would have had little or no access, even though it was essentially a captive market. And those folks can set up a huge opposition, which they did (see below).

3. The promoters routed the system right across the middle of lots of individual farms, with little or no consideration or provision for access, redress, or compromise, and when confronted with this problem, their attitude was most charitably referred to as "cavalier". Not very smart--Texas was and largely still is a rural state. You tell that bunch of farmers you're going to build a 30' high berm right across their pastures at fire-sale comdemnation prices, with no provision for their moving stock and equipment between fields and pastures, and then have the audacity to expect them to support you?

4. Because of the way the HSR system was conceived and promoted, it was correctly perceived by large segments of the general public as being an ultra-premium service serving only a small segment of the population and benefit financially an even smaller group, but with a massive tax bill to be paid mostly by people outside the target market who couldn't use it readily, if at all. Mix that group with the farmers, and who needs SWA's help to kill it?

5. The market projections were correctly perceived to have been grossly overinflated and skewed to achieve a preconceived political target. The promoters and consultants crowed that the target market was airline passengers (wanna make Herb even madder??) and that all their projections were based on diversion of 100% of the airline pax to HSR in the triangle. Nice thinking!

6. They also underestimated the analytical skills of people, some of whom might have supported a program that was perceived as having a reasonable, defensible, and, most importantly, honestly conceived basis. But the basis was transparently in a different universe from these conditions. Bear with the technical explanation--I'll try and simplify it. From a computational standpoint, what the promoters and their consultants actually did was a terrible back-of-the-envelope SWAG that they tried to package as being scientific. To "calculate" patronage, they computed the number of airline seats on all flights by all airlines with route segments between the endpoints in the triangle (e.g., SAT-IAH/HOU), applied the then-industry standard 60% load factor, and diverted every airline passenger to HSR so that all the planes ran empty in the triangle. The methodology was so disingenuous and flawed that Ray Charles could have seen through it, even without Stevie Wonder's help, and needless to say, they tried to spin it and keep it under wraps through the use of technical sounding verbiage. When confronted with this fact at one of their public meetings, they admitted that was the methodology, although they again tried to put a spin on it. ONE of the fatal flaws was that the data base they used included a huge number (in fact the majority of flights were in this category) of THRU flights originating and terminating outside the triangle, making intermediate stops at the fortress hubs of DFW and IAH. Anybody who has spent 30 seconds in the major airline business or even at SWA, who claims they don't have hubs but they do, could have told them that you don't get anywhere near 100% endpoint origination/termination between a triangle city and one or more intermediate hub(s) in a fortress hub route structure like we have in TX (i.e., that IAH-MCO AA pax flying from IAH to DFW is really only changing planes at DFW, not getting off, and IS NOT getting on that train!). So not only did they assume wrong, the calculations based on their assumptions were also wrong. And despite some popular misconceptions in some parts of the country, we Texans CAN add.

6. Many Texans looked at this as just a step removed from Amtrak, whose record in the state has been less than stellar, and they didn't want more of the same (tri-weekly bullet trains, anyone??).

7. The fact that this construction project could net them lots of bucks was never properly sold to the AGC heavy highway division and the Texas Good Roads and Transportation Association, although the taxpayers lining up against HSR figured that out real fast.

8. It happened during one of the state's perennial education "crises". There was nothing in it for the teachers.

9. The momentum from a successful rail program that could be built upon incrementally did not exist and was never even considered.

Put it and a bunch of other issues all together and it spells DOA, with or without the help of SWA.

Probably the best description is that it was a monument to arrogance and poor planning, along with flawed reasoning, that was conceived in such a poor fashion that failure was predictable and inevitable.

If it's any consolation to you guys, the statewide Trans-Texas Corridor toll road folks are currently getting almost the same opposition, for most of the same reasons (excepting airline ridership estimates, of course).

[Cheviot Hill]

Looking at the regional plan I've often wondered why everything has to go to Chicago? Seems to me they could use a southern route in Indiana to connect Cincinnati to St. Louis. I just think that when they go to the voters about it they will ask the same question. I remember when here in Cincinnati when they went to the voters for the light rail "Metro Moves" plan. They wanted to build an expensive tunnel going north to get to Blue Ash. What they should of done is use existing routes first. Saving money for the voters/taxpayers. Use exsiting routes first and expand on them. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

It goes through Chicago because the planners, who generally know absolutely nothing about how such a system actually would run, think there's no difference between (1) flying to an out-of-the-way hub for an hour to connect to another 1-hour flight and (2) taking a 3-8 hour daytime train trip to get there, just to connect for another 3-8 hour daytime train trip. Both effectively increase travel time between say 50-200%, but which is less unwieldy to the consumer? Faced with the second option, if I couldn't or wouldn't fly, I'd hop on the Interstate, which coincidentally was not planned using this airline model which is inappropriate for longer duration daytime surface travel.

Such is the fallacy of percentages.

Keep in mind, these are the same planning folks who for decades swore on a stack of GM catalogs and textbooks that surface transit systems competing with automobiles for daytime passengers should have direct routes because (repeat after me, class) "passengers as a general rule will NOT transfer (connect)".

Go figure.

[cpbloom]

QUOTE: Originally posted by spankybird

I-71 has already been widen to 3 lanes from Cleveland to about 40 miles south and work continues on this project.

[:0][:0][:0]

Like I said...what do I know, I only live in Columbus OH [8D]

[oltmannd]

Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati has been a talked about corridor since the days of the NYC and Train X.

There is certainly enough population in these cities to support a corridor:

Cleveland is the 14th largest city in the US at 2.9M
Columbus is the 24th largest at 1.8M
Cincinnati is the 19th largest at 2.0M

However, like every other corridor, nobody has shown up with any MONEY to actually build anything. What little money gets appropriated goes towards studying things to death.

[nanaimo73]

They plan on routing trains between Cleveland and Pittsburgh through Youngstown. Amtrak has been talking about this for 30 years and has still not done it.
The routes seem to be all ex NYC (and P&LE) and not PRR.