Amtrak Ohio: Cincinnati - Columbus - Dayton - Cleveland (and maybe Detroit and Chicago)

So when the speeds are upped to 110 mph, will the service be like that of the northeastern transit agencies(LIRR, MN, SEPTA, NJT)?

A new analysis says trains running on Ohio's passenger rail project are capable of completing the entire Cleveland-to-Cincinnati route in just over 5 hours, about 90 minutes faster than a previous estimate.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohi ... ments=true

This probably won't change the political debate.

That is a substantial improvement. I wonder at what level of track improvement these gains are realized.

From the ashes of the failed "3C" Corridor effort a new advocacy group has been formed to help bring about new intercity service between Cincinnati and Chicago with an ultimate goal of running 110 MPH trains.

The Cincinnati Business Courier has further reporting here.

[Published May 27, 2014] An Ohio rail advocacy group plans to step up its efforts in Cincinnati and push elected officials to plan and eventually fund high-speed rail between Cincinnati and Chicago. All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit pro-rail group whose activities have been centered north of Cincinnati, has tapped Derek Bauman, an Over-the-Rhine community activist who helped lead the grassroots effort to save Cincinnati’s streetcar project, to be on its board. All Aboard Ohio will advocate for expanded intercity service between Cincinnati and Chicago, including stops at Tri-County Mall, Hamilton and Oxford. A stop at Tri-County would make sense, Bauman said, because it would provide access to suburban riders who wouldn’t have to drive downtown to Union Terminal to catch the train. The rail line passes near Tri-County and there is plenty of parking, he added. Amtrak ridership has skyrocketed in recent years elsewhere in the United States, but Cincinnati has been left out. Amtrak has three-times-a-week service between Cincinnati and New York and Cincinnati and Chicago, but it leaves in the middle of the night. “We see the challenges with our air system. You see that intercity rail ridership numbers are going through the roof. We need to not be left behind. People say, ‘That is something I could really use,’” Bauman said.

Here is a direct link to information from the aforementioned advocacy group, All Aboard Ohio!, regarding their proposal for regional intercity service from Cincinnati to Chicago.

All Aboard Ohio! also has an extensive presentation online about the "Northern Ohio Rail Alliance" discussing regional service from Cleveland through Toledo. This effort, lead by the respective regional councils of government in that area came into existence just this April.

Here is the press release from the All Aboard Ohio! website:

The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) Board of Directors today passed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to create a “northern Ohio rail alliance” among three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Identically worded MOUs were recently approved by the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) and the Erie County Regional Planning Commission which includes Sandusky. MPOs administer federal transportation and air quality programs for their respective regions.

The alliance was sought in response to growing traffic along an east-west rail corridor that’s already one of the busiest in the nation. Seventy daily freight trains carry about 20,000 truckload equivalents and four daily passenger trains carry enough passengers to fill a dozen 737s per day. The Ohio Statewide Rail Plan of 2010 estimated that rail freight tonnage is expected to increase by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.6% until 2030.

Meanwhile passenger boardings have grown dramatically in the past five years at train stations in Cleveland (+38%), Elyria (+91%), Sandusky (+64%) and Toledo (+36) despite nocturnal Amtrak service. Even more rapid growth may be possible if the corridor was served by more passenger trains on faster schedules and at convenient daytime hours.

Here is the April 11, 2014 press release from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA).

Cleveland–Today, the Board of Directors of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) and the Erie Regional Planning Commission (ERPC) to create a Northern Ohio rail alliance. This action will enable NOACA, TMACOG and ERPC to jointly apply for U.S. Department of Transportation funding grants specifically targeted for multimodal, multi-jurisdictional transportation projects. Plans are currently underway to improve the northern rail corridor, including upgrading passenger rail stations in Toledo, Sandusky, Elyria and Cleveland – the busiest stations in the State of Ohio. Federal funding support will help move these projects forward and address rapidly growing demand and safety issues in the corridor and at all four rail stations.

“We are pleased to be working together with TMACOG and ERPC on this important issue,” said Grace Gallucci, NOACA executive director. “Northeast Ohio rail infrastructure needs to be upgraded and enhanced to meet the needs of both passengers and freight. The MOU approved today authorizes us to develop a strategy that will prove successful in securing a federal funding grant.”


One possible source of funding for the project is a 2014 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) VI grant. The TIGER grant program emphasizes projects that support reliable, safe and affordable transportation options that improve connections in urban and rural jurisdictions. Additional funding may become available through the Federal Railroad Administration, returned by the State of Iowa from an unrealized rail project. Match funds could be contributed by Amtrak and local sources.

The project could also potentially receive funding assistance from the Ohio Turnpike Commission. “The Ohio Turnpike is an asset that all four cities share,” noted Gallucci. “One of the goals of the alliance is to link the turnpike to the Amtrak stations and make the corridor more intermodal, so that we can address freight issues as well as passenger facility improvements.”

“Strengthening Northeast Ohio’s rail corridor and expanding transportation options for our citizens will better connect our people, places and businesses and create more opportunities for employment and economic growth,” said Elyria Mayor Holly Brinda. “In the City of Elyria’s case, returning passenger rail will provide the added value of a revitalization tool for our historic downtown.”

gokeefe wrote:From the ashes of the failed "3C" Corridor effort a new advocacy group has been formed to help bring about new intercity service between Cincinnati and Chicago with an ultimate goal of running 110 MPH trains.

On slight correction--AAO isn't new. They've been around a long time (although they changed their name a few years back), and their emphasis has zig-zagged over the years.

Chicago-Indy-Cincy would be a perfect market for multiple frequency service, but not on the current route of the Cardinal (ex-B&O), which the story seems to reference (i.e., referring to possible station stops in Hamilton and Oxford). The preferred route would be the ex-NYC through Batesville and Shelbyville--much straighter and flatter. But that's now a slow-speed shortline railroad and (last I knew) a chunk in the middle was OOS. The other oddity about the story is that Chicago-Cincy would be primarily an Indiana service, not Ohio.

Station Aficionado wrote:

gokeefe wrote:From the ashes of the failed "3C" Corridor effort a new advocacy group has been formed to help bring about new intercity service between Cincinnati and Chicago with an ultimate goal of running 110 MPH trains.

On slight correction--AAO isn't new. They've been around a long time (although they changed their name a few years back), and their emphasis has zig-zagged over the years.

Indeed and Thank You! They were formerly known as the Ohio Association of Rail Passegners.

Chicago-Indy-Cincy would be a perfect market for multiple frequency service, but not on the current route of the Cardinal (ex-B&O), which the story seems to reference (i.e., referring to possible station stops in Hamilton and Oxford). The preferred route would be the ex-NYC through Batesville and Shelbyville--much straighter and flatter. But that's now a slow-speed shortline railroad and (last I knew) a chunk in the middle was OOS. The other oddity about the story is that Chicago-Cincy would be primarily an Indiana service, not Ohio.

One aspect I found interesting about this initiative is their focus on a long term plan for incremental improvement and their decision to emphasize regional service to Chicago. I think both of these decisions speak very strongly to the realities of public interest in these projects and should help position them for success.

Maybe AAO learned something from the debacle of its advocacy for the 3-C Service.

The "debacle" of the Three-C project was the election of an anti-rail governor.

Whether or not the governor would have killed a better proposal is moot. The fact is that there was simply no way a poorly planned and scheduled outrageously expensive 38mph service would be approved.

Having attended some of the public meetings about the proposal, it was clear that the proponents had not followed the "7-P" rule. Parts of the proposal bordered on the moronic, e.g.:can't use Galion Station because it is too close to the tracks, or it is necessary to stop and get permission before entering each of the several dispatching territories.

The 6' 30" transit time CLE to CIN (260 miles) compared unfavorably with the 5'00" time which dated back to the 1940's. When time to get to the station and board the train was added to the time to get to your final destination from the arrival station was included, total transit time approached 8'00". A direct drive via I-71 with 1 pit stop takes 5'00" or less.

shlustig wrote: . . . simply no way a poorly planned and scheduled outrageously expensive 38mph service would be approved.

And very poorly presented. They rushed to release a preliminary proposal that worked out to be 38 mph or so. Better to have said nothing at all.

After a few weeks of working thru the potential operations, they said, "Oh, wait, it will go 49 mph (iirc) to start, and be upgraded within a year to a faster speed."

By then nobody was listening. At 38 mph they, we, had all tuned out. It was a complete PR failure that will take years to live down.

While this is Mr. O'Keefe's topic (and not wanting to invade the moderators' domain), I'd respectfully suggest that, since 3-C is dead and gone, we focus this topic on the new ideas that were cited in the OP. Perhaps if we want to rehash what went wrong with 3-C a separate topic might be in order.

Station Aficionado wrote:While this is Mr. O'Keefe's topic (and not wanting to invade the moderators' domain), I'd respectfully suggest that, since 3-C is dead and gone, we focus this topic on the new ideas that were cited in the OP.

Very kind of you Mr. Aficionado. And yes I agree its far more interesting to discuss what appears to be a viable proposal that apparently "has legs". I brought the news to the attention of the forum because it appears to have been missed and it also appeared to be a very significant effort to start new service in a place that both needs it and on corridors were the service would seem to have a high chance of success. The new entry of another state in the Chicago hub (this time Ohio) into corridor service is game changing stuff. For now Iowa continues to be a hold out but if corridor service can succeed in Ohio I think it would prod policy makers in more conservative Indiana and Iowa to truly rethink their current corridor service strategies. Indiana seems to be trying but barely. Iowa doesn't want to have anything to do with rail at all. Sooner or later they're going to rethink that strategy, especially as more and more states link together the patchwork quilt of routes and lines into Chicago.

I don't know what the historic ridership figures are for Chicago but I wouldn't be surprised to see the peak challenged within the next 20 years +/-.

Perhaps if we want to rehash what went wrong with 3-C a separate topic might be in order.

Rehash away. See the very first link of the original post.