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

MudLake wrote:The cases for commuter rail and intercity rail are quite different. If rising petroleum prices are the reason for more passenger rail then the money should be spent on commuter rail options. That is where the driving miles are.

Is there any market lacking meaningful commuter rail where intercity rail does much for anyone? None come to mind.

Yes, several markets come to mind that have inter-city Amtrak but no commuter rail on at least a portion of the route. MKE-CHI Hiawatha service, BOS-Portland Downeaster service, and the Calif San Joaquins. Also until the last 20 years, the San Diegans had no commuter service at all along their corridor and were always extremely popular. Then there is the Keystone and Empire services which have no commuter rail along 1/2 of their respective routes.

Though I think I see your point as all these now have commuter rail available in at least one terminal. Are you saying that the existence of commuter rail makes the population more accustomed to rail travel and thus allows for the success of the services? Remember the San Diegans and the Cascades existed long before any commuter operations were found along their routes.

This is what I mean -- The bulk of all Amtrak intercity passengers are riding in areas that have extensive commuter rail service. Case in point for the Hiawatha... most passengers are going to/from Chicago. I imagine hardly anyone gets on in Milwaukee and gets off in Sturtevant. I suspect you could say the same for Downeaster service, etc.

Isn't intercity rail most viable in areas that are already highly oriented toward commuter rail usage?

drewh wrote:

MudLake wrote:The cases for commuter rail and intercity rail are quite different. If rising petroleum prices are the reason for more passenger rail then the money should be spent on commuter rail options. That is where the driving miles are.

Is there any market lacking meaningful commuter rail where intercity rail does much for anyone? None come to mind.

Yes, several markets come to mind that have inter-city Amtrak but no commuter rail on at least a portion of the route. MKE-CHI Hiawatha service, BOS-Portland Downeaster service, and the Calif San Joaquins. Also until the last 20 years, the San Diegans had no commuter service at all along their corridor and were always extremely popular. Then there is the Keystone and Empire services which have no commuter rail along 1/2 of their respective routes.

Though I think I see your point as all these now have commuter rail available in at least one terminal. Are you saying that the existence of commuter rail makes the population more accustomed to rail travel and thus allows for the success of the services? Remember the San Diegans and the Cascades existed long before any commuter operations were found along their routes.

I think it's somewhat of a stretch, really, to say that users of the Empire Service in NY State are accustomed to rail because of New York City-area commuter services. Metro-North service covers only about 16% of the same route miles as the Empire-- the 74 miles from NYC to Poughkeepsie. And, the fact of the matter is that the way upstate New York is, the commuting habits of Westchester County residents are about as relevant as those of Berliners to the average inhabitant of Buffalo or Utica.

And what percentage of Empire Service riders are not getting on or off somewhere from Poughkeepsie to New York City? I'll go out on a limb and say it's very very low. Heck, there are 13 trains going south from Albany and only four going west, one of which is not an Empire Service train.

Trains might never shuttle Ohioans to ballgames, musical shows and other events throughout the state as quickly as cars, but rail will attract riders who value convenience over speed, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said yesterday.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/co ... cs&sid=101

Good news for Ohio which has been considered to be lagging significantly behind Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan for intercity passenger rail dollars in the Midwest.

Ridgefielder wrote: I think it's somewhat of a stretch, really, to say that users of the Empire Service in NY State are accustomed to rail because of New York City-area commuter services. Metro-North service covers only about 16% of the same route miles as the Empire-- the 74 miles from NYC to Poughkeepsie. And, the fact of the matter is that the way upstate New York is, the commuting habits of Westchester County residents are about as relevant as those of Berliners to the average inhabitant of Buffalo or Utica.

I didn't say that, I was asking if MudLake was trying to say that. Read my entire statement as I mention that the San Diegans and Cascades had no commuter rail on their routes for a long long time and were still very successful.

to be fair, Harrisburg does have bus service and it's station is located such that it's a short walk to the capitol and downtown (by short, I mean five minutes or less). as for the Empire service, I've found the west of Albany trains very well ridden despite their unreliability,slowness, and poor frequency. seems they should skip all the towns between Albany and NYP and operate express

drewh wrote:

Ridgefielder wrote: I think it's somewhat of a stretch, really, to say that users of the Empire Service in NY State are accustomed to rail because of New York City-area commuter services. Metro-North service covers only about 16% of the same route miles as the Empire-- the 74 miles from NYC to Poughkeepsie. And, the fact of the matter is that the way upstate New York is, the commuting habits of Westchester County residents are about as relevant as those of Berliners to the average inhabitant of Buffalo or Utica.

I didn't say that, I was asking if MudLake was trying to say that. Read my entire statement as I mention that the San Diegans and Cascades had no commuter rail on their routes for a long long time and were still very successful.

Sorry, I just read my post again and I wasn't clear. I was trying to support your point in response to MudLake's contention that successful intercity service is non-existent outside of commuter territory. Agree completely on the San Diegans and Cascades.

San Diegans and the Cascades have significant commuter rail operations on one end of each of their routes. By contrast, there are zero commuter rail operations in Ohio.

Now if you want to make the point that the San Diegans were "successful" long before the establishment of commuter rail in the Los Angeles area, I'd say this is not obvious. Thirty years ago there were only three round trips between LA and San Diego. Now I think there are 11... if I can count correctly. Either way, I'm not sure I fully understand what rail operations from long ago have to do with predicting success today.

The Cascades I'll concede as the lone good example of a successful intercity rail operation established before commuter operations. Is there any coincidence that it's using equipment unique to the Amtrak system?

MudLake wrote:By contrast, there are zero commuter rail operations in Ohio.

Cleveland is in Ohio, and they have commuter rail.

Other than Shaker Heights Rapid Transit, the airport shuttle now operated as RTA's Red line, and an E-L schedule friom Leavittsburg operated primarily as a convenience for employees, Cleveland has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever had "commuter" rail service in the sense of multiple schedules fromm suburban locations into the city, operated by either individual railroads or a regional authority. Even the pattern followed by the Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh, with only a handful of schedules geared to "day trips" into the city from more distant outlying communities, apparently never caught on much in Cleveland.

However, the "new" RTA could conceivably be marketed as a useful feeder for the proposed intercity services, if the developers and their politician allies would recognize that the development of a functioning short/intermediate haul rail system requires a lot of foresight, and that long-term fuel price trends might make it valuable someday, but not next month.

I didn't say it was a GOOD commuter rail service ... but it is for commuters and it is rail.

Your reply is a bit like "Other than it's intercity passenger trains, Amtrak offers no intercity rail service."

It isn't like I said that Cincinnati has an underground. (They do, just no trains.) Some day they might have a rail service.

Is the Heartland Flyer something you'd consider successful? It's a new service that has now lasted the better part of a decade, and there is very serious talk of extending it. But then, it's also one/day, and there's little serious talk of adding a frequency, to my knowledge.

justalurker66 wrote:

MudLake wrote:By contrast, there are zero commuter rail operations in Ohio.

Cleveland is in Ohio, and they have commuter rail.

I now live in the Cleveland suburbs and we don't have commuter rail. The "Ransid Trapid", as it was once known, is no more a commuter rail system than the "L" or the IRT Lexington Ave. subway.

MudLake wrote:I now live in the Cleveland suburbs and we don't have commuter rail. The "Ransid Trapid", as it was once known, is no more a commuter rail system than the "L" or the IRT Lexington Ave. subway.

Those systems are discussed on this site in the "Commuter/Transit and Light Rail" section. Cleveland would get more discussion if they had fans.

As I said, I didn't say it was a good system - but it exists.