Funding approved for "3C" (Cincy-Cbus-Cle) Rail Line

[nineworldseries]

Without a light rail infrastructure in each city, I don't see myself using this a whole lot. I might take the train to Cincinnati from Columbus (as I work downtown) to see the Reds, but I really couldn't get elsewhere I'd want to go (like Mt. Healthy) in Cincy without taking the bus. I certainly wouldn't take the train into downtown Dayton and then a bus to where I'd want to go; I'd just drive and be there in 50-55 minutes instead.

The only place in Ohio this would really work is Cleveland, as they already have good light rail. I would take the train to Puritas station and then jump on the red line downtown.

[Reds Freak]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Mass transit is pointless without density. We'd really need to scrap the suburban sprawl model and move toward New Urbanism.

I've read that the 3C Corridor is the densest region in the country that is not served by passenger rail...

[bigredbunter]

In 2007 a 200 mile High Speed Rail opened in Taiwan...High Speed meaning that the train reaches 180 mph. I ride this train several times each year. It is pure joy--beats driving on their congested highways or flying.

I think that something like this is the only way that rail would ever become popular in the midwest. Put a 180 mph train in between cincinnati and cleveland--turn it into a 100 minute commute...Anyone want to spend 4.5 hours in a car now?

When I hear that they are thinking of spending $400 million on this project I shrug. Taiwan's high speed rail cost $18 Billion. I can't imagine that Americans have the stomache for public works projects on that scale.

[Kingspoint]

Do people have that many reasons to travel between Cincinnati and Cleveland?

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by bigredbunter

In 2007 a 200 mile High Speed Rail opened in Taiwan...High Speed meaning that the train reaches 180 mph. I ride this train several times each year. It is pure joy--beats driving on their congested highways or flying.

I think that something like this is the only way that rail would ever become popular in the midwest. Put a 180 mph train in between cincinnati and cleveland--turn it into a 100 minute commute...Anyone want to spend 4.5 hours in a car now?

When I hear that they are thinking of spending $400 million on this project I shrug. Taiwan's high speed rail cost $18 Billion. I can't imagine that Americans have the stomache for public works projects on that scale.

I've heard that from a number of people. And I think there is some truth in that because funding does not allow for the ideal plan. But in the U.S. and in Europe, the successful rail corridors are the ones that started modestly and upgraded over time, many of them at similar average speeds to that of the 3-C. A train that goes 180mph would require new land purchases and new rail, and would likely end up costing over $10B. But it would be vastly superior to car travel in pretty much every way.

For proponents of high speed rail, the worst thing that people can do is shun this because it won't immediately be what it could be some day. That will only set high speed rail in Ohio back another three decades.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

Do people have that many reasons to travel between Cincinnati and Cleveland?

I have quite a bit of family and friends living in Columbus. Comes mostly from my OSU days, but I probably go up to CBus about every other month at least. My wife's parents live in Canton and we make it up there about every 3 months. So yea I do travel quite a bit north in Ohio.

I agree with the premise that you need to start somewhere. If the federal funding is there, and you either have to use that money or someone else gets it, then I am all for this skeleton project. If money will come directly out of my pocket, it isn't the worst thing driving less than 2 hours for about probably about 5 gallons of gas each way.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by paintmered

I've heard that from a number of people. And I think there is some truth in that because funding does not allow for the ideal plan. But in the U.S. and in Europe, the successful rail corridors are the ones that started modestly and upgraded over time, many of them at similar average speeds to that of the 3-C. A train that goes 180mph would require new land purchases and new rail, and would likely end up costing over $10B. But it would be vastly superior to car travel in pretty much every way.

For proponents of high speed rail, the worst thing that people can do is shun this because it won't immediately be what it could be some day. That will only set high speed rail in Ohio back another three decades.

Yeah, but you can't feed consumers a bad product and expect them to support it until the better product arrives -- they'll simply avoid the bad product. This is especially true when, in situations like this, people know there is a better rail system that we aren't getting. You install new bullet trains or high-speed rail, and you might get people interested; at first for the novelty of seeing what the high-speed trains are like, hopefully continuing to ridership because of the positive experience. You install old, refurbished train cars that look like every beat-up old Amtrak train doing the milk runs around the east coast, and people are just going to avoid the situation entirely.

Plus, you can add to that a familairity that most people have with government: they'll say the goal is to move onto high speed rail, but that will be inevitably delayed and tied up until the program goes belly up waiting for the funds to materialize. Government works badly when you give it time to screw up -- and doing things in 'stages' is just an invitation for the government to screw up or just stop alltogether when a new administration with new proirities takes over.

This project is a "do it right, or don't do it all kind of thing." It relies on people paying to ride, and they aren't going to do that just on the promise of better things to come.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Yeah, but you can't feed consumers a bad product and expect them to support it until the better product arrives -- they'll simply avoid the bad product. This is especially true when, in situations like this, people know there is a better rail system that we aren't getting. You install new bullet trains or high-speed rail, and you might get people interested; at first for the novelty of seeing what the high-speed trains are like, hopefully continuing to ridership because of the positive experience. You install old, refurbished train cars that look like every beat-up old Amtrak train doing the milk runs around the east coast, and people are just going to avoid the situation entirely.

Plus, you can add to that a familairity that most people have with government: they'll say the goal is to move onto high speed rail, but that will be inevitably delayed and tied up until the program goes belly up waiting for the funds to materialize. Government works badly when you give it time to screw up -- and doing things in 'stages' is just an invitation for the government to screw up or just stop alltogether when a new administration with new proirities takes over.

This project is a "do it right, or don't do it all kind of thing." It relies on people paying to ride, and they aren't going to do that just on the promise of better things to come.

IOW, go big or go home. Agreed, good post.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

Do people have that many reasons to travel between Cincinnati and Cleveland?

Have you ever driven I-71? Lots of traffic on that road.

[BCubb2003]

Can't wait for the 3C Series.

[RBA]

I wish they would also add the L.A. to Las Vegas high speed rail. The traffic last weekend was unbearable on the I-15. You would never know Las Vegas was hurting by all the people on the road to/from and the Casinos are packed. However, if you travel a little outside the strip, you see foreclosed homes and businesses all over the place.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I have quite a bit of family and friends living in Columbus. Comes mostly from my OSU days, but I probably go up to CBus about every other month at least. My wife's parents live in Canton and we make it up there about every 3 months. So yea I do travel quite a bit north in Ohio.

I agree with the premise that you need to start somewhere. If the federal funding is there, and you either have to use that money or someone else gets it, then I am all for this skeleton project. If money will come directly out of my pocket, it isn't the worst thing driving less than 2 hours for about probably about 5 gallons of gas each way.

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I have quite a bit of family and friends living in Columbus. Comes mostly from my OSU days, but I probably go up to CBus about every other month at least. My wife's parents live in Canton and we make it up there about every 3 months. So yea I do travel quite a bit north in Ohio.

I agree with the premise that you need to start somewhere. If the federal funding is there, and you either have to use that money or someone else gets it, then I am all for this skeleton project. If money will come directly out of my pocket, it isn't the worst thing driving less than 2 hours for about probably about 5 gallons of gas each way.

That's quite often. In fact, that's a lot. You could really use that rail line.

All rail line is good, even if it's bad rail line.

It's sad how everything was set up perfectly by forward thinkers back at the turn of the 20th Century, and then the car manufacturers manipulated things so that bus companies could run cheaper than rail/trolley lines and force the trolley lines out of business. It was really underhanded and evil and set this country back 100 years.

Henry Ford is burning in Hell.


Yahtzee, I haven't driven it since November of 1980.

[bigredbunter]

Originally Posted by Rojo

IOW, go big or go home. Agreed, good post.

Right. I'm having trouble understanding why someone would pay 20 bucks to hop on a train that takes the same time as car travel and leaves you with less flexibility when you get there...I guess it might give greyhound a run for it's money.

Better to spend 400 mill. on a true high speed train from Delaware to Columbus in my opinion...

[Caveat Emperor]

And, with the changing of the guard in Columbus, the project is now officially dead:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...-rail-is-dead-

Barely twelve hours after winning office, Gov.-elect John Kasich said Wednesday that creating jobs, halting the statewide passenger rail project and reining in labor unions are his top priorities.

"Passenger rail is not in Ohio's future,'' the Republican said at his first news conference after Tuesday's win over Gov. Ted Strickland. "That train is dead."

[paintmered]

I, along with at least a half dozen young professionals I work with in Dayton would have been able to move to Cincinnati had this materialized. As it is, I'm looking at a 40 mile commute in 18 months (my fiancée will still have another year of school in Cincinnati), right around the time gas prices are projected to skyrocket again. I already had one claim to me that he's looking to move to another state as a result of this.

Was it perfect? No. Was it good enough to meet my needs? Absolutely. And it was only to be the first step in a comprehensive plan. All this over $.50 of worst case state subsidy per person per year. The highways already get over $90 per person per year, and we're looking to build more.