More Updates on the 3C Corridor Rail Project
Earlier today, a new Amtrak study on the 3C Corridor “Quick Start” Passenger Rail project was released with several new figures, most impressively a researched estimate of 478,000 annual passengers riding between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland.
The study was conducted over the past nine months and will be used as part of Ohio’s federal stimulus funding application that will be filed on October 2nd.
The ridership estimates are based on conditions of passenger rail service as if it were operating today. Studies show that ridership would grow to nearly 600,000 annual passengers after five years of continuous non-upgraded service. The findings by Amtrak would mean that the “3C Quick Start” line would be the 12th largest generator of passenger rail traffic in the country.
The study also places the current total cost estimates of the 3C project at $342.6 million, which includes infrastructure, track and signal upgrades as well as maintenance facilities. The annual revenue from ticket sales is projected to be over $12 million per year based on the 2009 ridership estimates, and would grow as ridership increases.
More information about the Amtrak study can be found here on ODOT’s website.
This evening, ODOT and the Ohio Rail Development Commission held an open house public meeting at the King Arts Complex to provide more information on the project, as well as answer questions and concerns. Several of the most informative slides from the powerpoint presentation are below, and the entire presentation can be viewed here (PDF).
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 15th, 2009 at 7:25 pm and is filed under Transit.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Related Tags: 3c corridor • Development • ohio hub • passenger rail • Transit • transportation
September 15th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Cool, but such a waste of money. Build a light rail system in central Ohio instead. I’ll be driving my 35 mpg highway car to Cinci to visit the in-laws rather than spending the $47 (according to the news last night) for me AND my fiance all while doing it on my own time and not someone else’s. Oh - and the dog can come along too!
September 15th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I would rather see the Columbus station at the Marconi site. The other sight west of the Convention Center is kind of a no man’s land. At least at Marconi, it is somewhat equal distance (give or take) to the Short North, Convention Center to the west, Nationwide in the middle, and Huntington Park, the LC, and probably a casino to the west. Plus, the vacant land is much more desirable for redevelopment. If I were a developer, I’d much rather build in the Arena District and west of Neil and north of the tracks rather than around the “edge” of the cluster of attractions surrounded by a spaghetti field of highways and elevated roads and a huge factory. Such a great impression for those visitors to Columbus to see.
Is the Convention Center sight set in stone?
Also, what was the mood like. Did it seem promising that this was actually going to happen.
Any renderings or hints on what the station would look like.
That’s all for now.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I will be very interested to see what renderings of each site could potentially look like. With Cincy with 2 stations and Cleveland with 2 stations on the quick start, why only one in Columbus? I think the fastest growing county in the state (along with the growing northern suburbs) deserves to be part of the initial start up. Especially since Central Ohio has been without rail service for so long.
As far as DT sites I would vote for the Convention Center. The Marconi site is already built out and surrounded by parking garages. (Not a very good first impression to visitors).
I vision the CC site being a glass structure squeezed between the CC and the hotel tower and connecting to a potentially larger project (new nationwide skyscraper please) at nationwide and high.
Look forward to hearing additional details from the meetings.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
mstimple Says: Build a light rail system in central Ohio instead.
Why can’t we have both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
mstimple Says:I’ll be driving my 35 mpg highway car to Cinci to visit the in-laws rather than spending the $47 (according to the news last night) for me AND my fiance all while doing it on my own time and not someone else’s. Oh - and the dog can come along too!
Great! Hopefully having a half-million people off the highways and in trains will make your drive that much easier! It’s a win-win for everyone, even if it makes more sense for you to drive! Isn’t that awesome? :D
jpizzow Says: Is the Convention Center sight set in stone?
I didn’t notice if they made any mention of Option 1 or Option 2 being more feasible than the other. Sounds like those are the two they’re considering though, as no other options were presented. Personally, I’d prefer Option 1. We’re only talking about the distance of a few blocks, and the Arena District is already going to continue to develop, train station or not. That giant Convention Center parking lot though is a huge waste of space and could really get a major redevelopment plan being seated next to a new train station. If memory serves me correctly, that big parcel of land is owned by Franklin County too. If part of the reason we’re building this is for an economical shot in the arm, I’d say that it makes more sense for the Option 1 location.
jpizzow Says: Also, what was the mood like. Did it seem promising that this was actually going to happen.
The Q&A session was overwhelmingly positive. It actually caught me off guard at first, but then I figure the type of people who show up to these sorts of meetings are more likely to be proponents to begin with. I talked a bit with Marie Keister (Engage Communications, company who is handling some of the Communications work for the project) afterward and she commented on the surprising positivity as well. So I guess it wasn’t just me that noticed it.
jpizzow Says: Any renderings or hints on what the station would look like.
They said that the design/development of the stations would vary from stop to stop and would require partnership and involvement from their communities and cities. So I imagine that’s still further along in the project timeline.
CbusIslander Says: With Cincy with 2 stations and Cleveland with 2 stations on the quick start, why only one in Columbus? I think the fastest growing county in the state (along with the growing northern suburbs) deserves to be part of the initial start up.
It sounds like the North Columbus (second station) is still under consideration for the quick start. That being said, it sounds like they’re trying to balance the right mix. Fewer stations = fewer stops = faster travel times. Not to mention less money up front on building initial stations. And while the north end of Columbus is rapidly growing, the Columbus Metro Area is smaller than the MSA of Cleveland or Cincy, so a second Columbus station would serve a smaller immediate population compared to those regional stations in the other two C’s. That being said, It was emphasized that more stations could always be easily added later on, so I don’t really think it’s absolutely critical to have from day one.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:46 am
One advantage of the Marconi site is the availability of ample parking, which will be needed for travelers……kind of like the airport needs all of those overnight lots.
As far as the CC site, I’m under the impression (by looking at the picture) that the station would be east of the CC or within that very small gap bordering High St. to the east (which I actually think would be a great spot) The hole is a good size for a descent sized station and it would “plug” that hole up next to the CC and bridge. The shading on the overhead shot does extend to this gap. All along I was thinking the station was considered for the site bounded by Nationwide, High and Front, in the “pit” where the new CC hotel is going. That is where it should be as it is the most centrally located and right along the main corridor (High St), which would be very convenient for access to buses, cabs and light rail/streetcar (yea right).
September 16th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Hmmm, spending $342.6 million in order to potentially earn 12 million per year?
I didn’t see in the article, but does it mean that there will be 478,000 individual passengers, or does that mean total users? what I mean is does the approx 480K number mean that approx 120,000 individual passengers will ride 4 times each? Or 60,000 individuals 8 times each?
I really am not sold on this project at all, I don’t see the benefit, and by having this study done by the company that it will help the most (Amtrack) seems to have been a bad idea…
September 16th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“Hmmm, spending $342.6 million in order to potentially earn 12 million per year?”
We should build a highway instead; much more profitable. :P
September 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Patch Says: Hmmm, spending $342.6 million in order to potentially earn 12 million per year?
Very few rail transit systems in the world turn a profit, and none of them would be considered a cash cow. Highway systems make no income at all (unless they include tolls) and even then, they could all be considered wasteful money pits.
But that’s all beside the point. The purpose of rail transit is to transport people, provide alternatives, and stimulate additional private development around the lines & stations.
Patch Says: …does it mean that there will be 478,000 individual passengers, or does that mean total users?
This is just my assumption, but that sounds like total number trips taken, not unique passengers riding annually.
Patch Says: …having this study done by the company that it will help the most (Amtrack) seems to have been a bad idea…
Amtrak is not a private company. They’re a government-owned entity. So their benefits of an expanded system isn’t quite the same as what you’d expect of a private company. This is sort of like asking the national offices of USPS to do a study on regional mail service.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:54 am
In what universe will half a million people pay around 50 bucks to ride over 6 hours between Cincinnatti and Cleveland at around 40 mph?
You have got to be kidding me. You can ride Greyhound and do much better than that.
Of course there is hope that this level of ridership will spur TPTB to spend billions more to “upgrade” the tracks to “highspeed” with the trains traveling a whopping 71 mph on average. I simply do not believe in trains for the sake of trains. If we’re to get a rail system then I think we should do it properly, even if it takes 10 years and costs a lot more money. I say we go high speed from the very beginning, and I ‘m not talking about the 110 mph either. I mean the type of speed that trains in Japan and France travel at. Only then will train travel be a viable alternative to automobiles. Anything less than this and you’re simply wasting money.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I guess I really don’t understand the point of this Project.
I mean, I’m not saying build more road, I’m saying why spend the money at all. Who do they think is going to ride it?
If it is the total number of trips, and assuming each passenger rides a round trip, thats approx 240,000 people Max that would ride the train, right? And this would be for all travelers and not just Ohio citizens?
There are 11,500,000 people living in the State, so that comes out to just 2% of the population, right? Or is my math wrong?
September 16th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Providing options for travel shouldn’t be an end-in-itself. Rail should meet some unique needs, and the proposals don’t seem to do that.
They certainly don’t compete with auto travel in terms of cost or time. The low-speed train service from Cinci to Cleveland is more than 6 hours and will cost around $50, whereas it’s only 4 hours to drive and costs only ~$25.
Where they could compete is where travelers have no car — at the airports. Rail from international airports to downtown could outcompete local taxi services, and rail connecting international airports could compete with the relatively infrequent and more expensive air travel between Cinci/Columbus/Cleveland. Additionally, by providing air travelers with more options for their departing cities, rail would increase competition among air carriers that operate out of only one city, thereby driving down costs for rail and non-rail users alike.
Unfortunately, the proposals don’t capitalize on the natural strengths of rail to connect to air travel. Rather, they duplicate existing transportation at greater cost.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:13 am
They do have an advantage over autos in terms of productivity. Having the available time during travel to work instead of drive can be seen as a benefit to businesses operating across Ohio and provide an incentive for new businesses.
I can also see an advantage to tourists. Considering the cost and hassle of renting a car, someone could fly one way into Columbus and see our sights, leave by train to Cleveland and see theirs and fly out from there. I can also see (much like many of the hotel/airline deals) a travel agency working with some of the major concert venues and sport venues to set up travel deals.
And let’s not forget that part of the plan is to eventually expand and connect to the larger midwest region. I may not see a lot of personal use going in state by rail but I am really looking forward to Columbus connections to cities like Montreal and Chicago.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
In response to Zinfan:
Cleveland’s suburban station is supposed to be at or near Hopkins airport.
Other potential markets include:
-People who don’t own cars (urban folks, students, elderly, poor people)
-People who own one car and want to leave the other one with their spouse while they’re gone
-Business travelers who want to get work done on the train
-Sports fans who want to drink and/or avoid congestion
-People who don’t like to drive
-People with kids who think trains are really fun
September 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I’m sure with greater use costs will come down. I remember posting some Amtrak prices on one of these threads that didn’t seem unreasonable.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I’d rather see intercity passenger rail first. I want the 3C but I think we’re doing step 3 before steps 1 and 2. Obama should be touting this money for intercity transit to relieve congestion, ween people from autos, spur economic development and encourage sustainable living and neighborhoods. The 3C is more of a travel option than anything. At least with a light rail/streetcar, alot of the same people will use it everyday.
I don’t know, the more I think about it the more I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves…….light rail/streetcars for Columbus first and then 3C……high speed. I’d rather see offices, retail and residential midrises and highrises popping up around a High St. rail line than to have a few more hotel rooms get booked from the 3C. I’m sure a few more corporate expansions around the 3C station may happen but I don’t believe the impact would be as great as it would with a light rail line/streetcar.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am
???
The 3C is intercity passenger rail.
Maybe you mean intracity?
September 16th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Other potential markets include:
-People who don’t own cars (urban folks, students, elderly, poor people)
-People who own one car and want to leave the other one with their spouse while they’re gone
-Business travelers who want to get work done on the train
-Sports fans who want to drink and/or avoid congestion
-People who don’t like to drive
-People with kids who think trains are really fun”
So I get to ride on a train with the elderly, poor people, drunk sports fans and kids???
where do I sign up!
=-)
September 16th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Don’t forget the college kids, yuppies, and business travelers. Maybe Europeans lustful for a taste of home too. Everyone will ride the train!
Seriously though, the train won’t be the best option for everyone, but there are many types of people that might find it convenient for various types of trips.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“jpizzow Says:
September 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I’d rather see intercity passenger rail first. . . . I’m sure a few more corporate expansions around the 3C station may happen but I don’t believe the impact would be as great as it would with a light rail line/streetcar”
I agree with this, but Coleman already has tried the streetcar preaching with no results. If federal funds did happen for light rail, I am sure Columbus still would be “overlooked” for other faster growing cities with infrastructure problems.
I am wondering (and have for sometime) how is the rail congestion going to be fixed in Downtown Columbus?
“Amtrak in the report singled out Columbus as an extremely complex segment of the route, with some of the highest rail traffic congestion in Ohio. As a result, a big challenge for the city likely will be maintaining the flow of freight traffic upon adding passenger service.”
All I am hoping for at this point is federal stimulus approval just to get this started.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
@jpizzow
“Any renderings or hints on what the station would look like.”
I doubt the Columbus station would be anything impressive. Take a look at Amtrak Cleveland’s station, it’s about as boring as it gets -
http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtStationCF/ClevelandOHa.jpg
and
http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtStationCF/ClevelandOHbL.jpg
September 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
In contrast to Cleveland, Cincinnati’s Amtrak station occupies a small portion of the original Art Deco masterpiece Union Terminal. The rest of the station is a Museum.
http://queencitydiscovery.blogspot.com/2009/02/cincinnats-forgotten-railroad-history.html
AND, unless I miss read the PDF, the 3C *would not* use this amazing station? Looks like that might be due to heavy freight traffic on the rail line to be shared. Understandable, but a shame.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
johnwirtz, yea I meant INTRACITY not intercity. I always get the two mixed up.
I don’t want to be negative or anything, but I just have this bad feeling that we will get a shitty station in a shitty location with very slow trains, inconvenience and not a whole lot of developers building or companies willing to expand around the station. In my opinion, a project like this needs to be done all out (high speed) or not at all, especially with the ongoing criticism, doubt and car centric society that Columbus has. The opponents do not need anymore ammunition.
Or maybe I’ll be totally wrong. Nobody knows if it will be successful. We all just want to BELIEVE it will. I’m trying, I really am.
cbusislander, yea Coleman had his chance to push the streetcar. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those very few projects that the city needs to just build and hope that “they will come”. (developers, businesses, ridership, etc.) Folks may lose trust in our city leaders, but they would gain it back when the benefits of a streetcar/light rail started pouring in.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I hear the critiques of this rail system, and in some ways I resonate with them. Here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: We have to start somewhere. I think the alternative we have to rail investment is to keep pouring money into highways, which is not sustainable. As has been pointed out many times already, we can’t indefinitely expand highway lanes and use only cars to drive everywhere (including hybrid cars, which indirectly use non-renewable resources).
I believe it’s long overdue to start redirecting funding towards more sustainable transportation. I don’t think most people have a problem with that; rather, the concern I hear is that the market simply isn’t there for rail. I’m not an economist or transportation expert, but I agree to a certain extent with people who wonder about the viability of a transit system that is slower and more expensive than driving. Even as someone who hates to drive, I admit that after a few “curiousity rides” I’d probably swich back to the car because of time/cost benefits.
I still support this initial rail system, though, as a step towards viable mass transit. I would like to get rid of my car someday. Unfortunately, I don’t think $8 billion is enough to make rail competitive. $8 billion is a drop in the bucket as far as transportation spending goes. We’d have to be much more aggressive, and I don’t think Americans as a whole are behind such a massive shift in spending priorities.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Wasn’t there space set aside for a rail station at the Convention Center when it was first called the Ohio Center at its opening back in 1980 or so? It makes more sense to put the station at the Convention Center assuming that the main entrances are at the CC and not in the NE corner near I-670! Maybe that’s where the parking lot goes? The final destination of many convention attendees would more likely be a hotel in north downtown/short north or the CC itself vs. some offices on Marconi. Existing hotels such as the Dreary Inn, Hyatt Regency, Lofts, Crowne Plaza, Hampton Inn, Courtyard by Marriott are all in walking distance of the CC.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
i personally dislike this intercity rail project, and would much rather see improvements on the Northeast Corridor and transit systems around the country, but despite that, I’m willing to take the cash since if it doesn’t go to Ohio, it will go somewhere else where it will be even less useful. The 3C has more potential than say, the proposed line from Chicago to Carbondale, IL, so we might as well accept the federal funds, or else it will be put to more useless endeavors.
As for the comments about highways… highways dont run deficits since theyre funded by gas taxes. This 3C line would require $17million a year in operating costs, and pull in $12m from fares, leaving a deficit.
Oh yea, and if we go “highspeed” right from the start, those complaints about a $50 r/t between cinti and cleve would seem like a joke - true highspeed rail is incredibly expensive. For example, the 2.5 hr ride from Tokyo to Osaka is about $300 for a roundtrip ticket. Thats why the highspeed trains are so nice - they’re business class trains.