Updates on the 3C Corridor Passenger Rail Project
It was announced last Friday that the Amtrak study for restoring passenger rail service between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati was going to be delayed for two weeks in order to give additional attention to studying other national routes. Officials at the Ohio Rail Development Commission expressed little concern that the delay would have a negative impact on the state’s position in applying for federal funds to get the project started.
The ORDC and ODOT are holding a workshop today at 10AM at the Fawcett Center to discuss the “3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Plan”, which is the initial 79-mph service scheduled to be up and running by 2011. Public input at these workshops will help decide the best routes and stops for the new rail corridor.
Additionally, the announcement mentions that the planned routes should be competitive with highway driving times between the four cities. Projections have the Cleveland-Columbus route estimated with a 3 hour travel time from downtown to downtown, comparable to the 2.5 hours on a non-congested highway route.
The Columbus-Cincinnati route is slightly less direct as it also includes service to downtown Dayton. The estimated passenger rail trip would take 3 hours, which would compare with an uncongested highway drive time of 2 hours and 20 minutes through Dayton.
“What makes the time on the train competitive is how you can use it,” said ORDC Executive Director Matthew Dietrich. “The business traveler can be on the phone or connected to a laptop the minute he or she gets on the train. Travel time no longer has to be down time.”
The Ohio Association of Regional Councils also announced their support of the passenger rail plan yesterday. This organization includes 21 regional planning, development, and government agencies that represent more than 10 million people throughout Ohio.
“Ohio may find it difficult to connect to a future high speed rail network if it fails to develop substantial passenger rail service in the state within the next few years,” said John Getchey, president of the OARC.
All Aboard Ohio also simultaneously released an announcement yesterday that included three major speaking points.
First, a Highway Cost Savings Report (PDF) was released that totals up the amount of money that can be saved on highway maintenance through railroad improvements. In addition to accommodating new passenger rail service, the planned railway upgrades will also allow for an increase in freight transportation capacity. The report concludes that the diversion of semi truck operation to freight rail operation will save ODOT between $1.6 and $3.2 million per year in highway repair work.
Secondly, All Aboard Ohio commented on the projected travel times released by the ORDC, reiterating that the times are based on unimproved rail infrastructure. “Projected capital investments of between $250 million and $400 million in federal American Reinvestment & Recovery Act funds should dramatically reduce those travel times,” said Bill Hutchison, president of All Aboard Ohio.
Lastly, one small but significant detail mentioned in the All Aboard Ohio release was the estimate that 3C fares may be approximately 14 cents per mile, based on existing Amtrak fares in the Midwest. This could mean that a one-way ticket from Columbus to Cleveland could cost $20.30, a ticket from Columbus to Cincinnati could cost $18.20, and a ticket from Columbus to Dayton could cost $10.50. When compared to the IRS driving cost of 55 cents per mile, these fares are roughly 4 times cheaper than the actual cost of driving these routes.
More news and information is expected to follow today’s workshop, as well as third workshop taking place on September 15th. Stay tuned for more details.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, August 20th, 2009 at 8:00 am 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 • ohio hub • passenger rail • Transit • transportation
August 20th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Minor point of order: the IRS SMR includes so much that I’m not sure it’s a good direct comparison. Depreciation, for example, would occur whether or not you drove. Certainly it’s accelerated by driving long distances. But it’s also an average of all the cars on the road, which includes things like Hummers that even their drivers tend to not drive long distances.
Maybe (?) using the rate for driving a government-owned vehicle would be a better comparison. 28.5 cents a mile. Still double the train!
I’m still worried about ridership levels. I’m entirely for 3C on every level, but I’m not sure a very large number of people will use it. We’ll see.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I think the biggest draw will be to business in and out of Ohio. If the projections remain correct and the cost per mile is cheaper going by 3C than driving and the ride times and schedule are reasonable, it will be a boon to area businesses sending employees around the state between the stops. Not to mention the increase in productivity during transit. I think you will see more riders as the line expands beyond Ohio. I could definitely see using it to travel to some of the stops outside the state as listed on the current plans.
One thing I am curious about will be their bike policy. Amtrak currently has you doing some minor disassembly and packing the bike in a box as luggage. A minor inconvenience for longer trips but it would be a PITA for in state trips to have to reassemble everything. It would be nice to see a small amount of space on or two cars that would allow a handful of bikes to roll on and off. I wouldn’t mind paying a few bucks for that convenience.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Jefe Says: I’m still worried about ridership levels. I’m entirely for 3C on every level, but I’m not sure a very large number of people will use it.
I know this is a personal question, and the answer is sure to vary from person to person, but for the sake of discussion… what would you consider an adequate ridership level? The more the better of course, but at what point does the ridership level become either unrealistic or inadequate due to demand being too high?
When a new highway is constructed, immediate operation at 100% capacity would be a very bad thing. It means that the highway already requires expensive expansions and upgrades. Ultimately, you’d want to have something capable of providing service for an existing population with plenty of room to accommodate a gradual growth in usership without an immediate overhaul, right?
Does that mean the first year of 3C ridership could be deemed a “success” at 25%? 40%? 50%? I’m sure the ORDC has their own set of goals and expectations, although I don’t believe I’ve seen those.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Not to dodge the question, but I don’t know. I’d have to crunch more numbers and see and what point we’re not running trains that are not coming anywhere near covering their overheard and/or recouping the initial investment.
Perhaps a good way to judge w/o having ORDC’s numbers or crunching my own to see whether it’s enough is to look at the opposition. Sure, there are folks that are just opposed, period. But I think there’s many folks that don’t think we should have done this because not enough people will ride. (I’m a bit different—I think we should do this and still fear not enough people will ride). If the ridership opposition is muted, I’m all for it.
I think people won’t ride because driving is too cheap. More precisely, the perception of driving is too cheap. People don’t think at the 55 cent/mile number, or even the 28.5 cent/mile number. They think “drive to Cleveland for ~$30 round trip on gas and have a car while I’m there, or take a train for ~$40 round trip and have to worry about local transportation.” It’s how we make decisions. All of us.
I’ll revert back to my by now all-to-tired position of needing higher gas taxes. It takes the hidden costs that we don’t think about and makes them very visible. We bear the costs anyway—might as well make them very clear and thereby change people’s behavior.
By the way, I need no convincing that we should build and use this thing. I just think without added incentives, it might be set up to flounder, which would hurt additional investment in trains in the future. I don’t think it will fail, really. Once the govt starts something, it’s hard for it to stop.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Ohio is stuck with 79mph trains while California builds a statewide 220mph system. Prediction: Continued mass exodus from Ohio.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
One area they can really pick up riders is with college students. All the people at OSU who are from Cincinnati or Cleveland generally go home to their parents house for Thanksgiving or Christmas or whatever. Freshman don’t have a car on campus so they’re not leaving anything behind. Giving them the option to avoid holiday traffic might be a fairly easy sell, plus they don’t need somebody to drive double the distance to come pick them up. Run CABS buses from the dorms to the train station and it’s super easy.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Jefe: Honestly, I think a lot of the strongest opposition will turn into apathy once service has been up and running for a year. Maybe it’s just me, but a lot of it seems to have already faded away now that the conversation has shifted from “how will we pay for it” to “when will it be running”.
I agree with you that the vast majority of people will put gasoline cost and personal mobility ahead of any other factors when deciding on how to travel between these destinations. But I also believe that alternative transportation (bus, train, bike, whatever) doesn’t necessarily have to be intended for the vast majority of people for it to be a good idea.
Anyway, don’t feel like you really need to crunch any numbers on my account. I was just looking for some new conversation about this. And ultimately it probably won’t matter too much. I’m sure we’re eventually going to hear about it being both a success and a failure depending on who’s measuring stick is being used. ;)
August 20th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
columbusmike Says: Ohio is stuck with 79mph trains while California builds a statewide 220mph system. Prediction: Continued mass exodus from Ohio.
The long-term plan is for High Speed rail in Ohio. Building that system will take the better part of a decade. The “Quick Start” plan is to have 79-mph rail up and running in 18 months with the high speed rail to follow.
The proposed California high-speed rail system running from SF to LA (that has not been approved for funding yet) has a targeted completion date of 2018. I’m guessing too many people aren’t going to pack up their bags just yet. ;)
August 20th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Excellent info… thanks.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
What will also help and it is unclear from this post is what other stations are included in the between the 3Cs? For example, is there a Crosswoods/Worthington station under consideration plus a downtown Ohio Center/Nationwide Plaza/old Union Station? What about in Cincy or Cleveland? Frequency here is important, no one will ride if there’s only one train/day. Add some decent frequency and power ports and I’ll be all aboard.
One seemingly successful route is Milwaukee-Chicago which includes stops at the Milwaukee airport (the airport has its own Amtrak station with shuttle buses to the terminals) and a few stations between the two cities. This runs about 8 to 10x/day for a 90 minute trip. Also, both the state of WI and IL subsidize this route. After all, they progressively see it as part of highway maintenance, as every train trip between the two cities cuts down on I-94 traffic.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
The stops & routes are still being worked out. It’s mentioned in the second paragraph up top that input at these workshop events should help to finalize these decisions.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
According to the plans floating out there, they were projecting the possibility of 6 departures daily.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Walker, two things:
1) I frankly never consider apathy a notable goal. It’s better than opposition, but not really noteworthy.
2) My response to apathy being a bad thing and actual support being needed resides exactly in your post responding to columbusmike. The 80mph trains are great, but there’s a next step. There will always be a next step. Apathy will revert right back to opposition when the budget for the next big investments come around. High speed rail will be a big outlay (the CA plan is $80b, I’m not sure about OH). If we don’t have support, and merely apathy, we’ll never see the upgrade. I want long term progress and sustainability, not necessarily a short term victory.
On a related note, there’s a series in the New York Times on the impact/issues/pros/cons of high speed rail. Entries include:
Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?
Running the Numbers on High-Speed Trains
How Big Are the Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail?
What Would High-Speed Rail Do to Suburban Sprawl?
August 21st, 2009 at 6:34 am
On second thought…apathy is probably even worse than opposition. And maybe we can’t get support, but with good ridership, we can at least have acceptance and positive recognition.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:12 am
Don’t get me wrong… I wasn’t saying that apathy was a good thing. Just seems to be how many political situations play out. I’ve seen few people complaining about the tax increase after that passed, and I’m guessing we’ll see even fewer a year from now.
I do think we’ll continue to see support from the supporters, as well as new support from the folks who were on the fence about it until it becomes a reality.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:03 am
Right, I think you’re right about the tax increase. Although I think the majority of those who opposed it would oppose a tax increase no matter what, and likewise would approve of a tax cut no matter what. Even if it’s an increase is blindingly necessary and a cut would be blindingly irresponsible (like, ummm, when you’re starting a war).
The train has so much potential, and opposition is probably much more malleable. I feel like some rational concerns of opponents are just dismissed by supporters. Ridership is a worry of mine, but it’s nowhere near getting me to oppose. But many people don’t want to subsidize another govt project—regardless of whether highways are currently subsidized (which I know you and I agree they are).
August 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Jefe Says: I feel like some rational concerns of opponents are just dismissed by supporters.
Are you talking about here on CU or elsewhere? Because I’ve heard just about every rational concern be addressed with a rational answer. I will say that I have heard some proponents getting a little snarky and tired of answering the same questions over and over and ending up dismissing them from certain individuals sometimes (I’m sure I’m guilty of that).
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
In general. Not necessarily here. Conversations on here have their own peccadilloes. That’s a whole other topic.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Akron wants in on the action:
Train would bypass Akron
By Staff and wire reports
POSTED: 06:22 p.m. EDT, Aug 23, 2009
A plan seeking federal stimulus money to restore passenger train service among Ohio’s major cities leaves out Akron.
Some potential stops have been dropped from consideration to keep travel time on the 250-mile route to about six hours, which would be competitive with highway driving times along the same corridor.
Incorporating Akron to the route would add about one hour and 30 minutes to the train’s travel time.
Local leaders understand why Akron won’t be included in the startup service, but want the city to be part of any expansion, he said.
READ MORE
August 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“One seemingly successful route is Milwaukee-Chicago which includes stops at the Milwaukee airport (the airport has its own Amtrak station with shuttle buses to the terminals) and a few stations between the two cities. This runs about 8 to 10x/day for a 90 minute trip. ”
The Metra train runs from Milwaukee to Indiana through Chicago. All three states fund the lines. Chicago also has subway and Amtrak service, making comparing Columbus’ mass transit to Chicago’s a difficult proposition.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:36 am
^False. Metra ends in Kenosha, approximately 40 miles south of Milwaukee. That line - The Union Pacific North - ends in downtown Chicago at Ogilvie Transportation Center and does not continue through to Indiana. The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) has tracks that come into Millennium Park Station (Randolph Street) from South Bend.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
there’s a survey on the 3C rail website asking for public opinion.
please take the 5 min. to let them know what you think!
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx
September 1st, 2009 at 9:43 am
Walker et al,
Here is a great piece from statistics guru Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com on car/air/high speed rail travel. He’s the prevailing go-to guy with anything numbers-related these days.
The fact that it’s 50/50 whether someone drives from St. Louis to NYC is why I’m worried for rail ridership numbers.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:31 am
I like Nate Silver’s work, but that really wasn’t helpful at all. It was a comparison between driving & flying with no real conclusions reached on rail travel: “What does this mean for something high-speed trains? It could be either good news or bad news.” Hrmph.
Anyway, I don’t know if the 50/50 split between the distance of St. Louis & NYC is really that worrisome for rail travel. I doubt the average train travel trips are that long, so I don’t know if the personal decisions that people make on those types of travel scenarios will have the same implications for rail travel. What we’re talking about here are much shorter distances (Cols-Cleve, Cols-Cincy) where air travel is practically non-existent and out of our potential scenarios for Ohio travel.
And while this argument works against rail (although to a lesser degree) you’ll notice that those cost comparisons of the drive/flight between NYC & STL are assuming you’re only one person driving or flying. Once you add an extra passenger or two, the cost effectiveness is reversed and driving becomes the cheaper alternative when you factor in the extra plane tickets.
Which actually ties into something else I was thinking about the other day and needed a good transition for (thanks!)… I was thinking about our previous discussion on successful ridership rates for the 3C and how that comparison could be made to the existing highway infrastructure. There are already expectations set by ODOT for total number of cars to be moved along each section of road, but I don’t believe the number of people per vehicle is taken into account for those figures. So my question would be… is a train from Columbus to Cleveland running at only 20% ridership any less effective than a highway running at expected auto capacity with 5-seater vehicles only each moving one person per car? The scenario reminds me a bit of those popular car/bus/bike images. Or it’s like saying that your refridgerator is “full” even though every condiment bottle is nearly empty.
Anyway, I think you and Nate and I can speculate all day on how rail will be utilized in Ohio, but I don’t know if we can really truely accurately measure the results until we put something in place. Which is why I’m a fan of trying something small and cheap first and seeing how it works before further investment.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Since I don’t commute to Cleveland or Cincinnati for anything other than catching a Reds or Indians or Browns game with friends, I was hoping the fares would be substantially less.
Roundtrip:
4 people by car = 4 hours commute time and about $40 in gas
4 people by train = 6 hours and $160 in fares
Maybe they’ll have deals on the weekends for recreational travelers.