# More Amtrak Service In Ohio?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 30, 2021)

All Aboard Ohio says Amtrak is actually pushing for it and has proposals in place. The plans were reported in Cincinnati.com.








Amtrak plans expanded service from Cincinnati to Chicago, Cleveland - if Congress says OK


Amtrak wants to expand passenger service in Ohio that would include routes stretching from Cincinnati as far north as Cleveland. But it needs money.



www.cincinnati.com





"

Four daily round trips with intermediate station stops between Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago. Currently, there are three one-way trips between Cincinnati and Chicago each week.
Three daily round trips with intermediate station stops in Ohio between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland.
Three daily round trips with intermediate station stops between Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit.
Two daily round trips with intermediate station stops between Cleveland and Buffalo, New York.
And, one daily round trip with intermediate station stops between Cleveland and Pittsburgh.
"
The Buffalo and Pittsburgh trains would both head to New York, according to AAO.



Amtrak proposes five Ohio routes | All Aboard Ohio - Advocacy group for Transportation Choices in Ohio.


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 30, 2021)

Sounds intriguing. Definitely a major test of Amtrak's "get a foot in the door" corridor development plan where a state would have to agree to new service but doesn't pay for it for the first few years.

Officialdom in Mobile, AL is excited to get a corridor under this scheme, for instance, but I don't know where Ohio officials stand. No money upfront means no legislative approval required, as I understand it. But Ohio is where "moderate" Kasich kissed Scott Walker's, umm, pinky ring and threw back hundreds of millions of federal money for 3C service because it came from the Obama DOT.

We don't know how much Congress will fund the corridor development plan. And money for three corridors in one state means that money isn't used for three corridors in three states. On the other hand, the Ohio corridors would fill in a *major* gap in Midwest train travel. If Amtrak can pull it off this ambitious plan, it would light the way to a whole lot more. At the least, it's heartening to see someone at Amtrak taking to heart Burnham's exhortation to "Make no little plans."


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jan 30, 2021)

That will never pass the solidly Republican legislature. They're more interested in protecting subsidies for the bankrupt nuclear energy industry which resulted in major corruption. And remember the last time, under Kasich, when there was free money from the Federal government to help get it up and running?


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 30, 2021)

Oops, made a slight mistake. Plans for corridor service to Mobile do have support of local officials but are not under the corridor development plan. Amtrak has suggested corridor development plan service connecting Nashville and Atlanta.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jan 30, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> That will never pass the solidly Republican legislature. They're more interested in protecting subsidies for the bankrupt nuclear energy industry which resulted in major corruption.



As an Ohioan who would benefit from such Amtrak service, you are correct if Ohio has to come up with some dollars to start such a service. Not only would our very conservative General Assembly not approve it, but currently, there simply isn't the money in the General Fund to use for such a project. Governor DeWine has had to tap into the State's Rainy Day Fund due to the pandemic. That is likely going to continue for this Fiscal year.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Jan 30, 2021)

Regional service is where Amtrak has stated it wants to expand. And of course if that can be connected to the existing national network, so much the better.

My concern is with regional services in the long distance overnight states such as Ohio. The proposed regional services would very likely be day trips whereas the long distance trains run in the wee hours of the morning. 

The proposed regional services would do much better if there were a convenient connection to the long distance trains - both in terms of timing and location. Cincinnati would be okay as far as the station goes. But I'm not sure that Lakefront Station in Cleveland would be sufficient.

jb


----------



## west point (Jan 31, 2021)

If and that is a giant if. If the Ohio plan was instituted as posted here the multi a day operation might just show the national public that more than one trip a day is the way to expand Amtrak. On the other hand if it does not work and just spreads traffic over 3 or 4 trains a day ????

There is still the problem of equipment availability. Be sure if service is started as proposed that every piece of older equipment will be needed. That includes Horizon and Amfleet-1s. Even so short trains might mean constrained capacity which is not good during high travel peaks. That is when the average Joe can get hooked on Amtrak travel at regular times.


----------



## jiml (Jan 31, 2021)

west point said:


> There is still the problem of equipment availability. Be sure if service is started as proposed that every piece of older equipment will be needed. That includes Horizon and Amfleet-1s. Even so short trains might mean constrained capacity which is not good during high travel peaks. That is when the average Joe can get hooked on Amtrak travel at regular times.


I was thinking the same thing. For every new Midwest coach that arrives, instead of an Amfleet or Horizon being displaced to retirement they will have to be reallocated - even if for a short term while additional cars are ordered. Ideally you'd put the newest cars on the new routes to make an impression, but to do so would not be fair to the existing routes awaiting replacements.


----------



## PVD (Jan 31, 2021)

I know everyone like new equipment, but from a passenger standpoint the refreshed AM-1 is not bad for a shorthaul. Other than the windows being small, and not having curtains, there really isn't anything unpleasant about a corridor trip in one.


----------



## railiner (Jan 31, 2021)

PVD said:


> I know everyone like new equipment, but from a passenger standpoint the refreshed AM-1 is not bad for a shorthaul. Other than the windows being small, and not having curtains, there really isn't anything unpleasant about a corridor trip in one.


After riding them and their Metroliner predecessor's since 1969, I find them almost like "home". As soon as I board them, I immediately feel a sense of relaxation...


----------



## bms (Jan 31, 2021)

As good as this plan sounds, unfortunately I doubt Ohio will see any new service. The politics in Ohio are getting really old. I'll always keep my condo in Ohio but I'm thinking about working in another state for two or three years to make some real money.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jan 31, 2021)

I must say I'm surprised that the much talked about Chicago-Columbus route didn't make it onto the list.

The linked story by the OP mentions that the routes were determined in part by "a blueprint the passenger rail company developed in conjunction with state and federal transportation officials " Likely the FRA Midwest Rail Plan? The plan, which was supposed to be complete by the end of 2019, which then slid to the end of 2020, and is still not final, had not made a definitive determination whether a CHI-COL route should go through Ft. Wayne or Indy. Perhaps that's the reason for the snub?

Regarding the CLE-PIT-NYC and the CLE-BUF-NYC routes, would it make more sense to originate those routes at Detroit instead? Easier to justify a dedicated DET-TOL connection if there were more trains running on it, no? Plus, taking Toledo and Detroit along for the ride might translate to more support.

Politically, DeWine is up for re-election in 2022. It would probably take nearly that long to cobble plans together for some of these routes anyway. Political fortunes can change quickly. Look at Georgia.


----------



## west point (Jan 31, 2021)

Uptempo -- Georgia will go back to "R" due several vote suppression bills that will be enacted in the next couple months.


----------



## Night Ranger (Feb 1, 2021)

west point said:


> Uptempo -- Georgia will go back to "R" due several vote suppression bills that will be enacted in the next couple months.


I hope your prediction is wrong but I'm afraid that it will be accurate.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 1, 2021)

What train lines would it be routed over? From Cincinnati to Dayton it appears that it would likely be routed over the old B&O route or the NYC route. I can't think of any intermediate stations.
From Dayton to Columbus the old PRR route seems to be abandoned from Dayton to South Charleston. I would say it would likely travel along the old NYC route from Dayton-Columbus, with an intermediate stop in Springfield. It would likely be routed over the NYC as well all the way to Cleveland.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 1, 2021)

CTANut said:


> the old PRR route seems to be abandoned from Dayton to South Charleston.



I think you are correct. Another factor in establishing rail service in Ohio is the lack of stations. There is none in Columbus or Dayton anymore. In other communities, I don't know, but I doubt that there are any there as well.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 1, 2021)

State of Ohio is not much of a supporter of travel by train. I wonder why and who is pushing this plan. I do see a lot of push back from the other states.

I would support this, just not get my hopes up.


----------



## leccy (Feb 1, 2021)

These ideas are not new. I suspect AMTRAK is floating them to see if the states will bite. Lobby groups are pushing hard for political support. I guess time will tell.

(edited to add)

I wonder if there is even track capacity to add all these services, especially into and out of Cleveland.


----------



## west point (Feb 2, 2021)

IMHO the biggest problem for starting any of these services are the stations. Amtrak right now has to settle a bunch of ADA lawsuits at some 70 stations the biggest being Richmond Staples Mill. Getting even a shelter that would be ADA compliant may be difficult? 

If all these trains could start say July 2022 essential track work could be completed before hand. After starting service there would need to be times with bus bridges to do longer range track upgrades to reduce total schedule times.


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 2, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> I think you are correct. Another factor in establishing rail service in Ohio is the lack of stations. There is none in Columbus or Dayton anymore. In other communities, I don't know, but I doubt that there are any there as well.


It doesn't look like either city has an old station intact, but it doesn't look like it would be difficult or terribly expensive in either. Roaming around on Google Maps:

*The platforms of the former Dayton station can clearly be seen in satellite mode at 6th & Ludlow, and going past on 6th in streetview [Link] it looks like there's ample space under the tracks to put in a decent station. Not Grand Central Terminal by any means, but space under a rail viaduct can be made decent-looking (see: the French Market at Chicago's Ogilvie Station).

*In Columbus, the tracks go right under the Convention Center, and it looks like there's a nice spot where platforms could be fit in under a connecting part of the Convention Center. From track level. From street level, ideal for taxis. A nearby more pedestrian-friendly entrance. I'd be very surprised if a convention center didn't welcome a train station right on the premises, and there'd be ample amenities (washrooms, restaurants, etc.) already in place. Heck, the adjacent ballroom space is already named "Union Station Ballroom." 

To the point by *west point*, the Dayton and Columbus stations I've suggested could each be made accessible with a single elevator to an island platform, which should be sufficient for a through station with the handful of trains each day we're talking about.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 2, 2021)

It looks like the site in Springfield would be located at grade, along with most of the other stations.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 2, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> It doesn't look like either city has an old station intact, but it doesn't look like it would be difficult or terribly expensive in either. Roaming around on Google Maps:
> 
> *The platforms of the former Dayton station can clearly be seen in satellite mode at 6th & Ludlow, and going past on 6th in streetview [Link] it looks like there's ample space under the tracks to put in a decent station. Not Grand Central Terminal by any means, but space under a rail viaduct can be made decent-looking (see: the French Market at Chicago's Ogilvie Station).
> 
> ...


I think Dayton Union Station was demolished in 1989, and Columbus in the mid 1970s.


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 2, 2021)

Out of curiosity, I found the old 3C plan environmental assessment. Columbus station was to be at the Convention Center  and Dayton was to be at 6th and Main, one block from my suggestion.

But Cincinnati station wasn't going to be at Union Terminal, it was either going to be at Lunken Airport as the first choice or alternatively a spot on the riverfront by a boathouse, near-ish downtown but on the wrong side of I-471. The assessment doesn't explain why either CUT or a riverfront station was ruled out over an airport miles from downtown (in an environmental assessment!) but it does include a real doozie about the Lunken Airport site: "This site also provides a location for the development of a station that would be surrounded by compatible light industrial uses." Setting aside the Lunk(en)-headed flaw of missing downtown by miles as your first choice and blocks as your second, how the ever-living  do you simultaneously think a passenger station should be surrounded by industry rather than near where passengers would actually be going (hotels, offices, stadiums, convention centers, etc.) AND make your next-best choice (over the existing train station) the polar opposite, a park setting in a residential neighborhood?!?


----------



## Eric S (Feb 2, 2021)

I could be completely mistaken but I seem to recall that the stated reason that plans did not use Cincinnati Union Terminal was a desire to avoid rail congestion in and around Queensgate Yard.


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 2, 2021)

I looked at Google Maps and the tracks that serve the "second-best" boathouse location continue along the riverfront into the park lands between downtown Cincinnati and the river. While its not ideal to have active tracks through a park [Link], somebody thought them practical enough for passenger service that the Riverfront Transit Center (built in 2003 before the 2010 assessment for the Ohio 3C plan) was intended to be a commuter rail terminal. The commuter rail plans were still floating around as recently as 2016.

Also, I took a second look at the environmental assessment and: 
(1) the line(s) serving CUT were ruled out due to freight congestion (hat-tip to *Eric S*)
(2) the boathouse location had broad support but intense opposition. 
(3) Riverfront Transit Center isn't listed as even a considered alternative for the Cincinnati station.


----------



## bms (Feb 2, 2021)

I wonder if the 3C train could stop at Cincinnati Union Terminal but instead of laying over there, terminate at a suburban station in Kentucky where there's less congestion. A lot of people would probably use a stop in Florence or someplace like that.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 2, 2021)

bms said:


> I wonder if the 3C train could stop at Cincinnati Union Terminal but instead of laying over there, terminate at a suburban station in Kentucky where there's less congestion. A lot of people would probably use a stop in Florence or someplace like that.



I think doing as you are suggesting would only add to the complexity of getting such a service started. The Kentucky State Government would then be involved (for example, it is Kentucky--not Ohio--that has control over the I-75 bride and and I think the other two highway bridges that cross the Ohio River from Cincinnati into Kentucky).

CVG is in Northern Kentucky, not far from Cincinnati. But, getting to/from there from Ohio can be a real "pain" if there are traffic issues on I-75 or on the connectors to the airport.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 2, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> the "second-best" boathouse location continue along the riverfront into the park lands between downtown Cincinnati and the river.



This location is totally unacceptable. With the park areas and the construction of the sports stadiums and a major museum in that area, a station would be inconvenient to access. Station related parking at the station? I think that would be impossible to do. Lots of parking options near the stadiums, but would not be convenient to use. Plus, street traffic in the area--particularly if one is not familiar with the area--can be☹!

Using Cincinnati Union Terminal (Center) is the best option. There is a large parking area at the station that is not available (the last I checked) for long term Amtrak customers. Maybe that could be changed? Maybe a parking garage might be constructed by the City? 



John Bredin said:


> he Dayton and Columbus stations I've suggested could each be made accessible with a single elevator to an island platform,



Columbus Union Station did not have an elevator or escalators. Dayton's Union Station did not either as I recall. Columbus: the tracks/platform were under the building. Dayton: the tracks/platform were elevated to a second level with the station itself at street level. 

At least for Dayton, constructing a station at street level could still be done with ADA access to the platforms--which might still exist, don't know for certain--above the station.

Amtrak had a very small building somewhere in the "yards" away from where the Convention Center was, but was in the downtown area.


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 2, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> This location is totally unacceptable. With the park areas and the construction of the sports stadiums and a major museum in that area, a station would be inconvenient to access. Station related parking at the station? I think that would be impossible to do. Lots of parking options near the stadiums, but would not be convenient to use. Plus, street traffic in the area--particularly if one is not familiar with the area--can be☹!
> 
> Using Cincinnati Union Terminal (Center) is the best option.


I agree that CUT is best by far, if for no other reason than having two different stations in Cincinnati is inconvenient for passengers and inefficient for Amtrak. However, *if *CUT was taken off the table as it was in 2010 -- does anyone know if the rail congestion significantly improved since then? -- RTC is still better than the boathouse area and light-years better than Lunken Airport. 

The 2010 3C plan to not use CUT strikes me as similar to the situation with Richmond Staples Mill and Richmond Main Street, where only a few trains serve the downtown station due to congestion from a trainyard. A bypass around the yard was completed in 2019 but they haven't adjusted the schedule yet to run more trains into Main St.



> Columbus Union Station did not have an elevator or escalators. Dayton's Union Station did not either as I recall. Columbus: the tracks/platform were under the building. Dayton: the tracks/platform were elevated to a second level with the station itself at street level.
> 
> At least for Dayton, constructing a station at street level could still be done with ADA access to the platforms--which might still exist, don't know for certain--above the station.


As far as I know, nothing's left of Columbus Union Station as the Greater Columbus Convention Center was built on the site. My suggestion was to build new platform(s), with new stairs and elevator(s), where existing tracks pass directly under a part of the Convention Center. In effect, the Convention Center would serve as the station building.

As to Dayton, Google Maps shows that the tracks are elevated one story up (as you said) and some platforms are still there, but apparently just the platforms. Link. There are oblong dark spots on the platforms where stair-holes must have been covered over after the station closed, but I have no idea whether some of the stair-holes were actually elevator shafts.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 2, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> *if *CUT was taken off the table as it was in 2010 -- does anyone know if the rail congestion significantly improved since then?



I have no idea. And was not aware that congestion is an issue. As one approaches CUT while driving on I-75, there are very large rail yards with many, many freight cars just "sitting". If there is congestion, it might be something that the railroads serving that area could solve.



John Bredin said:


> some platforms are still there,



Thanks for the link to the map. Yes, they surely do appear to be still present.



John Bredin said:


> I have no idea whether some of the stair-holes were actually elevator shafts.



Well, if there was an elevator present, I certainly did use it.



John Bredin said:


> nothing's left of Columbus Union Station as the Greater Columbus Convention Center was built on the site.



That is correct. An attractive and large structure met the wrecking ball some time ago.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 2, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> This location is totally unacceptable. With the park areas and the construction of the sports stadiums and a major museum in that area, a station would be inconvenient to access. Station related parking at the station? I think that would be impossible to do. Lots of parking options near the stadiums, but would not be convenient to use. Plus, street traffic in the area--particularly if one is not familiar with the area--can be☹!
> 
> Using Cincinnati Union Terminal (Center) is the best option. There is a large parking area at the station that is not available (the last I checked) for long term Amtrak customers. Maybe that could be changed? Maybe a parking garage might be constructed by the City?
> 
> ...


That might have been because they were both torn down years before the ADA was enacted in the 1990s. The CTA did not even open its first accessible station until 1975, and the first elevator equipped station did not enter service until 1980.


Chicago ''L''.org: Stations - Kimball


----------



## CTANut (Feb 2, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> I have no idea. And was not aware that congestion is an issue. As one approaches CUT while driving on I-75, there are very large rail yards with many, many freight cars just "sitting". If there is congestion, it might be something that the railroads serving that area could solve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It also appears there WAS an elevator for freight at one time.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 3, 2021)

CTANut said:


> It also appears there WAS an elevator for freight at one time.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Is this a picture about the Cincinnati Union Terminal? The position of the platforms and the train don't look right to me.


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 3, 2021)

Dayton's former station, I think.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 4, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> Dayton's former station, I think.


Yes, it's Dayton.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 4, 2021)

This was the former station in Springfield. It was torn down in 1969.


----------



## west point (Feb 4, 2021)

Didn't CUT had three tracks between most platforms to allow short time storage for interchange of thru cars to various RRs. Didn't the middle track have switches at both ends to the outer tracks?


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 4, 2021)

CTANut said:


> Yes, it's Dayton.



I thought it might be. Having traveled out of/into both Cincinnati and Dayton, I just couldn't imagine that the photo was of CUT.


----------



## Palmland (Feb 4, 2021)

west point said:


> Didn't CUT had three tracks between most platforms to allow short time storage for interchange of thru cars to various RRs. Didn't the middle track have switches at both ends to the outer tracks?



Yes it did. An innovative design in 1930 that provided a wide 28' platform in the center narrowing to a still generous 15' at both ends to allow for the center track. It was used,as you said, for the through cars passing from the eastern trains to those going south. At age 12 the local switch crew gave my brother and I a ride while he switched a heavyweight Pullman from an arriving train to the Southland, no doubt using one of those tracks. What a shame there isn't more of those 16 station tracks other than the solitary one remaining.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Feb 4, 2021)

Does Cincinnati have an agent now? Amtrak's website says checked baggage service is available, which implies there is an agent on duty, but also says that "Unaccompanied child travel not allowed " - which implies there is no agent on duty.

Thanks,
jb


----------



## daybeers (Feb 5, 2021)

John Bobinyec said:


> Does Cincinnati have an agent now? Amtrak's website says checked baggage service is available, which implies there is an agent on duty, but also says that "Unaccompanied child travel not allowed " - which implies there is no agent on duty.
> 
> Thanks,
> jb


An excerpt from the Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor Policy:


> Both boarding and arrival stations must be staffed. (Please note that even certain staffed stations do not allow for unaccompanied minors.)
> All travel must take place on the same day with the scheduled departure time no earlier than 5:30 am and the scheduled arrival time no later than 9:30 pm. Overnight travel is not allowed.


The Cardinal arrives & departs Cincinnati in both directions between 1:30 and 3:30 am, so it fails the daytime qualification. Silly IMO. I did use the program a couple times when I was younger and was well watched and taken care of. Honestly one of the most well-managed and courteous processes at Amtrak in my experience. Would recommend if those can swing it, but overnight travel and the prohibition of transfers makes things tricky and I imagine sadly moves those travelers to airlines. Those with divorced or separated families would get a great view of the country at a young age traveling by train.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 7, 2021)

On the Op-Ed page of Sunday's _Dayton Daily News, _there were two pieces written about Amtrak's proposed new services In Ohio, particularly as the plans relate to the 3-C's corridor route. One article was written by the Executive Director of All Aboard Ohio who previously served with the Ohio Rail Development Commission. The other article was written by my Ohio State Senator who is one of the most conservative members of the Ohio State Senate. 

Not surprisingly, the gentleman representing All Aboard Ohio was enthusiastic about Amtrak's plans. 

The article written by my State Senator had 17 paragraphs. 10 of those paragraphs were "pro" in tone regarding the proposals. 7 of those paragraphs were "cautionary" in tone: in short, the State has to due its due diligence first. Implementing the plan, how will this impact Ohio's budget and taxes? Will the project be completed without the use of eminent domain?

My State Senator is the youngest of our State Senators. He wrote: "I know millennials want the project to happen". 

His reaction to Amtrak's proposals are opposite to what I anticipated. If such a legislator can be brought aboard to support the proposals, I am very encouraged that this new service in Ohio could actually happen. 

The proposal must first become part of a new Federal Surface Transportation Bill. Time to contact our Senators and members of the House in support of the plans!


----------



## igor (Feb 7, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> As far as I know, nothing's left of Columbus Union Station as the Greater Columbus Convention Center was built on the site.



All that survived were three of the arches from the original station, which was demolished for the Convention Center construction. They moved around a couple of times, but are now part of a development (The Arena District) on the other side of High street: 



When the convention center was built, the wall next to the tracks was built in such a way that it could be popped out to create a frontage for a new station that was in the Convention Center building. I think that was proposed as the station when the 3C idea was floated before. 

Interestingly, Columbus does still have an extant railroad station, the station from the Toledo and Ohio Central located on West Broad Street:


----------



## bms (Feb 7, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> I think doing as you are suggesting would only add to the complexity of getting such a service started. The Kentucky State Government would then be involved (for example, it is Kentucky--not Ohio--that has control over the I-75 bride and and I think the other two highway bridges that cross the Ohio River from Cincinnati into Kentucky).
> 
> CVG is in Northern Kentucky, not far from Cincinnati. But, getting to/from there from Ohio can be a real "pain" if there are traffic issues on I-75 or on the connectors to the airport.



Oh you're absolutely right that another station adds to the complexity, but can be worth it if it improves the service. Any other suburban station on a CCC line would add to the travel time between the major cities, but a Kentucky stop would not.

To be clear, there absolutely has to be a stop in the City of Cincinnati. But I'm saying the train could also stop in northern Kentucky in Covington or Florence or a place between.


----------



## Willbridge (Feb 7, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> I looked at Google Maps and the tracks that serve the "second-best" boathouse location continue along the riverfront into the park lands between downtown Cincinnati and the river. While its not ideal to have active tracks through a park [Link], somebody thought them practical enough for passenger service that the Riverfront Transit Center (built in 2003 before the 2010 assessment for the Ohio 3C plan) was intended to be a commuter rail terminal. The commuter rail plans were still floating around as recently as 2016.
> 
> Also, I took a second look at the environmental assessment and:
> (1) the line(s) serving CUT were ruled out due to freight congestion (hat-tip to *Eric S*)
> ...


Of course congestion can be relieved by not running trains.


----------



## jiml (Feb 8, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> My State Senator is the youngest of our State Senators. He wrote: "I know millennials want the project to happen".


That is a very interesting statement, suggesting there's a market beyond old folks, historians and railfans.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 8, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> On the Op-Ed page of Sunday's _Dayton Daily News, _there were two pieces written about Amtrak's proposed new services In Ohio, particularly as the plans relate to the 3-C's corridor route. One article was written by the Executive Director of All Aboard Ohio who previously served with the Ohio Rail Development Commission. The other article was written by my Ohio State Senator who is one of the most conservative members of the Ohio State Senate.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the gentleman representing All Aboard Ohio was enthusiastic about Amtrak's plans.
> 
> ...


The article is attached here


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 8, 2021)

"We want to continue cutting taxes for Ohioans...." IOW, we want our cake and eat it, too.


----------



## bms (Feb 8, 2021)

CTANut said:


> The article is attached here



Reading the state senator's opinion, he opposes state funding. There's close to zero chance of this happening without state funding. If he doesn't vote for state funding, then he's opposed to the project regardless of the fact that he took the opposite position in the first half of his editorial.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 8, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> "We want to continue cutting taxes for Ohioans...." IOW, we want our cake and eat it, too.



You need to understand this gentleman's previous political positions as a member of the Ohio House. Agree with the Senator or not, he is consistent in his positions on two-three specific issues with one being cutting taxes. 


jiml said:


> That is a very interesting statement, suggesting there's a market beyond old folks, historians and railfans.



I thought so as well. He is of that generation. It was a statement that I was very surprised to read. 



CTANut said:


> The article is attached here



Thank you for doing this.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 8, 2021)

bms said:


> Reading the state senator's opinion, he opposes state funding. There's close to zero chance of this happening without state funding. If he doesn't vote for state funding, then he's opposed to the project regardless of the fact that he took the opposite position in the first half of his editorial.



I don't read his comments in quite the same way. As I read his comments, he views the Amtrak proposal as one that will have an economic benefit to the State as well as providing convenience in getting from Point A to Point B without having to drive. Yes, the Senator does not want to have to raise taxes to pay for this service. He does want sufficient (however that word is defined by whomever--which surely is debatable in Ohio for a variety of services, i.e public health, education, etc.) funds to benefit the citizens of Ohio without raising taxes. Is his thinking that Amtrak's proposal will stimulate increased economic activity which would then add additional tax revenue to the State's bank account? 

If so, his thinking mirrors the recent 2021-2022 Budget proposed by Governor DeWine. There is a proposal for 50 million dollars in his Budget to market Ohio to attract others to move to our State. The Governor's Budget is significant (in my opinion) that it does not require an increase in taxes nor tapping the State's Rainy Day Fund. 

Since Amtrak's proposal includes development costs and covering (if I read it correctly) 2 years of operating costs before a State subsidy would be required, that would give the plan time to help determine if there really will be an economic benefit as well as a convenience benefit for the citizens of Ohio.


----------



## toddinde (Feb 8, 2021)

No. That’s not Cincinnati.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 8, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> On the Op-Ed page of Sunday's _Dayton Daily News, _there were two pieces written about Amtrak's proposed new services In Ohio, particularly as the plans relate to the 3-C's corridor route. One article was written by the Executive Director of All Aboard Ohio who previously served with the Ohio Rail Development Commission. The other article was written by my Ohio State Senator who is one of the most conservative members of the Ohio State Senate.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the gentleman representing All Aboard Ohio was enthusiastic about Amtrak's plans.
> 
> ...


It was on page 18 of the February 7th edition of the dayton daily news.


----------



## bms (Feb 9, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> I don't read his comments in quite the same way. As I read his comments, he views the Amtrak proposal as one that will have an economic benefit to the State as well as providing convenience in getting from Point A to Point B without having to drive. Yes, the Senator does not want to have to raise taxes to pay for this service. He does want sufficient (however that word is defined by whomever--which surely is debatable in Ohio for a variety of services, i.e public health, education, etc.) funds to benefit the citizens of Ohio without raising taxes. Is his thinking that Amtrak's proposal will stimulate increased economic activity which would then add additional tax revenue to the State's bank account?
> 
> If so, his thinking mirrors the recent 2021-2022 Budget proposed by Governor DeWine. There is a proposal for 50 million dollars in his Budget to market Ohio to attract others to move to our State. The Governor's Budget is significant (in my opinion) that it does not require an increase in taxes nor tapping the State's Rainy Day Fund.
> 
> Since Amtrak's proposal includes development costs and covering (if I read it correctly) 2 years of operating costs before a State subsidy would be required, that would give the plan time to help determine if there really will be an economic benefit as well as a convenience benefit for the citizens of Ohio.



I sure hope you're right. I've just gotten so pessimistic because no Ohio rail proposal has led to anything in my lifetime, and I'm almost 40.

Columbus is booming and fully half the people I knew in Cleveland now work in Columbus because of the extra money. I'm certain that rail service to Columbus would be successful.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 9, 2021)

One issue I see with the proposed Springfield site is that a parking lot is in the way of where the old station was. East of the lot, there is some free land, however, that is located along the spur to the Indiana and Ohio Railway line. Essentially, it would force the Amtrak train to reverse and wye at that point. I could foresee them converting part of the lot to a new bus terminal, as it is currently a 0.3 mile walk. The lot is owned by Clark State College, and currently serves as parking for an auditorium. The track currently splits right at the end of the parking lot. I think that if they built a platform in part of the parking lot, then it would probably work out better. They could also use the lot on the south side of the tracks as station parking, as it appears not to be used much unless there is a show at the nearby auditorium. It would be really neat if they could relocate the bus terminal there, as it would make it easier for people to transfer to get to their final destination. Greyhound could also relocate there from its current location near I-70.
Also, do you think the platform would be high level on a siding, or low level on the mainline track.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 9, 2021)




----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 9, 2021)

CTANut said:


> One issue I see with the proposed Springfield site is that a parking lot is in the way of where the old station was.



Personally, I think the location of stations along the route will be an issue for some communities, if not all of them. The Dayton station was located in the downtown area with no parking nearby other than street parking, just as an example. But, such a problem is not unsolvable if the civic Fathers/Mothers want Amtrak service for their community.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 9, 2021)

bms said:


> I've just gotten so pessimistic because no Ohio rail proposal has led to anything in my lifetime, and I'm almost 40.



I understand your pessimism. Being 3 decades older, I have experienced good rail service for Ohio and watching it decline and decline and....

I really do think Amtrak's proposal has a better chance to succeed since it does seem to agree with the Governor's and many in the General Assembly's desire to continue to make Ohio more business friendly and more of a welcoming place to live. Amtrak's plan to pick up the development costs and the first 2 years operating expenses: if I was a member of the General Assembly, my position would be: what do we have to loose to try this? 

The fact that my very conservative State Senator would even consider the proposal also gives me much hope.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Feb 9, 2021)

Also Ohio has to get over their Michigan hatred, enough with the weird bans on the color blue and the letter M. The two states' residents have much to gain from increased infrastructure cooperation.
Life is about so much more than sports, or should be.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 10, 2021)

I found some interesting statistics/slides over Twitter:

Derek Bauman on Twitter: "Amazing proposal that all of us across the state of #Ohio and elected officials from across the spectrum can get behind. IMO this is perhaps the biggest game changer since the advent of Amtrak &amp; the National Network in 1971. https://t.co/m7xwI0WhNK" / Twitter 

Ohio is the 7th most populous state but the 27th highest ridership among states. 

They list the top 50 metro areas. Four of them have no Amtrak service (Columbus, Nashville, Louisville, and Las Vegas). Cincinnati had 4 passengers per 1,000 people, Cleveland had 27. Detroit had 48. Pittsburgh had 68. St. Louis had 180. Chicago had 367. New York had 551. Washington had 924. Philadelphia had 936.


----------



## Johnepants (Feb 12, 2021)

As someone who is pretty conservative overall, I find myself to be more center left on rail travel as long as the plans make sense, and don’t lead to worthless pieces of billion dollar garbage like California’s high speed line.

Overall, think this plan has the best chance of success, because it established short haul corridor routes supplement existing routes. It doesn’t take much to create the CLE to NYC corridor through BUF and Pitt because those lines already exist and are in use on long haul train lines. Lumping 3C with a more comprehensive corridor plan makes more sense than the pie in the sky that was proposed back in the Strickland days. I think people forget that, early on, there was talk of high speed rail, and when it turned out to not live up to those expectations, the plan burnt out.

Being a rail fan from Cleveland, I would love to see CLE become a regional rail hub. The one stumbling block is the station. Lakefront station can’t handle more than one train at a time right now. Building a new station at the airport would work, but takes traffic out downtown. I wish there was a way to repurpose the Tower City parking garage and turn the old Movie Theater into a train station for this plan. You would get more foot traffic in the mall, and put rail traffic back where it belongs in the heart of downtown.

Also, would the Lakeshore and Capitol Limited remain at 3 trains in each direction per week with this plan?


----------



## railiner (Feb 12, 2021)

Can't Cleveland Union Terminal still be used as a thru train station, besides a transit station? Or have they redeveloped it to the "point of no return"?


----------



## Johnepants (Feb 12, 2021)

railiner said:


> Can't Cleveland Union Terminal still be used as a thru train station, besides a transit station? Or have they redeveloped it to the "point of no return"?



Most of the old rail yard is a parking garage and lot. Those could be repurposed, but would take some reconstruction and would definitely need new tracks. 

My biggest concern with Union Terminal is that the new federal courthouse from the 90’s was built in an area that may make it a point of no return as there is no place for a turnaround now


----------



## Johnepants (Feb 12, 2021)

railiner said:


> Can't Cleveland Union Terminal still be used as a thru train station, besides a transit station? Or have they redeveloped it to the "point of no return"?



Also, it may require movement and a redo of the Rapid Transit onto their temporary tracks


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Feb 12, 2021)

Johnepants said:


> As someone who is pretty conservative overall, I find myself to be more center left on rail travel as long as the plans make sense, and don’t lead to worthless pieces of billion dollar garbage like California’s high speed line.
> 
> Overall, think this plan has the best chance of success, because it established short haul corridor routes supplement existing routes. It doesn’t take much to create the CLE to NYC corridor through BUF and Pitt because those lines already exist and are in use on long haul train lines. Lumping 3C with a more comprehensive corridor plan makes more sense than the pie in the sky that was proposed back in the Strickland days. I think people forget that, early on, there was talk of high speed rail, and when it turned out to not live up to those expectations, the plan burnt out.
> 
> ...


This plan is separate from the CL and LSL, but it appears likely daily service will return. If the current House stimulus proposal passes, daily service must be restored within 90 days of passing.


----------



## Johnepants (Feb 12, 2021)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> This plan is separate from the CL and LSL, but it appears likely daily service will return. If the current House stimulus proposal passes, daily service must be restored within 90 days of passing.



That’s good to know. I would hate to lose either of those long haul lines. I guess I just hope that creating a CLE to NY corridor over the existing LSL could cannibalize ridership. Whereas the corridor through Pitt services Philly I would assume and gives another destination city that currently requires a transfer for CLE riders.


----------



## Johnepants (Feb 12, 2021)

Johnepants said:


> That’s good to know. I would hate to lose either of those long haul lines. I guess I just hope that creating a CLE to NY corridor over the existing LSL could cannibalize ridership. Whereas the corridor through Pitt services Philly I would assume and gives another destination city that currently requires a transfer for CLE riders.



let me rephrase, I hope that it does not cannibalize LSL ridership


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 12, 2021)

Johnepants said:


> let me rephrase, I hope that it does not cannibalize LSL ridership



I strongly doubt it would cannibalize ridership to the LSL east in fact I think you would see that increase actually. It would also allow for some more creative moves to happen like shifting the LSL and the CL so that the LSL and SM could share a consist in NYP. If you move the SM back to 6 PM Departing you could theoretically save a set of equipment by interlining the two trains.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 12, 2021)

Johnepants said:


> Being a rail fan from Cleveland, I would love to see CLE become a regional rail hub. The one stumbling block is the station.



That is the way I feel about Cincinnati except the station is still a viable place for a rail hub, I think. The last I traveled out of Cincinnati there were still multiple tracks at the station and certainly the rail yards are of ample size. There would need to have some re-modeling done to access the tracks as there is only one way to get to the tracks that the Cardinal uses now. As far as I know.


----------



## Barb Stout (Feb 13, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> I strongly doubt it would cannibalize ridership to the LSL east in fact I think you would see that increase actually. It would also allow for some more creative moves to happen like shifting the LSL and the CL so that the LSL and SM could share a consist in NYP. If you move the SM back to 6 PM Departing you could theoretically save a set of equipment by interlining the two trains.


What does SM stand for?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Feb 13, 2021)

Barb Stout said:


> What does SM stand for?


Silver Meteor


----------



## Michigan Mom (Feb 15, 2021)

Forgive my train infrastructure/ops ignorance.... are there more possibilities that could be explored with TOL?


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 15, 2021)

To give us an idea how popular the proposal is: Gov. DeWine just proposed a decent sized cut in transportation in his budget. Good luck to Ohioans for increased intercity service with leadership like that!


----------



## IndyLions (Feb 15, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> Forgive my train infrastructure/ops ignorance.... are there more possibilities that could be explored with TOL?



Toledo was only mentioned in the article as part of the three daily round trips between Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit. They didn’t really provide any more details than that. 

What other possibilities with TOL are you thinking? Heading south from TOL to Indianapolis? Northern route leaving TOL (bypassing DET) en route to Traverse City through Ann Arbor?


----------



## railiner (Feb 15, 2021)

Maybe Toledo to Dayton and Cincinnati? That used to be a good route, pre Amtrak...and extending further South from there...


----------



## Barb Stout (Feb 15, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> Toledo was only mentioned in the article as part of the three daily round trips between Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit. They didn’t really provide any more details than that.
> 
> What other possibilities with TOL are you thinking? Heading south from TOL to Indianapolis? Northern route leaving TOL (bypassing DET) en route to Traverse City through Ann Arbor?


Would Toledo-Columbus-Pittsburgh be a possibility with 2 or 3 more stops? I have no idea if there would be suitable rails or not.


----------



## railiner (Feb 15, 2021)

The route of the former Amtrak National Limited, between Columbus and Pittsburgh, is partially gone now, and a train between the two would have to take a more roundabout route. 
Not familiar with Toledo to Columbus.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 15, 2021)

The Ohio Hub planning back in the 2000s (I think?) did suggest a Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Pittsburgh route, in addition to a host of other routes, providing a network of relatively fast (not HSR), relatively frequent (not hourly) trains in and around Ohio. I'm not sure if you can still find those studies and proposals floating around out there but if so you might be able to figure out what tracks were talked about for that Toledo-Columbus-Pittsburgh route.


----------



## railiner (Feb 15, 2021)

As an alternative to the current Capitol Ltd route between Pittsburgh and Toledo, they could run the CSX route formerly used by Amtraks Three Rivers via Youngstown, Akron, and Fostoria, then CSX freight line to Toledo. This wouldn’t serve Columbus, however...


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 15, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> To give us an idea how popular the proposal is: Gov. DeWine just proposed a decent sized cut in transportation in his budget. Good luck to Ohioans for increased intercity service with leadership like that!



Source of your information, please.


----------



## leccy (Feb 15, 2021)

railiner said:


> As an alternative to the current Capitol Ltd route between Pittsburgh and Toledo, they could run the CSX route formerly used by Amtraks Three Rivers via Youngstown, Akron, and Fostoria, then CSX freight line to Toledo. This wouldn’t serve Columbus, however...


What I have read from a few years ago is that the CSX route through Youngstown and Akron (the New Castle subdivision) is an incredibly busy freight line and there would be no capacity to run passenger trains. Even if they did find a slot the reliability would be horrendous. Personally, I would like to see as a medium term project the reinstatement of the former Erie RR route between New Castle and Akron and maybe even beyond. Apart from gap in Niles most of the route is still there, albeit mothballed or very low grade class 3 short line.


----------



## bms (Feb 15, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> To give us an idea how popular the proposal is: Gov. DeWine just proposed a decent sized cut in transportation in his budget. Good luck to Ohioans for increased intercity service with leadership like that!



Since people distrusted this poster and asked for a source - StackPath

Ohio's state legislature is run by longtime incumbent Republicans, who are proud to have only a HS diploma and who hail from mostly rural and southern parts of the state. Rural Ohio views Cleveland the same way rural Illinois views Chicago, or rural New York views New York City. The difference in Ohio is Cleveland isn't big enough to outvote them, so you have something like my 20,000-person inner ring suburb getting only one city bus an hour.

Sherrod Brown is probably the only skilled enough Democratic politician to get elected as Governor, and no Republican Governor is going to help us expand transit in Ohio.


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 16, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> Source of your information, please.











Gov. Mike DeWine’s transportation budget includes millions in cuts for public transit


The Greater Cleveland RTA and other Ohio public transit agencies would see their state funding cut by millions of dollars under Gov. Mike DeWine's state budget plan.




www.cleveland.com


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 16, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Gov. Mike DeWine’s transportation budget includes millions in cuts for public transit
> 
> 
> The Greater Cleveland RTA and other Ohio public transit agencies would see their state funding cut by millions of dollars under Gov. Mike DeWine's state budget plan.
> ...



Thank you.

The one piece of good news in this article that Rep. Carfagna, since he is part of the House's GOP Leadership, said he would push to get the funding restored.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 16, 2021)

bms said:


> Since people distrusted this poster and asked for a source - StackPath



Thanks to you as well.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Feb 16, 2021)

It would be the dream of dreams to be able to construct an Amtrak route between Michigan and Florida through Ohio, instead of NY and WAS. From TOL to Dayton and then KY, TN, Atlanta...


----------



## IndyLions (Feb 17, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> It would be the dream of dreams to be able to construct an Amtrak route between Michigan and Florida through Ohio, instead of NY and WAS. From TOL to Dayton and then KY, TN, Atlanta...


I agree, and I don’t even live in Michigan any more.

As a kid I took Amtrak’s Floridian - which was ALMOST what you were looking for - but we had to go west from Kalamazoo to Chicago before heading south through IN, KY, TN, AL.

If we could just get Ohio and Indiana out of the dark ages - there would be enough connecting traffic a Michigan to Florida route wouldn’t be impossible - even if we had to transfer somewhere in OH/KY/TN.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 19, 2021)

From Toledo to Columbus is doable down the EX C&O Routing that the Ambassador used to run (Washington-Detroit) on its route. Ohio has so many amazing options for routings.


----------



## jiml (Feb 20, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> It would be the dream of dreams to be able to construct an Amtrak route between Michigan and Florida through Ohio, instead of NY and WAS. From TOL to Dayton and then KY, TN, Atlanta...


I think Michigan to Florida makes more sense than Chicago to Florida, yet the latter has garnered far more attention. With Detroit or another nearby station (suburban with parking would be ideal) as a hub, you immediately gain all those cities within a few hours drive - not to mention Southern Ontario, with several million people who travel to Florida.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 20, 2021)

jiml said:


> I think Michigan to Florida makes more sense than Chicago to Florida, yet the latter has garnered far more attention. With Detroit or another nearby station (suburban with parking would be ideal) as a hub, you immediately gain all those cities within a few hours drive - not to mention Southern Ontario, with several million people who travel to Florida.



Chicago to Florida via Michigan. Problem solved!


----------



## me_little_me (Feb 20, 2021)

jiml said:


> I think Michigan to Florida makes more sense than Chicago to Florida, yet the latter has garnered far more attention. With Detroit or another nearby station (suburban with parking would be ideal) as a hub, you immediately gain all those cities within a few hours drive - not to mention Southern Ontario, with several million people who travel to Florida.


On the other hand, the Empire Builder, the CONO, the Chief and the Zephyr all terminate in Chicago so for Amtrak passenger through travel, the train needs to go to Chicago - albeit, it could go to Detroit first.

That doesn't mean people will be going from Florida to Los Angeles via Chicago but many of the tweeners would most likely do so.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Feb 20, 2021)

jiml said:


> I think Michigan to Florida makes more sense than Chicago to Florida, yet the latter has garnered far more attention. With Detroit or another nearby station (suburban with parking would be ideal) as a hub, you immediately gain all those cities within a few hours drive - not to mention Southern Ontario, with several million people who travel to Florida.


I think it could make sense to have a split train which serves both, but Chicago seems like the more logical option if it's one or the other. The Chicago region has roughly twice the population of the Detroit region, and a Chicago train would likely serve Indianapolis as well. The role of Chicago as an existing Amtrak hub also makes a big difference, since it allows for a lot more connection opportunities (including all Michigan services) and the facilities already exist to service and store the train in Chicago. It's also important to consider that most passengers from either Chicago or Michigan would not be traveling to Florida; the market to potential intermediate points such as Louisville, Nashville, and Atlanta is as important if not moreso than the market to Florida.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 20, 2021)

Not to get this away from Ohio service but another thing Amtrak really needs to do is to get service back between New Orleans and Florida to open up more east-west service along the south. Why does all service from East to West have to go through Chicago? If someone wants to go on Amtrak from Texas or California to Florida now, they have to go through Chicago and that's really stupid. Texas and Florida are the 2nd and 3rd most populous states in the country and there's no way to go between them without going all the way north and then all the way south?


----------



## John Bobinyec (Feb 20, 2021)

You can get to Florida from California without going through Chicago, but you still have to go through New Orleans and Washington, D.C.

jb


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 20, 2021)

John Bobinyec said:


> You can get to Florida from California without going through Chicago, but you still have to go through New Orleans and Washington, D.C.
> 
> jb



Not much better.


----------



## bms (Feb 20, 2021)

Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, Cleveland-Pittsburgh, and Cleveland-Detroit would work on their own if they had good train times and actually were marketed, but Cleveland really would need a better station to sustain that level of service.

The long-term goal of Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati should be to continue to Louisville and then Nashville. No reason to stop in Cincinnati.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 21, 2021)

bms said:


> No reason to stop in Cincinnati.


If the state of Ohio is paying for the service, there's every reason to stop in Cincinatti.


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 21, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> If the state of Ohio is paying for the service, there's every reason to stop in Cincinatti.



I think he meant terminate or end in Cincinnati. But actually, there IS a reason to stop in Cincinnati: if Kentucky is willing to pay for service, then Louisville is out. Same thing for Tennessee.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 21, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> I think he meant terminate or end in Cincinnati. But actually, there IS a reason to stop in Cincinnati: if Kentucky is willing to pay for service, then Louisville is out. Same thing for Tennessee.


Sorry, I wasn't clear, I agree with you, I meant that without financial support from other states, of course the service will terminate in Cincinnati. Though there might be a case to be made for an extension to the Cincinnati airport, which is in Kentucky, as that would benefit Ohioans who use that airport.


----------



## Johnepants (Feb 22, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> If the state of Ohio is paying for the service, there's every reason to stop in Cincinatti.


I always believed that a successful 3C corridor could open up the possibility of a new national north south train that could go to either New Orleans or Florida. But I’m probably just having a pipe dream


----------



## bms (Feb 24, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> If the state of Ohio is paying for the service, there's every reason to stop in Cincinnati.



The value of reaching Cincinnati is really to expand the National Network through Cin


Johnepants said:


> I always believed that a successful 3C corridor could open up the possibility of a new national north south train that could go to either New Orleans or Florida. But I’m probably just having a pipe dream



The train should definitely continue farther south than Cincinnati. But I still doubt Ohio will get any 3C service going before I'm 60, and I'm 39.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Feb 24, 2021)

bms said:


> The train should definitely continue farther south than Cincinnati. But I still doubt Ohio will get any 3C service going before I'm 60, and I'm 39.



Sad, but true. I am a native Ohioan; it cannot be confused with a progressive state. Now, if you are talking about subsidizing a failing nuclear power plant (thanks to campaign contributions), that works. Moving people efficiently, not so much.


----------



## railiner (Feb 24, 2021)

bms said:


> The value of reaching Cincinnati is really to expand the National Network through Cin
> 
> 
> The train should definitely continue farther south than Cincinnati. But I still doubt Ohio will get any 3C service going before I'm 60, and I'm 39.


If a thru train was 'added' to a decently scheduled "3-C" corridor route...fine. I would like that. But if the only 3-C train were a thru train, not so much. Reliability of Amtrak long distance train timekeeping is not at the point where corridor passengers could depend on them.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 24, 2021)

railiner said:


> If a thru train was 'added' to a decently scheduled "3-C" corridor route...fine. I would like that. But if the only 3-C train were a thru train, not so much. Reliability of Amtrak long distance train timekeeping is not at the point where corridor passengers could depend on them.


This is correct. The point of the State of Ohio funding a 3-C corridor is to provide a practical transportation alternative for people in Ohio. Bringing in a few tourists traveling from the south provides much less of a benefit to the state than getting cars off the road _in Ohio, _reducing traffic congestion and auto emissions. Providing a long-distance service for people traveling across Ohio, but neither originating not detraining in the state provides even less of a benefit.


----------



## railiner (Feb 24, 2021)

A long distance train, such as the Lakeshore Ltd. traveling across Ohio, can provide thru service, service into, and service out of, at each end, in addition to intrastate service wholly with such as Cleveland to Toledo. In theory, anyway, but in practice, it doesn't work out that way, due to crossing at poor hours, and undependable schedules.


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 24, 2021)

Amtrak is proposing corridor service, not once a day. But extension of one Empire Service train to Cleveland would be good if you can get PA and OH to chip in--and there's the rub.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 24, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> I am a native Ohioan; it cannot be confused with a progressive state.



As a native Ohioan and a current Ohio citizen, I believe that this statement is a bit too broad. Politically progressive? No, not currently (although Governor DeWine is trying to move us in that direction in some regards). But, progressive in the area of science and technology? Yes. The development of the Sabin polio vaccine, the recently landed Mars lander has components (including the equipment needed to keep the lander warm enough to function), the invention of the airplane: all are a result of work done by citizens of the Buckeye state, just as examples.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 24, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> As a native Ohioan and a current Ohio citizen, I believe that this statement is a bit too broad. Politically progressive? No, not currently (although Governor DeWine is trying to move us in that direction in some regards). But, progressive in the area of science and technology? Yes. The development of the Sabin polio vaccine, the recently landed Mars lander has components (including the equipment needed to keep the lander warm enough to function), the invention of the airplane: all are a result of work done by citizens of the Buckeye state, just as examples.


But Ohio is becoming more and more " Red" and electing more Trumpie Clones!


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 24, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> But Ohio is becoming more and more " Red" and electing more Trumpie Clones!



There are reasons for this that are inappropriate to discuss on this Forum. Our Governor is not one of those whom you mentioned.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 24, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> There are reasons for this that are inappropriate to discuss on this Forum. Our Governor is not one of those whom you mentioned.


I know, I have lots of Ohio friends, including AUers, who are worried by this trend.( Your Senator Brown is a Good one, the other guy seems to be an Empty Suit!)


----------



## railiner (Feb 24, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Amtrak is proposing corridor service, not once a day. But extension of one Empire Service train to Cleveland would be good if you can get PA and OH to chip in--and there's the rub.


Ohio might be more agreeable if the Empire Service train made a couple of stops...such as Conneaut, Ashtabula, Painesville, etc....


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 25, 2021)

railiner said:


> Ohio might be more agreeable if the Empire Service train made a couple of stops...such as Conneaut, Ashtabula, Painesville, etc....


The New York Central used to stop in those places--when there were 6 or 7 trains a day, each way, through there.


----------



## railiner (Feb 25, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> The New York Central used to stop in those places--when there were 6 or 7 trains a day, each way, through there.


So did the Nickel Plate...and also Greyhound. Greyhound even ran commuter service all around Cleveland and Buffalo along the lakefront, until they sold the rights.


----------



## Willbridge (Feb 25, 2021)

railiner said:


> So did the Nickel Plate...and also Greyhound. Greyhound even ran commuter service all around Cleveland and Buffalo along the lakefront, until they sold the rights.


The August 1974 _Official Bus Guide _shows Greyhound Lines operating a corridor schedule of locals between Erie and Cleveland - 3x daily, not including trips that ran express between the two cities. And, of course, one of the corridor trips made Sunday only stops in one direction in order to hold operating rights. That side trip through Willoughby had five extra minutes to make the extra flag stops. The good and the bad of regulated transport.

It's all a reminder that there are Amtrak _routes_ already in place but not taking advantage of a corridor's potential for _more trains_.


----------



## railiner (Feb 25, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> The August 1974 _Official Bus Guide _shows Greyhound Lines operating a corridor schedule of locals between Erie and Cleveland - 3x daily, not including trips that ran express between the two cities. And, of course, one of the corridor trips made Sunday only stops in one direction in order to hold operating rights. That side trip through Willoughby had five extra minutes to make the extra flag stops. The good and the bad of regulated transport.


By 1974, Greyhound had long spun off their extensive commuter trippers...you had to go back to the fifties and sixties, to see those.. What remained were a few "accommodation" locals to serve the smaller towns with interstate service, in addition to the express trips, that bypassed them.


----------



## CTANut (Feb 4, 2022)

I would love to see this happen. 
Here is an update:








Here’s the Latest on Amtrak’s Plans for New Ohio Service


Although there have been plenty of promising plans and initiatives through the years, Columbus remains the largest U.S. city without any fixed rail service and the second largest without …




www.columbusunderground.com




There already is an authority in Ohio responsible for passenger rail service:
*Section 4981.03 | Duties of rail development commission.*
Ohio Revised Code
/
Title 49 Public Utilities
/
Chapter 4981 Rail Development Commission








Effective:
June 27, 2005
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 124 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF


(A) The Ohio rail development commission shall do all of the following:
(1) Develop, promote, and support safe, adequate, and efficient rail service throughout the state;
(2) Maintain adequate programs of investigation, research, promotion, planning, and development for rail service, which programs shall include the consideration of recommendations by public or private planning organizations;
(3) Provide for the participation of private corporations or organizations and the public in the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of rail service, and as franchisees of rail service.
(B) In regard to rail service, the Ohio rail development commission is the successor of the Ohio high speed rail authority and the division of rail transportation of the department of transportation. The commission shall succeed to all federal allotments, entitlements, subsidies, and grants now existing, whether such allotments, entitlements, subsidies, and grants are encumbered or unencumbered, in the same manner and with the same authority as the Ohio high speed rail authority and the division of rail transportation exercised prior to October 20, 1994.
(C) Every authority, commission, department, or other agency of this state shall provide the commission with data, plans, research, and any other information that the commission requests to assist it in performing its duties pursuant to this chapter.
(D) The commission may request and contract with any railroad to provide it with data and information necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. All railroads operating within this state shall provide the requested data and information to the commission. The commission shall not disclose any confidential data or information supplied to it.
(E) The commission shall cooperate with the director of development by exercising the commission's duty to promote and develop rail service in this state in conjunction with the director's exercise of his duty to promote the economic development of this state.
(F) The commission, when developing rail service throughout the state, may give priority to projects undertaken within the geographic boundaries of qualifying subdivisions.
*Available Versions of this Section*


June 27, 2005 – Senate Bill 124, 126th General Assembly [ View June 27, 2005 Version ]


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2022)

bms said:


> Since people distrusted this poster and asked for a source - StackPath
> 
> Ohio's state legislature is run by longtime incumbent Republicans, who are proud to have only a HS diploma and who hail from mostly rural and southern parts of the state. Rural Ohio views Cleveland the same way rural Illinois views Chicago, or rural New York views New York City. The difference in Ohio is Cleveland isn't big enough to outvote them, so you have something like my 20,000-person inner ring suburb getting only one city bus an hour.
> 
> Sherrod Brown is probably the only skilled enough Democratic politician to get elected as Governor, and no Republican Governor is going to help us expand transit in Ohio.



I will note that the urban/rural split is almost nationwide at this point. Rural Nevada views Las Vegas the same way, but there aren't enough rural people in Nevada to outvote Las Vegas.

One reason Ohio has had so much trouble is that it still has a substantial rural population. Another is that poor old Cleveland keeps losing population, though Columbus is gaining. Of course, there are some rural states which are pro-transit (Maine and Vermont are the two most rural states in the US); I've tried to figure out the difference, and part of it may be that ClearChannel never bought up the radio stations in Vermont like it did in most rural areas.


----------

