Chicago - Columbus - Pittsburgh was derailed by hyperloop hype the last round. Let's hope that is dead and buried.
Not one, but two hyperloops in the thing I quoted! Reminds me of the hype over the Foxconn plant in Wisconsin.Chicago - Columbus - Pittsburgh was derailed by hyperloop hype the last round. Let's hope that is dead and buried.
I saw this article a few days ago and loved it.Here is an excellent article from Cleveland.com. What Ohio can learn from Michigan Amtrak Service.
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024...michigan-when-it-comes-to-amtrak-service.html
You're not the first one to think of this.It seems none of the plans talk about what seems to me to be an obvious route: a daytime Cleveland - Chicago train which would also serve Toledo, Elkhart and South Bend as well as other towns, at a more reasonable time than the LSL or Capitol/Floridian. It would take about 6 hours. The drive is 5 hours and change nor considering traffic, so I think the train would be competitive considering 5+ hours and dealing with traffic vs sitting back relaxing for a little longer time.
With multiple people traveling I'm stopping almost hourly for someone to use the restroom anyways. I'd take a train all the time if it was available.It seems none of the plans talk about what seems to me to be an obvious route: a daytime Cleveland - Chicago train which would also serve Toledo, Elkhart and South Bend as well as other towns, at a more reasonable time than the LSL or Capitol/Floridian. It would take about 6 hours. The drive is 5 hours and change nor considering traffic, so I think the train would be competitive considering 5+ hours and dealing with traffic vs sitting back relaxing for a little longer time.
Ohio would have to fund (or get a grant) for the portion across northern Indiana. Indiana almost certainly would not kick anything in. The "3C" solves the potential political problem of state funds being spent for service in a different state.It seems none of the plans talk about what seems to me to be an obvious route: a daytime Cleveland - Chicago train which would also serve Toledo, Elkhart and South Bend as well as other towns, at a more reasonable time than the LSL or Capitol/Floridian. It would take about 6 hours. The drive is 5 hours and change nor considering traffic, so I think the train would be competitive considering 5+ hours and dealing with traffic vs sitting back relaxing for a little longer time.
I agree, the fact that Indiana is involved probably dooms it. At best it would be a situation like the Downeaster where Maine essentially subsidizes service that NH gets for free.Ohio would have to fund (or get a grant) for the portion across northern Indiana. Indiana almost certainly would not kick anything in. The "3C" solves the potential political problem of state funds being spent for service in a different state.
Perhaps after Ohio gets the service and likes it, it can more easily expend money for service which benefits Indiana.
Why should that doom it? The state of Michigan funds trains that pass through Indiana without any subsidy from Indiana, and it seems to be working.I agree, the fact that Indiana is involved probably dooms it.
Yes if they are LD trains like the Lakeshore Corridor Proposal then they would be funded by Amtrak. A Cleveland - Chicago train would only be 341 miles so would come under the state supported category, so either Ohio would have to pay the whole thing or get Indiana to pony up.Anyway, why do these have to be state-supported trains? The Hugh Speed Rail Alliance's Lakeshore Corridor proposal involves two new long distance New York - Chicago trains that also happen to provide good daylight service on the Cleveland -Toldeo-Chicago Corridor. They also provide some Toledo-Cleveland-Buffalo (and even Albany) service at reasonable calling times. Just because Indiana might get a "free ride" for people wishing to travel to or from South Bend doesn't mean that all of the other users should "cut their nose to spite their face" and oppose service between Chicago and Ohio.
Enter your email address to join: