Likwid Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Ignore all the bickering and bitching of government spending etc etc etc and just comment on the existence and how it may change your commute.I'm actually a bit disappointed in this, they don't even have a Cleveland-Pitsburgh plan... even though it's "close" it'd be nice to take train from Cleveland to NYC... but I guess baby steps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Is this actually going to happen or is it proposed? Also, what would the time table be to even get something like this done? Shit woulda come in handy back when I was in school lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted February 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 I think some of the stuff should be done by 2012, but I sincerely doubt we'll see it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_fasttrack/all/1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFM Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 I'm hoping for this to proceed quickly. And a Chicago route at high speed too. I regularly used a train when living in Europe, in spite of having a car. I take road trips often, many times just for fun. It would be nice to hop on a chicago train, do some good shopping, have a decent slice of pizza, or see a good concert, and take a late night home.As it was shown for Ohio, it only was one between Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus. Need more options for it to be a viable alternative though- and that's from a fan of the train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 So what is the governor talking about a LOW speed rail connecting the three C's? A high speed rail would kick ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Just like most things, it's relative.From what I've been reading the Ohio 3C corridor is going to be built on top of existing infrastructure (sharing the lines with freight) and thus limiting speeds to just under 80mph. So, is 79mph considered low speed on a high speed rail system? I guess.I mean, that's just slightly higher than my avg speed traveling down SR71. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted February 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Yah, for it to be high speed I believe it needs to be 110 or 120...either way, I think it's all together worthless if we don't have reliable public transportation when you arrive. What good is it for the folks in Cinci to jump on a train and ride up to Cleveland only to get here and have to walk 10 miles to get to their destination... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 And that's pretty much the kicker... you can have hubs, but they're pretty useless without the spokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Just like most things, it's relative.From what I've been reading the Ohio 3C corridor is going to be built on top of existing infrastructure (sharing the lines with freight) and thus limiting speeds to just under 80mph. So, is 79mph considered low speed on a high speed rail system? I guess.I mean, that's just slightly higher than my avg speed traveling down SR71.Add an hour getting on the train and getting off, and you're better off driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 From what I've been reading the Ohio 3C corridor is going to be built on top of existing infrastructure (sharing the lines with freight) and thus limiting speeds to just under 80mphThis is a mistake if you ask me. Kinda defeats the purpose of a high speed rail. We might as well just pile into the freights cars of the existing trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Better from what aspect?If you can travel roundtrip from A to B for $20, or for $50 but you'd have your own mobility in the same amount of time, which is better?For some (like me), I'd opt for the personal mobility even though it's an extra $30 premium. Other people either don't have that option or at that price point it's an economically attractive alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted February 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Better from what aspect?If you can travel roundtrip from A to B for $20, or for $50 but you'd have your own mobility in the same amount of time, which is better?For some (like me), I'd opt for the personal mobility even though it's an extra $30 premium. Other people either don't have that option or at that price point it's an economically attractive alternative.Same here, I like to drive places so I have the freedom to leave whenever I want. The proposed system doesn't allow that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 This is a mistake if you ask me. Kinda defeats the purpose of a high speed rail. We might as well just pile into the freights cars of the existing trains.+1. I agree with you there, but I wasn't a part of the discovery study that lead to that being the best alternative. I'd bet sunk cost vs. predicted ridership was a factor in the decision to do that for Ohio. Throughput wasn't what the decision was optimized on, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory ryder Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 They are planning on putting 2 stops in Dayton, 1 is pretty much right in my front yard. It's going to be right across the street from the Air Force Musuem in Riverside on Springfield st., They were talking something like 6 stops a day there. Well, there goes the neighborhood. As if Dayton isn't turning into Detroit fast enough already.Heres Da' Gubment thinking for you, lets build a high speed train line and use 50+ year old tracks and operating systems to make it go. This is nothing more then a land based Titanic in the making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweezel Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 If they put a TRUE high speed train in I'd take it. A Pitt-Cle line would essentially run through my front yard, a stop close enough, I'm make the layover in Cle to get to Columbus if it was going to take an hour or so off my driving trip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted February 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 If they put a TRUE high speed train in I'd take it. A Pitt-Cle line would essentially run through my front yard, a stop close enough, I'm make the layover in Cle to get to Columbus if it was going to take an hour or so off my driving trip.I'm really wondering given the reuse of tracks how many stops they'll actually put in. I'm picturing it as being straight through... and that would kind of suck for folks that don't live within walking distance of the hub.... but great for travelers.I'm remembering when we were in NYC earlier last year... you could get to a train from anywhere, then get to anywhere you wanted via train/bus/taxi/subway.... I'd love to have the train/bus aspect here but I don't see it happening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAMBUSA Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Yawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radio Flyer Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 I think it's something we definitely need to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 Who will ride Ohio’s high-speed rail, and where will it go?COLUMBUS — The state is to get $400 million in federal stimulus money to restore passenger train service among its major cities, part of a plan to build a national high-speed rail network. Ohio’s project calls for a startup, 79-mph service connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati beginning in 2012. Is that fast enough? Who will ride it? Here are some answers: Q: Why only 79 mph? A: It takes up to two years to complete the extensive engineering needed for faster trains, said Stu Nicholson, spokesman with the Ohio Rail Development Commission, the agency in charge of the project. Those studies are getting under way. Ohio’s goal is for a 110-mph service, with branches connecting to a Chicago-based Midwest corridor and cities on the East Coast. Q: Is there money for that? A: Federal money, but Ohio will have to compete with other states to get it. There’s about $2.5 billion for rail projects in the 2010 federal appropriations bill. President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget proposal seeks $1 billion more. And a proposed $500 billion, six-year federal transportation bill includes$50 billion for high-speed rail, though that sum isn’t certain. Q: How many trains will run in Ohio? A: Amtrak recommends five train sets, making three daily stops in each city. Amtrak projects 478,000 riders in the first year of operations. Q: Where will the trains stop? A: Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton would have downtown stations. The initial Cincinnati stop would be at Lunken Airport, a few miles east of downtown. The plan also calls for intermediate stops in west Cleveland and in Sharonville, north of Cincinnati. Nicholson said the state is working with local transit systems so that train passengers can make connections to their final destinations. Q: Why aren’t Toledo, Akron, Youngstown and other parts of the state included in the startup? A: Decades of studies point to the Cleveland-Cincinnati corridor as the best place to begin service because of its population density — about 6 million people live along the route — and its concentration of colleges and universities. Future routes, including Toledo-Columbus and Cleveland-Pittsburgh, are being studied. Q: Who will ride the startup service? A: College students figure to be a strong component, according to an Amtrak study. Other key demographics include seniors, some business travelers, tourists and people who don’t have cars or whose cars aren’t reliable, Nicholson said. Q: How long will the trip take? A: About 6 hours and 30 minutes, according to Amtrak estimates. That’s about what it would take to drive the same corridor, but longer than a more direct route between Cleveland and Cincinnati on Interstate 71 that takes 4½ hours by car. Q: How much will tickets cost? A: About $20 for a one-way trip from Columbus to Cleveland, and $18 from Columbus to Cincinnati, based on early state estimates. Q: What else is this going to cost? A: Ohio would need to spend about $17 million to keep the service operational each year. Q: Where will Ohio get the money for that? A: State rail planners are looking at various options, including advertising and naming rights. The Ohio Department of Transportation also has money from a federal program that supports projects that reduce highway congestion and improve air quality, spokesman Scott Varner said. Q: How does $17 million compare with other transportation costs? A: Ohio’s transportation budget sets aside $5.7 billion for road, bridge and highway maintenance and construction for 2010-11. Over the next 10 to 15 years, the state’s three biggest projects are a $1.6 billion reconstruction of Interstate 90 in Cleveland; a $1.6 billion reconfiguration of Interstates 70/71 in Columbus; and a $2.3 billion replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, with Kentucky sharing the cost. Q: What’s next? A: The state Controlling Board will need to approve spending the $400 million in stimulus money, which should arrive by spring. Democrats control the board 4-3, but they will need at least one Republican to vote yes because Senate Republicans placed an amendment in Ohio’s transportation budget last year requiring a super majority vote. GOP leaders have said they won’t object to the train project as long as the state has a solid financial plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 6.5 hour trip from Cincy to Cleveland is a huge chunk of a day. Seems worthless to me. Unless they can offer a real high-speed service (aka 120+ mph) I wouldn't even consider train vs. car travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vw151 Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 Better from what aspect?If you can travel roundtrip from A to B for $20, or for $50 but you'd have your own mobility in the same amount of time, which is better?For some (like me), I'd opt for the personal mobility even though it's an extra $30 premium. Other people either don't have that option or at that price point it's an economically attractive alternative.That depends on where I'm going. If I'm going to chicaco, I'd rather ditch my car since there is no where to park and they have a great train system inside the city. If I was going to Dayton, Cincy or Cleveland I'd probably want to have my car since there is no good way other than taxis to get around in those cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted February 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 $38 and 6 hours? No thanks I'll drive.Especially if Amtrak makintains ccw restrictions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFM Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 That depends on where I'm going. If I'm going to chicaco, I'd rather ditch my car since there is no where to park and they have a great train system inside the city. If I was going to Dayton, Cincy or Cleveland I'd probably want to have my car since there is no good way other than taxis to get around in those cities.:plus1: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 6.5 hour trip from Cincy to Cleveland is a huge chunk of a day. Seems worthless to me. Unless they can offer a real high-speed service (aka 120+ mph) I wouldn't even consider train vs. car travel.lol I could do Cleveland to Cincy and back in 6.5 hours. Yea I'll stick to driving down and hell even the cost isn't beneficial as it costs me $26 in gas to get there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.