Both Utah and New Mexico have launched 79 mph commuter rail service over the last 5+ years. Both systems have been a success. New Mexico is also looking into eventually upgrading it to 110mph service. I wouldn't be surprised if Utah and Ohio eventually do the same.

Cleveland is larger than St. Louis, FYI while Columbus is Ohio's third biggest metropolitan area. And Ohio is one of the most urbanized states (along with New Jersey) in this country so that doesn't make any sense but then again nothing you wrote made sense. :haha:

In a situation where HSR(the ideal solution) is deemed unfeasible, why not go on to another solution?

I've been thinking, for a similar price why not subsidise air travel so that they fly bigger planes with more people packed in, which would be more efficient and reduce carbon emissions

3 hours will still link together the 3Cs in a decent fashion, but it would be done in a Cascades-style service--hardly high-speed.

In any rate, I disagree with your sentiment. Ohio is about the same size as Pennsylvania, and one of the most amenable corridors for high-speed in Ohio would be a Cincy-Cleveland shuttle, more or less (the other ones being Cleveland to Toledo, Cleveland to Pittsburgh, and Cleveland to Buffalo via Erie). In fact, the 3C is in many ways more amenable (in terms of immediate ridership, etc.) for an immediate HSR demo than is the Florida scam plan...

Don't get me wrong, though, an 80-110mph commuter network covering the whole state (and linking to nearby states) is still necessary. That Cincinatti Union Terminal serves statistically half a train a day for a city that size is--seriously--a travesty. That Detroit wants to knock down their beautiful old train station another; that I have no idea what the current Cleveland train station even is, a third, and that Columbus, for a city that size, has no rail service whatsoever, a fourth!

I may complain about SEPTA's mismanagement of its commuter system, but when I compare the situation to Ohio's, it almost seems like a point of pride that we even have a commuter system (and this is the part of the country where a comprehensive passenger network--not just a high-speed one--is most needed).

Hell, I'd kill to have PATCO in Cincinnati, let alone SEPTA. I'll even take the River Line!

First off Columbus inflates its city numbers and includes essentially all of Franklin county. Cleveland's metro at 2.9 million or so is much larger and is culturally the most important city in Ohio. (history, wealth, sports). Second, Ohio is the 7th moth populous state in the Union. Third, the 3C corridor is the largest population corridor in the US not to have passenger rail service.
Fourth, make fun of my state again and I will hack your hard drive.

Cleveland's metro at 3.4 million or so is much larger and is culturally the most important city in Ohio. (history, wealth, sports).

Let's not push it (historically: Cincinnati [we built the damn state]; wealth: tie between Cincinnati and Cleveland; sports: Reds or Browns, take a pick). But I'll give you art museum and symphony ;).

And leave tallboy66 alone. He's from like suburban Detroit or something.

Ohio is setup perfectly for any kind of rail. It's multi-nodular. In fact, rail projects in Ohio make more sense than many projects taking place in other areas of this region. And the density concern is so laughable as to not even be worthy of a response. Even the concern about the potential speed isn't really a problem. Like many nearby states, what's going to be tough to overcome is culture and how rail is viewed and how much the citizens are willing to value it.

Bingo, and this "test drive" line will certainly invite more people to rail that otherwise wouldn't have given it a second thought. And setting up the rail to getting off at the High Street/Convention Center/Short North in Columbus from either Cincinnati, Dayton, or Cleveland is going to work wonders for the capital.

uh...cleveland?

Touche ColDayMan, I can't argue with you. You show love for the CMA so thats that. (symphony is legit as well but they are snow birding it in Miami for their 4th consecutive year now so no love lost)

Oh tallboy66, I didn't know you were from the state up north. Well.... "I don't give a d@mn about the whole state of michigan, the whole state of michigan .... cuz were from O-HI-O" *Go Bucks*

That being said, I think people in Ohio would like to see a truly highspeed rail project... I mean why don't we just take out the center lanes of I-71 and make it a dedicated rail corridor. I'm sure KJP over at UrbanOhio.com could get together some cost projections... maybe incorporate public investment (which we as a state don't have sadly) and over time make it a publicly owned utility. 79mph is misleading as well, I think I read the average would be 46mph or so... 79mph max.

LMich has a point, having no culture of rail travel is important. The one concern is for example my father, he is a lobbyist for Medical Mutual based in Cleveland and often is in Columbus, the last train leaves at 3pm... that hardly allows him or others in similar positions (day time business, no need or desire to stay the night) to see this as a viable alternative to car. Trust me my dad is from Boston and hates car centricity... but lets do this right.

If anything, they'd place rail next to the freeway, not in it. But there are already existing rail corridors for the HSR to run on...they just don't have the funding. And I'd love for both Ohio and Michigan (and Pennsylvania) to get HSR. No need to spout school pride "Go Blue! Go Bucks!" stuff in this thread.

I apologize for the aforementioned school pride remarks.

Yup, Ohio is nowhere near as dense as the built out states of New Mexico and Utah.

:haha:

Hell, I'd love for Michigan and Ohio to simply be connected by any rail at the moment. That there is no Amtrak line between Toledo and Detroit just blows my mind. A line to Toledo would make the station more important (currently, it has a ridership equal to that of Lansing's up here in Michigan), and thus it'd have a much easier time of applying for funding for improvements and such. Without there being a connection to Canada's VIA, anymore, you quite literally can't go east from Michigan on Amtrak. That is a major connecting route that is missing. You'd think given how Amtrak and VIA have their lines arranged that Detroit and Windso -- a greater region of nearly 6 million people -- are some backwaters termini at the edge of the continent.

BTW, I thought the school pride stuff was a joke, but even if it wasn't, I don't much care because tallboy initiated the stupid exchange, and Ferrari's post had a lot more content to it than the punch-back.

This isn't meant to be any kind of knock on Ohio, but I think the 3-C Corridor got Federal priority because Obama campaigned a significant amount in the O-H-I-O and promised to reivest in the rust belt. It does, however, make perfect sense to connect the 3 (really 4) cities in Ohio, but it absolutely needs to be part of a larger midwest network, probably hubbed in Chicago, and I'd say it should align to Cleveland en route to NYC and the like.

Ohio is the gateway between the Northeast, the South, and the Midwest. It makes perfect sense for this line to connect New York, Chicago, and DC along with the 4 major cities in the state. And I completely agree withi LMich that Detroit to Toledo should've been connected years ago. But it's all about politics (hell, Florida got money for actual HSR between the Mouse and Ybor City) but we'll take what we can get!

Does anyone know where the proposed terminal would be in Cleveland, I hope not the pathetic excuse for an amtrak stop on the lake front by Browns Stadium. Or has this not yet been considered?

Here's a good read. It's a mythbuster about all the sayings going on about the 3C project, and why its not true high speed. You have to start somewhere.

http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/3C%20mythbusters.pdf

We're having the same argument down here in Texas. Our planned Texas T-bone which would be 200 mph would cost over $20 billion and not even serve our downtowns, but airports. They highly disagree with building higher speed corridor service on existing rails, because supposedly no would ride a slower train. I say hogwash!

I don't think neither study from either State actuallly stated no one would ride a slower train. Look deeper in the studies, I believe you'll read that faster trains should require less subsidy, possibly turning an operational profit.

Which brings up these two questions every state must answer,
(1) If starting up a new rail service, how fast a train should be built?
(2) Do we wish to put more of our money into initial capital costs, or more into yearly subsidies?

States that have existing frequent train service probably are wishing for more of the same with slight improvements in speed because they are used to budgeting subsidies every year. States that don't have existing frequent train service are more likely to choose spending more money in upfront capital.
It doesn't make either choice more correct than the other, the correct answer is what's best for that State, what's best for that Corridor.....