Well today on the Columbus Dispatch's website they had an article on one of Amtrak's proposed routes for the 3-C route. Essentially Amtrak choose a route with the shortest distance, least amount of capital input(new rail/ rail improvments), least freight traffic, and as minimal amount of line changes as possible. Their proposed route would be 245 miles with a top speed of 79mph. Amtrak estimates that it would take 6 hours to navigate the entire route. My Thoughts: 1) Glad the Project is still going forward 2) When you do something do it right the first time -They are going with the cheapest route not the most populated -A drive from **Cinnci to cleveland takes about 4hrs w/out traffic 5-6 w/bad traffic - So at 6hrs its still not fast enough to beat the worst drive times 3) Essentially they are not going to get the ridership they hope for if the route takes this long and goes away from important urban areas. Here is the link to the full article The Dispatch And a Follow up Poll Poll What do you guys think?
This has been a common failing of Amtrak planning the entire time they've existed. It doesn't appear they've learned much throughout what is now approaching 40 years... Boxcab E50
What route do you propose that will allow more bodies in the seats - and still (as you apparently expect) cut the running time below your driving time ? Remember: driving, you can pick the most direct available route, not one passing through other destinations (to gain ridership as you say) enroute, dropping and loading bodies and baggage, and doing so on speed limited ROW (not ALL the route is 79mph track - curves, grades, populated/industrial surroundings, other traffic, all may slow the transit, and increased materials/maintenance to all higher maximum speed is very costly). Expectations of passenger rail usually seem to exceed what can be done with what is available - especially concerning money: Amtrak is at least trying to set up some new services where it may, in time, be viable. Hope they are better at picking their investments than my 401k :tb-confused: Bob C.
To either bypass potential riders, or have run times non-competitive are often seperate issues. Individually they may be overcome. Combined they are a sure loser. The issue is greatest efficiency for a person needing to travel. I guess people are supposed to waste time and money in a commute to the nearest boarding point, then lose more time in transit? Please sell us on the advantages of this. When I can drive to my destination five plus hours faster, and have my vehicle with me at that end point, (no need for a rental or to arrange further transportation), plus save money on fuel versus a ticket, which I am going to choose? The business of Amtrak is service. Boxcab E50
first of all, why are you comparing the drive times between Dayton and Cleveland with the train times between Cleveland and Cincinnati? Am I missing something? Assuming I am missing somethign and your comparison makes sense: 4 hours in a car under perfect conditions versus 6 on Amtrak doesn't seem like that much of a difference to me. I regularly ride Amtrak from Oceanside to Fullerton then take the bus back to Disneyland (timing works out better than taking the shuttle from the anaheim station) This is typically a 2+ hour ride including bus versus a typical ride of 1h 20m in car in typical SoCal weekend traffic. The Train is often preferrable. I use the time to read, or watch video on my laptop. I can nap, I can get a snack or consume snacks I've brought. I can see the countryside go by in particular up to San Juan Capistrano. And, I'm saving gas or allowing someone else to use the car for other purposes. So, don't dismiss the time difference right away. To me, the distinction between 4 and 6 hours is meaningless.
Analysis - Amtrak vs. Driving Our elder son has moved to southern Maryland. We are planning to visit him in the fall. The toss-up then became the Crescent (#19/20) from Hattiesburg, MS to Alexandria, VA, or drive. The estimated costs are about the same for each of the round trips. The Crescent, each way, would be ~24 hours overnight in a Bedroom, including all meals. Driving, each way, would be three ~8 hour days including meal and fuel stops, two nights in motels, and 14 meals, seven for each of us. Given our ages (73), stress of driving interstates through Atlanta and other major metro areas, we being an hour from the HBG station, and our son being two hours from the ALX station, it became a no-brainer. Besides, my wife hates car rides of more than an hour, and I love train rides of any length....:w20z6q:
I find that most people who take the train are not in a hurry to get anywhere. Also it is a great savings since it can cost more to drive than a coach ticket in most cases. I will take the train more times than any. I am thinking of taking the train to Orlando next year, to do that equals three nights, who cares, I have two weeks vacation.
Well, in a shuttle service like 3-Cs I would think speed of service would matter, but it's mid speed train, so it shouldn't matter that much.
More 3-C Here's an OP/ED from Canton, Oh. (also wanted in on this service). Amtrak's study results aren't due out 'til August, so nothing appears set in concrete yet. Politics shouldn’t cloud rail picture Repository Editorial Posted May 05, 2009 @ 05:19 PM If politicians designed railroads, you’d find a depot in every hamlet in the nation. Fortunately, Ohio politicians asked an actual railroad to study the feasibility of re-establishing passenger service among the state’s largest cities. But if state legislators decide to support the idea, they would have the final say about routes after Amtrak releases its full study later this year. Ohioans should be concerned about whether wishful thinking — that is to say, political thinking — would trump realistic assessments of the potential for passenger rail service. The price of poor judgment would, of course, come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Amtrak’s preliminary report, released this week because The Associated Press filed a public-records request, holds no good news for this part of Northeast Ohio. Amtrak rejected Akron as a stop in favor of a straighter shot between Cleveland and Columbus. This isn’t to assume that enough legislators will, or should, agree with Gov. Ted Strickland that the state should spend federal stimulus money to re-establish passenger service. Some are rightly skeptical. Passenger trains stopped running between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati in the 1970s due to lack of paying customers. Much as we’d like to believe the opposite, we are not convinced that, 40 years later, enough Ohioans are ready to get out of their own cars and into a train car for a trip to these cities. And Amtrak’s initial findings don’t inspire hope. The 250-mile trip from Cleveland to Cincinnati, for example, may take as long as six hours, Amtrak said — almost two hours longer than the trip on Interstate 71. How low a price would the train trip have to carry to entice drivers to give up convenience? Too low a price would just increase taxpayers’ subsidy to the railroad, which Strickland already estimates at $10 million per year. Amtrak is expected to issue its full report at the end of August. We look forward to seeing its expectations for ridership and revenue — before the plan is filtered through a political lens. Because of the number of stops (to get enough ridership?), transit times will be long - the slow,stop,accellerate will take more time than the distance would seem to consume. If you eliminate stops to speed the transit, you lose riders and gain negative (political) criticism from all. What potential customers seem to want is their own train (not serving or taking into account anyone else) to wherever they want to to go, whenever they are ready to go and return. this traffic model is not realistic with equipment, routes, and staffing/crewing currently available, or in the forseeable future - unless someone has a better idea/model for operation. Some of us, I'm sure, are intelligent, business experienced, and rail-saavy: help find the solution and make us happy customers and yourself RICH ! All the Best. Bob C.
The way I see it, if Im a buisnessman in Cleveland that needs to go to a meeting in Cincy, the difference between 4 hours and 6 is minimal. I'm probably going to be spending a night in town with either choice. Also, there's a good example of how this service could work on the west coast. The Cascade Service between Eugene Or and Seattle Wa is 284 mies and according to google maps a 4h 34min Drive. Amtrak has the travel time from Seattle to Eugene as a 6-7 hour ride. The Cascades are really really really popular. Granted, the route doesn't miss all that many communities on the I5 cooridor and Eugene really isn't the main endpoint, portland/Vancouver Wa are, but still, The point is that Oregonians and Washingtonians have supported this service and are willing to take The extra time to avoid the drive. So, unless Ohioans are more wedded to their cars, I don't see the transit time as a problem.
It is the same on the NEC and the capitol corridor in CA. Also an airline stopped flying to a city because Amtrak could make it in the same time if not less.cool:
