ohio & lake erie regional rail cleveland hub study ohio rail development commission

OHIO & LAKE ERIE REGIONAL RAIL CLEVELAND HUB STUDY

Ohio Rail Development Commission

TMACOG Annual Transportation Summit

September 29, 2003

SYSTEMOVERVIEW

Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail Cleveland Hub

An 860 mile rail system with 32 Stations.Serving 22 million people in 24 cities and towns.

Study Goals and Objectives

• Forecast system ridership and revenue

• Estimate operating and maintenance costs

• Evaluate inter-modal connections with airports

Study Goals and Objectives

• Analyze alternative routes

• Examine synergies with other corridors

• Incorporate into the State Transportation Plan Access Ohio

• Apply for FRA High Speed Rail Designation

Part of an International Rail Network

Part of an International Rail Network

Railroad Objectives

• Provide opportunities for and encourage railroad input in the planning process.

• Be sensitive to the railroad’s needs for capacity and future growth.

• Expand railroad capacity while improving the fluidity of railroad operations.

• Keep railroads whole• Expand capacity (mainlines, sidings, yards, bridges)• Improve fluidity and reliability • Eliminate bottlenecks; decrease train travel time; and

increase train speeds

• Examine three investment scenarios (design speed)• 79 mph; 90 mph; 110 mph (Top Speed of 125 mph)

• Improve safety and grade crossing warning systems

• Capital costs and improvement concepts are based on field observations by HNTB and Amtrak

Infrastructure and Engineering Objectives

Modern Equipment Technology

Talgo

Flexliner

Acela Gas Turbine

KEY TECHNICAL FINDINGS

Findings

• Significant Regional Travel Market and Potential for Intercity Rail.

• Strong Ridership Estimates.

• System Benefits from Connectivity.

• Competitive Travel Times with the Automobile.

• Regional Economic Benefits.

Strong Potential Market for Passenger Rail

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Millions of People

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Forecast Years

2025 Ridership and Revenue Forecast

System Hub Total with Modern Technology (Option 1, Max. speed at 110-mph)

Ridership Passenger Revenue 4.120 M $176.973 M

Cleveland-PittsburghRidership Revenue

0.786 M $25.036 M

Cleveland-DetroitRidership Revenue

1.763 M $43.756 M

Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati

Ridership Revenue1.834 M $78.331 M

Cleveland-Buffalo-Toronto

Ridership Revenue 0.688 M $29.749 M

Travel Time Summary

Corridors

Existing Rail/Bus Service

Modern Scenario(Top Speed at 79-mph)

High Speed Scenario (Top Speed at 110-

mph)

Local Express Local Express

Cleveland to Detroit (Detroit Airport)

No Service

3:05 2:46 2:47 2:23

Cleveland to Detroit (Wyandotte)

4:00 2:59 2:41 2:40 2:20

Cleveland-Buffalo/Toronto

8:30 5:35 5:21 5:20 4:53

Cleveland-Pittsburgh (Youngstown)

430 2:36 2:15 2:24 2:02

Cleveland-Pittsburgh (Alliance)

3:28 2:32 2:09 2:22 1:58

Cleveland-Columbus/Cincinnati

5:15 4:27 4:07 3:49 3:28

Note:Existing service consists of all public transportation (Amtrak, bus thruway service, and combination of both) available in the study area.

CorridorsDistance (miles)

One-Way Fare/Cost Round-trip Fare

Cleveland Hub

System

Auto Acela High Speed Rail

Rate

Air (3-week Advance

Fare)

Air (Business

)Business Non-

Business

Cleveland to Detroit

175 $39 $57 $18 $105 $157 $544

Cleveland to Pittsburgh

140 $38 $46 $14 $84 $232 $621

Cleveland to Buffalo

182 $58 $58 $18 $109 $174 $808

Cleveland to Columbus

135 $43 $44 $14 $81 $163 $706

Columbus to Cincinnati

123 $43 $84 $26 $155 $186 $755

Notes:

1.  The one-way and round-trip fares are rounded to the nearest dollar.

2.  Auto Business cost was calculated based on the Internal Revenue Service Standard Mileage Rate at $0.325 per mile.

3.  Auto Non-Business cost was calculated based on the Internal Revenue Service Standard Mileage Rate at $0.10 per mile.

4.  Acela Rate was calculated based on fare per mile between Washington D.C. and New York City ($0.60 per mile).

5. Air round trip fares was web-listed fares as of October 25, 2002.

Estimated Fares Between Stations

Possible Implementation

• EIGHT TO TEN YEAR IMPLEMENTATION (Assumes Federal Funds)

• START-UP SERVICE: 79 MPH, 2-3 Trains per day (2 to 5 Years)

• 1. Cleveland – Columbus – Dayton - Cincinnati

• 2. Cleveland – Detroit

• 3. Cleveland – Pittsburgh

• 4. Cleveland – Buffalo – Toronto

• FULL SERVICE: 110 MPH, 6-8 Trains per day (5 to 10 Years)

• 1. Cleveland – Columbus – Dayton - Cincinnati

• 2. Cleveland – Detroit

• 3. Cleveland – Pittsburgh

• 4. Cleveland – Buffalo – Toronto

Preliminary Economic Impact• Jobs Created

• 16,000 temporary construction jobs created

• 300 full-time operating jobs created

• 2,000 indirect job benefits

• Property Value Increases

• Approximately $1 billion increase in Ohio property values.

• Income

• Annual income increased by $256 million

• Annual tax revenues increased by $28 million

Next Steps

• Complete Federal Railroad Administration Study of Track Maintenance Costs and incorporate results into the Cleveland Hub financial and economic analysis.

Next Steps

• Distribute draft report to railroads and steering committee for comment.

• Build support at the local, state, and national levels (Ohio program)

• Hold public outreach meetings.

• Hold meetings with the business community.

Next Steps

• Conduct detailed Economic Impact Study.

• Initiate ODOT Environmental and Project Development Process.

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

• First 4 Steps of ODOT’s Major Project Development Process.

Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act of 2003

• Proposed by USDOT.

• Removes Amtrak from the discussion of how to improve passenger rail service in the U.S.

• Places responsibility for passenger rail development in the hands of the states and federal government.

• Reduces Amtrak’s role to that of a service provider.

Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act of 2003

• Envisions a national system of interconnected corridors, rather than a network of long distance trains.

• Is consistent with Ohio’s corridor planning.

• Recognizes the real cost of access to railroad tracks and railroad property.

Other Proposed Federal Bills

• S. 1505, The American Rail Equity Act of 2003, (AREA)

• HR 2571, Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century, (RIDE-21)

• ARRIVE-21, To be introduced soon.

• Rail infrastructure investment bills: H. 1617, HR 2192, HR 876,