Ohio Passenger Rail Development. Northwest Ohio Passenger Rail Association

Similar documents
Program. presented by: September 22, 2010

NEW HAVEN-HARTFORD-SPRINGFIELD LINE HIGH SPEED INTERCITY RAIL PROJECT

Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY

Time (secs) Distance (feet) Accel (mphps) , , , , ,388 0.

Update of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. Tim Hoeffner Michigan Department of Transportation Director, Office of Rail Lansing, MI

Needs and Community Characteristics

Economic Impacts. Midwest Regional Rail System. of the. A Transportation Network for the 21st Century

New Haven Hartford Springfield Rail

KANSAS CITY STREETCAR

An Overview of High Speed Rail. David Randall Peterman Congressional Research Service

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Project Gateway to New England. Program Update March 14, 2011 Revised & Updated March 31, 2011

The Northeast Corridor Master Plan Amtrak s Next Generation High-Speed Rail and Northeastern Maryland

The Preferred Alternative: a Vision for Growth on the Northeast Corridor

Georgia Department of Transportation 2006 Fact Sheet Lovejoy to Atlanta Rail Line visit the website at

Chicago Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor

DRAFT Subject to modifications

AMTRAK ENVISIONS WORLD CLASS HIGH-SPEED RAIL Washington to Boston in about three hours at up to 220 mph (354 kph)

WhoWhatWhenWhereWhy. (lists only those in proposed Midwest-Northeast HSR Corridor) SOURCE: America 2050

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

2012 MULTIMODAL OPERATIONS WORKSHOP

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017

Bedford/Franklin Regional Rail Initiative (BFRRI) Rationale for a Bedford Amtrak Station June 30, 2015

Scope of Services January 26, Project Development and Conceptual Engineering for City of Lake Forest Amtrak Station

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

Development of 220 mph High Speed Rail Service for Illinois. Mark C. Walbrun, PE TranSystems Corporation

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Status of Plans March Presented by CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Caltrain Modernization EMU Procurement

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 301 E. Huron St., P.O. Box 8647 Ann Arbor, Michigan

KRM Corridor Transit Service Options: Frequently Asked Questions

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Joe Calabrese CEO/General Manager

Sales and Use Transportation Tax Implementation Plan

Proposal for September 2006 Start of Commuter Rail from Lovejoy on the Macon Line to Atlanta

TRANSFORMING THE WAY OUR REGION MOVES

Converting BRT to LRT in the Nation s Capital Ottawa, Canada. John Manconi City of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada

Mississauga Transit 2009 Budget

Expanding Capacity for the Northeast Corridor The Gateway Program

Contents. Executive Summary...1 Introduction...2 Operating Plan...4 System Connectivity...5

U.S. System Summary: ARIZONA/SOUTHWEST

Help shape your community investment in Wake Transit. Fiscal Year 2019 Draft Work Plan Summary

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON EAST WEST PILOT BRT LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT

The Smart Growth Countywide Transit Master Plan

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

Mr. Vince Mauceri General Manager Transportation Operations and Technology

GO Transit s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

Meeting the Transportation Challenge in the Northeast

Tempe Streetcar. March 2, 2016

NOACA Planning and Programming Committee February 14, 2014

Rocky Mountain. Corridor Input Team. Alternatives Overview. TEMS, Inc. / Quandel Consultants, LLC TEMS, Inc. / Quandel Consultants, LLC

Issues Facing the Panel

Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy Goods Movement in the 2012 RTP/SCS

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5.

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

Transportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

Green Line Long-Term Investments

High Speed Rail Conference

4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS

UNION STATION MASTER PLAN STUDY

The Case for. Business. investment. in Public Transportation

Halifax Commuter Rail: A Fresh Concept

Memorandum. To: The Arlington County Board Date: June 29, 2018 From: Subject:

Planning of the HSR Network

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

The Screening and Selection of Regionally Significant Projects

Mass Transit in Charlotte and San Antonio. Keith T. Parker, AICP

Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail. IDOT District 8 Crossings. July 29, 2015

MARTA s blueprint for the future. COFFEE AND CONVERSATION Kyle Keahey, More MARTA Atlanta Dec. 5, 2018

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Project Gateway to New England. Public Hearing June

Developing Toronto s Transit Network Plan to Public Information Meeting June 21, 2016

Successful Passenger Rail in the State of California

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

Integrating HSR Into Existing Regional Transportation Systems

SMART INVESTMENTS IN INTERCITY PASSENGER TRAVEL FACILITIES: A BALANCED MULTI-MODAL APPROACH

San Francisco to San Jose Preliminary Alternatives Analysis

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

SEPULVEDA PASS CORRIDOR

TIER TWO SCREENING REPORT

TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

THE PARTNERSHIP OF RAIL & COAL MOVING AHEAD 2014 RMCMI ANNUAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2014

Purple Line Light Rail P3 Project

Corridor Management Committee. March 7, 2012

Click to edit Master title style

HRTPO Strategic Campaign. Passenger Rail. Agenda Item #11. Presentation To. May 19, Presentation By

Deutsche Bank 5 th Annual Global Industrials and Basic Materials Conference

U.S. System Summary: CALIFORNIA

Stifel Transportation and Logistics Conference. Marta R. Stewart Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer February 11, 2014

METRO TRANSIT a n n ua l re p o r t. madison, wisconsin // mymetrobus.com

REPORT CARD FOR CALIFORNIA S INFRASTRUCTURE WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA S TRANSIT FACILITIES

Transcription:

Ohio Passenger Rail Development Northwest Ohio Passenger Rail Association Ohio Rail Development Commission June 11, 2010

Ohio Strategy Establish the Market Grow the Market Capture the Value of the Market

3C Market Strengths Cleveland Columbus Cincinnati Large end-point population centers Many intermediate cities Mid-point Capitol City Lacks air service Serves strong business market Potential to serve commuter markets Potential to stand-alone Serves 60% of Ohio Population

Establish the Market 3C Quick Start

Ohio s 3C Quick Start Application for ARRA funding SUCCESS: $400 million award. Among the largest awards. Other applicants couldn t meet the requirements. ODOT/ORDC staff worked tirelessly to submit a comprehensive application.

3C Quick Start Service Characteristics Three trains per day in each direction 79-mph top speed Fares approx. 15 cents/mile On-board Food Service 478,000 Annual Trips Compares favorably to other Amtrak corridors

3C Quick Start Tier One Environmental Assessment and Alternatives Analysis Completed in 8 weeks Purpose and Need 33 Route Alternatives Three Levels of Screening Public Involvement FONSI

3C Quick Start Capital Improvements Capacity additions Track upgrades Train maintenance facilities 8 Passenger Stations Highway/Rail grade crossing improvements Train fleet

Proposal to Project Next Steps Finalize FRA Statement of Work Complete Capacity Analysis Select Operator Procure Equipment Strategy Initiate Railroad Negotiations Conduct Preliminary Engineering Complete Tier Two Environmental Assessment

The Ohio Hub Growing the Market Ohio Hub MWRRS Trips in 2025 9.4 million 13.6 million

The Ohio Hub Service Characteristics: Expanded system Increased speeds More frequencies Improved Fast Frequent services Reliable Competitive with automobile times Same-day round trips

Ohio Hub Feasibility Study Combined 72 stations the - 10 Ohio corridors Hub and 33 million MWRRS people (east) in into 6 States a single and 2,300-mile Ontario, Canada passenger rail network

Ohio Hub Optimized Train Frequencies Toledo Hub: 76 Trains/Day 38 Arrivals 38 Departures Columbus Hub: 80 Trains/Day 40 Arrivals 40 Departures Cleveland Hub: 64 Trains/Day 32 Arrivals 32 Departures

The Toledo Hub Strategically Positioned for Growth Station Activity in 2025: 76 trains per day 786,000 annual trips 5 th highest ridership among Ohio Hub stations Destination/Travel Time: To Chicago: 3 :18 To Cleveland: 1 :25 To Columbus: 2: 12 To Detroit 1: 15 To Pittsburgh: 3 :45 To Toronto: 6 :30

Ohio Hub PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Kick-off on Monday

Toledo Rail Corridors PEIS Alternatives Analysis

Chicago - Toledo PEIS Alternatives Analysis

Toledo - Cleveland PEIS Alternatives Analysis

Ohio Hub Study Feasibility Analysis Criteria FRA Commercial Feasibility Report to Congress set criteria for establishing project feasibility: 1. The ratio of operating revenues to operating costs; and 2. The ratio of total project benefits to total project costs

Ohio Hub Study Ridership, Revenue and Operating Cost Data Corridor Revenue Cost Rev/TM Cost/TM Surplus Op Ratio Riders Psgr Miles Load Fctr Trip Len Yield Chicago-Michigan $136 $97 $47.73 $34.12 $39 1.40 3.87 614.2 0.72 159 $0.22 Chicago-FTW-Toledo $99 $64 $53.72 $34.81 $35 1.54 2.39 371.9 0.67 155 $0.27 Chicago-Cincinnati $60 $40 $51.44 $34.42 $20 1.49 1.39 204.7 0.59 147 $0.29 Total MWRRS Eastern $295 $202 $50.36 $34.40 $94 1.46 7.66 1190.9 0.68 155 $0.25 Cleveland-Cincinnati $100 $55 $78.01 $42.88 $45 1.82 2.56 267.3 0.69 104 $0.38 Cleveland-Detroit $51 $36 $46.44 $32.82 $15 1.41 2.23 200.0 0.61 90 $0.25 Cleveland-Niagara Falls $45 $25 $69.49 $38.32 $20 1.81 0.91 116.5 0.60 128 $0.39 Cleveland-Pittsburgh $30 $22 $43.17 $31.24 $8 1.38 0.86 92.9 0.44 108 $0.32 Subtotal OHIO Base $226 $138 $60.74 $36.96 $89 1.64 6.56 676.7 0.61 103 $0.33 Pittsburgh-Columbus $25 $20 $41.22 $32.98 $5 1.25 0.92 90.9 0.51 99 $0.27 Columbus-Ft Wayne $36 $26 $45.40 $33.04 $10 1.37 1.12 142.20 0.59 127 $0.25 Columbus-Toledo $24 $18 $42.85 $31.83 $6 1.35 0.75 94.80 0.56 127 $0.25 Subtotal OHIO Incremental $85 $64 $43.39 $32.67 $21 1.33 2.78 327.85 0.56 118 $0.26 TOTAL OHIO HUB $311 $202 $54.76 $35.48 $110 1.54 9.34 1004.58 0.59 108 $0.31

Capturing the Value of the Market Ohio s Passenger Rail Stations

Ohio Hub Economic Impact Study Two Study Teams Two Parallel Study Efforts Provided third party validation Applied alternative methodologies Provided real estate expertise for assessing land use impacts

Ohio Hub Short-term Construction Impacts MSA Capital ($ Millions) Economic Benefit (Output in $ Millions) Increase in Household Earnings ($ Millions) Annual Construction Jobs Created Cleveland $653 $1,418 $414 1,245 Cincinnati $240 $554 $175 546 Columbus $361 $829 $253 772 Dayton $120 $236 $69 221 Toledo $190 $373 $108 329 Ohio Total $2,380 $5,993 $1,846 6,060

Ohio Hub The Value of the Market Long-term Economic Impacts Annual Ridership Ohio Hub + MWRRI Long-term Jobs Created Increase in Household Income ($ Millions) Increase in Property Value ($ Millions) Cleveland 1,155,743 1390 1910 $115 $160 $370 $520 Cincinnati 1,074,616 1010 1390 $95 $135 $330 $470 Columbus 1,110,486 1400 1925 $85 $115 $250 $340 Dayton 787,616 120 165 $75 $105 $210 $285 Toledo 786,186 930 1340 $25 $55 $115 $160 Springfield 69,995 125 165 $7 $10 $20 $30 SYSTEM TOTAL 6,560,000 16,700 $1 Billion $3 Billion

Ohio Hub Return on Investment Development Impact on Cleveland $370 to $520 Million

Ohio Hub The Value of the Market Potential Development Impact on Toledo $115 to $160 Million

Ohio Hub Economic Impact Study Results 5,550-6,060 annual construction jobs 49,900 total construction jobs over 9 years 16,700 permanent jobs $1 billion increase in the region s income $3 billion in station-area development $80 million impact on state tourism 320,000 new overnight trips 5% increase in Cleveland Hopkins air traffic $3 - $6 billion in potential freight rail benefit 9.4 million gallons of fuel saved each year

Ohio Hub Economic Impact Study Conclusions Construction of high-speed passenger rail is economically feasible and justifiable assuming an 80% federal construction match. By feasible, we believe the economic benefits justify the investment and the project will not be a burden on the State biennial budget. If, as in the case of highway projects, Ohio provides just 20% of the capital costs, a $1 billion investment will achieve a $17 billion return.

Quick Start Station-Area Planning is Underway

3C Quick Start Cleveland and SW Cleveland Station Connections 3C Connects to GCRTA at the Lakefront Amtrak Station at West 150 th Street

3C Quick Start City of Riverside Wright-Patterson Train Station

Questions?