Anda di halaman 1dari 251

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1-1


1.1 Federal Mandate for State Rail Plans ......................................................................1-2
1.2 Stakeholder Consultation ...................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Ongoing Planning Process ...................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 STATE RAIL ACTIVITY IN OHIO .............................................................. 2-1


2.1 Ohio Rail Development Commission Formation and Purpose .................................. 2-1
2.2 Ohio Rail Development Commission Functions ....................................................... 2-1
2.3 Rail Funding in Ohio .............................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 ORDC Structure ......................................................................................................2-2
2.5 Ohio Rail Studies .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.6 Ohios Involvement in Multistate Rail Planning ...................................................... 2-3

3.0 Ohio Freight Rail System Profile ........................................................... 3-1


3.1 Class I Railroads..................................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.1 CSX System ............................................................................................. 3-3
3.1.2 Norfolk Southern .................................................................................... 3-8
3.1.3 Canadian National ................................................................................. 3-11
3.2 Regional Railroads3-12
3.2.1 Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad ............................................................... 3-12
3.2.2 Indiana and Ohio Railway ...................................................................... 3-12
3.2.3 Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway ............................................................ 3-12
3.3 Short Line Railroads .............................................................................................. 3-13
3.4 Abandoned or Discontinued Rail Lines.3-20

4.0 OHIO RAIL FREIGHT TRAFFIC ................................................................ 4-1


4.1 Rail Traffic Commodity Profile ............................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Rail Traffic Geography Profile ................................................................................ 4-4
4.3 Rail Traffic Trends.................................................................................................. 4-6
4.4 Rail Traffic Densities .............................................................................................. 4-8

5.0 The Role of Ohios Freight Rail System in Multimodal Transportation..5-1


5.1 Ohios Role in US Freight Transportation Logistics .................................................. 5-1
5.2 Ohios Role in International Freight Transportation Logistics .................................. 5-2
5.3 Intermodal Rail Freight Growth in Ohio .................................................................. 5-4
5.4 Existing Rail Intermodal Clearances in Ohio ............................................................ 5-4
5.5 Proposed Rail Intermodal Development in Ohio ..................................................... 5-7
5.5.1 Heartland Corridor Project ...................................................................... 5-7

May 10, 2010


Table of Contents - i

5.5.2 CSX National Gateway Project ................................................................ 5-8


5.6 Ohio Intermodal Container Terminals .................................................................... 5-9
5.7 Rail/Truck Bulk Transload Facilities in Ohio ........................................................... 5-12
5.8 Rail/Water Transfer Terminals .............................................................................. 5-15
5.8.1 The Ohio River System ........................................................................... 5-15
5.8.2 Great Lakes System ............................................................................... 5-17

6.0 Impacts of Freight Rail Transportation in Ohio ..................................... 6-1


6.1 Economics ............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Environment ......................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 6-5
6.4 Energy................................................................................................................... 6-5
6.5 Community and Quality of Life Impacts. ......................................... 6-7
6.6 Summary .............................................................................................................. 6-8

7.0 RAIL SAFETY AND SECURITY ................................................................. 7-1


7.1 Rail Safety ............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 Railroad Grade Crossing Safety ............................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Rail Safety Inspection Program ............................................................... 7-4
7.1.3 Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 7-5
7.1.4 Positive Train Control.............................................................................. 7-5
7.2 Rail Security .......................................................................................................... 7-5
7.2.1 Federal and State Roles in Rail Security ................................................... 7-5
7.2.2 Strategic Rail Corridor Network............................................................... 7-6
7.2.3 Emergency Response .............................................................................. 7-7
7.3 Summary .............................................................................................................. 7-7

8.0 OHIO FREIGHT RAIL SYSTEM EVALUATION ........................................... 8-1


8.1 The Impact of Ohios Rail Freight System on its Economy and Citizens .................... 8-1
8.2 Existing and Projected Rail Capacity Constraints on Ohio Mainlines ........................ 8-1
8.3 Ohio Freight Rail Bottlenecks ................................................................................. 8-5
8.4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 8-5

9.0 Rail Passenger Service in Ohio .............................................................. 9-1


9.1 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail System Routes ...................................................... 9-1
9.2 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail System Stations .................................................... 9-3
9.3 Intercity Passenger Rail System Performance ......................................................... 9-4
9.3.1 Ridership ................................................................................................ 9-4
9.3.2 On-Time Performance ............................................................................. 9-5
9.4 Intercity Passenger and Local Transit Connections .................................................. 9-7
9.5 Existing High Speed Rail Systems ........................................................................... 9-7
9.6 Existing Commuter Rail Systems ............................................................................ 9-7
9.7 Existing Tourist Railroads ....................................................................................... 9-7
May 10, 2010
Table of Contents - ii

10.0 Rail Passenger Service Plan for Ohio ................................................. 10-1


10.1 Intercity Rail Passenger Service ........................................................................... 10-2
10.1.1. The Beginning of Passenger Rail Planning in Ohio ................................ 10-2
10.1.2 High Speed Rail Planning History.......................................................... 10-3
10.1.3 Creation of Ohio High Speed Rail Authority........................................... 10-4
10.1.4 Conventional Speed Passenger Rail Planning Efforts ............................. 10-4
10.1.5 The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative .................................................... 10-5
10.1.6 Ohio Corridors Receive Federal Designation ......................................... 10-5
10.1.7 Planning Studies and Reports ............................................................... 10-6
10.2 3C Quick Start Service Development Program...................................................... 10-7
10.3 High Speed Passenger Rail Service....................................................................... 10-9
10.3.1 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ........................................................... 10-9
10.3.2 Ohios Long Term Vision for Passenger Rail- The Ohio Hub System ...... 10-10
10.4 Commuter Rail Service ...................................................................................... 10-15
10.4.1 Commuter Rail Planning in Ohio ......................................................... 10-16
10.4.2 Cleveland Commuter Rail ................................................................... 10-16
10.4.3 Columbus Commuter Rail ................................................................... 10-19
10.4.4 Cincinnati Commuter Rail ................................................................... 10-19
10.4.5 Cost Savings for Commuter Rail Development ..................................... 10-20
10.4.6 Technology ......................................................................................... 10-20
10.5 Synopsis of Recent Ohio Intercity and High Speed Rail Studies ........................... 10-21

11.0 RAIL FUNDING AND FINANCE OPTIONS ............................................ 11-1


11.1 Existing Rail Assistance Programs ........................................................................ 11-1
11.1.1 State Programs ...................................................................................11-1
11.2 State General Revenue Funding .......................................................................... 11-2
11.3 Federal Programs ............................................................................................... 11-2
11.4 Other SAFETEA-LU Programs ............................................................................... 11-4
11.5 Other Federal Programs ...................................................................................... 11-6
11.6 Prospective Changes to Federal Rail Assistance Programs .................................... 11-6

12.0 Ohio Rail Investment Programs ........................................................ 12-1


12.1 Long Range Investment Program......................................................................... 12-1
12.2 Ohios Short-Term Rail Investment Program ........................................................ 12-1
12.3 Benefits Calculator ............................................................................................. 12-1

May 10, 2010


Table of Contents - iii

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Stakeholder Outreach
Attachment 1: Recommendations for Ohios State Rail
Attachment 2: Stakeholder outreach documentation

Appendix B: Commuter Rail Checklist


Appendix C: Long Range Investment Program
Appendix D: Short-Term Rail Investment Program

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 3-1 Ohio Rail Network ................................................................................................. 3-2
Exhibit 3-2 Ohio Class I Railroads ............................................................................................. 3-3
Exhibit 3-3 CSX Network .......................................................................................................... 3-4
Exhibit 3-4 CSX Subdivisions in Ohio ........................................................................................ 3-5
Exhibit 3-5 Norfolk Southern Network ..................................................................................... 3-8
Exhibit 3-6 NS Districts ............................................................................................................ 3-9
Exhibit 3-7 Ohio Regional Railroads ........................................................................................ 3-12
Exhibit 3-8 Ohio Central Railroad System Railroads ................................................................. 3-14
Exhibit 3-9 RailAmerica in Ohio .............................................................................................. 3-15
Exhibit 3-10 Wheeling & Lake Erie in Ohio .............................................................................. 3-16
Exhibit 3-11 Ohio Short Line Railroads .................................................................................... 3-17
Exhibit 3-12 Ohio Abandoned Rail Lines .................................................................................. 3-22
Exhibit 4-1: Ohio Rail Traffic Type Estimated Volumes .......................................................... 4-1
Exhibit 4-2: Rail Tons (Millions) Originated in Ohio in 2007 ....................................................... 4-1
Exhibit 4-3: Rail Tons (Millions) Terminating in Ohio in 2007 .................................................... 4-2
Exhibit 4-4 Rail Carloads/Intermodal Units (10,000) Originating in Ohio in 2007 ....................... 4-2
Exhibit 4-5 Rail Carloads/Intermodal Units (10,000) Terminating in Ohio in 2007 ...................... 4-3
Exhibit 4-6 Rail Traffic Passing Through Ohio by Tonnage (Millions) in 2004 .............................. 4-3
Exhibit 4-7 Ohio Intrastate Rail Traffic by Tonnage (Millions) in 2004........................................ 4-4
Exhibit 4-8 Distribution of Interstate Rail Traffic Originated in Ohio ......................................... 4-5
Exhibit 4-9 Distribution of Interstate Rail Traffic Terminating in Ohio ...................................... 4-6
Exhibit 4-10 Historic Ohio Rail Tonnage Trends ........................................................................ 4-7
Exhibit 4-11 Forecasted Ohio Rail Traffic by Type ..................................................................... 4-7
Exhibit 4-12 Forecasted Ohio Rail Traffic by Commodity ........................................................... 4-8
Exhibit 4-13 Ohio Rail Freight Density 2007 .............................................................................. 4-9
Exhibit 5-1 State Gross Domestic Products ............................................................................... 5-2
Exhibit 5-2 International Trade Routes..................................................................................... 5-4
Exhibit 5-3 Clearance Requirements for Rail Intermodal Equipment ......................................... 5-5
Exhibit 5-4 Ohio Rail Clearances .............................................................................................. 5-6
Exhibit 5-5 NS Corridor Improvement Projects Heartland Corridor ......................................... 5-7
Exhibit 5-6 CSX National Gateway Project ................................................................................ 5-9
Exhibit 5-7 Intermodal Facilities in Ohio .................................................................................. 5-10
Exhibit 5-8 Truck/Rail Intermodal Container Terminals in Ohio ................................................ 5-11
Exhibit 5-9 Class I Railroad-Truck Transfer Facilities................................................................. 5-13

May 10, 2010


Table of Contents - iv

Exhibit 5-10 Key Rail/Marine Connections in Ohio................................................................... 5-16


Exhibit 5-11 Toledo Area Operational Rail Served Lake Terminals ............................................ 5-17
Exhibit 5-12 Cleveland Rail Served Lake Terminals Operated by Port Authority ........................ 5-18
Exhibit 5-13 Cleveland Rail Served Private Lake Terminals ....................................................... 5-19
Exhibit 5-14 Lorain Area Rail-Lake Terminals ........................................................................... 5-20
Exhibit 5-15 Fairport Harbor & Grand River Area Rail Served Lake Terminals ........................... 5-20
Exhibit 5-16 Ashtabula Area Rail Served Lake Terminals .......................................................... 5-21
Exhibit 5-17 Conneaut Area Rail Served Lake Terminals........................................................... 5-21
Exhibit 5-18 Sandusky-Huron Area Rail Served Lake Terminals ................................................ 5-22
Exhibit 6-1 Rail Traffic Originated in Ohio ................................................................................ 6-1
Exhibit 6-2 Rail Traffic Terminated in Ohio ............................................................................... 6-2
Exhibit 6-3 Greenhouse Emissions by Industry Sector ............................................................... 6-3
Exhibit 6-4 Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 6-4
Exhibit 6-5 Rail Fuel Consumption ........................................................................................... 6-6
Exhibit 7- 1 Total Rail Accidents/Incidents in Ohio (1999-2008) ................................................ 7-1
Exhibit 7- 2 Total Annual Public Grade Crossing Incidents in Ohio (1999-2008) .......................... 7-2
Exhibit 7- 3 Trespasser Deaths (2009) ...................................................................................... 7-3
Exhibit 7-4 STRACNET Map ...................................................................................................... 7-7
Exhibit 8-1 Primary Class I Rail Corridors .................................................................................. 8-2
Exhibit 8-2 Projected Ohio Class I Freight Rail Corridor Growth Rates Through 2035 ................. 8-3
Exhibit 8-3 Projected 2035 Freight Service Levels Major Corridors.......................................... 8-4
Exhibit 9-1 Cardinal Service Segments & Mileage Between Stations ......................................... 9-1
Exhibit 9-2 Capitol Limited Service Segments & Mileage Between Stations ............................... 9-1
Exhibit 9-3 Lake Shore Limited Segments & Mileage Between Stations ..................................... 9-2
Exhibit 9-4 Current Amtrak Service Routes in Ohio ................................................................... 9-2
Exhibit 9-5 Amtrak-Served Stations in Ohio.............................................................................. 9-4
Exhibit 9-6 Amtrak Riders in Ohio from FY 2006 to FY 2008 ..................................................... 9-5
Exhibit 9-7 Amtrak OTP for Routes Travelling through Ohio FY 2008 ........................................ 9-6
Exhibit 9-8 Major Causes of OTP Delay in July 2009 ................................................................. 9-6
Exhibit 10-1 Vision for High-Speed Rail in America ................................................................. 10-6
Exhibit 10-2 3C Corridor ......................................................................................................... 10-8
Exhibit 10-3 Midwest Regional Rail Plan ............................................................................... 10-10
Exhibit 10-4 Regional Rail Corridors Connecting to the Ohio Hub System ............................... 10-11
Exhibit 10-5 Ohio Hub plus MWRRS Eastern Routes ............................................................. 10-12
Exhibit 10-6 Future Daily Train Frequencies within and outside Ohio ..................................... 10-13
Exhibit 10-7 NeoRail Proposal for Cleveland Commuter Rail .................................................. 10-17
Exhibit 10-8 Proposed Lakefront Bypass ............................................................................... 10-18
Exhibit 10-9 COTA Vision 2020 Rail Corridors ........................................................................ 10-19
Exhibit 10-10 Proposed Cincinnati Rail System ...................................................................... 10-20
Exhibit 10-11 FRA Compliant DMU Vehicle............................................................................ 10-21

May 10, 2010


Table of Contents - v

1.0 Introduction
Ohio has a rich history in railroading dating back to its 19th Century main line routes providing access to Great
Lake facilities and river terminals. These routes included former core main line routes of the Baltimore and Ohio,
Chesapeake and Ohio, Erie, Pennsylvania, and New York Central Railroads. Cincinnati also served as a major
gateway connection point to both the then Southern and Louisville & Nashville Railroads. The B&O, C&O, Erie
and PRR initiated the nations east-west mainline network that was critical to Ohios development.
Over time the rail industry in Ohio and across the nation has experienced considerable consolidation. This began
with the bankruptcy of many Northeast and Midwest railroads in the 1960s and special conditions provided to
Conrail in the 1970s to further reduce its system to ensure its viability. In the following deregulated
environment, railroads had more flexibility over both organizational and capital infrastructure decisions. Today
Ohio is served by the two remaining U.S. Class 1 railroads east of the Mississippi River, CSX and Norfolk
Southern as well as 16 regional and short line railroads, and 15 terminal carriers. In addition, the Canadian
National Railway, a Class 1 railroad, also serves the state but on a much more limited basis
As with most states, railroads contributed significantly to the early economic growth of Ohio. The railroads
provided a cost-effective means to transport grains from Ohio farms to eastern markets and east coast ports for
shipment to Europe. The railroads enabled Ohio to leverage its proximity to coal, iron ore, and limestone
producing regions, thus stimulating the growth of the steel industry in the state. The railroads also led to the
growth of industry on Lake Erie by providing connections with inland markets. Raw materials could be delivered
by ship to water-side facilities and, in turn, finished goods were shipped out by rail.
In addition to facilitating the movement of goods, the railroads also improved the mobility of people living in or
visiting the state. The ability of people to move fluidly among economic centers improved commerce among
those centers. This ability also provided an efficient means of supporting population migration to areas of
increasing activity.
Despite the development of the interstate and state highway systems and the growth of the motor carrier
industry, freight railroads still played an important role in the economy of Ohio. This role has historically been
most apparent in the movement of heavy bulk products required by Ohios manufacturing sector which import
high-weight, low-value raw materials and export low-weight, high-value finished goods. There are exceptions to
this rule of thumb as railroads often handle high value bulk commodities such as plastic pellets and resins and
ethanol, as well as such high value inputs as steel coils.
In recent years, railroads have gone through a major resurgence and have become increasingly important to the
economy of Ohio. Today, the railroad industry is as important to Ohio as it has always has been, and perhaps
more. Improvements in service, successful efforts to reduce costs, and growing recognition of the economic,
safety, and environmental benefits of rail transportation have increased the demand for rail freight
transportation. For example, freight moved by rail results in approximately ten percent of the number of
fatalities per ton-mile than that moved by truck. The freight rail industry also pays property taxes for its
transportation rights-of-way, unlike its trucking competition.
Ohios proximity to North American population centers and markets also places the state at the center of
current rail intermodal development activities. CSXs National Gateway project will improve the linkage between
Ohio and east coast ports by improving clearances and capacity. Norfolk Southern is investing heavily in its

May 10, 2010


Chapter 1- 1

Heartland Corridor project, which will improve service between the Port of Norfolk and the Midwest. A critical
element of the project is the Rickenbacker Intermodal Facility in Columbus.
The current impacts of freight rail service to Ohios economy, environment, energy production and efficiency,
land use, and quality of life for the states citizens are extensive. Railroads provide the strong transportation
links required to support the states manufacturing economy by moving raw materials into the state and
manufactured products from Ohio to destinations around world. The rail industry carries out this task more
efficiently than any other surface transportation mode from the perspective of both emissions and energy
usage.
With an average equivalency of one rail car equaling three truck trailers, rail service also improves the quality of
life for Ohios citizens by removing trucks from congested roadways and reducing the need for highway
construction which is both costly and often leads to the loss of valuable land and inefficient land use patterns.
Most significantly, rail has the capacity to divert even more freight and passengers from highways in the future
which is vital in the face of estimated freight and passenger growth rates in the future.
Finally, there is an emerging recognition of the important role of passenger rail transportation as a competitive
alternative to both the automobile and airplane for intercity travel. In response to that, Ohio is working to
establish the proposed 3C Quick Start Service. This initiative has been designed to provide new passenger rail
service between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. Such service would provide additional mobility options
and an entirely new transportation mode choice for travelers.
1.1 Federal Mandate for State Rail Plans
In 2008, the US Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act with the expressed intent
of improving passenger rail service in the United States. One of the features of the legislation is the requirement
that any state seeking federal assistance for either passenger or freight improvements have an updated state
rail plan. The legislation further stipulated the minimum content of the rail plans, which was codified in Public
Law 110-432.
Federal guidelines for rail plans require that states attempt to accomplish the following objectives through their
plan process. These objectives are to:
o Broaden the understanding of rail issues for all stakeholders;
o Define the role of railroads in a multimodal environment;
o Indentify infrastructure and other improvements required to improve rail service;
o Provide a framework to implement rail improvement initiatives
o Develop methodologies to measure public and private benefits of rail improvements; and.
o Provide support and justification for federal and other rail funding.
This document was developed by the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Ohio Rail Development
Commission. It meets the requirements set forth in the legislation and public law, and is intended to serve as
Ohios State Rail Plan. The plan represents a compendium of recent rail studies, supplemented by primary
investigation as required to meet the federal requirements. The state of Ohio has been a leader in advocating
improved rail service in the state and has conducted numerous studies to advance this effort. The Ohio State
Rail Plan describes and evaluates rail improvement needs identified through further technical analysis.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 1- 2

In addition to meeting federal requirements, this state rail plan is intended to formulate a state vision for rail in
the future and strategies to achieve that vision. For this purpose, the plan was developed with extensive public
participation and involvement by the states railroads and rail users.
1.2 Stakeholder Consultation
The Ohio Department of Transportation and the Ohio Rail Development Commission are committed to an
ongoing stakeholder and public involvement process. This process includes continually engaging rail
stakeholders and the public in rail planning activities for this plan and in future policy development and program
decision making.
As part of the development of this statewide rail plan and other statewide rail and transportation planning
initiatives, considerable public and rail stakeholder outreach activities have been conducted and are underway.
A Rail Stakeholder Outreach and Involvement Plan was developed for this Statewide Rail Plan. The Outreach
plan describes the approach, activities, and schedule to consult with rail stakeholders and the pubic in the
development of revisions to the Ohio State Rail Plan. The findings and recommendations from outreach
activities are provided in Appendix A. This appendix also includes a summary of the comments and
recommendations from over 200 stakeholders who participated in outreach activities. Implementation of the
proposed recommendations will require continued partnership and collaboration between ODOT, ORDC, Ohios
rail operators and shippers and all rail stakeholders.
1.3 Ongoing Planning Process
As part of Ohios ongoing rail planning activities, a tool and methodology is under development to enhance the
state of Ohios rail funding decision making process. The tool, currently referred to as the benefits calculator,
provides a comprehensive means of calculating both public and private benefits attributable to investment in
railroad improvements. This tool is described in Chapter 13 Long Range Investment Program.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 1- 3

2.0 State Rail Activity in Ohio


Statutory authority to conduct rail planning in Ohio is assigned to the Ohio Rail Development Commission, an
independent agency of the Ohio Department of Transportation, in accordance with Chapter 4981 of the Ohio
Revised Code. ORDC is the successor of the Ohio High Speed Rail Authority and the Division of Rail
Transportation of the Department of Transportation.
2.1 Ohio Rail Development Commission Formation and Purpose
The ORDC was formed in 1994 by combining all of the States non-regulatory rail programs under one agency. By
statute, ORDC is an independent commission within the Department of Transportation created to develop,
promote, and support safe, adequate, and efficient rail service throughout the state. To meet this task, ORDC
uses grants and its revolving loan program to:
Perform a vital economic development function by assisting businesses locating or expanding in Ohio
with rail spurs and other rail infrastructure
Help rehabilitate light density branch lines on small but critically important short-line and regional
railroads that move Ohios economy
Assist in the acquisition and continued operation of branch lines
address special rail problems such as mainline congestion and assisting businesses with rail-related
issues to maintain Ohios status as one of the nations major transportation hubs
Assist with the promotion of the rail-related tourism industry
Maintain Ohios readiness to move toward intercity passenger rail service at both conventional and high
speeds through a variety of planning initiatives
In addition to these development activities, ORDC uses Federal Highway Administration funds allocated by the
Ohio Department of Transportation to fund at-grade highway-rail crossing safety improvements throughout the
state. These efforts have upgraded over one-thousand railroad crossings, but more importantly, have helped
drastically reduce car-train accidents and the number of injuries and lives lost.
As an agency, ORDC is a hybrid of sorts. It is designed to deal with transportation infrastructure, but
infrastructure that is normally privately-owned. Its projects are usually driven by business development
decisions in the state.
This connection to business development is a major reason why ORDC is so valuable as an independent
Commission. The Commission members themselves represent a cross-section of people from railroads, business
and government who understand the connection between moving more things faster and better by rail and the
growing impact it has on creating new business, creating and retaining good jobs and improving Ohios overall
quality of life.
2.2 Ohio Rail Development Commission Functions
The legislated duties of the ORDC are to:
Develop, promote, and support safe, adequate, and efficient rail service throughout the state
Maintain adequate programs of investigation, research, promotion, planning, and development for rail
service, which programs shall include the consideration of recommendations by public or private
planning organizations
Provide for the participation of private corporations or organizations and the public in the
development, construction, operation, and maintenance of rail service, and as franchises of rail service

May 10, 2010


Chapter 2- 1

In executing its duties, ORDC is permitted to acquire, construct, enlarge, improve, equip, and to sell, lease,
exchange, or otherwise dispose of property, structures, equipment, and facilities for rail transportation. It is
intended that such activities contribute to the creation or preservation jobs or employment opportunities or the
improvement of the economic welfare of the people of the Ohio.
2.3 Rail Funding in Ohio
The Commission issues grants and loans to other public and private sector parties for the purpose of initiating or
continuing rail transportation in the state. These can be used for rehabilitation, construction, planning,
relocation, or acquisition of rail transportation or rail property. The grants and loans may be funded by the
federal government (through federal loans or grants), the state of Ohio, any transportation authority and
person, or from any combination of the above. ORDC is charged with establishing eligibility and distribution
criteria for the grants and loans. Rail funding is discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.
2.4 ORDC Structure
The Commission has a 15 member board, including four non-voting members from the Ohio General Assembly.
Seven commissioners are appointed by the governor and one each by the Ohio Senate President and Speaker of
the Ohio House of Representatives. The Directors of the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Ohio
Department of Development serve as ex-officio members. Additionally there are two members from each
legislative chamber in the Ohio General Assembly representing the majority and minority parties. Of the
members appointed by the governor, one serves as chairman of the commission and each of the others
represent a segment of Ohios interests in rail including freight rail, passenger rail, infrastructure financing,
organized labor, manufacturers, and the general public. Additionally, no more than four of the seven members
appointed to the commission by the governor shall be from the same political party
2.5 Ohio Rail Studies
Over the past decade, ODOT and ORDC have undertaken a number of studies to determine the existing and
future needs of the states rail system as well as the benefits associated with investing in the rail system. The
following is a summary of those studies.

Rail Freight Studies


Freight Impacts on Ohios Transportation System, 2002 This study documented the levels of rail and
truck freight on Ohios transportation system and provided recommendation for both public and private
investment.
Ohio Freight Rail Choke Point Study, 2007 The purpose of this study was to locate and prioritize the
most severe impediments on the Ohio rail system on the basis of several factors such as their effect on
the economy, safety, and transportation efficiency.
ACCESS OHIO 2004-2009 This is Ohios statewide transportation plan. It includes a comprehensive
analysis of existing transportation conditions, a 26-year projection of the needs and recommendations
for Ohios multimodal transportation system, including roads, bridges, bicycle and pedestrian trails, rail
systems, and air and water ports.
A number of rail freight studies have also been undertaken to determine the feasibility of investing in the
rehabilitation of individual short line railroads. In addition, a number of Ohio Metropolitan Planning
Organizations have conducted studies or inventories of rail operations in their region.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 2- 2

Rail Intercity Passenger Studies


Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati High Speed Rail Study, 2001 This study provided an evaluation of the
potential for implementing a high-speed rail service with maximum speeds of 110 mph between
Cleveland and Cincinnati through Columbus and Dayton.
Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Ohio Hub Study, 2004 This report was the first of a series of reports which
analyzed the feasibility of implementing a high-speed rail passenger network which connected the cities
of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, with service extensions to Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and
Buffalo/Toronto. A continuing series of reports also analyzed the economic impacts, rail freight impacts,
and rail passenger/freight integration impacts resulting from the project initiative.
Ohio Hub Passenger & Freight Rail Study Public and Agency Involvement Report, 2005 - This report
documented the public input received at the 22 technical and/or public meetings held in 10 Ohio cities.
The report identifies common themes and concerns regarding the Ohio Hub Plan, and provides detailed
issues cited in each of the meeting locations.
Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, 2007 - This study analyzed how the construction and
operation of the Ohio Hub System will stimulate economic activity in Ohio. The report measured both
the demand and supply benefits of the Ohio Hub passenger rail system. In addition to construction and
operation of the system itself, the economic evaluation also addresses passenger station and
multimodal connectivity benefits, freight rail benefits, the benefits of potential commuter rail systems
developed in major cities on the system, and tourism benefits.
Ohio Hub Economic Impact Analysis, 2007 - This study provided an independent validation of the
estimated ridership and economic benefits from the Ohio Hub Passenger studies listed above. The study
evaluated the methodologies and conclusions used, and utilized alternative methodologies to evaluate
the economic development potential and impacts and provide supplemental information and analysis.
Specific areas of analysis included long term employment, income, and real estate development
impacts.
Amtrak Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, 2009 This
study was prepared for the state of Ohio to determine the feasibility of Amtrak rail passenger operations
over the 3-C Corridor. The study includes forecasts of ridership and revenue, estimates for capital
improvements, capital costs for equipment procurement and equipment maintenance facilities, and
identification of ongoing operating support requirements.
Intermodal Studies
Ohio Intermodal Rail Freight Growth Strategy Concept Study, 2006 - This study provided
recommendations regarding rail infrastructure investments necessary to accommodate the flow of rail
traffic resulting from intermodal growth.
Ohios Intermodal Transportation System, 2007 This report documented Ohios intermodal assets
and summarized their relationship to the total transportation network.
2.6 Ohios Involvement in Multistate Rail Planning
Legislation also provides for the state to participate in multistate compacts and other partnerships to establish
passenger rail services. These compacts and partnerships include:
The Interstate High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger Network Compact: This compact was ratified and
enacted into law for the purpose of states cooperating and jointly administering study of the feasibility

May 10, 2010


Chapter 2- 3

of operating a system connecting major cities in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, West
Virginia, and Kentucky.
The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact: The purpose of this compact is to promote
development and implementation of improvements to intercity passenger rail service in the Midwest.
Current state members are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin.
States for Passenger Rail Coalition: The Ohio Rail Development Commission joined the States for
Passenger Rail when it was established in early 2000. The States for Passenger Rail Coalition is an
alliance of state departments of transportation that support intercity passenger rail initiatives and
advocate for federal funding. Currently, 24 states are members of the coalition. The coalitions mission is
to promote the development, implementation, and expansion of intercity passenger rail services with
involvement and support from state governments. The coalition has been very active and has provided
testimony at multiple congressional hearings and has had an influence on the drafting of federal bills for
funding passenger rail development.
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials - Standing Committee on Rail
Transportation: Composed of rail officials from state departments of transportation, Ohio participates in
AASHTO and SCORT activities including: conferences, technical studies and reports, and advocacy and
promotion of various federal issues and projects. SCORT has been very active in its efforts to advance
policy statements on passenger rail issues including: Amtrak restructuring; stability for intercity
passenger rail; and criteria for national intercity passenger rail investment reform. AASHTO and SCORT
maintain a Washington D.C. office that provides a platform from which the state departments of
transportation interact with congress as they address transportation issues.
Midwest Governors Memorandum of Understanding: In 2009, the governors from the MWRRI states
(same states as the MIPRC minus North Dakota) and the mayor of Chicago signed an MOU supporting
each states efforts in applying to the FRA for the $8 billion in high speed rail funding.
West Virginia Doublestack Initiative Feasibility Analysis: ORDC, in partnership with the West Virginia
Port Authority, funded a Rahall Transportation Institute at Marshall University study to determine the
feasibility of doublestack container routes connecting east coast ports with Ohio via West Virginia rail
routes. The study became the basis of the Norfolk Southern Heartland Corridor project.
Memorandum of Agreement among the state of West Virginia, West Virginia Department of
Transportation and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Department of Transportation and the
state of Ohio, Ohio Department of Transportation and the Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division for the Heartland Corridor Project:
This cooperative agreement between the signatory states and the federal department of transportation
was instrumental in the administration of the Heartland Corridor project.
Ohios coordination with other states in the region has also resulted in a number of studies which have analyzed
rail needs and benefits of the regional rail system. These include:
Northern Indiana/Northwestern Ohio Routing Study, 2002
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Report, 2004
Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Study, 2004
The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Hub Study also analyzed the extension of rail passenger service to Chicago,
Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. The states of Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York either participated
directly in the study or were provided the opportunity to review and comment on the study.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 2- 4

3.0 Ohio Freight Rail System Profile


The freight rail system in Ohio is comprised of three Class I railroads, 16 regional and short line railroads, and 15
terminal carriers.
Class I railroads are defined by the Federal Surface Transportation Board1 as Carriers having annual carrier
operating revenues of $250 million or more after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note
A2. They primarily operate long-haul service over high-density intercity traffic lanes. In 2006, the American
Association of Railroads reported that this indexed threshold was at $346 million. These railroads primarily
operate long-haul service over high-density intercity traffic lanes.
Regional railroads operate over at least 350 miles of trackage and/or have revenue of between $20 million
adjusted and the Class I threshold. Short line railroads operate over less than 350 miles of track and have annual
revenue of less than $20 million adjusted per year. Terminal or switching railroads provide pick-up and delivery
services within a specified area. Exhibit 3-1 is a map of the Ohio freight rail network.

TITLE 49Transportation, Chapter X--Surface Transportation Board, Department Of Transportation, Part 1201_Railroad
Companies
2
Note A: The railroad revenue deflator formula is based on the Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The formula is as follows: Current Year's Revenues x (1991 Average Index/Current Year's Average
Index)

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 1

Exhibit 3-1 Ohio Rail Network

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates generated map, 2010

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 2

Following is a profile of the railroads operating within Ohio and their principle line segments. The descriptions
focus on the location of the rail lines, the lines physical and operational characteristics, railroad facilities located
on the line and other information available from public sources.
3.1 Class I Railroads
Both CSX and Norfolk Southern have extensive networks in the state. Each railroads principle east-west routes
pass through the state making Ohio a critical rail thoroughfare for transcontinental traffic and traffic moving
between the East and Midwest. In addition, the Canadian National Railway also serves the state, but on a much
more limited basis.
Exhibit 3-2 Ohio Class I Railroads

Canadian National/Grand Trunk

CN

Ohio Miles
Operated
7

CSX Transportation

CSX

1,912

Norfolk Southern Corp.

NS

2,233

Railroad Name

RR Abbreviation

Total Miles

4,152
Source: ORDC

3.1.1 CSX System


CSX has an extensive rail network that covers 23 states east of the Mississippi River, shown in Exhibit 3-3 on the
next page. It serves nearly every major economic and population center east of the Mississippi River and
provides connections to western US markets at Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans. CSX serves all
major Atlantic ports. However, its most efficient intermodal operation connects the Port of New York and New
Jersey with Midwest markets.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 3

Exhibit 3-3 CSX Network

Source: CSX website

CSX operates nearly 2,000 route miles in Ohio. All CSX main lines can accommodate rail cars with gross weights
of up to 286,000 pounds, the current industry accepted capacity standard.
Exhibit 3-4 on the next page is a map of the CSXs major rail lines in Ohio labeled by their line names.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 4

Exhibit 3-4 CSX Subdivisions

Source: CSX Employee Timetables

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 5

Descriptions of CSX rail lines and terminal areas are as follows:


Erie West Subdivision: This former Conrail line extends from west of Erie, PA to the Cleveland Terminal a total
of 73.7 miles, 58.5 miles of which are in Ohio. This is a double track main line with operating speeds of 50 mph
for freight, 60 mph for intermodal trains, and 70 mph for Amtraks Lake Shore passenger service. Train
operations are controlled by a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system. This line connects with the NS Buffalo
line at Madison and Ashtabula, and intersects with NS Youngstown Line at Ashtabula. This line segment is also
part of CSXs core intermodal network.
Cleveland Short Line Subdivision: This former Conrail line extends from the Cleveland Terminal area to Berea. It
consists of 21 miles of double track controlled by Track Authority Control and one mile of single track under CSX
Rule ABS-261.
Willard Subdivision: This subdivision, a former B&O line, extends approximately 58 miles between Willard and
Deshler. At its eastern end it connects to the Willard Terminal area in which the Willard Yard is located. The line
is a double track main track with authorized speeds of 40-60 mph. This line is part of CSXs core intermodal
service. Trains are controlled by a CTC signal system. This line connects to the CSXs Fostoria Subdivision at
Fostoria.
Fostoria Subdivision: This is a short, but critical subdivision which serves as a junction point between major
main lines. The line is comprised of 0.9 miles of double track line, but also contains the Fostoria Diamond. The
CSX Columbus and Willard Subdivisions, as well as the NS Fostoria District (Bellevue-Ft.Wayne), all cross at this
location. Speeds on this segment are limited to 40 mph.
Garrett Subdivision: This former B&O line extends 45.4 miles between Deshler to Hicksville, extending into
Indiana. The line is double track with speeds of 50 mph for freight and 79 mph for passenger trains. Trains are
conducted by a CTC signal system. This line is part of CSXs core intermodal system.
Greenwich Subdivision: This former Conrail line extends 69.4 miles from CP 13 (Berea), the junction with the
Cleveland Short Line Subdivision, to CP 83 (Martel), the junction with the Mt. Victory Subdivision. The Wheeling
& Lake Erie RR has trackage rights over the subdivision between New London and Willard, and between
Greenwich and Berea. The subdivision is primarily double-track except for 15.9 miles of single-track between
Greenwich and west of Shelby. Train movements are controlled by CTC and Absolute Block (ABS) Systems).
Train speeds are 40-60 mph for intermodal trains and 40-50 mph for all other freight trains. The line segment is
part of CSXs core intermodal network. The subdivision intersects CSXs New Castle Subdivision at Greenwich,
CSXs Columbus Subdivision at Marion, and CSXs CL&W Subdivision at Grafton. The subdivision also intersects
with the NS Fort Wayne Line, the NS Chicago, Ft. Wayne & Eastern RR at Crestline, and connects with the
Wheeling &Lake Erie RR at Wellington, New London and Greenwich.
Mount Victory Subdivision: This former Conrail line extends from CP 83 (Martel), the junction with the
Greenwich Subdivision, to CP 138 (Bellefontaine). The subdivision is primarily double- track except for three
single-track segments, including 14.6 miles between west of Marion and Mount Victory. Train movements are
controlled by CTC and ABS. Speeds are 30-60 mph for intermodal trains and 30-50 mph for other freight trains.
This line is part of CSXs core intermodal network.
Indianapolis Line Subdivision: This former Conrail line extends from Bellefontaine to the Ohio-Indiana State
Line at Union City and continues to Indianapolis, IN. Of the subdivisions total of 134.6 miles, 59.7 miles are
May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 6

within Ohio. The subdivision is double-track with train movements controlled by CTC and ABS. Speeds are 4060 mph for intermodal trains and 40-50 mph for other freight trains. This line is part of CSXs core intermodal
network. The subdivision crosses the I&Os Detroit-Cincinnati Line at Quincy and connects with CSXs Toledo
Subdivision east of Sidney.
Columbus Line: This former Conrail line extends 58.5 miles from Galion to Columbus. The line is single-track
with train movements controlled by CTC and ABS systems. Speeds are 40-60 mph for intermodal trains and 4050 mph for other freight trains. This line is part of CSXs core intermodal network. The subdivision crosses the
NS Columbus-Sandusky line at Worthington and at Columbus via the Weber Connection. The subdivision also
connects with CSXs Greenwich Subdivision at Galion. The Columbus line also crosses the CSX Indy line near Mt.
Victory.
Toledo Subdivision: This former B&O line extends approximately 200 miles between the Toledo Terminal and
the Cincinnati Terminal areas. This is primarily a single track line with extensive passing sidings. The maximum
speed allowed is 50 mph. Trains movements are controlled by a CTC system. This line is part of CSXs core
intermodal network. Norfolk Southern has trackage rights between Lima and Sidney and between Hamilton and
Cincinnati, and the I&O has trackage rights between Leipsic and Lima. Amtraks Cardinal/Hoosier service also
operates over the Hamilton-Cincinnati segment. This line intersects with CSXs Willard Subdivision at Deshler
and the Indianapolis Line Subdivision at Sidney. It also intersects the NS Fostoria District at Liepsic, the Chicago,
Fort Wayne & Eastern RR and RJ Corman Western Line railroads at Lima.
Columbus Subdivision: This former C&O line extends 121.6 miles between Toledo and Columbus. The
subdivision is primarily single-track and train movements are controlled by CTC and ABS. Speeds range between
30 and 50 mph for all trains. This line is part of CSXs core coal network.
Northern Subdivision: This former C&O line extends 106.4 miles between Columbus and Riverton, KY. A total
of 92.6 miles lie in Ohio. The subdivision is primarily single-track with train movements controlled by CTC and
ABS. Speeds range between 30 and 50 mph for all trains. This line is part of CSXs core coal network. The
subdivision connects with US Rail Corp. at Vauces. US Rail operates on trackage rights on the Northern Sub from
RA Junction to Vauces. The Indiana & Ohio RR has trackage rights over the line for a short distance south of
Columbus.
Cleveland Subdivision: This former B&O line extends 25.3 miles between the Cleveland Terminal (Clark Yard)
and Lester. The subdivision is primarily single-track and train movements are controlled by Track Warrant and
Direct Train Control. Speeds range between 10 and 25 mph for all trains. The subdivision connects with CSXs
CL&W Subdivision at Lester, CSXs Cleveland Short Line Subdivision at Parma, and the NS and Newburgh &South
Shore Railroad at Cleveland.
CL&W Subdivision: This former B&O (Cleveland, Lorain, & Wheeling Railway) extends 41 miles from Sterling
and Lorain. The line is single track except for two miles of double track at Sterling. Speeds range from 10 to 25
mph for all trains and train operations are conducted by Track Warrant and Direct Traffic Control. This
subdivision connects with CSXs Cleveland Subdivision at Lester, CSXs New Castle Subdivision at Sterling, and
the Lake Terminal Railroad at Lorain. The Subdivision also crosses CSXs Greenwich Subdivision at Grafton and
the NS Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago Line at Elyria.
New Castle Subdivision: This former B&O line extends 138.5 miles from West Pittsburgh, PA to Boyd
(Greenwich). Approximately 122 miles lie within Ohio. The line is double-track except from 9.0 miles between
May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 7

Lambert (South Akron) and Warwick. Train movements are controlled by CTC and ABS. Speeds range from 30
to 60 mph for all trains. This subdivision connects with CSXs Newton Falls Subdivision at Newton Falls, CSXs
CL&W Subdivision at Sterling, CSXs Greenwich Subdivision at Greenwich, the NS Ashtabula Line at Youngstown,
the YBRR at Youngstown, the Y&ARR at Yanda, the W&LE at Akron Jct, the R.J Corman RR and Ohio Central RR at
Warwick, and the W&LE at Lodi.
Toledo Branch Subdivision: This former Conrail line extends approximately 78 miles between the Toledo
Terminal Subdivision and Ridgeway, where it connects to the Scottslawn Subdivision. It is a single track line with
speed limits up to 50 mph. Train operations are controlled by ABS. The line intersects with the Willard
Subdivision at North Baltimore, the Mt. Victory Subdivision near Ridgeway, the NS Fostoria and Lima District
lines near Findlay, and the Chicago, Fort Wayne & Eastern RR at Dunkirk.
Scottslawn Subdivision: This former Conrail line extends approximately 46 miles between Columbus and
Ridgeway, where it connects to the Toledo Branch Subdivision. It is a single track line with speeds ranging from
30-50 mph. Train operations are controlled by ABS. The Honda facility at Marysville is served from this line.
3.1.2 Norfolk Southern
NS has significant operations east of the Mississippi River serving nearly all metropolitan areas. Its gateways to
the west are Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, and through haulage rights, Dallas. NS
moves a substantial amount or rail traffic from both the Port of New York and the Port of Norfolk to and through
Ohio.
Exhibit 3-5 Norfolk Southern Network

Source: NS web site


May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 8

Exhibit 3-6 is a map of major NS rail lines in Ohio which are labeled with their commonly used line names.
Exhibit 3-6 NS Districts

Source: NS Track Charts


May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 9

Descriptions of major NS rail lines within Ohio are as follows:


Lake Erie District: This former Norfolk & Western line extends between Buffalo, NY and Cleveland.
Approximately 58 miles lie within Ohio. The line is single-track line with train operations controlled by CTC and
ABS.Maximum train speed is 50 mph. This line is part of the NS intermodal network. The Lake Erie District
intersects with the Bessemer & Lake Erie RR (CN) at Conneaut.
Chicago Line: This former Conrail line extends between Cleveland and Chicago with approximately 174 miles
within Ohio. The line is double-track with train operations controlled by CTC. Speed limits on the line are 50
mph for freight trains and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate. This line is part of the NS intermodal
network. Amtrak also operates its Lake Shore Limited and Capitol services over this line.
Cleveland District: This former Norfolk & Western line extends 58 miles between Bellevue and Cleveland. The
line is single-track with trains operations controlled by CTC. Maximum train speed is 50 mph. This line is part of
the NS intermodal network. The Wheeling & Lake Erie RR has trackage rights between Bellevue and the branch
line to Huron. This line intersects with the NS Sandusky District at Bellevue.
Fostoria District: This former Norfolk & Western line extends between Bellevue and Fort Wayne, IN.
Approximately 119 miles of the line lie within Ohio. The line is single-track with train operations controlled by
CTC. Maximum speeds are 50 mph and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate. This line is part of the
NS intermodal network. The line intersects with CSXs Toledo and Fostoria Subdivisions at Fostoria.
Toledo District: This former Wheeling & Lake Erie line extends approximately 45 miles between Toledo and
Bellevue. The line is single track, with train operations controlled by CTC. Maximum speeds on the line are 50
mph and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate. The Wheeling & Lake Erie RR has trackage rights over
the line. This line is part of the NS intermodal network and intersects with the NS Chicago Line at Oak Harbor.
Columbus District: This former Norfolk & Western line extends 96 miles between Columbus and Portsmouth.
The line is primarily double-track with trains controlled by CTC and ABS. Maximum speeds on the line are 50
mph and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate. This line is part of the NS intermodal network.
Improving clearances on this line is a major component of the NS Heartland Corridor project.
Sandusky District: This former Norfolk &Western line extends approximately 110 miles between Sandusky and
Columbus. The line is primarily double-track with trains controlled by CTC. (There is a short section in Bucyrus
that is not double tracked.) Maximum speeds are 50 mph and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate.
This Bellevue-Columbus segment of this line is part of the NS intermodal network. The Wheeling & Lake Erie RR
has trackage rights over this line between Bellevue and Sandusky.
Dayton District: This former Conrail line extends approximately 111 miles between Columbus and Cincinnati.
The line has both single and double track segments with trains controlled by CTC. Maximum speeds on the line
are 50 mph and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate. The Indiana & Ohio RR has trackage rights over
the Cincinnati Springfield segment of the line.
New Castle District: This former Conrail line extends between Cincinnati and Fort Wayne, IN. Approximately 42
miles of the line lie within Ohio. The line is single- track with trains controlled by CTC. Maximum speeds are 50

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 10

mph and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate. CSX has trackage rights over this line between
Hamilton and Cincinnati.
Cincinnati District: This former Norfolk & Western line extends approximately 91 miles between Cincinnati and
Portsmouth. The eastern portion of this line between Peebles and Portsmouth has been taken out of service.
Signals on this line have also been taken out of service.
Lima District: This former Norfolk & Western line extends 46.6 miles between Lima and Arcadia. The line is
single track with train operations controlled via Track Control Authority. Speeds over the line vary between 4050 mph.
Detroit/Huntington Districts: These former Norfolk & Western lines extend between Detroit, MI and Fort
Wayne, IN. Approximately 28.5 miles lie within Ohio. The line is single track with train operations controlled by
CTC. The maximum speed on the line is 50 mph and 60 mph for intermodal trains where appropriate. These lines
are part of the NS intermodal network.
Cleveland Line: This former Conrail line extends between Cleveland and Rochester, PA. The line is double-track
with train operations controlled by ABS. Maximum train speed on the line is 50 mph and 60 mph for intermodal
trains where appropriate. This line is part of the NS intermodal network. Amtrak operates its Capitol service over
this line. The Capitol Limited runs on the Cleveland Line from Cleveland to Alliance where it switches to the Ft.
Wayne Line into Pittsburgh. Intermodal traffic also moves along this Ft. Wayne Line, Cleveland Line route.
Fort Wayne Line: This former Conrail line extends between Crestline and Pittsburgh, PA, a distance of 188 miles.
The line is double track with train operations controlled by CTC. Maximum speed is 50 mph. As stated above,
The Capitol Limited runs on the Cleveland Line from Cleveland to Alliance where it switches to the Ft. Wayne
Line into Pittsburgh. Intermodal traffic also moves along this Ft. Wayne Line, Cleveland Line route.
Youngstown Line: This former Conrail line extends between Ashtabula and Rochester, PA. Approximately 66
miles lie within Ohio. The line is single-track with train operations controlled by CTC. Train speeds vary between
25 and 40 mph. CSX has trackage rights over the line.
River Line: This former Conrail line extends approximately 60 miles between Yellow Creek and Powhatan Point.
The line is single track with train operations controlled by Track Authority Control. Train speeds range between
25-35 mph.
West Virginia Secondary: This former Conrail line extends from Columbus to Charleston, WV. The line is single
track with train operations controlled by Track Authority Control. Speeds range between 35-50 mph.
Lordstown Secondary: This former Conrail line extends 20 miles between Alliance and Youngstown. The line is
single track with train operations controlled be Track Authority Control. The maximum train speed on the line is
25 mph.
3.1.3 Canadian National
The Canadian National RR operates a line between Toledo and Detroit, MI. Approximately seven miles of the line
are located in Ohio. CN also operates the Bessemer & Lake Erie line from Conneaut to Pittsburgh, PA.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 11

3.2 Regional Railroads


Three regional railroads operate in the state outlined in Exhibit 3-7 and described below:
Exhibit 3-7 Ohio Regional Railroads
Railroad Name

RR Abbreviation

Ohio Miles
Operated

Bessemer and Lake Erie

BLE

RailAmerica

IORY

628

Wheeling and Lake Erie

WE

558

Total Miles

1,191
Source: ORDC

3.2.1 Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad


The Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad extends from Lake Erie port of Conneaut to North Bessemer, PA.
Approximately 5 miles of the 139 mile line lies in Ohio. The railroads major commodities carried are iron ore
and coal. In 2004 B&LE came under the ownership of the Canadian National Railway as part of CNs larger
purchase of the Great Lakes Transportation Company.
3.2.2 RailAmerica Lines
RailAmerica Lines owns three railroads in Ohio, which operate primarily in the western part of the State as well
as in parts of southeastern Indiana and southeast Michigan. These railroads are the Central Railroad of Indiana,
the Chicago, Fort Wayne & Eastern Railroad, and the Indiana & Ohio and Ohio Railway. The Indiana and Ohio
Rwy. is considered a Regional Railroad due to its total length. It serves the metropolitan areas of Cincinnati,
Columbus, Springfield, and Lima. The railroad interchanges with a number of railroads. Interchanges with CSX
occur at Cincinnati, Columbus, Middleton, Hamler, and Lima. It interchanges with NS at Cincinnati, Columbus,
Monroe, and Springfield. In addition it interchanges with the Chicago, Ft. Wayne & Eastern RR, RJCW, and the
Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway at Lima, and with the Central Railroad of Indiana at Cincinnati and Valley
Junction.
The Indiana and Ohio Railway handles a wide range of commodities, including automobiles, metal products,
chemical, plastics, lumber, paper, grain and grain products.
The Central Railroad of Indiana and Chicago, Fort Wayne & Eastern Railroad are described in Section 3.3 below.
3.2.3 Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway
The Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway is a Class II regional railroad providing freight service mainly in Ohio. In
addition to the 558 miles of track owned in Ohio, it also has significant trackage rights over both CSX and NS
lines. Operations over CSX lines include the Greenwich Subdivision between Crestline and Berea; the Cleveland
Short Line Subdivision between Berea and the Cleveland Area; and the Columbus Subdivision between Carey
and Upper Sandusky. Trackage rights over NS lines include the Toledo District, the Cleveland District between
Bellevue and Huron, and the Sandusky District between Sandusky and Chatfield. Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway
also operates via trackage rights over the Chicago, Ft. Wayne & Eastern RR between Lima and Upper Sandusky.
In addition to its interchanges with CSX and NS, it also has interchanges with the Akron Barberton Cluster
Railway, Ashland Railway, Nimishillen Tuscarawas Railway, Newburg & Sourh Shore Railway, Ohio Central RR,
May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 12

Ohi- Rail Corporation, River Terminal Railway, and the R J Corman Railway. Major commodities carried include
coal from southeastern Ohio, iron ore, steel, aggregates, chemicals, forest products and grain.
3.3 Short Line Railroads
A total of 30 short line railroads operate 1,206 route miles in Ohio. In recent years a number of so-called short
line families or systems, in which one umbrella company acquires a number of short line railroads, have been
formed. These systems result in increased administrative efficiencies and operating advantages where the
railroads are in proximity to each other.
Three short line families, the Ohio Central Railroad System, owned by Genesee & Wyoming Systems, Rail
America, and the Wheeling & Lake Erie have multiple railroads in Ohio. These companies and their member
railroads which operate in Ohio are shown in Exhibits 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 13

Exhibit 3-8 Ohio Central Railroad System Railroads

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 14

Exhibit 3-9 RailAmerica in Ohio

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 15

Exhibit 3-10 Wheeling & Lake Erie in Ohio3

Includes the Akron Barberton Cluster Railway


May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 16

All short line railroads are listed in Exhibit 3-11.


Exhibit 3-11 Ohio Short Line Railroads
RR
Abbreviatio
n

Ohio Miles
Operated

Akron Barberton Cluster Railway

AB

56

Ann Arbor Railroad

AA

Arcelor Mittal Cleveland Works Railway Co.

CWRO

10

Ashland Railway

ASRY

70

Ashtabula, Carson, and Jefferson

ACJR

Camp Chase Railroad

CCRA

19

Central Railroad Company of Indiana

CIND

40

Chicago, Ft. Wayne and Eastern

CFE

115

Cleveland Commercial Railroad Co.

CCRC

11

Columbus and Ohio River Rail Road Co.

CUOH

272

Flats Industrial Railroad

FIRR

Indiana Eastern Railroad

IERR

20

Indiana Northeastern Railroad Co.

IN

Lake Terminal Railroad

LT

Mahoning Valley Railway

MVRY

Maumee and Western Railroad Corp.

MAW

49

Newburgh and South Shore

NSR

Northern Ohio and Western Railway

NOW

25

Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroad

OHPA

Ohio Central Railroad

OHCR

97

Ohio Southern Railroad

OSRR

41

Ohi-Rail Corporation

OHIC

43

24

RJ Corman Cleveland Line

RJCL

51

RJ Corman Western Ohio Line

RJCW

63

U.S. Rail Corporation-Jackson Division

USRC

94

WTRM

Youngstown & Southeastern

Y&S

30

Youngstown and Austintown Railroad

YARR

YB

31

Railroad Name

Republic N&T Railroad

Warren and Trumbull Railroad

Youngstown Belt Railroad Co.


Total Miles

1,206

Source: Association of American Railroads, Railroad Service in Ohio, 2007.


May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 17

Akron Barberton Cluster Railway: The Akron Barberton Railway operates 56 miles in and around Akron. ABCR is
owned by the Wheeling & Lake Erie RR, which also has trackage rights over the line. The railroad has trackage
rights over CSXs New Castle Subdivision from Akron to Barberton.
Ann Arbor Railroad: The Ann Arbor Railroad operates between Ann Arbor, MI and Toledo. The railroad
interchanges with CSX, NS, CN and the Wheeling and Lake Erie at Toledo. NS, CN, and the Indiana and Ohio RR
have trackage rights over the line. Traffic hauled is primarily related to the auto industry, including finished
vehicles and transmissions to and from Toledo, and grain trains delivered to CSX at Toledo.
Arcelor Mittal - Cleveland Works Railway: The Cleveland Works Railway operates a 10 mile line which serves
the steel industries in the Cleveland area. The railroad is owned by Arcelor Mittal, a major steel company. Major
commodities include scrap, coke and steel slabs, and coils.
Ashland Railway: The Ashland Railway is a full service short line operating within north central Ohio. It operates
70 miles of track serving industries in Ashland, Huron, Richland, and Wayne counties. The railroad interchanges
with NS in Mansfield, with CSX in Willard, and with the Wheeling & Lake Erie in Plymouth.
Ashtabula, Carson & Jefferson Railroad: The Ashtabula, Carson & Jefferson Railroad is a six mile short line which
operates freight and tour trains in Ashtabula County between Jefferson and Carson. In addition to providing
direct service, the railroad also operates a transloading facility which offers bulk plastic transfer.
Camp Chase Railroad: The Camp Chase Railroad operates 19 miles of track in the Columbus area. The railroad
interchanges with NS at Buckeye Yard.
Central Railroad of Indiana: The Central Railroad of Indiana operates in Indiana and Ohio. The railroad
interchanges with CSX and NS in Cincinnati, and with the Indiana & Ohio Railway in Cincinnati ad Valley Junction.
Major commodities carried include grain, soybeans, chemicals, and steel.
Chicago, Ft. Wayne & Eastern RR: The Chicago, Ft. Wayne & Eastern RR provides service between Tolleston, IN
and Crestline. It operates over 115 miles of track in Ohio. The railroad is a division of the Central Railroad of
Indiana and operates over trackage leased from CSX. It interchanges with CXS at Lima. CFER interchanges with
Indiana Harbor Belt which is neutral carrier that gives CFER access to all the US Class I's in Chicago. Major
commodities include lumber, paper, chemicals, steel, and corn.
Cleveland Commercial Railroad: The Cleveland Commercial Railroad operates over a 11 mile line it leases from
the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway between Glenwillow and the east side of Cleveland, as well as an 18 mile line
between Cleveland and Mantua it leases from NS. The railroad interchanges with the W&LE at Glenwillow.
Major commodities include scrap and steel coils.
Columbus & Ohio River Railroad: This railroad operates between Columbus and Mingo Junction. The railroad is
part of the Ohio Central Railroad System.
Flats Industrial Railroad: The Flats Industrial Railroad provides short line commercial/industrial switching service
in the Cleveland area. The railroad interchanges with both CSX and NS.
Indiana Eastern Railroad: The Indiana Eastern Railroad operates between Richmond, IN and Fernald, OH under
lease from CSX. A total of 20 miles of line are within Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 18

Indiana Northeastern Railroad: The Indiana Northeastern Railroad operates in northeastern Indiana,
northwestern Ohio and southern Michigan. In Ohio the railroad extends a total of nine miles from the Indiana
state line to Edon and Montpelier. Traffic is interchanged with NS at Montpelier. Major commodities include
corn, soybeans, wheat, and flour.
Lake Terminal Railroad: The Lake Terminal Railroad is a switching carrier serving steel mills and seamless pipe
manufactures in the Lorain area. The rail interchanges with CSX and NS, which also have trackage rights over the
line.
Mahoning Valley Railway: The Mahoning Valley Railway, part of the Ohio Central Railroad System, provides
switching service to Youngstown, Struthers, and Campbell. The railroad interchanges with CSX and NS.
Maumee & Western Railroad: The Maumee & Western Railroad operates between Woodburn, IN and Liberty
Center, OH. The segment between Defiance and Cecil is currently out of service. The Maumee & Western
interchanges with CSX at Defiance and with NS at Woodburn, IN.
Newburgh & South Shore Railroad: The Newburgh & South Shore Railroad owns and operates 3 miles of
trackage in the Cleveland area. The railroad serves steel, lumber, flour, and metals industries in the area.
Northern Ohio & Western Railway: The Northern Ohio & Western Railway operates over 25 miles of trackage
between Woodville and Tiffin, southeast of Toledo. The railroad interchanges with CSX and NS. Major
commodities are clay, limestone, magnesite, and pressed board.
Ohi-Rail: Ohi-Rail operates over 41 miles of rail line. It owns and operates the line between Bayard and Minerva
and Minerva Yard, and operates the line south of Minerva Yard to Hopedale for ORDC. The railroad interchanges
with NS at Bayard and with the Wheeling & Lake Erie at Minerva and Hopedale. Major commodities include
lumber and plastics.
Ohio & Pennsylvania Railroad: The Ohio & Pennsylvania RR is part of the Ohio Central System serving industries
in the Youngstown area.
Ohio Central Railroad: The Ohio Central railroad is part of the Ohio Central Rail System. It operates between
Zanesville and Warwick, a total of 88 miles. The segment 19 mile segment between Brewster and Warwick is
operated via trackage rights over the RJ Corman line.
Ohio Southern Railroad: The Ohio Southern Railroad is part of the Ohio Central Rail System. It operates
between Zanesville and New Lexington, approximately 21 miles, over its own track. It also operates between
New Lexington and Glouster, a distance of approximately 31 miles, over NS trackage rights.
R.J. Corman Railroad/Cleveland Line: The Cleveland Line extends approximately 47 miles between Warwick and
Uhrichsville. The railroad also operates over the NS line between Massillon and Wooster to serve a 1 mile
branch line. The line connects with CSX at Warwick, NS at Massilon, the Wheeling & Lake Erie, and the Ohio
Central Railroad. Major commodities include corn, corn oil, soybean oil, plastic, chemicals, aggregate, iron, and
steel pipe.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 19

R.J. Corman Railroad/Western Ohio Lines: The Western Ohio Lines consist of four separate short lines. The St.
Marys Line between Lima and Portland, IN, the Greenville Line between Greenville and Ansonia, the
Spencerville-Elgin Line between Lima and Glenmore, and the Minster Branch between St. Marys and Minster. A
total of 63 miles are owned or leased. Major commodities include grain, fertilizer, aluminum, rubber, plastics,
and steel.
US Rail Corp.: US Rail is a short-line railroad operator which operates two railroads which comprise
approximately 94 miles in Ohio. The railroad connects to CSX south of Chillicothe and extends both north and
south of Hamden. US Rail operates the City of Jackson owned rail line in Ross, Vinton, and Jackson counties
which connects to CSX near Chillicothe as a common carrier and also provides in plant switching to a private
company in the Dayton area.
Warren and Trumbull Railroad: The Warren and Trumbull Railroad is a four mile switching railroad serving
industries in Warren. The railroad is part of the Ohio Central Railroad System and the Ohio Central is the
contract operator for the railroad.
Youngstown & Austintown Railroad: The Youngstown & Austintown Railroad is a five mile switching railroad
which serves customers in the Y&A Industrial Park in Youngstown. MVEDC owns the tracks and retains the Y
&ARR as its contract operator. This railroad is part of the Ohio Central Railroad System, operated by the Ohio
Central, and is owned by the Mahoning Valley EDC.
Youngstown Belt Railroad: The Youngstown Belt Railroad operates in the Warren, Niles, and Youngstown,
connected by trackage rights over NS. It interchanges with CSX and NS at Youngstown, and has connections with
its affiliated railroads, the Warren and Trumbull RR at Warren, and the Mahoning Valley and Youngstown &
Austintown at Youngstown. This railroad is part of the Ohio Central Railroad System.
Youngstown & Southeastern RR: The Youngstown & Southeastern RR operates a 36 mile line between
Youngstown and Darlington, PA. The line is owned by the Columbiana County Port Authority and contracted out
to the railroad. The railroad interchanges with CSX, NS, and the
Youngstown Belt Railroad.
3.4 Abandoned or Discontinued Rail Lines
Over the past 35 years over 1,000 miles of rail line has been abandoned in Ohio. At the time of their
abandonment, the rail lines were considered redundant or not feasible to operate from a financial perspective.
Many of these lines would be valuable today to provide rail freight or passenger capacity. Fortunately, the
increase in rail demand has increased efforts by both public transportation agencies and the rail industry to
preserve rail lines or rights of way which could be valuable in the future. These actions have considerably
reduced abandonments over the past decade.
Rail freight service, including the lines over which rail service is operated, are under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Surface Transportation Board (STB). Rail owners and operators must apply to the STB for permission to
discontinue, or abandon, freight service on a line.
The STB requires for an active rail line the railroad must publish a notice to abandon the line once a week for at
least three consecutive weeks and provide notice at its stations and to its rail customers. For a line on which no
service has been provided over the past two years and where no customers object, prior notice is not required
and the carrier is exempt from many of the STB abandonment requirements. For each abandonment
May 10, 2010
Chapter 3- 20

application, the STB establishes a docket number and collects information and testimony before deciding
whether to allow abandonment or permit other actions as may be requested by interested parties. In addition
to STBs authority to grant or deny abandonment of a rail line, it may also impose other conditions, such as
granting Interim Trail Use or Public Use of the line.
The National Trails Act allows for reserving railroad right-of -way through the interim use of the railroad corridor
as a trail. Interim trail use can be utilized when it is determined that the railroad right-of-way may be needed in
the future for railroad use. Public agencies may also request that the rail corridor be made available for public
use if it has determined that the right-of-way is suitable for highway or mass transit usage, conservation,
energy production or transmission, or recreation.
Exhibit 3-12 lists service the 53.44 miles of discontinuance or abandonment applications of Ohio rail lines which
have been approved by the STB over the past 10 year period. Most of these segments are smaller properties
which will have no apparent immediate impact on the level of rail service provided in the state. The potential
use of these abandoned rights-of-way for future transportation or public uses will be considered in any state or
local transportation planning efforts. Unfortunately with abandonment come lost opportunities for future rail
service because the cost to reestablish the track infrastructure is often prohibitive.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 21

Exhibit 3 -12 Ohio Abandoned Rail Lines


Railroad

Effective
Date

Description

STB Docket
Number

NS

29-Jul-08

abandon 2.82 miles between TW 0.0 and TW 2.83


in Toledo, Lucas Co.

AB-290
(Sub-No. 290X)

NS

4-Sep-08

abandon 1.1 miles between CT 2.5 in Cincinnati and


CT 3.6 in Norwood, Lucas Co.

AB-290
(Sub-No. 289X)

NS

15-Mar-07

discontinue service on 15.7 miles between RZ 20.2


(Jackson) and RZ 39.9 (Sebring), Mahoning Co.

AB-290
(Sub-No. 292X)

NS

18-Oct-06

abandon 2.31miles between LV 22.3-23.55 and LV


24.17-25.25 in Sheffield, Lorain Co.

AB-290
(Sub-No. 268X)

CSX

31-Oct-03

abandon 6.37 miles between BQ 25.9 (Mt. Vernon)


and BQ 32.3 (Fredericktown), Knox Co.

AB-55
(Sub No. 638X)

CSX

31-Jan-03

abandon 2.56 miles of Chicago Line Subdivision


between Painesville and Grand River, Lake County

AB-565
(Sub. No. 11X)

CSX

18-Jun-02

discontinue service over 0.9 miles from QFL 51.0 to


QFL 51.9 in Lima, Allen Co.

AB-565
(Sub. No.9X)

CSX

14-May-02

abandon 2.59 miles from BE 69.5 to end of


Vandalia Line track, Vandalia, Montgomery Co.

AB-55
(Sub. No. 609X)

CSX

24-Apr-02

CSX

25-Sep-01

abandon 0.9 miles between QIO 163.98 and QIO


163.08 in Sidney, Shelby Co.
abandon 1.17 between BJ 161.0 and 162.17 in
Lorain, OH

AB-565
(Sub. No.6X)
AB-55
(Sub. No. 596X)

CSX

12-Nov-99

NS

27-Oct-99

abandon 7.79 miles between MP 49.49


(Cambridge) and MP 41.7 (Gibson)
abandon 0.3 miles between LM 128.0 and LM 121.1
at Cincinnati, OH
Total Miles Abandoned = 53.44
Source: Surface Transportation Board

AB-55
(Sub. No. 576X)
AB-290
(Sub. No. 207X)

May 10, 2010


Chapter 3- 22

4.0 Ohio Freight Rail Traffic


4.1 Rail Traffic Commodity Profile
The state of Ohio plays an important role in freight rail transportation. In 2007, Ohio ranked ninth nationally in
total originated rail tons and fourth nationally in total terminated rail tons. In 2007, a total of 311,226,977 tons
and 6,698,844 units4 of freight were transported by railroads in Ohio. The largest component of the tonnage and
carloads consisted of traffic that passed through Ohio between markets outside the state. By virtue of Ohios
location in the North American rail network, much of this overhead traffic consisted of movements between
eastern locations and markets in the Midwest as shown in Exhibit 4-1.
Exhibit 4-1: Ohio Rail Traffic Type Estimated Volumes
Traffic Type
Interstate Inbound
Interstate Outbound
Intrastate
Overhead
Total

Tons
(millions)
40.1
68.5
25.5
177.1
311.2

Percent

Carloads

Percent

12.9%
22.0%
8.2%
56.9%
100.0%

474,932
667,079
698,573
4,858,260
6,698,844

7.1%
10.0%
10.4%
72.5%
100.0%

Note: Overhead traffic is estimated

Source: Association of American Railroads Website

As shown in Exhibit 4-2, coal and iron and steel products are the principal rail transported products originating
in Ohio, terminating either in the state or in markets in other states. The Ohio railroads originate 10.6 million
tons of coal and 10.5 million tons of iron and steel products, each representing approximately 16 percent of the
states originated rail tonnage.
Exhibit 4-2: Rail Tons (Millions) Originated in Ohio in 2007
Other

70
60
19.1
50
40

6
9.3

30

Crushed stone, gravel,


sand
Grain, other field crops
Iron ore

10.1

20
10.5
10
10.6

Iron and steel products


Coal

Source: Association of American Railroads

The state ranked fifth in terminated rail tonnage with coal iron ore, grain, and crushed stone, gravel, and sand
among the leading commodities. Coal (42 million tons), however, is the dominant product moving by rail and

Includes intermodal units


May 10, 2010
Chapter 4- 1

terminating in the state as shown in Exhibit 4-3. In addition to in-state consumption, coal not only terminates at
Ohios power plants and industrial sites, but is also transferred to vessels through Ohios port network.
Exhibit 4-3: Rail Tons (Millions) Terminating in Ohio in 2007
100
Other

90
80
70
60
50

23.5

Iron ore

5.9
6.4
7.6

Scrap paper and scrap


metal

8.6

Chemicals

40
Iron and steel products

30
20

42
Coal

10
0
Source: Source: Association of American Railroads

In terms of freight car or intermodal units, Ohio originates more units of intermodal traffic than any other
commodity. The second most important commodity is autos and auto parts.
Exhibit 4-4 Rail Carloads/Intermodal Units (10,000) Originating in Ohio in 2007
120
Other

100

Iron ore

80

38

Coal
Iron and steel products

60
40

8
9
10

Autos and auto parts


Intermodal

15
20
20
0

Source: Source: Association of American Railroads, Global Insight

Shown in Exhibit 4-5, coal and intermodal lead the units terminated in the state. Collectively, they account for
54 percent of the terminating rail units. Iron and steel products, chemicals, scrap paper, or metal contribute
significantly to the rail traffic volume terminated in Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Chapter 4- 2

Exhibit 4-5 Rail Carloads/Intermodal Units (10,000) Terminating in Ohio in 2007


120
100
28

80

5
6
7

60

25

40

Other
Scrap paper or metal
Chemicals
Iron and steel products
Intermodal
Coal

20

29

Source: Source: Association of American Railroads

An ODOT study of overhead rail traffic conducted using the 2004 U.S. Surface Transportation Board Waybill
Sample offers insight to the rail traffic bridging the state. Coal is the largest commodity group that crosses Ohio.
It is likely that this primarily represents Appalachian coal shipments destined to markets to the north and west.
Chemicals shipments comprise the second highest tonnage commodity group passing through Ohio in 2004.
Exhibit 4-6 Rail Traffic Passing Through Ohio by Tonnage (Millions) in 2004
180
160

Other

140
120

72

100
80

11
15

60

16

40

20

20

32

Primary metal products


Farm and forestry products
Food and kindred products
Chemicals
Coal

Source: Association of American Railroads

Coal, petroleum products, and non-metallic minerals collectively represent about 80 percent of the intrastate
traffic in Ohio.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 4- 3

Exhibit 4-7 Ohio Intrastate Rail Traffic by Tonnage (Millions) in 2004

30
Other

25
20
15

Chemicals

1
2

Primary metal products

Metallic ores

10
Petroleum and nonmetallic minerals

11

Coal

Source: Association of American Railroads

4.2 Rail Traffic Geography Profile


Exhibit 4-8 displays the destination states of rail freight that originates from Ohio. The source of the data is the
U.S. Federal Highway Administrations Freight Analysis Framework - 2 and represents preliminary estimates for
2008. As can be seen, the largest destinations for rail freight originating in Ohio are several of Ohios neighboring
states, including Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan. Several southeastern states, such as North
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida are also important trading partners with Ohio. Other important destinations
include Texas, California. Wisconsin. As a sample of some of the larger commodity flows originating in Ohio,
shippers within the state send cereal grains, waste/scrap, petroleum products, non-metallic minerals, and base
metals to Pennsylvania. Ohio sends chemicals to Kentucky, and agricultural products to Georgia and North
Carolina. Ohio sends base metal products, petroleum products to Texas, and base metals, waste/scrap to
Indiana.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 4- 4

Exhibit 4-8 Distribution of Interstate Rail Traffic Originated in Ohio

Source: FHWA Freight Analysis Framework -2

Exhibit 4-9 shows the originating states that ship rail freight into Ohio. Among the states originating the highest
volumes of tons are several large coal-producing states, such as Wyoming, West Virginia, and Kentucky, which
account for the sizeable percentage of total terminating tonnage that coal represents in Ohio. The largest rail
supplying states tend to be those in the closest proximity to Ohio, including New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. As a sample of commodity flows with trading
states, Ohio receives coal from Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Ohio receives
metallic ores from Minnesota and gravel from Wisconsin. Ohio receives motor vehicles from Michigan, and base
metals from Pennsylvania. Ohio receives fertilizer and food products from Illinois and waste/scrap from New
York.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 4 - 5

Exhibit 4-9 Distribution of Interstate Rail Traffic Terminating in Ohio

Source: FHWA Freight Analysis Framework -2

4.3 Rail Traffic Trends


According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the Association of American Railroads, growth in
rail tonnage terminating in Ohio was moderate, increasing at the annualized rate of 0.5 percent between 1999
and 2007. Until 2006, terminating rail traffic grew at a rate of 1.6 percent per year; however, it suffered a sharp
decline in 2007 from the prior year.
On the other hand, rail traffic originating in Ohio has been steadily declining since 2004, although it showed an
annual rate of increase between 1999 and 2007 of approximately 1.5 percent per year due to increases from
1999 to 2004, the highest year for originating rail traffic.
In every year coal was the commodity with the highest terminating tonnage. In every year except 2003 and 2007
iron and steel products had the highest originating tonnage. In 2003 and 2007, coal had the highest originating
tonnage.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 4 - 6

Exhibit 4-10 Historic Ohio Rail Tonnage Trends


110,000,000
100,000,000
90,000,000
80,000,000

Originating
Terminating

70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Source: Association of American Railroads

ODOTs analysis of the 2004 Waybill Sample also includes a forecast of traffic in the year 2030. While current
economic conditions have changed significantly since the study was completed, its results can be used to
describe expected traffic distributions as well as expected annual growth when the economy returns to more
normal conditions.
In the future, Ohios rail tonnage is expected to increase by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.6
percent. The greatest increases are expected in through rail traffic, while intrastate traffic is expected to grow
the least. This shift away from intrastate toward overhead traffic likely reflects an overall trend within railroad
transportation toward longer distance unitized train service away from shorter-haul individual carload service.
Both originating (outbound interstate plus intrastate) and terminating traffic (inbound interstate plus intrastate)
traffic are expected to grow at a rate of roughly 1.2 percent CAGR.
Exhibit 4-11 Forecasted Ohio Rail Traffic by Type
Traffic Type
Interstate Inbound
Interstate Outbound
Intrastate
Overhead
Total

2004 Tonnage
(Millions)
76.8
40.8
23.9
165.9
307.3

2030 Tonnage
2004
(Millions)
Distribution
25.0%
108.4
13.3%
58.5
7.8%
30.2
54.0%
264.5
100.0%
461.6
Source: Global Insight

2030
Distribution
23.5%
12.7%
6.6%
57.3%
100.0%

2004-2030
5
CAGR
1.3%
1.4%
0.9%
1.8%
1.6%

CARG is the interest rate at which a given present value would "grow" to a given future value in a given amount of time.
May 10, 2010
Chapter 4 - 7

It is expected that in the future the commodity referred to as miscellaneous shipments will show the most
tonnage moving by rail in the state of Ohio, surpassing coal. This commodity is principally transported in
containers or trailers. This reflects the increasing attractiveness of intermodal rail service as an alternative to
truck. The last decade saw significant growth in ocean carrier container traffic moving to inland markets by rail.
Domestic intermodal transportation is expected to experience a similar surge in the next decade.
International trade trends and its impact on intermodal development in Ohio will be discussed in more detail in
Chapter 5.
Exhibit 4-12 Forecasted Ohio Rail Traffic by Commodity
2004 % Traffic by
Commodity
Miscellaneous
14.5%
Coal
24.4%
Chemicals
10.2%
Food Products
7.1%
Transportation Equipment
6.1%
Primary Metal Products
9.4%
Farm and Forestry Products
7.7%
Petroleum Products
4.0%
Crude Petroleum and Non-Metallic Minerals
3.9%
Clay, Concrete, Glass & Stone Products
2.6%
Pulp, Paper
2.8%
Lumber or Wood Products
2.5%
Metallic Ores
3.8%
Other
0.9%
Total
100.0%
Source: Global Insight
Commodity

2030 % Traffic by
Commodity
25.8%
22.1%
7.8%
7.3%
6.1%
5.9%
5.6%
3.9%
3.6%
3.2%
2.7%
2.5%
2.4%
1.0%
100.0%

2004-2030
CAGR
3.9%
1.2%
0.5%
1.7%
1.6%
-0.3%
0.3%
1.5%
1.3%
2.3%
1.5%
1.5%
-0.2%
2.4%
1.6%

Despite slow growth, coal and chemicals will remain as important commodities transported by rail. Metal
products and metallic ore tonnages are anticipated to decline in the future.
4.4 Rail Traffic Densities
Exhibit 4-13 displays freight density of Ohio rail lines for 2007 measured in million gross ton-miles per mile on
each rail line. This is an indication of both the volume of rail traffic over the line, as well as weight of the
commodities carried.
Rail lines with the highest densities in Ohio are the CSX and NS east-west lines that cross the northern part of
the state. Some segments, such as the NS Chicago Line and Erie West subdivisions between the Pennsylvania
border and Vermillion, OH or the CSX Greenwich subdivision between Cleveland and Greenwich, OH carried over
100 million gross ton-miles per mile in 2007. These are among the highest density rail lines in the nation.
The CSX line that runs north-south between Portsmouth and Toledo via Columbus also experiences very heavy
traffic volumes.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 4 - 8

Exhibit 4-13 Ohio Rail Freight Density 2007

Source: U.S. Federal Railroad Administration

May 10, 2010


Chapter 4 - 9

The high densities over these corridors can be attributed to the large volumes of bulk material, such as coal,
grain, and metal ores, as well as manufactured goods such as autos and steel. However, the growing volumes of
intermodal traffic, although lighter than bulk goods, are also contributing to increases in density on a number of
rail lines in the state. As container traffic shifts to the northeast ports, New York and Norfolk, traffic density will
increase further.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 4 - 10

5.0 The Role of Ohios Freight Rail System in Multimodal Transportation


Ohios robust freight transportation assets and geographic location provide the state with the means to utilize
multimodal and intermodal systems to move freight into, out of, and through the state. The terms multimodal
and intermodal are in some cases used interchangeably, and can have several meanings depending on the
context.
Multimodal transportation generally refers to a system whereby more than one modal option is available. The
states maritime, air freight, highway, and rail systems provide various multimodal options for the movement of
both bulk and containerized commodities.
Intermodal transportation focuses on connecting different modes into a seamless transportation system
through use of efficient transfer terminals. Intermodal freight transportation is usually associated with moving
freight in intermodal containers or trailers by a combination of truck and rail, and depending on whether the
movement is international or domestic, an ocean-going linkage. However, intermodal movements can also
include non-containerized materials. To help distinguish these movements from the more common
containerized intermodal movements, these will be referred to as transload operations and facilities.
5.1 Ohios Role in US Freight Transportation Logistics
Freight logistics refers to the management and control of the flow of goods. Logistics activities include the
organizing and planning of both the transport and warehousing of goods. The goal of freight logistics is to
optimize the flow of goods through a network of transportation links and storage points. Objectives include
minimizing transportation costs, travel times, and the time and amount of storage.
Ohio benefits from a large number of important intermodal linkages between rail, truck, and maritime modes of
transportation. By virtue of its geographic location, proximity to markets and availability of transportation
resources, the state is naturally an important intermodal hub. These three factors play a significant role in
distribution center and modal transfer facility location decisions.
Ohio is not only one of the more populous states with a large economy, but it is also centrally located with
proximity to large economic centers. Exhibit 5-1 displays the level of GDP for each state as provided by the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 1

Exhibit 5-1 State Gross Domestic Products

As shown, not only is Ohio one of the largest states in terms of GDP, but it is also surrounded by other states
with significant economies: Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois.
Ohio is also central to major U.S. and Canadian population centers and business markets. Ohio is equidistant
from the Northeast, Midwest, and Southeast population concentrations. Shippers can access 60 percent of the
U.S. and Canadian populations and 62 percent of U.S. manufacturing operations and retail stores within 600
miles of the states borders.
Ohio is particularly well situated to serve as a logistics hub, since it is not only a large market in and of itself, but
also a natural inland distribution location for imported goods. Shippers import items through East Coast ports,
such as New York/New Jersey, Baltimore, or Norfolk and efficiently deliver the goods by rail (or truck) to Ohio
for use within the state or for transfer to markets in the Midwest and Northeast, Canada, and points beyond.
Ohios importance as a distribution hub will continue as the factors favoring Atlantic ports continue. Current
trends and other factors related to international intermodal logistics decisions are described below.
5.2 Ohios Role in International Freight Transportation Logistics
Prior to the recent recession, a shift in international traffic patterns began to occur that favored Atlantic Coast
ports. The North Atlantic ports can be expected to grow even more significantly in the near future after the
North American economies rebound from the current recession. A number of factors will contribute to the
growth.
May 10, 2010
Chapter 5 - 2

West Coast transportation congestion: First, port congestion on the West Coast and bottlenecks on the rail
network connecting those ports to East Coast and Midwest markets had been driving ocean carriers to use
alternative routes, such as the Suez Canal. Although less evident in 2008 and 2009 because of the decrease in
container traffic through the Southern California ports, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles face capacity
constraints. During the last decade, both ports have made significant investments in terminal capacity expansion
including on-dock rail facilities. In addition, improvements were made to road and rail infrastructure at the
ports. Notwithstanding the investment in new or expanded facilities, both ports have recently suffered from
significant congestion
Along with the ports, the railroads serving southern California have also experienced capacity problems.
Although both BNSF and Union Pacific railroads have invested heavily in expanding capacity in its congested
corridors connecting the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to markets in the east, bottlenecks are still
expected to occur in the future.
Increasing intermodal freight rates from West Coast ports: The movement of international containers from
West Coast ports across the US to Midwest and Eastern markets via rail is commonly referred to as the
intermodal land bridge. The increased demand for these railroad intermodal services, as well as high fuel costs,
intermodal-related rail infrastructure investments, and increased port container fees related to the construction
of the Alameda Corridor to address congestion, had resulted in significant increases in rail rates in recent years.
Rail intermodal rates from the West Coast ports increased by 25 percent between July 2007 and July 2008 with
increases up to 40 percent in some traffic lanes. The significant growth in intermodal prices has caused ocean
carriers to divert Asia-originated traffic destined for the East Coast and Midwest from the intermodal land bridge
to the Suez Canal all-water route.
Panama Canal Expansion: Historically the Panama Canal provided an all-water route for trans-Pacific traffic to
reach the North American East Coast. However, as container ships increased in size and could not traverse the
canal, it lost its importance in the container trades. To accommodate the larger ships and return the canal route
to its former competitive status, the canal is undergoing reconstruction. Upon completion in 2014, the canal will
be able to accommodate the large 12,000 TEU container ships. In addition, the capacity of the canal will be
expanded permitting significantly more daily transits. Rather than containers relying on rail land bridge service
across the US, the canal will provide an all water route.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 3

Exhibit 5-2 International Trade Routes

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates generated using standard global base map, 2009

5.3 Intermodal Rail Freight Growth in Ohio


Ohios transportation and economic development agencies have long understood the potential for the state to
take advantage of the expansion of free trade and the resulting impacts on transportation. The economic
development potential of serving as a logistics and distribution hub is largely based on attracting new economy
businesses. These businesses include the computer, biotech, telecommunications, medical, electronic, and other
industrial businesses which are moving goods to the US from overseas manufacturing bases. These businesses
favor intermodal movement of these goods because it is less expensive than trucking them over long distances.
In isolation, intermodal facilities are transfer facilities where containers are unloaded from long-haul trains to
truck for delivery to their final destinations. The value of these facilities is their ability to grow into logistics and
distribution hubs where major companies locate distribution facilities, or the goods contained in containers are
assembled or further processed through value-added activities. According to the Ohio Department of
Development, 580 major distribution-related projects were initiated in Ohio during the last six years. The
projects resulted in $3.3 billion in capital investment and 21,500 new jobs.
In 2006, the state sponsored the Ohio Intermodal Rail Freight Growth Strategy Concept Study. This study
concluded that an intermodal rail freight growth strategy would help Ohio expand and develop its new economy
industrial base, reduce the states dependence on trucking, and reduce Ohios vulnerability to transportation
bottlenecks occurring in other states and regions outside of Ohios jurisdiction. A critical element of ensuring rail
intermodal competitiveness is developing improved inland port connections to major ports, especially those
located on the East Coast. This can be accomplished by improving those routes which most directly link Ohio to
Atlantic ports to standards which accommodate intermodal movements most efficiently.
Intermodal freight transportation has been refined over the past decade to make movements efficient and
reliable. State-of-the art intermodal equipment, such as double stack container cars, are essential to efficient
intermodal movements. Use of this equipment requires adequate vertical clearances below bridges and through
tunnels over an entire routes length to ensure the most efficient intermodal movements possible.
5.4 Existing Rail Intermodal Clearances in Ohio
Exhibit 5-3 below shows the vertical clearances over rail lines necessary to accommodate modern double stack
container and rail auto rack cars. Double stack trains require 20 feet 9 inches of vertical clearance to
accommodate high-capacity containers. Certain automotive trains are also limited by current clearances on
May 10, 2010
Chapter 5 - 4

many lines. According to information from Norfolk Southern, clearances of up to 20 feet 9 inches above the rail
are necessary to safely meet the height requirements of modern intermodal cars together with an additional
safety factor to allow for car sway and clearance changes due to track maintenance.
Exhibit 5-3 Clearance Requirements for Rail Intermodal Equipment

Source: Norfolk Southern Corporation

Existing full-clearance routes through Ohio include NS Chicago Line through Cleveland and Toledo and CSXs
routes between Cleveland and Indianapolis. These routes form key components of their respective intermodal
networks connecting Chicago to Northeast markets and East Coast ports. Full-clearance routes between
northern Ohio and Columbus provide intermodal routes for regional distribution from major facilities in the
Columbus area.
Exhibit 5-4 displays the rail lines in Ohio which have adequate clearances to accommodate double stack
containers. The map also displays those lines for which major initiatives are being undertaken on corridors to
achieve double stack clearances.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 5

Exhibit 5-4 Ohio Rail Clearances

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 6

5.5 Proposed Rail Intermodal Development in Ohio


Ohio is a major focus of intermodal rail improvement projects by both NS and CSX. Since 2004 both railroads, in
cooperation with states in the region, have embarked on projects to provide more direct and faster double stack
routes between intermodal hubs in Ohio and major East Coast ports. The NS-sponsored Heartland Corridor
project will eliminate clearance restrictions between the Port of Norfolk, VA to Columbus, the site of the newly
constructed NS Rickenbacker Intermodal Facility. CSXs National Gateway project will connect the Ports of
Baltimore and New York/New Jersey to Chicago and its Ohio intermodal hubs, including a new facility at North
Baltimore.
The following is a summary of each of these important rail intermodal initiatives:
5.5.1 Heartland Corridor Project
The Heartland Corridor is a public-private partnership initiative between NS, the U.S. Federal Highway
Administration, and the states of Ohio and West Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The project will
increase overhead clearances on NS mainline between Norfolk, VA and Columbus, OH and Columbus, OH to
Cincinnati, OH. The increased clearance will allow NS to run double stack intermodal trains, which require 209
of clearance, over the line. Exhibit 5-5 shows the Heartland Corridor route.
Exhibit 5-5 NS Corridor Improvement Projects Heartland Corridor

Existing NS Route
Heartland Corridor

Source: NS website
The line improvements will reduce over 200 miles from NS current double-stack routing from the Norfolk area
to Chicago. Currently, trains must follow a circuitous route either north through Harrisburg, PA or south through

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 7

Knoxville, TN. A total of 28 tunnels will be modified in addition to 26 other overhead obstructions. These other
obstructions include slide fences, overhead bridges, and through truss bridges that will be modified, and three
areas where overhead wires must be removed. The total project cost was $151 million with $95 million
authorized in federal monies, $9.75 million from the Commonwealth of Virginia Rail Enhancement Grant and
$836,355 from the state of Ohio for work performed within the state.
In conjunction with the $151 million clearance project, additional funds have been made available for three new
intermodal terminals: Roanoke, VA; Prichard, WV; and the Rickenbacker Terminal in Columbus, OH. The
Rickenbacker terminal has been completed for a cost of $68.5 million. The terminal was funded through $27
million from the federal government and the balance from Norfolk Southern.6 The State of Ohio is currently
working with NS to expand the Columbus to Cincinnati corridor for doublestack clearance. Total cost of the
project is $ 6.1 million with 3.6 million from the state, $ 1.1 million from OKI and $ 2.4 million from NS.
5.5.2 CSX National Gateway Project
Another important initiative impacting Ohios intermodal system is the CSX National Gateway initiative. This is a
plan to create a more efficient rail route linking Mid-Atlantic ports with Midwestern markets. Similar to the
Heartland Corridor, a major component of this project is to accommodate rail lines for double-stack clearances.
In the case of the National Gateway initiative, the plan focuses on three primary corridors:
I-95 between North Carolina and Baltimore, MD via Washington, DC
I-70/I-76 Corridor between Washington, DC and northwest Ohio via Pittsburgh, PA
Carolina Corridor between Wilmington, NC and Charlotte, NC
The most important primary corridor to Ohio is the I-70/I-76 corridor. The National Gateway initiative
anticipates intermodal improvements that would link many of the major cities within Ohio, including Cincinnati,
Toledo, Cleveland, and Columbus.
The National Gateway Corridor involves the construction of new intermodal ramps, as well as clearing routes for
double stack trains. In August 2009, ground was broken for a new intermodal terminal in North Baltimore, OH.
CSX affiliate, Evansville Western Railway, Inc. will construct and operate the 185 acre facility, which is projected
to handle 630,000 containers annually and should be completed in 2011.
The State of Ohio as the lead applicant for a coalition of states including PA, WV, MD, & VA, in conjunction with
CSX, sought $258 million in federal assistance for the National Gateway project in the form of a TIGER grant. In
February, 2010, USDOT announced a $98 million TIGER award for the project for the first segment of the
corridor from the new intermodal yard under construction at North Baltimore, Ohio to an existing intermodal
yard in Chambersburg, PA. The states of Ohio and PA are collectively contributing $65 million and CSX is
contributing $20 million to complete the segment.

Norfolk Southern Corporation web site, press release of March 3, 2008, Intermodal Terminal Opens at Rickenbacker,
Columbus Messenger, March 11, 2008.
May 10, 2010
Chapter 5 - 8

Exhibit 5-6 CSX National Gateway Project

Intermodal Capacity Expansion


CSX Initiatives

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates using CSX website

In addition to these major projects, another important intermodal initiative is the Airline Junction Rail Project in
Lucas County. This would improve the NS intermodal ramp in Toledo, increasing its capacity to handle 60,000
lifts per year in contrast to the current 30,000. The estimated total cost of the project is $12.3 million, of which
$6.5 million is being funded by ARRA, $2.75 million by the Ohio Department of Development and City of Toledo,
$250,000 is coming from the Ohio Rail Development Commission Safety Funding, and $2.8 million is coming
from Norfolk Southern. The project would consist of a series of improvements to the existing intermodal yard,
including the reactivation of a new approach, new sidings, and the extension of the existing intermodal ramp.
These improvements are estimated to create 893 new jobs and a total additional annual payroll of $25.6
million.7
5.6 Ohio Intermodal Container Terminals
The importance of Ohio as a distribution hub is underscored by the abundance of intermodal container
terminals within the state. Ohio is home to twelve intermodal facilities as described in Exhibit 5-7.

Airline Yard: Evaluating the Economic Impacts of Expanded Rail to Truck Intermodal Capacity in Northwest Ohio,
University of Toledo Intermodal Transportation Institute, public meeting presentation, July 30, 2009.
May 10, 2010
Chapter 5 - 9

Exhibit 5-7 Intermodal Facilities in Ohio


Carrier
CSX

Name

Address

Columbus
2351 West Belt Drive
(Buckeye Yard) Columbus

CSX

Marysville

20500 St. Rt. 739


Columbus

CSX

Cleveland
Collinwood

601 East 152 Street


Cleveland

CSX

Cincinnati
Queensgate

2149 Western Ave.


Cincinnati

CSX (

North Baltimore

NS

Cincinnati

1400 Gest Street


Cincinnati

NS

Cincinnati
Sharonville

3155 E. Sharon Road


Sharonville

NS

Cleveland Maple Heights

5300 Greenhurst Dr.


Maple Heights

NS

Toledo Airline
Junction

NS

Rickenbacker

Capacity
67,000

N/A

nd

17,000
N/A

3329 Thoroughbred Dr.


Columbus

NS/Triple
Crown

Sandusky

CSXT/
Schneider

Marion
Intermodal
Center

WLE/CN

Stark Neomodal Canton

Chicago

TBD

N/A

Charleston, Chicago,
Jacksonville, Miami,
Savannah

N/A
N/A

30,000 exp.
to 60,000
lifts
250,000 lifts
initially,
expandable
to 400,000

60,000
expanding
to
100,000
Not
available

Remarks

Public facility
located at Honda
plant, 30 miles
northwest of
Columbus

Chicago, New York/New


Jersey, Orlando, Miami,
Jacksonville, Portsmouth, VA,
Worcester, MA
Chicago, New York/New
Jersey, Orlando, Miami,
Jacksonville, Portsmouth, VA,
Worcester, MA, Savannah

630,000

N/A

SR 309
Claridon Township

Cities on train schedule


Chicago, New York/New
Jersey, Orlando, Miami,
Jacksonville, Portsmouth, VA,
Worcester, MA

Scheduled
completion - 2011

Norfolk
Chicago, New York/New
Jersey, Norfolk/Portsmouth,
VA
Ayer, MA, Buffalo, Chicago,
New York/New Jersey

$13M Airline
Junction Project
PPP

Norfolk, Chicago, New


York/New Jersey

Part of Heartland
Corridor initiative,
opened 3/3/08

Uses specialized
Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth,
bimodal trailers
Bethlehem, PA, Harrisburg,
rather than
Jacksonville, Minneapolis/St.
conventional
Paul, Kansas City, St. Louis
intermodal
Kansas City

Not marketed by
CSX
No longer served
by CN

Source: Carrier websites, Ohio Department of Transportation

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 10

Exhibit 5-8 presents a map of Ohios truck/rail intermodal container facilities.


Exhibit 5-8 Truck/Rail Intermodal Container Terminals in Ohio

Source: Carrier websites, Ohio Department of Transportation, Ohio Rail Development Commission

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 11

5.7 Rail/Truck Bulk Transload Facilities in Ohio


In addition to the intermodal facilities described above which serve containerized goods, Ohio is home to
numerous other truck/rail transfer facilities. These include bulk transload facilities, where either liquid or dry
products are transferred between truck and rail. Other facilities enable the transfer of break-bulk goods. Breakbulk cargo entails goods which are packaged in small, separable units such as bags, bales, boxes, pallets, or
drums.
The movement of bulk and break-bulk commodities is essential to the economy of Ohio as these goods comprise
the major commodities moved in the state. Bulk commodities handled at these facilities include lumber, steel
coils, plastic pellets and resins, aggregates, flour, and grains. These commodities are needed to support to
support the manufacturing, construction, agricultural, food, and energy sectors of the economy, and the
transportation of these commodities in the most operational and cost-efficient manner possible enables Ohio to
remain competitive in these sectors of the economy.
Transload facilities provide a vital service to existing and potential rail customers. Public and private transload
facilities enable shippers that do not have direct access to still benefit from the efficiencies of rail transportation.
A number of transloading facilities also offer intermediate warehousing.
Several Ohio facilities have been identified by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration as being of strategic
importance. In 2001 the FHWA completed the NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors study in order to identify
those road segments that linked major intermodal facilities to the National Highway System. The FHWA
applied a series of criteria to commercial aviation airports, ports, truck/rail facilities, pipeline heads, Amtrak
stations, intercity bus stations, public transit stations, and ferries to identify which facilities are of the highest
strategic importance. The FHWA designated intermodal facilities as major if at least 50 TEUs (twenty foot
equivalent units) or 100 trucks per day were transferred at these facilities.
FHWA identified the following bulk/break-bulk transload facilities as having particular strategic significance:
CSXT Bulk Intermodal Distribution System in Toledo
Major Grain/Bulk Materials Terminal Operations in Toledo
Interstate Terminal Warehouse in Cleveland
Medina Supply Company & Stone Yard in Medina
Additional Ohio rail/truck transload facilities served by Class I railroads are shown in Exhibit 5-9.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5- 12

Exhibit 5-9 Class I Railroad-Truck Transfer Facilities

Operator
ADS Logistics
Advanced Warehousing
Amware Distribution Warehouse
Cleveland Industrial Warehouse Corp.
Columbus Cold Storage
Dayton Synchronous Support Center
Findlay's Tall Timbers Distribution Center
Findlay's Tall Timbers Distribution Center
Good's Rail/Truck Transfer
Handl-it
Handl-it
Handl-it
Heinz North America
Heinz North America Total
International Distribution Services
Interstate Terminal Warehouse
Jonick and Company
Kuhlman Corporation
Mansfield Railport
Mid-West Materials Incorporated
Nordic Cold Storage
NS Thoroughbred Bulk Transfer Terminal
NS Thoroughbred Bulk Transfer Terminal
NS Thoroughbred Bulk Transfer Terminal
NS Thoroughbred Bulk Transfer Terminal
NS Thoroughbred Bulk Transfer Terminal

Location
Macedonia
Columbus
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Findlay
Findlay
Camden,
Franklin
Bedford Heights
Cleveland
Euclid
Toledo
Macedonia
Cleveland
Sheffield
Maumee
Mansfield
Perry
Columbus
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Norwood

Dry Bulk

X
X
X
X
X

Bulk
Liquid Bulk

Facility Type
Warehouse
Steel
Food Grade General
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

Open Air
Open Air

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 13

Operator
Peoples Cartage
Precision Strip Incorporated
R. P. Sweeney Warehouse
SERVISTEEL
Spartan Logistics
Spartan Logistics
Taylor Distributing Co.
The Andersons Incorporated
United Steel Service
Vogt Warehouse
Warehouse Associates
Grand Total

Location
Massillon
Minster
Fremont
Sheffield
Columbus
Toledo
Evendale
Toledo
Masury
Cincinnati
Lima

Bulk
Dry Bulk
Liquid Bulk
X
X

Facility Type
Warehouse
Steel
Food Grade General
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Open Air
Open Air

X
X

9
8
Source: NS, CSXT web sites

X
25

X
X
17

X
X
10

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 14

5.8 Rail/Water Transfer Terminals


Port facilities served by rail also provide a cost-efficient means of moving heavy commodities between Ohio and
both domestic and international markets. Water transportation is both economical and environmentally friendly
and combined with rail provides transportation of these commodities with little or no impact on the states
highway system. The following is a summary of Ohio port facilities served by the states rail system.
5.8.1 The Ohio River System
Ohios rail network includes key intermodal connections with maritime facilities. Ohio benefits from port access
to the Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence Seaway water system and the Ohio River system. A U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers database of port facilities lists 144 river and lake terminals that have rail access. Of these, 75 are
located on the Ohio River system with the remainder located on the Great Lakes or its tributaries.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 15

Exhibit 5-10 Key Rail/Marine Connections in Ohio

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation, FHWA


May 10, 2010
Chapter 5 - 16

5.8.2 Great Lakes System


Eighteen Great Lakes terminals served by rail are located the vicinity of Toledo and Lucas County, three of which
are not currently operating. The terminals are used for a wide variety of goods, including petroleum products
such as asphalt, grains, food products, and general goods. These facilities are listed in Exhibit 5-11 below.
Exhibit 5-11 Toledo Area Operational Rail Served Lake Terminals
Terminal

Operator

Cargo handled

Rail Link

CSX Toledo Lakefront Ore


Docks, TORCO Slip No. 1.

TORCO subsidiary of CSX

Iron ore pellets

CSX

CSX Toledo Lakefront Ore


Docks, Slip No. 2.

CSX Transportation-Toledo
None identified
Docks.

CSX

CSX Toledo Presque Isle Coal CSX Transportation-Toledo Coal and petroleum
Docks, Slip No. 1.
Docks.
coke

CSX

CSX Toledo Presque Isle Coal CSX Transportation-Toledo Limestone, ore, and
Docks, Slip No. 2.
Docks.
petroleum coke

CSX

CSX Toledo Presque Isle Coal CSX Transportation-Toledo Mooring vessels; and
CSX
Docks, Slip No. 3
Docks.
bunkering vessels.
Toledo-Lucas County Port
Authority, Facility No. 1
Wharf.

Midwest Terminals of
Toledo Intl

General cargo, misc.


dry-bulk materials,
metal products,
processed foods.

CSX

Kraft Foods Grain Terminal

Toledo Ship Repair Co.

Grain

NS

Seneca Petroleum Co.,


Edison Acme Station Slip.

Seneca Petroleum, Inc.

Asphalt

NS

ADM Countrymark, Toledo


Elevator Wharf.

Archer Daniels Midland


Co.

Grain

CSX

The Andersons, Toledo


Edwin Drive Elevator Dock.

The Andersons, Inc.

Grain

NS

Kuhlman Corp., Upper Dock. Kuhlman Corp.

Dry-bulk fertilizer,
salt, stone, petroleum NS
coke

The Andersons, Toledo


Kuhlman Drive Terminal
Wharf.

The Andersons, Inc.

Grain; dry bulk and


liquid fertilizer.

NS

City of Toledo, Salt Wharf.

City of Toledo,
Department of Streets,
Bridges, and Harbors.

Salt

NS

Arms/Criscione Grain Co.


Arms Dock Co.; Criscione Stone, salt, fertilizer,
NS
Wharf.
Grain Co., Inc.
oats
Clark Refining and Marketing Clark Refining and
Petroleum products. NS
Co. Wharf.
Marketing Co.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics
May 10, 2010
Chapter 5 - 17

Cleveland, Ohios largest port city has 23 rail-served lake terminals, most of which are operational. Most of the
Cleveland terminals are served by CSX or Norfolk Southern. Exhibit 5-12 shows the rail port terminals in
Cleveland operated by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. These terminals process a mix of goods,
including aluminum and iron ores, newsprint, and general goods.
Exhibit 5-12 Cleveland Rail Served Lake Terminals Operated by Port Authority
Terminal

Operator

Cargo handled

Rail Link

General cargo; steel


products; bulk
CSX
fluorspar and bauxite,
newsprint.
General cargo in
CSX
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
foreign trade;
County Port Authority,
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
aluminum pigs; steel
Stadium Wharf, Berth 28 County Port Authority.
products; heavy-lift
West.
items.
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
CSX
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
County Port Authority & Misc dry bulk
County Port Authority,
Federal Marine Terminals materials
Berth 22 East.
Co.
General cargo in
CSX
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
foreign trade; receipt
County Port Authority,
County Port Authority &
of aluminum pigs;
Stadium Wharf, Berths 28, Federal Marine Terminals
handling steel
30, and 32 North.
Co.
products.
CSX
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
General cargo in
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
County Port Authority, Pier County Port Authority &
No. 24.
Ceres Terminals Co.

County Port Authority,


Stadium Wharf, Berth 32
East.

County Port Authority and foreign trade;


Federal Marine Terminals aluminum pigs; steel
Co.
products.

One
surface
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
Miscellaneous bulk
track on
County Port Authority,
County Port Authority.
materials.
apron;
Dock No. 20.
connect to
NS
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Exhibit 5-13 lists private terminals located in the Cleveland area, many of which serve the steel or food
processing industry. The steel terminals are generally served by the River Terminal Railroad, which connects to
the Norfolk Southern system.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 18

Exhibit 5-13 Cleveland Rail Served Private Lake Terminals


Terminal
Arcelor-Mittal Steel
Corp., Cuyahoga Upper
Dock East Side
Arcelor-Mittal Steel
Corp., Cuyahoga West
Side, Middle Dock
Arcelor-Mittal Steel
Corp., Cuyahoga Fuel Oil
Dock
Arcelor-Mittal Steel
Corp., Cuyahoga Lower
West Side Dock
Lafarge Corps
Construction Materials
Group, Cleveland "J"
Wharf
Cargill Salt Division,
Cleveland Mine Wharf
Oglebay Norton
Terminals, Inc., "C&P"
Lakefront Wharf
MARSULEX, Inc.,
Cleveland Wharf
Cleveland-Cuyahoga
County Port Authority,
Dock No. 20
Essroc Cement Dock

Operator
Arcelor-Mittal
Steel Corp.
Arcelor-Mittal
Steel Corp.
Arcelor-Mittal
Steel Corp.
Arcelor-Mittal
Steel Corp.

Lafarge Corp.

Cargill, Inc.
Oglebay Norton
Terminals, Inc.
Not operated.
ClevelandCuyahoga
County Port
Authority.
Essroc
Italcementi
Group.

Cargo handled

Rail Link

Iron ore and other


dry bulk
commodities
Iron ore pellets and
limestone, ferrous
scrap and fuel oil
Receipt of fuel oil
for plant
consumption
Receipt of iron ore
pellets and
limestone by selfunloading vessels

River Terminal
RR; connect to
NS
Cuyahoga Valley
RR; connect to
NS
River Terminal
Railway; connect
with NS

Limestone and
other miscellaneous
dry bulk materials
Graded dry bulk
rock salt.
Iron ore and other
dry bulk
commodities

River Terminal
Railway; connect
with NS

NS

NS
NS

Not used

NS

Miscellaneous bulk
materials.

One surface
track on apron;
connect to NS
NS

Cement
NS

Cereal Food Processors,


Cleveland Dock

Cereal Food
Processors, Inc.

Mid-Continent Coal &


Coke Co., Cleveland Dock

Mid-Continent
Coal & Coke Co.

Coke breeze

Forest City Enterprises


Wharf

Great Lakes
Towing Co.

Used for moorage

The Osterland Co.


Cleveland "South" Dock

The Osterland
Co.

Limestone; other
misc. dry bulk
commodities

Ontario Stone Corp.,


Cuyahoga River Dock No.
2

Ontario Stone
Corp.

Receipt of limestone

Wheat
NS

NS
NS

NS

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 19

Terminal

Operator

Fleet Supplies, Inc.,


Cuyahoga River Wharf

Fleet Supply,
Inc.

Cargo handled
Liquid calcium,
diesel fuel and
gasoline

Rail Link
NS

Marathon Ashland
Petroleum LLC,
Not operated
Not used
NS
Cleveland Asphalt
Terminal Barge Wharf
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

The Port of Lorain is located to the west of Cleveland. Of the three terminals identified in Lorain, only two are
currently in use. Both are oriented toward the needs of Republic Steel, handling iron ore and coke breeze.
Exhibit 5-14 shows the rail terminals in Lorain.
Exhibit 5-14 Lorain Area Rail-Lake Terminals
Terminal

Operator

Cargo handled

Rail Link

Lorain Pellet Terminal


Lorain Pellet
Iron ore pellets
None identified
Wharf
Terminal Co.
Republic Technologies
International, Lorain
Not operated
Not used
NS
Works, Coke Breeze Dock
Republic Technologies
Republic
Iron ore pellets; coke
International, Lorain
Technologies
NS
breeze
Works, Ore Dock
International
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Exhibit 5-15 shows the terminals currently in use in Fairport Harbor and Grand River. Two of these are oriented
toward the steel industry. The third handles bulk salt.
Exhibit 5-15 Fairport Harbor & Grand River Area Rail Served Lake Terminals
Terminal
Operator
Cargo handled
Rail Link
Osborne Concrete &
Osborne Concrete
CSX (abandoned
Stone Co., Fairport
Sand and limestone
& Stone Co.
link)
Harbor Dock
Arcelor-Mittal Steel Co., Arcelor-Mittal
Limestone
CSX
Fairport Harbor Dock
Steel Co.
Morton Salt Co., Fairport
Morton Salt Co.
Bulk salt
CSX
Harbor Dock
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

The Ashtabula and Conneaut areas are located in the northeastern corner of the state, near Erie, PA. Exhibit 516 shows the terminals identified in Ashtabula. Exhibit 5-17 lists the terminals in Conneaut. Both the Ashtabula
and Conneaut terminals generally handle mineral products needed for heavy manufacturing.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 20

Exhibit 5-16 Ashtabula Area Rail Served Lake Terminals


Terminal

Operator

Cargo handled

Rail Link

Norfolk Southern Corp.,


Norfolk Southern
Coal
NS, CSX
Ashtabula Coal Dock
Corp.
Norfolk Southern Corp.,
Norfolk Southern
Unidentified
NS, CSX
Ashtabula Dock No. 9
Corp.
Pinney Dock & Transport
Pinney Dock &
Co., Ashtabula A & B Dock,
Unidentified
NS, CSX
Transport Co.
Inner End
Great Lakes Towing Co.,
Great Lakes Towing
Unidentified
NS, CSX
Ashtabula Dock
Co.
Pinney Dock & Transport
Pinney Dock &
Co., Ashtabula Union Dock,
Unidentified
NS, CSX
Transport Co.
Inner End
Pinney Dock & Transport
Pinney Dock &
Sand, potash, quartz,
Co., Ashtabula Dock Nos. 1
NS, CSX
Transport Co.
limestone, and ore
and 2
Pinney Dock & Transport Pinney Dock &
Sand, potash, quartz,
NS, CSX
Co., Ashtabula Dock No. 3 Transport Co.
limestone, and ore
Pinney Dock & Transport Pinney Dock &
General cargo, ore,
NS, CSX
Co., Ashtabula Dock No. 4 Transport Co.
pig iron, lumber
Pinney Dock & Transport
Pinney Dock &
Co., Ashtabula A & B Dock,
Iron ore
NS, CSX
Transport Co.
Outer End
Pinney Dock & Transport
Pinney Dock &
Co., Ashtabula Union Dock,
Iron ore pellets
NS, CSX
Transport Co.
Outer End
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Exhibit 5-17 Conneaut Area Rail Served Lake Terminals


(Note: the Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad, a subsidiary of CN serves Conneaut)
Terminal

Operator

Cargo handled

Rail Link

Pittsburgh & Conneaut


Canadian
Dock Co., Perry Dock
Not operated
Not used
National
Pittsburgh & Conneaut
Pittsburgh &
Stone, aggregate,
Canadian
Dock Co., Dock No. 1
Conneaut Dock Co. bulk dolomite
National
Pittsburgh & Conneaut
Canadian
Dock Co., Dock No. 2
Not Operated
Not Used
National
Pittsburgh & Conneaut
Pittsburgh &
Canadian
Dock Co., Dock No. 3
Conneaut Dock Co. Coal
National
Pittsburgh & Conneaut
Dock Co., Dock No. 1
Pittsburgh &
Canadian
Extension
Conneaut Dock Co. Limestone
National
Pittsburgh & Conneaut
Pittsburgh &
Canadian
Dock Co., Dock No. 4
Conneaut Dock Co. Iron ore, limestone
National
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics
May 10, 2010
Chapter 5 - 21

Exhibit 5-18 shows the terminals in operation in the Sandusky-Huron area.


Exhibit 5-18 Sandusky-Huron Area Rail Served Lake Terminals
Terminal

Cargo handled

Rail Link

Peavey Co, Huron Elevator Wharf Peavey Co.

Grain

WLH Rentals, Huron Ore Dock


Ore Wharf

Huron Ore Dock

Iron ore

WLH Rentals, Huron Ore Dock


Mooring Wharf

Huron Ore Dock

Unidentified

NS
Wheeling & Lake
Erie Railway RR;
connect to NS
Wheeling & Lake
Erie Railway RR;
connect to NS
NS

Huron Lime Co., Stone Dock

Operator

Huron Lime Co.


Limestone
Sandusky Dock Corp.
Sandusky Dock Corp., Pier No. 3
Coal
NS
subsidiary of NS
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

May 10, 2010


Chapter 5 - 22

6.0 Impacts of Freight Rail Transportation in Ohio


The impacts of freight rail services to the overall conditions of Ohio, Ohio business and industry, and the quality
of life of Ohioans are extensive and diverse. This chapter discusses freight rail impacts to Ohios economy,
environment, energy, land use, community character, and quality of life.
6.1 Economics
Economic development can be defined as establishing a sustainable enhancement to the economic activity for a
given region. Transportation investments can enhance economic development by providing enhanced access to
existing businesses, and by improving access and mobility to attract new business. While transportation is not
the only consideration in establishing the site for a new business, an efficient transportation system can greatly
reduce business costs, open up new markets and improve competitiveness for businesses. Rail transportation
has provided a vital role in establishing Ohios economic base.
Manufacturing, agriculture, and the coal industries have long been the foundation of Ohios economy. To
successfully support a manufacturing economy, strong transportation links are required. Efficient and reliable
transportation links are critical to getting raw material into the state, and manufactured products out of state.
Rail has been a critical link supporting manufacturing in Ohio.
In addition to manufacturing, Ohios freight rail system also supports the agriculture and coal industries. Both
Class I and short line railroads combine to support Ohios agricultural and coal industries. Without this access to
the low cost, high volume transportation provided by the rail system, farmers and coal suppliers would find it
difficult to compete in their respective markets.
Exhibit 6-1 and Exhibit 6-2 show the diversity of freight transported by all railroad classes based on the Surface
Transportation Boards 2007 Waybill Sample.
Exhibit 6-1 Rail Traffic Originated in Ohio

Source: Association of American Railroads State Profiles website

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 1

Exhibit 6-2 Rail Traffic Terminated in Ohio

Source: Association of American Railroads State Profiles website

Shift of this traffic to more costly motor carrier transportation would increase supply chain cost, which would be
either passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the industry, reducing its ability to expand. Were the increase
in transportation costs significant enough, industries would relocate or completely cease operations.
The rail industry itself directly contributes to the states employment base. According to the Association of
American Railroads 2007 statistics, freight railroads (all Classes) employed 7,983 employees in the state of Ohio,
with an average salary of $64,000 before fringe benefits. In addition to the Ohio employment at Ohio railroads,
Ohio supports a vibrant rail contractor and rail supplier industry. A recent survey of Ohio businesses performed
by ORDC and ODOT identified at least 225 Ohio businesses which supply or contract with the railroad industry.
These 225 businesses employ over 26,000 people.
6.2 Environment
Freight rail transportation impacts Ohios environmental conditions both positively and negatively. Diesel
locomotives produce both air and noise pollution; the occasional derailment can result in spillage of
environmentally damaging product. Under normal operating conditions, rail freight, like any other mode of
transportation, can have adverse impacts on the environment. Rail-related impacts, however, compare very
favorably to air quality and noise impacts of comparable movements by trucks. According to the Association of
American Railroads, railroads, on average, are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks on a ton-mile
transported basis.
The United States Congress and Administration are looking at numerous opportunities to address green house
gas emissions. With cap and trade legislation and reauthorization of the surface transportation bill under
discussion, the impact of carbon emissions is quickly becoming a serious consideration in the movement of
freight.
According to 2006 Environmental Protection Agency data, as shown in Exhibit 6-3, total US greenhouse gas
emissions were 7,054 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents, with transportation accounting for 28 percent.
Of the transportation sectors greenhouse gas emissions, trucking accounted for 20.8 percent, while freight
railroads produced only 2.6 percent. By comparison trucks and rail move comparable ton-miles.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 2

Exhibit 6-3 Greenhouse Emissions by Industry Sector

The EPA has established the SmartWay Transport Partnership to help companies calculate emissions associated
with product transport. All Class I railroads operating in the US participate in SmartWay.
Emissions from highway vehicle product transport include those from gasoline or diesel and are based on fuel
usage, vehicle mileage, and vehicle/control technology. Emissions from rail product transport are primarily due
to diesel freight systems and are based on fuel usage.
Freight railroads are reducing greenhouse gas emission through the use of Green Rail Yard technology. A green
rail yard is defined as any facility at a rail system node that has applied leading edge technology to minimize
environmental effects. Examples of this technology include the use of low- or no- emission mobile equipment,
such as container lift cranes; onsite renewable energy generation (solar, wind, etc.) to provide all or part of the
yards power consumption; and the use of gen-set or hybrid locomotives.
Because freight transportation is expected to rise sharply, future greenhouse gas reductions are expected to
increase. For example, AASHTO projects that ton-miles for truck movements more than 500 miles long will
increase from 1.4 trillion in 2000 to 2.14 trillion in 2020. If 10 percent of this freight were diverted from trucks to
trains (perhaps using efficient intermodal movements as well as increased access to direct carload service)
cumulative estimated greenhouse gas reductions from 2007 through 2020 could be as much as 200 million tons,
as illustrated in Exhibit 6-4.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 3

Exhibit 6-4 Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Source: Association of American Railroads report, Freight Railroads and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2008

The Environmental Protection Agency has adopted a comprehensive national program to reduce emissions from
non-road diesel engines, known as Clean Air Non-Road Diesel Rule. This program includes railroad locomotives
used for local yard switching operations, as well as long-haul, heavy load operations. The rail industry has
endorsed these stringent new locomotive emissions standards that are aimed to cut particulate emissions by up
to 90 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 80 percent.
Major emissions from locomotive diesel engines are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). The
EPA, which published its first set of locomotive emissions regulations in 1998, has continued to work toward
continued reductions in emissions. Taking advantage of emission control technology already implemented in
highway trucks and buses, the EPA, locomotive manufacturers and the rail industry are expected to integrate
engine and fuel controls to gain the greatest emission reductions.
US emission standards for railroad locomotives apply to newly manufactured and remanufactured railroad
locomotives and locomotive engines. These standards have been adopted by the EPA in two regulatory actions.
The first emissions regulations for railroad locomotives were established in December 1997 and published in
1998. These regulations established tiers, based on when locomotives were manufactured, to guide the
industry. Tier 0 standards were established for locomotives originally manufactured between 1973 and 2001.
Tier 1 standards addressed new locomotives manufactured in 2002 through 2004. Tier 2 standards were
established for new locomotives manufactured in 2005 and later. The Tier 0 and 1 standards were intended to
reduce NOx emissions by 33 percent and 50 percent respectively, while preventing increases in other emissions
such as PM. Tier 2 standards reduced NOx by 67 percent from pre-control levels and reduced PM by 50 percent.
In March 2008 the EPA introduced new regulations with more stringent emission requirements. Tier 3
standards, to be met by engine design methods, become effective for locomotives manufactured in 2012. These
standards maintain Tier 2 NOx standards while reducing PM emissions an additional 50 percent. Tier 4
standards, which are expected to require after-treatment technologies, become effective in 2015. Tier 4
standards require a 90 percent reduction in NOx and a 93 percent reduction in PM from uncontrolled levels.
These regulations include new idle reduction requirements for newly built and remanufactured locomotives and
adopt provisions to encourage a new generation of clean switcher locomotives based on clean, non-road diesel

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 4

engine standards. The rule is designed to cut emissions from all types of diesel locomotives including linehaul,
switcher, and passenger rail.
By 2030, this program is designed to reduce annual emissions of NOx nationally by about 800,000 tons and PM
emissions by 27,000 tons; those emission reductions are expected to continue to increase beyond 2030 as fleet
turnover largely is completed.
As noted in the statistics provided by EPA in Exhibit 6-3 and AAR in Exhibit 6-4, the railroads serving Ohio already
contribute to improved air quality and have the potential to contribute further through a decrease in highway
vehicle miles traveled and vehicle emissions (both carbon and greenhouse gas).
6.3 Land Use
Land use planning authority in Ohio resides with local governments. As with many states, the Ohio Department
of Transportation is charged with providing a transportation system that effectively serves the transportation
needs of the communities, businesses, industries, and citizens. The coordination of both land use planning and
transportation planning is necessary to providing an efficient and effective coordinated system.
Because of noise and air pollution, few people want to live near rail lines or rail yards. Local zoning ordinances
and land use decisions tend to favor residential or commercial development in many urban areas. Thus, in
Ohios urban areas, particularly within the Cleveland, Akron, Columbus, Toledo, Dayton, and Cincinnati areas,
available land is scarce for any freight rail expansion. Many existing yards and facilities are small, obsolete or
located in remote or inaccessible locations. Highway access to intermodal yards is also often limited to narrow
roadways with low clearances or geometrics difficult for trucks to negotiate.
Most rail yard expansion is now taking place in suburban areas. In the suburban Columbus area, Norfolk
Southern built the Rickenbacker Intermodal Facility. In the Toledo area, CSX built a new intermodal yard near N.
Baltimore. The difference in the suburban and rural areas is that there is more available land for expansion. This
trend is also based on the reality that high volume rail operations in center city areas can create congestion and
safety concerns at grade crossings, separate neighborhoods, and use property for yard operations that could be
utilized for more valuable development purposes.
These land use decisions, however, must be balanced with their impact on the rail industrys ability to meet
increasing freight demand in urban areas, and ultimately could lead to freight access in urban areas being
limited to trucks only.
6.4 Energy
Freight railroads are the most energy efficient choice for moving goods. Nationally, in 2007 one gallon of fuel
moved one ton of freight by rail 436 miles roughly the round trip distance between Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Moving more freight by rail is a straight- forward way to meaningfully reduce both energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions without harming the economy. Based on data from the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, if one percent of long-haul freight currently moved by truck were moved by rail
instead, fuel savings would be approximately 111 million gallons per year. Moving more freight by rail would
also help cut highway congestion by taking trucks off the road, especially along key corridors. A single
intermodal train can take up to 280 trucks off the highways. Depending on cargo, other trains can take up to 500
trucks off highways. The chart below depicts the increased efficiency in rail fuel consumption since 1980.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 5

Exhibit 6-5 Rail Fuel Consumption

Source: Association of American Railroads

The rail modes fuel efficiency superiority over other surface transportation modes is primarily based on the fact
that it can move long and heavy loads over steel rails which result in much lower friction, and the resulting loss
of energy, than trucks rubber tires on pavement. Also contributing to their efficiency is trains normally run at
steady-state speeds, with limited inefficiency due to acceleration, and low driven wheel traction loading.
The Association of American Railroads, in their publication "Freight Railroads & Greenhouse Gas Emissions, July
2007, also notes that railroads are curbing fuel consumption through the use of technology, training of
personnel and changes in operating practices. A summary of these initiatives is described below:
Locomotives: Railroads, nationally, have spent billions of dollars on thousands of new environmentally
friendly locomotives and have overhauled thousands of older locomotives to improve their
environmental friendliness. For example, some new switching locomotives that are used to assemble
and disassemble trains in rail yards are "GenSet" (generator set) switchers that sharply reduce fuel
consumption and emissions. GenSets have two or three independent engines that cycle on and off,
depending on need. Other new switching locomotives are hybrids with a small, fossil-fueled engine in
addition to a large bank of rechargeable batteries. Hybrid switchers can save up to half the fuel of
conventional switchers while releasing a fraction of smog inducing emissions.
Locomotive Monitoring Systems: Railroads use sophisticated onboard monitoring systems to gather
and evaluate information on location, topography, track curvature, train length, and weight; they
provide engineers with real-time coaching on the optimum speed for that train from a fuel savings and
operational standpoint.
Training: In many cases, railroad fuel efficiency is directly related to how well an engineer handles a
train. In effect, railroads use the skills of their engineers to save fuel by offering training programs
through which engineers and simulators provide fuel-saving tips.
Information technology: Railroads use advanced computer software to improve their operational
efficiency and, therefore, their fuel efficiency. For example, railroads use sophisticated modeling
software to identify the best ways to sequence cars in a large classification yard. The result is more
efficient yard operation.
Innovative trip planning systems: Railroads also use trip planning systems that automatically analyze a
mix of ever-changing variables (e.g., crew and locomotive availability, congestion in rail yards, the
priority of different freight cars, track conditions, etc.) to optimize how and when freight cars are

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 6

assembled to form trains and when those trains depart. The result is smoother traffic flow, better asset
utilization, and reduced fuel use.
Reduced idling: Locomotives often have to idle when not in use for various reasons, such as preventing
freezing of the coolant (most lack antifreeze), charging batteries and air reservoirs, and providing for
crew comfort. However, some railroads are implementing stop-start idling-reduction technology that
allows main engines to shut down when ambient conditions are favorable. One advantage of GenSet
locomotives is their smaller engines use antifreeze, thus allowing them to shut down in cold weather.
Some railroads also use auxiliary power units that warm engines so that locomotives can be shut down
in cold weather.
Components and design: Railroads use innovative freight car and locomotive components and designs
to save fuel. For example, advanced top-of-rail lubrication techniques save fuel by reducing friction and
wear. Also, improving the aerodynamic profile of trains saves fuel by reducing drag.
Many of these innovations and practices are being explored and/or practiced nationally and locally by railroads
operating in Ohio.
6.5 Community and Quality of Life Impacts
Community and quality of life impacts related to rail transportation include safety, security, noise and air
pollution, and energy. Environmental and energy contributions have been discussed earlier in this chapter.
Safety and security issues are addressed in Chapter 7.
One additional community impact which has been the subject of recent attention is noise pollution related to
railroad operations. This is primarily in the form of locomotive horns, which by law must be utilized as trains
approach at-grade crossings as means to warn motorists and pedestrians.
The Federal Railroad Administration has provided localities nationwide with the opportunity to establish quiet
zones at these crossing locations. A quiet zone is a grade crossing at which trains are prohibited sounding their
horns in order to decrease the noise level for nearby residential communities. Communities wishing to establish
quiet zones must equip proposed grade crossings with adequate safety measures to overcome the decrease in
safety created by silencing the train horns. The additional safety measures must be constructed at the
communitys expense and must meet federal specifications.
Rail service in Ohio improves the quality of life in Ohio in various ways. It removes trucks from already congested
roadways, reduces the freight carbon footprint to the state, and provides businesses and industries with an
alternative and often less expensive option to move materials and goods, thereby reducing production and
distribution costs and making Ohio businesses more competitive. As an example of this, NS serves two mines in
Eastern Ohio, moving over 10 million gross tons of coal to a river barge facility less than 20 miles away. This
short-haul rail initiative removes approximately 400,000 fully loaded coal trucks from the states highway
system. The rail industry also offers the opportunity to not only move people and goods in a fuel-efficient
manner, but will also participate significantly in the transition to alternative energy sources such as ethanol, bio
fuels, and wind energy.
Improvements to the freight rail network with strategic investments by both the private and public sectors can
significantly increase the level of these benefits.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 7

6.6 Summary
A reliable, efficient, well-maintained rail transportation system is essential to having a competitive and
sustainable economy for Ohio, the region, and the nation. Rail provides Ohio business and industries a low cost
transportation option for moving goods and resources within, into, out of, and through Ohio. Rail transportation
is increasingly being considered a preferred alternative due to its ability to relieve congestion, concentrate
development patterns, and offer a competitive advantage to business and industries in the state.
Rail transportation also has a lower environmental impact than truck and passenger vehicle transportation. As
stewards of the environment, it is critical that Ohio continue to promote energy efficient transportation choices,
especially rail transportation. Rail service cuts fuel consumption, leading to less dependence on foreign
petroleum.
Greater reliance on freight rail will also reduce the need for highway construction. Expansion of the highway
system often causes the loss of economically, environmentally, and historically valuable land, which, in turn, can
contribute to inefficient land use patterns. With an enhanced focus on Smart Growth, ODOT is committed to
transportation choices that support efficient land use patterns.
Preserving Ohios railroad network and improving its access to freight and intermodal facilities must continue to
be a priority for Ohio as a means to address future economic development initiatives, as well as to provide the
states business communities with expanded transportation options.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 6 - 8

7.0 Rail Safety and Security


Rail safety and security has taken on a new light in the past decade. The safety of the rail system has always
been a high priority by both rail carriers and public agencies due to its potential impacts on the general public
and the efficiency of rail operations. Rail security, however, has evolved since the turn of the century from its
focus on theft of goods carried and rail property damage to threats posed by terrorists using the rail mode to
disrupt transportation in general or harm large numbers of citizens.
In addition to the change in focus in rail security, the availability of new technology has resulted in legislative
requirements for the implementation of technologies and operations intended to both increase the level of
public safety, but also improve the capacity and efficiency of the nations rail system.
A number of Ohio state agencies, in concert with Ohios rail operators, continue to make progress on the safety
and security fronts. The following provides a summary of these issues and progress to-date.
7.1 Rail Safety
Rail safety requirements are provided through a combination of federal and state laws. Most safety-related rules
and regulations fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration, as outlined in the Rail Safety
Act of 1970 and other legislation, such as the most recent Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Rail safety issues are generally comprised of highway/rail crossing safety, rail safety inspection, trespass
incidents, and other requirements regarding the movement of hazardous material and implementation of new
technology. Although these issues fall under FRAs jurisdiction, state agencies have oversight responsibilities and
are heavily involved in efforts to improve the safety of the rail system. The level of rail safety in Ohio has
improved significantly as shown in Exhibit 7-1 below.
Exhibit 7- 1 Total Rail Accidents/Incidents in Ohio (1999-2008)
Total Accidents/Incidents
Total Fatalities
Total Non-fatal conditions

1999
581
39
395

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


575
449
456
509
510
28
34
48
26
34
339
247
250
277
282
Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis

2005
467
23
258

2006
414
41
214

2007
428
31
237

2008
333
26
167

Total rail accidents/incidents are the sum of reportable train accidents, crossing incidents, and other accidents
and incidents occurring in Ohio as reported to the FRA. Non-fatalities are reportable injuries. Individual
accidents may not involve either fatalities or non-fatal conditions, or may involve multiple fatalities and nonfatalities. Therefore, there is no direct correlation between the number of fatalities/non-fatalities and the total
number of accidents.
These figures show that annual rail accidents/incidents in Ohio have decreased 42.6 percent since 1999, while
related fatalities have decreased 33.3 percent and non-fatal conditions, or injuries, have decreased 57.7 percent.
Discussion of the individual components of rail safety in which the state is involved follow.
7.1.1 Railroad Grade Crossing Safety
The rail safety component which is most visible to the general public and for which the public is most exposed to
potential harm from rail operations is the interface between the rail and highway systems at grade crossings.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 7 - 1

ODOT, ORDC and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) have aggressively invested in and improved
safety warning devices at highway-rail grade crossings. Historically, ODOT has allocated $15 million per year in
federal Hazard Elimination and Surface Transportation Program funds for highway-railroad grade crossing safety
improvements or corrective activities designed to alleviate highway-railroad safety problems. This amount
exceeds the $8.2 million set-aside for grade crossing safety required by the FHWA Section 130 program. These
funds are administered by the Ohio Rail Development Commission for projects on state highway, U.S. highway,
or interstate or local city, street, county or township roads. Funds are generally used for both preliminary and
construction engineering.
In addition to these funds, the ORDC administers funds from Congressional Set-Asides, FRA grants, and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The PUCO also has state funds that are invested into
grade crossing safety improvements. The results of this aggressive investment policy in grade crossing safety are
displayed in Exhibit 7-2 below.
Exhibit 7- 2 Total Annual Public Grade Crossing Incidents in Ohio (1999-2008)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total Incidents
127 143 123 120 112 117 122 108 113
82
Fatalities
19
15
21
20
11
13
7
15
8
11
Injuries
46
40
41
36
44
32
32
30
40
31
Source: ORDC

The decrease in the number of grade crossing incidents since 1999, approximately 40 percent, is similar to that
for overall rail accidents in the state. One of the ORDCs highest priorities is the closing of unneeded at-grade
crossings. There can be no crashes, incidents, or fatalities at a crossing that no longer exists. ORDC aggressively
seeks out redundant roads that can be closed where they cross tracks. The ORDC and Ohio railroads offer
significant incentive to local highway authorities for the closure of unnecessary crossings. (For more on this
issue, please see the Grade Crossing Consolidation Program information that follows.)
Ohio has approximately 6,100 public at-grade crossings of which 3,050, or 50 percent are equipped with flashing
lights and roadway gates, 793, or 13 percent are equipped with flashing lights only and 2,318, or 37 percent
have passive warning systems such as cross-bucks. In addition, Ohio has 2,257 grade separated rail crossings.
The PUCO maintains an inventory of all grade crossings in the state. The data is updated to reflect improvements
or modifications to the crossings or warning systems made by the state.
Trespasser Deaths: In addition to grade crossing crashes and incidents, trespassing along privately owned
railroad tracks and rights-of-way is a serious issue in Ohio. According to Federal Railroad Administration
statistics, Ohio ranked 4th highest in the nation in the number of people killed while trespassing on railroad
property with 24 deaths. Only California, Texas, and Pennsylvania had more trespassing deaths. For the entire
nation, 434 pedestrian rail trespass fatalities occurred in 2009. A total of 71% of all Year 2009 trespass fatalities
occurred in the 15 states listed below.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 7 - 2

Exhibit 7- 3 Trespasser Deaths (2009)

Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

State
California
Pennsylvania
Texas
Ohio
New Jersey
Illinois
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Washington
Indiana
Missouri
Massachusetts
Georgia
Louisiana

Number of
Deaths
61
29
29
24
23
21
19
18
15
14
13
12
11
10
10

Source: Compiled by Ohio Operation Lifesaver from Federal Railroad Administration Data
In terms of enforcement, there is a limited state role in helping to reduce the number of trespassing fatalities.
The enforcement of trespassing laws is largely a local and railroad law enforcement issue. ORDC supports the
efforts of Ohio Operation Lifesaver in educating the public about the dangers of trespassing on railroad
property).
ORDCs Railroad Grade Crossing Safety Programs are comprised of a number of improvement categories as
follows:
Active Grade Crossing Equipment Installation/Upgrade Improvements
These improvements are implemented through a number of crossing improvement programs. These include:
Priority Warning Device Improvement Program: These improvements focus on installing active warning
devices where they previously did not exist and upgrading existing warning devices. Project locations
selected are based on FRAs Hazard Index which ranks crossings on such factors as rail and highway
volumes, highway geometrics in the vicinity of the crossing, and types warning system at the crossing.
Rail Corridor Program: This program promotes the concept of upgrading segments of rail line with
multiple crossings at one time, taking advantage of economies of scale and closing redundant crossings
where possible. The program targets priority rail corridors high train volumes and speed.
Fatal Crash Upgrade Program: This program addresses crossings which have experienced a fatal
accident. When a community experiences a fatal crossing accident ORDC immediately conducts a field
review of the crossing. If ORDC concludes an engineering improvement would reduce the chances of
future accidents, corrective actions are immediately implemented.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 7 - 3

Grade Crossing Consolidation Program: This program provides communities with other railroad safety
improvements and closes redundant grade crossings. The funding provided can be used for a range of
improvements including improvements to other crossings, the creation of parallel roadways or
turnarounds.
County Task Force/Constituent Initiated Projects: Over a dozen County Railroad Safety Task Force
organizations exist throughout the state. ORDC staff work with each of the task force groups and other
local groups to fund safety projects that they prioritize.
State Route System Crossing Improvement Program: This program targets crossings on Ohios State
Route System that are equipped with passage signage and/or flashing light systems
Signal Circuitry Upgrade Projects: This program is designed to modernize antiquated technology to
current standards, such as constant warning time to accurately calculate train arrival time at a grade
crossing, to improve the function of warning devices and reduce the incidence of motor vehicle
operators disregarding railroad warning devices
Crossing Warning Sign and Pavement Marking Improvements: These improvements include the installation of
crossing warning sign and pavement marking improvements. ORDC is in the process of developing a plan to
address the installation of yield and stop signs as part of the crossbuck assemblies.
Crossing Approach Improvements: These improvements include channelization, new or upgraded traffic
signals, pre-signal guardrails, and pedestrian/bicycle path improvements near crossings. This program may
include signal pre-emption projects where there are interconnections between grade crossing warning devices
and traffic control signals within close proximity of a grade crossing. Proper interconnection (preemption)
between highway-rail grade crossing warning devices and highway traffic control signals is imperative to ensure
that the systems work together in order to avoid tragic situations that can be caused by the failure of the traffic
control signal to provide adequate time for vehicles to move clear of the railroad track prior to the arrival of a
train. This is being aggressively pursued by the ORDC and ODOT including the publication of a standard in the
ODOT Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM).
Visibility Improvements: These projects include sight distance improvements and vegetation clearance. Funding
for these activities, as well as grade crossing illumination, is provided through a state funded supplemental
assistance program administered by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Roadway Geometry Improvements: These projects include the installation of high-type surface materials at
grade crossings, primarily on the State Route system. The state provides the project materials involved and the
railroad provides the labor involved in the project. Geometric improvements also include the elimination of
high-profile crossings and sight distance improvements.
Grade Separation Program: In 1999, the state of Ohio began the Rail Grade Separation Program. This is a 10year, $200 million program led by ODOT and ORDC. The program addresses safety, mobility, and economic
development concerns related to grade crossings from Ohios local communities and elected leaders.
7.1.2 Rail Safety Inspection Program
The federal Rail Safety Act of 1970 authorized states to work with the Federal Railroad Administration to enforce
railroad safety regulations. Federal regulations that states may enforce include standards for track, signal and
train control, motive power and equipment, operating practices and hazardous materials. States may also
participate in the testing and inspection of warning devices at grade crossings.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 7 - 4

Ohios state rail safety inspection program is administered by the Transportation Division of the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio.
7.1.3 Hazardous Materials
Federal common carrier obligations mandate railroads are required to transport hazardous materials whether
they want to or not. Each year, about 1.7 million carloads of hazardous materials are transported by rail in the
U.S.
The PUCO is the regulatory agency responsible for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail and
commercial vehicles within Ohio. Compliance enforcement is accomplished through registration of hazardous
material carriers and company on-site audits.
PUCO maintains a 24-hour hazardous material reporting line to which incidents involving hazardous materials
can be reported. PUCO also provides technical assistance to emergency responders, conducts investigations of
railroad accidents and rail-related hazardous material incidents, and conducts radiological surveys and
contamination control surveys of radiological shipments.
7.1.4 Positive Train Control
Positive train control refers to technologies designed to automatically stop or slow a train before certain
accidents occur. PTC is designed to prevent collisions between trains and derailments caused by excessive
speed, incursions by trains on tracks under repair and by trains moving over switches left in the wrong position.
PTC systems are designed to determine the location and speed of trains, warn train operators of potential
problems, and take action if operators do not respond to a warning.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires railroads submit a PTC Implementation Plan by April 2010.
Railroads are also required to place PTC systems in service by December 31, 2015 on rail routes with commuter
or intercity passenger operations and on rail lines with high volumes of high risk freight, such as toxic-byinhalation materials.
As the cost of implementing PTC is expected to range between $10-17 billion over the next 20 years, this
requirement could have cost implications on future rail passenger service plans. It may also have freight service
implications to chemical manufacturers located on rail lines the cost of PTC is not considered financially viable to
rail carriers.
7.2 Rail Security
As noted earlier, the focus of rail security has changed significantly in the past decade. New federal agencies
have been established to oversee and provide assistance to ensure the security of transportation modes. This
section will discuss these Ohios involvement in these newly established procedures and traditional rail securityrelated measures.
7.2.1 Federal and State Roles in Rail Security
The primary agencies responsible for security or transportation modes in Ohio are the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. These agencies have addressed transportation
security largely through identifying critical infrastructure assets, developing protection strategies for these
assets, and developing emergency management plans.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 7 - 5

The Association of American Railroads, working with a number of federal agencies, organized the Rail Security
Task Force. This task force developed a comprehensive risk analysis and security plan for the rail system that
included:
A database of critical railroad assets
Assessments of railroad vulnerabilities
Analysis of the terrorism threat
Calculation of risks and identification of countermeasures
The railroad sector maintains communications with the US Department of Defense, the US Department of
Homeland Security, the US Department of Transportation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and state and
local law enforcement agencies on all aspects of rail security.
The Department of Homeland Security addresses rail system security through the following means:
Training and deploying manpower and assets for high risk areas
Developing and testing new security technologies
Performing security assessments of systems across the country
Providing funding to state and local partners
Over the past two years three rail carriers operating in Ohio CSX, NS, and the Indiana & Ohio Railway, have
received funding from the Department of Homeland Securitys Freight Rail Security Grant Program.
The PUCO is the lead agency for state oversight of rail security-related issues such as hazardous material
movements and emergency response. These efforts are described in more detail in various sections of this
chapter. A number of Ohio state agencies support PUCO in these efforts such as the Ohio Departments of
Health, Environmental Protection, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, Highway Patrol, and the Emergency
Management Agency.
7.2.2 Strategic Rail Corridor Network
The US Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Commands Transportation Engineering Agency has
identified the national Strategic Rail Corridor Network. STRACNET is comprised of a 32,000 mile interconnected
network of rail corridors and associated connector lines most important to national defense. Ohios STRACNET
system is shown on Exhibit 7-4.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 7 - 6

Exhibit 7- 4 STRACNET Map

ODOT and ORDC work with the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to ensure the strategic
nature of these corridors and connecting lines are considered in their planning and capital development
processes.
7.2.3 Emergency Response
The Public Utilities Utility Commission of Ohio provides emergency response assistance for with regard to
hazardous material release events. This assistance is provided in the form of the following:
Grant-funding information to improve certification and training
Education and training on transportation and hazardous materials regulations
Conducting internal examinations of hazardous materials shippers and generators
Overseeing the routing of railroad and highway radioactive shippers
7.3 Summary
Rail safety and security is an issue which is addressed at many levels of federal and Ohio state government.
These agencies have established a number of programs to increase safety for both railroad employees and the
general public. Rail security will also continue to evolve as technological advances are implemented to better
protect both the movement of goods and the traveling public.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 7 - 7

8.0 Ohio Freight Rail System Evaluation


8.1 The Impact of Ohios Rail Freight System on its Economy and Citizens
For over two centuries Ohios rail system has supported the transportation needs of the states industries. The
states rail system is also well positioned to address the transportation needs of the new global economy. Ohios
rail system carried over 311 million tons, or 4.16 million rail carloads, approximately 28 percent of all freight
inbound, outbound, and through the state in 2007. Ohios 36 railroads and over 6,500 miles of rail line reach
every corner of the state.
Ohios rail system was created to meet the needs of its manufacturing industries. It continues the serve the core
industries such as steel, agriculture, and coal on which the rail system was founded. In 2007, 39 percent of rail
traffic originating and 78 percent of rail traffic terminating in Ohio was comprised of bulk commodities such as
coal, minerals, ores, stone, agricultural commodities, and chemicals. The disparity between inbound and
outbound rail traffic is attributed to the states manufacturing base where bulk raw materials are imported into
the state and turned into higher value, lower-weight products. Railroads also deliver 43 million tons of coal
annually to the states coal-fired electric utility plants.
Despite the consolidation of the rail industry over the past three decades, both in terms of the number of major
railroads and rail mileage, Ohio has maintained a well-balanced rail network. The states Class I railroads
maintain over 4,000 miles of track, much of which is in the form of mainlines. These mainlines, in both the
north-south and east-west directions, connect Ohio to the countrys major rail gateways, intermodal facilities
such as ports, and consuming markets around the country. Class I railroads also operate selected short-haul
movements when cost-effective. For example, as previously noted NS moves coal about 16 miles from mines at
Powhatan Point where it is loaded onto barges.
In addition to its major mainline network, the state also enjoys rail competition between CSX and NS in many of
its markets. This combination of access and competition results in lower transportation costs, which is a major
advantage to industries dependent on rail due to the bulk nature of their traffic, and in attracting new
development, such as auto manufacturers, to the state.
Ohio also has an extensive rail short line system. Many of these short line railroads were former Class I railroad
mainlines or branch lines which were saved from abandonment for the purpose of preserving rail service for
local shippers. In addition to these railroads primary role of delivering rail traffic to local shippers from their
interchange point with major railroads, many have also developed specialized, short-haul rail services which
provide cost-efficient movements for their customers. These short-haul movements, which would normally
involve the use of heavy trucks over the highway system, are primarily intrastate movements between shippers
and suppliers, between shippers facilities (e.g. between manufacturing plants and warehouses), or involve new
rail access to existing industries. It is estimated these rail short line initiatives remove over 900,000 truck trips
from the Ohio highway system annually.8
8.2 Existing and Projected Rail Capacity Constraints on Ohio Mainlines
With the projected increases in rail demand, the rail industry has worked together to identify rail lines and line
segments which they estimate will see the greatest increase in volume and where existing and projected
capacity constraints will affect the fluidity and reliability required for the rail network to remain competitive. To
determine rail mainline system capacity needs for the country, the National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity
and Investment Study, published by the Association of American Railroads in September 2007 was developed.
8

Access Ohio 2004-2030, November 2004


May 10, 2010
Chapter 8 - 1

The Class I railroads designated Primary Rail Corridors and these corridors were evaluated on the basis of both
current rail volumes compared to current capacity and future (2035) volumes compared to current capacity.
From this, current and future levels of service from Level A to Level F, similar to that used for the highway
system, were assigned to each of the corridors.
Of the total 52,340 miles of rail line designated as primary rail corridors, over 1,800 miles are located within
Ohio. Exhibit 8-1 shows those rail lines designated as Primary Rail Corridors within Ohio.
Exhibit 8-1 Primary Class I Rail Corridors

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates using Association of American Railroads Report,


National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study, 2007

Future growth rates in terms of trains per day for most primary rail corridors in Ohio are relatively moderate
with projected increases of 0-30 percent through 2035. Rail corridors across the northern tier of the state, and
between Sandusky and Columbus, however, are projected to increase between 30-80 percent. Exhibit 8-2 shows
the projected growth rates on Ohios primary rail corridors.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 8 - 2

Exhibit 8-2 Projected Ohio Class I Freight Rail Corridor Growth Rates Through 2035

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates using Association of American Railroads Report,


National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study, 2007

As noted, the National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study assessed current corridor
capacity to determine congestion levels. This was done by calculating a volume-to-capacity ratio expressed as a
level of service grade.
LOS grades were generally described as follows:
LOS Grades A, B, C - Rail volumes are generally below current capacity. Train flows are low to moderate
with capacity to accommodate maintenance and recover from accidents.
LOS Grade D Rail volumes are near capacity. Train flows are heavy with moderate capacity to
accommodate maintenance and recover from accidents.
LOS Grade E Rail volumes are at capacity. Train flows are very heavy with very limited capacity to
accommodate maintenance and recover from accidents.
LOS Grade F Rail volumes are above capacity. Train flows are unstable and service breakdown
conditions exist.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 8 - 3

Ohios primary rail corridors all currently operate within LOS Grades A, B, or C, or below available capacity levels.
However, future Ohio rail corridor levels of service are projected to worsen. Most major rail corridors in the
state are projected to deteriorate to Levels of Service D, E, or F without a significant level of investment in
investments such as adding track, building or lengthening passing sidings, improving signal systems, and
upgrading track to support increased traffic and heavier loads.
Exhibit 8-3 shows the projected levels of service on Ohio rail lines in 2035 without significant investment.
Exhibit 8-3 Projected 2035 Freight Service Levels Major Corridors

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates using Association of American Railroads Report,


National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study, 2007

May 10, 2010


Chapter 8 - 4

8.3 Ohio Freight Rail Bottlenecks


Ohio recognizes of the importance of a fluid rail network and has conducted studies to identify and prioritize
points or segments of the states network where trains routinely experience recurring congestion delays. From
the states perspective, relieving these rail chokepoints and improving the capacity and efficiency of the rail
system will ensure continued economic growth, mitigate highway congestion and maintenance costs, and add to
the safety, security and energy/environmental conditions related to the states transportation system. The
states industries also benefit through lower logistics costs, reduced delays, and increased business expansion
opportunities.
For example, in 2007, Ohio conducted the Ohio Freight Rail Choke Point Study to identify, locate, and quantify
the 30 most severe rail choke points in Ohio9. Bottleneck points were defined as a specific physical location on
the rail system recurring congestion and train delays were currently being experienced or were anticipated over
the near term. Each freight railroad operating in the state, as well as metropolitan planning organizations and
other experts, were provided an opportunity to submit a list of choke points. Numerous changes in conditions
have taken place since this study was completed and its findings are out-of-date and therefore not included in
this Plan.
Rail freight bottlenecks are being identified through public outreach and stakeholder interviews. Those
identified are included in Appendix A of this State Rail Plan. Freight improvements to address the bottlenecks
will be evaluated.
8.4 Summary
Ohios existing rail system continues to contribute to both its citizens and industries by reducing highway
congestion and maintenance, enhancing economic growth, and improving safety and the environment. The
states rail network is also well positioned to take advantage of the changing transportation logistics brought
upon by the global economy.

Ohio Freight Rail Choke Point Study, Cambridge Systematics, August 2007
May 10, 2010
Chapter 8 - 5

9.0 Passenger Rail Service in Ohio


9.1 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail System Routes
Intercity passenger rail travel is provided by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak,
to a limited number of cities across Ohios northern and southern regions. Amtrak passenger services in Ohio are
discussed below.
Cardinal
The Cardinal operates between New York and Chicago. The service consists of one round-trip three days a week.
The Hoosier State route joins the Cardinal route in Indianapolis, providing a daily route to Chicago. The Cardinal
only makes one station stop in Ohio at Union Terminal in Cincinnati. Other stops on the route include
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, and Charleston, WV. Westbound the Cardinal leaves New Yorks Penn
Station between 6:45 and 6:55 AM (depending on the day) and arrives in Chicago at 10:35 AM the following day.
Eastbound, the train leaves Chicago at 5:45 PM and reaches New York at 9:45 PM the next day. Station stops in
Cincinnati are made at 1:03 AM (westbound) and 3:17 AM (eastbound). Following are the distances between
some of the stops:
Exhibit 9-1 Cardinal Service Segments and Mileage Between Stations
New York Cincinnati
828 miles
Cincinnati Indianapolis
123 miles
Indianapolis Chicago (Cardinal & Hoosier Lines)
196 miles
Total:
1147 miles (45 miles within Ohio)
Capitol Limited
The Capitol Limited operates between Washington DC to Chicago. The service consists of one round-trip daily,
stopping at Alliance, Cleveland, Elyria, Sandusky, and Toledo inside Ohio. Intermediate stops outside of Ohio
include Pittsburgh and South Bend, IN. Westbound the train leaves Washington DC 4:05 PM and arrives in
Chicago at 8:40 AM the following day. Eastbound route train leaves Chicago at 6:50 PM and reaches Washington
DC at 1:15 PM the following day. Stops are made in Ohio from 1:34 AM to 5:17 AM (westbound) and 11:49 PM
to 3:15 AM (eastbound). The distances between some of the stops along this route are as follows:
Exhibit 9-2 Capitol Limited Service Segments and Mileage Between Stations
Washington DC Cleveland
439 miles
Cleveland Toledo
107 miles
Toledo Chicago
234 miles
Total:
780 miles (260 miles within Ohio)
Lake Shore Limited
The Lake Shore Limited operates between Boston and New York City (the two sections connecting in Albany, NY)
and Chicago. The service consists of one round-trip per day and makes the same Ohio stops as the Capitol
Limited. Intermediate stops outside of Ohio include Syracuse, NY, Erie, PA, and South Bend, IN. Westbound
trains leave New York at 3:45 PM and Boston at 11:55 AM and arrive in Chicago at 9:45 AM the next day. West
of Cleveland, the Lake Shore Limited travels the same route as the Capitol Limited. Ohio stops occur between
3:27 AM and 7:05 AM. Eastbound, the train leaves Chicago at 9:00 PM and arrives in Boston at 9:19 PM and New
York at 6:25 PM the next day. Ohio stops occur between 1:10 AM and 5:20 AM. The distances between some of
the routes stops are as follows:

May 10, 2010


Chapter 9 - 1

Exhibit 9-3 Lake Shore Limited Segments and Mileage Between Stations
New York City Cleveland
618 miles
Boston Cleveland
676 miles
Cleveland Toledo
107 miles
Toledo Chicago

234 miles
Total:

959 (New York line)


1017 (Boston line) miles
(245 miles within Ohio)

Thruway Motorcoach Connections


The Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited intercity rail services are supplemented by daily Amtrak Thruway
Motorcoach service in Toledo. A Thruway bus departs Toledo for East Lansing (Detroit) at 6:30 AM and arrives at
Toledo from East Lansing at 11 PM, with sufficient time for riders to make connections to and from the trains.
The following map shows the three routes as they pass through Ohio.
Exhibit 9-4 Current Amtrak Service Routes in Ohio

Source: Amtrak
----------- Capitol Limited
----------- Lake Shore Limited
----------- Cardinal
----------- Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited (west of Cleveland)

May 10, 2010


Chapter 9 - 2

9.2 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail System Stations


As noted in the table below, there are seven Amtrak stations in use in Ohio. Of these, two are simply platforms,
and one is a platform with a shelter house-type waiting area. The other four are depot buildings with seating
areas.
Union Terminal in Cincinnati, OH: This station is an enclosed building generally open from 11:00 PM through
6:30 AM. A ticketing office is also open during these hours. No baggage services are provided. The Route 1 bus
on Cincinnatis Metro system also stops outside the terminal.
Cleveland Lakefront Station in Cleveland, OH: This station is an enclosed building located just north of
downtown Cleveland on Lake Erie. The station is open from 9:30 PM through 1:00 PM and offers ticketing and
baggage services during these hours. The station provides connections to the Blue and Green Lines of
Clevelands RTA system.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Plaza in Toledo, OH: This station, originally called Central Union Terminal, has an
enclosed building that is open from 9:00 PM through 12:30 PM. A ticketing office and baggage services are also
available during these hours.
Sandusky, OH: This station is an uncovered platform with a small shelter and waiting room. There are no fixed
hours for this location, no ticketing office, and no baggage services. The city of Sandusky also offers an ondemand transit system, Sandusky Transit System, so passengers can call to schedule service to/from the station.
Elyria, OH: This station was originally the Amtrak Cleveland Lakefront Station, which was moved to Elyria upon
completion of the new station in Cleveland. The station is open from 2:00 AM to 6:00 AM and does not have a
ticketing office or baggage services.
Bryan, OH: This station is an enclosed building that is open the limited hours of 1:30 AM to 2:30 AM and 6:30
AM to 8:00 AM. There are no ticketing office or baggage services available at this location.
Alliance, OH: This station is an uncovered platform with a bus stop-style shelter. There are no fixed hours for
this location, no ticketing office, and no baggage services.
Exhibit 9-5 shows the current stations in Ohio, identifying their ownership, routes that serve them, and any
current intermodal connections they offer.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 9 - 3

Exhibit 9-5 Amtrak-Served Stations in Ohio


Station

Owner

Cincinnati

City of Cincinnati

Cleveland

Amtrak

Toledo

Toledo-Lucas County Port


Authority

Sandusky

City of Sandusky

Elyria

Amtrak

Bryan
Alliance

City of Bryan
Amtrak

Route(s)
Cardinal / Hoosier State
Capitol Limited;
Lake Shore Limited
Capitol Limited;
Lake Shore Limited
Capitol Limited;
Lake Shore Limited
Capitol Limited; Lake
Shore Limited
Lake Shore Limited
Capitol Limited

Intermodal Connections
Metro
RTA Rapid Transit
Amtrak Thruway
Motorcoach

9.3 Intercity Passenger Rail System Performance


9.3.1 Ridership
National intercity rail passenger ridership and revenues reached their highest levels in Amtrak history in FY 2008
with 28.7 million passengers carried and $1.73 billion in ticket revenues. In Ohio, ridership on the Amtrak system
exceeded 120,000 passengers in FY 2008.
Annual Trends
The total Ohio Amtrak ridership for FY 2008 increased 11 percent from FY 2007, and ticket revenues increased
14 percent. Ridership had also increased by almost 11,000, or roughly nine percent, from FY 2007 to FY 2008.
While there was an increase seen at all locations across the state, the largest increase was in Cleveland, where
almost 6,000 more boardings were reported. Toledo had the highest passenger volume in Ohio with just under
50,500 reported boardings in FY 2008, which was an increase of approximately 1,000 from the previous year.
The following chart shows the average number of boardings and alightings at each station in Ohio for FY 2006
through FY 2008.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 9 - 4

Exhibit 9-6: Amtrak Riders in Ohio from FY 2006 to FY 2008


60,000

Amtrak Riders in Ohio from FY 2006 to FY 2008

50,000

# of Riders

40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0

Alliance

Bryan

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Elyria

Sandusky

Toledo

FY 2006

3,379

6,104

14,043

29,334

2,726

4,424

56,228

FY 2007

3,402

5,205

13,032

31,147

2,885

5,439

49,215

FY 2008

3,720

5,507

15,067

36,977

3,426

5,832

50,490

Source: Amtrak

9.3.2 On-Time Performance


Amtrak defines On-Time Performance as the total number of trains arriving on-time at a station divided by the
total number of trains operated on that route. A train is considered on-time if it arrives at the final destination
within an allowed number of minutes, or tolerance, of its scheduled arrival time. Trains are allowed a certain
tolerance based on how far they travel.10
OTP Annual Trend
The overall OTP for all Amtrak routes in FY 2008 was 71 percent. The Capitol Limited has averaged 76.3 percent
OTP over the past year while the Lake Shore Limited has averaged 76.9 percent OTP. The Cardinal has an
average OTP of 56.1 percent over the past year. The chart below shows the changes in OTP over the past year
for each of the three routes that travel through Ohio.

10

www.Amtrak.com
May 10, 2010
Chapter 9 - 5

Exhibit 9-7: Amtrak OTP for Routes Travelling through Ohio FY 2008

Amtrak OTP for Routes Traveling through Ohio FY 2008

% Trains On Time

90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

Capitol Limited
August 2008

November February 2009


2008

May 2009

Cardinal
August 2009
Lake Shore Limited

Performance Month

Source: Amtrak

Causes of OTP Delays


Causes for Amtrak train delays can be attributed to a number of reasons including the host railroad, Amtrak
itself, or other delays such as border crossings and customs. The chart below shows the major causes of delay on
the routes that run through Ohio in July 2009.
Exhibit 9-8 Major Causes of OTP Delay in July 2009
Route

Cardinal

Capitol Limited

Lake Shore Limited

Source of
Share Of
Delay
Responsibility

Major Causes Of Delay

Host

70.1%

Slow orders, signals

Amtrak

23.6%

Passenger-related

Other

6.3%

Host

53.1%

Slow orders, operational

Amtrak

30.2%

Passenger-related, crew-related

Other

16.7%

Host

65.7%

Slow orders, train interference, track & signal problems

Amtrak

23.0%

Passenger-related

Other

11.3%
Source: Amtrak

Host Railroad-Caused Delays: The host railroads in Ohio are CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway.
The majority of the delays experienced on the routes that serve Ohio were attributed to the host railroads.
Specific causes vary by the segment of the route examined.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 9 - 6

Amtrak-Caused Delays: Amtrak delays only accounted for about one-quarter of the delays experienced on the
routes serving Ohio. Most of these delays were passengers-related. However, the Capitol Limited also
experienced a large amount of crew-related delays.
Other Causes of OTP Delays: Other causes of delay were relatively minimal as Ohio routes do not cross
international borders or have to go through customs inspections. The Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited
trains did experience more delays in this category than the Cardinal trains, a result which may be attributable to
inclement weather conditions along the northern route adjacent to Lake Erie.
9.4 Intercity Passenger and Local Transit Connections
Currently, multimodal passenger transportation connections in Ohio exist at the Amtrak stations in Cleveland
and Toledo.
Cleveland Lakefront Station provides connection to the Blue and Green Lines of the citys RTA Rapid Transit
system, if the service is requested. These light rail systems provide service from Lakefront Station to the
University Heights/Beechwood area (Green Line) and to Shaker Heights (Blue Line).
Martin Luther King, Jr. Plaza in Toledo offers a connection to the Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach system.
9.5 Existing High Speed Rail Systems
There are currently no high speed rail services in operation in Ohio. Planning for new high speed rail systems is
described in Chapter 10.
9.6 Existing Commuter Rail Systems
There are currently no commuter rail services in operation in Ohio. Planning for new commuter rail systems is
described in Chapter 10.
9.7 Existing Tourist Railroads
Ohio also hosts a number of tourist and museum trains. A typical operation consists of a short train ride through
scenic or historic part of the country. Tourist trains operate on tracks of different gauges sometimes using rolling
stock dating from the early 20th Century. Rolling stock can include steam locomotives, diesel engines, coaches,
gang cars, or other types of rolling stock. Tourist railroads typically are either a for-profit business or are
operated as non-profit organizations for historical preservation purposes. In some cases, tourist trains operate
on track shared with freight trains.
The tourist railroads operating in Ohio are:
Ashtabula, Carson & Jefferson Railroad
Byesville Scenic Railroad
Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad
Dennison Depot
Hocking Valley Scenic Railway
Lebanon, Mason & Monroe Railroad
Ohio Railway Museum
Orrville Railroad
Toledo, Lake Erie & Western Railway and Museum

May 10, 2010


Chapter 9 - 7

10.0 Ohio Passenger Rail


This chapter describes Ohios current passenger rail efforts for new, improved and expanded passenger rail
services in Ohio along with regional, multi-state plans for major investments in the development of an interstate
passenger rail network. It includes sections on intercity passenger rail, high speed rail, and commuter rail. The
scope of this chapter includes all systems that would be fully or partially regulated by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
Thirty-eight years of conventional and high speed rail planning studies initiated by governors or legislators from
both major political parties have explored responsible, cost effective ways to restore passenger train service to
Ohios largest cities. All studies have concluded that Ohio is one of the best candidates in the U.S. for developing
a system of intercity passenger rail services. The state is densely populated, it has multiple metropolitan areas,
and its major downtowns are a little over one hundred miles apart. Additionally, Amtraks existing long-distance
train service in the State is not designed to serve Ohio with frequent and reliable intercity passenger rail service.
However, despite decades of studies and recommendations, the State of Ohio has failed to invest in developing
passenger train service in the state. The 2002-2007 Ohio Hub Study was the most recent effort, which studied
the feasibility of developing a 110 MPH system in seven corridors. The Ohio Hub Study concluded that
developing a 110 MPH system would provide the best value for the State of Ohio beginning with the 3C corridor.
While the corridor has undergone dramatic changes in the rail-line ownership and the loss of key rail routes such
as direct links to Akron via Mansfield, the conclusions of the studies have not. Like all of the prior studies, the
Ohio Hub identified the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati or 3C corridor as the starting point because In all
network options, the 3C Corridor has the highest projected load factors on the largest trains with the greatest
revenue potential.
In order to meet the short-term, as well as the long-term passenger rail development goals, Ohio is advancing
two parallel efforts: 1) the implementation of the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati (3C) Quick Start
Service and 2) continuation of the planning for the Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub System and the
proposed Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). The 3C Quick Start Corridor Program is the first step in a
long-range vision including system expansions and full realization of service benefits.
From the beginning of Ohios high speed rail planning efforts, to the ongoing 3C Quick Start effort, ORDC and
ODOT have included the owners and operators of the freight rail lines involved. Railroad representatives from
NS, CSX, and Rail America have participated in and provided critical input into Ohio passenger rail planning and
development efforts. Ohios public/private partnership with the freight railroads is well established and the
table has been set to negotiate and finalize the 3C Quick Start capital plan and the access and maintenance
arrangements needed to initiate and operate the conventional passenger train service at speeds up to 79 mph
on the shared track.
The recent $400 million federal award to Ohio for the 3C project presents a unique opportunity to establish a
viable passenger rail service in Ohio as well as position the state to qualify for future federal funding
opportunities to both expand its passenger rail program. While all decisions about whether to initiate or
improve service must be done in consultation with the host freight railroads and local officials and the approval
of the General Assembly, developing passenger rail service incrementally over time is a proven model around
the country.
In addition to the various passenger rail planning efforts of the state, ODOT has recently undertaken a new
initiative called the Go Ohio. This initiative will develop a strategic guide for ODOT to use in making
transportation investment decisions with the goal enhancing economic development. Go Ohio will identify
May 10, 2010
Chapter 10 - 1

policies affecting transportation in Ohio and recommend opportunities to fill gaps and streamline processes. The
key elements of Go Ohio are to define a strategic multimodal transportation system in Ohio and develop options
for a future investment strategy to fund improvements to the strategic system. Performance-based methods for
prioritizing transportation investments will be established to address the needs identified on the strategic
system. The final product will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Ohio transportation system and
policies and identify strategies for the future.
The development of Go Ohio is being guided by the vision of the 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task
Force set forth in January 2009. The Go Ohio effort will involve a wide range of participants and decision-makers
to ensure it achieves the task forces vision of a comprehensive, realistic, and actionable strategy that has buy-in
among key stakeholders and the public.
10.1 Intercity Passenger Rail Service
This section addresses planning for a passenger rail system that would connect many of the urban areas within
Ohio and also provide services to smaller on-line communities and connect to passenger rail systems in adjacent
states. High speed rail systems are a subset of intercity rail passenger service, and planning for those systems
will be covered in later sections. Similarly, commuter rail systems, which often operate over portions of the
intercity network, generally address suburb to city corridors around major urban areas. These systems will also
be covered in subsequent sections.
Since 1971, intercity rail passenger service in the United States has been operated by Amtrak. This quasi-public
corporation has been charged with operating a skeletal network of intercity passenger rail lines that cross
though Ohio and were described in more detail in Chapter 9. Amtrak is willing to operate new intercity rail
services if the state provides sufficient capital funding for infrastructure and rolling stock as well as an operating
subsidy to cover the difference between revenue and expenses. This concept has been successfully
implemented in a number of states including California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Virginia, and North
Carolina.
Intercity passenger service generally operates over a combination of freight railroad tracks and sections of track
owned by Amtrak or its state partners. In order to initiate and operate new services, a variety of things need to
happen including agreements with the host/freight railroad owners and with the passenger rail operator;
construction of infrastructure improvements, track and signal upgrades needed to operate the trains in an
efficient and reliable manner; station improvements, intermodal connections; rolling stock sufficient to operate
the schedule; maintenance and storage facilities for the trains; and administration including marketing, audit,
and oversight.
Intercity train service within a state usually consists of a diesel locomotive, a number of passenger cars to match
the demand, and some limited food service equipment or other compatible equipment such as Diesel Multiple
Units or DMUs. Trains operate at track speed (usually 60 mph to 79 mph), with various speed limitations
through congested areas. Tracks often have numerous highway grade crossings and at-grade railroad crossings.
Frequency of service is sometimes limited by use of the tracks by freight railroads.
10.1.1 The Beginning of Passenger Rail Planning in Ohio
In 1975 the Ohio General Assembly created the Ohio Rail Transportation Authority, responsible for producing a
statewide, long-range passenger rail plan. The legislature mandated two corridors for inclusion in the plan: 1)
Cleveland-Akron-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati, and 2) Toledo-Cleveland-Youngstown. In 1977 ORTA released the
Phase 1 Ohio High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger Plan, which focused on rehabilitating Ohios existing railroad
May 10, 2010
Chapter 10 - 2

infrastructure to reinstitute modern passenger rail service. It considered four train-speed improvements, with
maximum speeds of 60 mph, 80 mph, 110 mph, and 150 mph. The 110-mph option was described in detail, but
it was not formally recommended. However, ORTA recognized the advantages of implementing the use of
conventional diesel trains in the initial implementation of the Ohio System because conventional equipment
could be operated at higher speeds, up to 90- and 110-mph, and conventional service could be implemented
quickly by the target date of 1985.
The final routes that comprised the 1977 plan included: 1) Cleveland to Cincinnati via Akron, (through Barberton,
Rittman, Creston, and Ashland) with intermediate stops in Mansfield, Columbus, Springfield, Dayton, and
Middletown; 2) Toledo via Elyria to Cleveland, Akron and Youngstown; 3) Toledo to Columbus via Fostoria,
Marion, and Delaware; and 4) three interstate extensions from Toledo to Detroit; Youngstown to Pittsburgh;
and Cincinnati to Louisville. The study concluded that the Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati route via Akron would
be the most heavily traveled route. The study also suggested that if the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati
route, also known as the 3C route, were the only route in the system, the estimated ridership would be
approximately 716,000 passengers annually in 1985.
10.1.2 High Speed Rail Planning History
Beginning in the late 1970s, most of Ohios passenger rail efforts focused almost exclusively on high speed
passenger rail development with speeds in excess of 150-mph. None of these studies resulted in projects
advanced beyond the feasibility study phase. The challenge with all of these efforts was the high capital costs
associated with dedicated passenger rail infrastructure. In 1979, the Midwest High Speed Rail compact was
established to explore the potential for the development of a high speed rail system within the Great Lakes
region and to encourage a cooperative and coordinated regional approach for planning and development
activities. By 1984, the compact member states included Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania,
Illinois, and Indiana. A technical committee published its first Regional Rail Passenger Development Program in
1989. The program identified potential corridors for the development of both conventional and high speed
corridors as part of an interstate regional rail network.
In 1979, ORTAs planning efforts began to shift to a 150-mph electrified state-of-the-art high speed railroad.
Following an extensive public involvement program and a thorough review, a 600-mile system connecting 13
Ohio cities with future out-of-state connections was recommended by ORTA for implementation. The total
estimated capital cost in 1982 dollars was approximately $14 million per mile, for a total of $8.2 billion. ORTAs
plan also suggested high speed rail would create new opportunities for economic growth and industrial
expansion in the state. ORTA proposed the high speed rail system be financed through a one cent sales tax
increase which appeared on the ballot in 1982. However, this ballot request was turned down.
Despite the defeat at the ballot and the subsequent break-up of ORTA, high speed rail remained an issue under
discussion in Ohio. The potential for high speed rail within the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati Corridor
held the interest of Governor Richard F. Celeste and the Ohio Legislature. In 1983, a High Speed Rail Task Force
was created by the Ohio Legislature. The goal of this group would be to reexamine whether or not a high speed
rail system could be built and operated as a joint public-private venture and to develop a financing plan that
would minimize financial support from the state.
The task force focused on the construction of electrically powered trains designed to operate at a maximum
speed of 170-mph. The trains would use dedicated track on exclusive right-of-way, grade separated along most
of the route. The initial line would be the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati corridor with intermediate stops in
Mansfield and Dayton, as well as suburban stations in Columbus and Cincinnati. The inclusion of Akron on the 3C

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 3

corridor was dependent on whether or not the added capital, operating costs, and travel times could be offset
by higher passenger and other revenues. Future expansion of the system would include a Youngstown-AkronCleveland-Toledo route, a Toledo-Lima-Dayton-Cincinnati route, and out-of-state connections to Detroit,
Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and New York.
The task force concluded high speed rail was desirable and recommended that a state authority be created and
equipped with all of the necessary powers for financing the construction and operation of the system. In
response, legislation establishing the Ohio High Speed Rail Authority was signed into law by Governor Celeste in
June 1986.
10.1.3 Creation of Ohio High Speed Rail Authority
The underlying goal of OHSRA was to develop a financing plan that would minimize the capital and operating
support from the state while maximizing private investment. To this end, OHSRA began a process to bring the
private sector into the project to help plan, finance, design, construct, and operate the service. In 1988 OHSRA
issued a request for proposals, and the Ohio Railway Organization Inc. responded. ORO was a private sector
partnership of individuals and companies who were willing to invest in the project. The members combined the
technical, financial, and corporate resources of several of the worlds most prestigious engineering and financial
organizations who built their reputations on successful transportation development projects. ORO was promised
the franchise, or the right to build and operate the rail system, if it met certain conditions. Therefore, it was at
its own expense that ORO prepared a $1.5 million action plan to implement high speed rail linking Cleveland,
Columbus, and Cincinnati. Ultimately the state and ORO partnership struggled to secure funding to advance the
project to Phase 2 Pre-Construction. In 1994 the General Assembly disbanded OHSRA and transferred staff to
the newly created Ohio Rail Development Commission.
10.1.4 Conventional Speed Passenger Rail Planning Efforts
In 1984, the ODOT Division of Rail pursued a parallel planning effort for conventional speed passenger rail
service. ODOT asked Amtrak to investigate the condition of the Conrail-owned railroad lines between Cleveland,
Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati and to evaluate the potential for running an Amtrak service. Amtrak produced
an engineering assessment while ODOT staff performed field reviews, assessed station locations, and outlined
the potential costs to initiate and operate conventional speed service on the 258-mile line.
By 1992, ODOTs conventional speed rail planning was still considered preliminary and did not sufficiently
analyze the capital and operating requirements, or ridership and revenue estimates. Therefore, as part of
development of the states new transportation plan, Access Ohio, ODOT hired consultants to significantly
advance the analysis. A variety of reports were prepared including Initiation of Passenger Rail Service on the
Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati. This study concluded that the implementation of service posed no technical
or operational obstacles assuming cooperation, coordinated analysis, and good-faith negotiating between the
State of Ohio, Conrail, CSX, and Amtrak.
The Cleveland-Columbus (2C) Passenger Rail Project was initiated in the fall of 1998 as part of an effort to
explore ways to mitigate traffic congestion and travel delay on Interstate 71 during the highways 10-year
reconstruction program. The primary objective was to investigate potential capital and operating costs
associated with a two-year demonstration and to determine if conventional rail service could be initiated for no
more than $32 million in capital and $3 million per year in operating support. However, the state was not able to
meet this maximum threshold for capital requirements without risking the on-time performance and reliability
of the passenger rail service. As a result, in May 2000 the state of Ohio announced it would not proceed with the
implementation of the 2C passenger demonstration project.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 4

10.1.5 The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative


Since its inception in 1996, Ohio has been a contributor to the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative; the other
sponsoring Midwest states include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Wisconsin. Over the years the MWRRI has advanced from a series of individual corridor service concepts into a
well defined, integrated vision to create a 21st Century regional passenger rail system. The system was
envisioned as a hub-and-spoke passenger rail system providing service to and through Chicago to locations
throughout the Midwest including two routes to Ohio cities: Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland and ChicagoIndianapolis-Cincinnati.
The master plan for the MWRRI became known as the Midwest Regional Rail System Plan. The plan
encompasses a rail network of more than 3,000 route miles and serves a population of over 60 million people.
The system would introduce modern train equipment operating at speeds up to 110 mph, and it would use
existing railroad rights-of-way shared with existing freight services.
10.1.6 Ohio Corridors Receive Federal Designation
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 established a special federal program to fund
safety improvements at highway-rail grade crossings on corridors designated as high speed intercity passenger
rail corridors based on their potential for future development. Seven of the 10 designated corridors were
selected by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. Designation involved an evaluation of projected ridership,
public benefits, anticipated partnership participation of states, localities, and the freight railroads, and most
importantly, the corridors ability to achieve high speed train cruise speeds of at least 110 mph over much of the
route.
By 1999 the preliminary MWRRI technical findings were complete, and both ORDC and the Indiana Department
of Transportation prepared applications for federal high speed rail corridor designations for ChicagoIndianapolis-Cincinnati and the Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland. An updated 3C Corridor plan was also developed by
ORDC and submitted to the FRA. All three corridors were able to meet the federal criteria, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation awarded federal high speed rail corridor designations to the three lines. These
federally designated high speed rail corridors were incorporated in 2009 into Exhibit 10-1. Additionally, the
Governors of region formed the Midwest High-Speed Rail Steering Group to promote the various passenger rail
plans in the Midwest.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 5

Exhibit 10-1 Vision for High-Speed Rail in America

Source: Vision for High Speed Rail in America


US Department of Transportation/ Federal Railroad Administration, April 2009

10.1.7 Planning Studies and Reports


As a recap, the following reports were developed over the years as part of Ohios planning efforts for passenger
rail.
1975 Rapid Rail Transit Between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, Staff Research Report No. 119,
Legislative Service Commission
1977 Ohio Rail Transportation Authority: Phase I Ohio High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger Plan
(Statewide System Plan)
1980 Ohio Rail Transportation Authority : Phase II Ohio High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger Program
(Statewide System)
1985 High Speed Rail Task Force Final Report (Statewide System)
1992 Ohio Railway Organization for the Ohio High Speed Rail Authority: Implementation Plan for High
Speed Rail in Ohio (3C)
1995 Ohio Department of Transportation: Access Ohio: Element 4 Initiation of Passenger Rail Service
between Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati (3C)
1995 Access Ohio: Element 4, Initiation of Passenger Rail Service on the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati
Corridor; Access Ohio Element 5, Initiation of Passenger Rail Service on the Cleveland-Pittsburgh
Corridor; and, Access Ohio Element 7, Eight Corridor Passenger Rail Service Feasibility Study
2000 Ohio Rail Development Commission, Ohio Department of Transportation: Cleveland to Columbus
Passenger Rail Initiative (2C)
May 10, 2010
Chapter 10 - 6

2001 Ohio Rail Development Commission: Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati High Speed Rail Feasibility
Study
2004 Ohio Rail Development Commission: Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study
2007 Ohio Rail Development Commission: Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study Update
2007 Ohio Rail Development Commission: Ohio Hub Economic Impact Study
10.2 3C Quick Start Service Development Program
On January 28, 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced that it had selected and reserved
$400 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to help Ohio develop and implement
passenger rail service in Ohios Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor, (3C Quick Start Service). This
Federal funding does not require a state/local match and would cover 100% of capital investments needed to
implement the new service. This project will have independent utility as a 79 MPH conventional service. It will
also provide a foundation for Ohio to follow the model proven to work in other states of incrementally
developing the service over time.
Ohios 3C Quick Start Corridor Program advances a strategy to restore passenger rail service to one of the
most densely populated corridors without rail service in the U.S. Regularly scheduled passenger trains have not
operated in this corridor since 1971. As passenger rail service improves and expands around the country, the 3C
Quick Start Corridor Program will demonstrate that Ohios travel markets are ripe for corridor development
and that the State stands ready to introduce new service to the 6.8 million people living along this important
corridor. The 3C Corridor Program is, as described, quick because the service can be initiated in the relatively
fast timelines required for the ARRA funding that reinforces the stimulus opportunities that the High Speed
Intercity Passenger Rail Program was intended to support.
The goals of the projects are:
Ohios near term 3C Quick Start Service strategy emphasizes making an early investment that will yield
tangible benefits within the next few years.
Ohios Quick Start Service will create direct and indirect jobs related to the establishment of new
service in Ohio.
The development of the 3C Quick Start Service will cultivate the technical expertise necessary to
design, build, operate, and maintain rail service in Ohio.
The 3C Quick Start Service will improve mobility by providing another travel option that will begin to
establish the Ohio rail market for further expansion.
The 3C Quick Start Service Program is the first critical step toward realizing the ultimate vision of a
national network of high speed trains connecting Ohio to Chicago, to the east coast, to Canada, and
many other destinations throughout the Midwest.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 7

Exhibit 10-2 3C Corridor

Source: Ohio High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Application


3C Quick Start Corridor Program,
Route and Station Locations
October 2009

The 3C Corridor (EXHIBIT 10-2) is Ohios priority passenger rail corridor. The size of the major cities and their
proximity to each other along the line make this corridor an ideal candidate for intercity passenger rail service.
As demonstrated by a long history of feasibility studies and market analysis, among all of the potential intercity
passenger rail corridors serving Ohio the 3C Corridor shows the strongest potential to generate the ridership and
produce the economic benefits necessary to justify the on-going project development efforts.
The public involvement for the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project was required as part of the Federal
application process and led by ODOT and ORDC. Input was sought from all applicable state and federal agencies,
railroads, local governments, transit agencies, local/regional/statewide interest groups, and the general public.
Outreach efforts for this project included stakeholder workshops and briefings, public meetings, community
presentations, statewide radio and newspaper advertising, social media outreach, project web site, e-mail alerts,

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 8

toll-free telephone hotline, on-line public meetings, press releases, media interviews, mailings and postcard
distributions, railroad coordination, and agency coordination among other efforts. In addition, it should be
noted that other grassroots advocacy organizations, not involved as project sponsors, volunteered their
resources to help spread the word about the 3C Quick Start Plan.
Specific issues and questions raised at each community will be reviewed at the onset of the upcoming
environmental impact assessment report phase and study efforts will be focused accordingly.
10.3 High Speed Passenger Rail Service
High speed rail services planned for Ohio are described under two programs: the Ohio Hub Plan and the
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. The Ohio Hub Plan envisioned a Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo-centric
system
10.3.1 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative
The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is a cooperative, multi-agency effort that began in 1996 and involves nine
Midwest states (Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin) as well as
the Federal Railroad Administration. The MWRRI envisions a Chicago-centric system with lines connecting
Cleveland and Toledo to Chicago, Columbus to Chicago, and Cincinnati to Chicago. See Exhibit 10.3, a map of the
Midwest Regional Rail System. The system elements include:
Use of 3,000 miles of existing rail right-of-way to connect rural and urban areas
Operation of a hub-and-spoke passenger rail system
Introduction of modern, high speed trains operating at speeds up to 110 mph
Provision of multimodal connections to improve system access
The goal of the initiative is to develop a passenger rail system that offers business and leisure travelers shorter
travel times, additional train frequencies, and connections between urban centers and smaller communities.
The MWRRI will provide a large increase in service and will cut travel time between destinations by 30 to 50
percent. In addition, new equipment with reduced maintenance requirements, an advanced train signaling and
control system, and line capacity improvements will help to establish and sustain a high level of on-time
performance.
Trains are expected to travel at speeds up to 110 mph on the primary routes, and 80 to 90 mph on secondary
lines. Existing trains run at speeds of about 55 to 79 mph. Raising passenger train speeds can significantly reduce
trip times. A trip between Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago could be reduced from about 90 minutes to just over an
hour. The trip from Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN to Chicago could drop from 8 hours to 5.5 hours. Travelers
between Chicago and Cincinnati could see the biggest travel time reductions, with four hour trip times.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 9

Exhibit 10-3 Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Source: Executive Report on the Midwestern Regional Rail System, February 2000

If implemented, planners forecast 9.3 million annual trips by the year 2025. The frequency of train trips could
also be increased: areas that currently only see one train in each direction daily now could see four or six trips
each way daily.
10.3.2 Ohios Long Term Vision for Passenger Rail The Ohio Hub System
The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub Study, provided the conceptual basis for Ohios long-term,
Intercity Passenger Rail Service Development Plan. Initiated in 2002 and updated in 2007, the study culminated
a multi-year effort to determine the financial and economic feasibility of developing an intercity/interstate
passenger rail system serving all of the major metropolitan areas in the region while connecting to other
developing rail corridors.
Ohios neighboring state departments of transportation partnered in the study and contributed to the analysis.
Senior staff from the transportation agencies from Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York, as well
as Amtrak, VIA Rail and the freight railroads, including NS, CSX and Canadian National (CN) railroads all provided
critical input into the planning process.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 10

The study examined the potential role that the Ohio Hub could play as part of an interconnected network of
regional passenger rail services. As shown in Exhibit 10-4 below, the envisioned regional rail system integrates
the regions air, highway and transit networks and interconnect with New Yorks Empire Service, Pennsylvanias
Keystone Service, the Northeast Corridor, Canadas VIA Rail as well as the MWRRS.
Exhibit 10-4 Regional Rail Corridors Connecting to the Ohio Hub System

Ohio Hub
Midwest
VIA Rail
Empire
Keystone
Other Rail Lines

The original Ohio Hub Study integrated the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) eastern routes into the
feasibility analysis by combining the two systems. This Ohio Hub Study, published in October 2004, focused on
four interconnected corridors serving a hub in Cleveland:
Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati
Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit via the preferred route serving Detroit Metro Airport
Cleveland-Pittsburgh via the preferred route serving Youngstown
Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Toronto
An updated 2007 Ohio Hub Study carried the feasibility analysis forward by adding three additional or
incremental corridors:
Columbus-Pittsburgh via the Panhandle route
Columbus-Toledo with through service continuing on to Detroit
Columbus-Lima-Fort Wayne with through service continuing on to Chicago
The interconnecting eastern lines of MWRRS were also integrated into the updated 2007 study:
Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland via the preferred route serving Fort Wayne
Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati
Chicago-Michigan (Detroit)

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 11

Exhibit 10-5 shows the envisioned fully-built out MWRRS and Ohio Hub networks, overlaid on a population
density map. The original Ohio Hub System, in blue, presented in the 2004 Study, encompassed 860 route miles.
The updated Ohio Hub Study enhanced the system by adding the corridors in orange, another 410 route miles,
bringing the total size of the proposed Ohio Hub System to approximately 1,244 route miles. The total system
miles, including the connecting MWRRS eastern corridors, minus the Indianapolis shortcut illustrated below, is
2,326-miles.
Exhibit 10-5 Ohio Hub plus MWRRS Eastern Routes

The Ohio Hub routes connect to cities in neighboring states to the east via existing Amtrak lines including New
Yorks Empire Service, Pennsylvanias Keystone Service, the Northeast Corridor System, and Canadas VIA Rail
System; the 3,000-mile Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, also called the Midwest Regional Rail System, would
connect cities as far west as Omaha and Kansas City. The proposed Ohio Hub daily passenger train frequencies
are illustrated on the map in Exhibit 10-6.
The Ohio Hub study included an analysis of alternative routes on two of the corridors: two Cleveland-Pittsburgh
routes were examined one alternative via Alliance, the other via Youngstown. Two Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit
routes were also analyzed one runs via Wyandotte, Michigan, the other via Detroit Metro Airport. The study
compared these routes and provided the estimated capital costs and ridership forecasts for each alternative. A
primary result of the study was the finding that the Youngstown and Detroit Metro alternatives were the two
routes that generated the best financial performance, so these were the preferred corridors that were advanced
in the analysis. With respect to the evaluation of alternative routes, however, the Ohio Hub Study concluded
that the final selection of the routes and stations would be decided as part of a Tier 1 NEPA document or a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 12

Exhibit 10-6 Future Daily Train Frequencies within and outside Ohio

Source: The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study
Technical Memorandum & Business Plan, July 2007

The population from the metropolitan regions served by Ohios Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor
serves just over 6.7 million, which is about 58 percent of Ohios total population. The larger Ohio Hub/MWRRI
system of routes illustrated in Exhibit 10-5 could serve a population of 33 million in six states and Southern
Ontario, Canada. The Ohio Hub Plan, assuming a fully developed seven corridor system, estimated that by 2025
there will be roughly 9.3 million riders using the proposed rail network.
As part of the Ohio Hub Study, an engineering assessment was conducted on each of the route segments to
determine the condition of the track and the ability to accommodate joint freight and passenger train
operations. Different operating scenarios were examined which would allow 79 mph to 110mph passenger
operating speeds. While representatives from the freight railroads participated in the Study, the Ohio Hub
feasibility planning was advanced prior to resolving engineering details that would need to be negotiated and
finalized with the freight railroad owners.
The Ohio Hub Study projected that the overall cost to develop the entire seven corridor Ohio Hub rail system
would be approximately $4 billion or about $3.1 million per mile for a 79 mph system, and $4.9 billion or $3.8
million per mile for the 110 mph system11. This estimate included the costs of required rail infrastructure
upgrades, access costs to railroad property, passenger equipment purchases, and the cost of the shared
Midwest Regional Rail System line segments. Capital costs for infrastructure improvements fell into one of the
following categories: trackwork and curves, stations, turnouts, rail and highway bridges, railroad crossing safety
improvements, and signals.

11

These costs were calculated for the Ohio Hub Study in 2007 based on prices observed in 2002.
May 10, 2010
Chapter 10 - 13

It is not anticipated that Ohio would have to cover all these capital costs, but that a significant level of federal
grant assistance would be available and that the state-share of the costs for interstate corridors would be
shared among Ohios neighboring states
The estimated annual operating costs for the Ohio Hub Plan were expected to mostly be attributed to the costs
for train crews, energy/fuel, train maintenance, track maintenance, insurance, sales and marketing, station
costs, administrative costs, on-board services, and the operation of a feeder bus service. These estimated
operating costs represent total system costs and have not been allocated to individual states. The method of
cost allocation would be determined in later project development phases. The estimated cost for operating the
110 mph Ohio Hub system was $201.5 million. Of this, the 3C Corridor required most of this expense at $55.2
million, or 27 percent, of the total annual cost. The operating cost category with the largest expense was train
equipment and maintenance at $56.1 million, or 29 percent.
In 2005, the ORDC initiated a comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of the Ohio Hub. The resulting
Ohio Hub Economic Impact Study, completed in June 2007, was based on a 860-mile Ohio Hub system with four
corridors that provided a hub in Cleveland and connected to: Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati; Youngstown
and Pittsburgh; Toledo and Detroit; and Erie, Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Toronto. The Ohio Hub economic
forecasts were carried out in adherence to the FRA criteria. For the purposes of the Ohio Hub Study, the U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration Cost Benefit Methodology was adopted. This
methodology, as set out in the FRA report High Speed Ground Transportation for America, provided the most
authoritative guide to the economic evaluation requirements for an intercity rail project to attract federal funds.
Benefits were quantified in terms of passenger rail user benefits, other-mode user benefits, and resource
savings benefits. Transportation improvements provided user benefits in terms of time and costs savings, as
well as convenience, comfort and reliability. User benefits included: a reduction in both travel times and costs
that users received; benefits that users of other modes received as a result of lower congestion levels; and
resource benefits such as savings in airline fares and reductions in emissions as a result of travelers being
diverted from air, bus and auto to the regional rail system. At the feasibility level of such a study, when a
benefit/cost ratio is above 1.2, the ratio was considered sufficient to validate the proposed systems economic
feasibility.
The 2007 Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, concluded that over the projects 30-year life, the
Ohio Hub would create nearly $9 billion in user benefits with $4.9 billion in costs including capital, maintenance,
and operating expenses, producing a 1.8 benefit/cost ratio. Moreover, the Ohio Hub would:
Create 16,700 permanent jobs which is equivalent to more than 500,000 person years of work;
Raise the regions income by over $1 billion over the life of the project;
Increase the average annual household income in the region by at least $90;
Generate more than $3 billion in development activity near stations;
Increase land values and create the potential for communities to develop new retail, office and
residential developments near the passenger rail stations;
Create an annual $80 million impact on state tourism by generating 320,000 overnight trips;
Increase Cleveland Hopkins Airport traffic by 5% and create a $500 million to $1 billion economic
benefit;
Create a potential benefit for freight operations in the range of $3 to $6 billion; and
Generate an annual fuel savings of approximately 9.4 million gallons of fuel.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 14

With regard to the Ohio Hub Plan, ORDC actively sought public opinion. ORDC, regional planning commissions,
and metropolitan planning organizations hosted 22 technical and/or public meeting in 10 Ohio cities attended
by over 700 citizens, elected officials, business and community leaders, and technical experts. Approximately
1,000 additional citizens and legislators heard about the plan at presentations and one-on-one briefings. News
stories and opinion pieces appeared in at least 15 local newspapers and news stories and interviews were
broadcast on at least 13 local television and radio stations. Ten organizations wrote resolutions and letters in
support of the plan. Some of the objectives resulting from public and agency outreach for the Ohio Hub Study
have been stated as follows:
The passenger rail system should be integrated into the regions air, highway, and local transit networks
and should connect directly to international airports.
An interconnected national passenger rail network will create economies of scale that increase regional
ridership and revenue and reduce overall system operating costs.
Once fully implemented under the FRA criteria, the systems revenues should cover the operating costs.
The new passenger service must not impair freight railroad operations or create chokepoints; rather,
railroad improvements must increase capacity and improve the fluidity of railroad operations.
The service operating plan should be developed to accommodate the requirement for fast, frequent,
and reliable passenger service with minimal delays for station stops or equipment servicing. The most
important characteristic of the operating plan is the overall train travel time.
An improvement in the efficiency of moving people, goods, and labor among markets and communities
has the potential to improve the investment and business climate of the state, which in turn, can lead to
a higher rate of economic growth.
10.4 Commuter Rail Service
There are 22 commuter rail services in the U.S. either operating or planning to initiate operations in the near
future. The majority of these are comparatively new, having begun operations since the early 1990s.
Commuter rail systems traditionally link bedroom communities with urban work centers. A typical commuter rail
trip can be 30 miles long or even longer. Stations are often set an average of five miles apart. In most cases,
commuter trains travel on tracks belonging to freight railroads, and thus often share track with freight trains.
Commuter rail services come in all sizes. They range from major systems, carrying over a 100,000 passengers per
weekday (Long Island Railroad in New York and Metra in Chicago) to small systems, carrying between 5,000 and
10,000 passengers per weekday or less (Sounder in Seattle and COASTER in San Diego). Some systems are even
smaller, with boardings of 2,000 passengers or less per weekday (Music City Star in Nashville and Shore Line East
in Connecticut).
The rise of so many different commuter rail services throughout the U.S. has been driven by the modes ability
to move large numbers of commuters over long distances efficiently. Riders routinely cite travel time savings
and elimination of long and stressful auto commutes as reasons why they opt for commuter rail. Urban areas
where commuter rail feasibility is being investigated include Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Cleveland, Columbus,
Cincinnati, Denver, Phoenix, the North San Francisco Bay Area, Charleston, and Anchorage.
Appendix B to this plan includes a Commuter Rail Checklist. It defines steps in the planning process for an
analysis of a potential commuter rail service. The list is not definitive. Rather, it cites fairly common tasks that
are performed when commuter rail feasibility is being investigated and service is being implemented. It is
included in the Ohio State Rail Plan as a check list for Ohio urban area planners who might be entertaining
May 10, 2010
Chapter 10 - 15

studying or establishing commuter rail services alone or as a complement to planned rail passenger services. It
must be emphasized that any commuter rail planning efforts that use existing, privately owned freight rail
infrastructure must receive freight railroad concurrence.
Commuter rail systems can provide a good transportation option where existing rail corridors can be developed
for joint freight and passenger use. In many cases, portions of the lines recommended as part of the Ohio Hub
Study could also be used for commuter rail services to access major metropolitan areas. As part of ODOTs
ongoing rail planning efforts, potential corridors would need to be evaluated following Federal Transit Authority
procedures to determine whether commuter rail is an appropriate mode to move forward with (i.e. the locally
preferred alternative or LPA). If so, those corridors could become part of the Ohio State Rail Plan.
10.4.1 Commuter Rail Planning in Ohio
A number of Ohio public transportation agencies have examined the feasibility of commuter rail services in the
State.
The Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study or NeoRail, which was completed in May 2001, was
sponsored by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA). Commuter rail corridors were
suggested for Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. Light rail transit (LRT) is the current preferred rail transit
mode choice for Columbus and Cincinnati. LRT is a mode with the capability to operate either on a dedicated
guideway or on street within mixed traffic. The vehicles are comprised of a narrower car body and articulation
and are electrified. They are not equipped to handle large numbers of people or operate longer distances like
commuter rail vehicles. The studies by the local agencies are detailed in the following sections.
10.4.2 Cleveland Commuter Rail
Exhibit 10-7 shows the 2001 NeoRail proposal for a Cleveland commuter rail system that consisted of six
corridors, with two options for the proposed Akron/Canton line. The Lake West (#1 to Lorain) and East (#6 to
Mantua) lines were the two recommended for early implementation. However development of the Lake West
corridor (#1) was opposed by local communities in 2001.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 16

Exhibit 10-7 NeoRail Proposal for Cleveland Commuter Rail

Source: Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, 2007

Lake West #1 to Lorain: This branch line corridor was recommended along with the East Corridor (# 6) as
one of the first two NeoRail routes to be implemented. The route would use NS mainline, having wayside
signals and high quality track in place. Population density along the lake is higher as compared to #2, the inland
route via Elyria, but Route #1 bypasses Hopkins Airport. There is the potential to also run Cleveland-Detroit or
Cleveland-Chicago intercity trains along this same route.
East #6 to Mantua: This branch line corridor via Aurora is the western remnant of the former Erie Railroad
mainline from Warren. Since the Erie Railroad has been abandoned east of Aurora, the line sees only light local
freight traffic. This route could also provide an alternative for the Ohio Hub Pittsburgh corridor. This line may
offer a more direct route from Cleveland to Warren.
West Corridor #2 Cleveland to Amherst via Elyria: Although NeoRail scored this route low on cost
effectiveness criteria, its forecast ridership would be almost as strong as that of the Lake West corridor (#1), and
the corridor has strong local support. If Ohio Hub were to share capacity improvements, the cost effectiveness
score may be greatly improved.
Southwest Corridor #3 Cleveland to Medina jointly developed with the 3C Corridor: There are two
options with this corridor. The first option would be a new rail alignment, as proposed in the NeoRail study. The
second option would be in conjunction with the 3C Corridor development. The route would follow the 3C

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 17

Corridor west to Grafton, where the 3C crosses a former Baltimore & Ohio Railroad branch line from Sterling to
Lorain. At Grafton the route would continue on a spur track south 12 miles to Medina.
South Corridor #4 and #5 two options to Akron/Canton: Two different route options were evaluated by
NeoRail between Cleveland and Akron. Option #4 would use the NS Alliance line from Cleveland to Hudson,
whereas Option #5 would use the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad from Cleveland to Kent. Note that the Ohio Hub
Pittsburgh Corridor is currently routed via Hudson.
Lake East Corridor #7 to Painesville: The NeoRail report notes that there is very little commuter ridership
expected east of Painesville. If Ohio Hub trains serve the longer-distance travel market, the commuter corridor
could be terminated at Painesville. Ohio Hub has proposed to add a third track to the entire length of this
corridor, so it should be possible to also accommodate a few commuter trains out to Painesville.
The NeoRail plan considered development of a NS Southern rail bypass as a prerequisite for implementing a
commuter rail system. Issues associated with development of this alternative route to the Lakefront Rail Line
have been extensively documented by the Cleveland Lakefront Freight Rail Bypass Study. The NeoRail study
noted that the development of a double-tracked Lakefront Bypass may not provide enough capacity to handle
all NS traffic through Cleveland. The proposed bypass may not be sufficient to accommodate all NS traffic from
Buffalo as well as from Pittsburgh. In addition, NS had identified the Cleveland-Alliance rail line as a bottleneck
regardless of the addition of the proposed passenger traffic. The proposed bypass may lack enough capacity,
necessitating continued use of the Lakefront line by NS freight trains. Additionally, the single-track bottleneck on
CSXs Short Line route may necessitate continued use of the Lakefront by CSX as well.
To meet the long-term capacity need, it may be reasonable to develop both the Lakefront Bypass within
Cleveland (see Exhibit 10-8) as well as a proposed Orrville reroute, which may bypass several NS through freight
trains completely out of the Cleveland area. Development of both bypasses may be needed to accommodate
both Ohio Hub and commuter trains, as well as to handle increasing freight traffic volumes.
Exhibit 10-8 Proposed Lakefront Bypass

Source: Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, 2007

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 18

10.4.3 Columbus Commuter Rail


In 2001, the Central Ohio Transit Authority conducted the Central Ohio Regional Rail Study. Exhibit 10-9 shows
the Central Ohio Transit Authority Vision 2020 Rail Corridors from this study. A Columbus commuter rail system
consisting of up to seven radial rail corridors was envisioned. Commuter rail to London/Springfield, and to
Delaware/Marion, could be considered with the 3C Corridor development. Also, commuter services to
Marysville, Newark, or Zanesville may be implemented in conjunction with the proposed incremental corridors
identified in studies.
Exhibit 10-9 COTA Vision 2020 Rail Corridors

Source: Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, 2007

10.4.4 Cincinnati Commuter Rail


Exhibit 10-10 shows a rail proposal that has been developed for Cincinnati. Many of these lines were proposed
to be built using LRT technology that may even be capable of operating in Cincinnatis abandoned downtown
subway tunnels. However, three of the lines to Lawrenceburg, KY (to the south), Dayton (to the north), and
South Milford (to the east) have been suggested as commuter rail routes.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 19

Exhibit 10-10 Proposed Cincinnati Rail System

Source: Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, 2007

10.4.5 Cost Savings for Commuter Rail Development


The Ohio Hub Plan could provide mainline capacity improvement and downtown station development that
could also support implementation of new commuter services. As Clevelands NeoRail study showed, commuter
rail corridors are easiest to develop on lightly-used freight branch lines, but developing only the branch lines
would leave substantial gaps in the area coverage of the rail commuter networks. However, with the Ohio Hub,
comprehensive commuter rail networks can be developed for both Cleveland and Columbus, and a DaytonCincinnati service can also be implemented.
It is important to note that the local match for the Ohio Hub investment would be provided using state dollars
rather than local funds. This would make the development of commuter rail much more affordable to the local
entities, which could be leveraged for commuter train stations, rolling stock, and branch line extensions.
10.4.6 Technology
Commuter rail technology is defined in this document as FRA-compliant12 vehicles that can share tracks with
freight trains, Amtrak trains, and future Ohio Hub intercity trains. One of the recent technologies being explored
by ORDC for the 3C Quick Start program is the use of a Diesel Multiple Unit passenger rail vehicle. DMUs
combine the passenger car with the diesel engine, making each individual railcar self-propelled, unlike
conventional passenger trains that use a locomotive to pull the trains. These trains are most efficient on lighter
density lines. However, there are currently no FRA-complaint designs being manufactured, although US Railcar,

12

FRA-compliant vehicles are vehicles that meet the crashworthiness standards of the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for operation on track shared simultaneously with freight and conventional passenger trains.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 20

a Columbus company, reportedly has plans to produce domestically manufactured, FRA-compliant DMU
vehicles.
Exhibit 10-11 shows a FRA-compliant DMU vehicle that was manufactured by Colorado Railcar, a company no
longer in business. US Railcar purchased the design rights to the vehicle and its variants.
Exhibit 10-11 FRA Compliant DMU Vehicle

Source: Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study, 2007

10.5 Synopsis of Recent Ohio Intercity and High Speed Rail Studies
Ohio Hub Passenger Rail Economic Impact Study (May 2007)
Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc.
Performed economic analysis and cost benefit studies to determine the state of Ohios and federal
governments contribution
Conducted an assessment of the transfer payments to Ohio from the spending of federal grants
Suggested that construction and operation of the Ohio Hub System would stimulate economic
activity in Ohio
Estimated the Ohio Hub could be expected to contribute a 0.1 percent growth to the regions
economy
Proposed Ohio Hub stations would be the gateway to communities and provide the front door to
the other rail travel across Ohio. At these gateway or front door locations, considerable
development potential would exist.
The Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study (July 2007)
Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc.
Developed a multistate plan using synergies with existing and proposed rail services
Explored both 79 mph and higher speed 110 mph options
Estimated service fares at 24 to 37 per seat mile for the 110 mph service
Produced ridership estimates of 9.3 million in 2025; revenues of $311 million; and operating
expenses of $202 million
Developed a capital cost estimates for 79 mph at $4.0 billion; 110 mph at $4.7 billion, in 2002 dollars
Produced an estimated benefit-cost ratio: 1.80

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 21

Ohio Hub Economic Impact Analysis (September 2007)


Prepared by GEM Public Sector Services
GEM Public Sector Services reviewed the Ohio Hub study prepared by Transportation Economics &
Management Systems, Inc. to confirm findings and methodologies of operating a high-speed
passenger rail system in Ohio
Identified a benefit-cost ratio of 1.24 and confirmed that ridership projections were reasonable
Examined operating and maintenance expenses; operating ratios of 1.23 in 2015 and 1.39 in 2025
Suggested a successful high speed passenger rail network is contingent upon several critical factors
including sufficient speed, capacity, and reliability to be competitive with the automobile for
intercity trips in Ohio, attractive, comfortable rolling stock and facilities, service integrated into
larger Midwest and national high speed rail systems, and a regional bus system to draw potential
riders from a larger area
Estimated that interconnectivity with other transit systems adds about 35 percent to projected
ridership
Identified local economic benefits of $2.38 billion direct and $6 billion total. Suggested 7,120 annual
construction jobs affected over 8 years.
Identified annual operating benefits affecting 1,761 new jobs and creating $290 million in salaries
Estimated increases in real estate value along line contributing to a three to four percent total
increase
Suggested that the project would be feasible with an 80 percent federal construction match
Suggested connections to airports and dual use of corridors for commuter rail
Ohio High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Application: 3C Quick Start Corridor Program
Service Development Plan (October 2009) by Ohio Department of Transportation
The Quick Start program was designed to demonstrate that 38 years of studies showing the viability
of passenger rail improvements in Ohio can be implemented to serve 6.8 million living along the
corridor
Suggested that convention passenger rail service can be started in time to meet stimulus funding
program requirements
Described a $7 million state commitment for programmatic environmental impact statement
Progressed Ohios first priority in Ohio Hub Study, the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati
service
Supported establishment of 79 mph operations along the corridor as 110 mph emerging high speed
rail program is progressed
Supported the linking all major forms of public transportation
Estimated an annual corridor ridership of 478,000 and can be expected gross revenue is $12.2
million
Estimated fares at 15 per seat mile based on a 6 hour 30 minute corridor running time
Identified infrastructure cost estimates for corridor of $388.7 million, and $175.0 million for rolling
stock
Amtrak Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati (September 2009)
Performed route study, ridership, and capital costs for conventional 79 mph passenger service
Study considered 15 route combinations, narrowed to shortest route via Berea and Middletown
Proposed rail operation would serve areas inhabited by 6.8 million persons out of 11.5 million in
Ohio

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 22

Confirmed that Amtrak trainsets would not be available for service; suggested new rolling stock
Recommended local communities fund station facilities (except Cleveland where existing station is
sufficient)
Suggested a preliminary 6.5-hour schedule, 3 round trips, 255 mile route is feasible for an estimated
capital costs of $517.6 million
Estimated annual ridership: 478,000; revenue: $12.2 million; state investment $17 million; total
operating expense: $29.2 million

May 10, 2010


Chapter 10 - 23

11.0 Rail Funding and Finance Options


Ohio has a long history of investing in rail preservation and improvement. The state participated in the federal
Local Rail Freight Assistance Program, which was established in 1973 to provide financial assistance to states for
the continuation of rail freight service on abandoned light density rail lines in the Northeast. The federal
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1979 expanded the program to all states and for any lines
threatened with abandonment. Although federal funding for this program has not been authorized since the
early 1990s, its effectiveness led a number of states to establish programs to address their own specific railrelated needs.
In 1994, Chapter 4981 of the Ohio Revised Code created the Ohio Rail Development Commission, an
independent agency of the Ohio Department of Transportation, to issue grants and loans to any transportation
authority or other party for the purpose of continuing or instituting rail transportation in the state. ORDC may
also issue bonds for qualified rail projects. The Commission was also empowered to provide grants or loans with
funds made available from the US government, the state, any transportation authority, or any combination of
above. Qualified applicants include railroads, and industries requiring rail service, political subdivisions,
government agencies, boards, commissions, regional transit boards, and port authorities. ORDC administers its
programs using prudent financial guidelines related to the desirability, timing, relative risk, and the extent of
public benefits related to the project.
11.1 Existing Rail Assistance Programs
Unlike other transportation modes in the United States, states have not had access to a significant amount of
federal funding for rail assistance through recent Surface Transportation Acts. The Ohio Rail Development
Commission funds its programs through a variety of sources including state general revenue funds, state special
revenue funds consisting of property management fees and loan re-payments and interest from its revolving
loan fund, federal highway safety funds allocated from ODOT as well as other applicable federal and state
grants. This section describes the Ohio rail programs, as well as federal rail-related programs and other funding
sources available to states.
11.1.1 State Programs
ORDC administers the Ohio Rail Assistance Program for which there are various program elements. ORDC also
coordinates with other state agencies with regard to assistance programs with rail project eligibility.
In general, grants are reserved for cases where there is extraordinary need. Loans are provided with flexible
interest rates and terms. Program elements include the following:
ORDC Freight Development/Rail Spur Program
This program provides assistance to companies for new rail and rail-related infrastructure. The goal of the
program is to promote the retention and development of Ohio companies through the use of rail transportation,
including rail access and carload generation to existing operations. Grant funding is generally limited to projects
where job creation is involved. Loan financing is available even when jobs are not created or retained.
ORDC Railroad Rehabilitation Program
This program provides assistance to public and private entities for the rehabilitation of rail lines in the state to
improve safety and operating efficiency. Grant and loan requests are evaluated on the basis of operational and
safety benefits, as well as projected future increases in the usage of the rail line by existing and new rail
customers.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 11 - 1

ORDC Rail Line Acquisition Program


This program provides assistance for the acquisition of rail lines to prevent the cessation of service, preserve the
line or right of way for future rail development, or enhance the lines viability. Funding requests are evaluated
on the basis of the importance of the rail line for rail users and overhead traffic, the number of people employed
by rail-dependent rail users, and the importance of the line with respect to affected shipper transportation
costs.
ORDC Railroad Grade Crossing Safety Programs
This program provides funding for highway-railroad grade crossing safety improvements or corrective activities
designed to alleviate highway-railroad hazards. In addition to funding available from the FHWA Highway Safety
Improvement and Surface Transportation Programs, ORDC and ODOT provide supplemental funding to carry out
all aspects of grade crossing improvements, including at-grade crossing equipment installation and upgrade,
crossing approach, surfacing, sign, and pavement marking, visibility and roadway geometry improvements, and
grade crossing separation and elimination projects. In some instances, funding for grade crossing safety
improvements is also provided through the state funded Supplemental Assistance Program administered by the
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Department of Development Logistics and Distribution Stimulus Program
This program was created to promote economic development and job creation in Ohio. The Department of
Development, in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Ohio Rail Development
Commission has established a $100 million forgivable loan program for eligible transportation, logistics, and
infrastructure projects in the State. Eligible capital infrastructure projects include road, rail, air and port
improvements that expand connectivity to logistics and/or intermodal centers, reduce checkpoints, and freight
bottlenecks, and enhance the flow of freight and/or improve access to new markets for Ohio businesses. Most
of the funding originally allocated to this program has been distributed.
11.2 State General Revenue Funding
State general revenue funds available for freight development/rail spur projects, railroad rehabilitation projects,
and rail line acquisitions fluctuate with the condition of the state budget and have declined in recent years.
11.3 Federal Programs
As noted earlier, there have been few dedicated federal programs for rail capital assistance available to states.
In late 2008, however, the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act provided funds directly to states for
rail intercity passenger investments. Also, in early 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided
flexible transportation funding to states for capital projects as well as funding for passenger rail development.
The following are summary descriptions of programs specifically available for rail assistance as well as programs
which are primarily highway oriented, but may also be eligible for selected rail-related applications.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
In an effort to stimulate the economy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided federal
funding for various transportation-related infrastructure projects which could be implemented in the near-term.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 11 - 2

Relevant programs include:


ARRA Flexible Highway Funding: This economic stimulus program provided states with $24 billion of
flexible highway funding for surface transportation improvements, including rail projects. Ohio received
a total of $775 million and allocated $75.4 million to 28 rail safety and rehabilitation projects.
ARRA Passenger Rail Funds: A total of $8 billion was made available for rail passenger improvement
planning and projects. Projects must be included in state rail passenger corridor plans and state rail
plans, meet safety regulations, and meet financial and project management plan requirements. Ohio
was awarded $400 million of its total $564 million request under this program.
ARRA Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grants Program: This
program allowed local and state governments to apply for $1.5 billion of discretionary funding. Grants
are eligible for capital investment in rail, highway, bridge, public transportation, and port projects.
Grants were awarded by USDOT on a competitive basis. Ohio has applied for a total of $600 million
under this program. The CSX National Gateway Project was awarded $98 million, with Ohio serving as
the lead applicant for a multi-state coalition.
Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008
This legislation authorized over $13 billion between 2009 and 2013 for Amtrak and promotes the development
of new and improved intercity rail passenger services. The act also establishes an intercity passenger rail capital
grant program for states. States are required to identify passenger rail corridor improvement projects in their
state rail plan to be eligible for the $1.9 billion authorized over five years. In addition to infrastructure projects,
facilities and equipment necessary to provide new or improved intercity passenger service are also eligible. The
act also authorizes $325 million for congestion grants to be made available to Amtrak and states over the five
year period for high-priority rail corridors to increase capacity and facilitate ridership.
A high-speed rail corridor development program, with authorized funding of $1.5 billion beginning in FY 2009 is
available to states and Amtrak for capital grants in high-speed corridors. Funding for the authorized programs
associated with this Act must be appropriated annually.
Rail-Related SAFETEA-LU Funding Programs
The Safe, Accountable, Efficient Transportation Equity Act a Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU, the current
authorization bill for the nations surface transportation program, expired on October 1, 2009. The act has been
extended as a result of delays in development of a new transportation reauthorization. SAFETEA-LU contains a
number of program provisions specifically for rail. These include:
Section 130 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Program: This program provides federal support in efforts to
reduce the incidence of accidents, injuries, and fatalities at public rail-highway crossings. States may
utilize funds to improve railroad crossings including the installation or upgrading of warning devices, and
the elimination of at-grade crossings through grade separation, or the consolidation or closing of
crossings. The federal share for these funds is 100%.
Historically, ODOT has allocated $15 million per year of Hazard Elimination and Surface Transportation
Program funds, under which Section 130 funding is authorized, for grade crossing improvements or
activities designed to alleviate grade crossing safety problems. This amount is approximately 140% more
than the minimum amount required by FHWA for Section 130 projects.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 11 - 3

Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Capital Grant Program: Section 9002 of SAFETEA-LU authorized
$350 million per year for the purpose of providing financial assistance for local rail line and
improvement projects. Any construction project that improves the route or structure of a rail line and 1)
involves a lateral or vertical relocation of any portion of the rail line, or 2) is carried out for the purpose
of mitigating the adverse affects of rail traffic on safety, motor vehicle traffic flow, community quality of
life, or economic development, is eligible. The federal share for these funds is 90%, not to exceed $20
million.
Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing: Section 9003 of SAFETEA-LU provides loans and credit
assistance to both public and private sponsors of rail and intermodal projects. Eligible projects include
acquisition, development, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment and facilities.
Direct loans can fund up to 100 percent of a capital project with repayment terms of up to 25 years and
interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing to the government. A total of $35 billion was authorized for
this program, of which $7 billion was directed to short line and regional railroads.
Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and local governments, government sponsored authorities,
and corporations, and joint ventures that include at least one railroad.
High Speed Rail Crossing Improvement Program
This program provided $50 million over the five year period to reduce or eliminate hazards at highway-rail grade
crossings located in designated high speed corridors. These funds are generally earmarked by Congress in the
annual Transportation Appropriations bill. Ohio is eligible for this funding by virtue of its federally designated
High Speed Rail Corridors.
High Speed Rail Corridor Development Program
This program originally authorized $70 million per year for high speed rail corridor activities and $30 million per
year for high speed rail technology improvements on federal designated high speed rail corridors.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 amended this program by limiting it to planning
activities and reducing funding to $30 million per year.
New Starts Program
This program provides over $6.5 billion over a five-year period for new fixed-guideway transit projects including
new systems and system extensions. Rail transit projects eligible for funding under this program include heavyrail transit systems, light-rail transit systems, automated guideway systems, and commuter rail. The program
also includes set aside funds for smaller projects with federal shares of less than $75 million.
Fixed-Guideway Modernization Program
This program provides $6 billion for the modernization and rehabilitation of fixed-guideway transit systems. All
forms of rail transit projects are eligible under the program.
11.4 Other SAFETEA-LU Programs
In addition to the above programs, a number of additional programs, although primarily intended for highway
use, are eligible for rail projects at the discretion of the states and upon approval of the administering federal
agency. These programs include:

May 10, 2010


Chapter 11 - 4

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program


This program funds transportation projects and programs that improve air quality by reducing transportationrelated emissions in non-attainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate
matter. Examples of CMAQ-funded rail projects include the construction of intermodal facilities, rail track
rehabilitation, diesel engine retrofits and idle-reduction projects in rail yards, and new rail sidings.
State DOTs and MPOs select and approve projects for funding. The federal matching share for freight-related
projects is 80%.
Surface Transportation Program
The Surface Transportation Program is a general grant program available for improvements on any federal-aid
highway, bridge, or transit capital project. Eligible rail improvements include lengthening or increasing vertical
clearance of bridges, crossing eliminations, and improving intermodal connectors.
State DOTs and MPOs select and approve projects for funding. The federal matching share for these funds is
80%.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
This program provides credit assistance to large scale projects (over $50 million or 1/3 of a states annual
federal-aid funds) of regional or national significance that might otherwise be delayed or not constructed
because of risk, complexity, or cost. Three forms of credit assistance are available secured loans, loan
guarantees, and standby letters of credit. A wide variety of intermodal and rail infrastructure projects are
eligible and can include equipment, facilities, track, bridges, yards, buildings and shops. The interest rate for
TIFIA loans is the U.S. Treasury rate and the debt must be repaid within 35 years.
Projects of National and Regional Significance Program
This program was created to provide grant funds for high-cost (greater than $500 million) projects of national or
regional significance. Projects eligible for funding include any surface transportation project including rail
projects. The federal share for this program is 80% of the total project cost.
Transportation Enhancement Program
These funds are available to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nations
intermodal transportation system. Eligible projects can include the rehabilitation of historic transportation
buildings or facilities, and the preservation of abandoned rail corridors. Projects are usually initiated at the local
government level. The federal share of project costs is 80%.
Private Activity Bonds
SAFETEA-LU established a new financial assistance program that provides up to $15 billion in private activity
bonds for transportation infrastructure projects. States and local governments are allowed to issue tax-exempt
bonds to finance projects sponsored by the private sector. Eligible projects include privately owned-or-operated
highway and rail-truck transfer facilities.
State Infrastructure Banks
This program allows all states to set aside 10% of highway formula grants to establish revolving funds which can
be used to provide loans and other credit tools to public or private sponsors for eligible transportation projects.
Multistate SIBs may also be utilized to fund projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries. States must provide
20% of the capitalization amount and debt must be repaid within 30 years.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 11 - 5

11.5 Other Federal Programs


In addition to transportation programs available under the Transportation Authorization bill, other programs are
administered by USDOT or other federal agencies for which rail-related capital projects are eligible. These
programs include:
Railroad Track Maintenance Credit Program
This program was authorized within the Internal Revenue Code to provide tax credits to qualified entities for an
amount equal to 50 percent of qualified railroad maintenance expenditures on railroad tracks owned or leased
by Class II or Class III railroads. The maximum credit amount allowed was $3500 per mile of track.
This program expired at end of 2007. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, however, extended the
tax credits through December 31, 2009 and also made qualified railroad track maintenance expenditures made
anytime during 2008 eligible for tax credits. Legislation has been introduced to extend the tax credit program for
an additional three year period and to increase the credit limitation from $3500 to $4500 per mile.
Economic Development Administration Funding
The U.S. Department of Commerce provides EDA grants for projects in economically distressed industrial sites
that promote job creation or retention. Eligible projects must be located within EDA-designated redevelopment
areas or economic development centers. Eligible rail projects include railroad spurs and sidings.
Grant assistance is available for up to 50 percent of the project, although EDA could provide up to 80 percent for
projects in severely depressed areas.
Community Facility Program
The U.S. Department of Agricultures Rural Housing Services Community Facility Program provides three grant
or loan funding mechanisms to fund construction, enlargement, extension, or improvement of community
facilities providing essential services in rural areas and towns with a population of 20,000 or less. Grant
assistance is available for up to 75 percent of the project cost.
Eligible rail-related community facilities include transportation infrastructure for industrial parks, railroads, and
municipal docks.
11.6 Prospective Changes to Federal Rail Assistance Programs
As noted above, SAFETEA-LU, the current federal transportation funding authorization legislation, originally
scheduled to expire in October 2009, has been extended into 2010 and may continue longer depending on the
number and duration of extensions that may be enacted until new legislation is enacted.
Significant discussion over the need to significantly change the objectives and means of funding future
transportation programs has been undertaken in recent years. Congress established a National Policy and
Revenue Commission to review transportation issues and issue recommendations. The resulting report,
Transportation for Tomorrow, calls for significant changes in the way national transportation needs are
addressed in the future. Specifically, the Commission called for new program areas to better meet the nations
economic reliance on transportation. Suggested new program areas which could be associated with the rail
mode include: asset management; freight transportation; congestion relief-metropolitan mobility; safe mobility;
access to small cities and rural areas; and intercity passenger rail.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 11 - 6

Federal funding of these recommended programs would be based on individual plans developed by each state
and metropolitan area, as well as those developed by multistate coalitions.
The emphasis areas of initial drafts of a new Surface Transportation Authorization Act include:
Consolidating and simplifying programs and facilitating local decision making
Focus on highway safety, including at highway-railroad crossings
Enabling states and MPOs to address state-specific needs through metropolitan mobility plans that
articulate each regions local strategies for addressing congestion and its impacts
Providing state formula grant funding for freight and goods movement projects
The proposed program of rail projects will include recommended funding sources for each of the priority
projects included. These recommended funding sources will be based on available programs and any proposed
programs deemed to have a level of support necessary for inclusion in the next Transportation Authorization
Act.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 11 - 7

12.0 Ohio Rail Investment Programs


The federal Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 requires a long range investment program
for current and future freight and passenger rail infrastructure needs be included in each state rail plan. The long
range investment program is to be comprised of a list of future rail capital projects expected to be undertaken
or supported in whole or in part by the state. The program should also include a funding program for projects
and the anticipated public and private benefits associated with each project.
In addition to the long range investment plan, Ohio has also developed a short-term rail investment plan which
is comprised of those projects which ORDC has approved for grant or loan assistance from available state or
federal funding programs. These projects have been evaluated with regard to their transportation and other
benefits. Similar to the long range program, the short-term program will also change over time as additional
projects are proposed and evaluated, and new funding sources are made available.
12.1 Long Range Investment Program
The State of Ohio has identified its long range investment program to be those projects necessary to implement
the 3C corridor passenger rail project, the $98 million TIGER award for the CSX National Gateway Project, as well
as its annual allocations for its freight rail grant and loan programs and its allocation of federal highway safety
funds for railroad-highway grade crossings. The projects Ohio has identified to carry out this plan are listed on
the long range plan in Appendix C.
Ohio recognizes that projects included in its long range investment program will be revised as necessary based
on future project identification, evaluation, timing, and allocation of state resources. As potential state and
federal funding sources are identified, and the project development methodology described in this chapter is
applied to newly identified projects, the projects will be added or revised as appropriate.

12.2 Ohios Short-Term Rail Investment Program


Rail projects included in the initial Ohio Short-Term Rail Investment Program are listed in Appendix D. This
listing does not include all safety projects or all ODOD Logistics and Distribution Projects.
The projects listed have been approved for assistance based on an evaluation of their respective benefits and
the availability of funding. Current short-term projects are being funded either from ORDCs Rail Assistance
Program or from flexible funding available from the federal ARRA stimulus program.
12.3 Benefits Calculator
Ohio is in the process of developing a quantitative tool capable of monetizing the benefits of rail projects. The
intent of this tool is to evaluate the public benefits of public investments in rail projects. Using the tool, the
costs of a project can be compared to the monetized benefits to determine whether the project represents an
efficient use of public funds. The tool uses a net present value methodology of assessing benefits, such that a
stream of future benefits are discounted to a current time period using an assumed discount rate.
The tool is primarily intended to evaluate and prioritize rail projects against other rail projects. It represents a
planning or a sketch level assessment. For major projects, a more detailed analysis would likely follow. The tool
would also not provide the sole means by which to evaluate or prioritize rail projects. Projects would be
assessed by a range of other criteria, including qualitative assessments and consistency with ODOT and ORDC
policies for funding. The tool could also provide a means by which ODOT and ORDC staff members can discuss

May 10, 2010


Chapter 12 - 1

the quantitative benefits of projects to stakeholders, such as the Ohio legislature or other government entities,
such as the federal governmental and local officials.
The nature of the benefits that are quantified, as well as many of the data sources that are used in the model,
are based roughly on the U.S. Department of Transportations Notice of Funding Availability for TIGER
Discretionary Grants published on June 17, 2009, in the U.S. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 115. The TIGER grant
application guidelines are assumed to represent the most current views of the USDOT on evaluating rail
projects. In general, benefits are quantified along the following criteria:
State of Good Repair: The tool considers the extent to which projects return transportation
infrastructure to a state of good repair. Of particular emphasis is to estimate the projects impact on the
future costs of maintaining transportation infrastructure.
Economic Competitiveness: The tool considers the extent to which the proposed project promotes the
efficiency of the transportation system. These benefits include changes to logistics costs, including the
likely impacts on transportation operating expenses as well as inventory carrying costs. Where
applicable and appropriate, the model also considers employment and economic growth that would
result from projects.
Safety: The safety benefits of proposed projects are monetized. Generally, the model assesses project
implications for risks of death, injury, and monetary loss. The changes in risks are multiplied by
monetary values applied to death, injury, and average monetary loss per accident.
Sustainability: Impact of projects on air emissions are assessed and monetized. Changes in pollutants
are forecasted and multiplied by the costs of the pollutants.
There are assumed to be six broad categories of rail projects that public agencies would be asked to be fund.
The six categories are as follows:
Branch Line Rehabilitation and Acquisition Projects: These projects involve the purchase or upgrade of
lightly used rail lines. Work could include upgrading/replacing rail, replacing ties, and
repairing/upgrading bridges, as well as a variety of other projects. The purposes of these projects can
include: ensuring continued service on the rail lines and upgrading rail lines to accommodate 286,000 lb
gross weight cars, upgrading tracks to a higher FRA track classification.
Grade Crossing Projects: These are projects aimed at improving or eliminating highway-rail grade
crossings.
Terminal Development: These projects include the construction of new rail facilities. These could be
facilities to transfer freight between modes, such as an intermodal container terminal, a bulk/break bulk
transfer facility, or a rail/marine transfer terminal, or they could be projects aimed at providing rail
access to new or existing business.
Mainline Capacity Enhancement Projects: These projects expand the capacity of densely used rail lines,
either to handle more trains per day or to handle a broader range of train speeds/services over the line.
Work performed can consist of adding additional tracks, passing sidings, or upgrading the dispatch
system on the line. Mainline capacity enhancements are often performed in conjunction with the
establishment or expansion of passenger rail service.
Commuter Rail Service: These projects represent the establishment or expansion of commuter rail
service within a metropolitan area.
Intercity Passenger Rail Service: These projects represent the establishment or expansion of rail service
between metropolitan areas.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 12 - 2

An approach has been developed to assess the benefits of each of these project types. The logic of the benefits
assessment tool could also be adapted to other project type if necessary.
As of the completion of this rail plan, a preliminary benefits assessment tool has been developed. It is
anticipated that it will undergo beta testing. After testing, it is anticipated that the state will consider revisions
to the tool to further meet the needs of project development staff in order to evaluate projects in the future.

May 10, 2010


Chapter 12 - 3

Appendix A: Stakeholder Outreach


This Appendix presents the approach, findings and recommendations from the rail stakeholder outreach
activities conducted by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Ohio Rail Development
Commission (ORDC) for the development of this Ohio Statewide Rail Plan. It includes five sections and two
attachments:
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5

Description of the Stakeholder Outreach and Involvement Plan for the Statewide Rail Plan
Outreach Activities and Participation
Summary of Stakeholder Comments, Concerns and Issues
Recommendations based on Outreach Comments
Next Steps

Attachment 1 to Appendix A:
Attachment 2 to Appendix A:

A.1

Statements presented to ORDC by the Ohio Railroad Association


Outreach session handouts, sign-in sheets and comment forms; rail and
shipper interview survey questionnaires and cover letters

Stakeholder Outreach and Involvement Plan

ODOT and the ORDC are committed to an ongoing stakeholder and public involvement process. This process
includes continually engaging rail stakeholders and the public in rail planning activities for this plan and in future
policy development and program decision making. To accomplish this, a Rail Stakeholder Outreach and
Involvement Plan was developed that describes the approach, activities, and schedule to engage rail
stakeholders and the pubic in the development of and revisions to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan.
The intent of the Rail Stakeholder Outreach and Involvement Plan is to include adequate and reasonable
notice and opportunity for comment and other input for a variety of stakeholders, including the public, rail
carriers, commuter rail and transit authorities operating in, or affected by rail operation within the state; local
governments; and other interested parties. ODOT and ORDC are seeking comment and involvement of these
stakeholders and the public through a variety of regional rail workshops, mail surveys and stakeholder
interviews, as well as making work products available on the ODOT web site for review and comment.
Prior to and during the development of this plan, extensive public and stakeholder outreach activities relative to
Ohios passenger rail initiatives have taken place statewide. These passenger initiatives include both the 3C
Corridor studies as well as high speed rail studies. Complimenting these efforts were broad- based outreach
activities sponsored by the Governors 21st Century Commission, which were held in 2008. These outreach
activities sought input and comments on the overall vision and direction for Ohios multimodal transportation
system. Additional overarching transportation outreach will begin during the spring of 2010 for the ODOT
Transportation Futures Plan. As a result of these past and proposed transportation stakeholder and public
outreach efforts, passenger and freight rail and the overall vision for integrating all modes of transportation will
be discussed and an overall vision for Ohios transportation system developed in the Futures Plan.
The approach for rail stakeholder and public involvement for this statewide rail plan focuses on complementing,
integrating, and filling any gaps in the other ODOT and ORDC outreach activities.

May 10, 2010


Appendix A - 1

A.1.1 Goals for Stakeholder and Public Involvement


The goals for stakeholder and public involvement for the statewide rail plan for ODOT and ORDC are to reach
out to rail stakeholders and the public to:
Identify potential rail projects and improvements to rail policies and programs to better meet
transportation needs while making Ohio a more attractive location to conduct business and a better
place to live
Understand the need, the potential impacts of and opportunities for rail transportation to improve the
overall efficiency and sustainability of Ohios transportation system
Provide input for developing a strategy for making rail investment decisions
A.1.2 Role and Responsibilities of Steering Committee
A steering committee was named for this rail planning study. Its members are to guide the plan development
and outreach approach and to recommend the final draft plan to the ORDC Commission. Throughout this study
the steering committee, identified in Exhibit A-1:
Participated in meetings, telephone, face-to-face discussions, and, when possible, individual
interviews to discuss ideas, vision, and concerns about the study
Reviewed and commented on the project approach, key findings, and first drafts of all
recommendations and documents prior to review by the stakeholders, the public, ODOT leadership
or ORDC
Notified federal, state, and local governments and agencies as appropriate, and railroads operating
in Ohio of the development of the plan, its status, and how they can have input
Shared information with ODOT and ORDC leadership
Collected leaderships feedback and use to direct the study
Approved the final draft documents prior to submission to ORDC Commissioners
Exhibit A-1: Ohio Statewide Rail Plan Steering Committee Members
Individual
Representing
Leonard Evans

ODOT, Committee Chair

Matt Dietrich

ORDC Executive Director

Barbara Bennett

ORDC Commissioner

William Lozier

ORDC Commissioner

Bridget Garrigan

ODOT Staff

Lou Jannazo

ORDC Staff

Don Damron

ORDC Staff

Andrea Stevenson

ODOT Staff

Dan Haake

MORPC Staff

A.1.3 Role and Responsibilities of Consultant Team


The consultant team, as directed by the steering committee, gathered data, held workshops and meetings,
conducted interviews, performed analyses, and summarized comments from all stakeholder and public outreach
activities. Scheduling and timing of the activities was coordinated jointly by the steering committee and
consultant team.

May 10, 2010


Appendix A - 2

A.1.4 Outreach Approach


As stated, extensive and ongoing ODOT and ORDC passenger rail and other transportation planning outreach has
already taken place or is planned. Therefore the approach and activities for the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan focused
on complementing, integrating, and filling any gaps in the other stakeholder outreach and input. It was the
consensus of the steering committee and consultant team that due to the extensive amount of recent outreach
regarding rail issues, that it would be duplicative and redundant to hold numerous public meetings for the
statewide rail plan. Therefore, outreach activities for the statewide rail plan, focused on freight stakeholders and
freight issues. Input for the rail plan was gathered in a number of ways. Exhibit A-2 presents the methods used
and the purpose for each.

Outreach Methods

Exhibit A-2: Outreach Approach


Purpose

Key stakeholder surveys and


interviews

To individually inform key stakeholders of the study and


obtain their input primarily focused on rail freight

Stakeholder briefings/workshops

To meet with, inform and obtain input from freight


stakeholder groups and agencies on the purposed of the
statewide rail plan, as well as to solicit specific issues which
impact rail operations

Government agency and railroad


coordination

To inform government agencies, shippers, businesses and the


railroad companies doing business in Ohio of the study, its
status and activities and provide them a forum for review and
comment

A.1.5 Agency coordination


The steering committee contacted and informed governmental agencies and railroads operating in Ohio that the
statewide rail plan was being developed and stakeholder activities underway.
A.1.6 Contact Database
All interviewees, meeting participants, media, and the public who participate in outreach activities had their
comments and contact information entered into a database. Information captured includes: name, title,
address, city, state, zip code, and e-mail. This information is included as an attachment to this appendix.
A.1.7 Communications/Media Protocol
The primary media contact for the study was the ODOT Deputy Director of Communications or a designated
ORDC or ODOT public information officer. All media inquiries were directed to this study contact. All materials
distributed to the media received approval by this individual. Outreach conducted by members of the
consultant team to promote public meeting events was with the approval of the Executive or public information
officer (PIO) of ORDC.
A.1.8 Documentation
Comments and input from passenger rail outreach activities have been integrated into the 3C documents or the
passenger rail chapters. Freight rail stakeholder comments and concerns solicited through the outreach effort
described in this appendix, are documented in Section A.3 and Attachment 2 to this appendix. Findings will also
be summarized and presented to the steering committee and ORDC. Statements presented to ORDC and ODOT

May 10, 2010


Appendix A - 3

from the Ohio Railroad Association are included as received in Attachment 1 to this appendix. They have not
been edited or altered in any way.

A.2

Outreach Activities Conducted and Participation

Freight rail outreach activities conducted for this plan included regional rail briefings / workshops, rail and
shipper surveys and interviews.
A.2.1 Stakeholder briefings/workshops
As shown on Exhibit A-3, five stakeholder briefings / workshops were held during January and March, 2010.
Because so much of the outreach for the 3C Quick Start passenger rail study was conducted in Cleveland,
Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati, it was agreed that the briefings/workshops would take place with multimodal
freight coalitions and committees established in the Akron/Canton/Youngstown, in the Cincinnati and Toledo
areas. Ohio currently has active freight intermodal coalitions or organizations in each of these areas. Their
memberships include private sector companies that are actively engaged as freight shippers and receivers as
well as private sector and public agencies that fund or construct freight related projects. (The consulting team
also met with the Ohio Railroad association in November, 2009 to inform them of the rail planning efforts and
receive their initial comments.)
Exhibit A-3: Schedule of Rail Briefings / Workshops
Host Organization
Date
Location

Participation

November 19, 2009 Columbus,


Ohio

Both Class I railroads, several


short lines, ORA staff, chair of
ORDC, ODOT staff

January 27, 2010

Toledo

30+ stakeholders including MPO


staff, local businesses, rail
shippers, rail union members,
government agency
representatives, etc.

January 28, 2010

Columbus

Executive Directors from Ohios


17 MPO and several regional
agency directors

Ohio Kentucky Indiana Council of


Governments (OKI), MPO Freight
Advisory Council

March 3, 2010

Cincinnati

20+ stakeholders including MPO


staff, local businesses, rail
shippers, rail union members,
government agency
representatives, etc.

Ohio Railroad Association

March 4, 2010

Columbus,
Both Class I railroads, 5 short
Ohio / ODOT lines, ORDC Commissioners and
staff, ODOT staff

North East Ohio Trade and


Economics Consortium (NEOTEC)

March 19, 2010

Ohio Railroad Association (ORA)

Toledo Metropolitan Council of


Governments (TMACOG), Freight
Committee
Ohio Association of Regional Councils
(OARC)

John Carroll
University,
Over 100 rail stakeholders
Cleveland
Source: Summarized from information in Attachment 2 to this appendix

May 10, 2010


Appendix A - 4

Three briefings/ workshops were held with regional freight coalitions. Two additional briefing were also held
with key Ohio associations. One included the Ohio Association of Regional Councils (OARC) representing Ohios
seventeen MPOs and regional development agencies. The other was held with the Ohio Railroad Association
(ORA) representing Ohios Class I and short lines railroads in Ohio.
During the briefings/workshops a short presentation summarizing the Statewide Rail Plan was shown and a set
of questions provided to stimulate discussion. ORDC Commissioners, ODOT and ORDC staff and consultant team
members participated in each of these briefings/workshops to answer questions and to document comments.
Participants received fact sheets and survey forms in advance of the meetings and again during the meetings.
These survey forms were used to provide their input, concerns and issues on freight rail. The survey could be
completed prior to or at the event or returned separately to the consulting team. This multi-level approach
provided concerned, informed groups of public and private sector stakeholders with a variety of opportunities to
provide comments and input to the statewide rail plan. Copies of all handouts, the presentation used, sign-in
sheets and survey forms are included in Attachment 2 to this appendix.
A.2.2 Key Stakeholder Interviews and Surveys
In addition to the workshops, over 100 key stakeholders, including a random sample of major manufacturers
and shippers, all Ohio class I railroads and all short lines operating in Ohio were sent a letter notifying them
about the development of the statewide rail plan and a survey form requesting their input. Each recipient was
called at least twice and given the opportunity to respond to the survey in the form of an interview. Interviews
were conducted by a consultant staff with 30 years experience working for a Class I railroad. Approximately 44
key stakeholder interviews were completed and documented. Others chose to complete and mail in their
comments. During the interviews stakeholders identified existing issues, policies and concern relative to rail
transportation. Many requested meetings with ORDC staff stating they had specific needs or ideas that could
lead to improved business productivity for Ohio. Interviews began in January and continued through March
2010. The findings are summarized in Section A.3. A copy of the letter, surveys, and mailing list are provided in
Attachment 2 to this appendix.

May 10, 2010


Appendix A - 5

A.3

Stakeholder Outreach Findings - Vision, Comments, Concerns, Issues

Over 200 rail stakeholders including the public, the Class 1 and short line railroads, industries, shippers, and
metropolitan planning and regional logistic agencies and organizations welcomed the opportunity to provide
comments and suggestions for the Statewide Rail Plan and rail services in Ohio. This section presents a
summary of the many, diverse comments and opinions received through the outreach conducted as part of the
development of this rail plan. A number of specific comments were provided confidentially by private sector
shippers, businesses and Ohio railroads interviewed. Their comments are presented in general terms to protect
the proprietary and competitive nature of the businesses who shared their ideas with the consultant team. This
specific information has been shared as appropriate with ORDC staff. Exhibits A-4 and A-5 present tables
summarizing the list of interviewees and returned survey and findings.
It is noted that the comments and opinions presented in this Appendix are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of
the stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions
of the Ohio Rail Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
A.3.1

Overarching Themes

Several consistent and overarching themes were received from multiple stakeholders from various parts of the
state throughout the outreach process. These themes are listed below. They are explained in more detail in
Section A.3.2.
One consistent comment was the recommendation that this Statewide Rail Plan includes goals,
recommendations and actions to support and enhance Ohios rail system. As has been noted, ODOT is in the
process of developing a rail vision and recommendations as part of their comprehensive multi-modal Ohio
Transportation Futures Plan. However, based on the overwhelming sentiment and concerns expressed during
the outreach for this Statewide Rail Plan, recommendations are included in Section A.4. It is hoped that ODOT
and ORDC staff and the ORDC Commission will review, consider and discuss these recommendations and
potentially adopt or incorporate them into the Ohio Transportation Futures Plan.
Overarching themes heard during stakeholder outreach include:
Rail plays a critical role in Ohios economy; provides environmental benefits especially to air quality and
supports an integrated multimodal freight transportation system.
Stakeholders compliment ORDC and ODOT on proactive efforts to improve rail service in Ohio
While stakeholders support passenger rail service, many cautioned not to let passenger service degrade
existing freight service
Improved partnerships (business relationships) between Class Is and Ohio short lines are needed
ORDC should take a leadership role in developing partnerships and negotiating issues and potential
linkages
Opportunities are being lost to trucks - Cost is the primary reason Ohio shippers use other modes
instead of rail services
There is a need to take better advantage of the rail access to Ohios water ports
Costs for rail infrastructure improvements should be shared by both public and private sources, both
benefit from these improvements
Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 6

A.3.2

Statewide Comments, Concerns and Issues

As stated, over 200 individuals and businesses provided written comments, participated in interviews or made
statement during briefings/workshops for this rail plan. This section presents and summarizes their comments.
Also as part of the outreach activities, the Ohio Railroad Association presented an official statement and a set of
comments on the plan and the proposed benefits calculator tool to ORDC and ODOT. These are included as
received in Attachment 1 to this appendix. The statements that were gathered from this studys outreach
efforts have not been edited or altered in any way.
Recognition of Role of Rail in Ohio and ORDC
Stakeholders recognize that rail plays a critical role in Ohios economy and integrated multimodal freight
system
o Rail connects Ohio to national and international markets
o Rail service makes the state marketable to industry
o Many Ohio industries depend on rail service
o Better public education is needed on the benefits of rail service - Stakeholders feel the public
and decision makers need better education on the benefits of rail service specific examples
should be identified and presented as part of an education program
Stakeholders complimented ORDC and Ohio on proactive efforts to improve rail service in Ohio
o Even though business and the economy is currently down Ohio should continue to protect and
maintain tracks and switches and buy or protect abandoned track for future use should
continue
o ORDCs safety program is respected
o ORDCs support for short lines should continue and be expanded
Proposed Passenger Rail Service
Overall stakeholders expressed support for passenger rail service; many stakeholders cautioned not to
let passenger service degrade existing freight service
Support heritage and tourism trains
Business Opportunities
Opportunities are being lost to trucks
o Cost is the primary reason Ohio shippers/manufacturers select other modes over rail services
Many industries and manufacturers have loads that are too small to interest the Class I
railroads; the cost for trans-loading are high and have resulted in many shippers using
trucks because they are more cost competitive than rail service
Access by shippers to rail infrastructure is inadequate, additional rail siding and spurs to
industries by both Class 1 and Short lines are needed. According to the Ohio Railroad
Association, 62% of Ohio manufactures are within 1 mile of a rail line but only 1/3 have
connectors
o Class 1 Railroads (for many reasons including limited marketing staff) do not seek out businesses
with small loads or those needing less frequent service. On the other hand, smaller shippers
Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 7

cannot afford Class 1 prices needed to make their smaller loads cost competitive for the Class
1s to accommodate them
Help short lines they help smaller shippers
Short line railroads, small hauls, smaller industries are not well served in Ohio by Class 1 because they
lack large enough commodity volumes to meet the Class 1 business models
o Class 1s are not interested in smaller quantities
o Improved access is needed by short lines and smaller industries that have quantities Class 1s
not interested in
o Develop mini-unit trains that behave like trucks (note: mini-unit is a term used by an
individual who provided comments during the outreach session in Toledo) / Develop trains
need to run like trucks (i.e. run on schedules and are flexible in pickup and delivery locations)
o There are numerous potentials for consolidating loads regionally. Currently railroads are not
reaching all businesses some small industries are forced to use trucks
Look for opportunities to run trains like trucks, this can be accomplished by consolidating loads from
several small industries now forced to use trucks
There is a need to take better advantage of Ohios Lake Erie and Ohio River water ports
o Access to Lake Erie and Ohio River ports needs to be expanded to permit increased service by
short lines; the need to cross Class I track is part of the issue
o Water / rail intermodal opportunities need to be explored - especially considering the expansion
of the Panama Canal
Improved partnerships between Class Is and Ohio short lines are needed
o ORDC should take a leadership role in developing partnerships and negotiating linkages with
Class 1 Railroads on issues such as restrictions in crossing their lines especially in providing
access to Ohio water ports and smaller businesses.
o Opportunities are being lost because of the restrictions on short lines to cross Class 1 tracks to
get to smaller shippers and the ports. The reasons for this vary but are most often a safety and
cost issue related to need to coordinate the timing of short lines crossing with current traffic on
the Class 1 tracks.
Preserve freight right of way
Redevelop brown fields
Infrastructure Issues
As trains are getting longer, sidings need to be extended to accommodate additional train cars
A mechanism is needed for industries to increase sidings or add switching. (For example in VA there is
a loan program for industry to build this, and each year a part is forgiven if facility is used. makes Ohio
less competitive with other states that do this)
More spurs are needed
There is a lack of passing lanes and this is causing problems
Funding for Rail
Support public private partnerships
o Costs for rail safety and capacity improvements should be assumed by both public and private
sources, both benefit from these improvements
Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 8

Funding partnerships should be encouraged; rail infrastructure funding should come from both
public and private sources
Increase the state program size / emphasis
Neighboring states invest proportionately more in their rail programs
o Class I railroads are investing millions of private sector funding into Ohios rail infrastructure,
major national double stack projects and new terminals such as North Baltimore in Ohio and in
meeting national regulatory requirements
o Heartland Corridor, National Gateway and the Chicago Create project are all seen as needed
and worthy of public funding support
Regulations
The ORDC should consider taking a position on increased federal rail regulations
o Positive Train Control (PTC), for which the costs must be borne by railroads and local
governments, will result in only $1 in benefits for $20 cost born by the railroads forcing the
railroads industry to spend money on mandates undercuts their ability to re-invest in
infrastructure
o Traffic preemption (signal timing) rules are changing and costs are to be borne by local
governments this is seen as an unfair burden to local governments
The PUCO crossing inspectors rely primarily on their own judgment for defining the quality and need for
improvements to railroad / roadway surface crossings; there are no standards. The PUCO forces the
railroad to fix crossing sited by the PUCO deadline or face $5,000/day in fines; the railroads would like
to have agreed upon standards used in evaluating the roadway surface grade crossings
Problems have happened since deregulation (ex. Reduced fleets and services, the railroads are serving
fewer and making more money.) The small shipper is cost out of the market for using rail as a mode of
transportation
ODOT studied the impact of truck size and weight but did not change any policies (steel coils are just a
symptom of a larger problem)
Miscellaneous Comments (please note these are opinions and unedited comments from stakeholders)
Several stakeholders expressed the opinion that Class I railroads are monopolies, there is a lack of
competition and their costs are high because they are the only option; their rates are difficult for small
companies to pay because they want companies with larger volumes
The Class I railroads are under staffed
o Currently base service levels are OK but when there is a ramp up of new business railroad will
not be able to deal with this railroad cant ramp up even if infrastructure in place if not
enough staffing cant provide the service.
o When talk about congestion the problem is not in the main lines it is in the yard problem is
the elimination of employees so cannot switch out cars efficiently. This problem is also in the
terminals not just the yards.
There are dwindling revenues for roadway improvements and maintenance; the nation and Ohio needs
to come up with another method to generate revenues for highways.
There is switching of chemical cars going on near homes; the railroads have limited staff managing this
switching
Things are so automated that there are too few people actually watching the tracks
Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 9

A lot of what is shipping on rail in Ohio is coal, there is a concern for the impacts if Cap and Trade is
enacted
Incorporate vision and recommendations into the Statewide Rail Plan
A.3.3 Location Specific Comments and Concerns
NE Ohio
There is a need to maintain current tracks leading to businesses need to get rail to the right place to
serve current warehouses and businesses
Some rail cars under utilized
Need to create better rail access to water ports
Need to address choke points in NE rail system
Need to take better advantage of diesel pipeline network in Cleveland area; Need to take advantage of
and tap into the Marcellus shale gas reserve; the third largest natural gas reserve in the world
Concern that North Baltimore improvements have cut off rail competitiveness of NE Ohio
Port of Cleveland
The Port is served by both NS and CSX but each has access to a different part of the port. Due to
unloading schemes, customer materials are put on one rail line (ex. CSX) even though their out of town
customers are on the other. This results in an expensive two-line hauls. If the 2 track were connected,
cars could shift between them saving businesses money and providing a more efficient system
Toledo
Port of Toledo There is limited competitive access to the port. One thing that is prohibiting access is
the $400 / car charge and lack of qualified crews for short line to cross the Class 1 tracks. Other issues
include institutional barriers by Surface Transportation Board (STB) relating to Wheeling Lake Erie
Railroad. This has limited the full potential of the port.
In the Toledo area the Class I railroads removed diamonds or switches, i.e. removed infrastructure; this
resulted in the locals loosing economic opportunities ex. Defiance, Walbridge plant at Stanley yard;
East Toledo Oregon potential foundry; NASA at Sandusky in front of NASA Plumb brook facility
(magnesium foundry- lost)
o Note one participant said that this information is published in the Federal Register (if industry
moves and no need for switch and the railroad decide to remove it. Concern was raised that
sometimes the railroads remove switches even these even if they are in use. )
The Toledo rail yard needs to be expanded to include longer sidings to allow for 90 car trains
There is a bottleneck on the main line between Bellevue, Ohio and Oak Harbor, Ohio and it is reducing
access a major interchange with the Canadian National in Toledo, Ohio (Lang Yard).
There is an untapped opportunity at the Mixing Centers at the closed automotive plants are it is an
asset now available

Cincinnati
Sharonville Yard is at 10% capacity is there a right of way or crossing that could be restored; the locals
understand this is an at grade crossing issue; they expect Sharonville to grow given changes at
Rickenbacker
Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 10

The AK steel and Sunoco plant will bring more cars to area; they expect growth that may clog the urban
area
Local governments in the Cincinnati are would like to paint the railroad bridges in their area but not
been successful in negotiating with the railroads; they are seeking help from ORDC or ODOT on this
Mahoning Valley (Youngstown/Warren)
Needs intermodal services/ trans-loading facilities to handle container cars
Mansfield / Willard
Yard facilities are inadequate for growth and for handling larger trains such as grain trains
Congestion and bottle neck problems exist in the area
Mingo Junction
The yard is congested; Steel, Coke, Iron Ore, Scrap, Stone, Salt, Fertilizer and other commodities are all
moved through this yard.
Wellsville on the Ohio River
Has a container crane that could be marketed by the state

A.4

Recommendations based on Outreach

The following recommendations are based on the comments, concerns and suggestions from the hundreds of
stakeholders who participated in rail outreach activities.
A.4.1 Role of ORDC
In executing its legislative duties to develop, promote and support safe, adequate and efficient rail service
throughout the state, ORDC should:
Increase direct contacts with shippers / manufacturers / railroads
o During interviews and workshops, key shippers, manufactures and railroads requested one-onone discussions with ORDC staff. Many had ideas for specific projects, specific problems or
opportunities. Because of the private sector competitive nature of freight rail, individuals and
businesses requested confidentiality. ORDC staff will be provided with a list of those requesting
meetings. ORDC should schedule interviews with these businesses
Take a leadership role to improve partnerships (business relationships) between Class Is and Ohio short
lines
o For example: Issues relating to short lines crossing Class 1 tracks were raised during outreach
sessions throughout the state and in survey responses. ORDC and ODOT should take a more
active role in negotiating with Class 1 Railroads on their restrictions in crossing their lines. These
issues have resulted in limited access to Ohio water ports and businesses. For example, there
some industries, shippers and ports, with small loads that do not have access to short line rail
service because they cannot afford the fees or are not permitted to cross Class I lines. It is
acknowledged that from the Class I perspective, there are safety and train timing issues
resulting in increase costs to the Class Is for permitting these crossings. ORDC could help to
Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 11

negotiate agreements and organize partnerships to fund infrastructure that could open business
opportunities in the state and spur economic development
Take a leadership role in negotiating conflicts between the railroads and local governments
o For example: Projects such as the desire by the City of Cincinnati to paint the rail bridges may
have a solution that will be a win-win for the public and the railroads
Work in partnership with the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD)
o ORDC staff needs to define themselves as an economic development agency and work in
partnership with to improve rail / economic development linkages in Ohio
o ORDC should work to improve rail efficiencies to retain jobs, grow existing businesses and
attract new businesses
Develop policies to promote fully functioning intermodal freight service
A.4.2

Passenger Rail Service


Strive to maintain a balanced freight and passenger railroad system that can respond to changing
economic conditions and industry needs
Improve air quality and addresses highway congestion by reducing the number of passenger vehicles
and trucks from Ohio roadways
Provide technical and potentially financial assistance to local governments to aid them in the
development of passenger rail stations
Support heritage and tourism trains

A.4.3

Business Opportunities
Identify and take advantage of Ohios many untapped rail opportunities for short hauls, small loads, and
irregular service (40- 50 car daily round trip unit trains)
o If groupings of these small-loads can be identified and linked together though a type of shipper
business alliance or shuttle train, considerably more freight could be moved off Ohio
roadways and onto Ohios rail system
o A number of these small load opportunities are specifically identified in the interview findings
and surveys conducted for the outreach efforts
o Sidings are needed to get to smaller business opportunities and open land for development
o Team tracks or shared or trans-loader tracks is an underutilized opportunity especially for
small communities, shippers and small businesses
Create and support Shipper Alliances / Shuttle Trains / Trains that run like Trucks
o Number of shippers (major US industries) that are now using trucks stated in the interviews that
they would use rail if they had spurs or sidings; these opportunities should be pursued
o ORDC should identify and link the short and small haul opportunities; many short haul and small
loads were identified through the interviews and are documented on the interview forms; ORDC
should go through the forms and contact the interviewees and try to identify potential regional
alliances or create shuttle trains and combine small loads into groupings large enough to make
business sense for the short lines and Class Is
Ports
o Work to improve access to the Lake Erie and Ohio River water ports; access needs to be
expanded to permit increased service by short lines; the need to cross Class I track is part of the

Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 12

issue; ORDC should take the leadership role in negotiating and resolving these issues to the
benefit of Ohios economy
o Explore water / rail intermodal opportunities especially considering the expansion of the
Panama Canal
In terms of the Panama Canal - It should be clarified to local government water port
project sponsors that ocean going ships from the Pacific will most likely continue to the
east coast ports (e.g. Norfolk); they are not likely to trans-load to river barge in New
Orleans and bucking the currents to go up the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers only to transload again to rail or trucks and again. This is why the Heartland Corridor and National
Gateway projects were pushed by the Class Is. It is very expensive and time consuming
for the commodities on Pacific oceangoing carriers to trans-load multiple times when
they can just proceed to east coast water ports more quickly and at a lower cost. It may
however be an advantage barges carrying commodities and leaving on the Ohio River by
giving them better and less costly access to Asian markets
o Explore and support public private partnerships for port/rail projects
Recommend legislation providing tax credits for investments in rail infrastructure; tax credits could be
offered over time based on the number of years the improved rail infrastructure is used
Look for and support trans-loading opportunities
A.4.4

Recommendations - Infrastructure Issues


Continue to preserve rail lines where there is a future potential for passenger or freight rail
Review the list in Section A.3.3, location specific projects, and work to identify areas that need sidings,
passing lanes, spurs and switches maintained
Evaluate the need for an intermodal project at the Parsons Yard

A.4.5

Recommendations - Strategies for Making Rail Infrastructure Investment Decisions


Continue to develop and advance the concepts presented in the benefits calculator tool discussed in
Section 12.3 of this Statewide Rail Plan
o The benefits calculator tool should be developed on at least two levels, one for larger projects
using TIGER criteria and one for the smaller cost projects more typical of the type project ORDC
currently funds
o Also see unedited comments on this issue in Attachment 1 from Ohio Railroad Association
members
The following criteria were recommended to guide investment decisions
o Expansion of system to capture new, under- or un-served industries
o Improvements to freight capacity and efficiency (eliminating choke points rehab tracks)
o Safety improvements
o Public benefit measured as jobs created or payroll created or added value created; number of
jobs retained / Define job retention the same as job creation
o Other economic development benefits not just jobs
o Amount of financial participation in project by both public and private sources
o History of investments by applicant in their own system
o Improvements to air quality (diesel emission reduction projects)
o Cost savings to roads

Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 13

o
o

Improvements to intermodal freight service


Commitment by applicant to a long term program of investments over time

A.4.6

Recommendations Impact of Regulations


Review the new federal regulations (as identified in Section A.3.2), prepare a white paper on their
impacts to Ohio and discuss with the ORDC Commission to determine if they would like to take an
official position on these issues

A.4.7

Recommendations - Miscellaneous
Benchmark with neighboring states
o Lessons can be learned from how neighboring states provide funding, encourage partnerships
(business relationships), and deal with short lines and Class Is
Educate the public, elected officials and appointed decision makers about the economic development
benefits of rail; request success story examples from the railroads, for example:
o Norfolk Southern serves 2 mines in Eastern Ohio, moving coal to a river barge transfer facility.
One move is 18.1 miles and the other is 15.5 miles. In 2009 these 2 mines shipped over 10
million gross tons of coal by train. The equivalent of roughly 400,000 fully loaded coal trucks.
Each 67 car train for these moves hauls the equivalent amount of coal to equal 300 to 350 coal
trucks that would otherwise be on local roads
Expand safety education programs directed to public
o Explain that crossing tracks in arbitrary locations is unsafe and trespassing on private property
owned by the railroads
o Explain that property owners near railroad crossings should make an effort to keep vegetation
clear to improve sight distances

A.5

Next Steps for ORDC and ODOT

The development of this Statewide Rail Plan should be seen as an initial step in defining and re-evaluating ORDC
and ODOTs rail vision, goals, programs and policies. Response to the stakeholder outreach was overwhelming.
Hundreds of concerns, comments, suggestions and potential rail opportunities were identified. ODOT and ORDC
staffs should review and discuss the stakeholder comments and recommendations generated by them.
As next steps, ORDC and ODOT should:
Share with the ORDC Commission the comments, concerns and recommendations as identified through
the outreach
Meet directly and individually with each short line and Class 1 in the state; this was offered during
discussion with the Ohio Railroad Association and the opportunity should be used
Meet directly with the businesses and industries who requested this in their interviews conducted for
the outreach for this Plan
Contact neighboring states rail offices to benchmark on programs and approaches
Further evaluate recommendations in this Plan and findings from the one-on-one interviews and
benchmarking
Implement changes as determined to be warranted
Find the linkages and create trainloads act as a matchmaker
Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 14

As discussed in Section A.4.7, find the success stories and share them with legislators and decision
makers
Move ahead with the Benefits Calculator Tool
Establish performance criteria based goals for rail service in Ohio
Commit to annually measure progress in meeting these performance criteria
Be prepared to offer specific, focused recommendation for Futures Plan

Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 15

Exhibit A-4: Interviewees and Returned Surveys


Company Name
1st Energy/Rosebud Mines
Archer Daniels Midland
Alcoa (Cleveland)
The Andersons Inc.
The Andersons Inc.
The Andersons Inc.
Ashland Railroad
Bellisio Foods Inc.
Buckeye Industrial Mining
Camp Chase RR
Cleveland-Cuyahoga Port Authority
Cleveland Commerce Railroad
Cooper Tire
Coshocton Grain
CSX
Empire Wholesale Lumber
Farmers Coop
Indiana Eastern
Indiana Northeastern Railroad
Jones Hamilton
Kraft Foods
Kraft Maid Cabinets
The Lubrizol Corporation
Mercer Landmark

City
Multiple
Port of Toledo
Knoxville
Maumee
Maumee
Maumee
Mansfield
Jackson
Lisbon
Oakmont
Cleve
GlenWillow
Findlay
Coshocton
Columbus
Akron
Various
Edwardsville
Milford
Walbridge
Toledo
Middlefield O
Deer Park
Celina

State
OH
OH
TN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
PA
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
IL
IN
OH
OH
OH
TX
OH

The Mennel Milling Company


Meyers Industries Inc.
National Lime
Norfolk Southern
Ohio Rail Corp
Ohio Valley Coal/ AEP.
Owens Corning Fibre
Rail America
RJ Corman
Toledo Midwest Terminal
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.

Fostoria
Akron
Canton
Columbus
Steubenville
Alledonia
Toledo
Jacksonville
Nicholasville
Maumee
Brewster

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
FL
KY
OH
OH

Contact
Mike Jamison
Mark Gergan
Ed Hamorski
Mike Irmen
Jim McKinstray
Rob Greenlese
Don Cleveland
Mike Evans
Jack Grinnis
James Street
Eric Hirsimaki
Bill Brown
Missy Depinet
Rhoda Crown
Rusty Orben
Jim Johnson
Glen Lehner
George Andres
Gale Schultz
Chet Rolak
Tim Kyle
Tom Bolden
Gaylin Perry
Tom Belt-Pres.
Gary
Strausbaugh
Pam Scofield
Ken Danwith
Bill Harris
Powell Felix
Chuck Kaluger
Brad Parkhurst
Josh Putterman
Zane Duncan
Jason Lowry
Jonathan Chastek

Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 16

Exhibit A-5: Summary findings from Interviews and Returned Surveys

Type Company

Number
completed
surveys /
interviews

Project
Requests

Total $
Amount of
ProjectNeeds
Requested

#
Individuals
requesting
personal
interviews
w/ORDC

Manufacturer/shipper

15

N/A

N/A

Coal, aggregates

N/A

N/A

Agricultural products

N/A

N/A

Railroad

11

20

$34,250,000

N/A

Port Authority

N/A

N/A

Primary Issues - Concerns

Rail system sometimes not located


where shippers need them. Poor
service/cooperation between
railroads. Need more rail ramps for
intermodal business. Keep rail rates in
check-often trucks are more
competitive. Need for more efficient
interchanges & switching
Face challenge of upgrading facilities
to speed & size required w/ todays
rail companies.
Need to educate local development
leaders on the advantages of using
rail. Bad rail service drives up costs &
is making trucking look like a better
option. Waste too much time waiting
for RR switches.
More adequate rail infrastructure
needed. Expansion of rail capacity.
Have a more balanced multi-modal
perspective. Less cumbersome
requirements to get projects started.
Need better rail facilities on-site &
more dependable service from
carriers. Get RRs interested in serving
small shippers.

* Not included is the $60 million in funding from ARRA/TIGER/ State programs for the National Gateway
project

Comments and opinions presented in this Appendix to the Ohio Statewide Rail Plan are those of stakeholders who
participated in outreach activities for the plan. The comments have not been altered or edited; and are those of the
stakeholders alone. The comments and opinion in this Appendix do not represent the opinions or positions of the Ohio Rail
Development Commission or the State of Ohio.
May 10, 2010
Appendix A - 17

Attachment 1 to Appendix A

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OHIOS STATE RAIL PLAN


The Ohio Railroad Association welcomes the opportunity to provide these
comments and recommendations for your consideration as the state develops its initial
state rail plan. The recently released draft plan provides important background on the
states rail history and current state programs and policies. The inclusion of some
specific examples of how Ohios freight railroads are providing services and benefits to
the state would give the reader an even better understanding of why the relationship
between the freight railroads and Ohios economy calls for continued emphasis on
partnership between the railroad companies and the state. While those examples may be
developed in discussions between the state and individual railroads, this document is
intended to provide the team developing the rail plan some general recommendations on
how the state and the freight railroad industry can work together for mutual benefit.
Therefore, we ask your consideration for these recommendations to be included in the
final plan not as the recommendations of only the freight railroad industry, but as the
recommendations of the state as well.
Rail Investment: A Foundation for Job Creation
One needs not look far around Ohio to see examples of how recent
combined public and private investment in modern freight rail facilities has sparked new
economic activity and job creation. As our state seeks to reverse the job losses due in
large part to the decline of multinational corporations manufacturing investment, one of
the proven ways to attack the problem of attracting new capital is provided by the
example of the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) and its record of investing
in improved rail freight facilities and infrastructure. In support of this practice by the
ORDC, a study by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) found that relatively small public investments in the nations
freight railroads can be leveraged into relatively large public benefits for the nations
highway infrastructure, highway users, and freight shippers. Seeking to realize the
benefits of an improved rail system, Ohio railroads have cooperated with the state in
compiling a list of projects that would improve both individual railroad operations and
the freight rail network as a whole. In addition, Ohio is poised to reap new benefits from
public-private partnerships that have resulted in major national freight rail infrastructure
investments (the Norfolk Southern Heartland Corridor and the CSX National Gateway).
Further leadership by Ohio in both national projects like these and in local projects that
create regional economic growth along Ohios short lines will continue to position Ohio
at the forefront of freight rail facility development, with the result being new economic
growth and job creation opportunities.
We encourage Ohio to examine both macro- and micro-level opportunities to partner with
private freight railroad companies and rail users to obtain both significant public benefits
while laying the foundation for job creation and additional statewide private investment.
Lets take a look at some of the recommendations for additional consideration for
inclusion in the state rail plan.
Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC
March 2010

Page 1

PUBLIC BENEFITS DRIVE PUBLIC SHARE OF PROJECT FUNDING


Jobs & Economic Benefits
As shown above (Rail Investment: Foundation for Job Creation),
investment in freight rail infrastructure has proven to be a near-direct connection to
additional private sector job creation, increased commercial property values, and new
construction of nearby private freight handling and other industrial facilities. These
developments lead to additional employment in retail and service sectors that grow to
support these facilities and their employees. Ohios practice of supporting freight rail
investments when the new economic opportunities and resulting public benefits
recommend involvement is a strategy that should be continued. Of some concern to
Ohio should be the fact that several of our neighbor states already appreciate this
connection between freight rail and job creation and are making a much larger financial
commitment annually to these types of projects.
But economic development and job creation/retention are only two of the public benefits
obtained through improved freight rail infrastructure.
Safety Benefits
The more goods that move by rail, the fewer trucks there are on the roads.
When commercial truck volume increases, there is a corresponding increase in the rate of
highway accidents. This was proven when the Ohio Turnpike Commission increased
tolls and trucks fled the Turnpike for other routes, where accidents and fatalities
skyrocketed to a degree that led to a rescission of the toll increases. On a ton-mile basis,
moving freight by rail is a much safer practice for the public. Fatalities involving rail
freight operations are only one-tenth that of commercial trucks. The congestion that
accompanies the movement of freight over Ohios roadways can be mitigated by utilizing
the existing capacity of many corridors in todays freight rail system. In addition to
helping reduce highway congestion and improve public safety, freight rail also is a
preferred mode for hazardous materials shipments because of its positive safety record.
Developing a broader awareness of these safety benefits, concomitant with a strategy to
maximize the movement of freight by rail, could result in the delivery of significant
safety improvements for the traveling public.
Environmental Benefits
Ohio continues to be challenged to improve its air quality performance.
Several regions of the state annually face health concerns due to poor air quality. The
most problematic areas occur generally where there is a heavy concentration of highway
users. Railroads can be part of the solution to these problems on a regional basis. A
freight train moves a ton of freight an average of 457 miles on a single gallon of fuel.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, railroads are 1.9 to 5.5 times more
fuel-efficient than trucks, depending on the commodity carried and length of the haul.
Railroad fuel efficiency is up 94 percent since 1980. Ohio freight railroads are leading
the effort to employ more modern, fuel-efficient diesel locomotives, and through
Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC
March 2010

Page 2

partnership with the state have introduced cleaner and greener locomotives into
operations in some rail yards in Ohio. Because greenhouse gas emissions are directly
related to fuel consumption, railroads have a lower carbon footprint. In fact, depending
on the commodity and distance traveled, moving freight by truck can emit more than 5
times more carbon dioxide than moving the same freight by rail. While rail cant always
serve as the last mile of a freight movement, greater emphasis on moving goods via rail
will clearly be good for Ohios environment.
Highway Building & Maintenance Cost Savings
Public studies from around the nation have shown that freight rail
operations relieve the costs the public must bear for both the maintenance of the existing
highway system as well as the need to massively expand that system. In Ohio alone, tens
of millions of trucks (and billions of dollars) would be needed to replace the freight
services provided by railroads. Ohios transportation project investment criteria rightly
examine the public benefits that may be derived from specific investment choices, but at
the moment, this formula does not consider the real savings available to the public by
adopting policies that encourage the movement of more freight via the private rail system
instead of those that encourage freight moving over the public highways. As commercial
truck configurations attempt to grow longer and more numerous, the pressure will build
to add more highway capacity (such as the truck-only lanes being considered as a part of
the Interstate 70 highway corridor) and to build roads and bridges to a higher and more
expensive engineering standard necessary to handle the increased commercial volume
and tonnage hauled by trucks. Under this scenario, both the cost of building these kinds
of super-roads and the cost of maintaining what we have built and are building will
become an even greater burden on the taxpayer. At present, fuel tax revenues and
existing road and bridge conditions continue to decline. This confluence of events is
creating a financially unsustainable system today, and the future holds no better outlook.
Now is the time to establish criteria that consider the savings in public tax dollars that
will result from less growth in the volume of commercial truck freight by creating
policies that encourage more shippers to move goods of all types via rail.
SAFETY
While safety benefits can accrue to the public simply by moving more goods via
rail, thus reducing the number and size of trucks on the roads, there are also several
critical rail safety-related issues that bear consideration at this time.
PTC

Positive train control (PTC) describes technology designed to


automatically stop or slow a train before an accident occurs. In particular, PTC is
designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed,
unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track where repairs are being made,
and movement of a train through a track switch left in the wrong position. Nationally,
approximately 70,000-80,000 rail miles will be affected by the PTC mandate. Freight
railroads will have to spend more than $5 billion just to install PTC systems, plus pay
Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC
March 2010

Page 3

hundreds of millions of dollars more each year thereafter to maintain them. The total cost
of PTC to freight railroads over 20 years is estimated at $10 billion to $14 billion. The
Federal Railroad Administrations cost-benefits ratio for PTC is estimated to be $1 of
benefits for approximately every $20 spent by the railroad. This federal mandate will
require the expenditure of funds from all of the major railroads operating in Ohio. While
both the railroads and the federal agencies responsible for the implementation of this
mandate are moving forward toward the goal of full implementation by 2015, the
acknowledgment by the FRA that the expenditure of private funds on this program will
not obtain benefits commensurate with its cost is gaining attention. Ohio has an
opportunity to raise questions about the value of this mandate versus the need for
increased investment in rail capacity. In the event the federal agencies do not rescind this
mandate, we encourage the public to partner with railroads in a direct cost-sharing for the
implementation of PTC or to extend a full tax credit to railroads against their property
tax/commercial activities tax liability. Failure to share this cost places a heavy burden on
the states railroads and forces investment away from the needed capacity improvements
and maintenance of the states existing rail infrastructure. The loss of the investment in
improved freight rail infrastructure, due to the required investment in PTC, will likely
lead, at best, to a delayed realization of the public benefits previously identified. At
worst, it could lead to a reduction in the ability of some railroads to continue to operate
over the extended rail network, with a resulting decrease in service for Ohio shippers.
Surfaces
Poor grade crossing surface conditions can be a source of frustration for
some communities in Ohio. Railroads are required under existing state law to maintain in
good repair the crossing surface at every public road crossing along their system, and do
this well in most cases. Commercial trucks are the cause of a disproportionate amount of
the damage to crossing surfaces. As these heavy vehicles traverse the crossings, they
degrade the surface at a much greater pace than if the crossing were simply used by
lighter vehicles. Both the increasing numbers and the increasing weights of commercial
trucks are leading to premature degradation of crossing surfaces, and the situation is
worsening. Over the past twenty years, Ohio has enacted laws that have allowed an
increasing number of heavy commercial vehicles hauling different commodities to use
the public roads, without any apparent concern for the impact these vehicles have on the
condition of roads and bridges, including the grade crossings that intersect the public
roads. Therefore, ironically, under todays laws in Ohio, freight railroads are required to
pay for the damage caused by heavy commercial trucks. Legislation now under
consideration in the Ohio General Assembly could make this situation untenable by
increasing the liabilities of railroads to repair the damage largely caused by trucks.
Rather than require railroads to effectively pay for the damage to these crossings caused
by heavy commercial trucks, we recommend the state apply a share of the funds obtained
from the sale of special hauling permits to the costs of building and maintaining grade
crossing surfaces.
Grade Crossing Signage/Visibility
Ohios record on driving downward the number of crashes that occur at
grade crossings is laudable. And there are many parties who have played an important
Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC
March 2010

Page 4

role in this effort, including state agencies, local and state law enforcement, and the
railroads themselves. From nearly 900 crashes a year in the early 1980s, the number of
crashes failed to reach 100 last year. Regrettably, the percentage of crashes where active
warning devices are in place remains at an unacceptably high number. Passive crossings
have been a focus of unique statewide programs in Ohio since the early 1990s. Now, the
federal government has moved forward to initiate a new national standard for passivelywarned grade crossings. The state should take the necessary steps to begin to move
forward with the implementation of the MUTCD-required changes at crossbuck only
grade crossings. In addition, the control of vegetation and structures on non-railroad
private property near grade crossings should be examined as a new means to improve the
safety of the motoring public, and the steps necessary to implement such a program
should be promoted by the state.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Public-Private Partnership
The state, through the Ohio Rail Development Commission, has an
established program whereby the state partners with railroads and others to share in the
cost of maintaining and improving rail lines, with a special focus on the maintenance
needs of the states many short line railroads. This partnership has allowed many
railroads to maintain both a competitive economic development position within a region
while also assisting in the maintenance of safe freight operations on these railroads. In
addition, the state often has partnered with railroads, rail shippers, and local governments
to provide the last dollar necessary to leverage increased investment in Ohios rail
transportation system. However, Ohios annual level of investment in freight rail projects
is dwarfed not only by the annual investment provided for freight rail system projects in
several of our neighbor states, but by the current needs for maintenance improvements.
Based on the many success stories generated by Ohios existing program and in order to
help leverage the economic and public advantages offered by freight rail, the state should
increase its level of investment in these rail freight programs, based on the public benefits
procured via that investment. In addition, the state should seek to obtain greater
flexibility in its public funds available for transportation projects. The siloing of these
programs and monies has proven to be a problem for the state in various rail projects, as
well as those dealing with other non-highway modes.
Support Federal Tax Credits Legislation
There are bills pending in the Congress to provide freight railroads with
federal tax credits based upon the railroads investments in its infrastructure. These
investments remain in the states where they are made, providing precious improvements
to the state rail infrastructure. While both measures have considerable congressional
support, active support from Ohios state government would serve to bring new energy to
the effort to pass this legislation. When the tax credits are enacted, Ohio railroads would
be in a better individual financial position to improve and expand their infrastructure,
thus improving the ability of Ohio businesses to ship goods economically to both
Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC
March 2010

Page 5

domestic and world markets. And, these tax credits will deliver to Ohio the public
benefits that are inherent in the services provided by railroads.

Oppose Congressional Re-regulation Legislation


Congress is considering legislation that would impose unnecessary
regulatory controls on the freight railroad industry. These controls would hamper the
recovery railroads have made since the Staggers Act removed much of the direct
government control of railroads nearly thirty years ago. Rail service and infrastructure
condition has improved dramatically in that period while real rates have remained
relatively flat. The re-regulation of railroads proposed under the existing legislation
would potentially deprive railroads of the ability to make the investments necessary to
maintain their system, as well as make the significant new capacity investments needed to
handle the expected future growth in freight. Ohio should step forward and express its
concern with this legislation and oppose its passage.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Connecting Ohio with World Markets
Ohios job base includes many varied and important industry sectors, such
as manufacturing, agriculture, and mining. And approximately one-third of the
production from Ohio is exported around the world, making efficient connections to
global markets critical for our future ability to compete. As other states and nations build
new transportation assets, Ohios focus on connecting producers with markets through
the efficient national rail network will allow those Ohio industries to maintain both
access and flexibility as they compete for market share. The states ability to provide
access or enhance producers existing connection to the freight rail system should be an
important part of the states rail plan strategy.
Maximizing the Advantage of Ohios Location
Ohios central location and topography have provided an advantage in
attracting both public and private transportation infrastructure investment over the years.
This past investment has leveraged increasing new investment by the private sectors
logistics and distribution industry. A strategy that recognizes these advantages, and
focuses on expanding the reach and capacity of the states rail infrastructure will both
increase the opportunity for new business investment in all parts of the state, but also
strengthen the ability of Ohios freight railroads to provide competitive freight service to
every corner of the state.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The freight railroad industry delivers significant public benefits in Ohio. These benefits
can be expanded or they can be narrowed, depending on the actions and involvement of
Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC
March 2010

Page 6

Ohios state government and federal or congressional decisions. The active partnership
of Ohios state government in seeking to expand the benefits of the states freight rail
system leads to the following recommendations:
THE inclusion of some specific examples of how Ohios freight railroads are providing
services and benefits to the state would give the reader (of the state rail plan) a better
understanding of why the relationship between the freight railroads and Ohios economy
calls for continued emphasis on partnership in many areas between the companies and the
state.
OHIOS practice of supporting freight rail investments when the economic opportunities
and resulting public benefits recommend involvement is a strategy that should be
continued.
GREATER awareness of the public safety benefits obtained through the movement of
freight via rail, concomitant with a strategy to maximize the movement of freight by rail,
could result in the delivery of significant highway safety benefits for the traveling public.
WHILE rail doesnt always serve as the last mile of a freight movement, greater
emphasis on moving goods via rail will clearly be good for Ohios environment.
Transportation policies should be reviewed and amended to support this outcome.
NOW is the time to establish criteria that evaluates the savings in public tax dollars that
will result from less growth in the volume of commercial truck freight by creating or
amending highway use and investment policies that encourage more shippers to move
goods of all types via rail.
OHIO has an opportunity to raise questions about the value of the PTC mandate versus
the need for increased investment in rail capacity. In the event the federal agencies do
not rescind this mandate, we encourage the public to partner with railroads in a direct
cost-sharing for the implementation of PTC. Alternately, the state may decide to extend a
full tax credit to railroads against their tax liability as a means of paying for the costs of
implementation and maintenance.
RATHER than require railroads to effectively pay for the damage to grade crossing
surfaces caused by heavy commercial vehicles, we recommend the state apply a portion
of the funds obtained from the sale of special hauling permits to the costs of building and
maintaining grade crossing surfaces.
THE state should take the necessary steps to begin to move forward with the
implementation of the MUTCD-required changes at crossbuck-only grade crossings. In
addition, the control of vegetation and structures on non-railroad private property near
grade crossings should be examined as a new means to improve the safety of the
motoring public, and the steps necessary to implement such a program should be
promoted by the state.
Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC
March 2010

Page 7

BASED on the many success stories generated by Ohios existing program and in order
to help leverage the economic and other public advantages offered by freight rail, the
state should increase its level of investment in rail freight, and such investment should be
based on the public benefits procured. In addition, the state should seek to retain
flexibility in both state and federal funds available for transportation projects .
OHIOS state government leaders should actively support congressional efforts to pass
tax credit legislation that would benefit infrastructure investment by Ohio railroads and
oppose congressional efforts to pass legislation that would impose dramatic re-regulation
on the freight railroad industry that would threaten the ability to make infrastructure
investments.
AS other states and nations build new transportation assets, Ohios focus on connecting
producers with markets through the efficient national rail network will allow those Ohio
industries to maintain both access and flexibility as they compete for market share. The
states ability to provide access or enhance producers existing connection to the freight
rail system should be an important part of the states rail plan strategy.
A strategy should be developed that recognizes the advantages of Ohios geographic
location and focuses on expanding the reach and capacity of the states rail infrastructure.
Implementing this plan within Ohio will both increase the opportunity for new business
investment and strengthen the ability of Ohios freight railroads to provide competitive
freight rail service to businesses in every corner of the state.

Statement from the Ohio Railroad Association to ORDC


March 2010

Page 8

Appendix B: Commuter Rail Checklist


The purpose of this Appendix is to define steps in the planning process for an analysis of a potential commuter
rail service. The list is not definitive. Rather, it cites tasks that are fairly commonly performed when commuter
rail feasibility is being investigated and service is being implemented. It is included in the Ohio State Rail Plan as
a check list for Ohio urban area planners who might be entertaining studying or establishing commuter rail
services alone or as a compliment to the planned rail passenger services.
Commuter Rail Analysis Checklist
Any plan must follow the accepted planning processes of the organization sponsoring the study and potential
implementation of commuter rail service. If federal funding is sought, federal requirements must be followed as
well. It is important to actively engage the freight railroads during initial discussions and throughout the
commuter rail planning process. The majority of freight rail lines are privately owned and discussions
concerning use of their lines must involve them. The decision to allow commuter trains on private rail lines is a
privilege granted by the private owners of the rail lines. It is not a legal right. Successful partnerships with the
private railroads are necessary before attempting to begin any efforts to establish commuter rail services.
Interaction with the host railroads is something that needs to be emphasized throughout the process of
examining commuter rail. The rail line owner must be in agreement to allow commuter rail trains on their lines
before any of the following steps can advance.
Listed below are 20 steps likely to be part of the planning process.
1.

2.

3.

4.

Determine need and prerequisites for a commuter rail service. Chief among the prerequisites are
potential ridership, existence of a rail line, chronic congestion on the parallel highway, and transit
supportive land uses. As regards potential demand, an order-of-magnitude ridership forecast might
be performed, based on a comparative analysis with existing rail systems. The other prerequisites
could be confirmed in a similarly informal, high-level fashion. A likely performer of these informal
analyses would be the local Metropolitan Planning Organization. Initial patronage forecasts can also
be performed by FTAs Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model.
Develop a conceptualized operating plan. A conceptual operating plan should be developed that
would include schedule, station stop, rolling stock type, maintenance facility location, and capacity
improvement concepts. The plan should be developed in partnership with track owner and freight
service operator (often one and the same) for initial comments on capacity improvements. If
conceptual ridership estimates are enough to fill two or three trains, and if the freight railroads
reaction to the operating plan is positive, the effort should proceed to a more formal preliminary
feasibility study. The MPO could also assist in developing this operating plan.
Identify preliminary feasibility study sponsor. The study sponsor could be the MPO or an
aggregation of jurisdictions to be served by the commuter trains. It might also be the local transit
service provider. The sponsor would secure funding for the preliminary feasibility study and initiate
the study. A consultant could be retained to progress the study, at the direction of the study
sponsor.
Consult with the Federal Railroad Administration. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has
published guidelines on railroad corridor transportation plans.1 The guidelines specify steps which
the FRA will insist upon in order to secure the agencys support for the project. The FRA is the
federal agency charged with safety oversight of the national railroad system. The study sponsor

Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans, a Guidance Manual, Federal Railroad Administration, Revised July 8, 2005.

May 10, 2010


Appendix B- 1

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

should consult with the FRA about the commuter rail concept, share the conceptual ridership and
operating plan, and obtain the agencys comments. If study sponsors anticipate that federal funding
might be sought to help fund the implementation, then sponsors should also consult with the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and obtain
their comments.
Establish a study steering committee. The committee could consist of service area stakeholders to
guide the analysis and offer feedback throughout the study effort. The freight rail operator should
be a member of this committee. With funding secured and a steering committee in place, the
preliminary feasibility study, inclusive of Steps 6 through 14 below, can begin. The study may take
between 6 to 12 months to complete.
Define the service concept. Moving beyond the conceptual operating plan, and in partnership with
the rail owner, the study sponsor should identify the specific endpoints, the intermediate station
locations, and the equipment maintenance and layover facilities, also known as support facilities.
Detailed schedules for the commuter trains would be developed.
Develop a ridership and revenue forecast. The forecast should include one for the start-up year,
and another 10 or even 20 years thence. The ridership forecast should be prepared using a
traditional travel demand model calibrated to produce a commuter rail ridership forecast. While
most large metropolitan MPOs have a commuter rail mode in their models, many do not. The study
sponsor should ensure that the model to be used will meet the requirements of the FTA, if federal
funding might be sought. Revenue estimates can be based by multiplying an average fare (e.g. 15
cents per train mile, assuming a mix of monthly passes, 10-ride tickets, senior discounts, disabled
person discounts, student discounts, and cash fares) by total anticipated ridership. Defensible
average fares can be estimated by a comparative analysis of existing systems fare structures.
Select a rolling stock type. Three general types of rolling stock are potentials for a new commuter
rail service. One option is electric locomotives or electric trainsets, which would imply expensive
electrification of the rail route. Another option is self-propelled diesel railcars, known DMUs.
However, no DMUs are being manufactured in the U.S., as previously noted. To this point, the most
start-up commuter rail rolling stock have consisted of diesel locomotive-hauled trainsets and trailing
coaches. While there a limited number of passenger diesel locomotive builders in the U.S., used and
serviceable locomotives are available. There are multiple commuter car builders in the U.S.
Regardless of equipment type, each prospective equipment manufacturer should be contacted to
learn equipment specifics and lead times for delivery, which can be up to 2 years. Locomotivehauled commuter rail trainsets operate in bi-directionally in push-pull mode: a locomotive on one
end and a trailing coach with a drivers compartment on the other, obviating the need to turn a
trainset at each terminus.
Perform an operations simulation. This step requires the use of a computer program which can
route trains over a network and resolve how trains operating in opposing directions pass each other.
Large freight railroads have such programs, which resolve meet-pass conflicts on the basis of
priority. Passenger trains usually have higher priority than freight trains. Thus on a single-track
network, passenger trains pass opposing freight trains, which are directed by the program to passing
sidings. Key inputs to the simulation are the existing track configuration, the existing freight
movements on the line, and the proposed passenger schedules and rolling stock. Output will enable
identification of specific capacity improvements to ensure commuter and passenger trains
reliability. The simulation should also consider any freight service increases, either in numbers of
trains or train length, likely to exist in the future. Ideally, the potential host freight railroad would
perform the simulation, and provide the results for review and validation by the study sponsor.
May 10, 2010
Appendix B- 2

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Calculate operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. O&M costs include costs for crews,
maintenance of equipment, maintenance of facilities, professional fees, insurance, management
expenses, rents, and general and administrative expenses. These can be estimated through
comparative analysis of existing commuter rail systems O&M costs and making appropriate
adjustments.
Calculate capital costs. Capital costs include rolling stock, support facilities, improvements to
structures, stations, signal system improvements, new track to improve line capacity, track
upgrades, grade crossing safety improvements, communications systems including electronic
message signs, ticket vending machines, among other things. Improvements can include highwayrail separations, often costing millions of dollars. However, these would occur only at crossings that
already have high volumes of both rail and motor vehicle traffic.
Define transit integration. Typically, the majority of commuter rail riders drive to their origin
stations. At a destination station, however, those whose jobs are not within walking distance are
dependent on local transit to move them to their work centers and back to the station in the
afternoon. The point of this task is to determine how commuter rail and local transit can work
together to provide a reliable, efficient, and effective transfer of passengers.
Develop a pro forma financial plan. This plan will identify the required operating subsidies, i.e.
operating expenses in excess of fare revenue. The plan will also detail when costs for required
capital improvements will be incurred. The plan will make specific assumptions about funding
sources to cover expenses. At this point, study sponsor will make a decision on whether or not to
seek federal assistance.
Produce a transportation plan. This plan should be consistent with FRA guidelines and compatible
with the operations of the rail owner. Beyond specification of likely ridership, revenue and costs, the
plan should detail the public benefits of the new rail service through such metrics as transit time
savings, greenhouse gas emissions and VMT reductions, opportunities for transit-oriented
development around stations, and general economic development consequent with establishment
of the service. The plan should specify the likely environmental impacts to the service area of
building and operating a commuter rail service, and how these might be mitigated. If the plan is
adopted by they study sponsor, then concrete steps toward implementation can begin.
Craft the institutional agreements for funding. These agreements will detail the future rail service
sponsors and their funding shares.
Federal funding requirements: If federal funding is to be sought, the FTAs New Starts process (49
USC Section 5309) must be followed2 . The process specifies that an Alternatives Analysis (AA) will be
required. The AA can last 18 to 24 months. The purpose of the AA to confirm that commuter rail is
indeed the best solution to the transportation need, that is, it is the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA). It will revisit anticipated ridership, revenue, and costs to the degree required by the FTA, the
likely source of federal funding for the project. At local discretion, the AA may include the
undertaking of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). FTA strongly encourages the
involvement of a wide range of stakeholders including the general public in the AA study
process. The DEIS effort can require another 18 to 24 months. If FTA accepts the AA and the LPA,
federal funding can be obtained for preliminary engineering, final design, and construction.
If no federal funding is sought, the service sponsors can move directly to right-of-way purchase,
design, construction, rolling stock acquisition, and implementation. It is important to note that
F

More detail on the New Starts process can be found at:


http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2608.html

May 10, 2010


Appendix B- 3

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

modifications for railroad rights-of-way are exempt from environmental review. However,
construction of stations and support facilities, which normally are at least partially outside of a rail
right-of-way, would require environmental assessment.
Establish a service management team. The team is required to move ahead with the federal
requirements, if federal assistance is sought, or to move ahead directly to design, construction, etc.,
and to secure operating agreements with the freight carrier/track owner. The team will need to
continue to involve the FRA and FTA, and potentially the FHWA, in planning and oversight.
Order equipment and build the system. These tasks can occur concurrently. They could take
another 18 to 24 months. Shorter lead times for equipment could be achieved, if orders are added
to already contracted production runs. Time could be slashed if used but serviceable rolling stock
could be found. Nashvilles Music City Star purchased surplus rolling stock from Chicagos Metra
service to begin operations. Negotiations for any land acquisitions required for stations and support
facilities could push back the start of construction.
Hire an operator and an equipment maintainer. The management team could contract with
Amtrak, with a private contractor, or with the track-owning freight railroad for operations and
maintenance of equipment. For example, Caltrain on the San Francisco Peninsula contracts with
Amtrak to operate and maintain trains. A non-railroad private contractor provides these services to
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) in Northern California. Operating on BNSF Railway track, Sounder
in Seattle relies on BNSF to run trains and on Amtrak for equipment maintenance. The host freight
railroad may wish to retain responsibility for higher track maintenance levels consequent with the
implementation of passenger trains, and be reimbursed for this work by the commuter service.
Test and debug the system. Once the track and signaling systems have been improved, the stations
and support facilities built, the rolling stock delivered, ticketing and communications systems
installed, and the operator trained, testing and debugging must be performed prior to start of
revenue service. Inevitably there will be glitches that will need to be fixed. Testing and debugging
could require a further 6 months.
Cut the ribbon and begin revenue service. Services for which federal funding was not sought can
start within 2 to 3 years of when the service concept was adopted by project sponsors. Start-up of
services for which federal funding was obtained can take twice that time, or even more. Regardless,
opening day is a long anticipated and eagerly awaited event. Some services have kicked off
operations by temporarily offering train rides free to the public in an effort to engender support and
interest in the service.

With an Eye to the Future


Once the service is up and running, service sponsors will likely continue to grapple with securing funding for
regular operations and capital improvements. If service sponsors include multiple agencies, recurring debates
over who should contribute how much can be expected.
As ridership builds, the service managers may seek to expand the service, either in terms of more trains, more
lines, or line extensions, or all three. Such expansion will require a critical long-term strategic assessment of the
system: what it has accomplished, and where it needs to go. For example, new outlying housing developments
along the rail line or beyond the existing terminus may indicate a need for new stations or a line extension.
Rapid ridership growth may indicate a need for either more cars per trainset or more trains.
The results of that assessment will share elements with the preliminary feasibility study discussed above:
forecasts of ridership and revenue, estimates of operating and capital costs, and perhaps even modifications of
May 10, 2010
Appendix B- 4

the institutional structure if new jurisdictions are to be served. Based on that analysis, work for the future can
begin. As stated, it is critical to work in partnership with the rail track owner and consider the economic value of
sustaining effective freight capacity throughout the process.

May 10, 2010


Appendix B- 5

Appendix C: Long Range Investment Program


Project Name

Project Description

Cost

3C project

ARRA award

$400,000,000

CSX National Gateway

TIGER Grant

$98,000,000

ORDC

Annual GRF Grant Appropriation

$1,547,250

ORDC

Annual Loan Appropriation

1,915,100

ORDC

Annual Safety Appropriation

$15,000,000

May 10, 2010


Appendix C- 1

Appendix D: Short-Term Rail Investment Program


Project Name

Funding Source

Cleveland Commercial RR Randall Start-Up


Mercer Landmark/RJ Corman new Lima Connection
Indiana & Ohio Lancaster Track
Indiana & Ohio Midland Sub, Phase II
Ohi-Rail Bridges & Crossings
Indiana Eastern Bridge Repairs

ORDC Rehab Grant Program


ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Rehab Grant Program, City of
Lebanon
ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Rehab Grant Program
ORDC Eco. Dev./Spur Grant Program
ORDC Eco. Dev./Spur Grant
Program, Public Utilities Commission
ORDC Rehab Loan Program
ARRA/TIGER/State L&D Program
ARRA
ARRA
ARRA
ARRA
ARRA
ARRA, ORDC Safety Program
ARRA
ARRA, ORDC Safety Program
ARRA, ORDC Safety Program
ARRA, State L&D Program, ORDC
Safety Program
ARRA, OKI CMAQ Funds
ARRA
ARRA, ORDC Safety Program
ARRA, ORDC Safety Program
ARRA
ARRA, ORDC Safety Program
ARRA
ARRA
ARRA
ARRA

Lebanon Scenic Rwy


Ohio Central Swing Bridge
RJ Corman Cleveland Line Rehabilitation
W&LE Maumee River Bridge
Bellaire Harbor Services Transload Facility
OBM Jackson Line Spur
ASRY Track Rehabilitation
CSX National Gateway
City of Jackson Rail Line Rehabilitation
City of Medina-Owned Line Rehabilitation
City of Orrville Grade Crossing Upgrades
Brier Hill Industrial Park Rail Modernization, Youngstown
Cleveland Commercial RR Rehabilitation
SR 79 Crossing Surface, Licking Co.
Grade Crossing Upgrade, Macedonia
Grade Crossing Upgrade, Minerva
Crossing Improvements, North Ridgeville
NS Airline Yard Project
NS Doublestack Clearances, Statewide
Camp Chase Rail Bridge Rehabilitation
Crossing Warning Improvements, Delphos
Crossing Safety Upgrades, Montgomery/Warren
RJ Corman Western Ohio Rehabilitation
Signal Pre-emption Projects, Statewide
Panhandle Line Improvements
West Central Ohio Port Authority Track Rehabilitation
Wheeling & Lake Erie Akron/Canton Track Rehabilitation
WLE Hartville Crossing Upgrades

Estimated
Public Share
$110,000
$100,000
$114,310
$200,000
$94,137
$100,000
$75,000
$131,015
$187,910
$149,000
$80,000
$106,000
$280,000
$60,000,000
$2,000,000
$950,000
$850,000
$16,502,835
$67,000
$125,000
$168,323
$306,000
$1,003,000
$9,500,000
$4,665,000
$300,000
$1,658,033
$1,303,000
$1,300,000
$2,512,000
$7,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$600,000

May 10, 2010


Appendix D- 1