Who is All Aboard Ohio?
We are citizens, businesses and organizations just like you who joined together to advocate for more and better transportation choices in Ohio, including more passenger trains and better public transit.
All Aboard Ohio meetings, outreach, publicity and development activities are guided by our dedicated staff which is overseen by a volunteer board of 15 directors. They are experts in transportation, urban issues, public policy and grassroots organizing.
OFFICERS
President: Bill Hutchison; Community Volunteer, NARP Director, Columbus
Past President: Ed D’Amato; Ohio EPA, Berea
Vice President: Mark Carlson; CommunityVolunteer, NARP Director, Bay Village
Secretary: Jack Shaner; Public Affairs Director, Ohio Environmental Council, Columbus
Treasurer: Ken Clifford; Owner, Kenneth Clifford, CPA, Medway
Past President: Ed D’Amato; Ohio EPA, Berea
Vice President: Mark Carlson; CommunityVolunteer, NARP Director, Bay Village
Secretary: Jack Shaner; Public Affairs Director, Ohio Environmental Council, Columbus
Treasurer: Ken Clifford; Owner, Kenneth Clifford, CPA, Medway
DIRECTORS
Central/SE Region: Mary Hiland, American Council Of The Blind Of Ohio, Columbus
Northeast Region: Kevin Ford, Defense Finance & Accounting Service, Cleveland
Northwest Region: Richard Straub, Community Volunteer, Marion
Northwest Region: Richard Straub, Community Volunteer, Marion
Southwest Region: Beau Tuke, Sibcy Cline Realtors, Cincinnati
At-Large: David Burns, Motoman, Inc., West Carrollton
At-Large: Ronald Sheck, Ph.D, retired transport manager/planner/researcher, Toledo
At-Large: Roger Shope, Ohio Higher Education Rail Network, Bowling Green
At-Large: Ronald Sheck, Ph.D, retired transport manager/planner/researcher, Toledo
At-Large: Roger Shope, Ohio Higher Education Rail Network, Bowling Green
At-Large: Jim Wellman, former Riverside Deputy Mayor
At-Large: Jerry Wicks, Professor Emeritus, BGSU; President, Senecio Software
At-Large: Jerry Wicks, Professor Emeritus, BGSU; President, Senecio Software
At-Large: vacant
Executive Director: Ken Prendergast
12029 Clifton Blvd, Suite 505
Cleveland, OH 44107-2189
(216) 288-4883
All Aboard Ohio!
309 South 4th St., Suite 304
Columbus, OH 43215-5428
info@allaboardohio.org
Columbus, OH 43215-5428
info@allaboardohio.org
The Challenges…
Sprawling growth patterns and a lack of travel options are straining existing communities, infrastructure, energy supplies and the environment.
While Ohio’s population grew just 6% since 1970, road lane-miles were increased by 20%, urbanized land areas sprawled 60% and road traffic grew by 50%.
Ohio is more car-dependent than ever as the state spends just 1% of its $3.8 billion transportation budget on trains and transit. Ohio is the nation’s third-most energy dependent state.
Meanwhile, 2 1/2 million Ohioans do not drive due to health, age, cost or preference. Baby Boomers need options to driving to avoid being housebound while more young people seek rail when they decide where to live and work.
The Vision…
Fast trains and more transit will give Ohioans real travel choices and foster pedestrian-friendly communities that require less infrastructure and energy.
If funding for trains & transit grew to be 5% of ODOT’s budget, transit agencies could expand services and high-speed rail can be realized.
Trains would serve 90% of Ohioans via nine routes offering 5-10 daily round trips traveling at 79-110 mph.
Convenient connections to local public transit, airports, universities, convention and sports facilities will be offered.
Trains will have WiFi, at-seat power outlets, bike racks, food and beverage service and “Quiet Cars.” Fares will be up to half the cost of bus travel, one-fifth the cost of driving and one-tenth the cost of short-distance air travel.
The Results…
Better passenger trains and public transit will reduce the cost of doing business and enhance our quality of life to make Ohio more competitive.
Ohioans using trains and transit can save $6,200 per year to spend on better education and housing.
Fast rail services will cost less to build, save travel time and require fewer subsidies than other intercity travel modes.
Trains and walkable communities by stations will be energy efficient and pollute less than car-dependent suburban sprawl.
All Ohioans will be more mobile, business travelers will be more productive and Ohio citizens, businesses, cities, towns and opportunities will be more inter-connected.
Thank you for the clarification.
It seems that the press and ODOT should call the proposal “mid-speed” rail or something other than “high speed.” That doesn’t sound good, though.
Other articles on this site indicate that the proposed 3C would average, at best, 50 mph… with a first-pass number of 39 mph being “out there” and widely quoted. it’s a tough sell to get people excited about that.
Also, I don’t follow how it would stop in Dayton, which is not on the way to from Cincinnati to Columbus to Cleveland?
Citing that there are 2-1/2 million Ohioans who don’t drive due to age, health, etc… I can think of quite a number of those I know personally but I don’t picture them getting on a train anytime soon either! That might be a bit of a stretch when espousing benefits.
Thank you for the information on this site and best wishes for success. It would be great to show Governor Kasich a plan to move Ohio forward with high-speed rail service. According to the headlines, passenger trains are now de-railed. It just seems obvious that 50 mph-average-at-best service is nothing a pragmatic governor would get behind.
Just one opinion, but I think Ohioans COULD respond favorably to an albeit much more costly, truly high-speed system. But aren’t going to buy into a 50 mph train.
When it’s time to present high speed rail to the Governor, count me in!
Matthew, regarding the 3-C project there may be some things that Governor-elect Kasich doesn’t yet understand. If I remember correctly, while pronouncing a death sentence for passenger rail he advocated investment in freight rail along with highways. Because the passenger trains share existing freight track, the investment in upgrading those tracks for passenger service also enhances freight capacity and performance.
Regarding nomenclature, Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail (NIPRA) refers to the trains it advocates as fast trains. That encompasses trains operating up to 110mph. Existing infrastructure types properly routed and excellently maintained can support those speeds safely. To get from there to 150 mph costs a lot more, and to get to 220mph requires multiples of that investment.
All the recently implemented services that I know of, both urban transit and intercity, when well thought out and implemented and carried out with attractive, comfortable equipment and reliable schedule-keeping, have quickly exceeded initial ridership expectations. North Carolina provides good examples of good execution resulting in rapidly-expanding demand. In northern Indiana, the 90-mile electrified South Shore commuter line between South Bend often runs capacity trains with some new equipment and some cars as much as thirty years old, and continues to invest strongly in infrastructure improvement. Although like all modes (including driving), it has experienced some demand decline because of reduced employment in its sevice area, every spike in gas prices sends ridership surging.
Why are detractors hung up on the speed of the train? The real issue is being able to transport hundreds of people to other cities economically and affordably. People who live in Dayton could be looking for work in columbus if they had a viable way to get there instead of paying $3.00+ per gallon of gas.
Remember that the train has to stop to pick up and let off passengers, so the average speed will be lower than the actual traveling speed.
In addition, people could be relaxing or even working if they chose while they are riding — things they can’t do when driving. It wold lower the traffic on the highways and, logically, reduce the number of fatal accidents in addition.
So tell me, where is the real drawback to the railroad?
If the speed of the train is the only thing that you’re against, I think you’re simply looking for a reason to be against it. and can’t find a real reason to make it sound bad.