3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

October 2010

3C Quick Start Passenger Rail

Environmental Assessment

Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545

by 

Ohio Department of Transportation

The following person may be contacted for information on the Environmental 

Assessment: 

Timothy M. Hill

Administrator

Office of Environmental Services

Ohio Department of Transportation

1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43223

(614) 644-0377
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

October 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page i

October 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................1-1

1.1 Project History....................................................................................................... 1-3

1.2 Project Area........................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Logical Termini...................................................................................................... 1-6

1.4 Purpose and Need................................................................................................ 1-7

1.5 Purpose of 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Service.............................................. 1-7

1.6 Goals and Objectives for the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Service ................. 1-8

1.7 Measures of Effectiveness.................................................................................... 1-9

1.8 Purpose and Need for 3C Quick Start Conventional Passenger Rail................. 1-10

1.9 Purpose and Need Summary ............................................................................. 1-16

1.10 Decisions to be Made.......................................................................................... 1-17

1.11 Connected Actions.............................................................................................. 1-18

1.12 Applicable Regulations and Permits ................................................................... 1-18

1.13 Introduction to the Tiered NEPA Process ........................................................... 1-18

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Initial Screening Options ....................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Level 1 Screening of Initial Options..........................................................2-4

2.2.2 Level 2 Screening ..................................................................................2-15

2.2.3 Level 2 Route Alternative Evaluations....................................................2-21

2.3 Alternatives Retained for Evaluation................................................................... 2-29

2.3.1 Alternative 1 - No-Build Alternative.........................................................2-29

2.3.2 Alternative 2 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus 

South Segment 30: Direct Route-Columbus-Cincinnati...................................2-31

2.3.3 Alternative 3 – North Segment 8: Cleveland-Akron-Barberton-Columbus 

plus South Segment 30: Direct Route-Columbus-Oasis-Cincinnati.................2-31

2.3.4 Alternative 4 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus 

South Segment 29: Direct Route South-Columbus-Cincinnati (Longworth/CUT) 2-

32

2.3.5 Alternative 5 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus 

South Segment 32: Hamilton-Cincinnati .........................................................2-32

2.4 Evaluation of Alternatives.................................................................................... 2-33

2.4.1 Alternative Evaluations...........................................................................2-37

2.4.2 Recommended Preferred Alternative .....................................................2-41

2.4.3 Alignment Alternatives including Proposed Capacity Improvements ......2-42

2.5 Detailed Station Alternatives............................................................................... 2-45

2.5.1 Stations..................................................................................................2-45

2.5.2 Yard and Shop Alternatives....................................................................2-49

2.6 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-50
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page ii

October 2010

2.6.1 Service Location: Cleveland...................................................................2-50

2.6.2 Service Location: Southwest Cleveland .................................................2-51

2.6.3 Service Location: Columbus...................................................................2-52

2.6.4 Service Location: Springfield (phased)...................................................2-53

2.6.5 Service Location: East Dayton (phased) ................................................2-54

2.6.6 Service Location: Dayton .......................................................................2-54

2.6.7 Service Location: North Cincinnati .........................................................2-54

2.6.8 Service Location: Cincinnati...................................................................2-55

2.7 Next Steps/Construction Phasing ....................................................................... 2-56

2.7.1 Segment 1 (Cleveland to Columbus)......................................................2-57

2.7.2 Segment 2 (Columbus to North Cincinnati) ............................................2-60

2.7.3 Segment 3 (North Cincinnati to Cincinnati).............................................2-61

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES....3-1

3.1 Physical Environment............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Energy .....................................................................................................3-6

3.1.3 Noise and Vibration..................................................................................3-7

3.1.4 Visual Resources ...................................................................................3-19

3.1.5 Potential Impacts ...................................................................................3-22

3.1.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................3-22

3.2 Ecological Systems............................................................................................. 3-22

3.2.1 Floodplains ............................................................................................3-22

3.2.2 Wetland, Waterbody, and Waterway Permits .........................................3-26

3.2.3 Wetlands, Waterbodies, and Waterways................................................3-27

3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................3-37

3.3 Human Environment ........................................................................................... 3-41

3.3.1 Transportation........................................................................................3-41

3.3.2 Land Use ...............................................................................................3-44

3.3.3 Environmental Justice............................................................................3-53

3.3.4 Public Health and Safety........................................................................3-57

3.3.5 Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................3-58

3.3.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................3-61

3.4 Section 4(f) Resources........................................................................................ 3-64

3.4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................3-64

3.4.2 Potential Impacts ...................................................................................3-65

3.4.3 Conclusions ...........................................................................................3-65

3.4.4 Section 6(f) Resources...........................................................................3-66

3.5 Construction Impacts .......................................................................................... 3-74

3.6 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts................................................................... 3-77

3.6.1 Project Area ...........................................................................................3-77
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page iii

October 2010

3.6.2 Project Area Features and Goals ...........................................................3-78

3.6.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Impact-Causing Activities...............................3-80

3.6.4 Secondary Impacts ................................................................................3-80

3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................3-80

4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION........................................................4-1

4.1 Public Involvement Plan........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Informed Stakeholder Workshops ............................................................4-2

4.1.2 Stakeholder Briefings...............................................................................4-3

4.1.3 Agency Coordination................................................................................4-4

4.1.4 Railroad Coordination ..............................................................................4-4

4.1.5 Consulting Party Engagement..................................................................4-5

4.1.6 Public Information Materials .....................................................................4-5

4.1.7 Public Involvement Open-House Meetings...............................................4-5

4.1.8 Grassroots Outreach and Social Media....................................................4-7

4.1.9 Media Relations and News Coverage ......................................................4-8

4.1.10 Statewide Radio Public Education Campaign....................................4-8

4.1.11 Project Website and Email Address...................................................4-9

4.1.12 Toll-Free Project Hotline....................................................................4-9

4.2 Environmental Justice........................................................................................... 4-9

4.3 Support Letters and Resolutions......................................................................... 4-10

4.4 Response to Public Comments........................................................................... 4-10

4.4.1 Support for the Project ...........................................................................4-10

4.4.2 Routes and Stops ..................................................................................4-10

4.4.3 Service...................................................................................................4-11

4.4.4 Opposition..............................................................................................4-13

4.4.5 Connectivity ...........................................................................................4-14

4.4.6 Miscellaneous Suggestions....................................................................4-14

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.....................................................................................5-1

5.1 Federal Railroad Administration............................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Ohio Department of Transportation ...................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Ohio Rail Development Commission.................................................................... 5-1

5.4 Parsons Brinckerhoff............................................................................................. 5-2

5.4.1 Project Management................................................................................5-2

5.4.2 EA Section Development .........................................................................5-2

5.5 AECOM................................................................................................................. 5-3

5.6 Engage Public Affairs, LLC ................................................................................... 5-3

5.7 Lawhon and Associates, LLC ............................................................................... 5-3

6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST .......................................................................................6-1

7.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................7-1
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page iv

October 2010

8.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................8-1
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page v

October 2010

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Evaluation Measures....................................................................................1-9

Table 1-2 Population Changes in 3C Corridor Major Metropolitan Areas....................1-11

Table 1-3 Person Trips between the 3C Corridor Major Cities 2005 – 2030 ...............1-11

Table 1-4 Daily Traffic Volumes on Key Interstate Links along the 3C Corridor..........1-12

Table 1-5 Peak Travel Speed on Key Interstate Links 2005 and 2030 .......................1-14

Table 1-6 Travel Time between Major Metropolitan Areas along the 3C Corridor.......1-15

Table 1-7 Interstate Accidents and Fatalities by 3C Corridor Service Location...........1-16

Table 2-1 Route Evaluation Criteria..............................................................................2-4

Table 2-2 Level 1 Screening Summary.........................................................................2-9

Table 2-3 Level 2 Screening Summary.......................................................................2-19

Table 2-4 Capacity-Adding Improvement Projects and Interchange Improvement 

Projects Currently Committed to on the Interstate Corridors................................2-30

Table 2-5 Evaluation of Alternatives ...........................................................................2-35

Table 2-6 Station Summary........................................................................................2-47

Table 3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................................3-1

Table 3-2 County Attainment Status.............................................................................3-3

Table 3-3 Regional Emission Burden Estimates in Nonattainment/Maintenance Areas3-5

Table 3-4 FTA Guidelines Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise ..........3-10

Table 3-5 Noise Levels Defining Impact for Transit Projects.......................................3-11

Table 3-6 FTA Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria .............................3-13

Table 3-7 Summary of Estimated Noise Levels and FTA Impact Assessment for the 

Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Service (No Horn Blown)....................3-15

Table 3-8 Summary of Estimated Noise Levels and FTA Impact Assessment for the 

Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Service (Horn Blown) .........................3-16

Table 3-9 Estimated Vibration Impact Zone from Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger 

Rail Operations ...................................................................................................3-18

Table 3-10 Summary of Floodplains within Improvement and Station ........................3-25

Table 3-11 Summary of Wetland or Waterbody Impact by Improvement and Station 3-35

Table 3-12 Summary of State and Federally-Listed Species by Improvement and 

Station.................................................................................................................3-37

Table 3-13 Preferred Alternative Station Summary of EJ Screening..........................3-55

Table 3-14 NRHP Properties Identified for Passenger Rail Station Sites....................3-62

Table 3-15 NRHP Properties Identified for 3C Proposed Capacity Addition Sites.......3-62

Table 3-16 Section 4(f) Resources in the Project Area (within 500 feet of the 3C Rail 

Corridor Centerline) identified for Further Examination.......................................3-69

Table 3-17 Potential Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative .....................3-75

Table 3-18 Secondary and Cumulative impact Project Area Features and Goals.......3-79

Table 4-1 Public Involvement Methods and Purposes ..................................................4-1

Table 4-2 Other Stakeholder Briefings .........................................................................4-3

Table 4-3 Grassroots Organizational Outreach ............................................................4-7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 3C Passenger Rail Corridor.........................................................................1-3

Figure 1-2 Ohio Hub Network.......................................................................................1-5

Figure 2-1 Potential 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Routes .........................................2-3

Figure 2-2 North Segment Level 1 Screening Results ..................................................2-6

Figure 2-3 South Segment Level 1 Screening Results .................................................2-7

Figure 2-4 North Segment Level 2 Screening Results ................................................2-17
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page vi

October 2010

Figure 2-5 South Segment Level 2 Screening Results ...............................................2-18

Figure 2-6 Alternatives Retained for Further Study....................................................2-33

Figure 2-7 Preferred Alternative 2, Direct Route.........................................................2-41

Figure 2-8 Yards and Capacity Improvements............................................................2-44

Figure 2-9 Station Index Map .....................................................................................2-46

Figure 2-10 Construction Phasing ..............................................................................2-57

Figure 3-1 Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels.................................................3-9

Figure 3-2 Common Vibration Sources and Levels ....................................................3-14

Figure 3-3 Lower Olentangy River, Big and Little Darby Creek Watershed Boundaries..3-

31

Figure 3-4 Aerial of Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland ...........................................3-45

Figure 3-5 Facing East from the Lakefront Amtrak Station .........................................3-45

Figure 3-6 Facing Lakefront Amtrak Station from Tracks............................................3-45

Figure 3-7 Aerial of West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA, Cleveland.................3-46

Figure 3-8 Facing East from West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA.....................3-46

Figure 3-9 Facing Soutwest from Neighborhood West of Station ...............................3-46

Figure 3-10 Aerial of Convention Center Site, Columbus ...........................................3-47

Figure 3-11 Facing Southwest from the North Side of the Tracks...............................3-47

Figure 3-12 Facing East from High Street ..................................................................3-47

Figure 3-13 Aerial of Downtown Station Site, Springfield............................................3-48

Figure 3-14 Facing West, Downtown Station Site, Springfield....................................3-48

Figure 3-15 Facing North Residential Areas, Downtown Station Site, Springfield.......3-48

Figure 3-16 Aerial of Riverside Site, East Dayton.......................................................3-49

Figure 3-17 Facing West Along Existing Railroad.......................................................3-49

Figure 3-18 Facing Southeast Towards Parking Lot, Residential Areas, and WrightPatterson Air Force Base ....................................................................................3-49

Figure 3-19 Aerial of Main Street Site, Dayton............................................................3-50

Figure 3-20 Facing North; Sinclair Community College; Residences..........................3-50

Figure 3-21 Facing South; Existing Elevated Railroad................................................3-50

Figure 3-22 Aerial of Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati..........................................3-51

Figure 3-23 Facing South; Surface Parking for Rental Business ................................3-51

Figure 3-24 Facing East, Open Space .......................................................................3-51

Figure 3-25 Aerial of Lunken Airpot Site, Cincinnati ...................................................3-52

Figure 3-26 Facing Southwest Along Existing Railroad and Industrial Uses ...............3-52

Figure 3-27 Section 4(f) Resources within the Northern Section of the Project Area ..3-67

Figure 3-28 Section 4(f) Resources within the Southern Section of the Project Area..3-68

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Route Evaluation Technical Report

Appendix B Yards and Capacity Improvements Mapping

Appendix C Stations Mapping

Appendix D Station Descriptions and Alternatives Dismissed

Appendix E Wetlands and Water Resources

Appendix F Threatened and Endangered Species

Appendix G Hazardous Materials

Appendix H Section 4(f) Resources Environmental Justice
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page vii

October 2010

Appendix I Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan

Appendix J Stakeholder Workshops

Appendix K Agency Coordination

Appendix L Public Meetings

Appendix M News Releases and Media Coverage

Appendix N Website Metrics

Appendix O Hotline Comments

Appendix P Support Letters

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADT Average Daily Traffic

AFB Air Force Base

APE Area of Potential Effects

AST Above Ground Storage Tank

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials International

BCRTA Butler County Regional Transit Authority

BMP Best Management Practice

BRS Biennial Reporting System

BUSTR Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulations

C Coldwater 

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COTA Central Ohio Transit Authority

CR County Road

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CSX CSX Railroad

CWA Clean Water Act

CWH Coldwater Habitat

dBA Decibels (A-weighted)

DR Direct Route

EA Environmental Assessment

EB Eastbound

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EO Executive Order
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page viii

October 2010

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat

EWW Exceptional Warm Water 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FFIS Federal Facilities Information System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FIS Flood Insurance Study

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPL Federal Poverty Level

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GCRTA Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

GDRTA Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority

GHG Greenhouse Gases

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HSR High Speed Rail

LOS Level of Service

LRW Limited Resource Water 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

LWWH Limited Warm Water Habitat

METRO Southwestern Ohio Regional Transit Authority Fixed Route Bus 

Service

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics

MWRRS Midwest Regional Rail System

MWW Modified Warm Water

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NB Northbound

NCDB National Compliance Data Base

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHS National Highway System

NOI Notice of Intent

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priority List

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NS Norfolk Southern Railroad
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page ix

October 2010

NWI National Wetland Inventory

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OAC Ohio Administrative Code

OAI Ohio Archaeological Inventory

O-D Origin-Destination

ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources

ODOD Ohio Department of Development

ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation

ODPS Ohio Department of Public Safety

OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OES Office of Environmental Services (ODOT)

OHI Ohio Historic Inventory

OSHPO Ohio State Historic Preservation Office

ORAM Ohio Rapid Assessment Method

ORC Ohio Revised Code

ORDC Ohio Rail Development Commission

OTS Office of Technical Services (ODOT)

OWI Ohio Wetland Inventory

PB Parsons Brinckerhoff

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PCS Permit Compliance System

PHWH Primary Headwater Habitat 

PIP Public Involvement Plan

QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

RJC R. J. Corman Railroad Company

ROD Record of Decision

RTC Rail Traffic Controller 

S&I Service and Inspection

SARA Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act

SB Southbound

SCCTCC Springfield Clark County Transportation Coordinating Committee

SIP State Implementation Plan

SORTA Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority

SR State Route

SS Seasonal Salmonid 

SSA Sole Source Aquifer

STIP State Transportation Improvement Program

SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TDM Transportation Demand Management

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TR Township Road

TRAC Transportation Review Advisory Council

TSM Transportation System Management
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page x

October 2010

W&LE Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway

USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDHHS United States Department of Health and Human Services

USDOE United States Department of Energy

USDOI United States Department of the Interior

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

WB Westbound

WWH Warmwater Habitat
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-1

October 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED 

The State of Ohio has been working to re-establish passenger rail service on the rail 

corridor between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati (3C Corridor). A historic 

opportunity now exists to receive significant federal funding to make this a reality.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has released guidance on 

implementing the President’s “Vision for High Speed Rail” and solicited 

applications for funding for high-speed rail projects under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and under the Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 

2010. In response, the Michgan Department of Transportation (MDOT) applied

for and was selected for funding under FRA’s “Track 2” High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program for the Dearborn to Kalamazoo Service 

Development Program (The Program). The Prgram is divided into three phases, 

which will significantly improve intercity passenger services on the Detroit to 

Chicago High Speed Rail corridor. Phase 1 , or substantial upgrades to existing 

corridor services. It is intended to fund a set of interrelated projects as part of a 

long-range service development plan for high-speed rail. It can encompass the 

entire corridor or represent a phased approach (begin with conventional rail and 

progress to high speed rail over a number of years or in geographic sections).

The Ohio 3C Start Passenger Rail project is being proposed by ODOT as a Track 2 

project. Funding received under a Track 2 project can be used for engineering, Tier 2 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation (site-specific), construction, 

and other program development costs. FRA requires that applications for funding be 

accompanied by a Service Development Plan describing the program and a “service 

level” Tier 2 NEPA document. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been 

undertaken to meet this requirement and will be submitted along with Ohio’s application 

to the FRA.

The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Corridor is approximately 260 miles long and 

connects the four largest cities in Ohio. From north to south, these cities are Cleveland, 

Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati, (Figure 1-1). The initial Service Development Plan 

presented in the funding application will consist of six stops that were identified as the 

express service in the Ohio Hub Study1

. These stations locations (Cleveland, Southwest 

Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, North Cincinnati, and Cincinnati) will be included in the 

Amtrak Study2 as the scheduled station stops. Where alternative sites exist, Amtrak will 

assess stations requiring the most conservative investment. These stations will be 

included in the Service Development Plan that forms the basis of Ohio’s funding 

application.

 1 The Ohio Hub Study is part of an ongoing effort by the State of Ohio, led by the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC), an 

independent commission within the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), and ODOT to further develop the concept of 

expanding transportation capacity by improving the railroad system for both passenger and freight trains. 

(http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/theproject.html) 

2 The Amtrak Study is an independent examination of sensitivity and alternatives analysis of multiple potential passenger rail 

routes, undertaken by ODOT/ORDC to identify station locations, potential ridership, capital/operating costs and environmental 

impacts for the most viable start-up passenger rail route in Ohio. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-2

October 2010

Two station stops in the suburban Dayton and Springfield areas have also been 

analyzed as part of this EA. Other possible station locations that have been identified 

through previous studies, community input, and project team analysis will be reviewed in 

later phases of service as the potential locations are cleared through the appropriate 

level of environmental review and as funding becomes available.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-3

October 2010

Figure 1-1 3C Passenger Rail Corridor

1.1 Project History 

Passenger rail service has not been available to the majority of Ohioians since the Penn 

Central Railroad terminated passenger operations in 1970. The State of Ohio has 

planned for the reinstitution of passenger train service on its 3C Corridor and vested 

several state agencies with that responsibility. 

Current initiatives to advance passenger rail service in Ohio have been the responsibility 

of the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC), which was established by the Ohio 

General Assembly in 1994. The Ohio Hub Study, which began in 2002, is a cooperative 

effort led by Ohio with support from several adjacent states, Amtrak, and Via Rail to 

further develop the financial and economic feasibility of an intercity/interstate passenger 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-4

October 2010

rail system serving all of the major metropolitan areas in the region while connecting to 

the proposed Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) and the developing corridors in 

neighboring states. The establishment of the Ohio Hub would add critical links between 

Chicago and Columbus and extend the reach of the MWRRI network to the Northeast 

and Canada. 

The federal government has demonstrated new commitment and funding for intercity 

and high speed rail. In response, ORDC has accelerated planning efforts for both the 

3C Corridor and the Ohio Hub. These efforts include successful application in 2008 for 

FRA high speed planning funds, which were used to begin a fresh update of previous 3C 

Corridor planning efforts. In 2009, ORDC has focused on the preparation of an 

application for initial 3C service called “Quick Start”. The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

project was added to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by 

amendment on May 20, 2009. This amendment included $7 million for the environmental 

phase of project development work. 

ORDC will work with ODOT to add funds for Design, Right-of-Way, and Construction 

phases of this project as they are identified. This project does not currently appear on 

any Long Range Plan or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) at the Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO) level. ORDC and ODOT will work in close coordination 

with the appropriate MPO agencies to pursue these amendments and the necessary 

project-specific air quality analyses, as funds are identified.

In early 2010, ODOT, and ORDC expect to issue a Notice of Intent to prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the proposed ClevelandColumbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor (3C); the Cleveland-Toledo corridor; the ToledoColumbus corridor and the Cleveland-Pittsburgh corridor to support the advancement of 

a high speed rail facility (110 miles per hour (mph). These corridors are segments in the 

proposed Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail – Ohio Hub System, a network of high 

speed passenger rail routes in a five-state region consisting of Indiana, Michigan, New 

York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. 

The purpose of a Programmatic EIS (PEIS) is to evaluate the above corridors in a 

“concept” or “program level” document, also known as Tier 1. The PEIS (as defined in 

40 CFR 1502.20) serves as an initial screen by which various levels of environmental 

review, as defined by NEPA are identified. The PEIS will identify segments of 

independent utility that would be subject to detailed environmental review in project level 

NEPA documents, also known as Tier 2. The PEIS provides the federal review agency 

(ies) with a composite picture of sensitive, moderately sensitive, and not sensitive project 

segments to address a high speed rail facility.

In accordance with Section 1506.1 of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) regulations governing NEPA process (40 CFR Part 1500-1508), until the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) completes the environmental process or complies with 

NEPA, no action concerning the proposed project will be taken that would limit the 

choice of reasonable alternatives to be explored. No action covered by this project will 

be taken that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment unless it is 

justified independent of this project, is accompanied by adequate environmental 

documentation, and will not prejudice the ultimate decision of this project. The 3C Quick
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-5

October 2010

Start project will enable the re-establishment of passenger rail service on the 3C 

Corridor at speeds up to 79 mph. The future PEIS will address the establishment of high 

speed (110 mph) passenger rail service on this corridor and the other ones listed above. 

Alternatives considered for the PEIS will include the 3C Corridor and are not limited to 

just the 3C Corridor. No action will be taken with this project that will limit the range of 

feasible alternatives explored in the PEIS per CEQ’s Section 1506.1.

Figure 1-2 Ohio Hub Network

1.2 Project Area

The project area lies along an approximately 260 mile long rail corridor which extends in 

a northeast direction across the state of Ohio between Cincinnati, through Dayton, 

Springfield, and Columbus to Cleveland. The corridor is generally in the area east of I-75 

between Cincinnati and Dayton, north of I-70 between Dayton and Columbus and 

parallel to I-71 between Columbus and Cleveland. The action proposed in this document 

is within and adjacent to existing railroad rights-of-way within this corridor. The overall 

project area included a wider geographic area reaching as far west as Sandusky in the 

northwest, and east to the Akron and Zanesville areas. The study area south of 

Columbus is generally a narrower corridor bounded on the west by Hamilton and on the 

east by Washington Courthouse. The project area is shown on Figure 1-1 shaded in 

lighter green.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-6

October 2010

1.3 Logical Termini

FRA regulations do not specifically address the definition of independent utility, the 

FHWA definition of the term is sufficiently broad enough to apply to rail actions. FHWA 

regulation (23 CRF 771.111(f)) provides guidance on defining a reasonable project 

definition to be considered in a NEPA document: "In order to ensure meaningful 

evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements 

before they are fully evaluated, the action evacuated in each EIS or finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) shall:

• Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental 

matters on a broad scope;

• Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e. be usable and be a 

reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the 

area are made; and

• Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable 

transportation improvements.”

The logical termini for this project are rational end points for the transportation 

improvement and limits for the review of the environmental impacts resulting from 

implementation of the improvement. The logical termini are: 

• The northern terminus is the Lakefront Amtrak Station located at 200 Cleveland 

Memorial Shoreway, in Cleveland 

• The southern terminus is a new passenger rail station to be located off of Lunken 

Park Drive in Cincinnati, less than 1,000 feet west of Lunken Municipal Airport. 

The existing 3C Corridor is approximately 260 miles in length and traverses the entire 

state of Ohio from north to south, passing through urban, suburban, exurban, and rural 

areas. The terminus locations were selected as the logical termini for the project 

because they are the most northern and southern assumed station locations for 3C 

Quick Start Passenger Rail service as noted in this Environmental Assessment. 

The northern terminus is the existing Amtrak Station serving Cleveland. At the northern 

terminus, the Cleveland Lakefront Amtrak Station is an urban location near parklands, 

recreational destinations and open space. This location will connect to existing 

passenger rail service to major regional destinations in the eastern half of the United 

States such as:

• Chicago, Illinois 

• New York, New York 

• Boston, Massachusetts 

• Washington D.C. 

Connections to other forms of transportation are also available at this site. These include 

a shared station location with both Blue and Green Trolley Lines in Downtown 

Cleveland. Existing bus transit is available within three blocks and major highway 

connections are available within 1.5 miles. 

The southern terminus of this project in Cincinnati connects to the Oasis Line, which has 

been identified as the preferred rail route for local commuter service as part of the 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-7

October 2010

HAM/CLE-Oasis Rail Corridor project currently under development by ODOT. This light 

rail commuter service is proposed to offer future local connections at the following 

southern and eastern locations:

• Downtown Cincinnati 

• East Riverfront 

• Pendleton/East End 

• Columbia-Tusculum 

• Newtown 

• Anchor 

• Milford 

The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service southern terminus location is approximately 

one-half mile to a major roadway connection at Columbia Parkway (US Route 50) and 

SR 32. Land uses at the southern terminus in Cincinnati consist of an existing rail freight 

yard, light industrial businesses and the Lunken Municipal Airport. Local bus transit 

options will be provided to establish direct access between the assumed station location 

and various destinations in Cincinnati.

While this project will provide improved mobility and connections throughout the state, it 

does stand on its own in terms of independent utility. If development of the HAM/CLEOasis Rail Corridor Project is delayed, the 3C Corridor will continue to function via local 

bus transit options and direct connections to major highway facilities. The two projects 

both have independent NEPA actions and will function exclusive of each other and do 

not preclude any existing or future transportation networks/projects. 

1.4 Purpose and Need

Purpose and need are closely linked but subtly different. The need is the definition of a 

problem and the purpose is an intention to address the problem. Purpose describes why 

the sponsoring agency is proposing an action that may have environmental impacts and 

provides the basis for selecting reasonable and practicable alternatives for 

consideration, comparing the alternatives, and selecting the preferred alternative (40 

CFR § 1502.13 [“The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to 

which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed 

action”]; see also NEPA § 102.).

1.5 Purpose of 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Service 

The purpose of reestablishing a conventional (up to 79 mph) passenger rail service in 

the 3C Corridor is to provide a reliable train system that links Ohio’s three largest cities 

(Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland) and delivers predictable and consistent travel 

times. The service is intended to provide travel options and to develop the passenger 

rail market for further development in the future. This Quick Start service, once 

established, will allow for future improvements and expansion projects that will advance 

the 3C Corridor toward meeting the FRA’s definition of “Emerging High Speed Rail” with 

top speeds of 90 to 110 mph. Further objectives are to provide interfaces between this 

new passenger rail system, major commercial airports, other mass transit systems, and 

the highway network; and to relieve capacity constraints of the existing transportation 

system in a manner sensitive to and protective of Ohio’s human and natural resources. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-8

October 2010

This purpose is consistent with recent expressions of federal transportation policy, most 

notably those listed below.

• Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT), April 2009.

• The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public L.109-59; 119 Stat. 1144 [2005]).

• Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 

Stat. 107 [1998]), and its predecessor.

• The ISTEA (Pub. L. 102-240; 105 Stat. 1914 [1991]), that encourage public 

transportation investment that increases national productivity, and domestic and 

international competition while improving safety and social and environmental 

conditions. 

Specifically, these policies encourage investments that offer benefits such as those 

listed below.

• Link all major forms of transportation

• Improve public transportation systems and services

• Provide better access to seaports and airports

• Enhance efficient operation of transportation facilities and service

ODOT and ORDC plan to establish a passenger rail system that is coordinated with the 

state’s existing transportation infrastructure network, particularly bus lines, urban transit 

lines, highways, and airports. Stakeholder input, combined with ongoing engineering, 

planning, economic, and ridership studies have helped refine the purpose of the 3C 

Quick Start Passenger Rail project. 

1.6 Goals and Objectives for the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Service

A 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail/High Speed Rail Purpose and Need stakeholder 

workshop was held on July 7, 2009 at the Fawcett Center in Columbus, Ohio. The goal 

of the workshop was to obtain a broad cross section of ideas on the project’s purpose 

and need, objectives, benefits, issues, and opportunities of both a Quick Start 

conventional rail service and a future higher speed system. Stakeholders from across 

the state convened to provide their input regarding anticipated and hoped for objectives 

of the short-term conventional passenger rail service and longer term efforts to achieve 

high speed rail. The stakeholder input gathered from this workshop was useful in 

identifying the desired outcomes of the stakeholders. The following list summarizes the 

3C passenger rail goals and objectives developed by ORDC, ODOT, and stakeholders:

1. Improve the intercity travel experience for all Ohioans regardless of age by 

providing comfortable, safe, frequent, and reliable high-speed travel;

2. Refocus development opportunities along rail corridors and create opportunities 

to strengthen assets in the downtown cores and help to reduce sprawl; 

3. Maximize intermodal transportation opportunities by locating stations and future 

stations to connect with local transit, airports, and highways;

4. Enhance the “image” of the 3C Corridor and Ohio thus increasing the region’s 

competitiveness for future employers and employees;
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-9

October 2010

5. Provide a travel choice that would be desirable to many of today’s younger 

generation that seek a less car-dependent lifestyle, and help to keep a younger 

workforce in Ohio; 

6. Connect an aging population to health facilities generally located in the major 

cities;

7. Preserve environmental quality and protect Ohio’s sensitive environmental 

resources by reducing emissions and vehicle miles traveled for intercity trips;

8. Maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and rights-of-way, to the 

extent feasible;

9. Attract an entirely new passenger rail support economy to Ohio and thus help to 

create local employment and associated benefits;

10. Enhance freight rail efficiency and operations, where possible; and

11. Support and expand tourism opportunities.

1.7 Measures of Effectiveness

Nine evaluation measures were created to address the goals and objectives. Each 

alternative will be evaluated against these measures in Section 2.4. The evaluation 

measures are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Evaluation Measures

Evaluation Measure Goal(s) Addressed 

Travel Time – measures the end-to-end travel time, including 

station dwell time. Better travel times are more attractive to 

passengers and generate more ridership.

1, 2, 3, 4, 6

Annual Riders – measures the number of passengers estimated to 

ride the service. Ridership is affected by travel time, station 

location, and station access.

1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

Annual Passenger Miles – measures the length of passenger trips. 

Higher numbers represent longer passenger trips; i.e. passengers 

find the service more attractive for longer journeys.

1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

10-Mile and 15-Mile Population/Track Miles – measures the 

potential market served by each alternative. Higher numbers 

indicate a larger population with access to the rail line.

1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11

Reliability – measures the expected reliability of the line. Reliability 

is a major determinant in a person’s choice to take transit. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11

Operations and Maintenance Costs – measures the relative cost of 

the provided service. Reducing operating costs is important in 

providing a cost-effective project and service.

1, 5

Refocus development opportunities – measures whether the 

alternative can be used to help focus development in station areas, 

increasing potential ridership and reducing sprawl.

2, 4, 8

Connect to all modes – measures whether the alternative connects 3, 11
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-10

October 2010

Evaluation Measure Goal(s) Addressed 

with existing transit services in the cities along each alignment. 

Providing connections to existing transit enlarges the potential 

market by expanding the transit network.

Connect to major health facilities – measures whether the 

alternative connects with major medical facilities, thereby providing 

another mode of transportation for Ohio residents to obtain quality 

health care.

6

These measures will be applied to the evaluation of alternatives in Section 2.4.

1.8 Purpose and Need for 3C Quick Start Conventional Passenger 

Rail 

The purpose of reestablishing conventional passenger rail service in the 3C Corridor is 

to provide a reliable train system that links Ohio’s three largest cities and delivers 

predictable and consistent travel times. Taking into account the aforementioned 

stakeholder input and ongoing studies, the following lists the various needs identified for 

the 3C Quick Start service.

Expand travel options between Ohio’s largest cities

• The three largest cities in Ohio, Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, are not 

currently served by passenger rail service between them. Ohio’s existing 

intercity passenger rail service is solely long-distance service with four Amtrak 

trains operating along three east-west routes. This system connects 11 Ohio 

cities and towns with Pittsburgh, PA; Chicago, IL; Indianapolis, IN; and Buffalo, 

NY. Ohio station locations include Akron, Alliance, Bryan, Cleveland, Elyria, 

Hamilton, Sandusky, Toledo, and Cincinnati. Columbus and Dayton are not 

served at all with passenger rail service. The existing service is infrequent and 

inconvenient and does not serve the travel markets between Cincinnati, 

Columbus, Cleveland, and points north.

• To meet goals outlined in ACCESS OHIO 2004 – 2030, Ohio’s statewide 

multimodal transportation plan, there needs to be a full complement of transit 

services with flexibility, mobility options, and intermodal connections within Ohio.

• Between 2000 and 2030, the Ohio Department of Development estimates that 

the State’s population of those aged 65 or older will increase by approximately 

750,000 people, or 49.8 percent. Ohio’s population is steadily growing older and 

senior mobility will become increasingly important. Intercity passenger rail 

service is one means of providing alternative transportation options to this elderly

population.

• The population within the metro areas of Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and 

Cincinnati are expected to grow by 10.4 percent in the next 20 years, from 

6,280,150 in 2008 to 7,003,810 in 2030 (Table 1-2). This growth in population is 

expected to increase the number of person trips between the major cities over 

the next 20 years by as much as 33 percent, especially from and to Columbus

(Table 1-3).
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-11

October 2010

Table 1-2 Population Changes in 3C Corridor Major Metropolitan Areas

2005 

Population

2030 

Population

Percent 

Change

Cleveland 2,131,880 2,134,850 0.14%

Columbus 1,708,410 2,222,490 30.09%

Cincinnati 1,595,800 1,810,240 13.44%

Dayton 844,060 836,230 -0.93%

Total 6,280,150 7,003,810 10.4%

Source: Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research, March 2004

Note: The metropolitan areas are defined as follows:

Cleveland: Cleveland, Elyria, Mentor metropolitan areas, the counties of Cuyahoga, Geauga, 

Lake, Lorain, and Medina

Columbus: Columbus metropolitan area, the counties of Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, 

Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, and Union

Cincinnati: Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN (Ohio Part) metropolitan areas, the counties of Brown, 

Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren

Dayton: Dayton metropolitan area, the counties of Greene, Miami, Montgomery, and Preble

Table 1-3 Person Trips between the 3C Corridor Major Cities 2005 – 2030

Major City Year Person Trips 

Cleveland

Person Trips 

Columbus

Person Trips 

Cincinnati

Cleveland

2005

X

5,150 1,240

2030 6,550 1,230

% change 27% -1%

Columbus

2005 5,080

X

9,610

2030 6,620 12,790

% change 30% 33%

Cincinnati

2005 1,160 9,780

2030 1,190 13,050 X

% change 3% 33%

Dayton

2005 800 7,910 5,610

2030 860 8,930 6,260

% change 8% 13% 12%

 Source: ODOT, 2005

Meet travel demand in the I-71 and segments of I-70 and I-75 corridors

• Ohio contains one of the nation’s largest and most heavily traveled roadway 

systems. Interstate-71, I-70, and I-75, experience heavy congestion, especially in 

the urban areas. Population growth outside of these cities has created a higher 

demand for capacity and increased vehicle miles traveled. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-12

October 2010

• Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on many key links of the interstate highways 

connecting the 3C cities are expected to increase 15 to 83 percent over the next 

20 years, increasing congestion and reducing travel times. As identified in Table 

1-4, several links along the interstate system are expected to reach saturation by 

2030 causing delays to intercity travel. 

Table 1-4 Daily Traffic Volumes on Key Interstate Links along the 3C Corridor

Daily Vehicle 

ADT

Peak Period 

Volume to 

Capacity 

Ratio (V/C)

Daily 

Vehicle 

Flow

Peak 

Period 

(V/C)

Corridor Location Dir 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005-

2030

2005-

2030

Cleveland to 

Columbus

I-71 South of 

I-80 Junc SB 44800 56200 0.37 0.48 25% 30%

I-71 South of 

I-80 Junc NB 45700 56700 0.64 0.78 24% 22%

I-71 South of 

I-271 Junc SB 30200 41800 0.55 0.70 38% 27%

I-71 South of 

I-271 Junc NB 33200 47200 0.57 0.91 42% 60%

I-71 Btw CLE 

& COL SB 23200 32500 0.45 0.63 40% 40%

I-71 Btw CLE 

& COL NB 26300 35500 0.52 0.70 35% 35%

I-71 North of 

I-270 Junc SB 50900 93100 0.64 1.08 83% 69%

I-71 North of 

I-270 Junc NB 54300 97400 0.36 0.58 79% 61%

Columbus to 

Cincinnati

I-71 South of 

I-270 Junc SB 51400 68400 0.49 0.68 33% 39%

I-71 South of 

I-270 Junc NB 53000 71200 0.76 0.90 34% 18%

I-71 Btw COL 

& CIN SB 20800 27200 0.36 0.46 31% 28%

I-71 Btw COL 

& CIN NB 21400 27500 0.42 0.54 29% 29%

I-71 North of 

I-275 Junc SB 65300 87600 0.74 1.08 34% 46%

I-71 North of 

I-275 Junc NB 67000 89600 0.45 0.50 34% 11%

Columbus to 

Dayton

I-70 West of 

I-270 Junc WB 38800 48100 0.36 0.45 24% 25%

I-70 West of 

I-270 Junc EB 36400 45400 0.64 0.74 25% 16%
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-13

October 2010

Daily Vehicle 

ADT

Peak Period 

Volume to 

Capacity 

Ratio (V/C)

Daily 

Vehicle 

Flow

Peak 

Period 

(V/C)

Corridor Location Dir 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005-

2030

2005-

2030

I-70 Btw COL 

& DAY WB 21600 24900 0.39 0.49 15% 26%

I-70 Btw COL 

& DAY EB 21900 26900 0.44 0.48 23% 9%

I-70 East of I675 Junc WB 35900 42000 0.50 0.64 17% 28%

I-70 East of I675 Junc EB 39400 46900 0.38 0.43 19% 13%

Dayton to 

Cincinnati

I-75 South of 

I-675 Junc SB 61700 74200 0.50 0.60 20% 20%

I-75 South of 

I-675 Junc NB 58200 69600 0.85 0.99 20% 16%

I-75 North of 

I-275 Junc SB 69200 83700 0.83 1.10 21% 33%

I-75 North of 

I-275 Junc NB 68700 81900 0.33 0.37 19% 12%

Source: ODOT, 2005

Respond to statewide air quality concerns, work to alleviate current and future 

regional congestion, and help foster environmental sustainability

• Side-by-side comparisons by USDOT show trains’ overall energy consumption 

per passenger is nearly half that of airplanes or cars. 

• Since the beginning of the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality program in 1990, the 

Federal Highway Administration has documented several cases of passenger rail 

projects resulting in improved air quality. These include service start-ups, 

expansions and even purchase of higher capacity rail passenger cars. Specific 

project areas included Washington D.C., Baltimore, New York City and Houston.

• Passenger rail will provide an alternative to automobile and air travel, resulting in 

environmental benefits that include decreased energy consumption and reduced 

air pollutant emissions from automobiles. Reducing the amount of vehicular trips 

will, therefore, provide an incremental improvement to air quality and minimize 

impacts to ecological resources.

Improve travel reliability in the 3C Corridor

• Interstate travel time is impacted by many factors. Delays can be caused by 

weather, construction, and congestion in both car and airplane trips. Corridor 

trains have a relatively high on-time performance record providing greater 

predictability in travel time over other modes. A breakdown of peak travel speeds 

on key interstate links around the 3C Corridor for 2005 and 2030 are listed in 

Table 1-5 below. Table 1-6 identifies the interstate travel time between the major 

metropolitan areas along the 3C Corridor. Several key links in the interstate 

system are expected to reach capacity by 2030, resulting in congestion and 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-14

October 2010

delays. Overall travel speeds are expected to decrease as much as 53 percent 

over the next 21 years, with intercity travel times increasing by as much as 10 

percent for a two hour trip.

• Multi-modal connections between rail, transit rail, bus transit, roadway, bicycle 

and pedestrian modes will supplement the 3C Quick Start service in order to link 

passengers with their final destinations. Representatives from numerous transit 

agencies in Ohio were present at the project’s second Stakeholder workshop 

meeting on August 20, 2009. Transit agencies from Cincinnati, Dayton, 

Columbus, Shelby, Akron, and Cleveland all indicated their eagerness to work 

with ODOT/ORDC to provide transit service to and from 3C stations. Transit 

system's letters of support are noted in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.3 of this document.

Table 1-5 Peak Travel Speed on Key Interstate Links 2005 and 2030

Peak Travel 

Speed

Peak Travel 

Speed

Corridor Location Dir 2005 2030 2030

Cleveland to 

Columbus

I-71 South of I-80 Junc SB 62 61 -2%

I-71 South of I-80 Junc NB 58 51 -12%

I-71 South of I-271 Junc SB 63 58 -8%

I-71 South of I-271 Junc NB 63 43 -32%

I-71 Btw CLE & COL SB 65 64 -2%

I-71 Btw CLE & COL NB 65 58 -11%

I-71 North of I-270 Junc SB 64 30 -53%

I-71 North of I-270 Junc NB 68 65 -4%

Columbus to 

Cincinnati

I-71 South of I-270 Junc SB 66 61 -8%

I-71 South of I-270 Junc NB 57 46 -19%

I-71 Btw COL & CIN SB 66 65 -2%

I-71 Btw COL & CIN NB 66 64 -3%

I-71 North of I-275 Junc SB 59 30 -49%

I-71 North of I-275 Junc NB 67 67 0%

Columbus to 

Dayton

I-70 West of I-270 Junc WB 67 66 -1%

I-70 West of I-270 Junc EB 63 58 -8%

I-70 Btw COL & DAY WB 66 65 -2%

I-70 Btw COL & DAY EB 65 65 0%

I-70 East of I-675 Junc WB 67 64 -4%

I-70 East of I-675 Junc EB 68 67 -1%
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-15

October 2010

Peak Travel 

Speed

Peak Travel 

Speed

Corridor Location Dir 2005 2030 2030

Dayton to 

Cincinnati

I-75 South of I-675 Junc SB 66 64 -3%

I-75 South of I-675 Junc NB 50 38 -24%

I-75 North of I-275 Junc SB 52 28 -46%

I-75 North of I-275 Junc NB 68 68 0%

 Source: ODOT, 2005

Table 1-6 Travel Time between Major Metropolitan Areas along the 3C Corridor

Origination City Destination City 2005 Time 2030 Time Percent 

Increase

Cleveland Columbus 146 min 152 min 4%

Columbus Dayton 75 min 82 min 9%

Columbus Cincinnati 115 min 127 min 10%

Dayton Cincinnati 69 min 74 min 7%

 Source: ODOT, 2005

Create multi-model connections between the 3C rail and bus transit systems, 

existing interstate rail, and alternative transportation modes

• Linking the urban transit systems of Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and 

Cincinnati would help improve mobility options for residents of all four cities. A 

resident of Cleveland, for example, might be able take a light rail train to the 

downtown Amtrak station and transfer to a comfortable seat on an intercity train 

ride to Columbus or Cincinnati.

Improve travel safety in the 3C Corridor

• The safety advantages of rail travel over automobiles are well documented. 

Driver fatigue and other factors increase the potential for accidents as trip lengths 

increase, especially if hotel and restaurant breaks are skipped to save expense 

or time. In comparison to roads, where minimal safety requirements are 

maintained and enforcement often lacks, trains have state-of-the art safety 

equipment and technology, and are driven by trained professionals who are 

regularly required to review tests and checks. Many of the intersections and road 

segments with the highest crash rates in Ohio are near the 3C Corridor. Table 

1-7 identifies the accidents and fatalities, by service location, that occurred along 

I-71, which runs between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.

• According to FRA statistics, Ohio ranked seventh nationally in terms of collisions 

at railroad grade crossings and eighth nationally in the number of fatalities in 

2008. Improvements associated with this project at grade rail crossings including

associated warning and lighting systems throughout the corridor will enhance the 

overall safety for auto travelers, pedestrians, and cyclists. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-16

October 2010

Table 1-7 Interstate Accidents and Fatalities by 3C Corridor Service Location

Interstate Location 2008 Accidents 2008 Fatalities

I-71 Cleveland/Cuyahoga County 797 2

I-71 Columbus/ Franklin County 1228 4

I-70 Columbus/Franklin County 1137 8

I-75 Dayton/Montgomery County 1202 1

I-75 Cincinnati/Hamilton County 1682 4

I-71 Cincinnati/Hamilton County 1175 3

 Source: Ohio Department of Public Safety, 2008

Stimulate economic growth

• Investment in public transportation creates jobs and puts dollars back into the 

community. For every $1 invested in public transit, $6 are generated in the local 

economy. (ACCESS OHIO 2004-2030, November 2004) In addition, Ohio’s 

public transit systems employ approximately 60,000 people. 

• Noted during public meetings for the Ohio’s 21st Century Transportation 

Priorities Task Force, business owners view connecting the workforce to 

workplace as critical. Good jobs frequently go unfilled due to the lack of 

connection between those who need jobs and the businesses that have them. 

(Report of Ohio’s 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force, January 

2009)

• Passenger rail service and new stations encourage the development of nearby 

properties. The Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study (July 2007) 

predicts that the Ohio Hub will create 16,700 permanent jobs and generate more 

than $3 billion in development activity near stations. Reliable rail service in urban 

centers will foster establishment of commercial and retail opportunities in the 

form of restaurants, shops, and office space. Additionally, passenger rail service 

and new stations will provide thousands of construction jobs.

• The Midwest’s largest cities are too far from one other—and from the small towns 

that separate them—to function as an efficient economic unit. Driving times are 

long, airfares are high, and flying time-plus-ground travel makes many airline 

trips almost the same amount of time as driving trips between the same 

destinations. Regional growth depends on region-wide collaboration. However, 

travel times between most Midwestern cities exceed the 2-to-3-hour “Day Trip 

Zone” upon which successful collaboration depends. Business thrives best when 

business people can visit customers and suppliers and return home within the 

same day. (Midwest High Speed Rail Association, 

http://www.midwesthsr.org/benefits/economy.html (2009).

1.9 Purpose and Need Summary

The purpose of the project is to establish a new passenger transportation system in the 

3C Corridor, providing additional mobility options and an entirely new transportation 

mode choice for travelers, with the associated benefits. In order to successfully achieve 

this purpose, the project must meet the following identified needs in the 3C Corridor:

• Expand travel options between Ohio’s largest cities

• Meet travel demand in the I-71 corridor and segments of the I-70 and I-75 

corridors
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-17

October 2010

• Respond to statewide air quality concerns, work to alleviate current and future 

regional congestion, and help foster environmental sustainability

• Improve travel reliability

• Improve travel safety

• Stimulate economic growth

While addressing the above discussed needs in the 3C Corridor, ODOT, and ORDC are 

committed to incorporating additional goals and objectives identified by the stakeholders. 

These considerations include improving the intercity travel experience for all Ohioans; 

refocusing development opportunities along rail corridors, create opportunities to 

strengthen downtown cores and reduce sprawl; maximizing intermodal transportation 

opportunities; enhancing the image of the 3C Corridor and Ohio to increase the region’s 

and state’s competitiveness; provide a desirable travel choice for those seeking a less 

car dependent lifestyle; connect an aging population to health facilities located in the 

major cities; preserve environmental quality and protect Ohio’s sensitive environmental 

resources; maximize the use of existing transportation corridors; attract an entirely new 

passenger rail support economy to Ohio and create local employment; enhance freight 

rail efficiency and operations and support and expand tourism opportunities.

1.10 Decisions to be Made

As proponents of an action supported by federal funds, ORDC, ODOT, and FRA must

comply with NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their 

actions on the natural, social, economic and cultural environment and to disclose those 

considerations in a public document. The NEPA process is intended to help public 

officials make decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences 

and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment (40 CFR 1500.1).

The purpose of this EA is to provide FRA, the public and review and regulatory agencies

with a full accounting of the environmental impacts of the alternatives developed to meet 

the project purpose and need. This EA serves as the primary document to facilitate 

review of the proposed project by federal, state and local agencies and the public.

The EA process concludes with either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a

determination to proceed to preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A 

FONSI is a document that presents the reasons why the agency has concluded that 

there are no significant environmental impacts projected to occur upon implementation 

of the action (CEQ 2007).

In early 2010, ODOT and ORDC expect to issue a Notice of Intent to prepare a PEIS for 

the proposed 3C Corridor, the Cleveland-Toledo corridor, the Toledo-Columbus corridor, 

and the Cleveland-Pittsburgh corridor to support the advancement of a high speed rail 

facility as part of the Ohio Hub System. The PEIS will be conducted in two “Tiers” with 

Tier 1 providing a high level environmental review to identify a corridor and sections of 

independent utility, while Tier 2 would be subject to detailed environmental review as 

part of project level NEPA documentation. The 3C Quick Start project will enable to 

reestablishment of passenger rail service on the 3C Corridor at speeds up to 79mph, 

while the future PEIS would address the establishment of high speed (110mph) 

passenger rail service on the 3C Corridor as well as the other identified corridors.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-18

October 2010

1.11 Connected Actions

Actions are said to be “connected” if they are closely related enough to be evaluated in 

the same environmental analysis. Specifically, actions are connected if they:

• Automatically trigger other actions that may require NEPA documents such as an 

EIS;

• Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 

simultaneously; and

• Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for 

their justification (CFR Section 1508.25).

This project proposes reestablishing passenger rail service, adding track capacity within 

existing freight rail rights of way and constructing station platforms and associated 

infrastructure. No other connected actions require analysis in this EA. 

1.12 Applicable Regulations and Permits

The statutes and orders that apply to the proposed action and were considered during

the preparation of this EA are listed in Section 7.0. 

1.13 Introduction to the Tiered NEPA Process

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.20) allow 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies for large, complex transportation 

projects to be carried out in a tiered process. This tiered approach to transportation 

decision making under NEPA involves preparing a Tier One NEPA document that 

focuses on broad issues such as purpose and need, general location of alternatives, 

transportation mode composition (auto, truck, rail, utilities), and the avoidance and 

minimization of potential environmental effects. 

This Tier One Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the range of program 

decisions (i.e. cities and stations served, route alternatives, service levels, ridership 

projections, and type of operation – electric, diesel, speed, etc.) associated with the 260

mile high speed rail corridor from Cincinnati to Cleveland. The Tiered NEPA process is 

appropriate to make broad program decisions for large expansive corridor projects that 

are: 1) too large to be addressed in detail in one document; 2) are phased over time; 3) 

where future phases are not fully defined; or 4) when major routing or service 

alternatives need to be evaluated. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has 

issued guidance specific to the current program. The following is excerpted from 

“Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act in Implementing the HighSpeed Intercity Passenger Rail Program” issued August 13, 2009. 

“In many, if not most, of the corridors around the country where substantial 

improvements are needed to implement significantly expanded conventional or 

high-speed rail services, what FRA has defined in the guidance as “Service 

NEPA” is an essential first step. Service NEPA (which CEQ refers to as 

programmatic) typically addresses the broader questions relating to the type of 

service(s) being proposed, including cities and stations served, route 

alternatives, service levels, types of operations (speed, electric, or diesel 

powered, etc.), ridership projections, and major infrastructure components. For a 

major rail corridor improvement program, this type of environmental review must 

be completed before any substantial investments in the corridor can be made.”
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 1-19

October 2010

“Several different approaches are available to accomplish Service NEPA, 

including Tiered NEPA (Tier 1 environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

environmental assessment (EA) followed by Tier 2 EISs, EAs or categorical 

exclusion determinations (CE)) or non-Tiered NEPA (one EIS or EA covering 

both service issues and individual project components).”........”The decision on 

the appropriate level of documentation for a particular proposed action would be 

made by the FRA in consultation with the applicant.”

ODOT has consulted with the FRA on the 3C project and has determined that a Tier 

One EA is the appropriate form of documentation for this stage of project development.

Upon approval of the Tier One EA the project would then advance to Tier Two. The Tier 

Two NEPA process would address site-specific alignment alternatives, project impacts, 

costs and mitigation measures. In addition, individual properties that may be affected 

would be identified. The second tier generally involves the preparation of several 

separate NEPA documents including Environmental Impact Statements (EISs); EAs; or 

Categorical Exclusions (Cat Exs) for specific stand alone projects within the overall 

corridor that have independent utility. 

What was studied in Tier One?

This Tier One EA addresses broad, corridor-wide issues from Cincinnati to Cleveland. 

Several corridor location alternatives were evaluated, including the no-build alternative, 

and a preferred alternative was selected. The goal of this Tier One document is to 

ensure that the preferred corridor location alternative adequately balances the needs of 

the communities, the resource agencies (i.e., the environment) and the transportation 

system (local, regional and state-wide). GIS mapping was used to define the limits of 

impact areas presented in this EA. The proposed new high speed rail service will 

operate on existing rail facilities, and so the environmental field studies were 

concentrated in areas with proposed capacity additions (in the form of sidings) and on 

the initial station locations identified for the start-up service. Locations were noted where 

additional environmental studies will be necessary during the Tier Two NEPA analyses.

What will be studied in Tier Two?

Once the Tier One EA is approved and a preferred alternative is identified, the project 

will proceed to the Tier Two NEPA process. The Tier Two NEPA processes will consist 

of individual environmental and engineering studies addressing location-specific design 

details and environmental impacts to smaller sections called Sections of Independent 

Utility (SIU). SIUs are portions of the preferred corridor alternative that can be 

constructed independently of each other. Tier Two NEPA studies will focus on individual 

SIUs. Once a Tier Two NEPA process is completed for a SIU, engineering plans will be 

developed and construction of that SIU could begin.

3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-1

October 2010

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction

A two-stage approach was used to screen a wide variety of route alignment options 

down to a set of alternatives retained for further study. Over 30 route options were 

developed throughout the project area, following different existing rail corridors and 

serving different populations and towns between the three major cities. These route 

options were screened through a two-stage comparative analysis. The Level 1 

screening considered the widest array of options under consideration and used a fatal 

flaw analysis to reduce the number of potential route options. The Level 2 screening 

evaluated only route options that passed the fatal flaw analysis and used an expanded 

set of criteria. The resulting alternatives were retained for evaluation against the 

measures described in Section 1.7 Measures of Effectiveness. The route evaluation 

technical report is provided in Appendix A. This report provides a detailed description of 

the alternatives development and screening. The following sections present a summary 

of the alternatives developed for the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project and the 

screening process used to determine the preferred alternative.

2.2 Initial Screening Options

The thirty-three route options developed for the 3C Corridor are shown in Figure 2-1 and 

listed below. There were 28 route options on the north segment between Cleveland and 

Columbus and five route options on the south segment between Columbus and 

Cincinnati. Each segment might have one or more sub-segments. 

North Segment (Cleveland to Columbus Routes)

1. Direct Route

2. Direct Route via Elyria

3. Direct Route via Lorain

4. Direct Route via Medina

5. Direct Route via Marion

6. Akron-Medina

7. Akron-Wadsworth

8. Akron-Barberton

9A. Kent-Akron-Medina (Kent-Akron via CSX)

9B. Kent-Akron-Medina (Kent-Akron via METRO)

9C. Kent-Akron-Medina (Kent-Akron via W&LE)

10A. Kent-Akron-Wadsworth (Kent-Akron via CSX)

10B. Kent-Akron-Wadsworth (Kent-Akron via METRO)

10C. Kent-Akron-Wadsworth (Kent-Akron via W&LE)

11A. Kent-Akron-Barberton (Kent-Akron via CSX)

11B. Kent-Akron-Barberton (Kent-Akron via METRO)

11C. Kent-Akron-Barberton (Kent-Akron via W&LE)

12. Akron-Medina-Marion

13. Akron-Barberton-Marion

14. Kent-Akron-Medina-Bucyrus-Marion
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-2

October 2010

15. Akron-Mansfield (via Abandoned Erie)

16. Kent-Akron-Mansfield (via Abandoned Erie)

17A. Akron-Canton-Mansfield (via North Canton to NS)

17B. Akron-Canton-Mansfield (via Hartville to NS)

18. Akron-Massillon-Wooster-Mansfield (via RJC/NS)

19A. Akron-Wooster-Mansfield (via Aband-Warwick-Orville-NS)

19B. Akron-Mt. Vernon (via Aband Warwick-Orville-Mt. Vernon)

20A. Kent-Akron-Canton-Mansfield (via North Canton to NS)

20B. Kent-Akron-Canton-Mansfield (via Hartville to NS)

20C. Kent-Canton-Mansfield (via Hartville to NS)

21A. Akron-Brewster-Newark (via Massillon)

21B. Akron-Brewster-Newark (via N. Canton and Canton)

21C. Akron-Brewster-Newark (via Hartville and Canton)

22A. Kent-Akron-Brewster-Newark (via Massillon)

22B. Kent-Akron-Brewster-Newark (via N. Canton and Canton)

22C. Kent-Akron-Brewster-Newark (via Hartville and Canton)

23. Kent-Akron-Brewster-Newark (Direct via Hartville, Canton)

24. Akron-Brewster-Zanesville-Newark (via Massillon)

25. Elyria-Bellevue

26. Elyria-Sandusky-Bellevue

27. Lorain-Bellevue

28. Lorain-Sandusky-Bellevue

South Segment (Columbus to Cincinnati Routes):

29. Direct Route South-Columbus-Cincinnati (Longworth/CUT)

30. Direct Route-Columbus-Oasis-Cincinnati

31. Hamilton-Cincinnati (Longworth/CUT)

32. Hamilton-Cincinnati (Oasis-Boathouse)

33. Hamilton-Cincinnati (Longworth/CUT)
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-3

October 2010

Figure 2-1 Potential 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Routes

For screening purposes, the direct route in each of the north and south segments was 

used as baseline for comparing the options. Due to the large number of route options, 

screening measures were employed in phases (Table 2-1). In the Level 1 screening, a 

subset of the evaluation criteria was utilized to determine the viability of the route options 

and the appropriateness of the alignments. Options that failed in a significant way to 

meet one or more evaluation criteria were eliminated from further consideration. The 

options that were not eliminated in the Level 1 screening were developed in detail with 

regard to geometric characteristics of alignment and service characteristics. These 

options were subject to a Level 2 screening, which addressed other critical factors such 

as capital costs, safety, reliability, ridership forecasts, and travel time competitiveness.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-4

October 2010

Table 2-1 Route Evaluation Criteria

Screening 

Level

Evaluation 

Criteria Measure

1 Route 

Characteristics

• Route length compared to direct route

• Percent of single vs. double track

• Percent abandoned and out-of-service track

• Percent Class 1 main vs. secondary and shortline

2

Capital and 

Operating 

Costs

• Cost to upgrade from out-of-service, abandoned or 

shortline

• Right-of-way costs

• Dispatching costs

• Operating costs

• Track maintenance costs

1 Market Size

• Support economic development by serving major town 

centers/cities

• Population served within 10 miles and 15 miles of 

alignment

2 Travel Time • Travel time at 79 mph (after accounting for recovery, 

dwell and handoff times)

2 Safety

• Number of at-grade rail crossings

• Number of at-grade road crossings

• Other safety factors

2 Reliability

• Number of hand-offs from Class 1 to Class 1

• Number of hand-offs from Class 1 to shortline

• Percent of joint trackage

• Extent of shared freight track usage

• Typical freight traffic 

2 Other Factors

• Commuter rail use

• Modal connections

• Special geometry issues: turnouts, crossovers, etc.

• Train control (signals and communications)

• Existing stations, terminals and maintenance facilities

2.2.1 Level 1 Screening of Initial Options

The Level 1 screening considered evaluation criteria that broadly addressed the needs 

of the 3C Corridor. The purpose of the screening was to eliminate route options that had 

significant flaws with regard to route characteristics and travel markets served. All of the 

33 route options (Figure 2-1) (including sub-options, where applicable) were evaluated 

based on the following evaluation criteria. 

• Route characteristics – mileage, percentages of single and double track, 

percentages of Class 1 Main (owned by a large freight railroad company), 

secondary (line which branches off of a main line), shortline (independently 

owned rail line, typically operating over a smaller distance), out-of-service and 

abandoned track. Route characteristics are reflective of capital investments and 

upgrades needed for capacity addition to initiate passenger rail service.

• Market size – population served within 10 miles and 15 miles of alignment; 

number of town centers served.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-5

October 2010

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the Level 1 screening. The data relating to route 

characteristics and market size were collected by ORDC staff. The direct route for the 

North Segment – Option #1 and the South Segments – Option #30 was used as a 

baseline to compare the route options. The grey/highlighted cells in Table 2-2 indicate 

the characteristics that were least favorable for an option to move forward to the Level 2 

screening. The Notes/Comments column in Table 2-2 presents specific information to 

justify a “Retain” or “Dismiss” recommendation for each option. 

The options not eliminated in the Level 1 screening were carried forward to the Level 2 

screening and are listed below and shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3. 

North Segment (Cleveland to Columbus Routes): (Figure 2-2)

1. Direct Route

2. Direct Route via Elyria

3. Direct Route via Lorain

5. Direct Route via Marion

6. Akron-Medina

8. Akron-Barberton

9A. Kent-Akron-Medina (Kent-Akron via CSX)

10A. Kent-Akron-Wadsworth (Kent-Akron via CSX)

11A. Kent-Akron-Barberton (Kent-Akron via CSX)

13. Akron-Barberton-Marion

22B. Kent-Akron-Brewster-Newark (via N. Canton and Canton)

24. Akron-Brewster-Zanesville-Newark (via Massillon)

26. Elyria-Sandusky-Bellevue

South Segment (Columbus to Cincinnati Routes): (Figure 2-3)

29. Direct Route South-Columbus-Cincinnati

30. Direct Route-Columbus-Oasis-Cincinnati

32. Hamilton-Cincinnati

Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 show the options that remain and options dismissed during 

the Level I screening process for the north segment and south segment, respectively. 

The green lines indicate which routes remained and the red lines indicate which routes 

were dismissed during the Level I screening. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-6

October 2010

Figure 2-2 North Segment Level 1 Screening Results
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-7

October 2010

Figure 2-3 South Segment Level 1 Screening Results
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-8

October 2010

This page intentionally left blank
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-9

October 2010

Table 2-2 Level 1 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Option Route Characteristics Market Size Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss) Miles % Longer than Direct Route (DR) % Single Track % Double Track % Class 1 Main % Class 1 Secondary % Short Line % Out-of-service % Abandoned Route Characteristics Rating Small Town Centers Served 10 mile Pop (Mil) 10 mile Pop % > DR15 mile Pop (Mil) 15 mile Pop % > DRMarket Size Rating Notes/Comments

NORTH SEGMENT ROUTE OPTIONS: CLEVELAND TO COLUMBUS

1 Direct Route 136 0% 54% 46% 57% 43% 0% 0% 0% 4 2.178 0% 3.024 0%

Direct Route for north 

segment (Cleveland to 

Columbus) against which all 

other routes are compared

2 Direct Route via 

Elyria 144 6% 56% 44% 54% 46% 0% 0% 0% 5 2.188 0.5% 3.034 0.3%

Similar to DR, no significant 

deficiencies - no abandoned 

or out-of-service tracks, 

relatively high percentage of 

Class 1 Main

3 Direct Route via 

Lorain 158 16% 68% 32% 34% 63% 1% 3% 0% 6 2.188 0.5% 3.034 0.3%

Similar to DR, no significant 

deficiencies - no abandoned 

tracks, relatively high 

percentage of Class 1 Main; 

provides connection to 

Lorain and Elyria

4 Direct Route via 

Medina 149 10% 89% 11% 21% 55% 21% 3% 0% 4 2.043 -6.2% 2.890 -4.4%

Market size 4-6% lower 

than DR; only 11% of 

double track

5 Direct Route via 

Marion 145 7% 25% 75% 69% 31% 0% 0% 0% 4 2.240 2.9% 3.087 2.1%

High percentage of double 

track and Class 1 mainline; 

no shortlines, no out-ofservice or abandoned

6 Akron-Medina 182 34% 77% 23% 31% 32% 30% 7% 0% 8 2.527 16.1% 3.567 17.9%

Provides service to Akron 

and Medina; fares better 

against comparable route # 

7 

7 Akron-Wadsworth 181 33% 77% 23% 14% 17% 61% 0% 7% 3 2.735 25.6% 3.587 18.6%

61% on shortline needing 

upgrades; W&LE upgrades 

needed

8 Akron-Barberton 182 34% 77% 23% 61% 32% 0% 0% 7% 8 2.735 25.6% 3.587 18.6%

High percentage of Class 1 

Mainline; no shortlines; 

provides service to Akron

9A

Kent-AkronMedina (KentAkron via CSX)

190 40% 83% 17% 30% 31% 39% 0% 0% 7 2.527 16.1% 3.567 17.9%

Best option among 9A, 9B,

and 9C; no out of service or 

abandoned tracks 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-10

October 2010

Table 2-2 Level 1 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Option Route Characteristics Market Size Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss) Miles % Longer than Direct Route (DR) % Single Track % Double Track % Class 1 Main % Class 1 Secondary % Short Line % Out-of-service % Abandoned Route Characteristics Rating Small Town Centers Served 10 mile Pop (Mil) 10 mile Pop % > DR15 mile Pop (Mil) 15 mile Pop % > DRMarket Size Rating Notes/Comments

9B

Kent-AkronMedina (KentAkron via METRO)

189 39% 89% 11% 54% 0% 40% 6% 0% 7 2.527 16.1% 3.567 17.9%

39% longer than DR but 

pop served is only 16-18% 

greater; 11 miles (6%) outof-service track

9C

Kent-AkronMedina (KentAkron via W&LE)

192 41% 90% 10% 23% 30% 46% 0% 0% 7 2.527 16.1% 3.567 17.9%

41% longer than DR but 

pop served is only 16-18% 

greater; indirect route; 46% 

on shortline

10A

Kent-AkronWadsworth (KentAkron via CSX)

188 38% 89% 11% 30% 31% 39% 0% 0% 7 2.449 12.5% 3.587 18.6%

Best option among A, B,

and C; no out of service or 

abandoned tracks

10B

Kent-AkronWadsworth (KentAkron via METRO)

189 39% 83% 17% 22% 33% 39% 6% 0% 7 2.449 12.5% 3.587 18.6%

39% longer than DR but 

pop served is only 12-18% 

greater; 12 miles (6%) out 

of service track

10C

Kent-AkronWadsworth (KentAkron via W&LE)

191 40% 90% 10% 24% 30% 46% 0% 0% 7 2.449 12.5% 3.587 18.6%

40% longer than DR but 

pop served is only 12-18% 

greater; 46% on shortline 

needing upgrade

11A

Kent-AkronBarberton (KentAkron via CSX)

190 40% 83% 17% 20% 69% 11% 0% 0% 7 2.449 12.5% 3.587 18.6%

Best option among A, B,

and C; no out of service or 

abandoned tracks

11B

Kent-AkronBarberton (KentAkron via METRO)

189 39% 89% 11% 15% 63% 16% 6% 0% 7 2.449 12.5% 3.587 18.6%

Kent-Akron segment on 

abandoned Metro needing 

reactivation

11C

Kent-AkronBarberton (KentAkron via W&LE)

192 41% 90% 10% 20% 62% 18% 0% 0% 7 2.449 12.5% 3.587 18.6%

41% longer than DR but 

pop served is only 12-18% 

greater; 18% (35 miles) on 

shortline needing upgrade

12 Akron-MedinaMarion

182 34% 64% 36% 55% 0% 38% 7% 0% 9 2.580 18.5% 3.563 17.8%

7% (13 miles) on 

abandoned track; 38% (69 

miles) on shortline needing 

upgrade

13 Akron-BarbertonMarion 191 40% 54% 32% 61% 32% 0% 7% 0% 8 2.449 12.5% 3.587 18.6%

High percentage of Class 1 

Mainline; no shortlines or 

abandoned tracks; Akron to 

Columbus uses CSX
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-11

October 2010

Table 2-2 Level 1 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Option Route Characteristics Market Size Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss) Miles % Longer than Direct Route (DR) % Single Track % Double Track % Class 1 Main % Class 1 Secondary % Short Line % Out-of-service % Abandoned Route Characteristics Rating Small Town Centers Served 10 mile Pop (Mil) 10 mile Pop % > DR15 mile Pop (Mil) 15 mile Pop % > DRMarket Size Rating Notes/Comments

14

Kent-AkronMedina-BucyrusMarion

205 51% 71% 21% 36% 0% 59% 5% 0% 8 2.580 18.5% 3.545 17.2%

51% longer than DR but 

pop served is only 17-18% 

greater; 59% (120 miles) on 

shortline needing upgrade

15

Akron-Mansfield 

(via Abandoned 

Erie)

182 34% 70% 14% 14% 32% 18% 21% 15% 10 2.511 15.3% 3.615 19.5%

21% on out of service and 

15% on abandoned tracks 

needing upgrades

16

Kent-AkronMansfield (via 

Abandoned Erie)

189 39% 83% 2% 7% 31% 28% 19% 15% 9 2.511 15.3% 3.615 19.5%

Several costly upgrades –

28% on shortline, 19% out 

of service and 15% on 

abandoned

17A

Akron-CantonMansfield (via 

North Canton to 

NS)

210 54% 61% 39% 14% 69% 11% 6% 0% 11 2.830 29.9% 3.878 28.2%

54% longer than DR with no 

comparable benefits; 6% 

(13 miles) out of service 

tracks

17B

Akron-CantonMansfield (via 

Hartville to NS)

213 57% 62% 38% 14% 68% 12% 6% 0% 11 2.830 29.9% 3.878 28.2%

57% longer than DR with no 

comparable benefits; 6% 

(13 miles ) out of service 

tracks

18

Akron-MassillonWooster-Mansfield 

(via RJC/NS)

205 51% 61% 39% 21% 66% 6% 6% 0% 10 2.805 28.8% 3.854 27.4%

51% longer than DR with no 

comparable benefits; 6% 

(12 miles ) out of service 

tracks

19A

Akron-WoosterMansfield (via 

Aband-WarwickOrville-NS)

189 39% 52% 42% 21% 67% 0% 7% 5% 9 2.543 16.8% 3.544 17.2%

Costly upgrades needed -

10 miles of abandoned CAC 

track and 13 miles of out of 

service Metro

19B

Akron-Mt. Vernon 

(via Aband 

Warwick-OrvilleMt. Vernon)

152 12% 14% 21% 26% 0% 0% 9% 65% 5 1.937 -11% 2.581 -15%

65% of abandoned track 

needing costly upgrades

20A

Kent-AkronCanton-Mansfield 

(via North Canton 

to NS)

217 60% 72% 28% 8% 66% 20% 5% 0% 10 2.830 29.9% 3.878 28.2%

60% longer than DR but 

market served is less than 

30% more
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-12

October 2010

Table 2-2 Level 1 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Option Route Characteristics Market Size Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss) Miles % Longer than Direct Route (DR) % Single Track % Double Track % Class 1 Main % Class 1 Secondary % Short Line % Out-of-service % Abandoned Route Characteristics Rating Small Town Centers Served 10 mile Pop (Mil) 10 mile Pop % > DR15 mile Pop (Mil) 15 mile Pop % > DRMarket Size Rating Notes/Comments

20B

Kent-AkronCanton-Mansfield 

(via Hartville to 

NS)

220 62% 73% 27% 8% 65% 21% 5% 0% 10 2.761 26.8% 3.848 27.2%

62% longer than DR but 

market served is only 27% 

more

20C

Kent-CantonMansfield (via 

Hartville to NS)

211 55% 72% 28% 9% 68% 23% 0% 0% 9 2.707 24.3% 3.837 26.9%

55% longer than DR but 

market served is only 24 to 

27% more

21A

Akron-BrewsterNewark (via 

Massillon)

174 28% 82% 18% 15% 8% 70% 7% 0% 8 2.685 23.3% 3.675 21.5%

70% on shortline needing 

upgrades; does not serve 

Canton

21B

Akron-BrewsterNewark (via N. 

Canton and 

Canton)

183 35% 86% 14% 14% 0% 77% 7% 0% 8 2.709 23.8% 3.700 22.3%

77% on shortline needing 

upgrades

21C

Akron-BrewsterNewark (via 

Hartville and 

Canton)

186 37% 56% 14% 14% 0% 79% 7% 0% 9 2.709 24.4% 3.700 22.3%

79% on shortline needing 

upgrades

22A

Kent-AkronBrewster-Newark 

(via Massillon)

181 33% 94% 6% 8% 8% 78% 6% 0% 7 2.685 23.3% 3.675 21.5%

78% on shortline needing 

upgrades; only 6% on 

double track

22B

Kent-AkronBrewster-Newark 

(via N. Canton and 

Canton)

186 37% 58% 2% 8% 0% 87% 6% 0% 7 2.709 24.4% 3.700 22.3%

Best option among A, B,

and C; provides service to 

Canton – Retain for Level 2

22C

Kent-AkronBrewster-Newark 

(via Hartville and 

Canton)

189 39% 51% 2% 7% 0% 87% 6% 0% 6 2.709 24.4% 3.700 22.3%

87% on shortline needing 

upgrades; only 2% on 

double track

23

Kent-AkronBrewster-Newark 

(Direct via 

Hartville, Canton)

180 32% 98% 2% 8% 0% 92% 0% 0% 5 2.587 18.8% 3.658 21%

92% on shortline needing 

upgrades; only 2% on 

double track

24

Akron-BrewsterZanesville-Newark 

(via Massillon)

192 41% 83% 17% 14% 80% 0% 7% 0% 8 2.754 26.4% 3.490 15.4%

80% on Class 1 secondary 

and none on shortlines 

needing fewer upgrades 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-13

October 2010

Table 2-2 Level 1 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Option Route Characteristics Market Size Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss) Miles % Longer than Direct Route (DR) % Single Track % Double Track % Class 1 Main % Class 1 Secondary % Short Line % Out-of-service % Abandoned Route Characteristics Rating Small Town Centers Served 10 mile Pop (Mil) 10 mile Pop % > DR15 mile Pop (Mil) 15 mile Pop % > DRMarket Size Rating Notes/Comments

25 Elyria-Bellevue 161 18% 36% 64% 84% 16% 0% 0% 0% 6 2.273 4.4% 3.135 3.7%

Does not serve Canton and 

Akron; market size only 4% 

more compared to route 

which is 18% longer than 

DR

26 Elyria-SanduskyBellevue 170 25% 38% 71% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7 2.273 4.4% 3.135 3.7%

100% of route on Class 1 

Mainline (NS); provides 

service to Sandusky, 

Bucyrus, Marion

27 Lorain-Bellevue 166 22% 46% 51% 74% 26% 0% 0% 0% 6 2.218 1.8% 3.079 1.8%

Does not serve Canton and 

Akron; market size only 

1.8% more compared to 

route which is 22% longer 

than DR

28 Lorain-SanduskyBellevue 175 29% 41% 59% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 7 2.218 1.8% 3.079 1.8%

Does not serve Canton and 

Akron; market size only 

1.8% more compared to 

route which is 29% longer 

than DR

SOUTH SEGMENT ROUTE OPTIONS: COLUMBUS TO CINCINNATI

29

Direct Route 

South-ColumbusCincinnati 

(Longworth/CUT)

125 0% 18% 82% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% na 2.933 0% 3.435 0%

100% on Class 1 mainline; 

most DR

30

Direct RouteColumbus-OasisCincinnati

131 5% 24% 76% 88% 0% 12% 0% 0% na 2.933 0% 3.435 0%

DR for south segment 

(Columbus to Cincinnati) 

against which other routes 

are compared ; high 

percentage on Class 1 

mainline and double track 

31

HamiltonCincinnati 

(Longworth/CUT)

130 4% 48% 52% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% na 3.216 9.7% 3.718 8.2%

Lowest percentage on 

double track compared to 

other routes 

32

HamiltonCincinnati (OasisBoathouse)

135 8% 33% 67% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% na 3.216 9.7% 3.718 8.2%

100% on Class 1 mainline; 

serves Hamilton and fares 

better with regard to route 

#33
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-14

October 2010

Table 2-2 Level 1 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Option Route Characteristics Market Size Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss) Miles % Longer than Direct Route (DR) % Single Track % Double Track % Class 1 Main % Class 1 Secondary % Short Line % Out-of-service % Abandoned Route Characteristics Rating Small Town Centers Served 10 mile Pop (Mil) 10 mile Pop % > DR15 mile Pop (Mil) 15 mile Pop % > DRMarket Size Rating Notes/Comments

33

HamiltonCincinnati 

(Longworth/CUT)

118 -6% 42% 58% 8% 0% 25% 67% 0% na 2.062 -29.7% 2.448 -29%

6% shorter than DR but 

market served is almost 

30% less than DR; 67% 

abandoned track
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-15

October 2010

2.2.2 Level 2 Screening

Route options that were not eliminated in the Level 1 screening were further evaluated in 

the Level 2 screening. The route options carried forward from the Level 1 screening 

were combined into full route alternatives from Cleveland to Cincinnati. Each of the 

north segment (Cleveland to Columbus) options uses the direct route option for the 

South Segment (Columbus to Cincinnati, terminating at Boathouse/Oasis) – Option #30, 

whereas each of the south segment options use the direct route option for the North 

Segment – Option #1. To this effect, the South Segment Option #30 as defined in Table 

2-2 is rendered redundant (already included in north segment options) and thereby 

eliminated for the Level 2 screening. 

Level 2 screening used the following criteria which are also referenced in Table 2-1.

• Travel time – travel time for each route including dwell time (time a train spends 

at a stop awaiting continued movement), recovery time (time scheduled at the 

end of the route before departure time of the next trip), and penalties for hand-off 

between different railroads. A hand-off occurs when one railroad merges with 

another. To be viable, travel times between cities by train need to be comparable 

to the time it would take traveling by automobile. The travel times were 

developed by considering train speed, the number of stations, the distance 

between stations, and the geometric constraints of the route including curvature 

and grading. 

• Safety – the operational safety of the route examined by the number of at-grade 

rail and highway crossings (including private road and farm crossings).

• Reliability – measured by the number of hand-offs between Class 1 and shortline

railroads that were considered along with the amount of joint trackage, (where 

passenger and freight rail operate on the same line) and the typical amount of 

freight traffic. 

• Costs – measured by Capital costs and Operating costs. Capital costs took into

consideration the length of the route and examined how much of that route was 

abandoned or out-of-service, how much of the route was single track versus 

double track, and the number of bridges over and under the route. Estimated 

costs were then developed based upon how much of the route would require new 

track, where the route was previously abandoned or out of service and how much 

of the track would need to be upgraded. Additionally track maintenance costs 

and operating expenses were also calculated on a rough-order-of-magnitude 

basis.

• Other Factors – other factors that were considered included access to other 

modes of transportation defined by the number of unique modal connections 

available at stations along each option. The modal connections are defined by 

trolley lines, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) bus routes, 

Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) bus routes, Greyhound 

stations, etc. within a quarter mile of the rail stations. Another criterion that was 

considered was whether the investment in passenger rail could benefit a future 

commuter rail service. Potential for future commuter rail use for each option was 

evaluated on a qualitative basis from previous studies (such as the 2001 NeoRail 

study that proposed a Cleveland Commuter Rail Network, and others) and 

measured by defining the route segment and determining the approximate 

mileage for applicable routes proposed in these earlier studies. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-16

October 2010

Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 show the results of the Level 2 screening for the north and 

south segments, respectively. The green route lines indicate which routes remained and 

the red lines indicate which routes were dismissed during the Level 2 screening. As a 

result of the Level 2 screening, 11 alternatives were eliminated from further 

consideration and four alternatives were recommended for further evaluation in the Level 

3 screening:

Alternative 1 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus South 

Segment 30: Direct Route-Columbus-Oasis-Cincinnati

Alternative 8 – North Segment 8: Cleveland-Akron-Barberton-Columbus plus 

South Segment 30: Direct Route-Columbus-Oasis-Cincinnati

Alternative 29 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus South 

Segment 29: Direct Route South-Columbus-Cincinnati 

(Longworth/CUT)

Alternative 32 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus South 

Segment 32: Hamilton-Cincinnati (Oasis-Boathouse)

Table 2-3 shows the results of the Level 2 screening. The grey/highlighted cells indicate 

characteristics that are least favorable for an alternative to be retained. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-17

October 2010

Figure 2-4 North Segment Level 2 Screening Results
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-18

October 2010

Figure 2-5 South Segment Level 2 Screening Results
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-19

October 2010

Table 2-3 Level 2 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Alternative Travel 

Time

Safety Reliability Capital 

Costs

Other Factors Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss)

MilesTravel Time (hr:min)Number of AtGrade Rail CrossingsNumber of AtGrade Highway CrossingsHand-off Class 1 to Class 1Hand-off Class 1 to ShortlineFreight Traffic (Ranked based on Trains/day in various route segments)Capital Cost ($ Mil)Prospect for Future Commuter Rail Use (Route lengths proposed in earlier studies)No. of Modal Connections Key Stakeholder InterestNotes/Comments 

1

Direct Route (Cleveland-Columbus) 

+ Direct Route South-ColumbusCincinnati (Route #30)

136+ 131 

= 267 6:22 6+3= 9 157+ 137 = 

294 1 0

High-Medium (at least 2 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

475.5 Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles 10 High

2

Direct Route via Elyria (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)

144+131 = 

275 6:58 6+3 = 9 174+ 137 = 

311 1 0

High-Medium (at least 1 

segment with 50+ 

trains/day)

489.7 Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles 7 Moderate

Higher travel time, higher 

cost, and fewer connections 

than DR. 

3

Direct Route via Lorain (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)

158+131 = 

289 7:38 5+3 = 8 262+ 137 = 399 1 0 High (no segment with 

50+ trains/day) 514.7 Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles 7 Moderate

High travel time, too many 

highway crossings; high 

capital costs

5

Direct Route via Marion (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)

145+ 131 

= 276 7:31 7+3 = 10 204+ 137 = 341 1 0

Medium (at least 3 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

491.5 Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles 7 Moderate

Higher travel time, more atgrade crossings, and fewer 

connections than DR. 

6

Akron-Medina (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)

182+ 131 

= 313 8:12 5+3 = 8 249+ 137 = 

386 1 1

High-Medium (at least 2 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

480.8

Cleveland to Akron –

42 miles; Cincinnati to 

Dayton – 50 miles

8 Moderate

High travel time (compared 

to #8 with same mileage); 

too many highway crossings

8

Akron-Barberton (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route#30)

182+ 131 

= 313 7:53 5+3 = 8 212+ 137 = 

349 1 0

Medium (at least 3 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

480.8

Cleveland to Akron –

42 miles; Cincinnati to 

Dayton – 50 miles

7 Moderate

Higher travel time and cost 

but medium freight traffic 

and serves Akron

9A

Kent-Akron-Medina (Kent-Akron via 

CSX) (Cleveland-Columbus) + 

Direct Route South-ColumbusCincinnati (Route #30)

190+ 131 

= 321 8:13 5+3 = 8 257+ 137= 

394 0 4

High-Medium (at least 2 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

493.1

Cleveland-HudsonKent – 35 miles; 

Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles

7 Moderate

High travel time, too many 

highway crossings ; too 

many hand-offs to shortlines

10A

Kent-Akron-Wadsworth (KentAkron via CSX) (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)

188+ 131 

= 319 8:21 5+3 = 8 259+ 137 = 

396 0 5

Medium (at least 3 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

490.0

Cleveland-HudsonKent – 35 miles; 

Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles

7 Moderate

High travel time, too many 

highway crossings ; too 

many hand-offs to shortlines

11A

Kent-Akron-Barberton (Kent-Akron 

via CSX) (Cleveland-Columbus) + 

Direct Route South-ColumbusCincinnati (Route #30)

190+ 131 

= 321 8:26 5+3 = 8 185+ 137 = 

322 0 2

Medium (at least 3 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

493.1

Cleveland-HudsonKent – 35 miles; 

Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles

7 Moderate

High Travel time and higher 

costs. Fewer modal 

connections than DR. 

13

Akron-Barberton-Marion 

(Cleveland-Columbus) + Direct 

Route South-Columbus-Cincinnati 

(Route #30)

191+ 131 

= 322 8:28 6+3 = 9 244+ 137 = 

381 1 0

High-Medium (at least 2 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

494.6

Cleveland-HudsonAkron – 42 miles; 

Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles

7 Moderate

High travel time, too many 

highway crossings, higher 

capital costs
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-20

October 2010

Table 2-3 Level 2 Screening Summary

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Alternative Travel 

Time

Safety Reliability Capital 

Costs

Other Factors Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss)

MilesTravel Time (hr:min)Number of AtGrade Rail CrossingsNumber of AtGrade Highway CrossingsHand-off Class 1 to Class 1Hand-off Class 1 to ShortlineFreight Traffic (Ranked based on Trains/day in various route segments)Capital Cost ($ Mil)Prospect for Future Commuter Rail Use (Route lengths proposed in earlier studies)No. of Modal Connections Key Stakeholder InterestNotes/Comments 

22B

Kent-Akron-Brewster-Newark (via 

N. Canton and Canton) (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)184+ 131 

= 315 8:31 4+3 = 7 182+137 = 

319 0 2

Medium (at least 1 

segment with 50+ 

trains/day BUT additional 

penalty due to slow route

461.4

Cleveland-HudsonAkron – 42 miles; 

Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles

7 Moderate High travel time, fewer 

modal connections

24

Akron-Brewster-Zanesville-Newark 

(via Massillon) (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)192+ 131 

= 323 13:38 3+3 = 6 181+ 137 = 

318 0 3

Medium (at least 1 

segment with 50+ 

trains/day BUT additional 

penalty due to slow route

478.7

Cleveland-HudsonAkron – 42 miles; 

Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles

7 Moderate

Very high travel time due to 

steep curves between 

Brewster and Coshocton

26

Elyria-Sandusky-Bellevue 

(Cleveland-Columbus) + Direct 

Route South-Columbus-Cincinnati 

(Route #30)

170+ 131 

= 301 6:37 7+3 = 10 196+ 137 = 333 0 0

High-Medium (at least 2 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

448.6 Cincinnati to Dayton –

50 miles 7 Moderate

Longer route miles than DR, 

leads to higher O&M costs, 

more rail at-grade crossings, 

fewer modal connections

29

Direct Route-South ColumbusCincinnati (Longworth/CUT) + 

Direct Route (Route #1) Cleveland 

– Columbus

125+ 136 

= 261 6:26 3+6 = 9 134+ 157 = 

291 1 1

Low (at least 3 segments 

with 50+ trains per day 

BUT additional penalty 

due to high freight traffic 

into Cincinnati yard)

421.5

North Cincinnati to 

Dayton – 34 miles 7 High

Low rating for shared freight 

traffic makes this alternative 

less desirable. Significant 

issues with heavy freight 

interference at Cincinnati 

yard

32

Hamilton-Cincinnati (Oasis 

Boathouse) + Direct Route (Route

#1) Cleveland – Columbus

135+ 136 

= 271 6:55 3+6 = 9 165+ 157 = 

322 1 1

Medium (at least 3 

segments with 50+ 

trains/day)

437.7 Hamilton to North 

Cincinnati – 16 miles 10 Moderate
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-21

October 2010

2.2.3 Level 2 Route Alternative Evaluations

The following section summarizes the Level 2 screening evaluation for each of the 15 

alternatives that advanced from the Level 1 screening.

Alternative #1: Direct Route North (Cleveland-Columbus) + Direct 

Route South (Columbus-Cincinnati)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Grafton, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Alternative #1 is the direct route in the north segment between Cleveland and Columbus 

and the direct route in the south segment between Columbus and Cincinnati. The route 

for Alternative #1 is composed of the north segment direct route of Alternative #1 from 

the Level 1 screening and the south segment direct route of Alternative #30 from the 

Level 1 screening (Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3). 

Travel Time- Alternative #1 has the lowest travel time among all alternatives. 

Safety - Alternative #1 has a moderate number of rail crossings and a low number of atgrade highway crossings. Alternative #1 has safety issues comparable to the other 

alternatives. 

Reliability - Alternative #1 has the same or fewer operational hand-offs from Class 1 to 

Class 1 or shortline railroads comparable to other alternatives. Alternative #1 is 

therefore more likely to have better reliability. Freight traffic is high-medium compared to 

the other alternatives. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #1 are lower than or comparable to the other 

alternatives and therefore rates favorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 

Other Factors - Alternative #1 has opportunities for future commuter rail use on the 

corridor comparable to the other alternatives, has a higher number of modal 

connections, and has a high key stakeholder interest. Thus, in regard to other factors, 

this alternative rates favorably. 

Thus, based on the criteria used in Level 2 Screening, Alternative #1 is recommended 

for further evaluation in the Level 3 screening.

Alternative #2: Cleveland – Columbus (Direct Route via Elyria)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Elyria, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-22

October 2010

Alternative #2 follows the same route as Alternative #1 with the exception of extending 

west to connect to Elyria instead of Grafton. This connection extends the route eight 

miles, but allows for this alternative to provide service to a larger population center. 

Elyria had a population of 55,953, while Grafton had a population of 2,302.

Travel Time - Alternative #2 has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #2 has more safety issues than Alternative #1; there are more 

highway at-grade crossings. 

Reliability - Alternative #2 has the same number of operational hand-offs from Class 1 to 

Class 1 or shortline railroads as Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #2 are higher than Alternative #1 and 

therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 

Other Factors - Alternative #2 has the same opportunities for future commuter rail use 

on the corridor as Alternative #1. However, the number of modal connections is less 

than Alternative #1 and the key stakeholder interest is moderate. Thus, in regard to 

other factors, Alternative #2 rates unfavorably. 

Alternative #2 is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #3: Cleveland – Columbus (Direct Route via Lorain)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Lakewood, Lorain, 

Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #3 has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #3 has more significant safety issues than Alternative #1; there are a 

lot more at-grade highway crossings. 

Reliability - Alternative #3 has the same number of operational hand-offs from Class 1 to 

Class 1 or shortline railroads as Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #3 are higher than Alternative #1 and 

therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 

Other Factors - Alternative #3 has the same opportunities for future commuter rail use 

on the corridor as Alternative #1. However, the number of modal connections is less 

than Alternative #1 and the key stakeholder interest is moderate. Thus, in regard to 

other factors, Alternative #3 rates unfavorably. 

Alternative #3 is recommended for dismissal for further study. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-23

October 2010

Alternative #5: Cleveland – Columbus (Direct Route via Marion)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Grafton, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Marion, Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #5 has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #5 has more significant safety issues than Alternative #1; there are a 

lot more at-grade rail crossings. 

Reliability - Alternative #5 has the same number of operational hand-offs from Class 1 to 

Class 1 or shortline railroads as Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #5 are higher than Alternative #1 and 

therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 

Other Factors - Alternative #5 has the same opportunities for future commuter rail use 

on the corridor as Alternative #1. However, the number of modal connections is less 

than Alternative #1 and the key stakeholder interest is moderate. Thus, in regard to 

other factors, Alternative #5 rates unfavorably. 

Alternative #5 is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #6: Cleveland–Columbus (Akron–Medina) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Hudson, 

Cuyahoga Falls, Akron, Medina, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Delaware, North Columbus, 

Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #6 has a significantly higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #6 has more safety issues than Alternative #1, particularly at-grade 

highway crossings. 

Reliability - Alternative #6 has more operational hand-offs from Class 1 to Class 1 or 

shortline railroads than Alternative #1 and is therefore more likely to have inferior 

reliability. 

Capital Costs- Capital costs for Alternative #6 are comparable, although slightly higher 

than Alternative #1. 

Other Factors - Alternative #6 has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor than Alternative #1. However, the number of modal connections is less than 

Alternative #1 and the key stakeholder interest is moderate. 

Alternative #6 is recommended for dismissal for further study. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-24

October 2010

Alternative #8: Akron-Barberton (Cleveland-Columbus) + Direct Route 

South (Columbus-Cincinnati)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Hudson, 

Cuyahoga Falls, Akron, Barberton, Lodi, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Delaware, North 

Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time- Alternative #8 has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #8 has a comparable level of safety issues as Alternative #1. 

Reliability - Alternative #8 has a number of operational hand-offs from Class 1 to Class 1 

or shortline railroads comparable to Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #8 are comparable but slightly higher than 

Alternative #1. 

Other Factors - Alternative #8 has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor than Alternative #1. It provides service to Akron. The number of modal 

connections is the same as Alternative #1 and the key stakeholder interest is moderate. 

Additionally, this alternative serves an additional travel market. The Akron-Barberton 

travel market could lead to higher ridership and would provide another mode option for 

more travelers. 

Thus, based on the criteria used in Level 2 Screening, Alternative #8 is recommended 

for further evaluation in the Level 3 screening

Alternative #9A: Cleveland – Columbus (A-B-C Kent–Akron–Medina) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Kent, 

Akron, Fairlawn, Medina, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Delaware, North Columbus, 

Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #9A has a significantly higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #9A has more significant safety issues than Alternative #1, 

particularly with regard to highway at-grade crossings. 

Reliability - Alternative #9A has more operational hand-offs from Class 1 to shortline 

railroads than Alternative #1 and is therefore more likely to have inferior reliability. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #9A are higher than Alternative #1 and 

therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-25

October 2010

Other Factors - Alternative #9A has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor than Alternative #1. The number of modal connections is comparable to 

Alternative #1 and the key stakeholder interest for this alternative is moderate. 

Alternative #9A is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #10A: Cleveland–Columbus (A-B-C Kent–Akron–

Wadsworth) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Kent, 

Akron, Wadsworth, Lodi, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #10A has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety- Alternative #10A has more significant safety issues than Alternative #1, 

particularly for at-grade highway crossings. 

Reliability- Alternative #10A has more operational hand-offs from Class 1 to shortline

railroads than Alternative #1 and is therefore more likely to have inferior reliability. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #10A are higher than Alternative #1 and 

therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 

Other Factors - Alternative #10A has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor than Alternative #1. The number of modal connections is the same as 

Alternative #1 and the key stakeholder interest for this alternative is moderate. 

Alternative #10A is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #11A: Cleveland–Columbus (A-B-C Kent–Akron–

Barberton) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Kent, 

Akron, Barberton, Lodi, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #11A has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety- Alternative #11A has safety issues comparable to Alternative #1. 

Reliability- Alternative #11A has a comparable but slightly higher number of operational 

hand-offs from Class 1 to Class 1 or shortline railroads as Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #11A are higher than Alternative #1 and 

therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-26

October 2010

Other Factors - Alternative #11A has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor than Alternative #1 and the number of modal connections is the same as 

Alternative #1. However, key stakeholder interest for Alternative #11A is moderate. 

Alternative #11A is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #13: Cleveland – Columbus (Akron–Barberton–Marion) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Hudson, 

Cuyahoga Falls, Akron, Barberton, Lodi, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Marion, Delaware, 

North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #13 has a significantly higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety- Alternative #13 has more significant safety issues than Alternative #1. 

Reliability - Alternative #13 has a number of operational hand-offs from Class 1 to Class 

1 or shortline railroads comparable to Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #13 are higher than Alternative #1 and 

therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost consideration. 

Other Factors - Alternative #13 has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor than Alternative #1 and the number of modal connections is the same as 

Alternative #1. However, the key stakeholder interest for Alternative #13 is moderate. 

Alternative #13 is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #22B: Cleveland–Columbus (A-B-C Kent–Akron–

Brewster–Newark) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Kent, 

Akron, Canton/Massillon, Coshocton, Newark, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #22B has a significantly higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #22B has safety issues comparable to Alternative #1. 

Reliability - Alternative #22B has more operational hand-offs from Class 1 to shortline 

railroads as compared to Alternative #1 and is therefore more likely to have inferior 

reliability. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #22B are comparable to Alternative #1. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-27

October 2010

Other Factors - Alternative #22B has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor than Alternative #1 and the number of modal connections is the same as 

Alternative #1. However, the key stakeholder interest for Alternative #22B is moderate. 

Alternative #22B is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #24: Cleveland – Columbus (Akron–Brewster–Zanesville–

Newark) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Hudson, 

Cuyahoga Falls, Akron, Barberton, Massillon, Coshocton, Newark, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time - Alternative #24 has an extremely high travel time compared to Alternative 

#1. 

Safety - Alternative #24 has safety issues comparable to Alternative #1. 

Reliability - Alternative #24 has more operational hand-offs from Class 1 to shortline 

railroads than Alternative #1 and is therefore more likely to have inferior reliability. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #24 are comparable to but higher than 

Alternative #1 and therefore rates unfavorably for the Level 2 screening cost 

consideration. 

Other Factors - Alternative #24 has better opportunities for future commuter rail use on 

the corridor and has the same number of modal connections as Alternative #1. 

However, the key stakeholder interest for this alternative is moderate. 

Thus, based on the criteria used in Level 2 Screening, Alternative #24 is recommended 

for further evaluation in the Level 3 screening

Alternative #26: Cleveland–Columbus (Elyria–Sandusky–Bellevue) 

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Elyria, Sandusky, Bellevue, 

Bucyrus, Marion, Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Travel Time- Alternative #26 has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #26 has a more significant safety issues than Alternative #1, 

particularly with regard to at-grade rail crossings. 

Reliability - Alternative #26 has fewer operational hand-offs from Class 1 to Class 1 or 

shortline railroads than Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs- Capital costs for Alternative #26 are comparable to Alternative #1. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-28

October 2010

Other Factors - Alternative #26 has the same opportunities for future commuter rail use 

on the corridor and has the same number of modal connections as Alternative #1. 

However, the key stakeholder interest for Alternative #26 is moderate. 

Alternative #26 is recommended for dismissal for further study. 

Alternative #29: Direct Route South (Columbus-Cincinnati: 

Longworth/CUT) + Direct Route North (Cleveland-Columbus)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Grafton, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus)

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

This route uses the direct route Alternative #1 from Cleveland through Columbus to 

Sharonville, north of Cincinnati. The only deviation from Alternative #1 is the route from 

Sharonville through the Mill Creek Valley on the west side of downtown Cincinnati. The 

route could serve stations near the Museum Center (former Cincinnati Union Terminal 

and current Amtrak station) and the Longworth Hall area. These station sites have been 

considered in high speed and conventional speed passenger rail studies for many years.

Travel Time- Alternative #29 has a travel time comparable to Alternative #1. 

Safety - Alternative #29 has safety issues comparable to Alternative #1. 

Reliability - Alternative #29 has one operational hand-off from Class 1 to Class 1 which 

is less than Alternative #1. However, at least 3 segments have over 50 trains per day 

and reliability is negatively affected as a result of the high freight traffic into Cincinnati 

yard. Thus, overall reliability is low. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #29 are comparable to Alternative #1. 

Other Factors - Alternative #29 has opportunities for future commuter rail use on the 

corridor comparable to Alternative #1. Additionally, the number of modal connections is 

comparable to Alternative #1. Key stakeholder interest for Alternative #29 is high. 

Thus, based on the criteria used in Level 2 Screening, Alternative #29 is recommended 

for further evaluation in the Level 3 screening. 

Alternative #32: Hamilton-Cincinnati (Oasis Boathouse) + Direct 

Route North (Cleveland–Columbus)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Grafton, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, Hamilton, North 

Cincinnati, Cincinnati – Oasis line between the North Cincinnati and Cincinnati stops

Travel Time- Alternative #32 has a higher travel time than Alternative #1. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-29

October 2010

Safety- Alternative #32 has a comparable, though slightly more, significant safety issues 

as Alternative #1. 

Reliability- Alternative #32 has more operational hand-offs from Class 1 to Class 1 or 

shortline railroads as Alternative #1. 

Capital Costs - Capital costs for Alternative #32 are comparable to Alternative #1. 

Other Factors - Alternative #32 has comparable, but shorter, opportunities for future 

commuter rail use on the corridor than Alternative #1. Additionally, the number of modal 

connections is better than Alternative #1. The key stakeholder interest for Alternative 

#32 is moderate. 

Thus, based on the criteria used in Level 2 Screening, Alternative 32 is recommended 

for further evaluation in the Level 3 screening

2.3 Alternatives Retained for Evaluation

Four route alternatives were retained for further study and evaluation. This section 

describes the alternatives. A No-Build Alternative is included against which the four 

Build alternatives are compared.

2.3.1 Alternative 1 - No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative consists of the existing, planned, and programmed intercity 

highway and aviation services and facilities in the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati (3C) 

corridor. A summary of the existing plus committed intercity transportation system is 

provided below. The No-Build does not include establishment of an intercity passenger 

rail service.

• Automobile: The majority of intercity automobile travel in the 3C Corridor is 

accommodated on I-71, I-75, and I-70, which roughly approximates the "direct 

route" for the proposed passenger rail service. A typical 250 mile automobile trip 

between Cleveland and Cincinnati takes approximately four hours and fifteen 

minutes with no congestion or weather delay. Capacity-adding improvement 

projects and interchange improvement projects are currently committed to on the 

interstate corridors and are provided in Table 2-4.

• Air: Daily commuter-oriented flight service exists, serving largely as connecting 

flights at hubs at Cleveland Hopkins International, Port Columbus International 

and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International airports. Carriers include 

Continental and Delta one-way flight time between Cleveland and Cincinnati 

is airlines. Scheduled typically around one hour and ten minutes gate to gate. 

• Bus: Greyhound Lines, Inc. and other smaller carriers operate bus service in the 

3C Corridor. Of the 31 Greyhound service locations in Ohio, 17 are located within 

or very near to the broad project area used in the Level 1 route screening (Table 

2-1). Scheduled one-way travel times between Cleveland and Cincinnati range 

between four hours and forty minutes and five hours and thirty minutes with one 

way fares approximately 50 dollars.

The No-Build Alternative will not meet the purpose and need of this project. The 

purpose of this proposal, as described in Section 1, is to establish a new passenger 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-30

October 2010

transportation system in the 3C Corridor, providing additional mobility options and an 

entirely new transportation mode choice for travelers, with all the associated benefits. As 

described above, the No-Build Alternative will be a continuation of existing transportation 

system between Ohio’s largest cities. This alternative is not considered an adequate 

solution to meet the existing and anticipated transportation needs of the corridor. The 

No-Build Alternative was retained for analysis, and its consequences were developed to 

allow equal comparison to the preferred alternative, and to help decision-makers and the 

public understand the ramifications of taking no action.

Table 2-4 Capacity-Adding Improvement Projects and Interchange Improvement Projects 

Currently Committed to on the Interstate Corridors

Project by 

County/Route Description of Work Construction Schedule

Montgomery I75/Austin PikeConstruct a new interchange at Austin Pike and I75Construction currently 

underway

Butler/Warren I-75 Add lane from SR 129 to SR 122; upgrade I-75 

and SR 63 interchange

Construction currently 

underway

Clark I-70 Add lane from Enon Rd to SR 54 Construction currently 

underway

Montgomery I-75 Interchange upgrade at SR 4, Main St and Grand 

Ave (Downtown Dayton) Phase 1A

Construction currently 

underway

Montgomery I-75 Add third continuous lane on I-75 through the US 

35 Interchange Phase 1B

Construction currently 

underway

Warren I-75 Add lane from SR 122 to MOT county line and 

upgrade SR 122 interchange

Construction currently 

underway

Cuyahoga I-71/90 East 55th St. Construction currently 

underway

Hamilton I-75 Mitchell Ave. Tight Diamond Construction Begins in 2010

Hamilton I-75 Monmouth Overpass, Removal of Bates and 

Pedestrian bridge Construction Begins in 2010

Franklin I-70/I-71 I-70/71 Split reconstruction Construction Begins in 2011

Hamilton I-75 Colerain/Beekman/I-74 Full Movement Interchange Construction Begins in 2011

Hamilton I-75 RR Spur South of SR 562 Construction Begins in 2011

Cuyahoga I-71/I-90 Innerbelt Bridge Group 1 - Construct new WB 

bridge and approaches I-71 to Carnegie Curve Construction Begins in 2011

Hamilton I-75 I-75 between Western Hills and Mitchell Construction Begins in 2012

Hamilton I-75 RR Line East of I-75 over SR 562; RR Spur North 

of SR 562 Construction Begins in 2012

Hamilton I-75 I-75 SR 562 to Mitchell NB/SB 4th Lane Construction Begins in 2013

Hamilton I-75 I-75 between Glendale-Milford and Shepherd; 

Shepherd Lane tight Diamond Construction Begins in 2013

Montgomery I-75 Upgrade I-75 interchanges from US 35/75 to 

Monument Ave Phase 2 Construction Begins in 2013

Franklin I-71

Add lane on I -71 from Pickaway /Franklin County 

Line to I-270

Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Franklin I-71 Grove City Interchange Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-31

October 2010

Project by 

County/Route Description of Work Construction Schedule

Franklin SR 315/

I-70/I-71 Upgrade SR315/I-70/I-71 Interchange Project under development, Construction not yet funded

Montgomery I-75 Complete four missing movement on I-75 at West 

Carrolton

Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Clark I-70 Add lane from Enon Rd to SR 54 Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Hamilton I-75 Reconfiguration of Ohio approaches to Brent 

Spence Bridge

Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Hamilton I-75 Reconstruction I 75 /interchanges Towne and 562 Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Hamilton I-75 Reconstruction I-75 from SR 4 to I-275 Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Hamilton I-75 I-75 SB to I-275 SB Flyover ramp; I-275 EB to I-75 

NB Flyover Ramp

Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Hamilton I-75/I-275 Improvements to I 75 / 275 interchange Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Cuyahoga I-71/I-90 Innerbelt Overhead Roadway; Group 4; 

Reconstruct overhead roadway bridges

Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Cuyahoga I-71I-90 Innerbelt Trench; Group 6 Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Cuyahoga - Innerbelt 

Curve Innerbelt Upgrade I-71/I-90 at Curve; Group 7 Project under development, Construction not yet funded

Warren I-75 Western Row Road Interchange Improvement Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

Warren I-75 Fields-Ertel Road/Mason-Montgomery Road 

Interchange Improvement

Project under development, 

Construction not yet funded

2.3.2 Alternative 2 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus 

South Segment 30: Direct Route-Columbus-Cincinnati

This alternative consists of track and capacity improvements (described in section 2.4.3) 

along existing freight rail lines from Cleveland through Columbus and Dayton to 

Cincinnati, through intermediate towns of Berea, Olmstead, Grafton, Shelby, Crestline,

Galion, Delaware, Springfield, Fairborn, Middletown, and Sharonville. (Station locations 

are analyzed in a later section.) The operating plan consists of three round trips per day.

2.3.3 Alternative 3 – North Segment 8: Cleveland-Akron-Barberton-Columbus 

plus South Segment 30: Direct Route-Columbus-Oasis-Cincinnati

This alternative consists of track and capacity improvements along existing freight rail 

lines from Cleveland through Columbus and Dayton to Cincinnati, through intermediate 

towns of Bedford, Macedonia, Hudson, Cuyahoga Falls, Akron, Barberton, Wadsworth, 

Lodi, Shelby, Crestline, Galion, Delaware, Springfield, Fairborn, Middletown, and 

Sharonville. The operating plan consists of three round trips per day.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-32

October 2010

2.3.4 Alternative 4 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus 

South Segment 29: Direct Route South-Columbus-Cincinnati 

(Longworth/CUT)

This alternative consists of track and capacity improvements along existing freight rail 

lines from Cleveland through Columbus and Dayton to Cincinnati, through intermediate 

towns of Berea, Olmstead, Grafton, Shelby, Crestline, Galion, Delaware, Springfield, 

Fairborn, Hamilton, and Sharonville. The operating plan consists of three round trips per 

day.

2.3.5 Alternative 5 – North Segment 1: Direct Route Cleveland-Columbus plus 

South Segment 32: Hamilton-Cincinnati

This alternative consists of track and capacity improvements along existing freight rail 

lines from Cleveland through Columbus and Dayton to Cincinnati, through intermediate 

towns of Berea, Olmstead, Grafton, Shelby, Crestline, Galion, Delaware, Springfield, 

Fairborn, Middletown, and Sharonville. The only difference between this alternative and 

Alternative 2 is the entry into the city of Cincinnati. The operating plan consists of three 

round trips per day.

Figure 2-6 shows the four build alternatives in their entirety.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-33

October 2010

Figure 2-6 Alternatives Retained for Further Study

2.4 Evaluation of Alternatives

Each of the four build alternatives were evaluated using the measures listed in Section 

1.7 and described below:

• Travel time – Travel time for each route included dwell time (time a train spends 

at a stop awaiting continued movement), recovery time (time scheduled at the 

end of the route before departure time of the next trip), and penalties for hand-off 

between different railroads. To be viable, travel times between cities by train 

need to be comparable to the time it would take traveling by automobile. The 

travel times were developed by considering train speed, the number of stations, 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-34

October 2010

the distance between stations, and the geometric constraints of the route 

including curvature and grading. 

• Annual Riders (Market) – Annual riders are presented for local 79 mph service. 

Ridership is affected by travel time, station location, and station access.

• Annual passenger Miles (Market) – Passenger miles are presented for local 79 

mph service, and measures the length of passenger trips. Higher numbers 

represent longer passenger trips; i.e. passengers find the service more attractive 

for longer journeys. Passenger miles also drive revenue forecasts; therefore,

they are given considerable weight for financing operations. 

• 10-Mile and 15-Mile Population/Track Miles – measures the potential market 

served by each alternative. Higher numbers indicate a larger population with 

access to the rail line.

• Reliability – Measured qualitatively by significance of operational issues 

concerning existing conditions such as fleeting of trains, north-south operations, 

typical amount of freight traffic, and storage and staging issues for yard 

considerations. Reliability is a major determinant in a person’s choice to take 

transit.

• Operations and Maintenance Costs – measures the relative cost of the provided 

service. Reducing operating costs is important in providing a cost-effective 

project and service. Dispatching costs, track maintenance costs, and operating 

expenses were estimated on a rough-order-of-magnitude basis. 

• Refocus development opportunities – measures whether the alternative can be 

used to help focus development in station areas, increasing potential ridership 

and reducing sprawl.

• Connect to all modes – measures whether the alternative connects with existing 

transit services in the cities along each alignment. Providing connections to 

existing transit enlarges the potential market by expanding the transit network.

• Connect to major health facilities – measures whether the alternative connects 

with major medical facilities, thereby providing another mode of transportation for 

Ohio residents to obtain quality health care.

Table 2-5 presents the results of the evaluation of the four alternatives. The 

grey/highlighted cells indicate the characteristics that are least favorable for an 

alternative to be recommended as a preferred alternative. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-35

October 2010

Table 2-5 Evaluation of Alternatives

Cause to Retain Cause to Dismiss Grey/highlighted cell indicates unfavorable characteristic

# Route Alternative Travel 

Time

Market Reliability O&M 

Costs

Other Factors Recommendation (Retain/Dismiss)

MilesTravel Time (hr:min)Annual Riders (Draft Forecast for 2014, Prepared Sept. 8, 2009)Annual Passenger Miles (2014)10-Mile Pop / Track Mile 000’s15-Mile Pop / Track Mile 000’sOperational IssuesO&M Cost (Estimate)Refocus Development OpportunitiesConnect to all modes & major health facilitiesKey Stakeholder SupportNotes/Comments

2

Direct Route (Cleveland-Columbus) 

+ Direct Route South-ColumbusCincinnati (Route #30)

136+ 131 

= 267 6:22 885000 118370000 16.0 22.2 Minimal Lower Yes Yes High Build alternative

3

Akron-Barberton (ClevelandColumbus) + Direct Route SouthColumbus-Cincinnati (Route #30)

182+ 131 

= 313

7:53 569000 82350000 15.0 19.7 Minimal Higher Yes Yes Low

Significantly higher travel time with 

minimal increase in market served. 

Lower riders and passenger mile 

forecast than DR. Lower population 

served per track mile. 

4

Direct Route-South ColumbusCincinnati (Longworth/CUT) + Direct 

Route (Route #1) Cleveland –

Columbus

125+ 136 

= 261 6:26 na na na na Extensive Lower Yes Yes Moderat

e

Low rating for shared freight traffic 

makes this alternative less desirable. 

Extensive railroad operational issues. 

Storage and staging 

5

Hamilton-Cincinnati (Oasis 

Boathouse) + Direct Route (Route 

#1) Cleveland – Columbus

135+ 136 

= 271 6:55 884000 115860000 na na Extensive Lower Yes Yes Low

Travel time higher than DR with no 

incremental markets served. Major 

operating issues. Lower riders and 

passenger mile forecast than DR. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-36

October 2010

This page intentionally left blank
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-37

October 2010

2.4.1 Alternative Evaluations

The following sections summarize the evaluation for each of the four alternatives that 

were retained from the Level 2 screening (Figure 2-6). Additional information on public 

involvement can be found in Appendix L.

2.4.1.1 Alternative 2: Direct Route North (Cleveland-Columbus) + Direct 

Route South (Columbus-Cincinnati)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Grafton, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Alternative 2 is the direct route in the north segment between Cleveland and Columbus 

(route option 1) and the direct route in the south segment between Columbus and 

Cincinnati (route option 30). See the maps of the north segment (Figure 2-2) and the 

south segment (Figure 2-3) for additional detail. 

Travel Time - Alternative 2 has the lowest travel time among the remaining alternatives. 

Market Size (town centers served, economic development, ridership) - Annual riders in 

horizon year 2014 for Alternative 2 are the highest among all alternatives. Additionally, 

annual passenger miles in 2014 are also the highest among all alternatives. 

Reliability- From Columbus, Alternative 2 primarily uses CSX trackage rights in addition 

to Norfolk Southern (NS) and I&O trackage rights. 

No significant operational issues exist for Alternative 2. Proposed service would operate 

the most reliably for Alternative 2 as compared to other remaining alternatives. 

Operating and Maintenance Costs - Operating costs for Alternative 2 are comparable to 

the capital costs of the other remaining alternatives. 

Other Factors - All four alternatives meet the goal of refocusing development 

opportunities in the communities served, connect to all modes, and adequately connect 

major health facilities.

Thus, based on the reasons noted above, Alternative 2, Direct Route, is recommended 

as the preferred alternative. 

2.4.1.2 Alternative 3: Akron-Barberton (Cleveland-Columbus) + Direct 

Route South (Columbus-Cincinnati)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front/Terminal Tower, Bedford/Macedonia, Hudson, 

Cuyahoga Falls, Akron, Barberton, Lodi, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, Delaware, North 

Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-38

October 2010

Travel Time - Alternative 3 has a significantly higher travel time than Alternative 2. 

Market Size (town centers served, economic development, ridership) - Annual 

forecasted riders in horizon year 2014 are low for Alternative 3 compared to the other 

three alternatives. Annual forecasted passenger miles in 2014 are also correspondingly 

low compared to the other alternatives. Additionally, Alternative 3 offers a minimal 

increase in market size served compared to Alternative 2, which has a significantly lower 

travel time. 

Reliability - Operational issues are not a significant issue with Alternative 3. 

Operating and Maintenance Costs - Operating costs for Alternative 3 are comparable to 

the capital costs of other remaining alternatives. 

Other Factors - All four alternatives meet the goal of refocusing development 

opportunities in the communities served, connect to all modes, and adequately connect 

major health facilities.

Alternative 3 is recommended for dismissal from further evaluation. 

2.4.1.3 Alternative 4: Direct Route South (Columbus-Cincinnati: 

Longworth/CUT) + Direct Route North (Cleveland – Columbus)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Grafton, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, North Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati

Alternative 4 uses the direct route Alternative 2 from Cleveland through Columbus to 

Sharonville, north of Cincinnati. The only deviation from Alternative 2 is the route from 

Sharonville through the Mill Creek Valley on the west side of downtown Cincinnati. This 

route could serve stations near the Museum Center (former Cincinnati Union Terminal, 

and current Amtrak station) and the Longworth Hall area. These station sites have been 

considered in high speed and conventional speed passenger rail studies for many years.

Travel Time - Alternative 4 has slightly higher travel than Alternative 2. 

Market Size (town centers served, economic development, ridership - Annual riders and 

annual passenger miles were not modeled in horizon year 2014 for Alternative 4, as they 

would be nearly identical to those modeled for Alternative 2. While ridership would be 

near the highest among all alternatives, it could be lower due to a slightly higher travel 

time. However, when operational issues discussed below are factored into the ridership 

and passenger mileage forecasts, accurate travel times would be less reliable. 

Therefore this alternative had some notable concerns compared to Alternative 2. 

Reliability - From Columbus, Alternative 4 uses the NS Cincinnati mainline to and 

beyond Sharonville. NS ownership ends at the NS Tower, several miles south of 

Sharonville, where the line enters CSX trackage rights. See the maps of the north 

segment (Figure 2-2) and the south segment (Figure 2-3) for additional detail. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-39

October 2010

NS, and predecessor Conrail, have long held trackage rights from NA south past Mitchell 

(Winton Place) to Colerain Avenue, one of the major interlockings near Queensgate 

Yard. Heavy traffic continues south to Tower A near the Museum Center.

This distance, about seven miles, is one of the busiest and most significant freight routes 

in the country. Although owned by CSX, RailAmerica and Norfolk Southern operate the 

trains. In 2009, CSX reported that 70 to 80 trains per day typically use the segment from 

Colerain to Winton Place, where one of two routes to Hamilton diverges. From Winton 

Place to NA Tower, 35 to 40 trains per day operate, and almost as many on the segment 

north from NA Tower to Evandale (know as CP Mill by NS), where a second route to 

Hamilton diverges. 

The segment from NA Tower to Tower A is largely grade separated, and primarily 

double track, with several crossovers and partial third main track. Owned by NS, this 

additional track was constructed with state assistance. The line experiences high levels 

of congestion because of trains moving at slow speeds to enter/leave yard trackage, and 

because of trains waiting on main trackage outside the yard for clearance to enter. 

Amtrak Cardinal service currently operates a portion of this route, making a station stop 

at Museum Center. This train operates three times weekly during night hours, and has a 

poor history of on-time performance. Quick Start service would introduce six additional 

daily time-sensitive passenger movements.

Operating and Maintenance Costs - Operating costs for Alternative 4 are comparable to 

the capital costs of the other remaining alternatives. 

The consideration of improvements that would increase capacity and make the route 

suitable for additional passenger service is a complex process that would most likely 

significantly raise the capital cost of this alternative to significantly higher than the other 

alternatives.

Other Factors - Key project stakeholders expressed particular interest in Alternative 4; 

therefore, it was carried forward to the Level 3 screening, despite some technical and 

characteristic issues. These technical and characteristic issues are significant, when 

compared to the other three alternatives and are reason to eliminate this alternative from 

further study. 

All four alternatives meet the goal of refocusing development opportunities in the 

communities served, connect to all modes of transportation, and adequately connect 

major health facilities.

Alternative 4 cannot be recommended for Ohio’s initial Quick Start service because:

• Current freight operations tax the existing capacity.

• The high levels of rail congestion would make the operation of passenger service 

unreliable.

• CSX is not supportive of the introduction of passenger service. Amtrak, the 

proposed operator, shares similar concerns as CSX.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-40

October 2010

• The consideration of improvements that would increase capacity and make the 

route suitable for additional passenger service is a complex process that would 

most likely significantly raise the capital cost of this alternative to several times 

higher than the other alternatives. 

It is recommended that if the City of Cincinnati deems stations desirable near Museum 

Center, Longworth Hall, or other locations west of downtown Cincinnati, Alternative 4 

should be considered for future phases of conventional passenger service and for highspeed rail service. Such a consideration should include the development of a 

sophisticated rail operations simulation tool such as Rail Traffic Controller (RTC), and 

include extensive analysis of potential improvements that might meet the service 

requirements. Agreements with CSX and the other railroads operating in the corridor will 

be required. The provision of additional capacity could be expensive, given the difficult 

terrain, restrictions resulting from existing rail lines, highways, development, and the 

possible need to extensively bridge or relocate Mill Creek.

Thus, based on the reasons noted above, Alternative 4 is recommended for dismissal

from further evaluation. 

2.4.1.4 Alternative 5: Hamilton-Cincinnati + Direct Route North (Cleveland 

– Columbus)

North Segment: Cleveland Lake Front, Hopkins/Berea, Grafton, Shelby/Crestline/Galion, 

Delaware, North Columbus, Columbus

South Segment: Columbus, Springfield, Fairborn, Dayton, Middletown, Hamilton, North 

Cincinnati, Cincinnati – Oasis line between the North Cincinnati and Cincinnati stops

Travel Time - Alternative 5 has a higher travel time than Alternative 2. 

Market Size (town centers served, economic development, ridership) - Annual forecasts 

riders in horizon year 2014 for Alternative 5 are comparable to Alternative 2. Annual 

forecast passenger miles in 2014 for Alternative 5 are also comparable to Alternative 2. 

However, Alternative 5 has minimal opportunity for increase in market size served as 

compared to Alternative 2 while having a higher travel time. Finally, a similar market 

would be served while also putting reliability at risk. 

Reliability - Operational issues are extensive for Alternative 5. Norfolk Southern and 

CSX have trackage rights agreements on their respective tracks in the area southeast of 

Hamilton. CSX operates tracks southbound from Hamilton while NS operates 

northbound; both carriers fleet their trains on each other’s respective tracks in the 

agreed upon directions. Alternative 5 proposes to use the NS tracks, which currently 

operate in one direction. Operating passenger rail under such an agreement is not 

feasible due to the need for a single station to be located in the same location in both 

directional trips when serving a particular community. Reverting to dual direction for 

both railroads would cause significant inefficiencies and operational issues for freight 

and passenger rail, which would require substantial capital improvements. 

Operating and Maintenance Costs - Operating costs for Alternative 5 are comparable to 

the capital costs of other remaining alternatives. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-41

October 2010

Other Factors - All four alternatives meet the goal of refocusing development 

opportunities in the communities served, connect to all modes, and adequately connect 

major health facilities.

Thus, based on reasons noted above, Alternative 5 is recommended for dismissal for 

further evaluation. 

2.4.2 Recommended Preferred Alternative 

As shown in Table 2-5 and subsequent supportive analysis, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are 

recommended for dismissal for various reasons including longer travel time, smaller 

market potential, and extensive operational issues. Thus, the recommended preferred 

alternative for the route evaluation process is Alternative 2 (from Sections 2.3 and 2.4) 

Direct Route North (Cleveland-Columbus) and the Direct Route South (ColumbusCincinnati) (Figure 2-7). From this point on, Alternative 2 (from Section 2.3 and 2.4) will 

be referred to as the Preferred Alternative and this Preferred Alternative will move 

forward in evaluation for the selection of station locations.

Figure 2-7 Preferred Alternative 2, Direct Route
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-42

October 2010

2.4.3 Alignment Alternatives including Proposed Capacity Improvements

In early 2009, ORDC and ODOT commissioned a study to identify and provide 

recommendations for capacity improvements on the 246 mile rail corridor between the 

Cleveland Lakefront Amtrak Station Cleveland and the Indiana and Ohio Railway 

Undercliff Yard in Cincinnati.

This study provided preliminary recommendations for 11 improvements that would 

provide the additional capacity needed to establish passenger service in the 3C Corridor. 

Detailed mapping of the yards and capacity improvement locations is provided in 

Appendix B.

The entire 246 mile corridor was broken into a number of segments. These segments 

included:

• NS Chicago Line between Cleveland and Berea. This segment carries 69 freight 

trains per day.

• CSX Cleveland shortline Subdivision: Berea to CP 13. This segment carries 56 

freight trains per day.

• CSX Greenwich Subdivision: CP13 (south of Berea) to CP 56 (Galion). This 

segment carries 78 freight trains per day.

• CSX Columbus Line Subdivision: CP 80 (Galion) to CP 136 (Columbus). This 

freight line carries 12 freight trains per day.

• NS Dayton District: CP 138 (Columbus) to CP 248 (Undercliff Yard). This 

segment carries 25 freight trains per day.

Of the 11 total capacity improvement projects, seven were identified between Cleveland 

and Columbus (Figure 2-8). These projects are shown below:

• Construct Berea Front Street Station Track between NS Chicago Line and CSX 

Cleveland shortline.

• Construct second main track on CSX Greenwich Subdivision from CP 54 (Boyd) 

to CP 71 (south of Shelby).

• Rehabilitate and extend Edison siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision QE 

90.8 to QE 93.9.

• Construct Paget Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QEQE110.8 to 

QE 112.9.

• Construct Powell Road Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QE 

125.1 to QE 127.1.

• Construct universal crossovers between CSX Columbus Line Subdivision and 

NS Dayton District at Weber Road QE/CJ 134.4

• Construct Columbus Station Track at CP 138 on CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivisions/NS Dayton District.

Four additional capacity improvements were identified between Columbus and the 

Undercliff Yard in Cincinnati (Figure 2-8). These recommendations are as follows:

• Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 172.5 (Plattsburg) to 

CJ 177.7 (near Brooks).
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-43

October 2010

• Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 187.0 (near Cold 

Springs) to CJ 193.0 (near Enon).

• Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 202.1 (near Wrights) 

to CJ 208.5 (Miami River Bridge) and from CJ 208.6 to CJ 209.8 (near Moraine 

Yard).

• Create second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 244.2 (CP 244) to IORY 

Connection at CJ 248.8 (south of Sharonville Yard).
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-44

October 2010

Figure 2-8 Yards and Capacity Improvements
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-45

October 2010

2.5 Detailed Station Alternatives

2.5.1 Stations

There are 12 service locations under consideration with 32 possible station sites. The 

service locations and station sites are summarized in Table 2-6 and shown in Figure 2-9. 

Detailed mapping of the 32 station sites is provided in Appendix C.

Six service locations, including Cleveland, Southwest Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, 

North Cincinnati, and Cincinnati, are considered for Initial Proposed 3C Quick Start

Passenger Rail service (shown in black on Figure 2-9). A proposed station site for each 

of the initial service locations has been assumed for cost, environmental assessment,

and ridership purposes. These proposed and alternate station sites, where applicable,

are shown in Table 2-6 and on Figure 2-9. Detailed descriptions of these service 

locations are in Appendix D. 

Two additional service locations, including Springfield and East Dayton, are considered 

for Phased Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service (shown in blue on Figure 

2-9). One station site is proposed for each of the phased service locations; they have

been assumed for cost, environmental assessment, and ridership purposes. These 

proposed station sites are shown in Table 2-6 and can be found on Figure 2-9 by 

referencing the index number. These service areas are currently under review for usage 

in the Initial 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service. Detailed descriptions of these 

service locations are in Appendix D. 

Three additional service locations including North Central, North Columbus, and 

Middletown/Hamilton, are considered for Future Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger 

Rail service (shown in orange on Figure 2-9). There is a proposed station site for each 

of these future Quick Start service locations. These future Quick Start station sites are 

shown in Table 2-6 and can be found on Figure 2-9 by referencing the index number. 

Detailed descriptions of these service locations are in Appendix D. 

One service location, Akron and its one station site, has been eliminated from Quick 

Start consideration (shown in red on Figure 2-9). This service location would be 

considered in future high speed rail studies.

Detailed descriptions of stations eliminated from consideration are in Appendix D.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-46

October 2010

Figure 2-9 Station Index Map
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-47

October 2010

Table 2-6 Station Summary

SERVICE LOCATION STATION LOCATION and

INDEX NUMBER CATEGORY STATUS REMARKS

CLEVELAND 1- Lakefront Amtrak Station

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

SOUTHWEST 

CLEVELAND

2- West 150th St/Puritas 

Avenue/GCRTA Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

3- Eastland Road Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

4-Berea Front Street Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

AKRON 5- Transit Center Site

Eliminated 

from Quick

Start

-

Considered 

for future 

HSR only

NORTH CENTRAL 6- Shelby Depot Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

7- Galion Historic Depot Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

8- Galion Pershing Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

NORTH COLUMBUS 9- Delaware Historic Station 

Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

10- Delaware US 36/SR 37 

Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

11- Cheshire Road Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

12- Crosswoods Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

13- Worthington ODOT 

Garage Site Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-48

October 2010

SERVICE LOCATION STATION LOCATION and

INDEX NUMBER CATEGORY STATUS REMARKS

14- Worthington SR 161 Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

COLUMBUS 15- Convention Center Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

16- Marconi Boulevard. Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

SPRINGFIELD 17- Downtown Station Site

Phased 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Phased Still under 

review

EAST DAYTON 18- Riverside Site

Phased 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Phased Still under 

review

DAYTON 19-Art Park Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

20- Convention Center Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

21- Main Street Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

22- Union Station Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate

MIDDLETOWN/

HAMILTON

23- Middletown Historic 

Depot Site

Future 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

24- Hamilton Station Site

Eliminated 

from Quick 

Start

-

Considered 

for future 

HSR only

25- Hamilton Airport Site

Eliminated 

from Quick 

Start

-

Considered 

for future 

HSR only

NORTH CINCINNATI 26- Kemper Road Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed

27- Downtown Sharonville 

Municipal Lot Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-49

October 2010

SERVICE LOCATION STATION LOCATION and

INDEX NUMBER CATEGORY STATUS REMARKS

CINCINNATI 28- Lunken Airport Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Assumed Oasis Line

29- Riverside Drive/Stewart 

Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate Oasis Line

30- Riverside 

Drive/Boathouse/Sawyer 

Point Site (Sawyer Point 

Site)

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Alternate Oasis Line

31- Museum Center Site

Eliminated 

from Quick 

Start

Alternate Mill Creek 

Line

32- Longworth Hall Site

Eliminated 

from Quick 

Start

Alternate Mill Creek 

Line

Bond Hill

Proposed 

After Public 

Hearing

Alternate

Will be 

reviewed in 

Tier II

Fairfax

Proposed 

After Public 

Hearing

Alternate

Will be 

reviewed in 

Tier II

Note: HSR – High Speed Rail

Note: Locations highlighted in light green indicate “phased” or “assumed” stations as part of the 

initial proposed quick start project.

2.5.2 Yard and Shop Alternatives

Several operational options exist when considering the location of yard and shop 

facilities along the 3C Corridor. For Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, various levels 

of facilities were considered. For operational efficiency, a train storage and maintenance 

facility would be required at each of these locations. Several factors that weigh into the 

decisions related to the yard and shop locations include schedules, storage, staging, and 

varying levels of maintenance. Additionally, appropriate land availability, proximity, and 

access are other important considerations. Non-revenue service is to be minimized 

while also accounting for these other factors. The facilities must also accommodate 

workers and consider the ability for future site expansion. Several sites were considered 

in both Columbus and Cleveland while there were limitations on site selection in 

Cincinnati. The following is a description of the proposed yard and shop facilities. 

Detailed mapping of the yard sites is provided in Appendix B. 

Storage and Maintenance Facilities

Three train storage and maintenance facilities are assumed to be included in the 

project. The facilities in Columbus and Cincinnati are single-ended storage yards large 

enough to hold two, 5-car trains each. For these properties to be utilized the properties 

would need to be acquired, and site work would need to be completed, including the 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-50

October 2010

development of two turnouts, the addition of 1,040 feet of new track, as well as the 

installation of two concrete pads where locomotives will be re-fueled via a tanker truck. 

Additionally, two 480V standby power cabinets, a railcar toilet dump system, and a small 

building for crew welfare facilities and train cleaning supplies would all need to be added 

to the sites.

The facility at Cleveland is assumed to be a “medium-duty” maintenance facility that can 

handle minor repairs to locomotives and railcars, as well as provide routine train 

servicing. The facility is assumed to have three, single-ended tracks, each capable of 

storing one train, a double-ended track passing through a service and inspection (S&I) 

building, and a double-ended lead and runaround track. The S&I building includes a 540 

foot-long, enclosed structure in which a five car train including the locomotive can be

located for maintenance. The track in the S&I building is on a continuous inspection pit 

between the rails. The S&I building also includes fuel and lubrication storage and 

delivery systems, 480V standby power connections, a compressed air system, a railcar 

toilet dump system, a wheel truing station, heavy jacks for raising locomotives and 

railcars, an office area, a material control area. Property acquisition and site work to 

construct the facility will also be required.

2.6 Preferred Alternative

Criteria for the evaluation of potential station locations have been established in order to 

compare and analyze them for the greatest utility. These criteria include:

• Basic requirements for locating a station

• Accessibility to transportation and population density

• Ease of implementation

• Long-term development potential

• Impacts to adjacent properties, traffic patterns and freight rail operations

• Safety and security

• Local input

Initial stopping locations were determined based on the need to provide a service 

competitive to other modes of transportation in terms of time, proximity, and other 

technical issues. In addition, previous studies identified business travelers as a prime 

target audience for 3C passenger rail service. Providing an express style service with 

stops in downtown Cleveland, Southwest Cleveland, Columbus, Springfield, East 

Dayton, Dayton, North Cincinnati, and downtown Cincinnati would allow the initial project 

to be a first step that is simplified from an operational standpoint and reliable to potential 

riders. Figure 2-7 identifies the preferred alternative route. The following sections 

provide a summary of the service location sites.

Additional stops can be phased in as passenger rail service in the 3C Corridor expands 

and grows. This would also allow time for complex local decisions to be made about 

specific station locations in those area not served by the initial Quick Start service.

2.6.1 Service Location: Cleveland

(1) Lakefront Amtrak Station: 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-51

October 2010

Cleveland’s existing Amtrak station is located at 200 Cleveland Memorial Shoreway. 

This facility serves Amtrak passengers on the Lake Shore Limited between New York 

and Chicago and the Capitol Limited between Chicago and Washington D.C. The 

station is generally open during the overnight and morning hours. Existing on-site 

parking is available. Connections to other forms of public transportation are available at 

this location, or a short distance away. 

This station site could also have long-term development opportunities as part of master 

planning activities being developed by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. 

The Port is advancing an aggressive waterfront redevelopment plan that would locate 

additional local destinations near this station. The plans for this development 

accommodate future local and regional rail transportation options. 

Initial studies undertaken by ORDC have indicated that an additional track or track 

upgrades may be needed to accommodate trains that originate in Cleveland. A new or 

improved platform to accommodate additional passengers may also be needed. Further 

study will be needed to determine final requirements for this facility based on the number 

of additional passengers using the 3C Corridor service.

Some level of additional safety improvements will be needed for 3C passengers who 

need to cross the GCRTA Waterfront light rail line in order to get from the station 

building to 3C passenger rail trains.

Because minimal construction work would likely be needed to establish 3C passenger 

service at this location, and because it is the current inter-city passenger rail station, it is 

recommended that the Lakefront Amtrak Station be considered as the assumed location 

for 3C Passenger Rail Quick Start service to downtown Cleveland.

2.6.2 Service Location: Southwest Cleveland

(2) West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue GCRTA Site: 

The GCRTA owns the facility at this site. Having this parcel under public ownership 

could assist the right-of-way acquisition process for locating a 3C passenger rail station 

at this site. A rehabilitation project, currently under construction, will provide an 

overhead bridge that crosses the proposed 3C passenger rail platform location between 

the NS mainline tracks. The bridge is a pre-fabricated structure that cannot be modified 

to provide stairs and elevators to the proposed 3C passenger rail platform location. 

Because of this, a new bridge will be needed to provide adequate passenger access to 

both services.

GCRTA engineering staff has indicated that the station could be reconfigured to 

accommodate 3C passenger service and has indicated its willingness to work with 

ORDC to further investigate the concept of locating a 3C station at this site. The 

GCRTA Red Line connects Cleveland Hopkins International Airport to Tower City. 

Locating 3C and GCRTA stations at the same location would provide a seamless 

transition between transit and intercity rail modes. 

The existing West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue transit platform is located above a 

pedestrian tunnel, which provides vertical passenger access up to a center platform 

between the double track transit lines. The pedestrian access tunnel also runs under the 

NS tracks and serves the parking lot and bus and auto drop-off areas on the east side of 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-52

October 2010

the railroad. At this location, there are two NS mainline tracks and an additional yard 

lead. The three NS tracks run parallel and adjacent to the transit line on its east side. 

Connections to other forms of public transportation are available at this site, including rail 

and bus service. Adequate parking is adjacent to the I-71 interchange at 150th Street. 

This station is within two miles of I-480.

In order to serve a 3C passenger rail station platform located east of the NS tracks, 

some track work might be necessary including the construction of new crossovers and 

turnouts to enable 3C trains to access the side track/yard lead that runs adjacent to the 

GCRTA station site. Conflict with freight operations might also be a consideration if track 

improvements are not made. More information is needed to determine the exact 

impacts.

Compared to other potential sites, less construction work would be needed to adapt the 

existing transit station to include 3C passenger service. This station also provides the 

most connectivity to the existing transportation system in comparison with other 

locations considered for Southwest Cleveland. Because of these factors, it is 

recommended that the West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue GCRTA site be considered as 

the proposed location for 3C Passenger Rail Quick Start service for Southwest 

Cleveland.

2.6.3 Service Location: Columbus

(15) Convention Center Site: 

The Columbus Convention Center was constructed on the former site of the Columbus 

Union Station. The original station tracks and the adjacent freight yard complex have 

been removed and only the two mainline tracks remain. The City of Columbus has 

stated its preference for a station to be developed at this location.

The site was originally designed to accommodate a high speed rail station as a part of 

the Convention Center project’s first phase in the late 1980s. Knock out walls were to 

accommodate a future passenger station north of the tracks on a site that could be 

linked directly to the south side facility. 

In the mid 1990’s the Greater Columbus Convention Center Facilities Authority 

constructed its second phase with a large exhibit hall on the north side of the track, 

precluding the original concept for constructing a passenger station on this site. 

However, the Convention Center is currently undertaking another expansion and 

renovation project that could be amended to better accommodate passenger rail service. 

Convention Center officials have also indicated that they would welcome a station at the 

convention center complex. 

Specific ideas for this station include utilizing the knock out walls on the south side 

facility, or by developing an alternative plan that utilizes available space.

The Convention Center facility, occupying space on both sides of the tracks, limits 

options for new tracks, but also provides options for creative use of existing buildings. In 

addition to the knock out walls in the south facility, there is a generous pedestrian 

walkway between the north and south side buildings. Stair and elevator connections can 

be made to platforms next to either or both existing mainline tracks. Potential also 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-53

October 2010

exisits to reach a platform on the south side of the existing south track. Another 

alternative would provide a pocket track and platform along the knock out walls to create 

space for service to the south side of the facility. Further evaluation to determine the 

impact of providing a pocket track will be necessary to determine the affect on freight 

operations at this location.

Operation of the double track mainline for freight operations in this area is critical to the 

overall operation of the Columbus railroad terminal. In order to make this site feasible for 

locating a passenger rail station, it will be essential to identify solutions that will 

maximize operating capacity. It will be necessary to identify and define the necessary 

track, crossovers and signal improvements needed for capacity and flexibility. 

Past efforts have identified the NS Grandview Yard on the Buckeye Line as a potential 

site to layover the trains and conduct light service. The Grandview Yard is located on 

the west side of downtown; it would require crossing a CSX mainline. 

Alternatively, additional yard sites east of downtown, including the Joyce Avenue Yard, 

the Pennor Yard, and the Grogan Yard, provide layover and maintenance facilities. 

More evaluation will be needed on each of these potential sites to determine their 

viability for use.

Several connections to public transportation, providing access to all parts of the City, are 

available at this location. This site is located less than one half mile from I-670 and SR 

315 and approximately 1.5 miles to I-70/I-71. This site is within walking distance to both 

the Arena District and Short North entertainment district and residential neighborhood. It 

also features existing amenities such as lodging, shopping, dining, and other available 

attractions.

Because of its central location, available connections, local support, and on-site 

amenities, the Convention Center site is recommended to serve as a proposed station 

site to serve downtown Columbus as part of the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project.

2.6.4 Service Location: Springfield (phased)

(17) Downtown Station Site: 

This location is near the main transit center for Springfield City Area Transit, which 

provides fixed route bus service to destinations throughout the City. Public transit 

service could easily be provided at this location. A bicycle/pedestrian trail is located 

adjacent to this site. There is a high volume of pedestrian activity in this area as well as 

housing for the elderly.

The Springfield Clark County Transportation Coordinating Committee (SCTCC) has 

looked at possible intercity passenger stations locations for years. This proposed station 

location is situated along a short stretch of single track mainline in downtown Springfield 

within the Washington Street corridor. The mainline track runs where Washington Street 

used to be in downtown. The City of Springfield has indicated that this site could host a 

station in such a manner that the short-term blockage of streets with stopped passenger 

trains will not be an issue for local traffic.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-54

October 2010

Because of its central location and the availability of other local connections and 

services, this location is recommended to be advanced as a proposed station location to 

serve Springfield as part of the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project.

2.6.5 Service Location: East Dayton (phased)

(18) Riverside Site: 

Positive aspects of this station location include its proximity to major destinations such as 

the United States Air Force Museum, which draws more than one million visitors 

annually; the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which employs 22,000; and Wright State 

University, where approximately 17,000 students attend.

This site includes an entrance road and paved parking along the single track NS 

mainline, which has been identified as the direct route for 3C passenger service. The 

City of Riverside plans to develop the site with compatible uses including a new mixeduse commercial development and a ceremonial entrance drive to the Air Force Museum. 

The City of Riverside is interested in helping develop a station at this location. 

Because of the proximity of this potential site to tourist, businesses, and educational 

destinations, this location is recommended as a proposed station location to serve East 

Dayton as part of the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project.

2.6.6 Service Location: Dayton

(21) Main Street Site: 

This site is located just west of the intersection of Main and Sixth streets in downtown 

Dayton. It is approximately one block west of the proposed Dayton Convention Center 

location. Similar to the Dayton Convention Center site, railroad tracks are elevated and a 

new station structure would be needed to construct a station on this site. 

A number of the design issues present at the Dayton Convention Center location are not 

encountered at this location. The Holden House residential development, which 

provides housing to low income and elderly populations, is near this station. 

Connections to local public transit and the local and regional roadway network are 

readily accessible at this location. Adequate parking and space for station building 

development are available at this location.

Because of the connections and infrastructure available at this site, this location is 

recommended as a proposed station location to serve East Dayton as part of the 3C 

Quick Start Passenger Rail project.

2.6.7 Service Location: North Cincinnati

(26) Kemper Road Site: 

This potential station is located on a former manufacturing plant site on Kemper Road 

between Reading Road and US Route 42. The Park 42 business park occupies this 

property. The City of Sharonville has stated its preference for a north Cincinnati station 

at this location. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-55

October 2010

Connections to public transit and the local and regional roadway network are readily 

available. This site has available space for adequate station location, parking, and 

development of future passenger amenities.

Since this site is located on an NS double-tracked mainline, a pedestrian overpass will 

be needed.

Because of the available space for future development at this location, it is 

recommended as a proposed station to serve North Cincinnati on the 3C Quick Start 

Passenger Rail project.

2.6.8 Service Location: Cincinnati

Several potential station locations were evaluated in the Cincinnati area including sites at 

Sawyer Point/, Stewart Industries, Lunken Airport, Union Terminal/Museum Center and 

Longworth Hall. Additional sites have been identified during the public comment period

as potential station locations. These include sites in Bond Hill and Fairfax. Information 

on these sites can be found in Appendix D and Appendix L.

Potential station locations listed below would align 3C Quick Start service with other 

initiatives currently in planning by ODOT. The Eastern Corridor project in Cincinnati 

identified the Oasis Line for light rail service through its Tier I Record of Decision (ROD).

Additional analysis of the identified potential station sites and a final determination of the

station location in Cincinnati will be a part of Tier II study efforts.

(28) Lunken Airport Site (near Lunken Airport):

This site is located on Lunken Park Drive, about 1,000 feet west of the boundaries of 

Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Airport and approximately five miles east of downtown 

Cincinnati. This site is located on the Oasis Line, owned by the SORTA and operated by 

RailAmerica. The line connects to the NS main line at CP Mill, south of downtown 

Sharonville approximately 11 miles north of the site. 

The Undercliff Yard, which is more than 2,500 feet in length and includes six siding 

tracks, is owned by RailAmerica. The yard is underutilized and serves primarily staging 

and sorting functions for freight service to area industries. It is assumed that the yard 

property is sufficient for the development of a station facility, platform, parking and 

vehicular access. It will be the location for a train layover and limited maintenance and 

inspection of equipment.

Connections to the local roadway network are available at US Route 50 (Columbia 

Parkway), which is less than one half mile away. 

This site also provides a location for the development of a station that would be 

surrounded by compatible light industrial uses. A station at this site is consistent with 

local desires to preserve the Oasis Line for potential light rail service to points east and 

south of this location, ensuring that the facility is compatible with local development 

goals. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-56

October 2010

(30) Sawyer Point Site:

This site is approximately located at 925 Riverside Drive, on property under City of

Cincinnati control, adjacent to the Montgomery Inn at the Boat House restaurant. This 

site is adjacent to tennis courts in Sawyer Point Park, Theodore M. Berry Friendship

Park, and large parking lots used for access to both parks and the Montgomery Inn 

restaurant. This location is visible from I-471 and less than one mile from several 

freeway interchanges connecting to I-71, I-75, US 50 (Columbia Parkway), and I-471. 

This site is located on the Oasis Line in Cincinnati, owned by the SORTA, which 

connects to the NS Sharonville Yard on the north. Connections to other forms of 

transportation available at this location are:

• Less than one mile from several expressway interchange points connecting to 

I-71, I-75, I-471, and US 50 (Columbia Parkway)

• Accessible by Metro Routes 28 and 81X (Downtown to East Side)

• Approximately one mile to Greyhound Station

• Approximately 15 miles to Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport and

approximately five miles to Lunken Municipal Airport

A station at this site is also consistent with local desires to preserve the Oasis Line for 

potential light rail service to points East and South of this location, ensuring that the 

facility is compatible with local development goals. 

2.7 Next Steps/Construction Phasing

The Preferred Alternative consists of track and capacity improvements along an existing 

rail freight corridor from Cleveland (Cleveland Amtrak Station) through Columbus and 

Dayton to Cincinnati (Indiana and Ohio Railway Undercliff Yard), through the 

intermediate towns of Berea, Olmstead, Grafton, Shelby, Crestline, Galion, Delaware, 

Springfield, Fairborn, Middletown, and Sharonville. The operating plan consists of three 

round trips per day.

The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project contains five independent phased projects 

that each have the ability to perform independently upon construction (Figure 2-10). 

Each of the projects include: track infrastructure capacity, signals, track speed 

improvements, grade crossing safety improvements, stations, service & inspection and 

layover facilities. All could commence simultaneously as one phase in a best case 

scenario. However, actual construction phasing will be developed in coordination with 

the host railroads and be finalized in the Master Agreement. Construction phasing will be 

contingent upon material (ties, rail, etc.) and workforce (labor) availability including 

expertise needed for any signal upgrades.

The corridor has been broken down into these individual phases and are shown below 

(with station descriptions; layover, maintenance, service site options; and recommended 

capacity improvements) for each.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-57

October 2010

Figure 2-10 Construction Phasing

2.7.1 Segment 1 (Cleveland to Columbus)

Line Segments: 

• NS Chicago Line between Cleveland and Berea - This segment carries 69 freight 

trains per day.

• CSX Cleveland shortline Subdivision: Berea to CP 13 (south of Berea) - This 

segment carries 56 freight trains per day.

• CSX Greenwich Subdivision: CP13 (south of Berea) to CP 56 (Galion). This 

segment carries 78 freight trains per day.

• CSX Columbus Line Subdivision: CP 80 (Galion) to CP 136 (Columbus). This 

freight line carries 12 freight trains per day.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-58

October 2010

Stations:

Cleveland Lakefront Amtrak Station - Cleveland’s existing Amtrak station is located at 

200 Cleveland Memorial Shoreway. This facility serves Amtrak passengers on the Lake 

Shore Limited between New York and Chicago and the Capitol Limited between Chicago 

and Washington D.C. The station is generally open during the overnight and morning 

hours. Existing on-site parking is available. Connections to other forms of public 

transportation are available at this location, or a short distance away.

Initial studies have indicated that an additional track or track upgrades may be needed to 

accommodate trains that originate in Cleveland. A new or improved platform to 

accommodate additional passengers may also be needed. Further study will be needed 

to determine final requirements for this facility based on the number of additional 

passengers using the 3C Corridor service. Additional safety improvements will be 

needed for 3C passengers who need to cross the GCRTA Waterfront light rail line in 

order to get from the station building to 3C passenger rail trains. Minimal construction 

work would be needed to establish 3C passenger service at this location, and as it is the 

current inter-city passenger rail station, it is the assumed location for 3C Passenger Rail 

Quick Start service to downtown Cleveland.

Cleveland West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue GCRTA Site - The Greater Cleveland 

Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) owns the facility at this site. A rehabilitation project, 

currently under construction, will provide an overhead bridge that crosses the proposed 

3C passenger rail platform location between the NS mainline tracks. The bridge is a prefabricated structure that cannot be modified to provide stairs and elevators to the 

proposed 3C passenger rail platform location and requires a new bridge to provide 

adequate passenger access to both services.

Connections to other forms of public transportation are available at this site, including rail 

and bus service. The GCRTA Red Line connects Cleveland Hopkins International Airport 

to Tower City which would provide a seamless transition between transit and intercity rail 

modes. The existing West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue transit platform is located above a 

pedestrian tunnel, which provides vertical passenger access up to a center platform 

between the double track transit lines. 

A pedestrian access tunnel also runs under the NS tracks and serves the parking lot and 

bus and auto drop-off areas on the east side of the railroad. Adequate parking is 

adjacent to the I-71 interchange at 150th Street. This station is within two miles of I-480.

In order to serve a 3C passenger rail station platform located east of the NS tracks, 

some track work may be necessary including the construction of new crossovers and 

turnouts to enable 3C trains to access the side track/yard lead that runs adjacent to the 

GCRTA station site.

Columbus - Convention Center Site - The Columbus Convention Center was constructed 

on the former site of the Columbus Union Station. The original station tracks and the 

adjacent freight yard complex have been removed and only the two mainline tracks 

remain. 

The Convention Center facility, occupying space on both sides of the tracks, limits 

options for new tracks, but also provides options for creative use of existing buildings. In 

addition to the knock out walls in the south facility, there is a generous pedestrian 

walkway between the north and south side buildings. This offers the potential to make 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-59

October 2010

stair and elevator connections to platforms next to either or both existing mainline tracks. 

Previous studies have also concluded that there is potential to reach a platform on the 

south side of the existing south track from the south side facility. Another alternative 

provides a pocket track and platform along the knock out walls to create space for 

service to the south side of the facility. Several connections to public transportation, 

providing access to all parts of the City, are available at this location. This site is located 

less than one half mile from I-670 and SR 315 and approximately 1.5 miles to I-70/I-71. 

This site is within walking distance to both the Arena District and Short North 

entertainment district and residential neighborhood. It also features existing amenities 

such as lodging, shopping, dining, and other available attractions.

Layover, Maintenance, Service Site Options: 

Operation of the double track mainline for freight operations in this area is critical to the 

overall operation of the Columbus railroad terminal. In order to make this site feasible for 

locating a passenger rail station, it will be essential to identify solutions that will 

maximize operating capacity. It will be necessary to identify and define the necessary 

track, crossovers and signal improvements needed for capacity and flexibility. 

Past efforts have identified the NS Grandview Yard on the Buckeye Line as a potential 

site to layover the trains and conduct light service. The Grandview Yard is located on the 

west side of downtown; it would require crossing a CSX mainline. Alternatively, 

additional yard sites east of downtown, including the Joyce Avenue Yard, the Pennor 

Yard, and the Grogan Yard, provide layover and maintenance facilities.

Recommended Capacity Improvements:

• At Berea Interlocking - Construct Berea Front Street Station track between NS 

Chicago line and CSX Cleveland shortline (new connecting track and crossovers 

for the movement of passenger trains between NS and CSX)

• Construct 17.0 miles of new second main track on CSX Greenwich Subdivision 

from CP 54 (Boyd) to CP 71 (south of Shelby).

• Rehabilitate and extend the existing 0.8 mile Edison siding to a total length of 3.1 

miles on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision QE 90.8 to QE 93.9.

• Construct new 2.1 mile Paget Siding (near Delaware loop track) on CSX 

Columbus Line Subdivision from QEQE110.8 to QE 112.9. 

• Construct new 2.0 mile Powell Road Siding (east of Worthington) on CSX 

Columbus Line Subdivision from QE 125.1 to QE 127.1.

• Install new crossovers to create a paired track arrangement for use by both CSX 

and NS trains between CSX Columbus Line Subdivision and NS Dayton District 

at Weber Road QE/CJ 134.4

• Construct a new Columbus station track and crossover to serve a Convention 

Center station at CP 138 on CSX Columbus Line Subdivisions/NS Dayton 

District.

ODOT and ORDC currently expect this phase to involve the preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment or a Categorical Exclusion to satisfy National Environmental 

Policy Act requirements. Further consultation with FRA will result in the appropriate 

NEPA document type for this phase.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-60

October 2010

2.7.2 Segment 2 (Columbus to North Cincinnati)

Line Segment:

• NS Dayton District: CP 138 (Columbus) to CP 248 (Undercliff Yard). This 

segment carries 25 freight trains per day.

Stations:

(Phased location) Downtown Springfield Station Site - This location is near the main 

transit center for Springfield City Area Transit, which provides fixed route bus service to 

destinations throughout the city. Public transit service could easily be provided at this 

location and a bicycle/pedestrian trail is located adjacent to this site. There is a high 

volume of pedestrian activity in this area as well as housing for the elderly. This 

proposed station location is situated along a short stretch of single track mainline in 

downtown Springfield within the Washington Street corridor. The mainline track runs 

where Washington Street used to be in downtown. This site could host a station so that 

the short-term blockage of streets with stopped passenger trains will not be an issue for 

local traffic.

(Phased location) Dayton East, Riverside Station Site - Positive aspects of this station 

location include its proximity to major destinations such as the United States Air Force 

Museum, which draws more than one million visitors annually; the Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base, which employs 22,000; and Wright State University, where approximately 

17,000 students attend. This site includes an entrance road and paved parking along the 

single track NS mainline, which has been identified as the direct route for 3C passenger 

service. The City of Riverside plans to develop the site with compatible uses including a 

new mixed-use commercial development and a ceremonial entrance drive to the Air 

Force Museum. The City of Riverside is interested in helping develop a station at this 

location.

Dayton - Main Street Site - This site is located just west of the intersection of Main and 

Sixth streets in downtown Dayton. It is approximately one block west of the proposed 

Dayton Convention Center location. Similar to the Dayton Convention Center site, 

railroad tracks are elevated and a new station structure would be needed to construct a 

station on this site. The Holden House residential development, which provides housing 

to low income and elderly populations, is near this station. Connections to local public 

transit and the local and regional roadway network are readily accessible at this location. 

Adequate parking and space for station building development are available at this 

location.

North Cincinnati – Kemper Rd. Site - Located on a former manufacturing plant site on 

Kemper Road between Reading Road and US Route 42, the Park 42 business park 

currently occupies this property. Connections to public transit and the local and regional 

roadway network are readily available. This site has available space for adequate station 

location, parking, and development of future passenger amenities. Since this site is 

located on an NS double-tracked mainline, a pedestrian overpass will be needed.

Recommended Capacity Improvements:

• Construct 5.2 miles of second main track from Plattsburg to Brooks on NS 

Dayton District from CJ 172.5 (Plattsburg) to CJ 177.7 (near Brooks).
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-61

October 2010

• Construct 6.0 miles of second main track from Riverside to Dayton plus one set 

of universal crossovers on NS Dayton District from CJ 187.0 (near Cold Springs) 

to CJ 193.0 (near Enon).

• Construct 7.7 miles of second main track plus one set of universal crossovers on 

NS Dayton District from CJ 202.1 (near Wrights) to CJ 208.5 (Miami River 

Bridge) and from CJ 208.6 to CJ 209.8 (near Moraine Yard).

This phase is expected to require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or a Categorical 

Exclusion (CE) document to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements.

2.7.3 Segment 3 (North Cincinnati to Cincinnati)

Line Segment:

• NS Dayton District: CP 138 (Columbus) to CP 248 (Undercliff Yard). This 

segment carries 25 freight trains per day.

Potential Stations:

Cincinnati – Lunken Airport Site (near Lunken Airport) - This site is located on Lunken

Park Drive, about 1,000 feet west of the boundaries of Cincinnati Municipal Lunken 

Airport and approximately five miles east of downtown Cincinnati.This site is located on 

the Oasis Line, owned by the SORTA and operated by RailAmerica. The line connects 

to the NS main line at CP Mill, south of downtown Sharonville, 11 miles north of the site.

Cincinnati - Sawyer Point Site- This site is approximately located at 925 Riverside Drive, 

on property under City of Cincinnati control, adjacent to the Montgomery Inn at the Boat 

House restaurant. This site is adjacent to tennis courts in Sawyer Point Park, Theodore 

M. Berry Friendship Park, and large parking lots used for access to both parks and the 

Montgomery Inn restaurant. This site is located on the Oasis Line in Cincinnati, owned 

by the SORTA, which connects to the NS Sharonville Yard on the north.

After the public hearting held on September 17, 2009, additional station sites were 

proposed for assessment including Bond Hill and Fairfax. Both will be studied along with 

Lunken Airport and Sawyer Point sites to identify a preferred location during Tier II.

Layover, Maintenance, Service Site Options: The Undercliff Yard, which is more than 

2,500 feet in length and includes about six siding tracks, is owned by RailAmerica. The 

yard is underutilized, and serves primarily staging and sorting functions for freight 

service to area industries. The yard property is sufficient for the development of a station 

facility and platform, parking and vehicular access. It will be the location for a train 

layover and limited maintenance and inspection of equipment. Connections to the local 

roadway network are available at via US Route 50 (Columbia Parkway), which is less 

than one half mile away. Work would include converting the existing yard lead to the 

second main; constructing 2.1 mile by-pass track through Sharonville Yard; installing

three crossovers and constructing a new bridge.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 2-62

October 2010

Recommended Capacity Improvements:

• Create second main (connecting) track on NS Dayton District from CJ 244.2 (CP 

244) to IORY Connection at CJ 248.8 (south of Sharonville Yard) to allow train 

movement to and from the Oasis Line.

This phase is expected to require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or a Categorical 

Exclusion (CE) document to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-1

October 2010

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

This section presents the existing resources within the project area and analyzes the potential 

beneficial and adverse impacts to these resources from the Build and No-Build Alternative. For 

certain subject areas or resources, such as noise, vibration, air quality, public health and safety,

Environmental Justice, Section 4(f) resources, secondary and cumulative impacts, the project

assessment area included areas adjacent to the entire rail corridor, as well as proposed stations 

and yards. Resources and subject areas that could only be possibly affected by actual physical 

construction such as wetlands, floodplains or hazardous materials were limited to the 

approximately 40 miles of capacity improvements planned to be within the existing railroad right 

of way, stations and yards. 

The Environmental Assessment (EA) focuses only on those resources that have a reasonable 

likelihood to be affected by, or to affect, the proposed action. Because the proposed action 

would not affect geology, soils, or farmlands, these resources were not inventoried or analyzed.

3.1 Physical Environment 

3.1.1 Air Quality

Air quality describes the level of pollution in the air. Individual air pollutants degrade the 

atmosphere by reducing visibility, damaging property, reducing the productivity or vigor of crops 

or natural vegetation, or harming human or animal health.

As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for six major air pollutants, as shown in Table 3-1. These pollutants, 

known as criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), 

particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The "primary" standards 

have been established to protect the public health. The "secondary" standards, intended to 

protect the nation's welfare, account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, 

vegetation, and other aspects of the general welfare.

Table 3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time

Carbon 

Monoxide

9 ppm 

(10 mg/m3) 8-hour (1)

None 35 ppm 

(40 mg/m3) 1-hour (1)

Lead 0.15 μg/m3 (2) Rolling 3-Month 

Average Same as Primary

1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

0.053 ppm 

(100 μg/m3)

Annual 

(Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary

Particulate 

Matter (PM10) 150 μg/m3 24-hour (3) Same as Primary

Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5) 15.0 μg/m3 Annual (4)

(Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-2

October 2010

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time

35 μg/m3* 24-hour (5) Same as Primary

Ozone

0.075 ppm 

(2008 std) 8-hour (6) Same as Primary

0.08 ppm (1997 

std) 8-hour (7) Same as Primary

0.12 ppm 1-hour (8) Same as Primary

Sulfur 

Dioxide

0.03 ppm Annual 

(Arithmetic Mean) 0.5 ppm 

(1300 μg/m3

) 3-hour (1)

0.14 ppm 24-hour (1)

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. (2) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. (3) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (4) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or 

multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. (5) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006).

(6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. (effective May 

27, 2008) 

(7) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

 (b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for implementation 

purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone 

standard.

(8) (a) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1. 

 (b) As of June 15, 2005 EPA has revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the fourteen 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas. For one of the 14 EAC areas (Denver, CO), the 1-hour standard 

was revoked on November 20, 2008. For the other 13 EAC areas, the 1-hour standard was revoked on April 15, 

2009.

* For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the Conformity Rule, EPA’s previous 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 

65 μg/m3 still applies.

Source: U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), April 2010

In addition to the criteria pollutants, EPA also regulates air toxics. Mobile source air toxics 

(MSATs) are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and nonroad equipment which are 

known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health and environmental effects. Most 

air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road 

mobile sources (e.g., trains), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary sources (e.g., 

factories or refineries). 

Also of concern are greenhouse gases (GHG), which trap heat in the atmosphere, and keep the 

planet’s surface warmer than it otherwise would be. As concentrations of greenhouse gases 

increase, however, the Earth’s temperature rises. This is known as the “Greenhouse Gas 

Effect”. Effects of these rising temperatures include climate change and volatile weather 

patterns. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-3

October 2010

The potential air quality effects of the proposed increases in rail operations on criteria pollutants 

and MSAT concentrations, and GHG emissions are described in this section. The criteria 

pollutants of concern associated with this project are NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 due to the 

diesel train emissions; CO due to emissions from roadway vehicles, and O3 precursors (volatile 

organic compounds [VOCs] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]) due to both roadway vehicles and 

trains. NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 impacts are usually evaluated on a localized basis with pollutant 

concentrations estimated at affect sensitive land uses. Ozone, which is a regional pollutant that 

is formed in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight downwind of actual pollutant sources, is 

usually evaluated on a region wide basis. MSATs and GHG, which are also a concern due to 

emissions from roadway vehicles, diesel trains, and related facilities, were also considered. 

3.1.1.1 Existing Conditions

Attainment Status/Regional Air Quality Conformity

The USEPA publishes a list of all geographic areas in compliance with the NAAQS, as well as 

those areas not in attainment of the NAAQS. The designation of an area is made on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis as follows: 

• Areas classified as “attainment areas” are in compliance with the applicable NAAQS;

• Areas once classified as nonattainment but have since demonstrated attainment of the 

NAAQS are classified as “maintenance areas,” and

• Areas not in compliance with the NAAQS are classified as “nonattainment areas”. 

The attainment status of each area affected by the proposed project is provided in Table 3-2 As 

shown, all of counties affected by the project are classified as attainment areas for CO and 

PM10, with the exception of Cuyahoga County, which is classified as a maintenance area for 

both pollutants. Many of the counties, however, are classified as nonattainment for O3 and 

PM2.5.

Table 3-2 County Attainment Status

County CO Ozone PM10 PM2.5 SO2

Butler Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

Clark Attainment Maintenance Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

Crawford Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

Cuyahoga Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Nonattainment Maintenance

Delaware Attainment Maintenance Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

Franklin Attainment Maintenance Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

Greene Attainment Maintenance Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

Hamilton Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

Huron Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

Lorain Attainment Maintenance Attainment Nonattainment Maintenance

Madison Attainment Maintenance Attainment Attainment Attainment

Montgomery Attainment Maintenance Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

Morrow Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

Richland Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment

Warren Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment

* Based on 1997 ozone standard. The current standard is being reconsidered. For more information, see 

http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/O3_Reconsideration_FACT%20SHEET_091609.pdf

The CAAA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to the appropriate 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is a plan that provides for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Prior to approval or funding by a federal agency, 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-4

October 2010

a proposed project must demonstrate compliance with USEPA’s Conformity Rule by 

determining that it would not cause or exacerbate an exceedance of a NAAQS. 

As a project being developed under the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), this project falls 

under the General Conformity Rule, which requires a conformity determination for each pollutant 

where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused 

by a federal action would equal or exceed USEPA-specified significant threshold values. 

General Conformity’s de minimis values for the project area are 100 tons per year for PM2.5, O3

precursors (VOCs and NOx), SO2 and CO. 

Since the proposed project does not currently appear on any Long Range Plan or 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 

level, ORDC and ODOT will work in close coordination with the appropriate MPO agencies to 

include this project on these planning tools.

3.1.1.2 Potential Impacts

The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project would introduce travel options between Ohio’s 

largest cities. While diesel train emissions from the additional service would be offset by 

decreases in regional roadway vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and vehicular congestion, the 

project elements that could adversely affect air quality levels along the 3C Corridor include 

increases in emissions from:

• Increased diesel train service;

• Roadway vehicles operating near affected stations; and

• Train operations and associated service at maintenance and/or storage facilities.

The potential impacts of these emissions, both on a regional and local level, are discussed in 

the following sections.

Potential Regional Impacts

The project is anticipated to slightly reduce regional mobile source VMT and increase travel 

speeds. This is expected to have a beneficial effect on regional criteria pollutant and MSAT

levels and GHG emissions. This benefit would be offset by emissions generated by the diesel 

locomotives. 

To determine if the project could potentially exceed the applicable General Conformity de 

minimis levels, a regional emission burden analysis was conducted within each nonattainment 

area affected by the project. The analysis is based on preliminary scheduling information, which 

assumes three train round trips a day. 

Currently decreases in regional mobile source emissions due to the project’s affect on regional 

mobile source VMT has not been calculated and has therefore not been included in this 

analysis. As such, the result of this preliminary analysis is conservative as it only includes the 

increase in diesel locomotive emissions from the increased train operation. Train emissions 

were calculated based on Amtrak locomotive information and EPA’s required line haul emission 

factors. An average emission factor was calculated based on the fuel consumption in various 

throttle notch positions during an average train trip. The results of the emission analysis are 

shown in Table 3-3. As highlighted in this table, the project is not anticipated to exceed the 

General Conformity de minimis levels. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-5

October 2010

Table 3-3 Regional Emission Burden Estimates in Nonattainment/Maintenance Areas

Emission Burden (tons per year)

County VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2

Cuyahoga 1 25 4 1 1 1 1,691

Lorain 1 27 5 1 1 1 1,817

Butler 1 24 4 1 1 1 1,665

Warren 0 1 0 0 0 0 76

Hamilton 1 23 4 1 1 0 1,578

General Conformity Emission 

Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA

As the train schedule is refined and regional vehicular travel estimates are made, the regional 

emission impacts should be re-estimated. However, it is anticipated that project-related 

emission increases would not exceed the applicable General Conformity thresholds. As such, 

General Conformity requirements are not applicable to this project. In addition, the project is not 

anticipated to measurably MSAT or GHG emissions. In addition MSAT emissions are projected 

by EPA to substantially decrease in the duture due to stricter engine and fuel regulations.

Potential Local Impacts

Along the Rail Right-of-Way: The project would increase diesel emissions (especially 

particulates) along the train tracks. Assuming that four roundtrips occur per day, an analysis 

was conducted, using USEPA’s emission standards for diesel locomotives and USEPA’s 

AERMOD dispersion algorithm, to estimate the potential impacts of moving train emissions at 

representative sensitive land uses (residences, schools, parks, etc.) near the rail line. The 

result of this analysis is that project-related emissions are not predicted to measurably increase 

pollutant concentrations (predicted PM2.5 and NO2 impacts would be less that 0.1 percent of the 

applicable NAAQS at sensitive land uses that may abut the rail right-of-way, which is 

conservatively estimated to be a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the track). 

An analysis of the potential air quality impacts at actual sensitive receptor locations along the 

project corridor will be competed for the TIER II EIS to confirm this finding. 

At Train Stations: The project is anticipated to increase vehicular traffic near the proposed 

station locations. However, given the small projected increase in train service, it is anticipated 

that these increases would not measurably impact localized air quality levels. The commuter 

rail operations are also not anticipated to measurably increase roadway diesel-fueled vehicular 

traffic (i.e., buses and trucks) near the affect stations and parking lots. As such, the project is 

not anticipated to measurably increase criteria pollutant, MSAT, or GHG emissions on local 

roadways near these facilities. An analysis of the potential air quality impacts near at least one 

affected station will be competed for the TIER II EIS to confirm this finding.

At-Grade Crossings: The project may increase vehicular delays at some at-grade crossings. 

Given the frequency of train service, however, it is not anticipated that these delays would result 

in measurable air quality impacts.

A screening level analysis of the potential air quality impacts near at least one affected at-grade 

crossing will be competed for the TIER II EIS to confirm this finding.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-6

October 2010

Maintenance/Storage Yards: The additional trains associated with this action will increase 

maintenance and storage requirements and possibly increase train operations at these yards. 

Emissions from idling and moving trains could impact nearby sensitive land uses. Given the 

small increase in the number of trains to be serviced and stored at these facilities, however, it is 

anticipated that these operations would not result in measurable air quality impacts at nearby 

sensitive land uses. 

An analysis of the potential air quality impacts near at least one major affected station will be 

competed for the TIER II EIS to confirm this finding.

3.1.1.3 Construction Impacts

In general, construction-related effects of the project would be limited to short-term increased 

fugitive dust and mobile-source emissions during construction. State and local regulations 

regarding dust control and other air quality emission reduction controls would be followed. 

GHG emissions will also be generated during the construction phase of the project, though 

these emissions are likely to be relatively minor given the nature and size of the project, and the 

limited duration of construction activities.

3.1.1.4 Conclusion

The project is unlikely to cause or exacerbate a violation of any applicable NAAQS or 

measurably increase GHG or MSAT levels. It is also unlikely that the construction of the 

project, which will follow state and local regulations regarding construction activities and 

equipment, would cause a violation of the applicable standards. It is currently anticipated that 

the project would not generate emissions above General Conformity de minimis levels. As 

such, General Conformity requirements are not applicable to this project.

It is recommended that:

• A regional analysis be conducted once roadway volumes and train service has been 

estimated to quantify the project’s impact on regional air pollutants and GHG emission 

burdens.

• Upon availability of local traffic estimates, station locations and parking facilities be 

screened to insure that the project will not cause a violation of the applicable NAAQS.

• Upon location of storage and maintenance facilities, a screening level study be 

conducted at these locations to determine the project’s impact on MSAT levels and to 

insure that the project does not cause a violation of applicable NAAQS. 

3.1.2 Energy

Transportation energy is the energy required to move people and goods from place to place. It

accounts for a major portion of the energy consumed in the Ohio and is often divided into 

indirect and direct energy usage. Direct energy usage reflects the energy consumed by 

vehicles using a facility. Indirect energy is the energy used to construct and maintain a 

transportation facility. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-7

October 2010

3.1.2.1 Direct Energy Potential Impacts

The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project is expected to reduce roadway vehicle miles 

travelled (VMT) and reduce congestion, resulting in a decrease in overall fuel usage. Diesel 

fuel however would be required to propel the train and energy would be required for stations, 

maintenance yards, and storage facilities. It is unlikely that the project will have significant 

impacts (positive or negative) on energy usage in the project area. 

3.1.2.2 Indirect (Construction) Energy Potential Impacts

The construction of the project would result in a one-time energy expenditure that cannot be 

quantified at this time. All rules and regulations regarding construction and conservation of 

energy (such as limiting idling) would be adhered to. 

3.1.2.3 Conclusion

The project is unlikely to have a significant impact on direct energy use. The project would

cause a one-time indirect (construction) energy expenditure. It is anticipated that indirect 

energy expenditure would be minimized with the application of energy conservation methods. 

3.1.3 Noise and Vibration

This section presents the results of a preliminary investigation into the potential noise impacts to 

residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed intercity passenger rail service 

proposed between the cities of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The proposed 3C Quick 

Start Passenger Rail service would use the existing freight train tracks. The purpose of this 

section is to provide an estimate of the distance from the freight tracks to where noise and 

vibration impacts would occur.

3.1.3.1 Sound Descriptors

Noise levels are measured in units called decibels. Since the human ear does not respond 

equally to all frequencies (or pitches), measured sound levels (in decibels at standard frequency 

bands) often are adjusted or weighted to correspond to the frequency response of human 

hearing and the human perception of loudness. The weighted sound level is expressed in 

single-number units called A-weighted decibels (dBA) and is measured with a calibrated noise 

meter.

Road traffic noise and other noises found in communities tend to fluctuate from moment to 

moment, depending on whether a noisy truck passes by, an airplane flies over, a horn blows, or 

children scream as they play in a nearby schoolyard. To measure this noise accurately, noise 

energy (expressed in dBA) produced by different activities are averaged over a period of time in 

order to obtain a single number. This single number is called the equivalent continuous noise 

level, or Leq. Another noise measure considers people’s increased sensitivity to noise during 

sleeping hours. This measure is calculated by measuring noise levels over a 24-hour period to 

calculate what is called the day-night sound level, or Ldn. 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) uses both Leq and Ldn to evaluate transit noise 

effects. Use of Leq and Ldn is appropriate because these levels are sensitive to the frequency 

of occurrence and duration of noise events, including transit operations, which may be 

characterized by infrequent noise. This noise report evaluates impacts using only the Ldn 

descriptor which focuses on land uses which have high noise sensitive during nighttime hours 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-8

October 2010

such as residential properties and other land uses where noise during sleeping hours is utmost 

importance. 

3.1.3.2 Human Perception of Changes in Noise Levels

The average individual’s ability to perceive change in noise levels is well documented. 

Generally, change in noise levels less than 3 dBA will barely be perceived by most listeners, 

whereas a 10-dBA change normally is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of noise levels. The 

general principle on which most noise acceptability criteria are based is that a change in noise is 

likely to cause annoyance whenever it intrudes upon the existing ambient noise (i.e., annoyance 

depends upon the noise that exists before the start of a new noise-generating project or 

expansion of an existing project). Community noise levels in urban areas usually range between 

45 dBA, the daytime level in a typical quiet living room, and 75 dBA, the approximate noise level 

near a sidewalk adjacent to heavy traffic. For reference and orientation to the decibel scale, 

representative environmental noises and their respective dBA levels are shown in Figure 3-1.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-9

October 2010

Figure 3-1 Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels

100

90

80

70

60

50

30

40

TRANSIT SOURCES NON-TRANSIT SOURCES

OUTDOOR INDOOR

Rock Drill

Jackhammer

Concrete Mixer

Air Compressor

Lawn Mower

Lawn Tiller

Air Conditioner

Shop Tools,

in use

Shop Tools,

idling

Food Blender

Clothes Washer

Air Conditioner

Refrigerator

dBA

Rail Transit on Old Steel Structure,

50 mph

Rail Transit Horn

Rail Transit on Modern Concrete

Aerial Structure, 50 mph

Rail Transit At-Grade, 50 mph

City Bus, idling

Rail Transit in Station

ALL AT 50 FT ALL AT 50 FT ALL AT 3 FT

Source: Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-10

October 2010

3.1.3.3 FTA Noise Criteria for Transit Projects

FTA noise emission levels are used for this analysis as they are more characteristic and 

would provide a more representative estimate of future projected noise exposure that 

would occur from the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service. The basic goals of noise 

criteria, as they apply to transit projects, are to minimize the adverse noise and vibration 

impacts on the community and to provide feasible and reasonable noise control where 

necessary and appropriate. Several types of criteria are used to assess the impacts of 

noise and vibration from transportation projects. These include Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise abatement criteria and FTA transit noise 

guidelines.

Both the FHWA and FTA criteria are based on land use categories. For this study, the 

proposed intercity passenger rail does not include any modification or expansions to 

existing roadways and, therefore, impact assessment can be evaluated based solely 

using FTA guidelines. The FTA impact assessment guidelines groups sensitive areas 

into three specific land use categories and the noise descriptor used complete the 

impact assessment is chosen based on that land use type. The noise impact 

assessment completed for this effort was restricted to Category 2 land use activities 

consisting of basically buildings where people normally sleep and the sensitivity to noise 

is of the utmost importance, such as residential buildings, hotels, and hospitals. A 

summary of the description of each of the three land use categories is provided in Table 

3-4.

Table 3-4 FTA Guidelines Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise

Land Use 

Category

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category

1 Outdoor Leq (h)*

Tract’s of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended 

purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and 

quiet, and such land used as outdoor amphitheaters and concert 

pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with significant 

outdoor use.

2 Outdoor Ldn

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This 

category includes homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime 

sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance.

3 Outdoor Leq (h)*

Institutional land uses with primary daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is 

important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, 

meditation and concentration on reading material.

* Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. 

3.1.3.4 FTA Impact Assessment Based on Project Noise Exposure

FTA guidelines are based on relative impact criteria whereby noise impacts are 

determined by comparing the estimated future noise levels generated solely by the 

proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project, against the existing ambient noise 

exposure levels without the project. The FTA noise impact criteria, categorizes project 

noise levels into three principle levels of impact defined as “No Impact”, “Moderate 

Impact”, or “Severe Impact”. A summary of the impact criteria thresholds based on the 

existing noise exposure as defined and applied by the three land use categories is 

presented in Table 3-5. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-11

October 2010

Table 3-5 Noise Levels Defining Impact for Transit Projects

Existing Noise

Exposure*

Leq (1-hr) or 

Ldn (dBA)

Project Noise Impact Exposure, * Leq (1-hr) or Ldn (dBA)

Category 1 or 2 Sites Category 3 Sites

No Impact Moderate 

Impact

Severe 

Impact No Impact Moderate Impact

Severe 

Impact

51 <54 54-60 >60 <59 59-65 >65

52 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65

53 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65

54 <55 55-61 >61 <60 60-66 >66

55 <56 56-61 >61 <61 61-66 >66

56 <56 56-62 >62 <61 61-67 >67

57 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67

58 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67

59 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68

60 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68

61 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69

62 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69

63 <60 60-65 >65 <65 65-70 >70

64 <61 61-65 >65 <66 66-70 >70

65 <61 61-66 >66 <66 66-71 >71

66 <62 62-67 >67 <67 67-72 >72

67 <63 63-67 >67 <68 68-72 >72

68 <63 63-68 >68 <68 68-73 >73

69 <64 64-69 >69 <69 69-74 >74

70 <65 65-69 >69 <70 70-74 >74

71 <66 66-70 >70 <71 71-75 >75

72 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76

73 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76

74 <66 66-72 >72 <71 71-77 >77

75 <66 66-73 >73 <71 71-78 >78

76 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79

77 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79

>77 <66 66-75 >75 <71 71-80 >80

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006

* Ldn is used for land use where nighttime sensitivity is a factor; Leq during the hour of maximum transit 

noise exposure is used for land use involving only daytime activities.* 

3.1.3.5 Noise Prediction Methodology

The noise exposure calculations were completed following the procedures and 

methodologies described in the FTA document entitled “Transit Noise and Vibration 

Assessment Manual (FTA report FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006). 

The FTA manual provides detail procedures to estimate vehicle noise emissions and 

quantifies the attenuation of sound as it travels from the vehicle to noise-sensitive 

receptor locations along the right-of-way. In this study, residential properties and other 

places where people sleep along the ROW are the primary focus. Schools, churches, 

libraries, and parkland are also of concern, but these primarily daytime uses will be 

evaluated as part of the more refined Tier II environmental analysis.

Every noise prediction must characterize three elements: the noise source, the sound 

propagation path, and the affected noise receptor. For a given type of vehicle, noise 

emissions depend upon the operating conditions. Noise generated by line operations 

movements along the proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service were determined 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-12

October 2010

using pass-by frequency (headway) and vehicle travel speed data provided long each 

segment of the transit corridor. 

3.1.3.6 Ground-Borne Vibration and Criteria

The analysis of ground-borne vibration requires a discussion of both ground-borne 

vibration levels and interior noise levels resulting from ground-borne vibration. Groundborne noise refers to the noise effects that are caused by ground-borne vibration. For 

example, ground-borne vibration from a passing train can cause building floors and walls 

to vibrate and produce sound. The noise levels resulting from this effect depend on the 

amplitude and frequency of the vibration produced; the path of vibration propagation, 

and the acoustical characteristics of the structure and the receiving room. Additionally, 

the greater the acoustical absorption in the room, the lower the overall noise level. 

Several factors can influence vibration levels at a receiver location. The important 

physical parameters associated with rail activity that can influence vibration levels fall 

into the following four categories:

• Operational and vehicle factors: speed, vehicle suspension, and flat or worn 

wheels;

• Guide-way factors: rail conditions, guide-way type, rail support system, and the 

mass and stiffness of the guide-way structure;

• Geological factors: stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to 

bedrock; and 

• Receiver factors: coupling of the building foundation to the soil and the 

propagation of vibration through the building.

Ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise from light rail transit operations are 

governed by the criteria shown in Table 3-6. These criteria address maximum vibration 

levels associated with a single event, unlike noise levels, which are associated with 

cumulative exposure within a 24-hour period. To address the cumulative effects of 

multiple vibration events the criteria are divided into “Frequent,” “Occasional,” and 

“Infrequent” event categories. The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service proposed for 

the entire is classified as a corridor which will experience less than 30 vibration events 

per day and therefore can be classified under the “Infrequent Events” category, which for 

the FTA Category 2 land uses establishes an 80 VdB vibration impact threshold.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-13

October 2010

Table 3-6 FTA Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use Category

Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels Ground-Borne Noise Impact Levels

Frequent Events 2 Infrequent Events 3 Frequent Events 2 Infrequent Events 3

Category 1: 

Buildings where low

ambient vibration is 

essential for interior 

operations.

65 V dB 4 65 V dB 4 NA 5 NA 5

Category 2: 

Residences and 

buildings where 

people normally 

sleep.

72 V dB 80 V dB 35 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: 

Institutional land uses 

with primarily daytime 

use.

75 V dB 83 V dB 40 dBA 48 dBA

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, May 2006)

Notes: Vibration levels expressed in V dB are 1 micro inch/sec and noise levels expressed in dBA.

1. “Frequent Events” are defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most rapid transit projects fall 

into this category.

2. “Infrequent Events” are defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category includes most 

commuter rail systems.

3. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such 

as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to 

define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special 

design of the heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) systems and stiffened floors.

4. Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise. 

3.1.3.7 Vibration Prediction Methodology

Distance based vibration impact zones were determined for the proposed 3C Quick Start 

Passenger Rail service trains traveling at their operating speeds. Estimated vibration 

levels were determined followed procedures contained in Chapter 10 of the FTA Manual. 

Figure 3-2 lists some common sources of vibration and the velocity levels of the 

vibrations emanating from these sources.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-14

October 2010

Figure 3-2 Common Vibration Sources and Levels

100

90

80

70

60

50

Human/Structural Response Typical Sources (50 ft from Source)

Velocity

Level *

Threshold, minor cosmetic damage

fragile buildings

Difficulty with tasks such as

reading a VDT screen

Residential annoyance, infrequent

events (e.g., commuter rail)

Residential annoyance, frequent

events (e.g., rapid transit)

Limit for vibration sensitive

equipment. Approximate threshold

for human perception of vibration

Blasting from construction projects

* RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 10 inches/second

Bulldozers and other heavy tracked

construction equipment

Rapid transit, upper range

Commuter rail, typical

Bus or truck over bump

Rapid transit, typical

Bus or truck, typical

Typical background vibration

Commuter rail, upper range

3.1.3.8 Existing Noise Levels

The existing ambient noise environment along the project study area corridor is 

dominated by noise generated from freight train pass-bys traveling on the same tracks 

where the proposed intercity passenger rail service will run. Existing noise levels were 

derived based on existing freight service data provided for the study area. Freight train 

service data was broken into six primary segments along the 3C Corridor, identified in 

Table 3-7 and Table 3-8. For each segment average daytime (L day) and night (L night) 

noise levels were derived and then the day-night noise level (Ldn) dBA was determined 

following calculation procedure described the Chapter 6 of the “Transit Noise and 

Vibration Assessment Manual (FTA report FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006). 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-15

October 2010

A summary of the estimated existing day-night noise levels (Ldn) dBA are presented in 

Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 without and with horn noise respectively. Most of the 

approximately 260 mile long corridor is not subject to horn noise and noise levels shown 

in Table 3-7 are more representative of existing noise conditions typically found 

throughout the project study area. However, as indicated in Table 3-8, communities 

located within 1,000 feet of track length approaching an existing at grade crossing are 

exposed to considerably higher noise levels. 

As shown in Table 3-7, in areas not exposed to freight horn noise, existing day-night 

(Ldn) noise levels ranged from 70 to 75 dBA at 50 feet and 71 to 65 dBA at 100 feet and 

dropped off at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dB per doubling of distance beyond those distances. As 

indicated in Table 3-8, day-night noise levels in excess of 70 dBA in communities 

exposed to horn noise extended much further from the freight tracks, penetrating beyond 

200 feet along some study area segments. In general, day-night (Ldn) levels of 70 to 75 

dBA are considered relatively high causing considerable annoyance, but are typical of 

ambient conditions experienced adjacent active freight lines. Additionally, in the case of 

communities exposed to existing freight horn noise long term exposure to levels above 

80 dBA can potentially result in hearing impairment. 

Table 3-7 Summary of Estimated Noise Levels and FTA Impact Assessment for the 

Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Service (No Horn Blown)

Corridor Segment 

Description

Approximate

Distance to

Track 

Centerline 

(feet)

Estimated 2009

Existing

Day-Night Noise Level 

(Ldn dBA)

Without Horn

Estimated Passenger Rail 

Generated

Day-Night Noise Level 

(Ldn dBA)

Without Horn

(FTA Impact Condition)

Cleveland to Columbus

25 80 62 (No Impact)

50 75 57 (No Impact)

100 71 53 (No Impact)

200 68 50 (No Impact)

Columbus to Springfield

25 76 62 (No Impact)

50 72 57 (No Impact)

100 67 53 (No Impact)

200 64 50 (No Impact)

Springfield to East 

Dayton

25 75 62 (No Impact)

50 71 57 (No Impact)

100 66 53 (No Impact)

200 63 50 (No Impact)

East Dayton To Dayton

25 77 62 (No Impact)

50 73 57 (No Impact)

100 68 53 (No Impact)

200 65 50 (No Impact)

Dayton to North 

Cincinnati

25 77 62 (No Impact)

50 73 57 (No Impact)

100 68 53 (No Impact)

200 65 50 (No Impact)
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-16

October 2010

Corridor Segment 

Description

Approximate

Distance to

Track 

Centerline 

(feet)

Estimated 2009

Existing

Day-Night Noise Level 

(Ldn dBA)

Without Horn

Estimated Passenger Rail 

Generated

Day-Night Noise Level 

(Ldn dBA)

Without Horn

(FTA Impact Condition)

North Cincinnati to 

Cincinnati

25 74 59 (No Impact)

50 70 54 (No Impact)

100 65 50 (No Impact)

200 62 47 (No Impact)

Table 3-8 Summary of Estimated Noise Levels and FTA Impact Assessment for the 

Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Service (Horn Blown)

Corridor Segment 

Description

Approximate

Distance to

Track 

Centerline 

(feet)

Estimated 2009

Existing

Day-Night Noise Level 

(Ldn dBA)

With Horn

Estimated Passenger Rail 

Generated

Day-Night Noise Level 

(Ldn dBA)

With Horn

(FTA Impact Condition)

Cleveland to Columbus

25 85 73 (Moderate Impact)

50 82 68 (Moderate Impact)

100 79 64 (No Impact)

200 76 61 (No Impact)

Columbus to Springfield

25 81 73 (Moderate Impact)

50 78 68 (Moderate Impact)

100 75 64 (No Impact)

200 72 61 (No Impact)

Springfield to East 

Dayton

25 80 73 (Moderate Impact)

50 77 68 (Moderate Impact)

100 74 64 (No Impact)

200 70 61(No Impact)

East Dayton to Dayton

25 82 73 (Moderate Impact)

50 79 68 (Moderate Impact)

100 76 64 ((No Impact)

200 73 61 (No Impact)

Dayton to North 

Cincinnati

25 82 73 (Moderate Impact)

50 79 68 (Moderate Impact)

100 76 64 ((No Impact)

200 73 61 (No Impact))

North Cincinnati to 

Cincinnati

25 79 73 (Moderate Impact)

50 76 68 (Moderate Impact)

100 73 64 ((No Impact)

200 70 61 (No Impact)
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-17

October 2010

3.1.3.9 Impact Assessment

This section describes the potential impacts associated from the line operations of the 

proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service along the six primary segments 

identified in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8. Passenger rail noise level calculations and impact 

assessment were completed following the procedures described and outlined in the FTA 

document entitled “Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual (FTA report FTAVA-90-1003-06, May 2006). 

3.1.3.10 Noise Impact Assessment for Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Service

FTA guidelines are based on relative impact criteria whereby project noise impacts are 

determined by comparing the future day-night (Ldn) noise level generated solely from 

the proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service against the existing day-night (Ldn) 

noise exposure without the project. Project impacts are categorized as “No Impact”, 

“Moderate Impact”, or “Severe Impact” as determined using the project criteria presented 

in Table 3-5.

Noise generated from the proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service was 

determined without and with horn noise and these estimated noise levels are provided in 

summary Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 respectively. Most of the approximately 260mile long 

corridor is not exposed to whistle blowing horn noise. Therefore, the noise levels shown 

in Table 3-7 are more representative of typical existing and future projected noise levels 

that will likely occur throughout the project study area. 

The noise analysis findings presented in Table 3-7 indicate that noise generated from 

the proposed passenger rail service will result in no impacts at any FTA Category 2 land 

uses (residential properties and other places where people normally sleep) which are 

located 25 feet or greater away from the centerline of the existing freight tracks. 

However as indicated in Table 3-8, residential properties within 1,000 feet track length of 

an at grade crossing that are located 50 feet or less from the centerline of the existing 

freight tracks will experience “moderate impacts” from horn noise whistle warnings. 

Beyond 50 feet noise generated from horn noise will be below the FTA impact threshold 

and therefore no horn noise impacts from the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service are 

expected beyond this immediate 50 foot impact zone.

3.1.3.11 Noise Mitigation

FTA requires that mitigation be evaluated for all areas where an impact is expected to 

occur, although consideration of factors such as cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and 

reasonableness can be incorporated into the decision regarding whether to specific 

mitigation for a particular location. Mitigation normally would be specified for areas 

expected to experience a FTA “severe impact”, unless there is no practical method of 

achieving a reduction in noise level.

The projected noise levels associated with operation of the proposed 3C Quick Start 

Passenger Rail service were found not to exceed the FTA criteria for a “moderate 

impact” or “severe impact” at any of the six primary segments evaluated. Therefore, no 

noise mitigation measures associated with 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service 

operations are necessary. However, FTA “moderate impacts” identified within a 50 feet 

impact zone as passenger trains approach at grade crossings, will be reviewed in 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-18

October 2010

greater detail in the Tier II environmental impact assessment. The Tier II assessment will 

include a review of land use maps along the entire length of the project study area to 

determine if there are any noise sensitive properties adjacent to at-grade crossings 

within the identified 50-foot impact zone which would warrant further analysis. Impact 

reassessment would be accomplished by replacing the calculated existing day-night 

(Ldn) noise level determined from the freight service data with actual field collected 24 

hour noise measurements recorded at the identified noise sensitive property. A second 

re-evaluation using the FTA transit noise impact criteria would then be completed. Any 

noise impacts identified under the Tier II evaluation would be addressed by specific 

mitigation measures applicable to the sensitivity of the land use in question and 

magnitude of the impact identified. 

3.1.3.12 Vibration Analysis Findings from 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Operations

Estimated vibration levels and impact assessment from the proposed 3C Quick Start 

Passenger Rail service were determined by following the methodology described in 

Chapter 10 of the FTA Manual. The 3C Corridor is classified as a corridor which will 

experience six to eight vibration events per day and therefore can be classified under the 

“Infrequent Events” category of fewer than 30 events per day, which for the FTA 

Category 2 land uses establishes an 80 V dB vibration impact threshold as shown in 

Table 3-6. 

The analysis findings presented in Table 3-9 indicate that at proposed peak operating 

speeds, the proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service in areas where the tracks 

are at grade will result in potential vibration impacts in at distances of up to 125 feet 

away from the centerline of the freight tracks. Vibration impact zone for tracks on aerial 

structures will result in much smaller potential impact zones extending up to 40 feet 

away from the existing freight lines. Potential long-term effects to vibration sensitive 

structures located within these impact zones include structural damage to buildings and 

annoyance to occupants.

The impact zones identified in Table 3-9 represent conservative estimates based on 

peak passenger rail operating speeds. Optimized transit designed operating speeds 

along many segments will be lower than the 79 mph assumed along the majority of the 

corridor. Lower train traveling speeds will result in lower ground-borne vibration levels 

and thus smaller vibration impact zones. Part of the Tier II environmental impact 

assessment will include a vibration impact assessment using more precise travel speeds 

at various points along the corridor. The findings here provide a good first order 

magnitude of potential areas where ground borne vibration could be of concern.

Table 3-9 Estimated Vibration Impact Zone from Proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Operations

Corridor Segment Description

Estimated Vibration 

Impact Zone(1) Based on 80 V dB Impact Criteria(1)

Tracks At Grade

(feet)

Tracks on Aerial Structure

(feet)

Cleveland to Columbus 125 80

Columbus to Springfield 125 80

Springfield to East Dayton 125 80
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-19

October 2010

Corridor Segment Description

Estimated Vibration 

Impact Zone(1) Based on 80 V dB Impact Criteria(1)

Tracks At Grade

(feet)

Tracks on Aerial Structure

(feet)

East Dayton to Dayton 125 80

Dayton to North Cincinnati 125 80

North Cincinnati to Cincinnati 40 25

(1) The impact zone is based on an 80 V dB impact threshold for FTA Category 2 Land Uses which are 

defined as residential properties and other places where people normally sleep. Impact distances are 

measured from track centerline. The proposed 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail service would be 

classified under the “Infrequent Events” impact assessment category defined as fewer than 70 vibration 

events per day resulting in an impact threshold of 80 V dB for FTA Category 2 Land Uses as indicated 

in Table 3-6.

3.1.3.13 General Vibration Mitigation Measures

The major source of vibration is the rolling interaction of the car wheels on the track; the 

vibration resulting from this interaction increases with greater speeds. Factors that 

influence the amplitudes of ground-vibration include car suspension parameters, 

condition of the wheels and rails, type of track, track support system, type of building 

foundation, and the properties of the soil and rock layers through which the vibration 

propagates. Use of continuously welded rail eliminates wheel impacts at rail joints and 

results in significantly lower vibration levels than with jointed track. Adequate wheel and 

rail maintenance also is an important preventive measure in controlling levels of groundborne vibration. Further reductions in ground-borne vibration levels typically involve 

special track support systems, vehicle modifications, building modifications, operational 

changes, or adjustments to the vibration transmission path. To be effective, many of 

these measures must be optimized or tuned for the frequency spectrum of the vibration. 

A general rule of thumb is that the lower the vibration frequency the harder it is to 

mitigate excessive ground-borne vibration levels using standard approaches and 

vibrations below about 20 Hz are difficult to control in a cost-effective manner. 

3.1.4 Visual Resources

Visual and aesthetic quality in the project area was assessed in accordance with Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance titled Visual Impact Assessment for Highway 

Projects (US Department of Transportation [USDOT] 1983). The FRA has no guidance 

specific to visual and aesthetic quality.

Since many of the station sites, rail yards, and railroad rights-of-way exist within areas 

that are industrial, transportation, or rural, only those with the potential to affect 

residential or other relatively long duration viewers were assessed. The approximately 

260 mile 3C Corridor would add new passenger rail service on existing rail right-of-way 

and is considered a very minor change to the existing condition, and therefore, the 

impact to potential receptors would be minimal. The rail yards being considered are 

existing yards and are within industrial areas and no visual impact is expected. The 

focus of this assessment was therefore on the proposed stations.

3.1.4.1 Existing Conditions

The following eight station sites were surveyed for visual resource conditions and 

potential impacts. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-20

October 2010

(1) Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland

This site is an existing Amtrak Station platform located just north of downtown 

Cleveland. Adjacent land uses observed include: an eight lane highway to the north with 

park uses and Lake Erie beyond; a number of additional parking lots to the east; six 

railroad tracks to the south with medium and high rise office buildings beyond; and a six 

lane urban arterial street to the west with landscaped areas beyond. There are no 

residential uses nearby or uses that would have relatively long duration views of the site. 

Additionally, no construction is proposed at this area under the project, rather an 

increase in utilization of the existing facility. Therefore, there is no potential for visual 

resource impacts.

(2) West 150th St./Puritas/GCRTA, Southwest Cleveland

This site is an existing GCRTA station located approximately 2.25 miles northeast of the 

Cleveland Hopkins Airport. It is a large parking lot with a kiosk and concrete shelter in 

its western portion near the railroad tracks. Adjacent land uses observed include: an 

industrial and office use that appears to be undergoing redevelopment to the north; a La 

Quinta Inn hotel with open landscape areas beyond to the east; the eight lane I-71 with 

residential uses to the south; and six railroad tracks to the west with residential uses 

beyond. The residential uses are well screened from the site by trees and other 

vegetation. No other receptors have long duration views. No new construction is 

proposed for this station; but an increase in utilization of an existing facility. Therefore, 

there is no potential for visual resource impacts.

(15) Convention Center Site, Columbus

This site is located within a railroad facility containing up to four tracks running through a 

large urban trench through downtown Columbus. Within the site there are no uses other 

than railroad tracks and the concrete structures that support the buildings and roadways 

above. Adjacent land uses include the following: the Columbus Convention Center, 

highway right of way, multiple commercial, light industrial and redeveloped industrial 

uses beyond to the north, two large industrial buildings to the east, a large parking lot 

and high rise office buildings above the grade of the railroad to the south and parking 

lots and parking structures to the west. Since no residential uses or other views having 

relatively long duration view are present within the area, new construction at this site 

would fall within the highly urbanized urban look and would not have the potential for 

visual impacts.

(17) Downtown Station Site, Springfield (phased)

This site is a large lot that appears to have been cleared of other uses within the last five 

years, as evidenced by broken concrete from former foundations and portions of former 

sidewalks. The proposed 3C corridor rail line runs along the site’s southern extent and 

one two story building is located at the site’s western side with its parking area at the 

site’s far western extent. Railroad ties and rails lie in piles along the southern portion of 

the site. Adjacent land uses include: a warehouse facility, a church to the north; another 

railroad property that appears to have been converted to a park with more rail property 

beyond to the east; a large industry facility with residential uses beyond to the south; and 

South Spring Street (on bridge above grade) with an office building and parking lot 

beyond to the west. One high rise residential building north of the site has views of the 

site. The visual quality of this site is as follows: 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-21

October 2010

• Vividness - The vividness of this site is low. The reason for this is because the 

visual setting is disturbed by a number of urban uses in various stages of 

maintenance or disrepair. 

• Intactness - The intactness of this site is low because there are a number of 

different land uses in all quarters. 

• Unity - The unity of this area is low because all of the attributes in view have very 

low interrelation and compositional harmony. 

Because the site is located in an area of relatively low visual quality, station construction 

would have low potential to result in visual resource impacts. 

(18) Riverside Site, East Dayton (phased)

This site is a large partially wooded lot that flanks the existing railroad tracks. The area 

north of the tracks is nearly entirely wooded, while the area south of the tracks is partially 

wooded and includes a large asphalt parking lot. Adjacent land uses include: what 

appears to be a roadway maintenance facility; residential uses to the east; vacant land, 

residences, and a hotel within Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB) to the south; and 

vacant land and Harshman Avenue to the west. The residences near this site are well 

within nearby visual range, and many have no screening from the site. The visual 

quality of this site is as follows: 

• Vividness - The vividness of this site is low. The reason for this is the site’s 

juxtaposition between the maintenance facility and Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base (AFB).

• Intactness - The intactness of this site is low because the visual order is 

disturbed by very obvious presence of the facilities on Wright Patterson AFB.

• Unity - The unity of this area is low because the different land use types have a 

very low compositional harmony or compatibility. 

Because the site is located in an area of relatively low visual quality, station construction 

would have low potential to result in visual impacts. 

(21) Main Street Site, Dayton

This site currently contains a large parking lot on its north side with two active railroad 

tracks and three areas of former track on its south side. Adjacent uses include: an 

institutional use to the north; S. Wilkinson Street with office and parking lot uses to the 

east; industrial uses and a transformer station to the south; and industrial uses and 

parking areas to the west. Because there are no residences or other uses having 

relatively long duration views of the site, construction on the site will have no potential for 

visual resource impacts.

(26) Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati

This site is currently an “L” shaped parcel that contains a vacant maintained grass area 

in its eastern portion, an apparently redeveloped brick building in its middle portion and 

gravel and paved parking lots in its western portion. The grass area (along Kemper 

Avenue) appears to have been prepared and intended to be used to develop an office 

building. Adjacent land uses observed include: Kemper Avenue with office uses beyond 

to the north; a mini storage facility with Lebanon Road beyond to the east; a redeveloped industrial use with other smaller industrial uses beyond to the south; and 

railroad with auto repair and other industrial facilities beyond to the west. No residential 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-22

October 2010

uses are present within the area of this site, and there are no other uses having 

relatively long duration views. For this reason, no impacts to visual resources are 

anticipated. 

(28) Lunken Airport Site, Cincinnati

This site is within the railroad right of way with a portion of the eastern side being an 

access road to businesses. Adjacent land uses include the following: rail uses to the 

north; an industrial park with airport uses beyond to the east; rail uses with industrial 

uses beyond to the south; and residential uses to the west. The visual quality of this site

is as follows: 

• Vividness - The vividness of this site is low. The reason for this is because the 

visual setting is marked by older residences on the track’s west side and an 

assortment of industrial uses on the south side. Vegetation along the track is 

comprised of lower trees and scrubby vegetation. 

• Intactness - The intactness of this site is low because the visual order is 

disturbed by the dissimilar land uses in the area.

• Unity - The unity of this area is low because the different land use types have a 

very low compositional harmony or compatibility. 

Because the site is located in an area of low visual quality, it is assumed that the 

construction of a passenger rail facility at this site would have low potential for visual 

impacts. 

3.1.5 Potential Impacts

Eight station sites were analyzed for visual resource conditions. Five would have no 

potential for visual impacts. These sites are the (1) Lakefront Amtrak Station, (2) West 

150th St./Puritas Avenue/GCRTA, (15) Convention Center Site, (21) Main Street Site, 

and (26) Kemper Road Site. Three would have low potential for visual impacts. These 

include: (17) Downtown Station site in Springfield because it is located in an area of low 

visual quality. (18) Riverside Site, East Dayton (phased) because it is located in an area 

of industrial and airport uses; and (28) Lunken Airport Site because it is located in an 

area of low visual quality. Because the site is located in an area of relatively low visual 

quality, station construction would have low potential to result in visual resource impacts.

3.1.6 Conclusion

Three out of the eight station sites discussed above would have low potential for visual 

impacts, and the potential impacts may be mitigate to the point of being negligible with 

implementation of the mitigation designs indicated above. The No-Build Alternative 

would not create changes or impacts to the project area’s visual quality.

3.2 Ecological Systems

3.2.1 Floodplains

The National Flood Insurance Program defines 100-year floodplains as “areas that will 

be inundated by the flood event having a one percent chance of being equaled or 

exceeded in any given year”. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 23 

CFR 650.11 require that federal actions, to the extent possible, avoid short-and longterm impacts to floodplains and avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development 

where a practicable alternative exists. The 100-year floodplains were located within the 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-23

October 2010

project area using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). 

Below is a summary of existing conditions and potential impacts. The summary tables 

and maps identifying the Floodplain location are provided in Appendix E.

3.2.1.1 Capacity Improvements

Construct second main track on CSX Greenwich Subdivision from CP 54 (Boyd) to

CP 71 (south of Shelby).

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Rehabilitate and extend Edison siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision QE

90.8 to QE 93.9.

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Construct Paget Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QEQE110.8 to

QE 112.9.

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Construct Powell Road Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QE 125.1

to QE 127.1.

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Construct universal crossovers between CSX Columbus Line Subdivision and NS

Dayton District at Weber Road QE/CJ 134.4.

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Construct Columbus Station Track at CP 138 on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision/ 

NS Dayton District.

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature. 

Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 172.5 (Plattsburg) to

CJ 177.7 (near Brooks).

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 187.0 (near Cold

Springs) to CJ 193.0 (near Enon).

Approximately 59.7 acres of floodplain were located within the capacity improvement 

area. It is not anticipated that the development of this area will fill the floodplain and 

require either a CLoMR or a LoMR. If fill of the floodplain needs to occur compensatory 

flood storage will be created to mitigate for any such impacts. This capacity is located 

within the Great Miami River Watershed (HUC # 05080002) which drains to the Ohio 

River and covers 5,373 square miles in southwest Ohio. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-24

October 2010

Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 202.1 (near Wrights)

to CJ 208.5 (Miami River Bridge) and from CJ 208.6 to CJ 209.8 (near Moraine

Yard).

Approximately 13.8 acres of floodplain were located within the capacity improvement 

area. It is not anticipated that the development of this area will fill the floodplain and 

require either a CLoMR or a LoMR. If fill of the floodplain needs to occur compensatory 

flood storage will be created to mitigate for any such impacts. This capacity is located 

within the Great Miami River Watershed (HUC # 05080002).

Create second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 244.2 (CP 244) to IORY

Connection at CJ 248.8 (south of Sharonville Yard).

Approximately 39.7 acres of floodplain were located within the capacity improvement 

area. It is not anticipated that the development of this area will fill the floodplain and 

require either a CLoMR or a LoMR. If fill of the floodplain needs to occur compensatory 

flood storage will be created to mitigate for any such impacts. This capacity is located 

within the Mill Creek Watershed (HUC # 05090203) drains to the Ohio River and 

encompasses 164 square miles in southwest Ohio. 

3.2.1.2 Stations

Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA Site, Southwest Cleveland

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Convention Center Site, Columbus

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Downtown Station Site, Springfield (phased)

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Riverside Site, East Dayton (phased)

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Main Street Site, Dayton

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 

Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-25

October 2010

Lunken Airport Site, Cincinnati

No floodplains features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will 

be no impacts to any floodplains associated with this feature.

3.2.1.3 Rail Yards

No new construction will occur at these locations on areas not otherwise already 

developed as rail yards; therefore no impacts will occur to floodplains located near these 

locations.

3.2.1.4 Potential Impacts

No impacts to the floodplains capacity are anticipated as indicated in Table 3-11, nor is it 

anticipated that modifications will occur to the floodplain. If fill of the floodplain needs to 

occur for the development of the rail line compensatory flood storage will be created to 

mitigate for any such impacts. 

Table 3-10 Summary of Floodplains within Improvement and Station

Improvement or Station Floodplain Watershed

Capacity Improvement

Construct second main track on CSX 

Greenwich Subdivision from CP 54 (Boyd) 

to CP 71 (south of Shelby)

0 Mohican, Huron, and Vermillion 

Watersheds

Rehabilitate and extend Edison siding on 

CSX Columbus Line Subdivision QE 90.8 

to QE 93.9

0 Rocky River 

Construct Paget Siding on CSX Columbus 

Line Subdivision from QEQE110.8 to QE 

112.9

0 Rocky River 

Construct Powell Road Siding on CSX 

Columbus Line Subdivision from QE 125.1 

to QE 127.1

0

Scioto River Watershed 

(encompasses Olentangy and Big 

Darby)

Construct universal crossovers between 

CSX Columbus Line Subdivision and NS 

Dayton District at Weber Road QE/CJ 

134.4

0

Scioto River Watershed 

(encompasses Olentangy and Big 

Darby)

Construct Columbus Station Track at CP 

138 on CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivisions/NS Dayton District

0

Scioto River Watershed 

(encompasses Olentangy and Big 

Darby)

Construct second main track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 172.5 (Plattsburg) to CJ 

177.7 (near Brooks)

0

Great Miami River Watershed 

(encompasses Mad River and 

Warden Ditch)

Construct second main track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 187.0 (near Cold Springs) 

to CJ 193.0 (near Enon)

59.7 acres

Great Miami River Watershed 

(encompasses Mad River and 

Warden Ditch)

Construct second main track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 202.1 (near Wrights) to CJ 

208.5 (Miami River Bridge) and from CJ 

208.6 to CJ 209.8 (near Moraine Yard)

13.8 acres

Great Miami River Watershed 

(encompasses Mad River and 

Warden Ditch)

Create second main track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 244.2 (CP 244) to IORY 

Connection at CJ 248.8 (south of 

Sharonville Yard)

39.7 acres Mill Creek Watershed (encompasses 

Sharon Creek)
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-26

October 2010

Improvement or Station Floodplain Watershed

Station

Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland 0 Lake Erie

West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA 

Site, Southwest Cleveland 0 Lake Erie

Convention Center Site, Columbus 0 Scioto River

Downtown Station Site, Springfield 

(phased) 0 Great Miami River

Riverside Site, East Dayton (phased) 0 Great Miami River

Main Street Site, Dayton 0 Great Miami RIver

Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati 0 Mill Creek Watershed

Lunken Airport Site, Cincinnati 0 Ohio River

3.2.1.5 Conclusions

Under Tier 2 evaluation a flood storage evaluation (i.e. HEC-RAS and/or HEC-RMS) will 

be conducted to determine if the floodplain will be impacted by the development of the 

proposed capacity improvements. If during the design phase any floodplain 

encroachment is found to be required, measures to minimize and mitigate impacts will 

be conducted. If permits need to be obtained they will be conducted in compliance with 

the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which is administered through the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

(ODNR) Division of Water’s Floodplain Management Program. The No-Build Alternative 

would not impact water bodies and waterways.

3.2.2 Wetland, Waterbody, and Waterway Permits

A variety of permits and consultations would be required for construction of Build 

Alternatives on the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project. These authorizations assure 

that proper coordination pursuant to federal and state legislation has been satisfied. The 

anticipated waterway, and stormwater permits and consultations required as part of the 

3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project include:

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification - Section 401 of the CWA requires that an 

applicant for a permit that may result in a discharge to Waters of the U.S. must 

first obtain certification from the state. The Ohio EPA issues a Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification when the project is shown to comply with state water quality 

standards. Typically, the 401 Water Quality Certification would be issued by the 

Ohio EPA prior to or concurrently with the ACOE 404 permit.

• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - The USACE administers Section 404 of the 

CWA on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 404(b)(1) 

regulates activities in Waters of the United States, defined as navigable 

waterways and their tributaries. Waters of the United States can include 

wetlands.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-27

October 2010

• Ohio EPA Isolated Wetlands Permit - Isolated wetlands (wetlands that are not 

subject to USACE jurisdiction) are regulated by the Ohio EPA. Permit reviews 

are based on projects requiring fill of an isolated wetland. A level one, two, or 

three permit review will be required depending on the wetland impact.

• National Pollutions Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – This permit is 

required for stormwater discharge at construction sites. This permit application 

will be submitted to the Ohio EPA. The Ohio EPA has developed a General 

NPDES permit especially for work done in the Big Darby Creek (permit # 

OHCD00001) and Olentangy River (permit # OHCO00001) watersheds. Any 

work within these watersheds will require their corresponding General permit. 

• Flood Hazard Development Permit – Since the project traverses floodplains, 

coordination with local floodplain administrators will be required to determine if a 

floodplain permit is required prior to any construction activities.

• Ohio Costal Management Program- The Lakefront Amtrak Station in Cleveland is 

located within the ODNR Ohio Costal Management Program and must adhere to 

Ohio Revised Code 1506 Costal Management Plan and ORC 1507-1521 Soil 

Erosion Plans.

• Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act—A Section 10 River and Harbors permit will 

be required for all work and structures (exclusive of bridges), below the ordinary 

high water mark, in, adjacent to and across navigable waters of the US.. Permits 

are issued through the USACOE. 

The following waterway permit is not expected for this project:

• Section 9 Rivers and Harbors Act – This permit is not needed for this project 

since no new bridges are to be constructed over a navigable waterway.

Based on field reviews and secondary source information, waterway permits will be 

required for locations where waterbodies and waterways are present. Waterbodies and 

waterways are present at station locations and along capacity improvement locations.

The No-Build Alternative would not impact water bodies and waterways.

3.2.3 Wetlands, Waterbodies, and Waterways

For the purpose of identifying potential wetlands, the routine procedures set forth by the 

1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and Interim Regional Supplement 

to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (September 

2008) was utilized for this project. The manuals outline that a three (3) parameter 

approach must be utilized to identify wetlands, this requires the presence of hydrophytic 

vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, unless a man-induced wetland is 

created and then only two of the parameters hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology are utilized.

In order to establish areas that have potential wetland characteristics a search of 

available secondary information was conducted to identify ecological resources within 

the survey areas. This secondary literature included county soil survey maps, National 

Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, Ohio Wetland Inventory (OWI) map, floodplain maps, 

and watershed information from information provided through the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Natural Areas and Preserves and the U.S. Fish 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-28

October 2010

and Wildlife Service. Since access to some of the wetland areas off the proposed 

corridor could not be attained at the time the field visits were conducted the wetlands 

were visually field verified from roadway right-of-ways. Wetland boundaries were 

approximated utilizing aerial photography and the above mentioned secondary sources. 

In order to categorize the quality of wetlands in relation to habitat and level of 

disturbance, the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (ORAM) v. 5.0, was

utilized when wetlands could be visually observed (OEPA 2001). This method, 

developed by the OEPA, assigns a numeric score (on a 100-point scale) which is used 

to determine how stringently a wetland should be regulated and/or protected according 

to its quality. The ORAM categorizes wetlands as Category 1, 2, or 3. A Category 1 

wetland is defined as a low quality wetland that has been significantly disturbed, while a 

Category 3 wetland is defined as an excellent quality wetland with little to no evidence of 

disturbance. 

The term body of water most often refers to large accumulations of water, such as 

oceans, seas, and lakes, but it may also include smaller pools of water such as ponds, 

puddles, rivers, streams, and canals. In addition to natural formations through the 

transport of surface water artificial bodies of water such as reservoirs or farm ponds will 

be included in this section of the report. 

Each waterbody in the state is assigned one or more aquatic life habitat use 

designations. Each waterbody may be assigned one or more water supply use 

designations and/or one recreational use designation. Waterbodies are assigned use 

designations under rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Ohio Administrative Code. 

These designations for streams include Warm Water Habitat (WWH), Limited Warm 

Water Habitat (LWWH), Exceptional Warm Water (EWW), Modified Warm Water 

(MWW), Limited Resource Water (LRW), Seasonal Salmonid (SS), and/or Coldwater 

(CWH). Water supplies are designated as public, agricultural, and/or industrial. 

Additionally, recreational lakes are considered “bathing waters, primary contact, or 

secondary contact” waters, dependent on public heath requirements. 

Below is a summary of existing conditions and potential impacts by improvement. The 

summary tables and maps identifying the location of wetlands, water bodies, and 

waterways are provided in Appendix E.

3.2.3.1 Capacity Improvements

Construct second main track on CSX Greenwich Subdivision from CP 54 (Boyd) to

CP 71 (south of Shelby).

This capacity improvement is located within the Mohican (HUC # 05040002), Huron and 

Vermillion River watersheds (HUC # 04100012). While the Mohican drains south to the 

Walhonding River, the Huron and Vermillion drain north to Lake Erie. The Mohican 

watershed covers 999 square miles in north-central Ohio while the Huron and Vermillion 

cover 674 square miles within north Ohio. The Mohicans high magnitude impairment 

sources include major industrial point source, major municipal point source and urban 

run-off. While the Huron and Vermillon’s high magnitude impairment sources include 

major municipal point source, non-irrigated crop production and channelization 

development. This capacity improvement contains portions of the Black Fork Mohican 

River, which drains to the Mohican River and portions of both the West Branch Huron 

River and of the Southwest Branch Vermillion River and tributaries to each. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-29

October 2010

The Black Fork Mohican River within the project area does not have an aquatic life use 

designation due to the close proximity of the Shelby Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 

plant is immediately upstream of the railway bridge. The water supply uses include 

primary, industrial and agricultural water supply. The river is considered primary contact 

water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-24). 

The West Branch Huron River within the project area has an aquatic life use designation 

of Warm Water Habitat (WWH). The water supply uses include industrial and agricultural 

water supply. The river is considered primary contact water for recreation purposes 

(OAC 3745-1-19).

The Southwest Branch Vermilion River within the project area has an aquatic life use 

designation of is at partial attainment of its aquatic life use designation of Warm Water 

Habitat (WWH). The water supply uses include industrial and agricultural water supply. 

The river is considered primary contact water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-28).

The Mohican, Huron, and Vermillion rivers have 183 miles of stream and 18,971 acres of 

wetland associated with the watershed. It is anticipated that approximately 6,570 linear 

feet (or 1.24 miles) of channel and 0.64 acre of wetland will potentially be impacted for 

this capacity improvement. Therefore, no negative impact to water quality is expected 

due to this action.

Rehabilitate and extend Edison siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision QE

90.8 to QE 93.9.

This capacity improvement is located within the Rocky River Watershed (HUC # 

04110001) which drains north to Lake Erie. The watershed covers 294 square miles and 

is located in north Ohio. Its high magnitude impairment sources include major municipal 

point source, highway/bridge/sewer line pollution and land development/suburbanization. 

The Rocky River Watershed has 48 miles of stream and 21,318 acres of wetland 

associated with the watershed. It is anticipated that approximately 792 linear feet (or 

0.15 mile) of channel and 0.007 acre of wetland will potentially be impacted for this 

capacity improvement. Therefore, no negative impact to water quality is expected due to 

this action.

Construct Paget Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QEQE110.8 to

QE 112.9.

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature. 

Construct Powell Road Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QE 125.1

to QE 127.1.

This capacity improvement is located within the Scioto River Watershed (HUC # 

0506001) which drains south to the Ohio River. The watershed basin encompasses 6, 

517 square miles in central and south-central Ohio. Its high magnitude impairment 

sources include municipal point source, non-irrigated crop production and land 

development/suburbanization. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-30

October 2010

The Scioto River within the project area is at full attainment of its aquatic life use 

designation of Modified Warm Water Habitat (MWH). The water supply uses include 

industrial and agricultural water supply. The river is considered primary contact water for 

recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-09).

This river system drains Ohio’s first and sixth most rapidly populating counties -

Delaware and Morrow, respectively. Delaware County’s most rapidly developing 

townships - Delaware, Liberty and Orange - overlap the river’s State Scenic River 

section. Areas of the Whetstone Creek sub-watershed, located within Morrow County,

are designated as Exceptional Warm Water Habitat (EWH) with two tributaries being 

designated as Coldwater Habitat (CWH). Approximately two miles of the Olentangy 

River is designated as EWH within Franklin County. This area is currently receiving the 

greatest pressure for development within Franklin County’s portion of the watershed.

As a result, Ohio EPA has developed an alternative general permit for storm water 

associated with construction activity specific for portions of the Olentangy River and Big 

Darby Creek watersheds. This alternative permit implements many of the basic 

recommendations regarding the programs, activities and Best Management Practices 

developed through the Total Maximum Daily Load process, the State Water Quality 

Management Plan and the 208 plan for the Big Darby Creek Watershed. These plans 

usually require mitigation for impacts to buffer zones adjacent to the waters within the 

watershed and mitigation in the Big Darby Creek watershed for impacts to groundwater. 

Ohio EPA believes implementation of these recommendations is necessary to protect 

the unique water quality and biological integrity of the Olentangy River and the Big Darby 

Creek watersheds.

The Scioto River Watershed contains the Olentangy State Scenic River and the Big 

Darby State and National Scenic River. It should be noted that capacity improvement 

area, Construct Paget Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QEQE110.8 to 

QE 112.9, Construct Powell Road Siding on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision from QE 

125.1 to QE 127.1., and Construct universal crossovers between CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivision and NS Dayton District at Weber Road QE/CJ 134.4., are located within the 

Olentangy River Watershed. Additionally, Gorgan yard and part of Grandview yard are 

also located within the Olentangy River Watershed, Figure 3-1. 

The Scioto River Watershed which encompasses the Olentangy and Big Darby contain 

approximately 398 miles of stream and 73,718 acres of wetlands. It is anticipated that 

approximately 183 linear feet (or 0.03 mile) of channel and 0.2 acre of wetland will 

potentially be impacted for this capacity improvement. Therefore, no negative impact to 

water quality is expected due to this action.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-31

October 2010

Figure 3-3 Lower Olentangy River, Big and Little Darby Creek Watershed Boundaries
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-32

October 2010

Construct universal crossovers between CSX Columbus Line Subdivision and NS

Dayton District at Weber Road QE/CJ 134.4.

This capacity improvement is also located within the Scioto River Watershed (HUC # 

0506001) there will be an anticipated impact of 71 linear feet. No additional wetland 

impacts are anticipated for this capacity improvement. Therefore, no negative impact to 

water quality is expected due to this action.

Construct Columbus Station Track at CP 138 on CSX Columbus Line Subdivision/ 

NS Dayton District.

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature. 

Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 172.5 (Plattsburg) to

CJ 177.7 (near Brooks).

This capacity improvement is located within the Great Miami River Watershed (HUC # 

05080002) which drains to the Ohio River and covers 5,373 square miles in southwest 

Ohio. Its high magnitude impairment sources include industrial point sources, landfills, 

and contaminated sediments. 

The Mad River within the project area has an aquatic life use designation of WWH. The 

water supply uses include industrial and agricultural water supply. The river is 

considered a primary contact water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-21).

The Great Miami River Watershed which encompasses the Mad River and Warden Ditch 

contain approximately 232 miles of stream and 45,826 acres of wetlands. It is 

anticipated that approximately 4,530 linear feet (or 0.86 mile) of channel and 0.246 acre 

of wetland will potentially be impacted for this capacity improvement. Therefore, no 

negative impact to water quality is expected due to this action.

Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 187.0 (near Cold

Springs) to CJ 193.0 (near Enon).

The Great Miami River Watershed (HUC # 05080002) drains to the Ohio River and 

covers 5,373 square miles in southwest Ohio. Its high magnitude impairment sources 

include industrial point sources, landfills, and contaminated sediments. Capacity 

Improvements #10 and 11, and the Dayton: Union Station site ID (#22) contain portions 

of the Great Miami River and the Mad River, which drains to the Great Miami River. 

The Great Miami River within the project area has an aquatic life use designation of 

WWH. The water supply uses include industrial and agricultural water supply. The river 

is considered a primary contact water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-21).

The Mad River within the project area has an aquatic life use designation of WWH. The 

water supply uses include industrial and agricultural water supply. The river is 

considered a primary contact water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-21).

This capacity improvement is also located within the Great Miami River Watershed (HUC 

# 05080002) there will be an anticipated impact of 1,092 linear feet of channel and 2.8 

acres of wetlands. Therefore, no negative impact to water quality is expected due to this 

action.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-33

October 2010

Construct second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 202.1 (near Wrights)

to CJ 208.5 (Miami River Bridge) and from CJ 208.6 to CJ 209.8 (near Moraine

Yard).

The Great Miami River Watershed (HUC # 05080002) drains to the Ohio River and 

covers 5,373 square miles in southwest Ohio. Its high magnitude impairment sources 

include industrial point sources, landfills, and contaminated sediments. This capacity 

improvement contains portions of the Great Miami River and the Mad River, which 

drains to the Great Miami River. 

The Great Miami River within the project area has an aquatic life use designation of 

WWH. The water supply uses include industrial and agricultural water supply. The river 

is considered primary contact water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-21).

Warden Ditch occurs within this capacity improvement near Springfield, Ohio. Warden 

Ditch drains to Smith Ditch, which then drains to the Mad River. No water quality 

information regarding this waterway is available in the Ohio Administrative Code. 

This capacity improvement is also located within the Great Miami River Watershed (HUC 

# 05080002) there will be an anticipated impact of 518 linear feet of channel and 0.305 

acres of wetlands. Therefore, no negative impact to water quality is expected due to this 

action.

Create second main track on NS Dayton District from CJ 244.2 (CP 244) to IORY

Connection at CJ 248.8 (south of Sharonville Yard).

The Mill Creek Watershed (HUC # 05090203) drains to the Ohio River and 

encompasses 164 square miles in southwest Ohio. Its high magnitude impairment 

sources include industrial point source, major municipal point source and combined 

sewer overflow (CSO). This capacity improvement contains portions of Mill Creek and 

Sharon Creek, which drains to Mill Creek. 

Mill Creek within the project area has an aquatic life use designation of WWH. The 

water supply uses include Industrial and agricultural water supply. The creek is 

considered primary contact water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-30).

Sharon Creek within the project area has an aquatic life use designation of WWH. The 

water supply uses include Industrial and agricultural water supply. The creek is 

considered a primary contact water for recreation purposes (OAC 3745-1-30).

The Mill Creek Watershed which encompasses Sharon Creek contain approximately 34 

miles of stream and 4,536 acres of wetlands. It is anticipated that approximately 3,984 

linear feet (or 0.75 mile) of channel and 2.2 acre of wetland will potentially be impacted 

for this capacity improvement. Therefore, no negative impact to water quality is expected 

due to this action.

3.2.6.2 Stations

Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature. This station falls within the 

Lake Erie watershed which is comprised of all rivers systems in the state that drain north 

to Lake Erie. However, Lake Erie itself is designated as an Exceptional Warm Water 

Habitat (EWH) river and contains superior high quality water. Water supply uses include 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-34

October 2010

public water supply, agricultural water supply, industrial water supply and bathing waters 

(OAC 3745-1-31). Additionally, this site is located within the Ohio Costal Management 

Zone and will be required to adhere to the regulations set forth under ORC 1506, 1507-

1521, and attain all permits required under the Lake Erie Costal Management Plan.

West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA Site, Southwest Cleveland

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature.

Convention Center Site, Columbus

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature.

Downtown Station Site, Springfield (phased)

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature.

Riverside Site, East Dayton (phased)

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature.

Main Street Site, Dayton

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature.

Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati

No impacts are anticipated for this site so there should be no impact to the Mill Creek 

watershed based on potential activities at this site.

Lunken Airport Site, Cincinnati

No water features were found within this capacity improvement section so there will be 

no impacts to any waterways associated with this feature.

3.2.3.2 Rail Yards

No new construction will occur at these locations on areas not otherwise already 

developed as rail yards; therefore no impacts will occur to water features located near 

these locations.

3.2.3.3 Potential Impacts

Wetlands impacts were derived utilizing field verification. When access to an area was 

not attainable aerial photographs, soils maps with hydric soil verifications, OWI, and NWI 

maps were utilized when determining wetland boundaries. Since some wetlands were 

placed on the map without verifying plant communities it is anticipated that there may be 

a reduction in wetland size once site access is granted and a full delineation of the 

wetlands can occur. Of the 90,651.29 acres of wetlands located within the watersheds 

assessed it is anticipated that a total of 13.66 acres of wetlands could be impacted by 

the development of the proposed capacity improvements (see Table 3-12 for wetland 

impacts). 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-35

October 2010

The preliminary ORAM scoring was based on size, location, and general features of the 

wetland areas. Since water levels, special features and vegetation could not be field 

verified on some of the wetlands evaluated, the ORAM scores should be treated as an 

approximation of the wetland features found. When site access is available full ORAM 

scoring forms can be provided. 

Waterbody and waterway impacts are anticipated at capacity improvement locations 

along the 3C Corridor. Of the 894.6 miles of streams located within the watersheds 

assessed it is anticipated that a total of 18,258 linear feet (or 3.45 miles) of channel 

could be impacted by the development of the proposed capacity improvements (see 

Table 3-12 for stream impacts).

Table 3-11 Summary of Wetland or Waterbody Impact by Improvement and Station

Improvement or Station Wetland 

Impacts

Waterbody 

Impacts Watershed

Capacity Improvement

Construct second main track 

on CSX Greenwich 

Subdivision from CP 54 

(Boyd) to CP 71 (south of 

Shelby)

0.64 acre

6,570 linear 

feet 

(or 1.24 miles)

Mohican, Huron, and Vermillion 

Watersheds

Total Rivers/Streams 183 miles

Total Wetlands 18,971 acres

Rehabilitate and extend 

Edison siding on CSX 

Columbus Line Subdivision 

QE 90.8 to QE 93.9

0.007 acre 792 linear feet

(or 0.15 mile)

Rocky River 

Total Rivers/Streams 48 miles

Total Wetlands 21,318

Construct Paget Siding on 

CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivision from QEQE110.8 

to QE 112.9

0 0

Rocky River 

Total Rivers/Streams 48 miles

Total Wetlands 21,318

Construct Powell Road Siding 

on CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivision from QE 125.1 to 

QE 127.1

0.2 acre 183 linear feet

(or 0.03 mile)

Scioto River Watershed 

(encompasses Olentangy and Big 

Darby)

Total Rivers/Streams 398 miles

Total Wetlands 73,718

Construct universal 

crossovers between CSX 

Columbus Line Subdivision 

and NS Dayton District at 

Weber Road QE/CJ 134.4

0 71 linear feet

(or 0.01 mile)

Scioto River Watershed 

(encompasses Olentangy and Big 

Darby)

Total Rivers/Streams 398 miles

Total Wetlands 73,718

Construct Columbus Station 

Track at CP 138 on CSX 

Columbus Line 

Subdivisions/NS Dayton 

District

0 0

Scioto River Watershed 

(encompasses Olentangy and Big 

Darby)

Total Rivers/Streams 398 miles

Total Wetlands 73,718

Construct second main track 

on NS Dayton District from CJ 

172.5 (Plattsburg) to CJ 177.7 

(near Brooks)

0.246 acre

4,530 linear 

feet

(or 0.86 mile)

Great Miami River Watershed 

(encompasses Mad River and 

Warden Ditch)

Total Rivers/Streams 232 miles

Total Wetlands 45,826

Construct second main track 

on NS Dayton District from CJ 

187.0 (near Cold Springs) to 

CJ 193.0 (near Enon)

2.8 acres

1,092 linear 

feet

(or 0.20 mile)

Great Miami River Watershed 

(encompasses Mad River and 

Warden Ditch)

Total Rivers/Streams 232 miles

Total Wetlands 45,826
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-36

October 2010

Improvement or Station Wetland 

Impacts

Waterbody 

Impacts Watershed

Construct second main track 

on NS Dayton District from CJ 

202.1 (near Wrights) to CJ 

208.5 (Miami River Bridge) 

and from CJ 208.6 to CJ 

209.8 (near Moraine Yard)

0.305 acre 518 linear feet

(or 0.10 mile)

Great Miami River Watershed 

(encompasses Mad River and 

Warden Ditch)

Total Rivers/Streams 232 miles

Total Wetlands 45,826

Create second main track on 

NS Dayton District from CJ 

244.2 (CP 244) to IORY 

Connection at CJ 248.8 

(south of Sharonville Yard)

2.2 acre

3,984 linear 

feet

(or 0.75 mile)

Mill Creek Watershed (encompasses 

Sharon Creek)

Total Rivers/Streams 33.6 miles

Total Wetlands 4,536 acres

Station

Lakefront Amtrak Station, 

Cleveland 0 0 Lake Erie

West 150th Street/Puritas 

Avenue/GCRTA Site, 

Southwest Cleveland

0 0 Lake Erie

Convention Center Site, 

Columbus

0 0 Scioto River

Downtown Station Site, 

Springfield (phased) 0 0 Great Miami River

Riverside Site, East Dayton 

(phased) 0 0 Great Miami River

Main Street Site, Dayton 0 0 Great Miami RIver

Kemper Road Site, North 

Cincinnati 0 0 Mill Creek Watershed

Lunken Airport Site, 

Cincinnati 0 0 Ohio River

Based on the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that there will be low

impacts to wetlands and waterbodies within the proposed project area. Since anticipated 

mitigation measures will be taken, no negative impacts to overall water quality will occur.

3.2.3.4 Conclusions

Under Tier 2 coordination an avoidance and minimization analysis will be conducted to 

determine if the project can reduce its proposed impacts to wetlands and waterbodies. 

Avoidance is when the project has been designed to avoid impacts to wetlands and 

waterbodies to the extent practicable to still accomplish the projects goals. After the 

avoidance analysis has been conducted a Minimization analyses for project impacts 

must be assessed to determine where design elements can reduce effect and still 

accomplish the projects goals. 

Compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and waterbodies will be conducted in 

accordance with 33 CFR 332.2 and Ohio’s anti-degradation rule OAC 3745-1-54. 

Compensatory mitigation for wetlands typically includes creation, restoration, 

enhancement and/or a combination of all three so that there is a no net loss to wetlands 

within the same watershed. Mitigation for streams usually requires restoration or 

rehabilitation of existing streams within the same watershed. Prior to the 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-37

October 2010

commencement of any construction all required permits will be obtained and mitigating 

measures will be outlined and agreed upon with the regulatory authority.

3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

To evaluate the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on State and Federallylisted protected species, the following activities were conducted:

• A review of the April 2009 the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) list of 

Federally-Listed Species by County in Ohio, which indicates endangered, 

threatened, candidate, species of concern and critical habitat.

• A review of the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s (ODNR) Natural Heritage 

Database for State listed species (endangered, threatened, potentially 

threatened and species of concern and special interest) located within one mile 

of the project area.

The project consists of the various individual capacity improvement projects along the 

corridor as well as the eight station locations. Railroad yards were examined; however 

no new construction beyond yard limits is anticipated. 

No field work was performed specific to protected species or their possible habitats. 

However data on general project area conditions obtained from other research was 

considered where applicable. Consultation with the USFWS is required for any effect 

(even beneficial) to Federally-listed threatened or endangered species, or suitable 

habitat (i.e Indiana bat). As each individual improvement project and station is evaluated 

with more detailed field information, projects with effects will require consultation the 

USFWS. 

Table 3-13 provides an overview of the State and Federally-listed species that have 

been recorded within one mile of the new station or capacity improvement locations as 

well as the Federally-listed species that are possible in each project area county. Also 

included are the species where site-specific surveys would likely be conducted during 

Tier 2 environmental documentation. Refer to Appendix F for more detailed species 

descriptions, official protection status and occurrence information in relation to the 

various improvements. 

Table 3-12 Summary of State and Federally-Listed Species by Improvement and Station

County Improvement or 

Station

State and Federallylisted species 

recorded within 1 

mile of project 

feature

Federally- listed 

species 

possible in the 

county

Site specific 

survey/agency 

coordination 

recommendatio

ns

Capacity Improvement

Richland

Construct second main 

track on CSX 

Greenwich Subdivision 

from CP 54 (Boyd) to 

CP 71 (south of Shelby)

Nodding RattlesnakeRoot

Indiana Bat, Bald 

Eagle, and 

Eastern 

Hellbender 

Nodding 

RattlesnakeRoot, Indiana 

Bat, and Eastern 

Hellbender

Morrow

Rehabilitate and extend 

Edison siding on CSX 

Columbus Line 

Subdivision QE 90.8 to 

QE 93.9

None

Indiana Bat and 

Bald Eagle Indiana Bat
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-38

October 2010

County Improvement or 

Station

State and Federallylisted species 

recorded within 1 

mile of project 

feature

Federally- listed 

species 

possible in the 

county

Site specific 

survey/agency 

coordination 

recommendatio

ns

Delaware

Construct Paget Siding 

on CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivision from 

QEQE110.8 to QE 

112.9

None

Indiana Bat, 

Clubshell

Mussel, Snuffbox 

Mussel, Rayed 

Bean Mussel 

and Bald Eagle

Indiana Bat 

Delaware and 

Franklin

Construct Powell Road 

Siding on CSX 

Columbus Line 

Subdivision from QE 

125.1 to QE 127.1

Spotted Coral-Root

Indiana Bat, 

Clubshell 

Mussel, Scioto 

Madtom, 

Northern 

Riffleshell, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Rayed Bean 

Mussel, and Bald 

Eagle 

Indiana Bat 

Franklin

Construct universal 

crossovers between 

CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivision and NS 

Dayton District at 

Weber Road QE/CJ 

134.4

Bluebreast Darter

Indiana Bat, 

Clubshell 

Mussel, Scioto 

Madtom, 

Northern 

Riffleshell, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Rayed Bean 

Mussel, and Bald 

Eagle

Indiana Bat 

Franklin

Construct Columbus 

Station Track at CP 138 

on CSX Columbus Line 

Subdivisions/NS 

Dayton District

Pondhorn Mussel 

and Peregrine Falcon

Indiana Bat, 

Clubshell 

Mussel, Scioto 

Madtom, 

Northern 

Riffleshell, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Rayed Bean 

Mussel, and Bald 

Eagle

None

Clark

Construct second main 

track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 172.5 

(Plattsburg) to CJ 177.7 

(near Brooks)

None

Indiana Bat, 

Eastern Prairie 

Fringed Orchid 

and Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake 

Indiana Bat, 

Eastern Prairie 

Fringed Orchid 

and Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake

Clark

Construct second main 

track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 187.0 

(near Cold Springs) to 

CJ 193.0 (near Enon)

Tonguetied Minnow

Indiana Bat, 

Eastern Prairie 

Fringed Orchid 

and Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake

Indiana Bat, 

Eastern Prairie 

Fringed Orchid 

and Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-39

October 2010

County Improvement or 

Station

State and Federallylisted species 

recorded within 1 

mile of project 

feature

Federally- listed 

species 

possible in the 

county

Site specific 

survey/agency 

coordination 

recommendatio

ns

Montgomery 

and Greene

Construct second main 

track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 202.1 

(near Wrights) to CJ 

208.5 (Miami River 

Bridge) and from CJ 

208.6 to CJ 209.8 (near 

Moraine Yard)

Yellow-Crowned 

Night-Heron, Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake, River 

Redhorse, Plains 

Clubtail, Pondhorn 

Mussel, Lesser 

Ladies'-Tresses, 

Indiana Bat, 

Peregrine Falcon, 

Elktoe Mussel and 

Bald Eagle

Indiana Bat, 

Clubshell 

Mussel, Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Rayed Bean 

Mussel and Bald 

Eagle

All species listed 

Hamilton

Create second main 

track on NS Dayton 

District from CJ 244.2 

(CP 244) to IORY 

Connection at CJ 248.8 

(south of Sharonville 

Yard)

Missouri Gooseberry 

and Deam's ThreeSeeded Mercury

Indiana Bat, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Sheepnose 

Mussel, Bald 

Eagle and 

Running Buffalo 

Clover

Missouri 

Gooseberry, 

Deam's ThreeSeeded Mercury, 

Indiana Bat and 

Running Buffalo 

Clover

Station

Cuyahoga Lakefront Amtrak 

Station, Cleveland

No new construction will occur at this location; therefore no 

impacts will occur to state or federally- listed species. 

Cuyahoga

West 150th

Street/Puritas 

Avenue/GCRTA Site, 

Southwest Cleveland

No new construction will occur at this location; therefore no 

impacts will occur to state or federally- listed species. 

Franklin

Convention Center Site, 

Columbus

No new construction will occur at this location on areas not 

otherwise already developed; therefore no impacts will occur 

to state or federally- listed species.

Clark Downtown Station Site, 

Springfield (phased) Tonguetied Minnow

Indiana Bat, 

Eastern Prairie 

Fringed Orchid 

and Eastern 

Massasauga

Rattlesnake

None

Montgomery Riverside Site, East 

Dayton (phased)

Indiana Bat and Bald 

Eagle

Indiana bat, 

Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Rayed Bean 

Mussel and Bald 

Eagle

Indiana Bat , 

Bald Eagle and 

Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake

Montgomery Main Street Site, 

Dayton

Peregrine Falcon and 

Elktoe Mussel

Indiana Bat, 

Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Rayed Bean 

Mussel and Bald 

Eagle

None
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-40

October 2010

County Improvement or 

Station

State and Federallylisted species 

recorded within 1 

mile of project 

feature

Federally- listed 

species 

possible in the 

county

Site specific 

survey/agency 

coordination 

recommendatio

ns

Hamilton Kemper Road Site, 

North Cincinnati

Missouri Gooseberry 

and Deam's ThreeSeeded Mercury

Indiana Bat, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Sheepnose 

Mussel, Bald 

Eagle and 

Running Buffalo 

Clover

Missouri 

Gooseberry, 

Deam's ThreeSeeded Mercury, 

Indiana Bat and 

Running Buffalo 

Clover

Hamilton Lunken Airport Site, 

Cincinnati

Loggerhead Shrike 

and River Darter

Indiana Bat, 

Snuffbox Mussel, 

Sheepnose 

Mussel, Bald 

Eagle and 

Running Buffalo 

Clover

Running Buffalo 

Clover

3.2.4.1 Conclusion

Ohio has 22 federally listed endangered, threatened and candidate species. Additionally, 

there are numerous other species listed “species of concern” with the Bald Eagle being 

perhaps the most familiar. Based on a review of the county lists and new station or 

capacity improvement locations, seven federally listed endangered, threatened and 

candidates species and four Federal species of concern were evaluated. 

Of the 279 species that the ODNR lists as either State - endangered, threatened or 

species of concern, 19 species have been recorded within one mile of a proposed new 

station or capacity improvement. 

The Natural Heritage Database search revealed that there are no occurrences or 

records of State or Federally-listed species identified within any of the proposed station 

areas or capacity improvement areas. However, the search did reveal at least one 

record of State and/or Federally-listed species within one mile of five of the proposed 

station locations and seven of the ten capacity improvement areas. Per ODOT’s 

standard procedures, additional survey during Tier 2 environmental documentation will 

likely be required for the station areas and capacity improvement areas indicated on 

Table 3-13. 

While not expected, if trees possessing suitable Indiana bat habitat will be impacted, the 

level of impact will be determined and the appropriate avoidance and minimization 

techniques will be used to minimize impacts to the species. Prior to construction of any 

project affecting the Indiana bat, consultation will be required with the USFWS in 

accordance with the Biological Opinion on ODOT’s Statewide Transportation Program 

for the federally-listed Indiana Bat, (June 2007). Similarly, any project affecting a 

federally listed mussel species will undergo consultation with the USFWS prior to 

construction. Lastly, in the case of the Bald Eagle, coordination will likely need to occur 

with ODNR and the USFWS to develop a plan to ensure that the species will not be 

harmed or harassed during construction of, or as a result of, the proposed project.

The No-Build Alternative would not affect State or Federally-listed species.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-41

October 2010

3.3 Human Environment

3.3.1 Transportation

Existing transportation options and operations within the 3C Corridor were identified. 

The available options are freight rail, bus transit, and roadways. Passenger rail is not 

currently available within the 3C Corridor. 

3.3.1.1 Existing Conditions

Freight Rail Operations 

Existing freight traffic in this corridor is mainly operated by Norfolk-Southern Railroad 

and CSX Transportation. Several other shortline and regional operators either utilize or 

cross various parts of the corridor as well. These carriers include the Wheeling & Lake 

Erie Railroad, RJ Corman Railroad, Ashland Railway Company, Indiana and Ohio 

Railway, and the Chicago, Fort Wayne & Eastern Railroad.

Freight railroads in Ohio annually originate and terminate more than 170 million tons of 

freight. When through trains are considered, the freight increases to more than 315 

million tons and nearly 7 million carloads. These freight rail carriers haul raw materials, 

parts, and finished goods for the energy, construction, automotive, agriculture, 

distribution and trade industries. They employ more that 8,000 workers and pay 

approximately $500 million in wages across the state. 

The largest category of shipments is more than 45 million tons of coal terminated at 

coal-fired electric utility plants throughout Ohio. Railroads support other key Ohio 

industries, including agriculture, construction, automotive, and distribution and retailing 

of consumer goods. The railroads also haul bulk minerals, ores, and construction stone 

that are impractical to move by truck. 

Passenger Rail

Inter-city passenger rail service does not exist in the 3C corridor. In fact, the 3C Corridor

is the most densely populated corridor in the United States without inter-city passenger 

service. Three current Amtrak routes provide service to locations within Ohio’s 3C 

Corridor. They are: 

• Lake Shore Limited between New York and Chicago (serving Cleveland)

• Capitol Limited between Chicago and Washington D.C. (serving Cleveland)

• Cardinal/Hoosier State between Washington D.C. and Chicago (serving 

Cincinnati)

Existing transit operators have expressed support of passenger rail in the 3C Corridor. 

Operators have indicated their willingness to work on connections to use their existing 

and future network lines.

Cleveland is the only city in Ohio that provides local passenger rail transportation. The 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) operates a series of heavy rail, 

light rail, Bus Rapid Transit and trolley lines that serve the city and its surrounding areas. 

The Preferred Alternative would be well connected to this system with a shared station 

location on the GCRTA Red Line in southwest Cleveland and a shared location on the 

Green Trolley Line downtown.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-42

October 2010

The cities of Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati all have rail transportation plans under 

various stages of development. The Preferred Alternative has also been developed with 

long-term coordination of these efforts in mind.

Regional Roadway Network

For vehicular traffic, I-71 is the most direct route between Cleveland and Cincinnati. 

This route is approximately 240 miles. The typical vehicular trip between Cleveland and 

Cincinnati using this direct route takes between four and five hours accounting for traffic 

and stops for rest, food or gas.

Connecting to Dayton from Cleveland would require traveling on I-70 and I-675 from 

Columbus and linking to I-75 to make the connection south to Cincinnati. Connection to 

downtown Dayton would require using the US 35 expressway between I-675 and I-75. 

This route would add approximately 20 miles to the vehicular route for an approximate 

whole-corridor total of 260 miles. This routing could add as much as an hour to the 

overall trip by car for a total one way trip between five and six hours.

Other Transportation Options

Inter-city bus transportation is provided in the corridor by Greyhound Lines, Inc. and 

other smaller carriers operate bus service in the 3C Corridor. Of the 31 Greyhound 

service locations in Ohio, 17 are located within or very near to the broad project area 

used in the Level 1 route screening (Table 2-1). Scheduled one-way travel times 

between Cleveland and Cincinnati range between four hours and forty minutes and five 

hours and thirty minutes with one way fares approximately 50 dollars.

3.3.1.2 3C Corridor Station Locations and Local Amenities

Identified station locations on the Preferred Alternative have been identified with basic 

service needs in mind. These include available parking, space available for a passenger 

platforms and station buildings and connections to the local multi-modal transportation 

system.

• Cleveland: Both downtown and suburban locations are shared rail station 

locations with other providers. Parking and access to other local transit and 

roadway facilities are readily available. The preferred downtown location is the 

Amtrak station for existing service and the southwest Cleveland location would 

be co-located with an existing rail transit station.

• Columbus: The Convention Center location downtown provides more than 

adequate parking and connection to transit and roadway networks. The facility 

was originally constructed without the ability to accommodate a future passenger 

station.

• Springfield: The preferred station location (phased) provides connections to all 

local modes of transportation, including a nearby link to the area’s renowned 

bicycle/pedestrian network. Ample parking is also available.

• Dayton: The East Dayton location (phased) provides a direct link to the United 

State Air Force Museum, which is Ohio’s largest free tourist attraction. Ample 

parking and connections to other modes are readily available at both East 

Dayton and downtown locations.

• Cincinnati: Both North Cincinnati and Lunken Airport station locations on the 

Preferred Alternative serve densely populated areas. Ample parking and easy 

connections to the local multi-modal transportation system are easily made. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-43

October 2010

3.3.1.3 Potential Impacts

The Preferred Alternative would have a positive impact on access and mobility in Ohio 

by offering a safe and convenient choice for commuters, residents and, tourists who 

otherwise rely primarily on vehicular travel. 

Other potential impacts such as increased traffic and demand for parking at assumed 

station locations would be minimal. Proposed station locations in Cleveland, Southwest 

Cleveland, Columbus, East Dayton, Dayton, and North Cincinnati already have ample 

parking available on-site. Springfield and Cincinnati station locations have ample space 

to develop necessary parking to serve those facilities. The station sites are located in 

urban and sub-urban neighborhoods and the local communities are working to 

accommodate any additional traffic as a result of passenger rail service coming to the 

corridor.

If it is determined that further site specific studies are necessary to better define impacts 

and mitigation strategies for assumed station areas, that work will be undertaken as part 

of Tier 2 environmental documentation efforts for this project.

In addition, a number of safety improvements at assumed station locations would also 

be realized as part of this project. This includes lighting, sidewalks, security cameras 

and traffic signals, if warranted.

3.3.1.4 Conclusions

The Preferred Alternative would require some coordination with freight rail operators 

within the corridor. A number of logistical issues would need to be addressed, 

particularly in the urban areas of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. However, 

passenger rail planning efforts have been in various stages of development over the last 

30 years. Those issues are well-defined and there has been coordination between 

government officials on the state and local levels and freight operators in Ohio. Existing 

transit operators have indicated they would be willing to work on connections to use their 

existing and future network lines.

The No-Build Alternative would not directly impact freight rail operations, however the 

possible mutual benefits of the capacity improvements required by the Build Alternative 

would not be realized.

The No-Build Alternative would not directly impact existing passenger (Amtrak) and 

commuter rail (GCRTA) operations, however the possible future mutual benefits of the 

capacity improvements required by the Build Alternative would not be realized.

No-Build Alternative would result in some impact the interstate corridors in the 3C 

Corridor. Over time, vehicular congestion would increase on the roads and highways 

between Cleveland and Cincinnati. An alternate form of transportation, intercity 

passenger rail, would not be available to residents and visitors in Ohio’s largest cities.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-44

October 2010

3.3.2 Land Use

The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail Corridor is approximately 260 miles long and 

connects the four largest cities in Ohio (Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati).

Initial service includes stops at six locations (Cleveland, Southwest Cleveland, 

Columbus, Dayton, North Cincinnati, and Cincinnati), with two additional stations to be 

phased in at a later date (Springfield and East Dayton). Potential station locations were 

identified through previous studies, community input, and project team analysis. 

Existing land uses within the corridor and surrounding the station locations were

identified through review of available aerial photography and field reviews. .

3.3.2.1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions

The existing 3C Corridor traverses the state of Ohio from northeast to the southwest, 

passing through 15 counties and numerous communities as noted below:

• Cuyahoga County: Cleveland, Berea 

• Lorain County: Olmstead Falls, Eaton, Grafton, LaGrange, Wellington, Rochester

• Huron County: New London, Greenwich

• Richland County: Shiloh, Shelby

• Crawford County: Crestline, Galion

• Morrow County: Cardington

• Delaware County: Ashley

• Franklin County: Worthington, Columbus

• Madison County: West Jefferson, London

• Clark County: Plattsburg, Springfield, Green Meadows, Holiday Valley

• Greene County: Fairborn

• Montgomery County: Riverside, Dayton, Moraine, West Carrollton, Miamisburg

• Warren County: Chautauqua, Carlisle

• Butler County: Middletown, West Chester

• Hamilton County: Sharonville, Evendale, Reading, Cincinnati

Land development patterns along the approximately 260-mile existing rail corridor vary 

from urban, suburban, exurban, and rural development. The land use mix in rural and 

suburban areas tends to be consistent; the land use mix for urban station areas varies 

from location to location. 

As noted above, eight station locations are under consideration for the Quick Start 

project (Cleveland, Southwest Cleveland, Columbus, East Dayton, Dayton, Springfield, 

North Cincinnati, and Cincinnati). The land use characteristics of the proposed station 

sites are described below. With the exception of the Riverside Site in East Dayton, 

stations would be situated in locations with high development densities. 

Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland

The existing Lakefront Amtrak Station is located between the dense urban mixed-use 

area of downtown Cleveland and Lake Erie. Downtown Cleveland is home to several 

regional and national headquarters, including Eaton and BP. The Lakefront Area is 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-45

October 2010

home to several venues including the Cleveland Browns Stadium (National Football 

League), the Cleveland Science Center, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum

and Voinovich Park. The proposed station site is now used by AMTRAK for the Lake 

Shore Limited and Capitol Limited routes. The Lakefront Amtrak station is shown in 

Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-4. A large surface parking area currently serves the 

AMTRAK station and the Greater Cleveland Rapid Transit Authority Waterfront Light Rail 

Line., US Route 6 is to the north as is Burke Lakefront Airport. To the south of the 

station site are office buildings and employee surface parking lots. 

Figure 3-4 Aerial of Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland

Figure 3-5 Facing East from the Lakefront 

Amtrak Station

Figure 3-6 Facing Lakefront Amtrak Station 

from Tracks
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-46

October 2010

West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA, Cleveland. 

The West 150thStreet/Puritas Ave/GCRTA Ssite is located near the intersection of West 

150th Street and West 154th Street. Like the Lakefront AMTRAK Station site, the parcel is 

currently used as a rail station supporting GCRTA’s Red Line light rail transit route. The 

site includes a large surface parking area as shown in Figure 3-5 to Figure 3-7.

Adjacent land uses include industrial and office uses with access to I-71 to the south The 

site is bordered by railroad tracks and the RTA line to on the northwest side, beyond 

which is a residential subdevelopment. The I-71 corridor runs along the southern border 

of the property. Immediately southeast of the parking area is a hotel and to the north, 

land uses include a mix of commercial, office space, and industrial uses.

Figure 3-7 Aerial of West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA, Cleveland

Figure 3-8 Facing East from West 150th

Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA

Figure 3-9 Facing Soutwest from 

Neighborhood West of Station
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-47

October 2010

Convention Center Site, Columbus

The Columbus Convention Center station site is the site of the former `Columbus Union 

Station. The Convention Center, which was originally constructed in the 1980s, was 

originally designed to accommodate high speed rail. However, subsequent expansions 

of the, the building did not allow for these plans and renovations would now be required 

for construction of a rail station. As shown in Figure 3-8 to Figure 3-10, the proposed 

station location is situated within an urbanized area with connections to I-670, US 23, 

Ohio Central Way, High Street and Nationwide Boulevard. The station itself would be 

located between the convention center to the northwest and a hotel and a large surface 

parking lot to the southeast. While there are no residential uses in close proximity to the 

proposed station site, the location is within walking distance of the Arena District and the 

Short North Entertainment District. 

Figure 3-10 Aerial of Convention Center Site, Columbus

Figure 3-11 Facing Southwest from the 

North Side of the Tracks

Figure 3-12 Facing East from High Street
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-48

October 2010

Downtown Station Site, Springfield

This proposed station location is situated in Downtown Springfield adjacent to the 

Washington Street corridor. As shown in Figure 3-11 through Figure 3-13, the site is 

predominantly vacant with remnants of former structures present. One two-story building 

and a surface parking are lot are present on the site. The building and the parking area 

would not be affected by the project. The site is bordered by the rail line to the south, 

beyond which are industrial uses. To the west lies SR 72 with office buildings and 

surface parking lots. To the north are warehouses and a church. There is land to the 

east of the site which contains remnants of former rail facilities.

Figure 3-13 Aerial of Downtown Station Site, Springfield

Figure 3-14 Facing West, Downtown Station 

Site, Springfield 

Figure 3-15 Facing North Residential Areas, 

Downtown Station Site, Springfield
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-49

October 2010

Riverside Site, East Dayton

A station is proposed in East Dayton to serve nearby major destinations such as the US 

Air Force Museum, Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), and Wright State University. 

The site is predominantly vacant land as shown in Figure 3-14 through Figure 3-16. The 

site includes some wooded areas as well as pavement. To the north are industrial 

facilities and to the east of the site is a residential area. An area immediatey adjacent to 

site on the west has been subdivided but not yet developed. A hotel is located to the 

south beyond which is Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Vacant land is located to the 

west along the opposite side of Harshman Road.

Figure 3-16 Aerial of Riverside Site, East Dayton

Figure 3-17 Facing West Along Existing 

Railroad

Figure 3-18 Facing Southeast Towards 

Parking Lot, Residential Areas, and WrightPatterson Air Force Base
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-50

October 2010

Main Street Site, Dayton

A station is also proposed for Downtown Dayton along Main Street in the vicinity of the 

proposed Dayton Convention Center see Figure 3-17 through Figure 3-19. The Main 

Street site is currently the student parking lot for Sinclair Community College. 

Surrounding land uses include institutional (Sinclair Community College) to the north, 

office and surface parking to the east, industrial uses to the south, and parking areas 

and industrial uses to the west. 

Figure 3-19 Aerial of Main Street Site, Dayton

Figure 3-20 Facing North; Sinclair 

Community College; Residences

Figure 3-21 Facing South; Existing Elevated 

Railroad
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-51

October 2010

Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati 

The Kemper Road station site is located in Sharonville, near the intersection of Kemper 

Road and Reading Road. The site is currently used for surface parking. As shown in 

Figure 3-20 to Figure 3-22, the proposed station would be located in an industrial and 

office park. The site is adjacent to large commercial and industrial buildings to the 

south, north, and east, and mixed commercial and industrial uses between the rail 

corridor and Reading Road to the west.

Figure 3-22 Aerial of Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati

Figure 3-23 Facing South; Surface Parking 

for Rental Business

Figure 3-24 Facing East, Open Space
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-52

October 2010

Lunken Airport Site, Cincinnati

The proposed Lunken Airport site is located along Lunken Park Drive, roughly 1,000 feet 

west of the Cincinnati-Lunken Municipal Airport. Adjacent land uses include mixed 

residential and commercial development to the northwest of the rail corridor; industrial 

facilities to the northeast and east; and industrial and office space to the southeast as 

shown in Figure 3-23 and Figure 3-24. 

Figure 3-25 Aerial of Lunken Airpot Site, Cincinnati

Figure 3-26 Facing Southwest Along Existing 

Railroad and Industrial Uses
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-53

October 2010

3.3.2.2 Potential Impacts

The proposed 3C Quick Start Pproject would provide rail service within existing rail 

corridors. No property would be acquired for stations, yards, or capacity improvements 

needed to support 3C rail service. Proposed stations would be located on sites that are 

now used as transportation facilities or are currently vacant, with the exception of the 

Convention Center Site in Columbus. The convention center was originally designed to 

accommodate high speed rail and construction of a station at this location would achieve 

local economic development goals. Current land uses immediately adjacent to the 

proposed station locations include industrial and/or transportation–related facilities. The 

provision of rail service and development of stations in such areas would be compatible 

with or in support of current land uses.

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on the existing rail corridor or the 

surrounding land uses. 

3.3.2.3 Conclusions

The proposed action would result in very minor changes in existing land uses patterns, 

at station locations. The effect would be minimal because stations would be located 

within existing railroad right-of-way. Finally, as the proposed project would utilize 

existing active railroad lines along the entire 260-mile corridor, the project would not 

result in changes in land use, such as those that would occur with the construction of a 

new intrastate highway transportation facility.

3.3.3 Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations (EO 1994), directs federal agencies to "promote 

nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and provide minority and low-income communities access to public 

information on, and an opportunity for public participation in matters relating to human 

health or the environment." The EO directs agencies to use existing laws to ensure that 

when they act:

• They do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin;

• They identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income communities; 

and

• They provide opportunities for community input during the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, including input on potential effects 

and mitigation measures.

Executive Order 12898 does not define the terms “minority” or “low-income.” However, 

guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) describes these 

terms in the context of an environmental justice (EJ) analysis. These definitions are 

unique to EJ analysis and are the basis for the methodology that follows:

• Minority Individual - A Minority individual is classified by the US Census Bureau 

as belonging to one of the following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, 

Asian or Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic Origin), and Hispanic.

• Minority Populations - According to the CEQ Guidelines, minority populations 

should be identified where either (a) the minority population of the affected area 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-54

October 2010

exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area 

is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

• Low-income Population - Low-income populations are identified where 

individuals have incomes below the US Department of Health and Human 

Services poverty guidelines. A low-income population is either a group of lowincome individuals living in proximity to one another or a set of individuals who 

share common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.

3.3.3.1 Existing Conditions

The approximately 260-mile 3C Quick Start rail corridor passes through 15 counties and 

numerous communities as noted below:

• Cuyahoga County: Cleveland, Berea 

• Lorain County: Olmstead Falls, Eaton, Grafton, LaGrange, Wellington, Rochester

• Huron County: New London, Greenwich

• Richland County: Shiloh, Shelby

• Crawford County: Crestline, Galion

• Morrow County: Cardington

• Delaware County: Ashley

• Franklin County: Worthington, Columbus

• Madison County: West Jefferson, London

• Clark County: Plattsburg, Springfield, Green Meadows, Holiday Valley

• Greene County: Fairborn

• Montgomery County: Riverside, Dayton, Moraine, West Carrollton, Miamisburg

• Warren County: Chautauqua, Carlisle

• Butler County: Middletown, West Chester

• Hamilton County: Sharonville, Evendale, Reading, Cincinnati

The combined total population (2008 estimate) of all counties through which the 3C 

Passenger Rail Corridor passes is 5.4 million persons, roughly 48 percent of the total 

population of the State of Ohio. The percentage of minorities residing within each 

county averages 13.5 percent. Across the project area counties, this varies substantially 

from 3.2 percent (Morrow County) to 37.7 percent (Cuyahoga County). Consistent with 

national statistics, the counties with higher percentages of minority populations are those 

associated with large metropolitan areas, i.e., Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin 

(Columbus), Montgomery (Dayton), and Hamilton (Cincinnati). 

The percentage of people living below poverty within the state of Ohio is 13.1 percent. 

The percentage of people living below poverty within which the 3C Passenger Rail 

Corridor counties average 11.0 percent of the total population. Within the individual 

counties, the percentage ranges from 4.5 percent (Delaware County) to 16.2 percent 

(Franklin County). Several counties exceed the average in the project area counties: 

Cuyahoga (15.7), Richland (11.9 percent), Crawford (12.8 percent), Franklin (16.2 

percent), Clark (15.5 percent), Montgomery (14.8 percent), and Hamilton (13.0 percent). 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-55

October 2010

A review of census data (block level data) for the immediate area surrounding the 3C rail 

corridor shows that the corridor passes through areas where the percentage of minority 

population and/or the percentage of persons living below the poverty level exceed the 

state and corridor averages. 

In addition to review of census data and identification of communities and 

neighborhoods with EJ concerns, an extensive public outreach program has been 

implemented by ODOT and ORDC for this project. One function of the public outreach 

program is to provide a forum for collecting input on the project from all applicable state 

and federal agencies, railroads, local governments, transit agencies, local/

regional/statewide interest groups, and the general public. Efforts were made to actively 

engage all potentially affected stakeholders regardless of income, race, ethnicity, 

religion, sex, age, or disability in the project development process. Additionally, ODOT 

has ongoing discussions and coordination with individual communities in terms of their 

land use and development plans and will continue to work with them throughout project 

development and implementation. Section 4 discusses the public involvement and 

agency coordination efforts undertaken to date.

3.3.3.2 Potential Impacts

Given that the proposed undertaking is situated, for the most part, within an active 

railroad corridor, the impact on adjacent communities would be minimal and limited to 

areas where stations, yards, and sidings are proposed. For the proposed action, 

stations are proposed only within the urbanized areas, i.e., Cleveland, Southwest 

Cleveland, Columbus, Springfield (phased), East Dayton (phased), Dayton, North 

Cincinnati, and Cincinnati. These are described in Sections 2.5 and 3.3.2 of this EA and 

summarized in Table 3-8.

Table 3-13 Preferred Alternative Station Summary of EJ Screening

Service 

Location

Station 

Location Category Status Results of EJ Screening

CLEVELAND 1- Lakefront 

Amtrak Station

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Preferred 

Location

Poverty and minority community 

exceeding county levels between 

Davenport. Avenue and Lakeside 

Avenue. 

Uses existing AMTRAK Station with 

on-site parking.

SOUTHWEST 

CLEVELAND

2- West 150th

Street/Puritas 

Avenue/GCRT

A Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Preferred 

Location

No populations of concern in 

immediate vicinity of station.

Uses existing RTA station with onsite parking

COLUMBUS

15-

Convention 

Center Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Preferred 

Location

Poverty exceeds county levels for 

area surrounding station site. 

Site is within the Columbus 

Convention Center.

SPRINGFIELD 17- Downtown 

Station Site

Phased 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Phased 

(Future)

Poverty and minority community 

exceeding county levels areas

adjacent to site.

Poverty exceeds county levels for 

areas beyond the immediate station 

area. 

Site is situated on predominantly 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-56

October 2010

Service 

Location

Station 

Location Category Status Results of EJ Screening

undeveloped land.

EAST 

DAYTON

18-Riverside 

Site

Phased 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Phased 

(Future)

Poverty exceeds county levels for 

area surrounding station site. 

Site is located on undeveloped land.

DAYTON 21- Main 

Street Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Preferred 

Location

Poverty and minority community 

exceeding county levels areas 

adjacent to site. 

Surrounding area is developed for 

commercial/industrial uses.

NORTH 

CINCINNATI

26- Kemper 

Road Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Preferred 

Location

Minority community exceeding county

levels for one city block located 

across rail line and extending to 

Reading Road. 

Site is located on partially 

undeveloped land; development is 

limited to surface parking lots. 

CINCINNATI 28-Lunken 

Airport Site

Initial 

Proposed 

Quick Start

Preferred 

Location

Poverty exceeds county levels for 

area surrounding station site. 

Site and rail line are adjacent to EJ 

neighborhood. To the northwest. 

Cincinnati Municipal Airport is located 

directly southeast of rail corridor.

One rail station location is in close proximity to a neighborhood with poverty levels that 

exceed county and corridor thresholds and that is the Lunken Airport Site in Cincinnati. 

The proposed action would increase rail service in the corridor and add six service trains 

a day, each consisting of one locomotive, one non-powered control unit, and six cars. 

Today, the adjacent rail line carries less than one train per day. 

The proposed action is not anticipated to result in disproportionate impacts on minority 

or low-income populations in the study area. The proposed action does not require the 

acquisition of land or displacement of residences, businesses, or community facilities. 

Similarly, the project would not result in changes in air quality levels, substantial 

increases in ambient noise levels, or changes in access to neighborhoods, residential 

properties, commercial districts and community facilities. The proposed action would be 

wholly contained within existing railroad rights-of-way. Stations would be constructed at 

currently undeveloped locations or those that are currently used as transportation 

facilities with the exception of the proposed station at the Columbus Convention Center.

Disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or low income populations would not occur 

with the No-Build Alternative. However, Preferred Alternative would provide opportunities 

for increased public transportation choices of value to low-income residents not 

otherwise able to afford reliable personal transportation.

3.3.3.3 Conclusions

Many station locations are situated within areas where the percentages of people living 

below the poverty levels and percentage of minorities comprising the population exceed 

the county-wide levels. However, the project would not result in residential, business, or 

community facility displacements or impacts. The project would not result in degradation 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-57

October 2010

of air quality, substantial changes in ambient noise levels, or changes in access to 

neighborhoods, businesses, or community facilities and services.

The placement of stations in communities with EJ concerns could be beneficial to the 

affected communities and the low-income and minority populations residing within these 

communities. Several primary benefit include improved regional access to major 

metropolitan areas within the state of Ohio and the provision of an alternative form of 

transportation to highway or air travel. A key benefit of the 3C Quick Start Passenger 

Rail project is the employment opportunities created within the affected communities. 

Jobs would include those related to construction of the project as well as service-related 

jobs required to support 3C passenger rail service. Jobs would also be created through 

spin-off development in the areas surrounding the rail stations. 

3.3.4 Public Health and Safety

3.3.4.1 Existing Conditions

The 3C Corridor consists of operating passenger rail service over approximately 260

miles of existing freight rail lines between Cleveland and Cincinnati. The route crosses 

numerous two- to four-lane state and local roads. These crossings have various forms of 

control, from actively protected grade crossing predictor technology with gates and 

flashing light signals to passively protected lights- and bells-only crossing signals. The 

ORDC and freight railroad companies are working to upgrade and or grade-separate 

these crossings as funds become available to prevent collisions. The No-Build 

Alternative would not impact public health and safety. 

3.3.4.2 Potential Impacts

The Preferred Alternative would not have an appreciable negative impact on public 

health and safety by adding approximately four round trips on an existing, active rail line. 

Near downtown Cincinnati, freight traffic is more infrequent than on the remainder of the 

corridor.

3.3.4.3 Station Safety

Stations located along rail lines used for freight need to take precaution to protect the 

safety of the passenger waiting for their train. Standard safety precautions such as 

textured warning strips along platform edges, security cameras, public address system 

designed to articulate announcements in a noisy environment, properly designed lighting 

and adequate platform depth to allow passengers to stand away from active tracks will 

all be considered. Attention will be given to avoiding dark shadows or isolated and 

hidden areas in or around the station site. In some stations where freight trains operate 

next to the boarding platform, consideration will be given to keeping the platform closed 

to the public until the passenger train approaches.

3.3.4.4 Conclusions

All measures will be taken during the engineering design phases to meet or exceed all 

rail operation safety standards in this area as well as the remainder of the corridor. By 

diverting traffic from the interstate system and local roads between Ohio’s major cities, 

the Preferred Alternative is anticipated to help reduce the rate of congestion growth and 

improve safety on the roads and highway. Additional grade separations and railroad 

crossing upgrades would further minimize the potential for collisions. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-58

October 2010

3.3.5 Hazardous Materials

A screening level hazardous material survey was completed for the existing and 

potential station areas within the project area. Hazardous material conditions within the 

project area were surveyed using a limited approach of the guidance found in the 

American Society of Testing and Materials International (ASTM) guidance ASTM E1527-05. Survey activities for hazardous material conditions included: visual survey of 

existing conditions; review of government environmental databases; review of historic 

aerial photos; and review of SanbornTM fire insurance maps. Information provided in this 

section is intended as screening level information, and recommendations made for 

further study include the completion of full Phase I Environmental Site Assessments 

(ESA) in compliance with ASTM E-1527-05. Refer to Appendix G for additional 

information on hazardous materials. 

3.3.5.1 Existing Conditions

The following Preferred Alternative station sites were surveyed for obvious or suspect 

hazardous materials conditions.

(1) Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland

This site is an operating Amtrak station platform located just north of downtown 

Cleveland. The project proposes only to increase passenger rail service at this facility 

and no other physical changes. Because of this, hazardous material conditions are not 

a concern at this site.

(2) West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA Site, Southwest Cleveland

This site is an operating GCRTA passenger rail station platform located approximately 

2.25 miles northeast of downtown Cleveland. The project proposes only to increase 

passenger rail service at this facility and no other physical changes. Because of this, 

hazardous material conditions are not a concern at this site.

(15) Convention Center Site, Columbus

This site is currently a railroad facility containing up to four tracks running through a large 

urban trench through downtown Columbus. This site would be developed with some 

form of passenger serving structure. The items of potential environmental concern 

observed for this site include those found in the government database report, historic 

aerial photos and SanbornTM fire insurance maps that were reviewed because of the 

need to build upon the site. These resources indicated; the site was formerly a large rail 

yard from at least 1938 to 1971;3 and there are 61 locations with hazardous material 

concerns within one mile of the site that may have potential to affect the site.4

 These 

locations are shown in Appenix G. 

(17) Downtown Station Site, Springfield (phased)

This site is a large lot that has been cleared of other uses at least within the last five 

years, as evidenced by broken concrete from former foundations and portions of former 

sidewalks. The railroad track that would be part of the 3C corridor runs along this site’s 

 

3 Railroad yards often include large fuel tanks, heavy duty mechanical repair and material transfer operations, 

thereby increasing potential for site contamination from accidental releases or leaks.

4 It is important to note that although a number of off site locations may be shown in the environmental database 

report, some or all may not represent environmental concerns, because of distance, groundwater flow direction 

away or past the site, or closure status.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-59

October 2010

southern extent and one two story building is located at the site’s western side with its 

parking area at the site’s far western extent. This site would be developed with some 

form of passenger serving structure. The items of potential environmental concern 

observed for this site include those found in the government database report, historic 

aerial photos and fire insurance maps that were reviewed because of the need to build 

upon the site. These resources indicated: the site was a rail yard from at least 1910 to 

1971; factory uses existed to the immediate south of the site from at least 1950 to 1971; 

and there are 117 locations with hazardous material concerns within one mile of the site 

that may have potential to affect the site. These locations are shown in Appenix G. 

(18) Riverside Site, East Dayton (phased)

This site is a large partially wooded lot that flanks the existing railroad tracks that would 

be used as part of the 3C corridor. Its area north of the tracks is nearly entirely wooded. 

The area south of the tracks is partially wooded and includes a large asphalt parking lot. 

This site would be developed with some form of passenger serving structure. The site 

appeared to be free of items of potential environmental concern. However, it is located 

approximately 1,700 feet west of the nearest structure on Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, which, although not investgated as part of this project, could have hazardous 

material concerns of its own based on the environmental track records of military bases 

around the country. Depending on groundwater flow direction, potential contaminants 

can move offsite from military bases onto nearby properties. 

(21) Main Street Site, Dayton

This site currently contains a large parking lot on its north side with two active railroad 

tracks (one that would be used as part of the 3C corridor) and three areas of former 

track on its south side. Although the site was observed to be free of on-site 

environmental concerns, adjacent concerns include an electrical transformer station to 

the southwest. This site would be developed with some form of passenger serving 

structure. Because of this, environmental database reports, historic aerial photos and 

fire insurance maps were reviewed. These resources indicate; a large pile of coal was 

stored on-site from at least 1918 to 1962; the site’s former use was a large rail yard; the 

aforementioned southwest adjacent electrical transformer station dating back as early as 

1962, with earlier bulk oil storage at the same location dating back to at least 1950; a 

west adjacent gasoline station between 1950 and there are 82 locations with hazardous 

material concerns within one mile of the site that may have potential to affect the site. 5

 

These locations are shown in Appenix G. 

(26) Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati

This site is currently an “L” shaped parcel that contains a vacant maintained grass area 

in its eastern portion, a redeveloped brick building in its middle portion and gravel and 

paved parking lots in its western portion. No indications of on-site environmental 

concern were observed. However, west adjacent land uses of environmental concern 

observed included automotive repair shops and other industrial facilities. Because the 

site would be developed, environmental database reports, historic aerial photos and fire 

insurance maps were reviewed. The items of potential environmental concern found in 

these resources include: a medium sized above ground storage tank (AST) on the site’s 

western extent as observed in the 1956 and 1962 aerial photos; a former industrial 

 

5 Long-term coal storage operations (and associated coal ash disposal/storage) often contaminates the underlying 

ground by leaching of elements from the coal. Such contaminants may include trace metals, polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons and semi-volatiles
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-60

October 2010

building in the current grass area, and 41 locations with hazardous material concerns 

within one mile of the site that may have potential to affect the site. These locations are 

shown in Appenix G.

(28) Lunken Airport Site, Cincinnati

This site is mostly railroad right-of-way with a portion of the eastern side being an access 

road to businesses. No indications of on-site environmental concern were observed. 

However, east adjacent land uses of environmental concern include industrial facilities. 

Because the site would be developed, environmental database reports, historic aerial 

photos and fire insurance maps were reviewed. The items of potential environmental 

concern found in these resources include: The site’s former use as a large rail yard from 

at least 1922 to 1977; two large ASTs within 500 feet to the south-southeast of this site 

from at least 1962 to 1994; and 16 locations with hazardous material concerns within 

one mile of the site that may have potential to affect the site. These locations are shown 

in Appenix G. 

3.3.5.2 Potential Impacts

(1) Lakefront Amtrak Station, Cleveland

No hazardous material impacts would occur with this site because no physical changes 

are proposed for it with the project. 

(2) West 150th Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA Site, Southwest Cleveland

No hazardous material impacts would occur with this site because no physical changes 

are proposed for it with the project. 

(15) Convention Center Site, Columbus

Based on the number of environmental database listed sites within one mile of the site 

and the site’s former use as a large railroad yard, a full Phase I ESA will need to be 

completed for this site. The Phase I ESA will be completed prior to any construction.

(17) Downtown Station Site, Springfield (phased)

Based on the number of environmental databases listed sites within one mile of the site 

and the site’s former use as a large railroad yard, a full Phase I ESA will need to be 

completed for this site. The Phase I ESA will be completed prior to any construction.

(18) Riverside Site, East Dayton (phased)

Although this site appears free of on site items of environmental concern, an 

environmental database report will need to be reviewed to indicate the likelihood of any 

potential contaminants from the Air Force base reaching the site. The database review 

will be completed prior to any construction.

(21) Main Street Site, Dayton

Based on the on-site coal storage and the number of adjacent and surrounding locations 

of potential hazardous material concern, a full Phase I ESA will need to be completed for 

this site. The Phase I ESA will be completed prior to any construction.

(26) Kemper Road Site, North Cincinnati

Based on this site’s former use as an industrial facility, former presence of ASTs with 

unknown contents and number of locations of potential environmental concern in the 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-61

October 2010

surrounding area, a full Phase I ESA will need to be completed for this site. The Phase I 

ESA will be completed prior any construction

(28) Lunken Airport Site, Cincinnati

Based on this site’s former use as a large railroad yard, former presences of two large 

ASTs nearby for over 32 years, and the fact that it is located near some locations of 

environmental concern, a database report will need to be reviewed to indicate listed 

hazardous material concerns nearby. The database review will be completed prior any 

construction.

3.3.5.3 Conclusions

The Preferred Alternative adds passenger rail service with no physical changes at 

existing railroad stations (Lakefront Amtrak Station in Cleveland and West 150th

Street/Puritas Avenue/GCRTA Site in Southwest Cleveland), and will add passenger rail 

service and passenger serving structures at sites that have no existing station. At 

existing stations, the project has no potential for hazardous material impacts because no 

physical changes are proposed to the existing facilities. At the sites where passenger 

serving structures are proposed, Phase I ESAs will be completed prior any construction. 

The No-Build would not impact known contaminated sites or hazardous waste.

3.3.6 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, 

requires that federal actions be reviewed for their impact to significant historic resources; 

the term “historic” includes architectural and archaeological resources. A significant 

historic resource is one that is either listed or determined eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Several factors were taken into consideration to determine the scope of the Section 106 

identification efforts: the magnitude and scale of the undertaking; previous disturbance 

associated with the existing transportation right-of-way; and current design standards for 

conventional, low-speed, passenger rail service. Based on these factors, the area of 

potential effects (APE), as defined in 36 CFR § 800.16(d), is limited to the project 

footprint, which includes existing rail line; station locations; maintenance, service, 

inspection, and layover facilities; and proposed capacity addition areas. Previously 

documented cultural resources were identified utilizing the Ohio State Historic 

Preservation Office (OSHPO) on-line database in combination with field investigations. 

3.3.6.1 Existing Conditions, Historic Resources

Section 106 identification efforts resulted in significant historic resources being identified 

adjacent to the APE of two of the eight initial passenger depot stations (Table 3-14). The 

Harshman Weiffenbach House (MOT-239-10), determined eligible for inclusion on the 

NRHP, is located adjacent to the APE of the East Dayton, Riverside site. The Cleveland 

Mall, listed on the NRHP, is located adjacent to the Lakefront Amtrak Station, in 

Cleveland. No other previously identified significant historic resources were identified 

within the APE of the initial depot locations. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-62

October 2010

Table 3-14 NRHP Properties Identified for Passenger Rail Station Sites

Location Passenger Rail Station Sites NRHP Properties 

Identified

Cleveland (1) Lakefront Amtrak Station Adjacent to APE:

Cleveland Mall

Southwest 

Cleveland

(2) West 150 Street/Puritas Ave./GCRTA 

Site None

Columbus (15) Convention Center Site None

Springfield 

(phased) (17) Downtown Station Site None

East Dayton 

(phased) (18) Riverside Site

Adjacent to APE:

Harshman Weiffenbach 

House

Dayton (21) Main Street Site None

North Cincinnati (26) Kemper Road Site None

Cincinnati (28) Lunken Airport Site None

Six proposed maintenance, service, inspection, and layover facilities will be in close 

proximity to depot sites. No significant historic resources were identified within the APE 

of the six proposed maintenance, service, inspection, and layover facilities sites.

Significant historic resources were identified adjacent to two of the ten capacity 

improvement sites: Weber Road site in Columbus and Wright/Moraine Yard site in 

Dayton (Table 3-15). The Glen Echo Historic District is located adjacent to the Weber 

Road crossover connection improvement site. The Wright/Moraine Yard siding 

rehabilitation site features the following significant historic resources adjacent to the 

APE: Dayton Power and Light Building Group; Dayton Motor Car Company Historic 

District; Oregon Historic District; Independent Order of Oddfellows; the Dayton TerraCotta Historic District.

Table 3-15 NRHP Properties Identified for 3C Proposed Capacity Addition Sites

Location Work Description NRHP Properties 

Identified

Boyd-Greenwich Connection Line rehabilitation

and new siding

None

Edison Siding Siding rehabilitation None

Paget Siding New siding None

Powell Siding New siding None

Weber Road Crossover 

connection

Adjacent to APE: 

Glen Echo Historic District (HD)

Columbus Station Tracks New rail line None

Plattsburg/Brook 2nd Track New siding None

Enon/Cold Springs 2nd Track New siding None

Wright/Moraine Yard Siding Rehabilitation

Adjacent to APE:

Dayton Power & Light Bldg Group

Dayton Motor Car Co. HD
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-63

October 2010

Location Work Description NRHP Properties 

Identified

Oregon HD

Independent Order of Oddfellows 

Dayton Terra-Cotta HD

Sharonville Yard Track Upgrade None 

3.3.6.2 Archaeological Resources

Archaeological investigations conducted within the 3C Corridor demonstrated that no 

known or previously recorded archeological resources or NRHP listed or eligible 

archaeological resources will be impacted. These investigations have demonstrated that 

agricultural activities or high levels of urban development have disturbed the 3C 

Corridor. All lowland and lake front areas crossed by the rail corridor have also been 

disturbed by previous episodes of railway construction and mixed urban development. 

3.3.6.3 Potential Impacts

As a result of identification and evaluation and in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

800.4(d)(1), it was concluded that no significant historic resources would be affected by 

the undertaking. No land from within the NR boundaries of the significant historic 

resources identified as the Harshman Weiffenbach House (MOT-239-10), the Cleveland 

Mall, Glen Echo Historic District, Dayton Power and Light Building Group, Dayton Motor 

Car Company Historic District, Oregon Historic District, Independent Order of 

Oddfellows, and the Dayton Terra-Cotta Historic District will be incorporated into the 

proposed improvements. No contributing features or components will be altered or 

removed by the proposed improvements at these locations. 

None of the resources located adjacent to the APEs of the six stations would be altered 

by the construction of the proposed temporary depots. No land within the NRHP 

boundaries would be incorporated into the proposed facilities and no new facilities would 

be incorporated into the historic boundaries.

Impacts to significant archeological resources are unlikely because of widespread 

disturbance and the negative affect modern land use has had on the landscape. 

Proposed rail elements including stations, sidings, and maintenance facilities will be 

constructed in areas previously disturbed by modern development. At these locations, 

no further archaeological investigations are recommended. However, further 

archaeological investigations are recommended if new right-of-way is needed for 

capacity additions in more rural upland areas including: Greenwich/Boyd Connection; 

and/or the Edison, Paget, Powell, or Plattsburg sidings. These siding/double track areas 

will be addressed further if final design plans show the need for additional right-of-way.

3.3.6.4 Conclusions

On September 9, 2009, the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (OSHPO) concurred 

in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's current guidelines 

and 36 CFR Part 800.4(d)(1), a, finding of "no historic properties affected" is applicable 

to the subject undertaking (Appendix K). 

Upon receipt and review of detailed design or if the scope of the undertaking changes 

and has the potential to effect significant cultural resources, additional consultation will 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-64

October 2010

be initiated. On September 18, 2009, the Section 106 Consulting Parties were provided 

a copy of the OSHPO determination for review and comment (Appendix K). 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact known cultural resources.

3.4 Section 4(f) Resources

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, which is now codified at 49 

U.S.C. § 303 grants special protection to publicly owned parks, parklands and recreation 

areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges; and historic sites whether publicly or privately 

owned. For purposes of Section 4(f), historic sites are protected if they are listed on or 

determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Properties protected by Section 4(f) are referred to as “Section 4(f) resources”. 

The Secretary of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) may approve a 

transportation project or program that “uses” a Section 4(f) resource only if the Secretary 

makes the following findings:

• There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the Section 4(f) 

resources; and 

• The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) 

resource resulting from the use [see 49 U.S.C. § 303(c)].

In general, a Section 4(f) “use” occurs with a transportation project or a program when:

• Section 4(f) land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;

• There is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land that is adverse to the 

protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection 

under Section 4(f); or

• Land from a Section 4(f) resource is not incorporated into the project but the 

proximity effects of the project or program are so severe that the protected 

activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under 

Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.

An alternative is not considered to be prudent if it does not meet the project need, or if it 

involves truly unusual factors; unique problems; or environmental impacts, cost or 

community disruption reaching an extraordinary magnitude. An alternative is not 

considered to be feasible if it cannot be constructed in accordance with sound 

engineering practices. 

3.4.1 Existing Conditions

Section 4(f) resources were identified along the entire 3C Corridor through review of 

available GIS mapping and databases, secondary data source review and limited field 

verification. A list of these resources is provided in Section 7.0.

A 500-foot buffer around the 3C Corridor was used to identify recreational lands, 

recreational areas, public parklands, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges that could be 

potentially affected by the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project. Numerous 

recreational-type resources that could potentially qualify for Section 4(f) protection were 

identified within the study area. These resources, shown in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 

include public parklands, recreation areas, and recreation centers. A total of 64 public 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-65

October 2010

parklands, recreation areas, and recreation centers are located within 500 feet of the 

centerline of the railroad corridor. More detailed mapping and additional information on 

these resources is found in Appendix H.

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) set for identification of previously documented 

historic properties was established as the project footprint. The eight proposed 

passenger stations would be located in urban areas adjacent to existing rail lines. 

Significant historic resources were identified in areas adjacent to the APE for two of the 

eight rail stations. The Cleveland Mall, which is listed on the NRHP, is located adjacent 

to the Lakefront Amtrak Station. The Harshman Weiffenbach House (MOT-239-10), 

which is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP is located adjacent to Riverside Station Site in 

East Dayton. 

Additionally, significant historic properties are located near the proposed footprint for two 

of the ten 3C capacity addition locations. In Columbus, the Weber Road crossover 

connection is in close proximity to the Glen Echo Historic District. The proposed Wright / 

Moraine Yard in Dayton is located in close proximity to the several resources including 

the Dayton Power and Light Building Group, Dayton Motor Car Company Historic 

District, Oregon Historic District, Independent Order of Oddfellows, and the Dayton 

Terra-Cotta Historic District. 

On September 9, 2009, the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (OSHPO) concurred 

with a finding of “no historic properties affected” for this project. Therefore, the potential 

for the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project will not result in a 4(f) use of significant 

historic properties.

3.4.2 Potential Impacts

Existing rail corridors will be used for the project, which reduces the potential for Section 

4(f) uses through avoidance these resources. For most of the Section 4f resources 

identified in the study area, sufficient distance exists to protect the resources from 

impact. In several cases, the rail line is separated from the sensitive resources by 

buildings and major roadways. Furthermore, the rail corridors proposed for the 3C 

project are now actively used for freight movement. In combination, these factors 

substantially minimize the potential for uses on the resources such as alteration of view 

sheds, increased noise levels from the proposed commuter rail service, and access 

changes that would substantially diminish or impair the functions, values, and attributes 

of the Section 4(f) properties. 

There are locations, however, where Section 4(f) resources abut the existing railroad 

corridor. Additionally, the expansion of the existing rail infrastructure is proposed at 

specific locations along the approximately 260-mile corridor for station areas, rail yards, 

and capacity additions needed to support passenger rail service. Overall, there will be 

no impact on Section 4(f) resources as a result of station and rail yard development or 

construction of additional track or sidings at select locations along the corridor. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact Section 4(f) resources.

3.4.3 Conclusions

The 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project would not require the acquisition of land from 

any Section 4(f) resources. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-66

October 2010

The project will have no effect on the visual environment for any of the Section 4(f) 

resources because the rail corridor is an existing feature in viewsheds. 

The project may have a very minor effect on access through temporary delays at rail 

crossings when a train passes through. For the 3C project, it is proposed that the trains 

will consist of two locomotives and six rail cars with six trips per day between Cleveland 

and Cincinnati. Logically, 3C service will cause minimal delay at the at-grade crossings 

throughout the corridor. 

Noise impacts on Section 4(f) resources are not anticipated because the rail line is 

active. The number of trains per day varies greatly between the major cities within the 

3C corridor, and is significantly more frequent between Galion and Cleveland (69 to 78 

trains per day) as compared to the section between Cincinnati and Galion (12 to 25 

trains per day). Existing service consists mainly of freight service with the typical train 

configuration consisting of three locomotives and 100 rail cars with the exception of the 

Oasis Line, where the configuration is two locomotives and 30 cars. With the small 

number of trips proposed for the 3C project, the incremental increase in noise levels will 

be negligible and will not result in noise impacts on Section 4(f) resources.

As the 3C Quick Start Rail Project proceeds into the next phase of analysis, additional 

studies will be completed on Section 4(f) resources in close proximity to rail corridors. 

This will include verification of property boundaries and relevant features of the resource 

relative to the rail corridor and coordination with property owners and/or agencies with 

jurisdiction authority over the resources. Although Section 4(f) uses are not anticipated, 

the proposed additional analysis may include, but is not limited to analysis of visual 

effects, changes in access to 4(f) resources, and changes in ambient noise/vibration 

impacts. Avoidance of any possible impacts to Section 4(f) resources will be a primary 

goal of future design studies for the 3C Quick Start project. If impacts can not be 

avoided, strategies to minimize and/or mitigate impacts will be evaluated. Additional 

coordination will be undertaken with jurisdictional agencies in the development and 

evaluation of minimization and mitigation strategies. Additional documentation will be 

developed, as appropriate, for further approval of the proposed action.

3.4.4 Section 6(f) Resources

Section 6(f) resources are recreational resources that have been developed with funding 

authorized under the Land and Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) of 1965, as amended; 

Public Law 88-578; 16 U.S.C.4601-4 et seq. The intent of this act is to stimulate a 

nationwide program to create and maintain high quality outdoor recreation resources. 

The LWCF program is administered by states and local governments with funding made 

available through the National Park Service. The identification of 6(f) resources was 

completed through a review of county lists maintained by the National Park Service 

(http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm). Six recreational resources in the 

project area are 6(f) resources: Edgewater Park (Cleveland), Rocky River Reservation 

(Berea), New London Reservoir (New London), McBride Park (Shelby), New Reid 

Memorial Park (Springfield), and Miamisburg Community Park (Miamisburg). None of 

these resources will be affected by the 3C Quick Start project. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-67

October 2010

Figure 3-27 Section 4(f) Resources within the Northern Section of the Project Area
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-68

October 2010

Figure 3-28 Section 4(f) Resources within the Southern Section of the Project Area
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-69

October 2010

Table 3-16 Section 4(f) Resources in the Project Area (within 500 feet of the 3C Rail Corridor Centerline)

identified for Further Examination

Map 

# Name Type

Distance from 

Rail Corridor

(feet)

Size

(acres) Features Impact Analysis

1 Kirtland Park Public Park adjacent 13

• Playground

• Baseball field

• Park station

• Amphitheater

• Noise sensitive land use; noise impacts 

not expected because distance to 

amphitheater is greater than 300 feet

• Park is situated between rail line and US 

Route 6

• Existing rail corridor carries 69 trains per 

day.

2 Willard Park Public Park 18 1.8 • Free Stamp 

Sculpture

• Lakefront Amtrak Station is on opposite 

side of East 9th Street from park 

• Existing rail corridor carries 69 trains per 

day.

4

Edgewater 

Park

(part of 

Cleveland 

Lakefront 

State Park)

Public Park 0 131

• Boat docks

• Launch ramp

• Fishing

• Swimming

• Picnic areas

• Picnic shelters

• Playgrounds

• Concession

• Bathhouse

• Bike trail

• US Route 6 separates rail corridor from 

parkland, except for small area on 

northeastern end

• Existing rail corridor carries 69 trains per 

day.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-70

October 2010

Map 

# Name Type

Distance from 

Rail Corridor

(feet)

Size

(acres) Features Impact Analysis

7 Rocky River 

Reservation Public Park adjacent 3,196.5

• Nature center

• Golf courses (3)

• Trails 

• Ball field

• Picnic areas

• Boat launch ramp

• Boating area

• Fishing area

• Refreshments

• Shelterhouse

• Sledding area

• Waterfowl area

• Wildlife 

management 

area

• Valley Parkway Trail (all-purpose trail) 

crosses rail line; near Bagley Road

• Existing rail corridor carries 69 trains per 

day

8

LaGrange 

Community 

Park

(aka Lions 

Park)

Public 

Recreation 

Center

adjacent 15.6

• Picnic shelters

• Baseball/softball 

fields

• Soccer Fields

• Lakes

• Concession 

stand

• Walking trails

• Additional recreational development 

proposed within park property

• Existing rail line carries 78 trains per day

10 Caley 

Reservation Public Park adjacent 507

• Wetlands, forest 

and field habitats

• Two large ponds

• Wildflower hikes

• Fishing 

• Existing rail line carries 78 trains per day
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-71

October 2010

Map 

# Name Type

Distance from 

Rail Corridor

(feet)

Size

(acres) Features Impact Analysis

11

New London 

Reservoir 

Park

Public Park adjacent 368

• Fishing

• Swimming

• Camping

• Basketball

• Volleyball

• Horseshoe 

facilities

• Playground

• Existing rail line carries 78 trains per day

17 Glen Echo 

Park

Public Park

NRHPListed 

Historic 

District 

51 4.2

• River/creek 

access

• Picnicking

• Woods & wildlife 

area

• Historic District

• Adjacent to proposed Weber Road 

crossover

• Existing rail line carries 12 trains per day

18

Indianola 

Math, 

Science, and 

Technology 

Middle 

School

Public 

School

NRHPListed 

Historic 

Resource

11 11.0

• Playground

• Fields 

• Historic Resource

• Playground and field adjacent to rail line

• Existing rail line carries 12 trains per day

26 Big Darby 

Creek

State 

Scenic 

River

adjacent N/A

• Scenic river 

(State 

designation)

• No bridge work required for project

•

27 Little Darby 

Creek

State 

Scenic 

River

adjacent N/A

• Scenic river 

(State 

designation)

• No bridge work required for project

•

37 Eastwood 

MetroPark Public Park adjacent 437

• 185-acre lake

• Nature trails

• Picnic 

areas/shelters

• Boating

• Fishing

• Green space

• Existing rail line carries 25 trains per day

• Adjacent to section proposed for 

Wright/Moraine capacity expansion
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-72

October 2010

Map 

# Name Type

Distance from 

Rail Corridor

(feet)

Size

(acres) Features Impact Analysis

42 Weidner Park Public Park 19 12.3

• Picnic shelter

• Playground

• Basketball court

• Ballfield

• Tennis court

• Existing rail line carries 25 trains per day

44

Miamisburg 

Community 

Park

Public Park adjacent 42

• Basketball courts

• Bikeway

• BMX Trail

• Nature walk

• Picnic tables

• Playground (ages 

2-5)

• Playground (ages 

6-12)

• Pond

• Skatepark 

• Existing rail line bisects park (no 

expansion of facilities proposed)

• Existing rail line carries 25 trains per day

47 Miami River 

County Park Public Park adjacent 14.4 • Proposed bike 

trail • Existing rail line carries 25 trains per day

48 Dixie Heights

Park Public Park adjacent 8.0

• Playground

• Picnic tables

• Basketball court

• Ball diamond

• Existing rail line carries 25 trains per day
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-73

October 2010

Map 

# Name Type

Distance from 

Rail Corridor

(feet)

Size

(acres) Features Impact Analysis

53

Bemmes 

Park/Reading 

Community 

Pool

Public 

Recreation 

Area

adjacent 7.6

• Playground 

equipment

• Soccer goals

• Baseball/Softball 

Fields

• Football stadium

• Track

• Community Pool

• Used for Ohio 

High School 

Athletic 

Association and 

Sandlot America 

competition 

• Baseball fields adjacent to track

• Existing rail line carries 6 trains per day

54 Roselawn 

Park

Public 

Recreation 

Area

adjacent 35.6

• Baseball field

• Basketball court

• Picnic shelter

• Playground 

• Existing rail line carries 6 trains per day

55 Fenwick Park Public Park adjacent 25.6

• Playground 

equipment

• Covered picnic 

area

• Basketball court

• Baseball field

• Soccer field

• Existing rail line carries 6 trains per day

57 Linwood 

Field

Public

Recreation 

Area

adjacent 8.5 • Soccer field • Existing rail line provides minimal 

service (less than daily)
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-74

October 2010

3.5 Construction Impacts

Impacts from construction will vary dependent on the type of activity performed and 

potential resources impacted; most construction impacts will cease immediately after the 

construction activity in an area as it is completed. Specific construction impacts cannot 

be estimated at this time because they depend on several factors that are determined 

either during Tier 2 analysis which will aid in the development of the final design and 

direct the efforts of the contractor before and during construction. Actions that could 

have potential additional effects outside of final design drawings include: location for 

staging and stockpiling equipment and materials, the timing and sequencing of 

construction, specific construction methods and materials and equipment to use, and 

areas for the disposal of debris and excess soil stockpile.

Construction activities involve the development of station buildings and platforms and 

the construction of new track or the installation of special trackwork (i.e. turnouts). 

Based on the EA investigation the Preferred Alternative construction activities would not 

result in any significant impacts to the environment.

The Preferred Alternative would create temporary construction impacts to traffic, air 

quality, noise, and vibration during construction from the operation of equipment and the 

potential temporary short-term closure of streets crossing the rail line during upgrades of 

crossing surfaces or localized track rehabilitation. Installation and rehabilitation of station 

facilities would create temporary construction impacts typical of urban low-rise building 

construction. 

Implementation and maintenance of industry-standard control measures (e.g., traffic 

control, dust/erosion and sedimentation controls, properly fitted emission control devices 

and mufflers, etc.) would be used to minimize the temporary impacts. Project 

construction activities would comply with local noise control ordinances where 

applicable, and may be controlled in a practicable manner by applying construction 

contract Special Provisions for Noise Control. These minor temporary impacts would 

cease upon completion of construction.

Temporary impacts would be minimized by using best management practices (BMPs) 

and would cease immediately after the activity is completed. Construction activities 

would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, and 

ordinances. Proper permits would be obtained where required. Following construction, 

temporarily impacted floodplains, wetlands, streams, and surrounding stream banks 

would be restored to their natural condition.

Track improvements required for the Preferred Alternative will require the replacement of 

some rail, crossties, and track ballast, plus other improvements to trackside equipment. 

These procedures are restricted to the current right-of-way and are generally considered 

maintenance procedures. A limited degree of new track construction is also required. 

Where a new second track is added, extension of culvert or bridge structures may be 

required with temporary construction impacts to the stream or bank. New track 

installation will also require subgrade preparation earthwork. If permanent impacts are 

to occur during the construction of the Preferred Alternative’s improvements they will be 

mitigated in accordance with required State and Federal regulations. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-75

October 2010

The Preferred Alternative is divided into 5 phases. Phase 1 would include the purchase 

of train equipment and would not have construction impacts. Phase 2 would involve the 

station and track improvements and additions between Cleveland and Columbus. 

Phases 3, 4 and 5 would consist of mostly track construction on existing railroad right of 

way. Phases 2, 3, 4, and 5 would all require a Tier 2 environmental document for which 

more detailed information would be developed. This information would be used to 

determine site specific conditions, assess potential construction impacts, and identify 

potential mitigation strategies. 

The Table 3-18 delineates potential impacts that may be associated with identified 

construction activities in the Preferred Alternative. 

Table 3-17 Potential Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative

Item Potential Impacts

Phase 2: 

Cleveland Lakefront 

Station (existing)

Construction likely limited to installation of a new track to stage 

originating train, improvements to passenger platform and 

pedestrian safety improvements. No new right of way to be 

acquired. Construction challenge is safety of rail patrons at this 

currently active Amtrak station. No special construction impacts 

anticipated.

Phase 2: 

W 150th Street/Puritas 

Avenue Station

Construction may be limited to installation of passenger platform on 

east side of freight tracks, construction of a pedestrian overhead 

walkway and installation of special trackwork. Construction 

challenge is protecting safety of public transit patrons using adjacent 

GCRTA Rapid station. No special construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 2: 

Berea Crossover

Potential new track and trackwork through currently undeveloped 

tract surrounded by light industrial uses. The tract may be 

associated with local drainage patterns. Conventional precautions 

against silt runoff may be needed at this location. No special 

construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 2: 

Boyd to Shelby Second 

Main Track

New track, adjacent to the existing main track traverses generally 

level and open farm land. Located within the Mohican, Huron, and 

Vermillion Watersheds, it was identified that approximately 0.64 

acres of wetlands and 6,570 linear feet of channel may potentially 

be impacted by the development of the new capacity improvement. * 

No special construction impacts are anticipated.

Phase 2: 

Edison Siding

0.8 mile extension to existing siding in an area of open and level 

farmland located within the Rocky River watershed. Approximately 

0.007 acres of wetlands and 792 linear feet of channel were 

identified that may be impacted by the development of the new 

capacity improvement.* Conventional runoff and silt protection will 

likely be needed. No special construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 2: 

Paget Siding

Construction of a new 2.1 mile siding in an area of open and level 

farmland. No stream crossings are evident. No special construction 

impacts anticipated. 

Phase 2: 

Powell Road Siding

Construction of a new 2.0 mile siding in a residential area but with 

more than adequate setback from the existing track. Evidence on 

ground of former second track reduces potential of impact. Located 

in the Scioto watershed (encompasses Big Darby and Olentangy 

River), Ohio requires an alternate runoff permit that specifies 

measures to be taken to protect sensitive areas from construction 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-76

October 2010

Item Potential Impacts

impacts. It is anticipated that approximately 0.2 acres of wetland 

and 183 linear feet of channel may be impacted by the development 

of the new capacity improvement.* No unusual circumstances seem 

to exist that would require further than standard measures.

Phase 2: 

Weber Road 

Crossovers

Located in the Scioto watershed (encompasses Big Darby and 

Olentangy River). Ohio requires an alternate runoff permit in this 

area that mandates certain runoff protection measures. While 

stringent in its requirements, the permit requires accepted industry 

practices be employed. It is anticipated that approximately 71 linear 

feet of channel may be impacted by the new capacity improvement.* 

No special construction impacts are anticipated.

Phase 2: 

Columbus Convention 

Center Station

Although the convention facility was originally designed to 

accommodate a train station, subsequent expansions have removed 

the special provisions once present. A current Convention Center 

remodeling can make provisions again for a station. Some new 

trackwork will be required within the existing right–of-way to 

accommodate train movements in and out of the station. No special 

construction impacts beyond those associated with the remodeling 

are anticipated.

Phase 3: 

Plattsburg to Brooks 

Second Main Track

Construction of a new 5.2 mile second main track in an area of open 

and level farmland. Located within the Great Miami Watershed, it 

was identified that approximately 0.246 acres of wetlands and 4,530 

linear feet of channel may potentially be impacted by the 

development of the new capacity improvement.* No special 

construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 3: 

Springfield Downtown 

Station

Construction of station and platform is within a former street right-ofway located immediately adjacent to the Central Business District. 

No unusual circumstances although movements of machinery and 

material into the construction site will require adherence to standard 

safety practices. No special construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 3: 

Riverside to Dayton 

Second Main Track 

with Crossovers

A new second main track is to be constructed through undeveloped 

or industrial land uses. In some locations, the Mad River (a drinking 

water source) runs parallel to the right of way necessitating 

mandating certain runoff protection. Located within the Great Miami 

Watershed, approximately 2.8 acres of wetlands and 1,092 linear 

feet of channel may be impacted by the development of the new 

capacity improvement.* No special construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 3: 

Dayton Main Street 

Site

Proposed location is in an underutilized commercial area where the 

main track is elevated above street level. No special construction 

impacts anticipated.

Phase 4: 

Wrights to Moraine 

Yard Second Main 

Track

Construction of a 7.7 mile second main track is through a 

manufacturing and industrial area. No unusual conditions exist 

within the immediate area of construction. Located within the Great 

Miami Watershed, it was identified that approximately 0.305 acres of 

wetlands and 518 linear feet of channel may potentially be impacted 

by the development of the new capacity improvement.* No special 

construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 4: 

North Cincinnati 

Kemper Road Station

Station construction on a former factory site will present no unusual 

construction requirement or impacts.

Phase 5: 4.6 miles of new main track through mixed residential and industrial 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-77

October 2010

Item Potential Impacts

Sharonville Second 

Main Track

land. No unusual circumstances exist in the area of construction. 

Located within the Mill Creek Watershed, approximately 2.2 acres of 

wetlands and 3,984 linear feet of channel may be impacted by the 

development of the new capacity improvement.* No special 

construction impacts anticipated.

Phase 5: 

Cincinnati Lunken 

Station and layup yard

Proposed station and layover facility are on an underutilized rail 

yard. No special construction impacts anticipated.

* Order of magnitude of impact area identified in Section 3.2.3.

The No-Build Alternative would not create temporary construction impacts.

3.6 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

This section considers impacts that are not directly related to the project, but that could 

be contributed to by the project. The President’s CEQ regulations for environmental 

impact documentation (CFR, Title 40, Section 1508(1)) includes definitions for secondary

(indirect) and cumulative impacts. These definitions are:

Indirect effects are those “which are caused by the [proposed] action and are later in 

time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect 

effects may include induced growth and other effects related to induced changes in 

the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air 

and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.” (40 CFR 1508.8(b))

“Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the [proposed] action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 

of time.” (40 CFR 1508.7)

The No-Build Alternative would not have a contribution to secondary or cumulative 

impacts.

3.6.1 Project Area

The secondary and cumulative impact project area consists of:

• The project corridor (initial and future) and its track work improvement, yard and 

shop, and station location alternatives.

• The area surrounding each of the proposed alternative station locations. This 

area was selected because induced development can be associated with the 

improved accessibility offered by transportation improvements. In the case of 

passenger rail service improved accessibility would only be expected occur at 

stations.

In terms of temporal considerations, since the areas surrounding the stations are with 

few exceptions fully developed, consideration of past actions is relevant only to the 

extent that recent redevelopment has occurred and is expected to continue based on 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-78

October 2010

area land use and economic development goals. The present is represented in this 

assessment by existing development and associated activities in station areas. The 

future is reflected in the land use planning goals found in area land use and economic 

development plans, known planned development, and the project (initial and future).

3.6.2 Project Area Features and Goals

Key features and goals relevant to the secondary and cumulative impact assessment 

are shown for the areas surrounding each station alternative in Table 3-18. These also 

are the primary factors in determining the potential for secondary and cumulative 

impacts. Project implementation timing (initial and future projects), location of a station 

in an urbanized area, and development or redevelopment plans (known projects or land 

use plan goals) all would be associated with the potential for additional reasonably 

foreseeable actions that, combined with the project, could result in secondary and 

cumulative impacts. Primary land use, historic resources, sensitive natural resources, 

and special population groups (e.g. low income and minority) are the sensitive notable 

features that could be affected by reasonably foreseeable impact causing activities.

Land use, historic resources, sensitive natural resources, special populations groups, 

and other notable development within the project’s direct impact area (initial and future), 

including yard and shop locations and capacity additions are presented in their 

respective direct impact discussions in this EA.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-79

October 2010

Table 3-18 Secondary and Cumulative impact Project Area Features and Goals

No. Station Timing1

Characteristics of Surroundings

Primary Land Uses

In an 

Urbanized 

Area

Development or 

Redevelopment 

Plans

Historic 

Resources

Sensitive 

Natural 

Resources

Special 

Population 

Groups

1 Lakefront 

Amtrak Station I Business Yes No No No No

2

West 150th St/ 

Puritas Ave/ 

GCRTA

I Residential/ Industrial Yes

Yes, currently 

developing a new 

train station but no for 

surrounding lands.

No No No

15 Convention 

Center I Business/ Industrial Yes

Yes, currently 

expanding the 

convention center

No No No

17

Downtown 

Station

(Springfield –

phased)

I Residential/ Business Yes No No No Yes, elderly 

housing

18

Riverside

(East Dayton –

phased)

I Rural/Air Force Base No Yes, sign indicating 

new development Potential Yes, ponds No

21 Main Street I Business Yes Yes, construction 

occurring in the area Possibly No

Yes, elderly; 

minority; lowincome

26 Kemper Road I Residential/ 

Business/ Industrial Yes No (nothing identified) No Potential wetlands

Possible 

minority

28 Lunken Airport I Residential/ Industrial Yes Not likely No No Yes, low-income

1

I=Initial station

Note: Locations highlighted in light green indicate “phased” or “assumed” stations as part of the initial proposed quick start project.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-80

October 2010

3.6.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Impact-Causing Activities

Reasonably foreseeable impact causing activities are:

• The initial project, including its construction, operation, and use (included in the 

direct impact assessment). 

• Future passenger rail improvement projects (included in the direct impact 

assessment).

• Other currently known development or redevelopment projects in station areas. 

• Induced development and its associated impacts under certain conditions. 

Induced development is considered to be reasonably foreseeable if these 

conditions are met:

o It occurs in a station area because that is the sole location where accessibility 

is improved, providing an incentive for public or private investment.

o Local land use plans call for or have encouraged development or 

redevelopment in the station areas in the past or present.

o The station would be a major passenger origin or destination in a community 

that already attracts substantial intercity travelers. Under these conditions, the 

improved accessibility to the area around a station could attract new 

development to service intercity travelers, just as an airport can attract hotels, 

office buildings, and other travel-related development. Stations in smaller 

communities are unlikely to induce notable new development because few 

passengers would originate at small communities, creating little demand for 

public or private services. As a destination, small communities lack existing 

support services for intercity travelers, as well as initiatives to attract 

substantial economic development. It is not considered reasonably 

foreseeable to expect that the improved accessibility alone would attract 

notable new development to smaller communities.

3.6.4 Secondary Impacts

In order for secondary impacts to occur, there first must be a notable feature sensitive to 

impact within the impact area. This is defined in this assessment as an area having a 

residential land use, containing historic resources, containing sensitive natural features, 

or containing special population groups. Second, the impact area must be in an 

urbanized area and have known new development or redevelopment projects in the 

station area or land use plans setting redevelopment or new development as a goal. 

Based on the information found in Table 3-18, this combination of factors does not occur 

at any of the possible station areas. 

3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts considers the question of: Would the combination of existing 

development, the project (initial and future), induced development, and other known 

reasonably foreseeable development projects together create a substantial loss to a 

sensitive resource where the individual losses are not substantial. Cumulative impacts 

would not be substantial for the following reasons:

• The scale of the direct construction impacts associated with the initial project are 

generally expected to be low because, except for stations, the project (initial and 

future) generally would be confined to an existing railroad right-of-way. Thus, it is 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 3-81

October 2010

not likely that the impact of the project to a sensitive environmental resource, 

when added to existing and forecast conditions, would be of greater severity than 

that described in the direct impact assessment.

• In terms of direct operational impacts (noise and traffic), the impact of project 

traffic added to forecast traffic in station areas and project noise (up to the future 

100 mph) when added to that of freight traffic are accounted for in the direct 

impact assessment.

• The secondary impact assessment found that other currently known 

development or redevelopment projects, as well as induced development, in 

station areas with sensitive resources would not cause a substantial impact to 

those resources.

3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-1

October 2010

4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

The public involvement effort for the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project was led by 

the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Ohio Rail Development 

Commission (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. Involvement was proactively sought from all potentially affected 

stakeholders regardless of income, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age, or disability. This 

chapter summarizes the public involvement and agency coordination efforts. 

Outreach efforts for this project included stakeholder workshops, public meetings, 

community presentations, statewide radio and newspaper advertising, social media 

outreach, project website, e-mail alerts, toll-free telephone hotline, on-line public 

meetings, press releases, media interviews, mailings and postcard distributions, among 

other efforts. 

In addition, it should be noted that other grassroots advocacy organizations, not involved 

as project sponsors, also volunteered their resources to help spread the word about the 

3C Quick start Passenger Rail project. These organizations have continued their 

advocacy efforts beyond the scope of public involvement efforts taken by ODOT and 

ORDC for this project. 

Public response to this project was both tremendous and overwhelmingly positive. This 

response encompassed approximately 350 attendees to stakeholder workshops, nearly 

300 attendees at public meetings and more than 220,000 website visits. A Facebook site 

for the project was established on September 25, 2009 and nearly 1,000 people had 

signed up as fans of the project within the first week. More than 7,000 on-line surveys 

were also filled out on the project website, with 93% of respondents indicating support.

4.1 Public Involvement Plan

The Public Involvement Plan (PIP) (Appendix I) outlined an array of methods to ensure 

widespread awareness and engagement in the project from the public. Table 4-1

indicates the methods used and their purposes. These are discussed in detail below.

Table 4-1 Public Involvement Methods and Purposes

Methods Purpose

Stakeholder workshops

To meet and actively obtain input from elected officials, agencies, and 

general public on the project purpose and need and alternative 

selection.

Stakeholder briefings To individually inform stakeholders of project status and actions.

Agency coordination To inform agencies of project status and actions and provide them a 

forum for review and comment.

Railroad coordination To inform the railroad companies of project status and actions and 

provide them a forum for review, comment and response.

Consulting party engagement To obtain input from persons desiring to be consulting parties for 

various aspects of the project (i.e. historic resources).

Public information materials and To actively inform the public on the project and its open forum for 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-2

October 2010

Methods Purpose

email notifications providing input. 

Public involvement open-house 

meetings To provide a forum for public commentary and feedback on the project.

Grassroots and social media 

outreach

To use the assistance of individuals and local and statewide interested 

organizations in disseminating project information.

Media relations and news 

coverage To inform the public of the project through free media coverage.

Statewide radio public education 

campaign and newspaper ads To reach a wide variety of audience types through paid media sources.

Project website & email address To distribute available project materials and obtain public feedback. 

Toll-free project hotline To obtain public comments.

On-line public meetings To disseminate project information and seek input from persons unable 

to attend live meetings.

4.1.1 Informed Stakeholder Workshops

Three workshops were held for elected officials and/or representatives of 325

jurisdictions and agencies located along the proposed 3C Corridor. These workshops 

were also open to the public. Elected officials and representatives were invited by letter 

and email. The public was informed of the workshops by news releases and media 

coverage. These three workshops were held and their purposes are summarized below. 

The number of participants indicated for each meeting reflects how many people signed 

in; it is estimated that at least several additional people attended each meeting without 

signing in.

Workshop #1 – This workshop was held on July 7, 2009, with at least 191 attendees 

representing 122 municipalities along the 3C Corridor. Its purpose was to obtain 

stakeholder input on: project overview; 33 proposed route alternatives; and the purpose 

and need elements for both the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail and high-speed 

passenger rail. The 3C “Quick Start” purpose and need was drafted using this input.

Workshop #2 – This workshop was held on August 20, 2009 for an audience of 

approximately 105 attendees. Its purpose was to obtain stakeholder input on the draft 

purpose and need and the technical fatal flaw analysis used to narrow the remaining 

route alternatives. Eighteen comments were received and six organizations identified 

themselves as consulting parties. The comments were generally positive regarding the 

process used to date and the emerging route alternatives. Representatives from transit 

agencies in Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Shelby, Akron and Cleveland also stated they 

were eager to work with ODOT/ORDC to provide transit service to and from 3C stations. 

These transit systems and others followed up with letters of support. East Dayton 

(Riverside), Springfield, Shelby, Crestline, Edison, Middletown and Hamilton 

representatives urged planners to consider stations in their communities. As a result of 

this feedback, additional analysis was conducted. Based on environmental findings and 

ridership results, it was determined that station locations at East Dayton and Springfield 

are viable options for inclusion on the recommended preferred Quick Start route. At this 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-3

October 2010

time it is recommended that these two stations be phased into the service shortly after 

initial service begins. 

Workshop #3 – This workshop was held on September 15, 2009 with approximately 44 

attendees. Its purpose was to obtain stakeholder input on the draft recommended 

preferred alternative and proposed station locations. Eighteen written comments and 

three letters were received. The comments, in general, indicated support for the process 

used to arrive at the proposed recommendations and provided input on preferred station 

locations. Two of the letters challenged the proposed service and in one case criticized 

the process; the other letter offered support.

Meeting summaries and sign-in sheets for all three workshops are in Appendix J.

4.1.2 Stakeholder Briefings

Stakeholder briefings on the project were held throughout the summer and fall, 2009. 

Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the stakeholder briefing held for the 

project. 

Table 4-2 Other Stakeholder Briefings

Date Stakeholder Purpose

6/4/09 State Sen. Bill Seitz 3C Quick Start and Amtrak study status 

6/9/09 State Sen. Gary Cates, City of Hamilton Opportunity for rail service and station sites in 

Hamilton

6/9/09 State Sen. Robert Schuler 3C Quick Start and Amtrak study status 

6/16/09 Cincinnati City Council 3C Quick Start study status; sought input on station 

sites 

6/18/09 State Rep. Ron Amstutz 3C Quick Start and Amtrak study status

7/6/09 Ohio Dominican University students 3C Quick Start study status and outreach efforts

7/27/09 Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of 

Governments Passenger Rail Committee

3C Quick Start and high speed rail Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Study status 

8/6/09 Central Ohio Transit Authority (William 

Lhota, CEO) 3C Quick Start study status and local transit access

8/19/09 L&E Group (Scott Owens & Erin Synk) Opportunity for rail service and station sites in Butler 

County

8/25/09 Business leaders from Cleveland, 

Columbus and Cincinnati

3C Quick Start and high speed rail Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Study status

8/25/09 Columbus Chamber of Commerce 3C Quick Start and high speed rail Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Study status

8/26/09 Gov. Strickland staff, Ohio Congressional 

delegation 3C Quick Start and Amtrak study status

8/27/09 City of Middletown Opportunity for rail service and station sites in 

Middletown

9/3/09 Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce 

Transportation Committee

3C Quick Start study status; sought input on station 

sites
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-4

October 2010

Date Stakeholder Purpose

9/8/09

City of Springfield, Clark 

County/Springfield Transportation 

Coordinating Committee

Opportunity for rail service and station sites in 

Springfield

9/14/09 East End Community Council in 

Cincinnati

3C Quick Start study status; sought input on station 

sites and eastern Cincinnati route alignment

9/14/09

Gov. Strickland webinar briefing to 

elected officials throughout the 3C 

corridor

3C Quick Start study status

9/21/09 Gov. Strickland webinar briefing to 

foundations 3C Quick Start study status

4.1.3 Agency Coordination

Interagency coordination on the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project was conducted in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines to ensure the 

appropriate agencies were informed and had the opportunity to comment on the 

Environmental Assessment (EA). On August 24, 2009, ODOT and ORDC hosted a 

meeting and conference call with federal and state environmental and regulatory 

agencies to provide them with a study overview, and to solicit their agreement to review 

and comment on the draft EA within the project’s compressed schedule. The agencies 

agreed and were informed that additional opportunities for review and comment would 

be provided in the future if the proposed 3C Quick Start effort were to move forward. 

Meeting summaries and copies of agency responses are in Appendix K. ODOT and 

ORDC also conducted several teleconferences with the FRA, and met with FRA officials 

in Washington, D.C. on August 21, 2009. Agencies coordinated with included: 

• Amtrak

• Federal Railroad Administration

• Ohio Department of Natural Resources

• Ohio Department of Transportation

• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

• Ohio Rail Development Commission

• Ohio State Historic Preservation Office 

• US Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington and Buffalo Offices

• US Environmental Protection Agency 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service

4.1.4 Railroad Coordination

Since the project’s inception, ORDC has included the owners and operators of the 

freight rail lines within the project area in project dialogue. Formal written documentation 

demonstrating this was included with the October 2, 2009 application. At the behest of 

Amtrak and the freight railroads, ORDC has engaged a railroad traffic controller (RTC) 

modeling firm to conduct the analysis to confirm that there will be no passenger and 

freight rail conflicts throughout the corridor on the freight rail lines identified. Additionally, 

ORDC and the freight railroads are in the process of drafting Memorandums of 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-5

October 2010

Understanding (MOUs) outlining the cost and assignment of responsibilities for the 

operation of passenger rail on the freight rail lines.

4.1.5 Consulting Party Engagement

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 

implementing regulations of 36 CFR Part 800, ODOT/ORDC initiated a consultation 

process for evaluating the impact of 3C Quick Start project on historic properties listed 

on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). ODOT and 

ORDC sought participants in this process by distributing a sign-up form at workshop #2

held on August 20, 2009 (see subsection 4.1.1) and mailing invitations to interested 

stakeholders. This opportunity was also publicized in public meeting promotional 

materials. By September, 2009 43 individuals and organizations indicated their desire to 

be consulting parties for the project. These individuals and organizations were sent 

thank you letters and invitations to attend the public meetings, review materials online, 

review and comment on the Section 106 Consultation and to review and comment on 

the draft EA. A list of consulting parties and correspondence is in Appendix K.

4.1.6 Public Information Materials

Ten thousand postcards announcing the launch of the 3CisMe website were distributed 

in August, 2009. In September, another 10,000 postcards were mailed, emailed and 

distributed to promote the website, on-line survey, hotline, three public meetings and the 

online version of the public meeting. All printed materials directed the reader to 

additional information on the 3CisMe website, where they could submit general 

comments, respond to an online survey or answer a questionnaire specific to information 

provided in the online public meeting. Fact sheets and comment forms were distributed 

widely at public meetings and through email distribution to key stakeholders.

4.1.7 Public Involvement Open-House Meetings

Three public meetings were conducted during September 2009. The deadline for public 

comments was September 25, 2009. These meetings and their outcomes included:

• September 15th in Columbus, with 80 attendees. Forty public comment forms and 

two consulting party comment forms were received as of September 25. 

Respondents indicated station preferences and general support for the proposed 

route and decision-making process. Questions and comments were received 

about capital and operating costs, opportunities for high speed rail and additional 

routes/stations in the future, and how local transportation would connect with 

intercity passenger rail. 

• September 16th in Cleveland with 90 attendees. Thirty-two public comment forms 

were returned as of September 25, indicating station preferences and comments 

on the route and decision-making process, which were positive in general. 

Questions and comments were received about capital and operating costs, 

ridership projections, the proposed timetable, future connections to other cities, 

and opportunities for public involvement and media coverage throughout the 

decision-making process.

• September 17th in Cincinnati; with 120 attendees. Twenty-one written comment 

forms and four letters were received as of September 25. Two of the letters 

echoed public sentiment at the meeting, which supported the 3C proposal overall 

but preferred the west alignment into Cincinnati, with an expanded passenger rail 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-6

October 2010

station at the Cincinnati Union Terminal, rather than the east-side alignment 

along Riverside Drive at the Boat house/Sawyer Point location. Citizens identified 

their community preference for planning that is already underway for urban light 

rail on the Oasis line. The Mt. Adams community outlined how their area is 

developing in a manner consistent with the transit-oriented development vision of 

a light rail system. Residents from the East End also expressed their concerns 

about possible noise and view shed impacts of heavy rail at the Boat 

House/Sawyer Point alternate location as well as possible impacts on a local 

park. These issues will require more analysis, which will be addressed with the 

Oasis Line's NEPA process for local passenger rail service. The assumed station 

location for the Quick Start project is at Lunken Park Drive.

These meetings were conducted in an open house format with at least one presentation 

about the project, followed by a facilitated discussion with the audience that included an 

opportunity for public questions and comments (two presentations were provided in 

Cleveland and Cincinnati.) Project information presented to the public was consistent for 

all three meetings. Participants were invited to provide comments and feedback on: the 

project’s purpose and need; the draft recommended preferred alternative; proposed and 

alternate station locations; environmental and technical analysis; and the process 

leading to the recommendations made. Opportunities were also presented to comment 

on cultural and historic resources, consistent with Section 106 requirements. Specific 

questions were answered at each information station. 

Public meetings were held at well-known local venues with ample parking available, 

nearby local transit service stops, and easy access for people with disabilities. The 

meetings were promoted by newspaper and radio advertisements which informed 

interested persons of the location of the meeting and directed them to the hotline and 

website for more information. Approximately 10,000 postcards were distributed by local 

jurisdictions and organizations, including 2,000 postcards that were distributed to 20 

minority churches in Cleveland and Columbus. Additionally, grassroots organizations, 

agencies and jurisdictions forwarded electronic copies of the postcard invitation through 

their own email distribution lists. It is estimated that email alerts were sent to at least 

75,000 individuals, although it is likely there was some duplication among distribution 

lists. There were also more than 220,000 website visits to learn more about the meetings 

via various constituent groups’ sites, including local transit systems, metropolitan 

planning organizations, chambers of commerce, All Aboard, PolicyMatters, Sierra Club, 

Urban Ohio, Young Professionals of Columbus, ColumbusUnderground, MORPC, Ohio 

Contractors Association and others.

An online version of the public meetings was also made available on the project website 

so that persons not able to attend could “virtually” attend a meeting by following a 

PowerPoint presentation on their computers at home or in a public library. These 

included an electronic survey to collect input. Forty-nine individuals had responded to 

the online meeting questionnaire; 73 percent indicated they were satisfied or very 

satisfied with the 3C public process with many of those commenting advocating for 

station stops in Shelby, East Dayton, and Springfield. For a summary of each public 

meeting and the written and online comments collected, see Appendix L.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-7

October 2010

4.1.8 Grassroots Outreach and Social Media

As mentioned in section 4.1.6, 20,000 postcards promoting the multiple opportunities to 

provide input were distributed with the assistance of stakeholders located along the 3C 

Corridor. Statewide and local coalitions also assisted with disseminating the postcards, 

emails and announcements on their websites and Facebook pages, encouraging 

citizens to participate in this effort. As of October 14, 1,595 people had signed up on 

Facebook as “fans” of the 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail project. Grassroots information 

dissemination included the organizations identified in Error! Reference source not 

found..

Table 4-3 Grassroots Organizational Outreach

Organization

Number of 

Postcards

or Letters

Email 

Distribution

Statewide and/or Entire 3C Corridor

ORDC Public Information Officer stakeholder email list 5,000+

ODOT Districts 700 800

3C Quick Start stakeholder list 700 1,000

All Aboard Ohio 400 200-

Environment Ohio 1,000

Ohio Contractors Association 1,500

Greater Ohio 500

Ohio Environmental Council 2,000 3,000

Ohio Planning Conference 750

Policy Matters Ohio (includes emails to the Have a Heart Ohio Coalition, 

the Ohio Apollo Alliance Steering Committee and the C Campaign)

2,000 10,000

Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter 28,000

Urban Ohio Transportation Forum 3,400

Cincinnati

City of Cincinnati 200 500

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments 200

Alliance for Regional Transit 500 4,500

Local neighborhood events 330

Dayton

Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority 1,000

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission 220

Local neighborhood events 330
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-8

October 2010

Organization

Number of 

Postcards

or Letters

Email 

Distribution

Columbus

1000 Friends of Central Ohio 250

Central Ohio Transit Authority 500

City of Columbus Urban Policy Group 450

Columbus Streetcar Advocates 700

Columbus Young Professionals 2,800

Consider Biking 500

Downtown Residents Association 250

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission 2,000 12,300

Pedal Instead 1,000

Women’s Transportation Seminar 250

Local neighborhood events 330

Cleveland

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 6,800

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 500

4.1.9 Media Relations and News Coverage

News releases were distributed to at least 180 media outlets throughout the state to alert 

them of: stakeholder workshops; public meetings; the launch of the 3CisMe website; and 

public input opportunities via telephone, online survey and public meetings. Additionally, 

ORDC and ODOT responded to numerous media inquiries, resulting in at least 155 

newspaper and internet articles and 122 broadcasts (broadcast coverage is estimated at 

$451,000 in publicity value according to Media Library, Inc.) News releases and excerpts 

of media coverage are in Appendix M.

4.1.10 Statewide Radio Public Education Campaign

From August 23 to September 20, 2009 approximately 200 Ohio radio stations, as part 

of a collaborative public education program with the Ohio Association of Broadcasters 

aired a 30 second advertisement introducing the 3C Quick Start initiative. The 

advertisement directed listeners to the 3CisMe website and telephone hotline. This lowcost radio partnership resulted in more than $172,000 in free advertising, making 

listeners aware of public meetings and the opportunity to take part in the online survey. 

One of the benefits of using radio media is its ability to reach a wide listener base, which 

may include persons living in Environmental Justice concern areas. Additionally, radio 

has the ability to reach persons with limited to no internet skills and persons with limited 

literacy. 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-9

October 2010

4.1.11 Project Website and Email Address

The http://3CisMe.Ohio.gov website was developed by ODOT and ORDC to serve as a 

distribution resource for all publicly available materials. The website went live on July 1, 

2009 and had received more than 23,440 hits by October 6th. The website includes a 

highly visible link to the 3C Quick Start EA project site which includes: a calendar of 

public meetings; online versions of the public meetings; briefing documents; major 

deliverables; contact information for questions; responses to frequently-asked questions;

and online surveys to solicit public comments throughout the study process. From July 

24 to August 24 visitors could provide general comments. During this time period 163

comments were received; 86 percent indicated positive reactions to the proposal. By

October 6, there were 9,730 online surveys completed. Ninety-two percent of the 

respondents indicated support for introducing safe, convenient, and cost-efficient 

passenger rail service from Cleveland to Cincinnati. Appendix N includes a summary of 

the online survey and other website metrics.

4.1.12 Toll-Free Project Hotline

A 24-hour project hotline at 1-877-3CisME was developed by ODOT and ORDC to serve 

as a method for obtaining public comment. The caller is greeted by a recorded message 

that asks for his or her name, contact information and comments or questions. The 

project team documented the feedback and added the names to the email and postage 

mail database. By October 6, 2009 there were 121 messages left on the hotline, with 

about 73 percent indicating support. Those opposed indicated they did not support using 

taxpayer funds to support passenger rail service, or did not believe the expected 

ridership justified the cost. Appendix O includes a summary of these calls.

4.2 Environmental Justice

A number of communities that are diverse in racial, ethnic and socio-economic 

backgrounds are located along the project corridor. Care was taken to ensure that these 

communities were given equal opportunity for participation, as outlined in Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. The 

statewide radio advertisement that is discussed above was one technique for reaching 

these populations directly.

Additionally, representatives from the 300+ jurisdictions located along the proposed 

routes were asked to distribute informational postcards that advertised the hotline, 

website and public meetings. Jurisdictions were requested to distribute the postcards at 

public libraries, local grocery stores, social service agencies, churches and other 

organizations that would have potential to be frequented by minorities and/or low income 

persons. Two thousand postcards were distributed directly to 20 minority churches 

located in Cleveland and Columbus; additional postcards were distributed in minority 

neighborhoods and at neighborhood events in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and 

Cincinnati. 

On September 14th the project team briefed and sought input from the East End 

Community Council in Cincinnati, a civic organization that represents many diverse 

neighborhoods along the proposed Eastern Cincinnati alignment. Feedback received 

indicated a preference for not bringing the proposed service as far south and west as the 

Riverside Dr./Boat House/Sawyer Point station location. Concerns were expressed 

about possible impacts to the residents’ view of the river, the local park and overall 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-10

October 2010

property values. Residents expressed skepticism about the ability of conventional 

intercity passenger rail to stimulate transit oriented development around the proposed 

station and along the eastern route alignment.

ODOT and ORDC continue to welcome opportunities to meet with individuals and 

groups to hear their feedback on the proposed 3C Quick Start service.

4.3 Support Letters and Resolutions

As a result of extensive public involvement efforts, as of October 6th numerous letters, 

news releases, emails, and resolutions of support had been received from individuals, 

local governments and organizations. These are included in Appendix P.

4.4 Response to Public Comments

The summary below highlights key themes that emerged from: comment forms and 

letters returned at the public meetings (95 comments), online public meeting survey 

responses (49), general comments provided via the web site (163), and responses to the 

online “3C is Me” survey (7,225 comments included among 9,730 survey responses). In 

total, as many as 7,500 total specific comments, calls, emails and letters were received

during the EA process.

4.4.1 Support for the Project

Of the 9, 730 respondents to the online survey, 92 percent indicated support for 3C 

Quick Start proposal. Of approximately 7,500 written comments received, at least 4,800 

comments – 64 percent -- expressed strong support for the introduction of 3C Quick 

Start passenger rail service. Some used the word "exciting" and "fabulous" and "love it" 

while others said this project is "long-overdue" or "can't happen soon enough" or it needs 

to start "ASAP." A common theme underpinning that excitement was concern over the 

future of gas prices, the environment, having to drive everywhere, or dealing with traffic.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

A Quinnipiac public opinion poll in March, 2009 indicated 64 percent of Ohioans 

surveyed support passenger rail. As noted above, the 3C Quick Start passenger rail 

proposal generated significant media interest, more than 9,700 responses to an online 

survey – with 92 percent indicating support -- and 7,500 written comments with at least 

61 percent voicing support for passenger rail in these admittedly non-scientific surveys. 

Clearly, there is significant interest and demand for passenger rail transportation. Freight 

and passenger rail services are critical pieces in a more multi-modal, strategic approach 

to moving goods and services more efficiently. Our agencies intend to be responsive to 

this public demand and business need. 

4.4.2 Routes and Stops 

About 700 respondents made suggestions on the location of the recommended route 

and proposed stations. Regarding proposed routing, most indicated preference for the 

Akron route or a more direct route between Columbus and Cincinnati or direct, high 

speed routes to Chicago. Station comments were focused on which cities should have 

stations and where. A number of Cincinnati-area citizens voiced support for the 

Riverside Drive/Boat House/Sawyer Point station option but those who opposed it did so 

strongly, citing concerns about impacts to a local park and view shed for the Ohio River.

Many residents cited a preference for the proposed light rail line along the Oasis Line.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-11

October 2010

Some respondents preferred the Lunken Field site. Others wrote that they wanted 

Cincinnati Union Terminal to be the 3C station even though it was not determined to be 

a viable Quick Start route option during the screening process.

ODOT/ORDC Response: 

The recommended station location near downtown Cincinnati on the Oasis Line is 

located on Lunken Park Drive. This station location better aligns 3C Quick Start service 

with other planning efforts currently underway by ODOT. The Eastern Corridor project in 

Cincinnati has already identified the Oasis Line for light rail service through its Tier I 

Record of Decision (ROD). A 3C Quick Start station at this location better supports the 

conclusions of that ROD. This site provides a location for the development of a station 

that would be surrounded by compatible light industrial uses. It is also consistent with 

local desire to preserve the Oasis Line for potential light rail service.

Debate was strong over other station locations, too, especially where there were distinct 

choices to be made (ie: Shelby or Galion? Hamilton or Middletown?). The public 

comments appeared to be evenly split. Other feedback questioned why their 

region/community was not included in the first phase of service, such as Springfield, 

East Dayton/Riverside and North Columbus.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

Regarding routes: Through its work through the years with Galion, Shelby, Hamilton, 

Middletown and many other cities along various proposed rail routes, ORDC was aware 

of their strong desire to be served by passenger rail. Alignments that would serve those 

cities were considered throughout the technical screening process. During the Levels 1 

and 2 technical screening process, it was determined that it was not viable to serve the 

west side of Cincinnati or the cities of Hamilton, Shelby or Akron at this time. However, 

future analysis and freight railroad agreements may make this possible at a later date. It 

is anticipated these questions will be resolved during future environmental study phases.

Regarding stations: During the Level 3 technical analysis, additional station stops along 

the recommended route were analyzed for potential ridership, environmental impacts 

and cost, as requested by various communities. It was determined that the East 

Dayton/Riverside and Springfield stations would, indeed, generate additional ridership at 

minimal costs and with no environmental impacts. As a result, these station stops are 

recommended to be included at start-up service, or shortly thereafter, pending the 

availability of funds to develop these specific stations. Ridership would also significantly 

increase with additional stops in Middletown, North Columbus and in the Galion area, 

thus they are recommended to be included in future improvements to Quick Start 

service. A station in Hamilton, conversely, would make the overall trip longer and not 

generate significant additional ridership. Thus a station stop in Hamilton is not 

recommended at this time. 

4.4.3 Service 

There were about 675 comments related to service. Many challenged the estimated 

travel time of more than six hours between Cleveland to Cincinnati, indicating they 

wanted faster traveling speeds as soon as possible. Others said the 3C Quick Start

service proposal was a good starting point. Many comments supported the incremental 

approach of developing and improving services to high-speed, although there were 
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-12

October 2010

differing opinions of what "high speed" actually meant. Others recognized that using the 

train was a more productive use of travel time. Many wanted to know if investments 

made in the Quick Start service would be transferrable to high speed rail.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

Top speeds of 3C Quick Start will be 79 mph. Plans will soon be developed for 

increasing train speeds up to 110 mph. Even among the world’s premier high-speed rail 

systems, nations did not make the leap from zero to 200-plus mph in a single step. 

While there are different planning and engineering requirements for the various speed 

scenarios, all began with systems operating at conventional speeds and incrementally 

improved performance. For services up to 90 mph, likely all of the 3C Quick Start

investments are transferable. For services up to 110 mph, new passenger-only tracks 

will be needed, but these can be built along existing freight lines to serve stations and 

train servicing facilities built for the 3C Quick Start. Also, trains newly built for 3C Quick 

Start service can have high-speed capabilities. If modernized trains are used for Quick 

Start these can be used in high-speed service as reserve equipment for peak travel 

periods, maintenance or emergencies. 

Respondents requested that the trains include food service, provide a place on-board for 

bikes and pets, and provide free Wi-Fi. 

ODOT/ORDC Response:

Quick Start passenger rail service is intended to be convenient and comfortable, with 

amenities like food service, plug-in access for personal electronic equipment and more. 

ODOT/ORDC will examine best practices on passenger rail systems throughout the U.S. 

and around the world to determine what might work best here in Ohio. 

Respondents said that more stations needed to be provided or that the schedules 

needed to be designed more for commuters to improve weekday ridership. Weekend 

ridership was assumed to be stronger, attracting college students, families or 

vacationers.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

Ridership experience in other cities and states indicate it is a fine balance between how 

many stations are provided, which provide access and convenience for more people, 

versus how quickly the train travels from the beginning to the end of an individual’s 

destination. If the trip has too many stops, individuals will find it faster to use other 

commuting alternatives, which, in turn, will decrease overall ridership. Some states have 

tackled this challenge by providing “express” rail trips, with few station stops, as well as 

“local” rail service, with more station stops. Ohio will consider both approaches as 

additional funding resources become available. Passenger rail service in other states 

has, indeed, been shown to attract college students and families as well as business 

travelers.

Some respondents indicated that fares should be affordable, and be competitively priced 

to automobiles and other modes of travel, including bus and air.

ODOT/ORDC Response:
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-13

October 2010

Fares have not yet been established for the 3C Quick Start service, but fares between 

Midwest cities on Amtrak are typically 14 cents per mile, or about $20 one-way from 

Cleveland to Columbus, and $18 from Cincinnati to Columbus. Compare this to $0.54 

cents per mile to own and operate a motor vehicle, and the ability to be more productive 

with travel time.

4.4.4 Opposition 

There were about 650 comments indicating the project is a waste of money, will not 

generate the estimated ridership or is just not a good idea. They primarily questioned the 

ridership estimates based on the proposed six-hour travel time between Cleveland and 

Cincinnati. They also questions whether people could be enticed out of their cars, or if 

Ohio had the population sufficient to make the train service a success. They also 

expressed concerns that passenger rail service would drain resources away from 

maintaining highways and bridges, and would increase the state’s current budget 

problems.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

Regarding ridership: Nearly 6 million Ohioans live within 15 miles of the 3C Corridor, a 

federally-designated high speed rail corridor and one of the most densely-populated 

corridors in the U.S. without passenger rail service. Early Amtrak projections on ridership 

were completed using conservative modeling techniques required by federally-funded 

transportation investments. 

Regarding ongoing funding for highways and bridges and impact on the state budget: 

Ohio is requesting 100 percent federal stimulus funding to pay for capital expenses such 

as railroad track and signal system improvements and vehicles. Annual operating costs 

are expected to be $29 million annually. Ticket fare collections are expected to generate 

about $12 million, and the state has identified several funding sources to pay for the 

remaining $17 million needed each year to operate Quick Start. ODOT/ORDC intends to 

use non-gas-tax dollars for operating funds, complementing the state’s historic 

investment in highways and bridges.

Regarding other economic benefits: Nationally, studies have shown that land values 

around stations increasing as much as 30 percent in the 14 other states that currently 

operate passenger rail service. Passenger rail provides place-making opportunities by 

creating comfortable, connected, memorable places. That leads to new prospects for 

small business and vibrant urban cores which attract and retain today’s talented 

professionals.

Some respondents said the survey questions were confusing and/or seemed "guided" to 

elicit certain responses.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

There were multiple opportunities for public comment, including the telephone hotline, 

online survey, public meetings and comment forms. These were are unscientific means 

of soliciting input, so responses should be considered qualitative and anecdotal rather 

than a scientifically representative sample of the public at large. While many of these 

written opportunities provided questions with multiple responses, respondents were also 

invited to provide unprompted comments.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 4-14

October 2010

4.4.5 Connectivity 

There were approximately 475 respondents who indicated that connecting local 

transportation (airports, bus and connecting rail service, taxis, bike and pedestrian 

access) to local destinations was very important to the overall success of passenger rail. 

A Southwest Cleveland station located at the Puritas/West 150th Rapid station, for 

example, was strongly favored based on its connectivity to Cleveland's rapid transit 

system and the airport. Similarly, convention center sites at Columbus and Dayton were 

strongly favored for reasons of access and connectivity.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

Our agencies strongly concur that passenger rail stations must be served by local 

transportation services to meet the access and convenience goals of Quick Start. 

Additionally, local stations should be developed in a manner that promotes local 

economic growth and is accessible by transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. During the 

three stakeholder workshops, the transit agencies located in the counties served by 

each passenger rail station made their commitment to coordinating closely with 3C 

Quick Start service. Their support letters, included in Appendix P, further reiterate this 

commitment.

Other respondents indicated that the 3C route should connect to other cities outside the 

state, such as Chicago, Pittsburgh and other destinations.

Response:

The 3C Quick Start passenger rail plan is only the first step in Ohio’s larger vision to 

connect with Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, New York City, and other major destinations in 

the Midwest, East Coast and elsewhere.

4.4.6 Miscellaneous Suggestions

At least 250 respondents and meeting attendees offered suggestions on how to make 

the service more attractive. They ranged from suggesting that the service be run by 

efficient companies rather than by “government bureaucrats”, to others who said the 

service should be run by government rather than by greedy companies. Others 

suggested that multi-ride tickets or passes be offered, that the involvement of Ohio or 

USA companies for economic stimulus be demonstrated, that an educational/advertising 

campaign to inform Ohio travelers about the benefits of train travel be undertaken, and 

that service to more Ohio cities be offered.

ODOT/ORDC Response:

We welcome the enthusiasim and creativity of Ohio citizens. As 3C Quick Start moves 

ahead, ODOT/ORDC remain committed to considering the public its partner in 

developing safe, convenient passenger rail service in Ohio.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 5-1

October 2010

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) at the behest 

of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). AECOM provided ridership and revenue analysis, Engage Public 

Affairs, LLC developed and implemented the public involvement plan. Persons 

comprising the EA team are included in the list below. Persons cited below for the FRA 

and ODOT were the reviewers of the EA. 

5.1 Federal Railroad Administration

David Valenstein, R.A., M.P.A., Environmental Program Manager, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Railroad Development

5.2 Ohio Department of Transportation

Timothy H. Hill, Administrator, Office of Environmental Services

Carmen M. Stemen, Major New Project Coordinator, Office of Environmental Services

Susan Gasbarro, Team Leader, Office of Environmental Services, Cultural Resources 

Section, History/Architectural Unit

Noel A. Alcala, Noise/Air Quality Coordinator, Office of Environmental Services

Stanley Baker, Environmental Specialist, Office of Environmental Services

William R. Cody, Environmental Specialist, Office of Environmental Services

Juliet D. Denniss, Environmental Supervisor, Office of Environmental Services

Paul B. Graham, Assistant Environmental Administrator, Office of Environmental 

Services

Craig T. Kerscher, Environmental Specialist, Office of Environmental Services

Gary J. Pen, GIMS2/GIS Coordinator, Office of Environmental Services

Michael A. Pettegrew, Environmental Supervisor, Office of Environmental Services

Matt Raymond, Ecologist, Office of Environmental Services, Ecological Section, 

Ecological Systems Unit

Don Rostofer, Supervisor, Office of Environmental Services, Ecological Section, 

Ecological Systems Unit

Libby B. Rushley, Transportation Planner, Office of Environmental Services

5.3 Ohio Rail Development Commission

Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director

Lou Jannazo, Chief of Project Development

Don Damron, Rail Planner

Megan McClory, Secretary-Treasurer

Stuart Nicholson, Public Information Officer

Wende Jourdan, Executive Assistant
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 5-2

October 2010

5.4 Parsons Brinckerhoff 

Persons within the PB portion of the EA team are cited below by name, title within the 

PB organization and their role in the project.

5.4.1 Project Management

Judi Craig, AICP, Vice President and Area 

Manager

Project Manager

Mark Cheskey, Senior Supervising Planner Environmental Task Manager 

Phil Pasterak, PE, Vice President and 

Regional Manager Transit and Rail

Deputy Project Manager and Rail Lead

Jennifer Graf, Vice President and Principal 

Project Manager

Project Review

5.4.2 EA Section Development

Kathleen Colbert-Gibson, AICP, Supervising 

Planner

Socioeconomics, Environmental 

Justice, and Section 4(f) Resources

John Page, AICP, CEP, Principal Project 

Manager Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

William Rice, REA, CEI, Supervising Planner Hazardous Materials and Visual 

Resources

Todd Steiss, AICP, Senior Planner

Project Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS), Floodplains, Noise, 

Vibration, and Environmental Justice

Jeffrey Wallace, AICP, Project Manager Transportation and Stations Analysis

Alice Lovegrove, Senior Supervising Air 

Quality Engineer Air Quality and Energy

Rob Greene, INCE, Bd. Crt., Vice President, 

Acoustics, Vibration and Air Quality Practice 

Manager

Noise and Vibration

Jessica Wade, AICP, GISP, Senior Planner Section 4(f)

Valerie Robbins, Senior Planner Socioeconomics

Amica Bose, PE Alternatives Analysis

David Gloss, PE, AICP, Senior Transportation 

Planner Alternatives Analysis

Tom Pavlick, PE, Senior Supervising Engineer Cost Estimates

Art Peterson, Senior Engineering Manager Operations and Infrastructure Planning
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 5-3

October 2010

Jack Heiss, PE Supervising 

Rail/Transportation Engineer

Public Health and Safety and 

Construction Impact

Implementation 

Keith Kerr EIT, Civil/Structural Engineer Hazardous Materials

Jason Miles, J.D, Environmental Planner EA Document Development

5.5 AECOM

Bruce Williams Ridership

5.6 Engage Public Affairs, LLC

Marie Keister, AICP, APR Public Involvement

5.7 Lawhon and Associates, LLC

Tom Powell Wetlands, Waterways, and Ecological 

Resources

Nichole Lashley Ecological Resources
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 5-4

October 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 6-1

October 2010

6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Ohio 3C Quick Start Environmental Assessment

Distribution List for Public Review Copies

State and Federal Agencies:

Timothy M. Hill

Ohio Department of Transportation

Matthew Dietrich

Ohio Rail Development Commission

Norm West

US Environmental Protection Agency

Karen Hallberg

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Mark Epstein

Ohio State Historic Preservation Office

Luane Conley

US Army Corp of Engineers - Huntington

Pauline Thorndike

US Army Corp of Engineers - Buffalo

Brian Mitch

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Art Coleman

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Libraries:

Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County – Main Library

800 Vine Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Dayton Metro Library – Main Library

215 E. Third Street

Dayton, OH 45402

Columbus Metropolitan Library – Main Library

96 S. Grant Avenue

Columbus, OH 43215

Cleveland Public Library – Main Library

325 Superior Avenue, N.E.

Cleveland, OH 44114
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 6-2

October 2010

Metropolitan Planning Organizations:

Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study

146 South High Street

Akron, OH 44308-1423

Stark County Area Transportation Study

201 3rd Street, N.E.

Suite 201

Canton, OH 44702-1231

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments

720 East Pete Rose Way

Suite 420

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency

1299 Superior Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44114-3204

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

285 East Main Street

Columbus, OH 43215

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

1 South Main Street

Suite 260

Dayton, OH 45402

Clark County – Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee

76 East High Street

Springfield, OH 45502

Richland County Regional Planning Commission

35 North Park Street

Mansfield, OH 44902
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 7-1

October 2010

7.0 REFERENCES

16 USC 470. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as 

amended.

16 USC 460. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965.

23 USC 138 and 49 USC 303. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966.

23 CFR 771. Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, Effective April 23, 2009.

33 USC 1251-1376. Clean Water Act of 1977, Public Law 95-217.

33 USC 401. Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

36 CFR 800. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

40 CFR 1500. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. November 29, 1978.

42 USC 4321-4347. National Environmental Policy Act. 1969, as amended.

42 USC 2000. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

42 USC 61. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970, as amended.

42 USC 85. Clean Air Act 1955, amended 1990.

49 CFR parts 222 and 229. Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; 

Final Rule. April 27, 2005.

50 CFR 17. Endangered Species Act.

64 FR 28545 and 49 CFR Part 260.35. Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts. May 26, 1999.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Amtrak. Amtrak Midwest Routes.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/Page/Browse_

Routes_Page&c=Page&cid=1081256321432&ssid=133. 2009.

Amtrak. Draft Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service Cleveland-ColumbusCincinnati. September 15, 2009
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 7-2

October 2010

Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951. May 24, 1977.

Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961. May 24, 1977.

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629. February 11, 1994.

Executive Order 13166. Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121. August 11, 2000.

Federal Highway Administration. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. 1983. 

Federal Highway Administration. Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental 

and Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory 6640.8A. 1987.

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. http://www.riderta.com. 2009.

Greater Dayton RTA. http://www.greaterdaytonrta.org. 2009.

Midwest High Speed Rail Association.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/benefits/economy.html. 2009.

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail 

Feasibility Study. 2001. 

Ohio Department of Development, Office of Policy Research and Strategic Planning. 

Ohio Combined, Metropolitan, Micropolitan Statistical Areas with Population 

Projections from 2000-2030. March 2004. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. 

Natural Heritage Database. April 2009.

Ohio Department of Public Safety. Ohio Traffic Crash Facts 2008. July 2009.

Ohio Department of Transportation. Access Ohio 2004 – 2030. November 2004.

Ohio Department of Transportation and Ohio Rail Development Commission. 

http://3CisMe.Ohio.gov. 2009.

Ohio Department of Transportation. Fiscal Year 2008 – 2011 State Transportation 

Improvement Program. July 2007, amended May 20, 2009.

Ohio Rail Development Commission. Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub 

Study. July 2007.

ORC 163.56. Appropriations of property, effective 1989.

ORC 929.05. Ohio Farmland Preservation Act of 1982.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 7-3

October 2010

ORC 1517. Ohio Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.

ORC 6111. Ohio Water Quality Standards.

Ohio’s 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force. Report of Ohio’s 21st Century 

Transportation Priorities Task Force: Moving Ohio into a Prosperous New World. 

January 2009.

Parks Department websites (accessed August 2009)

o www.cincyparks.com

o http://www.ci.miamisburg.oh.us/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=18&I

temid=34

o http://recparks.columbus.gov/Parks

o http://www.loraincountymetroparks.com/caley.htm

o http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/parks/parks.html

o http://www.metroparks.org/Parks/Eastwood/Home.aspx

o http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/clevelkf/tabid/721/Default.aspx

o http://www.columbus.k12.oh.us/indianola/School_website/Welcome.html

o http://portal.cleveland-oh.gov/clnd_images/Parks/parks.pdf

o http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/crc/pages/-4993-/

o http://www.lagrangeohio.net/village_community_park.shtml

o http://www.mallardcreekgc.net/

o http://www.shelbyohio.org/rabold.html

o http://www.worthington.org/services/cityparks.cfm

o http://www.ntprd.org/reid_park_golf_course.htm

o http://www.clemetparks.com/visit/index.asp?action+rdetails&reservations_id=1

003

o http://www.royaloaksgolfclub.net/FrameTop.htm

o http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/crc/pages/-5925-/

o http://www.ci.galion.oh.us/Maps/southmap.htm

o www.ohioschoolforthedeaf.org

o http://westcarrollton.org/index.php/Park-Addresses.html

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) (Public L.109-59; 119 Stat. 1144). 2005. 

Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority. http://www.sorta.com/. 2009. 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Public L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 

107). 1998.

US Corps of Engineers. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 

Delineation Manual: Midwest Region. September 2008.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 7-4

October 2010

US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 1995. Transit Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, DC.

US Department of Transportation, Federal Rail Administration. High Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. October 2005.

US Department of Transportation. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America. April 2009.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species by Ohio 

Counties. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/state-oh.pdf. April 2009.
3C Quick Start Passenger Rail 

Environmental Assessment

Page 8-1

October 2010

8.0 APPENDICES

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Route Evaluation Technical Report

Appendix B Yards and Capacity Improvements Mapping

Appendix C Stations Mapping

Appendix D Station Descriptions and Alternatives Dismissed

Appendix E Wetlands and Water Resources

Appendix F Threatened and Endangered Species

Appendix G Hazardous Materials

Appendix H Section 4(f) Resources Environmental Justice

Appendix I Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan

Appendix J Stakeholder Workshops

Appendix K Agency Coordination

Appendix L Public Meetings

Appendix M News Releases and Media Coverage

Appendix N Website Metrics

Appendix O Hotline Comments

Appendix P Support Letters