RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
According to a Statehouse source, the 3C Corridor should be officially receiving federal stimulus dollars tomorrow in an announcement following Obama’s State of the Union speech. In October 2009, ODOT and the Ohio Rail Development Commission submitted their application for $563 million to help fund a passenger rail line that would run between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. More information about the 3C Corridor can be found at 3cisme.ohio.gov. More information about tomorrow’s announcement can be found in a Dispatch article here.
Update #1: Gov. Strickland’s office is planning a news conference today (Thursday) in the Statehouse Rotunda at 1pm. Anyone planning on attending?
Update #2: It’s official. The 3C Corridor is receiving $400M in federal funding.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Are you guys with the Asphalt Manufacturers Association? I mean, you both started accounts within the past 2 days just so you could talk about something you have no interest in using. Weird. I also think it’s funny bringing up hybrids and electric cars. 10-20 years ago people like yourselves would have been making the same kind of arguments against.
I have an idea. Don’t like them, don’t use them. Meanwhile, go piss on someone else’s parade. You can always come back to say “I told you so”.
Here is my idea to save this whole idea and bring high speed rail to Ohio and stop this foolish idea that AMTRAK is trying to sell everyone
The state of Ohio already owns the land I – 71 sits on, use the right of ways they own, install state of the art continious rails on concrete ties that high speed trains need. This line would be dedicated strictly for the ” 2C ” traffic. Come out of Columbus, short stop in Worthington/Polaris area then cross over to the I – 71 right of way up to around the Mansfield area for a brief stop then continue on to the Cleveland area with a brief stop in the Medina area, maybe Strongsville and then downtown Cleveland.
Using brand new DMU’s capable of sustained 125mph service that get 50% better fuel economy than the old equipment they want to use.
http://www.usrailcar.com/dmu-specs.php
8 roundtrips a day between Cleveland and Columbus with an average speed of 82.3 mph including stops. People would ride this service.
Uncommon Sense:
You miss the point completely, I have stated that I have nothing against rail travel. I travel across this country frequently on buiness and have spent a lot of time on rail systems like BART in the Bay area, and Acela on the east coast that have definite cost, speed, or convenience benefits that make them a viable travel option. My issue is that 3c has none of these, nor does the population in this market have enough of a daily commuter or tourist traffic between these cities to support 3c. The real issue is that this project is a big waste of taxpayer dollars at a time when waste in govt. is wonton and needs to be reigned in.
I would take you seriously if you were going to be posting here in another month.
There is no way to get the money for High Speed at this time. I see this proposal as a start that can lay a foundation and increase awareness. Give people a taste of what could be and they will be clamoring for more speed, stations, routes, and frequency.
IMO - $8 Billion is a paltry sum for this type of investment. A visionary government could have steered much more of the Stimulus Bill towards infrastructure upgrades that would bring this country into the 21st Century and created many more jobs. Including real High Speed Rail.
A visionary government would have started with high speed rail. 3c will travel at about the same speed as trains on this route did in the middle of the last century. People quit using it then for the same reasons they won’t use it in 2012.
If you build it, they won’t come!
I’m tired of railing against this. We have gotten way off track. Now I’m really steamed. It’s time to go tie one on. I am really getting loco. I amtrack-ing this entire thread. This is definitely a signal to go to bed.
Construction cost for the I- 71 corridor plan, as very little land wil be encroached on is about $ 350 million. Enviromental studies have already been done on I – 71, that is not an issue. The state of Ohio already owns the land.
Each DMU train unit would run about 4 million a piece, 5.2 if you’re looking at double decker units. For the same 513 million for the proposed 3 c plan, this would be cheaper and would not require a subsidy every year. DMUs use 50% less fuel , 50% less maintenance and travel at a higher speed as they are considerably lighter.
Cincy and Dayton service would have to be put on the back burner.
Did you miss the part where DMUs are being studied for the 3C? Double decker too.
The route they want to use on existing rails where freight trains will have priority, are not long and straight for high speed.
Looking at DMU’s is wise, but not taking advantage of their speed advantange is stupid.
Perhaps people who transferred from the dispatch should just stay there. Your minds are already made up. Why are you arguing here? Buckeyechunke (why?, it’s just a silly name) are you posting here.
Just to here to fight?
Again, you’re highly suspect as you’ve only been on this site for a day or so. Maybe you should keep to the dispatch where you’re anonymous.
FYI, looking at Florida (who only got half what they requested) this line would cost billions doing true high speed rail. And by billions I’m saying all 8 billion Obama set aside for HSR. 260 miles vs Florida (half funded) 88 mile route.
You guys sure are picking on BuckeyeChuck even though he makes valid points in my opinion. Do I get more credibility because I’ve been posting on this site for awhile….or will you use the fact that I have a stupid picture to strike down my credibility? I don’t think it matters how long he’s been posting on this site if he backs up his points with logical arguments.
As for the argument, “if you don’t like the plan, just go away” – does he not have a say on how his tax dollars are spent? $400M is alot of money to “waste” no matter how you slice it. The argument is not whether or not he likes rail; the argument is whether this is a waste of money or not. Some think it is, some think it is not. He agrees that rail would be nice if they went at it another way.
At the end of the day, here’s the deal though Hog…that 400M is going to be spent on rail and its going to be spent in some state other than Ohio if we don’t do this. We don’t have the other 2B or whatever it would take to go high speed. This is what we have to work with, period. Now, assuming the two choices then become build nothing and let another state get the 400M for rail or build this, I’m going with “build this” all day long. The argument that this 17M dollars a year is some big commitment holds little water to me, since the bill for cutting the grass around the freeways alone is close to that. The concept that it somehow should have to make money holds even less water, as no transportation spending pays for itself directly. The ridership arguments are anecdotal at best, with both sides believing they’re right based on what they would do. I’d ride it, for a variety of reasons, so I think ridership will be good. That guy doesn’t think he’d ride it, so he thinks it will be bad. That’s a guessing game, and as of right now I’m more likely to believe the experts and their forecasts than “some guy” (including myself).
In the end, its much like the streetcar. I’d love for this project to do more…but it isn’t going to yet…so I’ll take what I can get, instead of giving it to another state and having nothing.
@Core_Models: I appreciate your input and definitely see your point, but I take great exception to the premise that federal dollars are “free money” for us, and that if we don’t waste them, somebody else will (I know…that’s a stretch of what you said, but that’s how I’m reading it.) The idea that we should be digging our national debt hole even deeper, because “if we don’t, some other state will” is not something I’m comfortable with. Yeah, $400M out of our $10trillion national debt is not a big %….but every other state is making the same argument and it all adds up. Not to get into a whole political debate and drop the “B-word” — but I have a hard time believing this would have ever been justifiable if President Obama didn’t have the argument “I inherited a huge mess & budget deficit from President Bush, so it’s now it’s perfectly ok to spend money we don’t have and pass the problem on to our grandkids.”
I don’t have a huge problem with the $17M annual subsidy, but spending $400M on antiquated technology to “get people hooked” on a concept they dismissed generations ago is like buying a bunch of BetaMax players to get people hooked on BlueRay — they’re going to be underwhelmed and selling them on high speed rail is going to be even more difficult.
wow,i just want my street paved.
Hog, the argument against the federal spending is an entirely different one though, and I don’t think holds up in a discussion of this project. I’m not going to get into the question of should this much in federal funds have been earmarked for rail, because it has and that ship has sailed. The question is, do we want our share or do we want it to go elsewhere. Personally, I’d rather have a 400M dollar rail project in Ohio than in Tennessee or Wyoming.
ETA: I’d also be more likely to fall on the side of MORE funding than none, if it meant building high speed all around and a more advanced rail system, but again…this is what we got.
Keep in mind that these are federal dollars going towards a project with a track record for economic development. That’s usually called an “investment” more than it’s called a “waste”.
http://www.transact.org/library/factsheets/jobs.asp
@HogRoaster
I agree that 16% is not the likely overall average. However, one of the conclusions of the study was that no road pays for itself with the gas taxes generated by the drivers using it. The TX-99 16% example is just an example. I wish I had a link to the full study, but it is no longer available.
I also agree that the line would be more successful and more likely to recover a higher percentage of its operating costs if it were higher speed. However, I’m all for incremental improvements in the meantime.
So who’s going to take the train?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
By James Nash and Marla Matzer Rose
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
A business traveler hoping to take a train from Columbus to Cleveland would have to leave the capital city at 6:32 a.m. and wrap things up in Cleveland to catch the last train at 3:30 p.m.
That hypothetical passenger would end up spending 6 hours on the train, compared with less than six hours in Cleveland.
So just who’s going to use what’s being hailed as the greatest transportation innovation in Ohio in decades?
Nearly 500,000 people a year, according to Amtrak. Rail advocates say passengers would include college students, the elderly, people without cars, and business travelers who would work on their computers or phones while riding the rails.
READ MORE
As someone who was thrilled to see COTA adding more late night hours recently, I’m hoping that they can quickly add extended travel times to this. I’m sure this will serve some people adequately, but they’re missing a huge opportunity by not providing at least some later weekend runs.
That is… if this data is finalized, which I’m still not sure if it is. The Springfield Paper is talking about how they still might be getting a station, and it’s not on that Dispatch map.