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.
Megabus doesn’t connect Cleveland to any other Ohio city other then Toledo. Don’t say the state shouldn’t have a train just because of one route a cheap bus offers to half the state.
I am for the train, but I have to wholeheartedly admit Andrew Hall’s comments (#94) make a lot of sense. Can someone with more knowledge of the 3c project refute them?
^ I think those types of criticism are pretty valid and reasonable. I will say this is a starter line and, while we should question and try to make the 3C as accountable as possible, it is a starter line and I think you may have to give this a bit of a break. Service hours can be changed as ridership and demand increase or decrease, travel time can be reduced over time, price could potentially come down.
By the way, has anyone mentioned the number of students that will be served by this in the 4 cities?
I was under the impression that the travel times have not been finalized yet. At the very least, they can be adjusted to passenger demand. So I’d be hesitant to pound the last nail in the coffin 18 months before departure based on that.
Press Release:
Mayor Coleman Applauds Federal 3C Rail Funding
(Columbus) After months of advocacy and discussion, today’s Federal ARRA Stimulus announcement of $400 million for the State of Ohio’s 3C Rail plan moves Columbus closer to connecting with Cleveland, Dayton and Cincinnati, and the national rail system, with high speed trains in the future.
“Our sincere thanks go out to President Obama, Governor Strickland, Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy and all those who have spoken out for improving Ohio’s transportation network with rail through Columbus,†said Mayor Coleman. “We will work with ODOT and ORDC to make sure the station in downtown Columbus is a success not only for travelers, but also as a key to further economic development. Columbus is ready for transportation alternatives, and we need to leverage this moment to create more rail options and multi-modal development.â€Â
The Mayor joined the Governor, Mayor Mark Mallory of Cincinnati, Representative Kilroy, and hundreds of others today to receive the official word of the project funding from U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis at a Statehouse rally.
“Today, we are seeing the beginning of a new way to travel, and this new way to travel has left the station and is bound for Ohio,†said Governor Strickland. “The 3C project will create jobs, jumpstart economic development and make transportation easier for people in Columbus and across the state. Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman and Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy have been two of our largest passenger rail advocates, and I thank them for their efforts to bring back rail to Ohio.â€Â
@Walker Why do you act as if criticisms are all or nothing? Nowhere did I “put a nail the coffin” or anything even close. Why the drama of dismissal instead of answering the questions or just admitting you don’t have answers (but do have faith.)
I didn’t and still don’t understand the model of ridership and asked if it could explained. If it can, then do so. If it can’t, while it can clearly be changed it does raise the question as to why it was there in the first place. Further, if it is a bad model which doesn’t serve the most needs, shouldn’t it be changed beforehand? Why should we wait instead of proactively being engaged?
The worst possible thing that can happen is for this project to be bungled. The ensuing headlines, bailouts and ill-will would be the nails and burial of any further projects.
I suspect that the model is primarily to the benefit of Cle and CIncy and travelers who have business with the government for the day. I don’t think that is a bad model and had plenty of state-wide upside, but it does mean it doesn’t benefit me or any of the proponent arguments in this thread.
A.
Sorry if my comment came off as overly dismissive. That wasn’t my intention.
I think that the travel times are a valid concern and one that I’m hoping will be addressed and altered in the next 18 months. I am working on setting up a meeting with someone at the ORDC sometime in the next week or so, and you can bet that it’s one of the first questions that will be raised.
Ohio’s rail plans back on track
Friday, January 29, 2010
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Sometime in 2012, people should be able to board a train in Columbus and get to either Cincinnati or Cleveland in about three hours for $20, state officials said yesterday after the Obama administration announced that Ohio was getting $400 million to relaunch passenger rail service.
READ MORE
@Walker Thanks.
By travel times, you mean both arr/dept times as well as duration, yes?
Other questions:
I would like to know is what is the source of data for commuting between the cities. If it is pre-2009 (as these plans have been around for a while), a lot has changed economically since then. That needs to be a concern.
Are there specific plans already for special trains during OSU football games? Or Bengals/Browns? Or other singular events? (I suspect a special train for OSU games would be bad for Columbus in lost revenue.)
A.
Yes, by “travel times” I actually meant arrival/departure times. ;) It’s too early.
As a my own follow-up, the passenger data and projections is an interesting topic.
If the older numbers project N riders/day whereas today’s economic climate is really some <N, then that will be seized upon by the naysayers, create larger deficits and generally screw the pooch for further rail development.
OTOH, if the real today numbers are some M (<N), one can make a really strong case that a stimulus is a success if we get >M as it means that more economic activity is dictating more travel. Ideally those M+ riders are not people resuming their old business habits, but new business and business growing beyond telecommuting.
All long the 3C railcolytes have been in sell-mode which naturally spins the upper end of numbers. Now they need to be in realistic mode, taking the hand they are dealt and making it win.
A.
I’m pretty excited. And, I’m glad the CU readers aren’t as glum about it as the Dispatch readers. Yes…it probably won’t be profitable, on it’s own. But, are highways profitable? Why are we OK with HEAVILY subsidizing highways, but not rail. I wonder if I can bring my bike onto the train. I’d love to bike the station in Columbus…chill on the train to Cleveland for 3 hours…ride around Cleveland for the day…and come back to Columbus that night. That’s worth $20 dollars to me!
Walker — thanks for raising that point. I’d rather not have the cost of a hotel room tacked on to the bill every time I want to take a day trip on the train….
But, are highways profitable? Why are we OK with HEAVILY subsidizing highways, but not rail.
The issue is more complicated than that which gets glossed over. Just at first pass, subsidies for rail we are discussing are directly marked for passenger rail. Subsidies for highways cover both freight and passenger.
A.
Up for discussion as well is rumors the southern terminus of line in Cincinnati will *not* be downtown, but instead Sharonville which is 10 miles north. This is due to not all of the requested 517 million (or 117 million missing) being allocated. However, at a later time the line could be extending into Union Terminal @ Cincinnati.
More discussion here – http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18328.msg458208/topicseen.html#new
Unfortunately, California’s 220mph system knocks the socks off the Ohio Hub Plan. I am excited about the 3C trains, but I’m positive they are going to raise public outcry because the lack of ridership and profitability, which will hurt any chance of future higher-speed rail. I worry about the tracks we’re following (pun intended)…
I don’t know if the Florida rail is set in stone yet, they only got half the money they were requesting, so they will need help at the state level to be official. (Removing funding from the recent Sun Rail project to their high speed one)
The other projects are upgrades to existing service corridors. Our 3C is a start up and will be needing constant modifications year after year to build up speeds.
Of all the negative comments I have heard, I don’t think anyone has taken in account the population that doesn’t own a car or has a car capable of going highway speeds two hours out of town. Sure driving will be quicker, but it beats an 85 year old walking speed.
Options is key and having rail available in case other transportation modes get bogged down (ex: airport cancelations) this could be a great alternative.
As far as boarding / departing times are concerned those can always be changed just like COTA does every year. I am happy that this will get started. I am too concerned with the 100million gap from the original proposal. At least its not Florida’s 1.3 billion funding gap.
#114
Andrew Hall Says:
January 29th, 2010 at 9:57 am
The issue is more complicated than that which gets glossed over. Just at first pass, subsidies for rail we are discussing are directly marked for passenger rail. Subsidies for highways cover both freight and passenger.
Subsidies yes. But, this 400 million is a freight rail investment as well. Their times increase means more business opportunity.
I’m excited about this, but will it end up getting canned if/when Kasich becomes governor? He’s clearly not a fan, since he said he wishes this money was being spent on roads.
Still waiting for the day I can sell my car…
I’m generally against goverment subsidies for unsustainable business models – because it makes the business operators less willing to improve their product — but I haven’t made up my mind yet on this one. (Someone please tell me if I’m way off on my logic.) For example, one exception I’ve made is the COTA subsidy — because it’s relatively small and serves the greater good of our local community. I’d hate for them to cut back hours / routes and provide a lesser product just to save a fraction of a cent on my sales tax…and have people on the fringe of poverty no longer with a means of getting to work.
That said, people keep claiming that highways are subsidized and that this rail subsidy is essentially the same thing. I’d argue that, if there was a 30-40% tax on an unsubsidized rail ticket to pay for the rails, THEN it would be the same thing — drawing a parellel to very high (but fair) gasoline taxes. Or if you had to pay the state +$70 a year to have a rail “rider’s licence” and “luggage plates.” For the most part, highways are financed by those who use them, and almost on a per-use basis — ie: the more one uses a highway, the more they pay in taxes. For this rail subsidy, we’re looking at less of a correlation between usership and who pays for it: the more $$ you make, or property you own, or stuff you buy the more you pay for the rail.