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.
A TXDOT study had an example of a freeway that only generates enough revenue to cover 16% of it’s costs. Hardly covered by those who use them.
Basically gas tax revenues generated on local roads are diverted to the interstate, federal, and state highway systems to make it appear as if those roads are covering their own costs. Really it’s just being cross-subsidized and the local roads are paid for by other taxes (not user fees).
Yes it is true that our freeways and roads are highly subsidized, in fact they are pretty much subsidized 100% as all the funds except tolls are paid through some sort of tax. The issue though is that most of us that pay taxes used for road construction and maintenance also use those very same roads, while most taxpayers will be subsidizing 3c, only a ridiculously small percentage of us will actually use rail system. Given the numbers I have seen, taking into account an estimated 17 million dollar subsidy, you could instead give each and every one of the estimated 448,000 paying travelers 14 gallons of gas and let them take the trip for free.
There are many points of deliberation made in all these comments, but the fact remains, no one has answered the intrinsic point, that being, why would I or anyone else pay twice as much to take more than twice as long to reach a destination. Then throw in the added time of getting to the station, and the cost of parking there, along with the cost of transportation to the final destination and any other travel costs incurred during the stay at the destination, and the benefit of this rail system seems almost non existant. Systems like BART ro ALCEA have specific cost/speed/ or convenience benefits that 3c, (should be 3c+d), just doesn’t have. For a rail system to be viable, there needs to be a large population of commuter or tourist travel to support it, 3c has neither. Who in their right mind would use 3c to between Cincy and Columbus or Columbus and Cleveland. That person would have to waste 6 to 8 hours and $50.00 per day.
jlmmns,
Very few people, 6 months after the novelty wears off the word gets out of how slow, inconvenient it is, ridership will plummet.
@Johnwirtz – that TxDOT study does not seem to be very objective and uses one isolated stretch of highway to lead one to think that “all highways are only 16% paid for by gas tax revenue.” It has got to equal out in the long run, otherwise we would have a huge national debt. Wait a second…
In seriousness: Take for example the BILLIONS of dollars that are going to be spent on fixing the 70/71 split. Then factor in that it’s only about a 1 mile stretch, that cars get approx 30mpg on the highway, and there are x cars per day that traverse that stretch. My guess is that the figures for that incident will also be low. Or factor in the $1M landscaping at the Morse Rd exit off I-71 and that probably skews the numbers for that fraction of a mile under the highway as well. Now take a 1 mile stretch of I-75 near Lima that is relatively maintenance-free other than a resurfacing every so many years, is flat with few overpasses / bridges / overhead lighting / etc — a stretch of farmland that has long ago been paid for — and factor in that the semis driving that stretch of land get much less than 30mpg….and I’m sure your % factor is much different than the 70/71 split figure. The fact is, highways / roads / anything involving cars are primarily funded by users via gas taxes, license fees, plate fees etc….while other “subsidized entitites” are generally funded by less directly associated income taxes, property taxes, or general sales taxes.
I for one, do not have a problem with some of this highway funding being diverted to support rail / streetcar / mass transit — IF it is going to have a direct impact of taking cars off the roads and (in theory) reduce the amount of widening projects, expansions, and maintanence on roads. Unfortunately, I think this rail project will not have a substantial enough of an impact to remove cars from I-71, which is why I question its slow-speed, user-unfriendly design and overall feasibility.
I’m generally against goverment subsidies for unsustainable business models
Isn’t typical business and financial advice to diversify investments and holdings? I fail to see how continually subsidizing one mode of transportation, often to the detriment of other modes, is more suitable than investing in and creating a true multi-modal system that can better serve the larger community.
I get the sense that many of the criticisms are looking at 0-5 years rather than what this system could (and hopefully will be) over the next 10-20 years.
So we’re supposed to fund a system with a fundamentally flawed business model in hopes of creating what “hopefully” will be a viable system in a couple of decades? I think there is a job for you in one of those investment banking firms that have caused us so much grief lately.
And spending 1.3 billion on 3 miles of road is sustainable?
jlmmns
LOL
Lotws,
How many peeople will use that 3 miles of road ? Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Yearly ?
On a busy piece of highway you could have the annual ridership of 3c roll by in less than a week. Giving a subsidized cost per mile well below what we will spend on 3c.
oops, should have read “per traveler mile”
jlmmns Says: no one has answered the intrinsic point, that being, why would I or anyone else pay twice as much to take more than twice as long to reach a destination.
That’s been answered quite a few times, both here and in other discussions.
What about in 5, 10, 15 and 20 years? What if gas spikes again? How many people will still be driving? A lot of unknowns. We did see transit numbers start to rise during the last gas spike and remain pretty solid since. Prices are rising again. Again, you and others are dealing with the reality over the next 0-5 years. The reality may change.
Once the split gets fixed this go around, how is it going to be fixed the next time? Where are you going to go to widen without causing greater issues to the surrounding communities?
Everyday, more and more Hybrid vehicles are sold at delerships across the country. Chevy, Toyota, Nissan and virtually every auto manufacturer will have various models of electric vehicles available to the masses shortly.
Tesla wil have a crossover vehicle shortly that will be all electric and have a 300 + mile range.
Within ten years oil will not be the factor it is today.
You still have an issue of cost with the new technology. How long till it trickles down to be affordable? And you will still have populations unable or unwilling to drive-college students, the poor, elderly. Car centric is not a sustainable model.
Comparing tax subsidies for highways and the investment in the 3C is apples and oranges. The $400 Million from the feds and the remainder from the state ($163 M) is a startup cost. Annual cost for the 3C is estimated at $17 Million. For the cost of the overhaul of the downtown split, the 3C could be run for 76 years. For a truer comparison, what would be the cost in today’s dollars of the highway system in Ohio, or just the portions of I-70, I-71 and I-75 that connect Cincy, Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton?
ETA – This does not even take into account additional tax revenue from new development along the route, and savings from less wear and tear on the Intertstate. Seems like a solid investment for the State of Ohio. As others have said, this is a starting point that could lead to a much better system down the road (more routes, higher capacity/speed). We have to look long term, and invest in Ohio’s infrastructure now.
The Tesla S
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php
For those that don’t have cars, Greyhound, Mega Bus.
What about capacity issues? A bus only serves 40-80 people right?
That’s one of the issues COTA is facing on routes like the #2.
I’m glad you have the answers for everyone and have the vast, enlightened knowledge to determine what is best for everyone.
I just love that you are proposing a $50k car as a solution for the masses.