State officials and sustainable transportation advocates cheered today's announcement of $400 million of federal funding for development of Ohio's "3C" passenger rail corridor linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.
"With today’s historic announcement by President Obama, Ohio takes a major step toward modernizing our state’s transportation infrastructure," said Governor Ted Strickland. "The 3C Corridor will create economic development opportunities and serve as a model of environmental sustainability. Most importantly, it will put thousands of Ohioans to work over the next few years."
See more on the 3C passenger rail plan here.
While the current plan will offer modest service at first -- a handful of trains a day at speeds up to 79 miles per hour -- it will be a vital downpayment on a transportation alternative that will begin to rebalance the state's transportation system after decades of automobile-oriented development. Go here for more on how the funds might be spent from an analysis by All Aboard Ohio.
Myth Busting the 3C Corridor
Ed Says:There has been a spike in negative media coverage of the 3C Corridor in recent weeks. As a result, polls are showing that the number of Ohioans doubting the utility of the project has increased. In reality, the plan is no different than it was last summer when ODOT held public meetings on it and excitement was high in the media and among the public.
The negative coverage comes from lazy journalism, a lagging response by backers of the 3C plan, and public ignorance of the 3C rail's market potential, the nearly non-existent lack of alternatives to driving, or of how other state's passenger rail programs evolved from similar modest beginnings as 3C will.
While it is right and fair for the public to ask questions about a project involving $400 million in taxpayer money, the weak media coverage has caused many myths about the 3C Corridor (and passenger rail in general) to surface. In response, All Aboard Ohio, a non-profit, statewide rail and transit advocacy organization has put together a 3C Corridor Myth Busters Fact Sheet available here:
http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/3C%20mythbusters.pdf
3C vs OC
Ed Says:I don't know the total, but the state has spent several million dollars over the years studying the corridor-- going back as far as the 1970s.
Since initial $400 million is just for a start-up level of service, it's all being funded by stimulus dollars. Further improvements to speeds and frequencies will involve a mixture of federal (80%) and state (20%) dollars. There will likely have to be local money involved for any additional stations that would be added during the subsequent rounds of upgrade and improvement to the corridor (like getting the train into Cincinnati Union Terminal)
The 3C corridor is approximately 250 miles long. If I did my math right, that's $1.6 million per mile-- for this start-up phase. Remember, speeds will be increased to 90 mph with some sections at 110mph. I do not know what the additional costs will be.
Today we're planning for population growth, too. And with rumors that
local foundations are about to make a big push for immigrant infusion
here, will we see more automobiles on the road with that population
growth or will we see a pick up in public transit riding?
Despite population growth in the US as a whole over the past decade, total vehicle miles traveled has declined since 2002 (US census data) and over the past couple of years, total vehicle ownership in the United States has fallen. On the other hand, over the past 10 years, public transit ridership and intercity passenger rail ridership has grown.
Given that average wages in the US have declined in real dollars over the past 40 years (and continue to do so), we are in the middle of a recession that, according to some, may last up to 10 years, that oil prices remain volatile and will likely rise again in the coming years, that Ohio's population is aging and the number of households in the state without cars is expected to grow in to the double digits from the current 8%, I think the growth will be with transit and rail ridership.
The problem in Ohio is that the legislature has gutted transit funding to the point that Ohio now spends more money cutting grass along its interstates than it does on public transit. That has to change.
This state desperately needs alternatives to driving for a variety of reasons, but there is little recognition of this in state and local governments and among the public.
legislature has gutted transit funding
Susan Miller Says:The problem in Ohio is that the legislature has gutted transit funding to the point that Ohio now spends more money cutting grass along its interstates than it does on public transit. That has to change.
I agree, Ed. And so does Policy Matters. Save Transit Now, Move Ohio Forward!
And as to grass cutting...
"Section 130 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) amended 23 U.S.C. 319 by adding a requirement that native wildflower seeds or seedlings or both be planted as part of any landscaping project undertaken on the Federal-aid highway system. At least one-quarter of one percent of funds expended for a landscaping project must be used to plant native wildflowers on that project. This provision requires every landscaping project to include the planting of native wildflowers unless a waiver has been granted."
Wildflowers and native plants shouldn't require so much cutting. And ODOT crews could toss out seed balls as they drive those highways and byways.
I find it astonishing that native pants and cover crops that could assist with stormwater, oxygen production, carbon sequestration and soil building are illegal in most municipalities. But as Joel Salatin said that the OEFFA Conference this past weekend, "everything I do is illegal".
Native plants along highways are legal and even required nowadays as the above paragraph notes. Are we missing the boat here? Trading beneficial plantings for more mowing? Looks like we are.
cost of 3C vs. cost of OC
Susan Miller Says:So my questions are:
It seems we have a project here in NEO that will expend a similar sum ($375 million) for a much shorter route, the opportunity corridor (2.75 miles). Based on a rudimentary calculation - $400 million divided by 245 miles vs. $375 million divided by 2.75 miles, it seems that the rail corridor will be more cost effective and serve more people.
So two aditional questions:
I know that you may say that I am trying to compare apples and oranges, and that one amount of funding is not applicable to another. But I wonder, if we had only one bank account with that $400 million in it, which would be the better use of those dollars? 3C corridor seems a clear winner to me, but I must be missing some critical factor. After reviewing the history of the opportunity corridor in meeting minutes, incalculable sums have already been spent on this little bit-o-road. It has been one the boards of transportation planners in NEO since 1957 when its current configuration had other names - The Lee, the Clark and the Central Freeways. In 1957 planners were projecting population growth which would require greater automobile mobility in 1975 (right around peak oil). Today we're planning for population growth, too. And with rumors that local foundations are about to make a big push for immigrant infusion here, will we see more automobiles on the road with that population growth or will we see a pick up in public transit riding?
Hmmm.... all this transportation planning and funding is mind boggling. I look to you all for your greater expertise.