Do you support the proposed Ohio Rail (3-C Connector)? (Columbus: car, money)

[PhillytoCincy]

Originally Posted by JR_C

This is what is so frustrating to me--someone who doesn't have a driver's license. In the overall scheme of things, no one is suggesting that we spend "vast sums" of money on public transportation. The annual projected subsidy for the 3C ($17 million, I think) would have been like a drop in the bucket, compared to what we spend on roads every year.

But most people do not realize this. People fail to look into how much it actually costs to keep our roads in good shape. And not to say they are all in good shape either...

[Crew Chief]

Originally Posted by JR_C

This is what is so frustrating to me--someone who doesn't have a driver's license. In the overall scheme of things, no one is suggesting that we spend "vast sums" of money on public transportation. The annual projected subsidy for the 3C ($17 million, I think) would have been like a drop in the bucket, compared to what we spend on roads every year.

Unfortunately, our highway infrastructure covers all of Ohio, where the 3-C connector would serve a VERY limited area. We've got to keep up our investment in the highways, since that's the way we move goods and people in the largest quantity at the lowest cost.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Actually, rail is about the cheapest way to move just about anything over land.

[BereaGirl]

No one rides trains. Everyone says they want them, but no one rides them and the taxpayers are left to support them. There isn't even enough ridership to support the rapid transit system or the public buses that we already have. How ridiculous is it to build this high speed rail? Think about what you are asking for.

The cost of riding a public bus or the rapid transit is offset by tax dollars, so we are currently paying to support a mode of transportation that most people don't ever use. High speed rail will only be different in the fact that it will be more expensive to maintain and will require more taxpayer support. If public transportation cannot be self supporting by the people who use it, how is it right to ask people who do not use it and do not benefit from it to chip in to pay for the few who do?

In addition to being unprofitable, rail is the MOST dangerous mode of transportation. Does anyone believe that creating a high speed rail will make it safer?

It would be nice if individuals would consider and do what benefits the community rather than community doing things to benefit individuals.

[BereaGirl]

Originally Posted by JR_C

This is what is so frustrating to me--someone who doesn't have a driver's license. In the overall scheme of things, no one is suggesting that we spend "vast sums" of money on public transportation. The annual projected subsidy for the 3C ($17 million, I think) would have been like a drop in the bucket, compared to what we spend on roads every year.

Originally Posted by PhillytoCincy

But most people do not realize this. People fail to look into how much it actually costs to keep our roads in good shape. And not to say they are all in good shape either...

The difference is that the roads are paid for by the people who use them. Gasoline tax is used to maintain roads. It can be considered a user tax since it is assumed that if you are buying quantities of gasoline, you are using the roads. This is a fair tax as those who benefit are the same ones paying for it.

Public transportation subsidies come out of forced taxation from non-users of the system. Sound fair? Not to me.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by BereaGirl

No one rides trains. Everyone says they want them, but no one rides them and the taxpayers are left to support them. There isn't even enough ridership to support the rapid transit system or the public buses that we already have. How ridiculous is it to build this high speed rail? Think about what you are asking for.

The cost of riding a public bus or the rapid transit is offset by tax dollars, so we are currently paying to support a mode of transportation that most people don't ever use. High speed rail will only be different in the fact that it will be more expensive to maintain and will require more taxpayer support. If public transportation cannot be self supporting by the people who use it, how is it right to ask people who do not use it and do not benefit from it to chip in to pay for the few who do?

In addition to being unprofitable, rail is the MOST dangerous mode of transportation. Does anyone believe that creating a high speed rail will make it safer?

It would be nice if individuals would consider and do what benefits the community rather than community doing things to benefit individuals.

Rail is profitable in the Northeast and just as safe as Planes...its also the safest ground transportation mode..... Cars are the most dangerous , but only in North America where we have laxed rules... Europe has some of the safest roads...

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by BereaGirl

The difference is that the roads are paid for by the people who use them. Gasoline tax is used to maintain roads. It can be considered a user tax since it is assumed that if you are buying quantities of gasoline, you are using the roads. This is a fair tax as those who benefit are the same ones paying for it.

Public transportation subsidies come out of forced taxation from non-users of the system. Sound fair? Not to me.

The gas tax doesn't come close to paying the full cost of roads and highways. Local roads are paid for with property taxes. (and I'm generally OK with that, as local roads really are a benefit to everyone) According to the American Conservative, user fees (which include the gas tax) only pay for 51.72% of highway costs. Center for Public Transportation

[Townes Van Zandt]

Originally Posted by BereaGirl

Public transportation subsidies come out of forced taxation from non-users of the system. Sound fair? Not to me.

Sorry, but JR_C is absolutely right.

By the way, all taxation is "forced". Remember, you have to pay taxes or else the government will throw you in a cage. Force is the very nature of any government.

[UKUKUK]

Originally Posted by Crew Chief

I hope I'm not sounding like a broken record but... I LOVE mass transit! I'd definitely ride a bus/train/tram to work if I could. But what bothers me is that not enough of us 'Mericans are willing to give up the privacy & convenience of our cars. And, I hate to say it, riding public transportation can be an, um, social experience that some wouldn't risk for anything. So, until we can change the mindset of a LOT more potential riders, I think spending vast sums on public transport of any sort beyond road infrastucture is way down the list of current priorities. Sorry...

As much as I hate to say it, you're right. It's an American problem... The fear of your fellow man.

[Traveler87]

Originally Posted by BereaGirl

The difference is that the roads are paid for by the people who use them. Gasoline tax is used to maintain roads. It can be considered a user tax since it is assumed that if you are buying quantities of gasoline, you are using the roads. This is a fair tax as those who benefit are the same ones paying for it.

Public transportation subsidies come out of forced taxation from non-users of the system. Sound fair? Not to me.

Have you seen the roads in Michigan? If the gasoline tax is paying for the roads in such high demand, what the hell is Michigan doing with that money?

If Ohio was given more money, say a billion to build its train and Kasich turned it away, I would think he is the biggest idiot in politics (already do, but that's not the case). Ohio, the most densely populated corridor in the nation without rail, we need more than some $400 million.