Cincinnati is becoming second fiddle to Columbus (Covington, Florida: apartment, felony)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by hairmetal4ever

You mean the streetcar that would never have enough ridership to justify the cost? Like all other mass transit projects, it's a money waster no matter how "cool" it might be.

How much money do highways make?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by hairmetal4ever

Lets not forget that it was John Kasich, and partly Gingrich, not so much Clinton, that was one of the big names responsible for the balanced Federal budgets of the '90s.

The guy probably knows a bit more about what he's doing than people think, although the cronyism is a bit out of hand. However, if you're trying to suggest that Strickland or any other prior governor didn't have the same sorts of business arrangements, you're sadly ignorant.

I didn't mention Strickland, though since you brought him up, there's an awful lot of buyer's remorse when it comes to the Kasich election.

[austiNati]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

How much money do highways make?

Haha, I was gonna say the same thing. The only highway that made money for the state of Ohio was the turnpike, and now that's been privatized.

[hairmetal4ever]

There's an initial cost, and a maintenance cost for highways as there is for rail.

However, the government doesn't have to pay people to drive their cars like they do to get them to ride transit.

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by hairmetal4ever

There's an initial cost, and a maintenance cost for highways as there is for rail.

However, the government doesn't have to pay people to drive their cars like they do to get them to ride transit.

No, people just have to pay $3.50/gallon (and rising) to drive their cars.

[Chemistry_Guy]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I didn't mention Strickland, though since you brought him up, there's an awful lot of buyer's remorse when it comes to the Kasich election.

I do not know if Strickland was a good governor or not. All I know is that he looks stunningly amazing when compared to his predecessor and successor, Taft and Kasich respectively.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by hairmetal4ever

There's an initial cost, and a maintenance cost for highways as there is for rail.

However, the government doesn't have to pay people to drive their cars like they do to get them to ride transit.

I've ridden subways and buses, and I'm pretty sure that I had to pay to use them. I don't remember anyone waiting to hand out money as an incentive.

Highways are very heavily subsidized, and gas taxes do not nearly pay for maintenance, as been shown by ODOT's financial troubles. Highways, outside of those that are tolled, make absolutely no money on their own. Mass transit at least has the ability to make money from ridership if implemented correctly.

The hypocrisy of being fine with roadway costs but then raising hell over mass transit costs seems totally dishonest to me, considering that mass transit, no matter how extensive it is in a city, would still pale in comparison to road maintenance.

[jmecklenborg]

>However, the government doesn't have to pay people to drive their cars like they do to get them to ride transit.

Gasoline taxes *only* pay for interstate highways (federal) and state highways (state gasoline tax). Local property taxes pay for city, county, and township roads. So the cost of driving our roads is much higher than simply paying our embedded gasoline tax which, btw, is in place of a sales tax. Why don't we charge state and local sales taxes on gasoline in addition to the gas tax?

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

>However, the government doesn't have to pay people to drive their cars like they do to get them to ride transit.

Gasoline taxes *only* pay for interstate highways (federal) and state highways (state gasoline tax). Local property taxes pay for city, county, and township roads. So the cost of driving our roads is much higher than simply paying our embedded gasoline tax which, btw, is in place of a sales tax. Why don't we charge state and local sales taxes on gasoline in addition to the gas tax?

Considering the portion of my property taxes which go to the city is small compared to the schools, they must be doing a good job keeping up with the roads, along with police, fire, parks, trash services, etc.

What is the purpose of charging state and local sales taxes on gasoline other than to drive the cost of driving up? If the state highway fund is in shortfall the legislature can always vote to increase the gasoline tax.

Rapid transit is becoming horribly expensive these days due to everything which has to be acquired and demolished to install it. If it were a greenfield proposition costs would be considerably different. But it is not.
Years ago a rail line could have been built right down the center of either the I-71 or I-75 right-of-way. But no more, since additional lanes have been built to fill it all in. You can consider that an opportunity lost. The rapid transit people have some blinders on when it comes to the acquisition costs, the continuing operation costs, and public acceptance period. For the same reasons a lot of people do not desire to ride buses, they will shy away from the streetcar or any other transit form you put in front of them.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Considering the portion of my property taxes which go to the city is small compared to the schools, they must be doing a good job keeping up with the roads, along with police, fire, parks, trash services, etc.

What is the purpose of charging state and local sales taxes on gasoline other than to drive the cost of driving up? If the state highway fund is in shortfall the legislature can always vote to increase the gasoline tax.

Rapid transit is becoming horribly expensive these days due to everything which has to be acquired and demolished to install it. If it were a greenfield proposition costs would be considerably different. But it is not.
Years ago a rail line could have been built right down the center of either the I-71 or I-75 right-of-way. But no more, since additional lanes have been built to fill it all in. You can consider that an opportunity lost. The rapid transit people have some blinders on when it comes to the acquisition costs, the continuing operation costs, and public acceptance period. For the same reasons a lot of people do not desire to ride buses, they will shy away from the streetcar or any other transit form you put in front of them.

The state and federal level *could* raise the gas tax to make up for lower revenues, but there's a pretty glaring problem with that. One of the main reasons that gas taxes aren't covering maintenance now is that people are driving less. As gasoline (and taxes on it) prices go up, people automatically drive less. It happened both when gas prices went over $4 and during the recession right up to today. People are simply driving less than they used to, and raising the prices will not bring in the revenue that you are thinking. At best, people will drive even less but the higher prices will allow revenues to stay around the same level, which won't fix the transportation budget problems at all.

ALL transportation is expensive to build and maintain, so rapid/public transit should not be singled out for costs when highways are the exact same. Also, mass transit, if built correctly, CAN make money. It makes money in places all over the world, including the Northeast, so I don't get the point that people absolutely won't ride it. While mass transit has the opportunity to pay for its costs, highways, unless you toll all of them, will never have that opportunity. Roadways have always been a huge money loser.