seanmcl

Sorry if this comment seems offensive, but the recent news showing that Al Qaeda was targeting passenger trains in the US shows how misguided they were. All they needed to do was to contribute to Republican gubernatorial candidates's campaigns.

Six trains a day in each direction; seven for Charlotte. I took the train from Pittsburgh to Charleston, SC, every other week for almost a year. Most of the riders weren't retirees looking for a relaxed way to travel. They were individuals and families looking to get from one place to another and the train was the most convenient way to do it (too bad Charleston moved its train station out of downtown). As KJP and others have noted, if you have nothing you have nothing to which you can compare it.

The first attempt at planning for a national system of roadways was the Pershing map, the creation of which was undertaken in 1921. This followed the experiences of Transcontinental Motor Convoy of 1919 in which Dwight Eisenhower participated. The Bureau of Public Roads descended from the Office of Road Inquiry which was created in 1893. It is somewhat narrow to think that the vision for a national system of motor highways started with construction following WWI, especially since the anti-rail sentiment that stimulated the government to consider undertaking a taxpayer funded alternative began nearly 50 years before that. People who argue that the government shouldn't compete with the private sector (or that passenger rail should be a private sector initiative), seem to forget history.

Actually, a better response is that there IS a return on investment for highways (and roads). But the problem is that some of that "return" is actually a shifting of wealth from one community to another. Moreover, rarely is the result a zero sum game. The losing side stands to lose more from the blight of abandoned properties while the winning side wins less due to the fact that revenues are offset by the higher costs of development. Roadways do create a return on investment, but not always as desired or intended. Limited access highways are a bit better because the points of egress and ingress are controlled and planned. But you still have the problem that these are relatively easy to add and so communities interested in development tend to raid neighboring communities that already have it. In addition, as development occurs along road corridors, so does congestion resulting in the need for more roads. The question is not really whether there is a return on investment, but rather, is the kind of return we want? I don't think that there is much argument that "gains" experienced by the suburbs has come at great cost to the city centers around which they sprung. There is also a return on the investment in passenger rail. But passenger rail has some distinct advantages, most notably, the fact that development can be better planned and less speculative, as well as less damaging to the environment, established communities and the safety of travelers.

As a taxpayer, I'd like to know where the return on my "investment" of the $1 billion that Scott's company defrauded from Medicare. Of course, $10 million went to Scott's golden parachute and another $350 million went to the value of the stock he was given when he left. It amazes me that guys like Scott are the darlings of the Tea Party movement while living off the taxpayers.

I'd be interested in comments as to whether this is feasible but with what seems to be an end the Florida story, I question whether it is wise to shift the $2+ billion to California, or whether it would be put to better use improving corridors in the Midwest, Atlantic and Northeast, especially in areas where the contribution of state governments would not be needed. Assuming, for a moment, that there would a significant increase in ridership if we could guarantee average speeds > 79 mph for Chicago-Pittsburgh, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Buffalo (or beyond), and dedicated track along at least some of those routes, it is conceivable that service could be increased to two or three trains/day in each direction which would allow trains to stop in Cleveland during daylight hours. Ohio could sell its stake in the Panhandle line to Amtrak to re-establish Pittsburgh-Columbus service. Further improvements could be made in Chicago to lessen the impact of freight on passenger traffic. None of this would be as showy as a 90 mile HSR corridor in Florida but, overall, it might have more of an impact on the public's perception of passenger rail especially in the swing states like Oh, Pa and In. Making the trains accessible to day travelers, especially Cleveland-Pittsburgh, would, I think, increase the recreational use of these trains as well as the educational use, perhaps leading in a broader acceptance of the benefits of a balanced transportation infrastructure. I'm not opposed to the project in California, but I think that the funds could be put to better use in other regions, especially if we can keep the short-sighted governors out of the picture.

I was comparing the EFV and JSF to 3C in terms of economic impacts on Ohio. My estimates as to the cost to Ohio with the loss of the former two programs may have been low. By some estimates, the total loss will be $3 billion and approximately 1200 jobs. $400 million might seem low in comparison but it is still $400 million to an economy that could sure use some good news. When public investment in infrastructure took place is irrelevant. The fact is that it did and, in today's dollars, it was probably not less than the $7 million in operating subsidies requested of Ohio for the 3C.

Saudi Arabia is using profits from high oil revenues to subsidize programs for its citizens hoping to stave off a revolution in the kingdom. Chavez' popularity in Venezuela is directly related to the amount of oil revenus poured into social and economic programs. Oil prices will stay up not only because of increasing demand but because despotic regimes need the revenues to stay in power. And yet many Republicans don't view our dependency on the automobile as an issue of national defense.

Those governors are completely missing the point of the last election. People want jobs and with the other cut backs the states will be facing, rejecting HSR funds is going to look like an incredibly stupid decision. Part of the reason that the Obama administration is pushing Florida is it was so far along to begin with and, therefore, likely to serve as a model for what might be done, elsewhere. It should be remembered that Scott presided over the company that defrauded the Federal Government of over $600 million.

Look at what is happening in Wisconsin. People want less of a deficit with no increases in taxes. The conservatives are hoping that the economy won't improve in 2012 and that will be the end of the administration. What they don't get is that given their way, it will actually get much worse. And they'll be remembered for it.

It'll be interesting to see how Kasich responds to the administration's plans to eliminate EFV production in Lima and the alternate JSF engine at the GE facility in Dayton which will cost Ohio business about $1.5 billion. I wonder how much the taxpayers of Ohio paid for the infrastructure improvements that supported these two facilities.

Understood. And, as matter of fact, this is a rehash of the same stale arguments (and practically the same text), as he used when arguing against the $8 billion HSR jumpstart. But I put it out there in case someone wanted to respond. The Washington Post tends to give preference to letters from individuals living in their circulation territory.

High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste By Robert J. Samuelson Monday, February 14, 2011 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021302203.html

Aha. Well, one should be more specific. I didn't think that Kasich is worth discussing. His lack of thoughtfulness and reason is, unfortunately, appealing to many Ohioans. Sad that such a beautiful state should be relegated to a person who will plunge Ohio into the bowels of poverty. But, hey, our empty highways will sure be a great way for the horse carts to deliver ice blocks to the cold chests that we'll need, once electricity becomes too expensive.

Hmmm. Lemme see. Which war did this administration pursue (with the cost of the war in Iraq estimated at $6 trillion)? The DOW was under 8000 when Bush left office; it closed above 12,000, today. The meltdown of the financial industry started with easy credit and lax financial regulation during the Clinton years but ballooned under the Bush years. Corporate America is sitting on $2.1 trillion in cash reserves. Does that look like the private sector is going to take the lead? By all accounts, the "economic stimulus" was not enough but the Democrats were afraid to push for more, still, there is little doubt that without TARP (started under Bust), the ARRA (Obama) and the Obama decision to intervene in the affairs of GM, Chysler and AIG, to name a few, the recession would have been much worse. So be specific. What policies are "economic suicide" and have the historical facts, not the Faux News "facts" to back up your assertions? The Obama administration was smart and courageous to back their transportation strategy in the midst of a mindless discussion about balancing the budget through cuts, alone. And, to be fair, the total package includes other, non-rail, transportation investments, as well.

Or, for that matter, the funeral industry, which benefits from the 40,000 people/year killed on roadways. What about the many industries that would benefit from rail including some of the same industries that supply automobiles? I really have to wonder how some of these guys get to be elected with such narrow views of the world.

In 40 years oil has only once (before) been over $100/barrel and that was when gasoline prices were above $4/gallon. Yesterday, prices peaked above $100/barrel. Roads don't do much good if you can't afford to drive. Also, I should have mentioned that it is estimated that in order for despotic regimes to be able to sustain themselves through oil subsidies to their citizens, oil prices need to be above $75/barrel. It looks very much as though the decision to kill the 3-C will be viewed as very short-sighted in a year or two and, by then, probably too expensive to resurrect.

When I was VP of MIS for a Pittsburgh hospital I took 8 of the MIS Staff to the Radiological Society of North America convention in Chicago on the Capitol Limited (including sleepers). The only grumbles was having to get up at 5 AM on the return trip. That was when they still gave out glass mugs to first class passengers.

Who established this as the sine qua non of a great transportation system? Since I mentioned other features of a great transportation system, this could hardly be a "qua non", however, since "transportation" means more than travel by automobile, it is really more akin to a tautology (I assume that you know some Greek in addition to Latin). I presume from this statement that you're one of those who buy into the "war for oil" meme. I'm going to to derail (no pun intended) this thread to get into that one--but let's just say that the validity of that meme is open to question. No, as a matter of fact, it is far more complicated than that. Pollution from vehicle exhaust, kills, which is why communities have enacted anti-idling legislation and applied for EPA funds to, guess what, expand roadways and fix turning lanes to reduce the amount of time that vehicles are stopped (imagine, we are paying for the EPA to repair the damage done by the Department of Transportation). Oil revenues sustain despotic regimes that, among other things, host schools which promote hatred of the United States and espouse terrorism as a means to emphasize that. We may not, directly, rely on oil from the Middle East, but guaranteeing a free supply of oil from the Middle East is to our financial and military advantage. Already, oil futures are climbing on fears that the Suez canal may be closed as a result of the protests in Egypt. If so, who do you think would be dispatched to keep it (and the 35 million barrels per day that cross it) open to traffic? We invaded Kuwait to repel Saddam Hussein who went to war with Kuwait for what reason? Kuwait's oil fields, of course. While that war was a limited war, nonetheless, US Service personnel lost their lives. So if you want to believe that our dependency on foreign oil doesn't cost American lives, then welcome to Wonderland, Alice.

Where you live doesn't change the fact that being able to drive between any two points at any time does not, an "excellent transportation system" make unless your only goal is to be able to drive between any two points at any time. Oh, and there is a reason that I don't live in Ohio anymore, and the mindset behind the demise of 3-Cs is emblematic of that reason.

Nonsense. Anyone who believes that has never worked in Northern Virginia. I live, literally, three miles away from where I work in Chantilly, VA. There are dozens of routes between work and home but during rush hour it can take me as much as 45 minutes to get from one to the other by car. And there is an 8-lane highway that connects both places! In the past month, local and the Federal goverments have had four shutdowns/x hour delays, in some cases for only the THREAT of snow. Last week it took one of my colleagues 12 hours to make a drive of less than 20 miles because of gridlock caused by the snow. A great transportation system is one in which the simple maintenance of daily living does not require one to drive an automobile. It is a system that allows me to work while I travel or, if I choose, to read. And above all, a great transportation system is one that does not, directly or indirectly, risk the lives of Americans either at home or on foreign soil. Again, I'd disagree based upon my NoVa experience. I have colleagues who commute anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes each way to get to work (and Chantilly is hardly urban, itself), not because they have more money but because they can't afford the housing which is close to where they work. For them, the cost to rent or own in the region is more than offset by less expensive housing, further out and the cost of gas. Drive the cost of gas up, and you've priced these people out of their "suburban" lifestyles.

The point being? Transportation investments don't support the status quo, they evolve it. I worked in Washington DC before the beltway and the Metro. Most of the areas serviced were farmlands. No more! People who point to population densities as a deciding factor simply don't understand transportation economics. "If you build it, they will come" was "Field of Dreams" logic but it made the Kroc's rich. It has been known for over a century (except by American school children), that commercial investment follows transportation investment. The reason that the Robber Barons were so reviled was that they had the power to make and break communities. Transportation does not follow development. It leads it. And it has ever since goods were no longer produced or consumed locally. Perhaps that is where 3-C promoters failed. 3-C was not about supporting Ohioans. It was about transforming them into a modern economy. I lived in DC before the Metro and I was able to observe how the Metro transformed DC into a major metropolitan force. Laying track told people where they could live. It didn't bother with where they did live. It is stupid to compare TGV with Ohio's 3-C for hundreds of reasons (not the least of which is that Cincy is not Paris and Cleveland is not London). It is a fallacy. TGV was meant to move people from major metropolitan origin to major metropolitan destination, not to link the many communities along the route. But the fact is that France's (and Europe's and China's) investment was not, solely, in HSR between major metropolitan destinatioms, but also in local investment in lower speed feeder lines. Comparing France to Ohio is ridiculous (except to people who have never lived and worked in both). That isn't the issue. TGV was intended to do something very different than what 3-C and the Ohio Hub was intended to do. And the sad thing is that the Ohio Hub plan would have done much more for Ohio than TGV did for France.

It isn't just Ohio. Drive from PA to MD and you see poster after poster: "Coal: More and more green, but always red white and blue." The message is clear. To support the status quo (meaning the status quo for the last 50 years), is to support America. It is no longer political rhetoric, it is background noise, the elevator music that we listen to as we go through our lives. The message is, that the way of life that we have, today, is to be defended. We've forgotten that adaptation to change was what made us great. The clipper ships that we developed were the fastest sailing vessels in the world. They established our dominance as a purveyor of goods, worldwide. But they succeeded only because we were willing to throw out ideas that didn't work in favor of ideas that might. Funny that we are willing to discard some of the marvels of American architecture, like New York Penn Station, the demolation of which led to the architectural preservation movement in the US, but we won't throw away the automobile. Why, because what was once a necessity, the trains, became a luxury. And what was, once, a luxury, has become a necessity. And the sad fact is that none of us seems to resent that. None of seems to resent that where, once, no one would think of spending $20,000 for a five year rail pass, we now spend that for something that works maybe, two, or three hours a day, maybe for five years, maybe more. But far more than what mass transit would have cost us. Ironically, part of the undoing of the railroads was the influence of the Robber Barons who could make or break whole communities and even whole industries. Their problem was that they could not figure out how to make us aware of how we benefited from and shared in their prosperity. Today's transportation interests are more concerned about how easy it is for us to get to WalMart. What they should be thinking about is how easy it is for the goods to get from the manufacturer to WalMart because most of the costs that we pay is the cost of shipping (between 50 and 75% depending upon whether the goods are bulk or finished).

Very likely he did. One of the interesting thing about this last election was how often the electorate was lied to in order to play to their prejudices. And we can't exclude the power of lobbies who have a lot more to give a campaign than the citizens of Crestline.

But a basic understanding of the principles that underly the economy is critical to understanding what our politicians are doing in the name of "recovery". As a small business owner, I understand the need for capital, especially when business is bad. Sure, you can cut costs to a point, but you can't cut costs to zero and still be in business. To stay in business and grow, you need capital. Now capital is not easy to get right now, in spite of the fact that businesses are sitting on loads of it. Government becomes the last resort. And here is the irony. As government spends less, business becomes more uncertain. Consider the scuttled plan to build DMU's in Ohio (as well as Forest City's scuttled plans for development). When the Feds were going spend $400 million, other businesses were willing to spend to get a piece of the pie. When Ohio refused the funds, private capital walked away. My prediction is that at no time during Kasich's administration will the private economic investment in Ohio will come close to what was forecast for the 3-C. Businesses understand that assuming short term debt is often times necessary for long term growth. As long as your projections for revenue are reasonable, assuming risk becomes reasonable (and, more importantly, not assuming risk can spell doom for your enterprise). People understood that too, at one time. Your house, essentially, put you in debt but the investment appeared safe. The reason that it wasn't, for many, is not a reason to abandon the principle. Governments can run deficits for long periods of time; people can't and they shouldn't expect their goverment to behave as they would.