seanmcl

Oh, really? The Interestate Highway System has been a failure in terms of development? Major US airports have been failures in terms of development? The Washington DC Metro has been a failure in terms of development. Could have fooled me as I remember when Germantown was nothing but farmland. Funny, but we criticize the Saudis and Pakistanis for supporting Madrasahs which teaching anti-Western and radical Islamic fundamentalism but somehow people get through our educational system believing that everything the goverment touches is evil. It was the Federal government that funded the Internet which allows such mindless statements to be broadcast, instantly, around the world. Has the Internet been a failure?

And just what is meant by equally? I, for one, do not believe that such a thing is possible or desirable. What we need in this country (from the perspective of government funding), is a balanced transportation policy which weighs the needs of the individual against the needs of the nation as a whole. This system will, almost necessarily, need to offset years of neglect of alternate modes of transportation and I don't just mean rails. The St. Lawrence Seaway can handle only 10% of all ocean going vessels which means that either increasing the capacity of the Seaway, Canal and Locks, or beefing up the intermodal transportation system which would allow more efficient offloading of ocean cargo to Great Lakes ships. The US system of navigable inland waterways which, by the way, moves more tonnage in a day than the railroads do in a month, has been underfunded for decades. Lock closures along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers cost millions of dollars/day. The taxpayers pay $100/ticket for each passenger who flies in and out of the John Murtha airport in Johnstown, PA. I support commercial passenger plane travel but this is nonsense. Our current system of transportation is not simply unsustainable; it is a threat to our national and economic security as well as our environment. Providing stability to some of the world's largest oil producing states has cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and forced us to support despotic regimes. So I don't really get what it means to support rail and roads, equally. I'm interested to read it. But, as I said, I no longer believe that dedicate funding sources for specific modes of transportation is the way to go as it subjects transportation planning to political whim. The USDOT, as it apparently intends to do, must begin to think about transportation as a single priority with multiple means of addressing needs, not as a battle between rail, road and river.

By the way, it is the Ohio Department of Transportation, not the Ohio Department of Roads and Highways. I could see some objection if the revenues raised by ODOT went to fund programs unrelated to transportation, especially when there are so many pressing transportation needs. But as Ken says, it is neither a usage fee nor a tax and it is purely voluntary, like advertising. By the way, the rationale for the creation of the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund was the notion that mass transit could benefit highways and roadways by relieving congestion and reducing wear and tear on the roads.

What about this for editorializing: So if the Highway Trust Fund is due to go broke next month, doesn't that make funding of roads a subsidy to a money-losing entity?

Gabriel Roth is either misinformed or a liar: The 2.8 cents of the 18.4 cents/gallon fuel tax is 15.5% not 20%. And it isn't diverted; the Mass Transit Account is part of the Federal Highway Trust Fund and it was established for the purposes of funding alternative modes of transport which would reduce congestion and wear and tear on roadways. In fact, the Bush Administration proposed borrowing from the Mass Transit Account to cover deficits in highway funding. Not only that, in terms of passenger miles per year the growth in public transportation has outstripped the growth in vehicle miles traveled for the last 12 years, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Yet 80 % of public transportation funding by the Federal Government comes from only 15% of the Highway Trust Fund which is shrinking because fewer people are travelling by car. And this is a reason to increase funding for highways? what nonsense!

I don't mean to take credit for anything, but the latest AP reports by DAVID RUNK (original author) and (edits by) BEN LEUBSDORF regarding the Michigan accident no longer make any reference to "Amtrak Accidents". Perhaps they'll try to be more objective in reporting the news and not, simply, hyping stories.

I wrote a letter to AP to complain about their sloppy use of the statistics. I haven't, yet, heard back.

Not only that, it is inaccurate. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, if you consider only train accident and passenger fatalities, there have been none on Amtrak for a couple of years. He is citing total fatalities which includes the above AND highway, crossing and other deaths for which the train was not a fault. This isn't simply sloppiness. It is misinformation.

DanB: I'm getting into the details because you expressed an opinion which is common among skeptics of Federally-subsidized transit (as opposed to Federally subsidized personal transportation such as automobiles and air traffic), namely that passenger rail is rarely competitive with the automobile in terms of cost. This, simply, isn't true if you look at total costs versus the direct cost, namely, gasoline and tolls. As for fixed, versus sunk, versus variable costs, the distinction is important because an understanding of these in economic terms is essential to good public policy. Sunk costs are costs that cannot be recovered. Fixed costs are costs which are not related to the cost of production. They may be variable costs but fixed only for a given period. The term "fixed cost" can refer to future expenses in addition to past expenses. Variable costs are the costs which change in relation to the business decision. These are the costs that drive the decision as to what to produce, how much, etc. In terms of driving, what we have done with a flat gas tax, a failure to implement per mile tariffs, and a failure to include in the cost of driving the real costs associated with congestion, air pollution, traffic accidents, etc., is to make the cost of driving appear like a sunk cost. It isn't by any economic standard. Most of the real costs of driving are not fixed, as you argued, but variable costs although some are sunk costs. Thus, if our system of highway funding were based upon usage, you'd experience a completely different view of when public transportation (and all transportation is, in reality), makes more financial sense than personal transportation. There are many more circumstances where it does than doesn't.

I did not say that you mentioned Acela I merely pointed out that the price per seat that you quoted was the Acela price. The Northeast Regional is much less expensive and operates more frequently. Since we were discussing the 3-C, using Acela as a basis for anticipating the cost of a trip from Cleveland to Cincinnati is inappropriate since it is far more expensive per mile than any other Amtrak route. Of course, you could have priced the trip yourself, online. Not at all. You insurance is commonly based upon the number of miles that you drive in a year and use of the vehicle and, in some cases, the age of the vehicle, as well as on your driving record (not to mention, the total number of cars on the road). For you, they would be a sunk cost, that is, a cost that cannot be recovered and that is part of the problem. Because we tend to make decisions based upon variable costs rather than sunk costs, once an expense is viewed as a sunk cost, there is little incentive to change your behavior. But more and more we are recognizing that part of the reason that these are perceived as sunk costs is because we hide the variable costs from the consumer. That is why the cost per driving calculators are important. Even if you happen to disagree with one or more of their cost estimates, the simple fact is that these are variable costs. If you drive less, you pay less, though not necessarily in an obvious way.

Strictly speaking sunk costs are not fixed costs. Your insurance and car price, for example, as well as the finance charges (if you financed), are dependent upon such things as your credit worthiness, location, age, driving history, automobile model, etc. Also, the number that Ken posted is far less than the $1.34/milecalculated by Commute Solutions: http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm Which estimates that only about 11 cents/mile is fixed cost (depreciation is almost twice that). In 2001 it was estimated that traffic congestion, alone, cost $625/person, annually. Even if you can't live without your car, you still see the value of getting other people of theirs. As for the Philly to DC example, why would you take Acela at $100-130/person when the Northeast Regional is only $40/person. For the 30 minutes that you've shaved off the trip, you've paid a permium of between $60 and $100 per person. It doesn't seem quite fair to pick the highest price service as a comparator to driving especially when more competitive fares are available and more frequent.

Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. This is simply Randal O'Toole plagiarizing himself.

Well, remember that the Tribune Review is published by ultraconservative Richard Mellon Scaife so it is not surprising that it would have a more skeptical tone and feature more comments by Posner. I would urge everyone who is interested to write the article author with corrections, compliments, etc. Both papers give their authors a great deal of liberty in the tone and content of stories and I have gotten e-mail from each in response to my comments. The more people start reading positive things about HSR the more that they will be enthusiastic about it. I was, however, a bit amused by the "Even Ohio is ahead of Pennsylvania" statement. And I pointed out to the author that ORDCs map of the system included two routes to Pittsburgh. In contrast, if you go to PennDOT's "Keystone Line" web site, the Western-most city is Harrisburg, 2/3 of the way across the state from Pittsburgh. Somewhat ironic that Pittsburgh appears on an Ohip map of HSR development and not on a Pennsylvania map.

Posner's take has always been somewhat suspect. He is an investor in freight railroads (including the former Rock Island) and, before that, was with Conrail and a firm believer in privatization. I would not consider him an advocate for passenger rail service nor would I give much weight to his opinions in this matter since he is clearly not a fan.

Act Actually some of the comments are interesting, including a recent post which claims that 80 cents of every dollar spent on road transportation leaves the local economy whereas 80 cents of every dollar spent on public transit goes to the local economy. And why do we call it "public transit" anyway? Isn't our Federally (and regionally), subsidized system of roadways "public transit"? After all, the public owns the infrastructure, the only difference is who is piloting the vehicle.

The opinion piece with it is good, too. Also: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography Which discusses using the economic crisis to reshape how we do business as a nation (including transit oriented development).

No. Planning for the Beltway started in 1950 and contruction began in 1957. What you are thinking about is what were known as the Inner and Outer Loop Beltways which were to be inside and outside the existing Beltway. The compromise was that the Metro would be built instead of an inner loop freeway for which they abandoned the idea of completing in 1977 due mostly to opposition from DC residents whose properties were to be condemned. The Outer Loop Beltway was even more controversial and most of the proposals for it have been abandoned except for the Intercounty Connector (ICC) in Maryland, which was approved over staunch opposition.

They weren't supposed to be there at all. Eisenhower envisioned the Interstate System for travel between cities not within cities. The story goes that he didn't understand that urban highways were part of the plan until he saw the Capital Beltway being built (there are variations on this account). The city mayors wanted them because they reasoned that it would make it easier for people in the suburbs to get into the city. As unintended consequences, that mistake must be near the top of the list.

Huh? You mean I'd have to pay more to purchase a Prius in Manhattan than Hoboken? If people in Manhattan needed cars, they'd buy them. The fact is, they don't. The same is true in Chicago and Washington, DC, to name a few. Per capita automobile ownership in these cities has hardly increased in 100 years. If you mean "cost prohibitive" in the sense that they'd have to pay close to the real cost of owning and operating a car, my point exactly. The price of real estate is the price of real estate whether you put a parking space on it or a brownstone. Given that I can walk or use public transportation to get most everywhere that I need to go, why would I spend my money on a parking space? It is only cost prohibitive relative to the lower cost of doing everything else. But there is a rub. When I take the Q (Broadway Express) to Macy's Herald Square to buy a suit, some part of the cost of that suit is paying for a free parking space in every Simon Mall in America with a Macy's. Doesn't quite seem fair to me. As for wanting a car, when I lived in New York, Washington and Chicago, I never had them and never missed them. If I could get by without owing one, now, I would.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Federal investment in intercity roadways capable of supporting motor vehicle traffic began with war (Civil) and commerce not personal transportation. The growing population of the US required substantial agricultural output and the means to get goods to market quickly. The railroads served some communities but ignored many others. An agricultural advocacy group, the Grange, gained great prominence through its anti-rail stance and farmers followed up with the "good roads" movement as a means to correct what they saw as an inequity. Ironically, it was a different kind of personal transportation that spurred the development of intracity graded roads: the bicycle. Functional, less polluting and less expensive to maintain than a horse (especially if you were a city dweller), the bicycle had one drawback which was that it needed relatively smooth roads compared to a cart and horse.

Doesn't your second sentence contradict the first? If you think only of revenues from ticket sales, advertising, etc., most passenger rail services, including high speed rail in other countries, can cover their operating costs though many not their initial capital costs. However, if you take all of the other benefits in terms of their economic significance, it appears that the investment pays for itself over the long haul.

BECAUSE THAT IS THAT THE PEOPLE WANTED THEN AND STILL WANT NOW!!!! They may want a few alternatives, but don't touch their roads and highways. Nonsense. People would want to own and operate private aircraft if the government made it less expensive than other alternatives. The fact is that before the massive government investment in roadways, most people neither wanted nor needed automobiles. Farmers needed trucks more than telephones but the government felt that everyone should have a phone so they allowed the Bell System to become a monopoly on the condition that Farmer Joe, 500 miles from nowhere, would pay no more for phone service than someone living in Manhattan. But the average person living in or around a city didn't own a car. The people who bought cars bought them for the occasional trip to the country where other forms of transportation did not exist. Between 1920 and 1930, automobile sales increased due, primarily, to a combination of increases in (free) public roadways, manufacturing innovations which led to mass production and economies of scale and easy credit (the same credit which would contribute to the financial crisis during that period). Between 1929 and 1930, US automobile production decreased by more than 50%. By 1928 the market was saturated at 20 million units. The US population was 120 million so only 20% of all Americans owned a car. In 1927 GM purchased and destroyed 650,000 used cars in an effort to stimulate the market. Alfred P. Sloan invented planned obsolescence as a means to generate growth in business. The percentage of the population owning personal automobiles might never have increased much more than that. Only 25% of Manhattan residents, today, own a car which sort of belies the argument that people prefer automobiles. What changed all of that was free roadways, cheap gasoline and punitive regulation and taxation of the railroads. Free roadways led to the gentrification of suburbs and, eventually, urban sprawl. It is simply not true to suggest that we built roads because people wanted cars. Intercity roads were first built for commerce at the urging of farmers and truckers, the former wanting to escape the clutches of the railroads and the latter seeing an opportunity to fill a niche. There was extensive lobbying of the government by these special interests to see roads built and consumers didn't object because it meant cheaper goods, but people didn't start demanding roads because they wanted to buy cars so that they could use them. It was the governments subsidy of the road and highway system that made personal automobiles practical and desirable. Another fact that belies your argument is that in the November 2008 election, 76% of all public transportation initiatives through the country were passed. As others have noted, if consumers had to pay the true cost of personal transportation as a usage fee (rather than indirectly via taxes), I doubt that the automobile would be as popular as you think. Just look at how the price of gasoline affected discretionary automobile traffic.

John Madden traveled by trains from 1979 until Greyhound gave him his own bus. Many college and professional teams prefer travel by train or bus if it is viable. When I was in college we traveled almost exclusively by train or bus unless it was not feasible. And I see the Norfolk and Southern OCS pass my way all the time. In fact, I've see it at the Masters in Augusta. Talk about walking the walk. That's the point, isn't it? People are more likely to use a service if it exists.

Possibly, the Miami and Erie Canal provided a link between the Ohio River at Cincy and Lake Erie at Toledo but, like other parts of the Country, rail was fast approaching. The canal was finished in 1840 but the Little Miami railroad was chartered in 1836 and train service to Sandusky was available by, I believe, 1866 (perhaps, before). I agree, though, that the city pinned its future on access to the Ohio River.

Well, as you know, it worked both ways. The railroads extorted cities over whether the rails would run through them. This was one of the reasons why they were hated by the agricultural Midwest and why trucking became so popular (Midwesterners were more interested in trucks than it telephones since a telephone wouldn't get your crops to market). Towns like Crestline existed as watering stops for the steam engines. I actually always liked that route from Pittsburgh to Chicago, more than I like the current route, but the downside was the number of small towns that you had to pass through at relatively low speed. I like your elevator speech but it would be especially effective if Strickland could say that X% of the steel products used in the 3-C Corridor project would be produced in Ohio. A real deal-breaker would be to find out that the 3-C trains were made in Germany, Sweden or Japan.