seanmcl

The crux of the issue, IMHO, is in this single sentence: 'In the end, Constantine had what he called "a 15-minute argument." By contrast, he said, Dockery's pitch "takes 15 seconds."' All you need to do is to associate (health care reform, public transit, HSR) with (socialism, corporate giveaway) and you're finished. People in states with shrinking economies and high unemployment perceive users of rail (in particular) as a special interest. I used to review grant applications for the Federal Gov't as well as a state supported stimulus economic stimulus group. In interviewing applications we frequently used the term "elevator speech" meaning that if you couldn't reduce your pitch to something which would fit into the time that it would take to ride from the ground floor to the office in an elevator, your message was too complicated. I don't see an easy way around this. It is hard to get people to be that forward thinking when they are looking at the news that Severstal and Arcelor-Mittal are idling plants in the US.

Interesting point, but why does Chicago have so much traffic? Or, to put it another way, what caused Chicago to become the major city that it is? Transportation, of course. Cheap, convenient transportation (or the lack, thereof) is what makes or breaks a city and the wrong investment can kill a city. Many midwestern downtowns are dying or already dead in part because we built roads out to distant farmlands where property was cheap making fortunes for the Simon and DeBartolo families (while taxpayers picked up the tab for the infrastructure improvements which made such developments possible). Zoning ordinances which required developers to allocate so many spaces for free parking per square foot of retail space (advocated by the automobile industry), meant that cities could no longer compete for retail dollars. As downtown retail revenues decline, retailers close making the downtown a less attractive place to live. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I lived near Chicago during the widening of the Kennedy and Dan Ryan expressways. As we now know, adding capacity to roadways does not relieve traffic congestion, it simply allows the same roads to hold more cars, which is what happens. We also know that as population density increases, vehicle ownership goes down and as vehicle ownership goes down, the preference for public transportation increases. Urban planners talk about Transit Oriented Development but that is exactly what a city was.

Unfortunately, that hasn't been my experience of late. I've had overnight trips in sleepers where I have asked to be woken at least 45 minutes before entering the station (usually in the wee hours of the morning) and, instead, been woken to "We're pulling into the station." If intercity passenger rail is going to win the hearts and minds of the public it has to be made more pleasant than an airline trip. That means that all passengers need to be treated well at all times, but especially those passengers who pay the equivalent of one night at the Four Seasons for a room slightly larger than a closet, and then find themselves ignored by the porters. There are many fine stewards that work Amtrak routes, but there are just as many slackers. Train travel can't be only for those who wouldn't do it any other way.

Gee, and he thinks Ohio would have so many suppliers to the automotive industry if it weren't for government subsidies, interest free loans, taxpayer-funded infrastructure improvements, tax credits for research and development and the bailout of GM using tax dollars? Perhaps he thinks that these same suppliers would be incapable of retooling to serve other industries. Maybe GM will bring back the Pontiac brand along with Saturn, Hummer, Opel, Saab or that the US market share for US made automobiles will increase above the 50% where it is now. Or maybe Jordan will vote for a single payer system which would remove the burden of health care costs from industry making it more competitive. Nahhh!

Last I read, no iron ore has been shipped on the Great Lakes in 2009.

Since, in my job, I have to do forecasts, I always do a best, middle and worst case scenario. From the point of view of my expectations, I expect no more than the worst case though I hope for no less than the best. However, this report from the GAO sums up my concerns/feelings about this issue. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf It recommends that any Federal HSR funding should follow a national vision/plan and not be composed of separate/unrelated projects. Further, it opines that the Federal share of such projects should far exceed the $1 billiion/year proposed by the Obama administration. While the report indicates that the benefits may be great, and greater than anticipated, it also acknowledges that the same is likely true for the costs.

The Cologne-Frankfurt ICE cost about $6 billion Euros (in 2000 currency) and is less than half the distance from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. Today that would be more than 2/3 of the entire budget for HSR. We are already seeing a growing resentment of some aspects of the stimulus package. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not going away, soon. Obama still enjoys a 60% approval rating but dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in the wars and the economy, especially if Korea and Iran continue to make progress on nuclear weapons, means that 2010 is up in the air right now. Americans are an impatient lot (unlike the Germans). They rarely think in the long term. In my humble opinion, given that $13 billion over 5 years is not going to be enough to complete ANY of the HSR corridor projects, the focus should be on demonstration projects that pack a lot of bang for the buck. In addition, thinking politically, I would look at projects that benefit swing states, especially states that switched from red to blue in 2008. There are many reasons why those states switched from red to blue (including dissatisfaction with the Republican ticket), but that may not be the case in 2012 or even in 2010 when voters will have a chance to vote on whether they are better off in 2010 than they were in 2008. Finally, as I said, if I saw state proposals which had the greatest potential for synergy, I would consider asking the states to submit joint proposals or consolidate existing proposals. For example, some parts of the Midwest High Speed Rail Project complement the Ohio Hub Plan. It might make the most sense to combine elements of both into a single award. In 2012, perhaps sooner, we're going to have to have something to show for our efforts (unless gas prices surge and stay up). Diluting the funds too much might please some of the people all of the time, but it may not be enough to stimulate a long term change in our thinking.

Sure, but what I was arguing is that, perhaps, waiting for this to happen is not the best approach. Already we are seeing states "competing" for the stimulus dollars when what might make the most sense would be look at those projects which would serve the greatest good even if they crossed state boundaries. Of course, this presents some challenges because it requires state legislatures to work together. But the reality is that the notion of a "state" makes little sense when you have resources which extend beyond state boundaries. How much of the Country is dependent upon the rail hub at Chicago, the Great Lake ports, the shipping ports at San Pedro or New Orleans? Can we really compare these to a route between LA and Las Vegas. The California HSR might make great sense for California but what benefits would it provide to the other 49 (clearly, some, because there would be manufacturing and other services which might not be provided by Californians). Consider the Keystone HSR Corridor. Would it be nice to have? Sure. But there are huge logistical problems with the 2/3 of the state West of Harrisburg and principal among these are the mountains. It would be a major expense, as well a a significant engineering problem, to make crossing these mountains (or going under them), practical. In fact, it was these same mountains that put an end to a canal from Philly to Pittsburgh (they used a railway to cross between the Chesapeake and Delaware Watersheds). Given the problems with this, does it really make sense to have this a designated HSR corridor when it would be more efficient to bridge the Midwest to the East Coast via a Northern route? If the answer is "yes" it is that important, then it may make more sense to commit all of the resources to that project to get it done rather than to divvy up the resources with the resulting fragmentation in services. I am not disagreeing with you as to how these corridors were designated. What I question is whether or not, from the perspective of national transportation policy and planning, it should be left to the states to proposed candidates for designation or whether it would be better to think regionally and nationally about key corridors where the opportunity to do the most good is apparent. I just looked at how Western PA intends to spend its stimulus money. Most of the shovel ready projects were first conceived in the 1980s (some even earlier) and were based upon ideas that are no longer relevant. Practically none of them involve any kind of rail. Makes me wonder how the corridor got its designation in the first place, or why it didn't just stop, in the West, at Harrisburg.

It is not merely ironic, it is sad. As a result, you don't have the Panhandle line and you have a big gap between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. The notion of a federation of states needs to be reexamined in terms of the benefits to our nation as a whole. We should be thinking in terms of regional economies which span state borders, rather than clinging to the notion that any state is economically poised to go it alone. That made sense when we were a fledgling democracy but it makes little sense, now.

In addition to Kunstler, I'd recommend Steven B. Goddard's "Getting There: The Epic Struggle Between Road and Rail in the American Century". While it is more of history of the railroads than the highway system, it is also a compelling argument why the "free market" approach to transportation (especially as it is asymmetrically applied to passenger rail service), doesn't work. The fundamental problem with the naysayers is that they fail to recognize that we are facing a transformative event in our economic history. We are going to have to think, differently, about how we do things if we are to preserve our standing as the world's largest economy. Much of the success of the American Century was due to public investment in infrastructure and basic research which allowed the private sector to succeed.

One thing that is important about the Ohio Hub Project is that it fills in the missing links. Another significant feature is that the viable distances for HSR as defined by the Obama Administration is 600 miles. That would include Pittsburgh to St. Louis, Cleveland to Memphis, Chicago to Oklahoma City, etc. I'm not saying that these routes are viable, but when you look at the way that population centers are clustered in the Midwest, 600 miles from anyplace encompasses a very large segment of the population. It should also be noted that Eisenhower did not envision the Interstate as a viable means of personal transcontinental transportation. Rather, he saw it as a network of intercity connections. He was also opposed to funding the construction of urban (commuter) highways as part of the Interstate System as he felt that that the Interstate's purpose was to improve transportation between not within cities. In dollars adjusted for today, the total cost of the Interstate, alone, was over $450 billiion or about $10 million/mile.

This is a joke, right? I suppose that Patton also would have (without Federal assistance): built navigational locks and dams on the Ohio River built flood control dams and reservoirs throughout Ohio's watersheds built and operated major airports constructed the Interstate system in Ohio built schools electrified rural communities etc. The sad thing is that statements like these seem to resonate with about 47% of our population (probably the same people who believe that dinosaurs and people coexisted at one time).

True. As noted before, though, Ohio and the rest of rust belt, have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn after already having been hurt by the demise of the steel industry. The Obama administration has shown a strong interest in the Midwest and in Ohio, in particular. The North East is already targeted for the bulk of the money. I'd be surprised if the Ohio Hub or Midwest High Speed Rail initiatives weren't given at least a bone to chew on. The Democratic majority in both houses may not be so secure if there isn't significant economic recovery before the mid-terms.

I don't think that we are at odds, here. There can be different levels of service. At my former employer I took my subordinates on a retreat that included taking the train both ways. If there had been meeting facilities on board, I'd have gone across the Country rather than stopping in Chicago. The fact is that cruise ships travel maybe 14 to 20 knots, tops. People could fly to the islands, faster, but they take the ships because they offer other things. You are correct, of course, that many of the riders of even long haul service are only going short distances. But the affluent and the wealthy continued to take the trains long after air travel was available in part because train travel could offer a certain degree of freedom that you don't find on a plane (which is nothing more than a flying bus).

I always thought that the long haul routes should think a little more like cruise ships. I don't mean an onboard swimming pool, but it wouldn't be that hard to think about things like Internet service, a facility for exercise, a business center, etc. There is a real lack of vision (coupled with consistently poor funding, as you noted). I stayed in Reading, UK and commuted to London, daily, for a month, and found the trains comfortable, and the lounge car a nice place to meet people. Personally, I think that they goofed when they took away the movie service and started renting personal DVD players. I used to enjoy sitting in the lounge car watching some Adam Sandler movie with a bunch of people that I didn't know. On one trip to DC, there was a huge delay and we were stranded at the Sand Patch for hours. They ran out of their stock videos but some crew members had uncensored Adam Sandler movies which were, ahem, not so child friendly in terms of the language. There was nothing left to eat on board, except for a big bowl of lettuce with some vegetables. In spite of the language, the movie was a perfect distraction (and the language was nothing worse than what some of the passengers were saying, anyway).

Wanted you all to know that I just got a personal e-mail from Stephen Slesnick, who is my representative from Canton. He wanted to let me know that he had voted for 3-C (even though Canton will not be an immediate beneficiary). He also stated that he thought that it was going to be "in conference for a long time."

How true. I traveled over 20,000 miles on Amtrak between summer 2007 and summer 2008 and I met many conscientious Amtrak employees. But I also met many who were downright lazy. Worse, yet, there was little consistency. I traveled in sleepers and, depending upon who was staffing the dining car, I was either able to or not able to order my own meal and take it back. In one case, I went to the dining car and was told that I had to order my meal from the porter who I couldn't find, anywhere. When he finally showed up, he mixed up the order and by the time it got to me it was too late to fix it because the dining car was "closed". I asked him to wake me up at least 45 minutes before the scheduled arrival as I was arriving in the very early morning and wanted to wash, pack and call for a taxi. Instead, he woke me as we were pulling into the station and the complained that they were behind schedule and I was taking too long even though the stop was a scheduled smoke break. I have met some truly wonderful people, including Janet, who worked the dining car on the Capitol Limited (although I swore it was the Silver Service when I first met her), is one. Another, Len Dawson who worked the California Zephyr back in the mid-80s, and whom I've never been able to find to thank him. At that time I could only afford one night in the sleeper and had to spend the rest of the trip in coach, but he came by after my first night in coach to let me know that there was a shower available if I wanted to use it. Unfortunately, there are many more who seem to forget who is the customer. My father-in-law who was a frequent flier used to have a pet response when he was confronted by rude or non-functioning employees of the airlines. He would say "Listen, I'm revenue and you're overhead!" If the employees working at Amtrak only realized that making the trip more pleasant is a good way to get more public support, but many seem to miss this link. I was sorry to see Amtrak eliminate on-board cooking though it was probably safer. A few years ago, I took a trip with my wife and we sat with a woman who was a vegetarian and this was before they had a more politically correct, though often boring, menu. She told the dining car steward that she was a vegetarian and wanted only the rice which came with the chicken dinner. She got the rice, covered in chicken gravy.

By many estimates we have reached or are near reaching peak production. Even as new sources are brought online (which is not going to happen when oil prices are under $80-$100/barrel), older sources will reach the end of their capacity. What people don't seem to realize is that we won't see new production until oil prices (and gasoline prices), rise to the levels at which most Americans started feeling the pain. And these new sources will not drive down the cost because production cannot be sustained at lower costs. What we saw last summer is a snapshot of what we have to look forward to for a long as we are dependent upon huge volumes of oil. CAFE standards of 35 MPG by 2020 are a joke. In 2020 nobody will be able to afford to drive a vehicle which gets only 35 MPG. That is why it is so important that we emphasize alternative transportation, now, while we can still afford it.

There's also $7 million for the Panhandle line. What's going on, there?

That's not what Simmons said. He said the cost of taking the train was much less than driving, but people tend to think it's slightly more because motorists only count the cost of gas when pondering a trip. Correct. Part of the problem is that we, as a nation, do not teach our children anything about real-world economics, including the "true" cost to do something. From a government perspective, our "investments" should be in what are the most cost effective and efficient ways to move goods and people. We should not be focused on financing that which most people WANT to do because most people don't think in terms of the greater good. Governments should work to protect what is best for the individual, but they can only justify taxing those individuals if they work toward what provides the greatest good. National intercity HSR will transform this nation in a way that nothing else, practically, will (assuming that we can't devise transporters a la Star Trek). It is the best that our current technology has to offer.

Perhaps. Or, perhaps, the Republicans decided that this just wasn't the right time to oppose it since they probably expect that final bill will return authorization of the financing to the legislature where they can, then, defeat it. As it is, they are only authorizing the state to proceed with making a proposal (something which would have been nonsensical to oppose). That is why I am agreed that we cannot let up with efforts to press the legislature and inform the public. It isn't so much that we won as that we didn't lose, yet.

We need to distill the facts down to talking points that will fit into a 15 second, or less, sound byte, which is about as much time as anyone will spend listening. It is a lot easier for the nay-sayers to say "What's this gonna cost?" than it is for the advocates to spell out the benefits.

Not just living. Much of the rust belt is economically poised to make a comeback in the manufacturing sector as well. The "flight" has not been experienced labor, but the young looking for opportunity. Brownfields are available for redevelopment as manufacturing sites and the state's access to water routes is key to moving large volumes of materials, inexpensively (assuming that rail is there, too). This isn't just about train nostalgia. This is about making Ohio competitive, again.

Another link that might get people thinking: http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Advance%20Copy_Feb09.pdf This bipartison commission on surface transportation is recommending a shift to pay-as-you-go taxes to fund the Highway Trust. The free ride may soon be over.

The editors should Google "contango oil" or, better yet, look at the following article: http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/January/contango.html The largest oil companies in the world have already filled up land-based storage tanks and are paying $46,000/day to rent 1 million barrel tankers to store oil for sale at higher prices in the future. Why are oil prices so low? Two theories. One is that oil producers are heavily leveraged in stock which is down 44% from their peak. A credit crunch may be forcing them to sell at less than peak prices because consumer demand is down (hence, the surplus to contango). The other theory, which is held by many analysts, is that world oil production has already peaked for the forseeable future. Both may be true. In any case, $4/gallon for gasoline is not simply a memory and our politicians are deluding themselves (and us), if they don't think that we'll see these prices, again, in the next few years.