seanmcl

The sad thing is that he gets 666 words to express his one-sided opinion (talks about the Amtrak subsidy but fails to mention that the annual Federal share of the road subsidy is $40 billion), but the Dispatch limits letters to the editor to 200 words, in most cases. Perhaps someone from All Aboard Ohio could ask for space for a rebuttal.

The only problem is that I don't see this continuing. As the world economy recovers, so will the demand for all the basic materials of construction and, therefore, the costs. That coupled with the huge increase in our nation's debt service, which was more than 10% of the Federal Budget last summer, and the looming obligations to fund mandatory social programs for the elderly, and I don't see the Federal government continuing to fund discretionary projects let alone increasing funding. For the most part we're all behaving as though the economy will recover and it will be business as usual. IMHO this is a dangerous delusion.

An interesting talking point, though I'd like to see how they came up with some of the numbers. http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

The DC Metro was maticulously planned and included some significant social engineering. For example, it was deliberately decided to not build stops in economically disadvantaged areas until stops in more affluent areas were built. You probably couldn't get away with that, now (or, at least, you couldn't make that an explicit reason), but the intent was to appeal to the business class, first and wean them from their dependency on autos. They also made the stops adjacent to the main Interstate arteries into the city, built park-and-ride lots and established a feeder bus service. It was a very well designed network. You haven't lived in Pittsburgh, I presume.

References, please. This may be true, but based upon passenger miles on the DC Metro versus I-270, I rather doubt it. I wasn't talking about "budgeted projects". I was referring to projects which had been identified as needing to be done but for which there was not, yet, a budget. Every state has these, they must. The Federal budget isn't known that far in advance of the fiscal year to allow the states to prepare transportation plans only after the Federal budget was known. Instead, states have lists of projects and in any given year pick from the lists those projects which are the highest priority and which fit under the Federal formula. Those projects which are required for maintenance, rehabilitation or upgrade should have been automatically budgeted along with the construction costs. You don't build a house without a long term financial plan for upkeep and maintenance. Those are recurring cost which are automatically budgeted with the cost of construction. To the extent that you don't do this, you are ignoring the true cost of the project. My only point is that I don't see Republicans discussing the cost of road, bridge and highway subsidies but they exist and, over time, they can exceed the costs of initial construction. Sure, and isn't that a subsidy? So what percentage of the state budget goes to road, bridge and highway subsidies? I am not saying that the question is not legitimate. What I am saying is that you have to consider the entire operating budget of the state to determine what costs are reasonable and what aren't. Every piece of new construction is going to have associated with it an operating subsidy. Perhaps if Ohioans had a look at the entire budget and had to pick and choose they might make a different choice than they would if you singled out one project in order to emphasize its operating costs. That is because transportation planners are not as smart as Ray Kroc (McDonalds). Kroc realized that the value of property increases in inverse proportion to the distance to a roadway. McDonalds' model was to buy the property then either own, outright or lease the business back to the franchisees. The railroads knew this as well which is why they could determine whether a community lived or died on the basis of where they located track. Many people are justifiably concerned about sprawl and its impacts on established communities. We cannot sustain unplanned growth and we can't encourage it by agreeing to build new roads to service these developments. One of the things that people don't like about rail is the way that it economically restricts land use but, in fact, that is a blessing because it puts an end to speculation and to the adverse overall effect that it has on established communities.

The "tactics" are to try to take the legislature out of the final approval for 3-C. However, and I say this as a social liberal who has been a fiscal conservative for many years, the second part of your statement seems to be right on. Look for David Brooks' OP-ED piece today in which he characterizes the Republicans as the party to "just say 'no'". They seem to have latched onto this idea that opposing anything to do with the economic recovery plan (including the use of funds for 3-C), is the strategy they need to win in 2012. Rush Limbaugh has stated that he wants this President to fail. But if this President fails, all of us will be in deep water. Whether we agree with the policies or not, no sane person can want economic recovery to fail. Has leadership devolved to the point where it relies on someone else's failure rather than your own successes?

First of all, you need to subtract from the roadway operating costs those costs which would be eliminated through the switch to mass transit. Second, if what you said about budgeting were true, there should be NO shovel-ready highway projects in Ohio which involve road, highway and bridge repairs, rehabilitation, adding lanes, etc., because these should have been anticipated and budgeted as part of the cost of operating the roadway to begin with. Wanna bet whether that is the case or not? And, yes, I view the addition of lanes as an operating costs. As I have said, before, roads do not alleviate congestion, they simply increase the number of vehicle trips necessary to cause it and increased supply leads to increased demand (why not, it is free). Anyone considering building a four lane highway anywhere near a major municipality should include the cost of the additional two lanes as part of the operating cost of the highway, since these can be reliably predicted.

I don't disagree that the anwer to the question is important. What I disagree with is comparing apples to oranges. Assuming that we kept everything functioning at peak levels (and don't forego maintenance to some other session of the legislature), what is the operational cost of our roadways? Add to that the hidden costs of traffic accidents, traffic law enforcement, increased respiratory disease due to engine emissions, lost productivity due to sitting in traffic, taxpayer costs associated with parking, insurance, automobile maintenance, our expensive involvement in the Middle East in order to protect world oil markets, etc. My point is that operating subsidies are an easy target but they don't get at the real costs. For that, you need a much more complicated economic model which, quite frankly, I doubt that many of our legislators can understand. When our legislators oversimplify for the purposes of shaping (or appealing to) a certain mindset, they do a disservice to their constituents. Moreover, many Republicans (I don't say fiscal conservatives because they are not), are opposed to programs that, in reality, are very business friendly. Paul Weyrich, who died recently, was a staunch fiscal conservative who, nonetheless, was a fervent supporter of public and mass transit. He appreciated something that most of our Republican ideologues do not.

I have had the "pleasure" of frequent travel to Washington DC for the past 40 years. Everytime they add a lane to the Beltway or I-270 in order to ease congestion, they simply create more congestion. What will relieve congestion is a contracting economy, not more roads. Moreover, while there has been much public discussion of the long term operating subsidies for rail, the same discussions never seem to take place regarding highways, roads and bridges. Many states have a 10-year backlog of road improvement, road resufacing, bridge improvement, traffic signal improvement, etc., projects which are underfunded due to a lack of Federal support. In the past 8 years, that has been primarily because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the next 8 years, add to that the cost of the deficit, expansion in social programs, and I wouldn't be expecting Uncle Sam to be paying for all of this. Finally, most states transportation budgets are based upon Federal formulas which reflect a 50 year bias toward roads and highways. This administration has already said that it intends to change that. If I were a transportation planner I'd be giving that a lot of thought.

More than that, what is the rationale? The Interstate highway system (as it exists, today) was envisioned by a man concerned with the logistics of moving military convoys across the United States (although the final design was civilian purposed). The final plan was modeled after Germany's Autobahn (ironic, isn't it, that Germany is now building high speed rail) which was designed for a country much smaller and with much greater population densities. It was first envisioned at a time when the railroads were despised for the stranglehold they had over communities, merchants and consumers and personal and truck transportation was viewed as a way to escape that stranglehold. Eisenhower did not intend for the Interstates to include urban highways (beltways, spurs, etc.). He felt that this should be the responsibility of the states in which the municipality existed and that the purpose of the Federal involvement was to connect municipalities and states. He first found out that urban highways were being built with Interstate funds when he passed construction of the Capitol Beltway on his way to Camp David. He didn't approve but it was too late. The Interstate system was funded at a time when oil was plentiful, gasoline was cheap. The Middle East was essentially passive to the West's hegemony. The United States had just defeated the world's next two largest manufacturing economies and had no real competitors. Economic growth seemed unstoppable. The flaw in the way that we currently think about transportation in the US is our failure to consider the environment in which many prior tranportation decisions were made. What seemed like a good idea in 1956 may not be a good idea, today. The issue is not whether we have shovel ready uncompleted road projects but whether we should have them at all.

I don't disagree with you. But I think that what we are seeing is that communities being bypassed by the Hub are less enthusiastic about it (especially their Republican reps). We need to appeal to them that this benefits all communities, not just those on the mainline. Perhaps, and I hate to suggest this as it sounds protectionist, but here is an opportunity... Someone is going to get HSR in the US. Someone else has to manufacture it. My guess is that there are many Midwest proposals that are going to look good on paper. Why don't we suggest that the manufacturing be targeted toward interests in the Midwest (namely, Ohio)? We have the people, the facilities and the need. Think about this another way. Ohio had no need for destroyers or aircraft carriers, but Ohio was a significant contributor to WWII and post WWII construction and engineering. So we throw out a couple of bones. The funding is approved for 3-C but there is a set-aside for X% of the total contracts to be awarded to Ohio businesses IF they are competitive. You have Republic in Canton, and the industries of Akron, the port in Toledo, manufacturing in Cleveland and the Ohio River ports to the east where there is steel. Get them on board (pun intended), and maybe you have a mandate.

Just as a comparison. The Interstate Defense Highway Act of 1956 authorized $27 billion for 40,000 miles of highway. In 2007, adjusting for inflation and using the CPI-U-X1 series numbers as a denominator, that amount would be $1.9 trillion (actual estimates of the cost in adjusted dollars are closed to $505 billion in 2006). And that doesn't include the billions in additional roads, beltways, spurs, etc., which have been built over the years. In 2002, the GAO estimated that the annual cost to maintain the Interstate Highway System (alone) would be $17.3 billion (about $21 billion, today). The 46,000 miles of Interstate which existed in 2000 included 209,655 lane miles which was 2.5 percent of the estimated total lane miles in the US (although it is not fair to extrapolate Interstate maintenance costs to the entire road network, it doesn't take much to understand that upkeep of our entire national road network is considerably more expensive than $21 billion). The alternative, which is what we have been doing, is to ignore maintenance until it becomes a problem. Certainly, the costs are not sustainable. Nor do our current politicians appear to understand how significant and misguided was the oppressive regulation of the railroads couple with unregulated subsidization of road construction by the taxpayer. Ironic that the Republicans opposed to investment in rail are essentially in favor of public sector subsidization of a competitor. In contrast, the roughly $8 billion approved for transportation projects, including HSR, would amount to only $1.4 billion in 1956. Using CBO projections for the next 10 years, if it would take $3 billion to build the Ohio Hub, today, and we waited until 2018 (and that is assuming that gasoline prices are tagged to inflation, which we know that they are not), our $3 billion would be worth $600 million less in terms of purchasing power or 80% of its current value, and that is being optimistic. Even a delay of one year would increase the cost by a minimum of $65 million, based upon CBO projections.

Thanks! KJP/Anyone: Is there any association between All Aboard Ohio and the OneRail Coalition?

I received a very considerate response from Thomas Suddes to an e-mail in which I had argued against many of the points that he had made in his opinion piece on railroading the Ohio Constitution. For what it is worth, he acknowledged that he agreed with most of my points but that his argument was against the way that the Democrats proposed to avoid involving the legislature in the final approval process. It is unfortunate that in his anger against this legislative maneuver, he felt it necessary to regurgitate the same well-worn (and disproved) arguments that we are hearing from our uninformed legislators. It is unfortunate when rhetoric trumps fact, especially when the rhetoric is used to inflame people's biases.

I've already written my Senators and Congressmen (Canton, OH), as well as the editor of Crains. The problem that I see (as a Cantonian), is that none of the HSR plans address the Akron-Canton population, except as a "potential" future route from Cleveland to Coshocton or via commuter rail to Cleveland. If the future Cleveland-Pittsburgh route is chosen through Youngstown, which makes sense, then Alliance would be out as well. That leaves a major population center as an island. That doesn't alter my enthusiasm in any way, but I can see where some communities may not be all that excited about that. Unless, of course, the project could, in some way, be tied to manufacturing in these cities.

This is, perhaps, the dumbest statement that has ever been made regarding passenger rail. I lived in New Jersey and worked in New York, 50 miles away. The commuter and intercity trains made that possible. The splinter communities that lined the Northeast Corridor existed because of of the rail. Anyone who knew Washington, DC, before and after the Metro knows that the explosive growth of Montgomery County followed the opening of the Shady Grove and Silver Spring Metro Stations. And anyone who knows the history of Silver Spring, which is the second largest municipality in Maryland after Baltimore, knows that its first Renaissance occurred as a result of the Washington Trolley Service, followed by the B&O. In 1978, the Metro became responsible for the rebirth of Silver Spring along with MARC. The old train station was rennovated between 2000 and 2002 (though passenger boarding occurs about 1/4 mile away). The Intercounty Connector, a roadway which links the Montgomery County communities in an East-West line has been roundly criticized as disruptive to communities, environmentally unsound, inadequate in terms of traffic volumes, and unnecessary.

My read of it is that they, like many people, are worried about the operating costs, not the construction costs. What they are missing is the overall economic benefit and, instead, question whether ridership will pay for the cost of operations. Funny that nobody thinks of this when describing the roadways or the Federal aviation system. They also label it a non-essential project. Funny that they should say this when T. Boone Pickens says he is bullish on oil because he expects it to hit $300/barrel by 2020 (read: $14/gallon for gas). I guess it'll become an essential project once people can no longer afford to drive. I'm especially upset that a business publication should be so short-sighted, especially since in the same issue they discuss the fact that Arcelor-Mittal will be suspending production at its Cleveland plant, idling about 1,000 people, due to the slump in the demand for steel. Gee, what kind of infrastructure projects might help to increase the demand for domestic steel? Finally, there was an article in today's Washington Post which stated that Virginia lost $25 million in buying power by delaying a vote on transportation appropriations from late fall to early spring. That is about 8% of the total that was budgeted. [Note: Should have mentioned that noozer posted the same information in another forum, earlier.] Perhaps the legislature should consider the fact that if they wait long enough, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that "we can't afford it!"

I don't disagree with that and I wasn't arguing whether what the Democrats want to do is constitutional. What I was responding to is the fact that there are other interpretions of what the Republicans are doing, and based upon the public comments, they are not all informed. The fact is that Ohio already has the ORDC, which is a state-sponsored agency, yet many choose to ignore the ORDCs findings. Why? Ideology might be one reason. True. And did the Interstate Highway system ever pay for itself in terms of usage fees? The nation's first investment in rail, granting rights of way, allowed for one of the greatest periods of economic growth in our history. Were there studies done, then? I wish that I could believe this. I agree that Dems are using the crisis as a means to effect changes. I'm not convinced that this is bad. I am also not convinced that the Republicans are trying to be responsible, given that most of the statements coming from them are more rhetoric than informed. What I want is a democratically elected representative government. If the people want a bulletproof majority, who are you to question it? If the people decide that their current representatives are obstructionists rather than creative and want to replace them, they have a chance at the polls. If they want more of the same, they can vote for this as well. The Republicans have espoused nothing except lower taxes. No economist in the world believes that this is sufficient for the simple reason that there is so much debt that any take home money will be spent paying that down (in other words, paying for what we already bought). That is a mantra, not a solution.

Well worn arguments. It used to be that journalists did research before printing stories. As late as last week the Washington Post omsbudsman published what could only be viewed as a correction to a claim made by George Will. But these days newspapers seem less informed than many bloggers. Apparently he didn't consider the fact that, based upon most of the public statements reported in the media, many Republicans are: 1. Uninformed as to the studies demonstrating the economic benefits of HSR. 2. Driven by ideology rather than rationality. 3. Bent on making any attempts by Democrats to stimulate the economy failures so as to have a shot at making some inroads in the midterm and 2012 elections. If T. Boone Pickens is right, and oil prices will climb to between $200 and $300/barrel in the future, we're all going to regret that we didn't put a priority on alternative modes of transportation, earlier. Republicans are playing the fear angle. "This is socialism." "The government is picking your pockets." Instead of coming up with ideas they are content to be the party of opposition. I think that they are likely to fail and I think that this will lead to bulletproof majorities in 2010 or 2012, but we'll have wasted too much time by then.

I used to go to the Earl of Old Town (Chicago) to hear Steve Goodman play when I was in college in Indiana (and, yes, I took South Shore Limited). For 10 years now, my wife and I (and this year, our son), have taken the train overnight from Pittsburgh to Chicago to be there for the opening of the Magnificent Mile holiday season. It isn't that bad from Pittsburgh since the train leaves at 11:30 or so but gets into Chicago sometime between breakfast and lunch. When he was 3 months old we took him on his first train ride from Pittsburgh (Capitol Limited) to Charleston, SC (Silver Meteor). That second leg was always fun because there are many cross tracks and a lot of places where the track is still jointed. There isn't a roller coaster in the Country as scary as flying along that route being bounced back and forth, but my son slept the whole way, both ways.

Letters of support are all well and good, but is there enough in it for them to actually lobby? Years ago, I was involved in a competitive project in West Virginia. The Federal funding agency had planned eight demonstration projects across the country at $2 million, apiece. I was hired to write the grant application for West Virginia. I wrote a very good proposal which, IMHO, almost guaranteed that West Virginia would be one of the recipients, but when I was asked what else could be done to ensure success, I said "lobby Byrd and Rockefeller and tell them how good this would be for West Virginia". They did and the result was that West Virginia received the entire $16 million, plus $2 million tacked on. Letters of support are good but nothing talks like money. Money from business is especially interesting to Republicans who seem to be continuously driven by ideology rather than rationality. Please excuse me because I am coming into this discussion late, but have CSX and Norfolk and Southern gone so far as to lobby for this?

One question that I have had that maybe KJP can answer is why the advocates for HSPR don't partner with the freight lines to suggest mixed use rights-of-way (with separate track, throughout or, perhaps, at intervals). I don't see (or desire to see) freight being able to travel at 350km/hr but the demands of HSR in terms of curve radius and such would likely be of benefit to the freight lines as well.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, much, is the fact that overall, the region's population is declining as is its economic significance. There are a lot of things that a region can do to say that it is forward thinking and business friendly but there are not many more things that say "WOW!" more than a major investment infrastructure. Other states, such as California, are talking HSPR and even committing funds to it. While it doesn't give many Republicans a warm and fuzzy, it appeals to the same demographics that elected our current administration. We know that temporary tax incentives don't work (and long term tax incentives are counter productive). Nobody is going to get excited (except local politicians and some in the construction industry), about spending economic recovery funds to repair what we built 20 years ago, even if some of that is necessary. After all, much of that infrastructure was planned when gas was considerably less than 80 cents a gallon. Many of our politicians are not planning for an economy in which gasoline is perpetually above $4/gallon. Moreover, regions where the population is growing may start to see a slowdown as the economy slows, fuel prices rise, and investment in roadways and airports no longer seems like a good idea. If Ohio wants to attract national and international attention it needs a project of sufficient scope and scale that businesses and employees take notice. The 3-C corridor is just the kind of project that projects a forward-thinking and innovative approach to attracting investment to the state, especially when coupled to the other HSPR corridor to the North and the ports of Lake Erie and the Ohio River. The ability to cross the state, North to South and East to West, using HSPR, would be a huge differentiator when comparing Ohio to any other state.

Even more interesting is the fact that if we look at the Midwest Megalopolis as its own economy, it would rank as the 19th largest in the world (2005). There are much smaller economies who have invested more of their GDPs in public transportation than the Midwest Megalopolis.

The following study from the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech provides some interesting comments about trends in the US since 1961. http://www.mi.vt.edu/uploads/megacensusreport.pdf In particular, what is called the Midwestern Megalopolis which is bordered by Pittsburgh on the East and Chicago and Milwaukee to the Northwest, is the second largest in the nation even though it is the slowest growing. Ethnogeographers also consider it one of the most stable in terms of a common culture and a common economy. Moreover, often overlooked as a contributing cause of the decline of manufacturing in this region is the relatively low cost of transportation. Since moving raw materials and finished products was a relativelty low cost, compared to other business expenses, businessed could afford to locate farther from their suppliers and consumers which meant to more tax and wage-friendly areas of the US. With Peak Oil set at between 2015 and 2020, and with the economies of the world likely to recover before this time, prices will not stay low for long, especially due to the demands from growing economies. What does this all mean? The country's largest megalopolis is the Northeastern Megalopolis which stretches from Boston to DC. Not coincidentally, this region also has (or is scheduled to get), high speed passenger rail service. But the Midwestern Megalopolis has something that the Northeast doesn't have, which is multiple intermodal ports on the Inland Waterways and Chicago which is, for all practical purposes, the only major convergence point for the nation's Class 1 railroads. In addition, the Midwestern Megalopolis has the infrastructure necessary to support manufacting, the labor force and affordable real estate. If the current administration is successful in advancing the agenda of universal health care and expanding retirement benefits labor costs could decline, correspondingly, making Midwestern manufacturing more competitive. This suggests that the states in the Midwestern Megalopolis should not only be considering what is in their individual interests in terms of economic stimulus, but also what is in the interests of the population that shares the same economic successes and failures. If we can move people and goods more efficiently between the ports and manufacturing sites in these states, we all stand to benefit, economically. Senators and Representatives from Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania should be working together in support of those investments which benefit the entire region.