gildone

Not nearly as many companies as you think. Granted, the trend is accelerating, but I get to see a few dozen different companies every year and I see a lot that's right under their noses that they don't recognize-- and I'm not even an expert in this area. It's quite surprising how much people don't see when it comes to energy efficiency.

A few comments based on what I'm seeing here in the last several posts. I see some false assumptions. First, some appear to think that reducing energy usage = reduction in both quality of life and economic activity. This is quite false. The largest and both easiest and fastest to deploy source of energy we have at our disposal is efficiency. Amory Lovins is correct when he says it's cheaper to save energy than it is to buy it and has laid out a case that even if oil were $25/bbl, there is plenty of energy efficiency to that makes economic sense. Many populations throughout the world report a greater "happiness index" than America, even though they consume far less energy and resources than we do. I also see an assumption that just because there is technology available or in the pipeline, that we have nothing to be concerned about. Technology does not equal energy and technologies require energy to produce. The energy guzzling machinery required to mine raw materials for many technologies to the energy they require to turn into alternative energy devices is a very important part of the equation to consider. This doesn't mean that we should not or will not pursue new technologies, but rather we need to be realistic about what we think they can do for us. And, being realistic, does NOT equate to embracing declinism and doomerism. We also have to consider where we are on the Fossil Fuel Era timeline. The best evidence out there indicates that all forms of fossil fuel will reach production declines before mid-century. For those who have been following this closely, the International Energy Agency, various defense departments, and an increasing number of corporate players and governments have been moving closer and closer in their viewpoints to what many in peak oil circles have been saying for more than a decade now. Likewise, the apocalyptic, doomer segment of the peak oil crowd has become a smaller and smaller segment of that crowd (more on this segment later). Another important thing to remember is that the economic problems begin well before the downside of the peaks really get started as energy prices become more and more volatile well before then. We're already at the beginning of that for oil. It will happen with coal and gas too. The US has no serious energy policy, but a patchwork of supposed energy laws that are meant to please various business constituencies first and foremost and the real, long-term energy security of the nation second. This distorts some of the important price signals that the market needs to respond effectively and in time to make the transition a smooth one. Perhaps the best example of this is the US government's insistence on subsidizing nuclear power when the private sector simply isn't interested even with 100% loan guarantees for plant construction and generous production subsidies already on the table. Worldwide, the only serious purchasers of nuclear power have been government planners. Of course, another side of the problem is the generous subsidies and tax loopholes for the fossil fuel industry that make fossil fuels artificially cheap. But I'm digressing a bit. The point is that without clear energy policy for the nation, the market cannot respond in an effective manner. Now, I know there are some market purists here who think markets can solve every problem without any government policy at all. All I can say is that markets simply are not perfect on everything. Markets don't account well when it comes to long term resource issues. If they did, they would have recognized some time ago, for example, that we have been overfishing the entire globe at the industry's own peril, but they haven't. Likewise, the market won't recognize the gradual lowering of the pH of the oceans that is going on because of all the CO2 we're pumping into the global ecosystem until the pH reaches the point that sea species can no longer make their shells. But, I'm digressing. As for the apocalyptic/doomer segment of the peak oil crowd, anyone who has been following this closely for the past several years would see that the this segment has quieted down quite a bit. They haven not joined the techno-utopian crowd, but rather have come to realize that there is no shortage of low-energy solutions to our energy predicament that won't adversely affect our quality of life, and in many ways will actually enhance it. I won't get into the details, but the solutions do require changes in our current assumptions about energy, how we view the economy and how people engage with the economy, but in a lot of ways, the solutions they are discussing these days actually give people more control over economy. Long story short, there is no reason to be a doomer and insufficient evidence that the techno-utopian view is completely viable. As with just about everything, the answer is somewhere in between.

It appears the key in North Carolina was having business people come out against killing rail in the state. We need the business community to step up to the plate in Ohio-- big time.

Not exactly what I said. Implicit in the statement I made which you were responding to, was that I was stipulating to KJP's reference to 1916. At least that was my intent, which I could have communicated more clearly. It's not that people forget history, it's that too many of them don't know history to begin with.

I know, but after trying doors for 40 years, I hope we find the right ones real soon...

The first step the interstate highway system was the 2-lane US highways which began construction after WWI. That's what I mean. That wasn't 40 years from idea to construction. The grade-separate limited-access highway idea came along later and the hard push for it didn't occur until after WWII. Then the Interstate Defense Highway Act was passed in 1956. That wasn't 40 years either. It's not just the extremists that we're fighting. John Mica is not an extremist, but he only knows just enough to be dangerous. My point is that we've keep hearing the same ignorant nonsense from the same camp of politicians with no meaningful push-back from their colleagues who should damn well know better by now. We're fighting ignorance on BOTH sides. Also, I doubt there was the same kind of political motivation during the push for highways that we're seeing with rail-- specifically that is that a lot of Republican opponents are only opponents right now because Obama and the Democrats are pushing for rail development. Look at what so many flip-flopping Republicans did in Ohio last year. And Ohio's press was complicit in the whole thing either deliberately (like the Dispatch) or simply because they do so little real journalism anymore. It's not they they "got to me" I just expended what was left of my reserves of energy during the 3C fight. I was already running on fumes then from other matters that happened prior to that which you are aware of. I just don't know if/when my batteries will recharge enough that I'll be ready to jump back in.

Reading through the latest NARP news, I found the following tidbit. This is why I'm out of the advocacy business for the time being, if not permanently. We've been fighting the same worn out, ignorant, nonsensical, empty-headed political flatulence from Republican rail opponents as well as a sickening lack of intelligent, meaningful push-back from both Democrat and Republican rail supporters for 40 years. It didn't take this long to get the US highway system funded and built, or once proposed, get the Interstate system funded and construction well under way once proposed. I obviously haven't been smart enough to figure out how to outsmart moronic legislative hacks like Paul Ryan below, or in Ohio Tom Patton and several of his Republican colleagues, who are more interested in playing petty politics with an issue than doing what's right, necessary, and desperately needed for their state and the country: Ryan Budget; NARP Response House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (RWI) on April 5 released a FY 2012 budget plan which zeroes out the high speed and intercity passenger rail program and makes undetermined cuts to Amtrak. The plan’s narrative says “high-speed rail and other new intercity rail projects should be pursued only if they can be established as self-supporting commercial services. The threat of large, endless subsidies is precisely the reason governors across the country are rejecting federally- funded high-speed rail projects.” Then there is this one. While the idea of competitive rail operators has merit, ignorant people in places of influence like John Mica have a blatantly obvious cognitive disconnect: why isn't he also calling for private-sector involvement in highways too? Especially since the Highway Trust Fund has had to be bailed out for the past 3 years and more bailouts on the way. And again, there is a sickening lack of meaningful push-back from rail supporters in Congress and the Whitehouse: "Rep. John Mica (R-FL), full committee chairman, again called Amtrak a “Soviet- style” railroad. He lauded efficiency gains that he said opening passenger train routes to private operators would bring... Amtrak V.P.—Policy & Development Stephen Gardner argued that, while competition sometimes reduces costs, it can also increase fragmentation and reduce network efficiency: “Increased private sector involvement is not a substitute for adequate, consistent and assured federal funding...federal funding for intercity passenger rail service is the only way to attract—and maintain—private sector participation and financing.” So, year after year, we're stuck in our cars literally and figuratively. Literally because we don't have enough rail alternatives to driving, and figuratively because fighting this battle has been like sitting in our cars, engine running, with the transmission in park and the accelerator pushed to the floor. Sorry folks, but this is what advocacy burn-out looks like. It's probably a good thing I'm uninvolved...

Well said, KJP and BuckeyeB. I feel for your dad, David, but still, the rest of us are paying for the road damage his industry does not pay for. BuckeyeB is right, end the shell game we play with transportation (especially roads and driving) and the our entire transportation system would be better for it. We would have the Ohio Hub system today, if this were the case.

Perhaps the cost of goods should better reflect the full costs of getting them to you. We're paying for it anyway, just in a different way. Why not just be honest about the cost up front instead of playing a shell game? By the way, love your tag line, David.

^I would also suggest removing the sticky from this thread and instead sticky the "Ohio--Accelerating its economy with high speed rail" thread.

Interesting that George Will was for high speed rail before he was against it. See this op-ed of his published in October 2001: Getting serious about our solutions ...Third, build high-speed rail service. Two months ago this columnist wrote: "A government study concludes that for trips of 500 miles or less -- a majority of flights; 40 percent are of 300 miles or less -- automotive travel is as fast or faster than air travel, door to door. Columnist Robert Kuttner sensibly says that fact strengthens the case for high-speed trains. If such trains replaced air shuttles in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, Kuttner says that would free about 60 takeoff and landing slots per hour."... ...The lesson to be learned is not defeatism. Security improvements can steadily complicate terrorists' tasks and increase the likelihood of defeating them on the ground. However, shifting more travelers away from the busiest airports to trains would reduce the number of flights that have to be protected and the number of sensitive judgments that have to be made, on the spot, quickly, about individual travelers. Congress should not adjourn without funding the nine-state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. Each of these three proposals was sensible before Sept. 11. And it is hardly unpatriotic to seize this moment of unusual seriousness to get serious about agendas that languished when, until three weeks ago, the nation had a seriousness deficit Full article at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100101.asp My letter to Newsweek: George Will was for high speed rail before he was against it (Why Liberals Love Trains, Newsweek, 2/27/11). In a post 9/11 editorial in Jewish World Review (Getting Serious About Our Solutions: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100101.asp, 10/1/01). Will speaks in favor of high speed rail. Now he's suddenly against it and gives quite ridiculous reasons too. For example, he complains that most rail lines don't make a profit but ignores the fact that our highway and aviation systems don't either. Nor have their respective trust funds of fuel taxes and user fees ever covered all of their costs. His reasoning that liberals want to increase "collectivism" through high speed rail is as laughable as it is ignorant. No one is out to replace the private automobile. He forgets that liberals love the idea of electric and hybrid cars as much as they love the idea of high speed rail. Furthermore, in the dozen or so states that currently fund intercity passenger trains, people are choosing of their own free will to ride them, and the ridership just keeps going up. If anyone wants collectivism, it's people like George Will who want to keep travel options for Americans as few as possible, keep our aging population and car-less households less mobile, and keep us chained to the gas pump and at the mercy of rising oil prices.

^I wonder what the Buckeye Policy Institute would say about all of these subsidies to the trucking industry... oh, wait a minute... I know: absolutely nothing.

When it's all said and done, NE Ohio is not a bad place to live, except maybe for winter weather and our sports teams :wink: The cost of living isn't bad. Food prices are pretty good. We have water, which is becoming a problem in other parts of the country. We have one of the top 5 metroparks systems in North America. There are positive things happening at the local level: Sustainable Cleveland 2019 initiative, Cuyahoga Valley Initiative. The Cuy. Valley Scenic Railway is becoming a force to be reckoned with (in a good way). Cuy. Valley National Park and the Canal Towpath and the network of bike trails that are taking shape throughout Ohio. It's just too bad that state government has become, in a lot of ways, an impediment to the kind of change that is taking place here. It's also too bad that we are so vulnerable to oil price spikes that appear to be starting again because of the reckless and deliberate stupidity of our elected officials.

Believe me the thought has crossed my mind (and I know others on this board have thought about it too), but that's just not in the cards for me and my family at any time in the foreseeable future. Natninja raises a valid point, but I think most people have a breaking point where you can try to help change things for only so long before burnout sets in, and you're bruised and bloodied from beating your head against the wall, so you just say "screw it" and either give up or leave.

Perhaps someone needs to say these exact words to them. I'm so sick of backward politics in this state and the unreasonable fears that arise from it. State of Erie, anyone? [ftp=ftp://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24993.0.html]http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24993.0.html[/ftp] This is why I'm totally burned out on advocacy when it comes to this issue. It's just one ridiculous and baseless excuse after another. I've used up all reserves of energy I had. 10 or 12 years was all I had in me. I guess I don't have the stamina others have. I'm glad you're still in the game, KJP.

This is the only way around the childish, destructive, and partisan state and federal politics that has erupted around this issue. How are similar efforts progressing in Ohio?

I just received the April 2011 issue of Trains Magazine in the mail. This issue is all about high speed rail-- around the world, what's happening in the US with rail development (including political problems), what works and what doesn't, etc. It's packed with good articles on the subject, including case studies. I highly recommend folks pick up this issue. I don't know when the April issue will hit the newsstands, but I suspect within a couple of weeks.

I just received the April 2011 issue of Trains Magazine in the mail. This issue is all about high speed rail-- around the world, what's happening in the US with rail development (including political problems), what works and what doesn't, etc. It's packed with good articles on the subject, including case studies. I highly recommend folks pick up this issue. I don't know when the April issue will hit the newsstands, but I suspect within a couple of weeks.

"Bill Nye, once known as "The Science Guy" thanks to his incredibly successful TV series of the same name, thinks the U.S. "should be embarrassed" at its lack of a high-speed rail system..." Short article and video at link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/bill-nye-high-speed-rail_n_827738.html?ref=fb&src=sp

Picked this up on the OHERN facebook page: Committee Chair John Mica Statement On US Railcar www.youtube.com Committee Chair John Mica (R-FL) spoke out strongly for passenger railcar manufacturer US Railcar at the first Midwestern stop on a nationwide tour for Transportation and Infrastructure meetings...

Where were they last year with the 3C?

^European roads are built to entirely different standards than in the US. That's why they can handle heavier loads. Don't know about Canada or Mexico.

I like Sherrod Brown, but this is another example of the cluelessness of our elected officials.

No. He's doing the bidding of the Ohio Contractor's Association--oppose anything that's not a road-- and the Republican National Committee--oppose anything Obama wants. KJP: what other options are being discussed to get around ODOT and get this funded?

Thought I'd save KJP the trouble of posting: All Aboard Ohio's press release on written testimony to the USDOT/Mica hearing held in Columbus Ohio two days ago. Full written testimony can be found here: http://freepdfhosting.com/abbc4763ff.pdf Press Release: http://allaboardohio.org/2011/02/21/all-aboard-ohio%E2%80%99s-house-ti-testimony-with-right-policies-rail-will-be-the-only-mode-that%E2%80%99s-privatized-%E2%80%9Cfrom-the-infrastructure-on-up%E2%80%9D/ Dear House T&I: right policies let rail be the only mode privatized “from the infrastructure on up” FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — February 21, 2011 Contact: Ken Prendergast All Aboard Ohio Executive Director (216) 288-4883 kenprendergast@... COLUMBUS – For the first time since the early 20th century, railroad carriers’ unique ownership of their infrastructure and rights of way could be a speedy growth engine for them. All Aboard Ohio made that case as the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee sought testimony at a series of “field hearings” for its upcoming renewal of the six-year federal surface transportation spending law. A field hearing was held in Columbus on Feb. 19. All Aboard Ohio is grateful to U.S. Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Columbus) for inviting us to submit written testimony. T&I Committee Chair Rep. John Mica (R-Winter Park, FL) asked witnesses for ideas and input on how to: + accelerate transportation project delivery; + identify creative financing options; and + increase private-sector investment in transportation projects. All Aboard Ohio offered solutions to problems told by witnesses like Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jerry Wray who lamented falling state and federal gas tax revenues and the rising costs of maintaining roads. Keith Tuttle of Motor Carrier Services in Toledo urged longer hours that truckers can be on the road – because of highway congestion, truckers cannot travel as far. Meanwhile Rep. Mica reminded witnesses about rising gasoline prices and that federally compliant transportation projects typically require a decade to go from idea to construction. In its testimony (see: http://freepdfhosting.com/abbc4763ff.pdf), All Aboard Ohio noted there are three ways for government to subsidize transportation: + direct financial outlays (grants and loans); + tax credits; and + outright ownership of transportation infrastructure. All Aboard Ohio urged expansion of tax credits to meet the committee’s three basic goals, noted above. It would allow federal transportation incentives to move at the speed of business and without expanding federal bureaucracies. “The passenger and freight rail industry is unlike any other mode of transportation as the carriers must own and be responsible for their infrastructure and rights of way,” All Aboard Ohio noted in its testimony. “That places a much higher fixed-cost burden on rail carriers (including Amtrak and transit agencies), compared to other modes where carriers can treat the public infrastructure they use more so as a variable cost. Rail carriers must pay for their own right-of-way policing and security, maintenance, dispatching and traffic management, and liability insurance. By comparison, for highway users and airlines, those costs are largely externalized onto general revenue taxpayers. Any public policy changes must acknowledge this unique situation in the rail industry.” In recognition of this situation, All Aboard Ohio urged creation or expansion of tax-credit incentives for the following activities: Capital improvements: encourages private enterprise, not public agencies, to lead rail freight, passenger and transit projects. Positive Train Control: addresses the unfunded mandate of PL 110-432 on railroads to invest up to $10 billion to install PTC by 2015. Public-benefit activities: allows railroads to provide public-benefit activities that do not benefit freight rail shareholders. Electrification: encourages railroads and public utilities to expand use of electricity as a source of motive power. Safety & technology research: promotes innovation at rail industry suppliers. All Aboard Ohio urged Congressional action on two other issues: Expand service partnerships with higher education: specialization in education requires more travel by students who often do not have cars and no other way of getting around. We support the Ohio Higher Education Rail Network model. Simplify the RRIF program: The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing should offer no-interest loans, eliminate loan rankings based on purpose, be aligned more closely with the fiscal soundness loan-award policies of private lenders, and require only NEPA categorical exclusion documentation. “The low-cost, market-based, high-impact proposals in this report would allow the rail industry to use its inherent strengths to surge ahead and take the next logical steps for both passenger and freight. And thus, the unique situation of carriers’ responsibility over their infrastructure could be turned from an albatross into a true asset,” All Aboard Ohio concluded. END