gildone

Message from a friend of mine: "The trend toward less driving and less car ownership seems to be transitioning from a one-off curiosity to a long-term trend, especially among teen-agers and twenty-somethings. And once again, consumer electronics has something to do with it." Article: http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/06/4000000-fewer-vehicles-on-us-roads-in-2009/

Regarding the 3-C application to the feds... could Ohio have used all of the grade crossing money it has invested and plans to invest in the corridor as a state match? If so, did the application include it? I'm concerned that Ohio isn't putting much of its own money on the table and the feds are going to consider that in the apps.

Right, Noozer... JOBS!! See below: Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on defense: 8,555 Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on health care: 10,779 Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on education: 17,687 Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on mass transit: 19,795 Source: “The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities,” Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Dept of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, October 2007. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf If these Congress folk, who year after year force the Pentagon to buy planes and other equipment that they don't need and don't request, would instead put the money in mass transit in their states, they would create far more jobs than they think they are saving by their wasteful spending.

Peak Oil Reality: Industry Experts Offer Growing Drumbeat of Supply Warnings (press release) by ASPO-USA Newly-released videotaped remarks reinforce statements by senior petroleum industry officials about looming world oil supply constraints DENVER, Nov. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Groups and individuals speaking out about forthcoming world oil supply challenges are frequently stereotyped as a fringe element with little knowledge about the oil industry. But their warnings are increasingly supported by some surprising allies: senior petroleum industry officials, consultants and analysts. Call these serious-minded critics the Harsh Realists. Most prominent are CEO's from several large oil companies. Christophe de Margerie, CEO of France's Total SA, said earlier this year, "world oil production may plateau below 90 million barrels a day (mb/day)" -- marginally more supply than today's 85 mb/day rate. Last month, CEO's James Mulva (ConocoPhillips) and John Hess (Hess Corp.), sounded similar warnings, though with less specificity about the numbers, at the Oil & Money Conference in London. At ASPO-USA's October conference in Denver, Ray Leonard, CEO of Hyperdynamics Corp., said, "world oil was nearing peak oil at 90 mb/day, and that isn't changed by recent events."... ... "There is not enough new capacity coming on line, within say the next five to six years, to make up for global declines. And that's assuming a very moderate level of declines." For groups that remain in fundamental denial about upcoming world oil supply constraints, Husseini said, " these centers of information or knowledge that try to pacify people -- telling them there is no challenge, with good intentions -- are probably compromising the solutions. They're not helping." http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50826

How did the trip go? It's a bit late now, but... By the way, Amtrak's lot is gated shut when the station is closed. We've parked our cars there for multiple days on a few occasions with no difficulties. If you are going to ride a western train next year, I would recommend the Empire Builder. BNSF does a good job of dispatching that train and it has one of the highest customer satisfaction rankings of the long hauls. My wife and I traveled from Cleveland to Seattle by train on our honeymoon. After a hectic few weeks leading up to the wedding, it was nice to just kick back and relax for the two-day trip-- no long drive anywhere, no airport hassles (it was 2002, so the hassles were just beginning). We arrived in Seattle relaxed, well-rested, with an enjoyable two weeks ahead of us (we bummed around British Columbia-- Victoria, Prince Rupert, Vancouver, then flew home from Seattle. We used all of the major forms of mass transportation: trains, ferries, intercity bus, transit buses, rental car, airplane (we flew home)). We rode VIA Rail in Canada... better operation hands down, but we had no problems on Amtrak for our trip. Just went from Sandusky to Chicago and back on the Lake Shore a couple of weeks ago. The coaches were clean and in nice shape for Amfleets. Everything was fine, except for an air problem in the cars, so the toilets didn't flush properly (they would empty, but the little vacuum doors wouldn't shut so the bathrooms stunk) and the lounge car couldn't draw water to make coffee (they had to keep bringing coffee from the diner). The crews were fine too. Even Chicago Union Station employees aren't surly anymore. I encountered a very friendly and helpful ticket agent who helped us out a lot. On the way back, I bought an unsold bedroom room in a Viewliner car. The Viewliners have very nice bedrooms. The car attendant was very friendly. The train was on time, even early at Toledo both ways. The track between Cleveland and Toledo is kind of rough, though.

Shouldn't you be imagining what it would be like to be on the train instead of pounding I-75? :laugh:

NOACA MEETING FRIDAY, PLEASE ATTEND IF YOU CAN http://www.gcbl.org/events/noaca-tac-3c-rail-hearing-11-20-2009 Among the agenda items for the meeting is for NOACA to decide whether or not to include the 3-C Corridor in its regional transportation plan. Please show up and comment if you can: Location NOACA 1299 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH United States See map: Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps, MapQuest Date: Friday, November 20, 2009 Time: 10:00am - 11:30am Location: 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Description Two major transportation improvement projects are about to get underway in Northeast Ohio - The 3C rail quick start proposal, connecting Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati (and Dayton) and the rebuilding of the Innerbelt Bridge (I90) in downtown Cleveland. As it stands now, NOACA is the only MPO (metropolitan planning organization) along the 3C corridor in Ohio that has not approved adding the 3C project to this region's transportation improvement plan (TIP). This step is necessary for the project to receive federal funding, and sends a strong message that Northeast Ohio supports passenger rail investment. Please consider attending the NOACA's Transportation Advisory Committee meeting on Friday, November 20 at 10am. The public is allowed to sign in before the meeting and provide comments on this project for up to 2 minutes. Please help fill the room with positive comments on how having transportation choices in Northeast Ohio will help you, your family, business, etc. to live and do business in Ohio. To date, there has been no public comment at these meetings, and a few of the NOACA board members have been asking why people just can't drive and that there doesn't appear to be a need for transportation choices in Ohio. Meeting Agenda: http://cf.noaca.org/calendar/meetingtac.html Public Comment Instructions: http://www.noaca.org/pipsum.pdf NOACA's 3C Page (send comments to link at bottom to be included before Board vote): http://www.noaca.org/3crail.html Facebook event page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/event.php?eid=175541319805

Senator Tom Patton continues to oppose the 3-C Corridor project. Interesting that his bio on his Ohio Senate web page says the following about the importance of infrastructure development: "Patton knows that investing in the state’s infrastructure is a way to not only create jobs in the short run, but also to prepare for future economic growth. Job-creation and economic revitalization are Senator Patton’s highest priorities..." http://www.ohiosenate.gov/tom-patton/fullbio.html Hmmm... ideologue? His mind is made up, don't confuse him with the facts? The Tracking Ohio Poll in 2001 and the Quinnipiac Univeristy poll this year (2009) clearly show that a majority of Ohioans want passenger trains Hmm... anti-democracy?

John Diers published an article in the January 2006 issue of Trains about the GM "Conspiracy". He claims that there is no evidence that there was a conspiracy, in part, because they weren't convicted of a conspiracy. His argument is that GM merely wanted a bigger piece of the transportation pie, but those streetcars were just too expensive. Kwitney's article does a good job of casting quite a bit of doubt on Diers' position. When I read Diers' article, I had a nagging feeling that something didn't add up. It's not that I would prefer to believe there was a conspiracy as I read his article with an open mind, I just felt something wasn't adding up-- and still do. Interesting, though that there were some cities that wanted to get rid of streetcars because they were "in the way" of auto traffic on city streets. Someone told me that the Cleveland Press published an editorial in, I think, the early 50s arguing that the streetcars needed to be removed from city streets. Of course, we were well on our way to auto dependence by then. Thanks for posting this.

As much of a chaotic, bureaucratic and political mess Italy is, they have one heck of a rail system and they're making it even better. Puts us to shame...

The large LED sign at the Brook Park RTS is still not providing complete information for "The Next 3 Scheduled Trains". Here's what is says, all the time: Airport [Time-- which is correct], Airport/Winderme No, that's not a misspelling, that's where the message gets cut off. I seem to recall notifying RTA about this many months ago, but it hasn't been fixed.

Here are Amtrak's plans for equipment, excerpted from the 5-year financial plan: "For the 2009-2014 periods, that includes the following equipment needs: * 130 single-level long-distance cars (baggage, baggage-dormitory, dining and sleeping cars) * 20 single-level cab cars * 20 electric locomotives Replacement of aging and/or retired heritage equipment and augmentation of the sleeper inventory in the single-level long distance fleet will enable Amtrak to more effectively operate the current long distance network. It will also enable improved operating performance of long-distance trains by increasing inventory for sale, improving reliability, and supporting a viable baggage service. In addition to these baseline state-of-good-repair needs, a specification is in development for a single-level coach car, which can be utilized for either long-distance or corridor service. Orders will need to be placed in the near term, as funding sources are defined, for new single level corridor cars needed to replace the 470 Amfleet coaches that are approaching the end of their useful lives, and also to create a potential source of supply for passenger cars of this type for interested States seeking to expand or develop corridor service. Absent such actions, Amtrak anticipates a return to chronic capacity shortages in the Northeast Corridor served by this conventional fleet, which have only somewhat abated with the recent economic downturn. The requirements for system and route growth outside of the baseline need will be developed in partnership with states and in parallel with plans for route and service growth." And... an item of note from the2009 Strategic Guidance: Long-Distance Trains: Our long-distance trains are vital, both toAmtrak and the communities they serve. They are the sinew that ties our network together. Furthermore, they provide basic transportation to many areas that have a limited range of airline and intercity bus service choices. In some cases,Amtrak will consider expansions of long-distance routes, if proposed changes serve a clear public service purpose and a definite transportation need. Any decision to expand long-distance service will consider the following: • Support of the states and communities along the route • Market for service, with corresponding positive revenue and ridership impacts • Opportunities for growth, connectivity, and service improvement • Available funding • Equipment availability This excerpts point to a major flaw in Amtrak's vision: They intend to provide no leadership on expansion of the national system beyond coming to the table if the states first bring a check. This is of particular concern for the long distance trains. These are interstate trains that should be funded through a federal program and this is what Amtrak should be calling for. This is beyond tiresome. Amtrak is now in a position where Congress would entertain just about anything they intelligently ask for, but instead, they are afraid to stand too high above the bunker they've been hiding in for nearly 40 years.

Amtrak Press Release: AMTRAK AIMS TO CONTINUE GROWTH WITH NEW STRATEGIC GUIDANCE AND FIVE YEAR PLAN Expand and establish new service, develop and operate high-speed rail, and deploy Wi-Fi on Acela Express among initiatives WASHINGTON – With the release of new Strategic Guidance and the FY 2010-2014 Five Year Financial Plan, Amtrak aims to continue the solid ridership growth seen in recent years and position itself to maximize this historic moment in federal and state support for more passenger rail service, including for the development of high-speed rail corridors. “Amtrak is moving into the future with clear goals and specific initiatives to secure and expand our leadership position in the increasingly competitive passenger rail industry,” said Thomas Carper, chairman of the Amtrak board of directors. Carper said the new Strategic Guidance sets the foundation for the FY 2010-2014 Five Year Financial Plan, and together they encompass the strategy for continuing Amtrak’s ridership growth that has increased steadily from 21.6 million in FY 2002 to 27.2 million in FY 2009, with an all-time record high of 28.7 million in FY 2008. “We must think big, be innovative and pursue opportunities and decisions that make good business sense because the competition is real,” said Amtrak President and CEO Joseph H. Boardman, stressing that he believes the national railroad’s experience and depth of expert knowledge are assets that make Amtrak the right choice to operate new or expanded service. The Strategic Guidance outlines the opportunities and challenges facing Amtrak in the new passenger rail environment where states have the primary role in developing new or expanded intercity and high-speed rail service. It establishes six broad goals to be safer, greener and healthier and to improve financial performance, customer service, and meet national needs. Plus, it creates key performance indicators to measure progress. The FY 2010-2014 Five Year Financial Plan for the first time provides substantially detailed financial projections for Amtrak’s revenue, operating costs, capital programs and debt service obligations. It also provides a comprehensive discussion of initiatives Amtrak is taking to fulfill its goals and key performance indicators with targets by which it will be measured. Among the specific plans to be accomplished by the end of FY 2014 are to increase ridership by 15 percent, grow ticket revenue by 20 percent, expand service on eight existing state-supported corridors, form two new state partnerships and improve reliability of service across the railroad. The two documents combined create a new vision that supersedes Amtrak’s 2005 Strategic Reform Initiatives and align Amtrak’s goals with those passed by Congress in Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and in the Obama administration’s Vision for High-Speed Rail in America. Amtrak also is partnering with and assisting states as they apply for federal grants to develop high-speed rail corridors, preparing a new fleet plan to replace aging locomotives and passenger rail cars, upgrading tracks and other infrastructure, and installing Positive Train Control technology to enhance safety. In addition, Amtrak plans to deploy Wi-Fi technology on Acela Express, implement next generation reservation and eTicketing programs, and improve accessibility for persons with disabilities to Amtrak trains, platforms and stations. Further, Amtrak is continuing to make lasting investments in all aspects of the railroad including improved business management processes, better on-board services, and modernizing existing passenger car interiors. The reports can be read here: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669222 Scroll down to where it says "Comprehensive Business Plan"

KJP: Nice presentation. Let's hope all the enthusiasm in that area of the state bears fruit.

^ I resemble that remark :lol:

There is really a serious problem with a wealthy country that lets its infrastructure get in the sorry state that ours is in. Best country in the world? I don't think there really is a "best" country. But as far as our our infrastructure goes, we are slowly becoming a developing country, if we aren't already. The most state-of-the-art air traffic control system is in China. The best passenger rail systems are in Europe and Japan with a host of developing nations catching up faster than we are. China is even a leader in privately-financed highways, yet here there is no political will in the US to shore up the bankrupt highway trust fund.

Can't find the Cincy Streetcar thread: Anyway Cincinnati Streetcar mentioned on Treehugger: Article and You Tube video: (sorry if the video has been posted somewhere already). http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/the_cincinnati_streetcar_making_the_case.php

Lots of idiots commenting on the Dayton article. The amount of ignorance out there is absolutely astounding. Also, it seems that too many people just don't know how to reason and think anymore, they just try to pass off opinion as fact.

Peak oil before 2020 a 'significant risk', say experts David Strahan, The Ecologist A new report highlights how woefully unprepared the Government is for a looming peak in oil production There is a 'significant risk' that conventional oil production will peak before 2020, and forecasts that delay the event beyond 2030 are based on assumptions that are 'at best optimistic and at worst implausible'. So says a major new report that puts the excitement over recent ‘giant’ oil discoveries into perspective and directly contradicts the British government’s position. It also warns that failure to recognise the threat of peak oil could undermine efforts to combat climate change. The report, entitled 'Global Oil Depletion: An assessment of the evidence for a near-term peak in global oil production', comes from the UK Energy Research Centre, an independent group funded by the Research Councils, whose mission is to resolve contentious technical issues and deliver clear guidance for policymakers. This report is significant because it is the first dispassionate academic attempt to reconcile the highly polarised debate over whether and when oil supplies will start to decline, yet its conclusions chime with a growing number of recent forecasts that warn of an early peak in production... http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/333587/peak_oil_before_2020_a_significant_risk_say_experts.html Era of cheap, easy oil is over, warns study Louise Gray, The Telegraph The exact date of "peak oil" - when the amount of oil being pumped out of the ground every day reaches its highest point before beginning an inexorable decline - has been hotly debated for decades. Environmentalists have tended to warn oil could run out at any moment, while oil companies insist there are plently more oil fields yet to be discovered. The most recent estimation from the International Energy Agency, that advises Governments around the world, said conventional oil would not peak until after 2030. However an authoriative new study from the Government-funded UK Energy Research Council called this prediction "at best optimistic and at worst implausible". The peer-reviewed research looked at 500 studies from around the world and took into account the difficulty of accessing new oil fields as well as growing demand. It predicted oil will begin running out before 2030 and there is a "significant risk" peak oil will be reached before 2020... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6269455/Era-of-cheap-easy-oil-is-over-warns-study.html

BuckeyB, I think the OHP's budget comes from license and registration fees, but I'm not 100% sure...

^kjp said the list is incomplete.

It's over 1,200 now and from a variety of states outside of Ohio too: Maine, Minnesota, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, California, and Missouri (to name a few...)

I've moved the energy discussion here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,20773.new.html#new

I call this thread "Temporary" until the original gets cleaned to conform to the new article posting standards, then the two can be merged... Uh, I neither said or implied any such thing. I'm just saying that it looks like no matter how much people want to believe otherwise, it's looking like circumstances are going to force a certain amount of change. How large a scale of change that's going to be, I can't say, but so far it looks to end up being bigger than most want to admit. I never said or implied that the auto should be "dumped". The problem is whether or not there will be enough energy available and produced in a sustainable way to keep things running as they are now. It doesn't look like today's level of auto dependence will be able to be supported without the abundant, cheap oil we are so accustomed to. Tell me where I have EVER said that "oil would run out"? I'm really tired of repeating here and in other threads that peak oil is not and never has been about running out! It's about how much and how fast you can get it out of the ground relative to demand and what our current infrastructure set-up requires and at what price. We're not talking about the 70s or any other time. I repeat again: LOTS of people have been spending a lot of time over the past decade pouring through field production data, discovery rates, decline rates and doing the same for coal natural gas, and renewables. They've been studying the EROI (energy returned on energy invested) issues and more. They've been providing lots of specific information and reams of data. The optimists never provide any specifics as I said in my previous post. Your statement bring up the exact problem that I've been talking about: The optimist never base their arguments on anything specific. It's always about some new, unnamed technology is going to emerge and "faith". As I've said, there is a lot of hard data on the side you disagree with. If you want to make a compelling argument... find some hard data to support your case and tell me where I can find it. I'm perfectly willing to listen. But I won't listen to just "belief" and "faith". It's not satisfactory, and it's not a wise thing on which to plan for the future. Ram23 No I'm not. All I'm saying is that it looks like it will be difficult to keep our current automobile based system running at levels we are accustomed to, irrespective of whether or not we build or are able to build enough alternative infrastructure. You appear to be assuming that we can easily start plugging in renewables and have everything run the same as it is now. We're going to use biofuels and renwables (I never said we wouldn't). But, the problem is that it's not looking like they will support the raw energy use levels we have now with fossil fuels. They only way they will work is if we become A LOT more energy efficient in every aspect of our economy. That's the only way renewables can work. That's going to require change, whether we like it or not. I'm not saying the world is going to end and everything is going to fall apart like a few people seem to think. Some changes will be easy, some not so easy, and some down right difficult, but it will occur as a matter of necessity. There are plenty of other reasons to start making changes to our infrastructure and plan for the future. We don't need peak oil as an excuse, but that doesn't make it any less real. And, it's not a bunch of crackpots cooking this stuff up. The US Defense Department acknowledges and is aware of the problem. So do at least 3 oil companies, the Energy Information Administration (which very recently changed its stance over the past year from one with very optimistic production forecasts to one that is much more in the ball park of the peak oil crowd. The International Energy Agency has even revised its production forecasts downward. These are hardly crackpots. The rosiest forecasts are now 2030 when not much more than a year ago they were 2040. Most are in the 2015-2020 range with price spikes occurring by 2012 or sooner, unless the economy really crashes. Will it mean apocalypse and the end of the world? I don't think so, but will it mean that we will have to make changes? Yes. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Edit by Sherman Cahal: Removed "temporary" from title. No use in bringing a non-UrbanOhio core topic back.

Sherman Cahal wrote: This is a common problem in the peak oil discussion. Those who have few, if any, facts to back up their statements resort to saying things like peak oil "scare tactics", "fear mongering", etc. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm interested in factual data. I've done extensive reading on the subject of peak oil for at least 5 years now, and I pay attention to what those on both the sides of the discussion say. The crowd of so called experts out there who are on the side of "oil abundance" is very small and they do nothing more than keep repeating the same small handful of arguments without providing any hard data to back them up. The congestion problem that still exists in many areas of the country has nothing to do with "scare tactics" and everything to do with economics. There is hard data on this as to how much congestion costs our economy every year. I don't recall the exact figure, but it's not small. Recently, it was reported that Switzerland is the most competitive economy in the world. One of the reasons sited was the quality of their infrastructure-- a category where the US is behind even some developing nations, and falling farther. Ram23 You're assuming that we can simply switch from oil to alternative fuel(s) like unplugging an old appliance and plugging in a new one. I would strongly suggest you do some research on the energy returned on energy invested of alternative fuels and what it takes to actually produce them. No one can hang their hat on a simple belief. And, statistics showing that the number of cars on the road has been going up thus far is not enough to predict the future 50 years hence. What I've seen over the past several years is: On one side of the argument are a lot of qualified people presenting hard data on everything from the state of oil fields around the globe, to the energy returned on energy invested for everything from unconventional oil to alternative fuels, to analyses of coal fields (how much is being produced, what remains, the BTU value (energy content) of what's been produced over time frames), the food vs. fuel puzzle. On the other side I see people relying too much on beliefs and assumptions but little, if any, hard data.