gildone

AAA is not as bad as Heritage and Cato, even if I disagree with their stance on highway funding vs. alternative transportation, etc. Besides, I also added that I would want to see how they arrived at their answers. And, blatantly misleading and false compared to what study(ies)? I'm asking because I'd like to know so I understand the information better. Ditto for how the 1% figure was arrived at. What was the average speed people were "comfortable at" and what are they comparing it to in order to arrive at 1%?? That's a legitimate question that I would like to see an answer to-- again, so I understand the information.

I guess I'm a little unclear of what numbers they are comparing to get 1%. Are they comparing what most people were actually driving when the speed limit was 55-- which would be 60-65-- with the posted speed limit now, which is 65 in many states or were they comparing 60-65 mph with what people actually drive when the posted speed limit is 65 mph which is 70-75? At: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml, they are saying that, based upon an average gas price of $2.44 per gallon, that every 5 mph you drive over 60 is like paying 24 cents per gallon more for gas. If you do the math, that puts it in the ball park of the 7% to 23% improvement in fuel economy that they indicate. Long story short, if they compared what people actually drove when the speed limit was 55, which was somewhere between 60 and 65 in states where it was enforced to that level-- I can see where they can come up with their low figure. But, if they compare it with what people are driving now (70-75) with a posted speed limit of 65 (in many states), I can see where the figure is off. I guess I want to understand how they arrived at their numbers. AAA-yes. If there is one thing the insurance industry wants, it's accurate data on which to base their rates, but I would also want to understand what they were actually comparing when they arrived at their numbers. The TTI would be credible too, but again, I would still want want to understand how they came up with the numbers. However, I didn't see anything from AAA or TTI in your original post, and none of the links you provided (I looked through them) referenced either of these two sources. I admit, I dismiss the Heritage Foundation and Cato (I initially didn't catch the reference to Cato in the WSJ article) because I've looked through various "studies" of theirs over the years and seen how they manipulate and/or conveniently omit data.

The Heritage Foundation isn't exactly a credible source of information. They often cherry pick their data and ignore data that differs from the conclusions they want. But, at least they don't deny that driving slower saves some amount fuel. "Doing 70 on a modern Interstate will certainly burn more fuel than doing 55. But doing 55 on an Interstate designed for speeds of 70-75 mph can actually be unsafe." There is no explanation provided as to why it "can actually be unsafe", but that's not what we're talking about here anyway. We're talking about whether or not driving slower saves fuel. What I see here in what you provided is that no one is denying that driving slower saves fuel. That's because they can't deny it because there are laws of physics at work here (as to why your Rav4 gets better mileage at 70 in light of the laws of physics, I can only guess that perhaps it has to do with the gearing Toyota designed for the vehicle). Anyway, what they are arguing is that people are going to go faster than the posted speed. When the speed limit was 55 the vast majority of people drove 60-65 (The OHP, for example enforced the 55 mph speed limit, but they would give you 7-10 mph before pulling you over-- just like they do now). So, yes, many people were ignoring the speed limit, but the vast majority weren't driving 70-75 mph, they were driving 60-65. But when it was raised to 65, people started driving 70-75 again. I say, so what? People were still driving ~10 mph slower and thus saving fuel. I don't deny that reducing the speed limit saves less oil than other methods such as reducing driving altogether and to properly pricing gasoline and driving so that it reflects its true costs. That would shift the market to less driving and more efficient vehicles. But, since there is no political will to do this, and even though there is a bit of slack in oil supplies due to the economy, there is still depletion ticking away in the background, so saving a bit by reducing highway speeds is not a dumb proposition. On a separate note, people don't choose to speed because they somehow intrinsically know that it's more realistic to drive faster or that they think the roads are engineered for faster speeds. Human behavior isn't that rational. They drive faster because they have a perceived need to be in a hurry and they know they can get away with some amount of speeding before they get a ticket. I know a few people who like to drive 75-80 on the interstates. Their reasoning is that "they just don't like to drive slow". I used to drive 71 mph all the time because I knew I could get away with that (when the speed limit was 55, I drove 60) until it dawned on me that I wasn't saving that much time and that it was creating more driving stress than it was worth, and I could get a couple mpg fuel savings. As for the example of Utah and the difference in traffic accidents between the 55 mph national speed limit and when it was lifted, there are a couple of things that have to be taken into consideration: How strictly did the state enforce the 55 mph limit in the first place? Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, enforced 55 mph relatively strictly. Some southern and western states did not. So, what were the real average speeds before and after the repeal of 55? Pennsylvania was one of the last hold-outs to lift 55 mph because they maintained it reduced traffic deaths-- but they also enforced 55 pretty strictly. And, how much traffic is there on Utah (for example) interstates to begin with? Insurance companies will set rates, in part, on the traffic density in the region where you live. Less overall traffic, lower rate, because the more traffic, the greater the chances of accidents (I was told this by an insurance agent regarding my policy when I moved from Bowling Green to Columbus).

State Route 11 south of Ashtabula always seems to have very little traffic.

Proven by whom? Every vehicle I've ever driven has gotten better mileage at 60 or below 60 than above 60. That includes the several different styles of trucks and cars that have been in my employer's motorpool over the years. I thought about this after I posted: Over the past several months, I've noticed more and more trucks going over 60 (perhaps the OHP has backed off a bit?), but there are still a lot sticking to 55. We just took a trip to from Cleveland to Middletown a couple of weeks ago. We stuck to 65 and passed an awful lot of trucks, but there were some who were passing us. Ditto for my 6 work trips so far this year between Cleveland and Columbus.

I've had several people tell me over the years that truckers USED to be the most courteous drivers on the road. The Ohio Highway Patrol has routinely enforced the 55 mph speed limit for trucks pretty strictly. When I used to listen to a CB while driving Ohio's interstates, it was a routine complaint that the OHP didn't give the trucks any breaks (i.e. let them get away with a few mph) like other states. My experience has been that most (not all, obviously)trucks observe the 55 mph limit. This differential speed limit that we've had for so long I've always found to be a real pain. It makes driving more stressful because you can't use your cruise control and you're always jockeying to get into the left lane to pass a truck. And often there is a truck going 56 mph that's passing a truck going 55 mph holding everything up. I've always felt safer driving in states where the speed limit is set the same for everyone. It was particularly noticeable on the Turnpike a few years ago when state let truckers go 65. It's much nicer driving the turnpike now. I can set my cruise at 65, stay in the right or middle lane, and rarely have to pass. I almost never need to enter the left lane now. It's much less stressful and much more enjoyable. I do agree with whoever said that perhaps the speed limit should be set to 60 mph for everyone for fuel saving purposes.

I'm not so sure about that. I recall seeing speed limit signs on I-271 North in the late 70s that said: Speed Limit 55 Trucks 55 Buses 55. The minimum speed was 40 or 45 mph.

^This works very easily. Just go to www.goodsearch.com and type in "All Aboard Ohio" where it asks you to enter the charity. Then, AAO gets a penny every time you do a search. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it adds up. If 100 people do just 2 searches per day, AAO would get almost $800/year. Also, if you want to buy something from Amazon.com, go through the Good Search site, enter All Aboard Ohio, then type "Amazon.com" in the box under "Good Shop". Then just make your purchase like you would otherwise. All Aboard Ohio will gets a small cut of the transaction, but it does NOT change the price in any way of whatever it is your buying. There are also several other on-line retailers though Good Shop where you do the same thing. So please, Good Search and Good Shop for All Aboard Ohio. It doesn't cost you anything.

With 2-3 round trips scheduled properly, the train will do much better than Greyhound. Last I checked, Greyhound doesn't allow you to arrive in Columbus before 11 AM unless you want to catch a bus at 4:30 AM. The return times aren't that great either. Kind of makes a day trip to Columbus for business or pleasure difficult.

But it IS working in the 14 states that already fund intercity rail corridors. 13 of these states have lower population densities than Ohio and in a couple of the states, the trains are slower (albeit with improvement in the works) than they will be in Ohio. Explain why this won't work in Ohio. We're not re-inventing the wheel here. The 3-C is based on existing models of success.

With all due respect, KJP has been backing up what he's saying with a lot of factual data from AAA, DOT, etc

I'm dealing with the present too. Several states outside of the east and west coasts IN THE PRESENT fund successful rail corridors that are used by a variety of people-- including families and even for shorter trips. You've taken one example for one specific trip in the NEC and you're trying to use that as a standard for all situations on all other corridors--both current and proposed.

First of all: 14 states fund intercity corridor trains and they are all successful. Amtrak's ridership, despite some minor setbacks with the economy, has grown significantly in recent years and continues to grow. How does that not make sense? People are--gasp! USING the trains, even though we are not yet car free as a nation. This point has been made to you several times in the UO threads, but somehow it seems as though it continues to escape you. Second, whether as a state or nation, we can't go from a situation of mostly mandatory driving to mostly car free in one step. It requires successive steps on various fronts (listed in no particular order): land use, intercity rail, public transit, intermodal connections, then gradually carfree becomes an option for more and more Americans. Look at the Downeaster Corridor in Maine. Since that corridor started operating, the cities with station stops are seeing a revitalization of their downtowns with dense, mixed use development (something that's necessary to become car free). The economic paybacks are exceeding the cost of building and operating the corridor. That doesn't make sense? North Carolina is less densely populated than Ohio. Their trains, even though they take longer than driving, have seen successful ridership that continues to grow. That doesn't make sense? By your logic we should have waited to build the US Highway system, interstates, etc until every adult American owned a car. But families do use the trains, just not in every single situation. Every Amtrak train I've ever ridden has had families of various sizes on it taking trips of various lengths.

So trains "could be a black hole"? Like our roads have ever earned a profit? Or our aviation system? Even the common carrier passenger airline industry has netted zero profits over its 80+ year lifetime. Even Greyhound has filed Chapter 11, what, twice since the 80s? It's really quite amusing that the Utts and Staleys out there always avoid this little detail. Of course, it's also sad that the media never picks up on this.

For any transportation mode you will always find some instances where a particular mode isn't the best choice. The proof that state-funded intercity rail corridors work under the current, less than ideal conditions of our transportation system is in the experience of states like North Carolina, Oklahoma, Michigan, Maine, Illinois, Missouri, and several others that currently fund them. People are riding them in healthy numbers and ridership is increasing. Plus wear and tear on the car (which I know won't add up to $400). However you raise a valid point about Amtrak's airline based, yield management fare system where the fewer seats available, the more expensive your ticket. Amtrak should abandon this system and do what some European countries do-- have a fixed base fare based upon distance then add fixed supplements for faster trains and additional services-- i.e. Eurostar supplement, first class supplement, etc. As I recall, David Gunn had plans to simplify Amtrak's fare structure, but I think he was forced out before he had the opportunity to see his plan to fruition. I wonder if states can negotiate/have negotiated with Amtrak to abandon its yield management system for the corridors they fund?

Designated "Quiet Cars" are commonplace on the NEC trains. Since the 3-C will probably start out with 3 coaches, I'm not sure we'll have such a thing initially. I was in Lourdes, France for a few days in 2005. I was surprised at how quiet it was and how light the traffic was for such a busy tourist city (Lourdes is second only to Paris for the number of hotel beds in a French city). Of course, the frequent train service, including 4 TGV's per day, local transit, and the pre-automobile design of the city are the reasons why. There was no constant din of traffic noise in the background. The streets were vibrant but not annoyingly noisy at night. It is a correct statement that we're so auto dependent in the US and so used to our automobile-centric land use that few Americans can comprehend that it's possible to live any other way.

They will be more comparable to other state supported trains-- 10 to 14 cents per mile.

^ Here here! Already there have been 9 times during the first 6 months this year when I would have definitely used the 3-C Corridor. 6 times for work and 3 personal trips. This doesn't include additional trips I may have taken simply because the train would be available. I just don't take several trips per year along the 3-C Corridor I otherwise would like to because I don't want to drive. My brother in Columbus would use it several times per year. I have relatives in Middletown who would also. As for the broader Ohio Hub plan, I have relatives in Youngstown who want the CLE-PGH train so we could visit each other more often. My in-laws near Sandusky want CLE-TOL-CHI/DET so they can come visit us without driving (I have good in-laws, so that's ok :wink:) and get to Toledo for medical appointments without driving. They would also love to see a bus connection from the 3-C in Cincy (or Sharonville if that ballot issue passes... :wink:) to Nashville, TN so they can visit their son there without flying or driving. I'm just one person who can name several others who would use the train several times per year. Start adding it up with everyone else around the state and there is solid pent up demand-- more demand than the naysayers understand or would want to admit if they did.

By the way, here's the smoking gun with Sam Staley (co-founder and former president of the Buckeye Institute) and Gem Public Sector Services' economic impact analysis of the Ohio Hub, which Staley was involved in: "The Ohio Rail Development Commission has engaged two teams of six noted economists to verify that answer and see exactly how Ohio may benefit from new business and development generated by building the Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail/Ohio Hub Plan.... "The second team is headed up by Douglas Harnish of GEM Public Sector Services, with over 23 years in real estate development and evaluation. Joining him are economist Dr. Sam Staley of Wright State University and former President of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions..." (http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/Ohio%20Hub%20%20Press%20Releases/20051216OhioHubEconomicImpactTeamsMeet.pdf). Here's what Gem had to say: “Gem concludes that construction of high-speed passenger rail is economically feasible and justifiable assuming an 80% federal construction match. By feasible, we believe the economic benefits justify the investment and the project will not be a burden on the State biennial budget..." http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/theproject.html Here's Staley's bio from the BPI site: http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/bio/24

Cincinnati seems to have most of the ignorant cranks when it comes to rail. What's below was posted in the comments: Trains, planes and automobiles -- which of these doesn't fit? Posted by PeterBronson at 6/30/2009 5:06 AM EDT on Cincinnati.com Ohio's high-speed rail What is it with Democrats and their trains? Makes you wonder if maybe they never got that Lionel set they wanted for Christmas. Here in Cincinnati, the Democrat-dominated council and mayor have been yelling "All aboard" for two years to sell taxpayers on a $200 million trolley downtown. The city can't cover its spending deficits and now has a huge and growing pension liability -- but that hasn't stopped the crowd at City Hall from building up steam to bring back streetcars that went out of business in Cincinnati 50 years ago. Finally, we're hearing that maybe this is not the right time to push the plan, tear up streets and spend at least $200 million on a gamble that streetcars will revive one of the city's roughest neighborhoods. My guess is that there's a good reason for the sudden track change: Council members now running for re-election have had a hair-raising look at the polling on streetcars and suddenly realize that the trolley could be a one-way ride to defeat. Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland keeps trying to sell the state on high-speed rail. The $400 million plan would be covered by federal stimulus spending -- meaning taxpayers like us. But where's the logic? The governor's price tag only scrathes the surface of costs to upgrade rails and install the train set. The line would also require ongoing subsidies because hardly anyone rides trains. In Ohio, the high-speed train would be a loser, according to a study by the conservative Buckeye Institute, which reported: Trains with a top speed of 110 mph will have average speeds of just 55 to 75 mph. Not only will that attract few people out of their cars, says the report, such trains will actually be less energy efficient and more polluting than driving. "High-speed rail is an idea whose time has gone," says Randal O'Toole, a Cato Institute senior fellow and the report's author. "It is bad for taxpayers and bad for the environment." Premium fares and a downtown orientation means that the main people riding these trains will be bankers, lawyers, government officials, and other high-income people who hardly need subsidized transportation. Not only will each federal income taxpayer pay $1,000 for someone else to ride the train, that passenger probably earns more than the average taxpayer. Others have pointed out that without public transportation infrastructure, Ohio cities are not a good match for rail. Even people who rode a train to Columbus would probably have to rent a car when they arrived -- so it would be simpler, more convenient, less expensive and just as fast to simply drive there on the freeway. Also from the report: Upgrading the 450 miles of Ohio tracks in the FRAplan to run trains at 110 mph would cost taxpayers close to $1.6 billion, or nearly $140 for every Ohio resident. Subsidizing passenger trains over those routes will cost more than $30 million per year. Yet the average Ohioan will take a round trip on such trains only once every 17 years. I've written on this topic many times, attended meetings and done a fair amount of reporting. What I discovered is that light rail, high-speed rail, streetcars and other throwback ideas for transportation have often been boondoggles for government spending. For each heavily subsidized "success," there are more failures and complaints about increased congestion and poor ridership. Now the same governor who wants 50 percent cuts in public libraries wants to spend a half-billion on a train nobody will ride? I say we all chip in an buy train sets for the governor and city council. We could even throw in engineer hats and whistles. The money we save will be our own.

Don Phillips had this to say in his monthly column in the August 2009 issue of Trains: "I and others are growing concerned with the slow movement toward ordering new equipment and preparing for a new passenger train future. I've talked to several state officials who are growing upset with the lack of movement, although others are keeping the faith while hoping for action soon. State officials are not the only ones scratching their heads. A democratic transportation expert who has close connections to the Obama camp told me privately he is also growing concerned about Amtrak..." He intends to say more about this in future issues of Trains. It's not much of a surprise. Amtrak is so used to its bunker mentality brought on by 35 years of being the bastard child of the transportation world as far as congress and successive administrations are concerned that they have no idea how to function in an environment of support, investment, and growth. Perhaps Amtrak needs a good house-cleaning of management.

No apology necessary! It's all cleared up now. :-)

$50 billion over 6 years proposed for the new federal surface transportation bill. Now we're talking real money! >>>Altimire suggests Pittsburgh-to-Cleveland rail line Monday, June 22, 2009 By Jon Schmitz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire said today that he will push to have a Pittsburgh-to-Cleveland line added to a national list of high-speed rail corridors. The list of 10 corridors announced by President Barack Obama this year as part of his push to develop a network of intercity passenger rail lines included a Chicago-to-Cleveland line and one from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia... The federal economic stimulus law allocated $8 billion for high-speed rail development, and Mr. Obama has proposed an additional $5 billion in his budget. A blueprint of the new surface transportation bill released last week called for an additional $50 billion over six years for high-speed intercity passenger rail development in the designated corridors.... Jon Schmitz can be reached at [email protected] or 412-263-1868. First published on June 22, 2009 at 2:27 pm http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09173/979148-100.stm#ixzz0JBctufJ9&D

^The 3-C isn't a commuter train, it's an intercity train--different market. The DMU idea is a way to provide more cities connectivity to the Ohio Hub.

Posted in the Amtrak and Passenger Rail News thread, but it's applicable to the C-A-C discussion here: This actually isn't a bad idea, BuckeyeB. Dropping the DMUs in Ravenna could allow the trains to serve Kent and Monroe Falls/Stow or Cuyahoga Falls on their way to/from Akron. If people in the Akron area could get to Pittsburgh by rail, then it might help make the need for Akron to have service to Cleveland to become even more apparent. Audidave: thanks for the info about the Akron-Cleveland buses.