gildone

Nope, not in either case. Both countries are past their natural, geologic production peaks. When that happens, there is no turning it around. Venezuela was past peak before Chavez takeover of the country's oil industry. But, the the US government and main stream media won't say much about peak oil. It's more convenient to blame Chavez.

Mexico used to by our #2 foreign supplier of oil (behind Candada). They are now #3, behind Canada and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia used to be somewhere below Venezuela, which is #4 (or at least was last time I checked). Production in Mexico's Cantarell field has been falling by double digits annually for the past few years. 64 other oil producing nations are past their peaks. http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article179174.ece Mexico oil exports plummet By Upstream staff Mexican oil exports plunged 18.2% in April to levels unseen since 1990 outside hurricane seasons, in more grim news for a key economic motor relied on for a major chunk of government revenues. Crude export volumes tumbled to 1.177 million barrels per day as yields at Mexico's aging Cantarell field continued to plummet, state oil monopoly Pemex said today...

I'm wondering if it may be possible to alternate stops when the trains get up to the full 8-10 per day frequency. 4-5 stop at Riverside, the other 4-5 at Fairborn?

I took some pictures of the downtown station and the surrounding infrastructure. I'll try to post them here when I get a chance, that is, if people are interested. If they expand service by more than maybe one additional line, they are going to have to expand the station infrastructure somehow. Right now, it's a single, stub-end track sandwiched between the river and, I think, 1st Avenue. I was trying to figure out where, someday, the 3-C could be extended to Nashville. I didn't venture much beyond 4 blocks from the river, though, so I didn't figure it out. By the looks of things, it's appears that, back in the day, intercity trains to Nashville didn't stop along the riverfront. I'm not sure where the intercity station(s) were.

To the Editor: Vehicular cyclists like Fred Oswald (PD, 5/26/09), seem to think they know it all when in reality, they do not. While I don't bicycle 5,000 miles per year, I bicycle a lot for errands, exercise, and leisure. I admit I avoid busy streets like Bagley Road in Berea where I live, but vehicular cyclists seem to think it's because I have poor bicycling skills. Nothing could be further from the truth. I avoid such streets simply because, for a variety of reasons, they are just as unpleasant to bicycle as they are to drive. More importantly, with all of those tailpipes aimed right at me, I don't want to breathe all of that vehicle exhaust, which I would be exposed to for longer periods on a bicycle than in a car. The notion that bike paths relegate cyclists to some sort of second-class status is ridiculous. They are a perfectly normal, rational, and acceptable way to enjoy cycling, particularly in parks and natural areas. Most people enjoy the surroundings of Cuyahoga Valley National Park for example, when cycling on the Tow Path rather than than on Riverview Road simply because the Tow Path is a quiet, scenic, and leisurely way to enjoy the park. Oswald's statement that "people are arrogant enough to think that other people are too dumb to ride if you don't create facilities for them." is insulting and condescending. With all due respect to Mr. Oswald, I think he needs to look in the mirror on this point, because he's being just as arrogant as he accuses others of being. While he has a point about bike lanes in some situations, Oswald is taking the wrong approach by fighting the very idea of providing facilities for cyclists rather than working with other advocates on the bigger picture of community design. If we want people to bicycle, we need to design our communities in ways that makes it easier for people to choose to bicycle and leave their cars in their garage. These include, but are not limited to: eliminating the cul-de-sac design of neighborhoods, re-thinking zoning patterns that often force people into their cars, traffic calming on city streets, and yes, in some cases, bike paths that connect the neighborhoods in a community in useful ways and even a few bike lanes where they will work best. The attitude of vehicular cyclists is only impeding progress on bicycling issues. Let's put the arrogance in check and work together.

Sounds like he's allowing the Ohio Contractor's Association air their position through him. Too bad when it comes to this issue, he wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on the leg.

Nashville Planning More Commuter Rail Lines: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090525/NEWS09/905250330/Cities+on+board+for+commuter+rail+lines (sorry, I'm on a shared commuter with limited time, so I didn't try to paste the entire article...).

IMHO, there has been a noticeable degradation in the common sense factor with respect to people's driving habits over the past 10 years. I'm not alone in this view. If the speed limit is 65, many of the idiots won't drive 75-80 for fear of getting a ticket. And, for the morons who currently try drive at the current limit of 65 when the roads are bad, I'd rather they tried to drive 65 than 70. I realize that, like it or not, people are allowed to be stupid. But, it's the stupid people who endanger those who try to act with reason and common sense. I also realize that speed limits are set for good driving conditions, that's partly why I said I oppose the raising of the speed limit moreso for fuel efficiency reasons (which has much more to do with our looming energy predicament than the environment).

Given the energy realities that we are entering, it makes little sense to encourage further wasteful use of oil. I would prefer that trucks be allow to go 65 instead. I always feel much safer when everyone has the same speed limit. It's also less stressful. I'm one of those who, on the turnpike, sits in the right lane and sets my cruise at 65. I'm not old, but I've come to a point in my life where I've realize that there is just no reason for me to be in a hurry. Having 70 mph speed limits may be fine in the south and southwest, where there is little, if any, winter weather, but in Ohio, where winter storms are common, I don't think it's a good idea. Why? Because there are just enough bad drivers out there who don't even slow down with a 65 mph speed limit, that it endangers the safe ones. I remember several years ago driving from Delaware, OH to Akron during a snow storm. During a 10 minute time span, I was passed by no fewer than 5 people trying to go 65 mph (no, I'm not exaggerrating). Every single one of them ended up either in the center median, or in the grass off the right berm. I ended up getting off the freeway at State Route 95 and taking back roads the whole way because I felt sooner or later, one of these idiots was going to hit me. I disagree with the higher limit moreso because of its wastefulness of fuel, though.

^ Very much so. The very last thing Cleveland needs with this project is another road that's designed merely to move cars from Point A to Point B through a soul-less car-centered development. It needs to encourage bike-able, walkable, human-scale development. Currently I'm in the Nashville area, which, unless you live along the new commuter rail line, you absolutely cannot get there from here without a car. Wide, multi-lane streets flanked by ugly strip-malls abound. Too much of America is characterized by this unsustainable, useless-without-a-car ugliness.

It would be good for the city. Just curious how to get rail access in there? The CSX line is on the other side of the shoreway. What about competitive access for NS?

Coal Supply May Be Vastly Overestimated Michael Reilly, Discovery News May 11, 2009 -- Forget peak oil -- a series of new estimates of the world's coal supply suggests reserves may be vastly overestimated, and if the planet isn't running on a majority of alternative energies within the next few decades, we could be facing an unprecedented global energy crisis... http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/11/peak-coal-energy.html

In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times VAUBAN, Germany — Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars. Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home. As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?_r=2

It's more complicated than this. What appears to be approaching is supply shortages. With our just-in-time delivery for everything from manufacturing to retail to grocery stores, that's a potentially serious problem. Matthew Simmons says, that with even short term supply disruptions, grocery stores would start seeing empty shelves due to their 3-day just-in-time inventory system. Then there is the fact that there are several calories of fossil fuels consumed for every calorie of food produced. Also, what will the effect of supply shortages be on all of the petrochemicals we depend upon for darn near everything? This is why I don't claim to know how smooth or rough the transition will be. There are too many variables.

New Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid601.php Actually, it's looking like coal production will peak by ~2040, according to Richard Heinberg and others. The data that has been tossed about in the media for years now about having a few hundred years of coal left is based on old data that is inaccurate and is based on "current rates of use" but no one ever says what the base year is. A 2% annual increase in demand means demand doubles in 35 years. I never bought into the Y2K hype and yes, Kunstler was wrong. However, you don't even have to consider Kunstler's view at all to gain an understanding of peak oil. Kunstler is basing his views on the work of others, of which, there are many highly qualified people who have been studying this and trying to get the word out. As to how smooth or rough the transition will be, I don't claim to know. I doubt it will be smooth, but I don't believe in the apocalyptic scenarios either. He hasn't tried to hide from his Y2K predictions. Besides, which one of us can say we have never been wrong? I don't know about anybody else, but I can't. Personally, I think Kunstler's biggest problem is that he comes off as too cocky and arrogant. Here's an interesting quote from a speech given by Van Jones a year or two ago. I've posted it somewhere in this thread before, I think: http://www.hopedance.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337&Itemid=98 People say that I am hard core about some of this stuff but I know because I have been to Davos, and I’ve sat with Bill Clinton and I’ve sat with Bill Gates and I’ve sat with Tony Blair and I’ve sat with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve sat with all these people who we think are in charge, and they don’t know what to do. Take that in: they don’t know what to do! You think you’re scared? You think you’re terrified? They have the Pentagon’s intelligence, they have every major corporation’s input; Shell Oil that has done this survey and study around the peak oil problem. You think we’ve got to get on the Internet and say, “Peak oil!” because the system doesn’t know about it? They know, and they don’t know what to do. And they are terrified that if they do anything they’ll lose their positions. So they keep juggling chickens and chainsaws and hope it works out just like most of us everyday at work.

Peak Oil: Global Oil Production’s Peaked, Analyst Says May 4, 2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/04/peak-oil-global-oil-productions-peaked-analyst-says/ Dust off those survivalist manuals and brush up on your dystopias: Peak oil is back. Global production of petroleum peaked in the first quarter of last year, says analysts Raymond James, which “represents a paradigm shift of historic proportions. Unfortunately, mankind better get ready to live in a peak oil world because we believe the ‘peak’ is now behind us.”...

When the consulting firm GEM (which he's a principle in) released their economic impact analysis of the Ohio Hub, Staley made statements in support of it. Now, he's back at it with the anti anything but highways stance. We need to expose him for what he is.

"Thus the possibility of a Rust Belt renaissance in the coming decades should not be dismissed out of hand." The sustainability movement that is afoot among businesses, non-profits, grassroots, and some local governments in Cleveland/NE Ohio, Pittsburgh, and now even Detroit, is what will ultimately revive the rust belt. Peak oil will help accelerate the shift.

I'm really sick of these guys basically telling us that the only lifestyle choice we all have a right to is one that involves mandatory car ownership.

True. The complaints we have to deal with now (like the ones like DanB has) are the most important, though. If advocates don't get the message through that 1. Ohio is not doing anything new or mysterious; 2. There is a solidly proven track record in 14 other states for what ORDC is proposing; and 3. All of the complaints that are being raised have been raised in these states and proven wrong, it's going to be that much harder to get the handful of transportation troglodytes in the Ohio Senate to approve the operating funds. The media has been a particularly tough nut to crack with this. I know that they are being told this, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through when they publish their stories. Ok, I'll step down off of my soap box :speech:

North Carolina's state funded corridors take longer than driving (at least an hour end to end), but that hasn't stopped people from riding the trains-- in fact, they ride them in droves. Don't take my word for it, contact Patrick Simmons with NCDOT who oversees the corridors. The story is similar in many of the other 13 states that fund rail corridors. Drive time is definitely a consideration for passengers, but it's not the make or break one that it is assumed to be. It seems like there is a persistent idea out there that Ohio is attempting something new and untested (It's especially rampant in the media). The fact of the matter is, Ohio is following a model that has is already proven successful in 14 other states. The same criticisms that are being raised now in Ohio have already been raised elsewhere and shown to be wrong: "No one's going to ride!", "The trains are too slow!", "People aren't going to get out of their cars!", yada, yada, yada... :sleep:

I'm ok with a "temporary" station elsewhere as an incremental step toward a more visionary plan to bring passenger trains back to CUT. Remember, we're rebuilding passenger rail service on a line that hasn't seen regular passenger service since before Amtrak. That's neither easy or cheap. If the Oasis line is used, it will have to be re-built. Since we're only talking 2-4 trains per day to start, light rail service (perhaps utilizing DMUs) could still operate. So, what you have the potential two things accomplished for the price of one. Then, at some point in the future, when the problems at CUT can be dealt with, 3-C trains can access CUT and you still have light rail service on the Oasis Line. I think that's a pretty good deal. I also think we all need to have some patience. We can have a bold vision and goal for having the 3-C (and eventually Cincinnati-Chicago trains) serve CUT, but given the funding realities and the general political mentality that still exists regarding passenger trains, the incremental approach is the most efficient and cost effective way to approach this. It would be different if the Administration had dedicated $25 or $50 billion for "high speed" rail. Then we would be able to make the case to take a grander step and ask for more money. But they didn't appropriate $50 billion. We got $8 billion to divvy up among 20 or so states outside the NEC. Ohio will be lucky to get the $250 million it is requesting. That's the money we will have to work with, if we get it. So that means, we need to formulate the first step of the vision within this reality.

I think most European countries are set up this way. Italy has Eurostar trains (ES*) and Eurostar Alto Velocita (on new high speed lines) which stop only in major cities, InterCity (IC) trains which stop in major and a few medium sized cities, and local trains (Diretto and Regionale) that stop at almost every town with a railway station. In some areas, there are two different of rights of way. One for the ES* and IC and one for the Diretto, Regionale, and freights. Anyway an ES* from Rome to Florence, for example, takes 1h 39m, IC 2h 52m, and Regionale: 3h 42m I was looking at the Trenitalia website and became envious, then depressed.... apparently, when the new high speed line connecting Rome-Florence-Bologna-Milan opens, there will be 51 trains per day between Rome and Milan-- a distance of ~300 miles. 19 of those will be ES-AV. Cleveland to Cincinnati is ~250 miles. Really puts that 2-3 round trips per day on the 3-C in perspective, doesn't it?

^I think it's safe to say that the more than 2 to 1 economic payback for the Ohio Hub as well as the positive economic payback of the corridors that 14 other states have invested in makes it economically justified, even though a national rail system will never be profitable. Our highway and aviation systems have never been profitable either, despite what these guys try to say with their selective fact usage and occasional lies (like air traffic control is paid for entirely by ticket taxes). They have had economic paybacks too, which is why they were built. They weren't built with the expectation of profitability. Interesting that these guys also ignore some key things: 1. Our energy realities. Saudi Arabia has finally admitted that their production has fallen below their own targets (see Peak Oil thread) and said that global stockpiles will fall. The economic downturn has shelved production projects that would have helped keep the world on a production plateau. So, the oil supply vice has begun its squeeze. There is no combination of alternative fuels and auto efficiency measures that will allow us to support, over the long run, driving at the levels Americans are accustomed to, or perhaps more accurately, forced to accept. And, we're too late in the game for a smooth transition anyway. We are going to have to rely more on rail transportation, whether these guys like it or not. 2. People want trains. Every place in the US that quality (i.e. frequent, fast) rail service has been offered, people ride in droves. More and more young people are choosing lifestyles, where they are available, that don't require car ownership. 3. Mobility needs of seniors and others. An automobile-centric transport system reduces the mobility of senior citizens. Virtually all of my older relatives want the option of trains. The older I get, the less I want to drive (I started early, though. That trend began for me at 27. Between work and my personal needs between spring 1994 and spring 1995, I drove about 55,000 miles. It really burned me out on driving). These guys are so caught up in their ideologies they can't see straight. Being honest with the facts means they would have to give their ideologies up, which they are incapable of doing. Fortunately, events are overtaking them, and most people aren't buying what they are trying to sell. Thomasbw: where was the Sam Staley piece published?

PLAYING WITH TRAINS by Wendell Cox <http://www.newgeography.com/users/wendell-cox> 04/25/2009 [image: iStock_000002294764XSmall.jpg] The Obama administration appears to have established the development of high speed rail (HSR) as the most important plank of its transportation strategy. The effort may be popular with the media and planners, but it�s being promoted largely on the basis of overstatement and even misinformation. ... http://www.newgeography.com/content/00762-playing-with-trains