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

 

[i did a search for the thread "General DOT/FHWA News and Discussion"  but I only get a blank page. Yet there are other threads from the same date still in existence. No prob - moving on.]

 

***********************************************

 

 

Dear Moderators - Since there are so many of you now, is it possible you tell someone when you move their post to another thread so they don't think there is some sort of Urban Ohio conspiracy - Thanks. You rock!!!

 

 

Oh, and I completely disagree - or am not convinced - the DOT/FHWA thread should have been merged with this thread.

 

Moving on...

 

***************************************

 

DOT 26-09

Contact:  Jill Zuckman, Tel.:  (202) 366-4570

Thursday, March 5, 2009

 

 

 

Vice President Biden, U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood, Miami Mayor Diaz Announce Availability of $8.4 Billion in Public Transportation Investments

 

Miami Intermodal Center Cited as Model for Investment

 

Miami, Fla. – Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and Miami Mayor Manny Diaz today announced the availability of $8.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to states and local transportation authorities to repair and build America’s public transportation infrastructure. The announcement took place at the future site of the Miami Intermodal Center, which is slated to serve as a 21st century hub for all types of mass transit.

 

“What’s happening here in Miami, we have happening all over America. Resources are being put to work not only creating jobs now – but also investing in the future. A future that strengthens our transit system, makes us more energy efficient and increases safety,” said Vice President Joe Biden.  “With this recovery package, we will be creating jobs, saving jobs, and putting money in people’s pockets. And with these resources, we’ll not only be rebuilding roads and bridges and schools, we’ll be building new transit centers like this one. And that means we’ll be rebuilding America.”

 

“Investments in public transportation put people to work, but they also get people to work in a way that moves us towards our long term goals of energy security and a better quality of life,” said Secretary LaHood.  “That is why transit funding was included in the ARRA and why we think it is a key part of America’s transportation future.”

 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) currently plans to use $2.1 million in ARRA transit funds to relocate an aging Miami Greyhound Terminal from its existing isolated location to become an integral part of the $1.7 billion intermodal center, where it will make connections between all modes of transportation, including transit buses, commuter rail, intercity rail, and airport shuttles. 

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation has already committed $540 million in federally financed loans, about one-third of the total cost, for the intermodal center, which is proceeding on time and on budget.

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation will monitor state compliance and track job creation. The projects will be web-posted for the public to see with information on projects accessible at www.recovery.gov.

 

 

 

###

http://thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/07/coming-soon-stimulus-number-2/

 

Coming Soon: Stimulus Number 2

7 March 2009

 

Developing a broader vision for how to reshape the economy

 

Last month, I wrote that we’d soon need a second economic stimulus because the first one, at $800 billion, is simply too small to deal with the mounting crisis that’s quickly tearing down the capitalist system. The unemployment rate increased to 8.1% in February, a figure that does not include the millions of Americans who have simply decided to stop looking for work nor the many more who are working part-time even though they’d like - and need - full-time employment. Paul Krugman and and Josh Marshall at TPMDC explore the problem, as does the Washington Post’s front page.

.....

 

While I was contented by the stimulus bill’s inclusion of funds for infrastructure, especially its strong focus on high-speed rail, I have always been skeptical of the program’s lack of overall vision. Not only do we have no national plan for actually implementing high-speed rail, but even with $8.4 billion appropriated to transit, we’ve yet to solve the huge funding problems of public transportation agencies around the country.

 

........

America's vanishing cars

Through recessions and gas shocks, the number of autos on the road every year has increased since the end of WWII. Until now.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer

March 13, 2009: 1:53 PM ET

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In another sign of just how far the U.S. auto industry has fallen, this is likely to be the first year since 1945 when the number of new cars bought will be less than the number of cars turned in to the junk yard.

 

Auto industry research firm R.L. Polk is forecasting a drop in total auto registrations for the first time since car plants were busy turning out tanks for World War II. This time it's economic distress and tight credit keeping purchases down.

 

There could be nearly a 4 million vehicle drop in the number of registrations during the 12-months ending June 30, the period during which Polk tracks those figures. That's 1.6% of the total fleet of cars and light trucks that had been on the road as of July 1 2008, just before the bottom fell out of the new car market.

 

 

 

............

 

 

Find this article at:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/13/news/companies/vanishing_cars/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

$8 billion could help revive travel by train

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-03-16-high-speed-rail-travel_N.htm

 

Americans started falling out of love with trains 50 years ago, when thrilling silver airliners left locomotives far behind.

 

Now, President Obama and leaders in more than 30 states say it's time to embrace trains again but newer, faster ones that can transport passengers past gridlocked airports and highways on electrified railroads at up to 200 mph.

 

They're betting billions of federal and state dollars that high-speed railroads can someday move travelers between major U.S. cities within two or three hours just as they do in Western Europe and Japan. And along the way, they argue, such systems can ease travel congestion, reduce the nation's dependence on oil, cut pollution and create jobs.

 

.............

The picture from that article is worth posting. Please note the nation it is from -- our former Cold War opponent and the type of train it replaced is next to it (quite an improvement!)....

 

 

A Sapsan high-speed train in St. Petersburg, Russia. It will be part of a shuttle service between St. Petersburg and Moscow. The trip is expected to take less than four hours and cost less than flying.

Talk about change we can believe in!

 

Obama picked a Republican to be his Transportation Secretary. The transportation secretary has a blog. And in his blog -- and in his statements on Capitol Hill -- transportation secretary Ray LaHood writes and talks about sidewalks, bicycles, transit, trains, livable communities and how all of these things must be part of new surface transportation policy!!

 

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/03/livable-communities-the-hometowns-americans-deserve.html

The fast lane blog (US DOTs blog) has done almost a 180-degree turn from when Mary Peters started it over a year ago.  There was an interesting discussion started today about high speed rail - see link below.  The question "Is High Speed Rail Worth It" was posed to several industry "experts" and their responses are provided.  Not to anyone's surprise, the Reason Foundation and Highway groups believe HSR is bad.  There is also responses from Ray LaHood (US DOT Secretary and Gov (VA) Tim Kaine in support of HSR.

 

http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/is-highspeed-rail-worth-it.php

Thanks, TT.

Essentially, the audio clip explains that to rid the world of oil dependence and create growth in alternative energy, we will have to beef up our power lines nation-wide if we're to harness wind and solar energy.

 

The problem is that you would have to deal with local governments and their land use laws; public utility laws - that is, unless the federal government is willing to use its power to override them. It will be interesting to see if the federal government actually uses its power.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=101082181&m=101082259

 

The same issues would come up if we were to implement a high speed rail system between large cities. We can expect these projects to conflict immensely with the interests of these local governments.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101073906

 

The federal government would probably have to exercise the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to overcome local opposition when it comes to high speed rail. I suspect the same clause is applicable with power lines, too, especially if federal money is involved in either.

^---"Auto industry research firm R.L. Polk is forecasting a drop in total auto registrations for the first time since car plants were busy turning out tanks for World War II."

 

    One year doesn't make a long term trend, but still, could this be the peak automobile traffic year? This is big news, and it seems to be coming without all of the rail transit that folks on this forum wish for. It is very possible that travel in general will decline, and automobile travel will never be replaced by anything.

 

    Scary?

   

We overbought cars for a decade or more. We can maintain our lifestyle and still buy 12 million cars a years which is off by 5 or so from the peak. I think you'll see the change first in high school where families stop passing down/buying a car when a kid turns 16. I actually think the current push to delay driving to 18 will gather speed as fewer folks can afford to buy a car at will. You might actually see a move toward a more Asian style motored vehicle mix which has tons and tons of motorbikes.

These liberals need to learn how to write short. But it's still an interesting article....

 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=from_mass_transit_to_new_manufacturing

 

From Mass Transit to New Manufacturing

 

With the right policies in place, an expansion of public transportation could help reindustrialize the United States.

 

Jonathan Michael Feldman | March 23, 2009

 

A new industrial-policy initiative for domestic production of mass-transit products could help the United States overcome multiple economic challenges. It could provide high-wage jobs, generate tax revenue, expand exports, and reduce trade deficits. This mass-transit-production strategy requires a new kind of industrial and planning policy to overcome the limits of traditional public works. It's not enough to lay more tracks and upgrade rail facilities. The government has to support domestic production of trains, signals, and related transit hardware and software.

 

According to the Institute for Supply Management, U.S. manufacturing activity recently fell to its lowest level in 28 years. Manufacturing has also suffered across the globe. But overseas the downturn reflects mainly the recession, while in the U.S. there is a long-term manufacturing decline. Traditional public-works outlays alone won't restore American manufacturing -- but they could supply new demand if we had industrial policies in place.

 

Mass transit could be the incubator for an industrial renaissance, based on new kinds of producers and processes. If public investment is connected to developing new industries, then government spending will not "crowd out" private investment. On the contrary, the public outlay could provide demand for new private investments. But when the market and existing firms fail to make the necessary investments, the government must fill the void.

 

There are important niche markets in subways (the primary focus of this article), high-speed rail, local commuter rail, and the growing light-rail industry. Consultants from the firm IBISWorld, a leading business consulting firm, calculate that today, about 45 percent of revenue within the U.S. train, subway, and transit-car manufacturing sector is tied to new and rebuilt locomotives and parts, and 27 percent of revenue is tied to street, subway, and transit cars.

 

Of all the non-defense products that government purchases, mass-transit goods are among the most technically advanced, and they rely heavily on manufacturing. Mass transit conserves energy and is one of the least polluting forms of travel. Government purchasing power, combined with heavy unionization in the transit service and producer sectors, also makes this sector amenable to public planning for good social outcomes.

 

Government can support local production, particularly in highly unionized and population centers. The density of cities facilitates both union organizing and mass transit.

 

The economic and political circumstances and growing local public support suggest the time is ripe for such a national initiative.

 

President Barack Obama has supported mass-transit products as part of his economic-recovery program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in February will lead to $8.4 billion in public-transportation investments. In the recent state and local elections, voters supported some 23 mass-transit initiatives worth about $75 billion. This included $18 billion to expand Seattle-area mass-transit service and $10 billion in bonds to begin a high-speed-rail network in California. These public investments directly translate into privately organized jobs and export potential.

 

The scale of the mass-transit sector can be seen in the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) budget plans. This New York regional authority is the giant among U.S. transit agencies. The MTA board approved a capital program for 2005 to 2009 worth $23.7 billion. The MTA plan includes about $2.2 billion for subway cars, about $928 million for buses, and $385 million for cars for the Long Island Rail Road commuter line. Another big-ticket item was signals and communications, slated for $2.2 billion. Nationally, the American Public Transportation Association reports that 260 heavy-rail cars, 189 commuter-rail cars, 83 light-rail cars, and 12 "automated guideway vehicles," such as airport people movers, were delivered and used in service in 2008. The association estimates that 10,944 buses and "paratransit" vehicles (vans or small buses that offer door-to-door service, usually for disabled or elderly persons) were purchased in 2006.

 

The problem, however, is that in key parts of the mass-transit industry, domestic suppliers have exited the business, so public capital investments in mass transit become significantly captured by imports. There is no longer any U.S.–based producer of subways, although assembly operations owned by foreign firms exist and are clustered in New York state.

 

The main foreign suppliers of subways to the U.S. are Alstom, Bombardier, and Kawasaki (principally based in France, Canada, and Japan respectively). South Korean–based Hyundai Rotem and German-based Siemens supply transit vehicles.

 

These firms provide a valuable service to U.S. transit agencies. Nevertheless, foreign sourcing limits the wealth and employment dividend of public investments in subway cars, despite some local assembly. Fully 100 percent of final assembly of subway cars is done by U.S. workers employed at local affiliates of foreign manufacturers. Yet, this contribution to a subway car represents only about 10 percent of the total value added. In contrast, only 50 percent of the engineering work for a subway car is done domestically. Yet, such engineering represents about 25 percent to 40 percent of value added. In contrast, the propulsion system can represent anywhere from 15 percent to 20 percent of value added, but only 60 percent of such work is done domestically. Estimates for the French-based company Alstom show that the number of domestic engineering staff working on subway production in New York dropped in recent years from about 100 to about 45. Some of the design engineering work is being consolidated in Europe to capitalize on economies of scale.

 

The story of the Pullman Corporation's exit from the mass-transit market illustrates that much of the problem facing mass-transit manufacturers was tied to the competence of suppliers and not to the size of the market. As a 1979 article by David Young in Mass Transit explains, in 1972 all the mass-transit manufacturers had their eyes "turned to New York," where the city's request for 754 new subway cars was "the largest order in U.S. history." Pullman won this contract with a bid of $210 million, "underselling General Electric by $27 million and Rohr by $40 million." Transit experts noted that Pullman Standard had automated its production facilities to build subways for New York City. They also used numerically controlled welding machines, suggesting that the company was committed to the subway-car market. Pullman turned to Rockwell to build the truck, or undercarriage, for the New York subway.

 

Arthur Murphy, a New York City transit analyst, says that Rockwell's system was untested in New York City's tougher conditions (where, for example, the roadbed that cars move on is rougher). These created cracks, leading to welds, which then weakened connections and led to further cracks. Eventually, New York City won an $80 million suit against Rockwell. The problems with the R46 cars led the Pullman Company to leave the subway-car business. The failure to properly organize production also created problems for other U.S. suppliers like the Budd Corporation (when making subways) and Boeing Vertol (when making light-rail vehicles).

 

Russell E. Jackson, an engineer and consultant and a longtime observer of the subway industry, says that one key problem was that old-line suppliers like St. Louis Car, Pullman, and Budd lacked advanced systems-integration know-how and the skills required to manage complex electrical systems and electronics. Each of these firms had built railroad and subway cars, but modern subway cars became increasingly complicated. Like aircraft and automobiles, they became platforms for electronics.

 

Historically, each had built railroad-car bodies and had purchased the relatively simple light fixtures, electrical outlets, and other electrical components. But electrically, these railroad cars were not very complex or technically sophisticated compared to modern subway vehicles. Jackson quips that some colleagues at his former consulting firm came to believe that "the Budd Company's idea of electricity in a passenger car was the lights and the electric-razor outlets." In subway cars, he explained, "a much greater percentage of the car price goes to outside suppliers because of all the electrical equipment." Each of the old-line builders thus needed to manage its modern subway-car suppliers "in a much more sophisticated fashion" than was done within the railroad-car business. But each failed to do this well.

 

Other domestic manufacturers like G.E., Rohr, and Boeing Vertol, which could supply the advanced skills and systems-integration capacity lacking in Budd, were diverted by several factors: a hollowing out globalization strategy that did not champion a stronger domestic-rail industrial policy (G.E.); defense specialization (Rohr and Boeing Vertol), and the lure of the superior profits of the defense market. The military-industrial system, together with America's huge subsidies for autos, created an economic and political environment that helped erode the incentives and capacities to domestically produce state-of-the-art mass-transportation goods.

 

Since the Cold War began, the government has promoted domestic military-contractors firms through the Defense Department. But the Transportation Department has no comparable policy to promote domestic rail suppliers. The government made extensive investments in the highway system, subsidizing the auto sector, but made weak or uneven investments in the nation's rail network. We also lack the extensive high-speed-rail networks found in Japan, Spain, and France, where our competitors made budgetary commitments and organized their industrial policies to promote the production of mass-transit goods and the underlying infrastructure to support them.

 

Other factors that undercut domestic design and production of mass-transit systems and vehicles included: lack of upfront financing; problems in other parts of firms that spilled over to subway divisions; limited advanced engineering skills; lack of cooperation between labor and management; an excessive number of job classifications; poorly qualified workers; a failure to train workers and provide them with job security; design failures; and the weakness and boom-and-bust character of U.S. mass-transit industrial policies (where procurement policies did not adequately support domestic suppliers). The last domestic manufacturer of subways was the Budd Company (reorganized under the name of Transit America), and it ended its railcar production in April 1987.

 

The new multibillion-dollar investments in mass transit suggest a growing market. While only hundreds of domestic subway cars and thousands of buses are supplied each year, the global subway market was worth $9.3 billion in 2005, according to BusinessWeek.

 

Jack Martinson, an executive at Hyundai Rotem, says the U.S. market became particularly attractive for his firm because of the lack of domestic manufacturers.

 

The Buy-America Act of 1933 encourages U.S. "domestic content" in purchases of public goods like mass-transit vehicles. Paradoxically, Buy-America provisions in existing law actually create a level playing field for all foreign suppliers, since there are no real U.S.–based transit-vehicle manufacturers. Thus, Martinson adds, "no manufacturer has a cost advantage when Buy America is required." These reasons help explain why his company had the confidence to establish a final-assembly facility in the U.S. even prior to winning its first contracts worth more than $700 million over the least three years.

 

One benefit to an industrial policy for mass-transit production is the industry's long production lead times, which make it countercyclical and useful as anti--recession policy. According to a January 2009 report by IBISWorld business consultants, the train, subway, and transit-car "industry operates on long lag times of up to three to four years," reducing the recession's immediate impact on demand. According to the report, at the end of 2008, the "industry had a backlog of approximately 50,000 rail cars and locomotives." Industry revenue grew 6.8 percent in 2008 but was expected to slow down by 2009. Ultimately, however, the government can make or break transit-industry growth based on its budgetary priorities.

 

New public investments in rail have already helped some U.S. suppliers to strengthen their position as international competitors. One U.S. company, Brookville Equipment Corporation in Brookville, Pennsylvania, increased employment by 25 percent in 2008.

 

The corporation currently has 204 employees and is expected to double its sales to $50 million. It also had backlogs in orders until 2011. In 2008, 40 percent of their locomotive production was for public-transit agencies. The company has refurbished street cars for various cities including New Orleans, Philadelphia, and San Francisco and has become a leading U.S. manufacturer of haulage equipment, shipping machines to 80 countries throughout the world. Michael White, a sales and marketing specialist at Brookville, explains that the firm's success has been linked to its focus on quality and customer needs. The firm's shares are not publicly traded, and it has been under private ownership since 1918.

 

In looking at the potential for domestic production of mass transit, we should not consider simply one submarket as the relevant indicator of the potential opportunity. The greater commitment to rail made by European and Asian nations created a foundation for complementary growth of local mass-transit systems and long-distance rail. These two markets could be tapped by system-integrator firms in these nations. The coupling of an effective industrial policy at the government level and flexible suppliers at the firm level created multiple markets and greater growth prospects for foreign suppliers, in two respects.

 

First, these nations' commitments to long-distance rail created possible synergies with shorter-distance commuter-rail, subways, and light-rail systems. More sophisticated system-integrator firms could break into these multiple markets. For example, Bombardier and Kawasaki have a presence in both subway and light-rail markets. The more diversified the production capabilities, the more firms can enter multiple markets. Thus, even though there are differences between supplying light-rail vehicles and subway cars, these two firms do both and thereby increase the size of the mass-transit markets that they can enter.

 

Second, more skilled system-integrator firms in these nations have used subway and rail-transit markets to enter or support their activities in non-rail markets and promote trade and innovation gains in those markets as well. In some cases, companies are part of well-functioning conglomerates that use supply-side capacities (like military or automotive divisions) to both support subway production and diversification efforts. Mitsubishi, for example, uses its orders for commuter-rail propulsion systems in the U.S. to help extend its market for highly profitable products like air conditioners. Mitsubishi exploits what could be called "economies of scope in marketing," i.e. leveraging the supply of one good to build a market for another good. These diversification effects and synergies illustrate why policies to support a domestic rail system have benefits far greater than just the domestic rail market.

 

One U.S.–based systems integrator, Oregon Iron Works (OIW), is a new developer of street cars. In an interview last year with Rail Magazine, Chandra Brown, president of the OIW's United Streetcar company, explained why she believes her firm can survive the initial volatile market: "The company has enough work and projects underway that it isn't dependent upon a certain number of streetcar orders. We have a big and diverse job shop. So we don't have to have the line running for any specified duration in order to survive financially. ... If we win three car orders one year, 30 the next, and then seven the following year, we can handle it."

 

As Brown explained to me, diversified production produces flexibility. The company anticipates getting an order for six street cars from Portland and hopes to get another order for seven cars from Tucson. These are admittedly small numbers, but the firm has a list of over 80 municipalities interested in developing street cars. The company differs from the failed suppliers of mass-transit systems because it has grown up in a very competitive environment, teamed with a Czech firm to gain access to state-of-the-art designs, and has the necessary systems-integration skills from its history of developing nuclear, defense, and renewable energy as well as other advanced product lines.

 

As the Iraq War winds down, other systems integrators that are defense firms may follow the example of OIW. The ability to service the much larger subway market is enhanced in transit agencies like the Metropolitan Transit Authority and Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) through in-house engineering staffs that write specifications and do maintenance work. For example, in New York City, one top maintenance engineer argued that after the two-year suppliers' warranty has expired, the MTA is able to learn more than the original supplier about how vehicles (and thus the technology behind them) work in service. And in Chicago, the CTA's superior knowledge once helped U.S.–based Boeing Vertol successfully enter the subway market. Boeing Vertol's designs and engineers, ironically, later helped Kawasaki enter the U.S. market.

 

A comprehensive policy to encourage domestic production of mass-transit goods would include not only increasing the share of local content but also increasing public investment in mass-transit research and development, supporting rail infrastructure, and encouraging a research-and-production consortium. Such a consortium could include joint ventures between U.S. universities and systems integrators, foreign suppliers, and domestic suppliers of key components, and the development of an industrial workshop that could integrate research, testing, and prototype development. Companies like Brookville Equipment Corporation and Oregon Iron Works could provide a nucleus for a domestic revival of transit production. Worker and community ownership will also limit outsourcing and protect domestic jobs.

 

The AFL-CIO, New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, U.S. Business and Industry Council, and University Transportation Research Center (UTRC) at the City University of New York are all interested in increasing domestic content in mass transit. In a potential coalition linking labor, local government, business groups and universities, the government is a key actor because of government's procurement power. A leading official at the MTA recently suggested to me that if New York state and the federal government could cover the increased costs of domestic production, the agency would consider supporting greater domestic content in subways.

 

Meanwhile, Robert E. Paaswell, UTRC's director, together with trade unions and the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., is organizing meetings in June of labor, transit agencies, and other stakeholders to support increased domestic content in mass transportation. As Paaswell explains, "Such meetings are critical to provide focus on a major effort that addresses two key objectives of the stimulus bill; these are, first, to create career ladder jobs and second, to plant the seeds for long-term investments." We now have a chance, he points out, to connect spending on infrastructure and rail vehicles to a scale and continuity of financing that will make long-term investment worthwhile for manufacturers. The situation today is in stark contrast, Paaswell says, to the recent past when weak support "drove the last of U.S. suppliers offshore."

 

Our multiple crises suggest that a Green New Deal must mean more than one-shot investments. Support for mass transit and its supply industry can help promote domestically rooted system integrators, manufacturers, employment, and wealth creation. The expansion of domestic production, based on expanded investments in mass transit, could help link recovery plans centered on public works to a more comprehensive reindustrialization program.

Right now, I wish Republicans and Republican types would just go somewhere, sit down and shut the hell up; b/c as a party; as a mindset, they absolutely nothing positive to offer on any level, let alone re rail and transit.

because you guys are the only ones who are right, huh?

 

Before we start engaging in partisan bashing with a broad sweep, let's remember that one of the strongest supporters of passenger rail in the U.S. Congress is Cong. Steve LaTourette (Republican) of Ohio..... and former Senator Trent Lott (one of the creators of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act)... also a Republican.

 

During previous Democratic administrations in the White House & Congress, passenger rail actually fared worse with huge budget cuts for Amtrak and diminshed service.

 

No one party has a monopoly on stupidity or wisdom.

Thank you, post like that just make everyone defensive.

So what's the solution? To pretend that Democrats and Republicans have done great things for this nation's rail system? Our freight rail system started getting out of the toilet 20 years ago. America's passenger rail system is only now climbing out after 50 years of corporate neglect and politically attempted murder. There is no forgiving what happened.

That's a good point.  When a corporation sees the potential for profit in a rail system, then it will prosper.  We don't need more government mismanagement of an industry.

When the government stops reducing the costs of rail's competition, then a private corporation will be able to earn a profit from passenger rail service. Let's not pretend that the free market exists in the transportation marketplace. It is the last place you will find the free market.

 

If you truly believe in removing government involvement in transportation, then remove it all -- including selling highways, airports, shares in the air traffic control system, and waterways/docks to private companies (not even to tax-exempt port authorities). If companies aren't willing to buy this public infrastructure, then we shall continue to subsidize passenger rail, which travels on privately owned and financed infrastructure. Leasing doesn't cut it, because it still doesn't incur the type of costs (infrastructure as a profit center, industrial-rate property taxes, property/liability insurance) that railroads must pay as owners of their right of way.

I would agree with your point Dan, but we need to be fair about this. Do we allow the air transportation industry the freedom to prosper and profit as it sees fit? No, we have government regulation and management of nearly every aspect of the industry, from the costs of a ticket to company-specific terminals and contracts.

 

Moving to highways, what if we had let private corporations or what if we had allowed more tolling on our interstate highways? When the Interstate Highway System was first devised, not a single body was looking 40 to 50 years in the future on what our system would look like, or function. They were not seeing the maintenance headaches and extreme costs with maintaining the network today, or the debts we occur because we have far too many projects in the pipeline with no realistic way to pay for it. And people always clamour for bigger, wider highways, but there is no way to pay for that as well.

 

The Federal Highway Trust Fund, where that 90% match for Interstate Highway projects comes from, has been exhausted. Appropriations, or what others call earmarks or pork, now fund the defict we occur in that Fund. I think it is time to amend the FHWA's stance on tolling existing interstate highways -- while their original construction bonds may be paid off, their maintenance can no longer be adequately covered with gasoline taxes alone. And raising those taxes is political suicide, especially in today's "cheap gas" mantra.

There hasn't been a free market in transportation ever - the frickin' National Road was one of the first attempts to exercise intra-state power. Anyway, it seems to me the best way to think about it is as a balance. For 100 years, a head was placed firmly on the rail side of the balance (1840-1940ish). For the last 60 years, the hand has been on the highway and air sides of the balance and probably the handing lifting rail higher than it's natural market level. I'd like to roads and air de-emphasized and make a commensurate investment in rail transit. If in 30 years of solid rail investment, we have a bunch of trains to nowhere then I guess the car and air people were right (or we invented a Star Trek-esque beaming system), but my guess is that we can support all three in a roughly market based competition.

Good point. But the railroads started losing federal favor much earlier than the 1940s, and the federal assistance to auto dominance began much earlier than the 1940s.

Move the timeline back twenty years - though the 20s and even the 30s still had a more balanced approach - and they were addressing very serious issues with the basic quality of roads. It is arguable that much of the postwar growth came as a result of the increasingly ease with traffic could move around the country. Concrete or asphalt is much better than gravel, macadam, or dirt.

Before we start engaging in partisan bashing with a broad sweep, let's remember that one of the strongest supporters of passenger rail in the U.S. Congress is Cong. Steve LaTourette (Republican) of Ohio..... and former Senator Trent Lott (one of the creators of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act)... also a Republican.

 

During previous Democratic administrations in the White House & Congress, passenger rail actually fared worse with huge budget cuts for Amtrak and diminished service.

 

No one party has a monopoly on stupidity or wisdom.

 

We can parse as much as we want -- sure not ALL Republicans are bad and wrong on Rail, for example.  But at the end of the day, Steve LaTourrette are the exceptions for the party, and hold no sway.  The Radical Right still controls Republican thought; they continue to perpetuate knee jerk, anti-intellectual reactionary Rush Limbaugh/John Boehner policy.  As Bill Maher noted, it's not like the days of Bill Buckley who, even if you didn't like him, you had to debate hiim on a tough intellectual level... no more; not these scare-tactic, Big Lie, anti-intellectual clowns... Let's stop playing ostrich and being so benevolent -- and ultimately acting as enablers for stupidity...

 

... for those enlightened Republican UOers who are pro-positive infrastructure projects like mass transit and, here, 3-C Amtrak, the question remains: why are you still Republicans.  You're ideas have no shot w/ the "Party of NO" whose leaders would prefer Obama, and ultimately the country, to fail since they are not in power... At least have some balls, take heat and stand away from these jerks like John McCain's daughter Megan has done w/ the temerity to criticize Ann "Which" Coulter... Stop protecting an ideal that isn't there and, at least, stop 'your party' from continuing dragging this State and the country down in ways voters so soundly rejected Nov. 4th -- like stopping something so needed and worthwhile as 3-C rail.

 

To ignore the fact Republicans are largely responsible for such regression is to be, well, ostriches.

Clvlndr..... uh.... let's tone it down a bit.  I don't disagree with much of what you posted, but I think a lot of "balls" were shown by an American public that threw a GOP majority out of Washington in the last election.  To continue to rant about the failed policies of the past serves zero purpose and accomplishes nothing.

 

We still have a GOP-controlled Senate in the Ohio General Assembly and I can tell you with some authority that this kind of rant will sway no one in that body.  In fact, this is the kind of knee-jerk response they expect....and will turn it back around on whoever they want. 

 

They are not going to change until they begin seeing themselves or their colleagues get voted out of office.  In other words, change begins when you put points on the scoreboard.

 

 

You're ideas have no shot w/ the "Party of NO" whose leaders would prefer Obama, and ultimately the country, to fail since they are not in power...

 

Yes, like all the Democrats and liberals wanted Bush to succeed! 

 

Unless your train can get me door-to-door from Cincinnati to Cleveland in less than 4 hours, I don't want it or care if it ever gets off the ground.

I'll put my five-hour train ride up against your four-hour drive, then we'll see who gets more work done and who spends less money doing it.

 

I moved this discussion from the 3-C thread here because it dealt with general transportation policy. Now you want to discuss 3-C here? Put it where it belongs, OK?

 

As for all Demos and libs wanting Bush to fail... I haven't met them. I was supportive of Bush before and right after Sept. 11. The rest of my comments about Bush don't belong in this thread though I don't think he appreciated the dominant role in transportation development given to the federal government by the Constitution under the Commerce Clause.

Well, I didn't start the 3-C conversation, and ask Rob how much work he is able to do on his trips to Chicago with all the rude passengers riding with him.

One word:  headphones.

 

Unless your train can get me door-to-door from Cincinnati to Cleveland in less than 4 hours, I don't want it or care if it ever gets off the ground.

 

Nobody's asking you to ride any train. But my tax dollars help pay for your roads, and I -- and a majority of Ohioans -- want an option to four hours behind the wheel of a car.

That's funny.  If the majority of Ohioans wanted trains,

 

WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THEM!!!!!

^ Ha, ha. Brilliant comeback. And if the majority of Ohioans wanted peace and prosperity, WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE IT. And if the majority of Ohioans wanted uncongested, safe highways, we would already have them. And if the majority of Ohioans wanted a return to a strong manufacturing economy, we would already have it. And if the majority of Ohioans wanted forward-thinking legislators, we would already have them.

That's funny. If the majority of Ohioans wanted trains,

 

WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THEM!!!!!

 

This is also true of casinos, though you probably have some counter-majority views on that issue.  You may even want to bring about change on that issue.  So why is it so weird that others might have similar takes on different issues?

 

Also, the Ohio constitution grants more power to rural counties than urban ones.  Apportionment rules require that to the extent possible, every county should get at least one representative of its own, even if it does not deserve one based on population.  It's not a landslide margin but it is enough to tip close issues.  It's kind of like how the US senate works, but a midler version.  Similar principle at play though. 

 

Point is, what happens in Columbus does not necessarily represent what the majority of Ohioans want.  There was a national anti-urban bias (via Thomas Jefferson) at the time Ohio was being put together politically.  So if you feel like the deck is stacked against cities here, that's because it is.

Quinnipic University poll (March 2009)

 

64% of Ohioans polled wanted passenger rail developed.

You proved my point, most Ohioans just don't care beyond what affects them personally.  One of the few real freedoms we have is to get in our car and go wherever we want, whenever we want.  People don't want to give that up, or have it restricted in the slightest.

I'll bet a majority of Ohioans would like a billion dollars, but we don't already have that.

 

Trains do affect many of us personally.  If we had a good train system, we could get from place to place in a comparable amount of time and NOT HAVE TO DRIVE.  I and many others HATE driving.  The only reason we do it is because it's the only option.  Just because you may think differently doesn't necessarily make you right.

That's funny.  If the majority of Ohioans wanted trains,

 

WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THEM!!!!!

 

Shouldn't you be getting nostalgic for the good 'ol days?

 

People want trains, they just know that modern mistakes have made anything but driving, impossible. This revolution isn't about trains specifically, it's about changing the entire physical culture of cities through responsible land use and multi-modal transportation.  If the trains come, higher density will come as well. Your westside neighborhood isn't sustainable because it's auto-dependent, isolated, and the percentage of residential housing is too high. Go to your business district. It's failing. Vacancy rate is high. Those are supposed to be the breadwinners for tax revenue but companies are going out of business. The businesses were new and shiny at one time but the buildings lack integrity and aren't worth caring about anymore. They are set so far back from the street that the eye of a driver rarely even notices them through it's only option - peripheral vision. Hardly anyone walks and they're not encouraged to walk and notice what surrounds them. As much as you ideally should hate high property taxes and lower property values, you should definitely support this movement.

And if you don't have a car, well, you're out of luck. And if you don't want a car, well, you're out of luck. And if you're too young to drive, well, you're out of luck. And if you're too old to drive, well, you're out of luck. If you have an impairment that prevents you from driving, well, you're out of luck. Able-bodied licensed drivers who can afford a car do drive everywhere -- BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE IN OHIO.

I like the freedom of having my own car and I love to drive.... but I don't want to always be in a position where I HAVE TO drive.  No one is asking people to give up their cars.  People are saying... in increasing numbers.... that they want an option to having to drive.

 

That option may not happen the day after the latest poll....but with the Obama Administration directing billions of $$$ at passenger rail, light rail and streetcars... and encouraging an interconnected, rail-based system... I'd say those options are coming.  Enjoy the ride.

It always blows my mind when someone says, if we people wanted X, we would already have X. As if it was as simple as snapping our fingers.

 

It also blows my mind when someone says that adding passenger rail means we'll be forcing people to get rid of their cars. Where do you people come from?!?! We have a government-sponsored monopoly, the highway, whose backers have fought the provision of alternatives at every turn and WE'RE the ones trying to force people to do something?

 

Wow........

Well, I didn't start the 3-C conversation, and ask Rob how much work he is able to do on his trips to Chicago with all the rude passengers riding with him.

Just a damn minute, here! I don't recall giving you or anybody else permission to invoke my name as a corroborating witness in an attempt to be argumentative just for argument's sake.

 

The point to be taken from my narrative is that I choose to drive two hours to get to a sometimes-annoying two-hour train ride, rather than drive four hours from my home to my destination, because it's less stressful than coping with Northwest Indiana and Chicago traffic and less costly than paying for parking.

 

Let me point out, too, that despite not-very-comfortable seating and a sometimes jiggly-rattly ride, the South Shore attracts standing-room-only crowds of riders by running trains frequently and on-time, and their performance and the demonstrated public demand for the service have been sufficient to prompt the state to spring for fourteen new bi-level cars and to contemplate running some express service. Can you imagine what would ridership would be if they could double-track the entire line, put in four-quadrant crossing protection, and kick the speeds up to 80 or 90mph instead of the 70mph that's typical now?

 

My experience doesn't say that trains are bad; it's another example among many that show that demand increases ahead of capacity when good service is available.

 

 

Calm down, I never asked for your permission, and don't think I need it!  You discribed what I felt sounded like a terrible experience.  An experience someone would only tolerate if the alternative was worse.  I agree, driving and parking in Chicago traffic might be bad enough that someone would want to tolerate that kind of behavior from fellow passengers.

 

On the other hand, I don't ever see things getting that bad in Ohio congestion that I would ever want to tolerate that.

 

We all know that poll questions can be framed to get whatever kind of answer is wanted.  Even I would answer in the affirmative if you asked the question in the right way.  Even I don't think trains are bad, and I wish we had a full network of transportation options.

 

BUT WE DON'T!  And we won't without an incredible cost.  One I don't think we can afford.

"Calm down, I never asked for your permission, and don't think I need it!"

 

No, but considering Rob is a Moderator who has the Admins blessing to help run this joint - you might want to watch your tone.

U.S. readies plans for high-speed rail development

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE53D78C20090414

 

By Lisa Lambert and John Crawley

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected to unveil its plans on Thursday for accelerating development of high-speed rail, a concept that in the past has had mixed political support and little public funding.

 

"It will be broad and strategic," Karen Rae, acting head of the Federal Railroad Administration, told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday about the initiative described by officials as President Barack Obama's top transportation priority.

 

"It's going to talk about how we begin to create this new vision for high-speed and intercity rail," Rae said.

 

.........

DanB, I am at a loss for words. How can almost every other country in the world afford at least an adequate rail system but we cannot? Most other counties can't afford pointless roads and sprawl, but somehow we can? No we can't -- and it's getting pretty obvious. 

The point is the roads didn't come overnight, and the rail system can't be rebuilt overnight, and until there is a better reason to rebuild it, the money would be better spent.

On what?