The "study's" data is wrong, is math is wrong and its conclusions are wrong. With such glaring attempts to derail rail projects while turning a blind eye to the billions in non-user tax dollars (ie subsidies) being lavished on highways and aviation, there appears to be a stronger motivation here. Money is usually the motivator in such situations...

 

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00021.htm (reprint of "Governing" article)

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00023.htm (reprint of follow-up piece)

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/243 (overview)

 

A friend reminded me of this analysis, for which the authors spent much more time and THOUGHT than the alleged "think tank" did yesterday. Yet the think thank saw no reason to publicize these findings to rail against government waste...

 

The July 25, 2001 edition of USA Today carried a story by Kitty Bean Yancey titled “Air passengers pick price over perks.” 

 

Remember, we’re talking about a story that appeared six weeks before 9/11.

 

In this story, Yancey reported that Mintel Business Intelligence had just completed a survey for the airline industry that revealed:

 

During the previous 12 months, only 3 in 10 U.S. adults had taken a commercial airline flight.

4 in 10 of the 1008 adults contacted in a phone survey said they would not fly at all.

 

Mintel’s director of research, Bill Patterson, was quoted as saying, “You get the feeling that flying such a populist activity now, but 41 per cent of the people we spoke with said they would not fly.”

 

The story said “The telephone survey found that 70% of adults had not taken a domestic flight in preceding 12 months (by comparison, 55% of respondents in an August 2000 Gallup poll said they had not flow either domestically or internationally in the previous year).”

 

Clearly, even before 9/11, airline patronage was dropping as a percentage of population.  Since then it has dropped further as security measures and withdrawal of services have made flying less convenient and less accessible.  Yet the Buckeye institute has not protested government’s continued subsidies to 490 commercial airports estimated more than a decade ago to have a replacement value of more than $1 trillion.  Clearly, these facilities are used not by a wide cross-section of the American population but by only 3 out of 10.  The airline industry simply appears to be churning the same 30 per cent of the American population through its system repeatedly.

Let's turn the tables. Here's a tongue-in-cheek sendup:

 

THE OHIO INSTITUTE FOR REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS

 

 

For Immediate Release            Contact: Randal B. Cool

Wednesday, June 24, 2009              511-555-1460       

 

Highways a Waste of Money, Says Report

 

 

COLUMBUS - Highways will cost billions, destroy cities, dislocate people, cause environmental disasters, kill and injure thousands, make health care costs soar, cost millions to police, millions more to plow, billions to repair, make the us dependent on foreign oil and put the country at the mercy of overseas petrofascists, says a new report from the Ohio Institute for Real World Solutions.

 

The report estimates that the average Ohio resident will spend an average of $12,000 a year to maintain their autocentric habits. In some cases, cars cost more than housing, especially for urban residents who are least able to afford to drive. The report can be found at:

 

http://yeahyoubeenhad.org

 

On Wednesday, June 17, the Federal Highway Administration released a report stating that the Highway trust Fund is broke. Highways will cost billions more on top of the billions already spent. "We are bankrupt" says Mr. Cool. "Furthermore we didn't vote for highways, that decision was made for us. I wonder if we'd make the same choice today, if we had known what the consequences of our highway-only policies would be."

 

The new report warns that the cost of these projects could grow to be hundreds of billions of dollars with very little public or environmental benefit. "We are going to pour billions down a rathole and destroy the country in the process," said Mr. Cool.

 

Highway vehicles average speeds of just 55 mph, while high speed trains can reach speeds as high as 200 mph. Not only will that attract few people out of their trains, says the report, such cars will actually be less energy efficient and more polluting than public transportation. "Cars run on foreign oil. End of story." said Mr. Cool, noting that electrified railroads don't use oil at all.

 

"Highways are an idea whose time has gone," says Mr. Cool, a senior fellow and the report's author. "It is bad for taxpayers and bad for the environment."

 

The high cost of driving means that the main people driving 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 drive, that driver probably earns more than the average taxpayer.

 

Some compare highway plans with President Obama's American Railroad System. But railroads were for profit, privately run enterprises before massive government intervention in favor of highways. They were paid for entirely out of user fees, not general taxes, and taxpayers will pay for the cost of building and much of the costs of operating highways that will be used mainly by a wealthy elite.

 

The report urges Ohio to use its share of federal highway stimulus money for more and better passenger trains, as well as safety improvements such as grade crossings and signaling systems, but not for more new highways that will obligate taxpayers to pay millions of dollars in annual subsidies.

 

THE OHIO INSTITUTE FOR REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS

 

A nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to rational thinking in Ohio. 

 

______________________________________________

 

Let's laugh at these idiots while we give the public the facts. Maybe it's time to start a "think tank" to counter them. I always wanted to be a "senior fellow" anyway. :-D

 

 

 

 

:clap:

Thank you. :wave:

^facts + sarcasm + humor = win.

 

8-)

The Buckeye Institute... the non-thinking man's "think tank".... the think tank with a brain freeze... the think tank with a DNR tag (Do not resusitate)

June 28, 2009

Cincinnati Enquirer

Letters to the Editor

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090628/EDIT02/906280363/1019/EDIT/Streetcar+opposition+threatens+high-speed+rail

 

Streetcar opposition threatens high-speed rail

 

Imagine this: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland joins U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood later this year to announce Ohio will get $400 million in federal dollars for a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati passenger rail line. Cincinnati will become a hub for the nation's new high-speed rail system.

 

Cleveland and Columbus quickly begin acquiring land for rail lines, crossings, stations or parking lots.

 

But in Cincinnati, the first call is to the Board of Elections, to schedule an election. PACs will be formed, fat cats will write checks, retired congressmen and radio talk show hosts will bloviate, and "community leaders" will herd themselves into contentious camps to feud over whether Cincinnati really wants in on this new high-speed rail thing.

 

 

Pittsburgh's chances at high-speed rail service seem iffy

By Matthew Santoni

TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Monday, June 29, 2009

 

Pittsburgh could be left behind in the push for high-speed passenger rail service, even though Pennsylvania and Ohio are trying to connect the city to a proposed nationwide network to take pressure off crowded highways and expensive airways.

 

More at:

 

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/print_631475.html

 

The automobile-dependent lifestyle has evolved...it takes time to turn it around and change.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon's News Release

June 22, 2009

 

Bi-state Governors sign memorandum outlining cooperative efforts to compete for recovery act funds for Chicago-to-St. Louis line

Missouri Gov. Nixon, Illinois Gov. Quinn detail vision for Chicago-to-St. Louis high-speed rail line during visit to St. Louis Amtrak station

 

ST. LOUIS - Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn today visited the St. Louis Gateway Amtrak Station to detail their shared priorities for competing for federal recovery funds to establish a high-speed passenger rail line between Chicago and St. Louis.

 

Just days after the federal government issued guidance to states on the application process for high-speed rail funding, the two Governors outlined their vision for a Chicago-to-St. Louis line as a tool for job-creation and regional economic growth. In addition, the Governors signed a Missouri-Illinois Memorandum of Understanding to solidify the bi-state partnership on this critical recovery project.

 

"As always, the Show-Me State is ready to lead the nation in the development of this next-generation mode of transportation between two of the major commercial centers in the nation," Gov. Nixon said. "Because of the planning and foresight of our Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission, enhancing the route from Chicago to St. Louis for high-speed trains would create jobs immediately, provide a cost-effective alternative for travelers and position the entire corridor for economic recovery, growth and transformation in the years to come. I look forward to working closely Gov. Quinn and our colleagues in other states to promote high-speed rail throughout the Midwest, beginning with the priority line between Chicago and St. Louis."

 

"We must follow President Obama's lead by investing in growth and efficiency for transportation and make high-speed rail in the Midwest a reality," said Governor Quinn. "I look forward to working with Governor Nixon to compete for the approximately $8 billion dollars in competitive funds for intercity rail that would allow us to reduce the travel time from Chicago to St. Louis, the fastest growing train route in the state, from more than 5 hours to less than 4."

 

Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama's administration released guidelines for state applications for high-speed rail funding. Based on these federal guidelines, rail projects in the Midwest, and especially the Chicago-to-St. Louis line, appear well-positioned to compete for these recovery funds. Under the guidelines, special consideration will go to projects that can be completed quickly, that will create jobs immediately and that will result in a demonstrable benefit for the public.

 

Both Missouri and Illinois are members of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission, which has been studying, planning and evaluating possible rail expansions throughout the region since the mid-1990s. In addition, the state of Illinois already has completed an environmental impact study on the Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor.

 

Today's Memorandum of Understanding further underscores the priority Gov. Nixon and Gov. Quinn share for leveraging these existing data and additional resources to ensure a competitive advantage for this priority project. As the memorandum indicates, "[both] states will work cooperatively, bringing to bear all the appropriate resources, expertise, and information of each state for the purposes of transforming state economies and enhancing regional transportation infrastructure by competing for federal high-speed rail funding for a high-speed rail line connecting downtown Chicago, Illinois, with downtown St. Louis, Missouri."

 

The federal guidelines have established a deadline of July 10, 2009, for funding pre-applications and a final deadline of Aug. 24, 2009, for complete applications. The guidelines define "high-speed rail" trains as those that operate at 110 to 150 miles per hour, covering segments of track ranging between 100 and 600 miles in length. Under the federal recovery act, up to $8 billion in funds will be available for high-speed and intercity rail projects.

An excellent letter.

 

How ironic that city-building modes like streetcars and passenger trains would be stymied by this extra layer of approval. Meanwhile city-killing highway projects would have no such restriction.

 

It's examples like these which make me question the sanity of humanity.

http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/local/chi-high-speed-rail-30-jun30,0,2990669.story

 

Chicago to St. Louis on 220-m.p.h. trains

Travel would take less than 2 hours, study says

By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter

June 30, 2009

 

Travel between Chicago and St. Louis in less than two hours on passenger trains running at 220 m.p.h. is an achievable goal that should be aggressively pursued, according to an analysis paid for by advocates of high-speed rail.

 

The feasibility study is intended to spur talks with state rail officials across the Midwest to look beyond current plans to operate trains at a maximum speed of 110 m.p.h. within several years using federal stimulus grants and state construction funds, according to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, a non-profit group that commissioned the $65,000 study.

 

.......

Fellow Cincinnatian,

 

As you may know, a coalition of naysayers has recently announced they have collected enough signatures to place a charter amendment on the fall ballot that would prevent the City from making any investments in all forms of passenger rail without a popular vote.  This ballot initiative threatens Cincinnati’s ability to receive federal rail funding and may result in Cincinnati being bypassed by President Obama’s High Speed Rail Plan and Governor Strickland’s Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland rail corridor. 

 

I am writing to you today to ask you to contact the Cincinnati Enquirer and tell them to accurately report on the Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment.  In recent articles the Enquirer has been calling this Amendment the “Streetcar Measure” or the “Streetcar Issue” when the reality is that is will affect all passenger rail—not just the streetcar.

 

It is inaccurate and misleading for the Enquirer to call the ballot initiative the "Streetcar Issue" when it would permanently affect all passenger rail.  A ballot initiative that affected all highways would not be called the "Norwood Lateral Issue," nor would an initiative that affected all parks be called the "Eden Park Issue." 

 

Please contact the Enquirer and tell them to accurately report on this issue.  Write a letter to the editor [email: [email protected]] , write an email to the reporters who use the term “Streetcar Issue” and carbon copy (cc) their editor, comment on the Enquirer’s website, or write a blog post about this inaccurate reporting. Don’t have a blog? Pass this on to someone who does. 

 

Here is a list of who to contact at the Enquirer:

 

Julie Engebrecht, Barry Horstman,

Deputy Managing Editor Reporter - Transportation

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

 

Jane Prendergast, David Holthaus

Cincinnati City Politics Reporter Reporter

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected].

 

Thank you for your time and effort on this critical issue that could affect generations of Cincinnatians to come.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

/s/

Brad Thomas

Founder www.cincystreetcar.com

 

 

Fellow Cincinnatian,

 

As you may know, a coalition of naysayers has recently announced they have collected enough signatures to place a charter amendment on the fall ballot that would prevent the City from making any investments in all forms of passenger rail without a popular vote.  This ballot initiative threatens Cincinnati’s ability to receive federal rail funding and may result in Cincinnati being bypassed by President Obama’s High Speed Rail Plan and Governor Strickland’s Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland rail corridor. 

 

I am writing to you today to ask you to contact the Cincinnati Enquirer and tell them to accurately report on the Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment.  In recent articles the Enquirer has been calling this Amendment the “Streetcar Measure” or the “Streetcar Issue” when the reality is that is will affect all passenger rail—not just the streetcar.

 

It is inaccurate and misleading for the Enquirer to call the ballot initiative the "Streetcar Issue" when it would permanently affect all passenger rail.  A ballot initiative that affected all highways would not be called the "Norwood Lateral Issue," nor would an initiative that affected all parks be called the "Eden Park Issue." 

 

Please contact the Enquirer and tell them to accurately report on this issue.  Write a letter to the editor [email: [email protected]] , write an email to the reporters who use the term “Streetcar Issue” and carbon copy (cc) their editor, comment on the Enquirer’s website, or write a blog post about this inaccurate reporting. Don’t have a blog? Pass this on to someone who does. 

 

Here is a list of who to contact at the Enquirer:

 

Julie Engebrecht, Barry Horstman,

Deputy Managing Editor Reporter - Transportation

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

 

Jane Prendergast, David Holthaus

Cincinnati City Politics Reporter Reporter

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected].

 

Thank you for your time and effort on this critical issue that could affect generations of Cincinnatians to come.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

/s/

Brad Thomas

Founder www.cincystreetcar.com

 

 

Please note that Jane Prendergast is no relation to me!

Please note that Jane Prendergast is no relation to me.

Has All Aboard Ohio or any other advocacy group take a public stance on this yet?

Not yet. If they collected enough valid signatures and got on the ballot, then we would take a stance. Otherwise, there's no sense in dignifying their effort.

From here: http://www.columbusunderground.com/cu-podcast-23-coffee-with-stu-nicholson

 

<b>CU Podcast #23: Coffee with Stu Nicholson</b>

By Walker | July 2, 2009 9:45am

 

<img src="http://www.columbusunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/stu-nicholson.jpg">

 

In this week’s ColumbusUnderground.com Podcast, we grab coffee with Stu Nicholson, the Public Information Officer for the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Stu provides us with some updates on the current development status of passenger rail service in Ohio, where the new routes could run, what a local station in Columbus could look like, and how the 3C Corridor will benefit the entire state of Ohio.

 

Listen here: http://blip.tv/file/get/ColumbusUnderground-CUPodcast23CoffeeWithStuNicholson415.mp3

Cool!

 

I hear that guy REALLY likes his coffee, too!

Not yet. If they collected enough valid signatures and got on the ballot, then we would take a stance. Otherwise, there's no sense in dignifying their effort.

 

The opposition groups held a press conference the other day proclaiming that they have more than enough signatures (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Opponents-Of-Streetcar-Speak-Out/uNe3B27KF0u_6XQZq5N1oQ.cspx) to get this on the ballot.  Get your buddies together so that we can get an official endorsement for the Cincinnati Streetcar Project.

I heard. But it's not on the ballot until the board of elections validates the signatures.

^That didn't stop the Enquirer from running a front page story. 

You think the Enquirer has an agenda??  :-o

 

Ironically, rail systems aren't the ones on the verge of obsolesence -- newspapers are. And they don't aid in their future viability by eroding public trust as an objective observer when they seek to take a blatantly activist stance. As a newspaperman, it's hard for me to watch a newspaper sow its own seeds of destruction while ignorantly trying to take down a city-building transit project in the process.

I just hope I live long enough to see the kinds of transportation options my parents once witnessed... and live long enough to at least see the Three C C actually move so I can use it. In this supposed land of choice... Where is my choice to not be forced to have to rely on the car to go certain places! What a horrible car habit we've developed..and worse, some cannot even fathom any other way because this is all that has been fed to them for 50 plus years!

^ 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. 

 

 

^ Here here! Already there have been 8 times during the first 6 months this year when I would have definitely used the 3-C Corridor. 5 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.  

 

 

 

Yea, my father lives in Cleveland and my mother lives in Columbus. I make trips back and forth 2-3 times a month. I'll take a rail over driving any day. Less wear and tear on the vehicle, no gas and its gets me off boring-as-hell 71 South.

BTW, the Coffee with Stu Nicholson podcast was excellent

The fares will not be comparable to driving if they are anything similar to what they are on the east coast.

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

 

 

Cool!

 

I hear that guy REALLY likes his coffee, too!

 

Yes he does! ;)

 

 

BTW, the Coffee with Stu Nicholson podcast was excellent

 

Yeah, I was a bit worried that the background noise would be a little too much, but I think it adds to the vibrant discussion! Urban life! City noise! Excitement! ;)

I have family just east of Cleveland specifically in Yo/War... For once, it would be nice on a summer day...afternoon...to walk downtown...catch the train under the tower...  take a book, relax..and just forget about traffic. I had many friends come here from Australia and they could not believe that we were not linked by train. I explained how it used to be and all the infrastructure was there, etc.

 

Still, because so many of them take the train as far as 3 hours to the south of the center of Sydney... (by the way, many there consider their train network to be antiquated...but at least they have one!) and then seeing Greater Cleveland/N.E. Ohio outside of the light rail options.... the scenario is... Unless you drive, get someone to drive, carpool, bus, etc... You are still limited to the road!

 

To me it is still unbelievable that people have become so used to having to drive everywhere...that they cannot even fathom another way! It frustrates the hell out of me to try and get through to people who have for so long been used to that scene...And all you have to do is look to their grandparents/great grandparents to see a generation that knew all about taking trains, walking, and the car was secondary.  How so much lifestyle was lost in so little time.  Our freeways are pathetically clogged and ad night, rest stops are overtaken by trucks spewing out fumes. Bring these trains back...let 'em roll! And last, if trains had the luxury of the marketing and subsidy that promotes flying and driving.... Then more people who would have otherwise never thought of it....would take the trains.

 

I just hope in this day and age, that on a train like the 3 c...that operators assure the peace and comfort of their passengers by prohibiting people with i-pods to be playing them so loudly, that everyone else is forced to hear it. Unfortunately too often these days you have to make laws/rules to make people exercise manners and common sense.

Someone mentioned:

 

"Yeah, I was a bit worried that the background noise would be a little too much, but I think it adds to the vibrant discussion! Urban life! City noise! Excitement! ;)"

 

I know this is a bit off topic... But please don't say that. Noise, many kinds of unnecessary types, do nothing to enhance quality of life anywhere, and in fact erodes it and neighborhoods via the broken window theory. Illegal exhausts, booming audio assault, relentless landscaping tool noise.. Top three most frequent complaints in police departments..and noise in general, is one of the number one driving forces causing people to move, (US Census) It has negative impacts, physically, socially, environmentally and economically--to all, young and old. There is a common misconception that large cities and populations have to be, or are noisy. Check out www.noiseoff.org to read about the negative unseen/recognized impacts. Particular types...excessive and unnecessary noise does not make for a vibrant place. Please read that website and learn why it plagues communities coast to coast big and small, young and old..and about the misconceptions that a city has to be loud. (I am talking about noises with no socially redeeming value that are already illegal in municipal ordinances)

 

I do talks on this issue all the time for community block clubs and have done it for years. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I just hope in this day and age, that on a train like the 3 c...that operators assure the peace and comfort of their passengers by prohibiting people with i-pods to be playing them so loudly, that everyone else is forced to hear it.

 

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.

 

Noise, many kinds of unnecessary types, do nothing to enhance quality of life anywhere, and in fact erodes it and neighborhoods via the broken window theory.

 

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. 

 

 

DanB, the answers are at our fingertips....

 

AAA reports the average cost of driving in 2009 is 54 cents per mile. For more detail, see:

http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/200948913570.DrivingCosts2009.pdf

 

IRS allows a deduction of 55 cents per mile for driving for business purposes. This does not include parking which is deducted separately. For more detail, see:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=200505,00.html

 

What does it cost to take Amtrak? Start the process of booking a trip in coach at Amtrak.com between these city pairs as I did on July 4, 2009 for a 2-week advance purchase (2wk) and then for a 1-month advance purchase (1mo) for same-day return round-trip fares:

 

Cleveland to Chicago - 341 miles - 2wk: $110, $0.16/mi -- 1mo: $98, $0.14/mi

Cleveland to Rochester - 248 miles - 2wk: $95, $0.19/mi -- 1mo: $74 $0.15/mi (same distance as CLE-CIN)

Chicago to Kalamazoo - 138 miles - 2wk: $38, $0.14/mi -- 1mo: $38, $0.14/mi (same distance as CLE-COL)

St. Louis to Jefferson City - 125 miles - 2wk: $36, $0.14/mi -- 1mo: $36, $0.14/mi (same distance as CIN-COL)

 

 

Even the Northeast Corridor fares aren't that much more expensive (unless you take Acela Express which is more expensive than the Northeast Regional coach fare -- but no one is proposing 135-150mph Acela services in Ohio). Here's some same-day return round-trip fares on the 110mph Northeast Regional trains:

 

New York City to Washington DC - 225 miles - 2wk: $98, $0.22/mi -- 1mo: $98, $0.22/mi

New York City to Boston - 231 miles - 2wk: $98, $0.21/mi -- 1mo: $98, $0.21/mi

 

That's still less than half the average cost of driving, according to the motorists' lobbying organization.

Acela doesn't compete with cars primarily anyway - it is competing the airline shuttles and to a lesser extent with the slower regular Amtrak line. I do wonder if someone could work up a neat website that would allow people to log in real time the various trips they might have used rail if it was available. The other thing is that frequent users could likely get a pass of some sort that could lower the cost to some degree.

I think you will see some kind of graduated fare structure on the 3-C and future JSR corridors in Ohio.

The fares will not be comparable to driving if they are anything similar to what they are on the east coast.

 

They don't necessarily have to be comparable to driving, as long as the travel time is.  I usually drive when I travel between Cincinnati and Chicago, but only because airfare is so expensive and I don't want to spend 10 hours on a train (and arrive at 3AM).  If I could get to Chicago in ~6 hours on Amtrak for signficantly less than airfare at CVG, I'd jump at it.

Ken,  most of the costs associated with driving a car in your $0.54/mile example are fixed.  I already own the car, and already pay insurance.  Until I can do without a car, the costs are irrelevant.  As you proved with your failed attempt at going carless last year, it is impossible until there is a complete travel network which permits one to travel wherever one wants without owning a car.  I say failed, because even you admitted you needed your sister to drive you to some inaccessible points.

 

I'm not sure that we can ever go back to a carless society, unless our cars are taken from us.  Most of those here on UO are young and single and are not responsible for others.  Some are old and single without the same responsibilities.  Had a train been available to take me to Cincinnati for college, I too would have gladly taken it.  I spent many long hours on Greyhound.

 

The question is, what do families do?  These fares are unrealistic for a family to take a train from Cincinnati to Cleveland.  Most of the time one doesn't have the convenience of scheduling a month in advance.  A family of 4 can't afford $400 to take the train to Cleveland to attend a funeral, or visit grandparents during the holidays.

 

Last summer, my entire family was visiting my sister's in Philadelphia when gas was $4.  I had 4 tickets to a Nationals game in DC.  I suggested to my nephews that we take the train.  More than $100 apiece round trip.  Totally unrealistic.  Of course we ended up driving for less than $100 in gas.

I just hope in this day and age, that on a train like the 3 c...that operators assure the peace and comfort of their passengers by prohibiting people with i-pods to be playing them so loudly, that everyone else is forced to hear it.

 

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.

 

Noise, many kinds of unnecessary types, do nothing to enhance quality of life anywhere, and in fact erodes it and neighborhoods via the broken window theory.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, a very good example. Think back before a lot of automation, where at least that kind of noise wouldn't have existed. By adhering to the delusional idea that 'noise makes vibrant' Then that would mean that no city before the noise came, would have been vibrant?

 

I am glad you brought out the example of how reasonable peace actually makes for an attractive quality.

 

On the other hand, aside from the obnoxious noises described above, a train in the distance, a hoot from the barge, a church bell now and then...all can add a touch of character, indeed. I don't want to come across as someone who thinks all surroundings are always going to be a quiet as a church, granted. 

 

But I don't know how---while sitting on a summer day on a sidewalk cafe trying to enjoy a meal--an illegally modified exhaust on a car/motorcycle making a brain splitting,ear ripping and gut wrenching acoustic assault, is supposed to enhance the experience---or a boom car that you can feel shaking your guts, liver and brains. I see kids being strapped in the back of those seats like some kind of sacrifice while speakers blow their brains out. Meanwhile the driver has no clue to what is going on around him. I wonder who will pay the price of special ed when they're deaf by the time they're 16.

 

All in all, I would hope trains offer cars that will not have to have their passengers forced to listen to someone else's desire to be loud. If it is an environment that is not conducive to quality, a lot of potential riders won't ride.  I hope it would not be the case. I know that is sort of off topic, but linked no doubt, and something to consider for the respect of all passengers.

 

On this price discussion.. Geeeez! I hope it would not cost a lot for a family to travel, or it would defeat some of the purpose. 

 

Again, sorry for the somewhat rant. Prune me if you have too, I mean no harm.

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. 

 

Of course we ended up driving for less than $100 in gas.

 

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?

 

Ken,  most of the costs associated with driving a car in your $0.54/mile example are fixed.  I already own the car, and already pay insurance.  Until I can do without a car, the costs are irrelevant.  As you proved with your failed attempt at going carless last year, it is impossible until there is a complete travel network which permits one to travel wherever one wants without owning a car.  I say failed, because even you admitted you needed your sister to drive you to some inaccessible points.

 

I'm not sure that we can ever go back to a carless society, unless our cars are taken from us.  Most of those here on UO are young and single and are not responsible for others.  Some are old and single without the same responsibilities.  Had a train been available to take me to Cincinnati for college, I too would have gladly taken it.  I spent many long hours on Greyhound.

 

The question is, what do families do?  These fares are unrealistic for a family to take a train from Cincinnati to Cleveland.  Most of the time one doesn't have the convenience of scheduling a month in advance.  A family of 4 can't afford $400 to take the train to Cleveland to attend a funeral, or visit grandparents during the holidays.

 

Last summer, my entire family was visiting my sister's in Philadelphia when gas was $4.  I had 4 tickets to a Nationals game in DC.  I suggested to my nephews that we take the train.  More than $100 apiece round trip.  Totally unrealistic.  Of course we ended up driving for less than $100 in gas.

 

Granted, it can be difficult with the transportation scene we have evolved into, but we can cut back a lot. It feels good to have accomplished this too. At the same time, because it can be hard to go totally carless, is a sad testament to how our transportation department in this country has failed miserably to promote and implement alternative modes. It wasn't too too long ago where one COULD actually go carless. But I see your concerns. More people are even trying to work from home these days to reduce dependency on the car.

Dan, I would love to give you a catscan sometime to see how one piece of information that's destined for one part of a normal person's brain ends up in a totally different part of your brain!

 

Who is proposing to make you car free or anyone's household car free? How many two-car or three-car (or more-car!) households are there? How many of those have at least one car that sits unused 23 hours a day? Yes, the costs of a car are fixed which means we have to use them a lot (ie: driving a mid-sized sedan 30,000 miles a year, by my calculations) or carry three or more occupants to equal the cost-effectiveness of taking the train. Quite a few people do that, and that's cool. Good for them! It's cool to have choices. It's also Democratic.

 

But USDOT says the average occupancy per car is 1.2 persons. Not very efficient. But we don't have much alternative because of the flaws in public policy which we're trying to correct to avoid a mobility crisis in this state in which one-third of Ohio’s population will either be too old or too poor by 2030 to effectively provide for their own transportation mobility, the Census says. Citizens in Ohio’s largest cities will face the greatest mobility challenges, with more than one-half of the populations in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton affected. They will be physically unable to drive as often or as far as they did when they were younger. Many more already lack the physical or financial abilities to use, own or maintain cars. Others simply choose not to drive to save money and spend it in their local economy.

 

And I'm not sure where you determined by car-free experiment was a failure. I saved a lot of money, walked off some of my body fat and got a lot of reading done. If that's a failure, I'll take it any day. I'll have to look at that catscan see how you came to your conclusion. I couldn't continue it because my choice was taken from me when RTA eliminated the bus route that took me to where I used to work. I was forced to drive to work again. The failure happened when my elected officials chose not to represent me when they cut public funding for transit.

 

But being car-light is almost as good, which is what I am now. I now walk to work every day -- about 10 feet! Talk about location-efficient! The most efficient vehicular trip is the one that isn't made. I walk to stores, the post office, bank, etc. I take transit downtown for meetings. And to visit Columbus for other meetings .... I am forced to drive, of course!

Dan, I would love to give you a catscan sometime to see how one piece of information that's destined for one part of a normal person's brain ends up in a totally different part of your brain!

 

And I'm not sure where you determined by car-free experiment was a failure. I saved a lot of money, walked off some of my body fat and got a lot of reading done. If that's a failure, I'll take it any day. I'll have to look at that catscan see how you came to your conclusion.

 

Why must you be so insulting?  Can't you have a normal conversation?  I just gave you an example of trying to take a train, and it not being financially possible.  Also, I never said anyone was trying to force me to be car free, I was just pointing out that until we are carfree as a nation, the trains won't make much sense. 

 

I'm just pointing out a reason why families won't be able to travel on your trains.

 

I was just pointing out that until we are carfree as a nation, the trains won't make much sense. 

 

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. 

 

I'm just pointing out a reason why families won't be able to travel on your trains.

 

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.

I'm dealing with the present.  Why can't you understand that?  I already own the car and I cannot afford to pay for 4 people to take the train on a 100 mile trip.  All I was saying.  I understand people can easily take the train.  I understand that they do on the east coast.

 

  A car is really not too bad for operations cost per mile if it is full. An SUV with 6 people in it get pretty good mileage on a per passenger basis.

 

 

   

I'm dealing with the present.  Why can't you understand that?  I already own the car and I cannot afford to pay for 4 people to take the train on a 100 mile trip. 

 

That's a valid concern, but it doesn't mean that the trains won't get use.  Your argument could just as easily be applied to airlines, as it would cost you more to fly 4 people to Cleveland or DC than it does to drive there.  Yet, families routinely fly.  I totally understand why someone would chose to drive under the circumstances you listed, but I don't see how that invalidates train travel.

 

As for a "carless society", I don't want that.  I, for one, love my car.  I just love not being required to drive it as well. 

I understand what you are saying Jimmy.  If you go back a page, my latest foray into this thread, only commented on train travel costs not being comparable to the same trip by car.  Others then threw out costs of operating a car per mile, but that only counts if you can do without the car.  If you own your car, you are already paying fixed costs of ownership, that really aren't affected by a single trip from Cincinnati to Cleveland.  I have those costs, whether I take the train or drive.  That is all I was trying to say.

I'm just pointing out a reason why families won't be able to travel on your trains.

 

 

And it's a good reason, but it doesn't apply to you or anyone else in all situations. And if they were my trains, they would be running already. The reason why I get "insulting" is because people like you often have a hard time saying "I don't know", have opinions you haven't earned, or express those opinions as fact. I simply don't understand why you can't just sit back and watch discussions sometimes without making a comment about something. Is there a thread in this entire forum on which you haven't offered your opinion? Don't you ever feel uncomfortable about offering an opinion on something?

 

I'm sure you could run circles around me when it comes to chemistry, a subject on which I know little about. I wish you could stop trying to run in other circles on which you know little about.