I thought it was a fair and even-handed article.

No, everybody uses them BECAUSE they are subsidized. Highways aren't the free market. They're social engineering on a grand scale not seen even in communist countries. China is using more private financing to build its highway network than we did in ours.

 

My anger is directed at this infuriating, careless and uninformed double-standard to which so-called fiscal conservatives hold the 3C project.

 

Great comment, Ken.  Too many so-called fiscal conservatives are just plain blind. 

In the article in The Lantern that was posted above:

 

"Harris doesn’t believe Amtrak’s finding that there will be 478,000 annual riders, said Harris’ spokeswoman Maggie Ostrowski. He also thinks the projected $17 million in annual subsidies Ohio is expected to pay is unrealistically low, Ostrowski said Monday in an e-mail."

 

What is Senator Harris' proof that ridership and $17 million is so underestimated?  I'm a little sick and tired of his offhanded, unsubstantiated comments.  Too bad reporters have become too lazy to ask him what his proof is. 

No, everybody uses them BECAUSE they are subsidized. Highways aren't the free market. They're social engineering on a grand scale not seen even in communist countries. China is using more private financing to build its highway network than we did in ours.

 

My anger is directed at this infuriating, careless and uninformed double-standard to which so-called fiscal conservatives hold the 3C project.

 

Great comment, Ken. Too many so-called fiscal conservatives are just plain blind.

 

I agree with KJP here.  I think most of us do.  But instead of digging in for a standoff on this issue, or Harris' statements about ridership and subsidy numbers, we need to continue developing the approach.  It's not on Harris to offer proof... that burden belongs to our side, the side wanting money to do stuff with.  Getting inside Harris' head, one might consider that the highway system has already proven its utility in all aspects of Ohio's economy.  Modern passenger rail has not.  We can't expect a level playing field. 

 

Harris obviously views the pro-rail figures he's been given as "unsubstantiated," particularly those coming from Amtrak and allied consultants.  Repeating those figures, or offering more of them, isn't likely to work.  If we want ridership projections to be believed, we need to show our work like a kid in math class.  Who are these riders?  Where are they coming from?  Where are they going?  Why are they riding 3C?  How does 3C get the job done for them?  What features, schedules, or end-point options made their trip feasible?  The subsidy estimate will flow naturally from the ridership estimate.  Pretty sure that's what Harris is getting at there.  Shore up the former and the latter becomes easier to defend.           

Harris knows these numbers and ridership sources have been more than adequately substantiated and (the burden of proof notwithstanding) he offers nothing to show to the contrary.  He and others in the Ohio Senate have had access to the same public documents detailing all of what you mention above.  The simple fact is this is political gamesmanship in an election year.  The next round of the required enviromental impact could answer the question about the meaning of life and it would not matter to Sen. Harris.

Harris knows these numbers and ridership sources have been more than adequately substantiated

 

That's not our call to make.  I can't accept the dichotomy that Harris either believes these projections or he's dumb and wrong and mean.  He just doesn't agree with these stats.  That doesn't make him a fool or a bad person.  Ohio Republicans can, and must, be convinced to grant 3C at least minimal support.  But first we need to accept that what's been offered thus far has not been suffcient.  I don't get why that's still a sticking point of this magnitude.  It's not like there's no other way.

 

Amtrak's projections are not a particularly strong way of proving how Amtrak-style service will do in a new market.  This is a basic rule of proof with which state legislators are likely to be familiar.  It is not a defect within Harris, it is a defect within the singular set of arguments he's been presented.  It doesn't mean nothing can ever be sufficient.  It means this wasn't.  The Senate president of Ohio may not be a political ally on this, but he's not a cartoon either.  Somehow we need to speak his language and get this past him, however grudgingly. 

 

I would hate to see the project not happen solely because our side has become obsessed with its initial argument and refuses to try anything else.  Why is getting people to accept these stats more important than getting 3C built?  It's really starting to seem like that.  C'mon ORDC, let's retool and come back strong.  There is certainly more than one way to demonstrate that 3C is a good idea, deserves state funding, and deserves broad-based political support.

Does it matter about the education of Bill Harris since he's a term-limited lame duck?  There will be a new President of the Senate come January 2011.  Not sure any financing decisions about 3C will be made before then..

Does it matter about the education of Bill Harris since he's a term-limited lame duck? There will be a new President of the Senate come January 2011. Not sure any financing decisions about 3C will be made before then..

 

I think you're right.  As a Democrat, I hope the next one will be a Democrat.  But I'm not banking on the dynamic being much different from today's in 2011. 

Amtrak's projections are not a particularly strong way of proving how Amtrak-style service will do in a new market. This is a basic rule of proof with which state legislators are likely to be familiar.

 

And what, specifically, about the Amtrak projections (and the process of making them), do you find insufficient? All methodologies for projecting usage, ridership, etc., have built into them assumptions as well as limitations. That is why they are called "projections". And, as we have seen, sometimes expectations are exceeded and sometimes not. But if we waited until we had complete certainty, we would never do anything.

 

The model used by Amtrak was developed by AECOM, one of the nation's largest engineering and transportation planning firms, and has been used, successfully, in other projects both in the US and overseas.

 

So what, specifically, is wrong with it or does Harris just want to keep doing studies until he gets one that agrees with him?

 

 

Maybe a one-size-fits-all model isn't the best way to assess this market.  Or any market.  Not valueless, a good starting point... necessary but not sufficient.  If it's really that standard and it's already been done that many times, it sounds like the plans for a CVS building.  So it didn't cost much, right?  We don't need to stake the entire project on it. 

 

Again, why is it so important for these projections to be accepted?  Does that take precedence over getting the project approved?  As you say, they're just projections.  Can we not demonstrate 3C's value in any other way?  Sounds like we'll have time to.  I'm hoping that time is used to our advantage.

To me his opposition is pure politics not a lack of facts.  He's a leading republican in the state and the 3C project is something proposed by Strickland.  So as a good republican in an election year he opposes the project since they want to create the 3C as a total debacle to hang around Strickland's neck.  If that is his party's strategy do you think he is wanting to see a holistic picture of the purpose of 3C rather than seeing this as a Democrat(Strickland) wanting to spend more money on something most of his North Central Ohio republican constituents will never ride? 

Maybe a one-size-fits-all model isn't the best way to assess this market.

 

On what basis are you claiming that the model used by Amtrak was a "one-size-fits-all" model? Transportation planning models are designed to be dynamic to address the differences between various proposed projects. More to the point, if you are going to argue, as Harris does, that the model is inaccurate in its projections you should be prepared to point out why you think that it is.

 

Simply saying "no one will ride it" and "it'll cost to much" may be playing to a certain constituency who would rather let someone else do their thinking for them but we are paying our politicians to make informed decisions, not decisions which ignore what data we do have in favor of an ideology.

 

As I said, there are various projection models used by transportation planners which are widely accepted both by engineers and by zoning and planning boards. If Harris wants to point to a method that he considers more accurate for Ohio let him do so and be prepared to defend it. Right now he is simply criticizing something with which he does not agree but has no basis in fact to argue.

 

Instead of accepting your approach that we should be looking to sell 3C on other grounds why aren't we (meaning the citizens of Ohio) forcing the politicians to acknowledge what we already have done (and paid for), and provide us with reasoned and informed criticism, if they are capable of it.

 

 

To me his opposition is pure politics not a lack of facts. He's a leading republican in the state and the 3C project is something proposed by Strickland.

 

Actually, as noted by others, 3C was first proposed by a Republican administration.

 

That is the real irony, as are the number of politicians who were in favor of TARP until they opposed it.

 

 

  "We are paying our politicians to make informed decisions."

 

  I disagree completely. We are paying politicians to maximize their support in elections. Politicians do not necessarily make rational decisions. That's how a democracy works. It's not the fault of the politician.

 

  Politicians tend to follow the wishes of the median voter, not the most informed voter. Politicians can pretty much ignore any scientific projections concerning the 3-C, good or bad. But you can bet that they will not ignore opinion polls, petition drives, rallys, conventions, letter writing campaigns, political endorsements, party lines, etc.

^Good civics lesson..  You forgot political donor$..  Its the way the system is set up.  In an ideal world we would have people making informed decisions for us but those are administrators not politicians.  I would say that if there is nothing political pushing them then they may go for the informed choice.  Its probably important to realize that its the "will of the people" the politicians are focused on.  Its a very bold politician that goes against that. 

  That's what makes 3C so tricky to implement is that there are so many politicians in the state house that will not be directly affected by it.  Of course, there are those that will and still do not see the benefit or rather play political football with it and punt.

 

  I believe that the gubernatorial election will be a de facto referendum on 3C. 

 

  "We are paying our politicians to make informed decisions."

 

  I disagree completely. We are paying politicians to maximize their support in elections. Politicians do not necessarily make rational decisions. That's how a democracy works. It's not the fault of the politician.

 

Perhaps a little James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, could be of help here:

 

A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.

 

Seems to me he would have disagreed with you.

 

 

 

  No, I agree with Madison. What he is saying is that a democracy with an uneducated electorate will not function properly.

 

 

 

  No, I agree with Madison. What he is saying is that a democracy with an uneducated electorate will not function properly.

 

 

 

And that's why our country is a representative republic instead of a direct democracy.  The duty of the representatives is SUPPOSED to be to make the informed decisions the generally stupid populace doesn't understand is to their own benefit.  That doesn't mean it works that way in practice, but that's the intent. 

if you are going to argue, as Harris does, that the model is inaccurate in its projections you should be prepared to point out why you think that it is.

 

I haven't argued that.  I'm also not in the senate, so my opinion is of minimal importance.  I'm just trying to find a way to get this thing done.  Our elected legislature is wholly within its rights to discount a report or a projection they find insufficient for whatever reason.  In this case there is at least some conflict of interest apparent, so the legislature's reasoning is not difficult to surmise.

 

Instead of accepting your approach that we should be looking to sell 3C on other grounds why aren't we (meaning the citizens of Ohio) forcing the politicians to acknowledge what we already have done (and paid for), and provide us with reasoned and informed criticism, if they are capable of it.

 

What you're suggesting bears no relation to the American political process.  If you don't like the current senate, campaign against them, or campaign in favor of candidates you prefer.  But we can't dictate to the senate what arguments they should accept, and we won't get far by throwing up the same argument again and again.  I'm suggesting we get creative.  I'm suggesting we don't paint ourselves into a corner or refuse to examine alternatives.  These are only suggestions.  You're welcome to reject them. 

Isn't there a politics thread somewhere?  :-D

 

    Sure there is, but how could you separate the 3-C from politics?

 

    Alternatively, we could discuss the 3-C in the politial threads.  :-D

It's not on Harris to offer proof... that burden belongs to our side, the side wanting money to do stuff with.

 

I disagree.  If you're going to keep blathering about doubts and concerns you need to say on what facts those doubts and concerns are based.  He and most politicians know the media just doesn't do much digging or go into much depth with questions anymore.  All he's trying to do is conduct a PR campaign, not discuss the project on any sort of rational basis.

 

    Sure there is, but how could you separate the 3-C from politics?

 

    Alternatively, we could discuss the 3-C in the politial threads.  :-D

 

Brilliant. :laugh:

Here's the issue in providing the information to our elected officials... There is a set federal approach for conducting the analysis and planning for a federally funded project. Ohio must abide by that if it is to use federal funds for this or any other project. None of the questions that have been raised by Harris & Co. for the 3C project have been raised for highway projects of a much larger magnitude and potential threat to ODOT's budget in having to sustain them. In fact, ODOT has no way to financially sustain the infrastructure that will be created by the $9.2 billion in 3C highway projects that are due to be built over the next five years. But they are proceeding with them -- no questions asked.

 

Additionally, Amtrak takes the same approach in responding to all state-initiated requests for developing the planning of new rail services. Most states respond to those plans by paying Amtrak to operate those services. If states don't want to pay Amtrak or if they prefer Amtrak to take a different planning approach with them, then they don't get train services. Amtrak has enough requests for new services that they're not going to give extra time and special considerations to a state like Ohio with which it lacks a history of productive partnerships. Ohio has only jerked Amtrak around in the past by requesting study after study but never paying for any service.

 

So either Ohio plays by the same Amtrak rules every other state plays (and pays) by, or it stays out of the passenger rail club. Maybe Harris & Co. think Ohio is smarter than other states. I doubt that, given Ohio's record of economic development and job creation over the past 40 years. Instead, I think Harris & Co. are either in denial or they care only about their own personal ambitions than the future of Ohio.

 

Their behavior is why I changed the tag line at the bottom of my message... "History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside."--John F. Kennedy

This has implications for the Ohio Hub and Midwest Regional Rail initiatives:

 

CSX, New York State move ahead on HSR     

Tuesday, June 01, 2010 

Railway Age Magazine

 

CSX officials have confirmed press reports of an accord between the Class I railroad and New York State on implementing HrSR (higher speed rail) along the Empire Corridor, which links Buffalo, Albany, and New York City.

 

CSX is the owner of most of the route’s right-of-way, including between Buffalo and Schenectady, where the state is focusing on improving speeds from 79 mph to 110 mph. The agreement does not specify a 110 mph target; however CSX has suggested 90 mph would be more readily attainable. Amtrak trains south of Albany reach 110 mph for a short distance.

 

Full story at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/csx-new-york-state-move-ahead-on-hsr.html

 

Additionally, Amtrak takes the same approach in responding to all state-initiated requests for developing the planning of new rail services. Most states respond to those plans by paying Amtrak to operate those services. If states don't want to pay Amtrak or if they prefer Amtrak to take a different planning approach with them, then they don't get train services. Amtrak has enough requests for new services that they're not going to give extra time and special considerations to a state like Ohio with which it lacks a history of productive partnerships. Ohio has only jerked Amtrak around in the past by requesting study after study but never paying for any service.

 

So either Ohio plays by the same Amtrak rules every other state plays (and pays) by, or it stays out of the passenger rail club. Maybe Harris & Co. think Ohio is smarter than other states. I doubt that, given Ohio's record of economic development and job creation over the past 40 years. Instead, I think Harris & Co. are either in denial or they care only about their own personal ambitions than the future of Ohio.

 

Their behavior is why I changed the tag line at the bottom of my message... "History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside."--John F. Kennedy

 

Well put. Ohio is on a collision course with reality and reality will win.

Good article from Advertising Age on not only changing driving habits among YP's, but also how they are preferring other modes like passenger rail....

 

Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture?

Shift Toward Fewer Young Drivers Could Have Repercussions for All Marketers

By Jack Neff

 

Published: May 31, 2010

 

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The internet has wreaked havoc on the music industry, airlines and media, but it just may be doing the same thing to automobiles.

 

It's a rarely acknowledged transformational shift that's been going on under the noses of marketers for as long as 15 years: The automobile, once a rite of passage for American youth, is becoming less relevant to a growing number of people under 30. And that could have broad implications for marketers in industries far beyond insurance, gasoline and retail.

 

Full story and graphics at: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155

Very interesting article (and seems well balanced which is a pleasure these days).

So either Ohio plays by the same Amtrak rules every other state plays (and pays) by, or it stays out of the passenger rail club.

 

That sounds quite elitist and inflexible. Let's say Ohio entered some parallel universe where the republican contingent really was interested in rail, but were truly opposed to Amtrack's methods. How would Ohio build a system? Would it even be possible without entirely new ROW?

Amtrak isn't exactly a strong brand.  I really don't think that's the paradigm we need to be basing our rail revolution around.

Has anyone thought that maybe the Republicans are opposed to it because as proposed the 3-C would provide no benefit to anyone other than people who don't already drive?  The "hi-speed" train is going to go sub 70 mph.  Trips will take longer than if by car.  And be almost as expensive as flying.  Half the problem with the new proposed rail in every state is that they are trying to use existing infrastructure. 

 

Maybe arguing against the number of riders and revenue generated is a way for Republicans to attack a bad idea and get public opposition to a very flawed plan.

 

 

 

  I think Republicans are generally opposed to it because they see it as an unnecessary government service. In the eyes of the replublicans, it should be operated by a private company. If a private company can't operate the system at a profit, then neither can the government.

 

  Granted, this is not consistent with their attitude toward highways, but that's how it is.

Has anyone thought that maybe the Republicans are opposed to it because as proposed the 3-C would provide no benefit to anyone other than people who don't already drive? The "hi-speed" train is going to go sub 70 mph. Trips will take longer than if by car. And be almost as expensive as flying. Half the problem with the new proposed rail in every state is that they are trying to use existing infrastructure.

 

Maybe arguing against the number of riders and revenue generated is a way for Republicans to attack a bad idea and get public opposition to a very flawed plan.

 

Your lack of information on this issue is appalling. Half of the 6.8 million residents of the 3C Corridor face driving restrictions of some kind, be they of age, income or disability. Thanks for thinking of them before considering the value of adding a usable intercity public transportation system to Ohio. :x

 

It will go 79 mph.

 

Its fares will be $42-70 round trip, or less than the $47-93 by bus, $275 by car and $628 by air.

 

Most of the beneift of rail services in other states is that there is privately owned infrastructure that's already available. How many billions of dollars do you think it would take to replicate this already existing investment?!?! Why should government build a rail corridor to parallel and therefore reduce the value of the private one that's already there? Why not enhance that existing corridor instead?

 

Do you know why Warren Buffet is investing big time in railroads? Two major reasons: 1. because he doesn't believe elected officials have the bravery to raise gas taxes to sustain a crumbling highway system while railroad infrastructure is privately owned and 2. because the stability oil is an issue of increasing concern to the nation's transportation system and railroads are particularly energy efficient.

 

As for Amtrak not being a stable brand, that is a matter for Congress to waive their status as a legal monopoly. Amtrak has federally backed liability insurance and a right of access to use any privately owned railroad infastructure in the U.S. Amtrak is elitist and inflexible. If you don't like it but want passenger trains in America (regardless of speed), write to your Congressperson.

 

In the meantime, please share these with your friends....

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Talking%20points-travelers-AllAboardOhio.pdf

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Talking%20points-policymakers-AllAboardOhio.pdf

$272 by car? In my 2006 Toyota RAV4, using my average 24 MPG, traveling from Cincinnati to Columbus via Interstate 71 (247 miles), I will spend a little over $41 in gasoline round trip. Unless car parking fees are outrageous in Cleveland, I can't see how I could spend $272 driving even in my other 2003 Nissan Pathfinder.

 

And I can't even find a fare remotely close to $628 from CVG to CLE. I can't even inch above $100 round trip. What figures are you using KJP?

Cincinnati to Cleveland is about 250 miles to drive, so round trip that's about 500.  It costs about $0.50 per mile to drive a car, that's why Federal mileage reimbursement is set around that number (I think it's closer to $0.55 but whatever).  That's where the number for driving comes from.  It has nothing to do with parking, it's gas, regular maintenance (oil, brake pads, fluids, spark plugs, belts, tires, alignments, suspension, etc.), insurance, depreciation, everything. 

 

I won't pretend to have done much checking on air fares, but a round trip fare from Cincinnati to Cleveland, booked two weeks in advance on Delta is $370. 

Thanks, using that then, my cost would be $217 by those guidelines. I just tallied up all of my insurance data, my repair costs (which I keep in a database), et. al, and my actual cost for that trip would be $75.

 

For airfare, I found airfare from CVG to CLE, booked in advance, for $258. But I also found bargin airfare, for roundtrip, for $120.

Again, AAA is 56.6 cents per mile average...

http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201048935480.Driving%20Costs%202010.pdf

 

IRS pegs it at 50 cents per mile...

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=216048,00.html

 

The air, bus and rail fare data was collected in March 2010 and assumed a two weeks advanced notice. Business travelers may book their trips with less advanced notice; leisure travelers may book their trips with more...

 

If I booked a trip today (June 2) on Delta.com for a same-day business trip two weeks from now (June 16) from Cleveland to Cincinnati, the cheapest round-trip fare plus taxes/fees is $661.90.

I've owned several cars that cost less than $661.90, all of which could make it across Ohio.  At least once. 

 

Nobody is going to pay $661.90 to fly from Cleveland to Cincinnati.  They'd drive.  3C's competition isn't air travel, when driving is so much cheaper... and its market isn't business travellers, when driving is so much more effective in Ohio. 

 

That $.50/mile figure isn't applicable here.  It's not an IRS "car vs. train" number, that's not what it was calculated for.  The fixed costs of the car are sunk costs, so they're in play only if you could seriously live car-free within 3C's market.  It's pretty tough to do that.  So 3C fares, plus the costs of getting around on both ends, are competing with the car's variable costs alone.  As the size of the group travelling together increases, the cost comparison increasingly favors the car, since the car doesn't charge per head.     

That $.50 per mile is NOT sunk costs.  Nowhere in the breakdown of what goes into it was purchase/lease payments.  It's about the wearing down and maintenance costs of the vehicle that is incurred by driving it.  Not everything is fixed, a car still depreciates if you don't drive it, and you still pay insurance, but those things are exacerbated when you do.  The rest of the factors in that $.50 are a direct fraction of routine maintenance and fuel costs.  The whole reason mileage reimbursement for business travel is set at that number is because that's really what it really costs to drive.  It is completely applicable here. 

I actually went back and dug up all of my records, and that of my prior vehicle (2001 Honda Civic), and I cannot come anywhere NEAR close to .50/mile cost for driving, even after adding fuel, insurance and maintenance. I can't even get it to peak over .20/mile. Combined, I've put on nearly 300,000 miles, and incurred no major breakdowns outside of a transmission failure, and a very minor resetting of the muffler after I ran over a deer carcass. That also includes one frontal accident ($4,000+) that actually lowered my insurance rates (at the age of 20) at my fault, and one rear accident ($4,000+) that slightly raised my insurance rates (at the age of 24) that was not my fault.

 

I actually went over this with Xavier on a conference trip to Charlottesville, Va. last year. I wanted to drive my own vehicle because I had planned on taking off two extra days to do some hiking at Dolly Sods. But even after I went to our Budgeting office and went over the numbers, and where they proved to me it would be cheaper if I did drive, I was forced to take a Chevrolet Impala. And boy, did I beat the hell out of that car on the dirt roads -- it was covered in mud and had dirt in the car's seams when it came back.

 

  I just looked up in the Used Car Buying Guide what miles are worth. They say to allow for 15,000 miles per year, and anything over that should reduce the value of a used car by 1% for every 1000 miles.

 

  So, a 5 year old used car is expected to have 75,000 miles on it. Suppose that it is worth $8,000.

 

  The same car with 1 additional trip between Cincinnati and Cleveland and back will have 75,500 miles on it and be worth $40 less. That's $0.08 per mile.

The IRS figure for business use involves different factors than those involved in choosing to take the train over driving your own car.  In the IRS scenario, your employer is compensating you for everything involving the car, including a fraction of the ownership, the insurance and what not.  That's because the business is fully utilizing the car on those miles.  It covers all of the costs 1:1, in theory.

 

But if your car sits at home while you take the train, you still incur a lot of those fixed costs without compensation.  You aren't passing them off on your employer.  You're eating them... in addition to the train fare and its associated costs.  The only car-related costs you don't eat are the varable costs tied to that trip.  On those you get a 1:1 return, but not on the fixed costs.  Unlike in the IRS scenario, those unavoidable fixed costs are a loss.  That's why you wouldn't use the IRS figure for a 3C comparison.  3C isn't trying to compensate you for ownership or insurance on the car.  But you're still paying them while you use 3C.

 

Of course, this all presumes that 3C + whatever (rental car(s), local transit, taxi) will be competitive in utility, not just cost.  Business travel requires speed and flexibility, often more of each than Ohio's current transit situation can offer.  That's another reason I don't think the IRS business use figure is applicable here.  The percantage of business trips vs. all 3C trips is likely to be low.  Non-business trips on 3C aren't nearly as likely to be solo, which brings the per-head aspect into it.  The IRS figure doesn't account for extra passengers costing more... because in a car, they don't.

We're missing some important things here. We're applying our own experience to those of all current and potential 3C travelers.

 

I have several friends who are married with driving-age kids who live at home and have one car for their household. When my friends travel downstate (like most people, they travel alone), that household become a no-car household. One of those friends owns a car he would never risk taking on long-distance drives because he doesn't want to be stranded if (or more likely when) it breaks down. Greyhound service sucks and is getting worse, despite Greyhound having to overbook its services. This is a major intercity travel corridor -- one of the busiest in Ohio and has some of the worst public transportation options between its cities. The offerings are truly pathetic for a supposedly first-world economy that was the 13th most productive in the world in the 1970s but has since slipped to 25th.

 

If we are content to strand and isolate Ohioans, that's fine. Then don't be surprised if our 46th out of 50 states ranking in new job creation stays the same or gets worse. Ditto for our stagnant population growth over the past 40 years. If this is the status quo we desire to protect for our state by keeping our residents isolated from education, jobs or simply experiencing the rest of their state, then I don't want to be a part of this state anymore. I could easily do the popular thing and leave, but I have a lot invested here. And I remain hopeful that Ohio will smarten up and seek to equal or exceed the competition posed by other states.

 

  Riding the bus to work costs about 10% of the cost of driving, yet most people drive. Obviously, non-monetary costs such as lost time, flexibility, etc., mean a lot to most people.

Costs of driving just aren't a good argument in favor of 3C.  In fact, the less said about that the better.  It's really not favorable at all.  There are plenty of other trees to bark up.

A couple of years ago, Cleveland RTA asked its park-n-ride bus and rail passengers if they had a choice in how to travel. For those that did, they asked them why they take transit. Most said it was because of cost savings.

 

But again, not everyone has a choice. Consider this: if ODOT used 8.5 percent (the portion of driving-age Ohioans who don't have cars) of its $1.2 billion annual subsidy for the highway system to spend on Trains & Transit, Ohio would be spending $102 million per year for Trains & Transit -- not $10 million as it currently does.

 

Then add in those who still have driver's licenses but are too old to safely drive at highway speeds and/or over long distances. Then add in the households where one car is shared among multiple drivers. Then add in college students who may have a license but don't have a car. Still think we should be spending just $10 million per year on intercity and intracity public transportation in Ohio when our neighboring states are spending five, 10, 20 times more?

Then add in those who still have driver's licenses but are too old to safely drive at highway speeds and/or over long distances. Then add in the households where one car is shared among multiple drivers. Then add in college students who may have a license but don't have a car. Still think we should be spending just $10 million per year on intercity and intracity public transportation in Ohio when our neighboring states are spending five, 10, 20 times more?

 

Target markets!  Music to my ears.

I actually went back and dug up all of my records, and that of my prior vehicle (2001 Honda Civic), and I cannot come anywhere NEAR close to .50/mile cost for driving, even after adding fuel, insurance and maintenance. I can't even get it to peak over .20/mile. Combined, I've put on nearly 300,000 miles, and incurred no major breakdowns outside of a transmission failure, and a very minor resetting of the muffler after I ran over a deer carcass. That also includes one frontal accident ($4,000+) that actually lowered my insurance rates (at the age of 20) at my fault, and one rear accident ($4,000+) that slightly raised my insurance rates (at the age of 24) that was not my fault.

 

I actually went over this with Xavier on a conference trip to Charlottesville, Va. last year. I wanted to drive my own vehicle because I had planned on taking off two extra days to do some hiking at Dolly Sods. But even after I went to our Budgeting office and went over the numbers, and where they proved to me it would be cheaper if I did drive, I was forced to take a Chevrolet Impala. And boy, did I beat the hell out of that car on the dirt roads -- it was covered in mud and had dirt in the car's seams when it came back.

 

The 50c per mile includes depreciation

 

  A $25,000 car that travels 125,000 miles in its life averages $0.20 per mile for depreciation. That's almost half of the cost.

 

 

So I got to ride in the private rail car of the Cincinnati Dinner Train with its owner (also majority shareholder in the Lebanon, Mason & Monroe Railroad), the Midwest Regional Vice President of RailAmerica, and General Manager of the Indiana & Ohio Railway.  If you haven't tried it, I highly recommend it.  The food is excellent, made by the folks at BBQ Revue, and the restored dining cars are fantastic.  Piggybacking this sort of thing on 3-C trains would be awesome. 

 

Anyway, I was able to get some confirmation from them that the Bond Hill station is in fact (at least at this point) planned to be at Berry Yard.  That's right next to the I-75/Norwood Lateral interchange.  The trip also illustrated the challenges that would be faced for any Lunken or Boathouse alignment.  While the ride wasn't at all bad, as the train was going quite slow, it still revealed that any sort of passenger rail alignment through there would be winding through a pretty difficult route.  We went from BBQ Revue north for a short distance to park over I-71 for a few minutes before heading all the way to the Boathouse and back.  That was a 3 hour journey.  The return trip was a bit faster, and we actually could pick up a fair amount of speed north of Columbia Parkway, but there's a lot of grade crossing, a rough turn near Lunken, and areas where back roads (with houses on them) are almost on top of the tracks.  It would be a lot of work to really get it into shape for any serious passenger movements.  These three guys agree that Union Terminal is the place for the passenger station, and as they put it, the only problem is having to deal with CSX and NS. 

 

Also, the construction that's been going on just east of the Friendship Park is for some new bulk freight transshipping facilities.  The existing barge terminal there wants to expand its operations to offload things like pig iron to rail cars, so it would actually benefit I&O and the Oasis line by adding some more freight shipments to the line.