October 12, 201014 yr The Enquirer is working on a 3C article. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 12, 201014 yr Another goofy piece from the Examiner whose tubular rail writer needs his head examined. BTW, the Milwaukee streetcar died when the county executive now running for Wisconsin governor took the streetcar project's money and gave it to a highway project. Do you think the omission of a comment section is intentional? lol
October 13, 201014 yr Do you think the omission of a comment section is intentional? lol Don't know. I've never made it far enough into an Examiner article to see if there is a comment section. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 13, 201014 yr Do you think the omission of a comment section is intentional? lol Don't know. I've never made it far enough into an Examiner article to see if there is a comment section. He is a horrible writer. His train of thought never made it onto the tracks.
October 13, 201014 yr ^ Remember: Spinelli is a promoter for a manufacturer of a Personal Rapid Transit system. He is hardly an unbiased observer.
October 13, 201014 yr Let's throw the brakes on proposed 3C train http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101010/EDIT02/10100336/Let-s-throw-the-brakes-on-proposed-3C-train Proponents of building the passenger rail linking Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus argue that Ohioans will be driven to take the train if gas prices rise. They believe "investing" in the train now will save people gas money later. Based on the data, the opposite is true. If gas prices increase, Ohioans not only will spend more on gas, they will also spend a significant amount of money subsidizing a slow train that very few people will ride. Before tackling the gas issue, it is important to note the costs associated with the passenger rail as estimated by the Ohio Department of Transportation. First, building the rail will cost $517.6 million, with $400 million coming from the federal government and $117.6 million from Ohio taxpayers. Second, the annual subsidy required to sustain train operations will be $12.7 million, or roughly 16.1 cents per passenger per mile if the expected 478,000 people ride annually. If ODOT correctly estimates the railway distance between Cincinnati and Cleveland at 256 miles, the train will require an $82.44 subsidy per round-trip ticket. If Amtrak charges consumers 14 cents per mile, as it typically does between Midwest cities, each passenger will pay $71.68 for a Cincinnati/Cleveland round-trip ticket. Thus, using ODOT's estimates, the total round-trip cost (fare plus subsidy) will be $154.12. However, based on the cost of the two other Amtrak lines running through Ohio, the subsidy per passenger mile is likely to be 25 cents per mile, or 36 cents per mile when long-term expenses are taken into consideration. If the needed subsidy truly is 36 cents per passenger mile, the subsidy will jump to $184.32 per round-trip ticket, bringing the total cost per ticket to $256, or 50 cents per passenger mile. Hopefully someone will write a rebuttal for this one. While she correctly denotes that cost will be a major factor in taking a train trip, she is comparing the cost per mile of the train (that includes op costs, fuel and depreciation of capital) to only the fuel costs of driving. If we use the current IRS per mile write-off of driving at 0.45c then it competes with the worst case 50c/mile for fare+subsidy. It should be noted the IRS rate does NOT include maintenance to the facility (highway), or does it -- via inclusion of fuel costs + fuel tax in that rate? [Edited per fair use guidelines]
October 13, 201014 yr Let's throw the brakes on proposed 3C train http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101010/EDIT02/10100336/Let-s-throw-the-brakes-on-proposed-3C-train Proponents of building the passenger rail linking Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus argue that Ohioans will be driven to take the train if gas prices rise. They believe "investing" in the train now will save people gas money later. Based on the data, the opposite is true. If gas prices increase, Ohioans not only will spend more on gas, they will also spend a significant amount of money subsidizing a slow train that very few people will ride. Before tackling the gas issue, it is important to note the costs associated with the passenger rail as estimated by the Ohio Department of Transportation. First, building the rail will cost $517.6 million, with $400 million coming from the federal government and $117.6 million from Ohio taxpayers. Second, the annual subsidy required to sustain train operations will be $12.7 million, or roughly 16.1 cents per passenger per mile if the expected 478,000 people ride annually. If ODOT correctly estimates the railway distance between Cincinnati and Cleveland at 256 miles, the train will require an $82.44 subsidy per round-trip ticket. If Amtrak charges consumers 14 cents per mile, as it typically does between Midwest cities, each passenger will pay $71.68 for a Cincinnati/Cleveland round-trip ticket. Thus, using ODOT's estimates, the total round-trip cost (fare plus subsidy) will be $154.12. However, based on the cost of the two other Amtrak lines running through Ohio, the subsidy per passenger mile is likely to be 25 cents per mile, or 36 cents per mile when long-term expenses are taken into consideration. If the needed subsidy truly is 36 cents per passenger mile, the subsidy will jump to $184.32 per round-trip ticket, bringing the total cost per ticket to $256, or 50 cents per passenger mile. Hopefully someone will write a rebuttal for this one. While she correctly denotes that cost will be a major factor in taking a train trip, she is comparing the cost per mile of the train (that includes op costs, fuel and depreciation of capital) to only the fuel costs of driving. If we use the current IRS per mile write-off of driving at 0.45c then it competes with the worst case 50c/mile for fare+subsidy. It should be noted the IRS rate does NOT include maintenance to the facility (highway), or does it -- via inclusion of fuel costs + fuel tax in that rate? I support rail travel and this project but these costs discussions of how it's comprable kind of bother me b/c they are framed in a biased manner. When comparing the cost of driving vs. the cost of taking the train, it's often said that the cost of driving is not simply the cost of gas. And I agree that overall the cost of driving is more than simply how much you pay in fuel as you do pay to own and operate your vehicle. However the costs of taking the train vs. driving your car using the models shown here really only apply if you compare taking a train vs NOT owning a car and attempting to drive. Because if you already own a car, your cost per mile of driving may be $0.45 per mile, but your cost of taking the train is not simply the per mile cost of taking the train. It's the per mile cost of taking the train + the cost of owning your car. Because much of that cost you're adding to get the "true" cost of driving is going to be paid for whether you drive or not. The incremental cost of driving is actually closer to just what the cost of fuel is + plus whatever you want to allocate to mileage wear and tear. So I don't think the cost agument is really going to "stick" with people not supporting rail projects. I mentioned this project would get significantly more support if ODOT was making a shift in philosophy of general spending to balance out roads and rail transit, but I haven't seen that commitment yet. That's where the real argument lies. Get to the point where people don't need to own a car - or at least a household only needs 1 car instead of 2 - and this will start to gain some traction on the "it's cheaper" front.
October 13, 201014 yr That $0.45 per mile does not include the cost of the car though. It covers gas, routine maintenance (tires, oil changes, fluids, general wear and tear), and depreciation of the vehicle. I don't think insurance costs are factored in, which tend to be a bit more inelastic. So while I agree that many people don't really believe the $0.45 figure, it's only because they don't understand it. Comparing trips should also be done on a door-to-door basis as well. Since a train trip is generally geared towards taking people to/from downtown areas, getting to/from those stations to the final destination does also need to be considered. Parking prices need to be in the equation when talking about a car trip, which is almost always forgotten. Cab or bus fares need to be factored into the train trip too. Keep in mind however, that with trains being a downtown-focused mode, it's less likely that someone might need to take a cab or a train or a rental car, and even if they do the costs would be fairly small due to the shorter distances.
October 13, 201014 yr Here's an interesting chart: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_03_14.html So, according to the USDOT, the average variable cost of driving is 16.74 cents per mile. The USDOT includes depreciation, which could be considered a partially variable cost since, if you drive a car less, you wear it out less. The costs associated with the acquisition of a car is a fixed cost too, but again if you drive a car less you don't have to purchase a new car as often. But my employer reimburses me at 50 cents per mile for driving, so they will most certainly want me to take the train -- if it existed. Midwest rail fares typically fall into the range of 8 to 14 cents per mile. I suspect 3C's will too. BTW, Mary McCleary is a policy analyst at the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a "stink tank." They like to raise awareness of small subsidies for rail while ignoring far larger subsidies for roads and highways. Why would a so-called "free market think tank" do this? Follow the money. The organizations from which they get funding in turn get their funding from right-wing foundations that made their money from oil, asphalt and other petroleum-based products. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 13, 201014 yr Just to put the numbers out there. If you break down the AAA data for gas, maintenance, and depreciation by annual mileage 10,000 mi = $0.47/mi 15,000 mi = $0.38/mi 20,000 mi = $0.34/mi Full cost per mile is 10,000 mi = $0.71/mi 15,000 mi = $0.54/mi 20,000 mi = $0.45/mi
October 13, 201014 yr Talkin' About A Rail-Volution? By Fawn Johnson Correspondent, National Journal Train talk is busting out all over the place. Next Monday, bicycle enthusiast Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., will convene the annual three-day Rail-Volution conference in Portland, Ore., designed to bring together people who are "passionate" about using street cars and commuter trains to create "livable communities." And last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® shuttered construction of a major commuter train tunnel to Manhattan, citing lack of funding. Because the federal pledge for the project came out of the Transportation Department's New Starts project, the $300 million New Jersey has already spent for the tunnel will have to be refunded to federal coffers, according to the state's two senators. Full story at: http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/talkin-about-a-railvolution.php
October 13, 201014 yr Another possible source of funding opening up for passenger rail projects? USDOT proposes new guidelines for RRIF program, ASLRRA says The U.S. Department of Transportation recently proposed new guidelines for the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program, according to an item in the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association’s “View & News” newsletter issued yesterday. The new guidelines would promote greater usage of the program and meet a broader array of rail development needs. Full story at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=24769
October 13, 201014 yr Another possible source of funding opening up for passenger rail projects? USDOT proposes new guidelines for RRIF program, ASLRRA says The U.S. Department of Transportation recently proposed new guidelines for the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program, according to an item in the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Associations View & News newsletter issued yesterday. The new guidelines would promote greater usage of the program and meet a broader array of rail development needs. Full story at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=24769 If NEPA was streamlined, they might get more applications. The program is younger (eight years) than the average timeline (10 years) it takes for a project to go through the NEPA process. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 13, 201014 yr Moderator Note Please be mindful of Fair Use when quoting articles from other news sources. Copying and pasting an entire article is strictly verboten. If you have any questions about what constitutes Fair Use, contact an Admin.
October 13, 201014 yr ^ Glad I got there before the edit. Now I don't have to grace the propaganda with a click.
October 13, 201014 yr So the Republican and other opponents of this project are failing (wilfully or not) to see the big picture - the long term goals of this project - and are basing their opposition on what they forecast as the immediate impact/implications. I don't want to ever again hear the term 'trickle down economics' from these folks' mouths.
October 13, 201014 yr That $0.45 per mile does not include the cost of the car though. It covers gas, routine maintenance (tires, oil changes, fluids, general wear and tear), and depreciation of the vehicle. I don't think insurance costs are factored in, which tend to be a bit more inelastic. So while I agree that many people don't really believe the $0.45 figure, it's only because they don't understand it. Just a quick accounting note...depreciation is an accounting construct to allocate the cost of an asset (like a vehicle) over its useful life. So really, depreciation is capturing the cost of the vehicle over a fixed time period, or as a function of its use, rather than recognizing the expense upfront at acquisition. Ok, lecture over.
October 13, 201014 yr That $0.45 per mile does not include the cost of the car though. It covers gas, routine maintenance (tires, oil changes, fluids, general wear and tear), and depreciation of the vehicle. I don't think insurance costs are factored in, which tend to be a bit more inelastic. So while I agree that many people don't really believe the $0.45 figure, it's only because they don't understand it. Just a quick accounting note...depreciation is an accounting construct to allocate the cost of an asset (like a vehicle) over its useful life. So really, depreciation is capturing the cost of the vehicle over a fixed time period, or as a function of its use, rather than recognizing the expense upfront at acquisition. Ok, lecture over. So? The point is that when you get mileage reimbursement, part of it is to compensate you for the reduced value of your vehicle by the fact that it has more miles on the odometer. The same factor is in play when driving for your own personal reasons, the more miles you put on it the lower its resale value, regardless of how well you maintain it.
October 13, 201014 yr Right, I was just addressing your comment that the .45 / mile doesn't address the cost of the car. If it includes depreciation in the calculation, then yes, it does, just on a pro-rated basis. If you're counting the depreciation expense and the upfront expense, you're double counting the cost of the vehicle.
October 14, 201014 yr The Enquirer is working on a 3C article. I'm sure they'll avoid exposing the GOP's election-year flip-flopping like every other paper has.
October 15, 201014 yr GLOBE EDITORIAL High-speed rail: If they don’t want it, we do October 10, 2010 If politicians in states such as California, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin can’t stomach the idea of a high-speed rail system, the Obama administration should redirect billions of federal dollars to where they belonged in the first place: the busy Northeastern corridor, where population density and public appreciation for train travel both run high. When the administration handed out $8 billion in rail grants, New England came up mostly short, landing a mere 2 percent of the money. Yet many of the big winners in this competition hardly seem grateful. As The New York Times reported last week, Republican candidates for governor in a number of states are campaigning against the rail projects their states received gobs of federal money to build. Full editorial at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/10/10/high_speed_rail_if_they_dont_want_it_we_do/
October 15, 201014 yr GLOBE EDITORIAL High-speed rail: If they don’t want it, we do October 10, 2010 If politicians in states such as California, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin can’t stomach the idea of a high-speed rail system, the Obama administration should redirect billions of federal dollars to where they belonged in the first place: the busy Northeastern corridor, where population density and public appreciation for train travel both run high. When the administration handed out $8 billion in rail grants, New England came up mostly short, landing a mere 2 percent of the money. Yet many of the big winners in this competition hardly seem grateful. As The New York Times reported last week, Republican candidates for governor in a number of states are campaigning against the rail projects their states received gobs of federal money to build. Full editorial at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/10/10/high_speed_rail_if_they_dont_want_it_we_do/ At the end of the day, I think this should be the most compelling argument for the 3-C project. Oh, you don't want $400 million towards a project that the rest of the country is helping subsidize but will only be used in your state? Well, we can give it to someone else...and you can watch part of your tax dollars go to helping Boston upgrade their transit system. Focusing on the cost to ride, who will use it...you're not going to convince enough opponents to change their mind in your favor. You need to hammer down the "You want to turn down $400 million of federal funding in this economy? How is that positioning us for the next time the federal government is handing out money? As the state that's difficult to work with and doesn't support the US gov't ideas?"
October 15, 201014 yr Transportation secretary envisions nation connected by high-speed rail By Kyle Hansen Las Vegas Sun Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2010 | 11:54 p.m. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told a Las Vegas gathering of transportation officials from western states that he expects 80 percent of American cities to be connected by high-speed rail in 25 years. LaHood spoke Wednesday night at the opening reception of the Western High-Speed Rail Alliance conference, a group that was organized to promote the building of a high-speed rail system in Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. LaHood promised to support them in their efforts and said he expects success. “Because of what all of you are doing here and what’s going on in some other places in the country, I believe that 25 years from now, under our plan, 80 percent of America will be connected by high-speed intercity rail,” LaHood said. “It will cost $500 billion; it’s a huge investment, but we’re off to a great start. We really are.” Full story at: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/13/transportation-secretary-envisions-nation-connecte/
October 15, 201014 yr Don't Let America Be Late for the Economic Engine of High Speed Rail The National Resources Defense Council Blog President Obama met with transportation experts this week to discuss his proposed $50 billion plan for investing in America’s public transit, high speed rail, roads, and airports. Analysts concluded the plan will be an engine of economic growth. Not only will it support more than 7.2 million jobs, but it will also build an economy that fosters clean tech innovation, is less dependent on oil, and can compete with nations already investing in cleaner transportation. Yet despite these numerous benefits, several candidates running for governor oppose the administration’s effort to build more train service and high-speed rail lines. Full bloog post at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/dont_let_america_be_late_for_t.html
October 15, 201014 yr Transportation secretary envisions nation connected by high-speed rail By Kyle Hansen Las Vegas Sun Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2010 | 11:54 p.m. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told a Las Vegas gathering of transportation officials from western states that he expects 80 percent of American cities to be connected by high-speed rail in 25 years. LaHood spoke Wednesday night at the opening reception of the Western High-Speed Rail Alliance conference, a group that was organized to promote the building of a high-speed rail system in Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. LaHood promised to support them in their efforts and said he expects success. “Because of what all of you are doing here and what’s going on in some other places in the country, I believe that 25 years from now, under our plan, 80 percent of America will be connected by high-speed intercity rail,” LaHood said. “It will cost $500 billion; it’s a huge investment, but we’re off to a great start. We really are.” Full story at: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/13/transportation-secretary-envisions-nation-connecte/ Cheers! I'm all for this investment and setting a high goal, but what the heck does this mean? 80% of US municipalities will be connected? I don't think so. Is he talking about cities of 100,000 people, 1 million people, or what?
October 15, 201014 yr I assume there's some specific criteria whereby 80% of the people in the country will be within x number of miles of a rail stop.
October 15, 201014 yr I rank that video with a 7 or 8 out of 10. I wonder why the audio in the Tommy Thompson speech was so bad? So who is One Wisconsin, who funds them, and is there a similar group in Ohio that could fund such a video here in Ohio? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 15, 201014 yr High-speed rail: If they don’t want it, we do... the Obama administration should redirect billions of federal dollars to where they belonged in the first place: the busy Northeastern corridor, ...The NE megalopolis has way more traffic congestion than Ohio does. They probably do need the rail expansion more than we do.
October 15, 201014 yr I hate when rail projects are offered as a mop-up role for overburdened highways. I'd rather see them as instigators of land-use changes and creators of overall economic benefits. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 15, 201014 yr On of my co-workers, who lived in the suburbs and sat in traffic every day on the way to work, said, "Light rail would be great. It would get some of these cars of the highways!" I asked him, "Will YOU use it?" "It won't do me any good. It won't go anywhere near my house."
October 15, 201014 yr ^^http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/
October 16, 201014 yr Some guy from All Aboard Ohio wrote this op-ed that appeared in the Enquirer this morning...... Train foes have roads agenda By Ken Prendergast October 15, 2010 Once again, the Buckeye Institute reveals its love for the free market so long as its beloved highway monopoly is immune from liability while being lavished with billions annually in taxpayer subsidies. The latest example is "Let's throw the brakes on proposed 3C train" (Oct. 10) by Mary McCleary, policy analyst at the Buckeye Institute. It likes to raise awareness of small subsidies for rail while ignoring far larger subsidies for roads and highways. Why would a so-called "free market think tank" slam a proposed increase from zero dollars to $1.50 per Ohioan in annual subsidies for rail in Ohio while ignoring $110 per Ohioan in yearly taxpayer subsidies for highways? Follow the money. Buckeye gets funding from foundations that made their money from oil, asphalt and other petroleum-based products, according to the independent watchdog group Media Transparency. READ MORE AT: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101015/EDIT02/10160333/1019/EDIT/Train+foes+have+roads+agenda "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 16, 201014 yr FYI. This is being distributed mostly in Columbus where the event is being held. All are welcome.... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 16, 201014 yr ^^ What city is 361 E. Whittier St. in? That would probably be a helpful detail to add to the poster :-P
October 16, 201014 yr Expect train derailment with Kasich win By Barry M. Horstman • [email protected] • October 16, 2010 Despite a $400 million award from Washington to build it, a proposed passenger rail line linking Cincinnati to Columbus and Cleveland may never get out of the station if the Ohio governor's office changes hands next month. Whatever other changes in policies and priorities are at stake in the contest between Gov. Ted Strickland and Republican John Kasich, the most immediate tangible impact could be felt on the so-called 3C plan. With Strickland as strongly in favor of the plan as Kasich is adamantly opposed to it, whether the 255-mile line is developed - indeed, whether Ohio even accepts the $400 million in federal money - will be largely determined Nov. 2. Full story at: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101016/NEWS01/10170307/1196/NEWS/Kasich-win-Train-derailed?GID=NtT9mPMPa+Mb+zoVRRwYvVrKvWVx2YqVLHEZz8vfXkY%3D
October 17, 201014 yr I wish Strickland could successfully engage the freight companies who use these lines. If they would be willing to pony up some cash for annual 3C operations, they could get some stellar track improvements. And the major talking point opponents use (perpetual operations costs) would look even more absurd and insignificant. Are the freight companies really content to watch this thing die? There's probably a lot going on behind the scenes, but it seems like they would have a lot of power to help make this happen. Maybe they're waiting till the 11th hour, figuring they could negotiate with either Strickland or Kasich. With a little investment in the future, even more upgrades would likely fall into place down the road.
October 17, 201014 yr Are the freight companies really content to watch this thing die? Right question. Wrong targets. While the freight railroads would probably love to see some of the 3C's capital improvements, if they stepped up with funding to save a passenger rail project, they would be asked by all other states with projects to kick in funding for those projects too. That's a precedent they will never set unless they can somehow make the numbers work for their shareholders on a case-by-case basis. Amtrak would have to pay as much to use the freight railroads in the U.S. as VIA does to the freight railroads in Canada for the freight railroads to invest their own dollars in passenger rail. ^^ What city is 361 E. Whittier St. in? That would probably be a helpful detail to add to the poster :-P Fixed it. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 18, 201014 yr Excerpted from the Toledo Blade's endorsement of Gov. Strickland for re-election..... one reason why the Blade decided against endorsing Kasic... "Other elements of Mr. Kasich's platform also give pause. His opposition to a federally subsidized high-speed rail system for Ohio places ideology ahead of balanced consideration of its potential advantages." Full editorial at: http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20101017/OPINION02/10160374
October 18, 201014 yr I know Kasich is opposed to the current 3-C plan, has he offered any alternative plans for commuter rail?
October 18, 201014 yr I know Kasich is opposed to the current 3-C plan, has he offered any alternative plans for commuter rail? No, he opposes any government (monetary) support for passenger rail. He views it as something for private business. And if it isn't profitable as a private business then the people don't really want it that badly.
October 18, 201014 yr I really think that if Kasich refuses this money from the federal government, he will go down in history as one of the dumbest politicians ever.
October 18, 201014 yr I really think that if Kasich refuses this money from the federal government, he will go down in history as one of the dumbest politicians ever. That's whats mind-boggling to me....These are FEDERAL FUNDS he would be refusing! I know there will need to be some sort of subsidy to keep it up and running, but how much per Ohioan will that come out to be?
Create an account or sign in to comment