Ive heard that HSR will be a discussion point of the presidents 2012 budget.  Any chance this first phase midwest 220 line will be a part of it?  Chicago, Wisconsin and Ohio have obvious political advantages over other legs of the hub network.

 

I would hope that the budget doesn't specifically identify projects for funding -- sounds too much like an earmark. I'm hopeful that the reauthorization of the surface transportation spending law will include high-speed rail funding of sufficient size and vision to start planning for big projects like Midwest-East Coast HSR.

I understand that it hasn't been planned as yet, but this is going to cost an immense amount of money and it needs to be built for the America of 2050 or 2100, not 2030.

 

This project may cost $50 billion or more to build. It is reasonable that half of that cost be paid for by the federal government. That $25 billion represents:

 

> 3 months worth of federal spending on defending oil shipping lanes around the world (SOURCE: CIA), or

> 9 months of oil industry subsidies from the federal government (SOURCE: ICTA).

 

Actually, this project needs to happen by 2015 -- the forecast arrival of unprecedented and permanent oil shortages, projected by the Pentagon to be more than twice as severe as the brief Arab Oil Embargo in 1973. Of course this project won't get underway by then, and I question whether America's economy will even be able to afford major infrastructure projects anymore -- unless we reallocate funding from programs designed to keep us addicted to oil, including the $20 billion the federal government spends each year on adding new capacity to our already overbuilt highway and aviation systems.

Though the 3C project was killed off by our esteemed Governor (at least by proxy).... you might be interested in what the Stimulus Act did for passenger rail in the rest of the nation.

 

The following report has been issued by AASHTO (the Assocation of American State Highway & Transportation Officials:

http://www.amtrakdowneaster.com/sites/default/files/Passenger%20Rail%20Report_small.pdf

Also look for regular updates at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' web page on high-speed rail at:

 

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/

 

KJP - about Ohio being as dense as France:

 

Suppose you take the total population of Ohio and divide by the total land area. Then do the same for France. The density numbers may be similar. But that only shows part of the picture.

 

Take any railroad station or subway station in France. Draw a circle around it of one-half mile radius. You will find that some of these circles have very high density. I challenge you to find any such one-mile circles in Ohio.

 

France has pockets of very high density in between miles of farmland. Ohio has a lower, more even density across more area. The worlds are very different.

 

 

 

 

 

KJP - about Ohio being as dense as France:

Take any railroad station or subway station in France. Draw a circle around it of one-half mile radius. You will find that some of these circles have very high density. I challenge you to find any such one-mile circles in Ohio.

 

France has pockets of very high density in between miles of farmland. Ohio has a lower, more even density across more area. The worlds are very different.

 

The point being?

 

Transportation investments don't support the status quo, they evolve it. I worked in Washington DC before the beltway and the Metro. Most of the areas serviced were farmlands. No more!

 

People who point to population densities as a deciding factor simply don't understand transportation economics. "If you build it, they will come" was "Field of Dreams" logic but it made the Kroc's rich.

 

It has been known for over a century (except by American school children), that commercial investment follows transportation investment. The reason that the Robber Barons were so reviled was that they had the power to make and break communities.

 

Transportation does not follow development. It leads it. And it has ever since goods were no longer produced or consumed locally.

 

Perhaps that is where 3-C promoters failed. 3-C was not about supporting Ohioans. It was about transforming them into a modern economy.

 

I lived in DC before the Metro and I was able to observe how the Metro transformed DC into a major metropolitan force. Laying track told people where they could live. It didn't bother with where they did live.

 

It is stupid to compare TGV with Ohio's 3-C for hundreds of reasons (not the least of which is that Cincy is not Paris and Cleveland is not London). It is a fallacy. TGV was meant to move people from major metropolitan origin to major metropolitan destination, not to link the many communities along the route. But the fact is that France's (and Europe's and China's) investment was not, solely, in HSR between major metropolitan destinatioms, but also in local investment in lower speed feeder lines.

 

Comparing France to Ohio is ridiculous (except to people who have never lived and worked in both). That isn't the issue.

 

TGV was intended to do something very different than what 3-C and the Ohio Hub was intended to do. And the sad thing is that the Ohio Hub plan would have done much more for Ohio than TGV did for France.

 

Thank you, seanmcl. Well said. In short, the density of land use is a result of the density of the transportation mode serving it. Private capital typically follows public investment, be they Roman roads, improved harbors, canals, railways, streetcars/interurbans, interstates, airports and high-speed rail.

 

The comparing of Ohio to France is useful because Ohioans have such a inferiority complex about their state they don't view as deserving of passenger rail. When my predecessor told then-Gov. Bob Taft that Ohio had the same population density as France, he replied: "You're wrong!" Other replies I've received is that rail is only for those who deserve it, like: "That's only for the East Coast or Chicago." And how did those regions get dense and stay dense?

 

Sometimes when these people are asked to question such land use patterns, they seem to think they "just happen."

 

And, we can play lots of games with pictures. Like the dense, cosmopolitan juggernaut city of Moline, Illinois, on an Amtrak route that doesn't yet exist (but received more than $300 million in state and federal stimulus funding to create). And yet here is a relatively dense (for Moline?) station-area development funded and underway:

 

 

 

 

Or, at the opposite end, like this one of a high-density electric railway stopping at a resort town in Norway. Yep, love that density -- both immediately surrounding the station or nationwide (Norway as a population density of about 30 people per square mile, or 1/10th of Ohio's):

 

 

Or we can look at the 200-mph TGV Duplex arriving a ski resort in the French Alps, where the density (of snow?) is readily apparent:

 

 

The density that matters most is what exists within 1,000 feet of a train station. And there was every reason to expect that such density would either be sustained, augmented or created by the 3C investment:

: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/critics-say-losing-3c-will-cost-ohio-3critics-say-losing-3c-will-cost-ohio-3-billion-1043600.html

 

Maybe someday, when Ohio doesn't hide in fear from the essential ingredient of growth, we will witness it in our own backyards.

Obama's State of the Union: The facts about high-speed rails in the U.S.

By Larry Greenemeier | Jan 27, 2011 04:56 PM | 5

 

President Obama made several references to the development of high-speed railways in the U.S., during his State of the Union Address, and stated that one of his administration's goals is to, within 25 years, "give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail." In support of this goal—which would go a long way toward alleviating air and road traffic and its associated pollution—the Obama administration last year began doling out the $8 billion it had promised for such projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

 

Yet the creation of a number of high-speed railways scattered across the U.S., much less one system connecting the coasts, requires key infrastructure and technology commitments in addition to plenty of money—commitments that not everyone is ready to make at this time.

 

Full story at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=obamas-state-of-the-union-the-facts-2011-01-27

 

  Ohio is not growing (Ok, we are barely growing, but soon to peak and decline) in population.

 

  The only realistic way to make Ohio look more like Europe is to abandon suburban areas wholesale and move those people to high density areas near rail transit.

 

  To increase population density near rail stations without abandoning the suburbs implies increased population growth, which is something that we just don't have.

 

  Perhaps when gasoline becomes unaffordable, people will abandon the suburbs and populate the core again. Gramarye thinks that electric cars will save the day; KJP thinks that people will embrace electric rail again. I don't know what might happen; my best guess is that the suburbs will slowly deteriorate.

 

    But to think that a new rail station will automatically generate more growth is, in my humble opinion, unrealistically optimisitc. Ohio has an excellent transportation system and is not economically limited by transportation infrastructure, I think.

 

    To increase population density near rail stations without abandoning the suburbs implies increased population growth, which is something that we just don't have.

 

 

Ohio's sprawl over the last several decades has occurred without population growth, too. It was led by billions of highway dollars that paved and subsidized the way to the suburbs and moved people from the cities into economically and environmentally unsustainable patterns of development.  In 1950 the population of Cuyahoga County was 1,389,532 and the developed land took up about one-third of the county area. In 2000, the population was 1,393,978 (an increase of about 0.3 percent), and the developed area took up practically the entire county. With development spread out so much, it costs substantially more to provide the same public services to the same number of people. Rail and density would have saved the state billions of dollars over the years.

The greatest declines in population in Ohio (outside of the urban cores, but there is nothing distinct in Ohio's experience w/ that) is in Southeast and Eastern Ohio. There has been continued growth along the I-71 corridor and even along I-75 the population has held up quite well considering the changing economic health. Certainly sectors of Ohio have largely returned to a more rural state than they were from the late 19th through mid-20th century, however, the big urban areas are muddling through transformations in their economies.

 

Basicly, the urban core areas are losing population, the northwest and southeast corners of Ohio are losing population in general, and the suburban areas along the 3-C corridor are gaining population.

 

The trouble with new passenger rail is that a very high percentage of Ohioans can't even get out of their own subdivisions without driving.

 

One might say, "If they want to live in the suburbs, that's their choice, but how does that affect the 3-C?"

 

The way it affects the 3-C is that those suburbanites vote. If you wish to have the government provide rail transportation as a public service, you are fighting an uphill battle because 50% or more of voters live in suburbia and do not see the benefit of rail.

 

 

 

Basicly, the urban core areas are losing population, the northwest and southeast corners of Ohio are losing population in general, and the suburban areas along the 3-C corridor are gaining population.

 

The trouble with new passenger rail is that a very high percentage of Ohioans can't even get out of their own subdivisions without driving.

 

One might say, "If they want to live in the suburbs, that's their choice, but how does that affect the 3-C?"

 

The way it affects the 3-C is that those suburbanites vote. If you wish to have the government provide rail transportation as a public service, you are fighting an uphill battle because 50% or more of voters live in suburbia and do not see the benefit of rail.

 

 

 

 

That's really an issue best addressed by local transit and how it serves....or fails to serve.... suburban area that have grown.  The 3C project would have at least gotten local transit systems to take a second look at moving people on something other than rubber tires.  Transit systems along the 3C were already looking to hook up with local station sites.  I have heard that some were even dusting off old plans for light rail and streetcars.

 

The other factor that will change the way suburbanites vote is when gasoline prices start to slam their budgets, especially given the fact that most suburban families own multiple vehicles.  The demand for more and better transit connections will likely increase.

 

The other factor that will change the way suburbanites vote is when gasoline prices start to slam their budgets, especially given the fact that most suburban families own multiple vehicles.  The demand for more and better transit connections will likely increase.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Suburban houses are nearly self-contained. All utilities including cable TV are connected to the grid - the only real reason why suburbanites need to leave their houses at all are to buy groceries and things.

 

I have a feeling that the typical suburban baby boomer is going to retire, and after a trip or two, settle down at home and spend the rest of his days watching TV. The weekly trip to the grocery store will consume about 5% of the gasoline that is consumed today driving to work. As long as he can afford to maintain a car and consume a little bit of gasoline, there is no reason for him to vote for any kind of rail transit.

The false belief that Ohio has an excellent transportation system is the start of the problems that prevent lifeboat alternatives to Ohio's highway Titanic. We are highway zombies who repeat PR slogans that have been around for decades yet have no basis in fact.

 

Ohio doesn't have an excellent transportation system. It has an extensive highway system that is overbuilt and incapable of being sustained financially. Because it is a "free" system, there is no opportunity for price to regulate the supply and demand of lane-miles. The only way we can regulate demand is by continually adding supply which further disperses population, isolates the poor and disabled, increases automobile dependency, and worsens oil dependency.

 

We also we end up with a gas tax that is not even capable of maintaining the existing highway system, let alone replacing it as roads and bridges reach the end of their 50-year lives. If politicians are unable to summon the will (and so far they have not) to raise taxes, add tolls or sell/lease the highway system, then portions of it will have to have its lane-mile reduced to afford maintaining the rest of the system. And that could begin a death spiral. The free highway system depended on the promise of ever-increasing gas tax dollars in the future to pay for present-day highway costs. Now that gas tax revenues cannot keep up with costs, the federal highway trust fund got four federal general tax revenue bailouts since 2008 totaling $38 billion (not including $27 billion in stimulus funds for roads). Now the highwaymen are considering abandoning reliance on user taxes because users are unable to sustain the highway system.

 

Peak oil may rein in a lot of this (despite desires to run cars powered by batteries using lithium or other rare materials). The way of life that America (and especially Ohio) has come to know cannot be afforded and is already eroding. Yet we leave public transit spending to local sources within declining urban areas. Thus Ohio has is an apartheid transportation system. There is a transportation system for the poor and a transportation system for everyone else. And the transportation system for poor "barely" exists. Visit Warren or Lorain or Steubenville or Zanesville and you will find little or no transit available, minimum-wage jobs located in car-dependent areas, and households with multiple wage earners that must share one car. Yet Ohio continues this pattern of transportation/land use in the hopes of achieving wealth and quality of life, yet finds less of both as we end up having to pay more to own more cars, and for duplicative infrastructure to sustain both the newer suburbs and the older city they replaced.

 

It may take the very collapse of this unsustainable lifestyle, despite our arrogance that it could never possibly fail, to make us realize that Ohio's transportation system has to change ASAP! This car-dependent transportation system was created for a wealthy state where good paying industrial and service jobs were plentiful, where one bread-winner could support an entire family with a nice house in the suburbs and two cars, where with ever-more access to cheap oil was assured from domestic sources (or worldwide if we re-tasked our military to protect it), and it would stay a pre-eminent state in a nation that was only the global economic superpower. That was more than 40 years ago.

 

The Strickland approach to developing 3C Corridor rail infrastructure failed because A. it was falsely portrayed as a stand-alone project that would be a drain on the state budget and B. because too many Ohioans are reminded by advertising, marketing and car/highway/oil industry-funded "research" that their 1950s/60s-based lifestyle can continue for decades more if only those selfish environmentalists, train cultists and social-engineering urbanist snobs will just let the car/highway/oil industry's version of the free market provide it.

 

Well, that's not sustainable, and therefore Ohio is not sustainable because its put all of its transportation eggs in one overbuilt, vulnerable basket. There's nothing that says Ohio or anyplace has to survive economically. And when a state's leaders are so influenced by the car/highway/oil industry and that the state's fortunes are dictated by the fortunes of that industry, that alone is reason enough why our transportation system needs to be diversified.

 

RANT OFF

 

The other factor that will change the way suburbanites vote is when gasoline prices start to slam their budgets, especially given the fact that most suburban families own multiple vehicles.  The demand for more and better transit connections will likely increase.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Suburban houses are nearly self-contained. All utilities including cable TV are connected to the grid - the only real reason why suburbanites need to leave their houses at all are to buy groceries and things.

 

I have a feeling that the typical suburban baby boomer is going to retire, and after a trip or two, settle down at home and spend the rest of his days watching TV. The weekly trip to the grocery store will consume about 5% of the gasoline that is consumed today driving to work. As long as he can afford to maintain a car and consume a little bit of gasoline, there is no reason for him to vote for any kind of rail transit.

 

Ahem. As a baby boomer, the last thing I'm going to do is "settle down and watch TV." I'll be wayyyy too busy for that and when I do decide to bag it and retire, I'll move to a community where driving is a choice and not a mandate and will drive much less. I'll want more alternatives to driving and will be willing to move to get what I want.

 

Suburban houses are self contained...until you have to drive 20 miles to work, 2 miles for a loaf of bread or 10 miles to the mall for a pair of underwear. The 'burbs are totally dependent on the auto...you have to drive everywhere and a lot of them don't even have sidewalks!

 

For these reasons the 'burbs are much more vulnerable to higher gas prices. Noozer is right.

 

KJP - TODAY, the typical suburbanite can drive between any two points in Ohio at any time. (Kelly's island, etc. excluded.) Virtually every point in Ohio is within a mile of a paved road. That is an excellent transportation system.

 

The poor, disabled, etc., who are underserved by the highway system are also under-represented in politics. If we have any kind of election TODAY that forces a vote between drivers and non-drivers, the drivers are sure to win because there are more drivers that vote than non-drivers. Getting drivers to vote for rail is a losing battle.

 

EVERYONE is vulnerable to higher gas prices. One could make the argument that the suburbs are LESS vulnerable, not because they are less dependent on driving, but because they have more wealth. If gasoline production falls, who do you think is going to end up with the available gasoline, the suburbanite who makes $60,000 per year or the city dweller that makes $20,000?

Sorry, but that is only an excellent transportation for many suburbanites -- not everybody. It is  excellent only for those who earn enough money to afford to use it without sacrificing their quality of life. But TODAY, we ignore so many Ohioans -- and that is transportation and economic apartheid. Just in the 3C Corridor, there are 220,000 college students, 1.1 million people (and growing) 65 years or older, 500,000 people without cars in 3C for physical, economic or personal reasons, and 1.5 million people in 610,000 one-car households. That's 3.3 million people, or half of 3C's population. Pro-rate that statewide and you're looking at 5.5 million people who need rail and bus transit for some or all of their trips. TODAY.

 

The vulnerability of a city or suburb to higher gas prices will depend on a lot of factors, the discussion of which would take it off-topic. But one that's not off-topic is an Ohio community's ability to compete with other areas around the region, state, country or world that are better able to adapt to higher prices. A car-dependent Ohio suburbanite may be able to afford the higher gas prices, but their employer may not be able compete as well in this new price environment as their competitor in another state or nation that has denser, mixed used communities where driving is not essential, and where these cities are linked by quality intercity bus and rail systems, especially if the rail system is electrified. That Ohio suburbanite, assuming they don't relocate, may soon be as poor as that urban Ohioan who makes $20,000 per year. The reason is many suburbanites don't make $60,000. Many make $30,000. They also rent their home, own their cars, have a computer or two, a high-definition TV, a video game system, and a sh!tload of debt. They live in a house in a suburb in a state in a country that is vulnerable. They, in short, are f$&ked.

The suburb's achilles heel is the very thing that made them possible: The private automobile. Any disruption, such as a prolonged increase in gasoline prices, will jeopardize the entire suburban lifestyle simply because total dependence on the auto and higher priced gas will force a wholesale shift to other areas where transportation choices exist.

 

Back to regular programming...

 

KJP - TODAY, the typical suburbanite can drive between any two points in Ohio at any time. (Kelly's island, etc. excluded.) Virtually every point in Ohio is within a mile of a paved road. That is an excellent transportation system.

 

The poor, disabled, etc., who are underserved by the highway system are also under-represented in politics. If we have any kind of election TODAY that forces a vote between drivers and non-drivers, the drivers are sure to win because there are more drivers that vote than non-drivers. Getting drivers to vote for rail is a losing battle.

 

EVERYONE is vulnerable to higher gas prices. One could make the argument that the suburbs are LESS vulnerable, not because they are less dependent on driving, but because they have more wealth. If gasoline production falls, who do you think is going to end up with the available gasoline, the suburbanite who makes $60,000 per year or the city dweller that makes $20,000?

 

wake up.

 

KJP - TODAY, the typical suburbanite can drive between any two points in Ohio at any time. (Kelly's island, etc. excluded.) Virtually every point in Ohio is within a mile of a paved road. That is an excellent transportation system.

 

The poor, disabled, etc., who are underserved by the highway system are also under-represented in politics. If we have any kind of election TODAY that forces a vote between drivers and non-drivers, the drivers are sure to win because there are more drivers that vote than non-drivers. Getting drivers to vote for rail is a losing battle.

 

EVERYONE is vulnerable to higher gas prices. One could make the argument that the suburbs are LESS vulnerable, not because they are less dependent on driving, but because they have more wealth. If gasoline production falls, who do you think is going to end up with the available gasoline, the suburbanite who makes $60,000 per year or the city dweller that makes $20,000?

 

wake up.

 

For real. Your in denial.

KJP - TODAY, the typical suburbanite can drive between any two points in Ohio at any time. (Kelly's island, etc. excluded.) Virtually every point in Ohio is within a mile of a paved road. That is an excellent transportation system.

 

Nonsense. Anyone who believes that has never worked in Northern Virginia. I live, literally, three miles away from where I work in Chantilly, VA. There are dozens of routes between work and home but during rush hour it can take me as much as 45 minutes to get from one to the other by car. And there is an 8-lane highway that connects both places!

 

In the past month, local and the Federal goverments have had four shutdowns/x hour delays, in some cases for only the THREAT of snow. Last week it took one of my colleagues 12 hours to make a drive of less than 20 miles because of gridlock caused by the snow.

 

A great transportation system is one in which the simple maintenance of daily living does not require one to drive an automobile. It is a system that allows me to work while I travel or, if I choose, to read.

 

And above all, a great transportation system is one that does not, directly or indirectly, risk the lives of Americans either at home or on foreign soil.

 

One could make the argument that the suburbs are LESS vulnerable, not because they are less dependent on driving, but because they have more wealth.

 

Again, I'd disagree based upon my NoVa experience. I have colleagues who commute anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes each way to get to work (and Chantilly is hardly urban, itself), not because they have more money but because they can't afford the housing which is close to where they work. For them, the cost to rent or own in the region is more than offset by less expensive housing, further out and the cost of gas.

 

Drive the cost of gas up, and you've priced these people out of their "suburban" lifestyles.

 

 

I don't think Eighth & State's point is so easily dismissed.  Ohio's economic layout is very different from that of NYC or DC.  Here, the wealth is much more dispersed into the burbs-- by choice.  And to a growing extent, so are the jobs.  Multimodal transit into downtown Manhattan and DC is relevant to a ton of people in those metro areas, because they work there but they're priced out of living there.  Even people who don't work downtown, like seanmcl, are still ensnared by the same intense commuting pattern.  It's a regional fact of life.  Meanwhile, the economic role of Ohio's central cities is comparatively muted.  Not entirely, but comparatively. 

 

This is why I keep pointing out that east coast rail success stories aren't really relevant to the Ohio market.  It's an altogether different animal.  The average resident of an Ohio metro area has no interaction with their central city, and couldn't accomplish anything in their lives via transit even if they wanted to.  I agree with KJP to the extent that a wholesale change in Ohio's philosophy toward cities and transit is needed.  But I think that needs to happen before we'll see sufficient support for intra-Ohio intercity rail.  As we're currently set up, the utility just isn't there for enough people. 

 

First we need better metropolitan transit systems.  We need to connect our downtowns to our economic growth centers, like Polaris and Beachwood and West Chester.  We need to improve the prospects for day to day car-free living in our cities.  That would lead to transit-oriented redevelopment, which would lead to denser cities, which would then increase demand for intercity rail. 

 

  Downtown Cincinnati has about 14% of the jobs in Hamilton County. So, a commuter rail transit system with a downtown terminal can accomodate, at best, 14% of commuters.

 

 

   

"TODAY, the typical suburbanite can drive between any two points in Ohio at any time. (Kelly's island, etc. excluded.) Virtually every point in Ohio is within a mile of a paved road. That is an excellent transportation system."

 

 

"Nonsense. Anyone who believes that has never worked in Northern Virginia."

 

Sorry, I should have said, the typical OHIO suburbanite...

 

 

 

  Downtown Cincinnati has about 14% of the jobs in Hamilton County. So, a commuter rail transit system with a downtown terminal can accomodate, at best, 14% of commuters.

 

 

First, 3C isn't designed to carry commuters. Other places that have intercity passenger rail services (North Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Maine, etc) that are meeting or exceeding their ridership goals have less of their employment or residents in the center city.

 

And what exists today matters less to transportation builders and visionaries who create the future. If we only built for today, progress would never happen (see Ohio). As I've posted many times before, if we only built rail systems in areas where there was already a high-density, ready-made market for rail, then most of the successful rail systems in Chicago, East Coast (even most rail transit systems in Ohio's past) would not have been built. Instead they were built to develop real estate, just as the highway system was built to reshape our cities in ways that rail could not serve.

 

Fact: Ohio's population demographics are changing in the most dramatic way since World War II.

 

Fact: Ohio's transportation "system" is not changing.

 

Fact: if Ohio's transportation system does not change to keep up with changing demographics, consumer preferences, incomes not keeping up with costs of living, plus serious energy and environmental issues -- while other competing regions' transportation system are -- then we are in worse trouble economically.

 

Ohio would probably be doing fine economically if every other region took the same stagnant view of transportation as Ohio. But by standing still, we are going backwards.

A great transportation system is one in which the simple maintenance of daily living does not require one to drive an automobile.

 

Who established this as the sine qua non of a great transportation system?

 

And above all, a great transportation system is one that does not, directly or indirectly, risk the lives of Americans either at home or on foreign soil.

 

I presume from this statement that you're one of those who buy into the "war for oil" meme.  I'm going to to derail (no pun intended) this thread to get into that one--but let's just say that the validity of that meme is open to question.

 

First we need better metropolitan transit systems.  We need to connect our downtowns to our economic growth centers, like Polaris and Beachwood and West Chester.  We need to improve the prospects for day to day car-free living in our cities.  That would lead to transit-oriented redevelopment, which would lead to denser cities, which would then increase demand for intercity rail.

 

This is the way I'd prefer to proceed as well: local --> metro area --> regional/intercity.  I understand there are political hurdles to that approach, but of course, there are political hurdles to any alternative other than the status quo.  (The hurdles to that continuing are more economic in nature.)

One thing that constantly flabbergasts me about this discussion is that people are always equating passenger trains with commuter rail, streetcars, light rail, or automobiles.  What it should really be compared to is airplanes.  Yes, the flying demand between the 3 C's is small, but think about it like this.  People fly to these cities all the time, and they still manage to get around once they arrive, even without any decent local transit.  The same will be true for passenger rail, though it has the benefit that you don't need a $30 cab ride to get downtown since you'll already be there or very nearby.  Even with the less-than-ideal Cincinnati situation, Bond Hill or Lunken are much closer to downtown than Hebron.  You want to talk about how vulnerable suburbs versus cities versus rural areas are to rising oil prices, well that's nothing compared to the vulnerability of the airline industry, which was already in shambles even before fuel prices started to spike.

A great transportation system is one in And above all, a great transportation system is one that does not, directly or indirectly, risk the lives of Americans either at home or on foreign soil.

 

I presume from this statement that you're one of those who buy into the "war for oil" meme. I'm going to to derail (no pun intended) this thread to get into that one--but let's just say that the validity of that meme is open to question.

 

I took the implication to be that oil money is funding terrorists and anti-American regimes.

"TODAY, the typical suburbanite can drive between any two points in Ohio at any time. (Kelly's island, etc. excluded.) Virtually every point in Ohio is within a mile of a paved road. That is an excellent transportation system."

 

 

"Nonsense. Anyone who believes that has never worked in Northern Virginia."

 

Sorry, I should have said, the typical OHIO suburbanite...

 

 

Where you live doesn't change the fact that being able to drive between any two points at any time does not, an "excellent transportation system" make unless your only goal is to be able to drive between any two points at any time.

 

Oh, and there is a reason that I don't live in Ohio anymore, and the mindset behind the demise of 3-Cs is emblematic of that reason.

 

"TODAY, the typical suburbanite can drive between any two points in Ohio at any time. (Kelly's island, etc. excluded.) Virtually every point in Ohio is within a mile of a paved road. That is an excellent transportation system."

 

 

"Nonsense. Anyone who believes that has never worked in Northern Virginia."

 

Sorry, I should have said, the typical OHIO suburbanite...

 

 

Where you live doesn't change the fact that being able to drive between any two points at any time does not, an "excellent transportation system" make unless your only goal is to be able to drive between any two points at any time.

 

Oh, and there is a reason that I don't live in Ohio anymore, and the mindset behind the demise of 3-Cs is emblematic of that reason.

 

 

It's NOT a "transportation system", it's a highway system. Big difference. If you can afford to drive, or want to drive, that's fine, but what about those who can't or don't want to drive? Too bad for them, I guess.

 

And for SeanMCL...I'm with ya, brother. A lot of people have already left our fair state and more will leave precisely because of its stodgy thinking. Ohio is not doing anything to help itself become more attractive to people who have choices as the where they live and work and they are leaving.

A great transportation system is one in which the simple maintenance of daily living does not require one to drive an automobile.

 

Who established this as the sine qua non of a great transportation system?

 

Who established driving as the sine qua non (ooh, I feel so special now that I used a Latin phrase) of a great transportation system?

 

I would say that the fact that people who don't own a car or can't drive have no way of moving themselves besides walking or riding a bike in a "driving only" transportation system, that it would be a pretty easy argument for the inferiority of such a system, especially when the non-driving population is sizable.  Keep in mind, nobody would be taking away others' right to drive.  A system with choices would be much better than one without choices.

 

Another fact many "driving only" advocates fail to look at is the marginal utility of adding more roads.  I would think we far passed the point where the benefit outweighs the costs of paving more rural roads.  If the 3 cars a day that use a bunch of remote roads have to go a mile out of the way to use a paved road, so be it.  That money would have been much better spent moving hundreds of thousands of people around who can't or don't wish to drive.

 

  "What about those who can't or don't want to drive? Too bad for them, I guess."

 

  As I said before, the poor, disabled, etc. are under-represented in our political system. If there were an election that sided drivers against non-drivers, the drivers are likely to win because there are more voting drivers than voting non-drivers.

 

  Whether or not public funding of rail transit is good public policy is a different question altogether. The typical voter will think, "What's in it for me?", and if he doesn't see a personal benefit, he is likely to vote against rail. It doesn't matter how much we spend on highways; no one is asking him to vote for highways.

 

    Much has been written on this forum about the technical merits of rail. I contend that the technical merits don't matter. What matters is that voters are being asked to support rail, and the median voter doesn't support it. In order to build the 3-C, one of two things has to happen. 1, convince the voters to support rail, or 2, come up with a different source of funding for it.

 

    Rail proponents have been trying to do 1. in Ohio for 40 years, and so far it has not been working.

A great transportation system is one in which the simple maintenance of daily living does not require one to drive an automobile.

 

Who established this as the sine qua non of a great transportation system?

 

Since I mentioned other features of a great transportation system, this could hardly be a "qua non", however, since "transportation" means more than travel by automobile, it is really more akin to a tautology (I assume that you know some Greek in addition to Latin).

 

And above all, a great transportation system is one that does not, directly or indirectly, risk the lives of Americans either at home or on foreign soil.

 

I presume from this statement that you're one of those who buy into the "war for oil" meme.  I'm going to to derail (no pun intended) this thread to get into that one--but let's just say that the validity of that meme is open to question.

 

No, as a matter of fact, it is far more complicated than that. Pollution from vehicle exhaust, kills, which is why communities have enacted anti-idling legislation and applied for EPA funds to, guess what, expand roadways and fix turning lanes to reduce the amount of time that vehicles are stopped (imagine, we are paying for the EPA to repair the damage done by the Department of Transportation).

 

Oil revenues sustain despotic regimes that, among other things, host schools which promote hatred of the United States and espouse terrorism as a means to emphasize that.

 

We may not, directly, rely on oil from the Middle East, but guaranteeing a free supply of oil from the Middle East is to our financial and military advantage. Already, oil futures are climbing on fears that the Suez canal may be closed as a result of the protests in Egypt. If so, who do you think would be dispatched to keep it (and the 35 million barrels per day that cross it) open to traffic?

 

We invaded Kuwait to repel Saddam Hussein who went to war with Kuwait for what reason? Kuwait's oil fields, of course. While that war was a limited war, nonetheless, US Service personnel lost their lives.

 

So if you want to believe that our dependency on foreign oil doesn't cost American lives, then welcome to Wonderland, Alice.

I agree 100% that the technical merits of rail aren't the issue -- rail systems exist and succeed everywhere, even in places with less of a potential ridership market than Ohio!

 

It's a political issue and it needs to be run like a political campaign. Problem is, I hate politics. At worst, politics are little more than legalized prostitution where an insecure man or woman with no moral compass nor a vision for the future runs for office only to seek personal validation through campaign donations and popular votes. At its medium, it's either about a platform designed through public polls, or it's about one politician or party trying to screw over another politician or party and your issue may be used as a tool for or against the other. At its best, a politician gets into politics because he or she wants to make their community a better place and has a vision for accomplishing that goal. The person runs a sink-or-swim campaign based on that vision.

 

Many claim to be the latter, and some include rail in that vision. But we soon learn that they are often like the medium/mediocre politician with no backbone when the polls are soft on that issue. And sometimes we need the worst politicians to get enough votes to get an issue approved. It's pretty sickening to get down into the muck with them. But that's why they invented showers. Too bad they never seem to clean off all the muck.

Blocking high-speed rail

By Derrick Z. Jackson

Globe Columnist / January 29, 2011

 

WHEN PRESIDENT Obama proposed in his State of the Union address that 80 percent of Americans should have access to high-speed rail within 25 years, he drew laughter by saying, “For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.’’

 

It will be much faster if we end the political pat-down for high-speed rail itself.

 

....Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, “Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?’’

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/01/29/blocking_high_speed_rail/

Blocking high-speed rail

By Derrick Z. Jackson

Globe Columnist / January 29, 2011

 

WHEN PRESIDENT Obama proposed in his State of the Union address that 80 percent of Americans should have access to high-speed rail within 25 years, he drew laughter by saying, For some trips, it will be faster than flying without the pat-down.

 

It will be much faster if we end the political pat-down for high-speed rail itself.

 

....Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/01/29/blocking_high_speed_rail/

 

A very telling quote from Cong. Jordan..... one to remember when his constituents can't afford to drive those automobiles that are so dear to his district. The word "myopic" comes to mind.

^I am glad that he is no longer my representative (I moved out of his district). Every time I sent him an e-mail or a letter he would reply with some of the most condescending and ill-informed replies. He never gave a full answer to any of my questions and always gave false information to back up his stance on the issues.

In order to build the 3-C, one of two things has to happen. 1, convince the voters to support rail, or 2, come up with a different source of funding for it.

 

Rail proponents have been trying to do 1. in Ohio for 40 years, and so far it has not been working.

 

In 40 years oil has only once (before) been over $100/barrel and that was when gasoline prices were above $4/gallon. Yesterday, prices peaked above $100/barrel. Roads don't do much good if you can't afford to drive.

 

Also, I should have mentioned that it is estimated that in order for despotic regimes to be able to sustain themselves through oil subsidies to their citizens, oil prices need to be above $75/barrel.

 

It looks very much as though the decision to kill the 3-C will be viewed as very short-sighted in a year or two and, by then, probably too expensive to resurrect.

 

Whether it's too expensive to resurrect depends on the level of pain at the gas pump. Certainly, we need to ratchet up the pressure as gas prices go up. There will be plenty of blame here.

It's entirely possible that after gas prices rise above a certain point that private enterprises (whether existing freight rail carriers or third party corporations that lease trackage rights) will become interested in providing passenger rail service.  I fear that it would have to be a pretty high price though, something in the $8-10 per gallon range, which is closer to what gas prices are in Europe already.  Still, if gas prices spike or become volatile, such a situation would still take time and be entirely reactionary rather than proactive, which would make the transition much more difficult than if we started working on building passenger rail now. 

The discouraging thing is that Ohio had the chance to get somewhat ahead of the curve with a start-up of service on the 3C, which would have laid the foundation for better, faster and more broad-based service (more routes).

 

As for waiting for he "private sector" to leap into the fray when gasoline prices increase to a sufficient level.... Its been my experience that private enterprise is only going to come to the table if government comes to the table as a partner.  The railroads have shown ample willing ness to do so with states that have stepped up with passenger rail plans, and these partnerships (so far) have worked well.

 

But we would likely grow very old waiing for the private sector to do this entrely on their own dime.  If that were so, why didn't they build Interstate Highways...or even local roads to benefit heir own business?  Why didn't the airlines build their own airports and develop their own aviation technology?

 

What I suspect will happen when gas prices spike is that those governors who rejected federal dollars for passenger rail development will find themselves having to scramble to pull a plan together with their highway buddies....but will find that they should have invested in diversifying their state's transportation system when they had the chance. 

Very true. Private enterprise will first spend money in places where they don't have to spend as much to yield a better return for their shareholders. Let's assume you run Joe's Railpax Corp. and you're looking to start a new train service. Assume it will cost $500 million in capital investment to yield $15 million per year from a new-start passenger rail service and all its ancillary activities in either Y State or in Z State. While Y State is willing to cobble together $400 million in state and federal funds to get that service going, Z State isn't willing to spend anything. So where is Joe's Railpax Corp. going to invest it's $100 million if its directors want to avoid a shareholder revolt?

 

Yet this is not theory. It's reality. And we don't have to look far to find the real-world example....

 

Norfolk Southern is contributing its Dearborn-Kalamazoo railroad property, at half the appraised value of $77 million ($38.5 million for the mathematically challenged), as a 10 percent share of the $385 million costs of upgrading the western half of the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak corridor to a reliable 79 mph operation (a first step toward 110 mph operation). Michigan DOT, with the support of Michigan's Republican governor and hopefully the general assembly, would contribute another 10 percent of the cost. The federal government will provide the remaining 80 percent. Read more at:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_HSIPR_Chic-Kzoo-Dearborn_330118_7.pdf

 

And why is NS willing to "give" its rail corridor away? Because it will likely get exclusive access to the rail corridor, which will be modernized and preserved by MichDOT. And a bond issue by the state, repaid in part by users of the state-owned rail corridor, will leverage the modernization.

 

Of course, the state has a big edge here because it doesn't have to pay operating subsidies for this Amtrak service. The Detroit-Chicago route was included by Congress (especially by interested members of the Michigan delegation) as part of the original Amtrak national system, so its operating subsidies are paid 100 percent by the federal government. No Ohio congresspersons were similarly interested in getting any Ohio route established as part of the national system in 1971. Although it should also be noted that, after 1971, two Amtrak routes were added by Michigan by provision of annual operating subsidies: Grand Rapids-Chicago and Port Huron-Chicago. The latter uses the portion of the Detroit-Chicago corridor west of Kalamazoo.

 

Ohio provides no operating funding, no ongoing capital investment programs, no leadership in organizing public-private partnerships to develop and improve passenger rail service, and it punted 40 years ago on getting an Ohio route included in the national system. So if anyone asks why Ohio, the 9th-most densely populated state, has such lousy passenger rail service compared to less populous states, there is your answer.

 

Private capital follows public investment. And public investment is the result of political leadership.

By the way, of the top 50 city-pairs identified in America 2050's scoring index as the best markets for high-speed rail, 1 out of 4 of those would be served by the proposed Midwest-East Coast HSR trunk line and its branches....

 

Rank   City-Pair   Score

1 New York-Washington 100.00

11 Chicago-Detroit 91.09

13 Chicago-Columbus 89.42

16 Chicago-Cleveland 88.71

19 Columbus-Washington 88.21

20 Cleveland-Washington 88.13

21 New York-Pittsburgh 88.03

24 Detroit-New York 87.47

26 Detroit-Washington 87.27

27 Cleveland-New York 87.25

28 Philadelphia-Pittsburgh 87.23

30 Pittsburgh-Washington 86.69

34 Detroit-Philadelphia 86.30

40 Cleveland-Philadelphia 85.99

49 Columbus-Philadelphia 85.24

 

http://www.america2050.org/pdf/2050_Report_Where_HSR_Works_Best.pdf

 

Plus.... Here's the top 40 domestic airline travel markets (by origin and destination traffic between city pairs):

 

O&D Market / PDEW* / Avg o/w fare $

1 Los Angeles-New York - 4,106 - $233.50

2 Fort Lauderdale-New York - 4,093 - 121.14

3 Chicago-New York - 3,914 - 139.23

4 New York-Orlando - 3,675 - 118.12

5 New York-San Francisco - 3,140 - 236.38

6 New York-Atlanta - 3,086 - 134.17

7 Los Angeles-San Francisco - 2,564 - 69.69

8 Miami-New York - 2,225 - 136.83

9 Las Vegas-New York - 2,186 - 174.34

10 New York-West Palm Beach - 1,951 - 131.49

11 New York-Tampa - 1,815 - 123.31

12 Chicago-Los Angeles - 1,784 - 171.71

13 Boston-New York - 1,751 - 133.12

14 Las Vegas-San Francisco - 1,727 - 74.81

15 Orlando-Philadelphia - 1,708 - 94.57

16 Chicago-Orlando - 1,703 - 108.70

17 Dallas/Fort Worth-Houston - 1,694 - 99.73

18 Dallas/Fort Worth-New York - 1,684 - 226.73

19 Chicago-Las Vegas - 1,674 - 144.87

20 Chicago-Washington - 1,664 - 134.51

21 New York-San Juan - 1,577 - 162.70

22 Los Angeles-Washington - 1,550 - 195.91

23 Atlanta-Washington - 1,544 - 131.44

24 Chicago-Phoenix - 1,520 - 141.26

25 Las Vegas-Seattle - 1,514 - 105.79

26 Chicago-Minneapolis/St. Paul - 1,513 - 92.51

27 Boston-Washington - 1,484 - 152.98

28 Atlanta-Chicago - 1,480 - 109.63

29 New York-Washington - 1,476 - 119.69

30 Los Angeles-Honolulu - 1,446 - 214.69

31 Chicago-Denver - 1,444 -128.72

32 Charlotte-New York - 1,418 - 112.74

33 Houston-New York - 1,362 - 220.25

34 Denver-New York - 1,343 - 169.29

35 Detroit-New York - 1,335 - 127.32

36 Denver-Phoenix - 1,328 - 83.31

37 Las Vegas-Los Angeles - 1,321 - 83.87

38 Chicago-Dallas/Fort Worth - 1,319 - 159.97

39 Denver-Los Angeles - 1,293 - 112.65

40 Chicago-Philadelphia - 1,267 - 122.62

 

*PDEW = Passengers Daily Each Way

 

SOURCE: Air Transport Association, 2010 (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4904965/)

High Speed Rail Is Key to Economic Development

Public-private partnerships hold the key to these transformational infrastructure projects

By Patrick Hays

 

Posted: February 1, 2011

(Patrick Hays is the mayor of North Little Rock, Ark.)

 

With the adoption of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the largest public works undertaking in our nation's history began. Funded by an increased fuel tax--up to $0.03 per gallon--construction on the more than 40,000 miles of new Interstate began, and so did America's adoration for the automobile. The backbone of America's modern prosperity and of my own community, the Interstate Highway System has sustained us for generations and it will, of course, continue to provide for the movement goods and people to and through each of our communities. The country's population is growing incredibly fast compared to our European colleagues and it is becoming increasingly difficult to muster the votes needed to increase tax revenues for any reason, even for the purpose of investing in our transportation infrastructure. It is incumbent upon us--all of us--to maximize the resources available to make the biggest possible impact on the future of passenger and freight mobility in this country. We must seriously pursue complimentary modes of transportation to help ensure our continued economic growth, global competitiveness, and vitality--and I believe that high-speed intercity passenger rail must become a national priority and a collective pursuit.

 

Read full op-ed at: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/01/high-speed-rail-is-key-to-economic-development

Blocking high-speed rail

....Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, "Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?"

 

Or, for that matter, the funeral industry, which benefits from the 40,000 people/year killed on roadways. What about the many industries that would benefit from rail including some of the same industries that supply automobiles?

 

I really have to wonder how some of these guys get to be elected with such narrow views of the world.

 

 

 

Huge!!!

 

U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON | Tue Feb 8, 2011 11:05am EST

 

(Reuters) - The U.S. government will dedicate $53 billion over six years to build new high-speed rail networks and make existing ones faster, Vice President Joe Biden said on Tuesday.

 

The initiative will allow the Department of Transportation to choose corridors for the new projects and increase U.S. use of the passenger rails, the White House said in a statement.

 

President Barack Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012, which is to be unveiled next week, includes $8 billion for the plan. The rest of the money will be allocated over the six-year time period.

 

Obama has said he wants to target investments in areas such as infrastructure while reducing spending to tackle the budget deficit.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/08/us-usa-transport-rail-idUSTRE7173OM20110208?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

^I can't imagine there's any way that the house will go along with those numbers, but if you ask for $53B and compromise and we only get half of that, it's still a big improvement. Perhaps someone is finally teaching the President how to negotiate.

Except that the chair and the vice chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is supportive of high-speed rail. It is up to them to marshal this through the House.

I don't see any of that coming to Ohio.