Pray tell me, what is this entire forum except for each of our personal opinions?  Where does your expertise come from?  Certainly not life experiences.  Where do you get off asking me to prove that I've earned my opinions?  Every opinion I give is based on some sort of personal experience.

 

In this case, my opinion on being able to travel by a well established train on the east coast was FACT.  I couldn't do it, not because I couldn't afford it, but because it wasn't cost effective.

 

Certainly there will be times when it would be cost effective for me, and when that situation arises, I will take it.

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

 

That's true.  There are also other factors that make roadtrips a pain, from speed traps to wrecks to parking rates to fatigue upon arrival.  Depending on many factors including price, I'd be willing to travel by air or rail instead.  All else being equal, I'd never drive between major cities.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I am beginning to agree with jmeck's assessment that you are a paid anti-transit operative

 

I am beginning to agree with jmeck's assessment that you are a paid anti-transit operative

 

Then you are as out of touch as he!  I wish I was being paid for this!

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I am beginning to agree with jmeck's assessment that you are a paid anti-transit operative

 

I am very pro-transit, yet completely agree with what DanB is saying, which is something that never happens.  The cost to take a train to Cle-Cin will be way too high, and I do not think it will work.  Trying to make an already anti-transit state and then tell them to pay $100 to take a train one way to Cincy.... no way.

The state needs to subsidize it a lot more.  I think this is a case of idealogy controlling a lot of people.

But this train isn't about folks using it end to end, which I imagine will be minimal. This is the only logical way to introduce some semblance of passenger traffic to the largest and fastest growing city in the city - Columbus. If you connected Cbus via Cleveland, Cincinnatians would be SOL and vice versa. We currently have two major passenger rail lines and I believe it is in the interest of all Ohioans to have access to that system without driving clear across the state. While a family of four might find it unaffordable though who is to say that family packs couldn't be created, a mother and child or any other variation of family unit may find it better than driving. The other argument that they would need a car always at the other end is bogus. If you are visiting family, I imagine the family could just as easily drive to the station to pick your $ss up as they would to the airport or bus station.

 

I am very pro-transit, yet completely agree with what DanB is saying, which is something that never happens.  The cost to take a train to Cle-Cin will be way too high, and I do not think it will work.  Trying to make an already anti-transit state and then tell them to pay $100 to take a train one way to Cincy.... no way.

The state needs to subsidize it a lot more.  I think this is a case of idealogy controlling a lot of people.

 

Where did the 100$ price tag come from and what makes Ohio 'anti-transit'?

 

 

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

 

I'm dealing with the present too.  Several states outside of the east and west coasts IN THE PRESENT fund successful rail corridors that are used by a variety of people-- including families and even for shorter trips. 

 

You've taken one example for one specific trip in the NEC and you're trying to use that as a standard for all situations on all other corridors--both current and proposed. 

Pray tell me, what is this entire forum except for each of our personal opinions?  Where does your expertise come from?  Certainly not life experiences.  Where do you get off asking me to prove that I've earned my opinions?  Every opinion I give is based on some sort of personal experience.

 

With all due respect, KJP has been backing up what he's saying with a lot of factual data from AAA, DOT, etc

The cost to take a train to Cle-Cin will be way too high, and I do not think it will work.

 

But it IS working in the 14 states that already fund intercity rail corridors.  13 of these states have lower population densities than Ohio and in a couple of the states, the trains are slower (albeit with improvement in the works) than they will be in Ohio.  Explain why this won't work in Ohio.  We're not re-inventing the wheel here.  The 3-C is based on existing models of success.

Y'all are getting way ahead of yourselves in this debate over fares and who will pay what. (BTW: as a moderator, let me suggest we dial back the rhetoric a bit.)

 

It is not always about price, although (as I stated earlier) you will probably see some form of graduated fare structure.... frequent riders, students, seniors, business class.

 

What has made passenger rail work so well in places like Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin and other states is good freuqency and quality of service: good trains running at convenient times that enable same day travel. That is why these passenger rail corridors are growing.

 

It's not about making society car-free.  It is simply about creating a good, viable option for travel where there currently is none. 

Where does your expertise come from?  Certainly not life experiences.

 

Funny, but I don't remember seeing you standing near me taking notes while I worked in the rail field almost every day for the past 25 years. Yes, I started when I was 17. By age 22, ODOT was paying me to escort their consultants to help them identify areas of problematic infrastructure in the 3-C and Cleveland - Pittsburgh corridors. I was also getting paid to advise City Councils and mayors on potential station locations and construction funding options, conducting media events, organizing multi-state rail meetings and more, all when I was in my low-20s.

 

At least now you know "something." Try and have a nice life Dan.

 

So anyway.... how 'bout that 3-C Corridor? And here's a pretty cool diagram cross-posted from the Cncinnati streetcar thread:

 

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20090702/NEWS01/907020307

 

Obama says state would benefit from high-speed rail

By MALIA RULON • Gannett Washington Bureau • July 2, 2009

 

WASHINGTON - Ohio would be among states that benefit the most from the administration's plan to encourage high-speed rail networks across the country, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

 

"Throughout the Midwest, we've got terrific opportunities for high-speed rail," Obama told The Enquirer during a roundtable at the White House with nine regional reporters. He specifically mentioned the proposed corridor that would link Cincinnati to Columbus and Cleveland.

 

.........

 

I am very pro-transit, yet completely agree with what DanB is saying, which is something that never happens.  The cost to take a train to Cle-Cin will be way too high, and I do not think it will work.  Trying to make an already anti-transit state and then tell them to pay $100 to take a train one way to Cincy.... no way.

The state needs to subsidize it a lot more.  I think this is a case of idealogy controlling a lot of people.

 

Where did the 100$ price tag come from and what makes Ohio 'anti-transit'?

 

 

 

You think Ohioans are very pro-transit?  I do not.  I do not think the people on here are any way indicative of the way many Ohioans feel.  They like their cars and highways.  While I completely disagree with them, I think it's the prevailing thought.

 

I interviewed Stu Nicholson once and he referred me to the online plan.  While this was about 2 years ago, it said the one-way price from Cle-Cin would be about $95. 

 

All I am saying is that I think it is too high.  No need to go on rants simply bc we disagree.

 

I am very pro-transit, yet completely agree with what DanB is saying, which is something that never happens.  The cost to take a train to Cle-Cin will be way too high, and I do not think it will work.  Trying to make an already anti-transit state and then tell them to pay $100 to take a train one way to Cincy.... no way.

The state needs to subsidize it a lot more.  I think this is a case of idealogy controlling a lot of people.

 

Where did the 100$ price tag come from and what makes Ohio 'anti-transit'?

 

 

 

You think Ohioans are very pro-transit?  I do not.  I do not think the people on here are any way indicative of the way many Ohioans feel.  They like their cars and highways.  While I completely disagree with them, I think it's the prevailing thought.

 

I interviewed Stu Nicholson once and he referred me to the online plan.  While this was about 2 years ago, it said the one-way price from Cle-Cin would be about $95. 

 

All I am saying is that I think it is too high.  No need to go on rants simply bc we disagree.

 

 

IF Ohioans are not, for the most part, seen as 'pro-transit'...it is very likely because all the choice in landscape and transport they have been given for the last 50 years is automobile dominant. That does not mean it cannot change when people are actually given a choice...and if rail had the luxury of advertising, subsidy, and promotion as do cars and highways. It is important to realize how much such promotion and marketing shapes our lifestyles and opinions.

I agree, that's a prohibitively high fare.  Whatever we do it needs to have fares that make it a competitive option to someone who has already sunk money into a car.  By that I mean you can't tell them to compare all the ownership costs etc.  The math needs to be obvious to the average potential rider, so the Cle-Cin fare should be no more than $50... preferably much less.

The $95 fare mistakenly came from a consultant which unfortunately used the high-speed, high-end Acela service as the fare model for Ohio, which has a coach fare of 36 cents per mile. It's not a comparable example and Stu has since realized that. So has the rest of ODOT/ORDC. We all learn as we go. Please don't use the $95 figure any more.

 

Think about this: Why would Amtrak charge 36 cents per mile in Ohio when every Amtrak train in every state surrounding Ohio (including the late-night trains through Ohio) has a fare of about 14 cents per mile?

 

Calculate at 14 cents per mile:

Cincinnati to Columbus @ 125 rail miles = $17.50

Cleveland to Columbus @ 135 rail miles = $18.90

Galion/Mnsfd to Cincy  @ 182 rail miles = $25.48

Dayton to Cleveland    @ 205 rail miles = $28.70

Cleveland to Cincinnati @ 260 rail miles = $36.40

 

I hope that appears more reasonable. In fact, the savings from driving is so great the state might be able to pay a significant portion of the purchase of service grant to Amtrak out of state funds saved from state employees taking the train instead of using the State Motor Pool.

 

Not only could the State Motor Pool (which costs the state $18 million in 2008) be cut back, but some of the remaining vehicles could be based at 3-C train stations since state employees aren't all going to places within an easy walk or trainsit ride to their final destination. Or the state could contract with a car-sharing company which would be a nice enticement for them to put cars at principal 3-C train stations. But the cars could also be used by anyone with a car-sharing membership.

Ah yes that's more like it.  If I could take a train to Columbus for under $20 I'd be doing it frequently. 

Again, those are just estimates based on fares in Midwest states and in Ohio. But they are likely to be a lot closer to actual 3-C Corridor fares than the Acela is. We should find out by the end of this month what fare Amtrak might charge so we can travel to Columbus without a steering wheel stuck in our hands.

>If I could take a train to Columbus for under $20 I'd be doing it frequently

 

Greyhound is currently $22 each way.  Since Greyhound runs express between the major cities on the interstate highways, the train should be able to pick up some ridership in the towns passed over by Greyhound.   

Calculate at 14 cents per mile:

Cleveland to Columbus @ 135 rail miles = $18.90

OK, now that's something I can compare with. I don't go to Columbus often, but if I was;

135 miles at 30mpg, works out at 4.5 gallons.

4.5 gallons at $3.00 per gallon works out to $13.50.

 

So, if I'm going somewhere where a colleague, friend, or family member can meet me at the train station and I don't have to drive while I'm there, I'm spending $5.40 for the privilege of being able to read or stare out the window, and avoid putting an extra 135 miles onto my car. That's fair and I'd pay it gladly. If, however, I need a car when I'm there, or I'm bringing the wife and kids, then its not as good a deal, and driving might be a better option.

 

...what makes Ohio 'anti-transit'?

Our state legislators.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/hamilton-news/group-pitches-train-stop-188548.html

 

Group pitches train stop

Commissioners hear proposal for rail station at regional airport

By Josh Sweigart, Staff Writer

10:51 PM Thursday, July 2, 2009

 

NEW MIAMI — The Hamilton Vision Commission is trying to fast-track a plan to include a train station at the Butler County Regional Airport in a statewide passenger rail system now being laid out on paper.

 

They pitched the idea to Butler County Commissioners Thursday evening, July 2, in New Miami.

 

“We think it is strategically located in the heart of the county,” said vision commission member Rob Wile, describing an “inter-modal” hub where people could switch to bus, car, plane or bicycle after departing the train.

 

......

 

[KJP: uh, OK, now who conjured the "6-8 hours" ? ? ]

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

 

Late into the discussion, but first of all, the regular fare from Philly to DC is $44 each way, and there are nearly always specials for Northeast Corridor trains booked 14 days in advance (currently 25% off). Even without any specials and assuming all passengers were adults, your fares should have been no more than $88 each round trip, which for a family of four would not be cheap. However, I would be willing to bet that most family trips include some or all of the children being 15 or less. Children 2-15 ride for half off (and 2 and under free) anywhere in the country on Amtrak, which everyone here seems to be ignoring. So, say that family trip to DC included you and 3 nephews ranging in age from 12 to 17. I went to amtrak.com and checked a reservation for 2 adults and 2 children from Philly to DC later this month. Not only did I have my choice of 7 different times, and each trip was around 1 hour and 55 minutes in length, the TOTAL fare was $198 round trip ($66 per adult, and $33 per child).

 

Now, driving would not only cost you the $100 in gas and take you 2 hours and 38 minutes (per Google Maps) each way in PERFECT TRAFFIC (not very likely), but you would then have to pay to park everywhere you decide to go in DC. If you want to limit yourself to only going to the baseball game, you'll probably be shelling out at least another $20 for parking. Stay overnight and you'll likely pay even more for parking unless you find a Motel 8 in the burbs. All of a sudden, the extra $70 or so for the train ride doesn't look so bad to the family of four for the convenience it provides (a lot more quality family time, less stress, and a faster travel time). This is not to say it is for everyone, but the prices often times sure aren't deal breakers for families when childen ride for half price.

 

it is impossible until there is a complete travel network which permits one to travel wherever one wants without owning a car.

 

It is not impossible, but it surely is tough. Don't you think the large population of this country which cannot or (wishes not to) drive deserves to at least have viable options other than driving everywhere? This is why people want rail, whether or not EVERYBODY will use it (just like not neverybody drives, yet everyone helps pay for it).

 

Also, DanB, one argument you make about fixed costs being sunk costs may not be relevant for others.  I know families in the suburbs that own 4 or 5 cars.  If trains could replace trips to other major cities, especially for work travel, it may be feasible for some families to dump 1 or even 2 cars sometimes, and surely would cut down on how often they need to replace them.  You need to look at the big picutre of building a rail network and people using them as an alternative.  Over the long run, there may be "fixed cost" savings if enough trips by car are replaced by rail trips and the car lasts twice as long.

KJP you might want to clear up XUMBA's misconceptions

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=edit0202&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae8ab9c9c-3e4b-46b9-a08d-a17c4ecdcdc7Post%3abaee7ad0-5c05-4b1c-8bfd-aef39336a661&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

Jeff, don't disagree with you at all.  My comments on the fixed auto costs were based on KGPs comment that it would cost me $0.55 per mile to drive to DC.  Granted, many more opportunities to ride the trains could cut down on these other costs.  I too ride trains in the cities where they are complete and convenient. 

 

Our trip to DC was a one-time trip which we could not purchase advanced fare, and whatever the situation was, the cost was well over $100 per each adult.  What we ended up doing, was parking at Union Station and taking the Metro to the game.

 

So, if I'm going somewhere where a colleague, friend, or family member can meet me at the train station and I don't have to drive while I'm there, I'm spending $5.40 for the privilege of being able to read or stare out the window, and avoid putting an extra 135 miles onto my car. That's fair and I'd pay it gladly. If, however, I need a car when I'm there, or I'm bringing the wife and kids, then its not as good a deal, and driving might be a better option.

 

Bingo! That's what this is all about! Rail is not anti car. Some trips, a car makes more sense; others, a train makes more sense. But wouldn't it be great to have a choice!?

 

So, if I'm going somewhere where a colleague, friend, or family member can meet me at the train station and I don't have to drive while I'm there, I'm spending $5.40 for the privilege of being able to read or stare out the window, and avoid putting an extra 135 miles onto my car. That's fair and I'd pay it gladly. If, however, I need a car when I'm there, or I'm bringing the wife and kids, then its not as good a deal, and driving might be a better option.

 

Bingo! That's what this is all about! Rail is not anti car. Some trips, a car makes more sense; others, a train makes more sense. But wouldn't it be great to have a choice!?

 

And keep in mind that train stations would also serve as hubs where you can get access to everything from local transit to rental cars. Trust me, the "last mile" solutions are not being ignored.

On the price issue...  I checked the price of going from Toledo to Cleveland last year. I don't remember, but it was not at all that much...so why would going from Cleve. to Col. or Cin. be so out of rate in price with what the current Amtrak prices are already for such distances?

Again....the pricing for the 3-C service would be in line with what Amtrak charges per mile (on average) in the rest of it's system: 14-cents per mile.

KJP you might want to clear up XUMBA's misconceptions

 

 

Looks like the locals are on it. I like it better when they police their own and correct the inaccuracies. When the Amtrak study comes out, the data will hopefully reassure some folks. For others, it doesn't matter what is written, said or done.

>If I could take a train to Columbus for under $20 I'd be doing it frequently

 

Greyhound is currently $22 each way. Since Greyhound runs express between the major cities on the interstate highways, the train should be able to pick up some ridership in the towns passed over by Greyhound.

 

With 2-3 round trips scheduled properly, the train will do much better than Greyhound.  Last I checked, Greyhound doesn't allow you to arrive in Columbus before 11 AM unless you want to catch a bus at 4:30 AM.  The return times aren't that great either. Kind of makes a day trip to Columbus for business or pleasure difficult. 

 

 

I think a lot of people assume Greyhound is still around as it always was, even though the reality is that Greyhound has downsized its system drastically over the past decade.  It is essentially only a big city-to-big city service today, and even that service is mcuh less than it used to be.

I think a lot of people assume Greyhound is still around as it always was, even though the reality is that Greyhound has downsized its system drastically over the past decade.  It is essentially only a big city-to-big city service today, and even that service is mcuh less than it used to be.

 

When 3C rail gets going, it could open up a niche for Greyhound or independent local motorcoach operators to provide connections between some of the outlying smaller cities and towns and 3C rail stations. Some of those places haven't had any connection with the outside world other than private automobile in more than 20 years. There's a synergy there that can evolve to benefit the rail service and the communities and their residents.

A few months ago I sent to Noozer some Greyhound schedules from the 1980s. Some of you born in the 80s wouldn't believe how frequent the bus service was on Ohio routes like 3-C, Cleveland - Pittsburgh, St. Louis - Dayton - Columbus - Pittsburgh, Detroit - Cincinnati, etc. etc. We're talking 10+ buses a day in each direction on many of these routes back then.

 

Now, many of these routes have maybe 4-6 or fewer scheduled buses daily, which often get oversold several times over. So Greyhound ends up having to pull out of storage extra buses. More often, it contracts with Lakefront or other mostly charter carriers to handle the overflow.

 

So when Sen. Tom Patton says "If there was a market for 3-C trains, I would see more Greyhound buses on I-71" ask him:

 

OK, Tom, how many Greyhounds, plus Lakefronts, plus Andersons, etc. do you see on I-71? And the bus isn't a one-for-one exchange with a train. The train is simply more comfortable. That's why I've never ridden on a Greyhound bus, though I have taken a chartered motorcoach from Cleveland to D.C. I didn't care for how cramped it was. I have ridden Amtrak a lot, and I sure as hell will ride it in the 3-C Corridor.

 

Too bad I can't take the train to Columbus tomorrow -- my third trip down I-71 in a week.....

The $95 fare mistakenly came from a consultant which unfortunately used the high-speed, high-end Acela service as the fare model for Ohio, which has a coach fare of 36 cents per mile. It's not a comparable example and Stu has since realized that. So has the rest of ODOT/ORDC. We all learn as we go. Please don't use the $95 figure any more.

 

Think about this: Why would Amtrak charge 36 cents per mile in Ohio when every Amtrak train in every state surrounding Ohio (including the late-night trains through Ohio) has a fare of about 14 cents per mile?

 

Calculate at 14 cents per mile:

Cincinnati to Columbus @ 125 rail miles = $17.50

Cleveland to Columbus @ 135 rail miles = $18.90

Galion/Mnsfd to Cincy @ 182 rail miles = $25.48

Dayton to Cleveland @ 205 rail miles = $28.70

Cleveland to Cincinnati @ 260 rail miles = $36.40

 

I hope that appears more reasonable. In fact, the savings from driving is so great the state might be able to pay a significant portion of the purchase of service grant to Amtrak out of state funds saved from state employees taking the train instead of using the State Motor Pool.

 

Not only could the State Motor Pool (which costs the state $18 million in 2008) be cut back, but some of the remaining vehicles could be based at 3-C train stations since state employees aren't all going to places within an easy walk or trainsit ride to their final destination. Or the state could contract with a car-sharing company which would be a nice enticement for them to put cars at principal 3-C train stations. But the cars could also be used by anyone with a car-sharing membership.

 

Now we're talking.

Ken,  most of the costs associated with driving a car in your $0.54/mile example are fixed.  I already own the car, and already pay insurance.

 

Strictly speaking sunk costs are not fixed costs. Your insurance and car price, for example, as well as the finance charges (if you financed), are dependent upon such things as your credit worthiness, location, age, driving history, automobile model, etc.

 

Also, the number that Ken posted is far less than the $1.34/milecalculated by Commute Solutions:

 

http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

 

Which estimates that only about 11 cents/mile is fixed cost (depreciation is almost twice that).

 

In 2001 it was estimated that traffic congestion, alone, cost $625/person, annually. Even if you can't live without your car, you still see the value of getting other people of theirs.

 

As for the Philly to DC example, why would you take Acela at $100-130/person when the Northeast Regional is only $40/person. For the 30 minutes that you've shaved off the trip, you've paid a permium of between $60 and $100 per person.

 

It doesn't seem quite fair to pick the highest price service as a comparator to driving especially when more competitive fares are available and more frequent.

 

 

 

^ When you find the post that states that I mentioned the Acela, please let me know.  Not being from the east coast, I inquired of someone who lives there to check on prices to travel to DC on that given day.  That is the answer I received.

 

 

Strictly speaking sunk costs are not fixed costs. Your insurance and car price, for example, as well as the finance charges (if you financed), are dependent upon such things as your credit worthiness, location, age, driving history, automobile model, etc.

 

 

Well, that would make them fixed costs based on each individual.

^ When you find the post that states that I mentioned the Acela, please let me know.  Not being from the east coast, I inquired of someone who lives there to check on prices to travel to DC on that given day.  That is the answer I received.

 

I did not say that you mentioned Acela I merely pointed out that the price per seat that you quoted was the Acela price.  The Northeast Regional is much less expensive and operates more frequently. Since we were discussing the 3-C, using Acela as a basis for anticipating the cost of a trip from Cleveland to Cincinnati is inappropriate since it is far more expensive per mile than any other Amtrak route. Of course, you could have priced the trip yourself, online.

 

 

 

Strictly speaking sunk costs are not fixed costs. Your insurance and car price, for example, as well as the finance charges (if you financed), are dependent upon such things as your credit worthiness, location, age, driving history, automobile model, etc.

 

 

Well, that would make them fixed costs based on each individual.

 

Not at all. You insurance is commonly based upon the number of miles that you drive in a year and use of the vehicle and, in some cases, the age of the vehicle, as well as on your driving record (not to mention, the total number of cars on the road).

 

For you, they would be a sunk cost, that is, a cost that cannot be recovered and that is part of the problem.

 

Because we tend to make decisions based upon variable costs rather than sunk costs, once an expense is viewed as a sunk cost, there is little incentive to change your behavior. But more and more we are recognizing that part of the reason that these are perceived as sunk costs is because we hide the variable costs from the consumer. That is why the cost per driving calculators are important. Even if you happen to disagree with one or more of their cost estimates, the simple fact is that these are variable costs. If you drive less, you pay less, though not necessarily in an obvious way.

 

Fixed or sunk.  You know what I meant.  My car was already in Philly, I did not need to call my insurance company to ask if I could drive to DC.  My costs are fixed, I am paying a portion of the $0.55 per mile whether I drive there or not.  All I was saying.

 

You asked me why I would quote the Acela price.  I didn't even know what that was before the conversation.  Besides, I didn't have my computer with me to book it myself.

 

Aren't you getting a little bit much into the details?

 

DanB:

 

I'm getting into the details because you expressed an opinion which is common among skeptics of Federally-subsidized transit (as opposed to Federally subsidized personal transportation such as automobiles and air traffic), namely that passenger rail is rarely competitive with the automobile in terms of cost.

 

This, simply, isn't true if you look at total costs versus the direct cost, namely, gasoline and tolls.

 

As for fixed, versus sunk, versus variable costs, the distinction is important because an understanding of these in economic terms is essential to good public policy.

 

Sunk costs are costs that cannot be recovered. Fixed costs are costs which are not related to the cost of production. They may be variable costs but fixed only for a given period. The term "fixed cost" can refer to future expenses in addition to past expenses. Variable costs are the costs which change in relation to the business decision. These are the costs that drive the decision as to what to produce, how much, etc.

 

In terms of driving, what we have done with a flat gas tax, a failure to implement per mile tariffs, and a failure to include in the cost of driving the real costs associated with congestion, air pollution, traffic accidents, etc., is to make the cost of driving appear like a sunk cost. It isn't by any economic standard. Most of the real costs of driving are not fixed, as you argued, but variable costs although some are sunk costs. Thus, if our system of highway funding were based upon usage, you'd experience a completely different view of when public transportation (and all transportation is, in reality), makes more financial sense than personal transportation. There are many more circumstances where it does than doesn't.

 

 

Ohio on The Right Track

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 6:43 PM

By Stephanie Mennnecke

 

Ohio is on the right track, and soon Ohioans will be too! A passenger train proposal is in the works to connect Ohio's 3-C's, Cleveland Columbus and Cincinnati.

 

Tuesday afternoon representatives from all over the Buckeye State met to discuss this plan, and to pitch why their city should be a stop too!

 

...........

 

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2009/07/07/On_The_Right_Track.html?sid=102

Joe Blundo liked the "release" by the Ohio Insitutute for Real World Solutions so much he put it on his blog:

 

http://blog.dispatch.com/blundo/

 

Enjoy.... :-D

Reminder: 3-C Corridor, passenger rail and transit advocacy meetings are coming up in a number of cities, some as early as this weekend. All are public meetings and most are free of charge.

 

For details, see:

http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/index.php

 

Volunteer to help locally in getting business owners, chambers of commerce, young professionals groups, student organizations and others to contact their state legislators to tell them you want 3-C Corridor trains and more funding for public transit. Develop and coordinate messages and advocacy tools that will work in your community.

 

A little volunteerism can and does go a long way!

Reminder: passenger rail and transit advocacy meetings are coming up in a number of cities, some as early as this weekend. All are public meetings and most are free of charge.

 

For details, see:

http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/index.php

 

Volunteer to help locally in getting business owners, chambers of commerce, young professionals groups, student organizations and others to contact their state legislators to tell them you want passenger trains and more funding for public transit. Develop and coordinate messages and advocacy tools that will work in your community.

 

A little volunteerism can and does go a long way!

Ohio's '3C' corridor garners support; Midwest HSR association releases feasibility study on St. Louis-to-Chicago line

 

Support is mounting for Ohio’s proposed “3C Corridor” high-speed rail plan, according to the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC). Civic leaders and public officials from 122 communities across the state recently attended a public workshop, during which ORDC and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) provided an update on the project.

 

A federally designated high-speed rail corridor, the 3C Corridor would connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati as part of the Chicago Hub Network. The corridor also would connect several Ohio cities to Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, New York City and Washington D.C.

 

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=20817

INDOT Officials Apply For Rail Funds

 

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/50416292.html

 

Video link:http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/50416292.html?video=YHI&t=a

 

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (Indiana's NewsCenter) - Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner Michael Reed has announced he is applying for millions of federal rail dollars.

 

Reed made his announcement during a Thursday afternoon public meeting at the Baker Street Train Station.

 

 

The Commissioner is asking for $49 million to fund a feasibility study of an Indiana high speed rail network that would link Chicago and Toledo.

 

$49 million?  That seems like a really large amount of money to do a feasibility study and economic study.

Indiana keeps Lima in running for high speed rail

Heather Rutz

2009-07-10 19:03:00

LIMA — Indiana officials did something Friday that keeps Lima in the high speed rail game.

 

Indiana applied Friday for $49 million in federal money to study engineering and environmental options for high speed rail routes. It also made a strong public commitment to a southern route, that would move trains from Chicago to Columbus through Fort Wayne, Ind., and Lima rather than northern route, Mayor David Berger said.

 

More at:

http://www.limaohio.com/news/lima-39180-running-high.html

If Cong.Jordan bases his stance on anything in the Buckeye Institute's so-called "study", he is an asbolute buffoon.

As to the Buckeye Institute's claims that rail isn't energy-efficient:

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_612/

 

The annual Transportation Energy Data Book has been released by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy. 

 

This is a comprehensive study of energy usage and efficiency across all modes.  It shows significant gains in efficiency for all types of rail travel, as well as air.. 

 

ORNL, an entity run as a non-profit and contracted by the Department of Energy’s predecessor in 1976, released the 28th edition of their Transportation Energy Data Book including data from the year 2007, and it showed a 12% improvement in energy efficiency for commuter rail, 7% improvement for heavy and light rail, and 5% improvement for Amtrak compared with the 2006 statistics.  All Highway modes worsened slightly.

 

The result of this trend makes Amtrak 19% more energy efficient than air and 28% more energy efficient than cars.

 

The full report is at Oak Ridge National Laboratories’ website:

 

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/Index.shtml