Columbus to Chicago via Lima and Fort Wayne is already part of Ohio's future plans for 110-MPH service.

The reason is that Michigan was willing to pay 100 percent of the cost of its state-supported trains (to Grand Rapids and to Flint/Port Huron).

 

My point is, though, Michigan is paying for some of its Amtrak service ... still more than Ohio.

 

Nevertheless, one reason why there is no Cs, now, and Republicans are challenging the $400M stimulus to get it started, I'm sure, is the uncomfortable cultural factor.  That is, the erstwhile schism between upstate and downstate Ohio.  My buddy who teaches at OSU tells me he can't count how many times he's heard down in C-Bus (aside from the idea Repubs want to crib-death (new verb) this Strickland-Dem baby), is the comment: why the hell would I take a train to Cleeeeeevland!!?? 

 

We know this is a terribly divided state with a lot of hatred between downstate and upstate.  And we Clevelanders know, also, that Cleveland relates more to Pittsburgh, Detroit and Chicago -- culturally, travelwise, even education-wise (hell, more grads in my Shaker HS class went to U-M than OSU; Notre Dame, nearly as much).  Michigan, for all its obvious faults, tends to pull together more than Ohio.  Cleveland probably already would have some subsidized Amtrak service to Pittsburgh or Chicago, but you think for a minute Columbus would pay for it?  Fat chance. 

 

If Republicans are successful in killing this rarest of gifts from Washington for public transit/transportation, any talk of statewide high-speed rail will likely be dead forever; at least, for the foreseeable future.  And the wedge between North and South in this state will grow even wider.  ... and All Aboard Ohio would, then, no doubt focus on those other Cleveland based routes, despite the fact Washington probably looks at Ohio (and will look at it even moreso if 3C is defeated) as one large dysfunctional state and it would be very hard to pry any more train funds for any Ohio routes... so the best Cleveland could hope to be is a stronger Chicago satellite a la Detroit, St. Louis and Milwaukee...

 

Obviously, the stakes are enormous.

 

Okay, but what if you've heard the opposition's arguments and you objectively judge the arguments to be ignorant and irrational?

You persevere, because this is a political arena and not a controlled debate, so you have no choice. You also clarify the opposition who has an agenda and the opposition who does not. There is a difference between the campaign of misinformation against rail and the deep down issues that trend the general population one way or the other. I only speak for myself, but I truly think that this issue, like many, will be battled emotionally. And I think that Ohio is currently in a kind of collective mild depression. Afraid, unwilling to take risks, unwilling to invest. We aren't even talking about a whole lot of money here, relatively.

 

We know this is a terribly divided state with a lot of hatred between downstate and upstate.

I have never experienced overt hatred or even much rivalry toward Cleveland in Cincinnati. Cincinnati is incredibly insular; if anything I see apathy towards northern Ohio, but its the same disinterest that Cincinnati feels towards more or less everywhere else. Part of this of course is the political climate in southern Ohio, but part of it, I think, is that the region doesn't feel connected to any greater urban heirarchy. Maybe Chicago. But, well, this is about connecting Ohio, not Cincy to Chicago.

I don't get why Ohio-centric is a value.  I mean, maybe as a tiebreaker, but our focus should be outward.  That would give Ohioans more experiences with... stuff that works, like local transit.  Then they would come back wishing they could have all that fancy city stuff back where they live.  If we're being held back by insularity, let's help people break out.  Projects involving other states and cities might convince more Ohioans that rail isn't some goofy thing somehow foisted on them.  Show them it's part of a greater whole.   

I've actually seen a number of people in the Enquirer article comments saying they would support a train to Chicago, but not 3C. I personally like 3C, especially since I think connecting to Chicago is an inevitability, whereas a solid Ohio network is not. But I think 327 has a decent finger on the pulse of those people open to rail, but opposed to 3C.

 

The way I see it, the people complaining about speed will not be appeased in any near future, without accepting an incremental approach. If we cannot successfully educate them, they're lost. Those who are dissatisfied with the proposed destinations, however, can be appeased. But that's largely not up to Ohio.

 

KJP/AAO is doing a great job of accumulating facts, but could do a better job of packaging the information (no offense). For example, the Myths/Facts sheet is a good idea, but not that well executed. I think that map is good, though. My point is, we need to figure out ways to package the information in a way that targets concisely the concerns of those able to be convinced, and hammer it home.

 

I think we could go a long way in doing this, right here in this thread. All we have to do is look, one-by-one, at the most common arguments against 3C, and fine-tune our best argument for why the reasoning is bunk.

 

Is this a decent idea? We have 1. Too slow, 2. Low ridership, 3. It'll be subsidized (I know, what an "argument"), 4. No way to get around at the destination (or get to the train station)... Are there any more big ones? What do you guys think are the most clear, concise, and convincing responses you've seen to these issues? Most stuff written has been too verbose, but occasionally it seems there's a truly quality line written. Can we start assembling the highest quality lines we read, here in this thread?

 

Sorry for rambling, but it seems like the arguments keep going in circles. Let's figure out the best of the best.

Good suggestions, natininja.

If Republicans are successful in killing this rarest of gifts from Washington for public transit/transportation, any talk of statewide high-speed rail will likely be dead forever; at least, for the foreseeable future.  And the wedge between North and South in this state will grow even wider.  ... and All Aboard Ohio would, then, no doubt focus on those other Cleveland based routes, despite the fact Washington probably looks at Ohio (and will look at it even moreso if 3C is defeated) as one large dysfunctional state and it would be very hard to pry any more train funds for any Ohio routes... so the best Cleveland could hope to be is a stronger Chicago satellite a la Detroit, St. Louis and Milwaukee...

 

Obviously, the stakes are enormous.

 

Well put and what All Aboard Ohio's role after such a calamitous outcome can only be guessed. For certain, trying to work at the state level would be nearly impossible, leaving only the Ohio congressional delegation.

I don't think that's true at all.  If 3-C is rejected, that's a rejection of 3-C as presented and not of HSR... 3-C doesn't even claim to be HSR.  A lot of the resistance would dissipate if we were talking HSR.  Those who want rail here may need to alter the approach, and more crucially the plan itself, but as long as we still live and breathe nothing's ever over.  I agree with clvndr that if the southern half of the state isn't interested, the focus should shift to northern Ohioans who appreciate rail and want it to happen.  It seems that more friutful connections can be made through Cleveland anyway.  America isn't laid out on a state-by-state basis, so planning our rail network on that basis is senseless.  I understand why it's being done that way, but it's still senseless. 

I'm a little lost here. Are the trains still going to be rolling by 2011 or 12 or whatever  it was?

"My buddy who teaches at OSU tells me he can't count how many times he's heard down in C-Bus (aside from the idea Repubs want to crib-death (new verb) this Strickland-Dem baby), is the comment: why the hell would I take a train to Cleeeeeevland!!?? "

 

Because they're a bunch of hicks that have probably never used public transportation in their life.

^Let's keep this above-board, people.

Ever seen I-71 northbound toward Cleveland on Thanksgiving Eve?.....somebody wants to go to Cleveland.

 

Ever walked through the parking lots and garages going to an Indians or Browns game and seen all of the cars from Central Ohio?.....somebody wants to go to Cleveland.

 

Not trying to be snarky here, but you OSU friend's comment is pretty weak.  Just because he/she doesn't want to go to Cleveland, the assumption follows that nobody does.  That's simply a baseless leap of logic that smacks of parochialism.

 

 

I'm a little lost here. Are the trains still going to be rolling by 2011 or 12 or whatever it was?

 

The issue is caught up in a political dispute inside of a state government entity called the Controlling Board.

All expenditures in Ohio go through the Controlling Board, it's automatic.  Pass all the laws you want, nothing moves forward without a Controlling Board certificate.  It's made up of legislators from both parties.  Heads of state agencies often have to testify before it to get their budgets OK'd.

 

Is it possible that Republicans on the Controlling Board, as well as millions of others, might be more willing to change ORC 4981 and switch to a different plan?  I think the only reason anything's going in circles is that as soon as it tries to go anywhere else, it gets dragged back to this plan from 1994.  We aren't allowed to consider any other ideas, no matter how much more palatable those ideas might be.  That is pure psychosis.  There is a reality outside 3-C and a world outside Ohio. 

 

I apologize for coming late to the game and not showing up at meetings to mention this stuff earlier.. I've been occupied.  But holy crap, I had no idea we've been refusing to update our plan for 16 straight years.

 

Here are the top 5 singles of 1994:

 

The Sign--Ace of Base

I Swear--All 4 One

I'll Make Love to You--Boyz II Men

The Power of Love--Celine Dion

Hero--Mariah Carey       

327, I encourage you to seek amending that law. Give me a call in 16 years and let me know how you're doing.

Not trying to be snarky here, but you OSU friend's comment is pretty weak.  Just because he/she doesn't want to go to Cleveland, the assumption follows that nobody does.  That's simply a baseless leap of logic that smacks of parochialism.

 

While I agree with you on this, unfortunately you are trumped by the Internet Rules of Procedure, adopted many internets ago, and not subject to change unless the Vice-President of Google calls a vote.  Let me quote (Section XVI):

 

..."Notwithstanding the long-established methods of logic and evidence that are in widespread use both in scientific journals and courts of law, given the general make-up of folks who spend a great deal of time in web fora, primarily but not limited to: young college-age men who have a tough time getting dates and old cranks who love nothing more than the sound of their own voice repeating the same untested truisms as a simple answer to every one of the worlds problems [henceforth referred to as 'nerd(s)']; the opinion based on the limited personal experience or desire of a nerd, when applied to a topic of general discussion, shall hold absolute validity, despite any objective evidence or trend [henceforth referred to as 'fact(s)'] that may contradict said nerd's opinion."

 

Sorry.

TY, Civvik and 327.

Who says Cincinnati isn't interested in 3C? While its' true we were late to the party (rail advocates have focused almost solely on the Cincinnati Streetcar for the past few years), there is serious and growing interest in 3C here. Practically speaking, we need to hang together on this, or we'll all hang separately. I say this for a couple of reasons:

 

(1) If 3C gets to be perceived as only a "northern Ohio" thing, then I think it gives a reason for downstate legislators to not support it -- not only on the initial build but also for operations and gradual improvements to the service over time.

 

(2) Cincinnati is now the most-populous region in the state, and the City of Cincinnati's population is growing again. Following the 2010 Census, the Cincinnati-Dayton region will be reclassified as a single Metro, probably ranked as the 17th or 18th largest in the nation, right along with Seattle-Tacoma and Minneapolis/St. Paul, cities that have and are linking themselves more closely by rail. It would be weird to have statewide rail and not take this into account.

 

(3) I think it's true that Cincinnati is more aligned with Chicago than Cleveland. Maybe even more with Atlanta than Cleveland. In the summer of 2008, every seat on The Cardinal out of Cincinnati to Chicago or Washington was sold out. Which is pretty good for trains that you have to board at either 1:00a or 3:00a and only running three days a week. Plus, once the train gets to Cincinnati, it's the logical Midwestern gateway to the South. And Cincinnati owns the Southern Railway tracks all the way to the Georgia border. They're leased to NSC, but it's a building block for the future.

 

Food for thought.

From my experience, Cincinnati advocates for the 3C have been both vocal and numerous.  Clearly the City Council is hearing from them since they just passed a resolution in favor of having Cincinnati Union terminal be the station stop of choice for the 3C project.  I would love to see an effort to move both the Mayor and Council to demand that Amtrak make the "Cardinal" a daily train.  You'd get a lot of support in Oxford as well from Miami University.

Well put and what All Aboard Ohio's role after such a calamitous outcome can only be guessed. For certain, trying to work at the state level would be nearly impossible, leaving only the Ohio congressional delegation.

 

If that happens, about all AAO could do is work with the Congressional delegation in northern Ohio, and with groups in surrounding states--Erie PA, upstate New York, northern Indiana and Chicagoland to try to increase service along the Lake Shore Limited's route. 

 

Ohio has become dysfunctional.  It's really sad. 

 

 

Looking through some of the Dispatch's poll results (65% in favor now, lol), I came across these couple arguments that seemed better than the others for highlighting points to the unconverted:

 

1. Economic, Social, and Environmental factors essentially dictate we need rail. Don't let insurance companies and auto companies alter the message.

 

2. The i-70/71 interchange is estimated to cost $1.6 BILLION - that alone would pay for the $17 million operating & maintenance fee for 71 years.

 

I think it's important to drive home how much more cost-effective rail is, and 2 helps do this. We could address all the improvement projects going on/planned along I-71 and tally up the costs (Brent Spence Bridge comes to mind).

 

1 offers an interesting point which I don't see raised too often: that there are special interests behind the status-quo. If we can point this out in a populist, human-level way, we may be able to get people without an agenda to question their assumptions about automobiles' "obvious" supremacy.

^----"I would love to see an effort to move both the Mayor and Council to demand that Amtrak make the "Cardinal" a daily train.  You'd get a lot of support in Oxford as well from Miami University."

 

  Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Cardinal doesn't stop in Oxford.

 

  The Cardinal suffers from the same congestion problems in Cincinnati that the 3-C would suffer. This is no small task to increase the number of runs for the Cardinal, though it would certainly be more popular if there were more runs.

I wonder if full Cardinal expansion is really necessary. I'm not sure if the demand would be there past Cincinnati for a daily train in daylight hours, though a train that starts and ends in say Charleston might be good.

^----"I would love to see an effort to move both the Mayor and Council to demand that Amtrak make the "Cardinal" a daily train. You'd get a lot of support in Oxford as well from Miami University."

 

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Cardinal doesn't stop in Oxford.

 

The Cardinal suffers from the same congestion problems in Cincinnati that the 3-C would suffer. This is no small task to increase the number of runs for the Cardinal, though it would certainly be more popular if there were more runs.

 

I'd like it to stop in Oxford, but city officials there weren't for it because it would require the city to maintain the station. Perhaps their minds could be changed.

 

There is an e-mail based effort from people along the Cardinal route to get that train to run daily.

 

  At one time there was talk of splitting the Cardinal into two routes, each terminating in Cincinnati. They wouldn't necessarily meet in Cincinnati at the same time, so it wouldn't be practical to transfer in Cincinnati. Very few riders passed through Cincinnati anyway.

Well put and what All Aboard Ohio's role after such a calamitous outcome can only be guessed. For certain, trying to work at the state level would be nearly impossible, leaving only the Ohio congressional delegation.

 

If that happens, about all AAO could do is work with the Congressional delegation in northern Ohio, and with groups in surrounding states--Erie PA, upstate New York, northern Indiana and Chicagoland to try to increase service along the Lake Shore Limited's route.

 

Ohio has become dysfunctional. It's really sad.

 

 

 

That would probably be the only play out there and even that is a long shot without any state involvement. AAO would really be boxed into a corner. Places like Columbus and Dayton would be off the rail map for many more years.

 

No trains in Columbus...I'd probably pull the plug and just leave.

Who says Cincinnati isn't interested in 3C? While its' true we were late to the party (rail advocates have focused almost solely on the Cincinnati Streetcar for the past few years), there is serious and growing interest in 3C here. Practically speaking, we need to hang together on this, or we'll all hang separately. I say this for a couple of reasons:

 

(1) If 3C gets to be perceived as only a "northern Ohio" thing, then I think it gives a reason for downstate legislators to not support it -- not only on the initial build but also for operations and gradual improvements to the service over time.

 

(2) Cincinnati is now the most-populous region in the state, and the City of Cincinnati's population is growing again. Following the 2010 Census, the Cincinnati-Dayton region will be reclassified as a single Metro, probably ranked as the 17th or 18th largest in the nation, right along with Seattle-Tacoma and Minneapolis/St. Paul, cities that have and are linking themselves more closely by rail. It would be weird to have statewide rail and not take this into account.

 

(3) I think it's true that Cincinnati is more aligned with Chicago than Cleveland. Maybe even more with Atlanta than Cleveland. In the summer of 2008, every seat on The Cardinal out of Cincinnati to Chicago or Washington was sold out. Which is pretty good for trains that you have to board at either 1:00a or 3:00a and only running three days a week. Plus, once the train gets to Cincinnati, it's the logical Midwestern gateway to the South. And Cincinnati owns the Southern Railway tracks all the way to the Georgia border. They're leased to NSC, but it's a building block for the future.

 

Food for thought.

Very well said John.

Thought you all might be interested in this person.... Another car-potato Ohioan who doesn't want options to driving everywhere on our "socialist" highway system, doesn't know what the train schedule will be (no one does yet) and has no idea how Ohio is going to compete with the world when we're stranded by $5 gas in our car-only state....

 

 

 

 

From an objective point of view, how do pro-rail people counter such ads without resorting to calling people fat?  "Car-potato" is new to me and fits very well.

From an objective point of view, how do pro-rail people counter such ads without resorting to calling people fat? "Car-potato" is new to me and fits very well.

 

BTW, many Ohioans are car potatos, a sad reflection of our overdependence on cars and the resultant cancerous spread of car-only suburbs....

 

How to address her piece? Easy (as I am repeating the reasons stated here before):

 

++ There is no train schedule. There will be after extensive negotiations between ODOT, Amtrak and the freight railroads. We don't know how fast or slow the train will be.

 

++ Even if the train is slower than the actual drive time, so what? That's not the major reason why people are filling state-supported trains in 27 other states. The top reason is cost, and taking the train (8.5-14 cents per mile on Amtrak Midwest) is one-fifth the cost of driving (55 cents per mile: AAA, IRS). We're also ignoring half of the 3C's population who may be unable to drive city-to-city due to age, income and other reasons.

 

++ If we want high-speed trains someday then accept the $400 million and use it to start the evolutionary process toward high-speed rail, just as every other place that has high-speed rail got there. Most if not all of the 3C start-up improvements will apply to the 90-110 mph service for which planning could start this year.

 

++ How many things in your city, state or nation do you pay for and not use? Does that make them any less valuable? It is the height of narcissism to take the view "I won't use it so it's not valuable to anyone else."

 

++ The cost estimate last year wasn't based on anything. None of the 3C environmental and planning assessments had been done at that time. And it looks to me like the costs are falling, if we can do a $564 million project for $400 million. Do you chastise the car salesman because the final purchase price of the car was less than the sticker price?

 

++ 3C passenger rail operating funds will be less than one half of one percent of ODOT's budget, or less than six hundreths of one percent of the state's annual budget.

 

++ Short version of subsidy issue: Unlike government-owned and subsidized highways and airports, privately owned rail infrastructure is expected to produce a profit margin. If a passenger train doesn't contribute to that, it will be sidetracked for more lucrative freight traffic. So it must be adequately funded to operate swiftly and reliably.

 

++ Long version of subsidy issue: Yes the train like all forms of transportation is subsidized. Each is subsidized in opposing ways. Highway and airport users enjoy their subsidies through public-option infrastructure, which does not have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for property taxes, capital financing, liability insurance, traffic dispatching and even profit margins. This doesn't even include defense costs to keep the international flow of oil moving to feed America's voracious oil appetite (America = 5% of world population but 25% of world oil consumption). Privately owned and funded vehicles use the government's road and airport system. The opposite is the case with passenger rail -- publicly owned vehicles using a privately owned and financed infrastructure that pays billions for property taxes, capital financing, liability insurance and traffic dispatching out of its own pocket, not the taxpayers'.

Thanks.  I am always impressed by how small of share rail spending would be of the state's transportation budget.  Reiterating that figure could do a lot of good.

Good suggestion. I added that info -- third-to-last item.

^

 

I once read - and this was some time ago, maybe even before 9/11 - that if the true cost of maintaining a presence on foreign soil to promote and protect oil supplies and to keep the sea lanes open to bring that oil to the United States ... that if all those costs were assigned to the final cost of the petroleum economy, then a gallon of gas would cost over $10 per gallon.

 

Can't remember the source, and it seems almost unbelievable, but I think it offers an interesting re-framing of this issue. Sort like the one where, I dunno, maybe more than a thousand gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of beef. Just kind of makes you think about things differently ...

^I think those approaches can be tricky. Curiously enough I think there are a lot of people out there with the kind of psychology that actually responds positively to such realizations. That detailing all of the actual power projection that goes into acquiring gasoline, or beef, actually makes them feel powerful. Sort of a Manifest Destiny effect.

 

 

I don't think that's true at all.  If 3-C is rejected, that's a rejection of 3-C as presented and not of HSR... 3-C doesn't even claim to be HSR.  A lot of the resistance would dissipate if we were talking HSR.  Those who want rail here may need to alter the approach, and more crucially the plan itself, but as long as we still live and breathe nothing's ever over.  I agree with clvndr that if the southern half of the state isn't interested, the focus should shift to northern Ohioans who appreciate rail and want it to happen.  It seems that more friutful connections can be made through Cleveland anyway.  America isn't laid out on a state-by-state basis, so planning our rail network on that basis is senseless.  I understand why it's being done that way, but it's still senseless. 

 

I think KJP's assertion is correct: you've got to crawl before you can walk.  As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), no currently planned HSR serves an area not that doesn't have any Amtrak rail service (so call "Thruway" buses don't count).  Other states have what Ohioans are calling "slow trains" and are looking to upgrade.  I can't see the Feds having any interest or desire to build a 3-C HSR demonstration project, it this State is so backwards, so Byzantine as to reject a rare, flat out gift grant to build a worthwhile "starter" line. 

 

OK, forget Democrat or Republican at this point.  Whoever is successful in killing 3-C, if they be successful (and pray they aren't), will send this send this State in to darker ages beyond what it's already in... and like I said earlier, if that doomsday scenario happens, I just hope the Feds won't give up on enhancing Cleveland's connections w/ the rest of the Northeast and Midwest.

John, You're probably thinking of this report (this thing is already 12 years old, but still a worthy guide to the kinds of costs related to driving we don't readily think about)....

 

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

 

The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, results in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

 

(Again, that was 12 years ago when gasoline cost less than half as much as it does today).

 

For a more up-to-date, personal analysis of your cost of driving, see........

 

How much does it REALLY cost you to drive? 

Use the True Cost of Driving Online Calculator to find out!

 

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

 

Or share this brochure with your friends and associates.....

 

http://www.commutesolutions.org/TCODBro.pdf

and like I said earlier, it that doomsday scenario happens, I just hope the Feds won't give up on enhancing Cleveland's connections w/ the rest of the Northeast and Midwest.

 

Unfortunately, the feds aren't initiating anything or it would be easier to develop corridors that are evenly spread among multiple states. Instead they are supporting what the states are doing. All passenger rail development projects in this nation are being hatched and pushed forward by the states, with the feds now adding their 80 cents on the dollar to support them.

 

So if the states don't take the lead, there will be no federal money coming to them. That's why it's so important for Ohio to stay aggressive. Otherwise that map I posted a page or two back will remain unchanged for many, many years.

Thought you all might be interested in this person.... Another overweight car-potato Ohioan who doesn't want options to driving everywhere on our "socialist" highway system, doesn't know what the train schedule will be (no one does yet) and has no idea how Ohio is going to compete with the world when we're stranded by $5 gas in our car-only state....

 

Overweight car potato, ouch!  (truth hurts, even if its a lady)... Seriously, though, this is all so sad and so pathetic, that so many jugheads have, somewhat successfully, turned something so potentially worthwhile, into a political, anti-Ted Strickland campaign, we should all collectively hang our heads as a state...

... then schedlue the moving vans to pack up and GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE if these fools are successful!!

 

^It is pretty sad and pathetic, but once again I'm not quite sure this is an effective tactic.  This mail piece strikes me as being very targeted to people who are already going to be voting Republican (Shannon Jones is a Republican).

 

The one thing that is becoming obvious is 1) whether or not we have rail in Ohio is a political choice, whether you want it to be or not, and 2) the Republicans are coming out against rail because they think it will win them votes and they typically don't represent the major cities.  I don't think this will be a terribly galvanizing tactic for them, but they've taken it.  So if you want rail in Ohio, it is imperative that you vote for Democratic candidates this November.

As KJP detailed so well, Shannon Jones is "fighting" with blanks in her pistol.  But this is very typical of most opponents: don't let the facts stand in the way of making an argument.

From an objective point of view, how do pro-rail people counter such ads without resorting to calling people fat? "Car-potato" is new to me and fits very well.

 

Call them socialist -- get 'em where it hurts. What we have now is a system in which the government, through decades of subsidies and ill-advised policies -- practically requires us to buy cars to get around on massively subsidized highways and local roads.

 

The one thing that is becoming obvious is 1) whether or not we have rail in Ohio is a political choice, whether you want it to be or not, and 2) the Republicans are coming out against rail because they think it will win them votes and they typically don't represent the major cities.  I don't think this will be a terribly galvanizing tactic for them, but they've taken it.  So if you want rail in Ohio, it is imperative that you vote for Democratic candidates this November.

 

Amen to that!

Continuing in our discussion of what it really costs to drive. Here is what you save by NOT driving.....

 

From the American Public Transportation Association....

 

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1107472/1860488346/name/NationalReleaseforTSR-March2010.doc

 

For Immediate Release

Contact: Mantill Williams

March 4, 2010     (202) 496-4869

[email protected]

 

RIDING PUBLIC TRANSIT SAVES INDIVIDUALS $9,215 ANNUALLY

Transit riders now save $715 more per year compared to last year at this time

as the cost of gas has increased $0.77 per gallon

 

Washington, DC – Individuals who ride public transportation can save on average $9,215 annually based on the March 3, 2010 national average gas price and the national unreserved monthly parking rate.  Compared to last year at this time, the average cost per gallon of gas was $1.933 which is $0.77 less than the current price of gas at $2.703 per gallon.  The total savings as compared to last year at this time equates to an increase of an additional $715 in savings per year for transit commuters.

 

“The Transit Savings Report” released monthly by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) calculates the average annual and monthly savings for public transit users.  The report examines how an individual in a two-person household can save money by taking public transportation and living with one less car.

 

Transit riders can save on average $768 per month.  The savings amount is based on the cost of the national averages for parking and driving, as well as the March 3 national average gas price of $2.703 per gallon for self-serve regular gasoline as reported by AAA.

 

Taking public transportation provides a safe and affordable way for individuals and families to cut costs, according to APTA.  In addition, local public transit offers a travel option that has an immediate positive impact in reducing an individual’s overall carbon footprint while helping reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

 

The national average for a monthly unreserved parking space in a downtown business district is $154.23, according to the 2009 Colliers International Parking Rate Study.  Over the course of a year, parking costs for a vehicle can amount to an average of $1,850.

 

The top 20 cities with the highest transit ridership are ranked in order of their transit savings based on the purchase of a monthly public transit pass and factoring in local gas prices for March 3, 2010 and the local monthly unreserved parking rate.*

 

Top Twenty Cities – Transit Savings Report

 

City Monthly Savings Annual Savings

1 New York $1,145 $13,740

2 Boston $1,028 $12,333

3 San Francisco $1,011 $12,134

4 Chicago $942 $11,298

5 Seattle $933 $11,197

6 Philadelphia $925 $11,095

7 Honolulu $891 $10,689

8 Los Angeles $835 $10,023

9 San Diego $822 $9,859

10 Minneapolis $821 $9,856

11 Portland $799 $9,590

12 Denver $798 $9,571

13 Cleveland $795 $9,537

14 Baltimore $779 $9,349

15 Miami $751 $9,007

16 Washington, DC $750 $9,004

17 Dallas $729 $8,746

18 Atlanta $720 $8,642

19 Las Vegas $712 $8,545

20 Pittsburgh $678 $8,139

 

*Based on gasoline prices as reported by AAA on 3/3/10.

 

Methodology

 

APTA calculates the average cost of taking public transit by determining the average monthly transit pass of local public transit agencies across the country.  This information is based on the annual APTA fare collection survey and is weighted based on ridership (unlinked passenger trips).  The assumption is that a person making a switch to public transportation would likely purchase an unlimited pass on the local transit agency, typically available on a monthly basis.

 

APTA then compares the average monthly transit fare to the average cost of driving.  The cost of driving is calculated using the 2009 AAA average cost of driving formula.  AAA cost of driving formula is based on variable costs and fixed costs.  The variable costs include the cost of gas, maintenance and tires.  The fixed costs include insurance, license registration, depreciation and finance charges.  The comparison also uses the average mileage of a mid-size auto at 23.4 miles per gallon and the price for self-serve regular unleaded gasoline as recorded by AAA on March 3 at $2.703 per gallon.  The analysis also assumes that a person will drive an average of 15,000 miles per year.  The savings assume a person in a two-person household lives with one less car.

 

In determining the cost of parking, APTA uses the data from the 2009 Colliers International Parking Rate Study for monthly unreserved parking rates for the United States.

 

To calculate your individual savings with or without car ownership, go to www.publictransportation.org. 

 

# # #

From an objective point of view, how do pro-rail people counter such ads without resorting to calling people fat? "Car-potato" is new to me and fits very well.

 

Call them socialist -- get 'em where it hurts. What we have now is a system in which the government, through decades of subsidies and ill-advised policies -- practically requires us to buy cars to get around on massively subsidized highways and local roads.

That's a good point. Though the cost per mile is much higher for rail, we have thousands of times more road footage (is that the right term?) than we do rail trackage.

While construction costs per track-mile of new railroad are similar to that of each lane-mile of new road, many tracks can be built on existing rights of way where tracks were removed. That can save a lot of money. Plus the maintenance costs for rail are quite a bit less.....

 

Rail Construction....

New track on abandoned right of way: $1 million to $3 million per mile

New track on new right of way: $5 million to $25 million per mile

 

Lane-mile road construction costs:

http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2007/s2007-05-T5.jpg

 

BTW, the capacity of a lane (level of service D) is 8,500 vehicles per day. Limited-access roads (interstates, etc) have a much higher capacity.

While construction costs per track-mile of new railroad are similar to that of each lane-mile of new road, many tracks can be built on existing rights of way where tracks were removed. That can save a lot of money. Plus the maintenance costs for rail are quite a bit less.....

 

Rail Construction....

New track on abandoned right of way: $1 million to $3 million per mile

New track on new right of way: $5 million to $25 million per mile

 

Lane-mile road construction costs:

http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2007/s2007-05-T5.jpg

 

BTW, the capacity of a lane (level of service D) is 8,500 vehicles per day. Limited-access roads (interstates, etc) have a much higher capacity.

Turn the debate on its head and show how rail is the fiscally responsible choice.  Sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record but I've been saying this for awhile.

So the 39 mph number is absolute bunk?  It keeps sounding that way but not definitively.  If it is bunk, we gotta shoot it down somehow.  That thing is an open bleeding wound.  Potato lady mentioned it and it's becoming pretty widely believed in general.  This stat is about the only stat that affects people. 

 

Unless you're preaching to the choir on this, your audience may not be impressed by similar services in cities and states they consider foreign.  They're acutely aware of the differences between those cities and ours.  They pride themselves on the differences.  No coastal elites are they.  But they're not stupid and they'd be interested in rail if the numbers worked out favorably enough.  And that's where they're stuck.  They can't be sold on 3C-1994, they never have been, but they can be sold on the next stage, and then on 3C as a necessary step.  They need to hear more about how we get to the next stage and how certain we are that we'll do it.       

Thought you all might be interested in this person.... Another car-potato Ohioan who doesn't want options to driving everywhere on our "socialist" highway system, doesn't know what the train schedule will be (no one does yet) and has no idea how Ohio is going to compete with the world when we're stranded by $5 gas in our car-only state....

 

 

 

 

 

CAR POTATO!!! Priceless!!!

While construction costs per track-mile of new railroad are similar to that of each lane-mile of new road, many tracks can be built on existing rights of way where tracks were removed. That can save a lot of money. Plus the maintenance costs for rail are quite a bit less.....

 

Rail Construction....

New track on abandoned right of way: $1 million to $3 million per mile

New track on new right of way: $5 million to $25 million per mile

 

Lane-mile road construction costs:

http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2007/s2007-05-T5.jpg

 

BTW, the capacity of a lane (level of service D) is 8,500 vehicles per day. Limited-access roads (interstates, etc) have a much higher capacity.

Turn the debate on its head and show how rail is the fiscally responsible choice.  Sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record but I've been saying this for awhile.

 

And according to the Federal Highway Administration, Ohio SUBSIDIZES roads to the tune of about $1.2 billion a YEAR. Where is the righteous indignation over that??? These idiots want to swat the Amtrak fly while ignoring the highway elephant.

Thought you all might be interested in this person.... Another car-potato Ohioan who doesn't want options to driving everywhere on our "socialist" highway system, doesn't know what the train schedule will be (no one does yet) and has no idea how Ohio is going to compete with the world when we're stranded by $5 gas in our car-only state....

 

 

 

 

 

Where is she from?