This sounds like a classic case of the "fundamental attribution error".

 

http://psystenance.com/2010/03/15/the-fundamental-attribution-error-in-transportation-choice/

Seanmcl:

you seem to think that because I have a different opinion than you I apparently completely misunderstand the facts. -- That is a very closeminded view points you have. Just because I do not agree with you does not make my viewpoint wrong or even out of touch.

 

I have read the facts, and 1) the projections of 400,000 rail passengers using this is just unrealistic. In fact, most projections by proponents of big projects such as this are vastly overstated (becuase there is really no way to get a true assessment).  2) other states with success at similar projects have not met the estimates they orginally stated for ridership either.

 

Now even with these numbers, that does not mean that in theory, a high speed rail line is not a good idea, but given the fiscal challenges facing our state, it is not the best use of funds at this time in my opinion. If the ridership numbers do not materialize per the estimates, this could saddle the state with a significant ongoing operating burden.

 

Although it may not be the popular opinion on this site, it is a very pragmatic one. So instead of jumping up and down and calling any detractor names, maybe try and understand their viewpoint since, the supporters of this provision are in the minority, and it may help you win the battle of public opinion if you reach out to them intead of bash them.

 

 

what exactly do you consider a "significant ongoing operating burden"?

Brutus_buckeye, please explain why a $1.2 billion annual operating subisdy for roads and highways in Ohio is affordable but $17 million for trains is not?

 

Or perhaps this might explain Ohio's (and America's) greatest financial burden a bit better......

 

This sounds like a classic case of the "fundamental attribution error".

 

http://psystenance.com/2010/03/15/the-fundamental-attribution-error-in-transportation-choice/

 

 

Awesome piece! That's a keeper.

I have read the facts, and 1) the projections of 400,000 rail passengers using this is just unrealistic. In fact, most projections by proponents of big projects such as this are vastly overstated (becuase there is really no way to get a true assessment).  2) other states with success at similar projects have not met the estimates they orginally stated for ridership either.

 

Could you please reference these facts that you have read? I'm curious to see them and it would support your argument that you are not just stating an opinion.

 

Also you use "success" and "have not met the estimates" in the same sentence. Can you elaborate?

Seanmcl:

you seem to think that because I have a different opinion than you I apparently completely misunderstand the facts. -- That is a very closeminded view points you have. Just because I do not agree with you does not make my viewpoint wrong or even out of touch.

 

Brutus:

 

You have made the statement that 3C is "too expensive" (compared to what or by what standard?), "impractical"  (by what definition?) and that it is too slow (but no slower than any other similar start up in the rest of the United States).

 

I have read the facts, and 1) the projections of 400,000 rail passengers using this is just unrealistic.

 

On what basis? You have training in survey methodologies such that you can be seriously critical of those who do? What is flawed about the methodology used in Ohio?

 

In fact, most projections by proponents of big projects such as this are vastly overstated (becuase there is really no way to get a true assessment).

 

Actually, this has been well studied by Don Pickrell from the Urban Mass Transit Association and the reasons are a bit more complicated than what you stated, however, many of the failings of early models in the US were due to flaws in the methodology which have been identified and mitigated in more recent ridership surveys. And while it is the case that it is MOST problematic to get accurate projections of lines not in operation, it is also the case that, in some instances, ridership has actually exceeded projections.  The Keystone Corridor is one example in the US of which I am aware (I am sure that there are others), as well as the TGV-A in France.

 

Suffice it to say that statements like "most projections" and "vastly overstated" are irrelevant. If the methodology is not the same, then what does it matter what someone else did?

 

2) other states with success at similar projects have not met the estimates they orginally stated for ridership either.

 

Not uniformly true. In any event, many of the early (two decades old) ridership projections did not take into account such things as a sudden increase in gasoline price such as we saw very recently, nor did they take into account changing demographics.

 

If the ridership numbers do not materialize per the estimates, this could saddle the state with a significant ongoing operating burden.

 

I keep reading this but ask from where you draw this conclusion and how do you define "significant" and "ongoing"? Rhetoric is fine but how about some facts.

 

Although it may not be the popular opinion on this site, it is a very pragmatic one.

 

"Pragmatic" is not the same as "short sighted". This project has the potential to change the way that Ohio does business like no other which has been proposed. In exchange for a $400 million investment in the state, the state has to cough up $17 million/year for three years (and maybe not even that much).

 

You mean to tell me that you would not spend $17 in order to make $400?

 

Although it may not be the popular opinion on this site, it is a very pragmatic one.

 

"Pragmatic" is not the same as "short sighted". This project has the potential to change the way that Ohio does business like no other which has been proposed. In exchange for a $400 million investment in the state, the state has to cough up $17 million/year for three years (and maybe not even that much).

 

You mean to tell me that you would not spend $17 in order to make $400?

Let's put it this way, a few weeks ago I decided to replace a TV. I'd love to have a $1000 40" plasma in my living room. But if someone came along and offered me a $400 32" TV for $1.42 a month I'd take it in an instant. If they then topped it off with the fact that the TV is Energy Star rated so it'll save me a portion of the $1.42 when I factor in what I'm already paying in electricity for my antique piece of junk TV, I'd be an idiot not to take it. Sure it's not the 40" plasma, but look at the deal I'm getting!

If you are a reader of the PD, this might be worthwhile for you to participate by giving feedback on their coverage of important issues....

 

PLAIN DEALER

READER ADVISORY FORUM

 

 

Dear Readers,

 

This is an unusual request: I am hoping you'll be willing to participate in a short survey that won't result in a newspaper story, but will be an interesting exercise and will help out one of our editors.

 

The editor is David Campbell, who as associate sports editor is third in command in The Plain Dealer sports department. He is pursuing a master's degree in communication management at John Carroll University.

 

As part of his thesis, he is looking into the financial problems that newspapers across the country are having, and is conducting a short, eight-question survey about a possible solution that some have suggested: using tax money to help keep newspapers solvent.

 

He thought, and I agree, that it would be hard to find a better group to survey than the Reader Advisory Network, as you are Plain Dealer and cleveland.com readers who have more than just a casual interest in journalism and news.

 

The survey takes only 2-3 minutes to complete.

 

Here is an HTML link: Click to take JCU journalism survey

 

If that link does not work, this link can be posted into your browser:

 

http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/E22ADBA8CFC5D74E/

 

If you would like to contact David regarding the survey, his e-mail is [email protected].

 

Thank you for your time, and for helping out a college student!

 

Ted Diadiun

Reader Representative

Then there's this....

 

three rebuilds for $6,600 million or a totally new transportation option connecting the four largest cities in the state for $400 million.  That's an easy call.

I don't know how many of you know this, but Senator Bill Harris owns a car dealership in Ashland. So, the 3C rail project may go against his special interests.

 

All legislators and other elected officials who influence fiscal policy should be required to sell their possessions and take a vow of poverty (Clearly, chastity or even marital fidelity is too much to expect). It would dissuade the charlatans from running, and help the objectivity of those who get elected.

:-)

 

As to what we might do about stupidity among the electorate, I haven't a clue.

Reasonable people can agree or disagree about whether one or more of those highway projects are needed. Rail and transit supporters are right to be outraged, though, at the double standard that exists in public discourse about the costs of such projects. Plans to (justifiably or not) spend $6.6 Billion on highway projects are met with a shrug, while plans to spend less than 10% of that amount on 3C and the Cincinnati Streetcar are met with howls of "boondoggle" by the usual troglodytes and their puppets in the media.

After reading about that Wisconsin opposition, I wonder if this is a coordinated campaign?  Are we seeing similar opposition surface elsewhere?

When you start seeing names like Randal O'Toole showing up in newspaper stories...as it did in Sunday's Dispatch story by reporter James Nash.... that is a big sign this is a coordinated campaign.  People such as Randal O'Toole and Wendell Cox are professional rail & transit opponents.  They are often brought in by so-called "think tanks" as a way of mounting both an above and below ground campaign.  By below ground, they help feed information to legislators and others who oppose rail and transit projects.  Above ground, they submit op-ed pieces to local papers and offer themselves up to local reporters as intellectually opposing views.  Make no mistake, they get paid and paid well to do this and are well funded by various conservative and oil industry connected foundations.

 

The webiste www.lightrailnow.org has done some very good research on O'Toole, Cox and these "think tanks".

I agree with you only in point that it is silly that the State can only justify transportation spending of large sums of taxpayer money on highway projects alone. That said, every one of those projects being constructed are needed due to poor original design (in retrospect) and/or the possibility of safety hazard(s).

 

Except the point of that one-pager I put together is that the feds don't have the money for those big road projects -- unless Congress keep bailing out the Highway Trust Fund. They just approved the third bailout from the general fund since 2008 totaling $24.5 billion. Note that those Big Three Ohio highway projects total $6.6 billion -- almost one third of all three bailouts put together!

 

So we are told the state doesn't have the money to operate and maintain 3C trains -- even though it won't affect the state treasury until three years from now, and even then at just $3 million per year. ODOT has already shown how it can pay for that tiny sum many times over, including from business opportunities, tax revenues the economic payback from the train in new jobs, sales tax revenues from added consumer spending and reduced state employee travel costs. The full $17 million won't affect the state until six years from now. If the state's budget isn't stabilized by 2016 then, yes, someone in state government does need to lose their job(s).

 

On the highway side, the added infrastructure from the Big Three projects noted earlier has to be maintained, operated and patrolled. Not only is there no money to build these and other mega highway projects, there is no money to sustain them in subsequent years. We need to recognize that Baby Boomers aren't able to drive as much or as far, that driving is getting more expensive, that cars are getting more fuel-efficient and that young people don't love cars like their parents and grandparents did.

 

But yet we keep on building huge road projects if no other reason but inertia.

By the way, I didn't mean to leave Dayton out of things by mentioning only the Big Three projects. One highway project in Downtown Dayton is pretty close to the cost of the 3C Corridor rail project: a $390 million to rebuild I-75 ramps and add new ones -- including the "$70 million U-Turn" -- by 2012.

 

My cats couldn't work over a ball of yarn better than this...

 

http://docs.mvrpc.org/nsti/BoardPhase2.pdf

 

...and yet no one has answered how much more it will cost ODOT to maintain the added lane-miles of this more extensive labyrinth of roadway infrastructure in the coming years. Considering half of all highway costs are borne by subsidies, I would think this is an important question to answer.

has anyone compared the annual cost of snow removal (labor, equipment, salt, etc.) in one of the C's to the total cost of the operating subsidy?  We need something tangible that puts the relatively minor subsidy cost in perspective for the public.

Funny you should ask that. I was just working on that!

 

According to ODOT (see Page 37 of http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/2010-2011BusinessPlan/Documents/ODOT2010-2011BusinessPlan-WEB.pdf):

 

ODOT Operating 2010: $733 million

ODOT Operating 2017: $986 million

 

Pavement preservation 2010: $484 million

Pavement preservation 2017: $812 million

 

Bridge preservation 2010: $227 million

Bridge preservation 2017: $376 million

 

Safety Program 2010: $63 million

Safety Program 2017: $78 million

 

Statewide ODOT 2010: $196 million

Statewide ODOT 2017: $205 million

 

Local system preservation 2010: $303 million

Local system preservation 2017: $328 million

 

TOTAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE 2010: $2.006 billion

TOTAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE 2017: $2.785 billion

 

Approximately half of ODOT's operating and maintenance costs are subsidized. Who says?

 

According to Subsidyscope (see: http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/), a research effort by The Pew Charitable Trusts, 49 percent of highway operating and maintenance costs nationwide are borne by non-users -- a subsidy from income, property, sales and other taxes. Subsidyscope conducted its analysis before Congress bailed out the federal Highway Trust Fund three times since 2008 for a total of $24.5 billion by general taxpayers. The Subsidyscope data is from 2007 and earlier.

 

In other words, at least $1 billion of ODOT's operations and maintenance budget is subsidized by non-user costs.

 

That subsidy will grow by $400 million to $1.4 billion annually by 2017.

 

Meanwhile, take note that the Ohio State Highway Patrol is no longer funded by the gas tax. Only $38 million per year, or 12 percent of the patrol's budget comes from anything resembling a user source as Gov. Ted Strickland bailed out the patrol last year by closing a tax loophole for fuel wholesalers. The rest of the patrol's $636 million budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 is from general revenue funds -- purely a highway subsidy.

 

According to a June 2, 2008 article in the Columbus Dispatch (see: http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/1700677-Ohio-state-patrol-facing-cash-crunch/): "the patrol's share of gas taxes declined from $140 million in 2004 to zero this year and for the foreseeable future. Lawmakers decided to use the money to build roads instead."

 

Based on that data, the Ohio State Highway Patrol subsidy after subtracting the revenues from the wholesale fuel tax is about $280 million.

 

The state-controlled portion of Ohio's roadway system has a 2010 operating subsidy of about $1.3 billion, rising to approximately $1.7 billion by 2017 (this doesn't include city, county or other local roads which significant portions of their costs are funded by non-user fees). To cover just the maintenance, operations and safety expense would require a state gas tax increase of nearly 27 cents per gallon. That doesn't include a large but unwarranted increase in the construction of new-capacity lanes and roads. There will be fewer drivers in the future; not more.

 

Again, none of this includes the trio of Highway Trust Fund bailouts since 2008. So this subsidy is actually smaller than what it really is.

 

It's good to know fiscal conservatives like Senator Jon Husted (who feared the 3C trains' $17 million operating subsidy would be the biggest money pit in state history) are protecting us taxpayers from imminent doom. Perhaps he was looking at Ohio's balooning highway subsidy when he made that misdirected comment.

Why do you think there will be fewer drivers in the future, not more?

 

Does anyone know of a link to the actual agreement between ODOT/ORDC and USDOT/FRA regarding the 3C Quick Start? Not the proposal, itself, but what was actually the agreement.

 

I thought this was the 3C thread, not the continual-ODOT-bashing thread?

 

"There will be fewer drivers in the future; not more."

 

I'd like to see a citation for that. A statistical blip or a slight downturn (that's already been reversed) doesn't give a trend that drivers are all hopping on buses or trains.

I thought this was the 3C thread, not the continual-ODOT-bashing thread?

 

Who is ODOT bashing? Critics of 3C continue to insist that roadways are paid for by user fees. This simply isn't true. Critics also complain about the estimated state subsidy for 3C. That subsidy, as well as the costs for the Quick Start, are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of major highway projects across the state. What is being "bashed" is the head in the sand argument that says "we can't afford passenger rail" while billions are being spent to maintain the roadways, some of which we wouldn't need if we had alternatives.

 

"There will be fewer drivers in the future; not more."

 

Possibly, but not because of a decrease in the population.

 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html

 

I thought this was the 3C thread, not the continual-ODOT-bashing thread?

 

"There will be fewer drivers in the future; not more."

 

I'd like to see a citation for that. A statistical blip or a slight downturn (that's already been reversed) doesn't give a trend that drivers are all hopping on buses or trains.

 

I don't think he's bashing ODOT, he's bashing highway spending. 3C's an ODOT project.

I thought this was the 3C thread, not the continual-ODOT-bashing thread?

 

"There will be fewer drivers in the future; not more."

 

I'd like to see a citation for that. A statistical blip or a slight downturn (that's already been reversed) doesn't give a trend that drivers are all hopping on buses or trains.

 

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2010/update87

 

 

What a strange response to say that, because I'm sharing highway subsidy data, that this is somehow bashing ODOT. Why do you believe that?

 

Why will driving in Ohio decline? A number of reasons all coming together at the same time:

 

Ohio's stagnant, aging population:

 

While national population is growing pretty steadily, it's barely growing in Ohio.

 

According to: http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/files/p200/Ohio.pdf

 

          2010      2030

15-19: 901,940 866,770 -

20-24: 776,400 794,930 +

25-29: 673,810 733,840 +

30-34: 717,520 795,320 +

35-39: 802,010 849,440 +

40-44: 814,310 805,930 -

45-49: 872,750 745,210 -

50-54: 879,760 720,430 -

55-59: 763,620 729,700 -

60-64: 635,530 682,690 +

65-69: 452,320 670,970 +

70-74: 344,950 603,790 +

75-79: 277,370 447,860 +

80-84: 237,420 304,140 +

85+ :  212,770 231,240 +

 

While I didn't calculate the percentage change for each age group, you can see there are a lot of population decreases in the age groups (40-60) who are in the economic peak of their lives, but before their physical ability to drive declines. And I wonder if the 20-39 group will actually increase in population as they account for the biggest declines in Ohio population from 1990-2000 most likely due to brain drain. The ODOD data assumes that this brain drain will stop. If it doesn't, Ohio's population will not grow between now and 2030. And Baby Boomers represent the largest number of drivers -- many of whom start turning 65 next year, are retiring, are less physically able to drive longer distances or at highway speeds, and will therefore see them driving less.

 

 

The cost of driving is rising faster than incomes:

 

If household incomes grew as fast as the cost of driving, Ohio's median four-person household income would have risen from $51,835 in 1996 to $71,605 today, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator. Instead incomes rose only to $66,734, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

The cost of driving continues to rise, now at 54 cents per mile, says the AAA. The motorists’ association also estimates the cost of owning, maintaining and driving a mid-sized car 15,000 miles per year is $8,100, up from $5,916 and 39.4 cents per mile in 1994. That’s a huge share of household costs when one-third of U.S. households earn less than $30,000 per year. Half of the households earn $45,000 or less, and two thirds earn $65,000 or less.

 

 

Higher fuel costs:

 

A large source of rising costs of driving are due to fuel prices. What impact does this have on driving? Numerous analyses on that question were summarized by Phil Goodwin, Joyce Dargay and Mark Hanly in their report “Review of Income and Price Elasticities in the Demand for Road Traffic.” They found that if the real price of fuel goes up and stays up by 10 percent, the result is a dynamic process of adjustment:

 

• The volume of traffic will go down by roundly 1 percent within about a year, building up to a reduction of about 3 percent in about five years.

• The volume of fuel consumed will go down by about 2.5 percent within a year, building up to a reduction of over 6 percent in the longer run.

 

 

Real and asset poverty is growing:

 

Transportation costs typically exceed housing costs for working-class and low-income households (see: http://www.cnt.org/repository/heavy_load_10_06.pdf). As noted before, higher costs of driving cause us to drive much less. This is likely truer for lower income households.

 

Percentage of Ohioans living below the poverty line:

 

1969 10.0%

1979 10.3%

1989 12.5%

1999 12.0%

2006 12.1%

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/census/cphl162.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov21.html

 

Despite this, the number of Ohio households that are “asset poor” have increased. Asset poors are households with insufficient net worth – total physical and financial assets, minus total liabilities and debt – to subsist at the federal poverty level for three months. This measure represents the percentage of households unable to meet basic needs throughout an extended period of economic hardship.

 

Ohio had a household asset poverty rate of 22.6%, up from 17.6% when the first scorecard was issued using 1996 data (See: http://www.oacaa.org/index_198_2165961434.pdf).

 

So there.  :-D

Yes, the Earth Policy Institute. Hardly a reliable source.

 

From FHWA 2003, which shows a steady increase --

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/dl.htm

 

There was a decline of 9.6 billion VMT, or 3.7%, from May 2007 to May 2008, which put a large dent in gasoline tax revenues, making funding such projects listed above much more difficult --

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/dot08102.htm

 

For the real facts, see --

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.cfm

 

June 2009 --

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/09juntvt/index.cfm

 

"Travel on all roads and streets changed by 2.0% (4.9 billion vehicle miles) for June 2009 as compared with June 2008."

 

You can go through, month by month, and find the real facts. Baloney sources, such as the site listed above, cherry pick information to support their agenda. It's not considered a reliable source. Anyone can choose a down month (e.g. May 2008) and claim that driving is on the fast decline, when it isn't.

 

Maybe not ODOT bashing as I had indicated, but certainly biased. If people would stop choosing to cherry pick raw data to support their monolithic beliefs (and this is not a stab at 3C or any particular forumer), we would have less of these pimped-up press releases and more of the facts.

 

--

 

Thanks for the reply KJP, I didn't see that as I was typing, but it still doesn't explain why driving usage is increasing still today. Yeah, populations age, but in most states (unlike Ohio), there is an increase in population caused by immigration and natural births. As people age, I would hope that they have alternatives planned for when they are no longer able to drive, but we can't just make a loose correlation that as one ages, they are more likely to use a bus or train.

National data from the FHWA or the Earth Policy Institute may not be relevant to Ohio. It is a no-growth state. The only way we might see driving increase in Ohio is if sprawl continues. That represents higher travel costs but doesn't result in economic development, only economic dislocation. Developing lower-cost travel like 3C and public transit puts more money back into consumers pockets and into Ohio's economy...

 

http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/Traveler-economic%20benefits%20from%203C.pdf

 

BTW, I like that we're debating here using statistics and research, and citing sources even if we don't agree with the sources. This is the kind of debate I've come to expect at UO.

http://209.51.133.155/cms/index.php/news_releases/more/ohio_getting_left_behind_at_the_station/

 

Ohio: Getting left behind at the station

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — April 7, 2010

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

 

What does a train station say about the city it serves? A great deal, according to an illustrative presentation released today by All Aboard Ohio.

 

“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this report is worth a million,” said All Aboard Ohio President Bill Hutchison. “It shows how far behind Ohio really is compared to much of the rest of the nation. Other cities are becoming more dynamic with the development of regional and intercity public transportation—specifically rail. And a good place to start looking for that change is their train stations. Ohio really is getting left behind at the station.”

 

Please download the 6.6MB report at:

http://freepdfhosting.com/8b1369c85e.pdf

 

The report specifically excluded all cities in the Northeast Corridor, plus stations in Chicago and Los Angeles. Instead stations in 20 medium- and large-sized cities were included to offer more relevant comparisons to Ohio cities. Consider, for example, that:

 

++ Sacramento, CA has a similar metro population to Columbus, OH yet its Amtrak station is America’s seventh-busiest with 1.1 million passengers per year. Meanwhile Columbus has no station.

++ St. Louis’ new Gateway Transportation Center sees more than twice as many daily Amtrak trains (12) than does the entire state of Ohio (5).

++ Dallas Union Station is busier today (up to 406 daily Amtrak, commuter and light-rail trains) than it was in the 1920s (80 daily trains).

++ Miami is building a $1.7 billion transportation center, including the Miami Central Station, at its international airport.

++ Salt Lake City’s new Intermodal Hub is served by 70 daily passenger trains, plus another 152 light-rail trains.

++ San Francisco has started construction of a $4 billion train station downtown that will create 48,000 jobs.

++ Denver Union Station is being redeveloped as the hub of a $6 billion rail system that is spurring a 20-acre station-area real estate development.

 

Those are just some of the highlights in the All Aboard Ohio report, which is thoroughly researched with lots of facts, footnotes and photos.

 

For those in the passenger rail industry, Ohio has gained a reputation as a backward state. But it’s not because of Ohio’s population density—9th greatest in U.S. (per U.S. Census) and equal to that of France (per World Almanac). Nor is it because Ohio lacks economic wherewithal—Gross State Product ranks its output 25th globally among non-U.S. nations (per Ohio Department of Development). And it’s not because Ohio lacks the know-how—Ohio ranks fourth in the nation in rail industry supplier employees (per Ohio Department of Transportation).

 

Ohio’s only excuse for not having a quality passenger rail system is a lack of initiative.

 

That lack of initiative has been revealing itself in recent months after Ohio won $400 million in no-match federal funds to develop the Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati “Quick Start” service as the first phase of a modern, statewide passenger rail system. Ohio will have to maintain the service, just as it does every other public expenditure including those for roads and highways (incurring $1.2 billion in annual local, state and federal subsidies according to the Federal Highway Administration, 2007). Yet some state legislators are balking at the comparatively tiny $17 million annual operating cost, 80 percent of which would be covered for the first three years (2013-2015) by existing federal grants. The rest would be covered by private-sector contributions for advertising, WiFi services plus train and station leases/concessions.

 

Rail-critical Ohio officials claim to seek more jobs and economic development but risk causing Ohio to fall farther behind its competitors in other states by not taking advantage of the $400 million in rail funds. In fact, according to the Federal Railroad Administration, those funds will be returned to the FRA for investment in other states if Ohio fails to capitalize on them.

 

“We’re hopeful Ohio will come to its senses before those funds are lost to other states’ advancing rail development programs,” Hutchison said. “We would rather issue an updated report in a few years showing how the $400 million has made Ohio’s stations and communities more vibrant than show how the funds Ohio lost were used to make competitors’ cities better places to live, work and visit. That is what is at stake here for Ohio.”

 

Please visit http://3CisME.ohio.gov to learn more about Ohio’s 3C rail project and visit http://www.linkingohio.com to let your state officials know you want quality passenger trains for Ohio. Kindly submit letters to your leaders or sign our online petition.

 

END

Also keep in mind that there's no way gas prices won't continue to increase.  You can argue about peak oil or carbon emissions until the cows come home, but that's not the issue.  The already huge demand for gas across the world is growing steadily, and only those places that have many different transportation options will be able to handle the increasing prices without huge disruptions to their way of life. 

National data from the FHWA or the Earth Policy Institute may not be relevant to Ohio. It is a no-growth state. The only way we might see driving increase in Ohio is if sprawl continues. That represents higher travel costs but doesn't result in economic development, only economic dislocation. Developing lower-cost travel like 3C and public transit puts more money back into consumers pockets and into Ohio's economy...

 

http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/Traveler-economic%20benefits%20from%203C.pdf

 

BTW, I like that we're debating here using statistics and research, and citing sources even if we don't agree with the sources. This is the kind of debate I've come to expect at UO.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely support you in those statements. And it is important to know that states that have driving declines are typically in the southwest and south, not midwest and northeast. A variety of factors can explain that -- the increase in public transport helps, but the declining economy in Las Vegas, for instance, tells an even greater tale. There are thousands upon thousands that were simply laid off and those folks have no where else to turn to -- so many just move out and move on to other locations, and when the economy is depressed, people are generally going to drive less.

 

But jjakucyk has a good point. Gas prices are volatile. Take for example my own personal experience: I paid $2.69 in Ashland, Kentucky last week and topped off my tank last night for $2.96 in Newport, Kentucky. Fuel prices surged based on expected demand for summer, according to Bloomberg. Whatever that means. But, we now have requirements for much greater fuel efficiency (courtesy of USDOT and EPA), and although it may add some $$$ to the price of the vehicle, it is expected that the fuel economy increases will null that out and save the average consumer some in the long haul. And we are seeing vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf come out -- expect to find more of these rogue vehicles making appearances in the near future.

 

We may be quick to respond to temporary or steadily increasing gasoline prices -- by driving less in some cases, taking public transport in others, or not going out in some instances, but we will always have a mode of transport that will augment the gasoline-powered car if it shall ever cease to exist -- functionally or practically.

 

Poll: Half of U.S. backs high-speed rail

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/06/Poll-Half-of-US-backs-high-speed-rail/UPI-63741270598738/

By the way, the Highway Trust Fund wasn't bailed out three times since 2008 to the tune of $24.5 billion. It was bailed out a fourth time with $29 billion coming from the stimulus. That's a total of $53.5 billion from non-user sources in less than two years.

 

Ohio's per-capita share of that is $2.05 billion. Considering that current transportation funding formulas mean Ohio gets only 95 cents on the dollar back from D.C., Ohio probably only got $1.95 billion from these federal highway bailouts.

 

So why aren't Ohio conservatives complaining about Ohio's highways getting a $1.95 billion federal bailout? And how are taxpayers going to pay to maintain and sustain this infrastructure in the future? The double-standard here is mind-boggling.

Greater fuel efficiency, of course, increases the amount of subsidies needed for road/highway building and maintenance. So while making driving cheaper immediately for the individual, it increases the collective burden. Which then increases deficit spending and, instead of paying for more things up front through gas taxes, we're left paying more in the long haul with interest.

 

Higher gas taxes and per mile taxes (and perhaps toll roads) are about the only solution. If drivers were absorbing more of the actual costs of driving, there probably would in fact be fewer drivers. It's not inevitable that this will happen, but in any economically sustainable future, it will.

 

It's funny how, when there is no real news, everyone just recycles tired arguments and talking points.

 

One of the sticking points that keeps coming up is the following from the FRA:

 

The grant recipient will be required to ensure the maintenance of project property to the level of utility (including applicable FRA track safety standards) which existed when the project improvements were placed in service for a period of a minimum of 20 years from the date such project property was placed in service. In the event that all Intercity Passenger Rail service making use of the project property is discontinued during the 20-year period, the grant recipient will be required to continue to ensure the maintenance of the project property,

as set forth above, for a period of one year to allow for the possible reintroduction of Intercity Passenger Rail service. In the event the grant recipient should fail to ensure the maintenance of project property, as set forth above, for a period of time in excess of six months, the grant recipient will be required to refund to FRA a pro-rata share of the Federal contribution, based upon the percentage of the 20-year period remaining at the time of such original default.

 

The source of which can be found here:

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRDev/HSIPR_Guidance_6-16-09-WEB.pdf

 

Now, this document is a template and the language, above, is suggested language for the agreements between the Feds and the states.

 

It seems to me, however, that Ohio can't really commit to all of Phase 3 until the Phase 2 analysis is complete and that, since the application includes a specific request to fund additional studies ($25 million), it cannot really be expected that Ohio would have to return that, even if Phase 3 is never completed.

 

In other words, is there any good reason not to authorize the $25 million for the completion of the Phase 2 studies?

 

 

To cover just the maintenance, operations and safety expense would require a state gas tax increase of nearly 27 cents per gallon.

 

Most people probably balk at numbers like this, but when I hear it I think "that's ALL?!?! Well why the hell aren't we doing this NOW?"

The problem with relying on fuel efficiency standards to decrease consumption is that the prime determinants of fuel efficiency are the habits of the driver. I can get 50+ MPG with my Highlander Hybrid but I rarely do because I cannot afford to drive that way. On the turnpike I am routinely being passed by people driving hybrids going 20 MPH above the speed limit. Even accounting for the changes in how the EPA calculates MPG, I'm not sure that we could expect to see much of a decrease in fuel consumption, especially if the thought of driving a more fuel efficient car makes one think about driving more, farther or faster.

 

To cover just the maintenance, operations and safety expense would require a state gas tax increase of nearly 27 cents per gallon.

 

Most people probably balk at numbers like this, but when I hear it I think "that's ALL?!?! Well why the hell aren't we doing this NOW?"

 

That's only a temporary and politically-suicidal solution, and is more of a regressive tax. The poorer tend to drive less fuel-efficient, older-model vehicles, and cannot necessarily afford any large tax offsets. Increasing fuel efficiency, especially what the USDOT and EPA now mandates, will only decrease fuel consumption and gasoline fuel tax revenues, while VMT will either stay the same or increase.

It's not regressive when, like in Europe, you use the extra tax revenue to fund alternatives to roads, like 3-C, that are more useful for those without cars.  Yes, that requires even more gas taxes, but really, our use of the stuff is so out of control we need to start ratcheting it down as soon as possible.  Of course then you get people complaining that the road users are subsidizing transit use.  You can't please everyone.

 

Five Things You Need To Know About High-Speed Rail

1 April 2010 - 5:00am

Author: David J. Carol

 

To inaugurate the launch of Planetizen.com's website with exclusive coverage of high-speed rail, we asked David J. Carol, Market Leader of High-Speed Rail at Parsons Brinkerhoff to tell us what we need to know about the U.S.'s exciting new endeavor.

 

These are exciting times for passenger railroading, not only in America, but around the world. It is as if a switch was thrown – suddenly, high-speed rail (HSR) is under active planning or already in operation in China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, England, across Europe and Asia, Brazil, and , yes, now even in the United States. The confluence of worldwide concern about congestion, air quality, global warming, economic growth and sprawling land use is driving a fundamental shift in favor of public transportation, including fast trains that link the global economy. The United States may be late to this HSR game, but not so late that we cannot learn from prior efforts worldwide – and our own -- to provide Americans with an energy efficient and environmentally positive alternative to the congestion that is otherwise sapping our economic vitality.

Planetizen’s new website, HSR News, will, I hope, focus on key issues relating to implementation of HSR, offering a path through the rhetoric of advocates and opponents and provide a platform to appreciate both the benefits and limitations of this important mode of transportation.

 

Here are five keys issues to consider about HSR:

 

Go to link:  http://www.planetizen.com/node/43441

"Ohio’s only excuse for not having a quality passenger rail system is a lack of initiative."

 

False.  Ohio's primary excuse is the power of it's automobile/freeway construction lobby. 

"Ohio’s only excuse for not having a quality passenger rail system is a lack of initiative."

 

False. Ohio's primary excuse is the power of it's automobile/freeway construction lobby.

 

True. Discussing the sources for that lack of initiative would have taken the press release in a totally different direction.

 

 

Most people probably balk at numbers like this, but when I hear it I think "that's ALL?!?! Well why the hell aren't we doing this NOW?"

 

Oh but that's a doubling of our already burdensome 26-cent per gallon state gasoline tax! And it's on top of the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon which may be increased by as much as 40 cents to make the Highway Trust Fund solvent again. That's a total gas tax of $1.104 per gallon and, forgive me, well that just wouldn't be the American way.

Historically, putting in the backbone system, the original network of paved roads, was not done via gas tax.  It was done by appropriation and, in some cases, by trolley and interurban lines as a condition of their franchises. 

 

So the network, or the start of one, had to be in place for automobility to take off.  Then the gas tax made the system somewhat self-sufficient as mass auto use could generate enough revenue to pay for pavement.

 

 

Nice conversation, but should it be in the 3-C thread?

It's fine for now. The discussion is critical to the question of funding.

  The original network of paved roads..."

 

  Roads started being paved with asphalt around 1910. Streets have been paved with brick or stone since ancient times. The number of paved roads in this county expanded in parallel with automobile use.

 

    Thousands of miles of roads still were not paved through the 1930's. However, it's easy to forget that pre-war cars had high clearances and were designed for poor roads or no roads at all. Most modern cars would not have been able to get around in 1930.

 

    Today, car parts, new cars, and road building materials are all transported by railroad or waterway. A developed railroad system or waterway system is a prerequisite for a highway system.

 

    This discussion is leaning away from the 3-C, but it always comes back to funding. Highway systems have a political if not a technical advantage over rail systems because they have a source of funding. Yeah, yeah, highways don't pay for themselves and all that. It doesn't matter. The gasoline tax is used to fund highways, plain and simple. If the gasoline tax was used to fund passenger railroads, everything would be different.

 

    We don't have an either/or choice. We have the choice to build rail in addition to highways, and we have the choice to abandon our highways and divert resources to other uses, but we do not have the choice to turn back the clock and use highway funds to invest in rail. All of the historic highway funding is a sunk cost.

 

    I think the typical Ohioan doesn't think of the gas tax as a tax; he thinks of it as part of the price of gasoline. On the contrary, he thinks of the 3-C funding as a new tax. This is why we "fund" highways but "subsidize" rail transit.

  The original network of paved roads..."

 

   Roads started being paved with asphalt around 1910. Streets have been paved with brick or stone since ancient times. The number of paved roads in this county expanded in parallel with automobile use.

 

    Thousands of miles of roads still were not paved through the 1930's. However, it's easy to forget that pre-war cars had high clearances and were designed for poor roads or no roads at all. Most modern cars would not have been able to get around in 1930.

 

    Today, car parts, new cars, and road building materials are all transported by railroad or waterway. A developed railroad system or waterway system is a prerequisite for a highway system.

 

    This discussion is leaning away from the 3-C, but it always comes back to funding. Highway systems have a political if not a technical advantage over rail systems because they have a source of funding. Yeah, yeah, highways don't pay for themselves and all that. It doesn't matter. The gasoline tax is used to fund highways, plain and simple. If the gasoline tax was used to fund passenger railroads, everything would be different.

 

    We don't have an either/or choice. We have the choice to build rail in addition to highways, and we have the choice to abandon our highways and divert resources to other uses, but we do not have the choice to turn back the clock and use highway funds to invest in rail. All of the historic highway funding is a sunk cost.

 

     I think the typical Ohioan doesn't think of the gas tax as a tax; he thinks of it as part of the price of gasoline. On the contrary, he thinks of the 3-C funding as a new tax. This is why we "fund" highways but "subsidize" rail transit.

 

There's a lot of truth here. Most of the people I encounter on comment sections of newspaper articles are OK with gas taxes or even higher gas taxes or use of general funds for highways because "everyone drives." The point that this is a form of discrimination toward railroads is lost on these people. "No one will ride," they counter. They do not know what goes on outside of their world and do not care. The problem is, they are shooting themselves in the foot by being blind to what is going on around them.

All of the historic highway funding is a sunk cost.

 

..it is a recurring cost, since roads have to be resurfaced and eventually rebuilt.  There is a life-cycle issue here, too.

 

Thats the elegant nature of the gas tax, is that is (in theory) a way to maintain and recapitalize the infrastructure, that is closely tied to the use of that infrastructure. 

 

 

Nice conversation, but should it be in the 3-C thread?

 

..they way the politics are playing out this thread stands a good chance of being moot in the near future and probably will or should be archived, after the post-mortem posts.

 

  The original network of paved roads..."

 

 

 

    I think the typical Ohioan doesn't think of the gas tax as a tax; he thinks of it as part of the price of gasoline. On the contrary, he thinks of the 3-C funding as a new tax. This is why we "fund" highways but "subsidize" rail transit.

 

There's a lot of truth here. Most of the people I encounter on comment sections of newspaper articles are OK with gas taxes or even higher gas taxes or use of general funds for highways because "everyone drives."

 

Of course, higher gas taxes has often been seen as a way to force to drivers to fully appreciate the costs of their transit and that if gas taxes had to be high enough to fully cover the cost of continual repair of the roads along with dealing with weather and patrolling with crime. The theory is that an adequately high gas tax will drive demand for rail because a truly adequate gas tax makes rail even more affordable for most than it is today. At five dollar a gallon gas - which is probably what it would have to get to as a minimum to sustain the road system, rail becomes a steal. And as the gas tax continues to rise, because the poor can't afford gas then the necessity of beginning to invest in alternate forms of transit grows as well. And back we are to fund the study . . . and let's get these trains running on the 3C.