This was on NPR.  Good thing that reality is overwhelming the arguments of people like O'Toole and the "think tanks" they are shills for.  His "opinion" below is a good example of:  if the facts don't conform your argument, start making up your facts.  I'm only sending this along to remind people that these folks haven't gone away.  You can make comments on NPR's website at the link below if you wish:

 

Trains Are For Tourists

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102068196

 

by Randal O'Toole

 

NPR.org, March 19, 2009 · When I went to Europe, I loved to ride the trains, especially the French TGV and other high-speed trains. So President Obama's goal of building high-speed rail in the United States sounded good at first.

 

But when I looked at the details, I discovered that — while high-speed rail may be good for tourists — it isn't working very well in Europe or Japan...

 

 

Randall O'Toole is a tool. Another example of an idealogue who is ready to criticize, but can't come up with anything new to offer.

Sounds like he's using manipulated statistics (or they're just flat-out false).

Who the bleep cares what this guy says??? Why even put this on Urban Ohio? It has NO bearing on our situation, especially since 15,000 emails and phone calls to the state legislatute tell us the public takes the issue of rail passenger service very seriously.

 

Randal O'Toole's time has passed.

^I sense a little bit of both. Take this paragraph:

 

Japan and France have each spent as much per capita on high-speed rail as we spent on our Interstate Highway System. The average American travels 4,000 miles and ships 2,000 ton-miles per year on the interstates. Yet the average resident of Japan travels only 400 miles per year on bullet trains, while the average resident of France goes less than 300 miles per year on the TGV — and these rail lines carry virtually no freight.

 

Assuming these numbers are true, wouldn't the disparity between American and Japanese and French be attributable to population density and sheer landmass? Beyond that, how can you compare the rail systems of the two countries when a very large percentage of Americans have no access whatsoever to commuter rail and therefore use the highways to get everywhere? This is ignoring altogether, of course, the Apples/Oranges comparison between interstates and railways.

 

This alone tells me O'Toole's stats are meaningless.

BuckeyeB, relax.  I started this out by saying:  "Good thing that reality is overwhelming the arguments of people like O'Toole and the "think tanks" they are shills for."  Why is it on UO?  Because it's not smart to forget about the opposition, even if it is beyond ridiculous. 

 

If you ask me, it's almost becoming funny.  O'Toole is kind of like "Baghdad Bob". 

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

In Japan, the highways seem to be narrower. 2 lanes in any given direction (less maintenance cost). Congestion gets alleviated by ordinary people walking, biking, using rail, or driving on streets. The culture is just completely different. When expressways are above grade, they use the area underneath for bike storage. The streets are very skinny and cater to pedestrians and bikers.

 

In terms of cost, transit infrastructure is like public utilities. The more dense the physical urban fabric, the less it's going to cost each individual. Highway interchanges take up vast amounts of land and have an unnecessary number of lanes. It's ridiculous. I think it's funny because even large scale developers will try to increase density and design streets be to narrow; design a grid that requires less pavement, less extension of public utilities. Why is it so hard for people like Randal to understand? It's a waste of money. The trucking industry must have him on payroll.

 

It isn't just Randal though. There's a lot of ignorant Americans out there who think Atlanta would be less congested if i-75 were 30 lanes wide.

Exactly. Just ask L.A.

The other point as has been made over and over is that the highest speed rail is not what most folks use in those countries (and there is a pretty strong argument that they over invested in the super-high speed stuff, even if it is cool), they use much slower trains, that average anywhere from 40 to 110 or even a little higher MPH (of course they measure in KMPH).

Here's my attempt at trying to rebut one of them.....

 

Looks they printed the whole thing despite their 200-word limit on letters......

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/03/21/Pendergast_SAT_MUST_ART_03-21-09_A7_UJD9T7G.html?sid=101

 

Passenger-rail option is necessary for Ohio to adapt to world economy

Saturday,  March 21, 2009 3:10 AM

 

 

In a letter published last Saturday in The Dispatch, Chris Runyan, president of the Ohio Contractors Association, expressed opposition to Gov. Ted Strickland's initiative to reinstitute passenger-rail service linking Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland (the 3-C Corridor). The association criticized this investment as just another Amtrak black hole. But at an event at Washington's Union Station on March 13, Vice President Joe Biden strongly defended government subsidies that go to the nation's rail system.

 

Biden said: "Every passenger-rail service system in the world relies on subsidies. We subsidize our highways and airports more than we subsidize Amtrak. So let's get something straight here. Amtrak has not been at the trough."

 

It is apparent that the Ohio Contractors Association, which represents the highway-contracting industry and lobbies for increasing gasoline taxes, has been feeding at the highway-funding trough for so long that it believes that our gasoline taxes are an ever-expanding entitlement program for its own benefit. Travel between major cities in Ohio continues to be important for our economic vitality and growth. I agree that the highway system is the primary means of transporting individuals and goods within and through Ohio and needs to be in a state of good repair.

 

We have built more than 124,885 miles of roadways in Ohio, including more than 1,500 miles of interstate highways. But, despite improvements, widening and expansion of the system, highway congestion continues to worsen. Highway planners long have known that we cannot build our way out of congestion. The Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force examined what Ohio's future transportation needs are. The task force hosted several regional meetings, and the people of Ohio spoke out in favor of greatly expanded public transportation and passenger-rail services.

 

The task force recommended the initiation of passenger-rail service. Fourteen other states, with just one having more population density than Ohio, support regional Amtrak services. They do so because they receive a high return on their relatively small investments.

 

The task-force report also suggested that investments be based on reason, logic and economic benefit and cost factors and not on legacy entitlements. Runyan was a member of that task force. He vocalized support for a new, more comprehensive approach to transportation. But now, it's business as usual back at the trough.

 

To sustain our planet and be more competitive in the changing world economy, we need to change our travel behaviors. Fourteen straight months of decline in vehicle miles traveled on highways, declines in air-passenger volumes, plunging automobile sales and a record-breaking year for transit and Amtrak ridership suggest we are changing our habits. We, the people, get it. But does the General Assembly?

 

The Ohio Contractors Association might have been visited by the ghost of Christmas yet to come. The group fears him the most. But like Scrooge, it can reform. I suggest it assist the governor in leading us to a prosperous and more sustainable future by taking the train from Columbus to Cleveland or Cincinnati.

 

And besides, the cost to operate the 3-C line between Cincinnati and Cleveland represents a little more than 0.003 percent of our state's $7.6 billion transportation budget. Move over Ohio Contractors Association; there's still plenty of room at the trough for highway construction.

 

KEN PRENDERGAST

Executive Director

All Aboard Ohio

Columbus

O'Toole does stuff like compare the per-capita carbon emissions of fully loaded airplanes versus empty trains and somehow gets published, over and over again.  He likes to write as though he just just discovered this information and

then he acts like he actually likes trains, just like a lawyer/politician like John Cranley.

 

Found this post on the All_Aboard discussion list on yahoo groups:

 

>>How about this for irony; Mr. O'Toole back in the early 1980's wrote decent

pro-rail articles for Passenger Train Journal. Also, I was told that he belongs

to the NRHS chapter in the Seattle area (Pacific Northwest Chapter, I think).

Imagine, a train buff who is against trains!

--MJA<< 

 

Sure would be fun to get our hands on those articles!

New guest column, same old crap:

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9958

Light Rail Isn't the Track to the Future

 

by Randal O'Toole

 

 

This article appeared in the San Antonio Express-News on February 9, 2009

 

PRINT PAGE

E-MAIL PAGE

CITE THIS

Sans Serif

  Serif

 

s America's largest city without rail transit, some people want San Antonio to "keep up" by building light rail. You need to know only one thing: Light rail is really expensive.

 

I mean, really, really expensive. The average mile of light-rail line costs two to five times as much as an urban freeway lane-mile. Yet in 2007 the average light-rail line carried less than one-seventh as many people as the average freeway lane-mile in cities with light rail.

 

Do the math: Light rail costs 14 to 35 times as much to move people as highways.

 

The Government Accountability Office found that bus-rapid transit—frequent buses with limited stops—provided faster, better service at 2 percent of the capital cost and lower operating costs than light rail.

 

Randal O'Toole is a senior fellow and author of The Best-Laid Plans and the Cato report, "Roadmap to Gridlock: The Failure of Long-Range Metropolitan Transportation Planning"

 

More by Randal O'Toole

If light rail is so expensive, why are cities building it? Starting in the 1970s, Congress offered cities hundreds of millions of dollars for transit capital improvements. If they bought buses, they wouldn't have enough money to operate those buses.

 

So cities like Portland and Sacramento decided to build light rail—because it was expensive. Only light rail would use up all the millions of federal dollars. Other cities that wanted their share of federal pork soon began planning light rail, too.

 

How successful is light rail? In 1980, before Portland began building light rail, 9.8 percent of the region's commuters took transit to work. Today, it is 7.6 percent.

 

Since 1980, Portland has spent more than $2.3 billion, half the region's transportation capital funds, building light rail. Yet light rail carries less than 1 percent of Portland-area travel. That's a success?

 

In 2002, Dallas opened a new light-rail line, doubling the number of miles in the city's light-rail system. The new line attracted some rail riders, but the region lost more bus riders than it gained rail riders.

 

This often happens because rail's high cost forces transit agencies to cut bus service. When Los Angeles started building rail transit to white, middle-class neighborhoods, it cut bus service to black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The city lost more bus riders than it ever gained in rail riders, and an NAACP lawsuit forced the city to restore buses and curtail its rail plans.

 

ight rail is a giant hoax that makes rail contractors rich and taxpayers poor.

Is light rail good for the environment? Hardly. Dallas and Denver light-rail lines consume about as much energy and emit about as much greenhouse gases per passenger mile as the average SUV.

 

Engineering, construction, and rail car companies make huge profits from light rail. Their political contributions promote new rail lines. Siemens Transportation donated $100,000 to Denver's light-rail campaign and was rewarded with a $184 million railcar contract.

 

Some people say San Antonio should build light rail because Dallas and Houston have light rail. To paraphrase American mothers, if Dallas and Houston jumped off a cliff, should San Antonio jump as well?

 

Taxpayers lose because their money is wasted on rail when buses could do the same thing for less. Transit riders lose when transit agencies cut bus service to pay for rail. Commuters lose when money spent on rail, which does nothing to relieve congestion, delays projects that actually can reduce congestion.

 

Light rail is a giant hoax that makes rail contractors rich and taxpayers

The really bad thing about O'Toole is that since he's the first thing many have ever read about public transit, his "facts" tend to make a deep impression.  I remember reading one of his columns in the early years of the internet, maybe around 1997, regarding the then-expanding Portland light rail system.  He picked apart the numbers on the existing east-side MAX and I was somewhat convinced that Portland was a sham.  It led me to have a bad opinion of Portland for 10 years, despite my never having visited. 

 

The primary problem with rail transit, as I see it, is that the lines and routes are so often politically motivated, not motivated by highest cost-benefit or to serve areas which cannot be served well by highways.  Because some lines have been built for political purposes, it has distracted people from the obvious and undeniable successes.  But that's ben the case for highway and road construction as well, and for whatever reason vastly underused roads aren't held under the same scrutiny, and they're hardly ever tolled.     

aww he's an 'ol tool indeed  :laugh:

 

anyone know the total transit rail mileage throughout the state when it was at it's peak vs today (ie., left only with the cle rapid and amtrak)?

 

 

 

"I mean, really, really expensive. The average mile of light-rail line costs two to five times as much as an urban freeway lane-mile. Yet in 2007 the average light-rail line carried less than one-seventh as many people as the average freeway lane-mile in cities with light rail."

 

Assuming the statistics aren't complete bs (which it probably is - I mean where is he getting these statistics?) land use controls play a big role in this as well. Light rail (or any other form of rail transit) is a MEANS to spur more responsible land use policies that cater to TOD that would foster the success of light rail, street cars and what have you in the FUTURE. A highway system inevitably corners the market in a standard U.S. city right now because buildings have been demolished, the urban fabric destroyed, and sprawl on top of it. Standards have been set for required parking spaces based on square footage of buildings. As a general rule, Americans are forced to use the highway system and drive in cars that require vast lots. It goes back to a very large mistake we made back in the 1940s/50s when we had an unrealistic (and now outdated) idea about the future prosperity of cities.

^Urban freeway lane miles can be very expensive, particularly when land acquisition is involved.  I read about an urban freeway expansion project somewhere in southern california in the 1990s that cost over $100 million per mile.  Meanwhile, Denver's first light rail line was built for about $27.6 million per mile. 

 

South Carolina DOT, for example, said in 2008 that it would cost and average of $20 million/mile to add a lane in each direction to their existing interstates-- and that's just an average for adding a lane to an existing freeway.  In urban areas, it often requires land acquisition which makes the price skyrocket.  SCDOT  estimates the cost to re-construct a single urban interchange at $40 million, and a rural one $35 million  (http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/InterstateCorridorPlanSummary.pdf). 

 

Didn't someone here say the central interchange project in Columbus is going to cost around $1 billion? Don't the soundwalls alone in Ohio that ODOT is building cost about $3 million per mile (I seem to recall someone posting that on UO somewhere).  Maybe Noozer can correct me, but isn't the  Ohio Hub is going to cost around $6 million/mile (back in '02 it was about $3.5 million, but costs have gone up-- as they always do).  Rail is not as expensive as O'Toole tries to say. 

 

What really got me was when he said that the automobile is the most egalitarian form of transportation there is.  Oh really?  Then why in this economic downturn are vehicle miles traveled down, but intercity rail and urban transit usage up?  What about the 8.6% of Ohio households that don't have cars (That number goes way up when you look at inner city populations).  What about the older people who become less able and willing to drive as they age?  I have many older and aging relatives who fall into this category.  If the auto is so egalitarian, then our population wouldn't lose mobility as they age. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^Urban freeway lane miles can be very expensive, particularly when land acquisition is involved. I read about an urban freeway expansion project somewhere in southern california in the 1990s that cost over $100 million per mile. Meanwhile, Denver's first light rail line was built for about $27.6 million per mile.

 

South Carolina DOT, for example, said in 2008 that it would cost and average of $20 million/mile to add a lane in each direction to their existing interstates-- and that's just an average for adding a lane to an existing freeway. In urban areas, it often requires land acquisition which makes the price skyrocket. SCDOT estimates the cost to re-construct a single urban interchange at $40 million, and a rural one $35 million (http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/InterstateCorridorPlanSummary.pdf).

 

Didn't someone here say the central interchange project in Columbus is going to cost around $1 billion? Don't the soundwalls alone in Ohio that ODOT is building cost about $3 million per mile (I seem to recall someone posting that on UO somewhere). Maybe Noozer can correct me, but isn't the Ohio Hub is going to cost around $6 million/mile (back in '02 it was about $3.5 million, but costs have gone up-- as they always do). Rail is not as expensive as O'Toole tries to say.

 

What really got me was when he said that the automobile is the most egalitarian form of transportation there is. Oh really? Then why in this economic downturn are vehicle miles traveled down, but intercity rail and urban transit usage up? What about the 8.6% of Ohio households that don't have cars (That number goes way up when you look at inner city populations). What about the older people who become less able and willing to drive as they age? I have many older and aging relatives who fall into this category. If the auto is so egalitarian, then our population wouldn't lose mobility as they age.

 

Thanks for the info. Great points!

^---"The average mile of light-rail line costs two to five times as much as an urban freeway lane-mile."

 

    I'd like to see his source for this one.

Source: His ass.

Source: His ass.

 

lol

 

 

Rail expansion capital costs usually include the costs of the trains themselves in that cost whereas highway expansion costs do not include the costs of the vehicles.  They also don't include the costs of snow removal, police patrols, etc.

 

The central issue though is that rail raises the value of residential land immediately adjacent to it whereas highways destroy the value of adjacent residential land.

Moreover' date=' the interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes and other user fees, while high-speed rail requires huge subsidies from general taxpayers.[/quote']

 

Bogus statement. The last I heard, gas taxes and other user fees cover less than two thirds of the annual operating cost of the interstate highways. The remainder, in the billions of dollars, is paid for from the General Fund, your and my tax dollars.

 

And the reported annual operating costs don't have to include amortization of the cost of ROW acquisition or construction or any depreciation or accrual for major repairs or disaster recovery, as they would with any responsibly-run private business.

 

Further, the acquisition of ROW for new expressways, while creating a one-time taxable windfall for owners of the land acquired, removes vast amounts of land and sometimes structures from local property tax bases, reducing local government revenue streams. At the same time, the new expressways create new burdens for local governments in the form of traffic enforcement and stormwater runoff mitigation, and inflict hard-to-quantify damage in the form of noise and vehicle emissions. The result is higher local property tax rates or reduced services and quality of life for residents.

 

I don't know how Ohio handles state highway expense, but Indiana has a statutory cap, 100,000 miles, I think, on the number of lane-miles that the state can maintain. We reached that cap long ago. Because the responsibility for maintenance of interstate highways falls upon the state, for every lane-mile of new interstate the state must give up a lane-mile of existing state highway. The former state highway miles seldom get plowed up and abandoned because most provide critical access for farms, residences, and businesses; they become the responsibility of counties and cities in perpetuity, creating increased tax burden to be borne by local property owners.

 

An engineer I knew, referring to how some people justified their pet projects, said, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

^Well played.

It seems that most of O'Toole's arguments are factual, which is a problem for rail advocates only if they let it be a problem. For example his travel statistics for Europe vs American auto mobility (79 percent vs 85 percent) seem about right. So too, the fact that many Europe rail systems are geared toward passenger rather than freight traffic. And rail is expensive, and so too is road construction: The COTA light rail plan was coming in around $800 million+, and someone pointed out that the 70/71 split was over a billion dollars. All true.

 

Then there is the topic of investment decisions. These pages often compare a rail project to an urban road project like adding lanes to an Atlanta freeway system. Analysts like O'Toole can jump on these comparisons and make rail look really bad, because urban interstates move a whole lot of people. Less common is the comparison of rail projects to bad road investment decisions -- like the Wilmington Bypass, or lots of the Appalachian Highway System, which are not cost effective and do not move large masses of people; rail compares pretty well to those investments.

 

A primary difference is culture and cultural attitudes. Europe and some other cultures use rail transit relatively more than America, they like the systems, and they are favorable toward subsidies for them. They might walk and bike more, too, but by and large most of their travel is by automobile (and so too, more of their freight moves on the road than by rail).

 

We will get beat down trying to debate factoids with analysts like O'Toole. What we are trying to do is foster a cultural change that will support subsidies for passenger rail, much like we support the gas tax for road building.

More to the point:  the more everyone obsesses about critics like O'Toole the more we give him more credibility than he deserves.

The problem isn't the data, but rather the notion that the data represents fait accompli. Data describes things as they have been not as they could/should/would be. This is particularly true with discussions of rail. 60+ years of systematic disinvestment will skew any results.

More to the point: the more everyone obsesses about critics like O'Toole the more we give him more credibility than he deserves.

 

Amen!

More to the point: the more everyone obsesses about critics like O'Toole the more we give him more credibility than he deserves.

 

No one is obsessed with him. His statistics, even if true - are misleading, destructive and could potentiate the corrosion of our future cities. Engineers didn't give 9/11 conspiracy theorists credibility when they debunk all of their theories.

Not saying O'Toole and others should be ignored.  Just saying that we all seem to get so bent out of shape by such drivel as he and others spout, as if he has anything new or original to say. Part of what keeps him going is that he knows he can get under the skins of anyone with an opposing viewpoint. It's a psych and he knows that rail and transit advocates will jump and drool like Pavlov's dog everytime he puts his fingers on the keyboard to write.  Wendell Cox is another one who gets that response.

 

It is a waste of time and energy to devote that much attention to these transportation troglodytes.

 

 

..... transportation troglodytes.

 

I always love the term "troglodytes." Must be first cousin to trilobites....

 

>Just saying that we all seem to get so bent out of shape by such drivel as he and others spout,

 

O'Toole, like many local politicians, bloggers, etc., is a  master of knowing exactly what gets under the skin of his opponents.  The effectiveness of this tactic on voters who are new to the issue is usually successful. 

So what you're saying is that O'Toole is the Rush Limbaugh of anti-rail flacks.

I concede that O'Toole, like Limbaugh, has a gift. 

I think it's more important to know who these people front for. Aside from their neocon background, many of them are at least partially funded by oil companies and others related to highway interests. There is at least anecdotal eveidence to support that---Light Rail Now did an article on that and I think others did to.

 

Ever wonder why these guys turn a blind eye to the highway elephant, while going after the the rail passenger flea?

I think it's more important to know who these people front for. Aside from their neocon background, many of them are at least partially funded by oil companies and others related to highway interests. There is at least anecdotal eveidence to support that---Light Rail Now did an article on that and I think others did to.

 

Ever wonder why these guys turn a blind eye to the highway elephant, while going after the the rail passenger flea?

 

He's like that lobbyist in "Thank You For Smoking".

PLAYING WITH TRAINS

by Wendell Cox <http://www.newgeography.com/users/wendell-cox> 04/25/2009

[image: iStock_000002294764XSmall.jpg]

 

The Obama administration appears to have established the development of high

speed rail (HSR) as the most important plank of its transportation strategy.

The effort may be popular with the media and planners, but it�s being

promoted largely on the basis of overstatement and even misinformation.

 

...

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00762-playing-with-trains

That website is an odd mix of fascinating and stupid (which makes sense because Joel Kotkin is behind it, who seems to specialize in a mix of brilliant and stupid). Cox is a one note kinda guy.

http://reason.org/news/show/high-speed-rail-wont-help-the

 

High-Speed Rail Won't Help the Masses

High ticket prices and too few stops and stations will make them trains for the wealthy

 

Samuel Staley

May 1, 2009

 

“Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city,” said President Barack Obama. “No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, not taking off your shoes. Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination.”

 

Such is the image President Obama painted as his administration launched a nearly $14 billion commitment to start building high-speed rail through out the country. But that imaginary scenario isn’t how high-speed trains will actually play out here in the United States.

 

Trains embark from terminals on schedules set by train companies, not the riders. Most train stations have parking lots because most Americans don’t, and won’t, live within walking distance of the rail terminal and have to drive to the train station. Riders sit in waiting areas. Many trains, particularly Amtrak trains, are notoriously late, requiring travelers to factor in a time “buffer” on both ends of their destination. Train travelers on overnight trips often check their bags. And, all too often U.S. passenger trains slow and stop on tracks, waiting for freight trains to pass and a green light from the signal indicating the tracks are clear.

 

One element of President Obama’s description is true: we don’t have to take off our shoes.

 

Painting implausibly rosy pictures for proposed or pet projects is nothing new. But high-speed rail proponents may be taking this to a new level.

 

The president, with train commuter Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood by his side, called for “a smart transportation system” that would improve mobility, reduce air pollution, boost productivity and create jobs. “What we’re talking about,” he said, “is a vision for high-speed rail in America.”

 

But high-speed rail cannot become the backbone of a 21st century transportation system in America. To see why, we only need to compare it to the last truly national investment in transportation: the Interstate Highway System

 

The Interstate system built a national network of highways and connected every major city center in the country at the time. It boosted productivity by providing 24-7 access to a network of roads that linked dozens of cities within metropolitan areas and hundreds of then vibrant downtowns. Economists have estimated that the economic returns on that investment climbed into the double digits because it dramatically reduced travel times, primarily for freight. Decades later, as wealth and productivity drove incomes higher; the Interstate highways enabled the dramatic expansion of mobility for the masses through more intensive use of the automobile.

 

Contrast this system with the meager high-speed rail routes proposed in the U.S. The planned tracks connect just a few locations within a state. The California system is planning for one stop in Los Angeles, a city of nearly 4 million people. There will be stops in a few nearby cities like Burbank and Ontario. The Bay Area houses a population of nearly 7 million people in 101 cities, but is expected to have just five stops: downtown San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport, Palo Alto (home of Stanford University), downtown San Jose, and Gilroy. California’s won’t get door-to-door service or be within walking distance of many destinations.

 

In the Midwest, the Ohio “3-C” train corridor plans to link the state’s largest metropolitan areas—Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland—with just 10 stops. These metropolitan areas are home to more than 8 million people in hundreds of cities in more than 15 counties. In contrast to the rail plan’s 10 stops, just one Interstate highway, I-71, links hundreds of cities in the Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland metropolitan areas with more than 100 exits. The I-270 beltway circling Columbus, Ohio includes 37 exits alone.

 

Of course, high-speed rail, unlike the Interstate system, isn’t transportation for the masses. Even with the federal government absorbing almost all the capital costs, prices will likely be too high for most Americans to use it regularly.

 

Today, a three-hour trip from New York City’s Penn Station in the heart of Manhattan to Union Station in Washington, D.C. on the Acela Express, the nation’s only operational high-speed train, will cost a passenger at least $155 each way. That’s cheaper than flying, but still well outside the budget of a typical commuter.

 

On the yet-to-be-built California system, a one-way trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco would cost just $70 – not this year, in the year 2030 - according to the California High Speed Rail Authority. Those projected costs are clearly unrealistic.

 

A detailed Reason Foundation examination of the California high-speed rail plan concluded that the system would need massive taxpayer subsidies to cover basic operating expenses. The due diligence report found "the San Francisco-Los Angeles line alone by 2030 would suffer annual financial losses of up to $4.17 billion." And that’s a $4 billion-a-year loss on what is expected to be one of the most popular parts of the train route.

 

It’s time for politicians to be realistic: very few people will commute to and from work via high-speed rail or use the trains regularly. These high-speed rail proposals are really catering to business travelers and tourists who already travel by car or use existing commercial airline shuttles between major cities. While this niche market might be robust enough to support a high-fare, rail alternative to flying or driving, all taxpayers shouldn’t be asked pay for it. Asking everyone to shoulder the financial burden of building train lines to benefit a narrow and wealthy segment of the traveling public is just wrong.

 

Sam Staley, Ph.D., is director of urban and land use policy for Reason Foundation and co-author of Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive 21st Century (Rowman & Littlefield).

 

^ makes a lot of sense

>unlike the Interstate system, isn’t transportation for the masses.

 

Except you have to ante up in order to use the interstates, in the form of owning or renting a car.  You also have to do the driving unless you're car pooling.  On a train, you don't drive the thing, which means you can read, do work on your computer, or drink in the lounge car. 

 

The whole point of the HSR initiative is to renegotiate with freight railroads or build new parallel tracks so that flyover country rail isn't met with the kind of delays it is presently.  The Northeast Corridor trains have much of their own ROW and so are infrequently delayed.  And they do leave on time -- down to the second.  I remember being the last one on a train to New York in Boston and the thing started moving seconds after I stepped on.  I didn't realize it was moving though until I looked out the window.  The ride quality on those trains is fantastic and makes flying seem primitive. 

 

Amtrak keeps getting blamed for things that aren't its fault.  Many of its notorious unprofitable routes must be maintained due to mandates prescribed by powerful congressmen from thinly populated states.  Cincinnati has more people than all of West Virginia, yet it was West Virginia's congressman who forced The Cardinal to run through his state in the morning, forcing it to run at 2am through Cincinnati.  How stupid is that?

^ makes a lot of sense

 

You could have said the same thing about the interstate highway system in 1946.  Expensive. Money Loser. Not for the masses, a public transit usage was still very high, only for the rich.

Only those who believe the snake oil Wendell is selling are Cox Suckers. Here is a great response from another forum. This one actually uses truth, unlike Wendell....

 

Wendell Cox, from Belleville, IL, a perpetual critic of the St. Louis Metrolink said its extension to St. Louis County (openned in Sept 2006) would not reach its ridership projections. Ridership projections were exceeded by 20 to 30% in the first month.

 

Wendell Cox states that users of highways pay the cost of roads and maintenance of the same. Last year congress had to shift $9 billion in general revenue to the highway trust fund to keep it solvent and pay for road repairs/upgrades that states planned. In Missouri the rebuilding of US 40/I-64 for 15 miles will be 50% paid for by general revenue bonds - not gas tax money.

 

Wendell cox states that the airports and air traffic control system costs are paid for by user fees. Airports had NO user fees until 1971 and before that all airport building/expansion/improvement was paid for out of general tax dollars (income taxes mostly). Even now nearly all air traffic control costs are paid for from an FAA account that gets money from general revenue (income taxes mostly) and even a large part of the security costs at airports is not paid by the security fee but comes out of general revenue (Homeland Security bedget).

 

How this guy can be seen as an expert on transportation is beyond comprehension. He is simply dispursing lies and the MSM eats it up!

Interestingly, Dr. Sam Staley is among the conservative economists who assisted in and endorsed the Economic Impact Study of the Ohio Hub.  In fact, his quote at the time of the release of that study is that in order to realize the full economic impacts of the Ohio Hub "it should be built quickly and completely."

 

Gee, Dr. Staley...what's it going to be?  High speed rail is good...or high speed rail is bad.

Wow, late to the party on this.  I had to write a final paper on trains vs auto travel.  I did cite O'Toole on a few things (obviously the anti-rail side), and the more I read his stuff, the more I hated his stance.  Surprisingly he is pretty tame in the article posted here.  Some of his other works get ugly.  He is right on a few things.  Rail is unlikely to ever be ECONOMICALLY justified in the United States.  Never Never Never.  However, rail investment in the US is worth it in the long run because it begins to provide new travel options, allows easy access to downtowns, prevents us from widening freeways, provides increased economic benefits to urban centers.  O'Toole's arguments are always the same, ignore them if you choose.  Keep in mind rail advocates have some flimsy facts to bring to the table as well.  Both parties fail to consider every little detail within the debate, but don't we all. 

 

Overall, I think rail will be worth it in the end.  I don't think Obama's planned high speed rail corridor will be successful, but it's not supposed to be.  Rather, it's the first step toward something better.  Eventually the US will have even HIGHER speed corridors stretching from city to city.  That will be one of our greatest achievements.

^I think it's safe to say that the more than 2 to 1 economic payback for the Ohio Hub as well as the positive economic payback of the corridors that 14 other states have invested in makes it economically justified, even though a national rail system will never be profitable. Our highway and aviation systems have never been profitable either, despite what these guys try to say with their selective fact usage and occasional lies (like air traffic control is paid for entirely by ticket taxes).  They have had economic paybacks too, which is why they were built.  They weren't built with the expectation of profitability. 

 

Interesting that these guys also ignore some key things: 

 

1.  Our energy realities.  Saudi Arabia has finally admitted that their production has fallen below their own targets (see Peak Oil thread) and said that global stockpiles will fall.  The economic downturn has shelved production projects that would have helped keep the world on a production plateau.  So, the oil supply vice has begun its squeeze.  There is no combination of alternative fuels and auto efficiency measures that will allow us to support, over the long run, driving at the levels Americans are accustomed to, or perhaps more accurately, forced to accept.  And, we're too late in the game for a smooth transition anyway.  We are going to have to rely more on rail transportation, whether these guys like it or not.

 

2.  People want trains.  Every place in the US that quality (i.e. frequent, fast) rail service has been offered, people ride in droves.  More and more young people are choosing lifestyles, where they are available, that don't require car ownership. 

 

3.  Mobility needs of seniors and others.  An automobile-centric transport system reduces the mobility of senior citizens.  Virtually all of my older relatives want the option of trains.  The older I get, the less I want to drive (I started early, though.  That trend began for me at 27.  Between work and my personal needs between spring 1994 and spring 1995, I drove about 55,000 miles.  It really burned me out on driving). 

 

These guys are so caught up in their ideologies they can't see straight.  Being honest with the facts means they would have to give their ideologies up, which they are incapable of doing.  Fortunately, events are overtaking them, and most people aren't buying what they are trying to sell.

 

 

Thomasbw:  where was the Sam Staley piece published?   

They aren't just caught up in their ideologies. I'd be willing to bet they are being bankrolled by oil/highway construction interests, who like things the way they are.

 

Also, the construction of a truly national rail passenger system, building comprehensive urban rail transit and other initiatives to provide a real alternative to the auto will create untold billions in ecomonic activity. One railroad exec contends that a truly national rail passenger system for the US will come with a trillion dollar price tag. That will generate countless good-paying, non-exportable jobs and will dwarf the Interstate highway system.

 

Obama's actions are a down payment on this and represent the first step in a new national commitment for rail passenger service. This is very important, from a national security point of view. As Gildone points out, Arab oil fields are already in decline and that dictates a change in our gas-guzzling ways. That change can't come soon enough for me.

 

 

Good thing the highwaymen and the ultra right-wingers aren't in bed together or anything like that.....

 

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4842

 

Relief from Gridlock: Surface Transportation Reauthorization in 2009

POLICY FORUM

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

12:00 PM

 

Featuring Randal O’Toole, Cato Institute, Samuel Staley, Reason Foundation, Greg Cohen, American Highway User Alliance. Moderated by Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute.

 

The Cato Institute

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

 

Watch the Event in Real Video

Download a Podcast of the Event (MP3)

In reauthorizing the federal gas tax and surface transportation funding, the next Congress can continue historic trends of dictating thousands of earmarks and other mandates that reduce our transportation efficiency and, like recent ethanol programs, have huge unintended consequences. Or it can streamline federal transportation programs to make urban and other surface transport systems run smoothly, efficiently, and with minimal waste of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. This policy forum will present a variety of proposals for breaking out of the transportation gridlock we currently suffer.

I wouldn't trust any "findings" by that crowd even if they announced that the sky is blue.

I'm really sick of these guys basically telling us that the only lifestyle choice we all have a right to is one that involves mandatory car ownership.