How does it contradict critics? I don't much much about it. Cost per passenger mile? Ridership trends? Speed? Route? Initial cost and cost of maintenance? Effects on land use patterns? I'd be curious to know about stuff like that.

Please ride some of these trains. Travel America. Travel the world. See for yourself. Both sides can cite statistics to support their case. Ultimately, it's a judgment call based on your experiences and perceptions.

Most importantly, NC has been able to build success on success with their passenger rail program.

 

Six trains a day in each direction; seven for Charlotte. I took the train from Pittsburgh to Charleston, SC, every other week for almost a year. Most of the riders weren't retirees looking for a relaxed way to travel. They were individuals and families looking to get from one place to another and the train was the most convenient way to do it (too bad Charleston moved its train station out of downtown).

 

As KJP and others have noted, if you have nothing you have nothing to which you can compare it.

 

 

On what basis do you say that the political divide between cities and suburbs in NC is less than Ohio's?  NC has a lot of sprawl, too, and that's where a lot of the wealth is.

 

I mean suburbanites in NC may not hate the cities like they do in Ohio. From what I understand, the cities of NC, especially Charlotte, have a pretty suburban feel already. So suburbanites may feel more affinity for the cities in their state.

 

Urban Indianapolis seems to have a favorable reception with suburbanites, for example. I think Ohio's city/suburb tensions may be extra high.

 

I think the point about people from the northeast moving to NC is also relevant. Proximity to the NE Corridor probably doesn't hurt, either. Then you also have northeasterners traveling through the state on their way to Florida, which creates a rail presence.

Since the "hit men" love to take shots at "subsidizing" passenger rail..... a little counterpoint from the National Association of Railroad Passengers:

 

How many of your tax dollars went to passenger trains?

 

Monday, April 18, 2011

 

Today was the deadline for filing your income taxes.  If you’ve ever wondered exactly where your money went, you’ll be interested in a new tool available online.

 

Where Did My Tax Dollars Go? helps you to get an exact breakdown of how your taxes are spent by providing information extrapolated based on your net income.  Since there is a lag in the budgetary process, the website can only tell you how your money was spent last year.  But it’s certainly a helpful tool for passenger train advocates, given the furor over the “large” amount of money that has been invested in high-speed rail.

 

For instance, if you made $50,000 in 2009, over fiscal year 2010 you would have contribute about $222 to transportation.  Of that figure, you would have spent:

Read more at:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/narpblog/how_many_of_your_tax_dollars_went_to_passenger_trains/

 

Iowa House Speaker Paulsen: Thumbs down on state money for IC-Chicago train

 

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen gave a thumbs down today to appropriating state money to subsidize a proposed Iowa City-to-Chicago Amtrak passenger train.

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation last year awarded $230 million grant to Iowa and Illinois to help establish the new passenger route, but the project needs a $20 million match of state money from Iowa for the train to run from the Quad Cities to Iowa City.

 

Read more at: http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110512/NEWS01/110512010/1079/

 

 

Iowa House Speaker Paulsen: Thumbs down on state money for IC-Chicago train

 

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen gave a thumbs down today to appropriating state money to subsidize a proposed Iowa City-to-Chicago Amtrak passenger train.

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation last year awarded $230 million grant to Iowa and Illinois to help establish the new passenger route, but the project needs a $20 million match of state money from Iowa for the train to run from the Quad Cities to Iowa City.

 

Read more at: http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110512/NEWS01/110512010/1079/

 

 

Yet another Republican who doesn't get it. Send the money to another state where that isn't a problem. I'm sure there'll be plenty of takers.

A well-worded response to the hitmen....

 

All together now: ‘Thanks, Florida!’

By John Laird

Columbian Editorial Page Editor

Sunday, May 29, 2011

 

Fellow Washingtonians, hoist your glasses high and let’s toast our state’s newest BFF: Rick Scott.

 

Because the Florida governor bullheadedly rejected $2.3 billion in federal funding for rail improvements, Washington state is $15 million richer in our own drive for better railroads.

 

Previous BFFs had been Ohio and Wisconsin, where federal funding also had been turned away, only to be sent to other states. As a result, since February our state’s rail-improvement pot has grown from $590 million to $781 million, all because a few governors were willing to cut off their states’ noses to spite the feds’ face. And the governors’ petty stubbornness has impacted us locally. The Port of Vancouver has about $15 million more for rail and other projects, thanks to the “Just say no!” tactics of governors whose desire to make a political statement trumped their own states’ urgent transportation needs.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/may/29/all-together-now-thanks-florida/

Dear Gov. Scott.... so much for your claim that HSR would be a "burden" on Florida taxpayers....

 

June 1, 2011

 

High-Speed Rail Can Cover Its Operating Costs

While paying for its hefty infrastructure costs may be ambitious, many high-speed rail systems cover their operating costs and even turn a small operating profit.

By Michael Scott Moore

 

Just three weeks after Florida Gov. Rick Scott made a point of thumbing his nose at $2.4 billion in Washington subsidies for a short high-speed rail line, saying it would be a money hole, his own state’s Department of Transportation released a study claiming quite the opposite.

 

Read more at: http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/high-speed-rail-can-cover-its-operating-costs-31731/

Not sure exactly where to post this but I guess this is as good as any of the other dozen threads on passenger rail

 

Interesting article I came across regarding union work rules harming transit productivity

 

http://marketurbanism.com/2011/05/15/five-union-work-rules-that-harm-transit-productivity/

FROM THE 2011 APTA RAIL CONFERENCE  

Focus on People, Benefits in Addressing Rail Critics

BY SUSAN JOHNSTON, Special to Passenger Transport

 

 

From environmental concerns to cost considerations, high-speed and intercity passenger rail service often face inaccurate and unfounded criticisms. The June 15 Closing General Session of the APTA Rail Conference in Boston, “Calling Out the Rail Critics: Facts Are on Our Side,” offered strategies for responding to and, in some cases, preempting criticism, an approach that moderator Kristina Egan, South Coast Rail manager for massDOT, called “proactive inoculation.”

 

Eric Peterson, a rail consultant and former deputy administrator with DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, shared themes that emerged in his study of critical comments about rail over the past several years. “There are really not that many critics, but they are very determined, very dedicated, and very persistent,” he said. “Criticism tends to be recirculated among critics.”

 

Among the criticisms he cited included charges of elitism or social engineering; concerns that high-speed rail is old technology and won’t work in the U.S.; accusations that high-speed and intercity passenger rail is expensive and will require taxpayer subsidies; and statements that benefits of the mode are overstated.

 

Read more at: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/aptapt/issues/2011-06-17/13.html

Here's a blog piece I wrote on how these anti-rail articles pose as general news:

http://cincinnatimonocle.blogspot.com/2011/06/instead-of-current-events-schools_19.html

 

Here is an anti-rail propaganda piece that appeared in the June 1, 2011 USA Today (markups are mine):

 

 

 

Throwing grandma off the train…and under the bus

June 15, 2011

By David Goldberg

 

True to his M.O., the Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole (right) resorts to name-calling, distortions and untruths to attack our report highlighting the transportation challenges facing communities with a rapidly growing number of seniors.

 

It is ironic to hear Randal O’Toole – who is largely a shill for the highway lobby and its pet subsidies – refer to Transportation for America as “ largely a shill for the transit industry.”

 

The T4America coalition is alarming to people like O’Toole because it is an unusual player in the battles over the federal transportation program: It is expressly not an industry group. Rather, it represents millions of Americans who rely on our nation’s transportation infrastructure and who want to see it preserved and expanded in ways that meet the needs of a changing nation.

 

The folks at AARP, who co-released the Aging in Place, Stuck without Options report with us, are hardly spokespeople for those who make and operate trains and buses. They represent the interests of Americans as we age. They actually talk to seniors to find out their problems and what they need. What they’ve learned is that people want to live in the communities where they have built social and other support networks. And like the rest of America, the vast majority live in suburbs.

 

But those suburbs were built with the assumption that everyone would drive for everything, regardless of their health, age, physical condition or budget. That presents a national problem when our largest ever generation, with the longest life expectancies ever, faces a future of diminished capacity for driving.

 

Presented with the fact of this phenomenon and its implications, O’Toole responds, “So what?” [Lets hope for his sake that his eyesight, reflexes, hearing, joints and pension never give out, or that he has plenty of kids who have nothing better to do than shuttle him around in his dotage.] O’Toole makes a big point of saying that not a lot of seniors take transit today. But that’s perfectly in line with our findings: Most live where transit service is poor or non-existent. In places that do have transit, the number of seniors taking transit is, in fact, rising, and that is accelerating as gas prices rise.

 

And now for O’Toole’s patent untruth:

Transportation for America wants transit agencies to extend frequent bus or rail service to every remote suburb where there might be a few people over 65.

 

We never said any such thing, because we don’t believe any such thing. We believe there are as many solutions as there are communities. Some inner suburbs might decide to extend an existing transit system from the urban core into their area. Some exurbs might create a call center for dial-a-ride or ride-sharing services. Some communities with an existing public transportation network might encourage senior-friendly housing in walkable neighborhoods near transit stops. That would allow people to stay in their communities, but in homes and neighborhoods where they can remain active and independent.

 

It is clear that cash-strapped states and localities can’t do what they need to do in the coming years without federal support. The upcoming transportation bill will allocate how our existing tax dollars are spent. We can keep spending on 1950s-era highway schemes and Bridges to Nowhere, or we can face reality and recognize the fact of aging, both of our existing infrastructure and our population, and dedicate federal support accordingly.

 

 

For links and more at:

http://t4america.org/blog/2011/06/15/throwing-grandma-off-the-train-and-under-the-bus/

You can legally post the whole thing since it is from the blog of a nonprofit association and thus is the same as a press release.

You have to wonder how much of the cost of putting grandma in one of those retirement homes is paying for those shuttle bus services they provide. 

After I shared the Transportation 4 America blog posting, someone shared the following with me this afternoon.....

___________

 

A portion of a recent research study ( http://www.waynefcfc.org/PDFs/FINAL%202010CWHRC%20Agency-Facility%20Survey%20analysis.pdf) found that TRANSPORTATION is an extreme-to-large barrier to successful reentry back into the community for former offenders. Results of the study revealed lack of transportation was (statistically) significantly more a barrier than (1) lack of contact w/family during period of incarceration, (2) lack of housing to meet the needs of offenders who are homeless, (3) availability of affordable housing, (4) lack of willingness to rent to former offenders, and significantly more a barrier than, (5) stigma.

 

So much material is out there to underscore the need and bolster the cause for mobility for all. Sometimes there's almost too much information!

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Rail veto puts GOP lawmakers on spot

focus 2011

Commuter rail is one of The Telegraph editorial board’s six priority issues this year.

 

BACKGROUND: Gov. John Lynch vetoed legislation last week that would downgrade the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority into a study committee.

 

CONCLUSION: Republican lawmakers who ran on a platform of job creation and economic development might want to remember this when it comes time to act on the veto.

 

We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric this session from Republican legislative leaders about the need to foster an economic climate that encourages job creation and entices private companies to do business in New Hampshire.

 

In fact, “The Republican Agenda for Restoring New Hampshire” – a guiding set of principles adopted by House Republicans at the start of the 2011 session – makes specific references to putting out the “open for business” sign in New Hampshire and promoting “economic development and tourism growth.”

 

So why did it take a Democratic governor to veto legislation that business leaders in the southern part of the state adamantly believe runs counter to those very same principles?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinioneditorials/923415-263/rail-veto-puts-gop-lawmakers-on-spot.html

What do you do when passenger rail advocates and experts oppose the destruction of passenger rail cloaked in a privatization plan? You create your own passenger rail advocacy organization....

 

http://passengerrail.org/

 

I do believe a few of these folks actually believe in better passenger rail and feel they could do a better job than Amtrak if given a chance. Maybe they could, but not by forcing passenger rail to survive as the only privatized free market transportation provider from the infrastructure up! Yet some at this organization who clearly do not want passenger rail to survive. I am surprised to see RailAmerica in any allegedly pro-passenger rail organization. Ditto for AIPRO's board member Steve Townsend who worked in the oil industry as well as at Koch Industries -- owned by the Koch brothers.

 

So don't be fooled. If you hear a congressperson saying he or she is for the Mica/Shuster bill to privatize Amtrak because an association of rail "experts" is for it, then you know where the linkage exist.

 

Oh, and by the way, could someone teach these grumps how to smile??

http://passengerrail.org/team/

 

It would appear, at first blush, that these are a bunch of business interests intent on cashing in on the new paradigm that is being forged (albeit forcefully) in Mr. Mica's House Transportation Committee.  I have no doubt that since the current leadership wants to privatize pax rail in this country, this group of sober-faced gentlemen would be all-too-happy to help their respective interests profit from any such privatization. 

 

I guess that the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals is that the former see government spending as "waste."  The latter would rather see that money in their own pockets in the form of bonuses and dividends.  After all, corporate America always know what is in the best interest of all of us!  Just ask them!

Except they will never see the financial benefits. No private passenger rail operator will ever make a profit unless the railroad rights of way are forcibly sold to the public sector. The public (and thus, their legislators) do not understand who owns and finances the infrastructure. Rail is the only mode of transportation where the infrastructure is almost wholly owned, financed, managed and dispatched by the transportation service providers -- and in nearly all cases it's privately owned and therefore must also be a profit center.

NIMBY's (Not In My Back yard) in Maine: despite the success of the "Downeaster" and the positive development already taking place along the route of it's yet-to-be-opened extension... the NIMBY's emerge from the woodwork....  This editorial writer takes them to task.

 

Either/or ... who wants Amtrak?

 

By Jeff Reynolds

Published:

Friday, July 22, 2011 2:06 PM EDT

 

Here is the upshot of the forum on the proposed train layover site held in Brunswick on July 14: If we want Amtrak to succeed — and stay — in Brunswick, then the best site is the one located between Church and Stanwood streets.  Selection of any other site, including the “Crooker site” in East Brunswick, will doom the future of passenger train service in the Mid-coast region.

 

Consultants hired by the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority and Amtrak displayed maps of six potential sites for the layover facility. Several were dismissed quickly, and for reasons apparent to all present. Of the remaining three, a site within the Brunswick Industrial Park was shown to require extensive environmental review and site preparation. Cost factors all but eliminated it from consideration.

 

The Church-Stanwood site, the initial choice by NNEPRA and Amtrak, was shown to have no negative operational features. It was acknowledged that there would be impacts upon nearby residents. All efforts, we were assured, would be taken to mitigate these impacts.  Their precise nature and possible effects proved to be, as it was at the June 23 forum, matters of debate.

 

Read more at: http://www.timesrecord.com/articles/2011/07/22/opinion/commentaries/doc4e29b4213579b649988707.txt

http://www.amconmag.com/cpt/

 

Need to talk to your conservative legislator, newspaper editor or radio talk show host? Start by handing them this!!

 

Three Common Misconceptions About Transit and Passenger Rail

William S. Lind

Director, The American Conservative Center for

Public Transportation

 

 

The opposition of some conservatives to public transportation and passenger rail stems from three misconceptions. They are:

 

1. The current automobile dominance is a free-market outcome;

2. Trains and transit are subsidized while highways pay for themselves; and

3. Where public transportation is necessary, buses are always better than trains.

 

In fact, the dominance of automobiles is a product of almost a century of government at all levels subsidizing highways while taxing privately-owned electric railways (streetcars and interurbans) and the railroad companies that ran passenger trains. As early as 1921, government was pouring $1.4 billion into highways. By 1960, that number was $11.5 billion, part of which went to build the Interstate Highways that doomed the privately-operated, unsubsidized passenger train. Public transit received no subsidy until 1964. Conservatives know what happens when you subsidize one competitor while taxing another. The result is not a free market outcome.

 

Libertarian transit critics say the gas tax pays for highways, while transit is subsidized. In fact, the latest (2008) Federal Highway Administration numbers show that all highway user fees, including the gas tax, pay for only 51.72% of highway costs.1 Amtrak covers 67% of its operating expenses from ticket sales and other revenues.2 On a nation-wide average, rail transit covers 53% of its costs from the farebox, but urban bus systems cover only 28%.3

 

Buses and rail transit serve different people and different purposes. Buses primarily serve the transit dependent, people who do not drive or have no car. In contrast, rail transit has consistently shown success at drawing riders from choice, people who could drive but choose to take the train, subway, or light rail instead. Unlike bus service, rail transit has a strongly positive effect on development and property values. While the up-front capital cost of rail transit is higher, the operating cost per passenger-mile is much lower (approximately 50¢ for rail versus 90¢ for bus).4--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1Federal Highway Administration: Highway Statistics. Forms HF-10 and HF-210.

2Amtrak: National Fact Sheet: Fiscal Year 2010.

3U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration. National Transit Database, 2009 Transit Profiles: Appendix A: 2009 Aggregate Profile – Top 50.

4U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration. National Transit Database, 2009 Transit Profiles: Appendix A: Aggregate Profile – Top 50.

 

While Buses Play a Valuable Role, they are no Replacement for High-Speed Rail

By Daniel Ferry on July 27, 2011

 

In a recent policy analysis, "Intercity Buses: The Forgotten Mode," Cato Institute transportation analyst Randal O'Toole hails the rise of intercity passenger bus service, and recommends several reforms to promote these services. Among his recommendations are the immediate cessation of funding for Amtrak and the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program. This assertion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the strengths and value of passenger rail. Intercity buses and passenger rail should be seen as complementary services in a balanced transportation network, not as mutually exclusive alternatives. In making his case, O'Toole alleges that intercity buses require almost no public subsidies, and are safer than passenger rail. These claims are unproven at best and flatly incorrect at worst, and we shall address them in turn, but at the heart of the matter is O'Toole's flawed premise that transportation policy should reflect the needs of only the present, with no consideration to the future.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.america2050.org/2011/07/while-buses-play-a-valuable-role-they-are-no-replacement-for-high-speed-rail.html

July 29, 2011 · 12:01 am

 

NIMBY Nation: Mad as hell and I don’t blame ‘em. For now.

 

You know, I gotta give NIMBYs their due. In many instances, their tireless efforts have kept the world from becoming a worse place, and that’s no small feat. But, sadly, it’s not their only accomplishment.

 

They’ve also kept the world from becoming a better place.

 

Welcome to the problem with NIMBYs. Their reactionary nature can’t tell the difference between bad change and good. And that’s a problem if you’ve any hope for building better communities.

 

Read more at:

http://placeshakers.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/nimby-nation/

Worth sharing........

 

The great high-speed rail lie

Roger Christensen

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

 

In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion bond to begin construction of a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco that would make that trip in less than three hours. So who knew that by 2011 the general consensus would be that the project is an ill-conceived, mismanaged boondoggle?

 

Former Amtrak spokesman and Reason Foundation writer Joseph Vranich knew. In 2008, before the state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, he called the project "science fiction." He said the train won't travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours because that exceeds the speed of all existing high-speed rail.

 

But on French railway schedules, a TGV (Train À Grande Vitesse) takes two hours, 38 minutes to go from Paris to Avignon. That's 430 miles. The route for the L.A.-to-San Francisco line is 432.

 

So what's going on here?

 

Read more at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/02/EDTD1KID15.DTL#ixzz1USOTgNAb

Joel Kotkin also wrote another piece today; I saw it on RCP.

 

I'd post it, but just by knowing the author, I'm sure most here can already guess what it says.

Rewriting history to eliminate rail.......

 

"Congress needs to turn this money over to a proven system that, for more than 100 years, has gotten people to work and back, our buses," Donovan said.

 

http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?recID=739882

 

Maybe he was including the Conestoga Wagon?

Sometimes it feels like Ohio is in the twilight zone, where the state has one of the worst job-creation records of any state, yet it acts like people on the Titanic refusing to get on the job-creating lifeboat of passenger rail. These two recently published items confirm that Ohio is in "The Hole of it All" where news from the outside world hasn't yet reached the children of the corn. I encourage letters and op-eds in response to these, focusing on the job-creation aspects of modern passenger trains in the U.S. and around the world....

 

First, here's a couple of articles to help you fill the void of information:

 

The Case for Not-Quite-So-High-Speed Rail

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/julyaugust_2011/features/the_case_for_notquite_sohighsp030492.php

 

 

Amtrak now fastest-growing mode of travel in U.S., but GOP still wants to kill it

http://www.illini.utu.org/board/news-display-current.jhtml?DB=update/dbase&DO=display&ID=1318539359_20959&current=current

 

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

And now for the dark side........

 

High-speed rail plan doesn't make sense for US - Columbus Dispatch

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2011/10/14/high-speed-rail-plan-doesnt-make-sense-for-u-s-.html

 

 

A staff editorial from the Lima News...

 

Editorial: Stop the high-speed rail gravy train

October 05, 2011 6:49 PM

The Lima News

 

Reality is conspiring against the pipe dream of high-speed rail. Nevertheless, true believers continue spending taxpayers' money in hopes of justifying spending more.

 

But money will run out long before the appetite for spending it. States who bought into rail dreams could be left with a costly, incomplete stretch of tracks, no train to ride or passengers to ride in them. Two states that were eligible for such promises — Ohio and Wisconsin — again can thank their respective Republican governors for turning the seed money that would have planted black holes in budgets.

 

The latest nail in the coffin for the expanded high speed rail was approval in September by the U.S. Senate of a mere $100 million for high-speed rail projects nationwide for 2012 – about 1.25 percent of the $8 billion President Barack Obama requested. The House approved zero dollars.

 

Even if a conference committee approves the Senate's full $100 million, train advocates describe it as “a placeholder,” not a serious allotment.

 

The president wants 80 percent of Americans to have access to taxpayer-financed high-speed rail. Despite the unlikelihood of future funding, billions previously approved are being spent.

 

A large part of opposition is based on low ridership of trains outside the Northeast. There, with infrastructure already in place, it might make sense. Here in the Midwest and elsewhere, with people living farther and farther from metropolitan centers and using their cars more and more, it is a waste of money.

 

READ MORE AT:

Clipped from: http://www.limaohio.com/opinion/rail-72771-money-high.html

 

(or if you want to see the full editorial I can e-mail it to you)

"People using cars more and more"? That's a lie.

Well, on average nationwide over the past 10 years it isn't. Driving is up 10 percent over that time. But in the last few years it is not. Growth in miles driven has stagnated -- and among young people it has fallen substantially. When more Baby Boomers retire, expect the miles-driven to fall.

Well, on average nationwide over the past 10 years it isn't. Driving is up 10 percent over that time. But in the last few years it is not. Growth in miles driven has stagnated -- and among young people it has fallen substantially. When more Baby Boomers retire, expect the miles-driven to fall.

 

Just the fact that Boomers are going to start to retire in large numbers (I'm one) will cut driving drastically. No more daily commute.

Here's my take on Barone's column:

 

BARONE-Y FULL OF BALONEY ON RAIL

 

 

Michael Barone and his elitist supporters are afraid of change that might upset their comfortable gravy train. Make no mistake about it: Big Oil and the billionaire Koch brothers want things just they way they are so they can continue reap huge profits from our overdependence on oil. They don't want us to have any real choices in how we travel. Just shut up and drive.

 

Barone rants that "Passenger rail is particularly attractive to planners, the folks who want to force us out of our cars and into subways that travel only on the routes they design," as social engineering. Excuse me, but we already had the greatest experiment in social engineering in our history. It was called the Interstate Highway System, and it caused profound and some not so good changes to our society.

 

After WWII we had the greatest rail and public transportation system in the world, all at virtually no cost to the taxpayers. Passenger trains routinely hit 100 mph and blanketed the country. However, we, as a nation, decided to junk privately owned and operated rail passenger service and transit in favor of publicly financed highways and aviation and now we are totally dependent on the auto and foreign oil. To be sure, some change was inevitable, but the auto should be a choice, not a necessity and that's the crux of the problem: Lack of choice

 

Public transportation options such as passenger trains, regional or commuter trains, light rail, buses, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an afterthought. It simply does not exist in too many places. What about those who don't want to drive or can't drive, or can't afford to own a car? These people and others are now outcasts at the fringes of society because the system discriminates against them.

 

All of this disproportionately affects minorities and the working poor but everyone is negatively affected by our one-dimensional fixation on the auto. Barone says automobiles are like "emerging information technologies, which let us take whatever path...we want."  That's great if you can afford or want to drive everywhere but the young are not so enthused with autos and like to locate in areas where there is good transit and rail, so they can use the internet while traveling.

 

Then there is the Baby Boomer generation, whose members are starting to retire in large numbers. Many of them are well aware that their driving skills will deteriorate as time goes on and will tend to settle that offer transportation choices. Retirement also means an end to commuting and business travel, all of which will only accelerate the current trend toward less driving, Barone's assertions notwithstanding. In fact, over the past five years, driving has declined while transit and intercity passenger rail has boomed. Amtrak carried a record 30 million passengers this year and could carry far more if it had enough equipment to meet current demand and allow expansion of the current skeletal system.

 

Barone also complains about cost overruns for rail, while ignoring the same for highways. In fact, since 2008, $34.5 billion in federal general funds (from non-users) was transferred to the Highway Trust Fund to cover the deficit between the funds provided by the gasoline tax (from users) and the money actually spent on highways. This is almost as much as has been spent on Amtrak over its entire 40-year history. Cost overruns on individual projects is commonplace, witness the I-70/71 split here in Columbus, which was less than a billion dollars to start, but now is at least $1.5 billion. Where is Barone on this? Nowhere, of course.

 

So when Barone complains that the 160-mile high speed rail segment in the Central Valley will carry "virtually no riders," a statement not based on fact, while ignoring far greater costs and problems of other modes, it's time to start counting the spoons. People will ride, as they have in almost every other case and the line is going to be built exactly the same way the Interstates were built, a section at a time and he misses the fact that thousands of new jobs will be created. His opposition is based on illogical half-truths, distortions and outright lies and the question as to why he does this has to be: Why?

 

The obvious answer is that Barone is merely merely a paid mouthpiece for elitist oil-rich right wing types who are bent on killing all passenger trains (not just high speed) and transit, not only out of blind opposition to anything President Obama is for, but also to deny Americans any real choices. They also support a network of media, think tanks, lobbyists and favorably inclined politicians to deny us that choice.

 

The Columbus Dispatch---a conservative newspaper that editorialized against rail---does nothing to advance the debate by showing only their side of the issue. This only further reinforces the "roads are good - rail is bad" orthodoxy of the Dispatch/Kasich Administration/Republicans/Ohio roadbuilders and their supporters. Meanwhile states such as Michigan advance toward 110 mph trains while we sleep, even though they also have a Republican governor and legislature. Our loss.

 

 

Rewriting history to eliminate rail.......

 

"Congress needs to turn this money over to a proven system that, for more than 100 years, has gotten people to work and back, our buses," Donovan said.

 

http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?recID=739882

 

 

Erm, someone remind me when the railroad was invented, again?

The Cincinnati Enquirer has been, for some time now, a dependable agent of the anti-rail hitmen.  But Sunday's feature was astonishing:

 

^Be careful of copyright rules.

One response in particular stood out when young professionals were asked to name one wish they had to make Columbus a magnet for other young people...... You guessed -- more public transit including rail. That's a pretty big "cult" -- don't ya think?

 

Young professionals digging Columbus, survey finds

Business First by Jeff Bell, Staff reporter

Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 7:30pm EDT

 

The young professionals who will be calling the shots in Central Ohio someday seem to think the region is on the rise when it comes to what they’re looking for in a place to live and play.

 

That seems to be the theme running through a new survey of 20- and 30-somethings that the Columbus Chamber of Commerce unveiled Wednesday evening at its State of the Young Professionals event. (Download the report here: http://b700441e9603e56472e76fceed3901483f5d7759.gripelements.com/pdf/member_resources/2011_state_of_the_yp_report.pdf)

 

Here’s an example of what I’m getting at: The survey found 79 percent of the respondents view Columbus as a vibrant city where people are using public parks, trails and recreation areas, attending farmers markets and living in a healthy way. That’s up from 58 percent in 2006, when the chamber did a similar survey.

 

If they could wish upon a star, more than a third of the YPs would like to see more forms of alternative transportation such as public transit, bike paths and rail. That’s up from 23 percent in 2006.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2011/10/young-professionals-digging-columbus.html

 

I like the way "better" "public" and "transportation" sit together. :)

Funding Amtrak is more cost-effective than subsidizing roads

by David C.  •  October 31, 2011 12:46 pm

Greater Greater Washington

 

Amtrak's federal grant, constituting just 0.05% of federal spending in 2010, is once again under attack. Its critics perennially point to the railroad's 24¢ per passenger mile (ppm) government subsidy, compare it to the 2¢ ppm direct subsidy for driving, and call Amtrak a waste.

 

Amtrak's Chicago-DC Capitol Ltd. crosses the Potomac at Harpers Ferry. Comparing these direct subsidies, though, tells only part of the story. When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm, but motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 5645¢ ppm.

 

When considering all of the costs to society the argument for increasing Amtrak's subsidy (and/or the gasoline tax) becomes clear. This table compares the direct and indirect subsidy of Amtrak versus roads, per passenger mile:

 

Read more at: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-effective-than-subsidizing-roads/

I posted the link to that article on Facebook and a friend responded: "What happens to the roads when we start funding Amtrak?" Gahh!! I responded: "we can afford/ought to fund both. Its incorrect to think of them as either/or propositions. BUT, if we want the gov to operate like a business... which would a business invest in? The more efficient one"

A balanced diet -- be it food or transportation policy -- is a healthy thing to have.

A balanced diet -- be it food or transportation policy -- is healthy thing to have.

 

+1.

This critique was raised by highway hitman Wendell Cox in 2005 and has since been echoed by his minions (Cox suckers?). Seems that Rep. Jean Schmidt now counts herself among them.....

 

http://www.house.gov/list/press/oh02_schmidt/subsidy.html

 

Their goal is to make riding long-distance trains as unattractive as short-distance flying by cutting food/beverage service, thereby cutting ridership and then cutting the trains. Once those trains are gone, the nationwide political support for Amtrak disappears as does a significant amount of connecting revenue to other state-supported trains.

 

And the official rebuttals.....

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/fb_econ/

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/Narprail.pdf

I would think there would be an allocation or apportionment issue here.  Does some portion of that $192 million represent fixed costs (which would not actually be saved by eliminating food and beverage service on the trains), or is it really simply that much more expensive to have that food and drink on a train?  I would tend to doubt the latter, which means I tend to doubt the numbers even if I can't immediately pin down the reason for my doubts.

Even back in the day of the private railroads, they spent $1 on food and beverage service for every 50 cents they got in return. But they accepted it as a cost of retaining passengers and their ticket revenues.

 

Whenever a private railroad company eliminated food service from a train, it was rightfully feared that the train wouldn't last much longer.

ANALYSIS: High Speed Rail Naysayer Scott Says Nay to California Costs

By Matt Dellinger | 11/02/2011 – 5:48 pm

 

Florida Governor Rick Scott wasted no time making hay of the formal increase in cost projections for high speed rail in California. “The news today out of California that High Speed Rail cost estimates have now tripled to the $100 billion range reinforces that Florida made the right decision earlier this year to protect taxpayers from just this sort of boondoggle,” Scott said in a statement. “As I said at the time, High Speed Rail would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits. I’m glad Florida is no longer entangled in the high speed spending web.”

 

But bullet train advocates contacted by Transportation Nation were just as quick to call out the Governor for playing politics. “As usual, Rick Scott is putting ideology way ahead of the facts,” wrote Kevin Brubaker, who manages the Midwest High-Speed Rail Network Project of the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago. “Florida’s high-speed rail proposal was designed as a public-private partnership with the private sector bearing all the risk for cost overruns.  Private firms were ready to bid on this project, gambling their potential profits against potential cost increases. But Governor Scott never allowed the private sector to do what it does best. Instead, he canceled the project before private firms could bid and before his own government completed their analysis of the project.”

 

Read more at: http://transportationnation.org/2011/11/02/analysis-high-speed-rail-naysayer-scott-says-nay-to-california-costs/

Poorly written article by William Oremus: "High speed Rail is Dead!".  I know the arguments--barely--maybe one of you could write to Slate.com and set them right.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/high_speed_rail_is_dead_in_america_should_we_mourn_it_.html

Poorly written article by William Oremus: "High speed Rail is Dead!".  I know the arguments--barely--maybe one of you could write to Slate.com and set them right.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/high_speed_rail_is_dead_in_america_should_we_mourn_it_.html

 

Here's a short answer: right now, more capital improvements are being spent on intercity passenger rail in America since the late 1940s. Presidents Bush and Obama kissed sleeping beauty and woke her up with the first federal passenger rail development program in American history. If that's death, she sure looks pretty.

Poorly written article by William Oremus: "High speed Rail is Dead!".  I know the arguments--barely--maybe one of you could write to Slate.com and set them right.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/high_speed_rail_is_dead_in_america_should_we_mourn_it_.html

 

Here's a short answer: right now, more capital improvements are being spent on intercity passenger rail in America since the late 1940s. Presidents Bush and Obama kissed sleeping beauty and woke her up with the first federal passenger rail development program in American history. If that's death, she sure looks pretty.

 

Or, in the words of Cheech Marin...... "If this is torture, chain me to the wall!!"

Randall O'Toole warns Detroit not to repeat the "mistakes" of Portland and Denver by investing in light rail. You can't make this shit up.

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/12/09/ha-catos-otoole-to-detroit-dont-repeat-portland-and-denvers-mistakes/