I think the concern lies in the disporportionate size of the cuts as a percentage of their allocation (38% vs 11% for roads), and the more sinsiter underlying tone that ultimately the plan is to repurpose as much funds away from transit as they can get away with.

These crabby anti-rail, anti-transit, anti-walking Baby Boomer Republicans are going to be left in their auto-dependent isolated McMansions in their old age to freeze and eat cat food by their transit-oriented kids, grandkids and overall energy costs in 20 years. Kids today are unempathetic, sick of driving, hate that the Baby Boomers are hogging all the jobs and will stick it to the road fascists any way they can. They don't know it, but they have already turned their Golden Years into a hellride.

Road fascists -- I like that.

 

As much as they anger me and tempt me to take stronger action against them, I must remind myself that they are digging themselves into a lifestyle hole that they won't be able to get out of. It's up to the rest of us to do what we can to stay out of that hole. I firmly believe that all destructive behavior ultimately collapses under its own weight.

These crabby anti-rail, anti-transit, anti-walking Baby Boomer Republicans are going to be left in their auto-dependent isolated McMansions in their old age to freeze and eat cat food by their transit-oriented kids, grandkids and overall energy costs in 20 years. Kids today are unempathetic, sick of driving, hate that the Baby Boomers are hogging all the jobs and will stick it to the road fascists any way they can. They don't know it, but they have already turned their Golden Years into a hellride.

 

I agree with the second part of this, but not the first, for reasons I've said on these and other boards before, but which I'll say again for the record (and because I don't think I've put it in this thread yet): I think that the suburbs will get more sustainable, not less, as time passes, after a point (that point likely postdating a fossil fuel price and supply shock, however).  The advent of electric cars and solar power approaching grid parity will allow for rooftop solar capable of supplying a large part of a sprawling suburb's energy needs, and will enable that energy to be used for transportation more directly.  Since sprawling suburbs have more surface area for each unit of interior volume that will require energy, they're actually more optimized for solar energy than cities are.

 

Also, scary as this is, I think that we may well get to a point within our lifetimes where most of the transportation system, including all the cars, is completely automated.  Self-driving cars are already making test drives, with surprising amounts of success.  If this technology lives up to its potential, it would allow cars to offer some of the benefits of trains--namely, the ability to focus on doing other things during trips.  (Traffic would also flow much more smoothly, too.)

 

To the extent that the Baby Boomers are in for a bad time in the years ahead, it's because old age sucks, not because suburbs do.

I'm not very confident that we're going to be able to "tech" our way out of this one.

Yep. Intelligent Transportation Systems (driverless cars etc) have been proposed since GM and Shell unveiled their Cities of Tomorrow exhibits at the New York World's Fair in 1939. And people keep buying the drug that technology offers relatively painless solutions to the massive problems now hitting us. We invested in an energy-dependent way of life when energy was cheap and abundant, and growth was assumed uber alles.

 

Now it's time to disinvent in that way of life, not to find ways to sink deeper into it. I know it's hard to walk away from a fun party, but it is the most responsible course of action.

I'm not very confident that we're going to be able to "tech" our way out of this one.

 

I am.

 

Yep. Intelligent Transportation Systems (driverless cars etc) have been proposed since GM and Shell unveiled their Cities of Tomorrow exhibits at the New York World's Fair in 1939. And people keep buying the drug that technology offers relatively painless solutions to the massive problems now hitting us. We invested in an energy-dependent way of life when energy was cheap and abundant, and growth was assumed uber alles.

 

Yes, but they didn't have prototypes actually out on the roads.  Google does.  The participants in the DARPA Challenge do, to a lesser extent.  And technology doesn't just offer relatively painless solutions to humanity's problems; it represents the only realistic solutions.  Restrictionist measures are far more painful and far less effective.

Driverless cars may be able to work in some areas, like on limited access highways, but it's a stretch to think they'll be able to accommodate every driving scenario we have today. 

 

The issue with boomers (among others) in the suburbs is that as people get older they are less and less able to drive.  Whether it's a lack of money to support cars, diminished reflexes, night vision, or just eyesight in general, people lose the ability to safely and legally "operate heavy machinery" well before they die.  The only real choices are to move to an expensive retirement community, or move somewhere that they can walk to their daily needs.  So far some retirees have convinced their kids to move nearby so they can take care of them, or to move in with their kids, but I don't see many of the boomers' kids being willing or even able to do that. 

Gee, this sounds like National City Lines all over again......

 

 

A UK group picked up NARP's January 7 release attacking the Reason Foundation’s attack on the Florida HSR project. “Florida’s Oil Slick” is at http://www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1170

 

It includes this: “The [Reason] foundation’s president is Davilukd Nott, a former oil company executive, and has listed its funders as including the Ford Motor Co, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, oil giants Exxon, Chevron and Shell, the American Petroleum Institute, Union Carbide, American Airlines and Continental Airlines.”

 

When NARP asked railfuture for their source on Reason’s funding, they were given this link: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Reason_Foundation

 

Sure is good to hear that these far-right "think tanks" are independent research organizations and not the fist of some special interests.

Reason is libertarian, not far-right.

 

Also, what is your definition of an "untainted" funding source--something that isn't a "special interest?"  Academia?  The government?  Do you think that those are somehow purer than private enterprise?

Are you serious?

About what?

 

Whatever the answer to that may be, the answer is "yes," since I was serious about everything in my prior post, but I'm still interested in what I said that elicited that particular reaction from you.

What is the purpose of a so-called independent think tank? To purify a special interest belief into one that is a public interest, or should be in their view. It's a morality car wash. Otherwise, they have no reason to exist.

Such a cynic.  Do you apply the same standard to NARP and other pro-rail organizations?  And to the Center for American Progress and other left-wing think tanks?

 

Independent advocacy organizations enable both corporate and individual believers in a particular cause to pool resources to fund a dedicated group of individuals to further that cause.  This is no different for groups you support and groups you oppose, so don't pretend to some kind of purity of your own here.  Neither academic nor government sources of funding imply any greater level of freedom from partisan motivation than funding from corporate or individual sources.

Academic- and government-funded think-tanks certainly have less potential for bias than those with corporate backers.

 

This is true for the same reasons that public funds are available for the study of, e.g., pure mathematics, whereas corporations are only interested in the same once an application is found. Think-tanks which are given the freedom to explore ideas without a preconceived aim are inherently less biased. Corporate money follows the preconceived aim of generating positive results for the donor corporation, with results further confounded by an eye on the omnipresent quarter-annual clock.

You have far too rosy a view of academics and (particularly) government.  Do you think a government-funded study would be apt to ever find a need for less government revenue, less government spending, and less government power?  Would it ever concede that government is emphatically not the answer to a given problem?  For that matter, would it ever resist the determination of a powerful political source of funding (e.g., an appropriations committee member) that some phenomenon that the politician wants to regulate is a problem in the first place?  Government manipulation of government-funded research is far too common, in a hundred subtle and less-subtle ways.

 

So, returning to the original point of this discussion: The argument in Reason should not be written off just because the group making the argument has corporate sponsors, or even because the group has one of the more sanctimonious names among independent advocacy groups out there.  First, the merit of a position is independent of the person taking it.  Second, even if the money funding a position could render a position questionable, the positions of many groups aligned against Reason (and the specific backers that KJP identified) would be equally questionable.  Every group must get its funding from somewhere, unless it runs a business that actually generates that money itself (and essentially none do).  Whoever provides that funding will inevitably exert some influence on the group's direction and priorities.  That does not change if the source of funding is the government.

Au contraire, your view of government is far too rosy. If government were to be so self-serving and self-preserving, it would need to be far more efficient than it is, in reality. Government has no problem with contradicting or undermining itself, which in this case is a good thing. Likewise with universities. For example, academic studies cited in this article.

Such a cynic. Do you apply the same standard to NARP and other pro-rail organizations?

 

 

No, because we are all rail organizations and you know what we are, what we represent and who we speak for? We wear it on our sleeve. Just as the American Trucking Association reps trucking interests and the American Road Builders Association reps road contractors and the American Automobile Association reps driver's interests. And that's all well and good. It's their right to organize for their own interests -- in their own name and for their own cause.

 

But what does the Reason Foundation represent? If you are to say they represent common-sense, free-market solutions, then for whom? The general public? Their funders? To me, it's special interest PR masquerading as public interest good works. It's not. It's underhanded, cloak-and-dagger BS for the benefit of the few in the name of the many.

 

And yes, left-wing think tanks are not immune from my criticism either. What private interests do they represent? Why must they existing under another name? Why all the hiding?

Such a cynic. Do you apply the same standard to NARP and other pro-rail organizations? And to the Center for American Progress and other left-wing think tanks?

 

Independent advocacy organizations enable both corporate and individual believers in a particular cause to pool resources to fund a dedicated group of individuals to further that cause. This is no different for groups you support and groups you oppose, so don't pretend to some kind of purity of your own here. Neither academic nor government sources of funding imply any greater level of freedom from partisan motivation than funding from corporate or individual sources.

 

One bit of "proof in the pudding" is that the Reason Institute (and its identically-funded offspring like the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy) have pretty much shown their colors over the decades by consistently slamming the costs and benefits of passenger rail and public transit projects but never criticizing a highway project.... despite the fact that most highway projects are far more costly both to build and maintain.

Ohio's anti-rail cultists, once again leading the nation in railphobia....

 

Republican Study Committee proposes $2.5 trillion in cuts, including transit, Amtrak, HSR

Monday, January 24, 2011

 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the RSC Budget and Spending Task Force and Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, unveiled the Spending Reduction Act, to address the rapidly growing national debt by making substantial spending cuts immediately and throughout the next decade.

 

Key cuts that would affect the rail industry include:

 

• Amtrak grants. $1.565 billion

• New Starts Transit. $2 billion

• Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion

• Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million

 

In response to the to the proposed cuts, APTA issued the following statement from President William Millar:

 

"The proposal by the House Republican Study Committee for deep cuts to public transportation programs is ill conceived and short sighted. The ‘Spending Reduction Act of 2011' will put jobs at risk, increase traffic congestion, and negatively impact the lives of millions of Americans who use public transportation.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/republican-study-committee-proposes-2.5-trillion-in-cuts-including-transit-amtrak-hsr.html

 

Can High Speed Rail Survive Conservative Politicians?

 

Scott Thill makes the case for high speed rail, and how it can contribute to a more sustainable future nationwide -- but conservative politicians at the state level appear set to derail it.

Full op-ed post at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/149630/vision:_the_future_is_becoming_more_clear_--_abandon_sprawl,_intensify_use_of_high_sp

FYI: I continue to see anti-rail articles coming out of the Examiner publications. There is no attempt by them to follow journalistic principles and present various sides of the argument. They are nothing more than PR sheets for the oil industry. Why do I say that.....?

 

The Examiner publications are owned by billionaire oilman Philip Anschutz (who served on the boards of oil industry lobbying groups the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petroleum Council). He also was the owner of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (to solidify his standing as one of the largest landowners in Colorado to access its natural resources) and became an officer of the Union Pacific when UP took over Rio Grande. That was the era when UP was at its worst in fighting against Amtrak. Read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz

Or

http://www.portfolio.com/companies-executives/2009/08/07/who-is-philip-anschutz-and-why-is-he-in-business-with-michael-jackson-and-the-weekly-standard/

 

It should also be advertised that Examiner reporters are paid based on the number of "hits" on their articles. So each time someone opens an article, the reporter gets paid more. If you want to reduce the power of the Examiner, stop reading their articles.

 

It's time to start exposing these people for who they are -- follow the money. I'm sure you'll find that it usually traces back to people who made their money in oil, highways or simply killing trains and transit.

 

High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste

By Robert J. Samuelson

Monday, February 14, 2011

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021302203.html

 

Rail buffs argue that subsidies for passenger service simply offset the huge government support of highways and airways. The subsidies "level the playing field." Wrong. In 2004, the Transportation Department evaluated federal transportation subsidies from 1990 to 2002. It found passenger rail service had the highest subsidy ($186.35 per thousand passenger-miles) followed by mass transit ($118.26 per thousand miles). By contrast, drivers received no net subsidy; their fuel taxes more than covered federal spending. Subsidies for airline passengers were about $5 per thousand miles traveled. (All figures are in inflation-adjusted year 2000 dollars.)

 

^Back in 1990 to 2002, Highway construction/maintenance materials and labor were much cheaper and inflation had not eroded purchasing power of the flat-rate-per-gallon gas taxes. Therefore, fuel taxes collected in those days were much more capable of maintaining the highway system than they are today.

Samuelson and other anti-rail/transit simpletons don't count highway costs that he considers as externalities, but are internalized by rail and transit, such as traffic control, law enforcement, right of way ownership, insurance and many others. It's not even an apples to apples comparison. It's soup to nuts.

Samuelson and other anti-rail/transit simpletons don't count highway costs that he considers as externalities, but are internalized by rail and transit, such as traffic control, law enforcement, right of way ownership, insurance and many others. It's not even an apples to apples comparison. It's soup to nuts.

 

Understood. And, as  matter of fact, this is a rehash of the same stale arguments (and practically the same text), as he used when arguing against the $8 billion HSR jumpstart.

 

But I put it out there in case someone wanted to respond. The Washington Post tends to give preference to letters from individuals living in their circulation territory.

 

More evidence that the Dispatch editorial writers have drunk the highway kool-aid..... and still can't resist taking shots at passenger rail.... as if it is (their words) "mundane".  But no mention, of course, of "neglected infrastructure" including that which moves both freight and people most efficiently in large numbers...... rail.

 

Editorial: Road work ahead

Lawmakers should stay focused on fixing Ohio's neglected infrastructure

Tuesday, February 15, 2011  02:52 AM

 

 

The Columbus Dispatch

Ohio's economy and its residents' safety is dependent on one of the nation's largest networks of roads and bridges - one that is showing its age and requires billions of dollars to maintain, repair and upgrade.

 

As the legislature this month begins to consider a new biennial transportation budget, this existing transportation infrastructure demands intelligent policy decisions.

 

Admittedly, road work isn't sexy. It's not a shiny new toy like a high-speed train (or in Ohio's case, a laggardly locomotive) that would require massive public subsidies, but provide a visible political legacy.

 

But if Ohio is to regain its competitive edge, the legislature must strike a proper balance between mundane investments and new projects.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/02/15/road-work-ahead.html?sid=101

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1719/the-cheapest-cities-to-own-a-car/

 

This article discusses the top 11 places that owning a car is cheapest.  Cleveland is number 1, while Columbus, and Ciny also appear in the top 7. 

 

Not that I believe that this is a study that is dead on, but is something that sheds some light on car ownership in big cities, and where it is easier to commute via car. 

 

While I am not an anti-rail hitman at all, I always see this as our constant obsticle to getting sophisticated highspeed rail mass transit, and better intercity rail developed around Ohio.  The simple matter of the fact is that it is easy and cheap (relatively speaking) to own a car and to drive a car around Ohio.  We are not plagued with massive traffic, toll roads that constantly back up at booths, or high gas prices on average. 

 

So while I would love to see people support rail in Ohio, it is just such a tough sell on the average Ohioan being that they really do not struggle with owning a car, nor do they struggle with commuting from one place to the next.  The main reason I hear alot , no joke, is that people would love to have more sophisticated rail so they can get drunk downtown, and take it home.  I am not kidding with that.  I try my hardest to use the park and ride at Brookpark to get downtown with the family, but with 6 people travelling by rail, I can actually drive there for less money, and get there faster.  Most of the times we do it for fun.

 

I respect all those trying to get sophisticated rail in Ohio, and I hope you continue on the trk to getting it done.  I would love to see an Ohio connected by rail someday...or at least for my kids to use in the future.

The family aspect--paying for 6 tickets instead of one--is a legitimate point.  A car that actually uses all passenger seats for passengers becomes very efficient per passenger-mile.  (Likewise, an empty train is very inefficient per passenger-mile.)  However, when you look at the thickest parts of rush hour in most Ohio cities--or even East Coast cities--you will generally see single-occupant vehicles.  Not exclusively, of course, but generally.  Even a half-full train is probably more efficient than that.

 

Part of the reason for that is that prevalence of single-occupancy vehicles is that we haven't found a really convenient way to do carpooling for work commuting.

 

The judge I used to work for in Canton told me a story about a group of his dad's friends who carpooled to work at a steel mill.  They all lived in Massillon (which hadn't sprawled out into Jackson Township then).  They all worked at the same place.  They all were expected to clock in at the same hour and out at the same hour.  Carpooling was easy.  Heck, they all even went to the same bar after work.  They did that for decades.  None of them ever changed jobs.

 

That just doesn't happen anymore.  If you could profile the inhabitants of a typical suburban subdivision, almost everyone (a) leaves for work at different times, (b) goes in different directions, © may need to travel during the day as well (even if just for lunch), and (d) returns at different times.  Carpooling will basically never be an option for me because my hours are not only long, they're highly unpredictable.  I have no idea whether I'll be staying until 10:00 p.m. tonight; I might not even know that until 5:30 this afternoon.

Parking is another huge factor.  Some estimate that parking subsidies are larger than all other subsides for driving combined.  Free street parking is a big component of that.  You don't see neighborhood parking passes here in Cincinnati (maybe Mt. Adams?), but there isn't even a city vehicle sticker.  That really surprised me when I moved here. 

An interesting counterpoint to the "hit men".

 

Bring Back the Rails!

January 13, 2011

by Tony Judt

 

Railways have been declining since the 1950s. There had always been competition for the traveler (and, though less marked, for freight). From the 1890s horse-drawn trams and buses, followed a generation later by the electric or diesel or petrol variant, were cheaper to make and run than trains. Lorries (trucks)—the successor to the horse and cart—were always competitive over the short haul. With diesel engines they could now cover long distances. And there were now airplanes and, above all, there were cars: the latter becoming cheaper, faster, safer, more reliable every year.

 

Even over the longer distances for which it was originally conceived, the railway was at a disadvantage: its start-up and maintenance costs—in surveying, tunneling, laying track, building stations and rolling stock, switching to diesel, installing electrification—were greater than those of its competitors and it never succeeded in paying them off. Mass-produced cars, in contrast, were cheap to build and the roads on which they ran were subsidized by taxpayers. To be sure, they carried a high social overhead cost, notably to the environment; but that would only be paid at a future date. Above all, cars represented the possibility of private travel once again. Rail travel, in what were increasingly open-plan trains whose managers had to fill them in order to break even, was decidedly public transport.

 

Full story at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jan/13/bring-back-rails/

The weak point in this argument is here:

 

Why this unanticipated revival? The explanation can be put in the form of a counterfactual: it is possible (and in many places today actively under consideration) to imagine public policy mandating a steady reduction in the nonnecessary use of private cars and trucks. It is possible, however hard to visualize, that air travel could become so expensive and/or unappealing that its attraction for people undertaking nonessential journeys will steadily diminish. But it is simply not possible to envision any conceivable modern, urban-based economy shorn of its subways, its tramways, its light rail and suburban networks, its rail connections, and its intercity links.

 

Unfortunately, it is.  Most of Ohio can attest to that.  One wonders what the author's point of reference is.  Whatever it is, it appears out of touch with the vast majority of American cities.

 

Unfortunately, it is.  Most of Ohio can attest to that.  One wonders what the author's point of reference is.  Whatever it is, it appears out of touch with the vast majority of American cities.

 

Yes and no. Yes, Ohio can attest to that. And no, because it is not out of touch with most of the emerging and emerged economies in the world, of which America but is a small part. America is the weirdo of the world when in comes to its shunning of rail and transit as if were a disease.

That's why I said what I did about the author's point of reference.  He seems to be speaking from a European perspective, maybe--someone who really hasn't traveled America much.

More evidence that the Dispatch editorial writers have drunk the highway kool-aid..... and still can't resist taking shots at passenger rail.... as if it is (their words) "mundane".  But no mention, of course, of "neglected infrastructure" including that which moves both freight and people most efficiently in large numbers...... rail.

 

Editorial: Road work ahead

Lawmakers should stay focused on fixing Ohio's neglected infrastructure

Tuesday, February 15, 2011  02:52 AM

 

 

The Columbus Dispatch

Ohio's economy and its residents' safety is dependent on one of the nation's largest networks of roads and bridges - one that is showing its age and requires billions of dollars to maintain, repair and upgrade.

 

As the legislature this month begins to consider a new biennial transportation budget, this existing transportation infrastructure demands intelligent policy decisions.

 

Admittedly, road work isn't sexy. It's not a shiny new toy like a high-speed train (or in Ohio's case, a laggardly locomotive) that would require massive public subsidies, but provide a visible political legacy.

 

But if Ohio is to regain its competitive edge, the legislature must strike a proper balance between mundane investments and new projects.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/02/15/road-work-ahead.html?sid=101

 

Rail mundane? I gotta tell you, some of the most exciting and fun times I've had were driving to Cincinnati on I-71 in say, Clinton County. Woo hoo. Parr-tay.

Just read Florida is scrapping their HSR plans.

GCrites80s:  Read it again.  It's roads that they're saying are mundane.  They're saying that just because they're mundane doesn't mean that they should be overlooked.  Because, of course, we all know how much our highways are overlooked next to big, expensive projects like 3C.

Just read Florida is scrapping their HSR plans.

 

I just learned about Florida. Though it didn't surprise me in the least it pissed me off. My little brother lives in Orlando and I had to send him a long ranting email about how his idiot governor and my idiot governor (and that idiot from Wisconsin) probably have slumber parties and do each others' nails and fantasize about ways to utterly destroy whatever potential their states have left. And then I had to apologize to my little brother because I know it's not his fault and he supports rail also.

 

Though my rant did nothing to make the world a better place, I must admit I feel better now...

FYI:  from another discussion list.......

_____________

 

Talking points rebutting Governor Scott's remarks:

 

There are three main arguments underlying Florida Governor Scott’s decision to cancel the state’s high-speed rail project today: 1) potential capital cost overruns, 2) overly optimistic ridership projections, and 3) state taxpayer operating subsidy liability. These arguments are virtually identical to the conclusions of a recent report, “The Tampa to Orlando High-Speed Rail Project: Florida Taxpayer Risk Assessment,” published by the Reason Foundation. This report was overseen by Robert Poole, Transportation Director and a Founder of the Reason Foundation, as well as a member of Governor Scott's Transition Team for transportation issues. The Reason Foundation, funded largely by oil and highway interests, is by no means an unbiased organization.

 

 

Here are some fact-based responses rebutting these arguments:

 

Potential Capital Cost Overruns:

 

Governor Scott remarked that the capital cost of the project could potentially escalate by up to $3 billion and that Florida taxpayers would be responsible for this. Citing no evidence, it appears the Governor pulled this figure directly from the Reason Foundation’s report. Ignoring the crude analysis used to make this calculation, the fact is that private sector investors were in the process of preparing proposals to compete for the project and could reasonably have been expected to assume the remaining capital budget shortfall, risk of capital cost overruns, as well as all operating expenses. Governor Scott decided to cancel the project before fielding any of these proposals.

 

See the official position of the International Union of Railways below for more on calculating the profitability of high-speed rail projects.

 

 

Overly Optimistic Ridership Projections:

 

Consider that close to 50 million tourists per year visit Central Florida, many of whom are bound for destinations, such as Walt Disney World, and/or travel through the Orlando Airport, which will have connections to the Tampa-Orlando line. If only 5% of these visitors take high-speed rail, the service would meet the passenger estimates of 2.4 million in its first year of operation. Furthermore, a growing share of Central Florida's European and Asian visitors commonly use high-speed rail at home and can be expected to travel on Florida's new system, giving the state's vital tourism economy a boost.

 

Governor Scott also falsely argued that ridership potential on the Tampa-Orlando corridor does not exist because its projections are close to the most heavily traveled market in the nation – Amtrak’s Acela service on the Northeast Corridor, which serves 3.2 million annual riders. It is important to note that Acela service runs at capacity in a severely constrained corridor. Amtrak’s total rail ridership on the Corridor (Acela and Regional combined) is over 12 million per year. Additional ridership is constrained by congestion mainly from commuter trains, which comprise 250 million passengers per year on the same rail corridor stretching from Boston to Washington, D.C. The proposed Florida service would run almost entirely on dedicated tracks with fewer constraints and road crossings, allowing for faster and more frequent service. Moreover, Acela service met ridership and exceeded ticket revenue projections in its first year of operation, and remains profitable today.

 

 

State Taxpayer Operating Subsidy Liability:

 

As mentioned above, it is likely that the private sector, in competing for this project, would agree to cover all operating expenses. However, even in the unlikely event that the service required a public subsidy, the concept that high-speed rail is required to cover all operating expenses with ticket revenue is a double standard. All modes of transportation operate with the benefit of a subsidy, including highways and airports. Why should high-speed rail be any different?

 

 

Consider the official position of the International Union of Railways taken from a press release they issued this month:

 

 

"Shouldering the cost of infrastructure is offset by the social benefits/advantages provided by high speed rail. Economic calculations for infrastructure projects in Europe include all the socioeconomic benefits of future rail infrastructure and its contribution to society (particularly in terms of environmental protection and sustainability).

 

When evaluating such projects, economic calculations by European banks (e.g. the European Investment Bank) also systematically include the contribution of future rail infrastructure to improving citizens’ lives. The projects also quantify advantages such as reducing road congestion and road accidents, reducing air pollution and CO2 emissions, optimising land use (compared to more space-consuming road infrastructure), land planning, improving inter-regional links, etc.

 

To summarise, all high speed rail projects developed in Europe have to be considered profitable as a system (combining profitability for the operating company and profitability for the society to which the state-owned rail infrastructure belongs). …The highly positive net result of all these factors taken together is the reason why high speed systems continue to be successfully rolled out in Europe and Asia (Japan, China, Taiwan), and why they soon will be in North Africa, the Middle-East and, one sincerely hopes, on the American continent.”

Here's another take on Rick (knuckle-dragge) Scott's HSR cancellation... however, the article cites 2 sources of encouragement: 1) Scott legally may have overstepped his bounds (ya' know, there's this little thing called a legislature, ya know, for that drafting laws thing?), 2) LaHood (my new hero) and affected cities' ;mayers may cut a deal to do an end run around the State... not a pleasant precedent... but, in this case, needed.

 

Gov. Rick Scott rejects funding for high-speed railBy Janet Zink, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau

In Print: Thursday, February 17, 2011

 

 

TALLAHASSEE

 

Never mind that the federal government was willing to pay nearly all the cost to build a high-speed rail line connecting Tampa to Orlando.

Never mind that private companies were willing to cover any additional construction costs and operating losses.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Wednesday rejected the federal government's offer of $2.4 billion to build the line — prompting cheers from his tea party base, and harsh criticism from leading Florida Republicans and Democrats — squashing a project that has been decades in the making. "The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits," Scott said.

 

Reverberations from the stunning announcement were swift.

 

State legislators questioned whether the governor has the authority to unilaterally kill high-speed rail, and members of Florida's congressional delegation

 

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/gov-rick-scott-rejects-funding-for-high-speed-rail/1151937

LaHood (my new hero) and affected cities' ;mayers may cut a deal to do an end run around the State... not a pleasant precedent... but, in this case, needed.

 

Why is that not a pleasant precedent?

 

Wish LaHood would have tried that in Ohio.

Wish LaHood would have tried that in Ohio.

 

No kidding!  Give us all that money and we could do a super 3-C and get the Cardinal really fixed up right.  *sigh* 

Before I said California may be next. While it may be a target of the anti-rail hitmen, the next state that might give back its federal rail funding is Iowa. Please note these are all swing states in 2012.

FLORIDA GOVERNOR’S REJECTION OF FEDERAL HIGH-SPEED RAIL FUNDS PLACES SHORT-SIGHTED PARTISAN POLITICS ABOVE PEOPLES’ TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND JOB CREATION

 

CHICAGO, February 16, 2011— The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) today commented that Florida Governor Rick Scott’s rejection of $2.4 billion in federal funds to build a modern passenger rail line between Orlando and Tampa is “placing short-sighted partisan politics above peoples’ transportation needs and job creation.”

 

The comments, issued by Howard Learner, ELPC Executive Director, came after Governor Scott announced his rejection on the grounds that ‘the risk far outweighs the benefits,’ citing concerns about cost overruns and ridership and then spending more than half of his statement criticizing President Obama.

 

“Governor Scott rejected billions of federal dollars that would have created jobs and supercharged Florida’s tourism industry. Instead, he placed short-sighted partisan politics above peoples’ transportation needs and job creation. Governor Scott’s true motivations were reflected in his partisan statements criticizing President Obama. 

 

Americans want modern, fast and better rail service that can improve mobility, reduce pollution, create jobs and spur economic growth. Polling shows that high-speed rail support is not limited to people in so-called ‘red’ states or ‘blue’ states.  People want better transportation options.  According to a recent Rockefeller Foundation survey, 80 percent of those polled agree that federal investment to improve and modernize transportation ‘will boost local economies and create millions of jobs from construction to engineering.’

 

Governor Scott ignores that the risks in this public-private partnership could easily be borne by the private sector.  Scott’s decision comes before private firms had the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to protect Florida taxpayers while building world-class high-speed rail.

 

Scott's ridership math is misleading and uninformed.  He justifies his ridership skepticism by saying that ‘only’ 3.2 million people ride the Northeast’s Acela trains, but ignores the other 7.6 million passengers who take the slower but cheaper Northeast Regional trains in the same corridor.  Together, these trains serve more passengers than all airlines combined in these markets.

 

Scott has cost thousands of jobs and billions in economic development at a time when many people are hurting.  He has prioritized scoring partisan political points against the President over job creation and better transportation options for many people.”

 

ELPC is nationally known for its high-speed rail advocacy. The organization has studied passenger rail for nearly two decades and provided transportation counsel and policy support to state, local and federal governments.

 

Mr. Learner is available for comment on high-speed rail initiatives. To schedule an interview, call 312-629-9400. To learn more about the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s high-speed rail advocacy, visit www.highspeedrailworks.org.

Scott's ridership math is misleading and uninformed.  He justifies his ridership skepticism by saying that ‘only’ 3.2 million people ride the Northeast’s Acela trains, but ignores the other 7.6 million passengers who take the slower but cheaper Northeast Regional trains in the same corridor.  Together, these trains serve more passengers than all airlines combined in these markets.

 

And that also ignores the nearly 250 million people who travel on non-Amtrak Northeast Corridor commuter trains each each year.

Yes, but this all goes to show that despite the idiocy of the anti-rail folks, this can't be seen as a partisan issue, because the supporters will never win enough.

I don't see it as a partisan issue. If you follow the money, it goes right to the oil and highway boys.

I wonder if John Runyan is any relation to the Ohio Contractor Association (road builders) President Chris Runyan?? What a shock that an Ohioan (Jean Schmidt) is sponsoring this.

 

And gee, I didn't realize Europe and Canada allowed 97,000-pound trucks on their roads? So our government owned roads are already falling apart, gas taxes can't afford to pay for what we have now, and we want to beat the hell out of our roads and bridges more?!?!

 

____________________

 

2/22/2011

Bill backing heavier trucks re-enters House

 

On Feb. 18, Reps. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) and Mike Michaud (D-Maine) reintroduced the Safe & Efficient Transportation Act (SETA) or H.R. 763, which would enable states to increase truck weight limits on interstate highways.

 

Current truck weight limits, which were established in 1982, are set at 80,000 pounds. SETA would enable states to increase the limit to 97,000 pounds.

 

The United States currently lags behind Canada, Mexico and Europe, which already have increased truck weight limits, and many states already permit heavier trucks on state and local roads, said Schmidt in a prepared statement. In addition, half-full trucks that are common on today’s highways are increasing shipping costs for manufacturers, the agricultural industry and consumers, she said.

 

.....The Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP) — a group of more than 180 shippers and associations dedicated to increasing federal weight limits on interstate highways — supports the bill.

 

“Many shippers hit the 30-year-old federal weight limit with significant space left in their rigs and must use more truckloads, fuel and vehicle miles than necessary to get products to market,” said CTP Executive Director John Runyan in a prepared statement. “SETA gives each state the option to correct this inefficiency by raising its interstate weight limit for trucks equipped with an additional axle.”

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article/Bill-backing-heavier-trucks-reenters-House--25844

^European roads are built to entirely different standards than in the US.  That's why they can handle heavier loads.  Don't know about Canada or Mexico.

 

European roads have a much higher standard of materials and workmanship than ours. In fact, we can't even get their materials here (the people who build race courses here would love to get ahold of materials used on European highways, but even our track owners can't despite their willingness to spend) and their design standards, such as base thickness, are completely different than ours. They don't have to repave their roads after seven years like we do. Europe also doesn't have as good of a freight rail system as us, so more of their freight, percentage-wise, has to end up on roads.

 

Mexico doesn't worry too much about highway safety and never has. Besides, most of their well-maintained and paved roads are tolled, so the road owners just raise the tolls if the roads are getting too beat up by freight traffic.