Rail opponents on the wrong track
March 26, 2010…2:39 amOhio’s chance to build a transportation system of the future, with $400 million in federal rail support, is threatened as key legislators cling to our auto-dominant past.
Advertisement
RetropolitanBlog: Rail opponents on the wrong track
March 26, 2010 by walkerevans
12 Responses
Leave a Reply
Categories
-
Recent Comments
-
-
Well said. However just as re-urbanization and green living did not first appear as front page news in the 1970′s, political tools of the automobile kingdom will probably not loose their hold on the levers of power until after new outlying suburban ‘developments’ go empty and unemployment continues to rise compared to more progressive states, while urban real estate values and businesses mysteriously show growth. Ohio ‘bumpkin’ officials are a lagging indicator to be measured in decades. Be political but also be ahead of the curve with the power of your personal economy.
I think this hits on one of the best arguments for the train. It’s a hedge against future oil price spikes. Does anyone really think gas will stay below $3 a gallon or $4 a gallon indefinitely? How about for the next five years? I expect higher prices in our short-term and long-term futures and expect that most others would agree that it is a strong possibility.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have an alternative mode of transportation ready before the next price spike? There’s no sense in waiting, especially since the federal government is going to pick up $400 Million of the cost. We need to diversify our infrastructure investments now so we’re ready for whatever the future holds.
Who say’s the long term future is just oil? The roll out of electric cars and other hybrids is getting ready to come out big. Has anyone considered investments that support these new technologies?
The fact is, even if oil prices do rise, as long as there is an option to have your own personal with no limitations in destinations or schedules, consumer behavior will gravitate twowards that. People, especially Americans, cherish their freedoms, and the car is one of the greatest symbols of this concept.
If electric cars are successful, that is where the masses will likely turn.
While trains are nice in theory, they are limited in options, expensive (remember, highways and highway spending will not go away because you have a train), and are a terriorists new favorite target. Sen. Joe Lberman was just featured in an article about how inadequate American passenger train systems are as far as preventing a terriost attack similar to Moscow, London, Spain, etc. Much needs to be done regarding safety concerns before people flock to trains.
My whole thing is that we are not talking alternatives, we are talking only about one alternative – a train. I would like to see the discussion involve several ideas, not jsut one.
Ben,
While alternative fuels are good idea, how do you propose that we continue to fund our highway system if customers are purchasing less gasoline?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/fuel-efficiency-revenue-down
Our highways are built on heavy gasoline usage. When you take that away, we’re going to have a big problem.
Hi Walker,
One thing I am competely confident in, is that Washington can find a way to create new taxes. And, if people are paying less in taxes due to better more efficient alternatives, then a new tax wouldn’t necessarliy hurt that bad. You were paying a gas tax, now you are paying an alternative fuels tax.
Throwing the issue back your way, The demise of the auto industry impacts more than that industry. It would, similar to housing, throw the economy into a deeper recession. How would you replace all the jobs that lost by fewer and fewer vehicle sales? There is no no way a rail system alone would create development that would make up for these lsot jobs.
Highways must be maintained. Even former ORDC director Seney states this fact. Is looking at only one option, passenger rail, the solution?
I just don’t think it is, and will likely, as seen across the country, lead to even more of a financial mess for cities and states.
It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to expect the distribution of occupations in the US, the Midwest, or Ohio to remain static over time.
Look at agriculture as an example. According to Wikipedia (from the USDA), 70 to 80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture in 1870. By 1910, that had dropped to 33%. Now it’s just 2-3%.
Nevertheless, the economy hasn’t collapsed due to the loss of farming jobs. On the contrary, the increase in agricultural productivity has allowed people to find gainful employment in other areas, many of which wouldn’t have been foreseeable in 1870 or 1910. So the jobs that might replace auto manufacturing might not even exist as jobs yet. Nevertheless, I am confident that new and different jobs will be created in time.
If not, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see more households go back to a system where one parent stays home with kids while the other works. With less household income, housing prices would have to drop, but I don’t think lower cost of living and more family time would be such a bad thing.
It seems that as long as conservative-anarchists can frame political discussions in terms and phrases coveted by ‘C students from Yale’ per Kurt Vonnegut, the United States will not have an industrial policy promoting growth. It will fall to local municipalities to provide good paying skilled jobs as with Milwaukee’s recent deal with Spanish train manufacturer Talgo.
Here’s a news story that kinda refers to the my previous post/comments. It is in regards to production of an electric vehicle and the jobs creation associated with this project:
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1421/aptera-2e-production-version-unveiled/
Although the pics seem kinda funny because the vehicle looks so different, just another alternative that I think will coninue to move forward.
Who ever said that Ohio can have a regional train system, but not electric vehicles? I see no reason not to have both.
I guess in a fantasy world, you can have whatever you want. More realistically, however, various options should be evaluated, pros and cons rated, and what makes the most economic sense and what will generate the highest demand for usage should be developed. I’m not sure this is the path being followed.
Personally, I like the idea of trains, but realistically, I find them to be very expensive to build, operate, and maintain. It doesn’t matter to compare this to highways and roads because they are already here. Yes, they can be built better (e.g., mandatory bike lanes, etc.), but roads and highways are not going away, nor should they.
Over the past several years, with the rise in random terrorism viaolence, I think trains are a scary investment in the future. Per an earlier post, I noted that the threat of terriosts attacks, although occuring in other parts of the world, hasn’t really sunk in on the American public as a real possibility here.
Following is a link to a few news articles this issue:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/lieberman_trains_buses_easy_terror_7CTeqoODN1gasIoEgyhYVL
Also:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/04/12/2010-04-12_zazi_pals_planned_rushhour_attack_on_2_busiest_subway_stations.html
and:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/04/13/2010-04-13_humanity_a_target_for_zazi__evil_pals.html
While I am not into causing panic, I simply think this issue has not been thouroghly dealt with in the evaluation of sinking billions of dollars in rail, nor have future security costs been evaluated.
Basic human behavior, especially in America, will lead to folks continuing to choose what provides the greatest value and the greatest personal safety. If driving – whether a gas powered or electric powered vehicle meets those criteria better than trains, then the future doesn’t look good for the demand to use trains.
Regarding value, for a single individual using 3C, there may be a slight incentive to ride the train. For two or more traveling, the economic value is not there, thus, usage/demand will likely be low.
Please! We will always have more bicycles than electric vehicles. The hinterland should use hybrid vehicles (unless they prefer to endlessly sacrifice their sons and daughters to foreign wars) but urbanites won’t pay for commercially produced ‘vehicles’ which include the artificial costs of insurance and marketing.
Ben,
the yahoo link you provided didn’t work for me, but i think i get your point about electric vehicles. i don’t think anyone is arguing that all transportation funding must be used for trains. the last federal transportation bill totaled $286 billion over a four year span. i think transit advocates would be jumping for joy if 30% of that amount was exclusively for transit. it’s currently much less.
no matter what happens, the transportation funding system doesn’t seem fiscally sustainable as it stands right now. electric vehicles and more transit use will only make the current mechanism and funding strategy worse.
i’m not sure a new tax will happen any time soon…as was mentioned earlier, the feds are going to have to restructure the funding system soon, but it’s a stick of dynamite right now. to generalize, the conservatives are currently anti-tax and the dems are too worried about their public image after the health care legislation to start a carbon tax that would equate to the money the feds used to get from the gas tax in its heyday… maybe next year the politicians will jump into that cage match? i can already envision the ‘tax and spend’ campaigns the republicans will launch this fall and i’m not even trying.
it sounds like a climate bill is going to be the next big debate in dc. i’m interested to see if (or how) they include any transportation legislation in there. after all, it is a third of our carbon emissions nationally.