Special kids get chance to play
Benefit held for crash victim
WSU vs. Milwaukee
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > August > 25 > Entry
Editorial: Trains can pick up speed with time
The passenger rail system that Gov. Ted Strickland wants for Ohio is not a high-speed system. Building an expensive high-speed system isn’t politically practical, given the widespread skepticism about how many people would actually ride trains.
Train advocates have been pushing for a foot-in-the-door system. The trains would have top speeds of about 79 miles per hour. This approach has worked elsewhere, producing political support for investing in a better system.
A second generation of trains could go 110 mph.
In Pennsylvania, a state-funded system has trains reaching at that speed from Harrisburg to Philadelphia, with a Pittsburgh leg planned.
Opponents of passenger rail service for Ohio argue that trains won’t generate much ridership, because the average speed wouldn’t be near 79 mph, and trips would actually take longer than car trips. Last week an organization pushing the “3C” train project — connecting Cleveland and Cincinnati via Columbus and Dayton, possibly with stops in Springfield, Middletown and Hamilton — admitted car trips would be faster.
The Ohio Rail Development Commission projected that a trip from Cincinnati to Columbus — downtown to downtown — might take three hours, which the rail commission said is about 40 minutes longer than the drive. Columbus to Cleveland might be three hours, too, as opposed to a two-and-a-half-hour drive.
Just keeping the train rides that short required ruling out some stops, such as at the Air Force Museum. Officials offered hope that stops might be added later.
About the longer times, two points beg to be made: (1) taking the train allows one to make better use of travel time; and (2) we’re talking about the first generation of trains. The first generation of highways was slower than interstates, too.
Nobody is saying trains will attract as many travelers as highways, only that there’s a substantial niche: people who don’t want to use gas, don’t like to drive, don’t have a reliable car, or who like the idea of getting something done while they travel.
Sadly, many Ohioans think of passenger trains as belonging to the past, or as only being useful in densely populated places like the east and west coasts.
In fact, however, not only Pennsylvania, but Illinois and Michigan have their own state systems. Michigan has a train going from Detroit to Chicago. Illinois has several routes in various directions from Chicago. All those states are looking to expand on what they have.
They want to connect with Ohio. Current connections are almost nonexistent. (There are Amtrak lines that run through Ohio, connecting Chicago with New York City and Washington, D.C., but they don’t run often.)
Michigan wants to connect to Toledo and Cleveland. Pennsylvania eyes connections from Pittsburgh. Illinois wants to greatly improve its tie to Cincinnati.
It would be amazing and foolish for Ohio not to relish the establishment of a vibrant Midwestern system.
However, just as Ohioans should not be under any illusions about how fast the trains will be, neither should they assume the trains will finance themselves through the fare box. Few passenger train systems do that.
There are other ways for systems to make money, of course: naming rights, advertising, concessions. But a public subsidy is typically necessary. That’s the norm for all modes of transportation, including highways. Yet transportation is central to the whole idea of a modern economy.
The 3C project may offer more for Daytonians than for Ohioans in other major cities. Dayton would have direct routes to Columbus and Cincinnati, whereas people in those cities would have indirect routes (through Dayton) to each other.
And, unlike Cincinnati and Cleveland, Dayton would have Ohio trains leaving in two directions. Columbus would, too, of course. But Columbus would benefit less, already having its firm niches as the state capitol and home of Ohio State University.
In the face of all that, the few minutes that would be lost relative to car travel is hardly a factor to get hung up on.
Permalink | Comments (23) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Transportation
Comments
By drunken orangetree
August 25, 2009 6:27 PM | Link to this
We should also note that the highways do not finance themselves either, but are partly funded out of general funds.By jon
August 25, 2009 8:42 PM | Link to this
Electric cars will make this topic a mute point. The future is coming research it for yourself.By Harvey
August 25, 2009 8:47 PM | Link to this
This has “taxwaste boondoggle” written all over it.By Dave
August 25, 2009 9:16 PM | Link to this
Jon, the term is “moot point”, not mute point. Research it for yourself.By TC
August 25, 2009 10:27 PM | Link to this
Nobody wants to ride trains because they don’t want to put up with other idiots polluting their personal space. Eventually gangs will figure out they can easily rob people on them so it won’t be safe to ride either. Why does this moronic idea continue to gain momentum? The poster who mentioned the future is electric cars was correct.By David Esrati
August 25, 2009 10:57 PM | Link to this
Trains yes. Less than 200mph, embarrassing. This is America. We can go Mach 3+ in a billion dollar airplane to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist- but we can’t build a true high speed train? We’re on our way to being a third world country- and, sorry- electric cars are not the answer.By David Esrati
August 25, 2009 10:59 PM | Link to this
Trains yes. Less than 200mph, embarrassing. This is America. We can go Mach 3+ in a billion dollar airplane to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist- but we can’t build a true high speed train? We’re on our way to being a third world country- and, sorry- electric cars are not the answer.By CECI
August 25, 2009 11:42 PM | Link to this
TO DAVID ESRATI- HOW IS IT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING?By ironmyke
August 26, 2009 12:02 AM | Link to this
The Midwest train network concept has much appeal also as a next step in getting closer to an alternative to airline travel. The airline service level is continuing to degrade. I find them to be a hassle. Cincinnati owns a railway that runs to Chattanooga. It’s not hard to imagine connecting through Georgia to Florida in the future.By Mark W
August 26, 2009 3:54 AM | Link to this
I like train travel; I use it extensively in Europe. But I’m not sure it’s a good fit for Ohio. When I lived in Springboro, I got to Columbus and Cinci regularly by car. To take the train from Dayton would mean driving downtown (add that to the travel time) and paying to park so I could go to another downtown, figure out if its mass transit served my ultimate destination or take a taxi (add that to travel time). Our cities lack the compactness of Europe’s cities (Paris has 13x Dayton’s population; Dayton takes up 65% more space)By tg
August 26, 2009 5:05 AM | Link to this
Would love to see this happen. Love the idea of getting to Cincy or Columbus or Cleveland and beyond without having to drive myself and put the wear & tear on my car. I have friends in those places that can pick me up and get me where I need to go. Not everyone has a car, not everyone WANTS a car, and if we keep making all of our traffic decisions on moving cars vs moving people, we’ll keep living in the past.By joe_mamma
August 26, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this
So admittedly there isn’t a real economic demand to have trains? But we should build them so goody-goody greenniks and Gottlieb can diddle on their Apple laptops or finish the Che Guevara biography they’re reading on the way to Columbus? Give me a break. You folks love spending other people’s money don’t you? Really folks. You need to stop with the fluff. The lack of trains is not what is causing the city to die and building trains is not going to bring the city back.By parental
August 26, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this
Train travel as currently proposed is nothing more than a waste of money. The time and effort it takes to travel to and from the train staion on both ends is NEVER figured in when the proponents start talking. Did DDN mention it??? Did they mention you’ll need to ride a city bus or taxi to get where you’re going? At least the editorial admitted it’s a money loser. Politicians will decide how to spend the fares and subsidies from trains. The same people who decide how to spend highway taxes. How is that working for us?? We hear of the need to replace bridges frequently, but that’s not politically sexy, so it doesn’t get done. Slow trains as a foot in the door says the DDN. Then later on, your’re going to push for higher subsidies and fares to buy the faster trains. Show us the ridership figures for the Michigan and Iliinois systems you cite. Costs too. This really is just a feel good scheme for proponents.By P. Streby
August 26, 2009 2:48 PM | Link to this
To those who have reacted negatively to this idea (and for those who didn’t), go to www.narprail.org for national info and to the Ohio Rail Development website for the local info. I suggest you become informed (rather than emotional) on this issue. I believe you will find that wherever there is a train station in active use, other businesses locate near and create additional jobs. Again, check for yourselves, and see the opportunities created v the money spent. Comparing national systems, many airlines around the world no longer offer expensive short haul (under 300 miles) going instead for the more profitable longer (over 300 miles) trips. Station to station is faster than airport to airport overall when the rail system is operated (frequent schedules and timely service) properly.By Towmater
August 26, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this
In correction of comments posted by drunken orangetree: Not one dime of “general fund” tax dollars, at either the state or federal level, goes to finance highway construction. At the state level, highway construction is funded from the state gasoline tax, and that revenue is constitutionally segregated from the general fund – to keep politicians from diverting those user fees from their intended purpose. Federal highway construction funds come back to the states from the Highway Trust Fund, which is totally funded from federal gasoline taxes. If you want to divert tax dollars to support trains or other forms of mass transit, be honest enough to say so. But don’t try to make the argument that highways are paid for with general fund revenue. It won’t wash.By DONNA SNYDER
August 26, 2009 2:51 PM | Link to this
what’s wrong with you people? we need passenger train service in columbus ohio! the sooner the better. I am a senior citizen, I like to travel I dont like to drive anymore nor do I like to fly.get real! and quit complainingBy Towmater
August 26, 2009 2:52 PM | Link to this
In correction of comments posted by drunken orangetree: Not one dime of “general fund” tax dollars, at either the state or federal level, goes to finance highway construction. At the state level, highway construction is funded from the state gasoline tax, and that revenue is constitutionally segregated from the general fund – to keep politicians from diverting those user fees from their intended purpose. Federal highway construction funds come back to the states from the Highway Trust Fund, which is totally funded from federal gasoline taxes. If you want to divert tax dollars to support trains or other forms of mass transit, be honest enough to say so. But don’t try to make the argument that highways are paid for with general fund revenue. It won’t wash.By Towmater
August 26, 2009 2:53 PM | Link to this
In correction of comments posted by drunken orangetree: Not one dime of “general fund” tax dollars, at either the state or federal level, goes to finance highway construction. At the state level, highway construction is funded from the state gasoline tax, and that revenue is constitutionally segregated from the general fund – to keep politicians from diverting those user fees from their intended purpose. Federal highway construction funds come back to the states from the Highway Trust Fund, which is totally funded from federal gasoline taxes. If you want to divert tax dollars to support trains or other forms of mass transit, be honest enough to say so. But don’t try to make the argument that highways are paid for with general fund revenue. It won’t wash.By Mark W
August 26, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this
@Donna Snyder - Let’s assume that we do need a mass transit option from Dayton to Columbus. That doesn’t necessarily translate to needing trains. For example, you could take Greyhound from Dayton(Trotwood). There’s a huge startup cost with trains, much less with, say, a decent shuttlebus system, which fits more in line with the money (or lack thereof) that governments have today.By Mark W
August 26, 2009 4:01 PM | Link to this
How much would you pay for a train ticket? When I was in Paris last month, I did a day trip to Reims, 80 miles away, about the same as the the Dayton South Suburbs to Columbus. High speed train, ticket purchased 1-day in advance, the round trip was approximately $80 per person, second class. (It’s $51 if purchased online 30 days in advance.) How low would ticket prices have to be get people (individuals, families) out of their cars and into a Dayton-Columbus train? The government would have to subsidize the rest of the cost.By Vic
August 26, 2009 4:17 PM | Link to this
I hope the “If you build it they will ride” is true but I’m not so sure. I think the big problem with train travel is America’s car culture. We just don’t seem to be willing to give up the independence that comes from the auto. There is hope in that Americans who travel to Europe and other places that have excellent high speed rail do like those systems, but I don’t know if politicians deem it worth the political risks to try a high-speed rail system here.By joe_mamma
August 27, 2009 8:25 AM | Link to this
What’s wrong with taking Greyhound? I just did a quick check and a ticket from Cincy to Columbus runs about 17 bucks and is shorter in duration than a train. Folks who poo-poo this idea are often said to be reacting on emotion rather than reasoned thought. Personally, I think it is the supporters who are reacting emotionally. There is a perfectly good currently operating option for mass transit between Ohio’s cities and that is Greyhound. It is affordable, just as fast as trains, green and self-sufficient. Martin already outlined in his article that trains would appeal to a niche crowd, so there isn’t an overwhelming economic demand for it. He admitted that it would need to be subsidized (that’s code for tax payer funded), and that its slower than driving. So if there aren’t a lot of people who will use it, there isn’t an economic demand for it, it’s slower and there already is a green alternative, then why do it? Are buses not good enough? Perhaps they aren’t sophisticated enough? Not European enough maybe? I’m curious.By rivardau
September 6, 2009 10:19 PM | Link to this
both the commenters and the editors are missing several important points about trains, planes, and cars. 1-every transport mode gets some subsidy - the auto gets the huge lion share, while planes are 2nd and trains get the smallest subsidies. subsidies for highways include items not paid for with fuel taxes such as police protection, ambulance response to accidents, electric lighting, and removal of land from taxation. 2-over 1/3 of all Americans can NOT drive…some because of age (under 16, elderly), others because of permanent disability, others due to health (ie epilipsy, some medications), and some can not financially afford a car to drive. 3-financial costs of car ownership are overlooked — it costs an average of 5,000$ a year to maintain, insure, and operate a car — which does not include the costs of actually purchasiing the car. add anywhere from 2,000 to 40,000 $ for the actual vehicle purchase. 4-what is soooo wrong about using a city bus or taxi at an end of a journey? people use them all the time from airports. i use city bus everyday, you make it sound like it is a bad thing but it is not. it might be bad to you, but not to me, so quit putting your emotional baggage on my favoured mode of transport. a NETWORK of trains, at any speed, should be just as important as the network of highways and airports. for me, due to a health disability, i can not drive a car, so it dont matter if a car save 15 minutes of travel, i cant use it by myself. to me, a train or bus allows me mobility, i dont have to depend on others wait and drive me around, and thus should be part of the transportation offerings.