WSU vs. Milwaukee
Badin Spirit Olympics
Adventure Summit
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 > 2010 > March > 01 > Entry
Editorial: Train questions fair, but there are answers
The case for 3C passenger trains has, let’s face it, been underwhelming in impact.
One poll showed a tiny majority opposed to spending state money on passenger trains. Around the state, various commentators have been cold. Republican legislators generally are critical or unimpressed.
The federal decision to fork over the $400 million to build a line connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati (3Cs and the D) didn’t resolve the issue. An odd entity called the state Controlling Board must sign off. And, under a deal made when the legislature decided to apply for the stimulus money, the “yes” voters must include Republicans.
The case for the 3C
basically is that the feds are putting up nearly all of the capital, that Ohio is behind other big, urban states as to intercity passenger trains, that adding a new mode of transportation can open up travel to more people, and that there are energy implications, especially when gas shortages or gas-price hikes hit.
The basic case against the 3C line: that the trains will be relatively slow (averaging 39 miles an hour, when you figure in stops), that the system won’t be self-supporting, that much money will be spent to serve few people, that the routes will be so few and badly timed that people will not be able to make day trips, and that buses can do what trains might do.
That’s about as far as the debate has proceeded. When the legislature decided to go after the federal money, it acted quickly and essentially put off the debate on the merits.
The time has come. Given that federal money is available and will go to somebody, the skeptics should at least be willing to listen to responses to their points.
Gov. Ted Strickland and other proponents of 3C need to get busy making their case in a high-profile way. The opportunity may not exist for the governor to make a whistle-stop train tour, speaking from the back of the train at all the stations, like Harry Truman running for president in 1948. But something.
And some leaders of Dayton should be getting on board, given how much this community stands to benefit from having 3C trains going in two directions. (If history had been a little different, Dayton might have been skipped. Most trains in the past included Dayton and Springfield in their routes from Cincinnati to Columbus. So, given the existence of routes, skipping the Miami Valley now would have actually made the 3C project more expensive.)
As the debate proceeds, people will hear:
• The 79-mile-an-hour trains (possibly averaging 39) are a phase. States that have faster systems have started with slower ones. Upgrading to a faster system might not be many years off, given the existence of a federal program to fund faster trains.
• The 3C system need not attract throngs to justify the conclusion of an Amtrak-funded study that a $17 million annual operating subsidy from the state might suffice to operate the line. (That’s well under one one-thousandth of the state operating budget.)
• College students, older people and families without enough cars to go around could provide much of the needed usage at first.
• When Ohio does upgrade to a faster system, that’s when the appeal to a more general audience would set in, if the history of other states prevails.
• Government subsidies for transportation are the norm, including for cars and trucks, which use public roads; trains typically run on privately owned land, with the attendant costs.
• Ohio and Hawaii are the only two densely populated states that don’t have state-supported or regional intercity trains. (“Ohio acts like it is an island,” says a pro-train group called All Aboard Ohio, the source of the information.)
• Some people who say they would travel by train don’t want to take a bus.
• Possible schedules put out by Amtrak are not set in stone. The state should fight for more convenient ones. Even the number of trains running and the average speeds could change.
• Improvements made to tracks in connection with the 3C project will be good for freight trains, a crucial part of the Ohio economy, and likely more crucial in the future.
The questions being raised by the skeptics are a legitimate part of the democratic process. The 3C project should not be shoved down anybody’s throat. And it need not be.
Permalink | Comments (66) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Energy, Local Business, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics, Transportation
Comments
By bob
March 1, 2010 2:31 AM | Link to this
If i wanted to go to Cincinnati for anything and decided to take the train, I would have to get in my car and drive to the terminal. Then i would have to pay for parking(probably 5-10 bucks). Once i bought my ticket (probably 15-20 bucks)i would then have to wait for the train to arrive. Since things never go as scheduled im assuming i would be waiting 15 minutes for this. Then i would take a train that travels 39 miles an hour to Cincy. When i arrive in Cincinnati, to get the the destination i need to get to, i would have to get a taxi (who knows how much that would cost). Then when im done in Cincy, i would turn around and do it all again. How is this a better option than driving?
By bob
March 1, 2010 2:34 AM | Link to this
If i wanted to go to Cincinnati for anything and decided to take the train, I would have to get in my car and drive to the terminal. Then i would have to pay for parking(probably 5-10 bucks). Once i bought my ticket (probably 15-20 bucks)i would then have to wait for the train to arrive. Since things never go as scheduled im assuming i would be waiting 15 minutes for this. Then i would take a train that travels 39 miles an hour to Cincy. When i arrive in Cincinnati, to get the the destination i need to get to, i would have to get a taxi (who knows how much that would cost). Then when im done in Cincy, i would turn around and do it all again. How is this a better option than driving?
By slower than molassas
March 1, 2010 7:00 AM | Link to this
Yeah, but Karon is in favor of it so that should offset the majority of Ohioans that don’t want the trains. She is just tired of getting speeding tickets.
By wallyp
March 1, 2010 7:01 AM | Link to this
Bob — All good points, except possibly about the speed of the train (as the editorial says, 39 mph is the average speed including stops). From my experience growing up in New York and living over eight years in Germany, intercity trains work where there is good public transportation to get you to your ultimate destination, not just from city center to city center.
By Concerned
March 1, 2010 7:15 AM | Link to this
Federal Transportation Subsidies in 2006, by Mode Per 1,000 Passenger-Miles Auto, vans –$1.01 Buses $1.50 Commercial aviation $4.23 General aviation $66.27 Transit $165.61 Passenger railroad $237.53 These numbers are reported in The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2283 on June 8, 2009. They go on to report “As the updated data reveal, transit and passenger rail still require the largest federal subsidies per 1,000 passenger-miles to operate, while motorists still provide the federal government with a “profit” because they pay more in user fees and taxes than they receive in federal spending. The key to determining the magnitude of the federal subsidy that the passengers of each mode receive from the federal government is to separate the funding that each mode receives from its users (in the form of user fees) from the funding that it receives from the general taxpayer and from fees paid by users of other modes. For example, the federal highway trust fund relies entirely on fuel tax revenues and excise taxes paid by motorists and truckers. In 2007, these users provided $39.3 billion to the trust fund, yet they received only about 60 percent of those revenues back in the form of federal spending on general-purpose roads. The remaining 40 percent was diverted to programs such as transit, National Parks, Appalachian development, hiking trails, bicycle paths, historic renovation, ferries, administrative costs, subsidies to metropolitan planning organizations, universities, and various programs for community development.” “Likewise, the federal subsidy per 1,000 passenger- miles for intercity buses is relatively low because these buses pay a federal fuel tax related to usage. The same holds true for commercial aviation in which both passengers and the airlines pay up to 17 separate fees, taxes, and charges for an international flight and 10 separate taxes, fees, and charges for a domestic flight. As in the cases of motorists and intercity bus operators, commercial airline passengers are largely “subsidizing” themselves.” “In contrast to motorists and commercial airlines, transit users pay no federal taxes or fees and instead benefit by receiving a share of the taxes paid by motorists and funding from general federal tax revenues. In addition, transit’s per-passenger subsidy costs are also much higher because fewer than 2 percent of passengers use transit, yet transit receives more than 20 percent of federal subsidies. Similarly, passengers served by rail (Amtrak) pay no federal tax or user fee and benefit from a very substantial subsidy provided by the general taxpayers.”
By d
March 1, 2010 7:47 AM | Link to this
Ohio is sprawled. It’s not dense like NYC, San Fran/Oakland, it’s cities weren’t built around mass transit like Portland. If I want to go to West Chester or Westlake, how would I get there once I arrived in Cincinnati or Cleveland. Much like another person wrote…grab a taxi or rent a car, go where I need to go, then wait for a train to come back. This money will be a waste and no one will use this service and give up their cars.
By joe_mamma
March 1, 2010 8:06 AM | Link to this
So let me get this straight. The answer to “Why not take the bus?” is “They don’t want to”!!!! That’s the best you got? Give me a break. Quit spending other peoples money and either get in a car or in a bus and make your trips. What an arrogant sense of entitlement!!
By Skeptic
March 1, 2010 8:48 AM | Link to this
It is sad that so many people take such short term perspectives. The train will sound pretty good when gas is 5 bucks a gallon or 10 bucks a gallon someday. Invest now, save later. Americans need to wake up! We are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world.
By Dave
March 1, 2010 8:53 AM | Link to this
joe_mamma, if you want to take the bus, you have to go to Trotwood. It’s not in Dayton anymore.
By Squirrellygirl
March 1, 2010 9:08 AM | Link to this
Did I miss it? I didn’t see an answer to my question. Is there enough money to finish the cost of building this, or are you going to raise taxes so that you can finish the product? Huh??? Don’t start something you can’t afford to finish, especially in the middle of a recession when people need jobs. This money would be better spent for stimulating jobs, like tax cuts and help to unemployed.
By It's Great in Dayton!!!
March 1, 2010 9:13 AM | Link to this
Apparently, in Dayton it’s a lot easier to just steal a car than take the train: —-“Dayton police are looking for two men accused of ambushing a couple in an armed robbery in Dayton on Sunday. The couple drove to an address on Mulford Avenue to sell the car they had listed on Craigslist. Witnesses said the two “buyers” came out shooting and hit one of the seller’s in his leg. That seller was also armed and returned fire. The two robbers got away with the car.” ——Yep, another red-letter dayton for Dayton!!! ——DAYTON’S DYING——
By joe_mamma
March 1, 2010 9:16 AM | Link to this
Skeptic, If gas is $10 a gallon….don’t you think the car companies would make cars that run on natural gas…or are electric? The technology is already here, but is not being implemented because gas is still cheaper.
By joe_mamma
March 1, 2010 9:22 AM | Link to this
Dave, Big deal if it is Trotwood or Dayton. The location does not change my point.
By Squirrellygirl
March 1, 2010 10:28 AM | Link to this
How come our gov’t wants to throw our tax dollars away on projects that are bound to end up doomed. This project won’t make money, it will need to be taxpayer assisted and won’t be self supporting, and the project will cost more than we have, so taxes will need to be raised yet again and again. Bad idea. Worthless reps need to be kicked out of office.
By scoobydo
March 1, 2010 10:35 AM | Link to this
Parking (probably 5-10 bucks), which if you are going downtown you will pay either way, so probably that is not a point of concern against trains. ticket (probably 15-20 bucks), nice guess but probably you have no idea of cost yet, and probably if the gas goes back to 5 bucks a gallon, how much will it probably cost you to drive downtown and then have to pay for parking? No probably about it, the high-speed rail is a good step in to the future. If it were all about probability, you would probably still be walking because Horses and cars would have been too much of a gamble, probably.
By Mr. Tax Man
March 1, 2010 10:37 AM | Link to this
There are a couple major fallacies in the DDN’s “take” on things. First of all, it’s not the FED’s money. This is money from taxes—taxes on the everyday Joe who works hard and has less to show for it year-after-year. Second fallacy, the $17 million annual STATE subsidy has to come from somehwere. AND, it’s not going to come out of the highway budget. With a projected rider ship of less than 500K/year on the 3-C there will still be hundreds of thousands of cars on roads—roads that need to be maintained, supported, improved. See Ya, April 15th!!
By Mr. Tax Man
March 1, 2010 10:39 AM | Link to this
There are a couple major fallacies in the DDN’s “take” on things. First of all, it’s not the FED’s money. This is money from taxes—taxes on the everyday Joe who works hard and has less to show for it year-after-year. Second fallacy, the $17 million annual STATE subsidy has to come from somehwere. AND, it’s not going to come out of the highway budget. With a projected rider ship of less than 500K/year on the 3-C there will still be hundreds of thousands of cars on roads—roads that need to be maintained, supported, improved. See Ya, April 15th!!
By Proof in point
March 1, 2010 10:47 AM | Link to this
As you read through these comments, you can see its the culture in Dayton why things never change. People in general have a pessimistic and naysayer attitude. they don’t ever want anything new or anything to change at all. Its so conservative that nothing can ever move forward. The only way things change in Dayton is when a small group just goes against what the people are saying and just does it. And then things move forward. Thats what will happen with this as well. If we were talking about having buses, which most of us would agree to keep now, the majority would be saying they are not worth it, just because it would be a new idea. Dayton and southern Ohio in general doesnt like “new, innovative, fresh, creative.” We like “tried, true, familiar, ordinary.”
By The Duke of Hazard
March 1, 2010 10:55 AM | Link to this
COO COO ABOUT CHOO CHOOS! COO COO ABOUT CHOO CHOOS! COO COO ABOUT CHOO CHOOS!
By A Point from Northeast Ohio
March 1, 2010 10:57 AM | Link to this
PIP, you should expand your horizons…The vast majority of people here, based on their comments to the Dealer, are adamantly opposed to this too! I’ve been reading the Col. Dispatch the last month and it’s the same there…more against…
By A Point from Northeast Ohio
March 1, 2010 10:58 AM | Link to this
PIP, you should expand your horizons…The vast majority of people here, based on their comments to the Dealer, are adamantly opposed to this too! I’ve been reading the Col. Dispatch the last month and it’s the same there…more against…
By Proof in Point
March 1, 2010 11:05 AM | Link to this
Yes…thanks for the suggestion and I will: Ohio in general is conservative and staid which makes it hard to move forward and create change, you are right. I would argue the Midwest in general has that culture (save a few upper Midwest states), not just Ohio.
By Mike R
March 1, 2010 11:17 AM | Link to this
The average ticket price mentioned above is in the ballpark. When submitting the proposal for funds the State of Ohio and Amtrak had to use this in their model. The avg. fare from Dayton to Cincy is just over $14/one-way. If gas pxs where to go over $5 then the avg. train ticket will also increase or the subsidy will grow larger. These are Diesel-Electric locomotives. The gov’t allows railroads to add “fuel surcharge (FS)” to their invoices (in this case tickets) when the price of oil reaches a predetermined price. This may be allowed with the 3-C’s (the current proposal doesn’t address this issue) so a FS added to the ticket price is completely possible. -Mike
By Mike R
March 1, 2010 11:18 AM | Link to this
The average ticket price mentioned above is in the ballpark. When submitting the proposal for funds the State of Ohio and Amtrak had to use this in their model. The avg. fare from Dayton to Cincy is just over $14/one-way. If gas pxs where to go over $5 then the avg. train ticket will also increase or the subsidy will grow larger. These are Diesel-Electric locomotives. The gov’t allows railroads to add “fuel surcharge (FS)” to their invoices (in this case tickets) when the price of oil reaches a predetermined price. This may be allowed with the 3-C’s (the current proposal doesn’t address this issue) so a FS added to the ticket price is completely possible. -Mike
By John McGovern
March 1, 2010 11:22 AM | Link to this
Ohio’s underfunded highway system facilitates sub-urban lifestyles. We’ve been doing that for nearly 50 years; when energy was plentiful. A passenger rail system in Ohio supports urban lifestyles and utilizes energy more efficiently. Therefore, an investment in passenger rail is an investment in urban Ohio. The 40mph average speed is a starting point; not the future. Regarding the value of time in travel between cities; if I drive myself from Cleveland to Columbus, I virtually waste 2-2.5 hours of my time driving the car. If I take rail to Columbus, I have 2.5-3 hours of time to spend working on a computer, meeting with colleagues, or relaxing (sleeping); therefore it is time I’ve gained VS time wasted driving a car.
By Two Wrong's Make a Right?
March 1, 2010 11:26 AM | Link to this
Let me see if I have this right—Because we have “underfunded” highways we should build railroads that will be underfunded?!?!
By Two Wrong's Make a Right?
March 1, 2010 11:26 AM | Link to this
Let me see if I have this right—Because we have “underfunded” highways we should build railroads that will be underfunded?!?!
By development
March 1, 2010 11:30 AM | Link to this
the anticipated development around the stations and the increased traffic will bring increased revenues and will offset any costs.
By We've noticed a Difference
March 1, 2010 11:37 AM | Link to this
That’s right—the increased traffic brought by the Greyhound station in Trotwood is doing wonders for the community. In fact, the coffers are spilling over with new found cash!
By We've noticed a Difference
March 1, 2010 11:39 AM | Link to this
That’s right—the increased traffic brought by the Greyhound station in Trotwood is doing wonders for the community. In fact, the coffers are spilling over with new found cash!
By joe_mamma
March 1, 2010 12:38 PM | Link to this
John McGovern, Why can’t you take the bus if you want to work during the trip?
By See 4 yourself
March 1, 2010 12:43 PM | Link to this
here is a link to a study done published in 2009 that might answer some of your questions. This has been thought out and studied, and the benefits are logical: http://www.linkingohio.com/benefits.cfm
By Ben
March 1, 2010 12:51 PM | Link to this
Ohioans are not opposed to change if the change makes good sense - especially economically. We do tend to be opposed to change just for the sake of change. If a change is not good, then it shouldn’t change.
By Ben
March 1, 2010 12:53 PM | Link to this
Ohioans are not opposed to change if the change makes good sense - especially economically. We do tend to be opposed to change just for the sake of change. If a change is not good, then it shouldn’t change.
By Ben
March 1, 2010 12:55 PM | Link to this
Ohioans are not opposed to change if the change makes good sense - especially economically. We do tend to be opposed to change just for the sake of change. If a change is not good, then it shouldn’t change.
By joe_mamma
March 1, 2010 1:09 PM | Link to this
See 4 Yourself, Can you explain why the site you listed compares a total operating cost for automobiles (55 cents/mile) to only the fare cost (12 cents/mile)for rail? It would make more sense to compare total operating cost of rail per passenger to total operating costs for automobile per passenger to measure economic impact. I doubt I would be going out on a limb to say that the operating cost per driver/passenger in a car will be MUCH MUCH MUCH less compared to the average cost per passenger on rail.
By Mike R
March 1, 2010 1:41 PM | Link to this
There’s an old saying, “Figures Lie, and Liars Figure.” Obviously, the true cost of rail/mile is significantly higher if the cost/mile to drive to the rail station were figured into the equation. The populations of the 3-C hubs live outside the core of the city—where the stations will be located. The overwhelming majority of the 6.8 million people cited in this “study” would need some mode of transportation (car) to travel the 5-15 miles to their nearest station.
By Mike R
March 1, 2010 1:41 PM | Link to this
There’s an old saying, “Figures Lie, and Liars Figure.” Obviously, the true cost of rail/mile is significantly higher if the cost/mile to drive to the rail station were figured into the equation. The populations of the 3-C hubs live outside the core of the city—where the stations will be located. The overwhelming majority of the 6.8 million people cited in this “study” would need some mode of transportation (car) to travel the 5-15 miles to their nearest station.
By Mike R
March 1, 2010 2:31 PM | Link to this
If I were going to create a “study” to promote my point of view, I don’t think I would cite Maine for successful railroads. Aside from the B-A-R going bankrupt earlier this decade, just last month the MMA (Maine’s major rail line) announced the abandonment of almost 1/3 of it’s lines. Maine is an originator of rail traffic and this economic downturn has been brutal for Maine. Most of the carloads coming out of Maine are raw materials (wood products) though McCain Foods ships via rail too. Thousands upon thousands of people work at these plants and depend on competitive rail. Rail is not competitive in Maine—McCain can ship product from Idaho back to New York just as cheap as from Maine. In 2008, Maine subsidized passenger rail to the tune of $27/ticket. Maybe that state would be better off to give millions in tax incentives to the R.R. and keep their factories and plants running instead of “incentivizing” people to travel to Boston! -Mike
By Mike R
March 1, 2010 2:31 PM | Link to this
If I were going to create a “study” to promote my point of view, I don’t think I would cite Maine for successful railroads. Aside from the B-A-R going bankrupt earlier this decade, just last month the MMA (Maine’s major rail line) announced the abandonment of almost 1/3 of it’s lines. Maine is an originator of rail traffic and this economic downturn has been brutal for Maine. Most of the carloads coming out of Maine are raw materials (wood products) though McCain Foods ships via rail too. Thousands upon thousands of people work at these plants and depend on competitive rail. Rail is not competitive in Maine—McCain can ship product from Idaho back to New York just as cheap as from Maine. In 2008, Maine subsidized passenger rail to the tune of $27/ticket. Maybe that state would be better off to give millions in tax incentives to the R.R. and keep their factories and plants running instead of “incentivizing” people to travel to Boston! -Mike
By parental
March 1, 2010 3:06 PM | Link to this
For those of you who think Ohio and the Midwest in general is against change and backward, why wouldn’t you move to one of those places that you find more enlightened? Just because common sense tells us that this 3C+D idea is bad, doesn’t mean we’re backward. It means we can identify a bad idea when we see one. It will happen against the wishes of the taxpayers. That is a given. Too bad it’s our money you are wasting and will continue to waste for a “feel good” train system.
By r
March 1, 2010 3:49 PM | Link to this
everybody act like the track these trains will run on is public right of way. It owned by the freight railroads so we are going to give them money to upgrade their track so passenger can run faster then they can on it.Don’t think so this is 1880 thinking. You know we could look into reopening the erie canel system system
By what??
March 1, 2010 4:17 PM | Link to this
r, Guess who was smart enough to recognize your point and bought the Burlington Northern Railroad.
By Warren B.
March 1, 2010 4:57 PM | Link to this
BNSF isn’t the only Class I benefiting. Along with BN out west is the Union Pacific (UNP). Back east the NS—Norfolk Southern-(N$C) and C$X are big recipients—especially in Ohio. For full disclosure, not only do I own BNSF the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio has an interest in the UP. I have shied away from NS and CSX as their primary loadings (revenue) are from coal—remember my buddy Barry wants to bankrupt your coal producers—and auto products—which my buddy Barry owns Government Motors. -WB
By Warren B.
March 1, 2010 4:59 PM | Link to this
BNSF isn’t the only Class I benefiting. Along with BN out west is the Union Pacific (UNP). Back east the NS—Norfolk Southern-(N$C) and C$X are big recipients—especially in Ohio. For full disclosure, not only do I own BNSF the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio has an interest in the UP. I have shied away from NS and CSX as their primary loadings (revenue) are from coal—remember my buddy Barry wants to bankrupt your coal producers—and auto products—which my buddy Barry owns Government Motors. -WB
By Jim from Dayton
March 1, 2010 7:38 PM | Link to this
Those opposing trains seem to think that everything else is going to remain the same, including the desirability of living in West Chester. But it ain’t, folks! Electric cars won’t have the range of internal cumbustion engine vehicles. Trains will be necessary for travel between cities as close as Dayton and Columbus, not to say Cleveland. Close-in suburbs should do OK, but outlying communities, between major cities, will either establish their own retail and business centers or wither. If you have a family in one city and work in another, you’ll do what used to be done: live in a hotel room during the week and travel (by train!) to visit the family on weekends. Things are a’changin’ guys. We’re going back to the future whether we like it or not.
By Another Stater
March 1, 2010 8:11 PM | Link to this
Go right ahead and pass up the money, Ohio. Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Minnesota would all be glad to take those hundreds of millions off your hands.
By Another Stater
March 1, 2010 8:12 PM | Link to this
Go right ahead and pass up the money, Ohio. Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Minnesota would all be glad to take those hundreds of millions off your hands.
By Another Stater
March 1, 2010 8:15 PM | Link to this
NOTE to DDN webmasters—does it occur to you that your interface is “difficult” at best to use, since most of us have posted our messages twice? Just a thought.
By Another Stater
March 1, 2010 8:15 PM | Link to this
NOTE to DDN webmasters—does it occur to you that your interface is “difficult” at best to use, since most of us have posted our messages twice? Just a thought.
By ????
March 1, 2010 8:23 PM | Link to this
Is an internal cumbustion engine the same as creaming in your jeans?
By Take the Money!
March 1, 2010 8:36 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately, this is the “gift” that will keep on taking and taking and taking and taking… How long will those states pour money down the drain subsidizing lines with low ridership before they finally pull the plug? Oops, maybe the question should be worded, how MUCH money will be LOST before they pull the plug?
By WE HAVE DEADLINES
March 1, 2010 8:56 PM | Link to this
We can’t be concerned about “interface” “facts” or “customer satisfaction.” We have deadlines to make, darn it and we’re limited to space. So, please leave us alone! Don’t forget to read tomorrow’s paper—Tuesday’s edition we’ll tell you why you should pay higher taxes, but expect nothing in return for you money. In the sports section we’ll have “incomplete” scores for the West coast NBA and NCAA scores. In the business section we’ll list the stocks of the Miami Valley 70, but please don’t ask us why there are only 53 companies listed! We appreciate your feedback—though we wont take any of your thoughts into consideration. -DDN
By benk
March 1, 2010 9:46 PM | Link to this
@joe_mamma The cost of driving is 55 cents per mile (AAA) and the cost of riding a train would be 14.8 cents per mile (250 miles at a ticket cost of 38$). That plus the “boondoggle” subsidy of 17 million dollars per year (14.7 cents per passenger mile and 450000 passengers) and the initial capital investment of 17.4 cents per passenger mile (400 million dollars over 20 years, not overly ambitious) gives you 46.9 cents per passenger mile. These numbers a rough estimate but are not to be taken lightly. The big point though is the 14.8 cents per passenger mile in out of pocket costs. Many people who cannot afford to drive can afford to take the train. And unlike you, they will know how to take the bus to the train station.
By No we wont move
March 1, 2010 9:50 PM | Link to this
no we who think the Midwest is backwards and conservative will not move. Some of us are here for family, jobs and connections. We will stay and love alot of things about it, yet point out that it is conservative and gets in its own way of progress. We’ll do this often, not only bc it is true, but especially to annoy those pessimistic naysayers who are grumpy and negative. Of course the childish will look at facts and studies and say “oh the study is made up, its false” just to keep their point of view and win. I think alot of you people are seriously insane and a few fries short a happy meal, when you cant even learn and move forward in life.
By You are wrong
March 1, 2010 10:26 PM | Link to this
Mike r and parental…youre wrong. They compared fare cost because that is what the traveler would put in directly. The car cost included other things like maintenance etc. because those are the direct driver costs. Also people driving to the station and parking is minimal cost. Its in city traveling. So add $15 more then. It still beats the hassle of driving for alot of people. Dont take it if you dont like it. They estimated 600,000 users the first few years. Some people will get benefit from it. YOU dont have to take it. And you just seem to ignore studies or anything that show otherwise, because you are being stubborn. no use debating with stubborn! So anyway. YOur common sense is wrong.
By Mike R
March 2, 2010 12:03 AM | Link to this
I see where you are coming from. I’m not against passenger rail—In fact I rode Metra everyday from Naperville to Chicago for 4 years. That being said, I’m against this proposal. If Ohio wanted to have a serious rail system, like a “hub and spoke” connecting larger communities in the Miami Valley to Dayton and the same for Cincy and its suburbs and Columbus and its ‘burbs I would be inclined to favor that. And yes, that would be much more expensive—but with higher odds of succeeding. This proposed system is doomed to fail. The current bus fare connecting these cities is comparable to the proposed fees on Amtrak. So, I find the argument of, “the people who can’t afford to drive now…will take the train” to ring hollow. Plus, if the demand for an additional 500K + riders/year were there Greyhound would add service—or an entrepreneur would start an alternate bus service for all those would-be travelers. As far as costs go, this attitude of it’s only “direct” cost or “out-of-pocket” cost is indicative of how we (individually/state/country) got into this financial mess to begin with. The fact of the matter is this has to be paid for and maintained—whether it’s “direct cost” indirect cost, hidden cost or reduced services somewhere else. Eventually you’ll end up paying for it whether or not you get your ticket punched. -Mike
By Mike R
March 2, 2010 12:04 AM | Link to this
I see where you are coming from. I’m not against passenger rail—In fact I rode Metra everyday from Naperville to Chicago for 4 years. That being said, I’m against this proposal. If Ohio wanted to have a serious rail system, like a “hub and spoke” connecting larger communities in the Miami Valley to Dayton and the same for Cincy and its suburbs and Columbus and its ‘burbs I would be inclined to favor that. And yes, that would be much more expensive—but with higher odds of succeeding. This proposed system is doomed to fail. The current bus fare connecting these cities is comparable to the proposed fees on Amtrak. So, I find the argument of, “the people who can’t afford to drive now…will take the train” to ring hollow. Plus, if the demand for an additional 500K + riders/year were there Greyhound would add service—or an entrepreneur would start an alternate bus service for all those would-be travelers. As far as costs go, this attitude of it’s only “direct” cost or “out-of-pocket” cost is indicative of how we (individually/state/country) got into this financial mess to begin with. The fact of the matter is this has to be paid for and maintained—whether it’s “direct cost” indirect cost, hidden cost or reduced services somewhere else. Eventually you’ll end up paying for it whether or not you get your ticket punched. -Mike
By Concerned
March 2, 2010 5:27 AM | Link to this
Fund the passenger trains with private investment and collect the full cost of the ride through ticket sales and I’m all for this. Until then, stay out of my wallet. It is not my job to pay for your transportation.
By Daedalus
March 2, 2010 7:50 AM | Link to this
My question is who would police the train and are those costs figured in?
By Mike R
March 2, 2010 11:32 AM | Link to this
Daedalus: Typically, the conductor will act as the “police.” They have the power to remove unruley passengers from the train—usually throwing them off at the next stop though they can make arrangments with the jurisdication they’re travelling through and hand off the passenger at a road crossing. Amtrak has their own police as well if needed. I presume these “costs” are in the budget. -Mike
By joe_mamma
March 2, 2010 3:01 PM | Link to this
Benk, The 55 cent/mile operating cost for cars is BS. The AAA/IRS automobile cost of $0.55/mile is really operating costs plus ownership. That includes (Fuel, Maintenance, Tires, Insurance, License, Registration, Taxes, Depreciation, Financing). Once you strip out the ownership costs and go with a pure operating cost of fuel, maintenance and tires it ends up being about $0.15/mile. That is less than half the operating cost/mile for the 3C Corridor.
By abc
March 3, 2010 2:46 PM | Link to this
Ohio is a disgrace. It’s a state with the kind of population centers of a Michigan or a Pennsylvania, but it’s transportation needs and behavior is more like Wyoming.
By abc
March 3, 2010 2:47 PM | Link to this
Ohio is a disgrace. It’s a state with the kind of population centers of a Michigan or a Pennsylvania, but its public transportation development and behavior is more like Wyoming.
By Why
March 3, 2010 5:48 PM | Link to this
Why do the people who want Ohio to be “progressive” always use such horrible examples such as Maine’s bankrupt railroads and Michigan and Pennslyvania? Michigan’s Central Planners have an unemployment rate over 15% and we’re supposed to be like them! To drive between Penns largest cities (Philly & Pitt) it costs over $20 in tolls and the pot holes are worse than what we have on I-75. If the road were in good shape that would be one thing, but it’s not. So, what’s the toll fee being used for?? Ah, what it is to be “progressive”…tax and tax more, have gov’t run our lives and tell us how bad we would be off if it weren’t for progressive newpaper editors and their cronies in the government!
By Why
March 3, 2010 5:48 PM | Link to this
Why do the people who want Ohio to be “progressive” always use such horrible examples such as Maine’s bankrupt railroads and Michigan and Pennslyvania? Michigan’s Central Planners have an unemployment rate over 15% and we’re supposed to be like them! To drive between Penns largest cities (Philly & Pitt) it costs over $20 in tolls and the pot holes are worse than what we have on I-75. If the road were in good shape that would be one thing, but it’s not. So, what’s the toll fee being used for?? Ah, what it is to be “progressive”…tax and tax more, have gov’t run our lives and tell us how bad we would be off if it weren’t for progressive newpaper editors and their cronies in the government!