patrick.net

Are they governing already? how's that work?

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/government-spending-expenditure-unemployment-unemployment-insurance/10/25/2010/id/30737

Ohio has borrowed 2.3 billion from the feds to fund its unemployment... wow.

Kasich "killed" the rail service due to the fact that studies proved there was 1) no need for it, 2) the rail travel would take far more time than driving a car, 3) would cost the passenger more money than driving to those destinations. Virtually every newspaper in Ohio exposed this as a wasteful project due to the fact that there simply is not enough commuter traffic between these cities to support a passenger rail system.

Kasich was correct in killing this stupid, big money wasting boondoggle.

RayAmerica says

Kasich “killed” the rail service due to the fact that studies proved there was 1) no need for it, 2) the rail travel would take far more time than driving a car, 3) would cost the passenger more money than driving to those destinations. Virtually every newspaper in Ohio exposed this as a wasteful project due to the fact that there simply is not enough commuter traffic between these cities to support a passenger rail system.
Kasich was correct in killing this stupid, big money wasting boondoggle.

You know, back in 1930s to 1960s the Pres. could sit in WH and decide:
1. Building so many huge hydroelectric plants would be a wasteful boondoggle because there is not enough electricity demand
2. Building the interstate highway system would be a wasteful boondoggle because there is not enough interstate car travel
3. Building everywhere airports (with long runways in particular) would be a wasteful boondoggle because there is not enough intercity jet travel to make sense
4. Building ARPAnet would be a wasteful boondoggle because there is not enough across-the-country computer traffic
5. Throwing first communication satellites into space would be a wasteful boondoggle because there is very little need for intercontinental data translation
and so on.

But they decided to do those things regardless, which is why we now have all them and there is more than enough demand (that was largely created by building them).
To my mind, rapid buildout of massive high-speed rail network through essentially all 50 states is arguably the highest national priority bar none.
I guess America now chooses otherwise, the consequences will sure come in time.

I took Ray off ignore to read what he said and I'm shocked that I don't disagree with him!

Just building stuff for the sake of building it is not sound recovery strategy. I fear the California train stuff is similar.

We'd get a much bigger bang for the buck developing over-the-road natural gas bus service, both local and intercity.

Building a $50B train system when the local bus only comes every 30 minutes (if you're lucky) is just duuumb.

Private cars are most inefficient in local use. I didn't have a car in Tokyo for 8 years and didn't miss it at all, unlike the previous 7 years in LA which I spent 90% within 2 miles of home.

Private cars work well for intercity trips. Even at $10/gallon a trip from Fresno to SF is going to be cheaper in the family car than the train. $150 in gas vs $200 fare for one person most like, for a family, forgettaboutit.

Here I'm going to make this easy for the Patlibs here on Patnet.

High-speed bullet trains, and a mega infrastructure that bridge 1200K miles commutes in 3 to 4 hours works in places like China, because there are millions of country side peasants willing to commute to factories in the large factory complex provinces. Contrary to what fairy visions you have of international doo gooders erecting these massive rail systems for some kumya sentimental Green movement motivation, are just nonsense.

No Human cattle to move to work for slave wages, no Train sabe?

We build stuff like that in America then what??? We don't have the volume of people must use them. There for the few people that would regularly use it, will not be enough to support it. Nor enough to make cost effective, for the passengers fare.

You'll hear it first, when our bullet trains come, we'll either at that point be loyal subject to the East, and it will be our turn in the sweat factories for pennies an hour. OR 80% of it will be in disrepair with in 15 to 20 years of its completion, due to lack of use, and funds for maintenance.

We're still a long way off from silver sparkle unisex unitards and shaved heads, where we will our way to a location energy free.

gasp there I said it...

Troy says

Building a $50B train system when the local bus only comes every 30 minutes (if you’re lucky) is just duuumb.

If you look at Europe (and Japan, I think), the local bus may also often come every 30 min. only. However:
1. Most traffic is between the major cities that have subways connected to rail.
2. People often drive cars to the closest rail station, but still cover >90% of the distance by rail.
For example, the distance from my house to closest Amtrak station is ~10 miles and that to Seattle where I often go is ~230 miles. I'd love to drive to the station and take a train there, if the trip would take 2 hours (rather than 7 at present) and the train would go at least 3 - 4 times a day in reasonable hours rather than once at 4 AM.

That said, of course bus service should also be developed.

Troy says

Even at $10/gallon a trip from Fresno to SF is going to be cheaper in the family car than the train. $150 in gas vs $200 fare for one person most like, for a family, forgettaboutit.

Amazing.
How come a ticket for TGV speed train from Paris to Marseille across all France (~500 miles or 2.5 times the distance from SF to Fresno) is often only ~30 - 50 EUR per person (with advance purchase, not for every departure but still quite often), which makes ~40 - 70 USD even at the present high EUR rate? Same in UK: a train across all England (London to, say, York) is often ~15 - 25 UKP (again, 25 - 40 USD); same in Germany. In Germany BTW, the "family tickets" on Deutche Bahn are dirt cheap, not much more than the fare for 1 person.

BTW, the true cost of operating a car (amortization, repairs, maintenance, insurance, taxes) is ~50 cents/mile, a bit less for an econobox, more for an SUV or luxury car. So the rt SF - Fresno in a car would be $ 200 even with the present $ 3 gas, and ~$ 300 with your assumed $ 10/gallon.

Nagoya to Tokyo is 200 miles and Y20,000 r/t -- $240 at current FX, ~$150 at PPP.

As of 2008, one way LA -> SF was expected to be $110 in 2009 dollars, $150 in 2020 dollars if we get the 1990s inflation this decade. SF r/t Fresno should be $200 I would think.

Fisk says

the true cost of operating a car (amortization, repairs, maintenance, insurance, taxes)

The insurance and taxes come out whether I drive to SF or not.

Amortization is tricky. Last year I put in a new crate engine in my 2000 Miata, maybe 5c a mile in amortized expense and maintenance costs if it lasts 150,000 miles. So for the 400 mile trip that's $20.

(in retrospect I think crate engines in used cars are an awesome way to go, I would love to drive a 1980s Supra with a factory-new engine, LOL)

Troy says

Nagoya to Tokyo is 200 miles and Y20,000 r/t — $240 at current FX, ~$150 at PPP.

I assume this is the highest walk-up "full fare" on NOZOMI, correct?
In Europe, that could also be ~100 EUR for comparable distance in the fastest ICE express, but that is about as relevant as the price printed on the inside of your hotel room door.
Because:
1. Weekend - discount
2. Off-peak (early morning, middle of the day, late evening) - discount
3. Advance purchase (often >1 day is enough) - discount
4. Senior - discount
5. Youth or student - discount
6. Family or group - discount
7. Low season - discount
8. Non-refundable - discount
9. Specific departures (not as popular) - discount
10. A slower train (even IC that is often just 10 mins. longer than ICE) - discount

And those are often discounts by 75 - 90%, not a small change.
People who need to travel to work daily in peak hours have monthly passes
that amount to similar discounts on a per-trip basis.

Tenouncetrout says

Here I’m going to make this easy for the Patlibs here on Patnet.
High-speed bullet trains, and a mega infrastructure that bridge 1200K miles commutes in 3 to 4 hours works in places like China, because there are millions of country side peasants willing to commute to factories in the large factory complex provinces. Contrary to what fairy visions you have of international doo gooders erecting these massive rail systems for some kumya sentimental Green movement motivation, are just nonsense.
No Human cattle to move to work for slave wages, no Train sabe?
We build stuff like that in America then what??? We don’t have the volume of people must use them. There for the few people that would regularly use it, will not be enough to support it. Nor enough to make cost effective, for the passengers fare.
You’ll hear it first, when our bullet trains come, we’ll either at that point be loyal subject to the East, and it will be our turn in the sweat factories for pennies an hour. OR 80% of it will be in disrepair with in 15 to 20 years of its completion, due to lack of use, and funds for maintenance.
We’re still a long way off from silver sparkle unisex unitards and shaved heads, where we will our way to a location energy free.

Tenouncetrout says

gasp there I said it…

gasp - there, you almost made sense, ten ounce sabe.

It does make sense to build transportation to/from areas with jobs. I don't know enough about this project to know whether or not it makes sense - and jobs created for the sake of creating jobs is unsustainable.

If the train is a dumb idea, that 444 million dollars can be applied to other projects that make more sense. That should be part of the stimulus package - that the recipients have the right to propose a project that will create jobs. The feds don't always know what's best for specific areas.

If these states refuse the money, other states will surely campaign for the funds. The feds will either withhold the $ or will give it away. There should be another option there. IMHO, of course.

example:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/10/10/high_speed_rail_if_they_dont_want_it_we_do/

High speed rail only makes sense on dense well traveled corridors like washington/boston or florida or southern california. The distances in europe and japan are much smaller and the population density is much higher than most of america. Criss crossing ohio with high speed trains makes no sense at all. Maybe a chicago, detriot, cleveland buffalo, but cincinatti/cleveland? Give me a break.

I didn't realize people took office the week after election. How does that work in ohio?

bob2356 says

I didn’t realize people took office the week after election. How does that work in ohio?

They don't take office until January. Kasich is only stating that he will oppose any efforts for the rail system once he takes office.

I thought that there was one seantor that did take office right after the election due to the previous person being an appointee.

Hardly nobody takes Metro Rail, for what it cost and the stations being in the most conjested areas. By the time you commute to the start and from the end station then take a bus to your destination you could have just drove. The only people that take the train are people with out cars, and they typically don't have good job to afford the tickets for the train.

Fisk says

You know, back in 1930s to 1960s the Pres. could sit in WH and decide:

....

But they decided to do those things regardless, which is why we now have all them and there is more than enough demand (that was largely created by building them).
To my mind, rapid buildout of massive high-speed rail network through essentially all 50 states is arguably the highest national priority bar none.
I guess America now chooses otherwise, the consequences will sure come in time.

So your argument is that if something is true in general, then it is true for every possible case? Therefore, every infrastructure project proposed and planned should be carried out? All of them will be useful in time?

Because so many hydroelectric dams were built, every one of them was useful, and all proposals for more on any river should have been accepted?

Because interstate highways were built with good results, every route had value, and any route proposed anywhere should be accepted?

Alaska was right to plan a "bridge to nowhere," and wrong to kill it?

I know nothing about this particular project and therefore couldn't opine one way or the other. I assume someone resorting to hasty generalizations about infrastructure projects also doesn't have any idea at all about this particular project.

bob2356 says

Which old days are you talking about?

The latter half of the 19th century I'd expect. The railroad interests had immense power in eg. Cal then.

One of my capitalist heroes, Phineas Banning, was apparently screwed by the railroad's power to determine which community prospered and which did not.

RayAmerica says

Kasich “killed” the rail service due to the fact that studies proved there was 1) no need for it, 2) the rail travel would take far more time than driving a car, 3) would cost the passenger more money than driving to those destinations. Virtually every newspaper in Ohio exposed this as a wasteful project due to the fact that there simply is not enough commuter traffic between these cities to support a passenger rail system.
Kasich was correct in killing this stupid, big money wasting boondoggle.

Good points.

Clarence … I read somewhere recently that in 1935 a train trip from Cleveland to Cincinnati took 5 hours. The planned “high speed” rail service that was proposed estimated that same trip in the 21st. century would take 7 hours. I guess they had high speed rail service back in ‘35 and didn’t even know it.

I believe the number of crossings and stops on most rail lines, has increased by quite a lot over the years. We need EXPRESS trains that go between major cities without stops in all the podunk 'tweeners.

Vicente says

I believe the number of crossings and stops on most rail lines, has increased by quite a lot over the years. We need EXPRESS trains that go between major cities without stops in all the podunk ‘tweeners.

I agree. If people llive in those stupid little towns, they should jump off when their town flies by.

RayAmerica says

Clarence … I read somewhere recently that in 1935 a train trip from Cleveland to Cincinnati took 5 hours. The planned “high speed” rail service that was proposed estimated that same trip in the 21st. century would take 7 hours. I guess they had high speed rail service back in ‘35 and didn’t even know it.

I saw the ABC special on China whom have developed a 200MPH train which left me in awe. Not sure how CHINA'S having a high speed train will affect our standing but I think we definitely need to move forward with GREEN investments before China starts to own the industry.

One business man interviewed in China said "In china we put forth ideas then execute, in America you put forth ideas then legislate/debate the idea over the next 5-10 years".

Must be nice running a dictatorship where ideas come to fruition.