Why trains are good for Ohio
I’m not jumping up and down about Ohio building a 79 mph passenger rail system in 2011- especially since I was reading about Bullet Trains in Japan in grade school (that was in the 1970s, people). I’ve ridden on the Eurostar through the Chunnel. Engineering marvels. Been around for years. And, now, the best the most powerful nation can do is 79 mph?
Mussolini had trains that ran that fast.
I also don’t see it as a stimulus magic wand. It won’t do much for jobs- or make companies want to move to Ohio. Nope, on all accounts we’re looking like a third world nation if this is best we can do.
From the 3c is me website:
Ohio has received $400 million in federal stimulus resources to invest in passenger rail.
“With today’s historic announcement by President Obama, Ohio takes a major step toward modernizing our state’s transportation infrastructure,” said Governor Strickland. “The 3C Corridor will create economic development opportunities and serve as a model of environmental sustainability. Most importantly, it will put thousands of Ohioans to work over the next few years.”
The 256-mile 3C Corridor – stretching from Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati – would reconnect nearly 6 million Ohioans with 79 mph passenger trains for the first time in 40 years.
via 3C is ME.
However, this does get us started toward rail- and an eventual upgrade to high speed, and that is good. I’ve been hearing people complain all day in response to a post I put up on Facebook- about how it’s not going to be “economically viable” and require taxpayer support. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but trains and tracks require much less continuous care and feeding at taxpayer expense than anything resembling a road made out of asphalt. Roads are crap investments when you look at revenue. Trucking things is inefficient as all get out, as well.
This country needs to wean itself from the teat of cheap oil. This is a good step. And for those of you who have ridden real trains- you know how much nicer it is to ride a train than fly in a plane, or even drive a car.
Yep, there are people who think that trains are too slow, that they can get somewhere faster, cheaper on a tank of gas- but, they aren’t really thinking opportunity costs. I can work while on a train- I can’t while driving. Trains don’t get stuck in traffic. Trains don’t require me to stop to go potty. In civilized countries trains are the way business gets done.
Thank you, economic downturn- if that’s what it takes to get us to make smart moves like bringing back rail travel- great.
Here is our Grassroots Dayton Daily Show take on the train- coming soon to Ohio:
Here are some articles people may want to entertain: http://search.mises.org/search?q=amtrak&site=default_collection
Most of them are from 2002, but that was enough time to show that in 30 years of operating, Amtrak has never turned a profit.
Trains are good for Ohio because we will be receiving a large chunk of Federal money. The train will lose its ass and be an absolutely terrible investment, but since the cost of the investment will be spread to the entire country, the benefits to Ohioans will exceed Ohioans costs. So good for Ohio, bad for the nation!
David, do you think that this program will be profitable when we have almost 40 years of data saying otherwise? Given that it will require government subsidy, do you have justifications for the following arguments:
1) Philosophically, should everyone have to pay for a train (via taxes), when the train will likely only accommodate a percentage of the US? Does this affect our freedom?
2) Economically speaking, when we create programs that cost more than their utility, does this add to or subtract to the wealth of society? Do you think wealth creation and or destruction have an impact on the quality of life for a society?
3) Environmentally speaking, if dollars are seen as representations of units, energy and effort do you think wasting units, energy and effort is good or bad for the environment?
I think it will be cool to have a train (I really like trains), but “cool” is not always a valid justification.
First, Greg, it isn’t even built yet and you’re complaining about how it works. Chill. I look forward to be able to ride a passenger train to another location in Ohio, high speed or not. Kudos to David for mentioning Barney & Smith. I thought the only people who knew about them were the ones who still lived in Old North Dayton. BTW, how much coffee had Greg had by the point of recording?
@Robert
The 2010 Projected budget for Amtrak is 2.3 billion with ~1.7 Billion in revenue, this of course leaves a shortfall of .6 Billion dollars.
(From Amtrak Business Plan 2010 PDF)
The US Department of Transportation *alone* spent 40 Billion dollars maintaining federal highways in 2009 and 42 Billion in 2008. This does not include state or local spending (which I would have to assume matches or dwarfs this figure). Virtually none of that money will be recovered by the Federal Government.
(From USDOT Budget)
Compared to its European and Asian counterparts Amtrak is poorly run, inefficient and provides a relatively mediocre service but it still isn’t anywhere near the drain on the budget as the Federal Highway system.
Perhaps Mr. Vigh you should be asking yourself why you are paying for Highways in Virginia or California or how much social, environment and fiscal losses we are taking through the grossly inefficient and wasteful transportation system we currently have.
Trains move more people, faster and cheaper than cars.
Dan,
That is a good start for information. It was not my intent to argue roads, because I do ask myself why I have to pay for roads in far off places and I think there is a case for private ownership of roads. But, what your argument boils down to is that you believe the 600million dollar shortfall of the amtrak annually results in 600million less in required road maintenance? This is the correlation that your statistics would need to show to justify the cost. It would also have to consider the initial capital investment of the train versus the highway and that initial capital investment will have to be ammortized into the cost equation.
There is also the issue of cost versus service, which amtrak services what annually? 60million riders? I think the highways cover that almost every single day. So the cost per trip would be an interesting stat.
I posed some questions and it seems that your summary argument against mine is that it will cost the tax payer less by lessening the maintenance burden on our existing road infrastructure? I can buy that hypothesis (my intuition thinks it will be wrong), any idea on where to start to try and prove these #’s? Just the overall expenditures are not going to be accurate comparisons.
Quick update. I was reviewing the pdf file. Amtrak will only have a 600million dollar shortfall because they are already calculating a 600million dollar grant into their bottom line. So they would actually be costing tax payers 1.2 billion in shortfall. This will change our calculations. Also, Amtrak services 78,500 people daily. Or 28.6 million annually.
Looking quickly I found the heaviest traveled highway: Heaviest traveled: 390,000 vehicles per day: I-405 in Los Angeles, California (2006 estimate[50]).
So, just this one highway services 5 times the annual load of Amtrak.
My wife and I took the TGV (Train à grande vitesse, or high-speed train) from Bordeaux to Paris. It went just under 200 m.p.h. and we never even felt that we were moving. France has had TGVs since the 1970s. One was clocked at more than 500 m.p.h.
The 3-C trains in Ohio should be similar, meaning that you could go from Cleveland to Dayton in less than an hour.
It used to take us 4 1/2 hours to drive it, and it was one of the boringest, dullest drives I know. To relieve the monotony of I-71, I used to go through Delaware and Plain City.
SheilaO,
Because of a medical condition, I used to go to Barney’s Children’s Medical Center on a regular basis. Now, it’s known as Children’s Medical Center.
As to the train, I look forward to expanding my horizons without the hassle of more and more out of control drivers and parallel parking.
The fallacy of the highway vs. train argument is that “free” highway transportation has been the dominant form over the last 60 years. It has impacted everything from vehicle design to city planning. We are a car and truck society as a result. Therefore, rail hasn’t had the same opportunity to develop in terms of overall capacity or daily ridership.
The real question is whether we will be better off by expanding rail, and the answer on every level is a resounding yes. Therefore, it is worthy of funding – even at a so-called loss.
I think the ones they are going to build in California and Florida are more like the French TGV or German IC. The Florida run (Orlando/Tampa) is being built from scratch and has 168 MPH speeds, getting close to those Euro examples. The Californians intend on building a TGV-style system…the passed a bond issue for this, I think, which is why the Feds are providing so much money.
Regionally, the Chicago/St Louis run is being upgraded to reach 110 MPH speeds, so this will be first 100 MPH + service in the Midwest (though they used to have this in the olden days, between Chicago and the Twin Cities, maybe elsewhere).
@CSAPT: I would challenge you to answer the 3 questions I posed above. You should also look into the history of rails. Especially the over-regulation and price setting implemented by the government that pretty much wrecked the industry. Why would you then be so willing to sacrifice not only your dollars, but your neighbors and my dollars on the basis of “thinking” it is a good idea, when Amtrak gives you 40 years of history to the contrary?
Then again, if you are not paying at least 10K total to the federal government / year per person in your family, then it probably is a great idea.
1) Philosophically, should everyone have to pay for a train (via taxes), when the train will likely only accommodate a percentage of the US? Does this affect our freedom? Yes, because this investment will allow for a wise use of energy as the replacement costs have never been included in the use of petroleum; therefore we are coming to a time when trains will be the most economical way of allowing the most people for the fewest energy dollar spent to see this great country and to move products from one location to another. America has wasted its energy gift fighting wars and enabling sprawl, where as France has invested more wisely. Your corner case of Amtrak does not include the history of destruction of trains to enhance the auto industry. 2) Economically speaking, when we create programs that cost more than their utility, does this add to or subtract to the wealth of society? Do you think wealth creation and or destruction have an impact on the quality of life for a society? Define Economically, I mean really. It is a fact that as easy oil runs out the cost to do any business will increase and the “supposed benefits” of globalism will be negated. Globalism created efficiencies but not resiliency. There is a difference and I vote for resiliency. So is a wealth society necessarily happy? It has not been proven to be the case. What can be proven is that when you design as society that allows use of talents (productive work) for the greatest number of people, it seems to produce a positive out come. 3) Environmentally speaking, if dollars are seen as representations of units, energy and effort do you think wasting units, energy and effort is good or bad for the environment? Absolutely it is bad for the environment. So if you look at the future energy issues then one would find the most economical way moving forward would be to install electrified rail that is combined with the use of existing waterways for transport of goods and services. Is continuing to do business… Read more »
Thank you for the civil response. Allow me to elaborate on your position: 1) You answer yes on the basis of economy. That is ok to infringe upon other people if it is in their own best interest? You ignore the concept of freedom entirely, stating that if it is in someone’s best interest, it is then ok to take from them. This is the underlying philosophy that I am trying to bring to your attention. That because your particular group thinks this is best (without demonstrating any market or mathematical info, whereas I point out 40 years of failure), then you should get to wield the government to make this happen. Yet in the same reply, you talk about wasted wars and the destruction of trains. Well, it was the government that started those wars and was the wielded weapon that destroyed those trains. It was another groups preference which was different than your own that wielded the government to force others to be compliant during those times. You now wish to wield the government in the exact same manner. But, since it is in line with your very own preference, you do not see a problem. It is my summary point that philosophically speaking, NO ONE should have use of the government as a weapon to force others or as a means to legalize theft. 2) Define economically: : acting in a manner marked by careful, efficient, and prudent use of resources.You are a little mixed here as well. One good way to look at societal wealth is to look at whom we consider poor and whom Ethiopia (or any other country) considers poor. Our poor have access to more goods, more services and longer life spans. This is because societal wealth elevates all of society. Wasting resources and creating bad investments does the most harm to the least among us. You also state: What can be proven is that when you design as society that allows use of talents (productive work) for the greatest number of people, it seems to produce a positive out come I absolutely agree and I will… Read more »
Greg:
Interesting article, thanks for the link. Kunstler is entertaining, but he strikes me as an architect who has appropriated the vocabulary of thermodynamics without understanding the science. His argument is pretty contradictory, suburbs are doomed because they are too sprawled, urban is doomed because it is too concentrated, villages are on navigable water-ways are where it’s at! Is there a happy-medium between suburban sprawl and ultra-dense mega-cities? Probably so. Is Kunstler right? Probably not. Archer’s comments about flexible, hybrid, tech-enabled suburbs seems more accurate (admittedly some confirmation bias probably there on my part). I thought this from Levy was interesting (emphasis added):
Doesn’t have anything to do with trains, but probably bears on Dayton’s future more than any high-speed rail projects.
The history of railroads in the US is that they were mostly built by local and out-of-town investment, including investments from England and Holland since there wasn’t that much money in the US. Another approach to the shorfall of capital was that some local municipalities purchased substantial shares of railroad stock, essentially susbsidizing the intial investment. In the case of Louisville the city actually had a seat on the board of directors of the L&N since it owned enough stock for that. I’m pretty sure Dayton did this for at least one of the pioneer lines out of the city. The states provided indirect support via issuing charters granting the right of eminent domain to the early railroad companies, for both right-of-way and building materials (but with compensation, so it wasn’t a pure taking). There was at least one example of direct state support via land grants, and that was the Illinois Central. I think the initial Michigan system had state support at first, too. The Federal involvment was also indirect, via the provision of military offices trained at West Point to do the engineering. Back in the 1820s & 30s West Point was nearly the only source for civil engineers since it was modeled after the French military academies, which emphasised engineering for fortifications, etc. So the Army loanded these officers out to do the engineering for a few early lines, like the B&O. After the Civil War there was a good example of munciple involvement in long-distance railroads down in Cincinnati, where the city built a line down to Chattanooga to get access to the Southern markets (in competition with Louisville). Cincy built it, but leased it to a private company to operate. This arrangement continues today with the modern leasee being the Norfolk Southern. This approach is similar to what’s being done in Europe, with the the fixed assetts (track, roadbed, etc) being owned by one company, sometimes a public authority, and the operations and trains being run by a private sector firm. So, long story short, there is a history in the US of governmental assitance or involvement of various sorts and various levels in… Read more »
Robert, thanks for discussing but I really do not see your point. I am stupid to the ways of free market and government and how these things work out? Should OSHA regulate exposure to asbestos for personnel? Should the EPA regulate air emissions? Is this regulation, which impacts profit good? What is good government in your world? Where does it begin and end.
Waste is bad as you say, but you also say America is a great country. I would contend that America is a great Country precisely because we pollute and waste so much energy. We are 5% of the population and we consume 25% of the worlds energy – that and only that is why we are great.
Hmm, I see no support for this outcome. Do you contest we can have an ever expanding economy based on ever increasing energy costs? I know I am dumb again but I cannot seem to wrap my head around that concept. The less energy we use the more some one else will use so until we solve Jevon’s Paradox we are in a predicament (not a problem).
I guess it depends on how far off topic you want to take the conversation. If you are using the OSHA and the EPA as the baseline argument for trains, please elaborate. I was trying to keep the conversation to the impact that trains would have. In short, OSHA restricts the ability of people to contract freely with one another and the EPA creates a confusing governmental agency to protect people from damages that they could seek privately. So, quick answers to the off topic portion are no, no, yes, limited (military mainly), and it all begins and ends with individual freedom. The logic of my argument does not break down in extreme cases, but again, are you moving topics to use this as the justifiable means for the train? I am always willing to discuss these topics, but you avoid many of the points that I make. Such as the link between freedom and government. The link between individual freedom and the utility of talent. Our use of energy has benefitted us, as well as the rest of the world. We are great because we are free and have utilized that which is available to us. The rest of the world benefits from the exporting of our wealth. Every year our imports are greater than our exports. This means we are exporting dollars (wealth). The countries that we import from often acquired their means of production and knowledge from us. Elevating quality of life for the rest of the world. You also use Jevon’s paradox incorrectly. Jevon’s paradox is one in which technological advancement INCREASES the utility of a resource, thereby increasing its value and or lowering its cost. This in turn increases demand on the resource. Stating that other people will buy it if we do not, is simply a market effect. I think you meant to say, you think Jevon’s paradox is the argument against an ever increasing economy which requires a limited resource. The economy may or may not expand, it is more likely to expand when things are done in an economical fashion. Wasting money and… Read more »
No, if you accept the implicit assumptions then the logical consequences of that reasoning are the doom and gloom so well articulated on The Oil Drum. There are two assumptions there though. First, that a good quality of life (or The American Way of Life) depends on exponential growth. Second that energy costs will forever increase. Certainly, as we run out of the fossil fuels their price will increase. But after we ‘fully leverage’ the past energy output of our own sun, we will start leveraging the energy output of ancient suns, long dead. Yes nukes rely on finite resources too, but every energy source runs out eventually (though it will take a while to run out of Thorium), and in the long run we’re all dead anyway. No way we’ll have smart, flexible burbs? What about a neighborhood nuke?
To take the discussion back to trains, electric trains are good, because they are agnostic about what generated the electricity, this gives us more flexibility as we transition away from fossil fuels.
If the arguments is purelyabout trains, I think it is clear that although trains are fun, romantic, and hip, in Ohio and most of the midwest they will have little impact. Period.
They will cost a lot. You can discuss that till you are blue in the face. But there is one simple fact: the trains will only transport “X” amount of people, and “X” will not not be a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people the travel by car. RV pointed out our existing rail in HUGE populated areas that are used to traveling by rail, and they don’t use it all the time.
Oct of ’09 I travel alone with ONE person from Baltimore to DC in my section of the train…….One other person. On FRIDAY at 2ish. I have had similar expereinces in the past.
Cost will be high. But think of it from a use stand point only. They will not be used. Our busses have 3 and 7 people on them. A huge train from Dayton with 104 passengers would be like 49 seconds of cars passing you by if you stood on I-70.
If we knew they we going to be used, and often, then maybe. But they will not. I know this bc of the data available, including my eyes. So forget the cost/benefit. Keep it simple : THEY WILL NOT BE USED ENOUGH.
^
I can see the ones radiating from Chicago being used since Chicagoans already use commuter trains and Chicago is the weltstadt of the interior USA. Thats why I think they should have spent this money connecting places like Chicago with other growing and somewhat prosperous midwest cities, like Indianapolis and the Twin Cities (via Milwaulkee), and maybe not so prosperous ones like Grand Rapids and St Louis.
You create spokes of high speed trains that radiate from somewhere that people actually want to go to…i.e. Chicago. I mean, who wants to take a train to Columbus or Cleveland (though I can see leisure travel to & from Cincy for ballgames and the Oktoberfest)?
No one wants to travel to Cleveland…. :)
Going to these places is fine. It is just much, much easier to go by car. You can leave when YOU want. You can get around easier. The idea is nice, but it will not be used enough to justify the huge cost. It will not save any environment.
If the environment is important to you and using less oil is also, then “you” (the people that want this) should work on things that do not require travel or transportation. Don’t drive. Ride a bike. Promote riding bikes and walking. Grow your own food. Have a job that requires little to no travel, and the stuff you need for that job requires the same. etdc.etc.etc…..
But trains will solve nothing and cost a lot. We are better off investing in hybrid mini-busses and filling them up from Dayton to Cincy, Ciny to Columbus, etc…. and saving a whole lot of money. Trains will not be used enough to justify the cost or time involved. And when they are up and running and aren’t used, wtf do we do then? Blame Esrati and Craig Hunts?
Really? How pray tell would that work? What mechanism would be in place to ensure that this process could occur? Would you believe Scientists funded by Unions or ones funded by Corporations. Or would the individual working with the product be so good and so wealthy that they could finance this litigation against a Corporation? Take a look at how Charles F. Kettering and GM helped keep tetraethyl lead in production. I think you underestimate the power of money over the rights of man.
I am not being mean, but what is your point? Are we discussing trains or something else? I gave you the short form, but like a moving target you jumped to a completely other complex target. And to what end? Because you think by substituting a more complex argument gives you ground on the topic of trains in which you have not been clear or decisive?
Again, you are not dumb, but you demonstrate a very clear inability to stay on any one topic. I will leave it simply: I think you are wrong, I think you have been unable to defend your position as relates to trains. Your argument is unclear and unfocused. I would be happy to talk about the merits of trains in this post, but start a different thread if you want to talk about something else. Your style of argument substitution is exhausting.
@jstults. You state that electric trains are good. Just curious if you think making the project electric then justifies the expenditure as related to the 3 questions I posted above?
This is more than simple. Not enough people will use them. Therefore any cost, which in this case is a huge cost, is a waste. Any and all other arguments are a waste of time. Trains, in Ohio, will not be used as much as their liberal buddies think they will be used. It is just that simple.
If anyone can give proof that they will be used often then post a link or argument. As stated above Amtrack has less than 30 million riders annually. Quick-e math tell me that One in Ten Americans use Amtrack ONCE………ONCE……….ONCE a year. Not enough.
Subway systems and the like are used in the big cities….. We don’t live in a big city. This is by all measures a waste of time. Romantic and fun to think about, but a waste of time and money. And I will say what RV doesn’t: YOU ARE DUMB IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE.
Why is this so hard to understand? We need alternatives to “the car.” But trains are not it at this point.
RV: Just curious if you think making the project electric then justifies the expenditure as related to the 3 questions I posted above? I had to scroll up a ways to find your three questions. 1) Philosophically, should everyone have to pay for a train (via taxes), when the train will likely only accommodate a percentage of the US? Does this affect our freedom? I think it’s a reasonable argument to say that funding an electric train with public bucks is taking care of an externality (eg. pollution from cars) that benefits everyone whether they ride the train or not. It’s hard to “fix” these sorts of things without using taxes because of the free-rider problem. 2) Economically speaking, when we create programs that cost more than their utility, does this add to or subtract to the wealth of society? Of course it subtracts, this reminds me a little of the broken window fallacy, building useless pyramids is usually a bad idea, but the trains aren’t useless (maybe your argument is they are too expensive?). Do you think wealth creation and or destruction have an impact on the quality of life for a society? Yes, we should be as smart and efficient as we can. 3) Environmentally speaking, if dollars are seen as representations of units, energy and effort do you think wasting units, energy and effort is good or bad for the environment? Wasting effort / inefficiency is bad. But it’s hard to make the environmental costs “felt” by particular actors so that they take them into account when making their decisions (so that they make an optimal decision). Generally the environmental costs of an action are felt by everyone, and the benefits are enjoyed by a few (they have been successfully externalized). Without correction this leads to a sub-optimal outcome, which is bad for the environment and bad for the economy. To take the discussion back to trains again, electric trains are good, because they are agnostic about what generated the electricity, this gives us more flexibility as we transition away from fossil fuels, and they can… Read more »
Regarding #1) The free rider problem exists when all benefit from voluntary donations. However, when all are taxed, the free riders simply become the ones that are taxed less then the cost of the train. Taxing people creates free riding on an even larger scale, considering Obama’s new yearly budget divided by population, who is covering their fare share to not be a free rider? So, I think we can reasonable remove this from your response. This leaves us with reasonably arguing that replacing any form of pollution (externality) created by free market or previous government error justifies the appropriation of funds from all people to create an improvement to externality? That you use air quality. In this argument, I could condense your argument to: If an improvement to air quality is made, no matter how minute, it then justifies the seizure of property from all citizens for an unlimited expenditure for this improvement? Do you find this reasonable, or does it need redress? #2) You are correct, the argument is that the trains are too expensive. Something does not have to be useless to be inefficient and a waste of resources. Consider the broken window fallacy. Lets assume the boy has not broken the window yet and the glazier stops by and says “Boy, normally I charge 6 francs for window repair, but if you break that window right now, I will only charge you 4 francs. . . . . . . . The shop keep is still out 4 francs, as well as the cobbler and the shoemaker. The point being, is that if it cannot pay for itself, then it is indeed a broken window and a drain on society. I felt that I sufficiently pointed out our governments financial failure with Amtrak. #3) What you just described here is actually a good explanation for tragedy of the commons. Because the cost is spread to all, the ill actions of the few becomes very profitable. In this case, every person who is not a free rider and every person that contributes but does not ride is… Read more »
“but the trains aren’t useless ”
If they are not used then they are useless. If only a few people use them then they are useless. If you think a few people is fine, then WTF don’t we build an electric trolly from my house to all my favorite bars…. or realistically, why not a train to Tipp, Troy, Sydney, Lima….. OHHHHH, bc not enough people will use it.
Once this BS math comes in, you know that math that says not enough people using the trains still benefits us, then anyone can argue to put tracks to the middle of nowhere.
The train debate is about USE of the train. And if not enough people use the train then it is a waste.
“but the trains aren’t useless ”
If they are not used then they are useless. If only a few people use them then they are useless. If you think a few people is fine, then WTF don’t we build an electric trolly from my house to all my favorite bars…. or realistically, why not a train to Tipp, Troy, Sydney, Lima….. OHHHHH, bc not enough people will use it.
Once this BS math comes in, you know that math that says not enough people using the trains still benefits us, then anyone can argue to put tracks to the middle of nowhere.
The train debate is about USE of the train. And if not enough people use the train then it is a waste. Sure trains have “some” benefit. Just like the government writing me a check for a million bucks. It beneifits society “some.” Big Deal. Why not a train to Athens Ohio then. Where does it end?
RV:
No, you stretched my argument into a straw man.
What’s the point? Any argument can be stretched to the point of absurdity. I think a rational cost/benefit analysis should apply. It seemed like that’s what you were arguing for, but you also seem to think there’s something morally wrong with publicly financed trains / roads, I don’t. I think they are pragmatic compromises. Are these particular trains too expensive and wasteful? Probably so, you and Gene are likely right, but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a project like this that was a good deal economically (and maybe even one that was morally praiseworthy, rather than petty theft writ large and backed up by the coercive power of the Leviathan).
Something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
would likely be a better investment (of public or private money), because it combines the convenience of a car (it runs on your schedule rather than you running to meet its schedule) with the economies of scale / efficiency of public transit.
@jstults. I was not trying to irritate you. The point is that I am able to stretch your argument. You applied no rational cost benefit analysis to your own argument, so I stretched it. Your argument was a straw man to begin with (again not being mean, you were just light on the answer). What would you find reasonable? What would I find reasonable? What would DE find reasonable? Under the guise of air quality you were finding reasonable argument to employ force against other people. Now we are simply arguing on who’s reasonable level do we reside. Mine, where we do not invest. Yours were we invest some. Or David’s were we might invest all? So, who is now to determine the final course of action since we would only be arguing degrees with this method?
In regards to morality, that falls in line with philosophy. If you feel it is ok to take from others, then make that your position. If you think it is ok to take from others based on a formula, then I would be curious to know what that formula is. How and when do you make these decisions?
Regarding my own position on morality, I think it is morally wrong to demand payment in the form of taxes to build a train. I have intentionally stayed away from the topic of roads.
On points 2 and 3, I did not straw man anything you had to say. Even if you have a formula for #1, does the utility of this train fall into that category? How did you determine that?
If there was a deal that was economically a good deal, why would the government need to do it? What evidence do you have that shows the government runs things well or with efficiency? Regarding your leviathan and petty theft writ large, I am not sure 500 million on a train and 3.8 trillion on programs is adequately covered by those adjectives.
Cost/benefit is very important. Very important. Put can the proponents answer the FIRST question in cost/benefit analysis? Will people use it? If so, how many? How many per day/per week?
The reasons these question are most important is that we will find that only a few people will use end, so the argument for trains can end there. It is over. RV already has the proof above. Amtrack, with a lot of tracks around the good old USA, has 30ish million passenger per year.
I checked on Amtrack, Cincy to New Orleans. The price was ok, not great. I think $180.00. But it took 24 hours. Who rides the train when it take a full day. I drove it in 10hr 45mins a few years ago. For a lot less than $180.00.
Ok, this is intrastate. Less than $20.00 get me to C-bus there and back. Just over an hour. NO TRAIN will do that. It is not a begining folks. YOU START AT THE BEST, THEN IMPROVE.
You don’t open a bar serving one type of beer and only gin. Your first buisness plan should include “the dream.” If I cant get to C-bus faster and/or cheaper I will drive. You get 180 mph trains, leaving every hour, for $10 bucks and we may have an idea. But that is not what this is. And even in my example it still would not work, so please please please understand this is shitting away money.
RV: The point is that I am able to stretch your argument. Yeah, into something I didn’t say, you reduced the benefit to zero, and then claimed that I argued it was still a justified action, way to go. Was it handwaving? Yes, I didn’t run out and do a formal study to quantify things. Under the guise of air quality you were finding reasonable argument to employ force against other people. Yes, yes, I’m putting a boot on your neck because you have to pay taxes. My argument was really more of the form: if the net benefit is positive then the expenditure is justified. The fact that you think ‘force’ is being employed against you because you have to pay a portion of your profits to the government is hilarious. You have a choice: you could close up shop, live under a bridge and eat wild strawberries; then no one would be able to ’employ force’ on you. Unless you are Amish, you benefit from the government’s ill-gotten-gain-financed public works. By the way you live you have already decided that it is just a matter of degree. There’s nowhere for you to stand on any moral high-ground in this. So, who is now to determine the final course of action since we would only be arguing degrees with this method? Our elected officials get to decide, are you saying there’s something wrong with that? They may not always make decisions we all like, but then we get to vote in replacements. If you think it is ok to take from others based on a formula, then I would be curious to know what that formula is. if( legal ) then take(); I think it is morally wrong to demand payment in the form of taxes to… You only have ‘property’ because the law defines property. When there is no law, you have no property, and life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. Just because you may not like what the taxes get spent on doesn’t make collecting them immoral. Paying your taxes (no matter what they get… Read more »
Of course this project would have to be publicly funded, bc A) no business would actually make money at it and B) no business would actually make money at it. Taxes don’t bother me as much as RV, but we KNOW these trains will not be used, or I should say they will hardly ever be used.
Why don’t we build a fountain on every block? At least i can enjoy them when I walk, and so can others. The only question is will they be used often, by a lot of people? No is the answer.
Why not A) not tax people for worthless stuff that we know will not work well B) get better ideas. Again, a bullet train to Chicago as Jeff mentioned may work, a three hour tour of Dayton to CBus at twice the price will fail. NEXT IDEA. Cause this one sucks.
I live in Japan, and have spent the last years riding trains all over the place here, as well as in other Asian and European countries. I like trains. My Japanese wife prefers cars because of the privacy, but I like to be able to sit back, relax, have a beer and a cigarette, and enjoy not having to do anything. That being said (and being an experienced train rider), I think that any government funded train in Ohio is absolutely insane. – Will riders be allowed to drink on Ohio’s trains? No way! Cops will most likely be arresting even drunk riders, thus ruining the benefit of being able to travel to go party. – Will they be 24 hours? Not likely. Japan doesn’t have that, not even in Tokyo. – Can you play music and enjoy it with your friends as you travel? No! – If you look at a map, it makes little sense for Dayton to be included on the route. it would be much better to make a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy route, and add Dayton in later once it’s shown to work. – No one north of Dayton will use the train to go to Columbus – No one south of Dayton will use it to go to Cincy – No one in either of places has any reason to come to Dayton, so the trains only serve as an escape for Daytonites who want to go have fun somewhere else. – In the time it takes to get to the train station, park the car, and wait for the train, I could be halfway to Cincy or Columbus. – Once you get to a city, how do you get around? Rental bicycles?! What about in winter or bad weather? I’m not against trains at all, but Ohio is not the place to start with something like this. I ride trains EVERY DAY, and have lived both in the city and countryside of Japan. Contrary to popular belief, almost no one in the Japanese countryside (even Dayton-sized cities) rides trains unless they’re going REALLY far away. Japan… Read more »
“I get your point, you have a moral objection. There’s no reason to waste your time on arguments about efficiency or economics, those things only matter if you think there are legitimate uses of public funds.” They all go together. Yes, I have a moral objection, but it is supported by 2 and 3. 1 tells us we are acting immoral, 2 and 3 show us that the immoral action is leading to waste and environmental degradation. Besides, I live in the same real world as you. The moral objection is lost on most people and showing them the waste is usually a better means of argument. So, there is reason to spend my time. “You only have ‘property’ because the law defines property. When there is no law, you have no property, and life is ’solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. ” The law as defined by government? You think that property only exists because government tells me it exists? I would argue that property exists because of mans interaction with nature. That property exists well before government gets around to making it a law. This is an argument for another day, I am pointing out that your statement is not without opposition. Yes, yes, I’m putting a boot on your neck because you have to pay taxes. My argument was really more of the form: if the net benefit is positive then the expenditure is justified. I agree………..except this is exactly how the free market works and the government has no place. If the net benefit exceeds expenditures, then the free market would rise to the occassion. The entire reason it is being done by the government is because the net benefit will not exceed the expenditure. The fact that you think ‘force’ is being employed against you because you have to pay a portion of your profits to the government is hilarious. I dont have to think. I simply have to stop paying taxes, or even paying the percentage of my taxes that would be used on this train and eventually someone with a gun will arrive at… Read more »
RV: I would argue that property exists because of mans interaction with nature. What about his interaction with other men? Does ‘property’ have meaning if the stronger guy with the bigger stick can just take it away from you? Unless you are Amish, you benefit from the government’s ill-gotten-gain-financed public works. It sounds like you are trying to use previous government interference to justify furthering it. Is this your new base line argument for government expansion? No, I’m just asking you to be coherent. You’ve already decided to be part of this social contract, the compromise has been made, the natural state of war averted, now it’s just a matter of degree. In other words, your taxes will always be used to do things you don’t personally agree with. “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” T.J. I don’t disagree, limited government has a lot of appeal, especially in light of our ‘contract’ with each other. I simply have to stop paying taxes, or even paying the percentage of my taxes that would be used on this train and eventually someone with a gun will arrive at my home and take it from me. I am not sure why you find a wholly inaccurate statement that you made hilarious. I find it hilarious because force would only actually be used if a very particular chain of events occurred: if you decided not to pay your taxes, then if you decided not to pay the fine, then if you decided not to show up in court, then if you decided to assault the officer that was sent to apprehend and imprison you. At any point you could choose to obey the law and the application of force would be averted, a situation quite beautifully free of any actual violence. Contrast this with the natural state of things where cavemen whack each-other with sticks to take shiny rocks and food from each other, plenty… Read more »
Don’t you see Robert? When the government comes to use force on you, it’s YOUR fault for choosing to defend yourself. Just be a good little sheep, roll over, and submit.
How does one decide to be part of the “social contract”? By existing? By using one’s own labor to create wealth?
Someone please show me a copy of the social contract I signed, because imaginary ones don’t hold up in a real court.
I’m sorry,
That’s not completely fair (the math guys look for contradictions, I guess it’s ok to look for simple absurdities in rhetoric). If I had said, we should fund the trains no matter the cost-benefit, then it would have been amenable to reductio ad absurdum as you did. But since that wasn’t what I said, what you did was set up a straw man on which to apply your technique.
What about his interaction with other men? Does ‘property’ have meaning if the stronger guy with the bigger stick can just take it away from you? Yes I never understood this argument of Libertarians or any Property Rights. Might makes property rights and nothing else. The Indians had this figured the same as white man, it was just the white man had bigger guns. In the end I feel sorry for property owners, because they believed in ever increasing value while electing people that spent greater amounts of money to inflate those values only to become aware that as that bill is coming due guess what gets taxed – PROPERTY. So I am saying that MIGHT makes Property Rights and the State/County/City is bigger than YOU, so you never will OWN your property. It will always have claims against it. From Michael – Once you get to a city, how do you get around? Rental bicycles?! What about in winter or bad weather? Thanks for the input but as Joshu S. has pointed out that this is an investment of “cheaper” energy now that will pay dividends in the future when that energy is more expensive. Of course one could be cynical about these “investments” as it is really a subsidy to the existing “privately owned” rail systems to upgrade the tracks on the backs of the taxpayer. The oracle of Omaha Warren Buffet is making a great investment by buying CSX and Burlington Northern even at a premium. So Michael and Gene people will be living downtown again as the transportation of materials and personnel will be more cheaply done by rail and those people that live near these locations will have better access to that transportation thereby lowering their costs. Electrifying the rails will aid in allowing oil to be used in more effective locations. So if you want to see the future it will be on the rails. No other way makes sense. Combine Wind Energy with Joshua’s Thorium reactors and we can keep American Jobs here and invest in our own Energy Security. It may… Read more »
The proposed rail is from city to city. Few people in Dayton will go to Columbus or Cincy if it is not somewhat fast, affordable and close to the area of town they want to go. The proposed rail is none of these things. Few people will use it, why are we not talking about that?
If you want the use of car to shrink, it must be done on a “city” scale. In other words cars should only be used to go from city to city, and transportation (ie subways or buses or whatever is NEW) from malls to downtowns to office settings to ballparks to housing developments within a city is much more impactful on eliminating emmisions than a slow train from Dayton to Columbus. That is where the transportation solutions need to go to: within the city/county. Not the “Dayton to Columbus” situations. Most people drive within their county/city 98% of the time. That is what needs to be eliminated.
Remember Gene what I said about it being a Corporate subsidy to upgrade rail for Goods movement. Please re read
and then take a look at this article which says.
@Greg: Because you think this is the future, we should spend money on it? Nice job skipping all previous points made and using your precognitive abilities to determine the best course of action. However, what you are expressing is your preference based on no mathematical data and in the face of 40 years of data that says it fails. If you like what the Oracle is doing, go invest in his company and leave me the option to do the same or not do the same.
@jstults: I will get back with the natural rights argument. I write between phone calls and probably will not get that one clear at work.
Regarding the social contract, it exists because the governed consent to be governed. Social contract or not, at what point do I get to point out the state is in violation of contract? Where are the details of this contract? What is my remuneration for the states failure?
Michael was correct in me defending myself. Because the state has implemented levels of action prior to kicking my ass, the force still exists. And I know that in order to fully defend myself through all the state layers, force will eventually be levied against me. Believe me, if all I had to do was ignore them indefinitely and force would never come to bare, I would ignore them.
Regarding reductio…I could continue, but it is irrelevant word play that I would rather drink beer while arguing (in type, it just looks too serious). Speaking of which, I am going to go to Southpark around 6:30 to try St. Pumkings Chocolate Stout. Stop by, Ill buy a round.
I tried the Rouge Chocolate Stout last night. Very good, perfect for chilly weather.
Anyways, where are the studies that conclusively say “no one will use these trains” that is refered to in the above posts? Is this based on any fact? Also, where are the studies that support that these trains will be used?
I’m all for the trains. Some of the biggest development in Downtown Dayton, and it seems alot of people are getting bent out of shape over it. Once energy cost keep rising, the need for this infrastructure will become more aparent. Just my 2 cents.
More people will ride trains when gasoline is $5 a gallon like it is in europe. They tax fuel higher to pay all their transportation coats. The US gas tax is not enough and the transportation budget here keeps getting help from income taxes. Level the playing field.
The only problem I have with the Ohio proposed route is how it was selected. Politicos looked at what they thought would be useful routes. Businessmen would have done a statewide market study to see who wanted to ride where and then developed the routes to serve the most profitable markets first. I want Dayton on the route but don’t want it’s inclusion to be blamed for it’s failure. (Not that I think it will fail but I have not seen a market study.)
Speed is important. The fewer stops the better. If you want local commuters to ride the train give them their own innercity solutions. Don’t try to incorporate them on the city-to-city connections.
@Joe: Go back and read the first few posts. People are not bent out of shape, but I would say I am the main opposition poster (with Gene) and premise was: “Great for Ohio, really bad for the nation”. The primary study you have to its opposition is 40 consecutive years of Amtrak losing money and being subsidized by the taxpayer.
@Bruce: You want to pay more in taxes on gas, so that it then makes sense to pay more taxes for a train? Or were you simply saying the government has the means to distort the market to make it profitable if they choose to tax any competitive methods of transportation. You dont think it will fail, please go read the opening posts of this thread showing exactly how bad it has failed with Amtrak.
I guess I’m refering mostly to DDN comments, which is a totally different place than Esrati comments.
Amtrak loosing money for years is valid, but I still think there is a need for trains in Ohio. These connections to Cinci and Cleveland would encourage me to use Amtrak alot more, since I can connect to those hub cities. I took an Amtrak to Raton, NM from Chicago and back for Boy Scouts in 1999. Great trip and alot of fun to ride the train and enjoy the landscape.
Joe, the rest of the thread is actually trying to justify the reasons for needing trains when it is a public effort. Meaning, you think we need trains and I do not. But, I am going to have to pay for trains along with you. Not just their initial construction, but their subsized loss every single year thereafter. So some of the thread is dedicated to showing why or how one group of people has the right to decide for another group that trains are in their best interest as well.
I like trains too (I probably had a football field of hobby track). I just think it is a terrible investment (an immoral one as well if you care to join in the deep rhetoric I have been shoveling).
@RV : “So some of the thread is dedicated to showing why or how one group of people has the right to decide for another group that trains are in their best interest as well. ”
I look at this as the crux of our society. There are alot things I don’t agree that are paid w/ my taxes – corporate welfare, certain defense expenditures, etc… . These are values I have which are compromised for mee by elected leaders – give and take. I can’t always expect to get my way, of course. And the force of the Government’s sovereignty limits and enforces what I pay for. I see this was covered in some form or the other above so I wont rehash it. Interesting reading, however.
The trains, if successful, could be looked at as a way to buy Ohio for the next election cycles. That fact has certainly crossed my mind.
Anyways, where are the studies that conclusively say “no one will use these trains” that is refered to in the above posts? Is this based on any fact? Also, where are the studies that support that these trains will be used?
I think the case study most applicable to Ohio would be the North Carolina passenger line, that is subsidized by the state. This is a conventional run connecting Raleigh and Charlotte and is probably a lot like what is going to be implemented in Ohio. Not to mention Carlonia being a fairly sprawly place, and a conservative one.
I’d be interested to know if they saw an ongoing increase in riders and how they sold it, politically. I know the state has been doing ongoing upgrades to the system, as in new stations and such.
Of course, since NC is a growing place and Ohio is a dying one, the comparison might not be quite apples to oranges, since the population increase might be driving increases in ridership.
Which