High Speed Rail Hub, Gas won't get cheaper, eternal war and all

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

When do we find out if they are going to proceed with this? This would be huge for Ohio.

posted by Toledolaw05 on Aug 22, 2007 at 08:37:36 am     #

I've attended a meeting or two where high-speed rail in Ohio was mentioned. I don't remember exactly what was said. I'll have to dig through my notes because I don't think I posted the info to the old Toledo Talk.

Here's an old Toledo Talk posting from Nov 11, 2004 titled Ohio passenger rail service :

The Ohio Rail Development Commission wants to hear your thoughts about its proposed 860 mile, 32-station rail system that eventually would link the state’s major cities with up to eight daily round-trip trains traveling 110 miles per hour. But it first requires substantial political support in Ohio. That’s why the Commission and the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers need you at the first of a series of public meetings around the state. Please join us Tuesday, Nov. 16 – 4 to 6 p.m. at TMACOG (the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments) to make your voice heard on this important plan.

The system would give Ohio travelers and businesses an option to crowded highways and expensive airways. It would help cities and towns – and the state economy. It would bring new transportation jobs in passenger rail, and to freight railroads.

The plan calls for mostly federal money to construct the system’s main lines (one linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati and another linking Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit).

At a ReUrbanism meeting at the Downtown Latte in the fall of 2005, TMACOG gave a presentation about area transportation plans, and high-speed rail was discussed briefly.

Use Google to search the TMACOG site for 'high speed rail'.

• TMACOG Passenger Rail Planning
• TMACOG Passenger Rail Committee

Here are a few tidbits of info from the TMACOG search results page at Google:

• Ohioans have talked about high-speed passenger rail service for nearly 30 years
• The Federal High Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001
• Join with other regions to push for Ohio Hub Plan (high speed rail)
• Chicago Hub high speed rail plan linking our region to Chicago and Fort Wayne.
• High Speed Rail, with links to Airports.

Two Toledo Talk viewpoints on high speed rail:

• Apr 30, 2006 comment by anonymouscoward

A lot of people want high-speed regional rail, but when you start telling them that if you want high-speed, you can't have lots of curves and hills and grade crossings and therefore the best solution is to build new, they start getting pissed off because they don't want to give up some land, they don't want the train where they can see it, and they really get pissy about the price tag... so what happens in the USA is we make do with some cut-rate, half-assed solution that EVERYONE gets shafted on and EVERYONE hates.

• Dec 25, 2006 comment by GuestZero

High-speed rail is impossible in America. Proposals for such always get bogged down in studies that consume millions to tens of millions of dollars, and then the funding gets exhausted. Such rail lines that do exist, ONLY exist in very limited runs under enormous public subsidy. Since no private entity can afford the tens of millions on studies alone for the Toledo-Cleveland run (assuming such Capitalists ever want to spend their own money anway, which they DON'T), and since also such an area as North Ohio doesn't have the ability to generate the public subsidy necessary to force such a line to exist, then the end result is that the line is impossible.

Elsewhere ...

• Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor which wants to connect Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC.

From bytrain.org :

In 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation designated five national high-speed rail corridors across the country. The original Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor - extending from Washington, D.C. through Richmond and Raleigh to Charlotte - has been identified as the most economically viable high speed rail corridor in the country. The USDOT has since extended the corridor to Atlanta and Macon, GA, Columbia, S.C. and Jacksonville, FL.

North Carolina has been the lead state in working with the host railroads and other states to develop higher speed rail passenger service in the southeast and has worked with the northeast corridor states to designate a future high-speed rail network from Florida to Maine.

What is high-speed rail?

With a top speed of 110 mph and average speeds between 85-90 mph, high-speed rail service in the southeast will provide business and leisure travelers with a competitive alternative to air and auto travel for trips between 100-500 miles.

Where are we in the process?

All projects that use public funds must first examine potential environmental impacts as part of the public decision making process. North Carolina and Virginia are working together on a two-part approach to this required environmental study. The first study phase - referred to as the Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - took a broad look at potential impacts along nine possible routes and identified the preferred route. The second study phase - Tier II - includes more specific analysis along the preferred route.

posted by jr on Aug 22, 2007 at 09:45:14 am     #

Well, before we go too far down the road, I want a cost-benefit analysis done by an independent firm and a detailed survey on how many people would ride and at what cost. Then, compare the ridership/payment information against the public cost (ALL taxpayer funds) before making a go/no-go decision.

As an aside, I know we're spoiled here in NWO regarding traffic, but in all my regular visits to Columbus, I never found the traffic to be such a detriment to my travels that I'd NEED a high-speed train... I wonder what 'crowded highways' they refer to?

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 22, 2007 at 12:45:10 pm     #

Sorry, prime, but I don't think that this is what government should be doing. The interstate sytem was fundamental to the efficiency of the economy and, on its scale, was not something that could have been accomplished privately.

This, on the other hand, may be more efficient for the environment, but it will not increase market efficiency substantially. To the contrary, given the fact that the capital to build it will have to come out of the market and that its returns (making the huge assumption that there would even be any returns) will not come back to the market, the only effect that it can have is to reduce economic efficiency.

On the idea of raising taxes and then hiring people to build something and then saying that that is "creating new jobs" - I am sorry but that is a boondogle.

This is a project that is well within the realm of private capital. The simple fact that there is not private money already chasing after it is pretty much the answer to the cost-benefit analysis that Maggie is looking for.

Basically, when ideas for projects have nowhere else to turn but the force of government to raise capital, it has, by definition, already failed the test of viability.

posted by babbleman on Aug 22, 2007 at 02:40:53 pm     #

given the fact that the capital to build it will have to come out of the market and that its returns ... will not come back to the market...

Is there any proof that light rail loses money in the long run?

I would gladly trade in a $100 a month insurance bill, $100 a month gas bill, $400 a month car payment, oil changes, car repairs etc for a subway/light rail system that worked.

I (and I am sure anyone else who has lived in a city that had real public transportation prior to coming to Toledo) would even vote for a tax to get this built.

posted by Toledolaw05 on Aug 22, 2007 at 02:51:31 pm     #

"$100 a month gas bill"

My wife and I pay around $300!

posted by SensorG on Aug 22, 2007 at 03:11:55 pm     #

Toledolaw05 - that's the type of information I'd like to see. How often someone will ride this type of system and how much would they be willing to pay...

You seem to expect that the rail will have stops within a city...many of the 'ideas' I've seen discussed had only one or two city stops so that they could focus on moving people between cities...Just something else to consider.

Also, I think it's interesting that the proposal so far doesn't link NWO to Columbus...just links us along the existing turnpike/I-75 corridor...

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 22, 2007 at 04:16:21 pm     #

<i>Is there any proof that light rail loses money in the long run?</i>

Toledolaw, personally I don't care either way whether it is financially sustainable. And I am not saying that it isn't. Whether or not it is profitable, government should not be doing it. The more it is proven to be profitable is, for me, more of an argument against government doing it.

What I am saying is, there are trillions of dollars of investment capital in the world that is voraciously seeking out projects that are viable everyday. That that investment machine hasn't identified this project as a profitable opportunity means that it most surely isn't a profitable opportunity.

Now, if someone feels strongly that there is something the capital markets have overlooked in this case then, by all means, that person should bring it to their attention and get in on the equity early for doing so.

But for me, the bottomline is this: if it is financially viable, then government shouldn't be doing it because it would be done better in the private market. And if it isn't financially viable, then government shouldn't be doing it because it would be a drain on the economy (free economies don't do well when its capital goes to things that don't provide a return).

Either way you look at it: government shouldn't be doing it. This is not national security, this is not domestic security, it is not infrastructure (though it may look that way, I don't believe it is) and it is not strategically critical for the continuity of the country or its economy (like shipping ports or energy production or reserves).

posted by babbleman on Aug 22, 2007 at 04:33:43 pm     #

Switching now from large, interstate high speed rail to local light rail. When TMACOG presented its On the Move 2007-2035 Transportation Plan earlier this year, the subject of light rail came up during the question and answer period.

During the question and answer period, an attendee wondered why more of the region would not have light rail.

Answer from TMACOG:

• It's not feasible to cover the entire region with light rail due to our land use practices. No changes in the Ohio legislature are expected that will govern how we use or development land. In other words, we're continuing to spread further and further outward. No containment borders are expected that would control how we expand.
  

TMACOG's plan calls for a 'people mover' for the Toledo Science and Technology Corridor and a downtown trolley system and link to UT. From the TMACOG report (pdf file) :

- Fund and build Technology Corridor people-mover, connecting UT Health Science Campus (former MCO) to UT to Art Museum ($70 m total)
- Build downtown Toledo trolley system and link to Tech Corridor at Art Museum ($77 m total)

So I guess a limited light rail system is on TMACOG's wish list. That's why the question was asked as to why a larger light rail system isn't planned that would have stops in other communities around Toledo.

Here's what Portland, Oregon has :

• Light rail - TriMet's MAX Light Rail system connects Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro and the Portland Airport. Trains run every 5-15 minutes roughly between 4:30 a.m. and midnight.

• Street car - The Portland Streetcar connects the South Waterfront, Portland State University and Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital in NW Portland.

Portland, Oregon street car photo

Detroit People Mover

The People Mover operates at high cost for its level of ridership. The system was designed for a maximum capacity of 15 million riders annually, yet in fiscal year 1999-2000 the Detroit News computed that the city was subsidizing the system $3.00 for every $0.50 rider fare. The system has also had costly repairs throughout its history.

posted by jr on Aug 22, 2007 at 04:39:14 pm     #

The people mover is not an appropriate comparison as it was never finished. It was supposed to be end of a light rail system that connected to the rest of the city. If they expanded it out to Midtown, WSU and the New Center Area its ridership would increase dramatically.

Babble - How can you say it is not infrastructure? How is transportation via light rail any different than transportation via Monroe Street or 1-75 in your car?

If you want to reject government financing of light rail infrastructure, then your same argument should apply for the roads, bridges, and ports. Let the private sector fix the roads. In many states, private companies are doing this as they are buying up toll roads from the states.

posted by Toledolaw05 on Aug 22, 2007 at 05:12:36 pm     #

Toledolaw, the reason I don't think it is infrastructure is because we already have a transportation infrastructure.

Depending on how you look at it, this is either an add on to what we already have or a risky concept to redefine the way we do transportation.

<i>If you want to reject government financing of light rail infrastructure, then your same argument should apply for the roads, bridges, and ports.</i>

I disagree on two counts.

First, roads are our primary transportation infrastructure and it is vital to the economy to have them coordinated between jurisdictions and funding authorities so that they are consistent in their design and maintenance and provide an unimpeded, free right of way. To me, transportation is one of the very few collective efforts the government needs to make. And the only reason it even needs to do that is because the economy would not be scalable without it - and without a scalable economy, we wouldn't have a country - so roads are a kind of no brainer.

Second, rail systems are more than roads - they are also the vehicles, the maintenance of the vehicles, the people who drive the vehicles, the schedule that the vehicles run on, etc., etc. That is a service - not an infrastructure. The track might be called infrastructure - but none of the rest of it is.

posted by babbleman on Aug 22, 2007 at 05:45:35 pm     #

But, again, I ask why does the government have to fund it? The only reason I can see is that private dollars won't fund it. It is not that private dollars CAN'T fund this project - it is that they WON'T. And the reason they won't is because in it's (private captital's) vast experience and know how, it won't sell.

It will be like Amtrak or Tarta. Collectivism just doesn't sell well. That's why we have micro marketing. That's why Dell let's you build your own PC. And that's why people like to drive their own cars. Because people prefer to be individuals.

posted by babbleman on Aug 22, 2007 at 05:55:14 pm     #

But TMACOG's downtown trolley system didn't have a cost-benefit analysis prior to it becoming the 'preferred alternative.' People were only asked if they liked it (and, who wouldn't). There were not asked how often they'd ride it a $1 or $2 or $3 - or any price. And when I asked for a cost-benefit analysis, I was told that it wasn't necessary in order for them to make it the 'preferred alternative.' That's probably why TMACOG's own report calls for an increase in sales tax to fund it. And that's just for a $70 million downtown trolley only...

hey - didn't they try such a 'people mover' with their trolley on wheels???

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 22, 2007 at 06:54:42 pm     #

The current interstate system was a typical welfare project by the man who escalated the cold war and the arms race (and social security?), so we could blow up the world more times over than less civilized nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

It's a project that defies free market fundamentalist ideology (just like about everything you buy and use everyday. bloop)

It imitated the autobahn in Germany, a country who now uses trains and mass transit as much as cars.

I wish we lived in a cost-benefit world... No wars, no sub-subsistence wages, no anger, no hate, no obesity, no smoking, no privately subsidized officials, etc.

A cost-benefit world sounds whatever the opposite of dystopian is...

Brawndo has electrolytes... it's about a 1:30 in...

posted by charlatan on Aug 22, 2007 at 11:17:02 pm     #

I think Ohio would benefit from an inter-city transportation system only if it saved time and was more convenient for the average traveler. I personally think we're setting the mark too low with an average speed of 80-90mph. I can almost do that in my car, and my car will allow me much more flexibility than a train. If I take the train to Columbus what am I going to do once I get there? I'd be dependent on bus schedules the whole day, which is not good for leisure travelers or business travelers. Any time saved with high speed rail service would be quickly lost waiting for the bus to take me somewhere I wanted to go.

The problem of automobile dependence is really a product of our own success. We've got an incredibly efficient federal, state, and local highway system that really makes it difficult for mass transit to compete. We also have a pretty efficient air transportation system that can get us anywhere in the continental US within 7 hours or so.

posted by HeyHey on Aug 23, 2007 at 12:03:41 am     #

/\
Do you really believe in time saving devices?
What are you saving it for? On a train you could field calls, peruse internets, meet someone new, catch a new disease, ponder your sterile existentialist efficient traverses past messiahless meaning... good stuff.

And "incredibly efficient...highway system"?
I'm sending this to the DOT, they like dark humour.

7 hours at 550 mph (cruising speed of a Boeing) will you in South America or London? So just what are you saying? We're still part of the British empire? Yeah, and Luke Skywalker is Darth Vader's son. (Different last names, duh!)

posted by charlatan on Aug 23, 2007 at 12:36:06 am     #

Wow, after reading this it seems the conservatives are quite willing to participate in the eternal oil wars. Hey guys, join up, haliburton is looking for more contractors, boeing too. Go for it!!

Everything is done and financed with the governments permission and money. Permits for mobsters to dump millions of pounds of pollution into our lungs and the lake. Spending citizens money to help such industry locate here, with little real benefit for the people of Toledo. In fact NO benefit, just the destruction of a piece of land that could have been reclaimed for Toledo's people. But it was on the wrong side of the river. Forget the fact that its prime lakefront property on the Bay that is the richest fishery in all the great lakes. Jeez.

The trillions spent on this vile oil war, and the last one in the same country. Your $3 gas is the best damn bargain your going to get on average for a long time. We have arrived at peak oil, and greedy oil men owning and running our government will make it much, much , much worse. Pray for rail, light rail, skinny as a rail,, better hope the hell we find something other than gasoline.

You really tout the right wing propaganda about a so called "free market". There is no free market when corporation run the government and the people don't. Its called fascism, or a corporate oligarchy. Free market , yeah right. WE are living in a fascist state. Ike's worst nightmare come true, his warning proven to be prophecy. Our governments sell themselves to the highest bidder. Our politicians, and those who spout free market crap while their constitution is being used for ass paper, are literally the servants of the corporations who have made war policy decisions for the people of the U.S.

Interesting report in the Blade today, it said that conservatives and republicans don't read books. I believe it.

Hope like hell we get rail. Otherwise its back to horse and buggy. That might take some years to breed a lot of horses. Maybe we could ride the horses asses who refuse to realize that we have to move away from oil powered transportation.

You've had bushes "free trade" for several years now. The net effect according to the blade today is that your pay has gone down every year since the free trade party got into office. Thats not free trade, thats a slave trade.

posted by prime3end on Aug 23, 2007 at 01:15:56 am     #

...eternal oil wars...conservatives...don't read books...slave trade...

There is only so much opposing thought that they can take before they literally flip out on you. If all ideas aren't swallowed unchallenged then watch out - out come the inanities.

posted by babbleman on Aug 23, 2007 at 07:23:04 am     #

but Charlatan - electrolytes are good for you! LOL

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 23, 2007 at 09:30:14 am     #

Actually the thing that makes you ridicule my factual points, is your fear, or your personal affiliation with the system that fills your wallets.
Conservatives never speak of it, but its the point at which they always try to ridicule people. So lets talk about my points, which one is invalid?

Ike's warning to the nation that the military industrial complex in 1961 was a danger to our democracy, and even our "spirit".

The fact that we are paying $3 a gallon?

The fact that we are in our second oil war?

The fact that oil men have taken over the executive branch and regularly bribe most of congress. Corporate fascist state is an accurate label.

That conservatives are narrow minded and don't read? Come on, you guys walk around with blinders on.

Do you disagree with the Blade report that states that wages are done in the 5 years where data has been prevented, that is , ever since since the cheerleading cokeheaded drunken one took over.

ps, all the cheerleaders I knew like boys. LOL

posted by prime3end on Aug 23, 2007 at 11:32:37 am     #

prime, I did not intend (nor do I think I did) ridicule anything. While you seem to have sprung a gasket and are now spurting every dailyKOS rant line in the book, I don't think this has anything to do with any of those talking points. I know you have a general perspective that thinks I am greedy and evil and want to use the government to oppress people - but I swear that is not the case. I have a very rational set of justifications that guide my opinions and those are based on a combination of math, economics, finance, observed human nature and observed history of political science. I will admit that they are not based in any way on compassion. But that is not because I don't have compassion. That is because to me, the first thing we have to do is sustain our existence. Then we can have compassion. But there is no long term value in having compassion if it causes us to not be sustainable. In the long run, that is NOT compassionate. Providing a system that is sustainable (even if compassion has nothing to do with providing it) becomes indirectly the most compassionate thing that can be done.

Therefore, my point, as it always ultimately is in every post, is that our country and its government cannot exist unless it is economically sustainable. Moreover, it must perform economically at a higher level than other nations. If it doesn't, we will have to pray that those that perform better consider freedom a priority and do not want to take us over. Given that, it is probably just easier if we aim to perform better than anyone else - then we don't have to worry about others. It is a forgone conclusion that the ideals and force of the country with the biggest net economy will rule the world either implicitly or explicitly.

Given that background, we have to understand that the productivity of each of us is the building blocks of the economy. If we invest that productivity into projects that have a positive return (ie, they make a profit) then our economy grows and we are achieving the goal above. If, on the other hand, we choose to invest our productivity in projects that are break even or have a negative return, our economy stagnates or shrinks.

So...my only issue here is, if this project can't survive in the free market (ie, doesn't provide a return), then it is not something we should be doing because it is detracting from, not promoting, our sustainability.

The problem is, government has already become such a massive ball and chain of negative returns on the economy that I fear we are reaching a serious tipping point in our ability to carry forward our ideals of freedom as the rule of the day in the world. So whenever these programs that have a negative return are proposed, I have to oppose it because, to me, it threatens freedom - not only in the individual sense because it takes my productivity away, but in the global sense because it decreases our ability to protect our sovereignty.

To this end, I am simply saying that unless this project can be self-sustaining (revenue > expense) then it shouldn't be done. I think the best way to determine that is to see if there are investors interested in taking the risk. But there aren't any investors willing to take the risk (and by investors I mean people freely risking their own capital). That can only mean one thing: it will have negative returns.

posted by babbleman on Aug 23, 2007 at 12:49:18 pm     #

Babbleman - I think that you may like this article from the Foundation for Economic Education:

http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1521

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 23, 2007 at 12:57:15 pm     #

Yeah, current system works great! Here's to congested roads and long lines at airports and flight delays and hour long cab rides from airports back to urban centers! Down with forward thinking; long live the anti-train, anti-tax rhetoric! <end sarcasm>

On a slightly related topic, anyone note the Forbes ranking on America's Most Expensive Commutes? Even that bastion of free market thinking notes the costs of not having a good public transit system....
--

NEW YORK (AP) -- It's a costly commute for motorists who endure the traffic in two of Ohio's largest cities.

Cleveland and Cincinnati have made a Forbes magazine list of the ten U.S. cities where the trip to and from work is most expensive, based on local incomes, gas prices, vehicle maintenance and other factors.

While Houston comes in first, Cleveland is right behind in second place. The study says transportation costs swallow up 20.5 percent of household budgets in Cleveland, and commuters typically spend 10 hours per year stuck in traffic.

Cincinnati is Number 6 on the list. Forbes says one-fifth of the average household's expenses go toward commuting, and travelers are delayed about 30 hours each year.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/07/commute-housing-expensive-forbeslife-cx_mw_0807realestate.html

posted by bam2 on Aug 23, 2007 at 01:27:10 pm     #

Babbleman,

You said, " It is a forgone conclusion that the ideals and force of the country with the biggest net economy will rule the world either implicitly or explicitly."

So you had better learn Chinese then right? Our government doesn't engage them on human rights or democracy, because our leaders bosses, American super citizen corporations, are making huge profits of chinese child and other slave labor. If you doubt that its slave labor, take a look at their living conditions.

Using our military might unjustly, for oil, as we are doing now, in a war that the bush himself could go on for what,, 50 years,,, invites more terrorism, and a wide open mexican border (all our borders really), absolutely makes likely a bio terror or nuclear terror even on our soil. Yet, for the sake of keeping American wages down they want cheap Mexican wages. They are taking over good jobs in the south now, and have taken over construction in Florida and other states.
For the 8th decade this influx of cheap, often criminal labor, has kept industry from even trying to make harvesting devices for the crops that these illegals harvest. But now they are taking Americans jobs. If you have any doubt take a Florida vacation and see for yourself.

American industry is sending jobs overseas to china to increase their profits, period. They have been allowed to become traitors to us all.

But back to rail. If you REALLY REALLY believe that everything should be privately financed, and that the rail system doesn't pass some cherry picked measure of financial viability,, then consider the cases of lung cancer and asthma and the deaths from same that won't happen. Consider that Toledo will never ever be a viable city again unelss there are street-cars ,again. By complete financial measurement, the coke plant that is proposed on the shore of lake erie, should never be built. It robs toledoans, Ohioans, and Americans of another chance to enjoy lake erie's shores. The city of toledo should condemn the property and buy it at condemned prices. It has toxic contamination from years of extreme and heavy rail use. Condemn it and take it for the people of Toledo.

No I don't think you are evil, but you should try to learn things that are outside of your box. For that reason alone I'm glad you are here. You should include all the financial variables into your economic viability test. Consider the continued loss of the shoreline to the people of Toledo. What cost do you put on that. Please do read the Brookings Institute report that says that Toledo has to become a place that is about people again, not rust belt industry.

Missing this point is why Toledo continues to lose population.

posted by prime3end on Aug 23, 2007 at 01:37:48 pm     #

Great Post Maggie !!! They don't read in Texas either,, LOL,, so how come they are smarter than us on issues of rail? It appears that they are getting whacked so hard in the wallet that they saw the light? Texas is learning a lot of hard lessons these days. I really hope the rail hubs get built in Toledo. My Dad, who was born in 1900, always told us that Toledo was badly impacted when they took out the streetcar system. With the parking problems downtown its easy to give that argument a little credibility. A street car to Toledo sure would make the commute from the suburbs a treat. He always complained that the river and the lake were being stolen from the public by industry,, add now the lakefront group.

posted by prime3end on Aug 23, 2007 at 01:59:36 pm     #

http://www.i4u.com/article5165.html

157mpg car

I know what you're thinking...

But how can I transport an SUV's worth of climate controlled air from point A to point B?

And what about my false sense of security from sitting up higher in an unstable vehicle?

These are mysteries only the guy from Unsolved Mysteries or Rod Serling can answer.

posted by charlatan on Aug 23, 2007 at 02:14:04 pm     #

Maggie, good article. His conclusion is one that I've tried to point out on a number of occasions, especially regarding the smoking ban: that there was a time when "making a difference" or being an "agent of change" meant convincing people of something and motivating them to be different (ie, true leadership). Instead, the popular idea of making a difference today means doing whatever it takes to get legislation and taxation to force people to be different. Seems like a pretty empty accomplishment to me. I don't think I would be very proud of making those kinds of changes. But alot of people are these days.

In the same vain, there isn't a liberal program that I don't like. I want to feed the homeless, I want to promote racial equality, I don't want people to smoke in restaurants and I want to use alternative fuels and reduce our impact on the environment. But where we differ is that I don't want government to be involved in any of those things. I think that not only can we do all those things ourselves but we absolutely HAVE to do them ourselves. If we can't do those things of our own free will the only other way it can be done is through government. But as the author points out, the number of these "needs" are literally infinite. There is no way that government can be sustainable in that role. So we're back to the problem I noted earlier. What is the use of attaining any of those things if our economy collapses or is eclipsed by another that does not protect freedom?

And our economy collapsing is not fear mongering. Consider that taxation from all levels including the cost of compliance makes for an effective personal tax rate of around 60% right now. So when program after program like this is proposed, I can't help but ask, what's the plan? I mean, there is only about 40 points left to what we can all produce. Does the progressive plan have some kind of target that their going to stop at? 80%? 93.6%? What is the plan for when we reach 100%?

posted by babbleman on Aug 23, 2007 at 05:32:02 pm     #

Prime, I think we are missing each other here and I don't think that has to be the case. I am not saying that we have to agree - but I see a fundamental flaw and no one has answered it yet.

You are proposing that this train program is literally brimming with economic value from several angles (new jobs, reduced transportation costs, huge economic development increases and feel good characteristics like saving energy and the environment).

What I have asked, several times in this thread is, if all of that value is there, why aren't private dollars lining up to do it themselves and get a cut of that value?

I ask this question as a litmus test for how real the potential value is because as I said earlier, there are trillions of dollars out there every day looking for a good return. Why are they passing on this one?

You are more than welcome to insist that government do it anyway - we don't have to agree on that - but do you see my point? Or better yet, can you answer the question?

posted by babbleman on Aug 23, 2007 at 06:00:06 pm     #

but Charlatan - electrolytes are good for you! LOL

Yeah, they're what plants crave!

posted by thenick on Aug 23, 2007 at 06:42:15 pm     #

thenick:

Q: But what are they?

A: Well - they're good for you!

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 23, 2007 at 08:12:59 pm     #

The captains of industry of olden times are dead indeed. But you can't blame today's investors for not investing in and building the nations infrastructure to meet peak oil. But if THEY do build it, we will pay a hell of a lot more to ride it.
They won't invest in something to help build the nations infrastructure without proof they will profit. A study like that now might show a break even deal. BUT, and its a big but so in caps, when peak oil really smacks us, and that is soon. We will have no other readily available method of transportation. $3 gas will seem like a wonderful dream.

All of bushes jive ass time-wasting hydrogen program is a stalling tactic, to extract enormous profits for his oil pals. Hydrogen from NATURAL GAS WILL BOOST THE PRICE SO HIGH THAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAT YOUR HOMES. (Emphasis) Hydrogen from for profit nuclear is suicide or homicide if done by todays nuclear patently unsafe nuke industry.

Hydrogen from corporate owned, profit-centric, nuclear is an invitation to a disaster that takes the lake and property all the way to cleveland. Depending on the wind direction during the accident. F E et al have a heritage of not giving a damn about safety at the reactor. And their most recent attempt to lay waste to the Lake and land make that point yet again. Not their first greedy long term decision to neglect safety. Same with Fermi 1.

Back to rail,, If the city pays a ridiculous premium to a civil engineering firm for a study, the firm will simply read the city's/state's mind and the report will reflect the city leader(s) opionion(s). THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR future contracts as paid yes men, ITS WHAT THEY DO (Engineering Firms)!!!! They would also mind-read a private company requesting such a study. (CAPS for emphasis).

I've seen them (outright LIE, time and time again in writing, to outright bulldoze wetlands. The city lets them know ahead of time that they want the wetland bulldozed. Jeep!! is a good example, and the nearby home builders supply.
The local firestation built on wetland soil is another example, they have spent about a million extra to haul out the wetland soil, and replace it with compactible backfill, and a ridiculous drainage system to continuously drain the water out so the foundation doesn't bust into several pieces. But an engineering firm said it was great soil for building, till the contractor couldn't get compaction, then ordered their own compaction testing.

Long story to make a point I guess, but engineering firms have become todays paid professional whores.
If they can intercept how the city/state wants the study to come out, thats how it will come out. But our biggest priority should be to get away from oil dependence, before we are really struck by peak oil. Already the pentagon and some of our leaders are talking about reinstating the draft to keep fresh troops moving into the war. Its a war for control of Iraqi oil. Since WW1, the U.S. and England have had a pact to control the governments and oil flow in the mideast because armies and navies and economies run on the stuff. We have to find something else to run on. Hopefully it won't be for-profit nuclear. In addition to corporate and shareholder mandated hatred of the very concept of safety, they own the regulators, via campaign contributions to both parties. Then there is the nuclear waste generated and the storage issues. The stuff needs to be stored for a quarter million years or so because they won't let it cook in the reactors long enough to be less radioactive. Once the power starts to weaken, they refuel. The ability to more fully deplete the fuel should be built into reactor design, and the profit people should never step foot in the reactor, nor have the ability to influence safety by pushing production, and shit-canning those who point out safety concerns.

With meaningful scrubbing of coal stacks we could make a difference, (Bush has delayed this for several years) but the Appalacian moutain range will be half flattened by 2050 at our projected rate of coal consumption, and bush has just mandated more mountain top removal nationwide with an administrative rule this week. No consent of congress required on administrative rules.

All the while bushie is ignoring the potential of solar and wind, geothermal, ingnoring all alternatives other than stinking corn ethanol. Biofuels mine the soil, like todays industrial farming for corn. Fuel shouldn't come at the expense of making nutritionally dead food, but that is what farming does today.

Other nations are building these infrastructures with the passion of a general mobilization during wartime. The U.S. has an executive branch and congress that are mostly oil men or bought by petro dollars.

We really need to push alternatives like solar and wind, with a greater emphasis than even Germany is putting on those alternatives. Today I read that a group had made an advance with nano silicon that would increase the U.V. used by photovoltaics by 60%. An amazing advance. It will stay in the lab till bush and republicans leave office. Industry didn't fund the research, government and academia did, and without a study.

Tesla is going to have a 50k electric car by 2050 that beats most race cars and recharges after 300 mile trips in one hour. They have a sports car that goes 160 mph now, and recharges in 3 hours.

We will all be plugging our cars in soon, because of peak oil, and because Americans don't want to live in fear anymore. Lets leave the mideast and let them slaughter each other, or find a way for them not to, and work very hard to make oil obsolete even for them.

We need nuclear that is fully depleted before taken away from the plant if thats possible in a new plant design, safer plant designs, safer fuel and fuel containment design, a regulatory body that has the tenure and authority of the supreme court, but less corruptible than the supreme court, and not made up of industry hacks.

Till all that is done, wind, solar, and safe nuclear (really unlikely with today's for profit motive involved, and operating in a monopoly ), we as a city/state/region need to be proactive. ( hate that word, lets change it to pre-emptive) We need to pre-empt peak oil and our grandchildren having to die for our oil, or die from its exhaust. Cleaning up coal should be a national priority. It has put so much mercury in N.Eastern lakes that the fish are inedible. Even the fish of the sea can only be eaten in moderation. The mercury makes mentally challenged children. Not a nice gift for mother and child.

We could spend a bulk of millions on a study on rail, but the study authors will only mimic our leaders thoughts. And unless specifically instructed to, they won't include the "cost" of sending our children to war, the added deaths caused by combustion engines, nor any mention of peak oil. And if they do, they will either minimize or maximize the data to reflect the opinion of the majority of council or mayor or whoever pays them the cash, or whoever will be hiring them for the next "study". I've seen too many studies.

When we mobilized for WW2, we didn't do a cost benefit analysis, and this current crisis caused by our oil dependence carries the same urgency. When in the hell will weget on board with wind and solar. No wonder First Solar and other companies don't want to relocate to Toledo. Has Toledo started any significant wind or solar programs? Where are the 1.5 megawatt wind turbines? Where are the new solar fields and rooftop solar units? Where is the research center to study these? And to study harnessing the power of the Maumee without slaughtering billions of fish as Bayshore Power Plant does now?

The sun falls on us every day, and the wind blows for free. Do we need a study to know that the energy from them will kill fewer of us? What cost consideration is more important than that? If private industry want to continue to stall and continue the status quo, as they have since Carter, then we have to act without them.

GM's very recent electric car's drive train had 12 moving parts, compared to thousands in a typical combustion engine and transmission. The car companies won't build an electric car because they won't have a gas engine and trans, so less profit, less maint on the car by 3orders of magnitude. The dealer networks will fold. So they are ignoring current battery technology that would give us a very fast car, with a 300 plus mile range, be large and safe, and recharge in under an hour. So much for the private sector taking care of our G.D. needs.
If you do a study on that, there is no rationale for private industry to pursue electric cars. So the study by industry would say , "Dont' build electric cars". So they are going to build plug in hybrids with a multi fuel combustion engine that will drive a generator which will replentish the batteries while driving. How completely inefficient!!!! They want cars to break down so they can sell more parts, for engines and transmissions. Thats more important to them than the war we are in, more important than the impact it has on America, more important than the lives that would be saved by eliminating internal combustion engines from the road. So to hell with them , we have to act as cities, counties, and states.

12 moving parts and they wouldn't break down.

We need to build the electric car and train/streetcare infrastructure with renewables and we need to do it now. We can have the American love affair with a better faster cleaner car, and a rail system that is clean and fast. Our, and your challenge with regard to making sure rail is used, is to make people feel safe while riding the rials, and to take away the built in delays to commuter rail travel that are now in place. For instance, people don't feel safe on mass transit, from other people. Make the operators of the trains or streetcars, make them cops. Take away the track priority over commuter rail that industrial freight now enjoys. Even if you have to build new tracks. Make sure commuter rail has preference at the rail intersections too.

There, I've given you a "study", and it didn't cost a dime. Toledo must realize that people are more important than industry. Here's to a city that reclaims the waterfront, including the proposed idiotic coke plant building site on the shore of Lake Erie.

posted by prime3end on Aug 23, 2007 at 09:31:07 pm     #

Correction::
I said, "Tesla is going to have a 50k electric car by 2050 that beats most race cars and recharges after 300 mile trips in one hour. They have a sports car that goes 160 mph now, and recharges in 3 hours. "

I meant to say,, Tesla is going to have another electric car by 2009, not 2050, LOL, a 4 door sedan for 50k, then one for 30k a year or two later. GM with their past electric car experience could do it for 22k, in 2 years if they wanted to, but they don't. One hour charge, fast, safe, uses a nascar safety frame. Goes 300 plus miles on a charge. Toyotas hydrogen car specialist said in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" that the hyrogen car is 10 to 20 years away. The movie also documents GMs destruction of the streetcar system across the country. They continue to lobby against fuel efficiency in cars, and against any national electric car mandate. The private sector rarely considers whats good for us Babbleman. Like the folks who do "studies", their only concern is to maximize profit, and make sure we have to come back to buy more parts. Did you know Texaco bought the NiMh battery from GM, so that it wouldn't be cheap enough to use in future electric cars? Now with govt funded Lithium Ion discovery, their ownership of NiMh technology is at the brink of obsolescence.

posted by prime3end on Aug 23, 2007 at 09:57:26 pm     #

Prime, are your two posts above a response to my question about why private dollars haven't shown an interest in this opportunity?

posted by babbleman on Aug 23, 2007 at 10:01:29 pm     #

I think so, but I have had about a half a bottle of good wine today. It was a required medical treatment however, not to be confused with common drunken frivolity. LOLLLL But yes, the private sector are the last sector likely to give a damn about the public, same for many of our leaders. I think I gave a good overview of studies too, and included a free study for your consideration. The says while we wait for private industry, our society and our economy are going to hell in a hand-basket.

posted by prime3end on Aug 23, 2007 at 10:16:05 pm     #

I was not looking for a study. That was Maggie.

I am looking for the reason that investors are not falling all over themselves to get at this lucrative venture that is going to generate $30 billion of "benefits" and 17,000 jobs.

You say that, "the private sector are the last sector likely to give a damn about the public". And you are absolutely correct. The only thing the private sector cares about is profits.

So, given that all they care about is profits and that they don't care about this - would it be safe to conclude that there are no profits to be found here?

posted by babbleman on Aug 23, 2007 at 10:21:27 pm     #

No, it would be however safe to conclude that if we don't build it, we won't have transportation , and I mean very very soon. Peak oil is real. Offending all the oil producing countries, and killing their people, is real. It pisses them off. If we don't build mass transit now, we will have to start riding horses again. If private industry want a study, let them fund it. But I for one don't want to pay 2 or 3 times as much to ride mass transit because somebody wants to stuff more cash in their shorts.

posted by prime3end on Aug 24, 2007 at 12:39:03 am     #

>>would it be safe to conclude that there are no profits to be found here?>>

>>No, it would be however...>>

So there would be profits? If I were to personally spend the money to build this thing and assuming it was managed well, I would make a profit? Is that what you're saying?

I'm not trying to badger you - I'm just trying to engage you on a single line of thought that I think is critical to evaluating projects - public or private.

posted by babbleman on Aug 24, 2007 at 07:23:24 am     #

"There are 193 countries in the world. None of them are energy independent. ... Even Saudi Arabia ... imports refined petroleum products like gasoline."

This is from a Chevron ad that I saw in the WSJ and I think it has some relevant points for everyone to consider.

http://www.chevron.com/about/advertising/docs/real_issues_print_07.pdf

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 24, 2007 at 09:31:21 am     #

There could be profits, who cares! The point is rail may well be our only mode of transportation if we continue to depend on the oil supply we get from the people whose friends and relatives we are invading, blowing up and killing.

Whether or not it would make a profit isn't the issue. The issue is do you want to walk to your next vacation spot, or would you rather take a train?

I don't want private money involved. They will drive the pricing through the roof. The whole thing should be centered around a non profit effort, not having light rail or street cars has helped kill the city. The city could ruin it too if all they see is an chance to grown an income stream, it should be about making the downtown thrive, not about increasing income private or public.

I'm telling you that it might be your only form of affordable transportation, and are asking me if it will be profitable. Like that would matter if you couldn't afford to drive your car, which will happen soon.

posted by prime3end on Aug 24, 2007 at 12:53:07 pm     #

Maggie,

Your chevron link goes to a page of someones desktop and says there are 17? countries in the world and none of them are energy independent. Here is what Chevron is all about, listening to what they say is like believing the fox when he says he didn't kill all the chickens, even though he has chicken feathers all over himself. Texaco, now Chevron, bought the metal hydride battery rights so it would never again be used in an electric car. But here is how much they can be trusted:

Gas Station Owners Allege Price Fixing
Updated 10:09 AM ET August 22, 2007

From A.T.&T Worldnet, AP
By RACHEL KONRAD

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Nearly two dozen gas station owners in California sued Shell Oil Co., Chevron Corp. and Saudi Refining Inc., on Tuesday, claiming the companies conspired to fix prices for 23,000 franchise owners nationwide.

The case filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco seeks class-action status for the plaintiffs. It is similar to another lawsuit filed in 2004 by other California gas station owners that was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The new group of plaintiffs hopes the court will consider a slightly different argument.

Like the previous case, the plaintiffs in this case say chairmen of the three oil companies met privately nearly every month starting in March 1996 for the "purpose of forming and organizing a combination." The lawsuit alleges executives destroyed documents from the meetings, and a now-defunct joint venture violated U.S. antitrust laws and caused artificially high wholesale gas prices in nearly every state from 1999 to 2001.

In a new twist, the plaintiffs now say the venture violates a "rule of reason" governing antitrust matters.

A Chevron spokeswoman, Stephanie Price, said the San Ramon-based company has not seen the lawsuit and she couldn't discuss specifics. She did say Chevron, which acquired Texaco Inc. in 2001, was vindicated last year when Chief Justice John Roberts blasted the previous case for its "very artificial hook."

The lawsuit hinges on a marketing deal that, plaintiffs say, allowed former rivals to collude on prices starting in 1998, when Shell and Texaco Inc. formed Equilon Enterprises LLC to market gasoline in western states. They formed Motiva Enterprises LLC later that year for the eastern half of the country. Houston-based Saudi Refining also joined Motiva.

Equilon and Motiva began operating when inflation-adjusted crude oil prices hit their lowest levels since the Great Depression, according to San Francisco-based lawyer Joseph M. Alioto, who represented plaintiffs in both the old and new cases. Yet gas prices soared for franchise owners, forcing them to pass on the cost to consumers or cut profit margins.

"These executives get together and say, 'OK, we're going to raise Texaco's price to Shell's price, then we're going to raise both of them 50 to 75 percent, and we're going to do it after we've already had all these cost savings,'" Alioto said.

The lawsuit doesn't seek a specific financial award. Alioto argues wholesale prices were higher by at least 20 cents a gallon and possibly as much as 40 cents per gallon from 1999 to 2001.

Since an average gas station in the United States pumps about 100,000 gallons per month, Alioto says the energy companies owe each of the 23,000 station owners at least $240,000.

Station owners had little choice but to pay higher prices. Franchises typically sign long-term contracts with oil suppliers, making it tough to switch to another brand or an independent supplier.

A spokesman for the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia, of which Saudi Refining is a subsidiary, said they had received no official notification of a lawsuit. Representatives did not return phone calls and e-mails to Houston-based Shell, a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.

The case is Madani v. Shell, C07-4296-MEJ.

posted by prime3end on Aug 24, 2007 at 01:02:20 pm     #

>>Whether or not it would make a profit isn't the issue...I don't want private money involved. They will drive the pricing through the roof.>>

Prime, that is perfect. I think we have resolved the issue between us and I now understand completely where we stand.

Here is my solution: double the level of economic literacy in this country. If we did that, this conversation wouldn't have existed.

posted by babbleman on Aug 24, 2007 at 01:05:09 pm     #

prime3end...my link is to a PDF of an advertisement. The advertisement is a photo of a desk with a note on it. Goodness - I'm concerned that you didn't understand this, and I'm going to end this by agreeing with Babbleman:

"...double the level of economic literacy in this country. If we did that, this conversationw wouldn't have existed."

posted by MaggieThurber on Aug 24, 2007 at 02:29:08 pm     #

Maggie, ok I zoomed in on the note as was able to read it. It read like the propaganda of a lying war mongering greedy oil company. Exactly the sort of drivel I would expect out them while they lobby to take out Iran.

Babbleman and Maggie,

If you included the true costs of oil, including the 3 trillion we have spent thus far on 2 oil wars, then you wouldn't consider that anyone needed more "economic literacy" except yourselves. Peak oil, and we are intent on infuriating the people who own the oil. Who is benefiting from the price increase that will come? The oil men, the ones in the white house, the cabinet, and the stockholders, maybe. Take a look at the profits they have racked up at a time of national oil crisis. The largest profits of any corporations in the history of the globe.

Anyway,, ride the rails or ride critters with tails.

posted by prime3end on Aug 24, 2007 at 06:07:28 pm     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 16-May-2008 12:20 P.M.

old version of Toledo Talk