History of Local Rail Transportation (Columbus, Cleveland: fit in, leases, college)

[JR_C]

This article is somewhat unrelated to this thread, but he gives some background that is. Why Sprawl is a Conservative Issue

Edited to add:

I don't think there is as much to the GM conspiracy theory as some would have you believe. But, if roads are/were so superior, why did it take government subsidies as early as the 1920's to get them built, when the government didn't start subsidizing mass-transit until the early 1960's?

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by JR_C

This article is somewhat unrelated to this thread, but he gives some background that is. Why Sprawl is a Conservative Issue

Edited to add:

I don't think there is as much to the GM conspiracy theory as some would have you believe. But, if roads are/were so superior, why did it take government subsidies as early as the 1920's to get them built, when the government didn't start subsidizing mass-transit until the early 1960's?

You are answering some of your own questions. If roads were so inferior, then why did the rail infrastructure which was already in place fail? Don't they say possession is 90%. Seems to me either those who owned the railways were totally inept, corrupt, or blind.

[JR_C]

If the government suddenly decided to subsidize satellite TV, and the consumer only had to buy the dish itself, how long do you think cable companies would stay in business?

Cars were becoming really popular; they were status symbols. But, no one wanted to build the roads. So, by popular demand, the government started building roads. And, voila, the passenger rail companies couldn't compete.

[Wilson513]

As soon as cars became dependable, all other choices fell behind. Credit technological advances from two world wars. Cars still offer the best transit choice. Private personal transportation is a luxury that we can afford and most of us desire. Soon, cars and buses will be controlled by the roads they travel on. Traffic jams will end, accidents will be more rare, and trains will be in the dustbin of history - where they belong.

[Ohioan58]

The *one* advantage that trains have is that their extremely low rolling friction makes the amount of energy required to move one ton of mass one mile trivial compared to rubber wheeled stock (supposedly.) That's the only clear advantage that I keep seeing quoted by railroad pundits.

The problems with trains are that they are centralized, so "last mile" ground transport is always an issue, IE, you still need trucks and cars; new lines require a high engineering level and existing lines require constant maintenance (you don't die/derail if a vehicular road bed is not perfect, not so with a train track); and they are not terribly scalable (a rail line has just so much capacity, period, because it is a pipeline.)

What won over transport with rubber wheeled vehicles is their flexibility to all geographic points, low effort of infrastructure (worst case, dump out gravel and screed it smooth), and scalability - owner operator is always possible, and you can pick up and deliver between any two points.

The sheer general inflexibility of railroad construction is exactly what makes these projects stillborn.

No conspiracy lead to the railroads' demise. None. It was consumer choice.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Ohioan58

The *one* advantage that trains have is that their extremely low rolling friction makes the amount of energy required to move one ton of mass one mile trivial compared to rubber wheeled stock (supposedly.) That's the only clear advantage that I keep seeing quoted by railroad pundits.

. . .

Not to disagree with someone who is generally in agreement with me, but, trains do not have lower rolling friction than modern rubber tire vehicles. The somewhat lower cost of moving freight (the rail TV ads notwithstanding) comes from the enormous weight of a freight train with a relatively small locomotive (which is slower than molasses BTW). 50 tank cars behind a single (or double) locomotive move a total weight of 13 million pounds. That weight of tank trucks would require 150 semi tractors. That is where the savings are found.

[Ohioan58]

Right - I said "supposedly" because I was trying to remember the preconditions, etc.

As you put it, the economy comes about from moving extremely large quantities of freight by rail.

Again, not scalable. It would work well for coast to coast transport of shipping containers, but moving individual people or small quantities of freight regionally would be a non starter.

[JR_C]

I'm not sure why I continue to particiapate in this conversation, as both sides are unwilling to change their mind, but...

Why is passenger rail not scalable? If there is more demand, you add more cars, right? I've read that this one line could have had the same capacity as a 10 lane highway if demand required. (or something like that)

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by JR_C

I'm not sure why I continue to particiapate in this conversation, as both sides are unwilling to change their mind, but...

Why is passenger rail not scalable? If there is more demand, you add more cars, right? I've read that this one line could have had the same capacity as a 10 lane highway if demand required. (or something like that)

Passenger rail is not only not scalable, it is not economical at any level of participation. The question is: "how much do you want taxpayers to subsidize commuter transportation?"

Once you answer that question, you can start to look at the options. If I am a professional person choosing to live in a bedroom suburb so that I don't have to pay for or contribute to your crappy inner city schools, how much do you want to contribute to my commute? If you say $12-20 per trip (that's the per trip subsidy provided by the taxpayers of Charlotte, NC to the commuters from suburbs and Mecklenborg County), you can probably get rail. If you say $2 you are stuck with an express bus. If you say: "pay for it yourself or move closer to the city" then I'm in a car. You tell me? how much?

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by wilson1010

Passenger rail is not only not scalable, it is not economical at any level of participation. The question is: "how much do you want taxpayers to subsidize commuter transportation?"

Once you answer that question, you can start to look at the options. If I am a professional person choosing to live in a bedroom suburb so that I don't have to pay for or contribute to your crappy inner city schools, how much do you want to contribute to my commute? If you say $12-20 per trip (that's the per trip subsidy provided by the taxpayers of Charlotte, NC to the commuters from suburbs and Mecklenborg County), you can probably get rail. If you say $2 you are stuck with an express bus. If you say: "pay for it yourself or move closer to the city" then I'm in a car. You tell me? how much?

How much are "your" highways subsidized with my (and other non-drivers') tax dollars?

I'm only looking for equal representation, not a handout. IIRC, approximately 14% of Ohioans of driving age don't drive. In 2007, 24% of ODOT's budget, about $1.3 billion, (of $5.4 billion total) came from non-user fees. Yet, ODOT has just announced that they will be increasing their mass-transit budget to a whopping $50 million, from $10 million. As far as I'm concerned, ODOT should be spending 14% of that $1.3 billion (or about $180 million) on alternate forms of transportation, like passenger trains.

DISCLAIMER: If an expert feels that I have incorrect information, or have misinterpreted the numbers, please let me know.