Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Depends on how you define profit, as a tool to generate economic investment and development, yes...rail has consistently shown a "profit".
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
HeySquare wrote >>
I just think that is backward: if it can sustain itself on some level of efficient ridership, why NOT build it?*scratch head*
You claiming that 3C will turn a profit? I thought no one expected any public transportation to be profitable?
Please tell me where in my post there is any mention of profit?
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM
Is the U.S. turning a corner on high-speed rail?
By Katherine Dorsett, CNN
August 18, 2010
For generations, much of the nation has been forced to use cars, buses or pricey aircraft to travel to nearby cities. But this year, Washington opened the door to what may be a historic turning point in regional travel.
The Department of Transportation awarded $8 billion among 31 states to begin developing America's first nationwide high-speed intercity passenger rail service.
Panyanouvong said he loves the idea of jumping on a train, turning on his computer and getting some work done on his way to Tampa, "without having to worry about traffic or driving."
But the idea is much bigger than convenience, say supporters, who believe high-speed intercity rail will cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil, reduce climate-changing pollution and fatten wallets by triggering economic development.
READ MORE: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/08/18/us.high.speed.rail/index.html?hpt=C1
rus
Login to Send PM
HeySquare wrote >>
rus wrote >>
HeySquare wrote >>
I just think that is backward: if it can sustain itself on some level of efficient ridership, why NOT build it?*scratch head*
You claiming that 3C will turn a profit? I thought no one expected any public transportation to be profitable?Please tell me where in my post there is any mention of profit?
Guess we're defining "sustain itself" differently?
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM
1) please consult your dictionary for the differences between sustaining versus profiting.
2) you conveniently clip the modifier of "some level of efficient ridership." Since that qualifier is a bit too vague for you, I'll put it in plainer terms. I mean to say, a level of efficient ridership suggests that the money invested will be returned by providing alternative transportation for folks who would be using an automobile, or providing a new mode for people who can't use cars.
I don't expect this passneger rail to make a profit. no one does. But roads don't make a profit either. This country didn't always fund roads, but over the years we have discovered that a functional transportation system is critical to the mechanics of a free market, and that the general welfare is served by the maintenance of this system. Developing a variety of choices within that system can only benefit us.
To me, being dependent on one single mode (car) of transportation is weakness. Even the airport here is dependent on cars. How many city issues discussed on CU revolve around cars- 70/71, parking meters, business development stifled by lack of parking, downtown infill of parking lots? I still remember the job interview that brought me to Columbus-- when I asked about public transportation and trains, there was a dead silence, and someone hesitantly offered, "well, we have a bus system." it all contributes to the overall impression that there is nothing that any cosmopolitan person would want to see in the middle of the country.
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM
My understanding from reading the report.
1) Will building the rail system pay for itself by ridership?
No
2) Will building the rail system generate more revenue than it costs?
No
3) Will there be any economic (increased, jobs, business, visitors) benefit greater than the amount to build and operate it?
No
4) Is it needed now?
No
5) Is it one of those intangible things like a public library or a park that, although used by few, is a general public benefit to the area.
Yes
I mean, a library or a park doesn't turn a profit, pay for itself, is used by the majority of the population, etc....
Just allow bikes and dogs on it and I'll be happy. I can take it to Ann Arbor and visit the original Zingerman's deli instead of a cheap knock off, get some decent pizza, see an real art fair or send my kids to a top 50 school
:P
Nitsud Regnifloh
Valerio Heights
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
Tenzo wrote >>
Just allow bikes and dogs on it and I'll be happy. I can take it to Ann Arbor and visit the original Zingerman's deli instead of a cheap knock off, get some decent pizza, see an real art fair or send my kids to a top 50 school
:P
Michigan actually has a pretty active and well utilized rail system, with Ann Arbor being their most popular station (133,000 passengers). Over 750,000 passengers were served in '09 using the same kind of trains we would have.
So now they're using their fed stimulus cash for upgrades/speed improvement instead of using it to just build the starter system. just sayin'
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
HeySquare wrote >>
it all contributes to the overall impression that there is nothing that any cosmopolitan person would want to see in the middle of the country.So, really, the argument is Ohio should be more like NYC?
HeySquare wrote >>
a functional transportation system is critical to the mechanics of a free market, and that the general welfare is served by the maintenance of this system. Developing a variety of choices within that system can only benefit us.
rus
Login to Send PM
Tenzo wrote >>
My understanding from reading the report.
1) Will building the rail system pay for itself by ridership?
No
2) Will building the rail system generate more revenue than it costs?
No
3) Will there be any economic (increased, jobs, business, visitors) benefit greater than the amount to build and operate it?
No
4) Is it needed now?
No
5) Is it one of those intangible things like a public library or a park that, although used by few, is a general public benefit to the area.
Yes
I mean, a library or a park doesn't turn a profit, pay for itself, is used by the majority of the population, etc....
Just allow bikes and dogs on it and I'll be happy. I can take it to Ann Arbor and visit the original Zingerman's deli instead of a cheap knock off, get some decent pizza, see an real art fair or send my kids to a top 50 school
:P
I'm kinda with ya here. Obviously if we're talking a small percentage of the transportation budget and it serves at least that same proportion of the population, it makes sense. If that same percentage is around 1% of the population, then it also follows that it's likely I'd not know anyone who used it.
So like I said, I'm not opposed to 3C. At the same time if it's never built it doesn't strike me as that much of a loss.
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
I'm kinda with ya here. Obviously if we're talking a small percentage of the transportation budget and it serves at least that same proportion of the population, it makes sense. If that same percentage is around 1% of the population, then it also follows that it's likely I'd not know anyone who used it.
So like I said, I'm not opposed to 3C. At the same time if it's never built it doesn't strike me as that much of a loss.
you made me curious so i looked up some numbers and did some calculations on the back of an envelope...
the estimates of 500,000 per year ridership (reasonable compared to similar systems in neighboring states) is about 4% of the 11.5M population (2009 estimate, US census)
The estimate of 12 million per year for maintenence, doubled to 24M/y to be pessimistic about possible disasters (floods?) comes to 0.6% of ODOTs $3.2B yearly budget (2010/2011 budget).
edit: those figures do not take into account the freight rail upgrades portion of the proposal. I do not know what increased percentage of total freight will increase after proposed upgrades are built.
Really, no matter how I crunch the numbers (using pessimistic figures) it still ends up making sense to me, especially when calculated per mile. It's ubercheap.
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM
Nitsud Regnifloh wrote >>
HeySquare wrote >>
it all contributes to the overall impression that there is nothing that any cosmopolitan person would want to see in the middle of the country.that's their fault.
yeah. it's their fault, because they can't get here to see how awesome it is.
Yea I'm sure all of the participants in the 'rebranding of Columbus' effort think our image is unimportant. That's why they are taking the time out of their busy schedules to participate... for shits and giggles. And that the rest of the country is to blame because we have no blip on the radar. Or that could just be because the only way to get here is to drive through cornfields for hours and hours. Or take a connecting flight through Charlotte.
bababoohi
Login to Send PM
"Michigan actually has a pretty active and well utilized rail system, with Ann Arbor being their most popular station (133,000 passengers). Over 750,000 passengers were served in '09 using the same kind of trains we would have."
I may be misunderstanding this, but 750K people in a year seems like a miniscule number of people. That's just over 2000 people a day.
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
bababoohi wrote >>
I may be misunderstanding this, but 750K people in a year seems like a miniscule number of people. That's just over 2000 people a day.
or it's 7 percent of their ~10 million population.
(edit: The state of michigan subsidizes 7 million/year for two out of three of those lines. I'm sure this is a very small percentage of their total transportation budget. Probably well under 0.3% if they have a similar budget to ohio)
Their system also doesn't connect to Ohio or the east coast, it only goes to chicago. Cleveland is on the line which connects chicago to NY (which by the way is already servicing over 100,000 people/year on-off at ohio stations). I suspect if their system connected to that chi/tol/cle/nyc line it would likely get more ridership.
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike wrote >>
Really, no matter how I crunch the numbers (using pessimistic figures) it still ends up making sense to me, especially when calculated per mile. It's ubercheap.
Alright, I'm convinced. Let's do this. What's the best use of my time/energy if I want to support 3C? Send an email to my representatives in the Assembly? A well-crafted LTE in the Dispatch? Volunteer for a rail advocacy group?
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
Brant Jones wrote >>
Rockmastermike wrote >>
Really, no matter how I crunch the numbers (using pessimistic figures) it still ends up making sense to me, especially when calculated per mile. It's ubercheap.Alright, I'm convinced. Let's do this. What's the best use of my time/energy if I want to support 3C? Send an email to my representatives in the Assembly? A well-crafted LTE in the Dispatch? Volunteer for a rail advocacy group?
That, I cannot tell you. Not really my field. But all of those sound like useful ideas to me. I think you should do what you feel is right for you.
Anyone have any other ideas on this subject? I would like to get more involved myself in some small way.
johnwirtz
Evanston, IL
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike wrote >>
bababoohi wrote >>
I may be misunderstanding this, but 750K people in a year seems like a miniscule number of people. That's just over 2000 people a day.or it's 7 percent of their ~10 million population.
(edit: The state of michigan subsidizes 7 million/year for two out of three of those lines. I'm sure this is a very small percentage of their total transportation budget. Probably well under 0.02% if they have a similar budget to ohio)
Their system also doesn't connect to Ohio or the east coast, it only goes to chicago. Cleveland is on the line which connects chicago to NY (which by the way is already servicing over 100,000 people/year on-off at ohio stations). I suspect if their system connected to that chi/tol/cle/nyc line it would likely get more ridership.
At the risk of undermining a project I support:
1. Those aren't 750,000 unique riders. At best it's 375,000 unique riders since most people take round trips. In reality, it's probably far less because many people take more than one trip per year. So it doesn't serve 7% of the population. Likewise for Ohio's calcs.
2. What percent is it of their annual trips? Assume each person makes about 8 trips per day (rule of thumb). That means there are (9,969,727 people * 365 days * 8 trips/day) = 29.1 billion trips per year in Michigan. That makes the Amtrak 0.0026% of their annual trips, which is less impressive.
3. Even that isn't especially relevant though. We really want to know the costs per passenger-mile for different modes. BTS has that in terms of energy per passenger mile. Amtrak does pretty well:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube