Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Kasich parrots ridiculous 3C rail "facts"

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Kasich parrots ridiculous 3C rail “facts”

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 229 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #394020

    johnwirtz
    Participant

    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

    #394021

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    johnwirtz wrote >>
    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. So it doesn’t serve 7% of the population. Likewise for Ohio’s calcs.

    good point. i missed that. you gotta get home!

    so divide by two. still seems like good value for the small amount of money involved.

    #394022

    bababoohi
    Member

    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.

    I’m basically for this as well, but I can see it from both sides. Yes, 750k is 7% of their total population. But c’mon, that’s making stats say what you want them to by comparing apples and oranges. If 2000 people ride it each day, that’s .0002% of the population riding it each day.
    Also, unless Michigan’s budget is $35 Billion dollars a year, then $7 Million is a lot more that .02%. I’m guessing you meant 2%. I’m not trying to be the a-hole who points out typos, but when it comes to decimal points it really matters.
    But I do agree, ridership would certainly increase if it was connected to lines outside of MI.

    #394023

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    bababoohi wrote >>
    Also, unless Michigan’s budget is $35 Billion dollars a year, then $7 Million is a lot more that .02%. I’m guessing you meant 2%. I’m not trying to be the a-hole who points out typos, but when it comes to decimal points it really matters.
    But I do agree, ridership would certainly increase if it was connected to lines outside of MI.

    0.3 (for ~3.2 billion budget) corrected. thanks. that was a BAD typo.

    I’m not an expert and will not claim to be. I’m just fooling around with some numbers on the web and a calculator. :)

    #394024

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    johnwirtz wrote >>
    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

    Wow, thanks for posting that. That’s a good easy to read comparison.

    edit: wow I just noticed my little motorcycle is as efficient as a train! Maybe we should all just start riding vespas!

    #394025

    bababoohi
    Member

    Rockmastermike wrote >>

    bababoohi wrote >>
    Also, unless Michigan’s budget is $35 Billion dollars a year, then $7 Million is a lot more that .02%. I’m guessing you meant 2%. I’m not trying to be the a-hole who points out typos, but when it comes to decimal points it really matters.
    But I do agree, ridership would certainly increase if it was connected to lines outside of MI.

    0.3 (for ~3.2 billion budget) corrected. thanks. that was a BAD typo.

    I made one myself, I meant .2%!

    #394026

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    bababoohi wrote >>

    Rockmastermike wrote >>

    bababoohi wrote >>
    Also, unless Michigan’s budget is $35 Billion dollars a year, then $7 Million is a lot more that .02%. I’m guessing you meant 2%. I’m not trying to be the a-hole who points out typos, but when it comes to decimal points it really matters.
    But I do agree, ridership would certainly increase if it was connected to lines outside of MI.

    0.3 (for ~3.2 billion budget) corrected. thanks. that was a BAD typo.

    I made one myself, I meant .2%!

    I rounded up to .3 just to be less “optimistic”. But yeah, I had accidently multiplied by 10 instead of 100 to get the percent. *derp*

    Also, I really doubt it’s the same 2000 people riding every day like a commuter rail. I just cannot find any data except ticket sales so I’m just guessing a lot of people using it for maybe 1-2 trips per year, which has been similar to my personal use of amtrak. So I think I’m going to stand by my 7% figure (3.5% round trip!) but lets just go ahead and round that all the way down to 2%. That still meets Rus’ criteria (which is what started me playing with numbers today) and seems honest and perfectly reasonable to me.

    #394027

    johnwirtz
    Participant

    Rockmastermike wrote >>
    Wow, thanks for posting that. That’s a good easy to read comparison.
    edit: wow I just noticed my little motorcycle is as efficient as a train! Maybe we should all just start riding vespas!

    …or car-pooling:
    http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/in-praise-of-car-pooling/

    #394028

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    johnwirtz wrote >>
    …or car-pooling:
    http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/in-praise-of-car-pooling/

    well that would just be TOO easy, now wouldn’t it?

    #394029

    bababoohi
    Member

    Rockmastermike wrote >>

    bababoohi wrote >>

    Rockmastermike wrote >>

    bababoohi wrote >>
    Also, unless Michigan’s budget is $35 Billion dollars a year, then $7 Million is a lot more that .02%. I’m guessing you meant 2%. I’m not trying to be the a-hole who points out typos, but when it comes to decimal points it really matters.
    But I do agree, ridership would certainly increase if it was connected to lines outside of MI.

    0.3 (for ~3.2 billion budget) corrected. thanks. that was a BAD typo.

    I made one myself, I meant .2%!

    I rounded up to .3 just to be less “optimistic”. But yeah, I had accidently multiplied by 10 instead of 100 to get the percent. *derp*
    Also, I really doubt it’s the same 2000 people riding every day like a commuter rail. I just cannot find any data except ticket sales so I’m just guessing a lot of people using it for maybe 1-2 trips per year, which has been similar to my personal use of amtrak. So I think I’m going to stand by my 7% figure (3.5% round trip!) but lets just go ahead and round that all the way down to 2%. That still meets Rus’ criteria (which is what started me playing with numbers today) and seems honest and perfectly reasonable to me.

    Ok, I see your philosopy there and getting it down to 2% logically, but I still think that it’s comparing apples to oranges. The percentage of the population that uses it isn’t the point to me. It’s the percentage of the population that uses it in leiu of other forms of transportation. If you’re using 2000 people a day riding it, even if it were a different or the same 2000 people a day, that’s a VERY small percentage of the overall population travelling THAT DAY. You’ve got to figure that really there are 10 Million people (for arguments sake) traveling each day. That’s 3.65 Billion each year. So actually only .02% of actual travel takes place on the rail, whether 750000 different people use it or the same guy rides it 750000 times.
    You’re taking an annual figure for rail and comparing it to a one day figure for other forms of tansportation.

    #394030

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    bababoohi wrote >>
    You’re taking an annual figure for rail and comparing it to a one day figure for other forms of tansportation.

    No, I’m really not and I’m not sure why you think I am.

    I took an annual rider figure and compared it to the total state pop as percentage.

    then I took the total money spent for annual rail subsidy and compared it to the total annual transportation budget (assuming it’s probably of similar size to ohio).

    I’m not comparing it to “total travel” or anything. I’m just saying that some percentage of population appears to have used it at least once in a given year, which is ‘population served’.

    My only point was “% population served” vs “% of total DOT budget”

    I can see why you’re more interested in ‘total cars removed from daily use’ or something, but that’s a much more difficult calculation and wasn’t the subject that Rus brought up that got me started on that. And frankly if that’s the goal, its most likely better done with commuter rail instead of intercity rail since a majority of daily passenger trips are within their own city back and forth to work. Actually, I think your numbers would only be directly comparable to an intercity rail if the entire population commutes to another city and back every day.

    #394031

    johnwirtz
    Participant

    bababoohi wrote >>
    If you’re using 2000 people a day riding it, even if it were a different or the same 2000 people a day, that’s a VERY small percentage of the overall population travelling THAT DAY. You’ve got to figure that really there are 10 Million people (for arguments sake) traveling each day. That’s 3.65 Billion each year. So actually only .02% of actual travel takes place on the rail, whether 750000 different people use it or the same guy rides it 750000 times.
    You’re taking an annual figure for rail and comparing it to a one day figure for other forms of tansportation.

    We should also consider what percent of those 3.65 Billion trips are long-distance trips. Amtrak isn’t really intended to serve the short ones, so they probably shouldn’t count in the calculation.

    I would be interested to know what the projected market share is for rail for Cleveland to Columbus trips or Columbus to Cincinnati trips. That might be in the 3C documents somewhere, but if it is I don’t remember where.

    #394032

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    johnwirtz wrote >>

    bababoohi wrote >>
    If you’re using 2000 people a day riding it, even if it were a different or the same 2000 people a day, that’s a VERY small percentage of the overall population travelling THAT DAY. You’ve got to figure that really there are 10 Million people (for arguments sake) traveling each day. That’s 3.65 Billion each year. So actually only .02% of actual travel takes place on the rail, whether 750000 different people use it or the same guy rides it 750000 times.
    You’re taking an annual figure for rail and comparing it to a one day figure for other forms of tansportation.

    We should also consider what percent of those 3.65 Billion trips are long-distance trips. Amtrak isn’t really intended to serve the short ones, so they probably shouldn’t count in the calculation.
    I would be interested to know what the projected market share is for rail for Cleveland to Columbus trips or Columbus to Cincinnati trips. That might be in the 3C documents somewhere, but if it is I don’t remember where.

    Agree 100%. Unfortunately I’ve not seen that stat either.

    I also cannot (I looked at some point in time earlier this year) find good stats of how many people drive I-71, much less where they drive to. Which would be the first step in that calculation.

    I found one number specifically for the 70/71 split and posted something about it in a discussion on another topic and someone else had found a competing number and neither of us were sure which one was more accurate. Not sure if this even exists as a reliable figure. which makes me sad.

    Comparing the number of trips for the michigan rail system, which has three paths, to intercity driving from city to cty on their highways would be really difficult for a person, such as myself, simply using google and a pocket calculator. I don’t think I could ever come up with a meaningful figure. It would also take more time than I wish to spend. :)

    #394033

    johnwirtz
    Participant

    I agree. It’s not doable without much better data. That’s why I would just cite the BTS that shows train travel is more economically efficient.

    FYI, you can see traffic counts within the MORPC region here:
    http://gis.midwesternconsulting.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Morpc&mod=

    The daily traffic on I-71 is going to vary a lot throughout the corridor between Columbus and Cleveland. It’s as high as 160,000 downtown, but just 56,000 in northern Delaware County. I wouldn’t be surprised to see numbers as low as 40,000 in the rural areas. Again though, we need some way to filter out the local trips. I think ODOT would have that data available from Origin-Destination surveys completed for their statewide traffic model, but I don’t think it’s online.

    #394034

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    johnwirtz wrote >> Again though, we need some way to filter out the local trips. I think ODOT would have that data available from Origin-Destination surveys completed for their statewide traffic model, but I don’t think it’s online.

    yeah thats the only way to do it. (and forget doing it for Michigan, it’s a multipath system, so it gets MESSY).

    Even with that data, given the possible combination of origin/destination it would be difficult to directly compare with the 3c rail proposals, which don’t have that kind of origin/destination projections. You could add up all the car trips between all the combinations of cities with stations and add up all the boarding/dropoff at those station I suppose. Do they have projections for each station? I have not found that in the documents.

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 229 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: