Anti-rail states

[volkris]

The President of the Ohio Senate, Bill Harris, wants to reject the $400 million start-up funds from the federal government for the 3-C rail service. Ironically, the mid-Ohio station between Columbus and Cleveland will be in his district! Hopefully, others will persuade him to think for the good of the state and not for the good of his politics....

Yes: he wants to reject the $400 million because estimates say the state would then be stuck with yearly costs in the tens of millions in perpetuity that it hasn't budgeted for.

So no, as with many other places where this has happened, he's not anti rail, and he's not rejecting it out of the "good of his politics." He's rejecting it for the good of the state because it will cost a ton over the longrun, and those funds don't presently exist.

There are no anti-rail states.

 

[clearfork]

The President of the Ohio Senate, Bill Harris, wants to reject the $400 million start-up funds from the federal government for the 3-C rail service. Ironically, the mid-Ohio station between Columbus and Cleveland will be in his district! Hopefully, others will persuade him to think for the good of the state and not for the good of his politics....

Yes: he wants to reject the $400 million because estimates say the state would then be stuck with yearly costs in the tens of millions in perpetuity that it hasn't budgeted for.

So no, as with many other places where this has happened, he's not anti rail, and he's not rejecting it out of the "good of his politics." He's rejecting it for the good of the state because it will cost a ton over the longrun, and those funds don't presently exist.

There are no anti-rail states.

No, the yearly cost to the state of $14 to $20 million dollars is less than nearly every highway project in the State of Ohio for this year, and yes, Bill Harris made his fortune in the retail automobile sale business so he is clearly operating in his financial and political self-interest.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The President of the Ohio Senate, Bill Harris, wants to reject the $400 million start-up funds from the federal government for the 3-C rail service. Ironically, the mid-Ohio station between Columbus and Cleveland will be in his district! Hopefully, others will persuade him to think for the good of the state and not for the good of his politics....

Yes: he wants to reject the $400 million because estimates say the state would then be stuck with yearly costs in the tens of millions in perpetuity that it hasn't budgeted for.

So no, as with many other places where this has happened, he's not anti rail, and he's not rejecting it out of the "good of his politics." He's rejecting it for the good of the state because it will cost a ton over the longrun, and those funds don't presently exist.

There are no anti-rail states.

Volkris, your purile liberterianism often has its justifications, but this claptrap is not an example. Seriously, get real. There are states that are willing to pay the burden to provide public transit heavily (pro-rail), there are those who are willing to add to what the government provides (neutral) and there are those that seem to not want to spend money regardless of how good a deal they are getting on it (anti-rail).

There are states that are anti-rail in that they are not willing to pay a dime to put into operation rail transit.

 

[lepearso]

Tennessee is a hard one to figure out. Our state legislature talks favorably about rail these days, but don't expect any single member to come forward with specific ideas. They would never go that far.

Our DOT talks about rail. Their "plan" sounds excellent, but it's impossible to implement. I suggested to the state rail director (whose position was eliminated a few years ago) that Tennessee look at some very basic ideas first, such as extending Illinois service to Memphis, but he completely rejected that idea. He only wanted service connecting Tennessee cities to other Tennessee cities. The idea of connecting our state with places like Chicago made him uneasy. I guess he doesn't like northerners.

We passed legislation allowing our cities and counties to set up funding mechanisms for transit and commuter rail. This was a move in the right direction, especially for Nashville. My hope is that a future expansion of the Music City Star will give Tennesseans a taste of rail service and the people will demand more, not less. One can only hope.

 

[volkris]

No, the yearly cost to the state of $14 to $20 million dollars is less than nearly every highway project in the State of Ohio for this year, and yes, Bill Harris made his fortune in the retail automobile sale business so he is clearly operating in his financial and political self-interest.

Again and again this sort of reasoning is presented on this forum, and it's wrong every time.

There is no money budgeted for the project! Oh, but highways get mon--nope, doesn't matter, there is no money budgeted for rail. Well highways cost a lot more than rai--nope, doesn't matter because there isn't money budgeted for rail. But rail can be more efficient than high--great, go find money. The politician made his fortune selling cars--good for him... where's the funding?

It doesn't really matter what some other program may cost or what color the sky is today, if the money isn't there the money isn't there! Until that money is found and set aside, the state can't afford the deal, and to move forward on something that can't be afforded is flat out bad and fiscally irresponsible.

 

[Ryan]

And again and again, I shoot that logic down. By your logic, the state would never fund anything that's not in the budget right now.

 

[AlanB]

No, the yearly cost to the state of $14 to $20 million dollars is less than nearly every highway project in the State of Ohio for this year, and yes, Bill Harris made his fortune in the retail automobile sale business so he is clearly operating in his financial and political self-interest.

Again and again this sort of reasoning is presented on this forum, and it's wrong every time.

There is no money budgeted for the project! Oh, but highways get mon--nope, doesn't matter, there is no money budgeted for rail. Well highways cost a lot more than rai--nope, doesn't matter because there isn't money budgeted for rail. But rail can be more efficient than high--great, go find money. The politician made his fortune selling cars--good for him... where's the funding?

It doesn't really matter what some other program may cost or what color the sky is today, if the money isn't there the money isn't there! Until that money is found and set aside, the state can't afford the deal, and to move forward on something that can't be afforded is flat out bad and fiscally irresponsible.

Nope, actually it's really simple. He just needs to do his job, that is drawing up the state's budget, and take some of those dollars already budgeted for those expensive road projects that will only make our roads even more expensive in the future, and put them into the rail project.

 

[PaulM]

Whenever the subject like this comes up, whether it's rail, shuttle buses in national parks, rapid transit up the I70 parking lot from Denver to the mountains, or even bicycling or walking (as transportation, not recreation) comes up, the responses seem to fall into three categories: a tiny fraction who think it's the best thing since sliced bread, a somewhat larger slice who think it sounds nice but would never work (Volkris's position?), and the vast majority who act like it were a commie-pinko plot, the end of life as we know it.

I never liked the modern rhetorical device of calling your opponents in an argument phobic, but I can't help but think that the third group's feverish opposition is based on a fear, the fear that if too many people become heretics from the automobile religion, it will be the end of life as we know it.

So I would say that in a democracy, whether a state is anti-rail or not depends on the percentage of people in the third group.

 

[volkris]

Volkris, your purile liberterianism often has its justifications, but this claptrap is not an example. Seriously, get real. There are states that are willing to pay the burden to provide public transit heavily (pro-rail), there are those who are willing to add to what the government provides (neutral) and there are those that seem to not want to spend money regardless of how good a deal they are getting on it (anti-rail).

Really, GML? The states that are willing to take money from citizens and redirect resources toward supporting rail can be just neutral in your mind? Funny that.

It's also funny that by your reasoning you're just as anti-rail as these guys. I mean, I don't see you buying any trains personally, or laying any track, or even trying to operate a rail line. Oh, but you don't have the money to afford it? Well neither do these states: neither the states nor the individual citizens have money trees, and it's likely they'd be overjoyed to operate expanded rail service if it could be had for free. But in the real world the money just isn't there; what money exists is being used to fund other operations that the states value more highly than rail, things like education, sanitation, and yes, roads.

So no, there are no anti-rail states, only states that, as pro-rail as they may be, aren't sufficiently pro-rail to redirect resources toward the expansions of rail that you want to see.

Also, I was unaware that libertarians had a monopoly on the notion that $14 million can't be found in a $0 million pot, not that I'm a member of that party.

By your logic, the state would never fund anything that's not in the budget right now.

Well, no. They'd put the new thing in the budget after having found money for it. That hasn't been done in many of these states, though: the states have not found money to pay for the service and therefore they can't afford the service and should not accept the fed's deal. These people you rail against, from Jindal in Louisiana to Harris in Ohio, seem to be doing nothing but asking the simple question, "Where will we get the money to fund continued operation two years down the road?"

 

[Ryan]

By your logic, the state would never fund anything that's not in the budget right now.

Well, no. They'd put the new thing in the budget after having found money for it.

Exactly, and their refusal to do that for rail projects make them anti-rail.

 

[volkris]

By your logic, the state would never fund anything that's not in the budget right now.

Well, no. They'd put the new thing in the budget after having found money for it.

Exactly, and their refusal to do that for rail projects make them anti-rail.

So you're saying that a state that would really like to have rail, that would very much support rail, but that has more pressing needs for the money is anti-rail?

I guess it comes down to your definition of "anti-rail".

To me, to be anti- something is to be actively working against it. People who are anti-drunk driving work to pass laws against it. People who are anti-smoking try to tax smoking and actively restrict the sales of cigarettes.

But these states aren't actively working against rail; they're just not funding it. They're not striking out against people trying to lay rail lines; they're just not helping it happen. To me that's hardly anti-.

 

[AAARGH!]

So you're saying that a state that would really like to have rail, that would very much support rail, but that has more pressing needs for the money is anti-rail?
I guess it comes down to your definition of "anti-rail".

To me, to be anti- something is to be actively working against it. People who are anti-drunk driving work to pass laws against it. People who are anti-smoking try to tax smoking and actively restrict the sales of cigarettes.

But these states aren't actively working against rail; they're just not funding it. They're not striking out against people trying to lay rail lines; they're just not helping it happen. To me that's hardly anti-.

I don't think it is a black and white as that. If there were all the money in the world, no state would be anti-rail. But just because there is no money and a state chooses not to spend (deficit) on rail, they are not NOT anti-rail (double (or triple) negative used for emphasis). That is, they are not pro-rail or neutral-rail just because there is no money to spend on it. Rather I think they are anti-rail because they will actively try to stop those who are pro-rail and would spend deficit money on rail.

It's a matter of prioritization. Those who would spend precious resources ($$$) on rail are pro-rail while those who don't are either neutral-rail or if they fight those who prioritize it higher, anti-rail.

 

[Ryan]

By your logic, the state would never fund anything that's not in the budget right now.

Well, no. They'd put the new thing in the budget after having found money for it.

Exactly, and their refusal to do that for rail projects make them anti-rail.

So you're saying that a state that would really like to have rail, that would very much support rail, but that has more pressing needs for the money is anti-rail?

If they would really like to have rail, they'd find a way to fund it, so yes. If there were more pressing needs and not enough funds, then they're certainly capable of raising more revenue.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

There is no money budgeted for the project! Oh, but highways get mon--nope, doesn't matter, there is no money budgeted for rail. Well highways cost a lot more than rai--nope, doesn't matter because there isn't money budgeted for rail. But rail can be more efficient than high--great, go find money. The politician made his fortune selling cars--good for him... where's the funding?

RIGHT! You understand now. That state has chosen to dump its money into projects other than publicly beneficial mass transit rail systems. I.E. Anti-rail.

They are spending money on highways, are budgeting money for highways, rather than rail, because they are anti-rail.

I personally think that the Interstates should be given a federal mandate. Either the states maintain the roads in a "state of good repair" or two years subsequent to the state continually failing to do so, the Federal government has the right to file a order to abandon the under maintained segment.

Also, I was unaware that libertarians had a monopoly on the notion that $14 million can't be found in a $0 million pot, not that I'm a member of that party.

I don't know any states with a $0 budget. Money spent on wasteful projects such as widening highways or paying actual state money to the state government officials (lets face it, they make enough money from the public, they don't need to have additional sums paid out of the treasury!) can be diverted to running rail projects.

 

[MattW]

I think Georgia's legislatures actually get paid twice for their "services" (legally) There was a news report a night or two ago about it.

But yes, Georgia definitely counts. Expand 1 mile of highway here to build capacity by 2030, at which time they'll need another lane of capacity and build it disjointedly one mile at a time. meeting 30 years down the road by which time...

They could have used the federal money already present for the past decade + to build a commuter rail system. Even if it's a low-ridership system like the Music City Star, that's 700 cars not on the road eating gas, spewing emissions, clogging up the works. But if it's a mid-ridership system like the Rail Runner, that's 4500 cars not on the road for the same price as just a few miles of highway which will not help capacity in the short term AT ALL!

Sorry, but my parents will tell you, rail service is a "touchy" issue with me

 

[volkris]

Also, I was unaware that libertarians had a monopoly on the notion that $14 million can't be found in a $0 million pot, not that I'm a member of that party.

I don't know any states with a $0 budget. Money spent on wasteful projects such as widening highways or paying actual state money to the state government officials (lets face it, they make enough money from the public, they don't need to have additional sums paid out of the treasury!) can be diverted to running rail projects.

The money you want to use to fund rail has already been allocated to other things. It doesn't exist as free money in the budget. It's effectually gone, having been turned into roads and education for children and help for the poor. The remaining budget, in more states than you can count on both hands, is zero.

And you're calling them anti-rail because they can't find a few million to spend on rail out of that zero dollar pot of leftover money? The right term isn't "anti-rail", it's "fiscally responsible."

We all--individuals and entities alike--have to prioritize among various thing that we're "pro-". States aren't anti-rail just because they haven't found their money trees yet.

 

[AlanB]

Also, I was unaware that libertarians had a monopoly on the notion that $14 million can't be found in a $0 million pot, not that I'm a member of that party.

I don't know any states with a $0 budget. Money spent on wasteful projects such as widening highways or paying actual state money to the state government officials (lets face it, they make enough money from the public, they don't need to have additional sums paid out of the treasury!) can be diverted to running rail projects.

The money you want to use to fund rail has already been allocated to other things. It doesn't exist as free money in the budget. It's effectually gone, having been turned into roads and education for children and help for the poor. The remaining budget, in more states than you can count on both hands, is zero.

And you're calling them anti-rail because they can't find a few million to spend on rail out of that zero dollar pot of leftover money? The right term isn't "anti-rail", it's "fiscally responsible."

We all--individuals and entities alike--have to prioritize among various thing that we're "pro-". States aren't anti-rail just because they haven't found their money trees yet.

When they continue to turn out budgets year after year and don't change the formula's to reduce funding in other areas so as to increase funding for rail, then yes, I see that as being Anti-rail.

It's like NJ's new governor. He stood up right after being elected and told everyone that because of budget shortfalls that he had to cut spending across the board. Fine. I accept that. Only problem is that he cut the amount of funding to NJ Transit, and many other areas of government. However, to date he has NOT cut funding to the highways! That's not an across the board cut since he didn't touch highways, and in my mind Anti-public transit at least, if not anti-rail.

 

[Ryan]

The money you want to use to fund rail has already been allocated to other things. It doesn't exist as free money in the budget. It's effectually gone, having been turned into roads and education for children and help for the poor. The remaining budget, in more states than you can count on both hands, is zero.

For this year (and probably next), sure. But the FY12 budgets haven't been written yet, and so that money is still available to be allocated to rail/transit.

 

[PRR 60]

...It's like NJ's new governor. He stood up right after being elected and told everyone that because of budget shortfalls that he had to cut spending across the board. Fine. I accept that. Only problem is that he cut the amount of funding to NJ Transit, and many other areas of government. However, to date he has NOT cut funding to the highways! That's not an across the board cut since he didn't touch highways, and in my mind Anti-public transit at least, if not anti-rail.

Alan. Highways did not take as large a cut percentage-wise, but highway funding is being cut in the proposed NJ DOT FY 2011 budget.
Total highway funding (capital and operations) is being cut $35 million, from $976 million in FY 2010 to a proposed $941 million in FY 2011 (3.6%). The NJT appropriation is being cut $20 million, from $296 million in FY 2010 to a proposed $276 million in FY 2011 (6.8%). Yes, NJT is being hit harder than highways, but the highway budget is also being cut. Also, NJT revenue includes more than just the state grant. It also includes fares. So, the overall NJT budgeted revenue is probably being cut just about the same as highways.

I also think that, on a per-capita basis, there are probably not many states that contribute more to public transit than New Jersey. Budget cuts? Yes. Anti-Public Transit? I don't think so.

 

[pennyk]

I don't think Florida "embraces" rail at all. The government of Florida looks at rail as a "party which they have to attend" and very reluctantly...VERY powerful highway lobby in Florida and very backward thinking legislature on many issues.

I totally agree. I have lived in Florida all of my life. I live here because of the weather - not because of the politics (which seem to get worse every year).

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The money you want to use to fund rail has already been allocated to other things. It doesn't exist as free money in the budget. It's effectually gone, having been turned into roads and education for children and help for the poor. The remaining budget, in more states than you can count on both hands, is zero.
And you're calling them anti-rail because they can't find a few million to spend on rail out of that zero dollar pot of leftover money? The right term isn't "anti-rail", it's "fiscally responsible."

We all--individuals and entities alike--have to prioritize among various thing that we're "pro-". States aren't anti-rail just because they haven't found their money trees yet.

Puh-lease. First of all, not finding money for the benefit of people who either can not afford to, or are unable to, drive, is not fiscally responsible. Its discrimination. Plain and simple.

It has come to my attention over the past year or so, that I am losing my sight. Its happening slowly. Perhaps I might be able to drive another five years, maybe ten. But not even into my middle age, I don't think. Even now, the situations in which I am comfortable driving have gone down. I used to be able to drive in heavy rain, and I can't do it anymore.

I walked onto this board a rail fan. I am still, to some degree a rail fan. But its not my central drive with reference to trains- I'm also a transit advocate. Why?

Well, when I began to realize what was happening to me, and when a doctor confirmed it, I began to realize just how many places I can't go on public transit. Neither the doctor, nor I, think I will lose my vision to the point of not being able to function in almost any other situation. So I am not now and would never be, de facto disabled. But my vision will reach a point where I could not safely react to things with the speed and decision you need when driving.

But the fact of the matter is, those who can not drive can not go to many places without relying on the good graces of someone else who owns a car. And that is simply not acceptable.

Every year, we spend billions and billions on highways. On an unsustainable concept of personal mobility. A concept that will not survive because of declining resources. That we have determined is not particularly good for our environment. On a system that requires one to have the resources to purchase, maintain, insure, and fuel an expensive machine. And on a system that requires one to have the physical ability to drive a car.

And its not just people who have disabilities. To not be able to drive in this country is to not have independence. How many elderly people, long past the ability to safely drive, cling to their car because they want to be able to live, rather than just survive?

It is unsustainable. It is unsafe (how many die each year from it?). It is irresponsible. It is discriminatory. And yet we keep right on doing it.

You are in a free country. I respect that. You have the option to acquire the privilege of going out, buying a car, and driving. Being all those irresponsible things. Fine. But I want it to be available that I can live a full life and avoid all that. I want to be able to LIVE without having a car.

I am not even a RAIL transit advocate. I want the best system for the situation. Bus, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, whatever. But I want the system there for those of us who need it!

And god damnit, I'm not going to rest until I can. So please, take all your self-serving, self-centered, self-minded, and self-righteous libertarian BS about fiscal responsibility and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

[OTownDog]

I don't think Florida "embraces" rail at all. The government of Florida looks at rail as a "party which they have to attend" and very reluctantly...VERY powerful highway lobby in Florida and very backward thinking legislature on many issues.

Not being fully aware of the inner workings of the state government, the media paints a VERY pro-rail picture of the local politicians who support rail, the governor, and the state as a whole. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the state is spending upwards of $100million to bring regional/commuter rail service to central Florida (DeLand - Orlando - Tampa) and $300mil +/- to connect that system to TriRail in South Florida.

To me, this seems like a curiously large amount of money for rail service that may or may not ever pay for itself. I can take Amtrak from downtown Orlando to downtown Tampa for $10 each way and approx 2 hours of my time. Driving, it takes 90 minutes on a good day with no traffic, so this is not a bad option.

Additionally, I can see how the highway department has a strong influence on the powers that be in Tally. Florida has, in my opinion, the best highways in the country (behind only Connecticut perhaps). The signage are large and clear, the lane markings are incredible with every single line having reflectors spaced very closely, and red reflectors on the opposite side to prevent wrong way driving. The engineering consistency (width, banking, shoulders, lighting, bridge transition smoothness) is superb. Traffic and construction aside, highway driving in Florida is a supreme pleasure (except for my frequent trips on I-10 from Lake City to Pensacola. I suspect DOT hired a "boring" consultant dureing the construction of this road because that is one long boring ride ).

That being said, a TON of money is being pumped into creating new rail service in Florida. I'm a railfan, but I can't see how this system will ever have enough riders to pay for ongoing operation, let alone initial construction costs because Amtrak already services most of the areas affected by the proposed rail lines, and because the current highways system is quite excellent.

 

[AlanB]

I don't think Florida "embraces" rail at all. The government of Florida looks at rail as a "party which they have to attend" and very reluctantly...VERY powerful highway lobby in Florida and very backward thinking legislature on many issues.

Not being fully aware of the inner workings of the state government, the media paints a VERY pro-rail picture of the local politicians who support rail, the governor, and the state as a whole. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the state is spending upwards of $100million to bring regional/commuter rail service to central Florida (DeLand - Orlando - Tampa) and $300mil +/- to connect that system to TriRail in South Florida.

To me, this seems like a curiously large amount of money for rail service that may or may not ever pay for itself. I can take Amtrak from downtown Orlando to downtown Tampa for $10 each way and approx 2 hours of my time. Driving, it takes 90 minutes on a good day with no traffic, so this is not a bad option.

Additionally, I can see how the highway department has a strong influence on the powers that be in Tally. Florida has, in my opinion, the best highways in the country (behind only Connecticut perhaps). The signage are large and clear, the lane markings are incredible with every single line having reflectors spaced very closely, and red reflectors on the opposite side to prevent wrong way driving. The engineering consistency (width, banking, shoulders, lighting, bridge transition smoothness) is superb. Traffic and construction aside, highway driving in Florida is a supreme pleasure (except for my frequent trips on I-10 from Lake City to Pensacola. I suspect DOT hired a "boring" consultant dureing the construction of this road because that is one long boring ride ).

That being said, a TON of money is being pumped into creating new rail service in Florida. I'm a railfan, but I can't see how this system will ever have enough riders to pay for ongoing operation, let alone initial construction costs because Amtrak already services most of the areas affected by the proposed rail lines, and because the current highways system is quite excellent.

We don't spend money on the roads expecting them to make a profit, much less cover construction costs, so why should rail or any other form of transit be held to the "it must make a profit" standard?

It's called public transit not because it moves the public, but because it requires the public's help to survive.

 

[volkris]

When they continue to turn out budgets year after year and don't change the formula's to reduce funding in other areas so as to increase funding for rail, then yes, I see that as being Anti-rail.

And I'm saying that sounds like a poor choice of terminology. They turn out budgets year after year funding the other things because they're PRO the other things, not because they're anti-rail. They have to pick and choose between things to fund, and obviously they're going to fund the things they're most in favor of. The stuff that gets left behind isn't necessarily looked down upon; it was simply not as pro- as the stuff that does get funded.

Like I said, offer any state free rail service that will cost it nothing, ever, and see what happens. I bet the state will gladly accept because no state is truly anti-rail... they're just not as pro-rail as railfans (imagine that!)

 

[VentureForth]

I feel bad for those of you who live in those anti-rail states. I live here in Florida and I don't think they are anti-rail at all.

That's what it's like being in Georgia. Between such a pro rail state like North Carolina and Florida, it's frustrating to say the least the lack of support we get in Georgia and South Carolina.