text:
National income inequality predicts cultural variation in mouth to mouth kissing
Fundamental social motives measured across forty-two cultures in two waves
Cari M. Pick, Ahra Ko, … Michael E. W. Varnum
Same-sex competition and sexual conflict expressed through witchcraft accusations
Sarah Peacey, Olympia L. K. Campbell & Ruth Mace
How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments
Brian D. Earp, Killian L. McLoughlin, … Molly J. Crockett
Bonobo personality predicts friendship
Jonas Verspeek, Nicky Staes, … Jeroen M. G. Stevens
National parochialism is ubiquitous across 42 nations around the world
Angelo Romano, Matthias Sutter, … Daniel Balliet
Social connectedness and negative affect uniquely explain individual differences in response to emotional ambiguity
Maital Neta & Rebecca L. Brock
Gender differences in guilt aversion in Korea and the United Kingdom
Tsuyoshi Nihonsugi, Toshiko Tanaka & Masahiko Haruno
Perceiving societal pressure to be happy is linked to poor well-being, especially in happy nations
Egon Dejonckheere, Joshua J. Rhee, … Brock Bastian
A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change
Tabea Hässler, Johannes Ullrich, … Luiza Mugnol Ugarte
Christopher D. Watkins ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1207-63311,
Juan David Leongómez ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0092-62982,
Jeanne Bovet ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3997-88373,
Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz4,
Max Korbmacher1,
Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella5,
Ana Maria Fernandez ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4132-58916,
Danielle Wagstaff7 &
Samuela Bolgan1
Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 6698 (2019) Cite this article
1095 Altmetric
Sexual selection
Romantic mouth-to-mouth kissing is culturally widespread, although not a human universal, and may play a functional role in assessing partner health and maintaining long-term pair bonds. Use and appreciation of kissing may therefore vary according to whether the environment places a premium on good health and partner investment. Here, we test for cultural variation (13 countries from six continents) in these behaviours/attitudes according to national health (historical pathogen prevalence) and both absolute (GDP) and relative wealth (GINI). Our data reveal that kissing is valued more in established relationships than it is valued during courtship. Also, consistent with the pair bonding hypothesis of the function of romantic kissing, relative poverty (income inequality) predicts frequency of kissing across romantic relationships. When aggregated, the predicted relationship between income inequality and kissing frequency (r = 0.67, BCa 95% CI[0.32,0.89]) was over five times the size of the null correlations between income inequality and frequency of hugging/cuddling and sex. As social complexity requires monitoring resource competition among large groups and predicts kissing prevalence in remote societies, this gesture may be important in the maintenance of long-term pair bonds in specific environments.
Romantic love and passion are cultural universals1,2. Simultaneously, pair bonds within different cultures vary in their norms, rituals and forms of romantic expression3. In western samples, 'ideal relationships' are conceived on two dimensions of intimacy-loyalty and passion4, with intimacy related to relationship quality independent of couple sexuality5. Expressions of love and overt acts of affection enhance feelings of commitment6 and are related to stable marital bonds7. Moreover, sharing in novel and arousing activities enhances relationship quality8 and nonverbal expressions of love alter feeling states and facilitate the release of putative attachment hormones9. Collectively, many relationship behaviours and expressions of romantic attachment contribute to maintaining durable pair bonds, which are important to understand given that threats to pair bonds may affect health and wellbeing (see10 for discussion).
Although not a human universal, romantic kissing is observed in a wide variety of cultures11 and being perceived as a good kisser can enhance a person's desirability as a partner (e.g., for short-term relationships12). Indeed, some naturalistic studies have documented kissing in courtship, where reciprocal affection is related to synchrony in body movements13. Cues obtained from close physical contact with a partner may facilitate mate assessment14, consistent with species that use gustatory and olfactory cues to regulate courtship rituals15 (see also16). As the prevalence of courtship rituals may point to their adaptive function, the mate assessment hypothesis14,17 proposes that kissing functions to assess putative cues to biological quality in a partner via close contact. In light of behavioural motivations to avoid pathogens (see18 for discussion), biases to over-perceive disease cues19, and given that the exchange of saliva may increase the likelihood of transmitting some infections (see20 for a recent review), romantic kissing may incur costs. As such, we do not engage in romantic kissing indiscriminately, unless the costs of kissing are traded off in favour of escalating courtship with a 'high quality' mate14. Consistent with the mate assessment hypothesis, kissing is more important, and is more likely to influence attraction, for the more 'selective' sex (women21,22), among more selective individuals (attractive individuals) and in contexts where the costs of choosing a less healthy mate are greater (i.e. in short-term sexual encounters14). The pair bonding hypothesis posits that, as an expression of love that strengthens romantic attachment, kissing plays a functional role in monitoring and maintaining long-term relationship quality14. Consistent with this hypothesis, kissing frequency and satisfaction with kissing are related to relationship quality while having a partner who is a good kisser predicts relationship quality at twice the size of the relationship between sexual satisfaction and relationship quality17. Collectively, kissing may be important both as a courtship custom and in maintaining stable long-term pair bonds.
Here, we extend Wlodarski & Dunbar's14,17 two hypotheses, and test for cultural differences in the use and appreciation of kissing in romantic relationships. First, if kissing plays a role in assessments of 'quality', the benefits of assessing partner quality are likely to be greater in less-healthy environments (see, e.g.23, for a similar line of reasoning related to mate preferences). Here, we examine the mate assessment hypothesis and test whether people in less-healthy countries place greater importance on this form of courtship behaviour (i.e. to assess quality, as indexed via attitudes) but do so selectively (as indexed via frequency) in light of the greater potential risks of kissing within a high-pathogen environment. Thus, we predict that national health will be negatively related to the importance of kissing at the initial stages of a romantic relationship (Hypothesis #1) and, as a pathogen avoidance mechanism, will be negatively related to participant's reported satisfaction with the amount of kissing in romantic relationships (i.e., a weaker desire for more frequent kissing in less-healthy countries, Hypothesis #2). Moreover, as the health costs of kissing in such environments will be lesser, we predict that national health will be positively related to the frequency of kissing within romantic relationships (Hypothesis #3). In other words, this would extend prior research by suggesting that the value attached to kissing as a mate assessment cue is greater in high pathogen ecologies (i.e., to accept or reject a partner) even if it is used sparingly in these environments.
Second, theoretical perspectives argue that monogamy and/or relationship investment are valued in harsh environments, such as those where resources are scarce in relative or absolute terms (see, e.g.24,25, for discussion), and the pair bonding hypothesis14 proposes that kissing plays an important role in how couples maintain and monitor the quality of a committed romantic relationship. Thus, we test the pair bonding hypothesis by examining whether individuals from countries of low absolute and relative wealth (i.e. high income inequality) place greater importance on kissing at the established (but not initial) phases of a romantic relationship (i.e. when investment is of greater concern; Hypothesis #4), report greater frequency of kissing in their relationships (to maintain a pair-bond in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #5) and lower satisfaction with the amount of kissing in their relationships (i.e., a stronger desire to signal investment through kissing in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #6).
When testing both hypotheses on the function of mouth-to-mouth kissing in relationships, we also test for national differences in two other forms of close/intimate contact (hugging and sexual intercourse) in order to examine whether our predictions are specific to, or are stronger or weaker for, mouth-to-mouth kissing than other forms of romantic expression. Evidence for specificity in our findings toward kissing would complement prior work, which demonstrates that kissing is a more substantial predictor of romantic relationship quality than other forms of closeness and/or intimacy such as sexual intercourse17, by suggesting that the 'special' role that kissing may play in the quality of long-term romantic relationships, and potentially relationship outcomes, varies according to the harshness of the environment. Evidence for stronger versus weaker relationships between ecological factors and different forms of intimacy could be interpreted in light of pathogen avoidance theories, given the greater potential costs to health of engaging in intercourse versus kissing.
Finally, we aim to replicate prior work by testing for an identical factor structure to the perceived components of a good kiss (biological/sensory component, arousal/contact and technique/execution17) among a broader international sample. We test whether factor scores on the biological component of a good kiss are negatively related to national health, which would demonstrate that biological factors, related to gustatory and olfactory cues, are a stronger component of a 'good kiss' in environments where exposure to pathogens is of greater concern (Hypothesis #7). We also run exploratory analyses on other anticipated factors (arousal/contact and technique/execution) and measures of national wealth to test whether factors related to synchrony, arousal and bonding during kissing are valued more in environments where an investing partner is particularly desirable.
Individual Differences in Attitudes and Behaviours Related to Kissing and Intimacy (Replication of Prior Work)
A multilevel model (participant treated as a random effect) on the outcome variable importance of kissing, with the within subjects factor relationship phase (initial phase, established phase), the between subjects factor participant sex (male, female) and the covariates self-rated attractiveness and participant age, revealed a main effect of relationship phase (F(1,1906.0) = 18.84; p < 0.001) that was qualified by an interaction with participant age (F(1,1903.2) = 20.47; p < 0.001). The main effect of relationship phase reflected that participants, in general, thought kissing was more important in the established phases of a relationship (M = 84.40, 95% CI[83.53,85.27]) than it was in the initial phases of a relationship (M = 81.04, 95% CI[79.96,82.12], t(3669.8) = 4.76; p < 0.001, d = 0.15). To interpret the interaction between relationship phase and participant age, which was not predicted, we calculated a difference score where high scores indicate greater importance attached to kissing for the established versus initial phase of a relationship. Correlational tests against participant age revealed that younger people regarded kissing as more important in the established versus initial phase of a relationship compared to older respondents (r(2365) = −0.09; p < 0.001, BCa 95% CI [−0.13, −0.05]).
Main effects of participant sex (F(1,1905.3) = 5.05; p = 0.025), participant age (F(1,2331) = 61.94; p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.03) and self-rated attractiveness (F(1,2331) = 13.82; p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.006) were observed, with no other effects or interactions (both F < 2.49, both p > 0.11). Follow-up tests, collapsed across relationship phase, revealed that kissing was more important to older than younger people (r = 0.13; p < 0.001, 95% CI[0.10,0.16]), attractive participants (r = 0.05; p < 0.001, 95% CI[0.02,0.09]) and was more important to women (M = 83.09, 95% CI[82.30,83.89]) than to men (M = 81.70, 95% CI[80.29,83.10]; absolute t(1722.8) = 1.69; p = 0.09), although this difference was not significant in a two-tailed test.
Weighted effect sizes (see, e.g.26, for method) were generated for each country from one-sample t tests of responses to our scales against chance (i.e. 50). Large effects were observed across nations for all items, except for medium effects observed for frequency of/satisfaction with amount of sex (summarized in Fig. 1). National responses to five items did not differ from chance after correcting for multiple comparisons (104 comparisons, p < 4.8 × 10−4: Frequency of intercourse in Nigeria, India, and Australia; Importance of kissing at the initial phase of a relationship in Nigeria and sexual satisfaction in India).
Mean weighted effect sizes (r) across nations for all items on our kissing questionnaire. Error bars show 95% Confidence Intervals.
Cultural differences in attitudes and behaviours related to kissing and intimacy
All significant findings are presented in Table 1. When examining the importance of kissing, only participant age and self-rated attractiveness were positively related to the importance of kissing at the initial phase of a romantic relationship and also the importance of kissing at the established phase of a romantic relationship. No other relationships were significant in these two models (all absolute t < 2.21; all p > 0.03).
Table 1 Predictors of attitudes and behaviours related to kissing and romantic intimacy.
When examining the frequency of three romantic behaviours, consistent with Hypothesis #5, GINI coefficient was positively related to the frequency of kissing in romantic relationships. Self-rated attractiveness and relationship status were also related to this outcome variable. Only relationship status predicted frequency of hugging/cuddling in romantic relationships and only self-rated attractiveness predicted frequency of sexual intercourse in romantic relationships. Although historical pathogen prevalence (Est(b) = −8.37, SE = 2.33, t(7.8) = −3.60; p = 0.0072) and GDP (Est(b) = −0.3, SE = 0.11, t(10.37) = −2.69; p = 0.02) were related to hugging frequency in the predicted direction, they were not significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. No other relationships were significant in these three models (all absolute t < 2.70; all p > 0.02).
Correlational tests were run to visualize the significant relationship in support of Hypothesis #5 (aggregated across country). As predicted, GINI coefficient was correlated with kissing frequency (r(13) = 0.67; p = 0.012, BCa 95% CI[0.32,0.89], see Fig. 2). By way of comparison, there was no correlation between GINI and frequency of hugging (r(13) = 0.12; p = 0.69) or sexual intercourse (r(13) = 0.13; p = 0.68), nor was there a relationship between absolute wealth (GDP) and kissing frequency (r(13) = −0.06; p = 0.85). In response to comments from Reviewers, we also reanalysed this set of three tests on frequency of romantic behaviours, treating GINI as a categorical variable (N = 1204 participants from countries of lower inequality and N = 660 participants from countries of greater inequality). These two groupings reflected participants within the top 26% of high inequality nations and within the top 40% of low inequality nations as ranked by the CIA world fact book. A univariate ANCOVA on the outcome variable frequency of kissing in romantic relationships, with the between subjects factor GINI grouping (less-equal nation, more-equal nation) and the covariates participant age, participant sex, relationship status and self-rated attractiveness revealed a significant effect of GINI grouping (F(1,1869) = 6.19; p = 0.013, ηp2 = 0.003) in the same direction as our mixed models and aggregated analyses. No equivalent effect of GINI grouping was observed when running the ANCOVA on the outcome variables frequency of hugging/cuddling in romantic relationships (F(1,1858) = 3.64; p = 0.057, ηp2 = 0.002) or frequency of sexual intercourse in romantic relationships (F(1,1830) = 0.29; p = 0.59).
Income inequality predicts national differences in frequency of mouth to mouth kissing in romantic relationships (r = 0.67, BCa 95% CI[0.32,0.89]).
When examining satisfaction with the amount of these three behaviours across participants' romantic relationships, GINI coefficient was positively related to satisfaction with the amount of kissing in romantic relationships (i.e. in the opposite direction to our prediction for Hypothesis #6). Satisfaction with the amount of kissing and also the amount of hugging/cuddling in relationships were predicted by participant age, self-rated attractiveness and relationship status. Only participant sex predicted satisfaction with the amount of sexual intercourse in romantic relationships after correcting for multiple comparisons, which reflected less satisfaction among men (M = 67.69, 95% CI[65.14,70.24]) than among women (M = 73.17, 95% CI[71.83,74.51], t(780.54) = 3.74; p < 0.001, d = 0.21). No other relationships were significant in these three models (all absolute t < 2.78; all p > 0.013). Finally, when examining predictors of the importance of the two components of a 'good kiss' generated from our Principal Components Analysis, participant age was positively related to the importance of both the 'technique, contact and arousal' component and the 'sensory component' of a good kiss. Participant sex was related to the importance of the sensory component of a good kiss, which reflected greater importance of this component among women (M = 0.09, 95% CI[0.04,0.14]) than among men (M = −0.15, 95% CI[−0.25, −0.05], absolute t(770.49) = 4.28; p < 0.001, d = 0.24). No other relationships were significant in these two models (all absolute t < 2.20; all p > 0.04).
Our research across thirteen nations from six continents reveals that kissing is more important at later established phases of a romantic relationship than during courtship, with this effect stronger for younger participants. These data support the pair-bonding hypothesis14. Replicating prior work14, albeit with small effects, women and attractive individuals viewed kissing as more important in relationships than men and less attractive individuals, and attractive people reported more kissing and sex in relationships and greater satisfaction with the amount of kissing and hugging in their relationships. Older participants placed greater importance on kissing in romantic relationships and on the associated components of a 'good kiss' than younger individuals. Moreover, they were less satisfied with the amount of kissing and hugging in their relationships. As many of our items gauged trait-level opinions (i.e. across the participant's relationships) these findings may merit further research into generational differences in romantic intimacy.
In further support of the pair-bonding hypothesis, income inequality was positively related to kissing frequency (according to Hypothesis #5), suggesting that people in areas of greater inequality kiss their partner more often. No relationships were observed between absolute wealth and kissing behaviours or attitudes. To illustrate that the effect of income inequality was specific to kissing frequency, aggregated analyses revealed that the correlation in support of Hypothesis #5 (more kissing in nations of high income inequality than nations of low income inequality) was over five times the size of null correlations between GINI and frequency of hugging and sex. This specific relationship between GINI and kissing frequency was also observed when treating income inequality as a categorical variable. Collectively, our data suggest a robust relationship between relative poverty and greater kissing frequency.
In contrast to recent work27, support for the mate assessment hypothesis in predicting cultural differences in kissing and intimacy was limited. We observed no relationships between historical pathogen prevalence and kissing, hugging or sex after correcting for multiple comparisons within a model, although (before alpha correction) pathogen prevalence and absolute poverty predicted hugging frequency in the expected direction (i.e. greater hugging in healthier and poorer nations). Consistent with the mate assessment hypothesis, and replicating prior work, principal components analysis of the components of a 'good kiss' generated one of two components representing sensory factors, which were more important to women than to men. In addition, 'pleasantness of breath' was the most important aspect of a good kiss more generally, consistent with17. Although preliminary, as the effect was not robust, the sensory component of a 'good kiss' was more important to participants in less-equal countries (i.e. related to GINI before controlling for demographic variables), and the technique/arousal component was more important to participants in less-healthy countries, before controlling for wealth and demographic variables (see Supplemental Materials). This pattern of preliminary findings was in contrast to that predicted for Hypothesis #7, but is consistent with prior work where sexual arousal lowers disgust sensitivity (see28 for discussion), which presumably would be important for intimacy in high-pathogen ecologies, and may suggest that the experience of a kiss is embodied within one's environment. Further direct tests of interactions between chemosensory cues, relationship context and environment on kissing behaviours and attitudes may prove fruitful. Moreover, in light of recent work on pathogen prevalence and cultural norms that foster close contact, evidenced by the presence or absence of kissing in a culture27, our findings develop work by suggesting that health factors may not be a powerful motivator of cultural variation in the strength of behaviours and attitudes related to kissing. Work from different approaches (experimental and regional differences and interactions between individual-level and country-level factors) is still warranted to examine the mate assessment and pair bonding hypotheses of the function of romantic kissing.
Our research has potential limitations. For aggregated analyses, caution should be drawn in making strong inferences from data aggregated across 13 nations, although findings converged when treating inequality as a dichotomous variable, which suggest that these data may not be an artefact of comparing the 'west versus the rest'29. In light of previous discussion29, it is important to note that we do not claim causal effects of the environment on individual romantic behaviour, nor do our data speak to variation in kissing in light of one's own health or wealth status. Of note, our published questionnaire items (as outcome variables) were not suited to include additional individual-level variables within our models, as observed relationships between current health/wealth and attitudes/use of kissing across different relationships would be difficult to interpret. However, our research also meets some important guidelines for robustness in cross-cultural work30. For example, preliminary models that demonstrate relationships between health, wealth and hugging are consistent with data from the anthropological record (i.e., remote cultures within nations) which demonstrates negative relationships between pathogen prevalence and the level of physical contact made during greetings27. This increases confidence that our findings are not mere artefacts of testing a 'WEIRD' sample31 (see also30) with access to the internet. Finally, although the 'reference group effect' (e.g.32) is important in cross-cultural research, two factors increase confidence in our findings. First, we replicate findings from an ethnically homogenous sample14,17. Second, relationships between GINI and kissing but no other romantic behaviours may suggest that our findings are not artefacts of group-level differences in how participants use different ends of a response scale. Of course, further work examining cultural differences in latent factors derived from surveys of similar behaviours is of utility for relationship and health sciences.
Our findings raise implications about romantic passion in the form of a kiss, within human pair-bonds. Although kissing, in contrast to romantic passion, is not a human universal11 (see also33) data from remote societies suggests that social complexity, indexed via stratification, predicts the likelihood of observing romantic kissing in that culture11 (same dataset as used in27). Social complexity and increased group competition for scarce resources was thought to be a key driver in the evolution of human social intelligence, selecting for those who could monitor relations between group members as groups increased in size34. Evidence that relative poverty predicts kissing frequency raises the possibility that this gesture evolved in humans to maintain pair bonds in light of the constraints of that environment. Behaviours related to kissing are a stronger predictor of relationship quality than other forms of intimacy17. Thus, kissing may play an important role in maintaining long-term pair bonds (i.e., communal relationships35) in ecologies where investment and monogamy are valued.
In sum, across thirteen countries, we show both individual (age, own-attractiveness, sex) and environmental differences (income inequality) in attitudes and/or behaviours related to kissing in romantic relationships and the perceived factors involved in a 'good kiss'. Individuals kiss their partner more in countries where resource competition is likely to be more intense, which may play an important role in maintaining long-term stable pair bonds in certain types of harsh environment.
Three-thousand one hundred nine participants (Mage = 31.90 years, SD = 11.60 years) were recruited to an online study. Data collection ended after collating data from 13 countries (6 continents), with countries included in cross-national comparisons if we obtained data from at least 50 respondents (who reside in the same country as their birth) and responses to our kissing questionnaire from at least 30 women. Participants were recruited from campuses and the wider community, research participant pools, word of mouth, twitter, academic groups on social media and a press release from the lead author's communications department. This press release informed readers that we were conducting a global study into how people across cultures express themselves in romantic relationships, but did not mention national health or national wealth. Given difficulty in recruiting an African sample, a sample of Nigerians were recruited via the buy responses function on surveymonkey.com. No participants were reimbursed for their time. Duplicate responses from the same device were not permitted by the survey platform.
All procedures for testing and recruitment were approved via the lead author's Ethics Committee (School of Social and Health Sciences, Abertay University) and run in accordance with the ethical principles and guidelines of the British Psychological Society. Hypotheses, methods and analyses were pre-registered (https://osf.io/pbqwm/). All aspects of the pre-registration report are identical to the current manuscript, except for aspects of the analytical strategy following discussion between the first, second and third authors in response to valuable comments from the Reviewers about the suitability of our data for analyses via LMEM. Participants provided informed consent after reading an information sheet describing the contents of the survey. We excluded participants who i) reported being less than 18 years old, ii) did not report their sex as male or female, or, for cross-cultural analyses, iii) if their IP address did not match their reported country of residence (following36). The final sample size was 2988 participants (794 males, Mage = 32.01 years, SD = 11.56 years, 72% in a long-term romantic relationship, 89% reported their orientation as heterosexual), 2379 of whom were eligible for analyses comparing nations (643 males, Mage = 32.34 years, SD = 11.85 years, 71% in a long-term romantic relationship, 89% reported their orientation as heterosexual, see Table 2).
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and r values for participants eligible for cross-cultural analyses.
Participants first provided demographic information and proxies for 'mate quality' (sex, age, sexual orientation, country of residence, country of birth, relationship status, relationship length, ethnicity, self-rated attractiveness, self-rated masculinity, self-rated health, rated attractiveness/masculinity/health of current romantic partner) and then completed three questionnaires in a randomized order. Two of these questionnaires were run as part of a separate project. Attractiveness, masculinity and health of self/partner were measured on a 1 (much less than average) to 7 (much more than average) scale.
Participants completed a questionnaire about their attitudes toward mouth-to-mouth kissing (adapted from14,17). Participants were informed that we were interested in their views on various behaviours that a person may engage in with a romantic partner, whom we defined as a person with whom you could be romantically involved with or without the involvement of sex. Kissing was defined as kissing on the lips or open-mouth (i.e. 'French' kissing). Participants were asked how important they thought kissing was i) at the very initial stages of a romantic relationship and ii) during the established phases of a committed, long-term relationship on a 0 (not at all important) to 100 (extremely important) scale, with their choice on the scale visible. Participants were asked, in general, when they are in a romantic relationship i) how often they kiss their partner, ii) just hug or cuddle their partner (a single hug or cuddle without kissing involved), iii) have sexual intercourse with their partner, on a 0 (not at all) to 100 (very often) scale. Participants indicated their satisfaction with the amount of kissing/hugging-cuddling/sexual intercourse (in general, when they are in a romantic relationship) on a 0 (not at all satisfied) to 100 (very satisfied) scale.
Finally (sensu17), participants indicated the importance of seven factors when deciding whether someone is a 'good kisser' on a 0 (not at all important) to 100 (extremely important) scale: i) How pleasant their breath is (M = 86.74, SD = 19.18), ii) The scent of their body (M = 83.05, SD = 19.90), iii) The taste of their lips/skin (M = 76.25, SD = 24.49), iv) How 'wet' the kiss is (M = 65.11, SD = 27.27), v) How much touching/physical-contact/caressing is involved (M = 76.62, SD = 21.91), vi) How physically aroused it makes you (M = 74.07, SD = 25.00), vii) Whether their kissing style is the same as yours (M = 65.91, SD = 27.86). After completing all questionnaires, participants were debriefed and could exit the survey. Native speakers based at a university translated foreign language versions of the study (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, and Polish).
We measured national differences in parasite stress using the historical prevalence of pathogens within regions (9-item measure37) which is strongly correlated with other estimates of parasite stress (see38). Higher scores indicate greater historical prevalence of pathogens. National differences in absolute wealth and income inequality (e.g.39,40) were measured via national GDP per capita and the GINI Index (inequality in the distribution of family income) obtained from the CIA World Factbook in March 2018 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/). High scores indicate greater absolute wealth and greater income inequality respectively. Of the countries sampled at the time of analysis, GINI coefficients ranged from 10th in the world to 150th in the world (GDP range from 3rd to 50th in the world).
Analytical strategy
First, general linear models were run across the entire sample, to replicate prior work on differences in attitudes toward kissing at different relationship phases, as a function of the participant's sex and self-rated attractiveness14. Cultural differences were examined on R (version 3.5.2) using Linear Mixed-Effects Models and Principal Components Analysis (with varimax rotation). All linear mixed-effects models were built in the same manner to test each hypothesis, using restricted maximum likelihood criterion and Satterthwaite's method for t tests, nested within the higher-level variable of country (random intercept). A first model includes the predictor Historical Pathogen Prevalence, followed by a second model which includes GINI and GDP (GDP scaled in thousands) as additional predictor variables. A final (third) model includes these three ecological variables and control variables. In these models we control for participant sex and self-rated attractiveness (in light of14) by including it in our model, and, in addition, control for relationship status and participant age in light of demographic differences between our sampled nations (following38). Self-rated attractiveness was not included in a third model to test Hypothesis # 7, given no a priori reason to do so. With this exception, all full models thus took the form of: Outcome variable ~ Historical Pathogen Prevalence + GINI + GDP + Participant Sex + Participant Age + Self-rated Attractiveness + Relationship Status + (1/Country). Significant findings from these full models are reported in the main text after correcting for multiple comparisons. Relationships confirming hypotheses are illustrated via scatterplots with outcome variables aggregated at the national level (Fig. 2). Multicollinearity was not a problem according to established rules of thumb (see41) for all predictors in cross-cultural analyses. No Variance Inflation Factor statistics were greater than 10, the average VIF was not substantially greater than 1 and no tolerance statistics were below 0.2 (Average VIF = 2.11, Largest VIF = 4.49, All tolerance statistics >0.22). Tables displaying results from first and second models, and a full r markdown file with all models, are included as Supplemental Materials.
PCA on the components of a 'good kiss'. Principal components analysis on answers from the entire eligible sample to the seven items contributing to a "good kiss" generated two components. A component labelled 'technique, contact and arousal' and a second component, labelled 'sensory factors' consistent with Wlodarski & Dunbar17 (variance explained = 56.80%). Sampling adequacy was verified by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin technique (KMO = 0.75) with Bartlett's test of sphericity indicating significantly large correlations (χ2(21) = 3204.53, p < 0.001). Rotated coefficients for the sensory component ('Pleasantness of breath' = 0.82, 'Scent of body' = 0.84, 'Taste of lips/skin' = 0.73) and the technique, contact and arousal component ('Wetness of kiss' = 0.59, 'Touching, physical contact and caressing' = 0.75, 'Physical arousal' = 0.78, 'Similar technique of partner' = 0.60) all exceeded 0.5 (all rotated coefficients on opposite component <0.27).
Data will be uploaded onto the Open Science Framework upon publication with an accompanying codebook (https://osf.io/pbqwm/).
Jankowiak, W. R. Romantic Passion: A Universal Experience? New York: Columbia University Press (1995).
Jankowiak, W. R. Intimacies: Love and Sex across Cultures. New York: Columbia University Press (2008).
Hatfield, E. & Rapson, R. L. Love and Sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lanham: University Press of America (2005).
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G. & Giles, L. Ideals in intimate relationships. J Person Soc Psychol. 76, 72–89 (1999).
Hassebrauck, M. & Fehr, B. Dimensions of relationship quality. Pers Relatsh. 9, 253–270 (2002).
Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., Manke, M. L., Mcdaniel, S. & Reeder, H. The subjective experience of intimacy, passion, and commitment in heterosexual loving relationships. Pers Relatsh. 5, 15–30 (1998).
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E. & George, L. J. The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. J Person Soc Psychol. 80, 237–252 (2001).
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N. & McKenna, C. Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. J Person Soc Psychol. 78, 273–284 (2000).
Gonzaga, G. C., Turner, R. A., Keltner, D., Campos, B. & Altemus, M. Romantic love and sexual desire in close relationships. Emotion. 6, 163–179 (2006).
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Capitanio, J. P. & Cole, S. W. The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. Annu Rev Psychol. 66, 733–767 (2015).
Jankowiak, W. R., Volsche, S. L. & Garcia, J. R. Is the Romantic-Sexual Kiss a Near Human Universal? Am Anthropol. 117, 535–539 (2015).
Wlodarski, R. & Dunbar, R. I. M. What's in a Kiss? The Effect of Romantic Kissing on Mate Desirability. Evol Psychol. 12, 178–199 (2014).
Brak-Lamy, G. Heterosexual Seduction in the Urban Night Context: Behaviors and Meanings. J Sex Res. 52, 690–699 (2015).
Wlodarski, R. & Dunbar, R. I. M. Examining the possible functions of kissing in romantic relationships. Arch Sex Behav. 42, 1415–1423 (2013).
Clowney, E. J., Iguchi, S., Bussell, J. J., Scheer, E. & Ruta, V. Multimodal Chemosensory Circuits Controlling Male Courtship in Drosophila. Neuron. 87, 1036–1049 (2015).
Thistle, R., Cameron, P., Ghorayshi, A., Dennison, L. & Scott, K. Contact Chemoreceptors Mediate Male-Male Repulsion and Male-Female Attraction during Drosophila Courtship. Cell. 149, 1140–1151 (2012).
Wlodarski, R. & Dunbar, R. I. Menstrual cycle effects on attitudes toward romantic kissing. Hum Nat. 24, 402–413 (2013).
Tybur, J. M. & Lieberman, D. Human pathogen avoidance adaptations. Curr Opin Psychol. 7, 6–11 (2016).
Miller, S. L. & Maner, J. K. Overperceiving disease cues: The basic cognition of the behavioral immune system. J Person Soc Psychol. 102, 1198–1213 (2012).
Posse, J. L., Dios, P. D. & Scully, C. Infection Transmission by Saliva and the Paradoxical Protective Role of Saliva. Saliva Protection and Transmissible Diseases, 1–18 (2017).
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B. & Lenton, A. P. Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104, 15011–15016 (2007).
Trivers, R. L. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). London: Heinemann (1972).
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G. & Buss, D. M. Toward an integrative understanding of evoked and transmitted culture: the importance of specialized psychological design. Psychol Inq. 17, 138–151 (2006).
Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A. The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci. 23, 675–687 (2000).
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C. & DeBruine, L. M. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 366, 1638–1659 (2011).
Pisanski, K. et al. Vocal indicators of body size in men and women: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav 95, 89–99 (2014).
Murray, D. R., Fessler, D. M. T., Kerry, N., White, C. & Marin, M. The kiss of death: Three tests of the relationship between disease threat and ritualized physical contact within traditional cultures. Evol Hum Behav 38, 63–70 (2017).
Thornhill, R. & Fincher, C. L. The Parasite-Stress Theory of Values and Sociality. Springer: London (2014).
Pollet, T. V., Tybur, J. M., Frankenhuis, W. E. & Rickard, I. J. What can cross-cultural correlations teach us about human nature? Hum Nat 25, 410–29 (2014).
Hruschka, D. J. & Hackman, J. When are cross-group differences a product of a human behavioral immune system? EBS 8, 265–273 (2014).
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33, 1–75 (2010).
Milfont, T. L. & Fischer, R. Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. Int J Psychol Res 3, 111–21 (2010).
Sorokowski, P. et al. Love influences reproductive success in humans. Front Psychol. 8, 1922 (2017).
Flinn, M. V., Geary, D. C. & Ward, C. V. Ecological dominance, social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelligence. Evol Hum Behav 26, 10–46 (2005).
Fiske, A. P. The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychol Rev 99, 689–723 (1992).
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L. M. & Little, A. C. The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 277, 2405–2410 (2010).
Murray, D. R. & Schaller, M. Historical prevalence of infectious disease within 230 geopolitical regions: A tool for investigating origins of culture. J Cross Cult Psychol. 41, 99–108 (2010).
Tybur, J. M. et al. Parasite stress and pathogen avoidance relate to distinct dimensions of political ideology across 30 nations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113, 12408–12413 (2016).
Brooks, R. et al. National income inequality predicts women's preferences for masculinized faces better than health does. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 278, 810–812 (2011).
Daly, M., Wilson, M. & Vasdev, S. Income inequality and homicide rates in Canada and the United States. Can J Criminol Crim Justice. 43, 219–236 (2001).
Field, A. F. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage: London (2018).
We are grateful to many colleagues for supporting the research, including Clare Cunningham (internal funding for Nigerian sample), Gislene Rocha, Carlota Batres, Elena Rusconi, Corinne Jola, Alexandre Schwob (help with translations), Graeme Bletcher, Jitka Fialova, Colin McLean and Tomasso Querci. We are also grateful to the anonymous Reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Division of Psychology, School of Social and Health Sciences, Abertay University, Dundee, DD11HG, Scotland
Christopher D. Watkins, Max Korbmacher & Samuela Bolgan
Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad El Bosque, Bogota, Colombia
Juan David Leongómez
Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, Toulouse, France
Jeanne Bovet
Department of Human Biology, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland
Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella
USACH, Escuela de Psicologia, University of Santiago, Santiago, Chile
Ana Maria Fernandez
School of Health and Life Sciences, Federation University Australia, Churchill, Victoria, Australia
Danielle Wagstaff
Christopher D. Watkins
Max Korbmacher
Samuela Bolgan
C.D.W. designed and conducted the research and wrote the manuscript. J.D.L. and J.B. commented on the pre-registration report and aspects of the analytical strategy, and ran analyses on r. All authors collected data and provided critical feedback on the manuscript (J.B., A.Z., M.K. also provided translations of the study).
Correspondence to Christopher D. Watkins.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Markdown file for analyses
Dataset 1
Watkins, C.D., Leongómez, J.D., Bovet, J. et al. National income inequality predicts cultural variation in mouth to mouth kissing. Sci Rep 9, 6698 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43267-7
Gini's mean difference and the long-term prognostic value of nodal quanta classes after pre-operative chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer
Vincent Vinh-Hung
Hilde Van Parijs
Mark De Ridder
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
About Scientific Reports
Journal highlights
Scientific Reports (Sci Rep) ISSN 2045-2322 (online)


text:
Movie Criticism From Desk Jockeys
By Terry Golway • 09/22/03 12:00am
A lot of people have a lot to say about Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion , and this is a little surprising, as the movie has not yet been released. Cultural critics have condemned the film, based on Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, after reading news reports summarizing the details of a stolen and out-of-date script. Several commentators have decided that this as-yet-unseen movie will stir anti-Semitic riots in Europe and perhaps elsewhere, which is odd because when conservatives blame Hollywood for celebrating and therefore encouraging antisocial behavior, they are routinely sneered at by their know-betters in the media.
A couple of years ago, a renowned art critic by the name of Rudolph Giuliani condemned as anti-Catholic an exhibit scheduled for the Brooklyn Museum. You'll recall that the piece in question was a representation of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung and pictures some might regard as obscene. Oh, there were great howls of protest from the arts
and cultural communities. Why, they said, the Mayor hadn't even seen the piece! How dare he pass judgment on art he hadn't seen! The forces of light were in high dudgeon over this fascistic assault by the small-minded, parochial Mayor of New York.
More than a year after the controversy, somebody handed me an old piece from The Nation in which a writer whose name escapes me condemned the Mayor and anybody who either agreed with him or simply seemed a little, you know, put off by the elephant-dung thing (like yours truly). These awful philistines, the writer said, had no right to utter an opinion as they had not seen the piece. The writer, like so many of her ilk, prefers to wallow in her own prejudices rather than make inquires that might lead to a facsimile of truth. A phone call or two might have challenged the assumption.
So, for condemning a piece of art he hadn't seen, Rudolph Giuliani was accused of myriad crimes against art by those who see themselves as the stalwart advocates of free expression and unfettered artistry.
It would be wonderful, and heartening, to see these brave souls rallying to Mr. Gibson's side, condemning his critics with righteous anger and smug self-assurance. It would be thrilling to hear their voices raised on cable television, to read their thoughts on op-ed pages throughout the nation. It would be wonderful to see them dismiss Mr. Gibson's critics with the same contempt they displayed for Mr. Giuliani. Of course, this would involve defending, rather than attacking, a very conservative Catholic with some rather curious opinions. As this course of action would be decidedly unfashionable, Mr. Gibson is left to defend himself against critics who haven't seen his movie.
I haven't seen the movie either, so if you're looking for a condemnation or a defense of Mr. Gibson, look elsewhere. I'm astonished, however, at the intellectual dishonesty of his critics and the utter lack of support he has received from those who were so offended by Mr. Giuliani's venture into art criticism. Assemblyman Dov Hikind of Brooklyn said that the movie shouldn't be distributed and that it would be "unhealthy for Jews all over the world." This criticism was based on secondhand accounts of what the unseen film may or may not contain about the role Jews may or may not have played in the crucifixion of another Jew, i.e., Christ.
"The Gospels show that Jesus was killed by a combination of social and political forces," said former Council member Charles Millard, who holds a degree in theology from Holy Cross College. "The Gospels interpret the movement of those forces. They are not about the vilification of a people. If they were, then the Gospels would be anti-Italian." The Romans, after all, killed Christ, as Catholics are reminded every Sunday when they invoke the name of Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea, as Christ's executioner.
As for the contention that the film will inflame anti-Semitic mobs around the world, well, it's refreshing to see Hollywood's allies and apologists in the media arguing that moviemakers should be held accountable for their products. When people like William Bennett, George Will and Bob Dole contended that the entertainment industry bore some responsibility for the images and messages contained in movies and music, they were roundly condemned as censorious prudes who simply didn't understand that when a male rapper refers to women as "hos" and worse, he simply is reflecting inner-city realities and by no means should be held responsible for, say, young men who treat young women like whores.
Art surely can provoke as well as inspire, and so perhaps the critics are right to worry that ignorant Christians will use The Passion as a pretext for anti-Semitic outrages.
But surely this new accountability shouldn't apply only to Mel Gibson.
Filed Under: Wise Guys, Hollywood, Mel Gibson, Jesus Christ
SEE ALSO: Why Guy Fieri Deserves His Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Assignment: Platform Business Challenges
ClassPass: Uncertain future for boutique fitness platform
By lumos
Modified Mar 22, 2020
GrubHub: Slimy or Satisfying?
ClassPass's two-sided platform connecting fitness studios and gym-goers operates in an environment of unfavorable network properties
ClassPass is a two-sided platform that connects fitness studios and wellness providers with consumers. Users pay a monthly subscription fee to ClassPass in exchange for an allotment of virtual "credits" that they can spend on fitness classes and wellness experiences offered by a variety of in-network studios across major metropolitan areas. Memberships are offered in tiers that scale according to the number of credits included and varies depending on the home city of the member (e.g., in NYC, there are 4 tiers, the lowest at $19 per month for 10 credits and the highest at $159 per month for 100 credits, with limits on the number of times a member can go to the same studio per month). Launched in 2013, ClassPass operates in 28 countries with 30,000 studio partners, ranging from hourly gym reservations, to boutique fitness classes, to meditation and wellness treatments. In January 2020, ClassPass reached unicorn status with a $285 million Series E funding round led by L Catterton, Apax Digital, and Temasek.[1]
Membership tiers for ClassPass (NYC)
The ClassPass model
ClassPass creates value for consumers by allowing them to access a diverse variety of fitness and wellness classes each month without committing to membership at a particular studio, and at lower prices than studios' standard rates. Classes are dynamically priced according to demand and the studio's pricing, taking into account factors like popularity of the class, studio, instructor, and time slot. ClassPass also offers a service for on-demand video workouts called "ClassPass Go" that is free for ClassPass members or $7.99/month for non-members.
ClassPass creates value for fitness and wellness studios by serving as a marketing engine to attract new consumers through its online directory and booking portal. The platform integrates directly with studios' existing booking API's ((MindBody, zingFit, Front Desk). ClassPass pays studios a percentage discount to their standard rates on a per-visit basis, claiming to fill in spaces in classes that would otherwise be empty. This percentage discount is negotiated on a studio-by-studio basis (around 50% or less), and can vary through dynamic pricing that matches supply and demand. In particular, ClassPass offers two yield management "SmartTools", SmartRate and SmartSpot, which analyze a studio's booking patterns and determines the number of spots and pricing rates to make available to members. According to one news report, "studios on ClassPass typically experience a 30 percent increase in reservation volume and a 15-20 percent increase in revenue when they move to SmartTools."[2] Most studios are highly subscribed during certain times of the day and undersubscribed at other times yet must contend with high fixed costs such as rent and equipment; ClassPass serves a studio's need for customer acquisition. However, studios have also voiced their discontent that while partnering with ClassPass may deliver a short-term boost, the platform takes away the studios' control over how much members pay, does not offer transparency, eats into the client base paying full rates, hurts customer experience, and ultimately degrades financial viability.[3]
ClassPass captures value through the spread between the discounted price charged to consumers through the monthly membership and the even more discounted per-visit payments to studios, as well as on cancellation fees and consumers' low subscription usage.
Unfavorable network properties point to improbable long-term sustainability
Disintermediation is a significant risk for ClassPass, as the most popular studios (e.g., SoulCycle) do not need ClassPass and actually compete for customers, and super-users who are frustrated with the 3-visit monthly maximum per studio will opt for a direct membership with the studio instead of purchasing through ClassPass. ClassPass has mitigated this somewhat with the dynamic credit-pricing model, although it now results at times in classes that cost more on ClassPass than through the studio directly. Nonetheless, supplier bargaining power causes disintermediation to remain a real risk.
Cross-side network effects are relatively strong, as more studios attracts more users and vice versa. (However, this fails once users find studios they like and exit ClassPass to engage directly with the studio.) Same-side network effects on the user side are encouraged by ClassPass's feature to allow booking classes with friends, but are minimal overall. On the studio side, same-side network effects are also limited.
Fitness and gym-going are localized activities, and ClassPass is no exception in that it is fragmented into local clusters, which makes it more vulnerable to new entrants and competitors. Multi-homing is uncommon as there are few competitors (varies geographically) and ClassPass has done little in terms of networking bridging and building a self-reinforcing ecosystem.
In light of the above, the basic properties of the network are relatively unfavorable and businesses like ClassPass are not naturally scalable and sustainable. Since its pivot to its credit-buying model in 2018, it seems ClassPass has managed to stay afloat through a laser-focused pricing strategy, and sheer lack of supplier and buyer power. ClassPass's strategy recently has been focused on International growth, both organically (e.g., entry in December 2019 into Brazil[4], to contend with incumbent unicorn Gympass) and through acquisition (acquisition of MuvPass in Chile and Clickypass in Argentina[5]). This is an expensive and unsustainable path for growth. Additionally, the company is looking to entrench its customer base by growing its corporate business, in which companies subsidize the memberships of employees who are ClassPass members (companies like Google, Facebook, Southwest are partners).[4] This will help to address the risk of disintermediation by consumers and ultimately consumers, and may have a chance at success. Further, while the rising tide of consumer wellness and health consciousness may lift the industry overall, competitors like Peloton and other forms of live-streaming and AR / VR may likely disrupt the industry in the future.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/08/classpass-finally-a-unicorn-raises-285-million-in-new-funding/
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/yolarobert1/2019/12/18/classpass-smarttools-are-driving-millions-in-revenue-to-fitness-studios/#6b14fcbb14ed
[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akwnng/classpass-said-angry-studios-are-a-vocal-minorityhere-are-35-more-of-them
[4] https://labs.ebanx.com/en/articles/business/classpass-arrives-in-brazil/
[5] https://www.contxto.com/en/chile/classpass-acquires-clickypass-muvpass/
OpenTable: Restaurant Reservations Made-Easy
Student comments on ClassPass: Uncertain future for boutique fitness platform
March 23, 2020 Genevieve Chow says:
The SmartTools that ClassPass offers is an interesting benefit I hadn't necessarily considered. I do wonder with the increased competition of boutique studios out there (it seems like a new studio line is the new fad every other day), how that will affect ClassPass's business. I would guess that as competition increases on the supplier side, ClassPass's ability to span across the many different offerings will only become more and more valuable to customers and may actually increase demand for the platform and drive less disintermediation
March 23, 2020 Tommy Tom says:
In addition to the challenge you mentioned about the dynamic credit-pricing strategy making classpass classes more expensive than going directly through the studio, this strategy causes two additional issues for the platform.
1) when class prices drop substantially, the perceived future value of that class is lower making a user less willing to pay the standard rate for the class
2) they are also testing different pricing strategies depending on the booking site, app or the web, making use of the platform for users who know of these differences clunkier and more time consuming
While I appreciate the general premise of ClassPass, they have implemented a number of strategies that reduce the value of their platform and I agree the long term success remains unclear. 🙁
March 24, 2020 Kendra T says:
Thanks for sharing – interesting to hear how ClassPass works with studios! It's interesting that they have incorporated some value-add services such as SmartTools in an effort to make the platform more valuable for studios to prevent disintermediation. It's also interesting to see ClassPass moving into network bridging as they have more wellness classes included, such as massages and spa treatments. It looks like ClassPass has attempted to improve their platform, which was previously only fitness classes, by bridging their fitness network with a wellness network.
March 24, 2020 Colm Farrell says:
Interesting post – thanks for sharing!
I'm a long-time ClassPass customer – and the disintermediation risk you mentioned resonates with me. I frequently buy classes directly from a studio as either: 1) I've hit the monthly limit via ClassPass or 2) the times / instructors available on ClassPass are inferior. As a result, I'm not overly optimistic about ClassPass' future prospects either.
However, I actually didn't even know about the on-demand 'ClassPass Go' service – I just checked my app and found it there! This could be a way that ClassPass improves its defensibility. If they can make this a social experience – such that multiple friends can log-on and do an on-demand class together via video call, then this may enhance the same-side network effects. The on-demand classes have a low marginal cost – so leveraging them to create network effects could be a route forward for ClassPass.


If you've been putting off your home remodeling or commercial renovation project due to concerns about cost, timing, or quality, then now's the time to get it back on your radar. Hern Interiors is a dependable commercial and residential renovation company in Spokane, and our goal is exceed customer expectations on every job.
For more information on our remodeling services or to set up an appointment with a company representative, call Hern Interiors today.


Need new kitchen appliances or a new washer and dryer? Whether you're moving into your first house or want to update your style, Rent-A-Center makes customizing your space easier without the high price tag. In Conyers, our RAC locations carry Amana appliances that are stylish, energy efficient, and durable. Amana appliances also come in a variety of sizes, colors, and different designs. From contemporary fridges with pull-out freezers, to high-efficiency top loading washers, your Conyers Rent-A-Center store offers Amana appliances that keep your home looking more up-to-date. For flexible storage capabilities and energy efficient features, consider Amana appliances when shopping for your kitchen or laundry room.
Before you get started, here are some tips for renting new appliances. Measure your current appliance to make sure you pick out the right size for the newer model. Take note of the height, width, and length. After that, think about the appliance features that are most important to your family. Do you need an extra large refrigerator to store your son or daughter's sports snacks? And when it comes to the laundry room, do you prefer top-loading washers for their energy efficiency? From fridges to clothes dryers, you'll find helpful rental options at your local Rent-A-Center store.
What sets Rent-A-Center apart? Here, no credit is needed in order to shop and rent! RAC customer service associates can't wait to help you locate the best appliances for you and set up your flexible payment plan. Here at Rent-A-Center, we do our best to work with almost any budget, even a small one. Explore your options at a RAC location in Conyers and get started on the rent-to-own process now.


Designed and 3D printed a prototype cap for sunscreen. 2015.
An arduino-based gas relay timer system for air delivery. 2016.
An ipad-based bespoke song-selection app, triggering 240v relays for the fans of the glitterbox. 2016.
Renders / Visualisation for the UNSW Art and Design EPICentre 360 3D Immersive research facility. (preview renders shown for illustration) 2015.
Product design, coding, and 3D rendering for Tully Arnot's lonely sculpture work.
The following is the catalogue essay I wrote for Richard Stride's brilliant Mould exhibition.
Developed an online streaming fMRI brainscan visualisation tool for the Pearson Lab, UNSW.
Tactical Space Lab has consulted on a number of external projects involving object or system prototyping, interactive installation, product design, programming, rendering and visualization, bespoke electronics, and VR, AR, and 360 experiences. For inquiries please see our contact details.


text:
Midway Marina to Grand Harbor Marina
25 September 2016 - It was still dark outside when I came back from the marina restrooms but could see the navigation lights of a huge tug rumbling past the marina. I came on board and told the Admiral that we may as well not get in a hurry to leave because a tug just went by headed North. No sooner than the words left my mouth a knock came on Viridian's port hatch. I opened the door and there stood the pirate Captain with a curved knife clenched between his teeth. (No, not really!) He said he had just hung up his cell phone after talking to the Lock Master at John Rankin, our first of three L&D for the day. He said that there were two tugs down river at Wilkins in line to lock up and head North. One was already in the lock and was about to start our way. He said that if we could leave immediately we could slip in between the tugs and work our way North to Pickwick. He also said that he had to leave now whether we were ready or not. Fortunately, I had gotten an early start this morning and was just waiting for first light to depart. All we had to do was fire up our engine, turn on nav lights, untie, and head out to the river. The pirate Captain asked me to first untie his lines and toss them on board to his mate. Once he was heading out Viridian and crew followed. It was still dark but we could just make out the hulk of the big tug pushing a stack of barges coming our way. Both Viridian and the pirate ship slipped into the channel about a half mile in front of the tug. We knew that we would have to wait for the tug named "Creek" to lock through but should be able to pass her later. The plan for the day was to get through the three locks and once on the Pickwick we were on our own. The pirate ship was faster than Viridian and would take advantage of that speed once through Whitten.
Rankin L&D was only 5 miles North of Midway Marina but we were behind Creek and would not attempt to pass her until after locking through our last L&D, Whitten. So, we would be locking with the pirate ship all the way. Montgomery L&D was 8 miles upriver from Rankin and Whitten L&D was only 5 miles upriver from Montgomery.
We arrived at Whitten L&D around Noon and Creek was locking up. The Whitten Lock Master told us to stand by for him to clear Creek and we could slip in and go up as soon as he could cycle back down. Fortunately, we were stopped in the River below Whitten L&D where the Natchez Parkway crosses the Tenn-Tom. This bridge provided much appreciated shade from the Noon day sun. Both vessels, Viridian and the pirate ship, had to compensate for wind and current to stay in the shade, but that was not too difficult. We held our position for about an hour until the gigantic doors on Whitten slowly opened revealing its massive size. Whitten was by far the tallest L&D we had entered so far. It has a vertical lift of 84 feet and was intimidating at first sight. But like all the other L&D, once inside it all looks pretty much the same. This was our last L&D on the Tenn-Tom and possibly the last we would see of the pirate ship. Once we were let loose on the top side of the L&D, the pirate ship went to full cruise speed, about 9 mph, and we watched her slowly pull away from our 7.5 mph pace while being swarmed by a number of pontoon rental boats used by locals and tourists, until she was just a dot on the backwaters of Whitten Dam.
It was kind of a relief to be headed for the familiar waters the Tennessee River. Grand Harbor Marina was just beyond the Divide Cut Canal that connects the Tennessee River to the Tombigbee River. We traveled about 8 miles almost due North until we came into the Cut Canal. This is probably on of the best examples of one of the greatest achievements for Civil Engineering on the planet. The "ditch" looked as if it were a work of art. Both banks were manicured down to the smallest detail and the water depth was 12 feet from bank to bank. No sooner than we got a half mile into the cut I caught a glimpse of a tug going behind a bend ahead in the distance. That would be Creek, the tug that churned by us in the early morning hours at Midway. The pirate boat probably was able to overtake Creek out on the open backwater behind the dam. We would have to overtake her in the "ditch" or hang back and stay our of her exhaust and wake and bake in the hot air all day. The "ditch" is fairly straight with plenty of long stretches along the way to pass. We had 22 miles to go to get into the open waters of Pickwick Lake so we just kept the throttle at cruise speed and caught Creek soon enough. I radioed the Captain of Creek and requested advice on when and how to pass. The Captain recommended we wait until we cleared a slight right bend and pass on the "one" on the straightaway. There was plenty of room to do this and the "ditch" was deep up to the banks. Once Viridian got even with the stern of Creek, I radioed the Captain and reported my position. It took a while but we cleared Creek's bow and slowly started to seek the center of the "ditch" as the tug slowly faded away behind us. Now we were really home free! The "ditch" finally opened up into Yellow Creek on the Pickwick backwaters. Viridian was cruising in one of the most beautiful bodies of water we had seen so far. We took a turn to port and headed Northwest past Goat Island and snaked our way in the channel past Lee Spry Marine and Boatyard. The channel necked down as we passed Yellow Creek Island to port. Once past the Island we swung ENE and we could see our destination ahead on the left bank, Grand Harbor Marina!
We had contacted the marina earlier that morning and made reservations and were given a description of where they wanted us to dock. Google Maps view of the marina helped orient us with their description of the slip layout. When we contacted the marina on CH-12 announcing our arrival, we got someone different who was not aware of our previous discussions. He told us to pull along side the transient dock in front of, you guessed it, The Pirate Ship! We attempted to do just that but the wind was too strong and we could not approach the dock with confidence and there was no one there to catch us. The Dock Master told us to come around into the protected area of the marina and pull alongside the dock in front of the marina store. This worked much better since it was on the windward side of the dock and there was a Looper boat there with someone to catch our lines.
Viridian was secure in a location just a few steps away from the Marina Store and next to a Looper couple who just arrived from the Great Lakes on their way South to complete the Loop. We walked over to the Pirate Ship to talk with the Captain and crew. We wanted to thank them for all the help and guidance they shared with us over the last two days. This is where our paths would part, we were going East on the Tennessee and they were going North to the Great Lakes. This was the last we would see of the Pirate Ship and its Crew. We bid them farewell since they were leaving at first light and we were planning on staying an extra day and explore the Shiloh Civil War Battlefield just down the road a piece. We were a better Captain and crew after sailing with the pirates. We were fortunate to have met up with them when we did and slide through the 7 locks with their help. By the way, did I ever mention the name of the Pirate Ship? You should be able to guess it by now. Her name was "GOOD FORTUNE"!
John Rankin Lock – Mile 398.4
Lift of 30 feet
Located in Itawamba County, MS
1,992-acre lake
Cost $43.9 million
2 recreation areas scheduled
Rankin Lock is named in honor of former Congressman John Rankin of Mississippi, one of the waterway's earliest champions in the Congress
G.V. "Sonny" Montgomery Lock – Mile 406.7
851-acre lake
1 recreation area scheduled
Montgomery Lock is located in northern Itawamba County, Mississippi and named after a former U.S. Representative from Mississippi.
Whitten Lock and Dam – Mile 411.9
4th highest single lift lock in the nation
Located in Tishomingo County near Belmont, MS
Cost $75 million
12 recreation areas scheduled
Whitten Lock and Dam is the northernmost lock on the Tenn-Tom. The Lock raises and lowers barges and pleasure boats 84 feet, the difference in the elevation levels of the water above and below the dam. This is the fourth highest single lift lock in the nation. The dam forms a 6,600-acre lake that joins the so-called Divide Cut canal, and ultimately connects the Tenn-Tom with the Tennessee River. The structure, named in honor of Jamie Whitten, a former Congressman from Mississippi who served over 50 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, cost $75 million.
Midway to Grand Harbor Route
Location of Grand Harbor Marina is at the Juncture of AL, MS, and TN North of Whitten L&D
Breakfast on board VIRIDIAN
View Looking astern after sliding between tugs after leaving Midway
Waiting under the Natchez Trace Bridge with GOOD FORTUNE
Under Natchez Trace Bridge Below Whitten L&D
Approaching Whitten L&D
Inside Whitten L&D. Photo Taken by Pirate Ship Photographer
Pirate Ship Leaving Whitten L&D
VIRIDIAN Resting at Grand Harbor Marina
Met Fellow Loopers on Last Quarter of Their Journey
A Sun Set View from the Pirate Ship "GOOD FORTUNE"
Shiloh Battlefield Cemetery
Shiloh Cemetery
Labels: Destination - Grand Harbor Marina, TN
Joe Wheeler to Ditto Landing (Home Port)
Grand Harbor Marina to Joe Wheeler State Park
Columbus Marina to Midway Marina
Upper Cook Cut-Off to Columbus Marina
Demopolis to Upper Cooks Cut-Off Anchorage
Bobby's Fish Camp to Demopolis AL
Three Rivers Lake to Bobby's Fish Camp
Dog River Marina to Three Rivers Lake


text:
« Ypsilanti City Council passes resolution opposing Snyder agenda, calling for statewide tax reform
Happy Mothers Day »
Major high-speed rail announcement expected on Monday
By Mark | May 7, 2011
According to the Detroit News, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will be in Detroit on Monday afternoon, making a "major announcement" concerning high-speed rail. As the article notes, "Last month, Michigan applied for more than $560 million in funding — including joining three other states as part of a joint request. Michigan officials expect the state will receive significant funding for some grants sought." Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, as well as Governor Rick Snyder, are expected to join LaHood at the Detroit Amtrak terminal for the announcement.
Here, concerning Michigan's outstanding rail-related funding requests, is a clip from the article:
…Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's office said the state sought more than $200 million for four individual projects, including:
$196.5 million for route improvements over the next three years between Kalamazoo and Dearborn to allow trains to travel up to 110 mph.
Tim Hoeffner, MDOT administrator of high-speed rail and innovative projects advancement, said last month the improvement could be completed by the end of 2013 and shave 50 minutes off the Detroit-Chicago trip, down to about four hours.
$5.2 million for maintenance along the same route that could begin this summer.
$2.9 million for the West Detroit Connection Track Universal Crossover and a rail bridge. Amtrak trains make a slow left-hand turn from a Conrail track to a Canadian National track, and improvements could cut 10 minutes off the trip, Hoeffner said.
$3.5 million to build a station in Ann Arbor to be used for trains and buses — by Amtrak, the University of Michigan and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.
The state is also one of four states jointly seeking $366.7 million to buy 31 locomotives and 100 coaches for use in Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri. The award would replace train equipment on all three Michigan Amtrak lines — the Blue Water, Pere Marquette and Wolverine…
Now, let's just hope that our Governor doesn't fuck it up, like Rick Scott did in Florida.
[note: Perhaps if we ask real nice, our local mass transit expert, Richard Murphy, would be kind enough to sum things up for us on Monday, and let us know how Ypsi stands to benefit.]
This entry was posted in Michigan, Rail and tagged Amtrak, Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Detroit - Chicago rail, Federal Rail Administration, high-speed rail, mass transit, MDOT, Ray LaHood, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, State Rail Plan, Tim Hoeffner, trains. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
Posted May 7, 2011 at 11:49 am | Permalink
Waiting patiently for Murph's assessment of what this might mean for the Ypsi station and/or service.
Who's gonna pay the estimated $10 million a year operating expenses not covered by fares?
Boy O Boy
Posted May 7, 2011 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
EOS the liberal "answer" is "people who drive cars".
"the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." Voltaire
I LOVE trains. The Railroad Industry is highly profitable moving FREIGHT. If it was profitable to move people Union Pacific would be doing it but because it is a money drain count on liberal "government" to decide its a good idea!!!
EOS and BOB, while you pretend to be free marketeers, are you willing to call for cuts to all government transportation subsidies, all public roads included? Or do you just like cars and have no problem with people who don't drive paying for your lifestyle?
Beyond the $10M in operating costs, what resources will be used that can not then be used for other ventures? Are all the resources being used in excess supply, or will businesses close, or not be started, that are on the margin with regards to these resources?
Federal funding has already been earmarked for both the Ypsi and the Westland commuter rail platforms, but detailed design and construction are on hold while SEMCOG/MDOT work with the FTA on an environmental assessment for the entire Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail project area.
In late 2009, SEMCOG hired Quandel Consulatants, LLC to develop conceptual plans and estimate costs of a platform that would meet the basic requirements set out by Amtrak, the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) and others related to height, clearance, handicap accessibility, lighting, etc. for the proposed stop in Depot Town. The consultants envisioned two phases, Phase I would meet requirements and stay within the $500,000 available to build the Ypsilanti commuter rail platform. Phase II was their, wouldn't it be nice, list of improvements.
The conceptual plans and proposed budget were presented to the Planning Commission on May 19, 2010. Check out the packet to see drawings. No platform design has been approved locally or by any other regulatory agency. http://cityofypsilanti.com/boards/bd_planning/agendas/2010/5-19-2010_Packet
Neither the High Speed Rail funds granted to Michigan in 2010 (still without state matching funds), nor a new award would provide additional funds for the Ypsilanti platform, although some of those funds could go to rail purchase and/or improvements that would benefit the commuter rail line itself.
Carmine Palombo spoke to the Ypsi City Council last week talking about the commuter rail project as a whole. Here's the related article: http://annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti/obstacles-funding-questions-slow-ann-arbor-to-detroit-rail-projects-roll/
Posted May 7, 2011 at 11:36 pm | Permalink
mSS false dicothomy. Answers. Yes. No. Please tell me who you "think" is "subsidizing" cars. People who ride trains and busses?
wobblie
Boy-o-Boy, it is not that UP can't make money running passenger trains—it is the current infrastructure won't let them both make money operating low-speed freight trains and high speed passenger trains. As pointed out , you need different tracks for each function to be profitable.
You know infrastructure like all those interstates we build, you know infrastructure like all those airports we build and subsidize, you know infrastructure like the port facilities, and pipeline right a ways we allow–you know taking peoples peoples property and allowing a utility to put up a power line on my property. All those evils of American socialism that makes us great.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/blogs/fred-frailey/archive/2010/10/01/up-s-lays-down-guidelines-for-new-passenger-services.aspx
mSS,
Trains will in no way eliminate the need to subsidize roads, merely add an additional burden. Billions of dollars for infrastructure, 10 million a year for operating costs, to benefit 100-200 commuters at best??? Decisions such as these are why EFM's are being proposed.
It is more than a little depressing to talk about 110 miles an hour as high speed-When in France and China hi-speed is closer to 400 miles an hour. The Panama Limited and the City of New Orleans regularly traveled at 90-110 miles an hour50 years ago–the Wolverine Limited used to travel at that speed. We have allowed our rail infrastructure to deteriorate to the point where we have to "upgrade" to get to our rail beds and tracks back to a 1960 standard. Oh so sad
Murph.
Mark, your trolls are getting tiresome. These points have been rehashed time and time again, both here and on the AA.com articles, and I'm not going to bother re-posting the links. Just as a reminder:
* Roads are subsidized by everyone who owns property, everyone who has a job, everyone that buys things. Only 51% of road funding is paid for by the gas tax or tolls.
* This subsidization of roads happens at every level – the federal Highway Trust Fund has received $30B in subsidies from the nation's general fund just since 2008, while, here in Ypsilanti, we pay about 3 mills in property tax for road projects.
* Not everybody drives – over a third of Americans don't drive, due to age, ability, or income. These people still need to get to work, to school, to the doctor. Providing non-car options allows these people to participate in life and the economy.
* Providing a robust, multi-option transportation system allows those of us who can drive to have a choice – I'd rather spend $6 on a commuter rail fare to downtown Detroit (still one of the area's major job centers) than the $8 in gas alone that the same trip would cost me right now. (Or the $30 in total driving costs, as figured at IRS rates.) Having multiple options protects working people from gas price shocks and helps them save money to spent on things like housing or food or education or entertainment – things that have a much higher return to the local economy than buying gasoline.
* Transit and rail have returns in cost-of-time: time spent driving is wasted on, well, driving. Time spent on a bus or train can be spent being productive. (This is why prominent right-wingers, like American Conservative magazine, support rail projects.)
So, since we're all required to repeat our talking points every time the subject comes up, consider it done.
Thanks, Murph. Believe me, I know how frustrating it is to have to keep reminding people of facts… And do consider sending something my way on Monday, once the announcements have been made. I know that people in the audience would appreciate it.
And thanks, Teresa, for the background. It's appreciated.
Mark – to your question of what this might mean for Ypsilanti: we can expect this means at least some of Michigan's request for Florida's rejected HSR money is going to be fulfilled – Ray LaHood would not be coming to Detroit to make his announcement if he weren't investing in Michigan.
Ypsilanti will not itself have a stop on a "high-speed rail" line – it's too close between Dearborn and Ann Arbor, both larger stops. Ask an ambulance driver: the first key to going fast is not having to stop very often. However, there will be two ways that this (the HSR funding already allocated Michigan and the current application we're awaiting announcement of) benefits Ypsilantians.
Primarily, the track control and track upgrade issues that need to be addressed for the A2-Detroit commuter rail will mostly be taken care of by the HSR projects – basically a "buy one, get one free" situation. Second, just because the "high speed" service won't stop in Ypsi doesn't mean we here in town won't be able to use it. We'll be able to hop the commuter in Depot Town, have a 10 minute ride to A2's train station, and switch trains to Chicago.
It'll be some years yet before either the A2-Detroit commuter rail is running or the Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac line finishes all the funded and applied-to-be-funded upgrades, but we'll see incremental improvements over time. (And, as the Realtors and commercial brokers in town constantly remind me, one of those improvements will be to property values and development interest.)
Thanks, Murph. Did I manage to avoid being one of the trolls? Of course, the true free market solution is to end all gov't intervention, at all levels, in transportation. Anything less is socialism, which is fine for you socialists, but not for liars like BOB and EOS. On that note, Murph, I would highly recommend that you look into Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways," available online at the above address.
It will only cost $200 million dollars for "high speed rail" between Detroit and Chicago that will reduce the 5 hour 45 minute train ride by 30 minutes. This is in addition to $336 million dollars to buy rail cars, $150 million already awarded for the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo, and another $2.8 million for engineering and environmental studies for a train station in Ann Arbor. We'll still need money to build the station and $10 million a year in operation costs.
For a trip that takes 4 hours by car.
wetdolphinmissile
Yeah and how much have we invested in roads year in and out…that trucks just destroy in a season. We give all kinds of tax breaks for oil. It is time to re-invest in rail, and too bad we let it deteriorate to the extent we have. A car can make the trip in 4 hours, and how many cars make the trip…rail is more efficient.
Murph
As an update – Secretary LaHood presented a Big Check to Governor Snyder yesterday at the Detroit Amtrak station, and the Governor made a strong statement in support of passenger rail travel. He said the funding would support "safer, faster, better" travel options for Michigan residents, and would drive economic development not only through the actual construction work, but by supporting development near the rail line – he referenced his own corporate experience to say that passenger rail is an important amenity for businesses' locational decisions. (I know many here, including me, have some concerns about the Governor's actions towards other amenities, but let's not go too far into those.)
The majority of the funding announced in Detroit was for track and signal improvements on the Kalamazoo-Dearborn segment of the Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac corridor – this work alone is estimated to increase average speeds on the segment by 20-some miles per hour, cutting about 30 minutes off of current travel time, as well as reducing delays by an average of 12 minutes per trip.
However, that statement radically underestimates the benefits: those time savings are measured against *current* speeds, but the alternative to this funding is not staying at current speeds – it's slowing down, substantially. Norfolk-Southern only runs about 8 trains per day on this corridor (compared to Amtrak's 6), and nothing that's time-critical. They've filed to reduce track speeds on large portions of this route to 25 mph, and on the rest to 60 mph. So this funding lets us improve the route and increase speeds rather than letting it continue to degrade to complete un-usability.
This funding is 100% Federal, no state matching funds required, and construction work will likely begin sometime next year, going into 2013-14.
Meanwhile, $268m was allocated to the Midwest applicant coalition of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Missouri to purchase new locomotives and rolling stock for those routes that would both address current issues with the equipment (A lot of the stock in use now are 40+ years old), as well as providing trains capable of running at higher future track speeds.
All of the high-speed rail funding includes Buy American requirements – you may recall that Spanish manufacturer Talgo was in the process of building a new manufacturing plant in Milwaukee until Governor Walker declined high-speed rail funds; I've not heard any announcement of where they'll land instead.
Elsewhere in high-speed rail, work is underway on the south side of Chicago on the "Englewood Flyover" project, to construct a new bridge that would take one rail over another, rather than having them cross each other at ground level. This project will eliminate the single biggest source of delays on all of Michigan's Amtrak lines – 140 trains cross each others' paths here daily, including two freight carriers, Amtrak, and the Metra commuter line, and that number is growing, so intersection conflicts are frequent.
Michigan still has $161m in high-speed rail funding allocation sitting out there from previous funding rounds, which required a 20% State match (about $30m). I believe that some of yesterday's funding replaces some of that amount (as a re-application for the same work at a higher % of funding), but not all of it. I'm still trying to determine a clear answer about what is in that proposal that's not in the newly funded package, but I believe it includes a new switching track in Southwest Detroit, which would cut 10-15 minutes off the Dearborn-Detroit segment and be critical to establishing A2-Detroit commuter rail, as well as purchase of the track from Norfolk Southern.
Finally, as far as the cost question goes, a little comparison so that we can keep track of the relative costs involved:
* the $200m announced yesterday would cut travel time (speed increase plus delay decrease) by about 40 minutes on a route that has ridership growing at almost 20% annually.
* commuter rail on the A2-Brighton-Howell corridor is estimated at $50m., a new travel option for north-south commuters to skip traffic and turn their commute into productive time.
* and, just for fun, providing rail service from Ann Arbor to Traverse City (yes, Traverse City) via Lansing is estimated to cost about $250m in construction costs.
For that same total cost, $500m, we could expand US-23 from 14 to 96 by one lane. This would neither reduce travel time by any significant amount, nor provide a new travel option, nor provide any other substantial benefits. Nor could we expect either construction nor maintenance to be paid for by the gas tax.
There's a far-future project on the books to expand I-94 within the city of Detroit by a lane in each direction – 7 miles of work with an estimated cost of $3.2 Billion. So the three rail projects above would cost the same amount as one single mile of this highway project.
And yet some would like us to believe that rail is somehow "expensive".
Expensive? Extremely. Especially when you consider the small number of people who will ride on a few rail cars versus the millions who travel by car each day.
EOS you should travel.
Thanks, Murph. I appreciate your taking the time to put these posts together. And can't we all just ignore the trolls from now on? They contribute nothing of value and are just a distraction, meant to derail (pun intended) the constructive conversation going on.
One Trackback
By LaHood announces over $200 million for Michigan rail projects on May 10, 2011 at 9:31 pm
[…] few days ago we discussed the fact that Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was scheduled to visit Michigan and make a big […]