$8,000,000,000 for high speed trains

[birdy]

"Republicans regard the provision as a barely disguised earmark for a proposed magnetic-levitation rail line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, in California, championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). But Democrats said 11 proposed high-rail corridors throughout the country would all have to compete for the money. "Quote from Washington Post.

This a a phony non-story dreamed up by Republicans. There is not ONE WORD in the stimulus bill about any train going to or from Las Vegas. Further, it's the DOT that has authority to award the grants on a competitive basis. And, last time I checked, the Secretary of Transportation was a Republican.

Folks, this is how the echo chamber works: some pol invents a circumstance out of whole cloth, our ever-vigilant press reports it as gospel without even pretending to determine its truth, then it's repeated endlessly on talk-radio, then it becomes conventional wisdom, then it turns up on AU.

So, no, there is about a 0% of any money going to a Las Vegas train, no matter what the commentariat says.

As far as I can see, this story is 100% snide comments from Republicans reported as a fact, starting in all places at the Washington Post. Las Vegas to LA is a perfectly reasonable HSR project, however, although of course, not Maglev. Any large City pair less than 350 miles from the other is an excellent candidate for HSR service. TGV service will kill air transport at these distances every time. That includes several possible city pairs in the West.

FRA list seems a little odd to me too.

I believe I saw a report that the HSR has to be in excess of 150 mph, meaning TGV, not mere track straightening.

I hope they federalize the permitting and siting process and then expedite it through special legislation.

I'm wondering what kind of long term committment is with the projects. If its $8 bil per year for the indefinite future, that's 4 big projects over 5 years, with some money left for California.

If it were me, I'd invite the route proponents through their state DOTs to make dog and pony shows and fund the ones that had the most wide-spread support along the entire length of the project, assuming they were sensible city-pairs. I'd designate one project as "first alternate" and if the NIMBY pressure got too high in say, Austin or Vermont, I'd move the project to first alternate in a heart-beat. Say, Las Vegas to LA. Multi-state routes would be a tie-breaker. All things being equal, its better politically to have a line move through two or more states.

Isn't it funny how quickly the public mood changes from "This is outrageous pork!" to "Why are we being left out?"

 

[Mark]

California is likely to get a big chuck of it for their project. They passed Proposition 8 which approved the bond measure for the first 10 or so billion. Now the feds, if I'm not mistaking, are supposed to match 80/20 or something like that. They are the farthest ahead in this race so that's logically where I think the lion's share will go. The rest to studies and some upgrades, possibly in the mid-west but nothing earthshaking.

 

[AlanB]

And while there's a lot of thinking about HSR as intercity rail service for occasional trips, consider that for example ALB is 141 track miles from NYP. At 186 or 220 MPH as the top speed, if that were achieved for most of the length of the line, ALB to NYP would be about an hour. And any route that can be covered in an hour and is roughly competitive with driving or faster is likely a viable commuter route. Allentown to NYP might be a viable HSR commuter route. Springfield, MA and Hartford CT to NYP might be viable HSR commuter routes. Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT to Boston might be viable HSR commuter routes.

Never happen, ALB to NYP at those speeds. At least not without an entirely new alignment and completely bypassing Metro North tracks. Between the curves while following the river, and 70 MPH commuter service, you can't have trains running at 180 MPH, let alone 220 MPH. And frankly, if they could get ALB-NYP down to around two hours, it would be competative enough to corner most of the market. It would certainly take over the bulk of the air market, and probably most of the driving market, as I can barely get to ALB in two hours, and that's without traffic and with breaking the speed limit.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

California is likely to get a big chuck of it for their project. They passed Proposition 8 which approved the bond measure for the first 10 or so billion. Now the feds, if I'm not mistaking, are supposed to match 80/20 or something like that. They are the farthest ahead in this race so that's logically where I think the lion's share will go. The rest to studies and some upgrades, possibly in the mid-west but nothing earthshaking.

Mark, I think you mean prop 1A. Prop 8 was the change to the state constitution that eliminates rights of same-sex couples to marry.

 

[AlanB]

I also think the tracks in Chicago should be configured so that every intercity train approaching CHI from the south can continue to a stop at O'Hare, and some trains can continue from there to Milwaukee, Madison, or Minneapolis / St Paul.

First, there are no intercity trains that currently stop at O'Hare. Only METRA has a stop at O'Hare.

Second, you want to take every train that approaches Chicago from the south, run it north of Union Station to stop at O'Hare, and then back track south to CUS? :unsure: There goes your high speed right out the window with that maneuver. Not sure that we need any intercity trains stopping at O'Hare, but if we're going to do that, at least lets have the ones approaching CUS from the north make the stop, which would be the Empire Builder. That makes more sense than having trains approaching Chicago from the south go north, only to return south to CUS.

 

[Mark]

California is likely to get a big chuck of it for their project. They passed Proposition 8 which approved the bond measure for the first 10 or so billion. Now the feds, if I'm not mistaking, are supposed to match 80/20 or something like that. They are the farthest ahead in this race so that's logically where I think the lion's share will go. The rest to studies and some upgrades, possibly in the mid-west but nothing earthshaking.

Mark, I think you mean prop 1A. Prop 8 was the change to the state constitution that eliminates rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Sorry! Right 1A- I'm not a Californian but those two props were the big ones in the press!

 

[Steve4031]

I also think the tracks in Chicago should be configured so that every intercity train approaching CHI from the south can continue to a stop at O'Hare, and some trains can continue from there to Milwaukee, Madison, or Minneapolis / St Paul.

First, there are no intercity trains that currently stop at O'Hare. Only METRA has a stop at O'Hare.

Second, you want to take every train that approaches Chicago from the south, run it north of Union Station to stop at O'Hare, and then back track south to CUS? :unsure: There goes your high speed right out the window with that maneuver. Not sure that we need any intercity trains stopping at O'Hare, but if we're going to do that, at least lets have the ones approaching CUS from the north make the stop, which would be the Empire Builder. That makes more sense than having trains approaching Chicago from the south go north, only to return south to CUS.

I don't know that every train should go trhough Ohare, but I think Both Midway and Ohare should have a highspeed rail link to downtown Chicago. If you look at Paris, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam, these are appropriate models. The route to Milwauke should pass UNDER the terminals, not 4 miles east, and people should be able to walk from the station to the gate. For Midway, the route to St. Louis should pass UNDER the main terminal too. I am probably dreaming here, but this country has done such a half=ass job with transit that I think it is time to think big. A lower cost option be having the station for Ohare at its current place and extending the people mover to that station, like airtran at Newark. For Midway, the stop could be where the St. Louis line crosses Cicero avenue. Then you could have dedicated bus lanes on Cicero with the lights programmed to turn as the bus approaches. If busses ran everry 10 minutes, this would be a vialbe option.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Second, you want to take every train that approaches Chicago from the south, run it north of Union Station to stop at O'Hare, and then back track south to CUS? :unsure: There goes your high speed right out the window with that maneuver. Not sure that we need any intercity trains stopping at O'Hare, but if we're going to do that, at least lets have the ones approaching CUS from the north make the stop, which would be the Empire Builder. That makes more sense than having trains approaching Chicago from the south go north, only to return south to CUS.

The trains from the south should stop at CUS, then stop at O'Hare, and there should be a new Amtrak HSR yard a bit north of the O'Hare train station for the trains that don't continue to Milwaukee / Madison / Minneapolis/St. Paul. I don't have any interest in having the trains back up.

And the reason I'm not proposing to include Midway in this scheme is that for most routes, including Midway would involve a substantial detour. Perhaps CUS to St Louis and CUS to Quad Cities could go via Midway, though. (And I'm hoping that an investment in HSR will lead to less demand at the airports, though I have mixed feelings as to whether this should mean moving scheduled passenger service from Midway to O'Hare, or reducing the flights per hour at O'Hare so that the schedule is more manageable in poor weather.)

Yes, you need more through tracks at CUS to make this work. Yes, this probably means obliterating the present Metro Lounge. I imagine in the grand scheme of this project, bribing the second floor office building tenants to find a new home to make room for a new Metro Lounge isn't terribly expensive. A major investment in HSR might bring more passengers who would require a bigger Metro Lounge anyway.

The whole point of this excercise is to try to make airplane - HSR a more attractive option than airplane - airplane for some city pairs. I doubt the average American is going to find three hops of airplane - CUS-to-O'Hare-train - HSR more attractive than airplane - airplane. I seem to recall some comments from the UK that their typical three hour train replaces air except in the case of people making connections to other flights, because the train - airport connections are poor.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Never happen, ALB to NYP at those speeds. At least not without an entirely new alignment and completely bypassing Metro North tracks. Between the curves while following the river, and 70 MPH commuter service, you can't have trains running at 180 MPH, let alone 220 MPH.

Which is precisely why a completely new double track HSR alignment should be built there.

And frankly, if they could get ALB-NYP down to around two hours, it would be competative enough to corner most of the market. It would certainly take over the bulk of the air market, and probably most of the driving market, as I can barely get to ALB in two hours, and that's without traffic and with breaking the speed limit.

Is the goal to corner the market for transportation to an area that hasn't been having a great economy, or is the goal to improve the transportation to the point where that area becomes a part of the rather successful greater New York City area?

 

[Steve4031]

Second, you want to take every train that approaches Chicago from the south, run it north of Union Station to stop at O'Hare, and then back track south to CUS? :unsure: There goes your high speed right out the window with that maneuver. Not sure that we need any intercity trains stopping at O'Hare, but if we're going to do that, at least lets have the ones approaching CUS from the north make the stop, which would be the Empire Builder. That makes more sense than having trains approaching Chicago from the south go north, only to return south to CUS.

The trains from the south should stop at CUS, then stop at O'Hare, and there should be a new Amtrak HSR yard a bit north of the O'Hare train station for the trains that don't continue to Milwaukee / Madison / Minneapolis/St. Paul. I don't have any interest in having the trains back up.

And the reason I'm not proposing to include Midway in this scheme is that for most routes, including Midway would involve a substantial detour. Perhaps CUS to St Louis and CUS to Quad Cities could go via Midway, though. (And I'm hoping that an investment in HSR will lead to less demand at the airports, though I have mixed feelings as to whether this should mean scheduled passenger service from Midway to O'Hare, or reducing the flights per hour at O'Hare so that the schedule is more manageable in poor weather.)

I dont think that we should look at HSR as a means of competing with the airlines, but as a way of integrating both modes of travel like is done in Europe. In the US, the air traffic system is bogged down by flights that are connecting cities that are less tahn 500 miles apart. sometimes more than 1 airline is offering hourly service on the route, such as Chicago to MSP., and Chicago to STL. If the HSR lines connected to the airports, than people could fly into Ohare or Midway from the east or west coast and have an easy HSR connection to their destination in the midwest. In Europe, I can fly into Amsterdam and catch a TGV going to Paris, or take dutch intercity train to Amsterdam Central. Once there, I can catch a german ICE train to Frankfurt with no problem.

Yes, you need more through tracks at CUS to make this work. Yes, this probably means obliterating the present Metro Lounge. I imagine in the grand scheme of this project, bribing the second floor office building tenants to find a new home to make room for a new Metro Lounge isn't terribly expensive. A major investment in HSR might bring more passengers who would require a bigger Metro Lounge anyway.

The whole point of this excercise is to try to make airplane - HSR a more attractive option than airplane - airplane for some city pairs. I doubt the average American is going to find three hops of airplane - CUS-to-O'Hare-train - HSR more attractive than airplane - airplane. I seem to recall some comments from the UK that their typical three hour train replaces air except in the case of people making connections to other flights, because the train - airport connections are poor.

 

[Steve4031]

that last post looks funny. Sorry if I cause confusion.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

California is likely to get a big chuck of it for their project. They passed Proposition 8 which approved the bond measure for the first 10 or so billion. Now the feds, if I'm not mistaking, are supposed to match 80/20 or something like that. They are the farthest ahead in this race so that's logically where I think the lion's share will go. The rest to studies and some upgrades, possibly in the mid-west but nothing earthshaking.

One other thing that would help a lot with rail funding is if we could convince the federal government to set the state share for projects that will operate on at least 90% domestic energy to be set at half the state share for projects that will require larger amounts of imported energy. That would get state planning organizations very interested in electrified rail projects, at least unless / until biofuel or battery technology becomes a lot more viable than it is today.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I don't know that every train should go trhough Ohare, but I think Both Midway and Ohare should have a highspeed rail link to downtown Chicago. If you look at Paris, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam, these are appropriate models. The route to Milwauke should pass UNDER the terminals, not 4 miles east, and people should be able to walk from the station to the gate. For Midway, the route to St. Louis should pass UNDER the main terminal too.

There is the O'Hare Terminal 7 proposal, which strikes me as insanely expensive for what it does. (Part of a $15 billion project, they say.)

 

[PetalumaLoco]

I don't know that every train should go trhough Ohare, but I think Both Midway and Ohare should have a highspeed rail link to downtown Chicago. If you look at Paris, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam, these are appropriate models. The route to Milwauke should pass UNDER the terminals, not 4 miles east, and people should be able to walk from the station to the gate. For Midway, the route to St. Louis should pass UNDER the main terminal too.

There is the O'Hare Terminal 7 proposal, which strikes me as insanely expensive for what it does. (Part of a $15 billion project, they say.)

They best update their website, they want you to contact Governor Blagojevich to "help make it happen".

 

[Steve4031]

Daley and Biajovictch are blithering idiots when it comes to transportation. That OHare think is ridiculous. Hopefully, the new guy is better but who knows. We have the worst politicians in Illinois.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

All things being equal, its better politically to have a line move through two or more states.

I think we need a 20 or 30 year plan that includes some amount of token service to as many states as possible. That's part of why I propose the Burlington connector that I do: it's a relatively cheap way to convince Vermont's Senators that they're getting something from the deal; Burlington otherwise isn't really a large enough city for me to get terribly concerned with it when there are plenty of metro areas with populations over two million that don't even have pretend HSR.

However, I don't see any populated cities along the Empire Builder route between Minneapolis / St. Paul and the west coast cities to inspire me to propose HSR through those states. (Seattle to Portland to Sacramento to LA to San Diego certainly makes sense, though, as does Minneapolis / St Paul to Chicago via Madison.) I'm not really sure what to do to win support of Maine and New Hampshire, either. Conventional speed, electrified track to Boston with through service on the HSR tracks might be an option there, but I'm not sure if it's really good enough.

There's a note neart the bottom of this page indicating that just over half of the US population lives in the 28 most populated cities, so getting the support of half of the House of Representatives probably requires merely serving some approximation of the 28 most populated metro areas. I think it turns out that those 28 metro areas don't quite span half the states, though.

 

[Walt]

Really? Then he must have gotten most of any budget outlays over the last 2 years.

Yes, really.

Just look at the sequence of events.

There was no mag-lev high speed train in any version of the House bill. Nancy Pelosi didn't even want this item. However, this one item makes into the compromise bill, and passes.

How do you think it made it? You don't think that Reid continued to be behind it?

IMHO, this is "done deal". It doesn't matter if the money could be better spent on other rail projects. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks that there is a better place for the first (I think it would be the first) mag-lev high speed train route. And its a waste of time to dream or purpose such, because their ain't going to be second route too.

 

[sportbiker]

There was no mag-lev high speed train in any version of the House bill. Nancy Pelosi didn't even want this item. However, this one item makes into the compromise bill, and passes.
How do you think it made it? You don't think that Reid continued to be behind it?

Once again, ladies and gentlemen: there is no mag lev HSR in the stimulus bill. None. Zip. Zilch. There is no money earmarked for Nevada HSR of any kind. None. Zip. Zilch. This whole thing is a manufactured controversy created by Republicans. A good takedown of this urban legend is at the the California High Speed Rail Blog

 

[Ispolkom]

Another look at the issue is Politico, which fingers Rahm Emanuel as the person behind the increase. I'd say that it is very premature to guess how this money will be spent.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Another look at the issue is Politico, which fingers Rahm Emanuel as the person behind the increase. I'd say that it is very premature to guess how this money will be spent.

From the same Politco article

"In fact, there’s little evidence that Reid had a decisive role, although he was happy to see his name mentioned for the sake of voters at home." Which as you say, its premature to guess.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I hope they federalize the permitting and siting process and then expedite it through special legislation.
I'm wondering what kind of long term committment is with the projects. If its $8 bil per year for the indefinite future, that's 4 big projects over 5 years, with some money left for California.

If it were me, I'd invite the route proponents through their state DOTs to make dog and pony shows and fund the ones that had the most wide-spread support along the entire length of the project, assuming they were sensible city-pairs. I'd designate one project as "first alternate" and if the NIMBY pressure got too high in say, Austin or Vermont, I'd move the project to first alternate in a heart-beat. Say, Las Vegas to LA. Multi-state routes would be a tie-breaker. All things being equal, its better politically to have a line move through two or more states.

I think it would be great for the federal government to give some money for any corridor where the state(s) involved are interested and populations and distances are reasonable to do the design work and acquire the land. Let each state go through its own land acquisition process. Then in a couple years when there is $X billion available for actual construction, only those states that have figured out how to overcome the NIMBYism get to compete for those jobs and federal dollars. At that point, some of the states that have been caving in to NIMBYism may start to reconsider when they realize they are losing out.

 

[DaveKCMO]

a key item from that politico article: "Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years."

 

[birdy]

I hope they federalize the permitting and siting process and then expedite it through special legislation.
I'm wondering what kind of long term committment is with the projects. If its $8 bil per year for the indefinite future, that's 4 big projects over 5 years, with some money left for California.

If it were me, I'd invite the route proponents through their state DOTs to make dog and pony shows and fund the ones that had the most wide-spread support along the entire length of the project, assuming they were sensible city-pairs. I'd designate one project as "first alternate" and if the NIMBY pressure got too high in say, Austin or Vermont, I'd move the project to first alternate in a heart-beat. Say, Las Vegas to LA. Multi-state routes would be a tie-breaker. All things being equal, its better politically to have a line move through two or more states.

I think it would be great for the federal government to give some money for any corridor where the state(s) involved are interested and populations and distances are reasonable to do the design work and acquire the land. Let each state go through its own land acquisition process. Then in a couple years when there is $X billion available for actual construction, only those states that have figured out how to overcome the NIMBYism get to compete for those jobs and federal dollars. At that point, some of the states that have been caving in to NIMBYism may start to reconsider when they realize they are losing out.

I disagree, because its unrealistic to expect the states to condemn large swaths of land in advance of the federal committment. Also, we are wanting to help the beleagured states, who don't have a lot of money right now and no experience with these kinds of projects. The target should be two years from scoping to concrete pouring. Its just so much easier for the federal government to use its preemptive power to impose a uniform, expedited, but fair process. The NIMBYs will come out of the woodwork in an expedited way too, which is fine. Remember, sometimes they have a point, you know.

If the pressure is too great, don't fight it, just move on to the hypothetical Las Vegas to LA route with a mere six month delay in the concrete pouring. I would not expect a big share of the projects to be paid by the states given the nature of the projects. I would merely require the states to committ to a firm share of the operating expenses of the system and maybe a relatively token payment for the project. These should explicitly be federal projects.

I completely agree with you about spreading some money around in low-tech low-dollar projects to build familiarity and I think support, for the projects. Like pay for the Ann Arbor to Detroit project. These tend to be quicker projects too. I recommend improvements to the Downeaster Amtrak line.

By the way, there is a good story in USA Today about what happened. They confirm that the "earmark for Harry Reid" story is bogus. Apparently the Smart electric grid idea didn't capture the public imagination, So Rahm Emmanuel and Obama promoted the HSR to prove how forward thinking they were and to fulfill some campaign promises that were made. The story goes on to say that there are to be presentations in 60 days about likely projects. The story goes on to say that this is a long term committment and that the administration is committed to as much as $1 billion per year for the projects. Which doesn't make much sense, but I guess that's just a place holder for future funding, if the projects prove popular. So, I think they are serious about this, and they will press forward if public support is there. Keep bugging your congressman.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

back on topic

how about from Pontiac MI to Chicago. there was talks to make that whole line 110MPH shaving 2 and half hours off the trip.right now its 95 MPH from Niles mi to battle creak.

 

[sportbiker]

Yes, back on topic, I would suspect the California high speed rail project to link LA and SF would have to be at the top of any ranked list. It's the only project in the nation with an identified, committed source of state funding ($10 billion in bonds approved last November). Also, engineering and environmental work has ben on-going, so it's probably closer to being "shovel-ready" than any other project in the country. Note that I'm talking only about new, purpose-built HSR systems, not incremental improvements to existing freight tracks.