53 Billion more for railway projects

[jis]

Outside of the NEC, California, Florida, Texas, and the areas within approximately 200 miles of Chicago

You've just described probably 80-90% of the US population. If they can benefit from it, it will happen.

It is worth remembering that no one builds HSR for people who live in the sticks, even when the tracks actually pass through the sticks. Even when stations are built in the sticks they turn out to be not so successful. Considering that a majority of US population lives in urban or suburban areas (say within 200 miles of the major urban areas) and not in the sticks, it is hardly a valid argument to say that HSR won't work because the area of US has a lot of sticks area.

 

[Anderson]

Outside of the NEC, California, Florida, Texas, and the areas within approximately 200 miles of Chicago

You've just described probably 80-90% of the US population. If they can benefit from it, it will happen.

It is worth remembering that no one builds HSR for people who live in the sticks, even when the tracks actually pass through the sticks. Even when stations are built in the sticks they turn out to be not so successful. Considering that a majority of US population lives in urban or suburban areas (say within 200 miles of the major urban areas) and not in the sticks, it is hardly a valid argument to say that HSR won't work because the area of US has a lot of sticks area.

Well, if you get the NEC, FL, TX, CA, and IL/MI/IN/IA/MO on board, that's probably enough. The key is FL and TX, really:

The NEC has 82 CDs (I include MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, and MD here). CA has 53. IL has 18, IA 4, MO 8, WI 8, IN 9, MN 8, and MI 14, for 69 total. TX and FL add 63. Without Texas and Florida, you only have 204 seats. TX and FL adding 63 gets you to 267, which gives you room to maneuver and drop off Congressmen from rural parts of these states (say, Western PA or northern MI).

As to the urban/rural bit, there's the sticks and there's the sticks. "Real" HSR to/from Salt Lake City will probably run into some hard-and-fast limits due to the mountains, and you can't really justify a line in the Boise area based on what I suspect the travel rates will be. There are also lots of cities that you'd really need to spend time rebuilding service for a few years before I think you could justify pouring a billion dollars into a higher-speed rail link. Simply throwing in a line from Chattanooga to Memphis is a recipe for explaining why we just spent a lot of money on an underused line...not just because the line does not exist as a service now, but because you rarely get a market out of nowhere that would justify that kind of spending.

 

[PA Traveler]

Outside of the NEC, California, Florida, Texas, and the areas within approximately 200 miles of Chicago

You've just described probably 80-90% of the US population. If they can benefit from it, it will happen.

It is worth remembering that no one builds HSR for people who live in the sticks, even when the tracks actually pass through the sticks. Even when stations are built in the sticks they turn out to be not so successful. Considering that a majority of US population lives in urban or suburban areas (say within 200 miles of the major urban areas) and not in the sticks, it is hardly a valid argument to say that HSR won't work because the area of US has a lot of sticks area.

Well, if you get the NEC, FL, TX, CA, and IL/MI/IN/IA/MO on board, that's probably enough. The key is FL and TX, really:

The NEC has 82 CDs (I include MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, and MD here). CA has 53. IL has 18, IA 4, MO 8, WI 8, IN 9, MN 8, and MI 14, for 69 total. TX and FL add 63. Without Texas and Florida, you only have 204 seats. TX and FL adding 63 gets you to 267, which gives you room to maneuver and drop off Congressmen from rural parts of these states (say, Western PA or northern MI).

As to the urban/rural bit, there's the sticks and there's the sticks. "Real" HSR to/from Salt Lake City will probably run into some hard-and-fast limits due to the mountains, and you can't really justify a line in the Boise area based on what I suspect the travel rates will be. There are also lots of cities that you'd really need to spend time rebuilding service for a few years before I think you could justify pouring a billion dollars into a higher-speed rail link. Simply throwing in a line from Chattanooga to Memphis is a recipe for explaining why we just spent a lot of money on an underused line...not just because the line does not exist as a service now, but because you rarely get a market out of nowhere that would justify that kind of spending.

Um, Western PA is where Pittsburgh is located and there are millions of people in this tri-state area. I've been to northern Michigan, and there is no comparison.

 

[Eric S]

I'm still not happy how much the money is spread around. Give it all to three projects, California, NEC, and Chicago. Maybe get Texas off the ground. This follows the SNCF proposal nicely. And would garner Mica's support too, as it would all go to true HSR.

Where are you seeing how the money is to be spread around?

 

[henryj]

I seem to read this announcement different than some of you. I see it as a three tiered plan and I quote:

"As the first step in this comprehensive, six-year plan, the Presidents Budget for the coming fiscal year would invest $8 billion in expanding Americans access to high-speed passenger rail service. In order to achieve a truly national system, these investments will focus on developing or improving three types of interconnected corridors:

 

Core Express: These corridors will form the backbone of the national high-speed rail system, with electrified trains traveling on dedicated tracks at speeds of 125-250 mph or higher.

Regional: Crucial regional corridors with train speeds of 90-125 mph will see increases in trips and reductions in travel times, laying the foundation for future high-speed service.

Emerging: Trains traveling at up to 90 mph will provide travelers in emerging rail corridors with access to the larger national high-speed and intercity passenger rail network.

 

This system will allow the Department in partnership with states, freight rail, and private companies to identify corridors for the construction of world-class high-speed rail, while raising speeds on existing rail lines and providing crucial planning and resources to communities who want to join the national high-speed rail network. With rail ridership reaching all-time highs in many areas of the country during 2010, these investments will ensure that more Americans have the option of taking a train to reach their destination."

For instance, here in Texas I see the so called Texas Triangle as either Regional or Emerging. Either would work just fine for us as we have next to nothing now. I don't see Core Express, ie electrified trains on dedicated tracks going 250 mph as anything practical for many years to come, perhaps even decades. This is actually the first time I have seen a proposal from anyone that seemed to be practical by recognizing that true HSR is really far into the future for most US markets and we need something now along the lines of Regional or Emerging. Unfortunately, I just don't see Congress authorizing this in the face of the recent elections. Further, the $53 billion is over 6 years so that is less than $9 billion a year which is a rather small sum to divide amongst 50 states.

But I also like this statement:

By clarifying the long-term federal role in passenger rail, this six-year program will provide states and cities with the certainty they need to make long-term transportation plans for their communities. It will provide businesses the confidence they need to hire American workers. Strong Buy American requirements will create tens of thousands of middle-class jobs in construction, manufacturing, and rail operations. And the proposal will open the door to new public-private partnerships, and attract significant private investment in developing and operating passenger rail corridors.

 

The proposal announced today by the Vice President also streamlines the Department of Transportations rail programs, making it simpler for states, cities, and private companies to apply for grants and loans. For the first time, all high speed and intercity passenger rail programs will be consolidated into two new accounts: a $4 billion account for network development, focused on building new infrastructure, stations, and equipment; and a $4 billion account for system preservation and renewal, which will maintain state of good repair on Amtrak and other publicly-owned assets, bring stations into Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, and provide temporary operating support to crucial state corridors while the full system is being built and developed.

Most of us are understandingly skeptical, but as passenger train advocates we should encourage and support this program in any way we can. I certainly do.

 

[Anderson]

Outside of the NEC, California, Florida, Texas, and the areas within approximately 200 miles of Chicago

You've just described probably 80-90% of the US population. If they can benefit from it, it will happen.

It is worth remembering that no one builds HSR for people who live in the sticks, even when the tracks actually pass through the sticks. Even when stations are built in the sticks they turn out to be not so successful. Considering that a majority of US population lives in urban or suburban areas (say within 200 miles of the major urban areas) and not in the sticks, it is hardly a valid argument to say that HSR won't work because the area of US has a lot of sticks area.

Well, if you get the NEC, FL, TX, CA, and IL/MI/IN/IA/MO on board, that's probably enough. The key is FL and TX, really:

The NEC has 82 CDs (I include MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, and MD here). CA has 53. IL has 18, IA 4, MO 8, WI 8, IN 9, MN 8, and MI 14, for 69 total. TX and FL add 63. Without Texas and Florida, you only have 204 seats. TX and FL adding 63 gets you to 267, which gives you room to maneuver and drop off Congressmen from rural parts of these states (say, Western PA or northern MI).

As to the urban/rural bit, there's the sticks and there's the sticks. "Real" HSR to/from Salt Lake City will probably run into some hard-and-fast limits due to the mountains, and you can't really justify a line in the Boise area based on what I suspect the travel rates will be. There are also lots of cities that you'd really need to spend time rebuilding service for a few years before I think you could justify pouring a billion dollars into a higher-speed rail link. Simply throwing in a line from Chattanooga to Memphis is a recipe for explaining why we just spent a lot of money on an underused line...not just because the line does not exist as a service now, but because you rarely get a market out of nowhere that would justify that kind of spending.

Um, Western PA is where Pittsburgh is located and there are millions of people in this tri-state area. I've been to northern Michigan, and there is no comparison.

Yes, but Pittsburgh is not Harrisburg in terms of train service: You've got three trains in and three out per day (the two Capitol Limited runs are both in/out, and the Pennsylvanian offers one in and one out). This is better than a lot of cities, but not by that much, particularly considering the Capitol Limited arrival/departure times, and nowhere near what you get out in Buffalo. Also, when I'm thinking "Western PA", I'm thinking "The T". Finally, while northern MI doesn't have any population centers on the scale of Pittsburgh, it's still got 3 CDs scattered over that thinly-populated area...1.5-2 million people up there in "the sticks".

Henryj,

You're reading what I'm reading, and the announcement takes into account what I've said a few times on here: You don't go straight from 0 to HSR. You just don't. You work through the stages...you get a "regular" train and see if that sells. If it does, you start upgrading. If it doesn't "take" after a long enough period of time (and I do think it takes a few years for a new service to really "catch on"), either you try to improve it to get it to work or you shift resources.

 

[Sam31452]

"Soviet-style train system?"

From my studies in history, I understand that the one good thing Stalin actually did was to make the trains run on time. So I would assume that Rep. Mica likes his trains late?

Someone needs to study some history...

The Soviet-Style train System also implies High Speed Rail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapsan

Not to mention that LD trains run more often and sell cheaper beer in the former Soviet Union.

But that Stalin thing is really derived of propaganda.

 

[Tim]

So I'll ask again, once Congress approves/disapproves/modifies the budget proposal, does it go back to the President for signature, or does it become law? If it needs a signature from the President, a veto threat may push Congress to align their proposal more along the lines of the President's.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Whenever somebody makes ridiculous sounding derogations in their speech, such as "Soviet-style", they make themselves sound like a peerless idiot. Irrespective of the subject.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Whenever somebody makes ridiculous sounding derogations in their speech, such as "Soviet-style", they make themselves sound like a peerless idiot. Irrespective of the subject.

True, to most of us here, but it sure gets "lapped up" by an awful lot of voters.

 

[AlanB]

So I'll ask again, once Congress approves/disapproves/modifies the budget proposal, does it go back to the President for signature, or does it become law? If it needs a signature from the President, a veto threat may push Congress to align their proposal more along the lines of the President's.

It goes back to the President for his signature.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Then I ask how we are to work around this opposition, and make certain that rail is spared while other programs (for example, the Mohair Commission) get cut. All we can do is to make our voices and points of view known, and counter the inaccuracies regarding rail when they inevitably appear. To get some idea of just how strong the opposition is to improvement of passenger rail, go someplace such as Ace Of Spades HQ blog and see for yourself.

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how to fix this. I will say that AU has opened my eyes to a whole new demographic of longtime rail fans who routinely vote for staunchly anti-rail politicians. With friends like that who needs enemies? :lol:

Whenever somebody makes ridiculous sounding derogations in their speech, such as "Soviet-style", they make themselves sound like a peerless idiot.

John Mica may sound like an idiot but I think he knows his audience better than we do. Take a look at Florida's 7th district and you'll see who the real idiots are. <_<

 

[JJJJ]

This is why I don't see HSR working in the U.S. Almost by definition, HSR can only work on a regional basis. This is fine in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, as well as France, Germany, and most other European countries, but less practical in the United States, China or Russia. China still has largely a command economy and political infrastructure, so garnering popular support for HSR is less of an issue than it is in the U.S. (I'm not sure where Russia is going or planning to go with HSR.)

In the U.S., if HSR is to be funded on a federal level, money and political support for it must come from those who will not benefit from it (specifically, those who live in areas that will never see a high-speed train), which is much easier said than done. Outside of the NEC, California, Florida, Texas, and the areas within approximately 200 miles of Chicago are unlikely to ever be candidates for any kind of viable HSR service. But many Americans (and their elected representatives) who live in other parts of the country will also have to come on board and be willing to pony up billions of dollars to support this. I don't see that happening.

The funny thing about density is that dense places become that way because theyre full of people. And empty places are empty because they lack people.

So it really doesnt matter what North Dakota wants, because there are more people who ride the commuter rail in Boston on a given day than the entire population of that state. And the combined populations of the bottom 10 states dont even make up the amount of people who ride populic transit in NYC on a weekday.

The other funny part about these empty places is that traditionally they suck up a whole bunch of subsidies for urban areas. It's more cost efficient, for example, to pave 500 feet of road that will be used by 10,000 people a day in a city than paving 500 feet of road that will serve a single farm and a grand total of 4 people.

 

[AlanB]

Another intersting thing about population density is that while it shouldn't be ignored, it's also not quite as important as many people seem to think. This is proven by the new Lynchburg service. Lynchburg has a population of 67,000+ and until you get much nearer to DC, at which point you now have VRE, most of the cities/towns are of similar size to Lynchburg.

And that new train service was estimated to see 50K in first year ridership. Instead it saw more than 126K+ ridership or 161.7% above the estimates. And it's not even high speed service!

While density, speed, and comfort all play roles in how much ridership you might get, the biggest factor in obtaining ridership is to simply make sure that people actually have access to a train to ride. Lynchburg proved that!

 

[John Bredin]

This is actually the first time I have seen a proposal from anyone that seemed to be practical by recognizing that true HSR is really far into the future for most US markets and we need something now along the lines of Regional or Emerging.

I respectfully disagree that this is the first time. The initial HSR grants in the stimulus, which some criticize as too spread out and others criticize as not being 100% real HSR, were similarly tiered. Ohio was going to get 79mph service on the Triple-C Corridor because that route has no passenger service. (Still doesn't. :angry2: ) Many of the projects in the stimulus grants and the later 2.5 billion are 79mph "emerging" projects. The Chicago-St. Louis (4 round trips and a long-distance train) and Chicago-Detroit (3 RT) routes are well-established at 79mph and are receiving funds to bring them up to 110mph "regional" corridors. California's corridors are even more successful, so California was deemed ready for true HSR.

The one anomaly is Florida, which (if the state doesn't pull a Walker/Kasich) goes from a pair of LD trains to true HSR with no conventional corridor service inbetween. But that's understandable politically: I imagine the Administration wanted a route in a red state to show that the HSR program isn't mere patronage rewards to Obama supporters, and tourists to Florida who would ride HSR and not need a car for their trip to Disney or the other attractions could become "converts" to supporting rail in their home states.

Unfortunately, I just don't see Congress authorizing this in the face of the recent elections. Further, the $53 billion is over 6 years so that is less than $9 billion a year which is a rather small sum to divide amongst 50 states.

Even if Congress doesn't authorize the whole amount, it's a solid counterbid to the zero budget for HSR suggested by the Republican Study Committee in the House. And the money doesn't have to be divided among 50 states every year, as some states (Wyoming, Idaho, and the Dakotas, for instance) will have only very modest "emerging" projects if any.

 

[henryj]

The funny thing about density is that dense places become that way because theyre full of people. And empty places are empty because they lack people.

So it really doesnt matter what North Dakota wants, because there are more people who ride the commuter rail in Boston on a given day than the entire population of that state. And the combined populations of the bottom 10 states dont even make up the amount of people who ride populic transit in NYC on a weekday.

The other funny part about these empty places is that traditionally they suck up a whole bunch of subsidies for urban areas. It's more cost efficient, for example, to pave 500 feet of road that will be used by 10,000 people a day in a city than paving 500 feet of road that will serve a single farm and a grand total of 4 people.

I think you are forgetting that each state has TWO SENATORS regardless of population. So in the Senate they have as much clout as California or New York. Therefore you DO have to sell this concept across the nation or it will surely fail. That is why Amtrak runs 'long distance trains'. It's throwing a bone to those states so Amtrak can get funded each year.

 

[jis]

I think you are forgetting that each state has TWO SENATORS regardless of population. So in the Senate they have as much clout as California or New York. Therefore you DO have to sell this concept across the nation or it will surely fail. That is why Amtrak runs 'long distance trains'. It's throwing a bone to those states so Amtrak can get funded each year.

True, but one also does not need every Senator to be on board. having about 60 on board is quite sufficient. Which means, at least theoretically as many as 20 states can be ignored. However, as you point out, Amtrak, and HSR together do not really ignore anywhere near that many states. Amtrak seems to get by fine without providing service in South Dakota, Alaska and Hawaii. And there are several states where in spite of having service the Senators are always dead set against Amtrak, while the Hawaii Senator has been extremely pro-Amtrak. So the story is not that simple.

Selling the concept does not equal building HSR in every state. There are other quid-pro-quos that can be arranged, as has always been, politics being the art of the possible (as stated by one Juan Peron.

 

[henryj]

I think you are forgetting that each state has TWO SENATORS regardless of population. So in the Senate they have as much clout as California or New York. Therefore you DO have to sell this concept across the nation or it will surely fail. That is why Amtrak runs 'long distance trains'. It's throwing a bone to those states so Amtrak can get funded each year.

True, but one also does not need every Senator to be on board. having about 60 on board is quite sufficient. Which means, at least theoretically as many as 20 states can be ignored. However, as you point out, Amtrak, and HSR together do not really ignore anywhere near that many states. Amtrak seems to get by fine without providing service in South Dakota, Alaska and Hawaii. And there are several states where in spite of having service the Senators are always dead set against Amtrak, while the Hawaii Senator has been extremely pro-Amtrak. So the story is not that simple.

Selling the concept does not equal building HSR in every state. There are other quid-pro-quos that can be arranged, as has always been, politics being the art of the possible (as stated by one Juan Peron.

I see California, Illinois, Florida, New York, PA and Mass being the main beneficiaries. Thats a lot less than the needed majority. You might get Oregon and Washington and eventually Texas but you still have a very small number. That is why the program is three tiered so that other states can get some benefit from it as there is little chance they will ever see true HSR.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Obama could make a speech supporting oxygen and 70% of the House Republicans would suffocate themselves in protest.

 

[Ryan]

Obama could make a speech supporting oxygen and 70% of the House Republicans would suffocate themselves in protest.

If we could only be that lucky.

 

[transit54]

I see California, Illinois, Florida, New York, PA and Mass being the main beneficiaries. Thats a lot less than the needed majority. You might get Oregon and Washington and eventually Texas but you still have a very small number. That is why the program is three tiered so that other states can get some benefit from it as there is little chance they will ever see true HSR.

There's more than that. Add in any state on the NEC, or near it. RI, DE, MD and CT all benefit directly from any money poured into the NEC. States like VA, NC and VT with corridor trains that connect to the NEC also benefit. For instance, outside of the money awarded to VT in the initial round of HSR funding (and the associated funding that went to MA for the same line), CT then announced improvements to the New Haven to Springfield line, which directly benefits riders of the Vermonter. Even NEC improvements further south benefit VT. Any improvements to lines between Albany and NYC also benefit VT by way of the Ethan Allen.

That's why its important to continue to fund improvements to regional rail outside of HSR corridors - it results in more buy in from states that benefit, and also more riders for the project from connecting trains from other states/areas.

 

[jis]

The Federal DOT's List of Designated HSR Corridors, cover something like 34 states already. That would be 68 out of 100 Senators, if things were as simple as that.

mind you having a 3 tiered plan makes a lot of sense anyway, Senators or not. It would be kind of silly to have HSR corridors with nothing connecting them to secondary population centers other than roads.

 

[Eric S]

So it really doesnt matter what North Dakota wants, because there are more people who ride the commuter rail in Boston on a given day than the entire population of that state.

That is quite an exaggeration. Average weekday ridership on MBTA commuter rail is somewhere in the neighborhood of 130,000, while the population of ND is around 650,000.

And, it should be noted, ND politicians have traditionally been quite supportive of Amtrak, and the Empire Builder, in particular. Now, with the recent electoral changes, that might have changed as well, but in the recent past it has been true.

 

[JJJ]

I think you are forgetting that each state has TWO SENATORS regardless of population. So in the Senate they have as much clout as California or New York. Therefore you DO have to sell this concept across the nation or it will surely fail. That is why Amtrak runs 'long distance trains'. It's throwing a bone to those states so Amtrak can get funded each year.

That is true, but lucky for us, we have a lot of very tiny states that are in the NEC. ND gets 2 senators, but so does tiny delaware, and maryland, and maine, and vermont, etc.

And of course, the democrats still have the senate majority. And that doesn't include republican like scott brown, who may are on the right in massachusetts politics, but would be a democrat if he ran on the same platform in utah.

That is quite an exaggeration. Average weekday ridership on MBTA commuter rail is somewhere in the neighborhood of 130,000, while the population of ND is around 650,000.

And, it should be noted, ND politicians have traditionally been quite supportive of Amtrak, and the Empire Builder, in particular. Now, with the recent electoral changes, that might have changed as well, but in the recent past it has been true.

You're right, my mistake. The entire Boston train system then, that is over 650,000 a day.

One thing to note is that party affiliation only matters if the representative ONLY votes on the party line. Take for example a republican house member from upper new york state, like Albany. While they are far to the right of a hypothetical NYC house member, they would benefit greatly from HSR connecting their part of the state to the south and would probably support it.

Same in California. The central valley is conservative central. Seriously, the amount of cowboy hats, christian radio stations and tea party membership rivals anything you'll find in texas. But generally, the majority are in favor of HSR because the economic benefits are abundantly clear, especially when looking at the highest unemployment rate in the nation (17.5%).

 

[jis]

Now that's really neat! Chris Matthews on Hardball about HSR....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews#41481272