Anti-rail states

[NativeSon5859]

Which states would you consider to be anti-rail? Sadly, I'd say my home state of Louisiana is, by virtue of the governor, who apparently sees no value in it.

If Louisiana showed more of an active interest in funding intercity rail, I see no reason why the long talked about service to Baton Rouge couldn't already be running (Amtrak ran test trains back in 2006) as well as, at least, service to Mobile.

 

[hippyman]

I hate to say it, but my home state, Texas, has alot to learn from other "pro-rail" states. We have so much open land down here, I dont see why we shouldnt have one of the most effective passenger rail systems in the country.

 

[GaSteve]

Add Georgia to your list. $80M of earmark money to start up commuter rail sitting at the Feds for 10 years waiting on state match.

 

[Sue in KY]

Which states would you consider to be anti-rail? Sadly, I'd say my home state of Louisiana is, by virtue of the governor, who apparently sees no value in it.
If Louisiana showed more of an active interest in funding intercity rail, I see no reason why the long talked about service to Baton Rouge couldn't already be running (Amtrak ran test trains back in 2006) as well as, at least, service to Mobile.

Add Kentucky to the list — the conservatives that mostly populate the state (and its government) are much more interested in more and more highways, and more and more bridges. Nobody we know can understand why on earth we'd want to take a train anywhere — bizarre, foreign thought!

 

[Bob Dylan]

I hate to say it, but my home state, Texas, has alot to learn from other "pro-rail" states. We have so much open land down here, I dont see why we shouldnt have one of the most effective passenger rail systems in the country.

Although our politicians make those in Alaska,NJ,Ill,LA etc. seem like brillant visionaries, we slowly are starting to get it here in Texas! Even DFW and HOS are jumping on the mass transit bandwagon, Austin is behind but the RedLine is runn ing! :lol: The TXDOT, which used to be called the Highway Dept.

and is peopled by squadrons or Aggie traffic engineers, has a new rail divsion, ironically our RailRoad Commission is more involved with Gas and Oil, only in Texas! Id think Arizona, La.,GA and perhaps Florida might be the most anti-rail states now, and lets not forget that one of our Senators (Kay Bailey)

saved the Eagles and Sunset in Texas when all our last few presidents wanted Amtrak to go away! Im impressed with what some states are doing,especially with HSR and creating new routes, special shout-outs to Wisconsin/Illinois,North Carolina,Missouri(even with a screwed up MORR new schedule!) and Washington State/Oregon!(The Ohio CCC sounds iffy, lots of just say no types trying to kill it seems like,Im sure ALC and jeff have more on this!)

Without more federal funding (what are the chances that the just say no Republicans will support anything Obama proposes?), considering that most states are hurting, and that it's an election year money will have to come from federal/state partnerships! Im especially concerned with the situation in California which has been in the passenger rail forefront for so long! They say what happens in California will come to your state in two weeks,two months,

and in the case of the South twenty years! :lol:

 

[MattW]

I'll 2nd Georgia's addition to the list. Plans, plans and more plans for FREAKING AGES but not so much as a test train or CG renderings of stations. "but your state has FIVE Amtrak routes through it!" yes, through it, but if it were up to GA, it'd be 0, ZERO, NADDA, NONE because the stuckup jerks think cars are the end-all be-all. And Georgia's the Keystone of the South so it's kind of hard to get around us (especially with the Atlantic ocean there) and thus fly-over country for the snowbirds from the North.

Georgia doesn't have a rail connection on the big corridors like ATL-Chattanooga, or ATL-JAX or ATL-SAV and only one overnight train ATL-CLT with bad hours at both ends.

GIVE ME RAIL SERVICE! OR SEVER ALL TRAVEL CONNECTIONS! (no, not ready to die yet over lack of rail service)

 

[Trogdor]

Wisconsin is very close to being an anti-rail state. Being anti-rail is a religion in Wisconsin, and many people listen to the preachings of certain talk-radio hosts and conservative politicians who work overtime to kill off any light rail plans, and are opposing the HSR money that Doyle wants to spend because, once built, the trains "won't make money."

Funny, the multi-billion-dollar interstate reconstruction doesn't make money either, but they don't seem to complain about that.

 

[birdy]

I'd say that list, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia Louisiana is probably a pretty good list.

I's have to give the nod to Wisconsin right now, though, as the most anti-rail state since they seem kind of indignant about getting federal money.

I'd put Georgia second, since its so out of character for them. Building HSR to Charlotte should be something they would have done first.

I'd put Arizona third. They have the largest city not served by Amtrak and seem not to have a clue about HSR or their favorable location for the service. They actually like their light rail system a lot. But, like Wisconsin, its the principle of the thing. They don't want to destroy their reputation for able and effective political leadership by getting involved with further successful rail projects.

I'd put Louisiana fourth. Mostly they have been embarrassed out of the program by the infamous "Happy Mardi Gras" speech by Jindahl. They don't want to hear about trains after that.

Texas is way off the list by virtue of the Red line. They appear to be in the fermentation stage where they churn a little bit and then suddenly build like three HSR lines.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd say PA is pretty anti-rail. PennDOT certainly is.

 

[VentureForth]

I'll 2nd Georgia's addition to the list. Plans, plans and more plans for FREAKING AGES but not so much as a test train or CG renderings of stations. "but your state has FIVE Amtrak routes through it!" yes, through it, but if it were up to GA, it'd be 0, ZERO, NADDA, NONE because the stuckup jerks think cars are the end-all be-all. And Georgia's the Keystone of the South so it's kind of hard to get around us (especially with the Atlantic ocean there) and thus fly-over country for the snowbirds from the North.Georgia doesn't have a rail connection on the big corridors like ATL-Chattanooga, or ATL-JAX or ATL-SAV and only one overnight train ATL-CLT with bad hours at both ends.

GIVE ME RAIL SERVICE! OR SEVER ALL TRAVEL CONNECTIONS! (no, not ready to die yet over lack of rail service)

I'll see your Georgia and I'll raise you South Carolina.

 

[saxman]

No one has mentioned Indiana yet. I don't know much about their rail politics, but I see them mentioned as anti-rail, especially with Ohio and Illinois' plan for HSR throughout the Midwest. Also what about Alabama or Tennessee?

 

[PRR 60]

I'd say PA is pretty anti-rail. PennDOT certainly is.

Pennsylvania, through PennDOT, funds the Keystone service and funded the rebuilding of the Harrisburg line to 110 mph standards. The Keystone service is the third busiest state-supported corridor run by Amtrak (behind only the Pacific Surfliner and the Capitol Corridor in California). That seems pretty rail friendly to me.

 

[MikefromCrete]

I'd say that list, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia Louisiana is probably a pretty good list.
I's have to give the nod to Wisconsin right now, though, as the most anti-rail state since they seem kind of indignant about getting federal money.

I'd put Georgia second, since its so out of character for them. Building HSR to Charlotte should be something they would have done first.

I'd put Arizona third. They have the largest city not served by Amtrak and seem not to have a clue about HSR or their favorable location for the service. They actually like their light rail system a lot. But, like Wisconsin, its the principle of the thing. They don't want to destroy their reputation for able and effective political leadership by getting involved with further successful rail projects.

I'd put Louisiana fourth. Mostly they have been embarrassed out of the program by the infamous "Happy Mardi Gras" speech by Jindahl. They don't want to hear about trains after that.

Texas is way off the list by virtue of the Red line. They appear to be in the fermentation stage where they churn a little bit and then suddenly build like three HSR lines.

I think Wisconsin is pretty pro-rail, what with its support of the Hiawathas and the extensin to Madison. Now, you have some politicians up for election that are looking for issues and crying about 'money losing trains.' Hopefully, the good people of Wisconsin will reject these jerks and elect politicians who support rail service. If they fail to elect the right people, then send the money down to Illinois. We may have creepy crooks as our leaders, but at least they support intercity rail.

\

 

[volkris]

Anti-rail? What state is anti-rail? If offered a free train, with free service, free tracks, free employees, free stations, free everything, in perpetuity, what state wouldn't take it?

In reality these states aren't anti-rail at all; they're simply not sufficiently pro-rail to spend the money required to start and maintain the service. They aren't against rail; they simply decide that other things are more valuable to them, serving the wants of the citizens better than a rail line.

The distinction is real and stark. If you want to convince these states that funding rail is worth their tax dollars then a good start would be understanding why they're not funding it now, including that they're not actually anti-rail. It's an entirely different argument.

 

[jis]

I'd say PA is pretty anti-rail. PennDOT certainly is.

Pennsylvania, through PennDOT, funds the Keystone service and funded the rebuilding of the Harrisburg line to 110 mph standards. The Keystone service is the third busiest state-supported corridor run by Amtrak (behind only the Pacific Surfliner and the Capitol Corridor in California). That seems pretty rail friendly to me.

Yeah, in some sense PA is possibly more pro-rail than the current newly installed administration in NJ. We'll see how things develop though.

 

[transit54]

The distinction is real and stark. If you want to convince these states that funding rail is worth their tax dollars then a good start would be understanding why they're not funding it now, including that they're not actually anti-rail. It's an entirely different argument.

But I think that's the problem...in many of those states there are viable rail projects that make sense and that are supported by a sizable number of citizens. I think the only reasons many of them aren't funding rail now is that they are run by politicians that don't support investment in anything other than highways. And even though much of the citizens may disagree with that, rail and transportation are usually not top voting issues for people.

I'd actually be interested in seeing sensible reasons why states aren't funding rail now. And when I say sensible, I mean consistent - if you support using state funds for buildings highways, arguing that rail needs to be subsidized isn't consistent (arguing why its better to subsidize highways over rail is, but I don't really see any of other arguments).

 

[Hytec]

The media portrays Mississippi as anti-rail, among hundreds of other non-flattering labels. However, Misissippi supported the Sunset Limited from its inception until Amtrak (temporarily) pulled it after Hurricane Katrina. Mississippi also supported the Gulf Coast Limited when it ran between Mobile and NOL in '84-'85 and again in '96-'97. It's just that Mississippi, like most other states, has significant budget problems, so we can't afford new train service in addition to the Crescent and CONO, especially with Amtrak's current financing requirements.

I notice that some on this topic are comparing state rail service funding with highway funding. This is not a fair comparison, in fatc it is totally unfair in the case of train service. At least with Mississippi, perhaps other states as well, the Federal Highway Administration provides Mississippi with 75-90% funding for all state highway construction and 95% funding for Interstate construction. Whereas Amtrak expects the exact opposite, requiring states to provide the Federal Government (Amtrak) with up to 50% of the funds needed to start and operate national train service through their states. This totally inequitable and unfair funding situation will continue until the American people and their elected officials accept that pasenger trains are as much a Public Service, as are roads, busses, subways, light rail, airports, ferries, etc., etc., ad nauseum. :angry:

 

[SunsetLimited01]

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

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd say PA is pretty anti-rail. PennDOT certainly is.

Pennsylvania, through PennDOT, funds the Keystone service and funded the rebuilding of the Harrisburg line to 110 mph standards. The Keystone service is the third busiest state-supported corridor run by Amtrak (behind only the Pacific Surfliner and the Capitol Corridor in California). That seems pretty rail friendly to me.

The Keystone upgrades were funded through a federal grant. The funding for the keystones is not that substantial.

 

[PRR 60]

The Keystone upgrades were funded through a federal grant. The funding for the keystones is not that substantial.

The Keystone Line upgrade, at a total cost of $145 million, was funded 50-50 by Amtrak and PennDOT. The PennDOT contribution was 100% state funding and was not supplemented by federal grants.

 

[kentuckian1977]

Which states would you consider to be anti-rail? Sadly, I'd say my home state of Louisiana is, by virtue of the governor, who apparently sees no value in it.
If Louisiana showed more of an active interest in funding intercity rail, I see no reason why the long talked about service to Baton Rouge couldn't already be running (Amtrak ran test trains back in 2006) as well as, at least, service to Mobile.

Add Kentucky to the list — the conservatives that mostly populate the state (and its government) are much more interested in more and more highways, and more and more bridges. Nobody we know can understand why on earth we'd want to take a train anywhere — bizarre, foreign thought!

You certainly described Kentucky's sad attitude towards passenger rail very aptly Sue. I hope one of these days a high speed route from Louisville - Chicago will happen, but if it does, it'll have to be the Feds and/or Indiana and Illinois that get it done, Kentucky won't lift a finger. Which is really sad. With state support, I would think we could also get the upcoming Ohio 3C corridor service extended south on NS to Lexington and/or via CSX to Louisville. As it is right now, when I finally take my first Amtrak trip, if it is on the CONO or on one of the Western trains, I'll probably just drive to one of the stations in Illinois, (as discussed on the Alton thread on here just now) because that would be much cheaper and more convenient than taking the Cardinal overnight for a connection in Chicago. (A daily Cardinal, if nothing else, would make riding Amtrak, and especially connections to other trains, much more convenient for Kentuckians.)

 

[clearfork]

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

 

[dh127]

I'd say that list, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia Louisiana is probably a pretty good list.
I's have to give the nod to Wisconsin right now, though, as the most anti-rail state since they seem kind of indignant about getting federal money.

I'd put Georgia second, since its so out of character for them. Building HSR to Charlotte should be something they would have done first.

I'd put Arizona third. They have the largest city not served by Amtrak and seem not to have a clue about HSR or their favorable location for the service. They actually like their light rail system a lot. But, like Wisconsin, its the principle of the thing. They don't want to destroy their reputation for able and effective political leadership by getting involved with further successful rail projects.

I'd put Louisiana fourth. Mostly they have been embarrassed out of the program by the infamous "Happy Mardi Gras" speech by Jindahl. They don't want to hear about trains after that.

Texas is way off the list by virtue of the Red line. They appear to be in the fermentation stage where they churn a little bit and then suddenly build like three HSR lines.

I'd argue against Wisconsin as number 1. Wisconsin is strong on support of the Hiawatha and got the second station for the Milwaukee airport. The current governor is a big rail supporter, and his party is in control of the state legislature. Some of the Republicans are opposed to further expansion, but no one is talking cutting back on the Hiawatha. There is some debate over where to put the station in Madison for the proposed extension. One of he candidates for governor is real vocal about stopping the Madison extension, but a Democrat candidate is a strong supporter.

I find it interesting that there is much discussion about the Madison station location, and its a way point to extending service to the Minneapolis area.

 

[alanh]

At least with Mississippi, perhaps other states as well, the Federal Highway Administration provides Mississippi with 75-90% funding for all state highway construction and 95% funding for Interstate construction. Whereas Amtrak expects the exact opposite, requiring states to provide the Federal Government (Amtrak) with up to 50% of the funds needed to start and operate national train service through their states. This totally inequitable and unfair funding situation will continue until the American people and their elected officials accept that pasenger trains are as much a Public Service, as are roads, busses, subways, light rail, airports, ferries, etc., etc., ad nauseum. :angry:

Do you have a source for that? Although "chargeable" interstates did get 90% federal funding, new routes getting this designation are rare.
In 2007, my state of Arizona got $709 million from the feds for highways, but spent $2.3 billion. The same tables show Mississippi getting $409 million but spending $1.6 billion.

(2009 will have much higher federal money due to the one-time recovery act.)

 

[Greg]

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