From now until 2016

[Anderson]

For the rest of the country, he says “frequency and reliability” are what matters for increasing ridership – not 150 mile speeds.

Well, that's true for the most part. Speed does matter too; average speed matters, not top speed: bring NY-Chicago down to 12 hours... or 10... or 8....

Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure throwing money into an 8 hour run between NY and Chicago is the best use of our money. It's a long enough corridor that even if we could get an average speed of 79mph, we're still looking at 10 hours (based on Google Maps.) My guess is that that sort of trip will, at least with today's technology, be better served by air. Now, improving it would still be useful for the in between points, especially if the Pittsburgh to NY could be shortened to even eight hours (right now the Pennsylvanian is a nine and a half hour run.) Perhaps make it possible to do eight hours from Pittsburgh to Chicago (hour and a half reduction) and then those that want to do the full length could do it in sixteen hours (instead of the 19 hours on the Lake Shore Limited.) If you leave at, say, 4:30 PM from Chicago, you could hit NY around 9:30 AM (and run an opposing-time train for 2x/day frequency, minimum.) Even bumping it up an hour could be useful if someone's going to a conference that starts in the afternoon (or has an afternoon meeting,) as they'd have enough time to stop at the hotel, freshen up, and be ready for a 1 PM meeting.

Well, I'd also point out that even if a 12-hour run NYP-CHI might not sell millions of tickets between the endpoints, you'd pile them up in intermediate markets like nobody's business. On that sort of timetable, the implied times from NYP to Buffalo or Pittsburgh are pretty impressive; even counting bus links, you'd probably more or less collapse intrastate commercial aviation in New York or Pennsylvania (depending on which route you took). The same thing would apply to getting NYP-MIA down to a Palmetto-style run (if with a late arrival at the endpoints): You might not sell the tickets from NYP-MIA, but if we shift to the ticket sales you'd get to/from Raleigh, Savannah, and so forth, you'd be packing multiple-daily trains on a regular basis and having to trot out either seasonal specials, extra sections, or special additions at times.

My point is that even if the endpoints aren't going to pile up all of the ridership, most LD trains have major intermediate markets to look at. In general, shooting for average speeds in the 80 MPH range seems to be a reasonable longer-term goal, and while still not cheap, it gives you the ability to crush bus and airline traffic for pretty much everything under 300 miles, and to seriously compete in the 400-500 mile range.

 

[jebr]

For the rest of the country, he says “frequency and reliability” are what matters for increasing ridership – not 150 mile speeds.

Well, that's true for the most part. Speed does matter too; average speed matters, not top speed: bring NY-Chicago down to 12 hours... or 10... or 8....

Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure throwing money into an 8 hour run between NY and Chicago is the best use of our money. It's a long enough corridor that even if we could get an average speed of 79mph, we're still looking at 10 hours (based on Google Maps.) My guess is that that sort of trip will, at least with today's technology, be better served by air. Now, improving it would still be useful for the in between points, especially if the Pittsburgh to NY could be shortened to even eight hours (right now the Pennsylvanian is a nine and a half hour run.) Perhaps make it possible to do eight hours from Pittsburgh to Chicago (hour and a half reduction) and then those that want to do the full length could do it in sixteen hours (instead of the 19 hours on the Lake Shore Limited.) If you leave at, say, 4:30 PM from Chicago, you could hit NY around 9:30 AM (and run an opposing-time train for 2x/day frequency, minimum.) Even bumping it up an hour could be useful if someone's going to a conference that starts in the afternoon (or has an afternoon meeting,) as they'd have enough time to stop at the hotel, freshen up, and be ready for a 1 PM meeting.

Well, I'd also point out that even if a 12-hour run NYP-CHI might not sell millions of tickets between the endpoints, you'd pile them up in intermediate markets like nobody's business. On that sort of timetable, the implied times from NYP to Buffalo or Pittsburgh are pretty impressive; even counting bus links, you'd probably more or less collapse intrastate commercial aviation in New York or Pennsylvania (depending on which route you took). The same thing would apply to getting NYP-MIA down to a Palmetto-style run (if with a late arrival at the endpoints): You might not sell the tickets from NYP-MIA, but if we shift to the ticket sales you'd get to/from Raleigh, Savannah, and so forth, you'd be packing multiple-daily trains on a regular basis and having to trot out either seasonal specials, extra sections, or special additions at times.

My point is that even if the endpoints aren't going to pile up all of the ridership, most LD trains have major intermediate markets to look at. In general, shooting for average speeds in the 80 MPH range seems to be a reasonable longer-term goal, and while still not cheap, it gives you the ability to crush bus and airline traffic for pretty much everything under 300 miles, and to seriously compete in the 400-500 mile range.

Strategically. I'm not sure the entire Chicago - NY corridor is strategic enough to warrant that, at least in the immediate future. With limited resources, I'd rather see other lines restarted or improved before parts of that corridor. Improving to Pittsburgh makes sense...it'd connect with the rest of PA and allow for some decent state matching, hopefully. But there's not a lot of intermediate markets between PGH and CHI. Cleveland's there, as is Toledo and South Bend, but South Bend already has frequent service to Chicago, and Cleveland and Toledo seem small enough to be lower on the priority list of improving service than, say, reinstating some LD routes in the West or getting more routes in the Upper Midwest (though that may be my bias kicking in.) If anything, perhaps doing a run-through Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit would be better than improving speeds, if the choice needed to be made. Getting Detroit in the mix, while making the overall route longer, is a large enough intermediate market to make it useful for at least one run a day. (Plus, that would put part of the route on 90-110mph track anyways if it runs to Chicago, and it takes advantage of improvements being made in Michigan.)

 

[Anderson]

Well, for a starting point, pull the amended version of the HSR corridors, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Rail_07-09-2009.JPG

I don't think that was much changed following about 2000 or so. In general, I'd make five main adjustments to it:

1) First, get a line between either Albany or Springfield up to speed to connect with the Northern New England connection to Montreal, so as to allow direct connections from NYP.

2) Second, throw in JAX-ORL/MIA. Jacksonville is likely large enough to justify such a connection on its own (that part of Florida is growing quickly enough, and 90/110 MPH service along the line isn't exactly a crazy proposition; also, since the state already owns the ORL-DLD part of the line, working something out to buy off most of the DLD-JAX line shouldn't be completely impossible...the only issue is going to be if the FEC raises hell about facing a government-sponsored competitor there, and in such a case I'm actually highly sympathetic if they're serious about that link). As hinted at in the last sentence, though, the FEC folks might well take care of this.

3) Pick a link between Cleveland and the east...either the Empire or Keystone connection works here.

4) Link Houston and San Antonio. This won't squeeze out JR Central's plans (which would be faster Houston-DFW anyway), but it would both complete the Texas Triangle and connect SAS-NOL.

After that, the question becomes what line(s) to connect Texas to the Midwest with (Tulsa-KCY, Tulsa-STL, or Little Rock-STL all work), as well as whether to add any additional spurs to the network as well (Chattanooga or Memphis could be added in) or to add something in the Front Range. Still, such a network would be reasonably comprehensive, and most parts would be reachable from most other parts with no more than 24 hours or so of travel (at the longer ends), while most main pairs (NYP-CHI, NYP-MIA, CHI-DAL) would be far shorter.

 

[AlanB]

I'd rather see other lines restarted or improved before parts of that corridor. Improving to Pittsburgh makes sense...it'd connect with the rest of PA and allow for some decent state matching, hopefully. But there's not a lot of intermediate markets between PGH and CHI. Cleveland's there, as is Toledo and South Bend, but South Bend already has frequent service to Chicago, and Cleveland and Toledo seem small enough to be lower on the priority list of improving service than, say, reinstating some LD routes in the West or getting more routes in the Upper Midwest (though that may be my bias kicking in.)

I'd be cautious about that statement. While my couple of trips represent a small sampling, I have to say that my few trips on the Pennsy when it ran to Chicago were surprisingly full during the mid-point of the run and much emptier as it neared the midnight arrivals at the end point.

Yes, granted all train hit their peek at the mid-points. But that's at least in part because of the heavy boardings at the endpoints, coupled with picking some ridership along the way. The Pennsy seemed to be more of a case of starting out on the lighter side, and then picking up more ridership than normal during the middle of the run.

I did one run off the summer peak between Cleveland & Toledo and reverse, and both ways the train was sold out with heavy boarding & disembarking along the way.

 

[irv]

Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:

1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".

2. LD train tickets are costly, therefore trains "are only for the [hated] rich"*

3. LD trains generally pass thru "red" states - full of people who voted the "wrong" way.

*OK, VP Biden likes trains, is rich, and isn't hated by the Dems, but I suspect they aren't really all that

fond of him, either.

For those 3 reasons, I'm taking my AMTRAK trips next month, because next year may well be too late.

 

[jebr]

Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:

1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".

2. LD train tickets are costly, therefore trains "are only for the [hated] rich"*

3. LD trains generally pass thru "red" states - full of people who voted the "wrong" way.

*OK, VP Biden likes trains, is rich, and isn't hated by the Dems, but I suspect they aren't really all that

fond of him, either.

For those 3 reasons, I'm taking my AMTRAK trips next month, because next year may well be too late.

2. Coach tickets are cheaper than airplane tickets, and sometimes cheaper than even Greyhound tickets. I wouldn't go that doom and gloom...probably keep the status quo.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

After that, the question becomes what line(s) to connect Texas to the Midwest with (Tulsa-KCY, Tulsa-STL, or Little Rock-STL all work), as well as whether to add any additional spurs to the network as well (Chattanooga or Memphis could be added in) or to add something in the Front Range. Still, such a network would be reasonably comprehensive, and most parts would be reachable from most other parts with no more than 24 hours or so of travel (at the longer ends), while most main pairs (NYP-CHI, NYP-MIA, CHI-DAL) would be far shorter.

Just for answering the Dallas-Chicago question, I think the best choice would be to make the Tulsa route a spur, and have the line go through Wichita to Kansas City, where it can more-or-less follow the SWC with a direct run to Chicago. I like the Memphis idea, if you do run the train to Little Rock. I'm not sure why they picked Little Rock as an actual terminus though, due to its (relatively) small size. Extend that to Memphis, and from there it seems smart to connect that to Birmingham. Just my thoughts on this.

 

[Trogdor]

Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:

1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".

2. LD train tickets are costly, therefore trains "are only for the [hated] rich"*

3. LD trains generally pass thru "red" states - full of people who voted the "wrong" way.

*OK, VP Biden likes trains, is rich, and isn't hated by the Dems, but I suspect they aren't really all that

fond of him, either.

For those 3 reasons, I'm taking my AMTRAK trips next month, because next year may well be too late.

1 is false. 2 is questionable. 3 is irrelevant.

 

[zephyr17]

Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:

1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".

2. LD train tickets are costly, therefore trains "are only for the [hated] rich"*

3. LD trains generally pass thru "red" states - full of people who voted the "wrong" way.

*OK, VP Biden likes trains, is rich, and isn't hated by the Dems, but I suspect they aren't really all that

fond of him, either.

For those 3 reasons, I'm taking my AMTRAK trips next month, because next year may well be too late.

Nothing has really changed. It wasn't a change election in terms of the makeup of Congress. Also, Amtrak's position is the same as it has been for decades, with the LDs being a convienent political punching bag. The calculus is, and has been for a long time, at the end of the day Congress is not going to fund something that only benefits the Northeast. The national network is the trade-off for having federal support of the NEC (which does NOT support itself. Even with cooked books, the "profit" there is only against above-the-rail costs. If you factor in infrastructure, it doesn't come any closer to covering costs than the rest of Amtrak). Plus, red states or not, for Dems rail transport is politically correct. And coach is generally pretty cheap.

Amtrak is in a lot less danger now than it was during the Bush Administration, when there was a Republican Congress and Bush was gunning for Amtrak with a zero-out budget proposal. That is the closest to the edge they have ever been, I have gotten pretty phlegmatic about it, but even I did a "farewell" tour then as I thought the odds of survival were only about 50/50 that time. They are not anywhere near as close to the edge, politically, now. Besides, Amtrak is a minor sideshow. It is useful as a political punching bag, but it is a truly minor part of the budget.

Amtrak will continue to get enough appropriation to survive at the customary near-starvation levels, after having endured the equally customary ideological wailing; the kabuki will continue. Amtrak will get enough to survive, but not expand or significantly improve.

 

[Bob Dylan]

A different perspective on the Election:

1. The US is not broke, it just wastes Trillions of Dollars on Needless and Worthless things like Overseas Nation Building, Uneeded and Unwanted Weapon Systems and Corporate Welfare! Tax Code Reform is THE Biggest Need even though Politicians hate to use the T Word, they call it "Revenue" Now! :help:

2. While ALL Rail Fares are rising, such things as Regional and Commuter Rail are Booming, and even LD Trains like the Empire Buillder are used by Workers , Most Amtrak and Rail Riders are NOT Rich!

3. A Fallacy! While the Big Lie Machine informs the No Nothings that Washington is Evil, Congress' job is to Vote for their District and State, if you don't bring Home the Bacon you don't get Re-elected (ie Paul Ryan asking for Stimulus Funds (even though he Campaigned Against the Stimulus) for his District which he didnt get and he didnt even carry his own Hometown or State for his Ticket!)

"Amtrak Joe" is NOT Rich! Hes one of the few people that spent his life in Washington and didnt Cash in like so many do! And Everyone likes Joe, even the other party1 Hes a Friendly, Honest and Very Smart guy and the Voters must agree, the Democrats Won the Election Inspite of the Lies and Hate spread around about President Obama!

My Prediction is that when All is said and Done, Amtrak will still be here, albiet with some more Meddling by the Congress and with a Somewhat Smaller Allocation of funding resulting in still Higher Fares for Us! Details @ 11 as they say on the Local News!

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Well, he may not be "rich", but he certainly has a lot more money than the average Joe. And not everyone in his home state likes him.

Joe's House

 

[jis]

Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:

1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".

2. LD train tickets are costly, therefore trains "are only for the [hated] rich"*

3. LD trains generally pass thru "red" states - full of people who voted the "wrong" way.

*OK, VP Biden likes trains, is rich, and isn't hated by the Dems, but I suspect they aren't really all that

fond of him, either.

For those 3 reasons, I'm taking my AMTRAK trips next month, because next year may well be too late.

1 is false. 2 is questionable. 3 is irrelevant.

Very well put. It is good though that these false assumptions and associated tenuous logic are causing people to front load their contribution to Amtrak revenues. That could not hurt.

 

[zephyr17]

Just an glass-half-full observation...

In recalling how things were in the late-60s, in 1971, and the early 70s, if someone had told me in the early 70s that Amtrak would still exist in 2012 and still be running a reasonable, if skeletal, network of full service long distance trains, I would not have believed them. Even at the beginning, it was fairly transparent that the purpose of Amtrak was relieve the railroads, particularly Penn Central, of the financial burden of passenger losses while shielding them from the political and public relations consequences of ceasing passenger service, then give the intercity passenger train quiet burial with a "well, we tried". It was intended to be a political fig leaf. I didn't expect Amtrak to survive more than 5 or 10 years and no one I knew did either. I certainly don't think the railroads did, and if they could have predicted this future, they well might not have supported Amtrak and preferred a few more years of losses in exchange for getting rid of passenger trains entirely. The "for profit" clause in the National Railroad Passenger Act of 1970 was the poison pill that they could use to euthanize it, a poison pill that is still there. It likely survived its infancy because of 1973 Gas Crisis when a lot of people started using the train again, particularly in what became the NEC, and the NEC got perceived as critical. The enduring "NEC for the national network" trade-off evolved from there.

So in any event, I am damn glad the long-distrance train survived this long in this country. In 1970, it looked utterly impossible.

 

[nocTurnal]

It is the $117 billion Next Gen NEC plan with the 220 mph HSR trains. $33 billion of the $150 billion number that was publicized is for modernization and capacity expansion of the current NEC including the Gateway project, multiple 160 mph segments, bridge & tunnel replacements, Keystone East & New Haven-Springfield corridors.

The $117 billion Next Gen NEC concept is a very long way from starting construction, if it does manage to do so. It is a concept, not a detailed plan with engineering design so far.

Thanks for clarifying that to all of you who responded to me. That is too bad; it made big news when it was announced a few years ago. So with no actual plan to build, we're looking at the 2020s before we'd ever see construction... if they ever proceed. Wouldn't it at the very least create jobs? Isn't that a major part of the idea of rebuilding America's infrastructure?

It looks like Britain will go forward with their High Speed Rail 2 plan. An interesting visual graphic can be found here: http://www.guardian....apped-animation

 

[Nathanael]

Strategically. I'm not sure the entire Chicago - NY corridor is strategic enough to warrant that, at least in the immediate future. With limited resources, I'd rather see other lines restarted or improved before parts of that corridor. Improving to Pittsburgh makes sense...it'd connect with the rest of PA and allow for some decent state matching, hopefully. But there's not a lot of intermediate markets between PGH and CHI.

Think more carefully. There's a lot of demand from upstate NY (Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse/Albany, plus places which can drive to Albany) to Chicago. Much more than you might at first imagine. The flight connections are kind of crummy and they're getting worse -- and it's just a bit too long to drive comfortably for most people. Something similar seems to be going on in western Pennsylvania. While there is sort of a "void" between Toledo and Chicago, shrinking the time from Cleveland to Chicago suddenly improves service -- and attracts passengers -- for a lot of markets which are further east, but not on the east coast. (It's also easier, technically, than improving the routes east of Cleveland.)

Cleveland's there, as is Toledo and South Bend, but South Bend already has frequent service to Chicago, and Cleveland and Toledo seem small enough to be lower on the priority list of improving service than, say, reinstating some LD routes in the West or getting more routes in the Upper Midwest (though that may be my bias kicking in.) If anything, perhaps doing a run-through Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit would be better than improving speeds, if the choice needed to be made. Getting Detroit in the mix, while making the overall route longer, is a large enough intermediate market to make it useful for at least one run a day. (Plus, that would put part of the route on 90-110mph track anyways if it runs to Chicago, and it takes advantage of improvements being made in Michigan.)

Although NY-Detroit is an extremely attractive city pair, diverting the Chicago-bound trains via Detroit slows things down too much, unfortunately -- it loses the existing customer base going from upstate NY / western PA to Chicago. A fast connection from Detroit-Toledo could change that calculation, of course. (So would reinstating the Canada Southern route from Detroit to Buffalo, but that seems very unlikely for many years to come, unfortunately.)

In the meantime, the best thing to do is to improve the final approach from NW Indiana to Chicago ("South of the Lake") -- this wastes an awful lot of time right now, going at 45 mph and stopping for freight and commuter traffic -- and improve the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh and NYC-Buffalo corridors. The part in between needs to be improved too, but for a while it's going to be easier to fund improvements on the ends, and they will benefit the overall route.

 

[CHamilton]

Looks like Shuster will be leading the House transportation committee.

Mica Drops Chairmanship Bid, Endorses ShusterRep. John Mica (R-FL) has withdrawn from the running to remain chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was up against Republican term limits, which specify that no Congressmember can spend more than six years as the highest-ranking member of their party on a committee — regardless of whether that time is spent as chair of the committee (while their party is in the majority) or as ranking member (when in the minority).

Mica had been in conversations with House Speaker John Boehner about getting a waiver, as Rep. Paul Ryan did, allowing him to stay at the helm of the Budget Committee. But it wasn’t looking likely. So Mica did the gentlemanly thing: He pulled out and threw his support to Rep. Bill Shuster, the chair of the Rail Subcommittee, who was also jockeying for the hot seat.

 

[afigg]

Looks like Shuster will be leading the House transportation committee.

On the whole, that is probably good news for Amtrak. At least Amtrak will be spared the show hearings Mica has been putting on to beat Amtrak up over food sale losses. I see that Mica is holding another one this week so Amtrak management can spend the day defending the company in a hearing, rather than running the railroad. I would expect Shuster will drop those hearings as a waste of valuable committee time.

 

[jis]

For all you know Shuster will drop those hearings and start new ones for privatizing the NEC, which has been one of his favorite hobby horses in the past.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Shuster can claim to be pro-rail, but so did Mica. Regardless of those claims neither one of them supports the current arrangement where government owns the passenger rail network. As a result you can expect both to be hard on Amtrak and looking for any way they can to privatize the NEC while letting the rest of the national network fall into perpetual irrelevance. As most folks know if a private passenger rail system were truly workable it wouldn't have been turned into Amtrak in the first place. If Mica and Shuster want to be taken seriously they should start by admitting that nobody is preventing anyone from promoting and funding as much private rail as they like TODAY. If the only suggestion Mica and Shuster can come up with is to take what has already been built and outsource it to yet another private entity for pennies on the dollar then how is that any sort of benefit for the rest of us? They should be looking out for how to serve the country as a whole, not just a tiny pocket of the Northeast, and certainly not just a few of their well heeled buddies. But that's not how our system of government is built or run. It's built and run to bring home barrels of pork paid for by millions but truly benefitting only a tiny few with the right connections.

 

[CHamilton]

It’s Official: Bill Shuster Named Transportation Committee Chair

Republicans met today to choose committee chairs, and Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) has been placed at the head of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The former chair, John Mica, dropped his request yesterday to stay on as chair despite term limits.

 

[afigg]

For all you know Shuster will drop those hearings and start new ones for privatizing the NEC, which has been one of his favorite hobby horses in the past.

I expect Shuster will have hearings and submit bills on privatizing the NEC. While he will have more power to pursue it as a committee Chairman, the effort to push for a privatization of the NEC did not get much traction even in the House. While the votes are still being counted, it appears that the Democrats will pick up 8 House seats in the next Congress. While the House will remain in Republican control, the next session will have fewer Tea Party members, a narrower Republican majority and more progressive Democrats, making it more difficult to get bills or amendments passed that attempt to privatize the NEC or severely cut Amtrak. That is before any such bill gets to the Senate or the Administration where it will die.

My guess is that Boardman would rather deal with hearings on privatizing the NEC because he will have a lot of allies backing him up on the NEC over the Mica hearings attacking Food & Beverage losses or corporate restructuring.

 

[jis]

For all you know Shuster will drop those hearings and start new ones for privatizing the NEC, which has been one of his favorite hobby horses in the past.

I expect Shuster will have hearings and submit bills on privatizing the NEC. While he will have more power to pursue it as a committee Chairman, the effort to push for a privatization of the NEC did not get much traction even in the House. While the votes are still being counted, it appears that the Democrats will pick up 8 House seats in the next Congress. While the House will remain in Republican control, the next session will have fewer Tea Party members, a narrower Republican majority and more progressive Democrats, making it more difficult to get bills or amendments passed that attempt to privatize the NEC or severely cut Amtrak. That is before any such bill gets to the Senate or the Administration where it will die.

My guess is that Boardman would rather deal with hearings on privatizing the NEC because he will have a lot of allies backing him up on the NEC over the Mica hearings attacking Food & Beverage losses or corporate restructuring.

Privatizing NEC is a complete non-starter in the current legislative makeup in Washington DC. It might pass the House buried in some bill or the other. It has zero chance of getting through the Senate and even less chance of getting the Presidential signature. OTOH, reorganization of NEC and requiring some of the states to take on more financial responsibility for it is a somewhat different matter, and will likely get discussed at least even if nothing happens.

BTW, did Mica overtly attack Corporate restructuring? I did not notice so, unless just holding a hearing is considered an attack. I don't see the mere occurrence of a hearing as an attack. hearings are the means that the elected legislature has to monitor what is going on in things funded by them, and I would not deny them that privilege. Frankly I learned quite a bit about the thinking behind the restructuring from the hearing, something that I would not otherwise have learned, and found that very useful. I do like to see regular civil hearings and not the kind of partisan circus that mica managed to create at times.

BTW, on the matter of food service - the East Coast TOC instituted food service included in First Class tickets with food delivered at the seat from a pantry, and discontinued all Restaurant Car service (basically Acela First Class-like service), and revenues went up by a significant percent in First Class. This occurred over the last 6 to 9 months and reported on in the current issue of Modern Railway.

Even on the matter of food service, it is hard to fault Congress if it wants to learn what is being done, but it is appropriate to fault Congress when in its infinite stupidity it decides that it could run day to day operation of food service better than the professionals who actually run it. Congress should restrict itself to setting broad strategic goals in consultation with the professionals and then leave the execution to those who know what they are doing.

 

[cirdan]

Thanks for clarifying that to all of you who responded to me. That is too bad; it made big news when it was announced a few years ago. So with no actual plan to build, we're looking at the 2020s before we'd ever see construction... if they ever proceed. Wouldn't it at the very least create jobs? Isn't that a major part of the idea of rebuilding America's infrastructure?

For big infrastructure projects of this type, such lead times are quite typical. I don't know when the Shinkansen was first proposed but France was experimenting with high speed trains as early as the 1950s. Progress could have been much faster but the political climate at the time wasn't supportive of injecting such huge sums into such a project.

British Rail has similarly been playing with the concept of a high-speed train going North-South since the 1960s. At the time they believed it could use existing rail lines and the gas-turbine APT-E was succesfully tested at high speeds in th early 1970s, with speeds of over 150mph being achieved. One of the publicity highlights was a staged parallel run with Concorde. The HSTs, which are still running today, were a low-tech spin-off intended as an intermediate solution with research on the APT being for a more long-term super-train. Later an electric version was introduced and even briefly used in passenger service, but the project finally abandoned due to costs and unresolved issues. Again a low-tech stop gap solution emerged with the Class 91 but the need for a more advanced train had not gone away and eventually this germinated in the form of the WCML upgrade which again had to be downscaled over cost overruns and feasibility issues. The present High Speed line proposal is thus the next attempt to solve an age-old problem, and will probably succceed where the previosu attempts had failed for the simple reason that all previous attempts failed due to compatibility issues in using a 180 year old line with very heavy traffic (including high numbers of commuter and freight trains). The only real solution is a new and totally separate line. I think the parallels to the NEC are obvious here.

Thus over 50 years we have seen the emergence of a solution, with different iterations playing a part and what is finally being built being radically different from what was first proposed.

 

[jis]

Here is some potential good news....

https://apps.facebook.com/thehillsocial/content/269977

Shuster has spoken and hints at compromise on Amtrak funding

 

[afigg]

BTW, did Mica overtly attack Corporate restructuring? I did not notice so, unless just holding a hearing is considered an attack. I don't see the mere occurrence of a hearing as an attack. hearings are the means that the elected legislature has to monitor what is going on in things funded by them, and I would not deny them that privilege. Frankly I learned quite a bit about the thinking behind the restructuring from the hearing, something that I would not otherwise have learned, and found that very useful. I do like to see regular civil hearings and not the kind of partisan circus that mica managed to create at times.

The issue with the Mica Amtrak hearings is the number he has had this year. This is what?, the 4th or 5th, and he plans to hold 2 more before the end of the lame duck session. The House committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a lot to oversee and there are only so many days available in the course of a year, especially with the fewer days the House has been in session since the Republicans took control. Mica is using a lot of committee and staff time to hold these hearings. He could have had fewer hearings, more focused on the relevant issues, such as corporate restructuring and Amtrak plans. Food and Beverage sales are a pretty minor item for a major House committee to spend time on.

But, I agree, Boardman's statement for this hearing is an interesting one and shows more thought and purpose behind his actions than many of the Amtrak critics, including the railfans who want this or that LD train restored, give him credit for.

According to the Trains Magazine News Wire article on the hearing (probably behind a subscriber wall), Mica did get in this dig: "Mica did get in a few jabs, bragging that he saved taxpayers money by not ordering a hamburger from the café car on a recent Amtrak trip from New York." If the NEC food service sales are making a small profit as reported, he did not save the taxpayers money by not getting a hamburger. On the other hand, if he was traveling on a congressional expense account, then he did save taxpayer money by not getting the burger.