High Speed Rail Money

[Rail Freak]

The Feds gave us another 800 million Monday, on top of the 1.2 billion received earlier for the HSR between Tampa & Orlando!

 

[Thomas]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

 

[Eric S]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Yes, "supportive" (not sure why that was in quotes) states get greater federal funding for their rail plans than other states. Illinois (in the case of Chicago-Iowa City) has, for many years, been more supportive of Amtrak and rail service than Texas (in the case of Houston-Dallas). Did Texas even submit a plan for Houston-Dallas (or any other corridor) rail service in order to receive federal funding?

 

[John Bredin]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Why is it "political" to responsibly leverage federal money in states willing to contribute financially? :wacko: Plus, you do realize that this federal money contributes to capital construction and purchases but the states pay what Amtrak fares can't on the day-to-day and year-to-year operating side?! That is why Amtrak doesn't apply for these funds and run the trains directly.

Both Illinois and Iowa are putting up state money to match the federal money. Texas ain't for Houston-Dallas, and while California pays for a lot of rail service, neither it nor Nevada are willing to pony up a ha'penny for Las Vegas service.

I don't "find it appalling" that people who put their money where their mouth is (back up Congressional delegation and state-government support with cold cash) get better service than other people not willing to put their money or their mouth (as Eric S notes, has a Texan government official or Congressional delegate called for Dallas-Houston service?) behind it.

 

[jis]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?

 

[PetalumaLoco]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?

Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.

 

[PRR 60]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?

Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.

I think the point is that in order to get the federal highway grants, all states have to put up a local match - be it 90/10%, 80/20% or 50/50%, depending on the type of project. It was not a comment on how much federal gas tax paid by a state's motorists comes back to that state.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?

Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.

I think the point is that in order to get the federal highway grants, all states have to put up a local match - be it 90/10%, 80/20% or 50/50%, depending on the type of project. It was not a comment on how much federal gas tax paid by a state's motorists comes back to that state.

Yeah, I got that part.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Illinois has supported a successful regional rail service almost from the beginning of Amtrak. The Iowa City extension is part of an Illinois plan to restore service from Chicago to the Quad Cities. Illinois has put its money where its mouth is. And now Iowa has joined the effort. The money is allocated to states who have applied for it. Has Texas ever made an effort to restore Dallas-Houston service? Outside of DART and Trinity Rail Express (and the joint funding with Oklahoma of the Heartland Express), all in the Dallas area, Texas hasn't been too interested in rail transit. Houston is the fourth largest city in the U.S. and has only one short light rail route, because some Texas politicians actively opposed rail service. Illinois has double daily service on the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg and Ilini/Saluki routes and multiple daily service on the Lincoln Service and Hiawatha routes, so it's got plenty of experience and is a good partner for Amtrak.

 

[jis]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Why do you expect this to be different from the way highways for example are funded? Which state has received federal funds for highways construction that has not put up its share of local funding for the same? So naturally you probably find all highway funding to be appalling too?

Alaska gets $6 federal funding for hiways for every $1 of state money. Other states pay more than the federal share. Wrong argument.

I think the point is that in order to get the federal highway grants, all states have to put up a local match - be it 90/10%, 80/20% or 50/50%, depending on the type of project. It was not a comment on how much federal gas tax paid by a state's motorists comes back to that state.

Yeah, I got that part.

And that was the only relevant part of the argument. So I don;t know why you think it is a wrong argument

 

[Thomas]

Why doesn't Amtrak apply for HSR funding to fix the rest of the wrecked equipment sitting in storage?

 

[Loony Joe]

I find it appalling that the feds would be willing to fund a Chicago-Iowa City service when there is no direct service in much larger markets, such as LA - Las Vegas and Houston - Dallas. This shows how much of rail spending is political. If certain states aren't "supportive" of rail, it will get passed over, no matter how large the demand is for rail. This begs the question-- why doesn't Amtrak apply for these funds and start service on its own?

Why is it "political" to responsibly leverage federal money in states willing to contribute financially? :wacko: Plus, you do realize that this federal money contributes to capital construction and purchases but the states pay what Amtrak fares can't on the day-to-day and year-to-year operating side?! That is why Amtrak doesn't apply for these funds and run the trains directly.

Both Illinois and Iowa are putting up state money to match the federal money. Texas ain't for Houston-Dallas, and while California pays for a lot of rail service, neither it nor Nevada are willing to pony up a ha'penny for Las Vegas service.

I don't "find it appalling" that people who put their money where their mouth is (back up Congressional delegation and state-government support with cold cash) get better service than other people not willing to put their money or their mouth (as Eric S notes, has a Texan government official or Congressional delegate called for Dallas-Houston service?) behind it.

I agree. Like Texas, Georgia has refused to think anything but roads with no money for an Atlanta station, commuter rail, etc. States that refuse to pay should get what they deserve.