# 53 Billion more for railway projects



## Just-Thinking-51

Per the Washinghton Post (The Adminstration plans on spending 53 billion over the next 6 years for high speed and intercity rail projects.)

Problem was this quote ("Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service," Mica added.)

Nice...

Edit for big finger issue


----------



## Ryan

I would love to ask Rep. Mica what exactly he means by that, but I suspect that (much like calling people a "Socialist!") it has little basis in actual reality.


----------



## j653

I wonder what Rep. Mica thinks about our Soviet-style highway system? Or our Soviet-style airport and traffic control system.


----------



## Eric S

Here's the press release from the White House:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ces-six-year-plan-build-national-high-speed-r

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/08/vice-president-biden-announces-six-year-plan-build-national-high-speed-r


----------



## Eric S

Ryan said:


> I would love to ask Rep. Mica what exactly he means by that, but I suspect that (much like calling people a "Socialist!") it has little basis in actual reality.


I seem to recall Rep. Mica referring to Amtrak as a "Soviet-style" railroad in years past as well.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I didn't see a WP link but you can read the story *here...*

$53 billion might sound absolutely massive at first glance, but it's actually tiny compared to the *$450 - $600 billion *China will be spending over the next *four* years.

Like clockwork the GOP is already out with a nearly instantaneous condemnation of the proposal.



> House Transportation Committee Chairman *John L. Mica *(*R*-Fla.) and Railroads Subcommittee Chairman *Bill Shuster *(*R*-Pa.) both expressed skepticism about the plan. "This is like giving *Bernie Madoff *another chance at handling your investment portfolio," Mica said in a statement.
> "With the first $10.5 billion in administration rail grants, we found that...
> 
> 1) the Federal Railroad Administration is neither a capable grant agency, nor should it be involved in the selection of projects,
> 
> 2) what the administration touted as high-speed rail ended up as embarrassing snail-speed trains to nowhere, and
> 
> 3) Amtrak hijacked 76 of the 78 projects, most of them costly and some already rejected by state agencies.
> 
> Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service," Mica added.


----------



## jis

daxomni said:


> I didn't see a WP link but you can read the story *here...*
> 
> $53 billion might sound absolutely massive at first glance, but it's actually tiny compared to the *$450 - $600 billion *China will be spending over the next *four* years.
> 
> Like clockwork the GOP is already out with a nearly instantaneous condemnation of the proposal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Transportation Committee Chairman *John L. Mica *(*R*-Fla.) and Railroads Subcommittee Chairman *Bill Shuster *(*R*-Pa.) both expressed skepticism about the plan. "This is like giving *Bernie Madoff *another chance at handling your investment portfolio," Mica said in a statement.
Click to expand...

This is really funny considering that the Republicans are being given another chance to run the House


----------



## Ryan

It's a good thing that I've got a solo office, because I did laugh out loud at that one, Jis.


----------



## bretton88

Hmmmmmph, no money for the Northeast, I note. I think that if this had been a directed plan (NEC, California, Florida, Texas), there would have been no complaints from Mica. Instead, we have a propsal that spreads the money thin, to a lot of non-HSR train lines. California alone needs 20 more billion from the Feds. The NEC gets almost nothing. So, in a way, I can't blame Mica for complaining. Read the SNCF report on USA HSR to see where the money really should go. A 120 billion $ proposal which SNCF will pay half.


----------



## WICT106

I also note that the Administration can propose whatever they please, but it is the Congress that writes the final draft of a Federal Budget. There is considerable outcry among some parties that we must reduce spending, even in the cases of defense, and Ag / Dairy subsidies. Those who wish this effort to come to fruition must be able to reach out and make common cause with other transit advocates, and advocates of other causes, if we wish to garner support for improved rail service. Living in Wisconsin, believe me when I say that the long knives are out & drawn, and targeting any projects that might be perceived as Obama legacies. Improved passenger rail service is one of those projects targeted for elimination.


----------



## Gratt

I will believe it when I see it. <_< This system has become too politicized.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

WICT106 said:


> Living in Wisconsin, believe me when I say that the long knives are out & drawn, and targeting any projects that might be perceived as Obama legacies. Improved passenger rail service is one of those projects targeted for elimination.


Yeah, the irony of the last couple years is that by attempting to _help_ Amtrak, Obama has inadvertently given government funded passenger rail the kiss of death in the eyes of the GOP. My guess is that the GOP wants Amtrak defunded more than Obama wants to save it, but time will tell.


----------



## afigg

bretton88 said:


> Hmmmmmph, no money for the Northeast, I note. I think that if this had been a directed plan (NEC, California, Florida, Texas), there would have been no complaints from Mica. Instead, we have a propsal that spreads the money thin, to a lot of non-HSR train lines. California alone needs 20 more billion from the Feds. The NEC gets almost nothing. So, in a way, I can't blame Mica for complaining. Read the SNCF report on USA HSR to see where the money really should go. A 120 billion $ proposal which SNCF will pay half.


The funding is directed into general categories, not at a corridor. The NEC is the only active corridor that meets the "Core Express" criteria. The only other corridor projects that are anywhere near ready to receive more construction funding for dedicated electrified corridors with speeds of 125 to 250 mph are the California and Florida HSR projects. And the first leg of the Florida system is pretty much fully funded. So the NEC and California are likely to split the HSR funds, if this comes to pass, over the next 2-3 years.

It should be noted the proposed funding is split into 2 accounts: "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."

The second account looks to be aimed at the NEC and other Amtrak corridors. The first account goes to CA HSR, FL HSR, maybe the Southeast HSR plan and projects where new tracks and stations can be built operating seperately from the freight trains.

Will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next 7-8 months. The political food fight is just getting started.


----------



## WICT106

daxomni said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Living in Wisconsin, believe me when I say that the long knives are out & drawn, and targeting any projects that might be perceived as Obama legacies. Improved passenger rail service is one of those projects targeted for elimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the irony of the last couple years is that by attempting to _help_ Amtrak, Obama has inadvertently given government funded passenger rail the kiss of death in the eyes of the GOP. My guess is that the GOP wants Amtrak defunded more than Obama wants to save it, but time will tell.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Eric S said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to ask Rep. Mica what exactly he means by that, but I suspect that (much like calling people a "Socialist!") it has little basis in actual reality.
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall Rep. Mica referring to Amtrak as a "Soviet-style" railroad in years past as well.
Click to expand...


Was that when he served on a certain committee with THAT Senator from WISCONSIN in the early 1950s? :unsure: :blink: :angry:

The reason I ask such a question is that the way the rhetoric in the new House leadership is going it seems as though Rep. Mica will next claim that he has a list of members of the communist party and memebers of a spy ring that are employed within Amtrak. :blink: :angry2: :wacko:

I begin to wonder if will he will really just settle for implying that only left wing Marxist types ride Federally financially assisted "Soviet-Style" passenger trains? :help:

The news here for me is that I never knew I was a lover of things Soviet! h34r: I thought I loved America!!! :wub:

(and for those who don't know the Senator from Wisconsin that I'm talking about, Google McCarthyism)


----------



## JJJJ

The use of "soviet-style" is interesting because it's extremely clear who that is targeted to, folks 40+ who grew up with the big bad soviet union as the prime example of what was wrong with the world.

But the soviet union has been gone for a pretty long time. And right now, communism = china, and they aren't exactly lined up for bread handouts and riding trains without seats or windows. People look to china and say "why can they do that and we can't".

So I don't know how much the soviet reference matters to voters 30 and younger. Someone born in 1981 was only 10 when the USSR disappeared, and most likely was more concerned with the ninja turtles than with communism.

Anyway, I thought the HSR curtain had come down already? Seems like Fred's limb was the wrong one.


----------



## henryj

bretton88 said:


> Hmmmmmph, no money for the Northeast, I note. I think that if this had been a directed plan (NEC, California, Florida, Texas), there would have been no complaints from Mica. Instead, we have a propsal that spreads the money thin, to a lot of non-HSR train lines. California alone needs 20 more billion from the Feds. The NEC gets almost nothing. So, in a way, I can't blame Mica for complaining. Read the SNCF report on USA HSR to see where the money really should go. A 120 billion $ proposal which SNCF will pay half.


Well should anything ever come of this I would hope for a daily Sunset Limited, a long distance connection between Texas and Colorado, an extension of the HF to Kansas City and some corridor trains in the Texas Triangle(DFW, SAS, HOU) at any speed. 79mph would be a good start. That would be the bare minimum if anyone is really serious about a resurgance of passenger trains in this part of the country.


----------



## eagle628

henryj said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmmph, no money for the Northeast, I note. I think that if this had been a directed plan (NEC, California, Florida, Texas), there would have been no complaints from Mica. Instead, we have a propsal that spreads the money thin, to a lot of non-HSR train lines. California alone needs 20 more billion from the Feds. The NEC gets almost nothing. So, in a way, I can't blame Mica for complaining. Read the SNCF report on USA HSR to see where the money really should go. A 120 billion $ proposal which SNCF will pay half.
> 
> 
> 
> Well should anything ever come of this I would hope for a daily Sunset Limited, a long distance connection between Texas and Colorado, an extension of the HF to Kansas City and some corridor trains in the Texas Triangle(DFW, SAS, HOU) at any speed. 79mph would be a good start. That would be the bare minimum if anyone is really serious about a resurgance of passenger trains in this part of the country.
Click to expand...


Keep dreaming. 79 mph is a good start, (look at the Lychburg train), but politically unacceptable. Because, seriously, 79 mph, with station stops, is nowhere near high speed rail. That's an average speed of probably about 50 mph. That's good transportation, and probably competative with driving in urban areas (though not rural areas, where road congestion isn't really an issue), but it's a mockery of high-speed rail. If $53 billion went to projects like a Texas-Colorado train, that'd be a waste. I mean, you're probably looking at a billion, easy, to start that, and a single train a day, in competition with as much air capacity as that route, is *nothing*. High-speed rail dollars are an extremely precious resource right now, and any slip-up as to where they're spent might well seal the fate of high-speed rail in the US for decades to come. If the systems in California and Florida don't work (and I have this ominous sense that Florida's won't, not without expansion), not even a lot of Democrats would advocate spending more money on rail. HSR is in a bad position right now. To create a true system, you need to throw a lot of money at it. The Northeast Corridor alone could suck up the entire 53 billion and still need work to reach European/Asian standards. That's why we don't see more of those types of syatems, which have probably the greatest potential. But investing 53 billion in one 500-mile stretch of track is going to make the rest of the country's rail supporters extremely angry, and politically you can't afford that. That's why the first round of HSR grants went to a lot of projects, some not remotely resembling HSR. That doesn't mean it's a bad use of the money, but it means that a lot more marginal routes got funded. I have no doubt that rail to Madison, Wis. would have been successful, but the opponants absolutelyu had a point that spending 810 million for a hundred or so miles of track is perhaps not the best idea. It's ignoring a lot of evidence elsewhere, and there were huge amounts of political spin put on it, but it's the obvious gut reaction, especially since we haven't embarked on huge infrastructure programs like this in the recent past, and have nothing to compare it to. So HSR ends up with two options, neither of them great. You can create a smaller true high-speed system, or you can improve existing service and create new higher-speed service in a wider area, at the cost of being completely honest about it being high-speed. (of course, since when was honesty a requirement for holding a political office?) Both have drawbacks and advantages, and both can be completely fumbled. (an example of the latter option being disastrously handled: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/blogs/fred-frailey/archive/2011/02/06/high-speed-rail-in-need-of-a-break.aspx I'm appalled to see that two, just TWO, projects from the earlier HSR grants (in VERMONT and MAINE, are actually under construction, and that's with projects that were supposed to be shovel ready!!! :help: :help: :help: Honestly, it's bad when two of the states with the lowest population in the country are benefiting from this money). Assuming any of this 53 billion actually gets spent, there's going to have be a long, hard look taken at where it's spent. And I'm afraid, that with politicians in charge, it will be spent badly, and passenger rail in the US will have no fate but a long, slow death, becuase if this goes wrong, no politician who happens to like their job will utter the words "high speed rail" for the next several decades.


----------



## JeffW

"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...


----------



## Tim

So once Congress approves/disapproves/modifies the budget proposal, does it go back to the President for signature, or does it become law?


----------



## bretton88

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.


----------



## afigg

henryj said:


> Well should anything ever come of this I would hope for a daily Sunset Limited, a long distance connection between Texas and Colorado, an extension of the HF to Kansas City and some corridor trains in the Texas Triangle(DFW, SAS, HOU) at any speed. 79mph would be a good start. That would be the bare minimum if anyone is really serious about a resurgance of passenger trains in this part of the country.


The HSR and intercity rail proposed funding is aimed at corridor services, not long distance (LD) trains. But a significant revival of corridor services should benefit LD trains. Faster corridor trip times, more stations, and more routes that LD trains can run over without being the only passenger train on the route, larger rail passenger base. But I expect the first few years of any revival will be concentrated in the Northeast and east coast down to NC, FL, the Mid-West states supporting passenger rail, the west coast states. Texas and the core red states are likely to resist the Obama administration push for HSR and passenger rail. Texas may get serious about the T-bone HSR plan, but it could take some years. A daily Sunset Limited, if Amtrak can get cooperation from UP, an extension of the Heartland Flyer, and maybe some limited corridor services are likely all the improvements you may see in Texas, but don't hold your breath for it.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well should anything ever come of this I would hope for a daily Sunset Limited, a long distance connection between Texas and Colorado, an extension of the HF to Kansas City and some corridor trains in the Texas Triangle(DFW, SAS, HOU) at any speed. 79mph would be a good start. That would be the bare minimum if anyone is really serious about a resurgance of passenger trains in this part of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> The HSR and intercity rail proposed funding is aimed at corridor services, not long distance (LD) trains. But a significant revival of corridor services should benefit LD trains. Faster corridor trip times, more stations, and more routes that LD trains can run over without being the only passenger train on the route, larger rail passenger base. But I expect the first few years of any revival will be concentrated in the Northeast and east coast down to NC, FL, the Mid-West states supporting passenger rail, the west coast states. Texas and the core red states are likely to resist the Obama administration push for HSR and passenger rail. Texas may get serious about the T-bone HSR plan, but it could take some years. A daily Sunset Limited, if Amtrak can get cooperation from UP, an extension of the Heartland Flyer, and maybe some limited corridor services are likely all the improvements you may see in Texas, but don't hold your breath for it.
Click to expand...

While I agree that there are a number of areas where HSR projects are necessary (FL is, IMHO, a good example of where such a project makes sense...enough of the population is in two areas (the East Coast/I-95 corridor and Orlampa) that a project makes sense there), the problem is getting folks to swallow the price tag, which is considerable to massive in different cases. I guess what I think needs to be managed, ultimately, is some sort of split in the definition of HSR: You need to expand the amount of Class 5-7 track in the system, and I consider that to be a higher priority than worrying about gobs and gobs of Class 8-9 track. Yes, you need some fancy "peacock" lines (in the sense that you show them off for the public, with no comment on their usefulness intended by the term), but I'd rather see "normal" trains get an extra 10 MPH on their average speed than see a few more express trains at 150 MPH.

In the long run, a standard 90-110 MPH line with decent CR ratio will be a candidate for upgrading to "real" HSR of 150 MPH, but I do worry that jumping straight to the HSR line invites a disaster if you don't have a good market to tap into (either in the form of an existing rail service or a place where you've got a decent amount of research to back up that one exists). There's always a chance of a misfire, true, but the more of an established market you have, the less likely you are to see a major disaster happen where a line opens up and you're stuck with a bunch of empty trains running after spending $5 billion to get the track.

What is probably important about Obama's plan is that he's spreading the money around so that it's not "just" the NEC and California getting the money. Doing that, notwithstanding public opinion on rail travel, just invites a nice mixture of Red vs. Blue and sectional squabbling. Not that we're likely to be spared that show anyway, but getting Texas and Florida on board would go a _long_ way towards breaking up the straight "red state coalition". Also, as much as I hate to say it, but a Congressman who has only an LD train in his district has no real reason to support rail projects and every reason to complain. And let's face it: You're not going to get Cali HSR on California's votes alone.

FWIW, I think Atlanta-Washington _is_ a valid market for some form of HSR, but you need to have trains making the Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta run first. And yes, I think this could be paired in interesting ways with the Acela and, ultimately, with the Florida project (remember, the Silver Service is going to share Washington-Raleigh and I believe Orlando-Jacksonville with the new upgrades, and that's been one of Amtrak's steadier LD markets). Likewise, upgrades to the lines going east from Chicago will benefit the Capitol Limited and the Lake Shore Limited, at least in terms of running times (even if they don't get to go _super_ fact, they'll get incremental improvements over segments of their routes), and you get that over more of the system if you focus on more lower-level upgrades than getting a new peacock.

JJJJ,

Thanks for reminding me of the irony that the major country in the world with purportedly the most left-wing social objectives in the world also currently has the "hardest" monetary policy of any country I know (albeit alongside Brazil, also ruled by a left-wing government...when did hard money banking policy become a hallmark of the left wing?).


----------



## DET63

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.


----------



## Ryan

DET63 said:


> 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.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

bretton88 said:


> 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

PA Traveler said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

JeffW said:


> "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

Green Maned Lion said:


> 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

Tim said:


> 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

WICT106 said:


> 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:



Green Maned Lion said:


> 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

DET63 said:


> 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

henryj said:


> 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

JJJJ said:


> 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

henryj said:


> 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

jis said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Oldsmoboi said:


> 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

henryj said:


> 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

JJJJ said:


> 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

henryj said:


> 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.



Eric S said:


> 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


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Davy Crockett said:


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


An awful lot of people are extremely stupid. And an awful lot of people who aren't extremely stupid, but only mildly so, like most people, find that summoning up the effort to go vote when it makes very little difference if one person does or doesn't to be a waste of their time. So the vote is made the quarter million people in this country with functioning brains, and about a hundred million freakin' idiots. There is no other plausible explanation for the kind of people that get into office.



daxomni said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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. <_<
Click to expand...

John Mica might look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot.. but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.


----------



## George Harris

jis said:


> 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.


Thi is an incredibly disconnected map in every sense of the word. It is a compilation of the dreams of various pressure groups, not the result of an analysis of real potential traffic.

Some weirdities: gap between Jacksonville and Orlando. Gap between Pittsburg and Cleveland. Gap between Buffalo and Cleveland. Gap Pittsburg - Columbus - Indianapolis - St. Louis. Gap Kansas City - Topeka - Tulsa. Los Angeles to Phoenix and Tucson makes more sense tha LA to Las Vegas. No lines San Antonio - Houston - Dallas/Ft. Worth. Only with these does New Orleans - Houston make sense. Why Dallas - Texarkana - Little Rock? This is not a high traffic corridor. I am sure there are more.


----------



## George Harris

JJJ said:


> 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%).


The biggest problem with HSR overall politically is that way too many people have tried to make it a left-right issue rather than a transportation need issue.

Maybe if it were more clearly presented as a balance of payments issue and reduction of dependence upon imported oil the concept woud become mre generally acceptable. To talk about it as a method of getting people out of their cars is a mistake. That sounds both coercive and as "big brother knows best", particularly when presented by someone that appears to consider everything west of New Jersey and east of California as "flyover" country. Talk about it as improving mobility and providing options. Guess what: There are a lot of places that do not and never have had public transportation where getting out of your car for travel is not an option unless you have a horse or enjoy walking long distances. And: these people do vote.

Do not bring up global warming. Many people consider it a scam invented to make Al Gore and those like him wealthy while impoverishing everybody else. Doing it because it is done in Europe as a justification does not help, either. Many multi generation US people with European ethnic backgrounds feel that the biggest problem with the Atlantic Ocean is that it is not big enough.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> The biggest problem with HSR overall politically is that way too many people have tried to make it a left-right issue rather than a transportation need issue.


I would say the biggest problem with HSR politically is that Obama foolishly admitted he supported it. As if that wasn't bad enough Obama also attempted to improve funding for HSR without first receiving full approval from the _minority_ party. We probably have Biden's big mouth to thank for that enormous blunder.



George Harris said:


> Do not bring up global warming. Many people consider it a scam invented to make Al Gore and those like him wealthy while impoverishing everybody else. Doing it because it is done in Europe as a justification does not help, either. Many multi generation US people with European ethnic backgrounds feel that the biggest problem with the Atlantic Ocean is that it is not big enough.


Yeah, if we just dumb everything down until it somehow makes sense to xenophobic luddites we'll have this one in the bag. :lol:


----------



## Anderson

Jacksonville-Orlando is the oddest of the bunch there. As much as I hate to say it, I can at least understand the Pittsburgh-Cleveland gap makes sense if you read the history of the corridors: Keystone didn't get extended from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh for a while, and the same can be said of the extensions into Ohio, which weren't on the original map.

More importantly, it's _also_ in a gap of sorts as of now because of awful service times on the Capitol Limited for any non-vampires (anybody up for a nice 2 AM-5 AM trip?). I'd point to the projections for the Lynchburger as evidence of this: There are routes that, if you provide the trains at a decent hour, people will take them. 'course, I don't know what the actual market would look like between Pittsburgh and Cleveland alone...and I would note that any trains running, say, Philadelphia-Cleveland would benefit from improvements on the rest of the route.

The head-scratcher in Jacksonville can probably be blamed on the Southeast Corridor being assembled in so many segments, too, though it seems odd that the FL corridor wasn't just extended north to meet it.

Edit: Though I've never been on the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh segment, I think at least part of the Pittsburgh-Cleveland segment may run into trouble from the mountains. A lot of segments won't get those upgrades because fixing the curves would be _astronomically_ expensive.


----------



## jis

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Thi is an incredibly disconnected map in every sense of the word. It is a compilation of the dreams of various pressure groups, not the result of an analysis of real potential traffic.
Click to expand...

I know. It has its weirdness undoubtedly resulting from the political process that went into putting it together. But again purely from the political process perspective, such as it is, one of the first steps of getting grants for HSR is for the corridor to be designated an HSR Corridor. Not saying this is the right way to do things. But at present that is the way it is.

There is another more interesting map that I have come across, that is provided by the USHSRA which can bee seen here. It has an interestingly timeline in 5 year steps.

Even that has some seemingly impractical oddities. Just to take one example, it proposes that there be two totally separate HSR lines, one from Washington DC to Pittsburgh and another from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, i.e. two HSR lines through mountains, when the trans mountain portion could be consolidated into a single segment by doing it in the following three segments, roughly speaking - (i) Washington - Lewistown (vicinity), Philly - Lewistown (vicinity), Lewistown (vicinity) - Pittsburgh, assuming that the Juniata alignment is still the desirable one for HSR. Why would one want to plan two trans mountain segments when one would suffice with relatively small time penalty, beats me.


----------



## George Harris

daxomni said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not bring up global warming. Many people consider it a scam invented to make Al Gore and those like him wealthy while impoverishing everybody else. Doing it because it is done in Europe as a justification does not help, either. Many multi generation US people with European ethnic backgrounds feel that the biggest problem with the Atlantic Ocean is that it is not big enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if we just dumb everything down until it somehow makes sense to xenophobic luddites we'll have this one in the bag. :lol:
Click to expand...

By immediately dropping into insults and name-calling you miss my point entirely. The point is the things in the list you copied are completely extraeous to the basic reasons that HSR systems should be built, whick is to fill a real transportation need and to reduce our consumption of oil and other fossil fuels. (That last will only happen if we change the ways we generate electricity.)


----------



## Oldsmoboi

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Thi is an incredibly disconnected map in every sense of the word. It is a compilation of the dreams of various pressure groups, not the result of an analysis of real potential traffic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. It has its weirdness undoubtedly resulting from the political process that went into putting it together. But again purely from the political process perspective, such as it is, one of the first steps of getting grants for HSR is for the corridor to be designated an HSR Corridor. Not saying this is the right way to do things. But at present that is the way it is.
> 
> There is another more interesting map that I have come across, that is provided by the USHSRA which can bee seen here. It has an interestingly timeline in 5 year steps.
> 
> Even that has some seemingly impractical oddities. Just to take one example, it proposes that there be two totally separate HSR lines, one from Washington DC to Pittsburgh and another from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, i.e. two HSR lines through mountains, when the trans mountain portion could be consolidated into a single segment by doing it in the following three segments, roughly speaking - (i) Washington - Lewistown (vicinity), Philly - Lewistown (vicinity), Lewistown (vicinity) - Pittsburgh, assuming that the Juniata alignment is still the desirable one for HSR. Why would one want to plan two trans mountain segments when one would suffice with relatively small time penalty, beats me.
Click to expand...

Cumberland

I would probably run it from DC to Baltimore to Harrisburg and then Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It would create a very effective high speed triangle between Harrisburg-Philly-Baltimore with connections to DC and NYC over mostly existing track. Adding the high(er) speed connection from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg wouldn't cost as much as a direct WAS-PGH connection and you could start putting in things like Cumberland-Hagerstown- Harrisburg and DC.

It's all about clustering high speed rail in such a way and in such a density that it becomes the more convenient way to travel for most people.


----------



## Oldsmoboi

George Harris said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not bring up global warming. Many people consider it a scam invented to make Al Gore and those like him wealthy while impoverishing everybody else. Doing it because it is done in Europe as a justification does not help, either. Many multi generation US people with European ethnic backgrounds feel that the biggest problem with the Atlantic Ocean is that it is not big enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if we just dumb everything down until it somehow makes sense to xenophobic luddites we'll have this one in the bag. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By immediately dropping into insults and name-calling you miss my point entirely. The point is the things in the list you copied are completely extraeous to the basic reasons that HSR systems should be built, whick is to fill a real transportation need and to reduce our consumption of oil and other fossil fuels. (That last will only happen if we change the ways we generate electricity.)
Click to expand...

Looking at the layout of the interstates and their traffic patterns is a good way to find viable routes. My view is solely from a Pittsburgh perspective, but personal experience suggests Pittsburgh to Columbus is a frequent trip (I70), Pittsburgh to Erie and on to Buffalo is a frequent trip (I79 & I90), Pittsburgh to Cleveland is a frequent trip (I76 to I80 to I480) especially for fliers, Pittsburgh to Harrisburg (I76) is nearly constant as all the local couriers have to drive that for DMV papers.

Not all of these have to be high speed routes doing 160mph. Pittsburgh to Erie is 128 miles. A train traveling at even Keystone speeds would be faster than driving and the terrain allows for a fairly straight shot.

I've done the Pittsburgh - Columbus route _many_ times. It's a booooring drive. It 4 hours of NOTHING yet loaded with cops, so you can't go much more than 70mph. Run the train Pittsburgh to Washington PA to Wheeling WV to Cambridge OH to Zanesville OH to Columbus OH. At 110mph Keystone like speeds, you could run 2 trips each way daily with one set of equipment. Two sets of equipment, 3 departures daily each direction, and you could build up some real critical mass on a route like this.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> By immediately dropping into insults and name-calling you miss my point entirely. The point is the things in the list you copied are completely extraeous to the basic reasons that HSR systems should be built, whick is to fill a real transportation need and to reduce our consumption of oil and other fossil fuels. (That last will only happen if we change the ways we generate electricity.)


George, I don't mind finding common ground with reasonable people. I simply don't believe we live in a reasonable place or time. When I look at the questionable and largely unfounded claims the anti-rail crowd repeats ad nauseum I don't see responsible minds at work; I see raw emotional effluence.


----------



## nsker

I grew up in Russia and rode the Soviet train system long distance many times. I am sorry, but it was way better than Amtrak.


----------

