# Most federal rail grants probably will bypass Texas



## jcl653

Texas: don't hold your breath for HSR funds. From The Dallas Morning New:



> The federal government is about to hand out a river of cash to states willing to build a network of bullet trains, as the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress seek to slowly ease the country's dependence on automobiles and airplanes to make short trips between its biggest cities.
> It's the nation's first major investment in true high-speed rail, and among its most significant pushes to locate trains of any kind far from the East Coast.
> 
> But while the federal grants won't be announced until later this month, or early February, word already has emerged that Texas' chances of snagging much of what it has requested are slim.
> 
> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...il.3fb19e9.html


Further down, without providing a source, the article states: "The first $8 billion of what could be several times that much money over the next five years is expected to be awarded in the next several weeks."


----------



## transit54

Hmm...maybe this improves Vermont's chances at some money!

Really, all we need is around ~$40 million to make a huge difference in the rail service here. That's just a drop in the bucket of what most other states have requested. Extending the Ethan Allen to Burlington would not only greatly improve the Burlington to NYC time by train, but would allow individuals to actually connect to other Amtrak services. Right now there is just no way to get to Albany, upstate New York, or to any LD services from Burlington. And we already have the station ready and waiting to go - we just need the tracks upgraded. (And I wouldn't complain if they put in a QT machine, either!)


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

transit54 said:


> Hmm...maybe this improves Vermont's chances at some money!
> Really, all we need is around ~$40 million to make a huge difference in the rail service here. That's just a drop in the bucket of what most other states have requested. Extending the Ethan Allen to Burlington would not only greatly improve the Burlington to NYC time by train, but would allow individuals to actually connect to other Amtrak services. Right now there is just no way to get to Albany, upstate New York, or to any LD services from Burlington. And we already have the station ready and waiting to go - we just need the tracks upgraded. (And I wouldn't complain if they put in a QT machine, either!)


If we were dividing it up proportionally by Senator, VT's share of the $8 billion would be $160 million.

Am I correct in thinking that that $40 million only covers Rutland to downtown Burlington, and will not improve the Burlington to Essex Junction or White River Junction to Montreal tracks? It seems like in the long term, there's no reason the Ethan Allen Express shouldn't get all the way to Montreal.


----------



## daveyb99

"Texas' application lacks the kind of political support from the governor and the Legislature that would help it compete against other states where that support has been stronger. "

1/ I am from Texas

2/ I support all rail initiatives.

3/ Is anyone surprised by this move? I mean, our 'governor' called for Secession, and finds a way to reject federal funds at every turn.

4/ Anyone want to guess the next state to lose some funding for similar reasons?


----------



## gswager

Better fix the extremely long awaited Austin Light Rail!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

With all due respect to Mr. Nizlek, I bristle at the idea for federal funding for a backwater state whose only purpose in life is to provide a ski resort for wealthy New Yorkers. It is in the states interest to fund its trains, but if it wants to dump $40 million into its train, it can do it on its own. I mean really. $40 million wouldn't cover New Jersey's transit system for 5 days.

I could think of much more useful purposes for $40 million. Like restoring service to Phillipsburg. Or better, restoring service to Scranton.


----------



## Spokker

Fine, more money for California.

We passed a bond measure, suckas! *flips everyone off while doing a backflip onto a motorcycle and speeding away*


----------



## Ispolkom

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If we were dividing it up proportionally by Senator, VT's share of the $8 billion would be $160 million.


Surely dividing proportionally by Representative would be fairer. Or if I were from Montana or North Dakota, by miles of Amtrak route in the state would seem far and way the best way to divide up the money.

Me, I could provide great arguments in favor of spending all the $8b on a high-speed rail line from Chicago to St. Paul. Not Minneapolis, mind you, St. Paul.


----------



## transit54

Green Maned Lion said:


> With all due respect to Mr. Nizlek, I bristle at the idea for federal funding for a backwater state whose only purpose in life is to provide a ski resort for wealthy New Yorkers. It is in the states interest to fund its trains, but if it wants to dump $40 million into its train, it can do it on its own. I mean really. $40 million wouldn't cover New Jersey's transit system for 5 days.
> I could think of much more useful purposes for $40 million. Like restoring service to Phillipsburg. Or better, restoring service to Scranton.


Now, now, I wouldn't write off all of Vermont in that manner. Though, you could write off most of it....I love the state, but Burlington is the only place I'd ever live.

But your argument brings up three points:

1) Right now, the Ethan Allen is effectively what you describe, a train that really serves a backwater - Rutland. Rutland is a fine little place, but honestly, there's not a whole lot there, and while I know they very much appreciate the service, they also have alternatives - there's no way that you could live in Rutland without a car - so pretty much everyone there has the option to drive over to the Adirondack line (not far) and take the train from there.

Burlington, on the other hand, is a very viable place. It's the only thing that comes close to being a real city in Vermont, there is a large population base, and it's a place with very viable transit. I live perfectly fine without a car here (though I do take advantage of a car-sharing service from time to time) and I know a great many people who do so also. There are a very large number of students here who live here without cars, also, and would provide a large market for the train.

So in essence, for $40 million, you're taking an Amtrak route that serves a backwater, and making serve a great destination. And you'd be sorely mistaken if you didn't think that people from the Metro NY area regularly come to Burlington for all manner of things, especially in the summer, which is when Burlington really shines. I don't think too many people come from that area to visit Rutland, unless you're going skiing, which goes back to your original argument.

2) Burlington is a small city. I'd argue that it's a great small city, and I'll back that up with the fact that we regularly win awards for being one of the top small cities to live and work. But, it is nonetheless small, especially compared to the New York Metro area. So are you arguing that only major metro areas deserve transportation funding? I believe in encouraging urban development and moving towards more compact, efficient forms of living and so I in general support projects that help to strengthen cities of suburban areas or even rural communities. But what you're arguing is that since I live in a smaller city, I'm undeserving of having rail service that comes to my city? Why should those who live in NYC be given a disproportionate amount of funding over those who choose to live in smaller cities? I just don't think that's an argument that makes any sense. I think it benefits everyone to have a wide-ranging and expansive rail network that covers a variety of destinations. If you were arguing that $40 million could build the Lackawanna cutoff versus extend the Ethan Allen, by all means, I'd vote for the former. I'm not arguing that Burlington and New York City should get an equal amount of transportation funding - but I am arguing that they should get a reasonably proportionate amount.

3) I'm sure there are alternatives to getting between NYC and Scranton. They may not be alternatives that you're interested in (i.e. a bus) but I'm sure they exist. Right now, there is absolutely no transportation link on the corridor in question (between Burlington and Albany). I think that bringing transportation to a corridor that needs and does not have it is in some ways a priority over bringing additional transportation to a corridor that already has service, albeit service that is not very good.


----------



## transit54

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If we were dividing it up proportionally by Senator, VT's share of the $8 billion would be $160 million.
> Am I correct in thinking that that $40 million only covers Rutland to downtown Burlington, and will not improve the Burlington to Essex Junction or White River Junction to Montreal tracks? It seems like in the long term, there's no reason the Ethan Allen Express shouldn't get all the way to Montreal.


Even if we divide it by representative, as Ispolkom suggested, VT would be looking at just shy of ~$20 million. I think there's an argument to funding states with rail programs already in place and with a history of supporting passenger rail (at least that's the argument put forth in the Texas article that started this whole thread). If we exclude representatives from such states, VT would still have plenty of money to extend the Ethan Allen.

Now, yes, the $40 million only covers the extension to Burlington. Actually, now that I think about it, it might cover rerouting the train via Bennington and bringing it up that way, so you'd be improving a lot more trackage.

The improvements to the Vermonter tracks (the NECR) was a separate amount and consisted of two projects: improving the 'Knowledge Corridor' in MA so that the Vermonter would not have to reverse direction in Palmer and could use a more direct route between Springfield and Brattleboro and the improvement of tracks on the NECR to bring them up to 79 MPH. While it would be great to get money for those projects, the Ethan Allen extension would be the most drastic improvement, and I'd happily cede all the other money to rail projects of GML's choosing. To be honest, increasing the speed on the tracks wouldn't make a huge difference in travel time on the Vermonter, you really loose all the time between Palmer and Amherst. Cutting out that mess would make the Vermonter a much more competitive train, but it still wouldn't be serving Burlington or solving the dearth of long distance transit on what we call the 'western corridor.'

As for the Ethan Allen Express going to Montreal - why? The Adirondack does that perfectly well and covers a very similar route. I could always take that if I wanted to go to Montreal, and I'd hate for the train to be delayed at the border and make service in Burlington and points south unreliable. If the tracks from the old Rutland railroad were still in place north of Burlington ('the Island line') then you might have some argument. That would be an incredible route (as long as it were done in daylight), but those have been converted to a much used biking and jogging path that a number of my coworkers use to commute in the warmer months.

I could see the argument that the Vermonter continues to Montreal, though. That serves a route different enough from the Adirondack to make running up north worthwhile.


----------



## AlanB

transit54 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Mr. Nizlek, I bristle at the idea for federal funding for a backwater state whose only purpose in life is to provide a ski resort for wealthy New Yorkers. It is in the states interest to fund its trains, but if it wants to dump $40 million into its train, it can do it on its own. I mean really. $40 million wouldn't cover New Jersey's transit system for 5 days.
> I could think of much more useful purposes for $40 million. Like restoring service to Phillipsburg. Or better, restoring service to Scranton.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, I wouldn't write off all of Vermont in that manner. Though, you could write off most of it....I love the state, but Burlington is the only place I'd ever live.
> 
> But your argument brings up three points:
> 
> 1) Right now, the Ethan Allen is effectively what you describe, a train that really serves a backwater - Rutland. Rutland is a fine little place, but honestly, there's not a whole lot there, and while I know they very much appreciate the service, they also have alternatives - there's no way that you could live in Rutland without a car - so pretty much everyone there has the option to drive over to the Adirondack line (not far) and take the train from there.
> 
> Burlington, on the other hand, is a very viable place. It's the only thing that comes close to being a real city in Vermont, there is a large population base, and it's a place with very viable transit. I live perfectly fine without a car here (though I do take advantage of a car-sharing service from time to time) and I know a great many people who do so also. There are a very large number of students here who live here without cars, also, and would provide a large market for the train.
> 
> So in essence, for $40 million, you're taking an Amtrak route that serves a backwater, and making serve a great destination. And you'd be sorely mistaken if you didn't think that people from the Metro NY area regularly come to Burlington for all manner of things, especially in the summer, which is when Burlington really shines. I don't think too many people come from that area to visit Rutland, unless you're going skiing, which goes back to your original argument.
> 
> 2) Burlington is a small city. I'd argue that it's a great small city, and I'll back that up with the fact that we regularly win awards for being one of the top small cities to live and work. But, it is nonetheless small, especially compared to the New York Metro area. So are you arguing that only major metro areas deserve transportation funding? I believe in encouraging urban development and moving towards more compact, efficient forms of living and so I in general support projects that help to strengthen cities of suburban areas or even rural communities. But what you're arguing is that since I live in a smaller city, I'm undeserving of having rail service that comes to my city? Why should those who live in NYC be given a disproportionate amount of funding over those who choose to live in smaller cities? I just don't think that's an argument that makes any sense. I think it benefits everyone to have a wide-ranging and expansive rail network that covers a variety of destinations. If you were arguing that $40 million could build the Lackawanna cutoff versus extend the Ethan Allen, by all means, I'd vote for the former. I'm not arguing that Burlington and New York City should get an equal amount of transportation funding - but I am arguing that they should get a reasonably proportionate amount.
> 
> 3) I'm sure there are alternatives to getting between NYC and Scranton. They may not be alternatives that you're interested in (i.e. a bus) but I'm sure they exist. Right now, there is absolutely no transportation link on the corridor in question (between Burlington and Albany). I think that bringing transportation to a corridor that needs and does not have it is in some ways a priority over bringing additional transportation to a corridor that already has service, albeit service that is not very good.
Click to expand...

A few points.

1) I'm hardly a wealthy New Yorker and I ski in Vermont. In fact, I was skiing in Vermont even when I lived in New Jersey and made about 1/4th what I do now.

2) Vermont does a hefty summer business too. Many of the resorts sell out the condo's during the summer months.

3) Vermont sees many wealthy and not so wealthy Bostonites too.

4) Rutland is a very nice town, I've visited it many times. While not the size of Burlington, it holds its own.

5) While not on the scale of Burlington, Rutland does have public bus service. It doesn't run on Sunday's, but the other 6 days you can get around without a car, depending on just where you want to go and of course just how close you are to a bus line.

6) It is possible to get from Burlington to Rutland by bus, although it's not easy.

7) Getting Rutland to Burlington up and running would be a major benefit to all along that corridor.

8) Getting Bennigton into the mix would be nice also, but that would drive the costs up significantly from what I understand. It would also make the running time longer from what I've read, which could hurt ridership.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

transit54 said:


> The improvements to the Vermonter tracks (the NECR) was a separate amount and consisted of two projects: improving the 'Knowledge Corridor' in MA so that the Vermonter would not have to reverse direction in Palmer and could use a more direct route between Springfield and Brattleboro and the improvement of tracks on the NECR to bring them up to 79 MPH.


However, the rerouted train will need to back either into or out of Springfield, since after the reroute, the tracks heading both north and south will be at the west end of the Springfield platform.


----------



## Guest

Never made sense to me either for rail money to go to the fastest growing state, a state with 3 of the 10 largest cities, 6 of the 20 largest cities, second largest population,

9th largest economy world wide.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

transit54 said:


> 3) I'm sure there are alternatives to getting between NYC and Scranton. They may not be alternatives that you're interested in (i.e. a bus) but I'm sure they exist. Right now, there is absolutely no transportation link on the corridor in question (between Burlington and Albany). I think that bringing transportation to a corridor that needs and does not have it is in some ways a priority over bringing additional transportation to a corridor that already has service, albeit service that is not very good.


Yes, but funding the Lackawanna Cutoff would provide economic benefit on a national scale. As such it seems worthy of federal money.

Funding the extension of the Ethan Allen Express, on the other hand, would benefit the City of Burlington, the State of Vermont, and a few New York skiers. I would sit and cheer on Vermont if they wanted to open up their private wallet, extract $40 million bucks, and fund such an extension. But federal money? Why is this of national benefit?



AlanB said:


> A few points.
> 1) I'm hardly a wealthy New Yorker and I ski in Vermont. In fact, I was skiing in Vermont even when I lived in New Jersey and made about 1/4th what I do now.
> 
> 2) Vermont does a hefty summer business too. Many of the resorts sell out the condo's during the summer months.
> 
> 3) Vermont sees many wealthy and not so wealthy Bostonites too.


Fine. I was being mildly facetious. But skiing is a wealthy person's sport. Being wealthy is a matter of relativity.


----------



## TVRM610

It does seem very silly that Scranton has no rail service (besides Steamtown).

Just imagine if there was.. Michael Scott could visit corporate much easier! : )


----------



## AlanB

The Fed has already put up some money for the Lack Cutoff and once NJ & PA get their act together, I've no doubt that more funding will be forthcoming. And it won't need to come from the high speed rail funding side of things.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> The Fed has already put up some money for the Lack Cutoff and once NJ & PA get their act together, I've no doubt that more funding will be forthcoming. And it won't need to come from the high speed rail funding side of things.


Just for the commuter service restoration Lack Cutoff should be funded out of straight FTA appropriations. Now if the antire Lack Cutoff + Scranton - Binghampton -(Buffalo) were being talked about, that becomes a different ballgame.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

transit54 said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were dividing it up proportionally by Senator, VT's share of the $8 billion would be $160 million.
> Am I correct in thinking that that $40 million only covers Rutland to downtown Burlington, and will not improve the Burlington to Essex Junction or White River Junction to Montreal tracks? It seems like in the long term, there's no reason the Ethan Allen Express shouldn't get all the way to Montreal.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we divide it by representative, as Ispolkom suggested, VT would be looking at just shy of ~$20 million. I think there's an argument to funding states with rail programs already in place and with a history of supporting passenger rail (at least that's the argument put forth in the Texas article that started this whole thread). If we exclude representatives from such states, VT would still have plenty of money to extend the Ethan Allen.
Click to expand...

If Vermont doesn't get federal funding, it might also be worth looking for private donations. Olin College has a $460 million endowment that came from a large donation from a single foundation; a tenth of that could go an awful long way towards improving track in Vermont.



transit54 said:


> As for the Ethan Allen Express going to Montreal - why? The Adirondack does that perfectly well and covers a very similar route. I could always take that if I wanted to go to Montreal, and I'd hate for the train to be delayed at the border and make service in Burlington and points south unreliable. If the tracks from the old Rutland railroad were still in place north of Burlington ('the Island line') then you might have some argument. That would be an incredible route (as long as it were done in daylight), but those have been converted to a much used biking and jogging path that a number of my coworkers use to commute in the warmer months.
> I could see the argument that the Vermonter continues to Montreal, though. That serves a route different enough from the Adirondack to make running up north worthwhile.


If the Ethan Allen is so similar to the Adirondack, why aren't you arguing that the Adirondack is good enough for Vermont residents going to Albany and New York City, too?


----------



## transit54

AlanB said:


> 4) Rutland is a very nice town, I've visited it many times. While not the size of Burlington, it holds its own.5) While not on the scale of Burlington, Rutland does have public bus service. It doesn't run on Sunday's, but the other 6 days you can get around without a car, depending on just where you want to go and of course just how close you are to a bus line.
> 
> 6) It is possible to get from Burlington to Rutland by bus, although it's not easy.
> 
> 7) Getting Rutland to Burlington up and running would be a major benefit to all along that corridor.
> 
> 8) Getting Bennigton into the mix would be nice also, but that would drive the costs up significantly from what I understand. It would also make the running time longer from what I've read, which could hurt ridership.


Agreed. I've only been to Rutland three times, and briefly at that, but it really seemed like a nice place. I was more arguing against GML along the lines of "small is unimportant and not worthwhile," which seemed to be the argument that he was putting forth. In reality, that's really not what I believe, and I think it's great that Rutland has train service, though probably a large number of riders are not from the immediate Rutland area.

And Marble Valley transit does do a decent job down there. For rural transit they make it easy enough to get around. You can actually get all the way from Burlington to Bennington and on into MA via transit. It's not easy, and involves taking a number of buses across four different transit agencies, but it can be done and I know someone who's done it. But it's not a viable means of getting around regularly. My biggest problem with getting from Burlington to Rutland is that even if one does it via transit (which involves a 5:05 AM departure), one misses the Ethan Allen by about 15 minutes. I've brought that issue up here, but getting that fixed lies with MVRT.

And I completely agree with Bennington. As much as it would be nice to have train service all along the western portion of the station, I'm worried about the speed. The big advantage of the Ethan Allen is that it has a much faster trip time to New York. Unless it could be upgraded to 79 MPH service (not likely at all) I think it's better off bringing the train up the way it goes now. Plus, there'd probably be some interest in riding between Burlington and Saratoga and a few other points that would get missed if going via Bennington.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> If the Ethan Allen is so similar to the Adirondack, why aren't you arguing that the Adirondack is good enough for Vermont residents going to Albany and New York City, too?


Only because in northern Vermont there's a fairly large body of water separating us from the line. In the summer, a ferry can be taken from downtown Burlington, but otherwise the only way to make the connection is using a car. Given the ferry ride and the distance, it'd make more sense to fly than take a cab over to that line. If there was a way to provide year-round transportation to the line from Vermont, then I'd believe that the Ethan Allen extension would be much less of a necessity.


----------



## Ispolkom

transit54 said:


> Only because in northern Vermont there's a fairly large body of water separating us from the line. In the summer, a ferry can be taken from downtown Burlington, but otherwise the only way to make the connection is using a car. Given the ferry ride and the distance, it'd make more sense to fly than take a cab over to that line. If there was a way to provide year-round transportation to the line from Vermont, then I'd believe that the Ethan Allen extension would be much less of a necessity.


And as you know, even if you drive there are

 (I know, the Crown Point bridge is way south of Burlington, but it was my second favorite bridge in Addison County, and it's great footage.)


----------



## transit54

Ispolkom said:


> transit54 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because in northern Vermont there's a fairly large body of water separating us from the line. In the summer, a ferry can be taken from downtown Burlington, but otherwise the only way to make the connection is using a car. Given the ferry ride and the distance, it'd make more sense to fly than take a cab over to that line. If there was a way to provide year-round transportation to the line from Vermont, then I'd believe that the Ethan Allen extension would be much less of a necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> And as you know, even if you drive there are
Click to expand...


Yeah, I really wanted to go down and watch that, but I didn't have a chance...

The upside is the Charlotte, VT-Essex, NY ferry is currently free at the moment. I've taken advantage of that twice already.


----------



## wayman

Ispolkom said:


> transit54 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because in northern Vermont there's a fairly large body of water separating us from the line. In the summer, a ferry can be taken from downtown Burlington, but otherwise the only way to make the connection is using a car. Given the ferry ride and the distance, it'd make more sense to fly than take a cab over to that line. If there was a way to provide year-round transportation to the line from Vermont, then I'd believe that the Ethan Allen extension would be much less of a necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> And as you know, even if you drive there are
Click to expand...


And taking the ferry in summer months, well, who knows what you might encounter...


----------



## transit54

wayman said:


> And taking the ferry in summer months, well, who knows what you might encounter...


 

Another amusing aspect about the central crossing ferry is the time it takes. Once you buy your ticket you usually have a few minutes to mill around before boarding. If so, you're likely to come across a sign that talks about the historical ferry operation. It's right down by the dock and it reads in part, "In 1857 the Lake Champlain Transportation Company acquired a new, high-speed ferry that made the crossing from Burlington to Port Kent in 37 minutes..."

Then you get to look down at your ticket and ponder why it takes an hour in 2010!


----------



## DET63

Going back to Texas, where this thread started out . . .

I think it is quite relevant that Texas is a rather large chunk of real estate. Whatever Texans (and the feds) do with Amtrak in the Lone Star State is likely to have some effect on Amtrak service across the country. I'd like to see daily service between Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and San Antonio. In fact, at least two and maybe three or four trains a day between each pair of cities (as well as their intermediate points, such as Austin) would be desirable. Texas has a number of large colleges and universities (Texas, Houston, Tech, A&M, Baylor, etc.), and having services that the students at those schools would want to use would be good for the system's future health (especially as long as it has to depend on annual Congressional appropriations).

Whether Texas should look at high-speed rail, or if it would be enough to simply upgrade current tracks and corridors, is something that should at least be studied at the present time.


----------



## Bob Dylan

DET63 said:


> Going back to Texas, where this thread started out . . .
> I think it is quite relevant that Texas is a rather large chunk of real estate. Whatever Texans (and the feds) do with Amtrak in the Lone Star State is likely to have some effect on Amtrak service across the country. I'd like to see daily service between Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and San Antonio. In fact, at least two and maybe three or four trains a day between each pair of cities (as well as their intermediate points, such as Austin) would be desirable. Texas has a number of large colleges and universities (Texas, Houston, Tech, A&M, Baylor, etc.), and having services that the students at those schools would want to use would be good for the system's future health (especially as long as it has to depend on annual Congressional appropriations).
> 
> Whether Texas should look at high-speed rail, or if it would be enough to simply upgrade current tracks and corridors, is something that should at least be studied at the present time.


Weve discussed this for several years here in Texas, and a couple of times on this forum . With the current political climate in Texas (read T-Party yahoos

get all the scared politicicos to their hate fests!), and the Leg and our Senior Senator against a Transportation corridor (a rural version of NIMNBY), and mixed with Southwest Airlines opposition to a high speed rail corridor between our major cities the chances are slim and none as we say down here!

The college student idea is big during the OU-UT weekend in DFW as the Eagles fill up as does the heartland Flyer with OU fans! Unfortunately A&M and Baylor currently have no train service (the old DAL-HOS Eagle used to serve A&M and the Eagle stops out in the sticks West of Waco too far really for Baylor students to use.), HOS only has the thrice weekly SSL to SAS-NOL, Texas Tech is up in the panhandle with zero train service and it really makes no economic sense to have trains up to Lubbock, as Gertrude Stein used to say about Oakland, there's no there there!The SAS-SMC-AUS-DFW Eagles are heavily ridden by students during weekends/school breaks and holidays!

Weve had a couple of private groups try to float bond proposal and stock deals to build a high speed bullet triangle between HOS-DFW-AUS-SAS but for the above reasons about state politics it hasnt flown so to speak! :lol:  <_<


----------



## birdy

All this squabbling over a lousy $8 billion is pathetic. You would never know we have 4 times the GDP of China. Spending $20 billion per year to build HSR in three or four places at once, is pocket change in this economy.

The reports now are that POTUS is going to go to Florida to grandly announce some rinky-dinky program to pay CSX for a rail upgrade so we can run trains at about 2/3 the speed of what the Turks have, that is, when CSX isn't too busy moving freight.


----------



## volkris

birdy said:


> All this squabbling over a lousy $8 billion is pathetic. You would never know we have 4 times the GDP of China. Spending $20 billion per year to build HSR in three or four places at once, is pocket change in this economy.


Turn that around: we choose not to go the direction of things like HSR and we end up with an economy four times bigger than China. You sure we should start sucking that "pocket change" out of the economy to be more like them?

In the end this squabbling arises from the Feds pulling the money out and then dangling it over the states like a thief who takes your car and then offers to sell it back to you. If Texas isn't interested in HSR (and other similar efforts) then let it keep its money to spend on things it DOES want. Let states who do want HSR spend their money on HSR without it being divided up to other states.

The squabbling is symptomatic of the process, not of the goal.


----------



## transit54

volkris said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this squabbling over a lousy $8 billion is pathetic. You would never know we have 4 times the GDP of China. Spending $20 billion per year to build HSR in three or four places at once, is pocket change in this economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Turn that around: we choose not to go the direction of things like HSR and we end up with an economy four times bigger than China. You sure we should start sucking that "pocket change" out of the economy to be more like them?
> 
> In the end this squabbling arises from the Feds pulling the money out and then dangling it over the states like a thief who takes your car and then offers to sell it back to you. If Texas isn't interested in HSR (and other similar efforts) then let it keep its money to spend on things it DOES want. Let states who do want HSR spend their money on HSR without it being divided up to other states.
> 
> The squabbling is symptomatic of the process, not of the goal.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the emergence of the US as an economic superpower came before any nation had high-speed rail. So I don't quite know if that's a valid point. I'd frame the debate about whether we will invest in the infrastructure that will continue to allow us to continue our international economic dominance.

On your second point, is this substantially different than the way that funds were divided to initially build the interstate highway system? But I agree, if Texas doesn't want the money, send it elsewhere. If the people of Texas want HSR, they can elect politicians that support it. The downside is that Texas is a huge state, and the voices of those who would benefit may get drowned out by those who live in the rest of the state. But I suppose a big state is much better positioned to roll out HSR than a small state like mine that will probably never see it (though we are on a designated HSR corridor!).


----------



## tnuno6

jcl653 said:


> Texas: don't hold your breath for HSR funds. From The Dallas Morning New:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government is about to hand out a river of cash to states willing to build a network of bullet trains, as the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress seek to slowly ease the country's dependence on automobiles and airplanes to make short trips between its biggest cities.
> It's the nation's first major investment in true high-speed rail, and among its most significant pushes to locate trains of any kind far from the East Coast.
> 
> But while the federal grants won't be announced until later this month, or early February, word already has emerged that Texas' chances of snagging much of what it has requested are slim.
> 
> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...il.3fb19e9.html
> 
> 
> 
> Further down, without providing a source, the article states: "The first $8 billion of what could be several times that much money over the next five years is expected to be awarded in the next several weeks."
Click to expand...



CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED CHANCES ARE GREAT( I GOT HTE INSIDE WORD)


----------



## afigg

birdy said:


> All this squabbling over a lousy $8 billion is pathetic. You would never know we have 4 times the GDP of China. Spending $20 billion per year to build HSR in three or four places at once, is pocket change in this economy.


Actually, in 2008 China had a GDP of around $7.9 trillion while the US GDP was around $14.2 trillion. China's GDP was about 55% of the US in 2008. With China still growing in 2009, while the US GDP only started to barely grow in the 3rd quarter of 2009, the ratio will be higher for 2009. The general range of projections has the China GDP overtaking the US GDP somewhere in the 2020 to 2030 range.

I agree that $8 billion is not that much money in the bigger picture of funding for transportation and infrastructure. Just a modest down payment for HSR and intercity rail at best. But the $8 billion and the flood of applications for the funding has resulted in a change in the political landscape for intercity passenger rail. Not every proposed project will get built, but there will be a lot more money available for intercity rail projects than have been seen in decades.


----------



## DET63

> Weve discussed this for several years here in Texas, and a couple of times on this forum . With the current political climate in Texas (read T-Party yahoosget all the scared politicicos to their hate fests!), and the Leg and our Senior Senator against a Transportation corridor (a rural version of NIMNBY), and mixed with Southwest Airlines opposition to a high speed rail corridor between our major cities the chances are slim and none as we say down here!


All that might mean nothing if the Austin rail project wasn't beset by delays and cost overruns. Considering that Austin is the capital, it's got to be hard for the legislators to ignore it.


----------



## jphjaxfl

Southwest Airlines has a lot of political clout in Texas and the last thing they want is competition from HSR. I think Southwest is the only profitable airline at the present time.


----------



## saxman

jphjaxfl said:


> Southwest Airlines has a lot of political clout in Texas and the last thing they want is competition from HSR. I think Southwest is the only profitable airline at the present time.


Just so you all know, Southwest hasn't publicly stated they are against high speed rail in the state this time around. Back in the early 90's they were, but now times are different. Plus I think Texas is more likely to have higher speed rail in existing corridors sooner than any bullet trains. We must remind ourselves and others that higher speed competing with air travel is no comparison. But competing with the single occupant automobile is what we should be concentrating on right now. These days, the public aren't exactly happy with airlines. If Southwest were to oppose HSR, they would have to be very careful about it. I'm sure many HSR supporters are also their passengers.


----------



## Hamhock

Why not just cut Southwest in on the deal? Make them part of the solution rather than the problem.


----------



## Chris J.

Hamhock said:


> Why not just cut Southwest in on the deal? Make them part of the solution rather than the problem.


They could call the rail operation "Southwest Trains"; and they could paint the trains blue, orange and red.

perhaps a bit like this one ...

http://www.freefoto.com/images/23/64/23_64...-Desiro_web.jpg


----------



## MikefromCrete

Hamhock said:


> Why not just cut Southwest in on the deal? Make them part of the solution rather than the problem.


That's a great idea. Southwest is certainly the best run airline right now and their expertise in passenger handling would go a long way to establishing HSR as a viable alternative to short haul airline travel. I've ended up on a lot of Southwest flights in the past few years and have found their personnel to have a great attitude in dealing with the public. I've never encountered a grouchy employee and everyone seemed determined to make passengers enjoy their trip. I don't know what kind of training they give their employees, but Amtrak and other airlines could cetainly benefit from Southwest's model.

Obviously Southwest has never actually operated a train, but there are plenty of companies who could handle that aspect of HSR, from Amtrak to Herzog to SNCF. It's a new day for passenger trains, time for new thinking.


----------



## oldtimer

MikefromCrete said:


> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just cut Southwest in on the deal? Make them part of the solution rather than the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea. Southwest is certainly the best run airline right now and their expertise in passenger handling would go a long way to establishing HSR as a viable alternative to short haul airline travel. I've ended up on a lot of Southwest flights in the past few years and have found their personnel to have a great attitude in dealing with the public. I've never encountered a grouchy employee and everyone seemed determined to make passengers enjoy their trip. I don't know what kind of training they give their employees, but Amtrak and other airlines could cetainly benefit from Southwest's model.
> 
> Obviously Southwest has never actually operated a train, but there are plenty of companies who could handle that aspect of HSR, from Amtrak to Herzog to SNCF. It's a new day for passenger trains, time for new thinking.
Click to expand...


Not wanting to start a flame war here, some posters mistakenly think that unions mean a job for life and that leads to poor customer service. Southwest Airlines is very unionized, more than some other larger air carriers. Perhaps their management style and the treatment of employees leads to the "great attitude in dealing with the public." Southwest believes that their biggest asset is not their aircraft, but their employees.


----------



## GG-1

oldtimer2 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just cut Southwest in on the deal? Make them part of the solution rather than the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea. Southwest is certainly the best run airline right now and their expertise in passenger handling would go a long way to establishing HSR as a viable alternative to short haul airline travel. I've ended up on a lot of Southwest flights in the past few years and have found their personnel to have a great attitude in dealing with the public. I've never encountered a grouchy employee and everyone seemed determined to make passengers enjoy their trip. I don't know what kind of training they give their employees, but Amtrak and other airlines could cetainly benefit from Southwest's model.
> 
> Obviously Southwest has never actually operated a train, but there are plenty of companies who could handle that aspect of HSR, from Amtrak to Herzog to SNCF. It's a new day for passenger trains, time for new thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wanting to start a flame war here, some posters mistakenly think that unions mean a job for life and that leads to poor customer service. Southwest Airlines is very unionized, more than some other larger air carriers. Perhaps their management style and the treatment of employees leads to the "great attitude in dealing with the public." Southwest believes that their biggest asset is not their aircraft, but their employees.
Click to expand...

Aloha

When management knows labor is not the enemy, but a company asset, then the relationship between management becomes one of co-operation and progress. The last sentence by oldtimer2 is the key ingredient, Japan once was this way, now the copy us and have our same problems.


----------



## saxman

GG-1 said:


> oldtimer2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just cut Southwest in on the deal? Make them part of the solution rather than the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea. Southwest is certainly the best run airline right now and their expertise in passenger handling would go a long way to establishing HSR as a viable alternative to short haul airline travel. I've ended up on a lot of Southwest flights in the past few years and have found their personnel to have a great attitude in dealing with the public. I've never encountered a grouchy employee and everyone seemed determined to make passengers enjoy their trip. I don't know what kind of training they give their employees, but Amtrak and other airlines could cetainly benefit from Southwest's model.
> 
> Obviously Southwest has never actually operated a train, but there are plenty of companies who could handle that aspect of HSR, from Amtrak to Herzog to SNCF. It's a new day for passenger trains, time for new thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wanting to start a flame war here, some posters mistakenly think that unions mean a job for life and that leads to poor customer service. Southwest Airlines is very unionized, more than some other larger air carriers. Perhaps their management style and the treatment of employees leads to the "great attitude in dealing with the public." Southwest believes that their biggest asset is not their aircraft, but their employees.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aloha
> 
> When management knows labor is not the enemy, but a company asset, then the relationship between management becomes one of co-operation and progress. The last sentence by oldtimer2 is the key ingredient, Japan once was this way, now the copy us and have our same problems.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head on that one.

Southwest is very picky when it comes to hiring. Pretty much you have to have a great sense of humor during your interview among other things. From May to September, every Friday, they throw a huge party on their deck of the HQ building. Wish my company would throw big parties every week!


----------



## birdy

saxman said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southwest Airlines has a lot of political clout in Texas and the last thing they want is competition from HSR. I think Southwest is the only profitable airline at the present time.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you all know, Southwest hasn't publicly stated they are against high speed rail in the state this time around. Back in the early 90's they were, but now times are different. Plus I think Texas is more likely to have higher speed rail in existing corridors sooner than any bullet trains. We must remind ourselves and others that higher speed competing with air travel is no comparison. But competing with the single occupant automobile is what we should be concentrating on right now. These days, the public aren't exactly happy with airlines. If Southwest were to oppose HSR, they would have to be very careful about it. I'm sure many HSR supporters are also their passengers.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think SWA has decided the ability to code through passengers from say, Temple to L.A. which is what will happen if the trains stop at the airports, outweighs the disadvantages.

Texas is torn right now between wanting HSR and being opposed to "pork" The good thing though is that being Texans I doubt they will settle for "semi-high speed rail" The Floridians....not so much.


----------



## DET63

> Texas is torn right now between wanting HSR and being opposed to "pork"


I think of Texas as being more partial to beef than to pork. 







No pork here!


----------



## saxman

birdy said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southwest Airlines has a lot of political clout in Texas and the last thing they want is competition from HSR. I think Southwest is the only profitable airline at the present time.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you all know, Southwest hasn't publicly stated they are against high speed rail in the state this time around. Back in the early 90's they were, but now times are different. Plus I think Texas is more likely to have higher speed rail in existing corridors sooner than any bullet trains. We must remind ourselves and others that higher speed competing with air travel is no comparison. But competing with the single occupant automobile is what we should be concentrating on right now. These days, the public aren't exactly happy with airlines. If Southwest were to oppose HSR, they would have to be very careful about it. I'm sure many HSR supporters are also their passengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. I think SWA has decided the ability to code through passengers from say, Temple to L.A. which is what will happen if the trains stop at the airports, outweighs the disadvantages.
> 
> Texas is torn right now between wanting HSR and being opposed to "pork" The good thing though is that being Texans I doubt they will settle for "semi-high speed rail" The Floridians....not so much.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that Texas has no unified plan. We have the Texas T-bone. It will run down I-35 and only stop at airports and take up right of way. Lots of people support it though and refuse anything "cheap," ie 110 mph service. In other words if they can't get to Austin from Dallas in two hours, they'll fly or drive. I don't like it either. Texas doesn't even have corridor service to feed into the system, and I keep getting in debates in other transportation forums about this issue. TxARP/NARP and a few other groups support the incremental/emerging high speed rail. It will use existing ROW up to 110 mph, and IMO, will get from DAL/FTW to AUS and SAS in the same amount of time the T-bone would. Mainly because it would actually serve downtown areas.

So fellow Texans, which would you rather have?:

200+ mph service on totally new right-of-way

$20 to 40 million a mile up front costs, plus new equipment

Stops only at the airports in DFW, Waco, Temple/Killeen, Austin, San Antonio, College Station, Houston- Thats only 7 or 8 stops

Getting to downtown requires another transfer

Implementation could be as soon as 2020 but probably more like 2030.

OR:

90-110 mph service on existing tracks

$2 to 5 million per mile of track upgrades

Serves downtown areas at existing stations

Has many stops such as Cleburne, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Round Rock, Hempstead etc.

Maybe a little bit slower than the T-bone but still faster than driving

Implementation in as soon as 2015.

Obviously these are things we to need to work out before Texas will see any actual Fed dollars. And if the Fed doesn't go on a spending freeze starting next year.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

saxman said:


> Part of the problem is that Texas has no unified plan. We have the Texas T-bone. It will run down I-35 and only stop at airports and take up right of way. Lots of people support it though and refuse anything "cheap," ie 110 mph service. In other words if they can't get to Austin from Dallas in two hours, they'll fly or drive. I don't like it either. Texas doesn't even have corridor service to feed into the system, and I keep getting in debates in other transportation forums about this issue. TxARP/NARP and a few other groups support the incremental/emerging high speed rail. It will use existing ROW up to 110 mph, and IMO, will get from DAL/FTW to AUS and SAS in the same amount of time the T-bone would. Mainly because it would actually serve downtown areas.
> So fellow Texans, which would you rather have?:
> 
> 200+ mph service on totally new right-of-way
> 
> $20 to 40 million a mile up front costs, plus new equipment
> 
> Stops only at the airports in DFW, Waco, Temple/Killeen, Austin, San Antonio, College Station, Houston- Thats only 7 or 8 stops
> 
> Getting to downtown requires another transfer
> 
> Implementation could be as soon as 2020 but probably more like 2030.
> 
> OR:
> 
> 90-110 mph service on existing tracks
> 
> $2 to 5 million per mile of track upgrades
> 
> Serves downtown areas at existing stations
> 
> Has many stops such as Cleburne, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Round Rock, Hempstead etc.
> 
> Maybe a little bit slower than the T-bone but still faster than driving
> 
> Implementation in as soon as 2015.
> 
> Obviously these are things we to need to work out before Texas will see any actual Fed dollars. And if the Fed doesn't go on a spending freeze starting next year.


The Northeast Regional is not really any faster than driving, and it reaches 125 MPH at times. What makes you so sure that a 110 MPH train in Texas would be faster than driving?

Are the T-bone folks proposing to run subway like 3 minute headways on the airport connector, or would that leave slots available to run trains into downtowns?

If you look at the trains crossing the Hudson River into NYP, I believe there aren't really more than three Amtrak trains an hour in each direction (one Acela, one Northeast Regional, and then the Keystone / long distance trains), while NJT is probably running more than 20 trains an hour in the peak direction, and those NJT trains probably carry double the passengers the average Amtrak train carries. This makes me think focusing on hour long commuter trips produces a project that's easier to justify than focusing on airplane replacement.

Austin to San Antonio is about 80 miles. What if you start with that part of the T-bone, and run a train from downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio? At 220 MPH, it would be a little over 20 minutes, but in practice it will probably take longer if it's running on conventional rights of way into each downtown. I don't know if losing 10 minutes on each end to the slower right of way is even remotely accurate, but let's assume for the moment that it turned out to actually be possible for an express train to go from downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio in 40 minutes.

Since slots on the 220 MPH track will probably be three minutes each, if a train pulls off the 220 MPH track into a station to stop for passengers to get on and off and let an express train go by and then takes the next slot after the express train, each stop should cause the local train to be 6 minutes slower than an express train.

That might mean a single local train could make 5-7 stops in between Austin and San Antonio, which would suggest stops could be spaced every 10-12 miles. (Or if there are multiple trains that each make only some of the local stops, much as the NJT NEC trains do, you could have more stops.) That ought to collect a significant number of commuters from points in between the two cities. Perhaps the airports could have stops that some trains could stop at on their way to the downtown station.

It looks like Austin has some conventional speed track heading to the east, and San Antonio has track heading to the southwest and southeast. Perhaps there could be a train that would start 20 minutes east of downtown Austin, making some local stops on its way to downtown Austin, and then run express to downtown San Antonio, and from there continue 20 minutes along the conventional speed track heading southwest or southeast.

If that's successful, then look at Austin to Dallas/Fort Worth. It's about 200 miles. If the speed of the trains can be pushed up to 300 MPH, that can probably be about an hour, too. Even if you're stuck at 220 MPH, there are still some parts of Texas that would easily be within an hour by train of both Austin and Dallas/Fort Worth.

Once all that's up and running and has plenty of local commuter stops, figure out what to do about connecting Houston to maximize commuter possibilities.

Are all of the airports on the airport centric version of the T-bone ones that would continue to have scheduled passenger planes once the T-bone is functional, or would some see all of their passengers migrated to HSR?


----------

