# Redistributing CA HSR Funds



## Ben (May 11, 2012)

Lets say that in June the CA legislature votes against the matching bonds for the $3.3 billion in HSR federal funding. How do you think the $3.3 billion will be redistributed?


----------



## me_little_me (May 27, 2012)

I vote for Virginia and North Carolina!


----------



## Anderson (May 28, 2012)

So do I...though I'd also vote for some of the projects that had early environmental work funded that should be coming to a close.


----------



## Ozark Southern (May 28, 2012)

Illinois should get some for double-tracking STL-CHI.


----------



## jis (May 28, 2012)

Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves here?


----------



## Ozark Southern (May 29, 2012)

jis said:


> Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves here?


It's impossible to get too far ahead with absolutely baseless speculation.


----------



## afigg (May 29, 2012)

:blink:



Ozark Southern said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves here?
> ...


+1. The threat by Secretary LaHood to potentially redistribute the CA HSR funds is simply a political ploy to push the CA legislature to get off the pot, get the authorization bills passed and get going on the project. Appears to be having the desired effect from the brief new bits I've seen on the topic.

But, if the CA HSR funds were to be redistributed, the funds would have to go to projects where the funds can be fully obligated by September 30, 2012 and fully spent by September, 2017. That puts marked constraints on who could get the funding.

Virginia DC to Richmond would be out, and even with the Richmond to Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor submitting a final EIS for a Record of Decision, won't be able to obligate the funds in time. NC could put some of the funds to work on the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor, but the Tea party members in the state legislature would make a major effort to reject the funds.

No, the funds would have to go to states and Amtrak where they could be put to work quickly. For the NEC & Amtrak, the North Portal Bridge project would be at the top of the list. CT for the New Haven-Springfield corridor, PA/Amtrak for the Keystone East, MD for the NEC BWI Airport station rebuild and 4th track, IL for double-tracking the CHI-STL corridor, WA for more Cascades corridor projects, CA for the LOSSAN corridor, with leftovers for VT and ME because they don't need much. Or give Amtrak $500 million to buy a first batch of new single level cars from CAF.

And, what would be a wacky turn of events, if Gov. Walker loses the recall election and the Democrats gain control of the State Senate in WI, to WI to revive the Milwaukee to Madison Hiawatha extension. :blink: But this is all pointless, because the CA HSR project should move forward.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 29, 2012)

afigg said:


> And, what would be a wacky turn of events, if Gov. Walker loses the recall election and the Democrats gain control of the State Senate in WI, to WI to revive the Milwaukee to Madison Hiawatha extension. But this is all pointless, because the CA HSR project should move forward.


Is Scott Walker actually in trouble? I thought I saw that recent polling had him retaining power after several high profile endorsements from the business community. Is the CA HSR project no longer in serious jeopardy? Everything I've seen in recent months has been about how much of the project has stalled and how close they are to losing their funding.


----------



## George Harris (May 29, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Everything I've seen in recent months has been about how much of the project has stalled and how close they are to losing their funding.


They are preaching the funeral of somebody that ain't dead yet, and may not even be that sick.


----------



## Anderson (May 29, 2012)

Walker is, from what I can tell, likely to survive the recall. As to projects...

1) From what I can tell, the biggest problem with VA is that the legislature is out of session. I do legitimately wonder whether, given the option, McDonnell would pull a special session to get something through here (Richmond works...very oddly). Also, while WAS-RVR might be out, what about going to 110 MPH on RVR-NFK and considering the existing project to be part of the overall project?

2) The biggest hiccup on reviving WI, assuming a Democratic win in WI, is that the legislature there is out of session.

3) There's a part of me that would rather see a $500m single level car order or a large Amtrak bilevel order placed (say, starting with a small coach order to add to the existing 130 bilevels that could be "started" immediately, and then going onto other LD cars). It's sad, but somehow I find myself more excited by lots of incremental improvements at this point than I do any big projects.


----------



## afigg (May 29, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Walker is, from what I can tell, likely to survive the recall. As to projects...


Walker is slightly favored to win the recall election, in part because the Republicans and the supporting PACs were outspending the local Democrats by something like a 10:1 margin. But special elections are about turnout, and it comes down to whether more people angry at Walker turn up to vote than people who are not. Walker's opposition to the Milwaukee-Madison rail project is a minor sideshow in the special election and this is not a political board, so leave it at that.



Anderson said:


> 1) From what I can tell, the biggest problem with VA is that the legislature is out of session. I do legitimately wonder whether, given the option, McDonnell would pull a special session to get something through here (Richmond works...very oddly). Also, while WAS-RVR might be out, what about going to 110 MPH on RVR-NFK and considering the existing project to be part of the overall project?
> 
> 2) The biggest hiccup on reviving WI, assuming a Democratic win in WI, is that the legislature there is out of session.
> 
> 3) There's a part of me that would rather see a $500m single level car order or a large Amtrak bilevel order placed (say, starting with a small coach order to add to the existing 130 bilevels that could be "started" immediately, and then going onto other LD cars). It's sad, but somehow I find myself more excited by lots of incremental improvements at this point than I do any big projects.


The VA or WI legislature would have little to do with getting the funds. Most of the funds are stimulus grants which don't require state matching, so it is mostly up to the executive branches acting on applications that were previously submitted. The legislatures would mainly be a factor if they opposed the projects.

The main issue is that the funds would HAVE to be obligated by end of September which means all the agreements have to be signed, the EIS process has to be far enough along to qualify. Virginia has only just started the funded EIS process for the DC (actually Alexandria/AF Interlocking) to Richmond corridor. The $75 million that VA got in 2010 for 11 miles of 3rd track is in limbo because CSX and the FRA can't reach an agreement and may be dead for now as far I know. With CSX being an obstacle in NY and VA, the FRA is not likely to redistribute funds to any projects on CSX tracks.

I mentioned WI as a joke because it would be unlikely even if Walker does lose the recall election. There would be very little time to restart the project, redo the agreements, then re-allocate funds back to WI.

The September, 2017 deadline for completing the expenditure of the stimulus funds is a major consideration. Rules out putting funding towards an Amtrak bi-level order because the contract for the 130 bi-level corridor cars is racing against the clock to spend the federal portion of the funds on delivered cars by 2017. An order to CAF would be far easier because the new production run could follow the delivery of the last of the 130 LD cars (plus TBD cars from the option) in later 2015.

This is a moot discussion anyway, because CA will do what it needs to move ahead with CA HSR project. On the other hand, we are likely to see some modest redistributions of leftover funds from the $8 billion and from projects that are stalled (such as the $75 million for the 3rd track in VA).


----------



## Shawn Ryu (May 30, 2012)

Put ALL MONEY, EVERY LAST PENNY AVAILABLE to Northeast. lets build ONE real HSR before we start working on other corridors.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 30, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Put ALL MONEY, EVERY LAST PENNY AVAILABLE to Northeast. lets build ONE real HSR before we start working on other corridors.


To the best of my understanding, true HSR would require a whole new much straighter right of way in the Northeast. So are you saying that we should duplicate a system that is already working fine and is within spitting distance of operational fare recovery with a brand new system that will start out tens-of-billions in the red? Seems like there would be plenty of other places better suited to brand new ROW's than the Northeast.


----------



## Ozark Southern (May 30, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > Put ALL MONEY, EVERY LAST PENNY AVAILABLE to Northeast. lets build ONE real HSR before we start working on other corridors.
> ...


Agreed, and I think that's essentially what we're doing. We have three HSR corridors that actually show promise of getting high speed trains--California, IL/MI/MO, and NC/VA. I think CA's goal is ambitious, but I actually like what the other two corridors are doing better--increasing speed is secondary to increasing frequencies and reliability. 110MPH is just fine, and easily beats any driving time. The only advantage the car has, then, is the ability to leave whenever you want. Better frequencies strip the car of that advantage, and induce many more people to take the train. 220MPH would be awesome, but I'd rather every train in the country run at 110 before we spend a lot of money to make one or two trains faster than that.


----------



## peremichel (May 30, 2012)

How about MI. The state owns the tracks so there would be little negotiations with host railroads to delay upgrades. 110 between Dearborn, MI and Porter, IN would be pretty nice.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (May 31, 2012)

Ozark Southern said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Shawn Ryu said:
> ...


Money would be better spent on corridors that a lot of people use. More bang for the buck. Build HSR, reduce time between DC and Boston and ridership would go through the roof.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 31, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Money would be better spent on corridors that a lot of people use. More bang for the buck. Build HSR, reduce time between DC and Boston and ridership would go through the roof.


You just keep saying the same thing without any explanation for how you arrived at that conclusion.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (May 31, 2012)

Many people are already taking Acela now, The logic says if you cut down the time between DC and Boston by 1/3, which is possible with a true HSR, the ridership would increase and profit will soar.

And I suspect it will by A LOT. Give HSR to region where passenger train is important to maximize the dollars being poured in.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 31, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Many people are already taking Acela now, The logic says if you cut down the time between DC and Boston by 1/3, which is possible with a true HSR, the ridership would increase and profit will soar. And I suspect it will by A LOT. Give HSR to region where passenger train is important to maximize the dollars being poured in.


1. If many people are already taking the Acela now then the current plan to add more carriages to each consist seems to make good economic sense. It also makes sense to improve curves and track spacing as budgets and maintenance schedules allow. To the best of my understanding that's exactly what Amtrak is trying to do at this point.

2. Logic says that if you start out several billion in the red then you won't be seeing any profits at all unless and until you pay off your massive debt burden, thus turning the closest thing Amtrak has to a self-reliant corridor into yet another funding controversy.

3. Ideally the NEC would be included in planning for a future ROW that can operate at much faster speeds and be funded primarily by private lending. This too is already in progress, although the timing and method of funding is still up in the air.

4. Florida and the Midwest have strong potential for true HSR, but they also have elected anti-rail politicians that are openly hostile to funding passenger rail projects. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

5. Texas also has potential but our history on passenger rail projects is not very encouraging. We're also an oil-centric state that promotes using as much oil as possible, and HSR really doesn't fit into that goal at all. And we're about to lose the one dependably pro-Amtrak politician we had.

6. All things considered I think it makes the most sense to continue to fund California's HSR project, assuming they don't suffer a Proposition Eight style ideological reversal. California has a better track record on actually completing passenger rail projects than many other locations. They also have one of the largest passenger rail customer bases and several pro-rail cities. Their Achilles heel is their state budget, but with enough Federal funding that might not be an insurmountable obstruction. Ideally over time the first few legs would build upon each other and eventually connect the whole state through other funding sources, possibly even reaching into Oregon and Washington.


----------



## Anderson (May 31, 2012)

Texas,

I agree on most of your points. However, I do disagree on a few of them:

1) The Florida project melted down for a variety of reasons, most surrounding a Governor who went anti-rail more or less out of the blue. However, the Phase I there was never a very good project idea on its own given how little time you cut off of the trip for that much money (i.e. I think you gained 15 minutes from everything after the first $400 million). The fact that the FEC is looking into its own plan says something, too; it's a real shame that there's no way to simply cut FDOT out of the loop here and work directly with the FEC.*

2) The problem with CA's project is its sheer scope and scale. I think the valley plan is good (and, as noted elsewhere, at the very least you can run a limited-stop express down the valley at 125 MPH with it)...the main issue is that there needs to be something, _anything_, linking LAUS directly to the valley within a sane amount of time and _not _involving a bus.

3) As to the NEC, I'm not entirely sure what to do there. The NYP-WAS market is, to a large extent, "mined out" right now (i.e. you can add capacity and get more ridership, but we're really down to diminishing returns); the WAS-PHL and PHL-NYP markets _are_ mined out. The big room for improvement is in the NYP-BOS and "through NYP" markets (i.e. PHL-PVD).

4) Another place for improvement would be extending the higher-speed NEC services in several directions (i.e. towards HAR, ALB, and RVR/RVM). The Virginia services show what you can do when you extend the services (i.e. the VA trains are not only _massive_ net positives to the NEC, but from what I can tell, they're pretty close to covering their own costs now even excluding "up the corridor" tickets). The New York State services have an issue insofar as there's no way to "run through" NYP comfortably, and I don't know what sort of market might exist between the Keystone Corridor and WAS/BAL, but in general trying to get even 110 MPH services extended further out would be a good move.

Honestly, I think funding something in CA makes sense...but the CA program threatens to vacuum up _all_ of the HSR funding that is available and then some, and I'm not sure about the business plan there. The big jam is the Bakersfield-LAX connection...which is going to be expensive, whether you do it aimed at 79 MPH or 220 MPH operations. I think that link is necessary, though. But aside from that, there are _lots_ of places to look for substantial incremental service improvements that can probably increase ridership dramatically.

*The question to ask here is whether or not it would have been worth helping the private railroads meet the ATS requirements back in the 40s. If so, then I think helping the FEC make their shot at passenger service would make sense.


----------



## George Harris (May 31, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > Many people are already taking Acela now, The logic says if you cut down the time between DC and Boston by 1/3, which is possible with a true HSR, the ridership would increase and profit will soar. And I suspect it will by A LOT. Give HSR to region where passenger train is important to maximize the dollars being poured in.
> ...


1. Pouring more money into the part of the country that is already getting the most money for rail projects would be regarded as a misapplication of funds throughout most of the rest of the country. If there is more money to be poured into the northeast it would seem a better use of the money to improve connectivity and extend service to medium population locales not currently served. Reading PA into Philly and toward New York comes to mind for one.

2. The northeast population density is such that constructing line changes to permit increased speeds will be exorbitantly expensive for minimal improvements in run time. Building a straight west to east shot across Baltimore although very expensive as it would need to be mostly underground would likely provide more time savings per dollar that something would permit an already fairly high speed segment to be straightened to permit a higher speed.

3. Due to the already high ridership in the northeast it is doubtful that even significant improvements in run time would result in anything beyond miniscule increases in ridership. Therefore to pour money into the NEC on the basis that it would be returned by improved ridership is probably a fallacy in logic.

4. The Midwest (how can you call anything east of the Miss. River as being part of the west?) has a number of cities ideally spaced to develop a network of rail services that would target drives, but an apparent lack of public pressure and political will to do anything meaningful. Enticing the driving population to travel by rail by providing usable services for short to medium distance trips provides the most meaningful way to reduce fuel consumption other than the apparent current concept of causing fuel prices to rise to the point that people are impoverished to the point they can no longer afford to drive anywhere.

5. California HSR is truly worth building, and should pull a lot of people and planes out of the air between end points and a lot of cars off the road to from and between intermediate points. A logical extension beyond the initial system would be to Phoenix and Tucson, not Las Vegas, and certainly not Oregon.

6. A major cause of the Florida failure was the perception that it was being hijacked to provide access to a couple of favored developments to become a tourist and amusement park ride. A direct shot between West Palm Beach and Tampa, then turning toward Jacksonville and Atlanta would have made a lot more sense than a West Palm Beach to Disney line.

7. The "Texas Triangle" would probably result in significant ridership. Dallas to Houston in particular would be extraordinarily cheap to build. The ridership on and push for further extensions of rail transit in the Dallas area has firmly put the lie to the concept that "Texans will not ride trains" in a way that it can be seen by anybody that is paying attention.


----------



## Anderson (May 31, 2012)

Wouldn't a direct WPB-Tampa line both skip Orlando and run into issues with the Everglades? Mind you, Tampa is always going to be a pain to engineer into a line (either you're going to have to do a "backup" move, you're going to have to run a line to Tampa and _then_ to Orlando, or something else messy).

I keep trying to sort it out...as much as you'd lose some ridership with it, would it make sense to run most trains JAX-ORL-MIA, run a few JAX-ORL-TPA. and MIA-ORL-TPA, and supplement the first set with a cross-platform shuttle service?


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jun 1, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Ozark Southern said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


You're implying that people do not ride the trains in these other corridors. The data do not support this assertion. VA and NC have some of the fastest growing ridership numbers in the country, and MO and IL, respectively, have the highest and second-highest OTP of any Amtrak services--better even than the NEC--due to the investment the two states have made in double-tracking and building new sidings. These corridors were not just picked out of a hat; the money was given to states that want it, and have proven so with actions.


----------



## PerRock (Jun 1, 2012)

peremichel said:


> How about MI. The state owns the tracks so there would be little negotiations with host railroads to delay upgrades. 110 between Dearborn, MI and Porter, IN would be pretty nice.


I'll second that vote! Although I'd rather see the funds go to Indiana for the Porter to Gary section, which needs upgrading badly. It's the sole reason why after a complete upgrade of the tracks in Michigan to 110mph we're still going to see travel times at around 4hrs. Take #355, It gets into Michigan City @ 9:30p and doesn't get into Chicago until 11:00p, and that's it's schedule not reality.

peter


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 2, 2012)

PerRock said:


> I'll second that vote! Although I'd rather see the funds go to Indiana for the Porter to Gary section, which needs upgrading badly. It's the sole reason why after a complete upgrade of the tracks in Michigan to 110mph we're still going to see travel times at around 4hrs. Take #355, It gets into Michigan City @ 9:30p and doesn't get into Chicago until 11:00p, and that's it's schedule not reality.
> 
> peter


The sad part is, the State of Indiana has shown virtually no interest in supporting passenger rail (other than NICTD), and so it would take either Michigan or Illinois applying for money and spending it in Indiana (it might be worth Michigan's while to do so, in any event).

That, or we need to get off this kick of putting individual states in charge of everything, and realize that sometimes the federal government or a federal agency doing things isn't a horrible evil idea, because things do, in fact, cross state borders.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 3, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> > I'll second that vote! Although I'd rather see the funds go to Indiana for the Porter to Gary section, which needs upgrading badly. It's the sole reason why after a complete upgrade of the tracks in Michigan to 110mph we're still going to see travel times at around 4hrs. Take #355, It gets into Michigan City @ 9:30p and doesn't get into Chicago until 11:00p, and that's it's schedule not reality.
> ...


Indiana was willing to file an application for this section, but they made it clear that they were doing it to play ball with IL and MI and that they would not match it and that it would have to come from the 100% pool instead of the 80/20 pool.

I tend to agree that there needs to be more "non-unified action"...on the one hand, I would like to see more states stop waiting for federal money for things and just bite the tax bullet on occasion. 'course, it might help if the states were given a bit more flexibility on using transportation funds, too...part of the problem is that a _lot_ of this money is already "tied up" by required federal matches and whatnot (such that in many cases, a state _can't_ opt to add a couple of trains in lieu of dropping more asphalt alongside an interstate, since doing the latter is all they can put their money towards due to matching rules and whatnot). A comment I heard is that a lot of places end up doing a "road option" because they can't find continuing funding (and you can't re-route any "excess" highway maintenance funding to cover a rail operating budget even if funding that budget would save the state money on highway wear and tear). On the other hand, I would like to see the Feds decide (in so many words) to "inform" a few states (TX jumps to mind, as does WI) that there's a new rail line going in, like it or not, and that the state DOT isn't even going to be involved beyond a certain level.

The big problem is that often, you get three levels of government tied up in making things happen...federal, state, and local. On the one hand, the Feds are occasionally decent at handling multi-state projects...but when they get involved in smaller projects, between NEPA and other issues, they add _years_ to projects (for example, the chatter that had VA simply waited for the federal plans to happen, Norfolk would still be about 15-20 years from rail service rather than being, as I understand it, probably 6 months and 9 days away; on a more local level, witness the timeframes for expanding The Tide...at least 2-3 years of the 6-10 is going through federal garbage).


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Indiana was willing to file an application for this section, but they made it clear that they were doing it to play ball with IL and MI and that they would not match it and that it would have to come from the 100% pool instead of the 80/20 pool.


Right, and they have also not agreed to fund any local trains under PRIIA rules.



> On the other hand, I would like to see the Feds decide (in so many words) to "inform" a few states (TX jumps to mind, as does WI) that there's a new rail line going in, like it or not, and that the state DOT isn't even going to be involved beyond a certain level.


And since the feds have not managed to pull off that trick with even the Interstate Highway system, it is unlikely that they will be able to pull it off with interstate rail system either. OTOH, if a private railroad is on board then it is a different matter because they have much more leeway to do what they wish with their property.



> The big problem is that often, you get three levels of government tied up in making things happen...federal, state, and local. On the one hand, the Feds are occasionally decent at handling multi-state projects...but when they get involved in smaller projects, between NEPA and other issues, they add _years_ to projects (for example, the chatter that had VA simply waited for the federal plans to happen, Norfolk would still be about 15-20 years from rail service rather than being, as I understand it, probably 6 months and 9 days away; on a more local level, witness the timeframes for expanding The Tide...at least 2-3 years of the 6-10 is going through federal garbage).


A service enhancement that is purely within a state should be mostly a state matter and the feds ideally should not be involved at all.

Feds tend not to get involved unless the states need money from them. There are projects that have happened in NJ for instance where there was no federal money involved and the feds did not try to insert themselves into it. So it is upto the states on how they wish to structure things. For example NJT rolling stock acquisition has seldom been subject to federal "Build American" regulations because there is no federal money involved. So the ALP46s, PL42s and ALP45-DPs are substantially manufactured in Europe and shipped to the US.

Of course if it involves dealing with Amtrak then willy nilly you are stuck with dealing with Federal issues to some extent.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 3, 2012)

Well, the problem seems to be (at least at the moment) that it's more or less not practical for projects to go forward without federal assistance where there's not a large pre-existing system in place...and even in the case of NJ, most major projects do seem to get the Feds involved (witness Gateway); rolling stock/locomotive acquisition is a very small portion of everything from what I can tell.

At some point, as messy as it would be, I have to wonder why the states _aren't_ looking to avoid using Amtrak as their operator of choice. As a somewhat serious question, I know that the freights have to make an offer if a state wants to run a train...is there anything stopping Virginia from simply saying "enough with this PRIIA nonsense and the lost revenue share, we want to run a set of trains up to New York" or otherwise taking the operations out of PRIIA tie-ups?


----------

