High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[northbay]

^ what do you expect when congress has a lower approval rating than polygamy, the BP oil spill, 'the us going communist' or pornography.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...usaolp00000009)

sad if the program dies. hopefully individual projects can still be built (like california's).

[waltlantz]

Is anyone really surprised that High Speed rail is not gonna get passed? Really?

I knew that it wasn't likely to be pushed through. One because of hard core anti-tax Republicans.

Two, I still don't believe that there is enough interest in Jon Q. Public on pushing through High Speed Rail in the face of all the other problems we have to deal with right now.

National Rail needs a Robert Moses mixed with Reagan type character to sell people about such a massive initiative. Moses's knowhow mixed with Reagan's charisma to speak to a wide populace to slowly get them "on board".

I still think that first off, Local jurisdictions need to invest more in local rail services to help change attitudes and norms. Everyone knows how hard it is to pass national legislation, and now you try to get one pushed for a mode of transportion that only has a sliver of the nation's mode share.

I know that ridership is up, but it's not nearly in the realm of being a culture like it is Europe and Asia. Until you ensure that local jurisdictions have local transit to feed into such a system and you have a good salesman for it, nothing will happen.

[Jonboy1983]

Slide rule and 202 Cyclist, spot on!

I had no idea who this Norquist joker was, but now I know, and he's an ass if there ever was one. If I lived near transit and my work was convenient to it. Hell yes I'd use it -- oh, hold on a second, I DID USE IT when I did my internship at the City of Philadelphia. I lived just up the hill from SEPTA's R5 and the Municipal Services building was right on top of Suburban Station. I paid $161 a month for my zone 5 pass -- which was $100 LESS than 20 daily round trips each from zone 5. Forget about parking AND gas at the time (This was 2008, when gass topped well over $4 a gallon!!)!

It doesn't help either when you have half of this country completely out of touch with everything going on around them. They don't have the ability to think for themselves, so they vote cronies like these guys into power who screw everything up for those of us who do have a clue and who try to use our talents and strengths to manipulate our own environment to our favor.

[Urbana]

This, as I see it is, good. There is no way that you can justify such a huge spending project when the government is in the hole as deeply as it is. Contrary to popular belief money does not fall from the sky. High speed inter-city rail has a future in the US, but in the midst of the debt situation we are currently in it would be highly irresponsible of Congress to allow this money to be spent.

[pyropius]

You're right. Money doesn't fall from the sky. It comes from the Fed.

[waltlantz]

Gotta start small and work up.

As I said before, existing Amtrak Service should be overhauled and invested in, before gunning deep into HSR. People will find it less of a gap to traverse.

You'll especially have to placate those Westerners in dem WIDE OPEN spaces. Isn't about time we look at getting Phoenix service back, they seem to actually have a Union Station still standing.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

Gotta start small and work up.

As I said before, existing Amtrak Service should be overhauled and invested in, before gunning deep into HSR. People will find it less of a gap to traverse.

You'll especially have to placate those Westerners in dem WIDE OPEN spaces. Isn't about time we look at getting Phoenix service back, they seem to actually have a Union Station still standing.

I agree. Amtrak is already becoming more popular. We've seen a huge pick up in passenger traffic down here. We just need to continue to improve the system so that it becomes more popular, brings in more revenue, and convinces people that rail is a viable alternative.

[Standpoor]

Originally Posted by tredici

I agree. Amtrak is already becoming more popular. We've seen a huge pick up in passenger traffic down here. We just need to continue to improve the system so that it becomes more popular, brings in more revenue, and convinces people that rail is a viable alternative.

Isn't that what HSIPR and ARRA did? I know the Florida money was for "real" HSR but the rest went to turning Illinois existing service to 110, Wisconsin expansion to Madison, buying track in Michigan to upgrade to 110, new slow Amtrak service in Ohio, etc. But there is no funding for anything now, even improving existing services.

I do not see how saving $2.5 billion dollars a year or .07% of the budget will do anything to help our budget deficit. But than again I do not see the problem of running $1.3 trillion dollar deficit during a recession. During boom years sure but now not so much. Also, after seeing him in person and watching him yesterday on Cspan, I think Tim Geithner is a bad ass but a lot of people do not seem to like him. So I guess I just am in the minority on most things.

p.s. Down with SOPA/Protect IP.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Standpoor

Isn't that what HSIPR and ARRA did? I know the Florida money was for "real" HSR but the rest went to turning Illinois existing service to 110, Wisconsin expansion to Madison, buying track in Michigan to upgrade to 110, new slow Amtrak service in Ohio, etc. But there is no funding for anything now, even improving existing services.

I do not see how saving $2.5 billion dollars a year or .07% of the budget will do anything to help our budget deficit. But than again I do not see the problem of running $1.3 trillion dollar deficit during a recession. During boom years sure but now not so much. Also, after seeing him in person and watching him yesterday on Cspan, I think Tim Geithner is a bad ass but a lot of people do not seem to like him. So I guess I just am in the minority on most things.

p.s. Down with SOPA/Protect IP.

My thing with Geithner is that he always sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but I still don't have much confidence in him...

All that aside, I think the problem we see now with all the infighting right now about rail proposals is that the Republicans don't seen rail as a legitimate transport system. That view has to be changed if we ever expect a true, real, viable rail system to be constructed. To do that, we need to get the constituencies to believe in it. That all starts with Amtrak. That's my reasoning.

IMO, the Republicans have to be won over. Yelling at them does nothing to forward the rail agenda. It just galvanizes them.

Bringing the Republicans into this could actually benefit the proposals. That's a whole pool of ideas that no one is tapping. If we can get them to buy into it, we might get an idea or two about how to make rail as well planned as we possibly can, thus assuring its success (not to mention its future support and funding).

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by tredici

My thing with Geithner is that he always sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but I still don't have much confidence in him...

All that aside, I think the problem we see now with all the infighting right now about rail proposals is that the Republicans don't seen rail as a legitimate transport system. That view has to be changed if we ever expect a true, real, viable rail system to be constructed. To do that, we need to get the constituencies to believe in it. That all starts with Amtrak. That's my reasoning.

IMO, the Republicans have to be won over. Yelling at them does nothing to forward the rail agenda. It just galvanizes them.

Bringing the Republicans into this could actually benefit the proposals. That's a whole pool of ideas that no one is tapping. If we can get them to buy into it, we might get an idea or two about how to make rail as well planned as we possibly can, thus assuring its success (not to mention its future support and funding).

Republicans have made their idias public, regarding rail transit. They do support rail transit, if these things are accomplished:

-Build rail corridors alongside highways and construct each station to have massive parking structures, capible of parking thousands of cars, so people can drive from their homes, to the stations.
-Charge for parking there, to pay off construction costs of the stations and parking structure.
-Charge rail fare at a rate high enough to cover 100% of the operation and maintainence costs of operating the rail line. They should not require taxpayer subsidies, to operate and maintain them.
-Build the rail lines with massive private investments and have private companies lease out and operate these rail lines at a profit. If they can't be profitable, don't build them.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

-Build the rail lines with massive private investments and have private companies lease out and operate these rail lines at a profit. If they can't be profitable Amtrak & taxpayers profit instead of corporations, don't build them.

Fixed that for you.

[mrnyc]

i wonder if some hsr line will get built, if for no other reason than as a demonstration project of hsr service, kind of like the seattle monorail?

thats what i always expected would happen, short of it getting canceled altogether.

bummer. the shinkansen is a beautiful experience!

[202_Cyclist]

mrnyc:

bummer. the shinkansen is a beautiful experience!

You mean you don't like sitting on I-95 for six hours to go 200 miles?

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Republicans have made their idias public, regarding rail transit. They do support rail transit, if these things are accomplished:

-Build rail corridors alongside highways and construct each station to have massive parking structures, capible of parking thousands of cars, so people can drive from their homes, to the stations.
-Charge for parking there, to pay off construction costs of the stations and parking structure.
-Charge rail fare at a rate high enough to cover 100% of the operation and maintainence costs of operating the rail line. They should not require taxpayer subsidies, to operate and maintain them.
-Build the rail lines with massive private investments and have private companies lease out and operate these rail lines at a profit. If they can't be profitable, don't build them.

Yes because clearly the construction of highways followed the same paradigm

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Republicans have made their idias public, regarding rail transit. They do support rail transit, if these things are accomplished:

-Build rail corridors alongside highways and construct each station to have massive parking structures, capible of parking thousands of cars, so people can drive from their homes, to the stations.
-Charge for parking there, to pay off construction costs of the stations and parking structure.
-Charge rail fare at a rate high enough to cover 100% of the operation and maintainence costs of operating the rail line. They should not require taxpayer subsidies, to operate and maintain them.
-Build the rail lines with massive private investments and have private companies lease out and operate these rail lines at a profit. If they can't be profitable, don't build them.

Is this really the plan? If so, this is the stupidest thing I've read on the internet in weeks. Quite a feat.

[202_Cyclist]

Centralgrad258--- correction, here is the stupidest idea in weeks.

""[Chairman] Mica said Tuesday that he is not opposed to using revenue from expanded energy production to pay for the [surface transportation] bill.

“I would like to see us mining more coal. If we could quadruple production and putting people to work, we can use that money,” he said. “I am open to anything that works."

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...cent-completed

Where I come from, this sounds an awful lot like a subsidy for roads and highways but I thought bike lanes and passenger rail were the only modes of transportation that receive subsidies.

[202_Cyclist]

In fairness, however, there is a tremendous supply of natural gas in western PA and New York, as well as the northern plains states. I'm the first to admit the real health and safety concerns of drilling for natural gas but this energy source has half the carbon as energy produced from coal and this is an abundant domestic source of fuel. If revenue from expanded natural gas drilling was used to heavily subsidize electric vehicles hybrid-plug in vehicles, as well as transit, I could support that.

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

In fairness, however, there is a tremendous supply of natural gas in western PA and New York, as well as the northern plains states. I'm the first to admit the real health and safety concerns of drilling for natural gas but this energy source has half the carbon as energy produced from coal and this is an abundant domestic source of fuel. If revenue from expanded natural gas drilling was used to heavily subsidize electric vehicles hybrid-plug in vehicles, as well as transit, I could support that.

I live in PA and natural gas fracking is a very controversial issue. Our gov refuses to tax gas extraction at all, meaning zero revenue whatsoever. And that's without even getting into the environmental effect of contaminated water runoff. It's a nasty, nasty business and the lobby pretty much owns state government. So at least on the state level in PA, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

In fairness, however, there is a tremendous supply of natural gas in western PA and New York, as well as the northern plains states. I'm the first to admit the real health and safety concerns of drilling for natural gas but this energy source has half the carbon as energy produced from coal and this is an abundant domestic source of fuel. If revenue from expanded natural gas drilling was used to heavily subsidize electric vehicles hybrid-plug in vehicles, as well as transit, I could support that.

Pissing away valuable, limited natural resources to pay to pave roads - which need regular, ongoing upkeep and maintenance - is insane. Much better to have a sustainable funding source.

That is akin to a trust-fund kiddie living off of Grandma's inheritance. Sure, its fun while the party lasts, but once the dough runs out, its gone forever. Then you need to get a job, and pay taxes.

Considering it takes millions of years to make natural gas... big problem.

[ardecila]

^ Yeah, but there's no truly sustainable funding mechanism. The gas tax was supposed to do that, but in recent years Americans have switched to more fuel-efficient cars and in some cases simply driven less. The tax mechanism also requires Congressional action to raise the rate, and politics prevent that from occurring. That means fuel-tax revenue has dropped sharply and is no longer able to fund the US' federal transportation program.

Selling a natural resource of which we have a massive quantity is not a limited-term funding mechanism like privatizing an asset or selling the family silver. The natural gas supply in the US is vast, and it's not doing us any good sitting in the ground. Alternative sources of energy still need more time to develop, so why not start exploiting a lower-carbon fuel source that can be produced domestically?

The trust-fund kiddie isn't only using Grandma's money to party - he's getting a college degree, too, and he'll be prepared to earn money when the trust fund runs out.