High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[SD_Phil]

^shhhhh, don't spoil things for me just yet. Give me this one little moment of joy!

[ardecila]

It's not DOA - it just won't be that big. Obama is making every indication that this will be a major priority for him in the coming year when more controversial issues like energy policy and education reform might be out of reach.

John Mica leads the House Transportation Committee and he is cautiously in favor of high speed rail in the Northeast Corridor, as well as anywhere else where government is willing to work with private companies. SNCF has already expressed interest in the California, Midwest, Texas, and Florida corridors, and JR and CNR as well.

I'm sure Obama is perfectly willing to look to private and/or foreign capital to help build the lines, but the US has to put up a good chunk of the construction costs for those deals to work.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail


February 8th, 2011

By JEFF MASON



Read More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41474264...s-white_house/

Great news! Hopefully it doesn't get butchered that much in the House. There are quite a few republicans who do support HSR so it's not quite DOA. Plus the argument for infrastructure spending is pretty strong. As long as it's offset by some spending cuts then it shouldn't be that hard to get through.

[lawfin]

The so called conservatives in the house will abort this before it reaches blastula stage

[M II A II R II K]

Federal high-speed rail plan could spur Orlando-to-Miami link


February 08, 2011

By Dan Tracy



Read More: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...h-speed-trains

The Obama Administration said Tuesday it wants to spend $53 billion over six years on high-speed rail, an ambitious plan that could lead to renewed interest in an Orlando-to-Miami route. But the initiative first must pass through Congress, where negative early reviews came from U.S. Reps. John Mica, R-Winter Park, chairman of the powerful House Transportation Committee, and Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the Railroads Subcommittee. Mica likened the plan, announced by Vice President Joe Biden, to "giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio."

Mica maintains much of the $10.5 billion previously awarded through the stimulus and an appropriations bill by the administration was wasted on slow-moving trains in remote areas. Included in that money was $2.4 billion for an Orlando to Tampa system that Mica generally supports for his home district. Money for high-speed trains, Mica said, should be concentrated in the Northeast, where rail travel between major cities such as New York, Washington, D.C., and Boston is popular. "Government won't develop American high-speed rail," Shuster said. "Private investment and a competitive market will."

The administration wants the money spread across the country, with the ultimate goal of giving 80 percent of the population access to a high-speed network within 25 years. Biden, in a statement, said the White House intends to put rail travel on equal footing with other forms of transportation such as highways. He did not reveal any specific routes. Supporters say the push will revitalize domestic rail manufacturing and create thousands of jobs. Given his role in the House, Mica will play a critical role in determining how much of the plan actually occurs. He will oversee the national transportation spending bill, which would cover the next six years. He is holding a series of hearings that likely will conclude in early April.

.....

[Busy Bee]

"Government won't develop American high-speed rail," Shuster said. "Private investment and a competitive market will."

Wrong. Government should and will CO-Develop high-speed rail.

[Beta_Magellan]

In my lifetime, the Republicans have generally been for privatization of profits, socialization of losses, and subsidies for whatever feels right, which bodes well for HSR (public-private partnerships for construction and god potential for operating profits). Unfortunately, the current Tea Party/not-business-class Republican base sees little need for high-speed rail and would prefer federal dollars to subsidize exurbia, which doesn’t bode well for HSR.

I’ve almost completely stopped following the political debate over HSR funding in congress—my interest in HSR derives from how it will alter our existing transportation landscape, the decisions that go into planning and assessing it, and the details of execution. It doesn’t come from watching a bunch of guys with law degrees entering a “who-can-sound-the-most-informed-without-knowing-anything” contest.

In the longer run, though, I think the ball’s started rolling with respect to rail investment (both passenger and freight), especially after strong growth in the last decade—no matter what this congress thinks, the rail investment question isn’t going away.

[JDRCRASH]

The private industry will NEVER invest in HSR unless the feds help start it.

[zilfondel]

Private industry has had 100 years to research and fund high speed rail in this country. Last time I checked, they abandoned passenger rail.

So... what private company is going to do this, teabaggers? Oh, thats right. There are none.

[202_Cyclist]

Just like all the private highways in the US? There is less than 200 miles of privately-owned highways in the US. Let's look at the record of this privately-owned infrastructure.

*San Joaquin Hills toll road in Orange County sought $1.1B federal bailout (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct.../me-tollroad17)
*South Carolina toll road declares bankruptcy (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...13148720100624)
*The Dulles Greenway had to renegotiate its debt to avoid bankruptcy (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/2170)

Which airports in the US that have commercial air service are privately owned? I can think of one of the more than 400 airports that have commercial flights.

[10023]

The problem with a completely government funded and operated rail system, in this country anyway, is that it is subject to our system of appropriating funds. Amtrak doesn't work partly because it has to operate too many unprofitable routes in places that don't really need passenger rail, because these places are represented by Congressmen that will vote against funding unless their district gets a piece of the pie.

Maybe what we need is some (meaning multiple) supra-state regional authorities that fund and operate rail. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey might be a bad example, but that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of.

For instance - DC, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire should form a rail authority. Funding would come from taxpayers in those states with Federal support (16 Senators and a bunch of Reps should be able to make that happen). They could ditch Amtrak and design and build their own regional high-speed rail system.

Same thing in the Midwest with Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.

California, Texas and Florida would probably have their own systems. Some day you could have North Carolina and Georgia put something together.

But as long as Amtrak has to fund regional rail service in places like Alabama and Nebraska, it won't be able to leverage infrastructure investments adequately.

[Beta_Magellan]

One of the big challenges of Obama’s approach so far has been with the whole state/federal divide. I can see why he’s so far favored giving states a strong role—it gives the states a good share of power that they can use to coordinate local development and land use, having the states pay a good portion of the bill gives them a stake in the projects’ success—but it also leads to greater difficulties in coordinating projects. Maybe big super-regional associations can help, but I’m not sure how well new big quasi-public authorities would be received.

There’s also the issue of how Amtrak subsidizes its routes—below a certain length states need to foot more of the bill. It’s a big structural reason why the low-performing cross-country routes are preserved at the expense of more effective regional service, and also leads to some odd paradoxes if we were to use the same criteria funding for funding HSR. For example, I’ve read that for a Cleveland-NY HSR link, going through the Empire Corridor would be subsidized by the federal government, but a route through Pennsylvania, though sixty miles shorter, would require local funds (the example didn’t factor in the greater cost of tunneling through Pennsylvania, either).

Although we’ll never be able to finance the construction of HSR routes without public funds (otherwise Texas would have its TGV), I would like the see a strong non-US-government presence in the planning, implementation, and definitely operation of high speed rail here, at least to begin with. This country simply doesn’t have the expertise to build and run a HSR network, and I think we really do need input from the likes of SNCF or JR if we want an American network to succeed.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 10023

The problem with a completely government funded and operated rail system, in this country anyway, is that it is subject to our system of appropriating funds. Amtrak doesn't work partly because it has to operate too many unprofitable routes in places that don't really need passenger rail, because these places are represented by Congressmen that will vote against funding unless their district gets a piece of the pie.

But as long as Amtrak has to fund regional rail service in places like Alabama and Nebraska, it won't be able to leverage infrastructure investments adequately.

The first idea I would like to point out is that Alabama and Nebraska don't have "regional" rail services. What they have is "long distance" or "national" train services, sometimes very late at night or very early in the morning.

Omaha > California Zephyr > EB 0500 >WB 2300
Birmingham > Crescent > NB 1435 > SB 1155

I'll agree that as long as Amtrak receives funding from a tax charged nationally, that Amtrak is politically obligated to provide a "national" service.

You're idea that States should fund regional services is a good one. If that were to occur, then Amtrak would be redundant. Long distance services could be allowed to fade away. But, those very same States organized to provide "regional" services would need a "national" law on the books that grants them very cheap access rights to privately owned freight railroad corridors that Amtrak enjoys now. Without it, many of your State organized regional corridors couldn't form, much less survive long. The freight railroad companies could, if not would, extort passenger rail agencies completely out of business with higher access right fees, demanding more track improvements than necessary, demanding higher prices for those track improvements than they actually cost, and demanding the States pick up their insurance fees, or demanding no fault indemnities with passenger rail operations. All of these had been sought by the freight railroad companies with commuter rail agencies in the past. Why would the States organizing "regional" services, without similar protections given Amtrak, be treated any differently?
So, if we're going to have "regional" intercity rail services, whatever and however that service is financed, we're going to need to give it "legal" powers Amtrak holds today. Why do so when Amtrak already exists? Instead, I propose we need to change how Amtrak is funded. Every Amtrak train should be funded from 50% federal and 50% local funds, whether that train requires a subsidy or not for operating profits. Any operating profits a train earns should be used to lower the Federal subsidy, not the local subsidy. In this way, NEC States pay their share for dozens of "regional" trains a day while Nebraska and Alabama pay their share for a daily "national" train service. If Nebraska or Alabama refuse to pay their fair share, Amtrak would be allowed to kill their daily train.

[202_Cyclist]

Robert Samuelson has an editorial critical of high speed rail in today's Washington Post. The editorial is filled with fallacies and quotes Randal O'Toole from Cato approvingly.


High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021302203.html

[10023]

Originally Posted by electricron

The first idea I would like to point out is that Alabama and Nebraska don't have "regional" rail services. What they have is "long distance" or "national" train services, sometimes very late at the night or very early in the morning.

Regardless of what you call it, these trains shouldn't be running.

If you want to have a luxury version of the Zephyr run once a week as a tourist / sightseeing train, then fine. But it shouldn't be part of Amtrak's appropriations.

Attempting to maintain national rail service provides the U.S. from having adequate regional service in the handful of places where it's needed.

Originally Posted by electricron

But, those very same States organized to provide "regional" services would need a "national" law on the books that grants them very cheap access rights to privately owned freight railroad corridors that Amtrak enjoys now.

I think the whole idea would be to break away from using freight corridors. We'll never have good, fast passenger trains running on freight track.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 10023

Regardless of what you call it, these trains shouldn't be running. Attempting to maintain national rail service provides the U.S. from having adequate regional service in the handful of places where it's needed.
I think the whole idea would be to break away from using freight corridors. We'll never have good, fast passenger trains running on freight track.

If Amtrak doesn't provide "national" train services, it loses it's political support to survive. Golly, "national" trains like the Cardinal, Carolina, Crescent, Palmetto, and Silver trains are stretched beyond D.C. to NYC because a significant portion of their passengers are from NYC. Otherwise, these trains could terminate in D.C. Therefore, many passengers on the "national" trains getting Federal subsidizes are NEC passengers desiring to ride trains further.

I ask, is it just Nebraska or Alabama citizens riding these trains? NO!

As long as there are adequate freight railroad corridors with capacity to add daily intercity passenger trains, Amtrak, Regional, nor Commuter rail agencies are not going to want to build a brand new corridor. The only reason to do so is if you want to spend a fortune for High Speed Rail. If you follow the European models, every HSR project was built parallel to an existing, over capacity, slow speed intercity passenger rail corridor. The only rail corridor with existing capacity to support a dedicated passenger rail corridor is the NEC. But, at a stroke of a pen, and some financial compensation payments, the NEC could be a dedicated passenger rail corridor, kicking all freight trains off. Some would suggest we should build a new modern HSR corridor parallel to the existing NEC, maybe I'm suggesting the Federal government should encourage the freight railroads to do so instead?

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Private industry has had 100 years to research and fund high speed rail in this country. Last time I checked, they abandoned passenger rail.

So... what private company is going to do this, teabaggers? Oh, thats right. There are none.

If private industry was going to invest in HSR, the freight rail companies would have already been upgrading key rail lines that they own and providing passenger service themselves. They aren't going to do it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by electricron

If Amtrak doesn't provide "national" train services, it loses it's political support to survive. Golly, "national" trains like the Cardinal, Carolina, Crescent, Palmetto, and Silver trains are stretched beyond D.C. to NYC because a significant portion of their passengers are from NYC. Otherwise, these trains could terminate in D.C. Therefore, many passengers on the "national" trains getting Federal subsidizes are NEC passengers desiring to ride trains further.

You're not telling me anything I don't know.

My whole point is that we SHOULD scrap Amtrak and have states in regions that need better train service collaborate to provide such service.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by 10023

Regardless of what you call it, these trains shouldn't be running.

If you want to have a luxury version of the Zephyr run once a week as a tourist / sightseeing train, then fine. But it shouldn't be part of Amtrak's appropriations.

Attempting to maintain national rail service provides the U.S. from having adequate regional service in the handful of places where it's needed.

There shouldn't be a train running between Atlanta and New Orleans? That's the only reason Alabama has rail service, because the Crescent Corridor happens to travel through Anniston, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa.

What really needs to be done is shut down under-performing stations. Until Amtrak can get their finances in order, or more financially sound, they need to make some cuts. In Alabama, a Tuscaloosa or Anniston resident could easily just drive to Birmingham and hop on a train, at least until a stop in those two cities could be justified by increased demand.

Metro Charlotte has three stations. Having family in Charlotte, I think that Kannapolis and Gastonia can survive for a while and just catch maybe a bus to the Charlotte station. Anyone ever heard of Jesup, GA? Me either, so why does it have a station?

[ardecila]

Yeah, but those rural stations are the only thing keeping rural residents supporting train service. If the trains ran express-only, they'd die off very very soon. Besides, is somebody from Tuscaloosa really gonna drive to Birmingham to get on a train to Atlanta? At that point, most would rather just keep driving, or fly. The convenience of the train is that the station's nearby.

What should be done instead is for Amtrak to approach towns that want service, and then get the towns to pay for operation and maintenance of the stations. A $30 million renovation is probably out of the question for most rural AL towns, but even they can afford a ticket machine and a weekly mopdown at existing stations.

That doesn't change the operating expenses of the train, though, which is a huge chunk of the total cost. One train employs a ton of people, including conductors, several people in the snack car, and several people in the engine crew. That's not to mention the ground-support people at the train yards who restock, clean, fix up, and prepare the trains between runs. The salaries of all those people add up quickly.