posted
When I click on the map in the previous post, the first question I have is why not link Pittsburgh and Cleveland and connect the midwest system to the east. Then again, why not connect KC to Tulsa and add Texas. Now all you need to do is build HSR sleepers and you can have my dream rail system. Who needs HSR through the Rockies, where you might be happy to go slow and see the sights.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there's a National group that proposes exactly what you mentioned: KC-Tulsa-OKC-Dallas ... as I recall, that was once the route of the Oil Flyer. I think their desire was to bring this route onstream vic 2025.
One problem is even before the BNSF merger, Santa Fe ripped the track from Ottawa to Humboldt KS. That means roadbed overhaul and trackbuilding.
Remember, at the moment, Kansas is not even thinking of HSR. Their grant pre-app said the same old 79MPH poke-along.
That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical and cynical about this effort. DOT-FRA guidance clearly says the expectation is 110MPH or better. Kansas is simply saying 79MPH. If I were making a policy recommendation, I'd be telling the bosses... Kansas is non-compliant, do not fund.
After all, with a 12:1 application to funds available ratio, DOT is going to run out of Feddybux long before they run out of qualifying projects.
That's why I keep asking: Plan B? Folks in Kansas are going to need a Plan B. Having a Plan B available is far better than scrambling after Plan Only fails.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Actually, there's a National group that proposes exactly what you mentioned: KC-Tulsa-OKC-Dallas ... as I recall, that was once the route of the Oil Flyer. I think their desire was to bring this route onstream vic 2025.
One problem is even before the BNSF merger, Santa Fe ripped the track from Ottawa to Humboldt KS. That means roadbed overhaul and trackbuilding.
Remember, at the moment, Kansas is not even thinking of HSR. Their grant pre-app said the same old 79MPH poke-along.
That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical and cynical about this effort. DOT-FRA guidance clearly says the expectation is 110MPH or better. Kansas is simply saying 79MPH. If I were making a policy recommendation, I'd be telling the bosses... Kansas is non-compliant, do not fund.
After all, with a 12:1 application to funds available ratio, DOT is going to run out of Feddybux long before they run out of qualifying projects.
That's why I keep asking: Plan B? Folks in Kansas are going to need a Plan B. Having a Plan B available is far better than scrambling after Plan Only fails.
There is hardly an iota of interest among communities and public officials in Kansas for a Tulsa scenario. The track requires a major overhaul and is not in any way "low hanging fruit" for development. NADA, DOA.
Here's what I think COULD be going on in Kansas.
Maybe the chairs of the transportation committees have had meetings with the Governor's staff; and maybe the president and vice president of NFA were asked to testify before the Texas senate and meet with TxDOT; and also a new senate bill has already gone through the first review of the revisor of statutes and KDOT is holding a series of public meetings for stakeholders this fall, including one that includes MoDOT; and perhaps at the end of September the Kansas state legislature might plan to take this issue up in committee, and Kansas KDOT seems to have submitted a track 1 application on August 24th for a "shovel ready" on 20 miles of BNSF north of Emporia;, and NFA has been closely involved and received committments from dozens of house and senate members from both parties; and there might be a teleconference involving key members next week; and KDOT will commission a Service Development Plan that will satisfy all the mandatories including NEPA, thst will commence in January; and, there might be a University in Kansas that will be producing a return on investment study that will becaome part of the Servie Development Plan; and KDOT has reported that they have received endorsements for this expansion from ODOT, MARC, MoDOT and others, and of the 43 pre-applications received by the FRA it might turn out that only a VERY few will actually qualify funding, and not all of the $8 billion will actually able to be allotted in "round 1" and that there will almost assuredly be a "round 2" in 2010 for which Kansas will have a better chance for funding because more of the strict requirements imposed by FRA will have been met.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
NPR finished their series on High Speed Rail today.
Some interesting points:
- Reporters seem to think the $8B was the major plug of money. Future amounts will be rather less.
- Reporters were emphasizing the 110MPH DOT threshold for HSR. This to me is the long pole in the tent. The final app needs to kick the operating speed of the line up, or that money will be ... vanished ... as in, gone to other states that are proposing true HSR projects.
My bet? No money in FY10.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
much of the ATSF line across Kansas used by the Southwest Chief had a 100 mph speed limit 50 years ago. 110 mph would be a very small step. However, the line really needs new rail throughout, and I believe that the ATC has been removed from most of it. But: much of the alignment is good for 110 mph, which could certainly not be said for a lot of the other locations.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Kansas wants $10M, no match (all Feddybux), to upgrade the Santa Fe from Newton to the KS/OK line for 79MPH running.
BTW, here is what Joseph Szabo of the FRA said October 6:
quote:“We have received numerous applications from states and groups of states for the development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail programs for grant funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These include 45 applications from 24 states totaling approximately $50 billion to advance high-speed rail corridor programs. We also received 214 applications from 34 states totaling $7 billion for corridor planning and smaller projects.
Due to the overwhelming response and our desire to lay the groundwork for a truly national high-speed and intercity passenger rail program, we will be announcing all awards this winter. Our selections will be merit-based and will reflect President Obama’s vision to remake America’s transportation landscape. We look forward to further evaluating these proposals and spurring economic development while providing Americans with clean, energy-efficient transportation choices in the years and decades to come.”
57 chasing 8. 7 dollars chasing every available grant dollar.
79 MPH.
Oh, this one is good... I've been googling through ODOT... there is not a parallel grant request for railroad improvement from OKC to the KS/OK state line. When I do my thumbnail map measurement scale of googlemaps, the 85 miles mentioned in the Kansas app strictly covers from the border to Newton.
Next up, the preliminary $200K feed a consultant study is due back in December...
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Kansas wants $10M, no match (all Feddybux), to upgrade the Santa Fe from Newton to the KS/OK line for 79MPH running.
BTW, here is what Joseph Szabo of the FRA said October 6:
quote:“We have received numerous applications from states and groups of states for the development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail programs for grant funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These include 45 applications from 24 states totaling approximately $50 billion to advance high-speed rail corridor programs. We also received 214 applications from 34 states totaling $7 billion for corridor planning and smaller projects.
Due to the overwhelming response and our desire to lay the groundwork for a truly national high-speed and intercity passenger rail program, we will be announcing all awards this winter. Our selections will be merit-based and will reflect President Obama’s vision to remake America’s transportation landscape. We look forward to further evaluating these proposals and spurring economic development while providing Americans with clean, energy-efficient transportation choices in the years and decades to come.”
57 chasing 8. 7 dollars chasing every available grant dollar.
79 MPH.
Oh, this one is good... I've been googling through ODOT... there is not a parallel grant request for railroad improvement from OKC to the KS/OK state line. When I do my thumbnail map measurement scale of googlemaps, the 85 miles mentioned in the Kansas app strictly covers from the border to Newton.
Next up, the preliminary $200K feed a consultant study is due back in December...
From what I hear state legislators, city managers, the 3 DOT's involved and others are having a teleconference tomorrow morning via web-link hosted by the City of Edmond Oklahoma. The agenda includes everything you cite, plus the return on investment study being prepared by KU, the development of the State Rail Plan, the Service Development Plan, NEPA study and engineering study. The Senate in Kansas has a draft committee bill for the spring term ready for prefiling. NFA leaders were summoned before the special interim transportation committee at the end of September for guidance on the group of state application for the round 2 application that FRA is planning for next summer.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I've said before, and I say again: The Kansas Senate is already a proven ally. Only minimal time working them needs be spent. The political long pole in the tent is the Kansas House. If they cannot be won over to the point of even debating this issue, as they were not in the 2009 session, this is all a waste of time. The priority right now needs to be selling either 50%+1 or 66 2/3% of the Kansas House, depending on how bad you want to risk someone like Chris Kobach taking approved legislation to court.
Now, as far as what FRA puts on the table next summer, I refer back to my post of September 4. I tend to respect NPR reporters. If they say the major plug of money has been laid on the table, I won't be surprised if the FY10/FY11 grant series are rather to hugely smaller.
We'll see what happens in January. At least y'all are talking in terms of pre-filed legislation. That's the first forward motion I've seen. I just hope it has a backup $250K supplemental appropriation for the SDP study if Feddybux don't happen.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:KS Gov Ready to Make More Budget Cuts Date: October 29, 2009
Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson says he's prepared to cut spending even further to keep the state's budget balanced in the current fiscal year. The governor says he's also willing to take the political heat for making cuts. State officials and university economists will meet next week to revise their revenue projections for the fiscal year that began July 1. Parkinson says he expects the new forecast to be more pessimistic than the current one. Revenues for July, August and September were $67 million less than anticipated, a shortfall of 5 percent. Parkinson already cut spending once in the current fiscal year.
It's going to be interesting to see what if any new spending makes it through a 2010 Legislature.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Kansas Senate, you say?
I've said before, and I say again: The Kansas Senate is already a proven ally. Only minimal time working them needs be spent. The political long pole in the tent is the Kansas House. If they cannot be won over to the point of even debating this issue, as they were not in the 2009 session, this is all a waste of time. The priority right now needs to be selling either 50%+1 or 66 2/3% of the Kansas House, depending on how bad you want to risk someone like Chris Kobach taking approved legislation to court.
Now, as far as what FRA puts on the table next summer, I refer back to my post of September 4. I tend to respect NPR reporters. If they say the major plug of money has been laid on the table, I won't be surprised if the FY10/FY11 grant series are rather to hugely smaller.
We'll see what happens in January. At least y'all are talking in terms of pre-filed legislation. That's the first forward motion I've seen. I just hope it has a backup $250K supplemental appropriation for the SDP study if Feddybux don't happen.
Could it perhaps happen this way?
KDOT recommends passenger rail service in the 10 year Comprehensive Transportation Plan which the joint House and Senate transportation committees approve and authorize with a committee bill entitled "intercity passenger rail act" that establishes a revolving fund and authorizes a service agreement with Amtrak. KDOT completes a Service Development Plan which includes a NEPA and engineering study and thereupon positions the state for ARRA and PRIAA funding, not this year but perhaps 2011. State DOT's and legislators meet monthly in webinars and plan a symposium in January to announce the Amtrak and KU Cost Benefit studies as KDOT updates its state rail plan.
The Comprensive Transportation Plan that includes passenger rail gets approved and the House and Senate in Kansas vote the entire plan with passenger rail as a protected program activity, therefore making the so-called "Constitutional Prohibition" in Article 11, section 9 a "non issue".
If you believe this is pretty far fetched, why would you think this scenario is outlined, in just this way?
The House support count is around 46; this doesn't mean that there are 79 opposed. Many included among the 46 say they haven't heard anyone say they are against passenger rail in Kansas. The reason the measure sent up last spring didn't pass (ultimately) was due to two things, 1)it was introduced very late in the session, 2)in those final days there was a spitting contest going on between the two parties and the governor over a power plant, and absolutely nothing happened except the acknowlegements of high school track and swimming teams, band awards, spelling bee champs, and commendations for centennarians.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Department of Feeding Consultants...
21 days remain for the Consultant to deliver the preliminary study to Kansas DOT, to meet the deadline published over a year ago. As of now, nothing updated on the Kansas DOT or rail sites.
Tick ... tick ... tick ...
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: In the Department of Feeding Consultants...
21 days remain for the Consultant to deliver the preliminary study to Kansas DOT, to meet the deadline published over a year ago. As of now, nothing updated on the Kansas DOT or rail sites.
Tick ... tick ... tick ...
Last estimate for delivery is January 10th. KU Business School Return on Investment study to be released on Thursday next week. Fourth monthly regional conference call of legislators and DOT officials on Friday morning next week.
Kansas State Legislature to hold symposium on study release scheduled for January 15th. Hearings planned for legislative authorization introduced by the Senate chair for transportation this spring. Authorization will be introduced as a Ways and Means, and Appropriations bill.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
As I've kept saying ... the long pole in your tent will be the Kansas House and Governor Parkinson. Given the current state of income to the Kansas Treasury, 8it's going to be tough to get any new spending through this year.
I have to ask ... does it make political sense to defer a year, anticipating economy will turn, and attack on an upbeat note?
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
As I've kept saying ... the long pole in your tent will be the Kansas House and Governor Parkinson. Given the current state of income to the Kansas Treasury, 8it's going to be tough to get any new spending through this year.
I have to ask ... does it make political sense to defer a year, anticipating economy will turn, and attack on an upbeat note?
I understand that there is no intent to put any money into the bill. The congressional leaders propose making it a framework and authorization for a passenger rail program, permitting the State to enter into a contract with Amtrak, applying for HSR status, establishing a rail fund based on the Iowa model. Once in place, a funding mechanism will be explored adjusted to the contractual projections established by the feasibility study and the return on investment study.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Well, looks like Kansas got the $250K. I think the Kansas Legislature actually appropriated the money already for FY10 expenditure. I sure hope they did, since the Feddybux are a 1/1 match.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN -- ?????????? I think I missed something in this post -- how is the Wizard of Oz like ARRA '09?
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
RICH, no $$$$ for Kansas to speak of beyond its "cut' of the $6M noted in the link provided by Mr. Pullman for studies in nine states, or maybe $700K - max.
More likely it is the $250K Mr. Pullman notes above.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
$250K covers Kansas' 1/2 of the Service Development plan study. Kansas is obligated to provide the other $250K.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people think that redevelopment of a passenger corridor is as easy issuing a train order.
Others are so pessimistic that they don't believe anything can ever happen.
There were doubters who never thought PRIIA would pass. There were those who thought ARRA was just hype (and that wasn't too long ago). I'll bet there are a bunch of people who would not have predicted Ohio would get $400 million.
Ohio has been at it for a while. Ohio completed a lot of preliminary GROUNDWORK that made their project "shovel ready". Everything has to start from a first action.
There were such doubters two years ago when this effort began in Kansas. Kansas has been moving forward as well. It wasn't entirely their fault that the Amtrak feasibility study, for which discussion originally began in July 2007, is only now being delivered to KDOT next weel on February 6.
Last week SB 409, an authorization for a State Passenger Rail Service program was introduced in the Kansas Senate (I wonder who wrote the bill?). This week HR 2552 was introduced in the Kansas House which establishes or authorizes Kansas to become a part of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.
Hearings on SB 409 are scheduled for 8:30 am on February 3rd in room 152S of the Capitol.
The ARRA-KS-OK $500,000 grant is for a Service Development Plan. No state gets funding without having one of these, an engineering study, financing plan, and an environmental impact study. Kansas has already established a task force of stakeholders to compile a new state passenger rail plan due to be completed this summer.
FRA believes there will be future funding available for more state projects. This is only the first round.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it's only the first round, but the biggest first round: There's $2B this FY in the hopper, and VP Biden proposed $1B a year through the five year budget cycle. That means the next grant app has to rise like cream through the competing demands, and basically sell itself for funding.
As I've said before, concentrate not on the Senate, but on the House. The Senate is safe. The KS House is the point of risk. They did not even want to play last year.
At least this year you did not wait to the last day to get legislation in play. That's a useful step.
You're also working to join the Midwest network. That's a useful step.
2015 though, is now my reasonable expectation for a start date. The sooner Kansas can buy equipment, even if it sits in covered storage in BNSF Topeka shops awaiting rebuild, the sooner a service start date can happen.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Of note, the last two sentences of the last paragraph:
quote:Therefore, the agency indicates it would not initiate any of the activities outlined in the bill nor would it incur any additional expenditures as a result of the passage of SB 409. Any fiscal effect resulting from the passage of SB 409 has not been included in The FY 2011 Governor’s Budget Report. Sincerely, Duane A. Goossen Director of the Budget cc: Ethan Erickson, KDOT
posted
Rachel's husband Duane (above) provided an accurate assessment of the bill and its intent.
Having joined the NFA I am hearing more about the strategy. The bill that NFA largely drafted last summer was written with an appreciation of the currect fiscal crisis facing Kansas. The NFA leadership also recognizes that Kansas will never be eligible for any significant federal funding until the state gets on board with and complies with the provisions of the PRIAA- Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. Primarily Kansas must have a real state passenger rail plan instead of the two-paragraph joke describing the SW Chief which has virtually no interaction with the state. Kansas also needs a Service Development Plan. So SB 409 authorizes (and the word is authorizes, not funds) a state rail program. It recognizes that there will be virtually no appropriations in Kansas this year, beyond those mandated by law.
If any kind of bill has a chance of passing this term it could be authorizations. And there is also HR 2552 which has a hearing scheduled for Tuesday which authorizes the state to become a formal member or the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.
NFA appreciated that it would be premature to seek an appropriation bill when the federal ARRA grant was turned down as Kansas does not have a Service Development Plan. The $500,000 ARRA request that was approved to do the SDP can now proceed. Once completed Kansas will be more eligible for future federal funding. AT THAT TIME I AM CONFIDENT THE NFA WILL BE INVOLVED IN DRAFTING A BILL FOR APPROPRIATION.
BTW, SB409 was developed as it is so that it doesn't require a super-majority, it needs only 21 Senate and 63 House votes.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listening to Jay Schaefer on NPR this morning was an adventure:
-- Social Services advocates: No More Cuts. We Have to Have Our Share of the Budgetary Pie.
-- School Districts: We Are Asking the Kansas Supreme Court to Re-Open the Funding Decision Case.
-- State Senate: We Are Having Whine With Our Cheese: We Are Debating a Resolution of Disappointment That School Districts Are Using The People's Dollars to Sue the State for More People's Dollars.
Overall, there's a reason I live in Missouri: The folks in Jeff City are not the cast of "Ship of Fools."
I understand the legislation is both an unfunded mark on the wall, and a first run to build support against the day a super-majority might be needed. I continue to say this, though: Working to obtain a super-majority, especially in the House, means high cover for the politicos come election day.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Kansas Senate passed a bill SB 409 today authorizing a state passenger rail service program by a vote of 37-3. The bill will now move on to the House.
SB 409 will not put Amtrak on the tracks in Kansas, however, there will never be any train on the tracks without developmental bills of this type. Specifically, Kansas can't seek much in the way of Federal grant funds under PRIAA, ARRA II, or any future bill uncontemplated at this time.
Still, this bill passed with way over a 2/3rd's vote. This is good news for the train campaign.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Thunderchief, we should note that talk is cheap, and unless at State level, the term authorization means something different than it does at Federal level, no feed will be poured in the trough for the consultants to have a chow down until the Kansas leguslature and Governor ENACT legislation appropriating funds for the pig out.
Yes, it is lots of fun for legislators to state in a meaningless bill that 'we want more trains', but the tune has a way of playing in a minor key when it is time to "pony up". Just ask the folks down in Florida regarding the 2K HSR referendum (that's not addressing the current "Airport Express' project).
Kansas had its trip to the plate for the Feddybux under ARRA '09 - and struck out.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Thunderchief, we should note that talk is cheap, and unless at State level, the term authorization means something different than it does at Federal level, no feed will be poured in the trough for the consultants to have a chow down until the Kansas leguslature and Governor ENACT legislation appropriating funds for the pig out.
Yes, it is lots of fun for legislators to state in a meaningless bill that 'we want more trains', but the tune has a way of playing in a minor key when it is time to "pony up". Just ask the folks down in Florida regarding the 2K HSR referendum (that's not addressing the current "Airport Express' project).
Kansas had its trip to the plate for the Feddybux under ARRA '09 - and struck out.
Gilbert,
Would it be possible for Kansas to move forward, for its DOT to act and apply for PRIAA and ARRA funds without some form of fundamental enabling legislation to build a passenger rail program?
Most every report I submit on this movement in Kansas gets the same type of response from this group, essentially that the interest and movement, slow and deliberate as it is, means nothing.
The other drift I get is that everyone somehow thinks I'm niaive and believe that these measures make it a done deal. I know it isn't a done deal, and that there is much more to be done.
With passage of SB409 Kansas will have a state passenger rail program, modeled on Iowa's. This may make Kansas more eligible for funding grants under ARRA and PRIAA. The state is working also on the required service development plan, another prerequisite for funding.
Again, can Kansas ever have passenger rail service restored without these fundamentals?
HR 2552 passed in the Kansas House this morning 112-10. This bill authorizes Kansas to become a member of the Midwest Intercity Passenger Rail Commission.
Both HR 2552 and SB 409 passed with yes votes way beyond the 2/3rds majority.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Thunderchief, I certainly accept that the proponents of a Kansas HSR project are in better straits for having a 'we want trains' resolution passed than not. I am also aware, then even though the proponents struck out with regards to ARRA '09 funding, the door for Federal funding is not closed, for if proper seed money is funded at Local level, then a grant application for FTA funding can be filed. However, I do not know (I'll bet Mr. Resor does) what is the 'you want it/you got it ratio" (the 12/1 ARRA '09 measurement often noted here) with the FTA.
I would have preferred to have seen the $8B for HSR all applied to the Corridor - the one sure bet Amtrak has - where the consultants have already been fed and the environment has already been impacted. But in view of that I didn't exactly hop off the Mayflower yesterday, I'm quite aware that just ain't how they do things in Wonderland.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Thunderchief, I certainly accept that the proponents of a Kansas HSR project are in better straits for having a 'we want trains' resolution passed than not. I am also aware, then even though the proponents struck out with regards to ARRA '09 funding, the door for Federal funding is not closed, for if proper seed money is funded at Local level, then a grant application for FTA funding can be filed. However, I do not know (I'll bet Mr. Resor does) what is the 'you want it/you got it ratio" (the 12/1 ARRA '09 measurement often noted here) with the FTA.
I would have preferred to have seen the $8B for HSR all applied to the Corridor - the one sure bet Amtrak has - where the consultants have already been fed and the environment has already been impacted. But in view of that I didn't exactly hop off the Mayflower yesterday, I'm quite aware that just ain't how they do things in Wonderland.
Gilbert,
I have a friend who is one of the Alliance leaders. The Alliance began as a grass routes advocacy, basically studying the route and providing information to communities and officials in public meetings.
My friend told me that KDOT and ODOT have not been at all eager to see rail service develop, in fact these departments have been passive- agressively lazy. I also heard that the actions, or lack of action on the part of KDOT has really irritated senators and representatives in both parties and they are more and more fed up with KDOT demanding ever increasing highway funds, while not getting up from the lazy boy when it comes to taking steps to secure the lucrative funding available for passenger rail service.
KDOT has been quick to blame Amtrak for slowness, whine about this initiative being up to the legislature, and only acting when the legislature tells them to. After the transportation committee meeting last spring the KDOT secretary called up Amtrak seeking a shoulder to cry on "saying she had been read the riot act by the senate transportation committee."
As if in testament to what I've heard, it seems reasonable that the legislature may actually be getting fed up with the slow response of KDOT:
2 votes - 2 supermajority votes; 112-10 and 37-3 respectively.
This overides the Kansas Constitutional Prohibition myth associated with Article 11: Section 9.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is good news. Both bills cleared their house of origin in time for consideration in the other House.
In what legislation is the $125K that is Kansas' share of the SDP study? When is OK expected to approve their $125K?
The tough step, to me, now, is identifying a fleet of cars for this service. Amtrak has said they won't provide. Who is talking to the Buffett Road to see if Topeka Shops will do the renovation?
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: That is good news. Both bills cleared their house of origin in time for consideration in the other House.
In what legislation is the $125K that is Kansas' share of the SDP study? When is OK expected to approve their $125K?
The tough step, to me, now, is identifying a fleet of cars for this service. Amtrak has said they won't provide. Who is talking to the Buffett Road to see if Topeka Shops will do the renovation?
A few answers:
I asked about the $125,000. KDOT is expected to have that in their current budget, irrespective of the shortfall. KDOT and ODOT both made the committment upon ARRA application. KDOT/ODOT might reverse themselves (it wouldn't look good since they are accepting millions for other projects). KDOT had a similar amount of money available for the Amtrak study, and they the $15,000 available to join the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.
Second question. There is quite a bit of leeway in returning cars to service. They are coming out of the shops on a teady schedule. Even though Amtrak is equipment deficient, esp. for some types, new equipment purchases are promising.
For the Kansas expansion they're only talking 2-3 locomotives and perhaps 6 standard highlevels. Whether they state service purchases or leases is a real future question.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I asked about the $125,000. KDOT is expected to have that in their current budget, irrespective of the shortfall. KDOT and ODOT both made the committment upon ARRA application. KDOT/ODOT might reverse themselves (it wouldn't look good since they are accepting millions for other projects). KDOT had a similar amount of money available for the Amtrak study, and they the $15,000 available to join the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.
Your people cannot believe they've achieved victory for this year. You know the local situation as well as I. The K-12 educators are contemplating re-opening the lawsuit at District Court level. Parkinson is short big, big dollars and won't get his tax plans through.
The desirable solution is to have $125-250K line item appropriated to the SDP study. Don't bet on anyone else coming through with the funds, every state legislature in the Nation is no longer working with a paring knife, they're cutting with a meat cleaver.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem with Kansas is it is a fly/drive state. They will drive from Salina, Wichita, and further to Kansas City International Airport to catch a flight. Down here in Southeast Kansas they drive to KCI, Tulsa, and Northwest Arkansas, its really a bigger selection down there now with walmart pushing a bigger airport and connections.
Posts: 14 | From: SE KS/SW MO | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jlcks: One problem with Kansas is it is a fly/drive state. They will drive from Salina, Wichita, and further to Kansas City International Airport to catch a flight. Down here in Southeast Kansas they drive to KCI, Tulsa, and Northwest Arkansas, its really a bigger selection down there now with walmart pushing a bigger airport and connections.
And it is this issue that has energized the effort to restore passenger rail in the state. The SB 409 authorization goes to the House for hearing at 1:30 on Wednesday. How about a few calls to your representative (is it Doug or someone else?) and your state senator registering your support?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Already talked to my rep and senator about it. Just have to wait and see what happens.
Posts: 14 | From: SE KS/SW MO | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Passenger Rail Program Act SB-409 authorization passed in Kansas House today 115 yes and 5 no votes. The Interstate Passenger Rail Compact HR 2552 vote also passed in the Kansas Senate today 38 yes and 2 no votes. Both bills will be referred to the Governor for signature
The initiative for new service in Kansas has moved forward a little farther on a journey that is by no means complete and never believed to be quick and easy.
My friends who are members of the Norther Flyer Alliance understand that this statewide, community based effort is multifaceted and will take time (like it is taking all across the country).
Still, the Kansas senate transportation chair said last year that he didn't think that there would be any problem getting a 2/3rds vote in the legislature and I see now that he was correct.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
KDOT Secretary Miller gave me 5 hard copies of the study today at the press conference. She asked to meet afterwards with the leadership of the Alliance. We discussed next steps for an hour and then went to lunch. Legislators present told Amtrak, BNSF, and KDOT that they intend to move forward with this effort, and want the Department of Transportation to not delay any of these next steps.
Regarding the capital costs. The Amtrak planning official present stated that all developments across the country are coming in with these extraordinarily high figures. The intent is 100% On-Time-Performance. In order to avoid the fines caused by freight rail delays, every proposed route contemplates enough sidings and sidings of sufficient length to make OTP all but guaranteed. Although this statement was not put in quotes, it is in fact a quote from one of the officials at the meeting today.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
If you diagram traffic from KS to Dallas, the major nodes are KC, Wichita, Topeka and OKC. They are the only standard statistical areas on the route. Everything else is rural.
For this to work, it has to have frequency density to make it worth my while vice absolute independence of auto or speed of air. Right now SWA runs 10 frequencies per day KCI-LUV and 4 frequencies KCI-OKC.
I've also driven Dallas to Kansas City, and OKC to KC. Any train will have to "keep up the skeer" and maintain an average rate of advance greater than 60MPH. According to mapquest, I can get from KC-DAL in 8 hours 20 minutes by car.
Anyone who thinks about this and does not resource both frequency and velocity dooms it to failure.
Alternatives 2 and 3: 606 miles in 738 minutes. That is one mile every minute and 12 seconds. That is a 50 MPH velocity vector. FAIL.
Looking at the Oct 25, 1959 ATSF, PTT, I find it interesting that the proposal includes a signficant velocity decrease. The Texas Chief SB advertised (PTT Oct 25, 1959) was 11hr 5 min (51.4MPH velocity vector) and NB was 10hr 50 min (55.5MPH velocity vector).
Looking further at the timetable, the delta in difference from the Ottawa cutoff to the Lawrence-Topeka-Emporia routing is 14 miles. There is but one station added. 1 hour 13 min to 1 hr 28 min velocity decrease for 14 miles and one station stop. FAIL
BTW, I will update my 2008 post: There are, indeed, now only 2 nonstops Kansas City-Oklahoma City. I account that to the current recession.
This preliminary report to me is more indicative of the capability of ATSF 3415 (a Baldwin Pacific now at the Abilene and Smoky Valley) and the coaches of the Midland Railway.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
