"Deb Miller, KDOT secretary, said a number of issues need to be studied including cost, schedule and the likelihood of travel delays because of freight traffic on the line. KDOT will fund a study at a cost of $150,000 and $200,000. Amtrak expects to begin the study in mid- to late summer and complete it by the third quarter of 2009.
So the STUDY will be complete by 1 October 2009.
Now from the Jackson County Democrat (sometimes called the Kansas City Star) article:
"The alliance estimates it could cost $12.7 million a year for operations and $6.5 million in track upgrades.
"The Kansas Legislature would not only have to approve money for its share of the service, but also would have to remove a constitutional restriction on using state money to supplement Amtrak."
That means at best any subsidy will compete for legal authority in the January 2010 session of the Kansas Legislature. The first general election for a Statewide referendum (Kansas does not allow the initiative petition as a tool of governance) is the November 2010 Congressional election. Assuming passage, the Kansas Legislature could appropriate funds in the session which begins January 2011, and in turn there could be a start date no earlier than 1 July 2011.
Living on one side of State Line, working on the other allows me to hear the arguments. Governor and legislators are at odds over simple business development of a coal fired power plant.
As a final aside, Kansas this year had to re-visit the changes to its health insurance planning, hoping to cover poor Kansans. They're down to the point where only a Federal expansion of S-CHIP will bring an expansion of Kansas coverage. Money is tight in Kansas, and Kansas also fell on the short side of the Air Force tanker deal. Money is going to stay tight in Kansas.
Posted by Ham Radio (Member # 6587) on :
PullmanCo,
Thank you for the regional perspective. It always comes down to funding.
Posted by amtraksupporter (Member # 5619) on :
PullmanCo quoted THe Topeka Capital Journal :
quote:"The alliance estimates it could cost $12.7 million a year for operations and $6.5 million in track upgrades.
Is the $12.7 million in operating costs based on operating a separate train Oklahoma City to Kansas City or piggy-backing 3 and 4 between Newton and Kansas City? Or did somebody just make up the figure without considering the difference?
The number sounds like the former to me. But that makes little sense because the train from Dallas and Oklahoma needs to go to Chicago.
Is the $12.5 million an operating department expense figure or does it represent a net cash flow figure of marginal revenues less marginal expenses. If the latter, how did they allocate marginal revenues? Fully?
I continue to maintain that if you look at the the total marginal revenue -- all the revenue that Amtrak would get that without the bridge it would not get -- on the Oklahoma City-Newton bridge connection and the marginal costs of operating the bridge less expenses of cleaning And storing equipment in Oklahoma City, this bridge will pay for itself, and Amtrak should not be asking Kansas to pay.
As for the $6.5 million in track upgrades, that's nothing. The track must be in good shape.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Something tells me we had best have a "for those tuning in late" moment at this discussion.
Amtrak's Lone Star ne Texas Chief operated over this proposed route until the 1979 "Carter Cuts". I should be reminded that we have active participants here who were not even born when these cutbacks occurred (I was active in the railroad industry at that time).
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Mr. Norman, perhaps we should really show our age and talk about Santa Fe's Texas Chief. A very classy streamliner (as were all ATSF trains) that operated on this route - plus a Houston section.
Which makes me wonder. Why doesn't the Texas Eagle operate on this fast route rather than meander through Arkansas. This would of course provide a second daily service between Chicago and KC.
With miles saved could probably extend a Lincoln service train to Little Rock to maintain service to that capitol city.
This would work well if the Sunset was rerouted to Dallas from New Orleans so the same east Texas towns would be served. With no Houston to San Antonio Sunset, miles saved could be used to add a Dallas to Houston connection.
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
Basically, the Texas Eagle route operates and the Texas Chief route does not because there was a storm of local support in the former's territory but not the latter's.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This discussion shows how the "national system" has evolved over the thirty seven year lifespan of Amtrak.
In bare essence, the only addition since A-Day is Spokane-Portland and the only subtractions are Pgh-St Louis (National Ltd) and Chi-Jax (Floridian). Other changes, save locally funded services, represent "trade offs" i.e. Lake Shore for Broadway and more to the point at this topic, Eagle for Chief.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Looking deeper, looks like $12.7M is the gross operating subsidy KS-OK (OK appears to underwrite from the Red River to Dallas).
Of that, it looks like various Federal Acts in proposal or passage will allow up to $3M per year for KS, on a matching funds basis. That means KS has to pony up OTOO $3M per annum.
There is still that pesky matter of the Kansas Constitution, Article 11, Section 9. The collective local wisdom is any expenditure for Amtrak requires a 2/3 majority separate Act.
As I said earlier, that requires action in the 2010 legislative session at the earliest, with voter approval in Nov 2010, appropriations in the 2011 legislative session, and expenditures to begin no earlier than July 2011.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
I have good "inside" information on the efforts of the Northern Flyer Alliance which launched this initiative during the last year. The leads of this group tell me that the dollar estimates are 12.7 million for the route from Fort Worth to Kansas City, with a pro rata apportionment of costs between the three states. The estimate is based on the current contract Amtrak has with Oklahoma, the calculation being a division of Oklahoma miles by the cost. This comes out to be 21,000 a mile or so. For te entire approximately 600 mile route you get 12.7 million.
The bridge of track that must be analyzed and upgraded is about 195 miles. Based on what was required at the incept of the Heartland Flyer this will calculate to be 2.1 million for Kansas and 2.9 million for Oklahoma.
Added together this is pretty affordable.
The initiative proposes another train set similar to the current Flyer or the Missouri Mule. This equipment should cost no more than 9 million.
Capitalization of the route is expecting and probably depending on the successful passage and acquisition of SB 294 funding which is in the House subcommittee chaired by James Oberstar. This offset (up to 80%) could bring the costs of development way down.
Then the States have to find a funding stream and develop a bi-state compact, with a formal rail plan to satisfy the federal (FRA) requirements.
Lastly, the Kansas Constitution does have a 2/3rds Senate and House majority requirement. But, 6 million or so a year for the State of Kansas is not a budget breaker (equivalent to 1700 yards of state highway). And there looks to be a bi-partisan group of senators ready to co-sponsor legislation. Their interest is chiefly why the Kansas DOT has requested the study.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Considering the Sebelius and the Legislature can't even get off their fourth points of contact about Holcomb, let alone health insurance, let alone funding years 2 and 3 of the School formula, well.... I think there are better ways to spend $3M.
1 a day: That's a vitamin, not a way to run a railroad. If we're going to have KC-OKC-Dallas, and we're going to take stress off I-35, KCI, Will Rogers, and Love Field, then we're gonna need more than 1 a day frequency ... lots more.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
It actually may be more like two a day, at least out of OKC. The northbound and southbound from KC and Dallas would actually pass each other in OKC thus providing something of a round trip connection between Fort Worth and OKC or Kansas City and OKC on a daily basis, equalling two trains over those segments. Many passengers will be travelling to intermediate points along the route. There will be some, but not all passengers who will be traveling beginning to end point; but it should be recognized that passengers on urgent business will probably fly from KC to Dallas/Fort Worth (and this is appropriate for many.)
The Northern Flyer initiative is for corridor service; reconnecting communities along the route that are bypassed by air service, and in some cases interstate highways and even state highways. The experience in Oklahoma bears this out as ridership this year was over 73,000 (first year projection in 1999 was 25,000), which was not exclusively end-point to end-point. And it pumps millions into the communities south of Oklahoma City each year.
If this is considered a failure, then federal government should make it illegal and end it in the national interest. If it isn't a failure then this should be expanded into the State of Kansas, bridge the connection to Kansas City and watch ridership increase to well over 100,000.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Of course, getting it through the Kansas Legislature by itself will be an exciting act!
And since you hopefully listen to KPR, you know as well as I do that the Kansas Senate pissed away a whole day yesterday debating the illegal immigrant bill before finalizing it as it pretty much came out of committee.
Bank on the Kansas Legislature to do something right and timely? Go see Mark Funkhouser for some Frances Semmler meds...
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
While the train should not take super long, it doesn't have to be quite as fast as driving. Remember, a lot of people would rather take a 10-hour train ride than drive 8 hrs!
Question: Will this train stop in Guthrie OK? I HOPE SO, it's quite a tourist attraction, isn't it?
Also, would it stop in Lawrence KS? That is a fairly busy student town, isn't it?
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by sojourner: While the train should not take super long, it doesn't have to be quite as fast as driving. Remember, a lot of people would rather take a 10-hour train ride than drive 8 hrs!
Question: Will this train stop in Guthrie OK? I HOPE SO, it's quite a tourist attraction, isn't it?
Also, would it stop in Lawrence KS? That is a fairly busy student town, isn't it?
Yes, yes, and yes!
Yes: Guthrie's spectacular and would likely be a stop. Yes: Lawrence is already a stop, and, Yes: A busy college town. Other college towns include Washburn-Emporia-Bethel-Wichita State-Cowley County in Kansas.
- and to the previous poster, I had to go to OKC a month ago on legislative business and for a moment thought of flying (you know the old $69 SWA ticket thing; nope $270 round trip). So I drove, and yes I was able to make it from OKC back to Kansas City in 5.5 hours (I don't think I could make Dallas in 8 because at times I was driving 92 MPH!), stupid I know and there was a brief flurry of snow just north of Wichita.)
Now I was bone tired after that trip. I left for OKC at 6:00 am and got home at 9:00 pm. How stupid to desire to ride a train which would have taken about the same amount of time overall, but my ticket would have cost around $60 dollars, and I would not have spent the $85 unreimbursed dollars on gasoline (now that's smart economics); and my car got another 700 miles on it. And if I would have been caught going 92mph my other ticket would have been about 4 times $92.
So, to the poster above, maybe you're right, and driving and flying is marvelously better, but I'll tell you this: last week I traveled to Grand Canyon on the SW Chief, spent a lot of money and it took 24 hours to get there. And I'll ride a train anytime over driving if there is an opportunity.
All those minutes saved driving or flying. What exactly would you do with an extra 67 minutes anyway?
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
I prefer rail travel as well. But, if we're going to recapitalize, we have to do it smart. Doing it on the cheap or on the slow is just plain stupid.
Last year my average rate of advance from KC - Kirkwood was something under 40MPH. This year, for the same trip, I drove.
Amtrak has to do other things to attract passengers. Back in the day it was enough to offer the businessman a worktable in his Pullman section or roomette. These days, wi-fi is the essential standard. Part of the capitalization is making sure those who have access can get it from the rails.
Amtrak also has to revisit the food service issue. Amtrak is thinking like a Government (duh). Food service to the railroads, pre-Amtrak, was a cost of doing business, and there were ways to help write off the losses. I challenge anyone to say that a nukable Am-meal these days is the same as a fresh burger off the grill in a UP/ATSF cafe car in 1967/8. We're whining about air accountability acts... well, when a passenger is a captive audience for 8 hours, you need to think about feeding the man/woman.
Frankly, Amtrak and the railroads need to look at routes closely. They need to do the proper traffic demand studies, to see where rail can displace cars and planes.
AND... Amtrak has to embrace that velocity matters. Look at Eric Bowen's streamliner schedules website. Passenger rail velocity is going BACKWARD relative to rates of advance in the mid-50s.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
Governor of Kansas has apparently received hundreds, maybe close to a thousand letters and post cards in the last three months from citizens about this Northern Flyer initiative. There is a web-site: www.northflyer.org. Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
... and the US census estimates:
516K in Johnson County in Y2K+6 155K in Wyandott County in Y2K+6 470K In Sedgwick County in Y2K+6 (source: quickfacts.census.gov)
1000 letters. I'm terribly impressed. NOT.
I'll be impressed if I see legislation introduced to the Kansas House. I'll be more impressed on the day service starts. I'll buy you a beer at the Golden Ox when service starts.
PS: BTW, I cannot help it if you choose to be a hazard to yourself and others and break the law on speeding, especially in the winter. Considering the horses A##es I saw in the ditch on Mo-45 between the Waldron Bend and East Leavenworth (45 Spur intersection) after this winter's storms, I hope your life insurance and estate plans are current.
Posted by jlcks (Member # 7282) on :
If you wanted to connect Wichita with KC why not just use the DMU's from Colorado railcar. They would probly be able to enter into an agreement like they wanted to do with Vermont for replacement units for the Vermonter and if you eliminated the state of KS from the equation and made it just a Amtrak/Colorado Railcar demonstration project, I.E. Pork Barrel, you might be able to get something done. Ignore trying to get all the way to DFW or OKC to KC. Build in increments.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
jlcks...
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by sfthunderchief:
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: jlcks...
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
PullmanCo: You sound very well educated and well versed about the Kansas legislative and government funtions. Do you have any perspective on why KDOT would commit to spending nearly $200,000 of State funds to commission a study from Amtrak. Seems odd based on a number of things; 1) the Kansas Constitution prohibition would seem to relegate this action as wasted money by fiat; 2) why is this being proposed now? What could possibly cause this to happen? It doesn't seem like something that could happen by accident; especially that someone in KDOT just decided to spend 200 grand. 3) Do you think this could have been prompted by Amtrak? I've never known Amtrak to be so bold as to propose such an outlandish initiative in a market so remote. 4) The Kansas legislature doesn't appear from your perspective able to make anything of substance happen. 5) Why would so many communities pass resolutions simultaneuously in support of this? 6) After years of nothing why are people writing letters to the Governor all of a sudden?
So why this, why now, why this route and what is causing this in 2008? Do you have any thoughts or know anything about what is going on?
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by sfthunderchief:
quote:Originally posted by sfthunderchief:
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: jlcks...
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
PullmanCo: You sound very well educated and well versed about the Kansas legislative and government funtions. Do you have any perspective on why KDOT would commit to spending nearly $200,000 of State funds to commission a study from Amtrak? Seems odd based on a number of things; 1) the Kansas Constitution prohibition would seem to relegate this action as wasted money by fiat; 2) why is this being proposed now? What could possibly cause this to happen? It doesn't seem like something that could happen by accident; especially that someone in KDOT just decided to spend 200 grand. 3) Do you think this could have been prompted by Amtrak? I've never known Amtrak to be so bold as to propose such an outlandish initiative in a market so remote. 4) The Kansas legislature doesn't appear from your perspective able to make anything of substance happen. 5) Why would so many communities pass resolutions simultaneuously in support of this? 6) After years of nothing why are people writing letters to the Governor all of a sudden?
So why this, why now, why this route and what is causing this in 2008? Do you have any thoughts or know anything about what is going on?
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
P-O-R-K. Some consultant is getting 200K.
Yes, I'm that cynical.
We'll see what happens in the 2009 legislative session.
Posted by jlcks (Member # 7282) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: jlcks...
Go up above and look at the Kansas Constitutional issues... That's why.
I said eliminate the state of Kansas from the equation. Make it just Amtrak running/Colorado Railcar supply operation.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
You can't eliminate Kansas from the equation unless you find a way to run around Kansas instead of through it.
Why the facination with Colorado Railcar? At this point they have been far more talk than action.
I agree with the P-O-R-K assessment, as well. There is no point in a "feasibility study" The only study needed would be the one to decide what needs to be done AFTER the decision to run the service is made. As for feasibility, there are three ways to answer it:
The three sentence version: The tracks are there and are in good condition. Some work needs to be done in the nature of probably adding a couple of sidings, extending road crossing circuits if they have been shortened for 55 mph instead of 79 mph. Station platforms and some form of station facilities will be needed at XX locations.
The few paragraphs version: Expand on the above by talking about where new sidings are needed, what grade crossing changes need making, number of trains on the line, etc. Where you intend to make stops, a few words on station facilities.
The 200K version: take the above as introduction, add a lot of information on track conditions, copy in some or all the track charts as appendices, talk about ridership studies, station facilities, etc., and fluff it out.
Most of the stuff in the $200K version only needs doing, if at all, after it is decided to run the service.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
I need to amend one of my earlier comments:
OK, 200K on the table for a study. Amtrak (meaning a consultant to Amtrak) expects it done by 3QCY2009.
That means July-Aug-Sept.
OK, we blow by the remainder of this years legislative session and all of next. Legislative action cannot begin until January 2010.
The best case is Article 11, Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution is not in play. That means Legislature can let the action compete for funds in the 2010 session.
I never, ever, count on best case solutions. I've learned the hard way... that's a recipe for foolishness. Somebody (Chris Kobach, mebbe?) will sue for an injunction.
To me, the reasonable case is the Legislature decides to authorize this for referendum of the Kansas Constitution, and gets that done for the November 2010 general election.
Now, finally, the route can compete for funding in January 2011.
As I said earlier... a reasonable man will not expect this to happen until July 2011. The cynic sees 200K going to a Consultant's pocket, and the study moulders on a hard drive in Topeka.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
From Kansas Public Radio...
AM - Lawmakers Leave Major Issues Unresolved Date: April 7, 2008 Kansas lawmakers are back home today after finishing up the 2008 regular session. But there are still plenty more issues that will have to be resolved when the House and Senate return for the wrap-up session on April 30th. Statehouse reporter Peter Hancock explains.
If anyone really thinks the Kansas Legislature can "get a train done" in the 2010 legislative session, we need to bet a beer at the Golden Ox over this.
The ineptitude of the Kansas Legislature closely follows the Pendergast corruption rampant through Missouri.
Posted by amtraksupporter (Member # 5619) on :
Grass roots Amtrak support in Kansas keeps on rolling:
Study due NLT 30 September 2009. That means the proposal will not even see the 2009 Kansas Legislative Session.
Results of study require State Constitution Amending in the 2010 Kansas Legislative session.
Assuming the "can't get much done" Kansas Legislature can get this through, then we can talk about competition for funding.
From a later post by a politico on this board, there seems to be a 28 month lead time on new equipment. IF and only IF Amtrak and Kansas can "bet on the come" in September 2009, then the early start date pushes to the right to January 2012.
Anyone who is thinking a start date before July 2010 needs a reality check. Even a start date of July 2011 is pushing the far limits of optimism.
Factoring in equipment lead time, it appears the realistic start date for a KS-OK service with minimum 2 turns a day would be August 2013.
RFE: Adding in equipment procurement lead-time
Posted by amtraksupporter (Member # 5619) on :
The talk in Kansas of Amtrak expansion continues:
The Topeka Capitol Journal has a new article in the Sunday paper:
quote:says John Mills, of Topeka, a retired Amtrak employee who has been a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Railroad Passengers since 1977.
NARP. That says a lot.
Let's see. Amtrak serves Newton at THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING! (301AM and 325AM by the current PTT) People out there think a cross-platform transfer between trains at 3AM is going to win return customers.
That's the part that amazes me.
Look, if Kansas is going to do this, it needs to do it right, such that it might take some of the burden off I-35 and and MCI-OKC-DFW city pairs.
Kansas Legislature starts the annual wrap-up session tomorrow. If Kansas Public Radio is anywhere near right, Legislature has to back $130M out of the budget for next FY. Two years from now (remember, the Legislature cannot start actively considering this until the study is back in the fall of 09, which means the January 2010 legislative session), it'll be interesting to see how the proposal plays.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Let's play a little game.
It's called "Who is the Spin-Meister?"
From the article:
quote:says John Mills, of Topeka, a retired Amtrak employee who has been a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Railroad Passengers since 1977.
NARP. That says a lot.
Let's see. Amtrak serves Newton at THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING! (301AM and 325AM by the current PTT) People out there think a cross-platform transfer between trains at 3AM is going to win return customers.
That's the part that amazes me.
Look, if Kansas is going to do this, it needs to do it right, such that it might take some of the burden off I-35 and and MCI-OKC-DFW city pairs.
Kansas Legislature starts the annual wrap-up session tomorrow. If Kansas Public Radio is anywhere near right, Legislature has to back $130M out of the budget for next FY. Two years from now (remember, the Legislature cannot start actively considering this until the study is back in the fall of 09, which means the January 2010 legislative session), it'll be interesting to see how the proposal plays.
I believe you have it correct about the spin-meister. Of course this guy Mills happens to be the source d'jour for the article. There was another article today in the Wichita Eagle.
In it they quote Autumn Heithaus of Wichita. She appears to be one of the leaders and catalyst for a movement that has swept this agenda to the forefront (compared to recent years of inactivity) of an initiative that has rattled Deb Miller and her office into activity. The other driving force is a State Senator from Winfield, Kansas who has organized 28 of her colleages in the Kansas legislature to support a bill she plans to introduce in the next legislative term (2009). She apparently got wind of the two Passenger Rail Investment and Reform/Improvement bills and sees a daytime passenger train operating between Kansas City and Oklahoma City delivering festival goers to the Bluegrass Festival. She has excited other colleagues who wish to see tourists visiting the still developing Prairie National Park, and others who want to see connectivity among about a dozen big name colleges and universities along the route. Lastly she has made a very clear case that the State Capitol in Topeka doesn't even have airline service and that the only airport in Kansas with real commercial airline service is in Wichita. She has persuaded many of her Senate colleagues that the State deserves more and can get it for about $6 million annually. The State department of transportation woke up and smelled the coffee on January 11th when the Senate/House transportation committee on which she she sits politely suggested that KDOT look into this (meaning fund-a-study). KDOT doesn't seem to have any real imagination or inherent initiative to do anything beyond building billion dollar highways, like a proposed 6 laner from Leavenworth to Spring Hill, Kansas that nobody in the area wants or is clamoring for. KDOT talks cautiously about this development and adds little innuendos like "capacity study" "feasibility", and confusing dodges about "route study" (they also did this in a rail plan they developed in 2000), however (and PullmanCo you may find this intersting) the real route being talked about and planned for is a daytime operation out of Kansas City headed for connection in Oklahoma City with the Heartland Flyer with thru service to Fort Worth. Amtrak is pretty excited by the work that Autumn Hiethaus has done, specifically some 20 city councils up and down the route have passed resolutions requesting daytime passenger rail service. These include major cities in Kansas including Topeka, Wichita, Lawrennce and Emporia, Arkansas City, and Newton, and numerous smaller cities as well. There are a number of cities in Oklahoma that have passed resolutions also. Not one of these towns supports the idea of a single expansion at 3:00 am to Newton. All of these resolutions have been passed since December and have been delivered to their state senators and legislators, the governor and the four Kansas U.S. House Members. All these communities are really interested in is the same type or kind of economic development that Oklahoma got with the development of the Heartland Flyer.
The information I share here is published on an organization website: www.northflyer.org. Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Winfield, eh? I guess the conservatives moved out of Winfield when the LCMS Concordia College closed up back in the late 80s.
How can someone run a bill in the 09 session when the study isn't ready until Sept 09? That's putting the cart before the horse.
At least some people are thinking multi-frequency KC-DFW metroplex. Re-running the SF Ranger is about the only way this really makes sense. If you schedule a train leaving KC at 830AM, and you run some fairly aggressive speed, you can get to the Metroplex by 630. Launch a second daily turn at Noon, it arrives 10ish at night... which isn't beyond the acceptable range for shuttles to Metroplex hotels. That kind of routing also permits daylight service on the line. For Northbound traffic, similar suitable travel conditions appear. Hooking up with 3/4? Hookup with 3 at KC is reasonable. Even if the Ranger is late, there's all that slack time between KC and Lawrence, so a transfer at Lawrence is plan B. Hooking up 4 will be hard no matter how you slice it. Amtrak almost needs a 3d overnight frequency. I guess there'd be a need to do demand study of daily DFW-OKC-Chicago traffic to see if making a good connection is justified.
The downside? 4 sets of equipment. RT takes 2 days. Depending on how crew is set, may need a crew change point either at Ponca City, OK or Arkansas City, KS.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: How can someone run a bill in the 09 session when the study isn't ready until Sept 09? That's putting the cart before the horse.
Another state senator from Lawrence answered this question which was put forward exactly like you expressed it, and said, "Oh, we can do that as enabling legislation, subject to funding and appropriation. That will get the authorization on the books and move the measure forward and positioned for the Federal funding, if it actually makes it through the U.S. House. But reports from Congressmane Moran say that this is likely and it is a solid bi-partisan bill."
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
What about the Article 11 issues?
What'll be more fun is I just dropped this on Chris Kobach...
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: What about the Article 11 issues?
What'll be more fun is I just dropped this on Chris Kobach...
A state representative from Leavenworth said, "I thought that issue had been resolved," then added, "but if not then we put it up and needs to pass by a 2/3rds yes vote." Another state respresentative from Wichita said, "you know this bill would best be fostered by the senate, you need 28 votes but that is much easier to come by and since this is bi-partisan and not a lot of money it probably has a pretty good chance of flying; (adding) in the House most of our bills never make it out of committee, but when we get a senate bill we usually go along with it, unless it's something real political (illegals), or controversial (coal fired power plant), or a hot- topic screwy social issue (Tiller the Baby Killer).
So, the Kansas Constitution actually doesn't actually prohibit this. KDOT has often brought it up in a paltry effort to discourage, though in recent months KDOT officials have toned this down because they are now recognizing that city councils and chambers of commerce have organized as a corridor communities coalition with the support and endorsement of a number of legislators. The State DOT has traditionally brings it up, and states it in a way that lets the average citizen thinks there is a prohibition, but therre really isn't (when you read it actually is a provision). This same article in the Constitution applies to highway construction as well (and the state builds highways), once again with a 2/3rds affirmative vote in both Legislative houses. (It's Article 11, section 9).
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by sfthunderchief:
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: What about the Article 11 issues?
What'll be more fun is I just dropped this on Chris Kobach...
A state representative from Leavenworth said, "I thought that issue had been resolved," then added, "but if not then we put it up and needs to pass by a 2/3rds yes vote." Another state respresentative from Wichita said, "you know this bill would best be fostered by the senate, you need 28 votes but that is much easier to come by and since this is bi-partisan and not a lot of money it probably has a pretty good chance of flying; (adding) in the House most of our bills never make it out of committee, but when we get a senate bill we usually go along with it, unless it's something real political (illegals), or controversial (coal fired power plant), or a hot-topic screwy social issue (Tiller the Baby Killer).
So, the Kansas Constitution actually doesn't really prohibit this. KDOT has brought it up in a paltry effort to discourage, though in recent months they have toned this down because they are now recognizing that city councils and chambers of commerce have organized as a corridor communities coalition with the support and endorsement of a number of legislators. When the State DOT brings it up, they state it in a way that lets the average citizen think there is an absolute prohibition, but there really isn't (when you read it, it actually is a provision). This same article in the Constitution applies to highway construction as well (and the state builds highways), once again with a 2/3rds affirmative vote in both Legislative houses. (It's Article 11, section 9).
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Kenny Wilks said THAT?
I think I can drop his wonderful comment on some Kansas Republicans...
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Kenny Wilks said THAT?
I think I can drop his wonderful comment on some Kansas Republicans...
PullmanCo: You'll notice that I didn't specifically identify any of the legislators by name (intentional) but it wasn't Wilks. I will assure you that I heard it directly from the mouth of the elected official.
I'm not trying to be coy or anything(honest) but the politics of this effort for success hinge upon a lot of discrete contacts and political maneuvering. What I've had the privilege of knowing comes from being on the organization contact list and lurking around some of the legislative meetings that have occurred on average every other month since last July. There wasn't enough time in 2008 term, nor were all the critical elements lined up, so, I hear the organization is laying all the groundwork for 2009.
SB 294 House version is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Update 5-11-08, on Kansas Public Radio...
Northern Flyer Alliance is trying to build support for an 80Fed/20KS mix of funds for infrastructure improvements.
It's also trying to build support that the annual operational deficit offset estimate of $12M will probably have to come from Kansas, not Federal, coffers.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
I looked at the Northern Flyer Alliance website, and its links to two other organizations that are part of the Alliance. It looks like well over twenty city councils in Kansas and Oklahoma have adopted resolutions supporting their campaign. I've met a few of their members and the leadership of the Alliance is meeting with legislators and the Kansas transportation department almost weekly.
They apparently had a meeting in Wichita last Friday that was attended by state legislators and staff sent from Congressman Moran's office.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Well, the study missed its 4QFY08 start date. This morning on Kansas Public Radio, there was the following news squib:
KDOT to Study Possible Amtrak Expansion in KS Date: December 5, 2008
State officials and Amtrak have agreed on the scope of a study to determine the feasibility of expanding passenger service through Kansas, Oklahoma and into Texas. The Kansas Department of Transportation says it has budgeted $200,000 for its part of the study. The Oklahoma and Texas transportation departments are also cooperating in the study, which will be done by Amtrak. The study aims to identify construction and equipment requirements, as well as potential annual operating costs needed to run the service. The study is expected to be complete sometime in 2009. Proposed stops in Kansas include existing stations in Lawrence, Topeka and Newton. New stations would be placed in Emporia, Strong City, Wichita and Winfield or Arkansas City. The expansion would create service from Kansas City to Fort Worth, Texas.
Now, the real issue is funding in Kansas. The recession continues to eat into tax receipts. Can Kansas afford $3 to $6 million in operating annual subsidy until recovery happens?
BTW ... I stand by my assessment of a 2011 start being optimistic.
PullmanCo: Do you know why there is a 2/3 super majority required in both houses for this legislation when most other legislation merely requires a simple majority?
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
From page 5 of the handout:
In Kansas, approval of expanded passenger rail service would require an extra step. Article 11, Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution(emphasis mine) prohibits the State from making improvements off the state highway system unless both houses of the Legislature, by vote of not less than two-thirds of their members, approve such expenditures. The Kansas Legislature would have to take this step to provide operating support for passenger rail, in addition to approving the funding.
Way back on March 24, ... I pulled this from the Star
quote:The Kansas Legislature would not only have to approve money for its share of the service, but also would have to remove a constitutional restriction on using state money to supplement Amtrak."
Here's what I said on March 25:
quote:There is still that pesky matter of the Kansas Constitution, Article 11, Section 9. The collective local wisdom is any expenditure for Amtrak requires a 2/3 majority separate Act.
Considering this morning (12-6) the folks thinking about the casino at the Kansas Speedway withdrew (it's the economy, stupid ... as the sign in the Clinton campaign war room said), and the deficit that may require the Kansas Legislature to worry about revisiting the school funding forumula next year, and considering the Kansas Legislatures general ability to get something done, this very cynical, yet seemingly quite realistic quote of mine I keep on the table:
quote:Bank on the Kansas Legislature to do something right and timely? Go see Mark Funkhouser for some Frances Semmler meds...
Finally, didn't I see something in the October Conference Call pdf that basically said Kansas Amtrak would have to go and buy its own equipment? Yeppers. From the pdf (significant items (imo) only:
quote: Start-up costs include: • Acquiring rolling stock such as locomotives and cars. The cost of rolling stock depends on the number of train sets needed to serve the schedule and expected number of passengers. • Improving infrastructure such as tracks, ballast, ties, crossings, signals, and sidings. The cost of infrastructure improvements depends on the pre‐existing infrastructure conditions and on the train’s desired operating speed.
1. States generally have used general revenue funds to pay for start-up costs. a. To date, there hasn’t been any federal assistance for startup costs, except for Oklahoma which received a federal earmark and Maine which used federal CMAQ funds. CMAQ funds can no longer be used for this purpose.
2. Once funding is appropriated for new routes, it can take as little as two construction seasons to start the service, depending on infrastructure improvement needs. a. Infrastructure improvements could include track, ties, ballast, rail beds, sidings, crossings and signals. As an example, it could take one season for preliminary engineering (designing the improvements) and one season for building the improvements. Concurrently, negotiations could take place with the host railroad (BNSF in Kansas). b. For new services on existing routes, it can take as little as 4 to 5 months to start a new service. Staff training time is required for each new service, accounting for much of the time.
3. There is a potential shortage of passenger rail cars. a. Currently, Amtrak owns more than 1500 passenger cars and 400 locomotives. The average age of its coach fleet is 24 years and the average age of the locomotive fleet is over fifteen years. According to Amtrak, 26 percent of its passenger rail cars are not in good repair. Amtrak hasn’t been able to purchase new cars and is rehabilitating old equipment. b. The mothballed Amtrak fleet is generally 50‐60 years old. 40‐50 cars may be candidates for rehabilitation. Amtrak plans to rehabilitate 5‐10 per year. c. The cost to rehabilitate a car ranges from $800,000 to $1.2 million. The rehabilitation work includes new wheel trucks, interiors, and restroom facilities. d. The Heartland Flyer currently uses two passenger cars, one Café Car and one locomotive.
Perhaps the one significant advantage Kansas has in all this is that the BNSF Topeka Shops are the home of their business fleet, and are still pretty darn good at shopping cars. I'd bet cash they'd be glad to offer their work at standard rates
OH YES!!! Study option 1, which is the least expensive, but the most buffoonish: Simply extend the Oklahoma train to Newton to link with 3/4 and be done with it. I really hope that's the staff "throw-away." Blow off the two of the three major traffic points in Kansas on the line (Topeka and KC)? K-DOT must employ BA Poli Sci policy analysts from Lawrence Free State Junior College, the home of the ___Hawks.
As I said, a beer at the Golden Ox when this starts. I'm not banking much before 2012.
Here's some historic info, taken from a 1959 ATSF PTT:
Fort Worth to KC mileage is: 589.
Routing is: Fort Worth Gainseville Purcell, OK Norman Oklahoma City Guthrie Ponca City Arkansas City, KS Winfield Wichita Newton Emporia Topeka Kansas City
We'll leave the matter of current routings in the DFW Metroplex to Amtrak and BNSF.
If you took The Ranger, which was the daylight train, you left FW at 7AM, and arrived KC at 915PM. That's 14h, 15m out. There is a 15 minute stop at OKC, 10 minutes at Wichita and 20 minutes at Newton, implying this had working M&E.
IF you took The Kansas Cityan, which was the night train, you left FW at 2PM and arrived KC next morning at 1250AM. That's 10h, 50 minutes out. (BTW, there are 5 minute station stops at OKC, Wichita and Newton)
BTW, I-35, in bypassing Newton, adds 150 miles to the stated HW distance on googlemaps, so a 600 mile run seems about right.
Now I'm off to watch Mizzou and OU whup up on each other.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
That Article, in the Kansas Constitution areads: Article 11. -- FINANCE AND TAXATION
9: Internal improvements; state highway system; flood control; conservation or development of water resources.
The state shall never be a party in carrying on any work of internal improvement except that: (1) It may adopt, construct, reconstruct and maintain a state system of highways, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds issued by the state for such highways; (2) it may be a party to flood control works and works for the conservation or development of water resources; (3) it may, for the purpose of stimulating economic development and private sector job creation in all areas of the state, participate in the development of a capital formation system and have a limited role in such system through investment of state funds authorized in accordance with law; (4) it may be a party to any work of internal improvement, whenever any work of internal improvement not authorized by (1), (2) or (3) is once authorized by a separate bill passed by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all members then elected (or appointed) and qualified to each house, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds be issued by the state therefore; and (5) it may expend funds received from the federal government for any public purpose in accordance with the federal law authorizing the same.
Although oft quoted by the KDOT Secretary, this proposal does not appear, at least from a legal or Constitution definition to qualify as an act of internal improvement, or by definition, a highway.
In fact the proposal is a simple fee for service contract negotiated with Amtrak. Kansas will acquire no property (belongs to BNSF and Amtrak), build no railroad lines, own no equipment, and employee no associated with operations other than the current KDOT staff that perform a minor regulatory funtion.
No other state has been required to acquire (purchase) its own train sets (does Missouri own the Mules?, does Illinois own the Rutledge?). Oklahoma doesn't and California does own some (on their own initiative), but Kansas will probably not be required to. So, this illuminates another oddity in the the preliminary comments from KDOT.
PullmanCo: You seem to have a fixation on the timetable for development for this. Kansas is very interested in certain elements being in place, mainly the federal funding provided under HR 2095. Well, the legilsation was signed in October, the funding has not yet been obligated to FRA for distribution, and beyond that there will be the application, review, cost-benefit analysis, and allocation process. This will take some months to do, occuring at roughly the same time as the Kansas study. In a perfect scenario, the study is completed, and Amtrak will deliver a cost estimate which the Kansas legislature and KDOT may look at, and match up with federal funds, then one of the transportation committees can obligate funds (according to Representative Candy Ruff, there is no 2/3rds requirement), the House can put the money in the general transportation department budget as a reserved line item. When the state enters a simple operational service contract with Amtrak, everything from sidings, signals, streamliners, switches and service will be arranged for and developed by BNSF and Amtrak. 2011 sounds pretty good to me, what's the problem. I've been watching a crap-*** section of I-435 under construction for 5 years! We're not going to wither and die if this intercity passenger rail takes 36 months!
I don't see this as internal improvement, and for that matter neither does the office of the Attorney General of Kansas. Article 11, section 9 may actually not apply to this. And even if it does, this doesn't rise to the controversy level of a coal fire power plant. There's not enough public expenditure involved: $8 million a year? = 16 houses in my neighborhood, or, 1,700 yards of state highway (less that a mile of highway 45 west of your place in Parkville).
Secretary Miller may be blowing smoke to bamboozle the gullible.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: [QB] From page 5 of the handout:
I
Finally, didn't I see something in the October Conference Call pdf that basically said Kansas Amtrak would have to go and buy its own equipment? Yeppers. From the pdf (significant items (imo) only: QB][/QUOTE]
Do you know anyone who was on that October conference call (it actually was held on September 8th)? I actually know some of the participants very well.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
The KDOT Staff, the writers of the hand out, say a bill will need a a 2/3 super-majority.
Kapisch?
Comprendere!
I read the original draft of the report you cite 2 months ago.
My next question ('cause I love your explanations) is why spend close to $200,000 dollars on a study for an initiative that has zero chance in the Kansas House and Senate and is already DEAD, according to you?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Looks like someone enforces a "golden rule" for one forum, but does not feel that self-enforcement of same for another forum is necessary. Hmm.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
That was the handout they gave out at the press conference.
The staff still thinks 2/3 is on the table.
Look, I'd love to see 2x per day running ... with a working rate of advance of 60MPH (in other words, max 10 hours run time KC-DFW).
Now, from my perspective, the long poles in the tent:
- Expectation management: I'm saying 2013 is reasonable start-up.
- Rolling stock: Got some handy? Amtrak doesn't, apparently, unless Kansas is going to hire Amtrak or the BNSF Topeka Shops to rebuild some Budd Heritage equipment. Remember that the summer New Orleans fleet is all reserve cars that are waivered into service.
Can you get an operating subsidy through the Legislature in a downtime? Take a look at Vermont... they're rethinking existing service.
Can the State of Kansas have a vigorous debate that brings a common-sense solution to the 2010 Legislature? Up to you. I'll be taking a Mule to St Louis in January.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Funding during the recession for anything in Kansas is getting dicey:
Bottom line is Kansas borrowed $250 million from cash-generating State agencies itself to keep cash-using State agencies in operation.
Those who want 403(b) type service will have to keep a full court press on Governor Sebelius. If the recession does not improve over the next 12 months, it'll be in the "tough call" pile to justify new spending.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
To me, it sounds like new initiatives that are not tied in with the Cancer Center, the Bio-Ag lab at K-State, K-12 education, or health care are just simply to the back burner, if not off the table.
We'll have to see what her budget message says.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
quote:"WHEREAS, Amtrak began work on the feasibility study in December 2008; and WHEREAS, Kansas is developing its 10-year comprehensive transportation plan; and WHEREAS, A framework for the Kansas 10-year comprehensive transportation plan is expected to be approved during the 2009 Kansas legislative session; and WHEREAS, Federal funding for passenger rail projects is now available through the federal Rail Safety Improvement Act; and WHEREAS, $1.9 billion will be appropriated during the federal FY 2009 through the FY 2013 for state matching capital grants not to exceed 80 percent federal contribution; and WHEREAS, A state passenger rail plan is required to be eligible for these federal matching programs; and WHEREAS, The State of Kansas has yet to develop a qualifying passenger rail plan;..."
quote:"WHEREAS, $1.9 billion will be appropriated during the federal FY 2009 through the FY 2013 for state matching capital grants not to exceed 80 percent federal contribution; and WHEREAS, A state passenger rail plan is required to be eligible for these federal matching programs; and WHEREAS, The State of Kansas has yet to develop a qualifying passenger rail plan;"
THE SPONSORS WAITED UNTIL MID-MARCH TO INTRODUCE THESE RESOLUTIONS!
HEY KANSAS: IF YOU DON'T DO THE WORK, YOU DON'T GO TO THE DANCE!
The KDOT report will come out in time for the 2010 legislative session. Maybe there'll be a plan that Kansas can take to USDOT for grant $$$ by the end of the 2010 legislative session.
I stand by my assessment: Compete for funding in 2011, actual start date 2013.
Of course, Kansas also got taken 9-0 in the US Supreme Court on KS v CO. After winning the case, they claimed they didn't have to pay the going rate for their expert witnesses. Supreme Court said otherwise. Kansas had to actually pay up to its witnesses. Cheap Kansas.
Tick, tick, tick....
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Tick, tick, tick...
Well, the Kansas Senate version passed 36-3 on April Fools Day. It's been sent to the Kansas House, where their own version languishes in committee.
Can Kansas get it done?
Tick, tick, tick...
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Tick, tick, tick ...
When last we visited a month ago, KS SCR 1617 had passed and moved to the House, where it was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Well, it looks like the Kansas Legislature will adjourn for the 2009 session in early June. The Senate has set first notice of "SINE DIE" for June 4.
According to the Kansas House calendar, at this point committees are scheduled. There's still a chance the Kansas House can convene and pass even a lightweight, watered-down, not Federally compliant measure of "support" for bringing rail from Dallas to Kansas City.
Can Kansas get even this much done in 2009, or will, as I suggested a year ago, we have to see the study done in the 2010 Legislative session to see what can move?
Tick, tick, tick ...
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
DONG!!!
Ab Gleis Sieben, bitte Einsteigen, Tueren Schliessen, Vorsicht bei der Abfahrt!
The 2009 Kansas Legislature train has left the station. I talked earlier today with the news director of Kansas Public Radio. All general legislative activity which will happen this year has happened. All that remains is a pro forma Sine Die session the week of June 4.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1617 died for lack of action in the Kansas House Committee of the Whole. Its parallel, House Concurrent Resolution 5014 died without being reported out of its own Transporation Committee.
This was a simple resolution to encourage Ms Miller to seek USDOT controlled grant monies. It died a-borning. Now granted, Kansas has budgetary challenges, as does every State. They've not had to trim the budget, they got out the chainsaw to cut it. The effective budgetary reserves for 2010-2011 are zero ($17,000 (yes, seventeen thousand dollars) on an over $10 Billion budget.
As a Missourian, I get to observe this dark comedy. If the Northern Flyer Alliance really wants Amtrak service when the Consultant's $200K report comes back this fall, they are going to have to work the Kansas House ... very, very hard indeed. Otherwise, as I said over a year ago, this study will be $200K of P-O-R-K to some consultant, and the digits will moulder on a hard drive somewhere near the BNSF Topeka Shops.
So to some folks here, this should be an instructive exercise: It takes not the occasional "happy news, cheerleading news" to get new State-supported service on Amtrak, it takes good old fashioned political sweat equity.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Here's the latest info sheet from the Kansas Department of Transportation:
Of note: - KSDOT thinks Feddybux can be obtained to do the construction work for KC (Newton)-DFW service. - KSDOT thinks limited Feddybux are available for operating subsidy. - KSDOT staff still thinks, as of May 2009, that Article 11, Section 9 challenge of a 2/3 supermajority in both Houses is on the table. Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Here's the latest info sheet from the Kansas Department of Transportation:
Of note: - KSDOT thinks Feddybux can be obtained to do the construction work for KC (Newton)-DFW service. - KSDOT thinks limited Feddybux are available for operating subsidy. - KSDOT staff still thinks, as of May 2009, that Article 11, Section 9 challenge of a 2/3 supermajority in both Houses is on the table.
Whatever these people are smoking, it sure ain't tobacco.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Here's the latest info sheet from the Kansas Department of Transportation:
Of note: - KSDOT thinks Feddybux can be obtained to do the construction work for KC (Newton)-DFW service. - KSDOT thinks limited Feddybux are available for operating subsidy. - KSDOT staff still thinks, as of May 2009, that Article 11, Section 9 challenge of a 2/3 supermajority in both Houses is on the table.
Just curious Pullman.....
It's been some time since I checked this forum, and I see you're just as agitated as you were a year ago. Why does this effort seem to get under your skin so much? This is a big country; there are other initiatives just like the Kansas effort going on in Ohio, Iowa, a few in the southeast, and in Wisconsion, and so on. You're kind of obsessive about the Kansas effort which seems to be finding its way with slow progress, steps back, missed opportunity and so on.
Where the hell is this political support and clout supposed to come from that you decry, despise, disparage and dismiss out of hand?
Looks to me like there has been a constant effort, not entirely successful at this point but still alive.
Where did those two resolutions come from, the ones that failed, but still how did those happen? You seem closest and in the know about everything Kansas; what about these?
What happened on March 18th in the senate transportation committee that motivated KDOT to reverse course, and cause Ms. Miller to call up Amtrak and seek a shoulder to cry on about being read the riot act by the legislature for not taking advantage of the ARRA possibilities?
You seem to have some connections in Kansas government. Mind sharing some of your inside dope about this Northern Flyer Alliance? Is this a group of communities and mayors or something?
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Because you're Jayhawkers.
It's fun watching Jayhawkers stumble. It's almost as much fun watching the Jackson County Democratic Club and Freedom Incorporated imitate Tom Pendergast.
I enjoy watching politicians make bloody fools of themselves.
I enjoy watching community organizers who can't get it done. From where I sit, what you predicted came true: The Senate was able to do their part. Unfortunately, for a Concurrent Resolution, the House needed to play as well.
What was the ending balance on the FY10 budget? $17,000? That's on how many $Billion? That's effectively zero, and then the next Estimates came in. Where is the Legislature going to find $3M when it comes time to pay Amtrak? Where are folks proposing to buy a consist?
The study comes out between now and the end of the calendar year. We'll see what happens.
In the meantime, I stand by a 2013 start date.
"But I shall not rest boys, until I stand upon Mount Oread, and look down upon the abolitionists of Lawrence."
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Because you're Jayhawkers.
It's fun watching Jayhawkers stumble. It's almost as much fun watching the Jackson County Democratic Club and Freedom Incorporated imitate Tom Pendergast.
I enjoy watching politicians make bloody fools of themselves.
I enjoy watching community organizers who can't get it done. From where I sit, what you predicted came true: The Senate was able to do their part. Unfortunately, for a Concurrent Resolution, the House needed to play as well.
What was the ending balance on the FY10 budget? $17,000? That's on how many $Billion? That's effectively zero, and then the next Estimates came in. Where is the Legislature going to find $3M when it comes time to pay Amtrak? Where are folks proposing to buy a consist?
The study comes out between now and the end of the calendar year. We'll see what happens.
In the meantime, I stand by a 2013 start date.
"But I shall not rest boys, until I stand upon Mount Oread, and look down upon the abolitionists of Lawrence."
So,
What's wrong with 2013? Are you planning to kick off before then? There's all kind of archeological evidence that Rome wasn't built in a day. Has anyone put a timetable on this effort other than you?
Actually, I guess I believed your negativism/qualification had a rational foundation. Your silly commentary about Jayhawkers and the honest efforts of the activist involved, and your ridicule, really makes YOUR comments rather ridiculous. Between you and the CAVErs, Americans may really only be able to look backwards rather than ever to look forward.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
My original estimate was 2011.
Of course, as the economy may or may not recover anytime soon, whether Kansas can even afford this ... to include buying carstock, is a question.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
A quote from the last page of KDOT's press release, as found on the Northern Flyer website:
quote: Authorizing and Funding Expanded Passenger Rail Absent official legislation, KDOT does not have the authority to fund the operating support that would be needed to bring expanded passenger rail to Kansas. For this reason, KDOT cannot apply for grants that would, for all practical purposes, commit the state of Kansas to provide operating support for passenger rail service.
Crafting a new transportation program is the Legislature’s responsibility. KDOT’s role is to make recommendations and offer guidance in how it is structured.
These steps are needed to authorize and fund state-supported passenger rail: a) Complete the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study. Without the cost estimates from the study, KDOT cannot prepare a funding recommendation for the legislature to consider. b) If the study shows evidence that state-supported passenger rail should be considered, develop recommendations for the Legislature’s consideration based on the study results. c) Draft legislation to authorize operating subsidies for a state-supported passenger rail program, which requires approval of 2/3 of both houses, and provide the funding.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: A quote from the last page of KDOT's press release, as found on the Northern Flyer website:
quote: Authorizing and Funding Expanded Passenger Rail Absent official legislation, KDOT does not have the authority to fund the operating support that would be needed to bring expanded passenger rail to Kansas. For this reason, KDOT cannot apply for grants that would, for all practical purposes, commit the state of Kansas to provide operating support for passenger rail service.
Crafting a new transportation program is the Legislature’s responsibility. KDOT’s role is to make recommendations and offer guidance in how it is structured.
These steps are needed to authorize and fund state-supported passenger rail: a) Complete the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study. Without the cost estimates from the study, KDOT cannot prepare a funding recommendation for the legislature to consider. b) If the study shows evidence that state-supported passenger rail should be considered, develop recommendations for the Legislature’s consideration based on the study results. c) Draft legislation to authorize operating subsidies for a state-supported passenger rail program, which requires approval of 2/3 of both houses, and provide the funding.
It is apparent that you love to invoke KsDOT's oft raised "bailout clause" the 2/3rds majority in "both houses."
Here is the section of the Kansas Constitution Article 11 section 9. Read clause 5 of section 9 and explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS (and not invoking KsDOT) what this means? Clause 5 is in CAPS so you can't overlook it:
9: Internal improvements; state highway system; flood control; conservation or development of water resources. The state shall never be a party in carrying on any work of internal improvement except that: (1) It may adopt, construct, reconstruct and maintain a state system of highways, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds issued by the state for such highways; (2) it may be a party to flood control works and works for the conservation or development of water resources; (3) it may, for the purpose of stimulating economic development and private sector job creation in all areas of the state, participate in the development of a capital formation system and have a limited role in such system through investment of state funds authorized in accordance with law; (4) it may be a party to any work of internal improvement, whenever any work of internal improvement not authorized by (1), (2) or (3) is once authorized by a separate bill passed by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all members then elected (or appointed) and qualified to each house, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds be issued by the state therefor; and (5) IT MAY EXPEND FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AUTHORIZING THE SAME.
ARRA? HR 2095? Federal funds? An exception for the provisions of clause 4 of section 9 of article 11? Affirmed by the Kansas attorney general as applicable under legislative intent?
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
What it tells me is that the NFA and KSDOT are not speaking on the same sheet of music.
I've said it before and I say it again: For this to pass and become a reality, the Alliance has to get into the legislative cycle early enough to pass the "so what" test, and it has to convince the Kansas House to play. This latter is the longest pole in the tent. The Kansas House did not want to play in this session. The parallel concurrent resolution was buried in the Transportation Committee, never to see the light of day. When the Senate portion of the CR passed, it went to the Committee of the Whole of the House, to be buried below other business.
The time to get cities to sign resolutions of support is done. If the Alliance wants rail service in Kansas, now is the time to start wooing the Kansas House reps in Johnson, Wyandotte, Sedgwick, Jackson, and Douglas Counties... plus the other communities on the line.
I said this on April 4, 2008:
quote:I never, ever, count on best case solutions. I've learned the hard way... that's a recipe for foolishness.
If the Alliance plans to meet the constitutional hurdle, and the votes are overkill, then they have something approaching a mandate, which the legislators can use in the 2010/2012 election cycles. OTOH, if the Alliance shoots for a simple majority, and someone goes to court to block this, there may be wasted effort.
As I've said before, I live on the East Side of State Line and North of the River. That makes me an observer. The last few years, I've not observed the Kansas Legislature do much at all ... where is the funding for years 2 and 3 of the education mandates? I'm waiting for plaintiffs to return to Court on that one...
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Federal Dollars Could Boost Passenger Rail in KS Date: July 16, 2009 Officials at the Kansas Department of Transportation are hoping the federal government will approve around 17 million dollars in grants to give passenger rail service in KS a boost. KPR statehouse reporter Stephen Koranda has more.
Note the word hope above. A great American, General Gordon Sullivan, when he was Chief of Staff of the US Army (just after Desert Storm and at the beginning of the drawdown) said:
"Hope is not a method."
While that was spoken in the context of preparing for and executing war, it applies to any endeavor. You plan and prepare to win the day.
Right now, Ms Miller and Mr Kauffman have laid out the roadmap they are working under at KSDOT. That roadmap includes the working assumption of 2/3 of both Houses must approve a start of service.
As I recall from the May KSDOT rail update, the dollars requested are not necessarily contingent on Kansas having its passenger rail concept in the can. Even so, if I were a DOT policy analyst, I'd be looking really hard to at least 4 factors:
- Are Kansas' Congresscritters playing? Right now, Kansas does not have the strongest political delegation in Congress. Ms Jenkins is a newbie, and Mr Brownback has set himself a lame duck.
- Does this proposal have legislative support back home? This is a huge long pole in the tent. The Kansas House refused to play in 2009. If SecTrans has discretion over where to send scarce resources (Feddybux), then does he send them someplace where there is a reliable chance the funds will see service on the line, or does he "place the bet?"
- Uhhhh... Kansas City to Wichita? Say WHAT? Today's BFO: The KSDOT PR person didn't "walk the dog" on what this funding will do.
- High Speed Rail funds? 79MPH=HSR? Reality check.
- Is the homework done? See the pre-applications. There's work to be done here
IF the Northern Flyer Alliance wants to be serious about making this happen, then there are a bunch of Kansas House Members they need to be visiting with this summer and fall. Next year is an election year; they need to make their case to the Members that passenger rail matters.
This is not "no Yuma, no Moolah." This is "No vote for Yuma, nothing at all."
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Today's Grant Application Trivia Question
What is the reasonably expected speed in the Code of Federal Regulations for High Speed Rail?
quote:Federal Dollars Could Boost Passenger Rail in KS Date: July 16, 2009 Officials at the Kansas Department of Transportation are hoping the federal government will approve around 17 million dollars in grants to give passenger rail service in KS a boost. KPR statehouse reporter Stephen Koranda has more.
Note the word hope above. A great American, General Gordon Sullivan, when he was Chief of Staff of the US Army (just after Desert Storm and at the beginning of the drawdown) said:
"Hope is not a method."
While that was spoken in the context of preparing for and executing war, it applies to any endeavor. You plan and prepare to win the day.
Right now, Ms Miller and Mr Kauffman have laid out the roadmap they are working under at KSDOT. That roadmap includes the working assumption of 2/3 of both Houses must approve a start of service.
As I recall from the May KSDOT rail update, the dollars requested are not necessarily contingent on Kansas having its passenger rail concept in the can. Even so, if I were a DOT policy analyst, I'd be looking really hard to at least 4 factors:
- Are Kansas' Congresscritters playing? Right now, Kansas does not have the strongest political delegation in Congress. Ms Jenkins is a newbie, and Mr Brownback has set himself a lame duck.
- Does this proposal have legislative support back home? This is a huge long pole in the tent. The Kansas House refused to play in 2009. If SecTrans has discretion over where to send scarce resources (Feddybux), then does he send them someplace where there is a reliable chance the funds will see service on the line, or does he "place the bet?"
- Uhhhh... Kansas City to Wichita? Say WHAT? Today's BFO: The KSDOT PR person didn't "walk the dog" on what this funding will do.
- High Speed Rail funds? 79MPH=HSR? Reality check.
- Is the homework done? See the pre-applications. There's work to be done here
IF the Northern Flyer Alliance wants to be serious about making this happen, then there are a bunch of Kansas House Members they need to be visiting with this summer and fall. Next year is an election year; they need to make their case to the Members that passenger rail matters.
MAYBE THEY DID, AND MAYBE KDOT and OKDOT and THE FRA ARE WORKING TOGETHER FOR SUPPORT FOR THE DIRT CHEAP (AS COMPARED TO OTHER STATES) REQUEST.
WRITTEN ALL OVER THE PRE-APPLICATION GUIDELINES IS INTENT FOR ASSISTING STATES TO QUALIFY FOR ARRA FUNDS.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT EVERY OTHER STATE HAS AN ARRA PROPOSAL THAT IS IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY MORE SOUND THAN THE KANSAS REQUEST?
DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT KANSAS IS THE ONLY STATE THAT HAS THIS 2/3rds REQUIREMENT THAT SEEMS TO BE AN OBSESSION OF YOURS?
DID A KANSAS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR TELL THE KANSAS DOT SECRETARY TO NOT BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING A 2/3rds MAJORITY DURING A MEETING IN MARCH?
WAS THERE PERHAPS A TELECONFERENCE ON JULY 8TH THAT INCLUDED NORTHERN FLYER ALLIANCE LEADERS AND 7-8 KEY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE WITH KDOT and ODOT and AMTRAK IN WHICH ALL THE ISSUES MENTIONED BY YOU ABOVE WERE DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE HAS NOT ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO PREPARE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE TERM?
KDOT, NFA AND NUMEROUS LEGISLATORS READ, AND, HAVE THE FRA ARRA INSTRUCTIONS IN HAND. DID KDOT REVISE THEIR ORIGINAL INTENTION OF APPLYING ONLY FOR ARRA TRACK 3, AND EXPAND THAT TO AN APPLICATION FOR ARRA TRACKS, 1,2, AND 3, AT THE SUGGESTION OF NFA LEADERS AND THE BNSF?
CAN MISSOURI REASONABLY EXPECT TO UPGRADE THE RIVERUNNER SERVICE TO 110 MPH W/IN THE PARAMETERS OF HSR?
ARE THE FRA ARRA GRANTS EXCLUSIVE TO HSR OR DOES IT ALSO PROVIDE FOR TRADITIONAL INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT?
DID CONGRESSMAN DENNIS MOORE HAVE A MEETING AT LAWRENCE STATION WITH NFA LEADERS AND LOCAL AND KANSAS LEGISLATORS AND OFFICIALS AND OFFER HIS SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT?
THOSE IN THE KNOW SHOULD KNOW ALL ABOUT WHAT I WROTE ABOVE. BUT YOU SEEM TO GET A FAIR AMOUNT OF YOUR INFORMATION FROM THE NEWS MEDIA. HOW PRECISELY ACCURATE ARE THEY IN THEIR REPORTING?
This is not "no Yuma, no Moolah." This is "No vote for Yuma, nothing at all."
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
And do you like shouting?
As the late, great Will Rogers once said "All I know is what I read in the papers."
Well, in this case the papers include the NFA website and railroad.net.
Yes, other States have problems, but most (excluding California) do not have supermajority requirements for legislative budget votes.
To be honest, I expect the NEC states, California, and some of the linkages out of Chicago to suck in a lot of HSIPR funds to overhaul the Corridor. From my friends who live there, there is a tremendous amount of deferred maintence on the line. There are also projects where something as simple as a 500 meter track straightening will generate, as defined by the US, HSR speeds.
So you have Dennis Moore as an ally. The Santa Fe runs through all 4 Congresscritters Districts. What about the other three? What about Pat Roberts? What about Sam Brownback?
BTW, I do talk, on my side of State Line, to my State Rep and State Senator about the Eagles (sorry, they'll be that or the Mules to me, depending on speed ... though they are far more like the old UP trains 69 and 70, aka The Plugs.) I've also talked to Sam Graves' transportation committee liaison in his Congressional office, since he sits the House Transportation Committee.
I know this much: Missouri at least has 2 a day frequency across the State. That's better than the throwaway option in the commissioned study. IIRC it was simply a continuation of the Flyer to Newton to meet 3/4.
What I also see in the NY Times article of July 17 is a huge ratio: $8B in appropriations generated $70B in grant requests. That's not quite a 1:9 availability ratio. Assume for a moment that all $8B of the stimulus is awarded. That leaves $62B of UFR grant requests on the table. If all those re-roll for the HSIPR and there are no new requests, that's $4B in funds availability against $62B in requests, or a 1:15 ratio.
Of course, now Kansas steps in with its petition, and its lack of planning in the can. To make matters more fun, the petition does not conform to CFR standards: 79 is less than 110.
I just visited the NFA website. The same old GIF map is there. It's time and past time for those who want this service to invest political and technical sweat equity. Photos of specific spots on the BNSF where improvements are needed. The grant pre-apps identify those. Cross-links to Googlemaps in topographic mode, identifying those spots. Who has been to Beech Grove or Bear recently, to look at remnant Heritage rolling stock for renovation? Who has been to the BNSF Topeka Shops to talk about doing the renovation work? BNSF Topeka is still a superb passenger car shop. As the KS-DOT announcements said 8 months ago, don't count on Amtrak for rolling stock for this service.
Oh, look at the contacts? Ms Stout is the "interim" public contact. At this point, y'all should have an effective list of regional contacts in Wyandotte/Johnson Counties, Topeka, Lawrence, and Newton. They should be cross-referenced to specific Kansas legislators. Where's the sample letter of support from Mr and Mrs Smith to their Kansas legislator? What grad students in public management from KU, K-State or Wichita State are helping the NFA on this?
So, shout all you want. Be frustrated all you want. This thread opened 16 months ago today. Right now, the proposal is exactly on the timeline I said it'd be on... 2010 Legislature session will evaluate start-up funding and either pass or deny an appropriation for same. 2/3 majority? That's the worst case. GBN will tell you I'm an old soldier, and my Dad is an older soldier. He taught me, over 40 years ago ... Be prepared for the worst, and then you'll always be pleasantly surprised. In the case of legislation next year, that means NFA is one House down (the died aborning SCR did get > 2/3 majority), and one House to go.
That one House to go is the long pole in the tent. They didn't want to play at all. They buried the HCR, never to see the light of day. They referred the SCR to the Committee of the Whole, and then never allowed it to move above the line for consideration. Next years effort has to be much, much better than that.
Meanwhile, I will keep observing from across the River, and commenting on what is posted in the news.
OBTW, looks like on July 2 Governor Parkinson had to take 2% more across the board from Kansas agencies to cover the ongoing revenue shortfall. My personal estimate is if Kansas is still in recession when the 2010 Legislature convenes, then this new spending may well not happen at all. It's hard to justify new $$$ when education, health, and law enforcement are taking schwacks. I'm betting 2011 being the year legislation happens.
2013 for a startup. I've been saying that for a year now.
Enjoy this wonderful summer weather we're having in the metro.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
I jumped on the NFA Facebook page this morning. My critique is the same: If NFA wants legislative passage in either 2010 or 2011, then they need to be targeting the Kansas House.
I see no tools to help the 81 group members on FB do exactly that. No sample letter. No key points. No listing of Kansas House members cross-referenced to population centers on the line and to their friendliness towards getting legislation through the system.
NFA has the Kansas Senate dealt with. Keep them stroked now. It's time for NFA to work the Kansas House, hard, and to be sure they have more than enough votes to get the job done. Aside from the Kansas constitution issues, a 2/3 majority gives the legislators high cover in the coming election cycle: The new legislation is a mandate for change.
Finally, there's the small matter of infrastructure improvement: If I understand what the NFA posted at the FB site correctly, $102B of grant requests is chasing $8B of funding. That's over a 1:12 funds availablility ratio. NFA needs to be working with BNSF and KS-DOT to upgrade the route of the Texas Chief to HSR if they hope to see Feddybux.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
Pullman,
You're kinda hard to figure. I can't tell whether you're some kind of coach, counselor, Monday night quarterback, or what.
You're broadcasting advice to everyone on this board, with no assurance that any member of the Alliance even visits this site, to heed your counsel.
I know a few of the members, and that is how I am able to share information about what seems to be really going on behind the scenes.
I recently asked what happened to the House bill that was the companion of the Senate bill that passed. The reason it did not make it above the line was really twofold. The first was the House version did not arrive early enough in the session because it needed to have some elements revised and reconciled with the Senate version. the second issue had to do with politics on the part of the Speaker who held everything in check until the power plant issue was resolved. As it was, there wasn't any real opposition to the bill, it just never got a chance to be voted on. The Senate bill passed 36-3 with one absent. That says quite a bit about the issue that you keep mentioning (2/3rds vote) and act like it is some great issue.
In the meantime, KDOT has acted on just about every recommendation that the Senate Transportation chair suggested.
I don't think any sane person expects this initiative to be accomplished tomorrow, or even in a month. Your timeline predictions all but suggest that you're fixated on some kind of immediate development. Why is that?
I've been following this project at a distance for about two years. The NFA had a meeting in Wichita in July 2007; it was their first gathering and at that time it was a gauge of public interest.
Seems this grassroots effort has come quite a ways, especially when a reasonable, rational comparison is made with similar efforts going on in other states.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: I jumped on the NFA Facebook page this morning. My critique is the same: If NFA wants legislative passage in either 2010 or 2011, then they need to be targeting the Kansas House.
I see no tools to help the 81 group members on FB do exactly that. No sample letter. No key points. No listing of Kansas House members cross-referenced to population centers on the line and to their friendliness towards getting legislation through the system.
NFA has the Kansas Senate dealt with. Keep them stroked now. It's time for NFA to work the Kansas House, hard, and to be sure they have more than enough votes to get the job done. Aside from the Kansas constitution issues, a 2/3 majority gives the legislators high cover in the coming election cycle: The new legislation is a mandate for change.
Finally, there's the small matter of infrastructure improvement: If I understand what the NFA posted at the FB site correctly, $102B of grant requests is chasing $8B of funding. That's over a 1:12 funds availablility ratio. NFA needs to be working with BNSF and KS-DOT to upgrade the route of the Texas Chief to HSR if they hope to see Feddybux.
To this message I gotta reply to your quoted remarks: How do you know that they (NFA) aren't?
Do you think all of what has happened in Kansas to date was accidental?
Would it surprise you to know that the Kansas Senate and the House already have a bill in hand that is being prepared for next year?
I don't think you realize that many key members of NFA are mayors, city managers, council members, metro area transportation planners and chamber of commerce folks who are in tight with the legislators who are pushing for this.
Parkinson met with NFA leaders over a year ago when he was still Lt. Governor. He has been governor for about 120 days. Big legislative issues don't happen in 120 days, unless it is an emergency.
Passenger rail service in Kansas isn't an emergency. It's seen by elected officials as an opportunity. None of them even know what the 3 or the 4 is let alone the Texas Chief or the Lone Star. Those old trains are important only to foamers.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
I will believe you on January 10, 2010, when I look at www.kslegislature.org . Once there, I will click on the House and Senate pre-filed bills.
If the Executive and NFA have done their job well, there will be pre-filed legislation. Waiting to the last day to file bills (either by an individual or a committee) is a bad idea.
Of course, right now, there's the small matter of getting the HSIPR grant apps into compliance by the deadline, so they have some hope of being above the line for funding. 12 chasing 1 is not the best of probabilities. Has anyone figured out Plan B if the Feddybux aren't there?
Plan for the worst, then expect the best.
ETA: Silly me. I should have read the press release on July 13 better. That 200K study? That's not what FRA requires. It's a pre-study. Kansas has to pony up from 250-500K more for the real study, depending on if it gets Feddybux for the study. (Cue Abbot and Costello! )
From the press release:
quote:A Track 3 pre-application was filed by KDOT for a $500,000 project to prepare a comprehensive Service Development Plan (SDP) for implementing state-supported Amtrak service between Kansas City and Oklahoma City. The SDP would build on the findings of the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study which is expected to be complete by the end of 2009. Among other topics, the SDP would include identifying capacity investments required to accommodate faster passenger trains on today’s heavily used freight only tracks. The Amtrak study was not intended to be detailed enough to serve as an SDP. An SDP will be required for KDOT to apply for potential HSIPR grants in the future, if funding is available. KDOT offered to contribute $250,000 to the cost of the project because these grants are not supported by ARRA funds and require at least a 50 percent match.
So, if there is legislation in 2010, it's in advance of the SDP ... and what's the Plan B funding for the SDP if Kansas doesn't get Feddybux? 250K is what Senator Dirksen called "real money" in terms of the current KS budget.
I think I'm going to move my optimistic start date to 2012, and my realisatic start date to 2014. I reserve the right to modify that after I see what happens next legislative season
quote:We want to make sure the Midwest is in front of the rest of the nation," said U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who joined Daley and the governors of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin at a high-speed rail summit.
Governors from those states, as well as Indiana, Minnesota and Missouri, signed the agreement.
Simple questions: Where was Governor Parkinson? Why wasn't Kansas on board?
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Mr Gilbert B Norman has weighed in about how the $8B should be distributed:
First revenue estimates for FY11 (begins July 1, 2010) are $568 million below current enacted budget.
Memo to those who are advocating extended and expanded service: Work on the Kansas House, really hard. New expenditures are tough to get enacted in a declining revenue situation.
Edit 8/26: The Kansas House Appropriations Committee has already begun meeting on the FY2011 Kansas budget. They are trying to find hundreds of millions of dollars from the FY2010 budget to de-fund for FY2011.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Kansas dropped its Track 1 and Track 3 apps on USDOT last Monday. The news release was Friday the 28th, and Kansas Public Radio reported it this morning.
The due date for the study is January 2011. That pretty well firms up my thought that the most likely start date for any extension of the Heartland Flyer, in any form, will be mid-2014.
Next step for those who want this is to sell the Kansas House. Without them, this will be an exercise in spending other people's money to no use.
quote:The work to be completed is the development of a Service Development Plan (SDP) that would follow the completion of the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study (due to be completed in late 2009) that will analyze expanded new passenger rail service, over BNSF Railway track, between Netwon, KS and Oklahoma City, OK connecting the national Southwest Chief service with the regional Heartland Flyer service, as well as potential new service connecting the metroplexes of Kansas City and Dallas/Fort Worth.
Emphasis by bold italics added by me.
What I thought was the throwaway option (train from Dallas links up with 3/4 at 3AM in Newton) appears to be the endgame. Potential service, eh? Sounds to me like folks are doing this to check the block and get back to the roads.
I've said before and I say again: One a Day is a vitamin, not a method of operating passenger trains.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
This was the major story in the first hour of NPR's All Things Considered today...
quote:The Obama administration will soon announce the recipients of grants from an $8 billion high-speed-rail fund. Almost 300 proposals have been received, collectively requesting more than $100 billion.
Does Kansas have a Plan B if the funding doesn't come through? 100 chasing 8. That's a 12.5 request to availability ratio.
Remember, Kansas is requesting Feddybux for 79MPH service, and the CFR expectation for HSR is 110.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Well, these went on the KS-DOT website a couple weeks ago...
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...
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Well, these went on the KS-DOT website a couple weeks ago...
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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 ...
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
1QCY10.
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?
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: 1QCY10.
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
"Toto (ARRA '09 $8B for HSR), We're not in Kansas anymore":
GBN -- ?????????? I think I missed something in this post -- how is the Wizard of Oz like ARRA '09?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
$250K covers Kansas' 1/2 of the Service Development plan study. Kansas is obligated to provide the other $250K.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: $250K covers Kansas' 1/2 of the Service Development plan study. Kansas is obligated to provide the other $250K.
Oklahoma will pay $125,00 of the $250,000.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
This little goodie confirms there is no money backing SB409:
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 by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
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?
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by sfthunderchief:
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.
Posted by jlcks (Member # 7282) on :
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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?
Posted by jlcks (Member # 7282) on :
Already talked to my rep and senator about it. Just have to wait and see what happens.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I learned at another site that the referenced study is out. Here is a Separate Executive Summary.
This ain't coming cheap.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Learned at another site that this study is out:
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.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
From my post of March 27, 2008:
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo:
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.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
Governor Parkinson will have a ceremonial signing of the Passenger Rail Service Act for Kansas at 1:30 pm on April 8th in the capitol.
I received an invitation to attend this gathering this morning. I think it will be worth the trip over to Topeka.
Posted by sfthunderchief (Member # 7204) on :
Governor Parkinson invited NFA leaders and legislators to the ceremonial signing of the Passenger Rail Service Act for Kansas on April 8th in the capitol.
Just talked to John Rosacker in KDOT Rail and Freight Division:
"When do you expect the Service Development Plan for Amtrak from Dallas to KC to be done?"
"We're going to try to have it done by the end of May, but there's no hard due date."
IN OTHER WORDS:
Not much chance of legislation in the 2011 Legislature.
Here's today's question: With Brownback in charge, when would a reasonable person hope for the first wheels to roll?
Answer: In the budget-unfriendly environment of Kansas (terminate all government support for public radio/tv, terminate government funding for the Kansas Arts Council, define "a suitable education"), don't hold your breath.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
The young lady doing it interviewed both Ms Miller and Mr John Maddox of KDOT.
I found two points most interesting:
First, the price stickers at this point of the options in the extending service Kansas City to Dallas: - Low End: $150 Million. - High End: $500 Million.
Second, the timeline: As Mr Maddox said: "We're only at the beginning."
Now, if you live here in Flyover Country, you know that Kansas had to cut its FY2012 budget $800 million from FY2011. So, the ice water question, is, as always: "Whither the funding?" Let me give you a hint: Don't count on Feddybux.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Well, here we are, watching Kansas from the East side of State Line Road. What have we learned recently?
Well, we've learned that Kansas does not have an effective consultant contracting mechanism. The Service Development Plan study is still out in the wild and has not gone public on the Kansas DOT website.
We've also learned the SuperDuper Committee failed, and mandatory recissions in budget authority are coming.
The teaching point is that Kansas should have applied under the true terms for HS dollars. 79MPH didn't get it done.
Oh ... Choose wisely the battles you wish to fight. Somewhat germane to the argument is where AMT 3/4 will be routed in the future. As I recall, the historic Santa Fe west of Newton in the direction of Raton and Albuquerque has been downgraded by Mr Buffett's BNSF managers. That slows the rate of advance of 3/4. I wonder how long it will be before the once Super Chief moves at the pace of the steam-era California Limited? (By the By, the Northern Flyer Alliance wants to tilt at this windmill, too.)
Finally what will that august American, that man who is so very respectful of his young voters, Governor Sam Brownback do when the study does come in?
May I suggest that those seeking additional Amtrak service in Kansas start looking at internal funding mechanisms? Chasing Feddybux may soon be a fools' errand.
We'll see what happens as Kansas approaches a new year and a new legislative session.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Only two full months late, Kansas DOT has released its Service Development Plan:
Here's the Readers Digest Condensed Version:
- Prep/Startup costs: $136.5M to $475M depending on if it's the extension to Newton and cross platform transfer at 0300 (low end) or daylight service (high end).
- Equipment costs: $4M to add cars to the existing Flyer, $68M to buy a new train for daylight service.
- Annual subsidy:
Now it goes to the 2012 Kansas Legislature.
Gotta love this comment in the Introduction: "The state supported passenger rail project under consideration connects Kansas City, MO with Fort Worth, TX using conventional passenger rail equipment operating at a top speed of 79 MPH."
Gotta love this line in the Introduction: "The extended service to Newton (Heartland Flyer Extension) is estimated to require six years to implement, including environmental reviews, preliminary engineering, construction and commissioning. The development of the KC-OKC-FW Daytime Service or the long term possibility of Combined Services is expected to approach seven years from the start of the environmental studies.
So much for my timelines. As pessimistic as I was, I was hopelessly optimistic. 2020 is realistic.
For one train a day, I don't think it would be wise to invest in 110 mph service. If the 79mph service is dependable, reliable and offered at convenient times, I think it will be attractive (and hopefully worth the wait).
Federal and state budgets are going to be tight for the rest of this decade, but every passenger who has a good experience with Amtrak may become a future pro-rail voter. So if investments in the River Runner are producing better service, anti-rail politicians may find more pushback when they bad-mouth rail investments and promote more money for highways and airports.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
This proposal comes from sad sam brownback's miserable state of kansas.
If the actual velocity vector is not at least 60MPH, IMO there is little need for this. It's an anachronism. kansas has already shown they are not interested in building a route that will relieve KC-OKC-DFW traffic. One a day is a vitamin brand name, not a way to run a passenger rail operation with an eye to anything other than eyewash.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Ms Miller has resigned as the Secretary of Transportation for the State of Kansas.
I hope the various advocates have been working their relationships for some time; Ms Barb Rankin, the current general counsel, is the interim Secretary.
Meanwhile, there is this small matter of the 2012 Legislature session to prepare for. Wonder if anyone is working on prefiling bills?
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
Have any of us considered the California "estimate" for HSR and how it tripled. And for less miles than the 1/3 cost estimate.
Those who are being asked to appropriate taxpayer funds will be very dubius of any estimates by proponents.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Looks like Northern Flyer Alliance fed "the message" to two wire services - and got what they wanted in print:
All told, this seems like an underhanded way simply to get a dormant LD route restored. As I have consistently held throughout the entire Amtrak era, the LD's are not about moving people in an economic and efficient manner even though some "niche' groups find the service quite attractive. The LD's are simply about building political support so that what is a clearly, albeit essential, regional service - the Northeast Corridor - can garner Federal level funding.
Amtrak gets funded; the existing LD's are doing their job. Why have more?
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Where's the Earth Shattering Kaboom? There's supposed to be an Earth Shattering Kaboom!!!
NFA admits defeat. Development of this route is 10-20 years away.
What did I say back in 2009? Meet the specifications of the proposal. It's hard to get Feddybux when the grant proposal does not meet the minimums in the solicitation.
Get political support. Sammy's here, and he's not going away until at least 2014; if he's re-elected, 2018. He's not enamored with this idea.
I can't attach an image, so I'll quote a part of the page:
INTRODUCTION: The possibility the Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas corridor (TOK-Corridor) will be developed is highly unlikely, at least for the next 10 to 20 years. The region has missed its window. Government claims their hands are tied. The following is offered as evidence:
So, for now, we wave goodbye at the retreating Adios drumhead as this effort moves into the sunset.
OBJECT LESSON: Political support and timing matter.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Marriott Macon GA--
Mr. Pullman, a more apt comparasion would be with The Skyline Connection and all the rest of the nonsense that Warrington had in his Network Growth Strategy.
I noted the absence of any mention of rail by the President in the SOTU. The whole "$8B for HSR" was a bungle. I said it when ARRA '09 was enacted, and I say it again now.
It would have been great had the $8B been allocated to existing rail passenger agencies to be used for the backlog of "shovel ready" projects that any of them have. Instead it was parceled about the land with this Kansas charade, that was just an excuse to restore a needless Long Distance train, indicative of such.
Tomorrow Miami and a Cleveland Orchestra concert; Sat a client at The Villages, and Mike I'm on schedule for Sunday, in good health, and "Lex Noir" still runs like a champ - even if I'm not used to driving around, especially long trips, in an almost seven year old auto..
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Enjoy your trip, Gil. Look for my 2004 white Ford Ranger in the parking lot or, less likely, my wife's 2006 gray Mazda 3, as a "loaner."
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
In 2010 it was estimated that an extension of the Heartland Flyer to Newton KS would require about $114 million in track improvements to support the new service. Stopping in Wichita would save money on start-up costs, but it would likely make connections to/from the SW Chief at Newton difficult.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I would suggest that Wichita is more likely to gain scheduled Amtrak service when the Southwest Chief is rerouted away from Raton Pass than from any extension of the Heartland Flyer.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Oh where oh where hath you gone, Mr. Thunderchief. You haven't been around since 2012 when the final nail was driven into the coffin of the ill-conceived Kansas HSR.
Posted by DonNadeau (Member # 61606) on :
quote: Mr. Norman, perhaps we should really show our age and talk about Santa Fe's Texas Chief. A very classy streamliner (as were all ATSF trains) that operated on this route - plus a Houston section.
- Palmland
Loved both the El Capitan and the Texas Chief. Both were equally high-quality operations and both had the high-level coaches I loved.
Also showing my age here. Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
From a friend who teaches at the University of Central Oklahoma, there is supposed to be an Amtrak inspection train working from OKC to KC today.
Of course, since I last updated this topic, Kansas' budget woes have not changed in the slightest, other than Gov. Brownback finally got overridden on his taxation policy.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
This is certainly a logical extension of the HF. The odds of this happening and being successful would increasee if the following was true: * The train is an extension of the SWC to Chicago * There is sufficient trackage in Newton Falls to enable a split of the SWC for LA and Ft. Worth as is done in Spokane or San Antonio. * There is sufficient equipment available to support the extension. * Kansas/Texas actually fund the change.
I'm not holding my breath. But then, who would have thought a few years ago that we'd see trains to Roanoke and Norfolk.
Posted by DonNadeau (Member # 61606) on :
One thing I've never understood about the Heartland is why does it terminate in Fort Worth and not serve also Dallas, the larger of the two?
Amtrak uses multiple host railways elsewhere.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
With the new reroute of the Texas Eagle between DAL and FTW, would an HF extension be able to get to the new track to Dallas via a backup move from FTW? I looked at Google Earth, and it is difficult to tell whether that would be doable or not.
Posted by DonNadeau (Member # 61606) on :
Thinking about it why not just designate the Trinity Railway Express has a Thruway connection?
That way a more convenient and dependable connection (with easy ability to change if Heartland late unlike with the TE) could show in Arrow and also in the online Heartland timetable.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
Here is a brief video on the Oklahoma City to Kansas City overnight train proposal. You have to get by 30 sec of commercial:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)