There are suggestions at postings here and elsewhere that the Requests to Appropriations ($8B) is in the range of a 12 to 1 ratio. Someone is going to walk away empty handed. One thing certain: the "wired in" consultants will be fed.
By the time any of these projects to be funded under this ARRA '09 provision move forth, the economy will be in recovery mode.
Had the legislation called for "$8B for the NEC", that would be one thing; but it didn't and in fact specifically called for the allocations to be AWAY from the NEC.
Time to get rid of this before passenger railroad transport simply is lumped in with "Bridge to Nowhere".
City of Miami Member # 2922
posted
I think this is called trolling.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I don't think so Mr Miami; I've likely been following railroad industry affairs, including eleven years "on the inside", since before you even "were".
Nuff siad.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
I guess I am somewhat surprised, GBN, on your reluctance to see the $8B go to HSR. You have made the point elsewhere, and are probably correct, that the real future of Amtrak lies in a expanded corridor service rather than a skeletal LD network. Although as a lover of those LD trains, I do hope a basic network remains to link the various corridors.
Given that corridor service is the future of intercity passenger rail, it would seem that is exactly where the $8B will be directed. I don't think there are many who have illusions of an instant TGV network, rather the funds will be used on an incremental approach to upgrade existing routes with the long term goal being true high speed.
While there will certainly be a backlash to the excessive government spending, HSR may be one of the few areas where there really are worthwhile results from the government largess. But then, I may be a bit biased.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
What concerns me and why I made this rather inflammatory statement to passenger train advocates is that while $8B seems like a lot of scratch, with the condition that it be allocated over the States means not too much is going too much of anywhere. What will result is a frenzy of consultants feeding at the trough.
If the legislation had called for $8B of shovel ready projects to be allocated where there is established multi frequency "Corridor" services, which principally means the NEC, then my sentiments would be entirely different.
I would hope that the $8B (or what's left after the consultants chow down) would be re-allocated in the manner I set forth. I want to see that $8B allocated to passenger rail as much as the next guy here, but I want value for those $$$$ - and the provisions under ARRA '09 will not deliver such.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
I bet $1000 that no more than $3 billion ever sees a rail or railcar or locomotive.
The politically connected consultants will eat up at least $5 billion of our tax dollars
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I share your concern, Mr. Smith - that is why I opened the topic.
Repeat, I want that $8B to go to needed shovel ready passenger rail projects. That means "where the trains are', which means primarily to the NEC, and not where some politico and niche advocacy groups wants to see them.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
The total figure wouldn't even cover 20% of the cost of the proposed HSR project in California alone.
Frankly, I'd rather see one (and only one for now) HSR project in the US done right. Doesn't matter where to me. We just need one and then we can judge whether HSR projects elsewhere in the US have merit and are worthy of support.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
What concerns me is that the backlash that is building against the present day Congress and political party in power will result, in two years, in the election of those who will oppose or work to roll back what ever advances and (moderately) higher speed rail projects that are underway at the time.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
I do think that that there are many potentially viable HSR corridors outside the NEC. Of course many are just a glint in a consultant's eye.
Certainly maximum funds for a minimum number of HSR routes is the way to go. I would like to think that NC and VA know exactly what needs to be done to implement a portion of the Southeast HSR plan and much of the groundwork has already been done so that the dollars can go directly to the 'real' work of putting down track, installing signals, and getting equipment.
But, there are far too many friends of the administration from the Illinois area (including the Secretary of Transp.) that it would be very naive to not believe that at least one project will be centered there.
I guess we'll see in a month or two.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
CG96, I disagree. I think Amtrak will be SO far down the list of things to undo and fix, it won't even register with Congress. And the fix is 16 months away, not 2 years. (The election is 14 months away)
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Following up on discussion moving forth elsewhere (RRNET) in succinct terms, the "$8B for HSR" represents a Federal "revenue sharing" program. State agencies are making Grant Applications to the USDOT for funding of projects that the States or other Local jurisdictions desire to have funded.
At this site, Mr. Pullman has noted that the Application to Appropriation ratio is in the range of 12:1; obviously someone will walk empty handed.
The USDOT is determining the relative merit of the many proposals and the Secretary will make the awards. I'm confident that competent "staffers' (I personally know face-to-face one such) will fill Secretary LaHood's "toolbox' with what is needed to make determinations that will maximize public benefit, and I'm further confident that the Secrertary and his top aides will sit down with that same objective in mind.....
....until the phone rings.....
'Hi Ray, this is Rahm...uh you know...we'd like to see some High Speed trains running between Jerkwater Junction and Podunk....."
Lest we forget at whose pleasure Ray holds office.
The possibility of such outcome for '$8B for HSR" is why I was prompted to initiate this topic.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Ahhhh......
Jerkwater Junction.
Isn't that one of the swamps between Rocky Mount and Richmond along the CSX?
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Googling "Jerkwater Junction" brings up mostly references to the rockabilly band of that name.
It's better than "Blackwater Junction," of which we've been hearing so much in the news those days.
Much as I disagree with GBN on a variety of topics (especially the relative worth of LD trains), I have to go along with him about the politicization of the stimulus dough. That would happen no matter who was in office.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Possibly the linked material will be of assistance to anyone concerned:
posted
Although I admit I am not aware of the qualifications for this money, I would propose projects such as Rail Runner might be a past example of "best bang for the buck". No years of studies and millions for consultants. Up and running from idea to reality in a few years.
Incremental improvements to existing rail where 79 to 125mph frequent service could be acheived in areas of significant population density and decent ridership projections -in a short time. This should be as deserving as elaborate HSR plans.
Since a viable rail service may contribute to the future economy of a region, it would be best for as many regions as possible to benefit.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I bet $1000 that no more than $3 billion ever sees a rail or railcar or locomotive.
The politically connected consultants will eat up at least $5 billion of our tax dollars
Being around at the time, That is exactly what happened when the Northeast Corridor Imporvement Program got under way in the mid 1970's after the Penn Central collapse.
I recall walking into the office of one of the major consultants involved, which shall remain nameless at least until I no longer have a need to work, but will only say it is not my current employer, and seeing a alrge pile of copies of the Pennsylvania Railroad Valuation Maps, and at some point asking ahd they been through them? They seemd to think they were useless. NO, a thousand times NO. These things were gold. These maps, first requitred by the ICC in the 1916 - 1917 time range were also required to be kept updated with all changes in tracks, right of way, and other features, and these people had no clue what thye were. Instead, much money was spent on mapping and looking for facilities, and the cost of surprises over things found / damaged / destroyed that they would have know about if they had bothered to look at these maps.
20th Century Member # 2196
posted
Consultants.....at least recruit a firm which is familiar with rail transportation and its valuable records/archives rather than being a sponge for it.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
CFR definition of HSR = 110MPH.
Someone wanting to bump a run 79MPH-125MPH would be near the line, as opposed to someone asking to establish 79MPH service, which IMO is clearly below the line.
sfthunderchief Member # 7204
posted
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: CFR definition of HSR = 110MPH.
Someone wanting to bump a run 79MPH-125MPH would be near the line, as opposed to someone asking to establish 79MPH service, which IMO is clearly below the line.
Is it reasonable for states like Ohio, Oklahoma, or Iowa, which have not not had passenger rail service on the routes they propose for ARRA funding, to seek incremental development, i.e., redevelop to satisfy Amtrak standard speed (especially since most diesel-electrics cannot run much above that spreed without being regeared), and then move forward true HSR?
There is also another question that has to do with the HSIPR acronym. What does this H S I P R stand for? Isn't it something like High Speed/ Intercity Passenger Rail? If it was only HSR that would clearly define it, however, the Intercity Passenger Rail component is included and defined in ARRA and PRIIA as "conventional" passenger rail service. That indicates conventional Amtrak 79mph routes; very affordable, more easily developed, greatly beneficial, and contributory to spreading and expanding (re-establishing) a more national passenger rail system.
This is the intent of PRIIA and inherent in ARRA and HSIPR.
I'm surprised by how many paricipants on this forum have missed this all important and obvious point.
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
Yes, I agree with what Mr. sfthunderchief said. I have seen discussions on another forum and excerpts from Obama's speech that indicate 79 mph service is eligible for the money, whether it fits the definition of true HSR or not. At this rate, a $400 million project such as Rail Runner, that serves a large chunk of the population of New Mexico, would be a competitive project. And it gets by this cheap because it builds on existing track.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
If I were the policy analyst, I'd be looking at payoff in terms of:
- Actual numbers of jobs created.
- Prospective increase in total ridership.
- Compliance with the CFR.
California proposes not just compliance, but true HSR (IIRC that's about 130MPH). Florida proposes meeting the Federal definition. The Midwest initiative has a raw weight of States with a substantial Congressional voting bloc behind it.
States that applied at 79MPH accepted a risk of failure. It's an easy cut for the policy analyst before it ever sees LaHood's desk. When the funds chasing to funds availability ratio is 12:1, who's gonna get cut? Someone sure as you're born is going to end up with an empty bag.
sfthunderchief Member # 7204
posted
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: If I were the policy analyst, I'd be looking at payoff in terms of:
- Actual numbers of jobs created.
- Prospective increase in total ridership.
- Compliance with the CFR.
California proposes not just compliance, but true HSR (IIRC that's about 130MPH).
When the funds chasing to funds availability ratio is 12:1, who's gonna get cut? Someone sure as you're born is going to end up with an empty bag.
Will California ever be able to satisfy the other critical criteria, namely a satisfactory NEPA (environmental impact study)? We're talking about California where if there is a rare fungus amongus, it will supercede all superspeed train proposals. So sure as you're born there's nada gonna be a bullet train in California before y'er dead and gone.
Well, that 12:1 now drops to about 5:1.
Low hangin' fruit often gets picked.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
I will simply say:
ALWAYS have a Plan B. In my lifetime, every public policy event I have observed which "bets on the come" with only a single plan has had an "Oh, ####!" moment, when the plan failed.
Redundancy provides resiliency.
Of course, we should know the winners and losers by January.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
From another forum:
Looks like the Adminsitration is proposing $1B for FY 10 HSR. $8B down payment? More like $8B payoff. There are reports the House wants to bump that number to $4B. Lord knows what the Senate wants to do.
Those who are chasing HSR Feddybux would do well to 1) Comply in apps with the 110MPH expectation of HSR to increase their chances of surviving policy analyst screenout; 2) Have a Plan B, and 3) have a Plan C for when the Administration gets told by its Chinese bankers it can't do quite as many things as it wants to do.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Thank you Dr. Utt for holding my views and expressing them, so far as I'm concerned, in a fair and balanced manner to a wider constituency than I can expect to command at this forum.
While some of your past presentations regarding rail passenger service have about as much 'balance' as does a Glen, Rush, Sean, or Sarah rant, in this instance you are quite "on mark'.
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
Has the question been posed: HOW MANY PEOPLE NEED HIGH SPEED RAIL?
Certainly not the casual travelers as I am about to be for a family Thanksgiving 1100 miles away. And I suggest not the business traveler going less than 200 miles where 15-30 minutes out of the day are not significant. Then who needs it?
Those who must travel more than 200 miles perhaps in some circumstances where time is of the essence; but then they may opt for something that is suited to their specific needs like a private, or for hire, plane.
I suggest, probably to few listeners, that we should make some determination of who and how many really need HSR.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
RRCHINA,
What we need is higher speed rail, and better linkage of city pairs, such that air and auto are less the transportation option than they are now. Eric Bowen's streamliner schedules website, comparing route to route, glaringly shows that rail's velocity of advance is actually decreasing, not increasing.
Three examples, all based on my home city of KC:
- KC - Dallas: 2 hours by air, 8 hours by auto. If NFA gets the deed done, their rate of advance will be a so-what, who cares (IMO) of 10 hours. Why ride the slower medium?
KC- St Louis: Really too short for air. The airport time now all but eats up the savings over auto. 4 hours by car, 6 hours by train.
KC-Chicago: Two hours by air, 9 hours by auto (depending on route), 12 hours by rail (unless you take the direct 1x daily 3-4, then 10 hours).
We do need higher speed rail.
I
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
Pullman, with all respect I see that you have not addressed my point; WHO AND HOW MANY.
Yes, many similar comparisons to those you submitted may be made and if the only reason for traveling is to get from one to the other with no consideration given to: 1. How do you get to the onloading point. 2. How do you get from unloading to destination. 3. Are there any intermediate stops along way that you wish to make, business or not. 4. Does it really matter how long it takes you if you are on a personal trip, maybe sometimes.
Then after weighing these, and perhaps more, WHO AND HOW MANY NEED HSR.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by CG96: What concerns me is that the backlash that is building against the present day Congress and political party in power will result, in two years, in the election of those who will oppose or work to roll back what ever advances and (moderately) higher speed rail projects that are underway at the time.
It would appear from the "rhetortainment" spilling about on cable news outlets (and one in particular of course) such could be the case. However, let it all die down and recognize that rail passenger transportation, be it commuter, Corridors, or LD, have all enjoyed strong, and continuing, public acceptance. If the conservative majorities in both Houses (Republicans and "swing" Democrats) impede the growth of necessary rail passenger services (let's not get into differing opinions between this author and much of the membership here regarding LD's), then they may be the ones that have to listen to the "what happened to my trains?' from a constituency outside of the advocacy community.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
My thoughts two days after the election:
$10B is in the wild, having been awarded.
HSR funding may not be appropriated in the 112th Congress.
Hope everyone has a Plan B and Plan C for funding...
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Since when is any of that money really going to HSR? Much of it is going to "upgrading" existing Amtrak service to 110 mph, that I saw (thanks to the FRA, that means Class 6 tracks, cab signals and some manner of ATC).
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
IC,
My point is simple: There will not be any new $$$ in the 112th Congress. That $10B is what will be...
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Not really relevant. The vaunted $8 billion or $10 billion seemed to disappear down a rathole.
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
Will this work the same way as the stimulus created jobs? The money was sent to states and citys for "job creation" instead the states and cities used it to make payroll. So this money will be released then it will be found the project is not doable but while not putting it back to save money it will be spent on slapping a new coat of paint on an old sidecar?
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)