High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[hammersklavier]

True...I was kinda thinking of the Tea Party as the epitome of ideological in(s)anity. Some part of me wonders if (when) the urban Republicans will quit putting up with their more extremist rural peers, but has been noted on this board and elsewhere, there have been Republican mayors who have been successful in getting funds for urban stuff...it would be cool, for example, if the successful urban Republicans could figure out how to form a power bloc so that we would get fewer rural Repubs at higher levels of power.

In any event, the Tea Party, per their already-established M.O., is intractably opposed to spending any money on non-road-based transportation, mostly because (a) it doesn't really benefit rural constituencies and (b) it's being boosted by (gasp!) Obama...my politics are more along the lines of selling the Interstate highways, using the proceeds to build up a good passenger rail system, and then selling off slots on the system and using those proceeds to finance...er...something else. In any event, the government really has to take on the role of infrastructure provider for the service providers...

[waltlantz]

I'm just an average joe but am really interested in the state of our transit network. Think we are getting ahead of our selves though.

I'm NO expert and I know my opinions are simple but hear me out.

The key is selling it on various levels.

Naturally High speed rail seems like a great idea, Japan and Europe are precedent.

One thing about them is, THEY DIDN'T CRIPPLE EXISTING SERVICE. It was cut back, sure particularly when car ownership rose over time. But in major metro areas, Rail usage was still plentiful and popular and to a lesser extent the same with inter city transit.

Here there was not the same stable stewardship of the National Rail Service after private companies really started croaking in the 30s-40s and ESPECIALLY after the war. Rail was nigh obliterated in comparison to other countries.

Therefore you have at least a generation of people with no experience, no precedence and overlooking the recession, it's really hard to get the country to write off on such big public works programs anyway.

I know High speed rail sounds nice, and I am actually very much for it's implementation in the future.

Still, I see it as somewhat cart before the horse and some basic things need to be done.

ONE. REFORM STATE AND FEDERAL TRANSIT AUTHORITES. FTA does give some funding to rail but not nearly enough. State DOTs are DORs; Departments of Roads. Probably the only states where rail interests have any real STRONG appeal in state DOTs are New York and Illinois and to a lesser extent some NE Corridor states. In Georgia, the state DOT doesn't give ONE CENT to the biggest city's rail service!

TWO. IMPROVE EXISTING SERVICE. People have to believe Amtrak is actually useful. To those outside the North East corridor, how useful is it really for long haul trips?

There is such low frequency of service through such oddly routed swaths of nowhere on many lines. I read somewhere that in a super nutshell basically says; Short trips=Cars, Long Trips=Plane, Trains are in that middle. I see little point in a line the length of our cross country interstates given our population density outside certain regions, which I see Amtrak having to run service on.

Service should be more focused on lines where people ARE and want to GO. Likely some tough cuts would be up for lines that run through the Mountains and Breadbasket, but there are so few people there, service doesn't make much sense to me. Add to the fact that some large cities like Pheonix and Nashville have no service and are bypassed by routes in rather sparsely populated areas.

Do this on a more regionalized focused level, show trains make sense (I know they do, but we need work on the PR angle) and then you can embark on a big Bullet Train spree.

THREE. WORK THE CHARM OFFENSIVE. Ain't no way the Highways got built without a great AD campaign. A targeted (yet big scale) focused intelligent charm offensive and educational project needs to be done. It's too fragmented right now to work, you can't expect people to just fall in line with what a buncha transit geeks say. (I mean no offense, we need geeks in all fields but you know gotta show how it works for the common man).

In America, we will have to alternate between showing buisness people being interested and invested in a rail service (Private Enterprise) while doing the tough job of telling people, that rail service's benefit cannot be measured by it's profit but by it's intangibles. This is very difficult and has to be done in a systematic fashion (with actual new and successive successes to highlight but it can be done).

IN SHORT

If Road vs. Rail focus is 90-10 lets try and get it to be 70-30 or something, that's the message that should be clearly pushed and understood.

The train will never usurp the car in total market share I know that, according to some reports I read, it doesn't even do that in Japan nationally for passenger miles. BUT A BETTER RATIO IS POSSIBLE WHILE NOT DECIMATING CAR RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE NATIONALLY, this will be the key in selling America on a stronger rail service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if anything I say here is amatuer or uneducated. I am a transit advocate myself and am supportive of good public transit, I am not anti-car either though and I think that has to be part of the message.

If Road vs. Rail focus is 90-10 lets try and get it to be 70-30 or something, the train will never usurp the car in total market share I know that, according to some reports I read, it doesn't even do that in Japan nationally for passenger miles. BUT A BETTER RATIO IS POSSIBLE WHILE NOT DECIMATING CAR RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE NATIONALLY, this will be the key in selling it.

I am all for better cities and better transit, I just think that we are going about it backwards or inside out.

[electricron]

90/10 or 70/30 splits between highways or railways should make a great debate, or will it.....

What really exists today. Let's use Texas statistics for an example.
TXDOT doesn't spend much for transit up to today. But that doesn't mean Texas doesn't spend much on transit. Texas highway tax revenues are approximately $16 billion over 2 years. Of that $16 billion, there will be $1.2 billion of diversions. That leaves $14.8 billion, or $7.4 billion/year left for TXDOT to build, maintain, and police highways for the entire state.
Meanwhile, transit is financed by sales tax revenues within the state.
DART plans to collect $387.8 million in FY 2010.
CapMetro plans to collect $56.8 million in FY2010.
METRO plans to collect $500.9 million in FY 2010.
VIA plans to collect $91.4 million in FY 2010.
That's a sub-total for transit of $923.3 million for FY 2010 from just the four largest metros in Texas...

Adding the transit 0.9 billion/year to the highway $7.4 billion/year, we reach a total of $8.3 billion. Of that, 10.8% is spent on transit and 89.2% is spent on highways. I guess that's your 90/10 split.

But the point I want to make is that this 90/10 split is the result of two different taxing schemes. One would have to completely revamp Texas taxes to arrive at a 70/30 split between highways and transit.

The reason why the existing tax scheme is acceptable to the majority of Texans is because the highway taxes are collected and distribute state wide, while the transit taxes are collected and distributed city wide. Rural residents aren't forced to support urban transit. Mess with that, and the entire funding compromise breaks down....

How do you propose to achieve your 70/30 split?

[JDRCRASH]

Let's turn the private industry theory against Republicans: Why did they let the oil and tire companies degrade America's rail industry? Why not allow the rail industry to take over again?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Let's turn the private industry theory against Republicans: Why did they let the oil and tire companies degrade America's rail industry? Why not allow the rail industry to take over again?

I think the GOP would reject the notion that the oil, tire, etc. industries were doing anything other than following the will of the people... despite ample evidence to the contrary.

[202_Cyclist]

Lawmakers to launch passenger rail caucus

By Keith Laing
03/14/11
The Hill

"Seeking to defend President Obama’s high-speed rail initiative from conservative criticisms, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and several House members plan to announce the creation of a bicameral rail caucus.

Dubbed the “Congressional Bicameral High-Speed & Intercity Passenger Rail Caucus,” the group is to consist of Democrats from states that were included in Obama’s vision to create a nationwide network of railways that rivals the interstate highway system.

Lautenberg and Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), John Oliver (D-Mass.), Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), David Price (D-N.C.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.) will jointly chair the caucus, which will be unveiled at a press conference Tuesday at Union Station..."

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...er-rail-caucus

[waltlantz]

Originally Posted by electricron

90/10 or 70/30 splits between highways or railways should make a great debate, or will it.....

What really exists today. Let's use Texas statistics for an example.
TXDOT doesn't spend much for transit up to today. But that doesn't mean Texas doesn't spend much on transit. Texas highway tax revenues are approximately $16 billion over 2 years. Of that $16 billion, there will be $1.2 billion of diversions. That leaves $14.8 billion, or $7.4 billion/year left for TXDOT to build, maintain, and police highways for the entire state.
Meanwhile, transit is financed by sales tax revenues within the state.
DART plans to collect $387.8 million in FY 2010.
CapMetro plans to collect $56.8 million in FY2010.
METRO plans to collect $500.9 million in FY 2010.
VIA plans to collect $91.4 million in FY 2010.
That's a sub-total for transit of $923.3 million for FY 2010 from just the four largest metros in Texas...

Adding the transit 0.9 billion/year to the highway $7.4 billion/year, we reach a total of $8.3 billion. Of that, 10.8% is spent on transit and 89.2% is spent on highways. I guess that's your 90/10 split.

But the point I want to make is that this 90/10 split is the result of two different taxing schemes. One would have to completely revamp Texas taxes to arrive at a 70/30 split between highways and transit.

The reason why the existing tax scheme is acceptable to the majority of Texans is because the highway taxes are collected and distribute state wide, while the transit taxes are collected and distributed city wide. Rural residents aren't forced to support urban transit. Mess with that, and the entire funding compromise breaks down....

How do you propose to achieve your 70/30 split?

Well man, you largely schooled me.

Still, I think that you have to improve local transit and regional amtrak to higher levels before you can reasonably expect a successful push for High Speed Rail nationally.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

Well man, you largely schooled me.

Still, I think that you have to improve local transit and regional amtrak to higher levels before you can reasonably expect a successful push for High Speed Rail nationally.

Yes but urban residents who may rarely use highways are forced to subsidize rural highways.....this is peculiarity galling in the CHicago area where the overwhelming population center is transit starved by rural resistance; yet rural highways are overfunded given there use level


I can't imagine a highway in Mentone , TX getting much use!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Dubbed the “Congressional Bicameral High-Speed & Intercity Passenger Rail Caucus,” the group is to consist of Democrats from states that were included in Obama’s vision to create a nationwide network of railways that rivals the interstate highway system.

That's misleading. This caucus doesn't advocate for rail in general, it advocates for continuing a very specific way to fund and operate rail (that is, Amtrak).

This caucus is useless unless it's bipartisan. I'm sure there are Republicans like Mark Kirk who would join the caucus.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Yes but urban residents who may rarely use highways are forced to subsidize rural highways.....this is peculiarity galling in the Chicago area where the overwhelming population center is transit starved by rural resistance; yet rural highways are overfunded given there use level
I can't imagine a highway in Mentone, TX getting much use!

They probably don't. But it's a small, twisty two-lane tar chip highway with stop signs and stop lights at intersections you'll see in Mentone, TX; while you'll see huge ten-lanes or more concrete paved controlled access highways in Dallas and Houston.
Whatever 4 lanes highways you'll see in Mentone, if there are any, it's there to move intercity and interstate traffic from Dallas and Houston through Mentone; not for the tiny amount of local traffic generated in Mentone.

[mhays]

Anytime you have a road with little use....it's a huge amount of cost per vehicle and by moderately-parallel extension a huge amount per resident.

Rural roads are in fact funded massively by states in general, mostly with money from cities. Rural areas generally don't have the sort of money it takes to build these roads, or maintain them in many cases.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mhays

Anytime you have a road with little use....it's a huge amount of cost per vehicle and by moderately-parallel extension a huge amount per resident.

Rural roads are in fact funded massively by states in general, mostly with money from cities. Rural areas generally don't have the sort of money it takes to build these roads, or maintain them in many cases.

True. But my argument is that a good share of the vehicles on rural highways originate and/or terminate their trip in cities.

[202_Cyclist]

Feds allow northeast states to compete for Florida high-speed rail money

By Keith Laing
03/15/11
The Hill

"Reversing an earlier decision, the Department of Transportation this week designated the Northeast as a federal rail corridor.

The decision means the Northeast will be able to compete for $2.4 billion in high-speed rail funds that were rejected by Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Lawmakers from the region had pressed the administration for the decision.

“Given the Northeast Corridor's strong track record with high-speed rail and the region's high gross domestic product, improvements to the Corridor's rail service would be a smart investment of Florida's rejected high-speed rail funds,” senators from New Jersey, Delaware and Connecticut wrote this week in a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood..."

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...rail-corridor-

[waltlantz]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Yes but urban residents who may rarely use highways are forced to subsidize rural highways.....this is peculiarity galling in the CHicago area where the overwhelming population center is transit starved by rural resistance; yet rural highways are overfunded given there use level


I can't imagine a highway in Mentone , TX getting much use!

I assume by Urban you mean to say City and suburb right?

Even if you are to say just city, only a few I can think of that would match your description. NYC, Portland, San Fransisco..........highway mode share is relatively high for many people in urban centers relative to other cities globally. It gets even more so when you factor in the suburbs that feed a lot of the city's work force.

[mhays]

By "city" I mean "urban agglomeration," regardless of aministrative boundaries.

[Jasonhouse]

Some of you will be happy to hear this bit of news...


Florida is 100% for sure out of the running and will not even bid for its own funds that will soon be redistributed by the feds. Amtrak backed out of the pending deal with a local consortium of cities due to time constraints.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...cle1158137.ece

[Lakelander]

This means the only Florida project that will be bidding for the money will be the FEC/Amtrak proposal to bring 90mph corridor service between Jacksonville and Miami down the state's east coast. It won't be HSR but it will save about three hours off the current route and directly serve the state's populated east coast. I believe they need about $142 million to get it built.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

I assume by Urban you mean to say City and suburb right?

Even if you are to say just city, only a few I can think of that would match your description. NYC, Portland, San Fransisco..........highway mode share is relatively high for many people in urban centers relative to other cities globally. It gets even more so when you factor in the suburbs that feed a lot of the city's work force.

Within the city of Chicago for instance the Auto mode share is approx 60%; Transit comes in around 27%; the balance is made up off biking and walking.

Now that 60% is probably not even 1/3 highway driving total...but I don't know that number off hand

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Now that 60% is probably not even 1/3 highway driving total...but I don't know that number off hand

The Chicago region in general relies far more on its arterial roads than on expressways. We have the lowest number of expressway lane-miles per capita of any US city. That's why sensible additions to the expressway network should be pursued.

I really hope Illinois can finally get the $2.5 million to begin a study of the 220mph line to St. Louis. It's a tiny amount, but it can get the ball rolling on the biggest project in the Midwest since the Sanitary and Ship Canal.

[Jenner]

I doubt that such a train would travel 220 in Illinois, given that it would still be using freight lines (which I think the Federal government has restricted to 150mph max), as well as many at grade crossings. Even if they had high speed rail to St Louis or Indianapolis, I'm not sure what kind of ridership they would have. It might appeal to some of the business class, since it would be an alternative to flying; however, it would be slower. For those who are on more leisurely trips, most likely they would drive, since they would probably need their vehicle to travel around the city, and it wouldn't be economical to rent a car.