High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[Lakelander]

Scott is now backtracking and has been given an extra week to review:

High Speed rail has in Florida has another week before the federal government euthanizes it.

On Friday U.S. Secretary of Transprotation Ray LaHood announced that he has given the state of Florida another week to come up with a workable high speed rail plan between Orlando and Tampa.

Gov. Rick Scott announced earlier this month that he was rejecting $2.4 billion in state money to build a high speed rail corridor. Even though the total cost was estimated at $2.7 billion, with a private partner likely paying for the final $300 million, Scott argued that the state could be responsible for cost overruns.

Florida officials like Congressman John Mica, Senator Bill Nelson and officials from Tampa, Miami and Orlando have been trying to come up with a plan that would save the project. Scott has repeatedly rejected these efforts, but LaHood said he met with Scott on Friday and still wanted to find a solution.

LaHood's entire written statement is below.

Secretary Ray LaHood: “This morning I met with Governor Rick Scott to discuss the high speed rail project that will create jobs and economic development for the entire state of Florida. He asked me for additional information about the state’s role in this project, the responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as how the state would be protected from liability. I have decided to give Governor Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation. He has committed to making a final decision by the end of next week. I feel we owe it to the people of Florida, who have been working to bring high speed rail to their state for the last 20 years, to go the extra mile.”

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog...igh-speed-rail

[bobdreamz]

^ great! Just an extra week of torturing Floridians so he can say NO again! Thanks for the info Lakelander.

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If Colorado can build HSR in the I-70 corridor - which stumped interstate highway engineers for decades - surely Penna can build HSR through the Alleghenies.

It is certainly feasible to build a true HSR corridor from Harrisburg PA to Pittsburgh with modern tunneling technology, it just won't be inexpensive. There are a lot of closely spaced long mountain ridges with valleys between Harrisburg and Altoona. The politics of a route to Pittsburgh would likely put considerable pressure on a HSR corridor to run through Altoona and Johnstown and not skip them by going south of the steepest terrain as the PA Turnpike did.

In Colorado, I think the plan is to take advantage of the 6% grade capability of EMUs, so the HSR line would mostly just climb right up the Rocky mountains which are big enough so that the base of the slopes are not that steep. The Appalachian mountains running through the center of PA, are no where as high as the Rockies of course, but have steep slopes with deep valleys. To get to Altoona or Johnstown and onto Pittsburgh in something resembling a straight HSR corridor, will involve of lot of tunneling. Which will take many years of engineering study, design, construction to build.

Don't know if there is enough political support in PA for them to start a PA HSR group which would lay the groundwork with the years of route alternatives and EIS studies needed to make someday getting funding to build a HSR line connecting Pittsburgh to Philly and thus the NEC a possibility.

[Beta_Magellan]

Even though I feel like I’m more positive on Tampa-Orlando than most on this board, I have to second bobdreamz’s comment. Not only is it an extra week of torture for Floridians, but an extra week of torture for all those state DOT’s waiting to see if they’ll get money.

[afiggatt]

Secretary Ray LaHood: “This morning I met with Governor Rick Scott to discuss the high speed rail project that will create jobs and economic development for the entire state of Florida. He asked me for additional information about the state’s role in this project, the responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as how the state would be protected from liability. I have decided to give Governor Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation. He has committed to making a final decision by the end of next week. I feel we owe it to the people of Florida, who have been working to bring high speed rail to their state for the last 20 years, to go the extra mile.”

I have to wonder what LaHood was really thinking during the meeting with Gov. Scott. Smiling and putting on the polite political face while thinking, "I'm trying to give your state $2.4 BILLION DOLLARS of federal money with remarkably few strings attached, you <bleep><bleep> idiot. And THIS is the crap I get?"

[Lakelander]

Maybe this has something to do with Rick Scott's request for more time to reconsider:

The high-speed train between Orlando and Tampa got an unexpected one-week reprieve Friday, just hours after Gov. Rick Scott again rejected $2.4 billion in federal money for the project.

The sudden shift may have been triggered by a possible lawsuit against Scott contending he has overstepped his authority by killing the train. The suit, which could be filed as soon as Monday, is expected to argue that a law passed by the Legislature during a special session in 2009 compels Scott to pursue the train.

Two sources close to the situation said the suit likely would be filed with the state Supreme Court in Tallahassee. It was unclear who would sign on to it.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., first approached U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about an extension Thursday. An aide to Nelson said the senator was acting on behalf of "a member of the Legislature who is part of a group that is considering suing the governor."

In Washington, LaHood said in a statement Friday that he had "decided to give Gov. Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7534383.story

[bobdreamz]

^ from the article posted above:

Criticizing the extension was state Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who voted for high-speed rail in 2009, but later decided he was against it.

"Adding another week to the deadline for Florida to take $2.4 billion to build high speed rail won't change my mind,'' Haridopolos said. "No means no. Why is Washington working so hard to spend money it doesn't have? Instead of letting that money burn a hole in his pocket, Secretary LaHood should send it back to the federal treasury."

Another moron who thinks HSR money can be returned back to the Treasury! They should start the lawsuit against Scott on Monday regardless if he has until next Friday to decide. Let's see how he enjoys having to battle this in court!

[Lakelander]

I would definitely file the suit. Scott has no desire to change his mind. He's now claiming LaHood begged him to agree to an extension and that he's doing it out of respect.

[Kngkyle]

The more this draws out the more I hope he doesn't take it. Neither Tampa nor Orlando have any regional rail infrastructure to support high speed rail. If you can't get from your home to the HSR terminal without using a car then you might as well just drive all the way to your final destination. Having to drive to the station, park, wait for the train, and board will just negate any time saved from the actual trip. Plus it will likely cost just as much if not more than it does to drive. And then when you get to your destination you don't have a car and have no real transit options other than walk or crappy bus service.

I dunno. I don't think it should happen until Tampa and Orlando get serious about mass transit. Hillsborough county residents voting no for additional transit funding shows that this time hasn't come yet. Yea I know Orlando is planning a single commuter rail line but that is years away and only one line.

I just can't see the justification for giving 2.4 billion for this project when there are so many others around the country that already have the transit infrastructure, public support, and political willpower needed to make a HSR line successful.

I think perhaps a better HSR "example project" would be the Chicago-St. Louis line. It already has over 1,500 daily riders, is in a state that supports HSR and mass transit, and connects three times as many people.

[daperpkazoo]

I hope MN gets some planning/prelim engineering money out of it, since our STP-CHI line was scuttled by Wisconsin. The Rochester area chamber of commerce has put together branding and an effort to get money for a line from the Twin Cities to hook up with the proposed Chi-Omaha line in Iowa City. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton met with Lahood and Quinn (IL gov) about the possibility of a line through southeast MN to hook up with the CHI-Omaha line and connect Minneapolis and Chicago without having to deal with Wisconsin.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...gh-speed-rail/

[Lakelander]

Kngkyle,

The Tampa/Orlando HSR line is phase 1 of a much larger statewide intercity network. In addition, Tampa already has an approved BRT system and Orlando's Sunrail commuter rail will be operational before this HSR line is completed (assuming Scott doesn't kill it too). Thus I'd say, these communities are taking mass transit seriously and that there will be significant opportunity to leave your car in the garage as these systems come online.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by daperpkazoo

I hope MN gets some planning/prelim engineering money out of it, since our STP-CHI line was scuttled by Wisconsin. The Rochester area chamber of commerce has put together branding and an effort to get money for a line from the Twin Cities to hook up with the proposed Chi-Omaha line in Iowa City. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton met with Lahood and Quinn (IL gov) about the possibility of a line through southeast MN to hook up with the CHI-Omaha line and connect Minneapolis and Chicago without having to deal with Wisconsin.

If that’s the route they’re going to take, I hope Minnesota doesn’t get anything. SNCF studied Chicago-Minneapolis a while back and found it competitive with air travel and having good potential to make operating profits. However, this was due to the fact that SNCF was only concerned with connecting the largest travel markets—Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Milwaukee. This meant taking the most direct route possible, using a straight highway ROW to run between Madison and Eau Claire (they didn’t go into much detail about the Madison connection, but I’m pretty sure it would have been a suburban one to minimize travel times) and then heading straight to the Twin Cities. It’s how HSR should be planned in this country—quick and as-direct-as-possible links between major cities which can be competitive with air travel.

Even if Minneapolis-Chicago via Iowa is technically viable to build (and I’m not sure it is—we touched on this a few pages ago and someone noted that the ROW in Minnesota’s pretty curvy), I doubt it would be as viable to operate. It’s less direct, which adds travel time and capital cost, and there’s no intermediate stop on the route with the same population as Milwaukee. Furthermore, a Minneapolis-Chicago line really does need to be built to a 200+ mph standard, whereas from all appearances this looks like a 110-mph higher-speed-than-Amtrak route. 110-mph upgrades are okay for certain corridors, like Chicago-Omaha, but for a market as lucrative as Chicago-MSP you really want to built real HSR, and settling for 110-mph service now makes it harder to fund 200-mph service later (and Iowa can be just as nuts as Wisconsin, so there’s political instability no matter which route you take).

Also, it’s likely that Rochester’s been cooking ridership numbers to support its case. The comment thread on this Transport Politic post serves as a pretty good takedown of a 2009 HSR study’s numbers.

[daperpkazoo]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

If that’s the route they’re going to take, I hope Minnesota doesn’t get anything. SNCF studied Chicago-Minneapolis a while back and found it competitive with air travel and having good potential to make operating profits. However, this was due to the fact that SNCF was only concerned with connecting the largest travel markets—Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Milwaukee. This meant taking the most direct route possible, using a straight highway ROW to run between Madison and Eau Claire (they didn’t go into much detail about the Madison connection, but I’m pretty sure it would have been a suburban one to minimize travel times) and then heading straight to the Twin Cities. It’s how HSR should be planned in this country—quick and as-direct-as-possible links between major cities which can be competitive with air travel.

Even if Minneapolis-Chicago via Iowa is technically viable to build (and I’m not sure it is—we touched on this a few pages ago and someone noted that the ROW in Minnesota’s pretty curvy), I doubt it would be as viable to operate. It’s less direct, which adds travel time and capital cost, and there’s no intermediate stop on the route with the same population as Milwaukee. Furthermore, a Minneapolis-Chicago line really does need to be built to a 200+ mph standard, whereas from all appearances this looks like a 110-mph higher-speed-than-Amtrak route. 110-mph upgrades are okay for certain corridors, like Chicago-Omaha, but for a market as lucrative as Chicago-MSP you really want to built real HSR, and settling for 110-mph service now makes it harder to fund 200-mph service later (and Iowa can be just as nuts as Wisconsin, so there’s political instability no matter which route you take).

Also, it’s likely that Rochester’s been cooking ridership numbers to support its case. The comment thread on this Transport Politic post serves as a pretty good takedown of a 2009 HSR study’s numbers.

Actually, if you look at that very same Transport Politic post, you will see that it is the "River Route", (the current Amtrak route and the route that was proposed for running through through Madison) that has *176* curves, giving it a maximum speed of 90mph regardless of upgrades. As you will see in the post, it is the Rochester route whose ROW could support future 200+ mph operation.

Additionally, his comparison between the Rochester route and the Keystone Corridor in PA isn't very good, IMO. Rochester is currently over twice the size of Harrisburg, and growing very rapidly. Also, Rochester is dominated by Mayo, which makes up nearly 1/3 of the city's employment. The vast majority of Mayo's patients come from the Twin Cities or fly in via MSP International, not to mention most of those top-class doctors don't want to spend all their time in little ol' Rochester, and many drive up to the cities pretty regularly. EDIT: I now see that Harrisburg *does* have a much larger metro population than Rochester.

I'll admit, the ridership is probably somewhat inflated because they propose a stop at MSP International, which is unlikely to be built; it will probably only stop at the SPUD in Saint Paul. With the Riverview LRT unlikely to be built within our lifetimes, that's kind of a nasty LRT ride to get to the SPUD from the airport. It's possible that a stop would be built at the airport, but I don't see it happening, not only because Ramsey County would probably be against it, but because there are no convenient railroad bridges, and building a pair of new ones (or even just one) would jack the cost up 300 million at the least.

Also, at least if running through Rochester and then Winona, the travel times are 11 minutes faster at 110 mph, and would drop even further as speed is upgraded, even though the route is 21 miles longer. And really, this is what we're talking about. Dayton was mostly looking for funding for Rochester-MSP, not all the way down to Iowa City, though he has apparently talked about it. I find it unlikely that we would really get it built all the way through before the end of Walker's term or before he wakes up.

[sammyg]

I would think that a MSP-Rochester-LaCrosse-Madison route would be accessible to more people, and given the current situation in Wisconsin, would at least serve Minnesotans.

And if Wisconsin continues being a roadblock, there's always the roundabout Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque-Rochester-MSP route.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by daperpkazoo

Actually, if you look at that very same Transport Politic post, you will see that it is the "River Route", (the current Amtrak route and the route that was proposed for running through through Madison) that has *176* curves, giving it a maximum speed of 90mph regardless of upgrades. As you will see in the post, it is the Rochester route whose ROW could support future 200+ mph operation.

I don’t quibble with that—my issue was more about the idea of going from MSP to Chicago via Iowa and pointing out that the most direct route would bypass Rochestester and Winona altogether, going to Madison via Eau Claire. I should have linked to the SNCF study: it’s here. I should caution that it’s a large pdf, but the first page has a map of their plan.

I also checked their travel times against MWHSR’s Chicago Hub Network. Belying my expectations, SNCF’s estimates for an MSP-Chicago via Eau Claire were only three minutes less than MWHSR’s route via Rochester and LaCrosse. My first inclination was to assume that the MWHSR figures were more optimistic due to being more back-of-the-envelope (with the exception of St. Louis, I couldn’t find a detailed bullet train time study). After all, going from Madison to LaCrosse you either have to go through the Empire Builder’s somewhat curvy route through a lot of small towns or along the highway. Both of those options mean turning southwest after Tomah, whereas the Eau Claire route would never really stray from its northwestern course. However, SNCF’s travel time estimates were actually shorter by than MWHSR’s in every case, even ones where there wasn’t any real difference in route choice, so maybe there isn’t actually an appreciable difference in travel time between the two options (Chicago-MSP actually has the smallest time difference between the two conceptual networks). Maybe the main difference is in cost…does anyone have anything more info on this?

Originally Posted by sammyg

I would think that a MSP-Rochester-LaCrosse-Madison route would be accessible to more people, and given the current situation in Wisconsin, would at least serve Minnesotans.

Well, there’s a difference between providing HSR service for more Minnesotans and attracting more Minnesotans to HSR. The main travel market for the corridor would not be Rochester-Minneapolis or Eau Claire-Minneapolis but MSP-Chicago, and if sacrificing one of those options would end up reducing travel time you might end up attracting more traffic skipping a city than serving it. On a related note, a less desirable-seeming corridor may have a lower cost/passenger, which would in theory make it more financially viable although it might pick up more political support by taking a less cost-effective route.

And if Wisconsin continues being a roadblock, there's always the roundabout Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque-Rochester-MSP route.

Well, that would be so roundabout that such a service would have little hope of being competitive or cost-effective, and as I said above there’s nothing keeping Iowa from going anti-rail as well.

[ardecila]

I'm fine with a Twin Cities-Rochester-Iowa City-Chicago line, but only as a 79mph regional service. I see nothing wrong with providing "orbital" connections in the Chicago Hub network, as long as we don't try to make them high-speed. Such a line would also tie in Waterloo and Cedar Rapids (nearly a half-million people) and allow for Twin Cities-Des Moines trains. I feel the same about a Champaign-Lafayette line which, in conjunction with Illinois' 220mph line, would allow StL-Indy trains.

Every other nation in the world has a dense network of slow-speed trains, a context in which high-speed trains make sense. We in America seem to think high-speed trains connecting only major cities are the only good form of investment. Part of the reason rail funding is facing such opposition is because places like Cedar Rapids and Waterloo don't have train service and urban elites don't think it's worthwhile to give them train service.



Minnesota's current plans are to build a greenfield HSR line connecting St. Paul to Rochester, designed for 220mph speeds but unelectrified and operating at 110mph. Electrification and actual 220mph service would come in a later phase.

Any links from Rochester into Iowa is purely speculative right now, but - if built - will probably happen on existing tracks and the train would operate at slow speed. That's fine... and it's all part of building a viable Midwest network, not just an express route to Chicago. If scheduled properly, it would also provide a second and/or third train between Chicago and St. Paul with roughly the same travel time as the Empire Builder (8h10).

[VivaLFuego]

...................

[Lakelander]

Here is an update on the Florida HSR situation:

Sens. Arthenia Joyner, Thad Altman sue Gov. Rick Scott over high-speed rail
By Janet Zink and Alex Leary, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE — Two senators, Democrat Arthenia Joyner and Republican Thad Altman, filed a lawsuit Tuesday to stop Gov. Rick Scott from killing high-speed rail.

The suit asks the Florida Supreme Court to order Scott to "expeditiously accept" $2.4 billion in federal money and asks for an injunction if necessary.

Altman, a Republican from Melbourne, said they might need more time from U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to allow the suit to make its way through the Supreme Court process.

Joyner, a Democrat from Tampa, said that by refusing bullet-train money, Scott is costing jobs in Florida.

"It's all about jobs and getting Florida back to work," she said, echoing Scott's campaign motto.

Altman and Joyner are listed as petitioners. Scott is listed as the sole respondent. The attorney for the senators is Clifton McClelland, Jr. from Melbourne.

Scott first rejected the money Feb. 16, setting off a scramble by federal, state and local officials to circumvent him and save the long-planned project that would connect Orlando to Tampa. Scott said he would only agree to a plan that alleviates any financial risk to Florida taxpayers.

Local governments, including Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, formed a coalition they said would assume responsibility for putting the project out to bid and ensuring that a private company would cover any construction cost overruns, operating losses due to low ridership, and the obligation to pay back the federal funds if the project failed.

It was presented to Scott last week, but he has said it does not alleviate his concerns.

On Friday in Washington, Scott met with LaHood, who later said he was giving the state until the end of the week to work something out. The move bought time for the Florida lawmakers to prepare the lawsuit.

Scott seemed unconcerned about the possibility of being sued when asked about it Friday. "My job is as governor of the state to act in the best interest of the taxpayers, and that's what I'm doing," he said.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...d-rail/1154516

[northbay]

"My job is as governor of the state to act in the best interest of the taxpayers, and that's what I'm doing"

there you go, he doesn't care about people without jobs since they don't pay taxes.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by northbay

"My job is as governor of the state to act in the best interest of the taxpayers, and that's what I'm doing"

there you go, he doesn't care about people without jobs since they don't pay taxes.

WRONG!
Since Florida doesn't collect income taxes, one doesn't need a job to pay taxes. Taxpayers in Florida are everyone who spend money, and that includes those who accept unemployment checks...