See link from today’s Railway Track and Structures:
http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/fra-high-speed-rail-effort-draws-fire.html
John Timm
What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it’s implementation.
I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is.
I will not pursue it any further.
It’s election year and we are definitely well into the political silly season. Looks like another politico hopping on the anti-government express to NOwhere.
I can see all kinds of oppositions/conflicts/political kung fu fighting coming out of this thing
No way am I touching this anymore than what I said—[:-^]
Good, that means I can get the last word on this.
It is indeed unsurprising that a Republican is objecting to the 8 billion for passenger rail expansion. There are some exceptions, but Republicans are not that keen on trains and especially passenger trains. This is something I have experienced first hand going back 40 years.
The other thing is that some Democrats support passenger trains and HSR, but it is by far the minority of Democrats (the Amtrak frequent-rider Vice President?) – for most it is not that big of a priority. I also have personal experience with that scheduling media events in support of passenger rail.
To get passenger rail off “dead center” as it has been since the inception of Amtrak nearly 40 years ago, the passenger train advocacy community needs to build a broader coalition than simply the minority of Democrats aligned with our view of things.
I guess it shouldn’t bother me that people in the advocacy community choose partisan sides, that is, identify opposition to trains broadly with one of the two political parties, rather than address the points raised by the individual politician in question. But it does bother me. Why? It means we will continue to be out in the wilderness and not get anywhere.
We could learn something from the example of Anthony Haswell from back in the days when he founded NARP. His newletter always featured a “Friend of Passenger Trains.” Most of the lauded politicians, I believe were Democrats – Claiborne Pell, whom we can credit with the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project, which gave us the Metroliner an
Rep John Mica of Florida IMHO takes a different view of HSR. This mirrors the differences that are spoken on this News Wire in different threads. His view is all HSR effort be placed on one - three projects and not do any work to incrementally improve several routes. If you read some of his other comments he was unhappy that the NEC did not get more money to speed those two segments up. He also seemed to think Florida did not get enough money (now is that any surprize?).
Hopefully he will work for a next grant. He was right that the FRA was slow on the awards but did he work for more people to analyze the requests?
It’s not one political party or another.
President Ronald Regan was a rail fan and member of the national Train Collectors Association. Some of his items are displayed at our National Toy Train Musem in Strasberg PA.
And the funny thing is----what if he’s right? If it got more money it might actually be a little ahead of the curve here.[:-^]
Rational analysis implies that we leave personal political opinions out. I shall offer some recent analysis of the California HSR scene which has far as I can tell has no political bias.
The CA voters approved a $9.95 billion bond issue which with interest will cost the state about $19.4 billion. This was for the approximately 800 mile system connecting Sacremento, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego with HSR all of which was said at that time to cost $45 Billion.
The state received $2.25 billion from the recent Federal stimulus appropriation.
Last year the planners revised the estimated cost of the first 520 mile segment from $33.6 to $42,6 billion.
Planners also revised the estimated 2030 ridership from 55 million per year to 41 million. As a comparison the Acela currently carries 3 million per year.
They also raised the projected cost of a ride from LA to SF from $55 to $105.
As we should all be aware given the history of goverment projects they always exceed estimates, sometimes by a factor of 2, 3 or 4 times. Should the CA voters be given another opportunity to vote on the bonds, perhaps. But they, and we, should see the handwriting and be prepared.
Not withstanding the possible impact on the industry, it seems a little strange that RT&S would pick up on a political piece rather than focus on technical aspects and leave the other to Railway Age.
A forumist involved in the process has assured us that the rules for evaluation were adhered to. Political hanky-panky was refreshingly absent. It was not the case that plans were developed after the grant; but that some states had done most of the work, including the political groundwork, prior to the announcement of the program and were ready to proceed for the projects that were funded. In a sense, the complaint was sour grapes.
I’m glad Illinois got something; but I’m surprised CHI-STL came out so high, given previous estimates. This obviously affected the resources available for other State improvements that didn’t make it.
Hold the phone.
Acela’s trip is 451 miles.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Not comparing, just offering information. But 520 miles from SF to LA is where the most of the passenger business is expected to be generated so you have offered a comparison I had not concieved.
Your are right. Even Don Philips in this month’s TRAINS Mag issue agrees that if the Republicans gain more power this year, HSR will stop dead in it’s tracks.
It’s not as much Republicans are not in favor of rail, they just don’t like the fact that Amtrak is a government run agency.
I am not making a political statement, I am just saying how Republicans view Amtrak & HSR. At least that is how I was taught in high school & college.
The political controversy over HSR has nothing whatsoever to do with trains. It is all about the public subsidy to build HSR versus the public need for HSR. One point of view is that the need is not great enough to justify the cost, and we don’t have the money. If it were being financed by private investors taking an investment risk with their own money, nobody would object.
Part of the political problem IMHO is that not all public subsidity is a USA problem. The many nations that have a public subsidy for rail are competing with the USA.
If most HSR operations can get their operating revenue above operating costs such as Acela then maybe there is hope. I wonder how much less on board labor costs contribute to the present Acela figures? Certainly higher speeds can reduce those costs if the crews can turn at end points rapidly. Also equipment utilization increases.
This still may be a case of apples and oranges if the San Joaquins, Surfliners, and Capitols are added in a role similar to the Regionals and Keystones in addition to the Acelas. Still, that’s a huge disparity that may not be supported by the difference in speed.
Hmmmm ?
Is that why the U.S. Government built hunderds of miles of Interstate Highways through Farm Country. We in the Northeast didn’t gain from that, Why not build Interstate Highways only where we have high populations ?
If you wait 45 minutes each morning to cross the “TZ” or “GW” bridges into New York, you will take the train if it is built. Airport delays, cancelations, and security – first choice is now “The Acela” (First and Business class) and “Northest Regional” (Business and Coach class).
DMU: Good point. Should we have built and now maintain I90 / I-94 through MN, ND, SD, MT, ID, etc? I say yes even though driving through there at night you will find it more vacant / scary than my grandma’s dirt road. Especially in winter. These roads will never pay (taxes) for themselves. There needs to be a realization that it is not a me vs you ( I got mine s*** you ). Instead the USA ( and probably Canada) needs to tie these countries even closer together in all ways. Each form of transportation has its place and each form needs backup in case of some unforseen problem shuts down one form or another. Also a much more thoughtful co-ordination of interconnections of various modes is needed. They each have their place.
But DMUinct, the Federal Highway program did help, rather “change”, the Northeast in many ways. Driving intercity and interstate became much easier for both automobiles and trucks cutting driving times often to less than half of what they had been. It also allowed truckers easier access into and out of the city while also allowing for containers and other merchandise to move off the docks to the interior. Rail got the deje vu idea after this started (deje vu because the LIRR in the 1840’s carried wagons on flatcars, the PRR and others in the 1930s began piggy back services, and the cement industry in the late 40’s went to containers) and began in earnest to go after piggy back and intermodal. The Interstate system did a lot for the Northeast and not just rural areas. Rail passenger traffic was hurt the most, but so was rail freight. Granted, the St. Lawerence Seaway took some harbor traffic away from rails (opened conicidental to the beginning of the Eisenhower Highway system) as did the move of industry to the south and west.
When anyone objects to the public subsidy of passenger rail, the instant rebuttal is that passenger rail subsidy is acceptable because we subsidize highways. However, that comparison alone is meaningless.
The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.