“The governors said recycled materials would be used in the construction of the train, locally-grown produce served in train dining cars, and recyclable and biodegradable containers used in food service on the train.”
http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/06/iowa-illinois-submit-high-speed-rail-application
Biodegradable food containers holding local sweet corn justifies a passenger train? At what point does pandering become absurdity?
I am missing something here. The first paragraph of the news article indicates that money would be used for “high speed” rail between Chicago and Iowa City. Yet, the next to the last paragraph includes the mph target of 79.
Of course, the federal $8B will inevitably be for less-than-“high speed,” 'cause that is the need (except for perhaps in FL), but why can’t folks call 79 mph what it is, and not “high speed.” We need the $8B for infrastructure, elimination of at-grade crossings, additional routes to now non-served cities and towns, et al. Maybe true 100+ mph in the distant future.
Not pandering, but they added these points as embellishments to the application. Don’t know where you’re getting the idea these are the reasons for the rail service proposal. When competing for finite sums of grant money being distributed, you need something to make your application stand out from the crowd.
This article is amazing! HSR [%-)] They have loaded this thing down with so much junk; Rube Goldberg would be proud, I would guess that it would be built at the Amana Colony out of left over washing machine parts. to keep all the money locally![:o)]…
Wait they have TWO QJ’s stored around Newton,IA…[tup][tup]
Maybe, they can cook the food for their bio-degradable containers ( Made out of a processed corn product
and roasting their corn on the cob in the Firebox[wow]-- [dinner] [8D]You remember those article about
locomotive cab cooking using the coal scoop? [C=:-)]
[yeah][yeah] It might just work, all it will take is a few more billions$$$$$$$$$$. [banghead]
What’s that much money to Illinois Pols? [soapbox]
Keep adding and someday it might be enough money to make it happen… [Sarcasm]
The reasons these politicians are using are as ridiculous as some offered at ICC hearings 50 years ago as to why the railroads should have been required to keep losing money hauling passengers.
Yes, they are consistently stupid except now they want taxpayers to pay for empty trains.
Mac
[Never mind…Let Norris and Crandell have some peace this weekend![:-,][}:)]
…Seems we just have to keep it going…Now {and have been for 10 years}, paying for “empty” wars.
Just read that the Iraq drawdown is going forward. Now they have to find another wormhole to dump borrowed money into. HSR is as good as any, I guess.
Wonder what kind of local produce we can harvest between Las Vegas and Victorville (the latest end points for my local HSR corridor.) Maybe wind turbines driven by election year hot air…
Chuck
I have been involved in making application for gov,t. grants in a voluntary capacity for the last 15 years now. You would not believe what you have to put down on paper to get politician’s attention. I’ve said over and over again, I wasn’t going to continue with this kind of foolishness, but if you want funding you have to jump through their ropes.
Bruce
Here is what you get when you use a lot of recycled materials:
http://tinatarnoff.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55378e88988340120a71d788a970b-800wi
Congress writes the law to create these funding systems. Some appointed crony in Washington, DC writes the requirements for the proposal. Uninterested state bureaucrats write the proposals. More political appointees evaluate the proposals and make awards (with lots of Congressional input).
If you notice the system at no time involves folks who know about the industry, technology or science that is being rewarded. And we are surprised that proposals such as these are considered serious!
According to Public Policy Polling back in June, Governor Culver is trailing his opponent by at least a 15% margin. His favorability rating is under 30%.
He has been a strong proponent of resuming passenger rail along the route of the Rock Island (now the Iowa Interstate). However, it appears passenger rail supporters are going to need a new spokesman.
Providing for the common defense is a constitutional duty of the Federal Government, and one that realsitically no other entity can reasonably be expected to perform. Running a 12 inch to the foot model railroad is not a constitutional duty and is therefore not the business of the Federal Government. The lack of demand for economically sustainable rail passenger service started to show in the 1920’s when tin lizzies on dirt roads emptied the daily except sunday mixed trains and by 1957, or so, Trains Magazine figured out the game was up for even the best long distance trains with their article “Who shot the passenger train?” With the exception of the Northeast Corridor, passenger trains in this country are a total waste of public money and freight rail capacity.
Mac
After you get your train, you want another. Submit this photo in a press release announcing your grant application. “Ridership shows a continued demand for local produce in the dining car to the point of needing a second train on this route.”
Add to Mac’s post:
For all the huffing, puffing, rhetoric and political posturing - all paid for with somebody’s money - we have neglected any form of research into what to do about a replacement for the long-distance travel mode now most used. We need something with a minimal footprint, modest construction cost, low energy consumption, REALLY high speed and the ability to move serious numbers of people on schedules convenient to them. Having a zero interface with surface freight and rubber-wheel transport from the beginning would be nice, too.
Actually, the technology has existed for a century, in miniature form. You probably encountered it the last time you used the drive-in lanes at your bank.
I will admit that widespread implimentation of pneumatic tube capsules wouldn’t produce much that a railfan could love - but it sure would be efficient.
Chuck
Futurama fan, by chance?
It does not seem unusual to attach green / sustainability initiatives to an HSR funding application. HSR itself is just another tentacle of the green / sustainability agenda. HSR is not about fulfilling a transportation need. It is about reducing CO2 emissions and creating a non-oil society.
Using recycled materials, buying local, roof gardens, reducing the use of private automobiles, conservation pricing of utilities, new urbanism, solar panels, and HSR are all components of the green / sustainability agenda.
Here is what the FRA says the HSR vision is:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrspfacts.pdf
The biggest problem that HSR has in meeting its green objective is the “H” in HSR. Maybe that’s why they only want to go 79 mph.
“PMWRMNM”: Though you are a fine man (I have found, thank you again, Mac), I respectfully disagree, though admittedly I may be on weak financial ground with my position.
There is a need and role for LD passenger trains (not HSR, though) for the following reasons: 1) more and more people are absolutely fed up with airline travel, what with airport parking, inhumane searching and cramped seating, lack of privacy and mobility (ability to move around and socialize) en route, as well as burgeoning fees for everything from water to pillows; 2) population growth of senior citizens, who are mostly retired and time is not a constraint, who want an alternative, sane way to travel LD than by air; 3) many folks just follow a simpler life, without the hassles of air travel; 4) many people are more interested in the quality of the “journey” than the “destination”; 5) children love trains; 6) family groups and disabled passengers find train travel far more convenient and comfortable in Amtrak sleeping car dedicated accommodations; and 7) those of us who traveled at lot in business just do not want to do that by air anymore.