Rethinking Amtrak and rail in the U.S.

RocketJet wrote:California is also in HUGE debt but it is still spending couple Billion, it may be bad timing right now, but it is certainly still possible.

California also had a state wide referendum to go further into debt to finance $9 Billion to start building CHSR, Pennsylvania hasn't.

California has been selling bonds for highway projects for years, except for turnpikes I'm not sure Pennsylvania has been. California has also had economic and population growth for decades, which is what they have been relying upon to pay off indebtness - I'm not so sure Pennsylvania has had as high a growth rate the last few decades.

States can't print money. Every dollar taken out of general funds for transportation is one less dollar available for everything the state finances from these general funds - education, medicare, unemployment benefits, judicial, legislative, economic developments, etc.

electricron wrote:

RocketJet wrote:California is also in HUGE debt but it is still spending couple Billion, it may be bad timing right now, but it is certainly still possible.

California also had a state wide referendum to go further into debt to finance $9 Billion to start building CHSR, Pennsylvania hasn't.

California has been selling bonds for highway projects for years, except for turnpikes I'm not sure Pennsylvania has been. California has also had economic and population growth for decades, which is what they have been relying upon to pay off indebtness - I'm not so sure Pennsylvania has had as high a growth rate the last few decades.

States can't print money. Every dollar taken out of general funds for transportation is one less dollar available for everything the state finances from these general funds - education, medicare, unemployment benefits, judicial, legislative, economic developments, etc.

Yes, of course not, Im not advocating Fiscal Irresponsibility, the timing and extent of electrification will be dictated by the ability of the states. Anyhow, what do we think of the Pacific Northwest Corridor? I haven't gotten a response on that yet

RocketJet wrote:Yes, of course not, Im not advocating Fiscal Irresponsibility, the timing and extent of electrification will be dictated by the ability of the states. Anyhow, what do we think of the Pacific Northwest Corridor? I haven't gotten a response on that yet

WDOT as well as FRA have been spending money on the NW corridor to increase speeds up to 90 mph because the tracks are owned by BNSF, and a max of 90 mph is BNSF's publicly released policy. At 90 mph max speeds, there's no need to electrify the tracks.

We are still a long way from a National Rail Plan. Many states have completed state rail plans. Now the FRA has issued its first Regional Rail Plan. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0723" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study does not cover freight rail, movement of commodities, just-in-time delivery, or even commuter rail. It only covers intercity passenger rail and advocates for a Los Angeles-Phoenix high speed rail route in addition to the California High Speed Rail plan and Los Angeles-Las Vegas.

The Southwest study took about 3 years to complete and the FRA is now seeking interest in qualified consultants seeking to do Regional Rail Planning in other regions. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0713" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The FRA standards for "core express" service is an average speed of 300 kph (MAS presumably 350 kph) and a station penalty of 5 minutes. Target on-time-performance is 99% and end-point layover is 40 minutes. Core express trains also have 600 seats per train. How much will it cost to achieve that between Boston and Washington?

electricron wrote:The State didn't take it further because it decided it didn't have $6 Billion lying around to spend to build it. At least California asked its citizens at an election to vote to sell $9 Billion of bonds to help build the CHSR project, although it's now estimated the final costs will far exceed $50 Billion, and some project the entire project will exceed $100 Billion. Where the remaining $40 yo $90 Billion will come from hasn't been fully identified.

Over the next two years, Pennsylvania will spend over $94 Billion on transportation projects, $19 Billion of that coming from General funds and $73 Billion from dedicated transportation funds. That's $47 Billion and $9 Billion each year. An additional $6 Billion, if a HSR line were truly that low, for a specific project will surely break the budget.

You completely undermined your argument. The amount the state will spend on transportation dwarfs the amount required to build a game changing piece of infrastructure. Nothing the state will build in the next two years will have the same impact. The state simply "decided" it didn't want to bother pursuing it largely for political reasons.

electricron wrote:

RocketJet wrote:California is also in HUGE debt but it is still spending couple Billion, it may be bad timing right now, but it is certainly still possible.

California also had a state wide referendum to go further into debt to finance $9 Billion to start building CHSR, Pennsylvania hasn't.

California has been selling bonds for highway projects for years, except for turnpikes I'm not sure Pennsylvania has been. California has also had economic and population growth for decades, which is what they have been relying upon to pay off indebtness - I'm not so sure Pennsylvania has had as high a growth rate the last few decades.

States can't print money. Every dollar taken out of general funds for transportation is one less dollar available for everything the state finances from these general funds - education, medicare, unemployment benefits, judicial, legislative, economic developments, etc.

The states overall growth rate is irrelevant. Increasingly the state is concentrated in sepa and Pittsburgh while population in other parts decreases (excluding the Lehigh valley which is growing). Furthermore pittsburgh has the fifth highest Concentration of jobs in the country while philadelphia has the highest Concentration of people around its station outside ny and perhaps san francisco. The mail train with passenger cars has no relevance to the discussion

jstolberg wrote:We are still a long way from a National Rail Plan. ... Now the FRA has issued its first Regional Rail Plan. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0723" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study does not cover freight rail, movement of commodities, just-in-time delivery, or even commuter rail.

The Southwest study took about 3 years to complete and the FRA is now seeking interest in qualified consultants seeking to do Regional Rail Planning in other regions.

Maybe we should apply to be consultants, Stolberg & Woods Transportation Planners.

I'm saying that because the Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study was such a disappointment. I felt I could have written a good version of the Executive Summery without further research. There was almost nothing new. Did I miss something?

Hey count me in! I'll study stuff for $3.4m...