[Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)

Peepers · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 01, 2005 Posts: 213

http://www.examiner.com/a-1089567~Commission_calls_for__357_billion_in_passenger_rail_investment.html

Commission calls for $357 billion in passenger rail investment
Dec 6, 2007 10:15 AM
By SARAH KARUSH, AP

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - A federal transportation policy commission is recommending a $357.2 billion investment - or $8.1 billion a year - to significantly expand intercity passenger rail service by 2050.

The recommendations were released Thursday by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission's passenger rail working group. The ideas have been adopted by the entire commission and will be part of its final report to Congress, said Frank Busalacchi, Wisconsin's secretary of transportation and the commissioner who convened the working group.

The country should rebuild and expand its rail network to meet a growing demand for alternatives to congested highways, the report said. It cited several benefits of train travel, including safety, energy efficiency, and the need to provide alternatives to driving as the population ages.

Expanding rail travel on heavily traveled corridors of a few hundred miles also can help alleviate airport congestion, the report said.

"The majority of the public are going to continue to use the automobile," Busalacchi told The Associated Press. "But if we make it reliable, clean and convenient, people will take the train."

The commission, chaired by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, was formed by Congress in 2005 to study the future needs of nation's surface transportation system, as well as funding options. A final report is expected in January.

Busalacchi, chairman of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, said he formed the passenger rail working group because of a lack of comprehensive data about the country's rail network. The group's members are proponents of rail travel and include representatives of Amtrak and the National Association of Railroad Passengers, as well as state and regional transportation officials.

"For the last 50 years ... the nation has had no vision for intercity passenger rail," the report said. "In many parts of the nation, rail lines have been abandoned. Our federal funding policy emphasis has been on the highway and aviation systems, which are now congested."

Since 1971, when Congress relieved freight railroads of their obligations to provide passenger service, intercity passenger rail in the U.S. has meant Amtrak. But Busalacchi said expansion of the network does not necessarily have to be done by the government-owned corporation.

"I don't think anybody is taking the position that Amtrak is going to have a monopoly on this," he said.

What is certain, however, is that federal funding will be needed, Busalacchi said.

The report calls for federal matching funds to help states establish rail corridors. Amtrak, which has contracts with 14 states to provide corridor service, has been pushing for matching funds. The report said the federal government should pay 80 percent of the cost, while the states would pay 20 percent - the same ratio that is used for highways. Such projects could be funded by a portion of the gas tax that currently pays for highways and transit, the report said.

The plan is broken down into three phases. By 2015, existing service would be upgraded and new service that is already in the pipeline could be added. That would include parts of a high-speed rail corridor in California and a rail link from Milwaukee to Madison, Wis. The estimated cost of the first phase is $66.3 billion.

By 2030, the California high-speed corridor would be completed and new corridors - such as Los Angeles to Las Vegas; Tulsa, Okla., to St. Louis; and Salt Lake City to Boise, Idaho - would be added. The second phase is forecast to cost $158.6 billion.

By 2050, even more routes - such as Louisville, Ky., to Cincinnati and Raleigh, N.C., to Greenville, S.C. - would be added and existing service would be upgraded in many places. The last phase is projected to cost $132.3 billion.

Peepers · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 01, 2005 Posts: 213

See:

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/rail-vision-2050.htm

Vision for the future: U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050
Report prepared by the Passenger Rail Working Group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in December 2007

Press release (37 KB)
Executive summary (198 KB)
Full report (1.6 MB)

Peepers · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 01, 2005 Posts: 213

Written by a friend of mine on the shenanigans that the Bush Administration tried in order to marginalize rail (and transit) in any new federal transportation policy....
______________

The backstory to this is more interesting than the actual proposal offered by the NSTPRSC (which I call the “Nasty Percy”—I’m convinced the administration created an unpronounceable acronym to keep this commission’s work as obscure as possible).

According to Wes Vernon’s “Capitol Lines” column in the January issue of Railfan & Railroad magazine, the administration fiercely objected when the majority of the Commission members began stressing rail in their lucubrations. According to Wes, a former CBS radio news reporter, “”The faction favoring an increased emphasis on rail transit was not pleased when the commission staffers issued a bus-oriented draft report. The draft ignored the rail supporters’ suggestion that rail transit play a key role.

“Thus, the pro-rail group produced its own report backing the fast-growing light-rail/streetcar movement around the country, supported in part by a gas tax. Susan Binder (sitting in for Transportation Secretary Mary Peters) read it, and said the secretary ‘did not want’ that approach. At that point, the pro-rail outline was circulated to those commissioners who had expressed an open mind on rail without committing themselves to the proposal. It was also e-mailed to the remaining members. The measure was subsequently toned down twice, first at the behest of Steven Heminger, Executive Director of San Francisco’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and second at the urging of BNSF CEO Matt Rose. With those amendments, the rail transit proposal passed by a 9-3 vote.”

But that wasn’t enough, Wes writes:

“Again, in Transportation Sec. Mary Peters’ absence, the panel was told the secretary does not like rail transit and prefers Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Commission member Paul Weyrich, CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and longtime rail advocate, replied that he had been fighting Bus Rapid Transit all along. His argument has been that the American people have clearly demonstrated they don’t like buses but are willing to ride efficiently operated rail service.”

Wes says at the next Commission meeting Sec. Peters was “in orbit” over this outbreak of lese majeste and took her objections to a second unpronounceable panel created by the Bush White House, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (my understanding is that this body—shall we call it the “Nasty Iffsey?”--was created to find some rationale for turning the Interstates into privately owned toll roads).

“Needless to say,” Wes writes, “that only exacerbated tensions at the Policy & Revenue Study Panel.” One Commission member who sided with the White House, Rick Geddes of Cornell University, “delivered a two-hour speech” arguing against the rail emphasis.

When it came time to consider intercity rail, the Nasty Percy panel proved just as insubordinate as it had been on the transit question, Wes says:

“Commission member Frank Busalacchi, Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, presented a paper advocating 16 corridor passenger train operations. This idea has been on drawing boards going all the way back to the days of FRA Administrator Gil Carmichael in the Bush 41 administration.

“The Busalacchi study was sidelined for further study. That was done at the suggestion of BNSF’s Rose, who wanted a report back from ‘experts’ as to whether this would be worth the investment involved.”

Anyway, that’s the end of Wes’s report, which was completed close to a month ago (the magazine’s been on the stands at least a week now). I checked with Randy Wade at WisDOT yesterday, and he said he had not seen Wes’s story but that Busalacchi had fought very strenuously to get a strong pro-rail plank into its report and had succeeded.

Thus, it looks as if the White House’s ideological positions have now been overruled twice in less than a week, first by the massed minds of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, and now by some of the brightest transportation policy people in the country.

I did some cutting on Wes’s report, so please go out and get a copy of the magazine to see the full text (if not the “full story,” more of which will probably trickle out in the next few months and probably will not emerge in full until after the 2008 election).

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

Steel prices will be very expensive and supplies will go down. With the US government so indebted and the US dollar going down, I seriously doubt we have the time to install a railroad infrastructure to really make a bit of a difference.

Pops

I think the sided thread needs a bump back to the mainline.
_________________
Make a plan and work it:

socrates1fan · Heavy Crude Joined: Jun 04, 2008 Posts: 284

Trains can be powered by steam(even though they don't go as fast as diesel or coal.) and can carry great deals of goods and people.
Growing up here in the Ol' Midwest where most of the factories still recieve supplies from busy trains the idea of riding them from point A to point B never seemed unattractive.
I rode a train once and I loved it. You can talk more with your family and friends and you feel a lot safer. The trains seem to go faster too.
It wasn't lack of demand that lead to the destruction of interurbans(sort of like trolleys between towns.) and streetcars. It was auto companies like GM that had them ripped out so that people would HAVE to buy cars. Sounds bad but just look up "the great streetcar scandal."
It is quiet annoying.
Idk about other regions but here in the eastern midwest most of our railroads are still around and functional. Even the streetcar rails are around, they are just hiding under the pavement.

Peepers · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 01, 2005 Posts: 213

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/amtrak.congress.ap/index.html

House approves Amtrak funding

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A nearly $15 billion Amtrak bill passed the House on Wednesday as lawmakers rallied around an alternative for travelers saddled with soaring gas prices.

The bipartisan bill, which passed by a veto-proof margin of 311-104, would authorize funding for the national passenger railroad over the next five years. Some of the money would go to a program of matching grants to help states set up or expand rail service.

Besides the $14.9 billion provided for Amtrak and intercity rail, an amendment to the bill would authorize $1.5 billion for Washington's Metro transit system over the next 10 years.

The White House has threatened a veto, saying the bill doesn't hold Amtrak accountable for its spending. But similar legislation has passed the Senate, also with enough support to override a veto.

"Nothing could be more fitting to bring before the Congress today, on a day when gasoline has reached $4.05 a gallon across the United States on average," said Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, a longtime Amtrak critic who teamed up with Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, on the legislation.

Amtrak's previous authorization expired in 2002. The railroad's supporters say that a new authorization will allow Amtrak to make long-range plans and take advantage of what they say is a growing appetite for passenger rail.

Unlike the Senate version, the House bill includes a requirement for the Department of Transportation to seek proposals from private companies to create a high-speed service that would take travelers from Washington to New York in two hours or less. The idea has long been championed by Mica, who says the United States must catch up with European and Asian countries on high-speed rail travel.

Critics say the proposal would undermine Amtrak by peeling off its most valuable asset: the Northeast Corridor.

Rep. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania said provisions that open the door to private investment should help ease the concerns of fellow Republicans who have balked at supporting Amtrak.

But those provisions could complicate things when the House tries to work out a compromise bill with the Senate.

Amtrak said it was pleased that both the House and the Senate had acted.

"This reflects strong support for intercity passenger rail service, and we look forward to working with Congress as they move forward to reconcile a final authorization bill," spokesman Cliff Black said.

The Bush administration and other Amtrak critics want to see the company move toward self-sufficiency, but Amtrak supporters say passenger railroads around the globe require government subsidies and point to the large sums of federal money spent on highways.

A bid by Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Kentucky, to send the bill back to committee to add an alternative fuel study was rejected.

"In the areas where American budgets are being hardest hit by gas prices, consuming 16 percent of gross incomes, they have very little access to Amtrak," Davis said. "How does this bill help those Americans deal with our energy crisis?"

Amtrak's boosters say the high cost of driving has made people eager for more and better rail service.

A record 25.8 million passengers took Amtrak in the last fiscal year. The railroad expects ridership to approach 28 million this year, Black said.

May was the biggest month in Amtrak's 37-year history, with total ridership up 12 percent over last year and ticket revenue up 16 percent over last year. Black said Amtrak's marketing research indicates that about half the increase can be attributed to gas prices.

joelcolorado · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 683

I worlk for the railroad and we can haul a ton of freight 500 miles for one gallon of fuel. So they are really good.
The problem is that the railroads took out so much track in the past 20 years to avoid having to provide rail service to the smaller towns and avoid taxes on the track etc. So the infrastructure is stressed now and we are at capacity with no room for more. Every railroad is the same.

Denny

Back over 120 years ago, America was increasing its railway track network at the rate of over 3,000 miles per year! With improved equipment and methods, likely it could go up 15,000 miles per year easily enough today, given the will to do it.

This is a copy from Wikipedia: History of rail transport

RAILROAD MILEAGE BY REGION
1850 1860 1870 1880
New England 1,507 3,660 4,494 5,982
Middle States 3,202 6,705 10,964 15,872
Southern States 2,036 8,838 11,192 14,778
Western States 1,276 11,400 24,587 52,589
Pacific States 23 1,677 4,080
TOTAL USA 9,021 30,626 52,914 93,301

Sorry, the columns do not stay aligned, but check the link for clarity

Denny · Last edited by Denny on Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:56 am; edited 1 time in total

Sorry, double post.

mos6507

Denny

Mechler

I view the Amtrak bill as a move in the right direction for once. Yes, the US needs to catch up with Europe and Asian countries in rail service. Unfortunately, that is probably an unattainable goal without a lot more time and money (and a change in our suburban living arrangements).

It's too bad that it has taken this long for Washington to realize the benefits of rail. But at least they're not talking about increasing biofuel capacity again.
_________________
"It is certain that free societies would have no easy time in a future dark age. The rapid return to universal penury will be accomplished by violence and cruelties of a kind now forgotten." - Roberto Vacca, The Coming Dark Age

joelcolorado · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 683

The cost for new rail lines is not going to make expansion possible. With regulations, buying right of ways, bridges, crossings and lack of that amount of capital not to mention the environmental regs, it wont happen.

The railroads are making record profits hauling freight which is easier than passengers and more money in it. Why would they want passenger trains clogging up their lines. You can see how Amtrack cant pay their own way. No one wants any of that business. Sad but true fact.

j