Passenger

...and the $8B goes to...

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=4914

What's your best guess where LaHood will decide where the $8B goes?  Winner gets the usual cat-calls and jeers.

Here's my guess:

1.5B to California for whatever they want it for

1.5B to Ilinios for Chicago to St.Louis plus their piece of Chicago-Detriot and Chicago-Milwaukee

1.0B to Ohio for CCC corridor

2.0B to VA and NC for DC to Charlotte

0.5B to Wisc for Chicago-Milw

1.0B to Michigan for Chicago-Det

0.5B to NY for Albany-Buffalo improvments

I think any solid "red" state gets points off.  States hard hit by auto downturn get extra attention (MI and OH).  "Swing states" (VA and OH) get bounus points.  States with the most solid and active plans get bonus points (WI and NC).  IL gets "favorite son x 2" attention and CA and NY get some because they are big and blue.

What, nothing for catenary upgrades on the NEC?

Your guess is as good as anyone's.  Ruefully, at the end of the day, the decision regarding the spend of the $8 billion will be driven by unfathomable political variables as opposed to market demand forces. 

In addition to the $8 billion earmarked for high speed rail, whatever that means, the President's budget includes another $5 billion for it.  This is on top of an extra $1.3 billion for Amtrak.  But this is just the down payment.  If high speed rail is built out as proposed by its proponents, it will cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars.  As pointed out in a recent GAO report, it is unlikely that it will generate enough fare box revenues to cover the cost.

If the investment in passenger rail, irrespective of the speed, was driven by market forces, which is how a business would treat the issue, the proponents would perform a needs and risk analysis to determine which project had the greatest potential viability.  The $8 billion would be put in the project with the best potential return. 

Look everyone.  Sam & I agree on something.  The money will be alocated based on who's home political district is involved, rather than where it will do the most good.

No. The $8B excludes Amtrak's budget.  It's for work that Amtrak would have an opportunity to bid on or participate in, however.

oltmannd:

No. The $8B excludes Amtrak's budget.  It's for work that Amtrak would have an opportunity to bid on or participate in, however.

I did not intend to imply that the extra money designated for Amtrak ($1.3 billion) was embedded in the $8 billion that has been authorized for high speed rail.  Likewise, I did not intend to suggest that the $5 billion in the President's proposed budget has been authorized.

If the incremental dollars for Amtrak plus the authorized dollars for high speed rail and the proposed dollars in the President's budget are summed, the incremental spend is $14.3 billion, excluding any DOT spends for commuter and light rail.

Sam1:

 

Your guess is as good as anyone's.  Ruefully, at the end of the day, the decision regarding the spend of the $8 billion will be driven by unfathomable political variables as opposed to market demand forces. 

In addition to the $8 billion earmarked for high speed rail, whatever that means, the President's budget includes another $5 billion for it.  This is on top of an extra $1.3 billion for Amtrak.  But this is just the down payment.  If high speed rail is built out as proposed by its proponents, it will cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars.  As pointed out in a recent GAO report, it his highly unlikely that it will even generate enough fare box revenues to cover the cost.

If the investment in passenger rail, irrespective of the speed, was driven by market forces, which is how a business would treat the issue, the proponents would perform a needs and risk analysis to determine which project had the greatest potential viability.  The $8 billion would be put in project with the best potential return. 

oltmannd:

...and the $8B goes to...

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=4914

What's your best guess where LaHood will decide where the $8B goes?  Winner gets the usual cat-calls and jeers.

Here's my guess:

1.5B to California for whatever they want it for

1.5B to Ilinios for Chicago to St.Louis plus their piece of Chicago-Detriot and Chicago-Milwaukee

1.0B to Ohio for CCC corridor

2.0B to VA and NC for DC to Charlotte

0.5B to Wisc for Chicago-Milw

1.0B to Michigan for Chicago-Det

0.5B to NY for Albany-Buffalo improvments

I think any solid "red" state gets points off.  States hard hit by auto downturn get extra attention (MI and OH).  "Swing states" (VA and OH) get bounus points.  States with the most solid and active plans get bonus points (WI and NC).  IL gets "favorite son x 2" attention and CA and NY get some because they are big and blue.

$ 4 billion to radial routes from Chicago (Chi-Stl, Chi-Green Bay, Chi-Det,  Chi-Cincy).

$ 1.5 billion to California.

$ 500 million to New York for Albany - Buffalo.

$ 2 billion TBD.

A couple of long shots:

Detroit - Cleveland: Gives you HSR over most of the Chicago - New York route.

Los Angeles - Las Vegas: The market already exists.

DC - Richmond - Norfolk: Southern extension of the NE corridor.  Turn the old RF&P into a Virginia version of the Burlington Chicago-Aurora sub.

Chicago O'Hare - Chicago Union Station - Chicago Midway (with appropriate connections): Very expensive, but puts the stations where the traffic is.  Also, lots of boodle for Richie Daley.

Phoebe Vet:

What, nothing for catenary upgrades on the NEC?

Phoebe V:  After some study of the stimulus package and what AMTRK is going to spend money on. (Transmission lines, transformers, rotary converters, switch gear, rebuilt substations, 50 or more new Electric motors, signal power backups, interlockings, and other ROW upgrades) It appears that it will take about 18 months to get enough additional power available to the CAT to justify CAT upgrades. CAT upgrades mean faster speeds and a higher power drain. Maybe we will see in the next (?) round of AMTRAK investment the necessary CAT upgrades.

oltmannd:

Here's my guess:

1.5B to California for whatever they want it for

1.5B to Ilinios for Chicago to St.Louis plus their piece of Chicago-Detriot and Chicago-Milwaukee

1.0B to Ohio for CCC corridor

2.0B to VA and NC for DC to Charlotte

0.5B to Wisc for Chicago-Milw

1.0B to Michigan for Chicago-Det

0.5B to NY for Albany-Buffalo improvments

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=5146

Do I get any points for stating the obvious?

• Only 20% can be spent within one state.  Max $1.6 billion.
  
• The state must have its environmental process well under way or completed.
  
• The state must have agreements with the Class 1s if it intends to acquire right-of-way or trackage rights, either in place or well under way.
• The state must have all its intergovernmental agreements completed, for construction, operation, ownership, liability, etc.  Multi-state systems multiply times ten the number and complexity of agreements that are required.

That may rule out some of these.

RWM

VA and NC for DC to Charlotte meets all those criteria.

Sam1 is starting to sound a lot like Gov. Quinn of Illinois, who seems to believe that, in order to get good government, we need to get the politics out of politics.  The political process is ALWAYS going to be involved in government spending, it's the price we pay for living in a republic.  One man's essential program is another man's pork.

Railway Man:

• Only 20% can be spent within one state.  Max $1.6 billion.
• The state must have its environmental process well under way or completed.  That rules out several of these.
• The state must have agreements with the Class 1s if it intends to acquire right-of-way or trackage rights.
• The state must have all its intergovernmental agreements completed.  Multi-state systems multiply the number and complexity of agreements times ten.

That rules out a bunch of these.

RWM

I was only, ahem, bragging about the ones in bold.  The article mentioned those 3 at $3.4M.  I would think that the Chicago - StL and Chicago - Milw would be least troublesome given their recent history and state involvment.  Chicago - Detroit, I would think, would have issues getting Indiana to play along.  But, on the other hand, NS would like nothing more than to see another track or two plopped down along side the Chicago Line to Porter and the old Michigan Central has been looking for a purpose for quite a while. 

Since all of these are all along existing ROW, I would imagine you'd only need a FONSI not a full-blown EIS to satisfy the environmental requirements.  They're not so hard to do, by comparison.

I would agree with Phoebe Vet on the NC/VA plan. It seems to fit all the criteria. 

What makes me chuckle is the spate of news article lately where various politicians say, "Money for High Speed Rail?  We gotta get us some of that!", and they they suggest some wild plan.

I  think there will be no choice but to do a programmatic EIS for each high-speed rail line.

I think it will be very tough to fund significant HSR in Illinois and CREATE, all at the same time.

RWM