Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Samantha"]Missing from the team to hammer out a blueprint for a national rail policy is a cross section of potential customers.  Including them could involve a significant risk.  They might decided that they want something very different from what the so called professionals want.  And it could turn out to be a shocker.  It could also produce a better outcome.  [/quote]I would think that such group would make the effort to conduct a market study before they go out and start selling a product. Actually, professional planners take great care to establish public demand for rail service before they start building things. In fact, they have to in order to get funding. What I listed above, presented somewhat tongue in cheek, is merely Part I of a larger proposal I have suggested on other forums for years. For the rest of the program, the group would be instructed to do the following:<ol><li>Conduct a market study to determine future travel patterns - i.e where people are and where they want to go, taking into account  population growth, the availability of other modes and their projected levels of congestion, and convenient scheduling. They would also compare costs of providing comparable additional capacity through different modes to determine if rail is cost effective. Also the study should determine what sorts of amenities people would like and what they are willing to pay for.  </li><li>From this data design a route network with convenient schedules and connections. </li><li>Determine what sort of infrastructure upgrades and equipment will best serve each route. I suspect it would require a combinarion of high speed, conventional trains, and something in between (100-125mph) depending on the route and markets. </li><li>Determine the capital costs of these upgrades. </li><li>Propose appropriate sources of funding for these upgrades, and for any operational funding requirements, with final determination coming through the legislative process. </li><li>Determine what sort of management structure would best serve the network. It may be something similar to the current Amtrak model, some sort of public-private partnership, or something else entirely. I think it is important to keep an open mind here. </li><li>Since the network is unlikely to be built all at once, determine which routes should receive priority for initial development. </li><li>Work with Congress to enact legislation to bring the plan to fruition. </li></ol>I have run this past two professional transportation planners, one who headed a state rail program for several years, and another who has worked on rail projects in this and other countries, and both have said this is pretty much how it should be done. The most important thing is getting all interested parties involved in the process so that everyone's needs are taken into account. The "reform" proposals put forth in the last several years all tried to impose an ideology from the outside, without bothering to even consult with the players. And most of them only covered step 6. It is no surprise that each of these reform plans was DOA on Capitol Hill.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag