Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="blue streak 1"] [quote user="Sam1"] Like most people politicians tend to remember the most recent events.  They are more likely to remember the results of the last election than the results of elections over the last decade.  And they are most likely to reward their recent supporters irrespective of whether they have been long time devotees or recent converts. Normally I would agree but these awards appear to be based on completeness and merit. Unless you read every line of every proposal, you don't really know that.  If you read every project proposal, my hat is off to you.  If you want to believe that politics did not influence the outcome of the awards, you are welcome to do so.  Having spent most of my working life in a business that was heavily impacted by political forces, I don't buy it. According to the summary published by the White House, the awards totaled $7.924 billion.  California, Oregon and Washington went for Obama in 2008.  They got 37.1 per cent of the monies.  Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin along with Indiana went into the President's win column.  They got 32.8 per cent of the monies.  In the southeast region voters in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida turned their states blue, at least for the presidential election, or kept it that way.  They got 23.6 per cent of the monies.  The northeast region, which has received significant federal support for its existing passenger rail lines, including a large investment through Amtrak for the Northeast Corridor, got 6.1 per cent of the federal high speed rail largesse.  Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Maine, New York, Washington D.C., Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, which make up the Northeast and part of the Middle Atlantic states,  were in the President's win column.  Thus, 99.6 per cent of the award monies went to states that Obama carried in 2008.  Yes the above is correct but let us look into the background. As RWM pointed out the locations getting awards are the ones that have supported rail in the past. My dumb state (GA) went so far as to return or not use a $40M + grant (finally revoked) for commuter and HSR. At the last minute attempted a lame bid. Our present governor is a terrible manager and that has carried over to the state DOT that issued the lame proposal. We needed a good proposal because ATL is a high polution city in the summer. But the grant has essentially been renewed by this FRA for a study now. I'm disappointed but not surprized.   Clearly, many of the states that reaped the initial grants for so-called high speed rail have invested in passenger rail.  But that is not a good criteria for determing where it is feasible.  If a business operated on that principle, it would invest in projects for all the wrong reasons.  A business would perform a market analysis and place its resources where there is a likely payoff.  Politics would not be part of the equation.  Many of the states that have invested heavily in passenger rail are hoisting operations that lose a lot of money.  The Chicago to St. Louis trains, for example, lost $9.9 million or 10.9 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation.  The Pacific Surfliners lost $22.9 million or 10.7 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation.    Undoubtedly, many factors drove the awards.  But to suggest that politics did not or does not play a large role in determining who gets federal handouts does not square with my experience.  I disagree in this case. The FRA set out the requirements last spring and some played by the rules and some did not. These awards are a result of states that supported Obama also have a history of supporting rail by both political partys. The reason these awarded proposals were picked is the states or entities had done their homework before 2007 or 2008. A society that invests in projects because their proponents are paperwork gurus, as opposed to marketing and economics experts, is bound to have beautiful paperwork files but not necessarily optimum outcomes.  Government bureaucrats believe paperwork is the most important aspect of a project.  Market oriented business people know that this is nonsense.     If the driving factors were economical, i.e. potential passenger loads, highway congestion, etc., it is hard to understand why Texas did not get at least some monies for planning purposes.  It and Oklahoma have been supporting the Heartland Flyer.  The I-35 corridor between DFW and San Antonio is one of the largest urban concentrations in the U.S. Yes Texas has supported the Heartland flyer but what did they propose for MSR (slow HSR). To give the FRA its due there is an award in this round to upgrade the signaling from Ft. Worth - San Antonia. What type signaling is in place now and how much time is expected to be saved?.  It makes the Charlotte to Richmond corridor look like an under populated rural strip.   Actually the CLT - Raleigh  I-85/I-40 corridor is a very congested area as well. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the seven largest cities along the Charolette to Richmond corridor is approximately 1,986,862.  The population for the seven largest cities along the I-35 corridor in Texas is approximately 4,116,496.  If a business had been in charge of overseeing the projects, it would have invested in the Texas corridor irrespective of whether the Texas proponents had the paperwork correct and whether they have a history of investing in rail projects.  This is the major difference between a competitive business and government sponsored projects.  Businesses look for supportable projects; government is driving by politics.  There is no better example of this than the long distance trains, which are run primarily because of politics.  I have not read the proposals, but if prior financing of rail projects, along with regulatory paperwork gymnastics, is the key criteria to determine government largesse, it is a poor way to go.  Read    <A href="http://www.sehsr.org/" mce_href="http://www.sehsr.org/">www.sehsr.org</A>  and go through several pages and you will see how detailed the NC and VA proposals are. They have a mile by mile breakdown of every bridge, road, grade crossing, signal, elevation, curve, tilt, etc. Also included are cost estimates and estimated time savings for each separate distinct upgrade. These gaggle of reports have been updated about every 6 months listing what has already been done, what is under construction, under contract, out for bids, and order of future projects. There are track diagrams, pictures, and other items as well. Not any other proposal in the public domain is as detailed. Even NC's 2001 report for Salisbury - Ashville passenger service ( not submitted as not really MSR without a detailed revision) is more detailed.  Great!  What do bridges, road, grade crossings, signals, elevations, curves, tilt, etc. have to do with passenger loads, pricing, marketing, need, etc.? but if prior financing  I believe that is a very good measure. However I do suspect Florida somewhat after their first constitutional round of commitment and no comittment. They however continued buying ROW and doing engineering and EIS for the Orlando - Tampa segment approved.  If the Republicans had won the last election, I suspect the outcome would have been different, assuming that they thought high speed rail is the way to go, which I suspect they don't.    Yes and the projects not picked by the FRA now would have needed  1 - 2 years more to complete since they are not as shovel ready. Might be what the Republicans would want as you suspect? Hopefully if another $8 - 16B is available this time next year some of these proposals will go forward. I am tired of all statements that no jobs have yet been started by ARRA. The amount of federal money that will be available in future years to support the implementation of so-called high speed rail or medium speed rail is problematic.  The U.S. is deep in debt.  It threatens the viability of this society.  Even the President, who I supported, has acknowledged it.  If the projects selected prove to be viable investments, then money will be available to complete them.  But if they are the result of politics as usual, it may not be there. A major problem with the investment in passenger rail is sustainability.  There is scant evidence that passenger rail will be able to cover its operating costs let along the capital investment.  This means that the government, i.e. federal, state, local, will be saddled with a financial burden forever.  That is not a good outocme. I don't recall mentioning Railway Man in my assessment of comparative travel times between Chicago and St. Louis let alone refer to him as a dumb business person.          [/quote][/quote]
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