Had the writer for the Charlotte Observer been imbued by a sense of full disclosure, he would have noted that a passenger on the Piedmont from Charlotte to Raleigh gets a subsidy of $29.24 before interest and depreciation. That's $4.24 more than the regular fare of $25. He mentioned that the service is subsidized, but he did not disclose that the subsidy is more than the fare.
Moderate speed rail is a viable solution for transport problems in relatively short, high density corridors, as many writers have noted. Unfortunately, in most instances, they tout the advantages whilst overlooking the costs.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/topstories/story/1246480.html
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
CMStPnPI went back and spent some time looking and could not locate it, next time I will post the link. The Global Mail has discussion forums and they regularly purge the discussion, it wasn't that publication though because your right the discussion is very aritificial with that online publication. It was decidedly more Western, it was the "Mail", I don't remember the full name though unfortunately. So I tend to think it might have been British now and related to Hong Kong???. Just a guess. I'll open a word document and save links next time when I find a good article. It's a pain to bookmark because then I have to delete it later when I have too many of them.
Perhaps you were reading the South China Morning Post, an English language, mildly pro-Beijing newspaper from Hong Kong?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Interesting. Do you have a link to that ? I googled it and only came up with China Global Times which doesn't reflect views of the people.
Interesting. Do you have a link to that ? I googled it and only came up with China Global Times which doesn't reflect views of the people.
I went back and spent some time looking and could not locate it, next time I will post the link. The Global Mail has discussion forums and they regularly purge the discussion, it wasn't that publication though because your right the discussion is very aritificial with that online publication. It was decidedly more Western, it was the "Mail", I don't remember the full name though unfortunately. So I tend to think it might have been British now and related to Hong Kong???. Just a guess. I'll open a word document and save links next time when I find a good article. It's a pain to bookmark because then I have to delete it later when I have too many of them.
CMStPnPSo as Americans I think critical thinking is a skill we all need more work on via practice, just based on what I read on the Internet
You are right. The perspective you take toward a subject has everything to do with how you'll think about it. Just realizing that others who look from a different angle aren't always nuts is the first step.
I like participating here, in part, because I see people approach passenger rail service from different points of view. To some, it's an accounting exercise, to others it's an engineering exercise, others, a social solution and still others, an exercise in politics. Sometimes there are mutually exclusive conclusions, sometime large areas of overlap. But, if you don't at least consider what is said, you might as well head on down to the lobotomy clinic.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CMStPnPSo just reading the China Global Mail. The folks on here that were excited over high speed rail in China would have picked up by reading that publication that HSR is not popular with the Chinese common folks.
He-he-he-he. I'll agree with this on the railfan forums. Especially true they like to pick apart each others posts and write long statements. It's the same on railfan trips though with casual discussion, I find I really have to watch what I say with lineage of a specific rail line (lol) on a railfan trip. Otherwise some guy or another comes up and makes this lengthly and verbose presentation of corrections (lol). There have been times I have been tempted to say on railfan trips "hey buddy, do you think I really wanted all that detail?"
My view is a Discussion Forum is informal discussion and sharing of opinions. People need to let their hair down and say what they mean and not get bent out of shape when someone says something or holds an opinion they do not like. I don't understand the whole "provide proof" thing on a casual discussion board either. It would be a different story if this was Scientific American or something to that effect.
Personally, I do not see this as a red state / blue state issue either and I would also agree that the criteria for awarding these grants were honest. I understand in our at times politically charged country with politically charged news channels on cable where folks would interpret the other way. Our media is pretty much biased one way or another and a lot of folks lack the ability to listen to a news channel that is clearly biased and pick out the relevant facts from the political opinions. Instead they just dismiss the news channel off hand and gravitate towards one that fits their view of the world. Thats really maintaining tunnel vision vs learning. Heck, I read the Chinese Press as well as the Iranian Press online for news because they cover the story from a different angle then the West.
So just reading the China Global Mail. The folks on here that were excited over high speed rail in China would have picked up by reading that publication that HSR is not popular with the Chinese common folks. They see it as incredibly expensive indulgence and catering to tourists more then domestic population. They probably think that way of course because when you look at the demographics of China....most of the country is NOT Middle Class yet and traveling on those trains is out of reach for them. Thats why I read the Global Mail and offset what I read in there against what I read elsewhere. Yes, it's state media but also there are valid points made and it is informative in some respects that the stories / opinions given are sometimes what Western Reporters miss.
So as Americans I think critical thinking is a skill we all need more work on via practice, just based on what I read on the Internet
Just my two cents.
Paul MilenkovicGiven that the 8 billion is probably a do-or-die to show what good can happen for passenger trains, and there are not going to be dollops of 8 billion handed out on a regular basis any time soon, asking whether the most eager to get trains are the most worthy to get trains is a valid question.
In any contest, there are always winners, losers, and lots of disappointed participants, except in Alice in Wonderland, where everyone gets a prize. Several posters have stated clearly that the rules were well-known. If Texas and other states didn't get what they hoped for, it is because probably because they didn't do a very good prep or got into the fray too little, too late. It is easy to say after it's all over that the criteria were not right, but I suspect that if some czar made the decisions regardless of state input, we'd be hearing complaints about that process. Some of the comments here begin to sound like those of the disappointed Vikings fans about how unfair the sudden death format was.
There is a style of Internet commentating where one intends to "debate" and "dissect" and "refute" the argument of an "opponent." You quote a paragraph or sentence or other snippet of the "the other side" and then you write your paragraph or sentence "disproving" your debate opponent.
I guess that style has a certain name which I can't remember, and it got to be popular with young hot-heads in "flame wars", probably originally debating the merits of Windows vs Linux or C vs Lisp before it got applied to public policy. I don't like it, and I tune it out whenever I can, although I commend Sam1 for responding to it in a level-headed way.
If a person has a reasoned argument or point to make, just make it.
The point I am going to make is that it seems that the criteria for the rail project awards was "honest" in adhering to the original request-for-proposals. It seems that the "rewarding blue states" was in a way accidental, or that blue states are more committed to trains (a point that can be made in other than red-letter text all of the time).
On the other hand, since the ARRA is a "stimulus", the bias is towards states that have "done their homework" and are therefore shovel-worthy. This might give the best stimulus impact, but it might not give the biggest bang-for-the-buck in terms of providing trains where there is the most population of highway congestion. Given that the 8 billion is probably a do-or-die to show what good can happen for passenger trains, and there are not going to be dollops of 8 billion handed out on a regular basis any time soon, asking whether the most eager to get trains are the most worthy to get trains is a valid question.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I don't think Texas had a detailed plan submitted or popular support for it. I am not worried at all about this as Texas has the clout to obtain funding later. Right now there are a LOT of local rail projects in the works. Sam1 left out the Dention to Carrolton line under construction now in DFW.
The TRE did get funds for a track in Fort Worth I thought.
The lack of money compared to other states did play for a while in the current Govenors race though and honestly, if I was POTUS, I would have strictly enforced the terms of the distribution of this money. It was clear, not shovel ready.......no funds. Did they adhere to that in all cases, I am not sure. However, I am sure Texas was light years away from other states in having a workable plan. Wisconsin has been studying passenger rail on various portions of Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison since the early 1970's at least. The line in Florida has been studied off and on for decades as well. Ohio, well so-so there. They have been studying that corridor for years but I am not as sure it was shovel ready as other grants.
So I am satisfied at the exclusion of Texas from this round.
Some people see the glass as half full whilst others see it as half empty. It is a function of perception. One can conclude that politics played little if any role in the award of the HSR contracts. That is understandable. But given the correlations that I researched, I am hard pressed to believe that an objective analysis would have generated the outcomes that were announced.
Texas is a conservative state, to be sure, and the preference is for highways and airways over railways. But there is a growing group of influential people in the Lone Star state who believe that passenger rail is a desirable alternative to driving and flying over short to medium distances in congested corridors.
In addition to the state support for the Heartland Flyer, we have developed a first class commuter rail operation between Dallas and Fort Worth. In addition, assuming that it gets going by the end of the first quarter, we will have a decent commuter rail operation in the Austin area. And plans are afoot to build a commuter line from Georgetown to San Antonio. So the state is not without it success stories.
I don't know whether the Texas proposal was proper. Even if I read it, I am not sure that I would have the expertise to determine if it was proper or to evaluate it objectively with the competing proposals. I know, however, that many people in this state know how to play the federal paperwork chase. They have done it successfully. That's how we got federal money for the DART light rail lines as well as the Trinity Railway Express.
The federal government should not be handing out money to selected states for regional transport solutions, which I have discussed. If passenger rail is a good solution for Virginia and North Carolina, as an example, they should pay for it. The same applies to Texas.
Phoebe Vet Perhaps it's because conservative states are populated by conservative people and governed by conservative politicians who believe that HSR is a waste of taxpayer funds and have therefore not commenced any of the required prerequisite activities and therefore do not qualify.
Perhaps it's because conservative states are populated by conservative people and governed by conservative politicians who believe that HSR is a waste of taxpayer funds and have therefore not commenced any of the required prerequisite activities and therefore do not qualify.
You have hit the nail on the head IMHO. Now our republican GA governor is blaming the local congressmen ( ironically blames only the democrat ones ) of not pursuing grants with more force. Evidently he has no clue ( not anything new ) of how the grant award process was set up. Even if there is another round due out next Jan - Feb there will be no change because he does not leave office until Jan 2011. Georgia still has an rest of state vs. Atl metro area mentality and that is one reason state is so red.
Sam 1 - there is a correlation; but I think you got it backward. States didn't get money for "HSR" because they were Blue; instead, Blue and the swing states you mention have the conditions for seeking an intercity rail passenger solution and met the criteria for screening for an ARRA grant.
I would agree with you that DFW-AUS-SAS is an important corridor that warrants improvement. Failing to meet the criteria Railway Man explained probably doomed the application in this round. Hopefully the President and Congress will put together an ongoing national intercity rail passenger program for where it's needed; and Texas is one of those places regardless of color.
Sam1Like 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. 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. 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. 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. It makes the Charlotte to Richmond corridor look like an under populated rural strip. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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. It makes the Charlotte to Richmond corridor look like an under populated rural strip. 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. 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.
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.
daveklepper Massachusetts didn't get anything at all, from what I understand, although it will benefit by some of Connecticut's money. Indirect by a section of double track restored NH - Springfield and the ST (B&M) line upgraded Springfield - East Deerfield for Vermonter going thru more populated area and not having to back up to Palmer. Award says will save 90 minutes of time. Also MA passengers will be able to go to Brunswick Me with the exension of the Downeaster. But if Massachusetts had been serious about rail in general and not addicted so much to car culture, there would be a north station south station commuter and Amtrak tunnel today in operation How correct you are. Maybe a poor man's solution is for Downeaster trains to go out of North Station aand over the B&A connection from H tower to CP3 at Beacon Park? Then trains could go inland route thru Springfield and NH to NYP. Anyone know if MBTA bought that branch as part of the track purchase to Worcester? I know there are intermittent moves by both AMTRAK and MBTA for equipment positioning moves to and from South station. Speed last I heard was 10 MPH but certainly that could be upgraded (approx 2 miles?) aediat. and streetcar service would have already been restored to the Arborway and the Silver Line would be light rail using the old Tremont and Broadway unused tunnel entrance to get people to where they really want to go!
Massachusetts didn't get anything at all, from what I understand, although it will benefit by some of Connecticut's money.
Indirect by a section of double track restored NH - Springfield and the ST (B&M) line upgraded Springfield - East Deerfield for Vermonter going thru more populated area and not having to back up to Palmer. Award says will save 90 minutes of time. Also MA passengers will be able to go to Brunswick Me with the exension of the Downeaster.
But if Massachusetts had been serious about rail in general and not addicted so much to car culture, there would be a north station south station commuter and Amtrak tunnel today in operation
How correct you are. Maybe a poor man's solution is for Downeaster trains to go out of North Station aand over the B&A connection from H tower to CP3 at Beacon Park? Then trains could go inland route thru Springfield and NH to NYP. Anyone know if MBTA bought that branch as part of the track purchase to Worcester? I know there are intermittent moves by both AMTRAK and MBTA for equipment positioning moves to and from South station. Speed last I heard was 10 MPH but certainly that could be upgraded (approx 2 miles?) aediat.
and streetcar service would have already been restored to the Arborway and the Silver Line would be light rail using the old Tremont and Broadway unused tunnel entrance to get people to where they really want to go!
Massachusetts didn't get anything at all, from what I understand, although it will benefit by some of Connecticut's money. But if Massachusetts had been serious about rail in general and not addicted so much to car culture, there would be a north station south station commuter and Amtrak tunnel today in operation and streetcar service would have already been restored to the Arborway and the Silver Line would be light rail using the old Tremont and Broadway unused tunnel entrance to get people to where they really want to go!
CMStPnP Texas doesn't have a workable plan for High Speed rail so it does not bother me a bit that we did not get much funds. Texas can fund a HSR internally via itself and I don't think it needs the Feds on this. It would be nice and the recent $1 billion kicker for DART was nice but that only sped up the project timeline. DART would have expanded without the kicker from the Feds. So I'm not bothered by Texas not getting anything in this package. http://www.star-tegram.com/news/story/1935318.html
Texas doesn't have a workable plan for High Speed rail so it does not bother me a bit that we did not get much funds. Texas can fund a HSR internally via itself and I don't think it needs the Feds on this. It would be nice and the recent $1 billion kicker for DART was nice but that only sped up the project timeline. DART would have expanded without the kicker from the Feds. So I'm not bothered by Texas not getting anything in this package.
http://www.star-tegram.com/news/story/1935318.html
activated
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1935318.html
An important point to keep in mind in all of this is that much (hopefully a large percentage) of the $8 bil. and future HSR and electrification appropriations represents an investment in the future infrastructure of the US, not simply an expenditure or transfer payment like medicare, defense and social security outlays.
SAM 1 I see the web site deleted part of your post. That is not fair to you!!
blue streak 1 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 www.sehsr.org 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.
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 www.sehsr.org 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.
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.
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 www.sehsr.org 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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 www.sehsr.org 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. 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. 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.
schlimm Air passengers CHI - STL are about 4500 daily on 41 RT's, which alone could support 10 RT trains per day. Given the need for frequent service, train capacity wouldn't need to be high so that an hourly schedule could cover more of the day.
Interesting but until you eliminate the connecting passengers and only consider O & Ds that would be a more valid figure. Also eliminate those passengers that are originating or arriving at a location very close to either airport.
Now that said what others say about many drivers going over to train is valid. The ACCELA passengers that are all first or business class speak to a strong business model. When the Wi-Fi is completely activated on the NEC the resulting increase in riders will be very important to judge what will happen on CHI - STL. Exept for those few business and some pleasure drivers that can work in their car or limo the train will up their productivity and bill hours. They biggest beneficiary of these faster trains may be taxi drivers at each end point and don't forget Springfield especially when legislature is in session.
HarveyK400Even if Amtrak would charge $137 r/t CHI-STL for a 4-hr schedule compared to sam1's $160 air fare example (proportion of $300 to $350); wouldn't that be out of reach for the vast majority of travelers? RWM might consider it; but would enough riders be attracted to be worth running a train? Would rail really offer a greener alternative, divert auto use, or even be relevant to the majority of the population for occasional travel?
Harvey: Not really disagreeing here and we don't know what the fare would be, but consider a few points. Chicago to St. Louis is about 300 miles (one way). Driving takes over five hours unless there is little traffic. Gasoline alone for most vehicles would cost $120.00 (round trip). The business traveler or single going central city to central city would take the train. Couples and families would probably continue driving. Those suburban travelers might or might not use rail.
Many folks who fly probably would change to rail, especially if the train could speed up to a three hour trip. Air passengers CHI - STL are about 4500 daily on 41 RT's, which alone could support 10 RT trains per day. Given the need for frequent service, train capacity wouldn't need to be high so that an hourly schedule could cover more of the day.
Gang,
Even if Amtrak would charge $137 r/t CHI-STL for a 4-hr schedule compared to sam1's $160 air fare example (proportion of $300 to $350); wouldn't that be out of reach for the vast majority of travelers? RWM might consider it; but would enough riders be attracted to be worth running a train? Would rail really offer a greener alternative, divert auto use, or even be relevant to the majority of the population for occasional travel?
Amtrak gets away with a high 1-way fare between Chicago and Milwaukee because of the commuting demand and high cost of downtown Chicago parking. Ridership on non-peak Hiawathas is comparatively low. I've railed about that before. Fares to Chicago could exploit the downtown parking cost; but travel to the rest of the region and the bulk of the population and business - driving from Joliet or taking CTA or Metra from downtown - becomes prohibitively expensive where parking is free or nominal.
All this HSR stuff seems to revolve around how much can be charged from a few rather than how many would take the train or how much travel and commerce would be induced if fares were affordable and service faster competitive with out-of-pocket cost and time driving. I would like to see trains carrying 500-1,000 passengers on the Chicago end. My next question is, if fares are affordable, how much capacity would be needed and what equipment could handle it. Most tilting high speed trains seem borderline or inadequate if ridership exceeds 400.
The Wisconsin Talgos will have 420 coach seats in 14 intermediate coaches; but that configuration obviously would not do for a 4-hr CHI-STL run where business class and food service are needed.
For comparison, the TGV-Duplex has only 565 seats in 8 articulated coaches; but diesel or turbine power and a low-floor entry would be needed.
A 10-unit, double-deck Talgo 22D may have 450 seats; but also may be limited in adhesion in it's electric version and there is the question of whether a gas turbine hydraulic would be possible in the end units.
Sam1schlimm Railway Man As for the $160 fare, really? For business travel? I couldn't seem to buy any ticket last year for under $350, and many of my trips are busting the $1,000 barrier now. I can buy all the advance tickets in the world to get it a cheap fare, but it's a waste of money because I will inevitably have to change the flights and pay a change fee. Last year I spent something like $50,000 on air fare. A walk-up fare of $300 for business class-rail for a Chicago-St. Louis round-trip would be very attractive to me. RWM Exactly! I too was wondering where sam1 was getting those numbers. I found that flying to St. Louis for a 2-day business trip over the next few weeks would be (round trip) $250 coach; $940 first class. for an hour 15 minute flight. Both Chicago and St. Louis have mass transit, as well as cabs and limos for transfer once there if the target isn't downtown. Four hours via train for $300 vs 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours (larger figure includes transfer downtown) via air sounds very competitive. I spent 41 years working for a Fortune 250 corporation. I was a manager for 35 of those years. Amongst other duties I oversaw numerous consulting contracts. We made it crystal clear that the consultants would plan their travel far enough in advance to take advantage of lower fares, as well as car rental and hotel deals. In fact, in most instances we bought the tickets for them. If they would not plan in advance, we found ones who could. On occasion, emergencies dictated that our employees and business partners pay the walk-up fares. But these occasions, thanks to good planning, were few and far between. I traveled extensively whilst working. I was expected to plan ahead so as to be able to take advantage of low cost travel opportunities. Included in my assignments was a five year stint in Australia. I made 22 trips between the U.S. and Australia. I know how to get a good deal on air fares, but it requires planning ahead. Airfares can change daily. The $160.00 fare was for travel from Chicago to St. Louis on a Tuesday and return on a Thursday in mid February. This morning the fare for mid February travel is $171. If one wants to go next week, the fare would be $299. The fares are shown on Travelocity. There is no doubt about it. Failure to plan ahead is costly. And it will likely be so for any high speed rail system.
schlimm Railway Man As for the $160 fare, really? For business travel? I couldn't seem to buy any ticket last year for under $350, and many of my trips are busting the $1,000 barrier now. I can buy all the advance tickets in the world to get it a cheap fare, but it's a waste of money because I will inevitably have to change the flights and pay a change fee. Last year I spent something like $50,000 on air fare. A walk-up fare of $300 for business class-rail for a Chicago-St. Louis round-trip would be very attractive to me. RWM Exactly! I too was wondering where sam1 was getting those numbers. I found that flying to St. Louis for a 2-day business trip over the next few weeks would be (round trip) $250 coach; $940 first class. for an hour 15 minute flight. Both Chicago and St. Louis have mass transit, as well as cabs and limos for transfer once there if the target isn't downtown. Four hours via train for $300 vs 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours (larger figure includes transfer downtown) via air sounds very competitive.
Railway Man As for the $160 fare, really? For business travel? I couldn't seem to buy any ticket last year for under $350, and many of my trips are busting the $1,000 barrier now. I can buy all the advance tickets in the world to get it a cheap fare, but it's a waste of money because I will inevitably have to change the flights and pay a change fee. Last year I spent something like $50,000 on air fare. A walk-up fare of $300 for business class-rail for a Chicago-St. Louis round-trip would be very attractive to me. RWM
As for the $160 fare, really? For business travel? I couldn't seem to buy any ticket last year for under $350, and many of my trips are busting the $1,000 barrier now. I can buy all the advance tickets in the world to get it a cheap fare, but it's a waste of money because I will inevitably have to change the flights and pay a change fee. Last year I spent something like $50,000 on air fare. A walk-up fare of $300 for business class-rail for a Chicago-St. Louis round-trip would be very attractive to me.
RWM
Exactly! I too was wondering where sam1 was getting those numbers. I found that flying to St. Louis for a 2-day business trip over the next few weeks would be (round trip) $250 coach; $940 first class. for an hour 15 minute flight. Both Chicago and St. Louis have mass transit, as well as cabs and limos for transfer once there if the target isn't downtown. Four hours via train for $300 vs 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours (larger figure includes transfer downtown) via air sounds very competitive.
I spent 41 years working for a Fortune 250 corporation. I was a manager for 35 of those years. Amongst other duties I oversaw numerous consulting contracts. We made it crystal clear that the consultants would plan their travel far enough in advance to take advantage of lower fares, as well as car rental and hotel deals. In fact, in most instances we bought the tickets for them. If they would not plan in advance, we found ones who could. On occasion, emergencies dictated that our employees and business partners pay the walk-up fares. But these occasions, thanks to good planning, were few and far between.
I traveled extensively whilst working. I was expected to plan ahead so as to be able to take advantage of low cost travel opportunities. Included in my assignments was a five year stint in Australia. I made 22 trips between the U.S. and Australia. I know how to get a good deal on air fares, but it requires planning ahead.
Airfares can change daily. The $160.00 fare was for travel from Chicago to St. Louis on a Tuesday and return on a Thursday in mid February. This morning the fare for mid February travel is $171. If one wants to go next week, the fare would be $299. The fares are shown on Travelocity. There is no doubt about it. Failure to plan ahead is costly. And it will likely be so for any high speed rail system.
oltmannd About the only red state I can think of that would have been a reasonable selection that got shut out was Texas. What did they have on the table for consideration?
Texas wasn't a reasonable selection. What Texas did not have was:
#1 and #3 are bad, but the missing NEPA Tier 1 EIS is a fatal flaw. Without it the FRA would be violating federal law by making an award. The FRA told everyone that last spring: no EIS, no money! Several states got the message, got busy, and got the EIS done in record time, e.g., Washington State, who got $590 million. I can guarantee you that without the EIS, Washington would be looking like Texas right now, with virtually nothing. The FRA published the rules and played by the rules.
Had Texas received a significant award, then that would have proved the cynics right.
I saw many of the applications. You could handicap them in about 1 minute of review each. There were no big surprises to me.
In reality the money is being given to shovel ready or near shovel ready projects. In otherwords, these are project which have been underway for sometime and this money is just the next step in the political process. Nothing really new except that the money has finally been made available.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Sam1 That the blue states got most of the money is suspicious.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.