Railway Man Sam1 Does anyone really believe that the award of federal monies for enhanced passenger rail in the U.S. was a function of market evaluations as opposed to political considerations? The big winners appear to be the states that went blue as opposed to red during the last election. Politicians tend to award their supporters. I would do the same if I was a politician. But awarding transport contracts because they are good politics tends to make for bad economics. On a global scale, for the entire HSIPR program? At that scale, politics is everything. On the scale of the how the $8 billion was allocated, however, politics mattered a lot less. Many of the applications violated law and got weeded out. Many were wishful thinking with no local legs underneath them, and got weeded out.....Correlation is not causation. RWM
Sam1 Does anyone really believe that the award of federal monies for enhanced passenger rail in the U.S. was a function of market evaluations as opposed to political considerations? The big winners appear to be the states that went blue as opposed to red during the last election. Politicians tend to award their supporters. I would do the same if I was a politician. But awarding transport contracts because they are good politics tends to make for bad economics.
Does anyone really believe that the award of federal monies for enhanced passenger rail in the U.S. was a function of market evaluations as opposed to political considerations? The big winners appear to be the states that went blue as opposed to red during the last election. Politicians tend to award their supporters. I would do the same if I was a politician. But awarding transport contracts because they are good politics tends to make for bad economics.
On a global scale, for the entire HSIPR program? At that scale, politics is everything.
On the scale of the how the $8 billion was allocated, however, politics mattered a lot less. Many of the applications violated law and got weeded out. Many were wishful thinking with no local legs underneath them, and got weeded out.....Correlation is not causation. RWM
On a global scale politicals is everything, but somehow it does not filter down to the local level? I doubt it. Moreover, unless one read every proposal, he or she would not know their quality.
Correlation is not causation. I agree. But it should be a red flag. That the blue states got most of the money is suspicious. Hopefully, the GAO, which is one of the most objective audit organizations in the U.S., will review the proposals and how the grants were made.
I lived in Dallas for more than 31 years. I worked extensively to help get the DART referendum passed. And I stayed in close touch with DART representatives as the system was built. Politics infected every aspect of the project. It is one of the reasons sub-optimum decisions were made regarding equipment purchases, station design, routes, staffing, etc.
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.
Railway ManAs 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
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1Chicago to St. Louis in four hours may be a good deal for leisure travelers or for those traveling to stops up and down the line. But most business people will continue to fly between the two cities. The flying time averages one hour and nine minutes with a cost of approximately $160 return. Check-in and security clearance would probably add another hour to the time, bringing the total to two hours and nine minutes. Unless one is going from downtown - near the railroad station - to downtown, equally near the railroad station, flying is the only smart way to go for most business people.
Chicago to St. Louis in four hours may be a good deal for leisure travelers or for those traveling to stops up and down the line. But most business people will continue to fly between the two cities. The flying time averages one hour and nine minutes with a cost of approximately $160 return. Check-in and security clearance would probably add another hour to the time, bringing the total to two hours and nine minutes. Unless one is going from downtown - near the railroad station - to downtown, equally near the railroad station, flying is the only smart way to go for most business people.
By your judgment I must be a dumb business person. As a railroader who spends 4-6 days a week traveling, to me a four-hour rail trip Chicago-St. Louis (or a similar rail-vs.-air corridor) is going to be a serious consideration for me versus a 2.5 hour air trip. It will really come down to how the schedules line up and whether there's rental car drop-off/pick-up at any endpoint that does not have a highly developed rail mass transit system like Chicago. The lost 1.5 hours I can use to do e-mail, talk on the cell phone, eat, sleep -- all the things that are difficult or inconvenient or impossible to do on an airplane.
Sam1Does anyone really believe that the award of federal monies for enhanced passenger rail in the U.S. was a function of market evaluations as opposed to political considerations? The big winners appear to be the states that went blue as opposed to red during the last election. Politicians tend to award their supporters. I would do the same if I was a politician. But awarding transport contracts because they are good politics tends to make for bad economics.
On the scale of the how the $8 billion was allocated, however, politics mattered a lot less. Many of the applications violated law and got weeded out. Many were wishful thinking with no local legs underneath them, and got weeded out. At that point the $57 billion or so was reduced to about $20 billion, and from that point on it was about 90% a matter of spreading it out evenly, and about 10% a matter of careful application of political influence by a few states. There are a number of states that sought to crash through the rules by sheer political force but they did not succeed. In some cases, states that would have gotten, say, $200 million, were able to use political influence to get another $100.
Correlation is not causation. States that vote Democratic also tend to be states that vote money regularly for passenger rail, and vote for state legislatures and governors that support passenger rail. They also tend to be states that have dense urban population centers that benefit from high-speed rail, more than states that do not. The program fits those states. It doesn't fit states who don't care for or can't make use of passenger rail.
While I agree that the CHI-STL train cannot compete with air on speed, at is only about 5% of the intercity travel market. A 4-hour train would be much more competitive with driving, and suburban stops in Joliet and Alton are more convenient than the respective downtown for many in the region. Furthermore, Amtrak fares have been cheaper than gas at times. However the low-cost travel segment is susceptible to discount bus competitors.
Sam1Chicago to St. Louis in four hours may be a good deal for leisure travelers or for those traveling to stops up and down the line. But most business people will continue to fly between the two cities. The flying time averages one hour and nine minutes with a cost of approximately $160 return. Check-in and security clearance would probably add another hour to the time, bringing the total to two hours and nine minutes. Unless one was going from downtown - near the railroad station - to downtown, equally near the railroad station, flying is the only smart way to go for most business people. These awards are just the start. How much will be required over the long haul to complete the projects a key question? For a nation mired in debt, someone should pay attention to this question. But I am not counting on it.
These awards are just the start. How much will be required over the long haul to complete the projects a key question? For a nation mired in debt, someone should pay attention to this question. But I am not counting on it.
Chicago-O'Hare - Union Station - Chicago-Midway is a very long shot around here and isn't on the short list for ARRA HSR funding.
The best travel solution for O'Hare is a billion-dollar tunnel under the airport to two existing and a third future terminal. A poor-man's version would be to transfer to the CTA Blue Line at either Mannheim Rd or on the west side of the airport on a Blue Line extension, greatly reducing convenience to Downtown while facilitating regional connections for employees and fliers alike.
The run-through tracks at Union Station would allow trains to move quickly; but the issue is getting passengers off the platform and on the right train. The proposed billion-dollar West Loop Transportation Center would be little better; and, for all practical purposes, act as a separate terminal. Furthermore, there isn't sufficient capacity on the Metra Milwaukee-West all the way from Union Station. If even one of these could be built, I would chose O'Hare; but sufficient traffic, much more than half-hour service, would need to funnel in from both directions to begin to justify such an expenditure.
Thanks though for bringing it up.
cbq9911a....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.
I just returned from a trip to San Diego via the Texas Eagle (Sunset Limited) and Pacific Surfliner. Upgrading the line between LAX and San Diego for 110 mph running will be a challenge. In many areas the trains run through highly congested communities. They are not likely to be sympathetic to having high speed trains barrel through their towns (Oceanside, Solana Beach, etc.). Also, from Solana Beach to San Diego the track(s) follows a curvy route to crest the hills between the two communities. Straightening them appears to be an expensive proposition.
It is going to take a lot more than signal improvements to upgrade the performance of the Eagle between DFW and San Antonio. The train takes nearly ten hours to run between Big ‘D' and the Alamo City. The bus takes as little as four hours and forty five minutes whilst one can drive it easily in four and a half hours. Or fly between the two cities in approximately 55 minutes sans check-in time and security clearance.
These awards are just the start. How much will be required to complete the projects is a key question? For a nation mired in debt, someone should pay attention to this question. But I am not counting on it.
HarveyK400I read the release; but it seems more disconnected than ever. The Governor's announcement tomorrow in Moline suggests money is going to more than just CHI-STL as I wondered. Service to Moline makes me wonder about the approx $80 mil needed for the companion Iowa project for an extension to Iowa City - pretty small; but larger than Fort Worth.The announcement was like a cookie cutter repeating verbiage for each corridor; so it's conceivable that mistakes could have slipped by. Even describing grade crossing protection improvements to the Oklahoma border is not strictly in Fort Worth either. I may be picky; but just saying that the information may be inaccurate.
I read the release; but it seems more disconnected than ever. The Governor's announcement tomorrow in Moline suggests money is going to more than just CHI-STL as I wondered. Service to Moline makes me wonder about the approx $80 mil needed for the companion Iowa project for an extension to Iowa City - pretty small; but larger than Fort Worth.
The announcement was like a cookie cutter repeating verbiage for each corridor; so it's conceivable that mistakes could have slipped by. Even describing grade crossing protection improvements to the Oklahoma border is not strictly in Fort Worth either. I may be picky; but just saying that the information may be inaccurate.
Without to many additional delays and lawsuits CA should have a HSR system up and operational by 2020. At a estimated cost of $45 Billion. CA has already sold the first $10 Billion in bonds and Alstom has purchased a facility on Mare Island that is large enough to build trains in and if not certainly get them roadworthy after unloading from ships that would bring the partially finished trainsets from overseas. Todays newspapers in California are claiming the HSR will employ 600,000 people during construction. The Port of Stockton could be a big winner as most of Californias Cement is imported through the Port and it is also the largest port for Imports of ReBar. In addition the facility that built all of the new East Bay bridge sections is still in place a great head start on a place to build the bridge and overpass sections for the HSR sytem. All that's needed is a concrete tie plant located here and it will almost guarantee that Stockton will be a major player in the HSR system. I know of no other state that has invested the amount of money into Passenger rail that California has since the coming of Amtrak. They probably should have received even more of the federal money.
Al - in - Stockton
$5 million is significant in a $8 billion pool? It's for grade-crossing signal improvements between Fort Worth and the Oklahoma Border.
All of this is published on line, there's links in other threads I posted on Thursday, if you want to see for yourself. Or, just go here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100128_1400-HSRAwards-Summary_FRA%20Revisions.pdf
The Illinois grant specifically did not fund Iowa City or Dubuque service. The announcement will concern another funding approach to the service. The $1.333 billion is apportioned as follows, per the FRA -- all of it in the Chicago-St Louis-Kansas City corridor. I've pasted from the FRA fact sheets here for you:
Chicago - St. Louis: $1.102 billion: Using grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), improvements to this corridor will be made that allow passenger rail service from Chicago to St. Louis to operate at speeds of up to 110 mph. Th ese higher speeds, coupled with improvements resulting in increased on-time performance, will decrease travel time from Chicago to St. Louis to approximately 4 hours, allowing customers to reach their destination 30 percent faster compared to current rail service, and 10 percent faster than driving between the two cities.
Improvements will be made to track, signal systems, and existing stations. e project will also fund the implementation of positive train control technology. Upgrades to rail cars will also play a signi cant role in enhancing this service. Additionally, required environmental work to support future service enhancements will be funded.
St. Louis - Kansas City: $31 million Improvements on the St. Louis to Kansas City service are expected to provide sizable service reliability improvements; on-time performance on the route is projected to increase from 18 percent in 2008 to 85 percent in fi ve years. Numerous construction projects, including the expansion of existing railroad bridges and universal crossovers, as well as improved grade crossings, will be funded on this segment.
I'd like to believe that; but Ohio has done little to date and still may need a constitutional amendment to funds operations - the tracks but no trains problem.
Fort what it's worth, apparently Texas did get $5 mil for Fort Worth, my guess it's for station or terminal improvements.
Gov Quinn will be in Moline tomorrow to make an important announcement according to Quad City Rail, so maybe the other Illinois projects, like new services to the Moline and Dubuque, are part of the $1.3 bil Illinois got. About $100 mil was to make CN (Carbondale) and UP (St Louis) whole for costs related to expanded passenger services two years ago. The Quincy train posed little problem for BNSF.
Railway ManNot suprising at all. There were three consistent rules applied by the FRA to grants: The state must be a proven supporter of passenger rail as evidenced by a long-term, hard-cash, expenditure record that continued day-in, day-out, regardless of which party owned the legislature and the governor's mansion, to avoid risk of a stranded project (track, but no trains). The state must submit a legally compliant, coherent, sensible application and plan The state must have completed programmatic level NEPA environmental analysis for the actual project that would be funded, under FRA as lead agency, not some other agency, not some "sort-of-like" project. This feeds back to #2, it makes the project legally compliant. States that failed any one of tests 1, 2, or 3 did not get significant grants. The FRA told everyone this last spring, but some people chose not to listen. Some people thought they could ignore the law, ignore the rules, ignore the lack of viability of their projects, ignore the Class 1s, ignore Amtrak, ignore the FRA, ignore the USDOT, ignore the White House, and ignore national political reality, and just muscle their way through the process. It didn't work out well for them. RWM
There were three consistent rules applied by the FRA to grants:
States that failed any one of tests 1, 2, or 3 did not get significant grants.
The FRA told everyone this last spring, but some people chose not to listen. Some people thought they could ignore the law, ignore the rules, ignore the lack of viability of their projects, ignore the Class 1s, ignore Amtrak, ignore the FRA, ignore the USDOT, ignore the White House, and ignore national political reality, and just muscle their way through the process. It didn't work out well for them.
HarveyK400 Well, you missed Florida; but Texas, another potential swing state, got nothing by all indications. That is surprising since one forumist postulated the addition of HSR in the Texas-Florida crescent would bring service to a majority of US state populations.
Well, you missed Florida; but Texas, another potential swing state, got nothing by all indications. That is surprising since one forumist postulated the addition of HSR in the Texas-Florida crescent would bring service to a majority of US state populations.
Not suprising at all.
Railway ManThe Illinois grant is Dwight south. All of it.RWM
I am really surprised by that amount for just Chicago-St Louis. The so-called 2008 Fast-Track Initiative proposed for State-funded improvements came to only $243 million including $80 million for four trains. Coincidentally, $1.3 billion was proposed to upgrade all Illinois-supported routes and expanded with new services to Dubuque, IA and Moline, IL. I wonder if the five-fold increase for just Chicago-St Louis reflects restoration of a second main track for anticipated increases in UP freight traffic to a Joliet-area logistics terminal.
Harvey
HarveyK400beaulieuoltmanndPaul MilenkovicMadison-Milwaukee-Chicago long has been planned for 110 MPH -- that is what the recent Talgo purchases were all about. What kind of locomotive is going to do 110 MPH with them? Genesis or MPI diesels with 30-35 ton axle load and nose-suspended traction motors? Something easier on the tracks? The Genesis are quite a bit lighter than the MPI units. The MPI units are too heavy for anything but ~70 mph commuter work, I think. The Genesis units, at least, have quite a bit of service time at 100 mph in several spots in the Northeast, thought they do have those big-old nose suspended GE AH traction motors in them. Perhaps a GEVO powered, AC motored Genesis would be step up? Possibly also trade down in torque to get a lighter motor too. Accept that 0-20 mph will be a little slower, this isn't going to be a commuter operation. Paul ran an acceleration simulation for a P42 with 6 conventional cars, 410 tons, that resulted in attaining 110 mph in 3.8 min and 4.7 miles. A 14-car Talgo, plus end units and NPCB, might weigh 410 tons as well. I think it would be great to get the lightweight XXI power cars which would bring down weight substantially. There is no breakdown how the $833-million will be used; but obviously 32 miles of essentially new track between Watertown and Madison will soak up some of it, as will 2 more trainsets to go with the two already ordered by the State ("earnest money"). The Illinois grant may actually have the money for its portion of the Hiawatha route. There is the issue of a costly third track for only 4-6 Hiawathas in the peaks; but $1.3 billion could cover it and leave something for other needs. Dwight-Alton improvements for the CHI-STL Lincoln Service are mostly completed except for signaling and additional passing tracks. Of course, much of the work was done 15-20 years ago, so tie renewal will be needed again at the least. Another big ticket item for Illinois is the Englewood flyover for the Metra RID over the NS/ATK route to Michigan and the East. It's unclear whether new equipment for the increased frequencies is part of the grant.
beaulieuoltmanndPaul MilenkovicMadison-Milwaukee-Chicago long has been planned for 110 MPH -- that is what the recent Talgo purchases were all about. What kind of locomotive is going to do 110 MPH with them? Genesis or MPI diesels with 30-35 ton axle load and nose-suspended traction motors? Something easier on the tracks? The Genesis are quite a bit lighter than the MPI units. The MPI units are too heavy for anything but ~70 mph commuter work, I think. The Genesis units, at least, have quite a bit of service time at 100 mph in several spots in the Northeast, thought they do have those big-old nose suspended GE AH traction motors in them. Perhaps a GEVO powered, AC motored Genesis would be step up? Possibly also trade down in torque to get a lighter motor too. Accept that 0-20 mph will be a little slower, this isn't going to be a commuter operation.
oltmanndPaul MilenkovicMadison-Milwaukee-Chicago long has been planned for 110 MPH -- that is what the recent Talgo purchases were all about. What kind of locomotive is going to do 110 MPH with them? Genesis or MPI diesels with 30-35 ton axle load and nose-suspended traction motors? Something easier on the tracks? The Genesis are quite a bit lighter than the MPI units. The MPI units are too heavy for anything but ~70 mph commuter work, I think. The Genesis units, at least, have quite a bit of service time at 100 mph in several spots in the Northeast, thought they do have those big-old nose suspended GE AH traction motors in them. Perhaps a GEVO powered, AC motored Genesis would be step up?
Paul MilenkovicMadison-Milwaukee-Chicago long has been planned for 110 MPH -- that is what the recent Talgo purchases were all about. What kind of locomotive is going to do 110 MPH with them? Genesis or MPI diesels with 30-35 ton axle load and nose-suspended traction motors? Something easier on the tracks?
Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago long has been planned for 110 MPH -- that is what the recent Talgo purchases were all about.
What kind of locomotive is going to do 110 MPH with them? Genesis or MPI diesels with 30-35 ton axle load and nose-suspended traction motors? Something easier on the tracks?
Possibly also trade down in torque to get a lighter motor too. Accept that 0-20 mph will be a little slower, this isn't going to be a commuter operation.
Paul ran an acceleration simulation for a P42 with 6 conventional cars, 410 tons, that resulted in attaining 110 mph in 3.8 min and 4.7 miles. A 14-car Talgo, plus end units and NPCB, might weigh 410 tons as well. I think it would be great to get the lightweight XXI power cars which would bring down weight substantially.
There is no breakdown how the $833-million will be used; but obviously 32 miles of essentially new track between Watertown and Madison will soak up some of it, as will 2 more trainsets to go with the two already ordered by the State ("earnest money").
The Illinois grant may actually have the money for its portion of the Hiawatha route. There is the issue of a costly third track for only 4-6 Hiawathas in the peaks; but $1.3 billion could cover it and leave something for other needs. Dwight-Alton improvements for the CHI-STL Lincoln Service are mostly completed except for signaling and additional passing tracks. Of course, much of the work was done 15-20 years ago, so tie renewal will be needed again at the least. Another big ticket item for Illinois is the Englewood flyover for the Metra RID over the NS/ATK route to Michigan and the East. It's unclear whether new equipment for the increased frequencies is part of the grant.
The Illinois grant is Dwight south. All of it.
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.
...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.
blue streak 1Also you did not mention the new England states and their grants
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd VA and NC got 0.6B for what I guessed they'd get 2.0B. Big missing piece is restoring track Durham to Richmond
VA and NC got 0.6B for what I guessed they'd get 2.0B. Big missing piece is restoring track Durham to Richmond
Don. I was also surprized that the Raleigh - (will use present trackage) Norlina - Petersburg - (also use present trackage) - Richmond was not included. The 73 miles between Petersburg - Norlina would be easy to construct with most ROW of the empty S-line ready to be purchased at no cost with only curve reduction ROW to be purchased. The 73 miles (posibillty :45min) + 58 (total 131) miles on to Raleigh would only take 2 hr ( probably less) vs present Carolinian 3 hr. The only reason I could think of was maybe that a 2Hr essentially non stop route ( very little Population on the route.) was thought to not provide enough intermediate passengers.
However from what I read the EIS on that route is going to continue and maybe it will be in the next grant. Also mentioned was $25M for additional crosovers on CSX from Ric - Raleigh. AT $2M per setof universal crossovers + signals (? RWM?) that would indicate 12 additional locations for meets to be completed.
oltmanndFL got 1.3B for Tampa to Orlando. I guessed zip
Yes I did as well because of the Florida legislature and the Fl voters. Also the route miles are rather short but the traffic on I-4 is bad to terrible 18Hr a day.
The other grants fairly well followed what I expected however would have liked WASH state to have gotten more.
Also you did not mention the new England states and their grants
Just got this moments ago from NCDOT:
This update is going to all of the public who have furnished emails to our project team.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Talgo XXI locomotives were used in all of the Midwest states' calculations and assumptions for planning the Midwest network.
As for Wisconsin's stimulus application, there was a request for 8 new locomotives (again, presumably the Talgo XXI), and two new passenger car sets (also Talgos), which is on top of the Talgo passenger sets announced in 2009 (funding for which was coming out of state funds, not the stimulus).
So Wisconsin should end up with 4 complete Talgo trainsets--14 cars each with a locomotive at each end.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
CA got 2.3B. I guessed 1.5B
IL got 1.3 for exactly what I guessed they'd get 1.5
OH got 0.4B for exactly what I guessed they'd get 1.0B
Wisc got 0.8B for service to Madison. I guessed 0.5B for Chicago - Milw improvments
Mich got nearly zip for their part of Det -Chic. I guessed 1.0B. Biggest help for this service appears to be flyover at Porter(?) in IL award
NY got 0.2B for NY to Buffalo. I guessed 0.5B.
FL got 1.3B for Tampa to Orlando. I guessed zip.
WA got 0.6 for Cascades. I guessed zip
Looks like the money got spread around a bit more thinly than I'd guessed with CA getting a bigger chunk and VA getting less. That WA got a chunk isn't too surprising to me but the blurb that RWM posted doesn't mention any increased speed.. I thought that was surprising. FL does surprise me. I'd guess the OH award is for their "quick start" 79 mph option.
Looks like two true HSR projects get started - CA and FL (is the Madison to Milw piece going to be HSR or 110 mph? Anybody know?
Two increased speed projects, Chicago to St Louis and Raleigh to Charlotte,
One new conventional route start, Ohio
The rest are service improvement and extensions of existing routes
Now for the political soap operas. Some states are already whining about not getting. Some of the winners already have a soap opera running. Will CA be able to scratch up their portion of the money? Will FL's legislature be able to stick with the commitments they've made? Stayed tuned!
Phoebe Vet Sam: General aviation is a bigger piece of the pie than you give them credit for. There are more than 11,000 public use airports in the US and fewer than 200 of them are served by the airlines.....It is, in fact, the airlines that push for controlled airports.
Sam:
General aviation is a bigger piece of the pie than you give them credit for. There are more than 11,000 public use airports in the US and fewer than 200 of them are served by the airlines.....It is, in fact, the airlines that push for controlled airports.
According to the FAA Aerospace Fiscal Forecast for Fiscal Years 2006 - 217, in the base year 26.1 per cent of tower controlled take-offs and landings were by commercial carriers, whilst 35.1 per cent of center controlled traffic was attributed to commercial air. The average of these two numbers is 30.6 per cent, which I rounded down to 30 per cent for simplicity purposes. The 30 per cent refers to the proportional percentage of the total number of controlled operations; it does include all operations.
As you point out, VFR flights, which on a clear day can outnumber controlled flights, are not controlled directly. However, in many instances, especially if the flights operate near a designated airway or terminal control area, the FAA tracks them and warns controlled aircraft of their presence.
I used 30 per cent as a conservative figure to allocate the $2.7 billion federal transfer (subsidy) attributed to the airlines. If I use the percentage of commercial flights to total flights, including general aviation flights operating VFR, as well as military operations in civilian airspace, the percentage allocated to the airlines would be considerably less.
General aviation pilots buy fuel, amongst other things, which is taxed irrespective of whether they fly in a positive control environment or just kick the tire, light the fire, and tool around VFR. They help pay for the FAA irrespective of the extent to which they use it.
This gets a bit a-field of the purpose of these forums. However, many people seem to think that the airlines are heavily subsidized, which is not the case, and I think it is important to present the evidence showing that it is not so.
I've presented this before and never got any answers. So again: in Europe they have private ownership and operations of airports...London's Heathrow I think is one, there is one in Spain and Italy and another in one of the Scandenavian countires. Why aren't there private airlport operations on that kind of scale here? I always hear private enterprise is the American and only way, not "socialism"! Yet elsewehre there privatitized airports while ours are all owned by one government entity or another.
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.
I, too, am an instrument rated commecial pilot in both airplane and helicopter and flew for a living for years. General aviation is a bigger piece of the pie than you give them credit for. There are more than 11,000 public use airports in the US and fewer than 200 of them are served by the airlines. With the exception of instrument flights the only time I used ATC services was going into and out of large city airports. Most of the airports I flew into had no tower or control. Some of them didn't even have paved runways. Most of my flights were under visual flight rules; even the flights with the State Governor on board. I know several people who own airplanes that they keep in their back yards or other private facilities such as a airport community where the housing development is built around a community runway and people park their airplanes at their homes. I know many corporate flight departments that keep their small jets and turboprops at uncontrolled airports. It is, in fact, the airlines that push for controlled airports.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.