henry6 But Paul, wouldn't those numbers go down if passenger miles and or quantity of services go up?
But Paul, wouldn't those numbers go down if passenger miles and or quantity of services go up?
We should be able to get a peak at the answer to this question by checking Amtrak's record year (last year) against previous years.
We can also check on some routes that were scaled up: The two state sponsored routes out of Chicago where the frequency doubled a couple of years ago. Also, the Keystone trains where service and frequency were improved.
Anybody up to doing the digging?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
clarkfork Well, If the airlines did actually pay for their share of the Federal airways, why the .43 cent per passenger mile subsidy? .43 cents may be a small subsidy, but it is still a subsidy. Also, do we know if airlines pay the full cost of the airline terminals they use. Typically these are owned by local government entities. Are the terminals profit makers, break even, or loss generators for the local governments. Do local taxpayers have to subsidize them? By the way, I assume the subsidies you listed are thus: $0.0043 for air and $0.2261 for rail
Well, If the airlines did actually pay for their share of the Federal airways, why the .43 cent per passenger mile subsidy? .43 cents may be a small subsidy, but it is still a subsidy. Also, do we know if airlines pay the full cost of the airline terminals they use. Typically these are owned by local government entities. Are the terminals profit makers, break even, or loss generators for the local governments. Do local taxpayers have to subsidize them?
By the way, I assume the subsidies you listed are thus:
$0.0043 for air and $0.2261 for rail
Every user of the nation's airways gets a proportional share of the federal transfer payment to the Aviation Trust Fund, which is used for a variety of purposes. There is no evidence that the commercial airlines enjoy a higher or lower benefit than their proportional share of the use of the facilities. According to the ATA, the airlines pay a disproportionately higher percentage of the cost of operating the nation's airways.
Most airports in the United States are owned by local or county governments. They in turn set up an authority to manage them. They are classified as enterprise funds for accounting purposes, which means they are expected to cover their costs, including debt service. They are also expected to have a positive fund balance, which means that they take in more revenues than they spend in the short run, but in the long run they are expected to break even. Accordingly, not-for-profit accounting rules are used to account for the funds activities. However, this can differ from location to location. In some instances, for example, positive balances in the enterprise fund can be transferred to the sponsoring government's general fund, although this is, I believe, rare.
The cost of the terminals is covered by gate fees, landing fees, excise taxes, etc., all of which are paid by the airlines as well as other users, e.g. UPS, FedEx, general aviation, etc. Investment earnings may also cover a portion of the cost. At the nation's major airports, which are relatively few in number, vendor rentals, including parking fees, contribute a significant amount to the coverage of the cost of the terminals. So in a sense the airlines don't pay the full cost of the terminals. Other users and vendors pick-up part of the tab. However, it is important to remember that if the airlines did not use the terminals, there would be not need for them, most of the vendors, etc.
To determine whether the costs of the terminals are covered by the aforementioned fees and taxes would require one to go through the financial statements of each airport. Most of the larger airports cover their costs; outlying airports may require local subsidies.
One could argue that local taxpayers subsidize their airports through the property taxes that they pay to build the roadways to and from the airports. This argument would also apply to the roadways that have been built to get to Amtrak's stations. The big difference would be that in the case of the airports, the roadways were constructed more recently, whereas in the case of most of Amtrak's stations, the roadways were constructed many decades ago, so maintenance is the biggest item in the local budget.
Question: How much in property taxes are paid by the airports vs. railroad stations and related terminal properties?
Don't forget the property tax that the RR pays on it's right of way.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I suspect most airports pay $0 property tax since they are city or county-owned.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCH Question: How much in property taxes are paid by the airports vs. railroad stations and related terminal properties?
Most airports don't pay any property taxes, although they may be required to pay a transfer fee that emulates a property tax or utility fee, depending upon the governance agreement of the sponsoring government. One would have to go through every airport financial statement to make a determination.
Amtrak owns only 46 of the 525 stations that it serves. It is responsible for the maintenance of 181 other stations. The other stations, for the most part, are owned by the communities that they serve. Amtrak pays a nominal rental in some of these stations; in others, e.g. Deming and Lordsburg, New Mexico, it pays nothing, since the stations are simply platforms with a shelter.
Title to the major stations that are owned by Amtrak reside with a wholly or partially owned subsidiary, e.g. Chicago Union Station and Penn Station Leasing, LLC; its 99.9% interest in Washington Terminal Company, and its 99% interest in 30th Street Limited, L.P.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code, section 24-301, Amtrak is exempt from all state and local taxes, including income and franchise taxes that are directly levied against the company. Not only does this mean that it does not pay property taxes on its stations and related terminal properties, it does not even pay sales taxes.
Amtrak not only receives federal and state subsidies to cover its operating losses, as well as an exemption from all state and local taxes, it gets a variety of other subsidies. Here are a couple of examples. In 2002 it received a $100 million loan from the Federal Railroad Administration for certain qualifying capital expenditures. The interest rate was 1.18% per annum, which was considerably below the market rate even for municipal financing. In 2003 the Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority issued $50 million of tax free bonds to build a parking garage at 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. As part of the deal, Amtrak pledged the revenues, as well as certain other assets associated with the garage and air rights, to guarantee the bonds, with any excess profits accruing to Amtrak. Upon retirement of the Bonds, Amtrak gets ownership of the garage, which presumably will be an earning asset far into the future.
Amtrak operates approximately 21,000 passenger route miles. Approximately 97 per cent of these miles are owned by freight and commuter railroads. The freight railroads pay property taxes, including inventory taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. The commuter railroads are owned, for the most part, by state or local authorities that operate similar to airport authorities. They pay no local property taxes, although they may pay sales taxes, and they may be required to transfer some or all of any enterprise fund surpluses to a general fund, although I doubt it. Based on the provisions of Title 49, however, it appears that the freight railroads, as well as the commuter roads, are prohibited from passing these taxes through to Amtrak.
All forms of public transport in the U.S. receive some subsidy; that is to say, they get monies from non-users, generally taxpayers, although in the case of motorists, because there are so many of them, the majority of them pay the general transfer subsidies. However, a supporter of Amtrak, as well as other forms of public passenger rail, would be well advised not to raise the subsidy issue. The subsidy per passenger or passenger mile for Amtrak, as well as most forms of passenger rail, dwarfs the subsidies for motorists and airline passengers.
It seems one factor missing in the cost-anlysis in this and other threads is a future-orientation discussion. In most of our metro areas as well as the corridors of 100-500 miles, either or both interstate and air transport are already pretty maxed out. Unless we want to build more DFX's and ORD's at $13+ Bil. each, we had better reduce the congestion on the short hauls for the future so the airlines can concentrate on longer hauls where they excel. In any case the airways are fairly finite and nearing capacity now. Highways for autos are expensive to construct and use a lot more land (which is increasingly scarce and valuable) than a comparable rail line, especially for extended transit lines in metro areas. I imagine we will continue to experience population growth as a nation, though hopefully at a more measured pace than recently. I imagine I won't be around in 2050, but it does seem the Vision report is factoring those realities in. As a society, we cannot continue with the "same ol' same ol'" unless we want a total gridlock in passenger traffic. To listen to litany of some of the pundits, (they imply, at least) that we would be better served with more and more highways and airports and not bother much with passenger rail.
For another fascinating study by the NSTB see:
Somewhere on one of these threads it was stated that rail is only marginally more efficient than air. Au Contraire!
schlimmintercity passenger rail consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than airlines and 21 percent less per passenger mile than automobiles.
17% is not much compared to the 300+% for frt RRing over trucking.
If you car got 20 mpg, a 17% improvement is 23.4 mpg. Not much.
With the new CAFE stds coming, Rail will be LESS efficient than driving unless something changes.
schlimmboth interstate and air transport are already pretty maxed out.
Which is why some targeted short haul corridors make sense. The total cost is cheaper than expanding capacity for road or air. It saves airport slots for the long haul stuff and avoids building more expensive urban highways.
Yes, Don, but 50-60% less CO2 seems worthwhile to me, unless one is in favor of a warmer climate!
The planned rail route improvements seem focused on under 500 mile long corridors, as they should be. I think long distance rail travel should be farmed out to private contractors to run as cruise liners or whatever they want to try, as Sam suggests.
schlimmYes, Don, but 50-60% less CO2 seems worthwhile to me, unless one is in favor of a warmer climate!
There's more "there" there, but CAFE is going up 30%, so the status quo for rail ain't gonna cut it!
oltmannd schlimmboth interstate and air transport are already pretty maxed out. Which is why some targeted short haul corridors make sense. The total cost is cheaper than expanding capacity for road or air. It saves airport slots for the long haul stuff and avoids building more expensive urban highways.
Spot on! Amen!
oltmannd schlimmintercity passenger rail consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than airlines and 21 percent less per passenger mile than automobiles. 17% is not much compared to the 300+% for frt RRing over trucking. If you car got 20 mpg, a 17% improvement is 23.4 mpg. Not much. With the new CAFE stds coming, Rail will be LESS efficient than driving unless something changes.
But what if that 17% improvement is turned into dollars and cents: 1000 miles at 20 mpg is 50 gallons times lets say $2.75 = $137.50 while 1000 at 23.4 mpg is 42.74 gallons times $2.75= $117.54 or $19.96 savings. Multiply that by millions of miles or tens of millions of miles and the dollar savings alone will add up handsomely.
Rockefeller gave away nickles reminding the recipient that it represented the interest for one year on a dollar. Wrigly sold gum at a nickle a pack, Astor sold subway rides at a nickle a ride. They all became multimillionairs a nickle at a time. We are not in such good shape today that we should be ignoring nickles.
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.
"Henry: But what if that 17% improvement is turned into dollars and cents: 1000 miles at 20 mpg is 50 gallons times lets say $2.75 = $137.50 while 1000 at 23.4 mpg is 42.74 gallons times $2.75= $117.54 or $19.96 savings. Multiply that by millions of miles or tens of millions of miles and the dollar savings alone will add up handsomely."
Good point. I think the NTSB report refers to a lot more miles than millions for autos. Supposedly in 2004 total miles driven for autos amd light trucks was 2.6 trillion. So that's an annual savings of roughly $52 Billion. ($20 X 2.6 tril./ 1000 =) Chump change?
henry6 But what if that 17% improvement is turned into dollars and cents: 1000 miles at 20 mpg is 50 gallons times lets say $2.75 = $137.50 while 1000 at 23.4 mpg is 42.74 gallons times $2.75= $117.54 or $19.96 savings. Multiply that by millions of miles or tens of millions of miles and the dollar savings alone will add up handsomely. Rockefeller gave away nickles reminding the recipient that it represented the interest for one year on a dollar. Wrigly sold gum at a nickle a pack, Astor sold subway rides at a nickle a ride. They all became multimillionairs a nickle at a time. We are not in such good shape today that we should be ignoring nickles.
You can't divorce the return from the investment.
Yeah, a lot nickels will add up, but what does it cost you to get those nickels? If it cost you a buck to get a nickel, not so good, but if it only cost you a dime...
The problem with passenger rail as an environmental benefit is that we aren't going to get very many nickels for our $8B investment.
It helps, but don't hang you hat on it!
But look at the times...1890 through what, 1920 maybe? Today, the value of a dollar is quite different and the rate of return is expected to also be different. But, 5% return on investment back then should equal 5% return on investment today. Back then $100 was a huge some, over a month''s wages for many, so five buck was a big deal. Why isn't $500 on $10,000 a month or even $50,0000 on a million dollars worth the same? Why does today's invesment have to yield up to 100% in a year to be the only profitable way of investing? Therein lies the problems of today's money business!
Back to the car...I drive an average of 20,000 a year (one car) so the savings of almost $20 per thousand miles is $400 per year or almost 145.5 gallons or 3637.5 miles of savings. Or about 1o weeks of groceries for my wife and me. It does all add up!
I repeat: If a paltry 17% saving translates into ~$50 Bil. per year, that is a lot of money for other uses, including HSR, etc.
schlimm According to the FAA in 2005, the Chicago O'Hare 20 year modernization plan is expected to total $13.3 Bil., second only to Boston's "Big Dig." And that is just ONE airport, although the #1 or #2 in volume. So air has a lot of funding, and they are not certainly paying for it all or they would be out of business.
According to the FAA in 2005, the Chicago O'Hare 20 year modernization plan is expected to total $13.3 Bil., second only to Boston's "Big Dig." And that is just ONE airport, although the #1 or #2 in volume. So air has a lot of funding, and they are not certainly paying for it all or they would be out of business.
In 2007 and 2008 the FAA allocated $3.5 billion and $3.5 billion for airport improvements. For FY09 the proposed allocation was $2.8 billion.
The only way to identify the airports that received the federal funding would be to plough through the FAA budget and actual expenditures line by line. Suffice it to say, the money goes to many airports. Most of it is for navigational aids, e.g. Doppler radar, ILS systems, tower radar, etc.
As I pointed out in another post, the commercial airlines account for approximately 30 per cent of the FAA's operations, although it is greater at the relatively small number of the nation's hub airports, e.g. DFW, Kennedy, etc. If all the monies in the airport improvement budget went to airports served by commercial airlines, which is unlikely, in the same ratio of airline operations to total operations, the airlines could have realized an indirect benefit of approximately $1.1 billion in FY07, $1.1 billion in FY08, and $840 million in FY09. But 81 per cent of the FAA's budget is covered by ticket taxes, fees, etc. So the amount of the airport improvement benefits flowing from a federal subsidy that might have indirectly benefited the airlines would have been approximately $209 million in FY07, $209 million in FY08, and $159.6 million in FY09. These numbers suggest that a relatively small portion of the O'Hare improvements will be funded by a non-user federal subsidy.
I spent most of my career in the electric utility industry, which is a capital intensive industry not unlike the railroads. Not once, when considering how to meet the growing needs of our expanding customer base, did we make our decision to expand the system, i.e. increase capacity, based on what other electric utilities were doing. We implemented the best solutions for our company's key stakeholders.
The federal, state, and local subsidies received by other modes of transportation are not relevant for deciding how much the U.S. should invest in passenger rail.
It is true that the federal government fostered the development of airways and highways in the U.S., frequently to the detriment of the railways. But the past, using the parlance of cost accountants, is a sunk cost. It is irrelevant. The key question is what to do now? Where is passenger rail the best option for solving the here and now, as well as future passenger transport problems in America?
Sam1: Agreed. Past subsidy questions are really irrelevant to the future. But when calculating a cost-benefit analysis which drives decisions for the future, let's keep this in mind: Vision for the Future: U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050 Vision for the Future: U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050 WisDOT 9.3821 Normal 0
"User and non-user benefits that are best described as qualitative rather than quantitative can be measured in cost-benefit analysis if they are assigned monetary values that include both the associated costs and benefits. These benefits should be included in the evaluation of the costs and benefits of expanded intercity passenger rail in the U.S. along with financial considerations." (from the 2050 Vision Study)
But I'm not at all clear how some of the non-user benefits get assigned monetary values. Any ideas on this?
Sam1As I pointed out in another post, the commercial airlines account for approximately 30 per cent of the FAA's operations, although it is greater at the relatively small number of the nation's hub airports, e.g. DFW, Kennedy, etc
Sam: the other 70% is general aviation (private aircraft and corporate aircraft) which at the most only contributes 10% of the cost. How is that factored in?
blue streak 1 Sam1As I pointed out in another post, the commercial airlines account for approximately 30 per cent of the FAA's operations, although it is greater at the relatively small number of the nation's hub airports, e.g. DFW, Kennedy, etc Sam: the other 70% is general aviation (private aircraft and corporate aircraft) which at the most only contributes 10% of the cost. How is that factored in?
The 2009 FAA budget included a $2.7 billion transfer from the federal general fund to close the gap between the Aviation Trust Fund's receipts and the FAA's anticipated costs. It is approximately 19 per cent of the FAA's budget. How the $2.7 billion is allocated amongst the FAA's activities is a cost accounting issue. It is not a revenue allocation exercise.
Costs are a function of their underlying drivers, which are the activities that give rise to the cost? In the case of FAA Operations, the major driver is the number of flights controlled by the agency. If there were no flights, no costs would be incurred for operations.
The FAA controls thousands of flights every day. Approximately 30 per cent of them are airline flights. This is a reasonable basis for the allocation of the $2.7 billion, i.e. 30 per cent of the transfer or subsidy is allocated to the airlines.
The airlines claim that they pay more than 30 per cent of the cost of the FAA's operations, which they say is unfair because they use only 30 per cent of the capacity. I have read several articles that support this view, although I have never seen any that claim the airlines pay 90 per cent of the cost of the FAA's operations. If they pay substantially more than their fair share of the cost of supporting the system, as determined by the underlying cost drivers, then they are subsidizing the other users. This has the net effect of reducing the benefit received by the airlines.
Many if not most people, including NARP, appear to believe that the airlines receive a large federal subsidy. Like NARP, in many instances they don't differentiate between commercial airline, general aviation, and military operations. They appear to think that the entire federal transfer benefits only the airlines, but this is not the case. The subsidy per passenger and per passenger mile is relatively small.
Approximately $810 million or 30 per cent of the budgeted federal transfer to the FAA will support operations and facilities that benefit the airlines. In addition, Essential Air Services will receive a federal subsidy of $141 million, and TSA Passenger Screening will require an infusion of $1.6 billion in federal transfer funds to cover the gap between ticket taxes and costs. This will bring the federal subsidy for activities devoted to supporting airline operations to approximately $2.6 billion, which is close to the amount of the transfer or subsidy in FY08.
In FY08 the average federal airline transfer (subsidy) was approximately $3.92 per passenger ($2.6 billion/253 million passengers). However, for FY09 the number of passengers will probably decline, although by how much is unclear, since the fiscal year does not end until September 30th, meaning that the subsidy could be somewhat higher. By comparison, the FY08 per passenger subsidy for Amtrak was $48.50. It too is on track to be higher in FY09.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Maglev But what is the FAA trying to keep the civilian and military planes from hitting? Left alone, they would be a lot easier to manage. We need our level of air traffic control mainly because of commercial aviation.
But what is the FAA trying to keep the civilian and military planes from hitting? Left alone, they would be a lot easier to manage. We need our level of air traffic control mainly because of commercial aviation.
Each other!
At least 70 per cent of aircraft operations in the United States are general aviation, which includes business aviation, and military aviation. If there were no commercial airlines operating in the United States, there still would be a need for a positive air traffic control system.
Most people are carried on commercial airline airplanes. This is one reason the commercial airlines argue that they pay a higher percentage of the costs than is justified by the number of flights they operate. They argue, rightfully so, that the FAA's workload is a function of the number of airplanes that they control. It is not the number of passengers on each airplane. The cost to control a Learjet is the same as the cost to control a Boeing 747.
If the entire federal subsidy transferred to the FAA was allocated to the commercial airlines, which would be bad accounting, the outcome per passenger and passenger mile would be nearly the same. The amount of federal subsidy received by airline passengers, on average, is about 8 per cent of the federal subsidy received by an average Amtrak passenger.
I hold every FAA license (air and ground) except rotorcraft (helicopters). I was a full time and part time instructor for more than 20 years. I logged thousands of hours. I know a little bit about airplanes, air traffic control, and the FAA.
I flew from tower controlled fields in Connecticut, North Carolina, and Texas. Oftentimes I flew under an IFR flight plan, which means that I was controlled by arrival and departure control, Enroute control, and tower control. Not one of these field hoisted commercial airline operations. Of the airports that had commercial flights, they accounted for less than 15 to 20 per cent of operations. It is only at the large hub airports, e.g. LAX, DFW, Kennedy, etc. that airline flights outnumber general aviation flights.
Sam:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
VA and NC got 0.6B for what I guessed they'd get 2.0B. Big missing piece is restoring track Durham to Richmond
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!
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?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.