The confusion in the supporters of High Speed Rail

This is something I see all over the interwebz, and in Congress too.

There's a growing consensus among Americans that we need to improve our national rail system, particularly our passenger rail system.

There isn't a consensus on what exactly what type of improvements they will be.

This goes at multiple levels - financing, ownership, design, levels of service, routes, speed, etc.

It seems that half the people out there who want High Speed Rail actually want it to be a private enterprise, some only want the operator to be private (like the airlines), some want to privatize Amtrak, some want to create a national infrastructure bank to fund the construction of High Speed Rail.

Keep in mind that outside of Japan and France, most true High Speed lines were constructed during the 1990s and 2000s.

The differences include:

Area of service: Should we focus on corridor trains, or long distance ones?

Level of service: NARP seems to support conventional passenger rail (diesel powered, top speed around 80-120mph). Many people I've seen want 110 mph trains as a cost effective improvement. Some believe passenger rail won't work unless it's true HSR at 300 km/h with new ROW and stations and all.

Technology: Conventional steel-on-steel, or Maglev? Should we change FRA compliancy codes to allow for lighter trainsets? Electric or diesel or turbines?

Public or private?

The problem I see with calling all improved rail "High Speed Rail" is that it gives people the wrong impression. This is what happened in Ohio and Wisconsin. The projects were called "High Speed Rail", but they were really just trainsets running at 110mph. This was criticized and was probably one of the reasons why those projects were killed.

Blah, blah, blah, I don't feel like explaining on this futher.

What would be the difference between a pragmatists vision and a totally pie-in-the-skiy view?

And how can pro-rail people come to a general consensus on what improvements to our rail network would look like?

It is a known truth that if you put half a dozen rail advocates in a room you get 9 conflicting plans for what to do, so what's new? Incidentally that is also true of almost any other set of deeply opinionated advocates.

All of the in-fighting and disagreement is unfortunate. We need more passenger rail, whether urban/suburban transit, 79-90mph Amtrak service, 110-125mph improved Amtrak service, or 150-220mph true high speed service.

This is what is actually being played out on the national scale right now. Obama believes we need an improved system and has his vision, not necessarily all true HSR. John-Mica also believes we need improved rail travel, but that we should focus our efforts on true HSR only. Both pro-rail, completely different visions on how to go about it. Cue the in-fighting, and since they're politicians, its played out in the news.

Scott Walker would have opposed the Madison route if it were 500 mph. He's anti-transit, always has been. He's the reasons Milwaukee doesn't have a light rail system or why Kenosha-Milwaukee commuter rail never got off the ground.

jis said:

It is a known truth that if you put half a dozen rail advocates in a room you get 9 conflicting plans for what to do, so what's new? Incidentally that is also true of almost any other set of deeply opinionated advocates.

Click to expand...

How many rail advocates do you know, Jishnu?

You put 6 of them in a room, and on average, two of them will have three opinons while the other four sit around and talk about the old Amazing Limited that ran from the Frosty Shores of Maine to the Sunny Shores Of California with 15 dome cars and 30 sleepers and 200 coaches in a grand old time of 5 hours and always ran on time behind old reliable steam engine blankity blank. Which is the basic problem you have in rail advocacy, really.

Except in a certain group in New Jersey where a certain person always tells the other four to shut up in classic fashion. But anyway.

bretton88 said:

This is what is actually being played out on the national scale right now. Obama believes we need an improved system and has his vision, not necessarily all true HSR. John-Mica also believes we need improved rail travel, but that we should focus our efforts on true HSR only. Both pro-rail, completely different visions on how to go about it. Cue the in-fighting, and since they're politicians, its played out in the news.

Click to expand...

Listen to me. Accept the following as the gospel truth: John Mica is not now, and has never been, pro rail. Eliminating connecting transportation is the absolute most efficient way to kill any major transportation system. Get rid of Amtrak (or equivlent), and any HSR system is doomed to failure because nobody will ever find it useful. John Mica knows this.

MikefromCrete said:

Scott Walker would have opposed the Madison route if it were 500 mph. He's anti-transit, always has been. He's the reasons Milwaukee doesn't have a light rail system or why Kenosha-Milwaukee commuter rail never got off the ground.

Click to expand...

Well, he is the most recent reason Milwaukee does not have any rail transit. Former governor Tommy Thompson also deserves blame for stopping a light rail system in the 1990s.

Green Maned Lion said:

jis said:

It is a known truth that if you put half a dozen rail advocates in a room you get 9 conflicting plans for what to do, so what's new? Incidentally that is also true of almost any other set of deeply opinionated advocates.

Click to expand...

How many rail advocates do you know, Jishnu?

You put 6 of them in a room, and on average, two of them will have three opinons while the other four sit around and talk about the old Amazing Limited that ran from the Frosty Shores of Maine to the Sunny Shores Of California with 15 dome cars and 30 sleepers and 200 coaches in a grand old time of 5 hours and always ran on time behind old reliable steam engine blankity blank. Which is the basic problem you have in rail advocacy, really.

Except in a certain group in New Jersey where a certain person always tells the other four to shut up in classic fashion. But anyway.

bretton88 said:

This is what is actually being played out on the national scale right now. Obama believes we need an improved system and has his vision, not necessarily all true HSR. John-Mica also believes we need improved rail travel, but that we should focus our efforts on true HSR only. Both pro-rail, completely different visions on how to go about it. Cue the in-fighting, and since they're politicians, its played out in the news.

Click to expand...

Listen to me. Accept the following as the gospel truth: John Mica is not now, and has never been, pro rail. Eliminating connecting transportation is the absolute most efficient way to kill any major transportation system. Get rid of Amtrak (or equivlent), and any HSR system is doomed to failure because nobody will ever find it useful. John Mica knows this.

Click to expand...

YES! That is so true!

It's either that or a chunch of them think we need to build a nationwide network of bullet trains with as much density as the US numbered highway network. "It's because I've been to Japan/Europe/China, and they have bullet trains everywhere going at 300 mph! And they're always on time!"

And then there's the people who are pro-isn't-an-automobile-or-airplane, who think Intercity rail won't work unless American cities are as dense as NYC and have subways going everywhere.

"That's what the Autotrain is for..." says on of the opinionated people...

But I also wonder if you put an bunch of environmentalists in the room and asked them what they'd do about our rail system. Chances are, most of them would give the bullet train example, but many of them would think we should just drive algae biodiesel-electric hybrids.

And if ask the "Technology" crowd, they think we should scrap the steel rails and run all of our bullet trains on Maglevs. "You know, because that's the future!"

Heck, they might just advocate a flying train...

Personally, I think that a blend of the current speeds and a steady upgrade of in-demand segments to the 125 MPH range. Now, there are segments that this is relatively pointless for (the Empire Builder west of Minneapolis, for example) and segments where faster stuff can make life hell for the airlines on (the NEC spine leaps to mind, as does the California area, and Florida might be such a case). But this is my opinion, not a fact. Note that, a few exceptions aside, I tend to support a three-stage progression (79/125/200) where numbers support it, and I prefer to focus on either expanding 79 MPH service or upgrading it to 125 MPH service because of cost issues.

The trick will be to defend what rail service we currently have, as Obama making this an issue makes rail a target for those who oppose Obama. Walker is wrongheaded in his opposition to transit and rail service. I also fear about the rumors coming from certain sectors writing the new Federal Transportation bill that it will be declared DOA, and Improved rail service will also be declared DOA. Read up on what is being posted on Railroad.net regarding this. Remember your civics, folks: the President proposes what he/she wants, but it is Congress that approves the final version of what gets funded. Many bills being proposed by the minority party go nowhere in committees dominated by the majority party. Keep contacting your Elected Officials, and telling them that we here support rail.

Green Maned Lion said:

jis said:

It is a known truth that if you put half a dozen rail advocates in a room you get 9 conflicting plans for what to do, so what's new? Incidentally that is also true of almost any other set of deeply opinionated advocates.

Click to expand...

How many rail advocates do you know, Jishnu?

You put 6 of them in a room, and on average, two of them will have three opinions while the other four sit around and talk about the old Amazing Limited that ran from the Frosty Shores of Maine to the Sunny Shores Of California with 15 dome cars and 30 sleepers and 200 coaches in a grand old time of 5 hours and always ran on time behind old reliable steam engine blankity blank. Which is the basic problem you have in rail advocacy, really.

Except in a certain group in New Jersey where a certain person always tells the other four to shut up in classic fashion. But anyway.

Click to expand...

Heh... heh;;; heh So true. It is even more fun when each of the 5 take turns to tell the other four to shut up. And then there's this certain group in New York which is still campaigning for the ULLA (Upper Level Loop Alternative) at GCT, having not realized that time has passed them by.

"Bring back the 20th Century Limited". "Restore the Turboliners", "Bring Superliners to Penn Station", and of course the perennial "Bring back the GG-1", never mind that none of that has anything to do with any practical proposal for achieving anything other than foaming.

WICT106 said:

The trick will be to defend what rail service we currently have, as Obama making this an issue makes rail a target for those who oppose Obama. Walker is wrongheaded in his opposition to transit and rail service. I also fear about the rumors coming from certain sectors writing the new Federal Transportation bill that it will be declared DOA, and Improved rail service will also be declared DOA. Read up on what is being posted on Railroad.net regarding this. Remember your civics, folks: the President proposes what he/she wants, but it is Congress that approves the final version of what gets funded. Many bills being proposed by the minority party go nowhere in committees dominated by the majority party. Keep contacting your Elected Officials, and telling them that we here support rail.

Click to expand...

Congress consists of the House and the Senate. Declaring something DOA is just a posturing thing. At the end of the day the House and the Senate have to agree on a bill otherwise it is either continuing resolutions or Government shutdown. BTW, railroad.net has its own collection of kooks too.

Agree with contacting your representatives and senators at every opportunity you get.

I have heard from insiders drafting the new transpo bill, that there will be funding for HSR in it. Now, I don't know how much and it certainly won't be the 53 billion Obama wants. And please, keep contacting your representatives to make sure what funding is in it stays in it.