Gulf coast cities advocating for new daily rail service, not Sunset Li

[XHRTSP]

I'm more curious how much it would cost to build a line across Mobile Bay and into Pensacola. Can we realistically expect any line to have success east of Mobile if it has to go through Atmore?

 

[xyzzy]

You're joking, right? Getting across the bay plus 40 miles of virgin railroad into north Pensacola would be on the order of $2 billion... if you could get past the environmental impact statement, which I doubt.

 

[XHRTSP]

Yep, and that's why I think the whole idea of a train extending east of Mobile would be too expensive to do right.

 

[jis]

You're joking, right? Getting across the bay plus 40 miles of virgin railroad into north Pensacola would be on the order of $2 billion... if you could get past the environmental impact statement, which I doubt.

One interesting thing I have observed in recent EIS work at least in NJ is that if you propose to build a well engineered trestle across a wet land, that is easier to get approved than if you propose to build a fill. A trestle apparently has less adverse impact on the wetlands environment.

 

[George Harris]

You are not going to build 40 miles of new railroad for the purpose of hosting one passenger train, not Mobile to Pensacola, not anywhere. That is assuming a line starting east of the Mobile Bay crossing. If you are going to do this right, then it should start right at Mobile and cross Mobile Bay on a new line more or less parallel to I-10, giving you about 45 miles of railroad.

I have relatives in Pensacola so I have been there regularly over the years. The L&N track was not so great at that time, nor anytime before that. The Flomaton to Chattahoochee line was never more than a branch up until the ACL+SAL merger. It had a 55 mph passenger train speed limit. It was 59 mph for Amtrak. The Flomaton to Chattahoochee to Tallahassee run time was less than the Sunset east time because there was very little traffic on the line otherwise. In its last couple of years there may have been a certain amount of fiction in the schedule as well. By the way at that time Escambia bay was crossed with a 2 mile long 10 mph drawbridge. It is now crossed with a higher level no speed restriction concrete bridge.

Yes, it is far easier to get a bridge past the EIS than a fill. No interference with wildlife and water flow. Sometimes piers can even be a problem with EIS.

The traffic potential for short distance traffic and as connections from the City of New Orleans and Sunset West along the Gulf Coast between New Orleans and Mobile would seem the most likely traffic potential. For this to have reliability there would need to be at the least short segments of double track put in. If the larger water crossings are avoided, this would be relatively cheap as the land is near flat. There are however lots of grade crossings. Mississippi's lack of enthusiasm for this is because the Gulf Coast is far different in history and current conditions than the rest of the state. If put in with improvements to passenger service in other parts of the state it would be much more likely to go through.

 

[xyzzy]

You could mitigate the EIS somewhat by tunneling under the bay. Hey, this is all about fantasy, right? Or you could tunnel under the shipping channel and then come up to a trestle across the shallow parts of the bay. Remember, the shipping channel needs about 160 feet of vertical clearance at high tide. If you don't tunnel, then you are looking at one heck of a moveable span (wind loadings for Cat 5 hurricanes) or a clone of the Huey Long bridge design with long approach trestles.

All this is why the Mobile & Montgomery (later L&N, now CSX) built their bridges well north of the bay.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You're joking, right? Getting across the bay plus 40 miles of virgin railroad into north Pensacola would be on the order of $2 billion... if you could get past the environmental impact statement, which I doubt.

What kind of country uses environment impact studies to prevent more efficient and less polluting travel options from being created? Are we just completely blind to the bigger picture or is this an intentional result?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The EIS is primarily a NIMBY tool, as configured by George Haikalis. Unfortunately, the noble effort of killing Westway set the procedure for thousands of less nolbe project killings since.

 

[xyzzy]

You'd have to be age 60+ to understand how bad the disruption to our environment had become by the 1960s. EISs were instituted by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, one of many pro-environment measures adopted around that time. (Creating the EPA was another.)

Pain in the neck? Yes. Adds to cost and delay? Yes. Puts money in the pockets of consultants? Yes. Abused by NIMBYs? Yes.

But is the EIS process fundamentally effective at what it was intended to do? Most people would answer Yes. And has anyone come up with a better process? Most people would answer No, although there are proposals from time to time for improving the process.

Often an EIS includes an analysis of a no-build alternative.

NEPA doesn't prevent doing projects. Just look around and see how many projects have been built since 1970. The NEPA does give citizens the right to challenge an executive decision in court.

 

[Anderson]

You'd have to be age 60+ to understand how bad the disruption to our environment had become by the 1960s. EISs were instituted by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, one of many pro-environment measures adopted around that time. (Creating the EPA was another.)

Pain in the neck? Yes. Adds to cost and delay? Yes. Puts money in the pockets of consultants? Yes. Abused by NIMBYs? Yes.

But is the EIS process fundamentally effective at what it was intended to do? Most people would answer Yes. And has anyone come up with a better process? Most people would answer No, although there are proposals from time to time for improving the process.

Often an EIS includes an analysis of a no-build alternative.

NEPA doesn't prevent doing projects. Just look around and see how many projects have been built since 1970. The NEPA does give citizens the right to challenge an executive decision in court.

The concept of an EIS is not a bad thing. The problem is that EISes often end up taking more time than the project itself takes to execute, and that's if they don't end up in court. For a handy example, I'm reminded of the HSR reports for the set of lines to be based out of Atlanta. The reports suggested 15 years to complete the project, only 5-6 of which involved actual construction. The rest was EIS work and engineering work (and biased, if I'm not mistaken, towards the EIS).

NEPA itself doesn't prevent projects necessarily. What it does do, however, is stretch them over a long enough period that the risk of a periodic change in office killing it increases. It also drags things out for long enough that the initial cost estimates tend to get murdered brutally by project cost inflation (before you even get into "normal" overruns). It also provides an awful lot of room for challenges from parties who just want to stop a project...you get plenty of folks who likely don't care about [insert random environmental issue here] suing on the basis of it in the EIS. A great example of this was the Honolulu transit mess, where Cateyano's people were throwing everything at the project when their objection was just "We don't like this project, period."

Between excessively lengthening how long it takes to make something happen; likely also biasing projects towards those that go in after development, not before (i.e. like the old streetcar lines, which led to development); and providing too much room for objections, EISes have a LOT of issues that really need to be dealt with.

 

[George Harris]

An EIS is the absolute personification of a Can't see the forest for the trees" In fact, it spends so much time looking at details on the leaves that trees can be destroyed elsewhere with nobody noticing.

For those that have to deal with these things they seemed to have morphed into a method of stopping everything.

To be realistic, these documents must be modified to have a timeline such as Present your objections in the next 90 days or they cannot be considierd. All issues will be analyzed and a decision rendered within 90 days after that. Any objections and appeasl must be filed within 30 days of that final decision. If any are considerd worthwhile andaysis and a final decision must be rendered within 60 days from that date.

 

[Anderson]

An EIS is the absolute personification of a Can't see the forest for the trees" In fact, it spends so much time looking at details on the leaves that trees can be destroyed elsewhere with nobody noticing.

For those that have to deal with these things they seemed to have morphed into a method of stopping everything.

To be realistic, these documents must be modified to have a timeline such as Present your objections in the next 90 days or they cannot be considierd. All issues will be analyzed and a decision rendered within 90 days after that. Any objections and appeasl must be filed within 30 days of that final decision. If any are considerd worthwhile andaysis and a final decision must be rendered within 60 days from that date.

[sarc] Yeah, how many trees do you think the hard copies of the EIS kill?[/sarc]

Well, there also needs to be some restriction on taking the EIS to court as well. Otherwise, group X will file an objection within the 90 days, have it overruled...and then spend the next three years in litigation over that point. Raising the bar to file suit over the findings of an EIS is something else that needs to happen.

The other thing that ought to be done is exempting some projects (or major parts thereof) from the whole process. AAF is an excellent example of this: As I understand it, the project up as far as Cocoa consists of restoring double-track territory, plus throwing in a few buildings in the center of the respective cities. Heavily stripping back, if not absolutely doing away with, any requirements for projects that are primarily restorations of previous infrastructure and/or which are almost exclusively operating within existing ROW would be another productive step (and yes, I will concede that adding two lanes to some interstates would fall in this category as well).

===========================

One thing that I hinted at earlier I will also expound upon: The EIS process contributes towards making transportation policy conservative to the point of causing problems. It is, from what I can tell, substantially harder to get things through the process which anticipate future demand rather than responding to existing demand. You can't really even plan a light rail or commuter rail service as a part of a long-term development plan (even by acquiring land for it to put it in later)...the last case I can think of that actually happening was the DC Metro in Northern Virginia, when a few stations ended up in cornfields. Running a Richmond-Newport News or Richmond-Washington commuter service? Not happening. Ditto with extending VRE service down to Culpepper...because the development isn't already there (even if it seems all but inevitable). You probably couldn't even acquire the slots for the service, pursuant to an agreed-upon set of improvements (or similar substitutes if they happen in the interim), in advance...and doing that would, in some cases, probably save hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.

 

[xyzzy]

There have been proposals to reform the EIS process, and a hard look is warranted. Some groups file suit simply to delay the project long enough in hopes that eventually the gov't agency will just give up. And sometimes the tactic works. That's not what the authors of the EIS process in the 1960s intended.

 

[Anderson]

There have been proposals to reform the EIS process, and a hard look is warranted. Some groups file suit simply to delay the project long enough in hopes that eventually the gov't agency will just give up. And sometimes the tactic works. That's not what the authors of the EIS process in the 1960s intended.

True, or the clock runs out on funding. Or, as I've noted, the administration changes.

Part of the problem is the ability to sue alleging that something "wasn't looked at hard enough", which if I'm not mistaken was part of the suit in Honolulu (there were allegations that BRT didn't get enough focus).

One thing I do like is California's ability to present a project for suit and force cases out of the woodwork. There needs to be something like that in more places.

Of course, another thing would simply be providing for some sort of expediting process, particularly for suits that are obviously intended to delay or obstruct, so they get into court quickly (and out of court quickly). Additionally, refusing to sustain injunctions while an appeal is pending (unless it has a substantial chance of success) might also help.

 

[jis]

There have been proposals to reform the EIS process, and a hard look is warranted. Some groups file suit simply to delay the project long enough in hopes that eventually the gov't agency will just give up. And sometimes the tactic works. That's not what the authors of the EIS process in the 1960s intended.

People who want to file suit to attempt to block something will do so irrespective of whether there is any NEPA (EIS) process involved or not. I don't quite see the connection there. There are umpteen projects that have no NEPA requirements because there is no federal fund involved and that has never stopped the NIMBY's from trying to block them by trying to get them all wound up in a mess in courts. Fortunately very often they fail quite spectacularly after spending a lot of money enriching lawyers. Heck even completely privately funded projects get held up in court until the ... ahem ... shakedown process is completed.

 

[Dan Dealy]

All: What a great discussion!. I was involved with assisting the SRC and T4A in developing this grant application. Over the past 3 years, local communities across the gulf coast have been very involved in the efforts regarding restoration of passenger service east of NOLA. Just as a quick reference, go to the City of Mobile's web site and look at the rail summit page there. www.cityofmobile.org/railsummit .. Amtrak has been involved with these activities and discussions. We understand the level of effort to restore operations to a daily level of service. But in the long term, passenger rail can offer much more to gulf coast transportation and most specially to economic opportunities than ONLY investing in the rubber tire mode. As of today, the City of Tallahassee voted to offer the SRC a significant amount of additional in-kind or cash match for this grant ! in addition to reading the actual grant application, do a google search of news about "gulf coast passenger rail" and look at the various cities and counties that are supporting this effort. Since you all appear to be very knowledgable - join in the support! It's not too late - we can add supporting documents to the grant application after submission.. You can go to the Southern Rail Commission's web site and offer an email of support, or send it to me and I'll forward it. [email protected] Thanks !!

 

[xyzzy]

NEPA gives grounds to sue. Without specific grounds, a lawsuit has a higher chance of being dismissed quickly - or the defendant agency has a much higher chance of winning summary judgment in their favor. Bottom line, without NEPA the plaintiffs' lawyers would have to work harder, spend more money, and face less favorable odds. So yes, they could still use the tactic, but it would be less effective.

Some states have counterparts to NEPA for state-funded projects that would use zero federal funds. California, for example. Same situation applies.

 

[Jasper McMillan]

Passenger rail service east of Mobile and into Florida is quite probably never going to happen. A lack of money, a "just say no" Congress, waning support from POTUS (even though he mandated it YEARS ago), a TOTAL lack of enthusiasm by Amtrak and an EXTREMELY "passenger rail hostile" state leadership in Tallahassee already ensure that short of a miracle, the effort to restart passenger trains east of Mobile would be DOA (Dead on Arrival). Enthusiasm in Pensacola for a return of passenger train service (in either direction) is slowly waning as people remember that the former Sunset Limited from Pensacola to JAX took anywhere between 9 and ten hours.....about twice as long as a car on I-10 and either came through at zero dark thirty (IF it was on time) or extremely late....IF it showed up at all. CSX thought nothing of putting the old Sunset Limited into a hole while it ran its freight trains. I once missed the eastbound train by minutes and in an effort to catch it, drove down I-10 to Crestview (45 minutes away) where I waited SEVERAL HOURS before it FINALLY trundled in. Extremely surly and impolite Amtrak Station personnel in Pensacola did not help matters either. As for a return of passenger train to Mobile, many here in west Florida might find that acceptable as an alternative to anything else. Its a far better deal than having to travel to Union Station in New Orleans via Greyhound (which a nightmare unto itself).

 

[Anderson]

NEPA gives grounds to sue. Without specific grounds, a lawsuit has a higher chance of being dismissed quickly - or the defendant agency has a much higher chance of winning summary judgment in their favor. Bottom line, without NEPA the plaintiffs' lawyers would have to work harder, spend more money, and face less favorable odds. So yes, they could still use the tactic, but it would be less effective.

Some states have counterparts to NEPA for state-funded projects that would use zero federal funds. California, for example. Same situation applies.

Somewhat belatedly, this is a lot of the issue with NEPA: It provides the various plaintiffs (NIMBYs and others alike) with grounds to toss up objections. Even if the objections are doomed from the start, it can take months or years to have them dismissed (and cost tens of thousands of dollars in the process).

 

[neroden]

The main abuses I've seen of NEPA have been shoehorning of non-environmental issues into the process. I guess this is unsurprising given that it was designed to prevent destruction of historical buildings, etc. -- but it is much easier to delay things with vague claims about "increased traffic" or "lost parking" or "changes in the visual impact on the skyline" than it is to delay things with REAL environmental claims (related to endangered species, pollution, water quality, etc.) For the latter you have to have honest-to-god data; for the former you just have to have a bunch of people complaining.

I'm pretty seriously inclined to change the rules so that only *ecological* damage has to be considered with EIS levels of scrutiny. There's already a separate procedure for historic buildings. And frankly I don't think all this other stuff deserves consideration. Ecological damage is nasty and frequently irreversible, so that deserves serious attention, but this other stuff? Pfft.

 

[jis]

I actually disagree with that. Just think, with such limitations we would have had no way to challenge silliness like ARC, though fat good it did until one could find a Governor sufficiently opposed to rail in general relative to highways go ahead and kill it.

So no, I would at least oppose weakening of NEPA in the way proposed.

 

[cirdan]

a "just say no" Congress, waning support from POTUS (even though he mandated it YEARS ago), a TOTAL lack of enthusiasm by Amtrak and an EXTREMELY "passenger rail hostile" state leadership in Tallahassee already ensure that short of a miracle, the effort to restart passenger trains east of Mobile would be DOA

Remember that any of those can change. Political majorities swing, management opinions swing and even within parties, standpoints swing. Whereas I agree that here and now it's an uphill struggle, I see no reason to assume it will or must always be that way.

 

[Rich B]

Drive time is about 10 hours. If you wanted to go via JAX, add another 2 hours. The train shouldn't take longer than driving.

 

[xyzzy]

Top speed for passenger trains, in the absence of fancy signaling systems, is 79 mph. But between Flomaton, Ala. and Tallahassee, top speed of a passenger train would be 59 mph because of the absence of any signaling system. This is set by federal regulation. In addition, trains must slow for curves and make station stops. If you look at long-distance passenger trains in general -- in the U.S., anyway -- about the best they have ever averaged is 65 mph. Most have an average speed that is substantially slower. So if you can drive I-10 at 70 mph and avoid congestion, and if you don't stop often for gas or refreshments or body maintenance, you can easily outrun the train.

Would it be possible to have a 90 mph or 110 mph train along this route? Sure. The technology exists. Would take about $3 billion, I'd estimate.