Snyder and Bing must start making phone calls, personal visits, and whatever else is necessary to get Michigan these funds NOW.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110311/METRO/103110444/1361/U.S.-to-take-bids-for-$2.4-billion-in-returned-rail-funds
Printable View
Snyder and Bing must start making phone calls, personal visits, and whatever else is necessary to get Michigan these funds NOW.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110311/METRO/103110444/1361/U.S.-to-take-bids-for-$2.4-billion-in-returned-rail-funds
Well, Washington and Oregon, which have gone a long way in increasing speeds on the Seattle-Eugene "Cascades" service is going after the money too. Maybe we can split it.
Let's make that link clickable: U.S. to take bids for $2.4 billion in returned rail funds
New York already had dibs on the fund 15 minutes after the Gov. announced the rejection. Somebody was quick.
Fla Gov and MI Gov are like two peas in a pod.
I think we need to figure out a way to secure $150 million for the Chicago line first. Othewise we are putting the cart before the horse.
Other than for political reasons, I never understood why Florida was chosen to be one of the first segments of a national high speed rail network.
Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of things, but wasn't the reason why these funds were rejected by Florida was because Florida taxpayers would be on the hook for massive amounts of money [[and cost overruns) that it would take, beyond the federal stimulus, to build and actually operate the trains?
Don't get me wrong. I think trains are great [[and I ride them, plus transit, all the time out in California), but there's a relatively decent rail infrastructure already in place in Michigan and if there are any rail funds to be spent, spend them on running more trains around the state [[from Detroit out) and not just on some ultra-expensive single "high speed rail" line, which is likely to vacuum up a lot of money from taxpayers here as well.
The funds weren't rejected by Florida, they were rejected by the Florida governor who is at odds with many other politicians [[both Democrat and Republican) in his state about what he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcove Magnesia
That said, Florida was a very poor choice to begin with for a demonstrated high speed rail network. Outside of the northeast corridor and the California coastal cities, a Midwest route between Detroit and Chicago would probably make the most sense. Chicago obviously serves as a natural hub for the Midwest cities west of Lake Michigan, and Detroit makes the natural hub between the U.S. and Canadian rail networks.
It is clear federal money was distributed by political concerns rather than need. Again Detroit and Michigan are on the bottom of the list. http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf
Even without a heavy rail transit system, Detroit ranks pretty high. If there were a heavy rail system, Detroit would probably leap frog to nearly the top of the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by noggin
Money was distributed according to who had a credible plan for implementation, which Michigan clearly does not. Michigan has not yet been able to implement a system to run a couple commuter trains a day on existing tracks! Why would Uncle Sugar give us money for passenger rail when we can't even accomplish something simple like that?
The fact is, we have no infrastructure in place to operate any enhanced rail, other than Amtrak. We have not been aggressively lobbying for these funds. Why would you think we would get them?
From my experience riding the train between Ann Arbor and Chicago, most of the problems of congestion happen around Indiana and once you get into Chicago. I'm sure someone may say otherwise, but the improvements in speed through Michigan would be minimal. The real effort needs to be in Indiana. Chicago is fixing its own problems, high speed rail money or not, with the Englewood flyover, which will elevate passenger rail traffic on its own dedicated tracks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcove Magnesia
While much of the Michigan stretch is already fairly fast, this money could make it considerably faster. However, you are certainly correct that you can ruin the overall trip times with delays, so it is important to get rid of the bottlenecks. And while I'd like to see both, I personally find slowdowns to be disproportionately annoying, particularly when I am getting near the end of a trip.
Really? Seriously? I think you are solo in this beliefQuote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Since Amtrak does NOT own it's own tracks in a vast majority of the route from Detroit to Chicago [[shared by freight), high speeds is not gonna happen ever. Unless Amtrak decides to lay down track from Mid Michigan to ChicagoQuote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
I think you are mistaken; Kalamazoo to Indiana is the part of the route that Amtrak does own.
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-EQuote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
The rail would run from Orlando airport to Disney to Tampa,the stimulus was designed for shovel ready projects,Tampa had already started relocating not demolishing homes in the path over a year ago,everybody involved started working on this years ago as part of a future growth plan.
But it is not over yet.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgo...d-says/1156718
There was a thread about this a few months back. IIRC, the gist of it was that the stretch of track between Detroit and Kalamazoo is deteriorating, and the freight railroad that owns it doesn't get enough use out of the track to justify spending money on maintaining it. As far as they're concerned, it could deteriorate to the point where trains would be limited to 25mph and it would still suit their purposes fine; obviously, that would make it practically useless for passenger trains. The freight railroad wants to sell the track to Amtrak, and the federal government has offered to foot the bill, but Michigan has to come up with a small local match to obtain the federal money. The state House passed a bill last year authorizing the local match, but Mike Bishop let it die in the state Senate, and then the election happened and the Republicans took over the House. Technically, the money is still on the table, but the state legislature doesn't seem to be making any further moves to try to capture it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
Still, it doesn't make sense for the Feds to dump that much money into a HSR line to only connect two cities that are less than 90 miles apart. It especially doesn't make sense as a matter of practicality and effective use of resources, for the government to pour money into such a project. Unless the government is trying to score political points:Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Proslack:Quote:
Florida’s route had some glaring imperfections, though.
Tampa and Orlando are only 84 miles apart, generally considered too close for high-speed rail to make sense. The train trip, with many stops along the way, would have shaved only around a half-hour off the drive. Since there are no commercial flights between the two cities, the new line would not have lured away fliers or freed up landing slots at the busy airports. And neither Tampa nor Orlando has many public transportation options. So the question arose: Could riders be persuaded to leave their cars behind and buy tickets to places where they would still probably need cars?
The state wanted to build the project so badly, though, that after Mr. LaHood hinted that Florida should do something about its lackluster commuter rail service if it wanted a shot at winning the federal rail money, Mr. Crist complied in December 2009 by calling a special session of the Legislature. The state agreed to build a new commuter train in central Florida, and to beef up its struggling line in south Florida.
It worked. When the high-speed rail grants were announced a month later, Florida was a big winner.
The Department of Transportation did not have that many options. Only two states, Florida and California, were deemed far enough along in their planning to receive money for building actual bullet trains — trains that can travel more than 150 miles an hour, on tracks of their own that are not shared with other trains.
The California line — linking Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles an hour — was expected to cost at least of $42 billion, and could not open before 2020 in the most optimistic projection. The Tampa-to-Orlando line, by contrast, was expected to cost around $2.6 billion and had a shot at opening by 2015.
Both states became big winners of the rail money, which grew to more than $10.5 billion after Congress devoted more money to railroads in the federal budget. The rest of the money was used to build or improve conventional train service: most of the states got at least some of it.
Florida stood out: it was on track to open the first bullet train on its own dedicated tracks in the United States. It would have been a demonstration project, visible to the millions of tourists who descend on the Orlando theme parks each year.
Still, it was probably not the line most people would have chosen if they were starting from scratch. When America 2050, a planning group, ranked potential routes in a report called “Where High-Speed Rail Works Best,” the Tampa-to-Orlando route was not even included because the cities are too close together.
Although the state’s plan called for eventually extending the line down to Miami, making the train an attractive alternative to short-hop flights or long drives, the extension would have required more time and planning and much more money to build. When the planning group considered a route linking Tampa, Orlando and Miami, it ranked it 100th among potential high-speed rail routes in the United States, far behind likelier choices like the Northeast Corridor. [[The Acela trains running between Boston and Washington can reach speeds of up to 150 miles an hour, but average around half that because they share their curvy tracks with other trains.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us...pagewanted=all
FYI, Detroit to Chicago ranked 10th on that study of potential high-speed rail routes, and was the highest ranked route in the Midwest. Nationally, it would be fourth if you collapsed the northeast corridor into a single route, and collapsed the California coast into a single route as well. If Detroit had a heavy rail transit system, the Detroit to Chicago route would surely leapfrog California due to Detroit and Chicago's hub potential. Detroit to New York, Detroit to Philadelphia and Detroit to Washington also all ranked in the top 50 routes; no city in Florida is ranked in the top 50 for high speed rail potential according to the study.Quote:
Really? Seriously? I think you are solo in this belief
This essentially came down to what was politically easy to do versus a sound plan for a successful HSR project. Florida really should have never been under serious consideration for an inaugural HSR line in the U.S. The only serious choices should have been 1) northeast corridor, 2) California coast, 3) Dallas to Houston, 4) Detroit to Chicago.
i hope any possibilities of rail funding doesn't get torpedoed by the current michigan legislature.. we'll see..
Running the rail down the I4 corridor eliminates allot of expense when it comes to acquiring rail rights and keeps speculation at a minimum as the state already owned the proposed land,it does not seem to be mentioned much but the reason it would run to disney is because they are also throwing a big chunk of change into the picture.
Freight rails own their rail systems that they paid for and really do not wish to share those with commuter rail so they are really not a part of the formula,high speed rail discussions were started over 15 years ago in Orlando and all the cities have been working on the supporting sub systems sense then more progressive verses reactive,one also looks at before disney Orlando was really nothing,a very small cow town or oranges, so in 50 years they have traveled as much as other cities have in over 100 so it is not surprising that this is moving forward, if it does.
They can build all the tracks they want. Won't make a difference. The Detroit / Chicago run may as well just start in Ann Arbor. That's where most get on and off.
The ridership numbers in FY2010 mirror the trends and ranks from the past several years among Michigan stations:
1st busiest: Ann Arbor
2nd busiest: Kalamazoo
3rd busiest: Dearborn
4th busiest: Detroit
5th busiest: East Lansing
6th busiest: Grand Rapids
It's not just Ann Arbor, thoughtby overall number it is the busiest station. When you figure out the number of passengers per train stopping at each station, more passengers board and detrain from the Blue Water at East Lansing than board or detrain at any other station in Michigan on each individual train.
I took the train from Pontiac a while ago. It was miserable through Detroit. The tracks and the scheduling stunk. It made more sense to get on in Ann Arbor than to put up with the other head aches. But that's not saying the Ann Arbor station is a winner. I just don't see any rail system working when boarding points don't make any effort to entice riders. IMO, the Ann Arbor station can get by without much a parking lot. Lots of kids going for a ride. Same in East Lansing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko
FL Gov Rick Scott lives in a Sarah Palin bubble, no sense to his single-handed rejection of rail $$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I-4 is v. congested - fast train [[if it worked) might make sl. less-crowded Tampa more a bedroom community [[already is) for overstuffed Orlando, also bring mondo retirees from FL's west coast to Wally World, Universal, etc. Mucho profito, all ways.
Needed $$$ was on the table - Scott killed it, citing [[falsely) high maintenance costs [[$3B, wtf???) FL "ole boys" backed rail, still trying to form consortium to getdat $2.4B back... funny, if we-all's not inna recession.
Tampa-Orlando could've been the first link in a Florida rail net - think: lotsa old farts, don't drive at nite, like to travel, have $$ to spend... but our Pee Party Genius killed da deal. Sheesh.
Kudos to MI if you get the money.