White House: $53 billion for high speed rail system!

**Whitehouse** · February-08-11, 04:50 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_820248.html

Good news!

**iheartthed** · February-08-11, 04:54 PM

As one official familiar with the plans said, in the Midwest alone, plans are for a line that would connect Chicago, Detroit, parts of Iowa, St. Louis and down to Kansas City.

I hope that's true.

**mwilbert** · February-08-11, 05:05 PM

I don't doubt it is true, but only time will tell if it gets through Congress in that form, if at all.

**DetroitPlanner** · February-08-11, 05:08 PM

Detroit needs a connection to Toledo too!

To get to Philly by Amtrak you need to first go to Chicago from here, or get a ride down to T-town.

Getting it through a congress full of tea partiers will be a challenge.

**Baselinepunk** · February-08-11, 05:13 PM

I hope this turns out in our favor, but I'll believe it when I see it.

**esp1986** · February-08-11, 05:40 PM

1) Probably won't pass through the House... unfortunately.
2) Still doesn't eliminate the age old problem of access to the east coast, as mentioned by DP, via Toledo.

I spend A LOT of my time working in Toledo these days, and any connection to Detroit would get my use a couple times a week...

In this way, Detroit compares to Chicago pretty well. Chicago's South Shore Line runs from Downtown all the way to Gary Indiana and on to South Bend. A similar line from Detroit would run through Monroe and onto Toledo. It is a real shame that Detroit does not even have any commuter lines. It is no accident that Amtrak posted some of their biggest ridership gains this year. With gas prices headed toward $4 a gallon this year and toward $5 and $6 in the next few years, Trains will slowly gain even more ridership for short and mid-range journeys, as flying is impacted by gasoline as much as driving.

Speaking of commuter lines, has anyone heard anything about the $130M in federal money to improve the Detroit to Ann Arbor line for the proposed commuter rail? Last I heard was the state legislature didn't want to commit their $20M to the project...

**Rocko** · February-08-11, 05:53 PM

There is a convenient connecting bus which departs from several Michigan Amtrak stations which goes to Central Union Station in Toledo to connect with eastbound trains: the Capitol Limited & Lake Shore Limited. A return bus also leaves Toledo for Michigan after both westbound trains arrive in the early morning. However, you must hold a ticket for one of those routes to use the bus. The bus stops at the Amtrak stations in East Lansing, Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Detroit on the way to Toleeeeeeedo. I'll actually be taking that connecting bus this coming week on my way back from Connecticut to Ann Arbor.

I hope the money keeps flowing. It's funny, for once rail and Amtrak are adequately funded, and they're showing real gains in ridership, ride quality, and satisfaction. Amazing. Yes, gas prices play a role in encouraging travels to look elsewhere, but with more capacity comes room to carry those riders, etc.

**esp1986** · February-08-11, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Rocko

There is a convenient connecting bus which departs from several Michigan Amtrak stations which goes to Central Union Station in Toledo to connect with eastbound trains: the Capitol Limited & Lake Shore Limited. A return bus also leaves Toledo for Michigan after both westbound trains arrive in the early morning. However, you must hold a ticket for one of those routes to use the bus. The bus stops at the Amtrak stations in East Lansing, Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Detroit on the way to Toleeeeeeedo. I'll actually be taking that connecting bus this coming week on my way back from Connecticut to Ann Arbor.

I hope the money keeps flowing. It's funny, for once rail and Amtrak are adequately funded, and they're showing real gains in ridership, ride quality, and satisfaction. Amazing. Yes, gas prices play a role in encouraging travels to look elsewhere, but with more capacity comes room to carry those riders, etc.

Unfortunately, subsidy cuts for Amtrak is one of the hot-buttons right now in Congress... with transit cuts proposed there, it is hard to believe we will see any new infrastructure anywhere else. Out of all of the transportation modes, rail is the least government subsidized of them all... States spend billions each year maintaining roads, billions are spent each year policing the airline industry and it's passengers. Every mode of transportation is government subsidized, the only difference it how.

**EastsideQT** · February-08-11, 06:23 PM

Forget about a multi-state rail that's what Amtrak is for.....let's concentrate on the one we need in Detroit. Every time they turn a small project into a huge one nothing ever gets done.

**Zacha341** · February-09-11, 06:59 AM

Weee... I am looking forward to the fact that soon I'll be 'driven' [[sic) out of having the fiscal means to drive a private vehicle. I sooooo look forward to er' the 'option' of mass transportation due to financial constraints! Yippeee!

Originally Posted by esp1986

1)...With gas prices headed toward $4 a gallon this year and toward $5 and $6 in the next few years, Trains will slowly gain even more ridership for short and mid-range journeys, as flying is impacted by gasoline as much as driving.

Speaking of commuter lines, has anyone heard anything about the $130M in federal money to improve the Detroit to Ann Arbor line for the proposed commuter rail? Last I heard was the state legislature didn't want to commit their $20M to the project...

**canuck** · February-08-11, 05:53 PM

DP

Getting it through a congress full of tea partiers will be a challenge.

They should stop smoking that stuff.

NorthEndere · February-08-11, 08:16 PM

This doesn't mean anything if it doesn't make it pass this Republican-controlled House, and I doubt it will, even with as popular as infrastructure investment has been popular with Republicans in the not-too-distant past.

BTW, it's absolutely ridiculous that Detroit doesn't have a direct connection to the east. A commuter bus is not enough, especially when you consider the potential amount of traffic you'd have if they'd open a rail line between Detroit and Toledo.

**oladub** · February-08-11, 08:24 PM

Trains are cool but the article didn't cite a funding source. We could cut some other spending elsewhere or raise taxes to pay for this. Other possible funding sources would be to borrow the money from China or have the Federal Reserve ramp up it's printing press like Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic did. The latter two solutions enable our kids to pay for our trains.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-08-11, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Trains are cool but the article didn't cite a funding source. We could cut some other spending elsewhere or raise taxes to pay for this. Other possible funding sources would be to borrow the money from China or have the Federal Reserve ramp up it's printing press like Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic did. The latter two solutions enable our kids to pay for our trains.

Why don't you post this same paragraph every time MDOT proposes a new highway widening, or an interchange reconstruction that costs several hundred million dollars? It's not like the USDOT hasn't dipped into General Revenues the past three years to keep the Highway Trust Fund afloat.

Unfortunately for Michigan, a connection to the East is a non-starter. Gov. John Kasich won't let Ohio come out to play.

**esp1986** · February-08-11, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Unfortunately for Michigan, a connection to the East is a non-starter. Gov. John Kasich won't let Ohio come out to play.

Nail hit on head.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-08-11, 09:16 PM

Yeah, Kasich said Ohio can't afford $17 million a year for the 3C Rail project. Something about needing those pennies for a $1 BILLION interchange reconstruction in downtown Columbus. And a $400 million bridge in Cleveland. And maybe widening I-71 some more, you know, for shits and giggles.

**iheartthed** · February-09-11, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Unfortunately for Michigan, a connection to the East is a non-starter. Gov. John Kasich won't let Ohio come out to play.

Maybe they can connect Detroit to the East through upstate New York. That might even make more sense [[for Detroit). If Canada builds a high speed line it will probably go from Detroit/Windsor through Toronto, Ottawa and terminate in Montreal. A high speed line from the east could go through Buffalo and cut across Ontario, like the New York Central RR once did.

**schulzte** · February-09-11, 11:25 AM

I've thought about this quite a bit. While it would be nice to have high speed rail, I think it is too expensive to build a large network in the US. The population centers of the United States are more spread out than they are in Western Europe and Asia, so the cost of building such a system per user would be just too high to connect the Midwest. I've read estimates to the tune of $80 million per mile of newly constructed high speed line. Think about that. Just to run a new high speed rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit would cost $2-3 billion. Its just too much. $53 billion could build 8 major new international airports that would be used by far more travelers.

I've looked at some of the Amtrak ridership numbers, and assuming ridership would probably double or triple if high speed rail were a reality, I think there are a few places where it could work, connecting chains of cities, rather than vast expanse.

1. Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington [[obviously)
2. Los Angeles Area-San Diego
3. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland-Sacramento
4. Milwaukee-Chicago-St. Louis [[St. Louis is a stretch)

Sadly, I don't think the ridership on any other routes would warrant the massive costs of high speed rail now or in the future. I think we have to stick with airplanes by and large. That infrastructure is already in place, and there are security issues with high speed rail that are already taken care of in our airports as well.

I'm not opposed to government involvement in mass transit. Far from it. But think about what $53 billion dollars could do for intracity mass transit in this nation. That is the problem to solve, high speed rail is trying to solve a problem that isn't really there in most of the country.

**iheartthed** · February-09-11, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by schulzte

The population centers of the United States are more spread out than they are in Western Europe and Asia

This isn't true.

**esp1986** · February-09-11, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by schulzte

I've thought about this quite a bit. While it would be nice to have high speed rail, I think it is too expensive to build a large network in the US. The population centers of the United States are more spread out than they are in Western Europe and Asia, so the cost of building such a system per user would be just too high to connect the Midwest. I've read estimates to the tune of $80 million per mile of newly constructed high speed line. Think about that. Just to run a new high speed rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit would cost $2-3 billion. Its just too much. $53 billion could build 8 major new international airports that would be used by far more travelers.

I've looked at some of the Amtrak ridership numbers, and assuming ridership would probably double or triple if high speed rail were a reality, I think there are a few places where it could work, connecting chains of cities, rather than vast expanse.

1. Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington [[obviously)
2. Los Angeles Area-San Diego
3. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland-Sacramento
4. Milwaukee-Chicago-St. Louis [[St. Louis is a stretch)

Sadly, I don't think the ridership on any other routes would warrant the massive costs of high speed rail now or in the future. I think we have to stick with airplanes by and large. That infrastructure is already in place, and there are security issues with high speed rail that are already taken care of in our airports as well.

I'm not opposed to government involvement in mass transit. Far from it. But think about what $53 billion dollars could do for intracity mass transit in this nation. That is the problem to solve, high speed rail is trying to solve a problem that isn't really there in most of the country.

And how, exactly, is air travel viable today? Sure we can build the airports, but only a handful of airlines have posted profits in the last 10 years, resulting in a number of mergers, with more on the horizon. The federal government spends upwards of $20 billion annually to police air travel, through the TSA. If that were to be passed on to the airlines themselves, they would all be out of business within a year. Air travel as we know it is no longer viable. For cross-country and overseas flights, it can be very profitable, but with all of the short distance service on planes that have only a few people, the fuel for the flight alone costs more than the revenues generated.

The Amtrak Acela, the highspeed line on the east coast is actually a profitable venture. Now, you're gonna say, "Well that's because there are so many people on the east coast." Very true, but the mid-west is essentially the second densest corridor in terms of population. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, a number of cities throughout Illinois and on down to St. Louis and Kansas City. If these lines are limited to dense corridors like these, the lines can be profitable. It is just a matter of execution.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-09-11, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by schulzte

I've thought about this quite a bit. While it would be nice to have high speed rail, I think it is too expensive to build a large network in the US.

The truth is, if we had utilized this line of reasoning in the 1950s, we wouldn't have the Interstate Highway System. For what it's worth, rail infrastructure is cheaper to construct than Interstate-grade highways, can move more people, at faster speeds, and in a smaller footprint. You bemoan a roughly estimated cost of $2 billion to build high-speed rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit, yet neglect an estimated $1 billion cost to add one lane in each direction to I-75 through Oakland County, or $1 billion+ to re-work I-94 in downtown Detroit, or $1 billion to reconfigure a *single* interchange in Columbus, Ohio. At least high speed rail--even "slow" high speed rail like Acela--can recoup most of its operating costs through passenger fares, and recoup even more through increased property values and economic development near stations.

We have to stop pretending we're somehow "more advanced" than the rest of the world. If we don't, we're going to get our asses handed to us on a plate.

**Gistok** · February-09-11, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

Trains are cool but the article didn't cite a funding source. We could cut some other spending elsewhere or raise taxes to pay for this. Other possible funding sources would be to borrow the money from China or have the Federal Reserve ramp up it's printing press like Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic did. The latter two solutions enable our kids to pay for our trains.

Funny you mentioned the Weimar Republic... I have a 1923 $100 Billion Reichsmark German Weimar Republic banknote [[$100 Milliarden in German), but I haven't seen any $100 Billion Dollar Federal Reserve bills printed as of yet...[[unfortunately nothing over $100) but do keep making your weak analogies....

I also guess that you're equating Barack Obama with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe....

**oladub** · February-09-11, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Funny you mentioned the Weimar Republic... I have a 1923 $100 Billion Reichsmark German Weimar Republic banknote [[$100 Milliarden in German), but I haven't seen any $100 Billion Dollar Federal Reserve bills printed as of yet...[[unfortunately nothing over $100) but do keep making your weak analogies....

I also guess that you're equating Barack Obama with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe....

Not yet but the dollar has lost 95% of it's spending value since 1916. That's a crude measurement but gas cost 32 cents a gallon and Ford Mustangs sold for $2,499 in 1969 as I recall. Grain prices have increased spectacularly this year. Drip, drip... why that's our dollar eroding. Just wait until the $1T the Treasury let loose and the $2T the fed let loose hit the streets to ratchet up the demand part of supply/demand.

You're right, I am equating Obama's policies with Robert Mugabe's and Kaiser Wilhelm's. You get a passing grade for mentioning one of them. For extra credit, where is the $53B coming from? The choices again are higher taxes, eliminating something else from the budget, borrowing from China, or by running the Fed's magic money printing machine.

**Richard** · February-09-11, 07:03 AM

http://www.semcog.org/A2D2January2011Update.aspx

Project Specifics
The current project is to provide commuter rail service in the Detroit-Ann Arbor corridor with stops in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Dearborn, and Detroit. The project takes advantage of existing infrastructure where possible and requires adding new station stops in Ypsilanti and at Detroit Metro Airport.

The project is being managed by SEMCOG along with partners that include representatives of all communities in the corridor, Wayne and Washtenaw County officials, state and federal representatives, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the local transit operators [[AATA, DDOT, and SMART), Amtrak, representatives of Norfolk Southern [[NS) and Canadian National [[CN) Railroads, and members of the business community.

Currently, the freight railroads are analyzing capacity on the proposed passenger rail line and will be providing an estimate of the capital costs that will be needed to allow passenger and freight trains to safely co-exist with reliable service in the same corridor. Other activities currently underway include identifying equipment costs, developing ridership estimates, building potential service schedules, and exploring funding options. To learn more about the project, please view the project updates.

Funding
The Michigan Department of Transportation was awarded Round Two ARRA funding totaling $160 million. From that funding, $150 million will purchase the rail line between Kalamazoo and Dearborn; because that line will now be state-owned, we won’t have to negotiate for access rights. Also, $7 million will be used for the west Detroit connection track project that will result in reduced travel time and a more efficient line. The remaining $3 million will be used for additional planning and engineering. These high-speed rail investments will result in a direct benefit to the proposed commuter rail service and reduce the funding necessary to implement passenger service.

**Zacha341** · February-09-11, 07:05 AM

Yes, our devaluing dollar is an issue that will continue to impact Americans withstanding party loyalty. The 'kick the can down the road' policies of spending is going to require its own special BALLOON payment which will not be solved by the usual partisan rubric/ rhetoric.

Originally Posted by oladub

Not yet but the dollar has lost 95% of it's spending value since 1916. That's a crude measurement but gas cost 32 cents a gallon and Ford Mustangs sold for $2,499 in 1969 as I recall. Grain prices have increased spectacularly this year. Drip, drip... why that's our dollar eroding. Just wait until the $1T the Treasury let loose and the $2T the fed let loose hit the streets to ratchet up the demand part of supply/demand.

You're right, I am equating Obama's policies with Robert Mugabe's and Kaiser Wilhelm's. You get a passing grade for mentioning one of them. For extra credit, where is the $53B coming from? The choices again are higher taxes, eliminating something else from the budget, borrowing from China, or by running the Fed's magic money printing machine.