Comments on: Competition for Rail Grants Heats Up as Illinois and Florida Articulate Proposals http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/ Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:27:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jake http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/#comment-1348 Jake Fri, 29 May 2009 17:04:40 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2295#comment-1348 There are a lot of corridors submitted for possibilities. There are 10 all together. Cali HSR, the Texas T-Bone (South Centrail, Florida (although, as we know, they've hit some road bumps), and the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative (which connects a lot more than just Illinois) are the top contenders as far as I know. Here is a map and a list of the corridors. http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203 There are a lot of corridors submitted for possibilities. There are 10 all together.
Cali HSR, the Texas T-Bone (South Centrail, Florida (although, as we know, they’ve hit some road bumps), and the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative (which connects a lot more than just Illinois) are the top contenders as far as I know.

Here is a map and a list of the corridors.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203

]]> By: Jeff http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/#comment-1347 Jeff Thu, 28 May 2009 04:56:48 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2295#comment-1347 Any chance the Gulf Coast Corridor is ever built? Has it even entered the conversation for the $8B pot of money? Or are CA, IL, and FL the only three? What about the Northeast? Any chance the Gulf Coast Corridor is ever built? Has it even entered the conversation for the $8B pot of money? Or are CA, IL, and FL the only three? What about the Northeast?

]]> By: Adam http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/#comment-1346 Adam Tue, 26 May 2009 09:00:19 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2295#comment-1346 What BruceMcF said.... Also, though, what about instead of calling it a 80/20 formula, why not call it a matching grant on top of what DOT would give out in ARRA funds for the merits of the project on its own with no state funding? So if they determine that the Illinois project w/out state funding is worthy of say .5 bn in funds, what about awarding them an addition 400 million in funds to match the 400 million the state is willing to pony up? Of course, immediately the question is what do you do with California since they've already floated 10 bn in bonds and that's more than the ARRA funds in total. Maybe you do it only for appropriations expected to be paid out for the life of the HSR ARRA funds (goes to 2012?). Point is, I bet there's a way to reward states for putting in their own money without violating the spirit of the ARRA funds that were meant to have no state funding strings attached. Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can't wait to see your next post! What BruceMcF said….

Also, though, what about instead of calling it a 80/20 formula, why not call it a matching grant on top of what DOT would give out in ARRA funds for the merits of the project on its own with no state funding? So if they determine that the Illinois project w/out state funding is worthy of say .5 bn in funds, what about awarding them an addition 400 million in funds to match the 400 million the state is willing to pony up? Of course, immediately the question is what do you do with California since they’ve already floated 10 bn in bonds and that’s more than the ARRA funds in total. Maybe you do it only for appropriations expected to be paid out for the life of the HSR ARRA funds (goes to 2012?). Point is, I bet there’s a way to reward states for putting in their own money without violating the spirit of the ARRA funds that were meant to have no state funding strings attached.
Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!

]]> By: Adam http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/#comment-1342 Adam Tue, 26 May 2009 01:22:01 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2295#comment-1342 What BruceMcF said.... Also, though, what about instead of calling it a 80/20 formula, why not call it a matching grant on top of what DOT would give out in ARRA funds for the merits of the project on its own with no state funding? So if they determine that the Illinois project w/out state funding is worthy of say .5 bn in funds, what about awarding them an addition 400 million in funds to match the 400 million the state is willing to pony up? Of course, immediately the question is what do you do with California since they've already floated 10 bn in bonds and that's more than the ARRA funds in total. Maybe you do it only for appropriations expected to be paid out for the life of the HSR ARRA funds (goes to 2012?). Point is, I bet there's a way to reward states for putting in their own money without violating the spirit of the ARRA funds that were meant to have no state funding strings attached. What BruceMcF said….

Also, though, what about instead of calling it a 80/20 formula, why not call it a matching grant on top of what DOT would give out in ARRA funds for the merits of the project on its own with no state funding? So if they determine that the Illinois project w/out state funding is worthy of say .5 bn in funds, what about awarding them an addition 400 million in funds to match the 400 million the state is willing to pony up? Of course, immediately the question is what do you do with California since they’ve already floated 10 bn in bonds and that’s more than the ARRA funds in total. Maybe you do it only for appropriations expected to be paid out for the life of the HSR ARRA funds (goes to 2012?). Point is, I bet there’s a way to reward states for putting in their own money without violating the spirit of the ARRA funds that were meant to have no state funding strings attached.

]]> By: BruceMcF http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/#comment-1343 BruceMcF Mon, 25 May 2009 20:50:18 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2295#comment-1343 For the regular budgetary appropriations, sure. However, for the Stimulus funding, a willingness to fully fund a project is built into the bill. Indeed, bearing in mind that we are talking about two distinct sums of money, one permitting full federal funding and one requiring a state match, may in fact address the question that the post has raised ... the $0.5b for the Chicago / St. Louis line for works improving the line that both serve an immediate need and are some of the works required to get to Emerging HSR corridor status ... and state funding to be able to apply for additional funding from the ongoing HSR appropriations. For the regular budgetary appropriations, sure.

However, for the Stimulus funding, a willingness to fully fund a project is built into the bill.

Indeed, bearing in mind that we are talking about two distinct sums of money, one permitting full federal funding and one requiring a state match, may in fact address the question that the post has raised … the $0.5b for the Chicago / St. Louis line for works improving the line that both serve an immediate need and are some of the works required to get to Emerging HSR corridor status … and state funding to be able to apply for additional funding from the ongoing HSR appropriations.

]]> By: Jake http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/#comment-1345 Jake Mon, 25 May 2009 17:48:39 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2295#comment-1345 How about we start taking this rail stuff as seriously as the Interstate Project. The Federal Government needs to throw their weight behind it. 90 cents to the dollar should be provided by the Feds, just like they did back in the 50's for the Interstate Project. It will be just as lucrative, only more. And will be a smarter investment in the long run. How about we start taking this rail stuff as seriously as the Interstate Project. The Federal Government needs to throw their weight behind it. 90 cents to the dollar should be provided by the Feds, just like they did back in the 50′s for the Interstate Project.
It will be just as lucrative, only more. And will be a smarter investment in the long run.

]]> By: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/25/competition-for-rail-grants-heats-up-as-illinois-and-florida-articulate-proposals/#comment-1344 Jarrett at HumanTransit.org Mon, 25 May 2009 12:23:11 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2295#comment-1344 Sensible suggestion. But just to be provocative: Should we be imagining a day when we no longer rely on ridership projections? Isn't it odd that we treat ridership estimates as facts when they are so often so spectacularly wrong? I wonder if we couldn't have more rational discussions if we talked about things that are more factual. E.g. How much faster will various common trip pairs be? Why can't we aggregate zillions of these potential trips to create a factual model of improved mobility, rather than a speculation about what people who live in an unknown future will do in response? Doesn't the factual model provide a better basis for the economic outcomes that we want, such as continued growth in cities without having to build third and fourth runways in ever-more-impactful and expensive ways? Not sure. Just asking. Sensible suggestion. But just to be provocative: Should we be imagining a day when we no longer rely on ridership projections? Isn’t it odd that we treat ridership estimates as facts when they are so often so spectacularly wrong?

I wonder if we couldn’t have more rational discussions if we talked about things that are more factual. E.g. How much faster will various common trip pairs be? Why can’t we aggregate zillions of these potential trips to create a factual model of improved mobility, rather than a speculation about what people who live in an unknown future will do in response? Doesn’t the factual model provide a better basis for the economic outcomes that we want, such as continued growth in cities without having to build third and fourth runways in ever-more-impactful and expensive ways?

Not sure. Just asking.

]]>