Congresspeople create HSR caucus

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg: Bicameral Delegation Announces High-Speed & Intercity Rail Caucus

Hoping to defend HSR initiatives, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has announced the formation of the "Congressional Bicameral High-Speed & Intercity Passenger Rail Caucus". Joining him will be Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representatives Louise Slaughter (D-NY), John Olver (D-MA), Corrine Brown (D-FL), David Price (D-NC), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Tim Walz (D-MN).

Seems like the right idea, because that will help get political support independent of whatever Obama or his successors may decide. But they also ought to consider inviting Republicans like Rep. John Mica (R-FL).

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/17/2 ... ornia.html

Apparently there were R invites sent out, but all so far have turned it down. Including rail-friendly reps. GOP leadership's probably instructed all members to stay away so it's framed as a Dem-only thing.

This seems to be a nice way of undermining public support for HSR, making a broad public issue subject to a narrow minded partisan cabal. Oh, and the leader is the oldest serving member of the senate - although to his credit, he does look like Martin Landau. Most of the representatives come from completely uncompetitive seats. It looks like a club for elderly incumbents who don't have to worry about reelection. Not exactly an encouraging sign for passenger rail.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/17/2 ... ornia.html

Apparently there were R invites sent out, but all so far have turned it down. Including rail-friendly reps. GOP leadership's probably instructed all members to stay away so it's framed as a Dem-only thing.

I think the writing was on the wall, considering the public controversy over HSR. I sincerely doubt that any newly elected representative had to ask whether it was a good idea? No, it very obviously isn't a good idea, unless you're an elderly incumbent, in a non-competitive, safe seat, where you can do absolutely anything, and still get reelected.

[quote="goodnightjohnwayne"]

making a broad public issue subject to a narrow minded partisan cabal. {/quote]

Rather harsh, don't you think? Then again, I'm sure the Rs in Congress have never been guilty of that.

Face it, the last time the Rs put forth a bold agenda involving the country's transportation/infrastructure, Ike was in office. Time before that I think had something to do with horse-drawn wagons. R should stand for Roadblock.

Ocala Mike wrote:Face it, the last time the Rs put forth a bold agenda involving the country's transportation/infrastructure, Ike was in office. Time before that I think had something to do with horse-drawn wagons. R should stand for Roadblock.

A century before Ike, there was a certain Republican politician who pushed rather strongly the subject of this messageboard, his name was Abraham Lincoln...

lpetrich wrote:

Ocala Mike wrote:Face it, the last time the Rs put forth a bold agenda involving the country's transportation/infrastructure, Ike was in office. Time before that I think had something to do with horse-drawn wagons. R should stand for Roadblock.

A century before Ike, there was a certain Republican politician who pushed rather strongly the subject of this messageboard, his name was Abraham Lincoln...

Abraham Lincoln built high speed rail? What??

For those in the Childrens' Crusade with less of a feeling for history, Mr. Petrich was referring to the original transcontinental rail project, which took root during the Lincoln Administratiion, after the agrarian Southern bloc, which had no reason to support it, was no longer in the way. There was the little matter of a very bitter war to get through first, however.

And the process can be traced backward still further, to 1817, when President Madison, another Southerner, vetoed a series of "internal improvements". That action cleared the way for the state-funded, and phenomenally successful, Erie Canal, but several "copycat" projects failed, as usual, because the politicians who dreamed them up failed to grasp the laws of nature, science, and simple reason, that stood in the way. Transport infrastructure itself has seldom been a partisan issue in the traditional sense ... the convtoversy revolves around the form(s) it takes.

A paralell, which ought to be recognized by those with any feel for economics, exists for HSR development. It should be obvious by now that the "Obama Plan" that tried to sell HSR systems to states as unsuitable as Montana, Mississippi and Oklahoma, was never going to fly, but the potential remains for the completion of a "pilot project" which could develop into a "true" (200 MPH or better) HSR system for the West Coast.

Anyone with an understanding of basic economics should recognize that whatever is built can't cover even its operating cost in the immediate future; the idea is to demonstrate that the technology does work and can be first linked to, then overbuilt on conventional systems already serving a useful role, as was the case with the NEC.

Uncle Sugar can't afford to leave the "big Lionel set"under the tree, and a substantial portion of the electorate out of which a coalition has to be formed is not interested in any case. But the first, (and feasible) step in a long process is out there in plain sight, and certain trends, such as the re-concentration of population within the major cities and along the corridors, do inveigh in the right direction.

Just not next year.

jb9152 wrote:Abraham Lincoln built high speed rail? What??

That was the mid 19th cy., and likely rather slow by present-day standards, but it was railroad-building on a rather massive scale. 2nd trick op, you are right.

I've not heard of Obama proposing HSR lines for Montana, Mississippi and Oklahoma. The FRA's High-Speed Rail Corridor Descriptions mentions lines in Mississippi and Oklahoma, but not in Montana, and nothing in any of those states made the recent cuts of funding. Most of the places that received funding were the relatively populous areas that are suitable for high-speed trains, and the biggest such area left out was Texas.

If memory serves me correctly, during the height of the HSR ballyhoo, a plan was put forth that revolved around extending the FRA plan sufficenlly to get a few more states (and thereby, their Senators) on the bandwagon; I can't quote an exact source immediately, but it revolved around a Dallas-Denver "spine" with projected exrensions Colorado Springs-Albuquerque-El Paso and Denver-Cheyenne-Billings. Not a ghost of a chance, but it wasn't aimed at the geographically-astute.

But for a moment, let's consider Bakersfield-Fresno as a pilot project. The countryside is flat, construction costs should be moderate, and Amtrak already has its San Joaquin feeder bus hub in place at one end. Extensions/alternatives to Las Vegas or Lancaster(Metrolink) are also not likely to encounter heavy opposition. Northward from there lie several modest-sized markets along the path to the Bay Area and Sacramento.

Nothing in the projected HSR world is going to make empirical economic sense in the short run. I've chosen this particular example because whatever happens, it probably offers the most that can be salvaged and/or put to better use, if need be, over the long run.

2nd trick op wrote:For those in the Childrens' Crusade with less of a feeling for history, Mr. Petrich was referring to the original transcontinental rail project, which took root during the Lincoln Administratiion, after the agrarian Southern bloc, which had no reason to support it, was no longer in the way. There was the little matter of a very bitter war to get through first, however.

I'm familiar with the history, but I was making light in order to illustrate absurdity. There is absolutely no comparison, with the exception of steel wheel on steel rail, between the time of Lincoln and today.

jb9152 wrote:I'm familiar with the history, but I was making light in order to illustrate absurdity. There is absolutely no comparison, with the exception of steel wheel on steel rail, between the time of Lincoln and today.

To reinforce that there's absolutely no comparison, the Feds provided no funds to help the railroads build west. What the Feds did do is give away titles to land they didn't own. So, it cost them NOTHING!