High-speed rail opposition -- in states that won it

The New York Times has this article on several candidates for governor wanting no part of high speed rail projects already granted for their states.

Republican candidates for governor in some of the states that won the biggest stimulus rail awards are reaching for the emergency brake ... The state-level opposition is a reminder of the challenge of building a national transportation project in the United States: while the federal government can set priorities, the construction is up to the states.

I am not trying to get political one way or another here -- just noting that according to this article, even in states that competed for and won these grants, the projects' futures are hardly assured.

I do not want to get into politics on this one but I am not one hundred per cent convinced that the current plan for high speed
rail in Florida is the right way to go. I think you need to take baby steps before you take giant steps. Problem here in
Florida is that for a long, long time the state has done little to nothing for passenger rail and so maybe this is better than
what we had.
I do favor boosting present operations conducted by Amtrak. What would help far more than a high speed rail line between
Tampa and Orlando and a lot sooner at that would be for corridor type services throughout the main population centers of
our state. To start with we should have at least three daily departures between Tampa and Jacksonville via Orlando, three
more between Tampa and Miami via the present Silver Star route, three more between Miami and Jacksonville via the
Florida East Coast and maybe three more between Miami and Orlando via the present route. In addition at least two round
trips between Jacksonville and Tallahassee and maybe Pensacola. All of this should be in addition to the existing long
distance service between Miami, Tampa and New York.
The public would be better served by this type of an operation than it will be with one or two high speed lines that will cost
a fortune to build and take a long time to accomplish as well.
As I stated above, this state would rather do nothing when it comes to rail. It will be very interesting to see just what
happens with the application for funding regarding the Florida East Coast project and if this does come, service could be up
and running here at far less cost and in only a couple of years or so. I think we have a reasonable chance to accomplish
this and my preference is for Amtrak to operate any high speed trains whether they be on present railroads upgraded or
new railroads or a combination of both.
Noel Weaver

Here in Ohio, Candidate Kasich has flat stated the the 3C slow speed rail plan is the first thing to go if elected. The 17 million annual subsidy, even if off by a factor of 2, is a tenth of a percent of the transportation budget. Incumbent candidate Strickland solidly supports.

maybe its good if this becomes an election issue , lets see where the public stands . the danger is that the for canditate gets voted out on other issues .

I can say that there is zero opposition to Washington State's grant in this election campaign. I even saw a group of prominent and well known Republicans riding on a Cascades train earlier this summer!

The common thread in WI and OH is that the government is trying to build a system where there isn't any already existing service. Madison to Milwaukee and the 3C corridors exist only on paper, they don't currently serve any passengers and there isn't a solid constituency of trainriders that can testify to the need for improved service. The GOP candidate in WI is basing his opposition on the $8 million annual operating subsidy needed for the Madison to Milwaukee trains. And how much new highway can WI buy for $8 million? Not much.

If WI and OH don't want the money, I'm sure it can be put to good use on shovel-ready projects in Washington, Oregon, California, North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Vermont, Maine or New York.

Here is the Wisconsin "loyal opposition" website:

http://www.notrain.com/

As I've noted in the past "$8B for HSR" under ARRA'09 is flawed. The funds should simply have been directed towards the "sure bets' - namely the NE Corridor and possibly some for "Higher Speed Rail" where there is existing service "pulling its weight'. Proposed services such as within Ohio noted immediately by Mr. Vincent, are simply wishful - all too much of the allocations are simply going to feed consultants. Kansas? somebody is simply using "HSR" as an excuse to add an LD to the System.

Florida? while I sincerely hope such is not the case, I think I-4 is on its way to having two additional lanes being added Orlando to Tampa - with rail money!!!

Noel Weaver wrote: To start with we should have at least three daily departures between Tampa and Jacksonville via Orlando
Noel Weaver

Agree, Noel, but while we're dreaming how about adding a couple or three daily departures between TPA and JAX over the "S-Line" through Wildwood (The Villages) and Ocala?

From where I sit (which is currently within the office of the Secretary at USDOT), most of the opposition in Ohio and Wisconsin comes from people who want to reduce the size of government, and have seized on high speed rail as a sort of symbol. I'm not making a political statement, just an observation. There is currently a great deal of anti-government feeling in this country, and there is going to be an electoral bloodbath in November the likes of which we haven't seen for quite a few years. Anyone who underestimates the Tea Party and calls them "extreme right wingers" is talking nonsense. This is the first genuine populist uprising I've seen in my lifetime (and I'm 58).

But when all the dust settles, and the states face the reality that, if they give the money back, it will just be spent somewhere else, I believe common sense will prevail. But that's...just my opinion.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Here is the Wisconsin "loyal opposition" website:

http://www.notrain.com/

As I commented on his youtube video, Republicans always seem to be against passenger rail, even as they support subsidies for highways and aviation. It's unfortunate, as our country desperately needs to invest in upgrading transportation infrastructure. High speed rail is the safest, most reliable, and most efficient option available for expanding our inter-city transport capacity, and every industrialized nation besides the United States has embraced it as a critical element of a robust, multi-modal transportation network.

Vincent wrote:Madison to Milwaukee and the 3C corridors exist only on paper, they don't currently serve any passengers.

I have seen a lot of people get off the Empire Builder at Columbus, bound for Madison. I think there is no doubt there is unsatisfied demand on that route.

Not all GOP are anti-rail. I found this letter at a Milwaukee website. The letter is authored by a WA state GOP official (and one of the group I mentioned above).

From the letter:

Like Wisconsin, Washington and other states find themselves forced to make hard choices when spending tight public funds. Not only does everyone want government to do more with less, it is also vital to get the best results for the money spent.

So, why are Wisconsin’s GOP gubernatorial candidates lining up in favor of road spending only and against resource-efficient passenger trains?

We, as Americans, seem to be playing hot potato, looking for quick fixes to big problems. We threw the bums out in 2008 and we're going to do it again in 2010. But the economy isn't going to get better overnight. In 2012, will we just throw the bums out again and hope for the best? Future generations are going to look back at the economic foolishness of the last 20 years and wonder what we were thinking. Kind of like when we look back at the 1920s and wonder what those morons were thinking.

Matt Johnson wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Here is the Wisconsin "loyal opposition" website:

http://www.notrain.com/

As I commented on his youtube video, Republicans always seem to be against passenger rail, even as they support subsidies for highways and aviation. It's unfortunate, as our country desperately needs to invest in upgrading transportation infrastructure. High speed rail is the safest, most reliable, and most efficient option available for expanding our inter-city transport capacity, and every industrialized nation besides the United States has embraced it as a critical element of a robust, multi-modal transportation network.

What Republicans ignore is that compared to highways and airports, the amount required to operate and maintain railways is a drop in the bucket. If only Scott Walker knew that.

The high speed rail grants are for RAIL period..... If Ohio, Wisconsin and yes even Florida do not see fit to use them for
rail, they should be required to return them for use where they will be appreciated.
We had the same thing here a year or two ago when the state intended to cut our commuter operation (Tri-Rail) way back
with no weekend trains and maybe 2/3's of the existing weekday service cut, the feds told them if you do that we will go
after you for the money you received to put down the second track on this route and finally the state leaders came to their
senses. The highway lobby is so strong in Florida and probaby some of the other states as well that it is difficult to find
anything for rail, our leaders just don't care. I don't think the HRS funds will do that much for I-4 anyway and in this case I
hope it will do absolutely nothing for I-4 or any other highway or airport. I think it is just too early to determine exactly
what will happen here or anywhere else.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:The high speed rail grants are for RAIL period..... If Ohio, Wisconsin and yes even Florida do not see fit to use them for rail, they should be required to return them for use where they will be appreciated.

They are required to return the funds if they don't build and operate the train for a set period of years.

Which is one thing that makes this even more amazing in Wisconsin, since they could well be on the hook for some $300 Million as that amount is expected to either be spent or at least under contract by the time a new Governor takes office.. So in an effort to save having to pay as much as $7.5 Million per year to support the train, Scott Walker may have taxpayer's repaying $300 Million instead.

NellieBly wrote:From where I sit (which is currently within the office of the Secretary at USDOT), most of the opposition in Ohio and Wisconsin comes from people who want to reduce the size of government, and have seized on high speed rail as a sort of symbol.

I don't think that you can really lump the two state-specific controversies together. In Ohio, the 3C plan dates all the way back to at least the 1970s. Needless to say, it was rejected by voters 30 years ago, and in the meantime, the rail infrastructure between the depressed rust belt towns didn't improve. The plan was always vulnerable to public opinion, so the current controversy is nothing new.

In Wisconsin, there was an attempt by opposition lawmakers to get the feds to cover operating costs as well as capital costs. It strikes me that it wasn't a rejection of passenger rail, as much as an attempt to get a better deal. I can truly believe that the farebox recovery rate will be less than 20%, since Wisconsin chose the very expensive Talgo equipment, which requires continuing manufacturer support, at taxpayer expense. That sort of extravagant choice is again a matter of state level decision making.

Again, the issues are state specific.

NellieBly wrote:I'm not making a political statement, just an observation. There is currently a great deal of anti-government feeling in this country, and there is going to be an electoral bloodbath in November the likes of which we haven't seen for quite a few years. Anyone who underestimates the Tea Party and calls them "extreme right wingers" is talking nonsense. This is the first genuine populist uprising I've seen in my lifetime (and I'm 58).

We'll all know more by the second Wednesday of November. I'm inclined to say that there's nothing new under the sun, and for all of the media hype, there is always more continuity than change in the political arena. This is simply a mid-term election, where the same broad patterns and trends apply. Of course, it's in the interests of the political parties and media to exaggerate the significant of a particular election. After all, when elected jobs are at stake, so are appointed jobs, contracts and special interests on both sides of the isle. Every candidate and party wants to collect donations and "turn out the vote."