John Kerry Introduces High Speed Rail for America Act

[bananas]

From the California High-Speed Rail blog:

http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/11/john-kerry-introduces-hsr-bill.html

Friday, November 21, 2008
John Kerry Introduces HSR Bill

I don't have a whole lot of time to go over this today, as I'm going to be on the Coast Starlight headed back to Monterey from a quick SoCal trip. But it's important to discuss the new High Speed Rail funding proposal that Senator John Kerry and Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter are proposing in the US Senate. It's known as the High Speed Rail for America Act of 2008 and is numbered S.3700 (full text not yet available from THOMAS) (UPDATE: see an extensive summary of the bill's provisions here (h/t to Peter in the comments) and has a number of co-sponsors, including Senate heavyweights Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Charles Schumer. According to Kerry's office:

"Specifically, the High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008 provides $8 billion over a six-year period for tax-exempt bonds which finance high-speed rail projects which reach a speed of at least 110 miles per hour It creates a new category of tax-credit bonds – qualified rail bonds. There are two types of qualified rail bonds: super high-speed intercity rail facility bond and rail infrastructure bond. Super high-speed rail intercity facility bonds will encourage the development of true high-speed rail. The legislation provides $10 billion for these bonds over a ten-year period. This would help finance the California proposed corridor and make needed improvements to the Northeast corridor. The legislation provides $5.4 billion over a six-year period for rail infrastructure bonds."

<snip>

[babylonsister]

1. This sounds like a great idea to me. All aboard! nt

[jpak]

2. Chug....... chug..... chug... chug..chug.. chug.chugchugchug... woooo woo...

:bounce:

[Vogon_Glory]

28. WHOOOOOOOOOOSH! Is More Like It!

Having seen (and ridden) France's TGV a couple of times, I was almost blown away by how fast they go.

Of course there's a big difference between what the French are willing to do and "Amurrican" attitudes and practices. The French are not only willing to build systems like the TGV, but they're willing to build them RIGHT. They're also willing to spend the money to maintain what they've got.

Contrast that to what Connies and their pals in the Republican Party are do about sewers, highways, bridges, etc., etc, etc.

:argh:

[riqster]

3. Good one!

Not only will it help make the US a civilized nation, it'll dovetail nicely with PE Obama's public works/jobs creation initiative.

[bananas]

4. Press release

The press release is here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/11/kerry-and-spect.html

<snip>

“At a time when our economy desperately needs a jumpstart, we need an effective national investment that puts Americans back to work,” said Sen. Kerry. “A first-rate rail system would protect our environment, save families time and money, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and help get our economy moving again. The High-Speed Rail for America Act will help fix our crumbling infrastructure system, expand our economy, and match high-tech rail systems across the globe.”

<snip>

Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Joe Lieberman (I-CT.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), cosponsored the legislation.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell both voiced their support for the high-speed rail initiative.

<snip>

[onehandle]

5. Excellent. I just spent some time on the high-speed rail system in Europe.

We are in desperate need of these systems...

Decades ago. Better late than never.

With smirk gone, maybe we can make progress in this country again.

Thanks Senators Kerry, Feinstein, Clinton, Schumer, and even Traitor Joe.

[phantom power]

6. Cool. I wonder if they should draft something for our regular-speed rail too.

[riqster]

8. Absolutely!

I love rail, all speeds. Every time I come back from the UK to America and HAVE to pull out my car keys to go from the airport to my home, I get irritated at our short-sightedness when it comes to transport.

[bvar22]

7. $8 Billion over 6 years not near enough.

It IS a good start and a step in the right direction, but not near enough.

The USA needs a massive 10 year program to modernize and expand America's rail system, not just high speed passenger service, but a modern freight system too. Current rail systems can move 1 ton of freight over 450 miles on a single gallon of Diesel. A modern system could be even more efficient.

Instead of sinking $30 Billion in a failing auto industry, the US should award cost plus contracts to the automakers to begin the development of a NEW 21st Century Hi-Speed Rail System that interfaces with Light Rail for Urban Centers.

The richest country in the World current lags far behind the rest of the developed World in this area.
This is not a bad thing. We have a near blank slate to learn from the mistakes of other in building a system that is World Class.

This not a Priority....this is a MUST HAVE for survival in the 21st Century.
Instead of throwing money away Bailing Out obsolete systems, we should BUY something NEW & WORTHWHILE & Made in America with our money!

[riqster]

9. Now, THAT'S an idea.

"Instead of sinking $30 Billion in a failing auto industry, the US should award cost plus contracts to the automakers to begin the development of a NEW 21st Century Hi-Speed Rail System that interfaces with Light Rail for Urban Centers."

:yourock:

[phantom power]

10. Agreed. We need to save manufacturing jobs, not the cars.

[rhett o rick]

20. What you bet the trains will be built in France or Germany. nm

[comtec]

23. We need BOTH, don't be so short sighted

We city slickers forget the 3/4 of the country (probably more) is RURAL, and autos, and tractors, and 4x4's ARE THE WAY OF LIFE!

I CERTAINLY DON'T want rails running through ORCHARDS, or WHEAT FIELDS, I DO want a reliable mass transit, mass mass transport system like we have to be upgraded, certainly.

But I think we need BOTH!

You NEED the rails to get the product to the MAJOR cities, and you NEED a TRUCK, an AUTO, to get the goods TO MARKET!

But I certainly don't want to give up my car, and I don't want to see an entire MAJOR BASE of American manufacturing go away.

Don't be so short sighted, it's this kind of crap that makes people hate the entire green movement.

Life is not black and white, its' an entire spectrum.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Rural areas need to learn to adjust to reality...

And I say that as someone living in a relatively rural area. Our lives are going to become MUCH more local over the next 20 years, whether we like it or not.

What is the problem with rails running through orchards or wheat fields? If rural towns are linked by rail to urban centers, that's how those food commodities are moved.

But I certainly don't want to give up my car, and I don't want to see an entire MAJOR BASE of American manufacturing go away.

You castigate the person to whom you reply for being "short sighted," yet this statement reveals an attitude that you will cling to car culture in the face of reality dictating another approach. We cannot maintain car culture into the indefinite future, simply because it is far too energy intensive in an increasingly energy scarce world.

I agree that we will still require modes of transport to get goods from rail depots to people who live a reasonable distance from those depots. However, relying upon the automobile as the primary means of personal transportation doesn't have much of a future, IMHO.

[murray hill farm]

12. What you said!

Beat me to it..ha! Yes...retool the big 3 automakers to produce the rails and the rail cars, which moves us productively into the future & saves the big 3 and the jobs there. Trains can be completely run by electricity if the infastructure for it is available. The technology already is in use for solar powered trains, which makes sense (Japan, I think). High speed is fine for betweeen NY and DC, but cross country rails already exist for regular existing speeds, although I expect much of the existing rails need to be updated.

[izquierdista]

14. You're absolutely right

I wonder how much Germany will spend over the next 6 years to expand or maintain their system. And they already HAVE a rail system.

[Maven]

19. I was thinking everything you said

$6 billion over 6 years is a pittance. This is a necessity for maintaining some semblance of our way of life in the next 30 years. And we're shoveling more money towards Citigroup in a day than we'll give a massive and critical public works project over 6 YEARS?

Still, this is obviously a good thing. Let's hope it's a framework on which to build a much more extensive and well-funded program.

[karynnj]

24. Both may be needed as cars will not go away - you still need to get to the train.

It may be that this is the highest amount that could pass Congress at this point. (There have been articles that Kerry was working on this for months - and he advocated for better rail in his and Teresa's book and on their book tour.) There were comments on DKOS that seemed to say that High speed rail would not go on the same tracks as freight. (I know nothing about rail technology, but these people sounded knowledgeable - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/95822/061?new=true )

I would assume that this is the amount needed to get a good system for the routes where it will be the most profitable. As that takes shape and the benefits are seen - other routes could be added.

[stuntcat]

11. Please let it be

Let it be true.
This kinda stuff almost makes me want pray or some crazy shit like that.

[enid602]

13. high-speed

This is a great idea, but I would prefer that they do it in phases, with the first being those portions of the route which feed commuters into LA, SF and SD from remote desert and central valley locations.

[reggie the dog]

15. Don't forget to link the cities.

There should be a loop in California, San Diego up to Oakland passing by L.A. San Jose, and San Fransisco on the way up, going to Sacremento, and passing back to L.A. by the central valley. There could be a little spur up to lake Tahoe and Reno as well. There could also be another line linking The bay area to Portland, Tacoma, Seattle and Vancouver.

On the East coast you could link Portland Maine to Atlanta or perhaps Birmingham, passing by all the big cities on the way, Portsmouth, Boston, Providence, Hartford, New Haven, New York, Princeton, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington Baltimore, Washington D.C., Richmond, Raleigh, Columbia, Agusta.

There could be another line from the twin cities, to Madison then a split to go to Rocford and then Chicago, or Milwaukee then Chicago, throught Gary, South Bend, Ann Arbor or Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany. That line could join with a line going from New York City to Montreal as well as from Detroit to Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec city.

That would be great to start with. Perhaps one day a trans continental high speed link could come into play.

[riqster]

16. Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati

We have been trying to get that puppy off the ground for decades.

[pacalo]

17. I love the idea.

I do hope they are forward-thinking enough to design a rail system that would be elevated -- at least for the portions of the rail that would cross residential streets & roads. Safety is important for preventing deaths as well as protecting this huge investment from careless drivers.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

21. It would be great if we could get a 20th Century rail system...I won't even wish for a 21st century

system...

[Connonym]

22. Building the freeway system helped get us back on our feet after WWII

I think this is an excellent idea for a lot of reasons as long as none of Bush's friends get any contracts.

[IrateCitizen]

26. Not true.

The interstate system wasn't built until the 1950s -- well after the postwar slide had been turned around into boom times.

The real engine of that growth was the transition from a war economy to a consumption economy. That in itself represents a major problem we have to figure out how to get around.

[IrateCitizen]

27. Personally, I think they need to concentrate on plain rail first...

Especially, as another poster pointed out here, for the movement of long-distance freight.

Our future is going to be a lot more like 100 years ago -- the movement of goods and people by rail and canal over long distances -- than the present of cars and trucks.

Once we get a good national rail system established, if the capital is still there, THEN we can concentrate on high-speed rail. But let's get the baseline stuff done first.

[Vogon_Glory]

29. Plain Rail Is Good, BUT

Plain rail is a great idea; the difference is that America's remaining manufacturers don't use the old distribution systems that they used to to keep the old freight networks going.

Furthermore, the freight rail business is going like gang-busters in many parts of the country. Freight rail traffic is UP, WAY UP, so much so, that it's causing serious scheduling problems for Amtrak.

I suspect that freight and passenger rail systems should eventually moved to separate tracks. Something like that was beginning to happen in this country before the advent of the automobile age, and the Europeans, particularly the French, are already doing it.

[IrateCitizen]

30. No disagreement here.

My main concern is with the desire to jump directly to high-speed rail -- which is used mostly for personal transport -- without getting a good basic rail baseline in place first. Adequate passenger systems (without the significant delays you correctly point out) is a core part of that plan.

:toast: