UPDATE: WSJ: Congressional investigation of Amtrak IG June 30, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Amtrak, Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy.add a comment
This goes to show the system works and, very honestly, I would prefer this kind of thing happen before Amtrak gets neck deep in its desperately needed equipment repairs and (hopefully) placing orders for desperately needed equipment.
The Wall Street Journal reports.
By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY
WASHINGTON — A House committee is investigating the recent resignation of Amtrak’s inspector general, citing concerns about oversight at the publicly funded corporation at a time when it is set to spend more than $1 billion in federal stimulus funds.
Reps. Edolphus Towns (D., N.Y.) and Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the chairman and ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, launched an investigation Monday following the resignation this month of Fred Weiderhold, Amtrak’s longtime inspector general.
Further note the sudden and suspicious departure of former president Alex Kummant and the “activist” reputation of the Amtrak board.
No excuses, no whining. I beat the daylights out of my enemies for this kind of thing, I can hardly let it pass when my friends are under the microscope.
It is, however, possible that the typical bunch of neocons might save the chest thumping for a more appropriate occasion. All this proves is that the system can be made to work.
UPDATE: While Michelle Malkin may fall into the general classification of neocon chest beater, her commentary on the Amtrak IG affair bears consideration. Memo to Michelle: Amtrak is hardly “awash” in $1.3 billion dollars in stimulus money. Amtrak is capital starved and management impaired with a meddlesome board and micr0-managing congress. Every sensible person wants the Amtrak money to be used as advertised, station improvements and desperately needed repairs of rolling stock.
Midwest High Speed Rail Association proposes 220 mph. for Chicago-St. Louis June 30, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy, Regional USA Passenger Rail, United States High Speed Rail.14 comments
The Chicago Tribune says that a new study on the St. Louis-Chicago corridor will be released today. Currently, Amtrak operates at around 79 mph. on this route and the latest plans would raise speeds to 110 mph. There is good cause to be thinking of something very much faster, according to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association.
By going 220 m.p.h., however, those improved trip times would be cut roughly in half, to 1 hour and 52 minutes, according to the association. The estimate includes making intermediary stops in Champaign and Springfield, while providing customers with downtown-to-downtown service and beating the door-to-door trip times of airline travel.
This is a very old railroad right-of-way, and in this case it is a good thing. Originally the Chicago and Alton, the Lincoln funeral train used this route from Chicago to Springfield. It is the old GM&O, which is my family railroad. The point is that it is straight in many places and people are accustomed to its operation.
This is a situation in which it makes a great deal of sense to relocate freight traffic and completely rebuild the line for the fastest trains possible. The $11 billion price tag tells me that the AHSRA is making a strong bid for a major slice of the federal money.
There are several excellent reasons to favor this route, including the existance of a “mature” base of consummers who already use rail transportation.
France plans new TGV line June 30, 2009
Posted by patlynch in International High Speed Rail, Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy.1 comment so far
The reports from France could not be better. Here is the latest item of interest from The Connexion.
THE ROUTE of a new high-speed rail link across the South-east will pass through Marseilles and Toulon on its way to Nice.
The route will make it possible to reach Paris from Nice in 3hrs 50mins compared to 5hrs 25mins at present.
Those hopeless French morons! Don’t they know that Paris is 387 miles fron Nice and that is far too long a trip by high speed rail? Those buffoons! If only they had some tried and true American know how, they would already know that what they are planning is impossible! French cities are just too far apart. I mean, don’t misunderstand, high speed rail is a sweet childish dream, but you can’t expect to actually construct high speed rial lines because there’s always a reason why not. It just won’t work. End of story.
Transportation reform must wait, Obama administration folds June 26, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Passenger Rail Politics, Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy.13 comments
This actually came up last week during the Texas High Speed Rail Corporation board meeting and the National Intermodal Steering Committees joint meeting in Little Rock. It was the consensus opinion that waiting till after the midterm elections would be a mistake and that the Oberstar process was to be preferred.
The Washington Post has the latest developments.
After rejecting criticism that it is taking on too much, the Obama administration has identified one area where ambitious reforms will have to wait: overhauling the nation’s aging, congested and carbon-emitting transportation system.
You may wish to scroll down to the reports frm last week for for some background.
Just what is the federal plan for high-speed rail?, asks GAO June 25, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Politics, United States High Speed Rail.2 comments
For the first time, a fair amount of federal money has been set aside for high-speed rail — the much sought after $13 billion from the federal stimulus and budget. And we’ve seen all sorts of hands in many different states reaching for this funding for their projects, many of which certainly stretch even the low federal 110mph definition of high-speed rail. Last week’s project evaluation criteria put out by the Department of Transportation for rail stimulus money sets some boundaries, but the Government Accountability Office is asking a fair question: where’s the real “strategic plan” for this high-speed rail “vision”? The Transport Politic, naturally, has some good commentary on this:
[GAO Director of Physical Infrastructure] Ms. Fleming’s statement comes three months after the release of GAO’s major report on high-speed rail, which advocated a major federal investment in the transportation mode. Emphasizing that that report pushed the DOT to pinpoint specific goals for rail improvement, Ms. Fleming argued that the Obama Administration’s actions so far were little more than a “vision,” rather than “a strategic plan.” The U.S. must “define goals for investing in high speed rail,” she said, and describe “how these investments will achieve them, how the federal government will determine which corridors it could invest in, [and] how high speed rail investments could be evaluated against possible alternative modes in those corridors.” Ms. Fleming said that the FRA largely agreed with her opinions. In fact, DOT has been planning to release a draft national rail plan by mid-October; however, that is a month after the FRA will release initial stimulus bill grants to applicant projects for rail investment.
Mr. Szabo, the head of the FRA, said that U.S. plans were similar to those already achieved in Europe. Yet the U.S. government has yet to commit to even one high-speed corridor, nor has it established a reliable and objective framework for national planning.
Mr. Boardman, meanwhile, claimed that “With high-speed rail, speed is not the issue. Convenience and trip times are.” This rhetoric is dangerous on several counts. For one, it will allow the U.S. to distribute funds to projects that are ill-suited to high-speed rail, but which are politically popular. The Senate’s strong rural bent means that unworthy projects may be given the green light ahead of more valuable ones if the DOT’s guidelines for resource distribution aren’t based on projected passenger ridership and cost effectiveness.
Second, the repeated claim that speed “doesn’t matter” may result in less-than-popular completed projected. It is worth again mentioning what I wrote yesterday: if the U.S. doesn’t get high-speed rail right the first time, it may be decades before the mode is politically acceptable enough to promote again.
This is a difficult issue to grapple with. Here at TFA, we’re in favor of passenger rail improvement on all levels… not just the European-style “true high-speed” routes. Incremental improvements to existing routes can make a huge difference in a country that is woefully under-served by convenient rail transportation. On the other hand, Freemark’s comment about the need to “get it right the first time” is certainly valid. Any slight boondoggle with high-speed rail money is sure to be leaped upon by highway interests as a way to put a stop to this new progressive attitude towards intercity transportation. This is why projects such as California’s are so important. It’s the ideal proving ground for an American rail line at world-class speeds. It can be the example rail advocates and politicians can point to in the future as a successful model. On the other hand, any federal rail plan needs to address the more immediate (or, dare I say, “shovel-ready”) problems that are affecting our existing Amtrak network. Passenger rail in America is growing in popularity and visibility, and it needs immediate improvement if this momentum is going to last until the first “true” high-speed line is built.
California high speed rail may have an advantage June 24, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Regional USA Passenger Rail, United States High Speed Rail.add a comment
It is no surprise that California’s bonding authority approved last November, coupled with a developing plan for construction, is a strong contender among states seeking federal high speed rail money. Those ambitions have been edged a bit upward, according to this item in sgvtribune.com
This week Karen Rae, deputy administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, praised California voters’ approval in November of $9 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail project.
“California, by having the bond, has a step up,” Rae said.
Overall, the state’s high-speed rail authority is flush with billions in bond money and is poised to get billions more from the federal stimulus package. Now experts say California’s $45 billion bullet train project could be changing from a public-works pipe dream into a real possibility.
There is an interview on California HSR consultant Keith Jones recorded last week and posted here.
Grassley brings pressure on Amtrak IG June 23, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Amtrak, Passenger Rail Politics.5 comments
Senator Chuck Grassley is a snake. Grassley is a Clinton-hating, Republican menace to society. The Iowa senator is raising questions about the credibility of the Amtrak office of Inspector General.
While my disdain for Grassley’s reprehensible brand of politics is nearly boundless (have you caught on to that yet?), I fear he may be on to something as regards Amtrak. If federal dollars are being misspent at Amtrak, they are not being used to refurbish urgently needed wrecked rail cars and keep the railroad running.
There is something weird about the sudden and unexplained leaving last November by former CEO Alex Kummant. One must believe the “hands on” style of management practiced by Amtrak board members may hae had some negative fiscal consequences. The finaancial management is Amtrak has caused many observers to wait for the chickens to come home to roost.
Here is the Grassley letter.
E. Bret Coulson
Deputy Inspector General Management & Policy
Office of Inspector General
Amtrak
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
10 G Street, NE
Washington, DC 20525
Dear Mr. Coulson:
As a senior member of the United States Senate and as the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee), it is my duty under the Constitution to ensure that Inspectors General, which were created by Congress, are permitted to operate without political pressure or interference from their respective agencies. Inspectors General were designed for the express purpose of combating waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. I understand that Inspector General Fred Weiderhold, Jr. has retired today.
Based on contacts that my staff had with Mr. Weiderhold on two recent occasions (April 2, 2009 and June 4, 2009), I understand that the OIG has suffered from repeated and continuous interference from the agency. After the most recent discussion, it was agreed that the OIG would provide, among other things, a White Paper and specific examples of agency interference with OIG audits and/or investigations. To date, the OIG has not yet provided any documents. As you know, any interference such as that was described in these previous discussions is a direct violation of the Inspector General Act of 1978.
In light of Mr. Weiderhold’s unexpected retirement, please provide the previously requested documentation immediately. I am deeply troubled that these aforementioned meetings with my staff and discussions of the OIG’s independence concerns predicated this personnel action with IG Weiderhold. Furthermore, I am even more concerned that there is a lack of accountability, based on the OIG’s reported lack of independence, for the $1.3 billion in stimulus funds that Amtrak has received from American taxpayers.
Due to these recent events, I specifically request all materials at the IG’s office be preserved immediately.
In addition to providing the requested documentation, please provide an immediate briefing to my staff on the level of proper oversight the OIG has over of the $1.3 billion dollars of American taxpayer money, and what role the previously discussed independence issues with the agency played in the elimination of former IG Weiderhold.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and I would appreciate a response to this inquiry by June 19, 2009.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member of the
Committee on Finance
cc: The Honorable Thomas C. Carper
Chairman
Amtrak
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Joseph H. Boardman
President and Chief Executive Officer
Amtrak
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Two final thoughts. It might have helped if the Bush administration had made timely appointments to the Amtrak board. Additionally, the congressionally induced state of constant frantic struggle for survival is a perfect environment in which to grow aorporate cculture of carlessness.
High speed rail fever strikes in Oklahoma June 22, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy, Regional USA Passenger Rail, United States High Speed Rail.6 comments
The State Transportation Director, Gary Ridley, says Oklahoma officials are reviewing the latest FRA documents in consideration of making an application for high speed rail funding. The Daily Oklahoman story indicates that the Sooner State may be part of the South Central HSR corridor. TFA thinks they are mistaken, but that should not hold back a qualified application.
“We need to look at the guidance and understand it fully before putting together our response,” Ridley said after the state Transportation Commission met Monday.
The Transportation Department already owns a portion of the railway between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, but updates would be needed to make the track conducive to high-speed travel, Ridley said.
“It’s rough country up there,” he said.
A study conducted nine years ago estimated it would cost at least $950 million to run passenger rail between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Today, that could be closer to $1.5 billion, Ridley said.
Although unlikely to be selected as a demonstration project, The Oklahoma City-Tulsa corridor is a natural for HSR.
- driving distance is about 100 miles
- state owns much of the existing rail line (which needs lots of work)
- state owns turnpike right-of-way (could this land be used? It’s straight as an arrow.)
- Oklahoma City pop. 1,200,000 plus
- Tulsa pop.685,000
- interfaces with an upgraded Heartland Flyer service to DFW.
The quality of public transportation in both cities would be an important factor and that is a subject on which I am not able to comment. It seems to make sense that Oklahoma should get moving on improving the existing track to “high performance rail” standards and start operating in the 100 mph range.
Oh, look at that! 100 miles at 100 mph gives you a travel time of about one-hour end-to-end. Why haven’t they figuted this out already? And here’s the good part; it would not cost anything approaching the afore mentioned $1.5 billion.
The total construction on this is probably more like $250 million. Trains departing each end on the hour all day and scheduled at a running time of around 75 minutes is a big winner.
Oklahoma should forget European-style HSR and get moving on “high performance rail” tomorrow. It will change that already vibrant region forever.
THIRD UPDATE: Metro D. C. train crash, 4 dead, 70 injured. June 22, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Regional USA Passenger Rail.2 comments
CNN is leading with a breaking story. It appears to be a head-on, which raises issues of which we are all well aware.
The crash occurred just before 5 p.m. on an above-ground track on the Red Line near Takoma Park, Maryland, according to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
Watch “live” coverage here.
UPDATE: death toll at six.
These are Metro trains running on Metro tracks.
SECOND UPDATE: Washington Post reports possible signal failure operator error.
THIRD UPDATE: L. A. Times: 9 dead, emergency brake was applied
Randall O’Toole launches renewed attack on high speed rail (yawn) June 22, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Passenger Rail Politics, Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy.10 comments
There are so many things wrong with yet another O’Toole screed against high speed rail. I am sure you will want to review and comment on his fallacious and false commentary running in the Gwinett Gazette.
It’s not personal, honest. Times are hard and I am personally delighted that Randall has found a secure position as a paid mouthpiece for highway and airline special interests. Here is a sample of his labors.
As of this writing, $99 will get you from Washington to New York in two hours and 50 minutes on Amtrak’s high-speed train, while $49 pays for a moderate-speed train ride that takes three hours and 15 minutes. Meanwhile, relatively unsubsidized and energy-efficient buses cost $20 for a four-hour-and-15-minute trip with leather seats and free Wi-Fi. Airfares start at $119 for a one-hour flight.
Who would pay five times the price to save less than 90 minutes? Those wealthy enough to value their time that highly would pay the extra $20 to take the plane. The train’s only advantage is for people going from downtown to downtown.
Who works downtown? Bankers, lawyers, government officials and other high-income people who hardly need subsidized transportation. Not only will you pay $1,000 for someone else to ride the train, but that someone probably earns more than you.
Trucking interests were represented at last weeks Texas HSR Corp. and the National Multimodal Steering Committee joint meeting in Little Rock. It is a group firmly rooted in the 20th. century and determined to force the defeat and destruction of anything that might interfere in their own perceived best interests.
TIME: U. S. bullet trains June 22, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Passenger Rail Politics, Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy, United States High Speed Rail.4 comments
TIME has an analysis of high speed rail developments that is not too horribly misinformed. It correctly highlights the political minefield that awaits proponents in Florida, but drifts into simplistic buzzwords.
Liberals tend to romanticize trains (because the French use them) and conservatives tend to disparage them (because the French use them). But while the U.S. probably can’t recreate the charming ride from Paris to Lyon, it also can’t keep treating rail like a loathsome relic. Since World War II, the U.S. has poured almost $2 trillion into highway and aviation systems, while passenger rail — like the wheezing federal Amtrak line — has received less than 3% of Washington’s transportation dollars. Obama argues the U.S. needs, economically and environmentally, a rail revival in order to relieve stressed auto and air infrastructure. That means emulating the long-established high-speed (more than 110 mph or 177 kph) passenger rail systems in Europe and Asia.
Ah, the French! (Do people actually pay for this gibberish?)
Moving right along. the story does (amazingly) suggest that a revival of more conventional trains operating in the 110 mph range may be in our future. This has a pleasant tone and is agreeable to the TFA position.
However, having spent three days with the Texas High Speed Rail Corporation board (video interview with Maureen Dickey, David Dean, and Temple Mayor Bill Jones below) I am forced to step back and consider some contradictory viewpoints. Texas folks make a good case for true European style HSR.
There must be great care taken in selecting any project as a demonstration. HSR needs lots and lots of population and feeder lines at both ends to pay for the substantial construction costs. The social ane economic value of true HSR is tremendous. The experiences in Taiwan and Spain are held up as examples.
Two points. The presence of true HSR (200 mph.) shrinks a region and brings cities and businesses closer together. Second, the population growth forecast for some already booming areas is staggering. Building more highways is an economic and environmental catastrophe of Katrina proportions.
The opposition of some “conservatives” to an economic engine of such potent and proven power is totally astounding. Is there something wrong with higher property values and easier commercial relationships?
America needs a high speed rail of international standards somewhere. We also need to grow and mature the market for conventional trains between cities that can sue them and strengthen the network of long distance trains that support all of it. They all work together.
Illinois-Missouri governors plan joint press conference on high speed rail June 22, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Passenger Rail Politics, United States High Speed Rail.add a comment
The federal standards define HSR at 110 mph, which seems to grant an advantage to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. Although supporters of the Texas-T-bone claim Midwest programs are not in the running for the $8 billion in federal money (scroll down to our coverage of the recent Texas High Speed Rail Corp. board meeting below), the St-Louis-Chicago corridor appears to be a mature concept with strong political support and the proper market conditions regarding population.
Triangle Business Journal reports there will be some developments today.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn plan to hold a joint news conference Monday afternoon at the St. Louis Gateway Amtrak Station regarding efforts to land stimulus money for a high-speed rail line between St. Louis and Chicago.
HSR and centralization: Quebec-Ontario HSR continues long controversy June 21, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in International High Speed Rail, United States High Speed Rail.3 comments
High-speed rail has a simple purpose, right? Decrease the travel time between two points, what geographers call the “relative distance.” For better or worse though, bringing far flung places into close contact with the country’s core can bring homogenization and control along with economic benefits and convenience. This was one of the primary rationales for China’s elaborate railway into the core of Tibet, and the Basque nationalist group ETA has often stated their intention of targeting any Avé line into the region. Of course, it’s not a usually a problem here in the US… we’re highly mobile to begin with, and regional separatists are aren’t exactly easy to come by (I know do someone who leans that way sometimes, however…).
Canada, on the other hand, has to contend with the particular political and cultural position of Quebec within the country, and one Liberal MP has recently stirred up trouble by talking about “national unity” with regard to a proposed HSR line from Quebec City to Windsor. The Bloc Québécois, however, isn’t taking the bait.
“Imagine that the people of Quebec are prepared to engage in . . . spending money that’s taken out of the province of Quebec to build a line that’s going to make it easier for them to connect with southern Ontario,” Volpe said in an interview, as parliamentary hearings wrapped up last week on high-speed rail.
…
“I’m not happy with (Volpe’s) statement (on national unity),” said Bloc transport, infrastructure and communities critic Mario Laframboise. “It’s not a question of politics, it’s an environmental and economic question. We must achieve transport systems for the 21st century.”
Be happy that, despite a myriad of other issues, “national unity” is not a particular stumbling point for American HSR.
Keith Jones, USR Corp.: California High Speed Rail update and issues of track sharing June 19, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Uncategorized.2 comments
Recorded on June 19, 2009 using a Flip Video camcorder.Keith is the former director of Central Arkansas Transit, and an old friend. He is a font of information on California HSR. He also has some insights on track sharing in Germany between streetcars and HSR.
Maureen Dickey, Texas High Speed Rail Co-Chair: Why true HSR prefered for the Texas T-Bone June 19, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Uncategorized.add a comment
Recorded on June 19, 2009 using a Flip Video camcorder.Ms. Dickey explains, to some extent, the Texas position and the role of High Performance Rail.
Little Rock high speed rail and intermodal conference wrapup June 19, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy, Regional USA Passenger Rail, United States High Speed Rail.2 comments
The quarterly meeting of the Texas High Speed Rail Corporation and the National Multi-Modal Transportation Steering Committee is over and I am still digesting everything presented. The interview with Dr. Bill Pollard of the Texas Eagle Marketing and Performance Organization has been posted. He may produce an independent analysis of the meeting for TFA and we would gratefully receive it.
I have video interviews with Corporation Vice-Chair Maureen Dickey on the preference for true HSR, and Keith Jones of USR concerning California High Speed Rail developments and operational issues of shared trackage. Scroll down for several important interviews concerning HSR and the Texas T-Bone.
The following thoughts are in no particular order and are based upon discussions and presentations of Thursday and Friday.
The Texas High Speed Rail Corporation is exclusively devoted to the promotion of a European-style high speed network of trains connecting airports at DFW, Houston and San Antonio. They are explicitly and emphatically opposed to federal HSR money being used for the kind of “incremental” programs, such as those favorably reviewed on TFA.
There are several items that recomment this concept, including the population density of the proposed service area. 16 million Texans could be served by the Texas T-Bone. This is substantial. Liabilities for the concept include the deliberate airport-to-airport deisgn, excluding downtown destinations and the lack of a “mature” rail market in Houston and San Antonio.
The existance of DART in Dalas provides a cultural boost to the notion of getting around by a means other than automobile. It also provides a solid feeder service into any operational rail system.
The financing plan demands a very detailed business plan, which does not exist at this time. On the other hand, there seems to be a good amount of determination to organize local communities into a cohesive body to develop the corridors.
Their philosophy explicitly excludes the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, which we have considered in the most glowing terms on TFA. Mr. Dean says the MWHSRA is not interested in real HSR.
Some of you may be wondering, with three days of intense talk, what is the perceived role of Amtrak? The National Rail Passenger Corporation was scarcely mentioned by name, except to say that it was a “connector” service between HSR corridors. That is fair enough. The Texas people allow for conventional, high performance, rail in areas where true HSR is not appropriate.
The matter of “positive train control” was looked at from differing perspectives. It is a multi-billion dollar requirement for operating railroads. It is unclear how the expense will be met (of course, we all know who pays in the end). This involves computers and GPS on the locomotive and sophisticated detectors along the wayside.
Everybody admits, even the Union Pacific representative, that this development will significantly increase the capacity of rail lines. The implication of this for passenger service is very positive.
We were addressed by Mr. Lane Kidd, President of the Arkansas Trucking Association. His topic dealt with four “realities.”
- trucks will continue to dominate freight movement
- transportation modes will compete with each other
- there will be no public-private partnerships (Kidd used the example of selling part of the interstate highway in Indiana)
- congress has no political will
Listen, I can’t make up stuff that rich. Kidd’s main thrust is that truckers are willing to pay additional taxes on diesel fuel, but not if it is used for any purpose other than highways.
My interview with Mr. Jones gives some very interesting statistics on the California High Speed Rail. Travel time LA-SF is 2:38.
Finally, the National Multi-Modal Transportation Steering Committee has produced a paper titled “The Future of the United States Infrastructure System: A Strategic Way Forward.” Some highlights to be addressed in current proposed legislation are:
- Aviation is included in the transportation plan (honest!)
- Projects would be classified as local, regional or national (I thought this was already policy, even if it is entirely ignored)
- Establish a National Infrastructure Bank
Needs and assessments include:
- highways, bridges and at-grade rail crossings receive the highest priority for critical maintenance
- safety and maintenance for transit
- freight rail efficiency, capacity and security are seen as critical needs
- critical needs in passenger rail include safety, dispatching and signals
- connectivity at ports
- streamlining airport security and improving air traffic control
- repair aging locks and dams (little known urgent need)
The report includes numerous funding options.The paper does not address Amtrak’s critical equipment shortage.
Bill Pollard, Chair of TEMPO: Amtrak on-time performance June 19, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Uncategorized.add a comment
Recorded on June 19, 2009 using a Flip Video camcorder. Dr. Bill Pollard is among the more prominent passenger rail proponents and chairs the Texas Eagle Marketing and Performance Organization. He recently conferred with U. P. officials about Amtrak time-keeping expectations. He also comments on Amtrak’s proposal for the Sunset/Eagle routes. I interviewed him at the Little Rock Intermodal Steering Committee and Texas High Speed Rail Corporation meeting.
UPDATE: St. Louis today has a story about the dramatic improvement in on-time performance fot the once dismal run over to Kansas City.
In May, 93 percent of its passenger trains traveling between St. Louis and Kansas City arrived within 15 minutes of schedule — up from less than 1 percent last October. Its on-time performance has surprised longtime riders, who had become accustomed to delays as long as five hours.
Pollard has some insight on whether the improvements will continue when the economy improves.
David Dean, Dean International: Paying for the Texas “T-Bone” high speed rail June 18, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Uncategorized.add a comment
Recorded on June 18, 2009 using a Flip Video camcorder. I interviewed Mr. Dean during a break in day two of the Texas High Speed Rail meeting in Little Rock. I asked about about financing for high speed rail.
Joe Philipp, Chair National Multi-Modal Transportation Committee June 18, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Uncategorized.add a comment
Recorded on June 18, 2009 using a Flip Video camcorder. Joe Philipp, Chair National Multi-Modal Transportation Committee, presided over the afternoon meeting in Little Rock. We heard a lot about transportation priorities. The group is putting forward a new document titled “The Future of the United States Infrastructure System: A Strategic Way Forward.” During this session, we also heard about the major transportation overhaul proposed by Rep. Oberstar. All those in attendance favored the Oberstar approach over the Obama administration temporary fix concept. I asked Mr. Philipp the obvious political questions. Judge the answer for yourself.
Melissa Taylor Comments on Atlanta-Chattanooga-Nashville high speed rail and maglev June 18, 2009
Posted by patlynch in Uncategorized.4 comments
Recorded on June 18, 2009 using a Flip Video camcorder. Melissa D, Taylor is Director of Transportation Planning for the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency. She comments on the Chinese maglev and developments in Tennessee.
patlynch
Logan Nash
