There is no language in the bill allocating any HSR money to any particular project. In fact it turns out that Obama himself is the one who orchestrated the thrust to get the HSR money increased to $8 billion. If there was in fact some backdoor under the table agreement between Obama and Reid in which the toy maglev train from Las Vegas to Disney World will get the bulk of the HSR money, masquerading as a fair and merit-based program that is actually outlined in the text of the bill, then my faith in this country will drop to zero and I will set sail for foreign shores out of disgust.

As it is, I think that the story of the HSR money being thrown in as an earmark for the California-Vegas maglev was a story concocted by the Republicans to stir up outrage over the stimulus bill in general.

Here is what the bill calls for:

• $8 billion
• Will be available until Sept 30, 2012
• A strategic plan for how the money will be released within 60 days
• A procedure for how the grants program will be operated and the guidance/criteria for applicants will be released within 120 days.
• Does not have to be used on projects that are already in a state's Rail Plan (this probably means that it does NOT have to be on one of the 11 designated HSR corridors)
• Does not require matching state funds (but presumably, the local commitment will play into the equation when evaluating the merit of a project)

Read the full text - the relevant section starts on page 237 of the PDF. Quoted here:

If you are able, can you disclose who or what agency briefed you? I ask because, from other analysis of this bill, your account is inaccurate. For example, from thetransportpolitic.com:

http://thetransportpolitic.com/2009/...te-on-transit/

This article is a few days out of date, and House/Senate negotiations may have changed things, but it was my understanding this was largely accurate.

^^@ Taft
It's not inaccurate. The california high speed rail, specifically the link from LA to San Fran, was the one to get the majority of the money. I never mentioned the maglev as some seem to be suggesting. The reason that California HSR is the biggest beneficiary of the money is that it is the most thought out plan and is the most likely to be able to spend such a large amount of money within two years. It is a requirement of the bill (at least for construction projects) that the money allocated be spent within two years. In the plan, amtrak was suppose to get the rest of the money, and what they were going to do with it I'm not sure. It is possible they plan to use the money on the midwest HSR, but the these plans seem to be far from being well thought out which makes it difficult for them to spend large money quickly.

Putting aside the issue of what the bill does or doesn't say, I'm not sure this point is accurate. It depends to some extent on what you mean by high speed rail, but Amtrak, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, and individual states have done quite a lot of study of potential rail improvements in the region. My impression at least is that improvements on the Chicago-Milwaukee line and the Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis line are about as close to "shovel-ready" as passenger rail projects get. Both of those lines would get sections of 110 mph service, which isn't high-speed by European or Japanese standards but would be a big step forward in this country. There would also be the possibility of further improvements along partially upgraded track in Michigan, and analysis has been underway on "South of the Lake" routes from Chicago into Indiana. I'm assuming here that the $8 billion for high speed rail can't go to CREATE programs, many of which are also ready to go.

I suspect that whoever briefed you may have been briefing you based on speculation. Again, not that I'm an insider myself, but I see no evidence that there has been any shady behind the scenes dealing to allocate any of the money before the Secretary of Transportation and the FRA even have a chance to name their criteria. By second degree word of mouth, I heard from somebody at NCDOT that this money will probably be doled out under terms similar to the New Starts-like process outlined under Title 3 Section 301 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Not by sleazy-ass earmarks.

For the timeframe of spending the money for HSR, please refer to the text of the stimulus bill quoted above. The money must be used by September 30, 2012, which is actually over 3.5 years. There are plenty of HSR lines throughout the country that could turn dirt and spend money within 3.5 years. The Chicago-St Louis corridor already has a completed EIS and ROD for some of their 110mph improvements. That's as close to "shovel ready" as you're going to get. They could probably break ground in less than 6 months. The Southeast line estimates that their EIS will be completed and a ROD reached some time in early 2011, which is a similar timeframe to that of the line in California.

So, please excuse me for saying this, but unless you explain further who your source is, I do not think that they should be believed.

here's the thing, since the aims of MW HSR are so much lower, actually the network doesn't require a huge chunk of that pie to meet its goals. the St. Louis-Springfield-Chicago link needs <400 Mil for 110 mph service (from what I can gather). I don't think its unrealistic to have madison-milwaukee-chicago-springfield-st. louis in the proposed time frame for under 800 mil. that leaves a lot of cash for other projects, CA HSR rail included (though there's no way they're getting 90+% of the total)

Milwaukee/Chicago needs a HSR line about as badly as any place in the country.

110MPH is not high speed rail.

I do agree chicago/mke needs a serious rail upgrade - but since they are so close, HSR isn't required. We could get down to 60 minute service without it I think.

If President Obama wants a true HSR legacy for the Midwest, then my new terrain line to Indianapolis is the best idea. At $3-4 billion, it would provide true 200MPH high speed service between the cities with a 90 minute journey time. With expedited environmental review, I think it could be under construction before Obama's first term is up.

Is California HSR shovel ready? I can't imagine it is. Also, with the extreme state level regulation and such in Cali, I'd expect long legal battles over it.

More than one pedestrian death per week is inexcusable. I don't know what a statistical norm is for a city of our size/density, but this is really bad, IMO. I would be interested to see how this compares to other large cities, because I think that our figure is very emblematic of the car culture here. The article also highlights what has been expressed here ad nauseam: crossing LSD to get to the lake is a complete joke. Ashland does't surprise me as being a hot-bed of accidents, either, aside from the fact that it's a very long street and thus more probable to have collisions at any given segment. People treat it as a veritable expressway, and all of the car-pandering crap that has been stuffed onto it only bolsters drivers' entitlement to it. And to think that in light of all of this there is not one, but two proposed parking garages for Six Corners, both of which would occupy space on "P" (read: pedestrian [read: it doesn't really matter]) streets. Pathetic.

in the US "high speed" is a relative statement. let's just accept that and move on.

No, but it's the best first step in a lot of cases. It's the fastest allowable speed on tracks with grade crossings, it can be achieved very quickly (like one construction season, depending on what has to get done), and it can be done cheaply so that a piddly little $8 billion can be spread among projects all over the country.

Obviously what's important is average speed, not top speed, as anyone familiar with the "150 mph" Acela knows. People don't avoid Amtrak because it doesn't go 200 mph, they avoid Amtrak because it spends half its time sitting behind freight trains. Separating the traffic, fixing the slowest sections first, getting to 110 mph where possible, and getting new trains would be a good way to build some goodwill and demonstrate that passenger trains can work if we let them.

A dedicated route to Indianapolis sounds great. Building a new route south of the lake is a big priority for the Midwest High Speed Rail folks, so you're in agreement with them at least as far as Gary or so.

I don't know that people "avoid" Amtrak at all. It's pretty much at practical capacity now. The limiting factor is a shortage of equipment.

But Chicago to Gary is very unlikely to get a new alignment; they'd just use the existing Pennsy corridor next to South Chicago Avenue.

Well okay, but you know what I mean. It has a bad public image of being slow and constantly late, which contributes to it being starved of funding, which only makes things worse.

Taken together, air traffic between Chicago and Minneapolis, St. Louis, Indianapolis and Detroit account for 10% of passenger traffic in and out of Chicago. Since those routes probably fly a lot of smaller craft, there's a good chance that they account for over 10% of aircraft movement at O'Hare and Midway. The $15 billion used for the O'Hare expansion would have gone a long way toward real high speed between Chicago and the city centers of those locations (I'd start with Minneapolis - maybe via Milwaukee and Madison - and St. Louis, since they both already have lightrail), plus ties us all together even tighter which benefits everyone in the region.

Heck, if you designed it right, you could end up with service that included express rail to O'Hare from downtown using the HSR system which would come throug the Loop and then go to O'Hare for points north, maybe giving Milwaukee, Minneapolis and St. Paul each airport express runs, too.

The huffingtonpost has a graphic showing the potential high-speed rail routes that the stimulus money could fund. Find it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_167804.html

In the article is this little gem:

Guess this was just a unfounded GOP rumor.

And before anyone gets too excited thinking about high-speed rail, here's some sobering news:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ernatives.html

I'm as confused as Carole Brown. The budget figures quoted by the RTA need to have meaning. If they don't, the CTA can never count on the money allocated to them by the RTA. I appreciate the fact that the souring economy has hit their tax revenues hard, but shouldn't that impact FUTURE budgets instead of PAST budgets. This is messed up, IMO.

A good rule of thumb is to regard everything the Republicans say about Obama's/Democratic proposals as falsehoods until proven otherwise.

You must be one of the marsh mice!

I'm just curious to get everyone's opinion: if improved intercity rail becomes a reality in the next several years/decades, what do you all propose to be the best way to connect such riders to Chicago's transit system? (besides getting out and walking to the L, although you're welcome to propose that..)

^^^ Pneumatic tubes like in the Jetsons...