MA: The Mideast High Speed Rail Expansion Act (Signed)

[Boston Bread]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: tmthforu94

[Boston Bread]

I'd like to thank the governor for working together with me to improve the original high speed rail bill. I approve of all of the contents of this act.

[Boston Bread]

If is that if the rail lines are open to be sold to private companies, they should at least be sold for more than the government investment in the rail. If no company is willing making that investment then the rail can be operated by the government. Regarding this issue,  I will wait for more assembly members to give their opinion to try and find a consensus before we amend the bill.

My primary objective is to see an effective public transportation service in our region, I'm not especially concerned with who owns it as long as the first condition is satisfied.

I would not support toll roads - it would reduce convenience of travel, more so for the working and middle class than the wealthy. However I would be open to carbon pricing as a more transparent means of encouraging greener travel, although such a program should come along with tax rebates so it doesn't disproportionally affect those with lower income. Also if we are to focus our transportation strategy on public transport we could divert funding away from highway expansions to encourage the use of rail.

[Boston Bread]

It would reduce convenience when rail isn't going to be everyone's preferred mode of transport. Likewise with a toll applied only to high speed rail areas drivers would be encouraged to drive around the areas where the toll is applied instead of simply taking the closest route, so long as the extra distance it isn't offset by additional fuel costs.

[Boston Bread]

The list of locations outline the general direction of the high-speed rail lines, there would be intermediary stations which are not listed. For a metro area like Chicago it would be crazy for there to only be one station; there would be several for each metro area and stations in smaller cities between metro areas.

[Boston Bread]

A hub would be a cluster of rail networks centred around a metro area. The "Chicago Hub" would consist of all rail lines which connect immediately to Chicago, and some beyond that.

[Boston Bread]

To get the bill rolling again, I am proposing the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By cancelling highway expansions along the routes, I estimate that we can start funding a Virginia-based hub while keeping the price at $45 billion.

[Boston Bread]

The cost of a finished rail line is 0; other lines listed in bill here have already been fully funded in Atlasia, like the most of the Chicago hub. I don't think it's necessary to remove them.

[Boston Bread]

Does anyone object to me calling a vote on my amendment tomorrow?

[Boston Bread]

If we're having a route through northern WV, it would make sense for it to go to Pittsburg after Wheeling and then to DC through Maryland. But then the Northeast would need to get involved.
It might make more sense for the route through WV to be cancelled, from an economic point of view, because no large cities would be served on such a route and the terrain is more difficult. The Mideast can afford it, nonetheless.

[Boston Bread]

I am tabling my original amendment. This is the modified amendment (edited!) I am introducing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hopefully this amendment will settle all of the concerns over the routes determined by the bill.
An optimal rail route from Wheeling to DC would pass through a small portion of southwest Pennsylvania. If the Northeast allowed for this route to be built, it would save approximately 123 miles of rail line and $5 billion over a route through Charleston.
I removed all of the rail lines which already have had funding allocated to them.
This amendment also has a new route: Columbus > Cincinnati > Louisville, with an estimated cost of $9 billion. Overall the cost remains at $45 billion.

[Boston Bread]

One question. Why isn't indianapolis the Indiana hub when in previous legislation it was made the hub?

Indianapolis has no high speed rail lines currently, but Fort Wayne does, based on federal legislation in 2009. Look at Shua's map for what lines currently exist. But if this bill is passed Indianapolis would certainly become the centre of high-speed rail traffic in Indiana.

[Boston Bread]

Thank you Shua for your suggestion. Dayton has been correctly put ahead of Cincinnati and the route now runs from Cleveland to Wheeling. Given that we have to upgrade additional stations in the urban areas along the way, the cost estimate remains the same.

Of all the rails outlined, Louisville->St.Louis is the one I am most willing to abandon, as the area does not appear to have high potential traffic and there are no large cities on the way. So not even I am convinced of its financial sense (it wasn't in my original bill, but tmth added it in), although I was originally going to let it slide for tmth and for the sake of stimulus spending. Shua, would you support the bill if that rail, and only this rail, was cancelled? It would save about $9 billion, assuming a cost per mile of $35 million.

[Boston Bread]

I'll call a vote on my amendment. Please vote aye, nay or abstain.

Even if you oppose the bill, please vote in favour of the amendment because it's an evident improvement over the original.

[Boston Bread]

Aye

[Boston Bread]

My amendment gives the Mideast government power to deny rail purchases, so it's in our power to keep profitable rail sections if we rely on the profits. I would also expect that the department of Transportation would also price profitable rail lines at a higher level.

Oh, and Shua: if you think some rail lines shouldn't be built, you could introduce an amendment to cancel some rail lines in the bill.
If you need a cost estimate for how much it would save, high-speed rail costs are estimated at $35 million/mile and $50 million/mile in Appalachia.

[Boston Bread]

By a 3-0 vote, the amendment has passed.

[Boston Bread]

Why not just have it follow the interstates?

It will largely follow the same route as non-high speed rail lines previously built in the region.

[Boston Bread]

It looks fine by me. I was worried you'd scratch large sections of our rail plan but I approve of all the changes to which lines are built. The $35 mil/mile and about $50 mil/mile were my estimates, based on the higher end of construction cost experience in Europe.
I'm not sure if it's necessary to include "hub construction". By that do you mean building stations and the like? That won't be too expensive since for the large part existing stations will be used and the upgrade cost is included in my cost per mile estimates.
So Shua, you can revise the hub construction cost down somewhat.

[Boston Bread]

To clarify, only one of the 8a or 8b routes is being built, I'm assuming? Otherwise that would be an over expansion of the rail bill

Shua, can I count on your vote for the final bill if your amendment passed?

[Boston Bread]

We have a hefty budget surplus regionally, in fact spending all this in 1 year still gives the region a significant surplus. The Mideast can cover all the funds without a problem. Again, Shua, would you support the final bill with your amendment included?

[Boston Bread]

I must apologize, but the Mideast budget surplus was 10% of what I thought it was. The surplus is only $4.25b.
The projected surplus is

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196610.25

Edit: Instead of scrapping several rail plans, several rail lines can be downgraded to medium-speed rail, which typically travels at 80mph, up to 110mph, like the Amtrak plan in the Northeast. It is nonetheless an upgrade over currently existing rail lines in many of these areas, and has a cost of only 2.5$ million/mile. Existing non-high speed passenger rail travels at 60mph so medium-speed rail would be a significant upgrade.

Edit: So this is the revised new amendment I am proposing in place of Shua's amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No previously proposed rail lines are cancelled by this amendment.

Thus the annual spending as a result of the (edited) bill is $3.85 b (including the -$1b a year from road/highway cuts) for 4 years, leaving the region with a surplus. Our current annual spending on highways is $9.2 billion along with $6.54 billion on non-highway roads, so I believe these cuts will not be a major issue when high-speed rail becomes an alternative. If the tracks in section 8. are to be built, a revenue increase is necessary but that can occur when the plan is formalized.

Shua, what do you think of this amendment?

Edit 2: made the amendment more readable.
Edit 3: specified the routes which go through Evansville and Bloomington

[Boston Bread]

Regarding the budget issue, the region has been on a path of cutting spending and taxes over the past fiscal year. The budget passed in 2014 included $35 billion less in spending, with revenue cuts that reduced the surplus to $4 b from the $35+ b surplus we would have had if no revenues were cut. So if we are to make significant investments like high speed rail I recommend that some revenue streams be restored so the region has more fiscal room to work with, even if it isn't necessary.

[Boston Bread]

The routes which I converted to medium speed rail were the routes which travelled between smaller population centres. It's necessary to keep the bill's cost sufficiently low. These are routes which as Shua pointed out, don't make financial sense to build a high-speed rail line especially when we're required to have a balance budget.

If there are no objections for the next day I will assume sponsorship of the bill and adopt my amendment, hopefully that will address all the concerns so it can go to a vote soon after.

[Boston Bread]

With tmth's absence I have assumed sponsorship of the bill. So I am amending the High Speed Rail Expansion Act as such:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any further concerns?
This amendment is to address budgeting and rail route concerns.