SENATE BILL: Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act (Law'd)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act

Section 1: Appropriations

1. $10 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford, CT and Springfield, Worcester, and Boston, MA.

2. $5 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Portland, OR and Tacoma and Seattle, WA.

3. $5 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, and Charlotte, NC.

Section 2: Completion

1. The rail lines are to be completed by 2016.

2. The construction of the rail lines should significantly affect as few private properties as reasonably possible.

3. Existing lines should be updated when it is reasonably possible.

Section 3: Operation

1. These rail lines shall be operated under Section 3 of the High Speed Rail Act.

Sponsor: Napoleon

[Senator Napoleon]

Also considering a Texas line. Thoughts?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Considering the population concentration in TX, and the economic growth, it would probably be wise.



We need to make sure none of these would duplicate a previous created line, if such hasn't been done already, unless traffic justifies a second line.

[Fuzzy]

Didn't we pass a high speed rail bill a year ago, which covered a bunch of cities?

[Senator Napoleon]

You might be thinking of the High Speed Rail Act referenced in this bill, unless I missed something on the Wiki.

[Prez Duke]

Didn't we pass a high speed rail bill a year ago, which covered a bunch of cities?

I think I had some provisions in my bill a while ago, but I could be wrong. It may have been expansion of the highway system. I think bgwah had a similar bill as well. I favor a bill like this as long as it isn't redundant. I know Texas has not been covered, but I believe some of the major southern hubs were. Again, I could be wrong.

[shua]

I'm skeptical of this. These rail projects tend to cost way more than their budget, and can't create demand.  These areas already have commuter/regional rail service, just a bit slower. What we should be looking at is funding some reliable public transit in places that don't have it already.

[Secretary Polnut]

I support this utterly... we need to start looking at nation-building projects.

[Prez Duke]

I support this utterly... we need to start looking at nation-building projects.

I agree. My point is merely making sure we aren't repeating projects already in progress.

[shua]

None of these routes are inter-regional. If a region wants high speed rail, why not just let them do it? That would prevent us from doing several projects at once that may or may not be important to the people that live there.

[Prez Duke]

None of these routes are inter-regional. If a region wants high speed rail, why not just let them do it? That would prevent us from doing several projects at once that may or may not be important to the people that live there.

Something I would favor would be to designate X number of dollars to the regional governments with provisions for use on mass transit projects. The only problem with this would be whether some reasons would have the capacity to build out these projects without capital from the federal government. I would assume my home region would not, but I'll let the Emperor speak for himself.

[Senator Napoleon]

I'm skeptical of this. These rail projects tend to cost way more than their budget, and can't create demand.  These areas already have commuter/regional rail service, just a bit slower. What we should be looking at is funding some reliable public transit in places that don't have it already.

It is possible that the regions will have to cover some costs.

[Fuzzy]

Could we get a Minneapolis-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-St. Louis-KC line as well?

[Prez Duke]

I agree with shua in part on this bill. I think outside of building these facilities, we need to give people incentives to use them. As it stands, it is cheaper to fly from NY to Washington than it is to take a high speed train. How will demand for these rail systems be such that they will make financial sense in the future? Especially obscure lines in the midwest, where mass transit is very sparse outside of Chicago and a few other places? We could conceivable build these and watch them be money losers for a long, long time.

How do we create demand for these things? I don't know.

Don't get me wrong though. I have been a big proponent of rail systems in the past, authored a bill and voted for these as well. I just do not want to saturate the market for them, because it still is small at the moment outside of anywhere but the Northeast. Perhaps "if we build them, they will come" rings true here, but I think we should tread cautiously before dumping billions into the project in places like Iowa and Nebraska.

[Fuzzy]

I agree with shua in part on this bill. I think outside of building these facilities, we need to give people incentives to use them. As it stands, it is cheaper to fly from NY to Washington than it is to take a high speed train. How will demand for these rail systems be such that they will make financial sense in the future? Especially obscure lines in the midwest, where mass transit is very sparse outside of Chicago and a few other places? We could conceivable build these and watch them be money losers for a long, long time.

How do we create demand for these things? I don't know.

People won't have to put up with full body searches if they take Atrack.  

The line wouldn't be to get people to Des Moines and Omaha (although they are very nice cities ), it would be more to get folks from those cities to Chicago, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Chicago and Milwaukee.  Those cities actually have a tourism draw, so that's why I propose adding a handful of medium cities to the lines. 

[bgwah]

Didn't we pass a high speed rail bill a year ago, which covered a bunch of cities?

I think I had some provisions in my bill a while ago, but I could be wrong. It may have been expansion of the highway system. I think bgwah had a similar bill as well. I favor a bill like this as long as it isn't redundant. I know Texas has not been covered, but I believe some of the major southern hubs were. Again, I could be wrong.

perhaps you're thinking of what was included in the stimulus: http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/2010_Federal_Stimulus_Act

[Snowguy716]

I am skeptical of rail transit in all but the largest cities since busses can do the job much more cost effectively.  They also respond to increases or decreases in demand much more quickly.  With hybrid busses and even electric ones, I think they make the best solution for most cities up to the large metro areas.

Interregional high speed rail makes sense.  They are precisely what carries water for local and slower regional mass transit since they tend to be profitable even when taking capital costs into account.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Any amendments? Further debate?

[Senator Napoleon]

Ill have an amendment by tomorrow.

[Fuzzy]

I would like to amend the appropriations to include the following:

4.) $10 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul MN, Madison and Milwaukee WI, and Chicago IL

[Secretary Polnut]

I am skeptical of rail transit in all but the largest cities since busses can do the job much more cost effectively.  They also respond to increases or decreases in demand much more quickly.  With hybrid busses and even electric ones, I think they make the best solution for most cities up to the large metro areas.

Interregional high speed rail makes sense.  They are precisely what carries water for local and slower regional mass transit since they tend to be profitable even when taking capital costs into account.

It's a trade-off, rail in large cities is more expensive and requires additional land corridors or excavation - but buses are large, awkward and do take up room on the roads.

I generally prefer rail, light-rail or BRT (bus rapid transit) to ordinary buses.

I think inter-regional lines make the most sense.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

4.) $10 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul MN, Madison and Milwaukee WI, and Chicago IL

Sponsor Feedback: Invalid Entry
Status: Awaiting Sponsor feedback

[Senator Napoleon]

Friendly

[Fuzzy]

Friendly

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

4.) $10 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul MN, Madison and Milwaukee WI, and Chicago IL

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to passage of the amendment