The High Speed Rail Act (Awaiting Presidential Signature/Veto)

[HappyWarrior]

The High Speed Rail Act:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes that, in order to create and maintain a modern, future oriented and effective transportation system, necessary to aid climate protection and prepare ourselves for increasing oil prices in the future, that a network of high speed, electronically operated trains between major cities should be constructed and operated.

Section 2: Primarily, as of now, the following routes will be built:
a.) Los Angeles - San Francisco
b.) Dallas - Houston
c.) Chicago - St. Louis
d.) Washington - New York
e.) Boston - New York
f.) Chicago - Detroit - Toronto

Section 3: This system will take the German "ICE" train system as an example and will function similarly, with speeds up to 250 km/h (156 mph).

Section 4: The funding for this project will come from multiple sources:
a.) 2% increase on highest federal income tax bracket.
b.) $0.50 gasoline tax increase
c.) Regions will contribute funding to routes within their boundaries. (failure to comply will result in other routes in other regions being prioritized.)

Section 5: The routes listed in Section 2 will only be regarded as suggestions, and an independent team of transportation experts will provide analysis and recommendations for the implementation of this plan, specifically relating to the priority and effectiveness of the above mentioned routes.

Sponser:Franzl

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm leaning toward opposing this, the taxes IMHO are too high and I don't see what is wrong with the rail systems we have now

[Purple State]

I think something must be done about the way this targets regions. It essentially forces them to pay for the railroads. I'm not really a fan of unnecessary national projects as it is, but the least the federal government could is pay for it.

[RI]

I like the idea, but I don't know if raising gasoline taxes again is the best plan of action.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm leaning toward opposing this, the taxes IMHO are too high and I don't see what is wrong with the rail systems we have now

Well, they're awful, for one. Slow. Out-dated. Under-funded. Etcetera.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Section 4b is horrible. Also, I question how much of a need there is for a rail connecting St. Louis & Toronto.

[Smid]

I'd prefer to see this built through a Public-Private Partnership, than through increasing taxation.

[RI]

I'd prefer to see this built through a Public-Private Partnership, than through increasing taxation.

That's a better idea, IMO.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd prefer to see this built through a Public-Private Partnership, than through increasing taxation.

     Fair point, though given the lack of money to be made versus the costs of railroad technology, how would a company be properly reimbursed for its cooperation? I was just thinking about this myself.

[Purple State]

I'd prefer to see this built through a Public-Private Partnership, than through increasing taxation.

     Fair point, though given the lack of money to be made versus the costs of railroad technology, how would a company be properly reimbursed for its cooperation? I was just thinking about this myself.

A cut of the profits from ticket sales?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd prefer to see this built through a Public-Private Partnership, than through increasing taxation.

     Fair point, though given the lack of money to be made versus the costs of railroad technology, how would a company be properly reimbursed for its cooperation? I was just thinking about this myself.

A cut of the profits from ticket sales?

     I was thinking that, though I was also thinking it would probably have to be a much larger cut than the company's share of input, seeing as how this will probably be losing money for as long as it exists.

[Smid]

I'd prefer to see this built through a Public-Private Partnership, than through increasing taxation.

     Fair point, though given the lack of money to be made versus the costs of railroad technology, how would a company be properly reimbursed for its cooperation? I was just thinking about this myself.

A cut of the profits from ticket sales?

There are different ways it can be structured. One such way would be to allow the company to operate it for a period of, say, 30 years (and collect all profits, but have to set out in advance their proposed ticket prices and increases to prices) and then after the 30 years it becomes a government asset. The company may need to be subsidised if it expects that ticket sales won't recoup the costs of construction, but it'll be open for tender allowing companies to compete for the lowest subsidy/ticket prices.

EDIT: Also, each of the lines could either be put separately to tender, or could be banded together (to ensure that less profitable lines are constructed as well).

[afleitch]

I'd agree with Smid that Public Private Partnership is probably the best course of action.

Alternatively, the government could build and own the tracks and put out to tender contracts to allow for private (and competing) transport companies to run passenger services. I also see opportunities for Atlasian Mail and possibly even freight servives (localised) being allowed to make use of any network therefore enhancing profitability.

Companies would be responsible for buying and running trains and rolling stock and a set percentage of revenue raised would be paid back to the government to invest in the upkeep and extension of the railway network itself.

[Franzl]

I agree with Smid and Afleitch. The bill is actually poorly written, and I agree that a Puble Private Partnership would likely be more effective than a purely government run system.

We should continue debate on that, of course. I think that an efficient rail system would be an enormous economic asset and would help Atlasia remain competitive.

As most of you know....other countries have far superior systems...and although it's not possible in Atlasia to really create a countrywide high speed system (yet), there are certain routes/certain pairs of cities that could really use such service.

It's an economic investment in the future.

[MasterJedi]

I support high speed rail but this bill isn't that good. Get rid of the tax increases and forcing the regions to pay.

What I'd suggest is having an auction where a private company or companies could come in and work with the federal and regional governments to construct these railways.

[Platypus]

Atlasian petrol taxes must be about $80 by now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Atlasian petrol taxes must be about $80 by now.

     Yep. Sales tax is incredibly overabused by politicians.

[Franzl]

I'd like to see something done here.

I'd like to provide an alternative bill, as I agree with the suggestions concerning a public private partership and believe that proposal to be superior to my original bill.

I did consider shortly the possibility of distributing money among the regions again as in the "Help Atlasia Study Act", but I don't think that work quite as effectively in this case because not every region has the same needs and wants concerning high speed rail, and it would be difficult to find a just way of dividing the cash here.

Therefore, I'd say we work on a system, as Afleitch suggested, that allows the federal government to build the tracks and allow private companies to operate and maintain train services on those tracks...and pay the federal government a portion of their earnings for track maintenance and the like.

I would also suggest that we cut a lot of the routes that I had originally proposed and focus only on pairs of cities that I think everyone would agree could use such high speed service.

My suggestions:

St. Louis - Chicago
San Francisco - Los Angeles
Boston - New York - Philadelphia - Washington (the Acela Express route...but really high speed...not what the Acela does
Dallas - Houston

Actually, we could leave it at that for right now...and try out the system....as we could always add more routes later on if this turns out to be a success.

So how about this proposal:

Section 1: The Federal government will construct railroad tracks designed for high speed electrically operated trains running up to 250 km/h (156 mph) between the following cities:

St. Louis, MO - Chicago, IL
Washington, DC - Philadelphia, PA - New York, NY - Boston, MA
San Fransisco, CA - Los Angeles, CA
Dallas, TX - Houston, TX

Section 2: After the above mentioned construction is complete, private operating companies will be allowed to purchase and operate high speed trains on these routes, after acquiring permission and a contract from the government. The government will encourage as much competition as possible, and will be responsible for certifying that safety measures are appropriately taken by all operating companies.

Section 3: The federal government will collect 15% of all profits made on these routes and the collected money will be used primarily for track maintenance. Any money left over may be used for other government purposes. This arrangement will last at least 12 years, after which it will be determined, based on economic circumstances of the operating companies, whether government subsidies are still necessary. If it is determined that the routes are economically viable, then the tracks may be sold to the respective operating companie(s).


What do you think?

[HappyWarrior]

I could vote for that, it seems alot stronger than the original...

[Smid]

I like it, although I'd also be comfortable with not selling off the rails after 12 years, as this could reduce competition. If one company purchased the rails, the prices that company charges the other companies to operate on them could be excessive and chase them from the market and leading to a monopoly on that line.

[MasterJedi]

I'd suggest adding Milwaukee as a stop on the St. Louis-Chicago line.

[RI]

I'd suggest adding Milwaukee as a stop on the St. Louis-Chicago line.

OMG Earmark!

Actually, that would make a lot of sense.

[MasterJedi]

I'd suggest adding Milwaukee as a stop on the St. Louis-Chicago line.

OMG Earmark!

Actually, that would make a lot of sense.

Haha, considering Milwaukee has sh**t of a railroad system and is pretty much tied for the highest bus fairs in the country it could help a lot.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It seems like a significant improvement. I should say that after 12 years maybe the railways could be sold to a neutral third-party so it doesn't create a monopoly.

[Franzl]

Glad to hear the positive comments about the modified version.

Would anybody like to propose any amendments to what is now written? I'm certainly open to quite a bit, as I would definitely like to get this bill through.