HOUSE BILL: High-Speed Rail Act of 2018 (Passed)

[Sirius_]

It might be a good idea to serve western Atlasia. I'd also like if there were more specifics on stops and routing of the corridors.

[Sirius_]

It might be a good idea to serve western Atlasia. I'd also like if there were more specifics on stops and routing of the corridors.

True, but the whole goal of this bill is to establish a Commission that will identify these corridors and stops, not to construct the lines themselves. The Commission can later motion to construct the lines or Congress can pass new laws authorizing individual lines' construction by the Commission with specific stops.

Is the commission player or NPC?

[Sirius_]

It might be a good idea to serve western Atlasia. I'd also like if there were more specifics on stops and routing of the corridors.

True, but the whole goal of this bill is to establish a Commission that will identify these corridors and stops, not to construct the lines themselves. The Commission can later motion to construct the lines or Congress can pass new laws authorizing individual lines' construction by the Commission with specific stops.

Is the commission player or NPC?

NPC.

Oh well.

[Sirius_]

Since Wxtransit is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

[Sirius_]

In recent memory, the primary reason that HSR projects don't get completed is the simple fact of other companies lobbying the government to not approve the project.

Why are they up for government approval? Is there a real reason (i.e. due to imminent domain or destroying the habitat of mountain goats or whatever)? Or is it needless government authority we should get rid of?

I wouldn't think the environment would be a legitimate concern, generally constructing more railways instead of highways is beneficial to the environment, especially if they are electric railways. Imminent domain is the much more likely cause for this, which I believe can be avoided, especially if this is a government project. It would be best in this case to upgrade existing right of way as much as possible, especially in urban areas. It could also be a matter of people not wanting a new train line near their neighborhood due to noise or whatever, which again would best be avoided by using existing right of way.

[Sirius_]

Regarding points 1 and 2 of section 1, it would probably be best if it was specified whether or not players would be on this commission. That does have a major effect on how this bill functions. I'm with dfw in thinking that it may not be possible to require regional funding, but it is a point of legal ambiguity. I agree with dfw on 7 to have it controlled by DoIA/DoT. I would like to see more corridors planned.

[Sirius_]

I don't actually believe that creating a transcontinental passenger route would be worthwhile, aircraft would provide far too much competition. Passenger routes generally work best for moderate distances. Now I do think that we could see a lot of success from building a transcontinental line for freight traffic and charging a usage fee would likely make a lot of money for the government. That seems more like something for a different bill, however.

[Sirius_]

The amendment is friendly, though I will be adding to it.

[Sirius_]

The amendment is friendly, though I will be adding to it.

Wait, to the stuff the amendment adds or just the bill at large?

I plan on making an amendment which does the same for the 13th congress if CAF-12 is underfunded.

[Sirius_]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the new text.

[Sirius_]

I amend section 4 to the following.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sirius_]

I withdraw the amendment given the objections to it.

[Sirius_]

With that, I motion we move on to a final vote on this bill.

Seconded.

[Sirius_]

Aye