Bruce McF gets another silver pen for What's in SUPERTRAINS for Small Town and Rural America?

Bruce McF receives another Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for his accomplished writing on the subject of high speed rail, which would connect our country in the most remarkable and effective way possible, for a more connected, sense of nastion.

What's in SUPERTRAINS for Small Town and Rural America? (+)
by: BruceMcF
Sat Apr 25, 2009

Crossposted from Progressive Blue: http://www.progressiveblue.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=AD7115B2C9851F3FBB289A1E29545A06?diaryId=3790

This last weekend I wrote up a small diary, cross-posted to various places ... which even stumbled into being wrecklisted at Agent Orange ... about the High Speed Rail plan released by the Obama administration.

That diary focused on laying out the three "tiers" of HSR in the announced plan. "Express HSR" is one of the bullet train systems, like they are planning for California. But between that tier and conventional rail, are two more tiers:

* "Regional HSR", with a top speed of around 125mph, able to provide trips at average speeds in the range of 100mph, operating in existing rail rights of way, but mostly on its own track, with upgraded signaling and substantial investment in grade separation and/or the top level of "hardened" level crossings, normally with electrified lines; and
* "Emerging HSR", with a top speed of 110mph, able provide trips at average speed in excess of 80mph, operating on existing rail right of way with improved capacity, but sometimes sharing track with freight rail, the 110mph standard of quad gate, speed sensitive level crossings, and provided by either electric or diesel 110mph tilt-trains

The bullet trains are the show ponies ... but for small town and rural America, the genuine seat at the table for Emerging and Regional HSR is the real good news from the announcement.
BruceMcF :: What's in SUPERTRAINS for Small Town and Rural America?
Now, I do not want to give the impression that Express HSR is somehow "anti-rural development". Far from it ... all forms of HSR share a key feature that is very good news for small town and rural America.

Trains lose much less time on a stop than airplanes do. And while an Express HSR route might be built in order to serve transport markets between two big metro areas ... you need two way track pretty much all the way to run them properly, and once you have it, adding services to serve smaller cities in between is very cost efficient.

That doesn't mean a station in every little village and hamlet, but it does mean that there can be a station every thirty to fifty miles, which means the areas that the HSR passes through are likely to see far more frequent services at the closest HSR station than at the closest airfield.

So, compared to the current state of affairs, there are going to be more rural areas with more effective transport options in reasonable driving distance with "Express HSR" than with the two level system of short-hop flights and interstate buses.


Cost Matters

No, what makes the seat at the table for Emerging HSR and Regional HSR so exciting is that they cost so much less per mile to get built.

Consider that basically one Express HSR corridor from San Francisco to San Jose through the Central Valley then LA and ending in Anaheim California ... is projected to cost $46b.

However, to build the Ohio Hub for 110mph service (blue and orange lines) would cost under $10b ... maybe under $5b. That's Buffalo to Cleveland to Columbus to Dayton to Cincinnati ... connecting to Indianapolis and Chicago, Pittsburgh to Cleveland to Toledo to Fort Wayne .... connecting to Chicago, Pittsburgh to Columbus to Toledo to Detroit, and Pittsburgh to Columbus to Fort Wayne.

The thing is, when existing rail sees light freight traffic, it can be upgraded, 10miles of passing tracks added in each 50 miles of track, when existing rail sees heavy freight traffic, a new passenger track can be laid ... and all in existing rail rights of way. Most of the worst headaches of establishing a new rail line in terms of environmental clearances, property fights, etc, ... just are not there when building inside an existing rail right of way.

The track is built for 60mph freight traffic, and then the extra tilt that has to be added to allow trains to go through turns at 110mph without tossing the passengers around is added by the train itself.

And consider the stations ...

... while it is patronage involving the three largest cities in that provides the financial foundation for the Ohio Hub system, once the rail line is passing through, it makes sense to add a station every so often, to get an additional increment of passengers.

And so there are stations laid out in Coshocton, Springfield, Kenton, New Castle PA, Findlay, Defiance ... a lot more stations a lot more accessible to the rural counties of the state than a single Express HSR system could be, and for less money.


And its not just the Regional HSR Systems

The red corridors in that map is the Midwest Hub ... one of the main inspirations of the Ohio Hub, as the Midwest Hub was originally to connect to Cleveland and Cincinnati, and someone said, "Hmmm, something seems to be missing here".

The Midwest Hub is a product of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (FAQ), an alliance of states.

And the membership of the MIRPC extends beyond the boundaries of the Midwest Hub, extending on to North Dakota.

North Dakota? Why are they a member of the alliance?

Note that North Dakota may not be in that route map, but rail is still important to North Dakota. The transcontinental Amtrak system is quite important for many North Dakota towns and rural counties. And so the Midwest Hub will benefit North Dakota in two main ways:

* First, the Amtrak to Minneapolis will then connect to a Regional HSR corridor to Chicago, offering a substantially quicker train trip than what is currently available; and,
* Second, when the Amtrak is running through an area with a Regional HSR system, it will be able to use the improved track as well, avoiding the delays from freight trains that currently plague the transcontinental routes and can put them many hours behind schedule.


Getting down to work

Note that the plan set down is not a centralized, top-down plan. It involves states, one at a time or in groups, sitting down, deciding what kind of improved rail service would benefit them, working out a desired alignment, and going through the process to get it added to one of the existing systems of HSR corridors.

Some states have taken a lead, like the alliance led by Illinois, and the Southeast corridor led by Virginia and North Carolina.

Some states are scurrying to catch up, like Colorado, which started studying a corridor from Cheyenne through Denver and Colorado Springs to the New Mexico border last year.

Some states have had stop-start-stop approaches, like Florida and Texas, both of which almost got started on HSR systems, and both of which had their HSR projects killed by a Governor Bush.

And some states have lagged behind. There ought to be a Southeast Hub spreading out from Atlanta, similar to the one spreading out from Chicago, but Georgia seems content to sit on its hands, letting others do the work. And Tennessee seems to be completely asleep at the wheel. That means obvious lines, like Atlanta to Nashville connecting to the Midwest Hub at Louisville, are missing.

But the advantage of the system is that we do not need to get heard over the noise in Washington DC in order to get the ball rolling in our own neck of the woods. What we need to do is to corral our own State Legislator, State Senator, even Governor, and talk to them about when they are going to get off their fat asses and get to work on working up a Regional HSR system to serve both the cities in their states and the country in between the cities that the rail lines will pass through.

How To Build a National High Speed Rail system receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award.

Kudos and a Silver Pen Award to Bruce McFadden who writes eloquently and brilliantly on the need for high speed rail, which would be a great way to connect the country. It's thrilling to think of traveling through the country on high speed. All aboard!


How To Build a National High Speed Rail system (+)
by: BruceMcF
Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 14:56:16 PM EDT

[subscribe]
(it's always midnight somewhere... - promoted by poligirl)

Burning the Midnight Oil for Living Energy Independence

... A Four Step Program

Step 1. Give states a framework to develop plans, either individually or in groups, and present them to the Federal government for vetting, approval, and funding support.

Step 2. States do that.

Step 3. Fund a substantial number of seed corridors, so that a large number of metro areas (House) and States (Senate) have a stake in maintaining ongoing Federal HSR funding.

Step 4. Keep funding the construction of more.

That is my plan. But, OTOH, I'm just an obscure Development Economist with a field specialization in Regional Economics, so the fact that its my plan is neither here nor there.

More newsworthy, it seems to be the plan of the Obama administration. So, unlike the Bank Bail-out, I find myself on the "cheerleader" side of Administration activity.

Give Me an H! Give Me an S! Give Me an R! What's It Spell? One Piece of the Energy Independent Transport Puzzle! YEAH!!!!
BruceMcF :: How To Build a National High Speed Rail system

Wait a minute, what about the network map?

What about it? You want a network map, here's a network map:

That from a crude spreadsheet of pairs of 1m+ metro areas within a line-of-sight radius for Express HSR, based on geometric mean population per mile. Its main flaws, of course, are lack of detailed knowledge of local conditions ... for example, the Pacheco Alignment selected for the California HSR system, with HSR train running up the Caltrain Corridor from San Jose to San Francisco, has the impact on an HSR service of making San Jose and San Francisco into a single destination zone from Southern California, and adjusting for that adjustment would make for a much stronger corridor between LA and the BAY.

But, that's the point of the strategy, above. Those dots and lines are not a corridor map, they are a service map. One strong network economy of HSR is the ability to provide multiple trip-pair services on a single train with far less difficulty than an airplane.

Here is the (newly buffed and polished) Department of Transportation map of the HSR corridors that have already won official designation:

These corridors are shown laid out over a ghost of the existing Amtrak intercity network, which is reasonable since connection to existing passenger rail service is one of the criteria for designation.

They are not a design for a future HSR network. What they are is the result of the pieces of the four part strategy that were already in place. To make a long story short, we had everything in the above strategy except the money.

IOW, Shorter Obama: "High Speed Rail makes sense. Let's take our HSR plans and start funding them".


zOMG, some of those are not Bullet Trains! MASSIVE FAIL

There is some hyperventilating about the fact that many of the systems being talked about receiving funding are not going to be among the fastest trains on the face of the earth.

This hyperventilation is based on a fundamental misconception about how HSR works.

High Speed Rail does not work by being the fastest mode of transport on the planet. The fastest mode of transport on the planet is the Rocket. After that the Supersonic Plane. After that regular Jet Aircraft ... which, should be noted, is the mode that has commercial passenger operations ... then short-haul commuter jets, then prop planes, then ... I'm not sure what is next. Sooner or later we get to bullet trains.

High Speed Rail works be being fast enough so that it can offer competitive trip speeds, and then leveraging the other competitive advantages of rail over air and car transport to carve out a successful market niche.

How fast is fast enough depends on the distance between two cities.

Outside of congested areas, conventional rail cannot compete for speed against cars on the Interstate Highway system, so for most of the country, conventional rail relies entirely on its other competitive advantages in order to attract patronage ... not everyone has a car, some people dislike driving and view it as a tedious chore, on a train you can watch a movie on a portable DVD player or get work done on a laptop, there are some (mostly urban) destinations where having a car is a pain rather than a benefit, etc.

For conventional rail with conventional signaling and running over conventional level crossings, Federal Railroad Administration regulations typically mandate a top speed of 79mph. Add in slow zones for curves, station stops, etc., and conventional rail is only faster than the Interstate in congested areas.

Raise the top speed to 110mph and the effective trip speed to the 80mph-90mph range, and for most non-insane drivers a train trip begins to be faster than driving. This is the "Emerging HSR" class of HSR. When you take an existing rail corridor and upgrade it to take faster than conventional trains, this is the first step up from there. 110mph here is a limit for a specific class of upgraded level crossings.

Raise the top speed to 125mph and the effective trip speed to the 90mph to 110mph range, and for all non-insane drivers, a train trip of 2 to 3 hours begins to be significantly faster than driving. This is the "Regional HSR" class of HSR. 125mph here is the limit for trains relying on conventional signaling with lights and information next to the track ... beyond 125mph, signals have to be brought into the cab.

Most of the planned corridors on the DoT map above are Emerging HSR corridors ... and by the same token, since they were the ones that states took seriously enough to push through the process, they are mostly strategic enough corridors that they are likely to end up as Regional HSR corridors.

For many metro areas trip pairs, an effective trip speed of 100mph, which is a radius of 300mph, is fast enough to bring trips down to 3 hours or less. For others, its not. For Cleveland/Cincinnati, Regional HSR is certainly "High Speed Enough". For the LA Basin to the Bay Area, Regional HSR is not "High Speed Enough".

And that brings the final class of HSR, "Express HSR", also known as bullet trains. This is the class which would be referred to as HSR basically anywhere in the world. It requires all grade separated corridors ... 200mph is too fast to take across a level crossing, no matter how "hardened" the crossing may be. It requires that the track be banked for operation far above the speeds of normal container freight cars. It requires an ability to broadcast signals into the driver cabs of the trains. It requires broader, more sweeping turns than conventional rail. In order to keep the mass down and the driving energy up, it essentially requires an all-electrified corridor.

It is, in other words, not an incremental upgrade to an existing rail corridor. It might use an appropriate existing rail Right of Way, but it would use that right of way as a location to lay new bullet train tracks. And its not uncommon for bullet train systems to use the margins of rural and suburban Expressways for their Right of Way.


Fighting HSR Segregation

Now, assuming good design, you get what you pay for. Or as a programmer I am acquainted with writes, "Good, Fast, Cheap ... pick any Two out of Three".

The danger in providing only Express HSR funding is that an Express HSR corridor is expensive. Not every part of the country will find it possible to justify the required state contribution.

That means that if we segregate Express HSR out as the "only true and holy" HSR, we leave it politically exposed to counterattack in the areas that are left out.

And where, precisely, is left in? Well, California has passed $9b in state bond funding for a California HSR system that is Express HSR. The Northeast Corridor is the only place in the country that has established a "Regional HSR" system (though because it is operating in such a congested rail corridor with substantial legacy constraints, it operates in effect as an Emerging HSR system).

Florida and Texas have at various times flirted with bullet train systems ... indeed, a Governor Bush helped kill the flirtation in both instances.

Anyway, California, and the Northeast Corridor. That's it.

Now, instead of fighting over the "true and holy meaning of HSR", suppose that all of the systems that met the original Department of Transportation HSR corridor designation are given a definition as a "class of" HSR.

Now you have Southeastern Corridor, the Gulf Corridor, the Empire and Keystone corridors, the Ohio Hub, the Midwest Hub, possibilities for Emerging HSR corridor development in Texas, the Cascade Corridor in the Pacific Northwest, the New England Corridor connecting into the NEC. Add to that the Front Range corridor presently in early exploratory stages, and there is a massive footprint ... in total number of beneficiary states, for the Senate, in metro populations served, for the House, and even in terms of Swing States, for Presidential Politics.

And unlike bullet train corridors, those are systems that can have their foundation corridors built and put into operation in five years or less, which means corridors that can see ground broken before 2012 and passengers being served before the 2014 midterm elections.


Express and Regional HSR Should Be Friends

When built out, one way that Express HSR and Regional HSR work together is by sharing transfer passengers.

However, by electrifying the Regional HSR line, the Express HSR train can also simply continue on the Regional HSR to a destination that is off the HSR corridor.

So consider the following Express HSR alignment: New York City directly through northern Pennsylvania to North Central Ohio to Fort Wayne Indiana and on to Chicago.

"But it doesn't go to..." is the first reaction. If I set out that map, then assuming anyone was reading, the reaction would be to point out all the places it does not go. But that is ignoring the Midwest and Ohio Hubs. Which is a silly thing to do. Consider the following (note that this is from the Ohio Hub site ... it does not include the entire Midwest Hub, but only the eastern corridors ... the Midwest Hub does actually extend from the Great Lakes into the Midwest proper):

Only the far western stretch of that bullet train alignment appears in this map ...

... but from where it crosses the "Pittsburgh to Cleveland via the Rail Line I Cycle Commute Over" alignment, a bullet train can run from New York City to Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit, from where it crosses the Triple-C from New York City to Columbus to Cincinnati (and likely on to Louisville and Memphis).

... from Chicago, Chicago to the Triple C to Buffalo and Albany, Chicago to the Cleveland / Pittsburgh corridor to Pittsburgh / Harrisburg / Philadelphia, as well as after upgrading the Pittsburgh / DC alignment, Chicago / Pittsburgh / DC.

That is, after all, how it is done overseas ... quite a large number of the French TGV routes, for instance, keep going for quite a way beyond the end of the bullet train corridor. In the map to the right, grey lines are TGV's running on conventional French rail corridors ... which, because of the differences between European and American rail systems, could be considered to be running on "Regional HSR" lines.

Indeed, much of the French TGV system was built in stages, with individual segments of a corridor brought into service on completion, with each segment reducing the travel time on that corridor until all bullet train corridors are completed.


Anyway, that's how to build a HSR system

It doesn't actually matter whether someone is an "Amtrak incrementalist", a "Rapid Rail advocate", or a "HSR advocate" ... its the same plan.

Which is why its not big deal if "Emerging HSR" and "Regional HSR" is not what some Europeans would call "Real HSR". Now that we have the blueprint, we have the language to say "Express HSR" when we mean bullet trains, "Regional HSR" when we mean full fledged Rapid Rail, and "Emerging HSR" when we mean turbocharged conventional rail corridors with plans to build toward full fledged Rapid Rail.

Its a natural coalition of interests, which is a durable foundation for a political coalition among the supporters of the full range of systems.

Those of us living in flyover country no that this is not really building the "Regional HSR" in the outback ... but we do need to be building systems between the Appalachians and the Rockies if we want the robust political coalition that will allow the building of ten and twenty year infrastructure projects in the new century ahead.

Tags: Infrastructure, HSR, rail electrification, A Brawny Recovery, Living Energy Independence, (All Tags) :: Add/Edit Tags on this Post

How To Build a National High Speed Rail system receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award.

How To Build a National High Speed Rail system (+)
by: BruceMcF
Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 14:56:16 PM EDT

[subscribe]
(it's always midnight somewhere... - promoted by poligirl)

Burning the Midnight Oil for Living Energy Independence

... A Four Step Program

Step 1. Give states a framework to develop plans, either individually or in groups, and present them to the Federal government for vetting, approval, and funding support.

Step 2. States do that.

Step 3. Fund a substantial number of seed corridors, so that a large number of metro areas (House) and States (Senate) have a stake in maintaining ongoing Federal HSR funding.

Step 4. Keep funding the construction of more.

That is my plan. But, OTOH, I'm just an obscure Development Economist with a field specialization in Regional Economics, so the fact that its my plan is neither here nor there.

More newsworthy, it seems to be the plan of the Obama administration. So, unlike the Bank Bail-out, I find myself on the "cheerleader" side of Administration activity.

Give Me an H! Give Me an S! Give Me an R! What's It Spell? One Piece of the Energy Independent Transport Puzzle! YEAH!!!!
BruceMcF :: How To Build a National High Speed Rail system

Wait a minute, what about the network map?

What about it? You want a network map, here's a network map:

That from a crude spreadsheet of pairs of 1m+ metro areas within a line-of-sight radius for Express HSR, based on geometric mean population per mile. Its main flaws, of course, are lack of detailed knowledge of local conditions ... for example, the Pacheco Alignment selected for the California HSR system, with HSR train running up the Caltrain Corridor from San Jose to San Francisco, has the impact on an HSR service of making San Jose and San Francisco into a single destination zone from Southern California, and adjusting for that adjustment would make for a much stronger corridor between LA and the BAY.

But, that's the point of the strategy, above. Those dots and lines are not a corridor map, they are a service map. One strong network economy of HSR is the ability to provide multiple trip-pair services on a single train with far less difficulty than an airplane.

Here is the (newly buffed and polished) Department of Transportation map of the HSR corridors that have already won official designation:

These corridors are shown laid out over a ghost of the existing Amtrak intercity network, which is reasonable since connection to existing passenger rail service is one of the criteria for designation.

They are not a design for a future HSR network. What they are is the result of the pieces of the four part strategy that were already in place. To make a long story short, we had everything in the above strategy except the money.

IOW, Shorter Obama: "High Speed Rail makes sense. Let's take our HSR plans and start funding them".


zOMG, some of those are not Bullet Trains! MASSIVE FAIL

There is some hyperventilating about the fact that many of the systems being talked about receiving funding are not going to be among the fastest trains on the face of the earth.

This hyperventilation is based on a fundamental misconception about how HSR works.

High Speed Rail does not work by being the fastest mode of transport on the planet. The fastest mode of transport on the planet is the Rocket. After that the Supersonic Plane. After that regular Jet Aircraft ... which, should be noted, is the mode that has commercial passenger operations ... then short-haul commuter jets, then prop planes, then ... I'm not sure what is next. Sooner or later we get to bullet trains.

High Speed Rail works be being fast enough so that it can offer competitive trip speeds, and then leveraging the other competitive advantages of rail over air and car transport to carve out a successful market niche.

How fast is fast enough depends on the distance between two cities.

Outside of congested areas, conventional rail cannot compete for speed against cars on the Interstate Highway system, so for most of the country, conventional rail relies entirely on its other competitive advantages in order to attract patronage ... not everyone has a car, some people dislike driving and view it as a tedious chore, on a train you can watch a movie on a portable DVD player or get work done on a laptop, there are some (mostly urban) destinations where having a car is a pain rather than a benefit, etc.

For conventional rail with conventional signaling and running over conventional level crossings, Federal Railroad Administration regulations typically mandate a top speed of 79mph. Add in slow zones for curves, station stops, etc., and conventional rail is only faster than the Interstate in congested areas.

Raise the top speed to 110mph and the effective trip speed to the 80mph-90mph range, and for most non-insane drivers a train trip begins to be faster than driving. This is the "Emerging HSR" class of HSR. When you take an existing rail corridor and upgrade it to take faster than conventional trains, this is the first step up from there. 110mph here is a limit for a specific class of upgraded level crossings.

Raise the top speed to 125mph and the effective trip speed to the 90mph to 110mph range, and for all non-insane drivers, a train trip of 2 to 3 hours begins to be significantly faster than driving. This is the "Regional HSR" class of HSR. 125mph here is the limit for trains relying on conventional signaling with lights and information next to the track ... beyond 125mph, signals have to be brought into the cab.

Most of the planned corridors on the DoT map above are Emerging HSR corridors ... and by the same token, since they were the ones that states took seriously enough to push through the process, they are mostly strategic enough corridors that they are likely to end up as Regional HSR corridors.

For many metro areas trip pairs, an effective trip speed of 100mph, which is a radius of 300mph, is fast enough to bring trips down to 3 hours or less. For others, its not. For Cleveland/Cincinnati, Regional HSR is certainly "High Speed Enough". For the LA Basin to the Bay Area, Regional HSR is not "High Speed Enough".

And that brings the final class of HSR, "Express HSR", also known as bullet trains. This is the class which would be referred to as HSR basically anywhere in the world. It requires all grade separated corridors ... 200mph is too fast to take across a level crossing, no matter how "hardened" the crossing may be. It requires that the track be banked for operation far above the speeds of normal container freight cars. It requires an ability to broadcast signals into the driver cabs of the trains. It requires broader, more sweeping turns than conventional rail. In order to keep the mass down and the driving energy up, it essentially requires an all-electrified corridor.

It is, in other words, not an incremental upgrade to an existing rail corridor. It might use an appropriate existing rail Right of Way, but it would use that right of way as a location to lay new bullet train tracks. And its not uncommon for bullet train systems to use the margins of rural and suburban Expressways for their Right of Way.


Fighting HSR Segregation

Now, assuming good design, you get what you pay for. Or as a programmer I am acquainted with writes, "Good, Fast, Cheap ... pick any Two out of Three".

The danger in providing only Express HSR funding is that an Express HSR corridor is expensive. Not every part of the country will find it possible to justify the required state contribution.

That means that if we segregate Express HSR out as the "only true and holy" HSR, we leave it politically exposed to counterattack in the areas that are left out.

And where, precisely, is left in? Well, California has passed $9b in state bond funding for a California HSR system that is Express HSR. The Northeast Corridor is the only place in the country that has established a "Regional HSR" system (though because it is operating in such a congested rail corridor with substantial legacy constraints, it operates in effect as an Emerging HSR system).

Florida and Texas have at various times flirted with bullet train systems ... indeed, a Governor Bush helped kill the flirtation in both instances.

Anyway, California, and the Northeast Corridor. That's it.

Now, instead of fighting over the "true and holy meaning of HSR", suppose that all of the systems that met the original Department of Transportation HSR corridor designation are given a definition as a "class of" HSR.

Now you have Southeastern Corridor, the Gulf Corridor, the Empire and Keystone corridors, the Ohio Hub, the Midwest Hub, possibilities for Emerging HSR corridor development in Texas, the Cascade Corridor in the Pacific Northwest, the New England Corridor connecting into the NEC. Add to that the Front Range corridor presently in early exploratory stages, and there is a massive footprint ... in total number of beneficiary states, for the Senate, in metro populations served, for the House, and even in terms of Swing States, for Presidential Politics.

And unlike bullet train corridors, those are systems that can have their foundation corridors built and put into operation in five years or less, which means corridors that can see ground broken before 2012 and passengers being served before the 2014 midterm elections.


Express and Regional HSR Should Be Friends

When built out, one way that Express HSR and Regional HSR work together is by sharing transfer passengers.

However, by electrifying the Regional HSR line, the Express HSR train can also simply continue on the Regional HSR to a destination that is off the HSR corridor.

So consider the following Express HSR alignment: New York City directly through northern Pennsylvania to North Central Ohio to Fort Wayne Indiana and on to Chicago.

"But it doesn't go to..." is the first reaction. If I set out that map, then assuming anyone was reading, the reaction would be to point out all the places it does not go. But that is ignoring the Midwest and Ohio Hubs. Which is a silly thing to do. Consider the following (note that this is from the Ohio Hub site ... it does not include the entire Midwest Hub, but only the eastern corridors ... the Midwest Hub does actually extend from the Great Lakes into the Midwest proper):

Only the far western stretch of that bullet train alignment appears in this map ...

... but from where it crosses the "Pittsburgh to Cleveland via the Rail Line I Cycle Commute Over" alignment, a bullet train can run from New York City to Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit, from where it crosses the Triple-C from New York City to Columbus to Cincinnati (and likely on to Louisville and Memphis).

... from Chicago, Chicago to the Triple C to Buffalo and Albany, Chicago to the Cleveland / Pittsburgh corridor to Pittsburgh / Harrisburg / Philadelphia, as well as after upgrading the Pittsburgh / DC alignment, Chicago / Pittsburgh / DC.

That is, after all, how it is done overseas ... quite a large number of the French TGV routes, for instance, keep going for quite a way beyond the end of the bullet train corridor. In the map to the right, grey lines are TGV's running on conventional French rail corridors ... which, because of the differences between European and American rail systems, could be considered to be running on "Regional HSR" lines.

Indeed, much of the French TGV system was built in stages, with individual segments of a corridor brought into service on completion, with each segment reducing the travel time on that corridor until all bullet train corridors are completed.


Anyway, that's how to build a HSR system

It doesn't actually matter whether someone is an "Amtrak incrementalist", a "Rapid Rail advocate", or a "HSR advocate" ... its the same plan.

Which is why its not big deal if "Emerging HSR" and "Regional HSR" is not what some Europeans would call "Real HSR". Now that we have the blueprint, we have the language to say "Express HSR" when we mean bullet trains, "Regional HSR" when we mean full fledged Rapid Rail, and "Emerging HSR" when we mean turbocharged conventional rail corridors with plans to build toward full fledged Rapid Rail.

Its a natural coalition of interests, which is a durable foundation for a political coalition among the supporters of the full range of systems.

Those of us living in flyover country no that this is not really building the "Regional HSR" in the outback ... but we do need to be building systems between the Appalachians and the Rockies if we want the robust political coalition that will allow the building of ten and twenty year infrastructure projects in the new century ahead.

Tags: Infrastructure, HSR, rail electrification, A Brawny Recovery, Living Energy Independence, (All Tags) :: Add/Edit Tags on this Post

On Supporting President Obama by Michael Conrad receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award

Cross-Posted from Progressive Blue Blog: http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3750/on-supporting-president-obama

Michael Conrad is the recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for this incisive piece on the need to praise and question President Obama as warranted by his policies and decisions. Democrats don't lose their ability for critical thinking. We must applaud and we must protest, as appropriate. Michael Conrad says it perfectly well, in a most balanced and insightful piece.



On Supporting President Obama (+)
by: Michael Conrad
Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 06:35:29 AM EDT

[subscribe]
(the title says it all... - promoted by poligirl)

I'm in the process of streamlining the project I've been working on. In order to make room for other content, I'm posting my general views about what it means to support President Obama now, ahead of the project itself.

Besides being something I can refer to when talking about how progressive populism relates to the Democratic president, I hope this contributes something to the grassroots conversation about values, priorities, goals, and how we reach them. I largely personalized this, as I can only speak for myself, but I'm interested in your feedback.
Michael Conrad :: On Supporting President Obama
The discussion in the netroots about the merits of the president's policies has become increasingly frustrating to many of those involved.

Some thoughts:

- Purposeful criticism is necessary. Part of our job is to hold elected Democrats accountable, whether they're in Congress or the White House.

- Applause and criticism for the Obama Administration are not mutually exclusive.

For example:

The way the president initially went about selling the stimulus was ineffective.
The weekly address he used to rally support for his budget was excellent.

Taking crucial economic advice from the Church of Rubin is bad on numerous levels.
Creating a Middle Class Task Force led by Jared Bernstein was a great move.

- Too much is on the line for this to be about us, or desire for personal vindication.

- President Obama has to deal with a dizzying amount of BS, from right - wing attacks and bizarre protests, to inane chatter from Pundit Land about "doing too much at once" despite the desperate need for action on numerous fronts, to incoherent opposition from members of his own party in the form of the Evan Bayh Vanity Project. Voicing our disagreements with the president isn't going to stop us from aggressively pushing back against the GOP, media hackery, and self - proclaimed "moderate" Democrats.

- If Obama is compared to his immediate predecessors, I think he'll likely clear the bar with ease. With that said, if he is going to get the economy working for everyone, there is a lot that must be done. In this case, very good might not be good enough.

- Merely saying that something is "smart strategy," or that the president is "doing what works" doesn't make it true. Distorting pragmatism is highly counterproductive.

- The notion that acknowledging the president's mistakes will damage him is wildly off the mark. If something he is doing undermines his message, the Democratic base isn't going to be the only entity to notice. This misguided mentality is anathema to improving the Democratic Party. It's also a direct contradiction of President Obama's own words about change coming from the bottom up, his supporters holding him accountable, and his willingness to admit mistakes.

- The influx of new participants presents the netroots with a real opportunity to build on the broad support for a bold Democratic agenda within its ranks. A focused netroots will find itself in a good position to accomplish things it has been working towards for years.


Weak Policy = Bad Politics

It's simplistic, but now more than ever, it's true. Our message machine isn't the feeble shell it used to be, and the GOP has very little credibility left.

Health Care

There is a difference between less than ideal policy and weak policy. Single - payer health care is ideal, but right now it makes sense to focus on passing the best health care legislation possible. This means making sure the public option is included.

Jonathan Cohn, a longtime advocate for Universal Health Care recently wrote about the divide within the administration over the issue. President Obama deserves a tremendous amount of credit for standing his ground, and not being swayed by the faction within his inner - circle that leaned toward delay. Defenders of the Clueless Caucus might say that they "only" wanted to wait, but even that is indefensible. Terrible advice like this shows that prominent Democratic consultants are still capable of scaling Mount Stupid in record time.

It's well - understand how cruel and nonsensical this would be policy wise, but what how can anyone argue it would make for good politics? The concerns mentioned in the article that UHC might not be sufficiently popular with persuadable middle class voters would be laughable if this wasn't such a critical issue. There's a reason why Cons like Bill Kristol and Michelle Bernard positively freak out at the thought of the American people getting the health care system they deserve. If you think the concept of Universal Health Care is popular now, wait until after it's enacted.

While I would bet some kind of polling was behind this concern, there is a ton of public polling showing support for UHC from the country as a whole, and especially from those who either vote for Democrats or are in play. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers what happened when health care came up during one of the presidential debates. Then - Senator Obama followed up John McCain's right - wing idiocy by saying that health care is a right. The response from the much - hyped focus group of Independents was overwhelmingly positive. A national poll taken shortly after the debate showed Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by 39% on health care, and trouncing him in the general election.

Wall Street

We'd all breathe easier if there weren't good reasons to question whether the Obama Administration is sufficiently challenging Wall Street, but there are... Larry Summers guiding policy, an anemic outside economic advisory board, Geithner's nomination of Neal Wolin, Elizabeth Warren's comments about the Treasury Department, etc.

I don't think the claim that personnel is largely irrelevant can pass its own "stress test." It seems to me that advocates of the DLC / Third Way / Hamilton Project approach have drowned out other voices. I'd like to be proven wrong about this, but we should be prepared for the outcome described by Robert Kuttner.

The grave political and economic risk is that Obama continues to let Summers and Geithner lead him down the garden path; the industry-oriented mortgage rescue saves too few homeowners; housing remains in the doldrums and mortgage securities with it; the hedge funds and private equity companies make some money with government guarantees, but the banking system remains comatose; and Republicans increasingly become the instruments of public anger.

Mike Lux on what to do next here and here.

Main Street

And then there is Michigan. The failure to distinguish between the big 3 and the auto workers was a sign of weakness. President Obama could have talked about the changes that need to be made and still done something long overdue; use the bully pulpit to confront the smears about people who have actually contribute to our economy. (I'll admit this wouldn't have won over the DC establishment, which much prefers defending those who devour the economy.)

This Wall Street / Michigan double standard was just the latest example of a problem that goes beyond the White House to the party as a whole. From the UAW to EFCA, we've seen how quickly debates involving unions become fundamentally dishonest if Democrats don't assert themselves.

Falling down on the Rust Belt is politically dangerous, and the mood of the electorate make it even harder to understand. The electorate isn't going to tolerate disingenuous attacks from Republicans and their K Street bosses. If we speak the truth, that they are being lied to again by the same people who got us into this mess, the American people are going to listen. Authenticity, passion, and candor will be admired, not shunned.


Fierce Discontent and Fierce Urgency

The Beltway bubble keep its residents insulated from the consequences of their action, and leads them to embrace cop outs and deeply flawed conventional wisdom. Evan Thomas' acknowledgement of the gap between conventional wisdom and reality received a lot of attention for good reason.

But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking.

This was evident when talking heads came out in droves to condemn the recent wave of populism. To them, talking about stagnant wages makes you a dangerous populist. If you talk about channeling the outrage over ridiculous bonuses into support for re - regulating Wall Street, then you are an extra - scary double populist, and every pundit should be armed with a tranquilizer gun to protect themself from you.

Note: The "we're all in this together" ethos of progressive economic populism are a direct repudiation of right - wing populism. The role economic anxiety plays in fueling the Glenn Beck version is being overlooked.

The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats need to focus on the perspective that really matters. I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating. Out of touch Broderites aren't going to like the Democratic Party at its best, but the rest of the country will.

"On Supporting President Obama" by Michael Conrad receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award

Cross-posted from Progressive Blue: http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3750/on-supporting-president-obama
On Supporting President Obama
by: Michael Conrad
Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 06:35:29 AM EDT

[subscribe]
(the title says it all... - promoted by poligirl)

I'm in the process of streamlining the project I've been working on. In order to make room for other content, I'm posting my general views about what it means to support President Obama now, ahead of the project itself.

Besides being something I can refer to when talking about how progressive populism relates to the Democratic president, I hope this contributes something to the grassroots conversation about values, priorities, goals, and how we reach them. I largely personalized this, as I can only speak for myself, but I'm interested in your feedback.
Michael Conrad :: On Supporting President Obama
The discussion in the netroots about the merits of the president's policies has become increasingly frustrating to many of those involved.

Some thoughts:

- Purposeful criticism is necessary. Part of our job is to hold elected Democrats accountable, whether they're in Congress or the White House.

- Applause and criticism for the Obama Administration are not mutually exclusive.

For example:

The way the president initially went about selling the stimulus was ineffective.
The weekly address he used to rally support for his budget was excellent.

Taking crucial economic advice from the Church of Rubin is bad on numerous levels.
Creating a Middle Class Task Force led by Jared Bernstein was a great move.

- Too much is on the line for this to be about us, or desire for personal vindication.

- President Obama has to deal with a dizzying amount of BS, from right - wing attacks and bizarre protests, to inane chatter from Pundit Land about "doing too much at once" despite the desperate need for action on numerous fronts, to incoherent opposition from members of his own party in the form of the Evan Bayh Vanity Project. Voicing our disagreements with the president isn't going to stop us from aggressively pushing back against the GOP, media hackery, and self - proclaimed "moderate" Democrats.

- If Obama is compared to his immediate predecessors, I think he'll likely clear the bar with ease. With that said, if he is going to get the economy working for everyone, there is a lot that must be done. In this case, very good might not be good enough.

- Merely saying that something is "smart strategy," or that the president is "doing what works" doesn't make it true. Distorting pragmatism is highly counterproductive.

- The notion that acknowledging the president's mistakes will damage him is wildly off the mark. If something he is doing undermines his message, the Democratic base isn't going to be the only entity to notice. This misguided mentality is anathema to improving the Democratic Party. It's also a direct contradiction of President Obama's own words about change coming from the bottom up, his supporters holding him accountable, and his willingness to admit mistakes.

- The influx of new participants presents the netroots with a real opportunity to build on the broad support for a bold Democratic agenda within its ranks. A focused netroots will find itself in a good position to accomplish things it has been working towards for years.


Weak Policy = Bad Politics

It's simplistic, but now more than ever, it's true. Our message machine isn't the feeble shell it used to be, and the GOP has very little credibility left.

Health Care

There is a difference between less than ideal policy and weak policy. Single - payer health care is ideal, but right now it makes sense to focus on passing the best health care legislation possible. This means making sure the public option is included.

Jonathan Cohn, a longtime advocate for Universal Health Care recently wrote about the divide within the administration over the issue. President Obama deserves a tremendous amount of credit for standing his ground, and not being swayed by the faction within his inner - circle that leaned toward delay. Defenders of the Clueless Caucus might say that they "only" wanted to wait, but even that is indefensible. Terrible advice like this shows that prominent Democratic consultants are still capable of scaling Mount Stupid in record time.

It's well - understand how cruel and nonsensical this would be policy wise, but what how can anyone argue it would make for good politics? The concerns mentioned in the article that UHC might not be sufficiently popular with persuadable middle class voters would be laughable if this wasn't such a critical issue. There's a reason why Cons like Bill Kristol and Michelle Bernard positively freak out at the thought of the American people getting the health care system they deserve. If you think the concept of Universal Health Care is popular now, wait until after it's enacted.

While I would bet some kind of polling was behind this concern, there is a ton of public polling showing support for UHC from the country as a whole, and especially from those who either vote for Democrats or are in play. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers what happened when health care came up during one of the presidential debates. Then - Senator Obama followed up John McCain's right - wing idiocy by saying that health care is a right. The response from the much - hyped focus group of Independents was overwhelmingly positive. A national poll taken shortly after the debate showed Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by 39% on health care, and trouncing him in the general election.

Wall Street

We'd all breathe easier if there weren't good reasons to question whether the Obama Administration is sufficiently challenging Wall Street, but there are... Larry Summers guiding policy, an anemic outside economic advisory board, Geithner's nomination of Neal Wolin, Elizabeth Warren's comments about the Treasury Department, etc.

I don't think the claim that personnel is largely irrelevant can pass its own "stress test." It seems to me that advocates of the DLC / Third Way / Hamilton Project approach have drowned out other voices. I'd like to be proven wrong about this, but we should be prepared for the outcome described by Robert Kuttner.

The grave political and economic risk is that Obama continues to let Summers and Geithner lead him down the garden path; the industry-oriented mortgage rescue saves too few homeowners; housing remains in the doldrums and mortgage securities with it; the hedge funds and private equity companies make some money with government guarantees, but the banking system remains comatose; and Republicans increasingly become the instruments of public anger.

Mike Lux on what to do next here and here.

Main Street

And then there is Michigan. The failure to distinguish between the big 3 and the auto workers was a sign of weakness. President Obama could have talked about the changes that need to be made and still done something long overdue; use the bully pulpit to confront the smears about people who have actually contribute to our economy. (I'll admit this wouldn't have won over the DC establishment, which much prefers defending those who devour the economy.)

This Wall Street / Michigan double standard was just the latest example of a problem that goes beyond the White House to the party as a whole. From the UAW to EFCA, we've seen how quickly debates involving unions become fundamentally dishonest if Democrats don't assert themselves.

Falling down on the Rust Belt is politically dangerous, and the mood of the electorate make it even harder to understand. The electorate isn't going to tolerate disingenuous attacks from Republicans and their K Street bosses. If we speak the truth, that they are being lied to again by the same people who got us into this mess, the American people are going to listen. Authenticity, passion, and candor will be admired, not shunned.


Fierce Discontent and Fierce Urgency

The Beltway bubble keep its residents insulated from the consequences of their action, and leads them to embrace cop outs and deeply flawed conventional wisdom. Evan Thomas' acknowledgement of the gap between conventional wisdom and reality received a lot of attention for good reason.

But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking.

This was evident when talking heads came out in droves to condemn the recent wave of populism. To them, talking about stagnant wages makes you a dangerous populist. If you talk about channeling the outrage over ridiculous bonuses into support for re - regulating Wall Street, then you are an extra - scary double populist, and every pundit should be armed with a tranquilizer gun to protect themself from you.

Note: The "we're all in this together" ethos of progressive economic populism are a direct repudiation of right - wing populism. The role economic anxiety plays in fueling the Glenn Beck version is being overlooked.

The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats need to focus on the perspective that really matters. I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating. Out of touch Broderites aren't going to like the Democratic Party at its best, but the rest of the country will.

Has the world become indifferent to human rights atrocities?

The Tamil People being displaced in Sri Lanka, due to the government of Sri Lankan's actions. Photo from Indy Media



by: Karita Hummer

The world sleeps while ethnic strife and atrocities abound. Yet, another sign of the vacuousness of Mainstream Media. Arundhati Roy warns of another great human rights tragedy unfolding in Sri Lanka by the government against the Tamil people of that country. http://www.commondreams.org/vi... She states that "civilian areas, hospitals, and shelters are being bombed and turned into a war zone", against this population." Arundhati Roy, "The Silence Surrounding Sri Lanka", The Boston Globe, Tuesday, March 31, 2009 http://www.commondreams.org/vi... And what excuse does the government of Sri Lanka give? "The War on Terror", apparently following the lead of the United States, who made the War on Terror the excuse for all manner of human rights abuses, in the Iraq War, and yes, in Afghanistan. Much like Israel did in Gaza.

Ethnic conflicts, and especially, those that involve the atrocities that she has described, should gather journalistic attention from all the corners of the world, so they can more readily be stopped in their tracks. Journalistic review used to be one of the word's bulwarks against the escalation of human rights abuse. In Timor, the attention there probably shortened the conflict there. Even in Bosnia, the steady coverage of the atrocious news there probably led to the Dayton peace accords, imperfect as these accords are.

It is heart sickening to see that our own government has given cover to world governments to abandon international human rights laws. It is time we right this wrong, which gives such a sense of impunity to governments to terrorize in the name of the "War on Terror."

More below...
Let us remember that two wrongs don't make a right, either. Hugo Chavez called for the World Court indictment of George Bush rather than Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for crimes in Darfur. Excuse me, that is not justice. Yes, I believe that the Pre-emptive War in Iraq, and the way it was conducted, does warrant World Court examination, but that would never lead me to want to excuse the atrocities committed in Sudan. Let them all - U.S., Sudan, Israel, and Sri-Lanka be examined by the Press and by the World Court.

While blame is being cast, and deciphered, let us not forget our humanitarian responsibilities as facts are sifted. When does neglect itself rise to atrocious levels? I would say that our neglect of Iraqi refugees is, indeed, atrocious and unforgivable.

The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants has sent out an urgent plea to President Obama to remember the Iraqi refugees that fled their country, because the War there. Go there and sign on to the letter: https://secure2.convio.net/usc...

Here is the sample letter to the President the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants' sent to me:

Dear Karita and Paul,

Millions of Iraqi civilians have had to flee their country to escape religious, ethnic, and political violence and it is not clear when they will be able to return. For now, they languish in countries like Syria and Jordan where they are not allowed to work or otherwise establish a real home for their family.
While we begin to remove our troops from Iraq, we must also take action to help these men, women and children. Please ask President Obama to not forget these innocent refugees and to make provision for them a part of any US withdraw planning.

Specifically, ask him to take two actions:

1. Accept more Iraqi refugees for resettlement in the United States

2. Generously help the countries of the region that are hosting refugees by providing funds for their schools, hospitals, and other service institutions that aid refugees along with locals. This funding would be contingent on these host countries allowing Iraqi refugees to work and establish homes for their families.

Many Iraqi refugees are highly skilled professionals who can make substantial contributions to the communities where they settle.
But all are human beings with inherent dignity and the right to provide for their families by their own efforts. They should not be forced into dependence, poverty, and despair upon the "care and maintenance" of international organizations.
Please contact President Obama today and ask him to help Iraqi refugees.

Sincerely,

Lavinia Limon
President, USCRI

To learn more about the work of this great agency advocating for resources for refugees, visit: http://www.refugees.org/

Karita Hummer



Take Action! Ask President Obama to expedite Iraqi refugees' entry in to our Country.

https://secure2.convio.net/usc...