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

[Boston Bread]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: tmthforu94

[tmthforu94]

Hello,

The financial estimate is based off the GM estimates on past legislation - it cost approximately $40 billion for the last set of construction.

I believe expanding our high speed rail will improve the quality of life for Mideasterners and bring more quality jobs to the region. I'm happy to consider any amendments or questions.

[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.

[Hatman 🍁]

Expanding alternative transportation methods is definitely a good thing, so I thank you governor for focusing introducing this legislation.

I would like to point out there appears to be a missing word in section #2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am hesitant about opening up the rail lines to private companies, although I let that stop me from supporting this bill. I wonder if any of my Labor colleagues have any opinions on this?

Finally, these projects often cost vast amounts of money, but they are worth every dime in my opinion. I wonder if we can compensate the costs by deterring people from travelling via motor vehicle between the same cities via tolls? (I would exempt commercial vehicles and any vehicles that are powered by alternative forms of energy from this)

[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.

[Hatman 🍁]

How would tolls reduce the convenience of travel when we would have high speed rail lines? Ideally the tolls would only be instituted upon the completion of the high speed lines.  Also, the tolled highways would only be the one's following the rail routes.

But absolutely we should stop funding highway expansions in the areas being replaced by high speed 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.

[Hatman 🍁]

It would reduce convenience when rail isn't going to be everyone's preferred mode of transport.

Oh no, how terrible. Driving gasoline powered motor vehicles is contributing to climate change which is much more inconvenient, for the planet. (An "inconvenient truth" if you will). People will have to make sacrifices for our environment, and this is one example.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Last time I checked (and this was in my bill) Indianapolis is the Indiana hub.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

These are the routes the Atlasian Senate passed back in 2009:

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 - Milwaukee, WI - Minneapolis, MN
Washington, DC - Philadelphia, PA - New York, NY - Boston, MA
Seattle, WA - Portland, OR- San Fransisco, CA - Los Angeles, CA - San Diego, CA
Dallas, TX - Houston, TX

The DC to Philadephia line probably has a stop in Baltimore, but we could specify a connector hub just in case.

here is a rough map of the current Mideast HSR project being finished, with connectors to the Federal lines to Milwaukee and St Louis from Chicago shown 


Since HSR is expensive, we ought to focus on areas of high traffic, especially between shorter distances. Also we should remember that most traffic is within rather than between metropolitan areas, so long stretches of HSR may not be the single best use of our resources if we are interested in reducing traffic congestion.  It should be part of our transportation strategy, but it can't be anything close to the whole thing.

Right now we have some decent coverage along the Great Lakes. I believe now a line from DC down to Richmond and Hampton would be the most useful, as this corridor sees a great deal of traffic. I don't know that the other corridors being suggested here see the large amount of day-to-day travel that would make a HSR line a priority.

[TDAS04]

I am in favor of this legislation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm not sure what the strategy here is with these locations, but if we are laying down all these rails across wide distances it would make sense to have more intermediary stations, and/or spend some money on other types of transport to get people to these stations.

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

So when the bill says "eight hubs" what does that mean?

[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.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

And the same for Indianapolis, Coloumbus, Cleveland, Louisville, Detroit, etc.

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thanks for putting in the Virginia route. To help with the cost I think we can cancel the Baltimore-DC route as this is already covered by the national HSR bill I referenced earlier.

[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?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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

no problem. I'm not sure of the procedure, but it would make sense for you to have sponsorship of this bill if possible since the original sponsor is no longer here.

Any route through the Appalachians is going to be expensive, but does it make more sense to go through Wheeling/Morgantown instead of Charleston? I imagine the terrain would be easier and its a shorter distance.

[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.

[TDAS04]

Amendment looks sensible.  Let us furnish our infrastructure!

[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.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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