Interesting read on Pittsburgh-Cleveland rail (Youngstown: lawyer, cost, airport)

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yeah, but Keystone East is so far ahead of Keystone West that it will be a long time before insufficient service to Harrisburg is the primary restraint on service to Pittsburgh from points east. I mean you could have a 220MPH train to Harrisburg, and it still wouldn't do much for ridership to Pittsburgh given the current state of Keystone West.

that's not entirely accurate, a large chunk of the market is Pitt-Philly and what matters is total trip time, how trip time improvements are achieved means little in terms of Pitt-Philly, but a lot in terms of intermediate ridership....but given the volume of people in the endpoints, it's not accurate to say it doesn't matter. and if the goal is a 220 mph line to pittburgh, it certainly matters if a third of it has been built already.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Mostly, although people do go from State College, Altoona, Johnstown and so on west to Pittsburgh, and potentially from there beyond.

no, that's true, I guess I should have been more clear. the fares and service will be available to them because of revenue derived from through riders who will likely pay higher fares than they will.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

To me too. I guess they didn't want to be left out of this round of funding, but I'd hate to think it was any sort of priority.

yeah, I guess they thought they'd get the study funded since they had little else they could afford to submit.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Onorato has said good things about the Spine Line, but he is also a politician first and foremost, and he would have to deal with the General Assembly and a major budget crisis. On the plus side, maybe there will be federal financing available. The cynic in me thinks we will be lucky to get some sort of public-private partnership deal, and we may even just get a little money for Rapid Bus, but who knows.

I'm hoping it means the Keystone West studies (they have two, going on three) will finally come to something. would love to see the state support similar projects in its two major cities (the spine lline equivalent in Philly is the boulevard subway, on the books since 1913)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

that's not entirely accurate, a large chunk of the market is Pitt-Philly and what matters is total trip time, how trip time improvements are achieved means little in terms of Pitt-Philly

Yes, but my point is that total trip time to Pittsburgh can't be much improved in meaningful terms by just upgrading service to Harrisburg. According to the Amtrak timetable, Philly to Harrisburg is 104 miles and is scheduled for 1:44. Pittsburgh is another 249 miles (353 total), but is a total time of 7:23 (if you are lucky and there are no delays). Say you could shave 30 minutes off Philly-Harrisburg with 220MPH service. That's a huge improvement for riders to Harrisburg, but it would still be almost 7 hours Philly to Pittsburgh (again, only if no delays). That still isn't really competitive with driving or flying, so the ridership gains are going to be very modest at best.

and if the goal is a 220 mph line to pittburgh, it certainly matters if a third of it has been built already.

OK, but what about the period in between? For Pittsburgh, it would undoubtedly be more useful to use those same funds to start upgrading Keystone West: likely we could get more substantial improvements in trip time to Philly that way, plus we would also have more riders to nearby stops in Western and Central PA.

So yes, from a Pittsburgh perspective, dumping yet more funds into Keystone East would be better than doing absolutely nothing at all. But using those same funds in the same period on Keystone West--or heck, even splitting them evenly--would be better than continuing to dump them all into Keystone East.

By the way, all this is really just basic math: you can only get so much relative improvement on total times by improving speeds on less than 30% of the route.

no, that's true, I guess I should have been more clear. the fares and service will be available to them because of revenue derived from through riders who will likely pay higher fares than they will.

Maybe, although I'm not sure the margins would have to work that way. Western/Central PA, among other things, has been losing decent air service, so you may well be able to squeeze higher margins out of them than you might otherwise think. I think that will depend in part on things like gas prices--the higher they go, the less attractive driving, and therefore the higher the margins you should be able to get.

would love to see the state support similar projects in its two major cities (the spine lline equivalent in Philly is the boulevard subway, on the books since 1913)

There will never be total parity, and really shouldn't be (Philly being a bigger and denser city than Pittsburgh). But I do think we have been somewhat neglected, so for a considerable period we could be closer to parity as a form of catch-up.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yes, but my point is that total trip time to Pittsburgh can't be much improved in meaningful terms by just upgrading service to Harrisburg. According to the Amtrak timetable, Philly to Harrisburg is 104 miles and is scheduled for 1:44. Pittsburgh is another 249 miles (353 total), but is a total time of 7:23 (if you are lucky and there are no delays). Say you could shave 30 minutes off Philly-Harrisburg with 220MPH service. That's a huge improvement for riders to Harrisburg, but it would still be almost 7 hours Philly to Pittsburgh (again, only if no delays). That still isn't really competitive with driving or flying, so the ridership gains are going to be very modest at best.

that doesn't really make sense though, since both sides need to be upgraded (7h23m actually includes padding so some days it's less, some days it's more). currently the pennsylvanian runs at 10 min slower than Keystone trains on the same run because it runs diesel. Knocking 30 min off a Keystone run would require an average speed of 104 mph, which as you can tell doesn't necessitate 220 mph (the Keystone east package was actually a 15 min improvement so it would be above and beyond that) but let's say a 60 min ride is possible to Harrisburg. the train now comes from NY and requires a 25-45 min layover at Philly. at a 60 min to Harrisburg, the train would then run electric to Harrisburg as the time savings would be more substantial. so the turn time at Philly could be reduced to 10 min saving 15 to 35 minutes to NY. Additionally, another ten minutes would be saved over and above the Keystone trip time totally a 45 min reduction. so that's 45 min reduction to harrisburg + 15 min from NY less, let's say, an additional 10 min at Harrisburg for the locomotive change (there is already layover time there). so it nets you 35 min to Philly, 50 min to NY bringing the trip time to 6h50m and 8h40m to NY (more competitive with megabus). while it's not huge, it IS an improvement so I don't get your viewpoint that it's irrelevant. that also means when they slice an hour off the west of, the train will then be 5h50m. in other words, you're already part way there. It's also worth noting that peopel make decisions at the margin. yeah, you're not talking about ridership increases on the exponential scale, but increases of 20% isn't nuts. It might also allow two roundtrips on the same set of equipment which, according to the study, would roughly doubel ridership so let's say an increase of 120% total.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So yes, from a Pittsburgh perspective, dumping yet more funds into Keystone East would be better than doing absolutely nothing at all. But using those same funds in the same period on Keystone West--or heck, even splitting them evenly--would be better than continuing to dump them all into Keystone East.

I don't disagree with this, I just disagree with the sentiment that upgrading the east has no utility whatsoever for those in the west. I never said it's just as beneficial as, just that it's still beneficial and is part of the overall process.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Maybe, although I'm not sure the margins would have to work that way. Western/Central PA, among other things, has been losing decent air service, so you may well be able to squeeze higher margins out of them than you might otherwise think. I think that will depend in part on things like gas prices--the higher they go, the less attractive driving, and therefore the higher the margins you should be able to get.

this is already how the service works. It's part and parcel of any good regional service that the sum of the parts adds up to a decent whole.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There will never be total parity, and really shouldn't be (Philly being a bigger and denser city than Pittsburgh). But I do think we have been somewhat neglected, so for a considerable period we could be closer to parity as a form of catch-up.

Philadelphia hasn't had a rapid transit expansion in my lifetime. the last significant investment was in the 1970's/early 80's when the commuter tunnel and airport line were added, though that indirectly led to the cancelling of several non-electrified lines. both cities have fared poorly in terms of urban transit. I don't expect parity, though that does seem to help get things pushed through (stadiums). both projects are worthwhile, IMO. the one in Philly was to carry 120k riders a day, a huge number, and wasn't the spine line to carry 80k riders a day? both are transformational projects, IMO.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

while it's not huge, it IS an improvement so I don't get your viewpoint that it's irrelevant.

I didn't say it is "irrelevant", I said it "wouldn't do much for ridership to Pittsburgh". Which remains true, because those times you sketched remain too long for the train to compete effectively with cars or airplane travel to Philly or New York.

that also means when they slice an hour off the west of, the train will then be 5h50m. in other words, you're already part way there.

Yes, but again, what about the period before everything gets done? Slicing an hour off Keystone West is a lot more important for Pittsburgh than slicing another 30 minutes off Keystone East, so we'd obviously prefer to get the former done first, then work on the latter, as opposed to the other way around.

It's also worth noting that peopel make decisions at the margin. yeah, you're not talking about ridership increases on the exponential scale, but increases of 20% isn't nuts.

Given threshhold effects, I don't see that being likely (controlling for other factors).

It might also allow two roundtrips on the same set of equipment which, according to the study, would roughly doubel ridership so let's say an increase of 120% total.

I don't understand why upgrading Philly to Harrisburg is necessary to add trips to Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, or indeed why that would be a better idea than actually putting money directly into Keystone West to help support additional service.

I don't disagree with this, I just disagree with the sentiment that upgrading the east has no utility whatsoever for those in the west.

Again, that's not what I said. My point is just that the marginal benefit given the current context, for Pittsburgh, will be much higher for funds spent on Keystone West.

Of course this wouldn't matter if there was no tradeoff between funding for Keystone West and Keystone East. But there is: the feds are going to be requiring a lot of matching from the state, and the state is only going to have so much money to spend on passenger rail given political constraints. So it is going to be a real issue where each of the state's dollars go, because in practice more state money for Keystone East is going to mean less state AND federal money for Keystone West.

That sucks, but that is the reality of the situation.

[maximus1]

Originally Posted by gameguy56

I'd rather Pittsburgh be linked to the East Coast than to Chicago.

Isn't Pittsburg already linked to both by Amtrak?

My map has a line going from Philly to Harrisburg to Pittsburgh to Chicago. The north south line goes from DC to Baltimore to Philly to NY and Boston.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I didn't say it is "irrelevant", I said it "wouldn't do much for ridership to Pittsburgh". Which remains true, because those times you sketched remain too long for the train to compete effectively with cars or airplane travel to Philly or New York.

it seems it's really a matter of semantics, as noted, you could be talking about more than doubling the ridership without a dramatic increase in requried subsidy. certainly far less than would happen with four trips a day at 5 hours, but it's nothing to scoff at either. people make decisions at the margin, the train does surprisingly well even at the slow train times today.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yes, but again, what about the period before everything gets done? Slicing an hour off Keystone West is a lot more important for Pittsburgh than slicing another 30 minutes off Keystone East, so we'd obviously prefer to get the former done first, then work on the latter, as opposed to the other way around.

of course, but that's besides the point.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Given threshhold effects, I don't see that being likely (controlling for other factors).

not sure what you're talking about here, but based on the available study doubling is in fact realistic. 20% increase in base ridership also is certainly attainable. I think perhaps you're threshold is car trip time which is leaving you with bunk assumptions. if one were to cut travel time to five hours, the ridership would be much more than 20%. Keystone east ahs double ridership since work began in 2003 simply by increasing frequency and knocking off ten minutes (though it's reliable). making it competitive with car trips would be a much more substantial decrease in trip time and I wouldn't be surprised if that would, in effect, double the ridership per train (assuming available seats). in short, I stick by that figure as realistic.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't understand why upgrading Philly to Harrisburg is necessary to add trips to Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, or indeed why that would be a better idea than actually putting money directly into Keystone West to help support additional service.

that's because you're thinking about it backwards. that's not what I said, I did say it would allow for that to occur.

yes, you are grasping the gravity of being shafted by the first round which required no match. several points that may not first come to light:
1) the grant would have reduced the oeprating expense of the Keystone east by at least $1 million annually (for signaling alone
2) it would have increased revenue by 50% while decreasing costs restulting in huge net savings, given the way funding works, that oeprating subsidy could then buy another trip to Pittsburgh
3) had the project been funded, Keystone West would not have to compete with Keystone East for scarce state funds

I believe you fundamentally misunderstand my position on this issue. I believe the route should be viewed as a whole with some East projects taking precendence (signaling) and some west (putting back the passenger track and adding turnouts that reflect passenger operations, thus further increasing NS' ability to handle passenger trains). I don't think they are equally beneficial to pittsburgh in particular, but the fact that it wasn't funded is damaging to the state's long term plans (and thus to Pittsburgh which, like it or not, is part of Penn). for future projects we are likely in full agreement on how they should be funded though it seems that nothing is moving whatsoever, and on top of that, Amtrak is required to charge more for it's service over the next couple of years, thus the capital improvements are move important than ever. we could end up with no improvements west of and less service east of and no plans to change any of that.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

ias noted, you could be talking about more than doubling the ridership without a dramatic increase in requried subsidy.

You could double ridership by adding more scheduled trips. As discussed more below, I think we agree that has nothing in particular to do with top speeds on Keystone East.

of course, but that's besides the point.

Regrettably untrue, because we don't and won't have unlimited funds to spend.

not sure what you're talking about here, but based on the available study doubling is in fact realistic.

Do you mean from adding trips? Again, I don't see how that is relevant.

20% increase in base ridership also is certainly attainable. I think perhaps you're threshold is car trip time which is leaving you with bunk assumptions.

I'm not sure where you are pulling that 20% number from. If you can't compete with cars and airplanes on time, you will still get some riders who prefer the train for other reasons. So, marginal improvements in time short of that threshhold may add a few riders, but it won't be many because you are only drawing from a limited pool, and specifically a limited pool who aren't highly sensitive to trip time.

if one were to cut travel time to five hours, the ridership would be much more than 20%.

Indeed, because at five hours you are now more than competitive with driving, and indeed getting competitive with air travel. So now you are into a much bigger pool of potential riders, including the more time-sensitive ones.

But you are asserting a 20% increase by going from 7:20 to 6:50. I just don't see how that is likely.

Keystone east ahs double ridership since work began in 2003 simply by increasing frequency and knocking off ten minutes (though it's reliable).

First, again, increasing frequency (or reliability) is an entirely different issue.

Second, Keystone East was already in the range where it was drawing from a larger, at least partially time-sensitive, pool. The equivalent would be something like once Philly to Pittsburgh was 5.5 hours, knocking it down by 30 minutes could make a big difference. Again, that is true, but much less so when you are at 7 hours.

that's because you're thinking about it backwards. that's not what I said, I did say it would allow for that to occur.

Then I really don't understand the point of bringing it up. Adding more trips would undoubtedly help Pittsburgh ridership substantially, but apparently we agree that is a separate issue from how much increasing top speed on Keystone East would increase Pittsburgh ridership.

yes, you are grasping the gravity of being shafted by the first round which required no match.

I've always "grasped" that. Our only prior disagreement has been on whether Pennsylvania's exclusive focus on Philly to Harrisburg in the past harmed it in this case.

Generally, I apologize if I created the impression I was somehow against federal funding for Keystone East in the first ARRA round, or think it would have made absolutely no difference for Pittsburgh. But that is water under the bridge. I think before any significant federal funding for Keystone is likely in future rounds, we will need to compete the Keystone West study and put together a comprehensive plan for the route. In fact, I think we will likely need to be coordinating with Ohio and points west on promoting this route as part of a greater system.

So I guess we are back to where we left the last conversation. I still think that think we can learn lessons from the first round and do a better job putting together a compelling proposal next time. I gather you disagree. I guess we will again have to leave it at that.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You could double ridership by adding more scheduled trips. As discussed more below, I think we agree that has nothing in particular to do with top speeds on Keystone East.

no, but IT can have something to do with trip times on Keystone East, as already noted.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Do you mean from adding trips? Again, I don't see how that is relevant.

if you can make two trips with the same equipment and reduce your net subsidy you can afford to fund another trip. therefore, relevant.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure where you are pulling that 20% number from. If you can't compete with cars and airplanes on time, you will still get some riders who prefer the train for other reasons. So, marginal improvements in time short of that threshhold may add a few riders, but it won't be many because you are only drawing from a limited pool, and specifically a limited pool who aren't highly sensitive to trip time.

I would consider 20% a few riders and not a transformational number. as noted, the Keystone East doubled its riders with marginal increases in frequency and trip time. Given that one extra frequency is expected to double the ridership with no trip time improvements, 20% seems small. Chicago-St. Louis has added nearly 20% (18.8%)by being on time this year. I think you fundamentally undervalue incremental improvements. don't get too hung up on car times, at each interval there are more people willing to ride. if you became competitive with car times you'd likely be adding a couple roundtrips and you'd be talking about exponential increases. the service would be more akin to Keystone east, carrying over a million riders per year.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Indeed, because at five hours you are now more than competitive with driving, and indeed getting competitive with air travel. So now you are into a much bigger pool of potential riders, including the more time-sensitive ones.
But you are asserting a 20% increase by going from 7:20 to 6:50. I just don't see how that is likely.

I have comparables, and I think you are overvaluing 20%, it's just not that large in the scheme of things. As noted already, Keystone ridership has doubled, Chicago-St. Louis ridership is also up nearly 20% just by being more reliable. 20% isn't nearly as large as you think it is when you are talking about such a low base.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

First, again, increasing frequency (or reliability) is an entirely different issue.

actually, this is incorrect. reliability is effective trip time and is very much the same thing.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Second, Keystone East was already in the range where it was drawing from a larger, at least partially time-sensitive, pool. The equivalent would be something like once Philly to Pittsburgh was 5.5 hours, knocking it down by 30 minutes could make a big difference. Again, that is true, but much less so when you are at 7 hours.

all are time sensitive to some extent. and again, I'm saying that a small incremental increase of 20% is reasonable. I'm sure you understand quite well how %'s fluctuate with a small base, as the service grows, the % increases become harder to achieve. for example, when the keystone shot up 15k riders per month from ~71k it clocked in at over 20%. the next 15k is ~17%, the next 14.8%, 12.9%, and so on.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Then I really don't understand the point of bringing it up. Adding more trips would undoubtedly help Pittsburgh ridership substantially, but apparently we agree that is a separate issue from how much increasing top speed on Keystone East would increase Pittsburgh ridership.

I'm not sure how to make it simpler. I'm not sure why you're obessed with top speed of the Keystone either when clearly trip time has been the main driver. top speed impacts trip time but it's not the sole driver. for example, signaling would likely net you ~5 minutes in addition to lowering your operating costs because certain segments of the line are dark or don't have cab signaling. any improvement that makes a second trip affordable, undoubtedly helps ridership. they are all related, the east of and west of services aren't two disconnected pieces.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Generally, I apologize if I created the impression I was somehow against federal funding for Keystone East in the first ARRA round, or think it would have made absolutely no difference for Pittsburgh. But that is water under the bridge. I think before any significant federal funding for Keystone is likely in future rounds, we will need to compete the Keystone West study and put together a comprehensive plan for the route. In fact, I think we will likely need to be coordinating with Ohio and points west on promoting this route as part of a greater system.

and I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. the reason they put the East up for funding is that it's likely no matter what the west does, this segment won't be changed anytime soon(in other words, we're a long time away form new alignments there). It's a sad fact about the way government operates that it has two completed studies regarding Keystone west, neither of which looked at improving trip time. Anyway, when applying for the first round, most important was what was ready...oh, and what politicians wanted to look good doing (scranton). It's a sad reality that the FRA awards were as influenced by political motivations as they were transportation improvements but it's not terribly surprising. worse, the whole program has very little to show for it and most states are struggling to find money for round 2. In a perfect world, much of Keystone East, Portland-Boston, and Chicago-St. Louis would have been funded as well as perhaps Seattle-Portland. It's been discouraging watching florida try to build the world's shortest high speed route with several stops, with one end not even downtown....Wisconsin has been more encouraging as they've chose a downtown site, even if it means some day madison will be bypassed by chicago-MSP trains (who knows when that day will come).

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So I guess we are back to where we left the last conversation. I still think that think we can learn lessons from the first round and do a better job putting together a compelling proposal next time. I gather you disagree. I guess we will again have to leave it at that.

going back earlier in this thread, I don't disagree, I'm frustrated by the fact the state seems to have learned nothing and has put everything on hold. we disagreed on the root cause. the state never had a plan before and that's what hurt it most (not, as you assert, that it wasn't a regional plan...it's perhaps more likely that our venerable politicians pushed for the wrong projects behidn closed doors as specter stumped for scranton, not keystone east), i think, but really that's only part of it. PA isn't an important state, politically, and the fRA veered far away from it's mandate to implement 110 mph service in funding the 3C( average speed of 38 mph) adn the Brunswick extension of the downeaster but not double tracking the Boston-Portland section. I suppose it's to be expected, this country hasn't managed anything right in decades. the sole bright spot is that the state has a decent passenger and freight rail plan now and most importantly, is undertaking a study on Keystone West. However, if they were determined to improve things, they'd be applying for signaling upgrades with a match but with Act 44 dead, there isn't any capital money. I suppose PennDOT might simply be waiting to see what comes out of the special legislative session, if anything. The state really needs to move forward and view federal help as a bonus as the feds are often unreliable at best. they more often give you ten dollars and take fifteen out of your back pocket.
from NARP

[SIZE=1]There are growing concerns about sharp increases in state payments for intercity passenger trains that may be required by Section 209 of the big 2008 reauthorization law, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]The critical paragraph, which takes effect within five years after enactment (that is, by October 18, 2013), requires equal treatment “in the provision of like services of all States and groups of States” and “allocates to each route the costs incurred only for the benefit of that route and a proportionate share, based upon factors that reasonably reflect relative use, of costs incurred for the common benefit of more than 1 route.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]It has been obvious for some time that this law poses major problems for “legacy corridors”—primarily New York’s Empire Corridor and Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac—whose operations are funded 100% by Amtrak. Based on discussions at the May 19 Federal Railroad Administration workshop in Kansas City, what appears to be new information is the seriousness of the problems PRIIA Section 209 may visit upon lines for states already help fund.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]

[/SIZE]

Pennsylvania’s roads are worse now than four years ago despite the more than $600 million in federal stimulus dollars provided for projects, according to a new report released by the American Society of Civil Engineers on Monday.
State transit has also declined over that period, ASCE reported in the 2010 Report Card for Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure, which said long-term funding solutions are needed for public transportation and roads.
Pennsylvania’s roads and transit were both rated a D minus, down from grades of D and D plus, respectively, when graded by ASCE in 2006.

Read more: Traffic report for the future troubling in Pennsylvania, engineers group says - Philadelphia Business Journal

[BrianTH]

As a global response, I think you have made an excellent case that the big factors in improving Pittsburgh ridership would be increasing the number of trips and reliability, both of which require investment directly in Keystone West. And you could also get more of a trip time decrease by investing in Keystone West. So the obvious conclusion is that compared to investing in Keystone West, investing in Keystone East would do relatively little to increase ridership in Pittsburgh, which has been my point all along.

In a perfect world . . .

In a perfect world, instead of devoting everything to Keystone East, Pennsylvania would long ago have been working with Ohio and other states in the Midwest on a comprehensive HSR plan including a line from Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh and Cleveland.

the reason they put the East up for funding . . .

The reason they put the East up for funding is that for a very long time there has been an informal agreement at the state level to fund Keystone East and ignore Keystone West, and in any event, when suddenly federal money was on the table, the best they could do was propose dumping even more money into Keystone East because they had so completely neglected Keystone West in the past.

not, as you assert, that it wasn't a regional plan

As you know I think are very wrong, and I hope the state doesn't make the same mistake going forward.

PA isn't an important state, politically

Western PA and Eastern Ohio are very important regions when it comes to federal politics. If Pennsylvania wants to get in on federal money, it needs to understand this is a usable asset.

The state really needs to move forward and view federal help as a bonus as the feds are often unreliable at best.

Again, I really couldn't disagree more. I think the federal money we have seen so far is actually just the tip of the iceberg, and it would be criminally negligent for Pennsylvania not to be thinking strategically about how to maximize its chance of getting into future rounds.

In any event, this is just repeating our prior debates. I think there are obvious lessons to be learned about what policies would strategically position us for future federal funding rounds, which happen to be the right policies on the merits as well. You think we might as well stick with business as usual because we did nothing wrong, we just got screwed, and so the situation is hopeless. I very much hope the state doesn't share your attitude and beliefs.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

As a global response, I think you have made an excellent case that the big factors in improving Pittsburgh ridership would be increasing the number of trips and reliability, both of which require investment directly in Keystone West. And you could also get more of a trip time decrease by investing in Keystone West. So the obvious conclusion is that compared to investing in Keystone West, investing in Keystone East would do relatively little to increase ridership in Pittsburgh, which has been my point all along.

and I've never disagreed except with your distaste for any investment in Keystone East (actually, the state stands to gain a lot from modernizing the signaling, as is they pay both for the dispatch desk, someone to make phone calls, and guys to throw the switch as opposed to the guy at the desk doing all those things with a computer system). that said, the more I think about it, the more I think the state made a tactical mistake. they didn't submit Keystone West tacitly because they didn't want to build something they'd have to undo later. However, it's extremely unlikely that the things called for in their extant plan for Keystone West would have prevented faster running. moreover, given the lack of a necessary match, it was quite stupid not to submit the request for extra turnouts and track even at current speeds.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

In a perfect world, instead of devoting everything to Keystone East, Pennsylvania would long ago have been working with Ohio and other states in the Midwest on a comprehensive HSR plan including a line from Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh and Cleveland.

a real one at that

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The reason they put the East up for funding is that for a very long time there has been an informal agreement at the state level to fund Keystone East and ignore Keystone West, and in any event, when suddenly federal money was on the table, the best they could do was propose dumping even more money into Keystone East because they had so completely neglected Keystone West in the past.

that's not entirely true. they also put up maglev for funding in Pittsburgh and the Scranton-hoboken route. moreover, Keystone could be developed quickly because a plan for the eastern portion had been developed a long time ago and included the commuter agency. this is in large part because it's owned and operated by Amtrak and could be done much more quickly. when the plan was originally developed, Keystone east was in far worse shape with OTP far below the pittsburgh leg. It also seems likely that support in western PA chose to push mag lev rather than Keystone West.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

As you know I think are very wrong, and I hope the state doesn't make the same mistake going forward.

yes I know, even though you have no logical basis for doing so.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Western PA and Eastern Ohio are very important regions when it comes to federal politics. If Pennsylvania wants to get in on federal money, it needs to understand this is a usable asset.

western PA needs to move on from mag lev. OH already has squeezed out more than their crap plans deserved. there's nothing high speed about the 3C's which is far from being competitive with a car.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, I really couldn't disagree more. I think the federal money we have seen so far is actually just the tip of the iceberg, and it would be criminally negligent for Pennsylvania not to be thinking strategically about how to maximize its chance of getting into future rounds.

you don't really understand my point of view at all (aside form the fact there's nothing criminal about it). I certainly think the state should be thinking about strategically thinking about moving forward with or without federal funds.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

In any event, this is just repeating our prior debates. I think there are obvious lessons to be learned about what policies would strategically position us for future federal funding rounds, which happen to be the right policies on the merits as well. You think we might as well stick with business as usual because we did nothing wrong, we just got screwed, and so the situation is hopeless. I very much hope the state doesn't share your attitude and beliefs.

you continue to make things up that I never said and pull lessons out of you butt. I never said to stick with business as usual, you made that up. you said the feds didn't fund it because it wasn't part of a network, that's also made up. I said it hurts the whole state that Keystone east wasn't funded. I also firmly believe the state should be moving forward on small projects rather than nothing at all. the Keystone west study is already funded, and when the study comes back, they shoudl incorporate that into the plan, which would likely allow for reliable through service to cleveland. If I were in charge, the second train to pittsburgh would start tomorrow but I'm not. quite the contrary to your opinion, I think Pennsylvania needs to change. it's incredible that any investment at all got done in this state. despite all the talk about infrastructure from rendell, our situation continues to deteriorate. the Keystone east plan dates to ridge and schweiker. meanwhile, in 2002 they signed an eggregious benefits package that is set to plunge the state into a fiscal crisis. until last year, Penndot didn't even have a rail department much less an integrated one (passenger and freight were separate despite using the same tracks). and you have still conveniently overlooked the fact that the feds are essentially pulling all funding for intercity trains (with the notable exception of the very expensive overnight trains). that's what narp is saying. the feds do nothing better than pass unfunded mandates, at least in the real world. it's possible we finally will get a real rail program but if PA moves ahead now anyway on their own what have they lost? nothing. there are always worthy projects that can get funded with such a huge backlog.