Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Train That Never Was ...
Sigh .............
The Train That Never Was : MooreThink.com:
"The cost of a similar high speed route across Florida today is probably double the estimated price in year 2000 dollars. We keep spending our money and gas tax dollars on more roads to encourage more cars and we become skeptical when the trains run empty without acknowledging we’ve never built the rails to connect to enough destinations. The roads weren’t crowded either until we built a network."
The Train That Never Was : MooreThink.com:
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama plots huge railroad expansion
- From Dave Rogers @ Politico
Last week, Emanuel greatly upped the ante, asking House-Senate negotiators for $10 billion for high-speed rail — far more than either bill provided.
Last week, Emanuel greatly upped the ante, asking House-Senate negotiators for $10 billion for high-speed rail — far more than either bill provided.
Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.
The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.
Yet for all the high stakes, the pieces didn’t fall into place until the end of deliberations on the recovery bill. And the way in which they did is revealing of the often late-breaking decisions — and politics — that shaped the final package.
As a candidate for president, Obama spoke of high-speed rail as part of his vision of “rebuilding America.” Campaigning in Indiana, he talked of revitalizing the Midwest by connecting cities with faster rail service to relieve congestion and improve energy conservation.
“The time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation connecting all these cities,” he said. “And think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America.”
But the administration never emphasized high-speed rail when the House Appropriations Committee was writing its bill in January, so no money was included. The first real request came only days before the Senate Appropriations panel marked up, and the committee had to scramble to find room for $2 billion — in part by cutting other Obama priorities.
“I put it in there for the president,” Emanuel said in an interview. “The president wanted to have a signature issue in the bill, his commitment for the future.”
Emanuel himself was excited by the idea, but the decision to wager so much on high-speed rail reflected the fact that other candidates for a signature Obama issue were fading.
Moderate Senate Republicans, whose votes were needed, were resisting the president’s school construction initiative. Modernizing the nation’s electric grid, another White House favorite, seemed to have lost some of its cachet.
High-speed rail sailed through with surprisingly little attention paid to the president’s role.
The same Maine and Pennsylvania Republican moderates who had criticized Obama’s school construction initiative were more accepting of the rail funds, since the Northeast corridor has a major stake in more improvements. To help pay for the added cost, a business tax break — providing a five-year carry back for net operating losses — was narrowed to keep the focus more on smaller firms with receipts of less than $15 million.
At the same time, conservative Republicans seemed almost blind to Obama’s role. Instead, in their campaign to find pork barrel projects in the stimulus bill, they painted the whole funding as a scheme by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on behalf of Las Vegas interests seeking a rail link to Los Angeles. “Sin City to Tomorrow Land” was one description.
Here is Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) explaining her vote against the bill Friday despite the benefits to her home state: “Michigan is a state of about 10 million people, and we are the hardest hit, as I said, by this economy. And yet we are expected to get approximately $7 billion from this bill. And apparently the Senate majority leader has earmarked $8 billion for a rail system from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? You have got to be kidding. You have got to be kidding.”
In fact, there’s little evidence that Reid had a decisive role, although he was happy to see his name mentioned for the sake of voters at home.
“It’s amazing. I’m stunned,” he said in an interview Friday, hours before the bill passed Congress. “I’m glad I get the credit in Nevada, but this is Obama’s No. 1 priority. This is his legacy issue out of this bill, because we need these high-speed corridors. ... I’ll take credit but frankly didn’t have much to do with it other than carry forward with what Obama wanted.”
Big hurdles remain. Critics already argue that the money is misplaced in a stimulus bill since it will be hard to spend quickly. Much depends on winning the cooperation of Class 1 freight lines that control many of the rights of way outside the Northeast.
But it is a landmark transportation investment with regional effects in almost every corner of the nation. Just last October, former President George W. Bush signed a bill authorizing up to $1.5 billion for high-speed rail through 2013. Obama’s commitment in the same period will be eight times that.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is given 60 days to come up with a strategic plan for the funds. The combination of large capital upfront — followed by annual appropriations — fits the prototype for the infrastructure bank once considered for, but never included in, the recovery bill.
“High-speed rail is the infrastructure bank,” said Emanuel, and the legislation gives LaHood discretion to assign “priority to projects that support the development of intercity high-speed rail service.”
There is some precedent. At the height of the New Deal, FDR’s Public Works Administration played a role in persuading the Pennsylvania Railroad to complete the electrification of its Washington-New York line and finish Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station. Today, the government could make capital investments that both benefit freight operations and facilitate high-speed passenger service. With the drop in freight traffic, the railroads might be more cooperative, although they are sure to want some liability protection for accidents.
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
Sunday, February 15, 2009
New Day for Transportation with Significant Investment in Rail
"This groundbreaking legislation will give people expanded travel options, while creating or supporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs," said American Public Transportation Association (APTA) President
The economic recovery legislation provides
The legislation also includes for the first time, a significant investment of
"With public transportation ridership at modern record levels and local and state transit ballot initiatives resoundingly approved by voters, the American people have demonstrated that they want more public transit services," said Millar. "Congress is listening to the public and this legislation is responding to the public will."
Pointing out that Congress also included tax incentives to encourage transit commute benefits at the same level as parking benefits, Millar said, "We are very pleased that Congress, for the first time, has made the transit commute benefit equal to the parking benefit, which is currently
"Investing in public transportation and intercity and high speed rail is part of the solution to helping build a stronger economy," said Millar. "Passage of this legislation is a win-win for American workers who need jobs and for the millions of people who take public transportation and passenger rail."
APTA is a nonprofit international association of 1,500 member organizations including public transportation systems; planning, design, construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; and state associations and departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical public transportation services and products. APTA members serve more than 90 percent of persons using public transportation in
SOURCE American Public Transportation Association
Saturday, February 14, 2009
A Future Interstate Rail Network
This is an awesome start in visualizing a national Rail network!
A Future Interstate Rail Network - Redux « the transport politic
A Future Interstate Rail Network - Redux « the transport politic
Friday, February 13, 2009
be careful what you wish for
Economist.com - Infrastructure
Be careful what you wish for
Spending on infrastructure could easily run amok
Be careful what you wish for
Feb 5th 2009 | CHICAGO AND NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
From The Economist print edition
Spending on infrastructure could easily run amok
“WE WILL create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s,” declared Barack Obama back on December 6th. The words rang blissfully in the ears of enthusiasts for public works across the country.
| |
 | |
Not all the money will be wasted |
Then came the stimulus proposals in Congress. On January 28th the House passed an $819 billion bill with about $100 billion devoted to infrastructure, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The Senate’s version, at around $900 billion, is still under debate. Whatever emerges from Congress, it will be merely a “down-payment”, says Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania’s gravel-voiced governor.
A main conflict lies between the need to spend quickly and the desire to spend well. Much emphasis has been placed on projects that are “shovel-ready”, and with good reason. Every $1 billion spent on transport infrastructure creates 35,000 jobs, according to the Department of Transportation. The rush to spend, however, may exacerbate a troubling trend. For years federal money has been distributed haphazardly. Now, as David Paterson, New York’s governor, dryly puts it, “Everyone with a shovel says they’re shovel-ready.” A few bad projects are seeking new life from the stimulus. Connecticut is rumoured to be reviving an old plan to build a road long dismissed as unnecessary.
There is at least one way to reconcile speed with strategic investment. Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, suggests that money should be spent only on maintaining existing assets such as pipes, roads, public transport and bridges. Money would not be thrown at unworthy new projects. Fixing old roads also supposedly creates 9% more jobs than building new ones. Such a provision, however, is not in place. The states have almost complete jurisdiction over how the stimulus money is spent; Congress is not even earmarking funds for particular purposes.
Some states are planning well. Others are more problematic. Almost half of Massachusetts’s transport request is devoted to buses and trains, which create 19% more jobs than investing in new roads. All the money for roads will go towards maintenance. The transport requests of 19 states are public; of these, more than half have asked for 80% of the funding to go to roads, mostly towards new ones.
One advantage of the stimulus, according to Mr Puentes, is that it will track where money is spent, so that politicians will see which investments are still needed. This presumes that the stimulus is only the beginning of a larger, more strategic plan. Robert Yaro, of New York’s Regional Plan Association, is concerned that there is still no national vision. On January 28th ASCE estimated that $2.2 trillion is needed over the next five years to raise the nation’s infrastructure from a “D” to a “B”. The House bill has only $9 billion for public transport and $30 billion for highways. An amendment to add $25 billion in infrastructure spending to the Senate’s bill failed on February 3rd. This may be a blessing, given how the money is likely to be spent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
