High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[mhays]

True, the middle is how he'll win. Being an idealist is how you lose, and ensure that your ideals are never realized.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

According to this analysis, Obama will be re-elected in 2012 and renew an expansive commitment to infrastructure in 2013.

Okay, but..... that's another 2 years (4 years total) wasted. Are we gonna have to wait that long for inner-city rail infrastructure like LA's 30/10 plan (which he hasn't publicly even acknowledged)?

And even if it's true, is his infrastructure plan gonna be more ambitious than his previous, in order to keep up with originally planned target dates?

[zilfondel]

Yeah, just thought I'd chime in: wait until the Transit Reauth bill. Probably won't happen for awhile, with the federal shutdown. We'll be lucky to get mail delivered... it'll be like Europe!

[202_Cyclist]

Okay, but..... that's another 2 years (4 years total) wasted. Are we gonna have to wait that long for inner-city rail infrastructure like LA's 30/10 plan (which he hasn't publicly even acknowledged)?

Obama called the 30/10 plan last year a template for the nation. Secretary LaHood talks about the importance of the 30/10 plan every opportunity he gets. DOT officials have testified before Congress about the benefits of this.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun...utten-20100609

Obama is the President but the presidency is only one of three branches of government. He has to deal with a divided Senate filled with overly-cautious Democrats and the House that views any investment in transportation, education, clean energy, etc, as a secret conspiracy to make us like the French, as well as the John Roberts, Inc. Supreme Court.

[aquablue]

I hope that's a joke. I guess I won't be staying in this country if it is being led by a bunch of paranoids.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Also, can anybody tell me why Clinton never got anything big done in this area? In an era of booming economy and democratic leadership?

Put simply, he was from Arkansas. Rail and transit spending was never a priority for him. Before him was Carter, who was also Southern, but more importantly was too unpopular to get anything done.

Really, you have to go back to LBJ to find a Democratic president with a solid commitment to funding transit (he created the US Department of Transportation, in fact). He was also Southern, but his Great Society ideals included revitalizing impoverished inner cities through new transportation systems, new housing, and urban renewal.

The last big wave of construction on the Chicago and New York systems occurred during the Johnson administration, and his policies were what led to the construction of heavy-rail systems in DC, Atlanta, and the SF Bay.

[Beta_Magellan]

I think I'm going to be sick:

TransportationNation
High-Speed Rail Gutted In Spending Deal
Posted on April 12, 2011.

(Washington, DC — Todd Zwillich, Transportation Nation) It’s been a bad week for some of President Obama’s cherished domestic programs, but perhaps for none more so than high speed rail.

Details of the nearly six-month spending deal that kept the government from shutting down came out overnight. They contain a whopping $2.9 billion cut for high-speed rail projects. Keep in mind the one-week spending bill used to buy time for the bill-writers on Capitol Hill cut another $1.5 billion from the program immediately.

You can do the math yourself, but that’s a staggering $4.4 billion cut to high speed rail in the span of four days. And it means the project won’t be funded at all this year. More details as they emerge.

[202_Cyclist]

I suppose there isn't enough money for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent (who have 24 percent of our nation's wealth), endless war in Iraq/Afghanistan (Libya?), and modern, reliable, transportation infrstructure. We have to make tough choices.

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

I think I'm going to be sick:

No, the interpretation of the language that is in the House bill is ugly, but not quite that ugly. It apparently zeros the HSIPR funding for FY11 from the previous House bill of $2.5 billion and rescinds $400 million from the FY10 funding. Don't add the amounts in the 1 week CR and the final CR. Don't know if these amounts were agreed to last Friday or if it the House Republican committee members cutting more figuring the President will have to sign it.

If this passes the Senate without a change and the President signs it, then there will be only $2 billion of Florida HSIPR funds to redistribute. And ZERO funding for FY11. I guess the White House's strategy is that they will fight for HSR in the upcoming Transportation Reauthorization bill, but by folding on this, it puts the administration into a much weaker position.

Amtrak also gets a cut of $78 million from FY10 levels for capital and debt service funding. Not a disaster for Amtrak, but it is not the $150 to $300 million increase that was in earlier versions of the House and Senate FY11 appropriations bills. Which means track improvement projects for the NEC, equipment overhauls, basic maintenance, maybe even the conversion to e-ticketing get delayed or postponed.

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

I think I'm going to be sick:

This was bound to happen once the Dems lost the elections last November. I wouldn't be surprised if they cut more funding for HSR also.

[Beta_Magellan]

More details:

TransportationNation
UPDATE: Spending Deal Spreads Pain Across Transpo Projects, HSR Gutted
Posted on April 12, 2011.

(Todd Zwillich, Transportation Nation) Transportation cuts in Capitol Hill’s budget deal are coming into clearer focus — and while high-speed rail retains some funding, almost all types of transportation take a big hit.

Appropriations aides on both sides of the aisle say that $2.9 billion is the limit of the deal’s cuts to high-speed rail. A previous cut of $1.5 billion had spread fears that the actual cuts were cumulative at $4.4 billion. Still, the $2.9 billion means President Obama’s signature transportation initiative is left with no funding whatsoever for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Obama Administration officials point out that the Department of Transportation still has $2 billion on hand for high-speed rail projects. That means the program isn’t dead, just unfunded for this year. “The Obama Administration looks forward to working with states eager to build the foundation for a world-class rail network,” read a statement released by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, called the cuts “politically appealing” but short-sighted, especially in the face of rising gas prices. “Passenger rail in the U.S. is poised to set another annual record for ridership, so travelers are voting with their feet to some extent. It makes it even more critical that those investments that are being made be done right,” Puentes told Transportation Nation in an email.

And it’s not just high-speed rail that takes a hit. The budget agreement chops nearly $1 billion from transit assistance. And while infrastructure projects funded by the Highway Trust Fund stay pretty much at fiscal 2010 levels, other road projects take a major hit. The final budget deal took $3.2 billion in spending authority for highway projects away from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, including more than $600 million in old earmarks.

Originally Posted by afiggatt

I guess the White House's strategy is that they will fight for HSR in the upcoming Transportation Reauthorization bill, but by folding on this, it puts the administration into a much weaker position.

Unfortunately, new transportation bill=new revenue source, so any progress here is unlikely due to Republicans' dogmatic insistence that revenues can't increase.

[ardecila]

Maybe it's a good thing Florida sent their money back... that $2 billion will have to sustain the momentum of the HSIPR program through 2011.

I'm fairly optimistic about the eventual highway bill. Historically, transportation bills have been the most bi-partisan legislation to go through Congress, because everyone wants a piece of the pie. Tying transit funding to highway funding, in retrospect, seems like a pretty shrewd move - a major transit spending bill would not pass Congress by itself. I think rail can be passed through Congress the same way.

If Obama can work to craft a new highway bill before his term is up, he can point to rail projects nearing completion in Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, Washington, etc to use as justification for an ongoing spending program on rail.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Historically, transportation bills have been the most bi-partisan legislation to go through Congress, because everyone wants a piece of the pie. Tying transit funding to highway funding, in retrospect, seems like a pretty shrewd move - a major transit spending bill would not pass Congress by itself. I think rail can be passed through Congress the same way.

If Obama can work to craft a new highway bill before his term is up, he can point to rail projects nearing completion in Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, Washington, etc to use as justification for an ongoing spending program on rail.

I agree. I just wish Obama and the Democrats had spent as much time and effort renewing the Transportation funding as they had on health insurance the first two years of the Obama's administration. Instead, all the increase in transportation funding came from discretionary general funds. Just about every discretionary program is getting cut now. Big mistake! It would had been better to fund these programs from its own revenue sources, even if that meant raising the Federal gas tax.

[aquablue]

I'm constantly amazed how backwards this country has become.

England has austerity measures and they are planning a 250mph train line. Of course, they actually are smart about their future.


I can't understand why republicans can just not see the logic in transit or infrastructure spending. Don't they sit in traffic and breath the air? Isn't it the party of the religious right? Wouldn't God like them to care a little for the creation he has made? How can they possibly be so self-righteous over abortion and anti-gay marriage while allowing fossil fuels to pollute the country? What hypocrites!! I've come to the conclusion that they are actually schizo. How in the world can you be all for religious values and then turn around and cut environmentally friendly transit and spend billions on wasteful missiles and wars? Jesus would be appalled. The party of hypocrisy, yes indeed.

The best chance we have of seeing HSR in one's country is to emmigrate. I really expect nothing now, but i'll expect something will have to be done eventually giving the situation with oil and population growth. I'm done with this mental masturbation until tracks are on the ground and trains are ordered.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by aquablue

I'm constantly amazed how backwards this country has become.

I can't understand why republicans can just not see the logic in transit or infrastructure spending. Don't they sit in traffic and breath the air? Isn't it the party of the religious right? Wouldn't God like them to care a little for the creation he has made? How can they possibly be so self-righteous over abortion and anti-gay marriage while allowing fossil fuels to pollute the country? What hypocrites!! I've come to the conclusion that they are actually evil. How in the world can you be all for religious values and then turn around and cut environmentally friendly transit and spend billions on wasteful missiles and wars? Jesus would be appalled. The party of hypocrisy, yes indeed.

The best chance we have of seeing HSR in our lifetimes is to emmigrate. I really expect nothing, and I'm done here until tracks are on the ground.

They understand the logic. Why should they be willing to subsidize something they don't use? Would you ever buy something you will never use?

Most would be for rapid transit if it ran at a profit. But it doesn't, and they can't quite see the charity to subsidize it either. Will anyone die without public transit? Does public transit directly improve the quality of their lives? What would directly improve their lives is an extra freeway lane or two. And that's the infrastructure improvements they will support.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by electricron

I agree. I just wish Obama and the Democrats had spent as much time and effort renewing the Transportation funding as they had on health insurance the first two years of the Obama's administration. Instead, all the increase in transportation funding came from discretionary general funds. Just about every discretionary program is getting cut now. Big mistake! It would had been better to fund these programs from its own revenue sources, even if that meant raising the Federal gas tax.

Two remarks:

1. A multi-year transportation bill could still be mucked with and raided through amendments.

2. With gas prices where they are now, any increase in the gas tax is pretty much a non-starter. When raising the gas tax is suggested, it's explicitly suggested that revenues go to deficit reduction or debt servicing, not transportation. And even if it were to go to transportation, diverting revenue to rail would have been very difficult--Amtrak spent the better part of its existence trying to wring a share from gas taxes.

As it stands today, I'd be skeptical of any real progress being made on transportation financing until 2012 at the earliest, with 2016 (assuming a Democrat takes office) or 2020-24 (assuming a Republican takes office in 2016) being more likely IMO.

In any event, this hits California the hardest--if they can't find a lot of private financing it looks like CAHSR is going to die in its crib a la FOX.

[aquablue]

2020-24? Ahahahaha... Can you imagine how far behind the country will be the rest of the world then if nothing is done from now and then. God, this is bleak. I'm plotting my move out of here. I mean, if that is the case, i'll be an old man by the time anything is built. Why should I waste my life in a country that basically has nothing in common with my values and ideals?

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by aquablue

2020-24? Ahahahaha... Can you imagine how far behind the country will be the rest of the world then if nothing is done from now and then. God, this is bleak. I'm plotting my move out of here.

Meh , the Northeast will be its own country by then......

[aquablue]

^^funny, but that would never happen Lay off the smokes.

Oh, and it will be fantastic when places like Brazil, Argentina, and India have proper HSR far sooner than us.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by electricron

Most would be for rapid transit if it ran at a profit. But it doesn't, and they can't quite see the charity to subsidize it either. Will anyone die without public transit? Does public transit directly improve the quality of their lives? What would directly improve their lives is an extra freeway lane or two. And that's the infrastructure improvements they will support.

Please. The highways they support do not run at a profit; nor is the government supposed to run at a profit; one of the roles of government is providing public goods; by definition these cannot be provided at a profit. Perhaps more strictly PT might be deemed a merit good; its use actually produces beneficial spillovers for non-users.

As to your assertion that PT does not improve their lives; this is either myopia, delusion or outright lying.
What would improve their lives most dramtically are alternative to getting around that do not involve getting in a car and adding to the congestion costs and the concomitant environmental cost associated with these.

I shudder to think if Chicago for instance had no PT and the 2.2 million+ people who use PT on a given weekday were suddenly thrown onto the roads.

PT has demonstrable and quantifiable benefits that can be measured in $ saved; just because the benefits may be diffuse or may be difficult to measure does not mean they do not exist