Transit under Obama-Biden

[msutton]

Here's hoping to some major strides in mass transit in the next 4 (or 8!) years. With Joe Biden riding second-in-command, looks like we might have a good chance at getting additional support and development of regional rail and Amtrak:

"The campaign's emphasis on infrastructure extends to transportation policy as well. As explained at The Daily Kos, Vice-President Elect Joe Biden famously rides Amtrak to work, and was the original co-sponsor of the Amtrak Reauthorization Bill. "For 30 years, I have witnessed Congress dangling a carrot in front of Amtrak's eyes, funding it just enough for it to limp along," said Biden as he introduced an early version of the bill. "And I'll tell you, this has to stop. Now is the time to commit politically and financially to a strong, safe, and efficient passenger rail system."

"I think the first step in solving any problem is properly defining it," says David Goldberg, Communications Director for Transportation For America, a coalition of organizations advocating for change in transportation policy. "I think Obama's defining transportation as a metropolitan issue is very promising. We have to temper our enthusiasm a little bit, because in the debates and on the trail, he has singled out roadbuilding as an important issue. But I think his administration is likely to support a direct relationship of the federal government in terms of funding and accountability on transportation issues." "

from http://planetizen.com/node/35907

[jsoto3]

http://t4america.org/

http://t4america.org/docs/buildforamerica.pdf

Petition to Obama for action:
http://action.smartgrowthamerica.org/t/3224/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=160

[RobertB]

The campaign has continued its web-based focus with http://www.change.gov/ which is chock full of policy wonky goodness. The president-elect lists two dozen separate issues, from "Civil Rights" and "Defense" through "Foreign Policy" to "Veterans" and "Women", each of which goes into great detail about the new team's plans for the next 4-8 years.

Where's "Transportation"? It's under "Additional Issues", and gets all of one paragraph:

Transportation
As our society becomes more mobile and interconnected, the need for 21st-century transportation networks has never been greater. However, too many of our nation's railways, highways, bridges, airports, and neighborhood streets are slowly decaying due to lack of investment and strategic long-term planning. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America's long-term competitiveness depends on the stability of our critical infrastructure. They will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority.
It's nice to know it's "a top priority", but it's clearly one among many. Too bad, because 700 billion dollars would have laid a whole lotta track...

[mjblazin]

That 700 billion is coming back as the banks repay the preferred shares (also after paying 5% annual dividend on money funded at less than 4%). They will repay (many of them did not want it at the onset) because they want the Feds, especially Congress, out of their firms. But there still won't be any money for rail. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will take it all and then some and then some more.

[AeroD]

But there still won't be any money for rail.

If there is anything the last 8 years has taught us, is that there is always money somwhere, just ask our creditors in China.

[msutton]

http://t4america.org/

http://t4america.org/docs/buildforamerica.pdf

Petition to Obama for action:
http://action.smartgrowthamerica.org/t/3224/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=160
Signed. Thanks for passing along the info.

[RobertB]

Interesting tidbit today: Former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk may be up for job in Obama's Cabinet (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121208dnmetkirk.38999b9.html).

He's not my favorite politician by any stretch. He was among the cheerleaders for paving the Trinity, IIRC. I think Victor Morales could have won the Senate seat on his second try, but the party establishment went for Kirk instead and lost to John "Who?" Cornyn. And the DMN article notes "he's a lobbyist who has worked for deregulation of electricity markets" -- oh, there's another ringing "success". In any other state, he'd be a Republican.

But he does have at least some first-hand knowledge of urban transportation issues, and he was there for the surprising success of DART's LRT starter system. He's not the first person I think of when I hear "transportation", though. Considering the high-powered folks Obama has put in place in other agencies, I'm still scratching my head over this one. The article notes that Kirk is also being considered for HUD secretary, which would seem like a better fit -- Dallas has been reasonably successful in replacing the West Dallas projects with more livable housing.

[electricron]

Obama will be looking at transportation issues on a National scale, not with an eye from local issues.

From http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/CA6621187.html?industryid=48470
“We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways,” said Obama, “and we’ll set a simple rule—use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

While campaigning for the Democratic nomination in February, Obama called for the establishment of a National Infrastructure Investment Bank that would invest $60 billion over a ten-year period for highways, technology, and other projects.

The timing for this endeavor also matches up well with House Legislation—H.R. 7110, Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008—passed in September that allocates nearly $30 billion for transportation infrastructure initiatives, with $12.8 billion pegged for highway infrastructure specifically for aging U.S. highways and bridges to improve safety and reduce congestion. A Senate version of this bill, with $10.8 billion slated for building and repairing highways, bridges, and other projects did not pass.

Taking a look at the actual number of “ready-to-go” transportation projects, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) said this week that—based on the results of a survey sent to the Departments of Transportation for the District of Columbia and all 50 states—there are 5,148 “ready-to-go” transportation projects worth more than $64 billion. AASHTO said that these projects are considered “ready-to-go,” because they could be under contract within 180 days and support an estimated 1.8 million jobs if sufficient funding were available.

While the AASHTO focuses on transportation projects at the state level, the need for funding transportation infrastructure projects at the local level is not lost, as evidenced by this week’s U.S. Conference of Mayors. At the conference, participating U.S. Mayors unveiled its second report that is comprised of an inventory of ready-to-go local infrastructure projects that could be started and completed within two calendar years. The report revealed that 427 cities cited 11,391 infrastructure projects at a cost of $73 billion, creating 847,641 jobs.

To keep the recent history of transportation funding straight:

The federal program that provides aid to states for highway construction and transit expenses expires on Sept. 30. The current program was funded at $286 billion over five years (That's been $53 billion per year). Its cost is mainly underwritten by the federal 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax, but revenues have failed to keep up with obligations.
Last January, a blue-ribbon transportation commission recommended increasing the gas tax as much as 40 cents a gallon over five years. The additional money would help cover the federal share of an estimated $225 billion the commission says is needed each year to upgrade transportation systems.

I don't think Obama'a $60 billion over ten years, ie $6 billion more per year, added to the already existing $53 billion, is going to get anywhere close to the $225 billion per year (Federal share) the Commission recommended. $60 billion per year is no where close to the $225 billion per year needed.

To add, where are the State's going to find the matching funds? Use it or lose it means many programs will lose funding because the States can't match the Federal funds.

If the Feds double their share of gas taxes to raise these funds, the States will also have to double their share of gas taxes, or not have the matching funds. I can see gas taxes seen by most drivers doubling froom near 40 cents per gallon to 80 cents per gallon fairly quickly.

[RobertB]

LOL @ Google Ads for this thread.

Obama Highways
Find Highway & Heavy Construction Jobs Up For Bid - Subscribe Now!
www reedconstructiondata com
As for matching funds... the Feds have traditionally footed, what, 80% of the bill for big highway projects? "Matching Funds" has meant something more like "Drop in the Bucket Funds". I'll be greatly surprised if the states are expected to pony up any more money than they already do, and I expect it to be much less, if anything.

That's got a big downside, of course. If you don't have any skin in the game, you lose accountability. In fact, I tend to agree with the abstract notion of reducing funds going *to* Washington so that they can be used at home without involving Uncle Sam at all. Send 50% less to DC, and there's no problem matching 50% on the next big highway project. The problem is that politicians (Republicans, especially) love to lower taxes... but being politicians, they don't actually lower the Federal-level spending. So the 80-20 funding is the only way to get that money back to the state it came from.

Now, things are going to get even more out of kilter. There's no way around it -- we gave the deregulators (R's and D's alike) $700 billion to fix the mess they created, and they gave it to Citibank to invest in China. That "trickle-down" sound you hear is our tax dollars being p***ed away. Heckuva job, Brownie. Now that the fat cats have gotten first dibs, it's going to be impossible to do anything *but* pour a trillion bucks into something that benefits *real* people.

I expect 90% federal participation, or 95%, or maybe no requirement for state/local participation beyond the EIS level. That's going to distort decision-making, but there's a silver lining. 20-30 years from now, there's going to be a lot of money to be made in the demolition business. :)

[electricron]

LOL @ Google Ads for this thread.

Obama Highways
Find Highway & Heavy Construction Jobs Up For Bid - Subscribe Now!
www reedconstructiondata com
As for matching funds... the Feds have traditionally footed, what, 80% of the bill for big highway projects? "Matching Funds" has meant something more like "Drop in the Bucket Funds". I'll be greatly surprised if the states are expected to pony up any more money than they already do, and I expect it to be much less, if anything.

That's got a big downside, of course. If you don't have any skin in the game, you lose accountability. In fact, I tend to agree with the abstract notion of reducing funds going *to* Washington so that they can be used at home without involving Uncle Sam at all. Send 50% less to DC, and there's no problem matching 50% on the next big highway project. The problem is that politicians (Republicans, especially) love to lower taxes... but being politicians, they don't actually lower the Federal-level spending. So the 80-20 funding is the only way to get that money back to the state it came from.

Now, things are going to get even more out of kilter. There's no way around it -- we gave the deregulators (R's and D's alike) $700 billion to fix the mess they created, and they gave it to Citibank to invest in China. That "trickle-down" sound you hear is our tax dollars being p***ed away. Heckuva job, Brownie. Now that the fat cats have gotten first dibs, it's going to be impossible to do anything *but* pour a trillion bucks into something that benefits *real* people.

I expect 90% federal participation, or 95%, or maybe no requirement for state/local participation beyond the EIS level. That's going to distort decision-making, but there's a silver lining. 20-30 years from now, there's going to be a lot of money to be made in the demolition business. :)

I was trying to keep politics out. But let's get real. There's several very expensive transportation projects around the nation that could consume $50 billion by themselves.
(1) Refurbishing Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, including the new Hudson River tunnels into Pennsylvania Station.
(2) California's L.A. to S.F. High Speed Rail Train.
(3) The I 5 bridge project over the Columbia River near Portland. It's more than just a new highway bridge.

When you look at the ready to go projects with a National impact on transportation, anything they could do in Texas is relatively small in impact. Texas has the I 69 project almost ready to go, the key words being almost ready.

I think many believe a National HSR network, if you consider 110 mph passenger trains HSR, will be possible. But lets get real, that will take too long to accomplish for immediate job creation. It's going to take a long term commitment.

Also, 50-50 splits between Federal and Local funding has been the history recently. Existing Federal legislation supports 80-20 splits, but there's been too much demand on the Federal purse, ie the Highway Trust Fund, to support the higher splits.

As I replied earlier, Obama's planned additional $6 Billion per year for ten years isn't going to support significantly more projects, being just 10% larger than what the Federals spent last year. A one year emergency expenditure, no matter how large, to get America's economy restarted isn't going to get long term, large construction projects built. Most likely, ready to go projects is where emergency appropriations will be spent. And there's only $60 Billion of unfunded projects ready to go nationally this year.
Therefore, if Obama's immediate goal is to get Americans back to work, a huge increase in transportation funding isn't needed. What's needed more is a larger yearly budget capable of supporting transportation projects being studied and designed today, at the 80-20 funding split. Meaning a 60% higher yearly Federal transportation budget. Speicifically, a doubling of the gas taxes recommended by last year's Commission to pay what's needed in future years, as projects being studied today become ready to go. By the time they get ready to go, today's economic crisis will be over and there will be no emergency funding available.

[RobertB]

Apparently, Kirk is now being mentioned as US Trade Rep (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121808dnnatkirk.728e2f3c.html), responsible for sending my job to India. :)

Transportation will apparently go to Ray LaHood (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/politics/18obama.html?_r=1&em), a retiring US Rep from Illinois. He's a moderate Republican, which should give him an interesting viewpoint. Don't forget, it's called the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Could one of Eisenhower's contemporaries (well, almost -- LaHood was eight when Eisenhower was elected) be the one to usher in the rail version of the Interstate System?

[Hannibal Lecter]

^ That certainly makes sense. The Republicans have been trying for years to turn the clock back to the 19th century.

[RobertB]

^^ Hey, I'm ready to board the pneumatic tube (http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/beach.html) to Fort Worth, aren't you?

[jsoto3]

From Transportation for America (http://t4america.org/):


Senator Kit Bond has proposed two amendments that would strip all funding in the stimulus from high-speed rail and move it into highway construction!

Meanwhile, Senator Jim Inhofe has an amendment of his own that would add $50 billion to a slush fund for road construction - a virtual blank check for the highway lobby!

Write your senators TODAY and urge them to vote against raiding transit and rail funding for a highways-only slush fund! (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=PUzIAldaiEplaXFusmt9OjErf1BaXE1j)
Imagine it: tens of billions with no strings attached - no language for accountability, no prioritization for repair, and no promise of clean energy solutions for the 21st Century.

Sen. Bond's amendments in particular would raid funding for the most innovative projects, leaving exciting new transit solutions like California's high-speed rail line on the cutting-room floor.

Last week, we made a huge impact on the House version of the economic recovery package. After receiving your letters and phone calls, members of Congress added $3 billion in transit investment to the bill.

Now we need to keep pushing on the other side of the Capitol. If we don't, the transit money could be overwhelmed by wasteful spending that serves the special interests rather than the public interest.

We need your help NOW. The Senate is deliberating on this TODAY!

Tell your senators: "No blank checks for highway construction!" (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=xvAowV%2FZ43CJtPsl5TyIck82phARHZCK)

Thank you for your support at this critical time.

Sincerely,

Ilana Preuss
Outreach and Field Director
Transportation for America

[downtownguy25]

In most cities, civic cash would pay for major infrastructure projects like a new mass transit system. But in Detroit, which faces a $300 million annual budget deficit, private backers have stepped in to try to kick-start the venture.

It's the only project of its kind in the U.S., and the donor list reads like a Who's Who of area megamillionaires: Compuware (CPWR) CEO Peter Karmanos, Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert, Penske Corporation CEO Roger Penske and Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch are among those ponying up $125 million to cover the project's entire phase-one price tag.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/15/smallbusiness/detroit_m1_light_rail/

[RobertB]

Well, our millionaires are ponying up for a bridge to West Dallas, plus the Deck Park... so I guess we're not too far behind the "rich peoples' largesse" curve.

[AeroD]

http://reason.tv/video/show/supertrain-2010