Trains.com

LA: Gov Jindal rejects federal high-speed rail money

1942 views
9 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • 965 posts
LA: Gov Jindal rejects federal high-speed rail money
Posted by Lyon_Wonder on Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:00 PM

 

Two days after a national commentator mocked Gov. Bobby Jindal for considering tapping federal stimulus money to build a light rail system between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, the governor's transportation secretary wrote to President Barack Obama's administration saying the idea is scrapped.

"Please be advised that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development will not be applying for the High Speed AARA funds," state transportation chief William Ankner wrote to his federal counterpart, Secretary Ray LaHood. Ankner was referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Ankner, a Jindal appointee, told LaHood that Louisiana could not operate the system without an annual operating loss of $18 million per year.

In February, while delivering the Republican Party's nationally televised response to the president's first congressional address, Jindal mocked several components of the Democratic administration's federal stimulus package, including grants for rail systems.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/08/gov_bobby_jindal_after_highpro.html

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,836 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:19 PM

Lyon_Wonder
to build a light rail system

Light rail?????  Or is it HSR?????

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:25 PM

Lyon_Wonder

Two days after a national commentator mocked Gov. Bobby Jindal for considering tapping federal stimulus money to build a light rail system between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, the governor's transportation secretary wrote to President Barack Obama's administration saying the idea is scrapped.

"Please be advised that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development will not be applying for the High Speed AARA funds,"

 

I doubt if Jindal or his aide know the difference.  After all, it's just political posturing.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:35 PM

Lyon_Wonder

 

Two days after a national commentator mocked Gov. Bobby Jindal for considering tapping federal stimulus money to build a light rail system between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, the governor's transportation secretary wrote to President Barack Obama's administration saying the idea is scrapped.

"Please be advised that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development will not be applying for the High Speed AARA funds," state transportation chief William Ankner wrote to his federal counterpart, Secretary Ray LaHood. Ankner was referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Ankner, a Jindal appointee, told LaHood that Louisiana could not operate the system without an annual operating loss of $18 million per year.

In February, while delivering the Republican Party's nationally televised response to the president's first congressional address, Jindal mocked several components of the Democratic administration's federal stimulus package, including grants for rail systems.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/08/gov_bobby_jindal_after_highpro.html

Maybe Ankner and Jindal have a point. Providing federal funds to build a railway is one thing. Coming up with the money to operate it is something else.  Building a rail system that does not cover its operating costs is a permanent burden on the taxpayers.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,836 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:38 AM

Sam1
Building a rail system that does not cover its operating costs is a permanent burden on the taxpayers.

Any building of a system that inflates the operating costs is not cost effective in the long run.  Example not building any layover facility close to terminating points increases dead heading costs.  That is one concern that I have as light rail systems are extended beyond initial phase end points.  Of course you can terminate many trip short as is done in San Jose and Baltimore on the north side.

On the other hand Heavy rail such as Salt Lake City when they expand north of Ogden may increase dead heading.

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,836 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:45 AM

Another way to limit operating cost is to have a power supply robust enough that when dead heading is needed the dead head equipment can be attached to the end of a regular schedule and isolated to not carry passengers. Also operate much longer trains. That way no additional operators needed. 

  • Member since
    November 2006
  • From: Southington, CT
  • 1,326 posts
Posted by DMUinCT on Monday, August 24, 2009 8:26 AM

In the 1970s the State of Connecticut built a "Mono-Rail" with Federal funds to connect the Bradly International Airport, the Airport Hotel, and the several Airport Paking Lots.

The State received a Maintenance Contract proposal from the builder they could not afford.    The "Mono-Rail" never ran and was torn down when the International Arrivals Terminal was built. 

It did make work during the 1970s Recession!   Glad to know Gov.Jindal dosn't have an unemployment problem in his state.

Don U. TCA 73-5735

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,968 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, August 24, 2009 8:42 AM
I think this was a classic case of "Money? Free Federal money? Gotta get us some of that! Get my picture in the paper standing in front of that new, shiny train! Lots of votes for me! Let's do it!" Then later, having no plan in the works and not even really understanding what it is they are applying for (light rail to Baton Rouge? What a dope.), and finding out that it will cost millions a year to keep operating, "Uh, never mind!" This is not the last dopey political announcement along these lines that we'll hear.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    August 2008
  • From: Cape Coral, Florida
  • 412 posts
Posted by billio on Monday, August 24, 2009 8:59 AM

DMUinCT

In the 1970s the State of Connecticut built a "Mono-Rail" with Federal funds to connect the Bradly International Airport, the Airport Hotel, and the several Airport Paking Lots.

The State received a Maintenance Contract proposal from the builder they could not afford.    The "Mono-Rail" never ran and was torn down when the International Arrivals Terminal was built. 

It did make work during the 1970s Recession!   Glad to know Gov.Jindal dosn't have an unemployment problem in his state.

 

If you're going to fund a make-work project, better it be something lasting instead of a glitzy, feel-good soggy reverie. The fact that Connecticut tore down the monorail suggests that the pols and "planners" hadn't thought the project (and its expense) through too carefully, which meant they flushed both the money and the effort into Long Island Sound (this may have been before waste water treatment).  Better they should have pumped the bucks into improving the Northeast Corridor, which in Connecticut can surely surely use the work.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,304 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Thursday, August 27, 2009 10:32 PM

oltmannd
I think this was a classic case of "Money? Free Federal money? Gotta get us some of that! Get my picture in the paper standing in front of that new, shiny train! Lots of votes for me! Let's do it!" Then later, having no plan in the works and not even really understanding what it is they are applying for (light rail to Baton Rouge? What a dope.), and finding out that it will cost millions a year to keep operating, "Uh, never mind!" This is not the last dopey political announcement along these lines that we'll hear.

 

Well, at least give them credit for changing their minds once they realized the project was a bad idea. That's refreshing, and something a lot of politicians wouldn't do after they had gone on record in favor of a project like this. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy