http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/10rail.html?_r=1&hp
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Ya unfortunately Wisconsin's turning down this money pretty much destroys Minnesota's chances of getting any money, since the potential high speed Twin Cities-Chicago line would run thru Wisconsin.
Operating subsidies are a real issue, especially for cash strapped states, that must balance their budgets. Only one state is allowed to run budget deficits. And unlike the federal government, the states cannot print their way out of debt. Even in Texas, where the government runs a pretty tight ship, we are looking at a $17 to $24 billion shortfall in revenues for 2011-12.
The annual operating subsidy for Capital Metro's Red Line, which runs from Leander to Austin, a distance of approximately 32 miles, is approximately $6.6 million for 2010. The current net operating subsidy is approximately $60 per passenger per day.
Although the red line, which is a commuter line, is not an apple to apples comparison with an intercity line, it illustrates how operating subsidies can be a real financial burden. Capital Metro is scrambling to find ways to increase revenues or reduce costs.
And they thought they could use it for highways. na-ah-ah...can't touch this
Wisconsin Governer Elect Scott Walker never said he thought the money could go for highways. He expressed a desire that it could go for highways, but when pressed about losing the money to any purpose, he expressed the view that it would be a good trade not to pay for long-term operating subsidies
So what is this "na-ah-ah" business? Is this reflective of the degree of maturity of US-DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, who signed the agreements with the Wisconsin and Ohio governors committing those states to the projects, being quoted in the newspapers as much as daring anyone to stop those projects, who after the election when those projects were effectively stopped, was pleading with people to change their minds, and now, apparently, is in a hurry to disburse the money to other states before the new governors are even inaugurated?
Part of rail advocacy is that since passenger trains are reliant on public capital and operating money and reliant on having trains go through someone's "backyard", getting the trains is based on getting broad-based public support. Maybe Governor-Elect has a complete misread that support for the train is restricted to a vocal minority, but he made "stopping the train" front and center of his campaign. But there are people who prefer spending the money on highways rather than trains, and they are all not Montgomery Burns types, who within the confines of their mansions and with their lackey assistant, plot the paving the country side.
So as rail advocates we didn't win over enough hearts and minds and votes in Wisconsin and Ohio, the reason we lost out is not because people are evil or stupid, and we try again on another day and another place.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Mr. Railman And they thought they could use it for highways. na-ah-ah...can't touch this
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic Is this reflective of the degree of maturity of US-DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, who signed the agreements with the Wisconsin and Ohio governors committing those states to the projects, being quoted in the newspapers as much as daring anyone to stop those projects, who after the election when those projects were effectively stopped, was pleading with people to change their minds, and now, apparently, is in a hurry to disburse the money to other states before the new governors are even inaugurated?
Is this reflective of the degree of maturity of US-DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, who signed the agreements with the Wisconsin and Ohio governors committing those states to the projects, being quoted in the newspapers as much as daring anyone to stop those projects, who after the election when those projects were effectively stopped, was pleading with people to change their minds, and now, apparently, is in a hurry to disburse the money to other states before the new governors are even inaugurated?
Unless there were quite few conversations behind the scenes, this does seem really premature.
I was rooting for NY, VA and NC. We are really rolling the dice with CA and especially FL. FL is just too short a route and CA, unless I'm missing something and they plan to run conventional stuff over the first route segments built until the can go end to end with the totally segregated route, seems like a silly approach. Even the French didn't do it that way.
Paul Milenkovic So what is this "na-ah-ah" business? Is this reflective of the degree of maturity of US-DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, who signed the agreements with the Wisconsin and Ohio governors committing those states to the projects, being quoted in the newspapers as much as daring anyone to stop those projects, who after the election when those projects were effectively stopped, was pleading with people to change their minds, and now, apparently, is in a hurry to disburse the money to other states before the new governors are even inaugurated?
So what is the big deal. The deals signed with the previous governors were apparently non-binding on their successors. The new governors canceled participation by WI and OH. So obviously the money needs to be used elsewhere where it is wanted. Why delay? And why do you seem to assume the failure of advocacy groups to influence voters in WI and OH? I doubt if the rail projects had much to do with the way voters cast their votes in either state. Whatever people on this forum think, in the real world of most of the US, railroads and passenger service are about as relevant to the experience of most Americans as going to the moon.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic: So what is this "na-ah-ah" business? Is this reflective of the degree of maturity of US-DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, who signed the agreements with the Wisconsin and Ohio governors committing those states to the projects, being quoted in the newspapers as much as daring anyone to stop those projects, who after the election when those projects were effectively stopped, was pleading with people to change their minds, and now, apparently, is in a hurry to disburse the money to other states before the new governors are even inaugurated? So what is the big deal. The deals signed with the previous governors were apparently non-binding on their successors. The new governors canceled participation by WI and OH. So obviously the money needs to be used elsewhere where it is wanted. Why delay? And why do you seem to assume the failure of advocacy groups to influence voters in WI and OH? I doubt if the rail projects had much to do with the way voters cast their votes in either state. Whatever people on this forum think, in the real world of most of the US, railroads and passenger service are about as relevant to the experience of most Americans as going to the moon.
Paul Milenkovic: So what is this "na-ah-ah" business? Is this reflective of the degree of maturity of US-DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, who signed the agreements with the Wisconsin and Ohio governors committing those states to the projects, being quoted in the newspapers as much as daring anyone to stop those projects, who after the election when those projects were effectively stopped, was pleading with people to change their minds, and now, apparently, is in a hurry to disburse the money to other states before the new governors are even inaugurated?
What the big deal is, is, that if the goal is to get passenger trains, and if passenger trains rely both on public capital expenditure as well as operating subsidy, one needs to recruit broad-based public support.
The way to get the broadest base of public support is to take the limited ARRA money for trains and spend it in the most effective way for trains to satisfy the public's need for transportation.
One way not to recruit such broad support is to sign the funding agreements two days before the election, not enough before the election that the signing can be an issue in the campaigns, not after the election when the the newly elected leaders are known, and to state that the agreements are binding and to in effect dare any newly elected leader two days hence to do anything about it. Another way not to recruit such broad support is to hastily redeploy the funds to Florida and California after those agreements don't seem to be that binding after all, seemingly done more as political punishment than the result of deliberative consideration of where the funds would have the best effect.
I am with Don that one good place for train money is Virginia, and I am with New York Governer-Elect Andrew Cuomo that another good place is the extension of the Empire Corridor to Canada. If we don't get "bang for the buck" out of this round of trains, we may never get another round, and the California and Florida projects are weak at this point.
If those two states chose to back out, then of course the funding would be have to redeployed because the state share was yanked. Your response makes it sound like it is all LaHood's fault, as though his withdrawing the funds was capricious and punitive. It seems to me it is WI and OH that have reneged on the deals, not LaHood.
VA, yes. I don't quite see why not add funds to FLA and CA, serving larger populations in shorter, real corridors. NY to Montreal has never been a major rail corridor, or does that refer to Albany to Toronto?. Additional money to Illinois also makes sense to beef up the CHI-STL route.
Far be it for me to claim any of this is Secretary LaHood's fault, but as to seeming capricious and punitive, that appears to be a reputation that the Secretary is seeking to cultivate.
For example, Secretary LaHood made a recent pronouncement in response to the safety problems of various modes of cell-phone use in cars. His plan is to mandate cell-phone jammers in cars so as to prevent anyone in a moving vehicle doing any kind of communicating over a cell phone.
Now I know that the explosion in cell-phone usage has resulted in all manners of dangerous situations in driving. And I don't have a dog in the fight of trying to keep cell phones in cars as I don't have one. But there are situations where making a cell phone call from your car enroute could be life-saving, and there are many more situations where people are able to handle cell phones in their car safely and responsibly, but no, the Secretary wants to ban all of this and to enforce the ban with radio-jamming gear, never mind that the regulation of radio transmissions falls in another Cabinet department (Commerce, I believe, throught the FCC).
No one, it seems has backed out of anything in either of the states in question as the respective new governors haven't been inaugurated yet. On the other hand, why were the agreements signed two days prior to the election, with a challenge, a dare issued from the Secretary of Transportation that whoever won the election in two-days would not be able to change this, and two weeks after the election, it seems that this was not the case?
Why not wait a couple of days until after the election? There are some things in our society that are matters of justice that transcend the will of the people reflected in elections or referendums. Racial equality rises to that level as indicated by the civil rights struggles, where courts had to countermand the actions of a majority in the interests of a lawful, orderly, and just society. The recent situation with Proposition 8 in California rises to that level, where whether a majority vote goes forward will be determined by courts deciding on whether the rights of a minority are respected.
But trains? Is there such a compelling interest in building trains that, say, the Attorney General needs to federalize Guard units to compel a popular governor to stand aside from the train station door? Yes, I am exagerating here, although only a little bit when a transportation Secretary wants to thwart the popular will by putting radio jamming devices in automobiles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.