 | NARP blogTRAINS: A travel choice Americans want |
» Visit the Official NARP Website
Some early reflections on the election
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
There’s no question that, by all indications, including their Senate records, Obama/Biden hold the greatest promise for improving America’s passenger train system. And the environment in which they are operating is more supportive of trains than was the case in the 1990s, when close ties between the Clinton White House and the Amtrak Board prevented Amtrak from even requesting the full amounts authorized for it.
At the same time, the number of other urgent issues crowding the national agenda is greater—greater even than it was a few months ago. So we have to remember the words of FDR to his supporters: “You’ve elected me, now organize a movement to make me do what you want.”
Having supporters in the White House and Congress is no guarantee of success. Those supporters still have the same budget numbers and the same set of rules that were in place prior to the election. And, right now at least, lower gasoline prices are cited as a major reason for defeat of a Kansas City light rail ballot measure. Longer-term, the declines in energy investment now happening in response to those lower prices, could set the stage for another dramatic price rise—and still more pressure for passenger trains.
Right now, the task is to keep that pressure on in spite of low gas prices. Some of the strongest potential supporters may be Democratic legislators who initially were not thought to have a serious chance of winning and who, as a result, may not have been vetted (or “re-grooved”) by highway interests to the same extent as “strong” candidates were, and who therefore may come into office with more sympathy for our cause.
For the nation as a whole, it may be a good thing that Democrats did not achieve the 60 votes they need to cut off debate without Republican help. This lessens the temptation for Democrats to run roughshod over their colleagues, at the risk of paying dearly in future elections. But for passenger trains, it is not good that Capitol Hill Republicans as a group likely will be even less supportive in the next Congress than in the current one. It is a reminder that the new law contains many report requirements, most of which look like they were designed by people who don’t like passenger trains (or at least long-distance passenger trains). By the way, there will be many changes in key Republican positions…there will be a big shuffle as a result of the defeat of Rep. Joe Knollenberg (MI), top Republican on the House appropriations subcommittee. The same is true on the Senate side if Ted Stevens (AK), top Republican on the appropriations defense subcommittee, is not elected or does not continue to serve.
When David Gunn headed Amtrak, he used to nod towards Capitol Hill and say, “Those folks aren’t going to kill the trains. It’s the railroads growing inability to handle all their traffic.” Well, the railroads have made great progress in dealing with capacity and with dispatching passenger trains, thanks in part to the on-time performance ruckus NARP raised two years ago, and to the way Federal Railroad Administrator Joe Boardman and indeed Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters picked up that issue and ran with it.
Today, the greatest threat to the long-distance trains may be the age of the equipment, most dramatically illustrated by Amtrak’s inability or unwillingness to put full dining cars on the Lake Shore Limited. The real test for the national network will be whether Amtrak continues to push hard for new equipment for the long-distance trains and whether that push produces results.
For now, be sure to congratulate your new legislators on their victories and work hard to get our agenda in front of them, including full funding of the new law, and acquisition of the equipment needed to expand and update the long-distance trains. And press appointment of transportation officials who recognize the value of a more balanced transportation policy—one with a broader role for passenger trains, to improve overall record of U.S. transportation regarding safety, energy efficiency, and provision of good choices to citizens.
—Ross Capon
Posted by NARP
Tags: amtrak, congress, oil, presidential election, price of oil, usdot,Star-Telegram Op-Ed: Trains are the ideal stimulus
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
In a brilliant op-ed piece Monday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Spending on rail would be a wise move, Andrew Warren makes the strong case that investments in commuter train systems represent an ideal form of economic stimulus, one that “generates multiple short-term and long-range benefits.” He hits on the necessarily domestically-sourced labor that would be put to work in a wide range of professions designing, building, and operating the systems, the environmental and energy efficiency benefits of trains, and the superior land use effects versus highway construction. He ends the column with this fine point on what’s worth our taxpayer money:
We could give tax breaks or refunds to be spent on Chinese shoes, Thai clothes and Korean TVs. Or we can invest in a better, cleaner, more secure future and create American jobs at the same time. Washington should fund this national security program that stimulates our economy and protects our environment.
This is essential reading as Congress and President-Elect Obama consider the optimal, most efficient uses of public funds in an economic stimulus package.
—Matthew Melzer
Posted by NARP
Tags: commuter rail, congress, economic stimulus, energy, environment, land use, president,Connecting the Dots for Sustainable Transportation
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday’s much-anticipated presidential announcement of higher nationwide fuel economy standards for automobiles was nearly universally praised by auto manufacturers, organized labor, environmentalists and consumer groups, and is indeed a step in the right direction. However, the new rules may have unintended negative consequences, particularly for those interested in a future where Americans are less reliant on the car, and these should not be overlooked.
Safe Climate Campaign director Daniel Becker pointed out on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show Wednesday morning that the new standards apply to cars that are actually bought, not just to those that are in showrooms. Therefore, in order to comply with the law, the auto industry must sell more new cars, potentially with help from a provision in the climate bill that would give consumers incentives to trade in their current vehicles. Becker also noted (as does USA Today’s Open Road blog) that the laws of economics generally dictate that when the cost of an activity goes down, people tend to do marginally more of it. Therefore, by making it cheaper to drive on a per-mile basis, a gas-sipping auto fleet may lead to an increase in driving, which, while it may not have the same impact on carbon emissions, would certainly worsen the many other consequences of auto dependence: congestion, sprawl, and parking problems, to name a few. Plus, the new line of fuel-efficient cars may actually be less safe, and when people buy less gas, the key source of revenue for highway maintenance (and some rail and transit services) is further depleted.
Higher gas prices (which will inevitably return) and greater awareness about global warming have led not only to increased demand for fuel-efficient vehicles, but also for more travel alternatives. If public policy were to promote one without simultaneously addressing the other, it would be a step in the opposite direction from one that would lead to an energy-secure and livable future. Luckily, federal leaders have taken steps towards improving the automobile alternatives for which Americans are clamoring, but a guaranteed long-term source of funding for these projects is still missing. Congress will eventually have to either increase the gas tax (a move that is sure to be resisted mightily) or find other sources of funding for our transportation infrastructure.
Continued after the jump.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by NARP
Tags: auto industry, climate, congress, highways, obama, transit,Lessons from GM’s Bankruptcy on the Consequences of a Fly-Drive Transportation System
Thursday, June 04, 2009
For decades, NARP has argued that America’s “fly-drive” system, that is, a transportation system over-reliant on highways and aviation and neglecting trains, was bad policy. We focused heavily on the importance of giving citizens more choices, on environmental impact and—as the opportunity opened—on energy supply issues. We also argued that highways and aviation enjoyed significant public subsidies even as many politicians kept telling themselves and the public that such subsidies did not exist, mistakenly believing that user-funded trust funds completely supported those systems. The fly-drive mentality also contributed to the nation’s overall economic problems, to the extent that the housing bubble encouraged construction and purchase of exurban homes in pedestrian-unfriendly surroundings—actions that would not have taken place if people had known where the price of oil was headed. Finally, we said one of the biggest subsidies in transportation was from airline shareholders to passengers enjoying cheap, non-compensatory fares.
Now, the stories of General Motors and Chrysler have made clear fly-drive’s financial unsustainability. Government subsidies and loans to GM and Chrysler now total over $50 billion, including loans which GM and Chrysler may not repay, and the forms government aid has taken have been varied.
Even today, some still say NARP should apologize for the fact that Amtrak requires government funding. Would airlines be profitable if governments did not maintain airports and air-traffic-control systems? Would bus companies be profitable and driving be affordable if government did not maintain the roads? Would the making of the very vehicles that carry the bulk of American travelers have been profitable without repeated help from Uncle Sam? The transportation system upon which our economy is built requires public funding and is one of the best investments we make as a society. The impact of these investments would be maximized if we had a proper balance between the modes to achieve the most efficient outcomes.
The billions that the government is ready to spend to bail out bankrupt GM are only the latest in a series of large public subsidies to automakers. GM has already received $13.4 billion in taxpayer funds, with Chrysler getting another $4 billion, and both companies’ suppliers got a total of $5 billion. The government guarantees manufacturers’ warranties for GM & Chrysler cars, and the Recovery Act provided a tax credit of $49,500 to consumers who purchase new autos. Furthermore, the climate change bill recently passed by the House Energy & Commerce Committee includes a “cash for clunkers” program, which offers tax credits encouraging drivers to trade in existing cars for more fuel-efficient models. This latter program—which, though sold as promoting energy efficiency, does not take into account the energy costs associated with prematurely scrapping useful cars—has been described as a subsidy to manufacturers, their workers and car buyers.
Some incentives for the production and consumption of more fuel-efficient vehicles are necessary to address our energy problems as long as most Americans continue to live in communities planned in such a way as to make driving a virtual necessity. It is also important for the government to help struggling communities that are dependent on auto manufacturing to get back on their feet. But we need strong efforts to minimize the worsening consequences of increased congestion and urban sprawl. More attention should be paid to the goals set forth in S. 1036, the Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009—increased use of freight and passenger trains and mass transit and reduced, and reductions in national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis, in national motor vehicle-related fatalities (50 percent by 2030), in national surface transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels (40 percent by 2030) and in national surface transportation delays per capita.
We need a stronger focus on investing in the infrastructure that support those goals and would give Americans more travel choices. Many forward-thinking commentators have envisioned Midwestern factories retooled to produce wind turbines and solar panels. To that list we should add locomotives, railcars, light-rail vehicles, streetcars, subways, and other rail infrastructure. Surely federal investments to correct transportation priorities are at least as worthy as efforts to maintain specific automobile companies. The “priority-correction efforts” would support more quickly achieving President Obama’s vision of an enhanced role for trains in our mobility network. Such spending would yield dividends for years to come, perpetually benefiting people, our economy, and the environment.
—Ross B. Capon and Malcolm Kenton
Posted by NARP
Tags: auto industry, bankruptcy, chrysler, congress, detroit, energy, gm, highways, mobility, oil, transportation,Flag Stops: A Time of Great Expectations
Monday, June 15, 2009
Congress figures out how to pay for better transportation, ample discussion of the future of American travel and urban geography, and why train travel actually does make sense. All that and more in this week’s roundup of reports, reactions and ruminations on passenger rail and transportation policy.
Chairman James Oberstar (D-WI) of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is set to release his plan for this year’s much-anticipated transportation reauthorization bill on Wednesday. The question now is how, not if, federal surface transportation policy will veer from the status quo. One of the few most effective potential funding sources, however, has seemingly been taken off the table, but there are good reasons not to discount the idea of using the General Fund. Meanwhile, some members of Congress are finally starting to connect the dots between transportation and the climate bill.
We are still working to gain cosponsors for two bills that set good policy objectives, and you can help!
From Southern Pines, North Carolina’s daily newspaper, The Pilot, comes a sympathetic op-ed on Amtrak from the former editor of Passenger Train Journal, also a former Federal Railroad Administration economist. He explains why the national passenger railroad hasn’t been able to satisfy the expectations of politicians and the public, and why we now have an opportunity to get it right. “Expecting great things from Amtrak,” he aptly observes, “is like expecting a Triple Crown win from a horse that has not been fed,” but “with adequate and intelligent investment,” Amtrak can redeem itself.
Also advocating the aggressive pursuit of high-speed passenger & freight rail: the man who headed the Federal Railroad Administration under George H.W. Bush. Gilbert E. Carmichael calls the next-generation rail network “Interstate 2.0.” Steps Carmichael would like to see taken first include a 25-percent tax credit for private railroads to build new capacity, state construction or leasing of high-speed track on existing rights-of-way, and upgrading the electric grid in preparation for railroad electrification.
A detailed, behind-the-scenes report in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine underscores just how much the success of passenger rail in the near future, in the eyes of politicians and much of the traveling public, will ride on the degree to which the Golden State achieves its desired outcomes. The head of Alstom Transport told the autor, “If California is a success, ... I believe it will be the showcase [of next-generation passenger rail in the US]. But if it’s not working well? In the end it could be a failure for many years for this idea in the U.S. So it has to be very carefully done.” Our friends at TFA rightly point out that the author seems uninterested in incrementally improving existing service, essentially asking travelers (like himself) to bear with Amtrak as it is until CAHSR is complete.
A Wisconsin newspaper editorializes against the reestablishment of Amtrak service between Milwaukee and Green Bay. Their objections (and our responses):
If gas prices tripled and quadrupled, train travel might make sense. (Such increases are almost inevitable, so why not be prepared?)If traffic and congestion were stifling, train travel might make sense. (It is in many areas, and will only get worse at the rate we’re going.)
If we could easily get to wherever we wanted to go after getting off a train, train travel might make sense. (Which is why we are pushing for better transit connections within cities as well. Besides, most Amtrak stations have rental cars and taxi services on call.)
If trains were fast enough to overcome all their other inconveniences, train travel might make sense. (110 mph train operation is imminently achievable with existing infrastructure, considerably faster than one can safely and legally drive.)
If we somehow no longer cared about the freedom to drive wherever and whenever we wanted to, train travel might make sense. (Our definition of freedom includes the right to travel to more places without having to drive there or worry about parking. As the population ages, and as more people become interested in reducing their driving for a myriad of good reasons, more people are looking at transportation this way. There’s also the freedom to enjoy the trip and arrive recharged.)
Finally, once you average out all the expenses of owning, maintaining and insuring a car, plus the costs to society from traffic accidents and tailpipe emissions, it becomes difficult to say that driving is “easy, convenient and cheap.”
Richard Florida, a writer on economic geography warns that the current economic crisis means “the end of a whole way of life.” He argues that the United States’ ability to maintain its economic prowess in the years to come will depend on the ability of its urban megaregions to attract a “creative class” of professionals doing high value-added work that cannot be outsourced or done by machines, who “generate and transport ideas” instead of goods. “Positioning the economy to grow strongly in the coming decades will require not just fiscal stimulus or industrial reform; it will require a new kind of geography as well, a new spatial fix for the next chapter of American economic history.” This new geography will be built off of an efficient transportation system that will allow these megaregions to provide a high quality of life for large numbers of people. Building and operating the rail and transit networks that will drive the new economy will mean even more jobs to be had.
Today, we need to begin making smarter use of both our urban spaces and the suburban rings that surround them—packing in more people, more affordably, while at the same time improving their quality of life. That means liberal zoning and building codes within cities to allow more residential development, more mixed-use development in suburbs and cities alike, the in-filling of suburban cores near rail links, new investment in rail, and congestion pricing for travel on our roads.
One traffic-clogged American boomburg is looking towards a more livable future, staking its hopes for manageable growth on a soon-to-come subway line. On the other side of the Atlantic, new rail lines anchor French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s vision for a more integrated, sustainable Paris metro area.
George Will is at it again. This time, he is citing Amtrak’s red ink as a reason why the government would be a poor manager for bankrupt General Motors. Let’see. Amtrak’s federal grant last year was $1.3 billion, of which roughly 2/3 was capital investment and debt service. Last year, GM alone lost $31 billion—that’s the subsidy from shareholders. Then there’s the various government subsidies to auto makers and users, ongoing and emergency, and to highways and aviation. The total federal grant to Amtrak buys (on average) about 10 miles of highway. Furthermore, Will’s assertion that “Legislators treat [Amtrak] as their toy train set?” is an insult to those of us who actually use those “toy” trains to get to real places.
LCL: A Canadian economic development forum touts intercity rail as a solution to traffic woes and a “more civilized” way to travel, yet also “a tall political order;” despite some setbacks, the taxpayer money invested in Orlando-area commuter rail has not been wasted, as critics claim; city leaders in Dubuque, Iowa, get a can-do attitude towards Amtrak service to Chicago, which seems to be only a few years away; and Oklahoma hopes to get its piece of the Obama high-speed rail pie.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by NARP
Tags: amtrak, congress, editorial, funding, high-speed rail, opinion, smart growth, train travel, transportation, urban geography,Flag Stops: Digging a Little Deeper
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
A major transportation bill charts new territory, Chinese rail investment attracts major corporations, two passenger rail critics miss the point, and more on this week’s roundup of reactions and ruminations related to rail.
—Malcolm Kenton and Ross Capon
Posted by NARP
Tags: amtrak, china, congress, corporation, critics, economy, oberstar, passenger rail, profitability, reauthorization,Flag Stops: Taking Small, Quick Steps
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
This week’s roundup of news and views in the world of passenger rail and American travel focuses on the need to act quickly, yet deliberately, to do what needs to be done to keep the country moving sustainably.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by NARP
Tags: airlines, amtrak, congestion, congress, debate, florida, fra, high-speed rail, improvement, on-time, transit, transportation, travel,House Subcommittee Considers Expanding Passenger Train Service at Pittsburgh Hearing
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
NARP Council Member Kenneth Joseph reports on the hearing at which he testified.
The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee held a field hearing in Pittsburgh on June 22. I was one of the witnesses, testifying on behalf of NARP. Click here for information about the hearing and copies of all witnesses’ testimony, including mine.
Alongside me at the witness table was Henry Posner III, Chairman, Railroad Development Corporation. RDC owns Iowa Interstate but also runs some passenger trains abroad. This caused Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), the subcommittee’s top Republican to remark, “I’m glad to know someone can run passenger trains at a profit,” a subject that seemed important to him. Posner submitted as testimony his recent Pittsburgh Post-Gazette op-ed column arguing for public-private partnership to invest in expanding track capacity on the Norfolk Southern Harrisburg-Pittsburgh mainline to permit introduction of much faster, more frequent passenger train service.
I endorsed this in my statement, while also urging a more immediate action—reinstatement of the Three Rivers to give Pennsylvanians a second schedule choice across their state and direct, daily service between Philadelphia, other Pennsylvania points and Chicago.
Maglev got more attention in this hearing than it deserved. At least three times, Dr. Fred Gurney, PhD, President and CEO of Maglev, Inc. assured the Congressmen that the Maglev line in China is “what President Obama and Vice President Biden mean when they say ‘high speed rail.’ ” Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who chaired the hearing, was sympathetic and expressed hope that Maglev Inc. would soon receive $45,000,000 to prepare construction drawings for its Pittsburgh-Greensburg maglev line.
In response to questions, Lorenzo Simonelli, President and CEO of GE Transportation, suggested that GE’s new generation of clean, diesel-electric locomotives would be a better option than maglev. Simonelli’s excellent presentation elicited support, partly of course because the units would be built near Erie, PA.
The strangest testimony came from Patrick J. McMahon, president of Amalgamated Transportation Union Local 85, the local transit operator’s main labor union, who dismissed the whole idea of high speed rail and stated that we should build light rail instead. He suggested various specific extensions to the Pittsburgh light rail system that I—as a lifetime Pittsburgh resident—did not think were very well thought out. He also criticized the proposal to run commuter rail from New Kensington to Pittsburgh on the Allegheny Valley Railroad. Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of this concept, but it has many supporters, including Rep. Altmire.
Rep. Shuster provided a light moment when he asked Dr. Gurney, “I read somewhere that maglev could go straight up.” The maglev advocate replied, “You probably could, but you wouldn’t want to for passenger comfort reasons.”
Unfortunately, I was the only witness to address what could be done to improve service to Western Pennsylvania in the near future. Rep. Altmire was particularly interested in improving Pittsburgh to Cleveland, although it was not clear if he was looking for near term or long term improvments.
—Kenneth Joseph
Member, NARP Council of Representatives
Posted by NARP
Tags: congress, expansion, ge, high-speed rail, light rail, maglev, passenger rail, pennsylvania, three rivers,Pre-Application Excitement
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The possibilities are virtually endless as states begin jockeying for federal passenger rail improvement money.
For passenger rail advocates, this has been a great week for imagining possibilities that may be coming one step closer to fruition. The Department of Transportation announced today that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received a whopping 278 pre-applications from state governments and interstate authorities, each seeking a piece of the $8 billion included in the Recovery Act for “high-speed intercity passenger rail.” The news comes a full five weeks in advance of the final application deadline, and indicates a high level of interest from those who would do the work of constructing and upgrading rail infrastructure to support the desired level of service.
Here is a mere sampling of projects that are now in the running, based on news reports compiled by NARP. Each heading links to the full story. The FRA has complete summary data [PDF] of the pre-applications.
- State of Illinois: Undisclosed sum to boost top speeds to 110 mph on Amtrak’s Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee/Madsion, and Chicago-Detroit routes, and lay groundwork for 220-mph Chicago-St. Louis express service.
- California Nevada Super Speed Train Commission: Undisclosed sum for a maglev line from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Estimated total cost: $12 billion.
- State of Kansas: $500,000 to study implementation of state-supported Amtrak service from Kansas City to Oklahoma City (via Topeka and Wichita).
- States of Texas, New Mexico and Colorado: Undisclosed sum to study viability of a dedicated high-speed rail line from El Paso to Denver via Albuquerque and Santa Fe.
- State of Virginia: $2 billion plus for Infrastructure improvements allowing higher-speed trains between Washington and Petersburg.
- State of Connecticut: Undisclosed sum to establish high-speed service between New Haven and Springfield, MA.
- State of Pennsylvania: $6.8 billion for four projects, including Pittsburgh-Harrisburg upgrades and maglev between Greensburg and Pittsburgh International Airport.
- Arkansas Highway Commission: at least $500,000 to study high-speed connections from Little Rock to Texarkana and Memphis.
- State of Wyoming: Depending on what Colorado does, may be interested in extending the El Paso-Denver line north to Cheyenne.
- State of OklahomaUndisclosed amount to initiate 150-mph service from Tulsa to Oklahoma City and make track improvements from Oklahoma City south to the Texas state line to speed up Amtrak’s Heartland Flyer.
- State of Indiana: $49 million for Amtrak service from Chicago to Toledo via Fort Wayne.
- Ohio Rail Development Commission: At least $250 million to initiate service on the 3C (Cincinatti-Columbus-Cleveland) route, as part of a more expansive planned network.
- State of North Carolina: $4 billion to pursue 90 proposed projects to upgrade tracks & signals between Charlotte and the state line north of Raleigh, including reconstructing a direct rail link from Raleigh to Richmond.
As a side note, the $31 billion “Illinois Jobs Now Act,” signed by Gov. Quinn on Monday, contains significant rail and transit investments. Included is 322 million for CREATE, a massive project led by a public-private partnership to reduce railroad traffic congestion in and around Chicago, the nation’s busiest freight rail hub and a major Amtrak hub. The Act also contains $150 million for the state’s share of Amtrak operating grants, $1.8 billion for public transit, and loan repayments to freight railroads. The state funding bolsters Illinois’ odds of winning stimulus grants for passenger rail. Here’s a full list [PDF] of the projects funded.
—Malcolm Kenton and Sean Jeans-Gail
Posted by NARP
Tags: amtrak, applications, congress, create, funds, high-speed rail, illinois, passenger rail, states, stimulus, transportation,Flag Stops: Refilling the Coffers
Monday, August 24, 2009
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: airlines, amtrak, arc, congress, florida, gas taxes, grassroots, high-speed rail, hudson river tunnels, idaho, michigan, organization, penn station, pioneer, railroads, short-haul flights, transportation for america, travel,Flag Stops: Smarter and Cheaper
Friday, September 11, 2009
Our take on recent news and views in transportation.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: authorization, avent, congress, fares, freemark, fta, future, growth, high-speed rail, highway, housing, manufacturing, northeast corridor, planning, prices, recovery act, repairs, stimulus, transit,Rail Grants Are Answering People’s Demands
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The following letter to the editor was published in the Washington Examiner:
Since passenger train improvements have enjoyed bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, we reject your suggestion that White House unveiling of passenger-train Recovery Act grants constitutes turning a deaf ear to the recent Massachusetts election.
Indeed, polls—and Amtrak’s rising ridership—show that Americans want more trains. Put “travelers” atop your list of “those who are quite pleased by the projects.”
The majority of dollars will go to upgrade existing trains, producing tangible service improvements within one or a few years. At the other end of the spectrum, our children may look back and thank those who pushed the California and Florida very-high-speed projects. Very high energy prices threaten the future of short-distance air service.
—Ross Capon
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: amtrak, congress, high-speed rail, obama, public, ridership, trains, upgrades, washington examiner, white house,Unleashed TIGER Forges a New Path
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Just three weeks after history-making intercity passenger train grants were announced, the Obama Administration unveiled $1.5 billion in Recovery Act grants under a revolutionary framework in which rail and transit figure prominently. The program, dubbed Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), marks the first time that the US Department of Transportation has awarded money across the institutional barriers that have historically held back funding for railroads and transit—and infrastructure that connects these with the rest of the transportation network.
As with the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail “pot,” states’ applications greatly exceeded the available funds—$56 requested for every $1 awarded. Determining what percentage of TIGER funds went to each mode of travel is (happily) difficult since many of the projects benefit multiple modes. Grants benefitting passenger rail (including rail transit) total $574.1 million (about 38% of the total), while those aiding freight rail add up to $408.8 billion (about 27%). Transit improvement ventures (subway, light rail, streetcar and bus) got $699 million (about 47%), with highways getting almost 30%, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure about 10%.
TIGER’s innovative, merit-based funding mechanism should become the mold in which most future federal transportation financing is cut. Including more funding for TIGER or a similar program in the Jobs Bill (currently before the Senate) would be an ideal way for Congress to signal its commitment to meaningful reform that will give Americans better mobility choices. NARP and our partners in the OneRail Coalition [link to come] will continue to sound the call for strong, balanced transportation investments that put rail in its rightful place as a key component in how America moves.
Read on for an overview of how the awards are distributed, or go here for complete descriptions of each funded project.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: congress, department of transportation, federal government, funding, grants, infrastructure, investment, job creation, jobs, light rail, passenger trains, railroads, recovery act, stimulus, streetcar, tiger, transit, transportation,Flag Stops: Making No Small Plans
Friday, February 26, 2010
Reasons to be hopeful, to be concerned, and to take action.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: amtrak, budget, congress, gulf coast, investment, jobs bill, legislation, new orleans, new york city, passenger trains, rail planning, ray lahood, ridership, senate, sunset limited, take action, transportation, west virginia,NARP Leaders Educate and Advocate on Capitol Hill
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Each year, members of NARP’s Council of Representatives, our all-volunteer governing body, meet with Members of Congress and their staff to educate them about passenger train issues and urge their support for more funding and broader policy support for intercity trains. This year, in addition to our perennial, yet always essential, ask for full funding of Amtrak, we also joined with a coalition of other rail advocacy and public interest groups in calling for $4 billion in fiscal 2011 funding for the nascent yet highly oversubscribed High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program to states.
In addition to Council members, several general members of the Association joined our Day on the Hill this year. According to their reports, many Senators, Representatives and staffers—even those who haven’t supported Amtrak in the past—appeared open to hearing our case. No matter where the lawmaker stands on the issue, the most important thing about in-person meetings is to demonstrate the extent of public support for better transportation choices. And that we did very well.
Here is a report from Council member Dennis Lytton, which was posted yesterday on the California High Speed Rail Blog:
Last week I attended the National Association of Railroad Passengers annual meeting in Washington, DC. NARP is the largest national membership advocacy organization for train and rail transit passengers. In fact, it’s the only group in Washington, DC with a staff dedicated to this purpose.
The most important part of our three day meeting is our “Day on the Hill” visiting Senators and Members of Congress followed our reception in one of the House office buildings. This year, along with other NARP council members from California, we visited our two senators, Boxer and Feinstein, as well as our House members. Our primary asks (lesson one visiting your Congressmember, always have a concise “ask”, with a handout) were:
* $4 billion for intercity and high speed rail capital grants, and
* Full funding of Amtrak’s appropriations requests for this year.NARP as well as Californians for High Speed Rail is a member of the Fourbillion.com coalition, which is advocating for this. Please visit and register to let your Congressional representation know that you want HSR and intercity rail. (I think my take away this year may be to always have a website for my “ask” each year!)
Secondly, we were also pushing for passage of the stalled transportation reauthorization bill in Congress and for High Speed Rail to have a dedicated funding source. There is a consensus that this won’t happen before the November election. Which of course scares many of us since the next Congress may not have as friendly a composition as this one. More than one source on the Hill thought that the thorny issue of raising the gas tax would be brought up by the lame duck Congress in November or December.
My overall impression? Having participated in NARP’s Day on the Hill since 2006, things have certainly changed for the better. The Congressional majority and Administration of that time barely noticed that the issue of trains for a sustainable, mobile future for our county existed. The federal DOT famously released a report during these years decrying road congestion but never mentioning rail for passengers or freight. Republican administrations since Reagan had regularly tried to write Amtrak out of the federal budget and even under Clinton a Gingrich inspired reauthorization of Amtrak passed in the late 90s that mandated Amtrak to become profitable with no investment.
Our biggest fight now in Washington will be to get the $4 billion for HSR nationwide. The administration has only asked for one billion, just a year after their groundbreaking inclusion of $8 billion in ARRA (the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act). Anaheim to San Francisco is about $20 billion. We have almost $10 billion from the Prop. 1A bonds. We received a little more than $2 billion from ARRA early this year. Four billion a year, with California getting its fare share as it did in ARRA, will get us to completion of the first segment.
Which leads me back to an earlier point – getting high-speed passenger rail into the transportation reauthorization bill stalled in Congress will be a great accomplishment. Funding HSR isn’t a political football in other countries in Western Europe, for instance. Once we get HSR into our federal transportation funding machinery funding it will be automatic and non-political. Just as it is for highways in this country.
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: advocacy, amtrak, appropriations, capitol hill, congress, dennis lytton, four billion, funding, high-speed rail, lobbying, narp, passenger trains, representative, senator, volunteers,©2010 National Association of Railroad Passengers | » NARP website
» Recent Entries
» Blogroll
» Terms of Service for Comments
You may register to post comments in response to NARP-generated postings on the Blog. By registering you agree 1) that all comments will be relevant to the respective posting and 2) not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws. We reserve the right to permanently block postings from any user who does not abide by the above terms. NARP reserves the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.
» Monthly Archives
