NARP Blog

Thursday, March 04, 2010

This morning, the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development of the US Senate Appropriations Committee heard from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on the President’s fiscal 2011 budget for his agency [PDF], as the committee begins work on determining spending levels for the year to begin October 1, 2010. During the question and answer period, Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO) engaged LaHood in a heated discussion surrounding DOT’s high-speed intercity passenger rail grant program. Even when Bond tried to steer the discussion towards other transportation topics, LaHood remained focused on promoting the high-speed rail program.

Here is a sample of their back-and-forth. Note that this is a rough and incomplete transcription resulting from hurried note-taking. Exact quotes are marked by quotation marks.

Senator Bond: How do you measure [livability]? We [Congress] develop locally-based community plans for neighborhood stabilization and economic development. I support access to [alternative] transportation. The BRT [bus rapid transit] program in Kansas City has been very important. But ... livability means having a decent highway for many of my rural constituents. We lose three people a day [in accidents] on Missouri’s highways. At least one third of those deaths are due to poor highway conditions. It’s a question of staying alive. If we want all these dollars “to go in and build urban livability sections,” there need to be broader criteria.

Secretary LaHood: [To use] an example from your home state: Kansas City’s $50 million [TIGER grant] is for some of the most simple things we take for granted, like making sure people have a sidewalk to walk on. That may sound silly to you, but I took a tour and found an abandoned neighborhood where people can’t even drive down the street. We [DOT] worked with [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] to build affordable housing so people could stay in the neighborhood. That’s what livable communities [means].

Bond: When did it become DOT’s responsiblity to build sidewalks?

LaHood: You all [Congress] did it. I was part of it as a member of Congress.

Bond: I question how much money is spent on sidewalks when we need highways and bridges.

LaHood: [DOT is] just working with the priorities Congress set.

Bond: We could have used a whole lot more for highways and bridges. Every dollar we’re spending is going on the deficit. [...] The Wall Street Journal had an article by Wendell Cox on January 31st called “The Runaway Subsidy Train.” [Read our response here.] Did you see it? [LaHood: No]. I’ll give you a copy of it. [Cox says] only two [high-speed rail] segments have broken even. If you want to make it profitable, there must be high fares. What’s going to be the total cost of high-speed rail? California estimates [their system will cost] $40 to $60 billion, all taxpayer money, while the airlines flying there aren’t being subsidized by the taxpayer. [Highway users] are helping subsidize high-speed rail. What is the justification? [...] Missouri’s $30 million [in HSIPR funds] will provide extra sidings so trains can pull off & others can pass. What are the ridership projections? Can we justify that cost to the nation’s taxpayers?

LaHood: I’ll answer your question for the record. When Eisenhower signed the Interstate [Highway] bill, nobody knew how we were going to pay for it. I know this: Americans want high speed passenger rail. So many around America want good passenger rail transportation. It will connect opportunities for people. If you build it, they will come. The Interstate system is an example of that. European and Asian governments have made big investments and these lines have been huge economic engines. I can cite examples chapter and verse: if you build it, they will come. The contractos will invest a lot of private money in it.

Bond: As Governor of Missouri, I supproted and started subsidizing Amtrak. Have riders come in large numbers? No. Few people ride it. I’m not willing to spend billions more simply on the thought that they will come.

LaHood: But as Governor and Senator, you were willing to build a [highway] bridge [across the Mississippi River] on the promise that people [would] use it. “The same principle is true for high-speed intercity passenger rail.”

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.

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.

NARP blog

LaHood: If you build it, they will come.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

NARP Leaders Educate and Advocate on Capitol Hill

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

©2010 National Association of Railroad Passengers | » NARP website

» Recent Entries

» Blogroll

» Terms of Service for Comments

» Monthly Archives