The headline, sadly, is indicative that most in the media still look upon the subject of transportation as being about highways only.

 

Highway Bill Delay Seen Stretching into 2011

William B. Cassidy | May 5, 2010 11:50AM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

 

It may be 2011 before Congress passes a surface transportation bill, says Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

 

“I think we’re looking at spring, though I haven’t given up” on December, Mica told transportation attorneys at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott yesterday.

 

Debate over how to fund a bill that is likely to cost $500 billion has stalled progress on legislation in the House and Senate as both parties in Congress and the White House wrestle over the direction of federal transportation policy. An agreement is seen as unlikely before the November election.

 

Full story at: http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/highway-bill-delay-seen-stretching-2011

Does ‘sustainable transportation’ mean better cars or fewer cars?

  by David Roberts

5 May 2010 2:15 PM

 

Ohio State University's excellent Moving Ahead 2010 conference wrapped up with an impromptu panel on the oil spill and oil addiction. (White House energy adviser Carol Browner was supposed to do the final keynote, but got pulled away. Apparently there's something going on in Louisiana.) I'll wrap up my coverage by making a point I made on that panel, about a divide I noticed at the conference, and in the sustainable transportation world more broadly.

 

On one side, you have people like Scott Bernstein of the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Geoff Anderson of Smart Growth America, or Tom Murphy of the Urban Land Institute, who are focused on using land and urban assets more effectively, which means increasing density and walkability, which means driving less, which means fewer cars. That, in their mind, is what "sustainable transportation" means -- it means more people walking or biking or taking public transit more often, and reducing the number and prevalence of personal vehicles.

 

On the other side you have people -- many but not all of whom work at car companies -- whose focus is on reducing the ecological impact of individual cars. Lots of these folks, as the conference made extremely clear, are smart as a whip and genuinely dedicated to the goal of sustainability. But the (often unspoken) assumption behind their work is that the car itself is the basic problem unit. People are going to keep driving like they do now; how can we make their cars cleaner?

 

Full story at: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-05-does-sustainable-transportation-mean-better-cars-or-fewer-cars

High-Speed Rail Lobbying Campaign Revives the “$4B” Rallying Cry

by Elana Schor on May 11, 2010

 

The lobbying coalition that helped prod Congress into approving $2.5 billion for high-speed rail last year -- twice as much as the Senate had originally set aside -- today kicked off a new campaign urging lawmakers to approve $4 billion for bullet trains next year and $2.6 billion for Amtrak.

 

At an event in the capital's Union Station, groups as disparate as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the infrastructure reform advocates at Transportation for America linked arms to push for the maximum amount of federal funding, as well as a dedicated long-term source of high-speed rail revenue.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/05/11/high-speed-rail-lobbying-campaign-revives-the-4b-rallying-cry/

Rail needs to be part of U.S. transportation capacity expansions, OneRail Coalition says

 

The OneRail Coalition recently called on the federal government to ensure freight and passenger rail are included in national assessments for adding transportation capacity, along with highway and aviation options. The coalition of railroads, rail labor unions, rail industry suppliers and environmental advocates recently filed comments with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on the development of a National Rail Plan after soliciting input from members in order to reach a consensus on the future of U.S. rail policy.

 

OneRail recommends that the National Rail Plan:

 

Full story & Recommendations at http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=23279

Senate Climate Bill Would Send $6B-Plus to Cleaner Transportation

by Elana Schor on May 12, 2010

 

Transportation would receive more than $6 billion of the revenue generated by selling carbon emissions permits to fuel providers under a new Senate climate bill introduced today by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT).

 

That money for infrastructure would be divided into three equal parts, according to the legislation. One-third would go into the nation's cash-strapped highway trust fund – with a mandate to set aside the funding for projects that decrease greenhouse gas emissions – while another third would go towards competitive federal grants in the style of the stimulus law's Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program.

 

A final third would go towards local land-use planning, as envisioned in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” bill championed by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE).

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/05/12/senate-climate-bill-would-send-6b-plus-towards-cutting-transport-emissions/

While the Senate Fiddles

The New York Times : Editorial

 

You don’t have to look far for proof that this country must cut its dependence on fossil fuels and develop cleaner sources of energy.

 

It can be found in the oil-slicked Gulf of Mexico. It can be found in China’s aggressive efforts to win the global competition for green technologies and green jobs. And, most urgently, it can be found in the inexorable math of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions.

 

And where is the Senate? After a year of talking, utterly nowhere. Paralyzed by partisanship, hobbled by indifferent leadership, it is unable to muster a majority (much less a filibuster-proof 60 votes) for even a modest energy and climate bill.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14fri1.html?th&emc=th

Foes Aim False 'Gas Tax!' Claims at Kerry-Lieberman Climate Bill

 

By Scott Doggett and John O'Dell

Edmunds.com

 

It took only hours from the time Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced their climate bill for conservatives to launch a campaign to kill it by irresponsibly claiming it contains a gas tax.

 

"Promoting the idea that this has a gas tax and increases gas taxes will be deadly effective in defeating this bill," Marc Morano, publisher of the ClimateDepot website and a former Republican Senate staffer, told the subscription-only Energy & Environment news service.

 

Morano, who believes climate change is nothing to worry about, said - rightly so - that "Americans do not like gas taxes, they do not like expensive gas, this will strike a nerve."

 

Full story at: http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/05/foes-aim-false-gas-tax-claims-at-kerry-lieberman-climate-bill.html

 

Hearing on Infrastructure Banks

Infrastructure, Transportation, Highways, Cities, U.S. Department of Transportation

 

Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program

The Brrokings Institute

 

Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives

 

May 13, 2010 — Good morning Chairman Neal, Ranking Member Tiberi, and members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you this morning and very much appreciate the invitation.

 

From time to time, collapsed bridges, failed dams, and ruptured water pipes remind us of the need for increased investment in the maintenance of U.S. infrastructure. Overall, we know that the condition of our infrastructure is generally declining, especially in metropolitan areas. There is also growing concern that the infrastructure that exists today is woefully obsolete, geared more for a prior generation than for the challenges of the 21st century.

Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative

 

The federal government spends about $65 billion each year on infrastructure—transportation, energy, water and environmental protection [1]. While the figure is not negligible, the investment in infrastructure is only 2.2 percent of total federal spending. More than three-quarters of this spending consists of transportation grants to state and local governments ($50.4 billion) [2].

 

Full testimony at: http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2010/0513_infrastructure_puentes.aspx

Innovation Briefs

May 24, 2010

Rail Transit Expansion Reconsidered --- Commentary

________________________________________

More than two years ago we suggested that the era of multi-billion dollar system-building investments in urban rail transit is coming to an end. We wrote: "The 30-year effort to retrofit American cities with rail infrastructure, begun back in the Nixon Administration, appears to be just about over. The New Starts program is running out of cities that can afford or justify cost-effective rail transit investment..." ("Urban Rail Transit and Freight Railroads: A Study in Contrast," February 18 2008).

 

Now comes a startling new revelation from a senior U.S. DOT official. Speaking at a National Summit on the Future of Transit FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff questioned the wisdom of expanding rail networks when money is badly needed to maintain and modernize existing facilities. "At times like these, it's more important than ever to have the courage to ask a hard question: if you can't afford to operate the system you have, why does it make sense for us to partner in your expansion? If you can't afford your current footprint, does expanding that underfunded footprint really advance the President't goal for cutting oil use and greenhouse gases... Or are we at risk of just helping communities dig a deeper hole for our children and our grandchildren?"

 

More at

www.innobriefs.com

 

Or should we come up with more funding to operate and maintain the expansions of our still-tiny rail transit networks to cut oil use and greenhouse gases?

A National Association of Railroad Passengers press release...

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (#10-09)

May 27, 2010

 

Contacts: Sean Jeans-Gail and Ross Capon – 202-408-8362 [Capon cell 301-385-6438]

 

On Energy Problems, President Should Turn to Trains

Rail’s Energy Efficiency Offers Solutions for a Long-Term Energy Strategy

 

In response to President Obama’s call for “a long-term energy strategy,” the National Association of Railroad Passengers urged dramatic expansion of the nation’s passenger rail fleet as a key element in plans to increase energy efficiency and reduce American dependence on oil.

 

The President’s remarks—delivered yesterday during an event in San Francisco—highlighted the dwindling reserves of conventional sources of fuel, and called for the development of a national plan to reduce energy consumption and increase alternative methods of energy development.

 

“Even if you hadn't seen the catastrophe down in the Gulf, the reason that folks are now having to go down a mile deep into the ocean, and then another mile drilling into the ground below, that is because the easy oil fields and oil wells are gone, or they're starting to diminish,” the President said.  “That tells us that we've got to have a long-term energy strategy in this country.”

 

Transportation—which accounts for two thirds of U.S. oil consumption and one third of carbon emissions—is a crucial sector to address in meeting energy constraints.  Federal figures show that Amtrak is 28% and 19% more energy efficient per passenger-mile than automobiles and airplanes, respectively.  These numbers actually understate rail’s advantage, both because Amtrak has been undercapitalized and because rail supports transit and pedestrian-friendly real estate development, reducing the distances most people must travel to live, work and play. 

 

Serious investment in passenger trains would divert travelers to more energy-efficient transportation and create domestic manufacturing and operating jobs.  Passenger trains also offer “fuel flexibility,” as rail is the only transportation that delivers high performance over long distances on electricity.  Trains have a low impact on land and water quality, as the porous nature of rail infrastructure eliminates the flooding and toxic runoff generated by paved surfaces, tarmacs and parking lots.

 

“If we doubled the size of Amtrak's fleet, and had the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak work closely with the freight railroads to identify bottlenecks that can be removed to allow the doubling of train frequencies, we could—in a relatively short period of time—save literally millions of car-trips every year while improving quality of life for the American people,” said NARP President Ross Capon.

 

First Steps Already Being Taken

 

Capon praised the Obama Administration for the intercity passenger train funding including in last year’s Recovery Act, and noted that just today the FRA announced the first actual release of funds--$80 million--from the $8 billion in Recovery Act money set aside for passenger train capital grants for states.

 

“Delivering these funds is an important step forward in our efforts to upgrade and transform America's transportation system, while spurring economic activity and creating jobs here at home," said Vice President Joe Biden. "Our unprecedented investment in high-speed and intercity passenger rail is not only going to provide real environmental benefits and greater convenience for travelers, but also long-term economic development for communities across the country.”

 

The foundation for distributing this money has been put in place.  Transportation advocates and the public are asking Congress to follow the President’s lead and provide significant funding for high speed rail in this year’s budget—with an emphasis on procuring new cars and locomotives to expand and replace the existing fleet.

 

# # #

 

In response to President Obama’s call for “a long-term energy strategy,” the National Association of Railroad Passengers urged dramatic expansion of the nation’s passenger rail fleet as a key element in plans to increase energy efficiency and reduce American dependence on oil.

 

Well, yes, but they urge that in response to the sun rising in the morning or someone talking about LeBron's choice or a Jehovah's Witness knocking on their door. :-P

 

In response to President Obama’s call for “a long-term energy strategy,” the National Association of Railroad Passengers urged dramatic expansion of the nation’s passenger rail fleet as a key element in plans to increase energy efficiency and reduce American dependence on oil.

 

Well, yes, but they urge that in response to the sun rising in the morning or someone talking about LeBron's choice or a Jehovah's Witness knocking on their door. :-P

 

LOL, touche. :laugh: Still, they have a valid point in this case!

The Highway-Transit Alliance Strains the Senate's Energy Legislation

by Yonah Freemark | June 3rd, 2010

 

Why is the American Public Transportation Association lobbying against helpful legislation? Blame a culture of collaboration between highway and transit interests.

 

Here’s one inconvenient truth holding in line the status quo of automobile dependency in the United States: the nation’s primary proponent of transit, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), stands on virtually every issue hand-in-hand with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the nation’s main advocates of increased highway spending.

 

For both organizations, cooperation on transportation legislation has meant steady support for such bills in Congress over the years under both Democratic and Republican leadership. Put simply, the unstated alliance between the two makes compromise possible between urban, suburban, and rural legislators, who have vastly differing perspectives when it comes to what kinds of transportation to fund. Over the past year, throughout the debate on how to advance the reauthorization of the nation’s transportation funding system, APTA and AASHTO have shown themselves committed to retaining a structural funding split in favor of highways over other modes of travel, and they’ve stood steadily with a user fee-based transportation network, despite the fact that that reliance systematically enforces automobile dependency.

 

Full story at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/06/03/the-highway-transit-alliance-strains-the-senates-energy-legislation/

Apta and Aashto sound like villains from a cartoon series I somehow missed as a kid.  Probably anime.

In this instance they do. For the most part I've liked much of the research coming out of both organizations -- especially AASHTO which is pretty progressive and open-minded considering their highway uber alles past.

The usual ignorant comments follow it...

 

JetBlue COO: Flying From Boston to NYC is a Bad Idea

TriplePundit ^ | June 18th, 2010 | Leon Kaye

 

Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 12:21:28 PM by Willie Green

 

Publicly stating that some of your company’s goods and services should be discontinued even if they are profitable probably would get most company executives in trouble. Rob Maruster, JetBlue’s Chief Operating Officer, startled an aviation conference when he thought out loud that there were better options for traveling between Boston and New York than the five flights his airline offers daily.

 

....But Maruster also pointed out that rail would be a better option than air for those New York-Boston travelers. Airports are becoming more crowded, and on the Eastern Seaboard, there is no more room for additional air terminals. But just like idling your car or driving several short trips daily emits more carbon in the atmosphere, short flights are also more polluting: Maruster explained that a 150-mile Boston-New York flight requires the flying of 300 air miles. Perhaps that carbon would be better off spewed out for a New York-Los Angeles flight.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2537372/posts

You are invited to come to the Columbus, Ohio screening of Beyond the Motor City. The location and date/time is:

 

June 29, 2010, 7 p.m.

Gateway Film Center

1550 North High Street

Columbus, Ohio

www.gatewayfilmcenter.com

 

Admission is free but space is limited. Please RSVP to 614-487-7506 or [email protected]

 

See the postcard/flier at:

http://freepdfhosting.com/b9c8bfd349.pdf

 

Watch the preview of the film at:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/beyond-the-motor-city/video-preview/861/

Not sure if this belongs here, but it is an interesting thought that selling "air" could fund high speed rail...the next to last paragraph has the reference to high speed rail.

 

Obama endorses plan to boost wireless broadband

 

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama endorsed on Monday plans by regulators to nearly double the spectrum now available for wireless devices.

 

The White House announced a plan modeled after proposals by the Federal Communications Commission to free up 500 megahertz of spectrum over the next 10 years to meet the demand for laptop computers and smartphones such as Apple Inc's popular iPhone.

 

Some estimates suggest the next five years will see an increase in wireless data of between 20 to 45 times 2009 levels, reflecting the burgeoning use of wireless devices.

 

The Federal Communications Commission, which manages commercial spectrum licenses, and the Department of Commerce, which oversees government spectrum, have been working together to locate unused spectrum.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R59O20100628

Interesting. I wonder how much money an auction might fetch? And would it be a sale or a renewable lease?

 

I expect more info from a Reuters reporter.

The Transportation Subcommittee will meet tomorrow, Thursday, July 1 to negotiate the FY2011 funding levels for high-speed and intercity passenger rail.

 

The FourBillion.com coalition has circulated a letter requesting that high-speed rail be funded at $4 billion and Amtrak at $2.6 billion.

 

Please add your name to the cause by sending your representatives an email. Click here to read the letter and send the email....

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2228/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4216

 

Thank you!

Interesting. I wonder how much money an auction might fetch? And would it be a sale or a renewable lease?

 

I expect more info from a Reuters reporter.

 

I haven't seen estimates of the profits to be gained, only vague conjectures of "tens of billions" in some articles.  Most articles just refer to profits being used for other infrastructure items such as smart grid, 1st responder networks, and high speed rail.

To me, those are the key questions. The only reason something is worth doing is because it has worth.

It's important to note that the highway life cycle is about 40-50 years. That's how long they live before they have to be replaced from the sub-base up. So if a road doesn't pay for itself in 40-50 years, it never will. And most never will. That's OK, as long as we acknowledge the cost and contrast it with the alternatives to highways so we can better decisions.

 

When Do Roads Pay For Themselves?

Posted by Eric de Place 07/01/2010 02:15 PM

 

A Portland freeway expansion as a case study.

Kevin Downing, a reader in Portland, got me hooked on a fascinating exercise: trying to figure out how long it takes a road expansion to pay for itself. Let's take a look at how this might work. (But please stick around for all the caveats at the end.)

 

Consider, for example, the Delta Park Project in north Portland. It's a $60 million endeavor that will add one lane in each direction to a 1.2 mile-long segment of Interstate 5, which currently has two lanes in each direction. So the question is: will road-users on that segment pay for the $60 million price tag?

 

READ MORE, & USE THE LINKS AT:

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2010/07/01/when-roads-pay-for-themselves

Tax truth: We need to raise the levy on gasoline

Thursday, July 8, 2010

 

SUMMER DRIVING season is upon us. This year, the annual migration of vacationers coincides with rising concerns over the federal debt and a nasty oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. What better time to revisit the enduring, maddening, illogical contrast between how little Americans actually pay to drive -- and how fiercely they resist even modest gasoline tax increases that would go a long way in addressing the nation's environmental and fiscal crises?

 

By any measure, driving in the United States is cheap. The price of a gallon of regular gasoline averaged about $2.70 during June. That's up almost a dollar since the depths of the Great Recession in December 2008. But the price has been steady for about a year, and adjusted for inflation it is 66 cents per gallon less than it was in 1980. Gas prices have had their ups (the $4-a-gallon spike in mid-2008) and downs (the consistently low prices of the late 1980s and 1990s). Overall, though, driving today is substantially cheaper, in real terms, than it was about a generation ago. In fact, it's cheaper than it was at the end of World War I. Government forecasts suggest prices may rise slightly over the next year.

 

Full editorial at:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070704480.html

Interesting reading.

Sen. Lautenberg's newly minted FREIGHT Act seeks to 'transform' U.S. transportation policy

 

Yesterday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced the Focusing Resources, Economic Investment and Guidance to Help Transportation Act of 2010, or FREIGHT Act (S. 3629), which supporters believe will help transform the nation’s transportation policy and generate more federal investment in the U.S. freight network.

 

Co-sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the bill calls for the creation of a new National Freight Infrastructure Grants initiative, a competitive, merit-based program that would provide broad eligibility for multi-modal freight investments and focus funds on projects offering the most public benefits. The FREIGHT Act also would establish a more comprehensive freight policy with outcome-oriented and performance-based goals, and focus on improving connectivity between modes, supporters — including the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors (CAGTC) — believe.

 

Full story at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=23896

I didn't make it past the headline.  On the basis of deep moral principle, I would vote against it based on my visceral reaction to the increasing use of stupid and contrived acronyms in legislative titles. 8-)

 

The USA PATRIOT Act remains the worst of the breed (many people remain blissfully ignorant that the name is in fact an acronym), but it has repugnant little cousins, too.

 

    ^---- The Ohio Department of Transportation once had a project to study transportation improvements along the I-75 corridor between Cincinnati and Dayton. They named it the "North - South Transportation Initiative." When someone worked out the acronym and pronounced it "nasty," they decided that they needed a better name.

 

^---- The Ohio Department of Transportation once had a project to study transportation improvements along the I-75 corridor between Cincinnati and Dayton. They named it the "North - South Transportation Initiative." When someone worked out the acronym and pronounced it "nasty," they decided that they needed a better name.

 

Ha ha ha!

Our view on gas tax: Price holds key to ending nation's addiction to oil

USA Today Editorial

 

Two years ago this month, crude oil prices spiked to more than $145 a barrel, driving the price of regular gasoline to more than $4 a gallon and painfully reminding the nation once again how vulnerable it is to the whims of the international oil market.

 

It's reasonable to ask what policymakers have done in the past 24 months to try to reduce that vulnerability. For that matter, it's reasonable to ask what they've done in the 37 years since the Arab oil embargo, which caused huge lines at gasoline stations, to stop enriching hostile petro-states in the Middle East and elsewhere.

 

The answer: not nearly enough.

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-07-26-editorial26_ST_N.htm 

 

Cities tackle traffic head-on with commuter options

 

 

By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

 

MINNEAPOLIS — The morning rush-hour traffic on Interstate 35W is crawling. The highway, which connects downtown Minneapolis and its northern and southern suburbs, is the busiest road in the state. When traffic snarls here, backups spread across the region.

 

A year ago, Peggy Birler, 45, would have been right in the thick of it, spending up to an hour driving alone to work. Today, Birler has a much shorter commute: She drives less than a mile to a Park & Ride lot, boards a bus for a 10-minute trip downtown, zipping along in a bus-only lane, then walks 1½ blocks to her office.

 

cont.

 

 

 

 

Our view on gas tax: Price holds key to ending nation's addiction to oil

USA Today Editorial

 

Two years ago this month, crude oil prices spiked to more than $145 a barrel, driving the price of regular gasoline to more than $4 a gallon and painfully reminding the nation once again how vulnerable it is to the whims of the international oil market.

 

It's reasonable to ask what policymakers have done in the past 24 months to try to reduce that vulnerability. For that matter, it's reasonable to ask what they've done in the 37 years since the Arab oil embargo, which caused huge lines at gasoline stations, to stop enriching hostile petro-states in the Middle East and elsewhere.

 

The answer: not nearly enough.

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-07-26-editorial26_ST_N.htm 

 

 

While I do agree that most people in the states buy too large of a vehicle for their needs, any graph (including the ones that accompany this article) illustrating the increase in the sales of full-size pickup models over cars can be misleading. There are only five full-size pickup models sold in this country versus hundreds of different models of passenger cars. Even if only the people who actually needed full-size trucks were buying them, they would still do well when compared to individual automobile models.

We don't need a gas/carbon tax.  We need a CONSUMPTION (sales) tax to replace the income tax.

After my military-style coup and I become the most honored dictator of these United States, you will need what I tell you to need.

After my military-style coup and I become the most honored dictator of these United States, you will need what I tell you to need.

Hahaha, I hear ya KJP. Lookin' forward to the day...

 

...The best cartoon mouse in the history of cartoon mice.

High-speed railroading

America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it

http://economist.com/node/16636101

 

Rather interesting article. Worth at least considering the implications of.

The article relies on assumptions that are about 10 to 15 years old. The freight railroads have opposed passenger rail for so long that many who do not follow the industry closely haven't heard or read or seen what some Class 1 freight railroads are saying or doing with regards to passenger rail these days. Consider:

 

A more thoughtful article in response to the Economist piece:

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/07/24/the-u-s-emphasis-on-passenger-rail-and-the-future-of-freight/

 

An excellent piece in Progressive Railroading:

http://myprogressiverailroading.com/blogs/jstagl/archive/2009/11/19/at-bnsf-passenger-rail-relations-take-precedence.aspx

 

BNSF stance on commuter rail (same policy as intercity passenger rail):

http://www.bnsf.com/communities/outreach/issues.html

 

Note that Norfolk Southern is contributing $4 million to the Indiana Gateway, a passenger rail service improvement project funded by Obama's $8 billion high-speed rail program (see bottom of Page 12):

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/IndianaGatewayHSIPRApplicationTrack1a.pdf

 

And a very interesting piece....

http://www.joc.com/rail-intermodal/ns-mulls-electrification-looks-away

Since many of you skim articles, here's some important paragraphs to consider:

 

The U.S. Emphasis on Passenger Rail and the Future of Freight

Yonah Freemark

July 24th, 2010

 

...Fortunately, the situation is not nearly as dire as the Economist suggests. For one, the vast majority of freight movements are through rural areas in the Western U.S., few of which are likely to see many passenger trains any time in the next century. Second, the true high-speed rail lines first planned for California and Florida will feature brand-new track, doing little to freight services. Third, with appropriate coordination between freight companies and the passenger services — such as promoting shipping during the night (done on New Jersey’s RiverLine corridor) — many problems could be avoided.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/07/24/the-u-s-emphasis-on-passenger-rail-and-the-future-of-freight/

 

 

At BNSF, passenger-rail relations take precedence

Posted 11-19-2009 1:37 PM by Jeff Stagl

 

....The Class I generally is open to their ideas for expanding or establishing commuter- or high-speed rail service on its lines as long as “it does no harm to our freight service now and in the future,” says Mitchell. In addition, BNSF expects to be compensated for costs incurred to provide service and retain the same liability coverage as a public agency.

 

When a proposal is on the table — whether it involves a new or expanded commuter-rail or HSR service — the following questions need to be answered: Is it safe, competitive in marketplace, reliable, comfortable and convenient?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://myprogressiverailroading.com/blogs/jstagl/archive/2009/11/19/at-bnsf-passenger-rail-relations-take-precedence.aspx

One thing that's often missed in these arguments about freight vs. passenger operations is that many corridors have been reduced from 2 to 1 track in many places.  Heavier haul corridors of the past might have been 3 or 4 tracks, but are now reduced to 2.  This has been possible because of advances in centralized control and signaling, allowing two-way operations on both tracks of 2-track lines.  If the addition of passenger trains were really going to be such a detriment to freight operations, then putting back one of those tracks, whether shared or serving passengers only, would make the most sense. The cries of a lack of capacity are somewhat disingenuous considering how much infrastructure has been removed in the name of economizing, but considering the corridors themselves are mostly still intact, rebuilding that infrastructure is not really so difficult, at least technically. 

One thing that's often missed in these arguments about freight vs. passenger operations is that many corridors have been reduced from 2 to 1 track in many places.  Heavier haul corridors of the past might have been 3 or 4 tracks, but are now reduced to 2.  This has been possible because of advances in centralized control and signaling, allowing two-way operations on both tracks of 2-track lines.  If the addition of passenger trains were really going to be such a detriment to freight operations, then putting back one of those tracks, whether shared or serving passengers only, would make the most sense. The cries of a lack of capacity are somewhat disingenuous considering how much infrastructure has been removed in the name of economizing, but considering the corridors themselves are mostly still intact, rebuilding that infrastructure is not really so difficult, at least technically. 

 

That describes the situation between Fort Wayne and Chicago on the old PRR alignment, the favored route for Cleveland-Toledo-Fort Wayne-Chicago passenger trains. The former high-capacity double-track line that carried passenger trains at or above 100mph in the post-WWII steam years now is owned by CSX, leased to Rail America, and operated by Rail America's wholly-owned subsidiary, Chicago Fort Wayne & Eastern. The route has been single-tracked and de-signaled and the remaining track has been downgraded to low speed. The ROW still is intact, but before passenger trains can run there everything that exists will have to be ripped up and all new rails, ties, and signaling system will have to be installed. Big price tag.

 

  Sometimes the reason for operating in this way is due to taxes. To reduce property taxes, railroads reduce infrastructure to the minimum. 

 

 

 

  Sometimes the reason for operating in this way is due to taxes. To reduce property taxes, railroads reduce infrastructure to the minimum. 

 

Yes, you're right. Considering our energy dependency, is irony the appropriate word to describe how we penalize tax the railroads' rights-of-way and subsidize invest in rights-of-way for trucks that use three to five times more fuel per ton-mile of freight?

An exceptionally clear and concise piece on America's transportation troubles...

 

 

MOVING BEYOND 1956. . .A NEW VISION FOR TRANSPORTATION

 

By Jason Segedy, Director – Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study

 

In 1956, President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act into law. This sweeping piece of legislation appropriated $25 billion in order to construct the Interstate Highway System, the largest and most visionary public works project in American history. It also established the Highway Trust Fund, which paid for 90 percent of the cost of building the system, using revenues that were generated through taxes on fuel.

 

This brief bit of history is instructive for two reasons:

 

First, it is a reminder that there once was a time when our federal government was capable of establishing a coherent vision for transportation, mobilizing public support for it, and working tirelessly to complete it. The 47,000 mile Interstate Highway System remains the largest and most comprehensive highway network in the world, and the vast majority of it was constructed in just 20 years.

 

Second, it demonstrates that the American public will support a massive expenditure of federal tax dollars - $425 billion when adjusted for inflation - if it is confident that it is bankrolling a worthwhile endeavor.

 

Today, 54 years later, our federal government is rudderless and broke. There is no strategic vision from Washington guiding our national transportation future. Even more disturbingly, our existing system of transportation funding is in deep trouble. Last year, for the first time in history, the Highway Trust Fund went broke. Congress had to provide an emergency infusion of $8 billion in general revenue funds in order to keep the fund solvent. Earlier this year, another $19.5 billion was transferred to a fund that is supposed to be self-supporting. Essentially, we are now borrowing money from China to pay for our transportation infrastructure. This is a future that President Eisenhower would never have imagined.

 

On the fiscal side of the transportation equation we have three options: cut spending, increase revenue, or do some combination of both. Reduced federal funding levels will mean that already cash-strapped local governments and states will have to tighten their belts even further. It will mean that our aging bridges and roads will continue to deteriorate and become more unsafe. It will also mean that transit systems will have to cut their already limited service even further, making it yet more difficult for our low-income residents to access jobs and economic opportunities.

 

On the policy side of the transportation equation, the situation is equally dysfunctional. The previous transportation bill expired in 2009, and Congress has yet to pass a new one. There is no national transportation plan, and the federal government is unwilling or unable, to come up with a coherent vision for transportation that everyday Americans can easily understand and embrace. Our current national transportation policy is schizophrenic. Over 30 percent of federal transportation funds go toward expanding highway capacity, but, at the same time we are spending $8 billion on high speed rail. We say we want people to consider alternatives to driving, but provide little real incentive to do so. Meanwhile, our existing network of roads and bridges continues to crumble. Washington is trying to be all things to all people and not doing any of them particularly well.

 

So what should we do?

 

First, the difficult truth is this: We do not have enough money to pay for the transportation system that we need. Although a tax increase may not be politically palatable, a massive national debt and decaying infrastructure is even less appealing. It is not fiscally responsible and it is not in the public interest for our federal government to resort to deficit spending and rely on other countries to pay for our transportation infrastructure. The beauty of the Highway Trust Fund has always been that it is a self-supporting source of revenue based upon a “user fee” – the gasoline tax. This is no longer the case.

 

The current gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon has not been increased since 1993. Because the tax was not indexed to inflation, its actual purchasing power has declined significantly.

 

Meanwhile, there are 53 million more people living in the United States than 17 years ago.

 

In the short term, the federal tax on gasoline needs to be raised by 10 cents per gallon, and indexed to inflation. This would generate an additional $20 billion per year in revenue. In the long term, a new mechanism for funding transportation should be found; preferably, one that is not predicated upon encouraging people to purchase more gasoline.

 

Second, Congress needs to pass a new transportation bill. This legislation should clearly define national transportation goals and priorities. It should adopt the same ambitious call-to-action that went into creating the Interstate Highway Act, but one that recognizes our current problems of urban sprawl and an uncertain energy future. It should also reform the convoluted system of dozens of separate federal funding categories, most of which contain cumbersome and outdated rules and regulations. This would improve flexibility and efficiency, and would allow states, MPOs, and transit agencies to better meet locally identified transportation needs.

 

One example of this type of reform would be to allow transit agencies to spend federal funds on operating expenditures. They are currently prohibited from doing so.

 

Even though 2010 is an election year, and Americans are justifiably concerned with high taxes, I believe that people would support an increase in the federal gasoline tax if they understood why it is necessary. According to a recent poll conducted by Building America’s Future, 60 percent of the American public erroneously believes that the gasoline tax is raised every year.

 

At the same time, 62 percent correctly believe that funding decisions are too often based on “politics” rather than the “public good.”

 

As transportation professionals and policy makers, I believe that it is our duty to provide leadership on this issue; both to ensure fiscal responsibility and to establish a transportation vision that the public can support. We did it in 1956, and we can do it again.

 

# # #

Well put.  Is there a link to this?

 

I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion about Americans' willingness to support taxing and spending absent context: "the American public will support a massive expenditure of federal tax dollars - $425 billion when adjusted for inflation - if it is confident that it is bankrolling a worthwhile endeavor."  This ignores the fact that the total tax and spending matters greatly as well, and the budget has increased so much in other areas that assuming that America will be as tolerant of such a massive new spending program now as we were in the 1950s may ignore some critical facts.

 

As a matter of policy, I also have a difference with him about the gas tax.  I categorically oppose all consumption taxes because of their regressive nature, even in light of the arguments that they discourage certain behaviors (smoking, drinking, excess gasoline consumption, etc.) that we might want to discourage.  That's not a good enough reason for me to support taxation that systematically burdens most those who can afford it least.

 

That said, I agree with him about the dangerously aging state of some of our infrastructure (we've already had one major highway bridge collapse recently, after all), and the need for a more focused and unified national transportation plan.  I just don't think there's enough national unity on what our transportation system priorities need to be in order to craft such a plan right now--and the Obama administration hasn't made it a very high priority, either, which doesn't help.  I think it would actually have the chance to be a very popular initiative, with substantial support from independents (and even a few Republicans), but that may be my own biases talking.

Well put. Is there a link to this?

 

 

No. It was e-mailed to me by the author.

 

  "I agree with him about the dangerously aging state of some of our infrastructure (we've already had one major highway bridge collapse recently, after all)"

 

    I assume you are referring to the Minnesota bridge. That particular bridge collapsed to due a design error, not due to aging. The remarkable thing is that it lasted so long before collapsing.