Sunday, September 6, 2009

Repeal The "$8B for HSR" Provisions of ARRA '09

Here's one to think about.

Various postings at other passenger rail forums suggest that the Requests to Appropriations ($8B) ratio is in the range of a 12 to 1. Obviously, someone is going to walk away empty handed, but there is one certainty: the "wired in" consultants will be fed.

By the time any of these projects to be funded under this ARRA '09 provision move forth, the economy will be in recovery mode.

Had the legislation called for "$8B for the NEC", that would be one thing; but it didn't and in fact specifically called for the allocations to be AWAY from the NEC.

Time to get rid of this before passenger railroad transportation simply is lumped in with "Bridge to Nowhere".

4 comments:

  1. Allow me to clarify: I DO NOT want to have passenger rail's funding cut by that $8B provided for under ARRA '09. What I want, regardless of the legislative process involved, is for the "revenue sharing' concept eliminated and replaced by appropriations for specific infrastructure betterment where there is an established demand for rail passenger service. I further would like to have any references to "high speed' removed - just plain old trains that move people economically and efficiently through regions where there is sufficient demand for travel and that to construct or expand highway or air traffic facilities would result in greater $$$$ and environmental costs than would expansion of the rail mode.

    If states such as Kansas and South Dakota do not have any markets in which rail passenger service can meet the criteria I have set forth, sorry bout that!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you would have been better off getting straight to the point.

    BTW, I think Kansas City-Topeka-Lawrence-Wichita has good corridor potential: Distance approx. 250 miles, several intemediate points, including the state's flagship university, and flat terrain where speeds of 90 mph can be attained and already are being attained.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Dr. Utt for holding my views and expressing them, so far as I'm concerned, in a fair and balanced manner to a wider constituency than I can expect to command at this forum.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm2637.cfm

    While some of your past presentations regarding rail passenger service have about as much 'balance' as does a Glen, Rush, Sean, or Sarah rant, in this instance you are quite "on mark'.

    ReplyDelete