House Republicans at work:
Republicans prohibit funding for high speed rail
House Republicans late Thursday night adopted an amendment that would prohibit California from receiving any high speed rail money in a huge five-year transportation bill headed to the House floor next week. The $270 billion bill also eliminates bicycle and pedestrian programs and detaches urban mass transit funding from its traditional revenue source. The underlying bill did not include any high speed rail funding to begin with, and indeed would cut Amtrak by 25 percent, so the prohibition serves mainly as a stick in the eye to California’s plan for bullet trains.
The action is part of a continuing effort by Republicans to kill the entire project, which was a major element of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus. California’s $100 billion plan for bullet trains running from San Francisco to San Diego already has the stimulus money in hand to get started, but future federal funding on which the project depends is very much at risk if House Republicans maintain control of the chamber, not to mention take the White House.
The high speed rail prohibition came as an amendment, approved 31-22, by Rep. Jeff Dunham, R-Turlock, who said he wanted to make sure that all transportation funds for California to go to highways.
The House Transportation bill overall stands on shaky financial and political footing, relying as it does on yet-to-be seen revenues from potential off shore oil drilling that purportedly would materialize if areas off both U.S. coasts, including California’s, were opened to new oil leasing, as the bill envisions. Its chances of Senate passage in its current form are zero.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has put together a bipartisan transportation bill that has the full support of her ranking member, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe. The two are still hoping that they can get something reasonable out of a House/Senate conference committee, although that is looking increasingly unlikely, given how many poison pills Republicans have put into their bill. The current transportation bill expires at the end of March, having been extended several times because Congress is unable to agree on a long-term transportation blueprint.
Although House Republicans are touting their success in keeping the bill free of earmarks, they are having problems with the bill within their own caucus. Rank-and-file member complained that it was hatched behind closed doors before landing in committee, and the conservative Club for Growth coming out against the bill. Its reliance on funding to materialize from oil drilling is considered somewhat magical.
Both bills are billions of dollars short of revenue because both parties refuse to raise gasoline taxes, depriving the Highway Trust Fund of adequate revenues to fund transportation programs.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/02/03/republicans-prohibit-funding-for-high-speed-rail/?gta=commentlistpos#commentlistpos
Justin Horner’s Blog
How a Bad Transportation Bill is REALLY Bad for California
Print this page
Posted February 1, 2012 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment, Moving Beyond Oil
Tags:california, californiatransportation, drilling, transportation, transportationdrilling
Share | |
|
As you likely know by now, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, John Mica (R-FL), has finally released his draft of the transportation bill (800+ pages for your reading pleasure, found here). In six words: it's worse than anyone ever expected. One need only consult my colleague Deron Lovaas' recent post (Worst. Transportation Bill. Ever) to get the basic idea.
In (very) short, Chairman Mica's bill strives to commit ever more millions to road construction (something Californians do not want), while cutting funding to bicycling and pedestrian programs and eliminating essential environmental safeguards.
And how does he propose to pay for the bill? More oil drilling (something even leading Republicans don't want).
Hey, what's there not to hate?
But diving even deeper reveals how this incredibly bad bill is especially bad for California:
For starters, it opens up sections of the California coast to offshore drilling with reduced environmental review and no ability for the State of California to weigh-in. This, obviously, is a nonstarter for an organization like NRDC.
And Senator Barbara Boxer appears to agree: "that threatens, in my state, the fishing industry, the tourist industry, the recreation industry and millions of jobs. That's very controversial."
It eliminates bicycle and pedestrian funding (so-called "Transportation Enhancements"), including Safe Routes to School programs and dedicated bicycle and pedestrian program coordinators at CalTrans, our Department of Transportation. Despite California's sunny image as the land of outdoorsmen and fitness buffs, California is in the bottom half of US states in per capita pedestrian and bike spending. With our State and local budgets in crisis, we won't see these cuts backfilled by Sacramento or City Hall.
There is no mention of High Speed Rail in the bill, and Chairman Mica only mentions a "placeholder" for dealing with it. Sure, there are questions about HSR, but it has the potential to have significant environmental benefits. Given that there are really only two HSR efforts underway in the whole country, neglecting HSR is definitely a jab at California.
The bill proposes 25% cuts in Amtrak's budget over the next two years. Amtrak lines that operate wholly within California (the Capitol Corridor, the San Joaquin and the Pacific Surfliner) have an encouraging, if fragile, 86% on-time record, on average. Budget cuts wont make improving things for California's railriders any easier.
CMAQ: The Congestion Management and Air Quality (or "SEE-mack") program has been a valuable source of flexible funding for California to fund transportation projects like transit, traffic flow improvements, and alternative fuel programs that actually improve air quality in areas out of compliance with Federal Clean Air Standards. Los Angeles, as is well know, has the worst air quality in the nation, and California cities continue to top lists of those with the dirtiest air.
Anything that hits CMAQ, then, hits California disproportionately. Unlike funding for roads, CMAQ funding will be kept flat over the next five years and states will be given extra "flexibility" to use CMAQ funds to encourage more driving. CMAQ has been a great program that needs more funding, not less, and benefits millions of Californians with its emphasis on reducing the negative environmental impacts of driving.
California is a national environmental leader. A transportation bill that works against so much of what the state stands for deserves frequent and vocal opposition. We encourage all Californians in joining NRDC in opposing Mica's transportation bill.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jhorner/how_a_bad_transportation_bill.html
If you are serious about Transit, consider signing here:
[I/We/Organization Name][am/are] strongly opposed to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee proposal to divert $25 billion in dedicated fuels tax revenues from the Mass Transit Account. This represents nearly 50 percent of the federal investment in public transit authorized by the House surface transportation bill. This drastic change will clearly put public transportation projects at risk. This proposal seeks to undo nearly 30 years of overwhelming bipartisan support for dedicated federal investment in public transit.
[I/We/Organization Name]call on Congress to continue the long-standing highway and public transit financing partnership in place today so that our country can continue to create American jobs and foster economic growth, as well as rebuild our aging infrastructure and meet the growing demand for improved and expanded transportation.
http://capwiz.com/napta/issues/alert/?alertid=60938391&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]
While I agree that this bill should have started the conversation about how to fund both transit and highway projects in the future(infrastructure funding is about to become insolvent relative to need, so the underlying issue is very real), and I don't support this particular bill in the least bit... it should be noted, in fairness, that the bill does set aside $40 billion for transit as a cushion while transit initiatives seek to find alternative funding sources.
I'm not saying it's adequate by any stretch of the imagination, but the faucet isn't being turned off tommorrow.
That said, I have made my thoughts known to my representative on the subject and am against this particular bill.
Thank you fieldafm!
Why should transit have to find alternative funding sources when roads and airports do not?
Faye, I wrote my Senators and Representative to complain. I also asked the members of the Jacksonville Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee to do the same. Here's the reply from Rep. Ander Crenshaw:
QuoteThank you for contacting me to express your opinion regarding Congress' work on national transportation programs and their related funding. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this matter.
The Federal Interstate System began in the mid-1950s and now connects every state and region of the country. Now that the world's best highway system is mostly complete, the modern challenge is not traversing the country - it is traversing cities and suburbs. The most significant transportation problem facing our communities across the nation is congestion. Despite record levels of highway spending, congestion is worsening and highways are deteriorating.
As you may already know, the law authorizing federal transportation programs expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2009. Unfortunately, my colleagues and I were unable to enact a new authorization bill in the 111th Congress. Without a new bill, surface transportation programs are funded through extension legislation.
Lately, reauthorization has become a difficult task, held captive to a highly controversial issue - how money will be distributed among the states. Since 1982 Congress has included legislative provisions in every surface transportation reauthorization act to remedy funding distribution concerns through a variety of minimum guarantee provisions. These provisions have created problems because for many years, some states, known as donor states, have received significantly less federal highway aid than their highway users pay in federal highway taxes to the highway trust fund. Unfortunately, Florida is a donor state.
The debate is centered on the fact that for too many years, donor states have been subsidizing the repair and improvement of donee state infrastructure, especially the older highway infrastructure in the Northeast. Donee states claim that the age of their highway infrastructure, especially in the Northeast, the high cost of working on heavily congested urban roads, and the limited financial resources in large sparsely populated western states justify their donee status.
Under the current formula, Florida receives only 87 cents for every dollar it contributes to the highway trust fund. In the past 50 years, the highway trust fund and the revenue sources that feed it have been a reliable mechanism for financing transportation programs, but this is no longer sustainable. Fuel taxes, which provide 90% of the money for surface transportation, are unlikely to provide a solid long-term foundation for this desired growth. For Congress to move forward on the next transportation authorization bill, my colleagues and I must work to ensure the highway trust fund is solidly financed for the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Amtrak, officially named the National Passenger Railroad Corporation, was created by the federal government in 1971 to take over intercity passenger rail services that were previously operated by the major railroad companies around the nation. Rail passenger ridership had been declining since the 1920s, due primarily to competition from automobile and airplane travel. In the 1960s the railroad companies were reporting combined losses in the billions of dollars on their passenger service. Several companies were facing bankruptcy due to declining profitability of their freight operations, and most wished to be free of their money-losing passenger operations. In order to maintain a national system of passenger rail service while freeing the railroad companies of their hemorrhaging passenger service, Congress created Amtrak.
Unfortunately, Amtrak represented the continuation of the status quo, except that now the federal government and the taxpayers, not the railroad companies, would be responsible for the financial losses. For example, today, the average Amtrak passenger pays a higher fare per mile than the average airline or bus passenger. The taxpayers pick up even more.
Amtrak is a federally chartered, for-profit public corporation. However, Amtrak has run a deficit every year since its creation, and has received more than $25 billion dollars in assistance from the federal government to cover its deficits during the past thirty years. In the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress required Amtrak to become profitable by the end of fiscal year 2002. This goal has not been achieved.
Some Members of Congress want to increase Amtrak's funding significantly; others want to restructure, privatize, or open competition for Amtrak. What is clear is that if passenger rail service is to be preserved, the existing structure for Amtrak must be reformed.
As you are aware, on February 16, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott announced that he will reject $2.4 billion in federal money intended for construction of a high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando. At a time when Florida is facing double-digit unemployment and our families are struggling, Florida leaders have to pass meaningful legislation and make critical decisions that will help Floridians through these difficult times. Governor Scott believed that the capital cost overruns from the project could put Florida taxpayers on the hook for an additional $3 billion and if the project becomes too costly for taxpayers and is shut down, the state would have to return the $2.4 billion in federal funds. As this is a state issue, I encourage you to contact the Governor's office at http://www.flgov.com to express your opinion on this specific issue.
As Congress takes up this debate again in the 112th Congress, I will continue to fight to make sure Florida receives its fair share of highway trust funds, and that those funds are invested wisely. Florida is the 4th largest state and growing with critical national and international infrastructure assets and as your elected official I am going to do everything in my power to fight for equity for Florida.
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this matter or if you would like additional information on this topic or other issues facing Congress, please visit my Website at http://crenshaw.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Ander Crenshaw
Member of Congress
nice form letter
QuoteWhy should transit have to find alternative funding sources when roads and airports do not?
I don't pretend to know the answer to that. But, the reason for/why it is valid as the pot of money can be raided disproportinately at any time(locally like how TIF money downtown is spread out everywhere for instance). Maybe part of the answer is to have dedicated monies going to dedicated pots, maybe that entails slicing up the gas tax in certain ways.
Like I said, the conversation needs to move forward in a meaningful way... I think a bill like this is putting the cart before the horse and does long term damage that disproportinately favors certain forms of mobility while ignoring the inter-dependance on all forms of transportation with one another.
Here's a link to yesterday's editorial in the New York Times regarding the gas tax issue for anybody who missed it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinion/a-terrible-transportation-bill.html?_r=1&ref=congress
After reading the congressman's letter, can anyone tell me exactly where he stands on HB7?
QuoteAs Congress takes up this debate again in the 112th Congress, I will continue to fight to make sure Florida receives its fair share of highway trust funds, and that those funds are invested wisely. Florida is the 4th largest state and growing with critical national and international infrastructure assets and as your elected official I am going to do everything in my power to fight for equity for Florida.
All I can tell from this part near the end is that he believes Florida is getting shorted and wants to fight for us. Does he feel that ALL of the money due to us should go only to roads? Or do we get to spend it proportional to our use of each mode?
It's Political Doublespeak. I just sent out another alert asking for emails or letters to Congress to stop this idiocy. There is still a chance to affect our Republican led House committee on this issue. Many Republicans as well as Dems are not happy to see such radical cuts and so little thought for the future of transportation.
Not only is the attack on transit, bike-ped, Safe Routes to School, Amtrak, but HR7 would roll back vital environmental review laws by excluding more projects from review, cutting public participation in the review process and automatically approving transportation projects that fail to meet arbitrary deadlines. What if a highway is planned through your favorite park or hunting preserve? You may lose the right to say anything about it.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on February 09, 2012, 03:10:32 PM
It's Political Doublespeak. I just sent out another alert asking for emails or letters to Congress to stop this idiocy. There is still a chance to affect our Republican led House committee on this issue. Many Republicans as well as Dems are not happy to see such radical cuts and so little thought for the future of transportation.
Not only is the attack on transit, bike-ped, Safe Routes to School, Amtrak, but HR7 would roll back vital environmental review laws by excluding more projects from review, cutting public participation in the review process and automatically approving transportation projects that fail to meet arbitrary deadlines. What if a highway is planned through your favorite park or hunting preserve? You may lose the right to say anything about it.
Crenshaw and other local Republicans will surely vote for it........unfortunately the bill carries out everything Republicans have loudly advocated for years. And since there are no more moderate Republicans, all we can do is register our severe dissatisfaction. AARP is on our side ;)
FEBRUARY 9, 2012.
Coalition Slams Cuts to Transit Funds .
By TED MANN
An unusually broad coalition of interest groups and government agencies has aligned against an effort to fundamentally shift how mass-transit projects are funded with federal money.
A House provisionâ€"tucked into a five-year transportation authorization bill created by Republicansâ€"would reverse a 30-year-old policy that dedicates 20% of the U.S. tax on motor fuels to mass transit. The transportation bill may face a vote on the House floor as soon as next week.
Groups ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to AARP said Wednesday the bill would have drastic effects on mass transportation, eliminating a dedicated funding stream and subjecting transit agencies to the whims of the congressional appropriations process.
The House provision isn't included in a competing Senate bill, which could face a floor vote Thursday. But the coalition, organized by the American Public Transportation Association, said it feared it could become law in a compromise. The Obama administration opposes the House plan.
"The business community has grave concerns about this," said Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure at the Chamber of Commerce. The group said it fears the provision could hinder the effort to pass the entire transportation bill.
Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the author of the provision, said his motivation is to preserve the Highway Trust Fund, the roughly $37 billion in annual money for highway projects from fuel taxes. The fund faces a $15 billion shortfall, roughly the amount, he said, that is dedicated to transit projects under current law.
"This isn't like, 'Mica doesn't like transit,'" the Florida Republican said. "I'm a big fan of mass transit, where it makes sense."
Mr. Mica said his goal is a funding structure by which "the users pay" for highways through the fuel tax while transit systems depend on a new, as-yet unspecified funding source.
That has raised alarms at agencies such as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York, the nation's largest mass-transit operator.
The MTA receives roughly $1 billion a year from the Highway Trust Fund for its capital budget.Richard Burnfield, chief financial officer of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia, said that under the change
"it would be very difficult to enter into contracts and make any long-term investment decisions if you had that subject to the appropriations process every year." His agency received about $235 million in 2011 from the Highway Trust Fund. The transit coalition members said the trend in the country is toward giving mass transit reliable streams of revenue. Of 28 transportation-related ballot initiatives in the past year, 22 were approved.
In Philadelphia, Mr. Burnfield's agency was granted its own trust fund in 2007, with money coming from a state sales tax to support the agency's planning and operations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577211560053280638.html?mod=googlenews_wsj