Where's Amtrak Joe When You Need Him? Mass Transit Gets the Shaft
I'm starting to dig into the differences between House transportation panel chairman Jim Oberstar's $85 billion proposal for infrastructure funding in the stimulus bill (available for download on the right-hand side of the committee page) and the actual final product, released yesterday.
David Alpert at Greater Greater Washington has a chart that tells the tale well. But my first question is: Where did you go, Amtrak Joe?
When the perennially cash-poor train system got a $15 billion authorization signed by George Bush last fall, it represented a big win for Acela-loving Vice President-elect Biden. Now, however, it would seem that Biden's administration has given mass transit the short end of the stick.
Oberstar's proposed spending on intercity passenger rail was $3.4 billion, in addition to $1.5 billion for Amtrak. The stimulus bill released yesterday included $1.1 billion for both combined.
All those who think the stimulus should put mass transit and highways on a more equal footing -- represent, Northeast Corridor riders! -- should check out Transportation for America's petition on the issue. Their in-depth analysis of the gaps between Oberstar's ideas and yesterday's reality can be found here.
If Obama is serious about reducing sprawl (which reduces needless car trips and the pollution inherent) then mass transit ought to be part of it. We need something besides more highways!
January 16, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very disappointing. The total should be MUCH MORE than what was originally proposed, not less.
January 16, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you're bailing out the auto industries because they're too big to fail, I guess it would be a bad return on investment decision to then fund mass transit in any meaningful way.
January 16, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh! Let's make this stimulus bold. Right now it's looking about as bold as plain oatmeal.
January 16, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the plan on Huffpo THE DEMS EVEN SAY THEMSELVES THEY ARE SHAFTING INFRASTRUCTURE. They say "there is 64 billion dollars worth of available works, but.............we are only going to issue out 30 billion" like WTF!?
January 16, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read that this may have to do withthe energy hawks. They don't want TOO much infrastructure because of pollution.
January 16, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't seem to make sense in the case of public transportation.
January 16, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems have been cringing for so long that they lack any vision of what to do now that they have real power. I hope a little time for that reality to sink in will cure that, but the momentum of a popular new President is a pretty rapidly wasting asset so they don't have all that much time.
January 16, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, I don't see Obama's popularity rapidly declining and wasteing. Throughout the transition he has maintained approval ratings in the 60's and 70's and once he actually takes office I don't see his ratings going in the toilet like Bush's did over time. So they have time to work on legislation before the "Honeymoon period" offically expires.
January 17, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Historically, virtually all major initiatives have been passed quite early in new Administrations. Maybe this time will be the exception, but that's never a wise thing on which to bet too heavily.
January 17, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We definitely need more infrastructure spending especially on transit COMMON that's jobs jobs jobs people.
January 16, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before we collectively freak out, let's try and remember that this is supposed to be a stimulus package, not a transportation omnibus.
As such, the new administration needs to focus on "shovel-ready" projects that can start employing people immediately, and unfortunately most mass transit projects don't meet this criterion.
Filling in potholes and repaving highways? Easy, grab some tools and roll some trucks. Giving L.A. a real mass transit system? Err...let me think about that one for a few years and get back to you...
January 16, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solid point, Transportation bill is upcoming this year. Looking forward to light rail!
http://www.tmacog.org/TransportationMeetings/Passenger_Rail/July_08/TMACOG_OHERN_Resolution.pdf
January 17, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If EVER there is a time to think really BIG about mass transit, now is that time.
Take a look at what Spain is doing with trains.
We either get out of our cars or we strangle on our own roads.
January 16, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The WPA helped build the Lincoln Tunnel. Now thaaaat's what I'm talking about!
January 16, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One obvious question is how much rail-based work is actually ready to go rather than being a few years out. Any good answers?
January 16, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Service began on the first line of the TGV between Paris and Lyon in 1981.
1981, or almost THIRTY YEARS AGO.
And we're talking about whether to fund the Acela?
It boggles the mind.
January 16, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
josephcast:
The WPA built the Golden Gate Bridge, as well as most of the coastal bridges in Oregon. The WPA extended the runways in almost every airport in Maine, and then built new ones.
The WPA also built the Rec Center in my town of Rockland, Maine, a building still used every day by this community of 7,800.
But that's just the start: don't forget about the PWA, the CWA and the CCC - the CCC left an amazing legacy, much of it still used today.
Done correctly, a large scale public works program will not only provide jobs today, but leave a foundation for the economies of the next three or four generations to sit on.
Done correctly.
January 16, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commute via regional train, and I've occasionally taken Amtrak to work. The best thing that can be done for major cities is increasing passenger rail, because it reduces traffic (and the pollution it causes). It's successful in Los Angeles, for Ghu's sake, so it ought to work in other places.
I guess it's too much for Congresscritters to understand, like a lot of other stuff that's obvious out here.
January 16, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be better from a jobs perspective to build roads? They take up more space so they probably require more workers to build it, and they wear out faster especially in northern states so more roads now = more roads to repair later, guaranteeing pot holes or jobs.
Anyhow, all my life I have wanted to take a train but never have.
January 17, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our interstate system is ready for reconstruction,
there are years of work right now! That's without major new capacity. And I would argue that we can do both. Rebuild the interstates and build out massive high speed and local light rail.
January 17, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where do you live that you've never taken a train?
January 17, 2009 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Minnesota obviously.
February 12, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because something takes up more space hardly means it will create more jobs!
January 18, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I read the Executive Summary of this bill I am baffled as to where the job creation elements are coming from. This looks to me like other than the tax cuts the large dollars of the rest are heavily aimed to supporting state programs that will be hurt by state budget cutting. This looks to me like a big spending bill and not anything very bold or enlightened. I thought that we were going to spend a bunch of money and have a lasting benefit from the expenditures so as to not just create more debt for current expenses. I am missing the impact of this proposed bill.
January 17, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elana - Thank you very much for covering this. We can't just have all of this rhetoric about change and addressing climate/energy without actually changing and addressing climate change and energy through meaningful new policies such as inter-city rail and mass transit.
Excellent work! Please keep on this issue.
January 17, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, the MTA in New York City is planning to balance its budget by making the disabled bear the brunt of their fare increase. While raising bus and subway fares from $2.00 to $2.50 per ride, the fares for the disabled who take part in the access-a-ride program will go from $2.00 to either $5.00 or $6.00 per ride. I wrote Mayor Bloomberg's office for a response on this, and have heard nothing back from them.
Since the Access-a-Ride program was set up by the MTA to settle a lawsuit filed by the disabled because most subway stations do not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, (Most are not wheelchair accessible), how does the MTA justify raising the fare in such a disproportionate way?
It seems to me that after settling the lawsuit, they should not be allowed to now get around the agreement by over-charging the disabled for the service which the MTA was required to create as a remedy. Or have I missed something?
January 17, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink