Here is Ken Orski's latest NewsBrief. As we've said many times, Orski is one of the most astute Washington observers regarding transportation in general and high-speed rail in particular. I've highlighted the key passage in bold.
". . . .Congress has rescinded all of FY 2011 funding for the high-speed rail program and House Republican leadership has announced its intention to totally eliminate support for high-speed rail beginning next year."
This may be the single most important issue for those of us who object to high-speed rail development in the US.
If, and I say IF, the Congress, with the impetus provided by the House Republicans, zeroes out any funds for high-speed rail ($38 billion is the TOD mark) from the FY2012 Transportation Budget Re-authorization, that means, for six years there will be no further funding for high-speed rail from the federal government. Unless, of course, the make-up of the Congress changes sufficiently to put the Democrats back into full control of the Legislative process.
As pessimistic as I am, if the HSR program is suspended in Washington for several years, it will have lost the momentum it currently enjoys across the US and the voting public will have come to realize what a pointless project and pork-barrel agenda it was.
On the other hand, I do believe that railroad repair and improvements, especially for urban and regional environments, are appropriate tax expenditures, and that may be a difference between many of my colleagues and myself. But, there should be no doubt that true high-speed rail is as wasteful as the French/British supersonic Concorde was, and for most of the same reasons.
Regarding future federal action on the Transportation Budget, we can only hope.
=====================================
Vol. 22, No. 14
<http://www.innobriefs.com>www.innobriefs.com
May 6, 2011
Skepticism Greets US DOT's Draft Transportation Bill
An undated--- and possibly still unvetted by OMB---draft of US DOT's legislative proposal for surface transportation reauthorization, the "Transportation Opportunities Act," has been making the rounds in Washington for the past week. Its publication, however, has been largely ignored by the inside-the-Beltway transportation community. What would ordinarily be an eagerly awaited event and an occasion to compliment the Department , has passed virtually unnoticed. Even the usual cheering squad of Administration-supportive advocacy groups such as Transportation for America, the Building America‚s Future coalition and US PIRG has been muted in their approval.
The reason for this indifference is twofold. Partly, it's because the DOT draft contains no surprises: it merely restates in statutory language the proposals already revealed in the President's FY 2012 Budget request. But more importantly, the draft has been ignored because it has been judged to lack political savvy and realism. Even the highly partisan liberal Streetsblog was obliged to pronounce the draft bill as irrelevant expect it to be central to the debate in Congress. By refusing to adjust to a still-struggling economy, high gas prices, and a deficit-obsessed Congress, the president has rendered his own plan moot."
Snyder's dismissive verdict is understandable. Consider the following:
[edit.]
Item: In its draft bill, the US DOT has proposed to devote $53 billion over six-years to pursue a "high-speed" rail program that would eventually (in 25 years) give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail service. Yet Congress has rescinded all of FY 2011 funding for the high-speed rail program and House Republican leadership has announced its intention to totally eliminate support for high-speed rail beginning next year. Even if a modest passenger rail program should survive, it is likely to be focused on the Northeast Corridor, as Rep. Mica has strongly suggested, and not pursue a quixotic multi-billion dollar national "high-speed" rail vision as conceived and advocated by the White House.
[edit.]
In sum, the unreality of its fiscal ambitions and the lack of political support for its key programmatic initiatives has rendered the DOT's legislative proposal "dead on arrival" in the judgment of congressional observers. That is not to say that the proposal deserves to be totally ignored. Many of its programmatic provisions, for example, those dealing with accelerated project delivery, tolling, highway and motor vehicle safety, "state of good repair" policy, pursuit of VMT fees, performance management and freight policy, are worthy of consideration and will likely find their way into the final bill.
However, the Washington policy establishment is largely ignoring what it considers a stubborn refusal by the drafters of the US DOT bill to face the facts and adjust to political realities. Instead, transportation stakeholders are awaiting the release (probably in late June) of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee bill that will more correctly reflect the mood of the Congress, the stakeholders and of the country. It is safe to conclude that what is likely to emerge from that committee, and eventually approved by the full House and the Senate, will bear little resemblance to the U.S. Transportation Department's unrealistic draft legislative proposal.
###
Note: The NewsBriefs can also be accessed at <http://www.infrastructureUSA.org>www.infrastructureUSA.org
A listing of all recent NewsBriefs is available at <http://www.innobriefs.com>www.innobriefs.com
Please feel free to forward or reprint this item with appropriate citation. All correspondence, including requests to subscribe and unsubscribe, should be addressed to: C. Kenneth Orski, Editor/Publisher; email: korski@verizon.net; tel: 301.299.1996; fax: 301.299.4425. Please make sure that your email account is set up to accept incoming mail from korski@verizon.net
