Government
Transportation in Congress roundup: Leaders agree on extension, GOP would kill Amtrak, & Obama proposal
A lot has been going on in Congress around transportation policy this week, and Tanya Snyder has been on top of it at Streetsblog Capitol Hill. Here are a few quick excerpts from her latest articles, which you can read in full on the Streetsblog site.
House and Senate agree on 6-month transpo extension
Photo by THE Holy Hand Grenade! on Flickr.
Just days after a Senate committee asked the full chamber to consider a four-month extension of SAFETEA-LU, new negotiations have replaced that idea with a six-month extension at current spending levels. The bill also extends the gas tax. ...The extension is a clean one, with no changes in policy. That means bike/ped funding, which has been under threat over the last week, will remain for the next six months, at least. And the extension will be funded by the same 18.4 cent federal gas tax the U.S. has had since 1993, which was also due to expire September 30 and which is also renewed by this action.
The extension will stick to current funding levels, authorizing $24.78 billion in spending from the Highway Trust Fund for the first half of FY2012 (which begins October 1). That's almost $19.8 billion for highways and $4.2 billion for transit.Read more »That's far more than the FY2012 budget just passed by the Transportation and HUD Appropriations subcommittee in the House, which agreed to $27.7 billion for highways and $5.2 billion for transit for the entire year. Although this extension can authorize more spending than that, actual spending levels are up to the appropriators. Experts say that at this level, most of the money would go to pay states back for projects already built, and new highway project funding could be cut by as much as 75 percent.
But higher spending levels also have their down side. "Maintaining current highway and transit spending levels for any period of time deepens the Highway Trust Fund's revenue hole," writes Jeff Davis, noting that according to the CBO, "the Highway Account of the Trust Fund will run out of cash at these spending levels in the first few months of calendar year 2013, with the Mass Transit Account running dry a year or so behind that)."
Rail advocates: House bill would kill Amtrak
The 2012 transportation budget passed by a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee yesterday cut all high-speed rail funding and slashes Amtrak's operating grant by 60 percent. What's more, it forbids Amtrak from using that money to fund short corridors.Ridership on those short corridors grew five percent in the last year (PDF). Twenty-seven train lines, including several in and out of Chicago, would suddenly see their federal funding disappear, if the House budget were to become law. That would only leave the Northeast Corridor and a handful of cross-country routes; half Amtrak's ridership would be cut instantly.
According to the National Association of Railroad Passengers, a rail advocacy group, the danger goes further than just the short corridors. The organization asserts that "the bill really would kill all of Amtrak because loss of the short corridors would cut revenues and balloon costs for Northeast Corridor and national network (overnight) trains… Overhead costs
— such as for station facilities and maintenance back shops — which now are shared among routes would be dumped on the surviving trains. For example, the Texas Eagle would become the sole user of the St. Louis and Fort Worth terminals and six Illinois stations. And Amtrak's Chicago terminal costs would be borne solely by eight overnight trains."
Good news and bad news: Obama's plan would work, but GOP won't pass it
[Friday] morning brought some useful indicators about the outlook for President Obama's jobs bill. Good news first: Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, says President Obama's job creation plan will likely add 1.9 million jobs, cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point, and grow the economy by 2 percent.The plan includes $50 billion for infrastructure, with an emphasis on transportation and schools, and the creation of an infrastructure bank capitalized at $10 billion. ...
Despite Moody's upbeat analysis of the president's proposal, stocks tumbled [Friday] morning. According to Bloomberg, the gloom wasn't about the merits of the plan but the likelihood of Congressional passage. "Even as President Obama made an effort to put that plan together," said James Dunigan, chief investment officer in Philadelphia for PNC Wealth Management, "there's not a whole lot of confidence that Congress will pass [it]."
 | Tanya Snyder is editor of Streetsblog Capitol Hill, which covers issues of national transportation policy. She previously covered Congress for Pacifica and public radio. She lives car-free in a transit-oriented and bike-friendly neighborhood of Washington, DC.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
by Democrat on Sep 12, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
by David C on Sep 12, 2011 2:54 pm • link • report
There is nothing that legally stopping you from contacting those idiots anyway, or from campaigning in their districts. If you live in this area, you can't be more than 30 miles from a republican district.
by Jasper on Sep 12, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report
How would letting the Heartland Flyer disappear hurt Texas?
Perusing over their website it shows that the duration of travel between OKC and Ft. Worth (Cowtown!) is 4 hours. Google Maps shows that drive as 3 hours 18 minutes, though in reality it's probably closer to under 3 hours given how it's open and desolate highway just a few miles outside of either city. I picked a random day on the Amtrak website to find a fare it was very reasonable, $26 (I'd kill for that between here and NYC). I used the same random date for a flight on Southwest and it was $39 one-way (though you should add fees to that as well) for a one hour flight.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't see how the loss of that line would have much affect on business conducted between the two destinations, OKC and Ft. Worth (you could probably include Dallas in the latter) because of the other options for travel available between the two and the given prices.
by Fitz on Sep 12, 2011 4:20 pm • link • report
by David C on Sep 12, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report
Political connections. Has there been any research to show that losing a rail line that carries 300 some odd passengers a day between the two cities would negatively affect business in either? As mentioned previously, the alternatives for travel don't differ much in terms of cost and are less in terms of duration.
by Fitz on Sep 12, 2011 4:49 pm • link • report
1. Driving (at the $0.55/mile federal deduction) is about 400% more expensive than the train, and when you're driving you aren't working. Which means it's really worse than that. So for business travellers, this is a real loser. Plus, it's less safe.
2. Flying is 50% more expensive (and possibly more when fees). And I suspect the price you found is from Love Field which is about 40 miles from Fort Worth, and adds time and driving costs. So that, plus check in time, plus getting from Will Rogers to OKC probably kills all your time savings by flying (and Love field is only cheap because of the Wright Amendment, but I digress).
3. The train doesn't just stop in Ft Worth and OKC, but also 5 other cities along the way. You probably can't fly to any of them, which means they lose mobility. Gainsville is in Texas. So they'd suffer a bit.
So it means that business travels would have to pay more, and spend less time working and more time driving - or travel less. Both of which seem bad for business travellers who take that train. That seems like it's bad for business. Also Amtrak surely employs some Texans. They're now out of work. Will SWA hire them? Unlikely. And of course there are the other travelers who rely on Amtrak but now must either deal with Greyhound or SWA - which for some reason are less desireable or else they would already be travelling with them, no?
So I don't really need research to show that killing the Heartland Flyer will create losers and that many of those losers will be in Texas. Res ipsa loquitur.
by David C on Sep 12, 2011 5:08 pm • link • report
Political connnections might explain why the legislature saved it, but not why people ride it.
Not sure why you're parsing that statement, I never stated or suggested people rode the train due to political connections.
1. Driving (at the $0.55/mile federal deduction) is about 400% more expensive than the train, and when you're driving you aren't working. Which means it's really worse than that. So for business travellers, this is a real loser. Plus, it's less safe.
If you believe a significant amount of business is conducted on the Heartland Flyer by passengers then back it up with research or surveys and show how that would be lost given the alternative modes of travel.
And I suspect the price you found is from Love Field which is about 40 miles from Fort Worth, and adds time and driving costs.
For those in Ft. Worth, yes. For those in Dallas (a nearby city with similar business interests, twice the population, more affluent), no. You're arguably losing potential passengers due to the Ft. Worth location instead of closer to the center of the Metroplex or Dallas.
The train doesn't just stop in Ft Worth and OKC, but also 5 other cities along the way.
All of which are easily reachable by vehicle. How many of the total passengers use those 5 other cities as either points of origin or final destinations on a given business trip? Plus you ignore the fact using the rail line prevents one from doing business, or raises the ease of burden, in cities and towns outside those on the line.
So I don't really need research to show that killing the Heartland Flyer will create losers and that many of those losers will be in Texas. Res ipsa loquitur.
Not really, especially when all you have is a few back of the envelope calculations. If it speaks for itself then you should have no problem backing your assertion.
by Fitz on Sep 12, 2011 5:47 pm • link • report
I actually believe it without research or surveys. It's much easier to work on the train than when driving a car. Maybe they aren't working. It's trivial really. But I know when I ride the train, I see a lot of people working. When I drive, I hope that none of the other drivers are working.
For those in Ft. Worth, yes.
Which is the point. The train goes to Ft. Worth. Not Dallas. Why are you talking to me about Dallas? It doesn't go to Houston either, and that's even bigger than Dallas. So what?
All of which are easily reachable by vehicle.
If you have a vehicle, and a license, and can drive. They're easily reachable by vehicle, but still some choose the train.
How many of the total passengers use those 5 other cities as either points of origin or final destinations on a given business trip?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter. It is more than 0 or Amtrak would quit stopping there.
Plus you ignore the fact using the rail line prevents one from doing business, or raises the ease of burden, in cities and towns outside those on the line.
What?
If it speaks for itself then you should have no problem backing your assertion.
I already did. For the reasons stated above. The 9000+ people who choose Amtrak every month will have to choose something else. Something they find to be worse. That makes them net losers.
by David C on Sep 12, 2011 10:41 pm • link • report
I actually believe it without research or surveys.
Then what you believe is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation because you have nothing empirical to support that belief.
Which is the point. The train goes to Ft. Worth. Not Dallas. Why are you talking to me about Dallas? It doesn't go to Houston either, and that's even bigger than Dallas. So what?
Dallas and Ft. Worth are together called the Metroplex just like areas inside (or just outside) 495 is called the Beltway, and residents there treat transportation options as such (e.g. living in Ft. Worth or Arlington and commuting to Dallas). Comparing the proximity of Houston to Ft. Worth is specious because it isn't directly next to Ft. Worth and isn't considered part of the same metro area nor is it treated as such by residents.
If you have a vehicle, and a license, and can drive.
None of which are any great burden especially in an area where the means to acquire, store and drive a vehicle is low and even lower for individuals in business.
by Fitz on Sep 13, 2011 12:31 pm • link • report
Once again, am I the only person who knows what empirical means? I'm basing my belief on my own experience - and that is empirical. Many people on trains do work. Business travellers on both trains and planes do work. So, I'm pretty sure that many business travellers on the Heartland Flyer do work. I'm also pretty sure that many people on the Heartland Flyer use the trains bathrooms, and I don't need some sort of independent research paper to prove it. Besides the whole question is irrelevant.
Fine. No one does any business on the train. They spend all their time staring at their own shoes and thinking about old episodes of Mork and Mindy. It doesn't change my point one iota.
Dallas and Ft. Worth are together called the Metroplex
Look, clearly you don't know Texas. People in Fort Worth mostly hate being associated with Dallas. It's a pretty long way between the two. Almost the same as Washington to Baltimore. Many people who live in one will go months or years without going to the other. So this is isn't like Arlignton and Alexandria. Despite your assertion the two are not diredctly next to one another.
But again this is all moot. The point is the train goes to Fort Worth. That people in Dallas have trouble using it or that it would be better if it went to Dallas is also irrelevant. 9000+ people a month use the train, for whatever reason to mean their transportation/Mork and Mindy daydreaming needs. If this bill passes they will no longer be able to do that - and so they would lose something.
None of which are any great burden
Unless you are poor, or blind, or too old to drive, or too young to drive, or lost your license due to a drunk driving conviction, etc...Then it is kind of a burden.
Besides which, the point is that people are choosing the train. They are choosing it because it benefits them more (much lower price for example) then the other options. And Texas has chosen the train because they put up money to keep it running. And this bill will take that choice away from them.
So now I'll throw the ball in your court, do you have any proof that the reason that the Texas legislature supported Amtrak is just political connections? Or is it just unsubstantiated speculation? Why does the Republican Texas legislature support the Heartland Flyer?
by David C on Sep 13, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report
Because they love Mork & Mindy?
by Tina on Sep 13, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report
by David C on Sep 13, 2011 1:14 pm • link • report
by Tina on Sep 13, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report
Once again, am I the only person who knows what empirical means? I'm basing my belief on my own experience - and that is empirical.
So you've been on the Heartland Flyer, you've observed and documented the number of passengers conducting work, and surveyed them as to how their business and travel habits would change if the Heartland Flyer were to be lost? Otherwise you have no empirical evidence, just more unsubstantiated speculation.
Besides the whole question is irrelevant.
Not at all since you claimed the loss of the Heartland Flyer would hurt Texas and you claimed that time working would be lost as a result. Obviously that time working would just disappear into a black hole instead of substitutes for that travel and work time being made.
Look, clearly you don't know Texas. People in Fort Worth mostly hate being associated with Dallas. It's a pretty long way between the two.
Clearly you don't know me and have a slanted view of the area. I'm from NM, I've visited Texas a lot. My gf is a TCU alum and I visited her in Ft. Worth multiple times. Some people in Ft. Worth think the scene in Dallas is wannabe's, flashy and ridiculous, and some people in Dallas think Ft. Worth is still a bunch of ranchers, but hate? That's trumped up nonsense. Mabye if SMU ever fielded a competitive team again...
Unless you are poor, or blind, or too old to drive, or too young to drive, or lost your license due to a drunk driving conviction, etc...Then it is kind of a burden.
And what percentage of Heartland Flyer passengers are from any of those groups you just listed?
by Fitz on Sep 13, 2011 5:23 pm • link • report
But perhaps you're the kind of person who needs proof. Fine. Here is a study done by the Texas Transportation Institute showing that 2% of all HF travelers listed the ability to work on the train as their PRIMARY reason for choosing it(page 106). So at least 2% are working while they ride - and surely more (those for whom it is a secondary reason). And in the same study about 60% of HF travelers say that without the train, they would go by car (page 102). So it's safe to say that at least 1% of them are the people who are working. Furthermore considering that 27% said they would just stay at home, and that that doesn't sound like business travelers to me, it's probably more.
Also from the study - to answer some of your other questions, about 3% of users don't own a car (p114). 13% would qualify as poor (p115).
Most importantly, the Texas Transportation Institute has concluded that the train produces $18 million in benefits and it costs $4 million per year to keep it running. A similar study in Oklahoma showed a $22M indirect benefit and
$11.4 million direct benefit over a 5 year period.
So, does that answer your question. That's how letting the Heartland Flyer disappear would hurt Texas.
by David C on Sep 13, 2011 6:13 pm • link • report
by David C on Sep 13, 2011 6:15 pm • link • report
by JAY on Sep 13, 2011 11:40 pm • link • report
That's a good study. It supports some claims you've made.
Yes, 2% responded that using the HF in order to work was their primary reason, yet that was the 2nd least popular answer. In fact the study noted on page 126 that 75% of passengers were primarily non-business and were for leisure. In other words it doesn't suggest that any great amount of business productivity would be lost like you suggested.
I found the figures regarding economic benefits (the $18 million figure) but I can't seem to find the $4 million operating figure. The $18 million figure is compelling, along with the tax revenue it generates, but like the study showed, the vast majority of riders would have made their trip even in the absence of the HF.
by Fitz on Sep 14, 2011 12:26 am • link • report
I never suggested that it would a great amount. I suggested it would be some amount. This study backs that up.
The $4M is the amount that Texas and Oklahoma kick in through state funding to support the HF.
by David C on Sep 14, 2011 11:41 am • link • report
Add a Comment