If the states (and their residents) decide its in their interest to spend their stimulus money on new roads, isn't it their perogative to do so? You may not agree with it (heck, a vast majority of those on this forum may not agree with it), but that's a state's rights issue. Even moreso in the case of stimulus funding instead of specific earmarks. The state can choose where it wants to spend the money instead of Congress dictating where.

That said, depending on the particulars involved, there probably aren't very many "new freeway projects" that would meet the criteria involved. Unless those criteria (such as being ready-for-bids within 90 or 120 days) also got the axe.

by Froggie on Feb 12, 2009 2:08 pm • link • report

This is somewhat apropos wrt the high-speed transit funding. There are certainly inter-city usage models, but it's also a viable way of getting between a CBD and a high-capacity airport.

I'd love to see a Metro Center to Dulles link and retire National while we're at it. It's far too constrained and close to the city proper. I remember that there was some talk of permanently closing National in the weeks following 9/11 when the airport was shut for security reasons. The money from developing that land could offset the rail financing too.

And the rail link should be in addition to the Silver Line. I think the SL is great, but it's going to be one long ride from there to K Street. Heathrow has the tube and Paddington Express, doesn't it. Dulles just added a new runway and has the critical links that makes DC an international city.

I know this isn't on anyone's radar and isn't likely to get done. It just seems so logical to me that I had to get it off my chest.

by Hardik on Feb 12, 2009 2:11 pm • link • report

"but that's a state's rights issue"

No it isn't. This is federal money. The states have no right to it. The federal government can dictate to the states how this money is spent. If the states want to spend money however they want, they can raise their own taxes.

On another point:

Let me say that I was greatly disappointed to see Obama do a photo-op at the Fairfax Highway yesterday. He may have lived in a city for a while, but he clearly does not get it yet....

But that's good news on the high-speed rail.

by Reid on Feb 12, 2009 2:18 pm • link • report

Reid, by "their stimulus money", I think Froggie was referring to the allotment that each state is getting from the federal government. If that's the case, different states have different needs and a different list of what projects are shovel-ready to actually stimulate the economy.

by Vik on Feb 12, 2009 2:38 pm • link • report

If the states (and their highway lobbyists) decide its in the interest of the politicians re-election funds to spend their stimulus money on new roads, isn't it their perogative to do so?

by Foggy on Feb 12, 2009 2:53 pm • link • report

Vik got my point. If Congress wants to dictate how the states should spend the money, they should've specified it in the legislation. By giving the states what's effectively a block grant, each state should feel free to dish it out according to THEIR priorities.

Foggy: that assumes that states will listen to the highway lobby over the voices of their constituents, without political reprocussions. That may well have been the case for many years, but in this day and age it's no longer a certainty.

by Froggie on Feb 12, 2009 3:05 pm • link • report

I don't care what you call it, it's still federal money. The state's don't have a "right" to determine how it's spent beyond what discretion the federal government decides to give to them. Personally, I think the states should be given some discretion, but within certain parameters.

Moreover, money is fungible. So the federal government has to make sure that this money is actually going toward the right projects, and not simply enabling the states to shift money over to non-desirable programs.

by Reid on Feb 12, 2009 3:12 pm • link • report

Hi speed rail could be good for reducing the load on the air routes, thus potentially decreasing airplane emissions (as it is far less practical to convert air travel to electric then automotive.

Hi speed rail seems to me to be a far far better investment then things as a trolley on Georgia Avenue.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 12, 2009 3:25 pm • link • report

> Hi speed rail seems to me to be a far far better investment then things as a trolley on Georgia Avenue.

Speaking in the context of national priorities, I agree. That's why I'm not upset to lose the $5.5b discretionary fund.

1. In the long term, cities and states can fund streetcars on their own. That's part of beauty of streetcars - they're extremely affordable. Only the federal government can build a national rail network, though.

2. While I believe whole heartedly that streetcars will vastly improve cities, making higher densities possible, it is still true that if worst comes to worst and peak oil slaughters the economy to the point where future capital construction isn't possible, cities will survive with or without streetcars. Intercity travel, however, will be largely impossible unless we have a good intercity rail system in place.

So yes, from a federal perspective, effective intercity rail should be a higher priority than urban streetcars.

*However*, from a federal perspective, urban streetcars should be a much higher priority than adding highway lanes anywhere in the country.

by BeyondDC on Feb 12, 2009 4:23 pm • link • report

The vast majority of the high-speed rail funding is going to one single project. A high-speed rail connecting LA to Las Vegas.

In late-stage talks, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pressed for $8 billion to construct high-speed rail lines, quadrupling the amount in the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday.

Reid's office issued a statement noting that a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail might get a big chunk of the money.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdDrWnoMueqVFI-Uo1ClxVZur22AD969TIKG2

So don't get your hopes up.

by Steve on Feb 12, 2009 4:24 pm • link • report

I'm not sure that's such a terrible place to put a high-speed rail line. A lot of people drive from LA to Vegas. A train there could reduce a lot of VMT. And since almost everyone who goes to Vegas is going to one place (the Strip), transit could serve a large percentage of the people without requiring a transfer on the Vegas end.

Plus, Vegas is horribly unwalkable. If a large percentage of people start arriving on the Strip by train, maybe the next generation of hotels will be a little more pedestrian-friendly. That's not worth billions on its own, but could be a nice side effect.

Also, making our Senate Majority Leader into a rail booster, along with possibly many of the voters of his state, is worth a lot.

by David Alpert on Feb 12, 2009 4:28 pm • link • report

Something I have played with over the years...

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5536/hsrnetworkjx3.png

A leg to Vegas from LA could eventually be extended to Salt Lake City.

by NikolasM on Feb 12, 2009 4:50 pm • link • report

"*However*, from a federal perspective, urban streetcars should be a much higher priority than adding highway lanes anywhere in the country."

Absolutely wrong for Washington, D.C.

No way should they build a Georgia Avenue trolley before a North Central-NE Freeway tunnel.

And no way on the corridor chock.

If so, then condemn the ?*new* buildings in the path at 10 cents on the dollar.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm • link • report

If Harry Reid wanted to force the money to be spent on LA-to-Vegas, he had the clout to get that written in. I expect that the guys at "Transport Politic" are right that the money will be split among the closest-to-shovel-ready projects: California, Midwest, and Southeast (in that order).

For Reid, that means an LA-to-Ontario line. LA-to-SF is already paid for, so the government has no reason to chip in there. But California has NOT paid for the other extensions of its system; they only get funding after LA-to-SF gets built. The California plan does not call for LA-to-Vegas, but it DOES map out LA-to-Ontario. In automobile driving times, 1/3 of the LA-to-Vegas trip is consumed sitting through traffic as you cross all the suburbs on the 60 miles between LA and Ontario, California (which is a huge city in its own right, at about 200k). So just building that stub in 2009, and then waiting on Ontario-to-Vegas (which AFAIK doesn't even have a route mapped out, let alone engineers' assessments) makes sense -- tons of LA-area commuters will use that line, maybe even enough to cover operating costs.

As for Midwest and Southeast? Who knows. It will probably mostly get spent on chewing through the planning stages, because even though MW and SE are relatively far along, they're still years behind California. But hey, that still counts as "stimulus", because anything useful that requires spending money is stimulus, regardless of whether it's done at a desk or with a shovel.

by tom veil on Feb 12, 2009 4:55 pm • link • report

Regardless of your feelings on investing in high-speed rail (which I support) it doesn't belong in a stimulus bill. Years worth of engineering and environmental impact studies will need to be performed. It belongs in the Transportation bill. Sending nearly $8 billion to California/Nevada for 1 train system with only 1 destination is simply a pet project earmark.

by Steve on Feb 12, 2009 5:19 pm • link • report

LA to Vegas is a bit an aberration. It would depend on not just Ontario airport, but the 2nd airport Las Vegas wants to build 25 miles SW of the city in the Ivanpah Valley, near the Cal border.

by David on Feb 12, 2009 5:31 pm • link • report

Regardless of your feelings on investing in high-speed rail (which I support) it doesn't belong in a stimulus bill. Years worth of engineering and environmental impact studies will need to be performed. It belongs in the Transportation bill.

My thoughts exactly...

by Froggie on Feb 12, 2009 10:10 pm • link • report

Can someone please tell me why the Government should be building a rail network in the US they should get be getting rid of the one they have Amtrak, that was built as a favor to the different rail companies so why not sell or spin off the one we got not create a new one.

We don't have a US Government Airline or bus company so why should we have a US owned rail company.

Spin Amtrak off if they cant survive on there own they should not be in business its the way capitalism is supposed to work.

by kk on Feb 12, 2009 10:49 pm • link • report

kk,

The government should build a rail network because they already built the highway system, which helped kill passenger rail. This whole argument that Amtrak should be allowed to die because it's not profitable underestimates how unfree our capitalism really is and hass been. The automobile culture has been subsidised since day one, just like Alexander Hamilton had the Federal government subsidize industry in Paterson NJ and John Quincy Adams subsidized the railroad.

So let's accept that government has always tried to back winners and get them to back the next winner, high speed rail, renewable energy, and pedestrian oriented communities.

by Thayer-D on Feb 13, 2009 7:11 am • link • report

So we should just continue to pick winners if we've done it in the past and it didn't work and wasn't fair? Two wrongs make a right? If we want a free system, we need to take away the subsidies and let the system work. And I agree with Steve. This bill isn't a stimulus. It's a shame how these politicians are taking advantage of this situation to spend money we don't have on all the pet projects that they've wanted all these years. Stimulus should have been the highest priority and this just shows how messed up our gov't is.

by Vik on Feb 13, 2009 8:20 am • link • report

The people saying this isn't "stimulus" don't seem to know what stimulus is. Stimulus is ANYTHING that meets the following conditions: (1) the economy has slack, in the form of unemployment and under-used capital; (2) businesses are not spending much money on X; (3) the government steps in and spends money on X; (4) causing the people make money off of X to spend more money, because spending more money stimulates the economy. It would be "stimulus" to give everyone in the USA a free limosine ride and an ice cream cone, because the limo and dairy companies would use the windfall to make investments. Transportation spending is not only stimulus spending; it's also spending that leaves us with something that will also be useful when the economy is back to full health.

by tom veil on Feb 13, 2009 10:02 am • link • report

"If we want a free system, we need to take away the subsidies and let the system work"

If you think the government shouldn't pick anything to subsidize, fine, but they do. I'm just saying they should pick something that is in the greater good, which is of course a matter of opinion. As for that icecream, I'll have chocolate chip, thanks!

by Thayer-D on Feb 13, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

Tonight, Now on PBS is featuring Charlotte mayor discussing light rail in that city.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/507/index.html

by Jazzy on Feb 13, 2009 8:37 pm • link • report

This will certainly be interesting to watch new high-speed rail routes develop. Personally, I'd rather see a return to steam locomotives instead of hi-tech electric lines: http://lowtechtimes.com/2009/02/12/englands-new-a1-tornado-steam-engine/

by S.P. Gass on Feb 14, 2009 12:27 am • link • report

Ok, this isn't directly connected with this discussion, but I just discovered this: Virginia approved a study to look at putting light rail down the W&OD trail. This is something I've long thought would make sense. The rail line goes right through the historic town centers of NoVa, places that could probably add smart density.

Anyway, I haven't heard anyone mention it so I thought I'd throw it out there:

http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2007/hj589/

by Reid on Feb 14, 2009 2:23 pm • link • report

Where do they get such great ideas?

by Thayer-D on Feb 16, 2009 10:42 am • link • report

Is there any kind of local group that promotes the development of high-speed rail in the DC area?

I use Amtrak and Acela all the time to get to Baltimore and occasionally NYC, and wish we could get a decent high speed network to get to Pittsburg, Boston, Richmond, hell maybe even Chicago or Miami.

I'm so tired of waiting in airports, getting crammed onto planes and waiting on the tarmack, having to get half undressed at airport security, and paying $50 for cabs an hour away out to Dulles!

In Europe you have the option to take the train from city center to city center in comfort, here you have to take a cab to the airport and then wait in security lines until they cram you into economy with your knees under your chin.

I'd love to do something locally to push for high speed rail in the DC area so we have the option to travel like civilized people.

by Matthew K on Apr 30, 2009 9:23 pm • link • report

Reid, that is an interesting idea. It would take some work with all the road/highway crossings, but having that corridor basically intact to begin with sounds easier than acquiring a new right-of-way. It may even be possible to keep the popular trail on the right-of-way along with tracks.

by S.P. Gass on May 1, 2009 8:34 am • link • report

Highway rows are public and don't have to pay property taxes, yet railroads DO; how about a national bill to preserve and enhance transport corridor (including the B&O MB from corridor chock), while exempting railroads as well from property taxes?!

by Douglas Willinger on May 1, 2009 12:48 pm • link • report