The Federal Railroad Administration published its guidelines for state high-speed rail grants yesterday. At the same time, the American Dream Coalition published the Antiplanner’s report on why Florida should not build high-speed rail. Similar reports will soon be published by various think tanks in other states.
The guidelines require “preliminary applications” by July 10. The applications should fit one of four types of grants:
1. Projects are shovel-ready (all NEPA documentation done) and can be completed in 2 years — the FRA will consider 100% federal funding of such projects, though it encourages state “leverage.”
2. Projects not quite shovel ready (some NEPA documentation still to complete), but the FRA will consider up to 100% of federal funding for specific infrastructure such as stations, equipment, etc.
3. Projects still in planning stages; the FRA will provide a limited amount of money with state match.
4. Projects that are shovel-ready but will take more than 2 years (but no more than 5) to complete — the federal government will provide 50% of funds.
To receive funds, states must provide “a rigorous analysis of benefits and costs,” whatever that means. In addition, money is available only for projects “that may reasonably be expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour.”
Massage is a traditional technique involving gentle applying of oil to the skin and then giving smooth strokes, taps and kneads to the areas requiring downtownsault.org viagra online canada treatment. According to a research, laughing can turn out the things and improve http://downtownsault.org/author/saultdda/page/7/ buy levitra australia erectile dysfunction. If a person or if a man wants to have immediate remedy for the relief from impotence. order cheap cialis There are many levitra on sale other advantages of taking kamagra 100 mg tablets available from online stores in the UK.
A rigorous analysis of benefits and costs would, in my opinion, eliminate virtually all high-speed rail proposals I have seen. I can only conclude that the FRA will not take this seriously (but it is worth noting that the guidelines never actually say that this rigorous analysis must show that benefits exceed costs).
Reading between the lines, I suspect most of the money is going to go to the 2nd category of grants. I don’t think there are many projects that can be completed in two years. There are a lot of projects that don’t have complete NEPA documentation and so might be eligible for funding under the second category.
The FRA may think that a lot projects will qualify for the fourth category: NEPA documentation done and 50% state match. But I don’t think even California qualifies for the 4th category — the NEPA documentation not quite done, and I doubt construction can be completed in 5 years.
So I suspect that most of the work will be incremental — grade crossing improvements, station improvements, maybe buying some locomotives and cars. Despite the requirement that projects lead to 110-mph trains, the FRA may fund projects that, for the moment, only increase speeds to 79 or 90 mph.
I estimate that it would cost an average of $3.5 million per mile to raise existing track speeds up to 100 mph. But I’ve heard that the FRA estimates that it would cost only $1 million per mile to raise existing track speeds up to 79 mph. Since there are 8,500 route miles in the FRA vision, the $8 billion in stimulus money could do most of this.
The Antiplanner recommends that states apply for funding only for infrastructure improvements that increase safety (such as better grade crossings) and allow existing trains to run at faster speeds. States should not buy new trains or make other commitments that will obligate state taxpayers to pay expensive operating subsidies for many years into the future. States that wish to do this should qualify under the second category of grants.
It is more likely, of course, that states will want to grab as much “free” federal money as possible, no matter what that means for future tax obligations. Perhaps the Antiplanner’s new series of state reports (like the Florida report mentioned above) will reduce this temptation somewhat.
Hey, regardless of “market”, whatever “subsidy” that roads/highways get (~20%),
transit getting more (+60%) is just “feel-good” & inconsistent.
Look at energy savings: negligible.
Look at amount of people using: +85% as drivers, <4% as commuters.
Re: HSR, how many people want to travel between UAs, compared to within?
In other words, how much driving will HSR eliminate?
This seems to boil down to “free market”, but does it?
Maybe, but actually far from it.
Should the Feds spend 20% of the transportation $ on <4% of people?
Should the Fed$ go to passenger miles? It’s a 50:1 match-up then.
Realize:
The choice of a home & destinations is severely limited w/transit (even for high density, above 8-10,000). Do you public-transit gurus expect routes to go to medium dense areas, often. Questions: money, riders per unit, energy per passenger?
The more that transit is expanded, the lower ridership [per unit] & thus higher energy [per passenger-mile].
The fewer highway-lane-miles, the more more traffic, thus more congestion & less mpg.
This [strategy of] negligence for highways is counter-productive.
In other words, making more congestion, does little to convert people to transit.
Hey, convert people to Islam while your at it, that will reduce terrorism;
don’t be concerned with freedom reduction.
The hypocrisy is, being against the minor general taxes that support roads (w/benefit all) & the favoritism in big gov support for transit. Consistency?
Basic, obvious conclusion:
you want public transit, then live in a dense area.
(You can’t have a nice yard & nearby open-space, within those conditions) Transport between regions is a separate manner (ie HSR); stay in your UA (region) to conserve, regardless.
Few persons want this support of massive new infrastructure, but each person wants “others” to pay.
How moral is the left? Hardly.
Theft (redistribution, making others pay for your stuff) is not proper.
Damn, (reiteration) a slight subsidy for roads is nothing compared to the massive subsidy for transit.
Separate issue: abortion is no problem.
I pick that issue as an inconsistency to those who are opposed to the “right.”
(capitalism favors abortion)
“Time travel” is the common, supposed counter, & is wholly not applicable. Hey, if I was aborted, I would not know, to be brief. (It did not happen & I would have never had awareness if I was aborted). I had to go another issue (non-related).
Prosperity & happiness for all?
We all agree in that.
Left: please don’t try to achieve that by “punishing success & rewarding low-productivity” (non-skills). Sure that’s not necessarily the goal of pro-transit, anti-car people, but still, you try to take from the low density people, to give to people who like transit (& even want to live in low density). Get it!: It takes many users & high density for transit to be widespread.
Have I gone on tangents? Forgive me if you don’t understand.
Are they related?
Any solid objections?
Main premise, based upon Mr. O’Toole’s subject of thread:
The LA area having ~20mil & the Bay area having ~10mil, does not come close to cutting it for a demand for HSR. !!! Get it?
Simple enough, you simpletons?
Imagine CA HSR ridership paying for just interest & capital, over $3 billion/year.
Hey,
Just to let some of you know. I know few will care.
I’m semi-retiring from comments here.
I know there’s disappointment (sarcasm).
I won’t even be reading.
I’ve been spending too much time here.
If there was actual substance in objections to freedom & the kind of transportation & urban form that the large majority of people want, then I might want to continue posting.
However, there is not intellectual/factual substance to explain why 85% of the populace should be denied roads & why <4% should get more “stuff†paid by all.
Most leftist ideology &/or massive gov support can be supported, in theory, by many, but when it comes down to facts, cost-benefit analysis, & particularly “who’s gonna pay†the results of who really agrees, comes out different. Comparison to Europe? Consider the higher density & the fact that many still drive, despite gas at $6/gallon+.
Signing off.
(Now many of you can continue your false assertions without me pointing out the errors & lack of consideration for reality. Long live ignorance & having belief. BTW, I’m an atheist too, but do not want to harm humans)
Peace, best of luck & hard work to all.
Aloha.
With Scott gone I will now be spending more time here.
Shucky darns.
Scott was one of the reasons I was pushing the Greasemonkey folks to hurry up on this site. Now whaddem I gone dew?
DS
The only thing that Scott pointed out, was that covert socialism(like with roads) is better off politically than overt socialism(like now with transit).
It is hard to not see that we will deeply regret the stimulus spending, when an enormous amount of spending was run through Congress with almost no scrutiny. I can understand that there were some Democratic Party priorities that were building up over the last eight years, but when a spillgate of spending opens, undoubtedly a lot of worthless stuff was funded.
My understanding from reading the document is that the second track you have listed is supposed to be reserved for projects whose NEPA reports (EIS or EIA, finished or not quite) are for entire corridor projects at once, whereas the first track is for small discrete projects that may lead to high speed rail corridors but also have high independent utility even if no other project is done. The independent value can also be partially towards freight.
In addition to grade crossings, I suspect that a fair amount of siding lengthening and double-tracking will also be performed with the money. It’s relatively cheap and benefits freight as well.
The document is still quite vague, leading to all sorts of stories in the media about how “document is released; our local project clearly a front-runner.” Will the FRA love the idea of truly fast rail enough to spend all $8 billion on a tiny section of California’s plan? Will it settle for incremental upgrades everywhere? If they go by previous federal feasibility studies and cost-benefit analyses, then the Southeast Corridor (Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond-DC, link to Northeast Corridor) will do very well, and, as Randall noted, Florida and California will not.
If they let states make up their own numbers, then states that exaggerate like California might have more of an edge.
Highwayman, something that is paid for by user fees (even if not entirely fairly) and that is used by the vast majority of the population is always better off politically than something subsidized by non-users and used by a smaller fraction of the population. Even if externalities supposedly exist. By and large, federal road spending is entirely paid for by the gas tax*, though state and local funding can be different. The more local the source of funding, the less likely a truly wasteful boondoggle Bridge to Nowhere will be built, though.
* Oberstar and LaHood are working to change that in this year’s “emergency” DOT bill. Since it’s difficult politically to raise the gas tax, and to make matters worse, people have been traveling less with higher prices, we’ve had “emergency” highway spending ever since the Democrats took Congress. The Republicans refused to raise the tax, but at least refused to pay for more roads than the tax would pay for. The Democrats look set to subsidize roads and highways by more than this entire rail payment.
Of course, LaHood is saying that the Highway Trust Fund emergency transfers each year are not sustainable. But “Lord make me chaste, but not yet.”
John Thacker said: Highwayman, something that is paid for by user fees (even if not entirely fairly) and that is used by the vast majority of the population is always better off politically than something subsidized by non-users and used by a smaller fraction of the population. Even if externalities supposedly exist. By and large, federal road spending is entirely paid for by the gas tax*, though state and local funding can be different. The more local the source of funding, the less likely a truly wasteful boondoggle Bridge to Nowhere will be built, though.
* Oberstar and LaHood are working to change that in this year’s “emergency†DOT bill. Since it’s difficult politically to raise the gas tax, and to make matters worse, people have been traveling less with higher prices, we’ve had “emergency†highway spending ever since the Democrats took Congress. The Republicans refused to raise the tax, but at least refused to pay for more roads than the tax would pay for. The Democrats look set to subsidize roads and highways by more than this entire rail payment.
THWM: Though gas taxes aren’t really user fees, some one driving an electric car is not forbidden from using a road, because they are not buying gas. It’s a convoluted back door way of funding things.
Current gas taxes would make more sense as carbon taxes.
Roads are mostly paid for by property & income taxes.
Some one buying a transit pass is paying a more direct user fee.
“Roads are mostly paid for by property & income taxes.”
Sources?
No, this is blatantly incorrect, and I’ll give sources.
So, the source for information on highways is the Highway Statistics Series. When the USDOT says “highways,” they mean all public roads, as distinguished from private roads. Chart HF-10 is entitled “Funding For Highways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues, All Units of Government” This example is from 2007.
57.01% of revenues used for highways are user fees, the largest portion. (51.74% is gas tax and vehicle and registration taxes, 5.27% if tolls.) Property taxes are 4.82%, General Fund 18.77%, Other taxes 8.77%, for a subtotal of 32.36% from general, non-user fee taxation. 8.43% is from Investment Income. 14.40% is from Bond Proceeds. This adds up to 112.2%– 12.2% of revenues in 2007 were put into trust funds at the state and local level.
Also note that over one-sixth of the user fees are diverted to mass transit or other non-highway uses. While user fees made up 57.01% of the revenue spent for highways, if you add back in the diverted user fees (and say that the money diverted to transit came out of general funds instead), users pay fees covering 70.1% of the funding used for highways in a single year.
It’s true that the largest source for local governments is General Funds; i.e., property and income taxes. But local governments raise only about half the revenue that state governments do, and over half of state money comes from gas taxes and tolls. Also, the federal government contributes about a third of what state governments do, almost all from gas taxes.
Dan, you’re a dick. And highwayman, you’re an idiot.
This ad hominem brought to you by troll frustration.
Indeed, [killfile] is for those certain geniuses that refuse to read their links.
DS
Or who read them and provide an exemplar of their content for satirical purposes.
If you had better arguments, you wouldn’t have to mischaracterize to have play. Try trying harder instead.
DS
Shucky darns.
Scott was one of the reasons I was pushing the Greasemonkey folks to hurry up on this site. Now whaddem I gone dew?
DS
And if you had better arguments, you wouldn’t have to be such a
dickasshole and a bully.Roads have been around a lot longer than there have been cars.
Also remember that only 2% of roads in the USA are expressways.
So? The figures I gave are for all public roads. Yes, if you want to talk about the Interstate Highway System, then that’s essentially all federal money, which is essentially all gas tax, which more than pays for the roads. But that’s why I cited the FHWA’s Highway Statistics Series, which gives the figures for all public roads in the USA, including local urban roads. Gas taxes and tolls cover 70% of the spending on all public roads in the US. One-sixth of the gas taxes are diverted to transit, though other general funds are added and used to roads, so it depends on how you treat the accounting sleight of hand.
I should point out that it covers 70% of spending in a normal year, and that essentially all federal spending is gas tax in a normal year. In 2008 and 2009, “emergency” Highway Fund transfers from the General Fund, and “stimulus” money went to roads out of normal funds. It also looks like we’ll have more “emergency” General Fund transfers this year.
So, under our new Democratic overlords, roads are subsidized at the federal level more than they have been for decades.
Careful, John: some of the commenters here will shout you down for not stating roads pay for themselves, and agreeing with me that many local roads are paid for out of the General Fund. Most repaving is done out of the GF, except for the grants obtained from fed or state monies (meaning users having never driven on a road may be subsidizing it).
DS
There’s also no profit or loss basis with roads.
Also sales taxes on gas are a back door way of funding things.
In some places people once had the option of pay for their local roads through time(labor) or money(taxes).
Scott said: (Now many of you can continue your false assertions without me pointing out the errors & lack of consideration for reality. Long live ignorance & having belief. BTW, I’m an atheist too, but do not want to harm humans)
THWM: This an other irony, Atheism is a belief system it self too.
So even Libertarians & Atheists can still be hypocritical biggoted zealots.
Pingback: We Want High-Speed Rail, As Long As It Is Free » The Antiplanner