Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail - MSNBC

Happened to come across this article on MSNBC.com regarding Obama proposing $53 billion for high speed rail.

WASHINGTON— President Barack Obama is
calling for a six-year, $53 billion investment in
high-speed rail as he seeks to use
infrastructure spending to create jobs.

The White House says Obama will call for an
initial $8 billion investment in the budget he is
set to release next week. The president set a
goal in his State of the Union address of giving
80 percent of Americans access to high-speed
rail within 25 years.

If Congress approves Obama's budget, the initial rail spending would focus on developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects.

Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will announce the initiative during an event Tuesday in Philadelphia.

Link to the article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41474264/ns ... ite_house/#

Well there you go.

A little more detailed article from CNN.

Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration is proposing to spend $53 billion over the next six years to help promote the construction of a national high-speed, intercity passenger rail network, Vice President Joe Biden announced Tuesday.

The proposal represents a significant expansion of the $10.5 billion already spent on high-speed rail expansion since Obama entered office, including $8 billion in the 2009 economic stimulus package.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters potential funding sources for the plan will be outlined in the president's proposed budget, which is scheduled to be released next week.

President Barack Obama said in last month's State of the Union address that he was setting a goal of giving 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.

The proposed new investment -- including $8 billion in the upcoming fiscal year -- would accompany a streamlined application process for cities, states, and private companies seeking federal grants and loans to develop railway capacity.

Link to the article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/08/ ... rk/?hpt=T2

More information can be found in the White House press release at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... gh-speed-r. This proposal affects both Amtrak and true HSR projects, so I guess discussions will go on in both forums.

One thing to keep in perspective when reading the inevitable attacks from the Republicans and anti-HSR crowd is that the FY2011 federal budget alone had somewhere around $44 billion in direct funding for highway and road projects. The White House proposal is $53 billion for HSIPR over 6 years. A lot more money than passenger rail has seen from the feds before, but still a lot less than what highway funding is going to get over the next 6 years. Also $53 billion is an around 4 weeks of current DOD funding, not even including the costs for the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Relevant information from the last paragraph of the press release on how the proposed FY2012 money is split: "For the first time, all high speed and intercity passenger rail programs will be consolidated into two new accounts: a $4 billion account for network development, focused on building new infrastructure, stations, and equipment; and a $4 billion account for system preservation and renewal, which will maintain state of good repair on Amtrak and other publicly-owned assets, bring stations into Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, and provide temporary operating support to crucial state corridors while the full system is being built and developed."

As an admitted fiscal conservative and skeptic, I will only note again that the people withing the Beltway who think they alone know what's best for all of us, are again presenting the package in a one-time, take-it-or-leave-it format.

That might sit well with the youngsters who think Uncle Sam has unlimited funds for the Super Lionel Set, but I can assure you that the opposition has had HSR in its sights since the SOTU last month.

http://mnprager.wordpress.com/2011/01/2 ... ore-money/

Thereby, we will again be missing an opportunity to get something in place within a market, likely California (already approved by plebiscite, BTW, and with a sympathetic Governor), relatively quickly, and in such a form as can be improved upon once the benefits are demonstrated and evaluated in the light of real-market results.

Stridency hurt the Administration with regard to the health-care issue during its first two years, yet they seem determined to hold to the same strategy.

Well, the devil will be in the details, but I find it very interesting that the White House press release Mr. Figgat links to refers to one already funded project as an example of what can be done--the Downeaster extension to Brunswick ME. I suspect the WH intends, as with the stimulus, to lump all passenger rail under the HSR moniker, even if it isn't true HSR. Also, reading between the lines, lots of money would go to less than 110mph service.

Now, will there be any money at all, given GOP control of the House? Doesn't seem likely, unless there's some "grand bargain" in the offing that we don't know about. The next couple of years will involve also sorts of political positioning games--compromise where you think it expedient, drawing distinctions where that's to your advantage--in preparation for the big battle of '12.

http://technorati.com/lifestyle/green/a ... ch-or-not/

The 2009 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) actual budget totaled nearly $58 Billion. That’s $58 billion, in one year alone – to maintain the nation’s highways. Additional funding comes from the state and local level, without barely a peep from taxpayers, or a significant contribution from the private sector, which benefits immensely from this government investment. So why are house members up in arms about HSR?

It also talks about how GOP areas are in less dense areas than Democratic areas.

Station Aficionado wrote:I suspect the WH intends, as with the stimulus, to lump all passenger rail under the HSR moniker, even if it isn't true HSR. Also, reading between the lines, lots of money would go to less than 110mph service.

I'll take it (or at least accept it on behalf of the passenger railroads/routes that will benefit).

2nd trick op wrote:As an admitted fiscal conservative and skeptic, I will only note again that the people withing the Beltway who think they alone know what's best for all of us, are again presenting the package in a one-time, take-it-or-leave-it format.

Does running the armed forces mean that they think that they know better than the rest of us about how to defend against foreign enemies?

Stridency hurt the Administration with regard to the health-care issue during its first two years, yet they seem determined to hold to the same strategy.

Stridency? Obama's team wimped out on the public option, and if anything, the stridency was on the other side, with rhetoric like "death panels".

The original of morris&essex4ever's article is Yonah Freemark's blog entry Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure « The Transport Politic. If you remember those election maps that show blue islands in red seas, that's what's happening. Republicans are strongest in low-density areas, while Democrats are strongest in high-density areas. So Republicans have less to fear from their constituents for being anti-HSR and anti-transit and anti-passenger-rail in general than Democrats do.

Yonah Freemark also blogged on this announcement: The White House Stakes Its Political Capital on a Massive Intercity Rail Plan « The Transport Politic
He has a nice map where he put together a lot of proposals into a combined map. It's a big interconnected system in the eastern half of the contiguous US, and three scattered lines in the western half.

Robert Cruickshank also blogged on it: California High Speed Rail Blog » Obama Proposes $53 Billion for HSR Over 6 Years
He proposes that it's a part of President Obama's 2012 re-election strategy, to propose something snazzy and attractive, something that will help mobilize his base of supporters. If the Republicans don't go along with it, Obama can then accuse them of being obstructionists. He might even imply that they are living in the past, and that they seem willing to be shown up by Europeans and Asians.

4 weeks defence spending , wow .

I'd hardly call our current adventures and election-stunts-that-won't-end overseas "defense", but that's what the department is called.

This won't get far if GOP has their way in congress... sigh... i've learned to take this type of news with a grain of salt... although i can agree that this type of spending is not exactly NEEDED in today's political situation and economy.

It's a political tool.

If it passes, it generates a new economy base, and hopefully finally give air travel some real competition so that they actually become more efficient and customer focused instead of becoming so worried about stock market position.

And if it doesn't, then it's a told you so moment. We already see international companies willing to pony up huge bucks in return for construction and operating contracts. Wait for the uproar when these projects get built (because some other country is footing the bill) and suddenly all the real paying jobs, profits, and controls go to some other foreign company.

I just saw in a quick mention on ABC news that the republicans plan to cut funding for "Obama's High Speed Rail" among many other programs and expenditures, some useful some absurd. Meanwhile keeping some pork barrel projects (such as an engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon doesn't even want)... Since when did a vital form of transportation become a political football?

TAMR213 wrote:... Since when did a vital form of transportation become a political football?

Longer than you or I have been alive ... it is politics.