Republican guv candidates line up to say no to federal stimulus money for rail

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Sarah Goodyear

"Is it just me, or is it hard to argue against writing the next chapter in American innovation?" That was U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Twitter yesterday. He was talking about an article in the The New York Times on Republican gubernatorial candidates in several states who have vowed to reject federal stimulus funds for passenger rail projects.

According to the Times piece, candidates from California to Florida are lining up to say no to federal funding, and to the high-speed inter-city rail network that's been a centerpiece of the Obama administration's transportation policy:

In Wisconsin, which got more than $810 million in federal stimulus money to build a train

line

between Milwaukee and Madison, Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, has made his opposition to the project central to his campaign.

Mr. Walker, who worries that the state could be required to spend $7 million to $10 million a year to operate the trains once the line is built, started a Web site,

NoTrain.com

, and has run a television advertisement in which he calls the rail project a boondoggle. "I'm Scott Walker," he says in the advertisement, "and if I'm elected as your next governor, we'll stop this train."

It's not just Walker. As the Times reports, John Kasich in Ohio, Rick Scott in Florida, and Meg Whitman in California are all declaring their intentions to say no to hundreds of millions of federal stimulus dollars for rail -- citing concerns over future costs to their states as well as skepticism about rail in general.

The Times notes that many of the candidates in question would be happy to see the money go to roads, although the law does not allow that.

The rail issue appears to be emerging as another political football for Republicans determined to sink any ambitious proposal the Obama administration comes up with.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, another Republican who has come out against rail in recent weeks, embodies the political gamesmanship over the rail question. When he was in office, Thompson worked to craft the proposal for a high-speed rail line between Milwaukee and Madison. Now he's saying that the project shouldn't go forward.

Thompson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that a shift in the political winds will allow money slated for rail to go to roads, and that rail will have to wait until economic times are better:

Thompson said Republicans would take over Congress this fall and would be likely to let Wisconsin use the $810 million for highways instead of rail ...

Thompson said he supported the line in the past because he had invested in highways. But now, roads need to be repaired before the rail line is built, he said.

"Before you start doing something, you better take care of what you have that's going to make Wisconsin strong -- that's building highways, that's No. 1," he said.

"When I was governor, I had already built the infrastructure. I had put the money there. And I was supportive of high-speed trains because I believe high-speed trains has a place. But at this day and time and the circumstances we have right now, we can't afford it."

In a blog post yesterday, LaHood expressed his frustration at the political stance being taken by Walker, Kasich, and their ilk:

We're talking about nothing short of transforming transportation much the same way the interstate highway system did under President Eisenhower. Can you imagine if

Ohio or Wisconsin

or any other state had said, "No, thanks -- we don't think that highway thing is going anywhere?"

The fact is that -- as with much of the Recovery Act -- I keep hearing objections being expressed in the media while at the same time

my office phone is ringing off the hook

with calls from elected officials of both parties competing feverishly for a rail corridor in their state! ...

If you think the United States can afford not to compete with the European and Asian nations who have embraced high-speed rail and other innovative infrastructure, I urge you to read "

Investing in our Economic Future

," by Dr. T. Peter Ruane, or "

Well Within Reach: America's New Transportation Agenda

," by the David R. Goode National Transportation Policy Conference. Both of these reports tell the same story: We

cannot

delay mustering the courage to build a 21st century foundation for our 21st century economy.

LaHood is himself a Republican, a 14-year veteran of the House of Representatives, famed for his ability to get along with the folks on both sides of the aisle. He's no starry-eyed idealist. Hell, he's from Illinois. Still, you can sense that even this seasoned pol is amazed by the pass things have come to this election season.

http://www.grist.org...-no-to-federal/

[^_^ 5,021]

The only part of this country where commuting by rail and inter city rail are actually COMMON and not an alien concept is in the NE corridor. Why the heck is money being offered to Wisconsin anyway? Give them money for what will work for them, highways. Send the HSR money to where it will actually work.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The only part of this country where commuting by rail and inter city rail are actually COMMON and not an alien concept is in the NE corridor. Why the heck is money being offered to Wisconsin anyway? Give them money for what will work for them, highways. Send the HSR money to where it will actually work.

And it is notable that the proposed HSR from Milwaukee to Madison is akin to a much-discussed (in Canada at any rate) one between Calgary and Edmonton¹--and much sillier given that the distance is a lot shorter.

There are few areas of the country where an HSR could possibly work:

• the NE corridor, Boston-DC being one of these--extending it towards Portland, ME or south from DC makes no sense, anymore than it did in Japan to extend the Shinkansen past Tokyo and Osaka²).
• SW corridor San Diego to San Fransisco (past Sacramento, again no workability)
• maybe Dallas to Houston or Miami to Jacksonville (and those I'm not even sure of)

1. about 183 miles, with the bulk of the served population (less than 3 million total) AT the ends, and very little in between
2. Shinkansen was profittable with Tokyo-to-Osaka run, so they "birlliantly" decided to extend it past these--and wound up making net losses from the extension maintenance

[luckytxn 2,264]

Is there a rail anywhere in this country that does not need to be subsidized by the taxpayers? I have sat in The NE and California and all points all between and see empty trains constantly.

They have talked about a Houston-Dallas and also one for Houston-Austin-Dallas- San Antonio for many years but never will get going as usually cooler heads prevail and realize that it would have to be constantly subsidized heavily with not near enough people using them to pay for them.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Is there a rail anywhere in this country that does not need to be subsidized by the taxpayers? I have sat in The NE and California and all points all between and see empty trains constantly.

They have talked about a Houston-Dallas and also one for Houston-Austin-Dallas- San Antonio for many years but never will get going as usually cooler heads prevail and realize that it would have to be constantly subsidized heavily with not near enough people using them to pay for them.

it's too costly these days for a multitude of reasons... All of these 'light rail' systems you see in cities, street cars, etc... all of the suck a hole into city/state budgets... Sure they have revenue, but not enough to cover their costs.. just one big gaping hole sucking in money.

[luckytxn 2,264]

it's too costly these days for a multitude of reasons... All of these 'light rail' systems you see in cities, street cars, etc... all of the suck a hole into city/state budgets... Sure they have revenue, but not enough to cover their costs.. just one big gaping hole sucking in money.

Yes. I have seen a very narrow time when the rails are even full or somewhat full but they still run constantly and most of the time they are mostly empty. It seems like a great idea in a city to get from one hub to another and do not have to travel far after arriving but city to city is another ballgame. One has to rent a vehicle then to move around or have a rail get one someplace else once there.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

it's too costly these days for a multitude of reasons... All of these 'light rail' systems you see in cities, street cars, etc... all of the suck a hole into city/state budgets... Sure they have revenue, but not enough to cover their costs.. just one big gaping hole sucking in money.

Yes. I have seen a very narrow time when the rails are even full or somewhat full but they still run constantly and most of the time they are mostly empty. It seems like a great idea in a city to get from one hub to another and do not have to travel far after arriving but city to city is another ballgame. One has to rent a vehicle then to move around or have a rail get one someplace else once there.

Thank you both--answered my questions about Dallas/Houston HSR (no more feasible than Calgary/Edmonton--which was promulgated anyway by MP's who thought their job was to represent Ottawa TO their constituents)