The Method to the HSR Stimulus Awards?
The New York Times reports that the HSR stimulus cash was spread around in a very politically sensible way:
According to an E&E analysis, the passenger rail lines that received stimulus cash go through more than 40 percent of all congressional districts, including those represented by a number of powerful lawmakers that will play a key role in finding the tens of billions of additional dollars thought to be needed to complete the work.
When looked at as a whole, the grants can be seen as an attempt to entice lawmakers to continue to spend on a massive public works project that is still very much in its infancy, even at a time when Washington has one eye firmly focused on the growing national deficit.
Which makes sense to me. Routes that were funded include not only HSR projects in the district of the Speaker of the House (San Francisco) but also in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Virginia and the upper Midwest. HSR projects run through or near key swing districts of Congress and were spread out so that 13 states – or 26 Senators – have a piece of the pie.
Unfortunately, the article’s author, Josh Voorhees, takes something of a “but what about the deficit?!” approach to this spending, coming close to calling it pork. This is unfortunate, because HSR is not only a method of creating jobs, but reducing carbon emissions and helping reduce our dependence on oil.
Still, the article does note that the stimulus awards were granted in a way that can help maximize Congressional support to continue to fund HSR, including making a much larger investment through the Transportation Bill, whenever that gets done:
On the House side, a number of key lawmakers saw cash awarded to projects that will traverse their districts. Reps. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) and Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), the chairwoman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee in charge of railways, will both have projects to trumpet in their home districts. So too will T&I Committee ranking member John Mica (R-Fla.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the No. 2 Democrat in the T&I Committee.
Both lawmakers are sponsors of T&I Chairman James Oberstar’s (D-Minn.) transportation bill that would funnel an additional $50 billion to high-speed rail work.
Despite Voorhees’s efforts to solicit some quotes from government watchdogs to make this seem like pork, observers actually think this is a fair and reasonable way to distribute the funds and build support for the ongoing program:
For the most part, however, criticism of the decisions has mostly been muted, something advocates point to as proof not only of a job well done by the Federal Railroad Administration but also of the growing momentum for high-speed rail in the United States.
“Infrastructure and politics have gone hand in hand for a long time, but it’s hard to criticize these decisions too much,” said Robert Puentes, a transportation expert at the Brookings Institute. “They could have just done this a year ago and spread it around, but they [instead] did a competitive process that is part of a larger effort to make more merit-based transportation decisions.”
In fact, many proposals in states with powerful representatives did not get funded. This includes Pennsylvania and Nevada, among others. The FRA’s decision-making process did indeed emphasize project merit, and the fact that the funds were spread around will almost certainly help build broader public support for HSR.
It’s good to see that HSR is gathering momentum in Congress. The jobs bill ought to allocate funds to HSR, and the Transportation Bill should be passed this year with a stable and significant long-term source of funds. Another NYT article explains HSR’s role in China’s economic prosperity, as they’ve been able to use it to help survive the worst global recession in 60 years.
Some critics will surely wonder about spending HSR money when there’s a growing federal deficit. But similar people said we shouldn’t use debt to build the Shasta Dam, or the bay bridges during the Depression, or the Interstate Highway System. Large expenditures of money, however, usually always elicit some form of criticism from those who can’t look past the numbers involved to the rewards, financial and otherwise, that come from such reasonable and proven investments.
HSR is gathering momentum here in 2010, as it should be. By year’s end I hope that Congress will have come through with much more HSR money to ensure that California’s project, and those in other states, are placed on the path to speedy completion.
Bear in mind that short term, we need a deficit to ensure that we do not have a double-dip recessions, and in 1979 and 1981 (and bearing in mind that the second dip was the more severe of the two), but that long-term we avoid difficulty in servicing the debt only if the economy continues to grow.
So investing in the individual pieces of protecting the economy from oil price shocks is a double win, providing the deficits that we require in the short term while protecting the economic growth that we need to service the debt in the long term.
Victor Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Yeah, I agree, But some will not care that HSR(or Maglev in one case-Las Vegas to Anaheim has $7 Billion loaned to them from China, They could use another $5 Billion for the whole route as It compliments the CHSRA and will also provide jobs and bring money into both California and Nevada) will make lots of jobs as this is like building the TVA back in the Great Depression or Hoover(which is getting a New Concrete Arch Bridge[US93] in front of Hoover Dam). I went through 1979 and 1981 and unemployment wasn’t quite as bad, But interest rates were in 1981. Investing in America and It’s Future is what the Federal Government does best, The nay sayers don’t care, They just want It anywhere but in their areas as they don’t like change.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
The loan from China was under the condition that the federal government backs the loan. I don’t find that very likely.
Victor Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I didn’t see that anywhere, Still they do have the best setup for the terrain and It can use existing non railroad ROW as the UP said no way to Amtrak. And I’ve been watching, So far they haven’t mentioned that and so far no one else has either, Except below:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/possible-loan-from-china-bank-keeps-high-speed-rail-plan-alive-83323232.html
——————————[quote=LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL]
The Export-Import Bank of China is willing to lend the money with the knowledge that if the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission is unable to pay it back, federal officials will.
“This funding from the bank in China was never contingent on this round of federal funding,” said Fierro, adding that the agreement was sealed in November. “They’re willing to put up $7 billion, and that is a game changer. This is absolutely enormous.”
The Chinese bank is familiar with the high-speed train technology and its potential, Fierro said. It is estimated that the train would carry 43 million passengers by 2025.
——————————[/quote]
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Sorry, I meant that the loan was contingent on the US government guaranteeing to pay back the loan if the maglev group doesn’t.
Victor Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 6:36 am
Actually It seems It may not be contingent at all, If You read My last post above Yours Peter.
“This funding from the bank in China was never contingent on this round of federal funding,” said Fierro, adding that the agreement was sealed in November. “They’re willing to put up $7 billion, and that is a game changer. This is absolutely enormous.”
See?
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Fourth paragraph of the article you linked to:
Alon Levy Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Bruce, the second dip in 1980-2 wasn’t due to budget balancing – on the contrary, Reagan cut taxes and hiked military spending. It was due to Volcker squeezing out inflation with a tight monetary policy.
We need that transportation bill to come thru no later than 2011 thats when the big bucks need to be locked in. The stimulus had no matching fund requirments ..I read on a railboard that the 2.5 billion passed for this year needs a 20% match wonder if thats true? We would need some of the bond funds.
That might be the case for funds from the Trasportation bill, if so we need to watch the bond money or
hope for more stimulus type non matching funds
BruceMcF Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 10:38 am
2011 is indeed when the big bucks need to be locked in – and “just coincidentally” $1.85b is about what they needed through to the end of 2011. Odd how that worked out.
I believe that the $2.5b in the annual appropriation is under the normal rail funding rules, which has been a minimum 20% match for over a decade now (though the DoT is pressing the local rail projects to offer a much higher match than that). The additional $2.5b that is being discussed for inclusion in the jobs bill would be on ARRA no-match rules – but of course, that’s a bird in bush at this point in time.
California, like Illinois, can backdate its matching funds based on recent capital investments it has already made on its own initiative. I’ve read somewhere that this is funds since 2006, but that was reporting, not an official document from the DoT.
Beyond that, in order to provide matching funds, the CAHSR has to identify a segment and get at least 50% external funding for that segment (though obviously they closer they can get to 80% on each segment, the further they can get on Federal funding and existing bonding authority alone). If they allocate the funds from the ARRA sensibly, that is quite feasible.
That strategy would, of course, put a floor on the minimum amount of HSR funds that they could accept on those terms, which would be a way to increase their leverage on how much they get.
This just in: BART has lost its $70 million and an additional $100 million for the Oakland Airport Connector. Any chance Caltrain/HSR could make a play to get this money back, especially since caltrain lost $90 million for the Dumbarton project to BART?
here’s a link theBART article
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
bart article
Matthew F. Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Your <a> is missing its href.
(…its my wireless keyboard)
in a not quite related healine – nuclear stimulus too!!! Glad to see obama has good sense.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 10:12 am
36 BILLION!! what the hey..and HSR nationwide gets only 8? Yes the 36 bilion is a loan but still..why cant HSR get some kind of tax free bond loan?
I just read this: I have heard nothing to support this report
morris
=============
KLIV Radio:
High-speed rail could skip San Francisco-to-San Jose route
http://kliv.com/High-speed-rail-could-skip-San-Francisco-to-San-Jo/6349554
SILICON VALLEY — The California High Speed Rail Authority is thinking about potentially abandoning the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of its proposed high speed rail line — saying running 200-mile-per-hour bullet trains through the Peninsula might be politically impossible.
The authority is instead floating a new idea, which would have the train line begin in San Jose, instead of San Francisco.
The authority is still trying to figure out how to run high-speed trains down the Peninsula.
They’re looking at either elevated tracks, underground tracks or so-called “stacked trains” — where the high-speed rail line would run either above or below the local Caltrain line.
The authority says starting the line in San Jose would be easier legally and financially.
They stress that the idea is still in its infancy, and has not yet been fully examined.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
I’m hearing this might be an inaccurate report. In any event, Prop 1A is VERY clear that San Francisco Transbay, not San José Diridon, is the system terminus, and that SF-SJ must be served.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Yeah, this sounds like they took the fact that CHSRA is studying it for CEQA purposes and inferred that this was a serious consideration.
I really don’t see how they could consider it to be easier legally…
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
typical sloppy “journalism” the kids writing today are sloppy. They don’t ask the right questions and they don’t understand what they are writing about. Its like those bimbos on msnbc in the morning who spent the entire hour referring to hsr as light rail. talk about phoning it in.
all we need now is a few new nuclear plants in cali, plug in the hsr, and ka blam! we’re lean, mean, clean and green! We’ll use the excess night time power to make hydrogen fuel and desalinate water. christ we’ll be unstoppable!
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble jim, but before we can build nuke plants in CA we need to figure out what to do with the waste. CA’s law banning new plants barring a long-term waste disposal was upheld by the US Supreme Court. Easiest solution would be for the US to start reprocessing the waste. That way waste becomes fuel. Like magic. And we’re left only with medium-level radioactive waste. Instead of the shit that takes tens of thousands of years to decay.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
yes thats what france does, there’s very little leftover afterward. The amount leftover after powering a family of four for a year fits in a shoebox. the environmentalist scardy spazzes put us decades behind while other countries aroudn the world are using advanced US nuclear power plant designs ( that we cant use) and forcing us to burn coal, and or waste our valuable and huge domestic natural gas resources ( which should be used for cars instead) They really effed things up.
JoeSez Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 8:40 am
I’m afraid the problems with nuclear waste haven’t been resolved and there are large costs associated with disposal and, safe, long term storage. The dirty hippies didn’t stop “clean” nuclear power.
Also, if we tried to use say a pebble reactor design, Al Gore sez there isn’t enough He2 to scale production.
30% of Cali is desert. I’m thinking we might have other resources to power HSR.
Missiondweller Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Seriously, you’re quoting Al Gore? LOL!
BruceMcF Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 10:23 am
After a couple of weeks with DC getting its biggest snowstorm ever and West Vancouver (which is, obviously, west of North Vancouver) having such a warm winter that they had to fly in snow by helicopter for the snowboarding and freestyle sky events … and with the US Navy planning for how they will address the question of clear passage through the Arctic sea in the summertime …
… Al Gore’s argument that we are in going to see a lot of climate change is obviously being vindicated time and time again. Only the brain dead and Fox viewership would believe otherwise. Of course, Fox is partly owned by and even more heavily in debt to Arabian oil money, so they’ll say anything to avoid the US cutting down on our oil imports and starting to regain our economic independence.
JoeSez Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Yes I am quoting Al Gore who is accurately summarizing the consensus opinions on environment and energy.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 10:42 am
There are other coolants besides Helium for reactors and pebble bed reactors aren’t the only 4th-gen, failsafe reactor designs. Our current reactors won’t last forever, and we need a mix of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable power sources.
Peter Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Thorium reactors with molten salt coolant will likely be the way to go in the long-term. The benefits are amazing of that approach. We just need to invest in it.
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 11:30 am
There is an article in the Scientific American showing that coal ashes are more radioactive than nuclear waste. And those ashes are spread by the winds whereas nuclear waste is vitrified and confined in a known place.
Unfortunately, in many countries, the anti-nuclear activists have succeeded in perpetuating the use of coal which is the most harmful energy source. The result of their action is that more people are exposed to radioactivity.
Peter Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Well…
Not exactly. The waste created by coal plants that is exposed to the environment is more radioactive than what is emitted from nuclear plants. I wouldn’t recommend exposing yourself directly to radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant.
It’s not exactly comparing apples and apples.
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I am comparing apples and apples and, of course, my reasoning only applies to western democracies.
No-one is supposed to be exposed to radiations from nuclear waste. It is vitrified and confined. There is no public exposure.
Radioactive ashes are spread everywhere and public exposure is total.
A well-designed (not Tchernobyl) nuclear plant doesn’t emit LESS radiation than coal. It produces NO radiation at all. The white cloud you see is just water.
jimsf Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
or we can keep killing off our 18 years olds in the middle east, or blowing off their various body parts,….. cuz you know, we’re more comfy with oil, and their deaths, and we’re a too a’scaaaard of the big scary nuclear plants.
bunch of ‘effin bs.
jimsf Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I think we should send the environmentalists to Afghanistan and let them figure it all out.
JoeSez Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
JimSF,
Did you try to imply that nuclear power plants can provide enough energy to replace oil.
If we went to nuclear fission, we’d be fighting our wars over uranium and rare earths. So wars will happen over energy, resources and incompetent politicians scapegoating.
Blaming environmentalists and hippies for all of today’s problems on on a national scale. Please stop re-fighting the 60′s.
wu ming Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
we’re not in the middle east because of natural gas, and nukes will not get us off of oil without a corresponding massive expansion in batteries and electric cars (which have their own foreign sourcing problem, this time with rare metals found in china).
electricity ≠ liquid fuel. they’re two two different systems that occasionally intersect (e.g. with carbon emissions).
putting electric trains up instead of airports or highways gets us away from liquid fuels entirely, though, so there we’re fine. but nukes specifically aren’t the only way you can power them, we’ve got a lot of waves, sun and wind in CA that don’t leave us with radioactive waste and aren’t such a headache when an earthquake cracks a cooling tower.
wu ming Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
you might have have a point if california burned coal. which it doesn’t.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 9:35 am
There was a great interview on BldgBlog with one of the geoscientists from the DOE about storing nuclear waste. Basically we know how to do it, and it’s not as dangerous as a lot of the other stuff we deal with, but people are just scared of it and politicians use it as a football.
One of the interesting quotes is regarding how the EPA rules for hazardous chemicals that never decay is less stringent than for nuclear waste that does decay over time:
JoeSez Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Hilarious.
1. Is the argument, we have crappy rules for chemicals so why not the same bad standard for nuclear waste?
2. The National Academy of Sciences concluded the 10,000 year standard was unsafe and gave 1 M as the worse case scenario. The Technical Basis for Yucca Mountain Standards. 1995.
Why blame Congress unless the point is to make 1M it appear to be an arbitrary and political decision to placate the illiterate, scared hippies. The scientists are the ones worried.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4943
What’s the half life of the material? The cost for nuclear power should reflect the total cost. 10,000 years isn’t long enough.
I look forward to riding HSR powered by solar generated energy. 30% of Cai is desert. My hoetown gets 267 days of sunshine a year.
Forget San Jose too – fall back to Livermore, BART, I-5 and Grapevine.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Yes, that works brilliantly, if you don’t know anything about rail operations worldwide.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Run it to stockton! Everyone can just take ACE to San Jose and Caltrain to SF!
Better yet, run it to tehachapi, those freight trains run slow enough through the loop that people can just hop on, hobo-style.
If you’re not going where the freight train is going, just hop off and hitch, just remember: Cash, grass or ass, nobody rides for free.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Nah, bringing HSR to Livermore ignores that bringing BART to Modesto would be even better. Since BART is the bestest greatest thing since sliced bread everyone would climbing over each other to take a nice 3 hour ride on BART to Modesto. Or even better Lathrop. Everybody should see Lathrop at least once in their life.
jimsf Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Or we can just fly to boston and take acela to dc, then fly from dc to la. its just as convenient.
wu ming Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
if you’re going to do something that dumb, at least extend it to sac so we can use the damn thing. but the landowners of the peninsula get to pay a special surtax covering all overruns in the grapevine tunneling.