|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 16, 2010 22:49:49 GMT -8
Going back to about a year ago, I was at a Metro Board meeting as a citizen and supporter of IWillRide.org. There were a lot of building trades workers there; they didn't have to take time off from work because in their cases there wasn't any. They were supporting the agreement to have Breda build a light-rail car plant in Los Angeles (which didn't pan out in the end). When I spoke during public comments, I emphasized the "shovel-ready" nature of the Gold Line Foothill Extension, and urged the Board to fund the project and "put our brothers and sisters in the building trades back to work! It's shovel-ready, let's DIG IT!" This got a big round of applause from the assembled workers, and I can claim brotherhood, being a retired member of IBEW Local 47. People who complain about "government boondoggles" should look around and see how many structures are still standing and still providing service to the people that were built under the WPA and PWA back in the 30's.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 6, 2010 6:55:41 GMT -8
So Mrs. Toe and I were watching the ABC News this morning before she headed into work. Obama apparently is using Labor Day today as the start of a week long effort to focus on the unemployment problem, specifically a jobs program for road work, rail work, and airport work for $50 billion. They didn't go into more detail than that though. I was checking my smart phone browser in the car just now to see if there was any mention of 30/10 as that seems like a complete no brainer if you are worried about how to pay for the program. The ABC show mentioned the Republicans might oppose the $50 billion if there wasn't a way to pay for it. Thats why I was hoping Obama jumped on the 30/10 bandwagon. Anyway, found some more details here in a NY Times article, and I'm sure we will hear more about this in the coming days/weeks. It does indeed look like this is the actual 30/10 plan, at least to some degree. So, maybe even if there is opposition to raising oil and gas taxes to pay for the other project(s), since the 30/10 uses county tax money and is more or less a long term loan, that part might survive at least. Very exciting... www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07obama.htmlFrom the article: Since the end of last year, when the long-term surface transportation legislation expired, infrastructure investments have been continued on a temporary basis, even as a trust fund that finances them has fallen into insolvency, the White House said. Mr. Obama’s plan would call on Congress to enact a long-term reauthorization of that bill. The idea for an infrastructure initiative, and in particular an infrastructure bank to leverage public money for private investment, is one that the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been promoting for some time within the West Wing. It was not included in the original $787 billion stimulus program in early 2009 because the administration and Congressional Democratic leaders wanted to pass that package as quickly as possible given how fast the economy was sinking in the weeks before Mr. Obama took office; changes in the way public projects are determined and financed would have met resistance in the large committees of Congress that have jurisdiction. Lately the White House has been consulting with Representative James L. Oberstar, the Democrat from Minnesota who is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and who has been developing legislation of his own. The administration also has consulted with an influential, tri-partisan trio – Ed Rendell, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania; Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California; and Michael R. Bloomberg, the independent who is mayor of New York -- that recently formed a group called Building America’s Future to press for more public and private partnerships to invest in and modernize roads and bridges, air traffic control systems, waterways, electricity grids and more.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 6, 2010 8:05:47 GMT -8
Looks like the speech will be at 12:10pm PST. Here is a more detailed story with info from the White House: www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41807.htmlRail. Many parts of transit systems have been allowed to fall into a state of ill-repair. The President’s plan would help address this by making a major new investment in the nation’s bus and rail transit system. The Administration is also committed to expanding public transit systems and would dedicate significant new funding to the “New Starts” program — which supports locally planned, implemented, and operated major transit projects. In addition, the Administration is committed to building on its investments so far in high-speed rail — constructing a system that will increase convenience and productivity, while also reducing our nation’s dependence on oil and cutting down on pollution. The President’s plan would also invest in a long-overdue overhaul of Amtrak’s fleet. Infrastructure Bank. The President proposes to fund a permanent infrastructure bank. This bank would leverage private and state and local capital to invest in projects that are most critical to our economic progress. This marks an important departure from the federal government’s traditional way of spending on infrastructure through earmarks and formula-based grants that are allocated more by geography and politics than demonstrated value. Instead, the Bank will base its investment decisions on clear analytical measures of performance, competing projects against each other to determine which will produce the greatest return for American taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 6, 2010 8:40:47 GMT -8
The part about the Infrastructure Bank sounds good, but, it positions the old way of doing things versus plans like LA's 30/10 Initiative. Something tells me that there will be resistance in the halls of Washington DC government.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 6, 2010 11:55:59 GMT -8
I just watched the end of the speech and it sounded much more like a campaign speech than a policy speech. Personally I prefer to hear more policy and less complaining about the opposition from a President.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 6, 2010 12:17:38 GMT -8
I just watched the end of the speech and it sounded much more like a campaign speech than a policy speech. Personally I prefer to hear more policy and less complaining about the opposition from a President. Shawn, I just got done watching it too. I'm guessing that Obama took the opportunity to rally the union supporters, since it was labor day. I think that he will try and pass the legislation that supports what he was talking about before the election, since the election could change things and likely make it harder to get the program passed. I would like to have heard more details, but it looks like we will have to wait for more of the "meat". RT
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 6, 2010 13:00:52 GMT -8
The President proposes to fund a permanent infrastructure bank. Republicans: "No." Democrats: "Er, uhm... *hyperventilates then falls down*."
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 6, 2010 19:41:49 GMT -8
This is so annoying.....
There's a plan in place to pay for it, and yet not only is it still being opposed, but, as several have already mentioned, poorly touted by certain leaders that have no balls.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 6, 2010 20:41:33 GMT -8
Let's divide $50 billion equally between highway, railway, and airports. 4000 miles of rail is being proposed. This is $4 million per mile of rail. In reality at least $100 million per mile is needed for simple at-grade rail. For light-rail $200 million per mile is needed and for rapid transit $400 million per mile is needed.
So, basically, $50 billion alone is hardly enough for anything.
But the infrastructure bank is a good idea. If every year $50 billion is deposited, quite a bit can be built in the next ten years.
And the opposition is nothing but nay sayers and they're very annoying. It's funny that none of the Republican governors would support the House Republicans trying to kill the infrastructure projects in their states. This is only nasty politics in Washington to try to win the midterm or general elections.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 8, 2010 23:57:38 GMT -8
4000 miles of rail is being proposed. This is $4 million per mile of rail. In reality at least $100 million per mile is needed for simple at-grade rail. For light-rail $200 million per mile is needed and for rapid transit $400 million per mile is needed. At-grade intercity rail is much cheaper in the country than in the city, especially where there are already existing freight rail rights-of-way. However, I think the 50 billion is in addition to the current 50 billion a year transporation bill; over 5 years it might be 300 million total, so intercity rail could get 50 billion itself. That gets us up to 12 million per mile... it may take more than five years to build those 4000 miles of rail; perhaps over the next 20 years?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 10, 2010 9:09:45 GMT -8
News article from the Daily News. Mayor to talk transit projects WHITE HOUSE: Villaraigosa will meet Obama to push 30/10 initiative.By Daily News Wire Services Posted: 10/09/2010 10:08:16 PM PDT Updated: 10/09/2010 10:13:00 PM PDTMayor Antonio Villaraigosa is among several officials scheduled to meet with President Barack Obama Monday at the White House on spending on infrastructure in his third trip to the nation's capital in four weeks. Villaraigosa has been seeking congressional support for a plan to accelerate the construction of 12 major transit projects in Los Angeles County. His so-called 30/10 initiative calls for finishing the projects - including a portion of the so-called Subway to the Sea and a regional connector to link several light rail lines passing through downtown Los Angeles - in 10 years instead of 30 as initially planned. He estimated the cost of building the projects over 30 years is $18.5 billion. Accelerating construction to 10 years would reduce the cost to $14 billion, Villaraigosa said. Los Angeles County voters agreed in 2008 to pay for the transportation projects with a half-percent sales tax increase. Villaraigosa wants the federal government and other entities to help finance the construction now, and agree to be paid back over time. Villaraigosa was in Washington Sept. 23-24 for a meeting of the leadership of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Sept. 28-29 to promote the 30/10 initiative. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, and the mayors of Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Charleston, S.C., and Columbus, Ohio, are also expected to attend the meeting, along with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and two of his predecessors, Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 10, 2010 9:54:22 GMT -8
The political winds seem to be blowing in a different direction. I wonder whether the time for 30/10 might already have passed.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Oct 10, 2010 11:01:37 GMT -8
The political winds seem to be blowing in a different direction. I wonder whether the time for 30/10 might already have passed. Not in the slightest. Remember, the biggest funding for the LA subway came during the Reagan years. Setting up a system where the feds can loan us money at a low rate, which we have the funds to repay will succeed. It just has to be told and sold to more folks on the Federal level. Some things take time, but we will get there. The truth is that Antonio and a number of others are doing the "heavy lifting" in Washington, DC. That returning and constant presence is what pulls off the big changes. With the number of jobs the 12 projects will produce, the whole country will win.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 10, 2010 15:08:46 GMT -8
The political winds seem to be blowing in a different direction. I wonder whether the time for 30/10 might already have passed. Not in the slightest. Remember, the biggest funding for the LA subway came during the Reagan years. Setting up a system where the feds can loan us money at a low rate, which we have the funds to repay will succeed. It just has to be told and sold to more folks on the Federal level. Some things take time, but we will get there. The truth is that Antonio and a number of others are doing the "heavy lifting" in Washington, DC. That returning and constant presence is what pulls off the big changes. With the number of jobs the 12 projects will produce, the whole country will win. I hope you are right and I know 30/10 still has a strong chance, but I can't but think that having a party in control of Congress that is anti-transit, anti-urban areas, and anti-revenue increases while very protective of the status-quo transit system that strongly favors automobiles and rural areas will not be very good for us.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 10, 2010 16:36:25 GMT -8
Retaining control of the Senate is crucial for 30/10 to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Oct 10, 2010 18:26:08 GMT -8
Retaining control of the Senate is crucial for 30/10 to happen. Not really. Jobs, materials and supplies for the 30/10 projects will be filled by suppliers and employees from all over the United States. U.S. Senators do understand the value of jobs and projects in Southern California. When I worked the Senate for ARRA back in February 2009, I paid a visit to both Senators from Indiana. I pointed out how there were lots of laid off craft workers from Beach Grove, IN and lots of Amtrak wrecks and fleet that needed refurbishment. I also pointed out that we needed some of these repaired cars for the CA Amtrak corridors. Last week, when I rode the Coast Starlight, I saw stickers in many of the cars showing that indeed, the Beach Grove shops were turning out rehabbed cars. It is important to note that rail line suppliers are all over the US and any type of project filters down to provide local jobs. That is a message that we need to continue to get out. We will get to goal on 30/10. No fail.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 5:58:42 GMT -8
We will get to goal on 30/10. No fail. Right now, all the signs are good. Villaraigosa isn't letting up at all. He's working on this as his legacy accomplishment. Plus, we have a powerful block in both houses of Congress supporting this, working with Obama and his transportation man, La Hood, who also seem to bullish on infrastructure spending.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 11, 2010 16:50:11 GMT -8
Possibly due to the elections being only weeks away, I really haven't heard any feedback from members of Congress, other than Boxer.
I read in the LAtimes a few weeks back that Fiorina supports it as well. This is HUGELY important in swaying Mitch McConnel's vote for it.
|
|