rahall Archives - Transportation For America

Polemics give way to compromise on House rail bill

For the last few years, congressional debate over the nation’s passenger rail system has been a discordant tug-of-war between visions of high-speed rail and moves to privatize popular Amtrak corridors and kill operational support. The logjam appeared to break last week with a unanimous committee vote on reauthorizing passenger rail. The compromise bill recognizes the benefits of a truly national passenger rail system and seeks to improve it rather dwell on drawbacks.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by Michael Patrick. /photos/michaelpatrick/110090972

Most importantly, it preserves a national system of state-supported and long-distance routes and authorizes funding for the system that is consistent with the recent appropriations for Amtrak. While passenger rail certainly needs far more investment than it’s getting to truly prosper and meet the burgeoning demand, T4America was encouraged to see representatives who once had a hard time finding common ground agreeing on some important fundamentals.

Let’s get one issue out of the way up front. The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014 (PRRIA) does indeed lower the authorized amount of funding for Amtrak by 40 percent from in the level last adopted in 2008, capping it between $1.4B and $1.5B for each of the next four years. Although that looks like a step backward, in reality Congress never appropriated the full amount of authorized funds. Because there was no dedicated revenue source passenger rail funding was subjected to a contentious debate over general fund spending each year. The new bill yields to that reality and sets funding at the levels of the last several years.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that we’ve had budget proposals in the House over the last two years that appropriated between $1.0 or $1.1 billion for Amtrak — $400-500 million less than this reauthorization proposal from the same chamber.

There are some other interesting and positive changes worth highlighting.

The bill authorizes new competitive grant programs for the Northeast Corridor and for the national network. These programs are authorized at $150 million each for the next four years. The NEC program requires that states put up their own money equal to the federal grant, and the projects that can be funded must be on a priority project list to be developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission.

The bill will take the important first steps toward restoring rail service to the Gulf Coast, a region that has been disconnected from the national network since Hurricane Katrina forced the suspension of rail service along the coast. It’s an encouraging sign that the committee recognizes the value not only of preserving our current rail network, but expanding it to serve additional regions.

Some of the overall structure for funding also changes under this bill. Congress currently funds Amtrak under two programs: operating, and capital/debt service. This year, Congress funded these two programs at $1.39 billion. The bill restructures these programs into a Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund and a National Network Account at a total of $1.412 billion. The NEC account may be used only for that corridor and permits Amtrak to reinvest operational revenue there. The idea of privatizing the Northeast Corridor is off the table, at least for now.

The bill includes several requirements intended to create greater transparency in Amtrak’s financial reporting, increasing accountability and oversight over budgets and financial decisions. Calls by some members of Congress for increased competition in passenger rail were answered with a new pilot program (limited to two routes) that will allow rail carriers that own track used by Amtrak to submit a competitive bid along with Amtrak to provide the same level of passenger service there. The winning bidder would receive the right to provide passenger service for 5 years, with subsidies that would decline over time.

This bill does not contain everything that Transportation for America has called for, however.

For example, there’s still no dedicated funding source identified, which means that Amtrak will still have to fight for funding every year in the annual appropriations process. And some of the provisions related to Amtrak’s finances and operations could lead to changes in service down the road, such as the requirement that Amtrak contract with an independent entity to develop a new methodology for determining which routes to serve.

Still, in a Congress marked by partisan gridlock, we’re hopeful that this encouraging compromise in the House can lay the groundwork for creating a dedicated funding source for rail service that will put it on the same footing as other transportation modes.

T4America statement in response to passenger rail reauthorization bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today released a long-awaited update to the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, the law that funds passenger rail.

James Corless, director of Transportation for America, issued this statement in response:

“We are pleased that Chairmen Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Jeff Denham (R-CA) and Ranking Members Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Corrine Brown (D-FL) were able to work together to draw up a bill that preserves funding for our national rail network.

Reliable intercity rail is critical to our nation’s future economic success. It not only provides key links among large population centers, it also serves as a lifeline to smaller communities without air or intercity bus service.

Even as it strengthens the prospects of long-term federal support for our national passenger rail system, the bill also invites states to become stronger partners with investments that will further solidify the national network and its future. We hope the renewed commitment demonstrated by this bill opens the door for Congress to create a dedicated funding source for rail service, putting it on the same footing as other transportation modes.”

West Virginia’s Nick Rahall says we have a “great deficit in infrastructure,” warns against deep budget cuts

Saying we have a “great deficit in infrastructure in this country,” the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee warned this week that ill-considered cuts to domestic spending would hinder the economy recovery and put important projects at risk.

Nick Rahall, who represents West Virginia’s Third Congressional District in the state’s southern corner, rebuked the House Republican budget during the groundbreaking for a public water service extension in Mingo County. He called the prevailing budget in the House a “meat-ax approach” and warned that “we have to be careful or we may be doing our economy and doing the recovery more harm than we can ever envision.”

Rahall also put Washington’s spending-reduction mood in context, saying that while some cuts are necessary, eliminating basic services today does nothing to help future generations of West Virginians or any Americans. Taylor Kuykendall of the Beckley Register-Herald quoted the Congressman as saying:

I have long been convinced, and will continue to preach, that the price of doing nothing, the price of letting our water and wastewater services deteriorate, the cost of our highways and bridges crumbling, the debt that grows as our broadband digital divide widens are not ‘financial burdens’ as some see them. To me, they are the very basic things the people elect their government to fix. Put simply, these are investments in our country’s future.

With the fate of the fiscal year 2011 budget — and, with it, millions of cuts to crucial transportation — unresolved and the potential for a new transportation bill later this year, we hope this sort of emphasis on the infrastructure deficit rather than just the fiscal deficit will inform future discussions.

Photo courtesy of Congressman Nick Rahall.

House transportation leaders kick-off nationwide tour in West Virginia

West Virginia’s Beckley (right) and Charleston were the first two stops on a multi-state tour that House transportation leaders hope will result in a bipartisan bill to fund the nation’s infrastructure.

The current law, known as SAFETEA-LU, expired in September 2009 and has continued under a series of short-term extensions, the latest expiring in March.

Transportation remained on the back-burner during the previous Congress, but key players are signaling they want action this year. Yesterday, President Obama proposed a forward-looking, $556 billion transportation budget that doubles the nation’s investment in transit, consolidates duplicative programs and reforms how we spend federal dollars. And, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, a Florida Republican, has already been meeting with his Senate counterpart, Democrat Barbara Boxer, on a new bill.

Now, Mica is hitting the road with ranking Democrat Nick Rahall and other members of the Committee. Beckley is in West Virginia’s Third Congressional District, represented by Rahall since 1976.

West Virginia is a largely car-dependent state that lacks large-scale mass transit. But as state highway commissioner Paul Mattox Jr. pointed out during the Beckley hearing, other travel options remain crucial.

“Many West Virginians, particularly in the rural areas, are transit-dependent and utilize these services to get to work, the doctor, shopping and to take care of the necessities of life,” Mattox said, according to the Beckley Register-Herald. “The need for continued transportation investment in West Virginia is greater now than ever.”

And, in Charleston, a number of industry leaders emphasized the importance of both getting a bill done and the level of investment right.

“We hear a lot of talk about doing more with less,” the Charleston Gazette quoted Dan Cooperrider, president of Old Castle Materials’ Mid Atlantic Group, as saying. “If we continue doing more with less, soon we’ll be doing nothing.”

Members of the Committee are also making stops in the Philadelphia areas; Rochester, New York; the greater Chicago area; Vancouver, Washington; Fresno, California; Southern California; Oklahoma City; and elsewhere.

Photo: City-Data