Brown: U.S. Should Fund High-Speed Rail

Roll Call ^ | June 7, 2010 | Rep. Corrine Brown

[cripplecreek]

They WANT $10 a gallon gasoline. They want it with every fiber of their being. They WANT it, because as you said, DonaldC, "mindsets will change".

Thank you. Nothing a train nazi wants more than control.

[Willie Green]

Can anyone point to a high speed rail project that is self-sustaining and doesn’t need gobs of tax money to keep it going?

Why pick on high-speed rail?

You can't point to ANY mode of transportation that doesn't require "gobs" of tax money to support.

Our airports and air traffic control system are government subsidized
So are our roads and highways AND our navigable rivers, canals and waterways.

Provision of transportation infrastructure is a legitimate government function. If you don't understand that, then you don't deserve to be in political office.

[anonsquared]

So Corrine, are you going to stop the environmental wackos from suing so that the “high speed” train will only be allowed to go 45 miles per hour so as not to hurt any endangered snails that may attempt to cross the tracks? (Gotta give the conductor time to stop!)

[KarlInOhio]

She looks happy only because she doesn't have one of these.

Then she'll ask, "Why can I only ride on the track instead of down the hallway where I want to go? And why do I have to wait two hours for my scheduled ride instead of going right now?"

[Mtn Pass]

Fund???????? With what,Chinse money!!!!!!!!!!!!!We are broke.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Crooked Corrinne Brown makes Cynthia McKinney look moderate.

Corinne is so crooked.....that she sends Nigerians “request for funds” letters....and the Nigerians pay her.....

[rhombus]

This argument seems to be since Gov does SOME things there should be no limit to ANY thing Gov wants to do.

[sten]

why do we need more public transportation?

how are they going to pay for it?

to help the country, we would need to produce something other countries want ... thereby bringing money into the country.

[Gene Eric]

Hell no!

Not only will it cost us billions to build it, it will cost more to sustain it and the unions that run it.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

I would love to have rail as a traveling option across the country.

You already have that option.

[Pan_Yan]

“Let’s see ... my house is about to be foreclosed on. I know! I’ll buy a brand new SUV so that I can get to work more quickly. That way I will save money on car repairs and be able to pay mortgage!

[Teacher317]

So then government should fund EVERY mode of transportation?

You fail to note why THIS mode is worth the time, money, and trouble. High-speed rail is slower than regional air, and presents all of the same problems: no ground transport once you get to the station/airport, scheduling is at the carriers' convenience, security lines, etc. In the end, for the many billions in infrastructure expenses, people merely get a second option for regional transport that may or may not be slightly less expensive than air carriers. Why, exactly, is that worth the expense?

[4rcane]

um, i thought they already allocated fun to the rail project in that 800b stimulus package. Not enough? Asking for more?

[trisham]

From Wikipedia: "In the 1990s, Amtrak's stated goal remained operational self-sufficiency. By this time, however, Amtrak had a large overhang of debt from years of underfunding, and in the mid-1990s, Amtrak suffered through a serious cash crunch. To resolve the crisis, Congress issued funding but instituted a glide-path to financial self-sufficiency, excluding railroad retirement tax act payments.[53] Passengers became "guests" and there were expansions into express freight work, but the financial plans failed. Amtrak's inroads in express freight delivery created additional friction with competing freight operators, including the trucking industry. Delivery was delayed of much anticipated high-speed trainsets for the improved Acela Express service, which promised to be a strong source of income and favorable publicity along the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C. Through the late 1990s and early 2000s, Amtrak could not add sufficient express freight revenue or cut sufficient other services to break even. By 2002, it was clear that Amtrak could not achieve self-sufficiency, but Congress continued to authorize funding and released Amtrak from the requirement.[54] Amtrak's leader at the time, David L. Gunn, was polite but direct in response to congressional criticism. In a departure from his predecessors' promises to make Amtrak self-sufficient in the short term, Gunn argued that no form of passenger transportation in the United States is self-sufficient as the economy is currently structured.[55] Highways, airports, and air traffic control all require large government expenditures to build and operate, coming from the Highway Trust Fund and Aviation Trust Fund paid for by user fees, highway fuel and road taxes, and, in the case of the General Fund, by people who own cars and do not.[56]

Before a congressional hearing, Gunn answered a demand by leading Amtrak critic Arizona Senator John McCain to eliminate all operating subsidies by asking the Senator if he would also demand the same of the commuter airlines, upon which the citizens of Arizona are dependent. McCain, usually not at a loss for words when debating Amtrak funding, did not reply.[57] Under Gunn, almost all the controversial express freight business was eliminated. The practice of tolerating deferred maintenance was reversed to eliminate a safety issue.[58]

Amtrak's previous chief, Alexander Kummant, was committed to operating a national rail network, and he did not envision separating the Northeast Corridor (the rail line from Washington, DC, to Boston that is primarily, though not completely, owned by Amtrak) under separate ownership. He said that shedding the system's long distance routes would amount to selling national assets that are on par with national parks, and that Amtrak's abandonment of these routes would be irreversible. Amtrak is seeking annual congressional funding of $1 billion for ten years. Kummant has stated that the investment is moderate in light of federal investment in other modes of transportation.[59] [edit]"

[GrannyAnn]

A high speed rail would make a lot of money......

for the investors in companies that build high speed rail. Follow the money.

[Uncle Miltie]

[Buckeye McFrog]

since we can’t seem to build any nuke plants in this country, I must point out once again....

*Requires 8000 “D” Batteries (not included)

[Steamburg]

With good fortune we can kick his soap box from under him following the November election.

[Willie Green]

Fund???????? With what,Chinse money!!!!!!!!!!!!!We are broke.
Not only will it cost us billions to build it, it will cost more to sustain it and the unions that run it.
why do we need more public transportation?
how are they going to pay for it?

Well I advocate passenger rail systems as part of a National Energy Policy that enhances our national security by making us less dependent on imported oil.

IMHO, funding can be obtained by placing tolls on our Interstate Highways, those need additional funding for maintenance anyway, and using toll revenue to fund passenger rail will help reduce highway congestion and wear & tear on the roads.

And of course, BP should pay for some of it.
If nothing else, BP should at least pay for the reopening of the Amtrak Sunset Limited route along the Gulf Coast from New Orleans to Florida. That has been shut down since Katrina, and now that BP as screwed up the rest of their economy, the people in that region need Amtrak to help them bounce back.