 Most troubling, they said,
is that mass transit would no longer get steady funding from a
portion of the federal gasoline tax, forcing transit agencies to
compete for general funds with other programs and making them more
vulnerable to cuts, said Illinois Transportation Secretary Ann
Schneider.The proposed shift "puts transit in a very difficult
position," she said.
Schneider joined federal transportation officials at an event in
Chicago on Tuesday to drum up the interest of Midwest-based railroad
manufacturers and suppliers in helping build high-speed rail and
other projects. The officials say the bill in Congress could make
their sales pitch tougher by raising doubts about once-steady
streams of funding necessary for infrastructure projects that take
years to complete and have high price tags.
"You have to have predictability" in funding, explained Joseph
Szabo, head of the Federal Railroad Administration.
In the House transportation bill, Republicans are proposing
spending about $260 billion over nearly five years. It eliminates
the guarantee of a portion of federal gasoline and diesel tax
revenues for transit, a funding stream that cash-strapped transit
agencies in cities such as Chicago and New York have relied on for
about 30 years. Instead, transit agencies would have to compete
regularly against other programs in the scramble for funds.
House Republicans argue that it is necessary because reductions
in driving due to the economy as well as more fuel-efficient
vehicles have lowered tax revenues.
The bill also eliminates locally popular federal programs that
help underwrite bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects, including
the Safe Routes to School program, to concentrate funding on
highways. And it includes a reduction in funding for Amtrak totaling
$308 million over two years.
"The House bill takes us back to the dark ages," Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood told reporters in Washington on Monday.
Schneider did not name specific projects that might be under
threat in Illinois, but she outlined her concerns in a Feb. 3 letter
to the state's congressional delegation.
"This bill reduces resources, eliminates programs crucial to a
functioning multimodal transportation system in Illinois and relies
on unknown, unproven revenue sources," she wrote.
The letter included an analysis of the bill that found it would
create a yearly shortfall of $137 million in federal highway funds
-- $900 million over the life of the bill -- and included no
investment for high-speed rail, a key area for Illinois as it seeks
to open a high-speed rail corridor from Chicago to St. Louis by
2014.
[to top of second column]
 |
Still, events such as the one Tuesday in Chicago show the state
is pushing ahead with that and other rail projects. Schneider said
Illinois was looking to buy 88 double-decker rail cars for passenger
service on routes through Illinois and into Michigan and Missouri.
"The governor (Pat Quinn) is very much committed to the
Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor being a premier high-speed rail
corridor," she said.
In Chicago, the House bill has come under fire from Republicans
and Democrats alike because their constituents rely heavily on the
city's public transit system, the nation's second-biggest.
Statewide, transportation officials are deeply concerned about
the bill because Chicago and other parts of Illinois are a major hub
for the nation's highways and railways. Delays linked to aging
infrastructure and congestion there can ripple throughout the
nation's 140,000-mile freight and passenger rail system.
LaHood's deputy, John Pocari, was among those in Chicago on
Tuesday to speak to around 250 manufacturers and suppliers about
getting involved in rail projects, including bids for nearly $800
million in next-generation train orders for high-speed rail and
other intercity passenger service.
Pocari pointed to a rival funding plan that President Barack
Obama proposed Monday to spend nearly half a trillion dollars over
six years on transportation infrastructure, including funds for
investment in high-speed and other passenger rail service, which
Pocari called "a very significant step forward." Obama's proposal,
however, is grander than anything Congress is likely to go along
with.
Szabo said the proposal is the kind of reassurance investors
need.
"That's critically important to the 250 people in that room next
door," he said referring to the companies they were courting. "...
Before they can make an investment in a plant and equipment, they
need to know that the orders are going to be there reliably over the
long term so they can recoup their investment."
[Associated Press;
By JASON KEYSER]
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed. |
