Trains For America

More choices for better transportation

Nancy Pelosi talks transport infrastructure, passenger rail

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave the keynote address to the American Public Transit Association’s Rail Conference on Sunday, making some interesting comments about transportation and railways. A few selections with comments (she’s a politician, so take this all with a spoonful of salt):

“The question is not whether we must invest in our nation’s [transit] infrastructure, but rather, how do we pay for it? How do we proceed in a fiscally sound way?

“One idea being considered is an infrastructure development bank to promote public and private investment in projects of regional and national significance, including public transportation projects. The bank would be an independent federal entity that would evaluate major infrastructure proposals and finance the best of them using a variety of financial tools.

This sounds  like a good idea, it would give states and municipalities more leverage when funding regional rail projects. Just as long as it doesn’t supplant the federal grants already often provided to these projects under organizations such as the Federal Transit Administration.

“House Democrats are committed to robust public investment in public transportation. We are committed to advancing a bill that – at a minimum – honors the historic 80/20 funding split between highways and transit. The reduction of transit’s share below 20 percent that occurred in the 2005 reauthorization will not be repeated.

An 80/20 split is already sounding archaic in this day and age. Congress actually went below this in 2005? Shameful.

“It is essential that the environmental and economic development benefits of rail transit become fundamental criteria in the decision-making process for New Starts. We see with each new light rail system – whether the location is Dallas, Minneapolis, or Portland – a tremendous upsurge in transit-oriented development around rail lines and stations. Transit and the high-density development that accompanies it both have tremendous value in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and putting us on the path to a low-carbon economy.

Excellent point here, especially for a national politician. Rail transportation encourages denser development: interstate trains usually serve stations in the downtown core of cities, and regional and local rail promotes dense growth within walking distance of local stations. Dense development lets people walk and take transit to more of their destinations, meaning they make fewer car trips. Giving people the means to use their cars less is going to be crucial if we want to reduce our national impact on the environment. We can start by investing in Amtrak and passenger rail.

Filed under: Passenger Rail Politics, Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy, , , , ,

One Response

  1. Allan says:

    Roads are paid for thru highways taxes … and don’t try to tell me that they don’t cover the costs because money is bled off from the road fund for transit. And in my state, the state has been known to raid the road fund to put into the general fund.

    Rail, at a minimum, should be able to cover its operating and maintenance costs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Top Clicks

  • None
June 2008
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Categories

%d bloggers like this: