Friday, October 31, 2008

House Lawmakers Push for Infrastructure Improvement Programs

Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle believe investments in transportation and infrastructure will help boost the nation's economy and add jobs. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the U.S. desperately needs infrastructure improvements. "The level of investment we're doing today, we're falling further and further behind," Oberstar said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, also had actively work on an economic recovery bill, with money for transportation and public works. Ms. Pelosi said this week that she would try to work with President Bush to “find bipartisan agreement on an economic recovery package.” She emphasized the need for “fiscal discipline,” and House leadership aides said that any bill passed this year was unlikely to provide more than $100 billion.

State officials said work on 3,000 highway projects could begin in 30 to 90 days, while mass transit would take about 90 days to begin $8 billion in projects.

The senior Republican on the committee, Representative John L. Mica of Florida, heartily endorsed the effort. “Every billion dollars of spending on highways and transportation projects results in 35,000 new jobs,” Mr. Mica said, using a figure in the midrange of estimates by economists. The total package will probably cost $200 billion to $300 billion, Mr. Mica predicted. Business executives and some economists said that such spending would increase economic activity, national income and productivity, thus generating revenue for the government.

Last month, the House passed a $60 billion stimulus package, half of which was for transportation and infrastructure projects. But the measure stalled in the Senate when President Bush indicated he would veto it.

While there is bipartisan support for long-term investments in public infrastructure, the debate has turned on how much and where. Some critics have also raised questions about where the new transportation dollars will come from and how far they would go to help the economy overall.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/washington/30spend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/33545479.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGcBHvnIaKwyq-VPObjMSdZvM4fgD944BPPGA

Monday, October 27, 2008

Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train

In 1996, the state created the California High-Speed Rail Authority (the authority) to develop an intercity train system that can operate at speeds of 200 miles per hour or faster to connect the major metropolitan areas of California, and provide service between northern California and southern California.

Over the past 12 years, the authority has spent about $60 million for pre-construction activities, such as environmental studies and planning, related to the development of a high-speed train system. The proposed system would use electric trains and connect the major metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Sacramento, through the Central Valley, into Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties), and San Diego.

The Proposition 1A authorizes the state to sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund (1) pre-construction activities and construction of a high-speed passenger train system in California, and (2) capital improvements to passenger rail systems that expand capacity, improve safety, or enable train riders to connect to the high-speed train system. The bond funds would be available when appropriated by the Legislature. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is required to pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds.

This measure will cost the state about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) of the bonds, which is equivalent of payments of about $647 million per year. When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system. The costs would be partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.

The proposition is on the ballot for the November 4th, 2008 General Election.

Sources:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop1a-title-sum.htm
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/1A/