# National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Re



## MrFSS (Jan 21, 2008)

In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. Be aware, some of the PDF files are very large, even for high-speed connections.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 21, 2008)

One big problem with that report though seems to be that the Bush Administration has deleted sections of the report that ran contrary to their ideas of where rail transportation should be placed in this countries future. I quote remarks from Paul Weyrich in a piece on Railwayage:



> “It is disappointing that after [the section I contributed] was passed by a nine to three vote that someone without ever asking me would see to it to do away with these important policy considerations,” Weyrich said to NCI. “It is the kind of gutter politics that make people hate their government, and Washington in general.”


And here's one of the paragraphs deleted from the report that was approved by the full commission:



> “Federal policy should include a clear and unambiguous endorsement of a shift away from the private automobile to public transportation for travel in urban areas. It should be the objective of the Federal government to bring all aspects of transportation policy in line to support and encourage this shift, including provision of adequate resources. As federal policy is amended to reflect its support for public transportation as the preferred approach to urban mobility, with a strong focus on electric railways, many other specific policies will change with it. In the long term, it should be the objective of Federal transportation policy to provide every American the option of mobility without an automobile.”


You can read the rest of the story, as well as much of the significant parts deleted over at Railway Age.com. Note: This is a news listing that keeps pushing older stories down, as new ones are added. So with each passing day you will need to scroll down the page to find this specific story.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 21, 2008)

In many cases reports like this require a greater than majority vote for inclusion of a section. The fact that Mr. Weyrich's sections received a 9 to 3 vote for approval may, in fact, indicate the proposals were rejected due to three objections. The consensus organizations in which I participate require an 90% affirmative vote for a inclusion of wording in a document. The idea is that a report of a commission should represent the opinion of the commission, not just a majority of the commission. With a commission like this there is a clear paper trail to document every item that is in or not in the final report. The claim that the Bush Administration somehow mysteriously deleted sections is not credible.

The fact that a once respected industry publication like Railway Age now quotes sources like the National Corridors Initiative to substantiate their stories is a pretty sad commentary on Railway Age. Not withstanding the impassioned claim, I think there is not enough evidence to play the tired, old "blame the Bush Administration" game for the simple fact that Mr. Weyrich did not get his way on a bi-partisan commission. However, for those of us who know Mr. Weyrich, it is not a complete surprise.


----------

