# Would rail cynics have nixed our Federal highways?



## Blackwolf (Apr 5, 2013)

An editorial article from the Sacramento Bee newspaper asks the question about California's HSR ambitions when related to the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act (also known as the piece of legislation that gave birth to our interstate system.)



> The Government Accountability Office injected a sense of realism into the high-speed rail debate, detailing in its March 28 report just how large infrastructure projects of this kind work. But the naysayers led by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, and Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, don't seem to be listening.





> A major issue, it turns out, is post-2010 congressional opposition. As the GAO notes, the Obama administration, as well as the governor, Legislature and voters of California, has committed funding to the project. But sustained congressional support for additional funds is "one of the biggest challenges to completing this project."
> McCarthy was quick to prove the point. As soon as the report came out, he issued a statement that he was "developing legislation to stop more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from being wasted on California high-speed rail." Ditto for Denham.


The SacBee's official stance on the issue:



> It is perfectly suitable for members of Congress to press for improvements to the high-speed rail project. Repeatedly attempting to kill it makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read more *HERE.*


----------



## leemell (Apr 5, 2013)

There was very significant opposition to the Interstate Highway System when proposed. Surprisingly some of the moist vehement came from the National Truckers.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 5, 2013)

The current environmental regulations would have rendered the Interstate system impossible to build. Not just difficult, IMPOSSIBLE.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 5, 2013)

George Harris said:


> The current environmental regulations would have rendered the Interstate system impossible to build. Not just difficult, IMPOSSIBLE.


Good Point George, but I tend to think that the Current Regs would make it Cost Twenty Times as Much and take 50 Years to Complete!  This seems to be the Current M.O. on Government Funded Transportation Projects!

And the Lawyers and "Consultants" will Rake in the Bucks while the Meter Runs!


----------



## George Harris (Apr 6, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The current environmental regulations would have rendered the Interstate system impossible to build. Not just difficult, IMPOSSIBLE.
> ...


And the engineers working for some of the consultants that really want to see things get built in a state of complete disgust with all the stuff you have to go through to get anything to happen beyond developing designs for all the anti-everythings to find fault with. After going to some of these public meetings your blood pressure is through the roof.


----------



## Nathanael (Apr 7, 2013)

Interestingly it's not the "proper" environmental regulations -- drainage, wetlands, endangered species, toxic waste -- which cause the problems. It's all the *other* paperwork, including bogus "environmental" complaints like "increased traffic" or "obstructed views", and the endless rounds of "investment studies" and "cost-benefit studies". Not that there's anything wrong with the concept of a cost-benefit study, either, but it's been abused as a source of delay, especially in situations where the benefits are hard to predict and essentially a political question.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 28, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The current environmental regulations would have rendered the Interstate system impossible to build. Not just difficult, IMPOSSIBLE.
> ...


I believe it took about that long. Chane that to "make it Cost Twenty Times as Much in 1950s dollars and take 100 Years to Complete"


----------



## jis (Apr 28, 2013)

Believe it or not, the Interstate system as originally laid out is yet to be completed too.  There are some glaring parts that are missing due to various reasons including environmental and local opposition. For example NY City was supposed to have much of Manhattan covered by Interstates, which finally just remained local streets and Robert Moses was sent surrying off by the Villagers in Manhattan.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 28, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if the interstate highway system actually starts shrinking, as the feds and states battle over the huge costs, even as driving continues to lessen every year. DC, Baltimore, Boston, Seattle and elsewhere have all seen interstate highway projects cancelled. At some point, I suspect that the feds will start removing the "interstate highway" designation from some freeways, rather than being on the hook for their maintenance.

Edit: Yes, I know that the feds don't pay for all of IHS maintenance. But they're more likely to fund a project that is part of the interstate system.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 28, 2013)

Some Interstates pose as parking lots. 

I was just on 95 southbound from Wilm to Newark and northbound was backed up from the approach to the Del Memorial Bridge to at least the service plaza south of 273. I usually remember NOT to get on northbound on the weekends especially in the summer.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 29, 2013)

What Charlie said may have been inspired by what he and I have discussed. Basically, it goes like this: If the Transportation Trust Fund goes "bust", then all hell is likely to break loose. At the moment, I would assume you get cash transfusions, but let us assume for the moment that either those get blocked _or_ they're not sufficient to fill the full gap (i.e. Congress only fills 80% of the gap).

First to go will be new construction, but that's not shocking. That will probably lead to more "tollable" improvements. What is going to get more complicated is when "capital maintenance" (i.e. bridge replacements and the like) comes into the mix, which will likely become an issue quickly and likely end up in court. Basically, if a state has to pay for a major rebuild of something entirely on their own, it's likely that the state might sue the Feds for either the matching funds or for "full" tolling rights.

What will be more interesting is if "operating maintenance" (i.e. regular repaving) starts taking hits. At _that_ point, I think it's going to be a race to see who tries to pull out first: The states (who aren't getting their checks) or the feds (who can't afford those checks). Of course, states that get "kicked" might well sue for getting kicked as well. So expect more litigation than you can shake an asbestos factory at.

The other question in some cases is whether the interstates survive in "present form" in some rural areas. I think it's quite possible you see some chunks of those (and US routes) get cut back from 2x2 lanes to 1x3 lanes (at sub-interstate standards), with the other half decommissioned.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 29, 2013)

Anderson said:


> What Charlie said may have been inspired by what he and I have discussed. Basically, it goes like this: If the Transportation Trust Fund goes "bust", then all hell is likely to break loose. At the moment, I would assume you get cash transfusions, but let us assume for the moment that either those get blocked _or_ they're not sufficient to fill the full gap (i.e. Congress only fills 80% of the gap).
> First to go will be new construction, but that's not shocking. That will probably lead to more "tollable" improvements. What is going to get more complicated is when "capital maintenance" (i.e. bridge replacements and the like) comes into the mix, which will likely become an issue quickly and likely end up in court. Basically, if a state has to pay for a major rebuild of something entirely on their own, it's likely that the state might sue the Feds for either the matching funds or for "full" tolling rights.
> 
> What will be more interesting is if "operating maintenance" (i.e. regular repaving) starts taking hits. At _that_ point, I think it's going to be a race to see who tries to pull out first: The states (who aren't getting their checks) or the feds (who can't afford those checks). Of course, states that get "kicked" might well sue for getting kicked as well. So expect more litigation than you can shake an asbestos factory at.


If the Highway Trust Fund (as it is still called) goes bust, almost all federal funding for transit, including rail, goes bust as well. Over $8 billion per year goes from the Highway Trust Fund to transit. The Highway Trust Fund funds a lot more than just highways.

Regular maintenance (non-capital) is already a 100% state responsibility.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 29, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > What Charlie said may have been inspired by what he and I have discussed. Basically, it goes like this: If the Transportation Trust Fund goes "bust", then all hell is likely to break loose. At the moment, I would assume you get cash transfusions, but let us assume for the moment that either those get blocked _or_ they're not sufficient to fill the full gap (i.e. Congress only fills 80% of the gap).
> ...


Why do I keep getting a read that states get a significant transfer from the Feds for highway upkeep?

And I know what you're saying...the dynamics get interesting if you combine that with the gas tax revenue crash that's likely to be ongoing for quite some time thanks to CAFE reforms and whatnot. Charlie and I spent some time chewing over possibilities (which I can discuss in more depth when I'm not about to pull into Gare Central).


----------

