Brian, I cannot believe what you said about Leavenworth. This wretched station has been up in the air for at least five years. For the sake of Rob Eaton’s health if for no other reason, just fund the blasted thing. How much realistically does it cost to build a platform?

I am fuming here! What other rubbish is out there right now on the second train to Vancouver? At this rate, the United States is just going to turn into a post-developed developing nation to ruin

According to this document that I found. http://www.theoec.org/PDFs/PressReleases/2-23-09_FederalFundsAvailable.pdf

“DOT must submit a strategic plan for fund expenditure to the Appropriations Committees within
60 days (April 18, 2009) and issue interim rules for applicants within 120 days (June 17, 2009)
with separate rules for the 3 funded programs. The legislation waives requirements that projects
be part of State Rail Plans to receive funding. It also waives any cost share requirements; all
grants can be up to 100% of project costs. “Buy American Provisions” apply to all three
programs. This provision is laid out at the end of this memo.”

While the waiver exists, this also states the following;

The reason for eliminating a number of rail projects was a $121 million transfer of multimodal bonding capacity to backfill the operating budget—a difficult decision necessitated by our unprecedented $9 billion budget shortfall. There is $50 million remaining in cash appropriations for rail capital projects in the ’09-’11 transportation budget, with a similar amount assumed in the ’11-’13 budget. While we would have preferred to provide more funding—in fact, that was the draft plan until operating budget exigencies intervened. Just the same, I am told even with the additional dollars, it would not have been sufficient funding to improve operating speeds on the Portland to Vancouver rail corridor. More to your point—I am told this level of state funding will not jeopardize the initial application for federal ARRA stimulus funding, but could impair pour ability to apply for re-appropriations of funding returned after the initial round (due to lack of compliance with maintenance of effort provisions). I hope this was helpful.

Regards,

Sen. Chris Marr
6th Legislative District

Senate Majority Whip
Vice-Chair, Transportation Committee

Not what I wanted to hear, but not up to my ‘worst fears’. Time will tell.

Also money for Hybrid buses and other items were nixed as well according to Publicola.

This is the first real opportunity to build HSR in our region, and our local politicians have figured out a way to squander the opportunity. This is starting to sound like a repeat of ‘Forward Thrust’ funding that was rejected in 1970 – remember all the federal dollars that flowed from Seattle to Atlanta for Light Rail.

A new story hits the wires every day about what a wonderful opportunity this is from most of the states back east. Here’s some excerpts from today’s AP story from Ohio.

“Gov. Ted Strickland has estimated Ohio would need $250 million in stimulus money to begin Amtrak operations on the route by the end of 2010…”

To press the issue, ODOT Director Jolene Molitoris was to testify Wednesday in front of a House subcommittee studying high-speed rail. Molitoris served as head of the Federal Railroad Administration under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.”

“She’s committed to rail, and she knows how things work in Washington,” said Ken Prendergast, executive director of All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit group promoting passenger rail in the state.

The story mentions other state leaders.

“New York Gov. David Paterson wants stimulus money to upgrade crossings so some trains could go from 79 mph to 110 mph within five years”.

“Illinois wants $500 million to upgrade Amtrak’s Chicago-to-St. Louis passenger service so trains can zoom at up to 110 mph.”

And the deafening silence of our Governor and the actions of our legislature on HSR is somehow going to parlay into how much federal stimulus? Maybe a token amount, just out of respect for Sen. Murry and Cantwell, but not enough to make much of a difference.

Source for quotes:
Ohio faces competition for federal rail money
By Matt Leingang
Associated Press
http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/42212637.html

17 NEW SECTION. Sec. 309. FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION–
18 RAIL–PROGRAM Y–CAPITAL
19 Essential Rail Assistance Account–State Appropriation . . . . $675,000
20 Transportation Infrastructure Account–State
21 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9,416,000
22 Multimodal Transportation Account–State
23 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$50,000,000
24 Multimodal Transportation Account–Federal
25 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$16,054,000
26 Multimodal Transportation Account–Private/Local
27 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $81,000
28 TOTAL APPROPRIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $76,226,000
29 The appropriations in this section are subject to the following
30 conditions and limitations:
31 (1)(a) Except as provided otherwise in this section, the entire
32 appropriations in this section are provided solely for the projects and
33 activities as listed by fund, project, and amount in LEAP
34 Transportation Document ALL PROJECTS 2009-2, Rail Capital Program (Y),
35 as developed March 30, 2009. However, limited transfers of specific
36 line-item project appropriations may occur between projects for those
Code Rev/BP:mos 40 S-2434.8/09 8th draft
1 amounts listed subject to the conditions and limitations in section 603
2 of this act.