Want to eliminate nearly 120,000 American jobs, create a sense of wild uncertainty for American construction workers and manufacturers, and permanently cripple our country’s economy? It’s easy – just enact the cuts to transportation and infrastructure spending recently proposed by the Republican Study Committee.

The RSC’s list of proposed cuts to programs that invest in rebuilding and renewing America is a recipe for economic disaster. My Republican friends would have Americans believe that their proposals would simply trim so-called “wasteful” spending. Yet the truth is that reductions in funding for Amtrak, New Starts and high speed rail grants cut right to the bare bone at a time when our nation desperately needs to invest in new infrastructure and the jobs that come with it. Not only do the Republican proposed cuts drastically slow down any future economic growth, they’ll end up cutting jobs that we have right now—increasing unemployment at a time when most Americans think we should be doing everything we can to decrease unemployment.

Based on the most recent economic statistics available, estimates suggest that the Republicans’ proposed $2 billion cuts to New Starts would destroy nearly 46,000 jobs per year. That’s 46,000 jobs that would otherwise put skilled Americans to work building new infrastructure that contributes to more efficient, accessible communities across the country.

Cutting Amtrak funding by $1.6 billion as the RSC proposes would destroy 36,000 jobs per year. Worse, these cuts would dramatically undermine Amtrak’s ability to transport people across America as well as support workers traveling to and from their jobs, adding congestion to our highways, more commuting time to the workday and more dependence on foreign oil. There are many small towns across the country that depend on their Amtrak dollars—to bring tourists and business into the town, and to provide an easy link to more populated areas. Cutting Amtrak service means leaving many of these small towns stranded.

Finally, cutting intercity and high-speed rail grants by $2.5 billion would directly eliminate yet another 36,000 construction jobs as new railway projects all across the country are shut down. Yet this figure surely underestimates the likely job losses, as shutting down these projects would also result in thousands of layoffs at factories that build the materials required for new transit lines. In addition, these cuts would add more congestion to highways by reducing alternatives to driving.

Our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling and Americans are hungry for work. We should be doing all that we can to put people back to work. During a time of record deficits, it’s more important than ever to make sure that we invest wisely, and get as much bang for our buck as possible. Unfortunately, the current Republican proposals not only fail to do that, they strip away money that is needed the most—money spent keeping people employed. By targeting these most basic investments in infrastructure at a time when they are sorely needed, the new Republican budget proposals fly in the face of sound economics and threaten to undermine the foundation of our prosperity.

Conservative commentator Bill Lind makes a convincing argument that the apparent animus toward rail stems from a lack of information. As he notes, no transportation mode “pays for itself”; that is the very reason that governments everywhere undertake to build roads, bridges, rail lines and ports (both air and sea). But every mode pays huge dividends when built carefully to meet economic and social needs.

More than two-thirds of Americans live in metropolitan areas and 80 percent of our economy is generated there. That’s why Bob Poole’s contention that the national interest resides only in inter-city highways doesn’t hold up. It is an especially interesting argument coming from Bob, who has invested so much of his career in thinking about ways to remove the burden local commuting places on those very corridors. Shifting some of that burden to rail – both commuters and freight – clearly needs to be a much larger part of the answer.

The broader problem is that we talk about transportation in terms of specific modes, failing to recognize the way they work together – or don’t. We agree with conservatives that we have to do a better job investing the money we have. But we can’t get there by making the arbitrary decision, before we’ve done any real analysis, that one-size-fits-all spending to try to build our way out of congestion is the only choice for every community. That truly is a bridge to nowhere.

It appears that President Obama will use his State of the Union address tonight to outline the need for long-term deficit reduction, coupled with short-term investments in infrastructure. We think this strikes the right balance, as do a broad array of economists and business leaders.

We also agree with the President that job creation needs to remain at the forefront. This can’t just be about short-term jobs though. We have to focus instead on long term economic recovery and economic development that can create the types of dynamic cities, suburbs and towns that can compete in the global economy of the 21st century. That means a much more balanced mix of transportation investments – including new streetcar lines, bus rapid transit and light rail that can unleash the potential for new housing and jobs that the private sector can provide if we’re willing to make smarter public sector investments in infrastructure.

Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican member of Congress, has said investing in transportation options should not be a partisan issue, and we couldn’t agree more. Elected officials from both parties have seen the benefit up-close. The same week the Republican Study Committee in Washington was proposing to zero-fund high-speed rail, Fresno’s Republican mayor was meeting with President Obama to try to keep the system on track. Washington Republicans unanimously opposed the Recovery Act, but Tulsa’s Republican mayor recently said the program “worked” for his city.

House Republicans are right to want to consolidate departments and harness private capital. We are eager to work with them. But the deep cuts sought by the Republican Study Committee go too far and put too many jobs at risk to serve as a useful starting point.

The Republican Study Committee’s proposal is so clearly destructive that it’s tempting to dismiss it completely. But we can’t afford to. We’ve seen over and over again what the point of such proposals is: to push the debate so far toward the idea of radical disinvestment that suddenly, proposals that are only slightly less destructive proposals seem reasonable.

My colleagues here have made excellent points about the consequences of disinvestment in rail—and in transit as a whole. APTA President William Millar mentioned the huge number of job losses that would result. And Jack Kinstlinger points out that disinvestment in transportation options means robbing low-income people and older Americans of access to opportunity. The same goes for people of color, who are up to six times more likely to rely on public transportation than whites.

The budget-slashers will complain about “another government subsidy.” But as Bill Lind from the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation points out, it’s a longstanding myth that transit is heavily subsidized while highways magically pay for themselves.

“The real numbers show that highway user fees, including the gas tax, cover only 51% of highway costs while Amtrak covers 62% of its operating costs from revenues and many rail transit operations cover 50% or more of operating costs from fares,” Lind says. We need to do more than decry the irresponsibility of the RSC proposal. We need to press our elected representatives to invest in transportation infrastructure—especially public transportation—that is one of the surest paths to job creation, equity, and access to opportunity. One of the ways TEN is doing so is with a campaign of 1,000 personal letters to the president telling individual stories of why we need transit. We’ll be watching the State of the Union address tonight closely to see whether he’s gotten the message.

By Peter Gertler, Chair High-Speed Rail Services, HNTB Corporation and Liz Rao, Chair Transit Services, HNTB Corporation

What the Republican Study Committee characterizes as government spending on rail and transit could be more accurately defined as government investment. From a business perspective, investing in rail and transit projects is one of the best financial moves our nation can make delivering significant and immediate return.

Public transportation, whether bus, commuter train, light rail, streetcar or passenger and high-speed rail, is the underpinning of economically viable cities and regions that generates multiple, positive economic outcomes including:

• Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Florida is projecting that the Tampa‐Orlando high-speed rail project alone would create 23,000 jobs new jobs; California is projecting 600,000 construction-related jobs over the life of that state’s HSR program.
• For every $1 cities invest in public transportation, they generate $4 in economic returns, according to the American Public Transit Association.
• Access to high quality transit is a cost savings measure for household budgets by providing much needed relief— just like a tax cut. According to another study by APTA, access to transit can save the average family $9,240 annually.
• Every billion dollars spent on transit produced 16,419 months of employment, or "job-months," according to a January 2011 report from Smart Growth America and the Center for Neighborhood Technology.
• Developers are attracted to transit areas –the growth that has resulted from transit investment in Dallas, Denver and Portland are great examples.
• Local and state tax revenuescan increase 4 percent to 16 percent thanks to income and employment generated by transit investments –the revenue projections coming out of Washington D.C., Minneapolis and Arlington, Va. are proof.

And finally, it is what the people want! According to an October 2010 HNTB America THINKS survey, nearly 9 in 10 Americans who have access to public transportation where they live and work take advantage of it.

Put them together and there is no stronger program to support our economy. It spurs job creation, promotes economic vitality and development, enhances quality of life and people like it. Now and for the future, there is no better investment than transit.

The proposal by the House Republican Study Committee for deep cuts to public transportation programs is ill conceived and short sighted. The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 will put jobs at risk, increase traffic congestion, and negatively impact the lives of millions of Americans who use public transportation.

The proposed cuts to the New Starts program, grants for Intercity and High-Speed Rail and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority do not make economic sense. In fact, the Study Committee’s proposal seems to not use any credible studies at all to come to its conclusions. The Study Committee’s proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the difference between investment and spending. These investments in public transportation infrastructure benefit the nation for many decades to come.

It is ironic that this Study Committee’s report was unveiled on the heels of the release of the 2010 Urban Mobility Report by the Texas Transportation Institute that shows a worsening of road congestion costing the nation $134 billion in lost productivity. This Urban Mobility report concludes that without public transportation services, in 2009, travelers would have suffered an additional 785 million hours of delay and consumed 640 million more gallons of fuel. Road congestion would be much worse under the Study Committee’s proposal.

In fact, not only are public transit investments critical to our mobility, these programs create jobs and generate economic activity. The Study Committee’s recommendation to eliminate key public transportation and passenger rail programs puts more than 198,000 jobs at risk, according to economic research regarding infrastructure investments. Every $1 dollar invested in public transportation yields $4 in economic returns. In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited public transit and other transportation investments as critical to rebuilding our economic foundation.

Clearly, the Study Committee focused only on the short-term costs without looking at the economic value these essential public transportation investments provide. Investments in America’s infrastructure will help grow the economy and should be an integral part of any plan to move the nation forward.

It is ironic that the Republican Study Committee’s proposal to slash vital transportation investments was unveiled on the very day that we learned that Americans spend as many as 70 hours – or nearly 3 solid days – a year stuck in traffic. The Texas Transportation Institute’s national study also revealed that congestion wastes 3.9 billion gallons of fuel and costs $115 billion nationwide on an annual basis. If passed, the RSC’s proposals will add to the woes of commuters and travelers and destroy good jobs.

Their proposal to slash investment and eliminate jobs was also offered on the day that a national poll reminded us that the public’s clear priorities are the economy and jobs. The Pew Research Center poll reveals a public that wants answers to its unemployment problem. Despite the fact that this new Congress that was sent to Washington to fix the economy and create jobs, this opening salvo would only make these problems worse.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be eliminated by the proposed cuts to transportation programs alone – at a time when nationwide unemployment struggles to stay below 10 percent. These proposed cuts – to mass transit development, Amtrak, high speed rail, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Essential Air Service program, and more – would deal a major blow to millions of Americans who want more transportation choices, not fewer.

Approximately 85 percent of all transit agencies across the country have been forced to cut service, raise fares, lay off employees, or all three during this economic downturn. Slashing funding for transit development – and for service in the Washington region – means that public transportation will struggle even more to provide the service that Americans want and need.

Amtrak is a public service that provides transportation to millions and employs hard-working people in every state in the country. If enacted, these cuts would bankrupt passenger rail service in America and add 20,000 men and women to the unemployment lines.

High speed rail is in the process of ushering in a new era of passenger transportation in America. It will help to keep America competitive in an increasingly global economy. Cutting this investment in America’s transportation future means saying ‘no’ to progress, ‘no’ to competitiveness, and ‘no’ to jobs.

The public grows weary of transit service cuts, delayed expansion and modernization of airports, air traffic control and rail systems, deteriorated and traffic-choked highways and bridges, and underinvestment in port and maritime systems that are crucial to an aggressive export agenda. With the proposed repeal of prevailing wage requirements on federally funded construction projects, the wages of transportation construction workers will be eroded. And the proposed massive cuts to state aid will make it virtually impossible for states to fund their share of transportation programs and other vital services.

Elected officials on both sides of the aisle have always fought to ensure America remains a world leader in passenger and freight transportation. It is our sincere hope that bipartisan leadership will dismiss these reckless proposals and focus the time and energy of Congress on ways to fix and modernize our transportation system and put Americans back to work in good jobs.

You can’t boost the economy and create jobs by bankrupting the programs that support our transportation system and infrastructure. And politicians will not solve federal and state budget challenges by destroying thousands of private and public sector jobs.

As a conservative with strong Tea Party sympathies, I think the main reason for many Tea Party folks’ anti-rail attitudes is a lack of information. For example:

o Many of them think the current highway dominance is a free market outcome. In fact, it reflects almost a century of government subsidies for highways while those same governments were taxing privately-owned passenger rail.

o Similarly, they believe both urban rail transit and intercity passenger trains are subsidized while highways pay for themselves. The real numbers show that highway user fees, including the gas tax, cover only 51% of highway costs while Amtrak covers 62% of its operating costs from revenues and many rail transit operations cover 50% or more of operating costs from fares.

o Tea Party people think buses are better than rail for urban transit. But conservatives, who are usually riders from choice, are much more likely to ride rail transit than buses. Rail also usually covers more of its operating costs from fares than do buses, and rail’s operating cost per passenger mile is usually lower. Streetcars and light rail promote development, which conservatives favor, while buses do not.

Transit advocates need to learn how to talk to conservatives. The book I co-authored with the late Paul Weyrich, Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation (available from Reconnecting America) shows how to do so.

One final note: the Tea Party could be an effective ally in the battle to control rising rail transit capital costs. To offer one of many possible examples, they could pass legislation to override FRA’s current buffer strength requirement for rail passenger equipment. That requirement drives up costs by eliminating most European equipment from the U.S. market, forcing us into small buys that substantially raise prices. We will get much further by working with the Tea Party than by trying to oppose it.

Passenger rail and rail transit differ in two fundamental ways from highways and runways, which also receive federal grants. First, many highways and runways provide national as opposed to purely local or regional benefits. Second, most highways and runways are paid for by their users, not by non-user taxpayers.

Let’s take the second point first. Since the question on the table is federal transportation funding, we need to be clear about the extent of federal “subsidy” for each mode. Subsidy is not the same thing as “amount of federal funding,” although many transit and high-speed rail advocates keep trying to twist the language in that way. If an infrastructure project is funded by payments made by its users, there is no subsidy involved. A subsidy occurs when non-users are compelled to pay for such a project.

The definitive study on this subject is the December 2004 report by the US DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, called “Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation,” posted on the BTS.gov website. It reviewed about a decade’s worth of federal funding for inter-city rail, air travel, highways, and urban transit. For each mode, it compared federal user-tax revenue with federal spending, with the difference amounting to the subsidy. It then divided the average annual subsidy by the passenger miles traveled using each mode. The resulting federal subsidy per thousand passenger miles was as follows:

• Inter-city passenger rail: $186
• Urban transit: $118
• Air travel: $ 6
• Highways: -$ 2

The highway figure is negative because in a typical year, federal highway user taxes exceeded federal highway spending (because of transfers of some of that revenue to urban transit).

Hence, the Republican Study Committee and other fiscal conservatives are seeking to reduce or eliminate subsidies, not rail travel, per se.

The other key point is the question of what is truly federal. The RSC, along with the President’s deficit reduction commission and others, are correctly pointing out that the federal government is greatly over-extended, extending its writ to vast areas in which handing out money may be popular but which serves little or no truly national or federal purpose. The benefits of urban transit are almost entirely local/regional, not national or federal. An important part of getting the federal government’s fiscal house in order over the next decade will be to sort out and focus its efforts on a relatively limited set of key national purposes, devolving numerous other activities to state and local governments to handle as they see fit.

One of the most irresponsible documents I have ever seen. Republicans will try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, sick and elderly. Rail projects are a target because they originated in the White House, are relatively new, and because a number of Republican governors have rejected the grants. You can't really blame these governors, primarily in the Midwest, because these projects were of the incremental kind, going from current 70MPH to, say, 90 MPH that will not significantly affect travel behavior and continue to require massive annual operating subsidies. FRA should instead have made fewer grants limited to those corridors where travel demand justifies real high speed, in excess of 150MPH. According to our studies for the FRA of high speed along the NEC, high speed rail service with a trip time of 90 minutes between DC and New York revenues will generate sufficient revenues to cover all of O&M costs and much of the capital investment. The NEC received little support from FRA from the $8B high speed rail program.

I am not a Republican, nor privy to Tea Party deliberations, but I can see two fundamental reasons for cutting all federal subsidies for transport programs:

The first is that the federal government HAS RUN OUT OF MONEY. This might not matter to Republicans such as Secretary LaHood and Chairman Mica, but those concerned about it, whether tea or coffee drinkers, seek to de-fund sectors that can be financed by users. Transport is such a sector, and has a long “user-pays” tradition. Subsidies for inter-urban travel services can reasonably be terminated for this reason alone.

The second is that mass transit benefits mainly urban areas, and Congress may reasonably question the propriety of forcing federal taxpayers to finance local services.

Most of us love railroad travel. Let us have as much of it as we ourselves are prepared to pay for! And the same goes for roads. As the federal government cannot enable road users to pay the costs of road infrastructure, should it not get out of the way and allow the states or private providers to do so?