Jack Kinstlinger

Amtrak service along the profitable Northeast Corridor must be improved through more intensive maintenance and spot improvements to eliminate bottlenecks and reduce travel time. But essential corridors nationwide cannot be allowed to lose their passenger rail service. Rail service is essential to certain segments of the public including elderly, lower income and handicapped citizens. Amtrak should solicit bids from the private sector for design, construction and operation as well as financing. Private designers, contractors and operators will bring efficiencies and innovation to Amtrak that will make it a much more effective agency.

We should all applaud the President's call for additional infrastructure investment. No, we should not tire of his constant plea to improve our roads, bridges and rail systems. What should turn us off is the mindless objection of the Republicans for critical national investments, whether they be for infrastructure, education, or scientific advances. Investments are not the same as spending and investments are critical to the nation' future well being.

It is apparent that the most appropriate way of addressing transportation financing is the way it has been done successfully for decades and that is a user tax on fuel, ultimately converted into a vehicle mile tax. This truth is more self evident today than ever before given the state of disrepair of our roads and bridges and the need to grow our economy and create jobs. Recognizing the disfunction in our government that makes such an obvious and necessary solution unachievable, tolling on interstates certainly makes sense as long as the proceeds are used for legitimate transportation construction and repair activities. This does not represent dual taxation as the tolls would be used for second generation work to repair or add capacity to the infrastructure built originally. With the reelection of the President, one can only hope that sanity will return to the nation's capital.

Yes, the high speed rail project in California entails much risk and faces many pitfalls but so did the Erie and Panama Canals and the construction of the intercontinental railroads when they were first conceived, and where would we be now if the faint hearted had prevailed? Projects of these magnitude require vision and courage and praise to Governor Brown and the California legislature for showing us the way to a new and exciting mode of transportation. It is hard to believe that the Japanese bullet train did not generate huge benefits to the economy of Japan. The Tokyo - Osaka corridor would not be prospering if it were not for the reliable fast and safe mobility of high speed rail. It has certainly proven to be highly profitable to its private owner/ operator-Japan Central Rail. Generations from now when high speed rail in California and elsewhere are seen as a blessing, we will have long forgotten all of today's hullabaloo.

The need for transportation investment is indisputable and the basic approaches, a federal user fee in terms of gas tax now and a VM tax in the future are still the best way to go. Devolution to the states never made much sense unless you support 50 different design and construction standards, non continuous roads at state lines and inferior investments in more rural states.

What makes it so difficult now is the disrepute that " bridges to nowhere" has brought to the program, a general lack of confidence in government programs and an unhealthy rejection of new taxes of any kind. Add to that extreme and mindless partisan politics affecting all public endeavors and we have a perfect storm striking the transportation industry. Hopefully sanity will return to Washington after the November elections.

I thoroughly disapprove of this bill. It treats transit as a second class activity. Major transit projects require guaranteed multi year funding as well as major highway projects.

As a former DOT Secretary, I well recall how significant but controversial highway projects could be facilitated and opposition turned to support when community enhancement features such as hiker/ biker trails, and the like could be made part of the program.

High speed rail is definitely in America’s future. Our congested roads and airports and dwindling sources of oil make it eminently clear that a new, environmentally friendly and green technology that can move passengers and freight at speeds exceeding 200 MPH must ultimately become high priority. But where and when should it start is a good question.

Currently there is no high speed operation in the U.S. and most Americans are not familiar with its advantages. Europe and Asia abound in examples where high speed rail is operated safely and successfully. We in the U.S. need at least one successful operation to get the ball rolling. Florida had been a possibility until derailed by politics. California has problems but its project still makes sense in that the most costly and disruptive option to improve mobility between the SF and LA areas is to do nothing and let congestion reach unacceptable levels. Ultimately the North East Corridor offers the best potential for profitable high speed rail operation.

A respite until the economy improves and the nation regai

It is refreshing to see that Republicans are finally seeing the desperate need to fully fund the transportation reauthorization and that they realize that investments in government programs are the real path to economic recovery. We cannot cut our way to a robust economy. But do we have to drill in order to do the right thing? Many have hoped that we can find our way to a greener transportation future with hybrid and electric vehicles, more rail and transit and livable neighborhoods. In place of raising transportation revenues by ever greater drilling, that adds to global warming and despoils our environment, I suggest that additional transportation funding be derived from a portion of the revenues raised from a carbon tax.

As a former State DOT Director, I found the transportation enhancement program extremely valuable in bringing community and environmental activists to the table to successfully negotiate approval for major highway and bridge projects that otherwise would have been stymied by endless lawsuits . Additionally, hiking, biking and other enhancements, that represent a small fraction of transportation program costs, can contribute significantly to quality of life.

During my 15 years as a DOT official I became convinced that the public has a difficult time relating failure to alleviate congestion or undertaking a road project with a lack of transportation funding. Rather the blame is usually directed at the agency for failing to give their project sufficient priority or a feeling that the agency is simply incapable of meaningful action. Rather than lobbying the legislature for more funding the public will lobby the agency to give more attention to their favorite project. One possible solution, at least at state and municipal level is to identify the projects and timing of implementation that will be pursued following an increase in funding. This is more difficult at the federal level where decisions are not at the project level but rather at the program level.

It is high time that the President comes out with a bold and ambitious plan to jump start the economy and increase job growth with emphasis on infrastructure construction. Our deteriorating infrastructure, no longer able to compete globally, and the dire employment situation in the construction industry demands nothing less.

The President must cease proposing minimal solutions in a futile effort to enlist Republican support. No realistic plan proposed by him will ever receive serious Republican consideration. Now is the time for the President to stake an ambitious position and let the electorate decide in 2012 whether it wants this nation to prosper or wither in an obsession with the deficit.

Chairman' Mica's bill provides funding that is grossly inadequate. He should be praised for the long awaited programmatic changes, but his timidity in proposing an increase in gas taxes is infuriating. He has become captive to House extremists who don’t understand the difference between spending and investment. Recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans and even a majority of Republican voters support a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases to meet our fiscal challenge.

Mica’s statement ,” a continuation of deficit spending and General Fund transfers will destroy the dedicated user-fee based Trust Fund” totally ignores the possibility of revenue increases.

Having served as State Highway Director in Colorado and Deputy Secretary of the Pennsylavanis DOT, I am astounded at your suggestion that States and cities have neglected maintenance and repair in favor of constructing new capacity. Quite the contrary, to my knowledge, state DOT's for years have consistently emphasized repair and maintenance and given these categories top priority.Of course, capacity improvements are sometimes also necessary to support economic growth and safety but these are usually funded as a last resort. Decisions as to how to invest infrastructure spending, where and when are best left to state and local agencies with the advice of the public and can hardly be proscribed from Washington.

Anyone , like Senator Hatch, who begins his argument by labeling differing views as "left", "liberal" or "right" has lost credibility with me.
Of course investments in infrastructure can do nothing but help the economy.We have benefited from public infrastructure expenditures for centuries, beginning with the Erie Canal, transcontinental railroads, and interstate highway system. The federal government and states have developed highly skilled staff and procedures to initiate, manage and operate transportation systems for generations and we need to build on that superlative record and enhance the system, not dismantle it as the naysayers propose.