Good News for Missouri

[chertling]

The Missouri Department of Transportation is continuing its efforts to improve service between KC and St. Louis.... most of the 11 rail related projects they are requesting stimulus funding for will directly impact the Missouri River Runner.

The bad news is that preliminary applications are totaling 12 times the available funding. Lets keep our fingers crossed, because the money would definitely be well spent on this corridor. Judging by the increase in traffic on I-70 over the past 20 years, If Amtrak could reliably cut 45 minutes to an hour off the schedule, I think this route has the potential to support a significant increase in ridership (more cars on the current trains and even an additional daily round trip, subject to equipment availability)

St. Louis Post Dispatch Article:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stor...9D?OpenDocument

 

[DET63]

The route has a double track most of the way between St. Louis and Jefferson City. But a single-track bridge over the Osage River forces trains to take turns. Missouri is proposing to spend $33.8 million this year to build a second bridge.

Sounds like a good investment. Considering the heavy freight traffic on the line, will the railroad companies also chip in a few bucks?

One comment in response:

luvmysoftail August 6, 2009 1:07PM CSTWhy should we the taxpayers have to pay for it. I pay a gasoline tax to use the highways. Let the rail companies pay for updating the tracks.

softail has a point (see my comment immediately above), but highway users stand to benefit, even if indirectly, if (a) more freight trains are able to use the tracks, and thus fewer trucks are needed on the highways; and (b) if more travelers are able to ride a train rather than drive their cars across the state on I-70 and other highways.

 

[stntylr]

The problem is that with only 8 billion available, less than 10% of the money requested nationwide will be actually granted.

Ultimatly either the states or the federal government will have to come up with a whole lot more money.

 

[AlanB]

The route has a double track most of the way between St. Louis and Jefferson City. But a single-track bridge over the Osage River forces trains to take turns. Missouri is proposing to spend $33.8 million this year to build a second bridge.

Sounds like a good investment. Considering the heavy freight traffic on the line, will the railroad companies also chip in a few bucks?

One comment in response:

luvmysoftail August 6, 2009 1:07PM CSTWhy should we the taxpayers have to pay for it. I pay a gasoline tax to use the highways. Let the rail companies pay for updating the tracks.

softail has a point (see my comment immediately above), but highway users stand to benefit, even if indirectly, if (a) more freight trains are able to use the tracks, and thus fewer trucks are needed on the highways; and (b) if more travelers are able to ride a train rather than drive their cars across the state on I-70 and other highways.

I haven't looked too deeply at the numbers for the new proposals, but the current ones under way were funded partially by UP and partially by MO and I believe the Fed too. Might be wrong about the Fed. But I do know that UP ponied up some money too.

And Softail seems to be blissfully unaware that his/her gas tax doesn't pay fully for the highways. Last year the Highway Trust Fund came up $8 Billion short in gas taxes collected vs expendatures laid out, requiring the Fed to drop $8 Billion of our Income Tax dollars to keep the fund solvent. I just saw a story the other day that the DOT is currently seeking $7 minimum for this year, despite the stimulus monies that already went to/will go to highways.

And a study done by the DOT about 8 years ago IIRC, found that in general, only about 80% of the roads are actually paid for out of fuel tax receipts. The other 20% comes out of general revenues.

 

[Bob Dylan]

The route has a double track most of the way between St. Louis and Jefferson City. But a single-track bridge over the Osage River forces trains to take turns. Missouri is proposing to spend $33.8 million this year to build a second bridge.

Sounds like a good investment. Considering the heavy freight traffic on the line, will the railroad companies also chip in a few bucks?

One comment in response:

luvmysoftail August 6, 2009 1:07PM CSTWhy should we the taxpayers have to pay for it. I pay a gasoline tax to use the highways. Let the rail companies pay for updating the tracks.

softail has a point (see my comment immediately above), but highway users stand to benefit, even if indirectly, if (a) more freight trains are able to use the tracks, and thus fewer trucks are needed on the highways; and (b) if more travelers are able to ride a train rather than drive their cars across the state on I-70 and other highways.

I haven't looked too deeply at the numbers for the new proposals, but the current ones under way were funded partially by UP and partially by MO and I believe the Fed too. Might be wrong about the Fed. But I do know that UP ponied up some money too.

And Softail seems to be blissfully unaware that his/her gas tax doesn't pay fully for the highways. Last year the Highway Trust Fund came up $8 Billion short in gas taxes collected vs expendatures laid out, requiring the Fed to drop $8 Billion of our Income Tax dollars to keep the fund solvent. I just saw a story the other day that the DOT is currently seeking $7 minimum for this year, despite the stimulus monies that already went to/will go to highways.

And a study done by the DOT about 8 years ago IIRC, found that in general, only about 80% of the roads are actually paid for out of fuel tax receipts. The other 20% comes out of general revenues.

And now here in Texas Alan they are making the new roads tollways and letting for profit foriegn companies charge high rates

with govt. guaranteed profits to back them up!Even the normal people in Texas are rebelling(there are some believe it or not! :lol: )

 

[Green Maned Lion]

And now here in Texas Alan they are making the new roads tollways and letting for profit foriegn companies charge high rateswith govt. guaranteed profits to back them up!Even the normal people in Texas are rebelling(there are some believe it or not! :lol: )

I hate that. I really wish governments would set up their own damned tolls. These private operations keep trying to not discourage traffic and therefore never charge enough.

By the way, Mr. Hudson, I'd appreciate it if you would stop return-carriaging your lines. It makes it hell for me to read with my bad eyes.

 

[AlanB]

And now here in Texas Alan they are making the new roads tollways and letting for profit foriegn companies charge high rateswith govt. guaranteed profits to back them up!Even the normal people in Texas are rebelling(there are some believe it or not! :lol: )

I hate that. I really wish governments would set up their own damned tolls. These private operations keep trying to not discourage traffic and therefore never charge enough.

By the way, Mr. Hudson, I'd appreciate it if you would stop return-carriaging your lines. It makes it hell for me to read with my bad eyes.

I'm not sure what the status of the bill is, but there was a bill moving through Congress that would prohibit Federal Highway Trust Fund monies being used in the future on toll roads owned by foreign owners.

Personally I don't think that the bill goes far enough, it needs to require that any owner repay any Federal funds invested in said highway for the past 10 years. That will stop the states from selling off the roads in an attempt to make a quick buck to balance their budgets.

 

[saxman]

And now here in Texas Alan they are making the new roads tollways and letting for profit foriegn companies charge high rateswith govt. guaranteed profits to back them up!Even the normal people in Texas are rebelling(there are some believe it or not! :lol: )

I hate that. I really wish governments would set up their own damned tolls. These private operations keep trying to not discourage traffic and therefore never charge enough.

By the way, Mr. Hudson, I'd appreciate it if you would stop return-carriaging your lines. It makes it hell for me to read with my bad eyes.

Amen. Here in Dallas/Fort Worth every new lane planned for the future is going to be tolled. Even the highway projects that plan on reconstructing/widening is going to add tolled HOV lanes. The freeways near my house which is currently 8 main lanes is going to be rebuilt to include those 8 main lanes plus 4 tolled HOV lanes with peak congestion pricing. So if you want to skip the traffic you can pay to take the HOV lanes.

Not to get off topic here.....I'm glad Missouri will be joining the ranks with better rail. :lol:

 

[transit54]

Vermont is also trying to get in on the action and submitted an application for funding to improve the Vermonter's route as well as to extend the Ethan Allen to Burlington. I really hope they can find some more funding for all of these worthwhile projects.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article...13032/-1/NEWS05