Tag: transit

Home>News>transit

WASHINGTON – The Republican leadership of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will introduce legislation July 8 to slash Amtrak’s federal subsidy by 25 percent, prevent federal funds from being used to create additional rail passenger services unless they are high-speed projects, and cut federal transit funding by 30 percent.

Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.), and Rail Subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) have previously made known their dislike for Amtrak and intention to destroy the national intercity rail passenger network through funding cuts and privatization of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

The senior Democrat on the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, put the Mica/Shuster legislation in perspective: “The bill, as we have seen so far, cannot pass the [Democratic-controlled Senate].”

Opposition to the bill also is being voiced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has joined with the AFL-CIO to lobby against it. The UTU’s National Legislative Office already is working with members in the House and Senate against Amtrak and transit funding cuts.

Amtrak funding has previously and regularly been in the crosshairs of its detractors, and another tough fight is brewing. On Amtrak’s — and transit’s — side are tens of millions of Americans who continue to make clear to their elected congressional lawmakers that they want more, not less, rail passenger and transit service.

The proposed cuts for Amtrak and transit are contained in a six-year bill entitled, “The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU.” Senate Democratic leaders are pushing for a two-year bill that would be more generous toward Amtrak and transit – although at lower spending levels than sought by the Obama administration.

The House bill would also extend the deadline beyond 2015 for implementation of positive train control (PTC).

The bill also would remove a federal requirement that states use Highway Trust Fund revenue for non-highway transportation purposes, such as mass transit; but would allow states to make such decisions unilaterally.

There are, however, provisions in the House bill that have been sought by the UTU – and those provisions are expected to survive. They include:

  • Increasing a low-interest loan program for state transportation projects.
  • Encouraging states to create and capitalize state infrastructure banks to provide loans for transportation projects.
  • Improving transit options for the elderly and disabled.
  • Insulating motor carrier safety programs from any spending cuts.
  • Requiring federal regulators to keep unsafe buses off the road.
  • Improving access to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program; and making high-speed rail projects eligible for RRIF loans.
  • Strengthening the rail transit safety oversight program.
  • Establishing annual inspection programs for buses.
  • Requiring regulations to establish minimum training requirements for commercial drivers.
By Vic Baffoni
Vice President, Bus Department
 

These are troubling times for our nation, states and municipalities. Budget problems are forcing cutbacks in a wide variety of public services, and public transit often is targeted for cuts.

At the extreme is the union busting going on in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and other states. But even where labor union collective bargaining isn’t under attack, we are facing severe challenges at the bargaining table and with cutbacks in service.

In the not too distant past, when the good times seemed as they would never end, government agencies borrowed and committed to future obligations. The future is now here and it is not a pleasant environment.

The UTU has negotiated some of the best contracts out there, but the economic landscape is now very different. Transit systems have laid off thousands of employees and reduced funding for services.

In Los Angeles, where the UTU represents more than 5,000 rail workers and bus operators, negotiations with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority are slow moving and tense.

The State of California has been furloughing workers, while many cities and counties have frozen wages and benefits as they struggle to pay their obligations. The mood of taxpayers is that taxes should not rise.

Too often, the lawmakers who approve budgets — even those who historically have been union friendly — are turning a deaf ear on the needs of working families, who are struggling to keep their homes and put food on the table.

In this environment, I commend LACMTA General Chairperson James Williams (GO 875) and his negotiating committee, which includes Robert Gonzales, Lis Arredondo, Ulysses Johnson, Eddie Lopez and John Ellis. They are committed to protecting and preserving everything in our contracts and are working tirelessly to improve working conditions and job security for the membership.

I remain confident in their abilities. They are among the best of the best at the bargaining table, as is evidenced by the contracts produced in the past.

In addition to fighting for members at the bargaining table, Mr. Williams and Local 1608 Chairperson John Ellis have recently won a significant arbitration case on behalf of bus operator Adalid Morgana, who had been terminated following an accident.

Working on Mr. Morgana’s behalf, the UTU prevailed on evidence presented in the arbitration and won for him back pay and benefits.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats and Republicans have finalized appointments to the Senate Banking Committee, which is responsible for legislation affecting mass transit. Committee chairman is Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.).

 Democrats:

Tim Johnson (S.D.), chairman
Daniel Akaka (Hawaii)
Michael Bennet (Colo.)
Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
Kay Hagan (N.C.)

Herb Kohl (Wisc.)
Robert Menendez (N.J.)
Jeff Merkley (Ore.)
Jack Reed (R.I.)
Charles Schumer (N.Y.)

Jon Tester (Mont.)
Mark Warner (Va.)

 Republicans:

Richard Shelby (Ala.), ranking
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)
Jim DeMint (S.C.)
Mike Johanns (Neb.)

Mark Kirk (Ill.)
Jerry Moran (Kans.)
Patrick Toomey (Pa.)
David Vitter (La.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)

To view other Senate and House committee assignments of importance to UTU members, click on the following link:

https://www.smart-union.org/td/washington/

Decades ago, the chairman of New York Central Railroad complained that while freight could move cross country without being transferred from one boxcar to another, transcontinental passengers often had to change trains in Chicago.

Even today, on Amtrak, passengers must change trains in Chicago.

A similar complaint is heard regarding intermodal passenger transportation — the separation of terminals for train and motor coach transportation. In Washington, D.C., for example, an intercity bus terminal is blocks from Union Station, which hosts Amtrak and commuter rail.

In St. Paul, Minn., the intermodal passenger problem is being solved.

The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority has broken ground on a $243 million multi-modal transportation facility in St. Paul, reports progressiverailroading.com.

The city’s 1920s-era Union Depot train station is slated to bring together rail, bus, motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic by 2012, reports progressiverailroading.com. Local, state and federal funds are financing the project.

Amtrak intends to dispatch its Empire Builder through the renovated terminal, which will also serve as a transfer point for light-rail, Metro Transit and intercity bus service — and, eventually, be a hub for hoped-for high-speed trains between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

(The following article, written by Ken Orski, editor and publisher of Innovation Briefs, is reproduced with permission of Mr. Orski.)

WASHINGTON — Congressional action on transportation this year, including the shape of the next surface transportation bill, will be inevitably influenced by the changed political geography of the 112th Congress.

Not only will the level of funding for transportation be dictated by new, fiscally conservative House appropriators, but the program priorities will be influenced by a new House majority that largely hails from small-town and suburban America.

None of the new GOP majority on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee represents big city transit-oriented districts. A majority come from the heartland. The closest to a major urbanized areas that any of the Republican members come from, are Oklahoma City and Charleston, S.C.

Thus, the committee will likely focus on traditional concerns of keeping roads and bridges in a state of good repair — and try to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund by bringing expenditures in line with expected gas tax receipts. That means a budget of approximately $40 billion to $41 billion annually.

Within these budget limits, transit will maintain its customary standing — although it may receive somewhat less emphasis, given the changed composition of the T&I Committee.

Also likely to be curtailed will be support for high-speed rail, given its cool reception in Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Florida and other Republican-dominated state legislatures.

Discretionary “executive earmarks,” such as the TIGER grants, will most likely be severely cut back if not entirely eliminated. They have not been popular with Republican lawmakers.

Chairman Mica’s resolve to make passage of a multi-year authorization a top priority increases the likelihood that a transportation bill will be brought to the House floor and approved during the first session of the 112th Congress. The Senate is likely go along.

While the next authorization will almost surely be more modest in size and less “transformational” than many in the transportation community would like to see, it will at least restore the federal surface transportation program to a stable and predictable multi-year footing.

WASHINGTON—State departments of transportation, which have long relied on gasoline and diesel fuel taxes to fund highways and transit programs, are asking Congress to replace the decades old pennies-per-gallon tax with a flat percentage tax, reports Dow Jones newswire.

The change is expected to increase dollars flowing into the Highway Trust Fund by almost $44 billion over six years, and debate could begin during a lame-duck congressional session following the November elections, said Dow-Jones.

Rather than tax gasoline at 18.4 cents per gallon, and diesel fuel at 24.4 cents per gallon, the new tax would be 8.4 percent on the price of each gallon of gasoline and 10.6 percent on the price of each gallon of diesel fuel, reported Dow-Jones.

Dow-Jones points out that raising the cents-per-gallon tax on motor fuels is not politically popular, but that the percentage tax would automatically increase federal revenue as the pump price of motor fuels increases – and insulate lawmakers from having to vote to raise motor fuels taxes in the future.

Republicans oppose the idea, however, according to Dow-Jones, which quotes Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), the senior Republican on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, as calling the proposed percentage tax a “non-starter.”