If N.J. bails on tunnel, Md. should seek funds
Published reports indicate that New Jersey Gov, Chris Christie may withdraw the state's participation in the proposed ARC tunnel project that would greatly increase rail capacity under the Hudson River -- currently a major bottleneck for trains going into or out of New York.
The freshman Republican governor is reported to want to spend the money on roads instead. If Christie does so, it could free up about $3 billion in federal funding for other rail projects around the country. The Maryland congressional delegation and state Transportation Department would be remiss if they didn't put on a full-court press for a big share of that money to replace the Amtrak tunnels through Baltimore or to improve freight traffic to the Port of Baltimore. Both are worthy local projects that accomplish national transportation objectives. They could also put a lot of Marylanders to work.
Categories: Amtrak/intercity railroads
Comments
I would bet those fed dollars are contingent on a percentage of matching state funds. With the state of the transportation trust fund, leaders must seriously consider the ramifications of tying up so much money in a few projects. Doing that may risk the rest of the infrastructure continuuing to fail.
Michael you sure are anxious to spend our tax dollars.
COMMENT: Investments in infrastructure are a different class of spending from your basic growth of government. First, most of the money goes to private companies. Second, wise infrastructure investments can have important economic benefits that outweight the costs. Had SXS's view prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s, previous generations wouldn''t have wasted their tax dollars on big investments in an interstate highway system. They would have just patched the potholes on U.S. 40.
Posted by: SXS | October 7, 2010 6:34 AM
Sounds like a great plan to me!
Posted by: Dean | October 7, 2010 11:55 AM
The Interstate Highway System was built under the national defense banner. If the commies invaded or started bombing us we needed to be able move about the country rapidly. If there had been more SXS's back then what we might have now is a more diverse transportation system using HSR, light rail, subway systems and a limited highway system that would have not led to the sprawl and auto dependent life styles we have now.
I look at the interstate highway system as an albatross around the neck of transportation. We can't collect enough gas tax to maintain it much less improve it and in the mean time all other forms of transportation suffer from a lack of funding due to so much money going into the maintenance of the interstates.
Posted by: Mark | October 7, 2010 3:41 PM
Sorry, Mr. Dresser, but your facts are a little off. I-95 from Baltimore to Delaware -- before it was I-95 -- was already being planned and laid out as a private highway until the Interstate System came along.
COMMENT: Where did I say the part of I-95 between Baltimore and Delaware wasn't first built as a toll road? (Not a private road.)
Posted by: Gunpowder Chronicle | October 7, 2010 8:22 PM
Maybe New Jersey has some very bad roads---or a very bad budget shortfall. But if their roads are anything like ours, in the past couple of years I have seen SHA curb-installation and resurfacing projects on Harford Road, Phila. Road, and Crain Highway that while resulting in improvements did not appear to be pressing. If we're going to be spending money on fine details as a matter of course, we can afford to work longterm major infrastructure into the budget.
Posted by: Joseph | October 8, 2010 3:19 PM
@Mark - We'd have enough to maintain the Interstates if we hadn't started siphoning off gas tax money for non-highway uses - mass transit, bike paths, etc.
I shudder to think how we would move the volume of freight or travel easily with the "minimal" road system that you espouse.
Posted by: Gary | October 9, 2010 11:57 PM