<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Transport Index 2009</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:40:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John K</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4833</link>
		<dc:creator>John K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:24:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4833</guid>
		<description>Hey Guys, I really appreciate this thoughtful assessment but it is fatally flawed.  Sometimes you need to look past the data and consider the larger context of Congress and Member support.  In a cursory review, there are at least two Republican Senators you missed that would vote for a reauthorization bill.  Inhofe and Bond would never obstruct such a bill.  Quite the opposite, on more than one occasion each of these Members have spoke on the Senate floor in favor of increased infrastructure spending.  In fact, Inhofe has said numerous times that he views the Federal government&#039;s responsibilities to infrastructure spending above his commitments to Fiscal restraint as it is a core component of what a Federal government is responsible for. In fact, he even mentioned that more funding should have been included for Infrastructure in the Stimulus bill.

I understand if this is not something you wanted to include because the data did not lead you to that conclusion, however a thorough assessment would have given it at least a brief mention.

-John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Guys, I really appreciate this thoughtful assessment but it is fatally flawed.  Sometimes you need to look past the data and consider the larger context of Congress and Member support.  In a cursory review, there are at least two Republican Senators you missed that would vote for a reauthorization bill.  Inhofe and Bond would never obstruct such a bill.  Quite the opposite, on more than one occasion each of these Members have spoke on the Senate floor in favor of increased infrastructure spending.  In fact, Inhofe has said numerous times that he views the Federal government&#8217;s responsibilities to infrastructure spending above his commitments to Fiscal restraint as it is a core component of what a Federal government is responsible for. In fact, he even mentioned that more funding should have been included for Infrastructure in the Stimulus bill.</p>
<p>I understand if this is not something you wanted to include because the data did not lead you to that conclusion, however a thorough assessment would have given it at least a brief mention.</p>
<p>-John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Senate Agenda</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4568</link>
		<dc:creator>Senate Agenda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4568</guid>
		<description>Nitpicking concerns aside, the federal government prioritizes automobile transport to all others through such policies and initiatives as the Interstate Highway Act, federal match guarantees, and transportation funding in appropriations disparities.  States are loath to throw away free money, and so, they will follow the federal government&#039;s guiding light with regards to transportation funding formulas.  

One major change that needs to happen is to equalize federal match guarantees.  That will go a long way to encourage states to do more transit projects.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nitpicking concerns aside, the federal government prioritizes automobile transport to all others through such policies and initiatives as the Interstate Highway Act, federal match guarantees, and transportation funding in appropriations disparities.  States are loath to throw away free money, and so, they will follow the federal government&#8217;s guiding light with regards to transportation funding formulas.  </p>
<p>One major change that needs to happen is to equalize federal match guarantees.  That will go a long way to encourage states to do more transit projects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Froggie</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4442</link>
		<dc:creator>Froggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:03:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4442</guid>
		<description>Recent transfers from the General Fund to the HTF notwithstanding, most &quot;subsidizing of highways&quot; is done at the local level, not at the Federal level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recent transfers from the General Fund to the HTF notwithstanding, most &#8220;subsidizing of highways&#8221; is done at the local level, not at the Federal level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Senate Agenda</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4315</link>
		<dc:creator>Senate Agenda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4315</guid>
		<description>Thanks jon

If a transpo bill ever does become controversial for reasons other than the cost or for individual district level projects aka &quot;earmarks,&quot; I think opponents of transportation reform, usually Republicans, will use &quot;social engineering&quot; attacks.  Of course, that ignores how the government promotes car use by subsidizing highways to the nth degree and starving out mass transit of needed funds.  I&#039;m glad that&#039;s changing though (if a bit too slow for my and probably everyone here&#039;s tastes) because of both the new President and the changing conventional wisdom in Congress.

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement passed with ease back in 2008.  Hopefully, that same spirit will survive in upcoming transit reform bills.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks jon</p>
<p>If a transpo bill ever does become controversial for reasons other than the cost or for individual district level projects aka &#8220;earmarks,&#8221; I think opponents of transportation reform, usually Republicans, will use &#8220;social engineering&#8221; attacks.  Of course, that ignores how the government promotes car use by subsidizing highways to the nth degree and starving out mass transit of needed funds.  I&#8217;m glad that&#8217;s changing though (if a bit too slow for my and probably everyone here&#8217;s tastes) because of both the new President and the changing conventional wisdom in Congress.</p>
<p>The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement passed with ease back in 2008.  Hopefully, that same spirit will survive in upcoming transit reform bills.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4267</link>
		<dc:creator>jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4267</guid>
		<description>sounds good senate agenda

but either way i&#039;m sure transportation will get highly politicized into a red=cars blue=transit, bikes, peds. and cries that &quot;the guvmint is gunna take away ma car and force me on a socialist bike.&quot; theyll tie this into the new climate change laws and paint out anything other than highway travel as part of the global warming &quot;agenda&quot;. randall o toole and wendell cox will be paraded around by some politicans. all i&#039;m saying is this politicized debate will be harmful to the dialogue and harden simplistic overly exaggerated views such as red=cars, trucks blue=transit, bikes, peds, anti-car. i just dont see how it wouldnt fall into this highly charged path after the health care reform issue. if theres anyone more powerful than the health insurance industry its the oil industry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sounds good senate agenda</p>
<p>but either way i&#8217;m sure transportation will get highly politicized into a red=cars blue=transit, bikes, peds. and cries that &#8220;the guvmint is gunna take away ma car and force me on a socialist bike.&#8221; theyll tie this into the new climate change laws and paint out anything other than highway travel as part of the global warming &#8220;agenda&#8221;. randall o toole and wendell cox will be paraded around by some politicans. all i&#8217;m saying is this politicized debate will be harmful to the dialogue and harden simplistic overly exaggerated views such as red=cars, trucks blue=transit, bikes, peds, anti-car. i just dont see how it wouldnt fall into this highly charged path after the health care reform issue. if theres anyone more powerful than the health insurance industry its the oil industry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Senate Agenda</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4232</link>
		<dc:creator>Senate Agenda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4232</guid>
		<description>Keep in mind that some transportation bills does NOT require 60 votes.  

First, the 60 vote &quot;majority&quot; comes from the use of filibusters that Republicans do all the time.  Cloture to end a filibuster requires 60 votes.   Bills in the Senate require 51 votes to pass or 50 + the Vice President&#039;s vote, but to end a filibuster before the final vote, 60 votes are required.  If there is a filibuster, cloture is required.  

Secondly, some transportation bills are budget bills and that only requires 51 votes to pass.  Budget bills are the same thing as appropriations bills and if you look here, 

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app10.html

the Transportation/HUD appropriations bill have not passed the Senate yet.  When it is discussed, it only requires 51 votes to pass.  

All other transpo bills not an appropriations bill will need 60 votes assuming Republicans filibuster.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keep in mind that some transportation bills does NOT require 60 votes.  </p>
<p>First, the 60 vote &#8220;majority&#8221; comes from the use of filibusters that Republicans do all the time.  Cloture to end a filibuster requires 60 votes.   Bills in the Senate require 51 votes to pass or 50 + the Vice President&#8217;s vote, but to end a filibuster before the final vote, 60 votes are required.  If there is a filibuster, cloture is required.  </p>
<p>Secondly, some transportation bills are budget bills and that only requires 51 votes to pass.  Budget bills are the same thing as appropriations bills and if you look here, </p>
<p><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app10.html" rel="nofollow">http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app10.html</a></p>
<p>the Transportation/HUD appropriations bill have not passed the Senate yet.  When it is discussed, it only requires 51 votes to pass.  </p>
<p>All other transpo bills not an appropriations bill will need 60 votes assuming Republicans filibuster.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4202</link>
		<dc:creator>jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:29:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4202</guid>
		<description>so bobby &quot;piyush&quot;  jindal, after railing against and specifically calling out the $8 billion HSR as &quot;wasteful government spending&quot; earlier this year in his famed TV debut (along with volcano monitoring), has just requested $300 million for HSR in Louisana. HYPOCRITE

keith olbermann just called him out tonight on this</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so bobby &#8220;piyush&#8221;  jindal, after railing against and specifically calling out the $8 billion HSR as &#8220;wasteful government spending&#8221; earlier this year in his famed TV debut (along with volcano monitoring), has just requested $300 million for HSR in Louisana. HYPOCRITE</p>
<p>keith olbermann just called him out tonight on this</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4200</link>
		<dc:creator>Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4200</guid>
		<description>The thing that pisses me off the most about McCain is the fact that he isn&#039;t necessarily against transportation spending...he&#039;s against spending money on smart transportation, transportation that could be a benefit for our future.  In an Amtrak hearing a couple of years ago, Senator McCain was the biggest voice against any expansion of funding, and continued to voice his opinion against Amtrak subsidies until David L. Gunn, the president of Amtrak at the time, asked him if he would demand the same thing, the elimination of subsidies, upon commuter airlines, which Arizona apparently pretty dependent on.  I think whenever McCain seeks to oppose any expansion of transportation spending, we should tell him that we&#039;d be getting the funding from cutting subsidies to commuter flights and see how fast he shuts up.

I hate hypocrites like McCain.  The senators from Arizona have NO room to talk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing that pisses me off the most about McCain is the fact that he isn&#8217;t necessarily against transportation spending&#8230;he&#8217;s against spending money on smart transportation, transportation that could be a benefit for our future.  In an Amtrak hearing a couple of years ago, Senator McCain was the biggest voice against any expansion of funding, and continued to voice his opinion against Amtrak subsidies until David L. Gunn, the president of Amtrak at the time, asked him if he would demand the same thing, the elimination of subsidies, upon commuter airlines, which Arizona apparently pretty dependent on.  I think whenever McCain seeks to oppose any expansion of transportation spending, we should tell him that we&#8217;d be getting the funding from cutting subsidies to commuter flights and see how fast he shuts up.</p>
<p>I hate hypocrites like McCain.  The senators from Arizona have NO room to talk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4190</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4190</guid>
		<description>Brett, the bill Crapo&#039;s supporting is pork, not a general investment in transit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brett, the bill Crapo&#8217;s supporting is pork, not a general investment in transit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/19/the-transport-index-2009/#comment-4186</link>
		<dc:creator>jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3318#comment-4186</guid>
		<description>i hope youre right glenn, i think you are but weve seen some real ugliness with the health care reform.

the anti-any government spending (always with a big exception for the military) crowd is what concerns me. and mccains fetish for making an enormous deal out of the most minor earmark.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i hope youre right glenn, i think you are but weve seen some real ugliness with the health care reform.</p>
<p>the anti-any government spending (always with a big exception for the military) crowd is what concerns me. and mccains fetish for making an enormous deal out of the most minor earmark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
