quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Kenny Wilks said THAT?
I think I can drop his wonderful comment on some Kansas Republicans...
PullmanCo: You'll notice that I didn't specifically identify any of the legislators by name (intentional) but it wasn't Wilks. I will assure you that I heard it directly from the mouth of the elected official.
I'm not trying to be coy or anything(honest) but the politics of this effort for success hinge upon a lot of discrete contacts and political maneuvering. What I've had the privilege of knowing comes from being on the organization contact list and lurking around some of the legislative meetings that have occurred on average every other month since last July. There wasn't enough time in 2008 term, nor were all the critical elements lined up, so, I hear the organization is laying all the groundwork for 2009.
SB 294 House version is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Northern Flyer Alliance is trying to build support for an 80Fed/20KS mix of funds for infrastructure improvements.
It's also trying to build support that the annual operational deficit offset estimate of $12M will probably have to come from Kansas, not Federal, coffers.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I looked at the Northern Flyer Alliance website, and its links to two other organizations that are part of the Alliance. It looks like well over twenty city councils in Kansas and Oklahoma have adopted resolutions supporting their campaign. I've met a few of their members and the leadership of the Alliance is meeting with legislators and the Kansas transportation department almost weekly.
They apparently had a meeting in Wichita last Friday that was attended by state legislators and staff sent from Congressman Moran's office.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
KDOT to Study Possible Amtrak Expansion in KS Date: December 5, 2008
State officials and Amtrak have agreed on the scope of a study to determine the feasibility of expanding passenger service through Kansas, Oklahoma and into Texas. The Kansas Department of Transportation says it has budgeted $200,000 for its part of the study. The Oklahoma and Texas transportation departments are also cooperating in the study, which will be done by Amtrak. The study aims to identify construction and equipment requirements, as well as potential annual operating costs needed to run the service. The study is expected to be complete sometime in 2009. Proposed stops in Kansas include existing stations in Lawrence, Topeka and Newton. New stations would be placed in Emporia, Strong City, Wichita and Winfield or Arkansas City. The expansion would create service from Kansas City to Fort Worth, Texas.
Now, the real issue is funding in Kansas. The recession continues to eat into tax receipts. Can Kansas afford $3 to $6 million in operating annual subsidy until recovery happens?
BTW ... I stand by my assessment of a 2011 start being optimistic.
posted
PullmanCo: Do you know why there is a 2/3 super majority required in both houses for this legislation when most other legislation merely requires a simple majority?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
In Kansas, approval of expanded passenger rail service would require an extra step. Article 11, Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution(emphasis mine) prohibits the State from making improvements off the state highway system unless both houses of the Legislature, by vote of not less than two-thirds of their members, approve such expenditures. The Kansas Legislature would have to take this step to provide operating support for passenger rail, in addition to approving the funding.
Way back on March 24, ... I pulled this from the Star
quote:The Kansas Legislature would not only have to approve money for its share of the service, but also would have to remove a constitutional restriction on using state money to supplement Amtrak."
Here's what I said on March 25:
quote:There is still that pesky matter of the Kansas Constitution, Article 11, Section 9. The collective local wisdom is any expenditure for Amtrak requires a 2/3 majority separate Act.
Considering this morning (12-6) the folks thinking about the casino at the Kansas Speedway withdrew (it's the economy, stupid ... as the sign in the Clinton campaign war room said), and the deficit that may require the Kansas Legislature to worry about revisiting the school funding forumula next year, and considering the Kansas Legislatures general ability to get something done, this very cynical, yet seemingly quite realistic quote of mine I keep on the table:
quote:Bank on the Kansas Legislature to do something right and timely? Go see Mark Funkhouser for some Frances Semmler meds...
Finally, didn't I see something in the October Conference Call pdf that basically said Kansas Amtrak would have to go and buy its own equipment? Yeppers. From the pdf (significant items (imo) only:
quote: Start-up costs include: • Acquiring rolling stock such as locomotives and cars. The cost of rolling stock depends on the number of train sets needed to serve the schedule and expected number of passengers. • Improving infrastructure such as tracks, ballast, ties, crossings, signals, and sidings. The cost of infrastructure improvements depends on the pre‐existing infrastructure conditions and on the train’s desired operating speed.
1. States generally have used general revenue funds to pay for start-up costs. a. To date, there hasn’t been any federal assistance for startup costs, except for Oklahoma which received a federal earmark and Maine which used federal CMAQ funds. CMAQ funds can no longer be used for this purpose.
2. Once funding is appropriated for new routes, it can take as little as two construction seasons to start the service, depending on infrastructure improvement needs. a. Infrastructure improvements could include track, ties, ballast, rail beds, sidings, crossings and signals. As an example, it could take one season for preliminary engineering (designing the improvements) and one season for building the improvements. Concurrently, negotiations could take place with the host railroad (BNSF in Kansas). b. For new services on existing routes, it can take as little as 4 to 5 months to start a new service. Staff training time is required for each new service, accounting for much of the time.
3. There is a potential shortage of passenger rail cars. a. Currently, Amtrak owns more than 1500 passenger cars and 400 locomotives. The average age of its coach fleet is 24 years and the average age of the locomotive fleet is over fifteen years. According to Amtrak, 26 percent of its passenger rail cars are not in good repair. Amtrak hasn’t been able to purchase new cars and is rehabilitating old equipment. b. The mothballed Amtrak fleet is generally 50‐60 years old. 40‐50 cars may be candidates for rehabilitation. Amtrak plans to rehabilitate 5‐10 per year. c. The cost to rehabilitate a car ranges from $800,000 to $1.2 million. The rehabilitation work includes new wheel trucks, interiors, and restroom facilities. d. The Heartland Flyer currently uses two passenger cars, one Café Car and one locomotive.
Perhaps the one significant advantage Kansas has in all this is that the BNSF Topeka Shops are the home of their business fleet, and are still pretty darn good at shopping cars. I'd bet cash they'd be glad to offer their work at standard rates
OH YES!!! Study option 1, which is the least expensive, but the most buffoonish: Simply extend the Oklahoma train to Newton to link with 3/4 and be done with it. I really hope that's the staff "throw-away." Blow off the two of the three major traffic points in Kansas on the line (Topeka and KC)? K-DOT must employ BA Poli Sci policy analysts from Lawrence Free State Junior College, the home of the ___Hawks.
As I said, a beer at the Golden Ox when this starts. I'm not banking much before 2012.
Here's some historic info, taken from a 1959 ATSF PTT:
Fort Worth to KC mileage is: 589.
Routing is: Fort Worth Gainseville Purcell, OK Norman Oklahoma City Guthrie Ponca City Arkansas City, KS Winfield Wichita Newton Emporia Topeka Kansas City
We'll leave the matter of current routings in the DFW Metroplex to Amtrak and BNSF.
If you took The Ranger, which was the daylight train, you left FW at 7AM, and arrived KC at 915PM. That's 14h, 15m out. There is a 15 minute stop at OKC, 10 minutes at Wichita and 20 minutes at Newton, implying this had working M&E.
IF you took The Kansas Cityan, which was the night train, you left FW at 2PM and arrived KC next morning at 1250AM. That's 10h, 50 minutes out. (BTW, there are 5 minute station stops at OKC, Wichita and Newton)
BTW, I-35, in bypassing Newton, adds 150 miles to the stated HW distance on googlemaps, so a 600 mile run seems about right.
Now I'm off to watch Mizzou and OU whup up on each other.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That Article, in the Kansas Constitution areads: Article 11. -- FINANCE AND TAXATION
9: Internal improvements; state highway system; flood control; conservation or development of water resources.
The state shall never be a party in carrying on any work of internal improvement except that: (1) It may adopt, construct, reconstruct and maintain a state system of highways, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds issued by the state for such highways; (2) it may be a party to flood control works and works for the conservation or development of water resources; (3) it may, for the purpose of stimulating economic development and private sector job creation in all areas of the state, participate in the development of a capital formation system and have a limited role in such system through investment of state funds authorized in accordance with law; (4) it may be a party to any work of internal improvement, whenever any work of internal improvement not authorized by (1), (2) or (3) is once authorized by a separate bill passed by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all members then elected (or appointed) and qualified to each house, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds be issued by the state therefore; and (5) it may expend funds received from the federal government for any public purpose in accordance with the federal law authorizing the same.
Although oft quoted by the KDOT Secretary, this proposal does not appear, at least from a legal or Constitution definition to qualify as an act of internal improvement, or by definition, a highway.
In fact the proposal is a simple fee for service contract negotiated with Amtrak. Kansas will acquire no property (belongs to BNSF and Amtrak), build no railroad lines, own no equipment, and employee no associated with operations other than the current KDOT staff that perform a minor regulatory funtion.
No other state has been required to acquire (purchase) its own train sets (does Missouri own the Mules?, does Illinois own the Rutledge?). Oklahoma doesn't and California does own some (on their own initiative), but Kansas will probably not be required to. So, this illuminates another oddity in the the preliminary comments from KDOT.
PullmanCo: You seem to have a fixation on the timetable for development for this. Kansas is very interested in certain elements being in place, mainly the federal funding provided under HR 2095. Well, the legilsation was signed in October, the funding has not yet been obligated to FRA for distribution, and beyond that there will be the application, review, cost-benefit analysis, and allocation process. This will take some months to do, occuring at roughly the same time as the Kansas study. In a perfect scenario, the study is completed, and Amtrak will deliver a cost estimate which the Kansas legislature and KDOT may look at, and match up with federal funds, then one of the transportation committees can obligate funds (according to Representative Candy Ruff, there is no 2/3rds requirement), the House can put the money in the general transportation department budget as a reserved line item. When the state enters a simple operational service contract with Amtrak, everything from sidings, signals, streamliners, switches and service will be arranged for and developed by BNSF and Amtrak. 2011 sounds pretty good to me, what's the problem. I've been watching a crap-*** section of I-435 under construction for 5 years! We're not going to wither and die if this intercity passenger rail takes 36 months!
I don't see this as internal improvement, and for that matter neither does the office of the Attorney General of Kansas. Article 11, section 9 may actually not apply to this. And even if it does, this doesn't rise to the controversy level of a coal fire power plant. There's not enough public expenditure involved: $8 million a year? = 16 houses in my neighborhood, or, 1,700 yards of state highway (less that a mile of highway 45 west of your place in Parkville).
Secretary Miller may be blowing smoke to bamboozle the gullible.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: [QB] From page 5 of the handout:
I
Finally, didn't I see something in the October Conference Call pdf that basically said Kansas Amtrak would have to go and buy its own equipment? Yeppers. From the pdf (significant items (imo) only: QB][/QUOTE]
Do you know anyone who was on that October conference call (it actually was held on September 8th)? I actually know some of the participants very well.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
The KDOT Staff, the writers of the hand out, say a bill will need a a 2/3 super-majority.
Kapisch?
Comprendere!
I read the original draft of the report you cite 2 months ago.
My next question ('cause I love your explanations) is why spend close to $200,000 dollars on a study for an initiative that has zero chance in the Kansas House and Senate and is already DEAD, according to you?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like someone enforces a "golden rule" for one forum, but does not feel that self-enforcement of same for another forum is necessary. Hmm.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was the handout they gave out at the press conference.
The staff still thinks 2/3 is on the table.
Look, I'd love to see 2x per day running ... with a working rate of advance of 60MPH (in other words, max 10 hours run time KC-DFW).
Now, from my perspective, the long poles in the tent:
- Expectation management: I'm saying 2013 is reasonable start-up.
- Rolling stock: Got some handy? Amtrak doesn't, apparently, unless Kansas is going to hire Amtrak or the BNSF Topeka Shops to rebuild some Budd Heritage equipment. Remember that the summer New Orleans fleet is all reserve cars that are waivered into service.
Can you get an operating subsidy through the Legislature in a downtime? Take a look at Vermont... they're rethinking existing service.
Can the State of Kansas have a vigorous debate that brings a common-sense solution to the 2010 Legislature? Up to you. I'll be taking a Mule to St Louis in January.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Bottom line is Kansas borrowed $250 million from cash-generating State agencies itself to keep cash-using State agencies in operation.
Those who want 403(b) type service will have to keep a full court press on Governor Sebelius. If the recession does not improve over the next 12 months, it'll be in the "tough call" pile to justify new spending.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
To me, it sounds like new initiatives that are not tied in with the Cancer Center, the Bio-Ag lab at K-State, K-12 education, or health care are just simply to the back burner, if not off the table.
We'll have to see what her budget message says.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"WHEREAS, Amtrak began work on the feasibility study in December 2008; and WHEREAS, Kansas is developing its 10-year comprehensive transportation plan; and WHEREAS, A framework for the Kansas 10-year comprehensive transportation plan is expected to be approved during the 2009 Kansas legislative session; and WHEREAS, Federal funding for passenger rail projects is now available through the federal Rail Safety Improvement Act; and WHEREAS, $1.9 billion will be appropriated during the federal FY 2009 through the FY 2013 for state matching capital grants not to exceed 80 percent federal contribution; and WHEREAS, A state passenger rail plan is required to be eligible for these federal matching programs; and WHEREAS, The State of Kansas has yet to develop a qualifying passenger rail plan;..."
quote:"WHEREAS, $1.9 billion will be appropriated during the federal FY 2009 through the FY 2013 for state matching capital grants not to exceed 80 percent federal contribution; and WHEREAS, A state passenger rail plan is required to be eligible for these federal matching programs; and WHEREAS, The State of Kansas has yet to develop a qualifying passenger rail plan;"
THE SPONSORS WAITED UNTIL MID-MARCH TO INTRODUCE THESE RESOLUTIONS!
HEY KANSAS: IF YOU DON'T DO THE WORK, YOU DON'T GO TO THE DANCE!
The KDOT report will come out in time for the 2010 legislative session. Maybe there'll be a plan that Kansas can take to USDOT for grant $$$ by the end of the 2010 legislative session.
I stand by my assessment: Compete for funding in 2011, actual start date 2013.
Of course, Kansas also got taken 9-0 in the US Supreme Court on KS v CO. After winning the case, they claimed they didn't have to pay the going rate for their expert witnesses. Supreme Court said otherwise. Kansas had to actually pay up to its witnesses. Cheap Kansas.
Tick, tick, tick....
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, it looks like the Kansas Legislature will adjourn for the 2009 session in early June. The Senate has set first notice of "SINE DIE" for June 4.
According to the Kansas House calendar, at this point committees are scheduled. There's still a chance the Kansas House can convene and pass even a lightweight, watered-down, not Federally compliant measure of "support" for bringing rail from Dallas to Kansas City.
Can Kansas get even this much done in 2009, or will, as I suggested a year ago, we have to see the study done in the 2010 Legislative session to see what can move?
Ab Gleis Sieben, bitte Einsteigen, Tueren Schliessen, Vorsicht bei der Abfahrt!
The 2009 Kansas Legislature train has left the station. I talked earlier today with the news director of Kansas Public Radio. All general legislative activity which will happen this year has happened. All that remains is a pro forma Sine Die session the week of June 4.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1617 died for lack of action in the Kansas House Committee of the Whole. Its parallel, House Concurrent Resolution 5014 died without being reported out of its own Transporation Committee.
This was a simple resolution to encourage Ms Miller to seek USDOT controlled grant monies. It died a-borning. Now granted, Kansas has budgetary challenges, as does every State. They've not had to trim the budget, they got out the chainsaw to cut it. The effective budgetary reserves for 2010-2011 are zero ($17,000 (yes, seventeen thousand dollars) on an over $10 Billion budget.
As a Missourian, I get to observe this dark comedy. If the Northern Flyer Alliance really wants Amtrak service when the Consultant's $200K report comes back this fall, they are going to have to work the Kansas House ... very, very hard indeed. Otherwise, as I said over a year ago, this study will be $200K of P-O-R-K to some consultant, and the digits will moulder on a hard drive somewhere near the BNSF Topeka Shops.
So to some folks here, this should be an instructive exercise: It takes not the occasional "happy news, cheerleading news" to get new State-supported service on Amtrak, it takes good old fashioned political sweat equity.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Of note: - KSDOT thinks Feddybux can be obtained to do the construction work for KC (Newton)-DFW service. - KSDOT thinks limited Feddybux are available for operating subsidy. - KSDOT staff still thinks, as of May 2009, that Article 11, Section 9 challenge of a 2/3 supermajority in both Houses is on the table.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Of note: - KSDOT thinks Feddybux can be obtained to do the construction work for KC (Newton)-DFW service. - KSDOT thinks limited Feddybux are available for operating subsidy. - KSDOT staff still thinks, as of May 2009, that Article 11, Section 9 challenge of a 2/3 supermajority in both Houses is on the table.
Whatever these people are smoking, it sure ain't tobacco.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Of note: - KSDOT thinks Feddybux can be obtained to do the construction work for KC (Newton)-DFW service. - KSDOT thinks limited Feddybux are available for operating subsidy. - KSDOT staff still thinks, as of May 2009, that Article 11, Section 9 challenge of a 2/3 supermajority in both Houses is on the table.
Just curious Pullman.....
It's been some time since I checked this forum, and I see you're just as agitated as you were a year ago. Why does this effort seem to get under your skin so much? This is a big country; there are other initiatives just like the Kansas effort going on in Ohio, Iowa, a few in the southeast, and in Wisconsion, and so on. You're kind of obsessive about the Kansas effort which seems to be finding its way with slow progress, steps back, missed opportunity and so on.
Where the hell is this political support and clout supposed to come from that you decry, despise, disparage and dismiss out of hand?
Looks to me like there has been a constant effort, not entirely successful at this point but still alive.
Where did those two resolutions come from, the ones that failed, but still how did those happen? You seem closest and in the know about everything Kansas; what about these?
What happened on March 18th in the senate transportation committee that motivated KDOT to reverse course, and cause Ms. Miller to call up Amtrak and seek a shoulder to cry on about being read the riot act by the legislature for not taking advantage of the ARRA possibilities?
You seem to have some connections in Kansas government. Mind sharing some of your inside dope about this Northern Flyer Alliance? Is this a group of communities and mayors or something?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's fun watching Jayhawkers stumble. It's almost as much fun watching the Jackson County Democratic Club and Freedom Incorporated imitate Tom Pendergast.
I enjoy watching politicians make bloody fools of themselves.
I enjoy watching community organizers who can't get it done. From where I sit, what you predicted came true: The Senate was able to do their part. Unfortunately, for a Concurrent Resolution, the House needed to play as well.
What was the ending balance on the FY10 budget? $17,000? That's on how many $Billion? That's effectively zero, and then the next Estimates came in. Where is the Legislature going to find $3M when it comes time to pay Amtrak? Where are folks proposing to buy a consist?
The study comes out between now and the end of the calendar year. We'll see what happens.
In the meantime, I stand by a 2013 start date.
"But I shall not rest boys, until I stand upon Mount Oread, and look down upon the abolitionists of Lawrence."
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Because you're Jayhawkers.
It's fun watching Jayhawkers stumble. It's almost as much fun watching the Jackson County Democratic Club and Freedom Incorporated imitate Tom Pendergast.
I enjoy watching politicians make bloody fools of themselves.
I enjoy watching community organizers who can't get it done. From where I sit, what you predicted came true: The Senate was able to do their part. Unfortunately, for a Concurrent Resolution, the House needed to play as well.
What was the ending balance on the FY10 budget? $17,000? That's on how many $Billion? That's effectively zero, and then the next Estimates came in. Where is the Legislature going to find $3M when it comes time to pay Amtrak? Where are folks proposing to buy a consist?
The study comes out between now and the end of the calendar year. We'll see what happens.
In the meantime, I stand by a 2013 start date.
"But I shall not rest boys, until I stand upon Mount Oread, and look down upon the abolitionists of Lawrence."
So,
What's wrong with 2013? Are you planning to kick off before then? There's all kind of archeological evidence that Rome wasn't built in a day. Has anyone put a timetable on this effort other than you?
Actually, I guess I believed your negativism/qualification had a rational foundation. Your silly commentary about Jayhawkers and the honest efforts of the activist involved, and your ridicule, really makes YOUR comments rather ridiculous. Between you and the CAVErs, Americans may really only be able to look backwards rather than ever to look forward.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Of course, as the economy may or may not recover anytime soon, whether Kansas can even afford this ... to include buying carstock, is a question.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A quote from the last page of KDOT's press release, as found on the Northern Flyer website:
quote: Authorizing and Funding Expanded Passenger Rail Absent official legislation, KDOT does not have the authority to fund the operating support that would be needed to bring expanded passenger rail to Kansas. For this reason, KDOT cannot apply for grants that would, for all practical purposes, commit the state of Kansas to provide operating support for passenger rail service.
Crafting a new transportation program is the Legislature’s responsibility. KDOT’s role is to make recommendations and offer guidance in how it is structured.
These steps are needed to authorize and fund state-supported passenger rail: a) Complete the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study. Without the cost estimates from the study, KDOT cannot prepare a funding recommendation for the legislature to consider. b) If the study shows evidence that state-supported passenger rail should be considered, develop recommendations for the Legislature’s consideration based on the study results. c) Draft legislation to authorize operating subsidies for a state-supported passenger rail program, which requires approval of 2/3 of both houses, and provide the funding.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: A quote from the last page of KDOT's press release, as found on the Northern Flyer website:
quote: Authorizing and Funding Expanded Passenger Rail Absent official legislation, KDOT does not have the authority to fund the operating support that would be needed to bring expanded passenger rail to Kansas. For this reason, KDOT cannot apply for grants that would, for all practical purposes, commit the state of Kansas to provide operating support for passenger rail service.
Crafting a new transportation program is the Legislature’s responsibility. KDOT’s role is to make recommendations and offer guidance in how it is structured.
These steps are needed to authorize and fund state-supported passenger rail: a) Complete the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study. Without the cost estimates from the study, KDOT cannot prepare a funding recommendation for the legislature to consider. b) If the study shows evidence that state-supported passenger rail should be considered, develop recommendations for the Legislature’s consideration based on the study results. c) Draft legislation to authorize operating subsidies for a state-supported passenger rail program, which requires approval of 2/3 of both houses, and provide the funding.
It is apparent that you love to invoke KsDOT's oft raised "bailout clause" the 2/3rds majority in "both houses."
Here is the section of the Kansas Constitution Article 11 section 9. Read clause 5 of section 9 and explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS (and not invoking KsDOT) what this means? Clause 5 is in CAPS so you can't overlook it:
9: Internal improvements; state highway system; flood control; conservation or development of water resources. The state shall never be a party in carrying on any work of internal improvement except that: (1) It may adopt, construct, reconstruct and maintain a state system of highways, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds issued by the state for such highways; (2) it may be a party to flood control works and works for the conservation or development of water resources; (3) it may, for the purpose of stimulating economic development and private sector job creation in all areas of the state, participate in the development of a capital formation system and have a limited role in such system through investment of state funds authorized in accordance with law; (4) it may be a party to any work of internal improvement, whenever any work of internal improvement not authorized by (1), (2) or (3) is once authorized by a separate bill passed by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all members then elected (or appointed) and qualified to each house, but no general property tax shall ever be laid nor general obligation bonds be issued by the state therefor; and (5) IT MAY EXPEND FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AUTHORIZING THE SAME.
ARRA? HR 2095? Federal funds? An exception for the provisions of clause 4 of section 9 of article 11? Affirmed by the Kansas attorney general as applicable under legislative intent?
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What it tells me is that the NFA and KSDOT are not speaking on the same sheet of music.
I've said it before and I say it again: For this to pass and become a reality, the Alliance has to get into the legislative cycle early enough to pass the "so what" test, and it has to convince the Kansas House to play. This latter is the longest pole in the tent. The Kansas House did not want to play in this session. The parallel concurrent resolution was buried in the Transportation Committee, never to see the light of day. When the Senate portion of the CR passed, it went to the Committee of the Whole of the House, to be buried below other business.
The time to get cities to sign resolutions of support is done. If the Alliance wants rail service in Kansas, now is the time to start wooing the Kansas House reps in Johnson, Wyandotte, Sedgwick, Jackson, and Douglas Counties... plus the other communities on the line.
I said this on April 4, 2008:
quote:I never, ever, count on best case solutions. I've learned the hard way... that's a recipe for foolishness.
If the Alliance plans to meet the constitutional hurdle, and the votes are overkill, then they have something approaching a mandate, which the legislators can use in the 2010/2012 election cycles. OTOH, if the Alliance shoots for a simple majority, and someone goes to court to block this, there may be wasted effort.
As I've said before, I live on the East Side of State Line and North of the River. That makes me an observer. The last few years, I've not observed the Kansas Legislature do much at all ... where is the funding for years 2 and 3 of the education mandates? I'm waiting for plaintiffs to return to Court on that one...
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Federal Dollars Could Boost Passenger Rail in KS Date: July 16, 2009 Officials at the Kansas Department of Transportation are hoping the federal government will approve around 17 million dollars in grants to give passenger rail service in KS a boost. KPR statehouse reporter Stephen Koranda has more.
Note the word hope above. A great American, General Gordon Sullivan, when he was Chief of Staff of the US Army (just after Desert Storm and at the beginning of the drawdown) said:
"Hope is not a method."
While that was spoken in the context of preparing for and executing war, it applies to any endeavor. You plan and prepare to win the day.
Right now, Ms Miller and Mr Kauffman have laid out the roadmap they are working under at KSDOT. That roadmap includes the working assumption of 2/3 of both Houses must approve a start of service.
As I recall from the May KSDOT rail update, the dollars requested are not necessarily contingent on Kansas having its passenger rail concept in the can. Even so, if I were a DOT policy analyst, I'd be looking really hard to at least 4 factors:
- Are Kansas' Congresscritters playing? Right now, Kansas does not have the strongest political delegation in Congress. Ms Jenkins is a newbie, and Mr Brownback has set himself a lame duck.
- Does this proposal have legislative support back home? This is a huge long pole in the tent. The Kansas House refused to play in 2009. If SecTrans has discretion over where to send scarce resources (Feddybux), then does he send them someplace where there is a reliable chance the funds will see service on the line, or does he "place the bet?"
- Uhhhh... Kansas City to Wichita? Say WHAT? Today's BFO: The KSDOT PR person didn't "walk the dog" on what this funding will do.
- High Speed Rail funds? 79MPH=HSR? Reality check.
- Is the homework done? See the pre-applications. There's work to be done here
IF the Northern Flyer Alliance wants to be serious about making this happen, then there are a bunch of Kansas House Members they need to be visiting with this summer and fall. Next year is an election year; they need to make their case to the Members that passenger rail matters.
This is not "no Yuma, no Moolah." This is "No vote for Yuma, nothing at all."
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Federal Dollars Could Boost Passenger Rail in KS Date: July 16, 2009 Officials at the Kansas Department of Transportation are hoping the federal government will approve around 17 million dollars in grants to give passenger rail service in KS a boost. KPR statehouse reporter Stephen Koranda has more.
Note the word hope above. A great American, General Gordon Sullivan, when he was Chief of Staff of the US Army (just after Desert Storm and at the beginning of the drawdown) said:
"Hope is not a method."
While that was spoken in the context of preparing for and executing war, it applies to any endeavor. You plan and prepare to win the day.
Right now, Ms Miller and Mr Kauffman have laid out the roadmap they are working under at KSDOT. That roadmap includes the working assumption of 2/3 of both Houses must approve a start of service.
As I recall from the May KSDOT rail update, the dollars requested are not necessarily contingent on Kansas having its passenger rail concept in the can. Even so, if I were a DOT policy analyst, I'd be looking really hard to at least 4 factors:
- Are Kansas' Congresscritters playing? Right now, Kansas does not have the strongest political delegation in Congress. Ms Jenkins is a newbie, and Mr Brownback has set himself a lame duck.
- Does this proposal have legislative support back home? This is a huge long pole in the tent. The Kansas House refused to play in 2009. If SecTrans has discretion over where to send scarce resources (Feddybux), then does he send them someplace where there is a reliable chance the funds will see service on the line, or does he "place the bet?"
- Uhhhh... Kansas City to Wichita? Say WHAT? Today's BFO: The KSDOT PR person didn't "walk the dog" on what this funding will do.
- High Speed Rail funds? 79MPH=HSR? Reality check.
- Is the homework done? See the pre-applications. There's work to be done here
IF the Northern Flyer Alliance wants to be serious about making this happen, then there are a bunch of Kansas House Members they need to be visiting with this summer and fall. Next year is an election year; they need to make their case to the Members that passenger rail matters.
MAYBE THEY DID, AND MAYBE KDOT and OKDOT and THE FRA ARE WORKING TOGETHER FOR SUPPORT FOR THE DIRT CHEAP (AS COMPARED TO OTHER STATES) REQUEST.
WRITTEN ALL OVER THE PRE-APPLICATION GUIDELINES IS INTENT FOR ASSISTING STATES TO QUALIFY FOR ARRA FUNDS.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT EVERY OTHER STATE HAS AN ARRA PROPOSAL THAT IS IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY MORE SOUND THAN THE KANSAS REQUEST?
DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT KANSAS IS THE ONLY STATE THAT HAS THIS 2/3rds REQUIREMENT THAT SEEMS TO BE AN OBSESSION OF YOURS?
DID A KANSAS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR TELL THE KANSAS DOT SECRETARY TO NOT BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING A 2/3rds MAJORITY DURING A MEETING IN MARCH?
WAS THERE PERHAPS A TELECONFERENCE ON JULY 8TH THAT INCLUDED NORTHERN FLYER ALLIANCE LEADERS AND 7-8 KEY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE WITH KDOT and ODOT and AMTRAK IN WHICH ALL THE ISSUES MENTIONED BY YOU ABOVE WERE DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE HAS NOT ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO PREPARE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE TERM?
KDOT, NFA AND NUMEROUS LEGISLATORS READ, AND, HAVE THE FRA ARRA INSTRUCTIONS IN HAND. DID KDOT REVISE THEIR ORIGINAL INTENTION OF APPLYING ONLY FOR ARRA TRACK 3, AND EXPAND THAT TO AN APPLICATION FOR ARRA TRACKS, 1,2, AND 3, AT THE SUGGESTION OF NFA LEADERS AND THE BNSF?
CAN MISSOURI REASONABLY EXPECT TO UPGRADE THE RIVERUNNER SERVICE TO 110 MPH W/IN THE PARAMETERS OF HSR?
ARE THE FRA ARRA GRANTS EXCLUSIVE TO HSR OR DOES IT ALSO PROVIDE FOR TRADITIONAL INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT?
DID CONGRESSMAN DENNIS MOORE HAVE A MEETING AT LAWRENCE STATION WITH NFA LEADERS AND LOCAL AND KANSAS LEGISLATORS AND OFFICIALS AND OFFER HIS SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT?
THOSE IN THE KNOW SHOULD KNOW ALL ABOUT WHAT I WROTE ABOVE. BUT YOU SEEM TO GET A FAIR AMOUNT OF YOUR INFORMATION FROM THE NEWS MEDIA. HOW PRECISELY ACCURATE ARE THEY IN THEIR REPORTING?
This is not "no Yuma, no Moolah." This is "No vote for Yuma, nothing at all."
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
As the late, great Will Rogers once said "All I know is what I read in the papers."
Well, in this case the papers include the NFA website and railroad.net.
Yes, other States have problems, but most (excluding California) do not have supermajority requirements for legislative budget votes.
To be honest, I expect the NEC states, California, and some of the linkages out of Chicago to suck in a lot of HSIPR funds to overhaul the Corridor. From my friends who live there, there is a tremendous amount of deferred maintence on the line. There are also projects where something as simple as a 500 meter track straightening will generate, as defined by the US, HSR speeds.
So you have Dennis Moore as an ally. The Santa Fe runs through all 4 Congresscritters Districts. What about the other three? What about Pat Roberts? What about Sam Brownback?
BTW, I do talk, on my side of State Line, to my State Rep and State Senator about the Eagles (sorry, they'll be that or the Mules to me, depending on speed ... though they are far more like the old UP trains 69 and 70, aka The Plugs.) I've also talked to Sam Graves' transportation committee liaison in his Congressional office, since he sits the House Transportation Committee.
I know this much: Missouri at least has 2 a day frequency across the State. That's better than the throwaway option in the commissioned study. IIRC it was simply a continuation of the Flyer to Newton to meet 3/4.
What I also see in the NY Times article of July 17 is a huge ratio: $8B in appropriations generated $70B in grant requests. That's not quite a 1:9 availability ratio. Assume for a moment that all $8B of the stimulus is awarded. That leaves $62B of UFR grant requests on the table. If all those re-roll for the HSIPR and there are no new requests, that's $4B in funds availability against $62B in requests, or a 1:15 ratio.
Of course, now Kansas steps in with its petition, and its lack of planning in the can. To make matters more fun, the petition does not conform to CFR standards: 79 is less than 110.
I just visited the NFA website. The same old GIF map is there. It's time and past time for those who want this service to invest political and technical sweat equity. Photos of specific spots on the BNSF where improvements are needed. The grant pre-apps identify those. Cross-links to Googlemaps in topographic mode, identifying those spots. Who has been to Beech Grove or Bear recently, to look at remnant Heritage rolling stock for renovation? Who has been to the BNSF Topeka Shops to talk about doing the renovation work? BNSF Topeka is still a superb passenger car shop. As the KS-DOT announcements said 8 months ago, don't count on Amtrak for rolling stock for this service.
Oh, look at the contacts? Ms Stout is the "interim" public contact. At this point, y'all should have an effective list of regional contacts in Wyandotte/Johnson Counties, Topeka, Lawrence, and Newton. They should be cross-referenced to specific Kansas legislators. Where's the sample letter of support from Mr and Mrs Smith to their Kansas legislator? What grad students in public management from KU, K-State or Wichita State are helping the NFA on this?
So, shout all you want. Be frustrated all you want. This thread opened 16 months ago today. Right now, the proposal is exactly on the timeline I said it'd be on... 2010 Legislature session will evaluate start-up funding and either pass or deny an appropriation for same. 2/3 majority? That's the worst case. GBN will tell you I'm an old soldier, and my Dad is an older soldier. He taught me, over 40 years ago ... Be prepared for the worst, and then you'll always be pleasantly surprised. In the case of legislation next year, that means NFA is one House down (the died aborning SCR did get > 2/3 majority), and one House to go.
That one House to go is the long pole in the tent. They didn't want to play at all. They buried the HCR, never to see the light of day. They referred the SCR to the Committee of the Whole, and then never allowed it to move above the line for consideration. Next years effort has to be much, much better than that.
Meanwhile, I will keep observing from across the River, and commenting on what is posted in the news.
OBTW, looks like on July 2 Governor Parkinson had to take 2% more across the board from Kansas agencies to cover the ongoing revenue shortfall. My personal estimate is if Kansas is still in recession when the 2010 Legislature convenes, then this new spending may well not happen at all. It's hard to justify new $$$ when education, health, and law enforcement are taking schwacks. I'm betting 2011 being the year legislation happens.
2013 for a startup. I've been saying that for a year now.
Enjoy this wonderful summer weather we're having in the metro.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I jumped on the NFA Facebook page this morning. My critique is the same: If NFA wants legislative passage in either 2010 or 2011, then they need to be targeting the Kansas House.
I see no tools to help the 81 group members on FB do exactly that. No sample letter. No key points. No listing of Kansas House members cross-referenced to population centers on the line and to their friendliness towards getting legislation through the system.
NFA has the Kansas Senate dealt with. Keep them stroked now. It's time for NFA to work the Kansas House, hard, and to be sure they have more than enough votes to get the job done. Aside from the Kansas constitution issues, a 2/3 majority gives the legislators high cover in the coming election cycle: The new legislation is a mandate for change.
Finally, there's the small matter of infrastructure improvement: If I understand what the NFA posted at the FB site correctly, $102B of grant requests is chasing $8B of funding. That's over a 1:12 funds availablility ratio. NFA needs to be working with BNSF and KS-DOT to upgrade the route of the Texas Chief to HSR if they hope to see Feddybux.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
You're kinda hard to figure. I can't tell whether you're some kind of coach, counselor, Monday night quarterback, or what.
You're broadcasting advice to everyone on this board, with no assurance that any member of the Alliance even visits this site, to heed your counsel.
I know a few of the members, and that is how I am able to share information about what seems to be really going on behind the scenes.
I recently asked what happened to the House bill that was the companion of the Senate bill that passed. The reason it did not make it above the line was really twofold. The first was the House version did not arrive early enough in the session because it needed to have some elements revised and reconciled with the Senate version. the second issue had to do with politics on the part of the Speaker who held everything in check until the power plant issue was resolved. As it was, there wasn't any real opposition to the bill, it just never got a chance to be voted on. The Senate bill passed 36-3 with one absent. That says quite a bit about the issue that you keep mentioning (2/3rds vote) and act like it is some great issue.
In the meantime, KDOT has acted on just about every recommendation that the Senate Transportation chair suggested.
I don't think any sane person expects this initiative to be accomplished tomorrow, or even in a month. Your timeline predictions all but suggest that you're fixated on some kind of immediate development. Why is that?
I've been following this project at a distance for about two years. The NFA had a meeting in Wichita in July 2007; it was their first gathering and at that time it was a gauge of public interest.
Seems this grassroots effort has come quite a ways, especially when a reasonable, rational comparison is made with similar efforts going on in other states.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: I jumped on the NFA Facebook page this morning. My critique is the same: If NFA wants legislative passage in either 2010 or 2011, then they need to be targeting the Kansas House.
I see no tools to help the 81 group members on FB do exactly that. No sample letter. No key points. No listing of Kansas House members cross-referenced to population centers on the line and to their friendliness towards getting legislation through the system.
NFA has the Kansas Senate dealt with. Keep them stroked now. It's time for NFA to work the Kansas House, hard, and to be sure they have more than enough votes to get the job done. Aside from the Kansas constitution issues, a 2/3 majority gives the legislators high cover in the coming election cycle: The new legislation is a mandate for change.
Finally, there's the small matter of infrastructure improvement: If I understand what the NFA posted at the FB site correctly, $102B of grant requests is chasing $8B of funding. That's over a 1:12 funds availablility ratio. NFA needs to be working with BNSF and KS-DOT to upgrade the route of the Texas Chief to HSR if they hope to see Feddybux.
To this message I gotta reply to your quoted remarks: How do you know that they (NFA) aren't?
Do you think all of what has happened in Kansas to date was accidental?
Would it surprise you to know that the Kansas Senate and the House already have a bill in hand that is being prepared for next year?
I don't think you realize that many key members of NFA are mayors, city managers, council members, metro area transportation planners and chamber of commerce folks who are in tight with the legislators who are pushing for this.
Parkinson met with NFA leaders over a year ago when he was still Lt. Governor. He has been governor for about 120 days. Big legislative issues don't happen in 120 days, unless it is an emergency.
Passenger rail service in Kansas isn't an emergency. It's seen by elected officials as an opportunity. None of them even know what the 3 or the 4 is let alone the Texas Chief or the Lone Star. Those old trains are important only to foamers.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will believe you on January 10, 2010, when I look at www.kslegislature.org . Once there, I will click on the House and Senate pre-filed bills.
If the Executive and NFA have done their job well, there will be pre-filed legislation. Waiting to the last day to file bills (either by an individual or a committee) is a bad idea.
Of course, right now, there's the small matter of getting the HSIPR grant apps into compliance by the deadline, so they have some hope of being above the line for funding. 12 chasing 1 is not the best of probabilities. Has anyone figured out Plan B if the Feddybux aren't there?
Plan for the worst, then expect the best.
ETA: Silly me. I should have read the press release on July 13 better. That 200K study? That's not what FRA requires. It's a pre-study. Kansas has to pony up from 250-500K more for the real study, depending on if it gets Feddybux for the study. (Cue Abbot and Costello! )
From the press release:
quote:A Track 3 pre-application was filed by KDOT for a $500,000 project to prepare a comprehensive Service Development Plan (SDP) for implementing state-supported Amtrak service between Kansas City and Oklahoma City. The SDP would build on the findings of the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study which is expected to be complete by the end of 2009. Among other topics, the SDP would include identifying capacity investments required to accommodate faster passenger trains on today’s heavily used freight only tracks. The Amtrak study was not intended to be detailed enough to serve as an SDP. An SDP will be required for KDOT to apply for potential HSIPR grants in the future, if funding is available. KDOT offered to contribute $250,000 to the cost of the project because these grants are not supported by ARRA funds and require at least a 50 percent match.
So, if there is legislation in 2010, it's in advance of the SDP ... and what's the Plan B funding for the SDP if Kansas doesn't get Feddybux? 250K is what Senator Dirksen called "real money" in terms of the current KS budget.
I think I'm going to move my optimistic start date to 2012, and my realisatic start date to 2014. I reserve the right to modify that after I see what happens next legislative season
quote:We want to make sure the Midwest is in front of the rest of the nation," said U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who joined Daley and the governors of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin at a high-speed rail summit.
Governors from those states, as well as Indiana, Minnesota and Missouri, signed the agreement.
Simple questions: Where was Governor Parkinson? Why wasn't Kansas on board?
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
First revenue estimates for FY11 (begins July 1, 2010) are $568 million below current enacted budget.
Memo to those who are advocating extended and expanded service: Work on the Kansas House, really hard. New expenditures are tough to get enacted in a declining revenue situation.
Edit 8/26: The Kansas House Appropriations Committee has already begun meeting on the FY2011 Kansas budget. They are trying to find hundreds of millions of dollars from the FY2010 budget to de-fund for FY2011.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kansas dropped its Track 1 and Track 3 apps on USDOT last Monday. The news release was Friday the 28th, and Kansas Public Radio reported it this morning.
The due date for the study is January 2011. That pretty well firms up my thought that the most likely start date for any extension of the Heartland Flyer, in any form, will be mid-2014.
Next step for those who want this is to sell the Kansas House. Without them, this will be an exercise in spending other people's money to no use.
quote:The work to be completed is the development of a Service Development Plan (SDP) that would follow the completion of the Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study (due to be completed in late 2009) that will analyze expanded new passenger rail service, over BNSF Railway track, between Netwon, KS and Oklahoma City, OK connecting the national Southwest Chief service with the regional Heartland Flyer service, as well as potential new service connecting the metroplexes of Kansas City and Dallas/Fort Worth.
Emphasis by bold italics added by me.
What I thought was the throwaway option (train from Dallas links up with 3/4 at 3AM in Newton) appears to be the endgame. Potential service, eh? Sounds to me like folks are doing this to check the block and get back to the roads.
I've said before and I say again: One a Day is a vitamin, not a method of operating passenger trains.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Obama administration will soon announce the recipients of grants from an $8 billion high-speed-rail fund. Almost 300 proposals have been received, collectively requesting more than $100 billion.
Does Kansas have a Plan B if the funding doesn't come through? 100 chasing 8. That's a 12.5 request to availability ratio.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
