Why Upstate New York Got the Shaft on High Speed Rail Funding

Today President Obama and Vice President Joe "Amtrak" Biden were in Tampa to announce how the $8 billion in stimulus funds for high speed rail projects would be allocated. Leading up to the event States were able to submit applications for the funds and the Department of Transportation would decide who to award them to based upon a number of criteria. Unfortunately, we here in Upstate New York got a much lower share of the funds than we had applied for. Overall New York State received $151 million out of a requested $564.8 million. The question now remains, why we were not granted the full amount we requested? And the answer boils down to one simple point: New York State has neglected to invest it's own money in our rail network.

All of the state's that received more stimulus money than New York (mainly California, Illinois, Washington, and Flordia), have already dedicated their own funds to projects that received federal dollars. In California for instance, voters last year approved a $10 billion bond measure to raise money to construct their high speed rail system. In Florida, Republican Governor Charlie Crist got a bill passed to invest over $1 billion in rail transportation within the state. Wisconsin, who received over $800 million in funds, had already signed an agreement to buy new rolling stock for high speed service in the state. And these are just a few examples of other state's investing in their rail networks.

In New York we have not, and did not, show any interest in spending any of our own funds to construct a high speed rail line through Upstate during the allocation process. I understand that the State is in a dire fiscal situation, but if we at least put up some of the funds for the our project, the Federal Government would have been willingly to give us more money. From the Federal DOT's perspective, in five years they will now be able to say that they helped construct a high speed line from Tampa to Orlando, one from Chicago to St. Louis, and had a hand in starting construction on California's, even though they only put up part of the funds for the projects. If they invested the $564.8 million in New York, sure we would see improved service, but Ray LaHood (Transportation Secretary) would not be able to claim that his Agency was a part of accomplishing something impressive.

If we are going to be serious about building a high speed rail line through Upstate, the State needs to begin to take the leadership role in not only planning the project, but funding it as well. As has been demonstrated by the Federal DOT today, we no longer can plan a project and expect it to be completed through Federal hand outs.

With this in mind, lets look at our proposed project in more detail:

The current proposal would build a new third track along the two currently operating through our region. This third track would allow for passenger trains to operate on their own dedicated track, without the interference of freight trains. The current two lines running through our area used to be four, up until the 1960's when New York Central tore up two of the tracks to save money on right of way taxes. This means that we already have the land for two more sets of tracks. Once the third line is built operating speeds of trains on the line would be increased to at least 110 MPH (which I will point out is much faster than a car on the Thruway). The overall estimated cost of the project is $1.2 billion.

This project turns out to be one of the easiest to construct in the nation, and here is why:

-We already own the right away for a new track. Thus, all we are doing is rebuilding one of the two defunct tracks.

-We already have the passenger train infrastructure in place. The most expensive parts of other high speed rail proposals is building new stations, buying new train sets, and other necessities that come with new passenger service. All we have to do is upgrade the service components of the system to handle more passengers, such as having more ticket booths, more convienences in our stations, etc. And all of this means more sales tax revenue for local communities where stations are located.

-The project can be built in sections. Since all we are doing is adding a third track, it makes it possible to construct the project in sections, starting with the areas that have the worst delays or the most freight traffic. This means that if the State is not able to come up with all of the $1.2 billion price tag at once, they can construct it a section at a time, bringing real speed increases to the corridor, without breaking the State's finances with a large one-time expenditure.

-The beginnings of the project are already being constructed. Sure we lost out on a majority of the funding we could have had, but the funding we did receive is going towards essential improvements, such as double tracking a stretch of track between Albany and Schenectady, where all trains have to wait for 18 minutes if a train is coming in the other direction, leading to delays for all.

-It is incredibly cheap. When compared to other proposals around the country, such as California's $42 billion system, this is a bargain.

So the project has a lot of merit, but our current strategy for constructing it seems to have fallen apart now that we have not received federal money. But there is another way in which we can see this line through to fruition:

We can begin constructing it in sections funded through the DOT's general infrastructure improvement budget. So that initial $1.2 billion could be broken down to $240 million a year over five years. When put in these terms, this project seems a lot more reasonable and would give the State more financial breathing room should we have another financial meltdown in the next five years. All that would need to be done is to have the amount allocated to the DOT's budget be increased by $240 million and those funds be spent directly on the project, instead of the messy political battles that have been taking place in the public sphere over large-scale projects. It would also ensure that the construction jobs that are created would be there for at least five years, meaning steady employment for a large number of people.

So we do have options to proceed with this project even though we did not receive as much funding as we had requested from the Federal DOT. But the question now remains to be seen whether or not New York State will finally take a leadership role in funding the line, as opposed to wasting tax payers money by continually studying it (as has been done countless times now). And I sincerely hope that the State begins the process of finding the funds for this line, for Upstate has been given too many promises of new economic development tools over the years, with few ever coming to fruition.

Consolidations! Consolidations! Consolidations!

It seems as though the trendy thing for local governments to do these days is to make it appear as though they are saving tax payers money through the consolidation of services. And this makes sense given the current financial situation we are in and our local officials wanting to score political points by looking pro-active. I don't mean to come off as cynical and make it sound as if our local elected officials aren't working hard on consolidation issues, rather I mean to point out that what they have been working on is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to waste that we see in the massive amount of local governmental entities we have here in New York State.

The latest talks may take place between the Village of Mohawk and the Town of German Flatts. The Evening Telegram is reporting that Mohawk has approved a resolution to begin talks with the Town to merge their respective fire departments. The Town will vote on a similar resolution on Wednesday night. Legal fees involved with the consolidation process would most likely be picked up by a State grant, as the State is actively promoting the consolidation of local government services as much as possible.

First off, I don't think I even have to point out how ridiculous it seems that within the Town of German Flatts, which has a population of only 13,629, there lie three different fire companies; Mohawk, Ilion, and German Flatts. Three different companies that have to purchase equipment and maintain their firehouses, both activities that cost the tax payer money. So on the surface it seems logical begin the process of merging these institutions.

So, the question I present to you is: why can't consolidations go farther than this? Instead of having three fire companies that cover the Town, why not merge all three into one unit and have that operate out of both the Mohawk and Ilion Fire Stations. This would save the taxpayers even more money, while providing the same level of service that is provided now. It may even stream line the ability for fire fighters to respond to major incidents; instead of having to activate another fire company for a large blaze they could then simply call more of their own men in.

So, kudos to Mohawk and, hopefully, German Flatts for agreeing to begin the process of consolidating their fire departments in an effort to save the tax payer money! It is consolidations of these types that will begin to, albeit slowly, bring down the cost of local government. My challenge for other local governmental officials is to begin to find ways to realize larger tax savings through consolidations. Yes there have been steps in the right direction, but moves such as; Ilion and Little Falls sharing of a Fire Chief; Mohawk and Herkimers sharing of a Police Chief; and many of the schools sharing personnel such as business managers, miss the overall point that we need more concrete consolidations such as is being proposed by Mohawk and German Flatts. If our region is to prosper once more we need to significantly lower the burden on the tax payer for local services, and that means making real consolidations.

Paterson V. Drug Companies

It seems as though I could start a new series entitled "Paterson V. ..." with the amount of battles that he is attempting to wage in recently. For Paterson, this strategy of taking on issues that no politician with hopes of re-election would throw their political capital behind, may actually play to his favor as the 2010 race begins to heat up (it most likely won't get red hot until after April 1st when the budget debate "should be over"). At this point in time Paterson's image in the mind of most New Yorkers is that of an ineffective, unelected, unpopular governor. But, with this image, it allows him to take on special interests knowing that without some sort of "magic bullet", if you will, he will never get elected in November. So enter his newest foe: Pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Paterson has announced new regulations to be put upon interactions between doctors and pharmaceutical companies, the Times Union is reporting. He claims that doctors are being unduly influenced to prescribe their patients with expensive drugs that may not even be necessary due to the "perks" that drug companies are giving to them. It is a well known fact that drug companies are constantly bombarding doctors with gifts, "swag" (who doesn't have a Viagra pen), and their own versions of fact sheets, and Paterson argues that his has led doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs, which raises health care costs to all.

The main benefit touted by Paterson is Medicare/Medicaid savings, as doctors will be less likely to prescribe expensive drugs for patients if there is a cheaper alternative. The plan is being supported by AARP, which also believes that it will cut costs.

This move is also not unprecedented as nine other states already have regulations in place against drug companies giving gifts to doctors. If caught breaking the regulations, the drug companies could face a fine of between $15,000 to $250,000 and the doctors could face a fine between $5,000 to $10,000 per violation.

So what does this mean to the average person?

-At the very least, one could rest at ease when being prescribed medication knowing that it is exactly what is needed, as opposed to being given a drug simply because a company has influenced the doctor to prescribe such and such amount of a particular drug.

-It also means that you will be more likely to be prescribed a cheaper generic version of a drug, as opposed to the name brand version that would be peddled by drug companies now.

-It could lead to cost savings for taxpayers if doctors actually do change their prescribing habits as medicare and medicaid patients will be getting less expensive drugs.

So overall this bill, if enacted, would put a consumer protection into place that will give us all a better piece of mind while at the doctors, as well as saving the tax payer money. Kudos to Paterson for even picking this fight in an election year, for it is one that morally is the right thing to do, but he is going up against a power special interest group in the drug companies. The success or failure of this proposal, however, will come down to how entrenched the drug companies are in the legislature (I can guarantee you that James Seward will not be voting for this with the amount of health care industry money that he receives).

Once again Paterson's strategy of picking fights with special interests that pit the "moral high ground", against the special interest groups continues, and a vote on this by the legislature will show who has the drug companies slipping money into their pockets.

Paterson V. Unions Round II

Its that time of year again folks! The opening of budget season is upon us and already we see the epic struggle between a, dare I say it, lame duck governor with nothing to lose, and the public employee's unions. The Times Union has recently reported on Paterson's repeated call for union employees to give up their 4% contractual salary increase for next year, which would save the cash strapped state $252 million. Paterson attempted to get the same concession out of the unions last year over their scheduled 3% raise, but instead decided to negotiate a longer term deal to save the state $30 billion over the next 30 years by having the unions support his new Tier V pension plan in exchange for a no layoff guarantee, as opposed to the immediate savings that would have come from dropping the pay increase. Personally I feel as if this was a smart move by Paterson, while it did nothing to help our immediate financial situation, he set the stage for a more efficient State workforce in the future and had vision in this decision, something that most politicians these days lack.

It is now not known if Paterson will be able to get the unions to reopen their contracts in order to get rid of the scheduled 4% pay increase since he seems to have lost his largest bargaining chip, which was that he could implement the Tier V retirement plan without the unions getting anything in return.

So now we come down to the nitty gritty of the situation, how does one deal with government employees and their generous contracts that were written in times of economic prosperity? First off, the current status of negotiations between Paterson and the unions shows anyone that unions are an important instrument in protecting employees interests as those State employees who are not unionized were not given raises last year and were subject to layoffs.

This being said, I also feel as though since these are employees that are working for the government, and indirectly for all of us the taxpayers, the unions representing them should have an interest in doing what is best for the people of New York State as a whole. And right now, that is giving up a scheduled 4% pay increase. Reopening contract negotiations is always risky and nerve wracking business, but the unions should realize that the only reason that they are able to keep those raises is due to the fact that they work for the government, who has the ability to raise more money through taxes, or borrow it, if it absolutely has to. Thus meaning, that state employees "greed", if you will and this term is negotiable since they are hard working individuals who have earned these raises, needs to be balanced against a sense of working for the greater good. Their private sector counterparts most likely have not seen an increase in the past two years.

This also plays into my recent feelings that we as a nation need to all come together and see the greater good, rather than fighting for our own self-interests. If Paterson is not able to get the unions to agree to give up their 4% increase then the State will be in worse shape than before, and not just that, it will make all of us less off because we will need to come up with $252 million in extra taxes in a time of unprecedented financial pain.

For these State employees they should not loose sight of the fact that they work for the people of New York. This means doing what is in the best interest of the State of New York. If that means giving up a 4% raise now, in order to get one in 2 or 3 years when the economy improves then so be it, because we will all be better off down the road if this is done. 4% is a large amount, but your overall standard of living is not going to diminish exponentially because you are earning the same amount next year as you did this year. During these trying economic times the budget process in Albany should be focused upon about doing what is necessary for the greater good of the Empire State, not how we can all benefit the most out of it.

Two Large Hurdles Cleared for Hardscrabble Wind Farm

It appears as though the end may be in sight for the nearly six year saga that has been the permitting process of the Hardscrabble Wind Farm that will be located in the towns of Fairfield and Norway. On the 14th the Fairfield Town Board voted to accept the State Environmental Review and allow the project to go forward, while the Norway Town Planning Board voted last night to allow the project to go forward. This means that the only steps left before construction can begin are for the Industrial Development Agency to sign off on the PILOT agreement and for the Town's to decide on a Town Engineer to oversee construction.

This is fantastic news for the County as the project is estimated to bring in over $11.8 million for Town, School, and County coffers over the next twenty years. This is a sizable amount of money that will be divided amongst the towns (40%), the school district (40%), and the County (20%). With all of the dire budgetary news coming out of local governments recently, this should help to balance the books a little more. This is especially true at the County level as Stimulus aid for Health Care spending will run out next year, just as this project is estimated to come online.

Another positive impact of this project is that it will serve as a giant shining example to all that our region is ready to progress into the 21st century. In my previous post I delved into the realm of public opinion and came to the conclusion that we need to find ways to begin to allow people to be proud of what our area has to offer, and here is a direct example of something that we can point to. It will also make people begin to think about their environmental impact more, as they will see these reminders of the measures that need to be done in order to bring about a more sustainable future. It is easy to forget about environmental issues when all you see are individuals in SUVs driving around everywhere, but when you see one of these towers it makes you think twice, if only subconsciously, about your impact on the earth. And who knows, this could lead to some more environmental initiatives being taken by our political leaders as they see this as a way to promote economic development.

So Kudos to the Towns of Fairfield and Norway for approving this project that will have a positive impact on all in the County.

Gillibrand Putting up Strong Numbers against Outsider Ford

Senator Kirstin Gillibrand, who some pointed out as a potential weak incumbent in 2010, is out-polling primary challenger and fake-New Yorker Harold Ford according to a new poll by Marist.

I can recall back to when Senator Hillary Clinton accepted a position as the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration. It was that move which first thrust Governor David Paterson into the national spotlight as he had the daunting task of appointing Clinton's interim successor. This website was one of the many upstate voices advocating against New Yorker(?) Caroline Kennedy receiving the nod, and we were ecstatic when upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand was named the first Upstate Senator in over a century.

Gillibrand is leading Ford by 43% to 24% in the poll. It should be noted that 33% of primary voters are still unsure about which of the candidates they will support. Ford trails heftily in the upstate region of New York 50% to 23%, a figure which I feel will become even more lopsided as this election approaches. Upstate voters have their first voice in a while in the United States Senate, and I believe we need to work to keep that voice.

Even going beyond the Upstate-Downstate divide, Ford isn't even a down stater as other New York State Senators have been, he is not a New Yorker at all. Upstate and Downstate should come together to reject Ford, and send a message to other wealthy aspiring politicians: We are not willing to sell our Senate Seats in New York to the highest bidder.

Paterson comes out against Ethics Bill: Right Move, Wrong Time

(Before I get going on this, we've admittedly been slow the past few months due to all of us being very busy personally, and we are looking to turn this around. We could always use more help writing. Contact me at jeffreypritchard@herkimerprogressive.com for more details on that)

The State Senate had finally come forth with an Ethics Reform compromise, and now it appears that the bill is Dead on Arrival. Governor David Paterson has said that this bill, although containing some redeeming provisions, is lacking the legislative oversight which he believes necessary. Ethics reform has been at the forefront of Paterson's mind the past few months (as the OD reported he mentioned ethics repeatedly in the State of the State, while failing to mention the Mohawk Valley whatsoever), so it comes to a surprise to some that he would be quick to kill a bill which would take steps forward on Ethics. Looking at this issue from a policy-wonk standpoint, I do agree with the Governor, this is a bill that fails to go ahead with the checks on legislators which I believe are needed in State Government. However, I think Paterson needs to understand that to the everyday New Yorker Ethics reform of the Legislature is the furthest thing from their mind.

The economic crisis we find ourselves in the middle of is all that the electorate is currently thinking about, and with good reason. When a New Yorker is sitting at home trying to figure out how they are going to pay this month's bills, they are not thinking about ethics reform in the legislature. I would like to stress again, that on a policy level, the Governor is spot on. However, for a Governor who is fighting for his political life (which recent polls may suggest is a fight in vain) is battling it out over ethics in the midst of our financial woes a smart move?

If Paterson is serious about vetoing this bill, which reports indicate he is, then I think this should be the end of him mentioning ethics reform whatsoever. He can not continue to fight for an issue that will fail to resonate with voters in the upcoming election season, he needs to seem more proactive on handling this fiscal crisis.

I do and always have been supportive of the Governor, time and time again in conversations with angry New York voters I've tried to defend the Governor. Splitting hairs on ethics reform is going to make it increasingly difficult to defend an already unpopular Governor.

Afterthought: With Paterson trailing against the apparent GOP candidate Lazio according to Rasmussen, and with Cuomo defeating Lazio by double digits, is it time to turn up the heat on Cuomo to run, and turn up the heat on Paterson to step aside? I mean, Governor Rick Lazio? Scary.

The Herkimer County Progressive Turns 2!

With the ushering in of 2010 also comes the second birthday of the site!  I'm very proud of what the site has become from the beginning of 2008 to now.  Brendan, Tom and Will have added a diversity in the opinion heard on the site, and new enthusiasm which I hope can only grow in 2010.  Although I'm well aware the posting came to a halt for the very end of 2009, I can assure you the site will be ripe with new news and opinion for the rest of 2010, and we'll continue to be your spot to read about and discuss local political happenings.

Thank you guys so much for reading the past two years, and we hope to have you continue reading for the year.

-Jeff