BeachSiO2
Beach Fanatic
Let me see if I am following correctly:
Bad - accepting federal money to build a high speed train system in an area that has been preparing its infrastructure for it
Because future usage is uncertain and there are big capital outlays.
Good - spending $$$ to deepen a port
Even though it hinges on a foreign project that isn't complete, future usage is uncertain, and there are big capital outlays.
Good Gravy .
For the ports and shipping industry, which is still the number 1 way we receive imports, losing the Panamax battle cannot be understated. While I completely support the use of alternative transportation, we are talking apples and oranges when comparing economic impact this time. Talk about a Race to the Top, these port upgrades are of immense economic benefit to not only the state but the region and the nation. This is not speculation and the ports have to move quickly to be ready. Also, the ports have been preparing for these projects just like the high speed rail groups have been preparing for their projects.
What's missing is that they are two COMPLETELY different pots of money- highway, surface transportation monies vs Corps of Engineers money. I know some will say it's still our money/federal money. My point is that the monies come from different appropriations bills so they don't directly compete. Congress and the Administration can deem both of national significance and fund them separately.
