One thing I'd like to emphasize here..... the key word is ELIGIBLE.

That sure doesn't mean you'll get anything. If you don't have the solid support for your program at a local/state level, you're not getting anything. You're competing at the state level with every other enhancement-level project, and in most states that means the trails guys get the majority and the railroad guys get 2-3 projects statewide, if they are lucky. There are states that simply do not fund rail-related projects, period, eligible or not.

Then, it's not a full grant, it's 80-20, and somebody has to produce the match in REAL MONEY, no more 'in kind'...

Then, it's not a grant, it's reimbursement.

Then, it's only on items, etc., that are ELIGIBLE, as decided by National Register eligibility rules FOR THE STATE, which can get more than interesting if your project involves something that isn't historically significant to your state.

Then, it's capital costs only here, you're not getting operating funds out of this one.

Then, it is subject to the STATE public procurement laws at the DOT level in each state, which tosses in prevailing wage, bid requirements, etc., etc.

We've done several funded projects - big ones - and the clients are glad to get them, and pretty much exhausted by the process of getting there and getting paid. Anybody that thinks this is an easy handout needs to participate in the process. It's pretty well vetted by most states so that only the strong - and justifiable - survive. For many years the number of projects constructed vs. the number awarded was astounding, as so many couldn't get the match, bid the jobs, etc.

It would be nice if the funding came though another venue, but it needs to come from somewhere, and this process is sufficiently evolved now that it actually seems to be working for some big-ticket projects that otherwise have no recourse.

I agree, Aarne, from the internal perspective of the future legislative prospects of Transportation Enhancements. But I would suggest a different frame of reference, beyond TE, which casts this week's battle in a more serious light.

This is not Sen. Coburn's first run at museums. This past winter, he caught the whole field napping with a Senate floor amendment to strip museums, zoos and aquariums from eligibility for any project funding under the Stimulus Bill. Caught off guard, we lost on the Senate floor. In conference committee, we were able to get eligibility for museums back in, but not zoos and aquariums.

Having succeeded once, at least in part, we sense that Mr. Coburn has fixed his eye on the entire museum community across the Federal budget--not just transportation museums in the TE program--as this year's poster child for his campaign against what he considers wasteful spending. That frames this week's battle as a proxy fight for the legitimacy of any museum expenditures for Federal funding.

Yes, we could have lost today on a one-year TE appropriation in the Senate, and then got the money back in conference, and maybe even succeeded on TE reauthorization. But it would embolden the Senator to go after us again and again in other pockets of the budget.

In this context I found it highly interesting that Sen. Coburn pulled his fire in part on the Trails and Sustainable Development communities, which have a much better honed advocacy operation, in order in part to concentrate it more tightly on museums. This is the trend we want to break.

To sum up, I agree with you when it comes to TE--this was one broken serve in a longer tennis match just over TE. But beyond TE, from AAM's point of view, we are engaged in a proxy fight with Sen. Coburn over the very legitimacy of museums as recipients of Federal assistance in the form of project-specific grants through some form of competitive application process in any pocket of the budget. Those were the real stakes AAM saw this week.

And once more, heartfelt thanks again to all who chose to pitch in.

Out of curiosity has there been a peep from ARM or TRAIN on this subject?

ARM and TRAIN both did a great deal to mobilize members behind the scenes. I know that most of ARM's activity took the form of direct emails among the officers and members; I assume much the same is true for TRAIN. ARM is an official affiliate of AAM and the two organizations were in touch back-channel all week.

To its credit, the national office of the NRHS, utilizing quotes from ARM, sent out an email to its members and chapters as well.

Matt Bumgarner

Sen. Casey. My call was transfered to a voice mail system, which announced that the mailbox was full. I wonder how many of those overflow calls were in opposition to the Coburn amendment? I'll try him again in the morning.

Probably none.

In case you haven't heard PA's junior Senator (aka "Where's Bobby"), was one of 7 Senators who voted to continue funding for the noted tax advisory firm ACORN and he's now feeling the indignation of constituents.

I doubt that you'll find him anytime soon.

Just a couple notes...

If anyone can show me a federal government website that shows the stimulus / ISTEA / and/or transportation reauth funding that has gone to the Virginia and Truckee Re-con project, I'd be happy.

Often blocks of money are given to groups like Nevada Department of Transportation, which are then doled out.

Funny how the Carson City museum's applications were denied while the re-con V&T got money. You can't see the new V&T tracks except for the Hwy 50 crossing, so it's hard to see how this fits into the guidelines.

It's also funny to see NDOT generally claim that grants are limited to $600,000 while the V&T re-con got $3 million.

Finally, when someone can explain to me why the taxpayer in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Alaska should pay for a local tourism project that benefits Reno and Carson City, I'll shut up.

Thanks,

Jim Lohse

This all gets at the heart of why I raised the question in the first place. Yes, the money is generally going to good/worthy places, but far too often it appears, at least, that the money is won by either the politically astute or those skilled in grant-application writing, not necessarily on the merits or lack thereof. On the other hand, wouldn't the judgment be made more on the transportation merits of the program rather than just what is historically or culturally significant? Can I REALLY justify spending transportation tax dollars on a mule-hauled canal boat and canal repairs?



For the same general reason that taxpayers in Hawaii pay for an Interstate in Wyoming, taxpayers in Wyoming pay for a New York City transit project, and taxpayers in Florida pay for Alaskan ferries.

Oh, hold on a minute--we WERE talking TRANSPORTATION dollars, right? Suddenly, my head is spinning a bit.............

Here you go, at least for any transportation (ISTEA, NEXTEA, SAFETEA-LU) funds:

http://www.enhancements.org/projectlist.asp

I see one grant for V&T RR Reconstruction, 1994, $2,738,316.00

As for your broader question of why citizens in one state should spend money on a project in another, they go to questioning the basic wisdom of the highway trust fund mechanism, which is that funds collected via a national gas tax are returned, according to a formula which is not in exact proportion to collections, to state governments. State governments then determine detailed spending priorities on the State level. That's the way the highway trust fund works; sure, one can propose an alternate and probably better model, but this is the model Congress has given us.

And as for the relative merits of projects, all I can say is this: If the Metropolitan Musuem of Art wins a grant from a funder--say, IMLS--and the Museum of Modern Art does not, I have never yet seen a MoMA supporter decide that IMLS is not longer a good idea. Same for the Museum of Science and Industry and the Field Museum in Chicago. You see where I am going here--why would one or even a more than one individual allocation decisions one disagrees with lead one to no longer support a funding vehicle which is still important for the field as a whole? And which you can take another crack at in another year?

Thanks for digging that up, I assume the 1994 means the year 1994. That's funny for two reasons. First, it doesn't show several grants "given by Harry Reid" from 2003 to the present.

Second, the V&T Re-con folks claim that nothing really happened for the first ten years of the project because they didn't have any money. The project engineers claim all their work was for free until just a few years ago.

I had no idea they had these millions.

Now on your other point, yeah, if it's really a highway project I can see why fed funds go there. "Support of interstate commerce," etc, etc. But again, to fund a local tourism project that only benefits a few local cities? It still doesn't make sense to me.

As a project consultant told me when he was critical of the choice to build Class II when only Class I speeds can be attained, "it's entertainment, not interstate commerce."

This statement applies to the validity of funding this local project too. After all, the route between Virginia City is neither a heavily congested commuter corridor nor a vital economic link in the freight infrastructure. You can drive there in twenty minutes or take two hours to get there by train.

As alluded to in an earlier post, sometimes it really comes down to who is best connected to Harry Reid, while other projects go begging this unaccountable project is funded.

That's all from me on this subject, except for seeing this post I gave up following the V&T when I realized that no Nevada agency provides oversight on the project. Watching the local DA and the state Attorney General punt the football back and forth was a bit much for me.

Sorry if that's too much politics but this thread already seems fairly political. Signing off!

Jim Lohse

I was informed at the ARM meeting in Canada this past week that the Coburn amendment was defeated.

Regardless of how you feel about legislative pork barrel things, if it wasn't for the ISTEA and later TEA-21 grants our museum quite possibly would have had to cease operations due to poor track conditions.

Thanks!

How much success have you had using groups like the Foundation Center to apply for private grants?

JIm, some of us at the ARM meeting had our laptops with us and were monitoring this thread. If you and others look on page two of this thread you will find Erik Ledbetter's post of Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:44 am. That is the message that we were quoting about the defeat.

For a little historic clarification - the TEA-21 money that went to the V&T was specifically for filling in the Overman pit. That was the 2.7m. That was entirely engineered and administered by Nevada DOT. That dated back to at least 1994 - the project wasn't finally done/done until about three years ago, but the money was being held out of that funding until it was finished.

The additional reconstruction of the railroad has been financed by a bond issue financed by an additional sales tax on the involved counties. So it has been essentially a locally funded and controlled initiative.

Although they have asked for more state/federal monies to complete the project (and may get some) the lions share of the entire project has been sales tax funded. So that project really hasn't 'competed' against other heritage rail projects in the state in the last decade.

Nevada DOT, like all other states, has its own application and award procedure, and unlike many states, does its own engineering on TEA-21 projects - or at least they did for the Pit project. And if you're wondering how it ended up with a giant reinforced earth retaining wall and 136lb. rail, the only specification set they really had to work to was Union Pacific standards. There was at least some discussion of putting a real trestle back in there, but in the end it didn't happen even though the costs were actually very, very close.

Finally, always be aware that new issues develop when dirt flies. V&T was primarily being reconstructed on federal BLM-leased land, and the costs of mitigation of BLM access leases has been significant. In some cases, the only access into a leased parcel was the 'jeep trail' that had been the abandoned ROW. When the project is funded locally (rather than state or federal), there is very little leverage to mitigate that from and the costs of providing parcel access suddenly become an entirely new issue.

And in credit to the local firm that is doing the engineering, that is absolutely true - they have taken that project on pro-bono for years to hang on long enough to finally actually get paying work from the bond issue.

Randy, I just want to correct what you said above. First, there have been two failed votes to approve a local sales tax to fund the project. Since these votes were non-binding, the Carson City Supervisors were not prevented from implementing a sales tax years after the first non-approval.

The second vote failed with 61% saying "no new taxes." The other sales tax revenue comes from Storey County and only amounts to a couple million over the life of the project.

The "lions share" of local money comes from a room tax from the Carson City Convention and Visitor's Bureau -- again not approved by the voters.

And the final correction, the "lions share" of the money is not local. There has been at least 15 million of federal funding. The board is currently looking for $20 million from the highway reauthorization this year.

So to be accurate, the only local money ever approved is the pittance paid from Storey County sales tax. The other local taxes were instituted without voter approval.
Harry Reid is given credit for 15-20 million of fed funds out of the 40 million spent so far.

All this for a project originally budgeted at $10 million for construction and $10 million for a trainset. All this for a project where original claims were that most money would be raised privately.

Finally, this project which Trains Magazine pegged as a $64 million project was being sold as a $28 million project to the Nevada Legislature as recently as 2005.