I received this from a member who has the ear of the Nevada Congressional deligation,
"What changes would you like to see to the ISTEA funding to improve the rail facility. As far as I know we can not purchase any land, facilities,
rolling stock nor can we une funding to renovate machinery/rolling stock."

As a group what changes would we want to see?
Thanks,
Mark

nnry1@mwpower.net

Might want to check out that information Mark. It would come as quite a surprise to many on this list if the ISTEA / TEA21 funds they used for restoration of rolling stock was in fact illegal. Perhaps Nevada has a different set of standards?

Dave

"Perhaps Nevada has a different set of standards?"

Every state has different rules for the "Transportation Enhancement" part of the Surface Transportation Program. Federal law permits use of this federal highway aid for "establishment of transportation museums" and "historic preservation," which is sufficient for railway preservation purposes, if states choose to make it available. This is not likely to change when the bill comes up for reauthorization, on which debate is now beginning.

Aarne H. Frobom
The Steam Railroading Institute
P. O. Box 665
Owosso, Michigan 48867

> As a group what changes would we want to
> see?

As a group we probably want to preserve the status quo.

As an individual, I want to see up stop this sleight of words and start calling a spade a spade. ISTEA monies spent on railroad preservation projects have little to NOTHING to do with the actual stated purpose of the Act--improving surface transportation options with Federal funds. Instead, with the help of bureaucrats, we have perverted the supposed purpose of the Act and turned it into what amounts to a giant pork-barrel trough, ripe for examination by NBC's "The Fleecing of America" or worse.

Yes, it's nice to see money flowing to a field we all know and love, for once, as opposed to "necessary evils" like the military, highway projects, Senator Byrd's latest toy, or [insert your favorite whipping boy here]. I just wish we were able to do it under the guise of historic preservation under something like a National Trust (like Scotland has), or used our monies directly instead of funneling it through a bunch of bureaucrats first to let them skim off their share.

LNER4472@bcpl.net

> I received this from a member who has the
> ear of the Nevada Congressional deligation,
> "What changes would you like to see to
> the ISTEA funding to improve the rail
> facility. As far as I know we can not
> purchase any land, facilities,
> rolling stock nor can we une funding to
> renovate machinery/rolling stock."

> As a group what changes would we want to
> see?
> Thanks,
> Mark

Personally, I'd like to see the ability to spend it on planting flowers eliminated. The local TEA-21 board has a bunch of damned gardeners on it who want to spend all the money on planting flowers on the Interstates. I like flowers, but that's not improving transportation. I'd like to see the regs tightened up so the money cannot be spent on anything connected to a highway, UNLESS that project directly benefits non-highway transit, such as eliminating a highway-rail crossing or suchlike.

I'd also like to see more lenient rules for matches. The rules for what materials you can use for a match are relatively loose now, but I'd like to see them even more so.

mconrad@compuzone.net

Didn't quite get your feelings from your post Sandy - could you be a bit less subtle?

I believe the majority of ISTEA funds actually do real DOT type things and just a small portion of them called "Enhancements" is available for such things as historic preservation, billboard removal, beautification, etc. In actuality, we get the tiniest bit of the tiniest bit of the total package.

Dave

it is administered by the Texas Department of Transportation, which is another name for the Highway Department and Truckers Lobby. Texas will fund rebuilding a RR depot for the little old ladies sippin' and sangin' society to meet in, but if you show up with a real project to save a to be abandoned RR, tough noogies, they ain't in that business.

Lousiana is as bad except they used theirs to fund the restoration of an engine with no place to run, or cars to pull. They wouldn't even talk to the Museum at Long Leaf, which is as close to the EBT of the South as anything else you'll find.

lorija799@aol.com

folks,

count your blessings! Those of you that live in small population states seem to be the ones who got TEA-21 money for railroad preservation projects.

Here in California, there has been only one project so funded: a railroad station rehab.
The state agency CALTRANS, the roadbuilders has a lock on the money and will not let go!

My museum has tryed twice and been turned cold both times. Some of you in the other states have done well with the money. I hope for the sake of railroad preservation the Act is renewed when it comes up again.



ted_miles@nps.gov

Since posting the statement above, I've learned that it's been proposed to liberalize the match requirement for the "Enhancement" program. At present, recipients of these handouts must pay at least 20 per cent of the federally-assisted part of the cost in their own cash. In-kind contributions can't be counted. One alternative might be to accept in-kind help, such as volunteer labor. Another might be to apply the 20-per-cent requirement at the statewide level as an average, and not hold individual grant recipients to it.

Museum managers and taxpaying motorists should expect more kinds of projects to be eligible, increasing the competition for this aid from the bicycle and billboard brigades. It is usual for federal handout programs to grow in scope, not shrink. For example, under the TEA-21 highway bill, the largest recipients of assistance for international border-crossing highways were Arkansas and West Virginia.

Aarne Frobom
National Motorists' Association
Oops, got my causes confused. I mean
The Steam Railroading Institute
P. O. Box 665
Owosso, Michigan 48867-0665

> Didn't quite get your feelings from your
> post Sandy - could you be a bit less subtle?

Ask anyone here who reads and knows me--subtlety ain't in my lexicon except when I'm trying to be funny. (We Scots have a penchant for understatement.)

> I believe the majority of ISTEA funds
> actually do real DOT type things and just a
> small portion of them called
> "Enhancements" is available for
> such things as historic preservation,
> billboard removal, beautification, etc. In
> actuality, we get the tiniest bit of the
> tiniest bit of the total package.

*Absolutely agreed. And even to that end, I have no problem with ISTEA or other Federal money helping with, for example, the restoration of a station to serve Amtrak and bus patrons, or the renovation of a historic-yet-functional trolley transit line, or even the rehabilitation of a potential freight/tourist line like the Strasburg or Wilmington & Western. I'm open-minded, but no so much that my brains fall out.


lner4472@bcpl.net

You've got to remember that this is politics. And politics can be local.

California changed the way it administered the money prior to the current program. Local transportation agencies, such as county transportation commissions, instead of CALTRANS decide the local projects to fund. In Riverside County the funding priorties was set by an advisorary group made up of the city engineers; and then approved by the county commission made up of the County Supervisors and all of the city mayors.

As it worked out every incorporated community in the County got a project. Some of the larger communities got more than one. I guess everyone went away happy.

bnorden49@earthlink.net

I just have to ask, what international borders in Arkansas and West Virginia. Maybe there is one in Nevada that I don't know about.
Thanks

For
> example, under the TEA-21 highway bill, the
> largest recipients of assistance for
> international border-crossing highways were
> Arkansas and West Virginia.

> Aarne Frobom
> National Motorists' Association
> Oops, got my causes confused. I mean
> The Steam Railroading Institute
> P. O. Box 665
> Owosso, Michigan 48867-0665


nnry1@mwpower.net

> folks,

> count your blessings! Those of you that live
> in small population states seem to be the
> ones who got TEA-21 money for railroad
> preservation projects.

> Here in California, there has been only one
> project so funded: a railroad station rehab.

Not true. Our roundhouse restoration project in San Jose received a $1M ISTEA grant; unfortunately, the money has not been spent due to varying local issues. Former SP 4-6-2 steam locomotive #2479 and the roundhouse components are owned by the Santa Clara County. Last June, the county Board of Directors voted to recind the use of the fairgrounds for our museum location. On April 8th, county staff is scheduled to make a recommendation to the board regarding another location for the project. It is unknown what that recommendation and subsequent BOS vote will be. Nonetheless, the status of the original ISTEA grant is unclear.

kamiddle@rockwellcollins.com

The federal transportation bill, TEA-21, is a many tentacled beast, with mechanisms galore to fund surface transportation. Usually in our circle when we say TEA-21 (or ISTEA, its predecessor) we are actually referring to the Transportation Enhancements Program (TEP). However, TEA-21 may have other means to fund your project.

Here at the Trolley Museum of New York, we've been applying for TEP money for years without success. However, we made one application to the Recreation Trails Program (RTP) and got $69,500 (federal portion). Admittedly, RTP is more restrictive than TEP in the projects it can support, but if your railroad has some adjacency to a qualifying trail project, look into it.

Another funding mechanism is the Federal Transit Administration. Normally you think of the FTA as funding mass transit systems in the largest urban areas. However, there is a trickle of FTA money to rural areas (like we are in Kingston NY) and sometimes they look for creative ways to spend the money. I understand FTA monies are directly allocated to projects, and there is no competitive application process like there is with TEP and RTP. We are currently working with our congressman to see if he can pry loose a tiny piece of FTA money when TEA-21 is reauthorized this Fall.