From someone at the Norwalk (CT) Maritime Museum:

*************************

Transportation Museums Targeted in U.S. Senate


November 7, 2011 - The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to consider a transportation reauthorization bill, the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),” that would eliminate the current authorization category specifically dedicated to supporting transportation museums within the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program.


“Targeting transportation museums in this way represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the role that museums play in our communities,” said AAM President Ford W. Bell . “This is a misguided effort, especially if the goal of the legislation is to increase states’ flexibility in administering TE funds.”


Since 1992, the Transportation Enhancements Program has provided more than $110 million to support programs in transportation-related museums, and has allowed states and communities to rehabilitate bridges and tunnels, restore historic structures and revitalize local historic districts.


The Committee is scheduled to take up the bill for consideration on November 9 and we are continuing to monitor ongoing developments.


What can you do?


• Send a letter to your Senators today urging them to reject this proposal that unfairly targets transportation museums.
• Visit the Transportation Enhancements Clearing house for examples of TE grants in your state.
• Watch for further updates following the Committee’s consideration of the draft bill.


P.S. Please join us on Tuesday, November 8, at 2pm EST for a FREE Online Advocacy Training Program, “Your Secret Advocacy Weapon: Your Board.” Learn moreor Register Today.


Visit www.speakupformuseums.orgto learn more about advocacy for museums.

*************
Howard P.

I'm flabbergasted...............

............ flabbergasted that it took them this long to catch on, that is.

I don't care how much our avocation may have benefited from it. Paying for transportation museum projects out of Federal transportation dollars represents a fundamental misunderstanding in either what transportation infrastructure is, or the role of Federal dollars in transportation funding and "efficiency."

Agreed. The TE program should be and was intended to be used for actual transportation infrastructure, not museums that are clearly not a part of that infrastructure in any way, shape, or form.

Look at it this way: If you had to choose between fixing or replacing two bridges which connect the two halves of your town, which is divided by a busy railroad mainline, or repairing the buildings of a railroad museum in another state with the money that would have been used to repair or replace those bridges, which would you choose?

It was a totally inappropriate use of Federal transportation money to begin with. We have serious problems with our transportation infrastructure, and any taxpayer money should go toward actually addressing those problems.

I have a philosophical issue with Federal money being used for projects that benefit one specific community or area anyways. Federal money is supposed to support the country as a whole, state and local govts. can choose to support specific communities or projects within their jurisdictions.

Sorry that the responses aren't what you hoped, but maybe Americans are finally catching on to the new reality that we cannot continue working under the old model of tax and spend.

The way folks justify this in their minds is that the Feds take too much to begin with, so this is a way to get some back. This leads to 'government by blackmail' where the Feds tell a state, for instance, "lower your speed limit to 55MPH or no Federal highway funds for you." The Democrats obviously want this to continue, as they are hell bent of raising taxes yet again. The real solution is to cut what the Feds take, so they have less largeness to spread around.

I'm glad soooo many of you feel that way... That means you should be willing to support corporations and private companies who DO support our efforts.

To that end-- PLEASE take time to vote today for the $25,000 GRANT for the SE Narrow Gauge & Shortline Museum. We slipped back to #24 yesterday and need to be in the top 15-

This list has been disappointly quiet in its support for this effort, despite us being so highly ranked and given the reward--- Keep pushing!!! PLEASE vote 3 ways daily

a) http://pep.si/uInSz5 to vote via Facebook.
b) Text 109665 to phone number 73774!
c) Open a Pepsi account on their website and vote that way... They have been VERY good about not spamming folks...

DO IT , and SPREAD THE WORD!!!!

Matt Bumgarner

As many people found out in the early part of last year, most federal legislation is the proverbial sausage. In a prior life, I first encountered this with the "Small Business Job Protection Act" of 1996. Despite that noble sounding title, it had almost nothing to do with Small Business, Jobs or Protection. Instead, it contained a minimum wage increase, pension provisions and addressed the Uruguay Round Agreements (GATT treaty, I believe) and other "miscellaneous provisions", as I recall.

Even when the bill actually contains provisions that have some reasonable relationship to the title; its still likely to be the product of lobbyists and staffers. When Enron blew up, and our Congress wanted to be seen as "doing something", they passed Sarbanes Oxley (2002), very quickly, and with little debate with the final vote in the Senate being 90+ "yeahs". It didn't stop any of the issues of the last couple years, created a new and ineffective bureaucracy (PCAOB) and attempted to install airtight controls that can't be installed in smaller businesses due to lack of staff. Sox wasn't the product of insight gained from public hearings, it was derived from various wishlists such as those of the "Treadway Commission". Congress needed to appear engaged, and well, never let a good crisis go to waste, right?

I would think it would be more honest if they passed a law called the Railroad Museum Funding Act, because burying it it something else is bait and switch.

The real fact of the matter is money is driven by potential votes. We are far too tiny an advocation to deliver votes to legislators, so no matter whether you think this promotes the general welfare or not, federal funds will be conserved for programs that promise much deeper electoral wounds if restricted.

Having had personal experience with T-21 funding, my feelings aren't particularly hurt by it ending. The level of bureaucracy you have to deal with to actually receive the funding doubles the price of the project and triples the time required for completion. Anyone contemplating using "free" Federal money would probably be better off honing their fundraising skills and looking to the private sector.

It's interesting that bulk of response here has been what it has. I know there are some fellow right-wing radicals like myself who like to think in terms of Burke, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, Washington, and the rest of the true right-wing zealots we know as the Founding Fathers (yes, Burke, an Irishman, was "our man in Parliament," much as Zell Miller is "our man in the Democrat Party"). However, I was surprised that the response would be what it is considering the constituency of this program and the folks who dwell here...

Now if we'd just apply the same focus on the insane levels of spending in all other aspects of the federal government, we'd get somewhere. Frankly, in a discussion had on the Progressive Railroading board some months back, I pointed out that with the nearly 50 year failure of the federal DOT to accomplish its orginial mission of developing a cohesive national transportation policy to benefit all of us through smarter investments in infrastructure that meet national priorities, it is time to abolish the DOT. It has become nothing more than a regulatory nightmare and has not solved any problem it has been tasked with.

Museums and historical preservation are already covered under the Interior Department - one of the few that actually oversees the performance of Constitutionally sanctioned federal functions. If there needs to be a grant program, then it belongs there.

Mike

I'm not familiar with the TE (Transportation Enhancements) program. But will only say that some state and community restored structures are also part of the operating transportation infrastructure, and are important records of our civilization. When money rules the day, we lose places like Penn Station.

(photo courtesy wikipedia commons)

The way I read the first post in this string, this move to eliminate funding for transportation museums will NOT save taxpayers money or provide more money for roads. The Transportation Enhancement money is administered by the Federal Highway Administration, but cannot be used to fund actual highway improvements! Each state is appropriated a fixed amount of money. States develop a process to select and rank projects from one or more of 12 categories, including for example conversion of unused railroad rights-of-way to trails. I would assume each state uses up its allocation on a series of projects from various categories.

As I understand it, the number of project categories would just be reduced from 12 to 11 -- transportation museums would no longer eligible. But the other 11 would still be eligible and the full allocation for each state would now be spent on some combination of those 11.

Given the economic situation these days, a complete termination of the enhancement program is well worth considering and would save some money. Just elimiating one category does nothing to save anything.

Check out the 12 categories here and see which ones you think are worthwhile or should be cut.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/app_resc_ob.htm

Please change the site address mentioned in my post above to:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/index.htm

In a prior thread, it was stated that the Minnesota Transportation Museum benefited from ISTEA grants. Particularly, the Como-Harriet track was completely relaid.

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7431&p=34555

Just a friendly reminder that this is not the place for saying things like those Democrats/Republicans are up to no good nor debating or complaining about taxes.

From the guidelines:

• The INTERCHANGE'S primary purpose is to facilitate the exchange of information, advice, and suggestions, not to serve as a forum for debate.

Thank You!

Tom Gears
Moderator

"Primary", as opposed to "Sole" indicates that there are "secondary" purposes to the RYPN forum, and the occasional debate does no harm and should be allowed as a "secondary" purpose.

As political discussions go, the above thread has been extremely civil and well informed.