Culver Signs Bill to help Bring Passenger Rail to Iowa

Governor Culver signed a bill into law that would make it easier for passenger rail expansion to occur in the state. The bill would make it easier for the state to into regional agreements that would help passenger rail expand throughout the midwest.

The Governor signed the legislation at a former railroad station in Davenport, a community seeking to attract passenger rail service that would connect with Chicago.

“Passenger rail service is a key component to our state’s economic development efforts,” said Governor Culver. “By making it easier to connect between our state and key cities throughout the Midwest and the nation, we can attract new companies and bring new jobs to Iowa. This legislation, along with our other efforts this legislative session, puts us in the position to bring new lines to Iowa, and I look forward to continuing our work to bring passenger rail to Iowa.”

Senate File 151 includes several provisions related to freight and passenger rail service. The bill eliminates the Iowa Railway Finance Authority and transfers the responsibilities for the administration of the Rail Revolving Loan and Grant Fund and Passenger Rail Service Revolving Fund to the Department of Transportation. In addition, the bill removes the maximum threshold that applies to grants in the Rail Revolving Loan and Grant Program, and expands the Director of Transportation’s authorization to enter into agreements related to passenger rail service.

Related articles by Zemanta

• High-Speed Rail: Richard Florida Weighs In (treehugger.com)

Stimuls Plan has $9.3 billion for Rail

Yesterday, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The stimulus plan includes $9.3 billion for rail in the nation.

Last week at Bleeding Heartland, there was a great post that tells how this money might be spent in the midwest to expand passenger rail service.

I think it is worth noting that not only is there substantial support for high speed passenger rail in Congress (the original amount was $3 billion in the House and $2.25 billion in the Senate - apparently somebody in the conference committee likes us), but there is broad support among the public. Out here in the Midwest, we have been working to gain support and funding for a high speed passenger rail network, with its hub in Chicago. This system would provide high speed service to St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison, the Twin Cities and Omaha. For a little context, the trip from Omaha to Detroit is approximately a quarter of the width of the continental 48 states. [...]

What is even more impressive to me is how rail can really be a model for how to actually engage diverse players in building a sustainable economy. Here in Iowa, we are building a coalition of labor, business and youth organizations (in addition to the traditional environmental groups) to work together on getting high speed passenger rail approved this year. And we're not just talking liberal groups either. For example Jan Michaelson, a local conservative talk show host, had nothing but good things to say about rail when Andrew Snow from Iowa Global Warming joined his show this week. Talk about finally moving past partisanship - rail is one of the clearest vehicles to make this a reality (no apologies for the pun).

There are plenty of issues that can build a diverse base of support, but the thing is, high speed rail visibly makes lots of people's lives easier. Upgrading building efficiency largely goes unnoticed except for electricity bills; people don't see the wind energy powering their homes. But talk about saving yourself the hassle of driving several hours, not having to drive through traffic, and oh, did I mention that rail is about 3 times as efficient as driving and 6 times as efficient as flying. Oh, and hundreds to thousands of jobs will be created through construction and operation.

Iowa needs to work to make Des Moines a hub. Des Moines could connect Chicago and Omaha and Minneapolis and Kansas City (and eventually to Oklahoma City and Dallas). That would mean moving the Amtrack line out of southern Iowa. This would hurt the area, but there is a far great population in Iowa City/Cedar Rapids and Des Moines/Ames. Think about all the college students that could take the train home to Chicago or to the big city for a weekend trip or to visit other universities with exchange programs.

Culver holding rail event in DSM on Saturday

From Iowa Global Warming...

GOVERNOR’S TRAIN DAY SPECIAL WILL ROLL INTO DES MOINES SATURDAY
 
DES MOINES – Governor Chet Culver will mark National Train Day this Saturday by bringing the Governor’s Train Day Special from Valley Junction in West Des Moines into downtown Des Moines, where he will hold a public event with local leaders and transportation officials promoting the benefits of passenger rail to the state, and read a proclamation declaring National Train Day in Iowa.
 
“Restoring passenger rail service to some of Iowa’s largest cities has been one of my key priorities as governor,” said Governor Culver.  “I look forward to leading this special train into Des Moines on Saturday, and highlighting the economic benefits of passenger rail to our state.  I invite Iowans to come to downtown Des Moines Saturday and celebrate National Train Day in Iowa.”
 
National Train Day is designed to highlight the need for expanded passenger rail service across the country.  Iowa currently is served by two passenger trains – the California Zephyr and Southwest Chief – both of which serve southern Iowa.  Efforts have been taken in recent years to bring passenger rail service back to other portions of the state, with current proposals to bring service to Dubuque, the Quad Cities and Iowa City and longer term plans to bring service to other communities such as Des Moines and West Des Moines.
 
To help spur efforts, Governor Culver’s signature legislative accomplishment – the I-JOBS Initiative -- includes $10 million for multi-modal transportation projects in Iowa, including $3 million for expanded passenger rail service in the state.  In addition, the Iowa Department of Transportation will be competing for federal passenger rail funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  All of these steps position Iowa to work with Illinois and Amtrak to bring new passenger rail lines to the state that connect more Iowa communities with Chicago.
 
The Governor’s Train Day Special is being provided thanks to the generous efforts of the Iowa Interstate Railroad, Ltd., and logistical support has been provided by the Greater Des Moines Partnership.  The Governor’s event will coincide with the Downtown Farmers Market, a popular summer event that features locally made goods and products.
 
Saturday, May 9, 2009
 
WHAT:               Governor Culver will celebrate National Train Day by leading the Governor’s Train Day Special for a special ceremony in Downtown Des Moines
 
WHERE:            Outside Des Moines Historic Depot
                           4th Street South of Court Avenue
                           Des Moines, IA
 
WHEN:                10:00am

Rail is a High Priority in Obama's Budget

A story heard on the campaign last fall was how Joe Biden took Amtrak home to Delaware from Washington DC each night. That commitment to passenger rail has made it into the budget proposals.

From the Washington Post...

High-speed rail has emerged as the cornerstone of Obama's ambitious attempt to remake the nation's transportation agenda, which for half a century has focused primarily on building highways and roads. Nearly half of the $48 billion in stimulus money for transportation projects will go toward rail, buses and other non-highway projects, including $1.3 billion for Amtrak and its successful rapid rail service, Acela. The Transportation Department also would receive $2 billion more under Obama's proposed 2010 budget, most of it for rail and aviation improvements.

Projects to build a nationwide passenger rail network are being discussed in North Carolina, Virginia, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nevada, California, and even in Iowa.

I have to give props to Congressman Braley and Boswell for working to get passenger rail in Iowa. Braley has worked to get Amtrack to Davenport and Dubuque, while Boswell wants Amtrack to continue through the state through Iowa City, Des Moines, and to Omaha.

Passenger Rails Service from Chicago to Iowa City Gaining Steam

Image via Wikipedia

Passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa City is gaining steam.

From the Gazette...

"Within the next couple of years it's going to be a sure thing," said Dick Welch of Swisher, longtime passenger rail advocate and Iowa's representative to the National Association of Railroad Passengers. "From a national standpoint, I think things are really looking up for passenger rail. Obama and his folks are very pro-rail."

Mike Tramontina, director of the state Department of Transportation, will go even further.

"I'd be willing to bet you a lunch that in five years we're going to be riding passenger rail through Iowa City to Des Moines," Tramontina said. "It's a very real possibility."

The prospect of expanded passenger rail service is fueled by $8 billion for passenger rail included in the $787 billion federal economic stimulus package. Along with $1.9 billion for new intercity routes in the regular Amtrak budget passed last fall, that's moved a proposed Amtrak route between Iowa City, the Quad Cities and Chicago from something-nice-to-have-someday to attainable reality.

There is a meeting about passenger rail today at 4:30 in Iowa City. It is being held by the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce at 325 E. Washington St.

Invest in Passenger Rail

Kevin Brubaker, Deputy Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and Iowa’s Department of Transportation Director Tami Nicholson briefed Iowa legislators last month about the benefits of investing in passenger rail...

An initial investment of $3 million in passenger rail service could leverage $12 million in federal aid for Iowa and create a valuable link between Chicago, the Quad Cities and other Midwest cities.

There are so many possibilities for Iowa when it comes to rail from expanding passenger rail to Iowa City and Dubuque to connect those cities to Chicago, to light rail in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids corridor and in the Des Moines and Ames area.

It seems with minimal investment in rail, great improvements can be made. Compare this to the approximately $500 million dollars that would be needed to make Highway 20 4 lane across the state.

Light Rail Could Be Coming to Cedar Rapids and Iowa City

A recent study says that a light rail between Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, and the Amanas could be successful. From Radio Iowa...

The study looked at light rail service between the Amanas, Cedar Rapids -- including the airport -- and Iowa City. Josh Shamberger, head of the Iowa City Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, says the next step is to ask each town along the route about its needs. According to Shamberger, people in Johnson County have a "strong interest" in some kind of rail-service option between North Liberty and Iowa City, and he adds that Cedar Falls planners might have to consider it, too.

The study uncovered one big concern for Cedar Rapids, however -- the planned expansion of a local Archer Daniel Midland plant which is expected to increase freight railroad traffic by 70 percent.

Light-rail passenger routes could be competitive, according to the report, which says they'd be limited to going about 30 miles an hour. To upgrade trains and track for high-speed transit would cost about $70 million, though Shamberger says to put that into perspective, it would cost about $400 million to add one more lane to Interstate-380 in the same area.

I wrote about this last month in a post about raising the gas tax. Here is what I said...

I would be for an increase in taxes on gasoline if that extra money went to public transportation. Increase the bus services in cities around Iowa or be brave and build a light rail from Des Moines to Ames or Cedar Rapids to Iowa City.

High Speed Rails as Key Infrastructure Investment

Richard Florida takes a look at the plans for investment in high speed rail...

New periods of geographic expansion require new systems of infrastructure. Ever since the days of the canals, the early railroad, and streetcar suburbs, we've seen how infrastructure and transportation systems work to spur new patterns economic and regional development. The streetcar expanded the boundaries of the late 19th and early 20th century city, while the railroad moved goods and people between them. The automobile enabled workers to move to the suburbs and undertake far greater commutes, expanding the geographic landscape still further.

Mega-regions, if they are to function as integrated economic units, require better, more effective, and faster ways move goods, people, and ideas. High-speed rail accomplishes that, and it also provides a framework for future in-fill development along its corridors. Just as development filled-in along the early street-car lines and the post-war highways, high-speed rail will encourage denser, more compact, and concentrated development with growth filling in along its routes over time. Spain's new high-speed rail link between Barcelona and Madrid not only massively reduced commuting times between these two great Spanish cities, according to a recent New York Timesreport, it has also helped revitalize several declining locations along the line.

It's time to start thinking of our transit and infrastructure projects less in political terms and more as a set of strategic investments that are fundamental to the speed and scope of our economic recovery and to the new, more expansive economic geography required for long-run growth and prosperity.

It is important for Iowa's future econonomic growth that the state does everything it can to connect by passenger rail to Chicago.

High Speed Rail in the Midwest

Forget bailing out the auto companies.  

I want to invest in this…

Individually, Rust Belt cities are weaker than cities on the east coast — they have smaller economies and less human capital. This is complicated by the fact that they’re fairly isolated. The rich cities of the northeast corridor are squeezed together, while Rust Belt cities are far apart — from each other and from the rich cities of the east coast. This means that they have less to work with, and they’re less able to leverage that strength in a regional economy. ...

High-speed rail could cut travel time between Detroit and Washington from nine hours to three — just a smidge longer than the train ride from Washington to New York, from downtown to downtown. And you’d never have to take your shoes off, unless you wanted to. High-speed rail would also cut a five-hour drive from Detroit to Chicago to just over an hour. Detroit to Cleveland? Just under and hour. Detroit to Pittsburgh? About an hour and a half.

High-speed rail would, in other words, turn Rust Belt distances into northeast corridor distances, while also shifting the Rust Belt closer to the northeast corridor. It would increase the return to doing business in every city in the region. It would be the Erie Canal and the original railroads on steroids.

And here’s the thing — California is estimating that its 800-mile high-speed rail network will cost it about $45 billion over twenty or so years. The actual cost will probably be higher than that, and a Midwest network would be larger and therefore more expensive, but the total cost is in the same ballpark as the $50 billion in aid automakers are begging for (which wouldn’t even be spread out over a period of years).

China's Economic Stimulus Package

In the midst of an economic crisis, the United State government has passed out economic stimulus checks to taxpayers, passed a $700 billion bailout, and nationalized some of the nation's banks.

China has adopted their own economic stimulus plan: invest in improving their outdated rail system.

CHINA will invest nearly $445 billion in its overburdened rail system as a stimulus measure aimed at blunting the impact of the global financial crisis. The investment is part of plans to extend the country's railway network from the current roughly 125,502km to nearly 160,900km by 2010, Shanghai's Oriental Morning Post reported. The Beijing News quoted a rail official as saying that, while the network needed extending, the massive investment was also intended to help lift the nation's economy as it suffers amid the global woes.

Now, in 20 years what will we have for passing out money to taxpayers and nationalizing the banks? More debt.

In 20 years, China will have an improved rail system that will spur economic growth in their country.

Light Rail in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids Corridor?

Todd Dorman wrote about the possibility of light rail between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids.

Local pols all over the country are salivating at the prospect of a big federal stimulus package bulging with infrastructure bucks. Visions of superhighways and bridges dance in their heads.

So what should be on our wish list? If I were king, I’d include light rail service between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City.

Last I heard, the price tag for fixing up and expanding the old Crandic line to provide service to Cedar Rapids, North Liberty and on to Iowa City is around $70 million. [...]

It’s also a lot less than it would cost to add an extra lane to I-380, which, according to a story I found in our archives, would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I know there are a lot of other worthy projects out there. Highway 100, U.S. 30 etc. Disaster-related needs are, obviously, a top priority.

But the economic, environmental, tourism and safety advantages of taking a chunk of drivers off 380 and putting them on a train are worth getting serious about. Enough with endless studies, let’s go for some bucks.

In the past year I’ve been to Denver, St. Louis and Minneapolis/St. Paul, all cities benefiting significantly from interurban light rail service. In each case the trams were convienent, fast and well-used, especially when gas prices were skyrocketing. And anyone who thinks that won’t happen again is commuting to fantasyland.

It’s not just for tree-huggers and snooty Europeans anymore.

John Kerry Speaks about the Need for High Speed Rail

John Kerry speaks about the need for high speed rail at a townhall meeting in Cambridge...

The Future of Our Infrastructure

The collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis was a wake up call about the needed maintenance of the country's infrastructure. This article at World Changing discusses the future our infrastructure and concludes that we must rethink our investments in certain infrastructure to fit the needs of the 21st century.

America is falling apart at the seams. Our power grids, our rail system, our roads and bridges, our drinking water and drainage systems, our dams, our ports, our dumps: they're all failing, sometimes in visible catastrophic ways, often in just slow losses of service and usability.

There are three major schools of thought about what to do. The first is the status quo among politicians: do nothing, and hope nothing major happens on our watch. The second is the status quo among many chambers of commerce: rebuild the old systems with updated versions of the old technologies, paying a bonanza to construction and engineering corporations and turning the repaired systems over to private, for-profit utilities. These are both terrible ideas. There is, though, a third way. We might look into this unfolding disaster and see an opportunity for real change.

Most of the infrastructure we use today was designed a century ago: some of it is based on ideas that go back to the Roman Empire. Almost all of it is at best industrial in its thinking. Essentially all of it was designed for a world without climate change, resource scarcity or any proper understanding of the value of ecosystem services. In other words, most of the systems upon which we depend are not only in a state of critical disrepair, they're out-dated and even out of touch with the realities of our century.

As we undertake their repair and replacement, we ought to be thinking like people native to the 21st century. We ought to be imagining systems which aim to provide the end services we want (access, communications, food, water, sanitation) in the most efficient, flexible and sustainable ways possible.

There are many opportunities in Iowa to rethink our infrastructure needs. There is a lot of talk about how to fund road expansion, yet little talk of alternative transportation such as high speed rail. Expansion of broadband to rural areas would be a big boost to economic development in the state. The states waterways are polluted, yet we continue to allow large hog confinements overwhelm them with waste. And finally, as we strive to become the renewable energy capital of the world, we are about to pour billions into two coal-fired power plants.

Investing in the Right Kind of Infrastructure

Instead of handing over billions to corporations and calling that an economic stimulus package, we should be investing in infrastructure. By investing in infrastructure we will actually have something to show for spending our money years down the road.

This post yesterday at Daily Kos discusses what types of infrastructure we should be investing in...

When those infrastructure projects start to come in from the states, the administration should focus on three areas: repair, replace, and remove.

First priority should go to those projects that flat out eliminate the majority of costs associated with a piece of infrastructure. Nothing costs less in the future than a mile of highway that's been removed. Next should come those projects that offer the chance to upgrade existing infrastructure with an alternative whose future upkeep is less costly. This can include tearing out highways and adding more light rail. It should also include replacing older bridges and structures with newer designs that meet safety concerns while requiring less upkeep. Dead last on the list should come any project whose goal is to add more lanes for automobile traffic.

If we spend a hundred billion, employ a million people, and don't get a mile of new highway out of it, we should count ourselves lucky. Our goal should be to come out of this construction with a need for less maintenance in the future, not more.

If we can't find enough highway to tear out, there's another place where we could use some serious infrastructure upgrades: state and national parks. Many of the beautiful lodges and trails in our parks were built by the WPA or CCC in the 1930s, and while those structures are a treasure, they're a treasure now badly in need of some polish. Turn a million people lose on restoring those structure to their original glory. And if we want to add a few rooms here or trails there, that's fine -- so long as we employ the kind of skilled architects and artists that helped make these structures so wonderful in the first place.

Telling state governments to turn over the projects that are ready to go is fine, but if those projects turn out to be new roads, new bridges, and more miles of blacktop, we should hand them right back.

The biggest investment in infrastructure needed in Iowa is expanding broadband access to every corner of the state. That would do far more to help economic development than the Iowa Values fund and help rural communities rebuild their economies.

As for building roads, forget making Highway 20 four lanes across the state. How about building high speed rail service and linking Sioux City with Waterloo, Dubuque, Madison, and even Chicago?

Big Ideas

Democrats have accomplished a great deal the past 3 years including increasing Iowa's renewable energy industries, raising teacher salaries, providing same day voter registration, expanding early childhood education, and enacting a smoking ban.

In a post yesterday at Bleeding Heartland, desmoinesdem laid an agenda of big ideas Democrats at the Statehouse can pursue over the next 2 years.

If Democrats can show that their governance made a tangible difference in the lives of Iowans, it will be easier to give voters a reason to back Culver and Democratic legislators again in 2010. I've got a few suggestions:

-Reduce the influence of money in politics by approving a voluntary "clean elections" system on the model of Maine or Arizona;
-Reject new coal fired power plants (as several of our neighboring states have done) and increase our capacity to generate wind and solar power;
-Allow "local control" of large hog confinements (agricultural zoning at the county level);
-Make progress toward providing light rail in the Ames/Ankeny/Des Moines and Iowa City/Cedar Rapids corridors.

I couldn't agree more with these issues and have written a lot about about each one in the past (read my posts on clean elections, coal plants, local control, light rail). If could add one more it would be high speed rural broadband access. I wrote last summer...

Broadband penetration is a huge asset for economic development, especially in rural areas like Iowa.

When governments are trying to attract companies to locate in the area they should invest in infrastructure such as high speed broadband. It would benefit those companies and spark entrepreneurship among individuals living in the rural areas.

Unfortunately, I also agree with desmoinesdem that Democratic Leadership doesn't seem interested in pushing any of these issues at the moment. There are legislators here and there speaking on these issues, but progress likely won't be made without support from leadership.

Investing in Infrastructure

On the plane ride out to Portland, I listened to a podcast about future transportation options in Ohio. They discussed expanding passenger rail, freight rail, bike trails, as well as roads.

One thing they mentioned really stuck out and shows the glaring need for investment in our infrastructure.

China and India spend about 9% of their GDP on infrastructure needs while the US spends about 1%.

That just demonstrates why we lack public transit and our roads and bridges are deteriorating.

Cutting Back v. Expansion

In Tuesday's debate Barack Obama and John McCain were asked what programs they would cut back in these bad economic times. That is the wrong way to think about how to put the economy back on track.

From Open Left...

There's a pervasive frame that when times get tough, we've got to tighten our belts. Just as families cut back on niceties like vacations in the Bahamas, the government needs to cut back on frills like Medicare and Social Security. But while this might make some sense for families (it depends), it's nonsense for the government.

The reason is simple. Like it or not, our economy works because of a constant flow of money -- when you buy vacations, money goes to the airlines, who use it to hire airport staff and buy planes, which means more people building airplanes, who means more people building airplane parts, which means more people building machine tools, and so on. There's a word for what happens when all these people cut back: a recession. The money dries up, suddenly folks find themselves out of a job, and everybody left has to take a paycut to "stay competitive".

Belt-tightening means pulling even more money out, which means even more jobless and weakened. The only way to get things moving again is if the government counteracts these trends by investing -- getting more money into the economy so that it starts bulking up instead of cutting back.

This is what we learned during the Great Depression -- Herbert Hoover's fiscal austerity did little, but FDR's Works Progress Administration got America going by paying folks to build public buildings, write books, distribute food, and so on. Many of their books and buildings can still be seen today.

Government has the responsibility to help put people to work and strengthen our economy. They could do this by investing in passenger rail, renewable energy, updating our electrical grid, nationwide high speed internet, and fixing a few bridges along the way.

Century of the Common Iowan Turns 3 Years Old

I glanced at the clock and saw there was just 5 minutes till midnight. I had forgotten that Monday marked the 3rd birthday for Century of the Common Iowan and I only had 5 minutes to put up a post to sum up those 3 years. Yeah right.

Well here's what I got written in an hour...

As I look back, it is interesting how the focus of the blog has evolved over those years. In the blogs first year I wrote a lot about issues such as the rising cost of college tuition and Iowa's Brain Drain, immigration, and the need for a trade policy that protects American jobs. Year two was all about the Iowa caucuses. The following year I was able to sit back and watch the primaries play out and lead up to the general election. With the 2008 elections behind us, I have been able to write more about policies and topics such as the emergence of Millennials, social media, education, and the need to invest in a creative economy.

3 years, 2,226 posts, and over 132,000 visitors later and here we are in the best of times, in the worst of times. Our current economic and political situation find us in a situation where remarkable change can take place (and if it doesn't, it's because we didn't make them do it) . It is time for big ideas. In the coming year I hope to focus on the big ideas that desmoinesdem laid out that I wrote about last month.

• Clean elections
• Promoting clean energy solutions
• Local control of hog confinements
• Passenger rail
  
• Rural broadband.

These are not new issues. Many I have written about since I started this blog, but now is the time to stop talking about these issues and start seeing real action. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama told the story that one voice can change a room, one room can change a city, one city can change a nation. It is my hope that over the past 3 years, I have been able to change 1 person's viewpoint on these key issues and encouraged 1 person to take action on these key issues.

I'd like to end by repeating what Rekha Basu wrote about activism that I posted about earlier today..

Still, it takes courage to be an activist. It requires putting yourself out there in public, daring to take the unpopular position and getting hostile feedback... But those who understand history know well the role activism has played in winning rights and making a more just, humane and accessible America.

Join in. Post comments. Attend your local Democratic central committee meeting. Call your State Legislators. Get active in a community group or city board. Start your own blog. Heck, run for local office.

It's time to make a ruckus. Let's go!

Tomorrow's Slums

A large number of foreclosures, high gas prices, and a greater demand for walkable neighborhoods could make today's suburban homes into tomorrow's slums.

For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay. [...]

If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. [...]

But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the country’s more recently developed areas—and not only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction.

Stimulus Spending

The Senate voted this afternoon to pass the second part of the stimulus bill on Obama's version of the stimulus bill called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill. The bill now goes to the House.

Chris Bowers posted at Open Left a summary of what is in the bill.

Total itemized spending: $518.7 billion

Health Care: $150.1 billion

• $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate;
  
• $39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid;*
  
• $20 billion for health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies;
  
• $4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments.

Education, Science and Technology: $132.6 billion

• $41 billion to local school districts through Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), a new School Modernization and Repair Program ($14 billion), and the Education Technology program ($1 billion);
  
• $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities distributed through existing state and federal formulas;
  
• $15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500;
  
• $15 billion to states as bonus grants as a reward for meeting key performance measures;
  
• $10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation;
  
• $6 billion to expand broadband internet access so businesses in rural and other underserved areas can link up to the global economy;
  
• $6 billion for higher education modernization.

Energy and Environment: $104 billion

• $32 billion to transform the nation's energy transmission, distribution, and production systems by allowing for a smarter and better grid and focusing investment in renewable technology;
  
• $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long term energy cost savings;
  
• $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments;
  
• $16 billion to repair public housing and make key energy efficiency retrofits;
  
• $6 billion to weatherize modest-income homes

Unemployment Compensation: $63 billion

• $43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training;
  
• $20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.

Transportation: $40 billion

• $30 billion for highway construction;
  
• $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption.

Misc: $29 billion

• $25 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education;
  
• $4 billion for state and local law enforcement funding.

* -= Applicable to either Health Care or Unemployment Compensation