<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s Wrong With SAFETEA-LU &#8212; and Why the Next Bill Must Be Better</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:34:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul Wisniewski</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/comment-page-1/#comment-69959</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Wisniewski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:38:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5903#comment-69959</guid>
		<description>I know it was not the intent of the SAFETEA-LU legislation to shut down a 100% recycled paper mill in northern Arizona, but that is exactly what may result unless something is done to remove the so-called Black Liquor Subsidy that is being funded by this legislation.

The Catalyst paper mill in northern Arizona (near Snowflake, to be precise) makes approximately 1000 tons per day of 100% recycled newsprint.  This represents 1000 tons per day of paper that is reclaimed and kept out of landfills.  The water our process uses is treated and goes to grow crops for use as animal feed.  On the site also is a new 25 megawatt biomass fired electrical generating plant that supplies power to the grid in Arizona.  Since we are 100% recycled, we do not make the chemical pulp that generates black liquor.  In fact, most newsprint does not even use much, if any, of the chemical pulp that is produced by the kraft (black liquor generating) process.  

The Dept. of Justice last year specifically mandated that our mill, specifically, be sold as part of a merger between our former owners, Abitibi Consolidated, and Bowater Corp.  The justification for this somewhat unusual requirement was that we are a large, profitable mill that would provide a significant competitive advantage to whoever bought us.  In summary, we are a 100% recycled fiber mill which was very successfully competing in the newsprint market without any help from the government.  But now, due to the aberrant way the SAFETEA-LU legislation has been interpreted, our competitors are using their government subsidies to lower the price of their newsprint to prices below what we (or they) can produce it for in a free market, hoping to drive us out of business.  And unless something is done, they may succeed.  

The dilemma in which we find ourselves is quite troubling.  Anyone in the kraft pulping industry who is honest will tell you that the black liquor subsidy is pretty much a scam.  It is indeed a sad day when right and wrong is decided by the dollar value of the corresponding decision, but I fear that day is upon us.  The reality is that kraft mills could not run unless they burn their black liquor, period, so the idea that they are substituting biofuel for fossil fuel is a pure scam.  In effect, they are simply asking for a taxpayer subsidy to do what they have always done anyhow.  But due to the enormous amount of money which they are (fraudulently, in my opinion) collecting, they have banded forces to make sure it keeps coming.  And, to reiterate, continuing to reward their dishonest claims could likely cause the shutdown of our mill.

Please work to eliminate this scam, save the taxpayers’ money and remove the unfair advantage you have inadvertently given to our competitors.  We do not need nor want a bailout.  We just want the opportunity to compete fairly in the marketplace.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know it was not the intent of the SAFETEA-LU legislation to shut down a 100% recycled paper mill in northern Arizona, but that is exactly what may result unless something is done to remove the so-called Black Liquor Subsidy that is being funded by this legislation.</p>
<p>The Catalyst paper mill in northern Arizona (near Snowflake, to be precise) makes approximately 1000 tons per day of 100% recycled newsprint.  This represents 1000 tons per day of paper that is reclaimed and kept out of landfills.  The water our process uses is treated and goes to grow crops for use as animal feed.  On the site also is a new 25 megawatt biomass fired electrical generating plant that supplies power to the grid in Arizona.  Since we are 100% recycled, we do not make the chemical pulp that generates black liquor.  In fact, most newsprint does not even use much, if any, of the chemical pulp that is produced by the kraft (black liquor generating) process.  </p>
<p>The Dept. of Justice last year specifically mandated that our mill, specifically, be sold as part of a merger between our former owners, Abitibi Consolidated, and Bowater Corp.  The justification for this somewhat unusual requirement was that we are a large, profitable mill that would provide a significant competitive advantage to whoever bought us.  In summary, we are a 100% recycled fiber mill which was very successfully competing in the newsprint market without any help from the government.  But now, due to the aberrant way the SAFETEA-LU legislation has been interpreted, our competitors are using their government subsidies to lower the price of their newsprint to prices below what we (or they) can produce it for in a free market, hoping to drive us out of business.  And unless something is done, they may succeed.  </p>
<p>The dilemma in which we find ourselves is quite troubling.  Anyone in the kraft pulping industry who is honest will tell you that the black liquor subsidy is pretty much a scam.  It is indeed a sad day when right and wrong is decided by the dollar value of the corresponding decision, but I fear that day is upon us.  The reality is that kraft mills could not run unless they burn their black liquor, period, so the idea that they are substituting biofuel for fossil fuel is a pure scam.  In effect, they are simply asking for a taxpayer subsidy to do what they have always done anyhow.  But due to the enormous amount of money which they are (fraudulently, in my opinion) collecting, they have banded forces to make sure it keeps coming.  And, to reiterate, continuing to reward their dishonest claims could likely cause the shutdown of our mill.</p>
<p>Please work to eliminate this scam, save the taxpayers’ money and remove the unfair advantage you have inadvertently given to our competitors.  We do not need nor want a bailout.  We just want the opportunity to compete fairly in the marketplace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon.</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/comment-page-1/#comment-67737</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 16:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5903#comment-67737</guid>
		<description>The Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel was the reason the Port Authority was formed back in the 19th Century (you can look this up).  Oddly enough they never seem to have gotten around to actually doing their job and building it....

I say good on Nadler for supporting it.  It&#039;s only a hundred years overdue!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel was the reason the Port Authority was formed back in the 19th Century (you can look this up).  Oddly enough they never seem to have gotten around to actually doing their job and building it....</p>
<p>I say good on Nadler for supporting it.  It's only a hundred years overdue!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/comment-page-1/#comment-67409</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 07:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5903#comment-67409</guid>
		<description>Irvin&#039;s right.  Mary Peters has fought tooth and nail to keep the gas tax unchanged, and state politicians don&#039;t have the balls to piss off their contingencies.  Meanwhile the federal fund&#039;s deficit has increased rapidly since 2001.

With all the efforts to push new car sales and fund automakers, why not a weight-based federal excise tax to help ease that deficit?  Along with better oversight and/or cost caps for certain &quot;new construction&quot; allocations...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Irvin's right.  Mary Peters has fought tooth and nail to keep the gas tax unchanged, and state politicians don't have the balls to piss off their contingencies.  Meanwhile the federal fund's deficit has increased rapidly since 2001.</p>
<p>With all the efforts to push new car sales and fund automakers, why not a weight-based federal excise tax to help ease that deficit?  Along with better oversight and/or cost caps for certain "new construction" allocations...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Irvin Dawid</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/comment-page-1/#comment-67163</link>
		<dc:creator>Irvin Dawid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:17:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5903#comment-67163</guid>
		<description>You missed the mark.  The greatest failure was of SAFETEA-LU was not raising the gas and diesel taxes, as opposed to changing how the funds were spent.  Mary Peters pushed congestion pricing through the Urban Partnerships Grant.
VMT fee will probably occur, just a matter of when.

Two federal commissions (http://planetizen.com/node/36765) were formed to deal with the funding crisis, both have reported back.

Unless someone pushes the envelope - and sadly, it won&#039;t be Obama or LaHood (Oberstar????), MAP-21 (http://planetizen.com/node/38255) will repeat the failure</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You missed the mark.  The greatest failure was of SAFETEA-LU was not raising the gas and diesel taxes, as opposed to changing how the funds were spent.  Mary Peters pushed congestion pricing through the Urban Partnerships Grant.<br />
VMT fee will probably occur, just a matter of when.</p>
<p>Two federal commissions (<a href="http://planetizen.com/node/36765" rel="nofollow">http://planetizen.com/node/36765</a>) were formed to deal with the funding crisis, both have reported back.</p>
<p>Unless someone pushes the envelope - and sadly, it won't be Obama or LaHood (Oberstar????), MAP-21 (<a href="http://planetizen.com/node/38255" rel="nofollow">http://planetizen.com/node/38255</a>) will repeat the failure</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/comment-page-1/#comment-67074</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5903#comment-67074</guid>
		<description>&quot;Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation&#039;s surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That&#039;s the challenge faced by Congress today.&quot;

Until the legislature and the general public are convinced of the need to reduce dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels in the future (and they certainly haven&#039;t been yet), there&#039;s no way policy will be made on that basis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation's surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That's the challenge faced by Congress today."</p>
<p>Until the legislature and the general public are convinced of the need to reduce dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels in the future (and they certainly haven't been yet), there's no way policy will be made on that basis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Walker</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/27/whats-wrong-with-safetea-lu-and-why-the-next-bill-must-be-better/comment-page-1/#comment-67072</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Walker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5903#comment-67072</guid>
		<description>&quot;Funds for surface transportation come primarily from the national gas tax.... Until last year, the gas tax was a reliable source of funds, but the recent decrease in miles driven by Americans and an increase in fuel economy forced the Congress to authorize $8 billion in emergency funds for roads from the general budget for fiscal year 2009.&quot;

Doesn&#039;t that speak volumes? If transit needs more money, the public debate is bruising and pits group against group. If highways need more money, just dip into general tax revenues, no questions asked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Funds for surface transportation come primarily from the national gas tax.... Until last year, the gas tax was a reliable source of funds, but the recent decrease in miles driven by Americans and an increase in fuel economy forced the Congress to authorize $8 billion in emergency funds for roads from the general budget for fiscal year 2009."</p>
<p>Doesn't that speak volumes? If transit needs more money, the public debate is bruising and pits group against group. If highways need more money, just dip into general tax revenues, no questions asked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
