Should Nashua Have a Seat?

In a post below titled Defend This the author Steve MacDonald has an issue with Rep. Murtha’s handing of legislative procedure. It’s a fair argument but if the facts ever pan out I think this will cast a different light on this whole matter and thus showing that the political and legislative process despite its surface flaws is a system that works.

At least this is my theory. The facts haven't surfaced yet.

This leads me to an experience I had in the NH House. The Speaker of the House was Rep. Harold Burns and at the end of a long day of legislative pushing and pulling a legislator whom I can’t now name requested personal privilege and it was granted by the chair. And it was a political question:

“Why doesn’t Nashua have a seat on the Finance Committee?” The legislator asked. And the experienced Speaker responded to this question by saying, “The chair would state that my door is always open.”

This question does have merit. Nashua is a large city, and at this time had no representation on this powerful committee while every other major metropolitan area did have at least one representative on the committee be this Republican or Democrat. Rep. David Alkonouis would later state that he represents Hudson and was then a vice chair of this powerful committee. I’m not sure if this statement qualifies as an answer to this question.  It might.

Should Nashua have a seat?

Clearly this is a large metropolitan area should they not have a voice on the most important committee in the House? I’d make the argument that the most qualified representatives should be appointed to this committee but at this time, and even today, I don’t believe the qualification arguement holds. Consider the amt. of representatives that were quickly removed from finance once Rep. Donna Sytek became Speaker of the House. One of  the first removed was Rep. Paul Lamont, a longtime legislator from Haverhill and also Chairman of the Grafton County Delegation of which I served. Honesty, I was never impressed with the performance of Rep. Lamont in any capacity, sure he had been around for a long time but I never saw any evidence that he had any real experience with finance, budgets, accounting and the skills needed to run a multi-million dollar operation(s) at the county and state level.  

So, on this basis should Nashua still have a seat?

I don’t know the answer to this question. Perhaps the political process actually works the best. Support the Speaker and the reward is a powerful committee assignment.

Rep. Murtha has a powerful committee assignment. As seen on C-SPAN.

Source:  Muse “Uprising.”

UTUBE.

The Politics of Positive

In NH politics I think it’s easy to become cynical and negative. Regardless of what the issues are or what the campaigns say or don’t say, anyone that has spent time in the Statehouse knows what I mean.

A day at the Statehouse:

Lobbyists, agendas, ideas, legislation and more lobbyists. Deal making in the hallways of the LOB. More legislation. Lobbyists and more ideas. And like former Deputy Speaker Stacey Cole used to say “Two things in this world you don’t want to see get made. Policy and sausage.”  And all in a day's work.

So where am I going with this?  

I’m interested in transportation issues in New Hampshire and the Northeast. And more specifically rail and its important role. I’m very critical and I think at times negative towards some of the projects in New Hampshire including the NH Rail Authority. I think much more could be done but for political reasons it isn’t.

In any case, several days ago I was reading the Laconia Evening Citizen Newspaper about the Executive Councilor Ray Burton “Railroad Promotion and Marketing Day.” This is a train that runs from Laconia to Plymouth. It has a catchy title but it’s a campaign train.

It would be negative for me to attack the very idea of this train. It’s probably even more negative for me to attack the NH Rail Authority. And the reason is because not only have I not challenged either of these positions tactically or strategically, I have not advanced a viable alternative to their ideas and positions.

Today this starts to change.

In the next several weeks and months I hope to blog several articles related to rail and policy in New Hampshire. I’ll outline several projects and demonstrate why they would be successful. This will include, as applicable, the underlying financial analysis. The end question will be hopefully answered as to why NH taxpayers are making a good investment in the described rail project, and how rail ultimately leads to taxbase and jobs for New Hampshire.

My first stop in this venture I think is going to be the Port of Halifax, Nova Scotia. A deepwater port, one of only two on the east coast that can accept high-density container ships for both import and export markets. The movement of containers is a profit center for railroads and New Hampshire has a strategic route that could facilitate this.

This video below beyond the explanation shows a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) intermodal train. It’s called intermodal because the double stack containers have moved on one or more modes of transportation. It’s not uncommon for a container to move from ship to railcar and then to truck for its final destination. This is intermodal.

This is the same BNSF railroad that is being purchased by investor Warren Buffett. The media reports states that he is basing his investment on “U.S. economic recovery.”

There is some risk involved.  

Source: YTTrucking.com

UTUBE

Fiction or Fluff.

United States Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was recently in New Hampshire. “And we’re on track to create and save a total of at least 3.5 million jobs by next fall.” he said. The article which this is quoted from appears in Laconia Citizen also included some statements about high-speed rail in New Hampshire.

“David Danielson, a Commissioner with the Southern NH Regional Planning Commission made a pitch for rail in the Northeast, saying most of the money appeared to be going elsewhere in the country.” “You have the opportunity to make a poster child out of the Northeast.”, Danielson said.

Right.

I think all of this is pure fiction. This also reminded me of a press conference at least a year ago when the President announced his intentions and policy concerning the development of high-speed rail in the United States. The press conference was in Spain and he discussed the Spanish high-speed rail system and what this could mean for areas like the environment and economic development. President Obama never mentioned the high-speed rail systems in France and Germany, the most successful high-speed rail systems on the European continent, if not the world.  Not even mentioned.

Politics.

The same politics and reasons why I think New Hampshire will never have a high-speed rail system like what exists in Europe or anywhere. The idea of high-speed rail is a great forum for Secretary LaHood, Commissioner Danielson and former Senator Peter Burling to talk to the press.  But beyond the words there is no substance and I mean no substance. And I think the reasons are simple. There isn't enough public support in New Hampshire for high-speed rail, it’s very expensive to implement and there is no analytical evidence available to show how these trains would even be used regardless of how good of an idea it is.

In the 1990s I spent some time on the high-speed rail systems in Europe mainly in Germany on both the French TGV and the German ICE. As a part of this adventure I was in the Hauptbahnof in Munchen and heard of the proposal to expand high-speed rail from this city to Budapest, Hungary. This is a good idea, the improvement of transportation between member EU countries and commensurate with existing rail networks and policy. It is my understanding that although this substantial project was started, the work on the infrastructure has not been completed especially on the heavyweight welded rail section from Austria to Hungary. And the reason is cost.

So how can the situation be any different here in New Hampshire? I don’t think it can. Secretary Lahood,  Messrs. Danielson and Burling all have something to say but they never talk about cost. Maybe the answer to this question is buried under the 3.5 million jobs that have been created along with a good pile of fiction and fluff.    

A Shift In Power

Today on CNBC there was an interesting report from the floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was a discussion about the price of crude oil and the interesting part came at the end of the report.

"Saudi Aramco to base its prices on a Argus Sour Crude Oil contract instead of the WTI."

West Texas Intermediate crude oil has long been the benchmark of the global pricing of crude oil and its markets. Now this changing.

Is this a good change?

The report closed out by stating that the NYMEX was starting its own futures contract in response to this based on an index. As soon as I saw this I started thinking about the futures contract itself and the reason for this change.

Politics.

The Sept/Oct 2009 edition of Foreign Policy magazine has an article by Daniel Yergin about the WTI contract and its specifications “from Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, and from Canada too, into Cushing’s tanks where buyers take title before moving the oil onward to the refineries where it is turned into gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, home heating oil and all the other products people actually use.”

The Cushing is Cushing Field in Oklahoma which started in 1912.  And today, a major trading hub which according to the Yergin article moves about 1.1 million barrels a day or 6% of the U.S. consumption. So this is to be either replaced or at least impacted by the launch of the new Argus Sour Crude contract.

Is this development in the geopolitics of hydrocarbons a cause for concern? I think it is. I’ve not studied the contract specifications for the Argus contract but I’d imagine that the physical delivery point or exchange for physicals would be somewhere in Saudi Arabia. The Yergin article also makes the statement, “But today the real action is on the trading floor in New York.” I’m also questioning whether after the launch of this new contract the action will stay in New York or just move it all to Dubai.

This is definately a shift in power.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072/ns/business

Questionable Investment

 In a guest blog Marcel Vanderpunke

“Infrastructure and transportation in the United States is not in a position today to erase the competitive edge of emerging markets. “

The author never defines exactly what he means by infrastructure and transportation, exactly what systems are you talking about Mr. Vanderpunke?

 “But a serious investment in transportation, alternative energy exploration and efficiency would put America back into the driver’s seat on commodity prices.”

Again the author does not define exactly what he means by this statement. Later on I’ll offer a short précis of some of the transportation systems in the U.S. as I think the Vanderpunke statement is clearly flawed.

“Where I saw nothing but despair only months ago, today I see a glimmer of hope...in that sweet blessed thing we call "transportation."

There is some limited truth to this statement. Especially about the idea of linking demand, markets and sources of supply (commodities).  As an example, “without truckers there is no food, no building and no toys to play with.” Source: The Cold Hard Truth.

But I still don’t think taxpayer capital or investment is needed, realistically in the movement of freight. Competition, deregulation and private initiative I think does a much better job in creating a viable transportation system in the U.S.

Consider what U.S. freight railroads do on a daily basis. The tonnage moved, the service offered and in the end a strategic link between demand and markets. U.S. railroads are hauling more than ever and at a faster rate. I’ve discussed on this very board some of the infrastructure improvements being made to freight railroads here in the northeast and New Hampshire. For example, no taxpayer capital has been used in the formation of the Patriot Corridor.

If there needs to be an investment anywhere it should be in the areas that are served by transportation systems, not investing in the systems themselves. Examples might include the Maine paper industry, intermodal based terminals and business ventures that create regional economic development and jobs.

This investment would need to be followed by Amtrak.  

Amtrak has done a quality job with the resources that it has but it will require a massive capital infusion to bring in ideas like high-speed rail throughout the U.S.  And even if this capital investment is made, which I think is doubtful I don’t think it would be enough alone to “put America back in the driver’s seat.”

It just isn't realistic.

Source: The Cold Hard Truth.

UTUBE