news-record.com

BLOGS

Off the Record

All aboard for high-speed rail?

As this news release from Gov. Bev Perdue's office indicates, North Carolina has submitted an ambitious application for more than $5 billion in federal high-speed rail grants.

With its Virginia counterpart, the N.C. Department of Transportation has worked for many years on plans to upgrade the rail corridor from Charlotte to Washington, D.C., for high-speed passenger service.

Not super high speed bullet trains as in Japan, Europe or proposed for California. More like a top speed of 110.

California voters last year approved a nearly $10 billion expenditure to build a high-speed rail line from San Diego to Sacramento, a fact the LA Times says should put the state at the top of the list for federal funds.

It also helps explain why California is going bust.

They do have a cool Web site for their high-speed rail project.

Whether that helps remains to be seen.

America 2050, a national urban planning initiative, issued a report last month ranking various rail corridors for high-speed potential. It placed a priority on those where the feds could get the most bang for their buck, which is important to demonstrate to Americans that this whole idea of investing in passenger rail is feasible.

Here's the Sept. 17 press release.

Coming out on top, not surprisingly, are Northeast routes, with New York-Washington No. 1.

Los Angeles-San Francisco is No. 5.

Charlotte-Washington is No. 17. If the feds think along the same lines, that's not a good position for initial funding.

High-speed rail would be a boon for transportation in this country, but it has to be fast and convenient enough to change travel habits.

And the biggest challenge: it has to be affordable to get on line.

North Carolina is asking for more federal funding than it's likely to get for quite some time.

Then you have to wonder how much North Carolina taxpayers would be willing to kick in.

The train's at the station. Who's getting on board?

Permalink

Posted by Doug Clark on Monday, October 5, 2009 at 1:58 pm

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Dogwood

October 5, 2009 - 3:17 pm EDT

It would help if Governor Perdue could find the federal funds to rebuild the Yadkin River bridge that connects Charlotte to the state. Spencer is next to the bridge and has a fine railroad museum. I believe in rail. But tracks are only dreams and the broken down bridge is life threatening.

Doug

October 5, 2009 - 5:43 pm EDT

The state has applied for $300 million for the YR bridge. In fact, they've stressed that's the state's highest transportation priority.

Connie Mack Jr

October 5, 2009 - 7:24 pm EDT

The train's at the station. Who's getting on board?* Doug

Nobody! That is like NASA asking for paying upfront passagers on their next trip to the Moon at 15 billion for a one way trip.........

Doug Johnson

October 6, 2009 - 3:06 am EDT

Some morning, I go to the dinner, and have my coffee and eggs,while reading Doug Clark's articles.
Believe it are not, I put it down lone enough to watch Amtrak go by with it 2-3 heads sticking up.
If the liberals had not raided the highway trust fund, we should have had money enough for the Yadkin River Bridge!

Doug

October 6, 2009 - 8:46 am EDT

You know, I think you're right about the bridge.

tonymo

October 6, 2009 - 11:24 am EDT

I suggest that anyone who champions the light rail, simply look at the cost/benefit analysis studies of every city now "blessed" with these systems. No where does the system carry enough riders paying fares sufficent to pay for the system. All fares, just as with AMTRAK, are subsidized by taxpayers.

I may be wrong, but i also believe that every one, or most of the systems cost far more, surprise, than estimated like ALL government programs, see health care! At least we didn't get the Olympics!

Andrew Clark

October 6, 2009 - 1:24 pm EDT

Um, are roads not subsidized by taxpayers? All transportation is. I think you'd find the cost/benefit analysis of most public transportation systems to be highly beneficial.

tonymo

October 6, 2009 - 1:51 pm EDT

Okay, Andy, you're joking right! Do you not really understand the difference between helping pay for someone else train fare, and building roads and bridges? You big government supporters are laughable

The brain washing that has taken place in our otherwise failing schools is apparently working to perfection. What ever happened to the spirit of the individual? It seems that those who have little or no confidence to succeed on their own talents are the ones most accepting of "spreading the wealth," rather than the risk taking required to climb off the government umbilical cord. I guess that is why so many liberals gravitate to government jobs where everyone is the same, and it makes no difference how much or how little one produces, they are paid the same, and it's almost impossible to be fired!

Andrew Clark

October 6, 2009 - 2:21 pm EDT

How are roads not just as much big government? I don't own a car, but I help subsidize roads for you. That's how government services work; you can't just pay for what you use and don't pay for what you don't. Explain to me the difference between paying for someone else's train fare and paying for a bridge I don't use. I'd like to hear it.

Here in Washington a little under half of the people who work in the city get to work by car. Despite this, Washington has something like the 3rd worst traffic in the country. Do you think all those drivers would be better off if public transportation was not funded and traffic on already overcrowded roads increased tremendously? You don't think they would receive a huge benefit if more people took public transport and their commuting time were reduced? This is about individuals. The problem is when government decides that the way we have to get from place to place is by car and ignores other transport options. You think it's just individualism that led to car dominance in even urban areas? Nope, it's policies that created sprawl and government picking cars as the winners in almost all areas.

Connie Mack Jr

October 6, 2009 - 1:12 pm EDT

At least we didn't get the Olympics!* Tonymo

So you are really against America after all as a conservative Republican! Will you fight for the Rio independment movement when they invade America next week?

tonymo

October 6, 2009 - 2:07 pm EDT

Hey Connie, please take a look at the huge financial hits taken by almost all recent Olympic venues! China spent $42 billion, Athens lost billions, London is already $9 over budget and the games aren't until 2010! The taxpayers took the hits in all of those places. You apparently also missed the fact that most of the residents of Chicago were against having the Olympics there!

I was unaware that Chicago was rolling in dough so much that it could afford to blow $5-15 billion just so that top Obama advisor and friend Valerie Jarrett could get taxpayers bail her out of her run down housing units by building Olympic venues, and besides bailing her out, making her wealthy! While the taxpayers would get killed, the cronies inside the Chicago, and Obama crime familes would make out like the bandits they are!

There were not many "un-Americans" in my B-52 Squadron in SE Asia! There were though many like you rooting against us, not some pre-historic games that no longer are anywhere near their original intent, kind of like today's Demo-Rat party, whose "patriotic" senate leader told us, "the surge will not work," and "this war is lost."

I'm sorry you won't get to see the Olympics in Chicago.