Will North Carolina be the latest to turn away federal funds for high-speed rail?
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, President Obama set aside $8 billion to jump-start high-speed rail in regions across the country. The funds were divvied up between 13 planned high-speed corridors in 30 states and D.C., according to the allotment in the table below.
That was back in 2010. But now, with a wave of new governors and legislators hitting statehouses across the nation fresh from the midterm elections, some states are choosing to opt out.
The arguments go something like this. On the "no thanks" side, it is claimed that these high-speed rail projects are just high-speed trips to financial ruin. It's all a nasty plot by the Obama administration to leave the states on the hook for mass transit systems that will never produce net revenue, thereby financially strangling states already coping with budget deficits.
 Click here for the White House's interactive map. |
| High-Speed Rail Funding Breakdown | |
|---|---|
| Recipient | Amount of Funds (millions of $$) |
| California |
$2,344 |
| Florida |
$1,250 |
| Illinois |
$1,235 |
| Wisconsin |
$822 |
| Washington | $590 |
| North Carolina | $545 |
| Ohio |
$400 |
| New York |
$151 |
| Northeast Corridor* | $112 |
| Virginia |
$75 |
| Indiana |
$71 |
| Massachusetts |
$70 |
| Vermont | $50 |
| Minnesota |
$41 |
| Connecticut |
$40 |
| Maine |
$35 |
| Missouri |
$31 |
| Pennsylvania | $27 |
| Iowa |
$17 |
| Oregon | $8 |
| Multiple** | $6 |
| Texas | $4 |
| Source: White House [pdf] * The Northeast Corridor includes Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland and Washington, D.C. ** Used for planning in Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, Vermont, West Virginia |
|
Not so, say the folks on the other side. For them these funds offer a valuable opportunity to build badly needed infrastructure that will grow jobs and investment for the future as well as provide relief from highway gridlock. High-speed rail would also help bring the United States into the 21st century, lest we be figuratively left in the dust by the modern railway systems of Europe and China.
So far three states have pulled the plug on their projects.
Too bad. Not only are these states throwing away the money already spent on the projects, but taxpayers are now on the hook (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) for investments that the federal funds would have covered.
Not to be outdone, North Carolina's legislature may be about to join the "no thank you" chorus.
A one-page bill, titled "No High-Speed Rail Money from Federal Gov't" [pdf], was introduced by State Representatives Ric Killian and Phillip Frye last week. It would send North Carolina's $545 million share of high-speed rail funds back to the feds -- and try to put any high-speed rail funds accepted by the state into a general fund that the Assembly would later appropriate as it sees fit (which, as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood explained to Wisconsin, would actually not be an option -- in other words, either you use the money for high-speed rail or you give it back).
But refusing the federal rail dollars may be a tougher sell here given the project's support from the state's Democratic governor Beverly Perdue.
In case you're worried about those federal funds -- don't be. Even if North Carolina does follow the lead of Ohio and company, there are other states that will gladly pick up the financial slack. (See here and here.) "We'd love to have it," said Illinois Transportation Secretary Gary Hannig as quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times. Illinois State Sen. Jeffrey Schoenberg (D-Evanston) seconded the notion: "If the new governor of Wisconsin is overwhelmed by $800 million of federal funds, we'd be happy to take that burden off his back."
Could be that fast train is going somewhere after all.
Crossposted with www.TheGreenGrok.com.
Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theGreenGrok
If HSR is so great why doesn't the federal government fully fund it? Including the ongoing operating costs?
Besides, show me a government project of the same scale that doesn't have major cost overruns....
That is the exactly the problem. While the money upfront may cover building costs it does not really do much for long term costs associated with operations.
Passenger rail in the US is a losing proposition because air travel is incredibly cheap (round trip air fare is less than rail one way) and the distances between places people want to go are too great. Commuter rail can work, but high speed rail is garbage.
And while I can only speak for myself, there are lots of instances where I would greatly prefer to take a train and avoid the hassle of an airport, e.g., the trip from NYC to DC. The problem is for most trips there is not a viable train option. That people would opt for a high-speed train option is evident from its use in Europe.
Continuing the Acela Express from DC to RTP, NC area is a no brainer
And yes for those that don't know Amtrak's Acela from Boston to DC makes a handsome profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
i live on the Gulf coast between AL and MS and everyone here from rednecks to little old ladies to green hippies and blue collar workers thinks a high speed rail line thru here would be a godsend, a great investment, and would create jobs. These lawmakers should be questioning themselves on what century they live in when the people i live amongst ALL think this is a good idea.
Trains have been overtaken by other technology. For short distances it can work (commuter rail or local subway systems), but other than that it is just not used. It takes too long and is too expensive.
Even high speed trains are limited. They have to make stops. they can only go certain speeds around residential areas. They are limited by the use of the tracks and weather. They need to accelerate and decelerate (which takes time for massive trains). It just does not work.
It can work in some places, but not for long distance travel. People are not going to deal with it. The limited routes make transfers a huge pain in the tuchus.
the only benefit would be no security hassles. And that would only last until some yahoo blows up a train.
This is not the worst idea possible, but it is bad (there are people who are promoting blimps as the future of travel--blimps limited to about 100mph in best case scenario.)
As for the jobs thing that does not really matter. The government could do all sorts of projects to create jobs. That does not mean that there would be a benefit to the nation (the money has to come from somewhere).