Obama: Better trains foster energy independence

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called Thursday for the country to move swiftly to a system of high-speed rail travel, saying it will relieve congestion, help clean the air and save on energy.

Obama said the country cannot afford not to invest in a major upgrade to rail travel. He said he understands it necessarily will be "a long-term project" but said the time to start is now.

The president allocated $8 billion in the enormous $787 billion economic stimulus spending package for a start on establishing high-speed rail corridors nationwide.

"This is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It's happening now. The problem is, it's happening elsewhere," Obama said.

He cited superior high-speed rail travel in countries like China, Japan, France and Spain.

About six proposed routes with federal approval for high-speed rail stand a good chance of getting some of the award, including North Carolina, which could have a route from Charlotte to Washington, D.C.

The route is part of a larger one that would start in Washington, D.C., run through Richmond, Va., Raleigh, Charlotte and then continue on through Georgia with stops in Atlanta, Macon, Columbia and Savannah and then ending in Jacksonville, Fla..

If funding is made available, the Charlotte-to-D.C. route could be completed sometime between 2015 and 2020. It is expected to cost approximately $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion.

The $8 billion will go to high-speed rail development as well as a parallel effort to improve rail service along existing lines - upgrades that would allow faster train travel.

The White House said funding will move into the rail system through three channels, first to upgrade projects already approved and only in need of funding, thus providing jobs in the short term.

The second and third channels would focus on high-speed rail planning and then a commitment to help in the execution of those plans far into the future when the stimulus funds are no longer available.

The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration says the term "high-speed rail" applies to trains traveling more than 90 mph.

Top speeds from Charlotte to Raleigh will reach 90 mph with an estimated travel time of 2 to 3 hours. A one-way ticket is expected to cost $30 to $40.

90 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 90 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

"Do you have any children? Outside of the "Experience" I can't see a need to be stuck on a train for hours with kids of any age. At least with an airplane you can get from coast to coast within a few hours. Going to NYC would be the best case scenario to ride a train."

I have children, and I've taken both the train and the plane to NYC. The train was far easier. For one thing, the seats were larger and more comfortable. Second, you can get up and move around much more easily. Third, it was cheaper by far. Fourth, going straight to Penn Station in Central Manhattan was a heck of a lot better than having to take a taxi from LaGuardia with a rude driver screaming curses at the other drivers in front of my children! So, yes, I've done it with young children and the train beat the plane hands down.

NC Reader
April 16, 2009 6:54 p.m.

Having used high-speed rail in Japan and South Korea (and even the MagLev train in Shanghai), I think that a serious exploration of developing high-speed rail in high density corridors of the U.S. is long overdue.

The portal-to-portal time of trips under 300 miles is equal to or less than that of air transportation, with much less travel stress. An appropriately planned system integrates rail stations with airports, making combination trips (air and rail) very effective. High speed rail can make a lot of sense and could increase our transportation effectiveness from both economic and efficiency viewpoints.

Fiberguy
April 16, 2009 6:24 p.m.

Based on what I've read on high speed rail, the target of the project is to provide regional high speed rail that can compete with driving or flying between cities that are a few hours drive from each other, not a nationwide system from LA to NYC.

I have ridden Amtrak and would ride more often if the travel time were comparable or better than driving.

The State of NC owns a railroad, leases it to Norfolk Southern and sponsors Amtrak service for the state.

I found information on both NC's sponsorship and the proposed high speed corridor at www.bytrain.org. If managed effectively and the rail lines were leased to freight carriers as a way to make supplemental income, it could definitely work.

By the way, for those asking about private investment, how many airlines have gone out of business? Transportation costs money. If building a railroad slows down the amount of money that has to be spent on roads and saves all interstates from becoming toll roads, I'm all for it.

viddward
April 16, 2009 5:18 p.m.

Conservative,

A train uses far less energy to propel than an airplane or the hundreds of cars each train replaces. So its carbon footprint would actually be way less than cars or planes. Also electricity can be generated by any kind of fuel source, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro are all options. So when it comes to carbon out put, the train is the best.

homeimprovement, I think the kids would be ok on the train, since they can get up and walk around, look out the windor, watch a movie on their portable dvd player. They'd be fine.

NCcarguy, if you think high speed rail is a complete waste, why did you work on the project? But seriously, yes the planning stage will cost millions, the building stage will cost billions, the benefit will last for the rest of our lives. Its nice to see something lasting built. In fact, one of the problems with our economy and our spending habits is we waste to much on transient items and not enough on things that last.

wildervb
April 16, 2009 4:59 p.m.

, I was travelling alone and the cost was less than driving and less than flying

And I am sure that your fare totally covered the cost of transporting you and included profit for future improvement of the train and its tracks. NOT. Those that desire high-speed rail need to pool their monies and develop a company that will produce such a product.