Perdue's change of heart on high-speed rail is welcome news

Editor's note: Today's guest editorial is from the Savannah Morning News. Gov. Sonny Perdue returns from a meeting of governors in Washington as a new convert to the idea of high-speed rail. What's more, he's vowed to evangelize the governors of neighboring states -- who skipped the meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood -- on the merits of establishing a high-speed rail network. Perdue's change of heart is welcome news. For years, Perdue downplayed high-speed rail as too expensive and unlikely to draw enough riders to be self-supporting.
To be sure, President Obama's announcement of $8 billion in rail funding from stimulus funds, plus another $5 billion called for in the president's budget, might have been enough to turn the governor's head on the issue. (Although aides say Perdue's train travels in China and Spain also played a role.) The seductive nature of federal money does not, however, negate the wisdom of improving the nation's transportation infrastructure in a way that gives Americans more choices, helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lessens highway congestion and cuts illness-causing air pollution. While $13 billion isn't really enough to start construction on a high-speed rail system, it is enough to kick off the studies and planning necessary before construction can begin. The president's initial proposal calls for upgrading existing Amtrak routes, instead of laying all-new rail lines. That should hold down costs by reducing expenditures on right-of-way acquisition. While this idea risks maintaining Amtrak's brain-boggling routing system, word from Transportation Secretary LaHood is that the route plan for the new lines is still fluid: New stops could still be added. As for the issue of rider demand, the much faster trains should increase the appeal of rail travel. High-speed rail is often faster for regional travel than air lines, once airport hassles are figured in, along with travel to city centers from outlying airports. Those who doubt the viability of high-speed rail point out that it will take billions of dollars and decades of time to build a nationwide rail network. But the question is not whether we want to spend the money, but where we want to spend it. Should we continue spending those billions on foreign oil and protecting our interests in oil-rich Middle Eastern nations? Or should we spend those dollars at home? Investing those dollars in cleaner, less oil-thirsty technologies like high-speed rail gets an "amen."


More Opinion

Rants, Raves & Really?!?

A look back at last week’s highs, lows and whatevers: REALLY?!? Some members of the East Coweta High School Marching Band were burned ... Read More


Georgia Says

The Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle on unswerving ideals: He epitomized the expression "doing well by doing good." His chicken sandwiches made ... Read More


The president and ISIS

The greatest threat facing America is terrorism. Today, that terrorism shows its face through ISIS. They rape, torture and kill men, women a ... Read More


Take a moment

On this day in 2001, at 8:46 a.m. Eastern time, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into floors 93-99 of the North Tower of the World Trade ... Read More


Rants, Raves & Really?!?

A look back at last week’s highs, lows and whatevers: REALLY?!? A pit bull terrier was put down after being stabbed at the local PetSm ... Read More

Georgia Says

Albany (Georgia) Herald on Internet thieves: The idea of privacy is becoming more novel by the day. Technology has changed life over the pas ... Read More