Area lawmakers say they’re just exercising fiscal caution in endorsing a state bill that potentially could derail $461 million in federal stimulus to create North Carolina’s portion of a high-speed rail corridor between Washington and Charlotte.
However, the bill’s title suggests a different destination: “No High-Speed Rail money From Federal Gov’t.” And, in three states, that’s exactly what Republican lawmakers and governors have done. Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down their share of stimulus money for high-speed rail projects, and North Carolina could pick up a portion of that money. If the state rejects this funding, it won’t put money back in the taxpayers’ pockets, but it could set back track and crossing improvements, including approximately $100 million worth of projects in Rowan County.
In co-sponsoring the N.C. bill, Reps. Fred Steen and Harry Warren said they’re concerned about the state taking on future financial obligations it can’t afford regarding maintenance and upkeep, and they want to ensure the legislature has oversight over high-speed spending decisions. Digging into the fine print is part of the due diligence legislators should do. Nobody wants to acquire a pig in a poke, no matter how fast it runs. But they also should carefully consider the benefits that the high-speed rail project can bring — benefits that won endorsement for the project from Sen. Richard Burr and Reps. Howard Coble and Sue Myrick, among others in the N.C. Congressional delegation.
In the short term, those benefits are jobs — an estimated 4,800 over the next two years — and safer, more convenient rail service. Rail commuters aren’t the only ones who stand to gain; so do motorists who will benefit from upgrades that will reconfigure hazardous and time-consuming grade crossings like the one in Salisbury at Klumac Road. Longer term, North Carolina’s cities and towns along the corridor will benefit from increased ridership — the state recently added a third train to the Raleigh-Charlotte route — and high-speed connections to major municipalities in other parts of the country.
If North Carolina rejects this funding, it doesn’t gain anything — and it’s not as if rejection of stimulus funding negates the need for future rail improvements, lessens the coordination complications between freight trains and passenger cars, replaces outdated crossings or relieves the congestion on our roads. The future will continue coming at us just a fast. We just won’t be as prepared for it. So by all means scrutinize the potential costs of high-speed rail, listen to constituents’ concerns and ask questions. But as for the notion that North Carolina can’t afford to look that far down the tracks, how can it afford not to?
Tuesday, March 29, 201
