Press Releases and Newsletters
Urban Loop could be delayed (News & Record)
Construction of the Greensboro Urban Loop’s three unbuilt sections could be delayed under a policy change that House lawmakers are likely to include in their budget.
Roughly $132.1 million of annual Highway Fund money set aside to build loop highways ringing the state’s urban areas would be shifted to the state Mobility Fund under the plan that House transportation budget writers have submitted.
The Mobility Fund was created last year to take on high-cost pressing priorities, such as rebuilding the Yadkin River Bridge on Interstate 85 between Greensboro and Charlotte.
“That puts a whole lot of uncertainty into the process,” said Mike Fox, a lawyer and DOT board member from Greensboro.
Construction on two sections of the loop — one between Bryan Boulevard and Battleground Avenue and another between U.S. 70 and U.S. 29 — are due to be completed by 2017. A third section, between Battleground and U.S. 29, is due to be completed in the next 20 years, although city officials are trying to speed up a part of that construction.
Those timelines could be delayed if funding for the loops is shifted to the Mobility Fund. That’s because the fund sets priorities for construction projects differently than the current Highway Fund does.
“There’s a concern the loop projects may not fare as well,” Fox said.
Although there have been no official calculations, Fox said DOT engineers have informally estimated that the Greensboro loop projects scheduled to be completed over the next 10 years would be delayed beyond 2020.
“We have seen in this state for many, many years that transportation funding has been based on politics,” said Rep. Ric Killian, a Charlotte-area Republican and the leader of the transportation budget committee. Shifting funding for the loops to the mobility fund would help take the politics out of road construction, he said.
Killian said other money may follow loop funding into the Mobility Fund. There, he said, projects would compete based on a calculation that involves their cost and how much travel time they would save.
“At this moment, I can’t tell you how this change is going to affect all those loops,” Killian said.
The state budget is split into six areas governed by separate subcommittees. Those subcommittees finished their work this week, and the shift in loop funding is included in the plan that Killian’s subcommittee has submitted.
No Greensboro-area legislators are on that transportation committee.
House members will vet their spending plan over the next two weeks and can make changes before sending it to the Senate.
“I have not seen it,” Rep. John Blust said of the transportation budget proposal. The Greensboro Republican said he would talk with Killian and others about the spending plan next week.
The Senate will write its own budget plan. Despite working closely with the House to craft some budget proposals, it’s unclear whether Senate budget writers will agree to shift funding for the loops.
The Urban Loop “is of vital importance to Greensboro,” said Sen. Don Vaughan, a Greensboro Democrat who is on his chamber’s transportation budget-writing committee.
Vaughan, Fox and other Greensboro-area officials met Wednesday with Sen. Phil Berger, an Eden Republican and the top leader in the Senate.
“I’d like to look carefully at what it is the House does once the House passes their budget,” Berger said Thursday. “Once we see that and see how it impacts the Greensboro loop and some of the other construction projects in the Triad, then we’ll see if there’s a need of us to do anything.”
Berger will have more than a passing interest in the final outcome. His Senate district includes all of Rockingham County as well as sections of Guilford County, both areas in which residents hope the loop will provide faster access to the rest of the Triad and the state.
“It’s a matter of access as far as folks in Rockingham, but it’s a traffic-congestion issue for people in northwest Guilford,” Berger said.
The House is expected officially to send its budget to the Senate for consideration in early May.
Saturday, April 23, 2011 (Updated 3:00 am)
By Mark Binker
Staff Writer
NC House panel nixes Legislature OK for rail grant (Associated Press)
RALEIGH, N.C. — A few Republicans joined Democrats on Tuesday to turn back a provision that would have required the North Carolina General Assembly to explicitly accept federal funds like those coming to improve rail service between Raleigh and Charlotte.
The House Transportation Committee narrowly approved an amendment deleting a proposal that would have required the Legislature to act in order for the state to receive $460 million in federal funds to improve high-speed passenger train service.
The Obama administration announced the grant last month. Republican governors in three states have rejected similar high-speed rail funds because they didn’t want to obligate their states to potentially high operating costs. But grant supporters argue the money will create jobs and reduce future congestion.
The earlier proposal eliminated by a vote of 17-15 would have applied to any federal rail grant if the state’s portion exceeded $5 million. Now, the bill would only require the state Department of Transportation to consult with a legislative commission when the portion surpassed $3 million.
Rep. Becky Carney, R-Mecklenburg, the amendment sponsor, said the measure would have tied the hands of DOT leaders without the change to seek help from the federal government for future rail projects.
“I don’t know that we have proven that they’ve done anything wrong and irresponsible,” Carney said, adding the amendment deleting explicit legislative approval “takes the politics out of this bill.”
Fellow Charlotte Rep. Ric Killian, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, opposed the amendment, saying the state shouldn’t be saddled with high operating costs or matching grants unless the Legislature agrees it wants to do so.
He said he’s willing to change the bill to satisfy colleagues make clear the Legislature wouldn’t necessarily have to be called into a special session if grant approval is needed when lawmakers aren’t in Raleigh. A provision in a House transportation budget proposal similar to the one that retain explicit legislative approval would be considered Wednesday in another committee.
The rail grant would replace curves with straightaways and build 12 new bridges to eliminate dozens of highway-rail crossings that would allow trains of 90 mph to run, cutting time off the Raleigh-Charlotte route. The mayors of Charlotte and Durham urged lawmakers two weeks ago to protect the funds by opposing Killian’s bill.
The state Department of Transportation wants additional federal funds from the $2.4 billion that Florida rejected. Those funds could require matching grants from the state.
By Gary D. Robertson
Published: April 20, 2011
NC annexation bill would give say to landowners (Associated Press)
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina’s forced annexation laws — praised by municipal leaders and often maligned by those whose land is being incorporated — could soon undergo a dramatic change that would allow property owners to block a transaction without a costly court battle.
Proposed legislation expected before a House committee Tuesday would prevent a town or city from assuming an unincorporated area if enough landowners file formal protests within four months of the municipality’s governing board approving the annexation ordinance.
The bill stops short of allowing referenda to block such involuntary annexations, as some citizens embroiled in land fights have demanded from the General Assembly but municipal lobbyists have fought for years.
The bill, however, would strengthen the hand of landowners compared to the 1959 statewide law that lays out how towns and cities can adopt unincorporated areas against their wills. Annexation law changes have been delayed as homeowners, cities and local and state elected officials couldn’t agree on an equitable solution.
“We will be providing a voice for the citizens in involuntary annexation,” said Rep. Nelson Dollar, R-Wake, a primary sponsor of the bill he expects will get support from members of both parties in the Legislature. “It’s a real voice, it’s a substantial voice.”
The bill, details of which were released late Monday, would block an involuntary annexation if 60 percent of the property owners in the area being swallowed up by the municipality sign a petition opposing the annexation. The town or city would be barred from seeking an annexation again for 24 months.
Africans find inspiration, ideas in Bridgeport schools
The measure also would require a town or city to install water and sewer service free of charge if a majority of property owners in the targeted area request it within a 60-day window. Otherwise, the city may charge property owners. Other landowners in the area could get the services at a reduced rate over a five-year period. Citizens have complained cities forced them to pay thousands of dollars for services.
The North Carolina League of Municipalities, the lobbying group for the state’s towns and cities, has strongly opposed settling involuntary annexations through citizen referenda. It says the current laws have worked well to manage the state’s population growth and keep cities healthy.
The league doesn’t care for the bill being considered Tuesday but it may be a slightly better outcome than allowing other pending legislation to pass that would place a one-year moratorium on involuntary annexations, league lobbyist Kelli Kukura said. The league is worried the pause would be extended for several years, she said.
The petition bill “may be the only alternative to a moratorium. It is like starving for weeks and then being given a piece of cardboard to eat,” Kukura wrote in an email. “One would probably have to choose to eat it.”
Catherine Heath, chairwoman of the group Stop NC Annexation, said some of her anti-annexation allies may want to hold out for a referendum requirement. Most of the states that allow annexations require some kind of election to permit them.
But she said she likes the protest petition, which Dollar said is based in part on similar concepts in local government when dealing with zoning and land-use restrictions.
“It’s (still) the property owners making the decision,” he said. “This brings it all down to a one-step process.”
GARY D. ROBERTSON,
Updated 05:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Gas-tax pennies add up to big benefit (Winston-Salem Journal)
Every time gas prices rise, someone calls for putting a limit on our state’s gas tax. This knee-jerk reaction is short-sighted and will ultimately hurt North Carolina.
The state gas tax has no impact on overall gas prices. Those prices are determined by supply and demand, and what the industry believes the market will bear. This fee will not affect those swings.
Capping the state gas tax will, however, seriously impact the quality of the roads and our bridges. Preventing this vital revenue stream from growing with the population will result in more potholes, more unpaved secondary roads and more delays for critical construction projects across North Carolina.
Closer to hope in Forsyth County, it could mean putting the Business 40 Improvement Project in downtown Winston-Salem on hold. Halting this vital project would not only have serious safety implications, but it would also allow increasing traffic congestion to continue and affect our economic future.
Now is not the time to pause this project. The bridges over Business 40 desperately need to be replaced with stronger, more modern ones. Although they are safe, these bridges were built to handle the traffic that passed over them decades ago — not today’s steady stream of cars and trucks. The bridges are reaching the end of their lifespan, and delaying their replacement will only speed their deterioration.
The pavement on Business 40 that we drive on every day is the original concrete poured during the 1950s. Over the years, we have patched and repaired it, but underneath is aging concrete in serious need of replacement. The exit ramps are also too short, and crashes are common as drivers try to merge into fast-moving traffic, causing the congestion that we know all too well. For safety reasons alone, these improvements cannot wait.
These changes have an effect of about 63 cents per month. That is what the cost of a one-cent increase in North Carolina’s gas tax would equal for the average driver.
In real terms, for less than the price of one Krispy Kreme donut each month, drivers can ensure the Business 40 Improvement Project stays on schedule, the potholes get filled and the dirt roads get paved.
These pennies add up to big money for our transportation system — more than $25 million just in Forsyth County — for a state that maintains more roads than any other state but Texas. Taking that money away will harm all of us. In the short-term, it means more wear and tear on our cars. In the long run, we will be forced to let one of our greatest assets — our transportation network — dwindle. That is not how you attract and retain new companies to our area.
Capping the state gas tax will delay projects, but it will not delay the need for them. If towns and cities want to keep these projects on schedule, they will have to look for ways to come up with the funding necessary to complete them or move them forward through local tax increases or tolls. That means people who may never drive on our roads will be paying to improve them.
North Carolina, through its gas taxes, can maintain our roads with a system that is fair. A user pays system that charges the people who use the roads — residents and out-of-state visitors alike — a fee. A gas cap would only pass the expense of maintaining and improving our transportation system back to the citizens in the form of local taxes. And, those municipalities that could not afford to levy a tax would only be more greatly disadvantaged.
What is fair is letting the drivers who travel on our highways pay to keep them safe, strong and viable every time they fill up at the pump. The system works, and we need to keep it that way. Saving pennies sounds good, until we have to pay dollars to replace them.
By RALPH WOMBLE Guest Columnist
Published: April 17, 2011
Why North Carolina should accept federal money for rail (Charlotte Observer)
From Durham Mayor Bill Bell and Salisbury Mayor Susan Kluttz, chair and vice chair of the N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition:
Very recently, the debate about rail modernization and North Carolina’s share of federal funding has been derailed. Critics want to reject the $461 million in federal stimulus funding for rail projects because they argue it will not greatly reduce travel time. But on behalf of the mayors representing North Carolina’s 27 largest cities, we are urging state leaders to consider the consequence of turning down this critical funding.
Accepting federal grant monies for investment in the state’s rail system is about creating jobs, addressing future transportation congestion and maintaining and building infrastructure our state needs to attract businesses. Our state’s population is expected to grow by 4 million by 2030. If we fail to invest now, passenger and freight rail travel will be far more delayed.
Utilizing the federal funding will allow for expansions and improvements along the railroad corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte. Much of the investment will directly affect safety – separating crossings and eliminating places where trains and automobiles could collide. The funding will also help expand the capacity for both passenger and freight rail with additional tracks – accommodating future growth for new riders and businesses shipping their goods by rail.
Rail ridership continues to grow in North Carolina, and with more frequency and options, additional people will want to travel by rail. In 2010, rail ridership increased by 15 percent – double the national average. Additional passenger trains and increased train frequency give motorists more options for travel by getting drivers from behind the wheel and off the roads.
There are 4,800 direct jobs related to the planning, design and construction of the proposed rail improvements and, according to the NC Associated General Contractors, direct and indirect jobs could total as many as 15,000. These are private sector jobs – not jobs within the government. This isn’t an expansion of big government. This is an expansion of the wallets, savings accounts and grocery bags for nearly 5,000 workers in our state. This is stimulus at work.
And while some critics of the federal funding seem eager to turn down the money for their own communities, we aren’t. We know that many of our citizens would appreciate the jobs and added options for travel. We understand that adding more passenger trains creates opportunities to build or expand stations, grow businesses around the stations and attract new businesses related to both passenger and freight rail.
Bottom line, it would be a mistake to reject this money. It takes years to plan and construct these rail projects, and already the U.S. is behind the times. Will the better time come when we more desperately need expanded rail infrastructure, but there’s no pot of money? Rejecting this funding will not allow our state to use the money for roads and it also won’t change the fact that we still need to invest in our rail system.
We say look forward. Start addressing needs now while we have this window and available funding. It’s obvious that if we reject this funding, another state will only seize on our mistake.
For The Record offers commentaries from various sources. The views are the writer’s, and not necessarily those of the Observer editorial board.
Posted: Friday, Apr. 08, 2011
Lawmakers Posture for Potential Legal Battle Over Redistricting (NCFEF)
North Carolina’s redistricting process got underway yesterday with what was supposed to be a joint meeting of the State House and Senate redistricting committees. The House, however, was tied up in session working on a bill to address the State Health Plan when the 3:00 p.m. meeting was scheduled to start, and they did not adjourn until about two hours later. The Senate proceeded on their own in a meeting that began with a somewhat telling and testy exchange between committee chairman Sen. Bob Rucho (R-Mecklenburg) and Minority Leader Sen. Martin Nesbitt (D-Buncombe).
The crux of the dialogue centered on a request made by Sen. Nesbitt to add Sens. Dan Blue (D-Wake) and Dan Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) to the Senate Redistricting Committee based on their experience and expertise in past redistricting efforts. According to a prepared statement presented by Sen. Nesbitt, the request had been made more than once to Sen. Rucho and to Sen. President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R-Rockingham). Nesbitt mentioned that other Democratic committee members had offered to step down to make room for Blue and Clodfelter on the committee, but each time the request was denied. This led Nesbitt to question whether the Senate GOP leadership truly intended to have a “fair and open” redistricting process.
Chairman Rucho explained that committee members had been chosen based on a number of factors including geographic representation around the state and the preference that the committee not be stacked with attorneys, as had been done in the past. In the end, Rucho suggested that the committee makeup would stay as is. (Incidentally, the media is reporting today that Sen. Charlie Dannelly, an African-American Democrat from Charlotte, has announced plans to step down from the Senate Redistricting Committee.)
The Significance… in Anticipation of a Protracted Legal Battle.
The exchange between Sens. Rucho and Nesbitt, while not nearly as emotional and heated as many that take place down on Jones Street, was highly significant for a number of reasons:
1. Sen. Nesbitt, the minority party leader, read a prepared statement into the committee record. This is rarely done at the General Assembly – testimony and statements from legislators are generally made in a much more informal manner. Nesbitt’s statement was deliberate, clearly crafted and presented as if being read by a lawyer (which Nesbitt is) into the records of a legal proceeding (which this is likely to become). From the very start, Senate Democrats are laying the groundwork for a potential legal challenge to the procedures and products of this year’s redistricting process.
2. Sen. Rucho’s response to Nesbitt’s remarks, as well as other statements the chairman made during the committee meeting, were also intentional and carefully worded. Rucho and other GOP leaders have consistently stated that redistricting maps would be drawn in a “fair and legal” manner. The Republican Senate leadership is well aware of the likelihood of potential legal action and is proceeding in a deliberate and measured fashion to make the maps and the process used to draw them as legally defensible as possible.
3. A court reporter (stenographer) was present and recording the deliberations for posterity. In anticipation of legal challenges to the maps and legislative procedures, lawmakers have become accustomed to having redistricting committee proceedings formally recorded.
Sen. Rucho says he hopes redistricting process will be completed by June 1. (For detailed information about redistricting, visit the General Assembly’s 2011 Redistricting page.) If this week’s meeting is any indication of how future redistricting committees will proceed, we can fully expect to encounter a heightened level of formality, heated courtroom-style cross examination, scrutiny of every procedural jot and tittle in committee and on the House and Senate floors, and inspection of the district maps with the finest-tooth comb that can be found.
This may be just the beginning of what could become a protracted legal battle to determine where the district lines fall and which party has the best opportunity secure a majority of seats in our congressional delegation and in the State House and Senate. It’s no wonder the minority party wants to have two of their most seasoned veteran lawyers on the committee, and it’s no wonder why the majority wants to keep them off.
John L. Rustin
March 31, 2011
New Hanover might be split into two Senate districts (Star News)
Because of growth during the past decade, New Hanover County is almost certain to be split between two state Senate districts as a result of the once-a-decade redrawing of state legislative districts.
“It’s going to probably be a two-county cluster. That’s the law,” said Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee, which met for the first time Wednesday afternoon.
New Hanover residents currently are represented by one state senator, Republican Wilmington attorney Thom Goolsby, who is in his first term.
But the 2010 U.S. Census determined that the county now has 202,667 residents, 6.3 percent more residents than the ideal population of each state senate district – 190,710.
The N.C. Constitution, according to interpretations in the courts, requires that no state House or Senate district can have a population that deviates more than 5 percent either way from the ideal district population.
Members of the Senate Redistricting Committee met for the first time Wednesday afternoon, setting in motion the complicated and controversial drawing of new state legislative and congressional districts to account for population changes. The new districts will be in place through 2020.
The meeting was scheduled as a joint meeting between the House and Senate redistricting committees, but the House’s regular session ran over and the Senate committee went ahead without the House members.
Legislators plan a series of redistricting public hearings across the state, including meetings in Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender counties on May 5. Residents may also submit written public comments through the General Assembly redistricting page, www.ncleg.net/Redistricting.
Inherently a political process, this year started no differently. After taking control of the House and Senate in last year’s elections, Republicans control the process for the first time in more than a century.
At the start of Wednesday’s meeting, Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, questioned why Rucho, the Republican committee chairman, wouldn’t allow Democrats, despite a number of requests, to add Sens. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, and Dan Blue, D-Wake, to the committee. Nesbitt himself offered to step down, along with another Democrat on the committee, to make room for Clodfelter and Blue, who Nesbitt described as two of the Senate’s most seasoned members on redistricting.
Nesbitt said Rucho has reiterated frequently his desire to draw “fair and legal” districts through a “fair and open” process.
“But when you deny people with the most expertise and the most knowledge the opportunity to assist with redistricting, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is no intent to have a fair or open redistricting process,” he said.
Rucho said committee assignments wouldn’t change. He said members were selected based on geographic distribution, from urban and rural counties and from areas required to get federal preclearance of redistricting plans to ensure their compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act.
Rucho also said that committee members would have plenty of help from General Assembly staff if expertise is needed.
“My intent is to draw fair and legal districts with immediate preclearance and no lawsuits,” Rucho said.
Lawsuits challenging redistricting plans are commonplace. Asked why he thought this year would be different, Rucho said: “Maybe that’s a high standard, but I’ve always tried to excel in everything I’ve ever done.”
Freshman Sen. Bill Rabon, R-Brunswick, a member of the Senate Redistricting Committee, said he hasn’t looked closely at any population numbers aside from what he’s read in newspapers.
He said he refrained from that on purpose so he could go through the process “untainted.”
He said he planned to go through the process, trying to ensure that it’s as open as possible and that anyone who wants to is able to provide input to the committees.
The end result, he said, echoing a Republican redistricting mantra, should be “fair and legal” districts.
“At the end of the day, that’s all anyone can ask,” Rabon said.
Rep. Carolyn Justice, R-Pender, is expected to serve on the House Redistricting Committee.
By Patrick Gannon
Published: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
Senate panel ready to start drawing political maps (M2Mpolitics)
RALEIGH – State lawmakers are preparing for their decennial chore of redrawing the state’s political landscape.
Members of the Senate Redistricting Committee got an overview of what they can expect to be doing over the next couple of months as they, along with their House counterparts, will be mapping out 13 congressional districts, 50 state Senate districts and 120 state House districts.
“Our goal is to get this complete sometime around the first of June hand it to Justice and let it get preclearance,” said Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, the committee chairman.
Rucho was referring to the lengthy legal process, which includes a review by the U.S. Justice Department called “preclearance.” The Justice Department’s job under the Voting Rights Act is to make sure the state is doing nothing to dilute minority voting strength.
Before the legislative staff could get to work explaining the nuts and bolts of redistricting to lawmakers, an exchange took place between Rucho and Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, who is the Senate minority leader.
Nesbitt voiced a complaint that he had tried to get two veteran Democratic senators – Dan Blue of Wake County and Dan Clodfelter or Mecklenburg County – placed on the committee.
Sens. Clodfelter and Blue are the Senate’s most seasoned members on redistricting,” Nesbitt said. He said that he came to the conclusion that the two were actually excluded from the committee because of their experience.
Rucho said that there were reasons why Nesbitt’s request for a committee change had not been granted, including the geographical makeup. He also referred to previous redistricting panels being dominated by lawyers.
“We wanted to try to have normal people lead this,” Rucho said.
Rucho said that the committee plans to hold public comment sessions at nine to 10 different sites across the state.
Staff attorney Brad Krehely explained that the districts would have to be based on the 2010 Census figures, which showed North Carolina having 9,535,483 residents. The ideal number of people in each of the 13 congressional districts is 733,499. The ideal number in each of the 50 state Senate seats is 190,710. The ideal number in each of the 120 state House seats is 79,462.
By Barry Smith
Posted March 30, 2011 – 7:19 PM
From the Editors
M2Mpolitics.com
Editorial – State lawmakers should reject bills that trample local decisions (StarNews)
When Interstate 40 to Wilmington was completed, our local legislative delegation fought to keep billboards from cluttering the highway. Many of our cities and towns have adopted ordinances to protect trees – and, therefore, the beauty of their communities.
But a pair of matching bills under consideration could usurp those popular efforts and allow for the proliferation of digital billboards, adding yet another distraction for drivers.
Even worse, Senate Bill 183 and its House companion, H309, would give the state Department of Transportation control over vegetation cutting around billboards on state-maintained thoroughfares within city limits, superseding local sign and tree preservation ordinances.
Wilmington has a strong tree preservation ordinance that helps prevent clear-cutting and butchering of foliage. Concerned residents helped promote the regulations, and people tend to raise their voices when they see trees being cut.
The bill also includes language that would permit existing billboards on state and federal roads to be replaced, by right, with
digital billboards that can change advertisements every few seconds.
You’ve seen them.
A few years ago, the Wilmington City Council agreed to allow the eye-catching billboards as part of a deal to remove the Hooters billboard that for so long marked the gateway to Wilmington from the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge.
Two brightly colored digital billboards tower above businesses on Oleander Drive and South College Road. They’re visible even by traffic far down the road (Is it just us, or do they seem taller and larger than the old-fashioned variety?)
In moderation, billboards can be helpful. Packed closely together, with bright, frequently changing messages, they are eyesores.
In a legislature controlled by a party that backs less government and more local decision-making, this bill should be thrown onto the rubbish pile. Let cities, counties and towns decide, based on the preferences of the people who live there.
Published: Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 7:17 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 7:17 p.m.
Mixed signals on rail funding (News and Observer)
RALEIGH — As mayors and legislators debated a bill Tuesday that would send $461 million in federal railroad improvement grants back to Washington, the state Department of Transportation asked Washington for $624 million more.
In the new request, North Carolina seeks a share of $2.4 billion in high-speed rail grants recently spurned by the governor of Florida.
DOT would use the money to make rail improvements between Charlotte and Raleigh; replace old stations in both cities and build new ones in Hillsborough and Lexington; and do advance work on a 35-mile Raleigh-to-Richmond shortcut to serve trains at speeds up to 110 mph.
Anthony Foxx of Charlotte was one of three mayors who appeared before the House Transportation Committee to endorse the rail program, and to oppose a House bill that would kill it. Foxx noted that several committee witnesses, including Durham Mayor Bill Bell, had been delayed by a rush-hour wreck that stopped traffic on Interstate 40 near Research Triangle Park.
“This morning I actually took the train from Charlotte to Raleigh, and it took longer than it would have taken in a car – although it took a shorter amount of time than it took Mayor Bell to get here from Durham,” Foxx said. “And so that speaks to both the benefits and the opportunities of rail.”
GOP, Democrats split
Three Republican sponsors of the anti-rail bill complained that DOT had not consulted the legislature before accepting the federal rail grants last month, and had not explained how much it would cost the state in future years to maintain the new tracks and other facilities.
But two Democrats on the committee said the high-speed rail plans had been discussed at length and endorsed in two votes by a special House-Senate rail committee, and by the full House.
“Those projects weren’t just invented in the last two months,” said Rep. Ray Rapp of Mars Hill. “They were discussed, they were endorsed, and they were moved forward.”
He said the state would suffer if the legislature stalled or eliminated the federal rail funds.
“I think it truly is foolhardy that we are spending a lot of time even having this kind of discussion,” Rapp said. “I think this is where ideology is trumping common sense. This money that is coming down, with no match required, is going to make safer, more efficient transportation for both freight and passengers.”
Bell: It will make jobs
Bell promoted the rail program as “a job-creation project,” citing DOT’s projection for 4,800 engineering and construction jobs.
“In the first five years, North Carolina will spend approximately $15 million,” Bell said. “How often do we have the opportunity to create jobs in North Carolina for as little a state investment as this requires?”
Rep. Ric Killian of Charlotte, the bill’s chief sponsor, has said he wants to kill North Carolina’s high-speed rail program. He argued again Tuesday that it would hurt freight service, weaken the state-owned N.C. Railroad and undermine the state’s economic development prospects.
But two other sponsors, Reps. Phil Shepard of Jacksonville and Phillip Frye of Spruce Pine, said they only wanted to give the legislature the power to approve or veto the federally funded rail improvements. Although the grants are available only for rail, the sponsors said they were more concerned about other transportation needs.
“Before we obligate on high-speed rail, I want to see what we are going to do about these bridges that need to be replaced,” Shepard said.
All of the eight speakers who appeared before the committee opposed the bill. The transportation committee is expected to vote on it after more discussion at a meeting next week.
DOT’s new funding request was a repackaged version of previous bids for part of the $8 billion in federal stimulus funds and $2.5 billion in other high-speed rail money approved by Congress during the past two years.
While the state has won a total of $545 million in grants that cover 100 percent of project costs, money sought in the new application would require matching money from state and local sources.
Depending on how the federal government rules on North Carolina’s bid for $624 million, DOT would ask the legislature and local governments to come up with somewhere between $9.6 million and $159 million in matching funds, the department said in its grant request Tuesday.
