In response to the C&P's anti-high speed rail editorial

Today the Evansville Courier & Press released an editorial on high speed rail claiming that it is not a proper replacement for highways...

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/oct/03/high-speed-rail-the-issue-amtrak-looks-to-our-we/

My response is as follows...

I'm EXTREMELY disappointed the C&P would publish this. This article is way off base with the high speed rail industry.

First of all, Avery's rail study wasn't even for high speed rail, it was for slow speed passenger rail which was disappointing but it still would have been a start just like Ohio is doing with their 3C program.

The C&P honestly thinks the northeast is the only target for high speed rail expansion? Quite the opposite... http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/a-vision-for-high-speed-rail/

In fact, the midwest has gotten its fair share http://midwest.construction.com/features/2010/0501_HighSpeedRail.asp
even though California voters approved their project directly on the ballot back in 2008.

And it's beside me why this town has ignored the progress around it. Look at these maps. One of these cities is not like the others.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/integrated-railroad-network
http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/routes.htm
& http://www.midwesthsr.org/projects-by-state


And don't even give me that "it's too expensive" argument. I've never seen a route where building a 1950's interstate was cheaper than building high speed rail. For this very reason California is building their high speed rail because it is cheaper than expanding highways and airports, not to mention much more environmentally friendly which the CP and I-69 supporters couldn't care any less about.

I-69, by INDOTS projections is expected to cost $3.31 billion, which has tripled, and they don't tell you that this estimate doesn't take into account the ohio river bridge, the interchanges that were taken out that will need to be put back in, and the fact that cheaper materials are being used which will result in road construction in the very near future. This road will cost every bit of $5 billion. On the flip side, high speed rail will only cost 1/4th of what it would cost to build highways...

http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/whyHSR.htm

Lastly, what in the world does Steve "Good Ole Boy" Schaeffer know about high speed rail? The answer is nothing! He is a biased supporter for I-69 and his group is nothing more than a front group for the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce and we all know what they've accomplished for Southern IN: Nothing!

Schaeffer's article in question here : http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/may/23/job-creation-is-goal-of-interstate-69-project/
was extremely poorly written and I'm surprised it's being brought back up in this editorial. I've debunked just about all of it on my blog... http://evansvillemovingforward.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-response-to-i-69-supporter.html

Build I-69 claims their road would create 4,600 permanent jobs. A high speed rail TEST FACILITY would create 1,500 jobs alone http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x429510959/Report-Rail-operation-would-bring-at-least-1-500-well-paying-jobs

The fact is: high speed rail is cheaper (fares and construction), it's cleaner, it's faster, it's safer, it pays for its own maintenance costs, and it will create more jobs.

The decision of do you want Evansville to keep playing catch up with the interstate system or join the rest of the U.S in building modern and futuristic high speed rail should be a very easy one to make.

If the C&P is really serious about the high speed rail vs i-69 debate they would hold a forum and invite high speed rail experts to speak, not just write an editorial quoting a biased i-69 supporter.

My Response To An I-69 Supporter

After my recent Courier & Press article calling for Indiana to "Scrap I-69," and build high speed rail instead, there was a response written to the C & P from a Mr. Steve Schaefer from "Hoosier Voices for I-69." The article DID NOT say I-69 should be built over high speed rail because it's 1. cheaper 2. faster 3. safer 4. a more reliable form of transportation, or 5. a better form of transportation for the future. Why? Because he simply cannot. The following is a rebuttal article I have sent to the C & P in order to keep the record straight that high speed rail is indeed the proper system to implement...

In an attempt to allow space for everyone to get their opinion heard, I usually don’t write rebuttals. However, I felt compelled to answer Steve Schaefer’s article that was in response to my article about scrapping I-69 because I feel that Mr. Schaefer has a complete lack of knowledge about the benefits of replacing I-69 with high speed rail.

Mr. Schaefer did a great job dodging the facts that high speed rail will not need to destroy massive amounts of farmland to be built, it will not rely on the oil industry for transportation, and it will cost much less than I-69.
Mr. Schaefer further displays his lack of knowledge about high speed rail by stating “The likelihood of stations at every community along the route would defeat the overall purpose of a more efficient transportation system and would not provide the direct access for the flow of traffic and commerce.” High Speed rail will have side tracks called spurs that will divert local traffic away from express traffic. Even if there was just one track, high speed rail travels at speeds of 220-375 mph meaning that you could stop at every important town between here and Indianapolis and still beat an auto. Furthermore, INDOT has already taken out several exits along I-69 in order to cut costs which will further devalue this road.

Another problem I have with Schaefer’s article is his comment that “It is estimated that over 47,000 new jobs are created for every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure. That alone should convince any opponent that this highway is about job creation and should be a priority during these strained economic times.” Does Mr. Schaefer not realize that high speed rail is infrastructure too? Does he not realize that I-69 will only create 4,600 permanent jobs? In contrast, Ohio’s high speed rail is projected to create 11,000 permanent jobs ($6-$9 billion private investment) and California’s is expected to create nearly 450,000! Also, which would you rather Evansville be: A huge truck stop or a crossroads of America rail center?

Lastly, Mr. Schaefer said that my article was “A slap in the face,” to I-69 supporters. Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of taking road trips and having my car lock up when a train would alleviate that problem. I’m tired of dealing with the BMV and insurance companies, and I’m sick of seeing crosses on the side of the road because the auto claims over 40,000 people a year. High speed rail erases all of these problems which are why it is the future. Google Personal Rapid Transit, the Interstate Traveler Project, and Maglev Rail and you will see how superior rail technology is.

I encourage everyone to write to this paper and your elected officials to demand high speed rail.

The fact is... We are at a crucial point in Evansville's history where we can either A. Catch- Up to the rest of the U.S or B. Remain 40-50 years behind the rest of the U.S. I hope you will take some time out of your busy schedule to write to your legislators and write to the Courier and Press to tell them... Enough is Enough! Evansville needs a cutting edge form of transportation just like the rest of the U.S is scheduled to receive. It is time to scrap the outmoded I-69 project and build high speed rail where we can ship goods faster, create more jobs, eliminate the crosses on the roads, reduce global emissions, and save a few pennies all at the same time.