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.