Letter To Rep Killian (R) on the bill “No High-Speed Rail Money from Federal Gov’t.”

Dear Mr. Killian,

I was rather shocked to see your support for House Bill 422. I was expecting to see the support for this bill by those who are in counties not served by Amtrak. The looks of the primary and cosponsors of the bill, you stand out. How does your proposal align with the needs of Charlotte/Mecklenberg county?

I have traveled via Amtrak many times over the last two years. I am not dependent upon it for long travel, mostly due to the low speed. I understand that this upgrade does not stand to provide a great increase in service or noticeable benefit to the user, however it does stand as an needed upgrade to the infrastructure within North Carolina. Additionally there have been reports, by the Association of American Railways, of increased usage of the railways.

Your stand does not seem to conform to the following interests:
1. Your personal interest in occupation [high speed rail is a selling point if there is a terminal in your area, its a way to get to either Atlanta or Washington DC (if you sell it right)]
2. The interests of the people that you represent [Mecklenburg Residents use public transport, if it is well maintained (we have the "Gold Rush Trolley" in addition to the light rail)
3. It does not fit the interest in the creation of jobs or investment in NC infrastructure. Improvements

Unless there is another reason, it appears to me that you are riding on the coat tails of the national party [republicans] rather than representing the people that voted you in. If this is the case, shame on you. Additionally if this is the case, you have motivated me to participate in the next election to campaign for your competitor and vote for them.

The grant is an easy way of getting money for improvements. Where else will you get this kind of benefit without resorting to interest barring municipal bonds?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CXJ6NAU5BX42VJPUNHKL4FGF3A Papa Smurf

    What other reasonings might be behind Mr Killian’s voting against the “highspeed rail” legislation? Perhaps there are better / more immediate uses for the money, or not spending it may help us out of the current budget deficit debacle.

    • Anonymous

      Well.. I can understand the argument about priorities. However, I see the upgrade as an opportunity to get a project done where the market is favorable for new work [would provide a new workforce], and that it would open new markets [thus maintaining a competitive edge]nnI’m not sure about how it would affect the station moving to downtown [I think that may be included in the plans], but its defiantly the way to provide city to city transport.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CXJ6NAU5BX42VJPUNHKL4FGF3A Papa Smurf

        What is the current usership of rail traffic in Charlotte, and what are the most likely additions/changes to that ridership if the upgrades are performed? I have no data, so I’m curious :)

        • Anonymous

          Thats a good question. I would like to know as well. Apparently ridership is high enough to warrant additional day trips, and the need for our own routes. From my experience it gathers a fair amount of people in the early morning (7am train) and its always packed full of people in the evening.

          • http://antipaucity.com Warren

            if the ridership is currently high enough (or they might be able to add more), then I’m all for it :)nnthen again, adding a car or two may handle the ridership issue (at a *much* lower cost)

          • Anonymous

            I’m not sure that ridership is currently the issue. I believe the issue is efficiency, and a push to mitigate high traffic on the highways and skys to rail.

          • http://antipaucity.com Warren

            Also – if towns along the way increased their maximum rail speeds, a major chunk of the issue would be solved: for example, if in Burlington and Mebane you could go 55 instead of 30..

  • Pingback: Update to NC – High Speed Rail