PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
Mobile
Home Delivery
philly.com
email
font size
comments
4
options
 
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

LaHood to airlines: Don't fight high-speed rail

A lively debate is underway in Washington and elsewhere about the government's role in transportation spending. What should be a higher priority right now? Investing in new high-speed rail services or in the technology to create the Next Generation air-traffic control system? We should do both, but how much can we afford to spend? And how should public and private-sector funding sources be used for each?

Last week, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urged airline industry officials at the FAA's annual forecast conference in Washington to not fight against high-speed rail projects, which the administration has made a priority and to which, for the first time, Congress has agreed to devote significant funds. Spending will come on Next Gen air navigation, too, some of it in a FAA reauthorization bill that Congress is expected to act on this week.

A healthy back-and-forth between those with ideas and opinons on both sides was reported today by Travel Weekly, the industry newspaper. Read more here ....

 
Posted by Tom Belden @ 11:50 AM  Permalink | 4 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:20 PM, 03/16/2010
    That's right LaHood wants to spend more money on rail while the air traffic system ( 50 years old) get older.and breaks down more often.Great call LaHood
    — STEVE5444
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:59 PM, 03/16/2010
    For all the hullabaloo about government stimulus and infrastructure projects, these are the two biggest projects that are TRULY needed. Not just one, but both.
    — Tartan69
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:55 PM, 03/16/2010
    The problem with "high speed rail" is and continues to be that trains are still limited to how fast they can go through the Northeast corridor. We can't get the Acela up to full speed so...now we're going to have even faster trains that still will be capped. Couple that with the fact that the rails, switches and signals all need to be replaced at costs far beyond what we can afford as a nation and I don't see this as a sound use of our resources.
    — theodotius
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:53 PM, 03/16/2010
    theodotius, I'm sure this means that money would go to make those updates that you mention. They aren't just going to build faster trains on the same junk equipment. They had to do that with Accela because they didn't have this kind of funding.
    — FMT


4 comments
About Tom Belden
Tom Belden has been reporting about Philadelphia International Airport and other air travel subjects for more than 20 years, writing columns for The Inquirer's Travel and Business sections. His reporting (with colleague Craig McCoy) on baggage handling problems in Philadelphia have been credited with helping to improve the system. His previous blog was called Road Warrior. He can reached at tbelden@phillynews.com.
Advertise Here