Commentary: Derailing high-speed rail | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
Sign In
Sign In
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

You have viewed all your free articles this month

Subscribe

Or subscribe with your Google account and let Google manage your subscription.

Opinion

Commentary: Derailing high-speed rail

The Sacramento Bee

March 10, 2011 11:52 AM

Three Central Valley members of Congress – Reps. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, and Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield – have introduced legislation to divert federal stimulus funding ($2.5 billion) for high-speed rail funding to State Route 99.

Their aim, they say, is to create a six-lane freeway.

Ironically, none of them directly opposes high-speed rail. McCarthy, for example, has said he favors high-speed rail between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. "But the private sector should pay for that," he has said, as if road building and other transportation infrastructure (airports, seaports) somehow aren't subsidized.

In short, H.R. 761 is a public relations stunt. The state and federal governments already have signed the agreements for high-speed rail stimulus funds.

The bill also presents a false choice between improving road infrastructure and building the passenger rail infrastructure of the future, operating at faster speeds than current intercity passenger trains.

Like it or not, California voters in 2008 approved a $9.95 billion bond measure to start the project. At the time, this page urged a "no" vote on all the propositions, saying, however, that the high-speed rail measure was a "tough call" because the state "needs clean alternatives to air travel and freeway travel, and the Central Valley needs the economic development that could result."

Well, voter support hasn't flagged since 2008. A Harris Poll released Feb. 24 showed that awareness of the project is high in California – and 70 percent support state funding and 73 percent support federal funding for the project.

To read the complete editorial, visit www.sacbee.com.

Read Next

Opinion

This is not what Vladimir Putin wanted for Christmas

By Markos Kounalakis

December 20, 2018 05:12 PM

Orthodox Christian religious leaders worldwide are weakening an important institution that gave the Russian president outsize power and legitimacy.

KEEP READING

MORE OPINION

Opinion

The solution to the juvenile delinquency problem in our nation’s politics

December 18, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

High-flying U.S. car execs often crash when when they run into foreign laws

December 13, 2018 06:09 PM

Opinion

Putin wants to divide the West. Can Trump thwart his plan?

December 11, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush, Pearl Harbor and America’s other fallen

December 07, 2018 03:42 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush’s secret legacy: his little-known kind gestures to many

December 04, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

Nicaragua’s ‘House of Cards’ stars another corrupt and powerful couple

November 29, 2018 07:50 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service