The decision to pull Louisiana from consideration for federal stimulus money to fund a passenger rail link from New Orleans to Baton Rouge isn’t sitting well with community and business leaders along the corridor.
The Southeast Super-Region Committee – a high-powered alliance of leaders from New Orleans, the Northshore and Baton Rouge that named the rail line one of its three joint priorities – is drafting a letter to Gov. Bobby Jindal and Transportation Secretary William Ankner, asking them to reopen the application to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The letter pleads for state officials to allow the business community the opportunity to explore the project further, namely finding long-term funding to make it viable. Stirling Properties President & CEO Marty Mayer, who serves on the SRC, says the group is concerned about the potential long-term economic implications if Louisiana lets this opportunity pass it by.
For one thing, the New Orleans-to-Baton Rouge line is expected to be part of a larger high-speed rail service along the Gulf Coast that will connect Houston to Atlanta. “If you look at all the progressive regions around the country, they already are under construction with some rail projects now,” Mayer says. “We viewed this as a great opportunity to link what we felt was an important link between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, bringing the super-region closer together and making us more competitive with other regions in the future.”
Construction of the proposed rail service project is estimated to cost $300 million, with annual operating costs running about $18 million. Stops might include Acadian Thruway and the Mall of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, Gonzales, LaPlace, and, in New Orleans, the Louis Armstrong International Airport and the Amtrak station near the Superdome. Advocates say it could attract as many as 500,000 passengers a year.
Ankner withdrew Louisiana’s application from consideration two days after a national commentator mocked Jindal for applying for the funding, citing the governor’s criticism of using stimulus money for rail systems in his response to President Obama’s first congressional address. Ankner has said he alone decided to withdraw the application after reviewing the requirements and determining “it didn’t make any sense for us to apply.”
Mayer and others along the corridor hope to change Ankner's mind. “This will be one of those projects that if we don’t take advantage of it and others do, it could have long-term implications for our economic vitality,” he says. “Instead of just not applying, we should apply and allow the business community to get involved and do further comprehensive studies to determine how we can make it work.” – Penny Font
Comments
Posted by perplexed on September 2, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rail is a 19th century solution to 21st century transportaion problems.
Louisiana made a very good decision.
And it is highly unlikely this financial boondoggle will ever be built
That route cannot even support LA Swift and rail would be 10X more expensive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Posted by wondering on September 2, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's hardly a surprise that the Governors office would choose the screen name "perplexed"
Posted by sethjsmiley on September 2, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
South La needs a commuter rail system. In Seattle for the LSU game I (just this morning), rode Seattle's newly completed light rail system from downtown to our SoDo office and contemplated how much this is needed in Louisiana. Born and raised in BR and now a resident of Nola I personally see a great need for such a system.
South Louisiana needs to be progressive and think ahead. The benefits of implementing such a system are countless and far outweigh the cons. The best part is that it'll be on FEMA's dime.
Posted by smithyne on September 2, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Baton Rouge, once a cow town, always a cow town.
Posted by arubyan on September 2, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I read the Samuelson article in the Post and it's a real downer.
On the other hand, I have to tell you if I could take the train from the mall to the NOLA airport I'd be thrilled. I'd save $35 on parking for starters so the fare would have to be REALLY high for me to think about driving instead.
And as for visiting New Orleans more often (something we always swear to do) it would certainly be more attractive.
My main question would be this: how come there's such a big difference between the cost cited in the Post article which seems to indicate the construction of the line would cost $4.5 billion versus the quoted cost of $300 million? I know there will be cost overruns -- there always are -- but that's ridiculous!
Posted by cypress on September 4, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to look at the bigger picture.
The economic model used for highways and roads should be applied to the evaluation of rail. We don't ever hear that the enlargement of a highway cannot be supported and that the cost is too high for the users. Look at Highway 1 past Leesville, the traffic count is very low and if we considered the construction and O&M cost/vehicle, it would not be considered a viable road. Still, it was funded and is being built.
The viability and economic benefit for rail should include the cost savings associated with not having to purchase a car, not having to purchase gasoline, not having to purchase insurance, not having to maintain a car, the benefit of reduced emissions, the increase to our productivity (we can work while we ride), the significantly reduced risk of accidents and the reduced cost of repairs for those accidents (not to mention lives that are saved). Then we'll be comparing apples to apples.
Additionaly, economic development around stations, within cities the rail serves, the increase in property value for cities that offer rail, the improvement of our quality of life all need to be taken into consideration. All these are part of the economic benefit and savings to the riders and citizens of a city with rail.
A strong educational/public relations component also needs to be provided to citizens explaining all the benefits of riding rail.
Unlike highway and roads, rail is a transportation system that is sustainable over the long term. Take a look at our population growth forecasts for the next 50 years. Assume we will continue to drive cars. How many more roads do you want to build? Should we just keep adding more and more lanes to our cities so that we end up with a Houston? There's never an end to the need to pour more concrete and build new highways if we continue along the same path of using highways and cars. Our highways/auto systems use much more energy on a per capita basis than does a rail system.
Also, fundamental to an effective rail system are efficient inner-city transit systems and HOV lanes.
So when we read and hear our leaders say that rail isn't economically viable, I challenge them along with FHWA and DOTD on how they derived such a conclusion. The analysis needs to take into consideration all the componenets I've mentioned to truly get a complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages. Let's re-evaluate the assumptions that were made, and the model that is applied to the evaluation.
If all else fails on rethinking the cost vs. benefits of a rail system, apply the same model that is used for highways, then we would be able to easily justify building the rail.
Posted by wblake on October 1, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're right, perplexed, they should be looking into spaceships and Jetsons cars.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)