Florida Loses $2.4 Billion For High-Speed Trains

[Harry Dresden]

Another thing to add:

The Florida rail from Orlando-Tampa is unnecessary. But other areas like the Midwest (Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Cincinatti) and West Coast (LA-San Diego) are needed.

LA to San Diego has been talked about for years....were is it?......same with going to Santa Barbara.....were is it?.....LA to Vegas was voted down because most of the voters said that if they are going to Vegas they want to get there quick they will fly for what 80 bucks and many enjoy getting out and doing the drive....im not saying a HSR system would not be needed somewhere around here,but the S.Cal region needs to concentrate on the local driving,the morning and evening drives the freeways are pretty congested....

Everyone enjoys 10 hours of driving.

show me were i said EVERYONE Dean.....or maybe you got a link?....and i dont know what YOUR driving......but i can get there in 4-5 hrs.....

 

[Big Fitz]

Another thing to add:

The Florida rail from Orlando-Tampa is unnecessary. But other areas like the Midwest (Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Cincinatti) and West Coast (LA-San Diego) are needed.

Horseshit. Chicago-Milwaukee-Gary, maybe. You have high enough density to make it worth while. Oh wait, there used to be a LOT of those in the area. thanks also to cities like Kenosha and Racine inbetween those cities. But they can't even justify the line out to Madison, and why would they bother going to Springfield or Green Bay, Terre Haute or even Lansing?

No, there is no real need for high speed rail in the mid west. That died with the interstate system. Now, instead of hopping on the Hiawatha from Minneapolis to Chicago, or the C&NW's '400's, you get in your car and drive it in about the same time with no having to secure transportation on the other end and it goes precisely where you need, not to stations you have to work from there.

Face it, convenience and ergonomics killed rail travel. It'll kill air travel if the FAA authorizes cheap private air cars too.

 

[boedicca]

If there were sufficient demand, private investors would be wiling to fund the railroads.

As there isn't, there aren't, and the true nature of these initiatives are revealed as pork and political favors under the veneer of dogooderism.

 

[Synthaholic]

If there were sufficient demand, private investors would be wiling to fund the railroads.

As there isn't, there aren't, and the true nature of these initiatives are revealed as pork and political favors under the veneer of dogooderism.

It's too costly of a project for private industry. Period. Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.

Hopefully, this will be the last time I need to explain this to you. But I'm not all that hopeful.

 

[driveby]

If there were sufficient demand, private investors would be wiling to fund the railroads.

As there isn't, there aren't, and the true nature of these initiatives are revealed as pork and political favors under the veneer of dogooderism.

It's too costly of a project for private industry. Period. Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.

Hopefully, this will be the last time I need to explain this to you. But I'm not all that hopeful.

If the return on investment is there, private investors would do it, period. And look, a libby that likes eminent domain, shocker!

 

[Big Fitz]

If there were sufficient demand, private investors would be wiling to fund the railroads.

As there isn't, there aren't, and the true nature of these initiatives are revealed as pork and political favors under the veneer of dogooderism.

It's too costly of a project for private industry. Period. Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.

Hopefully, this will be the last time I need to explain this to you. But I'm not all that hopeful.

Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Telecommunications.

 

[Big Fitz]

Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.

Oh, and good job explaining why rail is dead save for freight.

 

[Care4all]

If there were sufficient demand, private investors would be wiling to fund the railroads.

As there isn't, there aren't, and the true nature of these initiatives are revealed as pork and political favors under the veneer of dogooderism.

It's too costly of a project for private industry. Period. Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.

Hopefully, this will be the last time I need to explain this to you. But I'm not all that hopeful.

Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Telecommunications.

Fitz, I think the government subsidies for telecommunication goes from here to high heaven....so that's probably not such a good example....

 

[Big Fitz]

It's too costly of a project for private industry. Period. Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.

Hopefully, this will be the last time I need to explain this to you. But I'm not all that hopeful.

Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.

Telecommunications.

Fitz, I think the government subsidies for telecommunication goes from here to high heaven....so that's probably not such a good example....

Because government has extended it's tenacles to all industry in this nation in the forms of taxes and subsidies, name one industry that isn't influenced. Even oil is buried under it.

He asked for an industry that can invest billions in a project. They can and do. The smartest thing to do would be give industry it's own money back and end the taxation AND subsidies from government on them and let the market choose winners and losers.

And rail loses. No doubt about it.

 

[Care4all]

Telecommunications.

Fitz, I think the government subsidies for telecommunication goes from here to high heaven....so that's probably not such a good example....

Because government has extended it's tenacles to all industry in this nation in the forms of taxes and subsidies, name one industry that isn't influenced. Even oil is buried under it.

He asked for an industry that can invest billions in a project. They can and do. The smartest thing to do would be give industry it's own money back and end the taxation AND subsidies from government on them and let the market choose winners and losers.

And rail loses. No doubt about it.

I can agree with getting rid of all subsidies and tax favoritism depending on the industry, but I can not in any away agree to no taxation at all on them....that would be unfair to the rest of us tax payers. corporations utilize our government as much or more than the average citizens and they also have a great deal of lobbying power with their purse...they should be taxed as we are ALL taxed....at one time, the corporations and excise taxes etc were what this country ran on with very little individual income taxes....if we the citizen had more money in our own hands to spend, then the corps would benefit as well....

there definitely needs to be corporate tax reform....cuz what we got now, with a high marginal tax rate, is inherently unfair...where the some of the big guns are paying zeroin federal corporate income tax, and the small corp is paying 35%. the playing field is not level....imo.

 

[Care4all]

I've waited years and I just got dsl in my area....in 2011 for goodness sakes, ....nothing was available to us via land....no dsl and no cable broadband, until this year with the weak dsl service...and I would not have it at all, if it weren't for the gvt subsidizing the telecommunication company for it....we had broadband in 1997 in my area in massachusetts....

sure, they got the money, but they don't always invest it in we the people...

 

[blastoff]

High-speed rail is a euphemism for...circle jerk.

And circle jerking is the preferred pastime of liberals.

 

[Care4all]

well, I think the high speed rail is not a necessity at this time....though I can certainly see how in some areas, it would be a benefit and it could be profitable in the future...especially with gas prices rising higher than high.

 

[Big Fitz]

the playing field is not level....imo.

You're right. It isn't, and I can tell you why.

Arrogant elitists conspired with elected officials for special benefits for them and penalties for their enemies. They've exempted themselves from some laws, and targeted others.

Justice was blindfolded previously, but that tended to burn them too often, so they have taken the blindfold off, and given her a nice stipend to 'see things their way'.

Till you return equality to the law, reduce the tax code to a single page of "you earn from all sources X amount, we tax Y amount, no exceptions" you will have this issue in regards to justice the economy and tax.

 

[boedicca]

I've waited years and I just got dsl in my area....in 2011 for goodness sakes, ....nothing was available to us via land....no dsl and no cable broadband, until this year with the weak dsl service...and I would not have it at all, if it weren't for the gvt subsidizing the telecommunication company for it....we had broadband in 1997 in my area in massachusetts....

sure, they got the money, but they don't always invest it in we the people...

Do you have internet cable available?

If government didn't grant monopolies to cable companies and heavily regulate the telecommunications industry (which really means protecting their oligarchy of the former AT&T pre the modified Final Judgement of Judge Green), you'd most likely have a variety of competing alternatives available in you area.

But that's the problem with overreaching government control, we never can determine what might have been if innovative people had been free to create.

 

[Care4all]

I've waited years and I just got dsl in my area....in 2011 for goodness sakes, ....nothing was available to us via land....no dsl and no cable broadband, until this year with the weak dsl service...and I would not have it at all, if it weren't for the gvt subsidizing the telecommunication company for it....we had broadband in 1997 in my area in massachusetts....

sure, they got the money, but they don't always invest it in we the people...

Do you have internet cable available?

If government didn't grant monopolies to cable companies and heavily regulate the telecommunications industry (which really means protecting their oligarchy of the former AT&T pre the modified Final Judgement of Judge Green), you'd most likely have a variety of competing alternatives available in you area.

But that's the problem with overreaching government control, we never can determine what might have been if innovative people had been free to create.

no, we do not have cable in my area....and I am only a mile and a half from US 1, so I really am not in a true rural area....? i wish and pray we would get cable tv and broadband! It rocked, when we had it in massachusetts....!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've waited years and I just got dsl in my area....in 2011 for goodness sakes, ....nothing was available to us via land....no dsl and no cable broadband, until this year with the weak dsl service...and I would not have it at all, if it weren't for the gvt subsidizing the telecommunication company for it....we had broadband in 1997 in my area in massachusetts....

sure, they got the money, but they don't always invest it in we the people...

Something you apparently missed in your talk about government subsidies. In order to get the money for those subsidies the government charges a tax that you have been paying for years, even though you did not have DSL access. They then mandate who gets service based on which politician has the most pull. Wouldn't you rather have paid a higher fee a few years ago and gotten the service then?

 

[JFK_USA]

High speed rail is an economic loser. It has never worked, outside of one or two well traveled corridors. The guv was right. An expensive boondoggle that would have cost taxpayer money for no benefit.

No benefit? How about a 2 hour train ride from Chicago to St. Louis whic takes 5 hours by car. Yeah you're right no benefit.

Government doesn't do things to make a profit. Its not a business. It does things to better society. Think about it (I know hard thing to do, but at least try):

A 2 hour train ride cuts a business cost to travel, meaning less costs meaning they can save or create new jobs, meaning employment rate goes down, economy gets better, American gets better.

Oh and maybe able to save American manufacturing because transportation cost decrease.

But yeah absolutely no benefit.

How does making something faster cut costs? Going faster uses more energy, more resources, and is more dangerous, which adds to liability, thus adding to costs. Not to mention that in that train passes through at least 10 separate communities, none of which are going to allow a train to speed through at more than 30 mph, which will mean that the mythical bullet train will have to either go around those cities somehow, or fly over them.

Oops, we are back to planes again. Isn't modern technology wonderful? Tell me something, since you believe in high speed rail, do you also believe in unicorn dust and pots of gold at the end of rainbows?

Yeah even though it has worked and will work. And it creates competition for Airliners to finally start lowering prices. But yeah it never works. By the way, they build bridges and get the bullet trains to work faster.

Watch the beginning of the video of the japan high speed rail. a 350 mile trip in 2.5 hours. Thats 140 mph. Cuts travel time in HALF. HALF. You mean to tell me I get to chicago in less than half the time and not have to go through security and the hassle of the airport? Count me in.

And this is no unicorn. This is proven to work and will work. Why you are against it is beyond retarded.

 

[JFK_USA]

Another thing to add:

The Florida rail from Orlando-Tampa is unnecessary. But other areas like the Midwest (Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Cincinatti) and West Coast (LA-San Diego) are needed.

Horseshit. Chicago-Milwaukee-Gary, maybe. You have high enough density to make it worth while. Oh wait, there used to be a LOT of those in the area. thanks also to cities like Kenosha and Racine inbetween those cities. But they can't even justify the line out to Madison, and why would they bother going to Springfield or Green Bay, Terre Haute or even Lansing?

No, there is no real need for high speed rail in the mid west. That died with the interstate system. Now, instead of hopping on the Hiawatha from Minneapolis to Chicago, or the C&NW's '400's, you get in your car and drive it in about the same time with no having to secure transportation on the other end and it goes precisely where you need, not to stations you have to work from there.

Face it, convenience and ergonomics killed rail travel. It'll kill air travel if the FAA authorizes cheap private air cars too.

Again you have no idea what you are talking.

First off, Chicago has a huge rail system that millions of people use everyday. Its government subsides and it serves a benefit to the community. If you take the high speed rail, you have ways to get around chicago.

Plus with a car, you have to pay for parking, pay for gas, pay for the oil, pay Maintenance and it comes out to the almost same cost.

Again, you fail. But thanks for playing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah even though it has worked and will work. And it creates competition for Airliners to finally start lowering prices. But yeah it never works. By the way, they build bridges and get the bullet trains to work faster.

If you define "has worked and will work" as being "heavily dependent on government subsidies" You are entirely correct. Personally, I do not use that definition, so I don't think it works.

By the way, the bridges have nothing to do with how fast the trains go.

Watch the beginning of the video of the japan high speed rail. a 350 mile trip in 2.5 hours. Thats 140 mph. Cuts travel time in HALF. HALF. You mean to tell me I get to chicago in less than half the time and not have to go through security and the hassle of the airport? Count me in.

So what? I never said the trains do not move fast, my point is that they are not economically viable. As for not having to go through security, that argument is not going to last very long. I have already posted a video about a search the TSA did at Savannah that netted everyone who entered the station, even if they were getting off the train. What makes you think that the TSA will not move into train stations if we ever get high speed rail?

And this is no unicorn. This is proven to work and will work. Why you are against it is beyond retarded.

Because I do not want to see the government subsidize anything. That includes things that actually make money and I consider a good investment, like NASA, never mind something that no one wants, is never going to be used, and does not work anywhere.

Look at that, even in Europe people prefer to drive.

Commission for Integrated Transport

Another funny thing, it seems that rail travel is not as clear cut an advantage over cars in fuel savings. It seems that it depends on a study that is not universally accepted as accurate.

When Amtrak compares its fuel economy with automobiles (see p. 19), it relies on Department of Energy <="" a=""> that presumes 1.6 people per car (see tables 2.13 for cars and 2.14 for Amtrak). But another Department of Energy report points out that cars in intercity travel tend to be more fully loaded — the average turns out to be 2.4 people.

“Intercity auto trips tend to [have] higher-than-average vehicle occupancy rates,” says the DOE. “On average, they are as energy-efficient as rail intercity trips.” Moreover, the report adds, “if passenger rail competes for modal share by moving to high speed service, its energy efficiency should be reduced somewhat — making overall energy savings even more problematic.”

FuturePundit: The Problems With Passenger Rail

Given the fact that the numbers do not support the unicorn dust that you spout, that real world experience has shown that people prefer to drive, and that governments are forced to invest massive amounts of money just to keep less than 10% of the population on trains, I see no reason to support it.

I have math on my side, what do you have again?