Florida's govenror turns down 2.5 billion for high speed rail

#26
#26
CSVol said:
Actually, Dick was Dad's fav. pres. He was a neo-con before there was such a thing. Anytime any Arab/Isreali nonsense comes on the news he shouts "turn 'em all into glass" at the tv.
Click to expand...

I like your Dad.
 
#28
#28
He was in Columbus at the the nationwide arena with Bush back in 04 or 05, I can't remember which. My dad had "special passes" as they were given to some Nationwide employees as a thank you. My dad and mom are huge "blind faith" republicans and jumped at the chance. I went with them. Dude did not appear to be the kinda guy you would want to cross.

I use to be part of the Young Republicans until the Republicans became idiots and I left the party.
 
#29
#29
Three million per year doesn't seem like a whole lot of people. How many millions of people go to Disney World a year? Either way, if the money is there to use for that reason, then why not take advantage of it?
 
#30
#30
The "if the money is there" or "it will just go to another state" argument drives me insane.

Why the hell is this money there in the first place? It's BO saying I want to spend money on HSR whether states need it or not. If you don't take it I'll send it somewhere else.

There is no real need assessment - it is an administrative whim that is being forced on the country. Does anyone really believe our long term future depends on pumping money into HSR? Does anyone believe this is a pressing need? Why the hell doesn't BO say okay Florida, that's 2.5 B less on the deficit?

This mentality means we will never solve our deficit problem.
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
The "if the money is there" or "it will just go to another state" argument drives me insane.

Why the hell is this money there in the first place? It's BO saying I want to spend money on HSR whether states need it or not. If you don't take it I'll send it somewhere else.

There is no real need assessment - it is an administrative whim that is being forced on the country. Does anyone really believe our long term future depends on pumping money into HSR? Does anyone believe this is a pressing need? Why the hell doesn't BO say okay Florida, that's 2.5 B less on the deficit?

This mentality means we will never solve our deficit problem.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not a big fan of HSR. I'm more of a fan of inner city infrastructure. Improving bus lines and subway/elevated trains so people can efficiently get to their jobs without the dependence on a car. I recently rode the El train in Chicago and it could use a bit of work. The buses in Davenport take forever to get from one end of the city to another, sometimes waiting at a stop for 45 minutes or more. I was able to ride my bike across town in rush hour traffic faster than I could driving or riding a bus (on the main streets. Taking side roads is a lot quicker by car). I'm also a HUGE advocate for designated bike lanes and bicycle awareness.

I don't see any state other than California that could make good use of a HSR. I might be overlooking a state, but the rest of them have a large portion of their population in one or two large cities and no real need for a HSR. California has population bunches all up and down it's coast line.
 
#32
#32
Sort of. I think we'd be better off burning Los Angeles to the ground and starting over on it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
I also don't agree tha just because the private sector hasn't done it means its a bad idea. For one thing, the private sector can't engage in the process of eminent domain. For another, getting together $2.7 billion for a payoff decades away is not something the private sector is going to be fond of. And last, there are some benefits to this that will not just be financial to the owner/operator-- its not designed to make money in simple ridership, it increases commerce between two significant markets where, right now, everyone complains mightily about the possiblity of a one hour drive turning into a four hour one.
Click to expand...

the private sector can't do it directly, but private corporations will lobby local municipalities all the time to use eminent domain to secure real estate.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
Feds set Feb. 25 deadline for rail deal - OrlandoSentinel.com


This would run from Orlando to Tampa, link up with attractions, airports, and another rail system heading to the east. Governor says he's worried that the state will have to pay for cost overruns, but that is apparently incorrect.

He went on Fox News to talk about turning the federal money down as rebuke of Obama spending. But, a number of prominent Florida Republicans are asking him to reconsider.

The economy is hurting here like elsewhere, state and local budgets are a mess because of dwindling property taxes and high unemployment. I for one am skeptical that high speed rail would be all that effective, but ridership is projected at over 3 million people a year. And the money would be a heckuva boost to the local economy, obviously.

I don't know. I can see both sides of this argument, though.
Click to expand...
Florida would be stuck paying for the maintenance and upkeep costs.

Florida can't afford it, and truth be told, the Federal gov't can't afford it, either.
 
#35
#35
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html

Mr. Scott said at a news conference in Tallahassee on Wednesday that cost overruns related to the Tampa-to-Orlando line could leave Florida taxpayers stuck with a $3 billion tab. Further, he said that if the state deemed the project too costly after having started construction, it would be required to return the $2.4 billion to the federal government. He also said he believed that estimates of riders and revenue for the rail line were too optimistic, and that state taxpayers would have been left to pay for subsidies to keep the line running because it would be unable to pay for itself.
Click to expand...

sounds like the Gov knew what he was doing
 
#37
#37
VOLatile said:
I don't see any state other than California that could make good use of a HSR. I might be overlooking a state, but the rest of them have a large portion of their population in one or two large cities and no real need for a HSR. California has population bunches all up and down it's coast line.
Click to expand...

doesn't make a lot of sense in california actually. the areas where rail service makes sense (san diego, san francisco) already have it.

milohimself said:
Sort of. I think we'd be better off burning Los Angeles to the ground and starting over on it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

why would you burn to ground the greatest city this country has?
 
#38
#38
droski said:
doesn't make a lot of sense in california actually. the areas where rail service makes sense (san diego, san francisco) already have it.



why would you burn to ground the greatest city this country has?
Click to expand...


Never been to LA, so I can't judge, but its heavily liberal slant would keep it from being considered the best city in the country, in my opinion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
volinbham said:
The "if the money is there" or "it will just go to another state" argument drives me insane.

Why the hell is this money there in the first place? It's BO saying I want to spend money on HSR whether states need it or not. If you don't take it I'll send it somewhere else.

There is no real need assessment - it is an administrative whim that is being forced on the country. Does anyone really believe our long term future depends on pumping money into HSR? Does anyone believe this is a pressing need? Why the hell doesn't BO say okay Florida, that's 2.5 B less on the deficit?

This mentality means we will never solve our deficit problem.
Click to expand...


No, see, that is not accurate. The thing has been studied several times since the 80's. But, the outcome depends on your definition of "need."




Rasputin_Vol said:
Florida would be stuck paying for the maintenance and upkeep costs.

Florida can't afford it, and truth be told, the Federal gov't can't afford it, either.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure how that works.
 
#41
#41
No need for a rail. I-4 isn't that bad of a commute.
What they need to do is tackle the issue of the fact there isn't a main throughway connecting Tampa with 80% of Pinellas county. It's a nightmare during tourist season.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
No, see, that is not accurate. The thing has been studied several times since the 80's. But, the outcome depends on your definition of "need."
Click to expand...

Perhaps "priority" would have been a better choice of words.

A Fed strategy of pumping billions into HSR isn't based on a need assessment that pinpoints the most pressing needs for the nation. BO wants HSR - or GE has convinced him so they can sell a ton of locomotives.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
Perhaps "priority" would have been a better choice of words.

A Fed strategy of pumping billions into HSR isn't based on a need assessment that pinpoints the most pressing needs for the nation. BO wants HSR - or GE has convinced him so they can sell a ton of locomotives.
Click to expand...


That is the view of the heads of the state houses here in Florida, but there is a real split within the membership, and it does not cut across party lines.

Top lawmakers back Scott on killing high-speed train - OrlandoSentinel.com

What seems to be going on is that a number of state legislators see this project as something they can bring back to their constituency at a time when things are pretty tough. They are put in a difficult position over it, so I understand the hesitation in both directions.
 
#46
#46
States hope to cash in on Florida's rejection of rail funds - CNN.com

Immediately after Scott's decision, state jockeying to take Florida's share of rail funding began in full force -- including immediate overtures from Illinois, California and New York.
Click to expand...


In Florida, criticism of the governor's move came from both sides of the political aisle. Some Republican lawmakers wondered if the governor's actions could be sidestepped.

"I don't know constitutionally speaking whether or not this can be rejected by the governor without the consent of the Legislature," Republican State Sen. David Simmons told the Orlando Sentinel. Also, Florida Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said they would try to bypass the governor's decision.

Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor said Floridians could have used the appropriation to create jobs. The funds were originally sought by then-Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican turned independent.
Click to expand...
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
That is the view of the heads of the state houses here in Florida, but there is a real split within the membership, and it does not cut across party lines.

Top lawmakers back Scott on killing high-speed train - OrlandoSentinel.com

What seems to be going on is that a number of state legislators see this project as something they can bring back to their constituency at a time when things are pretty tough. They are put in a difficult position over it, so I understand the hesitation in both directions.
Click to expand...


That's the point I'm making - it is popularity buying and pipe dreaming rather than being a serious effort at putting resources where they would do the best.

I'm sure that 2.5 billion could be used for infrastructure in FLA that would create the same temporary jobs, provide needed improvements in public goods that are more critical to the state's future and not put the state on the hook for unpredictable future costs.

But no - let's build HSR.
 
#50
#50
Rasputin_Vol said:
:ermm:
Click to expand...

I think they're saying the DOT hired a firm to do the study, not that a potential contractor did the study. At least that's how I initially read it.

I though it was interesting that at current gas prices, a round trip to Orlando would be $47.88 vs an estimated $30 for the train.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top