Another state has spurned federal dollars to establish high-speed rail.
…Florida Governor Rick Scott announced he will decline $2.4 billion in federal high-speed rail funding — putting a quick and unexpected end to the projected Tampa-Orlando line that was to be the Obama administration’s bullet model for the rest of the nation. Scott now becomes the fourth Republican governor in the past several months to scuttle a major rail project, following in the (backward-moving) footsteps of New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, and Ohio’s John Kasich.
The article goes on to address Scott’s stated concerns. Of course he touts supposedly “better” ways to use the money — by expanding existing interstate highways. Furthering our dependence on automobiles and, by extension, foreign oil is a conservative value, apparently.
Only it’s not. Even the American Conservative magazine recognizes the red herring of concerns over government subsidies: “Still, libertarians [and Republicans] shriek, ‘Subsidies!’—ignoring the fact that highways only cover 58 percent of their costs from user fees, including the gas tax.” Others have noted:
Both our highway system and airline industry are heavily subsidized. In 2002, Congress appropriated $32 billion in highway funding and $14 billion for the airline industry in 2002. The FAA ran on a 2005 budget of $7.8 billion. How “successful” would the private airline industry be if it were not subsidized by the government? Would our “car culture” exist without our governments involvement in building and maintaining highways?
These Republican governors are impeding efficient and prudent national transportation improvements to the detriment of their own states. Their reasoning doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and is leading some people to question whether this isn’t simply political posturing against a Democratic president. I won’t presume to judge whether they have such ulterior motives. But I will say that these governors are short-sighted and doing their constituents a disservice.
New and improved rail transportation, besides creating jobs and spurring economic development, alleviates highway congestion, lessens our dependence on oil, and has a positive impact on the environment. As far as transportation strategy goes, Republicans appear to be stuck in the 1950s.
Sadly, the political moratorium on rational progress appears to be continuing unabated. The almost suicidal car culture infesting this country is only one of many issues. Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the White House in the ’70s, and employed dozens of scientists researching solar energy. Sadly, Carter’s message of conserving and cutting back, in the face of gas shortages, and in recognition of the reality of rising energy costs and the impending exhaustion of fossil fuel supplies, did not play well in America. Reagan swept in with his message of unfettered expansion, which appealed much more sweetly to our selfish nature, ripped the solar panels off the White House, fired all the scientists, and destroyed Carter’s program. Now we’ve lost 30 years of solar development, and forfeited the profits to the Chinese, who have taken our research and made it commercially viable.
It has been nearly 50 years since Silent Spring was published. The occurrence of global warming, and the attribution of its cause to human activity, has been accepted in the scientific community for a decade. The scientists are telling us we have maybe 10 years before most of our viable options for cleaning up our oceans are foreclosed. Where is our sense of urgency? Why do we lie down and give up in the face of the inertia generated by politicians and the American media?
We need to stop wasting our time on politicians’ rhetoric and start discussing the salient issues of our time.
Garth-
Lets then just spend money. Then worry about our debt later. It’s only money. The US can print any amount. If Hi spped rail is the future then what is Amtrack’s future? It looes money. Make all of amtrack’s trains Hi speed? There is not enough money to keep up amtrack now.
All national rail services ‘lose’ money and thus have significant government subsidies. Yet nations (other than the U.S.) pour money into them as a matter of public policy; less dependence on oil, less sprawl, mass transit as welfare for the poor, etc… It works rather well.
And the decade before that it was global cooling.
Oh, and I wouldn’t necessarily use Silent Spring as part of your argument…
I am uncertain how solar cells, pesticides and high speed rail relate, here, Mr. McGee.
Let’s tackle your issues one at a time.
1. High Speed rail. Is it profitable? Would it be close enough to profitable to warrant a reasonable subsidy? It would be cool to have a HS Rail line going from Chicago to STL. The problem is it doesn’t help me (personally). To really be High Speed, it would need to make just one or two stops (Springfield and maybe Normal.
I use public rail when I go to Chicago but I drive TO New Lennox to catch the Metra. I could drive to Normal and take Amtrak, but it is expensive and inconvenient. Once I get to Metra, it is much more cost and time efficient. Then it is a short walk to the “L”.
2. Today, rivers are cleaner because of Silent Spring.
Rachel Carson had a huge impact on the world we live in. My father formerly worked for DuPont Ag. They are profit driven, but they are also extremely sensitive to the “need” for environmentally friendly solutions. This is not an efficiency or even a profitability “need” but more of a public perception need, so the pressure needs to stay on them, but it needs to come from WWF and Sierra Club, other private groups.
3. Solar panels are cool but there are significant problems. The best current commercially available solar panels are around 14% efficient. Even your best prototypes struggle to reach 40%. Add to that the fact that, on average, the sun shines on any given portion of the earth about 12 hours a day without taking into account cloud cover and other atmospheric conditions.
Need solar at night? You are going to need some big, heavy, environmentally unfriendly batteries. I bet Rachel Carson wouldn’t like that. (I think the City of Peoria is painfully aware of how hard it is to create small, environmentally friendly batteries.)
Now, FWIW, I really enjoy using public rail when I go to Chicago. If HSRail can be viable between Chicago and St. Louis, great.
I remember seeing 5 gallon metal cans of herbicide and pesticide just thrown into gullies after they were emptied back in the 70’s. A big rainstorm would wash them into the nearby creek (pronounced ‘crick’) where us kids would play. I am so glad I do not see that, anymore.
I plan my future rural home to have solar panels on the southern facing roof exposures on the outbuildings and a small windmill, but I doubt I will be disconnected from the grid. My point is, this is coming because of some government mandate but because of economic viability.
…and while I have no doubt I am about to be “lawyered,” please understand that this is a progressive stance for rural America. We are not going to make progress in a giant leap but in a million small steps.
May I also take a moment to suggest that the first High Speed transit from St. Louis to Chicago next year will be Albert Pujols.
Anon — I doubt Pujols will want to go back to the minor leagues, no matter how big the contract is….
Let us spend billions to see if people will ride a train. Is Amtrak going to run it? I think C.J. you are the one stuck in the fifties.
Point of Order — No need to spend billions to gauge demand. People are already riding the trains. Ridership is up and has been going up for quite some time now on our underfunded and seriously challenged Amtrak system. The Acela service on the East Coast runs at capacity. Imagine how much more ridership there would be with a modern rail system of fast, on-time trains. The demand is already there.
The decade before it was not global cooling, the argument was concerning ozone depletion and nuclear winters…
I don’t believe there was any scientific argument put forth that the Earth WAS getting cooler, but that it COULD, given the right series of events.
In contrast, scientists today point out the Earth IS getting warmer and suggesting different theories as to why.
Rick Scott is a Republican…
One of the many reasons we no longer have a Robert Michel or Everett Dirksen in Congress or the Senate representing the Republican party.
But these GOP governors are far-sighted on fiscal discipline, which is more important than developing so-called High-Speed Rail (which Ohio wasn’t) where not even conventional service now exists. All had legitimate reasons to squash these projects, even if some were viable. These governors didn’t want to take federal seed money and then be left holding the subsidy bag in a few years. Remember, such projects were in addition to and not in place of the usual highway projects.
There was, however, a down side to banning DDT.
Folks, if you have seen the latest economic studies, the truth of the matter is that we can no longer afford giant subsidies on anything! High speed rail would be great, but we are not Europe or Japan, we are the US and we are desperately in love with our cars. I’m not saying it is right or wrong. It is what it is. And even if ridership went up, the expense of passenger trains would have to go up to cover the costs of building them. We simply cannot keep throwing money out on projects that will continue to increase our national debt. What we need, unpopular as it will sound, is to cut spending and raise taxes to try to get our skyrocketing national debt under control. And that is something that will never happen, because the two things politicians never want to do is to raise taxes and cut spending. If they did, there would be a lot of one term politicians.
On time + government run = billions and billions, which we don’t have.
For those of you against high speed rail [for any reason…],
I think all of you underestimate the impact a high speed rail system will have on this country. I also think you underestimate the number of people in this country who would love to have high speed rail.
One thing that many of you might want to consider is the number of people who must travel great distances to work, i.e. the next state, etc. I know several people who have invested a great deal in a house, who might have a spouse holding down a good job, etc, but they are unable to find work locally. Two people I know live in a little efficiency apartment in a Chicago ‘burb’ because they work in Chicago. My cousin & her husband live in Chicago, but the only place he could find employment was with a firm in Michigan. He travels home every other weekend.
People in this country might not be “as in love” with their cars as you think. Wait till gas hits $5.00+ a gallon. Besides, who wouldn’t like to sit back and let someone else do the driving?
True, we are not Europe or Japan [in so many ways]. The U.S. is lagging way behind the rest of the world when it comes to education,the economy, health care……you name it. Of course we have always lagged behind when it comes to developing clean efficient mass transit options.
Thank God China has surpassed us as the number one consumer of oil, etc in the world. I was beginning to get a little embarrassed.
Republican governors…? Nerds. After reading Schock’s statements in the Star, I am beginning to wonder if they made ‘pot’ legal in D.C.!
Point of Order — Are you talking about high speed rail or the post office? 😉
The following market conditions factors limit the need for high speed and rail in general:
1. increased telecommuting;
2. 11&% housing vacancies decrease prices for those who have jobs and desire to relocate closer to work;
3. Megabus and Greyhound as examples of bus companies that have and are expanding, and increasing the level of service, who can be flexible in adding locations without the overhead and startup costs for rail lines and stations;
4. increased efficiency via new technology being used in buses and planes will offset at least part of their higher fuel costs;
5. if the economy improves rail traffic will likely go down because people will be able to afford to fly or drive;
6. fuel prices – they go up people take the train, they go down people use other modes of transport and the train requires a subsidy to avoid bankruptcy; (imagine if we were subsidizing airlines);
7. tracks: if the economy improves the existing tracks will be used to transport freight needed to keep the factories running and costs to acquire additional land for passenger lines will increase; if the economy stalls….then you don’t have the tax base to fund the rail. Catch 22.
8. new technology: unknown, unknowns
C.J., you need to understand the difference between creating something and having the money to pay for it. The governers of Florida and New Jersey are dead right.
I’m in Florida for the past two months. No way would I or those residents I talk to, take a high speed rail from say Naples to Tampa. Nor high speed rail from Tampa to Miami. The reason for my position has been stated by many people wiser than I. Those in business or others with just plain comkmon sense.
Florida, somewhat similair to Illinois is broke.
The interstate highway system is obsolete to a certain point. All the newspaper selling and false rhetoric on a Peoria to Chicago super highway was DOA even before all the efforts by the JS, Chamber and others. Why drive 75-80 miles an hour only nearing your destination you hit traffic backed up for miles and moving at a snails pace. Therin lies our major problem as I have written about for the past 20 years.
The problem is in arrival. The overwhelming majority who would ride high speed rail in the U.S., would need someone to take them to the station and someone to pick them up plus always attempting to adapt to high speed rail timetables.
Fed subsidies pay for the studies, consultants, engineers, etc and Florida would be stuck with the building cost and the operating losses larger than Amtrack loses each year.
And growing. Those who study transportation and I’m not talking about LaHood and Ardis and Obama, believe that even an efficient private sector owner of Amtack would still need sizeable susbsidies. Subsidy money the fed has to keep printing eventually to the point of very high inflation and federal bankruptcy. Perhaps not till 2012 but evetually.
But of course high speed rail would create jobs just like our $40 million (includes interest for 20-30 years) public library expansion boondoggle you supported.
I believe the New Jersey high speed transit was 5 times over projections when the Republican governor had the common sense to close it down.
To make a good politician you need to have been responsible to meet a private sector payroll where you couldn’t raise taxes to support your deficits.
You are a Democrat; a member of a party that spends and spends and taxes and still can’t pay their bills. I suggest you are not very active in the Tea Party who opposes spending more than the communities and country can afford without needing to find more ways to raise taxes or fees.
Ten years as a minority, like Dale Risinger, on the County Board and 36 years in the private sector qualifies my statements.
C.J., you were never really opposed to the PRM, just opposed to certain features nor did you make any real effort to gather petition signatures after embarrassing me by promoting a cause that could not possibly succeed. If you recall, my friends and I worked to collect 1100 plus signatures while you, Sandberg, Harding and others who spearheaded this project doomed on arrival, secureed a total of 650. When I came off the tennis court the morning I was invited to the press conference, I thought you were organized to secure the 10,000 signatures required.
We collected, to my embarrassment, less than 1800 total signatures.
Common sense actions along with solid rhetoric rather than just words gets the job done. I’m much older than you and have 36 years in the private sector and 15 years in the public sector. My name is still used by the business after 47 years.
I speak and act from experence and you are dead wrong in critizing those savvy enough to reject Obama’s largely wasted stimulus dollars.
This country has many transportation needs but it has already spent the money. The City of Peoria is a prime example but perhaps Urich is the man on a “white” horse.
I should add that as much as I am a believer in the U. S. Rail System, it’s the private rail freight network that is vital, and not the skeletonized intercity rail passenger network, save for some corridor services. Having said that, I’m not in favor of de-funding Amtrak. The nation’s passenger railroad is 40 years old and is NOT the cause of our massive debt.
Also, the media and politicians need to stop calling every proposed new intercity rail passenger service “High Speed Rail.” That’s not what Ohio was doing with its planned “3-C Corridor.” Nor Wisconsin, which had a plan for 110mph trains on the existing Chicago-Milwaukee “Hiawatha Service” corridor and extension of service to Madison. This is better described as Higher Speed Rail, or HrSR. The project had its merits but also controversies, such as location of a depot in downtown Madison or near that city’s airport in anticipation of extending service to Minneapolis.
Illinois is also doing HrSR for the Chicago-St. Louis “Lincoln Service” corridor. Speeds will increase from 79mph to 110mph using existing equipment. It’s a good deal because Amtrak should be able to attract business travelers in the Chicago-St. Louis market, which is now non-existent. Most riders now travel to or from Chicago and St. Louis from intermediate points. Higher speeds will change that. However, funds for a billion-dollar double-tracking and electrification project might be better spent improving infrastructure on the Alton-St. Louis and Chicago-Joliet segments where slow speeds and congestion add many extra minutes to the schedules.
Merle “Get off my lawn!” Widmer sez: “C.J., you need to understand the difference between creating something and having the money to pay for it. ”
Since when has that ever stopped a Republican? Iraq? Afghanistan? Tax cuts for the 2% wealthy?
Again, Merle, if high speed rail was built, public transportation like buses and subways would benefit and grow also needing no one to pick you up at the rail station. Naw, instead let’s simply refused the cash because the Republicans simply hate this President. I’ll bet Merle would rather drive is 1966 Rambler at 40 mph in the left lane while traveling Florida. (Turn signal stuck on all the way)
Merle, do you ever feel the need to stop trumpeting what a great citizen you are?
Humility is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.
“these GOP governors are far-sighted on fiscal discipline”
WOW. I guess this is true if “fiscal discipline” means only give money to white businesses.
“Tax cuts for the 2% wealthy?”
Seriously that was what you could come up with? How dare the wealthy, who by the way pay 97% of federal taxes, get any kind of reduction. I dont know what you make but take a look at your return and what you pay and Im willing to bet that you get most of your taxes back every year. I mean arnt dems all about being fair and equal? Shouldnt the middle and working class start bellying up and paying their fair share of the countries operating expenses? I mean those evil top 1% pay at a tax rate of 24% the next 2-5% pay around 18% and the rest of us pay about 2.8% assuming you arnt in a low enough bracket where you actually get a larger return then you even “paid in.” So those evil 2% not only pay for most of this great country to run they actually subsidise many of our working class citizens who depend on tax returns as part of their income.
At some point someone has to pay for all these pet projects. In this country that happens to be anyone who has made money.
Being fiscally responsible doesn’t mean just cutting everything indiscriminately or ignoring the energy crisis. We still need a military, for example. We still need a national transportation system. Being fiscally responsible means setting priorities and using our money wisely.
Our current system of relying primarily on highways is unsustainable in the long run. Building and maintaining roadways runs in the billions of dollars — billions we don’t have, as someone said. A transportation policy that moves a portion of traffic from highways to railways is an energy-efficient, long-term solution that will reduce the need to build new highways, relieve congestion on our current highways, spur transportation-oriented development, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
You know, if we just keep doing what we’ve always done and expect we’re going to magically get out of debt, we’re fooling ourselves. Just cutting spending indiscriminately will mean more crumbling infrastructure that will put our nation at risk. We still have to provide for our national needs — including our long-term needs — even in times of crisis.
The governors are being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Build it and they will come? If hi spped rail is great money maker why must the goverment build it? We have toll roads let private rail build toll rail.
Martin — Who said high speed rail was a “great money maker”? All forms of transportation require government subsidies — airlines, highways, everything.
“build toll rail” I could be mistaken but this already is the case. Except maybe out East, we don’t have dedicated passenger rails. Amtrack probably has to pay for the privilege (ie a toll) of running over the freight lines. How is that working out?
Hi Speed rail would be dedicated passenger space.
Oh yea, the wealthy need more money. I have to pay both the FED and the State this year just like last year. Yes, 2% of the richest get a tax break, like they need it and please, don’t tell me they pay 97% of the taxes, they don’t. They enjoy the lowest tax rate since Reagan. Most rich people use the tax loop holes and pay no taxes, just like the big corporations do. Pepisco paid no taxes last year to name one. The tax burden in this country always falls on the middle income workers. The rich have been sitting on their money and trickle down doesn’t work.
My thoughts: Roads and highways are dynamic. Users use them on their own schedules. They can access the highways from almost any lo9cation and can reach almost any location.
Rail is static. You get on the train only at certain locations. You get off only at certain locations. You have to follow the train schedule set by other people.
Americans not only enjoy the freedom of the automobile, it better fits how we conduct our lives but how we conduct business.
You comments how the current highway system is unsustainable are well-taken. But we can’t ignore or be dismissive about real concerns about how this is being funded.
Emtronics, your class envy is showing. We will see enough of that from the Democrats over the next 21 months. Tax the rich people at 90% and we would still be in debt,but you would be happy.
PoO: You’re probably right. I’m getting fed up with the two party system. Who’s the bigger crooks? But if you think it would make me happy taxing the rich at 90%, then OK. They got the money. Just would like a break at my level for a change is all.
Roads can be used for freight. Hi speed rail can’t. Or can they?
Mazr,
Humility? Jealously? In Peoria if you don’t stand up and be counted you are forgotten. Knowldege of many of my accomplishments have been taken to the grave as most of my friends are dead or in poor health or have moved to warmer climates.
I don’t expect the JS or many of the current group of movers and shakers or younger bloggers will ever give me credit for the things I have accomplished with the help of others; accomplishments achieved against the greatest of odds. Always with the help of others.
Please, since I don’t know who you are, give me a list of your community, business, political or public sector accomplishments. If you do not want to do it on this site, send it to me by email identifiying yourself.
To be humble, others need to know what you are humble about.
Your opportunity now. Tell me and I’ll accept your humility.
Thanks.
First and foremost, let’s stop complaining about the rich paying a higher total amount of taxes. That’s a mathematical certainty: even assuming a flat tax of 10% across the board, it’d take 100 taxpayers who make $30k a year to pay the same amount of taxes as just one person making $3mil a year.
The mistake many people make when analyzing HSR (or rail in general) is looking at it in a vacuum. The argument that “you need to drive/be driven to a station” doesn’t hold much water — if that was a viable argument, no one would fly either unless they lived within walking distance of an airport. One huge benefit rail has is that there’s existing infrastructure to connect central city to central city, something aviation will never be able to accomplish given the massive footprint airports consume.
Using Chi-StL as an example, sure it’s only an hour flight or so — but that’s just the flight itself. That doesn’t include security screenings, weather-related delays, and getting to your destination once you land. Let’s say someone’s traveling from a StL suburb to downtown Chicago for a conference or a wedding or work or whatever. If their flight leaves at 3, even for a quick flight like this it’s still suggested to get to the airport at least 1.5 hours early. That means leaving your house at 1pm, driving to the airport to be there by 1:30, mulling around the terminal till the flight leaves at 3. Once you land at O’Hare at 4, you have to taxi to the gate (+10min), disembark the plane (+10min), get your baggage (+20min). If you’re renting a car, that takes time too. At this point, it’s quarter to 5 and you need to fight rush hour and get downtown. You can either drive or take transit; in either case, tack one more hour on your trip. You’ll be lucky to be in the Loop by 6. That’s a five-hour journey — all of a sudden, a 5 hour train ride doesn’t sound as bad. While it still may take a little longer, there are plenty of travelers who’d settle for an extra half hour on the train in exchange for less hassles.
So then the question is, who should pay for this service? In this time of fiscal prudence it makes sense that we should demand something that isn’t a huge gaping money pit. It’s easy to say that the “free market” would decide whether or not rail was a worthwhile venture, and you’d be right — if the transportation marketplace truly was free. Fact of the matter is, every form of transportation (and every single competitor for intercity travel) is massively propped up by the government. Buses travel on government-built streets and highways. Airlines use government-funded airports to take off and land. Even barge travel uses government-funded locks and dams. Saying that passenger rail — on an infrastructure that needs to be rented out — should be profitable to compete is stacking the deck against rail.
Don’t look now, but there’s a HUGE transportation funding issue coming up in the very near future. Roads and bridges are funded through the motor fuel tax — a FLAT tax on gasoline. If gas costs $1 or $10 a gallon, the taxes paid are the same. Furthermore, we’ve made great strides in fuel economy — great for the environment, but devastating for our outdated funding mechanism. If vehicles traveled 15 miles per gallon in 1980 and 30 mpg today, that means they can go just as far while paying only half of what they used to. Then there’s the equity question of electric vehicles — if gas taxes pay for the roads, are 100% electric vehicles using the roads, adding their wear and tear for free?
Some government experts say that the annual transportation budget of this nation needs to be increased by $400m yearly just to keep what we have in a state of good repair. That doesn’t include new projects or expansions. Want an easy thing we can do right now to save money? Get people off the roads. Less users mean that roads will last longer. This is where rail fits into the equation.
In a few years, we’ll be having this same conversation about transportation and fiscal prudence — except then we’ll be talking about the painful measure we’ll need to implement to save our crumbling underfunded HIGHWAY infrastructure. Isn’t this then the best time to discuss and implement rail solutions?
CJ Wrote: Being fiscally responsible doesn’t mean just cutting everything indiscriminately or ignoring the energy crisis.
“Ignoring the energy crisis” includes ideallogically- and politically-motivated moratoriums on off-shore drilling, bans on drilling in northern Alaska tundra, EPA restrictions on refinery construction and taxes on domestic oil production that encourage more foreign imports. Guess which party is responsible for that?
A transportation policy that moves a portion of traffic from highways to railways is an energy-efficient, long-term solution that will reduce the need to build new highways, relieve congestion on our current highways, spur transportation-oriented development, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
You need high density for that. Extending passenger train service from Milwaukee to Madison, just 72 miles apart, would hardly have an effect on I-94. The same for 168mph trains between Orlando and Tampa, cities that are just 85 miles apart. Ohio’s proposed, conventional “3-C Corridor” would have little effect on Interstates 70 (Dayton-Columbus), Interstate 71 (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) or Interstate 75 (Dayton-Cincinnati). It’s not that these projects didn’t hold some promise, but in an era of massive debt, they’re expendable.
The new Hudson River rail terminal would help tremendously, but the previous New Jersey governor made a costly deal that the new governor believes his state can’t afford. There were alignment issues with that one, too. Incidentally, Amtrak has proposed another tunnel, a costlier but better alignment that may attract private investment.
I tend to side with David Jordan on most of this. Most people don’t know the difference when speaking of rail traffic. They confuse passenger with freight and with hi speed rail. My other objection, and I’m a great train lover, is the government running anything. They haven’t succeeded in doing it right anywhere, so why would they do it right for hispeed rail? Personally I believe it should be a private sector creation. Just my two cents and after taxes its not even two cents.
DPJ — Rome wasn’t built in a day. A nationwide high-speed rail network with all its connections can’t materialize all at once. Even the interstate highway system was built up over a period of 35 years. I’m sure the first stretch of interstate completed looked pretty lonely, too. You have to start somewhere. You seem to be suggesting we start with longer corridors which would, of course, cost more money. Yet you criticize efforts to start with less-expensive, shorter corridors and build from there. You can’t have it both ways.
“who by the way pay 97% of federal taxes”
and get more than 97% of the benefits of social programs… I am not talking about the pennies given to the unemployed or medicaid … but the bulk of all spending in the economy…. goes directly into their pockets.
Those who profit MUST pay. Those who don’t CAN’T.
CJ – I understand the benefits of a fully-functioning, national network. But THERE IS NO MONEY for it! That is my point. The up-front costs of a true HSR network are huge and thanks to massive accumulating debt is not going to happen now for a generation if at all.
It is up to the American public to decide if a national HSR network is a bigger priority than solvency. Unfortunately the American public is still ignorant of railroads. To many, they are “19th century technology.” Both freight and passenger. No amount of television advertising can sway them. But it is all up to the American public to push their representatives for HSR, or even expansion of HrSR and conventional rail passenger service. If they don’t, then…
It seems to me that any improvement in our country’s infrastructure be it roads or HSR would be a benefit that would pay for itself in the future. Sort of like improving your home for more comfort and better value? Beats spending the money on Defense or wars or aid to other countries so they can build rail systems and roads. Using David’s logic, then THERE IS NO MONEY for missile defense systems and war in Afghanistan and supporting Israel or propping up other country’s governments or subsiding oil companies and farmers and corporations.
When flying, passengers ususally travel great distances. I would not drive to the Peoria Airport to fly to Springfield. It is apparent few others do also. Or the Quad Cities. My most recent fight was from Tampa to Atlanta. I had to drive 30 miles and stay overnight in Tampa as my plane left at 6:00 AM. No flight access out of Sarasota. Parking in Tampa had to be arranged. Excess luggage was stored in my auto. Then fly to my next destination. I was required to change flights which meant picking up my baggage and re-entering it in the system, fly another 600 miles mostly over water, ect. None of this movement could have economically been done by high speed rail.
I am not opposed to high speed transit any more than I am buying a faster, new car. My problem is I would have to pay for it. The government just raises fees and taxes. I can’t. Big difference.
Besides, Florida appears to be going broke. Just got back from a high priced grocery store, Publix, where 12 out of 17 office spaces next door are empty. One community is practically giving houses away to policeman and now adding firemen if they will commit to live in these foreclosed houses that they can’t sell for any price.
The ordinary people that might be making money are the ones selling “for sale”, “in forclosure”, etc.
When any entity spends more on a consistent basis than they take in, bad things happen. Demos, holding mostly secure jobs in the public sector, (includes school personel) collecting welfare checks, etc., say, “not to worry”. We can tax and raise fees. Yet the Demos complain the loudest about outsourcing.
Nothing new here..We need jobs.
Hm.
Go you legitmate Tea Party common sense people.
Emtronics,
National defense is not the reason for massive budget deficits, nor should it become a sacrificial lamb to budget cutters. You could cut it all out and still have deficits. Yet, Iran will still be run by crazy mullahs, and then nothing would stand in the way of a successful EMP attack from them.
Reckless spending and out of control entitlements are the culprit. But those are EXISTING items. In contrast, a national HSR network does not yet exist. So when you don’t have the money, DON’T BUILD IT!
If the public really wants a national HSR network, then the federal government should offer the nation’s freight railroads incentives to implement one. Perhaps they’ll create a nationwide rail passenger pool as a single system.
A successful, for-profit national HSR network will get built in the flash of an eye if its investors know it will be highly profitable. But for that to happen the federal government would have to close the nation’s airports, interstate highways, and…
“To be humble, others need to know what you are humble about.”
Merle, thank you for proving my point, almost perfectly.
I would not email or go online to beat anyone over the head with a list of any of my “community, business, political or public sector accomplishments.” because I am secure enough not to have to do that and no one really cares. I have a job which is public service. I do a good job, am appreciated by those I serve and I get a paycheck. That’s all the recognition I need. Is the point of public service to get some level of praise and recognition?
You started a very successful business. That’s great. You were on the County Board and that’s great. You’ve told everyone who reads this blog your resume. We get it.
“I don’t expect the JS or many of the current group of movers and shakers or younger bloggers will ever give me credit for the things I have accomplished with the help of others; accomplishments achieved against the greatest of odds. Always with the help of others.” So what? Who cares? Why this need for “credit”?
Did you not get enough praise and plaudits during your time? Do you feel underappreciated in this community?
To get some truth out there:
1. The “high speed” rail funding in Florida and our own I-55 coridor is to do something that will fall short of citizen expectations because it is to retrofit existing tracks and the ridership will not be there. Politicians call it high speed but they’re selling a buzzword.
2. The top speed of a retrofitted system on the best segments might be 110mph, but with just a few stops enroute like Normal/Joliet, and curved segments at lower speeds the average speed for the whole trip drops to 65 mph.(if not less)
3. Abroad high speed rail is successful between LARGE population centers – Not Tampa and Orlando, not Madison Wisconsin and Chicago. It needs to be Chicago to New York!
I fully support public transportation and LOVED high speed rail when abroad but this funding is good money after bad because it in no way lays a framework for the 180mph trains other countries have enjoyed for a couple decades. It shouldn’t be a republican vs democrat debate either – whatever your camp we all want a government that makes wise decisions. Peace 🙂
People do not want to ride trains. High-speed or otherwise. Get over it and accept that individual transportation on individual timetables to individual destinations is what individuals want.
So glad to hear idonotknowme say this! I was thinking the same thing. So you take the Amtrak (which is predictably LATE ALL THE TIME) to get to your destination, and then what do you do? You’re stuck at a train depot with no car, 2 kids, and a quarter ton of luggage. THAT is what reminds me of the 1950’s. Am I missing something?
idonotknowme says, “People do not want to ride trains.” Except for the 28.7 million passengers who rode trains last year. And that number is growing every year. Even if you love to drive, supporting train service will help make the highways less congested, which will benefit you, too.
Mazu,
You made my point also. No one really cares as we are all self-centered. Look at Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
However, before people make public statements trying to sway public opinion, the reader should know their background.
Florida leadership under Scott turned down the subsidies because the state has greater needs than high speed rail. Governor Scott estimates it will take an additional $3.6 billion to complete the rail between Tampa and Orlando and $50 million additional subsidies every year in operating subsidies.
Long before this project would have been completed estimated costs would probably double and both the state and the federal government will be broke.
CJ – is that 2 million people rode a train 14 times, 1 mil rode it 28 times, or are those individuals? What is your source?