Originally Posted By Lisann22 <<<The project has been hitting political snags at every turn, prompting raging disputes over routing decisions, proposed land seizures and its alleged interference with freight lines.>>> This is an understatement of how badly managed this project has been. HSR has gone through many leaders and contractors securing the plan and presentations to various communities, business and agencies that all need to sign up and bless the train. In the Bay Area, especially the Livermore 580 corridor has been hotly contested due to their poor foresight and route planning. My tribe has been very involved in the planning meetings for the Central Coast area. They have ignored many environmental, greenway and wildlife concerns, let alone cultural sacred site and gravesites. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out as what is beign present to the public and what is happening behind the scenes are very different.
Originally Posted By Manfried The government run things always say it "is expected to turn a profit." Now it is my turn to challenge all the insulters, name a government project in the last 50 years that has turned a profit? Especially any mass transit project. Anyone? Anyone at all?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip As I pointed out previously, the accounting system that government agencies are forced to use pretty much eliminates any chance of paper "profit". Private business capitalizes major investment... the only effect on the balance sheet is trading one asset for another... cash for equipment or whatever. The only impact on the income statement is whatever the current year's depreciation charge is. Government agencies are forced to report the entire investment as expense. Besides... the entire issue is pointless. Does the government turn a "profit" on its investment in highways or air travel? Of course not. It makes the investment because the overall impact on the economy is positive... the same as an investment in high-speed rail would be.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom The obvious one to me is Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport here in Atlanta. The Federal Government chip in for the 5th runway. In 2010 turned a $400 million dollar profit. The "big dig" in Boston, was completely Federally funded. Other than the fact the Ted Williams tunnel is a toll tunnel, the rest of the project is free. The Woodrow Wilson bridge outside of Washington DC cost $1.3 Billion dollars. It is part of the US Highway system and has no toll. I would like to think the "gasoline tax" is going for something. So I don't necessarily think we need to convert every road in the US into a toll road so that somehow we can justify road repair or "see a profit". Same thing for Amtrack. CA is estimated to get 17 million more residents over the next decade or so according to that article. They need to do something to cut down on traffic congestion. This is a brillant idea. Messy, but brillant.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom And I honest am getting a little annoyed with all these people running around demanding to "see the profit". Behaving like a bunch of Ferengi. You do realize we are paying a gasoline tax right? Where is that money going? How about if a portion of it in CA went to building a bullet train? I can not understand why anytime anyone comes up with an idea to decrease US dependency on oil (foreign or domestic)or something that might impact the auto industry is systematically attacked! Where in the US Constitution did we have to swear our allegiance to the oil and auto industries and the robber barons that run them?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<You do realize we are paying a gasoline tax right? Where is that money going?>> That honestly is a good arguement. Show me where the gasoline tax money collected in CA is going. I don't live in CA but I will be more than happy to show you were $27.5 Billion could go; for a Bullet train.... There's your Hoover Dam!
Originally Posted By Manfried Hoover Dam was profitable, for the bondholders. Yes. So the government got its money back. It was also built in the thirties, when labor was very cheap. Like I have repeatedly said, high speed rail is a laudable concept. But in the USA, the costs just keep piling on before anything is done. I'm not against it Kennesaw, just wish it didn't cost so bloody much. That's why I was against it here, it was too costly, with too many political strings attached. Now if they had just said, build high speed rail and here's the money and gotten the heck out of the way, then bravo! But know, the conditions the fed tacks onto the project in terms of "use these types of firms" and "don't infringe anyone's land without giving them tons of money" and "watch out for the environmental impact on NAME BUG OR CREATURE HERE no matter how common" then fine. We do need it, but at what cost? Politicians can vote for laudable things, but then they try to micro-manage them with their attachments.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo But you see, as someone who manages these government programmes, if we do not commission and contract monitor appropriately, we are still accountable to the public if something goes wrong, if money is misused, and we need to ensure ethical policies are enacted. In the public sector we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. That's what increases cost. It is not that easy manfred, and it is not like building an attraction in a theme park. It is much harder.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Manfried, the same can be said about the gasoline tax. Where is the gasoline tax collected in FL going? Why does FL have a toll road going from east to west accross FL? If we used the same logic then the bridge/ highway system linking Key West to the rest of the main land USA would never have been built. And using your logic, that should be profitable so it should be a toll road? At some point you have to justify the gasoline tax somehow! It has to exist for some purpose other than being a funding source for your state's DOT "jobs" program. I would buy the overwhelmed with political graft and beauracracy excuse if it wasn't going on already. And if everything HAD to be profitable then we can use that as an excuse to do away with ALL social programs and government schools, like the middle school in FL that just suspending two kids for "hugging" each other. CRAZY!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The greatest evil done by conservatives is convincing the nation that somehow government spending is inherently bad. Don't government employees spend their salary on housing, cars and groceries just like everyone else? Doesn't government spending for steel, cement and locomotives benefit private industry just like any other spending? It has been shown time and again that government spending produces a greater "multiplier effect" than tax reductions (if you don't know what the "multiplier effect" is, sign up at your local college for an introductory Economics course). Government spending is one of the largest sectors of our economy and critically important to the overall well-being of the nation. At this point in time one of the major reasons unemployment remains high is due to conservative demands that government spending be slashed. Private industry hiring is slowly increasing, but those gains are offset by massive layoffs in government positions. Your out-of-work friend, neighbor or relative might be employed right now if it weren't for the unreasonable demands of conservatives. Yes, there is a place for conservatives in this county. It is called Texas. Ship them all there and let them elect Perry their president. They will be happy and the rest of us will be rid of them.
Originally Posted By Manfried Roadtrip, instead of playing the "blame the other side" game, offer up something constructive instead. At least Kennesaw is doing that and we are having a dialogue about the subject. Conservatives and liberals both have ideas, both have good ones and both have bad ones.
Originally Posted By Manfried Hoover Dam worked because there were not too many political strings attached. Funding was through a government backed bond. The bonds were repaid through the sales of water and electricity. Bondholders got their money back and it cost the government nothing after the bonds were paid back. The high speed rail is not really set up as cleanly as the government has all kinds of conditions it is attaching to the project and taking forever to move it forward. Some people will ride free, others at a lower cost. So people will find a way to scam the system. Now if the bondholders could get their money back over say a 50 year time period, meaning the government would get its money back, then fine. Then going forward all maintenance and upgrade and personnel costs are covered via ticket sales. Unfortunately, I see a government-run union with all kinds of costly conditions and so it will be government subsidized like all other rail in this country. In theory, though not reality, the gasoline tax is supposed to cover the cost of roads, highways and bridges. Again, politicians raid the fund to pay for other pet projects. To wrap up, show me a way that costs the taxpayers nothing and I am for it. Ball is in your court.
Originally Posted By Manfried And to return the insult. Show me a good liberal idea that is not paid for by taxpayers.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Well, I'm a conservative and I like High Speed Rail. Acela was a huge bargain! We got trainsets, upgraded rails all of it for a rock bottom price. It was a steal and everyone in the Northeast knows it. The "doom and gloom" crowd isn't always right. Again, what may not make much sense for Florida doesn't mean it is not pure genius for elsewhere including Calfornia. I don't think this is about money. I think this is about the oil and auto industries dictating US Federal policy. When you have an oil man in the White House you get Federal tax breaks for oil companys. And when you have a community organizer from Chicago in the White House you get Federal bailouts for Michigan, Illinois and the auto industry. Certainly there has got to be a better way than whomever is in the White House gets to decided the "winners and losers".
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Still waiting to hear a good conservative idea... ;-)>> As I said before, all roads lead to Rome!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<To wrap up, show me a way that costs the taxpayers nothing and I am for it. Ball is in your court.>> Why should that be the criteria? I certainly don't support everything our military does, but I pay big bucks for it anyway. There comes a point where you have to accept that certain things are done for the public good and you pay for them whether you particularly support the specifics or not. Improved transit in this country is WITHOUT A DOUBT a significant benefit. If it costs taxpayers a little money SO WHAT?? Alabama is one of the lowest tax states in the nation. You get what you pay for... do YOU want to live there?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom << Improved transit in this country is WITHOUT A DOUBT a significant benefit. If it costs taxpayers a little money SO WHAT??>> Not to mention that maintain interstate transportation IS a legitimate function of our Federal Government. I would think that maintaining some form of means of transportation IS a legitimate function of a municipality. Some communities have canals boats, some have trolleys, some have steetcars, some have cable cars, some have buses and some have monorails. I can't see why trains should be an exception. Manfried, I think where you are getting stuck here is that you think any form of Bullet train is doomed to fail. And all I can say is that in the Northeast we have the Acela. It didn't happen by accident. A lot of people were excited about it and wanted to make sure it was going to work. There were a lot of obstacles that had to be overcome. For example all the engines had to be engineered to handle various voltage variances as there are seven different voltage variances just in CT alone! And in the end we got our Acela! Win Win!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>The trains stations are located in downtown areas, a short walk or taxi can get you where you need to go.<< Works great in theory, but what's close to LA Union Station? Unless you have a business meeting downtown, you're looking at a trip that will be several miles on some of the most congested freeways in the region. True, it may still be faster than getting in and out of LAX, but it just 'seems' worse when you think about it. Whether rightly or not, I think people have much higher expectations for rail than airlines; I'm not sure that this project can deliver on those expectations. And Acela is a very good example of how to do a project like this well, but it's also not really high-speed rail. It's more of a fancy express train. They added electric service to the corridor and replaced a lot of track, but they didn't do much to modify the existing alignment. Perhaps widening a curve here and there to allow faster speeds, but staying in the existing right-of-way. For the California project, there will be all-new rails being added, many in corridors that don't currently exist, or in ones that will require significant widening through urban areas. A large portion of the people that are against this project are due to NIMBY reasons, and they've been doing a good job of getting a good chunk of the population on their side. Perhaps the California project should look more toward Acela for direction, rather than France or Japan. The southern California sections are already looking at this approach and are beginning to reduce the impacts, but the Central Valley and northern California sections are using the traditional high-speed design requirements that just don't allow it. When the voters passed Prop 1A, there were just enough requirements in it to make it really tough to design a system that fits it, and also doesn't take a lot of property. But supposedly it's what the voters want.
