Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Or, you could simply have decent infrastructure to begin with (but better late than never), which treats high speed lines with the consideration they need and has NO crossings nor track-accessible platforms etc...<< I know this is from a few pages back, but I would just like to clarify that this is exactly how they California system will operate. The street crossings will all be grade separated, and the only places that people could potentially get onto the tracks without really trying (like jumping a fence) would be at the station platforms themselves. Cars and pedestrians alike will not be able to access the tracks at any other points.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Scott has also halted the SunRail commuter rail project, a $1.2 billion venture. <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/11/2110868/scott-delays-sunrail-contracts.html" target="_blank">http://www.miamiherald.com/201...cts.html</a> Commuter rail does not make a profit by design. It is inherently subsidized to attract commuters from their vehicles. If it recovers 50% of operating costs it would be doing a good job. This type of train service is similar to Metrolink and the Pacific Surfliner in Southern California or Caltrain in the Bay Area. So if Scott's expectation is that commuter rail has to make a profit, this project is as good as canceled too.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones John Mica is the Republican in charge of the House Transportation Committee and he has this to say. <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/149013-gop-rep-mica-blames-obama-for-rail-rejections" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/blogs/trans...jections</a>- ""Don't tell me you cannot make money moving passengers by rail," he said. "I know we can attract private-sector capital if they have the opportunity to not only help develop, help construct, but help operate because ... return on investment is a great motivator." Mica acknowledged, however, that it could be difficult to forge political consensus on an issue that has emerged as a favorite target of the conservative Tea Party movement. "We will drag Congress and whoever else kicking and screaming into the 21st century of passenger rail with private investment," he said." He seems to think he can attract some private investors.
Originally Posted By TP2000 I wish him luck! I'm an American Free Enterprise guy myself (like dear old Uncle Walt), and I really worry why we haven't heard much from private enterprise when it comes to building and operating these proposed train systems. The only time we've really heard from any private company about any high speed rail is in regards to selling their equipment to states when they were going to pay for that equipment with the free money from Washington DC that grows on cherry trees along the Potomac River. Other than that, private companies have yet to step forward and ask to be included in operating these systems at a profit for the next 50 years. That's worrisome. If there is as much profit in these rail projects as the boosters claim, you would think private enterprise would be beating down the door of the politicians to be included in the schemes. But so far... silence.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Because we are broke right now*** We wouldn't be if you and others like you paid more in taxes. *** Just not mine*** Historically speaking, you (and I) pay a pittance. So just what exactly is your problem?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<In short, cheer up, it ain't that bad, and the dire predictions never seem to pan out quite as well as the book authors and movie producers predict.>> Sorry, but I can't quite close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and block out what's going on in the world. Yes, we are slowly, and I do mean SLOWLY, moving towards electric vehicles, but it's really not happening fast enough. And while it's nice that people enjoy living in the suburbs, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to discourage people from living unsustainable lifestyles. Suburbia was a bad idea for the environment - plain and simple, and we should be doing everything in our power to encourage people to move into city centers that are served by mass transist. Kind of like what Walt wanted to build with his original idea for EPCOT.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 << If there is as much profit in these rail projects as the boosters claim, you would think private enterprise would be beating down the door of the politicians to be included in the schemes. But so far... silence.>> I'm still trying to figure out why it's ok for roads to be paid for by tax dollars and not trains? Roads don't make a profit, so why should train systems. Couldn't they be run in a similar fashion? Sure, there would be a huge expense up-front to build them, but that was true of the Interstate highway system too. How is this any different? We should remove any subsidies given to oil companies, tax gas more, and use that money to pay for the creation of comprehensive mass transit systems. If you want to still drive, fine, but you should have to pay the true cost for it - not the subsidized rate we pay now.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...I really worry why we haven't heard much from private enterprise when it comes to building and operating these proposed train systems.<< I don't really know much about why this would be, but I do wonder if it has anything to do with property acquisition. To build a train, you need to own/have rights to a long skinny strip of land that connects two places. Since there are very few of those for sale these days (especially within metropolitan areas), it would be pretty tough for a private company to buy one. I guess freight rail companies like BNSF and Union Pacific could work with another company to share the land, but most freight routes seem to already be at or under capacity. I'm sure that there are private investors interested in operating the systems, but building one would be next to impossible for a private group that doesn't have emminent domain capabilities.
Originally Posted By Manfried Roads are paid for out of tax dollars, and people are free to use them whenever and wherever they want. Just try doing that with a high speed rail or a commuter train. Not possible.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm still trying to figure out why it's ok for roads to be paid for by tax dollars and not trains?<< Because it benefits oil companies and automobile manufacturers?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I thought it was funny how Rick Scott won't trust the studies by his own state department of transportation but the studies by Reason and the Heritage Foundation are gospel.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Roads are paid for out of tax dollars, and people are free to use them whenever and wherever they want. Just try doing that with a high speed rail or a commuter train. Not possible." If roads are paid for out of tax dollars, and if rail is paid for out of tax dollars, why is anyone free to use roads but not free to use trains? In order to use the taxpayer funded road, you must purchase a vehicle, pay the registration fee, pay the licensing fee, pay the transportation sales tax if your county has one, general fund taxes, gas it up and pay the gas tax. Then you must maintain your vehicle in a state of good repair. In order to use the taxpayer funded train, you must pay the tax associated with how the train line is financed (sales tax, property tax, diversions from the gas tax, general funds, whatever arrangement is made) and the fare. Both are paid for by taxes and both require expenditures beyond taxes. And not everybody may benefit from having the ability to drive or take the train. Non-users, however, experience external benefits and costs in both cases. I find that the external costs associated with highways and freeways tend to be very large and historically fall disproportionately on low-income non-whites who cannot afford vehicles. For local examples, see East Los Angeles and the Century Freeway corridor. To expand further on this point, note that the California project is seeing heavy opposition. Could it have something to do with the fact that some external costs may fall on affluent whites on the Bay Area Peninsula?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Oh, and you are forced to pay for insurance when you operate a motor vehicle in California. That may not be a tax or a user fee, but it's another indirect cost that many people cannot afford. So in what sense are freeways free to use?
Originally Posted By seashoreCM (May be repetitive because I did not read all the posts) This is at least the second time that Florida rejected money for a train project. Disney offered a big sum of money to build parts of a high speed train line. Admittedly there would be no stops between Orlando International Airport and Walt Disney World.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The only foamer i see on here is you Manfred. I only thought you a donkey before that insensitive post, now your status has been confirmed.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Mr X Ugh...I can't even explain how much this pisses me off. Breathing deeply. Again. Again. Japan is an admirably structured society with many incredible traits, and people. And the hard work that has gone into making this disaster prone island nation into a first world nation should NOT be ignored, nor mocked. The fact that we are in the midst of a crisis, and that people on their keyboards are making cracks about mass transit just makes my blood boil and even moreso given the fact that my family has spent so much time over the past few days just trying to get food and water, and help our neighbors when we can, and then some PERSON online wants to make a joke about trains? I am aghast. I really am. If I were that person, I would be ashamed. But maybe he doesn't realize the extent of what's going on over here, so he thinks it's funny or something. Entire towns have been wiped off the map. Tens of thousands have died. Several million people have no power where I live, I have little to no water supply in my house (and I'm LUCKY to have any at all!). And some person on a keyboard feels like chiming in to mock. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones You can check the status of JR East train lines here. <a href="http://traininfo.jreast.co.jp/train_info/e/shinkansen.aspx" target="_blank">http://traininfo.jreast.co.jp/...sen.aspx</a> Many delays and service suspensions have been cleared. Only a handful of lines are still closed.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones By the way, the Northridge quake in LA brought down sections of the I-5 and SR-14 interchange and the I-10 through LA. The LA subway, on the other hand, was up and running soon after the quake. Metrolink service was not only up and running, but was extended to help deal with the I-5/SR-14 interchange damage.
