Originally Posted By dshyates Well, it now looks like we have 26 state legislators in favor of the plan. This is a majority that can override Scott's veto. <a href="http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/02/25-florida-senators-rebuke-rick-scott-over-bullet-train.html#ixzz1EGoymr4y" target="_blank">http://miamiherald.typepad.com...EGoymr4y</a>
Originally Posted By Indigo I'm still hopeful they'll figure out a way to bring those jobs and the economic development that will come with a high speed rail line. I'm not holding my breath however. Sadly there is no way to recall a sitting Governor in Florida. It would take an amendment to the state constitution. I am a huge advocate for mass transit having seen how it spurred economic growth in Portland and Los Angeles. (Not to mention Japan, France, etc) Communities are lining up to have a rail stop these days. That said, like Spirit, I am a bit confused by the order in which this project is being funded. The real need in Orlando is to funnel tourists from the airport to International drive and Kissimmee and then from those locations to the various amusement parks and attractions. A well designed network would also move residents from the south to the north and from east to west all crossing just south of Downtown Orlando. From there street-cars would take you to downtown and up to winter park (assuming they ever come down off their high horse).
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The Florida project really should have been the least controversial rail project of all time. It's relatively inexpensive due to geography. Earthquakes are of little concern. There are no mountain passes to cross (the California project must cross two mountain passes, minimum). The right of way is already there. It would operate in the middle of the freeway where no NIMBY problems would percolate. It would serve the airport and a major tourist destination. Serving cities couldn't hurt either. Private companies have expressed interest in covering capital cost overruns and revenue shortfalls. Isn't that what they wanted, for private industry to take the risk? The funny thing is that he wanted to cancel the project before all the answers were in. Even Republicans were all, "Hey, let's see if these private companies are really interested in taking on the risk of revenue shortfalls." You know, you can read a contract before you sign it. Comparisons to Amtrak are disingenuous at best. State routes are subsidized by, surprise, states. They do okay but need capital investment before they can turn a profit (yet why should they when roads don't exactly pay for themselves? Rail and public transportation also offers positive benefits to society). Long distance routes are the major money losers (yet they are a beautiful way to see America. I'd preserve them for the same reason you'd preserve national parks). The Northeast Corridor, where kind of, sort of, maybe high speed rail exists, Amtrak breaks even on the regional trains and turns a profit on the express trains. Scott made a comparison to ridership on Acela. That doesn't tell the whole story. He doesn't mention the regional trains or the myriad of commuter trains on the route. It's also much longer. It's a stupid comparison to make. It's definitely a decision based in political ideology more than anything else. I wouldn't even blame Republicans for this one. This is a truly Libertarian debacle.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, when you lean hard enough to the Right, the extreme you meet is Libertarianism. I read an interesting Facebook comment from a guy who was actually a candidate for Congress last year (thankfully, he didn't stand a chance as he was from Massachusetts), and rather than paraphrase I'll just go over there and pull it up...it is hilarious (and sad). Searching now...hang on. It's a real pain 'cause he's actually just a friend of a friend (the friend being an insanely right wing whackadoo too, I've talked about him here from time to time but I still love the guy cause he's an old college buddy)... One sec more... Crap. Can't find it. I wish I could have, the wording is pretty important. ANYWAY, to paraphrase the guy, he said something like "building high speed rail is nothing more than a sinister plot by our socialist government to force us to abandon our cars, and thus our freedom". But he worded it so much better. Like that weird mix of reasonable words mixed with complete insanity that they are so adept at pulling off these days.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Here's hoping the Legislature overrides the Gov... Not only to get something that the state needs, but to send him a message, too.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I want to be very clear that I don't view this from a partisan position. I feel that both parties in this country long ago jumped the shark by selling out to business interests and the most fringe folks on both sides. I am interested in what is best for this country and my state. Pretending that we are so different and special from nations in Asia and Europe, so we can keep up the oil/car addiction isn't partisan as folks on both sides believe it. What angers me is how we say that we can't possibly have these deficits (and I agree) when it comes to anything that improves us as a nation (be it improving transportation, infrastructure, healthcare, education, you name it) ... but it's perfectly OK to feed the defense contractors and their insatiable appetites for trillions under some delusion that it makes us safer (from whom? groups of them overthrowing the government like Jon Voight's group was trying in 24 a few seasons back?) We've wasted how much money in Iraq and Afghanistan (we could also talk of propping up the dictator in Egypt for three decades) and for what? Imagine what those funds put to a positive use back home could have done (leaving out the death, maiming and destruction we left in our wake). Where does it all end? If you're going to be trillions in debt, then shouldn't the quality of life have gone up HUGELY for all Americans? Yet, the opposite has happened (unless you believe iPhones and cheap LCD TVs in every home make us a great place to live). I probably should go and reserve a ride on Soarin on 3/16/14 at 2:25 p.m. ...
Originally Posted By twirlnhurl <<When the levies failed in New Orleans you got a little, "we need to fix our infrastructure problem." When the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, you got a little, "We need to fix our infrastructure." But these days it's, "We can't afford to build anything because we're sacrificing our children's and grandchildren's futures by leaving them with this massive debt burden." Is leaving them with an infrastructure that is literally falling apart, and incapable of meeting the needs of the 21st or 22nd centuries any better?>> That is part of the problem. You shouldn't build new infrastructure if you can't pay for the infrastructure you already have. The high speed rail needs to be thought about very seriously. If cost overruns are going to be paid for by the vendors, and the ridership projections make it look like its costs will be covered, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be built, especially if it will be operated by a semi-autonomous transportation authority (Like the Turnpike Enterprise or OOCEA.) That way costs could be contained mostly by the authority (protecting taxpayers) and whatever profits that might exist could be kept to put back into the system, providing an incentive for the operator to provide high quality services and protecting the profits from getting sucked into the general fund where they'll never be seen again. Someone else commented on how high speed rail will reduce congestion and pollution. Speaking as a student studying urban planning, I can say that there is no evidence to support this in the long term. This is because of what is called Triple Convergence (Read more about it here: <a href="http://www.walkablestreets.com/triple.htm" target="_blank">http://www.walkablestreets.com...iple.htm</a> ) Traditionally, Triple Convergence is used to explain why roads in places with steady or growing populations become congested quickly after the completion of major improvements in capacity. However, it can also be used to explain what will happen when transportation mode choice increases. Although some people currently driving I-4 from Tampa to Orlando may choose to take the train, I-4 will remain congested at peak times because people who used to take side roads or drive during off-peak hours will discover that it is faster to take I-4 than it used to be, and eventually a new equilibrium will be reached in which I-4 will have congestion at peak times. This is not to say that they shouldn't build the train, I am just saying that it will increase mobility but not reduce congestion. On another note, as a Libertarian, I want to make sure that you are aware that there is a difference between the principals of Libertarianism and the Tea Party movement. There are a lot of people who consider themselves to be part of both, but for the most part, the intellectual foundations of Libertarianism are ignored by the mainstream Tea Party movement. For instance, Tea Partiers tend to be against globalization (even more so than Democrats!), while Libertarians are agnostic but generally supportive of it. Libertarians have no problem with gay marriage, Tea Partiers are again generally against it.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Well, when you lean hard enough to the Right, the extreme you meet is Libertarianism." Not necessarily. On social views, Libertarianism is left-wing. The Libertarian ideal is extreme, but it's very consistent.
Originally Posted By Manfried It used to be that when massive projects like high speed rail were proposed, they had to include how to pay for them. Not just with tax dollars. So, if the high speed rail is such a good project, then include a funding mechanism like they did with Hoover Dam. Issue bonds against the future income stream. For Hoover Dam it was the sale of electricity. Completely paid for the cost of the dam and its upkeep. Still does. So, see if the high speed rail holds up to the financial experts. Set up a bond issue against the money made from ticket sales. If it does, it will be built without any political stuff at all.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "Honestly, I do wonder if we've jumped the shark as a nation. If our best years are long past and we're living off our reputation, much like Disney." And trust me, just like Disney, internationally that "credit" on your reputation is all but exhausted, too!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones It isn't just a financial issue. Electric trains of all speeds and types will help get us off foreign oil. That cannot be forgotten. We should use the oil reserves the world has left to build infrastructure that doesn't need oil. This may be a century long effort.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Point is, you can make electricity a lot of ways. I don't know how exactly Florida generates its electricity, but California generates a significant amount of its electricity from renewable sources. There's a commitment to increasing that share. There's also a commitment to power the California project with renewable energy. Whether that happens remains to be seen, but it's the goal. A light rail line, for example, is cleaner in California than it is in Colorado, because of the way those states generate their electricity.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Electric trains of all speeds and types will help get us off foreign oil*** ***Spokker, one question. How do we make that electricity? Foreign oil*** Manfried, your are as short sighted as you are ignorant. I can't believe you would put down such an idiotic comment. I guess I figured you were a rational adult. My mistake.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Great point about issuing bonds to pay for the upkeep on this rail system Manfried. Where were the bonds? Where were the "private companies" exactly? No one stepped forward to sign a contract saying they will pay for the future budget shortfalls. The only groups that stepped forward were Siemens who wanted to sell Florida trains and equipment to get some of the 2.4 Billion the Feds were going to dole out from 2012 to 2015 for it. There was no public or signed commitment from any private company saying they'll cover the cost of annual shortfalls from 2015 to 2055. And who exactly would staff, operate and maintain this thing for the next 50 years? The Florida DMV office? The Highway Patrol? Amtrak? Some new state government agency bloated with swampy bureacracy? A bit scary, all of those thoughts. What is scarier is that all of these questions apply to the much larger California rail system, and yet not a single one of them has been answered here in California either. And I voted yes on that 20 Billion dollar bond measure a few years ago too! Interesting Editorial this week in the Washington Post about the falacies and folly of high speed rail all around the world. Worth a short read for most of us here... <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021605977.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...977.html</a>
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "There was no public or signed commitment from any private company saying they'll cover the cost of annual shortfalls from 2015 to 2055." Why would there be? The governor was threatening to pull the plug for a few months. In any case, there was a consortium of business groups who expressed interest in building or operating the line. They also expressed a willingness to cover some or all cost overruns and/or operating revenue shortfalls. The governor pulled the plug before those discussions could be completed. "And who exactly would staff, operate and maintain this thing for the next 50 years?" For an operator, I think Virgin might want to give it a shot. They've been operating trains in the UK for a while. Amtrak would probably make a bid to operate trains. They do a great job in the Norhteast Corridor with 50-100 year old infrastructure. They currently operate the fastest trains in the United States. "What is scarier is that all of these questions apply to the much larger California rail system, and yet not a single one of them has been answered here in California either." And they won't be answered until the environmental reviews are completed and the federal funding situation becomes more clear.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones You can also review the history of Florida high speed rail here: <a href="http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/history/" target="_blank">http://www.floridahighspeedrai...history/</a> Here's a short timeline of the previous attempt to get HSR in Florida up and running. "1996 FDOT Selects FOX The FOX consortium is made up of Fluor Daniel, Odebrecht Contractors, Bombardier and GEC Alsthom. The Fox proposal is to build new grade separated, fully dedicated high speed rail system connecting Miami, Orlando and Tampa. System capital cost is estimated at $6.1 billion. Year 2010 ridership is projected at 8.5 million per year. FOX proposes to finance the system with mostly debt financing with bonds fully repaid from net system revenues and the state's annual contribution of $70 million. In addition, $350 million in equity funding is to be provided from the four FOX partner companies. 1997-1998 Franchise and Pre-Certification Agreements Executed FDOT agrees to provide $70 million per year for 40 years escalated at four percent annually FOX agrees to contribute a total of $350 million in equity funds. FOX completes 10 percent design and environmental work. 1999 Governor Jeb Bush withdraws funding for high speed rail. Governor Bush withdraws funds dedicated to HSR and reallocates the funds to a series of roadway and surface transportation projects. Without state funding, the FOX contract is voided, and the project dies." I wonder if those roadway projects met ridership and revenue estimates and turned a profit.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones As for Disney's role in this, they support the project and have contributed $25 million in land. The station would be here: <a href="http://thedisneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/HSR-station.jpg" target="_blank">http://thedisneyblog.com/wp-co...tion.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Manfried "but California generates a significant amount of its electricity from renewable sources. There's a commitment to increasing that share. There's also a commitment to power the California project with renewable energy. Whether that happens remains to be seen, but it's the goal." California is an electrically challenged state. Anyone remember the shortages before? Florida actually has similar and worse problems. California cannot build any more dams. And wind and solar are not yet proven. "Manfried, your are as short sighted as you are ignorant. I can't believe you would put down such an idiotic comment. I guess I figured you were a rational adult. My mistake." Mr X - I am not being childish as I can back up my arguments with facts. Something you obviously cannot as you can only resort to childish insults. If you want to take part in this debate then grow up and act like an adult.
