Originally Posted By Manfried And that's why there is such contention in this country. Oh let the government do it. Again I cite an example of government doing it but taxpayers not paying a dime for it: Hoover Dam. The same thing should be done for high speed rail.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 ^^^I see your point. However, I'm not sure I'm in favor of going back to a time in our nation when giving up an entire ecosystem to a man-made monstrosity counts as "not paying a dime."
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<If you have an issue with the procedure, you do not have to inherently have an issue with natural gas. At least make an effort to understand the issue before making over-generalized statements.>> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/mayor-calvin-tillman-leav_n_827478.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...478.html</a> "Fearing for his children's health, Mayor Calvin Tillman is leaving behind his government position and getting out of Dodge... or rather, Dish. Dish, Texas is a town consisting of 200 residents and 60 gas wells. When Tillman's sons repeatedly woke up in the middle of the night with mysterious nosebleeds, he knew it was time to move -- even if it meant leaving his community behind. In an exclusive interview with The Huffington Post, Mayor Tillman reveals that when it came down to family or politics, the choice wasn't a tough one to make. Tillman, first elected mayor of Dish, Texas in 2007, has spent his time in office fighting to regulate natural gas companies that are drilling into the Barnett shale, which holds up to 735 billion cubic meters of natural gas. According to the Associated Press, residents of Dish have complained of nosebleeds, pain, and poor circulation since the first compressor station was built in their town in 2005, though there is no hard proof linking the health problems to the natural gas drilling. The air over the Barnett Shale near Dish was found to contain high levels of the toxic chemical benzene, shown to cause cancer. The town's mayor is leaving it all behind. Last Memorial Day was the final straw. Tillman's 5-year-old son awoke in the middle of the night with a severe nosebleed. As Tillman describes to HuffPost, "He had blood all over his hands, blood on the walls -- our house looked somewhat like a murder scene." In the weeks prior, both of Tillman's sons had experienced severe nosebleeds. At the same time, the town was surrounded by a strong odor from their natural gas facilities. While Mayor Tillman acknowledges there could be other explanations, he feels, "It's one thing if I'm exposing myself to something... but with our children, it's just a completely different story. We just couldn't take the chance after that." Around the country, similar reports of nosebleeds can be found among residents living near hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," sites, though the energy companies insist that their methods are safe. Tillman recently sold his house and announced that his family will soon leave the town. Tillman reveals to HuffPost that his older son, who has lived in their Dish home his entire life, is not thrilled with the move, although the boy has asthma that Tillman hopes will improve once they relocate. The move doesn't only affect Tillman's family. His position as mayor is now in question, as the City Council can replace him before the upcoming May election, although he doesn't foresee this happening." There are ecologically sensitive geographical regions where we should never drill for oil or gas. And the use of fracking should rarely, if ever, be used. This town is a clear example of why.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 I am not sure what this has to do with the statement I made and you quoted. There may well be negative issues associated with hydraulic fracturing. There are definitely issues associated with extracting many natural resources from the earth. Mining of all types produces dangerous waste, is often hazardous to the miners' health, and certainly tears up the land. Drilling requires chemicals and heavy equipment that can be damaging. I am in no way disputing the dangers of extracting natural resources. My point is that hydraulic fracturing is not synonymous with natural gas. Nor is hydraulic fracturing the only danger posed by drilling. It is an over-simplification of a vast and complicated issue. Just as the town of Dish is encountering apparent problems with drilling, many other towns are enjoying prosperity without those same problems. And unless everyone in this country plans on not using fossil fuels, it would seem to me a wiser plan to figure out how to do this stuff safely rather than cast a blanket assessment out of fear and panic. I agree that there are some ecologically sensitive places that should not be exploited for their natural resources. However, following that with a wholly unsupported statement about 'fracking' exposes just how little you truly understand about the issue. The article links the town's issues with the building of a compressor and offers only the chemical in the air as a possible explanation for the nose bleeds. What do either of those things have to do with hydraulic fracturing? It sounds more likely that it is linked to other issues with the natural gas extraction in the area. You could have the EPA ban all hydraulic fracturing and still have these problems in this town. How would that help these folks?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I agree that there are some ecologically sensitive places that should not be exploited for their natural resources. However, following that with a wholly unsupported statement about 'fracking' exposes just how little you truly understand about the issue.>> I understand the issue enough to know that no one understands all of the ramifications of using this type of extraction method, especially for the long haul. Which is why we shouldn't be using it in populated areas nor in areas which feed aquifers for urban areas and agricultural regions. Truth is, corporations are mainly interested in maximizing profits, and often to the determent of the environment. There is no Federal regulatory agency monitoring fracking at this time, there are no Federal standards or guidelines which the drilling companies must adhere to, in order to protect the environment they're drilling in. And that's precisely how the corporations want it, which is why they give more campaign contributions to the Republicans who work very hard to keep those regulatory agencies away from fracking: <a href="http://solveclimate.com/news/20100222/congress-considers-fracking-regulation-amid-hodgepodge-state-drilling-rules" target="_blank">http://solveclimate.com/news/2...ng-rules</a> "On Capitol Hill, momentum appears to be shifting toward federal regulation of a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing. Last week, the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to eight oil and gas companies asking for information on the chemicals they use. Oil and gas companies, including Exxon, have been vocal in their opposition to federal involvement, maintaining that the hodgepodge of state regulations is sufficient. In fact, Exxon is so opposed to federal regulation, it wrote into its recent $41 billion merger deal with XTO that if Congress makes “hydraulic fracturing or similar processes … illegal or commercially impracticable,” the deal is off. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told a Congressional committee last month that the states have the knowledge of local geology to do the best job of regulation. However, a look at the state regulations now in place shows just how limited and inconsistent the oversight is of a practice that some people fear could contaminate water supplies. “The state regulations vary quite widely,” said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They have regulations for how the well is constructed, how the pressure is monitored, those kinds of things, but nothing specific to hydraulic fracturing.” Hydraulic fracturing — or hydrofracking, or just fracking — involves injecting large quantities of water, sand and a mix of chemicals deep underground to push out natural gas deposits buried in rock formations like the Marcellus Shale in New York and Pennsylvania. The chemicals involved have been a closely held proprietary secret by the companies who use hydrofracking, and they claim they would lose a competitive advantage if forced to reveal the cocktails. The technique has been used in thousands of wells since 1949, and companies say it is necessary to access the vast quantities of natural gas locked in shale formations around the country. Drillers say the process is safe, however there have been spills of fracking fluids, which can included dangerous additives such as benzene, and reports of well water contamination." That says it all, right there. The oil and gas corporations do not want regulation oversight by the Federal government of their fracking operations. Why would they object to that, if fracking is as safe as you're suggesting? Answer: it's not safe, and the oil and gas corporations know full well it's not. Fracking is a disaster and needs to stop until we understand its ramifications on the environment and human/animal health better.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Holy Cow!! You took an article with reasonable information and then tossed in a slew of your own exaggerated and generalized statements with not one single fact behind them. And for the record, please feel free to re-read any statement I've made in this thread. I have never said or even implied that I know hydraulic fracturing is safe. In fact, my point is that you undermine your own efforts to regulate or ban hydraulic fracturing by abandoning fact and resorting to hyperbole. I would agree that the oil and gas corps don't want regulation and that's a problem. Banks don't want regulation either. Does that mean they are breaking laws and endangering the public? Possibly. But not automatically. Big biz in general despises regulation. And that is most definitely a problem in this country. But frankly, the "oversight" that occurred with offshore drilling doesn't seem to have done much good, so it isn't a slam dunk solution. You specifically chose not to hear my point that issues with drilling in general are not synonymous with hydraulic fracturing. You could ban fracking tomorrow and not solve one of these health issues. Getting oil and natural gas out of the ground isn't pretty; that isn't new to fracking. Additionally, you've not provided one single source here that supports your statement that "fracking is a disaster." You are looking for some sort of nefarious plot by the oil and gas companies to push an evil and dangerous technique. Frankly, to the oil and gas companies, hydraulic fracturing is no different than a zillion other techniques they use (with chemicals and heavy equipment as well) to extract their target. From where they're sitting, they can't understand why all of a sudden everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this particular thing. So no, they don't "know" it's harmful. They don't secretly meet to hide information about tainted water. If you want progress on this issue, get over your need for a huge conspiracy theory and the "Gasland" hyperbole, and push the government NOT to cut budgets for the EPA, or for any state/fed agency that has regulatory authority over oil and gas. And push for tougher laws to protect the environment. And don't make choices that support a consumer society that requires such a ridiculous amount of natural resource comsumption.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper In Florida Republicans have a nearly veto proof majority in both the House and Senate and, of course, hold the Governor's office. There is no State income tax in Florida and the State generates most of it's budget from property tax...which has dropped through the basement over the past several years. In '08 (I believe) a cap of 3% was established as the maximum increase in propety tax that can be recovered each year as the property values improve. So, say your home was valued at $200,000 before the crisis...your tax was based on that. Now, the economy dropped your property value to $100,000 and your tax dropped in half. Next year let's say your home value increases by $75,000...well...your tax only goes up 100,000 plus 3%. So, while tax revenue can fall dramatically it cannot be recovered dramatically leaving this state and local communities in a pretty tough position. The property tax is draconian...to say the least...but there doesn't seem to be a will to do anything about it in Florida. And, I'd be stunned if the Republican led government votes to make any significant changes. Now, you add on top of that whole tax mess the fact that costs continue to rise...particularly in the area of pensions and health care...and there is a real crisis on our hands. Last year was the first year that Florida spent more money on prisons and corrections than it did on education. It makes the high speed rail issue seem to be a bit trite in my opinion...as much as I like to progressive thinking about it.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones HSR is officially dead in Florida, in my view. <a href="http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/scott-shoots-down-propositions-for-keeping-high-speed-rail-plan" target="_blank">http://www.abcactionnews.com/d...ail-plan</a> "Governor Rick Scott has cemented his decision to reject the $2.4 billion in federal funding to build the high speed rail from Tampa to Orlando, the St. Petersburg Times reports." This is the plan he rejected: ""Costs, fees and expenses and general liability of cost overruns and operating shortfalls shall be passed on to and guaranteed by the winning bidder selected from a concourse of bidders from the private sector," the proposal stated." The governor's comments: ""I remain convinced that the construction cost overruns, the operating costs risk, the risk that we would give the money back if it's ever shut down, is too much for the taxpayers of the state," Scott said. Iorio expressed her disappointment, questioning the soundness of Scott’s rebuttals." It's ideology for sure. Anyway, even if the legislature overrides his decision, Scott can make it very difficult for the project to move forward regardless. The Obama administration can make it very difficult for him in return, but I doubt they are going to play hardball.
Originally Posted By Mr X Frankly, if the governor of a state rejects federal funding then they deserve what they get. After all, they elected the guy. I say the Feds should say "fine", and send the money along to states that actually want it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "Anyone want to spot me a few hundred grand, so I can apply for EU citizenship?" Interesting that you mention this. My wife took our adult and teen kids down to the German consulate to claim their GErman citizenshipo earlier this week.
Originally Posted By Manfried "giving up an entire ecosystem to a man-made monstrosity counts as "not paying a dime." Well the environmental impact is a different, though related argument. But tearing down a bunch of Florida's diminishing rain forest for a rail line would be similar in a different way. It's a question of trade offs on that one.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Florida's high speed rail line would be mostly built in the middle of a freeway.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I understand there are only two high speed rail lines in the world that don't receive government subsidies...and those are in densely populated areas where gas is three times the cost that it is in the US and the citizenry has been a willing participant in public transportation for decades. Personally I'd like to be able to get on a train in Ft Lauderdale and get off at WDW...but I would be stunned if ridership turned out to be anywhere near what they project.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones If you only take into account Florida's population density then high speed rail would be a tough sell. The state's significant reputation as a tourist destination would partially drive ridership. The ridership forecast estimated 2.4 million boardings in 2015. The entire corridor is projected to see 17 million trips in 2015. The study was conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It is a slight tangent, but what I thought was interesting is the DLP financial results were announced this week. The relationship this has is that Europe makes a good use of the railway network, and there is a station that is as close to the front gates of the park as pretty much the Yacht Club is to the France Pavillion. There are high speed lines to the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. as well as a commuter train out from Paris. Rail usage accounted for less that 10% of the travel to the resort. As much as I am a fan of rail, I think Florida is really one of the lowest need areas. My gut feel is a high speed west coast linking San Francisco to San Diego is in order. And Eastern seaboard line. A chigago to NYC and Chigaco to California perhaps. Creating the key arteries of a network. If high speed were just based on funding of tickets, environmentally unfriendly planes would always win. And without a decent rail network, there is not incentive to change behaviours away from cars and planes. But use tax dollars (the US pays some of the lowest taxes and the world and therefore has poor services as a result) to build a good network, and there is hope. In these post 9/11 days, there is no doubt that the Eurostar is the best way to get from London to DLP. We drive because we tour around and live 60 miles from London, but if going only to DLP, the train is a dream - quicker security and the 330 mile journey takes just over 2 hours. No baggage check in, extended security, boarding gates, luggage load, wait for runway slot, taxi time, disembarkation, passport control, and customs, then getting from the airport to resort. Simply roll up to the gates - scan your passport and ticket, place luggage in x ray, board train, passport checked on train, get off train and go to park while the luggage is taken to your hotel (you get your tickets and hotel keys on the train too if booked with Disney), straight to the park. Book 1st class and get a meal and champagne. It is the way to go, and cheaper than flying and shuttle added together, not to mention more environmentally responsible.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think the tourist ridership wouldn't be that significant. I'd be curious to know how many people visit Orlando and include side trips to Tampa or Miami. While I'm sure there are some, I can't believe the numbers would be that significant. After all, most people aren't staying more than six or seven days anyway. I really do hope I'm wrong on all of this...but if the northeast Amtrak corridor can't be run at a profit I just can't imagine any other rail line in America doing any better.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "I really do hope I'm wrong on all of this...but if the northeast Amtrak corridor can't be run at a profit" The Acela Express line operates at a profit. Northeast Regional breaks even. It is "run at a profit." The entire Amtrak system, the one you know as a "money pit" covers 84% of its operating costs through fares and other revenue. That's better than any Interstate Highway. The commuter services are usually funded by counties and operate on a portion of the Northeast Corridor, but not exclusively. MARC in Maryland is one example and usually covers around half of its operating costs, which is typical for commuter rail. Whether rail services operate at a profit is irrelevant, though. Roads, partly thanks to our woefully inadequate gas tax, do not pay for themselves on the balance sheet either. You can see a state-by-state breakdown of the numbers here and discover that about half of our highway and road spending is covered by user revenues: <a href="http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/state/" target="_blank">http://subsidyscope.org/transp...g/state/</a> This doesn't even include the cost to society of pollution and destruction to property and life.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Rail usage accounted for less that 10% of the travel to the resort." Does it include employees? Also, that's in line with France's intercity rail modal share (excluding the urban Metro systems). 10% is nothing to sneeze at anyway. Consider Los Angeles where mass transit captures only 6% of commuters. When Los Angeles MTA employees went on strike the system shut down for 35 days, so a study was conducted on the local freeways using sensor data. The researchers found that speeds on the freeways were reduced as much as 20% and this effect was greatest on highways that parallel a rail line. The rush hour period was also extended as much as 200%. Even though rail and bus usage may be small in a particular area, the freeway is usually unable to handle an additional load if those riders must return to or find a personal vehicle. "A chigago to NYC and Chigaco to California perhaps." No one is talking about building a transcontinental high speed rail line. Those distances are better suited to planes. "No baggage check in, extended security, boarding gates, luggage load, wait for runway slot, taxi time, disembarkation, passport control, and customs, then getting from the airport to resort." Unfortunately, there is going to be pressure to put into place airport style security for high speed rail. They already set up random checkpoints at Amtrak stations where all riders are told to submit to screening AFTER THEY REACH THEIR DESTINATION, which includes bag check and pat down. This is a relatively recent development and we don't know what happens when you refuse. Here is a video of one such checkpoint: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1B3AubsTBo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...3AubsTBo</a> If they bring this to California where I ride trains, I might be the first to find out what happens when you refuse this type of screening. They already do random bag checks with no pat down, and if you refuse that you won't be allowed to board a train, however, it's unclear what happens if you refuse a check at your destination station.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Check when you arrive? that is crazy. Yet take your car and carry what you want. Bonkers. Have they really lost their minds?
