I like FL Gov. Rick Scott more and more every day!

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,975
Reaction score
2,156
Our local leftist news agencies are going bonkers

Feds and Dems appalled by Scott’s refusal of rail money

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/po ... cot_1.html

U.S. officials and Democrats in Congress were shocked and appalled on Wednesday by Florida Governor Rick Scott’s decision to decline federal high-speed rail dollars.

“We are extremely disappointed by Governor Rick Scott’s decision to walk away from the job-creating and economic-development benefits of high-speed rail in Florida,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
Click to expand...

Boo hoo hoo, cry me a fricken river! About 10 years ago Florida put to vote almost an exact duplicate proposal for high speed rail AND THE VOTERS OF FLORIDA REJECTED THE IDEA THOROUGHLY. The path they want for this train on makes absolutely no sense and would get almost zero riders. You might as well put $2.5B in a pile, pour gas on it and light it on fire. The result would be cheaper on the tax payer than this abomination.

Good for Rick Scott! So far he is taking all the right steps. :banana:
 
In a State with such high unemployment I would have thought this
"This project could have supported thousands of good-paying jobs for Floridians and helped grow Florida businesses.." might be important?

Afterall Republicans, dont' know about Rick, told us 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. According to the article you posted the deal was built such that state risk was eliminated. The job creation would be in manufacturing and construction, some of the hardest hit industries in Florida.

Maybe the train would have been accepted had it run out of Florida. That'd help people get out faster. :lol:
 
@faethor - While I see where you're coming from (even jobs building completely retarded things are still jobs that put people to work and help spool the economy)... I gotta side with Red. Wouldn't it make much more sense to put those people to work building something actually USEFUL instead of another monstrosity that no one would use?

We have one of these stupid light-rail projects proposed in Michigan. To connect Detroit and Ann Arbor. Politicians keep floating this as a great idea that will somehow spur growth, but I just don't see it. The problems with this idea are so immense, it's mind boggling.

First off, you've got the fact that you really can't get anywhere in either city without a car once you get off the proposed rail line. Detroit's public transit consists of a few old diesel SMART buses that are more likely to be missing completely than on-time. Ann Arbor's public transit is better off, but fairly limited to the University of Michigan campus and downtown. Very few buses run to the office buildings where people work or off-campus residential areas where commuters live. So why would you take public transportation that doesn't have adequate connections? How will this get you where you need to go?

Second, the two cities are already connected by I-94. A very fast moving, modern freeway. Unless the rail manages to average 70mph or better, with less than 20 minute average wait times for a train, it's also faster to just drive.

Third, who exactly are they proposing would ride it? The Detroit inner-city population? They can't afford anything in Ann Arbor (one of the wealthiest cities in Michigan). The U of M students? Why would they want to go to Downtown Detroit? Maybe to see a Tigers' game or something, but that surely can't be the target demographic. The executives who live in Ann Arbor and commute into Detroit for work? Maybe, except I can't see them parking their Mercedes and BMWs to board public transportation. The people who live in Detroit and work in Ann Arbor? Not too many people do that. For the most part, once you get a good job, you move out of Detroit and to the safer suburbs.

TL;DR - not many people actually make that exact commute. fewer of those take public transport. driving is faster, easier.

So, if FL's light rail project is half as poorly baked as MI's is, I applaud someone standing up for sanity, too! MI's will probably get built, because no one here would dare to turn down a job proposal, no matter how retarded it is. At least we'll have another mobile canvas for artwork to get sprayed on.
 
@faethor - While I see where you're coming from (even jobs building completely retarded things are still jobs that put people to work and help spool the economy)... I gotta side with Red. Wouldn't it make much more sense to put those people to work building something actually USEFUL instead of another monstrosity that no one would use?
Click to expand...
Of course projects that have a higher return on investment should be built first. Though I don't see anyone bringing them to the table. It looks to me the choice is more jobs or not.

And of course the rail is useful and something people would use. Today there's rail in Florida, Amtrak, and it is used. The question is would a train that's twice as fast be used even more frequently? Amtrak now between these two cities take about the same amount as non-rush hour drive time. If you could now half the drive time (and better during rush hours) this well may be an improvement for existing riders and encourage more.

Why are trains a good idea? The cost per person moved is less. The problem I see is many of these costs are hidden to people. People complain the per mile build costs are the same as a road so build a road. That's short sighted. Trains produce less accidents, less pollution (air, noise, water, roadside), cost less to maintain, and actually help existing roads by lightening congestion and offsetting maintanence costs in that area. Those costs aren't experienced first hand as many are tax generated and it's difficult for people to understand that net a train saves money.

We have two recent rail stories in MN and one's very good and one is less good. The light rail transit from the airport to downtown Minneapolis is a clear win. Ridership is well above projected levels. THe Northstart Commuter rail isn't as great as a win but it's within the operating budget. Here's a short piece. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... appointing
 
faethor said:
And of course the rail is useful and something people would use. Today there's rail in Florida, Amtrak, and it is used.
Click to expand...

I really don't think Amtrak is a good comparison. With Amtrak you can travel great distances between states. Amtrak travels to over 500 destinations in 46 states. If I was doing cross country traveling I might consider amtrak. This FL proposal covers a very short distance. A better comparison would be Tri-Rail which travels from Miami to West Palm beach, roughly the same distance as the first leg of this new proposal. Tri-Rail is a financial black hole and has always been a financial black hole.

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida ... ily84.html

With Florida putting the finishing touches on the 2010 budget, Tri-Rail’s future remains uncertain.

Legislators on May 8 allocated about $20 million -- the same amount as last year -- to fund the commuter rail system, but this amount is far short of the $30 million Tri-Rail wanted. What’s more, the Legislature once again failed to establish a $2 surcharge on rental cars, a dedicated source of funding that the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA), Tri-Rail’s parent, has long sought.

Tri-Rail in 2008 had record ridership gains, and fares will go up 25 percent on June 1. But, come Oct. 1, the rail system may still face crippling cuts from Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, which are fed up with the failure to establish dedicated funding. If one of the counties were to cut its contribution to the minimum level, the others would follow suit and the state would pull back its matching contribution.

“All in all, with the cut we’re anticipating from the counties and the cuts from FDOT, it comes to an $18 million hit,” Tri-Rail spokeswoman Bonnie Arnold said.
Click to expand...

FAIL

-Edit-
One thing you are also missing in all this, Florida voters flatly turned down this very project about 10 years ago. Now the Fed is trying to shove it down our throats, despite the will of the people? Someone should really look into the money trail here.
 
I really don't think Amtrak is a good comparison. With Amtrak you can travel great distances between states. Amtrak travels to over 500 destinations in 46 states. If I was doing cross country traveling I might consider amtrak. This FL proposal covers a very short distance.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. The questions are likely deeper than we have time for.

One thing you are also missing in all this, Florida voters flatly turned down this very project about 10 years ago. Now the Fed is trying to shove it down our throats, despite the will of the people? Someone should really look into the money trail here.
Click to expand...
The will of the people on issues is important. Though I'd argue you're forgetting an important reason why the Founders built this nation with a representational government. That would be fear of tyranny of the majority. At this point it seems to me your concept of 'will of the people' is more akin to a ochlocracy. More informally that's Mob Rule. One could easily establish 'will of the people' as doing the bidding of the largest Mob. That's clearly not how the Founders built the USA.
 
Florida's Failed Rail back in the news. Latest study indicates a $10.2M profit for the project. However, it appears the monies for a train will go to California.

It appears to me Florida's Governor didn't save any money. He thought the project costly and the Feds should cut it. The Feds said hey we go the money we'll follow States that share the vision.

It may be an interesting future in the US. The West Coast appears to be the high speed rail and mass transportation 'mecca'. Many cities have local rail. They're working to interconnect with highspeed rail. The Southern USA is rejecting rail. This means they'll continue to rely upon roads. It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out in a decade or two. My bet is the South won't rise as much as the West will.
 
faethor said:
It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out in a decade or two. My bet is the South won't rise as much as the West will.
Click to expand...
Your bet is "on", South won't rise as much "taxes" as the West will. :D
 
faethor said:
Florida's Failed Rail back in the news. Latest study indicates a $10.2M profit for the project. However, it appears the monies for a train will go to California.

It appears to me Florida's Governor didn't save any money. He thought the project costly and the Feds should cut it. The Feds said hey we go the money we'll follow States that share the vision.

It may be an interesting future in the US. The West Coast appears to be the high speed rail and mass transportation 'mecca'. Many cities have local rail. They're working to interconnect with highspeed rail. The Southern USA is rejecting rail. This means they'll continue to rely upon roads. It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out in a decade or two. My bet is the South won't rise as much as the West will.
Click to expand...

Sorry faethor, but:

No Bailout for California’s High-Speed Fail

The available money is a small fraction of the $43 billion estimated cost for just the first phase of the project–and that figure is substantially lower than some estimates of what the first San Francisco-to-Anaheim section is likely to cost. Without additional federal funding, California could be at risk of running out of money to complete the system. A new official cost projection is supposed to be released next month.
 
If the government wanted more rail they would stop subsidizing the roads. Rail becomes reasonable real quick when the repair bills on your car are more than the train ticket between two towns. If you made road users actually pay for the costs of their road use the way private rail companies have had to pay form their maintenance then trains would win pretty fast. They are just so much cheaper per person-mile. They also beat the hell out of long haul trucking once you factor in roadway maintenance.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If the government wanted more rail they would stop subsidizing the roads. Rail becomes reasonable real quick when the repair bills on your car are more than the train ticket between two towns. If you made road users actually pay for the costs of their road use the way private rail companies have had to pay form their maintenance then trains would win pretty fast. They are just so much cheaper per person-mile. They also beat the hell out of long haul trucking once you factor in roadway maintenance.
Click to expand...
this is my mother's mantra. She can't understand why a country would prefer a wasteful system like trucks when you could use trains. I don't get it either except that the oil companies have a stranglehold on this country
 
Of course you overlooked the cost of building a bridge over every intersection a train passes through. Don't even mention the cost to productivity in lost time waiting on surface rail to pass by. Think you can cure it by sub-surface rail or elevated tracks? Dream on! Where is that money coming from? Everybody can't have a subway.
Time wasted is money wasted.
Vancouver to Seattle, 157 miles.
Rail = Fastest 3hrs 30min 5:30AM -- 4hr mid day-- Slowest 4hr 25min 5:45PM
Auto= Average 2hrs 30min
How about the cost in human lives by blocked roads by trains when people need an ambulance or police or cost to property when they need fire protection. A lot of people live on the wrong side of the tracks.

Clapham-Junction-station--001.jpg


And of course, you wouldn't put up with living close to the tracks, that's for somebody else! And you would fight tooth and nail to keep them far away from your property and lowering it's value. Too bad that trains need nearly level ground to operate, because that's where they're going to put any new tracks; right in the middle of prime property. They would have to; your wishes be damned.

Pie in the sky people never give a thought to the real cost of their wishes.:whack:
 
Fade said:
Of course you overlooked the cost of building a bridge over every intersection a train passes through.
Click to expand...

Only way to find out is to stop all subsidies. Only an undistorted market can decide what is more efficient. Why should we allow the government to distort the market by spending tax payers' money on infrastructure that individual users should pay for by fees?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Only way to find out is to stop all subsidies. Only an undistorted market can decide what is more efficient. Why should we allow the government to distort the market by spending tax payers' money on infrastructure that individual users should pay for by fees?
Click to expand...
I'd disagree. The market will find what is more profitable. More efficient isn't the same.
 
faethor said:
I'd disagree. The market will find what is more profitable. More efficient isn't the same.
Click to expand...
In THEORY. In theory markets are completely rational and information flow is perfect. The idealization that economic theories tend to call for does not exist. However, if the assumptions were true then markets would be efficient and the highest utility would be realized (and profits would be zero).
 
When I travelled from Toronto to New York city it was by Amtrak.

I enjoyed the journey but was astonished at how slow the thing went.

Trains in the UK are some of the slowest in Europe but compared to the Amtrak train I was on, they go like shyte aff a shovel. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top