Florida Governor axes "Obamarail" (bravo!)

[mookiemookie]

How dare we spend money on things that would reduce reliance on foreign oil.

[August]

Did you guys even bother to read the article? It's not about saving the Federal Government money, it's a big federal boondoggle that will end up being a serious and ongoing financial drain on the taxpayers of Florida. This is about getting Barak Obama elected, not about providing jobs or improving mass transit.

Let me quote the relevant parts for you:

My decision to reject the project comes down to three main economic realities:
- First - capital cost overruns from the project could put Florida taxpayers on the hook for an additional $3 billion.
- Second - ridership and revenue projections are historically overly-optimistic and would likely result in ongoing subsidies that state taxpayers would have to incur. (from $300 million - $575 million over 10 years) - Note: The state subsidizes Tri-Rail $34.6 million a year while passenger revenues covers only $10.4 million of the $64 million annual operating budget.
- Finally - if the project becomes too costly for taxpayers and is shut down, the state would have to return the $2.4 billion in federal funds to D.C.


- The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits.
- Historical data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in 9 out of 10 high speed rail projects and that 2/3 of those projects inflated ridership projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage.
- It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually. Keep in mind that Amtrak's Acela train in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010. And that market's population is 8 times the size of the Tampa/Orlando market.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by August

Did you guys even bother to read the article? It's not about saving the Federal Government money, it's a big federal boondoggle that will end up being a serious and ongoing financial drain on the taxpayers of Florida. This is about getting Barak Obama elected, not about providing jobs or improving mass transit.

Let me quote the relevant parts for you:

Thanks for pointing that out, I was going to be you did the work for me, good job

High speed rail would be nice BUT right now, we don't have the money in Florida to get caught up in what will be a drain, so our governor did his job and stuck up for the citizens of Florida.Perhaps when good times return can move forward with this.Also, people in the US who have a car generally do not want to use trains etc for most part because why do that when can come/go on your own schedule with no waiting other than traffic so as mentioned it'd end up being a drain because not enough people would use it.

More an election ploy than anything, good job Governor Scott.

[Takeda Shingen]

I can't wait to see what the Republicans' solution to reducing our dependence on oil will be.

Oh, and if anyone is interested, I drive a 2008 Honda Civic hybrid coupe (black). 43 MPG city/55 MPG highway. However, I ride my bike to work three days a week. Great exercise.

[Growler]

Two Words.

Am Trak.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Growler

Two Words.

Am Trak.

Two other words...losing proposition. Just like Am Trak.

[yubba]

Government can't run a cementary let alone a railroad, thank god for Rick Scott maybe we'll get some sanity in our state government. They spent years and a untolled amount of money study-ing this boondoggle. I wouldn't mind seeing a transit rail system here in florida, the tracks are already laid, all they got to do is put trains on them. Government waste is not the way to prosparity.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Growler

Two Words.

Am Trak.

Am Trak is out of date when it comes to people moving. Its slow and outdated and unable to compete with Aircraft: which are HEAVILY Dependant on oil. If you fly coast to coast you have burned more fuel than driving all year. I'm studying to enter the industry and I can even see that aircraft as the main source of travel for our society is unsustainable. It simply uses to much fuel, and unless there is some magic breakthrough, you can't power a flying machine on clean energy.

Oh and By the way, Amtrak was set up by the government in 1971 and all of its preferred stock is held by the US federal govt.

[UnderseaLcpl]

As a railroader myself, I think I have a uniquely qualified perspective to offer, and I have to agree with Gov. Scott's decision.

I can understand the desire to have a socially-funded, eco-friendly, high-effeciency passenger rail service. It certainly seems like it would be the right thing to do for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

The main reason and most related reasons it doesn't work is (surprise) that the US government is in charge of it. I realize that the actual administration takes place below the federal level, but what ought to be relatively simple act of operating a rail line, especially a passenger rail line, is so bound up in regulations, red tape, fairness legislation, government unions, and legal liability that it is literally impossible without increasingly vast amounts of taxpayer money, even for the government.

My employer, BNSF Railways, would love to provide passenger service. In fact, we were seriously considering getting back into the business when Obama first started talking about devoting funds to improve the national passenger rail network, as was the Union Pacific. There are quite a few routes that have potential for profitability.

However, even with the money we would have received, after we lobbied and got more, it still wasn't even close to worth the effort. No money in it. It's that difficult. As it is, we have a hard enough time expanding our rail-freight network, which was "deregulated" like 40 years ago. Deregulated my arse. I have a general operations manual that's thicker than War and Peace and roughly as comprehensible and relevant.....if it were written in Cyrillic instead of legalese, and as topical.

Trains are extremely efficient. Just one train can carry 10,000 tons of freight 400 miles while consuming only one gallon of gas per ton. Passenger trains are only slightly less efficient because of space requirements, but they weigh a lot less and don't require as much effort to accelerate. And they do it at the rate of 3 accidents per million miles traveled. You'd think that with stats like that the government would be throwing money and permissions at us, to promote public safety and get trucks and cars off the road, but it doesn't.

What proponents are missing is the fact that the government doesn't really care about the same things they do. Politicians may profess to be concerned about the environment or safety or what have you, but their professed concern doesn't stop them from ruining passenger rail service by trying to control it or throwing money at special interests or making a statement for the benefit of voters or bothering to learn just exactly what the hell it is they're doing in the first place. For the record, I consider Gov. Scott to be among their number. He's just riding the political winds, which is about all you can expect from someone whose entire reason for existence hinges upon votes.

Of course, private industry is not a panacea. We're not going to spend $1.5 million per mile of track for the sole purpose of establishing a passenger line out of the goodness of our hearts, but what we will do is establish passenger lines in profitable areas, which are necessarily densely populated and badly in need of the service.

[yubba]

Where in the world does BNSF run ? I was involved with FEC rail for awhile, unloading hopper cars. I can't run a limo service, because of all government regs and fuel cost, that hampered florida's sun rail. And they say big government is the answer, more government means less jobs, do the math.

[Armistead]

The fact is high speed rail would've been a good idea at the right time, but it really depends of local. We're not Japan, in very small highly populated areas high rail has a use. I honesly don't see where we need it cept maybe a few areas and bus service would probably be better.

If it's a great idea, let a private company build it and make it profitable.

Sure, the world is leaving us behind in technology, but nations like Japan and India educate. They don't deal with millions of illegals or teachers unions. Our school systems in NC suck and were probably rated higher than most states for population.

What we need before anything is an energy policy, the leading country of the world and no plan at all, it has to start with oil, clean coal, natural gas, nuclear, ect...and build the future from there. Trying to force solar and wind now as the priority is plain stupid.

The rail would be another government run corporate monopoly before it was over.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Of course, private industry is not a panacea. We're not going to spend $1.5 million per mile of track for the sole purpose of establishing a passenger line out of the goodness of our hearts, but what we will do is establish passenger lines in profitable areas, which are necessarily densely populated and badly in need of the service.

Perhaps the place to start would be local commuter rails in larger metro areas. If we could get a handle on shuttling people from the suburbs into work and back again at the end of the day, then it would be less of a "giant leap" into connecting cities with rail lines.

[MaddogK]

January 28, 2010 6:37 AM
Illinois will get $1.1 billion to make track improvements to enable 110 mph passenger trains between Chicago and St. Louis, under a new federal stimulus plan to be announced Thursday by President Obama.

Don't think there's much need for a 110 MPH train to run to st.louis from chicago, but the rails have been used for years. I remember booking a trip on Amtrak a few years ago from chicago to Albuquerque, run took 3 days and cost twice as much money as a plane ticket. I was sooooo bored.

Word is they might build a line up to Milwalkee, thats one that may actually be a good idea tho a 110 MPH train will be hard to build unless the entire line is elevated or below ground- both EXPENSIVE options.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

How dare we spend money on things that would reduce reliance on foreign oil.

What kind of car do you drive ?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

What kind of car do you drive ?

A fuel efficient one and less than 5000 miles a year. That's as much personal details as you'll get out of me.