• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama

SheWolf said:
so are you an anarchist?
Click to expand...

The world is anarchy. When you go above the national level, what exactly is controlling the interaction between nations? There is no world government. The great facade is in thinking that we do not live in an anarchist society at some level.
 
TitusAndronicus said:
Who says that people will sell at reasonable prices?
Click to expand...

Define reasonable.

What if someone's property has sentimental value and won't sell for less than 5x its value?
Click to expand...

Eminent domain ignores subjective value and so has stolen billions if not trillions of dollars from innocent homeowners.

What if a person simply wants the project dead? The proposed line between San Francisco and San Jose is 99% on government land, but occasionally it will need to take a few feet of backyard or straighten a curve. Without eminent domain, one person could force the route to attempt to purchase land from dozens of people on the oppose side of the corridor. If two people on opposite sides oppose this, the project is dead, as the required curves are so large it would decimate whatever neighborhood it passes through while circumventing the troublesome properties. I'm not willing to give veto power over a project like this to every Dick and Jane along the route. It would have as disastrous an effect as giving veto power to every representative in congress.
Click to expand...

If you own property, do you own all the land above and below your property? No, you only own the land. So you can go below or you can go above (within reason of course, and so I would assume without eminent domain the standard would be below ground).

Air rights would still require consent. Subterranean easements would be easier to obtain, but for one above-ground hold out, it would require subterranean construction for great distances in either direction (more if a creek or river is nearby). And earth movement is ridiculously expensive. For one 1.8 mile alignment of the SF-SJ route, a 20' aerial viaduct would cost $265M. A tunnel would cost $894M.
Click to expand...
 
TitusAndronicus said:
Another road gets built? At what cost to the San Diego port? And you think the government is inefficient? Two roads for the demand of one?
Click to expand...

Government cannot perform economic calculation because they do not look for profit. Hence for them it is impossible to tell what is worth it and what is not. There are probably hundreds of thousands of miles of road that should not have been built.

For such a rare occurrence to happen in the free market situation requiring another road is comparatively not as a big a deal.

Remember, perfect is not an option.

Why does the port get to have a contract with the road operator? Does everyone get a contract?
Click to expand...

If they are building on your land then they need a contract, wouldn't they?

My point is that transportation, like defense, is so important to the continued success of this nation, that it mustn't be allowed to fall into hostile/disinterested hands, lest we see how damaging the transportation equivalent of an Enron/WorldCom scam is. If that means a little inefficiency here and there I'm okay with it. I view it as the cost of stability.
Click to expand...

It's not a little inefficiency, it's a lot. From bloated contracts to wasteful projects, we waste many resources on roads. And then government does not even maintain those roads well which creates a huge cost to drivers who have to fix their cars as a result. Free competition would see better ways to handle traffic (such as clearing accidents faster, congestion pricing, fences to avoid rubberneckers, etc.) and more reasonable contracts, and more capacity. Do you realize that there has not been a new freeway built in Los Angeles since 1993 (except for a small extension near the fringes of the county). Do you know how much the population has grown since then? Rail projects have been terrible in terms of ridership per capita because Los Angeles is too sprawled out, plus the lines have been politically motivated rather than based on demand. The cost of government ownership of roads in this city has been enormous. I'm tired of it. By any measure private ownership would be much, much better.
 
Kandahar said:
For what it's worth, The Economist (sort of) agrees with Gov. Scott that the Tampa-Orlando route isn't necessary. But only because it could be better spent on high-speed rail networks elsewhere.

High-speed rail in Florida: Rick Scott deep-sixes Florida high-speed rail | The Economist
Click to expand...

I seriously hope Charlotte takes the money. It is less money out of our pockets then since we have already accepted some. Plus, a HSR from Atlanta-Charlotte-DC-NYC would be awesome. I can only imagine one from DC to LA as well.
 
Catawba said:
Since it represents us, that pretty much goes without saying doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It does not represent us. It represents the interests of those closest to it.
 
whysoserious said:
I seriously hope Charlotte takes the money. It is less money out of our pockets then since we have already accepted some. Plus, a HSR from Atlanta-Charlotte-DC-NYC would be awesome. I can only imagine one from DC to LA as well.
Click to expand...

I think a good backbone would be awesome. NYC, Chicago, LA should be linked somehow. It would be pretty cool to have HSR that linked us coast to coast. But something that ran up the west coast would be cool too. Go to Seattle or something, take the train down to California, or whatever.

HSR would be benefitial for the lot of us.
 
Ikari said:
I think a good backbone would be awesome. NYC, Chicago, LA should be linked somehow. It would be pretty cool to have HSR that linked us coast to coast. But something that ran up the west coast would be cool too. Go to Seattle or something, take the train down to California, or whatever.

HSR would be benefitial for the lot of us.
Click to expand...

Except the project would be a boondoggle because government agencies don't know how to make a budget. Executives and employees will be paid too much, tracks won't be maintained, and stations will eventually fall into disrepair. Look at our road network and tell me that this won't be the case.
 
phattonez said:
Except the project would be a boondoggle because government agencies don't know how to make a budget. Executives and employees will be paid too much, tracks won't be maintained, and stations will eventually fall into disrepair. Look at our road network and tell me that this won't be the case.
Click to expand...

Our roads are pretty dang good. Is there something wrong with the interstate system? Did it fall apart while I was asleep last night? I hope not, I still have to take I-25 down to Denver.

While there are always plenty of places to clean up government and waste it can generate (partly this is our fault for not properly controlling government), that is not to say that there is not a wealth of benefit which all of us can derive from a true, national high speed rail system.
 
Ikari said:
Our roads are pretty dang good. Is there something wrong with the interstate system? Did it fall apart while I was asleep last night? I hope not, I still have to take I-25 down to Denver.
Click to expand...

Poor U.S. Road Conditions Cost Drivers an Extra $52 Billion in Annual Vehicle Repairs: aftermarket News

Poor road conditions cost us $52 billion.

While there are always plenty of places to clean up government and waste it can generate (partly this is our fault for not properly controlling government), that is not to say that there is not a wealth of benefit which all of us can derive from a true, national high speed rail system.
Click to expand...

We could get a lot of benefit from it, if it was built, operated, and maintained by private companies.
 
I'll wager that if you look at who is getting the contracts for these high-speed rails and compare that to donations to the Dems, there will be an astounding similarity. Unions, of course, are a given for Dems.
 
phattonez said:
Poor U.S. Road Conditions Cost Drivers an Extra $52 Billion in Annual Vehicle Repairs: aftermarket News

Poor road conditions cost us $52 billion.
Click to expand...

We have good roads though. Some could be better, but go to Somolia and tell me how roads are over there. Yes, there is grift and there is corruption and there is waste. We really need to get on top of that, stop waiting for the government to do so because the government won't. We have to be responsible. But at the same time, it's not worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The interstate system is pretty nice, and is heavily heavily used (one reason why it falls into disrepair so quickly), it exists on a scale which cannot be created by private industry in today's era. Now, it may be possible for them to purchase sections, but they couldn't from scratch make a whole new one. Too large. Too expensive. Too long (time wise). This is a job for government, this is something government is able to do better than the private sector. Now at the same time, it does require proper oversight and we have to insist on running a tight ship. But the point remains, our road conditions may cost any one of us a few extra hundred bucks a year, and while we could probably drive that down further through elimination of waste, the fact that the interstate system exists on the scale it exists on and is kept in repair well enough to be used as much as it is, is in and of itself quite the feat of engineering. And one best facilitated by the use of government, not private enterprise.

phattonez said:
We could get a lot of benefit from it, if it was built, operated, and maintained by private companies.
Click to expand...

A true, high speed national rail system is something which exists outside the scope of private industry. It is too large an aggregated beast with far too much capital necessary for not just start up, but completion of final, working product, along with a time investment to a working product which is outside the grasp of private industry.

There's a reason why private industry hasn't done something like this. Not because there isn't money to be made, but because it's not accessible to them.
 
phattonez said:
Define reasonable.



Eminent domain ignores subjective value and so has stolen billions if not trillions of dollars from innocent homeowners.



If you own property, do you own all the land above and below your property? No, you only own the land. So you can go below or you can go above (within reason of course, and so I would assume without eminent domain the standard would be below ground).
Click to expand...

I don't support your eminent domain proposal...

I have an idea... I don't really support it personally, but I am intersted in your thoughts. Instead of the government owning land or individuals/businesses.. what about collective ownership? Wouldn't it make sense for people to take care of the roads themselves, putting money in a collection pot to pay the snow shovel and salt trucks? Everybody would have access to it, and nobody's potential would be limited to it's resources.... water, hunting, farming, etc. as agreed upon by the community. It also wouldn't be owned by the government? What do you think?

I know it's a little short sighted, so that's why I can't say it's a good idea... I don't know what kinds of problems it could lead to, but it's not government property.
 
phattonez said:
Poor U.S. Road Conditions Cost Drivers an Extra $52 Billion in Annual Vehicle Repairs: aftermarket News

Poor road conditions cost us $52 billion.



We could get a lot of benefit from it, if it was built, operated, and maintained by private companies.
Click to expand...

Why would a company... any company, want to get in the business of managing, funding, and maintaining the US highway system??? I am not really convinced it would be profitable within the free market.

And why do you act like big companies don't have waste or mismanagement? My accounting proff was always telling us how poorly companies are managed in terms of cost management and investing money in the areas with the highest profit potential... He is full of examples, because he has been in the profession of cost accounting for years. In the private sector, accountants are there to advice mgt on theses things, but doesn't always mean that mgt will listen to our recommendations. Look at the recession, it's a prime example of mismanagement of assets in the banking industry.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
We have good roads though. Some could be better, but go to Somolia and tell me how roads are over there.
Click to expand...

The classic Somalia argument. I don't recall ever saying that a violent society with years of war and invasion are better than the general peace in the US. But nice of you to concede that road conditions are a problem and that government hasn't really done anything about it for years.

Yes, there is grift and there is corruption and there is waste. We really need to get on top of that, stop waiting for the government to do so because the government won't. We have to be responsible. But at the same time, it's not worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The interstate system is pretty nice, and is heavily heavily used (one reason why it falls into disrepair so quickly), it exists on a scale which cannot be created by private industry in today's era.
Click to expand...

Come now, I've taken you to task on this issue many times already, so stop bringing it up. Furthermore, you're probably right that the scale is too large for private industry, and that's probably because much of the system is unprofitable. Do you really think that all of the roads that we have built were completely necessary? What about a lack of roads in areas that should have more?

Now, it may be possible for them to purchase sections, but they couldn't from scratch make a whole new one. Too large. Too expensive. Too long (time wise). This is a job for government, this is something government is able to do better than the private sector. Now at the same time, it does require proper oversight and we have to insist on running a tight ship. But the point remains, our road conditions may cost any one of us a few extra hundred bucks a year, and while we could probably drive that down further through elimination of waste, the fact that the interstate system exists on the scale it exists on and is kept in repair well enough to be used as much as it is, is in and of itself quite the feat of engineering. And one best facilitated by the use of government, not private enterprise.
Click to expand...

Yet I've shown example after example of private industry raising billions if not trillions in capital for their projects. If they can do it for commercial and residential property, why not transportation? At least they'd have a way to calculate whether or not a project is worthwhile. Government's method is political pandering. What we'd see from private industry is a mosaic system of roads owned by different companies and different transportation modes competing with each other. I suggest reading this book by Walter Block:

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Walter Block

A true, high speed national rail system is something which exists outside the scope of private industry. It is too large an aggregated beast with far too much capital necessary for not just start up, but completion of final, working product, along with a time investment to a working product which is outside the grasp of private industry.

There's a reason why private industry hasn't done something like this. Not because there isn't money to be made, but because it's not accessible to them.
Click to expand...

Because of government subsidized competition! Don't lie and say it's because they can't raise the capital when you know it is because government has its hand in driving and transit. There is no room for private companies to compete since the users of their transportation would still have to pay for public transportation regardless.
 
SheWolf said:
I don't support your eminent domain proposal...

I have an idea... I don't really support it personally, but I am intersted in your thoughts. Instead of the government owning land or individuals/businesses.. what about collective ownership? Wouldn't it make sense for people to take care of the roads themselves, putting money in a collection pot to pay the snow shovel and salt trucks? Everybody would have access to it, and nobody's potential would be limited to it's resources.... water, hunting, farming, etc. as agreed upon by the community. It also wouldn't be owned by the government? What do you think?

I know it's a little short sighted, so that's why I can't say it's a good idea... I don't know what kinds of problems it could lead to, but it's not government property.
Click to expand...

Tragedy of the Commons. Look it up on Wikipedia.
 
SheWolf said:
Why would a company... any company, want to get in the business of managing, funding, and maintaining the US highway system??? I am not really convinced it would be profitable within the free market.

And why do you act like big companies don't have waste or mismanagement? My accounting proff was always telling us how poorly companies are managed in terms of cost management and investing money in the areas with the highest profit potential... He is full of examples, because he has been in the profession of cost accounting for years. In the private sector, accountants are there to advice mgt on theses things, but doesn't always mean that mgt will listen to our recommendations. Look at the recession, it's a prime example of mismanagement of assets in the banking industry.
Click to expand...

We live in a corporatist economy. Favored companies are in essence subsidized by the government and are not subject to the whims of consumers as are companies on the free market. This corrupt system allows such bad practices to survives whereas they would quickly be eliminated in a free market.
 
SheWolf said:
Should the state be destroyed?
Click to expand...

The ultimate goal would be getting rid of it entirely. I don't support violent revolution, nor do I claim that it would necessarily work. I do know, however, that we are suffering from a problem of too much government and that restricting it in every way possible at every opportunity would do a tremendous good.
 
SheWolf said:
Why would a company... any company, want to get in the business of managing, funding, and maintaining the US highway system??? I am not really convinced it would be profitable within the free market.
Click to expand...

They started privatizing sections of the highways in my province (BC) in Canada in 1988, as an experiment, and its worked very well.

Bids are opened up to private companies covering a section of road, with the distance being determined by the terrain and other factors, and the contract lasting five years, I believe. It has saved the province a great deal of money and they no longer have to be concerned with government unions shutting down the entire highway system. It is the government though who inspects the roads, and handles the bids, to ensure the job is done properly.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
They started privatizing sections of the highways in my province (BC) in Canada in 1988, as an experiment, and its worked very well.

Bids are opened up to private companies covering a section of road, with the distance being determined by the terrain and other factors, and the contract lasting five years, I believe. It has saved the province a great deal of money and they no longer have to be concerned with government unions shutting down the entire highway system. It is the government though who inspects the roads, and handles the bids, to ensure the job is done properly.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't sound like the best method of privatizing a road, but private maintenance of a road is much better that public employees at the helm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom