Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama

apdst said:

How much in fees and taxes is this piece-a-**** high speed rail going to pay into the government?

Click to expand...

Possibly the remainder of a $55-$110 ticket from SF to LA after operation costs are removed from the ticket price. In the French nationwide HSR system, this translates to $1.75 billion annually.

Possibly nothing. Siemens, Alstrom and JR East indicated a willingness to fund the final $280M of the project (the state's share) and to cover operations and construction risks in exchange for operating the line and retaining all profits from it. But a certain governor didn't like that idea and cancelled the whole project before the official PPP bids could be accepted.

Ockham said:

I'm just enamored that a politician is giving money back to the Fed. That's like finding out Bigfoot is not only real, but is CPA living in Orange County Oregon and grows his own hybrid pot.

Click to expand...

New Jersey? Didn't Christie do the same thing and Kesich in Ohio?

TitusAndronicus said:

Possibly the remainder of a $55-$110 ticket from SF to LA after operation costs are removed from the ticket price. In the French nationwide HSR system, this translates to $1.75 billion annually.

Possibly nothing. Siemens, Alstrom and JR East indicated a willingness to fund the final $280M of the project (the state's share) and to cover operations and construction risks in exchange for operating the line and retaining all profits from it. But a certain governor didn't like that idea and cancelled the whole project before the official PPP bids could be accepted.

Click to expand...

Annnnnd, where does the rest of it come from?

apdst said:

It's irrelevant, because the government can't create jobs.

Click to expand...

Maybe, the best justification for this line of thinking I have seen so far is because that money is taxed, which is poor justification. Taxation is a form of payment, just like any other form of payment. If not, please tell me the difference.

There is no difference, because both orginate in the private sector. Again, the government can't make money. They can only take money--in the form of taxes--from the private sector.

Click to expand...

Only the fed and banks can make money, due to fractional reserve lending (and the fed's printing press). A private customer can only take money --in the form of payments-- from the private sector. What is the fundamental difference here?

Typically the process of creating value goes like this. You take a raw material (in the government's case, unused land), you apply a process to it which adds value (paving land), than you have more value. Now that increased value is either sold (hopefully at a profit) or it is used (such as the case of roads). For example, the plant I work in has a machine shop, they take raw metal blocks and make machine or structural parts for the equipment or property. This is not sold, but it is used and does add value (especially in cases where this new thing augments the function of the property or equipment) whether by increasing function or replacing a deteriorating part. A road is no different than one of these machine parts.

Now, I happily await your rebuttal to this point. So far you have managed to call me stupid and repeat a mantra without providing any reasoning behind it. Hopefully you will be able to do better in future posts.

Barbbtx said:

New Jersey? Didn't Christie do the same thing and Kesich in Ohio?

Click to expand...

Well, sorta. Christie just said no to the NJ/NY plan, because NJ wouldn't be able to hold up it's end of the costs. Kesich I'm not sure... not familiar with what happened there.

apdst said:

Annnnnd, where does the rest of it come from?

Click to expand...

Federal grants. Just like every other transportation project ever, from the Erie Canal to Interstate 49.

The main funding difference between HSR and I-49 in Louisiana is that user fees only pay for about half of the operations and maintenance of the road. HSR runs an operating profit on user fees alone.


Subsidyscope.org — Transportation: Analysis Finds Shifting Trends in Highway Funding: User Fees Make Up Decreasing Share

Trains have a business model and roads do not. To just run in like there is no difference between the two and the government HAS to do it for it to exist is nonsense.

megaprogman said:

Maybe, the best justification for this line of thinking I have seen so far is because that money is taxed, which is poor justification. Taxation is a form of payment, just like any other form of payment. If not, please tell me the difference.



Only the fed and banks can make money, due to fractional reserve lending (and the fed's printing press). A private customer can only take money --in the form of payments-- from the private sector. What is the fundamental difference here?

Typically the process of creating value goes like this. You take a raw material (in the government's case, unused land), you apply a process to it which adds value (paving land), than you have more value. Now that increased value is either sold (hopefully at a profit) or it is used (such as the case of roads). For example, the plant I work in has a machine shop, they take raw metal blocks and make machine or structural parts for the equipment or property. This is not sold, but it is used and does add value (especially in cases where this new thing augments the function of the property or equipment) whether by increasing function or replacing a deteriorating part. A road is no different than one of these machine parts.

Now, I happily await your rebuttal to this point. So far you have managed to call me stupid and repeat a mantra without providing any reasoning behind it. Hopefully you will be able to do better in future posts.

Click to expand...

Surem bro. It's called, "supply and demand". There is a demand and your company supplies goods to meet that demand. It's how your company makes a profit.

Government can't create demand. Government can't create jobs. Government can't create wealth. The United States didn't grow into the strongest economy in world history, because the government did any of those things.

BTW, I never called you stupid. Don't put words into my mouth.

TitusAndronicus said:

Federal grants. Just like every other transportation project ever, from the Erie Canal to Interstate 49.

The main funding difference between HSR and I-49 in Louisiana is that user fees only pay for about half of the operations and maintenance of the road. HSR runs an operating profit on user fees alone.

Subsidyscope.org — Transportation: Analysis Finds Shifting Trends in Highway Funding: User Fees Make Up Decreasing Share

Click to expand...

:rofl...I just can't say it enough...where did that money come from?

Henrin said:

Trains have a business model and roads do not. To just run in like there is no difference between the two and the government HAS to do it for it to exist is nonsense.

Click to expand...

Which makes me wonder how long it will before the Obamabots will decry the, "evil railroads", after the railroad companies have taken over, with government assistance.

Ya just can't fix stupid.

apdst said:

:rofl...I just can't say it enough...where did that money come from?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you not believe in subsidies? As in...they do not exist? You seem to be saying that since federal money comes from tax dollars, which come from you and me, that the government spending this money on infrastructure is not government subsidization. What would qualify as a government subsidy then? The US government has no major income other than taxes. By this logic, surely nothing the US gives money to can qualify as a subsidizing.

Imagine the Interstate Highway System is a private corporation. They have expenses and revenues. The expenses are the upkeep and operations of the highways. Lets say this costs 100 units per year. The revenues are the tolls (if any) and gas tax revenue. According to the graph above, this has a value of about 51 units per year. The highway system thus operates at a loss of 49 units per year. Normally the corporation would go bankrupt, but in this case, the highway is too big to fail, so the government takes money from unrelated fields and gives it to the highway operator. It thus subsidizes the highway system by 49 units per year. This money comes from all people, regardless of whether or not they can or do use the system. It, in conjunction with massive oil subsidies/tax breaks that lower the true price of gasoline from in the vicinity of $5.50/gallon to the $3.00/gallon it is today, is a form of welfare.

TitusAndronicus said:

I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you not believe in subsidies? As in...they do not exist? You seem to be saying that since federal money comes from tax dollars, which come from you and me, that the government spending this money on infrastructure is not government subsidization. What would qualify as a government subsidy then? The US government has no major income other than taxes. By this logic, surely nothing the US gives money to can qualify as a subsidizing.

Imagine the Interstate Highway System is a private corporation. They have expenses and revenues. The expenses are the upkeep and operations of the highways. Lets say this costs 100 units per year. The revenues are the tolls (if any) and gas tax revenue. According to the graph above, this has a value of about 51 units per year. The highway system thus operates at a loss of 49 units per year. Normally the corporation would go bankrupt, but in this case, the highway is too big to fail, so the government takes money from unrelated fields and gives it to the highway operator. It thus subsidizes the highway system by 49 units per year. This money comes from all people, regardless of whether or not they can or do use the system. It, in conjunction with massive oil subsidies/tax breaks that lower the true price of gasoline from in the vicinity of $5.50/gallon to the $3.00/gallon it is today, is a form of welfare.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying.

apdst said:

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

Then what is a government subsidy exactly? Give me an example of one.

And to get back to the point of this thread, what is your problem with HSR? Let's say that a HSR line is built and for some reason it doesn't make a profit. The government will move some money around and operations will be paid for through our tax dollars. How is this different from any other piece of transportation infrastructure?

TitusAndronicus said:

Then what is a government subsidy exactly? Give me an example of one.

Click to expand...

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

Subsidy Definition

Click to expand...

Roads aren't a, "subsidy". Sorry.

And to get back to the point of this thread, what is your problem with HSR? Let's say that a HSR line is built and for some reason it doesn't make a profit. The government will move some money around and operations will be paid for through our tax dollars.

Click to expand...

At that point, it will be the giant waste of tax dollars that I expect it to be.

How is this different from any other piece of transportation infrastructure?

Click to expand...

Again, I haven't recieved a ****ing penny from the government to keep my trucks on the road.

TitusAndronicus said:

Then what is a government subsidy exactly? Give me an example of one.

Click to expand...

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

Subsidy Definition

Click to expand...

Roads aren't a, "subsidy". Sorry.

And to get back to the point of this thread, what is your problem with HSR? Let's say that a HSR line is built and for some reason it doesn't make a profit. The government will move some money around and operations will be paid for through our tax dollars.

Click to expand...

At that point, it will be the giant waste of tax dollars that I expect it to be.

How is this different from any other piece of transportation infrastructure?

Click to expand...

Again, I haven't recieved a ****ing penny from the government to keep my trucks on the road.

Ockham said:

I'm just enamored that a politician is giving money back to the Fed. That's like finding out Bigfoot is not only real, but is CPA living in Orange County Oregon and grows his own hybrid pot.

Click to expand...

Well, that may be the case, but Florida also suffers for it.

See, in Florida, the major urban population centers are spread out from each other. Also, Florida's shape makes it awkward to travel between, especially from the panhandle to South Florida. It can take over 4 hours to get from the Miami area up to the Orlando area.

The problem with Florida is that everything is on the perimeter. The panhandle is thicker with cities, and just south of that there is a ring - Orlando, West Palm, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Ft. Myers, Tampa, Gainesville, and back to Orlando - where the heaviest urban centers are. But within that ring is the rural area of small cities.

Having a high speed rail line could help the people living in those rural areas to access those major urban areas. Not only with this open up Florida's economy, as more people will have access to more types of shopping, it will also help Floridians get access to more job opportunities, as they can travel across the state easier.

Also, Florida has absolutely NO real public transportation system. This despite the fact that Florida has an incredibly large population of the elderly who could benefit from it since they may be too elderly or too disabled to drive on their own.

And please remember - Florida is NOT Yankee-land. If you do not have your own car, you are stuck wherever you are.

And speaking of other transportation projects in Florida, also keep in mind that the Port of Miami is the only place on the U.S.' East Coast that can be enlarged enough to allow new supercargo ships coming in from the Panama Canal to dock and unload their cargo. It's one of three possibilities, but the other two aren't able to. But Rick Scott is also preventing any spending on that because of budget cuts. Despite the fact that it affects not only the Florida economy adversely but also the economy of the rest of the U.S.

So when it comes to high speed rail, I don't think it should be built up in states that already have a dense transportation infrastructure, specifically in the Northeast. Rather, I really do think it should be built up in states without it, especially in the Southeast. By building it up and giving the people the option of using it, I think more will take advantage of it, especially in this recession where people can't afford cars but could afford train trips to get around.

So, in short, I don't think it makes much sense to spend money on transportation infrastructure in states that already have it - however, I think federal money should be spent on transportation infrastructure in states that currently lack it.

TitusAndronicus said:

Federal grants. Just like every other transportation project ever, from the Erie Canal to Interstate 49.

The main funding difference between HSR and I-49 in Louisiana is that user fees only pay for about half of the operations and maintenance of the road. HSR runs an operating profit on user fees alone.

Subsidyscope.org — Transportation: Analysis Finds Shifting Trends in Highway Funding: User Fees Make Up Decreasing Share

Click to expand...

Federal grants = user fees.

Sure, it gets filtered through a bureaucracy first.

But it’s still the same source of funds, albeit from the whole country instead of a more specific area, in the case of "Federal grants".

apdst said:

Do you even know why the interstate system was built?

Click to expand...

National security. To evacuate people after a nuclear attack. The exact same justification which could be used for having a high speed rail system.

Ockham said:

Well, sorta. Christie just said no to the NJ/NY plan, because NJ wouldn't be able to hold up it's end of the costs. Kesich I'm not sure... not familiar with what happened there.

Click to expand...

And you know what? I support that.

Because correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't New Jersey and New York have ample mass transit already.

But Florida barely has a mass transit at all, and if there is any it's only within cities - nothing to connect the biggest cities with each other. And that kind of intrastate - rather than intracity - transportation system could seriously help the Florida economy in any number of ways.

So can you understand why I feel it's a matter of fiscal responsibility to refuse federal money in states with major public transportation systems but should be promoted in states currently without it?

CriticalThought said:

National security. To evacuate people after a nuclear attack. The exact same justification which could be used for having a high speed rail system.

Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. :lamo

Ockham said:

Then let the states work it out without the Fed shoving money they borrowed down their throats to put it in. If Colorado Nevada and California want to support a high speed rail line, they shoudl work it out and pay for their respective amounts if it makes sense to them.

Click to expand...

I agree that states should bear at least SOME of the burden, but such a major undertaking requires federal coordination just like the interstate highway system did. Furthermore, Colorado, Nevada, and California would not be the only ones to benefit from a train through those states. Federal funding would reduce free riders.

Ockham said:

This whole, "it benefits society" nonsense is creepy.

Click to expand...

Umm providing societal benefits that the market cannot provide is the fundamental reason we HAVE a government. It is, in the most basic sense, the rationale for virtually everything the government does. If that's "creepy nonsense," I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year. :mrgreen:

Ockham said:

(Oh and btw, we all know we can't afford it right now right?)

Click to expand...

If the societal benefits exceed the societal costs (which is not the same as government benefits/costs) then of course we can afford it, because the cost of NOT having it is higher.

apdst said:

Roads aren't a, "subsidy". Sorry.

Click to expand...

Road operations are subsidized. The Federal Highway Administration (the group in your definition) is funneled cash payment in the interests of the public and the economy.

apdst said:

At that point, it will be the giant waste of tax dollars that I expect it to be.

Click to expand...

HSR in its best form is targeted at airport relief. Currently the San Francisco-Los Angeles air route is the busiest in the country, and California airports are at capacity. We could spend money on a HSR network that allows for air carriers to drop the LA-SF route in favor of more profitable long haul routes, or we could expand the airports to equivalent capacity for more money.

apdst said:

Again, I haven't recieved a ****ing penny from the government to keep my trucks on the road.

Click to expand...

You haven't been given a penny, you've been given 49% of a road in the form of maintenance and operations. Without which, I-10 would turn to a lunar landscape and your trucks would be breaking axles. Sounds like a financial benefit to me. Would you still rather have that penny?

Kandahar said:

I agree that states should bear at least SOME of the burden, but such a major undertaking requires federal coordination just like the interstate highway system did. Furthermore, Colorado, Nevada, and California would not be the only ones to benefit from a train through those states. Federal funding would reduce free riders.



Umm providing societal benefits that the market cannot provide is the fundamental reason we HAVE a government. It is, in the most basic sense, the rationale for virtually everything the government does. If that's "creepy nonsense," I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year. :mrgreen:



If the societal benefits exceed the societal costs (which is not the same as government benefits/costs) then of course we can afford it, because the cost of NOT having it is higher.

Click to expand...

Who gets to make that decision? All the folks that are in favor of it? or just the politicians that have their personal cash invested in it?

apdst said:

You couldn't be more wrong. :lamo

Click to expand...

Interstate Highways - An Overview of Interstate Highways

Kandahar said:

Umm providing societal benefits that the market cannot provide is the fundamental reason we HAVE a government. It is, in the most basic sense, the rationale for virtually everything the government does. If that's "creepy nonsense," I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Nope. The entire reason we have a government is to protect the people from outside threats. Try again..

And high speed rail specially in certain areas in florida could be done by the private sector.