• 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

apdst said:
It's neither practical, nor profitable? Two dan fine reasons for the government not to spend money on it.
Click to expand...

I've already addressed the issue of profitability. It isn't the government's JOB to be profitable. The interstate highway system isn't profitable, in the sense that it costs far more to build/maintain than the pittance the government collects from toll roads. Yet practically everyone would agree that it was a worthwhile investment.

If a high-speed rail system provides more economic benefits for society as a whole (i.e. not just government revenue) than it costs to build it, it's a worthy investment and the government absolutely should spend money on it.
 
Henrin said:
Demand.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's no demand for a private high-speed rail system, because the start-up costs are too high. That doesn't mean it isn't in society's best interests to have one. The reason that a private system doesn't work is because the costs are born by the entity who builds it but the benefits are diffuse to all of society, instead of reaped entirely by the entity that built it. For the same reason, the question of whether or not a public rail system would be "profitable" is a red herring, because the government does not and should not even TRY to capture all the benefits. The whole point of a high-speed rail system is to make society better off in some way...in terms of a cleaner environment, faster transportation, easier movement of freight, reduced waiting times at airports, etc.

America's infrastructure is falling apart. Arguing that we "can't afford" to invest in 21st century infrastructure is silly, because our infrastructure is what drives a lot of our economic growth.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, but that has no bearing in this discussion.

apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you are sticking to statements of principal without any supportive reasoning then?
 
Kandahar said:
Exactly. There's no demand for a private high-speed rail system, because the start-up costs are too high.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with its demand. That has to do with the possibility of it existing in a market that needs to turn a profit and is worried about the bottom line. Demand is the people that want the service to exist and would use it if it did. The fact is no one really desires to go on a train everyday in this country and it has nothing to do with how fast they are.

That doesn't mean it isn't in society's best interests to have one.
Click to expand...

I hardly care, and like I told you the point of government isn't to pay for anything and everything that could make society better. If it was, there would be no limit to their power.

The reason that a private system doesn't work is because the costs are born by the entity who builds it but the benefits are diffuse to all of society, instead of reaped entirely by the entity that built it.
Click to expand...

Benefits go to those that use the product no matter who provides it, but the costs are no doubt cheaper in the market where the cost of equipment would most likely be cheaper, and the cost of employment would be as well.


For the same reason, the question of whether or not a public rail system would be "profitable" is a red herring, because the government does not and should not even TRY to capture all the benefits. The whole point of a high-speed rail system is to make society better off in some way...in terms of a cleaner environment, faster transportation, easier movement of freight, reduced waiting times at airports, etc.
Click to expand...

Its not a red herring. We have enough of these kind of spending programs where the entire point of it is to spend and not make. We don't need more blackholes, thank you very much, and frankly, I don't care if it makes people money, or helps the economy, what I care about is the enormous black hole it would only help make bigger.

As for it making a cleaner environment you are assuming I care enough about any one topic including yours to support any action, but that is not the case for this, or any other topic. As for faster transportation, I don't see how we need it. As for reduced airport you might have a point, but than I don't really care all that much either.

America's infrastructure is falling apart. Arguing that we "can't afford" to invest in 21st century infrastructure is silly, because our infrastructure is what drives a lot of our economic growth.
Click to expand...

If we wish to copy everyone else and claim we must do so to stay current than we have missed the entire point of the entire act to start out with. Staying current is what we make it, not what everyone else makes it. To say we must do what others have done is claiming what they have done what we can't do better. Sorry, but that is losers talk. And honestly, I'm into this whole competition world bull**** with every little thing. If they are better than us at some stuff, big whoop, seriously.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That has nothing to do with its demand. That has to do with the possibility of it existing in a market that needs to turn a profit and is worried about the bottom line. Demand is the people that want the service to exist and would use it if it did. The fact is no one really desires to go on a train everyday in this country and it has nothing to do with how fast they are.
Click to expand...

And most people didn't have any need for interstate highways or airports...until they did. You think that people have no desire to travel long distances quickly and cheaply, because the service doesn't exist yet. If it did exist, more people would make use of it, just as most people were content to live their entire lives within a 20 mile radius of their home prior to the development of the automobile and paved roads.

Henrin said:
I hardly care, and like I told you the point of government isn't to pay for anything and everything that could make society better. If it was, there would be no limit to their power.
Click to expand...

Well this is a fundamental disagreement then. I don't have a problem with government bettering society when the free market is unable to do so. If it didn't, then certain problems would fester for decades and never get solved, and nearly everyone would be poorer as a result.

Henrin said:
Benefits go to those that use the product no matter who provides it, but the costs are no doubt cheaper in the market where the cost of equipment would most likely be cheaper, and the cost of employment would be as well.
Click to expand...

Yes but as you mentioned, there's not enough demand for the services for the private sector to step in...at least, not enough demand at the rates they'd have to charge to recoup their costs. If a government entity provided high-speed rail service for free or for very cheap, as an alternative to airports and highways, and didn't worry about it being "profitable" from the government's perspective, the economy as a whole would benefit.

Henrin said:
Its not a red herring. We have enough of these kind of spending programs where the entire point of it is to spend and not make. We don't need more blackholes, thank you very much, and frankly, I don't care if it makes people money, or helps the economy, what I care about is the enormous black hole it would only help make bigger.
Click to expand...

This is a breathtakingly shortsighted view to take of government spending.

Henrin said:
As for it making a cleaner environment you are assuming I care enough about any one topic including yours to support any action, but that is not the case for this, or any other topic. As for faster transportation, I don't see how we need it. As for reduced airport you might have a point, but than I don't really care all that much either.
Click to expand...

Even if you don't care about anything other than your own pocketbook, this will grow the economy and therefore make you wealthier in the long term.

Henrin said:
If we wish to copy everyone else and claim we must do so to stay current than we have missed the entire point of the entire act to start out with. Staying current is what we make it, not what everyone else makes it. To say we must do what others have done is claiming what they have done what we can't do better. Sorry, but that is losers talk. And honestly, I'm into this whole competition world bull**** with every little thing. If they are better than us at some stuff, big whoop, seriously.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about anyone else or any competition. I said that this will grow our economy, and that not investing in things that will grow our economy because we "can't afford them" is foolish and counterproductive.
 
Whovian said:
So naturally, since it works for France, it'll do the same here. You DO realize their system connects to neighboring countries, right? And that THAT is what generates the majority of their profit?
Click to expand...

Actually... not it does not. 3 out of 7 "areas" head towards, but not always into other countries. The rest are national only. And so what if they link to other countries? They link cities to cities and it does not matter if they are across borders in an area of the world where borders mean jack****.

What about the Spanish system? It is not as profitable yet because it is still being built, but it is just as popular. It took 95% of the airline traffic when my local city Malaga was connected to Madrid. 400 or so km trip in under 3 hours... city centre to city centre.. you cant beat that. And cheaper than a plane ticket.. And the Spanish system does not link to other countries btw :)

Oh... it's also nationally owned and subsidized.
Click to expand...

And you base this one what? That the company is state owned, then it has to be subsidized? Did you miss the 1 billion in profit a year?
 
CriticalThought said:
It was the 1950s and people were building bomb shelters in their back yards. I'm pretty sure that evacuation was the primary motive and moving armed units was secondary.
Click to expand...

And, you would be mistaken, but keep lieing to yourself, my man.
 
whysoserious said:
Go ask anyone in England if they want HMO's. Go ask someone in Canada if they want to give up socialized medicine. Go ask the French if they want to cut the supply of health care to their poor off so that they can save a few bucks.

I think you'll find that we are one of the few nations still selfish enough to consider universal health care a burdon on society. We truly have fallen from what made us a great nation:

Innovation. We don't keep up with the times because too many people are scared of the future.
Click to expand...

I don't think they want Hillarycare, either. :lamo
 
PeteEU said:
Actually... not it does not. 3 out of 7 "areas" head towards, but not always into other countries. The rest are national only. And so what if they link to other countries? They link cities to cities and it does not matter if they are across borders in an area of the world where borders mean jack****.

What about the Spanish system? It is not as profitable yet because it is still being built, but it is just as popular. It took 95% of the airline traffic when my local city Malaga was connected to Madrid. 400 or so km trip in under 3 hours... city centre to city centre.. you cant beat that. And cheaper than a plane ticket.. And the Spanish system does not link to other countries btw :)

Oh... it's also nationally owned and subsidized.
Click to expand...

And you base this one what? That the company is state owned, then it has to be subsidized? Did you miss the 1 billion in profit a year?
Click to expand...

I base it on factgs, not fantasy that you seem to always prefer (as long as said fantasy agrees with your opinion).

Here's one example...
For French High-Speed Rail, a Lower-Cost Future Pondered « The Transport Politic
Moreover, the company, faced with extremely high track use fees, is desperate to increase its revenue stream. Despite the fact that both SNCF and the national track owner, Réseau Ferré de France (RFF), are entirely government owned, they have been at odds with each other because of their diverging interests since the latter entity was created in the late 1990s (previously the tracks were owned by SNCF).
Click to expand...

BTW... your 'profit number' is outdated, and in the wrong currency, but of course you knew that and simply hoped I'd take you at your word (which isn't really worth all that much ion this board).

For French High-Speed Rail, a Lower-Cost Future Pondered « The Transport Politic
The odd result is that last year, RFF made its first profit since its creation even as SNCF lost €500 million (after a one billion Euro profit the year before).
Click to expand...

The French government’s choice to subsidize TGV routes to less popular destinations rather than having SNCF cancel them because they’re no longer profitable is a political response to a management problem, since SNCF no longer is making enough money on its most-used lines to cross-subsidize within the company. Yet there is no way to assume that this is a permanent solution, since competitors will begin pushing for their own subsidies soon enough. The prioritized association between the goals of the French state and SNCF will slowly dissolve.
Click to expand...

For services that are not profitable, should the government use separate funds to ensure their continued running? Wouldn’t that simply result in the all-too-familiar privatization of profits and socialization of losses?

It troubles me that states now funding new intercity corridor development, including California, Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin, have failed to address these questions straight-on, as complicated as they might be. Considering international experience, the projects in each of these states are likely to produce operational profits, but state governments haven’t established where that additional money would be directed. If we’re serious about improving the U.S. rail system, we have an obligation to do so in a way that establishes our response to these problems before we run full-on into them.
Click to expand...
 
MrVicchio said:
How dishonest.

It'd be a giant waste of money that would put us further indebt for what? Another AMTRACK?
Click to expand...

what do you know about it? it was a shovel ready project that would have employed a lot of floridians.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I think that's a logical view to take as well as reasonable. I'm just saying it should be left up to the states and the Fed should stay out of it with their subsidy money. If Flordia wants to put in a high speed rail and their citizens agree to it and are willing to pay for it between Jacksonville and New Orleans, with Alabama, Mississippi and L.A. buy in for stops and funding, I think it's great. The states should settle on the deal, raise the money, and get going. When the Fed steps in and basically throws bribe money at them, and the State says, "No" that's a pretty strong message - NOT that the State doesn want it, and possibly even NOT that they don't NEED it, it's just that they cannot pay for it - and the majority of states are in the red because of too much spending over the decades. The timing is bad and the risk maybe too great.
 
liblady said:
it's not obama's fault florida elected a son of a bitch.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not Rick Scott's fault that we have a bastard in in the White House.
 
PeteEU said:
What about the Spanish system? It is not as profitable yet because it is still being built, but it is just as popular. It took 95% of the airline traffic when my local city Malaga was connected to Madrid. 400 or so km trip in under 3 hours... city centre to city centre.. you cant beat that. And cheaper than a plane ticket.. And the Spanish system does not link to other countries btw :)
Click to expand...

Again, state-owned.

FuturePundit: High Speed Rail Rarely Turns A Profit

By 2020, Spain plans to spend close to 100 billion euros on infrastructure and billions more on trains. That figure could give pause to places like California, a potential high-speed corridor whose area and population are about four-fifths the size of Spain’s.

“High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even.
Click to expand...
 
Why does a rail system need to turn a profit? I don't think our interstate highway system turns a profit and yet I don't see anyone advocating to abandon it. Perhaps the millions of additional jobs that it creates might have something to do with its popularity.
 
Ikari said:
I mean, that's if you care about the average American instead of sending the billions upon billions of dollars to bailouts of the banks and CEOs who made the mess.
Click to expand...

He doesn't.
 
Florida needs high speed rail more than any other state. The big cities in Florida are all spaced out at approximately 250 mile intervals. People need to get from one city to another, say Jax to Tampa, all the time, but to travel from any one city to any another requires at least a tank of gas.

Smart infrastructure investing like high speed rail could very well be what we need to save this country.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
I base it on factgs, not fantasy that you seem to always prefer (as long as said fantasy agrees with your opinion).
Click to expand...

Fantasy? It is not a fantasy that high speed rail is well used in France and many places in Europe and are extremely popular and have a growing fan base. Is it expensive to do? Yes of course it is, as was the US highway system, Hover Dam, Reagan Airport and other massive construction projects started by the "state" in one form or another.. and I state again.. so freaking what? The benefit from such investments are not short term but long term .

Here's one example...
For French High-Speed Rail, a Lower-Cost Future Pondered « The Transport Politic
Click to expand...

Did I every claim it was perfect?

BTW... your 'profit number' is outdated, and in the wrong currency, but of course you knew that and simply hoped I'd take you at your word (which isn't really worth all that much ion this board).
Click to expand...

First off "outdated" is not exactly true. I just failed to mention what year. I did not know there was a deficit last year. And funny you fail to mention of the 1 billion EUROS in profit, most of it came from the high speed rail, which is still profitable for the most part. But you do also know we are in a recession right? Travel is one of the first things that get cut, just ask the airlines.

As for wrong currency... I stated 1 billion in profit, not stating the currency in the part you quoted. Before that in other replies I stated Euros.. so it was not the wrong currency, but you not being able to put two and two together.. not my fault.

And I must ask.. why the personal attacks?


For French High-Speed Rail, a Lower-Cost Future Pondered « The Transport Politic
Click to expand...

Again, political, not the fault of the high speed rail net.

And for the record, this guy you keep quoting, sounds like a die hard car American, that cant look past his gas guzzling SUV.
 
liblady said:
what do you know about it? it was a shovel ready project that would have employed a lot of floridians.
Click to expand...

What was the schedualed start date?
 
CriticalThought said:
Why does a rail system need to turn a profit? I don't think our interstate highway system turns a profit and yet I don't see anyone advocating to abandon it. Perhaps the millions of additional jobs that it creates might have something to do with its popularity.
Click to expand...

Because, it's time for the government to be run like a business
 
apdst said:
Because, it's time for the government to be run like a business
Click to expand...

Then it is time to dump the military, FBI and other security organisations.. they have zero revenue and are expensive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom