• 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:
Obviously, you can't understand that the more money I make, the better off the economy--as well as the government coffirs--will be. Do you even have a job?
Click to expand...

And obviously you can't understand that people could make exactly the same argument about a high-speed rail system. You're a hypocrite, and I'm done talking to you in this thread. I'd rather debate the issue with someone who actually has the nation's best interests in mind. Your argument is essentially "I don't want any trains competing with my trucks...so I'll pretend to object to it on principle. By the way, pay your damn taxes for the interstate highway system, which is obviously a totally different situation." :roll:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
And obviously you can't understand that people could make exactly the same argument about a high-speed rail system. You're a hypocrite, and I'm done talking to you in this thread. I'd rather debate the issue with someone who actually has the nation's best interests in mind.
Click to expand...

"The nation's best interest" is a very subjective term. I haven't read this thread, but I'm asssuming you support the boondoggle of a project?
 
VanceMack said:
The only problem with that is that people in the US generally dont adequately use mass transit.
Click to expand...

Why would they? Their freeways are subsidized by a gas tax as are all of the other costs associated with driving that drivers do not have to realize.
 
VanceMack said:
The only problem with that is that people in the US generally dont adequately use mass transit. How expensive is AMTRAK? In Florida the rail proposal is ONLY from Tampa to Orlando at a current cost of 2.4 billion but projected cost of over 3 billion. So its great if you live in either location...but why should taxpayers in Montana be forced to foot the bill for an under-utilized in-state rail system? Im fine with the concept if citizens in Illinois and Colorado want to jointly fund a Chicago to Denver project.

In case anyone has missed it, we are 14 trillion dollars in debt. The Florida project requires the state to pay for cost overruns for operating the rail for a minimum of 20 years (they are already paying 13 million a year above and beyond user fees to maintain their current rail system).

We are a nation on crack when it comes to the fed spending taxpayer dollars.

Reason Foundation - Florida Taxpayers Ultimately Responsible for Extra High-Speed Rail Costs
Click to expand...

Again, because the infrastruture is terrible. As Obama said in his recent SOTUA, our infrastructure was graded as D-. You can see what happens when public transportation is well-maintained and far reaching. Look at NYC's train system or D.C.'s metro. It is convenient, safe, and affordable so people use it.

AMTRAK is slow and expensive. Why would I pay $100 for a ticket to DC when I can drive there in less time? A high speed rail, however, is extremely fast, less expensive than flying, more comfortable, and better for the environment. Why wouldn't I use it?

You're right. Underfunded, poorly-constructed transit systems don't get used. That's why we can either do it right or don't do it at all.
 
phattonez said:
"The nation's best interest" is a very subjective term.
Click to expand...

Well just to be clear how *I* define it: A situation where the economic benefits to the nation outweigh the economic costs to the nation.

phattonez said:
I haven't read this thread, but I'm asssuming you support the boondoggle of a project?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, yes. I don't know the details about the specific routes and I don't really have a big problem if states want to delay it by a couple years to fill their budget gaps...but in the long term we absolutely need a nationwide high-speed rail system.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Why would they? Their freeways are subsidized by a gas tax as are all of the other costs associated with driving that drivers do not have to realize.
Click to expand...

meh...so are the mass transit systems. I think its more because we like to drive and dont like to walk once we get to the other end.
 
whysoserious said:
Again, because the infrastruture is terrible. As Obama said in his recent SOTUA, our infrastructure was graded as D-. You can see what happens when public transportation is well-maintained and far reaching. Look at NYC's train system or D.C.'s metro. It is convenient, safe, and affordable so people use it.

AMTRAK is slow and expensive. Why would I pay $100 for a ticket to DC when I can drive there in less time? A high speed rail, however, is extremely fast, less expensive than flying, more comfortable, and better for the environment. Why wouldn't I use it?

You're right. Underfunded, poorly-constructed transit systems don't get used. That's why we can either do it right or don't do it at all.
Click to expand...

You might. If you needed to go from point A to point B (as an example stated earlier from Denver to Chicago) for...say...a vacation or a business trip. I dont envision bullet trains connecting anything more than several major cities. And if it costs 3 billion to connect Orlando to Tampa...how expensive do you imagine a nationwide network would be? And again...at what cost to maintain?

And the bottom line folks is we simply dont have the money. This is a concept you engage in when you are flush with surplus cash, not when the existing tax burden is crippling or impeding the nations economic growth.
 
VanceMack said:
meh...so are the mass transit systems. I think its more because we like to drive and dont like to walk once we get to the other end.
Click to expand...

They are too. I want a level playing field, which would be privately owned major roadways (though I think an entire privately owned roat network is feasible as well) and privately owned transit companies.
 
Kandahar said:
Generally speaking, yes. I don't know the details about the specific routes and I don't really have a big problem if states want to delay it by a couple years to fill their budget gaps...but in the long term we absolutely need a nationwide high-speed rail system.
Click to expand...

If it's such a good idea then why aren't private companies jumping to build it?
 
phattonez said:
They are too. I want a level playing field, which would be privately owned major roadways (though I think an entire privately owned roat network is feasible as well) and privately owned transit companies.
Click to expand...

I agree...the problem with that is that no private enterprise would ever undertake it without a guaranteed government contract because they are proven to lose money annualy.
 
VanceMack said:
I agree...the problem with that is that no private enterprise would ever undertake it without a guaranteed government contract because they are proven to lose money annualy.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case. The Dulles Greenway probably would have been a success had the company been allowed to set its own tolls without government regulations. Seriously, look at its Wikipedia page. What happened to the project is a striking example of government making a good project go bad. Besides, the road also had to deal with nearby free roads, not exactly fair competition since tollway users still have to pay the gas tax even though they're not on a government road.
 
phattonez said:
If it's such a good idea then why aren't private companies jumping to build it?
Click to expand...

As I explained earlier in this thread, it's because the benefits of a high-speed rail system accrue to society as a whole, whereas the costs are born by whoever builds it. Therefore it isn't profitable for private companies to build high-speed railways, for the same reason it isn't generally profitable for private companies to build interstate highways or water pipelines.

That doesn't mean the overall societal benefits don't outweigh the overall societal costs.
 
Kandahar said:
As I explained earlier in this thread, it's because the benefits of a high-speed rail system accrue to society as a whole, whereas the costs are born by whoever builds it. Therefore it isn't profitable for private companies to build high-speed railways, for the same reason it isn't generally profitable for private companies to build interstate highways or water pipelines.

That doesn't mean the overall societal benefits don't outweigh the overall societal costs.
Click to expand...

Your logic would have AMTRAK being well used and profitable. Not picking an argument...just sayin. From what I have read there is like 1 line in the whole country that manages to pay for itself and its a connecting train from NYC to Connecticut. Its not that the rail system isnt in place...no one uses it. Building a dramatically more expensive (albeit faster) version is no guarantee it is going to be any less of an albatross.
 
Kandahar said:
As I explained earlier in this thread, it's because the benefits of a high-speed rail system accrue to society as a whole, whereas the costs are born by whoever builds it. Therefore it isn't profitable for private companies to build high-speed railways, for the same reason it isn't generally profitable for private companies to build interstate highways or water pipelines.

That doesn't mean the overall societal benefits don't outweigh the overall societal costs.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to claim an invalid conclusion. Private companies generally don't build these things because government usually provides these services and then subsidizes them. People who drive on roads subsidize those who drive on highways because they pay the same price via the gas tax. That would not happen in a market. Water delivery is also subsidized as people pay below market rates. Private companies could build these and reap all of the positive externalities they create by buying land near stations, much like how sports team owners own parking lots near their stadiums.

The problem is that competition is stifled by subsidies.
 
VanceMack said:
Your logic would have AMTRAK being well used and profitable. Not picking an argument...just sayin. From what I have read there is like 1 line in the whole country that manages to pay for itself and its a connecting train from NYC to Connecticut.
Click to expand...

But the notion of "paying for itself" or "being profitable" is a red herring, because that's not the point of government services. The point of government services is to provide a benefit to society. I do not know if other AMTRAK routes provide enough of an economic benefit to society to justify their costs...but I do know that you can't measure that strictly by looking at the government's balance sheets.

VanceMack said:
Its not that the rail system isnt in place...no one uses it. Building a dramatically more expensive (albeit faster) version is no guarantee it is going to be any less of an albatross.
Click to expand...

A faster train would have more demand, because highway travel would no longer be viewed as a cheaper substitute.
 
VanceMack said:
The only problem with that is that people in the US generally dont adequately use mass transit. How expensive is AMTRAK? In Florida the rail proposal is ONLY from Tampa to Orlando at a current cost of 2.4 billion but projected cost of over 3 billion. So its great if you live in either location...but why should taxpayers in Montana be forced to foot the bill for an under-utilized in-state rail system? Im fine with the concept if citizens in Illinois and Colorado want to jointly fund a Chicago to Denver project.

In case anyone has missed it, we are 14 trillion dollars in debt. The Florida project requires the state to pay for cost overruns for operating the rail for a minimum of 20 years (they are already paying 13 million a year above and beyond user fees to maintain their current rail system).

We are a nation on crack when it comes to the fed spending taxpayer dollars.

Reason Foundation - Florida Taxpayers Ultimately Responsible for Extra High-Speed Rail Costs
Click to expand...

AMTRAK is slow rail, the use of which for personal transport (as AMTRAK does) has fallen off quite a bit. But we're not talking about slow rail where it may take 15+ hours to get say from Denver to Chicago. We're talking high speed rail, where that becomes more like 4 hours. Under that condition, the high speed rail becomes a viable competitor to the airlines. Now, the current proposal may not link it as it should be. For my tastes, I would have rather seen a true high speed train backbone which started first by linking major cities across the States. That's when it becomes a big bonus (and it would be a big bonus). But if you start to put the infrastructure in place, it allows for expansion as well. I think we would in general greatly benefit from a true, national high speed rail system.
 
Ikari said:
AMTRAK is slow rail, the use of which for personal transport (as AMTRAK does) has fallen off quite a bit. But we're not talking about slow rail where it may take 15+ hours to get say from Denver to Chicago. We're talking high speed rail, where that becomes more like 4 hours. Under that condition, the high speed rail becomes a viable competitor to the airlines. Now, the current proposal may not link it as it should be. For my tastes, I would have rather seen a true high speed train backbone which started first by linking major cities across the States. That's when it becomes a big bonus (and it would be a big bonus). But if you start to put the infrastructure in place, it allows for expansion as well. I think we would in general greatly benefit from a true, national high speed rail system.
Click to expand...

Much like how New York benefited when the city government took over the transit system? That was a big win for the city. :2razz:
 
CriticalThought said:
I think it says a lot about how cowardly the GOP have become. Can you imagine how different the world would be if Eisenhower's interstate highway system had been seen as "too great a risk".
Click to expand...

It's all about gotcha politics. To most Rep leaders it's better to embarrass Obama and keep the unemployment rate above 8 percent, much more important than helping the people they represent,

What, no bread... Let them eat cake

ricksfolly
 
phattonez said:
If it's such a good idea then why aren't private companies jumping to build it?
Click to expand...

Private industry is not capable of doing the same things government can, and vice versa. The start up capital, land usage, and scale of the project is far too large for the private industry. You have to invest way too much start up capital, the project will take too long for a company to profit from it in the short term. There's no way for a private entity to survive while establishing a national high speed rail system. The government, on the other hand, is a stable entity not bound by losses and profits. Thus it is able to handle these large, aggregated systems.

The same is true about scientific research. There are companies which do research specifically towards their engineering concerns. But the large bulk of actual scientific research is performed in government labs or academia. The days of Bell Labs is over. Scientific research is too much of an unknown for private industries. The monetary and time scales involved are too large to be handled, and there's no guarantee of profit on the other side. Because of this, it becomes infeasible for private industries to handle the necessary base science research which we need for continued growth and engineering products.
 
Kandahar said:
But the notion of "paying for itself" or "being profitable" is a red herring, because that's not the point of government services. The point of government services is to provide a benefit to society.
Click to expand...

It can only be a benefit to society if it is profitable. For a company building a rail line, the rail line itself may not be profitable, but by adding in rents that they collect from nearby properties that went up in value because of their train, it may be profitable and hence justified. Government has no such mechanism to ensure whether something is a good use of resources or not.

A faster train would have more demand, because highway travel would no longer be viewed as a cheaper substitute.
Click to expand...

When you account for the fares, the fee for parking near the train station, the hassle in getting your luggage on the train, and the price of a rental car in the other city you're getting too (or some other mode of transprotation), the cost benefit is not so clear.
 
phattonez said:
Much like how New York benefited when the city government took over the transit system? That was a big win for the city. :2razz:
Click to expand...

New York transit is a bit different than national high speed rail.
 
phattonez said:
It can only be a benefit to society if it is profitable.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Lots of things can be benefitial yet not turn a profit. Our military doesn't turn a profit, yet it is beneficial to have it. High speed rail doesn't need to be profitable to provide service and benefit to the People at large. It merely has to exist and be used.
 
phattonez said:
I'm going to have to claim an invalid conclusion. Private companies generally don't build these things because government usually provides these services and then subsidizes them. People who drive on roads subsidize those who drive on highways because they pay the same price via the gas tax. That would not happen in a market.
Click to expand...

There is no way that the builder of a private road could reap the benefits, short of installing a toll booth at every intersection...which would be horrendously inefficient from a societal/economic perspective. Government provides the service because it is unprofitable, not the other way around.

phattonez said:
Private companies could build these and reap all of the positive externalities they create by buying land near stations, much like how sports team owners own parking lots near their stadiums.
Click to expand...

They could, but the fact that they haven't should indicate that it isn't profitable for private enterprise to do so.

phattonez said:
It can only be a benefit to society if it is profitable.
Click to expand...

Virtually nothing the government does is profitable, yet I'm sure that there are certain government functions you believe benefit society? To illustrate my point, some hypothetical numbers:

COSTS:
To the entity that builds it: $50 billion
To the customers who use it: $10 billion (perhaps some modest user fees)

BENEFITS:
To the entity that builds it: $10 billion
To the customers who use it: $200 billion

These numbers are just an example so don't read anything into them, but my point is that the overall economic benefits of something can considerably outweigh the overall economic costs, without it being profitable for the entity who does it. In my example, whoever built the high-speed rail would be $40 billion in the hole for their troubles...but the ROA for the economy as a whole would be a whopping 250%.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Much like how New York benefited when the city government took over the transit system? That was a big win for the city. :2razz:
Click to expand...

NYC's transit system is great. I use it everytime I go to the city and I used it to get into the city when I lived in New Jersey.
 
Ikari said:
Private industry is not capable of doing the same things government can, and vice versa. The start up capital, land usage, and scale of the project is far too large for the private industry. You have to invest way too much start up capital, the project will take too long for a company to profit from it in the short term. There's no way for a private entity to survive while establishing a national high speed rail system. The government, on the other hand, is a stable entity not bound by losses and profits. Thus it is able to handle these large, aggregated systems.
Click to expand...

See the Route 91 Express Lanes which were built even though there was heavy government competition from route 91. Private companies can and do take up huge projects all the time.

91 Express Lanes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After all, it was private companies that built the subway system in New York, not the government.

The same is true about scientific research. There are companies which do research specifically towards their engineering concerns. But the large bulk of actual scientific research is performed in government labs or academia. The days of Bell Labs is over. Scientific research is too much of an unknown for private industries. The monetary and time scales involved are too large to be handled, and there's no guarantee of profit on the other side. Because of this, it becomes infeasible for private industries to handle the necessary base science research which we need for continued growth and engineering products.
Click to expand...

The bulk of actual scientific research is performed in government labs because government provides a ton of money such that the profit of private investment is severely compromised. Private companies tend to piggy-back off of the research done in government labs. However, it's interesting to note that most of the supplies used in those labs comes from private companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom