O/T: Welcome To Big Time Politics

Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich), Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett
Loading thread data ...

Apparently you folks in California haven't figured out what was pretty obvious to us here in the Midwest: those rail projects might be *built* mostly with federal funds -- but the states would have to pay to *maintain* them, and the states decided they couldn't afford that. It's also apparent that you haven't realized yet that California is broke. News flash: if Wisconsin and Ohio -- which are solvent -- can't afford the maintenance, then California -- which isn't -- can't afford it either.

Let's see how well those decisions play out in a few years when California has to start paying even more money that it doesn't have to maintain these "high-speed" rail lines that really aren't. There is *no* true high-speed rail anywhere in the U.S., and, given the condition of our tracks, there isn't likely to be in my lifetime, either.

Reply to
Doug Miller

According to Scott, the state might be on the hook for as much as $3B in construction costs, as well.

They'll come whining to the rest of us to bail them out.

Reply to
krw

You might want to read the Florida governor's letter rejecting the Tampa-Orlando rail project. In it he pointed out:

  • Cost overruns, as much as billion, would be borne by Florida
  • Ridership and revenue have been overestimated for EVERY rail project in the country since time immemorial. For example, proponents claim ridership to be over 3 million annually. The Acela train linking Boston to D.C., and points in between, had 3.2 million passengers in 2010 despite a population eight times larger than the Tampa-Orlano run.
  • There are more worthy projects. For example, enlarging Florida's ports to be ready for the enhanced Panama Canal shipping.
  • If, for any reason, (think too expensive) the project has to be shut down, Florida would have to return .4 billion to the feds.

You can read his letter at:

formatting link
'd welcome your comments after you do.

Reply to
HeyBub

This is the only thing I agree with that Idiot Kasich about. Rail service would get very little use here. And it was not high speed. 35 MPH with all the stops they planned. You can drive from Columbus to Cincinnati or Cleveland faster.

Mike > Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),

Reply to
Michael Kenefick

That is like high speed air. There is a distance at which it is faster to drive that it is to take an airplane. I have children that live about 600 miles from us. By the time you drive to the airport, get there two hours before flight time to get your tummy rubbed by security, flight a couple of stretches with the waits in between, find transportation and final get where you are going; You can make the same trip in your car in the same amount of time, FOR LESS MONEY AND HARASSMENT.

Reply to
knuttle

If it is from the government, it must be FREE! Gullible and California go together well.

Reply to
Leon

Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from Indianapolis to Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least, when I said I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an hour's drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from their site northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and saved me several hours and a lot of hassle.

Reply to
Doug Miller

China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?

So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.

Reply to
DGDevin

WalMart customers.

If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would already exist.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after WWII the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to be made selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because streetcars weren't a good form of public transport.

And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed rail is starting to look pretty good. In recent years my wife and I have elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot in an airport, and that was before air travellers had to choose between being groped or x-rayed.

Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. When gas eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is going to be a lot more attractive at any speed. A lot of things happened because gas was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that situation.

Reply to
DGDevin

OT? You mean high speed rail doesn't use wooden ties?

Reply to
Larry W

.. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom and convenience of private transport to public transport.

Except for the hundreds of gigabucks -- that we don't have -- required to build the infrastructure.

If gasoline becomes that expensive, high speed rail may become commercially viable; if so, someone will see that there's money to be made, and build it. The more likely outcome of $10/gallon gasoline, IMHO, is explosive growth in electric cars and new technology for powering them (e.g. ultracapacitors instead of batteries), with an accompanying increase in the construction of nuclear power plants.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Actually, it doesn't. Concrete or steel are the materials of choice.

formatting link

Reply to
Doug Miller

But WHO is going to pay for it? HOW are we going to pay for it? Right after WWII, the United States had the only real, working economy in the world. We built everything for everybody. We rebuilt other nations so they could fend for themselves. We were bringing money INTO this country hand over fist.

What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal- Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to bring money into this country out to places like China (especially China).

Another way China is getting money to build those things is from all the freaking interest this country is paying them on the Federal bonds they are buying from us. So to answer your question, it is really the NEXT GENERATION of Americans who will be funding just about *every* publicly funded project in China.

Reply to
busbus

Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail operations. GM alone converted

900 of these to buses. Of course the American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.

We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs, but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail? We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up here.

Reply to
DGDevin

----------------------------------------- Spoken like a true Hoosier.

What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high speed rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?

What is your game plan for the increased revenues generated by businesses that take advantage of HSR to improve their bottom line?

If they aren't misappropriated, they are the normal source of maintenance funds.

HSR requires a dedicated line to be effective.

Probably will be able to use a some of the existing rights of way in urban areas for new track, but that is about it.

BUilding new rail lines is just part of the capital investment process. (Think bonds).

As far as the USA's including California's current economic condition, consider it a minor inconvenience, especially for those that get up off their dead and dying and get involved in the future.

Energy costs will determine are future.

Those who control energy will control the world.

Yes, $10/gallon gasoline is on the horizon, unless we as a country invest in developing alternatives today.

HSR, high efficiency energy devices, alternate energy forms, increased availability of higher education, improved medical care delivered more efficiently and effectively are all items that will get us back on track as well as address the world's carbon foot print problem in the process.

Failure to grab the moment is analogous to eating one's seed corn, IMHO.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:ijk7mr$an6$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Comparing Europe rail travel with rail travel in the NE Corridor. In crowded western Europe, there is still relatively more open space than in the Washington-Boston megalopolis. Therefore, it was fairly easy to take rights of way for straight routes that don't have level crossings with roads etc. I have traveled the Thalys between Holland and Paris, and south of Brussels the speed of the train is astonishing. Large stretches north of Brussels are fast, but not all are real TGV speed.

Generating routes like that in the megalopolis will involve long fights with eminent domain expropriations. Moreover, we live more dispersed, so getting to and from the "central" station will take more time, just like the aggravating travel to and from airports.

Nevertheless, if travel by train were faster and cheaper, I'd use the train more, especially since I'm retired now. I can walk to the station here in Jersey, and use the T in Boston, so getting back and forth to my son and family in Boston will be a cinch. But as of now, car travel is cheaper and faster ... And then I have a car over there.

Reply to
Han

----------------------------------- Where did that come from?

What does FREE! have to do with anything?

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

We can't really afford *any* of those things...

Reply to
Doug Miller

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.