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
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
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".
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.
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
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
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
of higher education, improved medical care delivered more efficiently
effectively are all items that will get us back on track as well as
world's carbon foot print problem in the process.
Failure to grab the moment is analogous to eating one's seed corn,
Why are you asking me what *my* game plan is? I'm not the one advocating
building it. Direct that question to your governor and legislature. *They* are
the ones you should be asking where the money is going to come from to
Assuming that the revenue projections haven't been overstated to sell the
project, sure. That's a pretty big assumption, though. And that's another
question you should be directing to your legislators. Not to me.
One *more* reason that it's not going to be cost-effective.
Yet another reason it's not going to be cost-effective.
Yeah, now *there's* a good idea: an insolvent state going *deeper* into debt
to build a project that, on its face, is not commercially viable -- if it were
viable, some corporation would have built it already.
Taken a look at California's bond ratings lately? Compare them to Indiana's:
Since you are indicating there is not money available to the states to
maintain the system, thought you might know where that income was
Doesn't make any difference what Indiana's bond rating is, the state
is too damn cheap to spend any bond money in the first place.
As my mother and father, both native Hoosiers, would say when driving
back to Indiana for a family visit from Ohio, "You know when you hit
the Ohio/Indiana line, the roads in Indiana are sub standard.
During the thirties when CCC projects were being built, Ohio built
roadside rest areas which had well water, a privy, at least one picnic
table and refuse containers.
Indiana's roadside rest area consisted of a table, period end of
The above references the post WWII era up to about 1955.
By the mid 80's, which is the next time back, nothing had changed if
you don't include the interstate construction.
The state highway system still sucked.
That seems to make you happy, so more power to you.
As for me, I expect a little more out of this one way trip called
Governor Mitch will sell the public asset to private industry,
preferably one with foreign ownership.
Hoosiers voted this *&^(&* into office -- twice! Now he's being touted
for Presidential candidacy, because he's so "well-connected and
best-funded" of the potential candidates. Small wonder.
Some of us weren't fooled the first time, let alone the second.
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 $3 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 $2.4 billion to the feds.
You can read his letter at:
I'd welcome your comments after you do.
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 in Ohio
On 02/16/2011 10:28 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.
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.
From what a lot of people seem to think. Like in our state, many town
wanted to build new schools. They were promoted as being a bargain because
"the state pays 85% and we only have to pay 15% of the cost. Like FREE
money from the state.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.