No Florida High Speed Rail

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons: Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds. Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.
 
Ignoring the comment above mine.

This is almost unbelievable. How much federal funding was involved here, something like $2.3 billion of a $2.6 billion project? Suppose this funding will be redistributed in the same manner that the approx $1.2 billion from OH & WI was redistributed?
 
This is almost unbelievable. How much federal funding was involved here, something like $2.3 billion of a $2.6 billion project? Suppose this funding will be redistributed in the same manner that the approx $1.2 billion from OH & WI was redistributed?
Well, first the Repubs will try to rescind it, and possibly get knocked down by a Presidential veto and then whatever is to happen will happen I suppose.

It is possible that the good Governor of Florida waited this long to make sure that the Repus got a chance to try to rescind it before the president can reallocate. I sure do hope this lands up on the NEC for a change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a Californian, I'd like to thank Governor Scott for his decision, and would like to invite Floridians to come ride our shiny new HSR system in a decade or so.

Now, put this money on the BFD-Palmdale segment!
 
As a Californian, I'd like to thank Governor Scott for his decision, and would like to invite Floridians to come ride our shiny new HSR system in a decade or so.

Now, put this money on the BFD-Palmdale segment!
As a "Floridian", you are welcome.........Cal. needs some more debt to add to their gazzillions.
 
Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $ for Florida.

http://www.kgmi.com/...ntentId=7674012
When I read Sh!# like that, it just makes me wanna go postal.
What if all the Governors told Dwight D. the same thing 50 years ago? We'd still be driving coast-to-coast on two lane roads I guess.

The U.S.A. is destined to staying a 3rd-world country when it comes to HSR I guess. It just blows my mind.

We are afraid to "do" big projects anymore, like the Interstate System, or the Apollo project. Content to sit on the sidelines, and watch our world-side competitive advantages just disappear, and watch China and others pass us by. So sad.
 
This is frustrating and disappointing :angry2: :angry:

I think this all but kills any hopes for a HSR in my home state as well. To my chagrin Democrats and Republicans have done a very good job making HSR a very partisan issue when it did not have to be.

I hope this is simply posturing and that with some negotiations and improvements (the Florida plan did leave a lot to be desired) It can be implemented.

If not California will be left as the only example of true HSR in this country.
 
There might -- just might -- be some positive rail news for Florida: Governor Scott remains committed to returning conventional-yet-incrementally-improved-speed rail service to the FEC, does he not ?
 
As a Californian, I'd like to thank Governor Scott for his decision, and would like to invite Floridians to come ride our shiny new HSR system in a decade or so.

Now, put this money on the BFD-Palmdale segment!
As a "Floridian", you are welcome.........Cal. needs some more debt to add to their gazzillions.
What debt? These are grants, not loans. CA's on the hook for $9bn in bonds from Prop 1A (at relatively low interest), and that's it- the law actually bans the state from providing operating subsidy. Not that they would- HSR systems the world over make an operating profit.

The cost of the system is in the $40bn neighbourhood, and between the Prop 1A bonds and matching money from the feds we're getting close to half of that. Foreign HSR investors, including Japan, China and France have all expressed interest in funding a substantial proportion of the system (given that we buy their trains, of course). The Japanese ambassador even suggested they'd pay for the whole damned thing recently. Beyond that, the increase in tax revenue that the construction jobs (and all the jobs they support- google the multiplier effect) should create in the economy may well improve state and local governments' ability to pay for the system, and generate broad-based economic recovery to boot.

$9bn in long-term low-interest infrastructure bonds in exchange for a top-flight HSR system connecting the most populous state in the Union? Sounds good to me.
 
and in other news today, the estimates for airline travelers are 1 billion annually by 2021..... I think regardless of whether we go HSR or conventional rail, something needs to be done to increase passenger rail capacity, reliability and schedules in this country, and soon.

Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $ for Florida.

http://www.kgmi.com/...ntentId=7674012
When I read Sh!# like that, it just makes me wanna go postal.
What if all the Governors told Dwight D. the same thing 50 years ago? We'd still be driving coast-to-coast on two lane roads I guess.

The U.S.A. is destined to staying a 3rd-world country when it comes to HSR I guess. It just blows my mind.

We are afraid to "do" big projects anymore, like the Interstate System, or the Apollo project. Content to sit on the sidelines, and watch our world-side competitive advantages just disappear, and watch China and others pass us by. So sad.
 
Great news for the rest of the country. Now it's time for Obama to hand this money to the northeast. I would like to see the money spent on the tracks from Pittsburgh to Philly, Albany to New York, and of course Boston to Richmond.
 
It is possible that the good Governor of Florida waited this long to make sure that the Repus got a chance to try to rescind it before the president can reallocate. I sure do hope this lands up on the NEC for a change.
That actually sounds fairly plausible. Might we see another quick reallocation of the funds, to various other unfunded (or not fully-funded) proposals already submitted.
 
Gov. Scott cancelled this project before even receiving concrete proposals from private interests, and there was a good deal of speculation/indication that those interests might have been willing to cover the portion of the project not covered by the federal grants. This suggests his motives were not concerns about (possible/potential) costs to FL, but rather the same idealogical ones that motivated governors in OH & WI to cancel projects. As much as I look forward to seeing how this funding is redistributed, it is a rather unfortunate outcome.
 
Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons: Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds. Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.
Says the genius who couldn't figure out a simple rail pass to save his life. :lol:

To my chagrin Democrats and Republicans have done a very good job making HSR a very partisan issue when it did not have to be.
I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic party myself, but I am curious what exactly you would have preferred they have done differently that would not have incurred the wrath of the GOP?

I hope this is simply posturing and that with some negotiations and improvements (the Florida plan did leave a lot to be desired) It can be implemented. If not California will be left as the only example of true HSR in this country.
From what I'm reading Florida HSR has died. It may be a purely political death but the result will be the same. California HSR is by no means a foregone conclusion either. California HSR will continue to depend on federal funding and that's going to become more and more difficult to provide as we continue to lower tax rates and slash funding for tax fraud recovery efforts.
 
What debt? These are grants, not loans.
Then why was the Governor of FL worried about having to pay it back?
By accepting the money, he commits the state to operate the train for 20 years. That commitment includes covering any operating losses. If he or any future Governor, or the legislature for that matter, fails to cover the operating costs and instead decides to shut the operation down within that 20 year period, then the State of Florida is obligated to repay the Fed for the grants.

Florida actually came very close to this situation with Tri-Rail, as they barely passed funding in time to keep Tri-Rail running ahead of massive cuts that would have triggered repayment of a Federal grant to double track the line.

All Federal grants come with similar strings attached. They want to make sure that the states don't just throw the money away or use it for other than the intended purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons: Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds. Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.
Says the genius who couldn't figure out a simple rail pass to save his life. :lol:

To my chagrin Democrats and Republicans have done a very good job making HSR a very partisan issue when it did not have to be.
I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic party myself, but I am curious what exactly you would have preferred they have done differently that would not have incurred the wrath of the GOP?

I hope this is simply posturing and that with some negotiations and improvements (the Florida plan did leave a lot to be desired) It can be implemented. If not California will be left as the only example of true HSR in this country.
From what I'm reading Florida HSR has died. It may be a purely political death but the result will be the same. California HSR is by no means a foregone conclusion either. California HSR will continue to depend on federal funding and that's going to become more and more difficult to provide as we continue to lower tax rates and slash funding for tax fraud recovery efforts.
LOOK MR BRIGHT GUY WHO GOES BY DAXOMNI: You are great at name calling are you?? I have noticed that....my statement was not mine but THE GOV"s>>>>>I have no "dog" in this fight (discussion)...please stop with the name calling......of course I am not a genius, and don't pretend to be.....but because I had some difficulties with figuring how Rail Passes work, I guess all rookies should stay away from you.
 
As a Florida citizen, I am very disappointed. The traffic between Tampa and Orlando is horrendous. Florida is perfect for High Speed rail; flat surface, lots of tourists. It is very political just like when Jeb Bush facilitated a repeal of the high speed rail referendum that Florida voters had approved. I am looking forward to riding California's high speed rail line.
 
Lighten up, Francis. The man was making a joke, as helpfully indicated by the :lol: right next to it.
I'll give you the benefit of doubt, on this one; but I thought it in poor taste. I viewed it as a shot, too. Very demeaning and singled out the poster. Not at all funny, either.

I would like to thank Alan B for giving a non-partisan answer regarding the federal funds without making remarks about others beliefs, abilities, opinions, or intelligence.
 
I think the place to spend this money is either on the last ten miles into St Louis so that the upgraded Chicago - St Louis line does not have to poke along at a very low speed on the TRRA trackage.

My other proposal is to build a quicker way into CUS from the end of Amtrak's 95 MPH trackage (soon to be 110 MPH) at Porter IN as this would not only benefit Michigan service but also such trains as the Lake Shore and Capital Limited!

:rolleyes: :giggle: :cool:
 
Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons: Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds. Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.
While these are the reasons the governor gave, they do have the drawback that the first two are false, and the third is irrelevant.

Private companies bidding for the contract were actually willing to accept all responsibility for cost overruns. Of course, Scott didn't give the chance for them to formally submit their bids since he pulled the project before the deadline. And overruns weren't nearly as likely as he argued.

His source for the projected cost overruns and the argument that ridership estimates were too high was a report by notoriously anti-anything-but-automobile zealot Wendell Cox for the Reason Foundation, which has been debunked elsewhere. The report compares figures on ridership and construction costs to other projects, completely out of context. Like, say, comparing costs to projected cost of an HSR line in CA, ignoring the fact that the California line needs an expensive viaduct and also has to pay for right of way, while most of the ROW in Florida is already owned by the state. The analysis then claims that the cost estimates for the Florida line must be too low, and therefore costs will end up being much, much higher.

Also the report compared ridership estimates with ridership figures for the Acela and therefore deeming them "too high." I'm sure people here could point out quite a few flaws in that comparison even before clicking on the link.

As for the third point, since the projections are actually pretty good and the state likely wouldn't be on the hook for cost overruns anyway, it's pretty irrelevant to point out that it would be expensive to walk away from the project after starting it. Sure, as Alan points out, the federal money does come with the requirement that the state actually uses it to do what it's supposed to do. It just seems odd to me for the governor to be complaining about having to commit to a basic level of competence, but I guess this is what things have come to.
 
Back
Top