Well, they didn't perform a meta-analysis; they cited a meta-analysis that happens to agree with their conclusions without context. Context is kind of important here, and it's the difference between an analysis of this particular project and a gut feeling that an analysis is wrong.This sort of analysis is actually not so uncommon in the real world. It's a meta-analysis, and it's a legitimate tool. After all, you point out that studies "done by people with actual knowledge and experience" said something. Well, how much trust should Florida put in their conclusions? Should the state of Florida, which is already having budget problems, risk funding a project based largely on their say so? A reasonable answer is to look at other studies "done by people with actual knowledge and experience" to get a sense of how accurate such knowledgeable and experienced planners are historically. The answer, it turns out, is surprisingly disconcerting.
Again, you keep saying there's tons of risk for the state, but there just isn't. The bidding process was structured to require bidders to take on any downside risk. Now, if your concern is that a multinational corporation that's bidding (like, say, Siemens or Alstom) is going to go bankrupt and leave Florida with its debts, we've got bigger problems.Does that mean the planners are definitely wrong or that they knowingly submitted a flawed report? No. But it does mean the project carries more risk than its backers may have assumed, and considering its budget Florida is right to be risk-adverse right now.
Moreover, people at the DOT have already stated that they would have been willing to have a discussion about indemnifying the state from even the low probability risk, but Scott never asked them about it.
I didn't say they addressed Acela's profitability. They brought it up as an example for other reasons, but didn't mention that it's hugely profitable (on an operating basis). That just contradicts your statement that no rail line anywhere turns a profit.Glancing through, I don't see anything in the report that refers to Acela turning or not turning a profit. Can you point to it?
Again, these threats are neither real nor undisputed.The profitability of this line relies on demand, and the report does cast doubt on the demand. Therefore, it casts doubts on the profitability. It also states various circumstances under which Florida would be left holding the bag, regardless of this group's insistence that it would be impossible. Those threats--ranging from the private guarantor shutting down to actions of federal government itself--are entirely real and undisputed here.