You’re falling into what I see as a pretty common fallacy; that the justification for rail, and the measure of its success, is how much it relieves congestion on the roads. Design something to meet the needs of the people who use it, not the people who don’t.
That’s not quite what he’s saying. He’s saying all the people currently forced to drive from central Florida to the Bay area (or the other way) would no longer have to, because they could take rail. The fact that congestion on I-4 would be reduced is an incidental benefit.
I’m not sure I see the fallacy, nor the incidental nature of the benefit.
Right now the only way people can navigate that corridor is by car. Providing an alternate means (high speed rail) will allow some number of those people to use it, thus “meet[ing] the needs of” those people and not at all *incidentally *reducing auto congestion.
It’s silly to exclude the latter group from consideration. If the D.C. Metro system were to shut down tonight because, y’know, it doesn’t pay for itself (I think fares have historically covered ~50% of the operating costs), the D.C. area would have its biggest gridlock ever tomorrow morning, even factoring in the fact that it’s a Friday before a 3-day weekend.
Ultimately you run out of space to build more roads, or even add more lanes to the ones you’ve got. And highways require a lot of room per person to move people. Once an area gets crowded, you simply need more space-efficient ways to move people around. If the same money could be put towards, say, developing light rail systems for Tampa and Orlando, that would be preferable, but that’s not an option, and you’ve got to start somewhere.
The thing is… it’s only a 45-minute drive from Daytona to Orlando and maybe another 45 minutes from Orlando to Tampa. I could see if you were commuting daily from Daytona to Tampa for work every day, where a high speed rail could really benefit you. But how many people do that? It’s not like San Francisco where nobody can afford to live in Orlando. Relatively speaking, Central Florida is reasonably cheap (See also: The No Income Taxes thing.)
As a Panhandle Floridian, the proposed high speed rail route made no sense to me. What would have made sense would be to connect Miami/FTL/WPB to Orlando/Tampa/Daytona and on up through to Tallahassee. Now you’ve got a huge target market of lobbyists and legislators making their way to and from the capital. Not to mention the tourists who could use the trains to (say, for example) fly into Orlando to visit Disney then hop on the train to South Florida to hop on a cruise ship.
A north-south route would have encompassed far more users and made the idea much more practical, as opposed to an east-west route that would only serve a small proportion of the population.
I’m no fan of Rick Scott, but I endorse this decision wholeheartedly.
And some of us wonder why political discourse is so poisonous these days. Because there can’t be any any other reason than this, right?
BrainGlutton knows much more about it than I do, but I gather there was a proposal for a second phase that would have done exactly that.
No, federal money had been allocated. However, getting a grant from the government for a project does not mean that the grant will cover all of the project, nor the recurring costs. For example, there is a broadband radio network in New Mexico that was paid for with a grant from the government. It covered something like 80% of the capital costs. That meant the county and state had to cover the rest of the costs (several million dollars). And then the county and state had to support the system, because simply paying for it does zero good if you don’t monitor and maintain it. Bottom line, it’s a white elephant that doesn’t do anything that it was originally intended to do (because no further grants were available, and neither the state nor the county has funds to expand the system…they are hard pressed to maintain what they have).
I get the impression that people think that when the federal government gives a grant (or whatever this was) for a system that A) it pays for everything and B) that putting it in is the end of the story, cost wise, and from then on it’s all profit. It doesn’t work that way. Yeah, $2 billion sounds like a lot, but if Florida would also have to pony up capital costs, and would then be expected to cover the recurring costs and subsidize the system then in the long run it would be a money loser for them, even if the fed ‘gave’ them that $2 billion.
Now, if someone could show that, having paid whatever costs the system would cost (including both the fed and state portions) and then would be a net money positive for Florida…THEN it would be pretty stupid for the Gov. of Florida to have done this. CAN anyone show that this would have been a net gain for Florida?
-XT
Already addressed - private funding had already been located for any shortfalls. Mostly from Disney.
Is Disney saying they will pay for maintenance and other recurring costs? Are there figures showing that this will be a net gain for Florida (not just for Disney)?
-XT
According to the PDF I just downloaded from here, the phase II plan would only connect Central Florida to Miami. I don’t suppose anyone wants to travel to the capital. :smack:
I think Jackmannii’s post #39 pretty much covered what I was getting at…sorry I missed it on my first skim through. Which post has the cite for what Disney is proposing to pony up?
-XT
I consign Rick Scott’s soul to a purgatory where he will have to drive back and forth between Tampa and Orlando endlessly, in rush-hour traffic in July, with a full bladder.
With the federal funds, yes, although I don’t have them to hand. I was at a convention hosted by (Orlando Mayor) Buddy Dyer on the plan last year.
In any event, what’s good for Disney is good for Florida. Walt Disney World alone employs 76,000 people. SeaWorld and Universal combined employ slightly more than that.
The next largest employer in the area is UCF, with about 11,000 employees.
I can understand that. 
Modernization of the infrastructure and more specifically the transportation system is a win/win for the country. It provides jobs . It gives an alternative to gas wasting air transport and will cut back of gas use.
The repubs are grandstanding for political reasons. They are responding to the tea baggers. They think it will help their political futures. Who cares if it damages the state or the country?
Not necessarily. If the project would be a net loss for Florida (i.e. if it costs more in recurring funding than the state gets back in taxes, jobs and funding, etc) then it hurts the states bottom line, even if it helps Disney’s bottom line. It all depends on how much in the red it puts the state…and what the ROI for the state is on their own costs (and how much Disney is willing to pony up initially and in recurring costs…if they are willing to do the later at all).
These things always look simple from a mile high view. It’s when you really start digging in that it becomes complex. I have to assume that the Governor (or at least his staff) have looked at the figures, and determined that something doesn’t work. It COULD just be political, of course (i.e. the theory in this thread that he’s just playing to the Tea Party), but if the numbers work out to be in the black for the state then I’m sure someone, somewhere is going to point that out and make him look like an idiot.
-XT
Do I understand this to say that Disney et al has pledged to cover all construction cost overruns and operating deficits in perpetuity? If so, that’d be a really good deal for the state and they’d be fools for turning it down.
I suspect that’s not the case though.
Initial outlays only, as far as I recall. Not operating losses.
Yeah, operating costs were going to be Florida’s problem, but the intial construction was not.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=175457&catid=19
And Florida was even off the hook for the upfront money too.
And it’s hard to judge operating costs since the only feasibilty study that’s available is considered heavily biased. Scott originally promised to wait until a new study could be done, but apparently changed his mind with this announcement since the new study isn’t out yet.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=175287&catid=250
Cause and effect mixed up. There’s no reason to listen to the other side when 95% of what they say is either knee-jerk reactionism or complete idiocy. They may be right occasionally but it’s entirely by accident.