Californians For High Speed Rail Disappointed by Florida Governor’s Decision to Reject Federal Funds
(Note: this is a press release from Californians For High Speed Rail, an organization where I serve as a board member.)
San Francisco, February 16th, 2011- Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR), a statewide grassroots coalition of high-speed rail (HSR) supporters, expressed its deep disappointment with Florida Governor Rick Scott’s decision to reject $2.4 billion in Federal funding for Florida’s high-speed rail project. The funds would have covered 90 percent of the costs of building a High-Speed Rail line between Orlando and Tampa. Private funding was also likely to cover the remaining funding for the project, requiring no state funding.
“Californians For High Speed Rail strongly supports the Florida HSR project because we believe that HSR construction in not one, but several, of the nation’s largest regions will build political support for HSR. Our organization urges Governor Scott to reconsider his decision,” said Daniel Krause, Executive Director of Californians for High Speed Rail.
According to a report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the train could have provided up to $2.9 billion in economic benefits in the Orlando area alone, creating as many as 27,500 jobs. John Mica, Florida Representative and Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, declared Scott’s decision as “a huge setback for the state of Florida, our transportation, economic development, and important tourism industry.” Efforts are being made by Federal, State, and Municipal politicians to get Scott to reconsider his decision.
The Obama Administration has made it clear in a press release today that it will reallocate this money to another High Speed Rail project should Governor Scott stand by his decision.
“If Scott ultimately decides to stick with this fateful decision, which will surely harm Florida’s ability to compete economically in the future, Californians For High Speed Rail will work hard to bring as much of the rejected funds to the California project,” said Krause.
Another awful report on HSR by Mediagroup’s Mike Rosenberg; “California high-speed rail could feel ripple from Florida.”
Apparently Scott’s bogus, indefensible cost overrun estimate is proof our system will cost too much. The stoopid never stops.
I wonder if Scott’s decision to refuse money will cause blowback for him within his party. These new GOP Govs in WI, OH, NJ and FL are trial balloons for dismantling unions, public schools and corporate taxes.
iIn WI< canceling HSR might cost them a rail ar manufacturer – re-location out of state.
tony d. Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:41 am
I just read MR piece of shit article earlier Joe. I think Mike is now the official megaphone for the minority
NIMBY cause and anti-HSR contingent. Its pretty shameful that he’s getting front page coverage in
The Merc.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:48 am
My God, are the media all just doom and gloom these days?
Personally I would have gone with “you reap what you sow florida voters, enjoy the traffic!”
Airlines, Car Rental Companies(Hertz, Dollar, etc) & Oil Companies have possibly one thing in common:
Campaign Contributions, As HSR would threaten their income I’d think…
Sure some airlines like Southwest are for HSR, But I can’t believe they all are and Oil Companies(Koch Industries comes to mind, etc) stand to lose business as HSR doesn’t use their Oily Products.
James Fujita Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 2:25 am
I can understand the airlines and the oil companies, but who’s to say that high-speed rail stations won’t have car rental booths or that people won’t rent cars when they get off the train, especially if it meets their needs?
of course, the hope is that people will stay within a downtown area, or use rail transit, buses or shuttles to get around, but there may be cases when people are traveling further afield where transit may not be available.
even Amtrak offers car rental packages.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Airlines WANT HSR. Trains take away short haul traffic which frees gate space at LAX and SFO for longer haul flights with higher profit.
Dropping these low profit flights reduces air traffic congestion around the airports – airlines like that too.
HSR funnels riders to airports to connect to longer haul flights to the east/europe/asia. It’s a win for the airlines.
Scott wants to piss off his opposition, liberals and progressives, so he opposes HSR. It’s not a deep seated thought or big oil pushing the man, it’s definitional for a GOP Daddy to say “no” to what the opposition wants.
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 8:47 am
I dont see why rental car companies would have anything to lose. It just gives them more locations to offer services.
One anti hsr argument that never made sense to me is when they argue “but what do you do when you get there, you still have to rent a car”
well yeh, duh. so what! I mean what do you do when you fly there? And the cost of a rental car at your destination is worth getting to avoid a freaking 4-6-8 hour drive on the state’s highways.
TomW Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 6:55 am
Airlines actually don’t see HSR as much of a threat as you might think. They know HSR only competes with airlines on short-haul routes – which have low margins (because people are willing to save money by travelling on cramped budget airlines for short-haul routes). Many shuttle services are effectively subsidised by the more lucrative long-haul flights. (Case in point: last time I made a long journey, the transatlantic flight + shuttle cost $50 more than the transatlantic flight alone… but booking just the shuttle leg would have cost $300).
Now, when 400mph HSR comes along, then airlnes might get a bit uneasy… but they’ll always have anything over the ocean.
Donk Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:29 am
So you don’t think underwater transpacific HSR is feasible? Stops in LA-Avalon-Hilo-Honolulu-Tokyo? At least there won’t be any NIMBYs, grade crossings, freight trains, or Palo Altos….
Victor Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:42 am
Nope, Largely the ocean is way too deep. The deeper one goes, the heavier the water above one becomes, the stronger a structure has to be or take a human head made of foam to the bottom of
the sea in an air filled chamber and It will shrink under the air pressure required to keep the structure from being crushed, as the deeper one goes the air pressure has to go up, It’s also the reason subs have a crush depth, with current technology the bottom is the domain of species that are adapted to the environment on the bottom and for the occasional robot only.
Victor Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:46 am
Robots don’t need air, people do and unlike water, air is compressible. Although even robots sometimes have trouble down there.
Donk Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Dude, I was totally joking…
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 8:44 am
I vote for the tbt-oahu line next.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 8:46 am
Dude;
You can’t out satirize the conservative mind.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2011/02/16/is_seasteading_the_future
“Here’s a novel idea: Escape the suffocating chains of intrusive government by starting your own country!
And now Patri believes he has an effective solution to bad government: communities on the ocean surface, or seasteading.
That’s why we work to enable seasteading communities — floating cities — which will allow the next generation of pioneers to peacefully test new ideas for government. The most successful can then inspire change in governments around the world.”
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Haven’t they been trying that shit for years?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Some people write SF, other people play NationStates, and others fantasize about seasteading.
Ken Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 11:32 am
See my comment below that airlines actually WANT those short haul routes to go away. The sole reason those shuttle flights exists are just to feed them into their hubs so they can catch a connection there to long haul routes. No one pays $300 just to fly between San Diego and LAX, but they pay $600 for a flight that goes San Diego-LAX-Tokyo Narita.
The feeder flight between San Diego and LAX are “subsidized” by the total fare of going all the way to Tokyo. In reality those shuttle flights are money losers that airlines would love to get rid of because it just adds to more congestion, wasted gate space, labor, maintenance costs, and cost of jet fuel to keep those planes flying. But they need to continue flying them because no one’s willing to drive all the way from San Diego to LAX to catch a plane there, nor is it feasible to fly a direct non-stop San Diego-Tokyo route.
If this seems ridiculous, you should ask any airline executive what they really think about those feeder flights. They want HSR to take over those routes and have trains do the job of feeding it directly to the airports more than Republicans like to think that they are on their side.
Ken Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:28 am
Surprisingly, a lot of airlines these days are in SUPPORT of HSR. They’re just as much being hit with high fuel prices as us and they WANT to get rid of short haul routes that just add up to fuel prices, higher maintenance fees, labor costs, added delays and wasted gate space that could be otherwise used to tap into longer routes.
See, majority of these short hauls are just feeders and commuter flights that feed into their hubs. No one’s gonna ride an airplane between San Diego and LAX only for that short 130 mi flight that costs $300 oneway. That flight only exists so that a San Diegan can fly San Diego to LAX and connect there to say like TOkyo Narita. Or have a person flying in from London Heathrow to LAX and connecting there to his/her final destination being San Diego. They make no money to the airlines, they exist only as feeders.
Airlines would rather just get rid of these short haul feeders that don’t add any value and instead replace them with a direct HSR station at the airport and let the rails handle them. They are just as being hurt with higher cost of jet fuel as us and are desperately seeking ways to cut costs.
All we need to do is make the right pitch to the airlines to bring them to ourside instead of the oil cos’ side. Make the right approach and you may have a good partner to work with who not only will support HSR, but may even be a formidable partner who can bring in years of experience handling the travel industry into a new HSR system.
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Judging from the situation in France, Car rental companies have more to gain than to lose from HSR. In the smaller French stations you have at least one car rental booth, and about a dozen in larger ones. Avis has a partnership with the SNCF and you can buy TGV-Avis tickets. It’s 25% cheaper than renting cars separately and you waste no time at rental booths since you just have to collect the key.
Many tourists take the TGV from Paris to Avignon and then use the car to roam the hinterland. This solution is also very popular with professionals visiting customers in the provinces. They can relax in the train and then use the car for their local door-to-door visits.
This formula works because it is logical. It uses each vehicle for what it does best.
lt gov. give money ca
so its 2.4 billion that florida gave up. Just think what we could do with anothr 2.4 billion!
Mad Park Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 9:33 am
You’re going to have to share with us in the NW!
Spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
The answer is no.
Reason Foundation: Scott made ‘the right decision’ on high-speed rail. The Orlando Sentinel understands the falacy of the Reason arguement.
Of course the hsr will need operating subsidies, just like Caltrain, BART, Muni, Amtrak, etc. The best way to tackle improving passenger rail in California is to come out and accept that requirement as a given and proceed accordingly.
To keep the subsidy level reasonably in line with current expenditures you need to do incremental. Or go fully private as with a whole-hog maglev scheme. PB is already hopelessly locked into the whole-hog mindset on infrastructure – that’s the reason I have been pushing maglev
The TRAC-Tolmach proposal is sensible and doable and Jerry should endorse it. The only way the CHSRA could think of making Stilt-A-Rail approach breaking even would be to prohibit unionization of hsr employees, extremely unlikely.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Except that where high speed rail is operated, such as with Acela, they run operational profits. Run along little troll.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
The NEC is not receiving any federal money?
The airlines could operate without any government money but the public and business want the air services subsidized to make it cheaper and more convenient.
But there is no way passenger rail could exist without government support in our century. It was different when there was not competition from air and road.
Joey Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
The Acela operates at a profit. That’s to say nothing of the regionals and the numerous commuter railroads which also share the tracks.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Airlines could NOT operate without federal money because not enough passengers would be able to afford to fly, and the flights would be empty.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
If that were the case there would be no private aviation, ie, no corporate jets. Where are your corporate passenger railroads? The government could not even afford to keep Conrail. Rich people can easily afford to fly; that’s why there is first class. Poor people would be saving up more for tickets(as in the days of regulation)or driving or taking the bus. Planes would be designed to fly out of smaller and less elaborate privately owned airports
By your argument only government can undertake anything big. By that token there should not be any freight railroads or any big utilities like PG&E.
Corporations become so big and so wealthy they are like governments. Bill Gates probably has enough money in his personal fortune to bankroll maglev on I-5. Japan Central Railway plans to unroll maglev with its own money. But that’s Japan not LaLa.
Tony D. Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
“Where are the corporate passenger railroads?” You’re getting worse by the day my friend.
“Japan Central Railway plans to unroll maglev with its own money.” And one day the operating profit from our HSR will allow us to expand the system WITH ITS OWN MONEY! At least, whether you meant to or not, your admitting HSR worldwide is a financial succes.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Cheap labor can make a whole lot of things successful. Ditto for a homogeneous, work-a-holic society. Why do you think our manufacturing departed? Once again, it’s Japan – or China, not Palmdale. How long do you think the TWU or Amalgamated or BLE would last in China?
Last week they arrested the head of Chinese railways for corruption. I suppose he could face the firing squad.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Conrail was running a profit and had been for the previous six years when the government sold it. It’s quite rare for unprofitable businesses to become the largest IPO in history after all.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
And we’d still be making money on it if the ideologues on the right hadn’t jumped up and down and started screaming their dogma about privatization etc. It still exists because there are places where CSX or NS wouldn’t allow the other to control the railroad. Conrail still owns it and operates it.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
The NEC runs an operational profit. This is different from capital investment.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Then why did the guvmint sell it off? Or buy it in the first place?
Screw bailouts. Let the rich and the corps take care of themselves.
If hsr had profitability potential it would not need government involvement. Since most of the money is in the hands of a few rich let them pony up the seed capital.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
The government bought it because after decades of regulation that bankrupted the private railroads letting the tracks go to rust wasn’t a viable alternative.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
The government owns it because PRR, NYCRR, and a few others went bankrupt. Since the loss of rail capability in the northeast would have been catastrophic and destroyed a number of businesses dependent on rail transportation, taking them over was considered preferable, especially in the midst of the Cold War.
It’s too expensive with too low of a rate of return. When was the last time you saw any private company, for that matter, drop tens of billions of dollars on a new venture?
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
And that’s exactly why the taxpayers of CalIfornia should not “drop tens of billions of dollars on a new venture” either.
The Repubs need to demand a re-vote on Prop 1A as a price of placing a tax measure on the ballot in June.
Joey Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Corporations always know what’s best for the public.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
I’m sorry, but how is “requires more money than is generally available for corporations” and “does not return on investment quickly enough for modern Wall St” a reason it shouldn’t be done by the government? The government even has additional incentives which private corporations do not.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
The government spends for the public good, as in for the public’s benefit, while a corporation spends for its personal gain, and that gain pretty much HAS to be short-term, or the Board of Directors will be out on the streets within a VERY short time. Modern stock markets practically prohibit most corporations from investing long-term…