Obama's high speed rail plan loses big in California court

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Nov 26, 2013.

  1. PSGator66
    Offline

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +924
  2. secgator
    Online

    secgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,034
    Isn't this part of that High Speed rail project which Florida turned down(thankfully) a few years ago? I remember Row6 nearly blowing a blood vessel in here trying to convince everyone how many jobs this would have created and how efficient it was going to be....even though all the evidence showed otherwise.

    I think he was about the only one to want it coming here, and he was intense at the time.
  3. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,790
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +492
    dang how are obama donors going to get their kickback now
  4. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,577
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,308
    You know, this is a project voted on and approved by California voters in 2008. What makes it Obama's signature project?
  5. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,841
    certainly not his signature project but he is/was a big proponent of HSR which has shown time and again is not economically feasible or competitive unless highly subsidized. it is just one of many examples that demonstrate how far he is out of touch with the mere concept of a cost / benefit analysis. in his world, if money is spent, there is a benefit to somebody so that is enough.

    there were many here that blasted Scott for turning down HSR that would have spent tens of millions before it got scuttled due to the fact that it could not be financially viable.
  6. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    Umm, because he waved $3 billion in front of Jerry Brown's face until Gov. Moonbeam got on board the Crazy Train?

    Obama's signature failure will always be Obamacare, but this is another nice little side failure, like Cash for Clunkers or or Fast & Furious, or his unethical felony, Solyndra. The California voters, BTW, voted for a $40 billion project, right before it jumped up to a $100 billion project, and then was gutted into a semi-functional $68 billion project. This is why you should never trust a democrat with money.
  7. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    45,021
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,587

    You almost got it right. Let me help you out.


    This is why you never trust a "politician" with money.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,577
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,308
    Oh, so the fact that there was federal money makes Obama's signature project. Seems like there's been a ton of signature projects over the decades then, doesn't it?
  9. exiledgator
    Offline

    exiledgator Gruntled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,238
    Likes Received:
    1,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings Received:
    +3,899
  10. DieAGator
    Offline

    DieAGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,839
    Likes Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,056
    Wasn't this born from his wasteful, drunken-sailor, gin-and-juice spending spree?
  11. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,841
    finally.

    the more taxes we pay and the more spending authority we give them, the more we trust them with money. but like you just said, never trust a politician with money.

    now you understand why the tea party fiscal conservatives want to give them less money by paying less taxes. we don't trust them with our money. this pig isn't going to get tired and walk away from the trough, it is going to take some high voltage prodding to move it.
  12. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    Obama also lobbied very hard to get states like Florida to take the federal money and build HSR. It wasn't something that he didn't have an opinion on, or something that a Congressman slipped into a spending bill. Obama actively promoted HSR as a solution to the nation's transportation problems. That makes the project "his". He refused to admit that he was trying to buy votes in a swing state, and instead extolled the virtues of HSR, where "you don't have to take your shoes off" (another lie). He had trouble recognizing that the citizens of the two cities (Tampa & Orlando) did not want HSR, because he was arrogant enough to believe that he knew better how to solve their problems than they did. Florida refused to fall for Obama's boondoggle, and avoided bankruptcy.

    Why do democrats have so much trouble allowing Obama to be held accountable for his policies? Is his legacy that fragile to liberals? Can you not admit one Obama failure? (There are so many to choose from.) Why so defensive?
    • Like Like x 1
  13. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    The only location where high-speed rail should be considered is the NE corridor. It has enough population in a narrow corridor to support HSR. If the HSR was run through the international airports in D.C., Baltimore, Philly, Newark, and New York, it would likely work. You would pick up 3 million passengers per year from the airlines (maybe more), as 100 flights a day between these cities would be cancelled. You would pick up another 3 million per year from Acela. HSR would also take millions of cars a year off of I-95. There would also be commuter traffic for people living in Baltimore working in D.C., for example.

    Most of these cities already have light rail, so it would be easy to access the city from the airport (and vice versa). New York to D.C. (237 miles) would take 95 minutes at 220 mph, with stops. Also, you could fly from anywhere in the country to D.C., take a train to JFK, and fly to Europe if you preferred a flight from JFK. The airports already have security, rental cars, taxis, etc., so the infrastructure requirements would be less.

    It would be easy to extend the line from New York to Boston in the future. The other end could eventually be extended from D.C. to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago. Another line could someday be run from D.C. to Richmond, Raleigh and Atlanta, if the population in those areas increased enough. I don't think that cities south of Atlanta should be considered, because it is too hot in the summertime to walk to a destination from a light rail stop, and there are no large cities within 300 miles to the south.

    In three paragraphs, I demonstrated that I understand a lot more about HSR and intelligent government spending than Obama and the democrats. :)
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,841
    Agree that the only place it makes any sense is in that NE corridor. The challenge would then become managing security. Will HSR require the same security that airports do and if so, will that kill demand?
  15. sappanama
    Offline

    sappanama VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,682
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +251
  16. PacificBlueGator
    Offline

    PacificBlueGator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +41
    The LA to San Fran and Sacramento to SD routes are prime for HSR, going through the central valley. The first 30 miles of track is on schedule to be built despite the ruling, and although the ruling puts a serious hurdle in place I believe it will continue to go forward. A more serious threat to the whole project is a recent proposal to include light rail on the same tracks, and if you have ridden on the Acela in the NE corridor, it is frustrating how many stops are made. You either go all in or not at all on HSR.

    Regarding the perceived need for govt support of large scale projects, the space industry was probably considered a boondoggle at the time, after all what benefit was there from landing someone on the moon? Of course, so much of the advancement in telecommunications is due to the space industry and more of it is now becoming privatized. At some point you need a champion to move things and they may fail, but that's the role of leaders. Obama has put forth many other initiatives to jump start the economy, some will work some won't.
  17. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,140
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,336
    There goes several spaeaking engagemens after Obama's term is over, to the tune of 4 or 500,000 per speech.
  18. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    A terrorist attack on HSR would actually be worse than an airline attack for disruption. The 9-11 attack did not have to disrupt air traffic. A bomb on a train would stop all trains on the line for a matter of weeks, depending on how much damage the tracks took.

    That is why I suggest putting HSR terminals in the airport. You already have security equipment, personnel, and procedures in place. Why duplicate it? The other reason to put the terminal at the airport is because HSR essentially replaces air traffic, not rail or highway traffic, although it will pick up some of the rail and highway traffic. Limiting it to international airports maximizes customer volume and minimizes travel time. Florida HSR stopping at Lakeland is a joke. Lakeland would have to hire some people to ride the trains just so their stop would look busy and not be an embarrassment.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    California HSR is secondary to the NE corridor. It is hard to say how much of a boondoggle it would be, but it is already screwed up. Speeds through the cities had to be reduced to get the cost down from $100B to $68B, and the fact that it takes a winding path through the state tells me that it will be a long trip from L.A. To S.F. People will ride it once, and then go back to flying between the cities.

    The smart thing to do would be to put HSR in the location where it would have the greatest chance for success. When we decided to put someone on the moon, why do you think we didn't decide to put someone on Mars in the 1960's?
  20. PacificBlueGator
    Offline

    PacificBlueGator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +41
    The LA to SF trip is estimated to take 2 hr 40 minutes at 220 mph for the 475 mile trip and cost anywhere between 50% to 83% of a flight. That percentage will mean from 58 million to 43 million riders per year depending on the ticket price. The success of the CA HSR will go a long way for proponents who want to establish a similar HSR between the Washington to Boston corridor. So CA is leading the way on this one.

Share This Page