If our experience would have been anything like what's happening in California, Gov. Scott did all Floridians an immense favor is squashing the attempts to build a high speed rail system in Florida.

The California project was rife with exaggerated benefits, false promises, and lowball cost estimates, all for a transportation system which will have the population of California subsidizing the travel of the relatively few who will take advantage of it, if it ever is actually completed.

You can click a link to the proponents side of the California high speed story where their argument, to me, is a whining "but we neeeeed it".

Gov. Scott, like the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio saved the taxpayers of Florida a lot of grief, in my opinion.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...is-bankruptcy/

If the Tea Party existed in the 50s and 60s, the interstates would never have been built. After all, why would a Florida taxpayer want to subsidize the building of I-90 through Montana?

Originally Posted by djplong

If the Tea Party existed in the 50s and 60s, the interstates would never have been built. After all, why would a Florida taxpayer want to subsidize the building of I-90 through Montana?

Well, that sounds cute, but an interstate road system actually is a necessity. High speed rail in not necessary and only a "want". We don't actually need it and it cannot pay for itself, so the answer is obvious.

Originally Posted by djplong

If the Tea Party existed in the 50s and 60s, the interstates would never have been built. After all, why would a Florida taxpayer want to subsidize the building of I-90 through Montana?

There was a 'tea party' in the 1950's - it was called the Republican party under the leadership of Eisenhower. Eisenhower pushed the Interstate Highway system since he considered it important to "protect the vital interest of every citizen in a safe and adequate highway system." This belief was founded upon his observations of the German autobahn system and the strategic advantage it provided to them during WWII. There is no corresponding need for HSR.

Eisenhower deliberately avoided getting the United States involved in Vietnam - despite French entreaties for help, particularly at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The US became involved in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations - a serious mistake.

Ike cautioned the nations of the danger of the 'military-industrial' complex'. Your example of the alternative engine for the F35 is a good example of this complex at work. Any administration could kill this program if it wanted to - however killing it had to wait until the new Republican congress did it on upon a largely party line vote with the 'tea party' leading the way.

You know it really hurts me to agree with Richie - but he is right (this time).

A high speed train between Orlando and Tampa does not make sense since it is only about a 1 1/2 hour drive. Once the train would get to either city, the passengers would have to have some means of getting to their destination. No real time would be saved.

It was funny to see the animated train in the news reports. The passenger cars were almost empty. If the projection is that the cars would be almost empty, how could any revenue be generated?

This project was a money loser from the get-go. Rick Scott does get it right sometimes, too.

Originally Posted by Tbugs

You know it really hurts me to agree with Richie - but he is right (this time).

A high speed train between Orlando and Tampa does not make sense since it is only about a 1 1/2 hour drive. Once the train would get to either city, the passengers would have to have some means of getting to their destination. No real time would be saved.

It was funny to see the animated train in the news reports. The passenger cars were almost empty. If the projection is that the cars would be almost empty, how could any revenue be generated?

This project was a money loser from the get-go. Rick Scott does get it right sometimes, too.

Ahh, c'mon Bugs, it can't hurt that much to agree with me once in a while. Oh, and by the way, I'm right most of the time; it just that you don't agree with me most of the time.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...an interstate road system actually is a necessity. High speed rail in not necessary and only a "want". We don't actually need it...

I tend to disagree that an improved national transportation system is only a "want". If it wasn't important to broad economic development, how come China is about three years into the construction of 23,000 miles of high speed rail systems thruout the country at a cost of about $300 billion? China has made a new high speed rail system a national priority, as President Eisenhower did in constructing the interstate highway system. We all know the out come of Eisenhower's mid-1950's decision to make that a priority, don't we?

Our problem is that we don't have political leaders who are capable of setting any national priorities and following thru to get them done. Their only priority is to get re-elected, keeping themselves on the gravy train run by the special interest lobbyists.

I'm not saying that high-speed rail should be at the top of our list of national priorities. But we certainly can afford it if we choose to spend on that kind of project instead of the billions and billions of dollars we spend on wasteful, duplicated, inefficient and unnecessary projects and programs demanded by either special interests or members of Congress seeking the votes of constituents with narrow special interests themselves.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I tend to disagree that an improved national transportation system is only a "want". If it wasn't important to broad economic development, how come China is about three years into the construction of 23,000 miles of high speed rail systems thruout the country at a cost of about $300 billion? China has made a new high speed rail system a national priority, as President Eisenhower did in constructing the interstate highway system. We all know the out come of Eisenhower's mid-1950's decision to make that a priority, don't we?

Our problem is that we don't have political leaders who are capable of setting any national priorities and following thru to get them done. Their only priority is to get re-elected, keeping themselves on the gravy train run by the special interest lobbyists.

I'm not saying that high-speed rail should be at the top of our list of national priorities. But we certainly can afford it if we choose to spend on that kind of project instead of the billions and billions of dollars we spend on wasteful, duplicated, inefficient and unnecessary projects and programs demanded by either special interests or members of Congress seeking the votes of constituents with narrow special interests themselves.

We're not China. We don't have China's present infrastructure and population. Our needs are provided for in transportation without a new system that cannot sustain itself. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

We're not China....Our needs are provided for in transportation without a new system ...Simple as that.

I guess I might suggest that we compare our economy with China's. More importantly, make the comparison 20 years ago, today, and then project what the comparison might look like in another twenty years.

I guess you're right..."we're not China".

Maybe we ought to take a look and see in what ways we might become more like China. That might be a productive exercise.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I guess I might suggest that we compare our economy with China's. More importantly, make the comparison 20 years ago, today, and then project what the comparison might look like in another twenty years.

I guess you're right..."we're not China".

Maybe we ought to take a look and see in what ways we might become more like China. That might be a productive exercise.

Yeah, I guess it might be easier to get things the government wants done if we were a totalitarian state. Great argument VK.

Yes. A Tampa-Orlando system is a boondoggle. But to keep my metaphor going, so is a Billings-Helena highway system.

Tampa-Orlando was a START. A smaller project so that people could see what was possible.

Pays for itself? It doesn't and neither do highways.

We spend $50B/year on surface transportation in this country and the Trust Fund only collects $30B/year. This "highways pay for themselves" is a *MYTH*. If we treated our highways the way we treated our rail system, we would be closing highways because of the cost of maintenance.

Now, on top of that, you have studies showing that it would have had operational profits. (This is what happens when you run frequent service - more than once a day - look at the Boston-Portland 'Downeaster' for an example of constantly exceeding ridership esitmates)

Now, once again, we find ourselves staring at $4 gas and beyond. It would be nice to have options. I've ridden the rails in Europe and was VERY pleasantly surprised.

Originally Posted by djplong

Yes. A Tampa-Orlando system is a boondoggle. But to keep my metaphor going, so is a Billings-Helena highway system.

Tampa-Orlando was a START. A smaller project so that people could see what was possible.

Pays for itself? It doesn't and neither do highways.

We spend $50B/year on surface transportation in this country and the Trust Fund only collects $30B/year. This "highways pay for themselves" is a *MYTH*. If we treated our highways the way we treated our rail system, we would be closing highways because of the cost of maintenance.

Now, on top of that, you have studies showing that it would have had operational profits. (This is what happens when you run frequent service - more than once a day - look at the Boston-Portland 'Downeaster' for an example of constantly exceeding ridership esitmates)

Now, once again, we find ourselves staring at $4 gas and beyond. It would be nice to have options. I've ridden the rails in Europe and was VERY pleasantly surprised.

We have the road systems now though, and it's cheaper just to maintain them, which we have to do anyway. The vast majority of these roads are not overtaxed so travel is fluid on them.

A look at increased bus service for passengers is a far more reasonable and flexible approach for a mass transit alternative to private cars if we really were determined to increase mass transit, and it would use existing infrastructure.

So let some entrepreneur develop that idea if he thinks it's a service that people are pining for. That's the way this country should operate; to see an opportunity and exploit it.

DJPlong,

I just have to ask you this. Of course, this forum is open to anyone so I certainly have no problem with people outside The Villages being on it. You live in New Hampshire? Are you thinking of becoming a Villages resident someday or just enjoy the political forums? What kind of job do you have that allows reading and posting all day?

As I said, I am just curious. Answer if you wish.

Simple answers. Yes, I live in NH. Yes, I have to think about my retirement as I'm 48. I discovered this place because of a Wired magazine article on tricked out electric carts. My wife and I have discussed the possibility of retiring to the Villages one day.

For my job, I write web sites for the Air Force. I work a schedule that has me in around 6am and off after 4. I peek in here from time to time but usually during lunch. I generally take one other small break. I also work from home when inspiration hits. I wish I could remember how many times I've woken up at 2-3am with a solution that had been baffling me the previous day.

As far as being *here*, it's one of very few places that doesn't shy away from political topics that don't immediately degenerate into schoolyard name-calling. The partisanship gets a little heated and some of the cognitive dissonance can be truly amazing but it's better than other places I used to frequent.

Cognitive dissonance?; That's a mouthful. That's one phrase I'm sure I've never written before. I'm not sure I've seen examples of this, but I like it.