njDizFan
Well-Known Member
I apologize, also these numbers are based on France's nuclear power over US coal plants.
Please add a link supporting your numbers
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE
- Thread starter jt04
- Start date
- Status
Please add a link supporting your numbers
tizzo
Member
Yeah, I saw that today too. Imagine my surprise given that Altman is my state senator. Now he's got some splainin' to do...
tizzo
Member
I'm sure they also assume full trains, or at least trains that aren't empty.
As has been made clear by opponents of the Orlando/Tampa route, including both me and governor Scott, if anyone was going to ride this thing we'd be in favor of it, because it would generate enough revenue to cover operations and to amortized capital costs. You could make up some of the environmental benefits by running trains only a few times a week, infrequently enough that they are less empty. However these are commuter distances, and if you don't run at least round trip each morning and evening, you eliminate almost all your potential customers from the pool of riders.
Not that you could get away with running trains just when they're full anyway, because conditions of the grant require a certain volume of trains, meaning that the state could quite literally have to run empty trains back and forth to prevent defaulting on the grant, and having to pay back the entire $2.4B.
fillerup
Well-Known Member
Since the environmental issue has come up here, I think the final 2005 Environmental Impact Statement from the Federal Railroad Administration is germane.
Relative to that report:
In 2005, Florida's High-Speed Rail Authority proposed a 125-mph rail line between Tampa and Orlando. The environmental impact statement for the proposal estimated that the trains would produce more nitrogen oxide pollution and volatile organic compounds than would be saved by the automobiles taken off the road. It also calculated that operating and maintaining the gas-turbine locomotives would consume 3.5 to 6.0 times as much energy as would be saved by the cars replaced.
The statement concluded that "the environmentally preferred alternative is the No Build Alternative" because it "would result in less direct and indirect impact to the environment."
For anybody who wants to wade through the complete report:
FRA EIS
Relative to that report:
In 2005, Florida's High-Speed Rail Authority proposed a 125-mph rail line between Tampa and Orlando. The environmental impact statement for the proposal estimated that the trains would produce more nitrogen oxide pollution and volatile organic compounds than would be saved by the automobiles taken off the road. It also calculated that operating and maintaining the gas-turbine locomotives would consume 3.5 to 6.0 times as much energy as would be saved by the cars replaced.
The statement concluded that "the environmentally preferred alternative is the No Build Alternative" because it "would result in less direct and indirect impact to the environment."
For anybody who wants to wade through the complete report:
FRA EIS
fillerup
Well-Known Member
The Fla High Speed Rail Commsion states on their website that trains would run hourly, at a minimum.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
Theres hope for this state yet!
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
If Florida wants this then the state should vow to never take another dollar of federal money to subsidize the operation of this train beyond this initial funding. If Florida wants it, they should pay for it (something they have not been willing to do) and not the rest of us.
JungleTrekFan
Active Member
Gas-turbine locomotives is only one option for a high speed train. There are many diffrent engine types to choose from, from electric to deisel to hybrid engines each with diffrent environmental impacts, directly and indirectly in the case of electric and some hybrids.
Also i said the federal money helped create jobs, i never said that the government was paying for people to get paid for the next 20 years. Its not up to the government to give people jobs to make a living. It was necessary for the government to help reassure companies that they would make it through the recession and for state and local governments to help move forward infrastructure projects that would create jobs (not permanent jobs, but jobs none the less).
I wouldn't complain about federal spending for a rail project when the government wastes 35 billion dollars giving huge tax credits to large oil companies that, seeing as they are the most profitable companies in the world, do not need economic help.
wizards8507
Active Member
There's so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin. There's a principle that every Principles of Economics student learns two days after getting the syllabus: "moral hazard." Basically, the principle states that individuals and organizations act differently when they're insulated from risk. If you're insulated from risk by the government, what's stopping you from making stupid, risky decisions? Without the risk or possibility of collapse, there's no reason for companies not to screw around and gamble with their decision.
tizzo
Member
Probably derived from the grant terms. In any case, the more trains you run, the fewer passengers will be on each, and the more money and energy you waste (and net increase in pollution you generate).
tizzo
Member
Florida does not want this. Thus Scott's rejection of the grant, and this debate.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Unless there's been some public opinion polling on the issue, I'm not sure how you can make such a definitive statement based on the actions of one elected official.
Granted, Scott was elected by voters statewide, but did he explicitly campaign on killing the rail? I'm guessing he didn't, since this move came as such a surprise to so many.
njDizFan
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, one of the downfalls of representitive democracy. We have very little say in the way the government is run besides electing the officials who will hopefully make the decisions we want them to.
Florida voters originally voted for high speed rail in 2000 and then repealed that decision in 2003. That is about as official as a poll can get.
HSR sounds futuristic and $exy on paper but looses its luster when the numbers begin to roll in.
tizzo
Member
Actually that's probably at least partially the point.
Consider that the government - throughout history, but to an unusually greater degree very recently - has created an environment in which it is stupid, risky, and reckless to increase payrolls in any meaningful way. There are specific laws now on the books, for example, that could swing the cost of employing someone by tens or hundreds of percent in either direction, depending on implementation details that are left mainly to individual bureaucrats at their personal discretion. Given these facts, expanding payrolls for most employers would not only be unwise, but potentially actionable (corporate executives have legally binding responsibilities to their shareholders).
The natural (and since it was widely predicted, I think it's fair to say predictable) result is "stubbornly" (as if they've been trying their best to bring it down but it just won't listen) high unemployment, even in the face of slow to moderate economic growth. And politically, high unemployment is always bad for the party in power.
So the point of federal stimulus in general, including but by no means limited to FL and other rail projects, is to try to coax companies into doing something that they otherwise would not - because they should not - do, which is to hire people. In other words, it's the intentional introduction of moral hazard.
Now, there is at least a case to be made in favor of this when (a) the federal government can afford it, and (b) the need is caused by factors which are cyclical, temporary, or due to a problem which has been or is in the process of being fixed - in other words where stimulus can stop something bad from happening short term, and will eventually become unnecessary due to the natural and expected actions of the market. Stimulus is inefficient, but sometimes preferable to the alternative, and therefore acceptable in the short term.
The big problem here is that in this case, the dip is the direct result of intentional changes to the economy that those in political power show no signs of wanting to fix, let alone fixing. So under these conditions, stimulus at best delays the inevitable.
tizzo
Member
Florida HSR was initiated via a voter referendum. It passed the first time. The ballot initiative process was later changed to require certain disclosures that were omitted in that first go around, and it was brought up again. This time it was defeated. And that was at a time when the state of FL was relatively flush with cash.
I don't know of any more recent polling, but as someone else said, this was official, and about as definitive as you can get.
tizzo
Member
And that was exactly the difference between 2000 and 2003, numbers. The 2000 ballot initiative came before a state constitution change requiring economic impact disclosures with such initiatives.
Didn't a Harris Poll recently show that 70% of Floridians are in favor of High Speed Rail?
Or am I mistaken.
fillerup
Well-Known Member
Could be - but if a pollster asked me if I favored HSR, I would say yes.
If they asked me if I supported the Orlando Tampa HSR, I would say absolutely not.
And take this for what it's worth from Feb 2011 Rasmussen HSR polling:
41% Favor High-Speed Rail Plan, 46% Oppose
The last Harris poll I read on the subject was that a full 2/3rds of the people polled in states where HSR was being purposed (Florida was one of them) were not even aware of it.
http://www.usa.siemens.com/en/news_events/sustainable_cities_article.php?id=800425498
- Status