Why do we need high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando?

[scooterbug44]

That money came from the people of Wisconsin, they should be able to spend it how they want. Remember it's not the federal government's money, it's ours.

Which is lower, the one time charge of 83 mil for upgrades to existing lines, or the long term cost of managing the new high speed line?

Something sounds fishy in this, if 83 mil upgrades existing lines to meet current needs, why do they need high speed rail at a cost of 810 mil??

No, the money is for high speed trains - and there is already a line of states who lost out on the grant who want it if Wisconsin passes.

The amount they have already spent and that they will have to pay for upgrades is around $100 million - the worst case totally unsubsidized cost for maintaining and running the high speed train is $7.7 million a year. Federal subsidies could cover 80% of that.

The $83 million has to be spent for crumbling freight lines - part of the high speed proposal was new dual tracks - one for freight and one for passenger so that cost was covered by the grant.

$810 million includes the trains, tracks, new terminal buildings, upgrading rail road crossings, tying it to the Hiawatha line that runs from Milwaukee to Chicago etc.

 

[30ashopper]

I'm probably going to be a bit inflamatory and straw man-erecting here, but if you use the same logic, are you okay with federal Medicaid dollars providing abortion services if a state decides that they need to provide those services for any poor women who simply walks up and asks, no matter how far along she is?

Because according to your logic, the state should be able to do whatever they want with the money even if they're not following the terms of the grant.

Sure, at the state level, the people should have that choice.

 

[30ashopper]

No, the money is for high speed trains - and there is already a line of states who lost out on the grant who want it if Wisconsin passes.

The amount they have already spent and that they will have to pay for upgrades is around $100 million - the worst case totally unsubsidized cost for maintaining and running the high speed train is $7.7 million a year. Federal subsidies could cover 80% of that.

The $83 million has to be spent for crumbling freight lines - part of the high speed proposal was new dual tracks - one for freight and one for passenger so that cost was covered by the grant.

$810 million includes the trains, tracks, new terminal buildings, upgrading rail road crossings, tying it to the Hiawatha line that runs from Milwaukee to Chicago etc.

That just does not sound right for an 810 million dollar rail project. Where did you get that figure?

 

[scooterbug44]

Doyle says canceling rail line will cost $100 million, cut 400 jobs - JSOnline

Most of the costs in the project are for design and construction of items - bridges, new and upgraded rail lines, trains, terminals, connections to other lines. The costs after that are mostly maintenance and staffing.

So far Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Minnesota all want the grant money if Wisconsin turns it down. :roll:

 

[30ashopper]

Doyle says canceling rail line will cost $100 million, cut 400 jobs - JSOnline

Most of the costs in the project are for design and construction of items - bridges, new and upgraded rail lines, trains, terminals, connections to other lines. The costs after that are mostly maintenance and staffing.

So far Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Minnesota all want the grant money if Wisconsin turns it down. :roll:

Yep, it's a losing proposition. Best to just cancel it. They'll make up any loss over the long term in reduced costs to taxpayers.

 

[scooterbug44]

How is it a losing proposition?

On one side you have $810 million in federal funding, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs (the trains were to be built in Wisconsin), and a spiffy new rail line linking you to other hubs as part of a long term multi-state regional project.

On the other side you have $100 million you are paying out, a reduction in jobs, and your state is a laughing stock as other states fall over themselves to get the grant you are turning down.

The amount they have to pay just for canceling the contracts in place is several years worth of operating costs.

 

[30ashopper]

How is it a losing proposition?

On one side you have $810 million in federal funding, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs (the trains were to be built in Wisconsin), and a spiffy new rail line linking you to other hubs as part of a long term multi-state regional project.

On the other side you have $100 million you are paying out, a reduction in jobs, and your state is a laughing stock as other states fall over themselves to get the grant you are turning down.

The amount they have to pay just for canceling the contracts in place is several years worth of operating costs.

According the article linked by that original story, the overall project once completed will not be self funding and taxpayers will pick up the tab. The 7 mil figure seems off, in another article it's 16 mil. Lets assume they cancel it and it does in fact cost 100 mil in repayments. Saved revenue would make that up in six years.

My question is, why don't they simply sign an agreement that stipulates the system must be self funding? That's how normal businesses work. Why did the democrat governor and legislature agree to build a system that literally guarantee's a loss each year? IMHO, the bad guy is not the new governor, it?s the idiot who sat at his desk before him.

 

[beachmouse]

Because there's really no such thing as a self-funding mass transit system in the United States. Fares pay an average of 20% of operating costs; 30% if you're lucky and good and have some of your bonds paid off.

The cost of a new metro station for the DC system was running $500 million to $1 billion per station by the time they finished the original planned stations. (It's never going to be cheap to tunnel as deep as they had to in order to complete the Red Line) And even the bus route option is high cost to run.

And despite the bad numbers from a revenue perspective, fares get set as they do for the simple reason that a) a whole bunch of people from a wide variety of income levels work in big city urban cores and b) there's simple no way to have everyone who works in a skyscraper-dense core city area commute by car. Even if they fit on the street in motion, parking is a whole other deal.

 

[GoodWitch58]

Don't let politics block high-speed rail - St. Petersburg Times

Rail service may have to evolve in Florida, especially amid this down economy. But it presents a tremendous opportunity for the state to grow, ease congestion, link the major cities and tourist destinations and put people to work. Florida rarely gets its fare share of federal dollars, and the state's new Republican leaders should not throw up roadblocks to high-speed rail because of partisan politics.

I am beginning to believe that these governors are rejecting this in so many states, simply because it is an idea from the Obama Administration, and if so, that is just so discouraging.

 

[30ashopper]

And despite the bad numbers from a revenue perspective, fares get set as they do for the simple reason that a) a whole bunch of people from a wide variety of income levels work in big city urban cores and b) there's simple no way to have everyone who works in a skyscraper-dense core city area commute by car. Even if they fit on the street in motion, parking is a whole other deal.

That's the most reasonable argument I've heard for mass transit loses. If it truly is pro-growth, pro-"move the workers around so they can find better jobs and contribute more", the net positive may out weight the individual loss. I'd like to see studies on individual projects though that show these potential gains.