Orlando Business Journal: Obama to announce high-speed rail plan

[Chopper Dave]

It has been in Orlando news for the last year.

Details of the payoff to Amtrak for the last month.

There will be a huge payoff to Amtrak, or else it gets shot down.

So.....new low-paying jobs are created, and Amtrak gets a huge cash payoff to play along.

Obama won't mention the cash payoff, that negates many of the benefits.

He will simply focus on supposed new jobs in his speech.

I don't really see what's wrong with this. If the administration thought they could create more jobs by just giving the money to Amtrak, they probably would. It sucks that lawmakers are so in Amtrak's pocket that it would require what amounts to a bribe to pass this action, but that's politics.

[JMS]

the drawback is twofold though. I suspect raillines pollute considerably more than airplanes - and time is still a factor until extreme highspeed rail becomes a reality.

(1) Train's polute less if you measure polution based upon the weight of the freight moved.... The only way a plane is compeditive is if you gear the test for the plane. A plane can move 1000 lb's more efficiently than a train and produce less polution doing it. But a train can move 1000 tones 1000 times more efficiently while producing less polution.

(2) The green argument against trains isn't polution based. It's that trains require a signficant footprint connecting the destinations for tracks. Planes create more air polution but only require relatively little land.. airports.

(3) High speed trains travel roughly 25% as fast as planes. 120-140... vs 600 mph for a jet... But trains don't have to circle the airports, or wait for takeoffs. It takes about 1.5 hour in the air to fly from DC to Boston.... That's only about 400 miles. So even while airliners are potentially faster.. in practice they wouldn't be nearly as pronounced a difference in speed.

[JMS]

Are you suggesting that the private sector, which is capable of providing us high-quality, low-priced items like cell phones, flat-screen televisions, and personal computers, would not be capable of providing us with roads? That is, we would not have roads were it not for government?

If you live in a utopian world where you can make up your own reality then you have a point. In the world we live in the government builds the roads, sets standards, and always has. The government built the highway system, the power grid, the telephone network, and signifiant parts of the internet. That's the world we live in. Major infrastructure projects are tackled by common funds.. government funds. It has always been thus.

[Midnight Judges]

Are you suggesting that the private sector, which is capable of providing us high-quality, low-priced items like cell phones, flat-screen televisions, and personal computers, would not be capable of providing us with roads? That is, we would not have roads were it not for government?

That is absolutely the case.

LOL @ calling flat screens "low-priced items"

[Midnight Judges]

If you life in a utopian world where you can make up your own reality then you have a point. In the world we live in the government builds the roads, sets standards, and always has. The government built the highway system, the power grid, the telephone network, and signifiant parts of the internet. That's the world we live in. Major infrastructure projects are tackled by common funds.. government funds. It has always been thus.

Not to mention cell phones wouldn't even be a possibility without technology that was pioneered by the Government.

[DRSmith]

Are you suggesting that the private sector, which is capable of providing us high-quality, low-priced items like cell phones, flat-screen televisions, and personal computers, would not be capable of providing us with roads? That is, we would not have roads were it not for government?

Everything you just listed is profiting from systems the government set up.

[wilsonian]

That is absolutely the case.

LOL @ calling flat screens "low-priced items"

So it would be impossible for private roads to come into existence if the government played no part in providing roads? Why not have the government provide everything then, if the market is so incapable?

As for televisions, the prices are coming down every year. A 32" flat-screen I bought in August of 2008 for $1000 was priced at $380 a year later. Again, quality goes up, prices go down. Same thing with laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery. Areas where the government is not involved. What about the price of stamps? Why doesn't it go down every year?

[Chopper Dave]

So it would be impossible for private roads to come into existence if the government played no part in providing roads? Why not have the government provide everything then, if the market is so incapable?

As for televisions, the prices are coming down every year. A 32" flat-screen I bought in August of 2008 for $1000 was priced at $380 a year later. Again, quality goes up, prices go down. Same thing with laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery. Areas where the government is not involved. What about the price of stamps? Why doesn't it go down every year?

Your premise is flawed; the government did not introduce, develop, and invest tons of money into flat screen TVs, laser eye surgery, etc., for their formative years. Not only that, interstate roads facilitate interstate everything else, such as commerce and crime. Both of these things fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and you can really take that out of their hands. It'd be the same as taking laser eye surgery and flat-screen TVs out of the hands of the researchers and corporations that developed and initially introduced them.

[PCS]

To be fair,these days the private sector is heavily involved in the design and building of highways and such. Outsourcing has become fairly common in many states when it comes to the building of infrastructure,especially highways and roads. While the Federal Government coordinates the funds and provides regulation,it's the state governments that do the design and building and such. These days,many state governments are outsourcing all that to the private sector. Some saying it's more efficient and cost effective. At least that's how it's been done in this state for awhile.

[JMS]

Not to mention cell phones wouldn't even be a possibility without technology that was pioneered by the Government.

I was thinking that too. How many governemnt research dollars went into the cellphone. microcomputers, digital transisters, and flat pannel TV development...

[sacase]

It would likely cost a fraction of a cheep airplane ride too, and be significantly more comfortable and roomy.

Train tickets are not cheap at all, I can fly to NYC for the same price I can take the train. Other than possibly the NE, I don't see high speed rail being profitable in the US. We are not Europe, we have a much different mentality. I wish people would stop trying to turn us into europe.

[JMS]

So it would be impossible for private roads to come into existence if the government played no part in providing roads? Why not have the government provide everything then, if the market is so incapable?

A compeditive market is the most efficient service delivery system in the world. The role of government is to regulate, safeguard and creat infrastructure for that market.

There are simple projects like rail, roads, power grids, and other things that are not cost effective to use build and maintain multiple instances off to make use of competition. In those instances it makes sense for the governemnt to do those projects and make them available for everybody to use.

There are also entire segments of servies which the compeditive marketplace has been deamed unsuitable. Like the medical industry. In these situations the government again plays a significant role.

As for televisions, the prices are coming down every year. A 32" flat-screen I bought in August of 2008 for $1000 was priced at $380 a year later. Again, quality goes up, prices go down. Same thing with laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery. Areas where the government is not involved. What about the price of stamps? Why doesn't it go down every year?

The government pioneerered research in TV's both the old tube analog sets and the new digital sets. Likewise Lasers would not exist today without government research.

The point is government has a role just like the marketplace has a role. It's when either role gets out of whack that you get into trouble. The idea the government should play no role, is just as flawed and utopian as the folks who claim the governement should play all the roles.

[twa]

Moreover, with trains, you won't have to arrive 90 minutes early to go through checkin and security.

Until they are targeted, they are more vulnerable(especially high speed ones)

[JMS]

Train tickets are not cheap at all, I can fly to NYC for the same price I can take the train. Other than possibly the NE, I don't see high speed rail being profitable in the US. We are not Europe, we have a much different mentality. I wish people would stop trying to turn us into europe.

Yeah when Gasoline is 50-60$ a barrel maybe you can find an airline ticket comparable to existing train travel and about 50% of your ticket price goes to pay for the foreign gasoline.

I would argue that won't be the case when gasoline goes back up to 70-80-90$ or more a barrel.

Trains are 10,000 times more efficient than planes. It's very difficult for airlines to compete with planes after an innicial investment in the high speed trains is made.

Fact is Trains are also more efficient than cars. That's why Trains are not only being seen as a solution to airlines, but also our congested highway systems. you can literally drive your car onto a train, have the train take you a few hundred miles down the road; drive it off and still come out ahead in fuel, cost and time.

[JMS]

To be fair,these days the private sector is heavily involved in the design and building of highways and such.

Outsourcing has become fairly common in many states when it comes to the building of infrastructure,especially highways and roads. While the Federal Government coordinates the funds and provides regulation,it's the state governments that do the design and building and such. These days,many state governments are outsourcing all that to the private sector. Some saying it's more efficient and cost effective. At least that's how it's been done in this state for awhile.

Again it's always been that way. Nothing new. When Eisenhower built the highway system in the United States he didn't have federal employees pouring the asphault.

The government pays the bills, and aquires the land, and regulates the roads. That's what we are talking about.

[JMS]

Until they are targeted, they are more vulnerable(especially high speed ones)

Yeah but you aren't going to have terrorist flying bullet trains into sky scrapers. The trains might be as vulnerable, but there is significantly less collateral damage potential.

The argument is trains are 10,000 times more efficient. Their also get cheaper the more you use them. On the coasts they make a hell of a lot of sense. A country looking for a comprehensive energy policy, jobs projects and needs to improve it's infrastructure. High speed trains is a no brainer. Three birds one stone.

[PCS]

Again it's always been that way. Nothing new. When Eisenhower built the highway system in the United States he didn't have federal employees pouring the asphault.

The government pays the bills, and aquires the land, and regulates the roads. That's what we are talking about.

I'm aware of that. I was responding in general to a comment or two in this thread where it was stated that the Government built the roads. I may have taken that a bit too literally,hence the comment.

[sacase]

Yeah when Gasoline is 50-60$ a barrel maybe you can find an airline ticket comparable to existing train travel and about 50% of your ticket price goes to pay for the foreign gasoline.

I would argue that won't be the case when gasoline goes back up to 70-80-90$ or more a barrel.

Trains are 10,000 times more efficient than planes. It's very difficult for airlines to compete with planes after an innicial investment in the high speed trains is made.

Fact is Trains are also more efficient than cars. That's why Trains are not only being seen as a solution to airlines, but also our congested highway systems. you can literally drive your car onto a train, have the train take you a few hundred miles down the road; drive it off and still come out ahead in fuel, cost and time.

I won't argue with you that trains are more efficient, however, the American consumer is not interested in trains. In the end it doesn't matter how good trains are if no one wants to use them. Good luck in creating a demand when none exists. In fact I have never heard of a mass of consumers wanting trains in the US, people comment on how good the trains in europe are, but that system would never work in the US. Why do you think Amtrak is struggling so bad

Your really fudging the numbers though. It would cost me 200 to put my car on a train and take it to FL, plus the cost of my tickets as well. I can drive cheaper.

Airline ticket to nyc is $139.

[JMS]

I'm aware of that. I was responding in general to a comment or two in this thread where it was stated that the Government built the roads. I may have taken that a bit too literally,hence the comment.

I appologize for mischaracterizing your position..

[Larry]

Until they are targeted, they are more vulnerable(especially high speed ones)

Well, the track is vulnerable. But making passengers empty their toothpaste tubes won't change that.

I suspect that the odds of anybody hijacking one and running it into a building are . . . remote.

[Midnight Judges]

So it would be impossible for private roads to come into existence if the government played no part in providing roads? Why not have the government provide everything then, if the market is so incapable?

As for televisions, the prices are coming down every year. A 32" flat-screen I bought in August of 2008 for $1000 was priced at $380 a year later. Again, quality goes up, prices go down. Same thing with laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery. Areas where the government is not involved. What about the price of stamps? Why doesn't it go down every year?

How about the price of gasoline, how come that doesn't go down every year?

And you don't want to get into a discussion about Postal Service vs. FedEx or UPS because the US postal service kicks the crap out of either of them. And it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny, all of their revenue comes from their business. I realize criticizing the Postal service is in style for libertarian Republicans but frankly you don't have a leg to stand on.

This discussion is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the free market but it isn't the euphorian solution to everything libertarians think it is. Some things are inherently Governmental.

[JMS]

I won't argue with you that trains are more efficient, however, the American consumer is not interested in trains. In the end it doesn't matter how good trains are if no one wants to use them. Good luck in creating a demand when none exists. In fact I have never heard of a mass of consumers wanting trains in the US, people comment on how good the trains in europe are, but that system would never work in the US. Why do you think Amtrak is struggling so bad

That's because our trains are not geared towards passengers and are slow, old, and travel on old bumpy tracks which haven't had a major upgrade in five decades.

There talking about building/modernizing rail likes to support high speed trains which certainly would be significantly better for consumers than current air travel which is resempling the 3rd world in this country.....

Used to be traveling by air was fun. It was comfortable, and the service was good. Those days are long gone. We don't fly jumbo jets anymore cause they take too much fuel. Now we travel those little brazilian jobs which are like puddle jumpers only longer. They guy in front of you puts his seat down and knocks into your eye glasses. Forget leg room, you beg just for knee room. Forget about service. Airline service in 2010 means they point you to a keyosk. God help you if you want to talk to a human.

Traines, even our old junkey bumpy slow ones are better than modern planes. Get up and walk over to the lounge car for a drink... eat at a table.. hell you can even get a sleeper car with a bed. recline...

Modern trains forget about it. just as fast when all is said and done, and significantly more convienent, more roomy.

The reason they haven't caught on here is because we don't have any!!

Your really fudging the numbers though. It would cost me 200 to put my car on a train and take it to FL, plus the cost of my tickets as well. I can drive cheaper.

Airline ticket to nyc is $139.

We don't have a modern high speed rail system. The system we have is 50 60 years old, not geared towards passengers but freight and it's still cheaper and more efficient than planes and trians for passengers...

Train ticket to NY is $120 and I could buy that today. Your $139 fair you would have to book 2 weeks ago. If you wanted to fly today it would cost you more.

[JMS]

FedEx or UPS because the US postal service kicks the crap out of either of them.

FedEx isn't a profitable company. The reason it's still in operation is the owner Fred Smith, makes a boat load of money on leasing the airplanes to FedEx from one of his other companies.

Even so when oil prices go up... FedEx get's murdered.

[Hubbs]

I won't argue with you that trains are more efficient, however, the American consumer is not interested in trains. In the end it doesn't matter how good trains are if no one wants to use them. Good luck in creating a demand when none exists. In fact I have never heard of a mass of consumers wanting trains in the US, people comment on how good the trains in europe are, but that system would never work in the US. Why do you think Amtrak is struggling so bad

Your really fudging the numbers though. It would cost me 200 to put my car on a train and take it to FL, plus the cost of my tickets as well. I can drive cheaper.

Airline ticket to nyc is $139.

See, I think you're right as long as we're talking about what currently qualifies as "high-speed rail" for Amtrak. It's a seven-hour ride from DC to Boston. Modern high-speed rail would cut that down to two and a half hours. One hour from DC to New York. If prices were comparable, that option would be infinitely better than taking a plane. Hell, even if security were eventually increased (I'm surprised it hasn't been already), a train is more comfortable, sprinkles in a few intermediate stops for the random travelers that need them, and allows normal use of phones and broadband cards. In-flight Wi-fi will be coming online over the next few years, but I don't expect it to be fast, and the airlines will be charging. No comparison.

All of that makes a lot of assumptions, of course. I'd be surprised if the government really buckled down and cleared all the logistical hurdles to get a truly modern system off the ground. But if it does, I think consumer demand will be there. Flying is a much bigger pain in the ass, and I doubt that will change anytime soon.

[JMS]

Well, the track is vulnerable. But making passengers empty their toothpaste tubes won't change that.

I suspect that the odds of anybody hijacking one and running it into a building are . . . remote.

You can take out a plane with a few ounces of explosives. Just puncture the aluminum hull and it's toast. I would argue it would take a lot more than that to take out a train. I wouldn't argue either is less vunerable.

That's not the discussion.