When someone calls any office that reports to the Florida governor right now, they will more than likely end up on hold, hearing new Gov. Rick Scott spout his campaign pledge to create 700,000 new jobs in seven years. But since arriving in Tallahassee, the government-hating government leader has done nothing but kill jobs and pay.
His most recent action today is the total rejection of high-speed rail, despite the fact the state government would have to pay nothing to get the rail and that there will be no return for taxpayers because of the rejection. I hoped having folks like Paula Dockery on his team would make a difference with this administration, but that was apparently mis-placed hope. The remarkable act of stupidity is being applauded by so-called conservatives, but the rest of the country is pretty much laughing at us right now.
Via Time's Adam Sorenson:
---
"It's one thing to look a gift horse in the mouth. It's quite another thing to slaughter a gift horse and send its disemboweled corpse back to Washington.
Florida Governor Rick Scott just killed the Obama administration's marquee high-speed rail project, giving up a whopping $2.4 billion in federal funds for a Tampa-Orlando bullet train. This was the nation's most shovel-ready high-speed project, and the state wasn't required to spend a dime to build it; running through the heart of the politically sensitive I-4 corridor, it had bipartisan support in South Florida, where it was seen as a precursor to a long-awaited Orlando-Miami line."
---
What do we lose? Of course, we miss out a popular and clean mode of public transportation. We miss being on the cutting edge of this debate, and we miss improving connectivity between our most important commerce centers in Central Florida.
But most pertinent to Scott's duplicitous logic, we lose JOBS.
We miss out on the short-term construction jobs from laying down track clear across the state of Florida.
We miss out on permanent service jobs manning the trains and maintaining the infrastructure.
We miss out on the secondary jobs which would be created for private-sector contractors providing needed equipment and material to support the presence of rail.
We miss out on high-tech jobs which would center along the track and explore new ways to improve the efficiency of the trains or to do a host of other things directly connected with the presence of rail.
That is a short list of the direct jobs which Scott could have taken credit for if he did nothing more than accept a free check for $2.4 billion.
Of course, Scott's job creation promise has a pesky qualifier. He wants seven years to create jobs. That means, of course, that when he runs for re-election, he won't have to prove he got anywhere close to that 700,000 number he has quoted ad nauseam. But he will try and claim every single job ever created, including those private sector jobs which came about without his assistance or in spite of his reckless and foolish interference.
What we cannot let happen is for the most jobs he has just flat-out prohibited be forgotten. This man just killed thousands of jobs, and he did it for not other reason than to keep a bunch of idiotic, short-sighted, uninformed and just plain stupid Tea Party voters happy, despite the fact many of them very well could have made money doing something as mindless as carrying bars of steel down the road so that more evolved co-workers would install them into rail track.
Update: Now, Obama wants to just send the rail money elsewhere and New York is yelling dibs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is just sickening. I don't even know where to begin. I want to get the hell out of this godforsaken place and let the crooks finish paving it over.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Scott's motivation was for rejecting the funds, but if it was because he made a principled decision because he feels that high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa is not a productive use of those federal dollars, in spite of the short term benefits that would be popular with the constituents, then I think that's to be applauded, even if he's wrong, because a big part of the problem with politicians is they refuse to make unpopular decisions. You can make the argument that his job is to serve Florida and not America, but I'm okay with it.
ReplyDeleteAs for high speed rail itself, I really don't see the benefits. Where are you going to go in Orlando without a car? Where are you going to park thousands of cars belonging to people getting on the train? Either in the suburbs, or near Disney, which severely limits the number of users. Orlando (and I assume Tampa) does not have the density or local public transportation infrastructure to make high speed rail between them worthwhile. If you're going to spend money on something, spend it on improving local public transportation. That will have a much bigger economic and environmental impact.
Why do you need to go 160 mph for a 90 mile trip? You're going to spend the first and last 10 miles going normal speeds, because nobody wants a 160 mph train in their back yard. So that leaves 70 miles to travel in half an hour versus an hour. Add in the time you spend getting to the train station and waiting on the train, and you're not dramatically shortening your trip. Regular rail would do just as well and cost less, but it's not as sexy as high speed rail.
My respect for Rick Scott went up exponentially with this decision. Damned few politicians have the nerve to make decisions for which they will be lambasted. The high speed rail project would have been a vast boondoggle. Yes, it would have created some jobs, but in the long run it would have been a major drain on Florida's taxpayers. The NIMBY mentality of many homeowners would have ensured that the train would never have operated at anything near maximun speed and NIMBY inspired litigation probably would have guaranteed that the train would never have been completed on a timely basis as lawsuit after lawsuit dragged the matter into courts on one pretext or another - the real loser in this matter probably would be the plaintiff bar
ReplyDeleteRecently the esteemed British newsmagazine THE ECONOMIST noted that rail projects tend to be regressive, rather than progressive in scope - a nod to outdated thinking.
Who would use high-speed rail ? Probably not nearly enough people for it to operate on a break-even basis
Kudos to Rick Scott - you don't have to be a card carrying Taxed Enough Already standard bearer to be against the high speed rail project - just someone who thinks the issues through and doesn't let the waves of hysteria intimidate them
For New York, assuming you go from upstate to NYC, it makes more sense. Was the $2.4b just for Orlando to Tampa? Seems high.
ReplyDeleteIt is so good to see we all agree that the answer to Florida's economic problems is to avoid growth. It would be sooo embarrassing to bring 2.4 billion into the state for construction of a new 'main street; from Orlando to Tampa. Just think of all the changes we'd have to develop to take full advantage of it!
ReplyDeleteTOM! I'm disappointed in you! Think of all the jobs that would come to Lake county, as well as the rest of Central Florida!
Oh,Sorry! I forgot that growth is bad?
Growth isn't necessarily bad. But as I said above, I'm okay with taking the bigger picture view of what's the best use of the money for America than what's the best short-term use of the money for Central Florida. Ask not what your country can do for you, and all that jazz.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I don't believe there's a long term benefit to high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa. Yes, in the short term, people get jobs building the railroad. But that's not all going to Florida anyway - the steel will be produced elsewhere, the trains will be produced elsewhere. And in the long term, what do we get? Tourists shuttling from Disney to Busch Gardens? I don't see how that improves the economy - they're already here. They're spending the vacation time they have, and it doesn't really matter if they spend it on Disney or Busch Gardens. I maintain that the much better option is to spend the money on local public transportation. You get the same short term boost, but the long term economic, environmental, and quality of life return on investment would be much greater. And it would make high speed rail much more feasible in the future. If you want to dump $2.4 billion into Florida, do it there. That's a responsible use of the money.
Rick Scott wouldn't have been spending ANY money on this, Tom. Not a cent. When Floridians overwhelmingly approved a high-speed rail initiative 10 years ago, state taxpayers would have footed the bill, and when the totals came in, they blushed and backed out.
ReplyDeleteIf we would accept this money, we could spend substantial amounts on public transit instead. And to suggest Orlando and Tampa don't have the proper densities for public transit it flat-out wrong. Much smaller communities all around the country have thriving transit. The biggest hindrance to transit in Florida has been a reluctance of people to give up their cars, but as gas prices go up and environmental concerns escalate, that has been changing.
If we had a high-speed rail corridor which stretched across the entire state, it would encourage the use of public transit because people who took a bullet from Tampa to Orlando would need to use transit to get around.
Finally, if you don't believe making it easy for Disney tourists to get to Busch Gardens in 20 minutes would help the economy, you have never lived near Tampa. Despite being a short drive from Disney, Busch Gardens has never been able to take advantage of the incredible tourist population in the Orlando-Lake Buena Vista area. They run their own bus from Sea World to Busch Gardens, but that carries so few people it seems to me to be barely worth the gas. A train, which would never have to fight I-4 traffic, would be a huge boon for tourism in Tampa Bay. That's more dollars from outside the state being redistributed here.
You misunderstood my point, Jake. I think Orlando and Tampa don't have sufficient density to support high speed rail between them, particularly given the lack of local public transport. A couple of well-placed commuter lots, light rail, and an expanded bus system in the suburbs could be very much utilized, particularly if it's incentivized by raising tolls or gas taxes. That saves people money, removes a significant obstacle to having a job for low-income people, reduces fuel consumption, and eases traffic. That's all great. But building high speed rail without that existing leaves people with nowhere to go. The choice is, build A now that will be immediately utilized and enable utilization of B later, if there's money for B, OR build B now that will be under-utilized until we maybe build A in the future.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Disney tourists going to Busch Gardens, isn't that a zero-sum game? You help Tampa's economy at the expense of Orlando's. Unless tourists would stay an extra day or two because of ease of transportation between the cities, there's no net benefit for Florida. And I don't think many would.
Also, Bill Nelson says Florida would pay $280 m. It's not the $3 b that Scott says, but it's also not zero, and it's not trivial. Given the realities of politics and construction project cost estimates, the true number is probably somewhere in between.
ReplyDeleteIf we accept the money, we get to use it on non-high speed rail? I haven't heard that. If a high speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa costs $2.4 b, what do you suggest we do? It doesn't function if you don't build the whole thing. Or does it cost less than that? Seriously, I can't imagine it costs $2.4 b for 90 miles of rail.
There's talk in the articles you linked about there being a built in user base, from the airport to Disney. Regular speed, presumably much cheaper, rail between the two gets you there nearly as quick. It's a 30 minute drive, and 20 miles. A regular train going 60 mph makes it a 20 minute trip. High speed rail going 150 mph makes it an 8 minute trip. I just don't see the benefit of 12 minutes, especially when you're talking about the total trip time.
My understanding is the $2.4 billion goes for high-speed rail. As with any transportation cost, you have to understand the tremendous amount of public right-of-way that would have to go with the project, not to mention the terra-forming and regulatory costs associated with all of the stops along the way. Stops in Daytona, Orlando and Tampa are obvious, but want stops in Lakeland? In Sanford? Every stop you add will up the bill.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was saying is that the state can use its resources now to focus on improving public transit within the major metropolitan areas. A bullet-train and local transit will complement each other. The rail would bring more passengers from, say, Orlando to Tampa and those riders would then have to rely on local busses to get around. That adds revenue for local transit, and improvements to local transit in turn will make it more attractive to take a bullet someplace, knowing you won't be trapped within blocks of the train station.
Both Nelson and Scott are estimating costs. Scott's estimate, by the way, is insane. It also, incidentally, is what he just characterized as a minor cut to education statewide, another job-killing effort on his part.
And again, this is the "Let's Get to Work" governor. All of these right-wing crazies who say we need jobs and then slash and burn government spending (read JOBS) are total hypocrites. They are robbing Peter on the way to robbing Paul. If this rail project went forward, we would have a bounty of jobs for years, and a better infrastructure on which to build our future. But the global-warming-is-a-hoax crowd has decided somehow that planning for the future, even if it creates well-paying jobs, is offensive.
Highway cost overruns averaged 10-15% in the late 90s. (http://pedago.cegepoutaouais.qc.ca/media/0260309/0378334/SCGC-BON/Documents/TR152-VIDALIS.pdf) Given that we don't have experience building high speed rail around here, I wouldn't be surprised if that underpredicts, but I agree that Scott's figure is out of agreement with historical performance.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the right of way issue is that there is no right of way issue, for the most part. It would generally run in the median of I-4, which I assume is already publicly owned and wouldn't cost anything to acquire, and which I assume also doesn't need a lot of terraforming.
A stop in Daytona would be nice, and Lakeland, Sanford, etc, but I don't understand that to be what's proposed for this $2.4 b. I understand it to be basically airport-Disney-Tampa. Am I wrong?
I agree local transportation and regional rail systems are complimentary, but local can stand on its own. Regional cannot. So if, from Scott's perspective, there's no money/political will to build up local transportation, then the high speed rail system or any other regional rail system is probably a long term waste of money, and I don't necessarily fault him for prioritizing that over short term jobs.
OK. Check this SPTimes writeup on the history. http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/masstransit/gov-rick-scott-says-he-will-reject-24-billion-for-high-speed-rail/1152141
ReplyDeleteBut the highlight: About $1.25 billion of the Obama money is for creating the bullet train connecting Tampa and Orlando. $800k goes toward rail cars. The rest was discretionary through on top after Ohio and Wisconsin rejected monies. So you are right, Tom, there does not appear to be a plan right now to go all the way to Daytona, but we would have had some money to play with had Scott not just blown the whole deal apart.
As for right-of-way, using the median of I-4 greatly reduces the cost, but the median the entire stretch of road cannot handle the train. You have have to do significant widening or run sections of track along the track outside the interstate. Either way, you need more right-of-way to handle both the track and stormwater drainage. This also is where a great deal of terraforming comes in, even in the medians, as running the bullet train through drainage pools is a bad idea. Beyond that, the question of the stops remains.
I meant $800M for railcars. Sorry
ReplyDeleteRick Scott, needs to go. and now.
ReplyDeleteBorn and raised in the US. Have worked my ass off since I was 14 years old (36years). NOW RICk SCOTT IS TAKING MY HOME. I want to invite him over for dinner. Come to my house rick.
ReplyDelete