Wondering if anyone had any thoughts about high speed rail money being shifted. Being a Charlotte resident, this is great news to here for me, but what are your thoughts here. I still don't see why Ohio and Wisconsins would deny this money. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/11/18/1846035/federal-government-may-shift-high.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/108742854.html Alex
Because their Republican Governors were elected to squash spending. The Ohio project was, by all accounts not as well thought out as one might hope. The Milwaukee/Madison line on the other hand was quite promising and had a very low per-citizen cost. And that by the way is the reason, the states are on the hook for the operating expenses. The feds were just paying for the construction.
Siemens is building a Prototype as we speak in Florida The video clip memtions something about 27,000 job coming available and if that has a trickle down affect across the East Coast then that would be a great economic shot in the arm for all of those people in many states. Enjoy the video clip http://www.usa.siemens.com/entry/en/highspeedrail.htm?stc=usccc020112
There's a lot more involved that just "electing Republican governors to squash spending", but since this isn't a political forum, it's best to leave the political comments alone.
Of course it is, but It is also true that they both campaigned specifically on killing the HSR. It need go no further than that. It is true regardless about how you feel about the politics, spending or trains.
A lot of residents agreed, giving strong support to the above idea. In 2009, they were facing as much as a three billion dollar budget shortfall just for this year. Even if that was all ironed out, which I understand it may not have been as yet, estimates are an even larger gap amount for 2011 will need to be addressed. They just don't have funds available for getting involved, even after any "Stimulus" infusion. Boxcab E50
If anyone is really interested in high speed rail service between cities the best thing that could happen would be for all levels of government to "butt out." I for one recall when evil entities called railroads provided high speed service between a "bunch" of cities in the U.S. at no cost to any taxpayer anywhere. More, they paid salaries to employees, taxes to every conceivable level of government, and quite often - dividends to stockholders. If the Milwaukee Road, the ACL, and quite a few other roads had taken their 60 mph speeds of 1890, increased them to 100 mph in the 1940's - well you project the increases by 2010! Ditto for local commuter systems - in spades. Do the names Key System, Pacific Electric, et al. ring any bells? Hope this is non-political enough, but as an Economics professor once told his incoming freshman class, "If you call this class Economics, you'll never get it. If you call it political economics, you're on the right track."
I'm pretty sure Tax Payers provided at essentially no cost a whole bunch of land for most of those railroads to build on, and I'm equally positive that Tax Payers supported a little thing Called the US Post Office whose RPO cars certainly supported a portion of the revenue on many passenger trains. You can argue the specifics, the percentages of public support and the level of government influence, but the statement: "The Railroads could do this if only the Government would butt out." Is a complete and utter distortion of the rise and fall of Rail passenger travel. The fact is that the Federal and State Governments have been involved with this since the beginning. Which is not to make a political statement about it, just to point to the facts of the matter. There was never any such thing as a wholly privately financed intercity passenger train. And of course, it was the Private Sector in the form of General Motors and others that helped kill systems like the Key and Pacific Electric, so I humbly submit that it isn't that simple. And yes, the budget shortfalls were there. There's no denying that can't say much beyond just stating that without getting into a political discussion.
YoHo is absolutely right. The U.S. government granted lands to the railways. But as I recall, prior to the railroad the land granted was in what was then called "The Great American Desert." Don't think any of it was of any use to anyone prior to the railroad - and it didn't cost taxpayers a thing - tho' you may want to talk to the original owners of the land, you know - Native Americans. And by the way, from 1863 to 1947 government freight and passengers were hauled by the railway at cost, as determined by the government. Think traffic during WW-I and II probably paid back some portion of that free government land. And most governments, especially municipalities, "grant" what they call franchises. One may want to do a little research and find out how many counties and cities "cancelled" the franchises for privately owned transit systems.
Grants, yes. But not to all railroads by any means. Many communities, municipalties and even private individuals granted or gave quit claim deeds, as they knew a railroad would be greatly beneficial to their lives- Long before cars, trucks, freeways and airlines. Dave- I understand completely what you are saying. Now, we are 70-80 years down the road and still struggling to start climbing back toward standards of what private sector passenger speeds and services once were. If they didn't make money from such endeavors, they received great PR benefits. Now, it's different. Having been involved in some work such as this, even though a few years have gone by since then, it's still pretty much the same. Boxcab E50
