OFFLINE

Around here, there are folks convulsing about the Governor of Florida canning the high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa.  The venom's flowing.

But IMNSHO, those who are bitching are so, so ignorant.

I just emailed the Governor.

======

Hello Governor,

I have to admit that I voted for you with a little reservation.  But since day one ... actually through your prior announcements, you have shown me that you're the real deal.  And I'm so glad I did vote for you.

Regarding the High Speed Rail, I did the math:

50 Passengers
x 24 One-Way Trips/Day
x $25 One-Way Ticket Cost
x 50% Margin (Operating + Maintenance)
---------
$15,000 GOP per day

$2,400,000,000 / $15,000 = 160,000 days to breakeven

160,000 / 365 = 438 YEARS TO BREAKEVEN

That only includes the Federal funding ... it doesn't include what we'd have to put up.

And even then, let's assume my estimates are off by 50%.  In that event, it'll *only* take 200 years to breakeven.

As a businessman, if I were to present this to my boss as a sound investment, I'd be fired on the spot.

GOOD CALL!  THANK YOU FOR NOT SQUANDERING TAXPAYER MONEY.  THANK YOU FOR DOING WHAT'S RIGHT!

Scott Terry
St. Petersburg, FL

OFFLINE

I love traveling by train.  But high speed rail has a lot of other concerns...in addition to it's costs.  In most suburban and urban areas, rail is limited by traffic laws on how fast they can travel.   Without very good public transportation at the destinations, the rail itself might not be as valuable...and in most areas of the country local public transportation is not very good at all.  High speed rail is also better when the distance is at least 100 miles with very few stops in between.  Most places where high speed rail flourishes the gas price is similar to $6-7/gallon and air traffic opportunities are infrequent or very costly.

It's been awhile since I looked at Florida's idea.  I think it was less than 100 miles with several stops.  With the largest ridership between just the Orlando airport and Disney?   Can't say much for it...

OFFLINE

america just isn't made for high speed rail to be economical. not to mention, it's largely a waste of money. most rail traffic is freight, not passenger. high speed rail may work in a few limited areas with high population densities, but it won't fly in most places.

OFFLINE

one of the few areas I disagree with our new gov Brian Sandoval.... he is in favor of high speed rail between L.A./ Vegas and another going from Vegas to Arizona.....

there is a lot of traffic on I15 going to L.A., but I just don't see people using high speed rail.

it's just not the American way,

I say to hell with Vegas. Annex it to California and let old Jerry deal with it. And take Harry too.

That would solve 98% of Nevada's problems!

OFFLINE

First off I must admit my opinion is very bias, but here go. Being out west here where there is greater distance between larger cities and even towns in some portions of the Greater Northwest and Southwest, I too would say no to high speed trains. I would rather go back to horse and wagon where it could take a week to go from Boise to Spokane or Portland, than to see those things take up precious farm and ranch land.

OFFLINE

the national research council found that only one route - san fran to los angeles - with a pop. density large enough to cover its costs, and that's only if all air passengers switched to rail instead.

OFFLINE

I've been reading and watching your Gov. Rick Scott and 2 thumbs up to him!! Unlike the prez who thinks 97% of the country will have high speed rails by 2025. We just used stimulus in Michigan last summer to make a portion of rail high speed what a waste of our money. I love the rails, just not the high speed and high amount of Debt ones........Cutting the budget starts at home and everyone will have to pitch in if its going to happen, That one was easy,  just waste....Obama is now seeking advice from Mark Zukerberg, if that tells us anything? Yikes........