# Breaking - $2.4 for High Speed Rail



## BigRedEO (Oct 28, 2010)

News article just came out five minutes ago - U.S. announces $2.4 Billion for High Speed Rail

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69R3PK20101028


----------



## Shanghai (Nov 21, 2010)

*That's all California needs, $10 billion in new debt on top*

*of it's $41 billion deficit!!*


----------



## George Harris (Nov 21, 2010)

Shanghai said:


> *That's all California needs, $10 billion in new debt on top of it's $41 billion deficit!!*


And, as an alternative, where are they going to find the money to build additional runways, terminal facilities, add lanes to I-5, etc., etc., or are they simply going to throw in the towel and say, eiter endure worse and worse congestion in all forms of travel or leave the state?

The rail system is cheaper than the alternatives, although there are plenty of anti-rail people out there asking for more of this and that to hide it or move so that it will become so expensive that it will sink from the additional weight.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 22, 2010)

Please, please, please let them be looking at actually getting a train back into Des Moines with the IL-IA-NE money.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 22, 2010)

Anderson said:


> Please, please, please let them be looking at actually getting a train back into Des Moines with the IL-IA-NE money.


The FY2010 HSIPR grants included approx $230 million for IL & IA to institute a Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City line. If IA doesn't back out (meaning the Quad Cities-Iowa City portion is dropped) and the trains are successfuly, Des Moines and Omaha are expected as later phases/extensions.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 26, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Please, please, please let them be looking at actually getting a train back into Des Moines with the IL-IA-NE money.
> ...


Here's hoping. Branstad was in politics long before the current wave of attitude flew up (he first took office as Governor in _1982_), and IIRC Iowa isn't in nearly the trouble a bunch of other states are in (i.e. CA, FL, etc.). With Florida, I can almost see the logic in them hesitating on Orlampa with all the trouble the state is in...I wish that it were otherwise, but the $1 billion plus they need for their side is $1 billion plus they don't have right now. Granted, Scott isn't my favorite person in the world, but my suspicion is that this is going to be far from the only thing getting cut in FL this year.

Also, I've got to say that I more or less agree with the program distributions. It's going to be a shame if some of the fully funded stuff gets dropped...but that's at least money that I think will end up being spent elsewhere (regardless of whether Obama is "authorized" to redirect it at the deficit or not).


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 26, 2010)

I've always been hoping the Orlando-Tampa line would be canned. Fact of the matter is, its a useless train that would have limited ridership. Not many people want to get from Tampa to Orlando, and god knows even fewer the other direction.

Not that an Orlando-Tampa route should never be built. Its just a doomed-to-fail line that will likely become the poster child of people who think HSR is a waste of money. It should be a later expansion of a Orlando-Miami line, not the other way around.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 27, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I've always been hoping the Orlando-Tampa line would be canned. Fact of the matter is, its a useless train that would have limited ridership. Not many people want to get from Tampa to Orlando, and god knows even fewer the other direction.
> 
> Not that an Orlando-Tampa route should never be built. Its just a doomed-to-fail line that will likely become the poster child of people who think HSR is a waste of money. It should be a later expansion of a Orlando-Miami line, not the other way around.


First of all, I think that the right of way, at the very least, needs to be bought now, while the land isn't horridly expensive.

Second, the Orlampa line has a lot more to do with Tampa becoming an increasingly heavily-trafficked cruise ship port, and Orlando being...well, Orlando.

Third, I do agree on the Orlando-Miami bit: Florida is a wonderful case where if you could set up two main lines in the state (an east coast line, like what Flagler initially built, and a "cross-state" line running west to Orlando and then Tampa), then even with "American" HSR (i.e. 80-100 MPH) you could have a _really_ good network that would take at least some traffic off of I-95. This is particularly the case given that so much of the development is crowded in a narrow strip along the coast...and I know there's a decent amount of business and social traffic between those cities before you even get into Orlando (with both business and tourist draws of its own).


----------

