White House Looking For Ways To Bypass Governor Who Rejected Funds For High-Speed Rail

WASHINGTON -- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is expected to meet with Florida's congressional delegation Thursday afternoon in an effort to circumvent Gov. Rick's Scott's rejection of $2 billion in federal funds for a state high-speed rail project.

The meeting, which will take place on Capitol Hill and involve both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, will revolve around a discussion of "whether we can create an entity that can run high-speed rail in Florida and get the state out of the way," an administration official told The Huffington Post.

Previously, LaHood called members of the delegation Wednesday to discuss the matter. He's not without GOP support: Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has pushed Scott to reconsider the project, stressing that private business may be willing to help the state cover its $280-million piece of the costs.

Prospective solutions to the standoff aren't entirely clear, and the administration official said, "It's too soon at this point" for specifics. It's been suggested that the federal government could simply foot the entire bill for the project, rather than requiring Florida to put up matching funds. But if the administration shows a willingness to pick up the full tab, other governors could well follow Scott's script.

LaHood's trip to the Hill suggests that the Obama administration is not content to simply leave Florida out of its plans for a national high-speed rail system, but administration officials have offered some tough talk. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the president was willing to spend the $2 billion intended for Florida on other states. Officials in New York, Washington and California quickly requested the money.

Now, however, the White House seems to be abandoning that bluff, perhaps because the bipartisan and home-state pressure on Scott to reverse course has been immense.

The governor talked with both LaHood and Mica on Wednesday to relay his decision. "This is a huge setback for the state of Florida, our transportation, economic development, and important tourism industry," Mica said in a statement. "I have urged the Governor to reconsider going forward and allow the private sector to assume the risk and any future costs for the project. ... With the federal government assuming 90% of the cost of the project, I am disappointed the private sector will not have an opportunity to even offer innovative proposals to help finance the balance of the costs and to construct and operate this system."

Comments

[phill273]

01:09 PM on 02/18/2011

Another stupid project. Nobody is going to ride it, and it will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers. And, it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Before you start blabbering on about the fact that they didn't have high-speed rail back in the 1700's, there's something called amendments.

[lowery2008]

02:20 PM on 02/18/2011

I'd ride it. If there was a way to get to Orlando without all the traffic on I4 I'd go more often. If it's not in the constitution than perhaps the constitution needs fixing not the project needs scarping.

[phill273]

02:56 PM on 02/18/2011

Fine. Lets have that debate then.

[charles77]

04:31 PM on 02/18/2011

For what this project costs you could double the capacity of I4.
And that increased capacity would be 10 times the capacity of this train.

THAT's why it makes NO sense.

[coracii]

02:24 PM on 02/18/2011

There's quite a few things that aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether something meets a Constiutional requirement. The internet you're typing information into isn't in the Constitution, yet that didn't stop the government from inventing and developing it.

[screechingllama]

12:49 PM on 02/18/2011

Can't interrupt the revenue stream huh Rick?

7. Orlando, FL
Speed traps: 165

You’re less likely to break the speed limit on your daily commute than you are on vacation, where you’re in a strange place and don’t know the laws or the speed traps, Dornsife says. So, Orlando, home of Disney World and Universal Studios and Sea World, benefits from a steady stream of tourists – and revenue from speeding tickets.

[charles77]

12:25 PM on 02/18/2011

High speed rail is the biggest money losing fiasco ever dream up by dreamers.

It does nothing to relieve traffic congestion, and in fact worsens it by taking money away from roads that prepare us for future growth. It dos nothing to “save oil” or “get us off of foreign oil”.

It does not “create jobs” but destroys them with huge and never ending deficits.

Every “study” that shows rail could even break even are done by rail advocates, companies that build them, or “rail authorities” that would be out of jobs without it, trying to con the people into funding it.

It does NOTHING that people supporting it say it would do. Wishing something were true does not make it true.

EVERY independent analysis shows what a boondoggle it really is

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/04/30/ca-audit-criticizes-high-speed-rail-authority-of-mismanagement/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lind/obamas-state-of-the-union_b_439774.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/why-high-speed-trains-don-t-make-sense.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858404576134144193260526.html

http://www.connexionfrance.com/sncf-2009-loss-one-billion-euros-tgv-passenger-numbers-11528-view-article.html

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/San-Antonio-Austin-rail-pricey-poorly-considered-1016682.php

[Gma1]

03:40 PM on 02/21/2011

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/16/767845/-Sunday-Train:-zOMG-these-aint-REAL-HSR-trains!
And, what CA wants to do with your money:
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/10/california-labor-federation-launches-statewide-hsr-tour/
Then there is HSR in Germany, France, Spain, developing HSR in Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.
If we don't build it, we willl be the USA "has been" that never was! Still dependent on the oil consortium.
Try to do some research that dosen't give you the answers you want to hear. I did.

[charles77]

04:24 PM on 02/21/2011

I have done my research, your link is from a labor group that wants to run the train!! LOL

Even CA is have second thought about this loony boondoggle:

“Even California, that famous incubator of pipedreams, is having second thoughts. The state has proposed an 800-mile high-speed rail plan from San Diego to San Francisco. “

“Two years ago California taxpayers approved a $9.95 billion bond initiative to fund the train, buying the pitch that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and attract 94 million riders. The state's high-speed rail authority told voters a one-way ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles would cost $55—about the price of a Southwest flight. They said private equity firms were dying to invest, and that the train would operate without a public subsidy.”

“Studies by economists and financial consultants Alain Enthoven, William Grindley and William Warren have since debunked the rail authority's claims. Based on the costs of high-speed rail lines in Europe and Japan, the price tag likely will fall between $62 billion and $213 billion. A one-way ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles will cost about $190, which means more people will choose to fly”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858404576134144193260526.html

[edwcorey]

12:06 PM on 02/18/2011

Why not let these people drown in their own rancid juices? Most are in states that rely on the federal government for jobs and money. Give the rail projects to states that want them.

[Gma1]

11:01 PM on 02/22/2011

Then, wouldn't that state be "relying on federal government for jobs and money" ???

[MichaelM888]

12:02 PM on 02/18/2011

Did Scott and his republican party made any studies about the billions they allocated and spent on the rebuilding of Iraq and Afganistan and the amount of fraud, stealing, waste, and downright unnecessary spending of our money on these foreign projects that have severely and negatively impacted the federal deficit. When it is is necessary to spend money here in this country to upgrade our infrastructure, build schools, or aid a social program they are up in arms against it, but will freely aid the war machinery to that has nothing to do with development. What a bunch of liars and deceivers.

[Senpay]

03:04 AM on 02/19/2011

Fanned.

[George Hanshaw]

11:49 AM on 02/18/2011

"Officials in New York, Washington and California quickly requested the money. "

And they have so much of their own money to put up for matching funds and to cover cost over-runs. Let's see,

http://www.stnonline.com/home/latest-news/3143-proposed-new-york-state-budget-could-hurt-transportation-association-says

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014135487_budget05.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/california-budget-democra_n_823458.html

I'm sure they are just dying to put up matching funds for this white elephant....

[randy of the netses]

11:44 AM on 02/18/2011

Can Missouri have the $2 billion then ... we want high-speed rail. We actually got some of the money that the governor of Wisconsin turned down for their high-speed rail. We can certainly use more ... so, sure, send Florida's money our way too. We'll take it!

[Dunkleberger Karl]

05:30 PM on 02/18/2011

Hi speed rail cross missouri is not feasible! lets build a rail service from san fransisco to bagdad! and use
military funding!We build the first mile in iraq and then 2000 miles from denver to DC through big MO!
It how they built Hi-way 1 in the 1910's you can still find themarker in NYC! if you look real hard!

[Gma1]

03:45 PM on 02/21/2011

Congratulations, Missouri, for your forward (NOT backward) thinking. We the people in Florida are trying to save our HSR project and hope to connect with yours one day!

[George Hanshaw]

11:39 AM on 02/18/2011

High Speed Rail isn't going to happen - for a lot of reasons - and Obama has now decided not to spend much of his greatly diminished political capital trying to - in effect - push a string. He'll need it for bigger fights on programs of far more important to the dems...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49785.html

An excerpt:

Just last week, Vice President Joe Biden joined Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in promoting a $53 billion plan to upgrade the nation’s railroad transportation, and the administration’s proposed budget allotted $8 billion as a start. But congressional Republicans immediately targeted the plan for elimination, then on Wednesday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott pulled the plug on what had been designated by the Obama administration as its signature demonstration project: an 84-mile high-speed line between Orlando and Tampa.

Scott’s decision to return $2.4 billion in federal funds, citing the project’s unrealistic projections for job creation, combined with the withdrawal of Ohio and Wisconsin from the program after the November elections, left Obama’s proposal with little political constituency and huge questions about what comes next.

“Everything is upside down,” said Rob Puentes, a transportation expert at the Brookings Institution.

[charles77]

12:28 PM on 02/18/2011

A tidy $1.7 billion sure seems like a lot of money for a railroad that goes between San Antonio and Austin until you realize that amount is only for planning and right of way acquisition. After spending that giant wad of dead presidents, the people behind the LSTAR project want another $613 million to put in the track.

Does anyone ever do the math in these deals? Let's see, 90 miles of track from San Antonio to Georgetown, divide into 2,313,000,000, carry the six ... yep, each mile of railroad would cost almost $26 million. Does it help if I say $5,000 a foot? A foot of railroad includes 45 pounds of steel at $800 a ton and one railroad tie at 40 cents a board-foot ... hmmmm ... that means $16.50 worth of steel and $15 of wood, or $31.50 for your raw materials. Now, we all know that raw materials are only a percentage of the final cost of any construction deal, but they're usually more than six-tenths of 1 percent.

Nobody bothers to worry about minor things like this because this is all free! The federal government is paying for it. But maybe someone should ask why a government that borrows a $1 trillion a year would want to charge an expensive short-line railroad to our grandchildren.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/San-Antonio-Austin-rail-pricey-poorly-considered-1016682.php

[Dunkleberger Karl]

05:33 PM on 02/18/2011

George Hanshaw; I cn push a 10 foot string , wanna know how?

[Gma1]

05:54 PM on 02/22/2011

No.

[FiredUpRTG]

11:22 AM on 02/18/2011

Stubborn pride and resentment has taken many a person down.

[HalfCanadian]

11:16 AM on 02/18/2011

This would be solar powered high speed rail???

[charles77]

12:35 PM on 02/18/2011

Don’t be so naive. They run on Unicorn Fairy Dust (UFD).

Trains powered by UFD have been proven to clean the air, replenish our natural resources while transporting billions of people for free, yet still turning a huge profit that will end world hunger forever!

For proof just read the comments supporting it.

[Gma1]

03:51 PM on 02/21/2011

No, no, you've got it all wrong. It's the UFD that is going to create jobs! You might try reading about the French HSR system. There are also several here in the US that are privately run that do, indeed, make a profit. But be very, very careful you might learn something!

[Dunkleberger Karl]

05:53 PM on 02/18/2011

Not for speed! but for all the cooking cleaning internet and lighting! all auxillary power!
even when going down hill for the breaks... solar is useable! For moving the train? no!

[sixx]

11:09 AM on 02/18/2011

A by-pass following a lobotomy is not medically sound.

[Father Tom]

10:35 AM on 02/18/2011

Even the youngest of us will be dead and buried long before this "project" gets completed, if ever.

[liberal]

10:19 AM on 02/18/2011

Skelator strikes again.

[rbenjamin]

09:45 AM on 02/18/2011

No need to get Florida on board. Obama should reallocate the money and get on with the business of jump starting an economically viable high speed rail system in the rest of the USA.
How hard can it be? Pretty much every other developed country has done it.

Scott is pulling a stunt at the Florida's expense. In the words of Speaker "read my lips" Boehner, so be it. When the program gets moving Fla can watch from the sidelines and Scott can explain to his public why he turned down 2 Billion dollars. Should be fun to watch Scott's walk-back.

[Strange Pilgrim]

09:48 AM on 02/18/2011

That's what this article is about, Florida as a whole not suffering from Scott's irresponsible decision-making. There are good people in Florida too you know, ones that deserve sustainable modes of transportation.

[coracii]

09:51 AM on 02/18/2011

A difference of 35,000 votes out of 5 million shouldn't doom a project that has wide support of both chambers of the legislature and also from the citizens of the state just because one criminal wants to be the new emperor.

[rbenjamin]

10:11 AM on 02/18/2011

I sympathize, but there are consequences to electing show boating Governors. Kick that SOS Scott in the rear a few times. You are not powerless (see Coracii comments below). There is no need in this case for the Federal Government to micro manage and give Scott another issue to muddy the waters with. Make him beg for the money.

[George Hanshaw]

11:57 AM on 02/18/2011

"Obama should reallocate the money and get on with the business of jump starting an economical­ly viable high speed rail system in the rest of the USA.
How hard can it be? Pretty much every other developed country has done it."

Actually no. Only the Osaka-Tokyo train in Japan and the Paris-Lyon train in France operate at an operating profit. NO HIGH SPEED RAIL HAS EVER PAID OFF ITS CAPITAL COST. The Chinese Academy of Science is asking China to reconsider their project because it's becoming way over budget and behind time, and the World Bank has indicated that it is unlikely that any high speed rail will ever be self-sustaining, but if you need to continue in your dream world, please feel free to do so.....

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/24/chinese-academy-of-sciences-ur

[George Hanshaw]

12:06 PM on 02/18/2011

http://www­-wds.world­bank.org/e­xternal/de­fault/WDSC­ontentServ­er/WDSP/IB­/2010/07/2­6/00033495­5_20100726­032714/Ren­dered/PDF/­558560WP0B­ox341SR1v0­8121jul101­final.pdf

An excerpt:

The evidence is that it is very difficult for a stand-alon­e high-speed railway to recover much of its capital
costs from the passenger revenue stream alone, except in the very densest corridors. On some lines
internatio­nally, a high-speed line may create other positive net revenue streams that can be factored into
the financial returns, such as in China where there is strong latent demand by freight customers for the
capacity released by the transfer of many passengers to a new line. But for the most part, government­s
contemplat­ing the benefits of a new high-speed railway, whether procured by public or private or
combined public-pri­vate project structures­, should also contemplat­e the near-certa­inty of copious and
continuing budget support for the debt.”

[rbenjamin]

12:20 PM on 02/18/2011

I take your point, but all forms of mass transportation - planes, trains, automobiles and steamships end up being heavily subsidized to keep transportation costs low. This is economically viable because it makes the overall economy more efficient and productive. Consider it a loss leader. So lets get rid of all mass transport? It's a bit unfair to single out rail.

[kreichek12]

09:19 AM on 02/18/2011

If Florida doesn't want the HSR, then end the north-south corridor at Atlanta or somewhere in Georgia just north of Tallahassee or Jacksonville. If Gov. Scott changes his mind later, or if the next Florida administration expresses a desire to be included, then adding on to the system could easily be achieved.

We will run out of gas someday -- there's no doubt about that. We need to have the infrastructure in place BEFORE that happens to maintain commerce. And consider what's happening all over the Middle East today. If any one of those countries stops producing oil because of the unrest, oil prices are going to skyrocket! Being dependent on oil is not only risky business, it's also living on borrowed time.

[Trogenhorse]

09:44 AM on 02/18/2011

More importantly, let the Floridians have their state exit without this funding. They made the choice to elect a man who stole from healthcare as the governor.

One hopes they are happy with the choice they have made. If not, then vote again in 4 years.

[charles77]

01:29 PM on 02/18/2011

The future is cars not trains. Trains run on oil too.
Yes someday we will run out of oil, but almost all of us will still drive cars, not ride in trains.
There are ways to drive cars without oil, electricity, biofuels, compressed air and things we have not even thought of yet.

And even if the entire national mult-trillion dollar high speed rail system is built, it still will move only 1-2% of the people driving cars or flying, that’s the truth.

“Here’s what we wouldn’t get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse-gas emissions, air travel, or oil consumption and imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.”

“High-speed intercity trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of less than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or less with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the number of airline passengers, about 2 million a day, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; trains need fuel.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/why-high-speed-trains-don-t-make-sense.html

[OH72]

09:40 AM on 02/19/2011

If you believe that the future is cars, you need a maths course quickly. Any freak accidents, regardless of how low the probability, will happen if you just give it enough opportunities. Which means more moving objects = more dead people. What you're cheering for is the mother of all traffic jams, but not transportation.

More, the quote you cite neglects a very important point: The most accident-prone part of air travel is the final approach. Since short trips can be done quite frequently, you have lots of final approaches. If all of the SF-LA travellers switched to train, it would quite probably declutter the California airspace considerably, especially the high-density lower altitudes, and do much more than save fuel.

Also, while trains need power, they can economise quite a bit. Ever heard of eddy current brakes?