Last Friday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott officially drove the nail in the coffin of the proposed high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando. The decision to reject $2.4 billion in federal funds for the line was, according to Scott, all about the money - specifically, the desire to protect Floridians from what he believed would be inevitable cost overruns and operating subsidies for the train.
Just how big those overruns would be, or whether they would exist at all, is a point of some contention. Scott relied on the ideologically driven Reason Institute's estimate of a potential $3 billion cost overrun in rejecting the high-speed rail line. His claim that the train would require ongoing taxpayer support once it began running, meanwhile, conflicts with an independent study released Wednesday by the Florida Department of Transportation which concluded that, far from needing a subsidy, the Tampa-to-Orlando line would have produced operating surpluses as large as $29 million per year within a decade.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that Scott is right and Floridians do end up on the hook for $3 billion in the process of building a state-of-the-art high-speed rail system. What does that really mean?
One way to understand it is to consider that Floridians drive more than 190 billion miles every year -- an average of roughly 10,500 miles per person. That amount of driving requires roughly 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline. That means that every time gas prices rise 35 cents, Floridians pay out an extra $3 billion annually for gas -- the same as the high-end estimate Governor Scott gave for cost overruns from the rail project.
As it turns out, last week gas prices rose by 19 cents -- the second largest 1-week increase since 1990. And since Valentine's Day, gas prices have increased by more than 40 cents. In other words, if gas prices remain at their current levels, Floridians will face a $3 billion hit to their pocketbooks this year -- only instead of that money going toward the construction of clean, cutting-edge transportation that creates jobs and boosts the Florida economy, it will instead find its way into the pockets of multinational oil companies and the coffers of countries from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela.
Rick Scott isn't the only governor making shortsighted decisions about high speed rail. When Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker rejected funding for high speed rail in his state, he cited the expected $8 million annual operating subsidy as the reason for his cancellation. Wisconsinites drove 58 billion miles in 2009, consuming about 2.5 billion gallons of gas in the process. That means that over the course of a year, Wisconsinites pay out an extra $8 million dollars if the price of gas rises 0.3 cents.
At times of fiscal distress, it's fully appropriate for public officials to be careful about the expenditure of public funds. But it is important to remember that inaction is a form of action, and that by failing to invest in transportation alternatives like high-speed rail, we are consigning Americans to further dependence on fossil fuels -- and further exposure to oil price spikes like the ones this winter.
High speed rail makes sense. By refusing to invest in it when they have the chance, Governors Scott and Walker are keeping their states at the mercy of gas prices. If the governors really want to look out for the financial best interests of their constituents, it's time to stop making penny-wise, pound-foolish choices, and make the critical investments that will pay off for their states over the long term.
Click here to watch a humorous video that U.S. PIRG produced with the website Funny or Die featuring two actors from the television show Mad Men in support of high- speed rail.
Interstate high speed makes more sense (Orlando to Atlanta or Orlando to Charlotte ect), Tampa to Orlando is only about 1:30 so you wouldn't be saving tons of time. Plus since both cities have weak public transit, you might want to drive anyway. Overall, lets get our main cities with good reliable public transit before high speed rail to connect close cities.
I think we need good reliable public transit for our cities first. That money would be better for the daily working class, the problem is, it isn't as fancy. It is better to say "We built a hight speed rail from X to Y" than "We build trains for the workers of Orlando"
Many studies have been done comparing the costs of rail travel to car travel, both here and abroad, and rail travel comes out as much cheaper.
The actions and comments of many of the Republican governors should be taken in the context of everything else that the Republican politicians have been doing and saying. In other words, is anyone really surprised by further right-wing insanity?
the GOP governors are doing what GOP politicians do - serving the interests of Big Oil. Nothing new here.
The investment that Obama has been pushing for is a step in the right direction, but needs to be much larger, by several factors of ten, to get the job done.
That is a talking point , not a thought.
Here is a thought that you can complete: ' HSR will cut down on gasoline used by the average person commuting to work because....'
Now that is a fine example of Liberal thought.
How about this one: Republicans do not want obama to get reelected. Ergo that don't want cheap mercury light bulbs made in China to replace regular light bulbs made in the USA
The Northeast Regional intercity rail had 7.15 million passengers with a total revenue of $458,105,798 in fiscal year 2010, up from $431,430,679 in 2009. The Acela Express carried around 3.2 million passengers in the same time period, with a total revenue of $440,119,294, up from $409,251,483 in 2009.
A high speed rail link saves the public money, both during and after construction, compared to building and maintaining a comparable freeway system. There are costs associated with either form of travel, but the costs associated with high speed rail are less.
Although since November 2000 most of the world does question the paradox of Floridian and sensible
High speed passenger rail is certainly a part of the future for energy and environmental responsibility but the old low tech slow speed rail for freight and commodity delivery would go a long way today in saving energy and reducing pollution.
Unfortunately we tore up the tracks, turned the track beds into into bike paths and put all those millions of tons of freight from coal to corn to corn-plasters on diesel burning trucks on asphalt highways.
All of the solutions for our problems won't be found in the future, many are available by adapting from the past.
It was a consortium made up principally of Standard Oil (today's Exxon and Chevron), General Motors, and Firestone which went around the USA, buying up about 50 light-rail mass transit systems, and then destroying them -- not "we". They were sued, the case went to the US Supreme Court, and they were fined the grand total of $5,000. Somethings never change.
If it wasn't for the vision of Calfornians we would all be driving 10MPG cars.
HSR makes sense for the Northeast Corridor. And that's it.
The "high speed" in high speed rail is how fast the operating deficits will accrue.
The proposed high speed link in Florida was between Orlando and Tampa. There are a number of such targeted corridors, all around the nation, which are good candidates for high-speed rail. It is cheaper than building freeways, and will also be better for the economy, as trains reduce our dependency on imported petroleum.
Tampa to Orlando, where I have lived, is a terrible route if you want this to be a viable financial proposition.
After having lived in the area I was dumbfounded by the porposal for a Tampa to Orlando high speed rail lane. Undeniably, this is a high traffic area of the state. But almost none of it is downtown Tampa to downtown Orlando. This is Florida. We don't have concentrated downtown business areas like the older northern cities. Our cities are very spread out by design. This area is not appropriate for a successful high speed rail system.
Give us light rail for commuters that connects all of the spread out area of our cities with the suburbs. This is where the passenger volume will be found.
Middle East conflict would appear to be having some impact on our prices as well as speculation. I h8 to say it but the crisis in Japan will drop gas prices more than anything else right now.
Talk about clueless, you should read some of the memos put out by your lords and masters during Bush's reign. They clearly spelled out how the president does not effect the oil prices. Thats republican lords and masters if you missed the rhetoric.