California HSR CA wins the funds from the DOT

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...hio_wisconsin/

Wisconsin Governor-elect Scott Walker campaigned against a Madison-to-Milwaukee rail line, which would have received $810 million, as a waste of taxpayer money. Walker also said he didn’t want to commit the state to annual operating subsidies once the line was complete, although the project’s supporters predicted it would make money. Walker called the death of the proposed line “a victory’’ yesterday.

Old news but sorta current because what Walker did was the same thing the Republicans did who won the House. Promise things that may make their country, district or state worse off.

The guy called the death of a rail line that would have created jobs in a recession a victory.

[Enemy of the State]

To make that rail, resources would have to be diverted from areas of the economy where they are needed. If there was sufficient demand for a rail, surely it would not need state subsidy.

[MathiasOfAthens]

To make that rail, resources would have to be diverted from areas of the economy where they are needed. If there was sufficient demand for a rail, surely it would not need state subsidy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_routes
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ith-milwaukee/
but the considerable success of Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service between Chicago and Milwaukee — it has the third highest ridership per mile of U.S. intercity rail routes after the Northeast Regional and Capitol Corridor lines — suggests that Wisconsin’s population is well prepared for improved rail operations.

Perhaps the demand is there... the governors arguments that if the public wanted this a private sector business man would invest in it. But I dont think a private businessman has 810 million to just drop down in rail... its too big of a project. A government investment project is necessary. This would of created growth.

Ohio also denied federal funds to please the tea party... that line would have been between 3 cities each larger than Madison and would have created even more jobs as well... Public/Consumer Demand was entirely there as well.

[Matthias]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_routes
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ith-milwaukee/
but the considerable success of Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service between Chicago and Milwaukee — it has the third highest ridership per mile of U.S. intercity rail routes after the Northeast Regional and Capitol Corridor lines — suggests that Wisconsin’s population is well prepared for improved rail operations.

Perhaps the demand is there... the governors arguments that if the public wanted this a private sector business man would invest in it. But I dont think a private businessman has 810 million to just drop down in rail... its too big of a project. A government investment project is necessary. This would of created growth.

Ohio also denied federal funds to please the tea party... that line would have been between 3 cities each larger than Madison and would have created even more jobs as well... Public/Consumer Demand was entirely there as well.

Tell me about it. I'm living in Cincinnati (not a native, thank Gawd), and it's hilarious/sad to see so many conservatives here that keep voting against their own interests for the rich.

Governor Kasich got elected here, and he refused the rail money, so of course the rail money simply went elsewhere, haha, what a tool. Lots of Ohio jobs lost on that one. Not to mention the investment that could have been made. The US could really use rail and should start investing now. It's not like cars will always be the cheapest option anyways. In many cases they aren't, and the traffic here is pretty bad. We need a local train line here as well. But good luck getting conservatives here to see beyond the present.

What's hilarious too is that the new conservative governor worked for Lehman Brothers, you know, the bank that crashed the economy. And Ohioans actually voted for him! LOL! I can't get mad, I just have to say WOW, too bad for the smart Ohioans here, but conservatives deserve whatever economic misery Ohio may have under his watch. From his wikipedia article:

"In 2001, Kasich took a job as managing director of the Columbus investment banking division of Lehman Brothers.[25] He remained at the company until its collapse in September 2008. During 2008, Lehman Brothers paid Kasich $587,175 in salary, bonuses, and other benefits.[26] Over $400,000 of that bonus is credited to Kasich using his political connections to facilitate investment of $480 Million from the state pension fund with Lehman Brothers. That money was lost to the state."

LOL! The conservatives here are a hoot! Always cutting off their nose to spite their face. I'm getting out of Ohio as soon as I get my degree, wouldn't want to live in a place with this much ignorance, that's for sure.

[Thorn777]

To make that rail, resources would have to be diverted from areas of the economy where they are needed. If there was sufficient demand for a rail, surely it would not need state subsidy.

i don't think one railway-net was ever built without "subsidies"...Its the giant investment-costs without returns any time soon...

[MathiasOfAthens]

i don't think one railway-net was ever built without "subsidies"...Its the giant investment-costs without returns any time soon...

Somebody name of an example where public demand influenced a private developer into building something.

I, like you, Thorn can not find a single example of a privately invested rail line... especially something to this extent. Its not like opening a new store by a small businessmen who sees potential growth for whatever he is peddling.

The history of commercial air travel did not begin with privately built airplanes but with former ww2 military bombers like the Lancaster, B-29 and the DC-3. And the first Airlines were State owned. The British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), Aeroflot, one of the oldest airlines in the world, began its history back to 1923. In 1956, it became the first airline to successfully operate regular jet airliner services (with the Tupolev Tu-104), Czech Airlines being the second airline to do so in 1957. I think its self-assumed that Aeroflot was state funded and not private.

British Airways began as a board to manage four british state airlines BOAC, BEA, Cambrian and Northeast Airlines. In '74 all 4 state airlines were dissolved to form one airline called British Airways and 87 for the first time the BA was privatized. Naysayers keep saying if the demand was there then a private investor would have created the first airline himself... perhaps in time (a long time) but government obviously did and can do it sooner.


@Mathias

Some people think the solution to traffic is just to widen the roads and the freeways... but that is obvious not the case. Widen the roads and the traffic disappears for a while or maybe not at all... but widening the roads always encourages further growth and eventually the traffic will return. Your governor requested the money be spent on freeways instead. Higher density communities with tighter roads tend to be less traffic prone...

Boston is beautiful.

[Sphere]

Here in Madison everyone is quite angry. This was a long planned project that the state has been lobbing to get funding for almost a decade. It was meant to build the infrastructure needed (rail lines in and out of the city, passenger stations, parking centers etc.) so that a Chicago to Minneapolis line, which everyone agrees would be lucrative, would pass through Madison. The experts all agreed the operating costs would be easily covered, especially if a Minneapolis line was put in.

However, Scott Walker lost in Madison and Milwaukee heavily, getting his votes from the rural northern part of the state. He can screw us without any political risk even though without the industry and technology sectors of Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin would be a South Dakota.

[Denny Crane!]

However private enterprise built nearly all the country's railroads, using charters from state government that created the business corporation and gave a limited right of eminent domain, allowing the railroad to buy needed land, even if the owner objected.[5] The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) was chartered in 1827 to build a steam railroad west from Baltimore, Maryland to a point on the Ohio River. In 1835 it also completed a branch from Baltimore southward to Washington, D.C.[6]:157 The Boston and Providence Railroad was incorporated in 1831 to build a railroad between Boston, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island; the road was completed in 1835 with the completion of the Canton Viaduct.

Just look up the history of rail.

Seriously, when you said you couldn't find any I'm guessing you looked under your rugs, behind the curtains and in your kitchen cupboards.

[Matthias]

However private enterprise built nearly all the country's railroads, using charters from state government that created the business corporation and gave a limited right of eminent domain, allowing the railroad to buy needed land, even if the owner objected.[5] The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) was chartered in 1827 to build a steam railroad west from Baltimore, Maryland to a point on the Ohio River. In 1835 it also completed a branch from Baltimore southward to Washington, D.C.[6]:157 The Boston and Providence Railroad was incorporated in 1831 to build a railroad between Boston, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island; the road was completed in 1835 with the completion of the Canton Viaduct.

Just look up the history of rail.

Seriously, when you said you couldn't find any I'm guessing you looked under your rugs, behind the curtains and in your kitchen cupboards.

How were they funded, and lookie there, they needed the government to even do it at all! All that land was bought at low prices due to the government, and even if the owner refused! Government and private enterprise working together is nothing new. The problem is that private money usually isn't very future looking, as they want an immediate return. That's where government subsidies and encouragement is needed, or in this case, even the power to buy the land that is needed to make it happen. Especially for big projects.

[Denny Crane!]

How were they funded, and lookie there, they needed the government to even do it at all! All that land was bought at low prices due to the government, and even if the owner refused! Government and private enterprise working together is nothing new. The problem is that private money usually isn't very future looking, as they want an immediate return. That's where government subsidies and encouragement is needed, or in this case, even the power to buy the land that is needed to make it happen. Especially for big projects.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6301701.ece

Unfortunately I just don't believe you and neither does Richard Branson.

He has more money than you, I believe him.

[Matthias]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6301701.ece

Unfortunately I just don't believe you and neither does Richard Branson.

He has more money than you, I believe him.

For one thing, that's a strawman, as I never said it should only be publicly funded. For another, Paris Hilton has more money than you. Argument Fail.

[Denny Crane!]

For one thing, that's a strawman, as I never said it should only be publicly funded. For another, Paris Hilton has more money than you. Argument Fail.

Richard Branson wanted to build his own he was quite prepared to fund it all, this shouldn't surprise you, this is the man that is crazy enough to be actively funding a tourist space station and shuttle service!

But arguably if there isn't a profit to be made one has to question the viability of it as a transport solution. The British state of affairs makes it certain that there could be a profit made, it is the sheer staggering levels of ineptitude in the private public partnerships that make it so ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again based on that, I'll tolerate a totally public service more than a private/public partnership. If the market isn't private, the taxpayer gets screwed. I'm pro market not pro business

[justicar5]

However private enterprise built nearly all the country's railroads, using charters from state government that created the business corporation and gave a limited right of eminent domain, allowing the railroad to buy needed land, even if the owner objected.[5] The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) was chartered in 1827 to build a steam railroad west from Baltimore, Maryland to a point on the Ohio River. In 1835 it also completed a branch from Baltimore southward to Washington, D.C.[6]:157 The Boston and Providence Railroad was incorporated in 1831 to build a railroad between Boston, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island; the road was completed in 1835 with the completion of the Canton Viaduct.

Just look up the history of rail.

Seriously, when you said you couldn't find any I'm guessing you looked under your rugs, behind the curtains and in your kitchen cupboards.

Yea and look at what subsidies they got.

[Denny Crane!]

Yea and look at what subsidies they got.

Is Richard Branson looking for subsidies? Did the first British Start ups get subsidies? Seeing a lot of talking but not a lot of sources...

[justicar5]

Is Richard Branson looking for subsidies? Did the first British Start ups get subsidies? Seeing a lot of talking but not a lot of sources...

You mean on the railways? Hell yes, all the train operators in the UK are heavily subsidised (more so than BR was in fact)

Bit old I apoligise, but this is the newest I could find at short notice , that had sources as to where it got it's numbers from.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Inte...p?NodeId=92752

In space flight? Nope, the heavy lifting has already been done (mostly by NASA it has to be said) proof of technology, R and D etc.

[Denny Crane!]

You mean on the railways? Hell yes, all the train operators in the UK are heavily subsidised (more so than BR was in fact)

Bit old I apoligise, but this is the newest I could find at short notice , that had sources as to where it got it's numbers from.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Inte...p?NodeId=92752

In space flight? Nope, the heavy lifting has already been done (mostly by NASA it has to be said) proof of technology, R and D etc.

I was talking about the first railway builders actually, there is no choice for the current ones to be subsidised, though Richard Branson asked to be allowed to go independent and build everything himself without being a part of the government network. Quite frankly the fact that there is an investor willing to put the money in wins this argument hands down for me. I don't know anyone who likes the current set up.


Still looking at the history:

The railway system of Great Britain, the principal territory of the United Kingdom, is the oldest in the world. The system was originally built as a patchwork of local rail links operated by small private railway companies. These isolated links developed during the railway boom of the 1840s into a national network, although still run by dozens of competing companies. Over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, these amalgamated or were bought by competitors until only a handful of larger companies remained (see railway mania). The entire network was brought under government control during the First World War and a number of advantages of amalgamation and planning were revealed. However, the government resisted calls for the nationalisation of the network. In 1923, almost all the remaining companies were grouped into the "big four", the Great Western Railway, the London and North Eastern Railway, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Southern Railway. The "Big Four" were joint-stock public companies and they continued to run the railway system until 31 December 1947.

Sorry but Rail could exist now without subsidy and existed then without subsidy.

[chilon]

However private enterprise built nearly all the country's railroads, using charters from state government that created the business corporation and gave a limited right of eminent domain, allowing the railroad to buy needed land, even if the owner objected.

Just look up the history of rail.

Seriously, when you said you couldn't find any I'm guessing you looked under your rugs, behind the curtains and in your kitchen cupboards.

I don't know about Britain but for America and California in particular this statement is slightly misleading and does not provide adequate context. The history of the railroads in the USA is a complex interaction of private industries and special interest lobbying for very special subsidies and legal grants. I am very familiar with the history of the Central and Southern Pacific Railroads in California and it is quite an interesting story but certainly not one that can be reduced to either "the private sector did it in response to supply and demand" which does not at all apply to California's rail history nor can it be reduced to "the public sector did it for everyone's benefit". Both of those statements would be incorrect in looking at the history of rail in California.

The story in short goes like this. An engineer and dreamer, Theodore Judah was engineer on the first railroad west of the Mississippi. Throughout the 1950s he dreamed and discussed with others the possibility of a transcontinental rail from coast to coast. He was pretty much dismissed by all the business interests in San Francisco. Eventually Judah found Samuel Huntington who wanted to use his local Sacramento business friends to fund the rail. In short, Judah had a slightly different vision than Huntington who was only looking for angles that he and his friends could personally profit. Eventually Judah went back East to try to find other funding options for the transcontinental rail.

Sadly, Judah died of yellow fever while back east leaving the entire transcon rail project in the hands of Huntington who changed Judah's original vision and established the "Big Four" of himself, Crocker, Stanfurd and Hopkins. They each invested only $1500 of their own money and the rest came from Federal rail act bond funding. The "Big Four" would realize tremendous personal profits from the land grants and Federal funding and rules that essentially funded their private enterprise. This allowed them to make immense private profits at the expense of things like the health of the Chinese immigrants who inefficiently built the rail. That was Crocker's plan and not the way Judah would have built it (Judah wanted to use actual trained engineers instead of cheap immigrant labor). At one point in the late 19th central the two rails, Central and Southern Pacific, would own over 10% of all land in California.

So the first transcontinental rail was not built due to industrious private sector response to 'supply and demand'. Nor was it built due to Government having some grand vision that would benefit society. It happened because one man, an engineer and a dreamer had a vision. Unfortunately Judah passed away before he could actualize his vision in reality. That vision would then be taken over by a small cartel of businessman who realized how they could use Judah's vision to make tremendous personal profit by utilizing the mechanism of Government bonds and funding and the infamous checkerboard land grant scheme.


-I don't know about internet sources but all of this is in Kevin Starr's excellent History of California series.

[Viking Prince]

How again is canceling a project an example of of an economically stupid governor? The project is not economically efficient or it would move forward without the federal funds. It should even be able to move forward without government subsidies if it was economically sound with just private financing.

When you are referring to lost construction jobs -- these are not the same as the job count for the operation of the rail line. The construction jobs (about 2000+ for all tasks at peak of the project) are for the construction project only. I think you are talking about spending a few billion to create about 60 permanant jobs. How is canceling such a project an automatic sign of economic stupidity?

[Matthias]

How again is canceling a project an example of of an economically stupid governor? The project is not economically efficient or it would move forward without the federal funds. It should even be able to move forward without government subsidies if it was economically sound with just private financing.

When you are referring to lost construction jobs -- these are not the same as the job count for the operation of the rail line. The construction jobs (about 2000+ for all tasks at peak of the project) are for the construction project only. I think you are talking about spending a few billion to create about 60 permanant jobs. How is canceling such a project an automatic sign of economic stupidity?

Private money didn't build the highway system. How come? And the highway system has given us huge returns on investment. Hmm. Maybe private investors don't have the pocketbook of the federal government, much less the unity, to get really big projects done? Hell, the auto industry lobbied the government for it, guess they didn't have the resources (or power) to do so themselves.

The private sector can't do everything, people really need to understand this.

[Viking Prince]

Private money didn't build the highway system. How come? And the highway system has given us huge returns on investment. Hmm. Maybe private investors don't have the pocketbook of the federal government, much less the unity, to get really big projects done? Hell, the auto industry lobbied the government for it, guess they didn't have the resources (or power) to do so themselves.

The private sector can't do everything, people really need to understand this.

This is not an answer to why the governor is economically stupid. Again, why make the claim if you cannot explain the reasons?

If the land was free, if the materials were free, if the labor to build this was free --- the operating costs alone are not economically efficient. Simply covering a 7 year depreciation schedule to replace as the system wears out is not economically viable. That is why the project was cancelled. This was just going to be another cash drain on the state and local finances each and every year.