Rick Scott: Not a Fan of Trains

Umaro · Apr 6, 2011

citizenthom said:
This is really what it comes down to: people who live in DC, which is a completely unique traffic situation, making transportation decisions for everyone else. DC has the longest average commute in the country by far, the worst parking and traffic situation by far, very few residents compared to the amount of workers there...it's nothing like the rest of the country, even other major cities.

There's a reason big cities are much more blue than the rest of the country: their design makes no sense and they need a lot more stuff just to function with any efficiency. Well, that's fine for people who live and work there; but those of us happily and efficiently going about our lives in suburban and rural areas would rather not share in costs we didn't assume.

It's not the people in DC clamoring for the train to be built, it's most of the people in Florida. Until about a week ago I lived in Orlando, and I would love for there to be a better way to visit my sister in Miami than a 4 hour drive, another hour drive to cross Miami (it's that bad) and then finding parking.

citizenthom said:
Or how about this--they don't have to collect tax revenue or fees if people pay for their own transportation based on where THEY choose to live. Crazy idea, I know, for people to pay for their own stuff.

You mean like paying to ride the train? The sort of thing that would make a profit for the government? That's pretty much exactly paying for transportation based on where I live, close enough to use the train. Or is there some reason paying to use a car has to be my only choice?

blueapplepaste · Apr 6, 2011

kermit said:
As someone who has visited plenty of unfamiliar cities you are best relying upon public transporation or cabs to get around. If you drive you'll spend half your time trying to figure out how to get places and parking.

Oh I know, I, too have been fortunate enough to vacation and travel all over the country. I agree, but my point was that not every city has good public transportation (cabs, buses, rail, etc).

I'm not familiar with Miami's public transportation situation, so was just pointing out that someone vacationing in Miami probably wouldn't want to visit Miami for the day via high speed rail if once they got there, they couldn't easily get around.

So in that regard, I could see that being an issue. But highspeed rail in the NE corridor where there is great public transportation makes perfect sense (and it might in Miami, too, like I said, I'm not familiar with it).

Grizzly · Apr 6, 2011

citizenthom said:
And so the people who can't afford tickets on these new "high-speed rails" suffer even more as jobs move further away from their areas and even more into already-flooded urban zones.

Yeah, more urbanization is exactly what we need in this country.

Do you have something against cities?

citizenthom · Apr 6, 2011

Grizzly said:
Do you have something against cities?

I have something against taking money from people in rural areas, small towns, and even normal-sized cities to fund pet projects designed to help metropoli develop, at the expenseof development elsewhere and with no real benefit to people who choose not to live in metropoli.

Grizzly · Apr 6, 2011

citizenthom said:
I have something against taking money from people in rural areas, small towns, and even normal-sized cities to fund pet projects designed to help metropoli develop, at the expenseof development elsewhere and with no real benefit to people who choose not to live in metropoli.

Do you know how much tax money leaves the cities to support rural areas - areas in which 80% of america chooses not to live in? Did you know that we subsidize your way of life? In fact, most rural areas wouldn't even have internet access (the demand is too low to be commercially viable).

Study: Urban tax money subsidizes rural counties | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

blueapplepaste · Apr 6, 2011

Grizzly said:
Do you know how much tax money leaves the cities to support rural areas - areas in which 80% of america chooses not to live in? Did you know that we subsidize your way of life? In fact, most rural areas wouldn't even have internet access (the demand is too low to be commercially viable).

Study: Urban tax money subsidizes rural counties | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

Good post. Subsidies for me, none for thee!!

citizenthom · Apr 6, 2011

You managed to pack an awful lot of fallacy into three sentences there:

1. First of all, your article is only about Indiana. And as far as "urban" vs. "rural" population, Indiana is on the low end among the various states.

2. And that's not an especially good measure: the "urban/rural" division is superficial and not even defined by the article (or by my map, actually). And I did not employ it above: the division I'm talking about is between metropoli (who would be serviced by the high-speed rail) and everyone else (who would not, unless they were forced to take jobs in the metropoli).

3. Where did I say I live in a rural area? Where did I say anything about "my way of life?" In fact I live in a small town and work in a mid-sized city.

If you want to argue for cutting subsidies to non-metropoli, that's fine by me. My area benefits very little from our federal tax dollars. But I don't buy the apparent argument that we somehow "owe" people in bigger cities a high-speed rail. And neither, apparently, does Gov. Scott.

kermit · Apr 6, 2011

citizenthom said:
I have something against taking money from people in rural areas, small towns, and even normal-sized cities to fund pet projects designed to help metropoli develop, at the expenseof development elsewhere and with no real benefit to people who choose not to live in metropoli.

So when highways are built that typically connect cities to other cities you think they should connect rural areas to rural areas. I guess this makes sense from a supporter of politicians who built the bridge to nowhere.

Infrastructure is an investment. Investments only make sense if they have an ROI. ROI for urban investments are better. Like it or not those are the facts.

Grizzly · Apr 6, 2011

citizenthom said:
You managed to pack an awful lot of fallacy into three sentences there:

1. First of all, your article is only about Indiana. And as far as "urban" vs. "rural" population, Indiana is on the low end among the various states.

2. And that's not an especially good measure: the "urban/rural" division is superficial and not even defined by the article (or by my map, actually). And I did not employ it above: the division I'm talking about is between metropoli (who would be serviced by the high-speed rail) and everyone else (who would not, unless they were forced to take jobs in the metropoli).

3. Where did I say I live in a rural area? Where did I say anything about "my way of life?" In fact I live in a small town and work in a mid-sized city.

If you want to argue for cutting subsidies to non-metropoli, that's fine by me. My area benefits very little from our federal tax dollars. But I don't buy the apparent argument that we somehow "owe" people in bigger cities a high-speed rail. And neither, apparently, does Gov. Scott.

Sorry about the "way of life" rhetoric and assuming you lived in a rural area.

But in general, this is how states run - and should run. If not, then why even be a state? People who live in the urban areas pay taxes for things like roads and bridges and electrical lines in the less populated parts of the state that could not possible afford them if left to their own devices. People in the rural counties pay taxes for things that also may not benefit them directly (like high speed rail) but would benefit the state as a whole. Which would then have more money to spend on things in the rural areas.

You don't "owe" the big city folk high speed rail. But if it makes sense economically for your state - and it will actually make money for the state - then why oppose it?

citizenthom · Apr 6, 2011

kermit said:
So when highways are built that typically connect cities to other cities you think they should connect rural areas to rural areas.

Yes; and the Interstate system, where exits are largely determined by federal politics, has in fact disadvantaged smaller cities substantially. Hence why I and other non-metropolis dwellers are leery of yet another federal project that puts more distance between small town America and American jobs. Connect everywhere, or pay for it yourselves.

I guess this makes sense from a supporter of politicians who built the bridge to nowhere.

I'm not a Republican and I don't live in Alaska. Why are people flaming me today as though I'm Sarah Palin? Freaking dig up my old threads about Sarah Palin.

Infrastructure is an investment. Investments only make sense if they have an ROI. ROI for urban investments are better.

...for urban areas. Not for non-urban areas.

And again, this project does not benefit most urban areas, only the biggest urban areas; so watch your vocabulary carefully.

citizenthom · Apr 6, 2011

Grizzly said:
You don't "owe" the big city folk high speed rail. But if it makes sense economically for your state - and it will actually make money for the state - then why oppose it?

Whose state? This is a federal project. It benefits some states to the detriment of others. It benefits some areas to the detriment of others. Don't speak in universals when universal benefit simply isn't even the goal.

And your assertion that it will benefit a given state is dependent on assumptions--assumptions that Gov. Scott apparently rejects, as is his right.

PhilosophicalBluster · Apr 6, 2011

Here's the thing though: By refusing to implement the project, Scott has not saved the taxpayers anything. The money is not being returned, it is being used to fund the high speed rails of other states. And yes, Florida would very much benefit from a high speed rail because like I said in the OP construction workers need jobs as a result of the flood of the housing market and tourism needs the boost after the blow it took from the BP oil spill.

Drekkan85 · Apr 6, 2011

Funnily enough - as a Freakonomics guy - they had on their podcast a rather fascinating gentleman whose just finished a book on the importance of cities and what a boon they are for the people that live in them and the nations they're located in.

Aso for subsidies - you make a contention that the rural areas go around paying for services that the cities exclusively use. That's a rather fantastic statement. Cities are where a vast amount of wealth is accumulated and focused - and where a large amount of tax dollars are drawn from. I wouldn't be surprised if the tax draw for NYC outstrips that of the entirety of the rest of the state (though, again, I don't have the tax data to back that up ATM).

That said, you're the one making the original assertion. So please provide evidence that rural areas pay to subsidize cities and not vice versa or equal spread.

Drekkan85 · Apr 6, 2011

Link to book description on why cities are awesome:

Amazon.com: Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier (9781594202773): Edward L. Glaeser: Books

Also - for high speed rail. France, Japan, South Korea, and increasingly China. The truly best analogy is China - given it's much closer to the US in terms of having large cities separated by vast tracks of sparsely populated woodlands and fields.

Rick Scott: Not a Fan of Trains

Senior Veteran

the purpose of life is a life of purpose

Enemy of Christmas

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Enemy of Christmas

the purpose of life is a life of purpose

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Legend

Enemy of Christmas

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)

Immortal until proven otherwise

Immortal until proven otherwise

Similar threads