In article , says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:43:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:05:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Most of our airports are obsolete and our interstate highway system is
crumbling, along with our power grid.

So spend a few billion fixing the airports and interstates, not a
trillion on trains nobody will ride.

Who told you that no one will ride high speed trains in all of the major
corridors?

I have said many times, in a few highly traveled corridors, trains
make sense but that is not 99% of the country.


BTW I am not sure which airports are obsolete. Ours is brand new and
Florida takes pretty good care of their roads. Maybe that is because
they don't siphon highway tax money off for ill thought out mass
transit schemes.

Funny, highly government airports are okay with you, as are tax dollars
to expand roads to them, but subsidized high speed rail is bad.....

What "subsidy". Airlines pay the transit authority to run the airport.
Concessionaires pay for the right to operate there.
The airlines themselves are independent corporations

This is right on the RSW web site

"Operating Budget $106.6 million for fiscal year 2012-13. LCPA
operates as an enterprise fund with revenue generated from
airport operations. No ad valorem (property) tax dollars
support airport operations or construction".

RSW made $929,000 last year (net)


http://www.flylcpa.com/uploads/pagesfiles/1124.pdf



Rail lines need a direct subsidy, just to keep the train moving.

Boston, New York, Philidephia and Washington DC is the high speed corridor.

Boston to New York = 200 miles.

New York to Philidelphia = 100 miles.

Philidelphia to Washington DC = 150 miles.

How long does it take you to go from 0 to 250 and then back to 0 again in 100 miles, 150
miles and 200 miles. How much time is needed in New York and Philidelphia to embark and
disembark passengers? Is it really worth all of the money to purchase the right of ways,
build new over and underpasses to support the high speed rail? No