Rick Scott 1, Bullet Trains 0

Okay, Devil's advocate time; let's play pretend.

Imagine the Obama administration had started out with a high-speed rail plan which called for money going exclusively to "the Northeast Corridor and along the California coast" and, thus, to "the Democratic governors of California, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts."

I'm sure THAT would have gone over swimmingly, and Gulliver wouldn't still be here writing about obvious dangers which somehow "the Obama administration's political team didn't seem to anticipate."

@CJ Lives: But the route also would have gone through republican-governed New Jersey and Rhode Island (as well as servicing Republican-governed Virginia), so the northeast route would have been in a "bi-partisan" corridor in the US

Or -

The Obama administration knew full well what it was doing, and set up the Republican governors to reject what would have been good for their states, in both jobs and future transportation needs.

So now the tagline becomes:

"Don't vote for the partisan neanderthal. Vote Democrat."

one bottomless money pit averted. I recommend obama break ground for his future high speed rail in boston, he can make the big dig look like a kid given 5 bucks to dig a moat in a sandbox.

At least high speed rail is going somewhere. Once it's implemented in a few areas of the country and it's shown to work well, it becomes easier to make a case for expanding it to other areas.

The proposed California line runs through the eastern San Joaquin Valley, not along the coast (though its major destinations, San Francisco and Los Angeles, are on the coast).

As for the idea that Obama should have shot for larger projects (ie the northwest corridor or california) for high speed rail: both projects are on twenty-thirty (/probably never, really) year timelines. The first bit of the Ca line to be built will be between Fresno and Bakersfield, which are both pretty much a joke to the majority of the population of the state. That would have looked even worse. It's hard to see how Obama could expect the governor of Florida to reject a federally-funded infrastructure stimulus package when his predecessor spent the better part of his term furiously lobbying to bring the project in.

High speed rail will not be successful until gas prices are high enough that travelers want to avoid traveling by car. In the meantime, environmentalists should remember the adage that you should build something you can sell, not try to sell something that you can build.

ummm, FL is just gross with a half dead population while the other half is just tacky. i spent a few minutes there and high tailed it back west coast (not to mention their surf sucks and there is nothing to climb). so, who really cares what there backwards governor does to further destroy their miserable lil economy? i.e. they don't matter.

please get the train going from sf to la so i can shop in the garment district and bring culture back to sf. puh-lease. let the rest of the country eat cake~

As an American who has spent his entire life traveling around the US via planes, trains, boats and automobiles (and has lived 18 places), the proposition of fast railroad being built by the government in the US and solving anything whatsoever is an act of inexperience, and meant to appeal to those incapable of properly analyzing such a deal, historically, operationally, financially or politically.

America is a LARGE country that is in love with independence and cars. Or cars, at least. An entire cultural shift involving the way people look at mass transportation and the roles of automobiles in American's lives would need to occur, coinciding with a financial revolution, and at the same time a proven need and want for such a a massive operation. None of these are going to happen in our lifetime, and probably not coincidentally. If any of these routes could squeeze a decent return out of them by running trains between destinations, the private sector would be doing it, and doing it a million times more efficient and better than the US government ever could.

Also, the author states that governors refusing federal funds for this boondoggle would hurt the states, at least in the short-term. I respectfully disagree, as it may not not temporarily inject yet more invisible funds into local economies, but it isn't going to HURT them. The pain comes when it's time to pay for building and operating them at an eternal loss, and used primarily as a vote-buying device, much like it is currently.

Apparently Ms Marshall has never been to Bal Harbor or Palm Beach or Ponte Vedra Beach or Amelia Island or ...

I don't think anyone in Miami Beach would have much fun with Ms Marshall either. She sounds like a bore.

Actually, Tampa's a pretty hip town ... Great shopping, too.

You know, I bet HSR from Orlando to Tampa Bay could be another Florida tourist attraction.

Ah, another "the world is flat" governor. Scoring easy points with only his supporters in the first place, he, like his counterpart in Wisconsin probably sealed his defeat come next election.

Of course thanks to the auto industry lobby in decades past, rails that could actually be utilized yet today have long been removed so that some form of travel could have been maintained all along the eastern seaboard and across the country as well. Got to love the lack of forward thinking that still rears its ugly head in our discourse today. Greed and self-righteousness at the expense of all else on the table.

Commuters who use existing light rail systems know how useful rail can be.

What would life be like in New York without the subway?

Or, the Skytrain in Vancouver, B.C., Canada?

The light rail running every 10 minutes from downtown Seattle to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport makes getting to the airport and back convenient and saves visitors and residents the expense of a taxi fare or parking.

The Caltrain is showing its age but many people use it to commute to work every day.

It is not difficult to see how being able to travel greater distances at higher speeds opens up more real estate for a work commute without getting stuck in traffic.

Lawyer/politicians (Democrat or Republican) working on their tans and their future careers as lobbyists don't always make the best decisions so specific high-speed rail plans should be examined and modified if problems are found.

The current California high-speed rail plan relies exclusively on passenger fares for revenue.

Transporting light cargo like overnight and same-day letters for courier companies would provide additional revenue. It might also make other financing available if revenues were higher.

The left/right tragic comedy of U.S. political debate has the depth of a Wyle E. Coyote / Roadrunner cartoon though.

Finally, someone with the courage to do what everyone with half a brain knows is correct. This was dumbest idea ever, and liberal democrats STILL defend it, saying the reason Mr. Scott said "no" is partisan. Heh-hey.

I travel frequently between New York and Baltimore on the so called Acela Express. Unfortunately, the expensive trains do not run at rated speeds because the trackbed is inadequately maintained,and the equipment has serious maintenance flaws. Amtrak loses money on the Northeast Corridor despite having fares that are equal to or greater (at peak hours) than airfares on the route. Note this is the most densely populated route in the US, so a truly high speed rail connection should be eminently viable. It seems that before we start throwing money at a polictically popular project we need to have a real railroad organization to run it. The management in Europe is far more professional, the trains run faster and seem to have less downtime. As far as Orlando-Tampa is concerned, I concur with the comments, the route is too short, and there are few non-automobile related options in either city once passengers arrive. We have enormous federal and state deficits and we need to ensure that our tax dollars are spent wisely where they do the most good, not just where it sounds the most sexy.

"Give the money to the states that want it and will use it best"...whatever happened to the backlash against Bridge to Nowhere type of spending? How about giving the money back to the taxpayers the Feds took it from to begin with, so they can spend it for something other than political purposes?

JBP