# No Florida High Speed Rail



## Greg

Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $$ for Florida.

http://www.kgmi.com/pages/9214426.php?contentType=4&contentId=7674012


----------



## Oldsmoboi

Good. More for me.


----------



## PJRACER

Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons:	Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds.	Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.


----------



## Eric S

Ignoring the comment above mine.

This is almost unbelievable. How much federal funding was involved here, something like $2.3 billion of a $2.6 billion project? Suppose this funding will be redistributed in the same manner that the approx $1.2 billion from OH & WI was redistributed?


----------



## jis

Eric S said:


> This is almost unbelievable. How much federal funding was involved here, something like $2.3 billion of a $2.6 billion project? Suppose this funding will be redistributed in the same manner that the approx $1.2 billion from OH & WI was redistributed?


Well, first the Repubs will try to rescind it, and possibly get knocked down by a Presidential veto and then whatever is to happen will happen I suppose.

It is possible that the good Governor of Florida waited this long to make sure that the Repus got a chance to try to rescind it before the president can reallocate. I sure do hope this lands up on the NEC for a change.


----------



## TransitGeek

As a Californian, I'd like to thank Governor Scott for his decision, and would like to invite Floridians to come ride our shiny new HSR system in a decade or so.

Now, put this money on the BFD-Palmdale segment!


----------



## PJRACER

TransitGeek said:


> As a Californian, I'd like to thank Governor Scott for his decision, and would like to invite Floridians to come ride our shiny new HSR system in a decade or so.
> 
> Now, put this money on the BFD-Palmdale segment!


As a "Floridian", you are welcome.........Cal. needs some more debt to add to their gazzillions.


----------



## rrdude

Greg said:


> Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $ for Florida.
> 
> http://www.kgmi.com/...ntentId=7674012


When I read Sh!# like that, it just makes me wanna go postal. 
What if all the Governors told Dwight D. the same thing 50 years ago? We'd still be driving coast-to-coast on two lane roads I guess.

The U.S.A. is destined to staying a 3rd-world country when it comes to HSR I guess. It just blows my mind.

We are afraid to "do" big projects anymore, like the Interstate System, or the Apollo project. Content to sit on the sidelines, and watch our world-side competitive advantages just disappear, and watch China and others pass us by. So sad.


----------



## Gratt

This is frustrating and disappointing :angry2: :angry:

I think this all but kills any hopes for a HSR in my home state as well. To my chagrin Democrats and Republicans have done a very good job making HSR a very partisan issue when it did not have to be.

I hope this is simply posturing and that with some negotiations and improvements (the Florida plan did leave a lot to be desired) It can be implemented.

If not California will be left as the only example of true HSR in this country.


----------



## WICT106

There might -- just might -- be some positive rail news for Florida: Governor Scott remains committed to returning conventional-yet-incrementally-improved-speed rail service to the FEC, does he not ?


----------



## TransitGeek

PJRACER said:


> TransitGeek said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a Californian, I'd like to thank Governor Scott for his decision, and would like to invite Floridians to come ride our shiny new HSR system in a decade or so.
> 
> Now, put this money on the BFD-Palmdale segment!
> 
> 
> 
> As a "Floridian", you are welcome.........Cal. needs some more debt to add to their gazzillions.
Click to expand...

What debt? These are grants, not loans. CA's on the hook for $9bn in bonds from Prop 1A (at relatively low interest), and that's it- the law actually bans the state from providing operating subsidy. Not that they would- HSR systems the world over make an operating profit.

The cost of the system is in the $40bn neighbourhood, and between the Prop 1A bonds and matching money from the feds we're getting close to half of that. Foreign HSR investors, including Japan, China and France have all expressed interest in funding a substantial proportion of the system (given that we buy their trains, of course). The Japanese ambassador even suggested they'd pay for the whole damned thing recently. Beyond that, the increase in tax revenue that the construction jobs (and all the jobs they support- google the multiplier effect) should create in the economy may well improve state and local governments' ability to pay for the system, and generate broad-based economic recovery to boot.

$9bn in long-term low-interest infrastructure bonds in exchange for a top-flight HSR system connecting the most populous state in the Union? Sounds good to me.


----------



## Greg

and in other news today, the estimates for airline travelers are 1 billion annually by 2021..... I think regardless of whether we go HSR or conventional rail, something needs to be done to increase passenger rail capacity, reliability and schedules in this country, and soon.



rrdude said:


> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $ for Florida.
> 
> http://www.kgmi.com/...ntentId=7674012
> 
> 
> 
> When I read Sh!# like that, it just makes me wanna go postal.
> What if all the Governors told Dwight D. the same thing 50 years ago? We'd still be driving coast-to-coast on two lane roads I guess.
> 
> The U.S.A. is destined to staying a 3rd-world country when it comes to HSR I guess. It just blows my mind.
> 
> We are afraid to "do" big projects anymore, like the Interstate System, or the Apollo project. Content to sit on the sidelines, and watch our world-side competitive advantages just disappear, and watch China and others pass us by. So sad.
Click to expand...


----------



## jcl653

Great news for the rest of the country. Now it's time for Obama to hand this money to the northeast. I would like to see the money spent on the tracks from Pittsburgh to Philly, Albany to New York, and of course Boston to Richmond.


----------



## Eric S

jis said:


> It is possible that the good Governor of Florida waited this long to make sure that the Repus got a chance to try to rescind it before the president can reallocate. I sure do hope this lands up on the NEC for a change.


That actually sounds fairly plausible. Might we see another quick reallocation of the funds, to various other unfunded (or not fully-funded) proposals already submitted.


----------



## Tony

TransitGeek said:


> What debt? These are grants, not loans.


Then why was the Governor of FL worried about having to pay it back?


----------



## Eric S

Gov. Scott cancelled this project before even receiving concrete proposals from private interests, and there was a good deal of speculation/indication that those interests might have been willing to cover the portion of the project not covered by the federal grants. This suggests his motives were not concerns about (possible/potential) costs to FL, but rather the same idealogical ones that motivated governors in OH & WI to cancel projects. As much as I look forward to seeing how this funding is redistributed, it is a rather unfortunate outcome.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PJRACER said:


> Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons:	Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds.	Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.


Says the genius who couldn't figure out a simple rail pass to save his life. :lol:



Gratt said:


> To my chagrin Democrats and Republicans have done a very good job making HSR a very partisan issue when it did not have to be.


I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic party myself, but I _am_ curious what exactly you would have preferred they have done differently that would _not_ have incurred the wrath of the GOP?



Gratt said:


> I hope this is simply posturing and that with some negotiations and improvements (the Florida plan did leave a lot to be desired) It can be implemented. If not California will be left as the only example of true HSR in this country.


From what I'm reading Florida HSR has died. It may be a purely political death but the result will be the same. California HSR is by no means a foregone conclusion either. California HSR will continue to depend on federal funding and that's going to become more and more difficult to provide as we continue to lower tax rates and slash funding for tax fraud recovery efforts.


----------



## AlanB

Tony said:


> TransitGeek said:
> 
> 
> 
> What debt? These are grants, not loans.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why was the Governor of FL worried about having to pay it back?
Click to expand...

By accepting the money, he commits the state to operate the train for 20 years. That commitment includes covering any operating losses. If he or any future Governor, or the legislature for that matter, fails to cover the operating costs and instead decides to shut the operation down within that 20 year period, then the State of Florida is obligated to repay the Fed for the grants.

Florida actually came very close to this situation with Tri-Rail, as they barely passed funding in time to keep Tri-Rail running ahead of massive cuts that would have triggered repayment of a Federal grant to double track the line.

All Federal grants come with similar strings attached. They want to make sure that the states don't just throw the money away or use it for other than the intended purpose.


----------



## PJRACER

daxomni said:


> PJRACER said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons:	Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds.	Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the genius who couldn't figure out a simple rail pass to save his life. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Gratt said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my chagrin Democrats and Republicans have done a very good job making HSR a very partisan issue when it did not have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic party myself, but I _am_ curious what exactly you would have preferred they have done differently that would _not_ have incurred the wrath of the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> Gratt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this is simply posturing and that with some negotiations and improvements (the Florida plan did leave a lot to be desired) It can be implemented. If not California will be left as the only example of true HSR in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I'm reading Florida HSR has died. It may be a purely political death but the result will be the same. California HSR is by no means a foregone conclusion either. California HSR will continue to depend on federal funding and that's going to become more and more difficult to provide as we continue to lower tax rates and slash funding for tax fraud recovery efforts.
Click to expand...

LOOK MR BRIGHT GUY WHO GOES BY DAXOMNI: You are great at name calling are you?? I have noticed that....my statement was not mine but THE GOV"s>>>>>I have no "dog" in this fight (discussion)...please stop with the name calling......of course I am not a genius, and don't pretend to be.....but because I had some difficulties with figuring how Rail Passes work, I guess all rookies should stay away from you.


----------



## Steve4031

The rail pass comment looks to me to be a cheap shot. Let's just stick to the discussion about Florida.

I hope more goes to Illinois. If not that then the nec.


----------



## Ryan

Lighten up, Francis. The man was making a joke, as helpfully indicated by the :lol: right next to it.


----------



## jphjaxfl

As a Florida citizen, I am very disappointed. The traffic between Tampa and Orlando is horrendous. Florida is perfect for High Speed rail; flat surface, lots of tourists. It is very political just like when Jeb Bush facilitated a repeal of the high speed rail referendum that Florida voters had approved. I am looking forward to riding California's high speed rail line.


----------



## jb64

Ryan said:


> Lighten up, Francis. The man was making a joke, as helpfully indicated by the :lol: right next to it.


I'll give you the benefit of doubt, on this one; but I thought it in poor taste. I viewed it as a shot, too. Very demeaning and singled out the poster. Not at all funny, either.

I would like to thank Alan B for giving a non-partisan answer regarding the federal funds without making remarks about others beliefs, abilities, opinions, or intelligence.


----------



## oldtimer

I think the place to spend this money is either on the last ten miles into St Louis so that the upgraded Chicago - St Louis line does not have to poke along at a very low speed on the TRRA trackage.

My other proposal is to build a quicker way into CUS from the end of Amtrak's 95 MPH trackage (soon to be 110 MPH) at Porter IN as this would not only benefit Michigan service but also such trains as the Lake Shore and Capital Limited!

 :giggle:


----------



## Gray

PJRACER said:


> Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons:	Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds.	Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.


While these are the reasons the governor gave, they do have the drawback that the first two are false, and the third is irrelevant.

Private companies bidding for the contract were actually willing to accept all responsibility for cost overruns. Of course, Scott didn't give the chance for them to formally submit their bids since he pulled the project before the deadline. And overruns weren't nearly as likely as he argued.

His source for the projected cost overruns and the argument that ridership estimates were too high was a report by notoriously anti-anything-but-automobile zealot Wendell Cox for the Reason Foundation, which has been debunked elsewhere. The report compares figures on ridership and construction costs to other projects, completely out of context. Like, say, comparing costs to projected cost of an HSR line in CA, ignoring the fact that the California line needs an expensive viaduct and also has to pay for right of way, while most of the ROW in Florida is already owned by the state. The analysis then claims that the cost estimates for the Florida line must be too low, and therefore costs will end up being much, much higher.

Also the report compared ridership estimates with ridership figures for the Acela and therefore deeming them "too high." I'm sure people here could point out quite a few flaws in that comparison even before clicking on the link.

As for the third point, since the projections are actually pretty good and the state likely wouldn't be on the hook for cost overruns anyway, it's pretty irrelevant to point out that it would be expensive to walk away from the project after starting it. Sure, as Alan points out, the federal money does come with the requirement that the state actually uses it to do what it's supposed to do. It just seems odd to me for the governor to be complaining about having to commit to a basic level of competence, but I guess this is what things have come to.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Tony said:


> TransitGeek said:
> 
> 
> 
> What debt? These are grants, not loans.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why was the Governor of FL worried about having to pay it back?
Click to expand...

Anybody who places political ideology over the benefit of the people who voted him into office is inherently a very special person. So special they ride short busses to special classes.

Expecting them to act in a logical and reasonable fashion that can be explained rationally is an abject example of insanity.



PJRACER said:


> LOOK MR BRIGHT GUY WHO GOES BY DAXOMNI: You are great at name calling are you?? I have noticed that....my statement was not mine but THE GOV"s>>>>>I have no "dog" in this fight (discussion)...please stop with the name calling......of course I am not a genius, and don't pretend to be.....but because I had some difficulties with figuring how Rail Passes work, I guess all rookies should stay away from you.


Don't let Dax get to you. Failing to understand a rail pass would be an improvement on his part.


----------



## pennyk

As a Floridian, I am *extremely* disappointed. I do not think that our governor has the best interests of the citizens of Florida in mind. (I want to say a whole lot more, but I think it might be irrelevant to the topic, and I do not want to get into a spitting contest with anyone).


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jphjaxfl said:


> As a Florida citizen, I am very disappointed. The traffic between Tampa and Orlando is horrendous. Florida is perfect for High Speed rail; flat surface, lots of tourists. It is very political just like when Jeb Bush facilitated a repeal of the high speed rail referendum that Florida voters had approved. I am looking forward to riding California's high speed rail line.


Keep in mind that the same nonsensical partisan attacks that have now killed Florida's HSR can *also* kill California's prospects as they continue to build momentum in the GOP. There is still no guarantee that America will ever see _true_ HSR anywhere in the country.



jb64 said:


> I'll give you the benefit of doubt, on this one; but I thought it in poor taste. I viewed it as a shot, too. Very demeaning and singled out the poster. Not at all funny, either.


Meanwhile telling Obama to shove his passenger rail funding "where the sun don't shine" was both funny _and_ tasteful apparently.


----------



## Anderson

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: The Orlampa line was a mess at best: Too short to actually "go" anywhere, it would have been, in essence, an Acela in an area with about 1/5 the population. Yes, you would have gotten a good deal of traffic off of I-4, but I think you would have been facing a decade-long buildup while the project bled money (and let's not even get into the probably inevitable cost overruns).

Honestly, Florida's best bet is probably a four-line system (Miami-Orlando-Tampa, Miami-Jacksonville, Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa, and Miami-Orlando-Jacksonville...the redundant coast line is only important because of the high population concentration along the coast) with 2-4 trains per day on each route (I'm assuming 7-8 hours from JAX-MIA on the low end)...and looking at the per-mile cost...$5 billion for a line less than 100 miles long translates into a project cost of $50 million plus per mile to build. Simply routing everything through Orlando and ignoring the East Coast Line, if the per-mile basis were to carry over, you'd be looking at over $20 billion for a statewide JAX-ORL-MIA project.

Look, Florida is an excellent candidate for improved rail service: It has a densely-packed corridor population along the east coast, and there's a second not-quite-a-corridor between Tampa, Orlando, and the east coast. But you don't go from minimal service to all-out HSR without inviting a disaster. The Acela was built on the Metroliner service and on the highly-traveled NEC...it was built on a region with 8-12 million riders on Amtrak alone, not to mention the NJ Transit trains, Metro North services, and MARC runs available on segments of the line (and the VRE off the south end). Compare that with Orlampa and tell me how many people take a train from one to the other...and I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that number is less than 100,000, seeing as annual transits to/from Tampa are only in the 130,000 range, and I am prepared to bet that the vast majority of that comes from somewhere else to Tampa (and that the vast majority of the Orlando traffic is from up north as well). Heck, out in California, you've got a decent existing network that's being built on.

So...I'm not too sorry to see this project go because while it was well-intentioned, I think that it was doomed to failure because it wasn't built on anything. I mean...an Orlando-Tampa line is basically a commuter line, but the best I can find for intercity travel there is a Greyhound. There's not even a bus service this is tapping into, and while I will agree that a train will attract plenty of folks a bus won't, to go from one train per day to a high-speed line over the extent of a planned system (as opposed to part of a system) does not compute if you're making it a public venture, because you're likely to find an embarrassing funding hole as a result.

Just by the way, was there even any talk on how many trains were supposed to run on this line and how much operational expenses (in real terms) would run?


----------



## BobWeaver

rrdude said:


> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $ for Florida.
> 
> http://www.kgmi.com/...ntentId=7674012
> 
> 
> 
> When I read Sh!# like that, it just makes me wanna go postal.
> What if all the Governors told Dwight D. the same thing 50 years ago? We'd still be driving coast-to-coast on two lane roads I guess.
> 
> The U.S.A. is destined to staying a 3rd-world country when it comes to HSR I guess. It just blows my mind.
> 
> We are afraid to "do" big projects anymore, like the Interstate System, or the Apollo project. Content to sit on the sidelines, and watch our world-side competitive advantages just disappear, and watch China and others pass us by. So sad.
Click to expand...

In my mind, the recent state of the high speed rail push in the US has been grossly misdirected. The media and many Amtrak/rail supporters like the ones that post on here (don't take that the wrong way folks) liken the current HSR push to "building the next generation of the Interstate Highway System," when it is simply not the case. The current state of HSR in the United States (here) is really nothing more than a small number of largely localized high speed rail (a term that is up to interpretation anyway) designated corridors that, with the exception of SEHSR, don't link up to a greater network and require at least some form of state support. Do not confuse this with the original plan of the IHS, which was a Federal effort and was very deliberately designed as an interconnecting nationwide network. For proof, look at page 5 of the original General Location of National System of Interstate Highways publication from 1955, which can be found here. The two simply cannot be compared. I find it greatly disappointing and short-sighted that our current plan for a high speed rail network remains so fragmented, and that this country, as well as many of its states, lacks a comprehensive master plan for the future of its transportation, distribution, and logistics systems.

From a rail supporter's perspective, it is unfortunate to watch HSR having such a hard time getting off the ground domestically. However, from someone who is realistic, very fiscally-aware, and future-oriented, I have to agree that it is not the right time for HSR in its current form. I have personally opposed any HSR project outside of California's effort and SEHSR, because I believe that these two areas have not only the greatest need, but also the greatest potential. I believe, and have for some time now, that the public isn't necessarily set on the prospect of true HSR for the future of rail transportation. Sure, the marketing aspect of HSR is sexy - a sleek, modern, electric train pulling into a shiny newly-constructed station whisking you away to your destination at 150+mph...I mean, who wouldn't want that, right? - but realistically, all that most Americans want in the present and near-future are consistent, reliable, drive-competitive trains. There is very much so pent-up demand for this type of service in our country. If this weren't the case, NCDOT would not have seen the need to institute 2 new midday round-trip departures (74/75) between Charlotte and Raleigh, in addition to its existing two round-trips per day (80/79 and 73/74). Could one drive the same distance in an hour less and at a lower fuel cost than the $26 one-way itinerary? Most likely, assuming no traffic. But for many people, there exists a certain willingness-to-pay in premium for not having to drive it. The implementation of this new midday service is proof of all the above. Additionally, NCDOT would not see a need to extend service from Salisbury to Asheville (a city whose airport passenger numbers have been skyrocketing recently), and from Raleigh to Wilmington if the demand didn't exist. Another perfect example is the large success of the Amtrak Regional extension to Lynchburg. As with trains 74/75, one could drive the distance in about an hour's less time, but for an increasingly small difference in fuel cost as compared to the $29 one-way fare, again assuming no traffic. Again, the service's unexpected (not so much to me; I figured it would break the ridership goal, but not to the extent that it did) success is a testament to what consumers are content with and want in our country. From 10/1/09, to 9/30/10, the Lynchburg train achieved an annual ridership of 126,072, exceeding its initial yearly target of 51,000 by 147.2 percent. The service also exceeded its initial annual revenue goal of $2,580,000 by generating $6,337,457.42 in revenue, 145.6 percent over the goal. The new Richmond extension introduced at around the same time is doing well also. Case in point.

In going with the idiom, "you have to walk before you can run," I deeply believe that our focus should be on implementing new service and/or extending existing service at current speeds, all the while improving the existing infrastructure, and expanding where necessary with the goal of continuous improvement at a relatively even spending level. Obviously, first updating and fixing our existing network's most serious problems and bottlenecks (read: Chicago congestion, the NEC, Amtrak equipment, etc.) would involve a potentially large initial outlaying of public funds, but its benefits would be clear and very, very noticeable. However, after the initial large-scale, large-effect updates and improvements have been completed, smaller continuous improvements of the system would take over, and would be far less likely to require large capital investments. But more importantly, these funds would go towards optimizing an existing integrated system, not an entirely new project. The truth is that HSR is simply too much to swallow at this time financially with the state of the economy. The Department of the Treasury reporting a deficit of $1.29 trillion for 2010 and our national debt being more than $14 trillion as of last month certainly doesn't help the HSR case either. Without a plan in place for a national, integrated network like we had with our Interstate Highway System, we are unable to prioritize route planning, and as a result, we get projects like the ~80-mile-long Orlando-Tampa corridor. That is, small, localized routes whose benefits to the nation as a whole are ambiguous at best. Are HSR projects that small _really_ necessary? I think the answer to that is no, given the vast amount of funding that it would require. I instead would support, and I think the public would as well, a network of consistent, clean, frequent 79-90mph trains whose upfront costs would be significantly less, yet would still offer drivers an advantage over a frustrating, cluttered drive up Interstate 4. It also concerns me that such short routes would prevent us from realizing potential cost savings from a lack of scale as opposed to if the project was part of a larger integrated plan, in addition to the potential for differences in equipment, technical aspects, personnel, etc. between two given corridors.

Overall, I do feel that we are moving in the right direction in general with rail transportation, albeit slowly. We must remember that our government has much on its plate right now in terms of transportation funding, and passenger rail must compete with the need for an updated air traffic control system, highway rebuilding and expansion, and modernization and expansion of our ports, all of which we badly need, and arguably more than localized HSR corridors. The reality that many states are coming to is that "Yes, HSR would be nice, but we simply can't justify its upfront costs and the risks associated with it, especially at the current time. Instead, let's get a dialogue going with the guys over at the freight railroads and see what we can mutually agree on to perhaps get some existing speed passenger trains running on existing infrastructure," which is totally acceptable in my opinion. It's what North Carolina has been doing for the last decade, albeit with a unique agreement with NS, and it's what Virginia has started to do in the last few years. A perfect example is the new service that was approved late last year for new 79mph service to Norfolk from Petersburg/Richmond via the NS, which will provide a viable alternative to the congested I-95 and I-64 corridors, and will serve the Hampton Roads area as a whole, an area of 1+ million that hasn't seen passenger rail since 1977. The cost for this ~85 mile project? A cool $87 million, funded by a Rail Enhancement Fund grant. Quite a sizable contrast to the $2.4 billion price tag on the similarly sized Tampa-Orlando corridor, with probably only about 20-30 minutes' difference in travel time. Florida Governor Rick Scott was quoted as saying, "Government cannot spend more than it takes in. ... The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits." I'll side with Rick on this one. A continuous improvement strategy and culture is what keeps an increasingly large amount of companies competitive in today's business environment. Here's to hoping our nation's passenger rail system can do the same.

I'll be hopping on the new Lynchburg train to Newark in 2 weeks and then will be returning the following weekend on it from Washington. I am very much looking forward to supporting this service and becoming a part of its successful numbers.

CM


----------



## volkris

Please don't fall into the trap of confusing honest ideological disagreements with gamesmanship by greedy politicians looking to screw over their constituents.

People honestly disagree as to the value of rail and providing rail to citizens, and that's a rational, reasonable disagreement. After all, as GML recently pointed out, the value of something like HSR doesn't appear on any balance sheet. Similarly, the value of avoiding the risks that Florida was taking on with this project (and yes, there were risks to the state's budget even with the private contracts) doesn't appear on a balance sheet either.

So how do you decide between those apples and oranges? Republicans might tend to think one apple is wort two oranges while Democrats think it's one to three. Neither are bad people for their opinions there, and neither is trying to game the system. They simply disagree about how much they like apples.

The push for civility starts with assuming the other side has the best of intentions.

Edit: I just read the cahsrblog response to the Reason study. Ho-ly-geez, what an empty smearpiece that was! Even ignoring the wholly inappropriate tone of the post, it refuted a report about a report, not the report itself. It sounds like the poster never even read the original report, and so is in no position to actually critique its reasoning.


----------



## Ryan

volkris said:


> Please don't fall into the trap of confusing honest ideological disagreements with gamesmanship by greedy politicians looking to screw over their constituents.


You're absolutely correct. This has absolutely nothing to do with the former and everything to do with the latter. It boils down to a simple calculus for this governor (and the others in WI and OH). Barack Obama supports it, so therefore I must be against it. Nothing more.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Ryan said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't fall into the trap of confusing honest ideological disagreements with gamesmanship by greedy politicians looking to screw over their constituents.
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct. This has absolutely nothing to do with the former and everything to do with the latter. It boils down to a simple calculus for this governor (and the others in WI and OH). Barack Obama supports it, so therefore I must be against it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...


I agree. The self-serving, negative and short-on-fact partisan rhetoric that way too many of our politicians engage in will keep us muddling along in short-sighted mediocrity. Times like these are never America at her best.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransitGeek said:
> 
> 
> 
> What debt? These are grants, not loans.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why was the Governor of FL worried about having to pay it back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By accepting the money, he commits the state to operate the train for 20 years. That commitment includes covering any operating losses. If he or any future Governor, or the legislature for that matter, fails to cover the operating costs and instead decides to shut the operation down within that 20 year period, then the State of Florida is obligated to repay the Fed for the grants.
> 
> Florida actually came very close to this situation with Tri-Rail, as they barely passed funding in time to keep Tri-Rail running ahead of massive cuts that would have triggered repayment of a Federal grant to double track the line.
> 
> All Federal grants come with similar strings attached. They want to make sure that the states don't just throw the money away or use it for other than the intended purpose.
Click to expand...

And the Florida legislature has never been known for consistency.

Here's how politics works in this country:

Press. Obama lauds HSR in his SotU speech

Glenn Beck goes on the next day saying HSR is "socialism" and declare that it is a slap at our rights and freedoms to choose modes of transportation

Egypt happens, everybody is momentarily distracted

With the news cycle back to normal, Rick Scott (T-FL) appeases his conservative base


----------



## jb64

BobWeaver said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $ for Florida.
> 
> http://www.kgmi.com/...ntentId=7674012
> 
> 
> 
> When I read Sh!# like that, it just makes me wanna go postal.
> What if all the Governors told Dwight D. the same thing 50 years ago? We'd still be driving coast-to-coast on two lane roads I guess.
> 
> The U.S.A. is destined to staying a 3rd-world country when it comes to HSR I guess. It just blows my mind.
> 
> We are afraid to "do" big projects anymore, like the Interstate System, or the Apollo project. Content to sit on the sidelines, and watch our world-side competitive advantages just disappear, and watch China and others pass us by. So sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my mind, the recent state of the high speed rail push in the US has been grossly misdirected. The media and many Amtrak/rail supporters like the ones that post on here (don't take that the wrong way folks) liken the current HSR push to "building the next generation of the Interstate Highway System," when it is simply not the case. The current state of HSR in the United States (here) is really nothing more than a small number of largely localized high speed rail (a term that is up to interpretation anyway) designated corridors that, with the exception of SEHSR, don't link up to a greater network and require at least some form of state support. Do not confuse this with the original plan of the IHS, which was a Federal effort and was very deliberately designed as an interconnecting nationwide network. For proof, look at page 5 of the original General Location of National System of Interstate Highways publication from 1955, which can be found here. The two simply cannot be compared. I find it greatly disappointing and short-sighted that our current plan for a high speed rail network remains so fragmented, and that this country, as well as many of its states, lacks a comprehensive master plan for the future of its transportation, distribution, and logistics systems.
> 
> From a rail supporter's perspective, it is unfortunate to watch HSR having such a hard time getting off the ground domestically. However, from someone who is realistic, very fiscally-aware, and future-oriented, I have to agree that it is not the right time for HSR in its current form. I have personally opposed any HSR project outside of California's effort and SEHSR, because I believe that these two areas have not only the greatest need, but also the greatest potential. I believe, and have for some time now, that the public isn't necessarily set on the prospect of true HSR for the future of rail transportation. Sure, the marketing aspect of HSR is sexy - a sleek, modern, electric train pulling into a shiny newly-constructed station whisking you away to your destination at 150+mph...I mean, who wouldn't want that, right? - but realistically, all that most Americans want in the present and near-future are consistent, reliable, drive-competitive trains. There is very much so pent-up demand for this type of service in our country. If this weren't the case, NCDOT would not have seen the need to institute 2 new midday roundtrip departures (74/75) between Charlotte and Raleigh, in addition to its existing two roundtrips per day (80/79 and 73/74). Could one drive the same distance in an hour less and at a lower fuel cost than the $26 one-way itinerary? Most likely, assuming no traffic. But for many people, there exists a certain willingness-to-pay in premium for not having to drive it. The implementation of this new midday service is proof of all the above. Additionally, NCDOT would not see a need to extend service to Salisbury to Asheville, and from Raleigh to Wilmington if the demand didn't exist. Another perfect example is the large success of the Amtrak Regional extension to Lynchburg. As with trains 74/75, one could drive the distance in about an hour's less time, but for an increasingly small difference in fuel cost as compared to the $29 one-way fare, again assuming no traffic. Again, the service's unexpected (not so much to me; I figured it would break the ridership goal, but not to the extent that it did) success is a testament to what consumers are content with and want in our country. From 10/1/09, to 9/30/10, the Lynchburg train achieved an annual ridership of 126,072, exceeding its initial yearly target of 51,000 by 147.2 percent. The service also exceeded its initial annual revenue goal of $2,580,000 by generating $6,337,457.42 in revenue, 145.6 percent over the goal. The new Richmond extension introduced at around the same time is doing well also. Case in point.
> 
> In going with the idiom, "you have to walk before you can run," I deeply believe that our focus should be on implementing new service and/or extending existing service at current speeds, all the while improving the existing infrastructure, and expanding where necessary with the goal of continuous improvement at a relatively even spending level. Obviously, first updating and fixing our existing network's most serious problems and bottlenecks (read: Chicago congestion, the NEC, Amtrak equipment, etc.) would involve a potentially large initial outlaying of public funds, but its benefits would be clear and very, very noticeable. However, after the initial large-scale, large-effect updates and improvements have been completed, smaller continuous improvements of the system would take over, and would be far less likely to require large capital investments. But more importantly, these funds would go towards optimizing an existing integrated system, not an entirely new project. The truth is that HSR is simply too much to swallow at this time financially with the state of the economy. The Department of the Treasury reporting a deficit of $1.29 trillion for 2010 and our national debt being more than $14 trillion as of last month certainly doesn't help the HSR case either. Without a plan in place for a national, integrated network like we had with our Interstate Highway System, we are unable to prioritize route planning, and as a result, we get projects like the ~80-mile-long Orlando-Tampa corridor. That is, small, localized routes whose benefits to the nation as a whole are ambiguous at best. Are HSR projects that small _really_ necessary? I think the answer to that is no, given the vast amount of funding that it would require. I instead would support, and I think the public would as well, a network of consistent, clean, frequent 79-90mph trains whose upfront costs would be significantly less, yet would still offer drivers an advantage over a frustrating, cluttered drive up Interstate 4. It also concerns me that such short routes would prevent us from realizing potential cost savings from a lack of scale as opposed to if the project was part of a larger integrated plan, in addition to the potential for differences in equipment, technical aspects, personnel, etc. between two given corridors.
> 
> Overall, I do feel that we are moving in the right direction in general with rail transportation, albeit slowly. We must remember that our government has much on its plate right now in terms of transportation funding, and passenger rail must compete with the need for an updated air traffic control system, highway rebuilding and expansion, and modernization and expansion of our ports, all of which we badly need, and arguably more than localized HSR corridors. The reality that many states are coming to is that "Yes, HSR would be nice, but we simply can't justify its upfront costs and the risks associated with it, especially at the current time. Instead, let's get a dialogue going with the guys over at the freight railroads and see what we can mutually agree on to perhaps get some existing speed passenger trains running on existing infrastructure," which is totally acceptable in my opinion. It's what North Carolina has been doing for the last decade, albeit with a unique agreement with NS, and it's what Virginia has started to do in the last few years. A perfect example is the new service that was approved late last year for new 79mph service to Norfolk from Petersburg/Richmond via the NS, which will provide a viable alternative to the congested I-95 and I-64 corridors, and will serve the Hampton Roads area as a whole, an area of 1+ million that hasn't seen passenger rail since 1977. The cost for this ~85 mile project? A cool $87 million, funded by a Rail Enhancement Fund grant. Quite a sizable contrast to the $2.4 billion price tag on the similarly sized Tampa-Orlando corridor, with probably only about 20-30 minutes' difference in travel time. Florida Governor Rick Scott was quoted as saying, "Government cannot spend more than it takes in. ... The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits." I'll side with Rick on this one. A continuous improvement strategy and culture is what keeps an increasingly large amount of companies competitive in today's business environment. Here's to hoping our nation's passenger rail system can do the same.
> 
> I'll be hopping on the new Lynchburg train to Newark in 2 weeks and then will be returning the following weekend on it from Washington. I am very much looking forward to supporting this service and becoming a part of its successful numbers.
> 
> CM
Click to expand...

Great Post! Thanks for a rational contribution to the topic. I think infrastructure, and particularly rail infrastructure, is going to become even more important to our country and recovering economy. We need to take the steps needed to improve what we have and have the general public understand the value of that before we can ever think of getting to the sexy stuff. As you said, baby steps.


----------



## Anderson

You know, it just hit me while I was in the shower, but why isn't anybody talking about rolling some version of this into the SunRail project as a second line? You'd get the benefit of cross-platform transfers or, better yet, through trains at the Orlando station, you could ditch the bus at Orlando in favor of a timed local connection (not ideal, but arguably better), and if you wanted to hawk it to the tourists, you could run some more limited trains that skipped a bunch of the commuter stops and ran on an altered fare schedule. You could _probably_ even get a few higher-speed segments in the middle of the Orlando-Tampa run where you're still crossing orange groves and the like if you wanted to plan for an eventual HSR line or if you wanted a peacock segment along the lines of the Acela's 150 MPH bit.


----------



## Greg

Ahhh, politics in Florida, this is getting real interesting, now a veto-proof majority of the Florida Senate is trying to bypass Governor Scott and get the HSR $ anyway!

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/17/2072075/scott-rebuked-by-26-senators-over.html


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: The Orlampa line was a mess at best: Too short to actually "go" anywhere, it would have been, in essence, an Acela in an area with about 1/5 the population. Yes, you would have gotten a good deal of traffic off of I-4, but I think you would have been facing a decade-long buildup while the project bled money (and let's not even get into the probably inevitable cost overruns).


It was a first step. You've got to start someplace. With this being the shortest planned segment, along with a ready made ROW, it made sense to start here.

As for those cost overruns, there is a 30% contingency built into the budget. Unless the states fails to properly excute contracts and watch things closely, there should be no cost overruns. And with some of the potential players in the game saying that they would consider covering some of any potential cost overruns, that would go further to preventing things from getting out of hand.



Anderson said:


> and looking at the per-mile cost...$5 billion for a line less than 100 miles long translates into a project cost of $50 million plus per mile to build.


The total currently package is $2.7 Billion, where are you getting $5 from?


----------



## AlanB

volkris said:


> Edit: I just read the cahsrblog response to the Reason study. Ho-ly-geez, what an empty smearpiece that was! Even ignoring the wholly inappropriate tone of the post, it refuted a report about a report, not the report itself. It sounds like the poster never even read the original report, and so is in no position to actually critique its reasoning.


While perhaps that response could have been written better and handled differently, it still doesn't change the fact that the original report is at best horribly questionable and at worst totally false.

One doesn't have one's aide write a report that magically proves what you want, such that you can then have a basis for doing something. The report must be above reproach, which means that no one with direct ties to the Governor should have been involved. Adding Wendell Cox to the byline doesn't help matters.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

BobWeaver said:


> In my mind, the recent state of the high speed rail push in the US has been grossly misdirected. The media and many Amtrak/rail supporters like the ones that post on here liken the current HSR push to "building the next generation of the Interstate Highway System," when it is simply not the case.


I think the point being made was that today's hyper-partisan government would never have been able to create an IHS or fly us to the moon. Those were huge projects that required an understanding of what's best for the country more than what's best for a given politician or party. Nobody is claiming that today's tepid HSR proposals are anything like the creation of the IHS. In fact the only post calling for a passenger rail network at anything even approaching the scale of the IHS is your own, albeit at a LSR rate of 79-90MPH.



BobWeaver said:


> From a rail supporter's perspective, it is unfortunate to watch HSR having such a hard time getting off the ground domestically.


We already saw a major passenger rail effort get off the ground in Florida thanks to the voters. Then we saw a handful of politicians endeavor to repeal it. They succeeded. Eventually we saw yet _another_ major passenger rail effort get off the ground _again_, immediately followed by yet _another_ set of anti-rail politicians jumping at the chance to kill it. They also succeeded. The primary deterrent to improved passenger rail in America is the growing number of anti-rail politicians we keep electing. Where there is political will new service is coming. Where there is political opposition even 90% federal funding is still not enough to get the job done. Politics over practicality. It's really as simple as that.



BobWeaver said:


> In going with the idiom, "you have to walk before you can run," I deeply believe that our focus should be on implementing new service and/or extending existing service at current speeds, all the while improving the existing infrastructure, and expanding where necessary with the goal of continuous improvement at a relatively even spending level.


I've yet to see a single HSR proposal that has been seriously criticized for being far too fast, although I _have_ seen several repeatedly condemned for being far too _slow_.



BobWeaver said:


> Overall, I do feel that we are moving in the right direction in general with rail transportation, albeit slowly.


That's a rather surprising thing to say after watching a half-dozen major passenger rail initiatives bite the dust in the last few months.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: The Orlampa line was a mess at best: Too short to actually "go" anywhere, it would have been, in essence, an Acela in an area with about 1/5 the population. Yes, you would have gotten a good deal of traffic off of I-4, but I think you would have been facing a decade-long buildup while the project bled money (and let's not even get into the probably inevitable cost overruns).
> 
> 
> 
> It was a first step. You've got to start someplace. With this being the shortest planned segment, along with a ready made ROW, it made sense to start here.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I would be more inclined to agree if you had a link to the current Orlando station that didn't require a crosstown bus...if that was the case, then you could (at least in theory) take SunRail from DeLand or Kissimmee to Orlando and then take the HSR line the rest of the way to Tampa. Instead, the line is almost totally non-integrated with any existing rail transport. I know that a lot of people won't bother with a cross-platform transfer, but a decent number of folks will, and excluding this connection is _definitely_ leaving lots of traffic on the table. It severely limits the usefulness of the route.

More to the point, I'm willing to submit that a project with limited upgrades to the rest of the planned route so that you had, say, 90-110 MPH from Orlando to Miami that could be later upgraded to 135 MPH or better. Right now, though? It's great if you want to go to either Disney World or the airport, but without integration into a larger network, it reeks of turning into an expensive disaster.



> As for those cost overruns, there is a 30% contingency built into the budget. Unless the states fails to properly excute contracts and watch things closely, there should be no cost overruns. And with some of the potential players in the game saying that they would consider covering some of any potential cost overruns, that would go further to preventing things from getting out of hand.
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> and looking at the per-mile cost...$5 billion for a line less than 100 miles long translates into a project cost of $50 million plus per mile to build.
> 
> 
> 
> The total currently package is $2.7 Billion, where are you getting $5 from?
Click to expand...

The following post is what I was going off of. I am, as always, more than willing to stand corrected. Yes, this is bigger than the number I was expecting, but it's also not like we haven't seen projects quoted at one number that then have a few billion dollars turn up in unexpected costs in the past...the infamous "Big Dig" tops the list here, but it's not alone (I've stopped trying to keep track of quoted figures for the CA system, too).



PJRACER said:


> Yes, Gov. Scott as much as told Obama to take the 2.4 billion and stick it where the sun don't shine. Reasons:	Cost over-runs would cost state taxpayers and additional 3 billion dollars, the projected ridership estimates are grossly over stated, and if things didn't work out-----the state taxpayers would have to refund the 2.4 billion to the feds. Just looking out for taxpayers in Florida I guess.


----------



## Gray

Anderson said:


> Yes and no. I would be more inclined to agree if you had a link to the current Orlando station that didn't require a crosstown bus...if that was the case, then you could (at least in theory) take SunRail from DeLand or Kissimmee to Orlando and then take the HSR line the rest of the way to Tampa. Instead, the line is almost totally non-integrated with any existing rail transport. I know that a lot of people won't bother with a cross-platform transfer, but a decent number of folks will, and excluding this connection is _definitely_ leaving lots of traffic on the table. It severely limits the usefulness of the route.
> More to the point, I'm willing to submit that a project with limited upgrades to the rest of the planned route so that you had, say, 90-110 MPH from Orlando to Miami that could be later upgraded to 135 MPH or better. Right now, though? It's great if you want to go to either Disney World or the airport, but without integration into a larger network, it reeks of turning into an expensive disaster.


Here's what I don't understand. Why are people so eager to dump projects after lengthy planning and cost-benefit analyses because of gut feelings? You're certainly not the only one to do this, but why do you think your gut feeling should override the years of analysis up to this point?



Anderson said:


> The following post is what I was going off of. I am, as always, more than willing to stand corrected. Yes, this is bigger than the number I was expecting, but it's also not like we haven't seen projects quoted at one number that then have a few billion dollars turn up in unexpected costs in the past...the infamous "Big Dig" tops the list here, but it's not alone (I've stopped trying to keep track of quoted figures for the CA system, too).


As I mentioned previously, the Cox and Poole study is a joke. Its basic argument is that the ridership projections are too high because (a) some other projects in other countries using completely different models haven't met projections, and (b) comparing the projections to ridership on Acela (not including the many, many other trains in the NEC), these numbers just _feel_ too high. Seriously. On the basis of this, they make up some new numbers, then claim that at the ridership they project, the project will lose billions.


----------



## volkris

Gray said:


> As I mentioned previously, the Cox and Poole study is a joke. Its basic argument is that the ridership projections are too high because (a) some other projects in other countries using completely different models haven't met projections, and (b) comparing the projections to ridership on Acela (not including the many, many other trains in the NEC), these numbers just _feel_ too high. Seriously. On the basis of this, they make up some new numbers, then claim that at the ridership they project, the project will lose billions.


Since a lot of people don't seem to have actually read the study they're so critical of, here's a link: http://reason.org/files/florida_high_speed_rail_analysis.pdf

As you can see, the argument is not as you frame it. It goes through many reasons to suspect the ridership numbers as being too high including *but not limited to* historical rampant gross overestimation of ridership numbers (two-thirds of projects are overestimated by more than two-thirds) and the comparison to Acela numbers which point out that the ridership estimate is 2/3 of Acela ridership but without nearly the population density.

But focusing on these two points completely and utterly ignores the bulk of that section of the report. Here's the conclusion from that:



> Close examination shows that door-to-door travel times on the train are generally slower than by car and the costs are generally higher. As a result, the train is unlikely to be attractive for the local
> 
> and short intercity trips that it would serve


One thing I find kind of interesting is that this forum has something of a mantra of "rail never runs a profit". Well, the Florida project relied on the assumption that the service would run a profit or else it would fail and the state would be left holding the bag. Judging by the knowledge of this forum, then, the governor was right to cancel the project.


----------



## Anderson

Gray said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. I would be more inclined to agree if you had a link to the current Orlando station that didn't require a crosstown bus...if that was the case, then you could (at least in theory) take SunRail from DeLand or Kissimmee to Orlando and then take the HSR line the rest of the way to Tampa. Instead, the line is almost totally non-integrated with any existing rail transport. I know that a lot of people won't bother with a cross-platform transfer, but a decent number of folks will, and excluding this connection is _definitely_ leaving lots of traffic on the table. It severely limits the usefulness of the route.
> More to the point, I'm willing to submit that a project with limited upgrades to the rest of the planned route so that you had, say, 90-110 MPH from Orlando to Miami that could be later upgraded to 135 MPH or better. Right now, though? It's great if you want to go to either Disney World or the airport, but without integration into a larger network, it reeks of turning into an expensive disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I don't understand. Why are people so eager to dump projects after lengthy planning and cost-benefit analyses because of gut feelings? You're certainly not the only one to do this, but why do you think your gut feeling should override the years of analysis up to this point?
Click to expand...

I don't trust the studies because projections tend to have an extremely large margin of error. Look at what was "supposed" to happen with the Lynchburger versus what actually panned out. Yes, that was an error on the "good" side, but that's still a big error.

Moreover, I have to compare this with existing services in terms of ridership projections: 2 million people per year on the one line would make it the third or fourth most traveled rail route in the country, behind the NEC (or the NE Regional and the Acela) and the Pacific Surfliner. To compare, the Pacific Surfliner runs a route that has had continuous, multiple daily round trips for seventy years. The NEC has had large-scale passenger service for over a century, and the Acela in particular was built around the Metroliner service, which itself dated back to the 1960s.

So...why am I willing to toss the studies? Because I do not see what they are based on. I don't see the numbers materializing, and frankly I haven't heard a good justification for them. I just don't see it. You don't go from 0 to 2 million overnight, and if 2 million is the "eventually, when everything is said and done and the line has been operational for 4-5 years and we _eventually_ get around to integrating this line with existing services" figure...well, that's not really being conveyed very well. What I'm seeing now is "We expect 2 million people to ride this short line which doesn't hardly link in with anything else, rail or otherwise". And that doesn't follow.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I have never been a supporter of Florida's HSR program because its basic design was set up to fail. As people said, no connection to local transportation, limited distance reducing average speed, limited basis on the corridor, and so on. A grand high speed project between New York and Buffalo makes sense. So does one between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, with eventual extension to Pittsburgh. The Keystone and Empire Corridors are very successful.

California makes the most sense of all. Connecting transportation is excellent, rail awareness is excellent, population density is extreme. Florida doesn't even make sense for an intercity rail corridor at this point.

Florida has almost no functional public transportation outside of Miami. They have the kind of crappy bus-only system designed to serve the poor people who can't afford a car, where it exists at all. Intercity rail, on a corridor basis, requires connecting transportation on a grand level. Where does it work? Chicago- lots of Els, Subways, and insane buses criss crossing everything- successful corridors to Milwaukee (decent public transit), St. Louis (excellent public transit), and to some small extent, Detroit. Practically every major city on the Northeast corridor has commuter rail (Washington, Baltimore, Newark, Philadelphia, Newark, New York, New Haven, Providence, and Boston), rapid transit/light rail (Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York, Boston), and Buses (All of them).

Even though I am 40+ miles from the closest of these major cities, I can get to them with a combination of a mile walk and mass transit. I can live without a car. And that is the secret to why rail transit works around here.

Florida has none of this. NONE OF IT. The only rail transit in the state are a joke of a commuter system out of Miami, the Miami people mover, and the tourist attractions in Tampa and Disney World. Buses are limited service, even. Walk before they run? They have to start crawling, dude.


----------



## Gray

volkris said:


> Since a lot of people don't seem to have actually read the study they're so critical of, here's a link: http://reason.org/fi...il_analysis.pdf
> As you can see, the argument is not as you frame it. It goes through many reasons to suspect the ridership numbers as being too high including *but not limited to* historical rampant gross overestimation of ridership numbers (two-thirds of projects are overestimated by more than two-thirds) and the comparison to Acela numbers which point out that the ridership estimate is 2/3 of Acela ridership but without nearly the population density.


As others have also mentioned, the problem there is that Acela doesn't even carry half of the Amtrak passengers in the NEC. A quick googling gives me ridership numbers for October 2007, when NE Regional trains carried twice as many passengers as Acela trains. Not to mention the many commuter trains running the same route. So, right, comparing a new HSR line in its own corridor to one of several train options in a completely different corridor . . . well, that's a pretty naive comparison.

The did cite one book that evaluated projections made for projects in other countries. If they had demonstrated that the same sorts of models were being used here, that would be one thing. But they don't do that, and instead just use that to jump to the conclusion that all projects can be expected to significantly underperform projections.

And yes, there was another part to that other section of the report, as you point out: they did their own back-of-the-envelope calculations of travel times and claimed that these numbers were more useful than the feasibility studies done by people with actual knowledge and experience with actually modeling such projects.



volkris said:


> But focusing on these two points completely and utterly ignores the bulk of that section of the report. Here's the conclusion from that:
> 
> 
> 
> Close examination shows that door-to-door travel times on the train are generally slower than by car and the costs are generally higher. As a result, the train is unlikely to be attractive for the local
> 
> and short intercity trips that it would serve
Click to expand...

And finally:



volkris said:


> One thing I find kind of interesting is that this forum has something of a mantra of "rail never runs a profit". Well, the Florida project relied on the assumption that the service would run a profit or else it would fail and the state would be left holding the bag. Judging by the knowledge of this forum, then, the governor was right to cancel the project.


A couple of things. First, it's not true that rail never runs a profit--though it does depend on which definition of profit you use. I'm not aware of many projects funded entirely with private funds and turning a profit on their own (though I'm sure someone here will come up with some), but there are plenty of well-run routes around the world that turn an operating profit once the lines are built. To use the example that Cox and Poole brought up but didn't actually understand, Acela turns an operating profit. But more generally, we have seen that all over the world, convenient, well-run high-speed rail turns an operating profit. Which is exactly what we could expect from the Florida HSR project if implemented correctly.

And of course that's ignoring the fact that, for multiple reasons, Florida wouldn't be left holding the bag. But we've already discussed those, even if you keep ignoring them.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Greg said:


> Ahhh, politics in Florida, this is getting real interesting, now a veto-proof majority of the Florida Senate is trying to bypass Governor Scott and get the HSR $ anyway!
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/17/2072075/scott-rebuked-by-26-senators-over.html


And that's why we have checks and balances.


----------



## Anderson

Double post


----------



## Anderson

Alright, I've flipped through the Cox and Poole study. On the one hand, I don't find all of the arguments to be convincing, but on the other hand I think there are good points raised that deserve some consideration, particularly with the ridership figures. I'll go ahead and say that I think the cost figures are probably going to come in below what is estimated in the report, but I also don't think it's unreasonable for FL to want something in place to split cost overruns.

I still think that a major factor that is overlooked is the lack of preexisting service. The Acela didn't get to 3.2 million riders out of nowhere: It replaced the Metroliners, which were already doing a lot of NYP-WAS business and were well-established. But the point of "How do we get 2/3 of Acela's ridership on 1/8 the population base" bears questioning. Yes, you can probably get _some_ ridership on Orlando International to either Disney World or the Tampa cruise terminals, but I'd be shocked if you managed to displace _that_ much traffic. Unless Disney is going to buy folks' tickets as part of a hotel package, there are going to be plenty of tourists who are going to blink at dropping $60 on a one-way train fare (for a family of four, at least), and if someone is staying at a Holiday Inn, it'll probably be cheaper to simply rent a car for a long weekend than to fork over the round trip fare.

So...I do not see this working as a tourist shuttle (particularly since it's only really effective in that capacity for Disney itself). I finally did figure out how the Sunrail line links into this, by the way: A third (bus) line links two of the stations. Really, that's getting to the point of absurdity: If I want to go from downtown Orlando to (presumably) downtown Tampa, I have to get on a train...then a bus...then another train, all presumably with separate fares? To quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief." One switch would be fine (I'm used to having to grab a train and a linking bus when I'm up in DC), but two on what will to all appearances be non-integrated systems just doesn't compute.

Edit: I'm going to self-correct and note that there does seem to be a three-train possibility: SunRail-North/South Light Rail-HSR via the convention center. Still a mess (I _thought_ there was a connection in there somewhere), but not quite the mess that the bus link would be...but still not good. I'd like to point out that in Virginia, one of the big points being made about the Norfolk line is that it will allow downtown-to-downtown service from Norfolk to Richmond (and, of course, Washington and beyond). The Acela offers downtown-to-downtown service in the NE. This...doesn't. The airport link is nice, but seeing as a cab fare from the airport to International Drive is only a bit over $30 and takes you to your hotel (rather than having to switch to a cab or van at the station)...yeah, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

With that said, I think I've realized what else is gnawing at me about the service: The lack of downtown-to-downtown service. The Orange County Convention Center is _miles_ from downtown, and that's supposed to be the linking station. Now, this isn't easy to say, but I think the answer is to build a good track system down the center of I-4...but use an improved version of a commuter system on it. Nothing horribly flashy, not capable of "tapping" 168 MPH, but I think if you put a solid system in there and make sure that the track is up to standards, there's no reason you couldn't operate an express line down the middle at around 100 MPH most or all of the way that links into the planned SunRail system. You could probably back down from Class 9 to Class 7 track (I'm not sure of the differences in track requirements, but for 168 MPH you've got to use class 9, while a less "shiny" 125 MPH on the Orlampa segment would basically mean less accelerating and decelerating on most runs and more time at top speeds) and not lose much time.

I say this because, as far as SunRail is planned to go off to the north (DeLand is somewhere around 1/3 of the way from Orlando to Jacksonville), you can look at substantial improvements in Jacksonville-Tampa times with the related Amtrak ownership of the railroad line, and I think you'd be able to get a good intrastate intercity network going. The current project really offers no prospect of that; the Miami phase has some promise, yes, but that's...how many hurdles away? And even that line doesn't seem set to integrate with the larger rail network anywhere outside of Miami, even in separated platforms at the same station.


----------



## volkris

Gray said:


> The did cite one book that evaluated projections made for projects in other countries. If they had demonstrated that the same sorts of models were being used here, that would be one thing. But they don't do that, and instead just use that to jump to the conclusion that all projects can be expected to significantly underperform projections.
> 
> And yes, there was another part to that other section of the report, as you point out: they did their own back-of-the-envelope calculations of travel times and claimed that these numbers were more useful than the feasibility studies done by people with actual knowledge and experience with actually modeling such projects.


This sort of analysis is actually not so uncommon in the real world. It's a meta-analysis, and it's a legitimate tool. After all, you point out that studies "done by people with actual knowledge and experience" said something. Well, how much trust should Florida put in their conclusions? Should the state of Florida, which is already having budget problems, risk funding a project based largely on their say so? A reasonable answer is to look at other studies "done by people with actual knowledge and experience" to get a sense of how accurate such knowledgeable and experienced planners are historically. The answer, it turns out, is surprisingly disconcerting.

Does that mean the planners are definitely wrong or that they knowingly submitted a flawed report? No. But it does mean the project carries more risk than its backers may have assumed, and considering its budget Florida is right to be risk-adverse right now.



> A couple of things. First, it's not true that rail never runs a profit--though it does depend on which definition of profit you use. I'm not aware of many projects funded entirely with private funds and turning a profit on their own (though I'm sure someone here will come up with some), but there are plenty of well-run routes around the world that turn an operating profit once the lines are built. To use the example that Cox and Poole brought up but didn't actually understand, Acela turns an operating profit. But more generally, we have seen that all over the world, convenient, well-run high-speed rail turns an operating profit. Which is exactly what we could expect from the Florida HSR project if implemented correctly.
> 
> And of course that's ignoring the fact that, for multiple reasons, Florida wouldn't be left holding the bag. But we've already discussed those, even if you keep ignoring them.


Glancing through, I don't see anything in the report that refers to Acela turning or not turning a profit. Can you point to it?

The profitability of this line relies on demand, and the report does cast doubt on the demand. Therefore, it casts doubts on the profitability. It also states various circumstances under which Florida would be left holding the bag, regardless of this group's insistence that it would be impossible. Those threats--ranging from the private guarantor shutting down to actions of federal government itself--are entirely real and undisputed here.


----------



## Gray

volkris said:


> This sort of analysis is actually not so uncommon in the real world. It's a meta-analysis, and it's a legitimate tool. After all, you point out that studies "done by people with actual knowledge and experience" said something. Well, how much trust should Florida put in their conclusions? Should the state of Florida, which is already having budget problems, risk funding a project based largely on their say so? A reasonable answer is to look at other studies "done by people with actual knowledge and experience" to get a sense of how accurate such knowledgeable and experienced planners are historically. The answer, it turns out, is surprisingly disconcerting.


Well, they didn't perform a meta-analysis; they cited a meta-analysis that happens to agree with their conclusions without context. Context is kind of important here, and it's the difference between an analysis of this particular project and a gut feeling that an analysis is wrong.



> Does that mean the planners are definitely wrong or that they knowingly submitted a flawed report? No. But it does mean the project carries more risk than its backers may have assumed, and considering its budget Florida is right to be risk-adverse right now.


Again, you keep saying there's tons of risk for the state, but there just isn't. The bidding process was structured to require bidders to take on any downside risk. Now, if your concern is that a multinational corporation that's bidding (like, say, Siemens or Alstom) is going to go bankrupt and leave Florida with its debts, we've got bigger problems.

Moreover, people at the DOT have already stated that they would have been willing to have a discussion about indemnifying the state from even the low probability risk, but Scott never asked them about it.



> Glancing through, I don't see anything in the report that refers to Acela turning or not turning a profit. Can you point to it?


I didn't say they addressed Acela's profitability. They brought it up as an example for other reasons, but didn't mention that it's hugely profitable (on an operating basis). That just contradicts your statement that no rail line anywhere turns a profit.



> The profitability of this line relies on demand, and the report does cast doubt on the demand. Therefore, it casts doubts on the profitability. It also states various circumstances under which Florida would be left holding the bag, regardless of this group's insistence that it would be impossible. Those threats--ranging from the private guarantor shutting down to actions of federal government itself--are entirely real and undisputed here.


Again, these threats are neither real nor undisputed.


----------



## volkris

Gray said:


> Well, they didn't perform a meta-analysis; they cited a meta-analysis that happens to agree with their conclusions without context. Context is kind of important here, and it's the difference between an analysis of this particular project and a gut feeling that an analysis is wrong.


Do you have a meta-analysis that disagrees with the one they presented or any reason to doubt that particular meta-analysis?

This has nothing to do with gut feelings. It has to do with risk assessment. We see that smart, well meaning experts making projections very frequently come up with very wrong conclusions, and that rightfully casts doubt on the projections made by the current group of smart, well meaning experts making projections. History thus shows that there is a real risk that the current projections are to be viewed with healthy skepticism.

As to the risk, it's not common these days to view large multinational corporations as such heroes, ready to stand up for their obligations regardless of the downsides they'd experience. Through the years we've seen plenty of instances of "interesting" business activities ranging from creative accounting to government-backed (sometimes government-imposed) fraud, all of which speaks to the simple fact that a business caught in an unprofitable and unsustainable situation will often find a way to get out of it.

Think it's still farfetched that the businesses would ever weasel out of their responsibility? Fine. But then, the downside is still pretty intimidating. Even with an unlikely loss, the state has no money to cover the consequences. Arguably it's a gamble that's just not work taking at the moment. Risks are high not only because of likelihoods but also because of consequences.

As for profitability, keep in mind that it's not my claim that no rail service makes a profit. It's just a theme I see thrown around on this board quite often, and if it's to be accepted, then this Florida deal was dead from the start... as GML seems to think.


----------



## Anderson

I'm going to step back in here. Though obviously I do not have the mid-1990s figures for the Metroliners handy (which is a shame; it'd be nice to be able to extend my datasets back further), I would point out that I still don't see where they're going to get more than folks riding this to Disney World out of the deal...and even there, it's a lousy deal for larger families since they'll _still_ need a cab or rental car when they get off the train. This doesn't provide downtown-to-downtown service, it doesn't build on an existing service...it just drops out of nowhere.

I will say that I would rather have a decent-to-good HSR line in place than no line, but if it's a choice between a bad line that becomes a fiscal embarrassment and no line? I choose no line in a heartbeat, and the more I look at this it looks to me to be a bad line.

Let me put this another way, in the form of an analogy: A high-speed line is built from San Diego to Los Angeles. Setting aside the pre-existing line there, if the line goes to downtown San Diego but peels off and only goes to Anaheim and LAX rather than actually going into Los Angeles proper, I'm going to be hard-pressed to take that train to LA. I might take it to San Diego, assuming that the parking and the ticket price are both reasonable, but I'm not going to take it if I'm going to LA for the day, and probably not for the weekend. Or let me offer another option: There's a high-speed line from Richmond to Washington, DC. In DC, however, the line either skips over the city and just goes to BWI without interlinking with the metro, or it shoots off to Dulles...and in both cases, I've got to make a VRE transfer somewhere. Or...Albany-to-NYC with the closest stop to NYC being Newark International. That's what I feel like we've got here.

How hard would it have been to adjust the project to ensure it linked into the CSX A-line in downtown and to electrify the few miles (I think it's 10 miles or so) from the Convention Center to Orlando Central Station? No, the new train couldn't do 160 through downtown Orlando, but it _could_ link with everything else in a reasonable manner. Or, how hard would it have been to amend the SunRail plan as a part of this to ensure that the SunRail line went to a direct link with this, either at the airport (which would _actually_ be a good use...people actually do travel _from_ Orlando _to_ other places, after all, and airport parking at a major airport tends to be far more expensive than the train fare to the airport if you're going away for a few days). Let's not forget that for all Orlando is a major tourist center, it's also a significant financial center and has a major downtown area.

Finally, I'd like to call out the tendency of folks to say "If this goes down, X may be next". I am not going to defend a project that I think is doomed to failure in an attempt to protect another one. Yes, there is a troubling trend within the GOP, and I do think Scott needs to be pushed back against, but I also agree with GML and think this was a poorly-designed project that was going to do a disservice to our cause in the long run.

May I finally point out that with the poor linking to Orlando proper, the utility of the Miami-Orlando link comes into question. I think it's less endangered because of the distances and times involved, but I still think that not being able to go to downtown on the train does the line no good.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Maryland's Governor O'Malley has asked Secretary of Transportation LaHood for Florida's rejected $2.4 billion to make improvements on the NEC, including replacing the tunnels in Baltimore. While not a glamorous high profile use of the money, it would not be a bad use of it either, IMO.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> I would point out that I still don't see where they're going to get more than folks riding this to Disney World out of the deal...and even there, it's a lousy deal for larger families since they'll _still_ need a cab or rental car when they get off the train.


If one is going to Disney, one doesn't need a car. One only needs a car if one plans to go to other non-Disney places. Otherwise, the Disney transporation system is so extensive and frequent that no car is needed. I've done many a vacation at Disney without a car.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would point out that I still don't see where they're going to get more than folks riding this to Disney World out of the deal...and even there, it's a lousy deal for larger families since they'll _still_ need a cab or rental car when they get off the train.
> 
> 
> 
> If one is going to Disney, one doesn't need a car. One only needs a car if one plans to go to other non-Disney places. Otherwise, the Disney transporation system is so extensive and frequent that no car is needed. I've done many a vacation at Disney without a car.
Click to expand...

Your point is taken if one remains in the Disney area exclusively, something I've never done when going to the area. However, to call upon my experience back in 2001, my folks took me to Disney World and Universal Studios. There are also lots of people who go to Disney World but who don't stay at one of the Disney hotels...or who end up wanting to go somewhere else in the Orlando area. Again...if folks are just going one place, the train may make sense, but not if they want to go elsewhere (unless Disney plans to add some sort of ZipCar service to their , and I haven't seen anything either way on that point). Assuming the low-end fare ($15), if I'm going to Orlando with a family of four, I am not going to spend $60 to take my family to Disney, $60 out and $60 back for Universal Studios or SeaWorld, and then $60 back to the airport. That's around twice what a rental car would cost me for the week.

Look, unless Disney is planning not only to direct people to the train but to basically throw in the airport round trip as part of a complete hotel package (in the vein of the current included motorcoach service), the tourist numbers aren't going to be there because of the rental car situation. And even with that...if you're hiking $120 in costs onto a family vacation (again, $15*4 people*2 trips), people are going to notice the hike, particularly on a shorter package ($120 runs to about a 10% hike on the basic 3-night package they have). If I had to read into this project, I'd say that Disney is going to be looking to get some sort of bulk discount on the ticket price if they make their end work...they'll certainly have the negotiating power to do it if they're dealing in even 100,000 rides per year.

I guess the question that jumps to mind now is what annual attendance is at those hotels rather than the parks (the latter number is going to be inflated by both large numbers of people who are from the area driving in and by repeat attendees on the same ticket). When we went, we were at a condo nearby and had a rental car (again, going around town).


----------



## TVRM610

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would point out that I still don't see where they're going to get more than folks riding this to Disney World out of the deal...and even there, it's a lousy deal for larger families since they'll _still_ need a cab or rental car when they get off the train.
> 
> 
> 
> If one is going to Disney, one doesn't need a car. One only needs a car if one plans to go to other non-Disney places. Otherwise, the Disney transporation system is so extensive and frequent that no car is needed. I've done many a vacation at Disney without a car.
Click to expand...

I was just at Disney and to add to that it's actually very easy to get to Universal and Sea World (and all other tourist places) by the lynx bus. Takes about an hour to get to Universal (depending on how good your timing is) and just about 20 or so minutes to get to sea world. Getting to and from Amtrak is also very easy, but it does require a transfer at the downtown Lynx Station, which is easy, but add some time.

I also rode the Silver Star down to Tampa... Lots of 79mph running. I'd say improve that track to 90 or 110 (it's certainly possible). Start running "corridor" style trains Orlando to Tampa and I think, as others have said, that things will build nicely from there. (Is that the basic Sun Rail Plan)?


----------



## Anderson

TVRM,

Here's a quick rundown:

-SunRail is a planned commuter operation, aimed at running from DeLand to an industrial park south of Orlando. Basically, the objective is to get people off of I-4 who're running from out near Daytona to Orlando on the expressway every day. The reason that integrating it is important is that by linking the two, you'd open up a substantial business market between the two cities (this is also why the lack of a downtown Orlando link alone is infuriating...you're not going to get business folks coming from Tampa to get dropped off at the Orlando Airport).

-The second reason this is a bit frustrating is that even absent the HSR program itself, the new Tampa-Orlando line (if it linked into the CSX A-Line) would be an excellent shift for Tampa-bound trains. If push came to shove, you could reroute the Silvers on that line and run them at 110 MPH (which VIA does all the time with their Genesis engines) most or all of the way. You could _also_ run corridor trains that link up with SunRail proper, again at 110 MPH if you simply use the existing engines, or at 125 MPH if you need to get new ones.

Look, there's no reason you can't run trains that go Tampa-Orlando downtown _and _trains that go Tampa-Orlando airport, and you could even run ones that hit both using a push-pull configuration like I expect they're doing. The big thing is that, with SunRail owning the right-of-way on that stretch of the A-line, you're not going to be dealing with freight-related delays. If you need to, you could _probably_ finagle some money to split through trains onto a separate track to go around stopped commuter trains if that's an issue, but even having the RoW lined up will probably allow at least some cuts in times, which would open up the possibility of Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa corridor service.

Part of why I raise SunRail is that it presents an opportunity to run Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa service. With the HSR project and SunRail, you've got over half of the right-of-way for such a train under government control. I know that there's a focus on Orlando-Miami as the next route, and I agree that such is a good route, but when you've got 136 of 246 miles wrapped up, it seems a waste not to try and round up that remaining stretch...particularly if you can get over 79 MPH on stretches with just signal upgrades. As it stands, Jacksonville-Deland averages 59 MPH, and I _think_ there's some makeup time built in for Orlando (the average on the DeLand-Orlando segment is under 40 MPH, which seems odd in contrast to the previous one and what you mentioned about the Tampa segment).


----------



## Greg

and the saga continues: Bipartisan lawsuit to the Florida Supreme Court:

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/senators-joyner-altman-sue-rick-scott-over-bullet-train-today


----------



## George Harris

volkris said:


> Since a lot of people don't seem to have actually read the study they're so critical of, here's a link: http://reason.org/files/florida_high_speed_rail_analysis.pdf


You are right, I have not read it, and really do not intend to. They are writing to back up a predetermined conclusion, which is their norm when it comes to anything rail. That is NOT honest research and analysis. I read a good part of the one written from the same mindset on the California system. They likewise concluded that the required run times were unachievable, and keep talking about the numerous intermediate stops ignoring the reality that not all trains make all stops. There appeared to be no real analysis of the disparagement of the run times.

Much of their report comes down to "Figures may not lie, but liars figure."


----------



## Greg

the Florida Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Governor Rick Scott. the high speed rail in florida is dead....


----------



## Spokker

Rick Scott was last seen heading over to I-4 to pave over the right of way.


----------



## Guest

Greg said:


> the Florida Supreme Court has ruled ...


The Florida Supreme Court also ruled that Al Gore won.


----------



## Ryan

Nobody's perfect every time...


----------



## Steve4031

Perfect idiots IMHO.


----------



## Anderson

Considering the margins of support, I don't see why the legislature doesn't simply jam through a law ordering Scott to do the railroad (or even pulling it out of executive oversight in some way...I'm not familiar with Florida constitutional law, but I'd think this would be doable) and override any veto. They have the numbers in the Senate (at least, as per that roundtable letter they did), I _think_ they do in the House, and Scott's approval numbers are in the toilet. The "nay" side on this is at what? 17%?


----------



## Ozark Southern

Anderson said:


> Considering the margins of support, I don't see why the legislature doesn't simply jam through a law ordering Scott to do the railroad (or even pulling it out of executive oversight in some way...I'm not familiar with Florida constitutional law, but I'd think this would be doable) and override any veto. They have the numbers in the Senate (at least, as per that roundtable letter they did), I _think_ they do in the House, and Scott's approval numbers are in the toilet. The "nay" side on this is at what? 17%?


I understand they're still not giving up. The latest plan is to put together a coalition of municipal and county governments between Pinellas and Orange Counties and re-apply for the grant. Under such an arrangement, Gov. Scott would have no authority over the funds.


----------



## afigg

Ozark Southern said:


> I understand they're still not giving up. The latest plan is to put together a coalition of municipal and county governments between Pinellas and Orange Counties and re-apply for the grant. Under such an arrangement, Gov. Scott would have no authority over the funds.


How would that work? Isn't the median strip of I-4 state owned property? Any big project such as this is going to need cooperation from state executive branch agencies. While the staffers at the state DOT, some of whom have spent years working on the Florida HSR project, would favor helping the HSR project out, the Governor and his appointed head of the state agencies run the agencies. Governor Scott has demonstrated that he is hostile to transit projects, so he could put all sort of roadblocks in the way over the remainder of his term.


----------



## George Harris

I have a feeling that a lot of what is going on here is like watching a duck swim. That is, most of the action is out of sight.


----------



## Ozark Southern

afigg said:


> Ozark Southern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand they're still not giving up. The latest plan is to put together a coalition of municipal and county governments between Pinellas and Orange Counties and re-apply for the grant. Under such an arrangement, Gov. Scott would have no authority over the funds.
> 
> 
> 
> How would that work? Isn't the median strip of I-4 state owned property? Any big project such as this is going to need cooperation from state executive branch agencies. While the staffers at the state DOT, some of whom have spent years working on the Florida HSR project, would favor helping the HSR project out, the Governor and his appointed head of the state agencies run the agencies. Governor Scott has demonstrated that he is hostile to transit projects, so he could put all sort of roadblocks in the way over the remainder of his term.
Click to expand...

I doubt it will work. Sen. Nelson called it a "Hail Mary" effort, so even he doesn't think it has much of a chance. You are correct that the new grant will require a new ROW that does not use state-owned land. No, this plan is dead. Time to go through its pockets and look for loose change. Honestly, I'm okay with this one not going through. Of the three high-speed corridors, this was the least likely to be successful. I'm putting my hope in the S.F. to L.A. line as the best chance for a successful high-speed project. When the public see its success, as well as that of the 110-MPH lines in the Midwest, perhaps they'll be less averse to funding infrastructure improvements. Probably not. It seems this is like getting kids to eat broccoli: They have to make a habit of it when they're young, or else they'll refuse, no matter how good it is for them.


----------



## Steve4031

I think the federal government should cut bait with Florida. If they can't get their act together now, they will not be able to do it later. They are like a bunch of monkeys chasing a football.

Other states "have no money" and are displaying the political will to get it down. These states, IMHO, will prosper down the line. And then other states will see the light and get their act together.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

The other states have no money see this type of project as creating jobs which will help them out in the long run.


----------



## PJRACER

It seems like you all have beaten this dead horse enough!!!	I am a Florida resident, pay taxes in Florida, and I am one of many hundreds of thousands who are glad this is DONE. We already have a daily AMTRAK from Tampa to Orlando.....nobody rides it......we have a sufficient busing service....nobody rides it. As a retired Pinellas County bus driver, I spent many years driving the county buses on the designated routes....most often a small scattering of riders. Give the money we don't have to others that need it more and don't mind seeing cost over-runs, and taxes continue to sky-rocket.	"People love to spend on things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like."


----------



## AlanB

PJ,

Even I do wonder if indeed all the ridership that was predicted would have been there.

That said, the fact that no one rides the current Amtrak service between Orlando & Tampa isn't proof of anything. The current service doesn't permit a same day round trip Tampa to Orland; not to mention that the Orlando to Tampa direction is often late. Therefore it is useless to claim that no one will ride HSR because no one rides the current Amtrak service. It's not a matter of people not wanting to ride the service; it's a matter of people not be able to use it.

Additionally bus service is never an accurate predictor of train ridership, but especially so when you're comparing a bus running at 60 MPH if it's lucky to a train going double that speed.

I understand that you're concerned about the cost and I respect that; it is something to be worried about. But the reasons that you're using to predict potentially poor ridership aren't valid.

Finally, let me leave you with one other thought. If Florida keeps rejecting rail, ever higher taxes for you guys is guaranteed. Consider the following:

In 2010 if you were part of a married, retired couple with $100,000 in income, then you paid $89.38 towards the highways. That's not what you paid because you brought gas; that's what you paid via your Federal income tax. That big bad train system called Amtrak that so many like to hate, you gave them $3.11. Train's aren't raising your taxes; it's all those highways in Florida that are raising your taxes. The last expansion of I-4 cost FLDOT more per mile to build than this train would have and those lanes aren't being fully paid for by the fuel taxes. Your other Florida taxes are still going into that highway.


----------



## Daniel

So with Florida rejecting the $2.4 billion, when can we expect to hear where the funds will be redistributed?


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> ... Train's aren't raising your taxes; it's all those highways in Florida that are raising your taxes. The last expansion of I-4 cost FLDOT more per mile to build than this train would have and those lanes aren't being fully paid for by the fuel taxes. Your other Florida taxes are still going into that highway.


Florida DOT states that all state highway costs - engineering, construction and maintenance - are funded from the Florida Transportation Trust Fund. The FTTF is funded from the state fuel tax and license and registration fees. As far as I can determine, no state general tax revenue is used for state highway projects like Interstate highway expansion. I can't find any evidence that suggests that is not correct.


----------



## AlanB

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Train's aren't raising your taxes; it's all those highways in Florida that are raising your taxes. The last expansion of I-4 cost FLDOT more per mile to build than this train would have and those lanes aren't being fully paid for by the fuel taxes. Your other Florida taxes are still going into that highway.
> 
> 
> 
> Florida DOT states that all state highway costs - engineering, construction and maintenance - are funded from the Florida Transportation Trust Fund. The FTTF is funded from the state fuel tax and license and registration fees. As far as I can determine, no state general tax revenue is used for state highway projects like Interstate highway expansion. I can't find any evidence that suggests that is not correct.
Click to expand...

The FTTF doesn't fund local roads, property taxes do. Yet everytime he drives his car down his street, he's paying fuel taxes for something that he's not using. So no matter how you slice it, his taxes are higher because of that highway.

And of course since the Fed supplies a large part of highway funds and not all of that comes out gas taxes, his income tax is higher than it needs to be because of I-4 being made wider.


----------



## DET63

Guest said:


> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Florida Supreme Court has ruled ...
> 
> 
> 
> The Florida Supreme Court also ruled that Al Gore won.
Click to expand...

Meaning that if it were to have had a bias, it probably would have been pro-rail in this case, not anti.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Train's aren't raising your taxes; it's all those highways in Florida that are raising your taxes. The last expansion of I-4 cost FLDOT more per mile to build than this train would have and those lanes aren't being fully paid for by the fuel taxes. Your other Florida taxes are still going into that highway.
> 
> 
> 
> Florida DOT states that all state highway costs - engineering, construction and maintenance - are funded from the Florida Transportation Trust Fund. The FTTF is funded from the state fuel tax and license and registration fees. As far as I can determine, no state general tax revenue is used for state highway projects like Interstate highway expansion. I can't find any evidence that suggests that is not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FTTF doesn't fund local roads, property taxes do. Yet everytime he drives his car down his street, he's paying fuel taxes for something that he's not using. So no matter how you slice it, his taxes are higher because of that highway.
> 
> And of course since the Fed supplies a large part of highway funds and not all of that comes out gas taxes, his income tax is higher than it needs to be because of I-4 being made wider.
Click to expand...

But, Alan, to be fair, the statement was made that the Florida DOT expansion of I-4 (and by extension other FL DOT projects) was paid by other than fuel taxes: that Florida taxes other than the fuel tax and fees were used for Florida DOT highway projects. That is simply not correct. The state share of Florida DOT highway projects and maintenance is funded through fuel taxes and fees and nothing else.

Yes, local roads use local taxes. But realistically the presence or absence of HSR will not change that at all. Even the local tax impact of roads is not a clear cut case in Florida. Florida is unique in that there is local component of of the fuel tax that helps offset local taxes. A second fuel tax - ranging from 9.9 to 17.8 cents per gallon depending on locality - goes to local municipalities. So. even local roads do not rely completely upon general local taxes.

Florida has among the highest state and local fuel taxes in the nation - as high as 37 cents per gallon depending on fuel type and locality. I think they do their part for funding highways from auto use. The presence or absence of the rail line between Tampa and MCO makes little difference with the tax burden for highways at either the state or local level. There are lots of good reasons to build HSR in Florida. Saving highway taxes is not one of them.


----------



## Ryan

PRR 60 said:


> So. even local roads do not rely completely upon general local taxes.





> There are lots of good reasons to build HSR in Florida. Saving highway taxes is not one of them.


Your arguments would be a lot more persuasive if anyone was making these kinds of claims.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

PJRACER said:


> It seems like you all have beaten this dead horse enough!!!	I am a Florida resident, pay taxes in Florida, and I am one of many hundreds of thousands who are glad this is DONE. We already have a daily AMTRAK from Tampa to Orlando.....nobody rides it......we have a sufficient busing service....nobody rides it. As a retired Pinellas County bus driver, I spent many years driving the county buses on the designated routes....most often a small scattering of riders. Give the money we don't have to others that need it more and don't mind seeing cost over-runs, and taxes continue to sky-rocket.	"People love to spend on things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like."


I have a loathing hatred of anyone not living in the state of New Jersey ever suggesting such a thing as them having high taxes. But good golly, there are Floridians who think that Florida taxes, which are some of the lowest in the nation with... no income tax at all... are high? Dudes, Pot, LSD, crack, cocaine, PCP, and whatever else you're smoking is illegal.

Florida NEEDS HIGHER TAXES, BETTER SERVICES, AND MORE ACCOMODATIONS FOR THE BAZILLIONS OF OLD PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T BE KILLING OUR CHILDREN WITH THEIR CADILLACS AND CATARACTS!


----------



## PRR 60

Green Maned Lion said:


> ...THE BAZILLIONS OF OLD PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T BE KILLING OUR CHILDREN WITH THEIR CADILLACS AND CATARACTS!


How else are they supposed to get to the local Sizzler for the Early Bird Special? :lol:


----------



## Trogdor

I find it interesting that PJRACER says "nobody rides" the Amtrak service to Tampa. Just taking today's departure of train 91 as an example, 86 people are scheduled to alight in Tampa (with another 118 boarding, which is equal to about half the coach capacity of the entire train). Today's 92 had 106 people boarding in Tampa, with 125 alighting.

Now, granted, I don't know how many of those north-of-TPA riders are going to/from Orlando (42 people were scheduled off in Orlando from 92, and I don't really have the motivation to dig through the details to find out exactly how many TPA-ORL passengers there were). However, given that this high-speed rail segment was supposed to be part of a larger route extending all the way down to Miami, and given that with the limited service currently offered you still have a pretty good number of folks riding (total intra-Florida ridership on today's train 92 was nearly 300 people; that is to say, 300 people got off the train before it even made it out of Florida, with over 200 of those going no further than Orlando), it suggests to me that you are insulting a lot of people by calling them "nobody."

Of course, having grown up in Wisconsin, I'm actually quite used to seeing full loads of people on public transportation referred to as "nobody" (and treated as nobody by the policy-makers). It seems to be one of the standard anti-rail, anti-transit matras, to just say "nobody" rides something regardless of how many people actually do.


----------



## George Harris

Green Maned Lion said:


> Florida NEEDS HIGHER TAXES, BETTER SERVICES, AND MORE ACCOMODATIONS FOR THE BAZILLIONS OF OLD PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T BE KILLING OUR CHILDREN WITH THEIR CADILLACS AND CATARACTS!


The major reason that Florida does not have better services it that is way too cluttered up with people from New Jersey and other New York area states that have retired to Florida and are determined that they will not have anything approaching even a fraction of the taxes they paid up there. These people *DO NOT CARE* whether Florida has a functional educational system, transportation or anything else that inconveniences their attempts to live in a low wage near third world area for their own convience. They may barely be able to spell Florida and may even at times forget where they are, but for sure they get out and vote to oppose anything that might accidentially benefit any residents of the state other than themselves.


----------



## Spokker

Young people should visit Florida. They should not be living there. Those with decades ahead of them should flee Florida. Parents who raise children in Florida should be charged with child abuse.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Spokker said:


> Young people should visit Florida. They should not be living there. Those with decades ahead of them should flee Florida. Parents who raise children in Florida should be charged with child abuse.


Amen.


----------



## George Harris

Green Maned Lion said:


> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Young people should visit Florida. They should not be living there. Those with decades ahead of them should flee Florida. Parents who raise children in Florida should be charged with child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
Click to expand...

I will try to remember to tell that to my daughter, her children, and various and sundry others of my friends and in-laws.

Almost forgot: I took a job outside the country to avoid taking one that would have sent me to New Jersey.


----------



## eagle628

Trogdor said:


> I find it interesting that PJRACER says "nobody rides" the Amtrak service to Tampa. Just taking today's departure of train 91 as an example, 86 people are scheduled to alight in Tampa (with another 118 boarding, which is equal to about half the coach capacity of the entire train). Today's 92 had 106 people boarding in Tampa, with 125 alighting.
> 
> Now, granted, I don't know how many of those north-of-TPA riders are going to/from Orlando (42 people were scheduled off in Orlando from 92, and I don't really have the motivation to dig through the details to find out exactly how many TPA-ORL passengers there were). However, given that this high-speed rail segment was supposed to be part of a larger route extending all the way down to Miami, and given that with the limited service currently offered you still have a pretty good number of folks riding (total intra-Florida ridership on today's train 92 was nearly 300 people; that is to say, 300 people got off the train before it even made it out of Florida, with over 200 of those going no further than Orlando), it suggests to me that you are insulting a lot of people by calling them "nobody."



How do you get those numbers?


----------



## Hamhock

Now now, everyone; as someone who, in the past, has lived in both New Jersey and Florida, I can assure you that there are at least 15 whole square blocks in Miami Beach that are a quite pleasant place to live. Outside of that, the entire state should be fed into a woodchipper, panhandle-first.

As for New Jersey, it's absurd, and shouldn't exist as its own entity; rather, it should be divided in halvsies and distributed to Pennsylvania and New York.


----------



## jis

Hamhock said:


> Now now, everyone; as someone who, in the past, has lived in both New Jersey and Florida, I can assure you that there are at least 15 whole square blocks in Miami Beach that are a quite pleasant place to live. Outside of that, the entire state should be fed into a woodchipper, panhandle-first.
> 
> As for New Jersey, it's absurd, and shouldn't exist as its own entity; rather, it should be divided in halvsies and distributed to Pennsylvania and New York.


Or let it sail away and let it join its namesake (whence it got its name from), a little island off the shores of England.


----------



## George Harris

Hamhock said:


> Now now, everyone; as someone who, in the past, has lived in both New Jersey and Florida, I can assure you that there are at least 15 whole square blocks in Miami Beach that are a quite pleasant place to live. Outside of that, the entire state should be fed into a woodchipper, panhandle-first.
> 
> As for New Jersey, it's absurd, and shouldn't exist as its own entity; rather, it should be divided in halvsies and distributed to Pennsylvania and New York.


I would have considered the Panhandle the part worth saving. How could the country make it without the "Redneck Rivera" between Mobile Bay and Panama City?


----------



## Greg

George Harris said:


> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now now, everyone; as someone who, in the past, has lived in both New Jersey and Florida, I can assure you that there are at least 15 whole square blocks in Miami Beach that are a quite pleasant place to live. Outside of that, the entire state should be fed into a woodchipper, panhandle-first.
> 
> As for New Jersey, it's absurd, and shouldn't exist as its own entity; rather, it should be divided in halvsies and distributed to Pennsylvania and New York.
> 
> 
> 
> I would have considered the Panhandle the part worth saving. How could the country make it without the "Redneck Rivera" between Mobile Bay and Panama City?
Click to expand...


HAHA, thanks for that vote George! as a resident of the panhandle, I certainly don't wantt to go in the woodchipper...and I'll keep my opinions about everything south of the "cross florida barge canal" to myself!


----------



## pennyk

Green Maned Lion said:


> PJRACER said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like you all have beaten this dead horse enough!!!	I am a Florida resident, pay taxes in Florida, and I am one of many hundreds of thousands who are glad this is DONE. We already have a daily AMTRAK from Tampa to Orlando.....nobody rides it......we have a sufficient busing service....nobody rides it. As a retired Pinellas County bus driver, I spent many years driving the county buses on the designated routes....most often a small scattering of riders. Give the money we don't have to others that need it more and don't mind seeing cost over-runs, and taxes continue to sky-rocket.	"People love to spend on things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like."
> 
> 
> 
> I have a loathing hatred of anyone not living in the state of New Jersey ever suggesting such a thing as them having high taxes. But good golly, there are Floridians who think that Florida taxes, which are some of the lowest in the nation with... no income tax at all... are high? Dudes, Pot, LSD, crack, cocaine, PCP, and whatever else you're smoking is illegal.
> 
> Florida NEEDS HIGHER TAXES, BETTER SERVICES, AND MORE ACCOMODATIONS FOR THE BAZILLIONS OF OLD PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T BE KILLING OUR CHILDREN WITH THEIR CADILLACS AND CATARACTS!
Click to expand...


As a life long Floridian, I agree with GML that Florida needs higher taxes, better services, etc. We have no income tax, we have no estate tax, and our real estate taxes are pretty low. We used to have an intangible tax, but Gov. Bush (IIRC did away with that) and now Gov. Scott :angry: wants to lower corporate income taxes and real estate taxes. We will be broke in no time and our education system will be even worse than it is now (if that is possible). I think Florida is racing with Mississippi for the bottom.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

George Harris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Young people should visit Florida. They should not be living there. Those with decades ahead of them should flee Florida. Parents who raise children in Florida should be charged with child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will try to remember to tell that to my daughter, her children, and various and sundry others of my friends and in-laws.
> 
> Almost forgot: I took a job outside the country to avoid taking one that would have sent me to New Jersey.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to New Jersey? The area along the Hudson River doesn't count.


----------



## George Harris

Greg said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now now, everyone; as someone who, in the past, has lived in both New Jersey and Florida, I can assure you that there are at least 15 whole square blocks in Miami Beach that are a quite pleasant place to live. Outside of that, the entire state should be fed into a woodchipper, panhandle-first.
> As for New Jersey, it's absurd, and shouldn't exist as its own entity; rather, it should be divided in halvsies and distributed to Pennsylvania and New York
> 
> 
> 
> I would have considered the Panhandle the part worth saving. How could the country make it without the "Redneck Rivera" between Mobile Bay and Panama City?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHA, thanks for that vote George! as a resident of the panhandle, I certainly don't wantt to go in the woodchipper...and I'll keep my opinions about everything south of the "cross florida barge canal" to myself!
Click to expand...

Aha! Just looked you up. Go west until you are just short of running out of Florida and you will find some of my friends and family.


----------



## Bob Dylan

pennyk said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PJRACER said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like you all have beaten this dead horse enough!!!	I am a Florida resident, pay taxes in Florida, and I am one of many hundreds of thousands who are glad this is DONE. We already have a daily AMTRAK from Tampa to Orlando.....nobody rides it......we have a sufficient busing service....nobody rides it. As a retired Pinellas County bus driver, I spent many years driving the county buses on the designated routes....most often a small scattering of riders. Give the money we don't have to others that need it more and don't mind seeing cost over-runs, and taxes continue to sky-rocket.	"People love to spend on things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like."
> 
> 
> 
> I have a loathing hatred of anyone not living in the state of New Jersey ever suggesting such a thing as them having high taxes. But good golly, there are Floridians who think that Florida taxes, which are some of the lowest in the nation with... no income tax at all... are high? Dudes, Pot, LSD, crack, cocaine, PCP, and whatever else you're smoking is illegal.
> 
> Florida NEEDS HIGHER TAXES, BETTER SERVICES, AND MORE ACCOMODATIONS FOR THE BAZILLIONS OF OLD PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T BE KILLING OUR CHILDREN WITH THEIR CADILLACS AND CATARACTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a life long Floridian, I agree with GML that Florida needs higher taxes, better services, etc. We have no income tax, we have no estate tax, and our real estate taxes are pretty low. We used to have an intangible tax, but Gov. Bush (IIRC did away with that) and now Gov. Scott :angry: wants to lower corporate income taxes and real estate taxes. We will be broke in no time and our education system will be even worse than it is now (if that is possible). I think Florida is racing with Mississippi for the bottom.
Click to expand...

Substitute Texas for Mississippi and you nailed it Penny! Your idiot political hacks sound like ours, were just ahead of you cause the No-nothings (pun intended!) have been in control; since W was our so called Governor! :help:


----------



## George Harris

jimhudson said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a life long Floridian, I agree with GML that Florida needs higher taxes, better services, etc. We have no income tax, we have no estate tax, and our real estate taxes are pretty low. We used to have an intangible tax, but Gov. Bush (IIRC did away with that) and now Gov. Scott :angry: wants to lower corporate income taxes and real estate taxes. We will be broke in no time and our education system will be even worse than it is now (if that is possible). I think Florida is racing with Mississippi for the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> Substitute Texas for Mississippi and you nailed it Penny! Your idiot political hacks sound like ours, were just ahead of you cause the No-nothings (pun intended!) have been in control; since W was our so called Governor! :help:
Click to expand...

Actually, California seems determined to win any race to the bottom and have some of the highest taxes in the nation to boot. It is an outstanding example that higher taxes does not improve public services, just means that more money is spent on them. It is not how many bucks, but learning how to get bang for your buck. But then my attitude may be hopelessly twisted, at least in teh opinion of some, by the states I have lived in, which, not counting work periods of under a year, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and California. Throw in for flavor, Taiwan, 14 years, and Hong Kong, 2 years. There are a lot of things that are done quite well in Mississippi. My exeriences with their state bureaucracies have been far better than the ones with California or the Feds.


----------



## colobok

Florida DOT released the study that shows that Florida HSR would be profitable from the day one:

My link

So, it was clear political decision. Scott killed 24000 jobs, future profit and future infratructure just to satisfy his political sponsors

(one of them is Tea Party who just hate trains no matter what and the other is association of constructors who are interested in expanding I-4 highway).


----------



## Gray

colobok said:


> Florida DOT released the study that shows that Florida HSR would be profitable from the day one:
> 
> My link
> 
> So, it was clear political decision. Scott killed 24000 jobs, future profit and future infratructure just to satisfy his political sponsors
> 
> (one of them is Tea Party who just hate trains no matter what and the other is association of constructors who are interested in expanding I-4 highway).


And Scott still says that he trusts the gut feelings of Cox, O'Toole and the Reason Foundation over these projections. Even when they come from his own DOT.

How can anyone seriously argue with someone who's so clearly made up his mind already?


----------



## Greg

colobok said:


> Florida DOT released the study that shows that Florida HSR would be profitable from the day one:
> 
> My link
> 
> So, it was clear political decision. Scott killed 24000 jobs, future profit and future infratructure just to satisfy his political sponsors
> 
> (one of them is Tea Party who just hate trains no matter what and the other is association of constructors who are interested in expanding I-4 highway).



I'm really surprised that they released it given that most state agencies in Florida don't do ANYTHING which conflicts with the thoughts of the Governor.


----------



## AlanB

Gray said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida DOT released the study that shows that Florida HSR would be profitable from the day one:
> 
> My link
> 
> So, it was clear political decision. Scott killed 24000 jobs, future profit and future infratructure just to satisfy his political sponsors
> 
> (one of them is Tea Party who just hate trains no matter what and the other is association of constructors who are interested in expanding I-4 highway).
> 
> 
> 
> And Scott still says that he trusts the gut feelings of Cox, O'Toole and the Reason Foundation over these projections. Even when they come from his own DOT.
> 
> How can anyone seriously argue with someone who's so clearly made up his mind already?
Click to expand...

Well he trusts the conclusions of the report from the Reason Foundation since it was his former aide now at the Reason Foundation that helped to write the report that the Governor wanted, such that he would have the report to back up his decision.


----------



## Greg

AlanB said:


> Gray said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida DOT released the study that shows that Florida HSR would be profitable from the day one:
> 
> My link
> 
> So, it was clear political decision. Scott killed 24000 jobs, future profit and future infratructure just to satisfy his political sponsors
> 
> (one of them is Tea Party who just hate trains no matter what and the other is association of constructors who are interested in expanding I-4 highway).
> 
> 
> 
> And Scott still says that he trusts the gut feelings of Cox, O'Toole and the Reason Foundation over these projections. Even when they come from his own DOT.
> 
> How can anyone seriously argue with someone who's so clearly made up his mind already?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he trusts the conclusions of the report from the Reason Foundation since it was his former aide now at the Reason Foundation that helped to write the report that the Governor wanted, such that he would have the report to back up his decision.
Click to expand...


Alan, somehow that just seems completely unconcionable... but, <sigh>, it's apparently the way of the world...."what do you want the numbers to say?"


----------



## George Harris

Greg said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gray said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida DOT released the study that shows that Florida HSR would be profitable from the day one:
> 
> My link
> 
> So, it was clear political decision. Scott killed 24000 jobs, future profit and future infratructure just to satisfy his political sponsors
> 
> (one of them is Tea Party who just hate trains no matter what and the other is association of constructors who are interested in expanding I-4 highway).
> 
> 
> 
> And Scott still says that he trusts the gut feelings of Cox, O'Toole and the Reason Foundation over these projections. Even when they come from his own DOT.
> 
> How can anyone seriously argue with someone who's so clearly made up his mind already?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he trusts the conclusions of the report from the Reason Foundation since it was his former aide now at the Reason Foundation that helped to write the report that the Governor wanted, such that he would have the report to back up his decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alan, somehow that just seems completely unconcionable... but, <sigh>, it's apparently the way of the world...."what do you want the numbers to say?"
Click to expand...

You can prove anything you want by a careful selection of data and selective ignorance. MOST rail systems have exceeded their passenger projections.

Anyone who has been around this business for any length of time knows what the conclusions of this particular example of the three stooges (Cox, O'Toole, Reason) will be without opening the report. I think they probably have these things set up like form letters with appropriate blanks for locations, times, and other specifics that will vary from place to place. One thing for certain, the presentation and conclusions are always the same.


----------

