Brightline Trains Florida discussion

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
(1) I'm not sure if AAF could apply for TIGER or if Florida would have to send in the application in their name (or co-sign it or something).

(2) On the loan, I wonder if $1.6bn won't be enough to also fund the whole downtown development. It's also enough that they might be able to call some of their higher-rate bonds from before to free up cash flow (depending on project timing). FEC has some bonds out there in the 8-11% range, and I could see them using the chance to clear some of those from the books, directly or indirectly.
 
jis said:
Could AAF apply for TIGER grant? They may not wish to if they want to stay clear of the attached strings. But just as a theoretical consideration, would they be eligible?
Click to expand...
No, AAF could not directly apply for a TIGER grant. The eligible applicants are state, local governments, transit agencies, port authorities and other public entities. AAF could work with FL DOT or transit agency to submit an application, but it would probably not be with the trouble for AAF. The maximum grants in recent years have been in the $20 to $25 million range. Small potatoes compared to a $1.6 billion loan.

FL DOT received a $13.75 million TIGER FY13 grant towards the FEC and Tri-Rail connector track. I expect FL DOT and the transit agencies will apply for station and track projects that are related to the AAF plans. Perhaps grade crossing projects on the FEC to defray the costs to the local governments of the AAF upgrades?

Getting a little off topic: Checking the US DOT TIGER website, they have put up new documents on the TIGER grants. The Notice of Funding Availability for the FY14 grants which spells out who is eligible, dates, rules on how the funds will be allocated. 20% of the $600 million has to go to rural areas, project grants are between $10 and $200 million except for rural grants, up to $35 million total is to be awarded for planning studies. BTW, the website has a complete summary list of the 585 applications totaling $9 billion for the FY13 grants. Lot of road project applications from the state and local DOTs based on the project name. NJT applied for $31.9 million for "Portal Bridge: Construction Access Roads and Platforms, Timber Deck Replacement".

Edit: changed TIGER link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
afigg said:
jis said:
Could AAF apply for TIGER grant? They may not wish to if they want to stay clear of the attached strings. But just as a theoretical consideration, would they be eligible?
Click to expand...
No, AAF could not directly apply for a TIGER grant. The eligible applicants are state, local governments, transit agencies, port authorities and other public entities. AAF could work with FL DOT or transit agency to submit an application, but it would probably not be with the trouble for AAF. The maximum grants in recent years have been in the $20 to $25 million range. Small potatoes compared to a $1.6 billion loan.

FL DOT received a $13.75 million TIGER FY13 grant towards the FEC and Tri-Rail connector track. I expect FL DOT and the transit agencies will apply for station and track projects that are related to the AAF plans. Perhaps grade crossing projects on the FEC to defray the costs to the local governments of the AAF upgrades?

Getting a little off topic: Checking the US DOT TIGER website, they have put up new documents on the TIGER grants. The Notice of Funding Availability for the FY14 grants which spells out who is eligible, dates, rules on how the funds will be allocated. 20% of the $600 million has to go to rural areas, project grants are between $10 and $200 million except for rural grants, up to $35 million total is to be awarded for planning studies. BTW, the website has a complete summary list of the 585 applications totaling $9 billion for the FY13 grants. Lot of road project applications from the state and local DOTs based on the project name. NJT applied for $31.9 million for "Portal Bridge: Construction Access Roads and Platforms, Timber Deck Replacement".

Edit: changed TIGER link.
Click to expand...
Well, and considering the number of grade crossings that likely need to be closed, some grants for bridges to replace crossings might also bee in order.
 
I've been giving the SFRTA/AAF situation some thought, and I think the reason everyone is so jumpy is that this is the first case I can think of where a private-sector company was looking to start up (and plausibly expand) passenger rail service on an active/potentially active commuter corridor since government funding of commuter service became a "thing". I get a feeling that SFRTA doesn't know what to make of this situation.

This is interesting because, assuming 400-seat trains (as AAF has indicated a desire to run), at 16 round trips per day, AAF would have only 6400 seats available in each direction. Previous studies have put Coastal Link ridership closer to 60,000/day (which would make it one of the busiest commuter lines in North America...only the New Haven Line for MNRR, NEC line for NJT, BNSF Railway line for Metra, and probably the LIRR Main Line (I couldn't dig out a number) have more riders. Even at double that, 32 round trips, the supply of seats on AAF's trains would only be 12,800/day...and the odds of AAF selling all of those seats to local traffic seems remote. To match the projected demand on the line, AAF would have to run something like 150 trains per day to handle the internal traffic, and add more than just three infill stations.

It is true that, in theory, AAF would have an incentive to poach riders to increase revenue...and that Tri-Rail riders going from one end to the other would have a reason to jump, presuming Tri-Rail is averaging about 35-40 MPH and AAF is averaging over 60 MPH. However, there's also foreseeable way that AAF would be able to deal with the mass of traffic Tri-Rail projects for the line.

Turning around and trying to see SFRTA's perspective, they could arguably pay several hundred million dollars to add a lot of third/fourth track and build stations, only to have AAF undercut them, forcing up their subsidy costs and eventually cutting them out in favor of their own service. It seems like a paranoid scenario, but it's probably one their leadership would be remiss in not considering.

So my best guess is that SFRTA is staring at an unprecedented situation that has arisen (the closest equivalent I could think of would be if BNSF were looking at running their own service in Southern California) and is in a bit of a panic. It's honestly a bit frustrating to see this happen, particularly on what is a private sector rail line...especially when, as far as I can tell, FEC/AAF could probably just cut them out entirely.

I've got to say...this whole thing feels like it fell out of a work of alternate history. It just doesn't feel real. It's something in the vein of what a lot of us have hoped for over the decades, and it is interesting to see it playing out, but everything involved in it is just so upside down that it boggles the mind.


P.S. One other note on capacity: You can get a lot of capacity out of a line that is running all of one type of train. When you add another type (i.e. AAF plus Tri-Rail) it reduces effective capacity, and adding more types cuts capacity further.
 
Since I mentioned a few days ago about the SFRTA document that said AAF is applying for a $1.6 billion RRIF loan, I just saw a DOT Credit Council document saying that a new loan amount for the "Orlando extension" is for $995.5 million (as of their Dec 17th meeting). I believe the original $632 million dollar RRIF loan application was for MIA-WPB only (and it received a FONSI (no impact) for it's environmental studies). That must be where SFTRA got the $1.6 billion amount from - $995 + $632 = $1.6 billion (rounded). Does this mean that the Independent Financial Advisor has substantially completed their review of this new loan and the council is voting on approval? Or is this the first step in the process and the council hasn't even voted to begin the process? Now the DOT Credit Council wants more information - not sure what info they are looking for. Maybe it is the EIS that is due this spring (as it cannot grant approval until the environmental studies are complete)? Next meeting is on March 14th - but the DOT doesn't update their website that often I have found. I wish these documents had more detail! Here is the text of their action items from the agenda for the 12/17/13 meeting:

DOT CREDIT COUNCIL MEETING

December 17, 2013

AGENDA

1. Action Items:

(a) Florida Department of Transportation’s request for indicative, non-binding terms for its $945 million TIFIA loan request for the I-4 Ultimate Improvements Project - the Council recommended approving the issuance of the indicative, non-binding term sheet to the Florida Department of Transportation for the I-4 Ultimate Improvements Project

(b) Request from the Colorado High Performance Transportation Enterprise to modify its $100 million PAB allocation for the US 36 Managed Lanes Phase 2 Project - the Council recommended to the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy approval of a modification to the PAB allocation for the US 36 Managed Lanes Phase 2 Project

© IFA request for a $995.5 million RRIF loan application from All Aboard Florida Operations, LLC, for the rail infrastructure improvements to establish intercity passenger rail from West Palm Beach to Orlando "the Orlando Extension" - the Council recommended to defer the vote until additional information is provided
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian_tampa said:
Since I mentioned a few days ago about the SFRTA document that said AAF is applying for a $1.6 billion RRIF loan, I just saw a DOT Credit Council document saying that a new loan amount for the "Orlando extension" is for $995.5 million (as of their Dec 17th meeting). I believe the original $632 million dollar RRIF loan application was for MIA-WPB only (and it received a FONSI (no impact) for it's environmental studies). That must be where SFTRA got the $1.6 billion amount from - $995 + $632 = $1.6 billion (rounded). Does this mean that the Independent Financial Advisor has substantially completed their review of this new loan and the council is voting on approval? Or is this the first step in the process and the council hasn't even voted to begin the process? Now the DOT Credit Council wants more information - not sure what info they are looking for. Maybe it is the EIS that is due this spring (as it cannot grant approval until the environmental studies are complete)? Next meeting is on March 14th - but the DOT doesn't update their website that often I have found. I wish these documents had more detail! Here is the text of their action items from the agenda for the 12/17/13 meeting:
Click to expand...
Your explanation of the $1.6 billion RRIF loan total makes sense. I found the webpage with the US DOT Credit Council meeting agendas and located a July 11, 2013 agenda with an action item on a $670 million RRIF loan application from AAF for rail infrastructure improvements from West Palm Beach to Miami. The Council recommended the FRA hire an IFA for application analysis. Don't know how long it takes for an financial analysis to review the applications, but there may be details that have to be settled with the FRA. Or perhaps, the recommendation by the Council to approve the loan has to wait until a Record of Decision is issued for the environmental review of the AAF projects.
 
afigg said:
Brian_tampa said:
Since I mentioned a few days ago about the SFRTA document that said AAF is applying for a $1.6 billion RRIF loan, I just saw a DOT Credit Council document saying that a new loan amount for the "Orlando extension" is for $995.5 million (as of their Dec 17th meeting). I believe the original $632 million dollar RRIF loan application was for MIA-WPB only (and it received a FONSI (no impact) for it's environmental studies). That must be where SFTRA got the $1.6 billion amount from - $995 + $632 = $1.6 billion (rounded). Does this mean that the Independent Financial Advisor has substantially completed their review of this new loan and the council is voting on approval? Or is this the first step in the process and the council hasn't even voted to begin the process? Now the DOT Credit Council wants more information - not sure what info they are looking for. Maybe it is the EIS that is due this spring (as it cannot grant approval until the environmental studies are complete)? Next meeting is on March 14th - but the DOT doesn't update their website that often I have found. I wish these documents had more detail! Here is the text of their action items from the agenda for the 12/17/13 meeting:
Click to expand...
Your explanation of the $1.6 billion RRIF loan total makes sense. I found the webpage with the US DOT Credit Council meeting agendas and located a July 11, 2013 agenda with an action item on a $670 million RRIF loan application from AAF for rail infrastructure improvements from West Palm Beach to Miami. The Council recommended the FRA hire an IFA for application analysis. Don't know how long it takes for an financial analysis to review the applications, but there may be details that have to be settled with the FRA. Or perhaps, the recommendation by the Council to approve the loan has to wait until a Record of Decision is issued for the environmental review of the AAF projects.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that a ROD has to come first. Otherwise, they could in theory end up issuing a loan to a project that gets a negative ROD, which could be a real mess.
 
It's shocking, just shocking, that the railroad which was there a century ago might go back to being fully used! And of course, people moved next to that railroad expecting it to be nice and quiet...

*sighs*

I'm thinking of the jet noise mess in my area, particularly in Virginia Beach, where the once-rural area around Oceana got built up...and then the homeowners complained about the jet noise.

Another irony...it looks like FEC won't be needing any money from FL, so the only thing that FL would likely be paying for in any respect would be efforts to mitigate what's being complained about (i.e. replacing grade crossings with some bridges).

Edit: I might have more sympathy for these folks if I hadn't spent my entire life in an area that's sharply cut by a major freight track. Throw them a few bridges to offset any congestion issues, and maybe negotiate an additional stop with limited service should train frequencies be increased beyond hourly.

Edit2: I'd comment, but it's F-book linked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spot on Anderson. The NIMBY comments are off the chart and they are F-book linked but thats what alternate accounts are for. As a train lover and private pilot nothing burns me more than someone who moves somewhere, be it house,condo, boat, whatever, and goes outside and hears plane or train noise and says "we gotta change that!". They did not do their homework on where they were buying a home and suddenly are offended by their environment. Some of them I had to comment on. "they are going to cut our town in half" is a popular complaint. Really? That railroad has been there more than 100+ years. Did the railroad cut the town half or did the town grow on both sides of the railroad????

*sigh*
 
Scott Orlando said:
http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_13439.shtml

Always someone has to complain...but yacht owners? You would think they are planning 16 mile long freight trains going 20 mph.... :wacko:
Click to expand...
Well, if the locals feel that strongly about it, they could ask the state and local government to look at either building elevated tracks and higher clearance bridges for the FEC or road bridges over the FEC tracks. Sure, it will be a tad expensive, but the FEC would presumably have no objections to eliminating grade crossings that were put in place after the railroad line was built as long as it does not interfere with the FEC operations if someone else pays for it.

That the local NIMBYs have a petition to demand that AAF use an alternate route through central FL says that they have no understanding of why the FEC tracks are being used for AAF and the project.
 
I've been on the "Not All Aboard Florida" Facebook group and attempted to explain a number of times who is backing the project, why they are choosing the route they chose, and how the wait time for passenger trains is significantly less than the wait time for a freight train.

These are the same people who moan about any public transportation project that isn't a road. "Why can't the private sector fund it?" Well here's one...oops, can't support that one either because I might be inconvenienced for 40-120 seconds a day (or 10-15 minutes if they're a boater). The kicker is them trying to get the state of Florida to block the project. So much for being in favor of limited government and letting businesses do their thing.
 
chrsjrcj said:
I've been on the "Not All Aboard Florida" Facebook group and attempted to explain a number of times who is backing the project, why they are choosing the route they chose, and how the wait time for passenger trains is significantly less than the wait time for a freight train.

These are the same people who moan about any public transportation project that isn't a road. "Why can't the private sector fund it?" Well here's one...oops, can't support that one either because I might be inconvenienced for 40-120 seconds a day (or 10-15 minutes if they're a boater). The kicker is them trying to get the state of Florida to block the project. So much for being in favor of limited government and letting businesses do their thing.
Click to expand...
Well, and it looks like the ship has sailed on FL's involvement anyway. The RRIF loan isn't an FL thing, OOCEA is already on board, and I don't see the airport people opposing this under any foreseeable circumstances. The environmental impacts should be borderline nil, and I suspect that absent something nasty there the state would be hard-pressed to restrict FEC from doing anything within their ROW that wouldn't qualify as a "taking".
 
I've been trying to work out how the bits of AAC / FEC all fit together by following the lines on Google Maps.

I understand the site adjoining Govenment Center in Miami is the site of the original FEC downtown station in Miami, and this will also be the site of the new AAF station.

So how does that connect to the rest of the system?

I see there is still a track going north from said station site. Is this the future AAF line?

Just north of the station site there is a wye, and following the line that branches off here it runs into the port of Miami, but doesn't seem to connect to any rail yards or loading facilities. Is this line disused?

If this line is disused, then the whole line running north must also be disused as I can see no other spurs going anywhere.

The Google Maps satellite pictures show some construction work going on here. it looks as if a new siding or short section of double track is being put in. Is this for AAF?

What about the line that used to run to Key West. Did this also run through this location? If so it must have continued south out of the station. Is anything left of that? I see the tracks of the combined orange and green lines. Is this the ROW of the former Key West line?
 
The original FEC line to Key West did run through this location. Don't know if anything is left of that. Don't know exactly when the line to Homestead was abandoned. I suspect the alignment was pretty much along where Dixieland Highway is today, but am not certain. The Key West Line south of Homestead was abandoned long time back.
 
The line from the Port of Miami to the wye near 71st Street is the FEC's Port of Miami branch. They just rehabilitated the line after a few years of inactivity, so that might explain the construction work on Google Earth. Continuing north from that wye is the FEC mainline to Jacksonville. This is what AAF will use until Cocoa, where it turns west toward Orlando.

FEC freight trains turn west at the wye towards Hialeah (where FEC's Miami yard is). AAF trains will not use this line.

AAF trains will use the FEC mainline from Cocoa to the wye at 71st Street. From there, it will use FEC's Port of Miami line until around I-395. The AAF line would split from the Port of Miami Branch and rise in elevation (I believe passing over Metromover) for the Miami stop (next to Government Center).

As for the Key West line, Metrorail uses the old right of way from Government Center to the end of the line (Dadeland South). From there, the old right of way is used by Metrobus as BRT to Homestead. The original plan was for Metrorail to go all the way to Homestead, but never happened ($$$).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chrsjrcj said:
As for the Key West line, Metrorail uses the old right of way from Government Center to the end of the line (Dadeland South). From there, the old right of way is used by Metrobus as BRT to Homestead. The original plan was for Metrorail to go all the way to Homestead, but never happened ($$$).
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming. This is what I suspected.
 
I lived in Cutler Ridge (South Dade County) from November, 1987 to November 1988. During that time, FEC abandoned the freight line from downtown Miami to Homestead. I used to see a local freight along US 1 until mid 1988. The FEC was given trackage rights on the CSX line from Hialeah to Homestead. When I have been back in the area, I have seen BRT right of way where the tracks used to run
 
Scott Orlando said:
http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_13439.shtml

Always someone has to complain...but yacht owners? You would think they are planning 16 mile long freight trains going 20 mph.... :wacko:
Click to expand...
These weekend admirals managed to get some reduction in train frequency on the NEC line between New Haven and Providence RI because they were inconvenienced by waiting for drawbridges to open. Never forget, a yacht has been correctly descibed as a hole in the water that has to be kept full of money. The weekend admirals therefore are all guys with money and that means guys with political clout so they are the squeaky wheel that gets the first greasing. (That they are very likely greasing the politicians palms might also have something to do with it. Remember that campaign contributions are a legalized form of palm greasing. What do you think the average income is of the people that recently gathered at Obamba's $35,000 a plate dinner held for him recently in SF? Just an example of the level of people surrounding ANY politician.)

Unfortunately because river navigation and canals were here before railroads they end up having trump cards on what can be done by railroads (and roads) at river and canal crossings. Generally it is the navigation interests, whether commercial or recreational that control the span lengths and minimum vertical clearances on bridges over any waterway designated as navigatable. And you will find it surprising how small some of these waterways are. At least some of these have been taken off the list so that the drawspans have been disabled and the movable rail joints removed. There are also a lot of bridges that have been replaced in part because they have been designated as an impediment to navigation. Generally this has been done to permit wider barge lashups and sometimes higher fixed clearances. Always these have been done at government expense. The only span covered by this requirement is the one over the navigation channel. So you may have a relatively new span in the middle of a 100 plus year old bridge. An outstanding recent example of a channel span replacement was the replacement of the draw span in the Galveston Causeway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I find impressive is that navigation's rights are always respected. I won't think that a hundred years ago the Great Northern would have any problem bridging the Yellowstone (I'm not sure that there was commercial traffic on it after the Battle of the Little Bighorn), but they had to build this bridge, which legend goes was opened precisely once, to prove to the War Department that it worked.
 
George I would agree that 1) A boat is a hole you pour money into 2) Yacht owner can and do grease palms of politicians and 3) River navigation rights often trump railroad rights. The thing that is troubling is that these worried locals only ever seem to think 'we gotta shut this down'. There is never thought to solutions. It is in the best interest of the local cities (Stuart in this news piece), and the state, the railroad, and the general public to work together to come up with answer instead of 'lets start a petition' or 'lets call the TV station' or 'call the Governor!'. Fixed river bridges are expensive but do not require the maintenance of movable bridges. New automobile bridges prevent 'cutting the city' and are immensely more safe, sound barriers for noise, etc. There are answers for the concerns.

Most people want great transportation, just not where the actually have to see it, hear it or be delayed by it. Until they need to use it.
 
CBS12

More opposition mounting for All Aboard Railroad high-speed rail project Story By Jana Eschbach / CBS 12 NEWS

STUART, Fla. - Drivers brace for the impact as The Florida East Coast Railroad moves ahead with All Aboard Florida's plans for a high-speed rail to connect Orlando and Miami. Residents caught in the middle want it stopped.

In Stuart, the train is part of the traffic pattern.

If you need to go east, you learn to cross the tracks whenever you have the chance, or get stuck in traffic when a train comes. Now the train traffic is planned to go up with All Aboard.

The mighty Florida East Coast Industries' Railroad finds itself up against small grass roots groups trying to stop an already approved project.

"Do you think you guys can stop this?" we asked.

"Absolutely. You can stop anything," said Alex Larson, opposed to the project.

Today, residents from West Palm Beach to Vero Beach came to Indian River State College to give elected officials at the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council an earful.

"Shame on you," blasted one speaker at the podium, to the elected Treasure Coast officials. "You know your towns and counties, they don't want this!"

Residents are fighting is to stop All Aboard Florida from adding 32 high speed 100-mile-per hour plus trains daily, crossing 350 intersections.

The train passes through the entire Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches.

"32 trains a day. 7 days a week," said John Castalucci, a Palm City railway opponent said. "They aren't interested in the public. They are interested in their bottom line, that's it."

The FEC's say its already moving ahead with plans to launch their privately owned, operated and maintained high-speed passenger rail service between Miami and Orlando.

The train that passes through doesn't stop in the Treasure Coast region at all.

Its first stop south of here is in West Palm Beach.

"An investment of $250 million of Florida taxpayers' money to build an elaborate terminal in Orlando, is not private," argued Martin County Commissioner Anne Scott.

"I urge all of us not to accept this as inevitable. Its is not inevitable," Scott said it was a private enterprise, subsidized by public funds, and sounded a lot like the failed investment the State made into Digital Domain in Port St. Lucie.

"A high speed train carrying a few thousand passengers a day will go through the middle of a region where hundreds of thousands of people live and work and depend on vehicles to do so," Scott said.

Today railroad officials told the council the trains will only disrupt traffic for a few minutes at a time. The time of a stoplight. And the FEC says its their investment paid for with private funds. Local leaders said that's not true.

"Yes its very private and we cant disclose our financing. Are you kidding me?" said Alex Larson, who is opposed to the rail project. "That was just revealed today we will be closing down 2 streets in West Palm Beach. Datura and Evernia, and I am like are you kidding me?"

When we asked All Aboard Florida's officials for an interview, their public relations person said they didn't have the time today, and they will be holding workshops with local residents soon to help answers their questions and address concerns.

For detailed information on both sides of the project:

FEC link: www.allaboardflorida.com/fact-sheet
Residents Opposed to Train: www.floridanotallaboard.com
Click to expand...

I never like the idea of railroad crossings and regardless of the speeds these trains will be going, it'll just be asking for someone "trying" to beat them across the tracks.
 
How long do these people think they will be stopped by a high speed passenger train? Probably less than a minute.

I just tired to link to the anti-train site to give them a piece of my mind. I got a "403 Forbidden" to enter reply. I guess a lot of other people have been flooding them with replies to their idiotic stance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These people are part of the reason why we don't have decent transportation in Florida among various reasons. If Robert Moses was still around, he would of done this project regardless of the opposition. Sure he didn't benefit public transportation in New York, but he still got things done anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top