Allow me to strike a discordant note into this party.....
On this one I am not going to unequivocally support NARP's position. Seriously AAF and FEC need to consider adding stops between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, and make a commitment to that effect, including perhaps at Cocoa itself. Failing that I am all for a little resistance to this project in its current form.
The deal that they struck with Beach Line Toll Authority was a bad one. They should own upto it and renegotiate that.
So sorry. No help of the sort requested, from me at this moment. I will be educating people about the whole issue.
So yes, I am sending a letter to Rick Scott, who effective July 1 will be my Governor (sadly), and that letter is going to be quite different from the one that NARP proposes. And trust me I am an ardent rail advocate. Rail service for as many as possible, not just a select few that are convenient for a few. Once I get there I will be spending some time campaigning for the more inclusive approach.
This is very similar to the problem that we have with Amtrak's Next Gen HSR project in NJ. NJ basically becomes a flyover country as currently proposed for the Super Express service, and that would not be acceptable either.
*sighs*
And I wind up back in the middle of the two sides. On the one hand, I believe that AAF/FEC should look to add further stops down the line. It's fair enough to say they got a dubious deal from the expressway people, and I'll agree that more stops would be a good thing down the line.
On the other hand, I see no reason that this project shouldn't be a success as envisioned and see no reason not to support it. They got stuck dealing with a third party that stuffed some obnoxious strings into the deal, but the deal was still a decent one and how it played out might well have saved a lengthy fight. The small number of stops also likely simplified various parts of the planning process and provided a "path of least resistance" to follow.
With that said, as I see things this shouldn't be treated quite the same as an Amtrak proposal because it
is a largely private-sector operation. If it was FDOT or Amtrak or another public sector agency spearheading this, I'd be all for adding stops to most trains. I'd say the same if there was a government grant paying for most of it (as would be the case with the Super-Express service on the NEC). Neither item is the case, and the extent of the government subsidy is reduced interest on a loan.
Likewise, if those towns want a stop (or stops) and FEC isn't hot on it, as long as FEC is paying for the show it should be up to those towns to negotiate stops on some trains (albeit presumably with state help). If the state were stepping in to pay for those stops and pick up the tab for any incurred losses due to the trains taking longer (and/or paying for the equipment and any track improvements needed to accommodate even more passenger trains on the route), I'd be fine demanding a commitment in return. In the same vein, if the state gets stuck subsidizing the operation and/or FEC defaults on the loan, forcing additional stops onto the service would be fine.
Ultimately, FEC has taken the biggest leap in this direction that any private non-shortline has taken since the Metroliners, and I'm frankly of the opinion that forcing them to add stops that FEC doesn't want to (at least at the outset) would be akin to forcing the Pennsy to run their Metroliners as locals. As long as FEC is paying the loan, in my mind it is their experiment to run. Let them call the shots.
