Florida High Speed Rail - The Conservative Way

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Florida High Speed Rail - The Conservative Way

Jacksonville stands at the door to regain its leadership position as the railroad gateway to Florida. Within the last week we have heard a new governor suggest he would never support rail, a FDOT official that thinks our train station should be at the airport, a report that the City told Amtrak the concourse at Jacksonville Terminal was "an old baggage tunnel," and that a certain white haired JTA planner has no intention of allowing selective condensing of the Jacksonville Transportation Center plan.

Published November 19, 2010 in Transit 156 Comments

Print Article

The ignorance of certain political leaders is scary when they address this issue. Likewise the "We have/need highways," "Amtrak tickets are subsidized," "Where are the private investors," "We love our cars too much," or the "I paid taxes in New Jersey my entire working life so I'll be damned if I'll pay for a sidewalk in Florida," crowds are locked into Neanderthal thinking.

First, we already have rail. Rail is vital. Rail is cheaper then building highways and has 2.5 times the capacity. Rail also has certain travel advantages over airlines, city center to city center, ability to connect population centers with smaller towns, fuel savings, air quality, etc. Rail likewise has advantages over highways. Highways promote sprawl while rail is more economical, faster, comfortable and has greater capacity. Most importantly, it promotes dense, walkable, sustainable and proven urban growth. The current national average return on new rail investment, even if NOBODY rides, is $14 for every dollar invested.

"On Tuesday, Subsidy Scope, a subsidiary of the Pew Charitable Trust, reported that Amtrak, America's passenger rail company, "lost" an average of $38 per passenger. Citing a new metric for train depreciation, the report suggested that the train line has been less than transparent in its estimation of its own profitability.

"While it is interesting that the government spends an average of $38 on each Amtrak passenger, this isn't really news. Over a year ago, in fact, Amtrak president Alex Kummant stated that each passenger on the train line represents a public capital expenditure of approximately $40, and similar figures have been bandied about for years. In fact, the only truly surprising thing is that some conservative think tanks and advocacy organizations continue to criticize the corporation for its failure to turn a profit. The underlying message seems to be that Amtrak is a financial failure, and that if rail travel were privatized, it would somehow be able to make a profit.

"The truth is that Amtrak is not designed to make money; rather, it is designed to provide a public service. The same could be said of the rest of America's transportation network: none of the country's transportation systems generate profit or pay for themselves. For example, the airlines rely on a patchwork of municipal, state, and federal funding to finance the cost of airports. Meanwhile, federal funds pay for airport security and taxes pay for the FAA. Many pilots are trained by the military and much of the avionics used in private aircraft is developed under military contract. If these costs were transferred to airline passengers, the price of a plane ticket would be prohibitive.

Roads are subsidized by a plethora of tax payer financed sources to make it feasible for people to drive and sit in congestion.

Ever think about America's roads? The highway trust fund, which is ostensibly funded by gas taxes, still receives money from Congress, while the various agencies that oversee its administration and police its passengers are all funded by taxes. Again, if these costs were transferred to individual travelers, few people could afford to drive.

"Taken on a passenger-by-passenger basis, trains cost taxpayers far less than cars, planes, motorcycles or rickshaws. The big difference, as National Corridor Initiative president and CEO James P. RePass noted in a recent interview, is that "Subsidies for airlines and highways are far less obvious than Amtrak's single line item."

A rendering of Florida High Speed Rail's only proposed walkable urban station in downtown Tampa.

So what is wrong with the Florida High Speed Rail plan, and so right about Orlando and Jacksonville's commuter rail plan or the Florida East Coast plans? You'll recall that I stated that rail also has certain travel advantages over airlines, city center to city center and the ability to connect population centers with smaller towns, something the Orlando - Tampa plan ignores. If ridership is lower then projected as I predict, then where are the fuel savings? The advantages over highways evaporate if rail itself promotes sprawl and how could it miss when Interstate 4 is located a considerable undeveloped distance north of the communities between Orlando and Tampa. While rail is more economical, and faster, it will be neither if its finances run backward faster then the trains themselves. Even capacity might be questioned if the entire line is squeezed in the median of freeways while comfort might vanish if it is built on elevated structures and settling in our sink hole prone state causes galloping. Most important how does rail promote dense, walkable, sustainable, proven urban growth when it misses the urban cores and punches through none of the population centers in between.

The Florida High Speed Rail route (light blue) between Tampa and Orlando misses most of Central Florida's population centers.

So HIGH SPEED RAIL for Florida? In my professional opinion the short answer is NO. The reason is that the Florida plan is fatally flawed, as I have pointed out rail's advantages are its connectivity, and a route from Orlando's inconveniently located airport, to an amusement park, to a parking garage north of downtown Tampa misses the mark. Nobody lives along Interstate 4 with the population of this corridor located three to nine miles south. This project will do nothing for the residents of growing communities like Lakeland, Brandon, Deland, Sanford, Winter Park, Kissimmee, Winter Haven and Plant City. In fact, from perhaps 75% of the Orlando area, the 35-55 minute trek to the airport plus parking and wait time will more then kill any speed advantage over the private automobile - and if I drive I won't have to rent a car in Tampa.

The Pacific Surfliner is a 350-mile Amtrak corridor passenger service serving Southern California between San Diego and San Luis Obispo. With 2.89 million passengers in fiscal year 2008, this is Amtrak's most heavily traveled service outside of the Northeast Corridor, covering 59.1% of its operating expenses through ticket sales.

Burbank Airport Station image by Red Granite at www.flickr.com.

Florida has abandoned rail travel at a state government level for some 50 years, and a magic flying train will not be the quick fix in the game of catch up. We may only get one shot at this and we can't afford to blow it for the entire country. Where are our corridor trains? Where is our intra-state Amtrak network? How have we rebuilt ridership? Where is our demand? When you hear the word train do you think airport? Where is our connectivity? Can I get a day train to Ocala, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Ft. Myers or Sarasota? How about an overnight between Jacksonville and Pensacola or Miami first? Why not conventional intercity rail connections to Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Memphis or New Orleans? Shouldn't we concentrate on fixing what we have lost and rebuilding the patronage before we reinvent the wheel?

An Amtrak Florida corridor service could be established on existing rail lines providing better service to millions of more Florida residents than the current High Speed Rail plan for a fraction of the costs.

I'm not against High Speed Rail, but I think the approach the State is taking over on the Florida East Coast, where high(er) speed rail is being pursued is the right approach. City center to city center, connecting smaller cities, increasing headways, speeding up schedules, improving stations, track, equipment and signaling. We should grow our way to success which won't be measured in profit, rather it will be measured in economic terms with a booming transit oriented development trend. While high speed rail, airplanes or new highway lanes will never solve our congestion pains, properly planned and integrated together they can provide choices that could mean you'll never have to sit in traffic again.

While Governor elect Rick Scott and long time friend Representative John Mica's broad axe for all rail, and for Amtrak respectively, may not be an acceptable action, Florida's HSR plan certainly needs some precision surgical correction. Even the nation's first privately operated or railroad operated passenger train network is not out of the question if the pot could be sweetened with tax breaks and credits. We can blindly kill it all, or plan to succeed and work our plan.

Railroad stations at the airport or the return of the grand old lady of downtown, Jacksonville Terminal? Really Florida, the choice is up to you.

Editorial by Robert W. Mann

Share this article

Latest Discussion

Follow us on the web!

Garden guy

November 19, 2010, 07:25:51 AM
With Florida's conservative record we can all forget about high speed around here. Heck it took us generations for this state to allow gays to adopt...trains are way too advanced for them. They'll spend millions to ban it I'll bet. Our governor is a thief and liar what. Makes anyone think he or his followers are going to support anything like hsr.

JeffreyS

November 19, 2010, 08:05:08 AM
Way to tell it like it is.

wsansewjs

November 19, 2010, 09:29:15 AM

UGH MetroJacksonville! You just brought me back bad memories. When I was working in Orange Park, I had to cross Blanding Blvd. every morning on that street in the photo after riding the WS2 on GayFuckingTA(JTA). To make matter worse, I have a limited vision.

_______________________________________________________________________

Now on to the high speed rail. I have personally seen the CALTrains which runs up and down along San Jose -> San Francisco and other cities. It is very impressive and extremely successful rail project started few decades ago. In fact, my sister used to live in an apartment that is right next to the CALTrain station. They sneak in pretty quiet throughout the nighttime, then boom as fast they can muster to their destinations.

It is REALLY nice and inspirational to have HSR here in Florida, but I can see everyone's perspective, even I am a huge supporter of HSR. Use what we have already in Florida, and build solid foundation that can be flexible for any future upgrades including extending to HSR-standard. I can go on all day about this topic.

The real key here is be realistic. If we can strike a balance between vision and reality, then we can create something beautiful.

-Josh

jaxlore

November 19, 2010, 11:29:16 AM
Great article. Many good points. Will things change anytime soon. I hope.

Fallen Buckeye

November 19, 2010, 07:01:35 PM
Wouldn't making use of what we have in place and making cost-effective improvements to infrastructure actually be a conservative approach? It's not a conservative/liberal issue to me. It's an issue of common sense.

Jumpinjack

November 20, 2010, 12:05:02 PM
Here's a new anti-train twist:

Quote

* The Wall Street Journal, NOVEMBER 20, 2010

The Allure of Techno-Glamour
By VIRGINIA POSTREL

When Robert J. Samuelson published a Newsweek column last month arguing that high-speed rail is "a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause," he cited cost figures and potential ridership to demonstrate that even the rosiest scenarios wouldn't justify the investment. He made a good, rational case—only to have it completely undermined by the evocative photograph the magazine chose to accompany the article.

The picture showed a sleek train bursting through blurred lines of track and scenery, the embodiment of elegant, effortless speed. It was the kind of image that creates longing, the kind of image a bunch of numbers cannot refute. It was beautiful, manipulative and deeply glamorous.

The same is true of photos of wind turbines adorning ads for everything from Aveda's beauty products to MIT's Sloan School of Management. These graceful forms have succeeded the rocket ships and atomic symbols of the 1950s to become the new icons of the technological future. If the island of Wuhu, where games for the Wii console play out, can run on wind power, why can't the real world?

Policy wonks assume the current rage for wind farms and high-speed rail has something to do with efficiently reducing carbon emissions. So they debate load mismatches and ridership figures. These are worthy discussions and address real questions.

But they miss the emotional point.

To their most ardent advocates, and increasingly to the public at large, these technologies aren't just about generating electricity or getting from one city to another. They are symbols of an ideal world, longing disguised as problem solving. You can't counter glamour with statistics.

Glamour always contains an element of illusion. (The word originally meant a literal magic spell.) By obscuring some details and heightening others, it offers an escape from the compromises, flaws and distractions of real life. It shows no bills on the kitchen counter, no blisters under the high heels, no pimples on the movie star's face.

In those glamour shots, wind power seems clean, free and infinitely abundant. Turbines spin silently and sometimes appear barely taller than a child. The wind blows constantly and in exactly the right amount—never so much that it piles up unwanted power and never so little that it requires backup supply. The sky is unfailingly photogenic, a backdrop of either puffy clouds or a brilliant sunset; the landscape is both empty and beautiful; and there are no transmission lines anywhere.

The image of a speeding train, meanwhile, invites you to imagine taking it when and where you want, with no waiting, no crowds and no expensive tickets. Like the turbines, high-speed trains exemplify autonomy and grace, sliding along effortlessly, with no visible source of fuel. To a stressed-out public, they promise an escape from traffic jams—and, at least until the first terrorism scare, from the hassles, intrusion and delays of airport security.

For all its deceptiveness and mystery, glamour reveals emotional truths. What today's green techno-glamour demonstrates, first and foremost, is that its audience has no inclination to give up the benefits of modernity and return to the pre-industrial state idealized by radical greens. Neither the Unabomber nor Henry David Thoreau would go for wind farms and high-speed rail. To the contrary, these iconic new machines cater to what Al Gore denounced in "Earth in the Balance" as "the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." They promise that a green future will be just as pleasant as today, only cleaner and more elegant.

For at least some technophiles, in fact, the trains and windmills are goods in and of themselves, with climate change providing a reason to force the development and adoption of cool new machines that wouldn't otherwise catch on. These technologies also restore the idea of progress as big, visible engineering projects—an alternative to the decentralized, hidden ingenuity of computer code. They evoke the old World's Fair sense of hope and wonder, a feeling President Barack Obama draws on when he endorses high-speed rail subsidies as "building for the future." They are the latest incarnation of flying cars and electricity too cheap to meter.

The problems come, of course, in the things glamour omits, including all those annoyingly practical concerns the policy wonks insist on debating. Neither trains nor wind farms are as effortlessly liberating as their photos suggest. Neither really offers an escape from the world of compromises and constraints. The same is true, of course, of evening gowns, dream kitchens and tropical vacations. But at least the people who enjoy that sort of glamour pay their own way.
—Virginia Postrel is the author of "The Future and Its Enemies" and "The Substance of Style." She is writing a book on glamour.

Ocklawaha

November 20, 2010, 09:46:38 PM
This is what makes the news from Tampa so compelling. Tampa is home to USF and USF is home to CUTR the so-called Florida transit "think tank," that is long on highways and quite short on "think." Out of this same campus comes the NATIONAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT INSTITUTE, the clown act that has made about every anti-rail argument known to man and carried that gospel to Tallahassee to feed the minions of Tea Party and Republican slant. This is the same bunch that came up with the clever line, "BRT JUST LIKE RAIL ONLY CHEAPER..." CUTR also claimed buses had a higher capacity then rail IF they operated on 2 second headways! Man you better jump on or off pretty damn fast or your flat as a mat in Florida... and THESE are the people that have influenced our capital, our new governor and oh yes good old Steve (Skyway) Arrington, senior planner for JTA.

OCKLAWAHA

CS Foltz

November 21, 2010, 07:24:36 AM
Makes too much sense Gentlemen! CUTR, as you say Ock, is long on highways and extremely short on think! I don't but it for one minute..............bovines! Maybe Mr Arrington should think seriously about retiring? Time for talk is past and it's past time to do something besides concreting over every inch of land within sight! People don't think about the "Maintanance" cost for our roads and everyone that goes in, at some time in the future will be needing work on it! Kings Avenue on I95 is coming up and I look forward to 4 to 5 years of traffic congestion beyond the normal bottle neck!

peestandingup

November 21, 2010, 12:02:12 PM
"While high speed rail, airplanes or new highway lanes will never solve our congestion pains, properly planned and integrated together they can provide choices that could mean you'll never have to sit in traffic again."

And this is why IMO we'll never see this in our lifetimes. I truly believe that we as a nation have gone so far with our car-centric society that it'll take many decades to turn it around, just like it took decades to originally kill the railroads back in the day. With the slow way our governments work, the special interests, lobbyists, big oil's influence & just people's mindsets in general, sadly it doesn't look good.

Seriously, sit down & really think of how many people/businesses benefit from your ass having to take your car everywhere you go & how much power they have & then you'll see the scope of this thing. They ain't about to lose that. This is why we're really starting to suck as a nation of "do nothings" & getting smoked by other nations.

I think anyone who wants this type of lifestyle & true choices in transportation are gonna have to either move to a *very* small handful of cities in the US or just move to Europe.

Ocklawaha

November 21, 2010, 01:28:46 PM
Exactly why a conventional equipped train, on current track is the correct choice for Florida as opposed to Disney's flying train in Central Florida. For Faye and others that want to argue "job creation" from High Speed Rail, consider that capacity increases, new signaling, crossing protection, and general track upgrades to increase speeds and frequencies would not only provide just as many high quality jobs as HSR but more long term or continuous employment. The concept of HrSR is simple, the end result will be HIGH SPEED RAIL with customers, more cost coverage from the farebox and routes built on demand rather then dream studies.

Quick, think of a state in the USA most known for automobiles and FREEway's... I won't say the name but the initials are CA. Would you believe this is the same state that is leading the nation in a rapid conversion and adaptation to rail? TRUE! In fact California has become an icon for how to do it.

This can easily happen in our lifetime, in fact if the Florida East Coast trains, and the Gulf Wind (Sunset Limited) reinstatement can beat any construction on Mickey's Flying Train, common sense is more likely to prevail over the whole state. Success of 90 MPH conventional Amtrak Trains would show Tallahassee the power of sensible usable rail. Take these Billions and spread them throughout the whole state with a statewide network.

OCKLAWAHA

finehoe

November 23, 2010, 04:40:38 PM
Any piece that starts off quoting faux-economist hack Robert J. Samuelson isn't to be taken seriously.

tayana42

November 23, 2010, 09:56:38 PM
Another excellent post from Metro Jacksonville. The argument in favor of conventionally equipped trains operating on existing track is compelling; more so as highway traffic gets ever more congested. And despite the negative WSJ article, there is value in rail travel in the sense that the traveler actually enjoys the experience...as opposed to highway and air travel. I love the rail experience in europe, from the sleek and fast TGV in France, to the narrow gauge mountain railways in Switzerland.

tufsu1

January 08, 2011, 10:57:58 PM
There's good logic to be fiscally conservatove....and move forward with HSR

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/07/a-fiscally-conservative-approach-is-the-right-one-for-florida-high-speed-rail/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thetransportpolitic+%28The+Transport+Politic%29

Ocklawaha

January 08, 2011, 11:56:04 PM

Quote

It suggests that the project will not be operationally profitable, despite the fact that nearly every high-speed rail project completed anywhere in the world has achieved as much.

Even some of our "solid sound thinkers," have taken leave of their senses because a "flying train," looks so cool we've just got to build it! When is the last time you rode a train ANYWHERE just because it looked cool?

"There goes another one..." right off the deep end with another Florida HSR false statement...

NAME THEM.

Tokyo - Osaka
Paris - Lyon

and uh?

To pretend Amtrak makes a buck off the corridor depends on their highly skewed accounting, and that basically gives the NEC a free ride and changes the hell out of long distance, intercity rail. While the reality is the NEC is a loser too, the Long Distance isn't nearly as bad as they have postulated all these years. These Sunshine State reporters claiming how many, and how much, we're going to make off this train because Acela "makes money," are the same clowns that have told us for 35 years, "For every Amtrak ticket sold it cost you and I $30 dollars," but hey, we're going to get MICKEYS MAGIC TRAIN so suddenly it's all profit.

Florida AMTRAK ridership (for the deluded these are generally people that WILL ride trains) has just hit right under the Million passengers a year mark. We will be lucky to see even that million on the HSR in ANY year, considering it doesn't go anywhere anybody wants to go, takes too long - longer then a car to get there, leaves from God Forsaken nowhere stations, Doesn't connect with the state rail system, costs more then the car, requires a car rental or mass transit at arrival, and tries to serve a tourist market already saturated with ALL INCLUSIVE packages... Um, what theme park is going to be first in line to chunk their tourist packages so the people can ride this flying train?

PSST... IT AIN'T GONNA FLY WILBUR!

Damn, here I go, from Consultant to El Misericordia of Florida's railroads, in one giant leap...

I remain, at your service,

OCKLAWAHA

yapp1850

January 09, 2011, 05:16:37 AM
most people comming from tampa to orlando are going for one thing theme parks and orlando is th capital of the world of theme parks.

yapp1850

January 09, 2011, 05:24:09 AM
i am hoping for orlando stations at theme parks and downtown at church st. if you do that way it hits toursist,business areas of orlando, remember florida is a toursist state.

tufsu1

January 13, 2011, 10:14:12 AM
Everything seems to be falling in line....first, Associated Indutries of Florida (business lobbying group) comes out in favor of high speed rail....and now the Senate President has basically done a 180 from his statements the other day.

Quote

SENATE PRES OK WITH RAIL ROLLING, IF BIZ PICKS UP THE TAB

By KEITH LAING
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

Posting or forwarding this material without permission is prohibited.
Contact news@newsserviceflorida.com.

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, Jan. 12, 2011..........Despite recent calls for
the new governor to put the brakes on high speed rail, Florida Senate
President Mike Haridopolos said Wednesday the project should roll ahead if
private investors can come up with the remaining $280 million needed to fund
the $2.6 billion system.

Speaking with reporters during a Capitol news conference, Haridopolos said
he would not try to stop the Department of Transportation from seeking
proposals from companies that have expressed interest in building the train,
90 percent of which would be paid for by the federal government. A bullet
train would be nice, Haridopolos conceded, but not on Florida taxpayers'
dime.

"I think high speed rail is something people would like to have,"
Haridopolos said. "I would make the argument, and I have made the argument,
that it's something we cannot afford at this time using state dollars. If
the private sector chooses to make up that last 10 percent, great, that
would be their prerogative."

Federal officials say the project is the most shovel ready in a nationwide
network President Barack Obama envisions will eventually rival the federal
interstate highway system.

To that end, supporters of the train have suggested that companies might be
willing to close the gap on the $2.6 billion the train is estimated to cost
- and assume some of the risk if ridership does not meet expectations - in
exchange for building one of the first high speed rails in the country.

Haridopolos said Wednesday that would be fine with him.

"If the last 10 percent is made up by the private sector, then we'll see
high speed rail being done, but I want to see not only the short term, but
the long term, the operation and maintenance like we have with SunRail put
on the backs of the private sector," he said.

"What business wouldn't die for a 90 percent off (deal)? Talk about a tax
break," he continued. "The last 10 percent can be picked up by the private
sector if they really believe it'll be a commercially viable operation."

Some supporters of the high speed rail project, which would connect Tampa
and Orlando, have criticized Haridopolos for supporting one train and not
another. Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, noted earlier this week that
Haridopolos backed a special session in 2009 to approve legislation that
allowed for the purchase of the tracks for SunRail that organizers
explicitly tied to winning federal money for the bullet train.

Shortly after that session, U.S. transportation officials announced they
were awarding $1.25 billion to Florida for the Tampa-to-Orlando train from
the federal economic stimulus, half of the money the project was expected to
cost. Since then, the feds have put another $1 billion on the table,
bringing Florida's total higher than any other state but California.

Sen. Dockery attributed Haridopolos' earlier opposition to the state making
up the difference to politics, with the Senate president widely believed to
be gearing up for U.S. Senate run in 2012. But Haridopolos said Wednesday
the two trains were apples and oranges.

"(SunRail) is something I chose to support because it is a mixture of
funds," he said. "It's federal, state and local. This is a project that has
been worked on in Central Florida for over 10 years. It is supported by
Republicans and Democrats alike and the local governments and that
particular DOT region chose to use some of their road money for rail because
they thought it would be very important to that region."

Of course, many of the same things could be said of the high speed rail
project, which was put into the state constitution back in 2000 after a
successful political campaign largely funded by Dockery's husband, Lakeland
businessman C.C. Dockery. However, the constitutional amendment mandating
the train was undone four years later with the strong backing of former Gov.
Jeb Bush, who argued the state could not afford it.

Haridopolos said that history was a key difference between the two trains.
Unlike the original high speed proposal, which he opposed, the Sunrail deal
calls for Volusia, Seminole and Orange Counties to assume responsibility for
operations after the tracks for SunRail are purchased, which was projected
in 2009 to cost the state $641 million.

With Gov. Rick Scott not saying much about the train other than that he will
make a decision about accepting the federal money only after a February
review, Haridopolos' recent statements about high speed rail have caused
quite a stir, even among groups that normally vociferously support
Republicans.

Associated Industries of Florida, one of the state's major business lobbies,
announced Wednesday it was forming a high-speed rail coalition, which it
said would include "private-sector companies that want the jobs, the work
and the prestige that will come from being a part of Florida high speed
rail."

"Decisions to abandon the project can always be made further down the road
if the conditions are not ideal," AIF said in a statement. "Right now, we
have an opportunity to leverage private investment to secure billions in
federal dollars for a project that will have an incredibly positive impact
on our state. Let's not derail high speed rail."

DOT officials told a Senate panel Tuesday that unless someone says
otherwise, requests for proposals on construction projects necessary to
build the high speed train would be released in March. If the proposal is
not stopped in its tracks after they come, contractors would be selected in
2011 and construction would begin in 2012.
Supporters have said the train could begin running in 2015.

-END-
1/12/11

Detailed context on Florida transportation issues is available on the NSF
Transportation Backgrounder at
http://www.newsserviceflorida.com/transportation/transportation.htm.

Ocklawaha

January 13, 2011, 01:22:05 PM

Here you go TU, I designed a station just for you that should just about handle the local business between Orlando and Tampa.

They better hurry up and sell it now, because once it starts running and the real numbers come in, they'll be diving off that damn thing worse then rats on a sinking ship.

I find it very interesting that the industry is charging off the cliff with this, when they admit it is a flawed plan, make a buck or two today at the public trough, and seal the future of HSR, I spell that C A T A S T R O P H I C !

OCKLAWAHA

lobosolo

January 27, 2011, 05:00:06 PM
We need to be clear about the definition of federal a "subsidy" for each mode of travel. A subsidy is not the same thing as "federal funding" altho many transit, rail, and high-speed rail advocates keep trying to twist the language so that it is. If an infrastructure project is funded by payments made by its users, there is no subsidy involved. A subsidy occurs when non-users are compelled to pay for such a project.

The definitive study on this subject is the December 2004 report by the US DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, called "Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation" posted on the BTS.gov website. It reviewed about a decade’s worth of federal funding for inter-city rail, air travel, highways, and urban transit. For each mode, it compared federal user-tax revenue with federal spending, with the difference amounting to the subsidy. It then divided the average annual subsidy by the passenger miles traveled using each mode.

The resulting federal subsidy per thousand passenger miles was as follows:
Inter-city passenger rail: $186
Urban transit: $118
Air travel: $ 6
Highways: -$ 2

The highway figure is negative because in a typical year, federal highway user taxes exceeded federal highway spending (because of transfers of some of that revenue to urban transit).

BridgeTroll

January 28, 2011, 07:15:49 AM
Interesting info... Welcome aboard lobo!

Ocklawaha

January 28, 2011, 08:25:12 AM

Quote from: lobosolo on January 27, 2011, 05:00:06 PM

The definitive study on this subject is the December 2004 report by the US DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, called "Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation" posted on the BTS.gov website. It reviewed about a decade’s worth of federal funding for inter-city rail, air travel, highways, and urban transit. For each mode, it compared federal user-tax revenue with federal spending, with the difference amounting to the subsidy. It then divided the average annual subsidy by the passenger miles traveled using each mode.

The resulting federal subsidy per thousand passenger miles was as follows:
Inter-city passenger rail: $186
Urban transit: $118
Air travel: $ 6
Highways: -$ 2

Hello lobo, welcome aboard.

The reasons for this disparity are myriad, but largely stem from the government funding other modes, while using tax revenues (often from the railroads themselves) to create the national interstate highway system (which parallels railroad mainlines throughout the country), the CAB, FAA etc. while not allowing the railroads to adjust their schedules or drop trains until their financial situation was in ruins. During that same period we somehow convinced state and local municipalities that they should build and maintain airports and secondary roads.

The flip side of this is had the government really made an effort to "save the passenger train," they could have set up a loss prevention system and applied it to the private railroads. Amtrak represents a total takeover, and its trains are as different from the private railroads as a Navy ship is from a cruise liner. Those highway and air numbers would also be incredibly high if the government was only supporting a single daily airplane - each way on 15 long distance routes. It would then be impossible to sell enough seats to get close to break even, but that is exactly what some in Congress expect from Amtrak.

OCKLAWAHA

stephendare

January 28, 2011, 08:31:43 AM
lol. its a disingenuous way to compare the costs, because its basically a popularity contest, and measures volume of people rather than apples to apples comparisons on the subsidies.

FayeforCure

January 28, 2011, 04:16:52 PM

Quote from: stephendare on January 28, 2011, 08:31:43 AM

lol. its a disingenuous way to compare the costs, because its basically a popularity contest, and measures volume of people rather than apples to apples comparisons on the subsidies.

So true, but not only that............as usual Conservatives overlook costing out externalities in their rosy view of car transportation:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q7t3kn7348r721t6/

Ocklawaha

January 28, 2011, 09:23:31 PM

"The Champion," Just another of many famous trains Amtrak operated then axed. In this scene the Champion is backing into Tampa Union Station from the Neve Wye located in Gary, a neighborhood that is about 2 miles away from the station in Tampa, Florida, during 1977. A conductor or trainman is standing on the rear vestibule to use the warning back up whistle connected to a goose neck hose. It appears the other train service employee is using a radio telephone to provide directions to the engineer.

Passenger Rail April 30, 1971, Last full day of private operation.

Amtrak National and "Florida Service," today.

As FAYE, TUFSU, FSUJAX, MJ and I have been saying all along, our problem is not, "too much Amtrak," the fact is if we had more we could spend LESS! Here's the story on that and several example routes, keep in mind that the entire state of Florida, which had 12 Amtrak trains since 1971, is now down to TWO + plus a non-stop Sanford-Lorton, VA AUTO-TRAIN daily. If Rick Scott and the axe the tax gang REALLY wanted to help AND wipe out stupid spending programs they should look at boosting our Amtrak service about 5x what it currently is.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote

FACT SHEET

Frequency is Key to Successful Short-Distance Passenger Train Service

When a traveler considers whether to drive, fly or take a train to a destination, the biggest factors in that decision are generally cost, convenience and travel time. Passenger trains—even those running at “conventional” speeds up to 90 mph—often offer shorter travel times than cars for trips greater than 50 miles. Yet the car is often more convenient, especially if there are a limited number of train departures to choose from. Travelers generally prefer to go at their own pace instead of planning trips around public transportation (including airline) schedules. Therefore, the more frequencies are added to a passenger train route that is both cost- and trip time-competitive with driving, the faster the rate at which train ridership grows.

The histories of contemporary passenger train routes in different parts of the United States have demonstrated this to be the case. Presented here are four Amtrak routes that have witnessed noteworthy ridership gains with the addition of train frequencies.

Capitol Corridor – Oakland-San Jose-Sacramento, CA

From 1970 to 1991, there were only two daily intercity trains between these three major central California cities, both of which were long-distance runs that were impractical for local travel. In 1990, however, California voters approved three bond measures, the largest of which was a citizen initiative, providing a mandate and seed money for the establishment of new short-distance trains between the cities. The first Capitol Corridor trains rolled in December 1991, with three daily round-trips.

By 1995, however, ridership was languishing and the state and Amtrak’s budget problems made the corridor a candidate for abandonment. But the communities along the route fought to keep the service going. A 1996 state law allowed any of the cities, counties or transit agencies along any of the three state-sponsored corridors to form a Joint Powers Authority to assume the management of the train service. Only the communities on the Capitol Corridor elected to do so.

The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), an agency formed by a compact of local transit authorities that took over the line’s operation from the state transportation department in 19971 and selected the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) as the full-time managing agency, a position BART still holds.

463,000 annual riders used the Capitol Corridor in fiscal 1998. Four round-trips were operating by October of that year with a state subsidy of $12 million and a farebox recovery ratio (percent of total costs covered by passenger revenue) of 29.8%. CCJPA successfully lobbied the state legislature to invest in new equipment and track upgrades to meet the strong demand for train service that began to grow once more attractive schedules were offered—despite that no federal match was available at that time similar to that offered for state highway, aviation and urban transit investment.2

Fifth and sixth round-trips were added within the first few months of CCJPA management, resulting in a ridership increase of 17% and increasing the farebox recovery ratio to 31%. The decision in February 2000 to terminate service to Colfax (east of Sacramento) and use the saved costs to fund a seventh Sacramento-Oakland round-trip resulted in a 40% ridership jump while costs stayed flat, giving the service a 40% farebox recovery ratio. Former CCJPA Managing Director Eugene Skoropowski calls this the “magic line” between offering the public a real transportation service versus “just a chance to ride a train.”3

The keys to the Capitol Corridor’s success were political will at the highest levels of state government, an aggressive, customer-focused management team, a strong partnership with host railroad Union Pacific (UP), and consistent capital funding for service expansion. CCJPA’s model cooperation with UP proves that a major freight railroad will respond positively to greater passenger service on its tracks so long as its ability to operate and grow its freight business is protected. This allowed for significant portions of the line to be double-tracked by the mid-2000s.4

The state took delivery of 12 new coaches from 2001 to 2003, making three additional frequencies possible, for a total of twelve. Ridership and revenue growth was then outpacing cost growth, so no additional state subsidy was needed. In 2004, all three Amtrak California corridors reported double-digit ridership growth. Upon completion of state- and locally-funded track construction projects in, three more weekday Oakland-San Jose round-trips were added, along with four more weekday Oakland-Sacramento round-trips, for a total of 32 trains. By fiscal 2008, ridership had grown to 1.67 million, an increase of 530,000 riders over four years.5

From 2001 to 2008, state subsidy remained flat, but a modest increase was needed in 2009 to cover higher Amtrak labor costs. By that point, farebox recovery was a remarkable 55%, and the state cost per passenger mile was half of what it was in 1998.6 All the right ingredients came together to provide a true passenger train success story, consistently ranked by passengers as among the country’s top five in customer service, in the heart of the world’s automobile capital. On-time performance on the Capitol Corridor is 97%, mostly on a busy mainline freight railroad serving a major port.

CCJPA staff is still following a “build-out plan” calling for sixteen San Jose-Oakland, eighteen Oakland-Sacramento, ten Sacramento-Roseville, and four Roseville-Auburn round-trips.

Amtrak Virginia – Washington, DC-Charlottesville-Lynchburg, VA

The Norfolk Southern-owned rail line connecting Washington, DC (and, by extension, the entire Northeast Corridor) to Manassas, Culpeper, Charlottesville and Lynchburg, VA, saw only one daily Amtrak round-trip until October 1, 2009 (plus an additional thrice-weekly round-trip serving all of the above except Lynchburg). Nevertheless, passengers traveling between Lynchburg and Charlottesville and Northeast Corridor points accounted for some of the best-patronized city pairs on that one train, the New York-New Orleans Crescent, in fiscal 2009, with almost 20% of the route’s riders traveling between 300 and 400 miles out of a route total of 1,377.7 Washington-Charlottesville also represented the 4th-busiest city pair, and New York-Charlottesville the 8th-busiest city pair, on the tri-weekly New York-Chicago Cardinal in fiscal 2009.8

Thanks to funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia, resulting from significant grassroots support along the route, Amtrak extended a daily Northeast Regional round-trip, which had been Boston-Washington, south to Lynchburg starting on October 1, 2009. The new train provided a schedule only two hours apart from that of the Crescent, but greatly exceeded Amtrak’s ridership projections in just the first six months of its operation, thanks in part to the Crescent’s limited capacity,9 especially for shorter-haul travelers. A little over 9,000 passengers use this train within Virginia each month, in addition to those still using the Crescent and Cardinal. Passenger revenues have been so strong that the Commonwealth has not had to provide any operating support to Amtrak for the Washington-Lynchburg portion of the run.10

Hiawatha Service – Chicago, IL-Milwaukee, WI

This route, which has been connecting Chicago to Milwaukee with three intermediate stops continuously since before Amtrak began operations in 1971, is the seventh busiest in the Amtrak system, with a per-mile ridership exceeded only by the Northeast Corridor and California’s Capitol Corridor.11 While originally funded entirely by Amtrak, the states of Illinois and Wisconsin now contribute operating support for the Hiawathas. In 1971, the corridor was served by four daily round-trips, a number that quickly increased to seven, but was cut back to three or four during the 1980s, until the states pitched in to support two more frequencies starting in 1989.12 Today, six round-trips operate daily (five on Sundays), excluding the Chicago-Seattle/Portland Empire Builder, which does not take local Chicago-Milwaukee passengers.13

451,100 passengers rode Hiawatha trains in 2004, a number that grew 73.6% to 783,060 in fiscal 2010.14 State operating support for the route helps to keep fares low enough to attract substantial ridership.15 People who regularly travel between Milwaukee and Chicago have enjoyed a relatively high level of train service for so many years that it has helped to engender a train-riding culture. The 2005 addition of a stop at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport16 is drawing Chicago-area residents looking for cheaper flights and better flight schedules than those available from O’Hare and Midway, as well as suburban Milwaukee residents who find the airport station more convenient than the center-city station.

Downeaster Service – Boston, MA-Portland, ME

The state of Maine was without a passenger train connection to Boston—and thus the rest of the national network—from 1964, when the Boston and Maine Railroad ended intercity service north of Dover, NH,17 to December 2001. State investment in Amtrak-operated service between Portland and Boston’s North Station on the former B&M line now mostly owned by Pan Am Railways was the direct result of years of organizing by TrainRiders/Northeast, which led to the Maine legislature passing the first citizen-initiated bill in its history. The bill directed the state to use all means necessary to create Boston-Portland passenger rail service and to spend no less than $40 million to do so.18 Downeaster service began in 2001 with four round-trips, with a fifth being added in 2007.19

245,135 passengers used Downeaster trains in fiscal 2002. Ridership grew to 361,634 by fiscal 2007 (almost a 50% increase), then rose an additional 31.2% into 2008 with the addition of the fifth frequency. 4,000 more took Downeaster in 2010 than in 2008.20 The Downeaster enjoys tremendous public support and buy-in, and work is being done in preparation for extending service further east to Brunswick, ME. Trackwork over time has shaved 20 minutes off the travel time between the two endpoints.21

Piedmont Service – Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte, NC

When Amtrak began operations in 1971, there was no passenger train service connecting North Carolina’s three largest cities. Raleigh was served by one daily New York-Miami Amtrak roundtrip, and Greensboro and Charlotte were served by one daily New York-New Orleans round-trip, operated by Southern Railway until Amtrak took over in 1979.22 Both trains served North Carolina at inconvenient hours. With operating support from the states of North Carolina and Virginia, Amtrak’s Carolinian began daily Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond-New York service for a one-year trial in 1984, reinstating it “for good” in 1990.

Seeing the significant patronage of the Carolinian by intra-state passengers, the visionary Rail Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) bought and restored pre-Amtrak coaches, café cars, and coach-baggage cars, purchased new locomotives, and began operating a stand-alone Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte train, the Piedmont, in 1995. The Piedmont operated a reverse schedule to the Carolinian, providing a morning and evening train in each direction to all cities on the route.23

Almost 48,000 passengers rode the Piedmont in fiscal 1998. Patronage grew 43% to over 68,000 by fiscal 2009. In May 2010, the NCDOT Rail Division inaugurated a third mid-day Piedmont round-trip using more restored vintage equipment. This caused fiscal 2010 Piedmont ridership (not including the Carolinian) to jump to almost 100,000 (a 46% increase in one year)!24 NCDOT plans to add a fourth frequency to the corridor within the next two years as demand continues to outpace the supply of seats.

Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Corridor
2. Federal matching funds for state intercity passenger rail infrastructure investment had never been offered in U.S. history until the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. Any previous federal funding for passenger trains had come through Amtrak.
3. Email interview with Eugene Skoropowski.
4. NARP News, May 2000
5. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 30.
6. Email interview with Eugene Skoropowski.
7. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 36. Among 8 top city pairs by ridership, New York-Charlottesville is number 5, Washington-Charlottesville is number 6, Washington-Lynchburg is number 7, and New York-Lynchburg is number 8.
8. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 12.
9. A typical Crescent consists of two sleepers and four or five coaches, and a diner and café, all of which operate New York-New Orleans. The type of coach used on the Crescent (Amfleet II) seats only up to 60 passengers, whereas a Northeast Regional coach (Amfleet I) seats up to 84.
10. http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/20/choo-ching-new-amtrak-service-smashes-ridership-goal/, confirmed by an Amtrak representative.
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Hiawatha
12. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~sponholz/tt2.html
13. Amtrak System Timetable, Fall 2010-Winter 2011.
14. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 15, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Hiawatha
15. As of October 2010, the base one-way unreserved coach fare between Milwaukee and Chicago was $21.00. This compares to a base Baltimore-Philadelphia reserved coach fare (a comparable distance and travel time) of $32.00.
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Airport_Railroad_Station
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_and_Maine_Railroad
18. http://trainridersne.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=53
19. http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/NEWS/707310341/-1/NEWS11&sfad=1
20. Ridership statistics furnished by Amtrak; source document available upon request.
21. Comparison of Amtrak’s January 2002 (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20020128ne&item=0034) and October 2010 System Timetables
22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_(train) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_(train)
23. Ridership statistics furnished by Amtrak; source document available upon request

Copyright January 2011 National Association of Railroad Passengers, Inc.

yapp1850

February 06, 2011, 02:28:34 AM
if state picks usf poly as the high speed station and sunrail to the usf station, then to downtown lakeland and onto tampa union staion, poly will be a goood tranfer center, but in tampa they will have to have some type of light rail connection from union staion and high speed station it will be a lot better than the brt bus.