Posted on 03/10/2011 7:48:47 AM PST by Iron Munro
High-speed trains that Gov. Rick Scott rejected would carry more passengers and operate at a greater financial surplus than projected in a 2009 federal application, data the state released Wednesday showed.
Figures averaged from findings by two independent consulting firms showed more than 3.3 million people would have ridden the Tampa-Orlando line in its first full year of operation in 2016, compared with a projection of 2.4 million in a previous study.
The latest reports the Florida Department of Transportation commissioned at a cost of $1.3 million indicate a $10.24 million surplus from high-speed rail operations in 2016, with ticket revenue of $60.8 million, $12.3 million more than predicted before.
Those ridership and revenue figures do not include the so-called "captive market" between Orlando International Airport, the Orange County Convention Center and Disney World, which would add another 4 million riders and $56.3 million in ticket revenue to 2016 operations.
The results of the new reports, and the fact the U.S. DOT has not re-allocated to other states $2.4 billion in federal money Scott has rejected, could mean Florida high-speed rail is not dead yet.
U.S. Sen Bill Nelson said LaHood is examining how to reapportion Florida's allocation among other states, while also looking at whether a consortium of cities along the Florida route would qualify to apply for it and manage the project rather than the state.
"I still have a sliver of hope that common sense and the facts will prevail," Nelson said following Wednesday's release of the new ridership data.
Scott had once indicated he would wait for the data by Steer Davies Gleave and Wilbur Smith Associates before making his decision on whether to accept the federal funds.
The new data was intended to update previous "investment grade" studies to provide guidance for investors in private rail bond issues and others interested in becoming involved in the project, including the state.
The governor's office in an e-mail Wednesday said Scott was "verbally briefed" on the highlights of the FDOT ridership study before his Feb. 16 rejection of the project.
"The Governor has said all along he believes ridership projections for this and other rail projects are overestimated," the e-mail from Amy Graham stated.
Scott has relied on reports by the libertarian Reason Foundation, which said in January that Florida could face project overruns up to $3 billion, and a February paper by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation that concluded Obama's high-speed rail program would provide "mediocre passenger rail service to an extremely small fraction of travelers."
Critics challenged assumptions of both reports, which referred to historic appraisals of transportation projects in other countries, and noted that a Reason Foundation director who oversaw the report served on Scott's gubernatorial transition team.
On Tuesday, Scott told cheering Tea Party advocates at a Tallahassee rally: "Less government, lower taxes, no high speed rail."
Rail advocates said Scott is focusing on an anti-rail ideology rather than business and "fact-based" decisions.
U.S. Rep Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, said Wednesday that Scott "rushed to judgment" by rejecting the project.
"Now we see more evidence that shows just how profitable high-speed rail would have been."
The numbers from the new report aren't the only ones that support high-speed rail, Nelson said.
"With today's gas prices, a trip from Orlando to Tampa and back would use about 12 gallons of gas – and cost $47.88," he said. "A roundtrip train ticket would cost as low as $30."
Nelson said LaHood's decision on whether an agency representing Tampa, Lakeland, Orlando and Miami could take over the project is expected this week.
LaHood moved more quickly in December to redistribute $1.2 billion in federal money allocated to Wisconsin and Ohio, where newly-elected Republican governors had campaigned against high-speed rail.
Scott was reluctant during his gubernatorial campaign to support the Obama Administration's nationwide high-speed rail initiative that was to be launched in Florida and create up to 23,000 jobs, many in the construction industry where unemployment rates in Central Florida are near 20 percent.
After his election, Scott said he would consider the project after he reviewed the updated ridership and revenue figures and if the state did not have to invest the remaining $300 million to complete construction.
LaHood said Florida would not be liable for any cost shortfalls or overruns and private sector officials indicated they'd be willing to pitch in remaining construction funds.
What remains uncertain is whether LaHood will decide to force Florida to return $110 million in federal money it has spent on the project to date.
Sensible people know that one of the big attractions for these kinds of boondoggle projects are the busy-work union jobs, the construction contracts, the land sales and new business opportunities created by spending billions of dollars extorted from taxpayers.
The people who keep pushing this are those who will profit, prosper or gain something from the spending of billions in government money. The only time the promoters will be seen near the train is to have their photo taken at the ribbon cutting.
Their backers, friends or relatives holding land or purchase options along the right of way.
Union big wigs and union members who will make money from the busy work
Well connected contractors and businesses who hope to gain cotracts and business from politicians in return for healthy financial contributions.
So the taxpayers cover 60% of the cost.
How can you call that financially sound?
IIRC, Disney wants to fund it entirely themselves... I think the local politicians are trying to co-opt the project to include more stops. Disney, of course, wants to bypass all the local restaurants and hotels along the way and go straight to their property. [It’s been a few year - not sure where the projects stands, but the whole fiasco illustrates the point.]
LOL. The only people that would ride that train are tourists and the low income folks who don’t own a car. You can see them riding the bus any day in Orlando.
Okay, so maybe I'm a little dense, but, with all of these stops that they're talking about .. all of these places that they're going to tie together .. to get such great numbers of riders, how is that a high-speed train? The way I see it, they couldn't get up enough speed to make a difference between stops.
Where the bill for expanding I-80 ($7 billion in 1989 dollars) was coming out of California transportation funds and the rail subsidies were, too, the rail proposal was considered a net-savings to the California taxpayer with only 12% of the costs recaptured at the fare box.
Instead, it’s recapturing 40% of costs at the fare box which is then a net savings against the alternatives. Widening I-80 today would cost $12 billion to do the same thing that the trains did for only $23 million last year.
Took a software design class in college.
The first step was a feasibility study. Drawing on personal experience with a major US corporation, the professor educated the class how any idea can be made convincingly depending on the facts included in the study and their interpretation.
One of the best lessons I took from my college days.
But the trains are labor intensive, a black hole that devours revenue. Subsidies from cities along the lines are being cut (I’m willing to bet most come out of their general funds) and one I read about (San Mateo?) it’s own public transportation generates a whopping 17% of its needed revenue. And I can guarantee that CA transportation funds have probably been raided for years to cover shortfalls in the general fund. It cannot be sustained.
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA)Transit News
4/1/2010
Public Transportation in Serious Funding Crisis Due To Economic Recession
More than 80% of Transit Systems Are Being Forced To Raise Fares or Cut Services
http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2010/Pages/100401_funding_crisis.aspx Public transportation systems are facing unprecedented funding challenges due to widespread declining state and local revenues, and have been forced to take a number of critical actions including: raising fares, cutting service, and laying off employees, according to a new survey released today by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
This report, Impacts of the Recession on Public Transportation Agencies, shows that since January 1, 2009, 84 percent of public transit systems have raised fares, cut service or are considering either of those actions. Fifty nine percent of public transit systems reported that they have already cut service or raised fares.
Service cuts that have been either implemented or will be considered for future action include: reductions in rush hour service (56%), reductions in off-peak service (62%), and reductions in geographic coverage (40%).
The severity of the funding situation is evident with seven out of ten public transit systems (69%) projecting budget shortfalls in their next fiscal year.
$23 million a year vs $12 billion (after interest on the bonds it would be near $20 billion) is immensely cheaper.
For the train to catch up with the one-time cost of expanding the road would take over 500 years. Meanwhile, that expanded road will require expanded maintenance.
The problem you’re having is that you look at trains as a stand-alone when they part of a transportation infrastructure. The costs of putting people on a train are far less than that of putting people into cars and planes and I’m talking to direct subsidies.
I appreciate that you don’t like the subsidies on trains, but what you’re not looking at is how the subsidies for trains alllow for a REDUCTION AND SAVINGS in the subsidies for highways and airports.
In the case of the Capitols if we close the trains tomorrow (which cost the taxpayer $23 million a year) then we’re immediately faced with the $12 billion expense to increase capacity on I-80 that’s right now over capacity and gridlocked up to 8 hours per week along over 160 miles of roadway. Take away the trains and you add on 1.5 million round trips per year to a freeway that’s already maxxed out.
Good observation.
It's not really a high speed train. But proponents have been calling it that because it sounds good and draws more support. Its just typical politicians' smoke and mirrors.
One of the ideas they have been pushing is that America needs to move into the modern transportation era with high speed rail, like France, Japan, etc. Then they show photos of those superfast bullet trains. We are supposed to be embarrassed that other countries are so much more modern and progressive than America.
They gloss over the fact that some of the right of way they plan using for the Florida train is existing rail used by freight trains.
My response on the airport to Disney World rout assumed you would get a commuter train, not high speed rail. That could maybe make sense, not a high speed train from Tampa to Orlando.
1) If it is such a good idea, are you willing to invest your money in it? Might be a good idea with other peoples money but is it a good idea with your money? If the federal people who wanted this would invest their retirement funds in it I would be more interested.
2) Why does the govt have to do this? Could private enterprise do this better? I would be more encouraged if this was a coalition of states initiating the idea than the federal govt.
3) The federal govt has looked me in the eyes and lied to my face too many times for me to trust them.
I do not mean to start an argument, these are just the thoughts that came to the top for me.
Agreed, but a train running over to the Cape and maybe down to Merritt Island and back makes sense also. So many people want to do the whole fly-in Disney/Orlando thing but don’t like renting a car just to get to the beach, a normal commuter train making that route would probably do quite well. There are also a lot of workers driving the Bee Line from the coast who might like to get back and forth from Orlando using it daily too.
The results of the new reports, and the fact the U.S. DOT has not re-allocated to other states $2.4 billion in federal money Scott has rejected, could mean Florida high-speed rail is not dead yet.
Unsubsidized rail systems would fare well against unsubsidized highways and airports. Just like they did prior to the 1920’s when the government started subsidizing highways and airports in direct competition with privately operated railroads.
When every airport and every stretch of highway operates sans public subsidy I will be thrilled to invest in rail because it is already a proven fact that rail can outcompete other modes when they’re on an equal footing.
Even with massive subsidies (direct and indirect) to highways the railroads still outcompete trucks in shipping freight.
On trips of over 500 miles airlines will still be more popular than rail (depending on if the TSA starts random cavity searches or not) but on trips of 500 miles or less HSR is very competitive and it becomes more so competitive if subsidies to the airports and the airlines are eliminated.
Now the reporter may be stupid and not helping the situation. Or? The numbers make no sense.
The other side of this is that we have a federal agency that has to give away $2.4 billion very quickly...............
Ok. I'll take a toll road and you can have an unsubsidized rail system and we'll see who can make more money :-)
The first step was a feasibility study. Drawing on personal experience with a major US corporation, the professor educated the class how any idea can be made convincingly depending on the facts included in the study and their interpretation.
One of the best lessons I took from my college days.
But on the other hand, sometimes you do have to think big? It is easy to be a naysayer. The architect for Washington DC built roads radiating out into the swamp, what a boon dongle they thought at the time. OK, not a good example.
Hoover dam, Mississippi river locks, interstate system, man on the moon, buying Alaska, etc .....................
U.S. Rep Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, said Wednesday that Scott “rushed to judgment” by rejecting the project.
Also the pushing it through bothers me. Good decisions take time. Look what they did with the health care bill. For example the supreme court ruled that immigration was a national concern not state. It took them almost 30 years to come up with a plan that generally worked pretty well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.