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.
October 27, 2009 — Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger depending upon the line, according to analysis by Pew’s Subsidyscope.
The line with the highest per passenger subsidy—the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles—carried almost 72,000 passengers last year. The California Zephyr, which runs from Chicago to San Francisco, had the second-highest per passenger subsidy of $193 and carried nearly 353,000 passengers in 2008. Pew’s analysis indicates that the average loss per passenger on all 44 of Amtrak’s lines was $32, about four times what the loss would be using Amtrak’s figures: only $8 per passenger. (Amtrak uses a different method for calculating route performance).
The Northeast Corridor has the highest passenger volume of any Amtrak route, carrying nearly 10.9 million people in 2008. The corridor’s high-speed Acela Express made a profit of about $41 per passenger. But the more heavily utilized Northeast Regional, with more than twice as many riders as the Acela, lost almost $5 per passenger.
Subsidyscope calculated profits and losses per passenger to ascertain which routes cost Amtrak the most to operate. Our analysis is based on a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) critique of Amtrak’s accounting methods, which says the railroad should consider depreciation when calculating profitability. Other capital intensive industries, such as commercial airlines, include depreciation and overhead when looking at route performance. Subsidyscope’s methodology is explained here.
In October 2008, Congress passed legislation reauthorizing Amtrak for an average of $1.5 billion a year for five years. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act requires that the railroad provide metrics for measuring all long-distance routes and find ways to improve the financial performance of those routes. Amtrak officials say they are considering options to make the Sunset Limited less costly.
Yep! If it were really going to be profitable, then the private sector would do it.
Anybody know where this “author” is getting his info from? I can find nothing on the FDOT home page indicating any kind of independent consulting study let alone a study that indicates a surplus.
We should make a deal. Since the city of Tampa thinks this will be a huge money maker we should allow Tampa to keep any surplus generated by high-speed rail ticket sales. Conversely, Tampa alone should be on the hook should a yearly shortfall exist.
“has there ever been a ridership prediction for any mass transit proposal that was anyway near the actual figure?”
Yes.
http://www.capitolcorridor.org/included/docs/ccjpa/publicworkshops06.pdf
The 1998 ridership of the Amtrak California Capitol Corridor (463,000) exceeded the projections cast in 1991 of 165,000 by a consioderable margin. In 2009 and 2010 the ridership was up to 1.5 million which was well in excess of the 1991 projection for 2010 ridership of 450,000.
wall i’ll be!;-)
thanx, Meg
Rob Hicks of Tampa, I think laid it out well in a post on the Orlando-Tampa HSR line proposed project. I can’t really add more than what he said in a reply to a Heritage Foundation blog on the subject and I present it here for your edification:
Rob Hicks, Tampa, FL on February 25th, 2011 at 9:21am said:
Who is going to be riding this high speed train? A recent Tampa Tribune article says that the price of a ticket from Tampa Airport to the Orlando Airport is project to be $30. Therefore if I take my wife and two kids on the train to visit Disney World for the day, I will be spending an additional $240 for rail tickets, plus bus transportation to Disney. Any time I gained on the train would certainly be used up on the bus ride.
Compare this to driving my car 77 miles to the front entrance of the park. Since I have an SUV I only get 18 miles per gallon on the interstate. At $3.00 per gallon that translates to a total cost of $25 for the round trip. Still, a savings of $215, which would buy a boat load of Mickey Mouse ears. Plus my kids are not missing the fireworks so that we can get back to the train station on time.
Let’s next consider a single business man heading over to Orlando for a business meeting. It is still going to cost him $60 for the round trip, plus transportation to and from the rail station and possibly parking fees for his car at the Tampa end while he is gone. This is more than double what it would cost him to drive.
Until the cost of the more convenient option of driving your own car exceeds the cost of riding the train, with all of its logistic pitfalls, people are just not going to do it!
In Texas where private investors wanted to build high speed rail they found themselves the target of an extensive anti-rail PR and legal campaign funded by Southwest Airlines.
So long as SWA is allowed to act to protect their near and growing monopoly on trips of 100-500 miles then high speed rail will continue to scare away private investors.
I suppose one solution would be convincing SWA to run the high speed rail projects.
You’re welcome! One thing I’ll note is that the ‘Amtrak California’ Capitol Corridor is neither run by Amtrak or by CalTRANS - it’s controlled by a joint powers authority composed of local governments who wanted the rail service to continue after Amtrak and CalTRANS did their best to run it into insolvency. The JPA hired the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District to manage the system and with experienced leadership at the helm the system has prospered to the point that they’re this year beginning to study constructing their own dedicated rail line as opposed to sharing rails with Union Pacific and BNSF.
And it's still a huge money loser.
Some how I don’t invision 9,000 people a day thinking...
Instead of taking 90 minutes to drive to Orlando from Tampa.
I’m going to drive 30 minutes to the airport
Pay $10 to park my car
Pay $32 for the train to Orlando
take 60 minutes to ride to Orlando
and then figure out how to get around Orlando.
Where oh where is the $42 in value?
No one will ride a train from Tampa to Orlando Airport..Tampa has an airport...Plus it will have many stops ..it is not a direct ride..
“And it’s still a huge money loser.”
Nope, not at all. The trains were originally implemented as an alternative to a much more costly widening of Interstate 80 from State Route 65 to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. By diverting 1.5 million round trips per year from I-80 the Capitols (as they’re called) have saved the taxpayers the approximately $7 billion dollars that was being contemplated to widen the freeway along the same 125 mile route.
The trains were originally supposed to recapture 12% of their costs in fares when the system was (mis)managed by Amtrak and CalTrans. With the JPA running things they’re now recapturing 40% of costs in fares which makes for a net savings for California taxpayers when weighed against costs for rebuilding I-80 to carry 1.5 million additional round trips annually.
If the line was as successful as they say it is, why hasn’t Amtrak built a line from Tampa-Saint Pete to Orlando yet? It should be very lucrative.
There are no commuter rail lines to connect to the main rail line and the reality is you still have to rent a taxi, take the bus or rent a car at the other end. And that means more $$$ out of your pocket. The reality is until it costs more to operate a car than it does to take the train, people will stick with what they know and all the government studies liberals peddle won’t change it.
what happens when the autodrive car is available.
we now have cars that self parallel park and that is becoming more and more standard equiptment.
it is not a question of if but when.
Amtrak has one daily trip along the route from Orlando to Tampa and a coach seat (when available) costs $10.00 to $14.00
This is traditional intercity Amtrak service (meaning the schedule can be delayed due to higher priority freight trains) and is not considered ‘commuter rail’ that would have a better than 95% ‘on-time’ record.
So the additional 60% needed to cover costs comes from where?
another offering from Delusional Studies While U Wait, Inc.
Politicians can tout high speed rail since they don’t have to please customers and they never have to worry about real world costs. Their money isn’t on the line. And if it goes belly-up, they can always sock it to the taxpayers. Political projects are usually always a disaster.
I didn’t know that. However, 14 bucks seems a bit too low for a trip from TAM to MCO considering fuel and everything. Methinks there is some subsidy involved.
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.