Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.

George Orwell

***********************************************************************

1/15/12:

OrlandoSentinel.com

Our take on: SunRail's challenge

January 13, 2012

SunRail's challenge

It's not surprising that no one raised a hand on Wednesday when U.S. Rep. John Mica asked how many had arrived at a SunRail meeting via public transit.

Metro Orlando still has a long way to go in changing the way people get around (and the way people live-think-behave. Norm), changes that are needed if SunRail's going to succeed in the long run.

The groundbreaking for SunRail is only a couple of weeks away, and we're delighted to see work about to start in earnest. We've not wavered in our support for SunRail and the jobs, development and connections it'll create (nothing about reducing traffic? Oh yeah, that was the original argument - we've forgotten).

But the lesson from Mica's question should not be lost on local governments. Lynx must have a dedicated source of money (the taxypayers will pay) so its buses can quickly and efficiently move people from train stations to other destinations.

SunRail's going to need aggressive pricing for regular commuters, too, so they'll have a financial incentive to ride the train, along with the enticement of saying goodbye to Interstate 4 gridlock. Now that would be nice. (Translation: this won't pay for itself. If commuter rail is all that, why would people need an incentive to say goodbye to Interstate 4 gridlock - wouldn't they want to?)

And remember, the state's only going to pay for the train's operating costs for the first seven years. After that it's up to SunRail's local government partners (Translation: Attention local government taxpayers: loosen the glutes, get the Ben-Gay and grab those ankles - County lockup will feel like the Good Humor man compared to what you're going to experience. Men, because of this, those four most horrible words you may have heard during intimacy, may be uttered by you to your doctor during your yearly prostate exam: "Is it in yet?"). They need to view that time frame in dog years — seven will seem like the political equivalent of one.

There will be a lot of well-deserved hoopla two weeks from today (well deserved hoopla for continuing to vote on something until it gets passed?). But when the gold shovels and honorary hard hats are put away, there's more to do than install tracks and build stations. The dismal response to Mica's question shows just how much. (Let's build it and then see if there is a need. The need will be, if past is prologue around the country, 1-3% of the population using this commuter rail. It might be slightly higer in DeBary as CM Carson is committed to having a train full of riders.)

CITIZEN'S EDITORIAL:

Demand for SunRail: It's no interstate, and no iPod

Just when I thought it was safe to again read a Sentinel editorial, "SunRail's challenge" on Friday sent me over the edge.

As though it's an afterthought, U.S. Rep. John Mica and the Sentinel are acknowledging now we actually have to scare up paying riders to make this train really run. Oh, and "feed" them to the train, in a better-late-than-never realization.

The highly politicized SunRail has never been about mobility; that's just a pretext. It's about short-term job creation by power brokers — real: Mica and Mayor Buddy Dyer; and imagined: the Sentinel.

This misleadingly characterized commuter rail faces an abundance of euphemistic challenges. Foremost is the paradigm of instant gratification — our quality-of-life dependence on the automobile with a significant percentage of our economy reliant upon its perpetuation. Compounding that is a no-end-in-sight jobless recovery, especially with regard to the fate of SunRail as no new jobs equals insufficient though essential ridership.

The darnedest thing about SunRail is that it is not driven by demand. Instead, pols are hoping demand eventually will create itself. Well, Dyer is no Steve Jobs and SunRail is no iPod.

President Eisenhower — also no visionary — incredibly hit one out of the park with his interstate-highway program. While well ahead of its time and demand, the interstate highway symbiotically fueled mobility and growth as part of the other industrial complex — automobile manufacturing.

If only SunRail had something, anything, akin to that to float its boat, too.

William Shallcross Winter Park

5/12: Norm's comments in blue

My Word: SunRail deserves support

By John Mica

As chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I evaluate numerous transportation projects. As a fiscal conservative, I believe all taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects must be wise investments.

Even modest highway projects cost astronomical sums. The Interstate 4 and East-West Expressway interchange improvements cost more than $500 million. Twenty miles of metropolitan interstate costs $1.5 billion for one new lane that will only carry 2,000 cars per hour. (Yes, but highways are used by 86-88% of the population while Sunrail will be used by 1-3% which means to subsidize Rail is much more per person than highways.)

SunRail costs $621 million for 61 miles, and commuter-rail systems can transport up to 18,000 passengers per hour. (Notice on Mica does not say "Sunrail can transport up to 18,000 passengers)

That is why I favor SunRail, which cost-effectively uses existing rail lines, carrying people at a fraction of the costs. (Not true. The cost per person is astronomical and it's not cost effective)

SunRail will relocate slow, mile-long freight trains that block intersections in congested corridors to the sparsely populated center of the state. This takes freight off the interstate, reducing costly highway repairs. For every highway construction dollar, it takes nearly $5 for maintenance. Rail upkeep costs much less. A commuter-rail system recycling freight lines through our metropolitan area provides excellent transportation value.

Commuter rail is the most cost-efficient means of public transportation. Per mile, buses cost 62 cents, light-rail costs 36 cents and commuter rail only 24 cents to operate. (What does it cost to maintain and where do these numbers come from?)

We need both commuter rail and highway improvements. SunRail does not solve our transportation problems, but it significantly improves regional capacity.

What is the difference between the so-called high-speed rail and SunRail? While I advocate high-speed rail, just like any new four-lane highway, ridership and expenditures must justify all projects.

The Orlando-to-Tampa project, which averages 84 miles per hour, was not high speed. When the administration decided, behind closed doors, to offer Florida $2 billion for a $2.7 billion project, I said no. When Florida was offered $2.4 billion, I asked Gov. Rick Scott to assess whether the private sector would underwrite any construction balance and assume operational costs and risks. That request was rejected.

The governor's primary reason for rejecting the project was that it used stimulus funds and added to the deficit. SunRail uses no stimulus funds and will be eligible for transportation trust fund revenues, dedicated for transportation. (It uses taxpayer's money and in seven years we're on our own to fund this - forever)

Unlike the Orlando-to-Tampa project, SunRail comes back to Congress for review before final action. SunRail also has the financial backing and commitment of five local government partners. The entire capital and operational budget for SunRail has been committed at the federal, state and local levels, with no funding shortfalls. (Looks like someone has a crystal ball on cost overruns)

With soaring gas prices, we must develop cost-effective, energy-efficient transportation alternatives. In Florida and Congress, these are my responsibilities and goals. SunRail deserves conservative support.

U.S. Rep. John Mica is a Republican from Winter Park. (I agree with this. On this we agree)

$UNRAIL = TAX?

CLICK HERE TO READ THE STORY

1/29/11:

Rick Scott freezes four contracts for SunRail

Governor puts hold on spending of $235 million for rail cars, locomotives and other items

By Dan Tracy and Aaron Deslatte, Orlando Sentinel

Gov. Rick Scott late Friday froze four contracts worth $235 million for SunRail, Central Florida's planned commuter train.

The contracts cover $39 million to be spent on cab cars, $17 million for diesel locomotives and $168 million owed to Archer Western for design and construction of the rail line slated to link downtown Orlando with Seminole, Volusia and Osceola counties.

"Those items listed as being on 'hold' are pending additional information for review," Scott spokeswoman Amy Graham wrote in an e-mail.

Scott's office is reviewing all state contracts worth $1 million or more in his newly created Office of Fiscal Accountability.

It was unclear whether SunRail is in jeopardy, but Scott has said repeatedly he wants to ensure taxpayers get a return on their investment for both the commuter train and the proposed high-speed train that would link Orlando with downtown Tampa.

Graham, when asked by e-mail what the hold meant, said only it "means more information is needed before any action can be taken." She gave no indication how long the delay might last, or whether the train is in danger of being canceled.

The contracts are considered "critical" by the state Department of Transportation, which is charged with getting the $1.2 billion project up and running.

SunRail supporters had hoped to begin construction by spring, but that date could be in doubt, depending on the length of Scott's review.

Scott's action surprised advocates of the commuter train.

Heather Allebaugh, a spokesman for Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, said city officials did not know of the hold until told by a reporter.

Dyer, in fact, had run a meeting earlier in the day to discuss the status of SunRail and expressed confidence that the train was on schedule for a 2013 startup.

Noreanne Downs, who runs the state Department of Transportation in Central Florida, predicted during the meeting that Scott's office would approve the contracts as early as next week.

"Everything is on track, pun intended," Downs said. "I'm looking forward to some good news in the future."

Allebaugh said Dyer would try to find out what is going on.

"There's been a lot of bumps along the way. We'll work through it," Allebaugh said.

Last week, Scott released $173 million in state money for CSX, the Jacksonville train company that is selling its tracks to the state for SunRail.

That money will be spent by CSX to improve another rail line it owns and to build a road to a new logistics center in Winter Haven.

SunRail has been controversial since it was first broached by former Gov. Jeb Bush. It was defeated twice in the state Legislature and passed during a special session in 2009.

1/27/11:

Rail's just too risky for taxpayers

By SAM STALEY, NATIONAL VOICE

January 23, 2011 12:05 AM

On the surface, Florida seems like a good candidate for high-speed rail. The state includes one of the nation's largest urbanized areas, Miami, as well as several midsize metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million, including Tampa-St. Petersburg and the global tourist mecca of Orlando.

Scratching below the surface, however, reveals a number of shortcomings to a possible high-speed-rail line that warrant significant, perhaps, even project-killing skepticism.

Unfortunately, much of the support for high-speed rail in the United States is based on hype and ridership projections that are little more than gut speculation. Rail advocates base estimates on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor's Acela high-speed train or those in Europe, Japan and, increasingly China . But none of these cases fits Florida very well.

Take Amtrak's Acela service. The trains' speeds top out at 150 miles per hour but average about 80 miles per hour. The passenger trains link four of the nation's largest urban areas: New York City (20 million people), Philadelphia (5.3 million), Boston (4.8 million), and Washington , D.C. (4.5 million). Amtrak carries half of the combined air and rail traffic between New York and Washington , D.C. , and 40 percent of the traffic between Boston and New York . Yet, the trains still require steep taxpayer subsidies to compete with largely unsubsidized air shuttles and a much cheaper and burgeoning intercity bus service.

Acela does cover its operating costs. No other U.S. intercity passenger-rail service comes close to covering its operating costs. But federal subsidies are needed to pay for Acela's capital costs such as new trains and track upgrades. Unfortunately, Acela's subsidized performance may be a "best case scenario" for the United States .

Contrast the Northeast Corridor with Florida 's transportation challenge. The proposed high-speed-rail system would connect Tampa-St. Petersburg (2.5 million people) and Orlando (1.5 million), eventually making its way to Miami (5.4 million).

Thus, while the Acela links 35 million people in a 500-mile, nearly straight-line corridor, Florida's high-speed rail line would be a more circuitous 324 miles with only 10 million people in the major urban areas. Florida simply doesn't have the urban density and concentration of employment centers necessary to attract the riders needed to maximize the potential efficiency of high-speed rail.

Ridership forecasts are notoriously unreliable even in places that are far-more favorable for intercity train transportation. A new Reason Foundation report by Wendell Cox on Florida 's high-speed-rail plan shows the London to Paris and Brussels Eurostar high-speed- rail line carries less than half its projected ridership. And Taiwan 's high-speed-rail project is 44 percent short of projected ridership.

European economist Bent Flyvjerg and colleagues found that passenger-rail projects overestimated actual ridership by 65 percent on average. If ridership is being overestimated by 65 percent, the Reason Foundation report finds "the Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail line could incur operating losses of approximately $300 million in its first 10 years of operation."

An effective, intercity transportation network is crucial to economic competitiveness, but policymakers should not be lulled into thinking that a highly subsidized train line is efficient or the most practical alternative.

Roundtrip airfare from Tampa to Miami with a one-week advance notice can cost as little as $250, and automobile travel times are less than five hours. Drive times are less than four hours between Orlando and Miami . The high-speed-train proposal won't deliver passengers enough time or cost savings to compete -- unless the service is significantly subsidized by taxpayers.

The Florida high-speed-rail initiative will likely cost $10 billion under the very best of circumstances or, more realistically, closer to $20 billion if international and domestic experience is a guide. Gov. Rick Scott and the state Legislature should seriously evaluate the very real cost risks associated with this project before moving forward.

At the end of the day, high-speed rail carries significant risks for Florida taxpayers. Exploring alternatives such as expanded inner-city express-bus service and more frequent air access are likely to be far-more-efficient ways to improve travel that won't leave taxpayers with massive, ongoing debt.

Staley is Robert W. Galvin Fellow at The Reason Foundation and co-author of the book "Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive 21st Century."

AND NOW FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS:

Florida should go full steam ahead with train

By BARNEY T. BISHOP III, FLORIDA VOICE

January 23, 2011 12:05 AM

A recently released Reason Foundation study asserts Florida 's upcoming high-speed-rail project could possibly exceed expected costs -- assertions that are based on assumptions that may not prove true. Meanwhile, some lawmakers have expressed concerns over using public funds to support this project. As we move forward, it is critical that discussion surrounding high-speed rail center on a few key points.

First and foremost, the contract for this project can, and will, be written in a way that places all fiscal responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the successful bidder. The group that wins the right to build the high-speed rail connecting Orlando and Tampa will not only be responsible for the cost to build the project, but also the cost to operate and maintain it for 30 years. If the cost of construction runs over, or if lower-than-expected ridership does not make enough money to cover operating expenses, then it will be covered and absorbed by the private-sector contractor and not taxpayers.

Secondly, the federal government has already committed nearly $2.4 billion to Florida for this project, with the only qualification being that it is matched with $280 million from the state. However, there is no requirement that this money come from state coffers, and no restriction preventing Florida from seeking this match from private investors. In fact, several private-sector investors have already expressed interest in putting forth funding.

Before we make a choice to stop this process in its tracks, let's allow the competitive bidding process to continue. Let's determine how much risk the private sector is willing to assume and how much of its own investment it is willing to make. And, let's consider this all carefully before we tell the federal government to keep billions in funding.

Make no mistake, I am not a fan of the federal stimulus or increasing our national deficit, but the reality is these dollars have, essentially, been spent. If Florida walks away from the $2.4 billion sitting on the table, then we're just leaving it for other states like California to grab. Turning this money away will not help reduce our deficit; it will just be spent somewhere else. A veteran of California state government, perhaps that's what Robert Poole, one of the Reason report's authors, is hoping for.

As a Floridian, I'd like to see some of the money we send up to Washington, D.C. -- money that gets spread all over the country -- come back home to our state. Additionally, I would like to see the 5,000 construction jobs this project would create come to fruition.

Associated Industries of Florida has long been an advocate of high-speed rail in our state. Right now, we have an opportunity to leverage private investment to draw down nearly 12 times its value in federal dollars. We have an opportunity to build the first high-speed- rail project of its kind in our country, and make an international impression. Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Bishop is president and CEO of Associated Industries of Florida, known as "The Voice of Florida Business Since 1920." He can be reached at bbishop@aif.com.

1/22/11: From Coyote Blog:

I am just going to highlight two numbers for Phoenix light rail (TRS_ID 9209 in the data).

The public subsidy per individual trip (that is one person boarding and riding one way) is $32.73!! No one would pay this amount if it were the fare. This equates to a public subsidy (beyond the fares paid) of $3.82 per passenger mile. Remember, this is not a hostile analysis, but based on the numbers Valley Metro itself submits to the FTA. Note the IRS reimbursement rate for the total cost (capital and incremental expense) of driving a car is 50 cents per mile, which drops even lower per passenger mile when the car has more than one person in it. The average occupancy of a car is something like 1.5, which would make the cost per passenger mile of the average car to be about 33 cents per mile. Ignoring the passenger fares, the public subsidy alone for light rail in Phoenix is 11.6 times larger [note: and yes, this includes the gas tax, so it includes a lot of the maintenance of the road infrastructure. To include full cost of maintaining and building highways, it might have to be a few cents higher, but its not going to come anywhere in the ballpark of the light rail number].
But we are paying more for rail to save the environment, right? Well, the BTUs expended per passenger mile for Phoenix light rail was 4402. This compares to the average for passenger cars as determined by the DOE at 3437 BTU/PM. So the train actually uses 28% more energy to move one rider one mile than does the average car.

Years before the light rail system was completed, I made my light rail bet: That with the capital cost, I could easily buy a Prius for every daily rider, and still save money. And for less than the annual operating subsidy, I could give all the new Prius owners free gas each year. Already my bet has proved more than correct. But now we know that under my Prius plan, we also would have saved energy, since the Prius uses less than 1700 BTU/pm, less than a third of what Phoenix light rail consumes.

1/18/11:

Read the full report from the Reason Foundation:

Click Here: The Tampa to Orlando High Speed Rail Project: Florida Taxpayer Risk Assessment

The builders of any Florida high-speed rail project should be responsible for cost overruns and all operating losses, suggests a new report from the Reason Foundation. Written by the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Wendell Cox, the report suggests that rail construction is likely to go at least 40 percent over projected costs and that rail fares are not likely to cover operating costs.

The report notes that California has decided to build the first segment of its high-speed rail line in the flat Central Valley, where costs should be not significantly greater than those in Florida. Yet California is projecting costs of $64 million per mile, while Florida’s costs are projected to be only $32 million per mile.

The report is timely, as Florida’s incoming governor, Rick Scott, is seriously considering canceling the rail project even though the federal government has agreed to fund 90 percent of the projected $3 billion cost and project proponents claim fares will cover operating costs. Cox argues that going ahead with the project poses high risks for Florida taxpayers as the state will likely be responsible for cost overruns that are almost certain to happen, and Cox is also skeptical about fares covering operating costs.

As an alternative to canceling the project, Cox suggests the state could contract it out to a private operator and make the operator responsible for all cost overruns. Further, if the operator applies for any operating subsidies, it would automatically lose the contract to operate the line.

These sound good, but realistically, after spending $3 billion building the line, would rail supporters be content to shut it down if it failed to cover operating costs? Not likely; instead, the pressure would be intense for the state to keep it running no matter what the cost. Thus, even following Cox’s recommendations would pose a high risk for state taxpayers.

Moreover, as soon as construction begins on the Tampa-to-Orlando line, rail nuts will start pushing to extend the line to Miami–which proponents say will cost $8 billion but which Cox estimates will cost closer to $10 to $16 billion. This will add significantly to the state’s financial burden.

Cox doesn’t mention it, but the state’s grant application for the high-speed rail line projects that 96 percent of its riders will be diverted from automobiles; only 4 percent will be “induced” by the rail line. If every single one of those induced travelers goes to Walt Disney World, it would increase Disney World’s annual attendance by just 0.7 percent (about 125,000 new travelers out of 17 million who attend Disney World each year). Those who claim high-speed rail will lead to some kind of economic boom will have to explain how that boom could result from such a small increase in visitors.

Governor Scott can save Florida and U.S. taxpayers a huge amount of money by canceling this boondoggle. Even if Secretary of Immobility LaHood gives all of the Florida money to California, California will still have less than 20 percent of the amount it needs to build a Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line. Since that state is running huge deficits, that line is likely to die even if the state is foolish enough to begin construction on the railroad-to-nowhere.

12/18:

Rick Scott vs. high-speed rail

Rick Scott's aversion to high-speed rail threatens Florida's economy.

12:00 AM EST, December 17, 2010

Could Rick Scott, who's all about getting people back to work, manage to kill the planned Orlando to Tampa high-speed rail line and the 24,000 jobs it would bring Florida?

The answer's yes, if, in the end, the governor-elect cares more about partisan politics than an economic opportunity that anyone with his supposed business savvy would be daft to resist.

Regrettably, Mr. Scott's sending signals that to him, politics may well be more important than doing what's clearly in the best interests of Florida. How unfortunate for the state, which needs the stimulative, potentially transformative high-speed line.

And how ironic for someone who cast himself as a political outsider in his run for governor.

Mr. Scott's continued parsing of the project — it's got to show a return on investment; it can't cost taxpayers, he says — is now imperiling it. State Department of Transportation officials who'll depend on Mr. Scott for their paychecks once he's governor have picked up on his dislike of the project and put off plans to solicit companies to prepare the Interstate-4 median for the high-speed trains.

Mr. Scott's tack resembles those of Republican governors in Wisconsin, New Jersey and Ohio, who recently leveled criticism at federally-supported rail projects destined for their states — before they ended up telling Washington they didn't want them.

But Mr. Scott surely knows Florida's in a far better position to host a new passenger-rail system than those states, unless six weeks after the election he's still ignorant about one of its biggest infrastructure and economic development projects.

Florida's $2.6 billion high-speed project would be paid for almost entirely by the feds. Washington has agreed to send Florida all but $280 million of its cost. And some companies vying to run the trains indicate they'd cover the state's share. They're willing to do that because they believe running the Orlando-Tampa route would give them a leg up on operating a second high-speed rail line from Orlando to Miami — and other fast trains outside Florida.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he feared his state would have to pay for costly rail-project overruns. But meetings last month between Florida transportation officials and companies wanting to operate the trains reportedly revealed the companies' willingness to cover any construction overages.

Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker said his state would have had to pay too much to operate and maintain its rail line. But the company that runs high-speed trains in Florida would have to operate and maintain them for 30 years. The state, Florida DOT's Kevin Thibault told us, wouldn't have to pick up the cost.

Florida would need 23,000 people to build the rail line, and to find as many as 1,000 workers to operate it. The train would stimulate businesses along the line and help turn Orlando and Tampa into a single market that attracts entrepreneurs eager to reap the benefits of the nation's most advanced transit system.

And it would offer commuters and tourists an alternative to an increasingly gridlocked I-4. It also would prove cheaper than the alternative: Building another lane of Interstate 4 — just from Tampa to Lakeland — would cost $3 billion.

Why would Rick Scott oppose such a system? Because President Obama's stimulus program, which he savages, underwrites so much of it? Because it has become a badge of honor among conservative governors to reject federally funded rail projects? Because, even though it would better connect Floridians and deliver all those jobs, Mr. Scott thinks opposition would somehow help him among his conservative constituency?

We've tried, but we can't think of another reason.

11/30:

Foreign High-Speed Train Makers See Promise In US Market

Published October 06, 2010 | Dow Jones Newswires

Fast passenger rail service in the U.S. still exists mainly on drawing boards, but that hasn't dulled the optimism of foreign high-speed train manufacturers surveying the potential market.

"I'm absolutely convinced that getting one done [in the U.S.] will breed enthusiasm" for more high-speed trains, said Pierre Gauthier, president of French train maker Alstom SA's (ALO.FR) U.S. division.

Eventually, "I believe we will see in America exactly what happened in Europe," in terms of major population centers linked by high-speed rail lines, Gauthier said in a recent interview.

The bullish sentiment has yet to translate into major new U.S. investment by Alstom or other foreign-based train makers, however, a trend the companies chalk up partly to a lack so far of high-speed projects advanced enough to start purchasing equipment.

The U.S. trails Europe and Asia by wide margins in the development of fast passenger train service--generally defined as 125 mph or greater--and high-speed rail vehicles currently aren't built here.

But a strict "Buy America" provision attached to the $8 billion in stimulus money earmarked by the Obama administration to seed high-speed rail, as well as subsequent federal funding, is aimed at energizing the industry in the U.S. and boosting manufacturing jobs.

"We would not make a decision [on major new U.S. investment or hiring] until we win business," said Oliver Hauck, president of Siemens AG's (SI) U.S. mobility division.

Hauck noted, however, that the German industrial conglomerate already has purchased land near its existing light-rail plant in Sacramento, Calif., for possible expansion, and it's "forming teams to bid and win [high-speed train] contracts" throughout the U.S. as projects move out of the planning stages.

The first opportunity could come as early as next spring, when the main portion of a relatively small, $2.7 billion project in Florida--linking Orlando and Tampa--is scheduled to go out for bid. The line tentatively is set to open in 2015.

Among other projects, high-speed train makers are closely watching plans for additional Florida dedicated high-speed corridors, as well as an effort in California to build a Los Angeles-to-San Francisco link costing upwards of $40 billion that could open in 2020.

Karen Rae, deputy administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, said she's optimistic the high-speed rail push will pay off in new U.S. manufacturing jobs and investment, not to mention the economic benefits of a major new transportation option.

Many foreign train makers with substantial high-speed experience operate assembly plants in the U.S. to serve Amtrak and light-rail systems operated by various public transportation agencies. Those plants are designed in part to help the companies comply with requirements calling for up to 60% U.S.-built content in federally funded projects.

But the money for high-speed rail carries a stricter mandate--100% U.S. content.

The goal is for train makers to have "more than just an assembly plant in the U.S.," Rae said. The aim is for development of "a manufacturing-focused industry here."

Foreign train companies and suppliers have been broadly supportive, viewing the creation of new U.S. jobs and investment as added carrots to help sway more public support for high-speed rail spending.

Still, industry observers say that hitting the 100%-U.S.-content target will be problematic, particularly at first when the market is small and uncertainty exists as to whether U.S. funding for high-speed rail will be sustained long term. Some foreign train makers agree, although they contend they can get close.

"Obviously, with these [big] investments you need to have the certainty" that the business justifies it, Alstom's Gauthier said.

In addition, "in today's industrial economy, anything is hard to do 100%," he said, although the aim clearly will be "to maximize the local content."

Rae, of the Federal Railroad Administration, noted that waivers to the 100% requirement can be granted when it's proven that particular components can't be produced in the U.S.

"But the threshold is going to be extremely high," she said. "Our goal is to creep up on that 100%."

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/10/06/foreign-high-speed-train-makers-promise-market/#ixzz16bWqNrwD

11/29:

November 19, 2010

Trains of the Future, Politics of the Kennel

By Patrick McIlheran

High-speed rail, say its backers, shall zip the nation into the future, but for now it's producing flashbacks to, say, the elementary school lunchroom -- as in very large kids reaching across the table to grab your dessert.

That's because the Obama administration is relying on voters' puerile instincts to have its way.

The adminstration very much wants to change how you travel, so it passed out unprecedented billions for states to begin building new trains. At least two incoming governors, Republicans John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, won their offices in part by promising to stop such plans. The trains, both men point out, would obligate state taxpayers unendingly for subsidies, since no one, not even the trains' planners, pretends that fares ever would cover more than a fraction of the cost.

Both governors told the administration that the money, if spent, would be better used on other infrastructure. Both were told by federal transport secretary Ray LaHood that there's no way, no how that's happening. Instead, said LaHood, Washington would send the money to some other state more compliant with the administration's dreams.

Other states played their parts slaveringly. By the Friday following the election, New York's governor-elect, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, was declaring that if Ohio and Wisconsin were so well-off they could reject free federal money, he'd happily spend it on trains in his state. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, did the same.

And Tuesday, California's two U.S. senators, both Democrats, asked LaHood to just take the money and throw it into their state's bottomless project, a Los Angeles-to-San Francisco train that backers now say will cost $45 billion (and consider that a starting bid).

In short, the biggest kid in the lunchroom just said, "You gonna eat that?"

The Obama administration is playing the politics of envy. Ohio and Wisconsin voters were offered the glittering gift of bullet trains -- OK, not bullet trains but, rather, diesel-puffing trains that would average about 68 mph -- yet those voters rejected it. They elected men who promised to say no.

Not reflexively no, either. Both incoming governors cite more urgent needs: Kasich mentions freight rail, Walker wants to fix up roads and bridges, but both say the main point is to not commit taxpayers to a boondoggle in the first place. This week, a group of three Wisconsin Republican congressmen said they'd push to let the unwanted rail money simply go unspent entirely, cutting the federal deficit. It's almost as if we just had an election and the side demanding lower spending had won.

But the administration cannot take no for an answer, especially since other states have been questioning how much their smallish share of high-speed rail plans will cost. This could derail the whole transformative scheme, so LaHood is appealing to undomesticated fear. He's trying to trigger atavism in Ohio and Wisconsin, the gut-clenching Rust Belt hunch that once again, what was ours is going to be taken by someplace bigger, luckier or richer.

Tellingly, LaHood doesn't just take the money; he's jetting around, warning, hinting and teasing. On Wednesday, he got Charlotte, N.C., all excited about reallocated rail money. It turns out he was talking about other cash North Carolina already got, but for the purposes of making Wisconsin voters feel regret, it worked for a while.

Forget lunchrooms; this is the ethics of the kennel. The big dogs grow frenzied at the sight of an enlarged share, while the smaller ones are brought to heel with the fear of losing what's theirs. This is the nadir to which 2008's hope of transformed politics has devolved: The Obama administration is pushing its Europeanizing trains on Tea Party states by appealing to the citizenry's lowest instincts.

Patrick McIlheran is a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial columnist who blogs at jsonline.com/blogs/mcilheran. E-mail pmcilheran@journalsentinel.com

11/27:

September 9, 2010

Wisconsin's Rail Dream is a Spending Nightmare

By Patrick McIlheran

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, about to retire, really wants his state to dive into the passenger-train swamp. He wants it so badly, he's throwing $300 million into the murk in hopes the state's next governor feels duty-bound to chase it.

This matters outside Wisconsin. It's your money, for one thing: Wisconsin's plans for a high-speed train are predicated on vast sums of money taken from elsewhere by the Obama administration and sent here.

And the mechanism Doyle's using to lock his state into his pet project is exactly the one you'll see in other states when it comes to rail -- and in Washington for other unpopularities.

Doyle's dream is for a state-run passenger train from Milwaukee to Madison, an 85-mile trip untraversed by passenger trains now. The trains would hit peak speeds of 110 mph after 2016, fast enough to qualify for President Barack Obama's high-speed rail program. The $810 million grant to Wisconsin was among the largest from Obama's $8 billion train stash.

The plan ran into immediate turbulence. The state's own figures suggest taxpayers would be on the hook for $7 million a year to subsidize operating costs -- more like $10 million if the per-passenger loss comes only to the $26 per ride subsidy for Amtrak's popular Milwaukee-to-Chicago trains. The leading Republican looking to succeed Doyle, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, said he'd halt the project to spare such an unending drain. His Republican primary rival, ex-congressman Mark Neumann, said the same.

The annointee of Doyle's Democratic Party, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, favors the train.

Early on, Doyle's people said openly they'd try spending as much as they could before inauguration day next January. In March, insiders were guessing the state would have $57 million spent on the project by then: "I've never seen state bureaucrats move this fast on a project," one said. The aim was to make the train irrevocable, since the state would have to repay Washington any sums already spent if it cancelled the train.

By June, state officials said they'd spent or earmarked $100 million. Last weekend, the state transportation secretary said it will be $300 milllion by the end of the year. "Ripping up the tracks will cost Wisconsin taxpayers at least tens and tens of millions of dollars," a Barrett spokesman said.

You've got no choice but to flush away the rest, in other words. The project's been falling in the polls, and no wonder. The trip is projected to take about as long as driving, averaging 68 mph with stops. There's little congestion on the competing Interstate, and for those who don't drive, unsubsidized buses already offer frequent service.

Then there's the gulp-hard-and-round-up-to-a-billion price. Everyone knows it's an opening bid.

That's because the state and the Obama administration say so. Doyle's people for months have declared that Madison is just a way-station; the state really wants to extend the line 280 miles to Minneapolis-St. Paul. That itself is $2 billion at the rate of the Milwaukee-Madison line, and presumably would consume still higher operating subsidies.

The Madison line is just an early step in a vast web of such tracks centering on Chicago -- to St. Louis, Detroit, Indianapolis. Backers of this say it makes no sense to build one line and stop, and that's true. A train network works only as a network. Other proposals, in Texas, in Florida, elsewhere, are being sold similarly, as inevitable next steps.

And don't mention speed: Already, the passenger-train lobby is complaining that 110 mph isn't close to European standards. But to top 125 mph requires separate rail lines, with no freight trains, no crossings, no diesel. Such lines cost Europeans $40 million to $80 million per mile now. At that rate, Chicago to Minneapolis would cost $15 billion. When ridership proves anemic on our new 110 mph lines, we will be wheedled to spend such sums to salvage our investment with faster trains.

This is the ratchet that inflates government to Hindenburg scale. This is the mechanism of Vietnam escalation, the logic of casinos: Hey, sorry you lost, but you could win it all back with one more throw. You can't quit now.

And it is exactly the logic that we'll hear not only as the Obama administration scrambles to preserve its rail dreams. We'll hear this about the administration's really big deal, Obamacare. It's already law, after all. It's already offered protections, we'll hear -- guaranteed coverage, some subsidies -- and you can't repeal it now. In for a dime, in for dollar (or a trillion of them).

Humbug. The idea to hold in mind is that of "sunk costs," the fact that what you've irretrievably spent is gone, irrelevant to whether spending still more is a good idea or not. If you've blown $300 million on a pointless, duplicative waste, spending the rest of the $810 million only gets you a waste that's bigger, in need of regular feeding and prone to inflate into the billions.

If Wisconsin takes its retiring governor's frenzied spending as a costly lesson on waste and manipulation, it just may help spare the rest of the country from the much costlier inevitabilities that would follow.

11/25:

High-speed rail
projects land in tug
of war between
governors

Updated 1d 2h ago

By Charisse Jones , USA TODAY

When the Obama administration rolled out its initial
investment to create a high-speed rail system across
the U.S. in January, the program was hailed as a
pivotal piece of the most significant upgrade of the
nation's transportation system since the interstate
highway network.

But the program — along with the jobs it could
create, environmentalists' desires to ease auto
pollution and some travelers' hopes of eventually
hopping a fast train in the nation's heartland — may
have hit a speed bump after this month's elections.

Florida , Wisconsin and Ohio , each awarded
hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds,
have incoming Republican governors who have
vowed to kill their intercity rail projects or are
threatening to do so if they determine the projects
will become a drain on taxpayers.

The entire program is likely to come under review

when Rep. John Mica , R-Fla., presumptive chairman
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, assumes the leadership post next year.

"He wants to see successful high-speed rail in the
United States ," Justin Harclerode, spokesman for the
committee's Republican members, says of Mica.

But, Harclerode says, "(Mica) has felt all along that
we should really focus on high-speed rail efforts in
(a) very limited number of regions, and do it in the
places that can offer the most transportation benefit
to that region and to the country. Essentially, do it
in places where it makes sense."

The pushback is causing concern among some
public transportation advocates, environmentalists
and business owners who say that canceling the
projects could hurt the climate, deprive recession-
battered regions of jobs and push the U.S. further
behind nations in Europe and Asia, where bullet
trains are the norm.

It's "a job creator, and it's a new industry — a 21st
century form of transportation," says Joseph
Shelhorse, vice president of membership services
for the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, a non-
profit advocacy organization. "Taking four or five
hours to travel by jet (when) high-speed rail can
take you from city center to city center in an hour
and 20 minutes, there's really no comparison."

The U.S. Transportation Department also remains
committed to the effort. "We recognize that there is
an incredible demand for high-speed rail dollars
around the country," says spokeswoman Olivia Alair.

Burden or benefit?

The administration announced the first round of
awards in January, doling out $8 billion from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to help
pave the way for 13 major high-speed rail programs
and related projects spanning 31 states. An
additional $2.4 billion was allotted in October.

Florida received one of the most significant
amounts, getting an initial award of up to $1.25
billion to link Tampa to Orlando with 84 miles of
new track.

State officials estimate construction would mean
5,000 jobs. And with a projected completion date of
2014, trains would ultimately be able to travel up to
168 mph, trimming travel time between the cities
from about an hour and a half by car to less than 60
minutes. Last month, the state was awarded an
additional $800 million.

But Gov.-elect Rick Scott is concerned the project
could be more of a burden than a benefit to
taxpayers.

"He is opposed to investing in projects that have
little or no return on investment to the state," says
spokesman Trey Stapleton. "After looking at a final
feasibility study on high-speed rail projects and
determining what the state would be responsible
for, he will assess the state's funds and determine if
there is adequate return on investment for the
taxpayers' money."

Other governors have said they'll quash their rail
projects.

Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich wrote President Obama
asking that the $400 million awarded to his state for
a new rail corridor stretching from Cincinnati to
Cleveland go instead for other projects, such as
improvements to roads.

"Give us the money so we can use it for things we
need, like infrastructure, roads and freight trains,
and if you're not going to allow us to do that, send
it back to the Treasury Department to reduce the
deficit," says Rob Nichols , spokesman for the
incoming governor.

In addition to worries that the tab for building the
project will be more than the money that's been
allotted, Nichols says the train line will cost
taxpayers $17 million a year to operate. And with
the trains traveling 39 mph on average, though they

could reach a maximum of 79 mph, he says
commuters would likely prefer to travel by car.

"Saddling taxpayers with an additional financial
burden is not the solution at this point," says
Nichols, noting that the state is facing an $8 billion
budget shortfall. "We need job creation by making
Ohio business-friendly ... not by a 39 mph train that
no one's going to ride."

Wisconsin received more than $820 million for a
rail line between Milwaukee and Madison, the state's
two biggest metro areas, which currently have no
intercity passenger train service. The money would
also go for enhancements to service to Chicago as
well as planning for an eventual rail link to
Minnesota.

Gov.-elect Scott Walker says it won't happen.

"The Madison-Milwaukee train line is dead," John
Hiller , Walker's transition director, said in a
statement. "Wisconsin taxpayers will not be on the
hook for multimillion-dollar ongoing operating
subsidies, because of Gov.-elect Walker's efforts to
stop this boondoggle."

Advocates for the projects aren't giving up.
Outgoing Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland says he will not
stop a rail project that could lead to 16,000 jobs in
his state, despite receiving a letter from Kasich
asking him to cancel all engineering and planning
contracts connected to the effort.

"Gov. Strickland is firm that he doesn't want to
return Ohio's $400 million while he's still
governor," says Kelly Schlissberg, Strickland's

spokeswoman. If the "governor-elect wants to return
the money once he becomes governor, that's
certainly his decision, but Gov. Strickland feels very
strongly that this is a project that will create jobs ...
and will ensure Ohio is connected to the rest of the
country as other states develop high-speed rail."

Rally in Wisconsin

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wrote both
Kasich and Walker earlier this month telling them
the high-speed rail funds could not be used for any
other projects. If "you choose not to participate in
the program," he wrote to Kasich in a letter dated
Nov. 9, "we would like to engage in an orderly
transition to wind down Ohio's involvement in the
project so that we do not waste the taxpayers'
money."

On Saturday, supporters of Wisconsin's rail corridor
held rallies in seven cities across the state,
including Madison, where about 200 people
gathered near the spot where a new high-speed rail
station would be built.

"This isn't about campaign promises. This is about
what is best for the future of Wisconsin," Bob Lien of
LienTec said to the crowd. The company received a
rail-related contract and was planning to hire six
more workers if the project moved ahead. "They are
playing politics with our livelihood."

The USA lags behind many industrial nations that
have long incorporated high-speed rail
transportation, such as Japan, where the Tokyo-to-
Osaka bullet train has been running since 1964.

"The advantages are many," says Anthony Perl, a
professor of urban studies and political science at
Simon Fraser University in Vancouver who has
written extensively about rail passenger policy. The
trains lead to "energy efficiency, lower impact on
surrounding areas and highways and airports,
convenience, safety."

And, he says, high-speed rail could help relieve the
USA's dependence on oil: "The U.S. can't count on
cheap oil and therefore needs to count on
transportation options that can move without oil,
and high-speed rail is the best-suited intercity
option."

Amtrak has the high-speed Acela Express traveling
between Boston and Washington, D.C., and reaching
a maximum speed of 150 mph in parts of Rhode
Island and Massachusetts .

But the vision for the national high-speed rail
network is to create infrastructure that could
accommodate trains that reach up to 220 mph in
some parts of the country, rail experts say.

Oliver Hauck, president of Siemens ' U.S. mobility
division, which makes the Velaro, a high-speed
train operated in several countries including
Germany and China, says he is watching the
political back-and-forth closely.

"To one degree, we are concerned that this complete
rollout ... may be delayed," he says. But if an
assessment of the current crop of proposed projects
leads to resources being focused on just the few
that are likely to be most successful, "That would be
a positive sign."

11/14:

Stevne Benen

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026518.php

November 7, 2010

SO MUCH FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL.... Following up on an item from a month ago, it'd be an understatement to say the United States has an infrastructure problem. We're currently "saddled with a rapidly decaying and woefully underfunded transportation system," which undermines our economy and weakens our position against global competitors.

A bipartisan investigation recently found that U.S. investment in preservation and development of transportation infrastructure "lags so far behind that of China, Russia and European nations that it will lead to 'a steady erosion of the social and economic foundations for American prosperity in the long run.'"

That's the bad news. The good news is, President Obama seems deeply interested in making infrastructure investments a real priority, and approves of the kind of policies the bipartisan panel of experts endorsed, including "continued development of high-speed rail systems better integrated with freight rail transportation, and expansion of intermodal policies rather than reliance on highways alone to move goods and people."

So, there's reason for optimism, right? Sure, we have a serious national problem, but we know how to fix it, and we have a White House that wants to do the right thing. Especially when it comes to high-speed rail, which has broad national appeal, the president has already begun making key investments.

Brad Johnson reminds us that Republican governors have a very different idea:

Republicans who were elected on Tuesday are beginning to deliver on their campaign promises to kill America's future. Within hours of declaring victory, the incoming tea-party governors of Wisconsin and Ohio stood fast on pledges to kill $1.2 billion in funding for high-speed rail in their states. The funding, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will revert to the federal government for investment in other states -- unless Republicans in Congress are able to kill that, too.

[Wisconsin's Scott] Walker warned he would fight President Obama to keep the Milwaukee-Madison link killed "if he tries to force this down the throats of the taxpayers." [Ohio's John] Kasich -- who called the high-speed rail project linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati "one of the dumbest ideas" he's ever heard -- used his victory speech to announce, "That train is dead."

I'd just add that, though it hasn't come up this week, Florida Gov.-elect Rick Scott (R) also intends to kill the rail project linking Orlando and Tampa.

We are, by the way, talking about projects that create jobs, spur economic development, relieve traffic congestion, and help the environment, all while offering the promise of transforming American transportation in the 21st century.

Republicans don't care.

The Republican line used to be that they can keep the trains running on time. The new line is that they can't keep the trains running at all.

October 4, 2010

Rail Service Expansion Imperiled at State Level

By MICHAEL COOPER

Republicans running for governor in a handful of states could block, or significantly delay, one of President Obama’s signature initiatives: his plan to expand the passenger rail system and to develop the nation’s first bullet-train service.

In his State of the Union address this year, the president called for building high-speed rail, and backed up his words with $8 billion in stimulus money, distributed to various states, for rail projects.

But Republican candidates for governor in some of the states that won the biggest stimulus rail awards are reaching for the emergency brake.

In Wisconsin, which got more than $810 million in federal stimulus money to build a train linebetween Milwaukee and Madison, Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, has made his opposition to the project central to his campaign.

Mr. Walker, who worries that the state could be required to spend $7 million to $10 million a year to operate the trains once the line is built, started a Web site, NoTrain.com, and has run a television advertisement in which he calls the rail project a boondoggle. “I’m Scott Walker,” he says in the advertisement, “and if I’m elected as your next governor, we’ll stop this train.”

Similar concerns are threatening to stall many of the nation’s biggest train projects. In Ohio, the Republican candidate for governor, John Kasich, is vowing to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail. In Florida, Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has questioned whether the state should invest in the planned rail line from Orlando to Tampa. The state got $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money for the project, but it will cost at least twice that much to complete.

And the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail project, California’s $45 billion plan to link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles per hour, could be delayed if Meg Whitman, a Republican, is elected governor. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman.

Ms. Whitman’s desire to delay the project, which has already received $2.25 billion in stimulus money, drew a rebuke from the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who champions high-speed rail. “To say ‘now is not the time’ shows a very narrow vision,” said Matt David, the governor’s communications director.

The state-level opposition is a reminder of the challenge of building a national transportation project in the United States: while the federal government can set priorities, the construction is up to the states.

With recent polls showing all of the anti-rail Republican candidates leading or within striking distance of their pro-rail Democratic rivals, it is possible they could be elected and try to stop the train projects.

Federal officials, meanwhile, are incredulous that candidates are threatening to spurn stimulus money that their states competed ferociously to win just a year ago.

“The bottom line is that high-speed rail is a national program that will connect the country, spur economic development and bring manufacturing jobs to the U.S.,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman, said in a statement. “It will also transform transportation in America, much like the Interstate highway system did under President Eisenhower. It’s hard to imagine what would have happened to states like Ohio and Wisconsin if their leaders had decided they didn’t want to be connected to the rest of the country back then.”

Several candidates said they wanted to spend the stimulus rail money on roads and bridges, but it is unlikely they would be able to do so without changing the law: the stimulus, which included $28 billion for roads and bridges, required that the $8 billion for rail projects be spent on rail projects.

Federal officials declined to speculate on what would happen if anti-rail candidates were to win. But states that turn down rail money would probably have to return it to the federal government, which could then award it to states that want it.

Building a real high-speed rail network, like the ones expanding in Europe and Asia, is costly. The Acela trains between Boston and Washington can reach 150 m.p.h., but average around half that on their curvy, busy tracks.

That corridor, the most heavily used in the country, was largely shut out of the stimulus money; last week Amtrak outlined a $117 billion proposal to make it a true high-speed line.

The Obama administration used the rail stimulus money to make down payments on the high-speed lines in Florida and California and to build conventional rail service in other states.

The administration’s hope is that these rail lines will develop into networks that connect more cities, and that future investment can speed the trains. But critics question who will ride the new, not very fast trains.

The train proposed in Ohio would reach only 79 m.p.h. Estimates have suggested that some trips, with stops factored in, could average 39 m.p.h. Federal officials say the trains would be faster, but the number has stuck: in a recent debate Mr. Kasich, the Republican candidate, vowed that if he is elected governor, “the 39 mile-an-hour high-speed passenger train is dead.”

Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat seeking re-election, looked flabbergasted that anyone would turn down a $400 million construction project, fully financed by the federal government, to link the state’s biggest cities. “Your position, quite frankly, really puzzles me,” he responded at the debate.

Mr. Walker, the candidate in Wisconsin, said in an interview that he doubted many people would ride the train between Milwaukee and Madison. He said that it would be more expensive than a car trip without saving much time, and added that he worried about having to provide an annual subsidy to run the train.

In Florida, Bettina Inclán, a spokeswoman for Mr. Scott, the Republican candidate, noted that the state already paid to operate a commuter rail system and added that “we cannot afford to be subsidizing the bullet train as well.”

All Republicans are not against trains. One prominent rail advocate, John Robert Smith, was a four-term Republican mayor of Meridian, Miss.

“Any notion that somehow rail is subsidized, and other modes of transportation aren’t, is simply not factual,” said Mr. Smith, the president Reconnecting America, a nonprofit transportation advocacy group, who noted that highways and airports were subsidized as well. “Honestly, transportation infrastructure should not be a partisan issue. When you talk about good transportation solutions, they cross party lines.”

11/13:I posted this on the Beacon website a few days ago...it's not always fun to be right:

Norm Erickson | posted Nov 9, 2010 - 8:13:19pm

Not only do I agree with the majority of the commentary, but I've been saying it for years while being told to shut my mouth because we need Mica's influence to get funding for other projects. It's too late now...now we have to do the best we can to get businesses and residents in here to use it. Lastly, this is coming from the Feds and from the President; once the Repubs get in, the funding may dry up and these projects could wither on the vine. We'll see.

“Passenger rail is not in Ohio’s future”:

New GOP governors kill $1.2 Billion in high-speed rail jobs:

November 7, 2010

By Brad Johnson, in ThinkProgress cross-post.

Govs. elect John Kasich (R-OH) and Scott Walker (R-WI).

Republicans who were elected on Tuesday are beginning to deliver on their campaign promises to kill America’s future. Within hours of declaring victory, the incoming tea-party governors of Wisconsin and Ohio stood fast on pledges to kill $1.2 billion in funding for high-speed rail in their states. The funding, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will revert to the federal government for investment in other states — unless Republicans in Congress are able to kill that, too. Walker warned he would fight President Obama to keep the Milwaukee-Madison link killed “if he tries to force this down the throats of the taxpayers.” Kasich — who called the high-speed rail project linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati “one of the dumbest ideas” he’s ever heard — used his victory speech to announce, “ That train is dead”:

Scott Walker, the incoming governor of Wisconsin, for instance, vowed on Wednesday to carry out a campaign pledge to kill a proposed high-speed rail link between Milwaukee and Madison, part of a larger project to create a high-speed rail corridor across the upper Midwest, from Minneapolis to Chicago. The project was to be fully paid for with $810 million in federal stimulus funds. Mr. Walker said he wanted the money spent on roads, although under the terms of the grants, such a use of the funds is prohibited.

The newly elected Republican governor of Ohio, John Kasich, who ousted Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has also reiterated a campaign pledge to kill a $400 million stimulus-funded rail project in his state. “Passenger rail is not in Ohio’s future,” Mr. Kasich said at his first news conference after the election. “ That train is dead.”

11/12:

Rick Scott vs. high-speed rail

From the Orlando Sentinel Editorials - 11/12

Emotions ran hot and cold during this week's high-speed rail show at the Orange County Convention Center. Those wanting to build, operate and ride the high-speed train that's supposed to link Orlando and Tampa beginning in 2015 spoke excitedly of its 168-mile-an-hour speed; its potential to connect with SunRail; and its ability to stimulate if not transform Central Florida's economy.

But many also worried aloud about whether the train would ever really serve passengers between Orlando International Airport, International Drive, Walt Disney World, Lakeland and downtown Tampa. They worried because of what happened Nov. 2: Rick Scott's election as governor.

As a candidate, Mr. Scott took a dim view of the $2.6billion project, indicating that he didn't want it in Florida if the state had to fund any part of it.

That made some rail-show visitors and rail boosters throughout the region fret that Mr. Scott's setting Florida up to be the next New Jersey. There, Republican Gov. Chris Christie turned heads by killing an $8.7 billion commuter-rail tunnel under the Hudson River. Mr. Christie justified its execution, saying New Jersey bore too much of the project's cost (70 percent, he complained), and Washington and New York too little.

But Florida's not New Jersey. Mr. Christie made that point this week on NBC's Meet the Press, saying Florida would pay a fraction of high-speed rail's cost. Actually, between about 10 percent and nothing at all.

Now Florida's elected officials, its transportation experts and its business leaders need to make these points with Gov.-elect Scott: Florida only stands to benefit by hosting the Orlando-to-Tampa high-speed rail line; and any risk would be born by the federal government and the private companies that operate the line.

Washington already has awarded Florida $2.05 billion of the project's $2.6 billion cost. State transportation officials expect the feds will deliver an additional $340million. That would leave the state with just $280million to make the train a reality.

Two hundred eighty-million dollars is a lot of money in this or any economy. But the Legislature already has made more than that amount available for rail projects. Last year it dedicated a $60 million fund, to be replenished yearly, specifically for rail operations in Florida. Kevin Thibault, who runs the state's fledgling Rail Enterprise, says the fund could pay the $280million over 30 years, in roughly $9 million installments.

From Norm: Remember the class size amendment and the 350 million the state cut for funding? It's amazing to me that all of this money can be found for rail that was NOT voted on by the people, but the class size amendment which was can wither on the vine for LACK of funding though it WAS voted on by the people.

Or Mr. Scott and the state could fund Florida's share another way: According to state Sen. Jeremy Ring, who sits on the state's new Passenger Rail Commission, the state could get the multibillion-dollar companies vying to operate the train to cover Florida's $280 million share of the expense. And compel the company selected to move a large part of its operation to Florida. That operation, in turn, would hire hundreds of Floridians.

The option we can't see a businessman like Mr. Scott choosing is none of the above. Florida wouldn't have to pay the train's operation or maintenance costs. Some 23,000 people would construct the rail line, and as many as 1,000 workers would operate it. It would broaden the appeal of businesses along the line and, by speedily connecting Orlando and Tampa, help transform those cities into a single market that attracts entrepreneurs eager to take advantage of the nation's most advanced transit system.

There's so much for leaders like incoming House Speaker Dean Cannon and Senate Majority Leader Andy Gardiner to sell Mr. Scott on. And for leaders like Disney CEO Meg Crofton, Orange County Mayor-elect Teresa Jacobs and regional chambers of commerce heads.

Although something this special ought to sell itself.

11/8:

STILL ON BOARD?

IS CONGRSSMAN MICA READING DEBARYPOP?

"The last thing I want is for there to be a boondoggle," he (Congressman Mica) said.

Mica: Maybe high-speed should be built in phases

WINTER PARK – Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica said today that he supports the high-speed train that would connect Orlando with Tampa, but he might push to build the $2.6 billion project in segments rather than all at once.

The link between Orlando International Airport and Walt Disney World would be the most logical to build first because of all the tourists who might ride it, said Mica, in line to chair the House transportation committee when his party assumes power next year.

He is not enthusiastic about the Tampa end of the line because voters in Hillsborough County earlier this month turned down a request to add 1 cent to the sales tax to pay for a light rail system and more buses in the area ( From Norm: Does this mean that the people don't want it? And if it's going to bring in billions, why raise taxes?) Those would have helped serve the high-speed train.

Mica said he fears the Tampa segment would be a money loser, making the project a financial loser.

"The last thing I want is for there to be a boondoggle," he said.

The Obama Administration has promised $2 billion in federal money to the train, but the mid-term election has placed that project and others across the country in question. Florida's governor-elect, Republican Rick Scott, was critical of the train during his campaign.

Even Mica has been less than enthused, saying the northeast corridor of the country and California are the best places to build high-speed trains because of the population densities.

He said he wants "substantial" private investment in the trains, though he would not specify an amount.

An official with Siemens, the German manufacturer and a likely bidder on the project, said in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel that his consortium would be willing to put at least $300 million into the plan.

"There will be risks on both sides [private and public]," said Oliver Hauck, president and chief executive officer of Siemens' Mobility Division U.S.

Mica said that figure was a good starting point for negotiations. His remarks came on day when some 1,500 people and companies were converging on the Orange County Convention Center to learn more about high-speed rail from the Florida Department of Transportation, which is in charge of the project.

Proponents of the train have said it will create up to 27,500 jobs and nearly $3 billion worth of new business in Orlando if the city is linked with Tampa to the west and Miami to the south by the year 2035. (Mica said he fears the Tampa segment would be a money loser, making the project a financial loser - how could this be a loser? Given the jobs and billions brought into the economy? Just a question - Norm)

A second high-speed train, from OIA to Miami, is in the planning stages. It could cost as much as $10 billion. Mica said the link makes sense and he is willing to study it.

Construction of the first high-speed rail link likely will begin early next year.

11/2:

High-speed pork

Robert Samuelson

Washington Post Writers Group

November 1, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Somehow, it's become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help "save the planet." They won't. They're a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs -- schools, defense, research.

Let's suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has already committed $10.5 billion, and that's just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government at some level. What would we get for this huge investment?

Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil consumption or imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.

High-speed inter-city trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of fewer than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or fewer with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them hypothetically switched to trains, the total number of daily airline passengers, about 2 million, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; even trains need energy.

Indeed, inter-city trains -- at whatever speed -- target such a small part of total travel that the changes in oil use, congestion or greenhouse gases must be microscopic. Every day, about 140 million Americans go to work, with about 85 percent driving an average of 25 minutes (three-quarters drive alone, 10 percent carpool). Even assuming 250,000 high-speed rail passengers, there would be no visible effect on routine commuting, let alone personal driving. In the Northeast Corridor, with about 45 million people, Amtrak's daily ridership is 28,500. If its trains shut down tomorrow, no one except the affected passengers would notice.

We are prisoners of economic geography. Suburbanization after World War II made most rail travel impractical. From 1950 to 2000, the share of the metropolitan population living in central cities fell from 56 percent to 32 percent, report UCLA economists Leah Platt Boustan and Allison Shertzer in a new study. Jobs moved too. Trip origins and destinations are too dispersed to support most rail service.

Only in places (Europe, Asia) with greater population densities is high-speed rail potentially attractive. Even there, most of the existing high-speed trains don't earn "enough revenue to cover both their construction and operating costs," the Congressional Research Service report said. The major exceptions seem to be the Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon lines.

President Obama calls high-speed rail essential "infrastructure" when it's actually old-fashioned "pork barrel." The interesting question is why it retains its intellectual respectability. The answer, it seems, is willful ignorance. People prefer fashionable make-believe to distasteful realities. They imagine public benefits that don't exist and ignore costs that do.

Consider California. Its budget is a shambles. To save money, it furloughs state workers. Still, it clings to its high-speed rail project. No one knows the cost. In 2009, the California High-Speed Rail Authority estimated $42.6 billion, up from $33.6 billion in 2008 -- a huge one-year increase. The CHSRA wants the federal government to pay almost half the cost. Even if it does and the state issues $9.95 billion in approved bonds, a financing gap of perhaps $15 billion would remain.

Somehow that is to be extracted from cities, towns and investors. The CHSRA says the completed system will generate annual operating profits, $3 billion by 2030. If private investors concurred, they'd be clamoring to commit funds; they aren't.

All this would further mortgage California's future with more debt and, conceivably, subsidies to keep the trains running. And for what? In 2030, high-speed rail trains would provide only about 4 percent of California's inter-regional trips, the CHSRA projects.

The absurdity is apparent. High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs because there are no meaningful national gains. The administration's championing and subsidies -- with money that worsens long-term budget deficits -- represent shortsighted, thoughtless government at its worst. It's a triumph of politically expedient fiction over logic and evidence. With governments everywhere pressed for funds, how can anyone justify a program whose main effect will simply be to make matters worse?

10/27: Flashback: 11/25:

Unexpected tax dollars could clear way for SunRail

November 23, 2009

Gov. Charlie Crist and legislative leaders have been quietly working on details of a special lawmaking session that could happen as soon as next month to authorize the $1.2-billion SunRail train through Orlando,

TODAY:

Wasn't this going to cost 600 million and then Al Everson in the Deland-Beacon reported 1.2 billion? And it wasn't 84 miles long. I think that's how it started...we should call it not "boondoggle" but, rather, "Balloondoggle".

Feds set to announce another $800M for Florida high-speed rail

By Dan Tracy, Orlando Sentinel

October 25, 2010

Florida's bid for a high-speed train linking Orlando with Tampa is gathering momentum with the likely award this week of $800 million in federal aid, members of the state's congressional delegation revealed Monday.

The official announcement is not expected until Thursday, but U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Florida lawmakers that he was adding that much money to the $1.25 billion already pledged by the Obama administration for construction of the 84-mile-long rail line, which would run largely along the median of Interstate 4.

LaHood's appropriation would put committed funds for the project at nearly 70 percent of the expected total cost of $2.6 billion. Federal officials have repeatedly promised to pay for the vast majority of the venture, and have said more tax dollars are on the way.

9/22:

My Word: SunRail's stakes too high

By Bill Ritzmann

SeptembeCentral Florida awaits the 2011 start of construction on SunRail, the 61.5-mile-long commuter-train project set to run between DeBary and Poinciana. So, what is driving our commuter train?

Initial ridership projections are 4,300 per day, prompting some local officials to admit revenue shortfalls that tax increases — especially after the seventh year of operation when maintenance and operations costs are transferred to the governments through which the system runs — will have to make up.

Indeed, initial projections are that there would be a $7.8 million annual subsidy required from the four Central Florida counties and three cities that will be the future owners. By 2030, the total operating cost would be $55.3 million per year. One unfair proposal for municipalities that can't make their commitments would be to reduce their respective Florida Department of Transportation budgets.
r 22, 2010Indeed, initial projections are that there would be a $7.8 million annual subsidy required from the four Central Florida counties and three cities that will be the future owners. By 2030, the total operating cost would be $55.3 million per year. One unfair proposal for municipalities that can't make their commitments would be to reduce their respective Florida Department of Transportation budgets.

There are additional costs. According to Todd Hammerle, a SunRail project overseer at the FDOT, upgrades at more than 100 crossings along the line currently being pressed by the Federal Rail Administration might cost $5 million or more. And while the city of Orlando's bus system is expanding to provide upgraded stop-to-destination transport, what are the plans for other SunRail stops?

Tri-Rail, the 20-year-old commuter-train service in Southeast Florida, had an operating loss of nearly $62 million in 2009, which was a 23 percent improvement over the year before. The length of Tri-Rail's 75-mile system is funded by the FDOT and the Federal Transit Authority, which provides 26 percent of Tri-Rail's revenue.

After transference, SunRail will be availed to no such largesse. More troubling is the fact that Tri-Rail's ridership average in 2009 was more than 11,500 per day, more than 21/2 times that forecast for SunRail.

The argument that commuter rail is a social service, therefore a legitimate governmental function that deserves subsidization, does not hold water. Tying the budgets of local governments to large future, permanent expenses is little more than high-stakes gambling when the odds already have proved to be too high. Nothing less than break-even should be expected of government operations where private business has succeeded in the past. Where government cannot succeed, it has the moral duty to divest and privatize.

Objective observers know that Central Florida's demographics are incompatible with SunRail's succeeding and that idealism for the sake of progress would bring staggering budget deficits even closer to home. The warning horn has sounded, loud and clear, but the romance of having a passenger train is overrunning the reality. What right now may look like a light at the end of the tunnel is actually something else altogether.

Bill Ritzmann lives in Altamonte Springs.

9/14:

Mass Transit: The Great Train Robbery

by Joel Kotkin 08/10/2010

Last month promoters of the Metropolitan Transit Authority's Los Angeles rail projects, both past and future, held a party to celebrate their "success." Although this may well have been justified for transit-builders and urban land speculators, there may be far less call for celebration among L.A.'s beleaguered commuters.

Despite promises that the $8 billion invested in rail lines over the past two decades would lessen L.A.'s traffic congestion and reshape how Angelenos get to work, the sad reality is that there has been no increase in MTA transit ridership since before the rail expansion began in 1985.

Much of the problem, notes Tom Rubin, a former chief financial officers for the MTA's predecessor agency, stems from the shift of funding priorities to trains from the city's more affordable and flexible bus network. Meanwhile, traffic has gotten worse, with delay hours growing from 44 hours a year in 1982 to 70 hours in 2007.

Sadly, this situation is not unique to Los Angeles. In cities across the country where there have been massive investments in light rail--from the Portland area to Dallas and Charlotte, N.C., and a host of others--the percentage of people taking transit has stagnated or even declined. Nationwide, the percentage of people taking transit to work is now lower than it was in 1980.

None of this is to argue that we should not invest in transit. It even makes sense if the subsidy required for each transit trip is far higher than for a motorist on the streets or highways. Transit should be considered a public good, particularly for those without access to a car--notably young people, the disabled, the poor and the elderly. Policy should focus on how we invest, at what cost and, ultimately, for whose benefit.

In some regions with large concentrations of employment, downtown major rail systems often attract many riders (although virtually all lose lots of money). The primary example would be the New York City area, which is one of only two regions (the other being Washington, D.C.) with over one-fifth of total employment in the urban core. In the country as a whole barely 10% of employment is in the city; and in many cities that grew most in the 20th century, such as Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles and Phoenix, the central business district's share falls well under 5%.

Some other urban routes--for example between Houston's relatively buoyant downtown and the massive, ever expanding Texas Medical Center--could potentially prove suitable for trains. But most transit investments would be far more financially sustainable if focused on more cost-efficient methods such as rapid bus lanes, which, according to the Government Accountability Office, is roughly one-third the cost of light rail.

Making the right choices has become more crucial during the economic downturn, even in New York City. The city and the federal government continue to pour billions into a gold-plated Second Avenue subway but now plan to cut back drastically on the bus service that serves large numbers of commuters from the outer boroughs and more remote parts of Manhattan.

Ultimately the choice to invest in new subways and light rail as opposed to buses reflects both a class bias and the agenda of what may best described as the "density lobby." The people who will ride the eight-mile long Second Avenue subway, now under construction for what New York magazine reports may be a total cost of over $17 billion, are largely a very affluent group. The new subway line will also provide opportunity for big developers to build high-density residential towers along the route. In contrast, the bus-riders, as the left-of-center City Limits points out, tend to be working- and middle-class residents from more unfashionable, lower-density districts in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island.

The proposals for High Speed Rail--a favorite boondoggle of the Obama administration and some state administrators--reveals some of the same misplaced fiscal priorities. California's State Treasurer, Democrat Bill Lockyer, has lambasted the proposed HSR line between Los Angeles and the Bay Area, suggesting the state may not be able to sell private investors on between $10 billion and $12 billion in bonds without additional public subsidies.

Other prominent Democrats as well as the State Auditor's office have challenged the promoters' claims about the viability of the system and its potential drain on more reasonable priced transit project.

This issue funding priorities was raised recently by the current administrator of the Federal Transportation Authority, Peter Rogoff, who questioned the wisdom of expanding expensive rail and other transit projects when many districts "can't afford to operate" their own systems. He noted that already almost 30% of all existing "transit assets" are in "poor or marginal condition."

Ultimately we need to ask what constitutes transit's primary mission: to carry more people to work or to reshape our metropolitan areas for ever denser development. As opposed to buses, which largely serve those without access to cars, light rail lines are often aimed at middle-class residents who would also be potential buyers of high-density luxury housing. In this sense, light rail constitutes a critical element in an expanded effort to reshape the metropolis in a way preferred by many new urbanists, planners and urban land speculators.

The problem facing these so-called visionaries lies in the evolving nature of the workplace in most parts of the country, where jobs, outside of government employment, are increasingly dispersed. Given these realities, transit agencies should be looking at innovative ways to reach farther to the periphery, in part to provide access to inner-city residents to a wider range of employment options. Considering more than 80% of all commuter trips are between areas outside downtown, priority should be given to more flexible, less costly systems such as rapid commuter bus lines, bus rapid transit, as well as subsidized dial-a-ride and jitney services that can work between suburban centers.

If reducing energy use and carbon emissions remains the goal, much more emphasis should be placed as well on telecommuting. In many cities that have invested heavily in rail transit--Dallas, Denver and Salt Lake City, for example--the percentage of people working from home is now markedly larger than those taking any form of mass transit. Since the approval of the Dallas light rail system in the 1980s, for example, the transit share of work trips has dropped from 4.3% to 2.1%; the work-at-home share has grown from 2.3% to 4.3%.

In fact, people who work from home now surpass transit users in 36 out of 52 metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million--and receive virtually no financial backing from governments. Yet if New York, home to roughly 40% of the nation's transit commuters, was taken out of the calculations, at-home workers already outnumber the number of people taking transit to work; and since 2000 their numbers have been growing roughly twice as fast as those of transit riders.

Clearly we should not spend our ever more scarce transit resources on a nostalgia crusade to make our cities function much the way they did in the late 1800s. Instead, we need to construct systems reflecting the technology and geographic realities of the 21st century and place our primary focus on helping people, particularly those in need, find efficient, economically sustainable ways to get around.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History . His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 , released in February, 2010.

8/30:

OrlandoSentinel.com

SunRail's running in circles

It's time for Amtrak, CSX and the state to settle their differences.

August 29, 2010

When – or should we say, if – SunRail runs as envisioned, it will serve commuters along a mainly vertical line from DeLand to Poinciana.

At least that's what we keep telling ourselves, because for months SunRail's been running in circles.

State lawmakers signed off on SunRail in December. And Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer confidently told us Friday that groundbreaking on the transit system should commence by February, with the trains carrying passengers some 30 months later.

But a maddening inability of negotiators to get SunRail and the train operators now using the tracks to agree on exactly how they'll manage liability issues later has us hedging our bets.

In fact, if officials with SunRail, Amtrak and CSX, which is selling the tracks to the state, don't soon come to terms on establishing responsibility in case of accidents, Central Floridians might not be hopping trains any time near the summer of 2013, the latest projected run date for SunRail.

Put the project off, and the thousands of construction workers who need jobs in this economy won't get them. The opportunity the state has to enter into some favorable work contracts could be lost as the economy eventually recovers. And the sorely needed relief SunRail would provide commuters from I-4 bottlenecks won't arrive. (From Norm: at least they mentioned traffic which was the initial reason for SunRail.)

Some of the squabbles separating the players finally seem close to getting resolved. Those near the negotiations say CSX appears close to satisfying some concerns Amtrak has about losing protections against lawsuits while the tracks are being readied for SunRail. The two train operators need to resolve them by September — next month — when the Surface Transportation Board is supposed to review the SunRail deal.

Central Florida's rail advocates in Congress need to get this problem solved. Much of that burden rests on Rep. Corrine Brown, the Democrat who chairs the congressional subcommittee on rail and whose district is home to CSX.

Rep. John Mica of Winter Park, the ranking Republican member of the House transportation committee, must use his influence with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican and a fan of SunRail. Amtrak gets to make a recommendation on SunRail to the federal STB, and it would be unwise for Amtrak to antagonize Mr. LaHood. (Wow, unwise.)

Approval from the panel also is needed to then trigger a funding agreement in November that would allow actual construction to begin along the 61-mile SunRail route. (See how they combine Phase I and II and it goes from 20+ miles automatically to 61 with no vote. Phase II hasn't been voted or or funded...funding for Phase I doesn't really exist either though so at least they are consistent.)

But what's driving SunRail supporters to distraction — and making them fear its trains won't run any time soon — are the demands Amtrak President Joseph Boardman has made on the state, despite the company's need to remain in the good graces of the feds and Mr. LaHood. (Shazam, can you say "bully"?)

Mr. Boardman has threatened to scuttle SunRail unless it shields Amtrak from lawsuits and claims in case of accidents involving the two carriers, even though Amtrak operates without those protections on tracks it shares with Tri-Rail in South Florida. (Maybe it's because Amtrak does NOT have those protections down south that they want it up here in the north.)

Florida transportation officials say Mr. Boardman has softened his threats. Those close to negotiations say that's due to state assurances that state leaders will work to give Amtrak "an improved liability agreement." The Legislature would provide it.

Central Florida needs SunRail. (Really? We never voted for it. But we did vote for a Class Size Amendment and now that is looking to be reversed.) But because the Legislature needed three tries to pass SunRail, we dread the time legislators could take to "improve" a liability deal with Amtrak, a deal that Amtrak might use as muscle against future commuter rail systems.

Lawmakers mustn't give Amtrak everything it asks. A cash-strapped state like Florida (that will now pay billions for 1-3% of the population to ride the train) has no business assuming all the risk for a federally subsidized carrier. (A cash strapped state has no business getting into the commuter rail business).

Lastly, there was a big article in the News Journal about conserving water. Never once did they mention Farmton. Want to help conserve water? Vote "YES" on Amendment 4.

5/16:

SunRail commuter train, Lynx buses will require tax, officials say

Commuter train, buses might lead to extra-penny sales tax or rental-car surcharge

Taxes almost certainly will go up to pay for the SunRail commuter train and the buses that would ferry passengers to and from the system starting in 2013.

"It's a question of timing," said Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer.

Added Seminole County Commission Chairman Bob Dallari: "Sooner or later there is going to have to be a dedicated funding source for transit."

Possibilities include an extra-penny sales tax or a $2 daily surcharge on rental cars. Both have been proposed in recent years but were rejected by voters or state lawmakers.

Several years likely will pass before the latest tax push begins, said Orange County Commissioner Bill Segal, also chairman of MetroPlan, which sets transportation policy in Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties.

"Certainly, right now, nobody has any money," Segal said.

The need for extra cash is pressing for the Lynx bus system, but can be pushed off for SunRail because the state will subsidize the train's operations for the first seven years. After that, local governments take over.

But Lynx is going into third year of budget cuts, if fuel costs are not counted. The result has been fewer established routes and dwindling ridership, though passenger counts have been rising consistently this year.

Serving Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties, Lynx would be in even worse shape if not for $31.5 million in federal stimulus dollars that run out in 2011.

Without an influx of money, said Lynx Director Linda Watson, "I don't think there's enough cuts to be made to make up the shortfall and still have a functioning system."

She stopped short of calling for a tax increase, saying that was a decision for politicians and the electorate.

"This isn't my call at all," Watson said.

Experts say SunRail passengers could be discouraged from using the train if Lynx remains financially constrained because there would not be enough extra buses to get riders to and from their final destinations.

Convincing the voters to approve a tax hike could be difficult. The last major transportation issue brought to the ballot locally — a 1-cent sales-tax proposal called Mobility 20/20 in 2003 — fell 54 percent to 46 percent in an Orange County referendum.

Dyer and Dallari said civic leaders would need to do a better job of explaining the need and educating voters than Mobility supporters did seven years ago.

"The only way to sell it is to get people involved," Dallari said.

SunRail and Lynx must be fully funded because Central Florida cannot continue to only build roads and rely on automobiles to get around, Dallari said. Gas prices will rise, he predicted, making mass transit a more attractive and affordable alternative.

"You cannot physically build enough roads," he said. "There's not enough real estate, and even if there were, there is not enough money."

Yet, that argument may be hard to sell to voters.

"I find the Lynx system and all its operations to be very inefficient and overly expensive. No money from me," said James Graber, a 61-year-old engineer who lives in Orlando.

But, Graber added, he could support "a properly outfitted rail system [because it] is a must for the environment and betterment of the community."

If both a sales tax and the rental surcharge were approved by voters, the amount of money the region would have for transportation would go from $4.1 billion during the next 21 years to $10.8 billion, according to MetroPlan.

SunRail supporters twice in recent years tried to get a rental-car surcharge through the state Legislature but were rebuffed largely by anti-tax Republicans who control both the House and Senate.

Along with improving Lynx, a dedicated transportation tax could be used to offset the operating costs of SunRail. Come 2020-21, Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Volusia counties, plus Orlando, Maitland and Winter Park, will be expected to collectively spend nearly $1.9 million annually to underwrite daily expenses.

The first 31 miles of SunRail, from DeBary in Volusia County to Sand Lake Road in south Orange, is supposed to be ready by 2013. The remaining 30 miles is slated for 2015.

The only other commuter-train system in the state, Tri-Rail in South Florida, has struggled for two decades to meet expenses. It does not have a tax dedicated to its operation, and the state Legislature had to come up with $15 million during a special session earlier this year to keep it going.

Polk and Hillsborough counties, meanwhile, are putting sales-tax hikes for transit on the ballot this November. Those levies would pay for more buses in Polk and a light-rail system in Hillsborough. Polk is seeking a half-cent; Hillsborough, which includes Tampa, wants a penny.

Both counties intend to hook their systems to a high-speed train linking Orlando International Airport with Lakeland and downtown Tampa by 2015. SunRail backers also are looking for way to connect with the high-speed train.

Lakeland Mayor Gow Fields concedes "it's going to be tough" to get Polk voters to levy a tax on themselves.

"There's a cost to have it [mass transit]," Fields said. "There's a bigger cost not to have it."

Without the extra half-cent, he said, the existing bus service will be reduced, and the other 16 cities in the county will not have a way to get to high-speed rail without using their own vehicles, if they own them.

4/12:

SunRail could sap funding for Orlando-area road projects

Orlando-area roads budgets would help pay for SunRail costs under new state plan.

By Dan Tracy, ORLANDO SENTINEL

7:43 AM EDT, April 12, 2010

Florida has come up with a new plan to cover possible cost overruns from operating the $1.2 billion SunRail commuter train that is supposed to run through Central Florida by 2013:

Take the money out of the local roads budget.

That could mean an extra lane might not be added in the future to a main state highway, such as Colonial Drive, though it is impossible to say what projects could be in peril, or when. That's because the work priorities of the Florida Department of Transportation change from year to year, and no one can say with certainty that SunRail will operate over budget.

But a draft agreement being circulated by the state is very clear: If extra operating money is needed, it "will come from the FDOT work program in the geographic area of the local government partners that choose not to provide additional funding."

Area leaders seem to be OK with the idea, especially because it is common for mass-transit systems to need greater operating subsidies than anticipated.

"We do not want to get stuck with a black hole," said Seminole County Commissioner Carlton Henley, who also serves on the board that will eventually run SunRail.

Henley's concern is that, if SunRail is more expensive to run than expected, it could drain the coffers of the local governments that have agreed to take over the train from FDOT, most likely in 2020 or 2021. The train's future operators are the governments of Orange, Seminole, Volusia and Osceola counties and the cities of Orlando, Winter Park and Maitland.

Henley and the other partners would rather give up blacktop than a piece of their county or city budget.

"We can't continue to just build roads," he said.

Added Jim Harrison, Orange County's chief of transportation: "I don't know how else you would do it. The money has to come from somewhere."

Todd Hammerle, FDOT's SunRail project manager, said the proposal seems the most even-handed way to handle a potential money problem.

"The fairest thing would be [for the money] to come from the area [with the shortfall]," Hammerle said.

As the project stands now, FDOT is to own the SunRail system and cover all operating and maintenance costs for the first seven years. The train is supposed to start rolling along tracks now owned by CSX Transportation, the Jacksonville-based railroad company, during the spring of 2013. The first phase would extend 31 miles, with 12 stops, from DeBary in Volusia County through downtown Orlando and on into south Orange County.

The cost-overrun provision is to become part of an agreement drawn up by FDOT that needs the federal government's approval. The Federal Transit Administration, which is paying half the $600 million capital cost of SunRail, wants assurances that Florida and the local governments are serious about running the train for at least 20 years..

The local governments originally wanted to be able to walk away from SunRail if the operating costs grew more than 5 percent above what was forecast. The FTA balked at such a clause, prompting FDOT to come up with the notion of covering any overruns with local road allocations.

Area governments will be asked to approve the new plan by the end of next month.

Getting the agreement ratified locally and by the FTA is critical because SunRail managers cannot start hiring workers, much less begin construction, without it. SunRail officials speculate that all of the paperwork should be complete by November.

Once SunRail becomes the responsibility of local officials, the seven governments will be on the hook for $7.8 million in annual operating subsidies. That's expected to be the yearly shortfall after passengers pay their fares.

The FTA has projected an initial daily ridership of about 4,300 passengers, though the number of daily trips is expected to rise to 7,400 by 2030. SunRail enthusiasts maintain that those numbers are too low; they contend that daily ridership will be higher than that, though they cannot say by how much.

Orlando's chief transportation planner, Roger Neiswender, is confident that, if there are operating overruns, they will not be large because he considers the ridership and operating projections to be sound.

He also noted that the seven local governments were absolved by FDOT several months ago of having to make $11.3 million a year in added payments for bonds that were to be sold to purchase the CSX tracks.

That's because FDOT had intended to borrow $173 million, but bids for projects are coming in so low these days because of the bad economy that the agency expects to have enough cash on hand to forgo the bonds.

Dan Tracy can be reached at dtracy@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5444.

Central Florida's projected SunRail costs
County/city
Capital cost
Operations/maintenance*
Volusia
$26.5 million
$1.3 million
Seminole
$46.2 million
$2.3 million
Orange
$36.4 million
$1 million
Osceola
$27 million
$1.3 million
Orlando
$13.6 million
$680,000
Winter Park
$3 million
$693,000
Maitland
$800,000
$533,225
*Annually after 7 years of state subsidy.
SOURCE: Sentinel research

3/30: How about this shade of lipstick?

Making SunRail an attractive option

SunRail’s planners need to make the commuter service attractive enough that people will want to use it.

March 28, 2010

If SunRail were to start running its trains through metro Orlando in a couple of weeks, here's what you'd get: no weekend service, and minimal if any service to special events like concerts, conventions, Magic games and art festivals.

You also could expect some hefty fares — probably $2.50 to hop on board the train and another $1 for each additional county you travel through. Discounted fares, you see, haven't yet been established.

Good thing that SunRail has a couple of years to get its act together before its trains begin their run from Volusia through Orlando to Osceola. To make SunRail a success, its planners and operators must make sure its trains run when people would use them, and at prices they can afford.

Running the trains. Florida's Department of Transportation's charged with operating SunRail for its first seven years, and all it has committed to so far is weekday service. The trains would run every half-hour, from 5:30-to-8:30 a.m., and from 3:30 –to-6:30 p.m. They'd also run every two hours during off-peak periods, from late morning till midafternoon, and then from 6:30 p.m. till midnight.

The schedule tends to make sense. SunRail is, after all, a commuter service geared toward getting people to their routine, daily destinations. But for people to take full advantage of its benefits, particularly those who aren't accustomed to riding commuter trains, they ought to have more opportunities to board them.

Fortunately, SunRail Project Manager Todd Hammerle says FDOT's open to expanding service. He says it's possible to run trains to special events, like Winter Park's popular arts festival, weekend concerts at Orlando's future performing arts center and SunRail's Sand Lake station on some Saturdays (where Lynx buses could then drive passengers to events at the Convention Center). But only if "the locals" demonstrate a demand for them. They could help establish that demand, Mr. Hammerle suggests, by aggressively promoting SunRail's benefits to employees and consumers. Train service also could more easily be added, he said, if FDOT had more funding. Both state and local officials are struggling to find that dedicated source.

If locals prove as motivated to promote SunRail as Alex Martins, chief operating officer of the Orlando Magic, more trains should run. Mr. Martins hopes to provide the Magic's more than 13,000 season ticket holders with incentives to ride the trains. And he adds that Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer agrees it's essential to have SunRail service events at the Magic's new arena and the new performing arts center.

Affording the trains. Mr. Hammerle concedes few people will ride SunRail if it costs them more than driving a car. That's why he says DOT's working to provide discounts to frequent, elderly, disabled and young riders.

He should look south to Tri-Rail for a guide, which until the recession saw its ridership soaring. Seniors, kids, the disabled, Medicaid recipients and some large groups get discounts up to 50 percent.

Tri-Rail also offers "12-trip" and monthly discounts to everyone. Taking advantage of them can save riders about 20 percent to 50 percent.

Employers who promote Tri-Rail also get 25 percent discounts for their employees to ride the trains.

Because Interstate-4 is a mess, SunRail will get its share of riders. But if planners make the price and convenience of riding it more attractive than driving, ridership will skyrocket. And service will expand.

SunRail's planners must see that it does.

3/2:

The nightmare of wasteful government spending continues to march on and this week special interests will try to turn the march into a full sprint. On March 4th special interests and contractors will have a High Speed Rail Conference in at the new Hilton in Orlando. Taxpayers will hold a protest at 12 noon on March 4th to let the special interests know the people who will be paying for this white elephant do not support the project.

Richard Branson (owner of Virgin Rail) came to Florida a decade ago and he concluded there is no demand for rail in Florida. His reasoning was Florida has the best road network, Americans love the freedom of their cars, and it is quicker in almost all cases to drive than to wait for a train. Europe has a completely different settlement pattern and trains do not work in America.

Amtrak has lost money every year since inception totaling more than $40 billion. California's HSR system is expected to lose $5 billion a year by 2020. At completion, the Florida HSR system will approach $100 billion in cost. Our government will fund this totally with debt and tax increases. It will force cuts in education and public safety as the programs compete for funding. The national system will increase our national debt by nearly $1 trillion and mortgage our children's future.

http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html

Can you imagine someone from Orlando driving to the airport, paying to park, waiting and paying for a train, and then getting dropped off nowhere near their destination? And the promoters are flat out lying when they say they have the land (right of way) to build the system to Tampa. Drive down I-4 and you will see a 30 foot median with lakes or buildings on both sides of the road. This project will go billions over budget.
So why are people coming from across our nation to attend this summit? Money. The vast majority of attendees are contractors and consultants who will receive the $100 billion in taxpayer money to build this project. The list of sponsors is a who's who of beneficiaries.

http://www.ushsr.com/events/florida2010.html

The event is hosted by a sponsor of HSR. Our "high speed" rail will make its first stop just 7.5 miles from the beginning, walking distance to their hotel. The next stop is of course at Disney only a few miles down the track. Florida voters rejected high speed rail but now our elected officials and their special interests are ignoring the will of the taxpayer and the worst possible time in our history.

And please do not buy the jobs argument. That is the same lame argument they gave about the construction of the arena and every government project in the past 60 years. The truth is we will be better off paying people to dig holes and fill them back in because at least we would not have the operating deficits. This project is special interest pork pure and simple.

Concerned citizens and multiple tax reform groups will protest at 12 noon, March 4th, in front of the new Hilton on I-Drive. They will meet on the northeast corner of International Drive and Destination Parkway. If you are concerned about wasteful government spending, and concerned about mortgaging our children's future, please spend an hour with fellow taxpayers.

And please remember where my opposition stands on these major spending issues. They ALL support ALL of them. When I asked Obama "how are we going to pay this money back" Bill Segal was there asking "how soon can we get the money." Linda Stewart was there as well and Teresa "Pelosi" Jacobs was an employee of the Department of Transportation in charge of "outreach" for High Speed Rail.

More than any issue we face in local government the decision to commit billions to rail programs will determine the future of our economy as well as the quality of education and public safety in Orange County. If you believe rail systems will lose tens of millions and force cuts in core services, you only have one choice for Orange County mayor.

Matthew Falconer

2/9: FROM WFTV:

CENTRAL FLORIDA -- Central Florida's SunRail project could get a lot more expensive than lawmakers promised. They say the commuter train and tracks to connect DeLand through Orlando into Poinciana would cost just over $1 billion.

However, Tuesday, WFTV compared the SunRail project to a very similar new train in Minnesota. That train costs twice as much as planned.

It was bad enough that some critics called it the “great train robbery” for taxpayers, but they're still seeing more riders than they expected and the question might be how much are people willing to pay when SunRail comes down the tracks in just a couple of years.

The snow-covered platforms along the brand new Northstar commuter rail line in Minnesota are a long way from Orlando, but some say the train carries a warning for SunRail.

“This is a perfect example of what's going to happen in Central Florida if we do this,” community activist Diana Evans said.

Critics point out the Northstar commuter rail system in Minnesota was originally supposed to run 80 miles and cost about $165 million. But then the route shrank in half to 40 miles, while the price tag nearly doubled.

“So that means it cost, instead of $2 million a mile, it cost $8 million a mile, four times the amount,” Evans said.

The $7 one-way fares to ride Northstar are expected to cover less than 20 percent of the train's operating costs.

SunRail's plans are even more ambitious: 61 miles and 17 stops from Volusia County through Orlando down to Poinciana. Just like Northstar, federal, state and local governments are sharing the cost to get the first leg of SunRail running by 2012.

“I'm looking forward to it, especially since I’ve never ridden a train,” commuter Jay Dempsey said.

Even with the uncertainty about increasing costs, commuters like Debbie Dempsey and her son say they still think SunRail is worth the gamble.

“There are too many people out here who really need public transportation,” Debbie Dempsey said.

There's been a lot of finger-pointing about why Minnesota’s commuter rail project cost so much more than originally planned, but some say disagreements among state lawmakers delayed the plans and the federal government cut back on its support.

SunRail is different from the high-speed rail, also called the bullet train. It would connect Orlando to Tampa and travel as fast as 150 miles per hour. The main high-speed rail stop in Orlando will be at the convention center.

So far, the federal government has pledged $1.25 billion toward that train, but the total needed is $3.5 billion.

2/3:

Sunrail and high speed rail don't connect

Mike Synan

WDBO

@ February 2, 2010

Planners face a big challenge.

We've followed the effort to get both trains, and all along the politicians talked about the two being connected, but it won't be easy to go between the two. Jim Harrison is Orange County's Growth Management Director and faces the challenge as other big cities.

"If you want to take the train, from lets say, between where you are in downtown Boston to Washington DC, you don't just get right on the train. You generally have to take 2 or 3 links."

The problem is here there will be no direct link. Since Sunrail goes on existing CSX tracks, and the high speed rail station was already planned at the Convention Center where there are no CSX tracks, we have a big problem. The answer:

"In the near term you'll take an express bus."

Shockingly, Harrison does not believe that will discourage riders from trying, for example, to go from Longwood to Tampa. In the long term, there's a plan for light rail from Sand Lake to OIA, then a change of trains to high speed rail, but there is no funding for that project. See more plans for rail from Metroplan.

2/1:

High Speed Rail: A Stimulus for Foreign Companies?

From the AP:

President Barack Obama is pitching his $8 billion high-speed rail program to Americans as a jobs generator that will revitalize the domestic rail industry. But the full picture is more complicated.

Building ultra-fast trains won't create the kind of high-tech, high-paying jobs Americans covet any time soon. Indeed, many of the projects receiving high-speed dollars through Obama's program aren't what most of the rest of the world calls "high speed." And those projects that are truly high speed will have to rely on overseas companies with the experience building, supplying and operating the sleek, modern trains of Europe and Asia — an expertise that the U.S. lacks, say rail experts.

That wasn't the picture Obama painted in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, when he touted $8 billion in new railroad grants funded by the federal economic stimulus law. He said they would "create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information," and in the next breath lambasted companies who "ship our jobs overseas" and called for slashing their tax breaks.

...

But the jobs to design and make the rail cars and engines, signaling and track for the fastest trains will mainly go abroad to the European and Asian companies because it will take time for the U.S. to develop its own domestic high-speed rail industry, rail experts said. There will be U.S. manufacturing and engineering jobs for slower trains often described as "higher speed" or "midspeed." Much of the domestic high-speed work, however, will be the kind of construction and earth-moving work typical of highway projects, they said.

European and Asian high-speed trains average over 110 mph and some reach top speeds of around 220 mph. There is nothing equivalent in the United States. Indeed, most of the grants announced by the White House Thursday will go to rail projects that aren't in the same league as the fast trains being built elsewhere.

For the U.S. to decide to build high-speed train systems using primarily U.S. companies, "would be like Bangladesh deciding they want to have a space program and only use technology they have developed and manufactured themselves," said Anthony Perl, chairman of the National Research Council's intercity rail panel.

The technology gap between true high-speed trains and the slower trains in use in the United States is equivalent to the gap between the planes flown by World War I flying aces and today's jets, said Perl, an American who teaches transportation policy at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

Some of the equipment purchased for high-speed rail like train cars might be manufactured abroad and the parts bolted together in assembly facilities in the U.S., he said.

"There will be some jobs that come out of it, but unless people are prepared to double the cost and take at least twice as much time to ramp up the capacity to supply this high-speed technology in the U.S., it's not there," Perl said.

...

University of Denver professor Andrew Goetz agreed that high-speed rail isn't a panacea for immediate and large-scale U.S. job creation.

"If you are concerned about dropping the unemployment rate from 10 percent to 5 percent, then this isn't going to do it. It will help, but it's not going to solve the problem," said Goetz, an expert on transportation policy and economic geography.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and members of Congress have acknowledged that foreign companies will play an important role in the high-speed rail program, but they hope they will partner with U.S. companies.

At a conference he hosted last month for rail manufacturers, LaHood said more than 30 foreign and domestic companies have promised to establish or expand operations in the United States if they are chosen to build high-speed lines. Last week, House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., appealed to a conference in Washington for Japanese rail companies to show Americans how to duplicate their success.

"This isn't a competition," he told them, "it's a partnership."

1/30/10:

IF VOTING MEANT ANYTHING IN FLORIDA, THEY WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL.

Do you remember?

In 2004 The state of Florida asked the citizens to vote on whether not to fund the proposed high speed rail project that the President Obama plans on implementing on our behalf.

WE REPEALED THE PROJECT AND DENIED THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE FUNDS FROM THE TAX PAYER TO BUILD THE PROJECT!

THIS IS THE LAW OF FLORIDA-

Repeal of High Speed Rail Amendment

04-03

Reference:

Article X, Section 19

Summary: View Full Text (pdf)

This amendment repeals an amendment in the Florida Constitution that requires the Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor to proceed with the development and operation of a high speed ground transportation system by the state and/or by a private entity.

Sponsor:

Derail the Bullet Train (DEBT)
610 S Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33606-0000
(813) 254-3369

Contact:

David L. Goodstein, Chairperson
18635 Sea Turtle Lane
Boca Raton, FL 33498-0000

Signatures: **Verified Totals are UNOFFICIAL until the Initiative receives certification and a ballot number.

Required for review by Attorney General:	48,869
Required to have initiative on the ballot:	488,722
** Number currently valid:	527,926
(View By District by County)

Status: Passed

Approval Date:	02/18/2004
Undue Burden:
Made Review:	06/01/2004
Attorney General:	06/02/2004
Sent to Supreme Court:	06/07/2004
Supreme Court Ruling:	Constitutional
SC Ruling Date:	07/15/2004
Made Ballot:	07/29/2004
Ballot Number:	6
Election Date:	11/02/2004
Votes For:	4,519,423
Votes Against:	2,573,280

If Governor Crist accepts the federal funding to start the project, he is - without authority of the citizens - superseding the 4,519,423 voters who repealed the law.

What legal authority does he have? Do you know? I would like to know why would we vote if our leaders can ignore us?

Let’s ask Charlie…

Citizen Services Hotline: (850) 488-4441
Executive Office of the Governor Switchboard: (850) 488-7146
[Office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time]

******************************************************************

WDBO Local News

High speed rail called a "boondoggle"

Mike Synan

@ January 29, 2010 5:42 AM Permalink | Comments (8)

Experts are not big fans of our new train.

Just a day after President Obama announced a 1.25 billion dollar downpayment on a train between Orlando and Tampa, the naysayers are slamming the plan. Ed Braddy from Gainsville's American Dream Coalition has studied rail systems across the country and world. He says get ready for sticker shock.

"If it really comes in at that cost that's being projected, it will be the first of its kind."Once the train is built:

"It will require taxpayer subsidies indefinitely because none of these transit systems pay for themselves."

Braddy's group did a study and claims the average Floridian will ride high speed rail once every 15 years, basically saying its a tourist and businessman's train. He estimates the total cost of running all systems in Florida will reach 100 million dollars a year once Sunrail, Tri-Rail, and high speed rail are all built out.