Florida Gov. Rick Scott Rejects Federal High Speed Funds

I happened to come across this article this morning from the Bay News 9 website located in Tampa. It looks as if the Gov. Rick Scott is rejecting federal high speed rail funds to build a line connecting Tampa to Orlando and then Miami eventually. With Florida rejecting the rail funds this must mean that other states probably have a better chance of getting the money but then again who knows?

TALLAHASSEE --

Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced Wednesday he is rejecting federal funds to build a high-speed rail line in Florida.

About $2.8 billion in federal funds had been pledged for the project. The Republican governor said the proposal is too costly for Florida and could put the state's taxpayers on the hook for the cash.

Scott had repeatedly said he wanted to see all of the studies before signing off on a rail line. Florida's line was expected to connect Tampa to Orlando and eventually connect to Miami.

Scott said he believes that ridership and revenue projections tend to be too optimistic and would likely require ongoing state government subsidies.

Finally, Scott noted, that if the project went belly-up, Florida would be required to refund the federal government's investment in the project.

http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/20 ... rail-funds

Good, this HSR project wasn't worth it anyway. To merely cut a 90 minute drive by 30 minutes wouldn't have made many people take the train. Maybe, the NEC and California could get these funds?

morris&essex4ever wrote:Good, this HSR project wasn't worth it anyway. To merely cut a 90 minute drive by 30 minutes wouldn't have made many people take the train. Maybe, the NEC and California could get these funds?

This was the FIRST part of a larger HSR system with Orlando to Miami as the next stage. Would Tampa to Miami on a HSR train be worth it for you? Miami to Orlando to Jacksonville? Any HSR system has to start somewhere and the Tampa to Orlando part was the easiest to build.

Astounding that the governor turned down $2.4 billion dollars of federal money with only several hundred million of state money needed for the FY10 grant 20% match. Throwing away years of state work in the process. I can't help but attribute this more to pure bitter partisan politics more than anything else. Another factor is cultural. Walker is probably from a age set and background where train travel was never in the picture or seen as this obsolete form of travel only done by those socialist Europeans and libs in the Northeast. The Republicans are tying themselves to to a culture of maintaining dependency on oil even more overtly than before. Meanwhile the price for Brent Crude is around $102/barrel which is regarded as a better measure of the global price for oil imports than West Texas Immediate (WTI) which is around $84/barrel and which is the price quoted in the US papers. And we may indeed be only a few years away from spot shortages of oil and gasoline if the fears that the Saudi's are pretty much maxed out on daily production while trying to hide declining production of their major fields prove to be true. The politics of the 2012 and 2014 elections are likely to be even more bitter than 2010.

I would expect the House Republicans will be emboldened to pass a bill rescinding the unobligated HSIPR stimulus and FY2010 grants. Hopefully Obama will decide to make the fight on this and be ready to veto any bills rescinding the HSIPR funds. Meanwhile, if you are FRA and LaHood, what do you do with the suddenly available $1.6 billion of HSIPR stimulus and $800 million of FY10 grants? Figure California HSR gets a big piece. But hopefully, PA can get some for the Keystone East corridor, NY state, VA & SC for the southeast corridor, more for Chicago to St. Louis. Although the Republican governors in PA and VA may be pressured to reject the funds because of the bitter anything to get Obama politics.

Once again, California extends a hearty thank-you to the people of Redneckistan. Keep returning our Federal tax money and keep sending us your smart young people.

pebbleworm wrote:Once again, California extends a hearty thank-you to the people of Redneckistan. Keep returning our Federal tax money and keep sending us your smart young people.

Come back to us when the NIMBYS (funny that such a progressvie state have opposition to this) get out of the way and dirt is actually moved in construction. Cost over runs......get use to that phrase.

With that said, I am for high speed rail. But Orlando -Tampa made no sense. And the ridership projections were out of this world. Even for a "firs leg" it made no sense start with that line. It would have been built, not met ridership expectations and the rest of the system would not have been built. For High Speed rail to gain traction it needs to succeed, not be built for the sake of jobs going nowhere.

afiggatt wrote:But hopefully, PA can get some for the Keystone East corridor, NY state, VA & SC for the southeast corridor, more for Chicago to St. Louis. Although the Republican governors in PA and VA may be pressured to reject the funds because of the bitter anything to get Obama politics.

That would start a civil war at the intra-state politics level. Keystone especially, as it's an existing line through transit-dependent Congressional districts. Some of them with pretty powerful Republicans already on-the-record that the NEC and branchlines are the sensible place to appropriate that money. As for VA...well, southern part of the state may be against but Northern VA is dependent on the NEC and that project affects both. Is Bob McDonald going to piss off train-dependent VRE territory, which runs through some pretty solidly Republican districts? They've also got 2 Dem senators with 1 retiring for 2012 and a very close race expected. Can't have any rifts opening up in-state in his party's delegation, so that's an area of triangulation where pragmatism rules over ideology even with relative hard-liners. It'll be a much bigger balancing act than just a flat reflexive "NO!". The states that are rejecting it now don't have existing transit-dependent constituencies of size large enough to swing a critical election.

frequentflyer wrote:

pebbleworm wrote:Once again, California extends a hearty thank-you to the people of Redneckistan. Keep returning our Federal tax money and keep sending us your smart young people.

Come back to us when the NIMBYS (funny that such a progressvie state have opposition to this) get out of the way and dirt is actually moved in construction. Cost over runs......get use to that phrase.

With that said, I am for high speed rail. But Orlando -Tampa made no sense. And the ridership projections were out of this world. Even for a "firs leg" it made no sense start with that line. It would have been built, not met ridership expectations and the rest of the system would not have been built. For High Speed rail to gain traction it needs to succeed, not be built for the sake of jobs going nowhere.

Orlando-Tampa made perfect sense as a demonstration project. They already own most of the right-of-way and it does connect several major destinations. California too is starting with the easy Central Valley portion that only serves mid-sized cities.

Can we all agree now that the strategy of "let the states do it" has failed? Do we have any other state but California now which is even contemplating HSR? And for the record I dont think California will happen either, as there is now finally in the state some gathering will to face financial reality. What we call HSR money will continue to go to getting antique trains back up to the speeds we had during the 1950's.

afiggatt wrote:

morris&essex4ever wrote:Good, this HSR project wasn't worth it anyway. To merely cut a 90 minute drive by 30 minutes wouldn't have made many people take the train. Maybe, the NEC and California could get these funds?

This was the FIRST part of a larger HSR system with Orlando to Miami as the next stage.

Yes, it's easy to draw a pretty map, but the reality is that funding for a statewide system was highly unlikely. The short segment in question would only have been useful as a means of accessing the Orlando Airport from Tampa.

afiggatt wrote: Would Tampa to Miami on a HSR train be worth it for you?

Probably not. Keep in mind that Florida has decent highways, unaffected by winter weather.

afiggatt wrote: Miami to Orlando to Jacksonville?

We don't need HSR for Miami to Jacksonsville, just the good old FEC. It goes to show that Flagler had a good idea. Sadly, Amtrak has a very bad idea when it comes to splitting a long distance train at Jacksonville. Not only will southbound passengers be left waiting for hours when the train is delayed, but it will make a mess of the FEC's finely tuned operations.

afiggatt wrote: Any HSR system has to start somewhere and the Tampa to Orlando part was the easiest to build.

Incorrect. It would have been easier and cheaper to have built a connection from Orlando straight to the east coast, which is one link that is missing in Florida's railroad network.

afiggatt wrote: Astounding that the governor turned down $2.4 billion dollars of federal money with only several hundred million of state money needed for the FY10 grant 20% match.

It's not astounding when you consider that Florida law would require any HSR line to be subsidized at the county level, meaning sales tax increases for local residents, most of whom would never use this line. If this governor hadn't acted, it would have been a very unpopular project.

afiggatt wrote: Throwing away years of state work in the process.

It's better to discard bad planning and start again than to waste billions.

afiggatt wrote: I can't help but attribute this more to pure bitter partisan politics more than anything else.

This move isn't as much political as practical. I'm inclined to say that any politically successful governor would have made the same move, regardless of party affiliation. If you don't believe me, consider the political fall of Charlie Crist. He was pro HSR.

afiggatt wrote: Another factor is cultural. Walker is probably from a age set and background where train travel was never in the picture or seen as this obsolete form of travel only done by those socialist Europeans and libs in the Northeast. The Republicans are tying themselves to to a culture of maintaining dependency on oil even more overtly than before. Meanwhile the price for Brent Crude is around $102/barrel which is regarded as a better measure of the global price for oil imports than West Texas Immediate (WTI) which is around $84/barrel and which is the price quoted in the US papers. And we may indeed be only a few years away from spot shortages of oil and gasoline if the fears that the Saudi's are pretty much maxed out on daily production while trying to hide declining production of their major fields prove to be true. The politics of the 2012 and 2014 elections are likely to be even more bitter than 2010.

There's no oil shortage. Oil prices are tied to the value of the dollar and a weak dollar means higher oil prices. To a certain extent, the current oil price speculative spiral has nothing to do with the supply and demand of oil, but supply and demand for the dollar.

In any case, we won't run out of fossil fuels for centuries. As long as we have coal and natural gas, we can still refine gasoline and diesel, if we're willing to accept costs associated with synthetic fuels.

As far as a politically contentious campaign, they're all contentious. Every party tried to build up the tension to raise campaign funds. Let's step away from inaccurate political stereotypes and hyperbole.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:It would have been easier and cheaper to have built a connection from Orlando straight to the east coast, which is one link that is missing in Florida's railroad network.

Easier and cheaper to build across a swamp than down the already-prepared median of an Interstate? I think not.

In the following article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... -rail-plan

..a critic talked about how this wasn't feasible. However, I'm going to quote the part that REALLY got me aggravated but I'm going to edit it slightly for effect:

“The plan to reach 80 percent of the US population with highways are somewhat arbitrary – roads should be built only where it is needed and justified, not with some goal of total coverage in mind,” says Michael Gorman, associate professor of business at the University of Dayton in Ohio. “Rejection of roads in states like Florida and Ohio is different than the more densely populated areas in California and the Northeast, because projected ridership is lower and highways are less economically justified.”

Never mind the fact that some of our greatest infrastructure was built during the Great Depression by people who had vision that went further than the next election.

djlong wrote: Never mind the fact that some of our greatest infrastructure was built during the Great Depression by people who had vision that went further than the next election.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Franklin Roosevelt was probably more cynically partisan than any president since. It's really easy to forget that FDR was a very controversial figure in his time.

NE2 wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:It would have been easier and cheaper to have built a connection from Orlando straight to the east coast, which is one link that is missing in Florida's railroad network.

Easier and cheaper to build across a swamp than down the already-prepared median of an Interstate? I think not.

Actually, it might be somewhat cheaper. After all, building on an interstate median requires a number of measures to allow vehicular traffic to continue. I'm inclined to say that a shorter segment from Orlando connecting to the FEC would have been a great deal cheaper to build and would have represented a worthwhile transportation link.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Actually, it might be somewhat cheaper. After all, building on an interstate median requires a number of measures to allow vehicular traffic to continue. I'm inclined to say that a shorter segment from Orlando connecting to the FEC would have been a great deal cheaper to build and would have represented a worthwhile transportation link.

No measures would be needed because when Florida rebuilt I-4 between Tampa and Orlando, room and space was purposely left in the median for HSR tracks. All that was left was to lay the subgrade and tracks, and install the signals.
Texas is another state leaving room and space on some new freeways and tollways for potential future rail corridors. More and more states are doing so as 50 to 60 year old freeways are being rebuilt.

electricron wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Actually, it might be somewhat cheaper. After all, building on an interstate median requires a number of measures to allow vehicular traffic to continue. I'm inclined to say that a shorter segment from Orlando connecting to the FEC would have been a great deal cheaper to build and would have represented a worthwhile transportation link.

No measures would be needed because when Florida rebuilt I-4 between Tampa and Orlando, room and space was purposely left in the median for HSR tracks. All that was left was to lay the subgrade and tracks, and install the signals.

The HSR proposal still meant months, perhaps years of closed lanes and traffic backups on I-4. Now that it's dead, drivers have a reason to feel thankful. Basically, you can't do the grading and drainage work for a rail line on the median of an interstate without taking expensive measures to maintain vehicular traffic.

electricron wrote:Texas is another state leaving room and space on some new freeways and tollways for potential future rail corridors.

Or more likely utilities, such as power and water lines. Some of us still remember the Texas TGV farce.

electricron wrote: More and more states are doing so as 50 to 60 year old freeways are being rebuilt.

Well there are isolated examples, but generally, there are plenty of existing and abandoned railroad right of ways in this country. Except east of Orlando. I still think that was the best starting point for HSR in Florida.