Florida Governor Elect to Scuttle HSR Project?

A friend told me a friend told him that the newly elected Republican Governor of Florida has vowed to cancel the Tampa to Orlando HSR project. Main reason: "Nobody rides trains anymore and they won't ride this one either."

Can anyone corroborate this?

I haven't seen any reports of "vows to cancel"- the governor is dithering, probably weighing the options to see how go/no go decision will affect his political future, maybe looking to see how damaging the fallout is in Wisconsin. Anyway, should it be cancelled, California will gladly take the federal funding.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/c ... rd/1140019

Since the fed has now 100% funded this project, I doubt it will be canceled

superbad wrote:Since the fed has now 100% funded this project, I doubt it will be canceled

What about operating costs? In Florida, operations have to subsidized by the surrounding counties, and I can't imagine there's very much enthusiasm for higher property and/or sales taxes? It' one thing to build it, but if local taxpayers have carry significant operating losses for decades to come, a "free" HSR line might not be universally popular.

I don't think that the projects in Wisconsin and Ohio would have been rejected if the Federally funded capital cost had been accompanies by Federally funded operating subsidies. In the case of Wisconsin, the current governor elect demanded operating costs even before the award, so his subsequent refusal of HSR funding should have come as no surprise.

I dont know the Florida numbers, but in Wisconsin it was as follows:

Wisconsin was to pay between $1 and $2 million a year to operate it.
Wisconsin has an annual transportation (highway) budget of $1.2 billion

The operations excuse is just that, an excuse.

You know what $10 million buys you? A single new highway off ramp. Or 4-8 years of HSR operations.

But was it really HSR or was it just a new start with low speeds? And would the money have a better rail use somewhere else in WI?

Jeff Smith wrote:But was it really HSR or was it just a new start with low speeds? And would the money have a better rail use somewhere else in WI?

I seem to recall that it was to be 110 mph.

That's a pretty good speed; close(r) to true HSR, or however we define it here. Next question; were the frequencies or passenger counts there to justify it? Like I said; bang for the buck. I'm not trying to disparage the concept here.

Look how successful the Hiawatha has been recently.

http://www.biztimes.com/news/2010/10/29 ... -ridership

morris&essex4ever wrote:Look how successful the Hiawatha has been recently.

http://www.biztimes.com/news/2010/10/29 ... -ridership

Whoops, that article predated the cancellation off the Madison service extension.

In the end, ridership is only a function of ridership. As we all know, there were broader forces at work, and the controversy over HSR went far beyond the question of how many people ride the Hiawatha Service.

Actually, Milwaukee makes more sense as a historical terminus than Madison, both in terms of demographics and population.

jamesinclair wrote:I dont know the Florida numbers, but in Wisconsin it was as follows:

Wisconsin was to pay between $1 and $2 million a year to operate it.
Wisconsin has an annual transportation (highway) budget of $1.2 billion

The operations excuse is just that, an excuse.

Yes, but operating subsidies increase far in excess of the rate of inflation. Moreover, this project was portrayed as a steppingstone to a much larger, costlier subsidized corridor service to the Twin Cities. Madison just didn't make any sense in terms of ridership numbers, and yes, the average Wisconsin voter was smart enough to figure it out. Granted, it might make sense to have more than a lone daily long distance train passing through Minneapolis, but spending a fortune on upgrading shortline trackage through Madison was a waste of money.

Jeff Smith wrote:That's a pretty good speed; close(r) to true HSR, or however we define it here. Next question; were the frequencies or passenger counts there to justify it? Like I said; bang for the buck. I'm not trying to disparage the concept here.

Going back to Florida, it's far from clear than the Tampa to Orlando Airport HSR line makes any sense? Again, we have a short segment without any real merit, except as a connector to Orlando Airport, which seems like a function of commuter or light rail, not HSR? Personally, I can't imagine who's going to use this line, except to Tampa residents who wish to fly out of Orlando, but want to avoid the cost of airport parking. On the flip side, the line is absolutely useless to tourists, since Orlando has the cheapest, most competitive rental car market in the state, perhaps even the entire country. Why take a train to Tampa just so you can pay more for a rental car? This line amounts to nothing more than a demonstration project, although there's nothing to demonstrate, except the sheer irrelevance of this small, disconnected HSR line.

In contrast, Wisconsin was spending a small fortune on rebuilding shortline owned track into the state capital, which is far different than the Florida boondoggle. Yes, I'm sure that civil servants, students and state representatives would have taken the train, although it's far from clear that the limited ridership would have justified the continuing subsidies, and it's clear that if it hadn't been for the "free" federal grant money, Wisconsin wasn't in a hurry to fund the project.

Tampa's not exactly a small podunk town. It's very possible to get off a train downtown and walk to many popular destinations (or take the streetcar, assuming they extend it to the station).

Seems most people are judging the line based on a tourist's experience of flying to Disney.

The Florida HSR line connects three urban markets - Orlando, Lakeland, and Tampa. While only Tampa can really be called a centralized city, all three have large population markets, and all three have sizeable colleges. In particular, you are connecting Lakeland, which is probably the biggest residential area, with the two cities. This rail line, scheduled properly, that is, could connect these three cities into one economic area.

There are issues, of course. Since Orlando and Lakeland are so spread out, there needs to be some kind of transportation system in place. Fortunately both have bus service, hopefully that will be a start to true light rail or an equivalent. You are also deep in retiree land, and this actually makes some sense - those people really need an alternative to driving (especially at night). But you are also connecting three tourist areas as well - Disney and it's environs, the new Legoland (agreed, way off the route) and Busch Gardens. One of the issues is going to be from tourists who find out they can't easily get from Disney to say Legoland by train after buying tickets. That may in the end hurt perception.

I think one big assumption people are making in their arguments is that people will choose a car over a train. In fact, many people will choose the train over a car, even if there is less flexibility. Driving is not always enjoyable, especially when you have to deal with I-4 traffic. Or during rain storms when driving is difficult, or you have a long trip and don't want to get stuck behind the wheel when you can get an hour of computer time in.

cloudship wrote:Seems most people are judging the line based on a tourist's experience of flying to Disney.

Actually a flight followed by a rental car is very nearly the default method of travel to any Florida destination, short of driving all the way in your own personal vehicle. Due to competition, the flights are relatively inexpensive compared to many domestic destinations, and the same goes for rental cars.

cloudship wrote:The Florida HSR line connects three urban markets - Orlando, Lakeland, and Tampa. While only Tampa can really be called a centralized city, all three have large population markets, and all three have sizeable colleges. In particular, you are connecting Lakeland, which is probably the biggest residential area, with the two cities. This rail line, scheduled properly, that is, could connect these three cities into one economic area.

Again, I think you're confusing HSR with commuter rail. More to the point, while Tampa does has an older urban core, it is hardly a major tourist destination.

cloudship wrote:There are issues, of course. Since Orlando and Lakeland are so spread out, there needs to be some kind of transportation system in place.

To the contrary, the fact that these cities are "so spread out" is an argument against public transit.

cloudship wrote:Fortunately both have bus service, hopefully that will be a start to true light rail or an equivalent. You are also deep in retiree land, and this actually makes some sense - those people really need an alternative to driving (especially at night).

Since when do retirees move to Florida for "light rail?" Again, it's not a matter of consideration or even terrible applicable to the average sprawling Florida city.