Dead: Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail

[jlewisinsyr]

No Amtrak train routes are profitable - none - but that's not the point. The objective should properly be providing a safe, efficient, and convenient transportation service, not making money for non-existent shareholders. Any high-speed rail systems which are established, now or in the future, will have to have someone (such as Florida) responsible for paying the annual operating subsidy.

My understanding is the Acela route between NY and Washington turns a profit (~$40/passenger) and there are a few others that are either slight profitable to close to breakeven.

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/amtrak/

 

[k5jm]

In wide spread communities, rail is not a viable option. In dense urban areas, I can understand using rail. Most of Florida is sprawling. There is no way that type of system can sustain itself in that environment. There are plenty of private solutions for transportation that are more cost effective than public transportation. If any state wants HSR, it should be done by private companies and not the government.

I think making better fiscal decisions is better than throwing money into a pit that really does not serve the whole public good.

 

[DC7800]

My understanding is the Acela route between NY and Washington turns a profit (~$40/passenger) and there are a few others that are either slight profitable to close to breakeven.

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/amtrak/

It actually costs more just to maintain the railroad that Acela operates on ($450 million) than the amount of the supposed ($220 million) "profit". Add in other Northeast Corridor services and you still come up short - and we haven't considered all the other costs of running a passenger railroad.

Now, you can certainly argue that because Amtrak receives a subsidy to maintain the Northeast Corridor, that would essentially be unchanged even if Acela shut down tomorrow (because you still have to maintain the railroad for other Amtrak and commuter train services), Acela should not be charged the cost of operating the railroad in considering its profitability. Fair enough, though a bit misleading (critics then jump to the erroneous conclusion that private business would be interested in "profitable" services like Acela). Acela is the only train which needs the railroad maintained to 125-150 mph standards - and that adds costs.

The other way you occasionally (and erroneously) see a train reported as profitable is when the statistics consider a supplemental state subsidy as passenger revenue. For example, on the website you reference, the Carolinian shows a 400,000 "profit". Not...exactly. Add higher than expected passenger revenue to the subsidy North Carolina pays Amtrak to operate the train, and you get a positive balance. The subsidy covers the operating loss - again, appropriate with any passenger rail service; A positive balance here does not mean the train makes money. The profitable report does make for a nice headline to display to Congress, though.

Finally, if you remove absolutely every possible capital expense and other administrative or 'overhead' cost from Amtrak long-distance services, most at least approach or even attain the break even threshold, with some described as "marginally profitable". If its fair to judge Acela this way, then its also reasonable here. These are the same trains the referenced website claims lose $481 million.

 

[Faldred]

Agreed. But I really want to think there is a solution to this mess (heart vs. head).

There is, but rail (high or low speed) ain't it due to the "last mile" problem.

Expand and improve the roads to reduce congestion and put more infrastructure and incentive into telework to reduce the demand. Far cheaper and orders of magnitude more effective.

 

[jerivera]

There's a bit of tunnel vision going on in this thread...

The idea isn't to build a HSR between Orlando or Tampa. Or between LA and LV. It's to build a HSR between NY and San Diego. Between Seattle and Orlando.

All the stuff in between are just incremental segments of a much, much larger plan.

You're all confusing the small tree for the entire forest here.

And if you think folks wouldn't ride it, you don't know how many people would prefer a train to an airplane. Or would like to travel with stops in between. Or just plain hate airports. Or don't want to pay $8 a gallon in 2020. Or $20 a gallon in 2030.

 

[Disco]

left foot, right foot?

Well, I was talking about mass transportation and my two foots ain't up to the challenge.
No boat and lighter than air ships are cheaper. High speed blimps anyone?

 

[DC7800]

There is, but rail (high or low speed) ain't it due to the "last mile" problem.

Expand and improve the roads to reduce congestion and put more infrastructure and incentive into telework to reduce the demand. Far cheaper and orders of magnitude more effective.

The "last mile" isn't a problem with any other mode of transportation - why would it be a problem with rail? Air travel would have more of a last ten or twenty mile problem, but that isn't even mentioned (airports being generally placed away from city centers, where rail stations are more centrally located). It isn't an issue with buses or even cruise ships either; Again, connections can be made with rail just as easily - and sometimes more so - than these other modes of transport.

Roads cannot solve the problem - they don't have the necessary capacity, and you literally cannot build enough roads/lanes to even begin to keep up with demand. Of course, expansion and improvements to the nations crumbling, aging highway infrastructure is critically important and actually does need greater investment (although right now is not the time to be proposing major infrastructure projects; Band-aids and lower-cost projects which lay a foundation for the future may the order of the day until the deficit is addressed). You cannot reduce (growing) demand enough to significantly affect rapidly developing gridlock on the nations highways. Telework is a fine idea which I hope we see more of, but its not going to be what makes the real difference.

Rail is the most effective means of addressing capacity constraints in transportation. With less expensive options you pretty much get what you pay for. Car pool incentives and the like are dirt cheap but make almost no real difference in congestion; Buses are cheaper than rail, but have to contend with the same traffic congestion as automobiles and lack both the capacity and efficiency of rail while being also less appealing to lure drivers out of their cars and onto public transportation (easing road congestion and capacity for those who still choose to drive).

The idea isn't to build a HSR between Orlando or Tampa. Or between LA and LV. It's to build a HSR between NY and San Diego. Between Seattle and Orlando.

Not true HSR (red lines) all the way across the nation, but rather (and appropriately) a series of interconnected corridors linked by expanded and improved long-distance trains (gray lines), generally at speeds of 79 to 110 mph. This map represents one of many, many proposals.

 

[nytimez]

The idea isn't to build a HSR between Orlando or Tampa. Or between LA and LV. It's to build a HSR between NY and San Diego. Between Seattle and Orlando.

All the stuff in between are just incremental segments of a much, much larger plan.

You're all confusing the small tree for the entire forest here.

Tampa-Orlando isn't a small tree in the forest. It's a desert island nowhere near the forest.

 

[TisBit]

No passenger railway in the world operates at a profit - why would Amtrak be any different?

And that is the problem. The comparison to Europe is where it comes into play. It is much easier to subsidize a more efficient system in a smaller geographic area than it is in a larger one. When it comes time to balance a budget....that huge number required for subsidized rail service is too big of a target.

High speed rail is a feel good thing....it is not a solution to a problem. In order for it to be profitable the cost to the consumer is astronomical. The thinking that you tax fuel to death in order to change peoples attitude or driving habits is frequently what comes up...but what you end up with is that people stop traveling, not that they would suddenly be willing to pay thousands of dollars to go to florida.

 

[queenpatricia]

The problem with this is some other states have decided not to proceed with high speed rail plans and now owe the federal government back what they already spent on it. So quite possibly FL will be in this boat where they increase their debt by not building this rail project. Sure it may just be a small amount they owe back but they also will need to spend to move more traffic on I-4. It's not nessecarily a wise decision the Governor made, he just picked which side of the double edged sword to be cut by.

I agree with you about the traffic on I-4. It is the worse. And it would also be nice if something was done with how fast everyone drives on it.

 

[KYMickey]

I agree with you about the traffic on I-4. It is the worse. And it would also be nice if something was done with how fast everyone drives on it.

Maybe raise the speed?

 

[jerivera]

And that is the problem. The comparison to Europe is where it comes into play. It is much easier to subsidize a more efficient system in a smaller geographic area than it is in a larger one. When it comes time to balance a budget....that huge number required for subsidized rail service is too big of a target.

High speed rail is a feel good thing....it is not a solution to a problem. In order for it to be profitable the cost to the consumer is astronomical. The thinking that you tax fuel to death in order to change peoples attitude or driving habits is frequently what comes up...but what you end up with is that people stop traveling, not that they would suddenly be willing to pay thousands of dollars to go to florida.

That's personal opinion, really.

You're operating under the assuming that we don't currently (hugely) subsidize every other modes of transportation, such as by car or by plane. That is not the case, as we basically fully subsidize both either through infrastructure or other support.

Also, no one is saying Orlando-Tampa is the best place to put HSR. Quite frankly, I don't know why they'd want to do that little stretch, other than it was the easiest one in the nation to get done in the fastest amount of time. I think most are ok with the fact that it won't get built.

It still does not invalidate the fact that HSR is a viable alternate mode of mass transportation that helps with pretty much every problem we face in the near and long term future in our nation.

 

[pilferk]

I believe high-speed rail, if done right, could be successful. But Tampa-Orlando doesn't fit the bill.

It's simply too short a spur...even if the goal is to increase use of Tampa's airport and "distribute" some of the Orlando tourist market down to the Tampa attractions/businesses.

Now, go from Miami to Tampa, Tampa to Orlando, Orlando to Daytona, and Daytona to Jacksonville (and, though it would be underutilized, maybe Jacksonville to Tallahassee) and you've got something a bit more useful. Expensive, but likely you'd get a lot more use out of it, too.

 

[pilferk]

Put a light rail (or subway?) system in then. I don't know how much time a highspeed rail can shave off an hour and half drive but it is not worth the billions of dollars to put it in.

Light rail? Sure.

Subway? Can't do it in Florida. Water table is too high.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Light rail? Sure.

Subway? Can't do it in Florida. Water table is too high.

How about a submarineway then???

 

[pilferk]

How about a submarineway then???

Only if the state could "appropriate" the old 20k subs from Disney.

Though diesel fumes in tight spaces might not work so well....

 

[WDWisTheBest]

It's simply too short a spur...even if the goal is to increase use of Tampa's airport and "distribute" some of the Orlando tourist market down to the Tampa attractions/businesses.

Now, go from Miami to Tampa, Tampa to Orlando, Orlando to Daytona, and Daytona to Jacksonville (and, though it would be underutilized, maybe Jacksonville to Tallahassee) and you've got something a bit more useful. Expensive, but likely you'd get a lot more use out of it, too.

Of the alternatives listed, I doubt that any of them would be cost effective.

The Tampa to Orlando piece makes no economic sense.

 

[pilferk]

Of the alternatives listed, I doubt that any of them would be cost effective.

The Tampa to Orlando piece makes no economic sense.

To be clear, I don't mean each of those spurs as an "alternative" to Orlando to Tampa.

I mean one LONG spur, essentially from Jacksonville to Miami (via Daytona, Orlando, and Tampa) might be. You could run an additional spur from Jacksonville out to Tallahassee...but that's probably not necessary (and might not be useful...I don't know how much passenger travel you find between the two).

More expensive to implement, but a LOT more use, too....and you have the opportunity to marginalize some costs via opportunity of scale.
As for cost effective...it's a somewhat relative term. None of it is going to show short term profit, for sure. But, like with most infrastructure, you're investing money in something that will probably be useful for decades.

AND you essentially create a high speed rail gateway throughout Florida that can tie into the proposed (if it flies) east coast line.

 

[DC7800]

The Tampa to Orlando piece makes no economic sense.

In many respects, the route which would make the most economic sense would be the New York to Miami route.

People have become so ingrained with the often-repeated myth that passenger trains "only make sense in short and medium distance corridors where they can compete with airplanes" that to suggest otherwise takes some explaining, but there is truth behind the assertion.

 

[Faldred]

The "last mile" isn't a problem with any other mode of transportation - why would it be a problem with rail? Air travel would have more of a last ten or twenty mile problem, but that isn't even mentioned (airports being generally placed away from city centers, where rail stations are more centrally located). It isn't an issue with buses or even cruise ships either; Again, connections can be made with rail just as easily - and sometimes more so - than these other modes of transport.

I disagree. If you're pitching this as a commuter solution, then the "last mile" problem is very, very real. Air and cruise ship travel don't exactly qualify as commuter traffic.

Take for example my own commute in the DC area. Yes, I can get from my house to work and back using public transportation, but that requires taking a bus to the light rail station, switching trains downtown, and then walking the last quarter mile (I'm fortunate to work pretty close to a Metro stop). Reverse that for the return leg.

But that's 2 transfers each way, and it takes at least 50% longer than driving myself. And that's in the metropolitan area annually noted as having the worst (longest) driving commute time in the country (LA is more congested, but DC has the longest average commute). Too much time and aggravation, especially when you're dealing with a train system that has dropped the number of trains in favor of cramming people in tighter to control costs. (and they're doing a lousy job of cost control anyway.)

Is building a faster train going to solve any of these problems? No. Nor is adding capacity to the rail line a viable solution, as they've intentionally cut capacity due to cost.