Is it a good idea?
You tell me. A 90-mile "high-speed" train between Tampa and Orlando? More of a local, really. This ain't Paris to Berlin, nor the Orient Express. It's a trip that takes an hour to an hour and a half by car, depending on where you're going and how lousy I-4 is.
St. Petersburg Times columnist Howrad Troxler
The boos for Gov. Rick Scott are loud, but hardly unanimous
Published Sunday, Feb. 20, 2011
I usually agree with Howard Troxler, but in Sunday's column, he really screwed the pooch. You really should read the whole thing, but the upshot is that his arguments in defense of Gov. Rick Scott's refusal to accept high-speed rail money mirror those of the Tea Party and of Scott himself.
Follow me below the fold for more.
Troxler makes the following arguments for refusing the rail money (I'm going to paraphrase here -- quoting Troxler directly would basically have meant reproducing the whole column here, which I won't do. Again, I urge you to follow the link and read it):
(1) There's no such thing as "free" or "federal" money (which Troxler states as an "obvious fact") -- two thirds of the federal government is "our" money, which the government has taken from us, and the rest is borrowed.
(2) Fighting for "our share" of "our money" which the government has taken from "us" will lead to the decline and fall of the nation (yes, he really said something to this effect).
(3) The rail project will not create 24,000 jobs in Florida... most, if not all, of the money will go to out-of-state contractors instead. And if it does create jobs in Florida, it will do so by taking them from someplace else, because that's what Troxler guesses "government jobs" do... take workers away from the private sector.
(4) Long-term infrastructure projects are not legitimate or effective stimulants for the economy. Uemployment benefits and even direct cash payments, okay. Hiring millions of people for a "quick paycheck," okay. But putting 24,000 Floridians to work in jobs with decent wages for a long-term infrastructure project? That's just "spending for the sake of spending."
Those are Troxler's economic arguments, and I could spend a few hundred words demolishing them. But instead, I want to focus on the question Troxler asks in the blockquote I started this diary with, the relevant quote from which I used as my headline... the idea that this project is overkill, that we're talking about a 150+ mph train that only travels 90 miles... "More of a local, really."
I'll also address a question asked in the comments made about Troxler's column, and in several letters to the editor in Saturday's Times: "Doesn't Amtrak already provide rail service from Tampa to Orlando?"
When President Dwight Eisenhower signed into law the bill creating the Interstate Highway System in 1956, the bill envisioned a 40,000-mile limited-access highway system which would take 12 years to build. In reality, that original network took nearly 30 years to finish, and it's still being added to today.
But how many people know that the very first segment of the Interstate Highway Network opened in November, 1956, and how many know how large a segment it was? I didn't... I had to look it up.
The first segment of Interstate Highway covered only eight miles, and it didn't even link two major cities... it simply went from end of Topeka, Kansas to the other. As you read Troxler's column, swap Gov. Fred Hall, the one-term Republican governor who oversaw the building of that first stretch of Interstate in Kansas in 1956, for Rick Scott. Substitute "superhighway" for "high-speed rail line," and substitute Topeka for Orlando-Tampa. The very same arguments could have been made against that initial eight-mile stretch of highway. In hindsight, those arguments would have seemed incredibly short-sighted and just plain silly... as Troxler's arguments will 10 years from now if we manage to get this segment of high-speed rail line built.
Every major regional or national project has to start somewhere. It doesn't all pop into existence overnight. Look at a map of Florida Interstate Highways and the Florida Turnpike. For the most part, wherever you see an Interstate, there will be a high-speed rail line running down the middle of it.
Orlando to Tampa on I-4 is only the first step. The next phase will link Orlando to Miami via either the Turnpike, or with an extension on the Beach Line toll highway to Port Canaveral, then down I-95. The third segment will run the length of I-95 from Jacksonville to Miami. And the final phase would use the I-10 corridor to link Jacksonville to Pensacola via Tallahassee, and I-75 from Lake City south through Gainesville and Ocala to Tampa, Sarasota and Miami, and extend the I-4 line to its junction with I-95 at Daytona Beach. The I-75 line is also planned to continiue north to Atlanta.
At this stage, the only link missing is the down the median of the Florida Turnpike from its northern terminus at I-75 near Wildwood to Orlando.
So the answer to Troxler's dismissal of this initial segment as "more of a local, really," is that it is now, but eventually it will be part of a regional network allowing riders to go from Tampa or Orlando to any major city in the southeast, and ultimately, anywhere in the country.
One final quote from Troxler (followed by my rebuttal) before moving on to the Amtrak question.
But really, Tampa to Orlando was chosen less because of Grand National Vision and more because it was easy, because the route is more or less in place, and because the president needed to be able to point to something. The feds were downright desperate, in fact, and kept coming back to Florida to dump more money on us.
I'm guessing that first eight-mile stretch of Interstate Highway was built in Topeka, Kansas, for the same reasons. Which in no way diminishes its role in ultimately fulfilling that "Grand National Vision."
Kudos to Gov. Scott for rejecting the high-speed rail project. Yes, at first glance it appears dumb to reject $2.4 billion in federal dollars (which, of course, are taxpayers' dollars). And, yes, it may sacrifice some short-term employment opportunities. But in the longer term, this would be an ill-fated project that would ultimately cost Florida taxpayers dearly.
We already have rail service between Tampa and the Orlando area. Also, the proposed rail stops leave out some key locations. And the suggested influx of tourists that might use rail is questionable, since they would still need transportation at either end of the rail line.
Peter Wiersma, Clearwater
[Snip]
All of those who believe that high-speed rail is a viable business, go solve the Amtrak problem and make it profitable. Then use that model to convince the rest of us that we should pour tax money into the high-speed rail.
L.B. Wing, Oldsmar
[Snip]
I want to thank Gov. Scott from canceling the bullet train rail line from Tampa to Orlando. We already have train service called Amtrak that could easily be improved for far less money, but that hasn't happened because there is no demand.
Ronnie Dubs, St. Petersburg
The above three letters to the editor, all published in Saturday's St. Petersburg Times, provide another bogus argument against high-speed rail: "We already have Amtrak service between Tampa and Orlando, and nobody uses it, so nobody will use this either."
Amtrak's Silver Star does indeed run between Tampa and Orlando, but as a long-distance train, its schedule is set up to provide convenient arrival and departure times at its terminal points... Miami and New York... not at intermediate cities.
The southbound Silver Star runs between Orlando and Tampa in the middle of the day. The northbound train makes the trip between Tampa and Orlando in the late afternoon/early evening. These are not particularly convenient departure/arrival times for either tourists or business travelers.
The high-speed trains on the Orlando-Tampa corridor would make several trips per day (to Amtrak's one) in each direction, with departure and arrival times in both cities concentrated in the early morning and late afternoon/early evening, when most tourists and business travelers would want to make the trip.
And while no timetable has been published for the high-speed trains, they will almost certainly exceed the Silver Star's 50-mph average speed and beat its two-hour travel time.
As for attracting riders, Amtrak's train travels mostly out of sight of motorists. But imagine you're driving from Tampa to Orlando or vice-versa on I-4, contending with inattentive drivers and massive semi trucks, when a train going 150+ mph in the median. Wouldn't you at least think about taking that train next time?
A final word about "the Amtrak problem" mentioned in the middle letter. Amtrak has been hamstrung throughout its history by limited budgets, limited equipment, infrequent trains on most routes, and the fact that it must use rail lines owned by the Class 1 freight railroads. Yet despite those handicaps, ridership on Amtrak has increased steadily almost every year. And approximately 1-in-3 passengers on the Silver Star embark or disembark in Tampa, with ridership into Tampa Union Station increasing 6.5 percent last year according to a recent article in the Tampa Tribune.