Today's New York Times has an insightful article regarding the downfall of Florida HSR. While to those informed of the issues relating to the project, little new ground is broken, let us bemindful that The Times is a general circulation publication:
The story of the line’s rise and fall shows how it was ultimately undone by a tradeoff that was made when the route was first selected.
The Tampa-to-Orlando route had obvious drawbacks: It would have linked two cities that are virtually unnavigable without cars, and that are so close that the new train would have been little faster than driving. But the Obama administration chose it anyway because it was seen as the line that could be built first. Florida had already done much of the planning, gotten many of the necessary permits and owned most of the land that would be needed.
In the end, though, the state’s new governor decided not to build it at all, worried that those very drawbacks would ultimately make it a boondoggle.
When the Obama administration chose Florida to get a large chunk of stimulus money to build the nation’s first high-speed rail line, some Republicans in Washington worried privately that the project might prove too popular. It was, after all, a multibillion-dollar federal project being lavished on Florida, an important swing state that President Obama had won in the last election, with the money focused squarely on the Interstate 4 corridor between Tampa and Orlando, the home of one of the most crucial blocs of independent voters in the state.......To the Obama administration, the benefits seemed obvious. The money offered a chance to put people to work designing and building railroads. High-speed trains would lure riders who would otherwise drive or fly, reducing congestion, pollution and the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. And simply building new futuristic trains zipping around at more than 150 miles an hour would be an accomplishment in itself, one that could lift the spirits of a recession-battered nation
Possibly the undoing to the HSR initiative can be summarized that it was "low hanging fruit" and vulnerable to repudiation by elected officials whose constituency represent opposition to the programs endorsed by the incumbent Administration.
Posted by navybanker (Member # 16430) on :
While virtually any investment in updated rail service is desireable, the "obvious drawbacks" cited in the Times piece are worthy of consideration. The short distance minimizes the value of increased speed, while the lack of public transportation at each end minimizes its preferability over driving. "Boondoggle" is the right word -- what is really needed as a demonstration project which would really be used, and therefore copied, is a longer link between two points with existing infrasdtructures (local public tranportation facilities) Chicago-St. Louis, Seattle-Spokane, and New Orleans-Houston come to mind - each pair being separated by not overly-developed areas which would make any necessary land acquisition very costly. A Tampa-Orlando link might help get President Obama re-elected, but it would likely be such an underused facility that its existence would seriously jeopardize the consideration of future rail projects.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
The above posts are certainly spot on with regard to the demise of HSR in Florida, but the article I posted has to do with commuter rail, SunRail. Just wanted to show what we're up against in the Sunshine State. I plead guilty to posting this in an Amtrak group, since it's obviously about plans for a commuter line not specifically related to Amtrak.
I just hope that Gov. Scott doesn't wake up one day and realize that Amtrak trains actually still serve parts of his state; he might decide to terminate them at the Georgia border.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike: The above posts are certainly spot on with regard to the demise of HSR in Florida, but the article I posted has to do with commuter rail, SunRail. Just wanted to show what we're up against in the Sunshine State. I plead guilty to posting this in an Amtrak group, since it's obviously about plans for a commuter line not specifically related to Amtrak.
I just hope that Gov. Scott doesn't wake up one day and realize that Amtrak trains actually still serve parts of his state; he might decide to terminate them at the Georgia border.
That would be so very Brosnan of him!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Gotta tell you, Mr. Presley, the "architect" of that "stop at the border" train-off strategy was an attorney with the SRY, a former Naval Officer during WWII instrumental in saving victims from the USS Indianapolis, former Secretary of the Navy, and to some the "saviour of Amtrak".
Golly, wish I could think of his name....
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Gil, that would be W. Graham Claytor, Jr. (thanks to Googling USS Indianapolis and getting the Wikipedia link).
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
GBN - Yep, I knew that answer too. Graham Claytor rose to the top by being a good soldier (well, sailor anyway) and delivering exactly what the boss asked for.... the most expedient way to trim operating losses.
It is coincidental that Claytor, once in charge at SRY, expanded the steam excursion program and preserved the Southern Crescent for nearly another decade..... albeit at the cost of sacrificing the Nancy Hanks.
I think it can be safely said that Claytor was incredibly sharp, politically savvy, and unashamed to be somewhat of a railfan.