[Vannort54]

Why did Scott turn down money from Obama for light rail from Tampa to Orlando and now wants taxpayers to pay for it.

[EngGirl]

So, are we getting light rail then?

[jaybird45]

I believe you are referring to stimulus money that was offered several years ago to fund the construction of high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando. I believe Scott turned it down because the state was still responsible for the operating and maintenance costs for a system that was expected to carry few passengers except from the Orlando Airport to the tourist spots in and around Disney.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by jaybird45

I believe you are referring to stimulus money that was offered several years ago to fund the construction of high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando. I believe Scott turned it down because the state was still responsible for the operating and maintenance costs for a system that was expected to carry few passengers except from the Orlando Airport to the tourist spots in and around Disney.

Tourism is a very big part of our economy, so to say it will only benefit some tourists spots is out of context. Siemens and other private companies agreed to carry the operational cost risks, as part of getting the contract after most studies showed it would cover it's own operation costs. Scott's move was strictly political, it would have cost the state some 250M+ to complete the federal funding, as a state we give out way more on tax breaks for companies that bring jobs here, but the project would have brought thousands of jobs plus other intangible benefits.

[franniejacks]

I'm pretty new here and not sure of all the issues/politics with this light rail plan. But, isn't there already an Amtrak train that runs between Tampa and Orlando. If so, can that service be enhanced without having to re-invent the wheel???

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by Vannort54

Why did Scott turn down money from Obama for light rail from Tampa to Orlando and now wants taxpayers to pay for it.

1) He turned down the money because it was Obama who offered it.

2) His Chief of Staff has connections to the company that will be running the rail line.

3) The taxpayers will pay for it because Scott and the legislature say so.

4) The voters were silly enough to re-elect him.


Gov. Rick Scott supports controversial rail project on Florida's east coast | Tampa Bay Times


Rick Scott says All Aboard is '100% private venture' and 'no state money involved' | PolitiFact Florida

Rick Scott adviser had inside track to keep All Aboard Florida rail project rolling - Naples Daily News

[mortpes]

Federal money always has restrictions or guidelines or mandates attached of which are usually very costly for the state. Scott has tried to hold the line on the avoidance of bankruptcy of Florida. If the rail issue was such a great idea private enterprise would already be providing that service.

[jaybird45]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

Tourism is a very big part of our economy, so to say it will only benefit some tourists spots is out of context. Siemens and other private companies agreed to carry the operational cost risks, as part of getting the contract after most studies showed it would cover it's own operation costs. Scott's move was strictly political, it would have cost the state some 250M+ to complete the federal funding, as a state we give out way more on tax breaks for companies that bring jobs here, but the project would have brought thousands of jobs plus other intangible benefits.

I was not trying to provide the merits of each side of the argument just providing the reason why Scott said he turned the money down. You don't have to agree with him but this is the reason he stated. Also unless you had access to the agreements that Siemens and other private companies would have signed, you can't say that they would have covered all the costs. Remember the devil is in the details and these companies are not in the business of losing money. They have lawyers and accountants that work the numbers in their favor not the states.

As for cost and revenue studies, almost of them done for both rail and toll road projects in the US underestimate costs and overstate revenue (by overstating actual ridership and fare assumptions). As for private firms covering operational cost risks, that works until they declare bankruptcy like the private toll operator did in Indiana. I say to point out that these decisions are not always as simple as it may seem.

Look at most rail systems in the county that are more than 10 years old and you will see systems that can't afford to maintain their infrastructure. The costs are much greater than the revenue generated. And this is for relatively low tech systems not high speed rail systems.

The idea that it would have mainly benefited tourists is not out of context. The projected passenger numbers showed few passenger trips between Orlando and Tampa. Most of the ridership was between the Orlando Airport and Disney/I-Drive. Of course there are many jobs created by the tourist industry, but that does not change the fact of who would ride the train.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by jaybird45

I was not trying to provide the merits of each side of the argument just providing the reason why Scott said he turned the money down. You don't have to agree with him but this is the reason he stated. Also unless you had access to the agreements that Siemens and other private companies would have signed, you can't say that they would have covered all the costs. Remember the devil is in the details and these companies are not in the business of losing money. They have lawyers and accountants that work the numbers in their favor not the states.

As for cost and revenue studies, almost of them done for both rail and toll road projects in the US underestimate costs and overstate revenue (by overstating actual ridership and fare assumptions). As for private firms covering operational cost risks, that works until they declare bankruptcy like the private toll operator did in Indiana. I say to point out that these decisions are not always as simple as it may seem.

Look at most rail systems in the county that are more than 10 years old and you will see systems that can't afford to maintain their infrastructure. The costs are much greater than the revenue generated. And this is for relatively low tech systems not high speed rail systems.

The idea that it would have mainly benefited tourists is not out of context. The projected passenger numbers showed few passenger trips between Orlando and Tampa. Most of the ridership was between the Orlando Airport and Disney/I-Drive. Of course there are many jobs created by the tourist industry, but that does not change the fact of who would ride the train.

Tourism is a big slice of the pie in Florida, so when you say something will only benefit Tourism, it becomes a very big "only". Any decision carries risk, I am sure there are ways the private companies could have gotten out of the agreements, that is why the state also has lawyers who would review the agreements, but it never got that far the speed rail initiative had zero traction in Florida, it was never considered by our governor, it was all Republican rhetoric, "let private industry build it" "who knows the pork that comes with the money" "not expanding goverment" etc etc. I would have liked a reason, projected operating costs versus projected income, tell me why the proposals from Siemens were not buy able, something other than recycled talking points from our governor would have been nice.

[jaybird45]

Please read the article "Where High Speed Rail Works Best".

http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf

Look at the list of top 50 city pairs for High Speed Rail. Tampa-Orlando does not make this list.

Also read the New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us...anted=all&_r=0

It basically says that Orlando-Tampa is too close together to make sense. Also even including Miami made the Tampa-Orlando-Miami route the 100th best place for high speed rail.