Florida High Speed Rail Option and Elimination

[yapp1850]

most people comming from tampa to orlando  are going for one thing theme parks and orlando is th capital  of the world of theme parks.

[yapp1850]

i am hoping for orlando stations at theme parks and downtown  at church  st. if you do that way it hits toursist,business areas of orlando, remember florida is a toursist state.

[tufsu1]

Everything seems to be falling in line....first, Associated Indutries of Florida (business lobbying group) comes out in favor of high speed rail....and now the Senate President has basically done a 180 from his statements the other day.

SENATE PRES OK WITH RAIL ROLLING, IF BIZ PICKS UP THE TAB

By KEITH LAING
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

Posting or forwarding this material without permission is prohibited.
Contact news@newsserviceflorida.com.

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, Jan. 12, 2011..........Despite recent calls for
the new governor to put the brakes on high speed rail, Florida Senate
President Mike Haridopolos said Wednesday the project should roll ahead if
private investors can come up with the remaining $280 million needed to fund
the $2.6 billion system.

Speaking with reporters during a Capitol news conference, Haridopolos said
he would not try to stop the Department of Transportation from seeking
proposals from companies that have expressed interest in building the train,
90 percent of which would be paid for by the federal government. A bullet
train would be nice, Haridopolos conceded, but not on Florida taxpayers'
dime.

"I think high speed rail is something people would like to have,"
Haridopolos said. "I would make the argument, and I have made the argument,
that it's something we cannot afford at this time using state dollars. If
the private sector chooses to make up that last 10 percent, great, that
would be their prerogative."

Federal officials say the project is the most shovel ready in a nationwide
network President Barack Obama envisions will eventually rival the federal
interstate highway system.

To that end, supporters of the train have suggested that companies might be
willing to close the gap on the $2.6 billion the train is estimated to cost
- and assume some of the risk if ridership does not meet expectations - in
exchange for building one of the first high speed rails in the country.

Haridopolos said Wednesday that would be fine with him.

"If the last 10 percent is made up by the private sector, then we'll see
high speed rail being done, but I want to see not only the short term, but
the long term, the operation and maintenance like we have with SunRail put
on the backs of the private sector," he said.

"What business wouldn't die for a 90 percent off (deal)? Talk about a tax
break," he continued. "The last 10 percent can be picked up by the private
sector if they really believe it'll be a commercially viable operation."

Some supporters of the high speed rail project, which would connect Tampa
and Orlando, have criticized Haridopolos for supporting one train and not
another. Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, noted earlier this week that
Haridopolos backed a special session in 2009 to approve legislation that
allowed for the purchase of the tracks for SunRail that organizers
explicitly tied to winning federal money for the bullet train.

Shortly after that session, U.S. transportation officials announced they
were awarding $1.25 billion to Florida for the Tampa-to-Orlando train from
the federal economic stimulus, half of the money the project was expected to
cost. Since then, the feds have put another $1 billion on the table,
bringing Florida's total higher than any other state but California.

Sen. Dockery attributed Haridopolos' earlier opposition to the state making
up the difference to politics, with the Senate president widely believed to
be gearing up for U.S. Senate run in 2012. But Haridopolos said Wednesday
the two trains were apples and oranges.

"(SunRail) is something I chose to support because it is a mixture of
funds," he said. "It's federal, state and local. This is a project that has
been worked on in Central Florida for over 10 years. It is supported by
Republicans and Democrats alike and the local governments and that
particular DOT region chose to use some of their road money for rail because
they thought it would be very important to that region."

Of course, many of the same things could be said of the high speed rail
project, which was put into the state constitution back in 2000 after a
successful political campaign largely funded by Dockery's husband, Lakeland
businessman C.C. Dockery. However, the constitutional amendment mandating
the train was undone four years later with the strong backing of former Gov.
Jeb Bush, who argued the state could not afford it.

Haridopolos said that history was a key difference between the two trains.
Unlike the original high speed proposal, which he opposed, the Sunrail deal
calls for Volusia, Seminole and Orange Counties to assume responsibility for
operations after the tracks for SunRail are purchased, which was projected
in 2009 to cost the state $641 million.

With Gov. Rick Scott not saying much about the train other than that he will
make a decision about accepting the federal money only after a February
review, Haridopolos' recent statements about high speed rail have caused
quite a stir, even among groups that normally vociferously support
Republicans.

Associated Industries of Florida, one of the state's major business lobbies,
announced Wednesday it was forming a high-speed rail coalition, which it
said would include "private-sector companies that want the jobs, the work
and the prestige that will come from being a part of Florida high speed
rail."

"Decisions to abandon the project can always be made further down the road
if the conditions are not ideal," AIF said in a statement.  "Right now, we
have an opportunity to leverage private investment to secure billions in
federal dollars for a project that will have an incredibly positive impact
on our state. Let's not derail high speed rail."

DOT officials told a Senate panel Tuesday that unless someone says
otherwise, requests for proposals on construction projects necessary to
build the high speed train would be released in March. If the proposal is
not stopped in its tracks after they come, contractors would be selected in
2011 and construction would begin in 2012.
Supporters have said the train could begin running in 2015.

-END-
1/12/11

Detailed context on Florida transportation issues is available on the NSF
Transportation Backgrounder at
http://www.newsserviceflorida.com/transportation/transportation.htm.

[Ocklawaha]

Here you go TU, I designed a station just for you that should just about handle the local business between Orlando and Tampa.

They better hurry up and sell it now, because once it starts running and the real numbers come in, they'll be diving off that damn thing worse then rats on a sinking ship.

I find it very interesting that the industry is charging off the cliff with this, when they admit it is a flawed plan, make a buck or two today at the public trough, and seal the future of HSR, I spell that C A T A S T R O P H I C !

OCKLAWAHA

[lobosolo]

We need to be clear about the definition of federal a "subsidy" for each mode of travel. A subsidy is not the same thing as "federal funding" altho many transit, rail, and high-speed rail advocates keep trying to twist the language so that it is. If an infrastructure project is funded by payments made by its users, there is no subsidy involved. A subsidy occurs when non-users are compelled to pay for such a project.

The definitive study on this subject is the December 2004 report by the US DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, called "Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation" posted on the BTS.gov website. It reviewed about a decade’s worth of federal funding for inter-city rail, air travel, highways, and urban transit. For each mode, it compared federal user-tax revenue with federal spending, with the difference amounting to the subsidy. It then divided the average annual subsidy by the passenger miles traveled using each mode.

The resulting federal subsidy per thousand passenger miles was as follows:
Inter-city passenger rail: $186
Urban transit: $118
Air travel: $ 6
Highways: -$ 2

The highway figure is negative because in a typical year, federal highway user taxes exceeded federal highway spending (because of transfers of some of that revenue to urban transit).

[BridgeTroll]

Interesting info... Welcome aboard lobo!

[Ocklawaha]

The definitive study on this subject is the December 2004 report by the US DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, called "Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation" posted on the BTS.gov website. It reviewed about a decade’s worth of federal funding for inter-city rail, air travel, highways, and urban transit. For each mode, it compared federal user-tax revenue with federal spending, with the difference amounting to the subsidy. It then divided the average annual subsidy by the passenger miles traveled using each mode.

The resulting federal subsidy per thousand passenger miles was as follows:
Inter-city passenger rail: $186
Urban transit: $118
Air travel: $ 6
Highways: -$ 2

Hello lobo, welcome aboard.

The reasons for this disparity are myriad, but largely stem from the government funding other modes, while using tax revenues (often from the railroads themselves) to create the national interstate highway system (which parallels railroad mainlines throughout the country), the CAB, FAA etc. while not allowing the railroads to adjust their schedules or drop trains until their financial situation was in ruins. During that same period we somehow convinced state and local municipalities that they should build and maintain airports and secondary roads.

The flip side of this is had the government really made an effort to "save the passenger train," they could have set up a loss prevention system and applied it to the private railroads. Amtrak represents a total takeover, and its trains are as different from the private railroads as a Navy ship is from a cruise liner. Those highway and air numbers would also be incredibly high if the government was only supporting a single daily airplane - each way on 15 long distance routes. It would then be impossible to sell enough seats to get close to break even, but that is exactly what some in Congress expect from Amtrak.

OCKLAWAHA

[FayeforCure]

lol.  its a disingenuous way to compare the costs, because its basically a popularity contest, and measures volume of people rather than apples to apples comparisons on the subsidies.

So true, but not only that............as usual Conservatives overlook costing out externalities in their rosy view of car transportation:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q7t3kn7348r721t6/

[Ocklawaha]

"The Champion," Just another of many famous trains Amtrak operated then axed. In this scene the Champion is backing into Tampa Union Station from the Neve Wye located in Gary, a neighborhood that is about 2 miles away from the station in Tampa, Florida, during 1977. A conductor or trainman is standing on the rear vestibule to use the warning back up whistle connected to a goose neck hose. It appears the other train service employee is using a radio telephone to provide directions to the engineer.


Passenger Rail April 30, 1971, Last full day of private operation.


Amtrak National and "Florida Service," today.

As FAYE, TUFSU, FSUJAX, MJ and I have been saying all along, our problem is not, "too much Amtrak," the fact is if we had more we could spend LESS! Here's the story on that and several example routes, keep in mind that the entire state of Florida, which had 12 Amtrak trains since 1971, is now down to TWO + plus a non-stop Sanford-Lorton, VA AUTO-TRAIN daily. If Rick Scott and the axe the tax gang REALLY wanted to help AND wipe out stupid spending programs they should look at boosting our Amtrak service about 5x what it currently is.

OCKLAWAHA

FACT SHEET


Frequency is Key to Successful Short-Distance Passenger Train Service

When a traveler considers whether to drive, fly or take a train to a destination, the biggest factors in that decision are generally cost, convenience and travel time. Passenger trainsâ€"even those running at “conventional” speeds up to 90 mphâ€"often offer shorter travel times than cars for trips greater than 50 miles. Yet the car is often more convenient, especially if there are a limited number of train departures to choose from. Travelers generally prefer to go at their own pace instead of planning trips around public transportation (including airline) schedules. Therefore, the more frequencies are added to a passenger train route that is both cost- and trip time-competitive with driving, the faster the rate at which train ridership grows.

The histories of contemporary passenger train routes in different parts of the United States have demonstrated this to be the case. Presented here are four Amtrak routes that have witnessed noteworthy ridership gains with the addition of train frequencies.


Capitol Corridor â€" Oakland-San Jose-Sacramento, CA

From 1970 to 1991, there were only two daily intercity trains between these three major central California cities, both of which were long-distance runs that were impractical for local travel. In 1990, however, California voters approved three bond measures, the largest of which was a citizen initiative, providing a mandate and seed money for the establishment of new short-distance trains between the cities. The first Capitol Corridor trains rolled in December 1991, with three daily round-trips.

By 1995, however, ridership was languishing and the state and Amtrak’s budget problems made the corridor a candidate for abandonment. But the communities along the route fought to keep the service going. A 1996 state law allowed any of the cities, counties or transit agencies along any of the three state-sponsored corridors to form a Joint Powers Authority to assume the management of the train service. Only the communities on the Capitol Corridor elected to do so.

The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), an agency formed by a compact of local transit authorities that took over the line’s operation from the state transportation department in 19971 and selected the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) as the full-time managing agency, a position BART still holds.

463,000 annual riders used the Capitol Corridor in fiscal 1998. Four round-trips were operating by October of that year with a state subsidy of $12 million and a farebox recovery ratio (percent of total costs covered by passenger revenue) of 29.8%. CCJPA successfully lobbied the state legislature to invest in new equipment and track upgrades to meet the strong demand for train service that began to grow once more attractive schedules were offeredâ€"despite that no federal match was available at that time similar to that offered for state highway, aviation and urban transit investment.2

Fifth and sixth round-trips were added within the first few months of CCJPA management, resulting in a ridership increase of 17% and increasing the farebox recovery ratio to 31%. The decision in February 2000 to terminate service to Colfax (east of Sacramento) and use the saved costs to fund a seventh Sacramento-Oakland round-trip resulted in a 40% ridership jump while costs stayed flat, giving the service a 40% farebox recovery ratio. Former CCJPA Managing Director Eugene Skoropowski calls this the “magic line” between offering the public a real transportation service versus “just a chance to ride a train.”3

The keys to the Capitol Corridor’s success were political will at the highest levels of state government, an aggressive, customer-focused management team, a strong partnership with host railroad Union Pacific (UP), and consistent capital funding for service expansion. CCJPA’s model cooperation with UP proves that a major freight railroad will respond positively to greater passenger service on its tracks so long as its ability to operate and grow its freight business is protected. This allowed for significant portions of the line to be double-tracked by the mid-2000s.4

The state took delivery of 12 new coaches from 2001 to 2003, making three additional frequencies possible, for a total of twelve. Ridership and revenue growth was then outpacing cost growth, so no additional state subsidy was needed. In 2004, all three Amtrak California corridors reported double-digit ridership growth. Upon completion of state- and locally-funded track construction projects in, three more weekday Oakland-San Jose round-trips were added, along with four more weekday Oakland-Sacramento round-trips, for a total of 32 trains. By fiscal 2008, ridership had grown to 1.67 million, an increase of 530,000 riders over four years.5

From 2001 to 2008, state subsidy remained flat, but a modest increase was needed in 2009 to cover higher Amtrak labor costs. By that point, farebox recovery was a remarkable 55%, and the state cost per passenger mile was half of what it was in 1998.6 All the right ingredients came together to provide a true passenger train success story, consistently ranked by passengers as among the country’s top five in customer service, in the heart of the world’s automobile capital. On-time performance on the Capitol Corridor is 97%, mostly on a busy mainline freight railroad serving a major port.

CCJPA staff is still following a “build-out plan” calling for sixteen San Jose-Oakland, eighteen Oakland-Sacramento, ten Sacramento-Roseville, and four Roseville-Auburn round-trips.


Amtrak Virginia â€" Washington, DC-Charlottesville-Lynchburg, VA

The Norfolk Southern-owned rail line connecting Washington, DC (and, by extension, the entire Northeast Corridor) to Manassas, Culpeper, Charlottesville and Lynchburg, VA, saw only one daily Amtrak round-trip until October 1, 2009 (plus an additional thrice-weekly round-trip serving all of the above except Lynchburg). Nevertheless, passengers traveling between Lynchburg and Charlottesville and Northeast Corridor points accounted for some of the best-patronized city pairs on that one train, the New York-New Orleans Crescent, in fiscal 2009, with almost 20% of the route’s riders traveling between 300 and 400 miles out of a route total of 1,377.7 Washington-Charlottesville also represented the 4th-busiest city pair, and New York-Charlottesville the 8th-busiest city pair, on the tri-weekly New York-Chicago Cardinal in fiscal 2009.8

Thanks to funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia, resulting from significant grassroots support along the route, Amtrak extended a daily Northeast Regional round-trip, which had been Boston-Washington, south to Lynchburg starting on October 1, 2009. The new train provided a schedule only two hours apart from that of the Crescent, but greatly exceeded Amtrak’s ridership projections in just the first six months of its operation, thanks in part to the Crescent’s limited capacity,9 especially for shorter-haul travelers. A little over 9,000 passengers use this train within Virginia each month, in addition to those still using the Crescent and Cardinal. Passenger revenues have been so strong that the Commonwealth has not had to provide any operating support to Amtrak for the Washington-Lynchburg portion of the run.10


Hiawatha Service â€" Chicago, IL-Milwaukee, WI

This route, which has been connecting Chicago to Milwaukee with three intermediate stops continuously since before Amtrak began operations in 1971, is the seventh busiest in the Amtrak system, with a per-mile ridership exceeded only by the Northeast Corridor and California’s Capitol Corridor.11 While originally funded entirely by Amtrak, the states of Illinois and Wisconsin now contribute operating support for the Hiawathas. In 1971, the corridor was served by four daily round-trips, a number that quickly increased to seven, but was cut back to three or four during the 1980s, until the states pitched in to support two more frequencies starting in 1989.12 Today, six round-trips operate daily (five on Sundays), excluding the Chicago-Seattle/Portland Empire Builder, which does not take local Chicago-Milwaukee passengers.13

451,100 passengers rode Hiawatha trains in 2004, a number that grew 73.6% to 783,060 in fiscal 2010.14 State operating support for the route helps to keep fares low enough to attract substantial ridership.15 People who regularly travel between Milwaukee and Chicago have enjoyed a relatively high level of train service for so many years that it has helped to engender a train-riding culture. The 2005 addition of a stop at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport16 is drawing Chicago-area residents looking for cheaper flights and better flight schedules than those available from O’Hare and Midway, as well as suburban Milwaukee residents who find the airport station more convenient than the center-city station.


Downeaster Service â€" Boston, MA-Portland, ME

The state of Maine was without a passenger train connection to Bostonâ€"and thus the rest of the national networkâ€"from 1964, when the Boston and Maine Railroad ended intercity service north of Dover, NH,17 to December 2001. State investment in Amtrak-operated service between Portland and Boston’s North Station on the former B&M line now mostly owned by Pan Am Railways was the direct result of years of organizing by TrainRiders/Northeast, which led to the Maine legislature passing the first citizen-initiated bill in its history. The bill directed the state to use all means necessary to create Boston-Portland passenger rail service and to spend no less than $40 million to do so.18 Downeaster service began in 2001 with four round-trips, with a fifth being added in 2007.19

245,135 passengers used Downeaster trains in fiscal 2002. Ridership grew to 361,634 by fiscal 2007 (almost a 50% increase), then rose an additional 31.2% into 2008 with the addition of the fifth frequency. 4,000 more took Downeaster in 2010 than in 2008.20  The Downeaster enjoys tremendous public support and buy-in, and work is being done in preparation for extending service further east to Brunswick, ME. Trackwork over time has shaved 20 minutes off the travel time between the two endpoints.21


Piedmont Service â€" Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte, NC

When Amtrak began operations in 1971, there was no passenger train service connecting North Carolina’s three largest cities. Raleigh was served by one daily New York-Miami Amtrak roundtrip, and Greensboro and Charlotte were served by one daily New York-New Orleans round-trip, operated by Southern Railway until Amtrak took over in 1979.22 Both trains served North Carolina at inconvenient hours.  With operating support from the states of North Carolina and Virginia, Amtrak’s Carolinian began daily Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond-New York service for a one-year trial in 1984, reinstating it “for good” in 1990.

Seeing the significant patronage of the Carolinian by intra-state passengers, the visionary Rail Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) bought and restored pre-Amtrak coaches, café cars, and coach-baggage cars, purchased new locomotives, and began operating a stand-alone Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte train, the Piedmont, in 1995. The Piedmont operated a reverse schedule to the Carolinian, providing a morning and evening train in each direction to all cities on the route.23

Almost 48,000 passengers rode the Piedmont in fiscal 1998. Patronage grew 43% to over 68,000 by fiscal 2009. In May 2010, the NCDOT Rail Division inaugurated a third mid-day Piedmont round-trip using more restored vintage equipment. This caused fiscal 2010 Piedmont ridership (not including the Carolinian) to jump to almost 100,000 (a 46% increase in one year)!24 NCDOT plans to add a fourth frequency to the corridor within the next two years as demand continues to outpace the supply of seats.



Sources

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Corridor
   2. Federal matching funds for state intercity passenger rail infrastructure investment had never been offered in U.S. history until the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. Any previous federal funding for passenger trains had come through Amtrak.
   3. Email interview with Eugene Skoropowski.
   4. NARP News, May 2000
   5. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 30.
   6. Email interview with Eugene Skoropowski.
   7. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 36. Among 8 top city pairs by ridership, New York-Charlottesville is number 5, Washington-Charlottesville is number 6, Washington-Lynchburg is number 7, and New York-Lynchburg is number 8.
   8. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 12.
   9. A typical Crescent consists of two sleepers and four or five coaches, and a diner and café, all of which operate New York-New Orleans. The type of coach used on the Crescent (Amfleet II) seats only up to 60 passengers, whereas a Northeast Regional coach (Amfleet I) seats up to 84.
  10. http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/20/choo-ching-new-amtrak-service-smashes-ridership-goal/, confirmed by an Amtrak representative.
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Hiawatha
  12. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~sponholz/tt2.html
  13. Amtrak System Timetable, Fall 2010-Winter 2011.
  14. http://www.narprail.org/cms/factsheets/trains_all.pdf, page 15, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Hiawatha
  15. As of October 2010, the base one-way unreserved coach fare between Milwaukee and Chicago was $21.00. This compares to a base Baltimore-Philadelphia reserved coach fare (a comparable distance and travel time) of $32.00.
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Airport_Railroad_Station
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_and_Maine_Railroad
  18. http://trainridersne.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=53
  19. http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/NEWS/707310341/-1/NEWS11&sfad=1
  20. Ridership statistics furnished by Amtrak; source document available upon request.
  21. Comparison of Amtrak’s January 2002 (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20020128ne&item=0034) and October 2010 System Timetables
  22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_(train) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_(train)
  23. Ridership statistics furnished by Amtrak; source document available upon request

Copyright January 2011 National Association of Railroad Passengers, Inc.

[yapp1850]

if state picks usf poly as the high speed station and  sunrail to the usf station, then to downtown lakeland and onto tampa union staion, poly will be a goood tranfer center, but in tampa they will have to have some type of light rail connection from union staion and high speed station it will be a lot better than the brt bus.

[Garden guy]

If we all followed the conservative way of running this world we'd still be living in caves and konking women over the head with clubs...come on conservatives...grow up and come on into at least the 20th century..

[Ocklawaha]

If we all followed the conservative way of running this world we'd still be living in caves and konking women over the head with clubs...come on conservatives...grow up and come on into at least the 20th century..

What would you have us do Garden Guy? You are so wrapped up in the thread title which was a response to Fayes, blind devotion to the current Florida plan that you can't see the forest for the trees?

Here is the points you've missed.

1. IF THE CURRENT PLAN GOES FORWARD, MARK MY WORDS, IT WILL FAIL AND FAIL MISERABLY, AND DAMAGE
   OR KILL HSR IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY FOR DECADES. (If you were with us before, you'd see that 30 years
   ago I was the only one saying the same thing about the Skyway plan.)

2. Florida has allowed its passenger rail to vanish, when other states have built it up using Amtrak. You will
   not suddenly train up a state full of enthusiastic riders, who's hands are forever frozen in a steering
   grip by overspending on a Disney ride.

3.  In this case "the conservative way," is to FIRST build a network like Amtrak California, or North Carolina,
   then when you can point to packed trains, move to add to the program, increase speeds, and expand.

4.  The above examples show fantastic acceptance of standard Amtrak trains, which under the new signaling
    mandates will be allowed to approach 120 mph, without spending billions on a novelty train.

5.  NOBODY lives along the entire I-4 corridor from Orlando to Lakeland, they live along the CSX corridor
    between the same two cities. Even if the Florida plan were somehow successful, the claim that it will
    prevent sprawl is disingenuous and FDOT knows it... Every town along the CSX corridor will by necessity
    have to "move," toward the tracks on I-4, which is a sprawl swath 4-9 miles wide and 60+ miles long.

Yeah, the conservative way is the only way if we want this to work, hey and there is nothing really "conservative," about a 120 mph TALGO train along the CSX alignment. (note I didn't say the CSX track, at least not much of it.)

OCKLAWAHA

http://www.bytrain.org/passenger/

http://amtrakcalifornia.com/index.cfm/routes/

[yapp1850]

i really hope talgo bid team do something about move it to csx line instead of i-4, the team is the cheepest and lest state money the better is going to win the contract

[yapp1850]

hey ock what if the high speed rail stay on  i-4 as plan coming from tampa when it gets to csx rail bridge on i-4 then go csx track to get downtown lakeland,kissimme,orlando if you do this way transit center within walking dist. on tampa and orlando side. then exspand sunrail to tampa union station and light rail frome union station to high speed station

[Ocklawaha]

hey ock what if the high speed rail stay on  i-4 as plan coming from tampa when it gets to csx rail bridge on i-4 then go csx track to get downtown lakeland,kissimme,orlando if you do this way transit center within walking dist. on tampa and orlando side. then exspand sunrail to tampa union station and light rail frome union station to high speed station

That would be light years ahead of what they plan to do now. For me watching this unfold is like watching a immolation suicide performed with a single candle.

OCKLAWAHA