(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/urbanjax7816/CSX-State-Map.jpg)
QuoteSen. Dockery says Florida's DOT is responsible for confusion over the price.
By Rick Rousos
THE LEDGER
LAKELAND | The cost of the stalled Orlando-area commuter rail project and the state's deal with CSX isn't the widely disseminated figure of $641 million.
Nor is it the often reported cost of $615 million.
It's actually both; $641 million and $615 million for a combined $1.25 billion in taxpayer dollars.
That's a number most Floridians are unaware of. The $1.25 billion is nearly double the figures cited during this year's contentious Florida Legislature.
State Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, said the state Department of Transportation is responsible for the confusion over the price of commuter rail and improvements to freight rail lines.
"At first, the document the DOT handed out had the $491 figure," she said. "Then, come to find out, the overpasses went to $209 million instead of $59 million, which brought the total to $641 million. Not until we started asking questions and digging through documents did we realize it may be more. But any figure over $641 million has never been distributed by DOT in any sort of a widespread fashion."
Dockery said the people of Florida and state legislators generally "have no idea of how much this is really costing. And I'm still not sure we do."
'CORPORATE WELFARE'
The $1.2 billion cost has been confirmed by a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation.
Dockery, in a recent meeting with The Ledger, said she learned the plan calls for the state to spend about $400 million to "double track" the proposed commuter rail portion of CSX's A Line, which runs from DeLand to Poinciana. Dockery has been a key organizer of the efforts to stop commuter rail plans that would bring more freight trains through Lakeland and would relieve CSX of liability for any accidents on the commuter rail line. The CSX liability exemption was first disclosed by The Ledger in January.
State DOT spokesman Dick Kane, who confirmed the $1.25 billion figure, said the cost of building a second track to parallel the A Line and to make some train station improvements is $441 million. Of that money, $235 million is in the department's current budget and will roll over if not spent this fiscal year, he said. The rest of the money is budgeted in a work program for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, he said.
The 42 miles of double tracking would occur only if the commuter rail project is passed by the Legislature, said Marianne Gurney, the DOT's public liaison for the commuter rail project. The deal was approaching approval by the Legislature earlier this month, but was shelved for the session when a no-fault liability provision for CSX failed to pass.
Nearly 20 miles of that 61-mile stretch of A-line is already double tracked.
Dockery calls the double tracking of the A-Line "corporate welfare for CSX." She asks why a money-starved state that can't adequately fund pressing needs should be funneling money to a profitable corporation.
Gary Sease, spokesman for CSX, said anytime there's an increase in flexibility, trains can move more freely. But he said any notion the route is being double tracked to benefit CSX should be directed to the DOT.
The double tracking isn't for CSX, DOT's Kane said.
"The double tracking goes into effect after we own the corridor" in the purchase from CSX, Kane said. "This is being done to improve the operation of commuter rail, to provide more reliable service."
A 90-page contract between the DOT and CSX goes into great detail, but does not mention double tracking the A Line. It mentions commuter trains sharing the track with CSX, with CSX permitted to use the track overnight, and during off-peak times for commuter rail.
Dockery said no public hearings were held in the Legislature to approve double tracking and its expense.
But Gurney said double tracking has been mentioned on a DOT commuter rail site, cfrail.com, since last year.
"This has been fully disclosed," she said.
State Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, said the $1.2 billion sticker price for CSX and 62 miles of commuter rail is hard to believe.
"Can you imagine what we could do with that kind of money?" Ross asked. "This is all tax dollars. We could have Amtrak do this from Tampa to Daytona Beach, and have money left over for education, for health care and building roads."
The CSX and commuter rail projects are stalled, but could be revived either in a special Legislative session or, more likely, in the 2009 legislative session.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080529/NEWS/805290492/0/LIFE#
Are our Senators really this ignorant? Looking from the outside in, its been as clear as day for well over two years that the entire deal would cost over $1 billion to buy 61 miles of CSX track, upgrade another line between Jacksonville and Lakeland, relocate a railyard to Winter Haven, build a number of highway overpasses and construct a commuter rail system in Orlando. If some this high up in government is still confused about numbers, we've been showing online since the Urban Planet forum days, then they are over their heads.
Other than that, check out the alternative rail bypass corridor around Orlando in the image above. If Lakeland is successful in getting something like that built, that means freight trains will still roll down our CSX A line between Downtown and Orange Park. Jacksonville's officials need to get more involved in this discussion instead of letting a city with only 100,000 residents lead the debate that will ultimately have an impact on us locally as well.
Quote"Can you imagine what we could do with that kind of money?" Ross asked. "This is all tax dollars. We could have Amtrak do this from Tampa to Daytona Beach, and have money left over for education, for health care and building roads."
I would like to learn more about this option. What are the pros and cons in Amtrak running a commuter rail system, similar to what Orlando is proposing? Wouldn't CSX trains still need to be relocated or track capacity increased, so commuter trains would not be held up by freight schedules? If so, where would that money come from? CSX isn't going to pay for it and Amtrak is broke.
Is it really shocking news that money will have to be spent on the system after the initial purchase of the track? It's pretty obvious that operating costs and capital improvements will cost money over the years.
QuoteDockery calls the double tracking of the A-Line "corporate welfare for CSX." She asks why a money-starved state that can't adequately fund pressing needs should be funneling money to a profitable corporation.
How is planning to spending money to improve state owned infrastructure corporate welfare? The double tracking project will occur after the state takes ownership.
This is what FDOT should have been doing from the beginning:
QuoteWelcome to Amtrak California
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has been promoting intercity passenger rail service since 1976 by augmenting Amtrak's basic system of interstate trains.
The Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquins, and Capitol Corridor are funded primarily by the State of California. These trains (collectively referred to as Amtrak California) operate in addition to Amtrak's own interstate trains -- the Coast Starlight, the California Zephyr, the Southwest Chief, and the Sunset Limited-- which connect California to the rest of the country with bands of passenger rail.
Quote from: stephendare on May 30, 2008, 03:42:05 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 30, 2008, 03:37:48 PM
Quote"Can you imagine what we could do with that kind of money?" Ross asked. "This is all tax dollars. We could have Amtrak do this from Tampa to Daytona Beach, and have money left over for education, for health care and building roads."
I would like to learn more about this option. What are the pros and cons in Amtrak running a commuter rail system, similar to what Orlando is proposing? Wouldn't CSX trains still need to be relocated or track capacity increased, so commuter trains would not be held up by freight schedules? If so, where would that money come from? CSX isn't going to pay for it and Amtrak is broke.
This is what the old guys were trying to talk about at the commuter rail meeting with JTA.*
*see "coming back to bite in the ass" comments from previous thread.
As stated before, that "timed" meeting wasn't set up to talk about Amtrak to a representative who had no knowledge of the questions being asked. No one was against Amtrak, there's just a time and place for everything and that was not the right time.
It was sort of like coming to one of our Metro Jacksonville meeting to discuss taxes being raised in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Yeah we both have topics that relate to a "Jacksonville" but none of us will be able to provide valuable input on the history and needs of Jacksonville, NC.
Now if we go out and get an Amtrak representative to attend a meeting, so they can answer questions addressed to them in a meeting with Amtrak on the agenda, then we can get those answers.
Quote from: Lunican on May 30, 2008, 03:53:20 PM
This is what FDOT should have been doing from the beginning:
QuoteWelcome to Amtrak California
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has been promoting intercity passenger rail service since 1976 by augmenting Amtrak's basic system of interstate trains.
The Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquins, and Capitol Corridor are funded primarily by the State of California. These trains (collectively referred to as Amtrak California) operate in addition to Amtrak's own interstate trains -- the Coast Starlight, the California Zephyr, the Southwest Chief, and the Sunset Limited-- which connect California to the rest of the country with bands of passenger rail.
Aren't these systems different from what Orlando has been striving to get set up? For example, would a system like the Sunset Limited make 5 stops a mile apart from each other like the proposed Orlando system will in Inner City Orlando? Or will an Amtrak based system make one stop in downtown Orlando and bypass everything else in town to get to the next stop in Kissimmee?
The California Capitol Corridor has stations that are pretty close together.
(http://capitolcorridor.org/included/images/stations/cc_route_standard400x425.gif)
They are state funded trains so the state DOT can stop more frequently than the long distance Amtrak trains.
I'm not sure about the distances here, but the Pacific Surfliner route also has a lot of stops.
(http://64.174.7.225/rail/amtrak/assets/Image/Routes/pacific_surfliner_route_map.gif)
No, Caltrain is true commuter service.
The above routes are state funded Amtrak trains.
(http://marcel-marchon.com/img--121567200--Pacific-Surfliner-train--m.jpg)
All of those are pretty spaced out with some fairly large cities having only one stop. This would be similar to a line in Central Florida with one stop for each city (Tampa, Plant City, Lakeland, Auburndale, Haines City, Poinciana, Kissimmee, Orlando, Winter Park, Sanford, Deland, etc).
By the way, the first map is not Caltrain. That's just a station where riders can transfer to Caltrain.
Here is the Caltrain route map
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Caltrain_map.svg/608px-Caltrain_map.svg.png)
Evidently, Caltrain's line between San Francisco and San Jose (shown above) is operated by Amtrak as well. Here are a few other commuter rail systems operated by Amtrak employees:
Amtrak strike could cripple commuter rail service
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/01/15/amtrak_strike_could_cripple_commuter_rail_service/
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) - DC's Union Station to Virginia suburbs
(http://media.point2.com/p2a/htmltext/6fd3/b59f/c9c9/b3f82e09b9a73e8cc283/original.jpg)
MARC Penn Line - DC to Baltimore
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Marc7757a.jpg)
Shore Line East - New Haven,CT to New London, CT
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Amtrak_P40DC_840.jpg/800px-Amtrak_P40DC_840.jpg)
QuoteRecreational Trails Unlikely To Become Railroad Again
By Tom Palmer
THE LEDGER
Published: Monday, July 7, 2008 at 10:25 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, July 7, 2008 at 11:48 a.m.
BARTOW | It is unlikely that the recreational trail system stretching from Auburndale into the Green Swamp will revert to a railroad line to reroute freight or passenger traffic, the County Commission was told today.
There has been some speculation that the Auburndale-TECO Trail and the Van Fleet Trail, both of which lie on former railroad routes, could become active rail lines again as an alternate to increased train traffic through downtown Lakeland in connection with the proposed commuter rail and the Winter Haven rail freight terminal projects.
Commissioner Jean Reed asked about the possibility in connection with a discussion of the planned recreational complex on Auburndale’s north side along the Auburndale-TECO trail.
“I highly doubt it, based on conversations with people in Tallahassee,’’ said Mark Jackson, head of tourism and sports marketing.
Tom Deardorff, the county’s growth management director, said one of the points Polk County is asking a Florida Department of Transportation consultant studying alternate rail routes is to look at the impact on statewide and regional trail systems.
There will be a public meeting Thursday from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Bartow Civic Center to provide Jacobs Engineering, the DOT consultant, with public input on the study.
In addition, there are multiple property owners along the route that could make a reversion difficult, said Wade Allen, the county’s right of way agent.
Commissioner Bob English said he spoke with CSX officials recently at a meeting in Tampa and was told the corporation was not interested in that corridor.
English said he would oppose any attempt to close the trails.
“It would be over my dead body,’’ he said.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080707/NEWS/722545785/1410&title=Recreational_Trails_Unlikely_To_Become_Railroad_Again