QuoteFlorida is among four finalists for federal stimulus dollars to build a high-speed train, U.S. Rep. John Mica said Friday.
The others are California, Texas and the Chicago area, Mica said. The Winter Park Republican would not reveal the source of his information.
U.S. Department of Transportation spokesman Rob Kulat said: "I haven't seen such a list, and if there was, I couldn't verify it."
Mica, speaking after a meeting of the panel that oversees the planned SunRail commuter train, said an official announcement could come in late January or early February.
Kulat said no date has been set to reveal high-speed finalists or winners.
The Federal Railroad Administration, an arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has acknowledged sifting through 45 requests from 24 states seeking a total of $50 billion. An additional 214 applications from 34 states are asking for $7 billion for planning and smaller projects.
Congress has approved $8 billion for high speed rail and is expected to set aside another $4 billion to $5 billion.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-high-speed-rail-finalists-florida-20091218,0,4724359.story
Yeah sure, first Mica won't endorse the Florida HSR project, and now he can't wait to announce that Florida will get funding for it. Notice how all his statements get denied by the US Department of Transportation Spokesperson!
Just like when Mica voted AGAINST the stimulus monies, Mica couldn't wait to brag about Florida getting the money.
The HSR funding is part of the stimulus funding.
More from the article:
QuoteThere has been speculation that only three finalists would receive any federal money. Mica said the four were culled from a list of eight that he did not identify.
If Florida is among the finalists, Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty said, the state is well-positioned to receive some funds because it is a political swing state â€" though federal officials have said the awards will be based solely on transportation considerations.
Are they only going to award HSR money to three or four projects nationwide? Btw, I saw an article on another forum that said the NE has been eliminated from competing for HSR dollars.
I suspect that they will award most of the money to true HSR projects, which would be limited to those areas mentioned....then they'll use other funds for smaller projects (like the FEC/Amtrak and NE corridor).
Looks to me like a bridemaid again!
Quote from: CS Foltz on December 19, 2009, 05:42:10 PM
Looks to me like a bridemaid again!
really...how do you get that...unless you mean that getting money for HSR would make FL a loser?
tufsu1 I will tell you what I mean! When I see that DOT has awarded money to Florida for HSR......I will believe it but not before that takes place! I still say that Orlando is not the area for a true HSR system display since in the proposed form, it boils down to a "Rat Rail Feeder system" and that system is nothing but a sop to pander to Congress for the money! As to it being something viable in the proposed form..........ain't no way!
(http://www.msrailroads.com/images/L-ACL-SAL%20Ocala.jpg)
BET THERE IS NOT A CENT, FOR OCALA'S UNION STATION... Hailed in 1995 as more then transportation, "Union Station is the corner stone to a new revitalized downtown." Completely reconstructed with a $1,800,000 grant from FDOT, the station was designed as a hub for SUNTRANS, GREYHOUND, AMTRAK and included a restaurant and poilce department precint office. When Amtrak cut the trains through Ocala, Tallahassee did nothing, and today our nearly $2 million dollar "Greyhound Station" languishes, looking for any sign of brain activity in Tallahassee. Quote from: thelakelander on December 19, 2009, 12:45:20 AM
Are they only going to award HSR money to three or four projects nationwide? Btw, I saw an article on another forum that said the NE has been eliminated from competing for HSR dollars.
Actually Lake, the Northeast Corridor was exempt from receiving the funds from this stimulus package, on account of it has major separate Federal funding as well as heavy State and local funding. At least that is the story on the surface, me thinks there is also the "hidden" secret that the Northeast Corridor is the LEAST profitable of Amtrak's operations. As this fact becomes better known it would toss ice water on the funding mechanism for all HSR funding.
Unless the whole thing is a set-up or unless Obama's administration is completely brain dead, I don't see Florida getting anything other then some "mend-it-money," for Amtrak. Speeds will be increased from 79 to 90, signalization with the new state-of-the-art Positive Train Control will be funded. CSX will get monies to build around North Jax from the Port to the mainline near Callahan, thus opening a whole new area of trackage to passenger rail. FEC will get miles of double track with high speed switches, and funding for a dozen new stations will be rolled into the plan. There is a remote possibility that some funding might become available for the "Gulf Wind" (SUNSET) route, from Jacksonville to New Orleans, but one doubts they will consider a logical change to daytime, and also 7 days a week.
What we won't get is Mickey Rail, aka: RATRAIL, or other dedicated mega projects like RATRAIL. We (thanks in a large part to Tallahassee) won't see any funds or even hear a peep about restoration of AMTRAK to: Jacksonville - Baldwin - Waldo (Gainesville) - Ocala - Wildwood - Dade City - Lakeland - Tampa. Quite simply, it appears that Tallahassee has written them off the rail plan, as they have Sarasota, Venice, Ft. Myers, Naples, Sebring, Winter Haven. Fact is we won't see any creative thought go toward expanding our reach within Florida outside of the Florida East Coast.
That's how I see it, if we see anything at all. My best guess is they'll toss us some "also ran" money, and blow a lot of smoke about our "winning" the HSR contest. Considering what Tallahassee and FDOT have planned in Central and South Florida, we better hope and pray that we DON'T WIN! OCKLAWAHA
Considering that high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando is going to cost a lot more than what could possibly be awarded, what is Florida's plan for the rest of the funding?
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 20, 2009, 01:54:59 PM
At least that is the story on the surface, me thinks there is also the "hidden" secret that the Northeast Corridor is the LEAST profitable of Amtrak's operations. As this fact becomes better known it would toss ice water on the funding mechanism for all HSR funding.
are you kidding Ock....the northeast corridor routes are just about the the only Amtrak routes that don't require a subsidy!
Quote from: Lunican on December 20, 2009, 02:00:52 PM
Considering that high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando is going to cost a lot more than what could possibly be awarded, what is Florida's plan for the rest of the funding?
well they applied for $2.5 billion....but at least $500 million of that is a repayment for ROW acquired during the I-4 widening a few years ago.
From my understanding, they could build the line for about $1.5 billion...my guess is the Feds give us 80% of that as the Federal share.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 20, 2009, 02:02:26 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 20, 2009, 01:54:59 PM
At least that is the story on the surface, me thinks there is also the "hidden" secret that the Northeast Corridor is the LEAST profitable of Amtrak's operations. As this fact becomes better known it would toss ice water on the funding mechanism for all HSR funding.
are you kidding Ock....the northeast corridor routes are just about the the only Amtrak routes that don't require a subsidy!
No I'm not, check the articles reviewing "Amtrak Accounting" in Trains Magazine, Railway Age, Progressive Railroading etc... In fact the long distance trains, similar to cruise trains, can be shown to come much closer to profit then anything in the Northeast, which has consumed billions on billions of dollars.
As I said, as the truth of the accounting practices become more common knowledge, we'll start to see the "Northeast Corridor Success Myth," start to fall.
QuoteLong Distance Trains: Sinkhole or Scapegoat?
SOURCE: Midwest Rail Report
December 2001
By Richard Harnish, Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition
"People don't understand long distance trains. They think only in terms of Chicago to Seattle or Chicago to Oakland. Those trains serve manydifferent markets as they cross the country." - Paul Reistrup, Vice President, Passenger Integration, CSX Transportation
"People forget that trains make stops; some people get on and other people get off." - Derrick James, Amtrak customer
Long-distance trains are commonly thought to be a holdover from the past- a little-used, politically driven conveyance whose sole purpose is to maintain political support for the Northeast Corridor. Many refer to them as "cruise trains." It is also a widely held belief that long-distance trains are the reason for Amtrak's financial woes.
These perceptions are driving the political debate and may result in some long-distance routes being discontinued. Since the future of the Midwest system is linked to the future of long-distance trains, it is important to further understand what long-distance trains really are and what they can do.
First, a word about cruise trains. Cruise trains, such as the American Orient Express or Rocky Mountaineer, do not provide everyday transportation - they provide a service to a very select market: those who are willing to pay a premium for a luxurious train ride. Frequently the patrons fly or drive many miles just to take the train.
Just as automotive advertisers suggest that you will always drive on a scenic highway with no traffic, Amtrak's ads describe the wonderful accommodations and the fantastic scenery that you will experience when riding the train.
This contributes to the perception that Amtrak's trains are similar to cruise trains, when in fact they are not.
Basic Transportation
Most riders travel coach. While more comfortable than flying or driving, coach is far from luxurious. Even the first class accommodations are spartin. The food and service levels are typically good, but would not stand up to the scrutiny of a person looking for a cruise experience.
Unlike cruise trains, a single long-distance train fills many roles as it crosses the country. First and foremost it provides a comfortable, convenient, affordable and safe way to travel for an average of 364 people per train start.
In many cases it gets closer to the final destination than flying, particularly in smaller towns where the airport can be several hours away.
Often it is faster than driving, particularly on long trips. Rail's market share remains the same, regardless of trip length.
Long-distance trains also have auto competitive times for many trips less than 500 miles (fitting the FRA's definition of high-speed rail.) For example, Chicago to La Plata, MO is 5 hours 10 minutes by train vs. 7 hours 30 minutes by car.
Trip lengths fill the spectrum from very short hops all the way up to coast-to-coast journeys. The Southwest Chief, which travels 2,250 miles between Chicago and Los Angeles, makes 32 stops, creating 528 possible trips. The average passenger trip length on this route is roughly 1,100 miles. The other long-distance routes also have average trips that are roughly half the route length.
Riders range from the most cost conscious traveler up to the very well-heeled. The Chief's average fare is $130, suggesting that most riders are using the trains for basic transportation.
Serving such a broad range of purposes makes long-distance trains the most productive in Amtrak's system. In FY 2000 the sixteen long-distance routes carried 52% of Amtrak's total passenger miles. They handled 181 passenger miles per train mile compared to Metrolinersââ,¬â,,¢ 178 pmtm and the Midwest Corridor's 89 pmtm.
FY 2000 Long-Distance trains v. NEC Metroliner service
Total Pssgr miles PMPTM Passenger Miles
52% 181 2,800,000,000 16 LD routes
178 352,000,000 Metroliners
98 Midwest corridor
PMPTM= passenger miles per train mile
In addition to performing basic transportation, long-distance trains are performing other important functions: They haul mail.
They provide a strong foundation on which to build future services. All the long distances trains in the Midwest serve cities in the planned Midwest system. Many cities are only served by a long-distance train. These trains provide a market base from which to build and they protect valuable facilities needed to operate future services.
They contribute to overhead. It is very likely that routes in the Amtrak system either cover or come close to covering their direct operating costs with fares. Those that do not are burdened by inadequate infrastructure.
Cutting long-distance trains will not substantially improve Amtrak's performance. In fact, it is very likely that Amtrak's financial performance will deteriorate after route reductions.
They feed passengers to other trains. All of Amtrak's trains feed passengers to and from one another. Cutting one train will reduce usage on other trains. While there are routes that might benefit from changes, simply reducing service will degrade the performance of the remaining trains.
They provide broader political support. Just like the Interstate Highway System 50 years ago, a funding program for fast corridor trains will require a nationwide support base. That means corridor supporters will have to join together with rural travelers and the freight interests.
So what about Amtrak's report that the Chief lost $184.50 a passenger in FY2000? Amtrak reports its results based on fully allocated costs, which do not represent the true value of the service nor the required subsidy.
Amtrak reported to Congress that the long distance trains lost $506.1 million in FY2000 vs. Metroliner/ Acela Express's profit of $64.7 million. These two facts make it very easy to conclude that cutting the long distance trains would eliminate Amtrak's appropriation.
But these numbers do not tell the whole story, partly because they do not account for the longer trips that long-distance passengers make. The long-distance trains accounted for 2.8 billion passenger miles compared to Metroliner's 352 million passenger miles. The long-distance trains are providing a greater service.
These figures paint a very inaccurate picture for several other reasons, which come in the form of unanswered questions.
Should the rest of the NE Corridor be cut? The Metroliner trains - which carried 2.5 million passengers in 2000 - benefit from infrastructure and economies of scale shared with other NE corridor trains and several commuter operators. The other NEC trains - which carried 10.6 million passengers lost $164.1 million in FY2000 and the commuter agencies pay only incremental costs for their use of the infrastructure. Cutting the long-distance trains will not make these costs go away.
What is included in the overhead? The Amtrak Reform Council estimates that the NE Corridor infrastructure places an additional burden of $300 to $600 million per year on Amtrak. How is this cost being allocated? How is Amtrak's large management staff being accounted for?
What about NE Corridor cost overruns? There was a cost overrun of more than $300 million on the project to extend the electrification to Boston and unreported cost overruns on the Acela Express equipment order. How were these accounted for?
How much did express freight contribute to the losses? Amtrak's ill-conceived freight program suffered large unreported losses in FY2000. These losses would have been borne primarily by the long-distance trains (possibly the Midwest corridor trains as well).
Are Amtrak's trains properly serving the market? All of the long-distance routes have only one train per day. Two of them run only three days a week. This means that the trains stop in many towns at very inconvenient times. Two trains a day is probably the minimum level of service required.
Also, since little investment has been made in these routes, the existing fleet is not large enough to handle the current demand. Simply adding more cars to existing trains would grow ridership. Finally, Amtrak's freight program has caused schedules to be lengthened and continues to cause significant delays. As a result, many trips that once worked well on Amtrak have become uncompetitive.
Are Amtrak's operating costs reasonable? The Amtrak Reform Council has reported that Amtrak does not measure the productivity of its employees, does not benchmark itself with other similar businesses and has not set
productivity goals. Therefore, we cannot judge whether or not Amtrak's costs are reasonable.
In short, we do not know what the true demand for long-distance train travel is. Nor do we know the true cost of operating those trains.
Long-distance trains are under attack for being poor performers and yet they perform better in many measurement categories than corridor trains.
Corridor supporters, such as the MHSRC, believe that corridor trains can perform at a much higher level by investing in infrastructure and by creating a better institutional structure. This is just as true for long-distance trains.
The infrastructure and institutional improvements needed to make the corridor trains perform well are the same improvements needed to make the long-distance trains effective.
The arguments for and against corridor trains are also very similar for long-distance trains.
Because of these similarities, support for one type of train creates support for the other. Conversely, attacking the long distance trains erodes credibility and support for corridor trains.
Allowing long distance trains to be the scapegoat ultimately weakens the argument for fast, frequent trains in the Midwest
QuoteTHE SIX MYTHS ABOUT AMTRAK - SOURCE: National Railroad Passenger Corportation - AMTRAK
Myth #1 - Amtrak can be profitable. No national rail passenger system in the world is profitable. Without public subsidy, there will be no passenger rail transportation systems in the United States.
Myth #2 - The private sector is dying to take over our services. Remember why we were formed. We are what is left of a once privately run enterprise.
Myth #3 - Long-distance trains are the problem. This is perhaps one of the biggest myths. If you eliminate every long-distance train, your avoidable costs would decrease about $70 million a year-after about a year and a half of making labor protection costs. On a fully allocated basis, after five years, you might save annually about $300 million. Focusing on this problem is not going to save Amtrak. This approach is a red herring.
Myth #4 - Amtrak is a featherbed for labor. Our wage rates are about 90% of the freight industry and are even lower when compared to transit. Wages are not the problem; generating a higher level of productivity, that is the challenge. It is management's duty to seek such improvement.
Myth #5 - The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is profitable. The NEC may cover most of its above-the-rail costs, but it is an extremely costly piece of railroad to maintain. The NEC is not profitable and never will be. Sure, private groups might be interested in having it, but they would take it only with the promise of massive capital infusions.
Myth #6 - There is a quick fix - reform. The word reform is like catnip to those interested in a quick fix to Amtrak. If the answer were quick and easy, we would have solved the problem long ago. What needs to be done is to tightly manage the company and its finances and begin to make incremental but critical improvements to plant and equipment.
OCKLAWAHA
NOPE! NOT KIDDING!
Amtrak also operates in the snow faster and safer than any other way.
http://www.youtube.com/v/iRzIUz-AJBY&hl=en_US&fs=1&
Did anyone catch the issue with Trains in England? Seems that they are having issue's with snow of large amounts and the trains are lagging in scheduling big time!
Ock, that's not a fair comparison....three reasons:
1. The notheast corridor includes local trains as well as the Acela service
2. remember that many local northeast trains are also long distance trains going to Richmond, the Carolinas, Florida, etc.
3. Since Amtrak doesn't own the tracks outside the northeast, they have very few capital costs....take the capital costs out of the northeast corridor and compare the routes on operations only and see how they stand up!
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 20, 2009, 07:43:50 PM
Ock, that's not a fair comparison....three reasons:
1. The notheast corridor includes local trains as well as the Acela service
2. remember that many local northeast trains are also long distance trains going to Richmond, the Carolinas, Florida, etc.
3. Since Amtrak doesn't own the tracks outside the northeast, they have very few capital costs....take the capital costs out of the northeast corridor and compare the routes on operations only and see how they stand up!
Doesn't matter tufsu1, the NEC also runs freight for CSX, NS, CN, CP and a host of regional carriers, so their cost figures would not be markedly different except on very high speed track.
Where the amazing part of the new findings (the second that I posted was from AMTRAK itself in 2008, when they finally admitted that long distance was the money maker and not the NEC) comes into play is that there are 18 routes that serve our entire nation. Not 19, just 18. Hell TUFSU1, I can remember when Jacksonville had more then 18 routes that originated or terminated here. We are talking the entire long-distance roster of the United States of America is 18 lousy routes, and all but Florida are single train daily or worse, tri-weekly.
Yet out of those deplorable numbers comes this, those 18 "trains" account for 42/48% of all of Amtrak's passengers! There isn't a train in the corridor that comes even close to that, and it all boils down to PMPTM (Passenger Miles Per Train Mile) the standard yardstick of the industry. A passenger going from end to end on the Acela can hope for only 181 miles, but the same passenger on the Southwest Chief will log 2,250. There is simply no way the numbers for a "highly profitable" corridor can stand in the face of this accounting. The long-legged Chiefs, Sunset's and Empire Builders will blow the competition away. (http://users.mo-net.com/nixit/raton.jpg)
Raton, NM at train time. We aren't in the NEC anymore Toto.
One only need stand at Winslow; AZ, Raton, NM; Needles, CA; Minot, ND; or Palatka, FL; to have the long distance Epiphany. Train time in these tiny cities/large farm market towns is a social event. Been there done that:
''Well, I'm a standing on a corner
in Winslow, Arizona
and such a fine sight to see
It's a girl, my Lord, in a flatbed
Ford slowin' down to take a look at me
Come on, baby, don't say maybe
I gotta know if your sweet love is
gonna save me
We may lose and we may win though
we will never be here again
so open up, I'm climbin' in,
so take it easy''OCKLAWAHA
Ock...I read the Amtrak 2008 statement as saying that long distance routes aren't the severe money loser that people think they are...and that the NEC isn't as successful as some think it is....but it still seems that they are saying the NEC requires less subsidy percentage-wise.
Been to Winslow Az ......very nice town! It would seen from a laymens point of view that the longer the route the better it would be from a cost effective point of view! Seen many trains carrying Containers stacked two high or Containers loaded on dolly's for transportation at other end. Make cost effective sense to me to move many many Containers at one time........small loads coast to coast via truck, max is 80K over the open roads, three to four days, team drivers is slowly dying off due to rest requirements and the like!
Quote from: Lunican on December 20, 2009, 02:00:52 PM
Considering that high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando is going to cost a lot more than what could possibly be awarded, what is Florida's plan for the rest of the funding?
here's your answer....FDOT now has the ability to seek financing and then get repaid through ticket revenues.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/rail-special-session-gave-dot-unprecedented-clout-136307.html
Got no problem with ticketing picking up the tab.........but I would have to ask, just what kind of price are we talking about here? There has to be a limit to entice riders with something cost effective....$100 Dollars for a 60 mile run maybe a bit much don't you think? I am also assuming the $2 Dollar tax on rental auto's will be in the mix?
CS...the specific fares have not been set, but the feasibility studies assumed the highest fare would be $30 for the express train from downtown Tampa to OIA.
Obviously there wll be a delicate balance (just like hotels and airplanes have)...don't want to give it away but don't want empty traisn either.
Update on northeast rail...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/12/17/rail_stimulus_funds_to_bypass_northeast/
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 21, 2009, 06:47:46 PM
CS...the specific fares have not been set, but the feasibility studies assumed the highest fare would be $30 for the express train from downtown Tampa to OIA.
Obviously there wll be a delicate balance (just like hotels and airplanes have)...don't want to give it away but don't want empty traisn either.
tufsu1 ....I am apprehensive about "Feasibilty Studies" which are usually slanted towards the people who paid to have the study done.........any report can be either slanted or biased in one direction or the other! Use of the word "Assumed" translate into someones guess whether they are proffesionals or not..........I look at the first three letters of that word and thats usually what comes out of it! I hate that word!