AAF - Taking on more Heat

[spuwho]

The Treasure Coast is picking up the political heat on All Aboard Florida this week.

Per the TCPalm:

Indian River County commissioner pulls his support for All Aboard Florida, citing private company's use of government's loan guarantee

Indian River County commissioners don't want special deals made for All Aboard Florida

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY — County commissioners Tuesday agreed to urge government-loan agencies not to extend any special interest rates to All Aboard Florida as it seeks to upgrade the Florida East Coast Railway for its proposed new Miami-to-Orlando passenger line .

"No government loans, guarantees or right-of-way leases at less than market rate," Commissioner Bob Solari said.

Any special deals for the private company would be at taxpayers' expense, he said.

All Aboard Florida, a subsidiary of Florida East Coast Industries of Coral Gables, plans to send 16 trains a day on round trips between Miami and Orlando, at speeds of up to 110 mph through the Treasure Coast, by early 2016.

In the same 5-0 vote, Solari's colleagues also agreed to:

Ask the Federal Railroad Administration, which is expected by May to publish a draft report on All Aboard's environmental impacts, to provide at least 90 days but maybe 180 days for local residents to comment on the draft.

Seek copies of All Aboard's leases with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Orange County Expressway Authority for a proposed new track from Cocoa to Orlando.

Formally request All Aboard to make its financial projections public. Company officials so far have declined verbal requests, citing the company's private status.

"They may say no, but at least we can request," Solari said.

**

Meanwhile the voters are putting the heat on local politicians to take more aggressive action:

Murphy's meeting with Foxx on All Aboard Florida rescheduled

Rep. Patrick Murphy's meeting with the U.S. transportation secretary has been rescheduled to next week.

Murphy, D-Jupiter, was to meet Wednesday with Secretary Anthony Foxx to raise questions about All Aboard Florida, the privately funded high-speed passenger train that is to begin Miami-to-Orlando service by early 2016. Among the concerns is the lack of stations north West Palm Beach.

The meeting was rescheduled to Monday because of a scheduling conflict, a Murphy spokeswoman said.

Constituents can share their concerns with Murphy by email — http://patrickmurphy.house.gov/contact/email-me/ — or Twitter — @RepMurphyFL.

Vero Beach City Council seeks resolution opposing All Aboard Florida

VERO BEACH — City leaders' lukewarm support last month for high-speed passenger trains traveling the local Florida East Coast Railway tracks cooled Tuesday, as the City Council ordered a draft resolution opposing Orlando-to-Miami service by All Aboard Florida.

The resolution, to be considered for a vote April 15, signals a change in attitude for local officials who have previously accepted the private venture as inevitable.

Councilwoman Amelia Graves reported a coalition of local leaders is forming in response to the railroad's plans.

"They're not for All Aboard Florida," Graves said after the meeting. "They're not organizing a Welcome Wagon."

Tuesday's action was meant to clarify a March 20 letter sent to state Sen. Joe Negron, in which Vero Beach encouraged the Stuart Republican to seek money to improve the city's eight rail crossings, so trains traveling up to 110 mph through the Treasure Coast on 16 daily round trips won't need to blow their horns inside city limits.

Councilwoman Pilar Turner cited reports that All Aboard Florida, owned by Florida East Coast Industries, would be seeking government loans to run the service, which would have no stops on the Treasure Coast. State or federal dollars underwriting the private enterprise are a deal breaker to her, Turner said.

She also pointed to the first sentence of the letter sent to Negron: "The City of Vero Beach supports the efforts of All Aboard Florida to construct and operate high-speed rail passenger service between Miami and Orlando using the Florida East Coast Railway tracks along the east coast of Florida," which she said is at odds with the list of "serious concerns" the city has about the effects of high-speed trains on public safety, liability at street crossings and overall quality of life.

Ken Daige, chairman of the city's High-Speed Rail Commission, signed that letter, along with Mayor Richard Winger.

The letter drew concern from High-Speed Rail Commission member Brian Heady, who predicted the first sentence of the two-page missive would be the only portion of the letter railroad officials would quote.

[thelakelander]

Do you have a link to where this information comes from? All of their complaints sound like sour grapes over not getting their own stops.

[spuwho]

Do you have a link to where this information comes from? All of their complaints sound like sour grapes over not getting their own stops.

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/topic/all-aboard-florida/

They created a section dedicated to the overall gripe fest.

However, a recent website has jumped into the fray, a kind of libertarian site who opposes AAF on principle.

http://thelibertycaucus.com/

Since I first started following their beefs, it kind of started with not getting a stop in Stuart.  Then it went to NIMBYism when they said it should move to the CSX line not knowing AAF was a FECI entity. Then it moved to the bridges rising and falling. Now the libertarians are going after it because they think its part of a "privatize profit, socialize cost" malaise the US is having.

As of today people down there are going after the TPO and the local politicos in force.  They want to know why their TPO was found unaware of this effort by FECI in their long range planning. (Does FECI tell a TPO when they run more freight trains?) They are demanding that Congress or FDOT pay for the upgraded crossings required by the Quiet Zone law. The law which states that since railroads were first, quiet zones must be paid by the secondaries, in this case the road owners (local taxpayers). (This makes them especially furious)

Kim Delaney got blasted today in the press for her pro stance but they claim she was unable to answer even the most basic of questions about what AAF business plan was. All of her foundational work to get Amtrak into South Florida will probably get tossed because of this craziness.

I can understand objections. Rational ones or principled ones.

This one borders on the irrational.

If it was truly philosophical, then running AAF on any railroad would be bad. They didn't say that.
If it was truly operational (bridges), then the offer of live tenders would have resolved it. It didn't.
If it was about safety of high speed trains, then paying for better crossings would have done it. It didn't.

So as far as I can tell, they are just pissed because 32 trains are going to blow through their town at 100+ mph with no material benefit to them. Just expenses.

[thelakelander]

Are the trains going to blow through their towns that fast?  I thought the only section that would be above 100mph would be the new stretch between Orlando and Cocoa?  Also, the Amtrak project they want happens to be piggybacking off this one.  The same infrastructure improvements Amtrak would need are the exact same that AAF would have to construct to accommodate their trains. Amtrak isn't swimming around in cash so without FEC/AAF paying some of those costs upfront, the project they claimed they wanted (maybe they are fine with trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater) probably won't happen.

[spuwho]

Per AAF:

Trains are planned to run at 79 miles per hour (127 km/h) from Miami to West Palm Beach, 110 miles per hour (177 km/h) from West Palm Beach to Cocoa, The existing track from West Palm Beach to Cocoa would have to be improved to meet federal standards for an increased 110 miles per hour (177 km/h) speed limit from the current 79 mph (127 km/h). The Cocoa to Orlando line will have speeds up to 125mph (201 km/h)

There is apparently a bend somewhere near Sebastian where the trains will have to slow down for a brief stretch and then slow down again when they transition to the Cocoa/Orlando segment.

I wonder if the TC protested this much when I-95 was built there in 1971.

The local politicos all supported AAF, but everyone in the town is furious because they feel like they were caught off guard and unaware.  It is kind of odd that AAF dominates the press in Miami, Tampa, Orlando, West Palm. Even the Palm Beach Post covered the work by FECI and FDOT to improve freight traffic around Tri-Rail and AAF but yet the Treasure Coast says they were completely unaware.

When Tampa and Jacksonville know everything about it and it doesn't even go there, but yet Vero Beach and some others don't and they have it going right through their towns. To me, that is odd. AAF had 2 publicly announced hearings in their TPO district and yet, still no one knew?

[mbwright]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling....

[Lunican]

FEC can move forward with this with or without the 'Treasure Coast'. Federal law specifically prohibits local municipalities from interfering in this exact way. They can oppose it, but it doesn't mean anything since the railroad is already there.

Congress and the courts long have recognized a need to regulate railroad operations at the federal level.
City of Auburn v. United States, 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998). A number of federal laws are controlling, but three commonly found to preempt state and local attempts to regulate railroad activities are the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, and the Noise Control Act
of 1972.

The state and local issues examined in this section are limited to those that are primarily related to land use. The general principal arising from the statutory and case law is that, if a railroad is engaged in transportation-related activities, federal law will preempt state and local attempts to regulate.

Issues regarding state and local regulation of train speed and the duration that railroad crossings are blocked are also considered under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 ("FRSA"). The FRSA contemplates a comprehensive and uniform set of safety regulations in all areas of railroad operations. Chicago Transit Authority v. Flohr , 570 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1977). The purpose of the FRSA is to "promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce related accidents and incidents." 49 U.S.C. § 20101

The FRSA includes a preemption provision that, among other things, allows state and local governments to
regulate only those matters on which the Secretary of Transportation has not yet regulated. The Secretary regulates train speeds, which depend on the classification of the tracks. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 283 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that state law imposing a limitation on the duration at which
a crossing may be blocked by a train, which is related to train speed, was preempted); see also CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Mitchell, 105 F.Supp. 2d 949 (S.D.Ind. 1999) (granting summary judgment to railroad and enjoining city from enforcing law prohibiting railroad from blocking crossing for more than 10 minutes); Drieson v. Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad Corporation, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (N.D. Iowa 20 11) (partial summary judgment for railroad; federal regulations governing the movement of trains, including blocked crossings as they pertained to air brake testing requirements, preempted state and local laws). 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/frac/PDF/landusereg.pdf

[spuwho]

FEC can move forward with this with or without the 'Treasure Coast'. Federal law specifically prohibits local municipalities from interfering in this exact way. They can oppose it, but it doesn't mean anything since the railroad is already there.

Congress and the courts long have recognized a need to regulate railroad operations at the federal level.
City of Auburn v. United States, 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998). A number of federal laws are controlling, but three commonly found to preempt state and local attempts to regulate railroad activities are the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, and the Noise Control Act
of 1972.

The state and local issues examined in this section are limited to those that are primarily related to land use. The general principal arising from the statutory and case law is that, if a railroad is engaged in transportation-related activities, federal law will preempt state and local attempts to regulate.

Issues regarding state and local regulation of train speed and the duration that railroad crossings are blocked are also considered under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 ("FRSA"). The FRSA contemplates a comprehensive and uniform set of safety regulations in all areas of railroad operations. Chicago Transit Authority v. Flohr , 570 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1977). The purpose of the FRSA is to "promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce related accidents and incidents." 49 U.S.C. § 20101

The FRSA includes a preemption provision that, among other things, allows state and local governments to
regulate only those matters on which the Secretary of Transportation has not yet regulated. The Secretary regulates train speeds, which depend on the classification of the tracks. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 283 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that state law imposing a limitation on the duration at which
a crossing may be blocked by a train, which is related to train speed, was preempted); see also CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Mitchell, 105 F.Supp. 2d 949 (S.D.Ind. 1999) (granting summary judgment to railroad and enjoining city from enforcing law prohibiting railroad from blocking crossing for more than 10 minutes); Drieson v. Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad Corporation, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (N.D. Iowa 20 11) (partial summary judgment for railroad; federal regulations governing the movement of trains, including blocked crossings as they pertained to air brake testing requirements, preempted state and local laws). 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/frac/PDF/landusereg.pdf

Good case quotation Lunican. I was in Seattle the day Auburn lost that case. My cousin actually lives right above that railroad line that they filed suit on. But the Pacific NW has always been a little challenged when it comes to local preemption vs Federal law. Total NIMBYism.

City of Lakewood WA is suing BNSF and Sound Transit over rerouting Amtrak and commuter lines through their town so freights can get through the Port Defiance route easier. Here is town that is trying push away freight blockages for years and stop passenger rail services in their downtown....go figure.

Mayo Clinic was trying to block the DM&E from hauling coal unit trains through Rochester, MN. Mayo had public support, but they didn't have the law on their side unfortunately. DM&E ended up dropping the plan when they were bought by CP Rail.

I tried to engage some people from the TC the other day on the issue at hand and it was fruitless. They said I was advocating theft from my fellow citizens.  Uh huh, right, OK.  Back to the bin for you!