Florida governor rejects money for bullet train

I've only paid half-hearted attention to the controversy over Florida Governor Rick Scott's refusal of the $2.4 billion federal grant to build a high speed rail line connecting Orlando and Tampa. It had been eagerly sought and planned for by former fellow Republican governor, Charlie Christ. I had only absorbed headlines and assumed it was another case of turning down federal money for political reasons, both partisan politics and ideology about big government.

My grandson was home for a visit from his graduate studies at Florida State University, and I asked his opinion. He says he thinks the governor was right -- on two counts.

First, although the federal grant would cover $2.4 billion of the estimated $2.6 billion in construction costs, it would leave the state vulnerable to inevitable cost overruns and long-range maintenance -- and possibly being stuck with a non-profitable, unpopular service.

Second, as David points out, and affirmed by a NY Times article today, the Orlando-Tampa route is a poor choice -- too short to realize the advantages of high speed rail. It's only 84 miles, and estimated travel time by bullet train is 56 minutes. Add in time to park at the station and a few minutes wait, it could easily take just as long as a car trip. In addition, once you arrive by train you have no car; and both Orlando and Tampa are cities where a car is needed to get around easily. Adding in a car rental further undermines the inducement to take the train, no matter the speed. With no commercial air service between the two cities, it would not even cut down on air travel.

So why did the Obama administration want so badly for this to be built? There are several reasons:

1. The federal funding was part of the $787 billion stimulus package and would have provided a lot of jobs, period. And the Florida and California high speed rail projects were the only two that were far enough along to benefit from money designated for stimulus and job creation. That's a compelling reason, but not sufficient if the project is not reasonable. The fact that these jobs would be in a conservative section of a swing state only added some political flavor to make this location compelling.

2. But, even moreso, I think, this is what was important to them: Establishing high speed rail is an important part of the Obama plan for revamping our transportation system, comparable to Eisenhower's interstate highway system in the 1950's. It not only will create lots of jobs -- designing and building -- but it will reduce gas consumption and traffic congestion and pollution. In addition, our lack of bullet trains is one of the ways we are falling behind other countries, notably Japan, France, and now China. Getting one up and running would be a boost in our national spirit.

3. This Orlando-Tampa route, because it is short, could be built and operational before Obama leaves office, and it would generate enthusiasm for larger projects. Besides, then Gov. Charlie Christ was pushing the idea that Florida could get one up and running faster than any other U.S. location -- and he already had much of the preliminary planning work done. The only other one on the boards at present, and also receiving federal funding, is the line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

At 377 miles between two major metropolises, the California high speed rail project makes much more sense. Currently, with 11 flights each way daily just on Delta, and with high volume auto travel as well, the potential ridership is much larger and more likely to make it profitable.

The problem with it as the demonstration project is that it will not become operational until at least 2020, and it will cost $42 billion (as opposed to $2.4 billion).

So, there we are. The federal money for Florida goes back into the pot and may wind up going to California.

Ralph