High-Speed Rail Part 4: Florida

Florida is the only part of the U.S. other than California that has seriously considered a true high-speed rail project. In 1992, the Florida legislature passed a high-speed rail transportation act. This led the state Department of Transportation to propose a public-private partnership to build a high-speed rail line from Miami to Orlando and then to Tampa. However, Governor Bush killed this plan in 1999.

A high-speed rail advocate (and former Bush supporter) named C.C. Dockery then spend $2.7 million of his own money putting a measure on the Florida ballot that amended the constitution to require the state to build a high-speed rail network. The measure did not raise taxes or appropriate any money to the project, and it was passed by the voters. By 2004, perhaps more aware of the cost, 64 percent of the voters were persuaded to repeal it.

By then, however, the legislature had created a state high-speed rail authority and appointed Dockery to the commission. The authority had let a contract to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) for the first leg of a high-speed rail line connecting Tampa and Orlando. This EIS was published in 2005, and the rail authority has subsequently disbanded (at least, its web site no longer works).

Under the proposal, the Fluor and Bombardier companies would have received contracts to build the line. At one point, it appeared that Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains, which operates some of the passenger trains in the U.K., would get the contract to operate the Florida rail lines. These and other companies that would profit from its construction are probably the main proponents today.

In fact, it is our mission to help people viagra online from canada enjoy a healthy and normal sex life. Modern studies have shown that the Ito located in the sinusoidal function of storage and metabolic VitA, collagen production in liver fibrosis cells. sildenafil generic india It shuts the ejaculatory valve tadalafil discount and prevents premature ejaculation. Since the year when this medicine came in existence, the medicine is relieving the problem and allowing you to live to your fullest potential. – Genetics As with numerous other health disorders, it is levitra properien clear that heredity plays a role in depression. The 2005 EIS estimated that the 92-mile rail line would cost $2.0 to $2.5 billion, or about $22 to $27 million per mile. The EIS considered two possible technologies: turbine locomotives and electric engines. The turbotrains would only go about 125 miles per hour, while the electric would get up to 160. However, since the distance was so short, the faster train would only save a few minutes. Since the cost of the electric trains was higher, the rail authority picked the turbotrains.

The EIS estimated that the trains would divert 11 percent of people who would otherwise drive between Orlando and Tampa (p. 4-119). Since most of the traffic on Interstate 4 between the two cities has other origins or destinations, the train would remove only about 2 percent of cars from the least-busy segment of I-4, and smaller shares from busier segments (p. 4-117). Traffic on Interstate 4 between the two cities is growing by more than 2 percent per year, so the rail line would provide, at most, about one year’s worth of traffic relief. As the EIS itself noted, the traffic “reduction would not be sufficient to significantly improve the LOS [levels of service] on I-4” (p. 4-119).

The EIS also estimated that either the electric or turbine trains would produce more nitrogen oxide pollution than would be saved by the autos they would take off the road. The gas/turbine trains in the preferred alternative would also produce more volatile organic compounds than the cars they would take off the road (p. 4-48).

Planners also calculated that operating and maintaining the gas turbine trains would consume six times as much energy, while the electric trains would consume 3.5 times as much, as would be saved by the cars taken off the road (p. 4-111). The EIS did not estimate greenhouse gas emissions, but since Florida gets more than 80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels, either the turbine or electrically powered rail line would produce far more greenhouse gases than the cars it would take off the road.

Due to considerations like these, the EIS concluded that “the environmentally preferred alternative is the No Build Alternative” because it “would result in less direct and indirect impact to the environment.” Considering the high cost and lack of any environmental benefits, it is not surprising that voters decided to repeal the mandate to build high-speed rail.