In an article yesterday, the New York Times discussed the reasons why Florida governor Rick Scott decided to forego the federal funding offered and not to build the high speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. The reasoning is pretty straightforward. There was little expectation that the line would cost what is currently projected or that it would operate without a hefty subsidy from the state. Even the times admits that Tampa and Orlando are too close together to allow for much time savings from taking the train. Beyond that, since neither city has much in the way of a public transport system, someone taking the train to Orlando would still need a car once he or she got there. All of this was set forth in detail in a study by the Reason foundation. Scott decided not to burden Florida with the cost overruns and operating subsidies that the system would bring.
Of course, the Times criticizes this decision. The funny thing is that the basis for the criticism is not the analysis in the study; rather, it is that some of the funding for the REason foundation comes from folks with ties to the oil industry. Using that reasoning, the position of the Obama administration should be ignored since in his election campaign in 2008 the president got some funding from oil company executives.
The real truth is that as even the Times admits, the Florida route was not one that made much sense, but the White House wanted to get one train route completed quickly so that it could show off what it had accomplished. it would be a hell of a lot less expensive to just build a statue of Obama at Disney World in Florida.
If anyone doubts that the cost of each of the high speed rail lines will be significantly higher than the current estimates, let me explain the inevitable. I was involved with the construction of many rail tunnels, elevated lines and bridges in the New York metropolitan area. The MTA which handled most of this construction is the most experienced agency in the USA with building rail facilities. Even so, nearly every project had a significant cost overrun. The extimates were always too low. ALWAYS!!!!
The reasons for cost overruns were different on each job, but they always appeared. Here is an example: a new bridge was built over a bay adjacent to Long Island. Because the bay is a navigable waterway, the bridge needed a construction permit from the US Coast Guard. The permit was received and called for a channel 85 feet wide under the bridge. when the engineers designed the bridge, they allowed for a channel that was only 80 feet wide. The problem was discovered shortly after the commencement of construction when plans were sent to the Coast Guard for approval. The correction only required a minor change to work, but it resulted in a cost increase for the project of something like 15% due to the resulting delay, the shift of work into the winter, the need to redo certain work, etc. Simply put, a silly mistake in reading the permit cost millions of dollars. There are always mistakes like this on every project.
The truth also is that even the New York Times understands that there will be cost overruns and that few train lines carry the traffic projected by the entities that promote their construction. That is why the Times has nothing to say abou the decision other than that some people with ties to the oil industry helped fund the foundation that blew the whistle on the actual costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment