Set foot in one of Florida’s Brightline rail stations, like the one located in downtown Fort Lauderdale, and you will be greeted by a host of dazzling amenities.
High speed rail is not a way to make money, it's a way to make America better. We are the richest country in the world and we need a national system of high speed rail crossing the country, serving all major metros, and at an extremely affordable ticket price.
Pass laws to bypass lawyers for rights of way, use the same rights of way for high voltage transmission which we also need.
Trains are much less stressful and cheaper to operate, much more room. Getting to and from airports which are often way out of town can take a lot longer than the actual flight. Beijing to Shanghai costs half of what it costs Boston to DC, with taxis or parking even more. For tree huggers the carbon difference is pretty big.
When it comes to even mid-sized cities, I generally find that unless you live downtown getting anywhere outside of town is faster and logistically easier than getting anywhere in town. Wider streets, less traffic, ample parking, and no bums.
Traveling regularly to Europe now I always opt for the train even though it costs more and is slower than the multitude of flights. It feels like a more authentic experience and that is fine for vacation.
One of my memories of the years I lived in Germany was the amount of time it took to get around, from street car, to train, and walking in the rain and cold. I finally gave up and bought a car.
Public transportation can get you from point A to point B. A car can get you anywhere you need to go and carry whatever you buy. Have you ever tried to bring home a weeks worth of groceries on the train?
High speed rail sounds fabulous, but in the US, it has some hurdles. Part of the problem might be the US has only a few areas with large, dense populations. The coasts, and ironically maybe between Houston and Dallas, but prying Texans from their trucks would likely require a free bottle of booze with every ticket, a la Southwest Airlines.
We are roughly the same size as Europe, but they have nearly twice as many people, and far less of a car culture. By comparison, Americans often have large comfortable vehicles. We also enjoy a vast interstate highway system and plenty of cheap gas, that just hit a 5 year low this week.
The cost differential for a family of 4 would be huge. It would far more expensive for a group to take the train than to drive together. Also, we have an alternative, planes. In CA it is always cheaper and faster to fly from No Cal to So Cal, then to take the train.
Finally, in the US, federally funded trains are inevitably funded by those unlikely to utilize them once, let alone on a regular basis. Am Track losses are legendary, and have been for 50+ years. Tenn truck drivers and Wyoming waitresses footing the bill so urbanites can enjoy a Chardonnay, between large cities, may not be the most equitable use of federal tax dollars.
If private enterprise can make it work, that's great, but that appears easier said, than done. With $37 trillion dollars in debt, and screams millions will soon lack healthcare, taxpayer funded high speed rail might be a hard sell.
I’m perpetually astonished that Ezra Klein’s abundance agenda is not about free markets, but creating a first-best regulatory state in a second-best world.
“The sad constant of passenger rail in the U.S. ” is that’s it’s a completely inferior product to driving for short trips and to flying for longer ones.
Missing from this otherwise thorough analysis is any discussion of why Brightline needs to be saved in the first place.
There's the famous sweet spot: too far to drive and too close to fly. High speed rail is unambiguously superior for trips like Miami to Orlando or LA to Vegas. But it has too actually be high speed rail, meaning it's significantly faster than driving and reasonable priced for the service. The Florida Brightline meets neither of these criteria though maybe Brightline West will. That said, it's gonna cost a pretty penny no matter what.
I’m sure all things are relative, but a 3 hour one way drive is still within the limits of a standard day trip out West. Albeit barely. I’m still not seeing the advantage of dumping money into a train to replace that. Which is most likely why Brightline is failing.
I think that paying the needed funds for a train that can make that trip in two hours or less is an unambiguously better use of taxpayer funds than our usual bankrolling of mindless foreign conflicts.
In Orlando there's also the question of how are you getting around without a car. Unless you're going for a vacation and staying in one spot, it's not the densest city. Or visiting family. Outside of the NE corridor I don't see it making much sense.
I’m with you on the mindless foreign conflicts, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the money is worth spending. I would definitely rather have the freedom of having my own vehicle even if it comes at the added expense of an extra hour or two of driving.
"The statement "the dogs don't like the dog food" was used by columnist Charles Krauthammer as an analogy to explain the public's dislike for the policies of President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010. Krauthammer's point was that no amount of public relations or advertising could sell an unpopular policy to the American public, because the problem was with the "substance" of the policy itself."
People don't want to pay more money for less convenience.
Great article. I don't really want to see government subsidies, yet it may be the only way to get high speed rail going and flying. Speaking of flying, competition from a truly well run rail system might force the airlines to make flying more comfortable economy fliers. For that reason and with true commitment by the government to make it work, I would be for subsidies. The gov made the interstate highway system work and the gov even subsidized airlines until they could fly on their own. A really good rail system could relieve road congestion, especially around cities. The problem would be from airline and automaker lobbyists.
In many places where there is more rail travel those places are constrained with higher population density, shorter distances between population centers, fewer roads and smaller roads, etc. It is all really a tradeoff analysis and in the US, despite all the complaints about auto traffic, road travel by car is still competitive. And there is the variable cost calculation since many people already have a car. In the places where rail travel is more used, fewer people own their own auto and thus they are stuck with a taxi, Uber or car rental variable cost to compare to the cost of a rail ticket.
I am not in favor of government subsidies to lower fares. I am in favor of government subsidies to private rail business to help make some profit to stay in business. The justification is that providing the alternative helps reduce road congestion and just generally improves the overall value of the place. But fares should be based on the common business challenge of pricing based on alternatives.. and thus optimized.
If you look at those public transportation services where the government makes them cheap or free, homeless drug addicts use them for shelter. That then provides a greater incentive for other people to use their car instead.
That's what happened in Seattle. Fare enforcement stopped on the rail lines and some people decided they didn't want to ride with addicts and homeless people with behavior issues.
I am not sure how this fits into the discussion but the rejection of DOT funds when Rick Scott was governor (2011) had some role in all this. The funds instead went to California. Can you comment?
Politico:
:" High-speed rail funding rejected by Florida Gov. Rick Scott officially became California’s gain Tuesday as the Department of Transportation granted nearly $1 billion to the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
In February, Scott rejected about $2.4 billion from DOT for a $2.6 billion high-speed train line from Tampa to Orlando, declaring in April that the money should go back to taxpayers or be used for deficit reduction.
Instead, Florida’s portion of the money was returned to DOT and has been awarded to other states’ projects. About $214 million of that spurned money went to California on Tuesday as part of a $928 million Department of Transportation grant for the state’s high-speed rail project." https://www.politico.com/story/2011/11/rejected-fla-funds-go-to-california-068973
Perfectly complementary to what I described. Previous attempts since the 80s at building public rail between Miami and Orlando failed because neither the state nor national government wanted to pay what is realistically need give the expense. $2.6 billion is completely unrealistic for a Miami-Orlando high-speed rail which is probably why Scott refused the funds in addition to his rabid libertarian ideology as politico says.
Hence the Brightline stepped in and said hey, we'll build it and the government won't pay a dime though they did lose out on tax revenue. The results now speak for themselves, the private Brightline nonetheless cost double what the 2011 effort projected and is burning through hundreds of millions a year. Keep in mind also that the Brightline was already less expensive than otherwise given that Florida East Industries already owned the tracks that are currently being used.
As for California rail, same story, there's just no willingness to pay what is necessary. CHSRA is expected to cost around $125 billion. There's no way around it. If we actually want high-speed rail, we need to accept that's going to cost a fortune though that should improve over time. We have no experience building in said sector in this country.
I could be wrong, but if this goes BK, won't someone buy it out of bankruptcy and operate it with much less debt? Then ticket prices might even drop, increasing use. Then there is at least a chance, it could be profitably operated, and without federal tax dollars.
It is brutal to the builder and creditors, but how private enterprise works. The downside is it likely to scare off future private rail development.
Hard to say, most likely Florida East Coast Industries will continue to operate the trains given that they owned the track prior to the existence of the Brightline and their cargo operation is profitable. That said, underlying owner of FECI has changed hands like three times in the past three years with Germán Larrea's Grupo Mexico currently owning it, that could certainly change again in the near future. Uncertain if that will affect fares, most likely not.
A perfect example of how America can't do things.
High speed rail is not a way to make money, it's a way to make America better. We are the richest country in the world and we need a national system of high speed rail crossing the country, serving all major metros, and at an extremely affordable ticket price.
Pass laws to bypass lawyers for rights of way, use the same rights of way for high voltage transmission which we also need.
Why? Flying/airports are currently providing that reasonably well.
Trains are much less stressful and cheaper to operate, much more room. Getting to and from airports which are often way out of town can take a lot longer than the actual flight. Beijing to Shanghai costs half of what it costs Boston to DC, with taxis or parking even more. For tree huggers the carbon difference is pretty big.
When it comes to even mid-sized cities, I generally find that unless you live downtown getting anywhere outside of town is faster and logistically easier than getting anywhere in town. Wider streets, less traffic, ample parking, and no bums.
Traveling regularly to Europe now I always opt for the train even though it costs more and is slower than the multitude of flights. It feels like a more authentic experience and that is fine for vacation.
One of my memories of the years I lived in Germany was the amount of time it took to get around, from street car, to train, and walking in the rain and cold. I finally gave up and bought a car.
Public transportation can get you from point A to point B. A car can get you anywhere you need to go and carry whatever you buy. Have you ever tried to bring home a weeks worth of groceries on the train?
High speed rail sounds fabulous, but in the US, it has some hurdles. Part of the problem might be the US has only a few areas with large, dense populations. The coasts, and ironically maybe between Houston and Dallas, but prying Texans from their trucks would likely require a free bottle of booze with every ticket, a la Southwest Airlines.
We are roughly the same size as Europe, but they have nearly twice as many people, and far less of a car culture. By comparison, Americans often have large comfortable vehicles. We also enjoy a vast interstate highway system and plenty of cheap gas, that just hit a 5 year low this week.
The cost differential for a family of 4 would be huge. It would far more expensive for a group to take the train than to drive together. Also, we have an alternative, planes. In CA it is always cheaper and faster to fly from No Cal to So Cal, then to take the train.
Finally, in the US, federally funded trains are inevitably funded by those unlikely to utilize them once, let alone on a regular basis. Am Track losses are legendary, and have been for 50+ years. Tenn truck drivers and Wyoming waitresses footing the bill so urbanites can enjoy a Chardonnay, between large cities, may not be the most equitable use of federal tax dollars.
If private enterprise can make it work, that's great, but that appears easier said, than done. With $37 trillion dollars in debt, and screams millions will soon lack healthcare, taxpayer funded high speed rail might be a hard sell.
I’m perpetually astonished that Ezra Klein’s abundance agenda is not about free markets, but creating a first-best regulatory state in a second-best world.
“The sad constant of passenger rail in the U.S. ” is that’s it’s a completely inferior product to driving for short trips and to flying for longer ones.
Missing from this otherwise thorough analysis is any discussion of why Brightline needs to be saved in the first place.
There's the famous sweet spot: too far to drive and too close to fly. High speed rail is unambiguously superior for trips like Miami to Orlando or LA to Vegas. But it has too actually be high speed rail, meaning it's significantly faster than driving and reasonable priced for the service. The Florida Brightline meets neither of these criteria though maybe Brightline West will. That said, it's gonna cost a pretty penny no matter what.
I’m sure all things are relative, but a 3 hour one way drive is still within the limits of a standard day trip out West. Albeit barely. I’m still not seeing the advantage of dumping money into a train to replace that. Which is most likely why Brightline is failing.
I think that paying the needed funds for a train that can make that trip in two hours or less is an unambiguously better use of taxpayer funds than our usual bankrolling of mindless foreign conflicts.
In Orlando there's also the question of how are you getting around without a car. Unless you're going for a vacation and staying in one spot, it's not the densest city. Or visiting family. Outside of the NE corridor I don't see it making much sense.
I’m with you on the mindless foreign conflicts, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the money is worth spending. I would definitely rather have the freedom of having my own vehicle even if it comes at the added expense of an extra hour or two of driving.
"The statement "the dogs don't like the dog food" was used by columnist Charles Krauthammer as an analogy to explain the public's dislike for the policies of President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010. Krauthammer's point was that no amount of public relations or advertising could sell an unpopular policy to the American public, because the problem was with the "substance" of the policy itself."
People don't want to pay more money for less convenience.
Great article. I don't really want to see government subsidies, yet it may be the only way to get high speed rail going and flying. Speaking of flying, competition from a truly well run rail system might force the airlines to make flying more comfortable economy fliers. For that reason and with true commitment by the government to make it work, I would be for subsidies. The gov made the interstate highway system work and the gov even subsidized airlines until they could fly on their own. A really good rail system could relieve road congestion, especially around cities. The problem would be from airline and automaker lobbyists.
In many places where there is more rail travel those places are constrained with higher population density, shorter distances between population centers, fewer roads and smaller roads, etc. It is all really a tradeoff analysis and in the US, despite all the complaints about auto traffic, road travel by car is still competitive. And there is the variable cost calculation since many people already have a car. In the places where rail travel is more used, fewer people own their own auto and thus they are stuck with a taxi, Uber or car rental variable cost to compare to the cost of a rail ticket.
I am not in favor of government subsidies to lower fares. I am in favor of government subsidies to private rail business to help make some profit to stay in business. The justification is that providing the alternative helps reduce road congestion and just generally improves the overall value of the place. But fares should be based on the common business challenge of pricing based on alternatives.. and thus optimized.
If you look at those public transportation services where the government makes them cheap or free, homeless drug addicts use them for shelter. That then provides a greater incentive for other people to use their car instead.
That's what happened in Seattle. Fare enforcement stopped on the rail lines and some people decided they didn't want to ride with addicts and homeless people with behavior issues.
I am not sure how this fits into the discussion but the rejection of DOT funds when Rick Scott was governor (2011) had some role in all this. The funds instead went to California. Can you comment?
Politico:
:" High-speed rail funding rejected by Florida Gov. Rick Scott officially became California’s gain Tuesday as the Department of Transportation granted nearly $1 billion to the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
In February, Scott rejected about $2.4 billion from DOT for a $2.6 billion high-speed train line from Tampa to Orlando, declaring in April that the money should go back to taxpayers or be used for deficit reduction.
Instead, Florida’s portion of the money was returned to DOT and has been awarded to other states’ projects. About $214 million of that spurned money went to California on Tuesday as part of a $928 million Department of Transportation grant for the state’s high-speed rail project." https://www.politico.com/story/2011/11/rejected-fla-funds-go-to-california-068973
Perfectly complementary to what I described. Previous attempts since the 80s at building public rail between Miami and Orlando failed because neither the state nor national government wanted to pay what is realistically need give the expense. $2.6 billion is completely unrealistic for a Miami-Orlando high-speed rail which is probably why Scott refused the funds in addition to his rabid libertarian ideology as politico says.
Hence the Brightline stepped in and said hey, we'll build it and the government won't pay a dime though they did lose out on tax revenue. The results now speak for themselves, the private Brightline nonetheless cost double what the 2011 effort projected and is burning through hundreds of millions a year. Keep in mind also that the Brightline was already less expensive than otherwise given that Florida East Industries already owned the tracks that are currently being used.
As for California rail, same story, there's just no willingness to pay what is necessary. CHSRA is expected to cost around $125 billion. There's no way around it. If we actually want high-speed rail, we need to accept that's going to cost a fortune though that should improve over time. We have no experience building in said sector in this country.
I could be wrong, but if this goes BK, won't someone buy it out of bankruptcy and operate it with much less debt? Then ticket prices might even drop, increasing use. Then there is at least a chance, it could be profitably operated, and without federal tax dollars.
It is brutal to the builder and creditors, but how private enterprise works. The downside is it likely to scare off future private rail development.
Hard to say, most likely Florida East Coast Industries will continue to operate the trains given that they owned the track prior to the existence of the Brightline and their cargo operation is profitable. That said, underlying owner of FECI has changed hands like three times in the past three years with Germán Larrea's Grupo Mexico currently owning it, that could certainly change again in the near future. Uncertain if that will affect fares, most likely not.