SUMMARY

A state constitutional amendment to build a statewide "high speed ground transportation system" (high speed rail) has been placed on the November 7 ballot (text in Appendix) to connect the five largest urban areas in the state.

The purpose of the high speed rail system is to "reduce traffic congestion and provide transportation alternatives to the public," according to the language of the proposed amendment. High speed rail proponents have claimed that the system will "sharply reduce traffic congestion.

To estimate the financial and ridership implications of the constitutionally mandated high speed rail system, a model was developed using information from the Federal Railroad Administration and projections for the now defunct Florida Overland Express (FOX) high speed rail project. It is assumed that the five urban areas connected would be Miami-Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg and Jacksonville.

Costs: It is estimated that the three potential alternatives could cost between $8.2 billion and $21.9 billion to construct. Based upon the experience with other large transportation infrastructure projects, the costs could be even higher.

Ridership and Revenue: Two sets of ridership and revenue projections were prepared, an "optimistic" set of assumptions and a "realistic" set. Under the "Optimistic Projections," based upon Federal Railroad Administration, between 17,200 and 23,000 daily one-way riders are projected. The "Realistic Projections," based upon more plausible transportation market trends, yields a daily ridership projection of from 6,600 to 6,800 one-way riders per day.

Under the "Optimistic Projections," commercial revenues (including passenger fares) would cover from 18.9 percent to 33.2 percent of annual costs.



Under the "Realistic Projections," commercial revenues (including passenger fares) would cover from 5.6 percent to 12.7 percent of annual costs.

Tax Subsidies: Under the "Optimistic Projections" it is estimated that an annual state and or local tax subsidy of $472 million to $1.3 billion would be required, covering from 66.8 percent to 81.1 percent of costs. The "Realistic Projections" indicate annual state and or local government tax subsidies of $617 million to $1.5 billion, covering from 87.3 percent to 94.4 percent of costs.

Impact on Traffic Congestion: The high speed rail system would not reduce traffic congestion because its impact upon traffic volumes would be so slight. It is estimated that the system would remove between 1.1 percent and 4.0 percent of traffic by 2020, at the same time that overall traffic volumes in adjacent corridors are projected to increase nearly 51 percent to 55 percent, even with the addition of high speed rail.

Optimistic Projections: It is estimated that the constitutionally mandated high speed rail alternatives would require (Table #1):

An annual tax subsidy of $75 to $164 per rider ($150 to $328 per round trip).



A tax subsidy per passenger mile of from $0.55 to $1.18. The cost per passenger mile would range from $0.83 to $1.46. This is from 4.3 to 7.5 times the cost of automobiles per passenger mile and 3.1 to 5.5 times the cost of airlines per passenger mile in the Florida high speed rail corridors (Figure #1).

An annual cost per daily automobile trip removed of $99,000 to $191,000 ($198,000 to $382,000 per round trip).⁽¹⁾



An annual tax subsidy per daily automobile trip removed of $66,000 to $155,000 ($131,000 to $310,000 per round trip).

Realistic Projections: It is estimated that the constitutionally mandated high speed rail alternatives would require (Table #2):

An annual tax subsidy of $258 to $643 per rider ($515 to $1,285 per round trip).



A tax subsidy per passenger mile of from $2.17 to $4.94. The cost per passenger mile would range from $1.89 to $4.63. This is from 11.2 to 25.4 times the cost of automobiles per passenger mile and 8.1 to 18.5 times the cost of airlines per passenger mile in the Florida high speed rail corridors (Figure #1).



An annual cost per daily automobile trip removed of $257,000 to $642,000 ($514,000 to $1,283,000 per round trip).



An annual tax subsidy per daily automobile trip removed of $225,000 to $605,000 ($449,000 to $1,211,000 per round trip).

Table #1 Constitutionally Mandated High Speed Rail Alternatives Optimistic Assumption Projections
Item	Technology Alternative #1: Near High Speed Rail	Technology Alternative #2: Conventional High Speed Rail	Technology Alternative #3: Magnetic Levitation
Capital Cost	$8,160,000,000	$13,404,000,000	$21,908,000,000
Annual Cost (Operating & Debt Service)	$708,000,000	$1,107,000,000	$1,700,000,000
Annual Commercial Revenues	$235,000,000	$306,000,000	$322,000,000
Annual Deficit	($472,000,000)	($800,000,000)	($1,377,000,000)
Tax Subsidy per Rider	$75.49	$96.87	$164.22
Cost per Passenger Mile	$0.83	$1.00	$1.46
Cost per Passenger Mile Compared to Autos	4.3	5.2	7.5
Cost per Passenger Mile Compared to Air	3.1	3.8	5.5
Tax Subsidy per Passenger Mile	$0.55	$0.72	$1.18
Commercial Revenues/Annual Costs	33.2%	27.6%	18.9%
Daily Ridership	17,200	22,700	23,000
Auto Traffic Removed in Corridor	3.1%	4.0%	3.8%
Increase in Auto Traffic in Corridor	52.1%	50.7%	51.0%
Annual Cost per Daily Automobile Trip Removed	$98,500	$120,200	$190,800
Annual Tax Subsidy per Daily Automobile Trip Removed	$65,800	$87,000	$154,700

Table #2 Constitutionally Mandated High Speed Rail Alternatives Realistic Projections
Item	Technology Alternative #1: Near High Speed Rail	Technology Alternative #2: Conventional High Speed Rail	Technology Alternative #3: Magnetic Levitation
Capital Cost	$8,160,000,000	$13,404,000,000	$21,908,000,000
Annual Cost (Operating & Debt Service)	$708,000,000	$1,107,000,000	$1,700,000,000
Annual Commercial Revenues	$90,000,000	$89,000,000	$96,000,000
Annual Deficit	($617,000,000)	($1,017,000,000)	($1,603,000,000)
Tax Subsidy per Rider	$257.53	$421.88	$642.74
Cost per Passenger Mile	$2.17	$3.43	$4.92
Cost per Passenger Mile Compared to Autos	11.2	17.7	25.4
Cost per Passenger Mile Compared to Air	8.1	12.9	18.5
Tax Subsidy per Passenger Mile	$1.89	$3.15	$4.63
Commercial Revenues/Annual Costs	12.7%	8.0%	5.6%
Daily Ridership	6,600	6,600	6,800
Auto Traffic Removed in Corridor	1.2%	1.2%	1.1%
Increase in Auto Traffic in Corridor	55.1%	55.1%	55.2%
Annual Cost per Daily Automobile Trip Removed	$257,200	$412,200	$641,500
Annual Tax Subsidy per daily Automobile Trip Removed	$224,500	$379,000	$605,400
The international experience indicates that capital and operating costs could be significantly higher than projected. This report does not analyze the extent to which costs might rise above the levels estimated in the "Optimistic" and "Realistic" projections.

THE CONSTITUTION AND HIGH SPEED RAIL

If the proposed amendment passes, the Florida constitution would require the following:

A "high speed ground transportation system" (monorail, intercity rail or magnetic levitation) would be constructed to link Florida's five largest urban areas.



The high speed rail system would be "dedicated," meaning that the tracks (guideway) could not be used for other purposes (such as freight rail service)



The high speed rail system would be "separated from motor vehicular traffic," meaning that all crossings of streets and highways would be by elevated or submerged structure.



The high speed rail system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour.



The legislature would take such actions as are necessary to have the system under construction by November 1, 2003

Proponents believe that the system would take 20 years to construct.

THE ROUTE

The constitutional amendment would require that the high speed rail system serve the five largest urban areas in the state, as defined by the legislature.

It would seem most likely that this would be the five largest metropolitan areas as identified by the US Census Bureau. These would be Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Orlando, West Palm Beach and Jacksonville. These five urban areas could be connected by routes totaling approximately 480 miles. This is refereed to as the "basic route system."

However, based upon recent experience in other parts of the nation, it is possible that the US Census Bureau will combine the Miami-Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach metropolitan areas as a result of the 2000 census. It is not entirely clear which urban area would be delineated as the fifth by the legislature. At least six urban areas could be candidates, depending upon the criteria used by the legislature:⁽²⁾

Lakeland, which could add no mileage to the "basic route system," because of its location on the route between Orlando and Tampa.



Daytona Beach, Melbourne, either of which could add up to 20 miles to the "basic route system."



Sarasota, which could add 60 miles to the "basic route system."



Fort Myers, which could add 130 miles to the "basic route system."⁽³⁾

Some other stations would also be served. However, to achieve speeds high enough to be competitive with door to door automobile alternatives it will be necessary to keep the number of station stops to a minimum.

ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED TECHNOLOGIES

The constitutional amendment does not specify service frequencies, timetables or passenger fares. However, considerable research has been undertaken with respect to the potential for similar transportation systems in the state. Based upon that research, a model was constructed to estimate the financial performance, ridership and impact of the proposed system on traffic congestion. The model is based upon previous studies, such as the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration report ("FRA Report)⁽⁴⁾ on high speed ground transportation, which included a Miami-Orlando-Tampa route, and the planning reports performed for the now defunct FOX high speed rail system. For the purpose of analysis, operating characteristics and are estimated for the year 2020, with financial results expressed in 2000 dollars.

Routes: For the purposes of this analysis, the "basic route system" is assumed. This would consist of two routes:

Miami-Orlando-Tampa/St. Petersburg: Because of its higher population and higher demand, it is assumed that through trains would operate on this route. To minimize operating costs, passengers traveling between the Miami-Orlando-Tampa/St. Petersburg route and the Orlando-Jacksonville stations would transfer to different trains in Orlando.



Orlando-Jacksonville: Because of its lower demand, and to minimize operating costs, it is assumed that shuttle service would operate between Orlando and Jacksonville, with passengers traveling stations on the Orlando-Jacksonville routes and the Miami-Orlando-Tampa/St. Petersburg route transferring to different trains in Orlando.

Types of Systems: Three potential vehicle and system technologies are reviewed:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail This would be a near high speed rail system that would operate at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour.⁽⁵⁾ This would be similar to the Amtrak Acela system that will operate in the Washington-New York-Boston corridor.⁽⁶⁾



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: This would a conventional high speed rail system that operates at speeds of up to 200 miles per hour, similar to the defunct FOX proposal that would have operated between Miami, Orlando and Tampa. The high speed rail system would be similar to services currently operating in France and Japan and proposed for operation in Taiwan.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: This would be a Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) system that operates at speeds of up to 300 miles per hour. Magnetic Levitation "is a technology that uses magnetic forces to lift, propel and guide a vehicle over a specially designed guideway."⁽⁷⁾ No commercial intercity Maglev systems exist in the world. Recently, the planned Transrapid Maglev line that was to have been built from Berlin to Hamburg was canceled, due to rapidly escalating costs.



Monorail, mentioned in the constitutional amendment, is not reviewed because there is no commercial monorail in the world operating at the excess of 120 mile per hour speed that would be required by the Florida constitution.

Service Levels: Because of the constitution's stated purpose of reducing traffic congestion, it will be necessary to provide comparatively frequent service. It is assumed that service frequencies will be at the level assumed in the FRA Report.

Capital Costs: Proponents of the constitutionally mandated high speed rail system have estimated capital (construction and vehicle) costs at from $17 million to $20 million per mile. Independent capital cost estimates were developed for each of the Technology Alternatives, based upon FOX projections and Federal Railroad Administration projections.

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The Near High Speed Rail alternative would be the least costly. The proponents low projection of $17 million per mile is used, which places the capital cost for the 480 mile "basic route system" at $8.2 billion (2000$).⁽⁸⁾



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The Conventional High Speed Rail alternative is estimated to cost approximately $27.9 million per mile, which would place the 480 mile "basic route system" at $13.4 billion.⁽⁹⁾



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The Magnetic Levitation alternative is estimated to cost approximately $45.6 million per mile, which would place the 480 mile "basic route system" at $21.9 billion. Since there is no previous experience with long distance commercial Magnetic Levitation system has yet been built in the world, it is possible that this figure could be significantly higher.

Finally, the capital costs of the high speed rail system could be considerably higher. Moreover, a National Academy of Sciences report confirms that underestimation of costs and overestimation of usage is a normal pattern for large infrastructure projects, including urban rail lines.⁽¹⁰⁾ The report stated:

... cost overruns of 50 to 100 percent are common and ... overruns of more than 100 percent are not uncommon.

Operating Costs: Based upon Federal Railroad Administration estimates, the annual operating costs of the alternatives range from $146 million to $192 million.⁽¹¹⁾

Technology Alternative 1, Near High Speed Rail, would cost $146 million annually to operate.



Technology Alternative 2, Conventional High Speed Rail, would cost $185 million annually to operate.



Technology Alternative 3, Magnetic Levitation, would cost $192 million annually to operate.



As in the case of capital costs, it is likely that operating costs will be higher than projected, as was noted in the National Academy of Sciences report referenced above.

Annual Costs: The annual costs would include the costs of operations and debt service. In 2020, it is estimated that the annual costs would be as follows:⁽¹²⁾

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail would cost approximately $700 million annually.



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail would cost approximately $1.1 billion annually.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation would cost approximately $1.6 billion annually. Again, because there is no commercial Maglev operation experience in the world, there is the potential for overall costs to be much higher.

Ridership: Two ridership projections were prepared for each Technology Alternative:

Optimistic Ridership Projection: The "Optimistic Ridership Projections" generally rely on 2020 estimates in the FRA report for similar alternatives.⁽¹³⁾

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: Daily ridership would be approximately 17,000 and 6.3 million annually.⁽¹⁴⁾



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: Daily ridership would be 22,700 and 8.3 million annually.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: Daily ridership would be 23,000 and 8.4 million annually.

Realistic Ridership Projection: Conventional ridership modeling techniques have often produced overly optimistic ridership projections. The National Academy of Sciences report noted above also found that significant over-projection of ridership is common in major transportation projects. There is evidence of such over-estimation in the FRA data. For example, the number of passengers FRA estimates would transfer from air to high speed rail may be larger than the entire air market in 2021.⁽¹⁵⁾ The "Realistic Ridership Projections" calibrate (adjust) the FRA estimates based upon these discrepancies. The "Realistic Ridership Projections" are 62 percent to 71 percent below the "Optimistic Ridership Projections."⁽¹⁶⁾

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: Daily ridership would be approximately 6,600 and 2.4 million annually, based upon an FRA airline market discrepancy of 62 percent.⁽¹⁷⁾



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: Daily ridership would be 6,600 and 2.4 million annually, based upon an FRA airline market discrepancy of 71 percent.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: Daily ridership would be 6,800 and 2.5 million annually, based upon an FRA airline market discrepancy of 70 percent.

Passenger Fares: Passenger fares for the high speed rail must be set at a rate that is competitive, so that air travelers and automobile passengers can be attracted. At the same time, a lower fare will increase the extent to which the system will need to receive tax subsidies.

In recent years, virtually all major Florida air markets have become well served by low cost airline service. Each of the markets that would be served by the high speed rail are currently served by low cost airlines, with the exception of Orlando-Tampa/St. Petersburg and Orlando-Jacksonville, distances which are too short to support a significant level of air service.



It is assumed that, to attract air passengers, the average passenger fare per mile will be no more than the average air fare per passenger mile. This is approximately $0.27.⁽¹⁸⁾



The $0.27 per passenger mile average air fare is more than five times the perceived cost of automobile travel, which will limit the number of drivers that will be attracted to the high speed rail system.⁽¹⁹⁾

Commercial Revenues: Commercial revenues include passenger fares and other non-tax subsidy revenues (auxiliary revenues), such as advertising revenues, station revenues and concessions. Two sets of commercial revenue projections were developed for each Technology Alternative, based upon the ridership and fare revenue estimates developed above.

Optimistic Commercial Revenue Projection: The "Optimistic Commercial Revenue Projections" for each alternative includes an "auxiliary revenue" estimate based upon FRA estimates.⁽²⁰⁾

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: Total commercial revenue would be $231 million annually, including $227 million in fares and $8 million in auxiliary revenue.



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: Total commercial revenue would be $306 million annually, including $295 million in fares and $11 million in auxiliary revenue.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: Total commercial revenue would be $322 million annually, including $310 million in fares and $12 million in auxiliary revenue.

Realistic Commercial Revenue Projection: The "Realistic Commercial Revenue Projections" for each alternative represents an adjustment of both fare revenues and auxiliary revenues based upon the lower ridership assumed in the "Realistic Ridership Projections."

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: Total commercial revenue would be $90 million annually, including $87 million in fares and $3 million in auxiliary revenue.



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: Total commercial revenue would be $89 million annually, including $86 million in fares and $3 million in auxiliary revenue.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: Total commercial revenue would be $96 million annually, including $92 million in fares and $4 million in auxiliary revenue.

Deficits and Tax Subsidies: The commercial revenues above would generally fall short of covering the annual costs of operation and debt service. Operation of the constitutional high speed rail would require tax subsidies to fund the deficit.

Optimistic Deficit Projection: The "Optimistic Projections" above result in the following deficits in 2020.

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The annual deficit would be approximately $480 million, with commercial revenues covering 33.2 percent of annual operating costs.



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The annual deficit would be approximately $800 million, with commercial revenues covering 27.6 percent of annual operating costs.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The annual deficit would be approximately $1.4 billion, with commercial revenues covering 18.9 percent of annual operating costs.

Realistic Deficit Projection: The "Realistic Projections" above result in the following deficits:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The annual deficit would be $620 million, with commercial revenues covering 12.7 percent of annual operating costs.



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The annual deficit would be approximately $1 billion, with commercial revenues covering 8.0 percent of annual operating costs.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The annual deficit would be approximately $1.6 billion, with commercial revenues covering 5.6 percent of annual operating costs.

Higher taxes could be required to fund the high speed rail deficit, which could be considerably higher than the figures noted above if cost and ridership projections prove optimistic.

Tax Subsidies per Rider: It is estimated that the constitutionally mandated high speed rail alternatives would require the following tax subsidies per rider:⁽²¹⁾

Optimistic Projections:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The tax subsidy would be $75.49 per one way ride ($150.48 per round trip).



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The tax subsidy would be $96.87 per one way ride ($193.74 per round trip).



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The tax subsidy would be $164.22 per one way ride ($328.44 per round trip).

Realistic Projections:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The tax subsidy would be $257.53 per one way ride ($515.06 per round trip).



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The tax subsidy would be $421.88 per one way ride ($843.76 per round trip).



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The tax subsidy per would be $642.74 per one way ride ($1,285.48 per round trip).

Cost and Tax Subsidies per Passenger Mile: The cost per passenger mile and tax subsidy per passenger mile for the constitutionally mandated high speed rail alternatives would be as follows:

Optimistic Projections:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The cost per passenger mile is estimated at $0.83, while the tax subsidy is estimated at $0.55 per passenger mile.



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The cost per passenger mile is estimated at $1.00, while the tax subsidy is estimated at $0.72 per passenger mile.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The cost per passenger mile is estimated at $1.46, while the tax subsidy is estimated at $1.18 per passenger mile.

Realistic Projections:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The cost per passenger mile is estimated at $2.17, while the tax subsidy is estimated at $1.89 per passenger mile.



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The cost per passenger mile is estimated at $3.43, while the tax subsidy is estimated at $3.15 per passenger mile.



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The cost per passenger mile is estimated at $4.92, while the tax subsidy is estimated at $4.63 per passenger mile.

In each case, the cost per passenger mile would be well above the $0.19 full cost rate⁽²²⁾ for automobiles and the $0.27 rate for airlines in the Florida high speed rail corridors (Figure #1).

Under the "Optimistic Projections," high speed rail costs per passenger mile would range from 4.3 to 7.5 times the cost per passenger mile of automobiles, and 3.1 to 5.5 times the cost per passenger mile of airlines.

Under the "Realistic Projections," high speed rail costs per passenger mile would range from 11.2 to 25.4 times the cost per passenger mile of automobiles, and 8.1 to 18.5 times the cost per passenger mile of airlines.

4. IMPACT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION

A principal purpose of the constitutional amendment would be to reduce traffic congestion. Without high speed rail, traffic volumes in the corridors is projected to increase 57 percent.⁽²³⁾ The primary project proponent has stated that the system would "sharply reduce road congestion."⁽²⁴⁾ Proponents have claimed that high speed rail can carry the passenger volume of 10 freeway lanes. In fact, however, neither FRA, nor FOX projected passenger volumes approaching the volume of a single lane. The potential of high speed rail options to reduce traffic volumes is limited.

Optimistic Ridership Projection: Even the overly optimistic FRA projections indicate that a high speed rail would have little impact on traffic congestion in the intercity corridors served. FRA estimated that, in 2020, high speed rail (Technology Alternative 2) would remove 4.0 percent of roadway traffic from served corridors. FRA also estimated that Magnetic Levitation (Technology Alternative 3) would remove 3.8 percent of roadway traffic in the served corridors.⁽²⁵⁾ It is estimated that Alternative 1, Near High Speed Rail would reduce traffic volumes 3.1 percent under the optimistic assumptions. Even after the addition of high speed rail, overall traffic highway volumes in adjacent rail corridors be approximately 51 percent worse than at present.



Realistic Ridership Projection: It is more likely that the impact on roadway congestion would be even less. It is estimated, based upon the calibration of the FRA projections above, that Technology Alternative 2: High Speed Rail would reduce traffic volumes 1.2 percent and that Technology Alternative 3, Magnetic Levitation would reduce traffic volumes 1.1 percent. It is estimated that Alternative 1, Near High Speed Rail would reduce traffic volumes 1.2 percent under the realistic assumptions (Figure #2). Even after the addition of high speed rail, overall traffic highway volumes in adjacent rail corridors be approximately 55 percent worse than at present.

Annual Cost per Automobile Removed from Traffic: The cost and tax subsidy required to remove an automobile trip every day from traffic in the high speed rail corridors for a year is as follows:⁽²⁶⁾

Optimistic Projections:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The cost would be $98,500 annually, with a $68,500 subsidy to remove a single auto trip every day (for a round trip, $197,000 annual cost and $137,000 annual tax subsidy).



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The cost would be $120,200 annually, with a $87,000 subsidy to remove a single auto trip every day (for a round trip, $240,400 annual cost and $174,000 annual tax subsidy).



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The cost would be $190,800 annually, with a $154,700 subsidy to remove a single auto trip every day (for a round trip, $396,600 annual cost and $309,400 annual tax subsidy).

Realistic Projections:

Technology Alternative 1: Near High Speed Rail: The cost would be $257,200 annually, with a $224,500 subsidy to remove a single auto trip every day (for a round trip, $514,400 annual cost and $449,000 annual tax subsidy).



Technology Alternative 2: Conventional High Speed Rail: The cost would be $412,200 annually, with a $379,000 subsidy to remove a single auto trip every day (for a round trip, $824,400 annual cost and $758,000 annual tax subsidy).



Technology Alternative 3: Magnetic Levitation: The cost would be $641,500 annually, with a $605,400 subsidy to remove a single auto trip every day (for a round trip, $1,283,000 annual cost and $1,210,800 annual tax subsidy).

IMPACT ON AIR TRAVEL

The high speed rail system would have little impact on Florida's airports. With respect to the defunct FOX high speed rail system, the Florida Department of Transportation projected reduction of only 60 flights daily --- barely two percent of the daily air carrier operations at the south and central Florida airports. Moreover, all airports intend to expand to accommodate the increasing demand. Miami International Airport is doubling its capacity. Tampa International Airport intends to expand as required. Orlando International Airport, currently operating at 74 percent of capacity, is planning expansion as demand requires --- it has sufficient land for "unconstrained growth."⁽²⁷⁾ None of Florida's airports is scaling back future investment plans in response to high speed rail.

6. COMPARATIVE COST EFFECTIVENESS

Contrary to the claims of proponents, high speed rail is comparatively costly compared to other alternatives. With respect to the cost per passenger mile of usable capacity:⁽²⁸⁾

The most expensive airport expansions are five to seven times as cost effective as high speed rail.



Freeway lanes are more than 50 times as cost effective as high speed rail, based upon the projections prepared for the now defunct FOX system.⁽²⁹⁾

Further, in the case of both highways and airports, construction and operation is paid for by the users through fuel user fees, tolls and airline ticket taxes.⁽³⁰⁾ Only a portion of high speed rail costs (6 percent to 33 percent) would be paid by users.

APPENDIX

NO. 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

ARTICLE X, SECTION 19

(Initiative)

BALLOT TITLE: Florida Transportation Initiative for statewide high speed monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system.

BALLOT SUMMARY: To reduce traffic and increase travel alternatives, this amendment provides for development of a high speed monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system linking Florida's five largest urban areas and providing for access to existing air and ground transportation facilities and services by directing the state and/or state authorized private entity to implement the financing, acquisition of right-of-way, design, construction and operation of the system, with construction beginning by November 1, 2003.

FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:

Article X, Section 19, Florida Constitution, is hereby created to read as follows:

High Speed Ground Transportation System.

To reduce traffic congestion and provide alternatives to the traveling public, it is hereby declared to be in the public interest that a high speed ground transportation system consisting of a monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system, capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour, be developed and operated in the State of Florida to provide high speed ground transportation by innovative, efficient and effective technologies consisting of dedicated rails or guideways separated from motor vehicular traffic that will link the five largest urban areas of the State as determined by the Legislature and provide for access to existing air and ground transportation facilities and services. The Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor are hereby directed to proceed with the development of such a system by the State and/or by a private entity pursuant to state approval and authorization, including the acquisition of right-of-way, the financing of design and construction of the system, and the operation of the system, as provided by specific appropriation and by law, with construction to begin on or before November 1, 2003.

FOOTNOTES

1. This is the cost of removing a single automobile trip (one-way) every day for a year.

2. The legislature might use urbanized areas rather than metropolitan areas. It might use projected population in a future year, or it could use geographical expanse (area). In the final analysis, the decision of the legislature could be political, which would be allowed under the constitutional amendment ("five largest urban areas of the State as determined by the Legislature").

3. An argument might even be made for consideration of Pensacola as the state's fifth largest urban area. This would add 370 miles to the "basic route system."

4. High Speed Ground Transportation for America, US Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, September 1997 (FRA Report).

5. High speed rail is generally considered to operate at top speeds of 186 miles per hour or more (300 kilometers per hour).

6. Generally, the operating cost, ridership and revenue of this alternative is assumed to be between that of the FRA "Accellerail 125" and conventional high speed rail.

7. FRA Report.

8. All figures are in 2000$.

9. The final capital cost estimate of the defunct FOX high speed rail system is used as a baseline. The costs of near high speed rail and Magnetic Levitation are scaled from that figure, based upon cost differentials in the FRA report.

10. Mette K. Skamris and Bent Flyvbjerg, "Accuracy of Traffic Forecasts and Cost Estimates on Large Transportation Projects," Transportation Research Record (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council), 1996.

11. Operating costs are based upon FRA report estimates, scaled to account for the addition of the Orlando-Jacksonville route.

12. Assumes the issuance of 35 year tax exempt debt at a 5.5 percent interest rate.

13. Scaled upward to account for addition of the Orlando-Jacksonville route.

14. All ridership figures are for passenger journeys, excluding transfers. A Jacksonville to Miami passenger, transferring at Orlando would be counted as a single rider.

15. For example, FRA projects that 21 percent to 17 to 28 percent of high speed rail's ridership would be attracted from airlines. This calculates, according to FRA ridership projections, 2,500 and 5,400 daily riders who would transfer from airlines. This is 15 to 25 percent of the airline market in the Florida corridors studied. If it is assumed that airline patronage will continue to grow through 2020 at the population adjusted rate of the 1990s. This would produce between 900 and 1,600 high speed rail riders, based upon the FRA 15 to 25 percent estimate of airline market diversion. Thus, the trend analysis suggests diversion of airline passengers at a rate from 62 to 71 percent below the FRA projections.

16. This range is similar to the results of the James Madison Institute analysis of the FOX report, which estimated "realistic" ridership at 68 percent below the projections of promoters.

17. All ridership figures are for passenger journeys, excluding transfers. A Jacksonville to Miami passenger, transferring at Orlando would be counted as a single rider.

18. Based upon rail route mileage. Air fare data is from the US Department of Transportation consumer fare report for 2000, first quarter.

19. Drivers tend to perceive the cost of automobile travel to be limited to the cost of gasoline, which is approximately five cents per passenger mile at $1.50 per gallon.

20. Scaled to account for addition of the Orlando to Jacksonville route.

21. Total annual deficit divided by annual one-way riders.

22. Calculated using the Internal Revenue Service full cost reimbursement rate of $0.31, divided by the average vehicle occupancy of 1.6. This rate includes the gasoline user fees that finance intercity freeways.

23. Projected based upon traffic volume trend 1990 to 1998 and projected population increase.

24. "Ruling will keep high-speed rail issue on Florida's November ballot," The Times-Union (Jacksonville), 4 October 2000.

25. Estimates of traffic reduction are not provided by FRA for Technology Alternative 1, Near

26. Calculated using FRA Report projection of ridership attracted from highways, adjusted for average vehicle occupancy.

27. Wendell Cox, Evaluation of the FDOT-FOX Miami-Orlando-Tampa High-Speed Rail Proposal, James Madison Institute, April 1997.

28. Usable capacity is the highest reasonably plausible passenger volume. For example, the theoretical capacity of an urban light rail system may be equal to 12 lanes of freeway traffic. However, because corridor light rail demand is so limited, no line carries a volume equal to a single lane of freeway traffic. Thus, light rail's usable capacity represents less than a freeway lane.

29. Wendell Cox, Evaluation of the FDOT-FOX Miami-Orlando-Tampa High-Speed Rail Proposal, James Madison Institute, April 1997.

30. While general tax sources support a portion of local roadway costs, freeways are generally fully supported by user fees.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Wendell Cox is principal of Wendell Cox Consultancy, an international public policy firm. He has provided consulting assistance to the United States Department of Transportation and was certified by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration as an "expert" for the duration of its Public-Private Transportation Network program (1986-1993). He has consulted for public authorities in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and for public policy organizations. He was the author of the James Madison Institute Report on the now defunct Florida Overland Express (FOX) high speed rail project, which contributed to the decision of the state to not proceed.

Mr. Cox served three years as the Director of Public Policy of the American Legislative Exchange Council, where he oversaw the development of state model legislation and policy reports. Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he authored the tax amendment that provided the initial funding for building light rail and the subway. He was elected chairman of the American Public Transit Association Planning and Policy Committee (comprised of transit planning department officials) and the American Public Transit Association Governing Boards Committee (comprised of transit board members). In 1999, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives appointed him to fill the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman on the Amtrak Reform Council.