• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Tampa to Orlando High-Speed Rail Line: Protecting Taxpayers

    Last week, Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) rejected $2.4 billion in federal funding for a proposed high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando. The governor’s decision was based upon the likelihood of an up to $3 billion cost overrun, the likelihood of operating subsidies, and the requirement that the federal grant would have to be repaid if trains were not operating frequently enough, even if they were nearly empty.

    Governor Scott joins other governors in this trend: Governor Chris Christie (R), who canceled a new Hudson River tunnel that was already in the process of escalating the liability of New Jersey taxpayers, and Governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin (R) and John Kasich of Ohio (R), who canceled so-called high-speed rail projects in their own states that would travel little faster than the fastest trains of the 1930s.

    Since Governor Scott’s action, there has been a flurry of activity by political officials, such as Senator Bill Nelson of Florida (D) and Congressman John Mica of Florida (R), to circumvent the Governor’s decision. It seems likely that the surviving proposal will be to establish a new local government entity along the corridor that would oversee the project. Arrangements need to be in place by Friday, according to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, or the funding goes to other states. This is indicative of the Obama Administration’s desperate efforts to force states to build high speed rail without regard to the costs.

    Proponents are working overtime to convince the public that there is no taxpayer obligation and that a private consortium that would build and operate the system would pay for it. Anyone familiar with projects of this sort knows that no private consortium could sustain the potentially huge cost overruns and operating subsidies.

    All parties agree that neither state nor local taxpayers must be liable for cost increases, operating subsidies or the potential return of money to the federal government. The reality, however, is that federal policy requires the state or local government receiving the federal funding to assume these liabilities. When the costs exceed the limited resources of the private consortium, only the taxpayers will be left.

    Promises and statements from project promoters will not reimburse the taxpayers when the private consortium fails to pay. The inevitable statements of regret will do nothing to soften the blow.

    Protecting the Taxpayers: It would be difficult, but not impossible, to establish guarantees that protect the taxpayers. Nothing less than the following would be required:

    1. Performance Bond: The private companies forming the consortium would need to post a performance bond to cover the potential capital cost increase ($3 billion) as well as potential operating subsidies. This would be an insurance policy to guarantee payment when the private consortium cannot pay. To proceed without this would be as foolhardy driving on a Los Angeles freeway without car insurance.
    2. Unlimited Corporate Guarantees: The private companies forming the consortium would need to provide corporate guarantees to cover cost overruns, operating subsidies and any eventual requirement to pay back the federal grant. This would be necessary to protect taxpayers if the performance bond (insurance policy) proves insufficient.

    Promoters have confidently told the public that there will be no cost overruns and that operating subsidies will not be necessary—so there should be no objection to these requirements. Finally, similar taxpayer protections should be provided for all other federally funded high-speed rail projects, such as in California.

    Special Treatment for Florida: There have been press reports that the proposed new corridor agency and its taxpayers would not be liable for the obligations described above. In fact, this would violate both federal policy and practice. Moreover, any such special treatment for Florida would doubtless bring a rash of requests from state and local governments that have had to pay for cost overruns in other such federally financed projects or recover money returned to Washington. Governor Christie might well be at the front of the line if this foolish project goes forward.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to The Tampa to Orlando High-Speed Rail Line: Protecting Taxpayers

    1. Kevin Wright says:

      If speed is such an attractive feature – give me speed on our roads. I am sick and tired of the nanny state sitting in ambush for a motorist who simply wants to go when and where he wants at a speed that he chooses. Why is it Germany can have faster, safer roads than the United States of America? You high speed rail boondoggle types have let the cat out of the bag. If speed is good, let me go fast on the highway, it will increase the capacity of the roads, and allow more efficient use of driver travel time. We can hire FEWER traffic cops, and collect more in road taxes.

    2. Bobbie says:

      "Mickey Mouse" says it all, doesn't he (or it?)

      "This is indicative of the Obama Administration’s desperate efforts to force states to build high speed rail without regard to the costs". =Or regard to the lack of public interest. You still have to get to the train station and you're not dropped off in front of your destiny. It's deceptive waste! Government bureaucrats can use their own undeserved pay to establish in the private sector to ensure no tax increases if it means that much to them.

    3. Pingback: The Tampa to Orlando High-Speed Rail Line: Protecting Taxpayers « South Capitol Street

    4. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Tampa to Orlando High-Speed Rail Line: Protecting Taxpayers | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    5. Rob Hicks, Tampa, FL says:

      Who is going to be riding this high speed train? A recent Tampa Tribune article says that the price of a ticket from Tampa Airport to the Orlando Airport is project to be $30. Therefore if I take my wife and two kids on the train to visit Disney World for the day, I will be spending an additional $240 for rail tickets, plus bus transportation to Disney. Any time I gained on the train would certainly be used up on the bus ride.

      Compare this to driving my car 77 miles to the front entrance of the park. Since I have an SUV I only get 18 miles per gallon on the interstate. At $3.00 per gallon that translates to a total cost of $25 for the round trip. Still, a savings of $215, which would buy a boat load of Mickey Mouse ears. Plus my kids are not missing the fireworks so that we can get back to the train station on time.

      Let’s next consider a single business man heading over to Orlando for a business meeting. It is still going to cost him $60 for the round trip, plus transportation to and from the rail station and possibly parking fees for his car at the Tampa end while he is gone. This is more than double what it would cost him to drive.

      Until the cost of the more convenient option of driving your own car exceeds the cost of riding the train, with all of its logistic pitfalls, people are just not going to do it!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.