Part 3: Harry Bruce Challenges AAF on Government Loan. Please share this POST & LIKE this page. Email your protest to: AAF_comments@vhb (copy letter at bottom of this post). AAF CLAIMS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP-OPERATION & No Federal and State Grants or Ongoing Subsidies Will or Have Been Requested. False. FAA needs this sweet deal of a loan that rides on taxpayers backs. A loan that was never intended for this type of use by the Federal government. The state and local communities will pay for infrastructure to benefit the project, including quiet zones and an intermodal transportation hub at the Orlando International Airport. Additionally, according to PolitiFact, AAF may not always be a “100 percent private venture” since it has applied for a 1.875 BILLION dollar federal loan. AAF estimates their HSR will cost $2.5 billion, and is asking for over half the cost to be supported by taxpayers. We are being bribed with fantastical promises to support an unprofitable train unsafely retrofitted to old rail beds that does not serve the communities it passes through - this is not railway done right. AAF REPORTS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE FULL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY by covering costs with a mix of debt, equity and ongoing subsidies. However, even with adequate ridership, the AAF would not be financially self-sufficient based on historical comparisons with other routes. The following are a few examples: HSR in Chicago (unprofitable) was supported by the city’s transportation authority, a city whose population is two times larger than four AAF cities combined. A 40 mile trip from Chicago’s loop to Olympic Fields carried passengers without any concern for delays resulting from sharing tracks with freight or any other operation. It had brand new double decker coaches, and it was regularly packed with standing room only (so it successfully maintained ridership expectations). Even then, 25 million dollars was earned, and another 25 million was needed in subsidy from the transport authority, just to break even. HSR in China (unprofitable) is supported by the government and is currently in debt, inspite of incentives. China’s HSR is considered to be extremely popular, and the government makes an effort to set fares a little less than half of comparable airfare in addition to other incentives. However, the Chinese Government is currently struggling with nearly $500 billion in overall rail debt. HSR in Japan is successfully maintained by other investments. Even in Japan, one of the best countries for HSR because of its geography and population density, the trains are maintained by other investments. JR East is one of seven (and the largest) for-profit companies that own Japan’s national railways and the largest by passenger numbers. The JR stays afloat because it owns all the infrastructure on the route—the stations, the rolling stock and the tracks. It also owns the land around the railways and rents it out; nearly a third of its revenue comes from shopping malls, blocks of offices, flats and the like. DESPITE all of this, “71% of the revenue from passenger tickets at JR East comes from the conventional, slower railway.” So lets not get in debt over this - Florida cannot sustain a profitable rail operation. ALL ABOARD FLORIDA STATES THAT HSR IS A SYMBOL OF PROGRESS AROUND THE WORLD. However, AAF would more likely be a symbol of DYSFUNCTION because Florida does not have conditions that would support its success. Unlike in other countries, the US does not provide incentives for using HSR. According to a government document about factors supporting HSR, “Compared to the United States, countries with HSR have higher population densities, smaller land areas, lower per capita levels of car ownership, higher gasoline prices, lower levels of car use (measured both by number of trips per day and average distance per trip), and higher levels of public transportation availability and use” . The population of AAF’s cities are too small to provide the level of ridership necessary for HSR profitability. Tokyo and Osaka have over 17 billion residents, By comparison, Orlandos population is 255 thousand and Miamis is 418 thousand. This same government document also suggests, “Other countries with high speed rail systems support HSR use through both incentives (e.g., widespread provision of a complementary mode, public transit) and disincentives (e.g., high road tolls and high taxes on motor fuel to make automobile use more expensive). Without similar policies in place, HSR ridership in the United States may not fulfill expectations based on the experiences of other countries” PLEASE SEND THE FOLLOWING LETTER TO THE FRA HERE: AAF_comments@vhb or by mail to: Mr. John Winkle, Federal Railroad Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room W38-311, Washington, DC 20590 Comments must be submitted in writing by December 3, 2014 in order to be considered. LETTER The Draft EIS regarding All Aboard Florida is clearly posturing on the part of The Federal Railroad Administration to sign off on an ill advised high-speed passenger rail project. AAF needs to be stopped - history dictates that it is unlikely ever to be financially independent of major tax-payer obligation, and it is clear the benefits are not worthy of the burden on tax-payers. Our country is in debt up to it’s eyeballs, and should not fund or approve a train project that is unsafely retrofitted to old rail beds, does not stop to serve passengers in the communities it is passing through, is funded with almost 2 BILLION dollars of taxpayers money, and carries the magical claim that its service will remove 3,000,000 cars from the road. Florida does not have conditions that would support its success. According to The Federal Train Policy report, “The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events,”* published in December 30, 2013 about factors supporting HSR, “Compared to the United States, countries with HSR have higher population densities, smaller land areas, lower per capita levels of car ownership, higher gasoline prices, lower levels of car use (measured both by number of trips per day and average distance per trip), and higher levels of public transportation availability and use” are more successful with HSR projects. The population of AAF’s cities are too small to provide the level of ridership necessary for HSR profitability. Tokyo and Osaka have over 17 billion residents, By comparison, Orlandos population is 255 thousand and Miamis is 418 thousand. The same Federal Policy report “quotes a 1997 study in which the FRA estimated, in most cases rail improvements would divert only 3%-6% of intercity automobile trips, and even less in corridors with average trip lengths under 150 miles.” So there won’t be significantly less cars on the road. Certainly not 3,000,000. The train does not even serve most of the communities it passes through, but it will devastate them. A coastal topography unique to the United States will be destroyed by corporate greed. We request that the federal Government Accountability Office review the project’s costs and risks of default, as well as the interest rate that would be assessed to their $1.875 billion loan. Why should a “privately funded” project be the on the shoulders of the taxpayers. We request curtailment of the development of AAF since every bit of evidence points to failure despite false promises to the contrary. We request responsible leadership and decision making regarding tax-dependent projects, and we, the tax-payers, look forward to your accountability and response to our concerns.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:39:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015