High Speed Rail System Coming to Florida? Again.

Here’s a little Pop Quiz. Jason is to Friday the 13th movies as _____ is to transportation in the state of Florida. If your answer was “The Bullet Train or High Speed Rail System” you are exactly correct…. it’s Back!

You may recall that in November of 2000, Florida voters pass a Constitutional Amendment directing the Florida Legislature to develop and operate a high speed ground transportation system capable of speeds in excess of 120 mph. The Amendment required that construction begin on or before November 1, 2003 and touted inexpensive travel such as a one-way trip from Tallahassee to Jacksonville taking 1 hour and 30 minutes and costing just $16.30. But a funny thing happened before the bullet train express could muster up enough steam to leave the station. In 2004, then-governor Jeb Bush, successfully led an effort to derail the Amendment on the basis that Floridian’s, “really didn't know what they were approving” and that the estimated $6 billion cost would actually soar to $20 billion bankrupting the state. Governor Bush may have been right, but thanks to nearly $13 billion for high-speed rail (HSR) that was tucked into President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package, Florida politicians are now eagerly scurrying to get back onboard the train with Governor Crist leading the way and blowing the whistle.

Florida, which is set to pass New York as the nation's third most inhabited state, has a geographical footprint that makes it frustrating and expensive to traverse. Driving between major cities such as Miami and Tallahassee can be a numbing experience, and please don’t get me started on flying around the state which is problematic at best and financially impractical. Since World War II, the U.S. has poured almost $2 trillion into highway and aviation systems, while passenger rail — like the wheezing federal Amtrak line — has received less than 3% of Washington's transportation dollars. Florida’s record of funding mass transit initiatives has been even less impressive but our state leaders now see these stimulus dollars as an opportunity to jump start an alternative rail system that could provide much needed relief to our over-stressed auto and air infrastructures.

The Florida Department of Transportation recently submitted two stimulus proposals for funding. The first is a $30 million application to conduct a project development and environmental study for an Orlando to Miami high speed rail corridor. The second application requests $2.6 billion to design-build-maintain and operate a high speed rail system within the 100 mile Tampa to Orlando corridor. The Tampa to Orlando proposals calls for the use of the more eco-friendly electric TGV trains popular in Europe and would run along a high speed rail corridor located within the existing median of Interstate 4. Local communities along the proposed I-4 corridor are touting both the economic and environmental benefits of the project but opponents see it as financial quicksand, certain the Orlando-Tampa line will end up costing much more than $2.6 billion.

Will Florida actually move forward with a high speed rail system this time around or, like those Friday the 13^th movies, should we look forward to yet another sequel? You will be hearing a great deal on this issue over the next few months but it appears that the prospect of free money, the promise of a high tech traffic decongestant, and the prospect of creating 20,000 higher-wage jobs during these difficult economic times may just punch the ticket that allows this train to leave the station. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome bbruggner@gmail.com

There’s Something “Happening” in the State of Denmark

Over the next several weeks you’ll probably be hearing a great deal about both types of Copenhagen. The smokeless kind you put between your cheek and gum will be brought to America (this year in high definition) as the Yankees and Phillies battle it out for the championship of Major League Baseball.  In December another battle will begin in Copenhagen, Denmark as representatives from nearly 190 nations gather for a world climate summit in an effort to forge a new international agreement to tackle climate change and combat global warming.  This contest, like our World Series, will feature nations with high power offenses looking to hit a financial home-run while opposing nations are hoping to use their best closers to minimize the damage. This contest will be keenly contested, negotiations will be intense, and the outcome will probably be decided by heroics in the very late innings.

The road to Copenhagen was paved by the Kyoto Climate Protocol, which was signed in 1997 and is set to expire in 2012. The Kyoto agreement set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As of October 2009, 184 nations have signed and ratified the protocol with the United States, which accounted for 36.1% of the 1990 emission levels, being the most notable non-signatory.

Opponents view the Copenhagen summit as an attempt by climate zealots to impose economy-crippling emission caps worldwide and require billions in wealth to be transferred from developed nations like the United States to undeveloped nations. They argue that capping emissions is an attempt to restrict their economic growth and competition while imposing what amounts to global warming reparations. Last week China and India, which account for nearly a third of the world’s population, signed a deal saying they won’t go along with any agreement in Copenhagen that would force them to impose greenhouse-gas emission limits.

Proponents argue that the time has passed to “do nothing” and that the physical and economic impact of global warming is already much worse than anyone could have anticipated. Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting in higher global temperatures are rapidly changing precipitation patterns, decreasing water availability, reducing air quality, and increasing the frequency of floods, droughts and wildfires while causing widespread famine and disease. In recent weeks, industry leaders such as Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric, began coming out in support of climate change legislation which they feel would create millions of new green jobs, unleash huge investments in new, low-carbon markets, and thereby spur economic growth.

Once again the United States will be a key player in determining what happens in Copenhagen. Other nations are watching to see whether the Senate will make progress on a pending climate and energy bill that would spell out the U.S. national emissions-reduction plan. Without a new law on the books requiring cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. could end up going empty-handed to Copenhagen leaving them with little room to negotiate. Legislation before the U.S. Senate, like a bill that passed the House of Representatives in June, would cap emissions and provide funding for climate assistance. It would set a limit on emissions that ratchets down each year until it reaches an 83 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2050.

Persuading the public that the long-term effects of climate change could be averted by action taken now will be difficult in these tough economic times. No matter what side of this issue you fall on, the stakes are high as the entire global community continues to face the inter-related challenges of solving a global economic crisis, a climate crisis and an energy security crisis. Your comments, ideas and suggestions are always welcome (bbruggner@gmail.com)