Letters to the editor

+ Long-term success of rail line should be determined
Dear Editor:
I, too, am skeptical about the efficacy of a high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. I don’t know why people need to go 85 miles from point A to point B faster or what types of transportation demands this line would serve. I do know that the more stops, the slower the operating speeds, so instead of high-speed rail you get rapid rail typical of other urban transit systems.

Focusing on the short-term effects of the investment in terms of job creation is shortsighted vis-à-vis the long-term costs of operating and maintaining the rail line, especially if the initial wow factor wears off, as does ridership. Of course, the success of the line depends on whether the goals and expectations and public benefits identified with the project can be reasonably met. I am making my own inquiries before rendering judgment.

I do know as a land-use planner involved in the Washington Metro Rapid Rail System since the early 1970s that Metro enabled tremendous economic growth and improved mobility and choice. Development near transit stations and enhanced land values, reflecting density increases and the desirability of being accessible to transit, have allowed local suburban jurisdictions to diversify their economies and their employment base.

I don’t know whether the Florida high-speed rail has been analyzed as to its effects on land use economic development; however, this is a critical element to measuring the success of a rail passenger transit. As pointed out in your editorial page, having dense, urban nodes at either end of a rail line is important to sustain ridership. However, densification can be the result of construction of the rail line and not necessarily a requisite pre-condition.

The King Street Metro Station Area, in Alexandria, Va., once was a collection of warehouses and auto dealership lots. Now it houses somewhere around 10 million square feet of mixed-use development, all without building a new highway or appreciably expanding road capacity beyond local access roads, and the pace of development took 30 years and is still happening. 

I do take issue with the Jan. 6 editorial in its politicization of transit and in narrowcasting its benefits. Transit is not a left-wing conspiracy to rob taxpayers. People who use transit subsidize people who use cars in terms of reduced congestion, and people who use cars don’t fully pay the costs of using them. Congestion is not fully funded and is an economic drain on our economy and our environment.
Dense, transit-oriented development is a more efficient economic use of land and resources than highway. I support a fair and objective inquiry by Gov. Scott as to the costs and benefits of the proposed Tampa/Orlando and Orlando/Tampa rail lines. But if his inquiry is as politically tinged as your editorial, why bother, and just proceed to a pre-ordained conclusion to reject the federal monies.
Larry Grossman
Longboat Key