Brightline Trains

[Urban Mail Carrier]

Money talks!!! This leg is extremely important and we must get it right. Stops at MCO, OCCC, and Disney are in play, the heart of Orlando’s economy. We may need to put up some money.

[WAJAS]

The Hunger's Creek suit is ridiculous. There is no crossings, and the train is quieter than the traffic it will be next to. The only valid complaint is the construction noise, which is something they have already dealt with and will continue to with every project on the 417 in that area.

From the article: “The proposed route through the SR-417 would impose all of the burdens of a high-speed train on the Hunter’s Creek community with none of the benefit.” Lol what. They get two high speed rail stations close to their residences with the possibility for a commuter rail right in their neighborhood connecting to both. I'd say they got more benefits than most of the people on the route.

I'm not necessarily against the 528 route, but I much prefer the 417 one. The increased costs for the 528 route will likely require public investment, which could be much better spent on other projects, such as the OIA Connector and Sunrail East/West. There's other reasons as well, like that the increased distance and additional OCCC station would increase the time from Orlando to Tampa, which would make users less likely to utilize the service.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by WAJAS
Corrected grammar and changed "417" to "528" in the second sentence of the third paragraph.

[jliv]

On 5/17/2021 at 12:28 AM, WAJAS said:

The Hunger's Creek suit is ridiculous. There is no crossings, and the train is quieter than the traffic it will be next to. The only valid complaint is the construction noise, which is something they have already dealt with and will continue to with every project on the 417 in that area.

From the article: “The proposed route through the SR-417 would impose all of the burdens of a high-speed train on the Hunter’s Creek community with none of the benefit.” Lol what. They get two high speed rail stations close to their residences with the possibility for a commuter rail right in their neighborhood connecting to both. I'd say they got more benefits than most of the people on the route.

I'm not necessarily against the 528 route, but I much prefer the 417 one. The increased costs for the 528 route will likely require public investment, which could be much better spent on other projects, such as the OIA Connector and Sunrail East/West. There's other reasons as well, like that the increased distance and additional OCCC station would increase the time from Orlando to Tampa, which would make users less likely to utilize the service.

 

 

Lawyers gotta sue, just like soldiers gotta shoot.  They just need a wiling homeowner's association to represent, and a willing donor to pay their fees.  How much do you want to bet Universal/Comcast is behind the scenes?    I'm just glad the right-of-ways being negotiated are not on Orange County or City of Orlando-owned land, but on land owned by state-chartered bodies like GOAA, CFX, and FDOT.  

Edited May 18, 2021 by jliv

[jrs2]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:46 PM, codypet said:

@orlandocity87When have facts gotten in the way of filing a frivolous suit?  Indian River County has for years touted that Brightline was a front to bring freight trains (particularly LP trains) into Orlando.  For various reasons, that's patently false, but they continue to harp on that lie.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone was trying to say the same about the alignment through Disney as well to stoke fear.

You pretty much called IRC a bunch of fear mongering frivolous lawsuit filing liars...in writing...

In Florida that's called libel.

So,  if IRC sued you for libel, to defend, you would have to prove that your statements were backed by facts.  Right?

So, are your statements about IRC backed by actual facts, or, would you get a judgement against you because IRC is actually privy to facts that you aren't aware of to the contrary?  

Now THAT would be interesting to see...

[WAJAS]

9 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

You pretty much called IRC a bunch of fear mongering frivolous lawsuit filing liars...in writing...

In Florida that's called libel.

So,  if IRC sued you for libel, to defend, you would have to prove that your statements were backed by facts.  Right?

So, are your statements about IRC backed by actual facts, or, would you get a judgement against you because IRC is actually privy to facts that you aren't aware of to the contrary?  

Now THAT would be interesting to see...

I know this is not extremely relevant, but it would be on IRC to prove that his statements were not backed by facts. He doesn't have the burden of proof there.

Also, IRC's position doesn't make sense using publicly assessable information. The ROW given to Brightline on the 528 specifically disallows freight traffic with some specific exceptions, like track maintenance.

Edited May 18, 2021 by WAJAS

[jrs2]

5 minutes ago, WAJAS said:

I know this is not extremely relevant, but it would be on IRC to prove that his statements were not backed by facts. He doesn't have the burden of proof there.

Also, IRC's position doesn't make sense using publicly assessable information. The ROW given to Brightline on the 528 specifically disallows freight traffic with some specific exceptions, like track maintenance.

same difference.  the question is whether IRC is relying on actual facts?  If it's a frivolous lawsuit, did they get hit with a 57.105?  If they didn't ask yourself why. 

[WAJAS]

1 minute ago, jrs2 said:

same difference.  the question is whether IRC is relying on actual facts?  If it's a frivolous lawsuit, did they get hit with a 57.105?  If they didn't ask yourself why. 

It's definitely not the same difference. Burden of proof plays a key role in innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know the details of the previous lawsuit, and I also know that frivolous lawsuits do not always get hit with a 57.105. I don't know the timeline here. Did the ROW restriction occur before/after/during IRC's first case? All I know is based on @codypet's characterization of the IRC's position, their reasoning doesn't make sense.

I realize I've gotten in the middle of a discussion that I don't care to contribute to, so let me bow out now.

[jrs2]

5 minutes ago, WAJAS said:

It's definitely not the same difference. Burden of proof plays a key role in innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know the details of the previous lawsuit, and I also know that frivolous lawsuits do not always get hit with a 57.105. I don't know the timeline here. Did the ROW restriction occur before/after/during IRC's first case? All I know is based on @codypet's characterization of the IRC's position, their reasoning doesn't make sense.

I realize I've gotten in the middle of a discussion that I don't care to contribute to, so let me bow out now.

My point is simply whether FEC plans to run freight in the future, and IRC knows this, which means they are not fear mongering frivolous lawsuit filing liars. 

[spenser1058]

55 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

My point is simply whether FEC plans to run freight in the future, and IRC knows this, which means they are not fear mongering frivolous lawsuit filing liars. 

I would expect a viable refutation to the argument (which apparently was unmentioned, which seems odd - talk about ignoring the pink elephant in the room) is that if FEC encroached on CSX territory, they’d be stoking a conflagration that would be difficult for them to contain.

Edited May 19, 2021 by spenser1058

[jrs2]

13 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I would expect a viable refutation to the argument (which apparently was unmentioned, which seems odd - talk about ignoring the pink elephant in the room) is that if FEC encroached on CSX territory, they’d be stoking a conflagration that would be difficult for them to contain.

the point is that I saw something a few years ago to support Vero's host county's point of view, which is contrary of codypet's fervent exclamations and cheerleading sentence pronouncement of them.  I admit it set me off a little for a couple reasons- one, being that you can't just accuse people without first knowing your sh!t.  I mean, the only thing missing from his post was a heavy wind to fan the flames of the witch hunt bonfire.   And, the other thing is that it goes to illustrate that this whole perceivably anti-NIMBY attitude that is sometimes colored with traditional red and blue goggles when it comes to rail needs to be tempered with actual facts.  I'm no mod, but if one doesn't know the facts, then one shouldn't act like they do or assume just to please the crowd when it comes to legal matters.  That's the other point which was lost in WAJAS's need to legally fence with me like Jean Luc in that time slip episode.  My point was simply- are you that sure of your info that you are willing to risk a hypothetical libel suit.  Meaning, by which authority do you claim to know more than Vero's host county and it's lawyers in this case to have the nerve to call them out like that? 

Spenser, you and I mainly flushed out the CSX deal long ago ala Mica, the philanthropic CSX, and Sunrail etc.  This deal is possibly no different conceptually or maybe a little different. I am not against it; I'm just against the above.  You do make a good point about the pink elephant.

[jliv]

18 hours ago, jrs2 said:

My point is simply whether FEC plans to run freight in the future, and IRC knows this, which means they are not fear mongering frivolous lawsuit filing liars. 

The Cocoa-Orlando route won't allow it.  The tunnels and bridges along that route are only designed to accommodate passenger trains.  Now, if Brightline decides they want to allow directing of freight rail from the FDOT-owned rail lines through Orlando to the 417 route, then neighborhood organisations like Hunter's Creek have an obligation to protest.  That's not the case here, and the risk that this might happen can be mitigated by a thorough design review process which allows for challenges to any design decisions to accommodate freight traffic. 

BTW I'm also a cheerleader for passenger rail because of climate change, a desire to move towards forms of transit which help reduce the flow of petrodollars to medieval countries, and a general bias against forcing people into automobiles to enjoy prosperous lives.

Edited May 19, 2021 by jliv

[jrs2]

24 minutes ago, jliv said:

The Cocoa-Orlando route won't allow it.  The tunnels and bridges along that route are only designed to accommodate passenger trains.  Now, if Brightline decides they want to allow directing of freight rail from the FDOT-owned rail lines through Orlando to the 417 route, then neighborhood organisations like Hunter's Creek have an obligation to protest.  That's not the case here, and the risk that this might happen can be mitigated by a thorough design review process which allows for challenges to any design decisions to accommodate freight traffic. 

BTW I'm also a cheerleader for passenger rail because of climate change, a desire to move towards forms of transit which help reduce the flow of petrodollars to medieval countries, and a general bias against forcing people into automobiles to enjoy prosperous lives.

what I saw was east of the airport by a few miles

[codypet]

19 hours ago, jliv said:

The Cocoa-Orlando route won't allow it.  The tunnels and bridges along that route are only designed to accommodate passenger trains.  Now, if Brightline decides they want to allow directing of freight rail from the FDOT-owned rail lines through Orlando to the 417 route, then neighborhood organisations like Hunter's Creek have an obligation to protest.  That's not the case here, and the risk that this might happen can be mitigated by a thorough design review process which allows for challenges to any design decisions to accommodate freight traffic. 

BTW I'm also a cheerleader for passenger rail because of climate change, a desire to move towards forms of transit which help reduce the flow of petrodollars to medieval countries, and a general bias against forcing people into automobiles to enjoy prosperous lives.

 

On 5/18/2021 at 6:29 PM, WAJAS said:

I know this is not extremely relevant, but it would be on IRC to prove that his statements were not backed by facts. He doesn't have the burden of proof there.

Also, IRC's position doesn't make sense using publicly assessable information. The ROW given to Brightline on the 528 specifically disallows freight traffic with some specific exceptions, like track maintenance.

@jrs2 These are my facts.

Edited May 20, 2021 by codypet

[jrs2]

On 5/20/2021 at 9:52 AM, codypet said:

 

@jrs2 These are my facts.

The lawsuits by IRC were about bond financing and railway maintenance costs; nothing about secretly planning on moving freight.  

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2019/01/17/brightline-faces-new-lawsuit-from-indian-river.html

Below is an article where they state that the bond allocations made by DOT fell under the SAFETEA-LU from 2005- The Act dealt with giving PAB money to projects, among others, that had freight transfer facilities.  

https://www.enotrans.org/article/house-subcommittee-scrutinizes-floridas-brightline/

So, how exactly does any possible IRC commentary on the subject of freight make them "liars?" 

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/08/29/brightline-rail-expansion-gets-controversial-approval-for-175-billion-in-bonds

In the above 2018  article, they are mainly concerned over safety.

[spenser1058]

4 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

The lawsuits by IRC were about bond financing and railway maintenance costs; nothing about secretly planning on moving freight.  

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2019/01/17/brightline-faces-new-lawsuit-from-indian-river.html

Below is an article where they state that the bond allocations made by DOT fell under the SAFETEA-LU from 2005- The Act dealt with giving PAB money to projects, among others, that had freight transfer facilities.  

https://www.enotrans.org/article/house-subcommittee-scrutinizes-floridas-brightline/

So, how exactly does any possible IRC commentary on the subject of freight make them "liars?" 

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/08/29/brightline-rail-expansion-gets-controversial-approval-for-175-billion-in-bonds

In the above 2018  article, they are mainly concerned over safety.

Did you know Indian River County has more retired Fortune 500 CEOs than any county in the US? Let’s hear it for Zero Beach!

[codypet]

J

19 hours ago, jrs2 said:

The lawsuits by IRC were about bond financing and railway maintenance costs; nothing about secretly planning on moving freight.  

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2019/01/17/brightline-faces-new-lawsuit-from-indian-river.html

Below is an article where they state that the bond allocations made by DOT fell under the SAFETEA-LU from 2005- The Act dealt with giving PAB money to projects, among others, that had freight transfer facilities.  

https://www.enotrans.org/article/house-subcommittee-scrutinizes-floridas-brightline/

So, how exactly does any possible IRC commentary on the subject of freight make them "liars?" 

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/08/29/brightline-rail-expansion-gets-controversial-approval-for-175-billion-in-bonds

In the above 2018  article, they are mainly concerned over safety.

https://cbs12.com/news/cbs12-news-i-team/cbs-12-news-investigates-bomb-trains-congress

Over the last few years they've brought stuff like this up and stirred their constituents into a fear frenzy over Brightline.   My facts remain that they can't physically bring what is being referred to here as bomb trains to Orlando.

[jrs2]

On 5/22/2021 at 1:11 PM, codypet said:

J

https://cbs12.com/news/cbs12-news-i-team/cbs-12-news-investigates-bomb-trains-congress

Over the last few years they've brought stuff like this up and stirred their constituents into a fear frenzy over Brightline.   My facts remain that they can't physically bring what is being referred to here as bomb trains to Orlando.

fair enough on that point which you and JIIV made.

But as I indicated above, I did see a plan along this route at the beginning of this thing, and I was known in those circles.  This, plus the fact that it was a prerequisite within the context of the bond financing, made it a known fact for IRC to challenge, regardless of whether FEC purportedly changed the load sizes of the tunnels and bridges afterward to allay fears originally addressed by IRC.

[codypet]

17 hours ago, jrs2 said:

fair enough on that point which you and JIIV made.

But as I indicated above, I did see a plan along this route at the beginning of this thing, and I was known in those circles.  This, plus the fact that it was a prerequisite within the context of the bond financing, made it a known fact for IRC to challenge, regardless of whether FEC purportedly changed the load sizes of the tunnels and bridges afterward to allay fears originally addressed by IRC.

My understanding was it was more a financial issue for BL than to asway any concerns by IRC, however it is possible both were the cause of the current design.

[jrs2]

12 hours ago, codypet said:

My understanding was it was more a financial issue for BL than to asway any concerns by IRC, however it is possible both were the cause of the current design.

sorry bout this recent string of comments.  I was PMS'ing...

[Poe Tempkin]

On 5/21/2021 at 5:58 PM, jrs2 said:

The lawsuits by IRC were about bond financing and railway maintenance costs; nothing about secretly planning on moving freight. 

The conspiracy theory naming Brightline a cover for a secret freight expansion is one I've mainly seen on anti-Brightline social media pages. A relatively recent enhancement to the theory is the inclusion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as the boogeyman freight to be transported after the Brightline facade was dropped.

[spenser1058]

Brightline building 600-ft tunnel:

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2021/06/08/brightline-building-600-foot-long-tunnel-lead-trains-beneath-state-road-528/7489797002/?gnt-cfr=1
 

From Florida Today 

[Uncommon]

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2021/06/10/brightline-route-controversy-orlando-tampa-florida.html
 

This could be good news, or potentially devastating news. More pushback from county leaders and other stakeholders about Brightline choosing the 417 route. It seems that’s Brightline’s preferred route but the public wants it to go to I-Drive and an independent study shows it might actually be cheaper than the 417 route, claiming Brightline didn’t do its due diligence on the 528 route. Brightline is back to the drawing board. The deadline is fast approaching.

It could be a positive if it forced Brightline to choose the 528 and serve the tourist area, which is a major win for the region. Imagine a train serving MCO, Disney, Universal, and the OCCC. On the other hand, we’ve seen numerous proposals come and go because of disagreements. I hope to god Brightline doesn’t somehow cancel the route to Tampa entirely. That would be devastating.

[Poe Tempkin]

2 hours ago, Uncommon said:

 I hope to god Brightline doesn’t somehow cancel the route to Tampa entirely. That would be devastating.

It's possible. They're under the gun. time-wise, to reach an agreement, and also under pressure to select what they judge to be a more expensive route. Are any of the parties insisting on the I-Drive route going to pony up money for the increased cost? Is Disney sweetening the deal somehow for exclusivity? I'd also like to see all the areas you mentioned serviced, but just Disney and then onto Tampa would work too.

[jrs2]

15 minutes ago, Poe Tempkin said:

It's possible. They're under the gun. time-wise, to reach an agreement, and also under pressure to select what they judge to be a more expensive route. Are any of the parties insisting on the I-Drive route going to pony up money for the increased cost? Is Disney sweetening the deal somehow for exclusivity? I'd also like to see all the areas you mentioned serviced, but just Disney and then onto Tampa would work too.

So, I wonder if they are wanting Orange County to "donate" some land along 528 or wherever for Brightline to develop in exchange for taking that route.  Orange has that parking deck on the north side of 528 near the Hilton Orlando and surface lots.

Personally, I feel that Brightline has to go thru the 528 corridor to be a win for Orlando and the County.  Otherwise, only DIsney benefits.  This way, the OCCC, Universal, and I-drive all benefit- including Disney because their stop wouldn't change.  Disney just wants the next stop from MCO to be Disney.  But the OCCC needs the stop to have a competitive edge.  Epic Universe is a big entertainment plus for the OCCC to market, but a Brightline stop right there is just as big or bigger.

[jack]

4 hours ago, Uncommon said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2021/06/10/brightline-route-controversy-orlando-tampa-florida.html
 

This could be good news, or potentially devastating news. More pushback from county leaders and other stakeholders about Brightline choosing the 417 route. It seems that’s Brightline’s preferred route but the public wants it to go to I-Drive and an independent study shows it might actually be cheaper than the 417 route, claiming Brightline didn’t do its due diligence on the 528 route. Brightline is back to the drawing board. The deadline is fast approaching.

It could be a positive if it forced Brightline to choose the 528 and serve the tourist area, which is a major win for the region. Imagine a train serving MCO, Disney, Universal, and the OCCC. On the other hand, we’ve seen numerous proposals come and go because of disagreements. I hope to god Brightline doesn’t somehow cancel the route to Tampa entirely. That would be devastating.

So Brightline based their estimates off of their real current costs. The opposition hired a civil firm to counter and it came in lower. Unless Disney is paying Brightline a ton of money, and I mean a ton, why would they sandbag? Between the two groups I know I would not trust the oppositions cost estimates.