Brightline Trains

[gibby]

I found the plans for the maintenance facility on-line.  From the plans, it looks like they are expecting to use the old high speed rail alignment along Taft-Vineland instead of using the OUC spur and then the Sunrail tracks.

brightline.pdf

[codypet]

^Hint:  The Sunrail tracks are on those plans.

[Dale]

Not a Biz Journal subscriber, but there is an article on how $250 million, from the Trump budget, may help Sunrail and Brightline.

[shardoon]

47 minutes ago, Dale said:

Not a Biz Journal subscriber, but there is an article on how $250 million, from the Trump budget, may help Sunrail and Brightline.

I learned a trick of temporarily suspending java and you can read OBJ to your hearts desire. That article was more about money regarding positive train control. 

[Dale]

3 minutes ago, shardoon said:

I learned a trick of temporarily suspending java and you can read OBJ to your hearts desire. That article was more about money regarding positive train control. 

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[orlandouprise]

can i use that trick for growth spotter? if so how? lol

[codypet]

Both Growthspotter and OBJ will let you read the text only versions of their cached sites.

[jrs2]

22 hours ago, shardoon said:

I learned a trick of temporarily suspending java and you can read OBJ to your hearts desire. That article was more about money regarding positive train control. 

isn't that the tech that Sunrail needs to be able to continue receiving federal aid or insurance?

[codypet]

Likely insurance.  PTC was supposed to be mandated nationally years ago.

[jrs2]

16 minutes ago, codypet said:

Likely insurance.  PTC was supposed to be mandated nationally years ago.

well that's almost more important because without it the existing system will be in jeopardy in the future.

[jrs2]

Wow, this thread was on the 3rd or 4th page of the forum.

To gibby:

I agree with you to a point.  I think the logic is that the Federal money would cover construction but at some point state money would cover the rest and operational expenses.  Aent spelled it out in a prior post of his.  With Brightline, FEC is covering construction and operating expenses and the state pays nothing (unless it donates ROW, for example).  That article I had linked was looking at the only other HSR system from Obama's initiative and they were comparing the problems CA was having to potential problems that Florida could have faced.  

In another article they stated the Tampa Orlando HSR construction would employ 100,000 workers.  I do not believe that is even possible.  How many workers did the reconstruction of I-4 employ from the Polk-Hillsborough reconstruction from the late'90's early 2000's?  At least here, the I-4 easement is already reconstructed from Tampa to Disney and all they would have to do is lay track, etc., but bridge reconstruction for the most part is not necessary.  Maybe the big work would be the 417 easement work- I don't know.  I believe they inflated those numbers to make Scott look bad.  

There are some questions that need to be answered, though, when judging whether Scott's decision was the right one- even fiscally:

How many workers worked on the OIA Intermodal Center, because something akin to that would have had to have been constructed in 2011 for the HSR line. The answer is below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2017/02/14/touring-oias-new-intermodal-complex-photos.html

"nearly 1,000 construction workers" worked on the Intermodal Center.  But remember you have the actual station and the remaining facility.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/traffic/I-4-makeover/os-i4-makeover-job-workshop-20170114-story.html

I-4 Ultimate 21 mile section at peak to employ 2,000 workers and hundreds of engineers.  So, let's say 2,500 workers 

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/gov-rick-scott-says-213m-to-aid-oia-expansion-project-2

The state gave $213M to GOAA for the Intermodal Center.  Would the Obama money have covered this expense by the state?

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/249812-new-orlando-airport-garage-opens-first-anchor-future-terminal

However, the "$211M" is part federal and part State (I don't know the breakdown).  The overall price tag of the facility is $426M roughly...  So, that extra cost, which was born by GOAA and bonds, would have had to be born by GOAA regardless of which plan this was.  Then you have the Tampa station, which would have been a stop in their northern downtown section.  $50-100M perhaps if that?  Polk station: $50M or less?  WDW station: $50M or less.  

So, to be fair, the "100,000" workers employed figure used by Scott's detractors when he said no to the money is a gross exaggeration.   Most of Polk County and all of Hillsborough County portions of I-4 were already reconstructed by 2011 (actually, by the early 2000's).  East Polk, which has maybe 6 to 7 overpasses was reconstructed several years later- I don't know the year.   

So, 21 miles of I-4 through the busiest part of Orlando is at most employing 2,500 workers.  SR 417 easement reconstruction can't possibly be worse than I-4 Ultimate reconstruction.  How many exits from I-4 to OIA? SR 536, JYP, OBT, Orlange Ave, Hunter's Creek- maybe 2 more?  No way that 100,000 workers would be employed on the 2011 HSR proposal.  Here you have 1,000 at OIA, and 2,500 for a 21 mile stretch of I-4 (transfer those 22.1 miles to the 417 segment from OIA to I-4).  Even if there was 1,000 workers at Tampa station, Polk station, and WDW station each, that's 3,000 more workers.  Then you have the track.

Alright, here you go (this post has been open all morning; just found this article below):

https://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=29371

Per that article, they envisioned in 2010 that HSR construction would employ 23,000 workers, not 100,000.  Sunrail Phase I projected to employ 6,700 construction workers for the 61.5 miles of track.  Does that number even make sense when comparing it to HSR construction?  That number is still too high I think.  So, double the Sunrail numbers to 13,000 to be fair.  Add in the 5,500 workers I guesstimated above and that's about 18,000 workers that HSR construction would've employed.

Meanwhile, although HSR did not get built, I-4 Ultimate reconstruction has employed 2,500 workers, East Polk I-4 reconstruction probably employed 500 workers, Sunrail Phase 1 employed 6,700 workers, and Sunrail Phase 2 must be employing at least 4,000 construction workers, and the TOD in downtown Orlando, Kissimmee, Longwood, and Lake Mary and the soon to break ground TOD in DeBary should have employed another 2,000 workers.  That's almost 16,000 workers.  So, it's more or less a wash.

Also, Port Canaveral has built 2 new terminals since 2012, and renovated and modernized 3 more, and another terminal has broken ground, and they built the Container Terminal and Auto carrier terminal among other capital improvement projects.  They also dredged the canal as well.  That should have accounted for another 2,000 workers.  Port of Tampa also underwent capital improvements during that time frame.  And these are projects that in part were able to move forward because of state incentives.

Also, the state gave money to Dolphin's stadium, Citrus Bowl, and Daytona Speedway for capital improvements.  Those projects employed thousands of construction workers.

And now, Brightline has been under construction and planning for at least 6 years now; it was announced only months after Scott rejected the federal funds in 2011.  How many workers have they employed?  Must be in the low thousands thus far.

So, Scott's rejection of those funds wan't done in a vacuum to where it severely affected Florida's push to lower it's unemployment rate.  And I haven't even discussed the state money thrown at Burnham/ Medical City or Scripps in Port St. Lucie area around that  same time as well.

 

[gibby]

Why does it matter how much money the state spent on various project after he rejected the federal money for HSR?  There was $2.4bb in federal money ready in 2011, along with various consortiums of private groups competing to get a contract to operate, maintain and cover any cost overruns.  It was a decision to take $2.4bb out of the 2011-2015 central Florida economy and let it be spent in other states.

[jrs2]

21 minutes ago, gibby said:

Why does it matter how much money the state spent on various project after he rejected the federal money for HSR?  There was $2.4bb in federal money ready in 2011, along with various consortiums of private groups competing to get a contract to operate, maintain and cover any cost overruns.  It was a decision to take $2.4bb out of the 2011-2015 central Florida economy and let it be spent in other states.

thanks for responding.  It was infrastructure and new industry spending.  I figured it was relevant.  maybe not...

[HankStrong]

3 hours ago, jrs2 said:

In another article they stated the Tampa Orlando HSR construction would employ 100,000 workers.  I do not believe that is even possible.  How many workers did the reconstruction of I-4 employ from the Polk-Hillsborough reconstruction from the late'90's early 2000's?  At least here, the I-4 easement is already reconstructed from Tampa to Disney and all they would have to do is lay track, etc., but bridge reconstruction for the most part is not necessary.  Maybe the big work would be the 417 easement work- I don't know.  I believe they inflated those numbers to make Scott look bad.  

I don't know why they did, but that has to be inflated.  One of the largest megaprojects in the history of Planet Earth only used 250,000 workers over 17 years of construction.   The Three Gorges Dam in China (source: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/sxgc/t36512.htm)

No way was the HSR anywhere close to the same size, plus you throw in that China's #1 resource in construction is sheer numbers of workers to throw at them.  I mean it is mind boggling that if 1 billion people died tonight in China and another 1 billion people died tonight in India (that's like 20% of the entire Earth's population or something???) they would still be the #1 and #2 populations on Earth.

[aent]

1 hour ago, gibby said:

Why does it matter how much money the state spent on various project after he rejected the federal money for HSR?  There was $2.4bb in federal money ready in 2011, along with various consortiums of private groups competing to get a contract to operate, maintain and cover any cost overruns.  It was a decision to take $2.4bb out of the 2011-2015 central Florida economy and let it be spent in other states.

Well Rick Scott felt it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend the money on the infrastructure projects if the HSR went through, because if the contract with Virgin fell through or obligations weren't met, the state would be on the hook for those costs and stuck with it. Since the cost randomly decreased by billions when there was a promise others might pay the cost overruns, there was fear among opponents that these other companies would never get it operational, leave it billions in debt, and the state would be covering the cost. If the state did both the projects jrs2 mentioned and the HSR, and what happened in California happened here, Florida's laws would have literally required billions of dollars to be cut in other services, so if we have the same percentage cost overrun as California and the private businesses didn't step forward like promised, just like happened in California, we'd be cutting an extra $6 billion (3x cost overrun) from our schools, emergency services, healthcare systems, etc to make up for our shortfall.

The most similar example is lets say you want to rent out your house. I approach you as a potential tenant and say "hey, I need the house to have all new cabinets if you want me to rent it. I'm even willing to pay an extra $200 a month over asking price if you do it, and I'm gonna lease for 4 years, so it will end up being free to you!" I even got you a quote showing the price of new cabinets and it will pay itself off in the 4 years I live there. It sounds like a great deal, new cabinets for free in the place your renting, but if you take it, it turns out when you replace the cabinets, you need new countertops, and didn't account for that. And then the cabinet guy I got the quote from didn't finish the job, and no one, including me, will lease the place until its done. And then I decide these cabinets didn't come out as nice as I wanted, maybe I'll only lease it for a year or not at all and back out of my lease.... you may get a month rent out of me, but its not gonna cover the cost of cabinets. The extra $200 wasn't free money or free upgrades for your place, its a risk, with perhaps a possible reward and a possible huge negative, its just hard to know how honest I'm being and if things will work out, if I really know what I'm doing.

56 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

thanks for responding.  It was infrastructure and new industry spending.  I figured it was relevant.  maybe not...

It is relevant because Rick Scott felt it was an either/or, not something that would be fiscally responsible for the state to do both on.

[gibby]

Removing $2.4bb from the central Florida economy in 2011-2015 was a good idea in your opinion because the State might have ended up being responsible for $6bb if things went wrong?  The projected cost of the 84 mile HSR "randomly decreased by billions"?  When?  With $2.4bb of federal money for an 84 mile HSR line on 95% public right-of-way and five stations (one of which the State has already paid for and built anyway, lol), you think it was possible that the State would somehow have ended up on the hook for billions of dollars?

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, gibby said:

Removing $2.4bb from the central Florida economy in 2011-2015 was a good idea in your opinion because the State might have ended up being responsible for $6bb if things went wrong?  The projected cost of the 84 mile HSR "randomly decreased by billions"?  When?  With $2.4bb of federal money for an 84 mile HSR line on 95% public right-of-way and five stations (one of which the State has already paid for and built anyway, lol), you think it was possible that the State would somehow have ended up on the hook for billions of dollars?

This excerpt is from aent's post on the other thread from two days ago:

"It was federal money with strings attached, the strings being that the state would end up responsible for completing it if the federal government didn't cover to completion. Originally it was 50% federal and 50% state, with each paying $1.25 billion, but when Wisconsin and Ohio rejected their portion, it would be sent to Florida to supposedly cover Florida's portion as well, but that amount only totaled $342.3 million even though they said it would fully cover the gap. Given the cost overruns we're seeing in other states that took the money, and that we're getting the same thing by a private enterprise with no risk to taxpayers, in hindsight, I think he made the right choice. And I'm pretty confident I was on this here forum complaining when he rejected it, since at the time it seemed like our best and only option to get it, and I didn't think anyone else would step up to do any of it, especially privately without tax dollars."

According to aent, Florida was only going to get $1.25B + $342M (from Ohio/Wisconsin) + a promise to cover the gap... a "promise."

In comparing our proposed line to what's happening in CA, why assume that everything would go as planned with no hiccups when there is no track record for that in the history of major public works projects?  Your philosophy was to employ those 15k to 20k workers for 2 years with the $2.4B with no regard as to whether the system would even survive years later, leaving Florida taxpayers holding the bag.  And the bag they (we) could be holding, if comparable to what happened in CA, would be 3X the projected cost, as it was in CA, the only other HSR system that is available for comparison (as aent mentioned).

Meanwhile, all of those other projects I mentioned were underway around the same time that would or did deflect the loss of thousands of potential construction jobs statewide.  And, within a few months of Scott saying no, which I already mentioned, FEC announced All Aboard Florida.  So the loss of construction jobs from HSR was a wash or Florida ended up coming out ahead.  

I see your point, but time doesn't stop in 2011, so that you judge a project based on it's ability to employ thousands of construction workers in 2011 during the recession.  You have to consider the future, when the repercussions would most likely be that the project would need more money to complete (CA), more money to subsidize (CA), and, perhaps a lot more money to dismantle if it fails years later (with money returned to the Fed which was already paid to those same construction workers). 

HSR from Orlando to Tampa was too big of a gamble.  I personally "hoped" it would succeed.  "Hope" is not a good feasibility of success indicator.  Look back at the prior criticisms of the route, namely, who would take it only to be dumped off in downtown Tampa vs TPA or the beaches?

 

[aent]

3 hours ago, gibby said:

Removing $2.4bb from the central Florida economy in 2011-2015 was a good idea in your opinion because the State might have ended up being responsible for $6bb if things went wrong?  The projected cost of the 84 mile HSR "randomly decreased by billions"?  When?  With $2.4bb of federal money for an 84 mile HSR line on 95% public right-of-way and five stations (one of which the State has already paid for and built anyway, lol), you think it was possible that the State would somehow have ended up on the hook for billions of dollars?

Because I now have hindsight and got to see the Brightline project as well, I think removing $2.4 billion of taxpayer spent dollars from the Florida economy in 2011-2015 with a high probability of cost overruns and delays that will push it outside of those dates in exchange for a $3.1 billion dollar project that spends $0 taxpayer dollars and no risks that the money for this project leads to cuts to other things and future increases in taxes.

Also, I'm curious, does anyone think that the previous Tampa to Orlando route was better or more important then the route we did end up getting, Miami to Orlando? As a first phase, Miami to Orlando seems likely to have MUCH MUCH more ridership and be much more useful for tons of people. Infact, while I know when the federal HSR money was being proposed, my biggest complaint and fear was that the Tampa to Orlando route wouldn't provide enough ridership and nobody would be willing to extend it to Miami after that. The approach we got may delay the Tampa route by maybe 10 years, but there is no way the Miami route would be anywhere near construction at this point if we went the other route. It seems clear the full Tampa-Orlando-Miami route has a much more likely chance of being completed much faster with the route we took. The only really huge, disappointing disadvantage to the route we took is the initial speeds are likely to be 125mph instead of 168mph. We lose 43mph in exchange for saving a minimum of $2.4 billion in tax dollars, likely much more.

Infact, now that its mentioned, this also reminds me that AAF has even agreed to pay leasing fees for the new facilities its building/utilizing, in which the previous HSR was going to be entirely lease free. AAF has a lease for $25 million to CFX for its use of their land/facilities (and to cover their cost of an extra 200 ft of ROW, which only cost them $12 million, providing a $13 million profit to CFX) and agreed to pay the Orlando airport $2.8 million/year plus a fee of between $1 and $1.50 per passenger, estimated to total $4.5 million a year (the refusal of maglev to pay similar fees to the airport is what killed that project), so not only are they not getting tons of free land/service, they are actually contributing towards the costs of other transportation infrastructure.

[IAmFloridaBorn]

22 minutes ago, aent said:

Because I now have hindsight and got to see the Brightline project as well, I think removing $2.4 billion of taxpayer spent dollars from the Florida economy in 2011-2015 with a high probability of cost overruns and delays that will push it outside of those dates in exchange for a $3.1 billion dollar project that spends $0 taxpayer dollars and no risks that the money for this project leads to cuts to other things and future increases in taxes.

Also, I'm curious, does anyone think that the previous Tampa to Orlando route was better or more important then the route we did end up getting, Miami to Orlando? As a first phase, Miami to Orlando seems likely to have MUCH MUCH more ridership and be much more useful for tons of people. Infact, while I know when the federal HSR money was being proposed, my biggest complaint and fear was that the Tampa to Orlando route wouldn't provide enough ridership and nobody would be willing to extend it to Miami after that. The approach we got may delay the Tampa route by maybe 10 years, but there is no way the Miami route would be anywhere near construction at this point if we went the other route. It seems clear the full Tampa-Orlando-Miami route has a much more likely chance of being completed much faster with the route we took. The only really huge, disappointing disadvantage to the route we took is the initial speeds are likely to be 125mph instead of 168mph. We lose 43mph in exchange for saving a minimum of $2.4 billion in tax dollars, likely much more.

Infact, now that its mentioned, this also reminds me that AAF has even agreed to pay leasing fees for the new facilities its building/utilizing, in which the previous HSR was going to be entirely lease free. AAF has a lease for $25 million to CFX for its use of their land/facilities (and to cover their cost of an extra 200 ft of ROW, which only cost them $12 million, providing a $13 million profit to CFX) and agreed to pay the Orlando airport $2.8 million/year plus a fee of between $1 and $1.50 per passenger, estimated to total $4.5 million a year (the refusal of maglev to pay similar fees to the airport is what killed that project), so not only are they not getting tons of free land/service, they are actually contributing towards the costs of other transportation infrastructure.

I think the Orlando to Tampa route was better choice due to speed , time and connectivity.

The Orlando to Miami route is going to take 3 hours and not stop at destinations in either city with one city having far fewer transit connectivity (Orlando)

I can drive to Miami in 3 hours so Its absolutely no reason for me to pay $100 when the most important value, time, isn't 'better'.

The Tampa to Orlando route includes over 15 Amusement parks and entertainment centers that would have been better connected and served amongst the people who drive and use our daily roads. But that's my opinion.

In no way am I knocking the Miami to Orlando route but..... I ALWAYS hear and see people frequent commuting from Orlando to Tampa, and that would have been a base for potential economic boom and region connectivity.
 

[HankStrong]

I see the Tampa/Orlando route with theme parks as a bigger draw than Miami without the parks.

I would've preferred both.  To recycle my pic from the other day - 

[jrs2]

11 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

I think the Orlando to Tampa route was better choice due to speed , time and connectivity.

The Orlando to Miami route is going to take 3 hours and not stop at destinations in either city with one city having far fewer transit connectivity (Orlando)

I can drive to Miami in 3 hours so Its absolutely no reason for me to pay $100 when the most important value, time, isn't 'better'.

The Tampa to Orlando route includes over 15 Amusement parks and entertainment centers that would have been better connected and served amongst the people who drive and use our daily roads. But that's my opinion.

In no way am I knocking the Miami to Orlando route but..... I ALWAYS hear and see people frequent commuting from Orlando to Tampa, and that would have been a base for potential economic boom and region connectivity.
 

On the issues you presented, I preferred Tampa-Orlando because it would've strengthened the non-Sofla I-4 corridor population base as a more cohesive metropolitan unit, if you will.

In driving to Miami, IMO, "time" isn't the most important factor for me; rather, it's peace of mind.  And the $100 is going to be spent anyway in the form of wear and tear on your car, or the price of a rental with insurance for property damage, and then the difference of that price and $100, which would be maybe $20-40, would be the surcharge for being driven versus driving the route yourself and risking an accident or speeding ticket. 

But regarding the "time" factor, make sure you're surfing Waze when on the TNPK or I-95 and good luck.  Because, to get to Miami in 3 hours, you have to speed- alot.  It takes about 2.5 hours  just to get to West Palm Beach from Orlando; it's 165mi.  Miami is another 60-70 miles from that point and good luck maintaining 70+ MPH.  So the trip to Miami if you're lucky is more like 3.5-4 hrs.  People always underestimate just how far and how long that trip actually is, even myself.  I drove there 4 weeks ago and it seemed like it took forever.

Again, the problem with Tampa was that you'd get dumped off on the northern edge of downtown, with no transit options other than a bus.  Not by the convention center, mind you, or any arena or any theme park.  Busch is in BFE. 

With the Miami route, you've got Palm Beach as a stop, and can Uber it to City Place or Worth Ave or the beach.  With the Ft. Lauderdale stop, same deal with Las Olas, the Riverwalk, or the beach.  In Miami, you are downtown and have direct access to Metromover and Metrorail close by.  Brickell, AA Arena, the PAC, Biscayne- all connected with rail; including MIA via Metrorail ala the MIC and Trirail at the MIC.  What more would anyone need?  I'll answer that one myself:  a Metromover line to Miami Beach. 

I am excited as hec about Brightline because it in essence is our train and by connecting to Miami, it makes their transit system OUR transit system too because it is all integrated together and is now at our disposal.  That is exciting to me and adds a dynamic to Orlando it has never seen.  We just need a Sunrail link to integrate Sunrail into the overall system, and/or an east-west route to I-Drive/WDW, which may come with a later phase to Tampa.

You are absolutely correct about the commuting patterns between Tampa and Orlando.  But there's no rail integration in Tampa.  On the HSR issue, now that Tampa has built a consolidated car rental and remote parking facility south of the main TPA terminal near International Plaza, I can see a Phase 2 of Brightline connecting directly to it, which would be fantastic.  

[aent]

I'm actually really surprised at the preference for the Tampa to Orlando route, I guess my not caring for Tampa at all is really showing a bit. Now I'm really curious to see which connection actually has better ridership. What is the predictions on that among the members here?

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, aent said:

I'm actually really surprised at the preference for the Tampa to Orlando route, I guess my not caring for Tampa at all is really showing a bit. Now I'm really curious to see which connection actually has better ridership. What is the predictions on that among the members here?

I'm not sure.  If you're going to Tampa for work, you'll drive anyway depending on the job type.  If you're going for pleasure, you'll probably Uber it to Harbor Island area and take the trolley from there to local spots.  But to Uber it to Busch or USF, that's a major trek, let alone Pinellas.   This is if the stop is in fact downtown north.  I think more people will use Miami to Orlando.  I forgot about the two large cruise ports there as well with ports of call stops...  and like I posted, driving to Miami is a trek and Brightline will be faster and easier IMO based on the numbers and the hassle of driving.

 

[gibby]

15 hours ago, jrs2 said:

And the bag they (we) could be holding, if comparable to what happened in CA, would be 3X the projected cost

Just to clarify, you think that accepting the $2.4bb for the Orlando-Tampa HSR line would have potentially left the State liable for an additional $4.8bb?

 

15 hours ago, jrs2 said:

all of those other projects I mentioned were underway around the same time that would or did deflect the loss of thousands of potential construction jobs statewide

I don't want to misread, are you saying that accepting the $2.4bb for the Orlando-Tampa HSR line in 2011 would have led to a construction worker shortage?

 

15 hours ago, jrs2 said:

So the loss of construction jobs from HSR was a wash or Florida ended up coming out ahead.

Are you saying that there was an increase (or a wash) in construction jobs in Florida because the $2.4bb was rejected?

[jrs2]

3 hours ago, gibby said:

Just to clarify, you think that accepting the $2.4bb for the Orlando-Tampa HSR line would have potentially left the State liable for an additional $4.8bb?

 

I don't want to misread, are you saying that accepting the $2.4bb for the Orlando-Tampa HSR line in 2011 would have led to a construction worker shortage?

 

Are you saying that there was an increase (or a wash) in construction jobs in Florida because the $2.4bb was rejected?

What is this, a deposition or are you a reporter?

Are you gonna repeat the same question again and again yet fail to acknowledge everything that's been written to answer that question or questions?  Or is that your way of saying that you don't buy it?  The only analysis you've done is state that Florida needed the money during the recession and that saying no to HSR hurt Florida, right?  Well, I don't necessarily agree with that and offered analysis based on my opinion.  What have you offered to counter that other than repeat your same question(s) again and again?

I'll answer the 3 questions in order as A, B, and C.

A.  If the same thing happened to Florida that happened to CA, then, yes, there would've been cost overruns in that same ratio.

B.  You are being sarcastic.  No, I am not saying that.  What I am saying is that your argument for job loss is valid, but rejection of the HSR project doesn't mean that other jobs weren't created that those same construction workers could have shifted to instead.  Also, who said that all of those workers would've been from only Florida anyway for the HSR job?  Meaning those job numbers were inflated.  And on that note, Florida doesn't owe a duty to the rest of the US during a recession to accept Obama's HSR money so workers from other states can have jobs in Florida while Florida assumes all of the risk of system failure, does it?  That's my question to you.

C.   I made some calculations that I posted.  You read my post, didn't you?  You saw the numbers I posted.  Read them again and you'll get your answer because I'm not going to repeat myself again, except to state add in the Tri-rail modernization program that's been taking place since then; add it to the list of jobs I listed in my previous post.

Edited June 28, 2018 by jrs2