The CSX deal: Bound for glory?
April 28, 2008 at 4:42 pm by Wayne Garcia
(Photo by poohka)
A new poll obviously testing the waters for the pending Central Florida rail deal is being circulated behind the scenes but has not been made public yet. We snagged a copy, but more about the pro-rail results later. First, some background.
The proposed deal to lease back some of the CSX rail lines in Orlando started (very, very quietly if not exactly secretly) under Gov. Jeb Bush, and even today, it has received little attention in any local press except for the Tampa Tribune (whose coverage has been so strident it managed to really piss off the former gov recently). That means few have read the stuff or understand the importance of the issue to Tampa Bay and its own rail dreams.
In a nutshell, in the interest of getting a rail corridor for a commuter line from Orlando to here, the state has negotiated a controversial deal to pay freight hauler CSX $491 million to use its tracks in Orlando for commuter rail and to agree not to sue CSX for anything that happens on those tracks, even if it is the rail company’s fault. (Irking some folks is the fact that we, the taxpayers, gave CSX those rail rights of way for pennies back in the day.)
As part of the deal, CSX would shift some of its freight operations to other tracks and build a new hub in Polk County, and that has raised some eyebrows in Lakeland and Polk County as residents realized they could see a lot more freight train traffic coming their way as as result.
Two bills, HB 1399 and SB 1978, are set for votes this week as it comes down to the wire to see if the deal survives. Today, PoHo obtained a copy of a poll done on the issue of commuter rail and freight traffic that shows widespread public support for the concepts of more freight and commuter rail traffic but that pointedly doesn’t mention “the CSX deal.”
Lutz civic activist Dee Layne called the deal a “giveaway” in her latest legislative roundup, posted to this blog earlier today.
The poll — only some of which was given to this blog by two political operatives who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to release the results — was done by the Market Enhancement Group’s Barry Quarles. The polling presentation doesn’t reveal who paid for it.
UPDATE: On Tuesday, the patrons of the poll came forward — the Central Florida Partnership. From their news release: “”It’s very clear that residents of these two counties support more fuel efficient transportation and that they are concerned with the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from excessive traffic,” said Jacob V. Stuart, President of the Central Florida Partnership. “While we know there’s support in the seven-county Central Florida Region, policy makers should find it interesting that nearly three-quarters of the residents of these two counties - on one end of the I-4 corridor - think finding more fuel-efficient transportation should be a priority for state government.”
Here are the most interesting findings in the survey of 600 voters in Hillsborough and Polk counties:
- 73 percent of Polk voters and 68 percent of Hillsborough believe that “finding more fuel-efficient ways to transport people and goods should be a priority for state government in Florida.”
- 69 percent of Polk registered voters think there should be a “greater use of freight rail” if it “reduces greenhouse gas emissions.” 81 percent of Hillsborough voters agree with using more freight rail to cut trucking emissions.
- Two-thirds of the registered voters in both counties said they would support government investments in rail infrastructure “if railroads are the most fuel-efficient form of ground transportation.”
- Voters in both counties would supporter greater state investments in rail infrastructure if railroads would reduce highway congestion. The support was higher in Hillsborough (77 percent) than in Polk (67 percent), while the idea’s negatives were twice as high in Polk (17 percent said no to the question).
- 62 percent of the voters in both counties said they would supporter a commuter rail line in Orlando if it “would help Tampa secure its own commuter service in the future.”
What the market research shows, if it can be trusted, is that the concept of using state dollars to upgrade and use existing rails for commuter projects and more freight rail seems to be playing out a lot better with voters — if you don’t actually use specifics or the name of the deal or the name of the railroad, CSX, which has been pretty beat up in the Trib coverage.
Lost in some of the details (odious or not) of the CSX deal are the ramifications to Tampa Bay commuter rail. There’s no doubt that TBARTA, our regional rail authority, will be able to design and sell to the voters a commuter rail system with greater ease if hooking into an existing Orlando system is part of the equation. In fact, building a regional commuter rail here without an Orlando component seems downright stupid. TBARTA’s website, in fact, shows such a corridor to Lakeland and beyond to Orlando.
(Polling Methodology: A telephone survey of (self-proclaimed) registered voters in Hillsborough (300 respondents) and Polk (300). The margin of error is +/-5.8 percent in each individual county or +/-4.1 percent for the entire combined sample. That means that 95 percent of the time, you would get the same results within those margins if you conducted the same poll over and over again.)
Send to a friend:
April 28th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Several points worth mentioning regarding some of the “talking points” used by both sides concerning freight/commuter rail:
1) The “congestion relief” concept is a half-truth. In reality, the growth of congestion will likely not occur as fast as it had been. There is little chance less traffic will clog I-4 - more like not as much as was previously expected.
2) 80%+ of communities still must be served by truck. You can’t pull up a mile long freight train anywhere you want to. They must stop at a common locale, and trucks offload goods for final delivery.
3) The economic development nexus is very debatable. Most agree rail capacity expansion is a net gain in jobs - the extent is up for discussion, as well as the multiplier effect argument.
4) The Association of American Railroads (AAR) which represents the 5 Class I railroads (CSX being the largest) is pushing Congress for a 25% tax credit for rail capacity expansion over the next 20 years…Washington “think tankers” say $140b is needed over the next 20 years for freight rail expansion to meet future projected demands. The AAR maintains the private companies can only pay for $96b of that figure.
What is not assumed in the numbers is that the private companies will use their profits to expand capacity - why put all of your eggs in that basket if you work hard enough to get government to finance nearly $40b of it for you?!
The showdown that will come will be when the debate moves to the “public purpose” of helping private railroads expand…A 25% tax creidt is fine and good - but those who support passenger rail and commuter rail will want their share of the take…The problem is there is not currently enough rail for the future growth of both, though the national system remains underutilized as of today.
So, we the taxpayers must ask which is the better benefit? Expanded freight rail to relieve highway congestion and pollution? Expanded passenger rail? Both? Or what if we have to choose?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
A couple more fun facts:
CSX was headed by John Snow until 2003, when he was named treasury secretary for the Bush administration.
Also in 2003, the Carlyle Group purchased part of CSX. The Carlyle Group has employed former President Bush and his former secretary of state, James Baker.
Just sayin’
April 30th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Another bush conspiracy?!? I’m running out of notebook paper on this stuff …
A great reflection of the turn-the-US-over-to-our-corporate-buddies mentality that both bush bros. exhibit