Guest column: Questions abound on All Aboard Florida rail project

News from the northeast: The Federal Railroad Administration is pushing to expand Amtrak’s express train service with a $120 billion plan to add tracks and cut the time from Boston to New York City by 45 minutes. Although the Acela train doesn’t cross streets at grade, the plan is meeting resistance in many towns in Connecticut.

“To just have someone say ‘we need to go through there to get people faster between New York and Boston,’ with no benefit to our town, is very concerning,” said Bonnie Reemsnyder, a town board selectwoman in Old Lyme, Connecticut, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 16.

Tell us about it!

When All Aboard Florida's Miami-to-Orlando passenger rail project was first announced, it was divided into two phases, and in the south counties a minimal environmental impact report was quickly approved. With a project of this size, is it too much to ask that the National Environmental Policy Act regulations be followed?

When All Aboard Florida was announced, it was heralded as a private endeavor that would not need taxpayer money. Is it too much to ask All Aboard Florida to cover the major costs of re-engineering and rebuilding the streets and roadbeds under the tracks when they add the second rail and all of the new crossing equipment?

Is it too much to ask for All Aboard Florida to carry all of the liability for the tracks and crossings, and cover the future crossing maintenance fees needed for their rail expansion?

When All Aboard Florida decided to go after private activity bonds rather than a Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Loan, was it too much to expect that the U.S. Department of Transportation would want to know if All Aboard Florida would be profitable? It’s one thing to approve private activity bonds for public transit after approval by locally-elected officials and taxpayers. It’s another to offer a tax-subsidized, tax-free bond issue to a private company without knowing if it can pay its bills.

When All Aboard Florida tried for over a year to sell the tax-free bonds and couldn’t, was it too much to ask that the federal government and the Florida Development Finance Corporation start to question the potential profitability of the project?

When Tri-Rail operates on the same route in the south counties (Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach) and requires $80 million in annual subsidies to survive, is it too much to ask if the market can support both it and All Aboard Florida?

When "positive train control" was developed to stop trains from going too fast and colliding with one another, and has operational issues still being worked out, is it too much to ask how the technology will stop trains from hitting vehicles or pedestrians at more than 340 grade crossings along the route?

Has anyone analyzed the unthinkable that could occur with All Aboard Florida? Is it too much to ask to see Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie Nuclear Plant evacuation plans for residents of South Hutchinson Island if a train is disabled and blocking main arteries?

The Acela rail plan was brought up this week in U.S. Senate hearings for the new Secretary of Transportation. We hope our simple questions also will be addressed once the new secretary is in place, with a mandate to stop corporate cronyism and federal overreach.

Susan Mehiel, a retired marketing executive, has lived in Vero Beach for 23 years and spent the last four raising awareness of the negatives of All Aboard Florida.