How Florida beat California to high speed rail

Brightline is betting that it can run a commercially viable passenger rail service without massive federal subsidies.

---
In 19th century America, trains symbolized modernity. Passenger rail connected the east and west coasts and helped settle the frontier. By 1916, rail accounted for 98 percent of intercity travel.

As it became easier to drive or fly, passenger rail use plummeted. In 1971, the government created Amtrak, which survives on federal subsidies. And most recently the Biden administration gave Amtrak $66 billion in federal subsidies as part of the federal infrastructure bill.

But in Florida, Brightline is showing that it's still possible to run a viable, privately operated passenger rail line under certain conditions. The company is starting service from Miami to Orlando on September 22.

Not only is Brightline the first privately funded intercity rail line in the U.S., but it's also the fastest train in the country outside of the northeast corridor. Topping out at 125 mph in Florida, it will travel from Miami to Orlando in about three hours. For comparison, the Amtrak in the area takes about six and a half hours to complete that same trip.

Mike Reininger, CEO of Brightline, told Reason that passenger rail makes commercial sense under specific conditions, such as the case in Florida, where it connects two populous, tourist-friendly cities that are about 250 miles apart. At that distance, Reininger says, "It is too far to drive and too short to fly. You can approximate the time of flying significantly, improve the time of driving, and you can offer it at a price point that makes it an economic proposition."

There has been one other ambitious effort to build high-speed rail in the U.S.—in California. But that project turned into something so "foolish" that it's "almost a crime," according to Quentin L. Kopp, the former state senator who was crucial in rallying support for a $10 billion bond measure to build high-speed rail in California. He became a fierce opponent of the project when it ran out of money and the agency in charge, he says, broke its promises to voters.

The 520-mile railway between San Francisco and Los Angeles was supposed to be completed by 2020. But after fifteen years of construction, they've only laid track for a 170-mile stretch in the Central Valley. The project, which has received more than $20 billion in state and federal subsidies, is now projected to cost over $128 billion.

Following on its success in Florida, Brightline is also starting to develop a high-speed rail line out west—connecting Las Vegas to Los Angeles. The 218-mile line will have just a handful of stops and plans to reach speeds over 186 mph. But the company is pursuing about $3 billion worth in federal subsidies to complete the project, or about a third of the total estimated cost. Though not even close to the amount of money California needs to finish its project, Robert Poole, the director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation, is "skeptical" once federal money gets involved at all in large infrastructure projects.

"It becomes far less of a business venture. And much more of this attitude that we can do grand things because we don't have to worry about what it costs," says Poole. 

But Brightline's Florida project remains a true test of whether there are narrow cases in which American travelers value passenger rail enough to pay for it with their own money.

Photo Credits: akg-images / Paul Almasy/Newscom; Chris Kleponis - CNP/Newscom; Ron Sachs - CNP/Newscom; DPST/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; National Motor Museum / Heritage Images/Newscom; Gary Reyes/TNS/Newscom; Gary Reyes/TNS/Newscom; Gary Reyes/TNS/Newscom; Underwood Archives/Universal Images Group/Newscom; Underwood Archives/Universal Images Group/Newscom; Underwood Archives/UIG / Universal Images Group/Newscom; Darryl Heikes/UPI/Newscom

[TheFarix]

Did ReasonTV miss the plot where both the US road infrastructure and the US airline industry are heavily subsidized to the same degree that Europe subsidizes its rail network?

[DrewMiller]

Driving: requires government-issued license, government-approved insurance, consent to police drug testing, and $10k vehicle to use taxpayer-funded infrastructure.
Trains: somehow make money without violating your rights in Florida.

[michaeliverson]

California, you cannot lay a 100 feet of sidewalk without all the bureaucracy.

[MinDallas]

I’d rather have subsidized trains than another massive subsidized highway. I love what Brightline is doing but also have no problem with tax dollars going toward building train infrastructure.

[qrzupsjohnson]

I like cars but they are sooo expensive and I have to drive my kids around everywhere. It is appealing to me to have trains and buses like they have in Europe.

[brennanconway]

Highways don't turn a profit either. Eliminate subsidies for auto manufacturers and slap a toll on the entire interstate system and then we can talk about Amtrak not being profitable

[procrastinatingpuma]

Just to claify for anyone reading this, Brightline isn't considered High Speed rail

[darthhodges]

The Vegas to LA line makes a lot of sense. If they have red eye trains people can take a morning train to Vegas, party it up, and then take the red eye home and sleep in their own bed (taking a cab or Uber from the station to home). Intelligent scheduling will probably be the key to making some of the potential routes actually profitable.

[Balance]

Sleeper trains can also compete with planes.
You travel leave in the evening and arrive by morning so you don’t have to take a day off for travelling. And train stations are more convenient than airports most of the time.

[PDXLibertarian]

1. Brightline is NOT high speed rail. 2. Brightline already HAD the Florida East Coast Railway ROW, but California has to build an entirely new one. 3. Brightline's main return on investment comes from property development NOT from railway operations, which are a loss leader. 4. California HSR has NEVER been about the LA-SF connection. It's been about the state's OVERALL rail plan from 1980, which has been an overwhelming success. The latter is a bit hard to explain, but starting in 1980, CA took over intercity rail from failed private operators (Amtrak is only interSTATE). The first was CalTrain, then Capitol Corridor, LOSSAN, ACE, Metrolink, etc. Over time, improvements were made so now Capitol Corridor actually makes money, Metrolink actually cuts traffic, and CalTrain is the most cost-efficient public transit in the entire USA. What CAHSR ACTUALLY does (if you bother to read the planning documents, which Reason's "journalists" don't bother to do) is fill in the missing links to make these intercity systems effective and profitable. 5. The current limitations of CAHSR were imposed by the FRA under ARRA in 2008 by mandating a central valley start - CAHSR didn't want to do it. The ACTUAL state rail plan would have started with the Southern Link between Burbank and Bakersfield, allowing timed transfer service to have opened by 2023 connecting LA and SF and opening up the High Desert Corridor to a PPP with Brightline.

[mtchhsr]

Good video. Kinda wish they’d be a bit more clear about how subsidized car travel and air travel is too, though. Why is rail the one mode of transportation that’s supposed to support itself without government assistance?

[juanmontull]

Answer to video title: Because Brightline is NOT High Speed Rail

[TheWizardGamez]

the interstate highway system is the biggest case of corporate welfare in US history. for over 70 years we have payed for the infrastructure trucking companies use and wear down. if they payed tolls or their fair share in relation to the amount of damage they cause to the road, rail would look a lot more enticing. Shit, public transit would look a lot more enticing. Honeslty. all these greens raving about electric cars, should really be hailing public transit, or better said mass transit such that we can break the grip of car reliance our nation has come to.

[theodoresmith]

Rail is competing on uneven footing. People often make fun of libertarians by saying “who will build the roads” well maybe roads wouldn’t be our first choice of transportation if the consumer had to front the full cost of each trip. Maybe they’d be using rail more often. Or flying. Or biking. Or walking. Regulators can’t fathom the creativity of the free market.

[danielcarroll]

The International Union of Railways (UIC) defines high-speed rail (HSR) as a railway system where tracks are “new lines designed for speeds above 250 km/hr (155 miles per hour) and in some cases, upgraded existing lines for speeds up to 220km/hr (136 miles per hour).”

[bruceweaver]

I voted for a high speed railway system in Florida several elections ago because not only would it bring much needed jobs to the area, but it would simplify travel within the state. I understand it was defeated by the Senior Citizens who claimed the trains did not accommodate Senior Citizen’s needs which would’ve been relatively simple to make. I am for this 100% as it would force the country to look into public transportation as a viable alternative to rising gas prices and rising air travel costs.

[tomhalla]

Jerry Brown forgot to consider California has no continuous coastal plain. The Bay Area and the Los Angeles basin are both surrounded by mountains, and following the highway alignments would yield routes much too steep and/or winding for true high speed rail. Imagine running a Shinkansen train up The Grapevine.

[trey]

The US actually carries more rail freight than any other country.

[PlaneBoy]

You’re comparing apples to oranges here. Floridas brightline “high speed” train service only runs up to 125mph and uses existing trackage meaning for a good portion of its right of way limiting the amount of trains they can run on the line. So it was much cheaper and faster to build BUT isn’t as capable. Plus their line is much shorter than Californias

Meanwhile CAlifornia is building their high speed railroad to operate at speeds of 220mph on a brand new right of way to optimize speed and access to population centers along the way while also building the line to remain grade separated from public roads to help with track safety (Unlike brightline). AND on top of that the California High Speed rail project is the first of its kind in the country! Meaning large amounts of infrastructure has to be built just to build the railroad, and on top of that an entire new workforce has to be trained in this sort of construction which is also going to raise costs.

Now don’t get me wrong, both services are going to be excellent once they’re completed but you can’t compare them, especially when one of them is doing something that has never been done in the US before. It’s a shame really, for being called reason TV you aren’t being very reasonable 🙄

[hackbrettschorsch]

@5:35: Tell me you have no idea about EU law without telling me. It is absolutely prohibited under state aide rules to subsidize the operation of high speed rail. The construction is done by the state, but then everybody is free to use. Take the Madrid - Barcelona HSR for example. You have three companies competing against each other on this line.