Orlando to New Orleans train may make comeback
Editor's note: This story is available as a result of a content partnership between WFTV and the Orlando Business Journal.
A bill in the Florida Legislature could set the stage for the return of an Amtrak service which has not been directly connected to Orlando since 2005.
House Bill 833 and Senate Bill 966 look to allow the state to join the Southern Rail Commission, a group of states which advocates for the expansion of passenger rail in the Southern U.S. The Sunset Limited service ran a segment from New Orleans to Orlando until Hurricane Katrina wiped out rail infrastructure in 2005, leaving the route as only servicing New Orleans to Los Angeles.
Read: Weekend Guide: 9 things to do in Central Florida
Florida Reps. Yvonne Hayes Hinson (D-Gainesville) and Daryl Campbell (D-Fort Lauderdale) filed the house bill, while Florida Sen. Tracie Davis (D-Jacksonville) introduced the senate version.
Click here to read the full story on the Orlando Business Journal's website.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.JPG&w=3840&q=100)
Miami Herald
7 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Hurricane evacuation plans must include pets Floridians won't leave behind
With hurricane season upon us, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in limbo. The White House has been critical of the agency's effectiveness, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recently reiterating that President Donald Trump believes the disaster relief body has 'failed.' Predictably, the proposal to shift funding from Uncle Sam to state and local agencies has sparked controversy — including from Congress. But regardless of how the country's disaster response apparatus is reorganized, saving lives must remain the North Star. That includes helping both humans and animals caught in the eye of the storm. Cats and dogs haven't always been part of government efforts responding to — or preparing for — natural disasters, despite many Americans treating pets as family members. It's estimated that thousands of pets were lost, abandoned or killed in the wake of Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which devastated parts of South Florida. More than 100,000 pets were left behind in New Orleans as Hurricane Katrina barreled down on the city 13 years later. But in 2006, born out of those Gulf Coast tragedies, the federal government took action. Bipartisan legislation was passed by Congress requiring states seeking federal disaster aid to accommodate pets and service animals in their evacuation plans. That includes providing animal-friendly emergency housing. The law — called the PETS Act — also empowers FEMA to directly rescue, care for, and shelter animals impacted by natural disasters. Bringing animals into the fold of the nation's disaster response framework was a major step toward improving animal welfare. Today, it's also credited with saving human lives. A survey by PetSmart Charities reveals that more than 70% of pet owners would ignore an evacuation order if their furry family member couldn't come along. And 80% said they would give up their spot at an emergency shelter if pets were not allowed. Translation: Americans are now more likely to follow safety protocols and evacuate danger zones when their pets are part of the plan. Building on that legacy, we — as Florida residents and American animal lovers — can do more. Our elected officials in Washington could amend the PETS Act to expand options for animal-inclusive housing following natural disasters. For example, the government could offer financial incentives to hotels and motels that temporarily accept guests with pets. State legislatures could pursue similar policies in tandem. Meanwhile, pet owners themselves can take preemptive steps to improve pet safety during hurricanes. Preparing a pet disaster kit ahead of time is essential. That kit should include a two-week supply of food, water and medications, along with a leash, bedding and comfort items like toys. Veterinary records, current photos, and microchip information should be stored in a watertight container to aid in reunification if a pet is separated during the chaos. Details about the future of FEMA remain uncertain. But with hurricane season already here, the White House and Congress must come together to create a robust and inclusive disaster response framework. The lives of Americans — both human and animal — depend on it. Robin Ganzert is the president and CEO of the American Humane Society.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Gross Misuse of the National Guard
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Donald Trump just did what no other president has ever done in the context of urban unrest: He sent federal troops to a state without a request from the governor. By federalizing California National Guard members on Saturday, the president abrogated Governor Gavin Newsom's authority over his own Guard. During both previous instances of a presidential order to deploy National Guardsmen to American cities—the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and the Hurricane Katrina response in 2005—the state's governor was overseeing a public-safety apparatus that had been overwhelmed. Trump, seizing on unlawful behavior that included vandalism, violence, and refusing to disperse during protests against ICE raids in L.A., announced that 2,000 reservists would be deployed to the city, unilaterally and contra Newsom's advice. Trump's decision—to exercise his Title 10 authority to federalize the National Guard under his command—was not based on a careful assessment of the operational needs on the streets of Los Angeles. Even if the White House's escalating rhetoric and threats of full military deployment were justified by circumstances that merited overruling a governor, the notion that the armed services will stop protests and quiet widespread outrage about Trump's immigration-enforcement policies in California is naive and flawed. Implicated in Trump's decision was a lot of prior controversy—immigration and deportation, ICE raids, tension between blue states and the White House, a personal beef with Newsom—but the president's assertion that a troop presence is the answer to public unrest is particularly dubious. Historically, these deployments have proved of limited value even when the president and governor agree on goals. Sending in the military as a hostile force is a recipe for trouble. During the 1992 L.A. riots, after four white police officers were acquitted of assaulting Rodney King, 63 people were killed amid widespread arson and looting as rioting spread through the city. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana and left New Orleans with no functioning government and little law enforcement. In each case, National Guard deployment was essentially a response to the incapacity of the local police force—either because the cops had become the focus of hostility or because they simply could not meet the demands of the crisis. And in both instances, the governor requested the federal intervention. [David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal] One key lesson of the L.A. deployment was that a failure to define command-and-control responsibilities resulted in operational problems and delays. The National Guard under Governor Pete Wilson's authority was supposed to protect first responders (especially firefighters) and emergency work crews trying to fix critical infrastructure. Trained to help with crowd control, these troops also supported police patrols—to protect shopping centers from looting, for example. The soldiers' initial deployment was slow, and they were not fully prepared for the mission. But in the days that followed, the rioting subsided and the National Guard was able to perform much of its mission and provide relief to the overstretched police forces. By then, however, Wilson had lost confidence in the National Guard's leadership and was unnerved by the scale of disorder. He asked the White House for help, and President George H. W. Bush sent in 3,500 federalized troops. Despite deploying in a less demanding situation, these federalized soldiers were unable to provide the effective support required on the ground. In the end, the state Guard proved the more flexible and adaptable force. The new military task force formed by the federal deployment never satisfactorily resolved issues with its mission, its communications, and its rules of engagement. The problems of this uneasy collaboration with local and state police agencies filtered down, hampering the street-level response. The events of L.A. in 1992—and the explicit lessons that state, federal, and military authorities took from them—are why, until now, the task of dealing with civil unrest or natural disasters has remained largely with the National Guard acting under state jurisdiction. The National Guard has also been integrated into homeland-security efforts on the same basis. If one Guard force encounters a situation that exceeds its capacity, it can turn to another state's Guard under mutual-aid agreements. Mutual aid does not seem to have been on Trump's mind last weekend. The National Guard exists to provide governors with additional power to protect their citizens, and to do so in support of local first responders. Trump's hasty federalization of troops is unwise and unhelpful, before we even consider what malign political motive may lie behind the order. Right now, the Pentagon appears not even to have arranged sleeping arrangements for its troops, let alone determined the rules of engagement on the streets; the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the deployment was so 'wildly underprepared' that troops are sleeping in cramped quarters on the floor. At best, this deployment will be completely unnecessary. At worst, it will be deeply counterproductive. But Trump's motive is transparent—and he will surely engineer an occasion to keep escalating his power plays, until they seem normal. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
10 hours ago
- Atlantic
This Is Not What the National Guard Is For
Donald Trump just did what no other president has ever done in the context of urban unrest: He sent federal troops to a state without a request from the governor. By federalizing California National Guard members on Saturday, the president abrogated Governor Gavin Newsom's authority over his own Guard. During both previous instances of a presidential order to deploy National Guardsmen to American cities—the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and the Hurricane Katrina response in 2005—the state's governor was overseeing a public-safety apparatus that had been overwhelmed. Trump, seizing on unlawful behavior that included vandalism, violence, and refusing to disperse during protests against ICE raids in L.A., announced that 2,000 reservists would be deployed to the city, unilaterally and contra Newsom's advice. Trump's decision—to exercise his Title 10 authority to federalize the National Guard under his command—was not based on a careful assessment of the operational needs on the streets of Los Angeles. Even if the White House's escalating rhetoric and threats of full military deployment were justified by circumstances that merited overruling a governor, the notion that the armed services will stop protests and quiet widespread outrage about Trump's immigration-enforcement policies in California is naive and flawed. Implicated in Trump's decision was a lot of prior controversy—immigration and deportation, ICE raids, tension between blue states and the White House, a personal beef with Newsom—but the president's assertion that a troop presence is the answer to public unrest is particularly dubious. Historically, these deployments have proved of limited value even when the president and governor agree on goals. Sending in the military as a hostile force is a recipe for trouble. During the 1992 L.A. riots, after four white police officers were acquitted of assaulting Rodney King, 63 people were killed amid widespread arson and looting as rioting spread through the city. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana and left New Orleans with no functioning government and little law enforcement. In each case, National Guard deployment was essentially a response to the incapacity of the local police force—either because the cops had become the focus of hostility or because they simply could not meet the demands of the crisis. And in both instances, the governor requested the federal intervention. David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal One key lesson of the L.A. deployment was that a failure to define command-and-control responsibilities resulted in operational problems and delays. The National Guard under Governor Pete Wilson's authority was supposed to protect first responders (especially firefighters) and emergency work crews trying to fix critical infrastructure. Trained to help with crowd control, these troops also supported police patrols—to protect shopping centers from looting, for example. The soldiers' initial deployment was slow, and they were not fully prepared for the mission. But in the days that followed, the rioting subsided and the National Guard was able to perform much of its mission and provide relief to the overstretched police forces. By then, however, Wilson had lost confidence in the National Guard's leadership and was unnerved by the scale of disorder. He asked the White House for help, and President George H. W. Bush sent in 3,500 federalized troops. Despite deploying in a less demanding situation, these federalized soldiers were unable to provide the effective support required on the ground. In the end, the state Guard proved the more flexible and adaptable force. The new military task force formed by the federal deployment never satisfactorily resolved issues with its mission, its communications, and its rules of engagement. The problems of this uneasy collaboration with local and state police agencies filtered down, hampering the street-level response. The events of L.A. in 1992—and the explicit lessons that state, federal, and military authorities took from them—are why, until now, the task of dealing with civil unrest or natural disasters has remained largely with the National Guard acting under state jurisdiction. The National Guard has also been integrated into homeland-security efforts on the same basis. If one Guard force encounters a situation that exceeds its capacity, it can turn to another state's Guard under mutual-aid agreements. Mutual aid does not seem to have been on Trump's mind last weekend. The National Guard exists to provide governors with additional power to protect their citizens, and to do so in support of local first responders. Trump's hasty federalization of troops is unwise and unhelpful, before we even consider what malign political motive may lie behind the order. Right now, the Pentagon appears not even to have arranged sleeping arrangements for its troops, let alone determined the rules of engagement on the streets; the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the deployment was so 'wildly underprepared' that troops are sleeping in cramped quarters on the floor. At best, this deployment will be completely unnecessary. At worst, it will be deeply counterproductive. But Trump's motive is transparent—and he will surely engineer an occasion to keep escalating his power plays, until they seem normal.
