Introduction

Methodology and scientific literature

Research methodology

The relationship between high-speed rail and tourism

4Tourism is an activity which necessarily involves mobility, and thus transport infrastructure. The accessibility of a location and the ease of the journey come into play when tourists are choosing a destination, and thus have an impact on the development of tourism, both domestic and international (Prideaux, 2000; Lumsdon and Page, 2007; Page, 2007). Since the 1960s, the issue of the role played by high-speed rail services in the development of tourism has given rise to a sizeable corpus of academic literature (Bazin, Beckerich, Blanquart, Delaplace and Vandenbossche, 2011). Some scientific works have investigated the effects of transportation on tourism markets (Sands, 1993; Masson and Petiot, 2009; Urena et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2012; Pagliara, La Pietra, Gomez and Vassallo, 2015). It seems that increasing the supply of transportation, especially high-speed rail, may increase some of these markets (Bazin, Beckerich, Delaplace and Masson, 2006; Bazin, Beckerich and Delaplace 2010, 2011; Delaplace and Dobruszkes, 2013; Bazin-Benoît and Delaplace, 2015; Billard and Bertrand, 2018). There is a large body of scientific literature on the structural effects of transport on tourist numbers and activities, on the potential benefits of improved accessibility (Berion, 1998; Mannone, 1995; Berion et al., 2007; Masson and Petiot, 2009; Chen and Haynes, 2012; Wang et al., 2012; Bazin-Benoît and Delaplace, 2013; Coronado et al., 2013), and on the potential effects on tourists’ choice of destination (Valeri et al., 2012; Delaplace et al., 2014, 2015; Pagliara, Delaplace and Vassalo, 2014, 2015; Albalate et al., 2017; Pagliara, Mauriello and Garofalo, 2017). Finally, since high-speed stations are generally located in urban areas and cities are seeking to capitalize on the attractiveness of high-speed rail, scientific work has sought to analyse the effects on urban tourism and business travel (Faye, 1998; Bazin, Beckerich, Blanquart et al., 2010, 2011; Delaplace, 2012, 2016; Bazin, Beckerich and Delaplace, 2013, 2014; Ruggeri, 2013; Delaplace and Perrin, 2014; Mondou and Pébarthe-Désiré, 2018).

5Based largely on ex post analyses, the existing literature displays a tendency to downplay the dynamism associated with the creation of high-speed rail services. High-speed rail may serve to boost the dynamism of the tourism sector within a given territory on three conditions: a clear improvement in the all-round accessibility of the territory, a general strategy to develop and promote the territory’s amenities involving both public and private stakeholders, and finally an intermodal strategy to improve urban transportation within the territory and effectively manage passenger transfers. Furthermore, the relationship between transport and the development of tourism is dependent on three factors beyond the realm of transportation: local potential, local strategies to prepare for the arrival of high-speed services, and the targeting of specific categories of clients by private actors (Masson and Petiot, 2009).

1. Florida: A destination of choice for American tourists

The early development of tourism in Florida driven by its transport infrastructure

6Florida is now one of the USA’s principal centers of tourism, primarily as a result of the state’s beaches, weather conditions and attractive scenery, as well as a thriving leisure industry and “artificial tourism” sector embodied by the state’s many theme parks. Since the mid-19^th century, the state’s positive reputation has been linked to the rise of tourism on the Florida panhandle. Tourism and territorial development have always gone hand-in-hand in Florida (Revels, 2011).

• his workers’ camps were subsequently incorporated into a single entity, which would become West Palm Beach;

• the city of Miami underwent major changes (the streets were paved, an electricity network was installed, piers were built to welcome steamboats, new schools and hospitals sprang up etc.).

8Henry Bradley Plant was the second major figure in the development of Florida’s tourist industry, and a direct competitor of Henry Flagler. Plant made Tampa (on the state’s west coast) the base for his ambitious economic project: he renovated the city’s railway network, developed its port and built a 500-bedroom luxury hotel (the Tampa Bay Hotel). He bought and renovated a series of hotels located along his railway lines (Hotel Kissimee, Ft. Myers Hotel, Ocala House). Between them, these two businessmen profoundly altered the image and indeed the geography of Florida (Revels, 2011, p. 55). The history of Florida as a tourist destination is part of the tourist revolution, analyzed by the MIT group (Mobility, Itineraries, Tourism). In particular, coastal summer tourism and vacationing are profoundly transforming the world of tourism. From the 1930s, the hedonistic model based on the “3 S” (Sea, Sand and Sun) spread from Hawaii and then to Florida (Équipe MIT, 2005, 2011; Monot and Paris, 2019, p. 103).

9In the early twentieth century, Florida’s cities were beginning to consider the potential of more affordable tourism aimed at the middle classes. The global context was particularly conducive to this development, with rapid transformations in mobility behaviors and a period of economic prosperity which saw working hours becoming shorter, wages rising and consumer lending on the rise. Florida’s tourist destinations witnessed a property boom, as the state rapidly adapted to the rise of motorcar ownership–the first highway connecting Jacksonville, in the north, to Miami, on the state’s southern tip, was inaugurated in 1911. By 1925, Florida was already attracting 2.5 million tourists each year and the number of people employed in the tourism sector had doubled. The state was hit hard by the 1929 stock market crash and its after-effects–spending on leisure and tourism is the first thing which households sacrifice in times of financial uncertainty–but rebounded relatively quickly when the New Deal gave the tourism sector a vital boost, not least in the form of the ambitious scheme to reinvent and redevelop the Keys. Florida’s continued growth post-1945 was primarily driven by tourism: the state’s population topped 1.9 million in 1940, rising to 2.7 million by 1950. The post-war context was also highly auspicious for the Floridian tourism boom:

• the national situation was positive: post-war prosperity, demobilization of some of the army, the baby boom and the attendant increase in family holidays;

• circumstances were also favorable in Florida: the ongoing expansion of the highway network, the opening up of the state to air travel, the increased availability of air conditioning and the draining of marshes to reduce mosquito numbers.

11Walt Disney’s decision to create his new theme park in Florida is probably the most significant event in the history of tourism in the state. In June 1965, Disney purchased over 11,000 hectares of land spanning Orange and Osceola counties, near Orlando. Locating the park in the Orlando area meant that it could remain operational all year round, in a region where land was plentiful and inexpensive, and easy to reach by car. When negotiating their arrival in Florida, Walt Disney Co. demanded a number of concessions, including work to widen Interstate 4, the construction of three new junctions on this highway, specific rights of first refusal on additional land and the transferal of essential infrastructure to Disney’s control (sewers, water supply, electricity, the internal road network). The entire district was declared a politically autonomous zone, with the incorporation of two new cities (Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake). Walt Disney World opened its doors on 1st October 1971, and within a few years had revolutionized Florida’s economic geography and tourism industry. Over the course of the 1970s, 20,000 new hotel and motel rooms were created. Ever since, Orlando has been renowned as the world’s theme park capital (Revels, 2011):

• 1973: opening of Sea World Florida;

• 1982: opening of the first extension to Disney World, EPCOT Center;

• 1989: inauguration of Pleasure Island (for night-time activities) and Typhoon Lagoon (waterpark) as well as a further extension to Disney World (Disney-MGM Studios);

• 1995: opening of a new rival theme park, Universal Studios, and further work to expand Disney World (Animal Kingdom);

• • 7 Since the turn of the two millennium, these two major rivals have continued to expand their parks a (...)

  1999: expansion of Universal Studios with new attraction Island of Adventures (Revels, 2011, pp. 125-134)7.

Table 1. The importance of tourism to the Floridian economy (in 2018)

Sector	GDP (in millions of dollars)	Jobs (thousands)
Tourism sector (total)	91.3	Direct employment: 1005 Total employment: 1500
Of which:
Accomodation and food services	30	688
Real estate and rental	14.1	84
Arts, entertainment and recreation	7.8	188
Retail trade	6.5	144
Transportation	5.4	105
Sector	Spending by tourists (in billions of dollars)
Tourist spending (total)	94
Of which:
Lodging	26.6
Food and beverage	21.3
Shopping	15.4
Transportation	18.7
Entertainment and recreation	12

Source: Rockport Analytics, 2019

Concentration of tourist activities in a small number of nationally and internationally-renowned hubs

14Domestic tourism in Florida is concentrated in four main zones: central Florida including Orlando (32% of American tourists), the south-east with the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach agglomeration (18%), the central west coast around Tampa and St. Petersburg (14%) and the south-western coast around Cape Coral and Fort Myers (10%). At the county level, five counties attract almost 55% of all tourists from within the USA: Orange (28.9%), Hillsborough (8.1%), Broward (6.4%), Miami-Dade (5.9%), Duval (4.3%) (FDOT, 2012, pp. 3-12). Analyzing tourist flows is complicated by the extremely limited nature of the available statistics on interurban mobility in the USA, and particularly the total lack of surveys focusing on the travel habits of Floridians for tourism and recreational purposes. It is thus not possible to precisely quantify the origins of Floridian tourists, nor their destinations. This is a major constraint when it comes to examining the workings of Florida’s tourism market, and taking tourist flows into consideration when analyzing transport projects. We can only offer the hypothesis that a new rail service connecting two major hubs of tourism (Miami and Orlando) could have an impact on the organization of internal flows of tourists within Florida.

15The principal components of Florida’s tourism industry (cf. figure 1) (Colburn & Dehaven-Smith, 2010) are as follows:

• Beaches: 63.4% of hotel and motel reservations are concentrated in beach resorts. The presence of numerous natural lagoons has been a boon for the coastal economy, as Florida has made the transition from a state associated with traditional maritime activities to a destination clearly focused on seaside tourism (Klein et al., 2004; Klein and Osleeb, 2010; Onofri and Nunes, 2013). Florida’s natural assets make it ideally suited to this kind of tourism (climate, sandy beaches, lagoons), with an attractively tropical image (sunshine, turquoise waters, white sands).

• • 13 The biggest theme parks are (visitor numbers for 2019): Disney World Magic Kingdom (20.9 million vi (...)

  Theme parks: central Florida is home to the world’s largest concentration of theme parks. Six of the world’s top ten most popular theme parks (in terms of visitor numbers) are found in the Orlando area.13 The agency responsible for promoting tourism in Florida (VisitFlorida) estimates that 36% of tourists arriving from outside Florida travel to this central region, and that visiting a theme park is the primary motivation for more than half of them. Between now and 2030, annual visitor numbers are expected to exceed 150 million. This will make Orlando the USA’s most-visited metropolis, ahead of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Las Vegas (FDOT, 2017, p. 6-12).

• Cruise ships: in 2016, over 15 million cruise passengers set sail from one of Florida’s ports. Miami is the world’s biggest cruise port, while three other Floridian ports serve as “feeding” and redistribution hubs: Port Canaveral (4.2 million passengers in 2016), Port Everglades (3.8 million) and the Port of Key West (0.7 million).

• Urban tourism: Miami is the primary destination for urban tourism, for its beaches but also for conferences and business meetings. There are also numerous attractions including a number of iconic Art Deco buildings and art galleries, and the city has a dynamic cultural scene. Three additional destinations are effectively tourist annexes of the Miami metropolis: nearby Miami Beach, a mecca for luxury beach tourism with its seaside skyscrapers; West Palm Beach, specializing in luxury tourism and yachting; the Keys archipelago, which, in addition to its villas and smaller luxury hotels, is very popular for sailing and diving–the city of Key West, at the end of the highway which connects the archipelago to the Miami metropolitan area, is a destination in its own right.

16In its official communications and press releases, Brightline insist on the structural significance of creating a new rail line in this heavily-frequented tourist destination, connecting Florida’s major beach resorts—Miami and West Palm Beach—with Orlando, the theme park capital. This new service could become a major tourist route for Florida, firstly for Florida residents who travel within the state for their holidays, secondly for American tourists visiting from outside Florida, and also for foreign tourists thanks to its connection to Orlando’s international airport. In the second section of this article, we will look in closer detail at the key characteristics of this rail project, and the actors involved.

2. The Brightline project: A rail line which aims to become the backbone of Florida’s tourism sector

A project which describes itself as entirely privately-funded: Who are the stakeholders?

19This project is innovative in terms of both its financial and its organizational structure. FECI is the parent company supervising the implementation of this new transportation service, while also retaining responsibility for rail freight operations and activities connected with local development and promotion. The project was initially known as All Aboard Florida, a name which has been gradually abandoned and replaced by “Brightline” in official documentation and for commercial purposes. Nonetheless, Brightline is not actually a branch of FECI. If FECI had pursued such a structure, the company would have been directly financially responsible in the event that the Brightline project should fail. In reality, Brightline is operated by three subsidiary companies of which FECI is the majority shareholder: the first is AAF Holdings LLC, which owns the physical assets (rolling stock, land around the stations), the second is AAF Operations Holdings LLC, which handles the general supervision of the group’s projects, and the third is AAF Operations LLC, responsible for the operational and financial dimensions of the project. This seemingly complex structure actually allows FECI to retain ownership of the infrastructure–the modernized line between Miami and Cocoa and the new infrastructure being built between Cocoa and Orlando–while also protecting the parent company from financial losses and the potential fall-out if Brightline should prove to be a commercial failure (Saginor and Dumbaugh, 2018, p. 34). In order to finance the necessary investments, and with the approval of the United States Department of Transportation, AAF Operations has raised 1.75 billion dollars in private activity bonds (PAB). These bonds are tax free and managed by the Florida Development Finance Corporation (FDFC), an agency delegated by the State of Florida to stimulate economic development. Jesse Saginor and Eric Dumbaugh (2018), in their initial analysis of the project, point out that details on how these bonds will eventually be amortized and paid back remain vague.

20In summary, this is a passenger transportation project using a pre-existing privately-owned line and being developed thanks to private investment–the only assistance received from the State of Florida is the mechanism allowing the PABs to be considered tax-exempt. In this manner, Brightline has got round the strong political and societal opposition in Florida to projects involving substantial public investment in infrastructure other than highways, as well as the absence of public funding for intercity passenger rail services (Schorung, 2019). This leaves the company with total freedom over its commercial strategy and rail services, as well as its building and real estate strategy for the stations and surrounding areas. Major public-sector stakeholders (the federal government, the State of Florida) have only marginal involvement in the project: they retain control over the regulatory framework which governs transport projects, for example in terms of the preliminary environmental studies required; they also control the fiscal facilitation mechanism used by the project. Local public-sector stakeholders, particularly city and county authorities, also have peripheral involvement with the project as a whole, largely in matters relating to road networks and minor adjustments to public spaces in the vicinity of the stations. The body responsible for public transport in the Miami region, the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, worked with Brightline to allow the metropolitan rail service to reach Miami Central Station. With these exceptions, the public sector is not involved in this private rail project. As a result, there is little interconnection between this new service and other public transport services at the metropolitan or state level (Schorung, 2019).

A constantly evolving project whose focus on tourism is becoming more pronounced

21Upon launching, the service was an immediate commercial success, with passenger numbers exceeding the company’s initial targets. In Q1 2018, when the service was partially operational between Miami and West Palm Beach, Brightline trains transported 17,800 passengers in January, 24,100 in February and 32,900 in March. Brightline offers two types of ticket: “select” (first class) and “smart” (second class). For the West Palm Beach-Fort Lauderdale services, prices are set at between 10 and 15 dollars in smart class and 20 dollars for a select seat. For West Palm Beach-Miami, tickets cost around 20 dollars in smart and 30 dollars in select (Broadt, 2018a). In 2018, the first full year of operation, the Brightline service transported almost 600,000, despite the fact that MiamiCentral and the Miami-West Palm Beach service only became operational in May of that year (TNM Staff, 2019). In 2019, passenger numbers exceeded 900,000 (Wile, 2020). The company’s promotional materials are aimed at tourists, but also intercity travelers and commuters within the Miami-West Palm Beach metropolitan area. At the time of writing, no information is available regarding the socio-demographic composition of passengers nor the nature of their journeys (length, frequency, demand, user requirements etc.). It seems entirely possible that, in the long term, this private service may play a major role in satisfying the day-to-day demand for transport services for commuters.

3. What is the territorial scope of the Brightline project? A rail corridor in a territory whose environment, public image and mobility practices have all been shaped by automobile and air travel

Brightline is a new arrival in a territory designed for automobiles

24Florida is a state heavily dependent upon automobiles: almost 90% of Floridians commuted to and from work in cars in 2018 (79.8% in their own cars, 8% in car-pooling schemes) with only 2.2% using public transport (3.8% in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metropolitan area, just 1.9% in the Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford metropolitan area). This high proportion of automobile travel has remained stable over time (79.9% of commuters took their own cars and 9% car-shared in 2010) (FDOT, 2018, pp. 1-2). With regard to travel within the state, the dependency on carbon-heavy modes of transport is even stronger: the number of vehicle-kilometers has increased by 4.3% since 2013, while Amtrak passenger numbers have fallen by 3.3% over the same period (FDOT, 2015, pp. 4-6). Mobility habits and tourist travel in Florida are very heavily dependent on modes of transport with high carbon emissions (cf. figure 2): almost 50% of tourists arrive by plane, with almost 48% arriving by car (FDOT, 2015, pp. 7-8). Furthermore, almost half of all US tourists who arrive by plane then rent a car to get around during their stay. Along the route served by the Brightline project, there are already two federal highways (I-95 and the Florida Turnpike) which run up the east coast of Florida from Miami to Orlando. Traffic on these two major roads is expected to grow by 52% between 2007 and 2040. Almost all sections of the road will have reached maximum capacity by 2040. There are several reasons for this saturation: the substantial increase in both the local population and visitor numbers, and the scarcity of room for maneuver in terms of further expanding the highway network (All Aboard Florida, 2015, p. 2-4).

25Florida’s busiest international airports are:

• Orlando International (MCO): 40.1 million passengers in 2019 (five main airlines: Southwest 24.7%, Delta 14.8%, American Airlines 13%, Spirit 12.8% and JetBlue 11.8%);

• Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL): 26.8 million passengers in 2019 (predominantly travelling with three budget airlines: Spirit 23.5%, JetBlue 21.4% and Southwest 21%);

• Miami International Airport (MIA): 21 million passengers in 2019 (two main airlines: American Airlines with a 68% market share, and Delta with 11.7%);

• • 19 See the figures published by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS): https://www.transtats.b (...)

  Tampa International (TPA): 19 million passengers in 2019 (three main airlines: Southwest 31.8%, Delta 17.1%, American Airlines 16.2%)19.

26Almost 80% of tourists arriving by plane land at one of four airports: Orlando, Miami, Fort Lauderdale or Tampa. There are more than thirty flights everyday between Orlando International Airport and the airports of West Palm Beach/Fort Lauderdale and Miami. Florida’s internal air travel market is modest in scale–no Floridian airport features in the top ten domestic destinations from either Miami or Orlando–but there are still more than sixty direct flights every week between Miami and Orlando.

27Florida does not have a high-speed rail infrastructure connecting it to its neighboring states, nor a high-speed or very high-speed line within the state. The number of Americans who use Amtrak long distance services to travel to Florida is negligible (FDOT, 2012, pp. 3-4; Schorung, 2019). Amtrak only offers three such long-distance services (Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Auto Train), which are severely limited both in terms of their coverage and the number of trains available—an average of two return journeys per day. These rail services have had a very limited impact on Florida’s mobility landscape: in 2018, Amtrak services in Florida carried 885,000 passengers; the Amtrak station in Miami saw fewer than 64,000 passengers over the whole year, while Orlando served around 124,000 travelers. And yet, a brief look at the most popular rail journeys reveals that there is indeed a potential demand for train travel within Florida. Of the five most popular destinations out of Miami, four are in Florida (Tampa, Orlando, Lakeland, Winter Haven), while three of the top destinations out of Orlando are within the state (Tampa, West Palm Beach, Miami) (NARP, 2019).

Table 2. What position to adopt in terms of competition with other modes of transport? Modal comparison on the basis of journey times and cost

Route	Train (Amtrak)	Bus	Airplane	Car
LONG JOURNEYS
Journey time (in minutes)
Miami-Orlando	360	300	60	285
Fort Lauderdale-Orlando	300	270	60	255
West Palm Beach-Orlando	225	235	60	220
Cost of journey (in dollars)
Miami-Orlando	55	50	150	50
Fort Lauderdale-Orlando	50	50	100	45
West Palm Beach-Orlando	40	45	100	40
SHORT JOURNEYS
Journey time (in minutes))
Miami-Fort Lauderdale	45	55	/	50
Miami-West Palm Beach	105	115	/	105
Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach	60	85	/	75
Cost of journey (in dollars)
Miami-Fort Lauderdale	5	10	/	10
Miami-West Palm Beach	10	15	/	20
Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach	10	15	/	10

Source: FECI, 2015, pp. 60-61

28FECI has conducted research to identify the potential market for its Brightline service, and the modal share it is capable of achieving (cf. table 2). According to these projections, Brightline should be able to capture over 10% of the long-distance market (tourists and non-tourists)—cars will account for 88.2%, with air travel covering 0.8%, coaches 0.6% and Amtrak 0.1%. The majority of Brightline’s passengers (60%) would come from a modal shift away from cars, plus induced demand of around 20% (FECI, 2015, pp. 117-118). The remainder would be diverted from air and car travel in a secondary manner. The completion of Phase 2 to Orlando thus appears to be an essential priority in order to ensure that the overall project is profitable and reaches its projected passenger numbers. It is interesting to note that the company considers breaking into the short-distance travel market to be a more difficult prospect. In the short term they expect that travelling by car will retain its quasi-monopoly, with Brightline capturing a modal share of just 1.2%.

The new Brightline stations: tourism strategy, symbolic presence and catalyst for real estate development projects

29As well as being innovative in terms of its financial structure and governance, the Brightline project requires the construction of three new train stations (Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach) and a connection to the new terminal at Orlando International Airport. The first three stations, particularly Miami, are essential to Brightline’s property and real estate strategy (Schorung, 2020).

31The Brightline service also has two new, modestly-sized intermediate stations at Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. The Brightline station is located in the center of Fort Lauderdale, a beach resort with a population of 130,000 in the vicinity of the Miami urban area. In fact, the station is right in the commercial and cultural center of the city, within easy reach of the Museum of Discovery & Science, the F.A.T Village Arts District and the Broward Center for the Performing Arts. It is also right next to the Broward County Bus Station, and two blocks away from the SunTrolley hub (trolleybus service connecting the city center to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International airport). Here again we can observe the lack of effort to connect and coordinate the state’s different transport networks. The Fort Lauderdale Tri-Rail Station is, by comparison, a while away from the city center. There is a clear separation between the two stations. The spatial configuration of transport networks is broadly similar in West Palm Beach. The new Brightline station is located right in the city center, a short walk from the Government Center, the Civic Center and the waterfront. It offers no connection to the Tri-Rail network, nor is it within easy reach of the city’s bus (Palm Tram Bus) or trolleybus (Palm Trolley) services. Last but not least, the final Brightline station which should extend the existing rail service to Orlando by 2020-2021, is located within a new terminal of the city’s airport, illustrating the priority afforded to air-rail connections.

32The new Brightline stations serve as showcases for this new passenger rail service, and this includes the stations of Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach which are not on the same scale as the others. Their striking architecture is designed to promote the project and make it a distinctive feature of the region. The two main Brightline stations (Miami, Orlando) thus enjoy a favorable position within their respective territories (tourist mobility, proximity to major tourist attractions), despite their shared lack of a connection to the main rail networks and the failure to take multi-modal transport into consideration (cf. figure 4).

A potential reinvention of Florida’s public image?

33Tourism is universally acknowledged to be a driver of territorial development, a tool for promoting natural, cultural and historical assets, and a powerful influence on individual and collective perceptions of destinations. Over the past two centuries, rail networks have given rise to new forms of tourism (Gay, 2006). The USA has a certain tradition of combining tourism strategies with transport services. Rail operators doubled as travel agencies for visitors to the American west in the early 20^th century. Yosemite National Park was created in 1864, and by 1907 was accessible via a railway line operated by Southern Pacific; by 1901 the Santa Fe Railroad Co. had a passenger service to the Grand Canyon, where the company had constructed the first hotel. Advertisements from this era bear witness to the tourism-focused strategies of the rail operators as they sought to capitalize not so much on the benefits of train travel, but instead on the attractions and imagery of the American west.

34At time of writing, a number of companies (such as Brightline) and rail operators (including national rail company Amtrak) are using their advertising to promote a new visual vocabulary of themes and representations, with a view to creating a new public image for train travel in general, and particularly the tourist experience of travelling by rail. Brightline is using its digital communication efforts (website, social media) to promote this new image–the photographs posted on the Brightline Twitter account (cf. figure 5) are primarily focused on the experiential qualities of train travel, on cultural and sporting events accessible by train, and on sharing often irreverent takes on the difficulty of travelling by car in the state’s increasingly congested metropolitan areas. As part of this marketing strategy, Brightline hopes to promote its train services at cultural and seasonal events (e.g., special events connected with Halloween or Christmas), sporting events (for example the home games of local basketball team Miami Heat) and professional conferences and exhibitions (the Miami Boat & Yacht Show, for example). Other companies, such as the Alaska Railroad Corporation, have gone as far as organizing integrated package deals offering transport, accommodation and excursions (Schorung, 2016). In the long term, this might also be an option for Brightline.

Conclusion

35The Brightline project is an innovative attempt to develop a high-speed rail service led by a private company which owns the accompanying rail infrastructure. In their public declarations, Brightline insist on the structurally-significant nature of this new line, running through such a tourist-friendly territory and offering a connection between Florida’s most popular beach destinations–Miami and West Palm Beach–and Orlando, the world’s theme park capital. In the context of this project, the new stations are considered as assets contributing to the visibility and profitability of the economic model of the future service, above and beyond their architectural quality.

36The Brightline rail project is an example of an entirely new infrastructure and a new intercity transport service being created in a territory which is already heavily developed and where the tourism industry is highly advanced. Trains, not even high-speed trains, do not generate tourism, but they can intensify and reinforce the polarization of tourism around key transport nodes. Brightline appears to have fully appreciated the potential impact of high-speed rail on tourism, structuring its commercial strategy around this potential. Perhaps the most obvious expression of this strategy is the company’s decision to create an air-rail hub at Orlando international airport rather than build a station in the middle of the city. The construction of these new stations, particularly those in Miami, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, is based on the assumption that existing tourist hubs will be reinforced by such an addition. This rail corridor will connect the most popular tourist destinations in central and eastern Florida, and in doing so hopes to boost the tourism sector—thanks to improved accessibility, a larger and more diverse selection of holiday options, the development of new combined services, and a new approach to the articulation between local and regional travel. In order to further examine and monitor the progress of this developing project (it will not be completed until 2021 at the earliest), it would be interesting to study the impact of this new intercity transport service on the number of tourists visiting the cities along the line, looking at the composition of this tourist clientele—regional, national or international—with an eye on potential partnerships between Brightline and private companies in the tourism sector. Furthermore, it would be interesting to conduct surveys with passengers to analyze the weight of tourism in the commercial activity of the Brightline service and the trajectories and practices of users’ mobility.