There’s a great commercial on TV right now. It starts by showing a bridge to an idyllic European village, probably set in the 1700s. On the bridge are two men, one wearing a homemade set of wings.

A crowd of villagers begins to gather as the would-be flyer peers over the edge at the river far below. His concern is obvious, but with a reassuring nod from his partner, he jumps.

At the moment it looks like he’ll fall to his death, the wings fill with air and he soars out over the river. The look of relief on his face is priceless, and the villagers begin to cheer, “He can fly! He can fly!”

Passing by, however, is an old curmudgeon. Unimpressed by the spectacle, he turns to the crowd and sneers, “But he can’t swim!” — as the aviator glides gently into the drink.

In my mind, an analogy applies to Orlando’s proposed commuter rail system. While there’s a chorus of voices cheering it on right now, reality bodes ill for the project.

Cost

First, let’s consider the price. According to Gov. Bush’s office, the state will pay CSX Transportation $150 million for 61 miles of existing tracks between DeLand in Volusia County and Poinciana in Osceola County. As part of the project, another $23 million will be spent to relocate operations from Taft Yard in Orlando to the new CSX Integrated Logistics Center the railroad will build in Winter Haven.

Sounds like a bargain so far, but then you have to consider the estimated $475 million it will take to actually build the commuter rail system, including at least 16 stops. So, now we’re up to $625 million.

Next, we have to consider that this particular deal also includes a promise by the state to spend an additional $259 million to improve other CSX infrastructure or otherwise accommodate the railroad. It also includes $59 million to build five road overpasses in Alachua, Sumter and Marion counties.

Are these additional improvements part and parcel to the commuter rail portion of the deal? Did CSX say, “We’ll sell you the 61 miles of track if you pay for these other items?” Hard to say. I called both the governor’s office and CSX for comment. The governor’s press aides simply sent me their original press release, and CSX didn’t call me back in time for this column.

If this was a package deal, then it’s fair to add at least $259 million to the commuter rail hard costs — and maybe $318 million to account for the overpass development. This brings our total hard costs to an estimated $943 million. But as we all know, estimates hardly ever go down in value.

According to published reports, the federal government is expected to chip in half of the hard costs. The state is supposed to provide 25%, and local county and city governments are supposed to put up the other 25%.

But these agreements aren’t in place yet, according to commuter rail project manager Tawny Olore. To get federal funds, the project needs to clear a series of steps, she said, adding the project is only in the environmental documentation stage right now. The next stage is preliminary engineering stage.

So, regarding hard costs, it seems that a lot is up in the air right now. The same holds true for operation and maintenance costs, which Olore admits have not been nailed down. No matter — the state is supposed to pay operating costs through 2015, according to The Orlando Sentinel.

I see that attitude as part of the problem with this project. From what I’ve read and heard on talk radio, the local boosters of commuter rail seem to be saying, “Hey, this is a good deal because it’s not our money anyway.” In my mind, it’s all our money.

Ridership

Orlando commuter rail comes with the promise of cost-effectiveness. It’s supposed to carry as many people — during peak hours — as a single lane of I-4, therefore we won’t have to build that lane.

But commuter rail doesn’t live up to the promise of carrying 100% of freeway usage, according to an extensive study by Randal O’Toole of the Thoreau Institute, an Oregon think tank that seeks ways to protect the environment without regulation, bureaucracy or central control.

O’Toole complied data for all U.S. rail transit systems, including 20 commuter rail systems. In only one case did commuter rail actually relieve pressure on the freeway.

“For commuter rail, you can see that one line in the New York area carries more than a freeway lane, but all others carry less. Commuter lines like the ones in Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, and San Diego — lines most like the Central Florida line would be — carry only about 5% or 6% of a freeway lane,” O’Toole said in an e-mail.

“So unless a new lane on I-4 would cost at least 20 times as much as commuter rail — and it wouldn't using the (Orlando) Sentinel’s numbers, which only count the cost of right-of-way acquisition for the rail line — the total cost is double that — commuter rail is less cost effective than a new freeway lane. And there are many other roadway improvements, such as coordinating traffic signals, that are far more cost effective than new freeway lanes.”

Road costs

In an editorial, The Orlando Sentinel said the cost to build another lane on I-4 for 61 miles would top $6 billion. Even if that is true, it would be a bargain — using O’Toole’s rationale — on the basis of hard costs alone. Considering only the $625 million devoted directly to the commuter rail project, a system equal in efficiency to a single lane of I-4 would cost $12.5 billion — more than twice as much.

And this doesn’t include the O&M costs, which are totally unknown for Orlando commuter rail and tough to estimate for Florida’s interstate highways. FDOT policy analyst Dave Lee told me the agency is re-evaluating its procedures for providing cost estimates because of the rapid rise in labor and material costs recently.

Taking FDOT’s 2004 figures for urban highway maintenance, however, we can put the cost for maintaining a single 61-mile lane at $1.2 million annually. Will the O&M for Orlando commuter rail be cheaper? Somehow, I doubt it.

I have no axe to grind when it comes to mass transit. I’ve used it in Toronto. I’ve used it in San Francisco. I’ve used it in Washington, D.C. I’ve enjoyed it every time, and I like it as a transportation option. My arguments are strictly pragmatic, and the fact is that commuter rail is cost effective on only one line in only one U.S. city. Orlando ain’t it, nor will it ever be unless it achieves the population density of, say, Manhattan. I doubt many want to see that happen.

I’m neither old nor a curmudgeon, and I’d certainly like to see Orlando’s commuter rail system fly. But I’m afraid the truth is that it’s going to sink like a stone.