Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE

Status
Not open for further replies.

TP2000

Well-Known Member
I think if you were to ask the average person why he doesn't ride the current train, the reasons would not be price, time, or so-so seats. The reason would be that he doesn't want to drive to the station, park his car, then have to find transportation at the other end because the train doesn't go close enough to his destination. Repeat on the way back. This plan does not solve this problem.

And promising him that someday there will be connectors to his destination will not get him riding today.

It's those connectors at either end that would have to be paid by the state/county/city that are the sticking point right now. No one can afford them, and the system won't work without them.

So until there is a faster way to get to the train from home or resorts, it won't be popular enough to support itself.

BINGO! You just nailed the whole thing shut perfectly there! :wave:

That also just summed up why trendy and rather mindless cocktail-party chatter about how we absolutely have to have high-speed rail to beat the Chinese is so funny.

The Tampa-Orlando route is one of the best examples of ending your high-speed rail journey nowhere near where you want to be, and no real way to get to the final destination except to get in a rental car and drive yourself, all at much greater expense and time than just driving from Point A to Point B in the first place.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
That also just summed up why trendy and rather mindless cocktail-party chatter about how we absolutely have to have high-speed rail to beat the Chinese is so funny.
This is a sentiment I just do not understand. How exactly do we beat the Chinese at a game we have absolutely no interest in actually playing? We do not have or want what makes it so cheap to build high speed rail lines in China.
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
I think if you were to ask the average person why he doesn't ride the current train, the reasons would not be price, time, or so-so seats. The reason would be that he doesn't want to drive to the station, park his car, then have to find transportation at the other end because the train doesn't go close enough to his destination. Repeat on the way back. This plan does not solve this problem.

And promising him that someday there will be connectors to his destination will not get him riding today.

It's those connectors at either end that would have to be paid by the state/county/city that are the sticking point right now. No one can afford them, and the system won't work without them.

So until there is a faster way to get to the train from home or resorts, it won't be popular enough to support itself.

I have a bus stop 3 houses away. My son has a bus stop a few blocks from his school. We don't use public transportation because what is now a 15-20 min trip would be close to an hour, and would include standing in the rain, heat, cold, etc waiting for the bus. The same with my husband. His commute is 5 mins by car, and would be an hour because of the bus routes/transfers. Don't even ask about where the transfer takes place - not someplace I would like to be alone, even in the daytime.

Yes a HSR line would be more popular if existing rail was connected to destinations in Florida. It was a pita when we took amtrak to disney, we will not make that mistake again until their is an on-site station or disney provides transportation.
 

AndyMagic

Well-Known Member
I'm amused by everyone saying HSR in Florida won't work because the density is too low. The reason density in Florida is so low is because most of the state was built up around the interstates and highways and not functioning transit systems. Density FOLLOWS trains, not the other way around. Look up some pictures of New York City when they built their subways and commuter rails. The 7 line was built through Queens in the early 1900s and most of that borough was farmland. Also, building train systems in already densely populated areas costs a lot more money (we're talking 4 or 5 times more) than building trains in rural environments. New York's phase 1 of the second avenue subway (running just 2 miles) costs about the same amount as the entire Florida HSR project! Amtrak's plan to upgrade the Acela Express from Boston to New York and Washington is estimated to cost $120 billion. So while I agree with those saying the alignment isn't ideal and that there are other more worthy cities we should be connecting first, in terms of bang for the buck, Florida HSR is a steal. Ideally the cities of Orlando and Tampa should be planning small light rail systems in conjunction with the HSR plans and the alignment should be changed so that the Tampa-Orlando leg runs through downtown Orlando but I don't think it is wise to just junk the whole plan and forever keep Florida a completely car dependent state.
 

tizzo

Member
I'm amused by everyone saying HSR in Florida won't work because the density is too low. The reason density in Florida is so low is because most of the state was built up around the interstates and highways and not functioning transit systems. Density FOLLOWS trains, not the other way around.

You're probably right, and you're not the first one to make that observation in this thread. However, unless you feel like high density is something to shoot for rather than be avoided, this is just another compelling argument against the HSR not for it. Asking people to pony up billions in tax dollars to help reduce their quality of life would be a hard sell in any economy.

New York's phase 1 of the second avenue subway (running just 2 miles) costs about the same amount as the entire Florida HSR project! Amtrak's plan to upgrade the Acela Express from Boston to New York and Washington is estimated to cost $120 billion. So while I agree with those saying the alignment isn't ideal and that there are other more worthy cities we should be connecting first, in terms of bang for the buck, Florida HSR is a steal.

Perhaps in a dollar for dollar comparison, but in a "bang-for-the-buck" comparison - that is, in which you take ridership into account - I don't think so. Consider that the subway line you mentioned, while it may be equivalent in capital construction costs, will likely generate more operating revenue in a day than the proposed HSR here would generate in a year, simply because so many people will be riding it.

And that's just the revenue side of things - the comparison gets even worse when you consider costs. The per train operating cost is going to be much higher due to the distance and the high speed; it's too short to be anything but a commuter route so they'd have to run multiple trains daily to accommodate the kind of flexibility such a route would need, with conditions attached to the grant requiring a minimum number of trips pushing even higher the number of empty or almost empty trains they're going to have to run. It is an almost guaranteed, perpetual money pit.

Ideally the cities of Orlando and Tampa should be planning small light rail systems in conjunction with the HSR plans and the alignment should be changed so that the Tampa-Orlando leg runs through downtown Orlando but I don't think it is wise to just junk the whole plan and forever keep Florida a completely car dependent state.

One of the biggest problems with that is that the public share of the cost is only as low as it is because of private contributions, and those private contributions are naturally contingent on selection of routes that don't make sense except to the contributors. A HSR train from Orlando to Tampa that makes a stop at WDW is frankly ridiculous. But nobody downtown is offering land for a station or money for construction.
 

TimeTrip

Well-Known Member
Look up some pictures of New York City when they built their subways and commuter rails. The 7 line was built through Queens in the early 1900s and most of that borough was farmland.

Were there tons of cars on the road back then? Maybe rail was a serious priority because it really WAS the best way to get around.
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
Were there tons of cars on the road back then? Maybe rail was a serious priority because it really WAS the best way to get around.

NYC was planned and being built before cars were invented, as was much of the NE. Rail is the only real way to get around NYC.
 

PeterMarcus

Active Member
Look up some pictures of New York City when they built their subways and commuter rails. The 7 line was built through Queens in the early 1900s and most of that borough was farmland.

That's why it worked -- there were no cars, car culture, or interstate system. People back then rarely left the 10 or 20 square miles of their local townships.

New York's phase 1 of the second avenue subway (running just 2 miles) costs about the same amount as the entire Florida HSR project!

Manhattan's daytime population density approaches one person per square foot (most of them are above ground in buildings, obviously, but anyone who has walked on a Manhattan sidewalk at 5pm on a Friday before a 3-day weekend can grasp the statistic). That 2 mile population of rail, including the many blocks around it and rail feeder population from surrounding areas as far as Boston and Philadelphia, can support that price tag. Anyone who has driven between Cocoa or Tampa to WDW can estimate that the entire Gulf/Atlantic I-4/528 corridor is pretty sparse.


Amtrak's plan to upgrade the Acela Express from Boston to New York and Washington is estimated to cost $120 billion.

And even though there's a much wider rail-culture in the NE, that upgrade is not free from controversy, especially since Amtrack isn't widely regarded as a profitable company, even with government subsidies and bailouts.

I'm not trying to slam the idea, I live in Melbourne FL, have family in Tampa Bay, and Seasonal Passes to WDW. I'd personally love HSR and my family would use it. Especially given gas prices -- it takes me close to $50 in gas to drive my family out there both ways. But, I think HSR is an economic black hole given the demographics of central Florida. Sure, if you build it, the population will come, but the question is, how soon? If it takes 15 years, does that mean us locals are paying for the expansion enjoyed by the rest of America and the world?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Yes a HSR line would be more popular if existing rail was connected to destinations in Florida. It was a pita when we took amtrak to disney, we will not make that mistake again until their is an on-site station or disney provides transportation.
Another huge problem with the Tampa-Orlando proposal. No connections! No connection to Amtrak. No connection to SunRail. Even the White House, in its high speed rail plan of which this project is the "first step," only has Florida connected to the proposed national high speed system by an "other rail connection" between Orlando and Jacksonville.

I'm amused by everyone saying HSR in Florida won't work because the density is too low. The reason density in Florida is so low is because most of the state was built up around the interstates and highways and not functioning transit systems. Density FOLLOWS trains, not the other way around.
Why would density follow a single rail line that services a trip nobody is making and nobody would be convenienced by making?

Look up some pictures of New York City when they built their subways and commuter rails. The 7 line was built through Queens in the early 1900s and most of that borough was farmland.
By that time Queens was already a borough of New York City and Manhattan was well established as the economic center of the country. People wanted to be in, and more importantly do business in, Manhattan. Trains to the surrounding areas enabled people to live in the cheaper outskirts while still doing business in Manhattan. Probably the only time people are en masse trying to take the 7 train to Queens, outside of going home, is for Mets games, the US Open or other big events at Flushing Meadows.

The people who want to be in and do business in Tampa are in Tampa. The people who want to be in and do business in Orlando are in Orlando. There are no regularly scheduled flights between the two cities. And if you were going between the two, why drive to the interstate only to pay for a train that is barely faster than your car, and then rent a car or take a taxi to your final destination?

Also, building train systems in already densely populated areas costs a lot more money (we're talking 4 or 5 times more) than building trains in rural environments.
And several people have agreed that a rail link would be a good idea, but not a high speed rail link. The cost, even without having to push through an established, dense population, is still significantly high for the existing demand, which is very low.

Amtrak's plan to upgrade the Acela Express from Boston to New York and Washington is estimated to cost $120 billion.
Over twenty years and it involves acquiring a dedicated right of way, new tunnels and new bridges; significantly different than the existing empty median of I-4. But there is also a known existing ridership for Acela Express, one that is expected to increase as the highways and air routes continue to be used significantly as well.

So while I agree with those saying the alignment isn't ideal and that there are other more worthy cities we should be connecting first, in terms of bang for the buck, Florida HSR is a steal.
Only in terms of initial construction. The equipment is still very expensive to maintain and operate, and just looks foolish when it is clear that conventional rail service could make trip times close to what is being promised by the high speed equipment.

Perhaps in a dollar for dollar comparison, but in a "bang-for-the-buck" comparison - that is, in which you take ridership into account - I don't think so. Consider that the subway line you mentioned, while it may be equivalent in capital construction costs, will likely generate more operating revenue in a day than the proposed HSR here would generate in a year, simply because so many people will be riding it.
The subway is also going to be part of the consolidated Metropolitan Transit Authority that runs the New York City subway, Long Island Railroad, Metro-North Railroad, the New York City bus system, and toll collecting inter-borough bridges and tunnels. It is an entire unified system operating with the goal of moving people around. The Florida High Speed Rail Authority is/was its own autonomous agency that is totally dependent on just riders of the high speed rail line. And if, in the future to get more riders, discounts are offered for people coming from other systems, that is just revenue lost.

One of the biggest problems with that is that the public share of the cost is only as low as it is because of private contributions, and those private contributions are naturally contingent on selection of routes that don't make sense except to the contributors. A HSR train from Orlando to Tampa that makes a stop at WDW is frankly ridiculous. But nobody downtown is offering land for a station or money for construction.
I think the only big private contribution is from Walt Disney World, that being the land to build and accommodate a station. It is not all that unusual actually. Tokyo Disneyland, Disneyland Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland and Shanghai Disneyland (obviously not built yet) are all served by regional trains. Disneyland Paris also has high speed rail service. The new parking deck at the Disneyland Resort is on hold became it is intended to include a connection between the Resort and ARTIC, the under construction (?) local transit hub that will service regional trains and, if built, the California High Speed Rail.

The problem was the belief that ridership in and out of Walt Disney World would be enough to sustain the train. Disney has not plans of ending Magical Express, regardless of whether or not the train is built. The idea that people would use the train to break Disney's hold on them and use it to leave the property is also baseless. The existing options of rental cars, buses and taxis are all cheaper for families than existing high speed rail systems over similar distances. Using high speed rail to get to International Drive or Tampa is only an economic option for the wealthy or single travelers.

NYC was planned and being built before cars were invented, as was much of the NE. Rail is the only real way to get around NYC.
Rail is convenient and worth its hassles because the roads in an around New York are clogged. Plenty of people still drive in New York City and between Paris and Lyon and Tokyo and Osaka (the only two high speed lines in the world that routinely operate in the black).


It will be interesting to see what the court says. I will not object to the court ruling if it is against the governor, but maybe wiser heads will prevails and it will be realized that conventional rail, easily able to accommodate future high speed trains, would be a significantly wiser use of this money and the plans to build transit in Florida.
 

tizzo

Member
I think the only big private contribution is from Walt Disney World, that being the land to build and accommodate a station.

I don't think they're the only ones, just the most prominent. However they also provide the best example of what I was talking about. A high-speed line between two points as close together as Tampa and Orlando makes not sense to begin with. Adding a station in between, at WDW, just makes it worse.

It is not all that unusual actually. Tokyo Disneyland, Disneyland Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland and Shanghai Disneyland (obviously not built yet) are all served by regional trains.

A regional train system with service to WDW would make sense. But that's not what we're talking about.

The problem was the belief that ridership in and out of Walt Disney World would be enough to sustain the train.

I'm not sure to what extent that's true. May have just been wishful thinking rather than actual belief, as a way to deny the obvious flaw of putting an intermediate station in the middle of a HSR line that already traverses a route too short to make HSR sensible.

More to the point, even if WDW traffic could sustain the route, it would still be highly inefficient because you're pushing HSR for a route that could be no less well served by conventional rail.

I think a good analogy would be buying a Lamborghini that can do 250MPH for use exclusively on roads that will accommodate 75MPH. If you can afford it, and are spending your own money, hey, go for it. In this case those pushing it cannot afford it - and they're spending my money.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I don't think they're the only ones, just the most prominent. However they also provide the best example of what I was talking about. A high-speed line between two points as close together as Tampa and Orlando makes not sense to begin with. Adding a station in between, at WDW, just makes it worse.
Walt Disney World could still make sense. The real wrench in the system is the Lakeland station. That literally is a stop in the middle, making the longest stretches of track only 30 - 40 miles long, as the trains go in and out of Lakeland.

A regional train system with service to WDW would make sense. But that's not what we're talking about.
But many people have said similarly and that it is not a proposal is a problem. If Tampa-Orlando was well traveled high speed rail would be part of a larger corridor capacity expansion project. Discussion, even if just here, is where real projects do start. No real reason not to talk about potential good ideas.

I'm not sure to what extent that's true. May have just been wishful thinking rather than actual belief, as a way to deny the obvious flaw of putting an intermediate station in the middle of a HSR line that already traverses a route too short to make HSR sensible.
It is part of the optimism bias that makes up the ridership projections that are intended to sell the project.

More to the point, even if WDW traffic could sustain the route, it would still be highly inefficient because you're pushing HSR for a route that could be no less well served by conventional rail.
You sound like you are disagree with me when I, and several others, have said this repeatedly.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I guess the plaintiff lawyers forgot to tell the justices that Florida HSR is DEFINITE. What a lousy legal team they must have hired.
I know, but I am sure we will be proven wrong somehow. Probably all a massive conspiracy that is hiding the truth of all of the proclamations.
 

tizzo

Member
More to the point, even if WDW traffic could sustain the route, it would still be highly inefficient because you're pushing HSR for a route that could be no less well served by conventional rail.
You sound like you are disagree with me when I, and several others, have said this repeatedly.

Sorry, not my intent - that was my fault for the way I worded it. I agree with you, and disagree with those pushing HSR and vilifying Scott for killing it.
 

Mammymouse

Well-Known Member
I have posted my support for Gov. Scott's decision several times through out these 42 pages of postings, so I won't re-hash why I agree that the HSR is a bad idea. But for those of you who think it is a good idea I can sum up this whole debate in 2 simple words "BIG DIG". I'm sure you are all familiar with that Boston tunnel construction fiasco that went into monstrous cost overruns and lawsuits for faulty work. And Gov. Chris Chrisitie of New Jersey saw that same scenario coming to his state with that tunnel project and he refused it - good decision. I am encouraged with Gov. Scott holding firm to his decision and not caving in to the lure of money that would be just begging for corruption to flourish.
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
I have posted my support for Gov. Scott's decision several times through out these 42 pages of postings, so I won't re-hash why I agree that the HSR is a bad idea. But for those of you who think it is a good idea I can sum up this whole debate in 2 simple words "BIG DIG". I'm sure you are all familiar with that Boston tunnel construction fiasco that went into monstrous cost overruns and lawsuits for faulty work. And Gov. Chris Chrisitie of New Jersey saw that same scenario coming to his state with that tunnel project and he refused it - good decision. I am encouraged with Gov. Scott holding firm to his decision and not caving in to the lure of money that would be just begging for corruption to flourish.
Do you see specific parallels with the Fla and NJ projects that would appear to make them comparable to the Big Dig?

I only ask because it seems like you could cite the Big Dig to scare governments away from ANY significant infrastructure project.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom