Rumor Higher Speed Rail from MCO to Disney World

Gringrinngghost

Well-Known Member
f Universal and the other businesses want this service then they should pay for it instead of having taxpayers pay for it or just having the project killed.
They aren't the only ones. Hunters Creek does not want the project to go through them at all, which any legal action could kill the project and/or force the I-Drive expansion as the main route.

Something to note from the Orlando Sentinel Article: Brightline Trains has not yet assessed wetlands impacts or solutions in-depth, nor has it done sound tests required for federal permitting. There would be no road crossings and no train horns or crossing bells. The area’s wetlands, including those along Shingle Creek, were extensively harmed or destroyed by the historic development of Hunter’s Creek and part of the International Drive area. Shingle Creek has recovered some of its environmental health with heavy investment by Orange County and the state government.

So technically the project can still be cancelled.

A stop at Universal, Lake Meadow and MCO would most likely not allow the train to ever get to full cruising speed.
Oh no. The horror.
 

Twirlnhurl

Well-Known Member
The Orlando Sentinel article that was linked in that Blog Mickey article was published on July 20. The Orlando Business Journal article on the same meeting had a headline "Brightline gets Central Florida Expressway Authority support for Tampa route"

Importantly, the FDOT negotiation deadline of July 31, 2021, to secure I-4 right-of-way is no longer an issue. CFX agreed to allow Brightline to use the 417 route if that is the route that is chosen. (CFX does not control any of the right-of-way for the 528 route, because that portion of 528 is owned by Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, a division of FDOT.)

So this weeks meeting was actually an important step towards Brightline being built to Tampa and Disney, not a step away.
 

Twirlnhurl

Well-Known Member
On MCO being/staying the region's transportation hub: ... Since the airport takes up a ton of space while also limiting development around itself, it needs to be placed on the edge of the urban region (as MCO is today), which makes it an excellent terminal for a transportation spine but a very bad choice for the central hub in any kind of hub-and-spoke system.
I generally agree with you about airports making suboptimal locations for transit hubs. But metro Orlando is deeply, irreversibly polycentric. And MCO is going to become less peripheral to the regions population over the next few decades. Over the next 60 years, the Deseret Ranch will be developed east of Lake Nona, west of the St. John's River, and between 528 and 192 in an area covering 295,000 acres. This development is planned to eventually house about half a million people.

On the Meadow Woods Station and SunRail transfers: I actually don't like the idea of putting a Brightline station at Meadow Woods because SunRail is coming to the airport (and that appears to be much more concrete, with MCO Station being provisioned to support that SunRail extension already.)
The SunRail phase 3 project to the airport is unfunded. Currently, I think that the only way Brightline will take the 528 route is if they get significant public funding. If that happens, I think that would probably reduce the odds of getting funding for SunRail phase 3 for a long time to come. In the meantime, there would be a serious missed connection between SunRail and Brightline.

But imagine the hypothetical alternate scenario where Brightline gets the 528 alignment and SunRail Is built to the airport, and all the services offer frequent service and/or timed connections. How would one get from Downtown Orlando or other points along SunRail to Disney via transit? It would probably require a transfer at Meadow Woods or Sand Lake, followed by a several mile detour to the airport where you would transfer again before going the desired direction of travel.

A local train service running on Brightline's tracks from the north side of the Deseret Ranch through the airport with a stop at Meadow Woods and a few other places along 417 before getting to Disney seems to be a much more useful system for connecting the southern side of Metro Orlando. A transit connection to the Convention Center and north to Universal can be made as a separate route...it is a strong enough attractor on its own terms.
On median-running in general: (I also think in this particular instance the median option is about to be thoroughly ruined by the I-4 expansion project, but that's another thread.)
The median of I-4 between Tampa and the Kirkman Road exit near Universal have been reserved for high speed rail for decades. The I-4 Beyond Ultimate concept design preserves the median for rail.
On other future transportation initiatives in Orlando: Regardless of what happens with Brightline, there needs to be some kind of heavier dedicated transportation along I-Drive than what currently exists. We'll likely see at least a streetcar there at some point in our lives, although I carry a torch for a sleek and modern elevated railway or even just a dedicated surface transitway not beholden to general traffic. Either way, the I-Drive transit solution will connect a bunch of major employers and tourist destinations to each other on its eventual way into downtown Orlando. This route, depending on how far it stretches, would form the backbone of local transit in Orlando and Brightline should connect to this route as well to maximize the number of trips it can serve while also taking transfer pressure off the airport. And the only way Brightline can effectively connect to this route is through a transfer at the convention center.
Bus dedicated lanes already exist on the northern portion of I-Drive (from Kirkman north to the outlets), and there are plans to extend them south to the Convention Center. I think it would be better for any service along this corridor to continue directly to the airport (with a connection to SunRail at Sand Lake Road). This corridor was studied as a part of the OIA Connector Study by MetroPlan Orlando a few years ago.

On who Brightline is serving: I wouldn't be so quick to discount Brightline as a commuter service. Much like Amtrak in the Northeast, despite its intended audience being intercity travelers it's very possible for commuters to use the service as well.
I definitely agree here and with the rest of your post.
 
In the Parks
Yes
I generally agree with you about airports making suboptimal locations for transit hubs. But metro Orlando is deeply, irreversibly polycentric. And MCO is going to become less peripheral to the regions population over the next few decades. Over the next 60 years, the Deseret Ranch will be developed east of Lake Nona, west of the St. John's River, and between 528 and 192 in an area covering 295,000 acres. This development is planned to eventually house about half a million people.

At the risk of straying too far off-topic, I think the development forecasting around Deseret Ranch as described in that link is a little too blue-sky and unlikely to materialize in 60 years when there's still far more development opportunity to be had in more centrally located segments of the wider region. (And I would certainly hope that all manner of local transit services will have been in operation for half a century by 2080 besides.)

The SunRail phase 3 project to the airport is unfunded. Currently, I think that the only way Brightline will take the 528 route is if they get significant public funding. If that happens, I think that would probably reduce the odds of getting funding for SunRail phase 3 for a long time to come. In the meantime, there would be a serious missed connection between SunRail and Brightline.
My understanding is that additional track and platform space reserved for SunRail is already provisioned in the Intermodal Terminal itself. Furthermore, the OUC spur track that Brightline proposes to use for getting its trains onto the 417 alignment also already exists (and the 528 route has no technical reason to inhibit use of that spur by other services). Should Brightline end up taking the 528 routing, it will still be possible to go ahead with phase 3 to the airport, and I suspect that money will be found for it quickly. I actually suspect that money will be found for it as part of an infrastructure funding package in the near future regardless of what happens with Brightline.

But imagine the hypothetical alternate scenario where Brightline gets the 528 alignment and SunRail Is built to the airport, and all the services offer frequent service and/or timed connections. How would one get from Downtown Orlando or other points along SunRail to Disney via transit? It would probably require a transfer at Meadow Woods or Sand Lake, followed by a several mile detour to the airport where you would transfer again before going the desired direction of travel.
The aforementioned existing OUC spur connects to the existing SunRail tracks with a wye. Therefore, passengers seeking Disney Springs board SunRail's train to the airport at their station of choice (I envision some percentage of SunRail trains operating as DeLand-MCO / Poinciana-MCO trains where, upon arrival, the same train reverses direction on the platform and becomes the next MCO-Poinciana / MCO-DeLand train), and ride it directly into the airport terminal with no transfer required. (I am aware that one alternative currently proposed for this suggests that instead of utilizing the already-built ability to run trains to the OUC spur and therefore the airport with zero transfers, a separated shuttle line with a forced transfer would be built instead. I'm choosing to be cautiously optimistic that this alternative will be discarded.) This takes them a few miles out of their way, yes, but the time saved by the convenient and coordinated transfer at MCO makes up for it and this is still only a two-seat ride between any SunRail station and any Brightline station.

Bus dedicated lanes already exist on the northern portion of I-Drive (from Kirkman north to the outlets), and there are plans to extend them south to the Convention Center. I think it would be better for any service along this corridor to continue directly to the airport (with a connection to SunRail at Sand Lake Road). This corridor was studied as a part of the OIA Connector Study by MetroPlan Orlando a few years ago.
Assuming that the 417 alternative is what ultimately gets built, then yes, I agree that the I-Drive transit facility (a streetcar, fully dedicated and separated transitway, or elevated railway) should continue from the outlets east to the airport. Should the 528 alternative be built instead, however, I would argue that it's much better for the aforementioned transit facility to be extended northeast up to downtown Orlando instead.

Regardless of which routing gets chosen, I don't really consider dedicated bus lanes to be a transit facility. What they are is mostly paint, and paint is pretty cheap. As such, I'm a strong advocate for throwing down paint wherever we can, especially when the roads are as wide as they are in central Florida - there's no reason not to have dedicated bus lanes extended to everywhere in downtown Orlando, the airport, the other end of I-Drive, Lake Nona, Celebration, the "welcome to DisneyWorld" sign, and Universal's front door. (Yes, this is a little hyperbolic.)
 

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
When High Speeds rail was proposed for Florida it was the 528 route. I was under the impression the route had already undergone some of the environmental review needed. What ever happened to all those plans and studies?
 

Twirlnhurl

Well-Known Member
At the risk of straying too far off-topic, I think the development forecasting around Deseret Ranch as described in that link is a little too blue-sky and unlikely to materialize in 60 years when there's still far more development opportunity to be had in more centrally located segments of the wider region.
I'm not so sure. The population of the greater Orlando region has been increasing by about 1,500 people per week for the last decade (and over 1,000 people a week since 1950). The population is expected to continue to grow like that in the future. If that holds, the regions population will reach 5.2 million by 2030, an increase of almost 1 million people (see this report, page 5). About 300k of that increase is expected in Osceola County, where the first phases of the Deseret Ranch development has already been approved. (although by 2030, I think only a small fraction of that 300k will be on Deseret Ranch land. But I think that the speed of the growth in Horizon West over the last ten years and Lake Nona over the last 20 makes 2060 seem totally plausible to me, especially considering the proximity to some of the aerospace and defense industries that have been growing quite healthily in Brevard County lately.
My understanding is that additional track and platform space reserved for SunRail is already provisioned in the Intermodal Terminal itself.
If the third track at MCO was not used by SunRail, it could be used by a frequent commuter service on the Brightline right-of-way (although the railroads that operate best practices outside of the US could probably make due running both services on the same tracks and platforms without needing the third track, that does not appear to be the way Brightline is going to operate the Miami Central Station when Tri-Rail begins service to it in the near future).
Should Brightline end up taking the 528 routing, it will still be possible to go ahead with phase 3 to the airport, and I suspect that money will be found for it quickly. I actually suspect that money will be found for it as part of an infrastructure funding package in the near future regardless of what happens with Brightline.
The MetroPlan Orlando 2045 Cost Feasible Plan budgets construction for SunRail Phase 3 (MCO to Meadow Woods) in the 2035 to 2045 planning horizon (see page 138).

I think that Brightline will be open to Disney Springs (and possibly Tampa or have gome bankrupt) long before SunRail phase 3 gets funded, even with a couple more massive federal infrastructure bills. But I admit I haven't been following that very closely, so I might just be wrong here.
(I am aware that one alternative currently proposed for this suggests that instead of utilizing the already-built ability to run trains to the OUC spur and therefore the airport with zero transfers, a separated shuttle line with a forced transfer would be built instead. I'm choosing to be cautiously optimistic that this alternative will be discarded.) This takes them a few miles out of their way, yes, but the time saved by the convenient and coordinated transfer at MCO makes up for it and this is still only a two-seat ride between any SunRail station and any Brightline station.
I think I disagree on this one. Unless the service frequency is extremely high (unlikely, even with Orlando's rapid growth), I would strongly prefer a two seat ride to the airport. Imagine if SunRail had a train pass through downtown every twenty minutes each direction (anything more frequent would require additional signal infrastructure, possibly electric multiple unit trains, and potentially double tracking the short single track section in Winter Park). If half the trains went to MCO and the other half went to Poinciana, that would mean you are effectively only providing 40 minute headways to points south of Sand Lake Road for the northern portion of the line (likewise for the southern portion, even if a Poinciana to MCO direct service was offered).

A train out of MCO every 20 minutes all day would conceivably attract lots of riders, even with a simple cross platform transfer. But a train every 40 minutes (to SunRail points north) would be far less attractive. What if your plane lands five minutes late or baggage claim takes forever or you work at the airport and there was a line to clock out because Steve doesn't know how to work the timeclock even though he has worked there for six months and it's a wonder he even gets paid...

I lived and worked in a transit-rich area for a while, and had the option of taking a one-seat or two seat train ride to work. Every second train was a one seat ride, with the one seat trains coming every 14 minutes. There was a two seat combination of trains that would leave every 14 minutes, seven minutes after the one seat train. If I missed the one seat train, the two seat train ride would get me to my destination two minutes faster than if I waited seven more minutes for the one seat train. I took whichever train was next, because a simple cross platform transfer was not as inconvenient as waiting at the origin station for seven more minutes. I observed most people did the same. So I think the transfer penalty (excluding people with excessive luggage or small children) is extremely small for most people compared to the penalty for long headways.

I guess that's a long way of saying I'd rather have a train every 20 minutes take me to Sand Lake or Meadow Woods where a SunRail train with a timed connection in both directions was waiting for an easy cross platform transfer.
Regardless of which routing gets chosen, I don't really consider dedicated bus lanes to be a transit facility.
I agree that paint is cheap and real (useful) transit service requires more than just paint. But if the facility exists and is used by frequent and rapid service, they can have lots of value. I don't think we necessarily disagree here, though.

Regardless of what happens in the broader region, it is exciting to see rapid transit back on the table to serve the major resorts. Even with I-4 Beyond the Ultimate, traffic is not going to get better almost any way you slice it. And this infrastructure has a good chance of providing an additional option when these roads are maxed out and congested.
 
In the Parks
Yes
If the third track at MCO was not used by SunRail, it could be used by a frequent commuter service on the Brightline right-of-way (although the railroads that operate best practices outside of the US could probably make due running both services on the same tracks and platforms without needing the third track, that does not appear to be the way Brightline is going to operate the Miami Central Station when Tri-Rail begins service to it in the near future).
Sunrail and Tri-Rail are both currently using bilevel cars with their doors on the lower level, which is unfortunately incompatible with Brightline's raised platforms. Arguably the real answer here is to plan for converting Sunrail and Tri-Rail to use single-level coaches and then raise all the platforms accordingly - something which is unlikely to happen any time in the near future. (I'd love to know what the rationale was behind that decision in the first place. Amtrak's trains up and down the east coast have been high level for decades and the Northeast has been hard at work raising platforms. Why buy rolling stock that's incompatible with that?)


I think I disagree on this one. Unless the service frequency is extremely high (unlikely, even with Orlando's rapid growth), I would strongly prefer a two seat ride to the airport. Imagine if SunRail had a train pass through downtown every twenty minutes each direction (anything more frequent would require additional signal infrastructure, possibly electric multiple unit trains, and potentially double tracking the short single track section in Winter Park). If half the trains went to MCO and the other half went to Poinciana, that would mean you are effectively only providing 40 minute headways to points south of Sand Lake Road for the northern portion of the line (likewise for the southern portion, even if a Poinciana to MCO direct service was offered).

A train out of MCO every 20 minutes all day would conceivably attract lots of riders, even with a simple cross platform transfer. But a train every 40 minutes (to SunRail points north) would be far less attractive. What if your plane lands five minutes late or baggage claim takes forever or you work at the airport and there was a line to clock out because Steve doesn't know how to work the timeclock even though he has worked there for six months and it's a wonder he even gets paid...

I lived and worked in a transit-rich area for a while, and had the option of taking a one-seat or two seat train ride to work. Every second train was a one seat ride, with the one seat trains coming every 14 minutes. There was a two seat combination of trains that would leave every 14 minutes, seven minutes after the one seat train. If I missed the one seat train, the two seat train ride would get me to my destination two minutes faster than if I waited seven more minutes for the one seat train. I took whichever train was next, because a simple cross platform transfer was not as inconvenient as waiting at the origin station for seven more minutes. I observed most people did the same. So I think the transfer penalty (excluding people with excessive luggage or small children) is extremely small for most people compared to the penalty for long headways.

I guess that's a long way of saying I'd rather have a train every 20 minutes take me to Sand Lake or Meadow Woods where a SunRail train with a timed connection in both directions was waiting for an easy cross platform transfer.
Completing the second track is probably necessary anyway, and it's certainly enough to get us to a train every 15 minutes. Sending half of those trains to MCO means each terminal has a 30 minute headway to each other terminal, which is still worlds ahead of where SunRail is at today. I don't think it's that much worse than the 20 minute option with transfers that you describe. (Especially given, as you say, the prevalence of people with excessive luggage and/or small children at an airport.)

Of course, regardless of the relative attractiveness of each of those options, it's worth noting again that the other main driver of direct service between SunRail's main line and MCO is the ability to have a single transfer at the airport to access any Brightline (or future Brightline-using commmuter service) station. The attractiveness of, say, riding the train from downtown Orlando to Disney plummets when it goes from two seats with a coordinated airport transfer to three seats with a second coordinated (or even uncoordinated) transfer.

There's a middle ground option here as well - running the airport service as a full line between MCO and Lynx Central Station (although you might need to add a tail track just north of the station to turn trains on for it, there's plenty of room to do so) with a coordinated transfer to points south at Sand Lake Road. We can easily run an additional 3 trains each way per hour on that segment of the mainline without impacting the ability to run 3~4 more trains each way per hour between DeLand and Poinciana. In such a paradigm we can provide a higher level of service to central Orlando that maybe isn't warranted for the far ends of the line while simultaneously enabling a lot more direct or one-transfer rides throughout the region. (Poinciana kind of gets hosed by this paradigm, which is why I don't like it as much as just running half of all SunRail service into the airport directly.)
 

Twirlnhurl

Well-Known Member
Sunrail and Tri-Rail are both currently using bilevel cars with their doors on the lower level, which is unfortunately incompatible with Brightline's raised platforms. Arguably the real answer here is to plan for converting Sunrail and Tri-Rail to use single-level coaches and then raise all the platforms accordingly - something which is unlikely to happen any time in the near future. (I'd love to know what the rationale was behind that decision in the first place.)
I forgot about the bilevel coach boarding height difference. That's a very good point.

I can't speak to the history of bilevel coaches on Tri-Rail. In the case of Orlando, I believe that bilevel coaches were required due to the short block length in downtown Orlando at Lynx Central Station. It is my understanding that the block between Amelia and Livingston limits train length to four coaches, otherwise the platforms would be interrupted by streets. Some of the other stations may have this limitation as well, but they arguably had more options for specific station placement. Where as Lynx Central Station and the blocks on either side are all so short that bilevel coaches are the best alternative to a very costly full grade separation through downtown Orlando.

In a future where 200k people work in downtown (opposed to the approximately 70k or 80k pre-pandemic) and another 50k live downtown, it might make sense to grade separate SunRail in that location, although it will present some difficult urban design challenges and be very expensive. At that time, it would be possible to convert to single level passenger coaches (hopefully they could convert to electric multiple units and upgrade signaling to allow more of a rapid transit-type service at that time as well). But none of that is even on the table right now, so I wouldn't count on it in the next 20 years, anyway. But we can dream, right?
Of course, regardless of the relative attractiveness of each of those options, it's worth noting again that the other main driver of direct service between SunRail's main line and MCO is the ability to have a single transfer at the airport to access any Brightline (or future Brightline-using commmuter service) station. The attractiveness of, say, riding the train from downtown Orlando to Disney plummets when it goes from two seats with a coordinated airport transfer to three seats with a second coordinated (or even uncoordinated) transfer.
I agree there, although I would still prefer that Meadow Woods simply take the role as a transfer station to allow two seat rides from SunRail to Disney or MCO. That would have shorter travel times than any SunRail phase 3 option.

I wonder if any of the behind-the-scenes negotiations have covered the variety of possibilities that we have? The public discussions between the relavant agencies and Brightline have not been nearly this nuanced.
 
In the Parks
Yes
I forgot about the bilevel coach boarding height difference. That's a very good point.

I can't speak to the history of bilevel coaches on Tri-Rail. In the case of Orlando, I believe that bilevel coaches were required due to the short block length in downtown Orlando at Lynx Central Station. It is my understanding that the block between Amelia and Livingston limits train length to four coaches, otherwise the platforms would be interrupted by streets. Some of the other stations may have this limitation as well, but they arguably had more options for specific station placement. Where as Lynx Central Station and the blocks on either side are all so short that bilevel coaches are the best alternative to a very costly full grade separation through downtown Orlando.
To be clear, I'm not questioning that bilevels are necessary or desirable. What I am questioning is why that model of bilevel in particular. MARC in Maryland and the MBTA in Massachusetts (and I believe SEPTA also? And maybe others...) have bilevel coaches with level boarding at high platforms, which hold slightly less people than Sunrail's coaches but still far more than a single-level car would. (And for ADA concerns, mini-highs could have been built to service one out of a maximum four possible coaches.) The only real downside to those is that you have to walk up or down inside the car to access most seats, but again, there are fully ADA-compliant level sections in each coach and three steps for everyone else isn't that big of a deal.


In a future where 200k people work in downtown (opposed to the approximately 70k or 80k pre-pandemic) and another 50k live downtown, it might make sense to grade separate SunRail in that location, although it will present some difficult urban design challenges and be very expensive. At that time, it would be possible to convert to single level passenger coaches (hopefully they could convert to electric multiple units and upgrade signaling to allow more of a rapid transit-type service at that time as well). But none of that is even on the table right now, so I wouldn't count on it in the next 20 years, anyway. But we can dream, right?
We can certainly dream (I personally dream of being able to, one day, keep switching commuter trains starting at Fredericksburg, VA heading south and tour every major city between here and Miami on the way down in the golden days of my retirement) but I'd question the need to go with a full viaduct as opposed to closing minor intersections (pedestrians can just walk through the station infrastructure and private cars can go around) and putting the major roads on overpasses. The automobile is able to handle much steeper grades than any train, and doing it this way lets us deal with one problematic crossing at a time (ideally during otherwise-routine road repair and expansion projects) rather than having to eliminate all of them at once.

EDIT: My original line of thinking was that Colonial Drive / US-17 could go into an overpass, along with South Street and Orange Ave / Magnolia Ave / FL-527, but upon a second look I-4 is actually probably too close to make the overpasses feasible unless they also overpassed I-4 (not happening). So, I'll retract this argument because it probably does actually need to be a rail viaduct. Mea culpa.


I wonder if any of the behind-the-scenes negotiations have covered the variety of possibilities that we have? The public discussions between the relavant agencies and Brightline have not been nearly this nuanced.
I have to believe that at the very least somebody in Brightline is thinking about this, even if their presentations and public releases lack this degree of nuance. The relevant government offices? Not so much. Certainly not Hunter's Creek, whose representatives have no thoughts beyond "how can we stop this project?" and probably also not Universal who I strongly suspect based on their previous transit track record cares more about getting one over on Disney than whether the resulting train is useful for locals or anyone.

It is in fact particularly annoying to me, as someone who would prefer the 528 alignment, that I'm here making nuanced arguments while the people on the ground with heavily vested interests and far more pull than myself roll out the same tired and weightless talking points instead of presenting the actual case to the public. Universal, instead of offering to donate 17 irrelevant acres of land, could be and should be making this case in a louder and more public way than I'm capable of.
 
Last edited:

donsullivan

Premium Member
Not if they go the 417 route. That route was never in the high speed rail plans. It was always 528 to I-4
All of those previous plans assumed a government funded project. This one is privately funded. And since the 528 route is estimated to be over $600 million more expensive they are going for the 417 route. However the latest push for the 528 route may have torpedoed the whole thing again. Everyone on I drive is demanding that route, but the don’t want to pay for it. If this keeps up, the project is going to die again. Everyone wants it there way, but aren’t willing to cough up the money to pay for it so they’ll take there ball and go home and the project will die a third (or maybe more) death.
 
In the Parks
Yes
Oh, and on the subject of government funding: Brightline is and has been agitating to get funding from the most recent infrastructure package as part of the $80 billion pool for national rail investments. (It's this or a future package of its nature that I would expect to fund Sunrail phase 3.)

They're apparently looking for funding for the LA-Vegas line, but I would expect that at least privately and at least from Universal that there has been pushing to potentially make up the difference using that money.

 

UCF

Active Member
Original Poster
If the third track at MCO was not used by SunRail, it could be used by a frequent commuter service on the Brightline right-of-way (although the railroads that operate best practices outside of the US could probably make due running both services on the same tracks and platforms without needing the third track, that does not appear to be the way Brightline is going to operate the Miami Central Station when Tri-Rail begins service to it in the near future).

The MetroPlan Orlando 2045 Cost Feasible Plan budgets construction for SunRail Phase 3 (MCO to Meadow Woods) in the 2035 to 2045 planning horizon (see page 138).

I think that Brightline will be open to Disney Springs (and possibly Tampa or have gome bankrupt) long before SunRail phase 3 gets funded, even with a couple more massive federal infrastructure bills. But I admit I haven't been following that very closely, so I might just be wrong here.

I think I disagree on this one. Unless the service frequency is extremely high (unlikely, even with Orlando's rapid growth), I would strongly prefer a two seat ride to the airport. Imagine if SunRail had a train pass through downtown every twenty minutes each direction (anything more frequent would require additional signal infrastructure, possibly electric multiple unit trains, and potentially double tracking the short single track section in Winter Park). If half the trains went to MCO and the other half went to Poinciana, that would mean you are effectively only providing 40 minute headways to points south of Sand Lake Road for the northern portion of the line (likewise for the southern portion, even if a Poinciana to MCO direct service was offered).
A couple of things are getting proposed as well by Brightline in order to get a Sunrail connection to the airport. Brightline is happy to split construction costs or lease the line to allow Sunrail to connect to the airport. It would share tracks but have entirely separate stations to deal with the different loading levels of the different systems. BTW, I believe part of the reason Sunrail used the low loading height was to keep the trains compatible with Tri-Rail in South Florida, and in theory, in the event of a special event or, if say they wanted to upgrade the Tri-Rail cars when a Sunrail expansion is completed, or whatever else, they could then ship them to Orlando to be used on Sunrail without modification. (No plans for any of that to happen, just to allow the possibility of that happening if there is ever a need in the future)

My understanding is Brightline is pushing for a seperate east-west Sunrail line that could continue further east to hit Lake Nona (where the new Disney corporate campus is) and either then head to Disney, or it could go north along the old proposed Orange Blossom Express route (which would allow it to hit downtown), because if they divert some trains from the existing Sunrail route to the airport, it likely will make that route way too slow and infrequent to be useful. If a deal is struck, Sunrail's MCO connection could arrive at the same time as the Brightline Disney extension. This could happen regardless of whether its the 417 or 528 route.
 
Last edited:
In the Parks
Yes
My understanding is Brightline is pushing for a seperate east-west Sunrail line that could continue further east to hit Lake Nona (where the new Disney corporate campus is) and either then head to Disney, or it could go north along the old proposed Orange Blossom Express route (which would allow it to hit downtown), because if they divert some trains from the existing Sunrail route to the airport, it likely will make that route way too slow and infrequent to be useful.
My takeaway from this is that Sunrail wouldn't procure or operate additional trainsets to cover the airport extension if it was done as a through service to the existing line. Is that correct?
 

UCF

Active Member
Original Poster
My takeaway from this is that Sunrail wouldn't procure or operate additional trainsets to cover the airport extension if it was done as a through service to the existing line. Is that correct?
One option (the lowest budget) is they direct half the trains to the airport and avoid having the airport trains go to the southern Sunrail stops at all. You'd have to take Sunrail north, get off at the next stop, and switch to the southbound trains if you are trying to go south from the airport. From south of the airport, to get to the airport, you'd have to pass the airport, get off, and get on the next southbound train to get to the airport All other options require additional trainsets.
 
In the Parks
Yes
One option (the lowest budget) is they direct half the trains to the airport and avoid having the airport trains go to the southern Sunrail stops at all. You'd have to take Sunrail north, get off at the next stop, and switch to the southbound trains if you are trying to go south from the airport. From south of the airport, to get to the airport, you'd have to pass the airport, get off, and get on the next southbound train to get to the airport All other options require additional trainsets.
The issue there, then, isn't that half the trains are going to the airport but that the same number of trains overall exist in the system.

Sunrail's current schedule is weekday only, running every half hour during its peak periods (southbound departures from the terminal between 5~8 AM and between 3~5:30 PM, northbound departures from the terminal between 5:45~8:45 AM and between 3:15 PM~6:25 PM with a random 40 minute wait thrown in for maximum confusion) and no better than hourly at all other times. However, the line has the physical capacity to go to a train every 20 minutes all day long right now with zero additional infrastructure including leaving every single grade crossing in operation as well as the brief stretch of single track north of Winter Park. So long as the additional trainsets and operating crews are procured and assigned, that means an additional hourly train to the airport can slot in without reducing the number of daily trains assigned to existing service and the only technical "cut" being that peak headways between Sand Lake Road / points north and Meadow Woods / points south go from 30 minutes to 40. Everyone else either gets a strict upgrade to their available service (Central Orlando up to 20 minute headways during the peak and 30~45 minute headways offpeak) or is unimpacted (Meadow Woods / points south keep their existing terrible midday headways of 60~90 minutes).

Is an hourly train to the airport the best we can do? Not even close. But at a cost of nearly nothing (three additional trainsets with crews to run them - not pocket change but certainly less than any option requiring shovels in the dirt) to prove that the idea has enough merit to then further invest in the line so that we can go from airport local trains every hour to every 20 minutes, it's a fine start.

Addendum: I used hourly service in the above example because it enables clockface scheduling (e.g. the train to the airport leaves this station at :37 every hour), and because hourly service lets us get away with only assigning three trainsets to it. Going to "every 40 minutes" requires a fourth trainset.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom