Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE

[AndyMagic]

The basic argument here is what is seen as wasting taxpayer money. You, and most people, see trains as wasted money, but have no problem dumping endless amounts of cash into roads and airports.

I will never use most of the highways my taxes pay for, just as I would never use most of the rail lines. Until recently I never had a job where I used a highway daily, but I paid my taxes on them for forty years, how is that different than paying for a rail line you won't use regularly?

The difference is this perceived notion of freedom. A notion the car companies have embedded in our society. That freedom isn't free. We pay taxes on roads, we pay for vehicles, we pay to keep them running. If you are a gearhead and enjoy changing your oil and dropping a tranny then you are lucky. For most people it a burden. I see trains as freedom from that burden.

I am lucky now. I have enough money to mitigate the headaches. I can afford a new vehicle. I can afford AAA in case of emergency. I can afford to have a mechanic provide regular maintenance. And a major malfunction will not cripple my finances, yet every time I get behind the wheel I am nervous and agitated. These things are only worse if you do not have the luxury of disposable income.

My point was not that trains are a cure-all or even self sustaining. But I think they would solve a lot of problems from energy consumption to road rage. Their is just a bias against them because of this perception of freedom.

I'm just pointing out you aren't as free as you think you are.

I was going to go on a huge rant in response to the foolish and outdated claims made by orky8 but then I saw you did a fine job yourself. Nearly everything he said reminded me of arguments made by people in the 60's and 70's, the decades that brought on the destruction of major American cities. The idea of cars being "flexible" was one of the problems in the first place. Entire neighborhoods were razed because the "modern" idea of the time was that we should be able to drive everywhere and park right in front of where we need to be. Walkable downtowns were demolished and parking lots and freeways sprouted up instead. The cities that resisted some of the highways (namely New York, San Francisco, Boston) still function beautifully while cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, which no longer have transit systems and instead have only highways and buses, not so much.

 

[orky8]

I was going to go on a huge rant in response to the foolish and outdated claims made by orky8 but then I saw you did a fine job yourself. Nearly everything he said reminded me of arguments made by people in the 60's and 70's, the decades that brought on the destruction of major American cities. The idea of cars being "flexible" was one of the problems in the first place. Entire neighborhoods were razed because the "modern" idea of the time was that we should be able to drive everywhere and park right in front of where we need to be. Walkable downtowns were demolished and parking lots and freeways sprouted up instead. The cities that resisted some of the highways (namely New York, San Francisco, Boston) still function beautifully while cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, which no longer have transit systems and instead have only highways and buses, not so much.

But we aren't talking about a downtown transit system. We are talking about an inter-city system. For which my primary point is that in this Country, airplanes and cars make more sense than trains. This is largely because our cities are too far apart.

New York has an amazing transit system. It simply works. Though, I think one reason it works so well is simply the population density of NY. Surely you recognize that not everyone wants to live in such a densely packed place. Indeed, based on where people live, I'd say most do not. I lived there for 3 months and that was more than enough for me.

I'm from SF, so I'm not sure you have your facts straight on that one. SF is a mish-mash of many systems, but largely runs of off buses (though ferries, trains, BART, and MUNI all play a part of the system as well.) Unless you live in SF, the commute to the city can be, shall we say, less than pleasant. It seems your viewpoint is everyone should be forced to live in a dense megatropolis, but surely I must just not be understanding your position correctly (I hope).

I wasn't alive for the 60s or 70s, but I'm pretty sure urban sprawl didn't happen because of cars -- it happened because people didn't want to live in cities anymore and cars made that possible for them. Now you want to tell the people too bad, you don't care what they want, they will live as you tell them and like it. Thanks but no thanks. In any event, you should be happy as walkable city centers are making a comeback it seems, at least in the DC area, though the bulk of the population, even here still requires a car to get most places. In any event, you've done absolutely nothing to progress the argument that HSR is sensible for between Orlando and Tampa, two cities which are highly spread out and heavily dependent upon cars to get anywhere.

You know, and another point that hasn't been raised. When trains first started criss-crossing this country, they were build by private entities. So, I still fail to understand why the Federal government should be paying for a train between Tampa and Orlando.

BTW, I'm a bit curious. Which of my claims were foolish and outdated? I feel bad hijacking this thread, but I'm really struggling to identify how people can defend HSR between Tampa and Orlando as somehow beneficial to the welfare of the country has a whole in relation to the expense it will cost. Besides of course that trains are cool (because they totally are).

 

[Burning Metal]

As to your first paragraph - freedom of movement -- no its not. The trains in New York were just as stuck in the Blizzard as the planes and cars--in fact, I think more so.

By the way, the trains were up and running normally about 1 day after the blizzard, airlines still aren't back to normal in some areas...just sayin. I know in Florida it's a moot point as we don't get blizzards here but trains do have certain advantages over other forms of transportation...

 

[orky8]

By the way, the trains were up and running normally about 1 day after the blizzard, airlines still aren't back to normal in some areas...just sayin. I know in Florida it's a moot point as we don't get blizzards here but trains do have certain advantages over other forms of transportation...

OK, good to know. Though I had a friend tell me Amtrak canceled on him 3 days in a row. But, that could just be the train he was supposed to take. In DC, last year, our metro was closed for days following the blizzard, which was part of the reason the Federal Government was so slow to reopen. I believe (but am not positive) that the airports opened first. However, as you said, it is rather moot as Florida has only had one blizzard I'm aware of and it left an amazing water park behind for us to enjoy.

 

[stlbobby]

But we aren't talking about a downtown transit system. We are talking about an inter-city system. For which my primary point is that in this Country, airplanes and cars make more sense than trains. This is largely because our cities are too far apart.

The original post was talking about a city to city line, but the conversation expanded. I proposed a system of both city to city and metro trains.

New York has an amazing transit system. It simply works. Though, I think one reason it works so well is simply the population density of NY. Surely you recognize that not everyone wants to live in such a densely packed place. Indeed, based on where people live, I'd say most do not. I lived there for 3 months and that was more than enough for me.

A big part of the reason NYC is so densely populated is because it has such a great mass transit system.

I'm from SF, so I'm not sure you have your facts straight on that one. SF is a mish-mash of many systems, but largely runs of off buses (though ferries, trains, BART, and MUNI all play a part of the system as well.) Unless you live in SF, the commute to the city can be, shall we say, less than pleasant. It seems your viewpoint is everyone should be forced to live in a dense megatropolis, but surely I must just not be understanding your position correctly (I hope).

I wasn't alive for the 60s or 70s, but I'm pretty sure urban sprawl didn't happen because of cars -- it happened because people didn't want to live in cities anymore and cars made that possible for them. Now you want to tell the people too bad, you don't care what they want, they will live as you tell them and like it. Thanks but no thanks. In any event, you should be happy as walkable city centers are making a comeback it seems, at least in the DC area, though the bulk of the population, even here still requires a car to get most places. In any event, you've done absolutely nothing to progress the argument that HSR is sensible for between Orlando and Tampa, two cities which are highly spread out and heavily dependent upon cars to get anywhere.

Actually the automotive industry, concrete/road construction industry, and home building industry mounted a massive campaign to convince people they needed to move to the suburbs. Besides an all out marketing blitz, they used political influence to destroy walkable cities and mass transit systems. It was a concerted organized effort, employing fear, racism, and gentrification to systematically destroy one way of life to profit from the creation from another.

You know, and another point that hasn't been raised. When trains first started criss-crossing this country, they were build by private entities. So, I still fail to understand why the Federal government should be paying for a train between Tampa and Orlando.

Partially because the concrete industry used bribes, deceit, and even violence to push the government into building a massive road system, setting the precedent of the government funding transit systems. Secondly, because many of the original metro systems were actually dismantled by corrupt local officials in an effort to push autos. And finally, while the original railroads were actually built by private concerns, they were often directly funded by the government or supported with tax credits, land grabs, and even military action.

BTW, I'm a bit curious. Which of my claims were foolish and outdated? I feel bad hijacking this thread, but I'm really struggling to identify how people can defend HSR between Tampa and Orlando as somehow beneficial to the welfare of the country has a whole in relation to the expense it will cost. Besides of course that trains are cool (because they totally are).

Don't feel bad. For a thread to survive more than 5 or 6 pages it has to drift.

BTW-I don't honestly think my plan will ever happen, but I think the world would be a better place if it did.

 

[stlbobby]

Here's a great article from Time about the subject:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039897,00.html

It is pretty evenhanded and also talks about the political implications. One point I'd like to share:

Yes, you've got to start somewhere. Yes, the first stretch of the first interstate highway probably looked like a road to nowhere, and the transcontinental railroad must have seemed like a pipe dream until its two ends linked up in Utah.

 

[GenerationX]

Actually the automotive industry, concrete/road construction industry, and home building industry mounted a massive campaign to convince people they needed to move to the suburbs. Besides an all out marketing blitz, they used political influence to destroy walkable cities and mass transit systems. It was a concerted organized effort, employing fear, racism, and gentrification to systematically destroy one way of life to profit from the creation from another.

Suburban sprawl predates the car. It first boomed in the 1800s at the advent of commuter rail. It occurred (and still occurs) for the most part because some people prefer houses with larger backyards and more open spaces. And the further you go from the city, the more house you can get for your money.

Yes, you've got to start somewhere. Yes, the first stretch of the first interstate highway probably looked like a road to nowhere, and the transcontinental railroad must have seemed like a pipe dream until its two ends linked up in Utah.

The difference is that the interstate highway and transcontinental railroad systems were filling voids. The increase in overall transportation efficiency by having these systems was huge. That increase was much larger than the increase in efficiency we would see with HSR. Is the slight increase in efficiency worth the cost? Some would think it is. I don't.

 

[Krack]

The difference is that the interstate highway and transcontinental railroad systems were filling voids. The increase in overall transportation efficiency by having these systems was huge. That increase was much larger than the increase in efficiency we would see with HSR. Is the slight increase in efficiency worth the cost? Some would think it is. I don't.

Of note, the government started the interstate highway system because it was deemed necessary to defend the country from foreign invasion - The Pershing Map was used as a blueprint by Eisenhower (who, believe it or not, saw the value of a highway and cars in the event of a military invasion in Europe during WWII).

 

[stlbobby]

The difference is that the interstate highway and transcontinental railroad systems were filling voids. The increase in overall transportation efficiency by having these systems was huge. That increase was much larger than the increase in efficiency we would see with HSR. Is the slight increase in efficiency worth the cost? Some would think it is. I don't.

Again this is a perception. There is a need for rail. I have outline the reasons many times in this thread. Environmental impact, freedom of movement for everyone, and elimination of the burden of personal vehicles. There is a need.

 

[stlbobby]

A quick story. A good friend of mine lost most of his sight about ten years ago. He isn't completely blind, but he can no longer drive. It destroyed his career as a television reporter. He had to go on disability for a couple of years while he reinvented his life.

He was able to change careers and start his own business. Te entire process was hampered greatly by his inability to drive and society's reliance on cars. He is completely dependent on public transit. All his life choices are shaped by public transit. He recently moved and his choice of cities was extremely limited due to transportation concerns--he ended up in the SF Bay Area.

It worked out for him, but through his involvement in blind advocacy groups he knows many people that have had to stay on disability because the cities they live in don't have a transport system that allows them to get to jobs.

Everyday people with disabilities must make choices to leave their family and friends and move to a city with better facilities or stay on disability where they are. And when you have a disability, especially one that is onset later in life, leaving the support of family and friends is much larger issue than for the rest of us.

It isn't just about people who hate to drive, there is an entire segment of our population that is marginalized by our reliance on cars.

Again, my point, the freedom of the open road is a perception, for many it is a burden.

 

[DVCOwner]

I was going to go on a huge rant in response to the foolish and outdated claims made by orky8 but then I saw you did a fine job yourself. Nearly everything he said reminded me of arguments made by people in the 60's and 70's, the decades that brought on the destruction of major American cities. The idea of cars being "flexible" was one of the problems in the first place. Entire neighborhoods were razed because the "modern" idea of the time was that we should be able to drive everywhere and park right in front of where we need to be. Walkable downtowns were demolished and parking lots and freeways sprouted up instead. The cities that resisted some of the highways (namely New York, San Francisco, Boston) still function beautifully while cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, which no longer have transit systems and instead have only highways and buses, not so much.

I have never believed that highway construction lead to the downfall of cities. I think without the highways cities would have even lost more. The highways allowed people to live outside the city and still work in the city. If the roads where not there the jobs would of also left the cities and moved with the people.

The difference between mass transit in the US and road construction and repair is that the government must pay a lot more of the cost of mass transit than those using the systems. I read that about 75% of the money spent on mass transit comes from non-related taxes and only 25% from fares, taxes related to mass transit, and other revenue (such as adds on buses, rental space in subway stations, etc.). Roads in the US almost pay for themselfs in taxes on gas, tires, etc. The only problem is that these taxes usally set aside for road construction and repair have been moved to other programs (mostly mass transit). Airports and airline operations are almost totaly paid for by fares and taxes and has the least government funding outside thier normal revenues.

 

[DVCOwner]

Again this is a perception. There is a need for rail. I have outline the reasons many times in this thread. Environmental impact, freedom of movement for everyone, and elimination of the burden of personal vehicles. There is a need.

Enviromental impact? - Many small city bus systems are now using more fuel per passenger mile than people using cars to get to work. This is due to low rider ship and going in round about ways to get to some where. All mass tansit effect the enviroment.

Freedom of movement? - There are already so many options provided in mass transit. I my town if you can not ride a bus due to a handicap they send one to your door.

Burden of personal vehicles? - Mass transit cost the US taxpayer much more per passenger mile than roads. So the "burden" increased the more we add mass transit. I ever never seen my personal vehicles as a burden, I actually have a car for everyday and a old pickup truck for when I need it.

 

[njDizFan]

Stlbobby, thank you for your intelligent and cogent posts regarding this topic. America's reliance on the automobile has been branded into our collective conciousness for a century. We need to step back and take a look at the rest of the world and realize our perceived freedom is actually a hinderance on the good of our society and planet.

It could even be argued that the car made way for the slow death of small businesses and the idea of community. Why walk into town and shop and local retailers when you can drive to the nearest big box store?

Like you said, this will probobly never happen but it has to start somwhere, and I would love to see this start sooner rather than later.

 

[EpcotMark]

I hope it flops and goes and stays in the RED like Tri-Rail did in Ft. Lauderdale. The ridership is so low it has been in the red since day one. I know that I won't be using it to goto Tampa. I'd prefer to use my van and get to where I want to go and not have to rely on other transportation when I get there.

Good grief. Then bring your stupid van, and don't spoil it for everyone else.

 

[jt04]

Stlbobby, thank you for your intelligent and cogent posts regarding this topic. America's reliance on the automobile has been branded into our collective conciousness for a century. We need to step back and take a look at the rest of the world and realize our perceived freedom is actually a hinderance on the good of our society and planet.

It could even be argued that the car made way for the slow death of small businesses and the idea of community. Why walk into town and shop and local retailers when you can drive to the nearest big box store?

Like you said, this will probobly never happen but it has to start somwhere, and I would love to see this start sooner rather than later.

More unrealistic utopianism. It is impossible. But humor us and detail how you would implement such a plan. I notice that is a crucial element those who scheme utopian futures always leave out. Details we need the details. Same for you stlbobby. Because I have no intention of giving up my cars.

 

[stlbobby]

Roads in the US almost pay for themselfs in taxes on gas, tires, etc. The only problem is that these taxes usally set aside for road construction and repair have been moved to other programs (mostly mass transit). Airports and airline operations are almost totaly paid for by fares and taxes and has the least government funding outside thier normal revenues.

These statements simply are not true. The Federal Government provides the bulk of the highway money and that revenue comes largely from income taxes. Road construction and maintenance is one of the biggest financial burdens on governments at all levels. The idea that roads "pay for themselves" is ridiculous.

Every major airport in the united States was built by taxpayer money. The bulk of the airports operate in the red on a regular basis and the difference is made up by the taxpayers. The TSA and all security is funded by the Federal Government at the expense of the taxpayer.

Enviromental impact? - Many small city bus systems are now using more fuel per passenger mile than people using cars to get to work. This is due to low rider ship and going in round about ways to get to some where. All mass tansit effect the enviroment.

I never advocated for buses. I want rail. That's been pretty clear. But if you eliminated the fares on the buses ridership would increase and the impact would be dramatically lowered.

Freedom of movement? - There are already so many options provided in mass transit. I my town if you can not ride a bus due to a handicap they send one to your door.

Some places do provide that service, but most do not. And it is not as convenient or as efficient as a well designed rail system would be.

Burden of personal vehicles? - Mass transit cost the US taxpayer much more per passenger mile than roads. So the "burden" increased the more we add mass transit. I ever never seen my personal vehicles as a burden, I actually have a car for everyday and a old pickup truck for when I need it.

I have repeatedly outlined the burdens of the personal auto on this thread. My entire point is how freedom and burdens are perceived. I see my car as nothing but a burden. Many others feel the same way or are burdened by a society that is designed around roads and cars but are unable to drive.

I have also clearly stated repeatedly that the cost should be shared by the taxpayers and ridership should be free to all. At no point have I ever contended my idea would make money or break even.

Please read, or at least skim, the thread before posting to eliminate these types of reiterations.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

More unrealistic utopianism. It is impossible. But humor us and detail how you would implement such a plan. I notice that is a crucial element those who scheme utopian futures always leave out. Details we need the details. Same for you stlbobby. Because I have no intention of giving up my cars.

I try to be civil, but this is a BS response. Saying a different system would be better than the one in place is not a utopian position.

If the massive rail system some people have proposed already existed and you were arguing that America needed a continental highway system instead, you'd be branded the "utopianist" just for suggesting something that deviates from the status quo. That's how people who are happy with the way things are avoid real discussion.

If you want to shrug off any suggestion of wholesale changes to this country's transportation system by accusing anyone suggesting the change of having their head in the clouds, fine...but don't act like that's some kind of substantive response. It's a dodge, with a bit of mild insulting thrown in to boot. It degrades the entire discussion.

 

[fillerup]

One of the main barriers to HSR here is the vast size and low population density of the United States. On a table of density by country, the US comes in at #178 out of 238.

Our density is about half that of Europe and a quarter or so of almost every Asian country where HSR seems to work pretty well.

And since this thread was originally about the proposed Florida route, if you look at a list of US cities, Orlando and Tampa don't even crack the top 125.

Even in Europe, train routes of 4 hours and more have lost market share to discount airlines.

 

[stlbobby]

Because I have no intention of giving up my cars.

No one ever asked you to give up your car. I have stated again and again that if you want a car you should be free to have one. I just do not want a society based around the necessity of having one.

Here is a simple analogy. Swimming pools are expensive and require a great deal of maintenance. Some people feel the benefits of having a pool out-weight the work, or they can afford to pay someone else to do the work. Others feel the work just isn't worth it.

No one is saying those that enjoy their pools should have them taken away, but that we shouldn't build a society where the burden of pool ownership is mandatory.

We have built a world where cars are for the most part mandatory. I feel that should be changed.

More unrealistic utopianism. It is impossible. But humor us and detail how you would implement such a plan. I notice that is a crucial element those who scheme utopian futures always leave out. Details we need the details. Same for you stlbobby.

I stated several posts back that I didn't think it would ever happen, but I still think it is worth discussing. In fact the only way it might ever happen is through reasoned discussion, and even if it doesn't, but I can get some people to re-evaluate somethings maybe the world might be a better place.

But to humour you, if I were in charge it would be a simple matter to implement. I would first declare a moratorium on all highway construction and use that money to start rail projects. I would create a specific tax for the project to cover rest of the work. I would then use the already established through-ways of the highways as my main connectors. The open areas between oncoming lanes would now support either ground level or elevated rail depending on the area. If the highways had expanded to utilize that area I would convert the two middle lanes to rail use.

The cities would be connected by both express lines that moved from metro to metro at great speeds with minimal stops and local feeder lines that shuttled people to express stations where they could join faster trains.

With-in the cities, major thoroughfares would be used just as the highways. If there wasn't enough area for both cars and rail the right of way would be converted to rail.

The technology exists. It is just a matter of doing it.

Is it possible? Yes. Do I think it will happen? No. I'm not so unrealistic to see major political and societal hurdles, in fact I outlined one of those major hurdles--the auto industry deftly integrating freedom into car ownership, but I do not see the harm in discussing it on an internet forum.

 

[jt04]

No one ever asked you to give up your car. I have stated again and again that if you want a car you should be free to have one. I just do not want a society based around the necessity of having one.

Here is a simple analogy. Swimming pools are expensive and require a great deal of maintenance. Some people feel the benefits of having a pool out-weight the work, or they can afford to pay someone else to do the work. Others feel the work just isn't worth it.

No one is saying those that enjoy their pools should have them taken away, but that we shouldn't build a society where the burden of pool ownership is mandatory.

We have built a world where cars are for the most part mandatory. I feel that should be changed.



I stated several posts back that I didn't think it would ever happen, but I still think it is worth discussing. In fact the only way it might ever happen is through reasoned discussion, and even if it doesn't, but I can get some people to re-evaluate somethings maybe the world might be a better place.

But to humour you, if I were in charge it would be a simple matter to implement. I would first declare a moratorium on all highway construction and use that money to start rail projects. I would create a specific tax for the project to cover rest of the work. I would then use the already established through-ways of the highways as my main connectors. The open areas between oncoming lanes would now support either ground level or elevated rail depending on the area. If the highways had expanded to utilize that area I would convert the two middle lanes to rail use.

The cities would be connected by both express lines that moved from metro to metro at great speeds with minimal stops and local feeder lines that shuttled people to express stations where they could join faster trains.

With-in the cities, major thoroughfares would be used just as the highways. If there wasn't enough area for both cars and rail the right of way would be converted to rail.

The technology exists. It is just a matter of doing it.

Is it possible? Yes. Do I think it will happen? No. I'm not so unrealistic to see major political and societal hurdles, in fact I outlined one of those major hurdles--the auto industry deftly integrating freedom into car ownership, but I do not see the harm in discussing it on an internet forum.

I am at least glad you make an attempt at justifying your ideas. That seems pretty rare.

But even in places that have massive public transportation plans, they still need to continually upgrade highway systems. Ease of travel creates more travelers. And then of course you must add in population increases. So, while I agree we need to do some things better, my opinion is a plan such as yours is just not economically viable.

High Speed Rail certainly must be a part of the mix as long as it is strategically built (ideally through the private sector. The privatization of space technology proves it is possible). But it can never replace air travel as a more efficient 'people mover'.

In my opinion of course.

Here is a blog that suggests a much more compelling future for travel.....

http://blog.cafefoundation.org/