googilycub
Active Member
I don't live in Manhattan and know plenty.......
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE
- Thread starter jt04
- Start date
- Status
I don't live in Manhattan and know plenty.......
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
No I never said it was fair, but when the government takes on a responsibility, as it has with transportation, it is their duty to provide that service equitably. In fact it is imperative that the service help the least fortunate first. In this case that would mean a transportation system that favors the poor and the disabled, giving them access to opportunities to better their life.
But in fact our system favors the wealthiest amongst us.
You are not advocating the government get out of the transit business altogether you are advocating it continue with a system that marginalizes the most vulnerable segments of our society, destroys our environment, and enslaves us to foreign governments. All for the convenience of the people with money.
You are right life isn't fair.
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
I seriously do not believe that you plenty of people that never ride in automobiles. If you live in a small town or a few of the largest American cities, you may know a handful of people that don't own cars, but even in that case you have to admit that is unusual.
googilycub
Active Member
I never said that I know plenty of people that never ride in automobiles, I said I know plenty of people that do not own autos. Back in the days of working at O'Hare, I knew several hundred.....
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
Wow you obviously didn't read the post you quoted then. And you are in one of maybe half dozen metro areas that this is a legitimate lifestyle choice. I am still extremely skeptical of your "several hundred" figure. If you are counting teenagers, adult children living at home, college students, or spouses with only one car then you are missing the point of the exercise.
Even still this is anomaly and not the norm, and you must know that to be true.
At this point you are just mincing words because you've run out of salient points.
njDizFan
Well-Known Member
Where rail is a viable option, most people prefer trains. Mostly this is in heavily populated urban areas. If you live in NJ or Ct and have to get into New York City, you do have an option to drive but thankfully most will opt for the train. Also,the light rail in Newark and Jersey City are hugely popular. So, if rail was an option and free (as Stlbobby suggests) aside from taxes, you would see a dramatic shift.....eventually.
Change is difficult, especially when you don't realize you have a problem.
JEANYLASER
Well-Known Member
thanks for the info!
fillerup
Well-Known Member
That's a very big assumption to make.
Rail in Europe, in my opinion, is an absolutely great way to travel. And with over 200 years of experience, the system there travels all over the continent.
And yet - only about 6% of all inter-city travel in Europe is by train. We would be hard pressed here to achieve that due to our much lower population densities.
Free rail, aside from the taxes?? You say that as if it was inconsequential, almost a throwaway item.
A Harvard economist (and very pro-rail) did a study in 2009 of a hypothetical 240 mile route from Dallas to Houston and concluded that capital costs alone for rail are around 2.7 million dollars per mile per year.
At the end of the day, his cost benefit analysis, no matter how much he skewed his assumptions and data to favor trains, the ratio of cost to benefit was around 6 to 1. And that was with reasonable fares being charged.
Do some math on a nationwide system that we all agree would be great and I'm pretty sure we'll run out of zeroes.
Perhaps a fly in/fly out timeshare resort :shrug:
I was being sarcastic and making a point at the same time. But there is land just south of 92 that would be perfect.
GenerationX
Well-Known Member
Disagree. "Wealthy" people pay usage fees to drive or fly - gas taxes, tolls, security fees, etc. "Poor" people have heavily subsidized public transportation - buses, trains, subways, etc. readily available to them. The government's system is fairly equitable and already gives preference to the least fortunate first. And I'll save you a response post (your typing fingers must be getting tired at this point) - this is my perception, just as much of what you state is your perception.
MaryJaneP
Well-Known Member
Keep the runway and make it a fly in/fly out vacation destination. Timeshare or build deluxe home like the new development recently announced (Golden Oaks). Can you say AP for your gulfstream?
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
Disagree. "Wealthy" people pay usage fees to drive or fly - gas taxes, tolls, security fees, etc. "Poor" people have heavily subsidized public transportation - buses, trains, subways, etc. readily available to them. The government's system is fairly equitable and already gives preference to the least fortunate first. And I'll save you a response post (your typing fingers must be getting tired at this point) - this is my perception, just as much of what you state is your perception.
If you really believe public transportation is, "readily available" or favors the poor you are sadly mistaken or deluding yourself. Outside of a few metro areas public transport is somewhere between non-existent and barely useful. And in all areas it is far too expensive, especially to support the argument that they favor the poor.
My perceptions are based on careful study of the facts and the situation. The other side is based on a massive marketing campaign and the concerted effort of massive conglomerates to deliberately affect our society for their personal gain.
The very fact that the biggest arguments presented have been cars and roads are better because we have them, and cars are freedom. Really bolsters my arguments as much as anything I have typed.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I know seven of those car-less people, and they all live in California, Oregon and Washington. One lives in LA, and two each in San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. Several are just aquaintances, and the rest are dear friends I've known for decades. Most live in downtown urban areas, although two in Portland live out in the suburbs about a mile from a light rail station, they own very swanky bikes they ride to the station to get into town and to work. All seven of these folks are rather affluent and well educated.
Interestingly, while they don't own cars, almost all of them are avid travelers who fly in jumbo jets multiple times every year.
I have been to Disneyland a few times with the car-less person who lives in downtown LA. She takes one of the 40+ passenger trains per day that travel to/from Los Angeles to the Anaheim transit station a few blocks from Disneyland.
If the car-less social model interests you, then go for it and move to one of the many US cities that offers a basic bus/rail transit system. But if you are living in a small town of 50,000 people and are upset that you have to drive to Target to buy toothpaste, than there isn't much to do about that but complain. Even if you went back 100 years, that small town would be without cars but would have nearly as many horses as people. Horses did the work of personal and family transport before the internal combustion engine came along. You'd need to ride your horse into town to buy toothpaste 100 years ago.
.
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
I'm glad to hear you have so many friends that were able to live the fantasy and lose their cars.
I actually live in a city of over 100 thousand people and a region of well over one and a half million people. I have during my life gone with out a car. But during much of my working life it was not possible. I worked freelance in a variety of locations and usually had to move tools with-me through-out a major metropolitan area.
When I did get an in-house gig at a TV station I road my bike everyday and all but abandoned my truck.
I now have made the choice to work in a place too far away for me to regularly bike commute and public transport isn't available. My job is too far from my wife's work so moving closer to mine would only put us further from hers.
I seriously took the commute into consideration when deliberating my current job, but I chose the opportunity to help educate a group of awesome young people at an arts college. It is just not the kind of opening that is available in a lot of places.
I also haven't complained once. I have simply stated my ideas about how to improve the world and presented the reasons society is the way it is. I figured it was OK to discuss ideas on the internet and hope for the betterment.
If you read through the whole thread you will realize that your argument that I should just move really isn't viable. I am talking about why society is the way it is, how it can be improved, and the biases that keep it from happening, not about my personal circumstances.
I will also refer you to several previous posts about the disabled and disadvantaged that do not have the options of just changing their location. Truthfully, many able bodied extremely wealthy do not have that luxury. And again is it fair to tell people they should just leave their family and friends because you would prefer your taxes support roads over trains?
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It's been said before here, but life is not fair. I can easily imagine there are disabled people who want to live in other places, but their family and support systems are in the city they were raised in. That's a concept not exclusive to the disabled though, and there's a bunch of disabled folks who would be very angry at the suggestion that they are helpless invalids worthy of our pity who are incapable of moving to a new city because of their disability.
That said, I lived for a couple years in Boston and did the public transit "Big City" gig. After the novelty wore off within a couple of weeks... It was miserable. Wedged in those dirty sewer trains in the cold or heat with people I often had no interest in being wedged next to. I got back to commuting in my car as soon as I could. Vastly better experience for me.
The car-less couple I know in Portland have always been unique, but are not unusual for Portland, a city whose civic slogan implores its citizens to "Keep Portland Weird!". In summer the wife often bikes to a marina on the Willamette River and kayaks into her office in downtown Portland, which is a trendy thing to do in that West Coast city.
Kayak Commuting in Portland
The point? America offers many different lifestyles to choose from, and the choosing is up to you.
When this same couple came down to SoCal and visited Disneyland with me with their 3 year old and 5 year old boys, they arrived with..... NO STROLLER! They spent their 3 day Disneyland vacation wandering all over both theme parks without a stroller. The boys simply walked, with occasional bouts of carrying the 3 year old. The entire family is slender, and bursting with energy and vigor. Your mileage may vary.
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
It's been said before here, but life is not fair.
Refer to post 241 for that response.
I can easily imagine there are disabled people who want to live in other places, but their family and support systems are in the city they were raised in. That's a concept not exclusive to the disabled though, and there's a bunch of disabled folks who would be very angry at the suggestion that they are helpless invalids worthy of our pity who are incapable of moving to a new city because of their disability.
I never came close to even implying this. I clearly stated that the current system values the convenience of the wealthy and able bodied over the greater good.
That said, I lived for a couple years in Boston and did the public transit "Big City" gig. After the novelty wore off within a couple of weeks... It was miserable. Wedged in those dirty sewer trains in the cold or heat with people I often had no interest in being wedged next to. I got back to commuting in my car as soon as I could. Vastly better experience for me.
This is sad for you.
The car-less couple I know in Portland have always been unique, but are not unusual for Portland, a city whose civic slogan implores its citizens to "Keep Portland Weird!". In summer the wife often bikes to a marina on the Willamette River and kayaks into her office in downtown Portland, which is a trendy thing to do in that West Coast city.
Kayak Commuting in Portland
The point? America offers many different lifestyles to choose from, and the choosing is up to you.
No the choosing isn't up to me. Under my plan the choice would be left up to individuals, whether to use free public transit or drive, but for the vast majority of people there is no choice. You statement is actually proving my point.
When this same couple came down to SoCal and visited Disneyland with me with their 3 year old and 5 year old boys, they arrived with..... NO STROLLER! They spent their 3 day Disneyland vacation wandering all over both theme parks without a stroller. The boys simply walked, with occasional bouts of carrying the 3 year old. The entire family is slender, and bursting with energy and vigor. Your mileage may vary.
Why would we as a society want to promote this lifestyle?(sarcasm) Again this is exactly my point.
You have run out of salient points. You can no longer make a real argument. You have resorted to twisting my words and using and using specific instances to try and disprove a societal argument. Ironically the specific instances are actually undoing you very contentions.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Okay. I don't think you realize we agree on a few points, in your zeal to provide "free public transit" to all. (For instance, lazy parents pushing their lazy but pefectly walkable kids around in strollers all day. Strollers that have grown to the size of a small refrigerator, no less.)
But, as a guy who minored in Russian Studies way back during the Cold War, I should point out that not even a communist utopia like the Soviet Union in its most affluent 1970's Brezhnev era was able to provide free transit to all, not even in the flagship city of Moscow. Bus and trolley rides required several kopecks to board, the showpiece subway was 10 kopecks, and there was absolutely no accomodations made for wheelchairs or transporting of disabled folks.
However, due to the state of the Soviet auto industry, riding the Moscow subway in 1975 sure beat driving a tin foil Lada or Trabant. :lol:
CDavid
Well-Known Member
Still trying to catch up on this thread, but right now this high-speed railroad is about as definite as the Western River Expedition or Beastly Kingdom. Last I heard, we shouldn't expect a formal announcement for a couple months, or perhaps a conditional approval which gets amended later. The Obama administration is applying a lot of pressure to make this happen, mainly so they'll have something to show for $10 billion plus of "high-speed rail investment" which often paid for studies and other reports on rail systems which will never be built, and portray the new governor as "playing politics" if he rejects the project.
Central Florida and the nation do badly need greater passenger rail development, this just isn't necessairily the right type of service for the Orlando-Tampa market (and decidedly the wrong solution for the link between Disney and MCO, which should properly be a light-rail connection). IF this project goes forward, and again that's hardly assured, expect some major changes before the first train leaves the station - and that would probably be a good thing.
No passenger railway in the world operates without a subsidy (despite false claims to the contrary), and neither would this one. Somebody would be left picking up the tab for the annual operating costs - and it won't be the feds. A dedicated high-speed system also costs a lot more to build and maintain than a higher-speed (say, 110 mph) conventional train on freight shared right-of-way, which would make more sense for the Orlando to Tampa route than the currently proposed HSR.
The "profitable" Northeast Corridor costs the taxpayers more each year than all other nationwide services combined. Where you get a "profit" is that Amtrak has reported (sometimes to tell Congress what it wants to hear...) marginal profits (say, $6) on the ticket price for premium price services like Acela first-class, not for the entire corridor operation, but of course it gets spread around the media as the "profitable" Northeast Corridor. Problem is, it costs several hundred million annually just to maintain the existing Boston-Washington railroad corridor (and those are largely expenses which wouldn't go away even if Amtrak service shut down tomorrow), so having a small percentage of your passengers on one train service on a single route paying "profitable" rates is both meaningless and misleading.
You have the right idea; Incrementally improved, 110-mph conventional trains could (apparently) come within 10-12 minutes (or less, depending on the extent of infrastructure investments) of the dedicated HSR line proposed, but at a fraction of the construction and annual operating cost. In fairness, the existing Silver Star is a New York to Miami long-distance train service which, while certainly available to Orlando-Tampa trips, isn't really aimed at that market. Most of the business is north of Orlando anyway, and there are limits as to how much short-distance business you can handle without "blocking out" the long-distance passenger who wants to go from Miami to Philadelphia.
That's effectively a myth. No train requires "government subsidies for every person that steps onboard above and beyond their ticket price". I know you've probably heard that repeated time and time again until you just take it for granted as factual, but not only is it not true, its a silly argument when you stop to think about it. The more passengers you carry, the more ticket revenue earned, not less, and hence the smaller the operating subsidy required; You do not lose money for each person you carry. It is essentially a fixed cost to run a locomotive and ten cars down the track today, so it is advantageous to carry as many paying passengers as possible. Even if that $140 figure were accurate (it isn't) it is still meaningless; Say you have one passenger travelling 60 miles on a fare of $14, and another going 1,600 miles in first-class for $1,225. It doesn't begin to make sense that the true cost to transport both passengers is the ticket price plus $140.
Incidentally, the Silver Meteor offers all amenities and is a full-service operation. It's not a cruise ship on rails, nor is it on a level with some long-distance trains of the 1950's, but neither is it supposed to be. Oldest equipment is actually from 1948.
We're probably talking about 10-12 minuntes difference between a definitive high-speed train and "conventional" trains (again, at a literal fraction of the cost) on the Orlando-Tampa segment. It all depends on the level of investment in infrastructure. With so many stops the average speed for the high-speed train is slow enough that an express conventional train could, in theory, beat the end-point running times. Again, in theory - but that well illustrates why this should be built as an incrementally improved, existing conventional railway rather than a dedicated High-speed line.
Central Florida and the nation do badly need greater passenger rail development, this just isn't necessairily the right type of service for the Orlando-Tampa market (and decidedly the wrong solution for the link between Disney and MCO, which should properly be a light-rail connection). IF this project goes forward, and again that's hardly assured, expect some major changes before the first train leaves the station - and that would probably be a good thing.
No passenger railway in the world operates without a subsidy (despite false claims to the contrary), and neither would this one. Somebody would be left picking up the tab for the annual operating costs - and it won't be the feds. A dedicated high-speed system also costs a lot more to build and maintain than a higher-speed (say, 110 mph) conventional train on freight shared right-of-way, which would make more sense for the Orlando to Tampa route than the currently proposed HSR.
The "profitable" Northeast Corridor costs the taxpayers more each year than all other nationwide services combined. Where you get a "profit" is that Amtrak has reported (sometimes to tell Congress what it wants to hear...) marginal profits (say, $6) on the ticket price for premium price services like Acela first-class, not for the entire corridor operation, but of course it gets spread around the media as the "profitable" Northeast Corridor. Problem is, it costs several hundred million annually just to maintain the existing Boston-Washington railroad corridor (and those are largely expenses which wouldn't go away even if Amtrak service shut down tomorrow), so having a small percentage of your passengers on one train service on a single route paying "profitable" rates is both meaningless and misleading.
You have the right idea; Incrementally improved, 110-mph conventional trains could (apparently) come within 10-12 minutes (or less, depending on the extent of infrastructure investments) of the dedicated HSR line proposed, but at a fraction of the construction and annual operating cost. In fairness, the existing Silver Star is a New York to Miami long-distance train service which, while certainly available to Orlando-Tampa trips, isn't really aimed at that market. Most of the business is north of Orlando anyway, and there are limits as to how much short-distance business you can handle without "blocking out" the long-distance passenger who wants to go from Miami to Philadelphia.
That's effectively a myth. No train requires "government subsidies for every person that steps onboard above and beyond their ticket price". I know you've probably heard that repeated time and time again until you just take it for granted as factual, but not only is it not true, its a silly argument when you stop to think about it. The more passengers you carry, the more ticket revenue earned, not less, and hence the smaller the operating subsidy required; You do not lose money for each person you carry. It is essentially a fixed cost to run a locomotive and ten cars down the track today, so it is advantageous to carry as many paying passengers as possible. Even if that $140 figure were accurate (it isn't) it is still meaningless; Say you have one passenger travelling 60 miles on a fare of $14, and another going 1,600 miles in first-class for $1,225. It doesn't begin to make sense that the true cost to transport both passengers is the ticket price plus $140.
Incidentally, the Silver Meteor offers all amenities and is a full-service operation. It's not a cruise ship on rails, nor is it on a level with some long-distance trains of the 1950's, but neither is it supposed to be. Oldest equipment is actually from 1948.
We're probably talking about 10-12 minuntes difference between a definitive high-speed train and "conventional" trains (again, at a literal fraction of the cost) on the Orlando-Tampa segment. It all depends on the level of investment in infrastructure. With so many stops the average speed for the high-speed train is slow enough that an express conventional train could, in theory, beat the end-point running times. Again, in theory - but that well illustrates why this should be built as an incrementally improved, existing conventional railway rather than a dedicated High-speed line.
I think you really have to view this as a first step or test of HSR. It will provide real world data that can be analyzed and projections made on that data. While Tampa-MCO won't initially function as true HSR it is the best place to start building such a system with the least risk to the taxpayer. And it would actually be a net plus to the Florida economy at this point. No doubt in my mind.
- Status