Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE

[DVCOwner]

It's the same with rail ... this may not be perfect ... but it's a start. You either get this or you get nothing.

If I came to you today and told you that I was going to give you a new car and all you had to do is pay the operating cost yourself, would you do if if I told you the operating cost was $1,000 a month. No you would not. That is the problem with the HSR, the big Federal Government was going to pay most (not all of the cost to build), but than Fl tax payers would have to pay millions of dollars each year to pay the operating cost of this project. That is why serveral states have all ready turned down HSR money.

The US government can not aford to continue to build costly projects when 40 cents of every dollar it is spending is borrowed.

I have lived in Japan and I have lived in Europe. You are talking much smaller counties where rail works. Due to the size of the US high speed travel between cities will always be by plane.

 

[DVCOwner]

Trains are better for the environment in many ways; modern trains do not pollute nearly as much as jets and cars do along with being more efficient, designing town and cities around rail prevents sprawl and is healthier for citizens.

What magic fuel are these trains running on; in the US its mainly electrical power that is generated by Coal. There is a lot of discussion on if they are better for the enviroment.

 

[WorldKey]

100 mph top speed really isn't high speed in Germany - that's the top speed of some regional trains. ICE trains (German high speed) travel at 150-175 mph depending on which kind of track they use.

That is what I meant - the ones proposed in the US as 'high speed' would be nothing near that of European high speed trains. I was on a few in Germany that were traveling well over 150 mph.

 

[Bolna]

What magic fuel are these trains running on; in the US its mainly electrical power that is generated by Coal. There is a lot of discussion on if they are better for the enviroment.

You make a valid point that electricity generated by burning coal has the same problem fuel has: it comes form a limited source and pollutes the environment and the atmosphere. However, there are various sources which can be used to generate electricity that don't have this problem. I admit that at this point in time, that dilemma is still far from being solved (solar, wind and water are still not efficient enough to supply the world with energy and nuclear energy brings a whole other set of problems with it), but that is something that can be worked on.

Why are we moving backwards to the train again? We should be spending that money to innovate, not to attempt to improve a technology that doesn't meet the need. Would it be impossible to create a rail system that travelled high speed that you could pull your car onto? You could save on gas, stop worrying about traffic, hop in the back seat and watch a movie with the kids. Could you solve traffic congestion and accidents with a system like that? Could you build trains that would connect and split real time based on the travellers destination, so they don't have to stop at every station?

HSR as they were planning to build it it a step in the wrong direction. It doesn't solve the problem that has plagued trains since the beginning. You can only go as far as the rail will take you. You have to walk from there. There are far better ideas out there.

I think a modern high speed train can't be compared to the trains in the 19th century. And the invention of the automobile and the airplane don't make the train obsolete. A train might not be the best method of transport in every case, but I think in certain situation it can add a lot. I don't know Florida enough to know much about how useful a line between Orlando and Tampa would have been, but I am certain that there are areas in the USA where a train makes sense.

Taking your car with you on the train would not make sense from an energy point of view. But what makes sense and what happens here in Europe is the combination of train and personal methods of transportation. For example with car sharing. A concept which is picked up by car rental companies here in Europe: you mainly just rent a car at the railway station and return it there. Quite a few cities offer easily accessible bike rentals as well.

Another example is that airlines offer a free (or very cheap) train transfer to the airport. Which makes sense for some long distance flights. For example from my home town to Frankfurt airport (the airport has its own railway station) it is about 2 hours by train, 1 hour scheduled by plane. However, there is a train every hour and only a few flights per day. It often makes more sense to just get on the next train home when arriving in Frankfurt instead of waiting around at the airport for 2 hours for the connection...

So it really isn't a question of car against train against plane, but how to make these different methods work together.

 

[UncleScrooge]

I am glad that the HSR project has been killed for multiple reasons. While the idea was noble, it’s implication was poorly conceived and short sighted. While we were lured by the bait of temporary jobs and “free” federal money; ultimately the extended operating cost for this infrequently used system would have been a millstone around the necks of Floridians for decades to come. The simple fact of the matter is that very few people would actually use this rail, because neither Tampa nor Orlando have adequate populations to support its use. Also, in newer “urban” areas like Tampa (especially in the sunbelt ), which are actually gigantic sprawling suburbs rather than densely populated metropolises, it would be too cumbersome to access and use. I live in Tampa, and there is no way I would bother using that train. Much of the population lives in North or “New” Tampa; and this rail station would have been located in South Tampa. So I would have to drive a half hour anyway just to get to the South Tampa station. (Also, the vast majority of those living in south Tampa would also not be able to simply walk to the station either). Once at the station, I would most likely have to pay for parking, wait for the train to arrive, wait at its multiple stops, only to arrive at the WDW station (essentially stranded), and having to then wait for the Disney busses to take me to the parks. The same tedious process would have to be repeated for the trip home, plus I would have the excitement of wondering upon my return if my car has been broken into or is up on cinderblocks. Otherwise, I could do what I do now; get in my car, hop on I-75 south to I-4 East and be from my doorstep to the Magic Kingdom parking lot within one hour; and still have the use of my car during my stay. Honestly, what would you choose? Quoting a beloved, but no longer existing Epcot attraction “It’s fun to be free.”

 

[CDavid]

Why we ever thought going backwards was a good idea I'll never know.

We started with rail. It was great. It allowed us to expand across the country. We could move long distances quicker than ever.

We improved on that idea with the car. Not only could we go long distances relatively quickly, we had the freedom to move around once we got where we were going.

We improved on the car with the Airplane. I doesn't have to take 25 hours to get from NH to FL anymore because we can fly there. I can still use the auto (rental) when I get there for local travel, so I don't have to walk 5 miles to get groceries.

Why are we moving backwards to the train again?

We're not. The train represents forward thinking.

When "We improved on that idea with the car" should people have complained that we were moving backward, because roads were a very old creation which existed back in roman times? Should the automobile have similarly been abandoned because it relied upon wheels, which was an even older technology?

Trains of the 19th century and those of today have about as much in common as does the automobile and the horse & buggy.

Would it be impossible to create a rail system that travelled high speed that you could pull your car onto?

Such a system was created - in 1971.

You could save on gas, stop worrying about traffic, hop in the back seat and watch a movie with the kids.

Yes, Auto-Train passengers do so every day. The single existing route should be expanded and gradually improved to produce higher speeds (and thus faster running time) and greater capacity, but that costs money which Congress has never made available (they only relunctantly funded replacements for fifty year old rail cars). As discussed in this thread, billions are being made available (mostly wasted) to conduct studies of expensive "high-speed" rail systems which will never be built, but nothing to fund the relatively modest cost for expanded and improved conventional rail (which is the greater need across most of the nation).

Could you build trains that would connect and split real time based on the travellers destination, so they don't have to stop at every station?

Yes, real railroads have only been splitting and combining trains enroute since, oh, maybe a hundred years ago. The upcoming Jacksonville to Miami train that Florida is still proceeding with will likely do this.

I have lived in Japan and I have lived in Europe. You are talking much smaller counties where rail works. Due to the size of the US high speed travel between cities will always be by plane

The idea that passenger rail won't work in the U.S. due to geography (primarily greater distances) is a myth. While the United States is a larger country, most people aren't going all the way from one end to the other, or even close; Most current rail trips are less than 300-400 miles, even when the train itself is going 2,000 miles.

 

[flavious27]

What magic fuel are these trains running on; in the US its mainly electrical power that is generated by Coal. There is a lot of discussion on if they are better for the enviroment.

Coal is the #1 source of power in the us but its dominance has been dropping. Gleener sources of energy are gaining prominence and sources of fossil fuels like coal are also being made better for the environment. As I said, trains help to reduce sprawl which also reduces pollution.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I Love trains! I hope in 2015 the bullet train Miami to Orlando! I hope to see it in 2015!

Do not get your hopes up. It is not happening.

 

[UncleScrooge]

Trains are better for the environment in many ways; modern trains do not pollute nearly as much as jets and cars do along with being more efficient, designing town and cities around rail prevents sprawl and is healthier for citizens.

Unfortunately, mass transit systems only work well in compact, densely populated urban areas like those in the Northeast, or in countries like Japan. I grew up in South Philly, and the mass transit was efficient because the city is deigned like a gigantic grid, making the system simple and user friendly. You can get to any point in the city by taking one north/south bus and then transferring to one east/west bus. Also, the city is so compact that once you got off the bus you could easily walk to your destination. However, while the mass transit system in Philly may have been efficient, you spent your life living like a sardine in a dirty, claustrophobia inducing, congested maze of asphalt and concrete with very little that is green; and I would certainly not describe it as being “healthy”. Many people do not want to live like that; which is precisely why I moved to Florida, and why for decades there has been a mass exodus from the inner cities to the suburbs, as well as from the rustbelt to the sunbelt as a whole. The problem is as population density decreases and things become more spread out and less designed like a grid (which is more desirable to many), mass transit become nearly impossible to implement efficiently as it becomes increasingly non linear, confusing, and complicated. (This is particularly unfortunate for our elderly population who would benefit most from mass transit). So, basically, to escape the horrors of the city, you are condemned to the automobile as the only efficient means of transportation and, conversely, to have an efficient mass transit system you are condemned to living in an asphalt jungle. Like most things, it is a two edged sword.

 

[AndyMagic]

What magic fuel are these trains running on; in the US its mainly electrical power that is generated by Coal. There is a lot of discussion on if they are better for the enviroment.

It doesn't matter where the electricity is drawing the power from. Trains are inherently and astronomically more efficient at moving people than cars are. Even diesel commuter trains are more efficient than automobiles because they carry hundreds and hundreds of people who are perhaps toting a backpack instead of 2-tons of steel around with them. This isn't even touching on all of the externalities involved with metro areas that have been built around highways and cars instead of subways and commuter rail. Highways produce sprawl which increases energy needs to areas far outside of dense cities. Heating and cooling and getting water to these places is insanely wasteful. Density is key to a greener future and you simply can't have density without some form of decent mass transit be it monorail, train, maglev, lightrail, etc. Cars take up enormous amounts of space and when people reach their destinations, they need to be able to park. This results in cities made up of seas of asphalt for the storage of cars instead of buildings and walkable streets. There is not still "discussion" on whether trains are better for the environment or not. They are.

 

[bruce1959]

Why this information was posted this week again is kind of silly. Its not happening now.
The recent timing of this posting subject further denegrates the usefulness of the information provided on this site.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why this information was posted this week again is kind of silly. Its not happening now.
The recent timing of this posting subject further denegrates the usefulness of the information provided on this site.

What? The subject came up, so the thread was revived.

 

[slappy magoo]

Why this information was posted this week again is kind of silly. Its not happening now.
The recent timing of this posting subject further denegrates the usefulness of the information provided on this site.

Reading is fundamental. The thread was started when HSR was a go. It was resurrected to be discussed when it was a no, rather than start a new thread.

2 posts and you're already bossing people around on how the forum ought to be. How cute are you?

 

[GrumpyFan]

The idea that passenger rail won't work in the U.S. due to geography (primarily greater distances) is a myth. While the United States is a larger country, most people aren't going all the way from one end to the other, or even close; Most current rail trips are less than 300-400 miles, even when the train itself is going 2,000 miles.

I agree. Also, one of the arguments or examples used a lot is that of the northeast where congress has had to supplement it to make it work. I believe that if a reliable, and fast passenger rail line were built in the U.S. connecting some of the major cities, it would be successful. The key, though, is that it must be fast, reliable and efficient, which is something that is lacking with the system in the northeast.

Continued reliance of cars, roadways and fossil fuels is only going to cost more in the long run, physically on the environment and our own health and fiscally on our pockets.

 

[rsoxguy]

Floridians love their cars. Buses in my town run daily with one to five passengers within. I think that this idea would have sold better in another State.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Floridians love their cars. Buses in my town run daily with one to five passengers within. I think that this idea would have sold better in another State.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a Floridian. It has to do with how the state has been developed. There is nothing easy about getting around with a car and nothing has forced or encouraged density.

 

[AndyMagic]

Floridians love their cars. Buses in my town run daily with one to five passengers within. I think that this idea would have sold better in another State.

Buses rightfully have a stigma about them so passenger projections for rail-based transit simply can't be based on existing bus ridership. Buses get stuck in traffic just like automobiles because they don't have their own rights of way. Even in the cases of BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) they don't draw nearly as many riders as light rail or subway. Buses lurch, bounce, rattle, stop too often, and have difficult loading procedures for the elderly or handicapped which slow them down. Buses aren't trains.

 

[rsoxguy]

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a Floridian. It has to do with how the state has been developed. There is nothing easy about getting around with a car and nothing has forced or encouraged density.

I have lived in Florida since I was twelve years old. I have visited many states that have mass-transit systems. Maybe it's just my perception, and I'm certainly entitled to it, but Floridians are not overly fond of public transportation. Just an opinion.

 

[rsoxguy]

Buses rightfully have a stigma about them so passenger projections for rail-based transit simply can't be based on existing bus ridership. Buses get stuck in traffic just like automobiles because they don't have their own rights of way. Even in the cases of BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) they don't draw nearly as many riders as light rail or subway. Buses lurch, bounce, rattle, stop too often, and have difficult loading procedures for the elderly or handicapped which slow them down. Buses aren't trains.

Thank you for clearing up the whole buses/trains confusion for me. I realize the difference, but the issue is public transportation. The State is so vast that many Floridians seem to prefer the independence of their cars. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am entitled to the observation.

 

[TP2000]

The train represents forward thinking.

There's a very interesting editorial in the Washington Post today. Although it doesn't paint a very rosy picture for China, or the USA, when it comes to high speed rail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021605977.html

I love trains, and I appear to be one of the few people here (including yourself CDavid) who actually use Amtrak passenger rail for short and long distance trips multiple times per year. I've come to understand that many people commenting on this topic have never actually ridden a passenger train outside of a Disney theme park, let alone take an overnight train anywhere on a 1,500 mile trip. Much less do that sort of thing several times per year. So, yeah, I'm a train fan.

But some things like high speed rail we just can't afford, now or in the future.

Did Florida ever establish exactly who was going to be responsible for this system after it was built? Who would be paying the yearly salaries of all the train employees, who would be paying the yearly maintenance on the trainsets, tracks and stations? I never did catch how that financial system was to be set up in Florida after the rails were laid and the ribbon was cut in 2015. :veryconfu

.