Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE

[lazyboy97o]

This service should have been offered with dme, it makes going to wdw more seamless.

Bag service is offered as part of Magical Express, so long as you use a participating airline. Using special baggage tags, you check your bag at your originating airport and see it next at your Disney resort room. So what exactly is your point?

 

[flavious27]

Bag service is offered as part of Magical Express, so long as you use a participating airline. Using special baggage tags, you check your bag at your originating airport and see it next at your Disney resort room. So what exactly is your point?

That when a guest arrives at OIA, everything for their check in is done before they get on the bus so when they get to wdw, they can go straight to the parks.

 

[JEANYLASER]

very interesting!

 

[tizzo]

But no way does the USA have the vision in the 21st century to do a rail version of the Interstate system.

Interesting choice of imagery. The best description of the national HSR agenda I heard was that we were "chasing the 19th century". Bear in mind that HSR is a reasonable substitute only for air travel (fixed point to fixed point over long distances), to which it does not compare favorably in terms of technology, flexibility, cost, efficiency, or cleanliness. Obama's picture of avoiding airport security and taking the train instead is very appealing, but presupposes failure. Because if HSR captures enough ridership to be successful, it's going to need exactly the same kind of security, because it's vulnerable to all the same threats.

Bottom line is that high-speed trains, running at conventional speeds because there are too many stops (Tampa/Orlando would average under 80MPH); running empty because they're too expensive to ride; and sapping billions of dollars the government could otherwise be using to discharge it's legitimate duties and responsibilities, hardly makes anyone's life better.

Honestly, I had gone on for paragraphs and paragraphs and ended up deleting it because it was all off topic. You have your beliefs and I'm not going to change them. Most of my diatribe just involved unsimplifying your oversimplifications, most of which were probably made to avoid that very same kind of verbosity in the first place. Some factual corrections regarding where most of the money goes, but probably nothing you would have accepted anyway.

 

[tizzo]

Nothing about this route worked towards the viability of high speed rail. The population is not there. The traffic is not there. The distance is not there. If you are so concerned about waste then you would not support a rail system for its "cool" factor. You do not fight oil dependence with a train that is not in a viable alternative.

This is a very good point. It's actually taking a fair amount of discipline for me to oppose this. I think the degree to which the public is opposed, despite the aforementioned "cool" factor and the unrealistic cost/benefit analysis that many people probably take at face value, should be a hint that maybe this isn't such a great idea after all.

 

[juniorthomas]

true and it would be faster than taking a bus.

Absolutely.

 

[juniorthomas]

I don't know why Disney would necessarily be interested in a quicker route. As long as people get to the World is the bottom line.

Certainly they want people on property from start to finish, but they already have that with the wildly successful DME. And they've consistently said they won't discontinue DME - that they only consider rail an alternative.

Besides, with the station configuration at OIA, and the need to load and unload baggage and passengers a second time might mean that Mears' buses might very well wind up being faster than a train.

Not quicker as in a faster train, but quicker as in potentially having shorter waits for Magical Express, and ultimately getting guests from the airport onto the property sooner.

 

[CDavid]

Because if HSR captures enough ridership to be successful, it's going to need exactly the same kind of security, because it's vulnerable to all the same threats.

False. The security concerns for passenger rail (high speed or otherwise) are almost totally different than air travel. The primary risk to an airliner is from someone or something inside the aircraft, while the main risks to a train are found on the ground and in terminals, not onboard.

You cannot hijack a train like you can an airliner - there's (generally) no way to get to the locomotive from the passenger cars, for one thing, and I'm not sure what someone would expect to do once they got there. Unlike an airliner, you are not trapped onboard miles in the sky; The train can stop anywhere in an emergency. A relatively small, easily concealed explosive device may bring down a 747 but might not even be powerful enough to derail the train (terrorist acts on European train are at best an apples-oranges comparison, given the much greater weight of U.S. designs) or cause injury outside that one car. While someone could potentially get a weapon on a train, they could do so even easier at your local Wal-Mart or movie theater. You can't have high security everywhere, all the time, nor are the risks the same among different modes of transportation.

Nothing about this route worked towards the viability of high speed rail. The population is not there. The traffic is not there. The distance is not there. If you are so concerned about waste then you would not support a rail system for its "cool" factor. You do not fight oil dependence with a train that is not in a viable alternative.

I never thought I would be opposing a rail project, but despite the importance and potential of passenger rail of all types, this project was ill-conceived and very much the wrong project in the wrong place.

The problem with this project is not that it shouldn't be built - because the central Florida region very badly needs greater passenger rail development - but that it absolutely should not be built as currently proposed as a "high-speed" railroad. HSR for the 21 miles from the airport to WDW is ludicrous. A modern light-rail system could be implemented for a fraction of the cost and is what Orlando really needs. It could even be tied into a potential Tampa light-rail network, again at far lower cost and greater utility.

If you want to do a higher-speed (say, 110 mph) Orlando to Tampa passenger railroad, then incrementally improve the existing CSX line to permit faster and more frequent trains (partially Sun Rail territory anyway), with ongoing improvements when ridership builds or if demand warrants. There is no way the currently proposed project would have met its ridership goals, and when it was therefore branded a failure (it wouldn't be profitable either - no passenger railway exists without an operating subsidy) it would have set back passenger rail development across the nation by decades.

 

[tizzo]

False. The security concerns for passenger rail (high speed or otherwise) are almost totally different than air travel. (etc.)

I stand corrected. The security concerns are quite different. I stand by my expectation, however, that the government's interest in protecting the passengers on the train from harm at the hands of an armed perpetrator in their midst will (probably, if that helps) lead to the adoption of security measures at train stations which, if not the same as at airports, will still be more burdensome and intrusive than what many people are willing to bear. Particularly given the alternative choices available.

 

[tizzo]

I never thought I would be opposing a rail project, but despite the importance and potential of passenger rail of all types, this project was ill-conceived and very much the wrong project in the wrong place.

The problem with this project is not that it shouldn't be built - because the central Florida region very badly needs greater passenger rail development - but that it absolutely should not be built as currently proposed as a "high-speed" railroad. HSR for the 21 miles from the airport to WDW is ludicrous. A modern light-rail system could be implemented for a fraction of the cost and is what Orlando really needs. It could even be tied into a potential Tampa light-rail network, again at far lower cost and greater utility.

If you want to do a higher-speed (say, 110 mph) Orlando to Tampa passenger railroad, then incrementally improve the existing CSX line to permit faster and more frequent trains (partially Sun Rail territory anyway), with ongoing improvements when ridership builds or if demand warrants. There is no way the currently proposed project would have met its ridership goals, and when it was therefore branded a failure (it wouldn't be profitable either - no passenger railway exists without an operating subsidy) it would have set back passenger rail development across the nation by decades.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way it made sense was directly from somewhere central in Orlando (probably nowhere near WDW unfortunately) to somewhere central in Tampa. And then only after suitable mass transit was in place in both locations. As close together as they are, having any stops between Orlando and Tampa made no sense, and is probably the main reason why the proposed system wasn't going to average higher than conventional speeds. The extra stops on the Orlando side were necessary, however, because if you're dropped off of the train in Downtown Orlando you have no way to get anywhere else unless you rent a car - at which point you've incurred more cost than you would have just driving from Tampa, not even including the train fare. And without even any savings of time - the 10 minutes or so shaved off the travel time using the train vs. driving is more than consumed by embarkation, debarkation, picking up your rental car, dropping it off, etc.

 

[CDavid]

I stand by my expectation, however, that the government's interest in protecting the passengers on the train from harm at the hands of an armed perpetrator in their midst will (probably, if that helps) lead to the adoption of security measures at train stations which, if not the same as at airports, will still be more burdensome and intrusive than what many people are willing to bear. Particularly given the alternative choices available.

You may well be right about that. There have already been "random" spot checks of passengers and their baggage, with those opting out not permitted to board the train.

What they haven't explained is exactly how this is stopping someone from opting out of the search, hailing a taxi to the next station down the line where no searches are being conducted, and boarding there. :brick:

 

[tizzo]

You may well be right about that. There have already been "random" spot checks of passengers and their baggage, with those opting out not permitted to board the train.

What they haven't explained is exactly how this is stopping someone from opting out of the search, hailing a taxi to the next station down the line where no searches are being conducted, and boarding there. :brick:

I guess it's easy to be critical - but the reality is that it's a hard problem, and I certainly don't know the answer - or whether there even is one frankly.

 

[CDavid]

I stand by my expectation, however, that the government's interest in protecting the passengers on the train from harm at the hands of an armed perpetrator in their midst will (probably, if that helps) lead to the adoption of security measures at train stations which, if not the same as at airports, will still be more burdensome and intrusive than what many people are willing to bear

You may have just made your point...the hard way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1B3AubsTBo&feature=player_embedded



I feel so much safer now.

 

[DVCOwner]

I have always been a fan of railroads and love the plan to bring them back. The problem is the government wants to put money in plans that will cost billions to build and millions more to run. Build rail (high speed or not) where it will be fully used. Areas such as the North-East corridor would get more use than the ones the Federal Government is now planning. Tie existing rail systems together using high speed rail from city to city such as New York to Baltimore/Washington and than connecting to to existing system in those areas. High Speed rail will not replace or change the number of people driving in most cases. It will compete with the US existing high speed city to city airline system. So build it where there is a place to compete

 

[Bolna]

I have always been a fan of railroads and love the plan to bring them back. The problem is the government wants to put money in plans that will cost billions to build and millions more to run. Build rail (high speed or not) where it will be fully used. Areas such as the North-East corridor would get more use than the ones the Federal Government is now planning. Tie existing rail systems together using high speed rail from city to city such as New York to Baltimore/Washington and than connecting to to existing system in those areas. High Speed rail will not replace or change the number of people driving in most cases. It will compete with the US existing high speed city to city airline system. So build it where there is a place to compete

I am not so sure why everyone doesn't think that rail can compete with car travel? Here in Germany, trains are especially popular with business travellers for short distances. During the week you will often find the first class coaches more crowded than second class. The advantage for business travellers? Quite a lot of space around you, in most cases, a real table, where you can put down your laptop comfortably with an electric outlet at every seat. Instead of spending your travel time driving and thus being unproductive, you can actually work on the train. Or have a nap and arrive refreshed.

 

[TimeTrip]

I am not so sure why everyone doesn't think that rail can compete with car travel? Here in Germany, trains are especially popular with business travellers for short distances. During the week you will often find the first class coaches more crowded than second class. The advantage for business travellers? Quite a lot of space around you, in most cases, a real table, where you can put down your laptop comfortably with an electric outlet at every seat. Instead of spending your travel time driving and thus being unproductive, you can actually work on the train. Or have a nap and arrive refreshed.

How do those typical businessmen travel to/from the stations at each end? For those businessmen, do they have cars? If so, how long would it have taken to have travelled the same by car?

I'm thinking that its much quicker to do the train "thing" because there is efficient transport to and from the stations (yes walking is considered efficient in this case), and it's faster than taking the car. Maybe.

 

[googilycub]

(terrorist acts on European train are at best an apples-oranges comparison, given the much greater weight of U.S. designs)

Except these proposed high speed trains will not have the much greater weight that current US passenger equipment has. The reason for the higher weight is that current US passenger equipment has to be built to a higher collision standard since in shares, or for the most part piggybacks, on the same right of was as freight trains. The proposed high speed rail right of ways will be for their own sole use, and the higher weight will not be needed.

 

[fillerup]

I am not so sure why everyone doesn't think that rail can compete with car travel? Here in Germany, trains are especially popular with business travellers for short distances. During the week you will often find the first class coaches more crowded than second class. The advantage for business travellers? Quite a lot of space around you, in most cases, a real table, where you can put down your laptop comfortably with an electric outlet at every seat. Instead of spending your travel time driving and thus being unproductive, you can actually work on the train. Or have a nap and arrive refreshed.

I've ridden trains in Germany and other European countries and absolutely love them.

But Europe as a whole has a population density twice that of the US. Also, the city centers I've been in - Munich, Cologne, Frankfort, etc. have vibrant city centers and extensive urban transit systems.

With a few exceptions in our larger cities, US city centers are simply not an attractive destination.

 

[SMRT-1]

this thread title makes me crack up...:lol:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

But Europe as a whole has a population density twice that of the US. Also, the city centers I've been in - Munich, Cologne, Frankfort, etc. have vibrant city centers and extensive urban transit systems.
With a few exceptions in our larger cities, US city centers are simply not an attractive destination.

I would think that bustling city centers and extensive public transit networks (both those within cities and those connecting multiple cities) would work hand-in-hand.