Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Neo

Well-Known Member
It is extremly foolish for rick scott to reject the proposal for High Speed rail. I know many tourists would use it not just commuters and locals and it will help bring more revenue to WDW and Universal which means more rides for us!

You guys should write letters to rick scott's office letting him know you support high speed rail.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
It is extremly foolish for rick scott to reject the proposal for High Speed rail. I know many tourists would use it not just commuters and locals and it will help bring more revenue to WDW and Universal which means more rides for us!
Why would tourists pick the more expensive train when they are already choosing not to use the cheaper and just as, if not more, convenient options that are already available?
 

Captain Neo

Well-Known Member
Why would tourists pick the more expensive train when they are already choosing not to use the cheaper and just as, if not more, convenient options that are already available?

Um because the "more expenisve" option is alot faster and more luxurious? The cheap currently existing train is very slow thats part of the reason why not alot of people use them. Thats why theres a big push for high-speed rail.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Um because the "more expenisve" option is alot faster and more luxurious? The cheap currently existing train is very slow thats part of the reason why not alot of people use them. Thats why theres a big push for high-speed rail.
This has all been discussed, and in quite a bit of detail. It will be significantly more expensive, and not necessarily faster, than the primary mode of travel, cars.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Um because the "more expenisve" option is alot faster and more luxurious? The cheap currently existing train is very slow thats part of the reason why not alot of people use them. Thats why theres a big push for high-speed rail.

Currently, Amtrak's Silver Star travels between Tampa and Orlando in 2 hours and 3 minutes. The high-speed rail is estimated to make the same trip in 1 hour and 22 minutes. That's a savings of 41 minutes.

The fare for that Orlando-Tampa trip is currently $10.00, in a standard coach-class seat like this;

2819648512_b0d5777716_z.jpg


The fares for high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando are optimistically forecast to cost much more than 10 bucks, in addition to the unkown cost to Florida taxpayers for the next 50 years to keep it running every year.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Currently, Amtrak's Silver Star travels between Tampa and Orlando in 2 hours and 3 minutes. The high-speed rail is estimated to make the same trip in 1 hour and 22 minutes. That's a savings of 41 minutes.
And an airport to airport drive, according to Google Maps, can be done in 1 hour 35 minutes. That's a 13 minute difference without the convenience of point-to-point travel and with greater expense (even at 15 mpg its only six gallons of gas, $24 even at $4.00/gallon).
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
I think if you were to ask the average person why he doesn't ride the current train, the reasons would not be price, time, or so-so seats. The reason would be that he doesn't want to drive to the station, park his car, then have to find transportation at the other end because the train doesn't go close enough to his destination. Repeat on the way back. This plan does not solve this problem.

And promising him that someday there will be connectors to his destination will not get him riding today.

It's those connectors at either end that would have to be paid by the state/county/city that are the sticking point right now. No one can afford them, and the system won't work without them.

So until there is a faster way to get to the train from home or resorts, it won't be popular enough to support itself.

I have a bus stop 3 houses away. My son has a bus stop a few blocks from his school. We don't use public transportation because what is now a 15-20 min trip would be close to an hour, and would include standing in the rain, heat, cold, etc waiting for the bus. The same with my husband. His commute is 5 mins by car, and would be an hour because of the bus routes/transfers. Don't even ask about where the transfer takes place - not someplace I would like to be alone, even in the daytime.
 

efudd

New Member
That would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. We're not the first state to walk this route. The governors of Ohio, and I think Wisconsin, did the same thing. The feds, in what seemed (to me) like a rather petulant effort to punish these states for their insolence, immediately shifted the funding to other rail projects. (Part of the stated reasons for rejecting the funds in those cases was that it was a waste of money the federal government couldn't afford right now - and the response was essentially "Ha! We're going to waste it anyway, so your efforts were futile.")

Some of the money relinquished by these states was in fact used to increase FL's grant, which was originally smaller than the $2.4B that Scott has rejected.

NJ also gave back ~3billion for the Hudson river tunnels that got cancelled. (that one is even dumber if you guys want to read stupid plans. There's tons of agreement that a new pair or tracks between NY and NJ are needed but the original plan (with ~9-10billion allocated) was so dumb it gave Gov Christie of NJ the opening to cancel it. Now amtrak is looking to build the tunnel themselves with a plan that basically deals with all the faults in the now cancelled plan. Had the original plan made sense it would have been under construction right now.

I'm all for expanded rail. But the politicians need to stop being idiots and spend the money wisely.
 

wizards8507

Active Member
(Oh and we just came out of a recession so federal spending to create jobs is frowned upon even though its what helped get us out of a recession. Or something like that) :shrug:

Not even close. I've been spending Saturdays doing volunteer tax returns for individuals who got some of those "jobs created or saved." A 50-year old man brought me his W-2's and I see that he worked for the census and again on a government-funded construction project, and earned a total of $7,500 for the year.

In the government's statistics, this man counted for TWO "jobs created." It's completely ignorant to consider that "economic recovery." Government spending creates temporary projects, not sustainable employment.
 

efudd

New Member
I think turning down the money already spent by the feds is silly. How do these politicitians expect to get re-elected when they are hurting their own states people and killing jobs. Not too smart imo....:shrug:

and that's exactly why the moron politicians go along with these plans which are long term failures. To get re-elected.

They should stop with worrying about getting elected and worry about doing what's right.

And if that means you have to push forward plans that make more sense but might offend some people then that's what you need to do. Unfortunately all they do is listen to this special interest or that and ignore the wise choices.

Others have suggested and I would tend to agree you could probably put a decent light rail system in along the same line that was projected for high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa. IN fact the light rail "trolleys" might even been better for future expansion because they can share the roads in the city endpoints so there's much more ability to expand upon the initial system.

Everyone seems to be hooked on selling high speed rail right now as an alternative to planes. Why not just 'normal' speed and become an alternative to cars? Are planes that much more damaging to the environment- or just the "IN" thing? well. In my mind I fly 5-10 days a year but I drive 2-300 days. I'd prefer projects that make my driving better and I can put up with flying the rare times I need to.
 

efudd

New Member
Completely agree. Building HSR for the sake of building "high speed" rail seems pointless.

Boston to Miami is 1500 miles. Put in an innovative train or maglev that goes 300 MPH (or more) and stops at the major cities, and now we have something that can start competing with planes on the Eastern seaboard. And that WOULD help tourism and commerce. If it took only a 3 hour train ride to get from DC to Orlando I can tell you I would be at Disney World a lot more.

Building a "high speed" rail that couldn't beat a car between Tampa and Orlando serves no purpose. "New" technology or expensive infrastructure should offer some benefit over the status quo. This does not do anything that buses and cars can't do better and cheaper and, ironically, faster. It's not going to help tourism because it makes an already easy task HARDER. DME is much more efficient that this train. Much cheaper. And delivers you from the airport curbside directly to the lobby of the hotel. The "high speed rail" on the other hand would require a lengthy walk, or more likely quick shuttle, at the airport to the train terminal, then deliver you to a train station at Disney, then you would need to get from there to your hotel by another walk and bus or transfer. That seems like more work to me.

It's okay to love trains. It's okay to love the environment. Let's still try to make smart choices...

that actually sounds pretty neat. I think I'd support it. And would use it.

But serious questions first- what's the benefit to that over Plane travel?

Would it be cheaper to run ? (in my mind the government subsidizes air travels infrastructure big time- so even if the government subsidized the construction of long distance HSR who cares)

Which is better for the environment? (or are they a wash?)

I'm sure such a train would need to have the similar security and check in nonsense of air travel so it would be just as "aggravating".

Orlando's airport seems to have plenty of room to expand if it needs additional capacity- so there's not a capacity constraint there.
 

wizards8507

Active Member
that actually sounds pretty neat. I think I'd support it. And would use it.

But serious questions first- what's the benefit to that over Plane travel?

Would it be cheaper to run?
Operation cost isn't the key factor, it's the initial investment. Air infrastructure already exists.

Which is better for the environment?
The train has about half the CO2 emmisions per passenger, IF the plane and the train are each filled to capacity. HUGE, MONSTROUS "IF".

I'm sure such a train would need to have the similar security and check in nonsense of air travel so it would be just as "aggravating".
It wouldn't be much cheaper either. The only profitable train in AMERICA is the Acela line that runs from DC to Boston and runs $70. Southwest Airlines is $49 for the same flight. (Based on March 17 travel)

Answers in red.
 

tizzo

Member
(Oh and we just came out of a recession so federal spending to create jobs is frowned upon even though its what helped get us out of a recession. Or something like that) :shrug:

Except that for most people the recession is far from over, and the out of control deficit, of which the federal stimulus spending that was supposed to keep national unemployment below 8% was a major part, is generally recognized to be a major factor.

It's also well established that for every immediate job federal stimulus spending creates, it destroys two or more down the line.

The bottom line, however, should be whether the project makes sense. There are many, many, many projects the federal government could fund that would provide some kind of positive return to the taxpayers, even if not commensurate with the cost. Given that, it makes no sense at all to relentlessly pursue a project, like the Tampa/Orlando HSR, that you know in advance will provide no positive return.

Off the top of my head, the feds could shift some of the money to the SunRail project, perhaps accelerating some of the out-year connectors, particularly to OIA, or adding stops at points of interest with economic value, like WDW or Universal/Convention Center; or to build something similar in Tampa. In other words, something that would improve the feasibility of a rail link (if not necessarily HSR) between Orlando and Tampa at some time in the future.
 

GHOST1000

Active Member
Please forgive me if it was posted in here ( did not want to read all 39 pages to see)..will it be linking mco and have a stop off in/near disney???
 

trr1

Well-Known Member
Please forgive me if it was posted in here ( did not want to read all 39 pages to see)..will it be linking mco and have a stop off in/near disney???
disney was supplying some ground for a station around I-4 and 192
also this i just found

Senators Joyner, Altman sue Scott over high-speed rail
The proposed bullet train between Tampa and Orlando is making a temporary stop at the Florida Supreme Court in Tallahassee.

Two state senators — Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, and Thad Altman, R-Melbourne, filed a lawsuit Tuesday to keep Gov. Rick Scott from killing the $3 billion project.

The suit alleges that Scott has violated the state Constitution by refusing to abide by the wishes of the Legislature and former Gov. Charlie Crist to accept $2.4 billion in federal funding for the project.



Read more: Senators Joyner, Altman sue Scott over high-speed rail | Tampa Bay Business Journal
read more here
http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2011/03/01/senators-joyner-altman-sue-scott-over.html
 

wizards8507

Active Member
I'm not sure where you are getting your emission numbers but according to: www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm as well as other sites, the emission by train cuts out more than 90% of the pollution than a plane. Not to mention all the exhaust from planes goes straight into the upper atmosphere, making these numbers even starkly worse.

Sorry, friend. That's not a high-speed train. That's a regular, plain old train. Increasing a train from 125mph to over 200mph increases energy consumption (and CO2 emissions) by NINETY (90) percent. From YOUR very own website:

Sleeper trains across France to Italy, Spain or the south of France may have fewer passengers per car than a high-speed train such as Eurostar, but on the other hand they travel at only 100mph or less and so use far less energy than a power-hungry 186mph high-speed train.

Research fail.
 

epcot85

Member
I know the artist rendering of the high speed train is just that..."a rendering" but how do they expect to protect the rail bed from a bad wreck on I-4, semi tractor overturns on top of track then the train comes along at 168 mph?? I guess they would have to build some hefty barriers and sensors into the track areas...
 

devoy1701

Well-Known Member
Sorry, friend. That's not a high-speed train. That's a regular, plain old train. Increasing a train from 125mph to over 200mph increases energy consumption (and CO2 emissions) by NINETY (90) percent. From YOUR very own website:

Sleeper trains across France to Italy, Spain or the south of France may have fewer passengers per car than a high-speed train such as Eurostar, but on the other hand they travel at only 100mph or less and so use far less energy than a power-hungry 186mph high-speed train.

Research fail.


haha.

It looks like a couple of state senators are suing Rick Scott over the cancellation of the rail project.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/193855/3/State-Senators-Sue-Gov-Scott-over-Rail-Money

this is getting ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom