Orlando High Speed Rail IS DEFINITE

[thelookingglass]

Mods, if you're going to close the other thread, at least rename this one as it is anything BUT definite.

 

[tizzo]

Fact is that private companies have already agreed to put up the money the state would need to put up, so this is essentially a free project for Florida that could only booster tourism, create jobs and help unclog at least a part of the road system.

Scott has made it pretty clear that if this was in fact the case, he would have accepted the grant. Fact is that private companies have agreed to put up a portion of the money that it is predicted the grant wouldn't cover. If the predictions are wrong, which they always are, and particularly in this case since the proposed route doesn't offer any added value to travelers and will likely have very little ridership, the additional costs are borne by the state.

But I guess we don't need High-Speed Rail do we?

Between Tampa and Orlando? Of course not, I think that's been amply explained.

 

[tizzo]

I read yesterday that the next continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded is likely to include cuts obtained by rescinding earmarked stimulus funds that were never distributed or spent. That *might* include these high speed rail dollars that have been stuck in limbo, but I can't swear to it.

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.

 

[KevGuy]

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:

 

[devoy1701]

I'm sorry, this whole thing is just like a drug-dealer relationship with a person trying to get clean. The federal government with its crack-like federal dollars. Some States wanting just one more hit, and then I'll be fiscally conservative, I swears. Others like CA can't imagine life drug-free, and wouldn't want to try. Some like Florida are adamantly trying to get off the juice, but the dealer doesn't want to lose one of its junkies and is trying really hard to keep it hooked (come on Florida, you know you miss it. just one hit can't hurt).

It'd be really funny if it wasn't so tragic. And heaven forbid anyone ever asks where "crack" comes from.

I apologize in advance if this is too political for the forums. I don't mean it that way.

I think that is a really good analogy!

Anyway.

this thread seems to be going round and round...but the above seems to sum up the situation pretty well. And the idea of "well the money is going to be spent somewhere by somebody anyway so lets just spend it ourselves" seems like one of the most short-sighted stances in this topic. The gov't doesn't have the money to be spending on this anyway, and hopefully by principle where ever the money got re-allocated to it would once again be rejected (though with CA in that line-up of states with rail projects we know that won't happen).

Tampa-Orlando I-4 Corridor just can't support this project as a stand alone. More important to these 2 cities would be commuter rail systems for the 2 metropolitan areas. I would be in support of such a system for the Greater Tampa Bay area. Eventually as those 2 systems get up and running their might be a need for a HSR to connect the two metro areas, but we are probably another decade away from such a need.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

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.

Wisconsin did take the same route as Ohio.

 

[Orangelake555]

To me a HSR that runs down 95 from boston to miami and can reach the speeds that the ones in europe and japan have built would make the most sense. As would a Seattle to san diego. Picks two points along those routes, start there and expand.

I never understood why they were trying to connect two "urban" areas that in reality are just two giant suburbs. Miami to orlando made more sense because thats not an easy drive but i cant imagine how many people would actually need it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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:

You are not hurting your own state by refusing to create artificial jobs. Governor Scott's whole issue with this is that after the initial money is spent that the state of Florida does not have the money to keep these people employed or the trains running. Once it is built, regardless of how much money it is loosing and how many empty trains are running, it is significantly harder / almost impossible to shut down and stop the financial bleeding. Would you be happy if the state just hired on a bunch of people to do busy work that accomplished nothing just so that they could claim they created jobs?

 

[tizzo]

You are not hurting your own state by refusing to create artificial jobs. Governor Scott's whole issue with this is that after the initial money is spent that the state of Florida does not have the money to keep these people employed or the trains running. Once it is built, regardless of how much money it is loosing and how many empty trains are running, it is significantly harder / almost impossible to shut down and stop the financial bleeding. Would you be happy if the state just hired on a bunch of people to do busy work that accomplished nothing just so that they could claim they created jobs?

Well said. And in answer to the original post about the governor's reelection being at stake here, it's worth pointing out that this is exactly what he got elected for in the first place. The fact of the matter is that the job that needs to be done is going to cause short term pain in exchange for long term benefit. Yes, it's politically expedient to take the shorter term view. That is, after all, how we got where we are. But Florida voted for this guy, over a relatively moderate democrat, fully understanding what needed to be done, and the pain it might entail short term. If he caves on the principles on which he ran, he's not going to gain any of the votes that went to Sink, he's just going to lose votes from his own base.

 

[orky8]

To me a HSR that runs down 95 from boston to miami and can reach the speeds that the ones in europe and japan have built would make the most sense. As would a Seattle to san diego. Picks two points along those routes, start there and expand.

I never understood why they were trying to connect two "urban" areas that in reality are just two giant suburbs. Miami to orlando made more sense because thats not an easy drive but i cant imagine how many people would actually need it.

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...

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I never understood why they were trying to connect two "urban" areas that in reality are just two giant suburbs.

Small point and not that it matters much to the larger point, but I don't think it's accurate to describe Tampa or Orlando as suburbs.

Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando (in that order) are the 3rd, 4th and 5th largest cities in Florida, and the Tampa Bay and Orlando areas are both defined as distinct metropolitan regions.

More to the point, there are no larger cities within easy commuting distance (Jacksonville and Miami being the only ones larger within the state)...meaning there's nowhere for Tampa or Orlando to be suburbs of, except possibly each other.

That doesn't mean they need to be connected by high speed rail — but they are urban hubs, however small.

 

[wm49rs]

Small point and not that it matters much to the larger point, but I don't think it's accurate to describe Tampa or Orlando as suburbs.

Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando (in that order) are the 3rd, 4th and 5th largest cities in Florida, and the Tampa Bay and Orlando areas are both defined as distinct metropolitan regions.

More to the point, there are no larger cities within easy commuting distance (Jacksonville and Miami being the only ones larger within the state)...meaning there's nowhere for Tampa or Orlando to be suburbs of, except possibly each other.

That doesn't mean they need to be connected by high speed rail — but they are urban hubs, however small.

The Miami-Jacksonville corridor always seemed to be a better use of the resources for a project like this, with potential (non-HSR) spurs to Orlando and Tampa. But for such a small stretch of rail and distance between the latter two, putting in HSR? :shrug:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

The Miami-Jacksonville corridor always seemed to be a better use of the resources for a project like this, with potential (non-HSR) spurs to Orlando and Tampa. But for such a small stretch of rail and distance between the latter two, putting in HSR? :shrug:

Yeah, I don't disagree with that point. I wasn't defending Tampa and Orlando as being suitable for HSR...just making the point (admittedly not too relevant :lol that they are urban cores.

 

[Orangelake555]

Small point and not that it matters much to the larger point, but I don't think it's accurate to describe Tampa or Orlando as suburbs.

Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando (in that order) are the 3rd, 4th and 5th largest cities in Florida, and the Tampa Bay and Orlando areas are both defined as distinct metropolitan regions.

More to the point, there are no larger cities within easy commuting distance (Jacksonville and Miami being the only ones larger within the state)...meaning there's nowhere for Tampa or Orlando to be suburbs of, except possibly each other.

That doesn't mean they need to be connected by high speed rail — but they are urban hubs, however small.

I just meant that they are more sprawl. In orlando at least you can found single family homes on the same block as a tower. Ive only been to tampa and st pete a few times but the are very similar. They are not at all similar to what could be considered a "normal" city like new york or philadelphia (where im originally from) or chicago where there are high density city centers that decrease in density as you move away from the city center till you get to rural areas. There are still orange groves in "the city beautiful" (orlando) within a mile of "center city"

Im just saying minus the three square blocks where all the towers are in orlando every other part of the city would be considered the "burbs" anywhere else around a major metropolis. And I know we could argue semantics here I guess Im just agreeing with everyone that says they are not dense enough to support this yet. If there was a better mass transit system to support all this then maybe I just dont believe it should be pushed here less we become the example as to HSR not working in the US.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

^ Gotcha. Density is a very important consideration for public transit, and you're right that it does become a semantic distinction at some point.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

And that right there describes this project. It is not part of a wider initiative to increase the capacity of the I-4 corridor, it is just an all-or-nothing high speed rail project. The demand is just not there yet for high speed rail.

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.

High speed rail is not really intended for distances that great as a means of saving time. Maglev would probably be an even bigger financial drain because of the increased costs. The advantage to longer distance rail travel would just be the luxury and experience of using the train.

High speed rail is a premium experience and if properly sold, could generate revenue from some business travelers and tourists on longer routes. A businessman could benefit from arriving in the morning while getting a good sleep onboard the train. The same benefit would be for families who could start their vacation refreshed and enjoy the time together on the train.

 

[JungleTrekFan]

So to sum up about 37 pages of posts, high speed rail is not a bad idea, just one that, most say, wouldn't work if it was built first between tampa to orlando. Mainly because both cities are not as densley populated as most cities in the north east. But most people on these boards would support the orlando to miami route...

So why cant we use the 2.4 billion for the miami to orlando route?

(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:

 

[JEANYLASER]

agreed!

 

[lazyboy97o]

So to sum up about 37 pages of posts, high speed rail is not a bad idea, just one that, most say, wouldn't work if it was built first between tampa to orlando. Mainly because both cities are not as densley populated as most cities in the north east. But most people on these boards would support the orlando to miami route...

So why cant we use the 2.4 billion for the miami to orlando route?

It is about demand, not just density. The density becomes an issue if it is being used for commuters who, in the current proposal, would already have to drive to I-4 before paying to take the train and then renting a car or taking a taxi, all with little to no time savings and increased expense. Tourists, which have been a big part of the argument, is more just about travel frequency.

Miami-Orlando might well work, but not for the same low price as Tampa-Orlando. Driving a car it takes about four hours. There some flights between the two cities, but they are pretty pricy (I am seeing $500 round trip and up) for about a one hour flight. Amtrak can get you between the two in as little as six hours for about $50 one way. I would think offering a travel time between those two extreme and for maybe $150-200 each way, you might have something that could work.

The question is what about tourists who were such a big part of the argument for Tampa-Orlando? Would you just build MCO-Miami or would you build WDW-I Drive-MCO-Miami, and leave open the future Tampa connection? Would tourists change their travel patterns to take advantage of the system? Is a day in Miami worth nearly $1000 for a family? The other problem is right of way, much of the Tampa-Orlando route was just going to be placed right into existing state owned land down the middle of I-4, whereas there were still two possible routes for Orlando-Miami.

Tampa-Orlando was chosen as the first segment because it would be cheap, easy and fast to build.

(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:

Once again, the federal money would only cover most of the initial construction. The only jobs the feds would pay for those involved in the initial build of the system. The federal government is not paying for the long term, more permanent jobs involved in actually operating and maintaining the trains and their service. If Florida wanted to be shrewd about it, they could take the money and just let the project get lost in red tape. It would still create jobs, but at least the state would not be on the hook for funding jobs that do nothing into the future.

 

[Mammymouse]

So to sum up about 37 pages of posts, high speed rail is not a bad idea, just one that, most say, wouldn't work if it was built first between tampa to orlando. Mainly because both cities are not as densley populated as most cities in the north east. But most people on these boards would support the orlando to miami route...

So why cant we use the 2.4 billion for the miami to orlando route?

(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:

In my world, the recession continues. My daughter is a Florida real estate agent. She is selling houses in the $50,000 to $80,000 range, that is when she can find a bank qualified customer or they are paying cash. The other work she does as an agent is mini-appraisals for mortgage recovery companies at $50.00 each. These are for properties going into foreclosure and starting the process. She gets about 20 or more to do a week. Granted she is not on the coast but nontheless, the coast is selling for less than 50% of the value. And land- forget about it - it is not even selling at all. Seeing real estate is such a huge part of the economy in Florida it is one of the factors still depressing the state. I agree with Gov. Scott's decision. By the way I have rental property in RI and it is the same scenario. You have to reduce rents, that is if you can find a tenant. And expenses are up. My real estate taxes stayed the same on one 3 year vacant commercial building but we lost $50,000 in assessed value. On our 12 unit apartment building we lost $150,000 in assessment value last year but the taxes went up $1,000. Also 45 of the 50 states in the country are all wrestling with large budget deficits and unfunded liabilities. Small business still can't get bank loans, credit lines have disappeared, and don't get me started on taxes! Sorry for the rant but while some sectors of the economy may have come back, many have not. I just felt a little personal input might help with perspective on why I agree the funding for HSR is not a good idea.