Dead: Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail

[nytimez]

This was a big subject here a few months back... but Gov. Scott has killed the planned high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando.

Details:

Florida’s Governor Rejects High-Speed Rail Line, Fearing Cost to Taxpayers

 

[KYMickey]

This was a big subject here a few months back... but Gov. Scott has killed the planned high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando.
Details:
Florida’s Governor Rejects High-Speed Rail Line, Fearing Cost to Taxpayers

Looks like you actually have a governor with some sense! Everyone in Washington seems to say it's a good idea to spend more money we don't have a projects like this. At least your governor stood up and said no to this silly proposal.

 

[Jedi]

well we are already well behind in mass transit compared to a good chunk of the world....why not keep falling back farther....

 

[BamaEd1]

well we are already well behind in mass transit compared to a good chunk of the world....why not keep falling back farther....

Ummm....because we're broke.

 

[skiingfast]

The problem with this is some other states have decided not to proceed with high speed rail plans and now owe the federal government back what they already spent on it. So quite possibly FL will be in this boat where they increase their debt by not building this rail project. Sure it may just be a small amount they owe back but they also will need to spend to move more traffic on I-4. It's not nessecarily a wise decision the Governor made, he just picked which side of the double edged sword to be cut by.

 

[TisBit]

well we are already well behind in mass transit compared to a good chunk of the world....why not keep falling back farther....

Because us americans love our cars and don't want to give them up. Even in areas that have good mass transit, people don't like to use it. The theory that if you build it they will use it just doesn't hold true.

Look at the big news that Amtrak ridership was actually up by like 3% for the first time in forever....but they still didn't make a profit. It is usually cheaper and 10-50x's faster to fly than to take a train and driving is 3-4x's faster in "most" instances.

The cost to build these high speed rail systems are huge, then the cost to use them are quite large as well. The big difference between the US (actually North and South America compared to most countries) is that we are huge in comparison. The size of our states are much larger than most European/Asian countries. So you are comparing apples to oranges when you look country to country for comparison purposes. There is also a much bigger differnce in the comparison of how congested these countries are for available highways, parking lots, etc...not to mention fuel costs. It is just much more cost effective to own a car in US then it is in France or Germany. But, if you compare our largest metropolitan area's to these countries there are some very close comparisons. Look at NYC, extensive subway systems, similar congestion and problems of vehicle ownership. Even the land size is more comparable to a European county and NYC does have high speed rail options to other city's like DC/Boston....and they are readily used because of the transportation climate.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Sadly, we have a governor who doesn't realize he's not allowed to do this according to the constitution. Should be interesting as even state repubs are not too enamoured with what they're seeing from this crook, er, clown, er governor so far.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Look at the big news that Amtrak ridership was actually up by like 3% for the first time in forever....but they still didn't make a profit.

Part of this is the requirement to service the midwest region, most of the routes in the North East and other coastal locations are actually profitable, but they are offset by the requirement to service the large middle portion of the country.

It is usually cheaper and 10-50x's faster to fly than to take a train and driving is 3-4x's faster in "most" instances.

It is, no doubt about which is why I'm not a big fan of trains from the North East to FL or similar. However, the reason it is this way is the lack of investment in the technology. Trains are far more efficient then planes or cars.

The cost to build these high speed rail systems are huge, then the cost to use them are quite large as well. The big difference between the US (actually North and South America compared to most countries) is that we are huge in comparison. The size of our states are much larger than most European/Asian countries. So you are comparing apples to oranges when you look country to country for comparison purposes. There is also a much bigger differnce in the comparison of how congested these countries are for available highways, parking lots, etc...not to mention fuel costs. It is just much more cost effective to own a car in US then it is in France or Germany. But, if you compare our largest metropolitan area's to these countries there are some very close comparisons. Look at NYC, extensive subway systems, similar congestion and problems of vehicle ownership. Even the land size is more comparable to a European county and NYC does have high speed rail options to other city's like DC/Boston....and they are readily used because of the transportation climate.

Europe, although made up of many different countries really is not all that different then the United States if you think of the States as individual countries, yet their rail system is amazing. In some ways its also more incredible that individual countries across Europe worked in unison to develop the rail they did, hell we cannot do that with a controlling entity called the Federal government.

I think if you're going to use NYC as an example, you have to think about what would happen if NYC didn't have mass transit rail, the city would grind to a halt. Mass transit works when its made well and is used in conjunction with other transportation systems. But we're not really talking about intra-city transit, we're talking inter-city.

Although a subject that often gets very negative attention is that we need to RAISE taxes on gasoline, a lot. This is the way you change the habits of the US, you force action because the only way most people change is if you negatively impact their primary choice, not just because they want to. Those increased taxes could then be used to fund the high speed rail system that we do need in this country. Another option would be to implement an excise tax on all automobile purchases that too would help dwindle the demand for cars. And yes, I understand the impact that less cars would have on our economy on the short run but the more we can ween ourselves off the oil bottle the better we will be in the long run.

 

[nytimez]

I believe high-speed rail, if done right, could be successful. But Tampa-Orlando doesn't fit the bill.

 

[Disco]

I believe high-speed rail, if done right, could be successful. But Tampa-Orlando doesn't fit the bill.

Yeah they seem to need to understand the proper niche these things need to fill. Tampa to Orlando was not a good route. Jackson to Orlando would make more sense. It sounded like the old plan had multiple stops too. It needs to be a non stop express train from start point to end or otherwise it doesn't matter how fast the train is if you’re stopping every 5 miles.
Out here where I live I would love to see one going from Reno to LA. As long as they can keep the ticket price under $100 it would be well worth it. Flying to LA is way too expensive and driving takes an entire day. So if I want to spend two days at Disney Land I either have to take 4 days off and drive or drop like $600 bucks for my family to fly.
Instead they want to build one from LV to LA. Stupid, it's like a 4hr drive. Who's going to ride a train to save a couple hours over having to rent a car when you get there? Also I doubt a train will save money over a family of 4 driving. That's like a tank and a half of gas, maybe $70.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I don't know. The Tampa=Orlando corridor is hugely busy every day. It is far from being just a theme park purveyor. I-4 was named one of the worst highway stretches in the country recently and the sad thing is there is no alternative route that makes any sense at all.

I'm worried that we're already too far behind the 8 ball to catch up without it hurting badly but still I am all for trying.

 

[Disco]

I don't know. The Tampa=Orlando corridor is hugely busy every day. It is far from being just a theme park purveyor. I-4 was named one of the worst highway stretches in the country recently and the sad thing is there is no alternative route that makes any sense at all.

I'm worried that we're already too far behind the 8 ball to catch up without it hurting badly but still I am all for trying.

Put a light rail (or subway?) system in then. I don't know how much time a highspeed rail can shave off an hour and half drive but it is not worth the billions of dollars to put it in.

 

[DCTooTall]

Another thing that really hurts passenger rail in the US is the fact that other than the Northeast Corridor, Passenger rail does not own it's own track. They ride on track owned by the freight companies. As such, the trains frequently have to yield to freight traffic which dramatically slows the average speed of a train.

A Perfect example is the autotrain. This is a nonstop train that runs a straight 855 mile route from just south of DC to Sanford, FL.... however, it only averages about 50mph because of all the stops and slowdowns it must make due to the priority freight traffic.


Then there is the other problem with Highspeed rail in this country.... The requirements of the trackbed and maintenance. Only the northeast corridor which is owned by Amtrak has been upgraded to allow high speed train travel. It also requires (for obvious reasons) a slightly increased cost to maintain that track. What's ironic is that because of the proximity of the cities/stops and the relatively short route the acela train's can even take full advantage of the speed they are capable of. You cannot expect the freight rail companies which own the rest of the track mileage in this country to pay the cost of the rail upgrade that would only really benefit passenger travel.....and which the wear an tear a typical loaded out freight train would put on those rails increasing the maintenance costs.



Imagine an autotrain that could maintain a (US Spec) highspeed rail average speed. DC to Orlando in 8hrs? or how about 3-4hrs (foreign speeds)?

What about a good cross country route?

True, it may take a little longer than flying, but sometimes the ability to relax more or enjoy the train atmosphere could be a plus.



And I do believe that the Government has every right to help subsidize rail travel. Buses and Planes already get subsidies by way of Highway maintenance, Airports paid for by tax dollars, TSA agents, and even the money our country spends in its pursuit of the oil to fuel them. (either politically, militarily, or enviromentally).

 

[nytimez]

I don't know. The Tampa=Orlando corridor is hugely busy every day. It is far from being just a theme park purveyor. I-4 was named one of the worst highway stretches in the country recently and the sad thing is there is no alternative route that makes any sense at all.

This is true -- but the rail would not present a real alternative, IMO.

Who's going to pay train fares for a ride they can make in an hour and change? As bad as traffic is, people will still use their cars for a ride that short. This isn't NYC, where a significant number of people don't own cars. Nearly everyone in Tampa and Orlando has a car already, and they're not going to give it up.

Also, if you're in Tampa trying to get to work in Orlando, your "high-speed train" is going to save about 10-20 minutes. And as meager as that is, it's actually not a true number -- because the car ride is door-to-door, but the train ride doesn't count the time getting from your home to the origin station, and the destination station to your actual destination.

Not to mention the fact that there is no real way to get around the Tampa and Orlando areas without a car anyway (none that would appeal to most people anyway -- who wants to ride a bus to work?).

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

This is true -- but the rail would not present a real alternative, IMO.

Who's going to pay train fares for a ride they can make in an hour and change? As bad as traffic is, people will still use their cars for a ride that short. This isn't NYC, where a significant number of people don't own cars. Nearly everyone in Tampa and Orlando has a car already, and they're not going to give it up.

Also, if you're in Tampa trying to get to work in Orlando, your "high-speed train" is going to save about 10-20 minutes. And as meager as that is, it's actually not a true number -- because the car ride is door-to-door, but the train ride doesn't count the time getting from your home to the origin station, and the destination station to your actual destination.

Not to mention the fact that there is no real way to get around the Tampa and Orlando areas without a car anyway (none that would appeal to most people anyway -- who wants to ride a bus to work?).

Agreed. But I really want to think there is a solution to this mess (heart vs. head).

 

[DC7800]

Look at the big news that Amtrak ridership was actually up by like 3% for the first time in forever....but they still didn't make a profit.

Amtrak ridership was up 5.7% for the year (6.6% on long-distance trains), with ticket revenue up 9%. Were it not for the recession, ridership would have been up for several years in a row. Regardless, its hard to grow ridership as much when the trains are already sold out months in advance - which they were prior to the economic downturn.

No passenger railway in the world operates at a profit - why would Amtrak be any different?

While billions have been spent or proposed for so called "high speed" rail - much of it spent on useless studies of expensive systems which will never be built - there is almost no money for even the basics of 'conventional' passenger rail, which ironically is where the need is greatest.

The big difference between the US (actually North and South America compared to most countries) is that we are huge in comparison. The size of our states are much larger than most European/Asian countries. So you are comparing apples to oranges when you look country to country for comparison purposes.

The idea that passenger rail won't work as well in the U.S. due to our larger geography is a myth. Most people aren't going all the way across the country anwyay; Typical travel distances are just 300-400 miles or so.

Part of this is the requirement to service the midwest region, most of the routes in the North East and other coastal locations are actually profitable, but they are offset by the requirement to service the large middle portion of the country.

No Amtrak train routes are profitable - none - but that's not the point. The objective should properly be providing a safe, efficient, and convenient transportation service, not making money for non-existent shareholders. Any high-speed rail systems which are established, now or in the future, will have to have someone (such as Florida) responsible for paying the annual operating subsidy.

 

[Disco]

Time to start pushing new technologies instead of following what everyone else is doing. Start with the cheapest two transportations methods out there and innovate from them. Screw rail.

 

[nytimez]

Start with the cheapest two transportations methods out there and innovate from them.

left foot, right foot?

 

[TheRustyScupper]

. . . The Tampa=Orlando corridor is hugely busy every day. . .

I believe high-speed rail, if done right, could be successful. But Tampa-Orlando doesn't fit the bill.

1) A lot of cars from Orlando-Tampa.
2) But, once they get there, they would need a car.
3) Why pay $30 for a 1½ drive, then a rental car?
4) Heck, New York to Washington loses money.
5) Who believes Florida can make money?
6) Besides,
. . . my grandchildren would be still paying for it
. . . the children of a Nebraska grandfather would be paying for it
7) Does everyone in USA want to pay for Florida?
8) Does everyone in USA have the money to pay for Florida?

 

[nytimez]

1) A lot of cars from Orlando-Tampa.
2) But, once they get there, they would need a car.
3) Why pay $30 for a 1½ drive, then a rental car?
4) Heck, New York to Washington loses money.
5) Who believes Florida can make money?
6) Besides,
. . . my grandchildren would be still paying for it
. . . the children of a Nebraska grandfather would be paying for it
7) Does everyone in USA want to pay for Florida?
8) Does everyone in USA have the money to pay for Florida?

In so many ways, we're all paying for Florida already.