High Speed Rail To WDW Approved

[tazdeb]

this is beyond stupid....i'm sorry...it has to be said

I mean...you contradict the beginning of your point with the end...if nobody is on it...why would it be a "terrorist's dream"?

I'm sorry if you think it's stupid but reading comprehention is a skill. If terrorist's blow up a train with 5 people on it, but its headed to DISNEY WORLD, it would get world wide attention which is what they want...get it?

 

[FireDancer]

Yes but it drops you near YC. Then you move around by . . . . taxi, bus, train,. . . . . . . . It would be cheaper to just drive the 1 1/2 hours and more efficient.

If the ticket is priced correctly it wouldn't. For example, if you are going to the Tampa Aquarium for a day but the rest of your time down there is going to be spent at Disney you would have to rent a car for the day to get there or have a rental car the whole time just for that one trip. With the train you can go to YC, take a cab or even walk to the aquarium, then take the train back. That one cab ride won't be more then the rental car and gas to drive to Tampa and back combined. All of this of course assumes low cost tickets for the train, low enough to make sense financially.

The addiction to the automobile should be quelled through strategic taxation (penalization).

IMO the solution would be, once a modern mass transit system is put in place in a community/city, the taxation on vehicles should be increased dramatically in a phased approach (3 years). This would encourage people to ditch their vehicles, and those who choose to continue to use them would see increased registration fees, corridor fees and increased fuel taxes (think $3.00 a gallon tax). Of course day 1 wouldn't see these costs, rather it would increase year over year until the maximum cap is reached. This would give people time to react and plan.

I want trains as an option but don't want punitive tax forcing anyone to use them. We already pay waaay to much tax on gasoline as it is. The only tax that should be on gas is sales tax, not taxes for roads or the environment or anything else. Let the free market determine the price of a gallon of gas, not the tax man.

I don't see rail replacing the drive for a daily commute really. I see it replacing the longer drives, like when I go to Nashville from Cleveland, or replacing shorter flights, like up and down the coast. The tax the gas solution is a way of forcing the move from cars to trains but that isn't what I want. I want them to work along side the cars and planes as part of a larger transportation whole.

If each state or region handled their own rail they could be interconnected to create a country wide or at least a larger regional system down the road. This is how it is done in Europe. Germany connects their system to France. France connects theirs to Spain. It continues until the smaller regional rail systems. That is how a system that is Tampa and Orland only can expand to be all of FL (or the larger cities) and then can connect to the similar system that is developed in GA...keep doing it up the coast and there is a legitimate alternative to flying or driving from NY to FL. It just has to be quicker then the existing option.

 

[Uncleromulus]

I guess these trains are OK for those that want to use them. I certainly wouldn't, having taken "public transportation" for a few years when I was young and didn't have a car.

Jlewisinsyr: So we've bailed out GM and now we're going to get Americans to stop using cars???
Brilliant!!
You want to quell my "addiction" to my automobile and then try to force me to use public transportation?? No thanks.

 

[ConcKahuna]

FL has had money sitting in an earmarked account for this for about 10 years now. Jeb Bush tried to squash the project, but it went through anyways. He then tried to add an apeal to the ballots on the next election, but as the money was already earmarked for that project it has to be used for it.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

You seem to be against the oil/government connection, but while this train WILL benefit the current administrations union buddies, once its done I doubt it will benefit anyone without many more billions spent on other infrastructure.

You mention union buddies in one breath, but want an increased investment in autos in another, which for the US manufacturers, are all union.

 

[ConcKahuna]

I'm sorry if you think it's stupid but reading comprehention is a skill. If terrorist's blow up a train with 5 people on it, but its headed to DISNEY WORLD, it would get world wide attention which is what they want...get it?

Why do that when they could just air-bomb the castle?

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I guess these trains are OK for those that want to use them. I certainly wouldn't, having taken "public transportation" for a few years when I was young and didn't have a car.

Jlewisinsyr: So we've bailed out GM and now we're going to get Americans to stop using cars???
Brilliant!!
You want to quell my "addiction" to my automobile and then try to force me to use public transportation?? No thanks.

We bailed out GM, not because we need their vehicles; there is more then enough competition to offset the loss of cars if GM failed, rather we did it to save jobs, not just at GM, but the subsidiaries and suppliers. The amount of distress in the markets at the time when GM was about to go under would have been exponentially impacted, it made sense.

The approach I mentioned wouldn't happen overnight, unlike the financial fall out of GM (in terms of speaking, I mentioned phased over many years - GM's disaster although debatable on when it started culminated in a few months).

And yes, I think American's need to be hit in the pocket book to change, it seems to be the only think people listen to.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I want trains as an option but don't want punitive tax forcing anyone to use them. We already pay waaay to much tax on gasoline as it is. The only tax that should be on gas is sales tax, not taxes for roads or the environment or anything else. Let the free market determine the price of a gallon of gas, not the tax man.

We pay virtually nothing in taxes on fuel in comparison to the rest of the world (outside of the oil producing Middle East). As a person who seems well traveled in Europe (if I recall), I would think you'd know that.

 

[FireDancer]

We pay virtually nothing in taxes on fuel in comparison to the rest of the world (outside of the oil producing Middle East). As a person who seems well traveled in Europe (if I recall), I would think you'd know that.

I do know they pay more but just because their governments over tax gas more then our government over taxes gas doesn't mean we don't pay enough.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I do know they pay more but just because their governments over tax gas more then our government over taxes gas doesn't mean we don't pay enough.

And the tax is reinvested in mass transit opportunities...thus the increased use and reliance on high speed in other countries over our own.

 

[tazdeb]

Why do that when they could just air-bomb the castle?

I guess a terrorist with the right equipment could strike anywhere but they have a history with trains in Spain and an attempt in England. And with the sparse farmland between Orlando and Tampa a bomb on the tracks would'nt take much effort.

 

[ConcKahuna]

I guess a terrorist with the right equipment could strike anywhere but they have a history with trains in Spain and an attempt in England. And with the sparse farmland between Orlando and Tampa a bomb on the tracks would'nt take much effort.

From what I've heard, the train will run pretty much parrallel to I-4. That's a VERY heavily travelled area, even if it is "sparse farmland" the rest of the way (Lakeland might balk at being called Farmland too, although much of the way is )

 

[tazdeb]

You mention union buddies in one breath, but want an increased investment in autos in another, which for the US manufacturers, are all union.

There are many auto supply companies that are'nt union...and besides we already bailed them out proving how much the auto industry means to America. If we're going to throw money at Unions why not stay with the one we already threw money at and give the tax payers (car drivers) what they want. Besides if this was such a great idea some private enterprise would be building it. In the 1800's did the government PAY for the Union Pacific to build the railroad across America. No, they gave them the right of way ( which if thats all the tax payers would be on the hook for in this boondoggle I'd be for) and let the market place decide if the company made money. Since there were no cars it did make money. I think if there was money in this some private entity would be clamoring to build it and own it. I dont think the federal government should be in the train buisness.

 

[ConcKahuna]

I'd also like to point out that FL has been trying to get Tampa as a host for the summer Olympics for years, but the Olympic committee keeps refusing them based on ease of transport into and out of Tampa.

Anyone who's ever driven through Disfunction Junction on a normal workday can imagine what the additional traffic from the Olympics could be like.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

There are many auto supply companies that are'nt union...and besides we already bailed them out proving how much the auto industry means to America. If we're going to throw money at Unions why not stay with the one we already threw money at and give the tax payers (car drivers) what they want.

But we didn't bail out the supply companies, we bailed out two union based companies. So you arguement doesn't hold.

 

[tazdeb]

But we didn't bail out the supply companies, we bailed out two union based companies. So you arguement doesn't hold.

We bailed out GM who is union so their suppliers who aren't wouldn't fail too. Since we already spent that bail money saving those unions (which sold there members out)lets make them more profitable by giving them the research money to make a fuel efficient car everyone will want to buy, not prop up some other union jobs building a train no one will use and will not be profitable enough to run itself with out more government money bailing them out(think amtrack).

 

[jlewisinsyr]

We bailed out GM who is union so their suppliers who aren't wouldn't fail too. Since we already spent that bail money saving those unions (which sold there members out)lets make them more profitable by giving them the research money to make a fuel efficient car everyone will want to buy, not prop up some other union jobs building a train no one will use and will not be profitable enough to run itself with out more government money bailing them out(think amtrack).

There are more reasons then just fuel economics in the equation. There is congestion, safety, efficiency, etc. Mass transit is a much better way to travel then single or minimally capacitative person vehicles, regardless of if they are energy efficient or not.

Amtrak isn't viable because the investment for the past 50 years has been funneled through the national highway system and the supporting technology. There are so many pieces too, from right of way issues (think railroad crossings), inefficient track design, shared tracks with commercial, aged trains, etc.

 

[tazdeb]

There are more reasons then just fuel economics in the equation. There is congestion, safety, efficiency, etc. Mass transit is a much better way to travel then single or minimally capacitative person vehicles, regardless of if they are energy efficient or not.

Amtrak isn't viable because the investment for the past 50 years has been funneled through the national highway system and the supporting technology. There are so many pieces too, from right of way issues (think railroad crossings), inefficient track design, shared tracks with commercial, aged trains, etc.

Then I guess the big question is..... what price safety? All of the reasons you state for Amtrack could apply here in the future. My big question and I hope someone prints the results of a study is, will there be enough ridership to make this profitable or will we the taxpayers be on the hook forever. In my opinion Americans are too entrenched in their autos. I guess time will tell.

 

[DC7800]

My big question and I hope someone prints the results of a study is, will there be enough ridership to make this profitable or will we the taxpayers be on the hook forever.

No passenger railway in the world actually operates at a profit, and this one won't either. It will require an operating subsidy, but keep in mind the objective of passenger rail is not to make money for shareholders, but to provide a public transportation service (and more efficiently than other modes of transportation).

Amtrak isn't viable because the investment for the past 50 years has been funneled through the national highway system and the supporting technology. There are so many pieces too, from right of way issues (think railroad crossings), inefficient track design, shared tracks with commercial, aged trains, etc.

What is inefficient about Amtrak's track design??? The same basic design is used for virtually every other high-speed line in the world, including the current U.S. proposals.

Exactly how is Amtrak not viable anyway? You can argue that grade crossings are a safety problem with increasingly faster operating speeds, but that's a vehicular safety issue, not a railroad safety problem (you can grade-separate freight-shared ROW just as easily as you can a dedicated passenger railway). And just how are Amtrak's railcars built in the late 1940's ("aged trains") a problem?

 

[jlewisinsyr]

What is inefficient about Amtrak's track design??? The same basic design is used for virtually every other high-speed line in the world, including the current U.S. proposals.

Many of the current tracks have too many bends/curves to employ higher speed trains, additionally, there are too many stops on the main lines. IMO there should be two lines, a high speed for between major metropolitians and key locations and secondary trains that transport individuals between majors for connections.

Exactly how is Amtrak not viable anyway? You can argue that grade crossings are a safety problem with increasingly faster operating speeds, but that's a vehicular safety issue, not a railroad safety problem (you can grade-separate freight-shared ROW just as easily as you can a dedicated passenger railway). And just how are Amtrak's railcars built in the late 1940's ("aged trains") a problem?

Vehicle grade crossings are WAY too common the in the US in comparison to other countries. Grade crossing slow trains down because of the concern for vehicular and pedestrian safety (where applicable).

People want new, new features, new technology, the cars that are currently employed do not offer the same level of comforts as modern trains in Europe and Asia, they also do not offer the same ride comfort.