Florida to get first US Hi-Speed Rail

Overheal

http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/01/27/florida-anticipated-as-winner-of-first-high-speed-rail-in-the-us/ [More sources available via Google News]

This is the kinda thing I got excited for during the Obama Honeymoon. Glad it didn't get lost under the Health Care paperwork.

Last year, $8 billion was set aside for high-speed rail lines in the US and then in December, Congress added another $2.5 billion to that total in hopes of spurring high-speed rail transportation. And money looks like it is already beginning to be distributed – the first lucky recipient? Florida. President Obama is set to travel to the sunshine state tomorrow to make the announcement awarding $2.5 billion for the first phase of their bullet train system from Orlando to Tampa that will eventually connect to Miami.

Florida has already acquired a dedicated right-of-way along the I-4 corridor where the rail line will go. This first phase of rail development will include stops at the Orlando Airport, in Orlando, at Disney, Lakeland and then Tampa. With speeds above 120 mph, which is certainly not as fast as bullet trains are running these days (China’s averages 217 mph), this will still be faster than driving by car. The 85 mile trip should take less than an hour, and will also provide better transportation for tourists trying to get to Disneyworld without having to rent a car.
Florida anticipates the first phase of their rail line will cost $3.5 billion, and they are currently raising money from private investors to cover the remaining billion after they receive the stimulus funding. Construction is set to be completed and trains running by 2014. And now, Obama needs to decide where the rest of the $8 billion in stimulus funding will go.

Oh wouldn't it be great to have proper mass transport. I have to say I approve of the measures to de-congest the roads and reduce air pollution and all that good stuff.

metaoblivia

Yay, jobs for Florida!

This has been the buzz in Orlando for a while now. I'm hoping they start the project soon, and I'm hoping the SunRail (a plan for a commuter rail serving the Orlando suburbs that was finally approved in December) doesn't get derailed by Amtrak. High speed rail + SunRail would make a huge difference down here.

Overheal

I guess thats been the dream for lots of City Planners since they first started getting the idea from Orlando Int'ls terminal tram. "The whole city should be like this..."

metaoblivia

They either got it from that or the People Mover ride at Disney.

Overheal

lol. nobody uses the people mover. Ferries are way more awesome. But you cant do ferries in Orlando. Unless we flooded the city....

metaoblivia

The people mover is my favorite ride at Disney! After hours of standing in line, you can relax on the people mover.
Ferries are awesome, but flooding Orlando would be useless. The ground would soak up all of the water eventually. Although, we do have a ton of lakes, so if we just built a few canals and gave everyone a canoe...

Manic Moran

California is on the list for a high-speed rail corridor.

Problem is that the State's accounting office released earlier this month that it has worked out that the thing needs to haul some 41m items of self-loading cargo.. erm.. passengers, a year in order to break even.

That is a stupidly large and unreasonable number, even assuming that the costs don't balloon upwards, as I have absolutely no doubt that they will.

I'm a ferroequinologist. I like the idea of high-speed rail. I just have absolutely no confidence that it can be done in the US outside of the dense corridor in the NorthEast in which already exists.

NTM

Nodin

....bit suprised there isn't one already. I'd have thought America far more suited and in need of it than Japan or France.....

Overheal

Nodin wrote: »

....bit suprised there isn't one already. I'd have thought America far more suited and in need of it than Japan or France.....

Japan has a serious problem with traffic congestion and available land and population density. I dont know enough about France. Theyre just... French.

The big problem as I understand it is mass transit options in the US cant compete with private motor, and the auto companies did what they could to guarantee that over the last century.

For the most part NTM is right, its mostly down to cost and densities. I dont know how many people you have say, going to NYC and LA every day but its probably not enough to run such a rail line. Especially not unless it got up to 240mph or something comparable to whats already possible with domestic air for a lower price.

The I-95 Corridor (the East Coast, top to bottom) on the other hand, could take serious advantage of such a rail. Driving I-95 is bad enough without the ****ing car accidents on it, which typically drives up your est. travel time by about 15-30% (Georgia being particularly bad - there are several 50mi stretches where there are no detours/side roads to fall back on - An accident in Georgia can ripple effect up to 100 miles in either direction). Thats before you get into the Convenience factor of Passenger Train versus Sedan Incarceration.

I can see the I-95 corridor getting the most attention anyhow. Looking at Orlando, one of its biggest satellites for Commuters is Daytona Beach. If you can make it so people dont have to drive 10 hours a week just to go to work in some places down there, that would be a serious boon for the economy.

Cool Mo D

Manic Moran wrote: »

California is on the list for a high-speed rail corridor.

Problem is that the State's accounting office released earlier this month that it has worked out that the thing needs to haul some 41m items of self-loading cargo.. erm.. passengers, a year in order to break even.

Doesn't sound high to me - that's the same number of trips as Irish Rail handle per year, and you'd imagine that California, with 10 times the population, and a modern rail system connecting lots of large urban areas would be able to do a bit better than that.

Overheal

37m Californians. If even 500,000 of them used the rail to commute 180 days a year, you win!

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

37m Californians. If even 500,000 of them used the rail to commute 180 days a year, you win!

Problem there is that the California Corridor is an intercity line, not a commuter line. We already have Caltrain, Amtrak California, ACE and maybe one or two others. In order to compete with the airplanes for the intercity speed, the HSTs can't afford to stop every five or ten miles like CalTrain does. In the Bay Area, the stops are SF, SFO, Palo Alto and San Jose. That's it. Sure, it's great if I'm in San Jose and want to spend the evening in San Francisco at a concert or if I have a meeting there, but if I live within twenty miles of my work, the HST is useless. If I'm in Fresno and want to daytrip in San Francisco, fantastic. Great way of getting to the city.
But as a commute... no, not so much use. Who in God's name is going to commute from Fresno to Bakersfield!?

NTM

Manic Moran

I guess it's also to be added that "High-speed rail" is a relative term. Dept of Transportation defines it as over 125mph maximum operating speed.

California's proposal is for proper HSTs breaking 200mph.

The currently existing NorthEast Corridor hits up to 150mph.

Florida's is a mere 120mph

The Ohio link ($400m of the $8bn) is 79mph. Dublin-Cork runs faster than that, so that's saying something.

NTM

Cool Mo D

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Ohio link ($400m of the $8bn) is 79mph. Dublin-Cork runs faster than that, so that's saying something.

Dublin-Cork by rail is 266 km (165 miles) and the journey time is 2hr 50 mins. That's an average speed of 58 mph. It does hit over 90 mph for brief periods, but not usually.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I guess it's also to be added that "High-speed rail" is a relative term. Dept of Transportation defines it as over 125mph maximum operating speed.

California's proposal is for proper HSTs breaking 200mph.

The currently existing NorthEast Corridor hits up to 150mph.

Florida's is a mere 120mph

The Ohio link ($400m of the $8bn) is 79mph. Dublin-Cork runs faster than that, so that's saying something.

NTM

US Rail authority defines it as >90mph

But we're also talking about a dedicated passenger line. Forgive me if im wrong but NEC piggybacks on the Freight Lines. And the relative scheduling conflicts make travel on the NEC entirely unreliable in many cases, in my personal experience. Trains are commonly delayed by hours.

Manic Moran

NorthEast Corridor is generally Amtrak-owned right-of-way. None of it is owned by the private freight lines.

NTM

southsiderosie

People have joked about the "Disney line" in Florida for years. As much as I like living in places with good rail systems, this just doesn't make sense.

First, in most areas with high-speed rail lines, the starting and ending stations are connected to a urban or regional public transportation network, so you don't really need a car from door to door. This is not the case in Florida - you absolutely need a car wherever you go. Maybe this could work if there was an easily accessible, cheap car rental in the station for business travelers and tourists...but then the cost of taking the rail would have to be cheaper for renting a car for the day, and since Tampa and Orlando are just over an hour apart by car and the best beaches and hotels in Tampa aren't near the airport, this plan doesn't really make sense for business commuters or tourists.

Second, Florida is really suburbanized and sprawling, so if you are, for instance, a business traveler, there isn't necessarily one central district where you would need to go, again requiring a car. And outside of Orlando, most of the tourist destinations are beach or water-sport type places that, again, you would need a car to get to.

Finally, I don't think people in Florida will ever really latch onto public transportation. The cities are too sprawling, there are way too many large suburban subdivisions with no sidewalks, and it is TOO HOT to walk for more than 5 minutes in the summer outside without sweating through your clothes and feeling like you need another shower.

What they could do is upgrade the "high speed" rail system on the East Coast. The Acela has constant delays and it is expensive. If it costs over $200 to take the train for 3 hours from Boston-NYC, and $20 to make the same trip on the Chinatown bus for 4 hours, then why take the train?

metaoblivia

I disagree.

Firstly, Miami does have a commuter rail system in place that is successful. It's called the Tri-Rail system, and it connects Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami. It then connects to Miami's MetroRail, which is incredibly cheap.

Orlando is building a commuter rail along the I4 corridor that should open shortly before or at the same time as the high speed rail. It's called the SunRail. The SunRail, combined with the Lynx bus system - a form of public transportation already in place in Orlando that does well despite some of mother nature's obstacles - and the HSR, has the potential to change the way Central Floridians travel. Nothing in Florida gets built without an indoor, air-conditioned area and ample parking. The SunRail stations won't be any different.

Secondly, a surprising number of people commute from Tampa to Orlando or vice versa every day. They drive 158 miles 4-5 days a week. I think some of those people could be convinced to take a HSR. Not to mention the HSR will have a stop not in downtown Orlando, but at the Convention Center off of I drive. Orlando leads the nation in conventions and conferences, so, needless to say, many business travelers who come to Orlando come to the Convention Center. And the Convention Center is surrounded by hotels and restaurants which are easy to walk to, even in Florida weather.

Thirdly, do not under estimate this state's tourism pull. Orlando welcomes somewhere in the ballpark of 50 million tourists a year. Most of Florida's international tourists come in through Miami. A HSR would make a weekend getaway to Disney World much easier for not only tourists, but Miami residents. Tampa is also a big pull for tourists. Several Orlando theme parks currently offer shuttle services on the hour to Tampa. All the HSR really needs to do is get tourists to the attractions and the businessmen to the Convention Center.

Finally, if we had had this attitude of "it will never work in Florida, it's too sprawling, people won't use it," a lot of our Interstate highways would never have been built. I4 was derided for the very same reasons when it was first announced, and a hurricane hit it on the first day of construction. How's that for a bad omen? Now, it's congested and far to small to carry the amount of people who use it every day.

The only thing I don't understand is why we're building the Tampa-Orlando line first and not the Orlando-Miami line, which, in my opinion, will be the more significant line.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

Finally, I don't think people in Florida will ever really latch onto public transportation. The cities are too sprawling, there are way too many large suburban subdivisions with no sidewalks, and it is TOO HOT to walk for more than 5 minutes in the summer outside without sweating through your clothes and feeling like you need another shower.

Thats a rather blind analysis. All the metropolitan Areas like Greater Daytona and Orlando have city busses just like dublin or limerick. Costs a $1 to ride last I used it. http://www.votran.org/schedules.htm Floridians have long already 'Latched' onto public transit. Sweating? They're Floridians. When you live Anywhere long enough, your body adjusts.

Manic Moran

I must admit, I found the Orlando public transport system so useless to me, I rented a car. Getting from my hotel to the convention centre just wasn't working out. Sure it was cheap, but it was anything but convenient.

Now, if they can get the Autotrain to speed up a bit, they might be onto something. It does the run from London, VA to Orlando, FL in 17 hrs, and makes quite a profit. Claims to be the longest passenger train in the world. That's an average of about 50mph and solves your car problem right off the bat. Amtrak needs to do something similar on the West Coast, I think. Oakland to L.A. or Oakland to Vegas.

Hell, I'd have taken it to Chicago had it been an option. Save me 2,000 miles on my odometer.

NTM

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

Thats a rather blind analysis. All the metropolitan Areas like Greater Daytona and Orlando have city busses just like dublin or limerick. Costs a $1 to ride last I used it. http://www.votran.org/schedules.htm Floridians have long already 'Latched' onto public transit. Sweating? They're Floridians. When you live Anywhere long enough, your body adjusts.

Yes cities have bus services, but most of them suck. I lived in Miami for two years, and the bus system was pathetic. The main tourist draw in Miami Dade is South Beach, and there is no direct rail connection from the airport to the beach. The tri-rail is a hot mess; yes, it connects the three cities, but they connect to incredibly inefficient bus services, so for most people going to do business for the day, it's just not that convenient. If you live along the Metrorail and work at UM or for one of the government buildings downtown then MAYBE you will use it, but any "system" with one line can't really call itself a system.

I used to go to Orlando quite a bit, and on the one hand, if they had a high-speed rail connecting the Miami-Orlando corridor (like 90 minutes), then that might be nice for tourists. However, if you are going to visit friends, then you would have to drive to the train station (or take the bus for an hour), take the train for 90 minutes, and then have someone pick you up, or wait around for the bus AGAIN that you hope connects to the right subdivision or suburban office park if you aren't going to Disney. At that point, you may as well have taken the Turnpike up for a 3 1/2 hour drive, and had your own car while you were there.

For years, the fact that the entire high-speed rail line is meant to connect through Orlando has been critiqued as a sop to Disney. But even then, it doesn't make sense, unless the train tickets are really cheap. If you have a family of 4 in Orlando who wants to go down to Miami Beach for a few days, would you a) pay for 4 people to take the train and then pile into a cab to get to the beach or b) rent a minivan for $80 for the day and just drive down? Unless those train tickets are around $20pp (and they won't be unless they are heavily subsidized), then why not just rent a car in Orlando and drop it off in South Beach? Not to mention that if you want to go down to the Keys, you would have to drive anyway.

Finally as for the heat, South Floridians don't adjust, they put the a/c on full blast and freeze inside. The only people sitting outside mid-afternoon on Lincoln Road in July are crazy tourists. When I first moved down there, people thought I was nuts for walking 6 blocks to the grocery store - everybody drives EVERYWHERE. To break that kind of car culture, there would have to be an incredibly efficient rapid mass transport network at a city and regional level...and there definitely is not. I honestly don't see how plunking a high-speed rail system that doesn't connect anything beyond main train terminals would help, unless each city also upgraded its rapid transit systems, and unfortunately the way Florida cities are "planned" would make that really difficult (not to mention hard to fund given their tax system).

metaoblivia

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes cities have bus services, but most of them suck. I lived in Miami for two years, and the bus system was pathetic. The main tourist draw in Miami Dade is South Beach, and there is no direct rail connection from the airport to the beach. The tri-rail is a hot mess; yes, it connects the three cities, but they connect to incredibly inefficient bus services, so for most people going to do business for the day, it's just not that convenient. If you live along the Metrorail and work at UM or for one of the government buildings downtown then MAYBE you will use it, but any "system" with one line can't really call itself a system.

I used to go to Orlando quite a bit, and on the one hand, if they had a high-speed rail connecting the Miami-Orlando corridor (like 90 minutes), then that might be nice for tourists. However, if you are going to visit friends, then you would have to drive to the train station (or take the bus for an hour), take the train for 90 minutes, and then have someone pick you up, or wait around for the bus AGAIN that you hope connects to the right subdivision or suburban office park if you aren't going to Disney. At that point, you may as well have taken the Turnpike up for a 3 1/2 hour drive, and had your own car while you were there.

For years, the fact that the entire high-speed rail line is meant to connect through Orlando has been critiqued as a sop to Disney. But even then, it doesn't make sense, unless the train tickets are really cheap. If you have a family of 4 in Orlando who wants to go down to Miami Beach for a few days, would you a) pay for 4 people to take the train and then pile into a cab to get to the beach or b) rent a minivan for $80 for the day and just drive down? Unless those train tickets are around $20pp (and they won't be unless they are heavily subsidized), then why not just rent a car in Orlando and drop it off in South Beach? Not to mention that if you want to go down to the Keys, you would have to drive anyway.

Finally as for the heat, South Floridians don't adjust, they put the a/c on full blast and freeze inside. The only people sitting outside mid-afternoon on Lincoln Road in July are crazy tourists. When I first moved down there, people thought I was nuts for walking 6 blocks to the grocery store - everybody drives EVERYWHERE. To break that kind of car culture, there would have to be an incredibly efficient rapid mass transport network at a city and regional level...and there definitely is not. I honestly don't see how plunking a high-speed rail system that doesn't connect anything beyond main train terminals would help, unless each city also upgraded its rapid transit systems, and unfortunately the way Florida cities are "planned" would make that really difficult (not to mention hard to fund given their tax system).

I have to underscore the point of the HSR - it's not about the residents, it's about the tourists and the businessmen who come to the Orlando Convention Center. 60 to 75 million tourists visit Florida each year. Roughly 45 million of those people go to Disney World. 18 million people actually live in Florida. So I repeat, this is not about the residents. Like I said, there's not even a planned stop on the HSR in downtown Orlando. Why? Because most tourists don't even get that far away from the attractions. Most tourists who visit Orlando only go to I drive and the attractions, both of which are planned stops on the HSR. If you have a family who flies into the MCO, takes the HSR to their hotel in Disney - which a lot of families do, considering Disney has 20 hotels on their property - they're set. They don't need a car. Disney's internal transport system will take it from there.

If you have a businessman who's flying into the MCO to attend a conference at the Convention Center - and a lot of businessmen do - he takes the HSR to the Convention Center on I drive, is surrounded by hotels and restaurants and shopping and doesn't need a car.

The money will come - as it always does - from the tourists.

The Miami link will make it easier for those international tourists to spend a few days at Disney/Universal/Sea World.

The Tampa link will just encourage more tourists to go to Busch Gardens. I imagine the Tampa airport has shuttle services to Busch Gardens. So tourists can take a trip that takes less than an hour, get to Tampa, shuttle over to Busch Gardens, and come back to their hotel in Disney or off of I drive.

Manic Moran

If you have a businessman who's flying into the MCO to attend a conference at the Convention Center - and a lot of businessmen do - he takes the HSR to the Convention Center on I drive, is surrounded by hotels and restaurants and shopping and doesn't need a car.

I think you're making a fundamental mistake that most businessmen care about cost of car hire. Any time I've gone anywhere on business for a corporation or the government, a car has been an expensable item. I don't pay for it. Why should I not have the car? On the other hand, when I went to I/ITSEC in Orlando, it was for a small company which couldn't afford to put me up in one of the convention centre hotels, I ended up staying at a Holiday Inn about seven miles from the place.

Plus when there was a big dinner put on by one of the companies, the restaurant chosen wasn't one on Convention Strip and I would have needed a lift or taxi anyway. The convenience of a car in Orlando cannot be overstated. The expense for businessmen is generally irrelevant.

HSTs will only work for business travel when the distance is long enough to be a viable alternative to a 'plane and not short enough for a commuter train, and when the target destination is of a nature where it is more convenient to use public transport (Seriously, who uses a private car to get around New York City? It takes for ever; and finding parking in San Francisco is horrendous) for your purposes.

Not least, MCO isn't so far away from the convention area that a HST is required. A simple, normal rail link will suffice.

NTM

metaoblivia

Perhaps, but even then tourists far out number business men, so that point is moot. And for companies who can afford to place their people in convention area hotels, it may save them some money. I worked for a company that placed it's people in the best hotels possible, but also looked for every opportunity not to rent or hire a car for insurance purposes.

Again though, it's about tourism.

And may I also say that I think some people are highly overrating the conveniece of mass transit in other cities. I lived in the Boston metro area for 2 1/2 years. By car, I was about 20 minutes from the airport. By public transport, I was an hour and a half. I did it because it was cheap and I lived next to the train stop. But convenient? Hardly. But it was a viable option if I had some time to kill and didn't want to park my car at the airport for a week or couldn't find a ride.

southsiderosie

metaoblivia wrote: »

I have to underscore the point of the HSR - it's not about the residents, it's about the tourists and the businessmen who come to the Orlando Convention Center. 60 to 75 million tourists visit Florida each year. Roughly 45 million of those people go to Disney World. 18 million people actually live in Florida. So I repeat, this is not about the residents. Like I said, there's not even a planned stop on the HSR in downtown Orlando. Why? Because most tourists don't even get that far away from the attractions. Most tourists who visit Orlando only go to I drive and the attractions, both of which are planned stops on the HSR. If you have a family who flies into the MCO, takes the HSR to their hotel in Disney - which a lot of families do, considering Disney has 20 hotels on their property - they're set. They don't need a car. Disney's internal transport system will take it from there.

If you have a businessman who's flying into the MCO to attend a conference at the Convention Center - and a lot of businessmen do - he takes the HSR to the Convention Center on I drive, is surrounded by hotels and restaurants and shopping and doesn't need a car.

The money will come - as it always does - from the tourists.

The Miami link will make it easier for those international tourists to spend a few days at Disney/Universal/Sea World.

The Tampa link will just encourage more tourists to go to Busch Gardens. I imagine the Tampa airport has shuttle services to Busch Gardens. So tourists can take a trip that takes less than an hour, get to Tampa, shuttle over to Busch Gardens, and come back to their hotel in Disney or off of I drive.

If you have a local transportation system that gets most passengers where they need to go, and can do so with approximately the same time and/or cost as the alternative (flying or driving) then an inter-city HSR network makes sense. The AVE in Spain is a good example. However, arguably the only city in Florida that has direct links to its major tourist destinations is Orlando...which is exactly why the Florida HSR has been criticized as a huge public subsidy to Disney. Any other major Florida tourist destination - South Beach, Florida Keys, and the beaches and golf courses all of the way down the gulf coast - are not easily accessible by public transportation. Not everyone comes to Florida to spend the week at Disney. And, again, if it is cheaper and easier for a family of four to rent a car than to buy four round-trip train tickets and be limited to Disney and the surrounding area, then why take the train?

Also, looking at places that do have HSR rail networks that work, there is also a variety of laws and/or zoning rules that make it very difficult to drive or park in the city center. As Manic Moran noted, there are strong disincentives to drive when you go to New York. I would add Boston to that list; it is a nightmare to drive and park. That's no accident: Massachusetts deliberately limits the number of parking spaces that businesses can provide to employees to push people onto trains and buses (and then subsidizes their rail passes). Now this isn't to say that driving in South Florida is a picnic; I spent more time in traffic jams on I-95 than I care to think about. But I think making a HSR system work would require a multi-faceted approach that disincentivizes driving - which, unless you are flying into Orlando and going to Disneyworld is the easiest thing for most tourists (and business travelers) to do.

I think the bigger problem with Florida is that there is a pervasive "if we build it they will come" mindset that leads to huge financial boondoggles...and in the meantime, basic services for residents suffer. In a state where revenues are based on taxing the hell out of tourists, it seems like financial suicide to take on a rail network that the state will likely have to heavily subsidize in order to make it an attractive alternative to renting a car. Has there been some kind of cost-benefit analysis looking at revenues from the train network versus lost revenue from car rental taxes? Or proposals to restructure zoning to encourage more high-density development (which is important for mass transit systems)?

To me it would make more sense to use federal funds to improve the local transportation infrastructure over the next ten years, with an eye towards adding high-speed inter-city links once the local systems are in place. In the meantime, the federal government should put a real high-speed rail system connecting the Boston-DC corridor, since the local transport networks are already there.

metaoblivia

I had a long response written out, but then I decided, screw it. We could go on and on and on and on here. At the end of the day, I'm optimistic HSR in Florida will work out in the long run, and you and Manic aren't so much. Time will call the final round.

southsiderosie

metaoblivia wrote: »

I had a long response written out, but then I decided, screw it. We could go on and on and on and on here. At the end of the day, I'm optimistic HSR in Florida will work out in the long run, and you and Manic aren't so much. Time will call the final round.

Well, I hope it does, given the amount of money involved. Lord knows I-4 is a nightmare. But, yeah, I'm a skeptic.

I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative; I just got really jaded from my brief foray into the world of Florida politics, and anytime the state jumps at a huge pot of federal money, it seems like it never quite goes where it is supposed to...the Everglades restoration project being Exhibit A. And do not even get me started on how painful community planning meetings are...it took the state years to approve fixing an overpass in Miami Beach, so I can't even imagine what the process for something the scale of a HSR system would be like.

Manic Moran

and in the meantime, basic services for residents suffer

Which actually comes to the biggest, most popular argument against the California HST system. I blame the fact that I've not suffered for the last year to have forgotten about it.

Even if the HST were viable, even if there was sufficient demand for it to work out in the long run, there is no small level of thought that "I spent two hours on the Nimitz in traffic day of my commute. If $40bn is going to be spent on public transport California, I'd rather it was spent on something which would help me five days a week, not five times a year"

There is something to that argument. Face it, I-5 is a long, boring drive, but I usually spend it in slight excess of the posted speed limit. It's only when you get to the cities at each end that things bog down.

NTM

Manic Moran

Update on the California HST project.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/01/revised-plan-projects-california-high-speed-rail-cost-to-double/

More than double the projected cost to about $98bn, and add nine years to the construction time.

It was a bad idea to start with, and isn't getting better...

NTM

Overheal

bleh.

jackiebaron

Manic Moran wrote: »

California is on the list for a high-speed rail corridor.

Problem is that the State's accounting office released earlier this month that it has worked out that the thing needs to haul some 41m items of self-loading cargo.. erm.. passengers, a year in order to break even.

That is a stupidly large and unreasonable number, even assuming that the costs don't balloon upwards, as I have absolutely no doubt that they will.

I'm a ferroequinologist. I like the idea of high-speed rail. I just have absolutely no confidence that it can be done in the US outside of the dense corridor in the NorthEast in which already exists.

NTM

Well the military operates at a 700 billion dollar loss each year. Maybe steer some of that cash towards the rail projects and it wouldn't even matter if nobody rode the thing.

jackiebaron

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/01/27/florida-anticipated-as-winner-of-first-high-speed-rail-in-the-us/ [More sources available via Google News]

This is the kinda thing I got excited for during the Obama Honeymoon. Glad it didn't get lost under the Health Care paperwork.



Oh wouldn't it be great to have proper mass transport. I have to say I approve of the measures to de-congest the roads and reduce air pollution and all that good stuff.

About bloody time! Why don't they just get the French in to implement the TGV? That thing can reach speeds of 357 MILES PER HOUR. Christ Almighty, 120 mph is stone-age in the world of high-speed rail. Even a 3rd world nation like Morocco are implementing the TGV, yet America after years of stalling opts for some substandard piece of crap that will under perform, make a loss, breakdown all the time and then everyone will be able to say "See, high-speed rail sucks! Get back to your SUV's"

matthew8

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well the military operates at a 700 billion dollar loss each year. Maybe steer some of that cash towards the rail projects and it wouldn't even matter if nobody rode the thing.

Well it would, because there'd still be a huge budget deficit.

krochford

jackiebaron wrote: »

About bloody time! Why don't they just get the French in to implement the TGV? That thing can reach speeds of 357 MILES PER HOUR. Christ Almighty, 120 mph is stone-age in the world of high-speed rail. Even a 3rd world nation like Morocco are implementing the TGV, yet America after years of stalling opts for some substandard piece of crap that will under perform, make a loss, breakdown all the time and then everyone will be able to say "See, high-speed rail sucks! Get back to your SUV's"

yes it did hit that speed on a special record breaking attempt with less carraiges, a higher voltage in the lines and two driving cars. standerd top speeps are more in the region of 200mph with averages typicly of the 170-180mph. still much better then the 120 the yanks are going for. but your fact is a red hearing

Manic Moran

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well the military operates at a 700 billion dollar loss each year. Maybe steer some of that cash towards the rail projects and it wouldn't even matter if nobody rode the thing.

At least we're using the military.

Meanwhile, yet another slight snag for California's boondoggle.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8428219

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A judge has ordered California to scrap plans to run bullet trains from the Central Valley and up the San Francisco Peninsula in the latest bump for a $99 billion project.

jackiebaron

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least we're using the military.

Meanwhile, yet another slight snag for California's boondoggle.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8428219

Here we go.
At least you're "using" the military. For what exactly?

Moving back to reality. There are 63,000 bridges in the US that are structurally unsound. With knowledge like that I wouldn't board an Amtrak steel-coffin that rolled over a bridge, let alone climb aboard this Florida joke-train.
High speed rail in the US! Don't make me laugh. Spend a bit of cash preventing tunnels in Boston from collapsing on motorists or bridges in Michigan from just falling into a river before you attempt to implement a pathetic 120mph tourist rail link.

Suryavarman

jackiebaron wrote: »

About bloody time! Why don't they just get the French in to implement the TGV? That thing can reach speeds of 357 MILES PER HOUR. Christ Almighty, 120 mph is stone-age in the world of high-speed rail. Even a 3rd world nation like Morocco are implementing the TGV, yet America after years of stalling opts for some substandard piece of crap that will under perform, make a loss, breakdown all the time and then everyone will be able to say "See, high-speed rail sucks! Get back to your SUV's"

They do that speed whilst trying to break a record. Yet they still don't go faster than your average passenger jet. Sure trains are shiny and sophisticated but people need to get over the fact they aren't an adequate alternative to buses or planes.

karma_

Suryavarman wrote: »

They do that speed whilst trying to break a record. Yet they still don't go faster than your average passenger jet. Sure trains are shiny and sophisticated but people need to get over the fact they aren't an adequate alternative to buses or planes.

Much of the world disagrees with you.

Suryavarman

karma_ wrote: »

Much of the world disagrees with you.

Then why does rail transport need subsidies far in excess of any other mode of transport?

Gandhi

So, is it dead?

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/washington/congress/20111117_ap_congressabouttokillhighspeedtrainprogram.html

jackiebaron

Suryavarman wrote: »

They do that speed whilst trying to break a record. Yet they still don't go faster than your average passenger jet. Sure trains are shiny and sophisticated but people need to get over the fact they aren't an adequate alternative to buses or planes.

Not an adequate alternative? Are you taking the pïss?

I don't have to sit on my bollocks for 2 hours prior to boarding a train. I can bring as much luggage as I want....including my own bottle of wine and snacks for me and my woman. I can go for a piss at anytime. I can plug in my laptop and watch a DVD. I can toddle off up to the bar car and share a drink and a joke with a few fellow passengers. I can stay online....AND I don't have to have my balls squeezed or my shoes taken off before I get on the damn train.

Flight time from Paris to Amsterdam: 1 hour. Check in: 90 minutes beforehand. Unloading at other end: 30 minutes....all at BEST.

Taking the Thalys Hi-speed train: About the same time overall...and zero fücking sweat.....free newspapers too, gentle muzak playing in the background, etc.

Now the "BUS".....well I'm sure it's fine if you have days to kill just to save 30 quid.