Florida rejects Obama's choo-choo train money.

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
HSR isn't about commuting. I don't know who's selling it as such. It's about removing some cars from interstates and reducing airport congestion for people that have to make the choice on short trips (< 500 miles) between driving or flying.

Airports and roads cannot expand indefinitely; HSR can complement those other modes of transportation.

I get all that.

But do we really need to waste tax dollars on it? No.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
And yet you seem to think because you don't personally know anyone who makes the trip daily, that no one does. I live on the east side of Tampa and know quite a few who make the commute, including many of my co-workers. Have you lived here long enough to see how frequently I-4 is backed up to high heaven? When that 45 minute trip turns into 2-3 hours from a small accident around Lakeland? Or when the early morning fog causes massive pileups?

I-4 sucks, plain and simple. There aren't enough good alternates that follow the same route either to make avoiding such problems feasible. High speed rail is long overdue here and think the crook Scott, as usual, has his head up his ass and is more concerned about appeasing the tea partiers.

How is a HSR train going to solve that problem? How are you going to get from the rail station to your job? How are you going to get from the rail station to your house? Lets be generous and say HSR between Tampa and Orlando would remove 10% of the cars from I4, which is absolutely and completely insane, but lets just say it does.. Will that in any way shape or form change the scenarios you mentioned?

Also, what is the cost? Are you willing to pay $50 a round trip for the train to make it break even?
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
F'n liberal morons in CA passed a multibillion dollar bond for high speed trains. What did they get? A train that goes from F'n Fresno to Modesto. Whup de f'n doo. Liberals and their stupid trains.

The Modesto-Bakersfield AMTRAK line is pretty worthless, but not nearly as worthless as the first planned leg of the "high speed rail" that they were planning.

It was supposed to go from Merced to Fresno. Two places no one wants to go.

Seriously, though, it takes 8 hours to take a train from Modesto to Los Angeles. Four hours on a train from Modesto to Bakersfield and then 4 hours on a BUS from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Why? Because the state pussied out and didn't extend Amtrak over the Grapevine. That effectively makes it useless.

I also once took a train from NYC to Buffalo which also took 8 hours. Again, pretty f-in useless.

Top Gear has proved over and over that cars are superior to trains. The train has never beat the car. Long-distance mass over-land transit in the US just isn't feasible. The distance to cover between metro areas is just too great. I do, however, agree that public transit within metro areas should be improved significantly.

If CA wanted to build a 250 MPH train that would go from Modesto to Los Angeles in an hour and a half, I'd be all over it and it would serve a vital connection between the Central Valley and Silicon Valley. But experience has shown that it will never, ever be functionally useful.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Seriously, though, it takes 8 hours to take a train from Modesto to Los Angeles. Four hours on a train from Modesto to Bakersfield and then 4 hours on a BUS from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Why? Because the state pussied out and didn't extend Amtrak over the Grapevine. That effectively makes it useless.
I've taken the Amtrak train and the time it takes for them to bus you over from Los Angles (Union Station) to the Bakersfield station is nowhere near the 4 hours you say it does. Amtrak overestimates the time due to traffic and most of the time you spend time waiting for the train to continue further. And four hours for the trip from Modesto to Bakersfield is pretty damn good considering the train has to make many stops along the way. Trip time to drive it is around 3 hours depending on how fast you're driving. I've taken the Greyhound bus and its slower than the train for the fact that the bus has to get off the freeway and pickup/drop off at the Greyhound bus station and then get back on the freeway.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,993
37,165
136
If CA wanted to build a 250 MPH train that would go from Modesto to Los Angeles in an hour and a half, I'd be all over it and it would serve a vital connection between the Central Valley and Silicon Valley. But experience has shown that it will never, ever be functionally useful.

On the CA HSR a Modesto-LA trip will clock in at 1hr 51m.

Ancillary transit will grow up around the stations just like airports. Heavy,/light rail, buses, cabs, rental cars, livery cars, etc.
 

SuperSix

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,872
2
0
So many stupid fucking people on here.

I4 is **NOT** a clusterfuck. Nowhere NEAR anything like I have seen in other large areas. When I do have to travel to Orlando, on MAYBE 5% of the trips, there's a delay when first entering Orlando, and then it's fine after that.

Who will use this train?
People that want to go to Disney, which conveniently the proposed train would have stopped at. Even there - the Disney are and various attractions are spread all over. The other end of the train goes to the Orlando train station which is in the fucking ghetto, built in the late 1800's, is a shit hole, and still 5-10 miles form most of Orlando downtown, much like the shit hole train station in Tampa, which is a bit closer to downtown.
As said above - you will still need to get a cab/etc to get to downtown Orlando. Combine the time and hassle getting a cab, add it to the train transit time, regardless of what speed it is, and you won't save any time. Disney, being the cheap fucks they are, will not pay anything for the train.

The tracks they plan to use are owned by CSX. The agreement with CSX is that all track maintenance is paid for and done by the state. Guess what? The tracks are in disrepair, and no where near in the condition they need to be in to handle a bullet train at those speeds. So - all new tracks, at the taxpayer's expense, and all maintenance going forward.

Aphex - you are an idiot.

Like FNE, I don't know anyone that commutes to Orlando either, and since the widening of I4 - the traffic is much better than most similar routes. I have lived here since 1977 and never knew of anyone that commuted daily back and forth. Pretty fuckin stupid - they should move, it's over 1.5 hours away. You don't know what real traffic jams are if you think that is bad. You want to spend well over 5 billion dollars to avoid an occasional delay on a relatively little traveled SECTION of highway? Are you so naive to think that this won't come with a huge price? When was the last time you saw more than 4-5 people on a city transit bus? If you even HAVE a transit line over there.


Mass rail transit will never work here - we have crazy urban sprawl, low housing prices, ample parking, very low auto ownership costs, Low fuel costs, etc.

This will indeed be a revenue vacuum for years and years to come, FNE is dead on with this,

I didn't vote for Scott - I think he's one of the most dishonest politicians ever - but I agree with him on this. Once people get past the rhetoric and short term job gains - they will see this is a beast and useless in Florida.

And I LIVE in Central Florida, just a few miles north of Tampa.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,993
37,165
136
The tracks they plan to use are owned by CSX. The agreement with CSX is that all track maintenance is paid for and done by the state. Guess what? The tracks are in disrepair, and no where near in the condition they need to be in to handle a bullet train at those speeds. So - all new tracks, at the taxpayer's expense, and all maintenance going forward.

Just to address this point:

They were planning on using the CSX right-of-way, not their tracks. The tracks themselves can't be used at all. There is no section of existing rail in the entire country that can support (or be upgraded to) 200+ mph rail as is. It requires entirely new rail beds with high grade sleepers/rail locking systems or modern slab track plus must be entirely grade separated form the existing rail and road network.
 

SuperSix

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,872
2
0
I can't fathom the 32 million per mile construction costs. People act like this is free money - it has to come from somewhere.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,993
37,165
136
I can't fathom the 32 million per mile construction costs. People act like this is free money - it has to come from somewhere.

That's what is costs for that area. People would probably be surprised to know what freeway construction/expansion costs as well, from high single millions to 40-50-60m per lane mile depending on where and what you're building.

I've always though the Orlando-Tampa project was marginal at best. They probably should have done a Miami-Orlando first with an option to expand to Tampa at a later time.

In my opinion only three areas of the country would be able to really support HSR:

1) The Northeast Corridor.
2) Chicago Hub (Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Detroit (possibly Toronto if the Canadians want in), St. Louis, Indianapolis).
3) Calrifornia HSR (San Diego to San Francisco).

All HSR funding should be dedicated to making these three systems a reality. The Chicago Hub and Northeast corridor would probably fuse naturally at some later date as higher speeds become possible and demand increases.
 

SuperSix

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,872
2
0
That's what is costs for that area. People would probably be surprised to know what freeway construction/expansion costs as well, from high single millions to 40-50-60m per lane mile depending on where and what you're building.

I've always though the Orlando-Tampa project was marginal at best. They probably should have done a Miami-Orlando first with an option to expand to Tampa at a later time.

In my opinion only three areas of the country would be able to really support HSR:

1) The Northeast Corridor.
2) Chicago Hub (Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Detroit (possibly Toronto if the Canadians want in), St. Louis, Indianapolis).
3) Calrifornia HSR (San Diego to San Francisco).

All HSR funding should be dedicated to making these three systems a reality. The Chicago Hub and Northeast corridor would probably fuse naturally at some later date as higher speeds become possible and demand increases.

I agree.

Until it's economically unfeasible to use a car - HSR won't work. Either through high energy costs (Ala Europe), Exorbitant housing (Europe, NYC), or very high population density (Asia, EU, etc)

I fully support it where it makes sense, including some of your areas, especially NYC/Connecticut, etc., and I am not against some federal subsidy of some of those infrastructures.
 

Axon

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2003
2,541
1
76
I agree.

Until it's economically unfeasible to use a car - HSR won't work. Either through high energy costs (Ala Europe), Exorbitant housing (Europe, NYC), or very high population density (Asia, EU, etc)

I fully support it where it makes sense, including some of your areas, especially NYC/Connecticut, etc., and I am not against some federal subsidy of some of those infrastructures.

Agreed. Our culture just loves cars too much. As long as they are viable, the train will not be a mass scale option within these conditions. However, when you're talking about a system that takes you from suburbs to the center of the city, like the Metro North or the NJ Transit train system, then yeah.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Hahaha, now the legislature is introducing a bill to allow the voters to recall the governor. (and other state officials)

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/february/208947

I'm sure it's totally unrelated to this.

Gee, a Democrat is introducing a bill to give people the ability to recall a Republican governor. Yeah, its the will of the people.. :rolleyes: Seriously, we are going to RECALL politicians because they refuse to build choo-choo trains? Tell you what, I'll support that if you support taxing only people who signed the petition when the train fails and requires 100's of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Thats the beauty of liberalism. You can scream and yell and demand things, but when they fail you can simply tax the rich to fix your mistake.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Gee, a Democrat is introducing a bill to give people the ability to recall a Republican governor. Yeah, its the will of the people.. :rolleyes: Seriously, we are going to RECALL politicians because they refuse to build choo-choo trains? Tell you what, I'll support that if you support taxing only people who signed the petition when the train fails and requires 100's of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Thats the beauty of liberalism. You can scream and yell and demand things, but when they fail you can simply tax the rich to fix your mistake.

I don't believe in recalls at all, they defeat the purpose of term limits. I just found its funny that they were submitting a bill to recall him so quickly after his election on top of the fact that his own republican controlled senate is turning against him as well.

That's what florida gets for electing this guy I guess.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
I don't believe in recalls at all, they defeat the purpose of term limits. I just found its funny that they were submitting a bill to recall him so quickly after his election on top of the fact that his own republican controlled senate is turning against him as well.

That's what florida gets for electing this guy I guess.

What do you mean by 'That's what florida gets'? NOT getting a HSR that will likely be a huge money pit is somehow some sort of shocking and radical decision? What a fucking joke. The people who elected him KNEW he was this type of person and WANT him to make GOOD decisions like this.

If the people of Florida want a train they should have elected someone who supported it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,993
37,165
136
Agreed. Our culture just loves cars too much. As long as they are viable, the train will not be a mass scale option within these conditions. However, when you're talking about a system that takes you from suburbs to the center of the city, like the Metro North or the NJ Transit train system, then yeah.

I think there is a lot of confusion about what HSR actually is and what it means to do.

It generally won't be a replacement for commuter rail, local mass transit systems, or local auto traffic. The goal is to transfer some of the regional traffic that is moving in the 100-400 mile range between major cities by air or car onto HSR.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
You used to be able to fly out of Modesto to Los Angeles in about 3 hours, from your door to the time you step off the plane. Not a chance anymore. Despite the fact that there are no longer commercial flights along that path (which speaks volumes about the need for an HSR from Modesto to Los Angeles), it would take hours to go through security and be extremely expensive.

I have no expectation of the government to be able to implement something like this in an efficient manner. It's unwanted, unneeded, and ridiculously expensive.
 

SuperSix

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,872
2
0
You used to be able to fly out of Modesto to Los Angeles in about 3 hours, from your door to the time you step off the plane. Not a chance anymore. Despite the fact that there are no longer commercial flights along that path (which speaks volumes about the need for an HSR from Modesto to Los Angeles), it would take hours to go through security and be extremely expensive.

I have no expectation of the government to be able to implement something like this in an efficient manner. It's unwanted, unneeded, and ridiculously expensive.

The reason there's no commercial flights between them may be that it's economically unfeasible.

And don't kid yourself, any high-speed rail will have the same ridiculous "security" procedures.

Well, maybe not - there won't be enough people on it for terrorists to make a statement.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,023
8,298
136
The reason there's no commercial flights between them may be that it's economically unfeasible.

And don't kid yourself, any high-speed rail will have the same ridiculous "security" procedures.

Well, maybe not - there won't be enough people on it for terrorists to make a statement.

Harder to kill a lot of people on a train with a small bomb.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,993
37,165
136
You used to be able to fly out of Modesto to Los Angeles in about 3 hours, from your door to the time you step off the plane. Not a chance anymore. Despite the fact that there are no longer commercial flights along that path (which speaks volumes about the need for an HSR from Modesto to Los Angeles), it would take hours to go through security and be extremely expensive.

I have no expectation of the government to be able to implement something like this in an efficient manner. It's unwanted, unneeded, and ridiculously expensive.

Modesto will be on the route to Sacramento, that line won't be the first built by any means. SF-LA route has priority.

There won't be TSA style screenings for HSR. There would be no point anyway.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,993
37,165
136
The reason there's no commercial flights between them may be that it's economically unfeasible.

And don't kid yourself, any high-speed rail will have the same ridiculous "security" procedures.

Well, maybe not - there won't be enough people on it for terrorists to make a statement.

What are the terrorists going to do, hijack the train and fly it into a building?