tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169420095530503988.post1068386149709485467..comments2023-08-15T22:02:59.649-05:00Comments on Sunshine State Sarah: Another side to the high speed rail debateAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11251723007613713377noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169420095530503988.post-44031226527423664792011-02-24T20:03:21.826-06:002011-02-24T20:03:21.826-06:00Although it is probably a moot point, the Turnpike...Although it is probably a moot point, the Turnpike Route of the Florida High Speed Rail plan might have been a showcase for quick intercity travel as the 235 mile route only had a few stops planned, so passengers would be able to experience a bullet train like experience. <br /><br />Instead, the Feds and the FDOT chose to concentrate on the MCO-downtown Tampa route. The five stations along the 84 mile route would never allow the train to hit those impressive speeds. It is dubious if they would be enough regular riders to plunk down the estimated $60 round-trip between Tampa and Orlando to save 20 minutes on each leg of the journey [figures from FloridaHighSpeedRail.org comparing travel times in congestion to a smooth rail run]<br /><br />As for tourists hopping on the caboose, it makes sense to have the first stop be at the Orlando Convention Center, as business conventioneers who often are traveling alone on an expense account would pay a premium for convenience and speed. The Disney stop seems like a natural but its utilization would be very cost dependent. The 19 mile ride between MCO and Disney would cause prudent family planners to do a cost benefit analysis as to whether the combined costs of a round trip of rail for several persons would eliminate the need for a car or if the ground transport costs would be better met by less expensive (albeit slower) means. But High Speed Rail is designed for inter-city travel not congestion relief.<br /><br />I suspect that the Central Florida route was chosen for political reasons as it was the shortest length, it already had the wide envelope of the median available and that it could be done quickly to serve as a showcase for the Obama Administration’s Stimulus, alternatives to automobiles and the 21st Century Infrastructure initiatives. <br /><br />I am not absolutely adverse to train travel. Having lived in Europe, I am accustomed to weighing the merits of various modes of transit before taking a journey. Trains could be quite desirable for some medium haul (less than six hour) trips, by the time one includes pre-arrival and wonderful encounters with TSA types. <br /><br />Some regular train lines make sense. Although it is a discrete microcosm, Disney does well incorporating a monorail through their expansive acreage. The commuter rails in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC and Chicago serve a steady stream of customers (and many come close to profitability). <br /><br />However, Smart Rail can’t be forced. Think of the Detroit People Mover, a.k.a. “Coleman’s Trolly”. It was a $190 million boondoggle championed by the Mayor of Detroit that was completed in 1987. The 2.9 mile track that only seems to cater to tourists. I was impressed by the 2 million plus ridership but that it probably because of the $0.50 ticket cost until I noticed that the City of Detroit absorbs a $3 loss per rider. Allegedly, it only costs the Detroit $12 million a year. It does nothing to alleviate congestion (if any exists in the abandoned Mo-Town) but it does allow for people to safely get from the Renaissance Center or Joe Louis Arena to Greektown. <br /><br />I question the economics on the California coastal line but the distance between terminuses and the clientele’s disposition should make the venture popular (but not profitable). That is if California can pony up the estimated $50 billion when the state is going bankrupt.BD Matthttp://dcbarroco.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169420095530503988.post-26194350832451273932011-02-24T09:00:45.767-06:002011-02-24T09:00:45.767-06:00Sarah--I agree with you about the scope of Federal...Sarah--I agree with you about the scope of Federal spending. If we could truly reduce the Federal deficit by $2.4 billion, it would be a much closer call for me. Unfortunately, that's not an option. Either we take the money and improve our transportation infrastructure or California likely gets it. <br /><br />BD Matt--Your assessment of the shortened route is similar to U.S. DOT's, which gave John Mica's proposal a chilly reception. Economist Hank Fishkind says the Mica alternative is a common model for funding transportation infrastructure--build the high volume route first and use profits for expansion. <br /><br />FDOT's engineers projected a top speed of at least 168 mph on the full route. http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/ An error in calculations would have made news outside of an anti-rail blog. The only statement I could find in a brief search on the blog states, "The Orlando to Tampa leg of the Florida High Speed Rail System might be capable of traveling at 168 miles per hour. But due to the number of stops along the 84 mile route, the “Supertrain” would only beat a car trip on a congested I-4 by a half an hour." Well, that depends on the traffic. I've been stuck in Disney traffic on I-4 for well over an hour on more than one occassion. It's a real mess--and I try to avoid it. A Miami-Orlando high speed rail route would have significantly greater time savings compared to automobile travel, but chances are we won't see any high speed rail lines in Florida for a long, long time. <br /> <br />Rick GellerRick Gellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276644763291396920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169420095530503988.post-38754830368704160782011-02-23T21:34:59.653-06:002011-02-23T21:34:59.653-06:00There may be a good argument for a discrete inter-...There may be a good argument for a discrete inter-city rail line between MCO and the Disney resort which might relieve the congestion and confusion of 54 million tourists on the I-4. But that just sounds like a municipal monorail. <br /><br />But the spending which the Obama Administration envisages is inter-city modal transporation. There is no way it can be justified on a cost/benegit analysis.<br /><br />But as I have been studying at: http://dcbarroco.blogspot.com/search/label/Train<br />the Sunshine Rail project would not even be high speed. While the train theoretically may be capable of reaching 168 mph, the number of scheduled stops along the Tampa to Orlando route would barely beat an 84 mile car trip even on a congested interstate. And based on Amtrack fares, I'd shutter at the costs and reliability of that routeBD Matthttp://dcbarroco.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com