Brightline Trains

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Should CA then, in turn, be responsible for Florida’s endless sprawl via federal dollars for road expansion when Florida’s residents  are unwilling to tax themselves for it?

point well taken, but consider this:

Roads are a necessity, whereas HSR is a luxury.  

Airports are the other necessity item  for commerce (today, maybe not 50 years ago).  HSR is merely a luxury alternative to air travel because of the speeds involved.

As for sprawl, yeah, I get the analogy;

But the difference here is that low density development in and of itself is not negligent development; it is regulated at the state, county, and local level;

But CA's situation with regard to HSR is without a doubt negligent mismanagement. 

It's one thing to bring a luxury HSR plan into a state and expect Federal funds to build it through the HSR program.  It's another thing to do that but then allow it to balloon out of control to over $100B ($100B!) and still expect the Fed to fund it.  That's just way more than was bargained for.  That's just unheard of.  

That's like telling your parents that you had to go to the less prestigious and more expensive private school (because you screwed around in class), yet still expect them to pay for your screw ups.

[HankStrong]

I don't think HSR is a pure luxury.  I think it should be a focus like air was many years ago.  Although, I do agree with your mismanagement comments.

HSR and public transit in general are steps to wean our future generations off of less efficient modes of travel that consume more resources.  We'll likely never see the end of cars in some form or another, but we need to move ahead.

[aent]

5 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Should CA then, in turn, be responsible for Florida’s endless sprawl via federal dollars for road expansion when Florida’s residents  are unwilling to tax themselves for it?

 

If i go pay for a taco and they bring me nachos instead and say we were out of tacos, I'd sure as hell expect my money back.

If California wants to keep the money, connect San Francisco with LA as promised. If they're too incompetent to do that, give the money back.

Might i remind you a portion of the money was allocated to Florida before California. We sent it back because we feared we couldn't do it within budget. We didn't take the money, use it up, and say oh well we didn't really need that system. We did it correctly. They did not. They could pay it back, just as we refused to take it. Only right and fair.

[WAJAS]

35 minutes ago, aent said:

 

If i go pay for a taco and they bring me nachos instead and say we were out of tacos, I'd sure as hell expect my money back.

If California wants to keep the money, connect San Francisco with LA as promised. If they're too incompetent to do that, give the money back.

Might i remind you a portion of the money was allocated to Florida before California. We sent it back because we feared we couldn't do it within budget. We didn't take the money, use it up, and say oh well we didn't really need that system. We did it correctly. They did not. They could pay it back, just as we refused to take it. Only right and fair.

I’m no fan of this situation, but they are still continuing with what they agreed with. Even if it is not what was widely advertised.

[prahaboheme]

3 hours ago, aent said:

 

If i go pay for a taco and they bring me nachos instead and say we were out of tacos, I'd sure as hell expect my money back.

If California wants to keep the money, connect San Francisco with LA as promised. If they're too incompetent to do that, give the money back.

Might i remind you a portion of the money was allocated to Florida before California. We sent it back because we feared we couldn't do it within budget. We didn't take the money, use it up, and say oh well we didn't really need that system. We did it correctly. They did not. They could pay it back, just as we refused to take it. Only right and fair.

Might I remind you that FL didn’t send the money back out of fear rather politics.  Florida would already have a true high speed rail if it weren’t for the Republican governor and those who placed him there.

 

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

Might I remind you that FL didn’t send the money back out of fear rather politics.  Florida would already have a true high speed rail if it weren’t for the Republican governor and those who placed him there.

conceptually, I agree with you.  However:

the stated reason from Rick Scott was always a fiscal one (we can only infer political, just like we can only infer why Obama wanted to build HRS between Orlando and Tampa in the first place (swing state)).  Scott even delayed Sunrail approval six months for the same stated reason...fiscal, which negatively affected his fellow Republican's plan.   

So, hypothetically, if HSR was not fiscally doable for the state, does that mean a Democrat in Scott's stead in Tallahassee would've backed Obama and approved it regardless?  And if so, wouldn't that make the Democratic governor in this hypothetical fiscally irresponsible?   You got look at it both ways.  I mean...does being Democrat mean that you spend money- even irresponsibly because it is perceived to be

for the "greater good"?  I don't think so because of how the new Democrat CA governor is handling their HSR situation.  

5 hours ago, HankStrong said:

I don't think HSR is a pure luxury.  I think it should be a focus like air was many years ago.  Although, I do agree with your mismanagement comments.

HSR and public transit in general are steps to wean our future generations off of less efficient modes of travel that consume more resources.  We'll likely never see the end of cars in some form or another, but we need to move ahead.

I somewhat agree  about public transit.  But there's a major distinction to be made:

the alternative to cars on the highway isn't HSR, rather, it's inter-city rail, which is much cheaper than HSR.

HSR more or less competes with air travel based on it's nature.   

I've been on inter-city rail; I've taken it from Amsterdam to The Hague, from Paris to Versailles, etc., etc., it wasn't HSR; rather, it was a regular commuter-like train.

Does HSR bridge a transportation gap that Air travel and inter-city rail or highway travel don't provide?  I don't think so, other than avoiding tolls, bad drivers, and TSA.  So that makes it a luxury IMO.  

On the sliding scale, HSR is the ultimate luxury transportation item.  It's sexy and everyone wants it, like a trophy wife or husband.

I'm not saying don't build it.  All I'm saying is that it's a luxury item that CA does not really need; I mean, has the lack of HSR kept CA from having 31M people or kept them from leading most of the country in business, trade, transportation, education and tourism?  Absolutely not.  So if CA doesn't really need it, then why are we paying for it, especially in the present state that it's morphed into?

5 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

I’m no fan of this situation, but they are still continuing with what they agreed with. Even if it is not what was widely advertised.

...even though it was not what was...agreed to, right, connecting SF & LA? 

I mean, they didn't politick DC and say "hey, we want to build an HSR line in the middle of nowhere," right?  technically they are in compliance, but who is going to drive from LA to Bakersfield to get on an HSR that takes them to Merced, to then drive from there to SF?  This is a true disaster.  

[WAJAS]

49 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

conceptually, I agree with you.  However:

the stated reason from Rick Scott was always a fiscal one (we can only infer political, just like we can only infer why Obama wanted to build HRS between Orlando and Tampa in the first place (swing state)).  Scott even delayed Sunrail approval six months for the same stated reason...fiscal, which negatively affected his fellow Republican's plan.   

So, hypothetically, if HSR was not fiscally doable for the state, does that mean a Democrat in Scott's stead in Tallahassee would've backed Obama and approved it regardless?  And if so, wouldn't that make the Democratic governor in this hypothetical fiscally irresponsible?   You got look at it both ways.  I mean...does being Democrat mean that you spend money- even irresponsibly because it is perceived to be

for the "greater good"?  I don't think so because of how the new Democrat CA governor is handling their HSR situation.  

I somewhat agree  about public transit.  But there's a major distinction to be made:

the alternative to cars on the highway isn't HSR, rather, it's inter-city rail, which is much cheaper than HSR.

HSR more or less competes with air travel based on it's nature.   

I've been on inter-city rail; I've taken it from Amsterdam to The Hague, from Paris to Versailles, etc., etc., it wasn't HSR; rather, it was a regular commuter-like train.

Does HSR bridge a transportation gap that Air travel and inter-city rail or highway travel don't provide?  I don't think so, other than avoiding tolls, bad drivers, and TSA.  So that makes it a luxury IMO.  

On the sliding scale, HSR is the ultimate luxury transportation item.  It's sexy and everyone wants it, like a trophy wife or husband.

I'm not saying don't build it.  All I'm saying is that it's a luxury item that CA does not really need; I mean, has the lack of HSR kept CA from having 31M people or kept them from leading most of the country in business, trade, transportation, education and tourism?  Absolutely not.  So if CA doesn't really need it, then why are we paying for it, especially in the present state that it's morphed into?

...even though it was not what was...agreed to, right, connecting SF & LA? 

I mean, they didn't politick DC and say "hey, we want to build an HSR line in the middle of nowhere," right?  technically they are in compliance, but who is going to drive from LA to Bakersfield to get on an HSR that takes them to Merced, to then drive from there to SF?  This is a true disaster.  

I'd argue it is in a transportation gap. It is quicker regional transportation.  Air travel requires TSA checks and arriving hours before a flight plus expensive baggage with restrictions.  Current inter-city rail is to slow to compete with even a car. Cars

[aent]

4 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Might I remind you that FL didn’t send the money back out of fear rather politics.  Florida would already have a true high speed rail if it weren’t for the Republican governor and those who placed him there.

 

We have no idea if we would have it now or if we'd be in the same situation as California. We do know we would not be getting a connection between Miami and Orlando at this point if we got that. I'm personally very happy with how things are turning out here in Florida vs California. 

[prahaboheme]

4 minutes ago, aent said:

We have no idea if we would have it now or if we'd be in the same situation as California. We do know we would not be getting a connection between Miami and Orlando at this point if we got that. I'm personally very happy with how things are turning out here in Florida vs California. 

There isn’t a comparison.

CA already has long standing rail connections between its cities.

Brightline is not high speed rail. Let’s stop the misnomer.

[aent]

2 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

There isn’t a comparison.

CA already has long standing rail connections between its cities.

Brightline is not high speed rail. Let’s stop the misnomer.

Yes, there is. We are both places that were offered funds for hsr. One took them, is building a train to no where and investigating whether they even need to operate it to keep billions of dollars in funds. The other took no tax dollars and is going to be running a train at over 100mph between it's most populus cities. 

[prahaboheme]

43 minutes ago, aent said:

Yes, there is. We are both places that were offered funds for hsr. One took them, is building a train to no where and investigating whether they even need to operate it to keep billions of dollars in funds. The other took no tax dollars and is going to be running a train at over 100mph between it's most populus cities. 

Brightline is not high speed rail.

Brightline is taking tax dollars.

[aent]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

Brightline is not high speed rail.

Brightline is taking tax dollars.

Brightline is set to operate at 125mph, which is generally the minimum speed to have the HSR title  California is looking at speeds of 0mph to save on operating costs.

Brightline is not taking tax dollars. Getting a tax exempt bond isn't receiving tax dollars, its simply not paying them, like all other tax abatements that are extremely common. If they are taking tax dollars, please provide a source, but if not, please stop spreading that crap, its extremely bad for mass transit in this country to spread misinformation like that.

[prahaboheme]

Averaging 80mph is not high speed rail. If the planned route from Cocoa to Orlando does get built and reaches the low threshold of high speed rail, that’s great. It’s a conversation that can be had when it is realized.

If true high speed rail were possible in this country, that rivals rail in other developed countries, it would require federal financing. There is not a high speed rail anywhere in the world that is privately financed. Call it crap if you wish.

[ragerunner]

On 2/23/2019 at 5:41 AM, prahaboheme said:

Averaging 80mph is not high speed rail. If the planned route from Cocoa to Orlando does get built and reaches the low threshold of high speed rail, that’s great. It’s a conversation that can be had when it is realized.

If true high speed rail were possible in this country, that rivals rail in other developed countries, it would require federal financing. There is not a high speed rail anywhere in the world that is privately financed. Call it crap if you wish.

Its still a step in the right direction for the region and state.

[Dale]

Prediction: the US will never have a high speed rail network.

[dcluley98]

Predictions are for those who will never see the fruition  

[HankStrong]

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

[jrs2]

16 hours ago, Dale said:

Prediction: the US will never have a high speed rail network.

do you mean "any" system, as small as Tampa to Orlando, or a network that connects coast to coast, and most all other major cities in the US?

[Dale]

1 minute ago, jrs2 said:

do you mean "any" system, as small as Tampa to Orlando, or a network that connects coast to coast, and most all other major cities in the US?

National, but school kids with placards may run roughshod, over Dianne Feinstein, to get it done.

[jrs2]

8 minutes ago, Dale said:

National, but school kids with placards may run roughshod, over Dianne Feinstein, to get it done.

I don't really think so either simply because it's not practical.  If you live in Orlando and want to go to LA, you aren't taking HSR; you're flying.  I can see shorter distance routes, but the rest can use air travel.

[aent]

3 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

do you mean "any" system, as small as Tampa to Orlando, or a network that connects coast to coast, and most all other major cities in the US?

There may be a way to make it make sense on either coast, but I personally can't envision any sort of east-west route that would make any sort of sense with HSR.

[YimbyOrlando]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

I don't really think so either simply because it's not practical.  If you live in Orlando and want to go to LA, you aren't taking HSR; you're flying.  I can see shorter distance routes, but the rest can use air travel.

That's not necessarily true, I'm moving  to California over the Summer and if the Sunset Limited was still in operation ( Thanks Katrina), i'd take it instead of driving 3000 miles, and it is only 1/3 speed of true HSR! Some people, me being one of them, just don't like flying. At 200 MPH, Orlando to LA would only be about 14 hours, which is competitive with flying if you account for getting to the airport 2 hours early and the layover that I have to take because I can't be in the air for too long or I get sick, plus getting from LAX is horrible.  Moreso I think an AutoTrain like they have to DC from Florida to California would be a big hit as well.

[Dale]

8 minutes ago, YimbyOrlando said:

That's not necessarily true, I'm moving  to California over the Summer and if the Sunset Limited was still in operation ( Thanks Katrina), i'd take it instead of driving 3000 miles, and it is only 1/3 speed of true HSR! Some people, me being one of them, just don't like flying. At 200 MPH, Orlando to LA would only be about 14 hours, which is competitive with flying if you account for getting to the airport 2 hours early and the layover that I have to take because I can't be in the air for too long or I get sick, plus getting from LAX is horrible.  Moreso I think an AutoTrain like they have to DC from Florida to California would be a big hit as well.

Orlando to LA would also cost about elebenty-bajillion dollars too.

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, YimbyOrlando said:

That's not necessarily true, I'm moving  to California over the Summer and if the Sunset Limited was still in operation ( Thanks Katrina), i'd take it instead of driving 3000 miles, and it is only 1/3 speed of true HSR! Some people, me being one of them, just don't like flying. At 200 MPH, Orlando to LA would only be about 14 hours, which is competitive with flying if you account for getting to the airport 2 hours early and the layover that I have to take because I can't be in the air for too long or I get sick, plus getting from LAX is horrible.  Moreso I think an AutoTrain like they have to DC from Florida to California would be a big hit as well.

there should be more auto-trains to more locations without a doubt.  

[spenser1058]

7 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

there should be more auto-trains to more locations without a doubt.  

Of course, it was the second route from Louisville to Sanford that doomed entrepreneur Eugene Garfield and his company.