Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

[dcluley98]

Original ORL to Miami route was along the Turnpike, not the coast, and it would have been a dedicated HSR corridor separated from street level traffic. Of course, as jrs2 points out, it was just a plan and feasibility study and was never funded. 

[aent]

9 hours ago, I am Reality said:

Any politician could have done nothing . . . and then hope a privately-funded train fails into their lap.  

It's the opposite of having a pro-active transportation plan. 

It's the fingers-crossed/waiting-for-a-gift-from-God approach to moving people around.

Well thankfully thats not what Rick Scott did. Many people believe that the HSR money was rejected specifically so FEC could enhance their tracks and build their route, as the timing of the Miami to Orlando route announcement was fairly close to the rejection of the Tampa to Orlando route, and chances are it was discussed with Rick Scott prior to a public announcement, he very well could have known that we are losing the possibility of Brightline if we proceed with the Tampa route. Again, obviously the political climate under Rick Scott has literally led to Florida being the ONLY STATE IN THE USA to have MULTIPLE PRIVATE RAIL SYSTEMS PROPOSED. I can't emphasize this enough. Rick Scott promised he'd work with businesses to make jobs, help them run some of our infrastructure to save taxpayers money, get the businesses to take risk, and get services funded by those who use them, and FDOT has been pushed to do so under his direction, and thats literally what has happened, and we already got one segment already operational in the state, and its beating ridership expectations, with them actually adding trains.

If we compare this to Sunrail, because of poor leadership, they fail to run trains when the people actually want them to run, and even when they do manage to run them during times of events, and on the weekend, we usually get no notice at all so nobody is even aware of it, and its entirely random. During many soccer and basketball games, the trains actually filled up as people want to avoid the cost of parking, and then they just stop running them. And nobody could rely on them as the announcement they would run on the weekend was usually only a day before the game.

 

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

that's not how I remember it.  Tampa to Orlando was Phase I.  But it was also the only phase federal money was being allotted for, and in the fashion that aent was discussing above ala cost overruns.  I never saw anything concrete about Miami to Orlando as a later phase; it was discussed but that's it.  There was no money allotted for it.  In fact, I believe some Miami representatives were protesting that Tampa to Orlando should be the first route in the state, so there was push back.

Plans don't mean anything if there's no money to fund it.  As far as plans go, chalk the route along the east coast as a "vision" which isn't even a "plan."  Mica felt that HSR from OIA to WDW would make money while WDW to Tampa would be a "dog" because it would terminate in downtown Tampa's north side, and not even connect to TPA.  

Everyone would love to have something like the Thalys here.  But just because the Miami to Orlando route was discussed doesn't mean it would happen, especially if the Tampa to Orlando route failed.

As far as the path goes, I remember it taking a different alignment closer to where the TNPK is; they wouldn't have used FEC's tracks because if they did, then Brightline could itself go faster on those same tracks.

Also, aent's tax argument is not moot, because with Brightline funding the Florida system, that's one less system that Federal tax dollars have to be spent on nationally.  We may not care about that here in Florida, but DOT cares.

Yup, the only funding I remember for Orlando to Miami  under the previous proposal was to study where they should pursue the ROW, whether it should go along 95 or Turnpike. Under the best estimations, Brightline likely is still meeting even the most optimistic service start date estimations for Orlando to Miami service under the previous HSR program. The Orlando to Tampa route was supposed to be operational in 2015, assuming no delays. So far, nobody in the USA has built a system without massive delays in construction. California is estimating a 2029 launch date for their first segment of service, another 11 years, from the Obama HSR program, and now only goes to Bakersfield to San Francisco... the southern leg that connected it to LA, the part people likely really wanted, has been pushed all the way to 2033 at current estimates.

And yes, its insane people here are arguing that literally throwing out $2 billion tax dollars is nothing to worry about. California is massively over budget. The good news is hopefully the federal government can say they gave them an extra $2 billion already and stop giving California more for their HSR. Their cost was originally supposed to be $33 billion and has since jumped to $98 billion. I don't know how people here can believe that if Florida tried to build a system under the same program and same philosophy we wouldn't be subject to the same shortfalls and delays. Considering they're already at 9 years of delays for a shortened route, and it will be at least 20 years from the white house HSR grant to them actually launching something... enough said. Brightline did it with the lawsuits as well, with many, many less delays then what the Obama HSR projects were able to do.

It even seems very realistic for Brightline to offer full service from Tampa to Orlando to Miami before California gets its first train running on their HSR. Hell, there's even a realistic possibility Brightline gets a full system completed, connected to Jacksonville as well before California gets theirs running, considering history indicates California will get a ton more delays. 

 

 

[I am Reality]

Brightline and the CA project shouldn't even be compared.  CA is building an actual bullet train capable of 220+ mph.  It uses a totally different technology than what Brightline is using.  There are less than a handful of true bullet trains in the world (Japan is actually testing its SEVENTH-generation bullet trains right now).  FL never even considered a bullet train, or its technical complexities, safety concerns, and heightened regulatory requirements.  

The CA system is also one of the largest public-works projects in history.  It's 1st phase alone will be more than 2X longer than Brightline.  That doesn't even consider eventual expansion to San Diego and Sacramento.

Additionally, the track construction in CA will be very different from FL.  Much of the track will be elevated.  It will also include dozens of miles of tunnels through mountains. The terrain in CA is much more difficult than the flat terrain in FL (not discounting wetlands).  CA is also building 2 dozen stations (many elevated), as opposed to the handful Brightline is building.

If the CA project is considered a failure, it's because cost estimates were unrealistic to begin with. 

That does not take away from the importance of the project.  The state is positioning itself as the world's preminant tech leader.  And the train - once running - will handle millions more passengers than Brightline could ever imagine.

Edited June 25, 2018 by I am Reality

[gibby]

51 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

Additionally, the track construction in CA will be very different from FL.  Much of the track will be elevated.  It will also include dozens of miles of tunnels through mountains. The terrain in CA is much more difficult than the flat terrain in FL (not discounting wetlands).  CA is also building 2 dozen stations (many elevated), as opposed to the handful Brightline is building.

This is an important point.

 

Also, throwing $2bb into the central Florida economy in the 2011-2015 timeframe would have had a major positive impact.  If Rick Scott had some sort of long range rail planning strategy involving Brightline, he could have explained that to the taxpayers in 2011 when the employment rate was 10%.

[aent]

15 hours ago, I am Reality said:

Brightline and the CA project shouldn't even be compared.  CA is building an actual bullet train capable of 220+ mph.  It uses a totally different technology than what Brightline is using.  There are less than a handful of true bullet trains in the world (Japan is actually testing its SEVENTH-generation bullet trains right now).  FL never even considered a bullet train, or its technical complexities, safety concerns, and heightened regulatory requirements.  

Of course they should be compared, they are both major high speed train routes, with a similar history, similar promises, and similar problems. Florida cancelled it and replaced it with a private , even if the maximum  train speeds are different. Infact, they're not all that different even as far as speeds... as they've been having their budget shortfalls and cost overruns, they keep slowing down speeds for , in the first 50+ miles from San Francisco, and the design speed for all tunnels in the system, another 40+ miles where the train will have the same maximum speed sets as Brightline Florida... 79/110/125mph depending on the area, because in order to prevent another $2 billion in cost overruns, they decided to share existing tracks with freight and commuter rail. So at best, the train will go faster on maybe 50% of its initial route.

 

The similarities don't end there, like Florida, it was promised private owner-operators would take over and cover cost overruns and invest in the system because it will be so great, and investors would be willing to invest in it because of the promise of millions of tickets being sold a year, but even in California, which is undoubtedly king of the crazy, we'll invest in anything venture capitalists, they've all said no way.

15 hours ago, I am Reality said:

The CA system is also one of the largest public-works projects in history.  It's 1st phase alone will be more than 2X longer than Brightline.  That doesn't even consider eventual expansion to San Diego and Sacramento.

Sure, its one of the most EXPENSIVE public works projects around... but your distance measurement is quite far off. Phase one's distance has been drastically reduced, with it now running from San Francisco to Bakersfield. A distance according to Google Maps of 241 miles. Ironically, the Orlando to Miami route is literally the same 240 miles, so phase 1 for both is literally the same distance. They only benefit of their project is they may get some 200 mph runtime for maybe half of the the trip, assuming there isn't further speed reductions. But its at an insane cost to taxpayers to shave 10 or 20 minutes off, and it is just that because many turns and tunnels along the route are no longer designed above 125mph so frequent slowdowns are necessary. And with the rate the delays and cost overruns are going, many now speculate it may literally pay to just scrap the whole project and try again with the hyperloop when its ready in another decade, for them, it may not cause the same massive delays.

15 hours ago, I am Reality said:

Additionally, the track construction in CA will be very different from FL.  Much of the track will be elevated.  It will also include dozens of miles of tunnels through mountains. The terrain in CA is much more difficult than the flat terrain in FL (not discounting wetlands).  CA is also building 2 dozen stations (many elevated), as opposed to the handful Brightline is building.

If the CA project is considered a failure, it's because cost estimates were unrealistic to begin with. 

That does not take away from the importance of the project.  The state is positioning itself as the world's preminant tech leader.  And the train - once running - will handle millions more passengers than Brightline could ever imagine.

Ultimately time will tell if its a failure or not, if it ever gets finished, and if it does, how many people actually ride it. So far, its history has been disappointment after disappointment. Its a great concept, but tax dollars need to be spent responsibly, and the projects need to make some sort of fiscal sense, and Brightline does... California HSR does not seem to pass the sniff test and seems to be a handout project to "create jobs" and help America's megacorporations, just like other similar era programs like Cash for Clunkers that managed to burn billions of dollars, hurt the car companies, and the poor.

15 hours ago, gibby said:

This is an important point.

 

Also, throwing $2bb into the central Florida economy in the 2011-2015 timeframe would have had a major positive impact.  If Rick Scott had some sort of long range rail planning strategy involving Brightline, he could have explained that to the taxpayers in 2011 when the employment rate was 10%.

He did make it clear he that the federal grant would not actually cover the cost of construction and operation and Florida's taxpayers would be responsible for paying billions of taxdollars that Florida literally couldn't afford, which would hurt our unemployment rate even more. I don't know if he knew about the FEC deal or not back then, but even if he did, it was likely in the initial stages and not ready for an announcement.

[I am Reality]

I understand that portions of the CA system will be slowed down.  It would be prohibitively expensive to purchase land in San Francisco/Silicon Valley, the most expensive area in the nation.  If CA did not use existing tracks, it would need to purchase land and build elevated tracks through neighborhoods, suburban office parks, and highly-concentrated urban areas  for 50+ miles. 

I never represented that fhe overall speed for the system is 220+ mph.  But large potions of it will have it.  The technology required for the CA system is very different.  For example, Japanese bullet train cars are designed to "lean" inward around curves so they don't go flying off the tracks.  Elevated tracks are required for areas with top speeds to avoid obvious safety concerns.  Imagine being at an at-grade train crossing with a train bearing down at you at 220 mph.

Speaking for myself, I am much more impressed with 220 mph than 120 mph.  

The entire Phase I project is 500+ miles.  It is being built in stages, with the SF to Bakersfield stage opening first.  Construction in South CA is well underway.

I actually agree that the CA system is expensive.  People should have realized that before they started it.  But LA to SF is a heavily-travelled cooridor (with some of the nation's most extreme wealth).  This is no mere vanity project.  The project has an enormous symbolic value that cannot be quantified.  It is similar to how Japan's bullet train symbolized that nation's tech prominence through the 1990s), or China's is demonstrating it current prominence.  

Brightline is more Acela than Japan/China.  I have riden Acela many times, and there is nothing special about it.  

And as long as Brightline ignores downtown, I will not use it.  I am not a tourist and I refuse to be treated as one.  These people need to learn to respect (and serve) people who actually live here.  I am not an afterthought. 

[gibby]

If he hadn't given our $2.4bb away to other states in 2011 then our economy would have suffered and unemployment would have risen and Floridians would have been responsible for "billions of tax dollars" for cost overruns and operation for a five-station, 84 mile long rail line?

[jrs2]

16 hours ago, gibby said:

This is an important point.

 

Also, throwing $2bb into the central Florida economy in the 2011-2015 timeframe would have had a major positive impact.  If Rick Scott had some sort of long range rail planning strategy involving Brightline, he could have explained that to the taxpayers in 2011 when the employment rate was 10%.

He didn't mention Brightline, specifically, but he did say that HSR for Florida would be better left to private investment.

[jrs2]

29 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

I understand that portions of the CA system will be slowed down.  It would be prohibitively expensive to purchase land in San Francisco/Silicon Valley, the most expensive area in the nation.  If CA did not use existing tracks, it would need to purchase land and build elevated tracks through neighborhoods, suburban office parks, and highly-concentrated urban areas  for 50+ miles. 

I never represented that fhe overall speed for the system is 220+ mph.  But large potions of it will have it.  The technology required for the CA system is very different.  For example, Japanese bullet train cars are designed to "lean" inward around curves so they don't go flying off the tracks.  Elevated tracks are required for areas with top speeds to avoid obvious safety concerns.  Imagine being at an at-grade train crossing with a train bearing down at you at 220 mph.

Speaking for myself, I am much more impressed with 220 mph than 120 mph.  

The entire Phase I project is 500+ miles.  It is being built in stages, with the SF to Bakersfield stage opening first.  Construction in South CA is well underway.

I actually agree that the CA system is expensive.  People should have realized that before they started it.  But LA to SF is a heavily-travelled cooridor (with some of the nation's most extreme wealth).  This is no mere vanity project.  The project has an enormous symbolic value that cannot be quantified.  It is similar to how Japan's bullet train symbolized that nation's tech prominence through the 1990s), or China's is demonstrating it current prominence.  

Brightline is more Acela than Japan/China.  I have riden Acela many times, and there is nothing special about it.  

And as long as Brightline ignores downtown, I will not use it.  I am not a tourist and I refuse to be treated as one.  These people need to learn to respect (and serve) people who actually live here.  I am not an afterthought. 

You agree that the CA system is expensive?  Or did you mean that you acknowledge that it is expensive?

The CA system'c cost is up to $77B already and may rise to $98B.  That's BILLION.  Why is there even a debate going on here?  That's ridiculous money being spent- our tax money for a bullsht system that can easily be supplanted by a cheap flight from SFO to LAX.  How much of this is federal tax money? 

Symbolic value?    You want symbolism, then spend a mere $3-4B and build the world's tallest building.  I have never thought about Japan's bullet train or any train in China as symbols of their prominence; rather, you just look at their industry, their GNP, their ports and the level of development in their large cities and the size of their airports.  You look at the names of companies like Lenovo, Sony, Toyota, Toshiba, etc., which says it all.  

The CA system is in fact a vanity project (and you just said it has enormous  symbolic value which corroborates this).  Forget symbolic value; does it have practical value?  Not for that price tag.  Get a flight from SFO to LAX if it's that important.  Spend maybe $2B at SFO and $2B at LAX for dedicated commuter flight terminals between the two airports if that's even necessary.

That is utterly ridiculous.  I used to criticize Scott for being underhanded in the HSR deal.  No more.  FEC is paying for this thing and Orlando is benefiting because their maintenance facility which houses 8 of 12 trains will be on GOAA property.  

Oh, I will use Brightline when it opens because it definitely beats driving down the TNPK or I-95.

$77 BILLION- $98 BILLION

^^in case anyone missed it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/californias-77-billion-high-speed-rail-project-is-in-trouble.html

enough with the comparisons...

[HankStrong]

This is taking one of my favorite topics and turning it into one of my absolute least favorite topics.

 

Boo.

[I am Reality]

29 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

You agree that the CA system is expensive?  Or did you mean that you acknowledge that it is expensive?

The CA system'c cost is up to $77B already and may rise to $98B.  That's BILLION.  Why is there even a debate going on here?  That's ridiculous money being spent- our tax money for a bullsht system that can easily be supplanted by a cheap flight from SFO to LAX.  How much of this is federal tax money? 

Symbolic value?    You want symbolism, then spend a mere $3-4B and build the world's tallest building.  I have never thought about Japan's bullet train or any train in China as symbols of their prominence; rather, you just look at their industry, their GNP, their ports and the level of development in their large cities and the size of their airports.  You look at the names of companies like Lenovo, Sony, Toyota, Toshiba, etc., which says it all.  

The CA system is in fact a vanity project (and you just said it has enormous  symbolic value which corroborates this).  Forget symbolic value; does it have practical value?  Not for that price tag.  Get a flight from SFO to LAX if it's that important.  Spend maybe $2B at SFO and $2B at LAX for dedicated commuter flight terminals between the two airports if that's even necessary.

That is utterly ridiculous.  I used to criticize Scott for being underhanded in the HSR deal.  No more.  FEC is paying for this thing and Orlando is benefiting because their maintenance facility which houses 8 of 12 trains will be on GOAA property.  

Oh, I will use Brightline when it opens because it definitely beats driving down the TNPK or I-95.

$77 BILLION- $98 BILLION

^^in case anyone missed it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/californias-77-billion-high-speed-rail-project-is-in-trouble.html

enough with the comparisons...

I am guessing you disagree with me, based on your contemptuous tone.   It's plenty enough to say you disagree with me.   There is no need to tell me I am being "utterly ridiculous."  

CAN WE LEARN TO DISAGREE????   EVER???   This is really getting old. 

[I am Reality]

17 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

This is taking one of my favorite topics and turning it into one of my absolute least favorite topics.

 

Boo.

Too damn bad. 

I'm a grown adult and I'm not here to

(1) talk about what you want to talk about;

(2) please you; or,

(3) agree with you, 

May I suggest you look elsewhere for adulation?   

[I am Reality]

I've just reported you, HankStrong and JRS2.  Please stop disrespecting my opinions.  It's really shameful.

[jrs2]

19 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

I am guessing you disagree with me, based on your contemptuous tone.   It's plenty enough to say you disagree with me.   There is no need to tell me I am being "utterly ridiculous."  

CAN WE LEARN TO DISAGREE????   EVER???   This is really getting old. 

fair enough.  I was just shocked when I saw that article and the price tag.  I still am shocked. 

Even one of the two Democrat candidates in CA believes in this system.  So, that's only 1 of 4 total gubernatorial candidates that does.  I can't understand who could support such a price tag for such a system.

24 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

I've just reported you, HankStrong and JRS2.  Please stop disrespecting my opinions.  It's really shameful.

I just saw this.  What is utterly ridiculous is the price tag for the CA system, not your comments per se.  See my post again and you'll see that.

And I don't care who posted that they support the CA system.  $77B to $98B for that line is utterly ridiculous whether you take offense to that or not.

[jrs2]

59 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

This is taking one of my favorite topics and turning it into one of my absolute least favorite topics.

 

Boo.

Boy are you gonna get it from our mod because I think that $77B to $98B for an HSR system is utterly ridiculous; me and 3 of 4 CA gubernatorial candidates.

[I am Reality]

9 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

fair enough.  I was just shocked when I saw that article and the price tag.  I still am shocked. 

Even one of the two Democrat candidates in CA believes in this system.  So, that's only 1 of 4 total gubernatorial candidates that does.  I can't understand who could support such a price tag for such a system.

I just saw this.  What is utterly ridiculous is the price tag for the CA system, not your comments per se.  See my post again and you'll see that.

And I don't care who posted that they support the CA system.  $77B to $98B for that line is utterly ridiculous whether you take offense to that or not.

It's really not worth losing your sh*t over.  It's just my opinion.  Settle down. 

[jrs2]

20 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

It's really not worth losing your sh*t over.  It's just my opinion.  Settle down. 

well, you're the one that reported me to the mod, and not the other way around. 

And I don't really know what your opinion is per se.  My main sh*t losing episode was in response to the article I linked. 

But if your opinion about "symbolic value" etc is an opinion about a fact about a stated benefit or purpose of that system, then my criticism is with that fact. But if you still think that a $98B HSR is worth the symbolic value it would give to CA, then I reserve comment.

On a side note, why is this discussion even in this thread?  HankStrong got reported to the mod for nothing.

Edited June 26, 2018 by jrs2

[tennis32801]

that escalated quickly. I really enjoyed and appreciated the conversation and insights regarding this topic. Hopefully you all can continue sharing.

[HankStrong]

How did I get reported and what for?????????????????????????????????????

I need like 1 million more question marks.

[aent]

5 hours ago, I am Reality said:

I understand that portions of the CA system will be slowed down.  It would be prohibitively expensive to purchase land in San Francisco/Silicon Valley, the most expensive area in the nation.  If CA did not use existing tracks, it would need to purchase land and build elevated tracks through neighborhoods, suburban office parks, and highly-concentrated urban areas  for 50+ miles. 

I never represented that fhe overall speed for the system is 220+ mph.  But large potions of it will have it.  The technology required for the CA system is very different.  For example, Japanese bullet train cars are designed to "lean" inward around curves so they don't go flying off the tracks.  Elevated tracks are required for areas with top speeds to avoid obvious safety concerns.  Imagine being at an at-grade train crossing with a train bearing down at you at 220 mph.

Speaking for myself, I am much more impressed with 220 mph than 120 mph.  

I don't think California's system will be comparable to the true maglev bullet trains either like Japan has. I'm not even sure it will hit the 220 mph number you keep mentioning, there is plenty of talk to give up on that, and just go for the legally required 200 mph in accordance with their proposition to further cut costs, and we know at least half of it will be the same speed as we got. With half of it being the same speed, and then all the deceleration to the lower speed, stops for stations, and the time it takes to accelerate, we're just looking at very little time at or above 200mph regardless of the original intentions. California's "High Speed Rail" is already earning a nickname as "the slowest High Speed Rail in the world" in many regards. We just aren't designing any of them the same way as Japan, so yes, you're right Brightline is more Acela.... but realistically, so is the California one. We have a bit of a problem on these rail systems where everyone wants a stop on it to overcome the NIMBYs and to sell it to the local populations... but that slows down the train a lot. Thats why Brightline was so insistent on refusing to give Cocoa/Martin County a stop, even if they agreed to drop their lawsuits in exchange for a stop. They don't have the ridership numbers to warrant a station, and it would slow down the train too much to give it to them, which is part of why these systems fail in the USA, it needs to be useful, every stop needs a ton of riders. There's no doubt 200 mph is much more impressive then our 125 mph system, but is it $95 BILLION more impressive? I think there is much better ways to spend that much money that to improve our rail system by 75mph, before we even know how many people use it. As we find out how many people use it, and Brightline sees if and how profitable it is, I've heard they already have a list of improvements they can make to improve more of the line to 125mph if it makes economic sense too. If trains are filling up, it absolutely will make sense to increase the speed so they can run extra trains.

Its important to remember part of the reason the people here have not really demanded super high speed rail in the American air travel system is generally MUCH better then what you find in areas with good HSR, and planes travel faster then HSR, ya know, they're usually 500+ mph and can take a more direct path. Obviously we all know the cons of the air travel system as well, but HSR needs to compete with it, it has to make sense. Japan's got all of 2 airports in the top 50 in the world, and MCO has more traffic then one of those 2, which is not even a top 10 airport in America.

5 hours ago, I am Reality said:

I actually agree that the CA system is expensive.  People should have realized that before they started it.  But LA to SF is a heavily-travelled cooridor (with some of the nation's most extreme wealth).  This is no mere vanity project.  The project has an enormous symbolic value that cannot be quantified.  It is similar to how Japan's bullet train symbolized that nation's tech prominence through the 1990s), or China's is demonstrating it current prominence.  

And this is literally what happened with the FL system. FL voters approved in 2000, then they saw the price tag, found out how much taxes would have to go up, and balked at the price of it, and voters, after seeing the price tag, voted against it in 2004. The price of our 168 mph train was unreasonable, and too prone to cost overruns. I don't know if the Californians would even still vote for this system if they knew that its current projections is that it will be TRIPLE what they were promised, and that it would launch likely a DECADE after it was supposed to.

 

4 hours ago, I am Reality said:

I am guessing you disagree with me, based on your contemptuous tone.   It's plenty enough to say you disagree with me.   There is no need to tell me I am being "utterly ridiculous."  

CAN WE LEARN TO DISAGREE????   EVER???   This is really getting old. 

I think the reason this keeps happening is you get attached to minute details to scream somebody else is wrong. As a real simple example, when I said the Orlando to Miami route is within a mile or so of the first phase of the California HSR, and you replied that the first phase is the entire route, not just the part that supposed to open in 2029, I mean,  come on... At the rate Brightline is moving compared to the California HSR, Florida will likely have the Tampa phase built AND THE JACKSONVILLE PHASE before they finish "phase 1" to LA.

Here's a little table to hopefully explain the difference between the Obama California HSR programs and the private Brightline HSR program:

	Florida Brightline	California HSR
Year HSR originally conceived	1999	1996
Year project announced "as happening"	2012	2010
Year of groundbreaking	2014	2015
First year of operation	2018	Not Yet
Year anticipated for 240 miles of service operation	2021	2029
Number of miles expected to be operational in 2029	(Tampa extension) ~324*	240
Number of miles expected to be operational in 2034	(Jacksonville extension) ~465*	(LA extension) 520
Speed limits along route (best guess/project required speeds)	90-125mph	90-200mph
Tax dollars anticipated (plus interest)	$0	$10,000,000,000.00
Private enterprise stepped in as promised by governor of each state to control costs/operate system	Yes	No

*Brightline has not announced dates for these extensions yet, but the estimated time of construction was previously estimated at 3 years. My estimate would allow an additional seven years for Brightline to get ready for construction for the Tampa route, and 12 years for the Jacksonville route. Dates also assume no further delays for California routes.

Its just difficult to for me (and apparently jrs2) to imagine anyone picking the California project over the Florida one given all of these facts. Florida is literally the example project of what states here in the USA want for rail, and California's preoject is literally the example nightmare project of why trains are scary and don't make any sense. I'm sure if California's leaders had the opportunity to have the project replaced with something like Brightline, they'd all be on board in a second at this point, and if this information was presented to their voters, they would as well.

Last point: I think we all wish that downtown would be connected to it, but the simple fact is Orlando's airport is unique in that pretty much all the major attractions offer direct bus service from there, an abnormally large amount of hotels do as well, and much of it is completely free, whereas if the station was located downtown, the areas most people visiting Orlando want to visit would be extremely hard to access: they'd need a complicated route, or a taxi/uber, or to rent a car. This is literally the reason why most people feel that rail systems aren't useful: a lack of connections, and Orlando's airport does great with that as its our entry point for millions of tourists.

It definitely would be awesome if a moderator could move this chatter to the Brightline topic, obviously a much better fit.

Edited June 26, 2018 by aent

[I am Reality]

22 minutes ago, aent said:

I don't think California's system will be comparable to the true maglev bullet trains either like Japan has. I'm not even sure it will hit the 220 mph number you keep mentioning, there is plenty of talk to give up on that, and just go for the legally required 200 mph in accordance with their proposition to further cut costs, and we know at least half of it will be the same speed as we got. With half of it being the same speed, and then all the deceleration to the lower speed, stops for stations, and the time it takes to accelerate, we're just looking at very little time at or above 200mph regardless of the original intentions. California's "High Speed Rail" is already earning a nickname as "the slowest High Speed Rail in the world" in many regards. We just aren't designing any of them the same way as Japan, so yes, you're right Brightline is more Acela.... but realistically, so is the California one. We have a bit of a problem on these rail systems where everyone wants a stop on it to overcome the NIMBYs and to sell it to the local populations... but that slows down the train a lot. Thats why Brightline was so insistent on refusing to give Cocoa/Martin County a stop, even if they agreed to drop their lawsuits in exchange for a stop. They don't have the ridership numbers to warrant a station, and it would slow down the train too much to give it to them, which is part of why these systems fail in the USA, it needs to be useful, every stop needs a ton of riders. There's no doubt 200 mph is much more impressive then our 125 mph system, but is it $95 BILLION more impressive? I think there is much better ways to spend that much money that to improve our rail system by 75mph, before we even know how many people use it. As we find out how many people use it, and Brightline sees if and how profitable it is, I've heard they already have a list of improvements they can make to improve more of the line to 125mph if it makes economic sense too. If trains are filling up, it absolutely will make sense to increase the speed so they can run extra trains.

Its important to remember part of the reason the people here have not really demanded super high speed rail in the American air travel system is generally MUCH better then what you find in areas with good HSR, and planes travel faster then HSR, ya know, they're usually 500+ mph and can take a more direct path. Obviously we all know the cons of the air travel system as well, but HSR needs to compete with it, it has to make sense. Japan's got all of 2 airports in the top 50 in the world, and MCO has more traffic then one of those 2, which is not even a top 10 airport in America.

And this is literally what happened with the FL system. FL voters approved in 2000, then they saw the price tag, found out how much taxes would have to go up, and balked at the price of it, and voters, after seeing the price tag, voted against it in 2004. The price of our 168 mph train was unreasonable, and too prone to cost overruns. I don't know if the Californians would even still vote for this system if they knew that its current projections is that it will be TRIPLE what they were promised, and that it would launch likely a DECADE after it was supposed to.

 

I think the reason this keeps happening is you get attached to minute details to scream somebody else is wrong. As a real simple example, when I said the Orlando to Miami route is within a mile or so of the first phase of the California HSR, and you replied that the first phase is the entire route, not just the part that supposed to open in 2029, I mean,  come on... At the rate Brightline is moving compared to the California HSR, Florida will likely have the Tampa phase built AND THE JACKSONVILLE PHASE before they finish "phase 1" to LA.

Here's a little table to hopefully explain the difference between the Obama California HSR programs and the private Brightline HSR program:

 

	Florida Brightline	California HSR
Year HSR originally conceived	1999	1996
Year project announced "as happening"	2012	2010
Year of groundbreaking	2014	2015
First year of operation	2018	Not Yet
Year anticipated for 240 miles of service operation	2021	2029
Number of miles expected to be operational in 2029	(Tampa extension) ~324*	240
Number of miles expected to be operational in 2034	(Jacksonville extension) ~465*	(LA extension) 520
Speed limits along route (best guess/project required speeds)	90-125mph	90-200mph
Tax dollars anticipated (plus interest)	$0	$10,000,000,000.00
Private enterprise stepped in as promised by governor of each state to control costs/operate system	Yes	No

*Brightline has not announced dates for these extensions yet, but the estimated time of construction was previously estimated at 3 years. My estimate would allow an additional seven years for Brightline to get ready for construction for the Tampa route, and 12 years for the Jacksonville route. Dates also assume no further delays for California routes.

Its just difficult to for me (and apparently jrs2) to imagine anyone picking the California project over the Florida one given all of these facts. Florida is literally the example project of what states here in the USA want for rail, and California's preoject is literally the example nightmare project of why trains are scary and don't make any sense. I'm sure if California's leaders had the opportunity to have the project replaced with something like Brightline, they'd all be on board in a second at this point, and if this information was presented to their voters, they would as well.

Aent, please stop it.  I was not "screaming somebody else was wrong."  

You are making things up now. 

I thought you made some reasonable points in your comments.  I thought I did to.  I thought we were actually having a rather productive conversation. 

I was not offensive or abusive at all.  Again, I didn't criticize Orlando or anyone on a personal level. Nothing I said to you was made in malice.

I certainly said nothing to deserve being personally attacked or having my argument/comments attacked as being ridiculous.

That is cheap bullcrap.

Stop making excuses for total disrespect of other people's opinions.  This website is out of control.  I can't even talk about John Mica or the CA rail project without people jumping on me.  Get the hell over it people . . . not everyone is going to agree with you all the time.  

 

[gibby]

8 minutes ago, aent said:

Its important to remember part of the reason the people here have not really demanded super high speed rail in the American air travel system is generally MUCH better then what you find in areas with good HSR, and planes travel faster then HSR, ya know, they're usually 500+ mph and can take a more direct path.

Wut?  What is this based on?  The airports in Japan, Holland, Germany, Spain and France are bad?  Is that the point you're trying to make?  Can you explain?  

 

11 minutes ago, aent said:

The price of our 168 mph train was unreasonable, and too prone to cost overruns.

What is this based on?  Is this just an opinion?

 

13 minutes ago, aent said:

Private enterprise stepped in as promised by governor of each state to control costs/operate system

Promised when exactly?  What does this even mean?  He gave away $2.4bb  of our money so that other states could use it instead.  He did it in 2011 when the unemployment rate was over 10%.  If he had a brilliant plan for a private group come in and build it in 2021 then why did he not tell anyone?  Having a private group build it in 2021 is better than having it paid for with public dollars in 2011?  If so, why?  Seems like that much money could have been pretty useful in this area between 2010-2015.  The comparison with CA high speed rail is not justified.  Also, private companies literally did "step in" to take care of potential cost overruns.  It was a really big deal at the time.

[jrs2]

42 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

Aent, please stop it.  I was not "screaming somebody else was wrong."  

You are making things up now. 

I thought you made some reasonable points in your comments.  I thought I did to.  I thought we were actually having a rather productive conversation. 

I was not offensive or abusive at all.  Again, I didn't criticize Orlando or anyone on a personal level. Nothing I said to you was made in malice.

I certainly said nothing to deserve being personally attacked or having my argument/comments attacked as being ridiculous.

That is cheap bullcrap.

Stop making excuses for total disrespect of other people's opinions.  This website is out of control.  I can't even talk about John Mica or the CA rail project without people jumping on me.  Get the hell over it people . . . not everyone is going to agree with you all the time.  

 

Seriously?  Aent was talking figuratively, not literally.

Look, it's not my fault that the CA system's price tag is between $77 and $98 Billion and that I find that ridiculous.  You obviously ignored my post clarifying this. 

No one is attacking you.  But I saw a trend of dumping on Rick Scott for rejecting the Obama money, and then comparing Brightline to an apparently "superior" system in CA, which will cost at completion close to $100 Billion.  And I think people should know this and the debacle even Democrats in CA acknowledge before being quick to crucify the Republican (I, formerly being one of them) for making a decision he felt was in the best fiscal interests of the State of Florida- which it actually turned out to be.

I'm not making any excuses for seemingly disrespecting anyone's opinion on this particular subject.  But, if anyone here is of the opinion that $98 Billion is acceptable for the CA HSR price tag, then I question your sanity.  Party affiliation or voting pattern shouldn't even matter on this issue; only common sense.  Don't take my word for it; just read that article I posted from CNBC on my prior large post.

41 minutes ago, gibby said:

Promised when exactly?  What does this even mean?  He gave away $2.4bb  of our money so that other states could use it instead.  He did it in 2011 when the unemployment rate was over 10%.  If he had a brilliant plan for a private group come in and build it in 2021 then why did he not tell anyone?  Having a private group build it in 2021 is better than having it paid for with public dollars in 2011?  If so, why?  Seems like that much money could have been pretty useful in this area between 2010-2015.  The comparison with CA high speed rail is not justified.  Also, private companies literally did "step in" to take care of potential cost overruns.  It was a really big deal at the time.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/212375-joe-henderson-rick-scott-rejecting-high-speed-rail-may-right

here's an article from 2016 on Scott's decision, and comparing the proposed route to the boondoggle in CA.

Edited June 26, 2018 by jrs2

[JFW657]

Would it be possible for somebody to please move this train discussion here:

Or here:

Thanks.

[gibby]

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

a decision he felt was in the best fiscal interests of the State of Florida- which it actually turned out to be.

Is this a fact or just your opinion?  How was taking $2.4bb out of the central Florida economy (in 2011-2015!!) so that it could be spent elsewhere in the best fiscal interests of the State of Florida?