The high speed rail amendment in Florida was killed by overwhemling majority

[Anonymous]

AntonioFP45 and others have hit on the solution.

If someone would come up with a proposal for a 90-100MPH system that could use some existing right of way, and be honest with the populace that it was going to require big local, state and federal bucks, and that it was never going to be profitable but was needed, I'd vote for it, and I think a lot of others would, too.

But we were asked to bankroll a high-rolling millionaire's pipe dream, and it was not unexpected that, once the voters realized what was up, they'd flush it.

BTW, for those who complain about the No vote to pass it and Yes vote to kill it as being some underhanded political machinations, turn your sights elsewhere.

Constitutional amendments in Florida must be passed by a "Yes" vote. Don't ask me why, but that's the reason.

Old Timer

[Modelcar]

Re: Highest point in Florida. I mentioned in above post I understood Clermont was the highest point in Florida...but as pointed out, I was wrong. It is the point in the panhandle at 325'. Now I'm wondering what Clermont used to mention as being the highest point.....Perhaps the highest physical point really is at the tip of the Citrus Tower in the Clermont location.....

[Modelcar]

...I agree with Old Timer about updating some major route corridors with now existing rail routes to roughly 100 mph operation...would most likely be very useful and appropriate to move people and at a cost more easily doable. But trying to run 100 mph passenger trains intermixed with existing freight operations simply should be avoided in my opinion but perhaps could be overcome by cost and useful planning.

[Overmod]

Modelcar, I believe the statistic is that Clermont is the highest point in the Florida PENINSULA. (That being the part of the state most people think of)

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

... But trying to run 100 mph passenger trains intermixed with existing freight operations simply should be avoided in my opinion but perhaps could be overcome by cost and useful planning.

Good points Modelcar but it can be done.

DOUBLE TRACK the mainline again, but only in the higher density area! Still cheaper than the bullet train, but yes the costs would be in the millions.

Up unitl the late 1970s, a lot of the major mainline track going through the major Florida ciites was double tracked.

And remember, there were a lot more trains running in Florida back then than today! Freight and passenger operations co-existed and yet the passenger trains still ran at
80 m.p.h on stretches and managed to maintain their schedules.

10-4!

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

... But trying to run 100 mph passenger trains intermixed with existing freight operations simply should be avoided in my opinion but perhaps could be overcome by cost and useful planning.

Good points Modelcar but it can be done.

DOUBLE TRACK the mainline again, but only in the higher density area! Still cheaper than the bullet train, but yes the costs would be in the millions.

Up unitl the late 1970s, a lot of the major mainline track going through the major Florida ciites was double tracked.

And remember, there were a lot more trains running in Florida back then than today! Freight and passenger operations co-existed and yet the passenger trains still ran at
80 m.p.h on stretches and managed to maintain their schedules.

10-4!

The freight trains that were running in the 40's-50's and 60's when freight and passenger shared the tracks are not the freight trains that are being operated on todays railorads.. In the days gone by a 'Mile Long' freight train was considered HUGE and an operational rarity. In todays freight railroads such a short train is not considered worthy of running in most cases. Todays trains are 9,000 foot and larger trains. In the railroads of yesteryear the load limits on the 'heavy haul' track was a nominal 263,000 pound load limit for cars. Todays norm is 286,000 and there are efforts in progress to raise that to 315,000.. No matter how well built and maintained at right of way is, consistant operationg of 315,000 pound cars in trains of 9,000 feet and longer render that track unusable for HSR at speeds of 100 MPH or greater.

HSR and freight cannot exonomically share the track. Existing track structures through most Metropolitan areas are anything but direct and existing rights of way have numerous 15 and 25 MPH curves as they wend their way through the Metropolitan areas.

To be effective must follow the most direct of routes, if we are to follow any existing right of way then the Interstate System rights of way are those that need to be followed as they have been laid out with the understanding to 20th Centrury construction capabilities and transportation needs, rather than 19th Century routes that the existing railroads are operating.

[Anonymous]

Any funds spent on speeding up passenger rail service in America is welcomed. However, upgrading track piecemeal, a little at a time, costs much much more than building a state of the art brand new HSR line in the first place..... something the Europeans have already learned.... Its the same with highways, its cheaper to build a brand new freeway through new right of way than it is to expand an existing freeway through the old right of way....not to mention quicker.....

The voters of Florida were led down the wrong path.... $25 billion to build a new high speed rail line all the way down to Miami is just as cheap as building a brand new freeway or building a number of brand new airports to handle the inceased volume of traffic..... Somehow, in this election, that fact got lost in the midst of the cost of HSR.....

The main reason why costs rose in Florida was the costs of rebuilding the freeways and the turnpike along with the costs of building HSR inside the median of their right of way..... spending more on the freeways than on the HSR line..... While the costs of building HSR is more than building a comparable twin track light rail line, they aren't that much more.....

DART has been able to build 45 miles of twin track electricified light rail line along former railroad right of way from Plano to South Dallas, Garland to South Dallas, and through a six mile tunnel under Central Expressway, and through streets downtown, for less than $2 billion..... Therefore Florida should be able to build a twin track electricifed light rail line between Orlando and Tampa for around twice as much, as the distance is about twice as much.....around $4 billion..... Increasing the speed with a stronger bed shouldn't double that.....

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark


The voters of Florida were led down the wrong path.... $25 billion to build a new high speed rail line all the way down to Miami is just as cheap as building a brand new freeway or building a number of brand new airports to handle the inceased volume of traffic..... Somehow, in this election, that fact got lost in the midst of the cost of HSR.....

The facts weren't lost....they were just totally obscured by the Lobby that is desiring the $25 Billion....the Highway Lobby

[Anonymous]

Yes, but half of that $25 billion was to rebuild the freeways....something the highway lobby should have lobbied for.....

[Modelcar]

...Overmod....Yes, that may be what I had in mind from info of some years ago....Another thought that kinda tells a similar story...The St. Johns River flows from the area of Melbourne to Jacksonville....North..! Just a bit unusual, flowing north.

[Modelcar]

...Speaking of our "improved standard RoW" to bring it up to 100 mph standards...Another issue that would have to be satisfied is grade crossings. With operations of 100 mph grade separation would just about have to be a reality or at least some state of the art crossing gates / Warning, etc....where separation could not be constructed. All surely is possible. Trains running 100 mph would cross the Florida distances in very acceptable times.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark


The voters of Florida were led down the wrong path.... $25 billion to build a new high speed rail line all the way down to Miami is just as cheap as building a brand new freeway or building a number of brand new airports to handle the inceased volume of traffic..... Somehow, in this election, that fact got lost in the midst of the cost of HSR.....

The facts weren't lost....they were just totally obscured by the Lobby that is desiring the $25 Billion....the Highway Lobby

It turns my stomach that some bundled the freeways with the HSR, may be they ought to build their HSR ridership base before they spend that kind of money, and build up an efficient transit system.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark


The voters of Florida were led down the wrong path.... $25 billion to build a new high speed rail line all the way down to Miami is just as cheap as building a brand new freeway or building a number of brand new airports to handle the inceased volume of traffic..... Somehow, in this election, that fact got lost in the midst of the cost of HSR.....

The facts weren't lost....they were just totally obscured by the Lobby that is desiring the $25 Billion....the Highway Lobby

It turns my stomach that some bundled the freeways with the HSR, may be they ought to build their HSR ridership base before they spend that kind of money, and build up an efficient transit system.

What comes first? The chicken or the egg.

[Anonymous]

From what I read in the news, the costs for the original 90 mile line from Orlando to Tampa was $2.3 billion.....not $25 billion.... This total per mile is less than the costs of building light rail for DART.....

We'll never know whether HSR (of 150 mph average speed plus) will ever be competitive with the airlines is we never build it......

Interesting, Virgin airlines is participating with the British west coast HSR line......and expects to turn an operational profit......

Similarily, I wonder whether any airline could turn a profit if they had to pay for the needed capital infrastructure of airport runways, terminals, and real estate, plus their freeway interchanges and parking garages.....

ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN, WE'LL NEED HSR IN THE NEAR FUTURE AS THE AIRSPACE AROUND MAJOR AIRPORTS FILL UP WHILE THEIR PARKING AND FREEWAY ACCESS CNONGEST TO A COMPLETE AND UTTER STOP!

[Anonymous]

The fact is that nobody turns a profit hauling people unless they provide that premium service for which they can extract the last nickel someone will pay, or they get massive help from public sources, or both.

Look it up. Nobody in the world does. People do not want to pay what their transportation is worth, and will not buy tickets that cost them enough to fully compensate their carriers for their rides. On whatever mode you can name. People equate the cost of public transportation with the cost of driving their cars, and always - ALWAYS - underestimate that cost.

The US opted, ostensibly for defense reasons, to construct the Interstate Highway System. France and Japan opted to construct high-speed rail.

Their systems, in the mid-'70s, cost the equivalent of $1 million US per day to operate. Both of them. I was working for a government agency, and we checked it out, just out of curiosity.

I wonder what France and Japan are paying now, per day . . .

Old Timer

[Sterling1]

I wonder how much Japan, Britain, Germany, and France expend on their public transportation systems?

[Anonymous]

They spend ALOT ! And as far as Germany is cocerned the government is running short on cash for the railways wich is why they are preparing to privatise in a desperate attempt to save costs. But Germany also has an extensive freeway system ((the famous Autobahns)) and that is also loosing money big time. The government wants cars that enter the country to pay a tool for the duration the vehicle is in the country and other tolls for people who use the autobahn, but people protest and take it higher to the European Union to stop the tolls. In the end someone has to pay and someone will go broke.

ps; France also have extensive freeways, the TGV is in addition to the hiways and airports, the USA only has the hiways and airports.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I wonder how much Japan, Britain, Germany, and France expend on their public transportation systems?

If you refer to just rail alone, I don't know how much Japan,France, and Germany spend on their public transportation systems. Great Britain's railroad systems are privatized so it probably spends very little on them.

[passengerfan]

When I-95 reaches gridlock and their up to their butts in alligators on either side maybe they will reconsider once again. California is just waiting for a final decision on High Speed rail and I don't think Californians will make the same mistake. The problem we are faced with now is witch route to take and should it serve more of the valley than at presentently proposed. The State Capital at Sacramento should be served and the proposed routing would only serve Sacramento about six years after the main route is completed. Florida voters will live to regret the decision as the price of interstate expansion will be far more than a high speed rail line and serve less people. Interstates have a tendancy to fill with traffic no matter how many lanes are added. High Speed rail can serve far more people than two extra lanes of interstate and their won't be any trucks on the HSR.

[martin.knoepfel]

AFAIK, the HST-ROW in France are truly profitable. This is due to high number of passengers, to high fares, but also to fast construction - that reduces capital costs - and to steep grades of up to 3.5 %! the latter reduces the number of bridges and tunnels. Therefore, French HST-ROWs are not made for fast freights during the night, unlike the first German HST-ROWs, nore for conventional trains, for example sleeper-trains. But the French seem to have chosen the right operating scheme. The German HSR-ROWw not only became horribly expensive, the demand for the express-freight was smaller than estimated. the newest German HST-ROW from Francfort to Cologne was built with steep grades to. Only the most modern German HST can run over it, the ICE I+II cannot.

Nevertheless, the French State Railways post huge deficits. So one can argue, the HST-ROWs profit from the feeder-funtion of the rest of the system. On the other side, part of the deficits are due to commuter-transport, and big-cities simply cannot get along without some sort of public transit. And part of the deficit is due to featherbedding railroad employees, which is a political question. The same is true for maintaining branch lines.

British Railways have been cut in pieces and privatized, but the private enterprises still get government subsidies.

There is no real free and working market in transportation.
Different modes of transportation are subsidized to diefferent extents (airports, canals, highways).
there are external costs which are not paid for by the person who causes them (like accidens, damage to environnment).
on top of all, if you don't have some kind of congestion tax like London introduced recently, you cannot pay for free driving during the rush-hour even if you want to do so to reach to your destination faster than other people.
under these conditions, we don't see a transportation market but a travestie of market.

I don't know how it is in Japan.

[Sterling1]

I recently spoke to the local Congressman in the House of Representatives Randy Johnson about this particular amendement and he told me that the interests of the public and the local tourist attractions/distractions did not at this current time support high speed rail, but he did say that in time when the people want the HSR they will voted on it.

[Anonymous]

Ladies and Gentlemen - We have now hit the full circle of one of my favorite topics. I will answer those that I feel have spoken that what they were silent on that screams in to be addressed. I have enjoyed reading this thread since early November and am happy that the discussion has been thorough. I just wonder if anyone in power is listening

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....I spent 8 winters in central Florida up until just a few years ago and observing and driving in the traffic in that area...I wonder how they will soon handle the traffic especially in the corridor near Daytona Beach to Orlando and beyond. If not HSR, than what.....They better be figuring on doing something....They can't pave the whole area. Anyone that travels that area to and from work surely knows what I'm talking about. HSR will probably start someplace, in the near future so why not there where other people {tourists} can be a big help to pay for it....It's no surprise to me Jeb has figured a way to get that system nixed. Not the first time.

Most honorable member of the forum, I agree[^], I finnished growing up in FL (Leesburg) and I know the frustration of trying to get the right thing done. Having said that You and I both know that politics is about power and that money is its mothers milk. [:O] As a Florida politican i knew once said, "As long as the cow is giving milk I'll take it, after that I'll find another cow and milk it untill it goes dry. (Sad but true).

[Modelcar]

....My comment is I suppose...bewilderment....We traveled to Florida for our Winter stay for 8 years and got to be involved and observed some of the traffic situations in central Florida. I suppose I don't khow the answer to the congestion one finds so many places in that area but someone should...and better be doing something about it sooner than later.

It seems no matter how many lanes are added to I-4 one finds it overwhelmed at to and from work driving times each working day and then mix in the tourist load at different times of the year...I don't know but one would think some thinking ahead should consider giving HSR a good look. It looked like they were going to do just that several times but someone seems to get it stopped each time.

Looking forward....something will need to be done or traffic will simply go into complete breakdown at certain times of the day....and start to hurt the tourist industry and many others.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

It's their decision, they are the ones living there, and it's their tax money that will be paying for it.

They like sitting in traffic, let them sit.

Hey Macguy, Florida last I looked does not have an income tax, but milks the tourist trade, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, entertainment, etc., etc,. They just love people (outsiders) to come to visit and leave their money.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Guys -

I live in Florida and voted against the HST in 2002 and again Nov. 2.

The reason I did so was because its backers did not level with the citizens about the cost of the HST; indeed, it was more than implied a couple of times that the HST might even become profitable.

Now, I love passenger trains. I've ridden a couple. And Florida's traffic is bad and getting worse (I live with it every day.)

But if HST is going to be the answer, let some reputable promoter (not some fast-talking millionaire trying to get me and a few million other taxpayers to pay for his dream) come in and give us an honest appraisal of the problem and let us know, honestly, what it's going to cost.

And don't let him try to bamboozle me by telling me that it'll someday pay for itself. It won't. Nobody in the world makes money hauling people without one or both of two factors being present: he provides a premium service for which he can extract the last nickle from the rider that he'll pay (a taxicab company is a good example - he picks you up at your door and takes you to your destination door); or the government entities pay for his losses and provides him with a reasonable profit.

I worked for a commuter agency in a large city about 25 years ago, and our riders didn't want to know that the price of their ticket paid for about 45% of the cost of their ride. But we had a local agency that paid the other 55% and provided capital money for maintenance and improvements. Taxpayer money, that is.

I don't know what Florida's answer is, but I agree that something drastic must be done. But tell me honestly how it'll work and I'll be a lot more agreeable to it.

Old Timer

Sir you speak with the wisdom and knowlege of time well spent in a life of learning many practical and yes also no small amount of real life matters. Your thread speaks truth with a very American style of practical wisdom. A pleasure to read your work. -Piouslion

[Modelcar]

...And that's the part that makes one wonder....They have a "vehicle" in place to let the traveling public {from out of state}, pay for their improvemensts...and still vote down to do anything about it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by u6729csx

Florida does not have room for 4 letter words in their vocabulary.

P L A N

No need to be caustic, They will start planning when a few more politicians leave the state and go to Washington D.C.. When that happens the IQ of the State of Florida and Washington D.C. will both go up.[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A very special thanks to the papers of former Gov. Lawton Childs of Florida for the spirit of that quote.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Isn't the real answer the sort of partnership that Virginia is doing with CSX on the old RF&P line between Richmond and the Potomic bridge south of Washington? To improve what already exists and make it more useful? This was also sold as a highway congestion relief program, involving more trucks and fewer private autos, but it would seem the right model and the way to go. If I am not mistaken, Illinois is doing something similar with the UP Chicago - St. Louis. The track from Miami to Orland and then to Jacksonville exists, and from Aurbendale (south of Orlando) south to Tampa. These existing lines can be upgraded, then the line from Orlando to Jacksonville, and then the direct FEC Miami - Jackonville line. This would provide improved freight service and well and competitive passenger service. Initially, taking 20% of the traffic off the roads should be the goal, and speeds comparable to the Northeast Corridor would be sufficient to do that. Not very fast by European standards, but enough to do the job.

Spoken with most uncommon Common Sence - Well said - pious

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

I live in Florida.

A much cheaper and more practical solution:

Up until the late 60s Florida had excellent passenger service from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. The tracks, which still exist (though single track), ran into all of Florida's major cities.

I don't see why a state or federal funded agreement couldn't be worked out with CSX to:

[1] Upgrade the tracks to Class 5 (90+ mph) standards.
[2] Have an agency like Tri-Rail or Amtrak, provide intra-state service.

Hasn't something similar happened with NS recently in a northern state where they're getting government grants for track upgrades to get commuter rail on the move?

Also has it not been successful in California?

In Florida, Interstates I-4, I-75, and I-95 are nightmare highways to cruise on. While bullet trains can run at close to 200 mph, the costs are prohibitive. But potential passengers would likely be willing to travel on conventional trains that can hit speeds of 90 to 100mph, which in a state the size of Florida, still means that trains would be safer, faster, and more comfortable than buses and more convenient than a commuter airline.

Funny thing is that in the 1950s Florida had a much smaller population. Today's population is double or triple of that time period but passenger rail service is less than 1/4 of what it was back then!

And on top of that, If memory serves me correctly, there is much railbanked realestate in most of North Central, Central and South Florida.