I've been sorta neutral on the subject of the TAmpa to Orlando high
speed train. Years ago I did vote for the high speed train amendment
to the Fl constitution but only as a way to show how silly it was to
amend the constitution by popular ballot (I also voted on the pregnant
pig amendment that requires prego pigs to be treated nicely). I have
only driven from Orlando to Tampa once and it was no problem so I
never knew why this corridor was chosen but maybe it does have a lot
of traffic.
However, being in Tallahassee, I see a lot of the political crap going
on about Gov Scott vetoing it and looked into the matter.

The feds would pay about half the projected cost and Fl taxpayers the
rest. Might be a good deal but, turns out the cost estimates were
done by the very companies who will benefit from it so are suspect. A
look at ALL other high speed rail projects show cost overruns of
1.8-2.2X and us Fl taxpayers would be on the hook for that
amount...........not so good.

How much time would it save? Wiki has a table showing about 15
minutes at most and that is very optimistic and would probably be less
if they add stops. By the time you add in parking and waiting for a
cab, you lose time.

Ridership, bizarro optimistic projections done by those who will
benefit from the construction.

Operating costs would be paid by FL and there is only one passenger
train in the entire USA that pays its own costs (NE corridor). No way
this one will pay its own way and us taxpayers will end paying these
costs.

Now the kicker. If ridership is low, the feds can decide they want
their 2 billion back from us FL taxpayers. Huh? No way. Cancel this
clunker of a deal now.

Generate jobs? During construction yes. Long term jobs, no. Keeping
the money in pvt hands is well known to generate more jobs.

An interesting measure of potential ridership might be the number of
people who take private buses each day from one end to the other.
Such buses are truly convenient because they normally go right to
where people want to go. I cannot find anybody who has looked into
this as a measurement of possible ridership.

On 3/4/11 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:07:37 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

I've been sorta neutral on the subject of the TAmpa to Orlando high
speed train. Years ago I did vote for the high speed train amendment
to the Fl constitution but only as a way to show how silly it was to
amend the constitution by popular ballot (I also voted on the pregnant
pig amendment that requires prego pigs to be treated nicely). I have
only driven from Orlando to Tampa once and it was no problem so I
never knew why this corridor was chosen but maybe it does have a lot
of traffic.
However, being in Tallahassee, I see a lot of the political crap going
on about Gov Scott vetoing it and looked into the matter.

The feds would pay about half the projected cost and Fl taxpayers the
rest. Might be a good deal but, turns out the cost estimates were
done by the very companies who will benefit from it so are suspect. A
look at ALL other high speed rail projects show cost overruns of
1.8-2.2X and us Fl taxpayers would be on the hook for that
amount...........not so good.

How much time would it save? Wiki has a table showing about 15
minutes at most and that is very optimistic and would probably be less
if they add stops. By the time you add in parking and waiting for a
cab, you lose time.

Ridership, bizarro optimistic projections done by those who will
benefit from the construction.

Operating costs would be paid by FL and there is only one passenger
train in the entire USA that pays its own costs (NE corridor). No way
this one will pay its own way and us taxpayers will end paying these
costs.

Now the kicker. If ridership is low, the feds can decide they want
their 2 billion back from us FL taxpayers. Huh? No way. Cancel this
clunker of a deal now.

Generate jobs? During construction yes. Long term jobs, no. Keeping
the money in pvt hands is well known to generate more jobs.

An interesting measure of potential ridership might be the number of
people who take private buses each day from one end to the other.
Such buses are truly convenient because they normally go right to
where people want to go. I cannot find anybody who has looked into
this as a measurement of possible ridership.


The proponents are saying there will be 3 million riders a year
(roughly the same as the DC/Philidelphia/NYC/Boston train)

I assume they got that by figuring out how much it would take to make
money and working backward.
It is a ridiculous estimate.There are almost 10 times as many people
living in the Boston/DC megopolis than the I-4 corridor all the way
from St Pete to Daytona. (5 million vs almost 50 million)

I am still not sure who would really be riding this train. People are
not going to fly into Tampa and take the train to Disney World when
the train goes right past ORD where the landing fees are lower.

You are right, the residents here will be on the hook for the cost
over runs and the deficits when it finally gets running ... half full
or less.

I don't know any of the particulars of the proposal you're discussing,
but I sure am an advocate of high speed rail, which we don't really have
anywhere in this country. High speed rail in Europe, though, is damned
nice. When I went to Geneva last year, I deliberately got off the plane
in London so I could travel under the English Channel to France and then
to Switzerland by train. It was fast, smooth and an enlightening
experience. On our trips to NY, we always prefer to take the "half-fast"
Acela, which gives you a taste, but little more, of what high-speed rail
could be like. Our trip last December to Florida was pleasant, but no
faster than driving there in our own car. The seemingly hundreds of
unprotected crossings, though, required the engineer to toot the horn a
zillion times along the way.

We need to stop blowing our nation's money on military adventurism, cut
the military by half, at least, and spend the money "saved" on
rebuilding our roads, passenger and freight railways, airports,
highways, bridges and tunnels. That kind of spending pays off for
everyone. Paying for soldiering these days is about the same as ****ing
down a bottomless hole.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
I don't know any of the particulars of the proposal you're discussing,
but I sure am an advocate of high speed rail, which we don't really have
anywhere in this country. High speed rail in Europe, though, is damned
nice. When I went to Geneva last year, I deliberately got off the plane
in London so I could travel under the English Channel to France and then
to Switzerland by train. It was fast, smooth and an enlightening
experience. On our trips to NY, we always prefer to take the "half-fast"
Acela, which gives you a taste, but little more, of what high-speed rail
could be like. Our trip last December to Florida was pleasant, but no
faster than driving there in our own car. The seemingly hundreds of
unprotected crossings, though, required the engineer to toot the horn a
zillion times along the way.

We need to stop blowing our nation's money on military adventurism, cut
the military by half, at least, and spend the money "saved" on
rebuilding our roads, passenger and freight railways, airports,
highways, bridges and tunnels. That kind of spending pays off for
everyone. Paying for soldiering these days is about the same as ****ing
down a bottomless hole.


Why not cut out entitlements at the federal level completely then the
federal government would be flush with cash. And, the federal government
would could concentrate on its constitutional mandate of providing for
the common defense.

You are free to go and live in Europe if you enjoy their train system as
much as you claim to do so. A vast majority of the citizens of the US do
not want "high speed rail." High speed rail is not conducive to our way
of life. We are an automobile loving country because of the freedom to
travel when and where we want to. High speed rail does not help you get
from your house to your grandmothers house.

On 3/5/11 8:21 AM, BAR wrote:


Why not cut out entitlements at the federal level completely then the
federal government would be flush with cash. And, the federal government
would could concentrate on its constitutional mandate of providing for
the common defense.


I'm sorry, but I didn't ask for the opinion of an uneducated moron. Go
play with Snotty and Herring.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/5/11 8:21 AM, BAR wrote:


Why not cut out entitlements at the federal level completely then the
federal government would be flush with cash. And, the federal government
would could concentrate on its constitutional mandate of providing for
the common defense.


I'm sorry, but I didn't ask for the opinion of an uneducated moron. Go
play with Snotty and Herring.

You just don't like hearing the truth or views that are contrary to your
vision of how the world should be.

On 3/5/11 8:58 AM, BAR wrote:
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/5/11 8:21 AM, BAR wrote:


Why not cut out entitlements at the federal level completely then the
federal government would be flush with cash. And, the federal government
would could concentrate on its constitutional mandate of providing for
the common defense.


I'm sorry, but I didn't ask for the opinion of an uneducated moron. Go
play with Snotty and Herring.

You just don't like hearing the truth or views that are contrary to your
vision of how the world should be.



Once again, I didn't ask for the opinion of an uneducated moron.

On 3/5/2011 8:28 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/5/11 8:21 AM, BAR wrote:


Why not cut out entitlements at the federal level completely then the
federal government would be flush with cash. And, the federal government
would could concentrate on its constitutional mandate of providing for
the common defense.


I'm sorry, but I didn't ask for the opinion of an uneducated moron. Go
play with Snotty and Herring.

I must apologize for our friend who exercised his freedom of speech to
offer an opinion that differs from yours. Having said that, feel free to
go **** yourself.

On Mar 4, 1:38*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:10:33 -0500, Harryk
wrote:



On 3/4/11 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:07:37 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
*wrote:

I've been sorta neutral on the subject of the TAmpa to Orlando high
speed train. *Years ago I did vote for the high speed train amendment
to the Fl constitution but only as a way to show how silly it was to
amend the constitution by popular ballot (I also voted on the pregnant
pig amendment that requires prego pigs to be treated nicely). I have
only driven from Orlando to Tampa once and it was no problem so I
never knew why this corridor was chosen but maybe it does have a lot
of traffic.
However, being in Tallahassee, I see a lot of the political crap going
on about Gov Scott vetoing it and looked into the matter.

The feds would pay about half the projected cost and Fl taxpayers the
rest. *Might be a good deal but, turns out the cost estimates were
done by the very companies who will benefit from it so are suspect. *A
look at ALL other high speed rail projects show cost overruns of
1.8-2.2X and us Fl taxpayers would be on the hook for that
amount...........not so good.

How much time would it save? *Wiki has a table showing about 15
minutes at most and that is very optimistic and would probably be less
if they add stops. *By the time you add in parking and waiting for a
cab, you lose time.

Ridership, bizarro optimistic projections done by those who will
benefit from the construction.

Operating costs would be paid by FL and there is only one passenger
train in the entire USA that pays its own costs (NE corridor). *No way
this one will pay its own way and us taxpayers will end paying these
costs.

Now the kicker. *If ridership is low, the feds can decide they want
their 2 billion back from us FL taxpayers. *Huh? *No way. Cancel this
clunker of a deal now.

Generate jobs? *During construction yes. *Long term jobs, no. *Keeping
the money in pvt hands is well known to generate more jobs.

An interesting measure of potential ridership might be the number of
people who take private buses each day from one end to the other.
Such buses are truly convenient because they normally go right to
where people want to go. *I cannot find anybody who has looked into
this as a measurement of possible ridership.

The proponents are saying there will be 3 million riders a year
(roughly the same as the DC/Philidelphia/NYC/Boston train)

I assume they got that by figuring out how much it would take to make
money and working *backward.
It is a ridiculous estimate.There are almost 10 times as many people
living in the Boston/DC megopolis than the I-4 corridor all the way
from St Pete to Daytona. (5 million vs almost 50 million)

I am still not sure who would really be riding this train. People are
not going to fly into Tampa and take the train to Disney World when
the train goes right past ORD where the landing fees are lower.

You are right, the residents here will be on the hook for the cost
over runs and the deficits when it finally gets running ... half full
or less.

I don't know any of the particulars of the proposal you're discussing,
but I sure am an advocate of high speed rail, which we don't really have
anywhere in this country. High speed rail in Europe, though, is damned
nice. When I went to Geneva last year, I deliberately got off the plane
in London so I could travel under the English Channel to France and then
to Switzerland by train. It was fast, smooth and an enlightening
experience. On our trips to NY, we always prefer to take the "half-fast"
Acela, which gives you a taste, but little more, of what high-speed rail
could be like. Our trip last December to Florida was pleasant, but no
faster than driving there in our own car. The seemingly hundreds of
unprotected crossings, though, required the engineer to toot the horn a
zillion times along the way.

We need to stop blowing our nation's money on military adventurism, cut
the military by half, at least, and spend the money "saved" on
rebuilding our roads, passenger and freight railways, airports,
highways, bridges and tunnels. That kind of spending pays off for
everyone. Paying for soldiering these days is about the same as ****ing
down a bottomless hole.

I am not sure how you avoid grade crossings. That is part of the
problem with trains. They require that you have unfettered access to
all of the land from point A to point B. That is why interstate right
of ways are attractive but it still requires building thousands of
bridges to get anywhere. You also have the problem that nobody wants a
high speed train going behind their house.
It is hard to compare most of the US to Europe, simply because of the
population density. They also came up around a railroad model of
transportation and continued that way after WWII whereas the US went
the path of the automobile, probably as much to keep our industrial
base busy as anything.
We also built the interstate system that made commuting in from the
country more likely. It also changed the way people vacation.
I am not sure rail will ever regain the position it had here before
WWII.

If you are going to build high speed rail, built it somewhere where it
has a chance of working, like the NE corridor. Do not build it where
it will almost certainly fail and give all of high speed rail a bad
start in the USA. If you built the first between Orlando and Tampa
and it fails, nobody will ever believe it could work anywhere else.
Maximize your chance of success, not your chance of failure.

On 3/4/11 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:10:33 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/4/11 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:07:37 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

I've been sorta neutral on the subject of the TAmpa to Orlando high
speed train. Years ago I did vote for the high speed train amendment
to the Fl constitution but only as a way to show how silly it was to
amend the constitution by popular ballot (I also voted on the pregnant
pig amendment that requires prego pigs to be treated nicely). I have
only driven from Orlando to Tampa once and it was no problem so I
never knew why this corridor was chosen but maybe it does have a lot
of traffic.
However, being in Tallahassee, I see a lot of the political crap going
on about Gov Scott vetoing it and looked into the matter.

The feds would pay about half the projected cost and Fl taxpayers the
rest. Might be a good deal but, turns out the cost estimates were
done by the very companies who will benefit from it so are suspect. A
look at ALL other high speed rail projects show cost overruns of
1.8-2.2X and us Fl taxpayers would be on the hook for that
amount...........not so good.

How much time would it save? Wiki has a table showing about 15
minutes at most and that is very optimistic and would probably be less
if they add stops. By the time you add in parking and waiting for a
cab, you lose time.

Ridership, bizarro optimistic projections done by those who will
benefit from the construction.

Operating costs would be paid by FL and there is only one passenger
train in the entire USA that pays its own costs (NE corridor). No way
this one will pay its own way and us taxpayers will end paying these
costs.

Now the kicker. If ridership is low, the feds can decide they want
their 2 billion back from us FL taxpayers. Huh? No way. Cancel this
clunker of a deal now.

Generate jobs? During construction yes. Long term jobs, no. Keeping
the money in pvt hands is well known to generate more jobs.

An interesting measure of potential ridership might be the number of
people who take private buses each day from one end to the other.
Such buses are truly convenient because they normally go right to
where people want to go. I cannot find anybody who has looked into
this as a measurement of possible ridership.


The proponents are saying there will be 3 million riders a year
(roughly the same as the DC/Philidelphia/NYC/Boston train)

I assume they got that by figuring out how much it would take to make
money and working backward.
It is a ridiculous estimate.There are almost 10 times as many people
living in the Boston/DC megopolis than the I-4 corridor all the way
from St Pete to Daytona. (5 million vs almost 50 million)

I am still not sure who would really be riding this train. People are
not going to fly into Tampa and take the train to Disney World when
the train goes right past ORD where the landing fees are lower.

You are right, the residents here will be on the hook for the cost
over runs and the deficits when it finally gets running ... half full
or less.

I don't know any of the particulars of the proposal you're discussing,
but I sure am an advocate of high speed rail, which we don't really have
anywhere in this country. High speed rail in Europe, though, is damned
nice. When I went to Geneva last year, I deliberately got off the plane
in London so I could travel under the English Channel to France and then
to Switzerland by train. It was fast, smooth and an enlightening
experience. On our trips to NY, we always prefer to take the "half-fast"
Acela, which gives you a taste, but little more, of what high-speed rail
could be like. Our trip last December to Florida was pleasant, but no
faster than driving there in our own car. The seemingly hundreds of
unprotected crossings, though, required the engineer to toot the horn a
zillion times along the way.

We need to stop blowing our nation's money on military adventurism, cut
the military by half, at least, and spend the money "saved" on
rebuilding our roads, passenger and freight railways, airports,
highways, bridges and tunnels. That kind of spending pays off for
everyone. Paying for soldiering these days is about the same as ****ing
down a bottomless hole.

I am not sure how you avoid grade crossings. That is part of the
problem with trains. They require that you have unfettered access to
all of the land from point A to point B. That is why interstate right
of ways are attractive but it still requires building thousands of
bridges to get anywhere. You also have the problem that nobody wants a
high speed train going behind their house.
It is hard to compare most of the US to Europe, simply because of the
population density. They also came up around a railroad model of
transportation and continued that way after WWII whereas the US went
the path of the automobile, probably as much to keep our industrial
base busy as anything.
We also built the interstate system that made commuting in from the
country more likely. It also changed the way people vacation.
I am not sure rail will ever regain the position it had here before
WWII.



The Amtrak trains to Florida pass through lots of "back yards."

GM was instrumental in "bribing" many cities into giving up their light
rail and trolley routes in favor of GM buses. That's what happened in my
hometown of New Haven. We had a pretty decent trolley system when I was
a small kid, but suddenly it began to be ripped up when the new buses
appeared. This was in the early to mid 1950's. The trollies were at
street level, in the middle of the wider roads. The buses showed up, no
doubt to help keep our industrial base going.

It's not just the demise of railroads I regret. This country literally
is falling apart...roads, bridges, water systems, dams, you name it.
We've spent our national treasure on military stupidity.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...


The Amtrak trains to Florida pass through lots of "back yards."

GM was instrumental in "bribing" many cities into giving up their light
rail and trolley routes in favor of GM buses. That's what happened in my
hometown of New Haven. We had a pretty decent trolley system when I was
a small kid, but suddenly it began to be ripped up when the new buses
appeared. This was in the early to mid 1950's. The trollies were at
street level, in the middle of the wider roads. The buses showed up, no
doubt to help keep our industrial base going.

The trolley runs on tracks. As the city changes the cost of extending
trolley lines and building new trolley lines becomes cost prohibitive.
With a bus you can change the route by telling the drive to take a turn
here and take a turn there. No construction, no laying of track, no
overhead electrical needed. The buses are much more beneficial as a
business tool.

It's not just the demise of railroads I regret. This country literally
is falling apart...roads, bridges, water systems, dams, you name it.
We've spent our national treasure on military stupidity.

We are keeping our treasure buried under the ocean and beneath our land.
We have squandered most of our collected taxes on feel good programs
that have failed or are failing miserable.