Metro Jacksonville

QuoteWisconsin and Ohio weren’t the only two states who elected right-wing extremists as governor on November 2. Florida elected Rick Scott, whose stance on high speed rail is hard to pin down. In recent days, however, Scott has been more vocal in his criticisms of the project, leading the Orlando Sentinel to attack Scott in a devastating editorial. After speculating about Scott’s motives in possibly opposing HSR â€" a desire to make President Barack Obama look bad, a desire to please his right-wing base which ideologically opposes trains â€" they point out that Florida is basically getting bullet trains for free.

Florida’s $2.6 billion high-speed project would be paid for almost entirely by the feds. Washington has agreed to send Florida all but $280 million of its cost. And some companies vying to run the trains indicate they’d cover the state’s share. They’re willing to do that because they believe running the Orlando-Tampa route would give them a leg up on operating a second high-speed rail line from Orlando to Miami â€" and other fast trains outside Florida.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he feared his state would have to pay for costly rail-project overruns. But meetings last month between Florida transportation officials and companies wanting to operate the trains reportedly revealed the companies’ willingness to cover any construction overages.

Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker said his state would have had to pay too much to operate and maintain its rail line. But the company that runs high-speed trains in Florida would have to operate and maintain them for 30 years. The state, Florida DOT’s Kevin Thibault told us, wouldn’t have to pick up the cost.

So this is pretty ridiculous of Scott to even consider turning this down. But because he and his party are opposed to a 21st century economy and 21st century technology, he may turn down over $2 billion in federal funding. Some of that money could find its way here to California, as did the money Wisconsin and Ohio gave up. But the FRA and the USDOT would have to act quickly â€" if the money is awarded by the end of this year, it makes it harder for Republicans in the House to undo that funding in 2011.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood should demand that Scott tell him yes or no in the next few days. If he says no, then move the money to the states that want it â€" including us here in California.

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/12/florida-to-follow-wisconsin-and-ohio-in-abandoning-hsr-funds/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=florida-to-follow-wisconsin-and-ohio-in-abandoning-hsr-funds

Metrojacksonville still claims rail infrastructure is not a partisan issue.

Well Republicans who are Anti-Rail DO make it a partisan issue!!!

Pro-Rail folks would do well to quit casting votes for Republicans!!

and as I've pointed out before, Ray LaHood is a Republican....so not all of them are anti-rail

STEPHENDARE, Thanks for setting the record straight and explaining our stand at MJ.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me in basic railroad economics what makes them think this thing would work ie:"make money?" Orlando - Tampa on the route they plan and the way they have projected schedules fails to beat a 63 VW bug for a businessman from Winter Park, Winter Garden, Winter Haven, Oviedo, Lake Mary, Maitland, Casselberry...etc headed over to downtown Tampa.

It's almost an over an hour longer in trip time by the time one gets to the God forsaken Orlando Airport, parks, and waits for the train...

It's many dollars more when one calculates the $30 one-way fare x 2.

It's even more $ if one needs to rent a car in Tampa.

So someone please EXPLAIN why this is the intelligent way to get into the HSR game?  Just please don't tell me "because it will make money," or "because the rail manufacturing industry will move to Florida," or "Because Julia Robert's says it will be great."

There is a hint in the article posted by Faye that suggests the corporations in the race understand Orlando-Tampa will fail. "They’re willing to do that because they believe running the Orlando-Tampa route would give them a leg up on operating a second high-speed rail line from Orlando to Miami â€" and other fast trains outside Florida."

So they UNDERSTAND that the only money that is going to be made is on the longer stage lengths of Miami-Jacksonville, and on out of state...   And if that is the case, Florida is starting off on the wrong leg of a horse that will go lame as soon as a hostile administration takes charge... Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Independent, Anarchist, Nazi, whatever!

So why are we racing off to a dance with a ball and chain around our feet, and believe me the I-4, Orlando-Tampa HSR is going to be the ball and chain.

OCKLAWAHA
Railroad Consultant-Planner-Historian

YEAH WELL, Hugo Chavez, is a Communist, and he LOVES rail... but he's still crazy as hell.

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is looking to promote rail initiatives among Chinese investors, an official from state-controlled rail company Instituto de Ferrocarriles del Estado (IFE) told BNamericas."

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TQwmQ-O8gUI/AAAAAAAADSg/Qxxbtb5g-_o/s800/NaziSUPERtrain.jpg)
NAZI RENDERING

...and Dorpmuller was the Nazi Minister of Railways, and while he operated trains to the death camps, he also proposed some of the most fantastic railroad projects of all time... GIANT HSR TRAINS, the size of small cruise ships!

But I still wouldn't vote for either of them.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 17, 2010, 09:53:55 PM

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me in basic railroad economics what makes them think this thing would work ie:"make money?" Orlando - Tampa on the route they plan and the way they have projected schedules fails to beat a 63 VW bug for a businessman from Winter Park, Winter Garden, Winter Haven, Oviedo, Lake Mary, Maitland, Casselberry...etc headed over to downtown Tampa.


OCKLAWAHA
Railroad Consultant-Planner-Historian

It's the irony of the HSR big sell. Promise stops to everyone to get it approved, then remove the stops after in the name of efficiency.

Illinois HSR is going through the same hassle but at least they were honest about it up front. Chicago to St Louis will have 3 stops between and no more. Joliet, Bloomington and Alton.  As you can imagine the state reps in the cities in between (especially Pontiac) are livid at the idea of a state subsidy when it makes no stops in their district. Sounds similar to the Amtrak problem.

And democrats cant be bothered to vote...

exactly...i put shame on democrates for not getting out and doing what we are supposed to do. Then main problem with democrates is they are too nice and try not to make too much noise...polite....the squeeky wheel gets the oil i guess..

Issues such as Amtrak are not so divided on party lines that one should not vote for a Republican if he or she believes that person would offer support. There ARE some Republicans out there that do support rail, and light-rail, and HSR, and infrastructure etc... Stephen nixes silly posts that seem to have no other motive but negative speech. Even those Republican or Tea Party members that currently don't support rail might be won over with logical arguments that explain in detail the benefits. So even a party that traditionally has seen all Amtrak investment as socialism, and all highway investment as capitalism, has their rebels. Rebels I will continue to cheer and support.


OCKLAWAHA

QuoteSponsored by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, the bill passed yesterday would authorize about $10 billion to the railroad over six years and would also set up a $1.4 billion fund for matching grants to states that want to sponsor passenger trains. Several Amtrak trains, including the Maine-sponsored Downeaster route between Boston and Portland, are supported by individual states.

If President Bush signs it into law, the Lautenberg-Lott bill would represent a drastic change of Amtrak's fortunes

(http://#039;s%20George%20W.%20Bush%20administration%20and%20various%20prominent%20Republicans%20in%20the%20US%20Congress,%20such%20as%20Arizona%20Senator%20John%20McCain,%20a%20number%20of%20key%20Republican%20leaders%20acknowledge%20the%20value%20and%20potential%20of%20Amtrak%20%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%22%20the%20national%20rail%20passenger%20system%20%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%22%20as%20a%20critical%20link%20in%20America's%20mobility%20system.%20Certainly,%20Texas%20Republican%20Senator%20Kay%20Bailey%20Hutchison%20is%20at%20the%20forefront%20of%20this%20leadership.)

Quote
In contrast to the destructive efforts of the US Government's George W. Bush administration and various prominent Republicans in the US Congress, such as Arizona Senator John McCain, a number of key Republican leaders acknowledge the value and potential of Amtrak â€" the national rail passenger system â€" as a critical link in America's mobility system. Certainly, Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is at the forefront of this leadership.

Quote from: Garden guy on December 18, 2010, 08:32:47 AM
Again republicans prove thier unevolved ways...the world has proven that trains are better yet they still scream no no no...when are to evolved humans to tell the to shut their mouth and go home and sleep or what ever they do....with the republicans in this state...they keep us at least 50 years behind all other states...thanks guys...

did you notice that Ray LaHood (the man who is pushing HSR as Secretary of USDOT) is a Republican...what do you have to say about that?

QuoteIssues such as Amtrak are not so divided on party lines that one should not vote for a Republican if he or she believes that person would offer support. There ARE some Republicans out there that do support rail, and light-rail, and HSR, and infrastructure etc... Stephen nixes silly posts that seem to have no other motive but negative speech. Even those Republican or Tea Party members that currently don't support rail might be won over with logical arguments that explain in detail the benefits. So even a party that traditionally has seen all Amtrak investment as socialism, and all highway investment as capitalism, has their rebels. Rebels I will continue to cheer and support.

Great post Ock!  Apparently I am both a rebel AND a cult member... :D Who knew? :D  A less partisan read of Fayes article reveals that republicans are not ideologically opposed to rail... they are fiscally opposed.  Us cultists and rebels need to convince them to move towards rail... NOT ostracize and mock.  Fayes method is counterproductive and only makes her feel better about herself.

 :D Good morning Stephen!  We agree with each other more than we both think... :)

Ock,

I suppose that I am the suburban Republican of the group here.  From my perspective, I would like to see a rail electric trolley from the stadium, down Bay, Water, to Riverside.  It would be FUN.  I would like to see high speed rail to Miami AND to Atlanta and NO.  It would make the 6 to 9 hour drive less attractive for a visit to south Fl or points North and West.  I recently tried to take a rail vacation and found that I had to travel WAY out West or North to do so.  IMO, for the majority of Floridians, rail..whether trolleys, high speed, or trans continental, must be FUN and enjoyable.  It must not be much more expensive than driving.  I am not opposed to paying for such infrastructure, but I AM opposed to establishing lines that go from nowhere to nowhere.  Our airport, convention center, sports complex, and other important locations are not connected by what we have now.  Buses are not FUN and I won't be riding them anytime soon. 

Now, where am I wrong?

I don't see any "wrong," in any of your statements, and I agree within the limitations of practical application that we need to offer service or better service throughout the city, state and Dixie in general. For example I will NOT support a "flying train" from an inaccessible airport, to an amusement park to a parking garage if it was completely free and they sent every Floridian a free turkey. It isn't practical... DRIVE or pick up the phone 1-800-USA-RAIL, because right now we have a single train a day each way on a fairly close route and its not full. If people want to ride a train, they generally don't go to an airport - its going to be a tough sell to prove THAT demand and counting cars on I-4 isn't it.  Like Wal-Mart, you don't prove demand for a store in Lulu, Florida, until you at least see a yellow flashing light installed and a Gate Station in "downtown." This should NOT be another Yankeefied "Damn the torpedoes - Full speed ahead," sort of endeavor.

As for JTA, I've said several times they have a couple of rising star planners that are EXCELLENT. I'm sure they feel it's personal when I unload on the agency, but its not. As a transit operator they have proved only that they can shrink a bus system and build a riderless train.

LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE? Oh yes we could, think BEACHES-ARLINGTON-DOWNTOWN-CEDAR HILLS-ORANGE PARK.

Radiating from that core, at JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL would be a network of commuter trains, streetcars and buses, and a rider filled Skyway.

Yeah, think we agree.


OCKLAWAHA

So the problem isn't us cheap, suburban Republicans, but instead proper vision,planning and execution?

Cool.  I'm with ya'll on this issue then.

Actually, since the local agency was brought up, one of my pet peeves is that JTA - JACKSONVILLE IN GENERAL builds then maintains roads that look more like a back lot for "Sanford and Son," then they do Worth Avenue or Rodeo Drive.  This is one area where Jacksonville could LEARN from WORLD GOLF VILLAGE, NOCATEE, PALENCIA, SAWGRASS etc. We are being passed by even in the livability of our highways (if there is such a thing) and it can cost us dearly.

A few years ago a major corporation narrowed down their expansion needs to Oklahoma City and a few others... OKC put out the red carpet all week, it was HUGE. What no one expected was the announcement after the weekend. The company CEO had simply driven all around the city in his rental car on Sunday, he said on Monday, "We will NOT be moving to a city that hasn't enough pride to pick up the litter...no to OKC!" This has Jacksonville written all over it. How many thousands of Donald Trumps have blown through our town on the interstate and wanted to vomit?

OCKLAWAHA

Said it before.....a plan,a vision and the means to fund it! JTA may very well have people with vision and the expertise to do the job right, but the powers that be are just like the Republicans.....the Party of No! What the heck ever happened to the good for all? Maybe the next mayor can do better than the zero we have leading the way today............I sure hope so!

I like to think that NO is the right answer when money is being spent irresponsibly.  I won't bore you with a list of incredibly wastful spending of taxpayer money by the city, state, and Federal governments, we all know it.  Responsible spending, along with the lawful authority to spend, are what most of us are looking for.

Might be just me, but some "Ethics", in black and white set in stone would go a long way to bringing things under control? When someone like Corriene continues on and the voters do not take heed, not much anyone can do! Term limits might help also, tranparency with all government agencies...........not to mention people voted into office that actually represent the people who put them into office........but thats just me!

hey ock

if the state drop occ station and move it to  linix station  then you  connection with sunrail,linix bus and amtrak

the folks in Orlando are working really hard finding a way to directly connect HSR, SunRail, and Lynx

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 18, 2010, 04:57:25 PM
hey ock

if the state drop occ station and move it to  linix station  then you  connection with sunrail,linix bus and amtrak

If they did it would be better for the whole project, though it will still fail as far as "making money." You also need to give up the parking garage in Tampa and run into Union Station, since the new BRT will connect it with downtown Tampa. Doing so would allow HSR to feed and feed off of AMTRAK, and any Commuter Rail networks at the end points without having to build more miles of expensive HSR track.

TU, they aren't trying hard enough! It's called CSX! USE IT to access BOTH end point terminals. CHURCH STREET STATION/LYNX IN ORLANDO and TAMPA UNION STATION in Tampa.

OCKLAWAHA

but if  they did pick  tampa union,  station  has limited parking and limited land around the station.

the only benfits for that area is the people that will be living at  encore tampa down the street

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 18, 2010, 09:14:21 PM
the only benfits for that area is the people that will be living at  encore tampa down the street

It is also the only station on the direct BRT route into downtown (planned), and direct bus connections to the so-called "Transit Hub", which is actually a parking garage with buses. Bottom line it will have similar bus connections with little effort, and out where the express area once was is a perfect opportunity for intercity - bus service. The Light Rail will have some tracks as well as Commuter Trains will go in as well, mixing with Amtrak at the platforms.

What a station it would be when a passenger could walk 20' feet and go from AMTRAK to LRT to BUS to HSR to BRT to COMMUTER RAIL to streetcar, all that's missing is the garage.  The station is plenty big enough and so is the track area, which considering the length looks like it is larger then the station they plan to use.


OCKLAWAHA

Hi all... I've recently discovered this forum, and as a "transportation-geek", I have absolutely loved the various threads I've read through. Anyway, I'm ready to chime in on the HSR topic, although its somewhat intimidating seeing some of you have thousands of posts  :)

So, here goes... the current proposal for HSR in Florida basically runs the I-4 corridor from McCoy airport to a transporation hub in downtown Tampa. As I understand the argument against this route is that McCoy, being several miles from the population center in Orlando, is not going to be convenient enough for Orlando to Tampa commuters to save any time or money over their normal automobile treks between the two cities.

My issue with this scenario is that the new HSR link isn't meant for Orlando to Tampa commuters. I mean, how many commuters really make this trek? I wish I had the data on this, maybe there really is a lot of commuters doing this, but bear with me. It seems to me this rail link is more for the folks flying into MCO and needing a fast rail link into the Disney area and Polk county areas. Likewise on the Tampa end the HSR link seems like an obvious transportation alternative for those commuting into downtown Tampa from Polk county and western Hillsborough county.   

The questions of whether such a rail link is efficient or economical are real. But given that an HSR link between McCoy and Disney is likely to be popular, assuming the cost isn't too high, there is some hope that the new HSR link will be a success. The other thing to consider here is that you have to start somewhere, and the MaCoy to Tampa link seems like the most obvious place in Florida to start. The solution for central Orlando commuters is commuter rail from northern communities to the transportation hub in McCoy, which I believe is currently in the works.

On the other hand, I agree with those of you that think the money could be better spent on local transportation projects, like light-rail commuter options in the JAX area. Hope we have good luck with that.

...jim

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 18, 2010, 09:26:29 PM

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 18, 2010, 09:14:21 PM
the only benfits for that area is the people that will be living at  encore tampa down the street

It is also the only station on the direct BRT route into downtown (planned), and direct bus connections to the so-called "Transit Hub", which is actually a parking garage with buses. Bottom line it will have similar bus connections with little effort, and out where the express area once was is a perfect opportunity for intercity - bus service.

sorry...but I don't think one can say bus aceess at Tampa Union Station (with a few bus lines) is similar to that of the planned HSR staion (next to HART's main bus terminal).   

Quote from: middleman on December 18, 2010, 10:42:56 PM
Hi all... I've recently discovered this forum...
...I'm ready to chime in on the HSR topic, although its somewhat intimidating seeing some of you have thousands of posts  :)

WELCOME ABOARD, please don't feel intimidated, some of us were born with a gift of sarcasm - others had to go to school for it.

Quote
As I understand the argument against this route is that McCoy, being several miles from the population center in Orlando, is not going to be convenient enough for Orlando to Tampa commuters to save any time or money over their normal automobile treks between the two cities.

BINGO! Have the conductor give this man a cigar! ...It's for Disney and nothing else, and why am I being asked to pay for it?

Quote...the new HSR link isn't meant for Orlando to Tampa commuters. I mean, how many commuters really make this trek? I wish I had the data on this, maybe there really is a lot of commuters doing this, but bear with me. It seems to me this rail link is more for the folks flying into MCO and needing a fast rail link into the Disney

He's on a roll boys and girls!

QuoteLikewise on the Tampa end the HSR link seems like an obvious transportation alternative for those commuting into downtown Tampa from Polk county and western Hillsborough county. 

Agreed! IF it actually went through the communities of Haines City(9), Lake Alfred(7), Auburndale(9), Fussels Corner(7), Crystal Lake(6), Combee(5), Lakeland (3), Plant City (1) and Dover (3).  But it doesn't and those little numbers are the shortest distance to the HSR line (not neccessarly the stations, if there is one). Remember your on a train, not in a car, so when the platform is vacant THAT'S HOW FAR YOUR GOING TO WALK, ride a bus, or take a taxi. Walking and/or a bus ride will negate any speed advantage of HSR and a taxi will kill the fare advantage.

QuoteThe questions of whether such a rail link is efficient or economical are real. But given that an HSR link between McCoy and Disney is likely to be popular, assuming the cost isn't too high, there is some hope that the new HSR link will be a success.

The cost is in the BILLIONS, and THEY are framing success as "PROFIT," which is going to quickly change to some arbitrary passenger load to save face. We ALL know that it won't make money, and we shouldn't expect it to, but the BIG LIE is one of the reasons this project could bring down the whole HSR house.

QuoteThe other thing to consider here is that you have to start somewhere, and the MaCoy to Tampa link seems like the most obvious place in Florida to start.

EXACTLY, just don't start off wrong and with statements that are patently false. The minions that buy into the "it for Florida residents", "salvation from I-4 traffic," "kills sprawl," "will be profitable," or even "faster then I-4," are going to either be greatly disappointed or looking for someones head. We have a regular poster here that is totally deluded by the false claims.

Also, not many businessmen or residents go to the Orlando Airport if they want to catch a train within Florida, proving again that it's NOT going to benefit residents even a little.

QuoteThe solution for central Orlando commuters is commuter rail from northern communities to the transportation hub in McCoy, which I believe is currently in the works.

Making OIA into a multimodal "hub" works great for flights arriving from "Anaheim, Azusa and Cucamonga," but as a surface transportation hub for Central Florida residents it makes about as much sense as Jacksonville building it's new JRTC in Hilliard.

Quote...I agree with those of you that think the money could be better spent on local transportation projects, like light-rail commuter options in the JAX area. Hope we have good luck with that.

...jim

As I said, Welcome Aboard my friend! Hopefully we get to talk some sense into Governor Scott before these shovel ready boys run us off a cliff in an orgasm of "free money" spending. You are right a Florida version of the RAIL CALIFORNIA program would not only serve many more people, it would be cheaper and show us where people want to ride. The RAIL FLORIDA system could go with a new technology like Talgo and work with CSX-FEC-NS to greatly increase capacity and track speeds... and we could do it all for less then half the amount we are about to blow on Mickey's Toontown, Fantasyland Railroad.

Hey Jim, THAT WAS FUN!

OCKLAWAHA

hey ock

see this why tampa high speed station is better than tampa union station. main bus station is across the street and csx will not allow light rail on their  property between ybor city and union station becauce it has be  50 ft from the main line or 25 ft with a  barrier wall so csx no lease or buy it look like hart is look at palm ave  to go through city

Quote from: tufsu1 on December 19, 2010, 09:08:57 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 18, 2010, 09:26:29 PM

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 18, 2010, 09:14:21 PM
the only benfits for that area is the people that will be living at  encore tampa down the street

It is also the only station on the direct BRT route into downtown (planned), and direct bus connections to the so-called "Transit Hub", which is actually a parking garage with buses. Bottom line it will have similar bus connections with little effort, and out where the express area once was is a perfect opportunity for intercity - bus service.

sorry...but I don't think one can say bus aceess at Tampa Union Station (with a few bus lines) is similar to that of the planned HSR staion (next to HART's main bus terminal).   

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TQ57xeE8_VI/AAAAAAAADSw/wx_2TkXyPIk/s800/Amtrak_at_Tampa_Union_Station_Platform.jpg)
Missing UNION STATION TAMPA? "Big mistake, big mistake, HUGE!"

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TQ5-Eqyjh4I/AAAAAAAADS8/4jP4VZdV3Ek/s800/BRT%20TAMPA.jpg)
Look where the every-10-minute-bus is going... UNION STATION

Why not TU? Buses are F L E X I B L E remember?

Marion Center accommodates 14 buses at peak load in the turnouts, and roughly 4 blocks (counting the 4 sides of the city block it sits on) in length or about 1,200 front feet. Union station has 570' frontage on Nebraska Avenue, 1,780' along the Cross-Town Expressway with parking underneath. Not to mention another 2,300' of frontage on Nick Nuccio Parkway. Oh and the BRT to downtown? Right through Union Station area into downtown then backtracks to Marion Center.

Why reinvent the wheel?

OCKLAWAHA

tampa union station is only good if coming from north  or east, Marion transit Center is more center location because you have  better connection from n,s,e,w  and i dout hart will move the station i do like brt ns line it will benfit me

i really hoping hart can some type of  train that can  csx track to high speed station because a some people do not like a bus

i predit  tu will be use for  communter, intercity rail,   high speed raill be use for  light raill.bullet train i just hope  the 2 stations are connected by some type of train

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 19, 2010, 04:35:46 PM
hey ock

see this why tampa high speed station is better than tampa union station. main bus station is across the street and csx will not allow light rail on their  property between ybor city and union station becauce it has be  50 ft from the main line or 25 ft with a  barrier wall so csx no lease or buy it look like hart is look at palm ave  to go through city

Don't believe everything you hear, especially from the Florida HSR project!

OCKLAWAHA

but what about  csx safety spacing 25-50 ft  rule

light rail must stop at union station

maybee we can use diesel-electric train

i am realy hoping  series 8 train from talgo comes florida if we did use union station but prey if it does.

i hope just rick scott says this the train is too much and we downsise  so get use csx track   tu,lakeland,kissimmee,orlando

they state did a sudy  2009  on  8 round trip a day one csx track  time 1.30  why can;t state do that.  can the state use funds for that instead

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 19, 2010, 05:27:22 PM
but what about  csx safety spacing 25-50 ft  rule

Railroads are a business, and when the business see's that having LIGHT RAIL right alongside their tracks will: Expand capacity, Eliminate Crossings, and Improve Signaling, they will come around.

Keep in mind that if HART actually does create a COMMUTER RAIL line or two, the final mile into TAMPA UNION STATION might be side by side with LRT and BRT. COMMUTER RAIL might also mean that Florida and Tampa will own the 60 miles or so of trackage that the COMMUTES operate over.

Quotelight rail must stop at union station

Most of the plans HART has published show LIGHT RAIL and BRT into UNION STATION. Though unlike JTA (which actually has done a MUCH better job of fixing their plans) HART has literally been all over the map with their mass transit proposals and at least a few of their ideas make the JTA BRT plan look wonderful!

Quotemaybee we can use diesel-electric train

Certainly is a possibility is we finally abandon the I-4 HSR nonsense, though my crystal ball would forecast a Talgo style tilting train, with turbine power.  The advantage of turbines in passenger rail is that they run at a constant very high speed (which is why they sound like jets - which are close relatives) which produces enormous power allowing for large motors. These new locomotives as fast in acceleration and deceleration using regenerative braking - imagine for the sake of this post something like 4,000 HP producing 2,900 KW constant.

Quote
i am realy hoping  series 8 train from talgo comes florida if we did use union station but prey if it does.

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TQ7YY0yDnJI/AAAAAAAADTU/96yi2ka9HRQ/s800/HSR_TALGOseries8-img1Large.jpg)

If it passes the FRA requirements it would be a good choice. Those that don't know what it is check out the photo.

Quotei hope just rick scott says this the train is too much and we downsise  so get use csx track   tu,lakeland,kissimmee,orlando

Seems a lot more logical, spending much less and getting many more trains and train routes would be the result. At the very least pull in the HSR plans to something like railroad practice, downtown to downtown, use CSX or FEC to get in and out.

Yes, at 79 MPH Orlando-Tampa, and 110 MPH, Auburndale-Miami.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Garden guy on December 18, 2010, 08:32:47 AM
Again republicans prove thier unevolved ways...the world has proven that trains are better yet they still scream no no no...when are to evolved humans to tell the to shut their mouth and go home and sleep or what ever they do....with the republicans in this state...they keep us at least 50 years behind all other states...thanks guys...

Careful, they will quote you a few forward looking Republicans..........maybe a handful of them, and then claim we have to plead and convince the other regressives to come on board too.

Better to start off with enlightened people to begin with.

It hasn't worked to get any regressives to come around. That's why Scott is waivering: he knows the state NEEDS jobs, but he's afraid of the wrath of the Tea Party!!

QuoteBetter to start off with enlightened people to begin with.

Is that you and garden guy?  Or the ones who cannot be bothered to vote?

Am in a state of twilight zone having just returned from over a week in France remembering the future.

Paris Metro,high speed rail.Also some miles via Auto to the Atlantic coast.
Outside of Paris did not see one traffic light-all roudabout.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 21, 2010, 02:31:22 PM

QuoteBetter to start off with enlightened people to begin with.

Is that you and garden guy?  Or the ones who cannot be bothered to vote?

Hey Bridge, you know I am in full agreement with you on "the ones that cannot be bothered to vote," but the more direct cause of regressive policies is the fanaticism of the regressives to hold back progress. And they do so in droves, showing up to vote for their fanatically regressive policies.

Dems are giver-uppers when it comes to fighting for their progressive policies.

Every person who went out to vote for a regressive who now is stopping HSR in America is to blame. Hmmm here is looking at you all!!!

CA keeps showing us the enlightened way:

QuoteDecember 21, 2010
Calif. OKs New Funding to Extend High-Speed Rail Project's First Leg SouthwardBy COLIN SULLIVAN of Greenwire
California officials yesterday voted to match $616 million in federal funds for high-speed rail that became available recently when Ohio and Wisconsin backed out of the race to build what would be the first U.S. bullet-train project.

The vote brings the total money available for construction of a first leg in California to $5.5 billion, as part of a larger project that would one day link San Francisco and Los Angeles. This means the initial segment of track will now extend southward from Fresno to Bakersfield, connecting the two largest cities in the farm-rich Central Valley.

The agency with jurisdiction over the Golden State's nascent project -- the California High-Speed Rail Authority -- decided to match the new federal infusion with state dollars with authority granted it under a bond passed by California voters in 2008.

"Ohio's loss is our gain," said Tom Umberg, vice chairman of the authority's board of directors. "When other states shrunk from the challenge of high-speed rail, California's firm commitment to this project paid off."

California and Florida were big winners recently when the Obama administration redistributed more than $1 billion in high-speed rail grants abandoned by incoming governors in Wisconsin and Ohio (E&ENews PM, Dec. 9). The money went to 14 states in all, with California netting the most.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/12/21/21greenwire-calif-oks-new-funding-to-extend-high-speed-rai-53674.html

Lets hope Florida follows suit, and boldly face down the wrath of Tea Partiers!!

Go HSR for Florida!!!!

Go 23,000 jobs for Florida!!!

We will soon find out if electing a Republican Governor in Florida is disasterous for Rail as it was in Wisconsin and Ohio!!

Next time, think twice before casting your vote for a REGRESSIVE!!!!

QuoteHey Bridge, you know I am in full agreement with you on "the ones that cannot be bothered to vote," but the more direct cause of regressive policies is the fanaticism of the regressives to hold back progress. And they do so in droves, showing up to vote for their fanatically regressive policies.

Sorry Faye... that is just too easy and convenient.  The REAL direct causes are failure to make the case that rail is worthy... supporting poor rail choices and last but most importantly... the abject failure of those who do support rail to show up at the polls.  Spend some more time convincing rather than condemning and you may see some progress.  Merry Christmas!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 22, 2010, 09:48:41 AM

QuoteHey Bridge, you know I am in full agreement with you on "the ones that cannot be bothered to vote," but the more direct cause of regressive policies is the fanaticism of the regressives to hold back progress. And they do so in droves, showing up to vote for their fanatically regressive policies.

Sorry Faye... that is just too easy and convenient.  The REAL direct causes are failure to make the case that rail is worthy... supporting poor rail choices and last but most importantly... the abject failure of those who do support rail to show up at the polls.  Spend some more time convincing rather than condemning and you may see some progress.  Merry Christmas!

You saw the title of the thread: Regressives are ideologically opposed to rail.
No amount of convincing is going to change that.

That's why Jax will always lag behind other cities on energy efficient mass transit.

There is a simple cause and effect to all this, and yes, it is partisan.

Merry Christmas, and good luck convincing your Regressive brethren on the need for street cars in Jax!!

QuoteRegressives are ideologically opposed to rail.

Again with the name calling... and not sure who you are painting with that very broad brush but most who are opposed to specific rail projects are opposed for a variety of reasons... usually fiscal in nature.  No one I have spoken with is "ideologically" opposed to rail. 

QuoteNo amount of convincing is going to change that.

Then you have lost before ever starting.

I guess Faye's thread title isn't that off-base....

of course Anti-Rail Republicans (a portion of the party as a whole) are ideologically opposed to trains   :)

Quote from: FayeforCure on December 22, 2010, 09:26:54 AM
Every person who went out to vote for a regressive who now is stopping HSR in America is to blame. Hmmm here is looking at you all!!!

CA keeps showing us the enlightened way:

Lets hope Florida follows suit, and boldly face down the wrath of Tea Partiers!!

Go HSR for Florida!!!!

Go 23,000 jobs for Florida!!!

Funny, was that you Faye, looking over my shoulder at the voting booth? Damn! You obviously missed who I voted for... but I'll give you a hint... SHE HAD HAIR!  Your carte blanche condemnation of our readers and staff based on what "you think" we believe seems a little harsh.

...And I'll agree with you... CALIFORNIA IS SHOWING THE WAY! As usual, and its NOT THE WAY FLORIDA IS PLANNING IT!

It's not just about HIGH SPEED RAIL job creation, it is also about job retention, expansion and ridership. Most of the California HSR mainline follows right alongside the long established rail corridors, possibly even using some of the historic stations. It runs from City Center to City Center to City Center... and it can do that because it is alongside those rails. I'm even shocked that they have opted for Tehachapi Pass and the Bakersfield-Mojave-Palmdale-San Fernando-LA railroad route, clearly many miles longer then the I-5 "Grapevine." You can create 50,000 jobs to build a high speed rail line from an airport (an airport that COMPLETELY MISSES the metro mass) to an amusement park (even Disney) to a parking garage with city buses (even if it's in a metro) and fall flat on your face when nobody shows up to ride.  We'll never get to phase two without a very successful phase one...witness the SKYWAY. FAILURE! All you accomplish then is to justify every Tea Party quack in the Country to get their far right allies to kill any remaining rail projects.

I'm FOR high speed rail in Florida, in fact apparently more of it then even you are... as what I'm saying is realign it, and spread it from Pensacola-to-Miami, and that includes not one but 5 routes to Tampa. I'm just not for a starter line that I am almost certain will fail.


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: tufsu1 on December 22, 2010, 11:22:08 AM
I guess Faye's thread title isn't that off-base....

of course Anti-Rail Republicans (a portion of the party as a whole) are ideologically opposed to trains   :)

Thanks tufsu... I suppose it could have been meant that way.  Given Fayes history... I think not!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 22, 2010, 10:38:26 AM

QuoteRegressives are ideologically opposed to rail.

Again with the name calling... and not sure who you are painting with that very broad brush but most who are opposed to specific rail projects are opposed for a variety of reasons... usually fiscal in nature.  No one I have spoken with is "ideologically" opposed to rail.  

QuoteNo amount of convincing is going to change that.

Then you have lost before ever starting.

Ummmmm, yeah the truth hurts. Here is another writer who confirms the ideological opposition to trains that regressives hold:

QuoteA windfall for California

The state benefits after Wisconsin and Ohio forgo billions of dollars in federal stimulus funds.
EditorialDecember 11, 2010

Outraged by excessive stimulus spending? Worried that construction of new infrastructure in your state will create operating costs lasting well into the future? If you're a Republican governor with such troubles on your mind, we have the solution: Send the federal money to California. The Golden State is more than willing to relieve you of the burden of all that free cash.

Remarkably, the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio seem to have taken us up on an offer so disadvantageous that the most shameless infomercial producer would hesitate to promote it. After being awarded a combined $1.2 billion in stimulus money to build rail projects â€" $810 million for a train from Milwaukee to Madison in Wisconsin and $385 million for a rail line linking Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland in Ohio â€" the governors turned it down. Instead, it will be distributed to train projects in 13 other states, with California being the biggest single beneficiary.


Why would they do such a thing? Because it would cost taxpayer money to operate the rail lines after they're built. Scott Walker, Republican governor-elect of Wisconsin, fretted that his state's train would cost $7.5 million a year to operate. As train supporters pointed out to the New York Times, this is sort of like turning down a free car because you don't want to have to pay for gasoline and insurance. Not only did Walker and Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich, also a Republican, ignore the construction jobs the projects would have created, but they ignored the positive impact on their states' economies, freeways and environment that the trains would have brought to future generations.

But that's perfectly OK with us, because California can use the money. Our state's future high-speed rail line from San Diego to San Francisco and Sacramento is already hitting snags, and we expect many more before the system is complete. The $624 million from Wisconsin and Ohio, combined with the $3 billion in federal funds the state has already received, will help smooth the way. Thanks a billion, cheeseheads.

AND may more come courtesy of Republican Floridians !!!

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/11/opinion/la-ed-trains-20101211

Quote from: tufsu1 on December 22, 2010, 11:22:08 AM
I guess Faye's thread title isn't that off-base....

of course Anti-Rail Republicans (a portion of the party as a whole) are ideologically opposed to trains   :)

tufsu1, what is a portion of the Republican Party? The Party of NO has been pretty uniformly opposed to trains!!!

So you must mean the vast majority of Republicans (rather than a portion), as in plus or minus 98% of Republicans (in particular their leaders) who actively oppose trains.

well Faye....as noted many times, the Secretary of USDoT is a Republican...as is the current governor of California....and Crist was a Republican when he first stated his support of high speed rail in FL

bolttom line...blanket statements are useless....I can find you some Republicans (like those noted above) that a pro-rail, and can also find a good number of Dems who oppose it.

hey we go again people tampa are mad because no high speed rail at airport and orlando people are mad no high speed rail station at downtown, and i do not think tampa will get light rail but commuter rail. that go's  on csx tracks  to brooksville and  clearwater, st. pete

Quote from: tufsu1 on December 26, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
well Faye....as noted many times, the Secretary of USDoT is a Republican...as is the current governor of California....and Crist was a Republican when he first stated his support of high speed rail in FL

bolttom line...blanket statements are useless....I can find you some Republicans (like those noted above) that a pro-rail, and can also find a good number of Dems who oppose it.

Thank you for yet again confirming the typical defensive response:

quote a handful of pro-rail Republicans...........in this case just 2 since Crist is an Independent now reviled by Republicans, while ignoring the hundreds or thousands of Republicans who tow the Party line on "wasteful spending" on rail infrastructure, and the majority of Republicans who are outright train haters.

Blanket statements are good to describe the rule rather than the exception.

It also clarifies where the true support for Rail lies.

Something to be well aware of next time you're at the ballot box.

Thank you Ock for making the Pro-rail choice at the ballot box!!!!

 :D ::)

Quotethe majority of Republicans who are outright train haters.

Good god faye... really?!  Is it because of the noise?  Perhaps they had nightmares as children?  Is Snidely Whiplash a train hating republican?  Do you picture yourself as Dudley do right?  ::) :D

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fgNunUORMWA/TOrsn2OS9BI/AAAAAAAABm4/JZqcoqqjO8s/s400/rivals+snidely+and+dudley.jpg)

Scott says high-speed rail study due in February

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 28, 2010, 08:23:47 PM
Scott says high-speed rail study due in February

that is a cop out...the study will say the same thing every study since 2002 has said...which is the train can break even (operational costs will closely match revenues)...the study will give Scott the cover he needs to endorse high speed rail.

Quote from: FayeforCure on December 28, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
Thank you Ock for making the Pro-rail choice at the ballot box!!!!

Well Faye, after the shouting is over, you and I BOTH support HIGH SPEED RAIL, only concept and application separates our opinions.

OCKLAWAHA

a lot has change  in florida  when  2002 high speed rail was done

The most significant change is the federal government funding most of it and the private sector willing to cover its annual O&M for 30 years.  That's about as good as it going to get, in terms of funding a mass transit system.

Quote from: yapp1850 on December 29, 2010, 06:52:21 AM
a lot has change  in florida  when  2002 high speed rail was done

the ridership forecasts won't be much different

the area were the station will be in tampa more have move in since 2002 and if the station opens by 2015 they are  starting to new apartments, 5 years  ago it use be a gost town after 5pm it's starting to have life.

i lot people in tampa don's like the downtown station but instead of  the airport or westshore area instead because there is nothing  in downtown a lot be think of a  gost town if the bars were not there after 5 pm.

Quote from: thelakelander on December 29, 2010, 07:39:29 AM
The most significant change is the federal government funding most of it and the private sector willing to cover its annual O&M for 30 years.  That's about as good as it going to get, in terms of funding a mass transit system.

Yeah, and I'll pay y'alls electric bills for the next 30 years too... How far do you think that will go? When losses hit the several hundred million a year mark, these generous "partners," will bail off the sinking ship like rats.

OCKLAWAHA

I doubt the loses will amount to hole commonly referred to as roads.  Nevertheless, when that happens, the State would be smart to add more stations between Tampa and Orlando, promote TOD station districts along I-4 and convert it over to Caltrain commuter rail-like operations.  As a matter of fact, they should be looking to modify the land use along the route as we speak.  A significant portion of land along that corridor is already vested, so whether we like sprawl or not, its going to eventually fill in (excluding the Green Swamp of course).  It would be nice for future growth to be more sustainable than what has historically taken place along the corridor. 

In the meantime, hopefully Florida would have been smart enough to land a few HSR manufacturing plants that by then, would be buzzing with activity supplying railcars and HSR related equipment to other projects across the US.

talgo is talking opening a new plant  if they get the contract florida, washington state, chicago area to build the train cars.

It is a well-known fact that Republicans are Ideologically Opposed to Mass Transit.

So for those who are NOT denialists of this bitter fact, here are some tips put together to schmooze Republicans with:

QuoteTransportation bills of the last decade have enjoyed a terrific amount of bipartisan support, thanks perhaps to a flood of earmarks and a lack of any strong federal mandates therein. But this year (or next year? or 2011?) we’re getting down to brass tacks. We’re turning the ship of state. We’re charting a new course, our leaders tell us. Which means it’s time to find out what kind of bipartisan support there may be for large-scale reforms, including perhaps a stronger focus on rail and transit, or an increase in the gas tax.

Many Democrats have been championing such reforms for years, but there have been a few prominent conservative voices in favor of more and better transit and intercity passenger rail as well. One of them is William Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation and the co-author, with the late Paul Weyrich, of the recent book Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation.

Lind was aboard the California Zephyr earlier this month. He was wise in the ways of train passengership, a fan of pipe smoke and brandy, and scornful of computers. He also had some very clear and strong ideas about America’s transportation infrastructure, and what it needs.

MATT DELLINGER: Your book is very interesting. It’s a conservative argument for public transportation, but it’s also a guidebook for classic supporters of public transportation, on how to talk to conservatives.
WILLIAM LIND: That is essentially at the heart of all of our transit work.

So a Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Venus model. So what does a transit-loving liberal need to know when approaching an auto-loving conservative? What should they be prepared for, and what are the various points of leverage?
The most important thing that a liberal needs to know in talking to conservatives about public transportation is not to use liberal arguments.  You can’t argue for transit on the basis that the poor need it. Conservatives aren’t particularly interested in that. On the other hand, when you start talking about things like promoting and shaping economic development and redevelopment, that’s a big interest to conservatives. When you talk about offering transit that is of a quality that conservatives would actually want to useâ€"which usually means rail transportationâ€"they’re interested, because conservatives are just as tired as everybody else of sitting stuck in traffic.

And another argument you cover in the book is the idea that rail transportation is vital to national security?
National Security is always a big interest to conservatives and any time you can talk in those terms, you’re going to have their attention. Virtually every American knows that our greatest single national security vulnerability at the moment, the one that has enmeshed us in the middle east, is our dependence on foreign oil, most of it coming from unstable parts of the world. And this can drag us into unwanted wars, as it has it can result not only in high gas prices, like we had last summer, but in complete cutoffs like we had in ‘73 and ‘79, where events halfway around the world suddenly leave our gas stations without any gas to sell. And at present, if that happens, most Americans have no backup. Approximately half of Americans have no public transportation.

Only 25 percent have public transportation they even rate as satisfactory. We’re immediately in very serious trouble.

What should we do?
One of the chapters in the new book calls for a National Defense Public Transportation Act modeled on Eisenhower’s national defense interstate highway act that would recreate what we had up until the 1950s, which was the ability to go from anywhere in America to anywhere else in America without driving and without flying, through a network of buses and trains. An intelligent national transportation strategy would do more for enhancing America’s national security than more trillions for the pentagon could ever do.

But can’t one ignore that argument by saying that within five years we’ll all be driving electric cars?
Well, any expert on the automobile scene in America, first of all, knows that’s not true. Even if completely feasible electric cars are available in five years, it takes far longer than that to replace even half of the entire automobile fleet. So most Americans are going to be driving gas-fueled cars for a long time to come. And there’s no guarantee to say that those electric cars will have the performance to replace gas cars, and there’s no guarantee that they’ll be sold at affordable prices.

Conservatives don’t like betting on some Candyland promise of being saved by some new technology. The nice thing about electric railways is that all the technology was in place a century ago. We can electrify mainline railroads, build new streetcar and interurban lines, all with technology that was quite adequate to the task in 1909.

Is there a priority between intercity passenger rail and local streetcars?
The two are inherently complimentary. The reason you used to be able to get around so well in this country without a car is you took the train between cities, but then when you got to the strange city, you had the streetcar system to get around on. A major problem now is if you take the train to another city, how do you get around locally? Buses are very difficult for outsiders to understand where they go and when. With streetcars, you see the tracks. So people who have never ridden a system before feel a great deal more comfortable on streetcars than they do on a bus.

You’ve pointed out other virtues that rail holds over bus.
Yes, rail transit of all types provides a much more pleasant ride experience than does a bus. In general, no one will take a bus who doesn’t have to. Buses largely provide transportation for the poorâ€"for the transit-dependent. When under the Bush Administration, the Department of Transportation said “We’ll give you buses instead of rail,” they’re making a fundamental and too often deliberate mistake. Because the two are not fungible.

But buses over rail saves money, isn’t that the argument?
Sure, they’re trying to save money. But they’re also trying to get people to continue to drive. If you give people buses, they buy cars and drive them. That’s why General Motors and other corporations starting in the 20s began to buy up streetcar systems and convert them to buses. It was not to sell buses. It was to sell cars. They knew if you give people buses, they will say “I’ve got to get a car. I’m not going to ride this thing.”

And I know this is not all academic for you. You love riding trains, and grew up riding trains in Cleveland?
I ride trains wherever I can, both in this country and in Europe. I’m old enough, being now 62, that I remember the streetcars in Cleveland. As a small boy I used to take them from Lakewood downtown with my mother and my grandmother and I always loved riding them. In contrast, within half an hour of getting on a bus, I invariably threw up. Never on a train.

I was riding intercity trains from the time I was carried aboard them in my bassinet at that age of three months, because I had family up in western Pennsylvania and western Maryland along the B&O, which had wonderful passenger trains. By the time I was eight, I was making those trips by myself. This was America in the fifties. An eight-year-old could travel alone by train perfectly safely. And I loved the trips.

There is something nerve-racking and hollow about making long trips in a car.
Driving those distances, particularly if you’re the driver, is no fun at all. You’ve got to watch the road in front of you and too often, in congested traffic, keep your eyes fixed on the bumper of the car in front of you. With a train you don’t have any of that. You sit back, you relax, somebody else takes care of getting the train where it needs to go. And trains are social. You meet people in the dining car.

With the car, you ‘re just stuck sitting in your little seat on an interstate with very little to see. You’ve got to worry about the car breaking down, you worry about the weather, you worry about accidents. Driving is quite simply no fun, unless you’re shunpikingâ€"

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/29/how-to-convince-conservatives-to-support-public-transportation-william-lind-explains/

The entire article is about bi-partisan support that is expected for the nations rail system in the coming 2 years, and how to talk to conservative's about the same. How in the hell do you get that twisted into a carte blanche accusal of ALL Republicans?

After all it was a Republican that gave us AMTRAK!

OCKLAWAHA

Faye great article.  It suggests that Republicans have a misguided negative opinion of public transportation rather than an ideological opposition to rail.
The author seemed to believe you catch more flies with honey.
As for me I am wary of Republicans but hopeful and like the articles approach.

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 07, 2011, 11:53:36 PM
Faye great article.  It suggests that Republicans have a misguided negative opinion of public transportation rather than an ideological opposition to rail.
The author seemed to believe you catch more flies with honey.
As for me I am wary of Republicans but hopeful and like the articles approach.

Faye can only see what she expects to see.  Blinders anyone?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 08, 2011, 09:51:14 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 07, 2011, 11:53:36 PM
Faye great article.  It suggests that Republicans have a misguided negative opinion of public transportation rather than an ideological opposition to rail.
The author seemed to believe you catch more flies with honey.
As for me I am wary of Republicans but hopeful and like the articles approach.

Faye can only see what she expects to see.  Blinders anyone?

The blinders are all yours Bridge.

JeffreyS, it's much more than just a misguided negative opinion of public transportation..........that is clear over and over again:

Quotea loss of confidence in the principle of government investment and planning, in the face of the demonstrated incapacity of the contemporary American government to do an adequate job of investment and planning. That incapacity is largely due to conservative political opposition to government intervention in the economy, either for ideological reasons or because it entails higher taxes or because it treads on the toes of vested business interests. But the fact that the American government can't get its act together to create a decent modern passenger rail network doesn't mean that governments in general are incapable of doing so, or that it isn't a good idea. Europe, Japan, and China seem perfectly capable of doing this job. A more narrow response to the rail problem, specifically, would be to encourage a BOT deal in which the government uses eminent domain to create the rail corridor and turns to the private sector to raise the capital, build it and perhaps run it. But, again, this doesn't question the need for the government to plan national infrastructure, which seems to me to be pretty hard to gainsay.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/elections_and_ideology

well Faye...your quoted piece above notes several reasons why conservatives oppose government intervention in the economy...so 2 things

1. It says conservatives, not Republicans
2. It is talking about economic issues in general, not rail specificaly

Quote from: FayeforCure on January 09, 2011, 05:47:23 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 08, 2011, 09:51:14 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 07, 2011, 11:53:36 PM
Faye great article.  It suggests that Republicans have a misguided negative opinion of public transportation rather than an ideological opposition to rail.
The author seemed to believe you catch more flies with honey.
As for me I am wary of Republicans but hopeful and like the articles approach.

Faye can only see what she expects to see.  Blinders anyone?

QuoteA more narrow response to the rail problem, specifically, would be to encourage a BOT deal in which the government uses eminent domain to create the rail corridor and turns to the private sector to raise the capital, build it and perhaps run it.

Fat chance of this happening with any scale Faye, it's farther from Pensacola to Key West then it is from London to Hamburg via Paris! Florida doesn't have the population or the density to make such a venture profitable. Any company, expert, investor, or supplier that get's in the Florida HSR project with much of their own capital is looking to go down in flames, multiply that times a country that is 3,000 miles across and the problem grows exponentially. Coconut palms, sage brush, pine trees, and saguaro cactus don't ride trains.

Passenger trains took down the Penn Central, ie: New York Central, Pennsylvania, Leigh Valley, Central Railroad of New Jersey, Erie Lackawanna, Reading, and New Haven Railroads, as well as damaged the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific, Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee, and Illinois Terminal Railroad, just to name a few. The shear scale of a private investment in US HSR will bring down Virgin, and any other company unlucky enough to be sucked in by speculative numbers from a state or country that is NOT SERIOUS about rail. Last FY we spent 4,065,000,000 on all rail, of every type, in the entire country, and at the same time spent 12,082,000,000 on aviation, and 41,846,000,000 on highways.*

Anti-Rail Democrats such as Georgia's Frank Saunders, Ohio's John Glenn, don't help advance the cause either. These Democrats and a host of Republican's and Independents continue to suffer from regressive hallucinations by untrained political transportation experts who make their living espousing propaganda for pro-road causes.

OCKLAWAHA
*NARP Data

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 09, 2011, 08:28:41 PM
well Faye...your quoted piece above notes several reasons why conservatives oppose government intervention in the economy...so 2 things

1. It says conservatives, not Republicans
2. It is talking about economic issues in general, not rail specificaly

tufsu1, too bad you didn't even bother to check the link of the article I quoted. It is all about trains, even showing a gorgeous giant China HSR map. AND interestingly the article is titled:

Liberals, planning and trains



Those things clearly go together,...........very few enlightened Republicans/conservatives EVER come onboard!!

Too bad the denialists here keep missing that all important concept.........here is that link again for your perusal:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/elections_and_ideology

so where do non-liberal Democrats fall on the issue Faye?

QuoteWhich cuts to a flaw in the study itself: Ridership isn’t the sole factor on which a rail system’s development should hinge. The authors acknowledge other contingencies like “project readiness, ability to acquire rights of way, and local political support."

At a time of monumental partisan posturing, the latter might be the biggest barrier   -- and, given the economic benefits of investing in infrastructure, the most foolish.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663067/infographic-of-the-day-where-should-we-build-high-speed-rail

tufsu1, I wonder if they mean the Republican posturing AGAINST Rail?!?!?!!!!!!!!

I'm getting to the point I miss the old health care faye

Quote from: FayeforCure on January 23, 2011, 07:12:59 PM

QuoteWhich cuts to a flaw in the study itself: Ridership isn’t the sole factor on which a rail system’s development should hinge. The authors acknowledge other contingencies like “project readiness, ability to acquire rights of way, and local political support."

At a time of monumental partisan posturing, the latter might be the biggest barrier   -- and, given the economic benefits of investing in infrastructure, the most foolish.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663067/infographic-of-the-day-where-should-we-build-high-speed-rail

tufsu1, I wonder if they mean the Republican posturing AGAINST Rail?!?!?!!!!!!!!

Yup, that's exactly what they mean. Pro-transit folks beware...........Republicans are NOT on your side:

QuoteIn Washington, the Obama administration’s priorities for expanding mass transit, passenger rail and what planners call “livability” is likely to be challenged by Republicans in Congress, who tend to represent more rural areas than Democrats, with more spread-out populations and different needs â€" a trend that gathered steam after the midterm elections. The median Republican Congressional district now has a population density 11 times smaller than the median Democratic district, according to an analysis by Transportation Weekly, a trade publication that focuses on federal transportation spending. That kind of disparity can have big ramifications when it comes to deciding how much federal transportation money should be spent on, say, mass transit instead of highways.

The battle is already beginning to play out. Just last week, a bloc of conservative Republicans in the House released a proposal to cut Amtrak subsidies, grants for passenger rail and high-speed rail, a major federal transit program and the federal subsidy for the Washington Metro. That led William Millar, the president of the American Public Transportation Association, to charge that the group had “focused only on the short-term costs without looking at the economic value these essential public transportation investments provide.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25build.html

No amount of "sweet talk" is going to change the Republican mindset on transit!!! We benefit far more from Democratic leadership such as California and Hawaii.

When will we finally see the light in Florida?

Jeez Faye... If I didn't know better... I would think you were more interested in electing democrats than you are in advancing rail.  :o ::)

 :D  Occasionally I have to gently slap myself back into reality...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 25, 2011, 01:19:42 PM
Jeez Faye... If I didn't know better... I would think you were more interested in electing democrats than you are in advancing rail.  :o ::)

You are close my friend..........but no cigar.

I postulate that electing a Democratic leadership will beget us RAIL!!!

What a novel concept!  ;)

All the evidence on widespread Republican obstructionism indicates a more favorable outcome for Rail with a Democratic leadership.

so Faye, would you support a pro-rail Republican over an anti-rail Democrat?

Ooo...  Ooo... (waves hand frantically)  Let me answer.  :)

Of course not.  The republican could only support rail if he and his greedy friends had their hands in the till... while the democrat would obviously have honorable and supportable reasons to oppose rail.

::)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 26, 2011, 09:16:36 AM
Ooo...  Ooo... (waves hand frantically)  Let me answer.  :)

Of course not.  The republican could only support rail if he and his greedy friends had their hands in the till... while the democrat would obviously have honorable and supportable reasons to oppose rail.

::)

I'll bet while you were waving your hand frantically you were also practically bouncing in your chair.

Good answer, btw.  Spot on for the context. :)

here you go Faye...just for you

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/25/understanding-the-republican-partys-reluctance-to-invest-in-transit-infrastructure/

Interesting find tufsu...

Quote from: FayeforCure on January 25, 2011, 12:26:17 PM

Yup, that's exactly what they mean. Pro-transit folks beware...........Republicans are NOT on your side:

QuoteIn Washington, the Obama administration’s priorities for expanding mass transit, passenger rail and what planners call “livability” is likely to be challenged by Republicans in Congress, who tend to represent more rural areas than Democrats, with more spread-out populations and different needs â€" a trend that gathered steam after the midterm elections. The median Republican Congressional district now has a population density 11 times smaller than the median Democratic district, according to an analysis by Transportation Weekly, a trade publication that focuses on federal transportation spending. That kind of disparity can have big ramifications when it comes to deciding how much federal transportation money should be spent on, say, mass transit instead of highways.

The battle is already beginning to play out. Just last week, a bloc of conservative Republicans in the House released a proposal to cut Amtrak subsidies, grants for passenger rail and high-speed rail, a major federal transit program and the federal subsidy for the Washington Metro. That led William Millar, the president of the American Public Transportation Association, to charge that the group had “focused only on the short-term costs without looking at the economic value these essential public transportation investments provide.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25build.html

No amount of "sweet talk" is going to change the Republican mindset on transit!!! We benefit far more from Democratic leadership such as California and Hawaii.

When will we finally see the light in Florida?

Thank you tufsu1 you have proved my point:

QuoteThe Democratic Party holds most of its power in the nation’s cities, whereas the GOP retains greater strength in the exurbs and rural areas. The two parties generally fight it out over the suburbs. In essence, the base of the two parties is becoming increasingly split in spatial terms: The Democrats’ most vocal constituents live in cities, whereas the Republicans’ power brokers would never agree to what some frame as a nightmare of tenements and light rail

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/25/understanding-the-republican-partys-reluctance-to-invest-in-transit-infrastructure/