Florida High Speed rail
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,894
Likes: 9
From: Tampa, FL
So Bandiscoot, since you're the only anti-HSR zealot in here that makes any sense...what do we need to do (who do we need to vote for) to get the inner city rail project underway? What's holding that back?
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,894
Likes: 9
From: Tampa, FL
Hide ya kids and hide ya wife...not over yet
http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2011/...d-rail-deadline
Originally Posted by BayNews9.com
LaHood issued the following statement Friday:
"This morning I met with Governor Rick Scott to discuss the high speed rail project that will create jobs and economic development for the entire state of Florida. He asked me for additional information about the state's role in this project, the responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as how the state would be protected from liability.
I have decided to give Governor Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation.
He has committed to making a final decision by the end of next week. I feel we owe it to the people of Florida, who have been working to bring high speed rail to their state for the last 20 years, to go the extra mile."
"This morning I met with Governor Rick Scott to discuss the high speed rail project that will create jobs and economic development for the entire state of Florida. He asked me for additional information about the state's role in this project, the responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as how the state would be protected from liability.
I have decided to give Governor Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation.
He has committed to making a final decision by the end of next week. I feel we owe it to the people of Florida, who have been working to bring high speed rail to their state for the last 20 years, to go the extra mile."
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
I just don't understand why people have such a hardon for "high speed" rail. Just because it's Obama & The Democrats' idea? It solves so little for the cost. People like Spectacle espose how "progressive" it is and how it enhances our society, how we who oppose are "anti-progress."
HOW does using a refined 18th century technology progress our society forward? Why not make investments of billions into something that goes faster, uses less overall energy, can move more people per unit time, and already much of the infrastructure is already built?
Make a system of regional jets between major airports that leaves every 10-20 minutes. Rental car/Taxi/Limo service is already prepared for it at each airport. We could use the money to build new terminals for commuter flights, instead of buying up huge swaths of land.
A commuter jet's top ground-speed is around 500mi/hr. The fastest train in existence can't reach half of that in the entire distance between Orlando and Tampa.
If it's about jobs, then think of all the pilots, ground crew, terminal staff, taxis, rental car staff, etc etc that would be created. You could even have :gasp: private companies run their own commuter airlines. Even if that's too much for you - the government could run it a-la AmTrak.
I challenge all of you pro-HSR's to tell me why this idea is worse than HSR for our State.
HOW does using a refined 18th century technology progress our society forward? Why not make investments of billions into something that goes faster, uses less overall energy, can move more people per unit time, and already much of the infrastructure is already built?
Make a system of regional jets between major airports that leaves every 10-20 minutes. Rental car/Taxi/Limo service is already prepared for it at each airport. We could use the money to build new terminals for commuter flights, instead of buying up huge swaths of land.
A commuter jet's top ground-speed is around 500mi/hr. The fastest train in existence can't reach half of that in the entire distance between Orlando and Tampa.
If it's about jobs, then think of all the pilots, ground crew, terminal staff, taxis, rental car staff, etc etc that would be created. You could even have :gasp: private companies run their own commuter airlines. Even if that's too much for you - the government could run it a-la AmTrak.
I challenge all of you pro-HSR's to tell me why this idea is worse than HSR for our State.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,862
Likes: 1
From: Lake Forest
OK, Having lived in France and having had the opportunity to use the cgv (their HSR), I have to say it is awesome!! being able to be in the south of France from Paris in a little less than three hours was just great! Of course over there it is heavily utilized, which i'm not sure it would be here...
And Belowradar, it uses Far less energy than the number of cars or airplanes it would take to move that many people from here to Tampa...
and the cost of building the track is fractional compared to the cost of even the maintenance of a highway...
Just my 2 cents...
And Belowradar, it uses Far less energy than the number of cars or airplanes it would take to move that many people from here to Tampa...
and the cost of building the track is fractional compared to the cost of even the maintenance of a highway...
Just my 2 cents...
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
Cost of a CRJ1000 - $35M
Carrying capacity: 100 passengers & cargo
Engine: GE CF34-8C5
CRJ1000 consumes about 0.88 gallon (becoming less every generation of engine) per seat per 60 miles traveled of Jet-A. This means a 120mi trip between Orlando and Tampa would burn about 180gallons of Jet-A at cruise. Even if we DOUBLE this for takeoff and landing +taxi, we are at 360gallons of Jet-A per trip. At $5/gallon, that's $1800 in fuel. So, a $40 ticket price isn't out of the question, and you get there in about 15-20 minutes.
Driving 120miles in the S @ 22mpg, paying $3.50 for 93octane gas, you come to $19.10 in fuel. Barring maintainence and wear on both vehicles, the conclusion is this:
IF the airport delays can be kept to a minimum (ha, thanks TSA):
It costs the government $18/person to move you to Orlando in fuel, in about 20 minutes.
It costs you $19.10 in fuel to move yourself to Orlando in about 103 minutes (70mph).
That's assuming the government would pay retail for fuel. I will leave it to a later time to factor in eternal costs like wear on the roads, paying staff and etc.
My point here is not to actually build this. My point is that there are much better technologies out there to move people over regional American distances (100-500mi) that might actually turn a profit, or at least come close. If we're going to sink everyone's money into something to "progress" our way of life - let's actually do something that progresses it!
More interesting math:
For $2.4B you could:
Set up 1B in a trust for the program, purchasing bonds and returning a 2% yield back into the system for fuel. 2% of $1B is $20M, which buys around 4 Million gallons of Jet-A. 4M gal of Jet-A will propel fully laden CRJ1000's approximately 2.727 Million miles.
with 1B more you could buy 25 CRJ1000's leaving $175M in trust for maintainence and annuals. If you spread out these jets over 5 airports you could have a jet leaving every major city every 9 minutes assuming a 45min round trip time on average. worst case would be every 15 minutes.
This would make 160 flights a day from five airports, with the capacity to move 80,000 people and small cargo every day (assuming 24 hour service). That's 560,000 people a week, or 29.12Million a year.
Assuming an even lower ticket price of $30/seat, that's generating $873.6M a year at best. Cut that in half to make it more realistic - hell less than half - $400M/annually would be enough to pay back the original 2.4B in 6 years.
Carrying capacity: 100 passengers & cargo
Engine: GE CF34-8C5
CRJ1000 consumes about 0.88 gallon (becoming less every generation of engine) per seat per 60 miles traveled of Jet-A. This means a 120mi trip between Orlando and Tampa would burn about 180gallons of Jet-A at cruise. Even if we DOUBLE this for takeoff and landing +taxi, we are at 360gallons of Jet-A per trip. At $5/gallon, that's $1800 in fuel. So, a $40 ticket price isn't out of the question, and you get there in about 15-20 minutes.
Driving 120miles in the S @ 22mpg, paying $3.50 for 93octane gas, you come to $19.10 in fuel. Barring maintainence and wear on both vehicles, the conclusion is this:
IF the airport delays can be kept to a minimum (ha, thanks TSA):
It costs the government $18/person to move you to Orlando in fuel, in about 20 minutes.
It costs you $19.10 in fuel to move yourself to Orlando in about 103 minutes (70mph).
That's assuming the government would pay retail for fuel. I will leave it to a later time to factor in eternal costs like wear on the roads, paying staff and etc.
My point here is not to actually build this. My point is that there are much better technologies out there to move people over regional American distances (100-500mi) that might actually turn a profit, or at least come close. If we're going to sink everyone's money into something to "progress" our way of life - let's actually do something that progresses it!
More interesting math:
For $2.4B you could:
Set up 1B in a trust for the program, purchasing bonds and returning a 2% yield back into the system for fuel. 2% of $1B is $20M, which buys around 4 Million gallons of Jet-A. 4M gal of Jet-A will propel fully laden CRJ1000's approximately 2.727 Million miles.
with 1B more you could buy 25 CRJ1000's leaving $175M in trust for maintainence and annuals. If you spread out these jets over 5 airports you could have a jet leaving every major city every 9 minutes assuming a 45min round trip time on average. worst case would be every 15 minutes.
This would make 160 flights a day from five airports, with the capacity to move 80,000 people and small cargo every day (assuming 24 hour service). That's 560,000 people a week, or 29.12Million a year.
Assuming an even lower ticket price of $30/seat, that's generating $873.6M a year at best. Cut that in half to make it more realistic - hell less than half - $400M/annually would be enough to pay back the original 2.4B in 6 years.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 14,485
Likes: 3
From: Ocala
Originally Posted by spectacle,Feb 25 2011, 02:47 PM
So Bandiscoot, since you're the only anti-HSR zealot in here that makes any sense...what do we need to do (who do we need to vote for) to get the inner city rail project underway? What's holding that back?
That demographic would be better-suited to financially support the growth of a new transit program like this, too. Keeping the ridership and density high is the ultimate goal for a 'success story'. Let's prove that and THEN we can look at joining them together from city-to-city.
The reason why there isn't a SINGLE representative for the program of inner-city ... is probably because the bigger bag of money (and political clout) is from the Feds. Just like it's been mentioned before ... the Federal money is being promoted as 'use it or lose it ... to some other state'. So, it looks like (to the laymay citizen) the money is 'free' when it isn't.
I'm hoping the backlash of this effort will help instigate a newer battle for the inner-city effort.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post