Why do we need high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando?

I wish a train ran from Houston to Tampa along the coast, stops all along the way including SOWAL (or the new airport!)😀

I'm fine with it personally is it's not a major drain on resources. So many of these things turn out to be exactly that. When living in S.F. I road around on Bart, never needed a car. It was quite convenient. But I wonder if Tampa -> Orlando is worth it. From north of Orlando to the south might be more feasible, but really, Orlando residents should be the ones footing the bill. (and if Obama want's to chip in some Chinese Yuan, oh well, my generation won't have to pay that back.)

To answer the original question; how else are we, as tax payers, going to subsidize the fastest tram to and from Disney World and their cruise ships?

Over the years I've seen the HSR flounder for years and then when passed promptly get repealed do to the perceived high cost of land. I've always wondered why, like the northeast, we don't simple use the median on the interstates for these trains?

I think the high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando makes a helluvalot more sense than an airport in the middle of a swampy pine forest...but that's just me.

.

I think the high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando makes a helluvalot more sense than an airport in the middle of a swampy pine forest...but that's just me.

.

You must have been offline for a while. They built it and they came.

...and moreover, so too did million$ and million$ of unbudgeted dollar$ in cost overruns for erosion control, pond filtration areas and DEP permit violations (and now problems inside the terminal facility?)--and soon, lawyers and court costs.

.

I saw that coming when they announced the shadiest contractor in the Panhandle was going to build it. Phoenix construction is famous for that kind of crap in Bay County. Why Bay County ever uses them after the sewer line debacle is beyond me.

As usual though instead of holding the contractor responsible the county caves and pays the fines and takes the responsibility.

...nice deal for LUV & JOE, not so good of a deal for the taxpayers--whyizit, do you suppose, that the only people who saw this mess coming was you and me?

Got an earful from Uncle Scooterbug last night about the high speed train project in Wisconsin to connect Milwaukee and Madison - total cluster that makes this one in Florida look fantastic.

Wisconsin beat other other states to get a $810 million grant, has been studying this/working on it for 15 years, and construction has already begin.

But the state just elected a new governor who wants to halt the project and use the money for something else (this is not an option, which has been specifically written into the deal and has also been explained to him by the US Sec of Transportation). He thinks people should just drive cars to get places and doesn't quite get that a grant for high speed rail has to actually be used for high speed rail - a problem shared by many voters.

That's 5,500 jobs down the drain, a total loss of $14.25 million already spent (part of it to Uncle Scooterbug's company), and an additional $83 million the state will have to spend of its own money to upgrade old rail lines. :roll:

30ashopper, most of that 810 mil is probably for the actual trains. I'm also guessing that the state is having to kick in the 83 mil in addition to the grant.

As to the statement that the 810 mil is there money, I don't agree, that money is theirs, mine, and yours. They got in under the pretense that they would use it for high speed rail, they don't get to now build a cheese museum because a tri corner hat wearing loon was elected as governor.

Their money is your money? Now you're talking like a true progressive. :roll:

Read it again, that money is theirs, mine, and yours. :roll:

I'd be willing to bet if you balance contributions vs. expenditures you'd find it's 'theirs', period. If I'm right, why do you feel an ethereal entity in Washington D.C. has the right to dictate how they spend it?

I don't, it was a grant they applied for, and received, with the stipulation, before and after, that it be spent on high speed rail. I don't understand why you feel that they are exempt from the law because the governor now feels like spending it on something else.

It's kind of like borrowing money from a bank to open a business and then going on a coke binge to Vegas.

To put it in terms more aligned with your views:

It's like a fully employed person applying for unemployment or welfare.

The new 2060 Florida Transportation Plan estimates a 70 percent population increase in the state over the next 50 years. Viably, we cannot continue an infinite road expansion. Our current pace of road construction is outpacing our ability to maintain the current network.

Our highways cannot sustain 70 percent more people who drive more and longer distances. A single railway, however, can support the traffic of a six-lane highway. Highways may be adequate now, but we cannot give in to naivety. We must keep the future in mind.

I'd be willing to bet if you balance contributions vs. expenditures you'd find it's 'theirs', period. If I'm right, why do you feel an ethereal entity in Washington D.C. has the right to dictate how they spend it?

That money came from the people of Wisconsin, they should be able to spend it how they want. Remember it's not the federal government's money, it's ours.

Which is lower, the one time charge of 83 mil for upgrades to existing lines, or the long term cost of managing the new high speed line?

Something sounds fishy in this, if 83 mil upgrades existing lines to meet current needs, why do they need high speed rail at a cost of 810 mil??