Train could pass though Disney World

[rteetz]

LOL . .don't remind me of the Streetcar to nowhere in MKE (I used to live in MKE and still have family there and visit often - so I am familiar with it). I am curious how it goes. I suspect it will probably be popular for the first year (as a curiosity and because the fare will be cheap), but after that it won't be used that much because it doesn't GO anywhere. If I drive my car downtown .. why hop on a streetcar to go to restaurant when I can just DRIVE and park close to that restaurant? Without good public transportation INTO a city (like you see with subways in major metropolitan areas), public transportation (especially RAIL) within a city is pointless.

Sure, the young urban millennials (those who want to live/work/play in a downtown area and before they get married and have kids and move to suburbs) probably will use it to get from their condos to restaurants, but not even sure how much it will be used for that. We'll see. If it doesn't see a lot of use, they won't be able to expand it to the places where it probably COULD be heavily used -- like running to the casino, the ball park, the new basketball stadium, the museums, the convention center. But they built it in the old gentrified "hipster" area of town.

The key is . .that there usually needs to be consumer DEMAND for something in order for it to take off. When that happens, private companies will be all over helping build/fund something like that. Without consumer demand, what problem is trying to be solved by the governments pushing rail? Is it more "green"? Maybe . .but most consumers don't care if their transportation is green. They care if gets them from Point A to Point B .. quickly, cheaply and efficiently without driving themselves.

What has been created from THAT demand? Services like Lyft and Uber . .NOT a train (or streetcar).

In terms of the street car fare is free for the first year and initial numbers are higher than expected so far.

I like how Minneapolis does their rail system with it running to high traffic areas such as the football and baseball stadiums.

Going back on topic I think rail from Orlando to Tampa would work well. You have two high populated areas with major attractions on each end.

 

[Moliphino]

My buddy and his girlfriend go with her family every year by train to Disney (from Rhode Island mind you so not a short trip). They swear by it, even though there’s almost always delays at some point because they find some uh, CSI material on the track

We had some people taken off by the DEA in Baltimore, I think it was. It was no faster than driving and not as enjoyable (I'll take a rest stop bathroom over a train bathroom any day), so we stuck to cars after that.

 

[jknezek]

In terms of the street car fare is free for the first year and initial numbers are higher than expected so far.

I like how Minneapolis does their rail system with it running to high traffic areas such as the football and baseball stadiums.

Going back on topic I think rail from Orlando to Tampa would work well. You have two high populated areas with major attractions on each end.

I think this is exactly how rail should be used in this country. The hub and spoke airline system stinks. The rails should connect the spokes with occasional connections to the hub. Then if you want to go distance hub to hub, it should be a flight. So if we connected all the second tier type cities, Tampa, Jacksonville, WPB, Ft. Lauderdale to Orlando and Miami by train, you'd have a working system. Same with if you connected Jacksonville to Atlanta, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Columbia SC and Charlotte NC. From Charlotte you'd pick up Roanoke VA, Richmond VA, Morgantown WV, and a few of the other second tier cities and connect the main line to D.C. Which then connects nicely with the Acela through the NE.

We need the rails to connect the cities that don't connect by air, or don't connect well by air. But the long distance routes are a money loser and the commuter routes need to be government subsidized. So you have to be careful about how you think about it.

I'm a fan of what is happening in FL. I think they have the right idea with the Bright stuff. That's opposed to what they are doing in California, trying to go major hub to major hub, which seems stupidly expensive and better served by air. We will see if either works. My money is on the Florida system being the correct option.

 

[umichigan10]

We had some people taken off by the DEA in Baltimore, I think it was. It was no faster than driving and not as enjoyable (I'll take a rest stop bathroom over a train bathroom any day), so we stuck to cars after that.

What I’ve learned from their travel is that weird stuff happens on train rides lol.

I haven’t even brought up my Amtrak from providence to New York last March. Was going for a 4 day trip but I had to work that day so I took the train down to meet some people after my shift. Due to snow and stuff falling on the track/wires it went from a 3 hour ride to 7 or so. And I can absolutely vouch for how miserable an experience it was

 

[umichigan10]

I think this is exactly how rail should be used in this country. The hub and spoke airline system stinks. The rails should connect the spokes with occasional connections to the hub. Then if you want to go distance hub to hub, it should be a flight. So if we connected all the second tier type cities, Tampa, Jacksonville, WPB, Ft. Lauderdale to Orlando and Miami by train, you'd have a working system. Same with if you connected Jacksonville to Atlanta, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Columbia SC and Charlotte NC. From Charlotte you'd pick up Roanoke VA, Richmond VA, Morgantown WV, and a few of the other second tier cities and connect the main line to D.C. Which then connects nicely with the Acela through the NE.

We need the rails to connect the cities that don't connect by air, or don't connect well by air. But the long distance routes are a money loser and the commuter routes need to be government subsidized. So you have to be careful about how you think about it.

I'm a fan of what is happening in FL. I think they have the right idea with the Bright stuff. That's opposed to what they are doing in California, trying to go major hub to major hub, which seems stupidly expensive and better served by air. We will see if either works. My money is on the Florida system being the correct option.

For what my family does, which is visiting my grandparents south of Sarasota and then driving up to Disney this would be a potential option. We could take the rental car up to Sarasota or Tampa (where I’m sure they’d have some sort of rental car hub, or maybe not) and then train to Disney. I think the big selling point all around here is trying to take cars off of I-4 which can be an absolute disaster at times

 

[Sweettears]

LOL . .don't remind me of the Streetcar to nowhere in MKE (I used to live in MKE and still have family there and visit often - so I am familiar with it). I am curious how it goes. I suspect it will probably be popular for the first year (as a curiosity and because the fare will be cheap), but after that it won't be used that much because it doesn't GO anywhere. If I drive my car downtown .. why hop on a streetcar to go to restaurant when I can just DRIVE and park close to that restaurant? Without good public transportation INTO a city (like you see with subways in major metropolitan areas), public transportation (especially RAIL) within a city is pointless.

Sure, the young urban millennials (those who want to live/work/play in a downtown area and before they get married and have kids and move to suburbs) probably will use it to get from their condos to restaurants, but not even sure how much it will be used for that. We'll see. If it doesn't see a lot of use, they won't be able to expand it to the places where it probably COULD be heavily used -- like running to the casino, the ball park, the new basketball stadium, the museums, the convention center. But they built it in the old gentrified "hipster" area of town.

The key is . .that there usually needs to be consumer DEMAND for something in order for it to take off. When that happens, private companies will be all over helping build/fund something like that. Without consumer demand, what problem is trying to be solved by the governments pushing rail? Is it more "green"? Maybe . .but most consumers don't care if their transportation is green. They care if gets them from Point A to Point B .. quickly, cheaply and efficiently without driving themselves.

What has been created from THAT demand? Services like Lyft and Uber . .NOT a train (or streetcar).

Not in Chicago

 

[Farro]

Not in Chicago

Oh for sure. Taking the CTA trains (blueline, brownline, redline, etc.) is a way of life for many of us who live and work here. Not just millennials who want to live downtown.

I really think some of you are underestimating the amount of people who would choose to take a high-speed rail (along the lines of the trains in Asia) over plane travel. I am definitely one of them. We fly because we have to, not because we want to.

The possibilities for travel that would open up would be endless. There's still room for automated transport (as in cars) to get people to and from train hubs.
The argument the US is too spread out is an argument for the train. It can allow people to visit more easily parts of the country they never even thought too. Imagine the jobs that would be created to rebuild our infrastructure.

All it takes is (a lot) of money, planning, ingenuity and imagination. America really lets me down on this.

 

[amberpi]

@Farro - I agree that people are diminishing how people many want more and better public transport in this country. I would happily take a high speed train to wdw over driving, we’d consider it for sure. Planes with small kids are no fun, but a long car ride is worse.

 

[tlmadden73]

All it takes is (a lot) of money, planning, ingenuity and imagination. America really lets me down on this. ​

​

Money is the issue. Money will be spent if a company thinks they can profit from it. They won't be able to profit from it unless demand is high OR if government subsidizes them.

For high speed rail to work in this country, people will want to take it over other forms of transportation. To do that it needs to be:
1) SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than flying (to make up for the more time it takes (even at high speeds, it will take a while to travel hundreds of miles by train).
2) Significantly faster than driving (which it should be simply due to the fact it doesn't have to stop overnight).
3) Have a wide variety of schedules to accommodate people. (I can take an Amtrak to lots of place today, but having one departure a day leaving in the middle of the night (like 4am) is not convenient.
4) Have stations that are convenient to get to (next to airports, in/around major city centers, or near some other transportation hub (subway, car rental, etc.).
It would be awesome if we can get there. I would definitely choose it over flying or driving IF it meant those requirements above.

Hopefully these short routes work in Florida and it can spread. Bringing it back around -- just how Disney uses public transport well within its resort (and probably a pretty new concept to the non-city dwellers that go there) -- having a station that goes from Tampa or Orlando airport within the Disney resort (and having bus transport to the hotels) could help popularize it as a mode of transport across the country when those guests go home.

@Farro - I agree that people are diminishing how people many want more and better public transport in this country. I would happily take a high speed train to wdw over driving, we’d consider it for sure. Planes with small kids are no fun, but a long car ride is worse.

I think the demand for better public transport is there. Who wouldn't want to go somewhere without being crammed into a sardine can of a plane or having to be on alert to drive - but I don't think the solution necessarily trains. Technology and things like Uber, Self-driving cars/buses, smaller "commuter" planes (or some sort of transport like that) or even FLYING cars could be the future of "public" transport rather than the antiquated technology of trains on static rails.

 

[amberpi]

Technology and things like Uber, Self-driving cars/buses, smaller "commuter" planes (or some sort of transport like that) or even FLYING cars could be the future of "public" transport rather than the antiquated technology of trains on static rails.

I agree...kinda. I love the idea of self driving cars, and very much hope the kids never have to drive. I think high speed rail has a place in our country, but also think that urban sprawl and suburbia are huge issues, so what do I know?

 

[rideswithchrist]

We looked into taking a train from Austin TX to Orlando.
It would have taken us to Chicago, then DC then Orlando...for a total travel time of 74 hours ONE WAY. Not only that, but you are only allowed 1 child per adult, so our family of 6 is out of luck there.
For the $2700 it would cost, I would much rather just fly and get there in 3 hours.

So... I don't care so much if there are local rail systems if I just had to rent a car after a plane trip, or just drove my own anyway.

 

[umichigan10]

We looked into taking a train from Austin TX to Orlando.
It would have taken us to Chicago, then DC then Orlando...for a total travel time of 74 hours ONE WAY. Not only that, but you are only allowed 1 child per adult, so our family of 6 is out of luck there.
For the $2700 it would cost, I would much rather just fly and get there in 3 hours.

So... I don't care so much if there are local rail systems if I just had to rent a car after a plane trip, or just drove my own anyway.

Yeah that’s the issue, if there isn’t a direct route and you have to travel across the whole dang country to do it, then it’s not feasible.

But like a pp said, if they laid a groundwork with regional connections, then maybe we could feasibly be in a place where you could go to Austin and Orlando conveniently

 

[tlmadden73]

So while a train from Orlando to Tampa sounds good in theory - If there is such a need for that why aren't buses (that currently do the SAME thing for really cheap - comfortable seats, usb charging ports) more popular? A train is just several buses attached together on a rail.

A quick search and I can get a bus from Tampa to Orlando (downtown to downtown) (several times a day) for about $15-19 for a 2 hour trip. There probably are bus companies that go from airport to airport. So why is a TRAIN needed? Why aren't the people who say they would take a train not using the bus?

I guess I just don't see where the demand is for trains in this country. Sure . let's find a solution to get to various points of interest quickly and cheaper than flying. But why a train that needs semi-permanent and static rails embedded into the ground??

 

[Farro]

We looked into taking a train from Austin TX to Orlando.
It would have taken us to Chicago, then DC then Orlando...for a total travel time of 74 hours ONE WAY. Not only that, but you are only allowed 1 child per adult, so our family of 6 is out of luck there.
For the $2700 it would cost, I would much rather just fly and get there in 3 hours.

So... I don't care so much if there are local rail systems if I just had to rent a car after a plane trip, or just drove my own anyway.

Right here is the exact reason there needs to be an infrastructure overhaul. If we had the rail system that Europe has, with certain routes that could be bullet trains (super fast, cross country, city to city), these issues would go away. Getting there in half the time (or less) than our archaic train system takes now. More hubs, more connections.

@tlmadden73 you keep saying no one wants rail travel. Well no, no one does want it in it's current state. But most people don't even know how great train travel can be when done right. Sure we'll have people on this board who will say they like their cars, but more people in the real world would rather not drive. Flying right now is a pain. It's expensive, crowded, stressful and not fun. You seem to be stuck on short trips, while we need to think bigger, cross country.
A great train system would provide an alternative to plane travel that would actually make the airline industry have to work to get/keep customers. Obviously people will still fly (especially business travelers), but a lot of people would choose to take trains.

And personally I would take a train over a two hours bus trip any day. A lot of people would.

 

[a1tinkfans]

I think you will see plenty of people going from Orlando To Miami and Orlando To Tampa as well as people from those areas ( and nearby) to Orlando. People don’t want to drive, deal with the tailgating and Damage/chips caused by trucks ( with torn or missing mud flaps).
So yeah... I think there’s a market for it and looks to be an upcoming done deal.. whether we like it or not.
The short flights from rsw up to mco have all but disappeared.

 

[Planogirl]

set rails in the ground is no different from flight routes. Plus rail lines are already in use for transporting goods.

I also looked into train travel and the ridiculous routes and costs made it a joke. I enjoyed traveling about by train in Europe and don't see why it couldn't happen in the US too.

 

[Sweettears]

set rails in the ground is no different from flight routes. Plus rail lines are already in use for transporting goods.

I also looked into train travel and the ridiculous routes and costs made it a joke. I enjoyed traveling about by train in Europe and don't see why it couldn't happen in the US too.

I totally agree. I priced a train trip to take as a vacation and was astonished at the cost and poor options. I agree with PP that this is more a result of our system than train transport itself.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

set rails in the ground is no different from flight routes. Plus rail lines are already in use for transporting goods.

I also looked into train travel and the ridiculous routes and costs made it a joke. I enjoyed traveling about by train in Europe and don't see why it couldn't happen in the US too.

Great, if the lines were already there. But for high speed rail, they are not.

So lines would have to be laid. Then of course, unlike flight routes, they can't be changed if the population changes.

 

[DanBoris]

We looked into taking a train from Austin TX to Orlando.
It would have taken us to Chicago, then DC then Orlando...for a total travel time of 74 hours ONE WAY. Not only that, but you are only allowed 1 child per adult, so our family of 6 is out of luck there.
For the $2700 it would cost, I would much rather just fly and get there in 3 hours.

So... I don't care so much if there are local rail systems if I just had to rent a car after a plane trip, or just drove my own anyway.

This route used to be much more practical when there was a train that ran through San Antonio to Jacksonville Florida, but since hurricane Katrina the segment from New Orleans to Jacksonville no longer operates.

 

[tlmadden73]

And personally I would take a train over a two hours bus trip any day. A lot of people would.

I'm genuinely curious curious -- why? What's the difference between a train and bus for you (for a short trips). I understand in long trips you can get up and walk on a train --- walk to a snack car or observation car (if the train has those), but on short trips what's the difference in a train or bus? You sit in a seat (both way bigger and more comfortable than an airline) and zone out for the duration of the trip. One vehicle takes a road, the other takes rails.