Train could pass though Disney World

[snappy]

Sorry to see this. Thanks for the update.

 

[Tink_83]

There just is a different dynamic there. They have concentrated populations of people and NOT very high car ownership. Other countries don't have the space or amount of affordable cars that the US does.

We had passenger rail, we had streetcars, all through the late 1800s through half of the 1900s. Walt Disney himself was fascinated by them his entire life. They were they quick and easy way to get from city to city as a passenger. The Golden Age of trains in this country was taken over by the auto age when Detroit pumped out cars and our Interstate system took off. Then air travel became more affordable to the "common man". (I mean how many people fly to WDW compared to the 70s or 80s when families threw the kids in the back of the station wagon and would just drive everywhere? And that was before 70 MPH speed limits and vastly improved interstate routes).

There is a reason all the old passenger lines have been abandoned (and turned into bike paths) and the street car rails were torn up.
People moved away from the old train/streetcar lines .. quickly .. and having a rail stuck in the ground can't follow it.

Don't get me wrong -- I love trains. (I recently took the train tour at the MK -- highly recommend it). I enjoy riding old steam train excursions with my dad. I've taken Amtrak trips several times from Milwaukee to DC. It was easy and relaxing (but I CHOSE to do it that way, because of my interest - most people would not because it costs as much as flying and takes WAY too long). When you look at trains.. (whether they are high speed or not) .. they just don't compare to the other options (flying or driving). Maybe we'll get there, just feel it is being forced a bit right now. The market demand isn't there. Heck . .if self-driving cars take off there will be even LESS demand for trains. The market wants things like Uber and self-driving cars -- convenience. Even the fastest train in the world won't be convenient in our society.

When the railroads of old were built .. there was GREAT money in making them because there was great demand (just look at the story of the intercontinental railroad).
Eventually we may get there .. but my point is that our road system is amazing .. we should be investing in buses and self-driving cars.

Our society just isn't ready for trains, so we spend millions of dollars on a product not many people are looking for and thus not willing to pay for. There is probably more demand for extending the monorail line at WDW than some of these high speed rail line routes.

Thank you for your well thought out response. It was everything I was thinking! The only thing I would add is that passenger trains to and from major cities in the Northeast and mass transit in those cities is normally well done. I live in Northern VA outside of DC and can easily take a train north to Philadelphia and New York normally for less then a flight. Where we have high concentrations of people we have developed the mass transit...

 

[writerguyfl]

I know this is an older thread, but bumping for the latest update. Brightline's future is not looking so bright after failed IPO:

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190213/whats-next-for-brightline-after-ipo-fails

Between this and California's new governor cutting back their high-speed plans significantly, the picture looks bleak for any fans of rail travel in the US.

The California situation is completely different. Aside from both projects being trains, I don't think it relates.

What's missing from the linked article is the real estate aspect of Brightline/Virgin Trains USA. The current end points of the line both have large real estate components.

In West Palm Beach, the station is connected to a 24-story apartment tower with about 290 units. It's supposed to look something like this:

The Miami station is much larger at about 11 acres. They are currently building two high rise towers that will contain about 810 units. Additionally, there's an office tower with about 300,000 square feet of space and 180,000 square feet of retail and dining. Rendering with the offices on the right:

Article about Brightline Real Estate: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article161031124.html

I just spent at least 30 minutes trying to figure out if Brightline/Virgin Trains USA will be getting the revenue from those real estate projects. I couldn't find the answer.

If they are going to be earning money on apartments, retail, and office space, the current lack of revenue on the train operation might not be fatal. But without it, I can't see how they stay in business with only $5 million in revenue against operating costs of $87 million.

Personally, I'm pulling for them. I tried the train out a few weeks back on a spur-of-the-moment day trip from Fort Lauderdale to Miami. Everything was top notch. Everyone from the managers down to the public space cleaners were full of smiles. Both stations were thoughtfully designed. Most of the retail and restaurant space in Miami is still under construction. On completed, I think it might prove to be a positive addition to the immediate area. (It's a pretty sad little part of Downtown Miami.)

 

[Viking7641]

Don't quite understand the recent obsession with these rail lines.

Buses (good ones) come be just as comfortable, more flexible with the routes (they can go where the PEOPLE are), and cheaper to produce/maintain and cheaper to ride.

Amtrak sounds good in concept .. I'd love to hop on a train to go to Disney World and I can get it pretty close .. but it costs as much (if not more) than flying, I have to drive (or take ... a BUS!) to a train station ... they have horrible schedules ... take way too long (with the stops they do) and you still need to worry about transportation at your destination.

In the end -- flying/driving is better.

If anything, there could be a train station near Disney Springs and Disney just buses people where they need to go.

The main problem with train routes is getting the right of way for tracks and dealing with existing infrastructure. Because of that most modern train routes are forced to go where people aren't (or don't want to go). I don't see Disney really seeing the benefit of letting a private company come through their property when they have something like the Magical Express.

It all depends on how many riders they think would use this line.

Go to a place where rail is done properly (Japan)

Driving is awful, and has enormous public cost that we all pay for. Flying is even worse

 

[Tink_83]

Go to a place where rail is done properly (Japan)

Driving is awful, and has enormous public cost that we all pay for. Flying is even worse

The population density of japan (or Europe) and size of the country is vastly different then the US, you can not compare the two. In the north east where there is high population density rail is done well, and taking a train and other public transportation options is viable. I can easily go from dc to New York on a train and depending on the size of the group the train can be less expensive and a far better option.

 

[Viking7641]

The population density of japan (or Europe) and size of the country is vastly different then the US, you can not compare the two. In the north east where there is high population density rail is done well, and taking a train and other public transportation options is viable. I can easily go from dc to New York on a train and depending on the size of the group the train can be less expensive and a far better option.

Density is part of the issue, to an extent. The US is still roughly 85% urban, (Japan around 90%). Austria and Germany for example are less urban than the United States.

The US is becoming denser however while Japan less so, and in the next generation we will see large swathes of exurban and rural areas become depopulated as people move into cities. Australia FWIW has a much more comprehensive passenger rail infrastructure compared to the US and is roughly the same geographic size with less than 1/10th the population.

What we are seeing is a hangover effect from lobbying efforts from the auto industry to actively eliminate competition in the 20th century. They destroyed tram and rail projects throughout the country. Then we spent vast amounts of our GDP subsidizing road and plane travel, and here we are.

What is so effective about the Japanese system is its comprehensiveness. It covers rural and urban riders very well. It is almost impossible to find a place in Japan you cannot get to on a train of some sort.

 

[Mikey15]

The population density of japan (or Europe) and size of the country is vastly different then the US, you can not compare the two. In the north east where there is high population density rail is done well, and taking a train and other public transportation options is viable. I can easily go from dc to New York on a train and depending on the size of the group the train can be less expensive and a far better option.

This isn’t a train in a low density area though. Broward+Miami-Dade is close to 5m people. Orange is well over 1m, as is Hillsborough, plus their surrounding counties. Florida’s population can support a well-planned HSR corridor as well as anywhere in the US.

 

[Tink_83]

This isn’t a train in a low density area though. Broward+Miami-Dade is close to 5m people. Orange is well over 1m, as is Hillsborough, plus their surrounding counties. Florida’s population can support a well-planned HSR corridor as well as anywhere in the US.

Yes in Orlando it makes since. Really in California it makes since. All I was saying is that connecting all of the US like they do in other countries doesn’t necessarily make since. I’m not against train travel. I bought in a community in VA that is slated to get a stop so that eventually I can commute to work on the train...

 

[Wakey]

Trains are very expensive here in the U.K. From Leeds to London, I often pay £250 ($340) for a 2 hour journey return, standard class. I can fly to countries in Europe for under $100. We are supposedly having ‘High Speed 2’ built linking my area with London, costing circa $50 billion.

 

[Spridell]

I am pulling for Brightline too.

I have been on it many times here in Palm Beach and it is a FANTASTIC experience all the way around.

I was happy when they announces a stop at Orlando Airport but a stop directly at Disney is even better.

I even think it is worth if for Disney to put some money into Brightline. It will be a win win for them for sure.

 

[writerguyfl]

I even think it is worth if for Disney to put some money into Brightline. It will be a win win for them for sure.

Even if someone like Disney doesn't invest, I wonder if a contract committing X number of seats once the line opens would help shore up finances.

Both the Fort Lauderdale and Miami stations are a relatively short hop to their cruise ports. Using the train to transport guests to/from a Disney Cruise out of Miami seems like an obvious move, to me.

Same goes for Universal, as they sell combo cruise/theme park vacations with Royal Caribbean.

 

[Spridell]

Even if someone like Disney doesn't invest, I wonder if a contract committing X number of seats once the line opens would help shore up finances.

Both the Fort Lauderdale and Miami stations are a relatively short hop to their cruise ports. Using the train to transport guests to/from a Disney Cruise out of Miami seems like an obvious move, to me.

Same goes for Universal, as they sell combo cruise/theme park vacations with Royal Caribbean.

Wow good point I never even thought of the cruise ships. And you are right Both stations are close to the ports.

Def a good idea to use the train for a Disney Cruise.

I myself would definitely use the Palm Beach to Orlando route.

 

[NotUrsula]

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??

Where to start? I-4 is probably a good place, LOL. The key to trains is that they do NOT run on highways. All train traffic is controlled and cooperative; if you have a higher priority you negotiate for the use of the rail access and pay for first dibs on the route, not like a free-for-all highway.

My DS lives in St. Pete and does not own a car. As a single guy who lives and works within a two-mile radius in a very walkable city, he doesn't need one for his daily activities. Not having to maintain a vehicle saves him an enormous amount of money, not least in insurance costs. He does have a car-share account, so if he needs to do a hardware store run or something like that, he can use a car short-term for an hourly fee. When he goes to WDW he often takes Amtrak or Megabus, so I'm very familiar with the issues of the present system.

1) Right now the intercity buses go downtown to downtown, which is useless for tourism (and also mostly useless for students, who are major users of transit.) A cheap bus from Tampa to Orlando doesn't help much if getting from WDW to the Pinellas beaches requires you to add on nearly $150 in Uber/Lyft charges RT. There is one Amtrak train per day each way on the corridor, it runs from Tampa to Kissimmee in the evening, and from Kissimmee to Tampa late morning. It's a comfortable train, and when it is on time it takes 75 minutes from downtown Tampa to Downtown Kissimmee. However, getting from Downtown St. Pete (already 20 minutes from the beaches by car) to downtown Tampa by bus takes 40 minutes and only runs 4X daily, or right now it's possible to do it by ferry, which is 30 minutes. An Uber takes 30min and costs $30 each way. Then there is a 20-minute Uber ride or a 40-minute LYNX bus ride to WDW from the Kissimmee Amtrak stop. (I've dropped him off at the Orlando Megabus stop to go back to St. Pete; driving to the only bus stop takes 45 minutes from Disney property if traffic on I-4 is decent, with the added bonus that you are adding distance in the wrong direction!)

2) I-4. The Orlando-Tampa corridor is now on the verge of becoming a single MSA (most estimate say that they will merge within 10 years), and I-4 was NOT built to handle that much traffic. These days, about the only time you can go from TPA to Universal Orlando in under 2 hours is at about 2 am. Major traffic delays happen somewhere along I-4 nearly every day, and a bus is no help to you if you are stuck in one, except that it does have a toilet on board! The I-4 Ultimate project was designed to fix traffic flow problems within Orlando; it does absolutely nothing to address congestion issues further south than Osceola County. Also, only Greyhound will get you all the way into Pinellas County, but NOT to the beaches: they take you to a bus stop on a major suburban arterial road near a shopping mall.

3) BEACHES. Did I mention the beaches? No scheduled mass transit will take you from Disney or Universal directly to a beach. A day on the sand will cost you big time right now, with the cheapest option being a weekend 24-hr car rental for about $50. But that only works if you are a licensed driver and over age 25. If not, you're looking at well over $100 to get to a real beach for a day trip.

The key to Brightline's success is making it useful for locals and attractive to tourists. Locals will ideally be able to buy passes which will lower costs for them for commuting to airports, etc, while tourists will pay full fare. THE key to getting the tourists onto the trains is connecting the Orlando I-Drive/WDW attractions to beaches, either on the West Coast or the East coast, and preferably both. (I didn't mention MCO because that is already part of the plan.) It will hugely benefit Disney's bottom line to be able to shift the bulk of the cost of the Magical Express buses onto Brightline, and serving the Disney crowd will greatly benefit Brightline's bottom line. It's a privately-owned railroad, which means that unlike a public transit utility that goes where the poorest members of the public are, Brightline will go where the largest number of paying customers want to be, and when it comes to Central Florida, that is the theme parks and the beaches. That there are other places in between that will get some service because of location is just lagniappe.

Florida Trend business magazine did a major article on Brightline last November: https://www.floridatrend.com/article/25904/brightline-passenger-train-floridian-of-the-year (and yes, WriterGuy, it explains the real-estate profit angle.)

PS: One important distinction for this discussion. Brightline is NOT high-speed rail. It is what is known as "fast-rail", meaning it is just a bit quicker than a car, but does not require the special elevated tracks or tunnels that high-speed rail has to use in populated areas. Sticking to fast-rail speeds greatly lowers construction costs. From the FT article linked above:

Building high-speed “bullet” trains was too costly. True high-speed rail might shave 30 to 45 minutes off a 300-mile ride, but if trains travel at upward of 200 mph, they become subject to a host of regulatory and logistical considerations that make the cost exorbitant. Bullet trains, for example, need a road-free corridor or must be elevated. (One reason the California train will be so expensive is that it requires building essentially a 300-mile bridge between Los Angeles and San Francisco.)

Edens and the Florida East Coast braintrust decided the answer in Florida wasn’t high-speed rail but fast rail, with trains topping out at 79 mph in Southeast Florida and upward of 125 mph between Brevard and Orlando.

This is the entire prospectus filed with the SEC, if you are wanting to wade through it: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1737516/000114036118043289/s002218x4_s1.htm

PPS: The irony of this entire discussion is that Florida once had an extensive rail system designed to serve both tourism and agriculture, but it was allowed to die in the early 1960's. If you are interested in the history of passenger rail in Florida, I suggest reading Last Train to Paradise. The builders of Brightline are consciously copying a lot of the investment strategies used by Flagler and Henry Plant at the turn of the last century, and will be largely running on right of way, if not actual track, that was established by one of them.

 

[Spridell]

Excellent write up.

 

[tlmadden73]

PPS: The irony of this entire discussion is that Florida once had an extensive rail system designed to serve both tourism and agriculture, but it was allowed to die in the early 1960's. If you are interested in the history of passenger rail in Florida, I suggest reading Last Train to Paradise. The builders of Brightline are consciously copying a lot of the investment strategies used by Flagler and Henry Plant at the turn of the last century, and will be largely running on right of way, if not actual track, that was established by one of them.

Exactly -- there was rail all over this country in the early 1900s until about 1950 (my little town used to have passenger rail coming in and little streetcars going to the beach, but all that is gone now) 1950s coincides with what? The car boom and the interstate highway creation.

Why go on rails to fixed locations and set schedules when you can have the FREEDOM of driving your own vehicle, whenever you want, wherever you want. We, as a country chose the freedom of cars. While trains were used for tourism, when did tourism really boom all across the country and in the Florida? After rail started dying out and replaced by cars and highways. What brought people to Walt Disney World since the 70s until planes got affordable? Cars.

While I think there is a need for some sort of railed mass transit to heavily congested areas (like airports or cities or a theme park resort), I still think planting fixed rails in the ground across vast distances just isn't the way to go. Technology has evolved. I mean .. simply autonomous cars will solve congestion issues - the main reason there is backups on highways is the "see-saw" effect that happens when drivers start and stop at different rates. If cars simply had the technology to drive themselves and react to other cars in real time -- maybe we wouldn't need 5 lane super highways.

I just feel our country has made its bed -- with cars -- and we need to sleep in it.

 

[NotUrsula]

Exactly -- there was rail all over this country in the early 1900s until about 1950 (my little town used to have passenger rail coming in and little streetcars going to the beach, but all that is gone now) 1950s coincides with what? The car boom and the interstate highway creation.

Why go on rails to fixed locations and set schedules when you can have the FREEDOM of driving your own vehicle, whenever you want, wherever you want. We, as a country chose the freedom of cars. While trains were used for tourism, when did tourism really boom all across the country and in the Florida? After rail started dying out and replaced by cars and highways. What brought people to Walt Disney World since the 70s until planes got affordable? Cars.

While I think there is a need for some sort of railed mass transit to heavily congested areas (like airports or cities or a theme park resort), I still think planting fixed rails in the ground across vast distances just isn't the way to go. Technology has evolved. I mean .. simply autonomous cars will solve congestion issues - the main reason there is backups on highways is the "see-saw" effect that happens when drivers start and stop at different rates. If cars simply had the technology to drive themselves and react to other cars in real time -- maybe we wouldn't need 5 lane super highways.

I just feel our country has made its bed -- with cars -- and we need to sleep in it.

Eh, if we could put trains in and then take them out again when something "better" came along (heavy irony intended there), why can't we put cars in and then take them out the same way? One big advantage of trains is their efficiency; you can fit about 60 passengers in the same footprint that would be taken up on a road by 6 cars, and you don't need to build giant parking lots to store them when not in use. The *biggest* advantage, though, is cost to the user. If you can easily commute by train and not have to own your own automobile (or only own one, which is probably more realistic for most families with kids), then you can save a boatload of cash to use for other things. These days even the very cheapest new car costs about 6 months gross pay for the average American; the cost of car ownership is going up very fast. When you take away the need to define "have reliable transportation" as "own your own car", you open up a lot more entry-level and unskilled job opportunities to people for whom that cost is a barrier to employment.

Most of the train tracks never actually were removed. They are mostly still there, just buried, which was a lot cheaper than ripping them out. The railroads never gave up the rights of way (the provenance of rail company ownership in Florida is quite convoluted, but not difficult to find online and follow it down: CSX now owns them.) Even if you do have to lay track, it's MUCH cheaper and faster to do that than to put down a paved road, especially your fancy kind with sensors built-in.

The thing about that bed we made with cars -- we pay a fortune for it, because unlike railway beds, interstate highways are public utilities, and expensive ones, at that. Most railroad track was not publicly maintained in the US until Amtrak started contributing to upkeep; the rail beds, bridges and tunnels were built and maintained by the privately-owned railroad companies. That couldn't compete with all the federal tax money that was poured into roads in order to grow the US automotive industry after the War. Not to get political here, but AFAIC, one transportation subsidy is much like another.

In any case, Florida isn't just anywhere: Florida is home to the second- and fourth-most popular destinations in the US for foreign tourists. Those folks REALLY want public transit in tourist corridors, and the more of it there is, the more of them will come and happily pay to use it. Americans still mostly visit WDW by car, in numbers MUCH bigger than come by plane, but foreign tourists stay longer and spend way more while they are here, and the more tax revenue that comes from them, the less needs to come from local residents. As for when tourism really started to boom in Florida, the answer is the 1920's.
Like everywhere else it lost visitors during the Depression, then picked them up again during and after WW2 because so many folks had seen the beaches while stationed in the military. (My MIL spent her honeymoon in Daytona Beach in 1950 -- and she got there by train from the midwest. She came home alone on the same route, because the groom was stationed at Ft. Stewart, GA, and left for Korea shortly after the honeymoon.) It must also be noted the democratization of the idea of "vacation" started right after WW2 as well; up until then only rich people went on vacations for the fun of it; everyone else usually only traveled for work or to visit extended family. (Part of the reason for that was the changes to labor laws and union contracts that created the idea of paid time off.)

Also, FTR, no one is talking about vast distances here. Brightline is specifically designed to link cities that are less than 4 hours apart by car. The idea is to replace short-hop flights or long car commutes more than it is to replace cross-country drives.

 

[Spridell]

I drive up to Disney from Palm Beach about once every 2 months or so. I would DEF replace some, maybe all, of my car rides with Brightline for sure.

 

[The Jackal]

Exactly -- there was rail all over this country in the early 1900s until about 1950 (my little town used to have passenger rail coming in and little streetcars going to the beach, but all that is gone now) 1950s coincides with what? The car boom and the interstate highway creation.

Why go on rails to fixed locations and set schedules when you can have the FREEDOM of driving your own vehicle, whenever you want, wherever you want. We, as a country chose the freedom of cars. While trains were used for tourism, when did tourism really boom all across the country and in the Florida? After rail started dying out and replaced by cars and highways. What brought people to Walt Disney World since the 70s until planes got affordable? Cars.

While I think there is a need for some sort of railed mass transit to heavily congested areas (like airports or cities or a theme park resort), I still think planting fixed rails in the ground across vast distances just isn't the way to go. Technology has evolved. I mean .. simply autonomous cars will solve congestion issues - the main reason there is backups on highways is the "see-saw" effect that happens when drivers start and stop at different rates. If cars simply had the technology to drive themselves and react to other cars in real time -- maybe we wouldn't need 5 lane super highways.

I just feel our country has made its bed -- with cars -- and we need to sleep in it.

The see-saw effect will still happen in a world with all vehicles that can drive themselves. All vehicles brake and accelerate at different rates, although the effect would probably be a little less then humans driving, but until you remember be people from cars to other transportation 5 lane highways will still be congested

 

[tlmadden73]

All good points ..

The problem is getting the public to buy in. Saying it is greener or more efficient isnt going to get people on trains.

It needs to be:
1- SIGNIFICANTLY Cheaper than flying and not too much more expensive than driving. (If it costs just $25/ticket to take a train between two Florida cities, most families will drive their own car or rent a car .. because it will be cheaper.)
2 - Faster than driving - (and that has to include the time spent getting to the station, waiting on the train, getting from destination station to final destination).... I doubt it will be much faster.
3 - GO to destinations you want to go (lets face it .. most train stations (even ones in big cities) arent in places where people want to be because that area of town (where the fixed rails are stuck) is no longer popular .. or because you cant easily build a new train station IN an existing city infrastructure.
4 - Have public transport available at that destination.
5 - Have a flexible schedule. (Even if a train is faster than driving -- having to wait on a train still takes time - you could be at your destination earlier than the train since you can leave whenever you want).

If Brightline can build it .. and market it to get customers to ride. Super. I just think that is an uphill battle in our culture and in our sprawling country. Yes there are a lot of people who would like the train..but there are more that like the freedom of their car.

 

[NotUrsula]

On your SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than flying argument, don't forget to factor in parking issues. Trains often take you to places where parking is both scarce and expensive, so if it will cost you $100 or more to store the car at your destination (such as at WDW), you have to factor that into the price.

Another thing you need to consider when it comes to short runs is alcohol consumption. Is the activity at your destination likely to include drinking? If so, the train allows you avoid any temptation to drive under the influence. (This is a huge driver of ridership in my city, where the athletic stadiums are downtown. Taking the train to the game is super-popular because you don't have to pay for parking and you can drink as much as you like.)