[Coconut1]

Originally Posted by randian

Trains are a horrible way to move people. They're inflexible, inconvenient, and incredibly overpriced for such a task.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. The most efficient way to move mass amounts of not only people but material is by rail.

Originally Posted by chopchop0

Considering there is not a good mass transit system in place in most of FL, then you shouldn't be surprised that many of us are against it

FL was designed with cars in mind. The focus should be on improving and widening existing infrastructure and improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles

A) Are you so closed minded that you cannot see the success mass transit has in other areas? B) You can only build and expand roads so much.

Originally Posted by boxus

Well, if you have to ask, you probably never been anywhere that you could compare it to. The routes are wrong and the stations are too close together, makes for a redundant waste of money, a station should be further than a three minute walk, and the circle thing through downtown is a bit much when the entire east and west side of Miami has zero train options and a garbage bus system. They could have spaced the stations out, did away with the city loop, extend this thing south a little, north a little, and two areas to the west, and put in a link with Miami Beach.

You're missing the points of the stops. If you went from Omni/Arsht to Eighth Street, would it be a waste? No. If you go from Omni to Fifth Street, would it be a waste? No. If you go from Fifth Street to Eighth Street, would it be a waste? Yes.

The idea is not just to take Metromover from one stop to the next, but to be able to take it from one stop and arrive close to your destination.

Metromover is not a long distance commuter train.

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Amtrak costs taxpayers $1.5 billion a year. We don't need more of that.

And the roadways cost how much?

I thought so.

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by Coconut1

A) Are you so closed minded that you cannot see the success mass transit has in other areas? B) You can only build and expand roads so much.

.

Are you so gung Ho on mass that you're willing to waste billions of dollars on it?

I've probably been on more mass transit systems internationally than you have and the infrastructure here would not support a line. Stop being an idealist and become a realist

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by Coconut1

And the roadways cost how much?

I thought so. rolleyes

Funded in the majority by fuel taxes, that way the people that are using the roads are paying for them.
The majority of people do not use Amtrak yet we pay for it.
If you stop rolling your eyes you may be able to understand better.

I thought so.

[Coconut1]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

Are you so gung Ho on mass that you're willing to waste billions of dollars on it?

I've probably been on more mass transit systems internationally than you have and the infrastructure here would not support a line. Stop being an idealist and become a realist

This is not just about looking at today, it's about thinking of tomorrow as well. Your mentality is going to cause significant hardships for our future generations. Maybe you feel alright screwing over people like that, but I don't.

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Funded in the majority by fuel taxes, that way the people that are using the roads are paying for them.
The majority of people do not use Amtrak yet we pay for it.
If you stop rolling your eyes you may be able to understand better.

I thought so.

Aww, nice try. Take your pick.

How do we pay for America's roads? | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

The federal gas tax has been stuck at 18.4 cents per gallon for 17 years. During that time the money raised has lost more than a third of its purchasing power.


National studies have concluded that the United States needs an average of $60 billion to $87 billion annually in new revenues just to maintain current highway conditions.


But as cars and trucks continue to become more fuel efficient and miles driven continue to rise, the gap will only grow between what Washington has and what it needs to maintain and build American roads.


Congress has plunked down billions of dollars in stopgap funds each time the highway budget has teetered on insolvency. But leaders have failed to devise a permanent solution.

Do roads pay for themselves? Well, no | Grist

Actually, Highway Builders, Roads Don

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by Coconut1

This is not just about looking at today, it's about thinking of tomorrow as well. Your mentality is going to cause significant hardships for our future generations. Maybe you feel alright screwing over people like that, but I don't.

So tell me how you plan on paying for tearing up and gutting the cities and neighborhoods that have been built around car ownership?

Sorry, but mass transit in FL at this stage is going to be an expensive and ineffective mess of a project. New development should encourage mixed-use and mass transit, but I just don't see it happening retroactively to areas that were built around car/vehicle ownership. That's why I fully support increases in gas taxes to help fund those initiatives, as well as holding manufacturers to higher mpg standards to reduce oil consumption

[blacksmith76]

Originally Posted by boxus

That is the city of Denver, not a city to city rail system as I was speaking about. Miami (where I live) already has a need for an efficient mass trans system and there is not one here, I seriously doubt connecting a train (and as a poster already stated, there is a train that connects to Miami) would all of a sudden make the mass transit magic happen.

The same concept still applies in terms of what's happening in Denver. There is no magic involved, it's just planning. You have to start somewhere. If we just sit around doing nothing, of course nothing will change. Obama was going to use Florida as an example for the rest of the country, but oh well. When I started hearing about it, I wondered why he hadn't chosen the Front Range of Colorado, eventually connecting Cheyenne to Albuquerque. Pretty much every rail initiative has passed in CO, where the people are much more forward-thinking.

[blacksmith76]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

So tell me how you plan on paying for tearing up and gutting the cities and neighborhoods that have been built around car ownership?

Sorry, but mass transit in FL at this stage is going to be an expensive and ineffective mess of a project. New development should encourage mixed-use and mass transit, but I just don't see it happening retroactively to areas that were built around car/vehicle ownership. That's why I fully support increases in gas taxes to help fund those initiatives, as well as holding manufacturers to higher mpg standards to reduce oil consumption

Denver is every bit as much of a suburban mess as FL, and the light rail system was retrofitted with no problem. In fact, with the flat landscape most of Florida's cities have roads laid out in a grid, which would make planning rail lines that much easier.

[Crane's Rooster]

I think there is a misconception about mass transit working only in super high density in places like Manhattan. In my experiences it's just not the complete picture. In every area that I have lived where there was good, well traveled rail system (Boston, DC, San Francisco), yes the trains went into the downtown dense cores but a vast majority of the lines ran in typical suburban neighborhoods. The metro for instance runs deep into Northern Virginia and Maryland. Many of the stops are in residential neighorhoods that look much more like a typical Florida subdivision than midtown Manhattan. Same with the MUNI in San Fran, once you got out of the financial district the trains basically run through residential areas such as the Sunset and Richmond districts. These areas resemble local areas like Kennedy blvd in Tampa or Colonial blvd in Orlando. There's commercial development along the main strips and than residential areas immediately behind the commercial. Same with Boston in areas like JP, Cambridge, and Brookline. My point is, with proper planning and placement I think rail can work, even in car-centric places like Florida. Just like anything else it comes down to convenience, price and safety. If the average rider sees all 3 of those benefits, they will ride it.

[Coconut1]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

So tell me how you plan on paying for tearing up and gutting the cities and neighborhoods that have been built around car ownership?

Why on Earth would be think you would have to tear up and gut cities to build mass transit? If you have a four lane road, remove one lane in each direction for a rail line and keep the other for vehicular traffic.

Have a three lane road, remove one lane and make it a one way street.

Have a two lane road, see steps for three lane road.

Have a one lane road, don't build transit there.

Originally Posted by blacksmith76

with the flat landscape most of Florida's cities have roads laid out in a grid, which would make planning rail lines that much easier.

Yep

Originally Posted by Crane's Rooster

I think there is a misconception about mass transit working only in super high density in places like Manhattan. In my experiences it's just not the complete picture. In every area that I have lived where there was good, well traveled rail system (Boston, DC, San Francisco), yes the trains went into the downtown dense cores but a vast majority of the lines ran in typical suburban neighborhoods. The metro for instance runs deep into Northern Virginia and Maryland. Many of the stops are in residential neighorhoods that look much more like a typical Florida subdivision than midtown Manhattan. Same with the MUNI in San Fran, once you got out of the financial district the trains basically run through residential areas such as the Sunset and Richmond districts. These areas resemble local areas like Kennedy blvd in Tampa or Colonial blvd in Orlando. There's commercial development along the main strips and than residential areas immediately behind the commercial. Same with Boston in areas like JP, Cambridge, and Brookline. My point is, with proper planning and placement I think rail can work, even in car-centric places like Florida. Just like anything else it comes down to convenience, price and safety. If the average rider sees all 3 of those benefits, they will ride it.

Exactly.

[randian]

Originally Posted by Coconut1

Why on Earth would be think you would have to tear up and gut cities to build mass transit? If you have a four lane road, remove one lane in each direction for a rail line and keep the other for vehicular traffic.

Why would I want to reduce carrying capacity and destroy perfectly good roads to build mass transit?