Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I totally clapped my hands when I heard him say Tampa. I knew he was coming to town tomorrow, but no one knew what he was coming for. We suspected high speed rail, but didn't know for sure.
This is going to be great. Downtown Tampa and Downtown Orlando are only 70 miles apart. This rail is going to connect the two cities in so many ways, and drastically reduce traffic along the I-4 corridor.
As a Tampa resident, I am extremely excited. I will use it very often if I am still in Florida when it is completed.
A lot of people have said that the BosWash would be the best area to put the high speed rail. That kind of makes sense. There is certainly more population in that corridor than the Tampa-Orlando-Miami corridor. Perhaps they chose TOM because of population growth issues? I know that the northeast has very low growth rates, while every major city in Florida has exploding populations (especially Tampa and Orlando).
Either way, im certain this will be a great investment. It will create many jobs and will be used extensively by people in both Orlando and Tampa.
The casinos want a train from LA to Las Vegas but I think it should be a low priority esp since people can gamble in California anyways. If the casinos want to fund a train then that would be cool. I take the train between Los Angeles & San Diego to visit family & it only gets up to 90mph & stops a 7 cities on the way [so it takes over 2 hours -about the same as the freeway]. In the future it will take less than 30 minutes
OK so we are going to build a high speed train. So the question is where should it be built? I am not against speedy rail service but it seems that the best place to start such a thing would be in highly congested areas with a medium to high population density. I would say Boston to Richmond VA would be the ideal place to start on the east coast and San Diego to San Fransisco on the west coast. But there are other proposals. What do you think?
How about "ALL OF THE ABOVE"?!!!! I've lived in Los Angeles and Texas and can tell you that there is a HEAVY need for LA to Las Vegas b/c of all of the weekend travel. there is also a need to connect the major cities of texas. ironically, this idea was proposed back in the mid 80s in texas, but Southwest Airlines killed it. High speed trains would be ideal since we wouldn't have to go through all of the security crap that they put us through whenever we fly.
How about "ALL OF THE ABOVE"?!!!! I've lived in Los Angeles and Texas and can tell you that there is a HEAVY need for LA to Las Vegas b/c of all of the weekend travel. there is also a need to connect the major cities of texas. ironically, this idea was proposed back in the mid 80s in texas, but Southwest Airlines killed it. High speed trains would be ideal since we wouldn't have to go through all of the security crap that they put us through whenever we fly.
You are right. They don't even check your luggage & you can eat in the snack bar or restaurant & buy alcohol if you are old enough. Plus the seats are big & comfortable & you can walk around the whole train. But the conductor yells at people if you try to save seats.
The casinos want a train from LA to Las Vegas but I think it should be a low priority esp since people can gamble in California anyways. If the casinos want to fund a train then that would be cool. I take the train between Los Angeles & San Diego to visit family & it only gets up to 90mph & stops a 7 cities on the way [so it takes over 2 hours -about the same as the freeway]. In the future it will take less than 30 minutes
the casinos in california don't hold a candle to the ones in vegas. they don't have craps tables and they don't offer complimentary cocktails nor have the entertainment of las vegas. you are also at their mercy since they are governed by the indians, not the state gaming commission.
OK so we are going to build a high speed train. So the question is where should it be built? I am not against speedy rail service but it seems that the best place to start such a thing would be in highly congested areas with a medium to high population density. I would say Boston to Richmond VA would be the ideal place to start on the east coast and San Diego to San Fransisco on the west coast. But there are other proposals. What do you think?
Although I haven't followed it closely they are already proceeding with the San Diego to San Francisco line. Currently it is only set to make it to San Jose because some of the cities on the San Francisco peninsula want to have the tracks go underground, which obviously would add to the cost.
TODAY’S PROGRESS – IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAGE, HEADING TOWARD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The path from where California’s high‐speed train project stands today to initial revenue passenger service can be divided into three categories of major milestones: planning, implementation, and revenue service.
The report to the Legislature illustrates that the project is on track to:
… begin completing environmental reviews in 2011,
… enter construction in 2012,
… begin opening sections for passenger service 2017 or earlier, and
… complete the initial system from Anaheim to San Francisco by 2020.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
