Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Paris to Lyon is 280 miles. A high-speed train round trip ticket cost about $85, and takes an hour and 59 minutes.

Houston to Dallas is 240 miles. An airline round trip ticket is about $115 and takes an hour and 5 minutes. Slightly more expensive, half the time, but less flexible on travel times, changing tickets and buying tickets last minute.

Driving from Houston to Dallas takes about three and a half hours and $50 in gas round trip.Driving is far and away the most flexible on changing travel plans.

 

A big issue is how easy is it to get around once you get to the destination.I've been to Houston and Dallas on business many times and never once was my meeting  anywhere near a City center.  if I fly in for business I would still have to get a Rent-A-Car. It would probably be the same taking a high speed train.   Maybe Uber across town might be cheaper, but taxi certainly aren't.

Advantage: Car

 

 

 

Edited by 0xdeadbeef
Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 1:19 AM, FartingMonk said:

Simpler answer is we work too far from work. Out of me and my 30+ coworkers. Me and one other person lives less than 40 minutes from work.  I bet it's like that for many people.  You can throw in the high speed rail but going to neighborhoods would be impossible for now

Expand  

The high speed rail doesn’t impact local commutes, unless someone decides that they would commute from Houston-Dallas. 

As far as a Houston station, I know Texas central was looking more at the old Northwest Mall at the intersection of 610 and 290.  I recall they looked at options to take the train  into downtown Houston but ran into issues about it including pushback from the neighborhoods.  And not everyone wants to go into downtown.  Now being dropped at at NW Mall leads to how to get elsewhere that could be solved with buses, Uber, rental cars, and a large parking lot.  Eventually light rail.  But you can’t expect the cities to build the local infrastructure first.  

Posted

The short answer, which many have indicated, is cost.  It is too expensive to do right and not enough people will use it.  Of course there are some that will and I love train travel, but its just not practical.  Go to Dallas for cotton bowl.  4 guys or a family or any combination of people, it is so much cheaper to drive.  Call it 400 miles round trip costs bout $50 in a car.  That is $12.25 per head both ways.  There doesnt exist an economic model that works.

My hope is that electric cars get better and easier and then we add high speed driving lanes on these routes between cities.  At least 100 mph.  Little environmental impact.   

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 2:13 AM, 0xdeadbeef said:

Paris to Lyon is 280 miles. A high-speed train round trip ticket cost about $85, and takes an hour and 59 minutes.

Houston to Dallas is 240 miles. An airline round trip ticket is about $115 and takes an hour and 5 minutes. Slightly more expensive, half the time, but less flexible on travel times, changing tickets and buying tickets last minute.

Driving from Houston to Dallas takes about three and a half hours and $50 in gas round trip.Driving is far and away the most flexible on changing travel plans.

 

A big issue is how easy is it to get around once you get to the destination.I've been to Houston and Dallas on business many times and never once was my meeting  anywhere near a City center.  if I fly in for business I would still have to get a Rent-A-Car. It would probably be the same taking a high speed train.   Maybe Uber across town might be cheaper, but taxi certainly aren't.

Advantage: Car

 

 

 

Expand  

try $115 one way now days, those $50 one way jobs on southwest are very few and far between. 

Posted

I think it will be a huge success between Houston and Dallas assuming the cost is competitive with air.  With security, parking and arriving an hour before the flight, flying is almost as long as driving.   Train would most likely be the fastest method unless the security and pre-arrival bs exists.

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 2:13 AM, 0xdeadbeef said:

Paris to Lyon is 280 miles. A high-speed train round trip ticket cost about $85, and takes an hour and 59 minutes.

Houston to Dallas is 240 miles. An airline round trip ticket is about $115 and takes an hour and 5 minutes. Slightly more expensive, half the time, but less flexible on travel times, changing tickets and buying tickets last minute.

Driving from Houston to Dallas takes about three and a half hours and $50 in gas round trip.Driving is far and away the most flexible on changing travel plans.

 

A big issue is how easy is it to get around once you get to the destination.I've been to Houston and Dallas on business many times and never once was my meeting  anywhere near a City center.  if I fly in for business I would still have to get a Rent-A-Car. It would probably be the same taking a high speed train.   Maybe Uber across town might be cheaper, but taxi certainly aren't.

Advantage: Car

Expand  

Don’t forget the extra time needed at the airport. That’s easily an hour extra.

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 2:13 AM, 0xdeadbeef said:

Paris to Lyon is 280 miles. A high-speed train round trip ticket cost about $85, and takes an hour and 59 minutes.

Houston to Dallas is 240 miles. An airline round trip ticket is about $115 and takes an hour and 5 minutes. Slightly more expensive, half the time, but less flexible on travel times, changing tickets and buying tickets last minute.

Driving from Houston to Dallas takes about three and a half hours and $50 in gas round trip.Driving is far and away the most flexible on changing travel plans.

 

A big issue is how easy is it to get around once you get to the destination.I've been to Houston and Dallas on business many times and never once was my meeting  anywhere near a City center.  if I fly in for business I would still have to get a Rent-A-Car. It would probably be the same taking a high speed train.   Maybe Uber across town might be cheaper, but taxi certainly aren't.

Advantage: Car

 

 

 

Expand  

There’s an assumption built in that the time spent in the airport/station is the same. Is that a fair assumption?  Would DHS screening be the same?

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 3:35 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s an assumption built in that the time spent in the airport/station is the same. Is that a fair assumption?  Would DHS screening be the same?

Expand  

For Texas central, I don’t think there is any talk of DHS.  I guess if terrorists started blowing up the trains that could change but with 250 miles of track, a terrorist doesn’t have to get on the train to cause problems.

Posted

There shouldnt be any security hassles if done right...unless its changed since i was last in europe, you just walk up to train show ticket(sometimes) and board

No reason we would need to change it up here

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 3:09 AM, bluto said:

try $115 one way now days, those $50 one way jobs on southwest are very few and far between. 

Expand  

Ah. you are correct. I had gone to southwest.com and priced a ticket but didn't notice you had to pick a return flight.... Cheapest swa round trip I see with taxes is $284.   

Advantage train and car on the price.

 

Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2019 at 3:35 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s an assumption built in that the time spent in the airport/station is the same. Is that a fair assumption?  Would DHS screening be the same?

Expand  

As what? Airports? If rail security in other parts of the US is any indication, there will be little or no security nearly all the time (save the random checks); you can walk straight from the curb to the platform and to your seat.

Edited by The People’s Elbow
Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 3:44 AM, Bone3421 said:

There shouldnt be any security hassles if done right...unless its changed since i was last in europe, you just walk up to train show ticket(sometimes) and board

No reason we would need to change it up here

Expand  

Hell, many places you could buy a ticket on-board for a negligible (5%) surcharge.

A popular route such as the Texas triangle, in theory, would be covered by hourly trains. 

Combine the slog of driving, the safety aspect, and the environmental factor (for those who care), and that one can relax and/or actually work on the train, it's a no brainier favoring rail.

 

Though currently bus / Vonage isn't a bad alternative, without infrastructure required to build out rails

 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 1:19 AM, FartingMonk said:

Simpler answer is we work too far from work. Out of me and my 30+ coworkers. Me and one other person lives less than 40 minutes from work.  I bet it's like that for many people.  You can throw in the high speed rail but going to neighborhoods would be impossible for now

Expand  

Psssst..... suuuuuubrubs......  We're till tied to a post WWII conscript of living.  Rail spurs in the burbs would be nice. Chicago seems to have gotten this down pretty nicely.

Posted

Part of the problem is city folks love to piss and stomp all over rural folks. High speed rail as it is generally proposed will do nothing but curtail economic activity in the between areas while cutting farms and ranches in half and causing huge problems for wildlife and such. If you've ever made the argument (and it's a good argument) that we can't build a wall along the border because it will restrict wildlife movement, then you should maybe not argue that it makes sense to cut the country up into slices with high speed rail. Now, that doesn't mean that it can't make sense if we reexamine how to do it. First off, it has to have plenty of natural crossings for wildlife, livestock, and tractors. So probably and elevated pr partially elevated track. That still doesn't solve the problem of stealing folks' land for economic development elsewhere, so instead of using eminent domain to force them to sell, maybe we should talk about using it to force them to lease it. That way it still produces money for landowners and they still have the ability to cross back and forth. And if course we aren't preventing wildlife from crossing, something that not only impacts species like deer, but also stuff like repopulation efforts for species like black bears. Frankly France doesn't really have the wildlife left that we have.

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 2:39 PM, SquishMitten said:

Genuinely curious as to this reaction. Out of the hundreds of times I've said this to someone, you're the first person to ever have a negative response.

Expand  

A high-speed rail link would be nice.  The colossal waste of money that hosting an olympics would wind up being is not worth it.

  • Like 1
Posted

Some sort of commuter train running  between San Antonio and Georgetown would be a good start if anything to cut down on the I-35 mess.   If it has to stop at New Braunfels, San Marcos,  Kyle, Buda, and few key drop-offs in Austin,  so be it.   I can't think of any other alternative other than making a closer to I-35 north to south route between the two metro areas that will fix the I-35 mess.   I would think it would be quicker and less expensive to run commuter trains vs acquiring the right away for another six lane highway between the two or upgrading an existing one like US 281?   Yes I know the toll road is there, but it's a total waste south of the Buda cut off and the population of most of these cities is moving  west bound towards Canyon Lake, Blanco, Bulverde, etc .  

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 3:02 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

A high-speed rail link would be nice.  The colossal waste of money that hosting an olympics would wind up being is not worth it.

Expand  

They are colossally expensive for a single city to host. But a ton of that expense goes into building the venues and accommodations for millions of people. Between the four cities, there are a lot of existing venues to utilize. And accommodating 1-2 million people is a much easier task than 7-8 million. All that cost savings could be redirected to the rail. All said and done, yeah it's going to be expensive, but we all want the rail. This allows us to use tourist money to finance a lot of it. 

Posted

I don't think it is possible in the modern day to even break even hosting the Olympics, much less use tourist money to finance anything.

The only thing the Olympics does is line the pockets of corrupt officials and performance drug dealers.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2019 at 3:02 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

A high-speed rail link would be nice.  The colossal waste of money that hosting an olympics would wind up being is not worth it.

Expand  

I think the Olympics would be a shit ton cheaper.

edit: and possibly less corrupt.

Edited by GringoSalado
Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 3:23 PM, Nueces River Rat said:

Some sort of commuter train running  between San Antonio and Georgetown would be a good start if anything to cut down on the I-35 mess.   If it has to stop at New Braunfels, San Marcos,  Kyle, Buda, and few key drop-offs in Austin,  so be it.   I can't think of any other alternative other than making a closer to I-35 north to south route between the two metro areas that will fix the I-35 mess.   I would think it would be quicker and less expensive to run commuter trains vs acquiring the right away for another six lane highway between the two or upgrading an existing one like US 281?   Yes I know the toll road is there, but it's a total waste south of the Buda cut off and the population of most of these cities is moving  west bound towards Canyon Lake, Blanco, Bulverde, etc .  

Expand  

There is one. Wife and kids took it from ft worth to Austin a year ago. It takes longer than driving because of all the stops, but nobody has to drive. 

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 6:20 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

There is one. Wife and kids took it from ft worth to Austin a year ago. It takes longer than driving because of all the stops, but nobody has to drive. 

Expand  

Amtrak?    https://www.amtrak.com/routes/texas-eagle-train.html

What I'm suggesting is more of a  regional line that runs back and forth between Georgetown and San Antonio specifically for daily commuting with multiple scheduled stops in the population centers.   

Posted
  On 6/23/2019 at 6:35 PM, dingleberryswitzer said:

I'm guessing every Podunk town in between would whine and cry to get a stop put in.  You don't think this hypothetical train wouldn't stop in New Braunfels, San Marcos, Georgetown, Waco, Temple, Sealy, etc?  Shoot the aggys would whine their way to a college station stop.  The 3 hour ride from SA to DFW would take 5 hours.  And at five hours I can drive.

But the real reason is you also need a good public transportation system in so the big cities to.  A train to Houston is fine if I'm visiting Grandma and she can pick me up and drive me around, but if I'm going on a vacation and want to explore then I'd need my own wheels.  

Expand  

 

  On 6/23/2019 at 5:47 PM, Parliament said:

I believe property rights in the US make it much tougher to get the rights of way to do such things.

Expand  

These two things.  Federalism and our property right system no longer make it feasible.  When we went all in on a national highway system in the 1950s, the dream of high speed passenger rail is what we gave up.

Posted (edited)
  On 6/23/2019 at 5:50 PM, Hawndoh said:

Because the USA is really freaking huge and our cities are far apart. 

France is the size of Texas and they have 40 million more people than Texas. 

Relatively short distances and much higher density means trains work well. 

 

Expand  

the first TGV line linked two cities about 240 miles apart with (currently) about 15 million total population combined.  i wonder what other city pair pretty well matches those figures?

 

 

edit: here's the texas triangle drawn on france:

 

Edited by elfenix
Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 6:39 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Does Georgetown and San Antonio have a need for a route that I’m missing?  Or is the suggestion really Austin and SA but why not take it up to Georgetown as well?

Expand  

I used those two cites as good starting and ending  points.   The trends in population for both metro areas are moving towards each other.   

Posted (edited)
  On 6/23/2019 at 8:53 PM, clapclapclap said:

You left out a lot of the story.  The HSR fed funding only covered construction (partially) and the state would have been on the hook for all annual operating losses.  Because of the high price of construction to build  a completely sealed 186mph corridor (which at the time would have been barred by fed safety regulations from sharing any tracks with freight railroads or Tri-Rail) it likely would never have turned a profit.

Instead a private company that owns a freight railroad between Miami and Jacksonville is building a lower speed (up to 125mph) line between Miami and Orlando that will open in 2022, and then extend to Tampa 3 years later, originally named Brightline.  A much lower cost project because they can use their own existing rail line for most of the way (and the same in the media of an interstate from SW Orlando to Tampa that the prior HSR would have used) and won't have to build the very expensive grade separations and corridor modifications Mia-WPB the prior proposal would have had to build.

We'll see if the can operate profitably, but it is mostly privately financed and is now branded as Virgin Trains USA after their investment.  They're also building office, residential, and retail projects around their stations.  I don't recall the details of the original HSR proposal, did it directly serve the downtowns of WPB, FtL, and Miami?  Because Brightline does, and they're already running an hourly service (30 minutes during rush hours) between WPB and Miami.  No govt subsidy for that.  It will take a little longer to travel from Miami to Orlando/Tampa (about 3 hours and 4 hours) than the shot down HSR proposal, but it saved taxpayers a bundle. 

 

Expand  

No, that's not what happened.  It was politics pure and simple.  See spoiler for details

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Edited by Loco
Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2019 at 6:58 PM, elfenix said:

people have property rights elsewhere. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déclaration_d'utilité_publique

Expand  

The Just Compensation clause means it's prohibitively expensive to acquire the land you need in urban areas to complete high speed rail, and the multiple layers of NIMBY jurisdication makes it legally impossible, even if you had the financial wherewithal.  True high speed rail can't share tracks with freight, as you design the turns differently.

Edited by Bateshorn
Posted (edited)
  On 6/23/2019 at 6:40 PM, Huckleberry said:

Exactly.

143.png

Expand  

I once took a geographic information systems class at TCEQ HQ.  On the first day, the TT professor teaching the class did this overlay with except she placed Paris where Lubbock is located.  You had to go completely outside the overlay of France to get to a city that is larger than Lubbock.

Edited by J.R. Juniors Junior Jr.
Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2019 at 7:16 PM, Bateshorn said:

The Just Compensation clause means it's prohibitively expensive to acquire the land you need in urban areas to complete high speed rail, and the multiple layers of NIMBY jurisdication makes it legally impossible, even if you had the financial wherewithal.  True high speed rail can't share tracks with freight, as you design the turns differently.

Expand  

google's translate of the french civil code, article 545:

"No one may be compelled to give up his property, except for reasons of public utility, and with just and prior compensation."

 

  On 6/24/2019 at 7:48 PM, J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. said:

I once took a geographic information systems class at TCEQ HQ.  On the first day, the TT professor teaching the class did this overlay with except she placed Paris where Lubbock is located.  You had to go completely outside the overlay of France to get to a city that is larger than Lubbock.

Expand  

so don't build a high speed train to lubbock. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2019 at 8:29 PM, elfenix said:

google's translate of the french civil code, article 545:

"No one may be compelled to give up his property, except for reasons of public utility, and with just and prior compensation."

 

so don't build a high speed train to lubbock. 

Expand  

There's a reason they started the SF to LA line in Central California:  It's the only place where the land is affordable enough to build. 

IF you want to dream of high speed rail in this country, go for it.  But it's highly unlikely the State of Texas (or anywhere else) is going to spend the money necessary to acquire land in a place where people want to actually get on the train.  Do you want to get on your TGV in down town Austin, or Buda?  Because you have to have public transit infrastructure around it to facilitate getting to and from the station. Otherwise you build it out in bumble fuck, like an airport and then, what's the point?

Edited by Bateshorn
Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 12:57 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Part of the problem is city folks love to piss and stomp all over rural folks. High speed rail as it is generally proposed will do nothing but curtail economic activity in the between areas while cutting farms and ranches in half and causing huge problems for wildlife and such. If you've ever made the argument (and it's a good argument) that we can't build a wall along the border because it will restrict wildlife movement, then you should maybe not argue that it makes sense to cut the country up into slices with high speed rail. Now, that doesn't mean that it can't make sense if we reexamine how to do it. First off, it has to have plenty of natural crossings for wildlife, livestock, and tractors. So probably and elevated pr partially elevated track. That still doesn't solve the problem of stealing folks' land for economic development elsewhere, so instead of using eminent domain to force them to sell, maybe we should talk about using it to force them to lease it. That way it still produces money for landowners and they still have the ability to cross back and forth. And if course we aren't preventing wildlife from crossing, something that not only impacts species like deer, but also stuff like repopulation efforts for species like black bears. Frankly France doesn't really have the wildlife left that we have.

Expand  

A railway, like a road is a public good. I'm sorry it will be taking land from the landowner, but it benefits a ton of people. Like all the landowners before them, the sacrifice of the land will be easily outweighed by the benefit to society. 

Please explain the wildlife argument further? The deer population will be hurt?

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 8:36 PM, Bateshorn said:

There's a reason they started the SF to LA line in Central California:  It's the only place where the land is affordable enough to build. 

IF you want to dream of high speed rail in this country, go for it.  But it's highly unlikely the State of Texas (or anywhere else) is going to spend the money necessary to acquire land in a place where people want to actually get on the train.  Do you want to get on your TGV in down town Austin, or Buda?  Because you have to have public transit infrastructure around it to facilitate getting to and from the station. Otherwise you build it out in bumble fuck, like an airport and then, what's the point?

Expand  

Uber

Scooter sharing

Car sharing

Moped sharing

 

Plenty of proven last-mile solutions that are easy to deploy

Posted

Does that explain why it is so popularly used to argue against a border wall? Ask amy wildlife biologist whether it would have a substantial negative impact on wildlife and you will get an affirmative answer. It's not like a road or highway that can still be crossed. It's a strip of land with high fences on either side that prevents movement of nearly all large mammals. So, for instance, Louisiana Blackbear populations that are slowly creeping back westward would come to a dead stop when they hit the rail corridor.

Posted (edited)

 

  On 6/24/2019 at 8:36 PM, Bateshorn said:

There's a reason they started the SF to LA line in Central California:  It's the only place where the land is affordable enough to build. 

 

Expand  

the valley legislators forced language in the bond that meant LA and SF had to be connected before projects connecting LA to SD and SF to Sac could get started.  that was done to prevent the valley from getting left out if, after building the megalopolis segments, they decided not to build any more.   maybe it was also intended as a poison pill. 

after that, yes, it's somewhat less expensive to acquire central valley land (though there's so many lawsuits the litigation costs are a significant chunk (and keep in mind that because property tends to appreciate, as the litigation drags, the cost of acquisition goes  up).  there's also fewer engineering challenges, etc. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/california-high-speed-rail-3lets-hear-from-the-chairman/374352/

  On 6/24/2019 at 8:36 PM, Bateshorn said:

 

IF you want to dream of high speed rail in this country, go for it.  But it's highly unlikely the State of Texas is going to spend the money necessary to acquire land in a place where people want to actually get on the train. 

Expand  

good thing there's a private company willing to do it, then!

Edited by elfenix
Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 8:52 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Does that explain why it is so popularly used to argue against a border wall? Ask amy wildlife biologist whether it would have a substantial negative impact on wildlife and you will get an affirmative answer. It's not like a road or highway that can still be crossed. It's a strip of land with high fences on either side that prevents movement of nearly all large mammals. So, for instance, Louisiana Blackbear populations that are slowly creeping back westward would come to a dead stop when they hit the rail corridor.

Expand  

I've never heard the animal argument before.  On one hand it sounds 100% valid, on the other hand since when did we start giving a shit about animals?

Posted

It's not really something that is terribly hard to fix, but it would be more expensive. If you elevate the rails (or put them under the ground) you don't need to have as much fencing and animals can pass freely. But I'd imagine the costs would go way way up.

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 6:49 PM, elfenix said:

the first TGV line linked two cities about 240 miles apart with (currently) about 15 million total population combined.  i wonder what other city pair pretty well matches those figures?

 

 

edit: here's the texas triangle drawn on france:

 

 

 

Expand  

Why does Dallas get to be Paris?

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 9:22 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It's not really something that is terribly hard to fix, but it would be more expensive. If you elevate the rails (or put them under the ground) you don't need to have as much fencing and animals can pass freely. But I'd imagine the costs would go way way up.

Expand  

The Texas hsr plan had more than half of the planned miles to be elevated.  Which of course allows  passage for wildlife and land owners.   

These are not freight trains. Hsr doesn’t  want to share an intersection with anything.  

Posted
  On 6/24/2019 at 8:29 PM, elfenix said:
so don't build a high speed train to lubbock. 

The most appealing thing about Lubbock would be the HSR connection out of town

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...