French Engineering

[0xdeadbeef 1627]

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 June 24, 2019 by 0xdeadbeef

[Nice Guy Eddie 13419]

1 hour ago, 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

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.  

[sheeeit 129]

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.   

[bluto 4898]

55 minutes ago, 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

 

 

 

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

[Nice Guy Eddie 13419]

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.

[XYZ 2154]

1 hour ago, 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

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

[Pato del Muerto 52375]

1 hour ago, 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

 

 

 

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?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13419]

2 minutes ago, 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?

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.

[Bone3421 716]

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

[0xdeadbeef 1627]

34 minutes ago, bluto said:

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

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.

 

[The People’s Elbow 707]

1 hour ago, 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?

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 June 24, 2019 by The People’s Elbow

[Telegraph_it 3354]

The future is high speed e scooters. Rail is so 19th century. 

[52-80 19123]

4 hours ago, 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

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

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19153]

14 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

Have all 4 cities go in together with an Olympic bid.

Fuck.  That.  Shit.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 hours ago, 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

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.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

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.

[PittsburghTiger 6162]

18 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So the trains terminate at the border?  You can’t take one from say Berlin to Prague to Vienna to Madrid to Paris?

I have taken the TGV from Paris to Karlsruhe, Germany.

[SquishMitten 10402]

4 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Fuck.  That.  Shit.

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.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, 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.

Maybe he just doesn't have a need...... for speed ?

[Wally Fairway 5529]

Why HSR, when you can travel in a pod inside a vacuum tube?

Sincerely,
PT Barnum errr  I mean Elon Musk

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Why HSR, when you can travel in a pod inside a vacuum tube?

Sincerely,
PT Barnum errr  I mean Elon Musk

And Logans Run, plus the cool spandex suits that match..

[Fudge Nuggets 19153]

21 minutes ago, 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.

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.

[Nueces River Rat 5532]

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 .  

[SquishMitten 10402]

2 hours ago, 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.

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. 

[Hawndoh 2382]

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.

[GringoSalado 1651]

3 hours ago, 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.

I think the Olympics would be a shit ton cheaper.

edit: and possibly less corrupt.

Edited June 24, 2019 by GringoSalado

[Pato del Muerto 52375]

2 hours ago, 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 .  

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. 

[Nueces River Rat 5532]

6 minutes ago, 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. 

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.   

[Nice Guy Eddie 13419]

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?

[Bateshorn 9910]

On 6/23/2019 at 2:35 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.  

 

On 6/23/2019 at 1:47 PM, Parliament said:

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

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.

[elfenix 34201]

On 6/23/2019 at 12:50 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. 

 

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:

imgur

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by elfenix

[elfenix 34201]

On 6/23/2019 at 12:47 PM, Parliament said:

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

people have property rights elsewhere. 

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

[Nueces River Rat 5532]

13 minutes ago, 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?

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

[Loco 3752]

22 hours ago, 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. 

 

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

 

Spoiler

 

Original referendum

In November 2000, Florida voters approved an amendment to Florida's constitution mandating the state establish a system of high speed trains exceeding 120 mph to link its five largest urban areas, with construction to commence by November 1, 2003. The Florida Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act in March 2001, creating the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA).^[7] The HSRA established a Vision Plan for the system which proposed construction in several phases.^[8] Preliminary assessments and environmental studies were begun to develop an initial phase of the system between Orlando and Tampa.^[7]

The first phase, planned for completion in 2009 under the original referendum, would have connected Orlando to Tampa (Phase 1, Part 1), with a later extension to St. Petersburg (Phase 1, Part 2).^[9] Later phases might have extended the network to Miami, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Tallahassee and Pensacola.

The Florida HSRA issued a Request for Proposal to Design, Build, Operate, Maintain and Finance (DBOM&F) the Orlando to Tampa Phase In October 2002. Two of the four received in February 2003 were reviewed further, one from a consortium of Fluor Corp. and Bombardier Transportation and one from Global Rail Consortium. The proposals showed cost of the Orlando-Tampa route to be approximately $2.4 billion. Both proposals offered private equity contributions to support operations of the system and show willingness of the private sector to share risk associated with projected ridership revenues.^[7] In June 2003 Florida Governor Jeb Bush vetoed funding for the project that the Florida Legislature had approved.^[10] The HSRA continued moving forward with the project, using funds already authorized by the federal government, and in October 2003 ranked the Fluor Bombardier proposal first.^[7]

In early 2004, Governor Jeb Bush endorsed an effort to repeal the 2000 amendment that mandated the construction of the High Speed Rail System. On October 27, 2004, the authority voted to prefer the consortium of Fluor Corp.and Bombardier Transportation to build and operate the system, using Bombardier's JetTrain technology. However a month later in November, Florida voters repealed the 2000 amendment, removing the constitutional mandate for the system. Although the amendment was repealed, no action was taken by the state legislature in regard to the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act. With the law still in effect, Florida's HSRA continued to meet, and completed the environmental impact statement for the Tampa-Orlando segment in 2005. With the constitutional mandate gone, however, funding for the project came to a halt and very little action was taken over the next several years.^[7]

Plans revived in 2009[edit]

Passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 designated $8 billion for the development of a high-speed intercity passenger rail system. The Federal Railroad Administration named Florida one of ten high speed rail corridors potentially eligible for the federal funding.^[11] The HSRA met on February 26, 2009, to begin planning their application for these funds.^[12] Due to the passage of time, potential legal issues, and new federal funding criteria rendering the earlier bids from 2003 inapplicable, the decision was made in May 2009 that a new bidding process would be necessary.^[13][14] A first round application was submitted in August 2009 for $30 million to conduct a two-year environmental study on the Orlando-Miami route. In October 2009, the authority submitted an application during the second round for the entire Tampa - Orlando - Miami corridor, broken into two components: Orlando-Tampa and Orlando-Miami.^[15] Connect Us, a political action committee, was launched on August 18, 2009, to rally public support for these applications.^[16]

On December 16, the Florida Legislature passed a bill authorizing FDOT move forward with the purchase from CSX of the Central Florida Rail Corridor for the SunRail commuter rail project, and providing much needed additional funding for South Florida's Tri-Rail commuter rail system.^[17] Funding of these initiatives was vital to the state's hopes to win federal HSR funding, as it showed the state of Florida was committed to creating a comprehensive rail network allowing connectivity between high speed rail and local mass transit systems.^[18] The legislation also replaced the Florida High Speed Rail Authority with the Florida Rail Enterprise, a new agency created under the FDOT, responsible for construction, maintenance, and promotion of the state's high-speed rail system, as well as development and operation of publicly funded passenger rail systems in general.^[19]

On January 28, 2010, the White House announced that Florida would receive $1.25 billion of its request, about half of the cost of the Tampa-Orlando segment.^[2] The state's efforts towards high speed rail between 2000 and 2005 put Florida ahead of the field in terms of the level of planning already completed, and this proved to be a major factor in winning the funds.^[3] The preservation of the I-4 corridor by the FDOT, and completion of the environmental impact studies in 2005 meant that the project could have proceeded to construction in a very short time frame for a relatively affordable cost. In March 2010 the Florida Rail Enterprise was still seeking to refine cost estimates based on advanced engineering, finish development of possible Early Works (Install permanent barrier systems along most of I-4 and remove/relocate elements in median) and contract for bid in 2010 and finally initiate a new bid procurement process specific to the Tampa to Orlando phase.^[1] In June 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration issued its record of final decision, the final stage of approval for the design, purchase of land and construction of phase one. Tendering was thus able to begin.^[20] In October 2010, Florida received $800 million more towards construction from the FY 2010 High Speed Rail allocations.^[21]

In December 2010 the US Department of Transportation redistributed approximately $1.2 billion in HSR funds that had been rejected by governors elect in Wisconsin and Ohio. Florida was projected to receive as much as $342.3 million of the reallocated rail funds which would have closed the gap of the entire projected cost of project. Construction of the line was to begin in 2011, with the initial phase completed by 2014.^[3]

Cancellation[edit]

On February 16, 2011, Governor Rick Scott formally announced that he would be rejecting federal funds to construct the project, attempting to kill Florida High Speed Rail. On March 4, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously turned down the request of two state senators to force Scott to accept the federal funding for the project. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that he would be redirecting the funds intended for Florida to other states and on May 9, awarded $2.02 billion to 22 projects in 15 states.^[22]

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Loco

[Bateshorn 9910]

18 minutes ago, elfenix said:

people have property rights elsewhere. 

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

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 June 24, 2019 by Bateshorn

[Steel Shank 9416]

A would-be traveler can always catch the train at your momma's house.

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

On 6/23/2019 at 1:40 PM, Huckleberry said:

Exactly.

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 June 24, 2019 by J.R. Juniors Junior Jr.

[elfenix 34201]

1 hour ago, 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.

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."

 

40 minutes ago, 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.

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

Edited June 24, 2019 by elfenix

[Bateshorn 9910]

8 minutes ago, 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. 

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 June 24, 2019 by Bateshorn

[Neonmoon 38127]

7 hours ago, 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.

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?

[XYZ 2154]

The “wildlife” argument seems like a red herring.

[52-80 19123]

13 minutes ago, 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?

Uber

Scooter sharing

Car sharing

Moped sharing

 

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

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

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.

[elfenix 34201]

 

19 minutes ago, 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. 

 

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/

19 minutes ago, 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. 

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

Edited June 24, 2019 by elfenix

[Sbbruin 21785]

On 6/23/2019 at 10:49 AM, futureman said:

I think california has it figured out.  should be there soon. 

That Modesto to Bakersfield run will be epic.

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

24 minutes ago, 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.

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?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

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.

[shakahorn 1636]

2 hours ago, 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:

 

 

 

Why does Dallas get to be Paris?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13419]

26 minutes ago, 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.

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.  

[gmr548 16535]

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