I'm aware there is additional time spent in the 2 intermediary stations, acceleration, etc. I was just providing a simple example to highlight how little track would have to be added, relatively speaking, and to counter "probably adds 50 percent to the total travel time" because it would be nowhere near that. Plus.. route doesn't equal service. The trains are supposed to run every half hour. Perhaps every 3 of 4 are express and fly on through those stations and truly only 12 minutes are added. But the connectivity is there for that 4th stop every two hours. Dallas and Houston MSAs are 13 million.. yes...but BCS and Waco MSAs would add another half million. I think that connectivity adding two universities/employment centers is worth it. I understand we have to balance speed vs connectivity. But one line with only two nodes is weighted at the extreme of speed, to the detriment of connectivity.. IMO. And if we're only debating Dallas and Houston - Dallas and Houston are not point A and B... They are points A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 etc... So I would argue only 1 node for A and 1 node for B does a disservice to those 13 million + people. And I'm not arguing for a node for each A1 A2 B1 B2 etc.. that's the job of LRT... but having a 2nd node in the biggest suburban population center in the direction of travel makes sense. When it comes time to debate a Houston-SA High speed rail... it won't make sense to not have a Katy or Energy cooridor Stop. When it comes time to debate Houston-Austin high speed rail.. it won't make sense to not have a Cyfair area stop. Nobody likes starting a journey by first heading 20 miles/half an hr in the opposite direction. With the population center of Houston being somewhere in west houston.. and with major population and commerial areas and the major growth stretching from the SW to the North.... which is convenient since those are the directions one must travel to get to SA, Austin, and Dallas... it makes zero sense to not have additional nodes there.