Delegation Pushes For High-speed Rail

[dazed2010]

The Eagle:

A mode of transportation that would move travelers from College Station to Houston in less than half an hour is about 13 years and $22 billion away, officials said Tuesday.

The concept isn't new -- local leaders proposed it about 15 years ago and were met with opposition from residents who were worried that the rail system would be noisy, affect property and cost taxpayers.

But now officials are proposing to elevate the tracks, and because highways are crowded and commutes are taking longer, transportation alternatives are a necessity, said Brazos Valley Council of Governments Executive Director Tom Wilkinson.

"In the early 1950s when Dwight Eisenhower proposed the interstate highway system, I am sure there were people who said, 'You gotta be kidding. This is too big. This is too much,'" Wilkinson said. "[High-speed rail] is the new interstate highway system. What we do today will have an effect on our children and our grandchildren. It is important. It's going to cost money and it's going to cost time, but where are we going to be if we don't do it?"

The group is pushing for the federally-designated high-speed rail corridor to include a route known as the "Texas T-Bone." The 440-mile alignment would carry travelers to Dallas-Fort Worth, Waco, Fort Hood, Austin, San Antonio, Houston and Bryan-College Station.

College Station is spending $25,000 per year to participate in the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation, which is lobbying for the route that goes through the Brazos Valley. The corporation's goal is to have the rail operational by 2020.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sen. John Cornyn, Rep. Kevin Brady and Rep. Chet Edwards are among a group of 19 congressional supporters of the high-speed rail project. Another 21 state legislators also have lent their support. Sen. Steve Ogden of Bryan and Rep. Fred Brown of College Station do not appear on the list. A spokeswoman in Ogden's office said late Tuesday high-speed rail is "not something the senator is working on right now."

"I think the most important issue facing us right now is, we're going to have to have that corridor approved," he said Tuesday, referring to the T-Bone alignment. "Until we do that, we're not eligible for any federal funds."

Several options are available to fund the multibillion-dollar elevated rail system, Commissioner Mallard said Tuesday.

"Riders will ultimately pay for it," he said, explaining that a public-private partnership is one option to build the system. "The [Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp.] or the government would probably have a stake in owning and maintaining it. Private enterprise may be involved in that, too."

Mallard said he doesn't anticipate much opposition this time around. It won't affect properties and it won't make noise, the commissioner emphasized.

"It looks like a jet airplane -- no diesel, no noise," he said. "It's just as smooth as glass. You can sit there with a glass of water on the table, and there's no sensation that you're even moving. Then you look out the window at the ground, and it's just a blur."

[dazed2010]

More info from the THSRTC Website

A video with more info...

[lockmat]

VIDEO

Isn't there a rail between Austin and SA in construction right now? Could that be a problem?

I'm not sure these routes are practical. The three most populated cities will have to take detours to reach one another. While a triangle increases amount of rail needed and cost, it's seems as if it'd be much more effecient.

[RedScare]

Not really. San Antonio to Dallas via Austin is a straight line run. The Houston portion coming from either SA or Dallas is less direct. However, it only adds 60 miles to each leg. At current TGV average trip (as opposed to top) speeds of up to 180 mph, this would only add 20 minutes to each trip....about the amount of time an airliner spends on the tarmac getting to the terminal.

High speed rail has two major advantages. One, it is much more convenient to get to the station and board the train. Two, it is far less prone to weather delays. A third advantage is the overcrowded skies, limiting the growth of air travel. Replacing short leg flights with rail allows more long leg flights, which are generally more profitable.

[lockmat]

Two of the supporters of this are airlines - American and Continental. Why is that? In past Iron Tripod discussions, I thought people said rail and airlines were competitors.

I'm also confused as to why the port of Houston is in on this. Can high speed rail also support their transportation needs?

[MidtownCoog]

A third advantage is the overcrowded skies, limiting the growth of air travel.

Overcrowded skies can be fixed with more Vector Airways and a 21st Century ARTCC system.

The problem is not the Houston/Dallas flight. Wonder how much this 22 Bil could go to fix the airways.

As far as CO and AA, why not? This rail connects the podunk cities, not the big ones. They already divested CO Express and AA is doing the same to AA Eagle. Those were the commuter airlines who fly to glam places like College Station.

[TheNiche]

...20 minutes to each trip....about the amount of time an airliner spends on the tarmac getting to the terminal.

Jeez, Red...what airports are you flying into? I've never experienced that.

[TheNiche]

Two of the supporters of this are airlines - American and Continental. Why is that? In past Iron Tripod discussions, I thought people said rail and airlines were competitors.

I'm also confused as to why the port of Houston is in on this. Can high speed rail also support their transportation needs?

American and Continental like it because it'd connect directly to their hub airports, but not to Love Field or Hobby, thus undercutting Southwest's competitive advantage within Texas.

I'm confused about the Port of Houston as well. I also don't understand the justification that it'd help mobilize troops from Fort Hood via the Port of Houston more rapidly. My understanding is that we send a lot of heavy equipment overseas by ship, but that its more effective to fly the soldiers in this century. And where cargo is concerned, I'm just not sure what they're thinking. It'd seem like that would keep a train at a station for more than a few minutes while cargo was transferred. And people's time is waaaaayyy more important than having another way to move cargo in what is already a highly efficient system.

[VicMan]

Anyway, IMO American Airlines should fly DFW-Beaumont - If a rail system connects Houston and Beaumont, I'm not sure if ExpressJet/Colgan would continue Beaumont, but Dallas-Beaumont seems fairly feasible for air operations even with a rail.

[ricco67]

American and Continental like it because it'd connect directly to their hub airports, but not to Love Field or Hobby, thus undercutting Southwest's competitive advantage within Texas.

I'm confused about the Port of Houston as well. I also don't understand the justification that it'd help mobilize troops from Fort Hood via the Port of Houston more rapidly. My understanding is that we send a lot of heavy equipment overseas by ship, but that its more effective to fly the soldiers in this century. And where cargo is concerned, I'm just not sure what they're thinking. It'd seem like that would keep a train at a station for more than a few minutes while cargo was transferred. And people's time is waaaaayyy more important than having another way to move cargo in what is already a highly efficient system.

I have to agree with other statements that they can only fly so many planes and take so many passangers to the various cities at a time. It's gotten so that it's almost more time effecient to DRIVE to various cities when there is inclement weather at one of the cities. yesterday's 2 hour ground stop due to fog is a very good example of it.

Now as far as the Port of Houston, I would imagine that they wouldn't put cargo on the trains, but rather just want to free up the roads and rails for THEIR traffic. IF they put anything on this rail, more than likely the cars would be pre-loaded and they just need to be connected to the track for high priority stuff.

[KinkaidAlum]

Jeez, Red...what airports are you flying into? I've never experienced that.

The worst is IAH. If you happen to land on the furthest runway to the North on Continental and they are taking you to a Terminal E gate, 20 minutes is about right. Additionally, after afternoon summer thunderstorms, the takeoff lineup at IAH can be brutal. I waited for over an hour twice this past summer to takeoff after boarding and pulling back from the gate.

Spending 20 minutes on the tarmac is quite common at any of the larger hub airports (IAH, DFW, ORD, ATL, PHL, PHX).

[RedScare]

While I do find the argument for rushing troops or cargo to the Port at 180 mph so that they can board a 20 knot ship to be a bit comical, to answer the cargo question, yes, high speed rail DOES commonly carry cargo. France has a dedicated mail train, for instance. The usefulness of high speed transport to Austin, Dallas and SA several times per day should be obvious...and much cheaper than air freight.

[ricco67]

While I do find the argument for rushing troops or cargo to the Port at 180 mph so that they can board a 20 knot ship to be a bit comical, to answer the cargo question, yes, high speed rail DOES commonly carry cargo. France has a dedicated mail train, for instance. The usefulness of high speed transport to Austin, Dallas and SA several times per day should be obvious...and much cheaper than air freight.

I agree, it does seem rather odd to transport those troops to get on a boat. A typical train can handle that AND all their equipment less than 24 hrs to reach Port Aransis (is that where they're loaded at?) from Ft. Hood with priority clearance from the railroad (which AMTRAK doesn't have, BTW). how long it takes to LOAD and UNLOAD those trains I have no idea.

[desirous]

Pity, the Houston leg runs to Killeen. Austin makes more practical sense; then, at least the line connects Houston to a real city.

[RedScare]

Pity, the Houston leg runs to Killeen. Austin makes more practical sense; then, at least the line connects Houston to a real city.

The Houston leg DOES connect to "Real" cities. It merely runs through Temple/Killeen. As for practical, 440 miles for $22 Billion, as opposed to 660 to 700 miles for $33-35 Billion for your suggestion, sounds more practical to me. In addition, where does the Austin/SA line run? Houston to Austin? Houston to SA? The proposed route appears to serve as large or larger population with a third less track and a third less cost.. The penalty is 20 minutes.

I think our definition of "practical sense" differs by a large degree.

[desirous]

The Houston leg DOES connect to "Real" cities. It merely runs through Temple/Killeen. As for practical, 440 miles for $22 Billion, as opposed to 660 to 700 miles for $33-35 Billion for your suggestion, sounds more practical to me. In addition, where does the Austin/SA line run? Houston to Austin? Houston to SA? The proposed route appears to serve as large or larger population with a third less track and a third less cost.. The penalty is 20 minutes.

I think our definition of "practical sense" differs by a large degree.

How is the penalty 20 minutes, when the trains are likely to run only once a few hours at the start? Riders could be stuck in Temple for an entire afternoon before a transfer is available. Also, wouldn't a Houston-Austin line only be about 40 miles longer, not 240 as you claim?

[lockmat]

How is the penalty 20 minutes, when the trains are likely to run only once a few hours at the start? Riders could be stuck in Temple for an entire afternoon before a transfer is available. Also, wouldn't a Houston-Austin line only be about 40 miles longer, not 240 as you claim?

I'm sure a major consideration would be that people are only passing through the smaller cities on their way to SA, Dallas or Houston, and therefore would create boardings so that people wouldn't have to wait long.

[ricco67]

Either that, or simply run two two trains that split off towards a Houston/SA and Houston/Dallas route an hour or so apart with an additional train going between SA and Dallas.

[desirous]

Either that, or simply run two two trains that split off towards a Houston/SA and Houston/Dallas route an hour or so apart with an additional train going between SA and Dallas.

I was thinking of interlining as well, but the map shows the Houston line going through Temple to Killeen. The rail terminus should be in a sizable city with transportation options other than car rentals.

I'm sure a major consideration would be that people are only passing through the smaller cities on their way to SA, Dallas or Houston, and therefore would create boardings so that people wouldn't have to wait long.

That hopefully is the case. It would depend on train frequency -- whether it is closer to Amtrak (once per day) or like Greyhound (once per couple hours)

[RedScare]

How is the penalty 20 minutes, when the trains are likely to run only once a few hours at the start? Riders could be stuck in Temple for an entire afternoon before a transfer is available. Also, wouldn't a Houston-Austin line only be about 40 miles longer, not 240 as you claim?

OK, I see what you're trying to suggest. Instead of the T running to Temple, you suggest a T at Austin. A Houston-B-CS-Austin route would be approximately 200 miles, versus 165 miles to Temple. Temple and Killeen are still served by the Austin-Dallas line. Maybe adds $2 Billion to the cost, but that is only a 10% increase. Of course, that bumps the Dallas leg to 400 miles, as opposed to 295 with the Temple configuration. That would make the Dallas-Houston trip well over 2 hours, versus an hour and a half under this allignment. Since the most used route is likely Houston-Dallas, 2 hr. 15 min. might be a deal killer.

[desirous]

OK, I see what you're trying to suggest. Instead of the T running to Temple, you suggest a T at Austin. A Houston-B-CS-Austin route would be approximately 200 miles, versus 165 miles to Temple. Temple and Killeen are still served by the Austin-Dallas line. Maybe adds $2 Billion to the cost, but that is only a 10% increase. Of course, that bumps the Dallas leg to 400 miles, as opposed to 295 with the Temple configuration. That would make the Dallas-Houston trip well over 2 hours, versus an hour and a half under this allignment. Since the most used route is likely Houston-Dallas, 2 hr. 15 min. might be a deal killer.

I understand what you are saying, and all else the same, an Austin alignment does increase travel time significantly. No matter what, in the end the most important factor to get right is transfer timing: trains in both directions on both lines should converge in Temple at the exact same time, down to the minute. That would nearly eliminate any transfer-related delay.

[westguy]

Moving it south and adding more time to DFW-Houston trips would be a bad idea since that's probably going to be route with the most passengers. If you get stuck in Killeen-Temple, well, go see the famous Luby's or something.

[TheNiche]

yes, high speed rail DOES commonly carry cargo. France has a dedicated mail train, for instance. The usefulness of high speed transport to Austin, Dallas and SA several times per day should be obvious...and much cheaper than air freight.

Would it be cheaper than air freight? Ipsedixitism; please cite a source for your assertion.

And a lot of mail parcels are moved within Texas by truck, anyway. Its hard to beat the price per mile, there, and it is disputable whether the few hours saved with a parcel shipped by high-speed rail would make any difference in terms of delivery time within the U.S. Postal Service distribution system.

[Houston19514]

OK, I see what you're trying to suggest. Instead of the T running to Temple, you suggest a T at Austin. A Houston-B-CS-Austin route would be approximately 200 miles, versus 165 miles to Temple. Temple and Killeen are still served by the Austin-Dallas line. Maybe adds $2 Billion to the cost, but that is only a 10% increase. Of course, that bumps the Dallas leg to 400 miles, as opposed to 295 with the Temple configuration. That would make the Dallas-Houston trip well over 2 hours, versus an hour and a half under this allignment. Since the most used route is likely Houston-Dallas, 2 hr. 15 min. might be a deal killer.

Good point. But why not a route more-or-less straight beween DFW and Houston... as you said, that's the city pair that will likely carry the most traffic, by far. Then put in a slightly curving T running from SA through Austin, MAYBE as far as Killeen/Temple and then over to meet up with the DFW-Houston route somewhere around College Station.

[desirous]

Good point. But why not a route more-or-less straight beween DFW and Houston... as you said, that's the city pair that will likely carry the most traffic, by far. Then put in a slightly curving T running from SA through Austin, MAYBE as far as Killeen/Temple and then over to meet up with the DFW-Houston route somewhere around College Station.

That's a great idea for Houston-Dallas travellers. The I-45 corridor, however, is practically unpopulated, whereas the I-35 corridor is brimming with development. Non-express runs (given passing tracks are built) could even double as a pseudo-commuter service for towns like San Marcos or Georgetown.

[RedScare]

Good point. But why not a route more-or-less straight beween DFW and Houston... as you said, that's the city pair that will likely carry the most traffic, by far. Then put in a slightly curving T running from SA through Austin, MAYBE as far as Killeen/Temple and then over to meet up with the DFW-Houston route somewhere around College Station.

I think the amount of traffic and population on the SA-Austin-Waco-Dallas route makes that leg a no brainer. The trick is how to fit Houston into the triangle AND keep track miles to a minimum. My favorite allignment involves a "mini triangle" between Austin, Waco and Bryan-College Station. Spurs would then extend to San Antonio, Dallas and Houston. The Houston-Austin leg would be 200 miles, Houston-Dallas 290, and Houston-SA 280 miles. However, my configuration is 565 miles, versus 440 for the Texas T. It is easy to see why they prefer the T, as it is probably $6.25 Billion cheaper to build. Also, my configuration only makes the trips 30 miles shorter, about 10 minutes at 180 mph....not worth the extra money.

As for layovers in Killeen, there is no reason that this has to occur. It is likely that each large city, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, will have TWO trains leaving the station, going to the other two cities. Using Houston as an example, one train will leave the station bound for Dallas. Another will leave bound for SA. The Dallas train will turn north at Killeen. The SA train will turn south at Killeen. Therefore, there is no need to change trains at Killeen to head to Dallas, Austin or SA. You just need to board the correct train in Houston.

I still see the advantage of the T running to Austin instead of Killeen. I think the reasoning is merely cost. I could see justifying an Austin leg with a future expansion between Waco and B-CS to shorten the Houston-Dallas leg as well.

[wxman]

The worst is IAH. If you happen to land on the furthest runway to the North on Continental and they are taking you to a Terminal E gate, 20 minutes is about right. Additionally, after afternoon summer thunderstorms, the takeoff lineup at IAH can be brutal. I waited for over an hour twice this past summer to takeoff after boarding and pulling back from the gate.

Spending 20 minutes on the tarmac is quite common at any of the larger hub airports (IAH, DFW, ORD, ATL, PHL, PHX).

It's interesting that you say that, because IAH has again recieved the honor of being the most on-time airport in the U.S...and honor held by the airport more than once.

[zaphod]

Sometimes I think the Killeen branch to Fort Hood is unnecessary and would be phased out inevitably. There would then just be 3 interlining services cutting out any need for transfer.

As for cargo, they could design a cargo train that could carry smaller containers like those on aircraft. These dedicated freight trains would run at the same speeds as passenger ones and not interfere with service.

[RedScare]

After reading the website closer, and reading between the lines a bit, I think I have an idea why the proposal looks the way it does. The nationwide map shows several rail proposals, most of which are not connected. These are apparently federally recognized, if not funded for study. You'll note that there is a SA-Dalla-OK City route, as well as a Houston-New Orleans route. These two are not connected. The "Brazos Express" is a proposal to connect the two routes at its shortest point...apparently Houston-Temple.

The Ft. Hood section appears to be a "homeland security" angle to help secure federal funding...or at least federal approval of the Brazos line. There is no rational "homeland security" basis to this. Freight rail could transport equipment from Ft. Hood to the port in 6 hours or less. Troops could load up at Temple or fly...just as they do now. And, if the equipment is being loaded onto ships, a few hours savings is nothing. I think it is just in there as a subterfuge. It sounds good.

[Saddleman]

RedScare's idea of a mini-triangle sounds the best to me.