fatesdisastr Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Push for high-speed rail in Texas re-emerges Thursday, January 29, 2009 AUSTIN (AP) — The vision of high-speed rail lines swiftly shuttling Texans between big cities such as San Antonio and Houston in brisk 90-minute trips is trying to get back on track. Bullet trains in Texas are being touted again in a big way, and backers who hope to have a $12 billion to $18 billion network of high-speed trains running by 2020 say their proposal won't fall flat again.Link to Article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'd be surprised if Southwest is willing to lose any revenue from their profitable flights between Houston/Dallas/San Antonio/Austin. I hope they can be reasonable and not fight it this time. It should be a no-brainer for the state when you take into account future population growth in Texas. A side benefit to the high-speed rail is that it might help with hurricane evacuations when the freeways are jammed and flights are full or canceled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 But $18,000,000,000? That's huge. Aren't there ridership projections? I would doubt that the DFW to San Antonio would be cost-justified. The phrase "it would be nice" comes up a lot about this train, but is it really worth it? I could think of a lot more "it would be nice"s which cost a lot less but would still benefit Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALMSP Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 forget high speed rail. why not use this money to improve the infrastructure of subway/light rail lines in the metro areas of DFW/HOU. That would be more beneficial for everyone instead of putting rails between the cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'd be surprised if Southwest is willing to lose any revenue from their profitable flights between Houston/Dallas/San Antonio/Austin. I hope they can be reasonable and not fight it this time. It should be a no-brainer for the state when you take into account future population growth in Texas. A side benefit to the high-speed rail is that it might help with hurricane evacuations when the freeways are jammed and flights are full or canceled.The last point can't be stressed enough... but to be most effective, we need the network to be extended down to Galveston. As these HSRs are currently planned, they would have stations at each of the major airports. So in this fashion, it may actually help to boost business for the major airlines, b/c it gives a quicker route for people to get to the airport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Push for high-speed rail in Texas re-emerges Thursday, January 29, 2009 AUSTIN (AP) — The vision of high-speed rail lines swiftly shuttling Texans between big cities such as San Antonio and Houston in brisk 90-minute trips is trying to get back on track. Bullet trains in Texas are being touted again in a big way, and backers who hope to have a $12 billion to $18 billion network of high-speed trains running by 2020 say their proposal won't fall flat again.Link to ArticleI'm for it, but would prefer hi-speed rail (oh .. sorry ... just rail .. silly me) inside of Houston before I'd want to jump to Dallas or Austin on rail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernicke Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Having the stations at airports doesn't make any sense at all, unless you are an airline lobbyist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 The estimate today is $18 billion. The estimate next year will be $20 billion.The longer this sort of thing is put off, the more it will cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Having the stations at airports doesn't make any sense at all, unless you are an airline lobbyist.If the only stations were the airports in the major cities, then I could see your point, but I think it would be a plus to the folks in places like Killeen (even though they just built a pretty nice airport), Temple, Waco, Bryan/College Station, and any other small-mid sized city that would have a station. If the service is frequent enough, it would also be useful for someone to travel from San Antonio to Houston or Austin to Houston for more flexibility with flight times and availability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 If the only stations were the airports in the major cities, then I could see your point, but I think it would be a plus to the folks in places like Killeen (even though they just built a pretty nice airport), Temple, Waco, Bryan/College Station, and any other small-mid sized city that would have a station. If the service is frequent enough, it would also be useful for someone to travel from San Antonio to Houston or Austin to Houston for more flexibility with flight times and availability.Or even if you're in Dallas and want to get the direct flight from Houston to Qatar rather than dealing with a connecting flight to Houston first. Or even the IAH-Moscow-Singapore flight. And you could name others ... but where's the cost-benefit analysis that says this is the best use of funds? Where are the other alternatives? Couldn't they just build a DFW --> College Station --> Houston leg first if this makes the most economic sense? Do we really need a DFW to San Antonio leg?Having the stations at airports doesn't make any sense at all, unless you are an airline lobbyist.If this is truly going to be high-speed rail, like 150 mph, it doesn't make sense to have more than a 2-3 stops per metro area. Why build high speed rail in cities when it will NEVER make it up to the high speeds in cities? A stop at IAH and a stop at either Galveston or Hobby might work, with other connecting rail or light rail at from these two or so stops to other parts of the Houston area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) I agree with editor... but isn't the same true for each and every new road that we build??? In comparison to rail, roads are a horrible investment to make... the life of a road is what, 25 years? And with the stress that we put on our roads, they're not going to last even that long. The frieght rail infrastructure is around 100 years old, and it's held up much better than our nation's roads. So HSR may be expensive on the front end, but it'll definitely pay off over the next century.Or even if you're in Dallas and want to get the direct flight from Houston to Qatar rather than dealing with a connecting flight to Houston first. Or even the IAH-Moscow-Singapore flight. And you could name others ... but where's the cost-benefit analysis that says this is the best use of funds? Where are the other alternatives? Couldn't they just build a DFW --> College Station --> Houston leg first if this makes the most economic sense? Do we really need a DFW to San Antonio leg?Yes, because more Texans live along the I-35 corridor than the do between Houston and Dallas... If you build the HSR to parallel I-35, you are building a system that can be used by over 10 million people. I agree that there should be a direct route between Houston and Dallas, but IMO the I-35 corridor is probably the state's top priority. Edited January 30, 2009 by totheskies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 If the only stations were the airports in the major cities, then I could see your point, but I think it would be a plus to the folks in places like Killeen (even though they just built a pretty nice airport), Temple, Waco, Bryan/College Station, and any other small-mid sized city that would have a station. If the service is frequent enough, it would also be useful for someone to travel from San Antonio to Houston or Austin to Houston for more flexibility with flight times and availability.This is where high-speed rail becomes Greyhound. If you let the train stop in every little city along the way it's no longer high-speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) This is where high-speed rail becomes Greyhound. If you let the train stop in every little city along the way it's no longer high-speed.But, he did not list every little city along the way. Each of those cities is 90-100 miles apart.EDIT: Let me add, as long as it is only those cities. Edited January 30, 2009 by RedScare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Yes, because more Texans live along the I-35 corridor than the do between Houston and Dallas... If you build the HSR to parallel I-35, you are building a system that can be used by over 10 million people. I agree that there should be a direct route between Houston and Dallas, but IMO the I-35 corridor is probably the state's top priority.But if you build a system between Houston and Dallas, you instantly have a system that can be used by over 12 Million people, without even making any stops between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 But if you build a system between Houston and Dallas, you instantly have a system that can be used by over 12 Million people, without even making any stops between the two.This is somewhat of a non-argument, as the proposal is to connect all of the cities, not to leave out Houston. It is not an either-or proposition. Be that as it may, I think serving 11.75 million between Dallas and Houston versus 10.3 million between Dallas, Waco, Killeen, Austin and San Antonio is not huge difference, but more of an argument to include Houston in the mix. Further, fewer stops means less service, which means fewer riders. A Dallas to Houston train means ONLY those going to Houston or Dallas would ride it. Including all of the cities increases the population served by 54%, and the number of riders by many times that, as a Dallasite looking to travel to Waco, Killeen, Austin or San Antonio would also consider the train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) But if you build a system between Houston and Dallas, you instantly have a system that can be used by over 12 Million people, without even making any stops between the two.The reason you don't see as much congestion between Houston and Dallas vs. the I35 corridor is likely because more people fly due to the greater distance. Hundreds if not thousands of business travelers fly Southwest, Continental, and American direct flights daily between the two cities. Depending on the fare, high-speed rail might appeal as an alternative to these folks, especially with the inconsistency and delays faced during summer travel when late afternoon flights are frequently delayed due to thunderstorms. It might also appeal to families or individuals who frequently travel between the two metro areas for weekends, etc. Having to travel through San Antonio or Austin to get between the two cities would make the proposition far less appealing. Edited February 1, 2009 by barracuda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Having to travel through San Antonio or Austin to get between the two cities l would make the proposition far less appealing.There is no proposal to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 This is somewhat of a non-argument, as the proposal is to connect all of the cities, not to leave out Houston. It is not an either-or proposition. Be that as it may, I think serving 11.75 million between Dallas and Houston versus 10.3 million between Dallas, Waco, Killeen, Austin and San Antonio is not huge difference, but more of an argument to include Houston in the mix. Further, fewer stops means less service, which means fewer riders. A Dallas to Houston train means ONLY those going to Houston or Dallas would ride it. Including all of the cities increases the population served by 54%, and the number of riders by many times that, as a Dallasite looking to travel to Waco, Killeen, Austin or San Antonio would also consider the train.There are many people that just fly to/from Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas for business or pleasure. There is also a considerable amount of traffic coming in from El Paso and the Corpus Christi area, the need will be there. I know I'd like to go to Austin/SA area for a day trip.A stop in Killeen might be a good idea and wouldn't wouldn't slow it down too much. Lord knows the troops in the area would appreciate it. Additionally, some light/high priority cargo could go this route, particularly if weather might be an issue at the airports and could be another form of income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) This is somewhat of a non-argument, as the proposal is to connect all of the cities, not to leave out Houston. It is not an either-or proposition. Be that as it may, I think serving 11.75 million between Dallas and Houston versus 10.3 million between Dallas, Waco, Killeen, Austin and San Antonio is not huge difference, but more of an argument to include Houston in the mix. Further, fewer stops means less service, which means fewer riders. A Dallas to Houston train means ONLY those going to Houston or Dallas would ride it. Including all of the cities increases the population served by 54%, and the number of riders by many times that, as a Dallasite looking to travel to Waco, Killeen, Austin or San Antonio would also consider the train.It was clearly an argument against the idea that building the DFW-San Antonio leg without including Houston made sense. We know the proposal is to connect all the cities. But the post I was responding to stated that the DFW-San Antonio leg should be the state's top priority, and the poster's argument was based entirely on the population of the I-35 corridor from DFW to San Antonio. Edited January 31, 2009 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 And of course such a train would stop in BCS...right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppahop Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Why does it have to be high speed? Why not just regular 80 mph rail? Does a few minutes each way really affect us that much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sttombiz Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Why does it have to be high speed? Why not just regular 80 mph rail? Does a few minutes each way really affect us that much?There is already a train that does 70 every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday that goes to San Antonio. Doesnt the other train that does 70 start in Lufkin or something and goes to Dallas?Flight is cheaper and easier. Use $18 billion to fix city infrastructure problems. Rail in Houston. Rail to Galveston. Maybe blanket high speed wireless internet? Maybe more funding for UH and UST schools. Tuition credits? Tax breaks? If we were given $18 billion is it best spent on high speed rail?What is so wrong with a bus? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 There is already a train that does 70 every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday that goes to San Antonio. Doesnt the other train that does 70 start in Lufkin or something and goes to Dallas?Flight is cheaper and easier. Use $18 billion to fix city infrastructure problems. Rail in Houston. Rail to Galveston. Maybe blanket high speed wireless internet? Maybe more funding for UH and UST schools. Tuition credits? Tax breaks? If we were given $18 billion is it best spent on high speed rail?What is so wrong with a bus?I don't think that it's fair to say that flying is easier than taking a train. I've taken the high speed trains in Europe frequently and they are much easier to use than planes. You don't have to be there an hour before your train, you don't have the extensive security, and you can get up and walk around on the train much more freely.In many places in Europe, the high speed trains run every hour between the major cities and you don't have to make a reservation. You just show up 10 minutes before departure and get on board. Tickets can be bought from a kiosk in the station. If we can build a comparable system than I don't see the advantages of flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) There is already a train that does 70 every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday that goes to San Antonio. Doesnt the other train that does 70 start in Lufkin or something and goes to Dallas?Flight is cheaper and easier. Use $18 billion to fix city infrastructure problems. Rail in Houston. Rail to Galveston. Maybe blanket high speed wireless internet? Maybe more funding for UH and UST schools. Tuition credits? Tax breaks? If we were given $18 billion is it best spent on high speed rail?What is so wrong with a bus?Aren't you a business major? You should know that "we" are not given $18 Billion to build high speed rail. If high speed rail is built, it would either be a private company, or possibly a public-private group of some kind. I don't even know who "we" is. To fix Houston infrastructure, "we" would be the City of Houston. To build rail in Houston, "we" would be either METRO, Harris County, or possibly the HCTRA. To build rail to Galveston, "we" might need to be a combination of Harris and Galveston Counties, or again, perhaps HCTRA's charter would allow them to be "we". For UH and St. Thomas, "we" is really getting weird, as one is a public university, while the othe is a private Catholic school. Edited January 31, 2009 by RedScare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyphen Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 But $18,000,000,000? That's huge. Aren't there ridership projections? I would doubt that the DFW to San Antonio would be cost-justified. The phrase "it would be nice" comes up a lot about this train, but is it really worth it? I could think of a lot more "it would be nice"s which cost a lot less but would still benefit Texas.Really? San Antonio is one of the most visited and most beloved weekend getaway Texas cities. I think it would be well traveled.I'm very excited about this project. With the distances between cities in Texas, it's long overdue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sttombiz Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 hey bring on massive debt. Another 18 bil on top of the 820 bil is not that much. I assume government spending seeing how no private company can run a commuter train in the US. UST accepts public funds. But I was only using UST as an example for how higher education is a form of infrastructure. The universal 'we' is perhaps best used to describe someone (me) who does not know the semantics or politicking it takes to build rail. So we should focus on Houston/Galveston before we should undertake a project as costly as an intermediate form of travel..high speed rail. Also you cant have high speed service in the US because in early 70s a law was enacted to cap train speeds at 69 mph. Reverse the law then we may begin talk about high speed. Finally do not make asinine remarks about posts. Its unbecoming of the forum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Also you cant have high speed service in the US because in early 70s a law was enacted to cap train speeds at 69 mph. Reverse the law then we may begin talk about high speed.The Acela runs at 150 mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Also you cant have high speed service in the US because in early 70s a law was enacted to cap train speeds at 69 mph. Reverse the law then we may begin talk about high speed.Are you talking about the Interstate Commerce Commission's 1947 rule? That one capped passenger train speeds at 79 MPH, but only on trains that didn't have in-cab signaling systems. Back in 1947 such a thing was rare, but most American rail lines now have modern signaling systems.I believe some Metra commuter rail trains go faster than 70MPH. I seem to recall a derailment a couple of years ago where two trains were going 70+ in a 10MPH zone. Not all Metra routes cross state lines, so they may not be subject to the ICC speed restrictions you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I'd be surprised if Southwest is willing to lose any revenue from their profitable flights between Houston/Dallas/San Antonio/Austin. I hope they can be reasonable and not fight it this time.Railroads lost out big back when oil began getting transported by way of pipeline. They had plenty of excess ROW and lots of political clout, but they forgot that their mission was to move stuff. Makes you wonder whether Southwest has an angle on participating on the development of high speed rail in some form or fashion....or perhaps they're exposed politically somewhere else and don't want to expend political capital on this issue.It should be a no-brainer for the state when you take into account future population growth in Texas.Never tell a politician that they don't have to use their brain. They may take you up on the offer.There are lots of unresolved issues around this plan, and a brain is mandatory to sort it all out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 UST accepts public funds. But I was only using UST as an example for how higher education is a form of infrastructure. The universal 'we' is perhaps best used to describe someone (me) who does not know the semantics or politicking it takes to build rail. So we should focus on Houston/Galveston before we should undertake a project as costly as an intermediate form of travel..high speed rail.Why should Morrison Knudsen, Bombardier, Alstom, Cr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 forget high speed rail. why not use this money to improve the infrastructure of subway/light rail lines in the metro areas of DFW/HOU. That would be more beneficial for everyone instead of putting rails between the cities.If the trains are sufficiently fast, the routes perhaps more efficient than the proposed T-Bone, and the variable costs per mile sufficiently low, we could witness an inter-city commuter pattern develop. That would help all of Texas, as it would effect economies of urban agglomeration.I agree that an $18 billion price tag is high, but perhaps for such a benefit it is not even high enough. What scares me is that we might spend all this money for a system that is not a significant improvement over air service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 The last point can't be stressed enough... but to be most effective, we need the network to be extended down to Galveston. As these HSRs are currently planned, they would have stations at each of the major airports. So in this fashion, it may actually help to boost business for the major airlines, b/c it gives a quicker route for people to get to the airport.I actually think that the hurricane evacuation rationale is probably the least credible. The Ike evacuation wasn't nearly as bad as Rita and the ones without personal transportation who got bussed to San Antonio didn't really need to be that far from home. To the extent that there was congestion, it wasn't so crippling as to justify an expenditure of say, several hundred dollars (approx. $2B) for every man, woman, and child in the Houston metropolitan area (the vast majority of whom don't live in an evacuation zone).Realistically, hurricane evacuations are probably best dealt with by funding the construction of purpose-built hurricane shelters closer to home...for instance behind the levees of Texas City. Then just use city busses and school busses to provide transportation. Problem solved, all without multi-billion-dollar price tags and without threatening to interrupt the operations of all of the major nearby cities at once by overwhelming their facilities with our indigent refugees.The estimate today is $18 billion. The estimate next year will be $20 billion.The longer this sort of thing is put off, the more it will cost.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_vs._nominal_in_economics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Why does it have to be high speed? Why not just regular 80 mph rail? Does a few minutes each way really affect us that much?YES! Otherwise, I'll just do 80 mph in my car, listening to my own music at high volume without a whining brat sitting in the seat behind me, and then ultimately have something to drive around in when I get where I'm going.The train will compete with other forms of transportation for riders, and if it isn't appealing enough to enough people, clearly it won't be worth the expenditure. That's where CALMSP is correct, and we'd be better off putting the money to a different use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 What scares me is that we might spend all this money for a system that is not a significant improvement over air service.What scares me is that we might spend all this money on fatter freeways that will fill up once again in a few years and we're right back where we started. Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Aren't you a business major? You should know that "we" are not given $18 Billion to build high speed rail. If high speed rail is built, it would either be a private company, or possibly a public-private group of some kind. I don't even know who "we" is. To fix Houston infrastructure, "we" would be the City of Houston. To build rail in Houston, "we" would be either METRO, Harris County, or possibly the HCTRA. To build rail to Galveston, "we" might need to be a combination of Harris and Galveston Counties, or again, perhaps HCTRA's charter would allow them to be "we". For UH and St. Thomas, "we" is really getting weird, as one is a public university, while the othe is a private Catholic school. Red, it doesn't matter who "we" is. Society has a fixed amount of scarce resources to allocate to various undertakings. If a high speed rail system is built, that means that those resources are not utilized elsewhere in the economy. Stombiz's point is valid even though I don't necessarily agree with it (at this point in time). Infrastructure should never be built just because it can be, or because it'd be good for a few people, or because it'd "create or save jobs", or because it is in line with somebody's idea of how cool Europe is, or whatever. It should be built because it generates a sufficient amount of utility to justify the resources allocated to it. Those resources could instead be allocated to any number of public or private projects, the precise nature of which are inconsequential to this argument except that they could conceivably generate more bang for the buck What scares me is that we might spend all this money on fatter freeways that will fill up once again in a few years and we're right back where we started. Again. OK, that's tangential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 It should be built because it generates a sufficient amount of utility to justify the resources allocated to it.Ah, but the devil is in the details as they say. You make it sound as if the resultant utils can be precisely measured. Quite obviously the determination of utility, and the amount sufficient to justify the resources, are subjective calls. Bear in mind that infrastructure (and I would include airlines) is rarely profitable on its own, so funding decisions are inevitably going to take into account many intangible and political factors. Rail travel might not now be desirable to many people, but there are certainly arguments to be made that transportation funding needs to be tilted more in favor of alternatives like rail. Infrastructure should never be built just because it can be, or because it'd be good for a few people, or because it'd "create or save jobs"Point taken, but there are a heck of a lot of infrastructure projects coming down the pike that are intended precisely to create or save jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Ah, but the devil is in the details as they say. You make it sound as if the resultant utils can be precisely measured. Quite obviously the determination of utility, and the amount sufficient to justify the resources, are subjective calls. Bear in mind that infrastructure (and I would include airlines) is rarely profitable on its own, so funding decisions are inevitably going to take into account many intangible and political factors.No good scientist would ever make the claim that any measurement is completely 100% (whole number) precise. The yard stick is never adequate to the task. That doesn't mean that scientists stop measuring things, just that they must be cognizant of the margin for error and be able to explain extraordinary circumstances as they come up.I have recommended the following book numerous times on HAIF because it provides a good analytical framework for project evaluation as viewed from the perspective of the public. It includes discussion as to how to how to make apples-to-apples comparisons of benefit and cost, even when benefits are not expressed in terms of currency.http://www.amazon.com/Cost-Benefit-Analysi...n/dp/0275856909Rail travel might not now be desirable to many people, but there are certainly arguments to be made that transportation funding needs to be tilted more in favor of alternatives like rail.I agree. But as I pointed out earlier, not every rail proposal is created equal.There are rail proposals which will cost relatively little and which can be gotten up and running very quickly, but that produce pitifully little benefit. That's what I'm afraid could be the outcome on the Texas T-Bone....and then there's overkill such as developing underground vacuum-sealed tunnels to accomodate maglev trains which--devoid of the drag caused by air--could easily outrun any commercial passenger aircraft in existence. If implemented on a regional basis at first (or perhaps a cross-continental basis later on), it would free up a lot of airport capacity and reduce pressures on the air traffic control system, reduce air and noise pollution in metropolitan areas caused by all that airport traffic, create a whole new class of urban agglomeration economies, and of course save people a tremendous amount of time and induce untold numbers of new inter-city trips.^This was an idea I had had a couple years back, but the more I evaluated it, the more I came to the conclusion that the project was marginal. It's still better than an 80-mph fast train that gets run along an indirect route between major destinations and that has to stop in every third-tier city along the way.Point taken, but there are a heck of a lot of infrastructure projects coming down the pike that are intended precisely to create or save jobs.I know. I threw that out there because I anticipated a reply like yours. That's also why in the sentence following the one that you responded to, I laid out the concept of opportunity cost and made the disclaimer that the precise nature of the projects that should be undertaken is inconsequential to my argument except insofar as they evaluate project proposals against one another to determine where they can get the most bang for the buck.I don't doubt for a second that we could find places spend a trillion dollars on economically viable infrastructure projects (that is, projects that produce greater social returns than the null outcome--which is to simply not make the resource allocation). And I don't even doubt that we could evaluate ten or twenty times that number in terms of viable project proposals against one another so as to ensure that the funds that are being allocated are allocated responsibly to projects with the highest benefit:cost ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I was thinking as an alternative to the Texas T-Bone would be a line up the 6 corridor through College Station and meeting the 35 corridor at Waco. This would make the Houston-DFW trip shorter.A third component, a line from Houston to Austin/San Antonio, might branch off at Brenham or Magnolia(depends on how west the 6 line sits) and go to San Marcos, then trains going to either city would branch off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I bet the small towns love this project. Otherwise I can't really think of a reason to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernicke Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I bet the small towns love this project. Otherwise I can't really think of a reason to do it.Strengthen intra-state commerce w alternative to air travel... capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Strengthen intra-state commerce w alternative to air travel... capitalism.Capitalism is really more of a descriptor of an economic system than a reason to do something in and of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I actually think that the hurricane evacuation rationale is probably the least credible. The Ike evacuation wasn't nearly as bad as Rita and the ones without personal transportation who got bussed to San Antonio didn't really need to be that far from home. To the extent that there was congestion, it wasn't so crippling as to justify an expenditure of say, several hundred dollars (approx. $2B) for every man, woman, and child in the Houston metropolitan area (the vast majority of whom don't live in an evacuation zone).Realistically, hurricane evacuations are probably best dealt with by funding the construction of purpose-built hurricane shelters closer to home...for instance behind the levees of Texas City. Then just use city busses and school busses to provide transportation. Problem solved, all without multi-billion-dollar price tags and without threatening to interrupt the operations of all of the major nearby cities at once by overwhelming their facilities with our indigent refugees.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_vs._nominal_in_economicsRight, but you're comparing two entirely different scales of evacuation... Rita was almost 3 million people leaving at virtually the same time. Ike was less than one million leaving in well-orchestrated intervals. No comparison in my mind. With evacuations, we have to plan for worst case scenarios. In that respect, a thorough rail network would be able to move a lot of people... especially if you're dealing with the smaller areas like Galveston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Right, but you're comparing two entirely different scales of evacuation... Rita was almost 3 million people leaving at virtually the same time. Ike was less than one million leaving in well-orchestrated intervals. No comparison in my mind. With evacuations, we have to plan for worst case scenarios. In that respect, a thorough rail network would be able to move a lot of people... especially if you're dealing with the smaller areas like Galveston.I concur that we should plan for the worst. However I disagree that an extraordinarily expensive train serving with very limited access points (such as requires operable mass transit to reach) serving areas that you yourself describe as small should be justified on the basis of an evacuation because I have a far better approach in mind (which you did nothing to address one way or the other).The fact is that most people that have cars in Galveston or other low-lying areas are going to evacuate themselves and their cars. They'll need highways to do it. For the relatively small population that does not have a car, whole fleets of buses will need to be gotten off the island anyway and if they can ferry passengers at the same time, then that's an evacuation that can occur at zero cost up to the point at which the fleets are removed from the island and there have to be return trips. ...and then those trips occur at very low cost. There may be some congestion, but it isn't something that we can't handle. It's not like evacuees were going to go to work anyway, or to some other event that they have to be on time for, and even for Rita all the roads were clear before the storm hit.Frankly, though, even though most people are still going to utilize a highway for an evacuation, I don't even see evacuation as a justification to built more highways. Evacuations are a politically convenient excuse to spend money on huge projects, but I just can't point to very much of anything that is an evacuation bottleneck that doesn't already need to be expanded to handle day-to-day needs anyway. The rest can be easily worked around at very low cost...for instance by putting a traffic cop at stop signs in small towns to keep traffic moving during an evacuation (they did this for Ike, having learned from Rita). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I concur that we should plan for the worst. However I disagree that an extraordinarily expensive train serving with very limited access points (such as requires operable mass transit to reach) serving areas that you yourself describe as small should be justified on the basis of an evacuation because I have a far better approach in mind (which you did nothing to address one way or the other).The fact is that most people that have cars in Galveston or other low-lying areas are going to evacuate themselves and their cars. They'll need highways to do it. For the relatively small population that does not have a car, whole fleets of buses will need to be gotten off the island anyway and if they can ferry passengers at the same time, then that's an evacuation that can occur at zero cost up to the point at which the fleets are removed from the island and there have to be return trips. ...and then those trips occur at very low cost. There may be some congestion, but it isn't something that we can't handle. It's not like evacuees were going to go to work anyway, or to some other event that they have to be on time for, and even for Rita all the roads were clear before the storm hit.Frankly, though, even though most people are still going to utilize a highway for an evacuation, I don't even see evacuation as a justification to built more highways. Evacuations are a politically convenient excuse to spend money on huge projects, but I just can't point to very much of anything that is an evacuation bottleneck that doesn't already need to be expanded to handle day-to-day needs anyway. The rest can be easily worked around at very low cost...for instance by putting a traffic cop at stop signs in small towns to keep traffic moving during an evacuation (they did this for Ike, having learned from Rita).No, I didn't b/c I don't want to spend all day arguing with you while at work. There's nothing wrong with having local shelters either, but you act like we have to settle for one plan instead of a comprehensive group of things to assist the Houston area in natural disasters... that means repaired and well-maintenanced roads, local area shelters and better rail network. I'm also of the belief that we shouldn't live our whole lives waiting for a natural disaster, but we'd be ignorant to not do all we can to be ready for it. Especially with the current effects of climate change. Hurricanes are becoming a larger and more frequent phenomenon for Houston, which means evacuations are now a part of our lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 No, I didn't b/c I don't want to spend all day arguing with you while at work. There's nothing wrong with having local shelters either, but you act like we have to settle for one plan instead of a comprehensive group of things to assist the Houston area in natural disasters... that means repaired and well-maintenanced roads, local area shelters and better rail network. I'm also of the belief that we shouldn't live our whole lives waiting for a natural disaster, but we'd be ignorant to not do all we can to be ready for it.Does this "comprehensive group of things" also mean a dozen fleets of helicopters stationed at dozens of inland helipads (and they have to be in different places in case several of those sites get struck directly by meteors as the storm bears down) as yet another layer of redundant evacuation infrastructure?It's great to have options, but some options aren't necessary or worth the cost. It is possible to spend too much on public safety, especially when the end result is that evacuees are only able to get to their destination a few hours sooner. What's the benefit in that, that they get piss drunk sooner? Sorry. Not good enough.On a broader theme, I am not of the belief that we ought to spend our whole lives and a significant fraction of our resources preparing for the worst case scenario. Sometimes survivalist extremes can be counter to actually living life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burlesona Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 But $18,000,000,000? That's huge. Aren't there ridership projections? I would doubt that the DFW to San Antonio would be cost-justified. The phrase "it would be nice" comes up a lot about this train, but is it really worth it? I could think of a lot more "it would be nice"s which cost a lot less but would still benefit Texas.We spent almost $3 Billion to widen ~20 miles of Katy Freeway. Why does $18 billion to build ~400 miles of high speed rail seem too high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) Official Strategic Plan with pdfs, including high resolution pics of the map http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31 Fed to invest $13 billion in nationwide high-speed rail project http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/sto...13/daily39.html http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot5109.htm Edited April 16, 2009 by lockmat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Fed to invest $13 billion in nationwide high-speed rail projecthttp://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/sto...13/daily39.html http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot5109.htm Unless the grey parts are going to become high speed rail, I don't see this being that effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Unless the grey parts are going to become high speed rail, I don't see this being that effective.See the extra link i put in after your comment posted. It has another link to a higher resolution of the map showing what the grey routes are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Unless the grey parts are going to become high speed rail, I don't see this being that effective.aren't the gray lines the existing Amtrak passenger routes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.