Jump to content

Houston High-Speed Rail


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I'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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...