Houston to Dallas in 40 Minutes

[RedScare]

The French TGV set a new speed record of over 357 mph.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11668535/

The record was still shy of the record set by a Japenese mag-lev at 360 mph. At these speeds, a commuter could leave downtown Houston and arrive in downtown Dallas 40 minutes later. No wonder Herb Kelleher used his connections to kill the Texas TGV.

[MidtownCoog]

Actual flight time in the air from HOU to DAL is also about 40 minutes.

Add in the boarding process which neither of these times take into account and it's longer of course.

[sevfiv]

also, what would be a likely ticket price?

[MidtownCoog]

That's a good question. The "Anytime Refundable" rate on SWA is $232.00 as of today.

And aircraft can have simultaneous operations in each direction.

I do love rail. It's so sexy. Until you have to actually use is everyday.

[TheNiche]

The French TGV set a new speed record of over 357 mph.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11668535/

The record was still shy of the record set by a Japenese mag-lev at 360 mph. At these speeds, a commuter could leave downtown Houston and arrive in downtown Dallas 40 minutes later. No wonder Herb Kelleher used his connections to kill the Texas TGV.

I wonder how this system compares with Maglev in terms of operating costs. Given that this system is apparently built to operate at grade-level, they could be quite favorable.

And aircraft can have simultaneous operations in each direction.

Watch the video. It takes double-tracking, but there's nothing preventing bidirectional operation.

[KinkaidAlum]

I travel back and forth between Boston and Manhattan at least once a month. I NEVER fly. I always choose the Acela Service. Here's why,

1) I can walk 5 blocks from my house and get to the Back Bay/South End Station (one of 3 stops in Boston).

2) For $130 bucks or so, I can get a biz class seat with powerports and room to work.

3) In 4 short hours I'll be at Penn Station.

4) Penn Station is no more than a $5 cab ride from anywhere I'd want to be.

As for flying,

1) Pay $20 for a cab to Logan and fight the traffic which isn't as bad now that the new tunnel is open again

2) Pay $150 or so round trip coach on Continental to EWR, JetBlue to JFK, or American/Delta/USAir to LaGuardia

3) Spend 20-45 minutes depending upon the airline and the terminal to clear security

4) Spend 20-45 minutes waiting for people to board and the taxi time on the runways (and pray there is no bad weather at Logan which there almost always is leading to massive delays).

5) Spend 35 to 40 minutes in the air if you are allowed to land but since ground stops are quite common in NYC, expect to circle a few times for an extra half hour

6) Land in either New Jersey or Queens. Have to pay enormous taxi fares from Queens and then deal with the traffic/tunnels/bridges. Can take the train from Newark which will get me to Penn Station in half an hour or so.

SO,

TRAIN- easy process. wide seats. power ports. 4 hours to do work or drink/eat/visit while watching the New England landscape out the window. Usually cheaper at last minute.

PLANE- multiple transfers that add time and expense to the tickets which are usually pricier than the train. Little quality time since you are dealing with cabs/trains, security, boardings, flight attendants, multiple announcements, more cabs/trains, and in the end the 45 minute flight can turn into a 4 hour trip.

[ssullivan]

Great post KinkaidAlum. You hit all the points I was about to make. And also add to that that rail is much less prone to delays and cancellation due to weather, which can be a problem at times. On one of those days when the entire state of Texas is dealing with spring thunderstorms and IAH, HOU, DAL, and DFW are all a mess, high speed rail service could still be making the trip with much less disruption.

If Texas TGV had gotten off the ground and we had a high-speed rail network linking the major cities of this state, which terminals downtown and at a few key places along the route (such as Waco and Austin on a San Antonio-Dallas/Ft. Worth trip), Southwest, Continental, and American would not be flying nearly the same number of seats they currently are on routes between Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. Texas TGV was a HUGE threat to Southwest because of all the reasons above, and that's why they fought so hard to kill it. All those Southwest (and Continental and American to lesser extents) "shuttle" flights within Texas that are filled with business travelers making day trips every weekday would have seen a dramatic decrease on passengers if high-speed rail was available as an option that was priced about the same as flying. Of course a lot of people would still fly, but in many cases high speed rail would still be a better option if it existed.

[Pumapayam]

That's a good question. The "Anytime Refundable" rate on SWA is $232.00 as of today.

And aircraft can have simultaneous operations in each direction.

I do love rail. It's so sexy. Until you have to actually use is everyday.

Which is more likely to happen?

A plane crash or train derailment?

[skwatra]

i agree with anything under 250 miles i would take a train over flying (unless i find one of those $60 deals on SW which are rare nowadays). problem is for houston-dallas/austin/san antonio/new orleans i rarely go there and not need a car when i get there, so i just drive.

[ssullivan]

Which is more likely to happen?

A plane crash or train derailment?

Good question, but given the safety record of the TGVs in France, both are extremely safe, reliable modes of transportation, and both are much safer than driving.

[MidtownCoog]

You really can't apply these East Coast scenarios to Texas. Maybe in 50 years.

Everyone knows Logan is a disaster. That's the poster child for a transportation nightmare. Boston, too. The East Coast has more air traffic than any region in the world.

Even if I took a train to the city of D/FW I'll still need a car to get where I am going once there. That's not the case back East.

[desirous]

Flying is still slow as hell, East Coast scenarios or not. Ground delays and the inconvenient locations of airports put a damper on air travel. I myself drive between Houston and Dallas - it's not much slower (3.5 vs 3 hours), much less irritating, far more intimate, and ultimately, a lot cheaper. TGV would be a great idea. It's annoying to visit the convention center on business trips when travelling by air.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Surely you guys are joking when you place trains ahead of flying, especially for the east coast. The perks you get from the east coast flights, like the ones Kinkaid would take are wonderful. My first 2 yrs at my current company, i lived on the USAir and Delta Shuttles. BOS-DCA-LGA are all Shuttle flights which come with many perks and benefits. The Shuttle is also hourly.

As far as SWA is concerned, it wouldnt be worth it for me. The perks they have dont fit into my ideal of good.

[texas911]

When I was at school, we did a study with Texas TVG, even did design work for their proposed station in Houston, which would have been downtown, or on Allen Parkway and Sheppard. We got to talk the reps that was trying to get this done. Without state and federal funding, it wouldn't be feasable, and they had strong opposition from the Texas Airlines. One interesting fact is that their railway would have been a freeway type closed system, with overpasses over all roads, because they couldn't afford to hit any car going 150mph, that illegally crossed over a rail road crossing, and living in Houston, I know this would have been a wise choice.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Without state and federal funding, it wouldn't be feasable, and they had strong opposition from the Texas Airlines.

and other cities. If i had to make a choice between trains and airlines as a gov. official, i would choose the airlines everytime. They employ thousands of employees right here in Texas-Houton and Dallas/Ft Worth in particular. Those employees buy homes cars pay taxes all of which amount to much more economic revenue for the state and local economies than would a highspeed train system. The Houston-Dallas corridor is one of the most frequently flown routes in the USA.

[TheNiche]

and other cities. If i had to make a choice between trains and airlines as a gov. official, i would choose the airlines everytime. They employ thousands of employees right here in Texas-Houton and Dallas/Ft Worth in particular. Those employees buy homes cars pay taxes all of which amount to much more economic revenue for the state and local economies than would a highspeed train system. The Houston-Dallas corridor is one of the most frequently flown routes in the USA.

Connecting Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio using this high-speed rail technology would not be the death of airlines.

Also, the point of having airports is not to employ people, but to move them. If it can be done more efficiently and Houston-Dallas route is so high-traffic, then the project has legs to stand on. If it can save money, then people will spend less on transportation (or subsidies to transportation) and more on other consumption items. It would be good for the Texas economy, as mobility always is, and would free up gates at airports for flights to other destinations, preventing the need to undertake expensive capital expansion projects so soon.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Connecting Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio using this high-speed rail technology would not be the death of airlines.

Also, the point of having airports is not to employ people, but to move them. If it can be done more efficiently and Houston-Dallas route is so high-traffic, then the project has legs to stand on. If it can save money, then people will spend less on transportation (or subsidies to transportation) and more on other consumption items. It would be good for the Texas economy, as mobility always is, and would free up gates at airports for flights to other destinations, preventing the need to undertake expensive capital expansion projects so soon.

WHAT?!?!?!?!

[CDeb]

the point of having airports is not to employ people, but to move them.

Agreed. But the purse string holders don't see it that way. Airports are one of their best avenues of patronage.

[Saddleman]

I have to call bullmanure on the I'll-need-a-car-at-my-destination-so-I-have-to-fly-on-a-plane-instead-of-taking-a-high-speed-train agruement. If you need a car when get off the train, rent one at the station. It would be the same as the airport. I'm sure if these trains and stations where built now and in Texas, they would have car rental agencies in or next to the stations. Texas may not be like that in the Northeast, or Europe, or Japan, or where ever, but here the stations could acommidate car rental.

[MidtownCoog]

It would be the same as the airport.

So true on many, many levels.

But if a train pollutes less it may be a good idea.

And if a US firm could build these trains it might just work.

I doubt we'll give any huge contracts to France at the expense of Boeing. Especially considering the EU still protects thier market under the guise of free trade.

The question is, could this rail make money. Kinkaid loves his Amtrack service but Amtrack's business model is broken.

[webdude]

WHAT?!?!?!?!

What he says makes perfect sense.

And you just gave the reason why a better alternative is needed

The Houston-Dallas corridor is one of the most frequently flown routes in the USA

It could even do good for tourism and other industries, being able to visit all the major cities in texas so easily.

[MidtownCoog]

It's all about money.

We don't have a few billion to copy a service that already exists in the form of buses, cars and planes.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

What he says makes perfect sense.

No it doesnt. He likes to site "facts", and because of that, im confident he will see the error in his statements.

[webdude]

It's all about money.

We don't have a few billion to copy a service that already exists in the form of buses, cars and planes.

It is about the money but really about how one industry wants its money at the expense of another common sens'iscal' solution.

And it really isn't the same service.

we could all either, cycle, run, walk, take a hot air balloon, ride a horse between dallas and houston but it wouldn't be the same in terms of time, price and convenience. Some services are just better at moving people conveniently and cost effectively. Unfortunately, too much politics are always involved when deciding these matters.

[MidtownCoog]

You don't even know what the price would be.

Last year I flew from London to Amerstdam on KLM for $150.00 USD. They also had a train/ferry service for $125.00 USD but it took longer.

The Eurostar was even more than that.

[webdude]

No it doesnt. He likes to site "facts", and because of that, im confident he will see the error in his statements.

You want facts to support the main reason for airports should be to move people, and not just for employment??

You don't want to employ people for the sake of employing them, you want productivity. Sounds like big government wants to promote their big government inefficiency to businesses.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

You don't want to employ people for the sake of employing them, you want productivity. Sounds like big government wants to promote their big government inefficiency to businesses.

What are you talking about?

You don't even know what the price would be.

Last year I flew from London to Amerstdam on KLM for $150.00 USD. They also had a train/ferry service for $125.00 USD but it took longer.

The Eurostar was even more than that.

Keep speaking. Each time you share just a little more to prove my point. People that spend time traveling should get the point easily.

[TheNiche]

We don't have a few billion to copy a service that already exists in the form of buses, cars and planes.

It isn't about copying. It is about replacing. And yes, we do have a few billion dollars.

Consider also that rather than (or perhaps in addition to) a rail terminal at an airport, far from the city center, a terminal can be accomodated in a more accessible location because it doesn't require as large a footprint as an airport. By making it accessible to the greatest number of people, the service would be vastly improved as compared to short flights.

Honestly, how could you possibly make the claim that it is easier to drive 20 or 30 minutes to IAH, park, check in, wait in the security line with everyone heading to out-of-state destinations, walk through the massive terminals to your gate, *hope* that it is on time, *hope* that your bags haven't been put on the flight to Kansas City by accident, wait in line to board the plane, taxi, *hope* that the line to take off isn't too long, fly for 40 minutes, land, taxi to the gate, walk through the massive terminal, wait for and pick up your bags at the luggage terminal (if they got there), and then have to wait for your ride, rent a car, catch a bus/train, or hail a cab and be taken to wherever your final destination may be...hopefully Euless, Grapevine, Arlington, or Grand Praire.

Haven't you considered that a regional high-speed rail system would be more efficient on account of its lower total volume of traffic? For short trips, big airports are bad. In a rail terminal, on the other hand, not only is there little or no congestion, little or no weather delays, etc., but there are smaller lines to check in and go through security, boarding is faster, the facility is smaller, there are no outlying parking lots or needs for a shuttle service, and above all, it is central to the city that you're departing/arriving from/to.

I don't know what the cost comparisons of this new technology to (subsidized) airlines are, but I'd pay more for a rail ticket than the air ticket because it would save me time and a hassle. That is to say, just because this technology *might* be more expensive doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea.

[skwatra]

I have to call bullmanure on the I'll-need-a-car-at-my-destination-so-I-have-to-fly-on-a-plane-instead-of-taking-a-high-speed-train agruement. If you need a car when get off the train, rent one at the station. It would be the same as the airport. I'm sure if these trains and stations where built now and in Texas, they would have car rental agencies in or next to the stations. Texas may not be like that in the Northeast, or Europe, or Japan, or where ever, but here the stations could acommidate car rental.

i think most people's arguments here was I'll-need-a-car-at-my-destination-so-I-have-to-DRIVE-instead-of-taking-a-plane-or-train. pertaining to Houston-Dallas, also part of the reason you can't compare it to eastcoast especially Boston-NYC.

[MidtownCoog]

Who said it's easier to fly from IAH to D/FW?