Houston to Dallas in 40 Minutes

[RedScare]

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.

Interesting that you brought up the broken Amtrak model. The French TGV makes money, as does the Japanese bullet trains. Not sure about Germany, but I suspect that they do as well. The bullet trains are routinely shown to be more efficient between cities less than 250 miles apart. Amtrak has consistently chosen an 'incremental improvemnt' approach to upgrading it's system, as opposed to replacing its dreadfully slow system with high speed rail. Even the Acela is a hybrid, putting a slightly faster train on the same old track.

The high speed trains are definitely cheaper to operate, since they do not take off and land. The financial peoblem is the initial cost for infrastructure. This is where politics comes in. Government can make it easier to build high speed rail by allowing eminent domain and approving bond issues. These do not cost the taxpayer a dime. The airlines fear that a CHOICE in transportation options will cost them money, hence the political opposition to the trains. If the trains got only the SAME treatment from government as the airlines, you would find numerous routes that could break even or make money in the US. Among those would be a San Diego/LA/SF route, perhaps even going to Vancouver, a Boston to DC route, a Miami to Orlando route, possibly extending to Atlanta, and of course, the Houston/DFW/Austin/SA route.

Several things have changed since Herb killed the TGV 15 years ago. Number 1, Herb is retired. Secondly, people are starting to realize that it is unwise to only have one means of travel. Thirdly, the high cost of fuel is pushing up airfare, making high speed rail more affordable. And, lastly, the climate in Austin is changing. 15 years ago, the TGV couldn't even get a fair hearing. Now, we have a governor proposing corridors with space for high speed rail. While Perry's scheme has many opponents, the fact that he even included a high speed rail component at all is progress.

EDIT: From the little research I have done, many of the French trains have operating costs of 5.7 to 7.5 cents per passenger mile, or $18 for a trip to Dallas. In 2002, airline seat mile cost was 11.1 cents, almost 50% higher.

[TheNiche]

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

I think that the IAH/DFW discussion is pretty central to the topic of the thread, given that it was mentioned by Red in the first post and you in the second. Discussions of impacts on routes connecting to Austin and San Antonio are secondary. All other origin/destination pairs are pretty much irrelevant.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The high cost of fuel is pushing up the cost of airfare......if only that were true. Americans enjoy cheap air travel. The planes have never been more full. Comparing the EU to the US as far as "options" in mass transit is hilarious

[TheNiche]

Interesting that you brought up the broken Amtrak model. The French TGV makes money, as does the Japanese bullet trains. Not sure about Germany, but I suspect that they do as well. The bullet trains are routinely shown to be more efficient between cities less than 250 miles apart. Amtrak has consistently chosen an 'incremental improvemnt' approach to upgrading it's system, as opposed to replacing its dreadfully slow system with high speed rail. Even the Acela is a hybrid, putting a slightly faster train on the same old track.

I'm curious, do you know whether or to what extent the Japanese or French subsidize their systems in any way?

Also, are you aware of any published feasibility studies on the matter?

Government can make it easier to build high speed rail by allowing eminent domain and approving bond issues. These do not cost the taxpayer a dime.

That is not an accurate statement. Bond issues require debt service, paid (or at the very least guaranteed) by the taxpayer. Eminent domain in cases of corridor acquisition ususally entails a pretty significant amount of legal expenses in addition to the costs of land acquisition. Also, properties along the likely path of acquisition tend to decline in value, ceteris paribum. It would be particularly costly in the case of high-speed rail because 1) there are only a very few stops along the line, so there is no offsetting benefit like there are along a freeway's feeder road in the event of a highway expansion, and 2) property owners (especially residential) will be concerned over real or perceived safety and noise pollution externalities where few or none had existed previously.

I don't mean to slam you on this Red, and I agree with the spirit of your argument and tend to believe that the benefits of the project would exceed the costs. But this part of your claim is unfounded.

Thirdly, the high cost of fuel is pushing up airfare, making high speed rail more affordable.

I noticed that there were overhead wires in the video. Do you know about what kind of power consumption is required to operate these trains?

[MidtownCoog]

In Germany, the whole railroad system

[RedScare]

I am still playing around with this, so I do not know the level, if any, of government subsidy. I only saw the article suggesting that the trains run at a profit. However, while 1st Word was busy posting smiley faces about the US comparisons to the EU, I found a pretty detailed study of a Florida rail proposal. In it, are several graphs showing infrastructure costs and operating costs.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/Publicatio...as/chapter3.pdf

The first thing to catch my eye was the massive cost of maglev infrastructure and operating costs. TGV (or HSR) is much more affordable. The very last page shows projected annual operating costs for the trains. For TGV/HSR, it would be about $23.30 per mile. Divide this number by the average French seating capacity of 400 passengers, and you get about 5.8 cents per seat mile. For comparison, Southwest Airlines is about 9.9 cents. Further, the French have a 'Duplex', or double decker train, that seats 545. The Koreans use a setup that seats 935.

No slam taken on the government part. My point really was that government can make the cost skyrocket with obstructionist policies as were enacted in the past, or can be helpful in allowing the technology to move forward, as they do with air travel. It is not in the citizens' interest to allow the government to protect one form of travel to the exclusion of another.

Lastly, I do not know power requirements yet.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, power output ranges from 6,450 kW for a 377 passenger trainset to 12,240 kW for the 794 passenger Eurostar. On a 40 minute trip at 13 cents per kWh, cost would be $562 to $1066.

[Saddleman]

Here's a cool little map.

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/ne...traintexas.html

Airlines will oppose trains until they become transportation companies. Continental Railways and Southwest Rail might sound nice. Until that happens, the airlines will work to, and probably, kill high speed rail in Texas every time.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Again, hilarious and now a bit absurd. Comparing seat mile cost of highspeed trains to that of profitable airlines, which does cost billions of tax dollars to get going, is absurd. No way is a fix based system such as a train better to that of a versatile airplane at a profitable and consistently profitable airline. An airline by the way which doesnt exist on government subsidies

Im still waiting to hear about these government subsidies to the airlines which would also help trains.

[Saddleman]

I wasn't really agruing that anyways, or I would have quoted someone's post to show that I was. Sure, some people on this thread are saying they'd drive instead on taking a plane or train, but my point is still valid. I can't count the number of times that that arguement has come up when talking about the possiblity of high speed rail in Texas. Why is it that some think that some how an airport can service a city or region, and a rail station downtown can only serve people going to downtown. If this thread continues long enough, it will come up.

[RedScare]

Again, hilarious and now a bit absurd......

.....profitable and consistently profitable airline.

Agreed.

[TheNiche]

No way is a fix based system such as a train better to that of a versatile airplane at a profitable and consistently profitable airline. An airline by the way which doesnt exist on government subsidies

Ultimately, one can only fly where there is a runway built to handle a large jet aircraft. How is that any more or less versatile than a train that can only go where there's a rail terminal? Moreover, though, I can't count the number of times I've been stranded on a runway in a line, waiting for takeoff. I can't count the number of times that my flight has been delayed/cancelled due to weather--sometimes they can be rerouted to another airport, but usually not if it is in the same city. How is that more versatile as compared to a rail system that is less subject to runway congestion or weather???

The only consistently profitable airline is Southwest, and that is only because they had the financial sense to hedge their fuel prices. And all airlines are subsidized by the government by way of AIRPORTS!!!

[Saddleman]

I found something on government subsidies for airlines.

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Ultimately, one can only fly where there is a runway built to handle a large jet aircraft. How is that any more or less versatile than a train that can only go where there's a rail terminal? Moreover, though, I can't count the number of times I've been stranded on a runway in a line, waiting for takeoff. I can't count the number of times that my flight has been delayed/cancelled due to weather--sometimes they can be rerouted to another airport, but usually not if it is in the same city. How is that more versatile as compared to a rail system that is less subject to runway congestion or weather???

The only consistently profitable airline is Southwest, and that is only because they had the financial sense to hedge their fuel prices. And all airlines are subsidized by the government by way of AIRPORTS!!!

I was thinking you were a pretty smart guy, im losing faith in you. I thought for sure you would know better than that.

[MidtownCoog]

And all airlines are subsidized by the government by way of AIRPORTS!!!

Oh my.

[RedScare]

Could someone name the US airports that were built and owned by the airlines? Could someone name the airlines that operate their own air traffic control centers?

I can't seem to find the list of them.

[MidtownCoog]

Y'all have gone retarded.

Can someone name a road built by Ford?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I found something on government subsidies for airlines.

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html

Ah, a blog.

If what much of this blog says is true, im taking my kid out of Embry Riddle and demanding a refund since the government automatically provides the training, hilarious

[RedScare]

How about a government document?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headqu...dia/bib2006.pdf

$13.8 Billion dollars the US government spends on air travel.

[Saddleman]

Blog or not, you wanted subsidies, you got subsidies.

[TheNiche]

I was thinking you were a pretty smart guy, im losing faith in you. I thought for sure you would know better than that.

I humbly ask that you excuse my ignorance, oh wise one, but would you please explain what "that" is?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I humbly ask that you excuse my ignorance, oh wise one, but would you please explain what "that" is?

If i thought you were of the usual dumbasses that cut and paste without knowledge, i would.

[TheNiche]

How about a government document?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headqu...dia/bib2006.pdf

$13.8 Billion dollars the US government spends on air travel.

...never mind all the bond issues put out by various municipalities to expand their airports and the highways and transit built by local, state, and federal agencies to provide airport access.

Or for that matter, the recently-passed Proposition G. There, Houston1stWord, now that I've provided a link to information that is not my own, will you please count me as a dumbass and explain your position?

[Saddleman]

Usual Dumbassess UNITE!

[TheNiche]

Can someone name a road built by Ford?

I probably could if I researched it enough. Back in the early days of paved highways, various special interests promoted a national system of roads by paying to pave a mile or so at a time in various places so as to illustrate the public benefit. It worked!

[RedScare]

Niche, you can't expect a non-resident to be able to comment on a City of Houston referendum, you dumbass.

[MidtownCoog]

Yea and never-mind that airports are used to haul freight all over the world.

Just ask the Port of Dallas about that one.

I doubt much freight will be hauled on this fancy train.

[RedScare]

Yea and never-mind that airports are used to haul freight all over the world.

Just ask the Port of Dallas about that one.

I doubt much freight will be hauled on this fancy train.

Yeah, probably not.

http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/images/laposte/index.html

[MidtownCoog]

Not in the way you dreamers want a Texas train to connect downtowns and convention centers.

[RedScare]

Yeah, all those "HOU-DAL" and "DAL_HOU" semis that I see on the freeway look way more efficient than a train. USPS would never go for efficiency.

[MidtownCoog]

Based on that point your argument is about as sound as light rail vs. super buses.

Just another mode of transportation with the same result.

If the mail gets to D/FW before it's ready to be processed it will just end up sitting there.

And the benfit of that is?