Delegation Pushes For High-speed Rail

[lockmat]

Gattis has some pretty good point about this:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2007...speed-rail.html

In telecom, they talk about the intractable "last mile" problem. It's relatively easy to run fiber optic trunk lines all over the country or even across a region, but connecting that "last mile" to every home is a very, very costly and difficult logistical problem...High-speed rail has the same issue: it can get you to the city, but what will get you that last 10-20 miles to your real final destination?

----

The wise path for Texas in this case is to be a "fast follower" behind those two areas once they prove it can work, both technically and financially as well as ridership.

[RedScare]

I did not find Tory's "analysis" to be very convincing at all. He starts off with his "last mile" analogy, suggesting that it is easier to build the last few miles in dense Japan and Europe, as opposed to sprawling Texas. This is exactly backwards. Some of the biggest costs in building rail (or highways) is land acquisition. Land in dense cities is exponentionally more expensive than in low density cities such as are found in Texas. It would be much cheaper to build here than in Japan or Europe.

You can tell when Tory doesn't like an idea, as he throws out guesses and assumptions instead of actual figures. In suggesting that there would be a problem filling up the trains, he states that only 2,000 or 3,000 people fly between Houston and Dallas. He is only off by a factor of 4. A quick Google search shows that Southwest Airlines ALONE flies 60 planes daily between the two cities, with nearly 8,000 seats. Add in Continental, American and Delta, and you have nearly 12,000 daily seats....just between Dallas and Houston. Air travel between SA and Houston, SA and Dallas, Dallas and Austin and Houston and Austin probably brings total daily travel between these cities to 30,000 or more. That does not include the tens or even hundreds of thousands of bus and auto travellers between Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Waco, Bryan-College Station and Temple-Killen.

His suggestion that Texas be a "fast follower" is bunk. There is nothing new or unproven about high speed rail. Japan and Europe have been doing it successfully for decades. There is also nothing risky about financing per se. Multi-billion dollar projects are financed in the US on a daily basis. There are a myriad of ways to finance the needed infrastructure. It is not unique. And, despite Tory's (and some HAIFers) refusal to believe that air transit is subsidized, it is an absolute certainty that transit infrastructure is supported by government, whether through eminent domain, tax free bonds, loans or outright grants. And, don't even get me started on the money pit that is Homeland Security.

Tory loves to tout Houston and Texas' risk takers, from oil tycoons to NASA to nano-tech to the TMC. Why suddenly, should Texas wait for someone else to undertake high speed rail? If it is studied, and the numbers work, and it is debated on a level playing field, and the answer to the question is yes, then do it. The only reason we do not have high speed rail today is that the power brokers do not want it, not that it cannot succeed.

That needs to change.

[lockmat]

I thought he meant that the "last few miles" was already in place when speaking of Europe and Japan?

I'll admit, analyzing all this on my own is difficult. I appreciate the debate. The guys who respond to Tory on his blog make interesting points.

But really, I say we just pass the hat around, throw in a few bucks, and voila, money for high speed rail in Texas. ok, jk

[RedScare]

I thought he meant that the "last few miles" was already in place when speaking of Europe and Japan?

He actually tried to make a couple of points on this, both incorrect. He suggested that denser Japanese and European cities have shorter "last miles" than Texas. This means little when land in those last few miles may cost hundreds of dollars per square foot, versus $5 to $20 here. His other, equally ill thought out point was that once the train arrives, there is not a well developed transit system and businesses are spread out. Aside from the fact that the arrival of high speed rail would encourage (or force) cities to improve transit, what do air travellers do when they arrive at the airport? Why won't rail travellers do the same? It was a stunningly disingenuous argument, and convinced me that he formed his opposition to high speed rail first, then looked for reasons to support his opposition. I didn't even waste my time rebutting him.

I have no idea if ridership projections, ticket prices or government support will make HSR viable in Texas. That is what we do studies for...to crunch the numbers. However, he did not have any numbers either, so he made some up that were low enough to make his argument against it persuasive. We DO have some numbers, such as a $22 Billion projected cost for 440 miles, which INCLUDES his "last mile" problem. So, the question becomes how to finance, at what cost, and ridership and ticket price to cover it.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

You can tell when Tory doesn't like an idea, as he throws out guesses and assumptions instead of actual figures. In suggesting that there would be a problem filling up the trains, he states that only 2,000 or 3,000 people fly between Houston and Dallas. He is only off by a factor of 4. A quick Google search shows that Southwest Airlines ALONE flies 60 planes daily between the two cities, with nearly 8,000 seats. Add in Continental, American and Delta, and you have nearly 12,000 daily seats....just between Dallas and Houston.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who got a kick out of that assertion. According to Southwest's flight schedule, 372 flights operate between Houston Hobby and Dallas Love every week. Assuming that these flights are handled by Boeing 737-300 and 737-500 aircraft, which comprises the overwhelming majority of Southwest's fleet, that's 137 seats per flight for a total of 50,964 seats offered between the two airports every week. Even assuming a relatively conservative load factor of 0.8 (I fly this route on an almost-monthly basis and have rarely come across a flight that is not completely full), that's 40,771 passengers per week, or 5,824.5 passengers per day. A little bit higher than Tory's "couple of thousand" assumption. And, as you correctly note, that's just the HOU-DAL service provided by Southwest. It doesn't include the mainline IAH-DFW service provided by American and Continental, or the DFW-HOU service provided by American Eagle, or the IAH-DAL service provided by Continental Express (although to be fair, the latter two services are provided using smaller ERJs). So I agree: Tory is off by at least a factor of four.

And, despite Tory's (and some HAIFers) refusal to believe that air transit is subsidized, it is an absolute certainty that transit infrastructure is supported by government, whether through eminent domain, tax free bonds, loans or outright grants. And, don't even get me started on the money pit that is Homeland Security.

Yup. In the comments section, Tory also writes, that his "understanding is that passenger and airline fees completely cover the cost of air travel," which is simply not true. While the Airport and Airways Trust Fund covers *most* of the FAA's operating and capital expenses, it does not cover all of them. In FY 2006, for example, $2.6 billion of the FAA's $13.9 billion budget came from general fund appropriations, i.e. subsidies.

There are also other forms of subsidy, such as the Essential Air Service Program, which provides government subsidies to airlines in order to ensure otherwise-unprofitable air service to small town and rural airports, or state and local government "incentives" aimed at getting airlines to serve local airports. There are also substantial indirect subsidies; for instance, tax breaks received by Boeing, which supplies the bulk of equipment owned by the domestic carriers, or the fact that nearly half of the nation's commercial aviation pilots originally received their training in the military, or "fly America" clauses that require government workers and contractors to use domestic carriers even though a foreign carrier might fly the same route at a cheaper cost.

In fact, direct federal spending in avation has historically been substantial. This report was written before 9/11, when the aviation industry received $5 billion in direct government grants. (All this subsidy, by the way, is going to an industry that is estimated to have cumulatively lost $14 billion since 1947.)

I'm not arguing against subsidies for the aviation industry, because all transportation is subsidized in one form or another. Nor am I arguing that High Speed Rail would be viable or successful in Texas. The capital cost for such an undertaking would be min-boggling, and in the long run it would probably be cheaper to partner with UP and BNSF to upgrade existing lines (through replacing old rails, inproving signal blocks, double-tracking, straightening curves where possible) in order to provide intercity passenger rail at speeds in the 80-100 mph range.

But Tory tends to lose credibilty when he makes demonstrably false assertions such as those you've identified. Which is a shame, since I really enjoyed reading his blog when he first started it a couple of years ago.

[lockmat]

According to this editorial, "delays in air service are costing the national economy $15.3 billion per year."

That just seems crazy. Where do yall think they're getting their numbers from? Because even though effeciency is less, doesn't that mean someone else is making money off it?

(I posted this info in this thread b/c the rest of the article suggests high speed rail would help relieve the airport congestion)

[desirous]

It doesn't include the mainline IAH-DFW service provided by American and Continental, or the DFW-HOU service provided by American Eagle, or the IAH-DAL service provided by Continental Express (although to be fair, the latter two services are provided using smaller ERJs). So I agree: Tory is off by at least a factor of four.

Nor does it include coach lines and private car trips that could be substituted as well.

[TheNiche]

According to this editorial, "delays in air service are costing the national economy $15.3 billion per year."

That just seems crazy. Where do yall think they're getting their numbers from? Because even though effeciency is less, doesn't that mean someone else is making money off it?

(I posted this info in this thread b/c the rest of the article suggests high speed rail would help relieve the airport congestion)

Firstly: this editorial needs to be given its own thread. It is discussing traditional passenger rail service, not something like TGV, Maglev, or anything technologically groundbreaking, like what's being discussed for Texas. Moreover, air congestion isn't so much of an issue here as it is in many other parts of the nation. We've got more room for airlines to grow.

-----------------------------------------

I'm not sure where they're coming up with per passenger energy consumption for trains or planes. Its hard to consider numbers like those credible when you don't know what kind of hardware they're talking about or what the passenger count is. And I hate to see crap like that from anybody's editorial because it undermines the credibility of the whole thing.

And they cite how well the rail industry is doing in terms of fare passengers, but fail to cite how well the airlines are doing, instead using a post-9/11 spin on the issue, as though it fundamentally changed the game, when events in Spain clearly showed that trains are just as susceptible to terrorism as are planes.

And they lament how little subsidy Amtrak receives compared to air and highway subsidies...but they don't bother dividing that amount by the number of Amtrak passengers. Consider this: $14 billion in air subsidy divided by 770.8 million passenger enplanements. That's $18.16 per passenger. Amtrak gets $1.3 billion supporting ridership of 2.3 million, or $565.22 per passenger!!!

I don't know about anybody else, but it seems like they could do a whole lot more good by ceasing to fund an anachronism.

[Spades]

Great discussion. Glad to see this is on the board in Texas. The only high speed rail in the US is the Acela and it's pretty nice.

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

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

I understand the advantages to a bigger city as well. But I think they probably do not want to put too many stations in Austin. Maybe Killeen is an option because of it's growth as well as Ft. Hood. The Killeen-Temple metro is already bigger than Waco and the city of Killeen will surpass Waco as the largest city in Central Texas outside Austin in the next 10-20 years and leave Waco in the dust at that. Not to mention that Killeen is growing south to meet Austin's growth to the north. Killeen and Georgetown is growing closer and closer together.

With that said, I know many on this board and other boards have complained that Texas is probably the only state in the US that does not have an expressway connecting it's largest city to it's state capital. I think this rail would shut that down and work better than having an expressway connecting the two cities. I wonder though, if this is built, and it shows the federal government that Texans will use the HSR, how could they expand? Would they build the Houston-Dallas line or will they go a different route and expand from Dallas-Tyler and Houston-Beaumont?