Reefmonkey Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Have you ever traveled intercity on a train?Not so much in the US, but quite a bit overseas. Throughout Europe, and also regularly when I go to Japan.Have you ever traveled on a high-speed train?Yes, the TGV in France, the Italian equivalent, and multiple trips on Shinkansen in Japan: Narita-Tokyo, Tokyo-Kyoto (twice), Tokyo-Sendai.People in Texas who have not ridden on trains much or at all just don't know what they are missing:There is no need to be at the station an hour before your train leaves - 10 minutes is more than enough time.There is no annoying and delaying security queue.Trains are rarely delayed, unlike airplanes, which are always getting delayed due to weather, previous flight delays, other planes still sitting in their gates, etc.Unlike most airports, which, for noise and space considerations, have to be sited a ways for the urban center they serve, train stations are usually located IN the urban centers, reducing the amount of time you spend getting to and from the station vs airport, and also putting you right where you want to be.Trains are MUCH more comfortable to travel in than airplanes. The seats aren't all crammed togetherlike they are on an airplane (except on the Shinkansen) and even if you do start to feel claustrophobic in your seat, it is always safe to get up and stretch your legs, and there is plenty of room to do so. Oh, man I hope there is a club or dining car if there is ever a Houston-Dallas train.I think the current use of regional jets like the Embraer, which is becoming more and more popular as airlines don't want to spend more money on bigger jets, is a travesty. Not only are these little jets less efficient in terms of fuel used per passenger carried, they are also clogging the airways and taxiways of America, leading to more delays. The obvious solution, for the environment, for the economy, for peoples' pocketbooks, comfort, and convenience, is to return to rail for regional travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen4rmptown Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Out of the 2, its obviously Dallas, but if San Antonio were an option, then I'd pick San Antonio for sure.Very big tourist destination in Texas, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxDave Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Given the choice, I think the Houston-Dallas route would be best.However, the Texas high speed rail will be most effective if it can provide travel for any route between Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio.These routes have already been studied extensively - it would be nice to move beyond planning and into execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NThomas Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Any HSR built in Texas isn't going to be just a Dallas-Houston HSR proposal. While there would be more traffic on a DAL-HOU route then a AUS-HOU, you have to remember the Alamo city out west too. Any HSR proposal for Texas is going to include San Antonio along with Austin, Dallas, and Houston. The Texas T-Bone makes the most sense because not only does it connect all four, it doesn't take up as much ROW as a DAL-HOU route and a DAL-AUS-SAA. Now are you really going to have passengers transfer in Dallas to get to Austin or San Antonio? Too bad! They've already headed out on US 290 or I-10, or booked a flight. Future expansion would be hindered with a transfer in Dallas if Houston isn't connected to Austin or even Killien-Temple. But not every train would have to stop at every station. Even if DAL-HOU routes are the most popular (would be surprised if that route wasn't the most used) the DAL-HOU trains will just pass through Austin or Temple and stop only at either end. But the HOU-AUS route and HOU-SAA routes will keep the line farther to the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Austin. Because we don't like dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicMan Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Not so much in the US, but quite a bit overseas. Throughout Europe, and also regularly when I go to Japan.I think the current use of regional jets like the Embraer, which is becoming more and more popular as airlines don't want to spend more money on bigger jets, is a travesty. Not only are these little jets less efficient in terms of fuel used per passenger carried, they are also clogging the airways and taxiways of America, leading to more delays. The obvious solution, for the environment, for the economy, for peoples' pocketbooks, comfort, and convenience, is to return to rail for regional travel.It's not that the airline's don't want to spend more money on larger aircraft. It's because they want to provide more frequent flight schedules.However the Embraer 145s and 135s are becoming less and less popular as they are not very fuel efficient. Now airlines are moving towards the Embraer 170s and 190s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 2 THA C Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Apparently Florida's Governor rejected their $2.4 billion in Stimulus funds for high speed rail. This has left many States vying for these funds including Claifornia, and the District of Columbia. TXDOT has requested $43 million for "preliminary engineering and environmental studies" for a Houston-Dallas line that would be most likely an express with little or no stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Apparently Florida's Governor rejected their $2.4 billion in Stimulus funds for high speed rail. This has left many States vying for these funds including Claifornia, and the District of Columbia. TXDOT has requested $43 million for "preliminary engineering and environmental studies" for a Houston-Dallas line that would be most likely an express with little or no stops.That's the thing that always kills HSR, even in countries that have it -- all the little stops made for political reasons. Eurostar through France isn't too bad, though it could do without the Lille stop. But the KTX between Seoul and Busan must make a dozen stops, and only one or two people get on at each. I see no place worth stopping between Houston and Dallas. If there was, Southwest would already fly there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 That's the thing that always kills HSR, even in countries that have it -- all the little stops made for political reasons. Eurostar through France isn't too bad, though it could do without the Lille stop. But the KTX between Seoul and Busan must make a dozen stops, and only one or two people get on at each. I see no place worth stopping between Houston and Dallas. If there was, Southwest would already fly there.Hmm...I could easily see College Station-Bryan becoming a viable stop, but the airport already (and ONLY) flies out to Houston and Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 If the goal is Business, i'd say to Dallas. However, on a weekend gettaway, i'd rather take a train to Downtown Austin and San Antonio and be able to walk/short taxi to a hotel downtown, and be in walking distance to all the attractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernicke Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I predict HSR will not happen in Texas in my lifetime (I'm 28). Our state and country are in the midst of a debt crises and our state's conservative leaders will never agree to the high costs (ie. requiring new revenue streams) of HSR. Makes more sense in higher density East Coast and California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.