Texas Central Project

[Luminare]

But why is that now the goal?

In the past when the Texas Triangle or Texas Tbone has been discussed.. part of the goal was intermediary population centers. The Texas Tbone recognized the value of getting BCS, Waco, Temple(Ft Hood) in on the system.

 

How is having an additional stop in houston that serves the airport/major population/commercial center of little benfit?

How is it not a benefit for someone in north houston to not have to drive half an hour in the wrong direction to load a train downtown before heading in the right direction ?  **

How is adding 2 universities and allowing students and the work force to connect to two major metropolitan areas not beneficial to both the univiersities and metros?

 

Adding 1 stop in North Houston to get IAH/Spring/Woodlands plus having 2nd stop in BCS, and a 3rd in Waco.. That's approximately 40 miles of additional track.

 

Their site says Houston to Dallas in 90 minutes.

If you do the math.. an extra 40 miles adds 12 minutes

 

** The rail is supposed to compete with Southwest Airlines and one of the pros is not havign to deal with parking miles away, half hr security lines, etc etc.. The rail loses a big positive for anyone in N/NW houston if it takes just as long to get to the train that the benefit of not dealing with the pre flight crap is neutralized. Having more than 1 location in the destination cities makes sense.

 

 

All of your arguments are valid, but it's all about that first push. Baby steps dude. Baby steps! With something this big rarely can you go in full force. One toe into the tub......not a cannonball!

 

EDIT: Plus many of those places can be connected via commuter rail later on. When I was in Europe even large population centers didn't always have EuroStars. Sometimes you had to to take intermediate connections to get to the one you want. That's the true power of a very good Transit system. It doesn't have to go everywhere. It just has to be flexible enough to get you to that next destination so you can then move onto the next one after that.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Luminare

[Highway6]

All of your arguments are valid, but it's all about that first push. Baby steps dude. Baby steps! With something this big rarely can you go in full force. One toe into the tub......not a cannonball!

 

Previous plans have been better is all I'm saying..

One step forward and two steps back does not equal baby steps.

 

I would argue with something this big, you can't afford to go in half-ass or with a questionable core if you want it to succeed.

[Houston19514]

But why is that now the goal?

In the past when the Texas Triangle or Texas Tbone has been discussed.. part of the goal was intermediary population centers. The Texas Tbone recognized the value of getting BCS, Waco, Temple(Ft Hood) in on the system.

 

How is having an additional stop in houston that serves the airport/major population/commercial center of little benfit?

How is it not a benefit for someone in north houston to not have to drive half an hour in the wrong direction to load a train downtown before heading in the right direction ?  **

How is adding 2 universities and allowing students and the work force to connect to two major metropolitan areas not beneficial to both the univiersities and metros?

 

Adding 1 stop in North Houston to get IAH/Spring/Woodlands plus having 2nd stop in BCS, and a 3rd in Waco.. That's approximately 40 miles of additional track.

 

Their site says Houston to Dallas in 90 minutes.

If you do the math.. an extra 40 miles adds 12 minutes

 

** The rail is supposed to compete with Southwest Airlines and one of the pros is not havign to deal with parking miles away, half hr security lines, etc etc.. The rail loses a big positive for anyone in N/NW houston if it takes just as long to get to the train that the benefit of not dealing with the pre flight crap is neutralized. Having more than 1 location in the destination cities makes sense.

 

 

There's a difference between pie-in-the-sky conceptual maps and proposals, especially from government agencies spending other peoples' money, on the one hand, and real-world proposals from people spending their own money, on the other.

 

 

Further, FWIW, there is a lot more to it than just dividing the average travel time by the number of additional track miles.  First, you apparently failed to include any time spent at your proposed intervening stations.  So add another 10 minutes, minimum.  The larger issue is the slow-down and speed-up time required to make those intervening times.  Believe it or not, the trains will not be able to stop on a dime when traveling at 200 MPH, nor will they be able to accelerate back to 200 miles instantaneously when leaving each stop.

 

And let's face it, the population numbers you posted for those intervening stops are pretty inconsequential compared to the 7 MIllion + that will be at each end of the line.

[ADCS]

^^ Agreed. Bypassing 450k to better serve 14 million makes a lot of sense, especially when you're having to consider the feasibility constraints involved with private funds.

 

When the Texas T-bone was being proposed, the political bias that Texas has towards rural interests had to be taken into account. Without those political considerations, the direct connection between two megacities makes much more sense.

[august948]

There's a difference between pie-in-the-sky conceptual maps and proposals, especially from government agencies spending other peoples' money, on the one hand, and real-world proposals from people spending their own money, on the other.

 

 

Further, FWIW, there is a lot more to it than just dividing the average travel time by the number of additional track miles.  First, you apparently failed to include any time spent at your proposed intervening stations.  So add another 10 minutes, minimum.  The larger issue is the slow-down and speed-up time required to make those intervening times.  Believe it or not, the trains will not be able to stop on a dime when traveling at 200 MPH, nor will they be able to accelerate back to 200 miles instantaneously when leaving each stop.

 

And let's face it, the population numbers you posted for those intervening stops are pretty inconsequential compared to the 7 MIllion + that will be at each end of the line.

 

It doesn't have to be an either/or.  The Shinkasen runs both point-to-point and station hopper services.

 

[Highway6]

Further, FWIW, there is a lot more to it than just dividing the average travel time by the number of additional track miles.  First, you apparently failed to include any time spent at your proposed intervening stations.  So add another 10 minutes, minimum.  The larger issue is the slow-down and speed-up time required to make those intervening times.  Believe it or not, the trains will not be able to stop on a dime when traveling at 200 MPH, nor will they be able to accelerate back to 200 miles instantaneously when leaving each stop.

 

And let's face it, the population numbers you posted for those intervening stops are pretty inconsequential compared to the 7 MIllion + that will be at each end of the line.

 

I'm aware there is additional time spent in the 2 intermediary stations, acceleration, etc. I was just providing a simple example to highlight how little track would have to be added, relatively speaking, and to counter  "probably adds 50 percent to the total travel time" because it would be nowhere near that.

 

Plus.. route doesn't equal service.  The trains are supposed to run every half hour. 

Perhaps every 3 of 4 are express and fly on through those stations and truly only 12 minutes are added.  But the connectivity is there for that 4th stop every two hours.

 

Dallas and Houston MSAs are 13 million.. yes...but BCS and Waco MSAs would add another half million.

I think that connectivity adding two universities/employment centers is worth it.

 

I understand we have to balance speed vs connectivity.  But one line with only two nodes is weighted at the extreme of speed, to the detriment of connectivity.. IMO.

 

And if we're only debating Dallas and Houston -

 

Dallas and Houston are not point A and B...  They are points A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 etc...  So I would argue only 1 node for A and 1 node for B does a disservice to those 13 million + people.

And I'm not arguing for a node for each A1 A2 B1 B2 etc.. that's the job of LRT... but having a 2nd node in the biggest suburban population center in the direction of travel makes sense.

 

When it comes time to debate a Houston-SA High speed rail... it won't make sense to not have a Katy or Energy cooridor Stop.

When it comes time to debate Houston-Austin high speed rail.. it won't make sense to not have a Cyfair area stop.

Nobody likes starting a journey by first heading 20 miles/half an hr in the opposite direction.

 

With the population center of Houston being somewhere in west houston.. and with major population and commerial areas and the major growth stretching from the SW to the North.... which is convenient since those are the directions one must travel to get to SA, Austin, and Dallas...  it makes zero sense to not have additional nodes there.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Highway6

[Houston19514]

It doesn't have to be an either/or.  The Shinkasen runs both point-to-point and station hopper services.

 

 

Yes, and I believe it's the same people involved in planning and funding the Houston-Dallas line, so I would imagine they'll keep that in mind.

 

 

Question:  Did they route the trains out of the way in order to serve population centers as small as 1/4 million, or do they serve population centers on the route between, e.g., Tokyo and Osaka?

Edited December 13, 2014 by Houston19514

[Highway6]

Yes, and I believe it's the same people involved in planning and funding the Houston-Dallas line, so I'm sure they'll keep that in mind.

 

 

But they havent kept it in mind if there are zero intermdiary stations to station hop.

[Houston19514]

But they havent kept it in mind if there are zero intermdiary stations to station hop.

 

Not true at all.  They have no doubt kept in mind exactly what is necessary to justify an intervening station.  They probably know more about it than you do.

[Highway6]

Not true at all.  They have no doubt kept in mind exactly what is necessary to justify an intervening station.  They probably know more about it than you do.

Probably they do know more.. but otherwise, I disagree.

 

The Goal has changed from previous plans.. and that's what I have a problem with.

The "market led approach" ( in their words) goal is now just get from Point A to Point B as fast as possible ... connectivity beyond that be damned.

[Houston19514]

 

 

I'm aware there is additional time spent in the 2 intermediary stations, acceleration, etc. I was just providing a simple example to highlight how little track would have to be added, relatively speaking, and to counter  "probably adds 50 percent to the total travel time" because it would be nowhere near that.

 

Plus.. route doesn't equal service.  The trains are supposed to run every half hour. 

Perhaps every 3 of 4 are express and fly on through those stations and truly only 12 minutes are added.  But the connectivity is there for that 4th stop every two hours.

 

Dallas and Houston MSAs are 13 million.. yes...but BCS and Waco MSAs would add another half million.

I think that connectivity adding two universities/employment centers is worth it.

 

 

You don't know that it would be "nowhere near" adding 50% to the total travel time.  In fact, by your own estimation of an additional 12 minutes plus a minimum of 10 minutes stopped at each intervening station, we're already at 32 minutes added to a 90 minute trip.  It seems entirely plausible that two deceleration/acceleration phases added to each trip (one for B/CS and one for Waco easily add another 13 minutes to the trip, getting us to 50% added to the total travel time.

 

I can see routing the trains in a way that it is feasible to add intervening stations at a later date, but I have no idea what the costs of that additional routing might be.  No doubt many millions and in fact we know they have looked at the idea.  Again, they have more information than you or I and have actually built HSR systems before.

 

Yeah, BCS and Waco MSAs together add a half million.  So two additional stops to serve an increment of 3.6%.  With respect, the people with a whole lot more experience than you are I have looked at it and determined it is not worth it.

[Houston19514]

Duplicate post.  Sorry.
 

Edited December 13, 2014 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

Probably they do know more.. but otherwise, I disagree.

 

The Goal has changed from previous plans.. and that's what I have a problem with.

The "market led approach" ( in their words) goal is now just get from Point A to Point B as fast as possible ... connectivity beyond that be damned.

 

Dude, the "goal" has changed because it's an entirely different plan being made by entirely different people. If you want HSR rail service to every college town in Texas be prepared for massive tax increases.

 

It seems you have a hard-on for service to BCS and Waco; and apparently connectivity beyond that be damned.  What about service to Huntsville and Conroe and Corsicana?   You see, every system is going to, at some point, be subject to the unfair claim that "connectivity beyond that be damned."

[BigFootsSocks]

I've already argued this so much so if you want my opinion just reread the thread

[Luminare]

All they gotta do is just taaaaap it in. Just tap it in.

 

[WestUdweller]

The Magnolia Grove Civic Association is having a meeting on December 18th about this project if anyone is interested in attending. I don't have anymore information about the meeting or time. 

[Luminare]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/residents-speak-out-against-proposed-bullet-train-routes/30309860

 

Was anyone at this meeting?

 

Curious at what the responses were.

 

I love the argument about congestion! lol Yeah because it's not like it doesn't come from a country where it's one of the most densely packed place around.

 

Not to mention there is already a railroad going through these neighborhoods. Do these people cross open railroad tracks day in and day out? How does adding this rail further do that? What about highways? Don't they already cut off neighborhoods enough already?

[placoors]

Interesting story in the Chron today.

 

http://blog.chron.com/thetexican/2014/12/heres-what-the-houston-dallas-high-speed-rail-debate-looked-like-25-years-ago/

 

 

 

[BigFootsSocks]

What a surprisingly unbiased and impartial response from Southwest Airlines back then...

[Luminare]

I just like how people in Chron's comment section just can't possibly fathom that this project is going to be mostly if not entirely privately funded lol. I actually highly doubt this project will get state funding as the conservative government wouldn't dare do so. What will most likely happen is that as the project gets closer to construction the state gov. might provide help in the form of subsides. If this project is successful I can imagine that there would be a form of government subsidy granted to people who will see rail go through their land as a form of compensation.

[BigFootsSocks]

I can't tell which comment section I love more; Chron's or Yahoo's

[DNAguy]

I can't tell which comment section I love more; Chron's or Yahoo's

 

Every time I read either, I think of this:

 

[Luminare]

Looks like the race is on. Apparently California has broken ground on their high speed rail.

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/01/06/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train-los-angeles-san-francisco-orig-cfb.cnn

[IronTiger]

Looks like the race is on. Apparently California has broken ground on their high speed rail.

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/01/06/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train-los-angeles-san-francisco-orig-cfb.cnn

I'd rather let California go first, and see how it goes after a while. If it's a success, great, let's get to work on ours, if it's a failure, maybe we should rethink this.

[bachanon]

For a state struggling to pay its bills, it will be interesting to see how CA pulls this off (in CA the state is raising the money; in TX it's private investment).  Also, on the radio this morning, I heard the CA governor chuckle when asked about the money; he said.....something along the lines of "eh heh...we will get it done". It sounded a lot like "I have no idea where the money will come from but we will make it happen because we are the first to get high-speed rail."  If I lived in CA and heard my governor acting as if money just appears out of thin air, I'd be furious.

 

More power to them; I hope they do not go bankrupt before it's finished.

[Luminare]

That's the real kicker isn't it. It's the most compelling story certainly. It's the age old argument of what gets stuff done better, faster, etc... Is it private enterprise or the government. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground, but it will be interesting to see what will come out of this. The fact of the matter is that even though it's the government in CA that is building there's it's still a form of competition which, if successful, should spark growth in both markets.

[Slick Vik]

I'd rather let California go first, and see how it goes after a while. If it's a success, great, let's get to work on ours, if it's a failure, maybe we should rethink this.

It seems to work pretty well in a number of other countries

[mollusk]

By the way, California isn't struggling to pay its bills nearly as much anymore.  

 

Apparently, they moved past the idea held in some quarters that there is some sort of money fairy that can substitute for taxes.

 

(pearl clutching and hyperventilation among some here begins in 3, 2... ) 

[IronTiger]

For a state struggling to pay its bills, it will be interesting to see how CA pulls this off (in CA the state is raising the money; in TX it's private investment).  Also, on the radio this morning, I heard the CA governor chuckle when asked about the money; he said.....something along the lines of "eh heh...we will get it done". It sounded a lot like "I have no idea where the money will come from but we will make it happen because we are the first to get high-speed rail."  If I lived in CA and heard my governor acting as if money just appears out of thin air, I'd be furious.

 

More power to them; I hope they do not go bankrupt before it's finished.

Did they actually say "We are going to build HSR by 20xx" or "We will definitely build HSR long-range"? After all, even in Houston, there seems to be some confusion even among people on HAIF, confusing "non-committal long term" with "we voted on rail, we should get rail".

Either way, California can save face (and their financial solvency) by looking for private investors.

[Slick Vik]

Merced to Bakersfield and Palmdale to Burbank will be done in 2-3 years. The rest who knows but the idea is to build some of it get people to try it and then private investment will come and put the rest of the $42 billion. Right now $26 billion of funding they have. Makes you appreciate how cheap the Texas project is. The flat terrain and cheaper property acquisition is the reason for the huge difference I think (besides the distance).

Edited January 8, 2015 by Slick Vik