Texas Central Project

[Luminare]

Looks like the bill has passed committee.

 

Link to the article: https://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/08/bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-moves-senate-f/

 

Breakdown:

 

The bill passed committee with a very narrow pass of 5-4! Think about how close that is. Ok so now the breakdown of all those who voted. First will be who voted which way and then I will go a little more in-depth about each rep.

 

Yea:

 

Chairman- Robert Nichols

Member- Troy Fraser

Member- Kelly Hancock

Member- Bob Hall

Member (the senator who introduced the bill)- Lois Kolkhorst

 

Na:

 

Member- Rodney Ellis

Member- Sylvia Garcia

Vice Chairman- Don Huffines

Member - Van Taylor

 

Ref: Map of the State Senate Districts for the 84th Legislature 2015-2016   *note: the red line on the map indicates the utility corridor route which is being suggested by TCR*

 

 

 

 

I will go into more detail maybe later. Way to much info to consume and process and then layout in a short amount of time. I think the biggest take away from this vote is that it's very close! A very slim margin in both Na's and Yea's. This also seems to be an issue that transcends party lines and digs into more district specific, and ideological boundaries (which is a good thing!) as it's both supported and not supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Looking at the districts closely the only Senator who has the line running through it's district is the introducer of the bill Lois Kolkhorst who represents all of Waller and parts of Harris.

 

We still have yet to know the opinions of those Senators who will actually see the line go through their districts! This includes Senators West (23rd), Birdwell (22nd), Schwertner (5th), Bettencourt (7th), Whitmire (15th), and possibly Huffman (17th).

 

Lets also take this bill to its logical conclusion. This bill if it goes to the floor might actually open a pandora's box that many might want to keep closed! The fact of the matter is that many private companies and utilities have the power of eminent domain. The single attack on one private company might set off the notion that the government is unjust and unfair to one company particularly one that is a startup and that the government is choosing winners and losers. The bigger issue that might be revealed is whether any private company should have the right to ED at all! If this conversation begins to take place I think that might get a little uncomfortable for many senators and reps. I think the proper stance for TCR should actually be in favor of eliminating ED. Yea I know it's crazy, but the idea is that if TCR is getting thrown under the bus on the issue of ED then all private companies should, and rightly so.

 

[cspwal]

I'm curious about the utility easement route - assuming TCR follows the easement exactly, would they have to buy anymore additional land (and possibly use ED to force that purchase)?  I would actually think eminent domain is going to be a more important power/tool once the route gets closer into Houston/Dallas if they need to expand their chosen right of way to get to a downtown station.

[Luminare]

I remember at one point Robert Eckels discussed with use about how they aren't actually by the land itself, but the easement! This is very important because its very different from what people think ED entails as far as land ownership. It's important because one of the biggest points of the opposition is, what if the railroad fails?! Many seem to be under the impression that the land is completely given over to the ones using ED, but that isn't the case. The fact of the matter is that whereever TCR decides to lay track it will be over an easement meaning that the land is still owned by the landowner not TCR! Below is a link that illustrates how important this distinction is:

 

http://www.texasattorneyblog.com/2014/06/us_supreme_court_decision_impo_1.html

 

In a landslide decision 8-1 lets say TCR does fail. The easement rights are the only thing that is lost, not the land. The land on which the easements sit goes right back to the owner! It's a huge part of the argument that no one seems to discuss or make the proper distinction probably because it obliterates the oppositions argument. 

[eikonal]

This comes on the heels of another proposed bill, which is still in the pipeline:"landowners and Conroe state Rep. Will Metcalf, a Republican who wants to kill the thing, regardless of whether the train takes any public money or crosses his district". http://blogs.houstonpress.com/news/2015/02/conroe_lawmaker_wants_to_kill_houston-dallas_bullet_train_even_if_it_doesnt_touch_his_district_or_pu.phpThis kind of opposition strikes me as irrational, but it probably means that the stated reasons are mostly pretexts. It's the same with the bill in question:" Currently, hundreds of private firms have eminent domain authority in Texas, including pipeline companies, utility companies and telecommunication firms. More than a dozen private railroad companies also have that authority, according to an unofficial list maintained by the state comptroller."

 

I guess this explains why rail projects rarely take off in Texas, there is opposition to trains as such, (because they are seen as "liberal"?), and no influential lobby to counter it. It also occured to me the security costs may be very high, planes have to be protected only at the airports, but this train has to be protected along the entire track. It doesn't take much to derail it at 205 mph, so it's an easy target.

 

[cspwal]

The protection is most likely going to be a fence, physical separation from roadways/paths, and in cab signalling coupled with rail sensors to detect continuity.  It sounds complex, but probably will only be an incremental part of the whole project.  I suspect that the Trans-Texas corridor proposals are where a lot of this opposition is coming from, when the route would eat up much more physical space.  It would be nice to see TCR publish some renderings or drawings showing the configuration of the typical rural route.

 

I'd imagine the routes going down the utility easement will probably looks something like this

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen)

[Luminare]

This comes on the heels of another proposed bill, which is still in the pipeline:"landowners and Conroe state Rep. Will Metcalf, a Republican who wants to kill the thing, regardless of whether the train takes any public money or crosses his district". http://blogs.houstonpress.com/news/2015/02/conroe_lawmaker_wants_to_kill_houston-dallas_bullet_train_even_if_it_doesnt_touch_his_district_or_pu.phpThis kind of opposition strikes me as irrational, but it probably means that the stated reasons are mostly pretexts. It's the same with the bill in question:" Currently, hundreds of private firms have eminent domain authority in Texas, including pipeline companies, utility companies and telecommunication firms. More than a dozen private railroad companies also have that authority, according to an unofficial list maintained by the state comptroller."

 

I guess this explains why rail projects rarely take off in Texas, there is opposition to trains as such, (because they are seen as "liberal"?), and no influential lobby to counter it. It also occured to me the security costs may be very high, planes have to be protected only at the airports, but this train has to be protected along the entire track. It doesn't take much to derail it at 205 mph, so it's an easy target.

 

 

That bill still hasn't even been put to a vote yet Most of this is very irrational. Remember, doing things a different way is BAD! They want you to know that!

[eikonal]

I suspect that the Trans-Texas corridor proposals are where a lot of this opposition is coming from, when the route would eat up much more physical space.  It would be nice to see TCR publish some renderings or drawings showing the configuration of the typical rural route.

 

You are exactly right. Sen. Kolkhorst’s said during the hearings: “My biggest concern is the devastation that it will do to rural areas. This makes the Trans-Texas Corridor not look so bad.” A guy who said he owns land along the tracks said “TCR’s path of destruction will be the greatest decimation of private property since Sherman marched through Georgia.” It would be funny if it wasn't so unfortunate. http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/ghost-of-trans-texas-corridor-haunting-texas-bullet-train-venture.html/

 

I feel like both the location and the quality of the stations (both Houston and Dallas) will make a big deal to it's success.  If they try to run the HSR out of the Amtrak Shack, they won't get any of their coveted business traffic.

I feel the same way. The I-10 extension to downtown was proposed by Annise Parker, who will not be mayor for much longer, and who knows how subsequent administrations will feel about it. As it is TCR's "utility corridor" ends at Northwest TC it looks like, and that will be similar to Houston-Galveston running out of Heights. Even if they do get to downtown the only convenient transfer spot is Burnett (I doubt that UHD will allow a station under their building, or that the city will build a light rail extension to Amtrak spot just to accommodate TCR). But I remember reading on this forum that there was some problem with running even commuter trains to Burnett. Not because of track alignment, but for some other reason, was it land ownership?

 

They picked locations for Dallas http://launchdfw.com/news/two-possible-dallas-locations-selected-for-high-speed-rail/. I've never been to Dallas, are those places connected to DART? By the way, do I read the map right: "utility corridor" bypasses both Woodlands and College Station? So not many useful stations in the middle either?

Edited April 13, 2015 by eikonal

[cspwal]

There were plans at one point for an inter-modal terminal underneath where UHD is right now.  Perhaps they could build a station on where the post office site is now, and have moving sidewalk hallways snake towards where the UHD station is now.  

 

The intermediate station could still be built, but it would be a little bit a ways from Brian and College station if it was just on the Utility corridor.  I suspect that building a station to service the rural areas might only be possible with ED powers, so if this bill passes but the train gets built...seems slightly ironic.

[samagon]

it seems to me that the bill to stop eminent domain for hsr is going to be a bigger waste of tax payer dollars if it gets passed than otherwise.

[longcat]

Hopefully oil and gas interests will get involved now as I can't imagine they will like the precedent of having the legislature take away eminent domain authority, even on an exception basis just for this project.

 

This whole mess just depresses me with NIMBYs everywhere.  Maybe they can find a Richmond routing for the HSR that will take it through Afton Oaks on the way to downtown!  

[BigFootsSocks]

Hopefully oil and gas interests will get involved now as I can't imagine they will like the precedent of having the legislature take away eminent domain authority, even on an exception basis just for this project.

This whole mess just depresses me with NIMBYs everywhere. Maybe they can find a Richmond routing for the HSR that will take it through Afton Oaks on the way to downtown!

Only if we can paint a bunch of middle fingers on the side of the train

[Slick Vik]

Pathetic. Third world countries like Laos, Cambodia, and India are making huge investments in high speed rail but in the greatest superpower of the world short sighted selfish idiots are blocking hopes of progress

[BigFootsSocks]

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED ANNOUNCEMENT.

The project is not dead.

THIS CONCLUDES THE AUTOMATED ANNOUNCEMENT.

[Luminare]

 

somewhat relevant here

[eikonal]

The project is not dead

More precisely, the project is not dead yet. After reading up on it though I have a bad feeling. Let's assume optimistically that the eminent domain bill doesn't pass, or they build despite it. Metcalf's bill, without even making it out of the committee, already forced them into "utility corridor", which skips population centers between Houston and Dallas. This makes it a two big cities project, which is at best a nuisance to everybody in between, so constant pushback in the legislature. T-bone failed to materialize even in some small part, and it had Perry's support.

 

I am not sure about Dallas, but in Houston at the moment they do not have a viable path from Northwest TC to downtown, and there is no well connected downtown location, which is track accessible, anyway. The prices are planned to be "comparable" to airlines. In places where trains are common one of the main attractions is that they are substantially cheaper than planes, it doesn't work on pure convenience. But with the station at Northwest TC there is not even that, it is not that different from going to the Hobby airport. Except Hobby has connections to a variety of destinations, and the train is not part of any rail network, it's to Dallas only. HSR has high security risks, hence high insurance costs. Cooks do not derail freight trains often because human toll is low, but with 200 miles of track and 205 mph the bullet train is an attractive soft target. Even if just a bad accident happens and riders are scared off TCR is unlikely to survive, same as many airlines after 9/11.

 

TCR project is interesting as a proof of principle. Loudest objections to publicly funded passenger rail are that it is a "government boondogle". But now a private venture faces the same kind of opposition from similar sources. It is pushed into building not where people are, but where it steps the least on somebody's toes. It is deprived of benefits, like eminent domain, that pipeline, utility and road builders get as a matter of course. It is suggested to be subjected to heckler's veto. Perhaps the underlying reason is simply that Texas doesn't have sufficient population density, but it is interesting to see how it works itself through the political system. Support is more of a "sounds good" type, while opposition is intense and mobilized. I doubt that a large scale rail project has a chance in Texas until political realignment happens for some reason.

 

This story reminded me the fate of the Universities line in Houston. First "community preferred alternative" that made trains turn 6 times in half as many blocks, and took them away from TSU, then a ban on federal funding and local tax funding along Richmond. And along Westpark, as "suggested" by Culberson, it is largely pointless.

Edited April 14, 2015 by eikonal

[Sparrow]

More precisely, the project is not dead yet. After reading up on it though I have a bad feeling. Let's assume optimistically that the eminent domain bill doesn't pass, or they build despite it. Metcalf's bill, without even making it out of the committee, already forced them into "utility corridor", which skips population centers between Houston and Dallas. This makes it a two big cities project, which is at best a nuisance to everybody in between, so constant pushback in the legislature. T-bone failed to materialize even in some small part, and it had Perry's support.

TCR has fully intended this to be a two cities project. Dallas. Houston. The third station would only be built it economic conditions make it feasible. It's not about the places in between. Never has been. Sorry. 

 

Why do the Joe Plumbers of our state insist that passenger rail cannot be profitable? Airlines are profitable aren't they? I didn't think our airlines were government run in this country. Freight rail? That's right, they're not. Guess what, even space travel is proving to be a big money business. If one form of transportation can find a way to be profitable, why not another means of transit?

 

I'm not sure if I'm feeding the trolls here, but what's with all the negativity and nimbyism and talk about "cooks"? 

Edited April 14, 2015 by Sparrow

[ADCS]

Let's assume optimistically that the eminent domain bill doesn't pass, or they build despite it. Metcalf's bill, without even making it out of the committee, already forced them into "utility corridor", which skips population centers between Houston and Dallas.

 

...

 

It is pushed into building not where people are, but where it steps the least on somebody's toes. 

 

I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but have to quibble here. Owing to the operational requirements of a high speed line (especially one that goes 200 mph), the utility corridor was always going to be the favored route, simply because it provides the greatest length of straightaway track.

[Slick Vik]

More precisely, the project is not dead yet. After reading up on it though I have a bad feeling. Let's assume optimistically that the eminent domain bill doesn't pass, or they build despite it. Metcalf's bill, without even making it out of the committee, already forced them into "utility corridor", which skips population centers between Houston and Dallas. This makes it a two big cities project, which is at best a nuisance to everybody in between, so constant pushback in the legislature. T-bone failed to materialize even in some small part, and it had Perry's support.

I am not sure about Dallas, but in Houston at the moment they do not have a viable path from Northwest TC to downtown, and there is no well connected downtown location, which is track accessible, anyway. The prices are planned to be "comparable" to airlines. In places where trains are common one of the main attractions is that they are substantially cheaper than planes, it doesn't work on pure convenience. But with the station at Northwest TC there is not even that, it is not that different from going to the Hobby airport. Except Hobby has connections to a variety of destinations, and the train is not part of any rail network, it's to Dallas only. HSR has high security risks, hence high insurance costs. Cooks do not derail freight trains often because human toll is low, but with 200 miles of track and 205 mph the bullet train is an attractive soft target. Even if just a bad accident happens and riders are scared off TCR is unlikely to survive, same as many airlines after 9/11.

TCR project is interesting as a proof of principle. Loudest objections to publicly funded passenger rail are that it is a "government boondogle". But now a private venture faces the same kind of opposition from similar sources. It is pushed into building not where people are, but where it steps the least on somebody's toes. It is deprived of benefits, like eminent domain, that pipeline, utility and road builders get as a matter of course. It is suggested to be subjected to heckler's veto. Perhaps the underlying reason is simply that Texas doesn't have sufficient population density, but it is interesting to see how it works itself through the political system. Support is more of a "sounds good" type, while opposition is intense and mobilized. I doubt that a large scale rail project has a chance in Texas until political realignment happens for some reason.

This story reminded me the fate of the Universities line in Houston. First "community preferred alternative" that made trains turn 6 times in half as many blocks, and took them away from TSU, then a ban on federal funding and local tax funding along Richmond. And along Westpark, as "suggested" by Culberson, it is largely pointless.

High speed rail is fairly expensive ticket wise regardless of where it is

[BigFootsSocks]

Where does it explicity say that the company can't just buy the land wherever they want? Oh...because they can. ED just says they can't take it on a legal basis.

[cspwal]

This article has a nice summary of the opposition to the high speed rail 

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/04/meet-the-opposition-to-texas-high-speed-rail/390576/

 

The part about blocking applications to the Surface Transportation Board sounded new though

[rechlin]

 

Airlines are profitable aren't they? I didn't think our airlines were government run in this country.

 

Actually airlines are not profitable.  They only survive thanks to public subsidies (government subsidies for the airplane manufacturers, government subsidies for the airports, and investor and creditor subsidies through bankruptcies).

 

Right now they are trying to hold railroads to a higher standard, one without subsidy.  Though actually regardless of what happens, I'm sure the Japanese will be subsidizing it in some form or another.

[jackie21love]

Actually airlines are not profitable.  They only survive thanks to public subsidies (government subsidies for the airplane manufacturers, government subsidies for the airports, and investor and creditor subsidies through bankruptcies).

 

Right now they are trying to hold railroads to a higher standard, one without subsidy.  Though actually regardless of what happens, I'm sure the Japanese will be subsidizing it in some form or another.

 

Exactly. United receives billions from Federal to keep servicing small airports. It is not rare that you take a flight with less passengers than staffs. I used to take a regional jet from Cleveland to Toronto in early morning with only 2 passengers filling the 50 seats regional jet. (I think CLE and YYZ are not "small" airports anyway)

[Houston19514]

Exactly. United receives billions from Federal to keep servicing small airports. It is not rare that you take a flight with less passengers than staffs. I used to take a regional jet from Cleveland to Toronto in early morning with only 2 passengers filling the 50 seats regional jet. (I think CLE and YYZ are not "small" airports anyway)

 

The entirety of federal spending to keep servicing small airports (the Essential Air Service Program), for all airlines and all airports covered by the program, was less than 1/4 of a Billlion Dollars in 2014.  FWIW, neither CLE nor YYZ are subsidized under the program.

 

Edited April 15, 2015 by Houston19514

[cspwal]

High speed railways can be highly profitable - according to Wikipedia, Central Japan Railway made over $1.1 billion last year net income.  And these are the people who are investing money to build out Texas Central.

 

6 out of the 13 HSR services that I could find were private companies making a profit. (I counted England as 1 even though there are 9 train operators)

 

Quick overview:

- Japan (Shinkansen) - private rail, makes a profit

- China - government owned

- France (TGV) - government owned

- Germany (ICE) - privately owned, parent company makes a profit

- Spain (AVE) - government owned

- Italy - (NTV) is a private company, Trenitalia is government owned

- England - Multiple private companies run trains on government owned tracks

(Note on Europe - it seems most railroads are split from the trains that run on them)

- South Korea (Korail) - private rail, makes a profit

- Taiwan (THSRC) - private rail.  The article sounds similar to what Texas Central is going to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail

- Turkey - government owned

- Russia - Russian Railways is privately owned, but is operating at a loss

- USA - (Acela) government subsidized private company

 

(Source article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lines )

[BigFootsSocks]

Seeing as TCR is drawing from JR Central's Shinkansen system, one of 2 (or more, apparently?) profitable HSR companies, I feel like the guys behind this project know what they're doing...at least from a technical standpoint...

[DNAguy]

High speed railways can be highly profitable - according to Wikipedia, Central Japan Railway made over $1.1 billion last year net income.  And these are the people who are investing money to build out Texas Central.

 

6 out of the 13 HSR services that I could find were private companies making a profit. (I counted England as 1 even though there are 9 train operators)

 

Quick overview:

- Japan (Shinkansen) - private rail, makes a profit

- China - government owned

- France (TGV) - government owned

- Germany (ICE) - privately owned, parent company makes a profit

- Spain (AVE) - government owned

- Italy - (NTV) is a private company, Trenitalia is government owned

- England - Multiple private companies run trains on government owned tracks

(Note on Europe - it seems most railroads are split from the trains that run on them)

- South Korea (Korail) - private rail, makes a profit

- Taiwan (THSRC) - private rail.  The article sounds similar to what Texas Central is going to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail

- Turkey - government owned

- Russia - Russian Railways is privately owned, but is operating at a loss

- USA - (Acela) government subsidized private company

 

(Source article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lines )

 

I think the difference between all of your profitable examples and TCR is that none of the profitable rail companies had to finance any of the initial rail system. I believe all the private rail started at one time as part of the government.

 

I'm a supporter of the project, but there is legitimate concern due to the fact that this would be the first in the world (at least I think) to be privately financed, privately run, and it turned a profit.

 

That being said, none of the opposition articulates this / knows what the hell they're talking about (most of them at least). It's all NIMBY, xenophobia, and anti-government Fox News talking points.

[Luminare]

I think the difference between all of your profitable examples and TCR is that none of the profitable rail companies had to finance any of the initial rail system. I believe all the private rail started at one time as part of the government.

 

I'm a supporter of the project, but there is legitimate concern due to the fact that this would be the first in the world (at least I think) to be privately financed, privately run, and it turned a profit.

 

That being said, none of the opposition articulates this / knows what the hell they're talking about (most of them at least). It's all NIMBY, xenophobia, and anti-government Fox News talking points.

 

The ones in Japan and Taiwan I believe the rail itself was built by the private company initally (Japan for sure. especially the HSR line)

[cspwal]

From the article on the Taiwan rail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail#History

 

 

Taiwan passed a law regarding the use of private finance in infrastructure projects, which also applied to the up-to-then state-run THSR project

THSRC was chosen as the preferred bidder in September 1997 as a result of its cheaper bid and a promise to build the line with zero net cost to the government

 

There's no indication on whether they eventually did have to use public funds, but it at least started as a privately funded venture.

 

Railroads in the US have almost always been ventures started by private companies, but many state and local governments (and the federal government too - the trans-continental railroad comes to mind) tried to encourage and support the rails using land grants.

 

On a side note - if this bill fails and Texas Central keeps eminent domain power, couldn't they conceivably just buy the slightly expanded right of way to get downtown to the post office location?

[Subdude]

I have never seen any particular reason why profitability should be a consideration for railroads, airports, roads, fire departments or other any infrastructure.  Why should railroads be held to a standard of private ownership and profitability that isn't applied to other infrastructure?  Infrastructure is what taxes are for.  

 

 

[jackie21love]

I have never seen any particular reason why profitability should be a consideration for railroads, airports, roads, fire departments or other any infrastructure.  Why should railroads be held to a standard of private ownership and profitability that isn't applied to other infrastructure?  Infrastructure is what taxes are for.  

 

We spent too much tax money on arguing what should be spent on. Those strongly oppose rails just like people without kids saying no, use tax for school is a waste of money, and people never take flights saying no, you should not spend my tax on airport improvement... The thing is as long as government spend money on something not related to their life, they will object. And they will never accept new stuff not familiar to them. They will say, yes i know HSR does a good job in Japan, Europe and China, but we are in the US, we don't need it! Those people are just so reluctant to do any changes in life. In Houston we have a world record of the widest freeway (26 lanes in belt 8 and I-10 intersection, counting HOV, changing ramp, and frontage road), but it is still like a parking lot every workday 5pm. We used to be very proud of Interstate Highway System, but decades passed, it is no longer a good system comparing to highways in China and Europe, not to mention small countries like Japan.