Texas Central Project

[HouTXRanger]

44 minutes ago, southerncrj said:

City Beautiful just posted a video with a quick look at the proposed and possible station locations for high speed rail in Texas:
 

 

Man, he REALLY got the locations of the Houston and Dallas stations wrong . . . regardless don't really disagree with his points. We've already discussed the pros/cons of the Houston station to death.

[Big E]

On 11/8/2021 at 2:36 PM, HouTXRanger said:

Man, he REALLY got the locations of the Houston and Dallas stations wrong . . . regardless don't really disagree with his points. We've already discussed the pros/cons of the Houston station to death.

I don't think the location of the stations is bad. One thing city beautiful really missed is that those European stations he is so fixated one? When they were originally built, they were actually far outside the city, not in the center of it, because nobody really wants to live next to a busy train station. Those cities grew to encompass their stations; the stations weren't just plopped in an already existing neighborhood. The 24 Hour Neighborhoods followed the stations, not the other way around. It really doesn't matter where the stations are built in regards to what surrounds them. All that matters is their connection to transit (and that includes local freeways and roads, not just mass transit) and whether or not there is actually demand for a high speed train between Houston and Dallas (and I think there is). The whole "24 Hour neighborhood that caters to the train station" will grow up on its own time naturally, if the station is successful. Hotels, restaurants and the like will follow the stations. What I'm wondering is if they will develop the stations into massive mixed use facilities, like stations in Japan, with department stores and shopping malls built inside them, alongside alongside Bus Terminals. Think Shinjuku Station, or Ōsaka Station.

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Big E

[editor]

Saying that the neighborhoods followed the big stations in Europe is really cherry-picking.  There are plenty of stations that were intentionally brought directly into the hearts of their cities: Frankfurt, London, Budapest, etc.  The secondary stations were built farther out (Gare du Nord in Paris, for example), but not because people didn't want to be near the stations, but because those locations made sense geographically.  Trains going north used a station on the north end of town (Gare du Nord, Paris again; King's Cross, London).  Trains going west used a station on the west side of town (Paddington, London). 

It's worth remembering that back then, people didn't think of trains as filthy, noisy things to be avoided.  Smoke, soot, and noise were considered good things — signs of progress.  That's why skyline paintings and sketches and such from that era always prominently displayed smokestacks and smoke.  Those were signs of a bustling, important city. 

As for the department stores at train stations, I think these are always great.  I've been to dozens of them from Japan to Singapore to South Korea to Hong Kong, and elsewhere in Asia.  But the reason those things work there is because the train companies own the buildings.  A big part of the way mass transit is funded in Asia is through real estate speculation.  The train companies put up giant malls and skyscrapers and such around their stations because they own the land.  It's the whole "build it and they will come" thing. 

It works great.  It used to work here.  Most of America's grand hotels in the west were built by railroad companies to give people reasons to use the railroads.  Half of the suburbs of Chicago were founded by railroad companies so that people would commute into the city. But there's been a cultural shift in America, where it's widely seen as a bad thing for railroad companies, especially ones run by governments or quangos, to also put up buildings. 

It's perfectly OK for a government to engage in real estate speculation by investing its employees' pensions into buildings.  But because we have learned not to trust our government with finances, we don't like the investment to be direct.  Somehow, abstracting it away to a middle man is palatable.  But then, it's not the taxpayers who benefit.  Only the government employees, via their pensions.

[samagon]

@Big E agree on most of this, but the thing with European train stations (at least the central ones) they were built in the center of the city.

sure, there are satellite stations around some of the bigger cities, but most of the big cities have a central station, which was built in the center of town centuries after the town had a city center.

notable exceptions do exist, but it's not until you get into smaller towns (village size) where you start seeing the train stations were once built on the edge of town, and the town 'grew' around them.

also, the 24 hour cycle for European towns didn't start until recent decades, and even some of the smaller towns pretty much close at 5pm, even in today's world. yes, if you look at the train schedule today, most regional trains run 24/7, but 10 or 20 years ago? not a chance. if you weren't on the train at 10pm, you better have accommodations. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by samagon

[Ross]

Technically, the train stations in London were all built on the perimeter of the city. I can't find the link right now, but somewhere between 1845 and 1860, London passed a law(or regulation) banning surface rail from the central city. Of course, those stations are now considered very central, but they weren't when they were built.

[Texasota]

Eh, except for high speed rail. Look at the stations in Spanish cities - they are *not* terribly close to the center of town. Zaragoza is particularly inconveniently located, but even Barcelona's station is in Sants rather than a central neighborhood.

It's a practical result of the kinds of geometry and dedicated ROW you need for high speeds.

[Big E]

5 hours ago, editor said:

As for the department stores at train stations, I think these are always great.  I've been to dozens of them from Japan to Singapore to South Korea to Hong Kong, and elsewhere in Asia.  But the reason those things work there is because the train companies own the buildings.  A big part of the way mass transit is funded in Asia is through real estate speculation.  The train companies put up giant malls and skyscrapers and such around their stations because they own the land.  It's the whole "build it and they will come" thing. 

It works great.  It used to work here.  Most of America's grand hotels in the west were built by railroad companies to give people reasons to use the railroads.  Half of the suburbs of Chicago were founded by railroad companies so that people would commute into the city. But there's been a cultural shift in America, where it's widely seen as a bad thing for railroad companies, especially ones run by governments or quangos, to also put up buildings. 

It's perfectly OK for a government to engage in real estate speculation by investing its employees' pensions into buildings.  But because we have learned not to trust our government with finances, we don't like the investment to be direct.  Somehow, abstracting it away to a middle man is palatable.  But then, it's not the taxpayers who benefit.  Only the government employees, via their pensions.

Well the good thing about this project is that its an entirely privately funded affair. Texas Central will own the railroad, the land its built on, stations and the land they're built on. This means that Texas Central actually has a vested interest in investing in that land and building massive mixed use complexes rather than just stations, and encouraging Metro to directly link the station to existing and future transit network, from the current bus system, to the future BRT and light rail, to any future heavy rail connections. Basically, this high speed train is being built according to the Asian model, not according to the flawed American model, like the boondoggle we see in California and the great mistake that is Amtrak. Texas Central's greatest selling point and greatest asset is that it isn't a government project at all, so isn't tied up in the government's red tape and excess waste.

[Big E]

A double post technically, but since its been like a month since my previous post, I believe its okay; CityNerd just did a video comparing differences of a trip between Dallas and Houston, in terms of time and cost, if one went either via, car, airplane, or the proposed high speed rail:

Besides being a good video that really elucidates the actual benefits of high speed rail vis-à-vis air travel and auto travel, it also further shows how good the station placement is for the train stations. High speed rail's main competitor, outside of the car, which it would beat handily, even with the station placement, is the airplane. All of Houston's (and Dallas's) airports are even more remotely located than the rail stations, making the stations more convenient than air travel. Also, the station is actually closer to the true geographical center of the metro area, considering that Houston is sprawling northward and westward.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Big E

[samagon]

I'm convinced.

I'm ready for it to open, covid to become less of an issue, and I'll book a trip to the state fair!

[Avossos]

Pony Up! I would definitely do train or air. I flew many times from Dallas to Houston and back. Train would be great because it seems more casual and I could walk on after a day of tailgating and sleep / rest.

More options the better. And less cars on the road the better.

[sapo2367]

The last tenant in the Northwest Mall is closing (the antique store). This is the soon to be location of the Houston HSR station.

https://houstonhistoricretail.com/2021/12/22/thompsons-antique-center-to-close-doors-leaving-northwest-mall-with-no-retailers-by-2022/ 

[mattyt36]

55 minutes ago, sapo2367 said:

The last tenant in the Northwest Mall is closing (the antique store). This is the soon to be location of the Houston HSR station.

https://houstonhistoricretail.com/2021/12/22/thompsons-antique-center-to-close-doors-leaving-northwest-mall-with-no-retailers-by-2022/ 

Not if Ken Paxton has his say.

(I understand that people can have different opinions over the legal concept of eminent domain, but Ken Paxton’s entire career has been just 100% political theater.  When he isn’t criming, of course. Such a loathsome individual who will probably win another term.)

https://texasrailadvocates.org/2021/12/21/texas-ags-office-now-inserts-into-texas-central-high-speed-rail-lawsuit/

[Big E]

9 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Not if Ken Paxton has his say.

(I understand that people can have different opinions over the legal concept of eminent domain, but Ken Paxton’s entire career has been just 100% political theater.  When he isn’t criming, of course. Such a loathsome individual who will probably win another term.)

https://texasrailadvocates.org/2021/12/21/texas-ags-office-now-inserts-into-texas-central-high-speed-rail-lawsuit/

I apologize to anyone here who may have voted for this schmuck, but Ken Paxton is an idiot. My only question is who's paying him off to get involved at this point? Or who benefits from his involvement? Because the only reason I can see him getting involved here is because it benefits somebody he's attached to (or in the pocket of) to stop this railroad. Its the age old question of politics: who benefits? Not him. Not the state. Not Dallas or Houston. So who benefits? His legal argument would, taken at a face value, make it impossible for any brand new railroad to be built in Texas, which was almost certainly not the actual point of the law.

And even more distressingly, why the hell did the Texas Supreme Court even bother reopening this open and shut case?

 

Edit: Oh, and check this out, in case you needed any more proof this guy is a slimeball.

https://www.gadsdentimes.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/13/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-sued-allegedly-abusing-office/6278836002/

Edited December 23, 2021 by Big E

[ADCS]

15 hours ago, Big E said:

I apologize to anyone here who may have voted for this schmuck, but Ken Paxton is an idiot. My only question is who's paying him off to get involved at this point? Or who benefits from his involvement? Because the only reason I can see him getting involved here is because it benefits somebody he's attached to (or in the pocket of) to stop this railroad. Its the age old question of politics: who benefits? Not him. Not the state. Not Dallas or Houston. So who benefits? His legal argument would, taken at a face value, make it impossible for any brand new railroad to be built in Texas, which was almost certainly not the actual point of the law.

And even more distressingly, why the hell did the Texas Supreme Court even bother reopening this open and shut case?

 

Edit: Oh, and check this out, in case you needed any more proof this guy is a slimeball.

https://www.gadsdentimes.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/13/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-sued-allegedly-abusing-office/6278836002/

Jackass rural landowners trying to throw their weight around. Sadly, the Bushies don't have enough power in the Texas GOP to beat the yahoos into submission anymore (thanks, Trump!)

[BEES?!]

Yeah, it’s weird. I’m probably in the (extreme lol) minority on the forum, but I’m Republican, and this project is about as ideal, on paper, to us as it could possibly get. It’s being privately developed, will create domestic jobs, will definitely spur development at the stations and their surroundings (creating more jobs and $$$) and it  gives consumers another alternative way to get between Houston-Dallas.

It is straight-up one of the best possible routes in the US for HSR- it’s the perfect distance, these are two huge cities with big economies with tons of travel between them (isn’t that route one of SW’s busiest?) this thing is going to print money because trying to fly that route sucks- to say nothing of driving it. I think there’s a couple of private buses that do the route but the options for people like me who don’t really drive, and don’t do well with flying are severely limited. 
 

I’ll be interested to see how this plays out. It’s not very pro-business of us as a state to squash down emerging companies in sectors like this. 

[BeerNut]

Tx Supremes hear arguments on high speed rail

Quote

Oral arguments were aired before Supreme Court Justices Tuesday by attorney Jeffrey Levinger, on behalf of a Leon County landowner who wouldn’t allow Texas Central Railway to survey his land for a proposed 240-mile long bullet train route. The rail route, which was approved by the Federal Railroad Administration, would need a 100-foot wide path through a 600-acre property owned by James Miles. Texas Central has steadfastly said that, if needed, they have the right to exercise eminent domain authority like other railroads and utilities under Texas law, for public use.

 

[wilcal]

Thank you for posting, I just watched the whole thing, and I still think TX Central is going to prevail. 

It seems like the landowner's case is just so thin here. I also think TX Central's attorney came across much stronger here.

I don't know how TX Supreme Court will rule, or how TX Central is gonna raise the cash, but still interesting to see the result. 

 

 

[ADCS]

2 hours ago, wilcal said:

Thank you for posting, I just watched the whole thing, and I still think TX Central is going to prevail. 

It seems like the landowner's case is just so thin here. I also think TX Central's attorney came across much stronger here.

I don't know how TX Supreme Court will rule, or how TX Central is gonna raise the cash, but still interesting to see the result. 

 

 

I'd agree, except that these justices are elected, and the yahoos will come out to vote.

[Houston19514]

That was really interesting.  Thanks for posting it, BeerNut!

[BeerNut]

Part 1 of 4: A Temporary Victory for High-Speed Rail in the Lone Star State

Quote

This case could be a seminal one in the decades-long struggle to establish high-speed rail (HSR) in the United States, or even new conventional rail lines that would be established by entities that have not yet reached the point where they are running trains on track that they own. The issue, in a nutshell, is whether an entity that is engaged in planning a new railroad can acquire the land that would be needed to build the first line. If the Court in Texas says no, it could spell not only the demise of the Texas Central plan to build a line between Dallas and a point at the intersection of two highways northwest of Houston, but such a rejection could apply the brakes to similar potential projects elsewhere.

 

[ADCS]

I can't believe this comes down to English having only two tenses.

[Andrew Ewert]

This would be really stupid, but if Texas Central loses the suit, what would keep them from building a two-stop service on a portion of the line they already own, selling one ticket, and officially becoming an "operating railroad"?

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

I can't believe this comes down to English having only two tenses.

Traditionally, when your opponents arguments come down to semantics that not exactly a good sign. Also when your opponent continuously has to keep moving the goal post in effort to claim victory, that also isn't a good sign. When you have to push the courts to "fix" a definition of what is defined as a "railroad" in order to keep your narrative going, that is also not a good sign.

We have seen this play out in my spheres over the past few years. It doesn't matter what side of any issue, or whatever tride is pushing whatever narrative. When you see these sorts of points playout and stack up, the side that is at this point usually loses.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Luminare

[sapo2367]

5 hours ago, Luminare said:

Traditionally, when your opponents arguments come down to semantics that not exactly a good sign. Also when your opponent continuously has to keep moving the goal post in effort to claim victory, that also isn't a good sign. When you have to push the courts to "fix" a definition of what is defined as a "railroad" in order to keep your narrative going, that is also not a good sign.

We have seen this play out in my spheres over the past few years. It doesn't matter what side of any issue, or whatever tride is pushing whatever narrative. When you see these sorts of points playout and stack up, the side that is at this point usually loses.

Isn't the famous quote "If you're explaining, you're losing"? I feel like that fits this pretty well. 

[Luminare]

8 minutes ago, sapo2367 said:

Isn't the famous quote "If you're explaining, you're losing"? I feel like that fits this pretty well. 

Well showing is always better than telling. Ironically TCR can't show anything because tellers won't allow them to show because they think (the tellers) that TCR (those that want to show) are the real "tellers".

Imagine being stuck in this crazy circular loop of nonsense:

TCR: Your honor we are a railroad, but how can we prove it if our opponents keep suing us preventing us from building it in the first place

Opponents: Ha see your honor! They just admitted that they aren't a railroad because they don't have any tracks yet.

TCR: Then stop suing us and we will get to work building our railroad

Opponents: No we won't because we don't think you are a railroad because you don't have any tracks.

TCR: We will have tracks if you just let us be.

Opponents: But you aren't a railroad company, so how can we trust you to lay track because if when you do lay down tracks then you will have to be recognized as a railroad and we don't want that.

TCR: ...what?

[sapo2367]

7 minutes ago, Luminare said:

Well showing is always better than telling. Ironically TCR can't show anything because tellers won't allow them to show because they think (the tellers) that TCR (those that want to show) are the real "tellers".

Imagine being stuck in this crazy circular loop of nonsense:

TCR: Your honor we are a railroad, but how can we prove it if our opponents keep suing us preventing us from building it in the first place

Opponents: Ha see your honor! They just admitted that they aren't a railroad because they don't have any tracks yet.

TCR: Then stop suing us and we will get to work building our railroad

Opponents: No we won't because we don't think you are a railroad because you don't have any tracks.

TCR: We will have tracks if you just let us be.

Opponents: But you aren't a railroad company, so how can we trust you to lay track because if when you do lay down tracks then you will have to be recognized as a railroad and we don't want that.

TCR: ...what?

Agree — if you have to explain that the company building a railroad is not a railroad company, you’re losing :)

[Luminare]

3 minutes ago, sapo2367 said:

Agree — if you have to explain that the company building a railroad is not a railroad company, you’re losing :)

We both agree on this, but for others looking at this. Imagine if, I Luminare, finally get my architecture license and now I have the ability to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

The argument against TCR would effectively be like saying...Luminare you aren't an architect because you haven't built anything yet, therefore you aren't allowed to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

I can't believe this has even made it to court. Its absurd.

[wilcal]

On 1/14/2022 at 3:40 PM, Luminare said:

We both agree on this, but for others looking at this. Imagine if, I Luminare, finally get my architecture license and now I have the ability to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

The argument against TCR would effectively be like saying...Luminare you aren't an architect because you haven't built anything yet, therefore you aren't allowed to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

I can't believe this has even made it to court. Its absurd.

I like the example of trying to build a restaurant.

Imagine if you bought a piece of land that is zoned for restaurant use only, and the city won't give you a permit to build a restaurant because you aren't actually selling burgers anywhere yet. 

[BEES?!]

On 1/14/2022 at 3:40 PM, Luminare said:

We both agree on this, but for others looking at this. Imagine if, I Luminare, finally get my architecture license and now I have the ability to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

The argument against TCR would effectively be like saying...Luminare you aren't an architect because you haven't built anything yet, therefore you aren't allowed to practice architecture, design buildings, stamp drawings, etc...

I can't believe this has even made it to court. Its absurd.

It’s so anti-startup it’s crazy. If this argument can stand, I feel like it could be used to basically re-inforce monopolies in some industries

[Some one]

Imagine if someone sued HCTRA in the 80s because they weren't a "real road agency."