High Speed Rail

[Guest Plastic]

For decades Europe and Asia have had Hi Speed Rail. Not the US finally got one called the Acela. It runs from Boston to DC.SOme say it's not a real high spped train because it can't reach very high for very long.

The Acela runs on old tracks not new ones. Old tracks have lots of junvtions and sharp curves so it can't truely be a highspeed train. Govenor Perry is supposed to be giving us Hi Spped Rail in the package with the Trans Texas Corridor. He overdoes it and has rail traffic doing to El Paso.Midland,and Tyler.

Hi Speed would work localy but not nationally. The should have one between the major cities of Texas,California,Flordia,and the Eastern Seaboard. Instead of stoping at DC it should go all the way to Richmond Virginia. Germany and Japan are also working on Maglev. Don't know if we'll ever see it in the states but Germany supposedly has it's operatiing. I thought it was just experimental but I hear people saying they've riden it.

[YakuzaIce]

I agree that for now we should just have regional systems, california, east coast, and Texas. But there should also be connector lines between the different regional networks. This would be really goodfor now until the entire US could be connected by high speed rail.

[Guest Plastic]

I agree that for now we should just have regional systems, california, east coast, and Texas.  But there should also be connector lines between the different regional networks.  This would be really goodfor now until the entire US could be connected by high speed rail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yean but would our government put out the tie effort and money to do it?

[YakuzaIce]

Yean but would our government put out the tie effort and money to do it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No...

[SpringTX]

Doesn't the government subsidize Amtrak? I guess the bottom line is that the demand isn't there right now, unfortunately. Maybe if rail gets fast enough, it will generate more demand. Because it'll be more comparable to air travel in terms of travel times. Right now, it doesn't make sense to spend 7 hours on a train going from Houston to New Orleans when you can do it in 1 hour on an airplane. Or 6 hours in a rental car. If we had a new high-speed train going 200 mph, it would get us from Houston to New Orleans in about 3 hours. If we had one going 300 mph, it would do that distance in 2 hours. A 2-hour train ride from here to New Orleans? Now THAT would be nice!

It looks like the new Acela train will go 200 mph, which will be nice. I remember the train ride from DC to New York used to be something like 4 hours. If they cut that down to 2 hours, that would really be a nice trip. You could almost live in NY and commute to work in DC each morning!

Imagine if Texas put down only 50 miles of maglev track...from Houston to Galveston. Hauling ass at 300+ mph, it would take only 10 minutes to get from downtown Houston to the Strand. If you worked downtown near that train station, you could go to Galveston every day for lunch on your lunch hour.

Here are some links for speeds in mph for other fast trains around the world:

http://www.didyouknow.cd/whatsnew/trains.htm

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/199

[bigguy]

Have you ever priced a trip on amtrak ? good golly miss Molly preety steep price tag . There is talk of a high speed train LA to Vegas that should make the trip in a little over an hour , of course thier monorail cant even even run behind the strip without breaking . It would be awsome to high speed to Dallas or San Antone for the day .

[dalparadise]

Houston to Galveston makes a lot of sense. It links the two biggest population centers here and builds upon an established commuter corridor. I think the line should run: Galveston, Mainland (maybe Texas City), League City, Clear Lake, UH, Downtown. With stops, maybe a 30-40 minute run.

Then, it could tie into a later run up 45 to Dallas, one day. Or, an express extension to Uptown seems like a good idea, as it would finally establish that fast route between the Galleria and Downtown we all have been wanting. Plus, it would bend the line toward Austin/San Antonio, instead of Dallas, serving Western suburbs here first -- not a terrible idea.

We have to remember that ridership vs. cost is the issue. High Speed to New Orleans sounds like fun, but it wouldn't pay the bills during the week. Past The Woodlands, there's also not enough density between here and Dallas to take the initial leap of getting a train going. This is about more than just the A-B rider. Besides, that air corridor is already too well served. For a train to be really useful from Houston to Dallas, it would need to serve a more densely populated line, with a few stops for the former flyovers to take advantage of the train.

That's why a San Antonio-Austin-Waco- Ft. Worth-Dallas line seems more feasible to me to start. A Dallas-Ft. Worth line is also intriguing -- imagine a 15 minute run from Downtown to Downtown, including a 2-minute stop in the Mid Cities, to pick up/drop off.

We should try to beat them to the punch. The city that establishes the first short line, high-speed rail will, undoubtedly, become the hub for the first long line.

[RedScare]

High speed rail is not fully utilized over short distances, especially considering their cost. They are most effective on intercity routes of medium distance, such as Dallas-Houston-San Antonio. The fact that these routes are served by airlines is not an inhibiter to service. A 240 mile trip on a bullet train to Dallas would take you from downtown to downtown in less than an hour and a half, while the travel to an airport, getting through security, boarding, flight, disembarking and travel from the airport can take 3 hours or more.

The populations of the cities in the Texas triangle make it ideal for bullet trains. A Dallas route could include B-CS and Waco without adding to much time to the trip. Of course, Austin would be included in a Dallas-San Antonio route. This would connect roughly 14-15 million people to the line.

Once the initial triangle is built, spurs to Galveston, Ft. Worth and Corpus Christi could be added. New Orleans is certainly not out of the question, with stops in Beaumont, Lake Charles, and even Baton Rouge. That 350 mile trip could be completed in about 2 hours, still less than an airline flight.

Other areas that have potential are San Diego to Seatle, with spurs to Las Vegas, and the Florida coast, with a spur to Tampa-St. Pete, with the line possibly extending to Atlanta.

Government support would be needed, possibly in the form of building stations, similar to what they do now with airports, or tax credits, like they just did to encourage deep well drilling in the Gulf. Airlines, who have had their fair share of freebies over the years, predictably, will squeal like stuck pigs over any attempts at viable passenger rail transit.

[KatieDidIt]

while the travel to an airport, getting through security, boarding, flight, disembarking and travel from the airport can take 3 hours or more.

I think anything with the term "High Speed" or "Bullet" in its name will require the same security checks now.

Even with gas prices going the way they are, I just don't think anyone would pay the ticket price for a train to sprawled out Dallas. You still need a car or a cab when you get there.

[RedScare]

You may well be correct about security, but there will be far fewer people at a train station than an airport. Remember, the airport has dozens of flights going to everywhere, while a train station would have departures to, at best San Antonio, Dallas and New Orleans. The security lines will therefore, be shorter and quicker.

An airline passenger needs the same cab or car that a train passenger needs. However, a train passenger to downtown has an additional option of mass transit, while there are limited mass transit options at the far-flung airports.

[kjb434]

Aren't we talking about a dead concept? As long a Southwest and Continental Express operate, you can forget about the trains. And Amtrak not making any money only kills the government's willingness to get into the business.

I agree that regional rail systems would be perfect, but you need a government using power like they are with the TTC to build a rail system. You'll have to use eminent domain and force the lines to be build. Luckily the TTC will include room for rail. The grades on the road even set to rail standards will kills steep inclines.

[tamtagon]

Over the next three decades, the metro populations of Houston, DFW, San Antonio and Austin are anticipated to nearly double; population within the Texas Triangle most likely will more than double.

That the highways and airways should accommodate twice the intrastate travel is to lower the overall appeal and quality of life in Texas. The Trans Texas Corridor is working out one excellent contribution to solving intrastate transportation challenges by re-routing cargo traffic away from commuter corridors. While alleviating cargo related congestion on the highways should be the first TTC priority, the opportunity to less expensively construct a commuter rail component to traveling between the state's primary population and busienss centers decreases as time goes.

[editor]

Yean but would our government put out the tie effort and money to do it?

Yes. It's all up to the local congresscritters.

When Bush signed the latest transportation bill a few weeks ago, Chicago's suburbs got billions for intercity rail called METRA Suburban Transit Access Route (S.T.A.R.). Rail is a part of life in that part of the country so the local politicians made sure it got into the appropriations bill.

Houston's politicians are in the pockets of the auto dealers and the highway construction companies, so they don't lobby for rail projects in the area.

[editor]

Have you ever priced a trip on amtrak ? good golly miss Molly preety steep price tag . There is talk of a high speed train LA to Vegas  that should make the trip in  a little over an hour , of course thier monorail cant even even run behind the strip without breaking . It would be awsome to high speed to Dallas or San Antone for the day .

Long distance Amtrak is very expensive because they're not popular routes because they take forever to get anywhere.

Shorter distances, Amtrak is quite cheap.

It's $22 from Chicago to Saint Louis.

It's $31 between Chicago and Detroit.

It's $20 between Chicago and Milwaukee.

New York to Boston and DC are similarly priced.

These are popular commuter routes, so they're always full and therefore cheaper.

It would make sense that a line between Houston and San Antonio or Houston and Dallas would be similarly popular and therefore cheaper than long-distance Amtrak travel.

[SpringTX]

Long distance Amtrak is very expensive because they're not popular routes because they take forever to get anywhere.

Shorter distances, Amtrak is quite cheap. 

It's $22 from Chicago to Saint Louis. 

It's $31 between Chicago and Detroit. 

It's $20 between Chicago and Milwaukee.

New York to Boston and DC are similarly priced.

These are popular commuter routes, so they're always full and therefore cheaper. 

It would make sense that a line between Houston and San Antonio or Houston and Dallas would be similarly popular and therefore cheaper than long-distance Amtrak travel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Houston to San Antonio is $27. I just checked Amtrak.com.

And Editor is right - if the Houston-to-San Antonio route was served by a high-speed train and took only 1 hour to make the trip, you can bet demand would boom and the price would drop. Maybe it would drop to $18 or $16 or whatever.

If it dropped down to $5 (let's say a package deal for a monthly pass for $200/month), it would open up a market for commuters who would now be able to live in one city and work in the other. Right now, if you quit your job in Houston and accept a new job in San Antonio, it means packing up and selling your house. But those days would be over if you could buy a $200/month high-speed train pass that took you from downtown Houston to San Antonio in 1 hour. Basically, these 3 Texas cities could merge into one giant economic entity of 20 million people.

[texas911]

It won't work here because the destination cities don't have good public transportation. In Europe and Asia (really just Japan) the cities the high speed trains connect all have great public transportation systems, so once you get there, you don't need a car. If I travel to Dallas on a high speed train, I'd still need a car to get around. Might as well just drive there.

[RedScare]

A high speed rail link would spur mass transit development in the cities that have depots. Dallas, Houston, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Austin and Galveston all have transit. B-CS and Waco, if they had a depot, would service it, and all of them would improve their systems to spur visitors to use the train to visit.

The governments don't have to finance the bullet trains. All they have to do is not be so hostile to them, as they were in the 80s and 90s. If fuel prices remain high, I'll bet the financial viability of bullet trains increases.

[kjb434]

^^^

That a good point. If people are willing to pay $20 or $30 to take a train to Dallas or San Antonio which would be the same cost of gas and don't forge ware on your car, then I can see the possibilty of this becoming a reality.

[MidtownCoog]

It's just so much easier just to drive there. And 6 higway miles = 1 city mile.

I don't really worry about wear and tear on my car.

That's why I bought it. To drive it!

[CDeb]

I don't really worry about wear and tear on my car. 

That's why I bought it.  To drive it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course we by them to drive them. But would you rather buy a car every two years or three years or five years or.....?

[MidtownCoog]

But would you rather buy a car every two years or three years or five years or.....?

I took park and ride today, so less is better.

But there is a lot to be said for road-tripping in your own ride.

[RedScare]

Yeah, Coog, but the point is a bullet train would have you downtown to downtown in an hour to an hour and a half. Even flying in your car would take 3 hours. I still believe as the Texas triangle grows, so will the viability of bullet trains.

So there!

[sevfiv]

and to some people, an hour and a half is a loooong commute. (although these people certainly would not accept a job in a different city than the one in which they planned to live).

[MidtownCoog]

It's a nice pipe-dream...

puff-puff-give

[RedScare]

puff puff, than--cough cough--thanks dude

[kjb434]

I don't think people will use this a commute for work sevfiv. This is more a transport between cities for occasional work trips and general transportation.

Right now Southwest and Continental Express have tons of flights that connect the Texas Triangle. Numbers exist for possible passenger ridership. The question is how hard those two airlines will fight to prevent this from occuring.

They did it before.

[banking214]

I am with the Texas Triangle concept. The area is going to grow in size, further causing headaches to our already over used infrastructure. As our highways and skyways become busier and busier, we are going to need other options. To me, rail is an excellent choice. Not the rail we know, but the rail that is used in France. and in Japan. I had the opportunity to travel and the TGV from Calais to Paris and it was incredible. Zooming through the green hills of France with the picturesque medieval towns was a chance of a lifetime. If Texans as well as other had the opportunity to travel Texas like this, who would pass it up? Granted, the towns are not going to be from the 1500s.

[RedScare]

I've never had the pleasure of taking the TGV or any of the other high speed trains. I have only managed to see them on the documentaries. However, given the size of Texas, about that of France, it always seemed a no-brainer. In my younger days, when I did not understand that people like Herb Kelleher would pay off politicians to thwart free market competition, I felt it was only a matter of time.

I imagined a line running from Houston, through College Station and Waco, on to Dallas. At College Station, the line would split and run to Austin. Similarly, the line would split at Waco, running through Austin to San Antonio. A spur would run to Ft Worth and Galveston. The entire system would be less than 700 miles, linking 5 of the 20 largest cities in the US.

High speed rail screams advanced technology, as well. They are environmentally friendlier than passenger jets. They would spur inner city growth, expanded mass transit systems and tourism. It was a win, win, win proposal.

It remains to be seen if high speed rail comes to Texas. Perry's TTC, while otherwise a hideous proposal, does suggest the possibility for high speed rail within it. Hopefully, the second go-round will be friendlier to this form of intercity transit.

[sevfiv]

I don't think people will use this a commute for work sevfiv.  This is more a transport between cities for occasional work trips and general transportation.

Right now Southwest and Continental Express have tons of flights that connect the Texas Triangle.  Numbers exist for possible passenger ridership.  The question is how hard those two airlines will fight to prevent this from occuring.

They did it before.

If it dropped down to $5 (let's say a package deal for a monthly pass for $200/month), it would open up a market for commuters who would now be able to live in one city and work in the other.

[banking214]

I've never had the pleasure of taking the TGV or any of the other high speed trains.  I have only managed to see them on the documentaries.  However, given the size of Texas, about that of France, it always seemed a no-brainer.  In my younger days, when I did not understand that people like Herb Kelleher would pay off politicians to thwart free market competition, I felt it was only a matter of time.

I imagined a line running from Houston, through College Station and Waco, on to Dallas.  At College Station, the line would split and run to Austin.  Similarly, the line would split at Waco, running through Austin to San Antonio.  A spur would run to Ft Worth and Galveston.  The entire system would be less than 700 miles, linking 5 of the 20 largest cities in the US. 

High speed rail screams advanced technology, as well.  They are environmentally friendlier than passenger jets.  They would spur inner city growth, expanded mass transit systems and tourism.  It was a win, win, win proposal.

It remains to be seen if high speed rail comes to Texas.  Perry's TTC, while otherwise a hideous proposal, does suggest the possibility for high speed rail within it.  Hopefully, the second go-round will be friendlier to this form of intercity transit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, I hope the second time around is smoother sailing. Perry's TTC proposal was a joke. Very similiar to his administration. Oh, did I say that?