The Iron Tripod

[TheNiche]

I would love to see that map.

Take a look at these numbers.

Long Distance Travel Between Major Metropolitan Areas

Metro Pairs Generating

300,000 or More Person Round-trips Per Year

CMSA/MSA #1 CMSA/MSA #2

Projected

Volume

Dallas Houston 3,097,228

Dallas San Antonio 2,286,587

Austin Houston 2,032,380

Austin Dallas 1,805,389

Houston San Antonio 1,744,368

Beaumont Houston 1,450,625

Corpus Christi San Antonio 1,392,317

IRON TRIPOD TOTAL: 12,416,577

GRAND TOTAL: 13,808,894

THANK YOU! Going through your stats just inspired a spark in my brain. Abandon Perry's TTC proposal; I have a much better idea! One that deserved its own thread.

PHASE ONE: IRON TRIPOD PROPOSAL

Most people are familiar with Maglev technology these days. For those that are not, read this Wikipedia article.

In order to keep costs low, the old "iron triangle" concept utilizing high-speed passenger rail must be abandoned in favor of an "iron tripod" with Maglev technology. Routes would originate in the Central Business Districts of Beaumont, San Antonio, and Dallas, converging on College Station (with the Beaumont line running through downtown Houston and the San Antonio line running through downtown Austin, of course).

CS-Dallas: 153 miles (39 mins) $9.18B

CS-Houston: 62 miles (14 mins) $3.72B

CS-Austin: 91 miles (20 mins) $5.46B

Austin-San Antonio: 56 miles (13 mins) $3.36B

Houston-Beaumont: 79 miles (18 mins) $4.74B

The system would total 441 miles at a cost of $26.46 billion and I'd propose that we shoot to have it in place by no later than 2015.

The Texas labor markets would effectively be combined into one astonishingly large megalopolis (16.8 million people) comparable in size to the current New York MSA (at 18.7 million people in 2005). Imagine if a married couple could live in downtown Houston and that the husband could commute to Dallas for work in 55 minutes each day, and the wife could commute to San Antonio in 47 minutes (or Austin in just 24 minutes)! And of course, the TOD potential is just astounding. This is how you'd create the kind of demand necessary for a 'supertall'...and if you want urban redevelopment, this will do it. Fast.

My costs are based upon $60 million per mile, which was the cost of the Shang Hai airport line. Their costs were very high because of the relatively short distance and could have been brought down using economies of scale if it had been a longer line all built at once. We'd capture those economies of scale, although we'd also have higher costs as a result of higher wages. So I used the Shang Hai costs for what is admittedly a very rough estimate.

My transit times are also based upon the Shang Hai system's speed, which is 268 miles per hour, which I consider to be a conservative estimate. According to the Wikipedia article, Maglev systems reaching up to 404 miles per hour are possible, and I'd be strongly behind any system that could reduce travel times even further. With 404mph maglev technology, transit times would be reduced by a third so that the Houston-Dallas trip would be 37 minutes.

You could expect that the Maglev would induce an enormous number of interregional trips as well as capture any and all commercial airline trips between the cities, as well a big share of car trips. With downtown stations, commuting patterns are more friendly for whole MSAs (for instance, no more driving from League City to IAH) and there is far less need for costly rapid transit (or new freeway capacity) serving airports. For that matter, with fewer flights, secondary commercial airports could probably be eliminated or realigned to fit the needs of general aviation. Fewer cars on the road also eliminate a lot of congestion along the rural interstates, which means that there is no need for Perry's land-intensive TTC program, and with less congestion, there are not only time savings, but fewer traffic-related accidents and fatalities. And of course, there are the real and perceived environmental advantages. There are so many benefits!

PHASE TWO: AIRPORT CONSOLIDATION

So you think that it's already a great idea! I've got a better one. If we can build a state-of-the-art Maglev system that travels at 404 miles per hour, another option opens up for consideration. Right now, we have many airports serving Texas' big cities. Houston and Dallas each have two and Austin and San Antoinio each have one. But what if anyone could get from a single centralized airport to the Central Business District of any of Texas' major cities in under 25 minutes?

The proposal: develop a major airport at the junction of Maglev lines outside of College Station that serves as the single international and domestic hub for almost all commercial traffic to and from the cities along the Maglev system. Then scale back the regional airports and do away with Hobby and Love Field. The existing airports in each of the major cities would still be around for general aviation, executive and charter flights, air cargo, and other relatively small operations. This would eliminate air traffic over all of our major cities (less noise, less pollution affecting populated areas, less chance of an airplane crash in an urban area). It would also foster more centralized patterns of intraregional travel, fostering a higher demand for radial suburban-to-urban mass transit and reducing the need for decentralized freeways connecting airports and other major decentralized traffic generators.

From the airport user's perspective, it may add somewhat to the trip between home and the airport, but on the other hand, that cost is mitigated because we would now have the largest airport in the world with more frequent flights to EVERYWHERE ON THE PLANET. If you get to the airport and through the security lines an hour early, you can probably just exchange your ticket for an earlier flight to nearly anywhere in the U.S. and end up saving time on the net.

Right now, Atlanta has the most active airport, at 85.9 million passengers in 2005. IAH and DFW combined would top it right off the bat, totalling 98.9 million passengers, but if you added in the commercial passenger traffic from Austin, San Antonio, and Beaumont, as well as Hobby and Love Field, and then subtracted out all the present air travel between those cities connected by the proposed Maglev system, you'd have an incredibly large global hub that is located in a part of the United States that is easily accessible to all the rest of the United States. It'd be an excellent hub for a very large share of flights from all over the world. On the one hand reduce a lot of connector trips between hubs in Dallas and Houston, saving people time and money, but it would also induce a lot of traffic by virtue of its location, accessibility by such a large population base, and as a result of the sheer number of flights that connect to it. What airline wouldn't want a hub that overlaps with so many other flights to so many other places?

CONCLUSIONS

Efficiency is the name of the game. Granted this solution won't serve all of the places that TTC plan would, but it relieves congestion where it is most apparent and could be extended in the direction of Corpus Christi, Laredo, or the RGV as permitted by the growth of those areas and the economics of those specific projects. This is an excellent starter system that gets excellent bang for the buck. If this system costs $26 billion and the megaregional airport costs $25 billion, that's only a $51 billion outlay compared to the $145 to $183 billion estimated by Perry's supporters (i.e. the low range of estimates). A bargain!

Comments?

[UNLV]

Great plan, I will comment on it further after work. However keep in mind the only reason Texas does not have

NEC high speed rail connecting the MSA is because of Southwest Airlines lobbist.

[jm1fd]

So, we should spend $50 billion dollars on a system to transport people who could easily telecommute to where they're going, while it does nothing for moving cargo and livestock around the state? Great idea!

[TheNiche]

So, we should spend $50 billion dollars on a system to transport people who could easily telecommute to where they're going, while it does nothing for moving cargo and livestock around the state? Great idea!

You're seriously against this? It'd take a good bit of traffic off of the most congested rural freeways, making many of the Interstates a less hectic place for tractor trailers to operate. And I'm just not sure that we need any TTCs west of I-35, anyway. Have you driven around out there? Zero rural congestion and really not all that much traffic.

Of course, that leaves the freight rail system. But I was never quite sure why the taxpayers of Texas should build railroads instead of UP or BNSF doing it (since they'll be using it). And they've shown in the past that they'll upgrade and maintain lines when it really comes down to it. Right now, they're even double-tracking a line from El Paso out to some major junction several hundred miles east of there, and a third company has purchased and is restoring to use a previously-abandoned line from the Mexican border to north Texas. What the taxpayers desperately need to do is create grade-seperations in urban areas. That's where the bottlenecks are, anyway. And compared to the costs proposed as part of the TTC, that's a pretty small undertaking.

Great plan, I will comment on it further after work. However keep in mind the only reason Texas does not have

NEC high speed rail connecting the MSA is because of Southwest Airlines lobbist.

Yep, SWA would be a big problem to be overcome.

But how much would you like to bet that the other major airlines would very much like the idea and contribute against SWA? For them, it means that they've 1) eliminated SWA from the competition in a major market, 2) consolidated several hubs in one place, providing for literally the world's best service to any destination from this one point, 3) eliminated wasteful connections between hubs seperately located in Houston or Dallas (which means that they can drop their ticket prices to account for the cost-savings and induce more demand for air travel).

[jm1fd]

You're seriously against this? It'd take a good bit of traffic off of the most congested rural freeways, making many of the Interstates a less hectic place for tractor trailers to operate. And I'm just not sure that we need any TTCs west of I-35, anyway. Have you driven around out there? Zero rural congestion and really not all that much traffic.

So you're telling me that the majority of traffic on Texas interstates and highways is from business people commuting back and forth? I don't buy that.

[TheNiche]

So you're telling me that the majority of traffic on Texas interstates and highways is from business people commuting back and forth? I don't buy that.

I didn't say anything about any "majority," but a good bit of it certainly is comprised of people that travel for various reasons between the major metropolitan areas. Look at the stats that I quoted. That's a lot of people, and the highest levels of traffic are without a doubt between the largest cities.

I'm not sure that I was clear, but more people than just business "commuters" would use this thing. Texas' tourism industry in the big cities is in large part supported by people that are simply going to visit friends or family. They could use the Maglev system just as easily as could users travelling on business. The use by "commuters" as I labelled them would be a completely new form of intrastate traveller, induced to existence only because of the existence of the Maglev system. They are by no means the only users, however, and would probably be very much in the minority for at least several years.

Would it reduce the amount of traffic on the Interstates connecting the major cities by more than 50% (a "majority", as you put it)? Probably not. But I don't think that it'll take a "majority" to significantly reduce or eliminate rural congestion. Congestion levels increase or decrease geometrically as vehicles are either added or removed from highways when the volume of traffic is above a congestion point. But below the congestion point, there are almost no gains whatsoever from removing vehicles from the road. If all that the Maglev does is get us to a traffic volume level just below the congestion point, then that'll elminate the need for future Interstate expansion. And even if it doesn't do that perfectly 100% of the time, it'll delay the need for future expansion and then reduce the extent of the expansion that is required.

[jm1fd]

Welcome to Texas, where we fire up the 'ol Suburban to go visit grandma.

The fact that it is ingrained in our culture to drive wherever we want aside, how much of the interstate traffic is actually starting and ending at major cities? How much of that traffic gets on and off at points where there would be no triangle train stops?

How many lane miles of rural interstate would the $26B spent on the triangle train buy?

[TheNiche]

Welcome to Texas, where we fire up the 'ol Suburban to go visit grandma.

The fact that it is ingrained in our culture to drive wherever we want aside, how much of the interstate traffic is actually starting and ending at major cities? How much of that traffic gets on and off at points where there would be no triangle train stops?

How many lane miles of rural interstate would the $26B spent on the triangle train buy?

Go back to the very top of this post and look at the stats provided by the Census Bureau. They specifically measure transit between major cities. If that isn't clear enough for you, then I don't know what is.

Rural areas and small towns are relatively small traffic generators relative to those that live in major metropolitan areas. Although they do generate a lot of VMT, if you can reduce the number of trips between big cities, the folks driving in rural areas will still be made better off. I'm not talking about the elimination of all traffic; but enough to make the driving experience much more pleasant for those that have to.

I don't know the specific cost per lane mile, but I do know that the TTC program would cost way more than this Maglev concept. If you kept the TTC budget in place and utilized part of it for my Iron Tripod idea, you'd still have more than enough left over to serve areas that aren't between the big cities and to handle freight cargo needs.

Btw, even if I were convinced that Texans won't ride an efficient transit system between major cities (which they obviously will or else Southwest Airlines wouldn't exist), you need to recognize that most city-dwellers are either 1st or 2nd generation Texans. They've still got yankee blood in their veins. Hell, I'd even ride it if it saved me time...and I'm only an 8th generation Texan. How about yourself?

[Trae]

Doing away with Hobby and Love Field is a stupid move.

[jm1fd]

Go back to the very top of this post and look at the stats provided by the Census Bureau. They specifically measure transit between major cities. If that isn't clear enough for you, then I don't know what is.

That's all well and good, but how much traffic DOES NOT go point to point? I suspect it outweighs the point to point traffic by a wide margin.

Btw, even if I were convinced that Texans won't ride an efficient transit system between major cities (which they obviously will or else Southwest Airlines wouldn't exist), you need to recognize that most city-dwellers are either 1st or 2nd generation Texans. They've still got yankee blood in their veins. Hell, I'd even ride it if it saved me time...and I'm only an 8th generation Texan. How about yourself?

I wouldn't use it unless it was a day trip and I wasn't hauling a lot of stuff along.

[KinkaidAlum]

The numbers are clearly there for some sort of service like this to work. The real problem comes from the infrastructure not being in place anywhere other than Dallas to handle rail travel.

So, someone takes a train to Houston. Then what do they do if their business takes them to Westchase, Greenspoint, NASA, Galleria, Fort Bend, etc...?

It's an even worse situation in Austin and San Antonio!

I ride the Acela all the time from Boston to NYC for work. I can walk 5 blocks from my house, catch the train at the Back Bay/South End Station and be in Penn Station in 4 hours. Once there, I can walk to midtown destinations, hail a cab, or hop on the subway. That's what makes it viable.

[zaphod]

this is alot like a current proposal called the Texas T-bone. It would have 2 lines. one would go from SA to DFW following 35 and stop in places like Waco and temple in addition to the more obvious stops(austin). The second line would go from Houston up through college station to temple and connect with the other line. There would also be a short branch from temple out to fort hood and killeen so the army could use it.

I forgot what the group that is doing this called. But they are made up of local leaders from all over and pretty much every city and town the line goes to and also IT HAS THE AIRLINES SUPPORT because it will connect to the major airports and they will have things set up where you can ride the train to IAH for example and your bags and security etc is taken care of back at the station so you just get on the plane.

i personally dont like this iron trip idea because using maglev it would be prohibitively expensive. Conventional high speed rail can be somewhat affordable by individual state. I can see maglev being more of a national project and the lines will probably be up north along the east coast But then if it was maglev it would be waaay faster and you could have stuff like you described going on with people commuting and forming a megalopolis.

But either way, TTC sucks. and the people of this state arent going to let the stupid thing get build.Watch it die in the near future. I bet alot of people want the thing for the high speed rail, the Uber highway isnt necessary. Use that money saved by not building it to get 59 ready for interstate status and upgrade current 2 lane roads into nice highways and the rest can go for a effective and useful bullet train that will actually connect cities instead of running on the edges of them.

The numbers are clearly there for some sort of service like this to work. The real problem comes from the infrastructure not being in place anywhere other than Dallas to handle rail travel.

So, someone takes a train to Houston. Then what do they do if their business takes them to Westchase, Greenspoint, NASA, Galleria, Fort Bend, etc...?

It's an even worse situation in Austin and San Antonio!

I ride the Acela all the time from Boston to NYC for work. I can walk 5 blocks from my house, catch the train at the Back Bay/South End Station and be in Penn Station in 4 hours. Once there, I can walk to midtown destinations, hail a cab, or hop on the subway. That's what makes it viable.

yeah, thats the one thing. but then airports in places like Phoenix function just fine. I would imagine a HSR station in america would be like an airport with plenty of long term parking and rent a car places and lots of bus services. Basically, i guess this would compete with intercity air travel. it would be slower, but the cool thing is that it would be a lot cheaper(HSR costs alot to build but its cheaper to operate compared to air service) and also hopefully security wouldnt be as bad(oh god i hope so)

[TheNiche]

That's all well and good, but how much traffic DOES NOT go point to point? I suspect it outweighs the point to point traffic by a wide margin.

I wouldn't use it unless it was a day trip and I wasn't hauling a lot of stuff along.

As zaphod suggested, the stations in each Central Business District would need to offer services similar to airports in terms of luggage handling capabilities and access to local mass transit, taxi cabs, and car rental agencies.

You're right that most transit would not be point-to-point, especially for the first several years, while businesses are still adapting to the new technology and while TOD around the stations are still in the planning phases. But here's a situation for you: it is 238 road miles from Houston to Dallas. If you decide to drive that distance in a vehicle that gets 24mpg, you'll use just shy of ten gallons getting there. At a cost of $2.79 per gallon, that'll only be about $28 up front. The back-end costs are vehicle depreciation and wear-and-tear, which will hit you later on. If you assume 48.5 cents per mile, as the IRS standard, that will cost you $115.43 for the one-way trip. The round trip will be $230.86, without even counting the driving you'd do while in the Dallas area. But what if you could just step off the Maglev platform, rent a car (and I found a subcompact car available from Avis for $16 per day out of the DFW airport), and do all your non-point-to-point driving at your leisure? You just saved a bundle of money, not to mention your TIME, which I'd hope would be even more valuable than the gas and maintenance costs that you've avoided.

Even if you personally don't like to use the Maglev, I can assure you that there are people that will absolutely love it. And that means that those folks aren't on the same roads that you're on...so you aren't sharing the road with so many people.

Doing away with Hobby and Love Field is a stupid move.

Why?

You'd remove a lot of noise, air pollution, traffic, and visual blight from around those neighborhoods. You'd also have enough land from each airport to build a master planned community. Alternatively, you could work out deals with Boeing and other aerospace firms to bring high-paying jobs to the area that would utilize the old airport. I see a lot of benefit, but where's the loss?

The numbers are clearly there for some sort of service like this to work. The real problem comes from the infrastructure not being in place anywhere other than Dallas to handle rail travel.

So, someone takes a train to Houston. Then what do they do if their business takes them to Westchase, Greenspoint, NASA, Galleria, Fort Bend, etc...?

It's an even worse situation in Austin and San Antonio!

You're right that we'd need more mass transit infrastructure to serve intercity commuters once they're here. Having a regional Maglev system like I propose would generate a lot of ridership on those LRT, BRT, and Commuter Rail lines that serve the Downtown area and other urban activity centers. That'll help the FTA justify investments in our infrastructure as well as that of San Antonio and Austin.

Having said that, see my explanation of the use of cabs and rental cars above.

i personally dont like this iron trip idea because using maglev it would be prohibitively expensive. Conventional high speed rail can be somewhat affordable by individual state. I can see maglev being more of a national project and the lines will probably be up north along the east coast But then if it was maglev it would be waaay faster and you could have stuff like you described going on with people commuting and forming a megalopolis.

But either way, TTC sucks. and the people of this state arent going to let the stupid thing get build.Watch it die in the near future. I bet alot of people want the thing for the high speed rail, the Uber highway isnt necessary. Use that money saved by not building it to get 59 ready for interstate status and upgrade current 2 lane roads into nice highways and the rest can go for a effective and useful bullet train that will actually connect cities instead of running on the edges of them.

yeah, thats the one thing. but then airports in places like Phoenix function just fine. I would imagine a HSR station in america would be like an airport with plenty of long term parking and rent a car places and lots of bus services. Basically, i guess this would compete with intercity air travel. it would be slower, but the cool thing is that it would be a lot cheaper(HSR costs alot to build but its cheaper to operate compared to air service) and also hopefully security wouldnt be as bad(oh god i hope so)

Can you explain how the Maglev would be prohibitively expensive? Also, this is not merely an investment by the State, but would certainly qualify for FTA funding. If the Woodlands Water Taxi can get FTA funding, then how could this not get funding?

My concern about the TTC is that most people aren't single-issue voters and that when they vote politicians into office, they know already that whoever they choose is not going to have a platform that they agree on 100%. Besides, the TTC may suck as a proposal, but it is doing something to upgrade our infrastructure and will win votes just because it is a visible policy issue toward that end. And voters seem to generally like the idea of adding transportation infrastructure, even if they don't always agree on how it is implemented.

I would be concerned somewhat about the security issues. Europe has determined the hard way that passenger rail makes a good target. I'm sure that terrorists would take notice if they had the opportunity to strike a Maglev connector train to the world's largest airport. That'd be a big "it could've been me" psychological strike.

[lockmat]

I'm bumpin this thread. I think it's an awesome idea.

Niche, are there any Texas politicians even thinking along these lines?

[TheNiche]

I'm bumpin this thread. I think it's an awesome idea.

Niche, are there any Texas politicians even thinking along these lines?

Not to my knowledge. There are folks talking about the possibility of high-speed rail along similar routes, but I don't think that that would be efficient enough for most people. With the maglev, so much time can be saved that most people would be willing to put up with the hassle of renting a car, grabbing a taxi, or using mass transit if it meant that they didn't have to either fly or drive.

And this gives rise to the potentials for inter-city commuting as have never before been fathomed. Do you realize how many corporate headquarters our state could pull out of NYC and LA (much less our sunbelt competitors) if we had an equivalent effective labor pool, in addition to significantly lower costs of living and doing business, less government red tape, and access to the world's largest and most connected airport which is also in relatively close proximity to both coasts and the rustbelt?

Blows my mind.

[lockmat]

Not to my knowledge. There are folks talking about the possibility of high-speed rail along similar routes, but I don't think that that would be efficient enough for most people. With the maglev, so much time can be saved that most people would be willing to put up with the hassle of renting a car, grabbing a taxi, or using mass transit if it meant that they didn't have to either fly or drive.

And this gives rise to the potentials for inter-city commuting as have never before been fathomed. Do you realize how many corporate headquarters our state could pull out of NYC and LA (much less our sunbelt competitors) if we had an equivalent effective labor pool, in addition to significantly lower costs of living and doing business, less government red tape, and access to the world's largest and most connected airport which is also in relatively close proximity to both coasts and the rustbelt?

Blows my mind.

In argument for high-speed trains, won't those still take people away from SWA? And I don't see a difference in peoples decision making when it comes to renting a car or grabbing a taxi. If they flew, wouldn't they still have to do that anyway? Plus, I think people who were going to drive would use this instead, because right now there is no other option but SWA. I wonder what the average high-speed ticket would be to Dallas? How fast could one take you from Houston to Dallas anyway?

As for Maglev, would you rather them still build it even if it means that it will take longer, rather than just going ahead and building high-speed right now?

And why can't Perry look past highways and towards something like this? Can we not get lucky just once and land a politician who is as gung-ho about trains as a lot of people are?

[bachanon]

it would seem that the two texas cities to connect via high-speed rail the quickest will benefit the most. it is unlikely that a "texas-sized" grand plan will come together anytime soon. it would seem more likely that san antonio/austin would be able to agree on a commuter or a high-speed connection sooner than others, IMO.

houston should get it's intermodal terminal built downtown and be lobbying another city to connect via high speed. it could, conceivably, combine job markets and employee bases and take traffic off of major arteries between the two cities.

[lockmat]

it would seem that the two texas cities to connect via high-speed rail the quickest will benefit the most. it is unlikely that a "texas-sized" grand plan will come together anytime soon. it would seem more likely that san antonio/austin would be able to agree on a commuter or a high-speed connection sooner than others, IMO.

houston should get it's intermodal terminal built downtown and be lobbying another city to connect via high speed. it could, conceivably, combine job markets and employee bases and take traffic off of major arteries between the two cities.

Austin-SA already have something planned. I don't think it's high-speed or anything though, but I don't think it needs to be anyway with such proximity.

http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/all-systems-go.shtml

[TheNiche]

In argument for high-speed trains, won't those still take people away from SWA? And I don't see a difference in peoples decision making when it comes to renting a car or grabbing a taxi. If they flew, wouldn't they still have to do that anyway? Plus, I think people who were going to drive would use this instead, because right now there is no other option but SWA. I wonder what the average high-speed ticket would be to Dallas? How fast could one take you from Houston to Dallas anyway?

To my knowledge, high speed trains as have been discussed would typically travel at speeds just a little bit higher than a car on the interstate. That eliminates the potential for commuting on a regular basis except possibly between Austin and San Antonio, but even then it'd probably make more sense for most people to drive because both cities are so spread out and most people are not already close to their origin or destination at either end of the line. Although a similarly-designed network of high-speed rail would compete somewhat with SWA and other air carriers along these routes, it wouldn't be a complete replacement.

Frankly, I'm not completely convinced of the benefit of a high-speed rail system. It still carries a fairly high cost to it, but the marginal benefit over air travel is mediocre...it'd be positive, but not revolutionary in the way that maglev could be.

As for Maglev, would you rather them still build it even if it means that it will take longer, rather than just going ahead and building high-speed right now?

Yes.

And why can't Perry look past highways and towards something like this? Can we not get lucky just once and land a politician who is as gung-ho about trains as a lot of people are?

I don't know what is going through Perry's mind...never have. Back when I was in high school, Perry was in his first year as governor and was at some event in McAllen for which the local band was performing. While he was being introduced at length by the city official, Perry stood behind the percussion row and gave a friend of mine a brief shoulder massage. My friend just sat there, stunned. He's just a weird guy.

Anyway, to be clear, I'm typically not all that gung ho on trains. I usually consider them to be large and costly investments that produce only a very limited amount of marginal benefit. Maglev is potentially very different, especially if implemented in a coordinated way as I suggest.

[lockmat]

Frankly, I'm not completely convinced of the benefit of a high-speed rail system. It still carries a fairly high cost to it, but the marginal benefit over air travel is mediocre...it'd be positive, but not revolutionary in the way that maglev could be.

True, but...although the benifit would only be marginal in terms of cost and time, what about the citizen and the hidden costs you talked about earlier like faster depreciation in cars and having to fix them. Not to mention the other hidden benefits like stress of driving and being able to travel at night and sleep at the same time. I'm sure there's a few more that I'm not thinking of. And I'm not saying these benefits weight enough to justify it, I'm just trying to make some points.

[TheNiche]

True, but...although the benifit would only be marginal in terms of cost and time, what about the citizen and the hidden costs you talked about earlier like faster depreciation in cars and having to fix them. Not to mention the other hidden benefits like stress of driving and being able to travel at night and sleep at the same time. I'm sure there's a few more that I'm not thinking of. And I'm not saying these benefits weight enough to justify it, I'm just trying to make some points.

Trains, trackage, stations, and everything else that supports them depreciate too. What's more is that we already have infrastructure in place to handle travel by road and air, and they don't require a huge initial captial investment. And because high-speed trains as are proposed wouldn't completely eliminate the need for highways and the airports that wouldn't exist without service to major Texas cities, we'd then have just one more kind of infrastructure that continues to depreciate without necessarily removing other infrastructure from the process of depreciation. To me, that seems like marginal benefit at a high cost.

The 'stress of driving' argument is true for many people but not for others. I suspect that there is a fair amount of net benefit from it, but like you suggested, I'm not sure that it's enough.

[desirous]

Maglev is a bad idea. What is the point, if there is no public transport to move people around at the destination? I rode the Shanghai maglev on a trip, and even people there gripe about inconvenience, and there is a freaking subway right below the maglev station.

[lockmat]

Maglev is a bad idea. What is the point, if there is no public transport to move people around at the destination? I rode the Shanghai maglev on a trip, and even people there gripe about inconvenience, and there is a freaking subway right below the maglev station.

I think someone made the point in one of the posts above that the transporation at your destination would still be necessary. So if that's in place, it's not a bad idea.

[TheNiche]

Maglev is a bad idea. What is the point, if there is no public transport to move people around at the destination? I rode the Shanghai maglev on a trip, and even people there gripe about inconvenience, and there is a freaking subway right below the maglev station.

Would you rather drive or fly between these cities if it costs you more and takes more of your time to do so?

This is more than just a commuter rail line. This is a replacement for obsolete transportation infrastructure.

I think someone made the point in one of the posts above that the transporation at your destination would still be necessary. So if that's in place, it's not a bad idea.

Correct. And if all of the Texas inter-city air traffic were routed through downtown hubs rather than airports, it would undoubtedly create justification for more expansive mass transit systems.

Even then, there'd always be the taxi and rental car options, just like at an airport...but centralized.

[desirous]

Would you rather drive or fly between these cities if it costs you more and takes more of your time to do so?

If the inconvenience of renting a car at the destination each time is taken into account, I doubt I would prefer rail over driving. Besides, there is already a low-cost alternative for intercity travel, that being Greyhound. Can't beat $29 round trip between Austin and Houston. Maglev ticket prices would have to be precipitously high to cover construction costs, and remember that ridership would never amount to much. 25% of intercity traffic is only a few hundred thousand people. To be self-sufficient, each ticket would cost more than first-class airfare.

Sure, rebuilding our cities in Japanese fashion would be great, but so would be federally funded free beer. The reality is, whomever you visit is likely to be in Plano or Sugar Land or Pflugerville.

[TheNiche]

25% of intercity traffic is only a few hundred thousand people.

Actually, 25% of 12.4 million is 3.1 million...although I'm not sure where you got 25% from or how you intended to apply it. And as a result of the added convenience of intercity travel, considerably more trips would be induced. I suggest that you go back and read through the initial set of posts. Amazing things can happen when seperate cities become more integrated with one another.

If the inconvenience of renting a car at the destination each time is taken into account, I doubt I would prefer rail over driving. Besides, there is already a low-cost alternative for intercity travel, that being Greyhound. Can't beat $29 round trip between Austin and Houston. Maglev ticket prices would have to be precipitously high to cover construction costs, and remember that ridership would never amount to much.

Sure, rebuilding our cities in Japanese fashion would be great, but so would be federally funded free beer. The reality is, whomever you visit is likely to be in Plano or Sugar Land or Pflugerville.

Car rental is relatively inexpensive compared with the option of driving between cities, and I've always found the process to be pretty easy. And there's always the taxi option or the option for someone to pick you up. Depends on your needs while you're there.

Greyhound is a pretty sorry excuse for intercity transit. It is slow, service quality is poor, and it's too easy to miss a bus at one of the frequent stops. It is inferior. Considering that the marginal cost of carrying additional passengers on the maglev would be minimal and that the service is undeniably superior, it would seem to make more sense to reduce the fare to a point at which all competing forms of intercity mass transportation were eliminated.

Sure, rebuilding our cities in Japanese fashion would be great, but so would be federally funded free beer.

I'm not sure that beer and mass transit are comparable goods.

[desirous]

Actually, 25% of 12.4 million is 3.1 million...although I'm not sure where you got 25% from or how you intended to apply it. And as a result of the added convenience of intercity travel, considerably more trips would be induced. I suggest that you go back and read through the initial set of posts. Amazing things can happen when seperate cities become more integrated with one another.

Somehow I got fixated on the Houston-Dallas figure. Whoops.

Amazing things happen when separate cities with functional transport become integrated. Texas cities do not have functional transport beyond the automobile. No self-respecting middle-aged traveler is going to bother taking METRO or DART buses for 1-2 hours from downtown to exurbia. Without a car rental, even visiting the corner CVS is physically impossible, not to say conduct any semblance of a normal life. To delude oneself into thinking otherwise is, well, foolish.

How would that reduced fare recoup investment costs? It wouldn't even pay for the interest on such a massive bond issue, for that matter.

Greyhound actually has a number of advantages, such as the option of buying tickets on the spot, or the ability to use a ticket on any bus of one's choice. It (usually) also provides downtown-to-downtown transit.

Car rentals are not accessible to individuals under age 25, which comprise a notable portion of intercity traffic. Students make more intercity trips than most working people.

I'm not sure that beer and mass transit are comparable goods.

Free beer and maglev are comparable goods; comparably ludicrous, that is. You sound like you've been reading too much LaRouche. That man needs to pack up his bags and move to China - his plan would work great there, not here. Some dreams simply defy reality.

Edit: My opinion is, your energy is better devoted to advocating conventional (high speed, preferably) rail transport. It is at least somewhat economically feasible. Long-distance maglev is a pipe dream whose ridiculousness undermines the momentum to build more realistic alternatives, and I really am tired of IAH. No offense.

[TheNiche]

Amazing things happen when separate cities with functional transport become integrated. Texas cities do not have functional transport beyond the automobile. No self-respecting middle-aged traveler is going to bother taking METRO or DART buses for 1-2 hours from downtown to exurbia. Without a car rental, even visiting the corner CVS is physically impossible, not to say conduct any semblance of a normal life. To delude oneself into thinking otherwise is, well, foolish.

Well you are correct in stating that the spatial integration of the cities would not be perfect (i.e. the effect is not simply to overlay several cities on top of each other). I've given some thought to the equivalent spatial distribution of employment and residential densities for the aggregate of the four cities as could be influenced by a downtown-to-downtown maglev connection, and it seems that the only viable commute for most (though certainly not all) inter-city commuters would be between urban cores. I could envision a lot of residents of Houston's Inner Loop being entirely prepared to work in downtown Dallas or perhaps up toward Mockingbird.

How would that reduced fare recoup investment costs? It wouldn't even pay for the interest on such a massive bond issue, for that matter.

Financing is open to debate. But here's my thing: even if we let the private sector supply our transportation needs, they are still utilizing economic resources to do so. I'm usually more libertarian-leaning than to suggest plans like this, but am pragmatic enough to recognize that if the public sector can provide the same goods more efficiently, then they should. It is about maximizing the societal wealth. And for the public sector, it can be paid for entirely out of taxes, entirely out of user fees, by selling the operation to a private firm and granting a regulated monopoly power, or any number of other schemes and hybrids.

Car rentals are not accessible to individuals under age 25, which comprise a notable portion of intercity traffic. Students make more intercity trips than most working people.

False. I've rented several cars before in various states, and I'm under 25. I only had a problem once when I was in Florida for business and was a couple months shy of 21. All I had to do was find a seedy rental place, though, and that problem was solved.

Free beer and maglev are comparable goods; comparably ludicrous, that is. You sound like you've been reading too much LaRouche. That man needs to pack up his bags and move to China - his plan would work great there, not here. Some dreams simply defy reality.

Edit: My opinion is, your energy is better devoted to advocating conventional (high speed, preferably) rail transport. It is at least somewhat economically feasible. Long-distance maglev is a pipe dream whose ridiculousness undermines the momentum to build more realistic alternatives, and I really am tired of IAH. No offense.

No, LaRouche isn't exactly my style...at all.

I don't believe high speed rail to be economically feasible. The cost of implementation is very high and the benefit is marginal.

[Mr. Chenevert]

You are forgetting about a couple of things....

1) Once I commute from Dallas to Houston, how do I actually get to my job. Do I have to keep a car in Houston?

2) If we put one jumbo airport in College Station for the majority of air traffic, what happens when there is bad weather in College Station? Pretty much every traveler in the state of Texas is screwed huh?

[desirous]

High speed rail is functionally similar to maglev but cheaper to implement, albeit a bit slower.

Commuting between Houston and Dallas would be prohibitively expensive. I would estimate at least $100 round trip; anything less than that tickles my common sense. Also, even with maglev, that trip would be ~75 minutes each way, equivalent to driving from Huntsville to Houston.

Accessing downtown from many parts of the Inner Loop by bus is too inconvenient for the average yuppie. Dallas, ironically, has it worked out better. They still have significant capacity to grow transit-oriented-developments along their DART rail lines. Theoretically, one could build a veritable edge city on each station... they just have to do that first. It would be a boon for the city's development, since the total mass of a transit development is the sum of all the developments on a line, e.g., if all necessary products and services are available at one station or another. Austin is also in a better position than Houston, with its vibrant central section, downtown-centric bus network, and the University of Texas. Austin also has enviable rates of downtown residential construction.

So how about that? A Dallas-Austin line first, no?