The Iron Tripod

[lockmat]

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?

A couple of the posts above mention that sufficient public transit in the cities participating would be necessary.

[lockmat]

Niche, have you seen this site?

http://www.transrapid-usa.com/main.asp

[desirous]

A couple of the posts above mention that sufficient public transit in the cities participating would be necessary.

Here in Texas? That's like saying humans growing wings would be necessary.

[TheNiche]

Niche, have you seen this site?

http://www.transrapid-usa.com/main.asp

Nope. Thanks for the link.

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.

On what set of assumptions did you derive these numbers?

[lockmat]

Here in Texas? That's like saying humans growing wings would be necessary.

That might not even be completely true, I don't know. Not everyone flying short distances is going to see g'ma and g'pa anyway.

[desirous]

That might not even be completely true, I don't know. Not everyone flying short distances is going to see g'ma and g'pa anyway.

No one's growing wings anytime soon, any more than they are growing gills.

[GovernorAggie]

Niche, I didn't realize you were so young, man! Welcome to the party!

That being said, first of all, I was stunned to see what you suggested--and I like it! I think is the least bit you'd get Brazos Valley politicians on board because they've been crying about being "the largest metropolitan area in Texas (maybe even the US) not on the Interstate system". I know the same can be said for the RGV, but at least they're slated be get their link through I-69.

Secondly, I like the idea of closing Hobby. The Stapleton redevelopment in Denver could be a good example of redevelopment, but Hobby is also not terribly too far from NASA, so it could emerge as a hub of more aerospace supporting industries--revitalizing that entire area.

Thirdly, I like the idea of Maglev as a technology instead of "proven" high speed rail. This is Texas, right? We are supposed to do everything everyone else does, but bigger, better, and faster. If it can happen anywhere, why NOT Texas. And I think that people would ride it--plenty of people. I think that it would provide a new travel option for Texans and even for people traveling to the State. Business could be conducted in an entirely different way, especially if tickets cost less than an airline ticket--particularly on short notice.

To fund it, I think that you would have the state build it, and if the state showed its willingness enough, you could probably even get a huge amount of funding in the form of demonstration project funds. I would even not rule out seeking money from the airlines. To save on land costs, I would try building it in current state ROW as much as possible (maybe using Interstates, SH, FM, RM, and other roads). It would have be to elevated given the high speeds, so you have no traffic conflicts.

I also would have no problem with a Cintra-esque arrangement of allowing someone to build it, charge a fare (with the ceiling provided by the state) and allowing them to lease the state's air rights at stations for development.

I'm just thinking that as a Rockets fan, if I want to see them play at San Antonio or Dallas, for the price of a round trip in my car plus wear and tear, I could leave after work, go to the game, and come back all before midnight.

I also think that development of Galveston and Corpus would explode because a once-in-a-while trip for North and Central Texans to the beach will easily become a monthly thing. The money that would've been spent on a hotel can be spent on a train ticket, because if it only takes a couple hours--the time of watching a DVD--to get from Dallas to Galveston (instead of the 5+ it now takes), it becomes a simple trip to make.

[MidtownCoog]

Scale back Hobby? Are you people crazy?

Hobby has non-stops to BWI, LAX and JFK.

I wouldn't exactly call that regional.

[KinkaidAlum]

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

You don't believe high speed rail is economically feasible but you think closing down Hobby after a recent renovation of hundreds of millions of dollars is worth exploring?

You call yourself a Libertarian but want the government to sell Hobby to developers and evict a private corporation that has spent millions on upgrading the Airport (Southwest Airlines)? This doesn't even begin to talk about the implications for other airlines (American Eagle, Comair, JetBlue, Air Tran), numerous private operators, rental car companies, parking garage operators, and the numerous hotels that are built up solely because of the airport...

[TheNiche]

You don't believe high speed rail is economically feasible but you think closing down Hobby after a recent renovation of hundreds of millions of dollars is worth exploring?

Sunk cost fallacy.

You call yourself a Libertarian but want the government to sell Hobby to developers and evict a private corporation that has spent millions on upgrading the Airport (Southwest Airlines)? This doesn't even begin to talk about the implications for other airlines (American Eagle, Comair, JetBlue, Air Tran), numerous private operators, rental car companies, parking garage operators, and the numerous hotels that are built up solely because of the airport...

I don't call myself a Libertarian. I dated one, met a bunch of them in the process, and concluded that the LP has a doctrine of near-Anarchy that doesn't account for many pragmatic considerations where government interference is necessary and desirable to ensure the well-being of the whole of society. The other two parties are subject to analogous problems, btw. If I had the means, I'd found the "Pragmatist Party", but that's beyond my reach at this time.

The government would have to compensate airlines for any breaches of contract or for confiscation or destruction of private property. That is not unusual. The off-site businesses reliant upon business from Hobby, on the other hand, are screwed. Fortunately, the demand for their services would not be diminished (in fact, new demand would be induced), but the spatial aspects of that demand would be displaced to the area surrounding Maglev stations, preferably in the area of cities' Central Business Districts. I wouldn't imagine that you'd have a problem with that, Kinkaid.

[RedScare]

If I had the means, I'd found the "Pragmatist Party", but that's beyond my reach at this time.

If nominated, I would run. If elected, I would serve.

Sadly, it would never stand a chance in this country.

[MidtownCoog]

And how about this NASA/Hobby connection?

Have you folks ever been to Clear Lake? Does Ellington Field ring a bell?

Crack is whack.

[GovernorAggie]

Have you folks ever been to Clear Lake? Does Ellington Field ring a bell?

Touche. Been to Clear Lake. Forgot Ellington was even there--whatever that means.

I still think it's a good idea--even without closing Hobby.

[TheNiche]

If nominated, I would run. If elected, I would serve.

Sadly, it would never stand a chance in this country.

I don't know, both parties are pretty weak right now IMO. ...but you're probably right.

It might catch on locally or regionally in a few places, but even then, its hard to fight the dual 800-pound gorillas.

[JustinUther]

You know the more I read in these boards the more I like the way you think Niche.

We need to have something that works. When I first moved back to Texas I had an impulse to drive from Houston to Abilene to visit family for Thanksgiving Dinner. Of course Mapquest directed me to go up I-45 to I-20. That was a dumb idea (Yeah, I can admit when I have those.) I got so frustrated with sitting in traffic that I called my Dad to tell him that I was just going to stay in town. I know that you don't think we need any west of I-35 but I'm sure that if we can get the major arteries built then we can branch out. The cities that are being served will find a way to connect either publicly or privately. So tell everyone to quit lollygagging and "Let's move some people!". Leave the roads to the freight hauling tractor trailers.

[marc]

^^^TheNiche, someone just showed me this link.

I think your idea is brilliant.

Are you in a position to grease any political/economical wheels to get it done?"

m.

[TheNiche]

^^^TheNiche, someone just showed me this link.

I think your idea is brilliant.

Are you in a position to grease any political/economical wheels to get it done?"

m.

Very surprisingly, yes.

...but I've come to find that there are a few physical and many political hurdles.

Physical problems are rooted in the fact that the kinds of speeds that I'd initially understood were possible tend only to be obtainable on test tracks that are straight and level. ...but "straight and level" is not a naturally-occurring condition and there could be some extreme PR problems that could come up if an expensively-engineered straight line happened to cut directly through established communities. There would also have to be extensive noise mitigation in urban and suburban areas.

The 'T-Bone' configuration is the only one that is politically feasible at the state level because it could have an economic impact up and down the populous I-35 corridor and also serve Fort Hood, which creates the possibility of military-related federal funding. But it is troubling because right now, the talk is about a dual system along the same ROW. One line would provide express service between the major metropolitan areas and another seperate line would provide slower local service. The problem that I anticipate is that the vast majority of ridership will be between the major cities (i.e. express) and that what is left over will not be sufficient to justify the local routes...except that the local routes are necessary in order to obtain legislative approval. What I forsee is that the express routes would be built as part of a first phase, and that nothing beyond that would ever happen because it wouldn't be economically justifiable and because the big cities would at that point not be very supportive of it. ...so we'd be stuck with a 'T-Bone' that is optimal for use between Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio, but that makes trip times between Houston and everywhere else much higher than they otherwise would've been with more of a 'Tripod' configuration.

Another aspect that I don't much care for is that the airports are the most likely terminuses, rather than Central Business Districts. The result is that the inter-city commuter function is all but eliminated and that future airport consolidation becomes an effective impossibility.

Bottom line: the idea has traction, but by the time that various special interests have modified it to their liking, it may be worthless. Too many chefs spoil the pot.

[RedScare]

While the track layout may be advantageous, your suggestion that one enormous airport should serve 7 of Texas' largest cities is not realistic. Even if rail speeds of 400 mph were achievable, not everyone would find going to a rail station to get to an airport 100 miles away convenient. Plus, Houston and Dallas are justifiably very proud of their airports, and would not give them up easily, especially since both cities see their airports as economic generators. Add in the fact that airspace is congested already...combining 2 of the nation's largest would make it a nightmare...and, one monster airport becomes a chokepoint if something happens, such as bad weather in College Station, or a runway accident, causing gridlock for the entire state. As it now stands, air traffic can be diverted to half a dozen airports with ease.

A better case can be made for connecting the existing airports with high speed rail. Even if they terminate at the airports, city leaders would see clearly the need to connect city centers to the airports with an efficient commuter rail link. This is done fairly efficiently in Germany. In fact, Chridtof writes about it in his CTC blog.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...-centered-city/

[musicman]

A better case can be made for connecting the existing airports with high speed rail. Even if they terminate at the airports, city leaders would see clearly the need to connect city centers to the airports with an efficient commuter rail link.

Tell that to METRO's CEO Frank Wilson since we're not headed in that direction.

[Mr. Chenevert]

Not that it really matters since Maglev's are still hella fast, but your average speed of 268mph is incorrect. That is the maximum speed that the Shanghai track obtains.

It is mostly limited by the length of the track. It takes a LONG time (approx 12 miles) to get up to that speed. It takes another 12 miles to come to a stop.

The Shanghai maglev only travels at 268mph for a short distance (roughly 6 miles).

It could easily take 50 miles to accelerate to 400mph.

Just for kicks, I have some video that I shot when riding the Maglev.

Video 1

Video 2

[RedScare]

Tell that to METRO's CEO Frank Wilson since we're not headed in that direction.

If high speed rail were on the horizon, Frank Wilson would be on board. Since it is not even past a conceptual stage, much less financial, Wilson is smart to look to express bus service to serve IAH commuter needs. A commuter link to IAH can be designed, built and operational in a fraction of the time that intrastate high speed rail can be. There would be plenty of time for Wilson to change his mind.

[TheNiche]

While the track layout may be advantageous, your suggestion that one enormous airport should serve 7 of Texas' largest cities is not realistic. Even if rail speeds of 400 mph were achievable, not everyone would find going to a rail station to get to an airport 100 miles away convenient. Plus, Houston and Dallas are justifiably very proud of their airports, and would not give them up easily, especially since both cities see their airports as economic generators. Add in the fact that airspace is congested already...combining 2 of the nation's largest would make it a nightmare...and, one monster airport becomes a chokepoint if something happens, such as bad weather in College Station, or a runway accident, causing gridlock for the entire state. As it now stands, air traffic can be diverted to half a dozen airports with ease.

A better case can be made for connecting the existing airports with high speed rail. Even if they terminate at the airports, city leaders would see clearly the need to connect city centers to the airports with an efficient commuter rail link. This is done fairly efficiently in Germany. In fact, Chridtof writes about it in his CTC blog.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...-centered-city/

I'm sure that there would still be several airports capable of handling diverted traffic in emergency situations. Also, with proper design and foresight, air traffic congestion can be mitigated. As for the distance issue, I don't think that physical distance from cities is nearly as important as time distance. What is absolutely a valid criticism is that Houston and Dallas economic development interests could become divided over the issue. On the one hand, most business interests would really like the idea of having the world's most highly-trafficked and best-connected airport in their back yard but just far enough away to prevent all the air and noise pollution from being a factor; on the other hand, a lot of airport employees would have to be laid off or relocate, and they'd certainly throw a fit.

[TheNiche]

Not that it really matters since Maglev's are still hella fast, but your average speed of 268mph is incorrect. That is the maximum speed that the Shanghai track obtains.

It is mostly limited by the length of the track. It takes a LONG time (approx 12 miles) to get up to that speed. It takes another 12 miles to come to a stop.

The Shanghai maglev only travels at 268mph for a short distance (roughly 6 miles).

It could easily take 50 miles to accelerate to 400mph.

Yeah, acceleration/deceleration is another physical limitation that I'd come upon, at least conceptually, but I hadn't seen any hard numbers, so thanks for contributing. Depending on how the technology was implemented in Texas, the average speed could be considerably higher than 268mph on account of that we've got so much more distance to cover than does the Shang Hai line. The actual average speed (and thus, the total trip time) seem to be very much up in the air, and are a function of technology, route/configuration, and number of stops...add to that any time from transferring to and riding other modes to get from airports to CBDs.