Texas could get a bullet train between Houston and Dallas(popsci.com)
popsci.com
Texas could get a bullet train between Houston and Dallas
https://www.popsci.com/technology/amtrak-bullet-train-texas/
96 comments
I will never give up the freedom and convenience to go where I want, when I want, and with whom I want that a car provides and public transportation can never.
> There is no HSR happening.
https://hsr.ca.gov/
SF-LA high-speed rail
https://hsr.ca.gov/
SF-LA high-speed rail
Why not link to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail which states:
" Since its inception in 2008, the Group has issued 18 letters and members have testified before Legislative and Congressional committees 15 times. In reviewing past letters and testimony, a consistent theme emerges: 1) project costs, schedules, and ridership estimates are uncertain and subject to significant risk of deteriorating, a typical experience for mega-projects; 2) the project is underfunded, and its financing is unstable, raising costs and making effective management difficult if not impossible; 3) more legislative oversight is needed. This letter reinforces the message, but with a sense of urgency over the ever-higher stakes.[6] "
Also: "Per the 2023 Project Status Report, the authority indicated the Interim IOS will go into service before December 31, 2030, with a "risk factor" of three years (which runs until the end of 2033)."
In the period between 2008-2023, several other countries (not just China) have started and completed many HSR projects.
" Since its inception in 2008, the Group has issued 18 letters and members have testified before Legislative and Congressional committees 15 times. In reviewing past letters and testimony, a consistent theme emerges: 1) project costs, schedules, and ridership estimates are uncertain and subject to significant risk of deteriorating, a typical experience for mega-projects; 2) the project is underfunded, and its financing is unstable, raising costs and making effective management difficult if not impossible; 3) more legislative oversight is needed. This letter reinforces the message, but with a sense of urgency over the ever-higher stakes.[6] "
Also: "Per the 2023 Project Status Report, the authority indicated the Interim IOS will go into service before December 31, 2030, with a "risk factor" of three years (which runs until the end of 2033)."
In the period between 2008-2023, several other countries (not just China) have started and completed many HSR projects.
Why should I link the wikipedia page? The current link perfectly rebuts OP's claim.
The last mile argument is often ignored, but it's very important in this discussion. What's the point of traveling fast by a train, unless you're going exactly to the downtown? Without a reliable public transport, it might be more efficient to travel by car since you won't have to rent one or Uber everywhere.
It's ignored because it's the Achilles heel of all anti-car arguments. Even places with famed public transit don't actually provide the level of freedom and convenience rabid anti car people suggest outside of specific circumstances like rush hour and exclusive downtown usage. This is fine actually, public transit is awesome and we should build more of it, make it more reliable, etc because it benefits a lot of people but it's not a society level car replacer.
Even when you don't have the last mile problem, mass transit is much slower than a car. I can take light rail to the airport, getting to and from each train station on foot only takes a minute or two, but the train ride itself is 50+ minutes whereas the same journey with a car is about 20 minutes.
This is downtown Seattle to SeaTac I'm talking about, in case anybody wants to dispute this. Your starting point and destination can both be right on top of train-stations and cars still beat it easily because cars don't stop at a dozen train stations in between.
This said, I still use the light rail when I'm not in a hurry because it's pleasant. But there is absolutely a convenience price to pay with mass transit. Going anywhere takes longer in almost all circumstances, even when you account for traffic slowing cars down.
This is downtown Seattle to SeaTac I'm talking about, in case anybody wants to dispute this. Your starting point and destination can both be right on top of train-stations and cars still beat it easily because cars don't stop at a dozen train stations in between.
This said, I still use the light rail when I'm not in a hurry because it's pleasant. But there is absolutely a convenience price to pay with mass transit. Going anywhere takes longer in almost all circumstances, even when you account for traffic slowing cars down.
[deleted]
You are also allowed to have bike share, buses, subway/light rail, and taxis. No one is saying trains are the only mode of transportation. I’ve lived in midwestern states with miles of farmland. In the town center, a bus network and bike paths meant I almost never needed a car. Folks who lived outside of town had the option to drive in and park their car at commuter lots.
Also this is what railway lines looked liked in the US when we cared to build out our train infrastructure: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/57/ee/3c57eeffb7e1a3c78691.... Just because the US is big doesn’t mean we can’t build tracks.
Also this is what railway lines looked liked in the US when we cared to build out our train infrastructure: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/57/ee/3c57eeffb7e1a3c78691.... Just because the US is big doesn’t mean we can’t build tracks.
It's not about what you're allowed.
The reason this won't happen is the USA just can't build major public infrastructure anymore.
Europe, the East ... even parts of the developing world have surpassed them in this regard.
The reason this won't happen is the USA just can't build major public infrastructure anymore.
Europe, the East ... even parts of the developing world have surpassed them in this regard.
That observation is greatly amplified by the existing "successful" northeastern Amtrak corridor (relative to the rest of the Amtrak network), interconnecting northeastern cities like New York and Washington D.C. that have amongst the best local public transport in the US. Cities outside the northeast, not so much.
America has very popular mass transit between cities; airplanes.
The TSA/etc overhead make this suck for short-distance hops and from an environmental perspective it isn't very exciting, but it proves the point that Americans are willing to leave their car behind when traveling if the mass transit offers sufficient advantage over cars.
The TSA/etc overhead make this suck for short-distance hops and from an environmental perspective it isn't very exciting, but it proves the point that Americans are willing to leave their car behind when traveling if the mass transit offers sufficient advantage over cars.
> The TSA/etc overhead make this suck for short-distance hops
It’s more than that. Downtown airports are very few and far between. It’s not uncommon to have to spend more time traveling to/from the airport than in the air on a short flight.
It’s more than that. Downtown airports are very few and far between. It’s not uncommon to have to spend more time traveling to/from the airport than in the air on a short flight.
Indeed. Too much land in Texas is privately owned, and there is not majority support for this type of thing. It is easy to think otherwise if you generally stick to the big cities here.
TxDOT is also actively making the problem worse by widening I-35 through Austin, which will result in a decade of construction. They could support alternative transit if they chose to, but it will never happen.
Even in cities with majority support for this type of thing, we can't get it done. See: Austin's Project Connect failure.
The problem is that most Americans have never lived in an area that is not car dependent and experienced the benefits. Their biggest exposure has likely been on a trip to Europe/Asia (and they wonder why the area they visited is so much nicer than their home city, never quite making the connection!).
TxDOT is also actively making the problem worse by widening I-35 through Austin, which will result in a decade of construction. They could support alternative transit if they chose to, but it will never happen.
Even in cities with majority support for this type of thing, we can't get it done. See: Austin's Project Connect failure.
The problem is that most Americans have never lived in an area that is not car dependent and experienced the benefits. Their biggest exposure has likely been on a trip to Europe/Asia (and they wonder why the area they visited is so much nicer than their home city, never quite making the connection!).
One strategy that might actually work is what Brightline is doing- they want to build high speed rail between LA and Las Vegas by putting their rail line in the median of I-15 so they don’t need to acquire any additional land since the DOT already owns it.
Why is the conclusion always "Americans are just ignorant of what's good for them" instead of acknowledging different people have different preferences in life?
It is fine to have different preferences, but American city design has contributed to multiple negative externalities such as the obesity epidemic, lack of social connection, environmental damage, etc. Some preferences can be better, for a commonly accepted definition of better, than others.
Also, American cities bar NYC, DC, and a few others do not allow for people to have preferences; you are forced to live a car-centric lifestyle whether you want to or not.
Also, American cities bar NYC, DC, and a few others do not allow for people to have preferences; you are forced to live a car-centric lifestyle whether you want to or not.
People choose with their feet (wheels?). Americans are much more likely to move around, more so for big city dwellers.
Because sometime in the mid-00s (last I checked, I wasn't paying much attention before then) anti-americanism became extremely popular among US liberals (where a sizable portion of HN culture comes from). Usually portraying Americans as fat, stupid, violent, extremely religious, etc. It's come and gone in the years since, right now it's not a huge influence on public culture probably at least partially because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but obviously it still has a lot of pull with people who strongly disagree with the prevailing US approach to transit.
I live near Los Angeles and talk to people there. As an outsider the situation seems crazy and impossible. They complain a bit, but they brag more. It works for them, somehow. It’s not for me, but that’s fine.
I wonder if anyone has looked at population homogeneity vs transit adoption? It seems reasonable that higher trust societies would be more positive towards modes of travel involving mingling with the general public, and high trust society -ness correlates with cultural (at least) homogeneity.
I think this is probably the root of the problem in the US, including the “what will happen to my home values” type sentiments. Not saying that this is “right” morally, but blaming “car culture” as if it is some isolated delusion without deeper causes is probably not accurate.
I think this is probably the root of the problem in the US, including the “what will happen to my home values” type sentiments. Not saying that this is “right” morally, but blaming “car culture” as if it is some isolated delusion without deeper causes is probably not accurate.
Yes, in the book 'City Comforts' by David Sucher the connection between the two is established for less dense cities. But it's a forbidden conclusion now so good luck with your wrong think.
Agreed. Poor intra-city transit and lack of mixed use density in our city cores is what makes HSR unfeasible.
I recently traveled to Germany on business, traveled from Berlin to Munich via the ICE inter-city train.
Arrived in downtown Munich, hotel was 7.3 miles driving from the station. I jumped on the u-bahn made a quick transfer at Odeonsplatz and arrived at the hotel in 30 mins–including a 10 minute walk from the train station.
Door to door from Berlin to the hotel in Munich was 5 hours. If one were to drive my trip door to door, maps says 361mi/580km traveled if driving direct with a drive time of 5.5 hours.
For comparisons sake, let's take a hypothetical trip from Dallas Union Station to Apple's headquarters in Austin, TX, which is located 14.7mi/24.6km from the Austin train station.
According to Apple Maps, using public transit would take 9 hours. Driving direct from Dallas Union Station to Apple HQ in Austin is 187mi/300km in total with a drive time of 3 hours.
I recently traveled to Germany on business, traveled from Berlin to Munich via the ICE inter-city train.
Arrived in downtown Munich, hotel was 7.3 miles driving from the station. I jumped on the u-bahn made a quick transfer at Odeonsplatz and arrived at the hotel in 30 mins–including a 10 minute walk from the train station.
Door to door from Berlin to the hotel in Munich was 5 hours. If one were to drive my trip door to door, maps says 361mi/580km traveled if driving direct with a drive time of 5.5 hours.
For comparisons sake, let's take a hypothetical trip from Dallas Union Station to Apple's headquarters in Austin, TX, which is located 14.7mi/24.6km from the Austin train station.
According to Apple Maps, using public transit would take 9 hours. Driving direct from Dallas Union Station to Apple HQ in Austin is 187mi/300km in total with a drive time of 3 hours.
Maybe it'll be like a lot of ferries with most of the space being dedicated to drive-on car storage. It could be a way for Texans to spend more money on their cars which could seal the deal. They could also get more traction in some other car-obsessed places by making it coal powered.
Americans are deluded with cars. America is just huge and our cities (metro + suburbs) are huge. Meaning to use a train requires driving to the train stop, parking, waiting for train, etc. and if that entire process isn’t meaningfully better experience or meaningfully faster why wouldn’t I choose to drive.
It’s like Caltrain, for many driving is actually a faster commute than taking Caltrain. People took Caltrain though as the 20mins ish more the train takes makes up not sitting in standstill traffic.
It’s like Caltrain, for many driving is actually a faster commute than taking Caltrain. People took Caltrain though as the 20mins ish more the train takes makes up not sitting in standstill traffic.
Couldn’t resist but China is same land size and 4+ times the population of USA yet they do have a huge high speed network and pubic transport
The issue therefore is not size but attitude/will to have public transport
The issue therefore is not size but attitude/will to have public transport
You can frame this as a lack of political willpower, but that won’t get you closer.
China will have spent far less per commuter, in this process. Whether you want to chalk it up to the lack of certain standards in China, or onerous regulations in the US, doesn’t matter. End result will be the same. Just like Europe is not a fair comparison for the US, neither is China, or Siberia, for that matter.
China will have spent far less per commuter, in this process. Whether you want to chalk it up to the lack of certain standards in China, or onerous regulations in the US, doesn’t matter. End result will be the same. Just like Europe is not a fair comparison for the US, neither is China, or Siberia, for that matter.
4 times the population for the same land size means greater density to justify rail transport.
The car is actually an amazing transport concept. And very hard to beat
The car is actually an amazing transport concept. And very hard to beat
|The car is actually an amazing transport concept. And very hard to beat
You do know you can have the best of both? Germany (where BMWs, Mercs, Audis are made), France, Japan, Switzerland etc have no shortage of easy, high end mass public transport with luxurious options for long trips. Or you buy/rent cars if you need to drive, or insist on driving.
If a Texan could get by with $500 a month on public transport, instead of $1000 on a car, they could go on a long vacation, and rent a Ferrari with the money saved in a year.
You do know you can have the best of both? Germany (where BMWs, Mercs, Audis are made), France, Japan, Switzerland etc have no shortage of easy, high end mass public transport with luxurious options for long trips. Or you buy/rent cars if you need to drive, or insist on driving.
If a Texan could get by with $500 a month on public transport, instead of $1000 on a car, they could go on a long vacation, and rent a Ferrari with the money saved in a year.
Petroleum is also an amazing concept and hard to beat doesn’t mean we should not try to improve things
China doesn't see diversity as their strength.
I’ve been hearing about a train from Houston to Austin or Dallas since Nolan Ryan was throwing no hitters
Never going to happen
Never going to happen
Totally agree. My only ray of hope is brightline in Florida.
To Texas credit there is a luxury bus service vonlane that’s not bad
To Texas credit there is a luxury bus service vonlane that’s not bad
> No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen.
There is no delusion. Private cars a superior. If public transit were actually better, you'd see the German Chancellor preferring it over a private car. But you don't.
There is no delusion. Private cars a superior. If public transit were actually better, you'd see the German Chancellor preferring it over a private car. But you don't.
That's because German rail is an absolute disaster. They used to have +90% on time schedules which is now below 60%. Compare that to Switzerland where the "Chancellors" do travel via rail and the on time rate in 2022 was 92,5% for the entire network (Connections where made at 98.9%!). [1]
German rail is no longer what it was 20 years ago.
The previous admin underfunded it and basically destroyed it. It requires over 80 Billion in rapiers and the current government is only promised to spend maybe half over the next few years.
Current spending on German rail is around EUR 100 per capita per year while in Switzerland it is EUR 400+.
[1] https://reporting.sbb.ch/puenktlichkeit?=&years=1,4,5,6,7&sc...
German rail is no longer what it was 20 years ago.
The previous admin underfunded it and basically destroyed it. It requires over 80 Billion in rapiers and the current government is only promised to spend maybe half over the next few years.
Current spending on German rail is around EUR 100 per capita per year while in Switzerland it is EUR 400+.
[1] https://reporting.sbb.ch/puenktlichkeit?=&years=1,4,5,6,7&sc...
I visited Europe for the first time and absolutely loved being able to think my thoughts without getting rage honked at, being terrified of running over old ladies or students on a jog. If it takes me 35 more minutes to go to work versus 15 I’d do a bus.
Is everyone in Germany a Chancellor? Are you?
I've used intercity buses and trains extensively where I grew up. It was okay, but I would much, MUCH rather use a car instead. There was no car culture in place where I grew up, cars are simply more convenient despite the higher personal cost.
It is hard to see that most people would prefer to use a train than a car to travel between cities unless they were going from a place close to a station to another place close to a station. So maybe the population might be simply democratically making choices to not invest in this because it goes against their preferences - instead of them being "deluded".
A different thing is intracity public transportation, like subway and bus systems. In many cases, I'd rather take the subway than use a car. But I lived in a very high density city, and it would take decades, if not over a century, to turn Dallas and Houston into high density so intracity systems would be convenient.
It is hard to see that most people would prefer to use a train than a car to travel between cities unless they were going from a place close to a station to another place close to a station. So maybe the population might be simply democratically making choices to not invest in this because it goes against their preferences - instead of them being "deluded".
A different thing is intracity public transportation, like subway and bus systems. In many cases, I'd rather take the subway than use a car. But I lived in a very high density city, and it would take decades, if not over a century, to turn Dallas and Houston into high density so intracity systems would be convenient.
| It is hard to see that most people would prefer to use a train than a car to travel between cities unless they were going from a place close to a station to another place close to a station. So maybe the population might be simply democratically making choices to not invest in this because it goes against their preferences - instead of them being "deluded".
You were never given a choice. Read up on the history of how mass transit in the US was systematically underfunded, and continues to be attacked by parties who stand to benefit.
The opposition to HSR or mass transit in the US is no different than the opposition to single payer and/or universal healthcare, which somehow all other developed countries have managed to implement with far superior outcomes.
You were never given a choice. Read up on the history of how mass transit in the US was systematically underfunded, and continues to be attacked by parties who stand to benefit.
The opposition to HSR or mass transit in the US is no different than the opposition to single payer and/or universal healthcare, which somehow all other developed countries have managed to implement with far superior outcomes.
> The opposition to HSR or mass transit in the US is no different than the opposition to single payer and/or universal healthcare, which somehow all other developed countries have managed to implement with far superior outcomes.
The US is not Northern Europe, and it may surprise you to learn that there are severe externalities to account for as soon as you actually have to deal with significant, highly dispersed, poor rural populations.
I can’t speak to them with regards to high speed rail, but the vast majority of single-payer advocates don’t understand our healthcare system, it’s issues, or, frankly, the simple fact that some Americans don’t actually live in major cities. I can only imagine HSR advocates share similar issues.
The US is not Northern Europe, and it may surprise you to learn that there are severe externalities to account for as soon as you actually have to deal with significant, highly dispersed, poor rural populations.
I can’t speak to them with regards to high speed rail, but the vast majority of single-payer advocates don’t understand our healthcare system, it’s issues, or, frankly, the simple fact that some Americans don’t actually live in major cities. I can only imagine HSR advocates share similar issues.
Canada has better health outcomes than the US. Same with Scandinavian countries, Au/NZ all of which have dispersed populations and spend less.
Also, all the proposed HSR corridors are in populated areas. The population density of the north east is similar to Japan but with twice the Japanese per capita gdp.
None of what you said explains why US cities which are similar to size and population as EU ones have such poor public transport.
People in the US have become proficient at justifying their delusions.
The US spent 2-3 trillion in Iraq and Afghan to achieve nothing. But no complaints are offered, no one is punished. Imagine if that money had gone to health care or HSR/transit with even 10% goals met.
Also, all the proposed HSR corridors are in populated areas. The population density of the north east is similar to Japan but with twice the Japanese per capita gdp.
None of what you said explains why US cities which are similar to size and population as EU ones have such poor public transport.
People in the US have become proficient at justifying their delusions.
The US spent 2-3 trillion in Iraq and Afghan to achieve nothing. But no complaints are offered, no one is punished. Imagine if that money had gone to health care or HSR/transit with even 10% goals met.
None of those countries have similarly dispersed populations. What specific effect do you think drastically lowered payments would have on the already dwindling ability for rural Americans to access primary care and Ob/Gyns? What specific effect do you think reimbursement rates which do not pay actual cost of care would have on dialysis clinics in rural areas?
When the answer is “I don’t know”, I would expect some reflection on what you’re actually advocating for: even fewer doctors treating some of the poorest people in this country.
> None of what you said explains why US cities which are similar to size and population as EU ones have such poor public transport.
None of what I said addressed it at all, but I’d note that most US cities didn’t have an opportunity to rebuild themselves in the 1950s, and most of them had the benefit of nearly unlimited land to grow into, unlike, say, London or Paris. The NE corridor, being more constrained, does generally have widespread transit.
> But no complaints are offered, no one is punished
I have a hard time believing that you actually think no one complained about the Iraq War (either of them) or whatever you’d call what we did in Afghanistan. I’m also unclear what that has to do with literally anything.
When the answer is “I don’t know”, I would expect some reflection on what you’re actually advocating for: even fewer doctors treating some of the poorest people in this country.
> None of what you said explains why US cities which are similar to size and population as EU ones have such poor public transport.
None of what I said addressed it at all, but I’d note that most US cities didn’t have an opportunity to rebuild themselves in the 1950s, and most of them had the benefit of nearly unlimited land to grow into, unlike, say, London or Paris. The NE corridor, being more constrained, does generally have widespread transit.
> But no complaints are offered, no one is punished
I have a hard time believing that you actually think no one complained about the Iraq War (either of them) or whatever you’d call what we did in Afghanistan. I’m also unclear what that has to do with literally anything.
> there is no coming back from this
German here. Absolutely no chance? What would be the first step in this direction?
I imagine that to make HSR happen, first one would have to create walkable cities which make people want to use public transport so that the local transit network gets expanded which in turn makes high-speed rail viable.
Couldn't one start locally with closing downtown to cars? Would there be any chance for this to happen anywhere?
German here. Absolutely no chance? What would be the first step in this direction?
I imagine that to make HSR happen, first one would have to create walkable cities which make people want to use public transport so that the local transit network gets expanded which in turn makes high-speed rail viable.
Couldn't one start locally with closing downtown to cars? Would there be any chance for this to happen anywhere?
| Couldn't one start locally with closing downtown to cars?
This happens often in many towns in the US, but its not permanent. And people never seem to make the connection that the "great time" they had walking the streets was due to no cars. The business owners do not want the car ban to be permanent, as they think cars are the only way to get regular traffic.
This happens often in many towns in the US, but its not permanent. And people never seem to make the connection that the "great time" they had walking the streets was due to no cars. The business owners do not want the car ban to be permanent, as they think cars are the only way to get regular traffic.
I think you need a bit more info about this project before being so pessimistic. It's far from a done deal, but I've followed this project for a while and it has unique characteristics that can make it successful:
- They are targeting business airline travel. The volume of business air commuters across this corridor was specifically why they decided to start with these two cities.
- This is privately funded (although certainly with government help like airlines).
- Dallas & Houston are 239 miles apart. It's really the sweet spot for HSR to be very competitive with air travel, especially when you factor in the airport experience.
All that said, there are SO many hurdles yet to overcome and the project has stopped and restarted a few times already. But I think this project is very well informed by the challenges and failures of California's HSR efforts and probably has the best shot of actually happening across all the national initiatives I know about.
EDIT: There was already an Amtrak partnership in place but it was really just allowing passengers to purchase tickets for the Texas Bullet Train via Amtrak. This seems like conversation to broaden the partnership, though details are sketchy. More partnership from Amtrak almost seems to add risk, though I understand it may be a necessary evil.
- They are targeting business airline travel. The volume of business air commuters across this corridor was specifically why they decided to start with these two cities.
- This is privately funded (although certainly with government help like airlines).
- Dallas & Houston are 239 miles apart. It's really the sweet spot for HSR to be very competitive with air travel, especially when you factor in the airport experience.
All that said, there are SO many hurdles yet to overcome and the project has stopped and restarted a few times already. But I think this project is very well informed by the challenges and failures of California's HSR efforts and probably has the best shot of actually happening across all the national initiatives I know about.
EDIT: There was already an Amtrak partnership in place but it was really just allowing passengers to purchase tickets for the Texas Bullet Train via Amtrak. This seems like conversation to broaden the partnership, though details are sketchy. More partnership from Amtrak almost seems to add risk, though I understand it may be a necessary evil.
> Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit. There is none of that in places like Texas, and again the public imagination has not moved on from some kind of 1950s car culture utopia, thats about "freedom".
Yet somehow millions of people a year manage to fly to Texas without then becoming stranded at the airport due to not having been able to bring their car. This proves that either you don't need to connect the end points of long distance transportation systems to local mass transit, or Texas in fact does know how and has done so for airports. If the latter, then why could they not do the same for HSR?
Yet somehow millions of people a year manage to fly to Texas without then becoming stranded at the airport due to not having been able to bring their car. This proves that either you don't need to connect the end points of long distance transportation systems to local mass transit, or Texas in fact does know how and has done so for airports. If the latter, then why could they not do the same for HSR?
People can fly to Texas because they rent a car or use taxis/rideshare once they arrive. Houston in particularly has absolutely atrocious walkability or transit lmao
People who arrive by HST should also be able to rent a car or use taxis/rideshare.
Assuming ticket prices are similar to Amtrak Acela prices or current non-HST Amtrak Texas prices it will be a little faster than flying for about 1/3 the cost. It will be almost 3x as fast as driving for a bit more than the fuel cost for the drive.
If there are enough people who want to travel between those two cities to do the kind of things that people fly to those cities for, then it should be viable and successful.
Assuming ticket prices are similar to Amtrak Acela prices or current non-HST Amtrak Texas prices it will be a little faster than flying for about 1/3 the cost. It will be almost 3x as fast as driving for a bit more than the fuel cost for the drive.
If there are enough people who want to travel between those two cities to do the kind of things that people fly to those cities for, then it should be viable and successful.
Brightline would probably disagree, even if it's not the longest route.
What people also forget is the maintenance required which no one seems to want to pay for and get cut after a while.
We just a major derailment accident (cargo train) in the Gotthard-Basistunnel forcing it closed for at least a week. [1] This even though it is one of the most maintained parts of the infrastructure and cost around 30 million a year in maintenance. A 57 km tunnel of non-high speed rail. I can only imagine the costs to maintain a high-speed rail line and make sure it is safe.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/15o3y1l/train_...
We just a major derailment accident (cargo train) in the Gotthard-Basistunnel forcing it closed for at least a week. [1] This even though it is one of the most maintained parts of the infrastructure and cost around 30 million a year in maintenance. A 57 km tunnel of non-high speed rail. I can only imagine the costs to maintain a high-speed rail line and make sure it is safe.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/15o3y1l/train_...
> No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen.
How has no one mentioned the actual reason it won’t happen? Texas citizens are not so enamored with cars that they prevent this from happening. Texans that frequently travel between Houston and Dallas fly Southwest Airlines because Southwest has spent an inordinate amount of money lobbying to prevent rail[0].
> Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit.
What do you think all the current business travelers are doing with their cars when they fly?
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/07/firm-planning-texas-...
How has no one mentioned the actual reason it won’t happen? Texas citizens are not so enamored with cars that they prevent this from happening. Texans that frequently travel between Houston and Dallas fly Southwest Airlines because Southwest has spent an inordinate amount of money lobbying to prevent rail[0].
> Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit.
What do you think all the current business travelers are doing with their cars when they fly?
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/07/firm-planning-texas-...
You can blame Southwest or corporations all you want. But even in the 90s, people did not support HSR overwhelmingly as per your article.
And in today's socio-political climate, a politician has to simply call HSR "socialism" or some trigger word and even so called liberals will rally against HSR.
And in today's socio-political climate, a politician has to simply call HSR "socialism" or some trigger word and even so called liberals will rally against HSR.
What are you talking about? I feel like you’re pushing agenda talking points rather than discussing the reality in Texas. Business travel via airplane between Houston and Dallas is a major source of travel and has the exact same issue of not having a car on the other end that you mentioned, and yet it continues to be a popular form of travel.
The lack of HSR has absolutely nothing to do with consumers’ obsessions with cars and everything to do with business lobbying, difficulty in acquiring private land, and lack of government interest. It does not stem from the Texas citizens.
Further, DFW has (far more than) last mile transit from the airport with DART. How can you ignore that even if it’s not perfect? It can take you from Dallas to Fort Worth!
The lack of HSR has absolutely nothing to do with consumers’ obsessions with cars and everything to do with business lobbying, difficulty in acquiring private land, and lack of government interest. It does not stem from the Texas citizens.
Further, DFW has (far more than) last mile transit from the airport with DART. How can you ignore that even if it’s not perfect? It can take you from Dallas to Fort Worth!
On the one hand, the distance and population make this look potentially attractive. On the other hand, Houston is very spread out and even a lot of Dallas industry is in suburbs. So, even if you're going to downtown Dallas from Houston, you may be doing a relatively long drive to a suburban train station--at which point, is it really worth cutting out the 3-4 hour drive especially if you want a car at the other end?
> On the one hand, the distance [...] make this look potentially attractive.
Edit: The Dallas to Houston time is very wrong, against a 3+ hours drive trains have a chance.
---- G̶m̶a̶p̶s̶ ̶t̶e̶l̶l̶s̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶D̶a̶l̶l̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶H̶o̶u̶s̶t̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶.̶ When you factor in the time spent in the train stations, the possibility of delay, etc, I don't think high speed trains can be fast enough to offer a clear advantage over driving such a short distance. A substantial fraction of that hour will be spent just getting to the train station in the first place, presumably using other intracity mass transit, or else driving your car to the station, possibly through the city, finding a parking spot, etc.
Planes succeed at competing with cars because they can turn a 10 hour drive into 1 or 2 hours, 2 or 3 hours including time to get to the airport and get through TSA. If it can't cut down on travel time by at least 50% then I think it won't succeed, and getting the whole journey under 30 minutes seems implausible. These cities are just too close together to make it work.
Edit: The Dallas to Houston time is very wrong, against a 3+ hours drive trains have a chance.
---- G̶m̶a̶p̶s̶ ̶t̶e̶l̶l̶s̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶D̶a̶l̶l̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶H̶o̶u̶s̶t̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶.̶ When you factor in the time spent in the train stations, the possibility of delay, etc, I don't think high speed trains can be fast enough to offer a clear advantage over driving such a short distance. A substantial fraction of that hour will be spent just getting to the train station in the first place, presumably using other intracity mass transit, or else driving your car to the station, possibly through the city, finding a parking spot, etc.
Planes succeed at competing with cars because they can turn a 10 hour drive into 1 or 2 hours, 2 or 3 hours including time to get to the airport and get through TSA. If it can't cut down on travel time by at least 50% then I think it won't succeed, and getting the whole journey under 30 minutes seems implausible. These cities are just too close together to make it work.
It's about 240 miles so not an hour. But I don't disagree with your basic point. A 3-4 hour drive is hard for a train to compete with, especially if you're not convenient to the rail infrastructure on both ends. (The only reason taking the train to Manhattan works for me is that it's a miserable drive; it actually takes longer than driving.)
Uhh Dallas-Houston is more like 3 hours driving?
High speed rail at that distance is completely viable. Taiwan runs HSR up and down their entire island for a total system length of like 350km (same ballpark at Dallas-Houston), and they do it with like potentially up to 8 stops.
I won't argue about the time to takes to get to and from the station - last mile connectivity will be portion of the viability of this.
High speed rail at that distance is completely viable. Taiwan runs HSR up and down their entire island for a total system length of like 350km (same ballpark at Dallas-Houston), and they do it with like potentially up to 8 stops.
I won't argue about the time to takes to get to and from the station - last mile connectivity will be portion of the viability of this.
Well, there is always the benefit of NOT having to drive and being able to do other things (reading) or just relaxing... Driving IS tiring...
The point is, Houston is virtually impossible to live in without a car (I experienced that for 6 months, not great). There would of course be a bus or light rail between downtown and/or the airport to this train terminal, but for those in a Houston suburb looking to visit a friend in a Dallas suburb, there would be easily 1-2 hours of driving involved. You just can’t get downtown from where most houstonians live by bus.
Well, so because "us housing / cities care utterly broken then let's settle on not fixing any posible solution and making the situation less broken ;-)
(I once went to Dallas and felt adventurous and opted not to rent a car - it was a hellish experience getting around outside of the provided office shuttle - going to the nearest target on foot was more than an hour walk and then on a train to the centre I felt treated like a homeless or some such - the ticket checker just kicked my foot to wake me up from the doze)
(I once went to Dallas and felt adventurous and opted not to rent a car - it was a hellish experience getting around outside of the provided office shuttle - going to the nearest target on foot was more than an hour walk and then on a train to the centre I felt treated like a homeless or some such - the ticket checker just kicked my foot to wake me up from the doze)
There are fairly inexpensive luxury bus options for travel between all the major cities in Texas. These come with internet access, spacious accommodations, clean restrooms.
Right but if you're going to drive 45 minutes+ to get to the train station anyway which is probably very typical of Houston (heck, I drive an hour to catch the train from the Boston area to go to NY), you've given up a lot of the advantage of taking a train trip vs. driving--especially if it isn't dropping you off somewhere convenient to your office/hotel.
There are several talking points mentioned in this thread that are explored more on the NotJustBikes YouTube Channel.
- When Canada built a relatively recent urban rail to Toronto, they built it so you have to drive to the train station, and used the high value land right around the station for ... surface car parking. This is absurdly wasteful of valuable real estate and makes the expensive train add much less value to the people. Also the train only runs around rush hours, making it useless for almost anyone who isn't driving to the train for a commute to work. "The Trains that Subsidize Suburbia - GO Transit Commuter Rail" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxWjtpzCIfA
- "Why city design is import (and why I hate Houston)" [it's not walkable] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54
- How American urban transit is built misunderstanding the way transit needs to work to be successful, notably trying to build transit as a bandaid over car problems, but not making it regular, frequent, reliable, fast, convenient, instead plonking an isolated transit connection from nowhere to nowhere which runs once every couple of hours and then pointing to it as an example of how transit doesn't work in America - "America Always Gets This Wrong (when building transit)" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnyeRlMsTgI
- Addressing the "America is too big and spread out for rail" arguments, notably that USA and Canada were built by trains, and streetcar suburbs, and that most journes Americans take every day are less than 5 miles. - "The Dumbest Excuse for Bad Cities" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ
- When Canada built a relatively recent urban rail to Toronto, they built it so you have to drive to the train station, and used the high value land right around the station for ... surface car parking. This is absurdly wasteful of valuable real estate and makes the expensive train add much less value to the people. Also the train only runs around rush hours, making it useless for almost anyone who isn't driving to the train for a commute to work. "The Trains that Subsidize Suburbia - GO Transit Commuter Rail" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxWjtpzCIfA
- "Why city design is import (and why I hate Houston)" [it's not walkable] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54
- How American urban transit is built misunderstanding the way transit needs to work to be successful, notably trying to build transit as a bandaid over car problems, but not making it regular, frequent, reliable, fast, convenient, instead plonking an isolated transit connection from nowhere to nowhere which runs once every couple of hours and then pointing to it as an example of how transit doesn't work in America - "America Always Gets This Wrong (when building transit)" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnyeRlMsTgI
- Addressing the "America is too big and spread out for rail" arguments, notably that USA and Canada were built by trains, and streetcar suburbs, and that most journes Americans take every day are less than 5 miles. - "The Dumbest Excuse for Bad Cities" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ
> - Addressing the "America is too big and spread out for rail" arguments, notably that USA and Canada were built by trains, and streetcar suburbs, and that most journes Americans take every day are less than 5 miles. - "The Dumbest Excuse for Bad Cities" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ
The Eastern seaboard of the U.S. absolutely has a) a very linear quality to it (from DC to Boston), b) density, and it's been so since the the early 19th century. Canada is huge, but its population lives along a very narrow latitude band, so it's linear (and low-density).
Outside the Eastern seaboard the U.S. really is huge, with nothing like a linear arrangement of cities.
The Eastern seaboard of the U.S. absolutely has a) a very linear quality to it (from DC to Boston), b) density, and it's been so since the the early 19th century. Canada is huge, but its population lives along a very narrow latitude band, so it's linear (and low-density).
Outside the Eastern seaboard the U.S. really is huge, with nothing like a linear arrangement of cities.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Maybe the Texas legislature is taking notes on south Florida, an unlikely success story for regional travel in the US. But the thing about Florida is that most of it is a swamp that people don’t want to live on. That is not true of land in Texas. Without eminent domain, I don’t see how Texas will acquire the land necessary to make this project a reality.
There is wide support in FL for it from people on both sides of the aisles.
The hang up was always the cost (not the environmental cost, likes the birds or whatever) and Brightline being privately owned meant zero hang ups
FL is a forward looking state: it looks forward to different future than Cali dysfunction
The hang up was always the cost (not the environmental cost, likes the birds or whatever) and Brightline being privately owned meant zero hang ups
FL is a forward looking state: it looks forward to different future than Cali dysfunction
How come there was no objection like this for all the land for the highways, highway expansion and surface car parks? Where did that land come from?
I'll take this opportunity to address the rail haters' main point against high speed rail in America: the fact that we all need cars at our destinations, America is too big and spread out, etc.
Every time I hear that argument I have to point out the millions of American short hop regional flights that are taken each year. Millions of people already use rideshares, taxis, and rent cars at their destinations. Just observe the scale of your own airport's rental car center.
I think that high speed rail in Texas can sustain itself and be more economically and environmentally efficient almost solely on business travelers whose status quo involves driving between city centers and being paid for mileage.
A business traveler between Dallas and Houston will bill their company for 240 miles. At IRS standard 65.5 cents per mile, that's $157 worth of total cost being
A high speed train could probably be a profit-generating enterprise at half that ticket price, and businesses would pay a premium for it to save time over driving. Also, the business travelers can do work while on the train rather than focusing on driving. That cost and time savings can buy a lot of Uber rides and parking garage fees.
Every time I hear that argument I have to point out the millions of American short hop regional flights that are taken each year. Millions of people already use rideshares, taxis, and rent cars at their destinations. Just observe the scale of your own airport's rental car center.
I think that high speed rail in Texas can sustain itself and be more economically and environmentally efficient almost solely on business travelers whose status quo involves driving between city centers and being paid for mileage.
A business traveler between Dallas and Houston will bill their company for 240 miles. At IRS standard 65.5 cents per mile, that's $157 worth of total cost being
A high speed train could probably be a profit-generating enterprise at half that ticket price, and businesses would pay a premium for it to save time over driving. Also, the business travelers can do work while on the train rather than focusing on driving. That cost and time savings can buy a lot of Uber rides and parking garage fees.
Just how many such business travelers between Houston and Dallas are there really? How many trips do they do per-year? You need these numbers to make the argument you're making. I suspect the number is minuscule by comparison to what it needs to be to justify this investment [expense].
I'm not a rail hater. I typically take the train to NYC although that's because I hate driving into Manhattan and getting into the city from the NYC airports is awful.
However, I used to travel to Houston all the time from New Orleans and I flew. That's more like a 5 hour drive (vs. 3-4 from Houston to Dallas) and I rented a car when I got there. Where I was going was basically never in anything like a city center.
Having to or wanting to rent a car when you travel to somewhere does significantly lessen the potential train advantage of dropping you off in downtown if that's not where you need to be.
However, I used to travel to Houston all the time from New Orleans and I flew. That's more like a 5 hour drive (vs. 3-4 from Houston to Dallas) and I rented a car when I got there. Where I was going was basically never in anything like a city center.
Having to or wanting to rent a car when you travel to somewhere does significantly lessen the potential train advantage of dropping you off in downtown if that's not where you need to be.
> Just observe the scale of your own airport's rental car center.
Airports are usually at the outskirts of cities where land is abundant. Central train stations are just that, central. Would there really be enough free land in downtown Houston and Dallas to create huge new car-rental infrastructure?
Airports are usually at the outskirts of cities where land is abundant. Central train stations are just that, central. Would there really be enough free land in downtown Houston and Dallas to create huge new car-rental infrastructure?
[deleted]
> Every time I hear that argument I have to point out the millions of American short hop regional flights
Those routes didn't need tens of $billions in land acquisition and construction costs.
Those routes didn't need tens of $billions in land acquisition and construction costs.
While airports do scale their capital costs somewhat differently (better?), airports are actually multi-billion dollar construction projects. Here's Dallas' 5 billion dollar airport expansion plan (https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/dallas-fort-worth/news/2023...), and here's Houston's 1.3 billion dollar terminal expansion (https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/08/17/billion-...)
> While airports do scale their capital costs somewhat differently (better?),
Uh, yeah:
> Here's Dallas' 5 billion dollar airport expansion plan
$5bn buys a few miles of conventional train tracks. Bullet train tracks cost more. $5bn is nothing for trains.
$5bn buys a bunch of gates and/or a runway+ at an airport, which can greatly increase capacity.
And these $bns are $bns of other people's money if we're talking about trains because they'll never turn a profit. I don't think trains have been profitable ever in the U.S., at least not since the 1880s. Air travel is often profitable for all involved (or can be).
Uh, yeah:
- 1 airport == unlimited direct routes
(limited only by the airport's runways)
- 1 airport == unlimited indirect routes
- 1 rail line == 1 direct route
- 1 rail line == small number of ind. routes
> Here's Dallas' 5 billion dollar airport expansion plan
$5bn buys a few miles of conventional train tracks. Bullet train tracks cost more. $5bn is nothing for trains.
$5bn buys a bunch of gates and/or a runway+ at an airport, which can greatly increase capacity.
And these $bns are $bns of other people's money if we're talking about trains because they'll never turn a profit. I don't think trains have been profitable ever in the U.S., at least not since the 1880s. Air travel is often profitable for all involved (or can be).
The political and financial systems are corrupted by auto manufacturers/dealers and the petroleum industry. Those groups will never allow anything which leads to less driving or fewer cars.
America is spread out because it serves the fossil fuel interests for cities to be zoned to their benefit.
America is spread out because it serves the fossil fuel interests for cities to be zoned to their benefit.
> millions of American short hop regional flights that are taken each year.
"Millions of Americans" could be less than 1% of Americans. How do the short hop regional flight numbers compare to the number of American driving equivalent distances?
Intrastate flights can be better than typical flying if you're using regional airports without the TSA, but these aren't the kind of airports near major population centers. There are a few scenarios where roads aren't an option, particularly Hawaii where short-hop flights are competing with ferries, not roads. Hawaii alone is probably a substantial fraction of that millions.
"Millions of Americans" could be less than 1% of Americans. How do the short hop regional flight numbers compare to the number of American driving equivalent distances?
Intrastate flights can be better than typical flying if you're using regional airports without the TSA, but these aren't the kind of airports near major population centers. There are a few scenarios where roads aren't an option, particularly Hawaii where short-hop flights are competing with ferries, not roads. Hawaii alone is probably a substantial fraction of that millions.
I've been hearing about a bullet train between Houston and Dallas for over 30 years. Guess what?
Over the years, there have been plans for the train to complete the triangle to go from Houston -> Dallas -> Austin/San Antonio. Some people here are saying it's about car culture preventing this from happening. Maybe that's part of it, but it's also about land ownership and nobody wanting to sell their property in order to all for the tracks to be built. Imminent domain has been mentioned for over 30 years, but again, guess what.
Edit: to add another Texas tall tale to go along with this bullet train. There was/is also another plan to widen/deepen the Trinity river to allow cargo ships to come to Dallas. There are a few bridges in the Dallas area that cross the Trinity that are way taller than what one would imagine from the worst 1000 year flood. They were built around the time of this dredging being a hot topic, so they were unnecessarily expensive. Some ideas just won't die
Over the years, there have been plans for the train to complete the triangle to go from Houston -> Dallas -> Austin/San Antonio. Some people here are saying it's about car culture preventing this from happening. Maybe that's part of it, but it's also about land ownership and nobody wanting to sell their property in order to all for the tracks to be built. Imminent domain has been mentioned for over 30 years, but again, guess what.
Edit: to add another Texas tall tale to go along with this bullet train. There was/is also another plan to widen/deepen the Trinity river to allow cargo ships to come to Dallas. There are a few bridges in the Dallas area that cross the Trinity that are way taller than what one would imagine from the worst 1000 year flood. They were built around the time of this dredging being a hot topic, so they were unnecessarily expensive. Some ideas just won't die
Even with eminent domain the government has to pay fair market value compensation. In Texas rural land prices are $30k and up per-acre, going up quite a bit for more desirable land.
The land between Dallas and Houston is fertile and valuable, and much of it is also oil country. Oil producers probably wouldn't mind ceding some land to a train project, but farmers and homesteaders absolutely would mind, and you can expect lawsuits for years and years.
The land between San Antonio and Austin is more expensive since it's all already an urban corridor, so the train would have to track West, except that West isn't feasible because it's Hill Country, so it would have to track East, but East is also quite urban/suburban as well. The further East you go, the better the land is for farming, the more it's worth.
The land between Houston and SA/Austin is quite valuable because, again, it's a long corridor of small towns with lots of very fertile land (all of it being East of I-35).
The land between Austin and Dallas is drier -so less valuable- and fairly flat, but still there's a lot of towns between DFW and Austin. This is probably the cheapest land to acquire for this project.
Just the land costs for this would be enormous. And conventional train tracks cost on the order of $1m/mile at least, with high-speed train tracks costing more. Because high-speed rail needs to be straighter and flatter, there will be more constraints on what land could be used, and geographic constraints will be more costly.
On the plus side Texas is now willing to tax businesses more in order to tax residents less. That might lead to the state being willing to raise the funds for this project, but I guarantee you it's going to be extremely contentious.
The land between Dallas and Houston is fertile and valuable, and much of it is also oil country. Oil producers probably wouldn't mind ceding some land to a train project, but farmers and homesteaders absolutely would mind, and you can expect lawsuits for years and years.
The land between San Antonio and Austin is more expensive since it's all already an urban corridor, so the train would have to track West, except that West isn't feasible because it's Hill Country, so it would have to track East, but East is also quite urban/suburban as well. The further East you go, the better the land is for farming, the more it's worth.
The land between Houston and SA/Austin is quite valuable because, again, it's a long corridor of small towns with lots of very fertile land (all of it being East of I-35).
The land between Austin and Dallas is drier -so less valuable- and fairly flat, but still there's a lot of towns between DFW and Austin. This is probably the cheapest land to acquire for this project.
Just the land costs for this would be enormous. And conventional train tracks cost on the order of $1m/mile at least, with high-speed train tracks costing more. Because high-speed rail needs to be straighter and flatter, there will be more constraints on what land could be used, and geographic constraints will be more costly.
On the plus side Texas is now willing to tax businesses more in order to tax residents less. That might lead to the state being willing to raise the funds for this project, but I guarantee you it's going to be extremely contentious.
The question that Dallasites and Houstonians need to ask is whether they want to evolve their cities over the coming decades [1] toward a form that supports High Speed Rail. Primarily this would look like denser development around the rail hubs, plus infrastructure upgrades into and out of those locations.
High-Speed Rail is a very long-term (probably multi-generation) commitment.
(Edit: A typical mistake that people make when thinking about high-speed rail is to assume that the current form of a city is permanent. Dallas and Houston in particular are very pro-development, which means that in some ways it's actually easier to change the city form of those places.)
[1] My father's last job before his retirement was long-term land use planning for Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART).
High-Speed Rail is a very long-term (probably multi-generation) commitment.
(Edit: A typical mistake that people make when thinking about high-speed rail is to assume that the current form of a city is permanent. Dallas and Houston in particular are very pro-development, which means that in some ways it's actually easier to change the city form of those places.)
[1] My father's last job before his retirement was long-term land use planning for Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART).
Maybe it “could”, but it won’t. The US has completely lost the ability to build large-scale infrastructure.
The whole western world is now locked up in people protecting the value of their properties and real estate.
Do _anything_ of significance, and you will get hordes of people that demand that YOU pay for a hypothetical 5% decrease in delusional fictional real estate value.
Progress is grinding to a halt. We're economies broken by people who will not allow to take one step back to allow two steps forward.
Do _anything_ of significance, and you will get hordes of people that demand that YOU pay for a hypothetical 5% decrease in delusional fictional real estate value.
Progress is grinding to a halt. We're economies broken by people who will not allow to take one step back to allow two steps forward.
> We're economies broken by people who will not allow to take one step back to allow two steps forward.
The core issue is that the people that are negatively impacted by the construction are not the same people that stand to benefit from the construction. They would take one step back in the short run without going two steps forward in the future.
It's a promising route for high speed rail, so I wish them good luck. It's quite cheap to fly betweens these two cities though.
The core issue is that the people that are negatively impacted by the construction are not the same people that stand to benefit from the construction. They would take one step back in the short run without going two steps forward in the future.
It's a promising route for high speed rail, so I wish them good luck. It's quite cheap to fly betweens these two cities though.
FL built a rail line in South Florida recently and if the US decides too, can make things happen
Heh, how about they get Amtrack to be reliable first.
Last I checked, the train between Dallas and Fort Worth is too unreliable to use for a job commute.
...Which is awful, because the commute into downtown Dallas is surely one of the worst on the planet. I have never seen such a concentration of angry drivers.
Last I checked, the train between Dallas and Fort Worth is too unreliable to use for a job commute.
...Which is awful, because the commute into downtown Dallas is surely one of the worst on the planet. I have never seen such a concentration of angry drivers.
FWIW, I found Amtrak between Boston and southern Rhode Island to be reliable enough for a daily commute (a few years ago at least).
Unfortunately there’s very little notion of nationwide quality for Amtrak. I’ve taken it between NYC and DC plenty of times and it’s always been great but I wouldn’t automatically extend that experience to any other line in the system.
I believe Amtrak owns their tracks on the Northeast Corridor which they don't in most of (all?) the rest of the country where they conflict with freight. Amtrak basically makes all of their money on the Northeast Corridor and loses it on most of their other routes.
I didn't mean to imply Amtrack was unrelaible nationwide.
This has to be a scam.
First thought is some company trying pocket a bunch of federal grant money to do “research,” or perhaps, trying to get somebody to buy their land.
There is no way this gets built in Texas.
First thought is some company trying pocket a bunch of federal grant money to do “research,” or perhaps, trying to get somebody to buy their land.
There is no way this gets built in Texas.
No, it won’t. The laws are structured to systematically favor forcing people to purchase cars. The potential financial losses to the auto and petroleum interests will prevent any plan related to mass transit from ever moving beyond the planning stages, climate change and personal freedom be damned.
Both Dallas and Houston are completely unwalkable, so you’d still need a car or Uber when you arrive.
If there was ever a way to sell high speed rail in Texas, calling it a "bullet" train is it. If it actually gets built, I bet the train is painted to look like an actual bullet.
Well, if they do, knowing Texas, it’ll be a .45 caliber bullet train.
About as likely as the Japanese giving up fish and rice.
You will see highways with 55 lanes each way, but you won't see an operational high speed train in the US. There are simply too many people opposed to any kind of real progress in this direction, and even the proponents of HSR or mass public transit have no shortage of excuses.
Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit. There is none of that in places like Texas, and again the public imagination has not moved on from some kind of 1950s car culture utopia, thats about "freedom".
In reality, cars are parked 90% of the time, and driven by tired, frustrated drivers in bumper to bumper traffic for the rest of the time.
The reality is that 20% of Texans (also other cities/states) spend $1000 or more a month on car. In many areas in the US, cars are the number 2, sometimes number 1 expense.
Here is a mass transit map of Berlin vs Houston: https://i.imgur.com/HwBGUcU.jpg
There is no HSR happening. Americans have dug a hole so deep with car culture and other Nimby delusions such as "what will happen to my home values", that there is no coming back from this.