Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

That is an excellent point. Also, the Germans have been building on that rail network since WWII. The wartime devastation might have stimulated the replacing of older infrastructure with newer.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

As to the issue of eminent domain. That is perpetually exercised for 35's constant expansion all the way from DFW to SA. and of course 20, 10, 30 and 40 expansion in the major metro areas those run through. So that isnt as huge a deal as one might think. Perhaps though also high speed rail lines can be more like Disney World monorail like and running above 35 from DFW to SA rather than on ground level to ease eminent domain issues.

I agree there will have to be multiple lines on the 35 corridor route. Some a direct line to from DFW to SA and DFW to ATX and one stop lines from ATX to SA for example and some lines that make that route with stops along the way in Waco, Belton, San Marcus etc.

In the end it's far too expensive and Texans don't want to pay the price. IH 35 is not a good comparison for eminent domain. It's already established; expansion doesn't require much additional land. Building a brand new high speed rail system, with multiple lines, and with stations, hubs, etc would require lots of land. Most farmers & ranchers will want it cutting through their land, maybe even splitting a farm or ranch into multiple parts. Urban residents won't like losing their homes for it. It's not a practical possibility.

Name one effective high speed rail project in the US that has been completed and works.

You can't compare European and Asian countries to the US. They have much stronger eminent domain rules that give their governments much higher authorities over claiming large swaths of land. For high speed rail, you need hundreds of miles of property in a very straight line in order to benefit from the high speed. The concept of property rights of the individual are much stronger in the US and our court system allows for dragging out these property right cases.

Someone up thread mentioned right of ways. Right of ways are significantly differerent than eminent domain and outright taking of property.

There are numerous active high speed rail projects proposed in numerous states, but they don't outnumber the hundreds that have been proposed and failed over the past several decades.

PartyBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

---

Sure but that Texas density in the triangle is a new thing.

When my dad was born (1950) Texas had only 7.6 million people. While Germany already had 52 million people by the year 1900.

And while Germany had to invest heavily in rail infrastructure to fight two massive wars against its enemies (France in the West & Russia in the East)….Texas only had to fight Mexico and the Northern dominated Federal government….both before the 20th century

It's easy to see how Germany developed rail and Texas became car dependent….and how hard it would be for Texas to change course right now.


We can see why Germany developed a deep rail line system to move troops around the country (and civilians)






While Texas has this….and it's mostly freight

Simply put, Americans are used to and comfortable with shouldering wildly variable out-of-pocket expenses as opposed to paying into a more stable, albeit higher annual tax bill like every other developed 1st world nation.

There are certain areas where we accept this concept in a privatized sense, auto insurance being a big one. But it's extremely fragmentary and rooted in a distrust of power, which tends to be more pointed in Texas.

In other words, our government's public works projects are not efficient because we refuse to properly fund it through taxes, and we in turn refuse to properly fund it through taxes because the government's public works projects are not efficient.

If you want an example of widely privatized public transportation, look no further than France. And what they got was a tollway network so insane that driving personal cars as a mass form of transportation has become untenable in the extreme. The ideal is publicly subsidized transport that puts everyone's skin in the game, but we are culturally too selfish to ever see that through.

I love the idea of a high speed transportation option. The problem that I have is that once I get to one of these cities the public transportation system stinks. It will cost me more to rent a car and take more time than driving.

I have taken public transportation in DC, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston. Dallas and Houston by far were the slowest and had the least amount of coverage. The issue that Texas cities face is that they are geographically huge. Houston is 671.57 sq miles. Dallas is 385.9 and Austin is 326.51. This is compared to DC at 68.35 sq miles, Chicago at 234.53 sq miles, and Boston is 86.61 sq miles. It is much easier to have high quality public transportation in DC when you are a tenth of the size of Houston. It just doesn't make sense until our cities start building up more and less out.

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

---

Sure but that Texas density in the triangle is a new thing.

When my dad was born (1950) Texas had only 7.6 million people. While Germany already had 52 million people by the year 1900.

And while Germany had to invest heavily in rail infrastructure to fight two massive wars against its enemies (France in the West & Russia in the East)….Texas only had to fight Mexico and the Northern dominated Federal government….both before the 20th century

It's easy to see how Germany developed rail and Texas became car dependent….and how hard it would be for Texas to change course right now.


We can see why Germany developed a deep rail line system to move troops around the country (and civilians)






While Texas has this….and it's mostly freight

---

Can't believe this thread still has legs but since football is a long way away, I guess there is something to talk about. If you look at the "freight" lines on the Texas maps, why do you believe adding additional right of way where they are located poses such a big problem ? High speed rail would need to be primarily an elevated line anyway. At 170 mph there can be no possibility of anything on the track, including any animals. Single line in each direction with sidetracks at stations. Forget Europe, go look at Japan as a model. Who knows what Texas population will be in 20 years, or what autos and fuel will cost. IF this ever happens, it will be decades from now and based on expected need.

BEAR 45 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

---

Sure but that Texas density in the triangle is a new thing.

When my dad was born (1950) Texas had only 7.6 million people. While Germany already had 52 million people by the year 1900.

And while Germany had to invest heavily in rail infrastructure to fight two massive wars against its enemies (France in the West & Russia in the East)….Texas only had to fight Mexico and the Northern dominated Federal government….both before the 20th century

It's easy to see how Germany developed rail and Texas became car dependent….and how hard it would be for Texas to change course right now.


We can see why Germany developed a deep rail line system to move troops around the country (and civilians)






While Texas has this….and it's mostly freight

---

Can't believe this thread still has legs but since football is a long way away, I guess there is something to talk about. If you look at the "freight" lines on the Texas maps, why do you believe adding additional right of way where they are located poses such a big problem ? .

---

I don't.

Just pointing out we started at a point of much less population density than Western Europe or East Asia.

No Continental enemies in the 20th century.

And we had Henry Ford.

Gonna be hard to get American citizens or politicians in 2024 to shift to the views of Germans/Japanese who have been shaped by 100 years of cheap (and safe) public transport

BEAR 45 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

---

Sure but that Texas density in the triangle is a new thing.

When my dad was born (1950) Texas had only 7.6 million people. While Germany already had 52 million people by the year 1900.

And while Germany had to invest heavily in rail infrastructure to fight two massive wars against its enemies (France in the West & Russia in the East)….Texas only had to fight Mexico and the Northern dominated Federal government….both before the 20th century

It's easy to see how Germany developed rail and Texas became car dependent….and how hard it would be for Texas to change course right now.


We can see why Germany developed a deep rail line system to move troops around the country (and civilians)

---

Can't believe this thread still has legs but since football is a long way away, I guess there is something to talk about. If you look at the "freight" lines on the Texas maps, why do you believe adding additional right of way where they are located poses such a big problem ? .

---

And while I would love Japanese high speed rail in Texas I don't think we have even touched on the politics question.


It turned into a massive disaster in California…and once Texas Democrats types like Sheila Jackson Lee & rich Texas Republican real estate developer types got a hold of the project it would probably turn into a disaster here as well….

The old America could have built such mega project….I have no faith in the modern America to do so

Building up costs a lot more.

historian said:

---

Building up costs a lot more.

---

You are right, and I don't blame companies and homeowners for building out. You do what makes the most sense financially and quality of life wise. I was just trying to make the point that as long as we are building out good public transportation like many east coast and European cities have is a pipe dream. There is just too much area to cover to make it feasible.

Agreed. Too much area to cover, not enough demand. The laws of economics apply.

BEAR 45 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

---

Sure but that Texas density in the triangle is a new thing.

When my dad was born (1950) Texas had only 7.6 million people. While Germany already had 52 million people by the year 1900.

And while Germany had to invest heavily in rail infrastructure to fight two massive wars against its enemies (France in the West & Russia in the East)….Texas only had to fight Mexico and the Northern dominated Federal government….both before the 20th century

It's easy to see how Germany developed rail and Texas became car dependent….and how hard it would be for Texas to change course right now.


We can see why Germany developed a deep rail line system to move troops around the country (and civilians)






While Texas has this….and it's mostly freight

---

Can't believe this thread still has legs but since football is a long way away, I guess there is something to talk about. If you look at the "freight" lines on the Texas maps, why do you believe adding additional right of way where they are located poses such a big problem ? High speed rail would need to be primarily an elevated line anyway. At 170 mph there can be no possibility of anything on the track, including any animals. Single line in each direction with sidetracks at stations. Forget Europe, go look at Japan as a model. Who knows what Texas population will be in 20 years, or what autos and fuel will cost. IF this ever happens, it will be decades from now and based on expected need.

---

The reason it creates such a problem is that in many urban areas where the rail line runs using ED to grab land would mean having to demolish lots of buildings, having to change traffic patterns, roads, etc. that would get changed due to another rail line, even if elevated.

Look in downtown Waco for example. Freight trains go through there pretty regularly. To add another line next to it would cause many buildings along the entire length to have to be torn down, many road intersections with the rail to be changed, etc.

This just multiplies the cost and makes it unreasonable.

Or you have to go around the city center.

Which creates an issue like what was proposed with the Trans Texas Corridor (the pie in the sky plan to build a new I35 and rail line) where it was going to go well to the east or west of all the cities. IN the Waco area it was being proposed to go through McGregor at one point and that would be where the train stop was for Waco (which actually wouldn't be different than the Amtrak stop) but it was also going to go east/west of DFW as well.

High speed rail would benefit no one if it drops you off in McGregor for Waco where there is no bus to then get to town and there isn't even a rental car place in McGregor.

As a resident in Bell county, I will tell you that the future growth in Bell county will be either toward Austin or toward Waco. I believe it is headed toward Austin. Living in Harker Heights I can be in Cedar Park, Round Rock or Waco in 50 minutes. For shopping, I always head south. I think that is why Waco is not growing as fast as Bell county. Geography and location on the map is a huge factor related to growth and development. Personally, after living in DFW for thirty years, I much prefer Bell county. Go to Austin only on rare occasions because mid-sized cities offer all I need.

Waco is growing pretty fast for a town/city of its size. Companies are moving here but they lean logistics or manufacturing. Companies shipping things all over the Texas triangle. Waco is in a great place for that. Certain small businesses may like the college town vibe but the "hip" tech startups or financial institutions tend to hire people that expect certain amenities. Waco has no Trader Joe's, a much smaller young singles people market, no food network celebrity chefs opening up a couple restaurants. Waco has HEB, fun things to do for young singles but smaller in scale, and there is solid food but not necessarily what a Google or Goldman Sachs employee wants.

High speed rail would be great. Imagine hopping off a train no more than a mile from the stadium/arena. Watching the game and taking the train back that evening or following morning. Unless Elon Musk intends to introduce the world to his underground magnet train in Texas at a discount then high speed rail probably isn't coming anytime soon. You have to overcome a Texas culture issue, which is people in this state don't blink at driving 90-120 miles. Why pay for a train from DFW to Houston when they can take their own car and have that freedom of transportation in Houston that it provides.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BEAR 45 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

---

Sure but that Texas density in the triangle is a new thing.

When my dad was born (1950) Texas had only 7.6 million people. While Germany already had 52 million people by the year 1900.

And while Germany had to invest heavily in rail infrastructure to fight two massive wars against its enemies (France in the West & Russia in the East)….Texas only had to fight Mexico and the Northern dominated Federal government….both before the 20th century

It's easy to see how Germany developed rail and Texas became car dependent….and how hard it would be for Texas to change course right now.


We can see why Germany developed a deep rail line system to move troops around the country (and civilians)

---

Can't believe this thread still has legs but since football is a long way away, I guess there is something to talk about. If you look at the "freight" lines on the Texas maps, why do you believe adding additional right of way where they are located poses such a big problem ? .

---

And while I would love Japanese high speed rail in Texas I don't think we have even touched on the politics question.


It turned into a massive disaster in California…and once Texas Democrats types like Sheila Jackson Lee & rich Texas Republican real estate developer types got a hold of the project it would probably turn into a disaster here as well….

The old America could have built such mega project….I have no faith in the modern America to do so

---

Don't bring facts and data to an emotional discussion about how great are choo-choos.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

Waco is growing pretty fast for a town/city of its size. Companies are moving here but they lean logistics or manufacturing. Companies shipping things all over the Texas triangle. Waco is in a great place for that. Certain small businesses may like the college town vibe but the "hip" tech startups or financial institutions tend to hire people that expect certain amenities. Waco has no Trader Joe's, a much smaller young singles people market, no food network celebrity chefs opening up a couple restaurants. Waco has HEB, fun things to do for young singles but smaller in scale, and there is solid food but not necessarily what a Google or Goldman Sachs employee wants.

High speed rail would be great. Imagine hopping off a train no more than a mile from the stadium/arena. Watching the game and taking the train back that evening or following morning. Unless Elon Musk intends to introduce the world to his underground magnet train in Texas at a discount then high speed rail probably isn't coming anytime soon. You have to overcome a Texas culture issue, which is people in this state don't blink at driving 90-120 miles. Why pay for a train from DFW to Houston when they can take their own car and have that freedom of transportation in Houston that it provides.

---

Your post highlights the sort of circular problem that Waco has. A chicken/egg problem.

It doesn't have the things white collar employees would want but if enough of those things were to come then more white collar employees would come. Or switch it around. If more white collar employees were here then those things would follow.

Which I think the city/county leaders get and is why they try to draw bigger companies when they are moving factories/headquarters and is why they need to make a huge push the next time a big company wants to move their headquarters (probably out of a tax heavy state). If a large company were to want to move their entire headquarters into a new state or new "campus" (like Exxon did not long ago- brining multiple locations into one campus) and Waco could land that then the amenities would follow

I live near the beach here in South Carolina and I have a lot of friends here who make special trips to Waco to surf at BSR. One of my buddies took his son there to surf and now his son is going to go to Baylor in the fall. I wish that was there in the late 90s when i was in school. I dont really do much surfing but from what I am told that is a fantastic place to work on your surfing.

Waco is selling what they can and has launched new advertising.
"The heart of Texas"
"Not a vacation but a Wacation"
Being back in Waco I've seen tour buses and tourists in them on a Tuesday. Definitely not happening when I was in undergrad.

And some of it Waco can't help. I'm from Nashville and Alliance Bernstein moved there the other year from NYC. Interesting article in the WSJ awhile back interviewing the employees on the move. Some loved it and were amazed they could buy a house with a yard and not rent a shoebox apartment for the rest of their life. Others were furious and hated it, Nashville was a tiny city full of uneducated and uncultured rednecks to them. Not helping the latter crowd was the people they viewed as responsible for the move all retired directly after and didn't move to Nashville themselves.

One simple fact most politicians and frankly most public transportation and infrastructure experts fail to understand about passenger rail.

Like the automobile/roadway system, it fails or thrives when it is established as the predominant option. When it is the deciding factor commerce and real estate.

If you want to see a light rail success story visit ANY developed city where cars are impractical and are the least convenient option.
If you want to see a high speed passenger rail success story visit any developed nation where long distance car travel is less convenient.

Rail is too complex here to be successful as an afterthought.

baylorguy09 said:

---

I know Waco is growing, but it does not seem to grow as quickly as other cities in the state. This is surprising to me since it sits between Dallas and Austin/San Antonio, as well as completes the triangle to Houston.

It has a major university, trade/technical schools and decent local school districts.

What prevents it from developing into a thriving major city? Leadership?
I would think that we would try tapping into the technology developments that Austin is getting and trying to land those major corporations whose workforce may not want to live in Austin.

As a current resident of Austin, I would prefer moving back to Waco in a heartbeat if I could. This place has become a nightmare to live in anymore.

Just curious of everyone's thoughts.

On a side note, what would everyone like to see come to Waco? For me, a Costco (on the south side of town) and some sort of landmark resort or something hat would bring folks in. For instance, expand Hawaiian Falls and develop that area as a vacation spot for families. Close enough to downtown, you have Camp Fimfo developing there, etc.

---

I want to be out of Austin, but I want Waco to be Austin??? As a percentage of growth, Waco has grown the last 2 decades or significantly. I moved here from Dallas to get out of the big city traffic, hyper growth

Waco is small time because it is still run small time. There is no incentive for the circle jerk that is going on to ever change.

McLennan County needs ambition. It needs new blood.

Because Waco is about ten years away from being the smallest market in Central Texas.

That's why so many of us who grew up there got the hell out in the first place

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BEAR 45 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Although it has been 20+ years, I have travelled in Europe a few times and used the trains. The were wonderful traveling between cities: Berlin, Munich, Prague, Vienna, Paris, etc. They were cheap, comfortable & reasonably fast. Better than flying. When I arrived in a city, even a smaller one, the train station was near the city center and had a subway station attached (or above ground rail network) so getting around the city was pretty easy. But they have an extensive public transportation system that everyone uses because they have to.

It's affordable because it's heavily subsidized by the government. If you travel, you are in their schedule meaning it takes longer, you often wait for your next ride, & you might have to change trains (or subways) multiple times.

True story: at one time I was in Berlin for a few months doing research. I regularly walked to the subway station then took it to another station, changing en route, then walked to my destination. It was over an hour. At one time, I had a car rental and drove directly to my destination in about 10-15 minutes. The autobahn is great. I suspect that is typical.

My point is that this would not work in Texas because we don't want the expense or the higher level of government control. We prefer our freedom. Texans don't even want the government to take their land through eminent domain to build it. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

---

Population density is probably a reason for that as well.

There are 84 million people in Germany (vs 30 million in Texas) and the country is much smaller than Texas.

"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 52.65% the size of Texas."

When you have 84 million people living in an area the size of the Texas triangle you can built up some serious rail and subway infrastructure

---

You realize that about 90 % of the Texas population is in the Texas Triangle which is substantially smaller than the 357,022 sq km size of Germany. Granted 24 or so million is less than 84 million as well. But just eyeballing that on a globe at the office. The Texas Triangle appears to be about half the size of Germany in terms of geographic space. My point is that the population is pretty dense where the heart of Texas' population is.

---

Sure but that Texas density in the triangle is a new thing.

When my dad was born (1950) Texas had only 7.6 million people. While Germany already had 52 million people by the year 1900.

And while Germany had to invest heavily in rail infrastructure to fight two massive wars against its enemies (France in the West & Russia in the East)….Texas only had to fight Mexico and the Northern dominated Federal government….both before the 20th century

It's easy to see how Germany developed rail and Texas became car dependent….and how hard it would be for Texas to change course right now.


We can see why Germany developed a deep rail line system to move troops around the country (and civilians)

---

Can't believe this thread still has legs but since football is a long way away, I guess there is something to talk about. If you look at the "freight" lines on the Texas maps, why do you believe adding additional right of way where they are located poses such a big problem ? .

---

And while I would love Japanese high speed rail in Texas I don't think we have even touched on the politics question.


It turned into a massive disaster in California…and once Texas Democrats types like Sheila Jackson Lee & rich Texas Republican real estate developer types got a hold of the project it would probably turn into a disaster here as well….

The old America could have built such mega project….I have no faith in the modern America to do so

---

Don't bring facts and data to an emotional discussion about how great are choo-choos.

---

Now look at Florida and Brightline connecting Miami and Orlando.

Killing Floor said:

---

One simple fact most politicians and frankly most public transportation and infrastructure experts fail to understand about passenger rail.

Like the automobile/roadway system, it fails or thrives when it is established as the predominant option. When it is the deciding factor commerce and real estate.

If you want to see a light rail success story visit ANY developed city where cars are impractical and are the least convenient option.
If you want to see a high speed passenger rail success story visit any developed nation where long distance car travel is less convenient.

Rail is too complex here to be successful as an afterthought.

---

Well stated summary!

parch said:

---

Simply put, Americans are used to and comfortable with shouldering wildly variable out-of-pocket expenses as opposed to paying into a more stable, albeit higher annual tax bill like every other developed 1st world nation.

There are certain areas where we accept this concept in a privatized sense, auto insurance being a big one. But it's extremely fragmentary and rooted in a distrust of power, which tends to be more pointed in Texas.

In other words, our government's public works projects are not efficient because we refuse to properly fund it through taxes, and we in turn refuse to properly fund it through taxes because the government's public works projects are not efficient.

---

You have made some good points.

I've lived in different parts of the USA and I've visited Europe a few times - using public transit each time I was there. When visiting many parts of Europe, planning and growth make sense to me. Public Transit and growth are often built off of existing rail. We could have done that here in the USA, as we had a lot of rail. Unfortunately, private business interests scuttled that type of growth and development in the majority of this country. There are only a handful of cities that have excellent transit systems in place and most of that is due to density i.e. NYC, SF etc.

It's kind of ironic that we spend billions on roads, car payments and insurance each month but don't want to pay for high speed rail and transit because it would be too expensive.

There are very little tax incentives provided by local authorities. If you want to win business, you have to sweeten the pot so to speak. How does Killeen land a hotel over Waco? More than likely it has to do with sales/property tax incentives. If you don't offer reductions or abatements, you'll easily move yourself out of the running for businesses relocating to central Texas.

Beaumont: Up 10 years and 100% property tax abatement with minimum of 20 new jobs and varying investment.
Baytown: 8 years and 100% property tax abatement pending investment.
Tyler: Up to 10 years and 100% property tax abatement with minimum of 40 new jobs and $1 million in real property.
Waco: 5-7 years and 65-90% abatement...provided you add over 200 new jobs and invest in over $10 million in real property.

Which of those sound the best to you as a business owner? Sure as hell ain't Waco. Sometimes the money saved in tax incentives will be the ultimate determining factor. If Waco doesn't want to play, then don't get upset when you don't win.

montypython said:

---

parch said:

---

Simply put, Americans are used to and comfortable with shouldering wildly variable out-of-pocket expenses as opposed to paying into a more stable, albeit higher annual tax bill like every other developed 1st world nation.

There are certain areas where we accept this concept in a privatized sense, auto insurance being a big one. But it's extremely fragmentary and rooted in a distrust of power, which tends to be more pointed in Texas.

In other words, our government's public works projects are not efficient because we refuse to properly fund it through taxes, and we in turn refuse to properly fund it through taxes because the government's public works projects are not efficient.

---

You have made some good points.

I've lived in different parts of the USA and I've visited Europe a few times - using public transit each time I was there. When visiting many parts of Europe, planning and growth make sense to me. Public Transit and growth are often built off of existing rail. We could have done that here in the USA, as we had a lot of rail. Unfortunately, private business interests scuttled that type of growth and development in the majority of this country. There are only a handful of cities that have excellent transit systems in place and most of that is due to density i.e. NYC, SF etc.

It's kind of ironic that we spend billions on roads, car payments and insurance each month but don't want to pay for high speed rail and transit because it would be too expensive.

---

The expense is one of the reasons Americans are less interested in public transportation. Another is freedom: we like to be able to get in our car and go where we want when we want. We don't want to be on someone else's timetable, don't want uncomfortable seats, don't trust the government to manage things well (with good reason), and don't want the other uncertainties that come with public transit (crime, health risks, etc). Yes, driving the car has its own risks but we live under the belief that we can control or mitigate those risks. Usually we can and only rarely is that illusory.

Americans like their freedom.

There's an old saying from 100 years ago that might not be true: "Well at least Mussolini kept the trains on time!" Even if true, we don't want to pay the price the Italian people had to pay.

I think using Austin and the D/FW as measuring sticks is a little unfair.

We are still in an era of massive urbanization as fewer and fewer people are living in rural areas. This, combined with immigration and the need for services, makes major metros and their suburbs extremely attractive for population and technology driven growth.

Waco is an outlier at this point in time. It will never be a major metro. That train left the station over 100 years ago and is never coming back. Oddly enough, Waco likely won't even have a depot on the new high speed rail system that has been touted for the state. Though, in fairness, they've been touting a high speed rail system for the State of Texas since the 1980's. I remember because my mother bought me the Micro Machines bullet train back in that era.

Waco's comparables are fairly Lubbock, Abilene, Temple-Killeen, Bryan-College Station, Tyler, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, San Angelo, Texarkana, and to some extent Laredo. Laredo is a little different because of its position and importance on the border.

What you really have to do is compare the growth in Waco compared to those other cities, and probably the most concerning issue is that Bryan-College Station and Temple-Killeen are heavily outpacing the Waco Metro - and it's not even close.

Now, some of this is due to Waco's location. The river is nice, but it is is non-navigable, so Waco can't be a port. It has a good water supply. However, it sits in an odd location a little too close but a little too far from the major metros of D/FW and Austin.

So, in terms of population and high paying jobs, the metros and suburbs closer to those major metros are going to act like a vaccuum, especially in the coming decades.

Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: political and economic leadership. I grew up in McLennan County and am extremely familiar in the manner in which the county has been historically run. Part of the problem is that not much has changed since the 1950's. Waco has some elites, but the majority of Waco elites are upper middle class residents who can only preserve their prestige exclusively in McLennan County. As a result, Waco's leadership circle is extremely cliquish. It has been that way for decades. So, what you get is a small leadership circle jerk that ultimately results in self-serving decisions that have the natural consequence of stifling potential growth. McLennan County could use some fresh, new leadership and leadership that is more focused on the best interest of McLennan County rather than what is in the best interest of the politician or person in a leadership position.

Now, I say this with loving regard for many of these leaders. I have known many of them and their extended families for decades. But not much has changed, from my perspective, from what I saw as a child.

In fairness to McLennan County's leadership, the outside factors and issues are probably have more of an effect on the growth patterns in McLennan County than the leadership, but leadership that were unselfish and steadfast in their duties would benefit McLennan County and its people greatly.

That doesn't mean you need to necessarily have new people installed so much as a fresh approach, but, to be honest, some new blood in that county's leadership could do that county a whole lot of good, provided you have good, focused individuals with ambitions for the county and its people rather than for themselves.

Quote:

---

The ground-breaking ceremony for the nation's first high-speed, all-electric railway took place in Las Vegas on Monday. The Brightline West line will connect Las Vegas with the Los Angeles metro area.

Trains on the Brightline West rail line will hit nearly 200 miles an hour, cutting the trip between Las Vegas and San Bernardino to about two hours, nearly half the time it takes to drive.

---

What they didn't tell us is that construction requires American built products and currently no one in America builds high speed trains

Yogi said:

---

I think using Austin and the D/FW as measuring sticks is a little unfair.

We are still in an era of massive urbanization as fewer and fewer people are living in rural areas. This, combined with immigration and the need for services, makes major metros and their suburbs extremely attractive for population and technology driven growth.

Waco is an outlier at this point in time. It will never be a major metro. That train left the station over 100 years ago and is never coming back. Oddly enough, Waco likely won't even have a depot on the new high speed rail system that has been touted for the state. Though, in fairness, they've been touting a high speed rail system for the State of Texas since the 1980's. I remember because my mother bought me the Micro Machines bullet train back in that era.

Waco's comparables are fairly Lubbock, Abilene, Temple-Killeen, Bryan-College Station, Tyler, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, San Angelo, Texarkana, and to some extent Laredo. Laredo is a little different because of its position and importance on the border.

What you really have to do is compare the growth in Waco compared to those other cities, and probably the most concerning issue is that Bryan-College Station and Temple-Killeen are heavily outpacing the Waco Metro - and it's not even close.

Now, some of this is due to Waco's location. The river is nice, but it is is non-navigable, so Waco can't be a port. It has a good water supply. However, it sits in an odd location a little too close but a little too far from the major metros of D/FW and Austin.

So, in terms of population and high paying jobs, the metros and suburbs closer to those major metros are going to act like a vaccuum, especially in the coming decades.

Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: political and economic leadership. I grew up in McLennan County and am extremely familiar in the manner in which the county has been historically run. Part of the problem is that not much has changed since the 1950's. Waco has some elites, but the majority of Waco elites are upper middle class residents who can only preserve their prestige exclusively in McLennan County. As a result, Waco's leadership circle is extremely cliquish. It has been that way for decades. So, what you get is a small leadership circle jerk that ultimately results in self-serving decisions that have the natural consequence of stifling potential growth. McLennan County could use some fresh, new leadership and leadership that is more focused on the best interest of McLennan County rather than what is in the best interest of the politician or person in a leadership position.

Now, I say this with loving regard for many of these leaders. I have known many of them and their extended families for decades. But not much has changed, from my perspective, from what I saw as a child.

In fairness to McLennan County's leadership, the outside factors and issues are probably have more of an effect on the growth patterns in McLennan County than the leadership, but leadership that were unselfish and steadfast in their duties would benefit McLennan County and its people greatly.

That doesn't mean you need to necessarily have new people installed so much as a fresh approach, but, to be honest, some new blood in that county's leadership could do that county a whole lot of good, provided you have good, focused individuals with ambitions for the county and its people rather than for themselves.

---

This mentality extends to Waco ISD. The pushback against a new superintendent coming from a successful Belton ISD was palpable. Her other fault was that she was the "wrong" color.

Yogi said:

---

I think using Austin and the D/FW as measuring sticks is a little unfair.

We are still in an era of massive urbanization as fewer and fewer people are living in rural areas. This, combined with immigration and the need for services, makes major metros and their suburbs extremely attractive for population and technology driven growth.

Waco is an outlier at this point in time. It will never be a major metro. That train left the station over 100 years ago and is never coming back. Oddly enough, Waco likely won't even have a depot on the new high speed rail system that has been touted for the state. Though, in fairness, they've been touting a high speed rail system for the State of Texas since the 1980's. I remember because my mother bought me the Micro Machines bullet train back in that era.

Waco's comparables are fairly Lubbock, Abilene, Temple-Killeen, Bryan-College Station, Tyler, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, San Angelo, Texarkana, and to some extent Laredo. Laredo is a little different because of its position and importance on the border.

What you really have to do is compare the growth in Waco compared to those other cities, and probably the most concerning issue is that Bryan-College Station and Temple-Killeen are heavily outpacing the Waco Metro - and it's not even close.

Now, some of this is due to Waco's location. The river is nice, but it is is non-navigable, so Waco can't be a port. It has a good water supply. However, it sits in an odd location a little too close but a little too far from the major metros of D/FW and Austin.

So, in terms of population and high paying jobs, the metros and suburbs closer to those major metros are going to act like a vaccuum, especially in the coming decades.

Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: political and economic leadership. I grew up in McLennan County and am extremely familiar in the manner in which the county has been historically run. Part of the problem is that not much has changed since the 1950's. Waco has some elites, but the majority of Waco elites are upper middle class residents who can only preserve their prestige exclusively in McLennan County. As a result, Waco's leadership circle is extremely cliquish. It has been that way for decades. So, what you get is a small leadership circle jerk that ultimately results in self-serving decisions that have the natural consequence of stifling potential growth. McLennan County could use some fresh, new leadership and leadership that is more focused on the best interest of McLennan County rather than what is in the best interest of the politician or person in a leadership position.

Now, I say this with loving regard for many of these leaders. I have known many of them and their extended families for decades. But not much has changed, from my perspective, from what I saw as a child.

In fairness to McLennan County's leadership, the outside factors and issues are probably have more of an effect on the growth patterns in McLennan County than the leadership, but leadership that were unselfish and steadfast in their duties would benefit McLennan County and its people greatly.

That doesn't mean you need to necessarily have new people installed so much as a fresh approach, but, to be honest, some new blood in that county's leadership could do that county a whole lot of good, provided you have good, focused individuals with ambitions for the county and its people rather than for themselves.

---

IMO this 100% true, non-judgmental, and impeccably stated. Thank you.