Does this ever become a reality?
Does this have any current impact on city planning and downtown development?

it's going to happen at some point. They have a high speed going from orlando to miami which will be done by next year. It's insane how sluggish it has been when you have Southwest and American lobbying against a Texas rail, doesn't seem like it'll ever get done.

It'll have great benefits for the Waco/Baylor area if there was a stop by downtown. Currently Amtrak goes 45 mph which gives driving the better opttion.

The only high speed rail project that I'm aware of that's currently "active" is the Texas Central railway proposed to run between Dallas and Houston. I believe its construction been stalled out since last Fall over a permit flap. It has strong opposition, and apparently Gov. Abbot has flip-flopped on his support. Closest it comes to Waco is far eastern Limestone County, with no stops until near Bryan/College Station. Here is a link to the website, with plenty of information on it. https://www.texascentral.com/project/

This is correct. Taxpayer subsidies are not the answer. Perhaps eliminating various subsidies (like free airports, railroads build and maintain their own tracks) for Airlines would increase demand for train travel.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

This is correct. Taxpayer subsidies are not the answer. Perhaps eliminating various subsidies (like free airports, railroads build and maintain their own tracks) for Airlines would increase demand for train travel.

---

Passenger rail also requires cooks, porters, waiters and other support personnel while a 2-mile long freight train can be manned by 2 or 3 people. Liability in a 10 car passenger derailment would be astronomical compared to a 10 car derailment of soybeans.

I do enjoy a lengthy train ride though.

Quote:

---

Liability in a 10 car passenger derailment would be astronomical

---

Likely less than the crash of a 737 Max or a 777. Fewer pax on the plane, likely lots more deaths.

It should be noted, however, that death rates per 100,000,000 miles on rail roads was substantially higher than for scheduled airlines. Interestingly busses had a higher rate than trains and, of course, automobile travel has by far the highest rate by this measure. Some of this is distorted by the significant difference in the average number of miles traveled per passenger on scheduled airlines vs the other means.

Deaths by Transportation Mode - Injury Facts (nsc.org)

ABC BEAR said:

---

If there was any profitability in it, the private carriers never would have given up their passenger service. Trains are for freight

---

Agree,

High speed rail for passengers will never be profitable unless the government is determined to move Americans off car ownership.

China for instance does not really want its population driving. They have 1.3 billion citizens. And they rightly assume they have to follow the Japanese development model and make their citizens train and subway travelers and not really car owners.

America is the home of the car and we have built vast amounts of roads. We also have 1/4th the population of China in about the same geographic area.

I don't see a need for high density passenger rail.

Again I'm not against it...and if we were starting over and developing as a nation in the year 2021 vs the early 1900s I would say lets do it...rail travel is safer and moves more people more efficiently than cars....but I just don't see the need unless its a governmental directive by our ruling class to get us off car ownership. That would be the only way it would be economically feasible.

Density of population is what makes it economical. There will one day be a train in the IH35 corridor, but probably not in our lifetimes, and certainly not in mine. I had the good fortune of riding the Shin Kan Sen (bullet train) from Osaka to Tokyo a number of years ago.....over 300 miles in about 2 hours. It was quite a rush, in more ways than one. I loved every minute of it.

I rode the high soeed train from Guiyang to Shenzen and back a few times on mt way to Hong Kong. It was about the same time as flying if you included going through the airport and about half the price.500+ miles for $70.


The trains were sold out weeks ahead of time and planes was never sold out. I dont think it would work as well in America because ih China even the mid sized cities have well developed subway/bus systems

Baylor Pride said:

---

Does this ever become a reality?
Does this have any current impact on city planning and downtown development?

---

Only if provides fast trips TO someplace else.

The advent of electric vehicles might make rail seem like a reasonable way to travel. Very limited range and a 45 minutes to an hour recharging time is a huge step backward in efficiency and something only a democrat would embrace. Of course 90% of the cobalt needed for the batteries is mined in China.....how do we allow such losers to manipulate our lives?

Trains are great. I love them. The government shouldn't be in the train business. Railroads built a huge rail grid in the US with passenger service everywhere, including things like the Interurban railroad that linked Waco, Dallas, Fort Worth, B/CS, Corsicana etc without government money. If its profitable they will do it again.

You've no doubt heard the saying, "That's no way to run a railroad". AMTrack is that way. One look at AMTrack's books will tell you why it's a bad idea for our government to own and operate a railroad

There will be a break through in batteries in the next 5-10 years that allow electric cars the same range (or better) and the same refuel time (or nearly) as gasoline vehicles. How will it work? Don't know. But there is too much money to be made for the company that comes up with that technology to think that it won't.

The only way people will prefer trains to cars is if they literally can't get where they want to go in a car in a reasonable amount of time or if the cost is much higher. Why would anyone prefer going to a train station, parking a vehicle (or using a nasty ride share vehicle), waiting for a train, riding the train, getting a ride at the other end to wherever it is you are actually going to getting in your car in your garage and getting out of it at your destination. The problem with public transit is that it picks you up wherever it stops (as opposed to where you are) and takes you to wherever it is going (as opposed to where you are going).

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Trains are great. I love them. The government shouldn't be in the train business. Railroads built a huge rail grid in the US with passenger service everywhere, including things like the Interurban railroad that linked Waco, Dallas, Fort Worth, B/CS, Corsicana etc without government money. If its profitable they will do it again.

You've no doubt heard the saying, "That's no way to run a railroad". AMTrack is that way. One look at AMTrack's books will tell you why it's a bad idea for our government to own and operate a railroad

There will be a break through in batteries in the next 5-10 years that allow electric cars the same range (or better) and the same refuel time (or nearly) as gasoline vehicles. How will it work? Don't know. But there is too much money to be made for the company that comes up with that technology to think that it won't.

The only way people will prefer trains to cars is if they literally can't get where they want to go in a car in a reasonable amount of time or if the cost is much higher. Why would anyone prefer going to a train station, parking a vehicle (or using a nasty ride share vehicle), waiting for a train, riding the train, getting a ride at the other end to wherever it is you are actually going to getting in your car in your garage and getting out of it at your destination. The problem with public transit is that it picks you up wherever it stops (as opposed to where you are) and takes you to wherever it is going (as opposed to where you are going).

---

Yep,

That is why train travel works better and makes sense in China, Japan, the EU. While car travel works better for the USA, Australia, and Russia.

Good points. I havent owned a vehicle in 8 years (except my Harley and it stays in Texas). I use public transportation often. Thailand has great buses and Bangkoks Skytrain, plus Uber. China has buses and high speed trains and of course, black taxis. In the UAE I rode buses often. Many Americans are spoiled by being able to go anywhere they want at anytime they want. That wont change until the price goes up.

I lived in Acton, MA and worked in downtown Boston for a few years. Rode Fitchburg line train into work. Let me off at North Station (the old one before they built the new Boston Garden). Had to walk to the front of the garden and outdoors a block or so to get to the North Station T entrance and catch the Green Line or Orange line to State Street. My office was across Washington Street from the station.

Hated every minute of it. We are not spoiled to not have to take public transit and go anywhere we want anytime we want, we are blessed. We should vigorously oppose those who want to take it away from us for any reason. I would not want to live somewhere I had to do that again.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

I lived in Acton, MA and worked in downtown Boston for a few years. Rode Fitchburg line train into work. Let me off at North Station (the old one before they built the new Boston Garden). Had to walk to the front of the garden and outdoors a block or so to get to the North Station T entrance and catch the Green Line or Orange line to State Street. My office was across Washington Street from the station.

Hated every minute of it. We are not spoiled to not have to take public transit and go anywhere we want anytime we want, we are blessed. We should vigorously oppose those who want to take it away from us for any reason. I would not want to live somewhere I had to do that again.

---

Also consider the lack of central AC and use of radiators in many older buildings. Eastern cities are vertical, we build horizontally. Things are different out here, including what works transportation-wise.

Hats off to you CB for doing what it takes to make a living there. I could never be an Easterner.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Trains are great. I love them. The government shouldn't be in the train business. Railroads built a huge rail grid in the US with passenger service everywhere, including things like the Interurban railroad that linked Waco, Dallas, Fort Worth, B/CS, Corsicana etc without government money. If its profitable they will do it again.

You've no doubt heard the saying, "That's no way to run a railroad". AMTrack is that way. One look at AMTrack's books will tell you why it's a bad idea for our government to own and operate a railroad

There will be a break through in batteries in the next 5-10 years that allow electric cars the same range (or better) and the same refuel time (or nearly) as gasoline vehicles. How will it work? Don't know. But there is too much money to be made for the company that comes up with that technology to think that it won't.

The only way people will prefer trains to cars is if they literally can't get where they want to go in a car in a reasonable amount of time or if the cost is much higher. Why would anyone prefer going to a train station, parking a vehicle (or using a nasty ride share vehicle), waiting for a train, riding the train, getting a ride at the other end to wherever it is you are actually going to getting in your car in your garage and getting out of it at your destination. The problem with public transit is that it picks you up wherever it stops (as opposed to where you are) and takes you to wherever it is going (as opposed to where you are going).

---

I agree with some of the points you make here but, consider this-

We are finishing up (well, kinda finishing up) the I-35 expansion through Waco. It's a 30 mile jaunt from Bruceville Eddy to Lacy Lakeview. You know what TxDot has spent on that? Over a BILLION dollars. Over $33 million PER MILE. And all we did was expand it by one lane each direction and redo access roads/bridges. No one blinks an eye and it'll have to be redone in 20 years for 3x+ that amount.

Highways can't be expanded into infinity. It's not physically possible in some instances and when you consider the high price tag and that the more we build, the more we must maintain, it becomes economically impractical as well to just keep trying to force more blood through the same blood vessel.

Further, driving and car ownership patterns are changing and changing rapidly. The increased cost of cars (which will continue to skyrocket), combined with the increased cost of ownership, combined with the alternative transportation options (mainly ridesharing and, in the future, driverless vehicles) will mean that families have fewer vehicles and rely on them less. As I've said, I don't see us getting rid of family car ownership in my lifetime but could easily see a family of 4 having 1 car instead of 2-3 cars. It's just wildly inefficient and will make less sense when there are functional alternatives and the cost of ownership increases.

While the cost to build a high speed rail is 3-4x per mile compared to, say, the I-35 expansion, it's something that must be started now in anticipatory mode because it'll be too expensive and take too long if we let Texas grow by 25 million people and then try to make it work in a reaction. I concede that a Waco specific route makes little sense. To use your example, CorsicanaBear, it doesn't make sense to drive 15 minutes to the station in DFW, wait on the train, then take it for 45 minutes to Waco, then have to rideshare once here. All in, you are talking little time savings and little cost savings, if any while losing flexibility.

But a Dallas -> Austin or DFW-> San Antonio route actually does make sense. And one from Austin or San Antonio to Houston does as well. Perhaps the most logical is a Houston to DFW route. Those are all 3-4-5 hour trips by car whereas they could be done in 90 minutes or less by train. A few stops along the route do make some sense as well to increase ridership and usability.

I'm not anti-highway, anti-car, pro-government funded transport, or anything like that. In fact, I love the freedom that having your own car provides. From 50000ft, it just seems like if you doubled the size of DFW, Austin, San Antonio and Houston overnight (which is basically what's going to happen over the next 30 years), highways as they are right now aren't going to cut it (physically or economically) and planes are even clumsier than trains for short trips. To me, it's a no brainer that it'll be needed 20-30 years from now and we'll need to start it now to have any prayer of an functional network in 20 years.

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Trains are great. I love them. The government shouldn't be in the train business. Railroads built a huge rail grid in the US with passenger service everywhere, including things like the Interurban railroad that linked Waco, Dallas, Fort Worth, B/CS, Corsicana etc without government money. If its profitable they will do it again.

You've no doubt heard the saying, "That's no way to run a railroad". AMTrack is that way. One look at AMTrack's books will tell you why it's a bad idea for our government to own and operate a railroad

There will be a break through in batteries in the next 5-10 years that allow electric cars the same range (or better) and the same refuel time (or nearly) as gasoline vehicles. How will it work? Don't know. But there is too much money to be made for the company that comes up with that technology to think that it won't.

The only way people will prefer trains to cars is if they literally can't get where they want to go in a car in a reasonable amount of time or if the cost is much higher. Why would anyone prefer going to a train station, parking a vehicle (or using a nasty ride share vehicle), waiting for a train, riding the train, getting a ride at the other end to wherever it is you are actually going to getting in your car in your garage and getting out of it at your destination. The problem with public transit is that it picks you up wherever it stops (as opposed to where you are) and takes you to wherever it is going (as opposed to where you are going).

---

I agree with some of the points you make here but, consider this-

We are finishing up (well, kinda finishing up) the I-35 expansion through Waco. It's a 30 mile jaunt from Bruceville Eddy to Lacy Lakeview. You know what TxDot has spent on that? Over a BILLION dollars. Over $33 million PER MILE. And all we did was expand it by one lane each direction and redo access roads/bridges. No one blinks an eye and it'll have to be redone in 20 years for 3x+ that amount.

Highways can't be expanded into infinity. It's not physically possible in some instances and when you consider the high price tag and that the more we build, the more we must maintain, it becomes economically impractical as well to just keep trying to force more blood through the same blood vessel.

Further, driving and car ownership patterns are changing and changing rapidly. The increased cost of cars (which will continue to skyrocket), combined with the increased cost of ownership, combined with the alternative transportation options (mainly ridesharing and, in the future, driverless vehicles) will mean that families have fewer vehicles and rely on them less. As I've said, I don't see us getting rid of family car ownership in my lifetime but could easily see a family of 4 having 1 car instead of 2-3 cars. It's just wildly inefficient and will make less sense when there are functional alternatives and the cost of ownership increases.

While the cost to build a high speed rail is 3-4x per mile compared to, say, the I-35 expansion, it's something that must be started now in anticipatory mode because it'll be too expensive and take too long if we let Texas grow by 25 million people and then try to make it work in a reaction. I concede that a Waco specific route makes little sense. To use your example, CorsicanaBear, it doesn't make sense to drive 15 minutes to the station in DFW, wait on the train, then take it for 45 minutes to Waco, then have to rideshare once here. All in, you are talking little time savings and little cost savings, if any while losing flexibility.

But a Dallas -> Austin or DFW-> San Antonio route actually does make sense. And one from Austin or San Antonio to Houston does as well. Perhaps the most logical is a Houston to DFW route. Those are all 3-4-5 hour trips by car whereas they could be done in 90 minutes or less by train. A few stops along the route do make some sense as well to increase ridership and usability.

I'm not anti-highway, anti-car, pro-government funded transport, or anything like that. In fact, I love the freedom that having your own car provides. From 50000ft, it just seems like if you doubled the size of DFW, Austin, San Antonio and Houston overnight (which is basically what's going to happen over the next 30 years), highways as they are right now aren't going to cut it (physically or economically) and planes are even clumsier than trains for short trips. To me, it's a no brainer that it'll be needed 20-30 years from now and we'll need to start it now to have any prayer of an functional network in 20 years.

---

BGuy, I agree with a lot of what you mention..particularly the need for a DFW-Houston route. That's probably what has driven the Texas Central project as far as it's gotten. Politics has entered into the final leg of this venture, and land acquisition issues, including possible eminent domain, has caused many feathers to be ruffled. Looking ahead 30 years is a hard thing for most politicians to sell to their districts. Nevertheless, I see the need as you so well describe it.

The current estimate for high speed rail is 2.5-3X that amount. The California project that was largely shuttered had cost overruns that would have made finishing come to 154 million dollars per mile and the least expensive parts were completed at 80 million dollars per mile.

Not only is that insanely high people just dont want it, they think it's cool...but they dont REALLY want it. I think, conceptually, it's fun because it sort of has that "future" feel to it.

You hop in your car in Waco and head to your end point in Dallas. 90 miles and approx 90 minutes (ish). You hop on the train and head to your end point in Dallas...kind of.. You get off the train wherever it stops. Now you need to get from train station to wherever you're going. But the train only took 30 minutes. Which leaves you enough time to get a rental, or figure out which bus goes where and transfer 9 times or get an Uber. You may or may not have saved time but you DEFINETLY havent saved money. That doesnt address the fact that people dont want trains near their homes and the stations are often in terrible locations. Logistically, where does one place train tracks between Waco and Dallas (for example)?

Rail makes some sense in very dense cities with a defined downtown business area (NYC, Chicago, Boston). In other places the train/rail/subway system becomes the bus (Atlanta) and people who can avoid it will and wont ride it. Truth be told I could have ridden the train when I lived in Chicago; driving sucked, it was expensive...but the trains had issues with being on time, the nearest stop to my office was about 1/4 mile and its fing cold there in the winter, nevermind rain and it was also expensive.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Trains are great. I love them. The government shouldn't be in the train business. Railroads built a huge rail grid in the US with passenger service everywhere, including things like the Interurban railroad that linked Waco, Dallas, Fort Worth, B/CS, Corsicana etc without government money. If its profitable they will do it again.

---

LOL. If you think the railroads we have were built without public investment, think again:

"Between 1850 and 1871 the United States government used a portion of the public domain (federally owned land) to assist and encourage the building of railroads. In all, during that twenty-one year period approximately 1.31 million acres of land were transferred to private ownership. This represented 9.5 percent of the public domain as it stood in 1850. . . The total of public land grants given to the railroads by states and the federal government was about 180 million acres. At the time, the value of this land was about one dollar per acre, which was the average price realized by the government for sales in the land grant states during that period. Hence the total value of the land granted to these companies was approximately $180 million. Later, much of the land was sold by the railroad companies at an average price of $2.81 per acre. (Proximity to the rails increased the value of the land.) These sales offset a portion of the construction costs, which have been estimated at approximately $168 million"

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/railroads-federal-land-grants-issue

That was in the west, saying they could have sold the land at $1 acre is ridiculous, there were no buyers (if there were it's my bet they would have sold it), it essentially had no value until there was a railroad on it so people could get to it and get goods out of it. Giving away some no value land (acquired at no cost) to give some semblance of value to the rest is not the same as taxing people and spending the money or railroad infrastructure that should be supported by private companies.

nein51 said:

---

The current estimate for high speed rail is 2.5-3X that amount. The California project that was largely shuttered had cost overruns that would have made finishing come to 154 million dollars per mile and the least expensive parts were completed at 80 million dollars per mile.

Not only is that insanely high people just dont want it, they think it's cool...but they dont REALLY want it. I think, conceptually, it's fun because it sort of has that "future" feel to it.

You hop in your car in Waco and head to your end point in Dallas. 90 miles and approx 90 minutes (ish). You hop on the train and head to your end point in Dallas...kind of.. You get off the train wherever it stops. Now you need to get from train station to wherever you're going. But the train only took 30 minutes. Which leaves you enough time to get a rental, or figure out which bus goes where and transfer 9 times or get an Uber. You may or may not have saved time but you DEFINETLY havent saved money. That doesnt address the fact that people dont want trains near their homes and the stations are often in terrible locations. Logistically, where does one place train tracks between Waco and Dallas (for example)?

Rail makes some sense in very dense cities with a defined downtown business area (NYC, Chicago, Boston). In other places the train/rail/subway system becomes the bus (Atlanta) and people who can avoid it will and wont ride it. Truth be told I could have ridden the train when I lived in Chicago; driving sucked, it was expensive...but the trains had issues with being on time, the nearest stop to my office was about 1/4 mile and its fing cold there in the winter, nevermind rain and it was also expensive.

---

Methinks you may not have read my entire post...


"While the cost to build a high speed rail is 3-4x per mile compared to, say, the I-35 expansion, it's something that must be started now in anticipatory mode because it'll be too expensive and take too long if we let Texas grow by 25 million people and then try to make it work in a reaction. I concede that a Waco specific route makes little sense. To use your example, CorsicanaBear, it doesn't make sense to drive 15 minutes to the station in DFW, wait on the train, then take it for 45 minutes to Waco, then have to rideshare once here. All in, you are talking a little time savings and a little cost savings, if any, while losing flexibility.

But a Dallas -> Austin or DFW-> San Antonio route actually does make sense. And one from Austin or San Antonio to Houston does as well. Perhaps the most logical is a Houston to DFW route. Those are all 3-4-5 hour trips by car whereas they could be done in 90 minutes or less by train. A few stops along the route do make some sense as well to increase ridership and usability."

Hopping a freight may prove to be the most economical way to travel by rail in and out of Waco. Dismounts can be tricky, however.

Right of way acquisition for highspeed passenger along the proposed route is one of the issues. Air travel does not have this issue (it has others). Using eminent domain to expropriate property for private use (that of a railroad company in this case) has run into a number of problems in Texas unless one is building a football stadium for the benefit of private parties.

A public highway on which anyone can travel without charge is an obvious public use. A railroad track owned by a private company and operated for its investors' profit is not so obvious.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

I lived in Acton, MA and worked in downtown Boston for a few years. Rode Fitchburg line train into work. Let me off at North Station (the old one before they built the new Boston Garden). Had to walk to the front of the garden and outdoors a block or so to get to the North Station T entrance and catch the Green Line or Orange line to State Street. My office was across Washington Street from the station.

Hated every minute of it. We are not spoiled to not have to take public transit and go anywhere we want anytime we want, we are blessed. We should vigorously oppose those who want to take it away from us for any reason. I would not want to live somewhere I had to do that again.

---

I lived in sommerville and worked at MGH for a year. Walk to the bus stop, bus to the red line, then back again. 45-60min. The drive was super short (10 min), but employees at my level weren't allowed in the parking garage and if you did sneak in visitor garage it was $30 (back in 2000). Living near the station was unaffordable for me at the time (hell, living near a bus stop in a tiny apt ate most of my paycheck). I had a car being from tx and not knowing what I was getting into. Luckily there was street parking where I lived and parked is where my car stayed most of that year.

Don't get me started on snow emergencies and towing fees. And how friendly people were on the transit. They can keep it. Live 6 minute drive from work in arky. Drive to sugar land to visit dad. He doesn't charge for parking.

With all due respect to you and nein, I think we are comparing apples and oranges. You're describing innercity transit (suburbs <-> city). I'm not really getting into that here- that's a city by city issue - it works some places, its horrible in some, and it's an unprofitable niche in others.

High speed rail that we are discussing is not for general commuting- it's to replace intercity interstate travel amongst 3 of the largest MSAs in the country.

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

With all due respect to you and nein, I think we are comparing apples and oranges. You're describing innercity transit (suburbs <-> city). I'm not really getting into that here- that's a city by city issue - it works some places, its horrible in some, and it's an unprofitable niche in others.

High speed rail that we are discussing is not for general commuting- it's to replace intercity interstate travel amongst 3 of the largest MSAs in the country.

---

To me, they are, at minimum interconnected issues. Your bullet train covers San Antonio, Austin, Dallas and Houston, let's say (the irony of the railroad passing over Waco twice is not lost on me as that is how Austin became the capitol in the first place).

1) Where does this train stop? I think it is safe to say we are looking a single stop, right?
2) Once you get off the train then what? How do you get from point A to point B?

The reason rail works in places like Europe and Japan is an excellent ground transportation system, we dont really have that in the US save for a handful of cities. I assume the person would rent a car. Go to Enterprise and try to rent a car in San Antonio for a day right now. Good luck, I was into the middle of June with no 1 day rentals available. $97/day for a 2 day rental in a "Corolla or similar" which came to a whopping $269.70 total (if you have never rented a car there you probably dont realize that SAT has some of the highest fees and taxes in NA on rentals).

From DFW to SAT is a 1hr 5 min flight or a 4hr 17min drive; 287 miles.

According to Toyota a Corolla gets a combined 34MPG meaning one would need 8.4 gallons of fuel to make the drive. As of this morning a gallon of fuel was highest in DFW at an average of $2.60 so we will use that. I need $21.94 to make this trip.

Using Priceline and a M-W flight the cheapest flight I can find from DFW to SAT is $206.80, nothing ever gets cheaper so let's assume this price doesnt change and that's roughly the cost of the train ticket.

I can drive and it will eat up 8 hours round trip but my cost is approx $45. I could fly or take the imaginary train and I have saved 6 hours but my cost is approx $470.

I just dont know how the math of that works. Im sure it would work for some passengers (people do fly from DFW to SAT) but how many drivers does it remove from the highway system? 10% 20%?

Bexar Pitts said:

---

The only high speed rail project that I'm aware of that's currently "active" is the Texas Central railway proposed to run between Dallas and Houston. I believe its construction been stalled out since last Fall over a permit flap. It has strong opposition, and apparently Gov. Abbot has flip-flopped on his support. Closest it comes to Waco is far eastern Limestone County, with no stops until near Bryan/College Station. Here is a link to the website, with plenty of information on it. https://www.texascentral.com/project/

---

Southeastern corner of Limestone County--that's a 1.5 hour drive away from I-35/Waco, so "Highspeed in Waco" is really not a part of the current proposal.

SSadler said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

The only high speed rail project that I'm aware of that's currently "active" is the Texas Central railway proposed to run between Dallas and Houston. I believe its construction been stalled out since last Fall over a permit flap. It has strong opposition, and apparently Gov. Abbot has flip-flopped on his support. Closest it comes to Waco is far eastern Limestone County, with no stops until near Bryan/College Station. Here is a link to the website, with plenty of information on it. https://www.texascentral.com/project/

---

Southeastern corner of Limestone County--that's a 1.5 hour drive away from I-35/Waco, so "Highspeed in Waco" is really not a part of the current proposal.

---

Exactly..I believe the only proposed stop is several miles east of Bryan/College Station..Route is outlined on the link I put up earlier in this thread.

I would guess there will be more than just a Dallas to Houston line in a longer term plan. The Dallas/Houston line is probably an initial line.

PartyBear said:

---

I would guess there will be more than just a Dallas to Houston line in a longer term plan. The Dallas/Houston line is probably an initial line.

---

I'm sure that's the ultimate goal, but I can tell you land acquisition hasn't been as easy nor as quick as had been hoped. The Texas Central planned route runs less than a half mile from some of my nat gas interests, and not all the property owners are on board with the idea.

What is the Texas Central route? Am I safe to assume that runs parallel to and nearby the 35 corridor?