Redbrickbear said:

---

Relevant

Trains and bikes are great to society

Critics always say "in America we need to plan for driving, that's what freedom is!"

But driving is not freedom for kids and youth, it's being shackled into a car for half of the day between school and bed.

Making walkable and bikable places means freedom for kids to be kids. https://t.co/RTjgi5m1QP

— Erik Bootsma🌸🇳🇱 (@ErikBootsma) May 25, 2024

---

Not at the expense of functional roads. Do you realize the numbers of people and goods that get moved every day? We are seeing transportation planning meeting spending 90% of the time on 1to 5% (being generous) of the trips. All that gets discussed is ped safety and bike paths. You can't say anything or you get cancelled for being anti-safety.

True story, a ferry project got an award for moving 45k trips in 6 months, allowing people to not drive. The road that they are saying it will replace, moves 129k a day. 45k is not even a half day worth of trips, never mind 6 months! Do you know the cost per trip? You should be furious that the limited transportation dollars we have are being used on bike paths, ferry and transit. If you really want to be conservative...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Relevant

Trains and bikes are great to society

Critics always say "in America we need to plan for driving, that's what freedom is!"

But driving is not freedom for kids and youth, it's being shackled into a car for half of the day between school and bed.

Making walkable and bikable places means freedom for kids to be kids. https://t.co/RTjgi5m1QP

— Erik Bootsma🌸🇳🇱 (@ErikBootsma) May 25, 2024

---

Not at the expense of functional roads. Do you realize the numbers of people and goods that get moved every day? We are seeing transportation planning meeting spending 90% of the time on 1to 5% (being generous) of the trips. All that gets discussed is ped safety and bike paths. You can't say anything or you get cancelled for being anti-safety.

True story, a ferry project got an award for moving 45k trips in 6 months, allowing people to not drive. The road that they are saying it will replace, moves 129k a day. 45k is not even a half day worth of trips, never mind 6 months! Do you know the cost per trip? You should be furious that the limited transportation dollars we have are being used on bike paths, ferry and transit. If you really want to be conservative...

---

Good points.

The Dutch seem to be able to make it work…but few can beat them at ingenuity

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Relevant

Trains and bikes are great to society

Critics always say "in America we need to plan for driving, that's what freedom is!"

But driving is not freedom for kids and youth, it's being shackled into a car for half of the day between school and bed.

Making walkable and bikable places means freedom for kids to be kids. https://t.co/RTjgi5m1QP

— Erik Bootsma🌸🇳🇱 (@ErikBootsma) May 25, 2024

---

Not at the expense of functional roads. Do you realize the numbers of people and goods that get moved every day? We are seeing transportation planning meeting spending 90% of the time on 1to 5% (being generous) of the trips. All that gets discussed is ped safety and bike paths. You can't say anything or you get cancelled for being anti-safety.

True story, a ferry project got an award for moving 45k trips in 6 months, allowing people to not drive. The road that they are saying it will replace, moves 129k a day. 45k is not even a half day worth of trips, never mind 6 months! Do you know the cost per trip? You should be furious that the limited transportation dollars we have are being used on bike paths, ferry and transit. If you really want to be conservative...

---

Good points.

The Dutch seem to be able to make it work…but few can beat them at ingenuity

---

The Dutch tax the **** out of things. They truly use an economic approach. Auto tax 100%, fuel 6$ a liter, auto insurance, congestion pricing, tolls they use it all and don't care about equity. If you can afford it, more power to you, just pay. In US you would hear about Lexus lanes and the rich paying not to sit in traffic.

Don't let all the Dutch bicyclist fool you, they do it because they can't afford to drive, not because they want to ride bikes in December.

By the way, even with all that. Last year Copenhagen had to triple parking fees. Why? Too many people were willing to pay to drive. That is with 1st class rail, bike lanes all over and transit. People like to drive.

One thing I live about the Dutch, beside all looking like they are out of a Vouri ad and sounding like they are from Iowa, is they are willing to pay for quality. If it works and is good, they will pay the taxes. If not, they will ***** until they get it changed.

muddybrazos said:

---

Why would I want to rail to Houston or Dallas then not have a car there? That will never make sense to me unless I was just there like a day or two to stay in one part of town. Even then I would rather just drive.

---

There is this crazy thing call Uber and Lyft! I travel in trains in Europe. Love it.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Besides the lack of population density and the vast differences in infrastructure, ask:

Germans what they think of DB
Spanish what they think of Renfe
Brits what they think of the various rail companies
Italians what they think of Italo & Trenitalia

They use them but simultaneously hate on them constantly.

---

I like the Danish system. Took it to Sweden from Copenhagen. It was a nice ride. My wife took it all over Denmark while I was working. She loved it. I asked several Danes what they thought of the taxes to support it. They said as long as the quality and operations are there in transportation, health, and education they have no problem paying. If the quality stops, they will move to stop paying. Made sense to me. I liked Denmark, but they use economics. If you are rich, you can drive, park, etc... just pay the fee.

---

The opinions definitely vary by country. I used regional rail in Denmark and it was fine. OBB in Austria is universally loved. But the bigger rail systems seem to generate more bad feelings. A large part of that is the huge variation in quality and speed of the train types but a significant part is lessening reliability. And as the systems are starting to move to more modern pricing models with greater price variances the animosity seems to be growing exponentially.

---

More modern pricing models means paying through the nose when you most need a toll road or train. Went from Frisco to just north of Ft. Worth. Checked later that I paid $40+ in tolls there and back.

If Uncle Joe and Mayor Pete stay in charge, we will see costs continue to skyrocket in the holy name of climate change. "Let's force people to use EVs" even when the infrastructure isn't near ready for prime time.

J.R. said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Why would I want to rail to Houston or Dallas then not have a car there? That will never make sense to me unless I was just there like a day or two to stay in one part of town. Even then I would rather just drive.

---

There is this crazy thing call Uber and Lyft! I travel in trains in Europe. Love it.

---

Apples and oranges imo. DFW and Houston are like small countries themselves. Everyone points to Europe to talk about an ideal train system, but it's a different situation over there geographically.

I just don't see high speed rail as ever working in TX or even in the US.

1. There would have to be way too much of it built lifted off the ground to avoid wildlife and vehicles.
2. It would require a whole new set of rails for #1 which would have to be either built next to the existing ones, existing roads or take a new path.
3. All three of the things in #3 create way to many problems with tearing buildings down, expanding roads, building bridges over the high speed rail, etc.
4. If the rail doesn't end in or near a downtown it is pointless.
5. Every time it gets discussed too many stops are proposed- like the Dallas to SA one that then everyone wants it to stop in Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Waco, FW, Etc. and suddenly it isn't high speed.


Someone mentioned the price being cheaper than flying and I don't see that as ever happening with all of the above. I haven't checked currently but train tickets are not really any cheaper than a flight and it is a slower (much slower over longer distances) method of travel than plane.

cowboycwr said:

---

I just don't see high speed rail as ever working in TX or even in the US.

1. There would have to be way too much of it built lifted off the ground to avoid wildlife and vehicles.
2. It would require a whole new set of rails for #1 which would have to be either built next to the existing ones, existing roads or take a new path.
3. All three of the things in #3 create way to many problems with tearing buildings down, expanding roads, building bridges over the high speed rail, etc.
4. If the rail doesn't end in or near a downtown it is pointless.
5. Every time it gets discussed too many stops are proposed- like the Dallas to SA one that then everyone wants it to stop in Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Waco, FW, Etc. and suddenly it isn't high speed.


Someone mentioned the price being cheaper than flying and I don't see that as ever happening with all of the above. I haven't checked currently but train tickets are not really any cheaper than a flight and it is a slower (much slower over longer distances) method of travel than plane.

---

The big win of rail is closer proximity to work on both ends [compared to airports] and a speedier security system.

But without connected feeder/outflow subway/light rail it is not economically feasible. It should also be noted that those feeder/outflow systems need to be reasonably clean and safe [staring at NYC, DC, etc.].

And the hidden issue: the very Green people who promote train travel are also killing it. The original ICE trains in Germany hit 300 kph but the new "green" ICE trains only hit 250 kph. While Japan was increasing train speed from 300 to 320 kph the Greenies in Europe were causing the opposite [300 to 250 kph].

As an aside, don't think anyone in Europe thinks high speed rail is a real substitute for trips exceeding 500 miles in distance. For example, the vast majority of "great ideas" about expanding Eurostar die quick deaths while the flight traffic at London City Airport grows like a weed despite all the plane size and landing slot limitations.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I just don't see high speed rail as ever working in TX or even in the US.

1. There would have to be way too much of it built lifted off the ground to avoid wildlife and vehicles.
2. It would require a whole new set of rails for #1 which would have to be either built next to the existing ones, existing roads or take a new path.
3. All three of the things in #3 create way to many problems with tearing buildings down, expanding roads, building bridges over the high speed rail, etc.
4. If the rail doesn't end in or near a downtown it is pointless.
5. Every time it gets discussed too many stops are proposed- like the Dallas to SA one that then everyone wants it to stop in Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Waco, FW, Etc. and suddenly it isn't high speed.


Someone mentioned the price being cheaper than flying and I don't see that as ever happening with all of the above. I haven't checked currently but train tickets are not really any cheaper than a flight and it is a slower (much slower over longer distances) method of travel than plane.

---

The big win of rail is closer proximity to work on both ends [compared to airports] and a speedier security system.

But without connected feeder/outflow subway/light rail it is not economically feasible. It should also be noted that those feeder/outflow systems need to be reasonably clean and safe [staring at NYC, DC, etc.].

And the hidden issue: the very Green people who promote train travel are also killing it. The original ICE trains in Germany hit 300 kph but the new "green" ICE trains only hit 250 kph. While Japan was increasing train speed from 300 to 320 kph the Greenies in Europe were causing the opposite [300 to 250 kph].

As an aside, don't think anyone in Europe thinks high speed rail is a real substitute for trips exceeding 500 miles in distance. For example, the vast majority of "great ideas" about expanding Eurostar die quick deaths while the flight traffic at London City Airport grows like a weed despite all the plane size and landing slot limitations.

---

Wouldn't the closer part depend on if the rail goes to the current downtown train station in each city and not a new train hub?

Which if it does go tot hat station then runs into many of the issues I had above.

cowboycwr said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I just don't see high speed rail as ever working in TX or even in the US.

1. There would have to be way too much of it built lifted off the ground to avoid wildlife and vehicles.
2. It would require a whole new set of rails for #1 which would have to be either built next to the existing ones, existing roads or take a new path.
3. All three of the things in #3 create way to many problems with tearing buildings down, expanding roads, building bridges over the high speed rail, etc.
4. If the rail doesn't end in or near a downtown it is pointless.
5. Every time it gets discussed too many stops are proposed- like the Dallas to SA one that then everyone wants it to stop in Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Waco, FW, Etc. and suddenly it isn't high speed.


Someone mentioned the price being cheaper than flying and I don't see that as ever happening with all of the above. I haven't checked currently but train tickets are not really any cheaper than a flight and it is a slower (much slower over longer distances) method of travel than plane.

---

The big win of rail is closer proximity to work on both ends [compared to airports] and a speedier security system.

But without connected feeder/outflow subway/light rail it is not economically feasible. It should also be noted that those feeder/outflow systems need to be reasonably clean and safe [staring at NYC, DC, etc.].

And the hidden issue: the very Green people who promote train travel are also killing it. The original ICE trains in Germany hit 300 kph but the new "green" ICE trains only hit 250 kph. While Japan was increasing train speed from 300 to 320 kph the Greenies in Europe were causing the opposite [300 to 250 kph].

As an aside, don't think anyone in Europe thinks high speed rail is a real substitute for trips exceeding 500 miles in distance. For example, the vast majority of "great ideas" about expanding Eurostar die quick deaths while the flight traffic at London City Airport grows like a weed despite all the plane size and landing slot limitations.

---

Wouldn't the closer part depend on if the rail goes to the current downtown train station in each city and not a new train hub?

Which if it does go tot hat station then runs into many of the issues I had above.

---

First comment above:

If I understand your comment, we diverge in two areas: (a) assuming only an existing station can be centrally located, and (b) assuming centrally located requires absolute centrality and not simply general centrality.

A decent example is Eurostar in London. At the outset, Eurostar arrived/departed at Waterloo Station. After 20+ years it moved to a totally revamped St. Pancras. For the business crowd [banking, Lloyds, etc.] Waterloo is clearly closer & has a tube station onsite. St. Pancras is further away and the tube station is next door at Kings Cross. But……..it was "central enough" to work. A dedicated station area and dedicated rail line was accomplished at St. Pancras in Central London in a way not feasible at the better located Waterloo. But St. Pancras was "central enough" for the plan to work.

Second comment above:

See prior example. Fixes can be found that are workable [lessening existing infrastructure impact] even if not perfect and even if not in the best location.

Prime example of not letting a desire for "great" get in the way of accomplishing "good".

This was the "proposed basic system" by Transportation Secretary John Volpe to President Nixon that would be operated by "the Corporation," which was later named Amtrak in its formation one year later in 1971. pic.twitter.com/36MX5DO7uo

— Hayden Clarkin (@the_transit_guy) May 28, 2024

The new light rail in suburban Copenhagen will have seamless access for bicycles

Learn more about the dos and don’ts of a cycling city with https://t.co/gU3nxIzNxf https://t.co/reH9f5lqKX pic.twitter.com/04p3MLuueM

— 21st Century City (@urbanthoughts11) May 27, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

This was the "proposed basic system" by Transportation Secretary John Volpe to President Nixon that would be operated by "the Corporation," which was later named Amtrak in its formation one year later in 1971. pic.twitter.com/36MX5DO7uo

— Hayden Clarkin (@the_transit_guy) May 28, 2024

---

The problem is not the system, it is the Capital cost and OM&A. Most of these routes cannot support themselves. The BEST transit recoup about 50% from farebox. The average is closer to 25%. The system is great, but are we willing to subsidize at 50% to 80% through taxes like Europe, Singapore, Scandinavia? If so, get a dedicated taxing structure and it can be built in 10 to 20 years. Tech is not hard, anything can be built with money.

Nationwide high speed rail doesn't make sense to me. Only in high density areas would it work and high growth areas, imo.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Nationwide high speed rail doesn't make sense to me. Only in high density areas would it work and high growth areas, imo.

---

Depends on what you want. You want routes that pay for themselves, at least to the extent possible, then yes high density, high frequency rail is what you want. You want a system that gets you to where you want to go, than a Nationwide system better, but it will need to subsidized as it will not pay for itself. There are a lot of places airlines fly that they would drop if not subsidized or required to fly there. Those routes are just not profitable.

What does the Public want? Determine that and get over the tax/user fee issue. Otherwise you will not get that type of transportation. If you don't want to do it fine, than don't ***** at how great European rail is as they pay for it

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

100%.

I love the idea of high speed rail. Who does not. I took low-speed Amtrak between Providence and NYC, and it was easy, inexpensive, and a great experience.

But to try and build a new system today as big as in Texas (as California has shown) is not practical.

We could start today, and our grandchildren would never see it.

---

Could only be done as a National program similar to the Interstate.

---

Honestly if the Feds are just gonna print money into infinity forever then lets actually build something cool with all that cash.

A big connected high speed rail line like the 1950s interstate roads would be cool.

Would also really help middle class and working class people who don't want to buy cars or afford air travel.

Imagine being able to get on a train in Houston and be in LA within 10hrs

Dallas to Kansas City in 3.5hrs

Or leave Dallas and be in NYC in 9hrs

NYC to Los Angeles - 4000 km / would only take 17hrs by high speed rail

---

Feel free to donate your salary and your kids education fund to bring your bloated fantasy to life. Imagine being able to travel from Austin TX to Phoenix AZ to celebrate your Sons bday, leave in the AM and return in the PM.....with limited Govt interference

Some folks are overestimating the speed of trains.

On DB [solid example for Europe] some ICE trains reach 300 kph but most travel at 250 kph.
The bullet trains in Japan mostly travel at 300 kph while a handful reach 320 kph.

Once stops along the route are factored into travel time, the efficacy of train travel as a highly used option is limited. Most Europeans seem to have a 4 to 4.5 hour bubble where trains are used and over that timeframe they fly.

Use Frankfurt as an example starting point, Berlin/Paris/Amsterdam/Munich/Hamburg are normal trips by train but London/Milan/Athens/Madrid/etc. would definitely all be flights. And even the cities within the train travel bubble they limit to high speed options. Only budget travelers and students use regional trains that take 50-70% more travel time. The average business/pleasure traveler in Germany does not use regional trains for any travel over two hours.

To create a system reasonably similar to Europe, the USA would not build a nationwide system of high speed tracks but rather a handful of regional mini systems. Northeast/MidAtlantic. Midwest Star. Texas Triangle. West Coast Shuttle. They would very closely overlap the historical airline shuttle systems.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some folks are overestimating the speed of trains.

On DB [solid example for Europe] some ICE trains reach 300 kph but most travel at 250 kph.
The bullet trains in Japan mostly travel at 300 kph while a handful reach 320 kph.

Once stops along the route are factored into travel time, the efficacy of train travel as a highly used option is limited. Most Europeans seem to have a 4 to 4.5 hour bubble where trains are used and over that timeframe they fly.

Use Frankfurt as an example starting point, Berlin/Paris/Amsterdam/Munich/Hamburg are normal trips by train but London/Milan/Athens/Madrid/etc. would definitely all be flights. And even the cities within the train travel bubble they limit to high speed options. Only budget travelers and students use regional trains that take 50-70% more travel time. The average business/pleasure traveler in Germany does not use regional trains for any travel over two hours.

To create a system reasonably similar to Europe, the USA would not build a nationwide system of high speed tracks but rather a handful of regional mini systems. Northeast/MidAtlantic. Midwest Star. Texas Triangle. West Coast Shuttle. They would very closely overlap the historical airline shuttle systems.

---

Exactly.

Take Germany, Munich to Hamburg is a flight. As a tourist, I used rail and enjoyed it, but it was 6 hours. That would be a business flight.

The other point is that these regional mini-systems are NOT transit. They are competitors to the air shuttles, as you say.