High speed rail is a loser, Milli. Not enough commuters to sustain it and will always have to be subsidized by the taxpayers. The taxpayers have enough on their shoulders. You should ask Gavin Newsom of California about high speed rail.Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/texas-high-speed-rail-plan-lurches-back-to-life-with-amtrak-s-help
Texas legislators are dumb for not supporting this rail.
If you fly from Dallas to Houston, how exactly do you get around? I am confused.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.
you uber or rent but Id rather just drive.Tempus Edax Rerum said:If you fly from Dallas to Houston, how exactly do you get around? I am confused.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.
The CA high speed rail is entirely self-inflicted on two fronts, one is the environmental nonsense, two is the continual political interference by local politicians that can stop the project if the rail doesn't come through their town. Europe doesn't have either problem. Somehow they seem to be able to drill through the Alps lay high speed rail, run high speed rail under the English Channel, run high speed rail from Denmark to Sweden for far less cost than we can, but Texas can't figure out how to run a line on flat land between Houston and Dallas? Absurd. Just a bunch of stupid, conversative republicans in Texas that block it.Harrison Bergeron said:
How's the California high speed rail going?
Tempus Edax Rerum said:If you fly from Dallas to Houston, how exactly do you get around? I am confused.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.
We aren't building high speed rail to El Paso, Brownsville and Amarillo so the size comparison doesn't hold water, imo. The population density along the I-35 corridor is only going to increase. It should be built down the I-35 corridor from DFW to San Antonio and to Houston. The freeways are death traps and getting worse every year.Redbrickbear said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:If you fly from Dallas to Houston, how exactly do you get around? I am confused.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.
I love high speed rail and think rail is great for a million reasons.
But it's just not that workable in the USA (especially not Texas)
We would have needed to have done it 70-80 years ago and have built up deep commuter lines like in the UK or Germany.
And we would have needed Henry Ford to have never come along.
Texans just don't have the population density or the non-car culture to make it work
[It's interesting to note that Texas' population density is much lower, though, as the UK fits 65 million people into 2.5 less space than Texas' 29 million. Similarly, Texas is bigger than Spain, Iraq, and Japan, though France is fairly comparable in size.]
[Nearly one-third of British households have no car, compared to only 8% percent of American households. In contrast, almost 60% of the US sample households have two or more cars.]
Tempus Edax Rerum said:The CA high speed rail is entirely self-inflicted on two fronts, one is the environmental nonsense, two is the continual political interference by local politicians that can stop the project if the rail doesn't come through their town. Europe doesn't have either problem. Somehow they seem to be able to drill through the Alps lay high speed rail, run high speed rail under the English Channel, run high speed rail from Denmark to Sweden for far less cost than we can, but Texas can't figure out how to run a line on flat land between Houston and Dallas? Absurd. Just a bunch of stupid, conversative republicans in Texas that block it.Harrison Bergeron said:
How's the California high speed rail going?
Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/texas-high-speed-rail-plan-lurches-back-to-life-with-amtrak-s-help
Texas legislators are dumb for not supporting this rail.
bob sped!ScottS said:
What if instead of high speed rail it was switched to a high speed log ride?
FLBear5630 said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:The CA high speed rail is entirely self-inflicted on two fronts, one is the environmental nonsense, two is the continual political interference by local politicians that can stop the project if the rail doesn't come through their town. Europe doesn't have either problem. Somehow they seem to be able to drill through the Alps lay high speed rail, run high speed rail under the English Channel, run high speed rail from Denmark to Sweden for far less cost than we can, but Texas can't figure out how to run a line on flat land between Houston and Dallas? Absurd. Just a bunch of stupid, conversative republicans in Texas that block it.Harrison Bergeron said:
How's the California high speed rail going?
The European rail is Intercity and Nationally sponsored. If the Feds want to set up a system, pay for it and maintain it. Have at it. It will need a dedicated funding source.
Keep in mind right of way in Europe has been in place forever. The Europeans invested in passenger rail, not freight. Euro freight sucks. The US invested in freight.
It is really not a fair comparison.
I have no issue, Govt will subsidize that is the reality of rail. No rail sustains itself.
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
The population in the triangle is going to continue to increase..
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
The population in the triangle is going to continue to increase. Due to the ease of getting transportation in the arrival cities (Uber, lyft, internet resources) , Texans are more ready now than ever before to hop on a train rather than drive to the triangle cities.
The train should be funded in a way that taxpayers don't have to long term foot the bill, and the burden should fall on the patrons.
Business (other than Southwest) would love it, would make trips much easier on their staff and wallets.
I'd like to see it get built, Just my two cents.
FLBear5630 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
The population in the triangle is going to continue to increase. Due to the ease of getting transportation in the arrival cities (Uber, lyft, internet resources) , Texans are more ready now than ever before to hop on a train rather than drive to the triangle cities.
The train should be funded in a way that taxpayers don't have to long term foot the bill, and the burden should fall on the patrons.
Business (other than Southwest) would love it, would make trips much easier on their staff and wallets.
I'd like to see it get built, Just my two cents.
I know this always sounds good in principle. It is totally unrealistic and not going to happen. The infrastructure cost is too high to make it profitable. You could never get the Capital raised and the OM&A would kill it.
The only way Passenger rail becomes a reality is through Govt subsidy, best case is dedicated funding source. Either it is a priority or it isn't. Best case I have seen is tying toll roads and transit together, using the Fed capital programs combined with tolling's ability to pay OM&A in the future. Unless the Fed pays down the capital, rail is a pipedream. Govt subsidy is a requirement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/texas-high-speed-rail-plan-lurches-back-to-life-with-amtrak-s-help
Texas legislators are dumb for not supporting this rail.
Fre3dombear said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/texas-high-speed-rail-plan-lurches-back-to-life-with-amtrak-s-help
Texas legislators are dumb for not supporting this rail.
But the environment.
Democrats marxists made progress impossible (if this was even progress which I doubt but likely good on them for making it impossible)
Critics always say "in America we need to plan for driving, that's what freedom is!"
— Erik Bootsma🌸🇳🇱 (@ErikBootsma) May 25, 2024
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
