High Speed Rail - American Companies?

[incrediculous]

I think we may see a massive investment in our rail and high speed rail infrastructures very soon. Assuming we do, what companies in rail are particularly well positioned to benefit from an increase in rail demand?

Would the owners of existing rail networks and right of ways, like CSX or Union Pacific, continue to benefit more than they already have? Or would a technology rail company benefit most? I'm not sure that we have any American companies who particularly excel at high-speed rail. I know the French are pretty good at it, with Alstom developing new rail technologies and breaking speed records. There's nothing close to an American equivalent, is there?

[grantboston]

I think we may see a massive investment in our rail and high speed rail infrastructures very soon. Assuming we do, what companies in rail are particularly well positioned to benefit from an increase in rail demand?

Would the owners of existing rail networks and right of ways, like CSX or Union Pacific, continue to benefit more than they already have? Or would a technology rail company benefit most? I'm not sure that we have any American companies who particularly excel at high-speed rail. I know the French are pretty good at it, with Alstom developing new rail technologies and breaking speed records. There's nothing close to an American equivalent, is there?

Well the original Texas high speed rail plan was a joint project with Alstom. I'd imagine that Alstom and Siemens would be the leaders in any high speed revival. Further, I wouldn't be shocked if SNCF, the French national rail company, ran any new US high speed rail programs like they do in some other European countries.

[AeroD]

High speed rail's numero uno enemigo - Southwest Airlines.

[grantboston]

High speed rail's numero uno enemigo - Southwest Airlines.

No, if you look back on some of the rail threads here, both WN and Continental have come out and drop their opposition to high speed rail in Texas.

[AeroD]

No, if you look back on some of the rail threads here, both WN and Continental have come out and drop their opposition to high speed rail in Texas.

At least in the early 90s, when high speed rail was being debated in the Legislature, Southwest was leading lobbying efforts to defeat any such proposal.

I was not aware of Continental's stance.

And did you just use IATA code?

I wouldn't be surprised that although they supposedly dropped their opposition now, that they would have a change of heart such the issue arise again.

But airlines aside, just look at the reaction people have had regarding the TTC (I don't think TTC is a bad idea, it just has bad salespeople), I can imagine a similar reaction with a high-speed rail project. The same xenophobic arguments about "foreign companies" owning our roads would emerge if some French or German company participated in high speed rail. And ranchers would probably be up in arms about emiment domain "abuse" as well.

[grantboston]

At least in the early 90s, when high speed rail was being debated in the Legislature, Southwest was leading lobbying efforts to defeat any such proposal.

I was not aware of Continental's stance.

And did you just use IATA code?

I wouldn't be surprised that although they supposedly dropped their opposition now, that they would have a change of heart such the issue arise again.

But airlines aside, just look at the reaction people have had regarding the TTC (I don't think TTC is a bad idea, it just has bad salespeople), I can imagine a similar reaction with a high-speed rail project. The same xenophobic arguments about "foreign companies" owning our roads would emerge if some French or German company participated in high speed rail. And ranchers would probably be up in arms about emiment domain "abuse" as well.

I think one of the biggest hurdles to high speed rail in Texas is the emiment domain issue that would spill over from the TTC debate. Governor Perry really has nothing to lose in pushing it, since he's already overcome electoral fire on the TTC, but that would require him to show some leadership and that always seems to be in short supply with him. I blame the hair spray fumes.

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure the complaints against foreign companies operating the system would arise. When I've used non-French systems run by SNCF, I've noticed there really is no way to tell that it's French run unless you just happen to know, or have a Wikipedia addiction. Moreover, I'm sure the state (or some private company, more likely) would own and officially operate the system and would merely use SNCF's expertise in the logistical operating of any high-speed rail system.

All of this is really putting the cart before the horse. A giant system like this costs $10s of billions and takes forever to build and will definitely lose tons and tons of money once it opens (see the Eurotunnel's repeated bankruptcies if you doubt this). I'm not sure the state has the political fortitude to take such a risk knowing that it would leave taxpayers on the hook for covering its massive budget shortfalls year after year. Perhaps this can change once gas is $5+ a gallon and people start agitating for non-driving options. I think a nice proxy for future state willingness to co-operate on HSR will be the Legislature's willingness to allow counties to raise sales taxes above the cap in order to fund local rail services. If they won't let that through, there's no way in hell they'll pump out the billions necessary and seize the needed land for a high speed system.

In the end I really feel this is an opportunity for Texas to really leapfrog the other states and really appear as a leader on transportation issues for the coming decades. For a state that markets itself as very business friendly, I would hope that a high speed rail system that would whisk business travelers to and from business markets in the state with minimal time and hassle would be appealing. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[staplesla]

I think we have to consider alternate sources though as the supply of oil will never catch up with the demand. My husband is working on the California High Speed Rail which is projected to cost around 40 billion. The freeway extensions in CA which have now been but on hold are projected to cost 60 billion. My personal belief is that we should be putting this money to the rail and not the highways....we can only expand them so many times. I'm glad the voters have approved this and that the governor of CA is finally on board. The first phase of the CA HSR is scheduled to open 2016-2018.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

[cowboyeagle05]

I am glad they have agreed to shift money from expanding highways although I would be interested exactly what funds are being shifted is the money be redirected from new highway construction. I am sure that info is on the site I will just have to read. I believe our energy situation will cause similar movements around many states and then some attempt by national politics to create some national transportation train network. what I am afraid of is the national politics part. I think the better situation is to let the states fight this battle for changes in energy transportation method. The only part of Rick Perry's big miles wide statewide transportation plan that I liked was the rail part anyway.

How about stacking commercial rail transportation of goods under a bullet train that brings people quickly between Texas cities and neighboring states who wish to connect. I know there has already been studies on this and discussions but i am guessing in the next few years projects might actually receive funding now that people will be screaming for relief from gas. Plus the new High speed Dallas station should fit nicely next to the Trinity River in South Dallas spurring all kinds of redevelopment considering one of the other alternatives where Victory is located is already taken. Or how about the space where Reunion Arena and the parking garage and parking lots sit that way it would be connected to the Convention center making it even more possible for continued use due to being very well connected to a statewide and possible national high speed rail network, ah the dimensions of dreams they are unlimited.

[Hannibal Lecter]

I think we have to consider alternate sources though as the supply of oil will never catch up with the demand.What are you talking about? The demand for petroleum and the supply are in equilibrium. You can get all the oil you want, you just have to pay the market price. That's how free markets work. The price may be higher than you like, but the supply is there.

[psukhu]

Before getting trains, do you guys think we'll first start getting the economical cars that are not usually sold in the US market, like the VW Polo (http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/de3/modelle/polo.html) or BMW 118d 5 door wagon (http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/1series/5door/2007/introduction.html)? We seem to be heading down that path with buzz that the SMART Fourtwo (http://www.smartusa.com/) is getting.

Can you image this vehicle becoming the choice of soccer moms in the US? :2lol:
http://www.citroen.com/CWW/fr-FR/RANGE/PrivateCars/C4PICASSO/default/

[AeroD]

What are you talking about? The demand for petroleum and the supply are in equilibrium. You can get all the oil you want, you just have to pay the market price. That's how free markets work. The price may be higher than you like, but the supply is there.

Just as a point of clarification, the petroleum market is not exactly "free". Let see, you have an oil cartel OPEC, and your major petroleum exporting countries such as Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico have state-controlled oil companies, these sort of things distort your distribution of supply.

Supply from petroleum is limited to what already exists now. Last time I checked, it still takes several million years to create oil.

But kudos to California for creating a high-speed rail network. I hear a drive from LA to SD can take anywhere from 3 to 7 hours, depending on traffic.

[ihavebeenseen]

Fact #1: The average American uses about 9 gallons of gas a week. $4 gas means $36 per week.
It is going to take a lot more than$36 a week to make America kick its oil addiction.


Fact #2: Global demand has been flat for the last year. The speculators have added about 60% to the price of oil.
Our large international financial governing bodies need to get these speculators under control. They are wreaking havoc on the commodities markets across the world.


Fact #3: The market will find alternative ways to meet the energy demand if the current price of oil remains high for too long.
The last thing oil exporting countries want is overvalued oil. They want to sell you oil for the next 50 years not make a quick buck.

[gchrisbailey]

It is going to take a lot more than$36 a week to make America kick its oil addiction.


Our large international financial governing bodies need to get these speculators under control. They are wreaking havoc on the commodities markets across the world.


The last thing oil exporting countries want is overvalued oil. They want to sell you oil for the next 50 years not make a quick buck.

$36.00 a week won't make America kick its oil addiction, but it may drive us to buy small cars...like my new Yaris (43.8 mpg!)...

We need to get real European with our attitude towards cars...they've been dealing with expensive gas for years, and they've adapted...nice, loaded, top-of-the-line small cars...

[AeroD]

It is going to take a lot more than$36 a week to make America kick its oil addiction.


Our large international financial governing bodies need to get these speculators under control. They are wreaking havoc on the commodities markets across the world.


The last thing oil exporting countries want is overvalued oil. They want to sell you oil for the next 50 years not make a quick buck.

Yeah, but 36 bucks a week comes out to 1872 bucks a year. For two cars it is 3744 bucks. And if you have kids in high school who drive cars, their driving habits are probably also being subsidized by you, so that is car number 3, which is 5,616 bucks a year. And these are "average" numbers.

[cowboyeagle05]

Lets localize the problem whats the average amount of Gas DFW citizens use? I wonder if its higher for the average DFW citizen than other US citizens. That kind of demand could drive some major changes in DFW transportations methods and spending habits. Also whats the state Average does Texas have a lower, higher, or same average number of Gas usage. If Texas uses a lot more than the US average a state wide redistribution of Highways funds should be diverted towards more rail projects whether inner city and or Highspeed statewide connector. Plus if you roll in the need for better rail connections between Dallas and Houston for shipping reasons magically you could see the state legislature welcome a joint Human and Commercial Goods rail network connecting major metros like Dallas & Houston.

[utgf]

I think we have to consider alternate sources though as the supply of oil will never catch up with the demand. My husband is working on the California High Speed Rail which is projected to cost around 40 billion. The freeway extensions in CA which have now been but on hold are projected to cost 60 billion. My personal belief is that we should be putting this money to the rail and not the highways....we can only expand them so many times. I'm glad the voters have approved this and that the governor of CA is finally on board. The first phase of the CA HSR is scheduled to open 2016-2018.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov


Unfortunately the voters have not approved it yet. The vote has been delayed multiple times but looks like we will finally get a chance to vote on it in November.

[FoUTASportscaster]

We need to get real European with our attitude towards cars...they've been dealing with expensive gas for years, and they've adapted...nice, loaded, top-of-the-line small cars...

What do you call their expansive transit system. Believe it or not, there are other ways to get from point A besides a car. Walking, biking, transit all come to mind and are used very successfully in most European countries.

[electricron]

The earlier Texas experiment with high speed rail falled because the State Legislature wouldn't back any bonds. Without that backing, the bonds fell below junk bond status. No one would buy them. Without credit, there was no way the TGV group could raise the funds to build it. The same reason caused Florida's High Speed Rail project to die too.

At least California is willing to sell bonds to move this project along. Public-Private Partnerships require some public financial support. They die a very quick death without public support.

The Texas project had identified a preferred route, and was well along (over 90%) on its Environmental Impact Statement. It was very close to starting construction when it fell apart. I'm pretty sure it could get restarted again quickly, if Texas was willing to put some cash into it. Back then, public cash couldn't be used for any private project. Today, public-private partnerships is popular, from toll roads, arenas, football stadiums, railroads and hotels. It's a shame the Texas Legislature wasn't so keen on public-private partnerships 15 years ago.

Would we really need to build the new I 35 toll road if the Texas HSR had been built?
I think not, expanding the existing I 35 to 6 lanes in rural Texas would have been enough, as many would have taken the 180 mph train vs taking their 70 mph car.

Southwest, like all the airlines, is cutting back on flights today. Their argument of flying extra flights with just an extra jet, which costs hundreds of millions of dollars vs billions to build the HSR, doesn't hold true anymore. They're barely breaking even with flights today, and the day of $40 flights from Dallas Love Field to Houston Hobby is over. The HSR could break them if they tried to compete against it with fares. HSR has killed airline competition everywhere in the world, why would it be different in Texas?

Somehow, everyone forgot that the HSR could just add extra $2 million coach car to the HSR trainset in case demand increased.

Dallas's designated HSR terminal will be at DFW airport today. The route follows SH 360 towards Hillsboro. Here's the preferred alternative map that the Texas HSR project developed.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/highspeedrailmap_small.jpg

p.s. Austin-San Antonio could have operated their projected Commuter Rail project over the HSR tracks. The stumbling block today, UP tracks are their preferred route. You can't spell stupid without the letters u & p. To get access to the UP tracks, they're talking about building a $3 billion freight bypass. Add a couple of extra $ billions, we could have had HSR today. I much prefer spending tax payers money on passenger tracks than freight tracks.

But, the projected $7 billion HSR corridor then will cost two to three times that today, if not more. Texas missed an excellent opportunity 15 years ago. It'll be difficult to get HSR vendors to invest in Texas again without solid guarantees of public financing.

To add, recently Dell Computer decided to move it manufacturing plant to Tennessee. Thousands of blue collar jobs were lost in Round Rock. I wonder, if the HSR were built, and it's availability for high speed freight at night, may have changed that. The reason Dell Computer states why is that the Austin's transportation infrastructure is so bad that they can't get "just in time" arrivals for parts needed to build the computers anymore. Good transportation infrastructure is important to the Texas economy. We must never forget that.

[tamtagon]

Hasnt the US Dept of Defense stated a willingness to contribute to the Texas T-Bone since high speed trains would make the trip from Fort Hood to the Gulf much faster?

[Hannibal Lecter]

But, the projected $7 billion HSR corridor then will cost two to three times that today, if not more. Texas missed an excellent opportunity 15 years ago. It'll be difficult to get HSR vendors to invest in Texas again without solid guarantees of public financing.If it's such a wonderful thing, why does it need taxpayer money?

If it can really do all the things you say, why aren't investors lined up with open checkbooks?

On a more philosophical level, should the state be spending tax dollars to compete with private businesses that employee tens of thousands of people and pay untold millions in taxes?

[AeroD]

On a more philosophical level, should the state be spending tax dollars to compete with private businesses that employee tens of thousands of people and pay untold millions in taxes?

You mean private businesses that benefit from subsidies, government-owned airport facilities, ask the government to regulate the other parts of the market (evil oil speculators), and from time-to-time may ask the government to step in labor disputes. Yes, the airline industry, exactly what Smith had in mind when he spoke of the free market.

[tamtagon]

If it's such a wonderful thing, why does it need taxpayer money?

If it can really do all the things you say, why aren't investors lined up with open checkbooks?

On a more philosophical level, should the state be spending tax dollars to compete with private businesses that employee tens of thousands of people and pay untold millions in taxes?

Because that's the way thing are done now-a-days. Our Government has been rushing toward some kind of Socialism for generations. I admire the drive to reverse the trend, but it's a kind of a beating to read about it on every other thread on this forum. I'm just saying.

Philosophically, you might ought to rethink your question, "If it's such a wonderful thing, why does it need taxpayer support?" Considering the reality of today's functioning public-private government, the pondering might be more productive when rooted in a statement of reality rather than a question of what happened to the simpler ways of the past: Since it's such a wonderful thing, it needs taxpayer support.

[Spjz]

You mean private businesses that benefit from subsidies, government-owned airport facilities, ask the government to regulate the other parts of the market (evil oil speculators), and from time-to-time may ask the government to step in labor disputes. Yes, the airline industry, exactly what Smith had in mind when he spoke of the free market.Just because the airlines have their hand out doesn't mean we should build a rail system with public money? At least that's my forecast of Hannibal's response. He's, if nothing else, consistent.


If it's such a wonderful thing, why does it need taxpayer money?

If it can really do all the things you say, why aren't investors lined up with open checkbooks? My take: in most instances you can't build a rail line or highway without the government. It would be too cost-prohibitive. That said, I would love to hear of some railroads or highways, and I'm sure there are a few out there, that have been built, from one terminus to the other, without the aid of the government though land grants, condemnation, or, in the case of most highways, full funding and ownership.

[AeroD]

My take: in most instances you can't build a rail line or highway without the government. It would be too cost-prohibitive. That said, I would love to hear of some railroads or highways, and I'm sure there are a few out there, that have been built, from one terminus to the other, without the aid of the government though land grants, condemnation, or, in the case of most highways, full funding and ownership.

In a galaxy far far away.

[DallasMan]

Didn't the TX state gov. have a big surplus this year? How about stashing that away to pay for high speed rail?

[RobertB]

In a galaxy far far away.
Well, the Empire did build not one but *two* rather large space stations in less than ten galactic years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dates_in_Star_Wars#Time_measurement_in_the_Star_Wa rs_galaxy), so I'm not entirely sure the Star Wars universe is a good example of private funding of large-scale infrastructure projects. Though I guess military infrastructure is another thing entirely... and besides, those stations didn't turn out to be quite the long-term investment that the Empire had hoped for.

[Spjz]

Well, the Empire did build not one but *two* rather large space stations in less than ten galactic years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dates_in_Star_Wars#Time_measurement_in_the_Star_Wa rs_galaxy), so I'm not entirely sure the Star Wars universe is a good example of private funding of large-scale infrastructure projects. Though I guess military infrastructure is another thing entirely... and besides, those stations didn't turn out to be quite the long-term investment that the Empire had hoped for.See, the Empire needed somebody like Tom Leppert. Ya know, somebody who understands the technical and financial intricacies of large scale projects while still being able work with all interested parties (excluding wookies, hutts and Angela Hunt). Emperor Leppert would have charmed Luke Skywalker with a warm handshake and irrepressible optimism instead of frying him with purple-dark-side-of-the-force-lightning.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Emperor Leppert would have charmed Luke Skywalker with a warm handshake and irrepressible optimism instead of frying him with purple-dark-side-of-the-force-lightning.

Don't forget that CEO smile. :)

[electricron]

If it's such a wonderful thing, why does it need taxpayer money?

If it can really do all the things you say, why aren't investors lined up with open checkbooks?

On a more philosophical level, should the state be spending tax dollars to compete with private businesses that employee tens of thousands of people and pay untold millions in taxes?

Government backed bonds isn't the same thing as government repayment of bonds.
The Texas HSR, would have paid backed the Texas HSR bonds, just like the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers are going to pay back Arlington's bonds to build The Ballpark in Arlington and Jerry's World. I think's it better to consider it a loan.
Another example involving Citizens instead of Corporations.
Ex GIs and Sailors can get Federal government backed VA loans to buy homes, but it's the GIs and Sailors who pay the VA loans off.

Government backing the loans doesn't necessarily mean the government is paying off the loans. Texas could have released bonds back then to support the HSR at a much cheaper interest rate than what the HSR group could. Lower interest rates makes the HSR more profitable.

You don't really believe DFW pays cash to build new runways and terminals? They sell government backed bonds to raise the cash to build new capital projects. And I fail to see any difference between the airport and a railroad.

[Spjz]

...just like the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers are going to pay back Arlington's bonds to build The Ballpark in Arlington and Jerry's World.The Ranger's Ball Park was and the Cowboy's stadium will be paid for by a half cent sales tax hike. Not ticket sales. You are confusing general obligation bonds with revenue bonds.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Government backed bonds isn't the same thing as government repayment of bonds.It does if the original borrower defaults.


The Texas HSR, would have paid backed the Texas HSR bonds, just like the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers are going to pay back Arlington's bonds to build The Ballpark in Arlington and Jerry's World. I think's it better to consider it a loan.The bonds for those two stadiums were/will be paid back by a half cent sales tax in Arlington, not by the teams.


Another example involving Citizens instead of Corporations.
Ex GIs and Sailors can get Federal government backed VA loans to buy homes, but it's the GIs and Sailors who pay the VA loans off. Not if they don't pay -- then the taxpayers get stuck with the tab.


Government backing the loans doesn't necessarily mean the government is paying off the loans. Texas could have released bonds back then to support the HSR at a much cheaper interest rate than what the HSR group could. Lower interest rates makes the HSR more profitable.The rate is cheaper because lenders can get payment from the taxpayers in case of default. It's not exactly the same, but the current mess with Fannie Mae is pretty similar -- and it's going to cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.


You don't really believe DFW pays cash to build new runways and terminals? They sell government backed bonds to raise the cash to build new capital projects. And I fail to see any difference between the airport and a railroad.DFW was paid for with revenue bonds. There was no recourse against the cities or the federal government. If someone wants to build a railroad the same way, I say go for it.

[electricron]

The Ranger's Ballpark and the Cowboy's Stadium will be paid for by a half cent sales tax hike. Not ticket sales. You are confusing general obligation bonds with revenue bonds.

No I'm not. You're correct, the park and stadums bonds will be paid off with bonds backed by a half cent sales tax. Both the Rangers and Cowboys will pay rent to use the park and stadium, which in 20 to 30 years, would have paid the bonds off.

So, the city suckered the taxpayers of Arlington to pass a bond package based on a half cent sales tax to build the park and stadium. Meanwhile, it's collecting rent that they can use for other purposes, purposes the taxpayers may not have passed a bond package over, and purposes the taxpayers would never had passed a half cent sales tax for.
The teams get their parks and stadiums, the city gets a good excuse to raise taxes, and the city gets cash to spend as it likes without too much taxpayer's interference.

Suckers!

[SeaToby]

No I'm not. You're correct, the park and stadums bonds will be paid off with bonds backed by a half cent sales tax. Both the Rangers and Cowboys will pay rent to use the park and stadium, which in 20 to 30 years, would have paid the bonds off.

So, the city suckered the taxpayers of Arlington to pass a bond package based on a half cent sales tax to build the park and stadium. Meanwhile, it's collecting rent that they can use for other purposes, purposes the taxpayers may not have passed a bond package over, and purposes the taxpayers would never had passed a half cent sales tax for.
The teams get their parks and stadiums, the city gets a good excuse to raise taxes, and the city gets cash to spend as it likes without too much taxpayer's interference.

Suckers!
I love the way you see through government and/or revenue bonds. There is a reason why government goes ahead and do these public/private partnerships. Most of the time, inflation and tax growth overcome the interests on the bonds. After such said stadium is built, the city collects rents and a piece of the revenues from parking to concessions, along with other developments nearby paying taxes too. Its amazing how much has been collected in taxes from DFW airport, DART, and other adventures.

There is a reason why HBZachary is willing to build I-69 up from Hwys, 59 and 79 right of way, and with toll road bypasses around the cities and towns. While the toll roads are really the bypasses, any body traveling the whole route will be paying large bucks to bypass the towns, effectively turning the whole road into a toll road, while only a small percentage is a toll road. Public/private partnership. The state DOT is out nothing, no money whatsoever.

[electricron]

I love the way you see through government and/or revenue bonds. There is a reason why government goes ahead and do these public/private partnerships.

I haven't even accounted for the TODs that would have been built around the HSR Stations in Dallas, Waco, Temple, Austin, San Antonio, Bryant/College Station, and Houston.
Have you noticed the number of hotels and office buildings sprouting up around the airports and along the freeways between the airports and downtown? HSR stations attract similar developments. Add a few restaurant and shopping districts in these TODs too. Then think about all the taxes these developments would had generate for the local cities along the route.

Even if the HSR project went bust, the TODs built around these stations would more than made up the bond loses. The tracks and right of way could also be sold to freight railroad companies and new arising local commuter rail trainsit agencies could have ran slower trains on the HSR tracks too.
ASA (Austin San Antonio) commuter rail would have some tracks to run trains on.
A Houston to College Station commuter rail agency could have been formed to use the unused tracks. Therefore, the government backed bonds would still have had sources of revenues to pay them off over time.
Look at what the ASA is recommending to use the old UP mainline tracks. If the HSR tracks were in place, they wouldn't be asking the Federal and State governments $Billions to build a new freight bypass, it would already be in existence.
Texas freight lines are predicted to become overcrowded with "Container" traffic caused by global trade. The HSR tracks could have been used to move the "containers" overnight with less passenger train frequencies, allowing the existing freight lines to move slower trains consists, like coal, grain, and gravel. They cold have been used all day and all night if the HSR went bust.

I don't believe an adaptable infrastructure such as HSR tracks along a publicly owned right-of-way in high demand corridors would have been wasted by the State of Texas if the HSR project had failed. The corridor could have been also used for other purposes, like pipelnes, utilities, transmission lines, toll roads, fiber optics, etc.
So, I don't believe Texas would have lost significant sums of funds backing the Texas HSR projects bonds. And I don't think the Texas HSR project would have gone bust because they could have also sold rights of the HSR corridor for other purposes too.

[PennStation]

Texas freight lines are predicted to become overcrowded with "Container" traffic caused by global trade. The HSR tracks could have been used to move the "containers" overnight with less passenger train frequencies, allowing the existing freight lines to move slower trains consists, like coal, grain, and gravel. They cold have been used all day and all night if the HSR went bust.Engineers designing new 'dedicated right-of-way' high-speed rail lines value the lack of curvature more than they do a low-grade profile. What you end up with is a line with fewer curves, but steeper grades, as the tracks tend to go up and over the terrain, instead of around it. This profile, known as a series of (extreme) hogbacks, would be unsuitable for traditional freight trains, even relatively light intermodal (trailer/container) trains. The railroad could run much shorter trains, with a lot more power up front, but this would negate many of the efficiencies that freight rail currently enjoys over trucks.

The use of distributed power (an unmanned pusher, typically on the rear) might help, as might the use of electro-pneumatic brakes (a little-used brake control technology that is slowly gaining acceptance). If double-stack containers would fit under the catenary (overhead electric wires), the use of electric locomotives might make this strange operation somewhat more efficient.

I don't see the possibility of ever having daytime passenger/nighttime freight. The freight train could damage the track structure enough, especially at turnouts, to make the ride quality at 186 mph (300 km/h) unacceptable.

[electricron]

Engineers designing new 'dedicated right-of-way' high-speed rail lines value the lack of curvature more than they do a low-grade profile. What you end up with is a line with fewer curves, but steeper grades, as the tracks tend to go up and over the terrain, instead of around it. This profile, known as a series of (extreme) hogbacks, would be unsuitable for traditional freight trains, even relatively light intermodal (trailer/container) trains. The railroad could run much shorter trains, with a lot more power up front, but this would negate many of the efficiencies that freight rail currently enjoys over trucks.

The use of distributed power (an unmanned pusher, typically on the rear) might help, as might the use of electro-pneumatic brakes (a little-used brake control technology that is slowly gaining acceptance). If double-stack containers would fit under the catenary (overhead electric wires), the use of electric locomotives might make this strange operation somewhat more efficient.

I don't see the possibility of ever having daytime passenger/nighttime freight. The freight train could damage the track structure enough, especially at turnouts, to make the ride quality at 186 mph (300 km/h) unacceptable.

What you say is true. Never-the-less, California plans on running fast freight at night down its High Speed Rail tracks using light weight engines and consists. Mail, UPS packages, etc. It'll be cheaper than running 20 trucks I 5 between California cities. So, it can be done with special lightweight freight. Not every freight train has to be heavy and a mile long.

But I agree with you about heavy freight. Heavy freight will ruin the tracks.