Reply With QuoteHarvard prof: Costs of Dallas to Houston rail link far greater than benefits
http://transportationblog.dallasnews...-dallas-t.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212136
President Obama set aside $8 billion for high-speed trains in the stimulus package, and Congress added another $1.2 billion. Yet many economists now say the costs of building a high-speed rail network far outstrip possible the benefits, especially when cars are becoming more energy-efficient. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser has studied the supposed environmental benefits, guided by the carbon-emission data used by environmental advocates. He pegs the annual environmental benefit for a 240-mile high-speed rail line that attracts 1.5 million riders at $4.2 million, a small return given the billions it would cost. Cato scholar Randal O'Toole notes that French and Japanese ride their bullet trains less than 400 miles a year on average, and estimates that an American network would take, at best, 3.5 percent of cars off the road.
Harvard prof: Costs of Dallas to Houston rail link far greater than benefits
http://transportationblog.dallasnews...-dallas-t.html
^ From that article a comment on the DaMN
Any true to that? If so, wow!Your "highway" department at TxDOT is about to break new ground by establishing a Rail Division and will soon announce a director for that new entity.
Yes, thats true. TxDOT now has a passenger rail division. They just don't have money for it.Originally Posted by NThomas
I read another related article about HSR vs. cars recently that stated as cars become more and more energy effecient they wll become a more "green" method of travel than rail. All that aside..... I would just prefer to travel via train than to drive or to fly ( which I hate ). I think the success of European HSR systems would prove that.
HSR is the icing on the cake of the entire rail system. They have plenty of other trains systems that make up the base of the system so that the HSR can be effective.
From TxDOT:
Texas Requests About $1.8 Billion for High Speed Passenger RailThe "nine applications" are referenced in a .pdf. Highlights, in the order TxDOT listed them:
http://www.txdot.gov/news/039-2009.htm
AUSTIN - Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) officials have submitted nine applications to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under tracks one, three and four of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Acts (ARRA) High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. Applications for track two funding are due October 2.
"An integrated, multimodal transportation system is key to efficiently moving people and goods throughout the state," said Phillip Russell, TxDOT assistant executive director for innovative project development. "This isn't something that can be achieved overnight, but I believe that these applications set us on a course that will Keep Texas Moving."
In all, $8 billion in ARRA funds, in addition to a little over $90 million in FY 2008 and 2009 federal appropriations are available through this program. Last month, TxDOT submitted pre-applications for seventeen projects. Applications will be reviewed by the FRA with announcements expected sometime this fall.
"Track 1" projects, in Final Design, Construction, or Prelim Engineering phase
1. Tower 55: $93 million ($30 million from feds)
2. Crossing Signal Timing in FW: $3.75 million
3. Misc infrastructure in FW: $8.5 million
4. "Connect FTW subdivision to Duncan subdivision": Half a million
5. Texas T-Bone (preliminary engineering & environmental work): $1.7 Billion
6. Austin-San Antonio freight relocation: $35.7 million (half from feds)
"Track 3" projects, planning phase
7. East Texas Amtrak study: Less than half a million (half from feds)
8. Texas T-Bone (preliminary design): $19 million (half from feds)
"Track 4" projects, inter-city passenger rail
9. Double-tracking TRE tracks for the Texas Eagle: $14.4 million (half from feds)
My thoughts: with only $8 billion available for the program, and three major projects ready to start turning dirt (Florida, California, Chicago/Midwest), that $1.7 billion request for "NEPA and PE" for the Texas T-Bone is window dressing -- it's not going to happen. Taking that out, TxDOT is requesting less than $80 million -- 1% of the $8 billion available. I hope that the "Track 2" funding requests are both big and realistic, because when you take out the no-plan-in-hand Texas T-Bone, TxDOT is begging for the scraps from the scraps.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Yes, that's table scraps. At least the TRE was ready for some double tracking and NCTCOG for the short term Tower 55 at grade fixes, Texas would have less than half the $80 Million ready. Just goes to show that TXDOT, the last T standing for Transporation, really should be called TXDOH, the H standing for Highways.
Assuming Texas gets all the approximately $80 Million, what's actually ready to go, Texas again is short shifted, getting a whopping 1% of the available rail stimulus funding. When it comes to Federal funds, Texas should be getting 8% of federal funds, per capital.
Source http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
2008 population estimate: Texas 24,326,974; USA 304,059,724
Which means, Texas once again figures out how to get 8 times less Federal funds than it should. And some wonder why TXDOT has no money to build new freeway lanes? Without the DFW area projects, Texas would get 16 times less Federal funds than it should.
Not sure how TXDOT plans to spend almost $36 Million on the ASA freight relocation? Didn't TXDOH release a study last year suggesting it'll take almost $2 Billion to do what they want? $36 Million for that project is peanuts....
Last edited by electricron; 25 August 2009 at 07:00 PM.
With 9 trillions in deficits over the next 10 years, I'd wonder if any of this money would really be available, other than the already allocated stimulus funds. The party is just about over at the Federal level with Social Security & Medicare ready to absorb any loose funds and soon to be ripping them away from less sacred cows. It's just as well we are not looking for any federal funds. Our disappointment will be less than other states.
The window on these large Federal projects has closed. We just don't know it yet.
If the Texas T-Bone was built with both DT and Airport stations, with lines not running to every station except during off-peak, wouldn't that solve the time problem and they DT vs Airport debate?
A potential solution for building Very High Speed Rail trains using both existing and new rail corridors?
The Talgo 350.
http://www.talgoamerica.com/pdf/Talgo-350-English.pdf
The Talgo 350 are designed to reach a speed of 350 km/h (220 mph), although present lines and commercial services limit the speed at 330 km/h (205 mph) in Spain. The train consists of two power cars and Talgo VII intermediate cars with improved brakes and additional primary suspension.
The series VII cars are the only very high speed railcars built to FRA standards today, therefore they can run on older rail corridors into the downtown stations. These are the trainsets, minus the locomotive, that the Midwest states are buying. I also believe they forsee the same FRA operational advantages for the Talgo trainsets.
Here's the operating scheme:
Use an existing rail corridor into and out of city centers at 60-79 mph, then the train switches onto new 200+ mph tracks in a new rail corridor. Either build new train stations on the new rail corridor that bypasses intermediate cities, or switch back onto the old corridors and use the existing train stations. Personally, I rather they built new stations on the new corridor, avoiding potential slowdowns by freight trains on the old tracks.
To reach very high speeds, it will be necessary to run power catenaries above the tracks. Or use diesel locomotives, which will limit the top speed of the trains to 110 mph.
Last edited by electricron; 07 September 2009 at 10:02 AM.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10505
Here is the intro but the actual 12 page article is at the link
High-Speed Rail Is Not "Interstate 2.0"
by Randal O'Toole
The administration has likened President Obama's high-speed rail plan to President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. Yet there are crucial differences between interstate highways and high-speed rail.
First, before Congress approved the Interstate Highway System, it had a good idea how much it would cost. In contrast, Congress approved $8 billion for high-speed rail without knowing the total cost, which is likely to be at least $90 billion.
Second, highway users paid for interstate highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will rarely use it.
Third, interstate highways connect all 48 contiguous states and major metropolitan areas. The FRA's high-speed rail plan consists of six unconnected networks that reach only 33 states and less than two-thirds of the nation's 100 largest urban areas.
Fourth, the average American traveled 4,000 miles on interstates in 2007. High-speed rail proponents optimistically estimate that the average American would ride the FRA's high-speed rail system less than 60 miles per year.
Finally, interstate highways improved social welfare by increasing highway safety. In contrast, far from saving energy and reducing pollution, high-speed rail would actually increase energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
For all these reasons, the United States government should not fund high-speed rail. The $8 billion in high-speed rail stimulus funds should be invested in safety improvements, not in new trains and new routes that will add to future taxpayer obligations.
Interesting... don't know about the other points but the last one is false. Gas produces more greenhouse gasses then Electricity even if that electricity is produced by Coal plants....
by the way the Cato Institute is a conservative think tank. They apparently gave no weight to the idea that that a rail option would mitigate the risk of having virtually all of our transportation tied to foreign production of oil.
By Randal O'Toole, amongst the worse anti-train/pro-highway pundist around.
How about me providing a link to a ppro-train/anti-highway pundits, just to confuse the aqrguments?
http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/amtrak.html
THE SIX MYTHS ABOUT AMTRAK
Myth #1 - Amtrak can be profitable. No national rail passenger system in the world is profitable. Without public subsidy, there will be no passenger rail transportation systems in the United States.
Myth #2 - The private sector is dying to take over our services. Remember why we were formed. We are what is left of a once privately run enterprise.
Myth #3 - Long-distance trains are the problem. This is perhaps one of the biggest myths. If you eliminate every long-distance train, your avoidable costs would decrease about $70 million a year-after about a year and a half of making labor protection costs. On a fully allocated basis, after five years, you might save annually about $300 million. Focusing on this problem is not going to save Amtrak. This approach is a red herring.
Myth #4 - Amtrak is a featherbed for labor. Our wage rates are about 90% of the freight industry and are even lower when compared to transit. Wages are not the problem; generating a higher level of productivity, that is the challenge. It is management's duty to seek such improvement.
Myth #5 - The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is profitable. The NEC may cover most of its above-the-rail costs, but it is an extremely costly piece of railroad to maintain. The NEC is not profitable and never will be. Sure, private groups might be interested in having it, but they would take it only with the promise of massive capital infusions.
Myth #6 - There is a quick fix - reform. The word reform is like catnip to those interested in a quick fix to Amtrak. If the answer were quick and easy, we would have solved the problem long ago. What needs to be done is to tightly manage the company and its finances and begin to make incremental but critical improvements to plant and equipment.
http://www.unitedrail.org/
There was a time, not too long ago, when railroads made money on passenger trains both long-distance and short-distance.
How did this work? Passengers are fundamentally just like freight: The long hauls are where the money is made; the short hauls are done for customer convenience and as feeders, and paid for by the profits from the long hauls.
The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System and the sucker punch of the Boeing 707 jet airliner, coming in quick succession in the 1950s and 1960s, were too much for the railroads of their day. The railroads were insufficiently glamorous and not fast enough for a society suddenly hooked on speed, the race for Space, and rockets to the moon.
And while taxpayer-funded airports and highways began to cover the nation, government taxation and regulation of the railroads strangled every effort to revive passenger trains, and even freight trains. Entrenched railroad management and unions seemed more interested in fighting each other than doing much about their failing industry. The result was a massive wave of railroad bankruptcies and abandonments through the 1970s, with passenger trains being an early near-fatality.
It is perhaps a testament to the innate efficiencies of the steel wheel on steel rails that freight trains revived in the 1980s. The Staggers Rail Act of 1980, by initiating deregulation of the railroads, was a watershed that led to positive corporate attitudes. Today, the chief problem facing the large railroads is a lack of capacity to handle their existing and growing traffic. The seeds of a poor-to-nonexistent national transportation policy in the 1950s grew into the rail abandonments that have given flower to the problems of the railroads today.
Plus a videoooooooo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-i1ucduNSY
Last edited by RobertB; 10 September 2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason: rm off-topic text
Consider the source, though; the Cato Institute is the go-to guy when you want a Libertarian view, converted to something more palatable for the mainstream. They always make some good points... though this time, they're a bit off.
"First, before Congress approved the Interstate Highway System, it had a good idea how much it would cost."
O RLY? The Interstate Highway System expanded far beyond anything that was conceived in the 1950s, and continues to expand. To say that Congress had an itemized list for 40+ years' worth of construction is silly.
"Second, highway users paid for interstate highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will rarely use it."
I guess they mean that highway users paid for the system via the Gas Tax. A truly Libertarian Interstate System would have been built exclusively with tolls, and our highway system would now be on par with... Mexico's. For the first couple of decades at least, those gas taxes came from people who were still driving on two-lane state and US highways -- the benefits weren't fully realized in the short term.
"Third, interstate highways connect all 48 contiguous states and major metropolitan areas. The FRA's high-speed rail plan consists of six unconnected networks that reach only 33 states and less than two-thirds of the nation's 100 largest urban areas."
So Cato would prefer what, that an integrated system suddenly appear full grown, like Athena from the forehead of Zeus? You gotta start somewhere. But I would have no objection to a fully integrated system to connect every state and urban center -- just add a few more gigadollars to the pot. That'll make Cato happy.
"Fourth, the average American traveled 4,000 miles on interstates in 2007. High-speed rail proponents optimistically estimate that the average American would ride the FRA's high-speed rail system less than 60 miles per year."
The average American doesn't have any choice. If you want to get from point A to point B, you can take the Interstate, or you can hike across the fields it cuts through. 60 miles per year per American sounds low, but that's 60 * 300 million -- I'll take 18 BILLION miles not driven per year, thanks.
"Finally, interstate highways improved social welfare by increasing highway safety. In contrast, far from saving energy and reducing pollution, high-speed rail would actually increase energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions."
Leaving aside the apples vs. oranges comparison of "safety" vs. "greenhouse gas emissions"... I'm sure they go over the numbers in detail in their report, tracing every electron used back to its source and coming up with a set of damning numbers for carbon emissions by high-speed rail. But I highly doubt they will do the same for cars, with the fuel cost, repair costs, car insurance, auto accidents, highway maintenance, environmental degradation from oily runoff, etc, etc, etc.
In the summary, at least, the Cato report doesn't do anything to sway my opinion away from a US high-speed rail program. Quite the contrary; it's something I can print off and show to opponents and say, is this all ya got?
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Call me the typical lefty.
Our Interstate Highway System was never intended to be a model of libertarianism, free-market capitalism, among other things.
It was built not so much with the intent of moving private individuals, as much as moving troops just in case the Commies launched an invasion on one of our shores we can move troops and provisions quickly.
If I am not mistaken, Eisenhower was actually inspired by Hitler's Autobahn (Yes, I am aware of Godwin and I wentthere).
Last edited by AeroD; 10 September 2009 at 02:14 PM.
Tighten the female dog!
And Hitler got it from Rome since all roads led to Rome so they could move troops and military resources mighty quickly throughout the land.
Then might I recommend actually reading the article?
Almost everything I've seen has shown that the costs are just too high to justify based on pure dollars, environmental impact, jobs or all of the above.
^
So you think they never should have built the interstate system then, either. Since it has cost well over a trillion dollars by now, and caused a huge environmental impact, and so on.
Socialism - bringing a greater good to a greater many, one golden parachute at a time.
O'toole and Cato seem to make a good arguement, until you really check their numbers. I remember an article awhile back about Portland's Tri-Max system. I don't remember what the numbers were exactly but he said in something like 1970, 10% of the Portland area rode on mass transit. In 2000 that percantage dropped to something like 7%. Sounds awful at first and makes it sound like less people rode. But he fails to mention during the same time period the population of Portland grew by 30%. Many of those new people didn't even live in areas where transit was available. Also during the same period there was little to no expansion of the transit system, so its not like they had the capacity to take on the population growth.Then might I recommend actually reading the article?
Almost everything I've seen has shown that the costs are just too high to justify based on pure dollars, environmental impact, jobs or all of the above.
In reality ridership has grown several times on Portland's transit system, which are the real numbers that should be looked at. Cato likes to leave many holes in their arguments. As the saying goes, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
It was convenient of them to post their article just before the light rail system in Portland expanded.
Someone could write a similar article about Dart before this weekend and before DART opens the Green Line.
Please don't suggest that light rail ridership will not increase when all of the Green and Orange lines start running.
A doubling of the routes in service should almost immediately double the number of light rail ridership, which of course will double the percentage of taxpayers using it.
Actually, I'm sure that any Libertarian could make a reasonable argument that the Interstate Highway System *shouldn't* have been built -- or if it were, it should have been all-toll, and operated by private companies for profit.^
So you think they never should have built the interstate system then, either. Since it has cost well over a trillion dollars by now, and caused a huge environmental impact, and so on.
One interesting side effect: without massive Federal subsidies, we wouldn't have had the infrastructure to support suburban sprawl. Without suburban sprawl and subsidized roads, we wouldn't have had the explosion of the automobile culture. Without the automobile culture, we would still have a robust rail-based public transportation infrastructure. Which is what we're looking at spending billions of dollars to rebuild. Irony much?
I don't think the Libertarian view is correct now. But maybe we *should* have listened to them in the 1950's. And it would be folly not to listen now, even if we disagree -- if only to avoid the echo-chamber effect that got us into this sprawling, oil-dependent mess in the first place.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Sorry but I have to disagree 100%. The Interstate Highway System was one of the biggest, if not the biggest engine, for economic growth in the United States between 1955 and 1990. A side effect may have been urban sprawl, but that was not a direct result of the highway system, but rather poor urban planning on the part of individual cities and states.
Awesome, lets get this rolling...
http://transportationblog.dallasnews...texas-hig.html
The French national railway SNCF has filed a detailed proposal with the Federal Railroad Administration stating an interest in operating high-speed rail in Texas.
The route in question would run from DFW through Austin and into San Antonio. It would not be the Gulf Coast route that's been on the USDOT's official list of 10 prospective HSR corridors or the much-promoted Dallas-Houston link (including the Texas T-Bone). But Houston could be in the distance.
From Yonah Freemark on the TransportPolitic blog:
At $13.8 billion in construction costs, SNCF expects benefits to outweigh public infrastructure costs by 170% over a period of 15 years. This project would have the highest rate of return of any of the corridors profiled in the studies presented here.
Quoting now from the proposal, as posted on a federal website:
Speeds of up to 220 mph for HSR services are expected to generate a significant number of new trips as well as draw from the air and auto modes. Access to HSR services for both residents and visitors will be convenient due to 7 proposed stations conveniently located close to medium and large city populations, city central business districts and airports to attract residents, providing convenient and cost competitive alternative to driving and air travel.
This HST 220 concept keeps pace for a further complete Texan HS network ("Triangle" or "Tbone" type) involving Houston, once the pertinence of HS services proven. Meanwhile, the existing corridors will serve as key feeders.
TxDOT spokesman Chris Lippincott said the SNCF filing "is the first expression we're aware of" from a potential investor-operator interested in Texas high-speed rail.
The filing isn't related to applications for stimulus money, but in response to Congressman John Mica's interest in finding out what private companies think they can make money in the U.S. That provision was inserted in legislation last year, and the French filing was in response, said FRA spokesman Warren Flatau.
SNCF's chairman has been talking up his company's interest in developing HSR in the U.S., but now it's officially stated. The other corridors cited by SNCF are in Florida, California and the Midwest.
Over the summer, the state filed applications for a chunk of $13 billion in rail-improvement stimulus money, including planning funds for high-speed corridors. The current Texas Eagle route was one of them. The DFW-San Antonio link is essentially the Eagle route.
The French company is a world leader in HSR technology and runs the TGV, which has set the world speed record for a rail vehicle -- more than 350 mph.
The interest in Texas runs counter to thinking that service here would be unprofitable. Commentators and experts have said -- perhaps thinking that this is the Texas of Giant -- that we're too spread out and that HSR service is made for the more densely populated Northeast. Of course that's not us, but anyone who's ever driven I-35 from Dallas to San Antonio can see the urbanization of this state -- three of the nation's 10 most populous cities and growing.
The French may have something here.
here is the detailed proposal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20231126/Rail-Plan
Finally!!!!! a proposal with some detail. Actual estimates of travel time, and ticket cost, and it appears the 240 page document shows concern for just about every business aspect of a project like this.
Excellent starter route. This is the first North Texas proposed routing that actually makes sense, with stops in both downtown Dallas and Fort Worth as well as the big airport.
$14 Billion to build it - lets assume it would end up costing $25. I've only scanned the SNCF filing but it looks like this thing could pay off its debt in less than 20 years.... that's probably done under best case scenario calculating....
How long did it take to pay off the initial debt to build DFW?
The population estimates for the metros with stops is underestimated, in 2008 (10.7 million) by about at least 600,000, and the while it's way out the 2030 population (13.4) IMO has been underestimated by 2.5-3.5 million residents.
Wow. This is incredible news. I road the TGV all the time when I was living in Paris... They run a great operation, and this plan looks right on target. Hope it gets off the ground... and especially if tam is right about the debt being payable in 20 years or less, looks like we could finally have something here.
Times weighs down on you like an old, ambiguous dream. You keep on moving, trying to slip through it. But even if you go to the ends of the earth, you won't be able to escape it.
Haruki Murakami
This looks like a great plan. I hope it happens!
Their FW-DFW-DAL solution solves the DT or DFW problem and then the DTFW or DTD problem. I like that cool loop that goes inside of DFW.
Here's some graphics if browsing 240 pages for them is too much:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2642/hsrroute.png
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3333/hsrdfw2.png
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3394/hsrdfw1.png
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/93/hsrwax.png
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2930/hsrhil.png
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4494/hsrwacn.png
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4518/hsrwac.png
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8946/hsrtpl.png
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6118/hsrgtn.png
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/184/hsrrr.png
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6860/hsraus.png
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2452/hsrsmsh45.png
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1760/hsrnbsm.png
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/685/hsrsa.png
Last edited by RobertB; 30 September 2009 at 05:14 PM. Reason: Images just too big, sorry
Everything about this proposal rocks....until we find out what the public contribution is expected to be. But the TGV is amazing and would be unbelievable for Dallas and Texas.
I dunno... I see some serious "line on a map" thinking, especially in spots where I know a bit about the area. Like the one that makes a U into DFW from the south -- that proposal would require some sort of massive bridge over the Trinity floodplain and then up and over the messy SH 183/360 intersection, but it sure looks purty on the map. And there's no way to build a downtown Austin station like they're showing, with a smooth north-south curve across Town Lake. That would require cutting through a massive swath of downtown Austin.
Granted, both of those near-impossibilities is accompanied by a more reasonable alternative, but it makes me doubt the accuracy of the cost estimate. Or maybe I'm just irritated because they called it "Forth" Worth.
They do have a point, though, when they leave out Houston. I-35 is a jammed-up mess all the way from DFW to San Antonio, and the (toll) bypasses being built aren't likely to help. San Antonio-Austin seem to be merging, and Temple and Waco aren't just roadside stands. By comparison, I-45 is wide open, and Buffalo won't be competing with Waco any time soon.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
See fourth paragraph of Appendix 9 on page 187 of 240:
The alignment through Austin Downtown will be constructed with lot of
structure as tunnel, cut and cover and aerial avoiding at the best extend possible to badly impact
the neighbouring area.
Have you read the whole thing?!?!?!?! What do you think?
What a great story, tell it again!
Yeah i think they realize Austin will be a hard one... but with that student population downtown... wow. and both Downtown Austin and Downtown San Antonio are tourist destinations.
If it were me implementing this i think i would start with an Austin/San Antonio line --- Then a Dallas/Waco line --- Then connect Waco and Austin That way they could get revenue service started as soon as possible.
The ability to board the train in one downtown to get off in another is vital any proposal.
SNCF is doing right as best they can. A San Antonio-Austin line has been in the works for awhile but has stalled because of a lack of capital. The biggest reason the SNCF line could work is that it connects 3 of 4 of Texas' largest metros. The ridership of North Texas (FW, DFW, and DAL stations collectively) will fuel the system to the rest of the metros. The Waco & Temple stations will have the smallest number of "ons-and-offs" behind DTFW. It's the terminuses and the next to last stations that will have the largest ridership. Not connecting Houston (and Bryan/CS) is something that can be done in the future because the starter line can hold its own, not connecting North Texas and Central Texas would be a disaster.
The Temple and Waco stations would serve mostly commuters to a Dallas work station, and would help change the nature of suburban sprawl in North Texas. In the decade it would take to get something like this up and running, DART light rail (and in conjunction with The T in Fort Worth) will have finally reached most the major employment centers, primary entertainment and tourist destinations in North Texas. Something must be done to bring Arlington online. The strength of North Texas local passenger trains will encourage similar city access in Austin and San Antonio.
Since this forum's inception, the need for Texas cities to work together within the domestic as well as international marketplace has been a constant (yet infrequent) charge. Interstate 35 has already created a formidable trade route and commercial corridor between DFW and Mexico. Installing passenger trains with embarkation points in the historic downtown areas of the population centers along the I-35 corridor will add vitality to all areas of the symbiotic relationship among corridor municipalities.
This would potentially bring great change to Waco who hasn't had many good things happen since the tornado that leveled most of the town in the 1950's. I'm sure Baylor University would really enjoy promoting this option to its students as it always seems 25% of the cars merging around the I-35 split in Hillsboro exit the Waco Baylor exit going south.
As a Houstonian, I have to say that although I'm saddened that Houston is not in the first phase, this is the most realistic shot at HSR that Texas is going to get. SNCF 's proposal is stellar, as it should be... they're old hats at running HSR and they know how to predict ridership, make it cost effective and how to properly market it to the public so that it will be used. They will also be committed to providing a first-class system for Texas, as opposed to the "feel and find out/cheapest way to get it" that would happen if we went with American contractors.
From scanning through the report, I think SNCF chose to state the "I-35 line" because they prefer the Triangle system over any of the T-bone proposals. But they're being smart about it too... build one successful line, and then no one will question the need for a full three point connection between SA, Houston and Dallas. So I hate that Houston will have to wait to be included, but I this is by far the best proposal out there. I hope we can make it happen for the benefit of all Texans.
vist my blog at http://texasleftist.blogspot.com/
How long are they accepting bids? Any chance we'll know anything more about SNCF's chances of developing this system within the next year or two?
Times weighs down on you like an old, ambiguous dream. You keep on moving, trying to slip through it. But even if you go to the ends of the earth, you won't be able to escape it.
Haruki Murakami
NThomas, I turned your images into links -- they're really, really awesome and add essential information to the discussion, but they're just soooo big! They're even causing problems for my fat-pipe connection at work. Sorry for the inconvenience!
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Speaking of proposals, when is the FRA going to be awarding the money?
Socialism - bringing a greater good to a greater many, one golden parachute at a time.
Soon! I really don't expect Texas to get much of the HSR Stimulus funds because Texas doesn't have that many rail projects ready to go.
It's quite sad really... considering Texas would really, really benefit from HSR. It's similar in size to France and they have managed to make quite a great system, and it has a lot of use. Spain also is a good model to look at, considering their rapid expansion over the past 10 or so years.
Well, hopefully that will change soon. I really hope we stick with this proposal and see where we can take it.
Socialism - bringing a greater good to a greater many, one golden parachute at a time.
Yeah, we're about the physical size of France, with roughly 36% of France's population. Same issue with Spain, which has population density roughly 3X that of Texas. And there is the reason HSR works in Europe, not necessarily so well in the US.
I don't know where any of you are getting your info for the "benefits" Texas will get. Some on here may know I am a huge fan of using rail because of the convenience, density, etc but every economic study I have seen has implied this project would be a PR winner but a money loser. That factors in both the human geography and the environmental impacts, too. So why do y'all think this is a MUST have that is worth drooling over? Seems like a very overpriced new toy to me.
Also, France is about the same size as Texas but has about 2.5x the population.
Mark, did you look at the report? Seems the SNCF's research would differ with "every economic study" you have seen.
Times weighs down on you like an old, ambiguous dream. You keep on moving, trying to slip through it. But even if you go to the ends of the earth, you won't be able to escape it.
Haruki Murakami
I did skim the report (seriously impressed some read the whole thing) and I did find some errors worth mentioning.
On page 9 it talks about how revenues need to offset all the costs and society's benefits need to equal public investment. This right away should be a red flag. We can all agree that if the costs simply line up with the benefits but you are paying the costs up front (some up to 10 years up front, nonetheless), the NPV is negative. Compare this to other potential public investments (higher education) that pay MORE in society's benefits than the initial cost to the public. To me, this means if the gov't is going to spend more than they already are, they should be seeking whatever provides the highest return to society, which would certainly not be HSR which is FORECASTED to have a negative NPV.
Also, if you look at the forecasts, their costs are ridiculous. The most ridiculous to me (that I read) was their assumption that MPG is 21. With all the gov't money going into "green" jobs and "green" innovation, if we are still only getting 21 MPG off of normal gasoline from 2018 onward, then we have MUCH bigger problems with government funding than this HSR.
Edit:I looked it up, and we are ALREADY above 21 mpg (22.4 in 2006)
http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ble_04_23.html
Last edited by Mark Lea; 01 October 2009 at 10:54 AM.
As for population density, some facts instead of opinion may come in handy
Per Wikipedia.......
Texas
Population: 24,326,974
Area: 268,820 sq mi (696,241 km2)
Density: 79.6 /sq mi (30.75/km2)
France
Population: 65,073,482
Area: 674,843 km2 (260,558 sq mi)
Density: 115/km2 (297/sq mi)
California
Population: 36,756,666
Area: 163,696 sq mi (423,970 km2)
Density: 234.4/sq mi (90.49/km2)
New Jersey
Population: 8,682,661
Area: 8,729 sq mi (22,608 km2)
Density: 1,134/sq mi (438/km2)
I've included California and New Jersey just to show how dense some states have become. I wonder what the Texas density figures would be if we could drop land from far West Texas, South Texas, and the Panhandle, where this train isn't going?
I've read the SNCF reply, and I didn't read any density statistics in it at all. I did see population figures, and Texas certainly has three times the population of New Jersey. But all this means is that passengers in Texas must travel longer distances on the train than in New Jersey.
So, what would be the population density of the counties this HSR rail line transverses.
Tarrant Density: 1,990/sq mi (768/kmē)
Dallas Density: 2,691/sq mi (1,038.85/kmē)
Ellis Density: 119/sq mi (46/kmē) (No planned station)
Hill Density: 34/sq mi (13/kmē) (No planned station)
McLennan Density: 205/sq mi (79/kmē)
Bell Density: 225/sq mi (87/kmē)
Williamson Density: 329/sq mi (127/kmē) (No planned station)
Travis Density: 985/sq mi (380.4/kmē)
Hays Density: 52/sq mi (20/kmē) (No planned station)
Comal Density: 140/sq mi (54/kmē) (No planned station)
Bexar Density: 1,116/sq mi (431/kmē)
I don't think it is a coincidence that no one plans to build train stations where the population density is low.
But in just about all the locations where they do plan to build train stations, the density is relatively high.
Last edited by electricron; 01 October 2009 at 11:24 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks