Reply With QuoteDid I miss something? I'm pretty sure there's more then enough room for a 15-20 foot elevated orange line until it'll cross over into DFW's proper (and then run at- grade parallel to N Airfield Drive)Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
Interesting audio record (mp3) at H-GAC MPO about the THSRTC.
http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/T...%20minutes.mp3
Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure there's more then enough room for a 15-20 foot elevated orange line until it'll cross over into DFW's proper (and then run at- grade parallel to N Airfield Drive)
good news... the final stimulus bill numbers
High-speed and inner-city rail: Went from $300 million in House bill to $2.25 billion in Senate to $8 billion in final version. There also is a $6.9 billion provision for public transit.
I believe Amtrak's NE corridor and existing Amtrak service upgrades could consume the entire $2.25 billion easily. I just don't see $6.9 billion backlog of public transit projects that are "ready to go". Dart's Green light rail line is 28 miles long with total estimated costs at $1.8 billion, the FTA's share being approximately $900 million. There would have to be 7 to 8 just as large "ready to go" light rail projects throughout America to consume that much cash. I don't think that many rail projects exist that are "ready to go". Dart's Orange Line, Houston's rail lines, St. Paul's Central corridor, and Honolulu's rail line have environmental clearances and are "ready to go". Some of these already have their share of FTA funding locked in. There are many rail projects being planned, but they aren't "ready to go" yet. So most of that cash must be going to "ready to go" bus projects around the country. I sure would like to see specifically where all that transit cash ends up at.
Last edited by electricron; 14 February 2009 at 11:29 AM.
The Midwest High Speed Rail Association broke down the funds in a recent email.
Here is a break down of the transportation funds:
‐ $27.5 billion for highway investments
‐ $8.4 billion for public transportation.
‐ $1.5 billion for competitive grants to state and local governments.
‐ $1.3 billion for the air transportation system.
‐ $9.3 billion for rail transportation, including Amtrak, High Speed and Intercity Rail.
This is the breakdown for intercity passenger rail:
- $8 billion for capital assistance for HSR Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service. "The conferees have provided the Secretary flexibility in allocating resources between the programs to advance the goal of deploying intercity high speed rail systems in the U.S."
- $1.3 billion for Amtrak. Of this, $450 million is earmarked for security and life safety improvements. The remaining $850 million is intended for projects that will increase capacity, including rolling stock rehabilitation. No more than 60% of these funds can be spent in the Northeast Corridor.
Thanks again for your help in creating this success.
Rick Harnish
Executive Director
Midwest High Speed Rail Association
So there's $8 billion for some sort of inter-city rail, but it's separate from Amtrak funding? Interesting.
That Amtrak number looks smaller all the time. Saying "No more than 60% of these funds can be spent in the Northeast Corridor" probably means "60% of these funds WILL be spent in the NE", so the rest of the country will get 40% of $850 million, or $340 million. That's less than one High Five intersection -- I don't see any new infrastructure coming from that number, aside from some station improvements.
The new administration is "biased towards rail", but I get the feeling they're not married to Amtrak. Maybe that's not all bad.
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
Not true. There's four high speed rail corridors in the Northeast.
(1) Northeast Corridor
(2) Northern New England
(3) Empire Corridor
(4) Keystone Corridor
Of course, California has a high speed rail project starting and will probably get some stimulus funding. In the Chicago Hub, HSR projects are underway with some local funding. There will not be much left for a non-existent Texas HSR project that has no local funding. I don't see the Feds stepping in to fund HSR planning and projects without some local participation in funding.
Last edited by electricron; 17 February 2009 at 01:32 AM.
The full article also covers a few Republicans trying to spin the funding as pork barrel spending. Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) doesn't have any problems toting poorly-spun lies, claiming that the entire $8 billion is a Harry Reid earmark devoted to the Los Angeles - Vegas high speed rail project. BWAH! She's funny.Obama Plots Huge Rail Expansion with Stimulus
By DAVID ROGERS | 2/17/09 4:29 AM EST
Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.
The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.
...
But the administration never emphasized high-speed rail when the House Appropriations Committee was writing its bill in January, so no money was included. The first real request came only days before the Senate Appropriations panel marked up, and the committee had to scramble to find room for $2 billion — in part by cutting other Obama priorities.
Last week, Emanuel greatly upped the ante, asking House-Senate negotiators for $10 billion for high-speed rail — far more than either bill provided.
“I put it in there for the president,” Emanuel said in an interview. “The president wanted to have a signature issue in the bill, his commitment for the future.”
...
High-speed rail sailed through with surprisingly little attention paid to the president’s role.
...
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is given 60 days to come up with a strategic plan for the funds. The combination of large capital upfront — followed by annual appropriations — fits the prototype for the infrastructure bank once considered for, but never included in, the recovery bill.
...
The bill makes no mention of that project. It's apparent that this administration is actually trying to fund the strategic development of a national high-speed rail system, which could eventually be privatized into a competitive environment. But first the infrastructure must exist for the marketplace to develop.
This administration is about getting stuff done. The stupid political games are over, and those still playing them look dumb. This is really one of the best pieces of news I've heard in a long time.
Exactly. I'm sure Amtrak will benefit from the creation of a high-speed rail network, but it looks as though they will not receive the infrastructure funds directly. Instead, its investment is being planned by the Transportation Secretary. It's like this administration realizes trains are a form of transportation after all.
Last edited by incrediculous; 17 February 2009 at 02:33 PM.
I'm sure the 1 million people that make up metro Nashville are thrilled to see a line that stops at Little Rock and doesn't continue on to Nashville.
Looking at the map there should be a Chicago, Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta line. There is a major N to S gap with the exception of the East Coast line.
There are tons of gaps in this map.
I think they are figuring it's not meant to replace AMTRAK
how is Houston not connected to the other Texas Cities?
RAIN! To....much.....rain.....
If you check the maps closely, there isn't a complete HSR rail line between the East Coast and Chicago either. As for Nashville, there isn't an Amtrak train to Nashville anyways, and most of these HSR routes follow existing Amtrak lines.
Most of the gaps exist through the Appalachian Mountains. Most HSR hubs on the map have very large city anchors, like Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., etc. These federal approvied high speed lines only extend about 200 to 250 miles from these hub cities.
The gap in Texas exists because Texas is looking at building the faster T-Bone, and the State hasn't decided where to make that connection. The Feds aren't going to favor one route over another.
As I written many times, all of the Federal effort is aimed at improving existing freight tracks, meaning top train speeds at 110 to 150 mph. If the States want faster trains, they're going to have spend far more than the Feds are willing to spend, and they will have to raise the additional funds.
Japan: Blurring the line between bullets and trains
It's not enough that trains run on time in Japan -- they've got to break land records. In 2025, the country plans to be traveling by rail at 310 mph.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2177731.story
My husband is the project manager for the California High Speed Rail. It's exciting to see the progress in CA.
Ah-ha! The article claims that the trains sit at the station for no more than two minutes! So, tell me why we can't do the same with the T-bone, putting a terminus at DFW and stations at downtown FW and Union in Dallas?
To "upgrade" existing freight tracks to allow Acela-type speeds would be like adding one lane to LBJ, a waste. When it comes to HSR, do as the Japanese do!
and staplesla, tell your huband that Texas is next in line for HSR, and we don't have mountains to plow through!
What's the correlation between a two minute platform wait in Japan and putting stations at DFW, Union and downtown ft. worth?
And we have our own mountains to plow through, like mountains of bureaucracy.
There is a valid reason why, the existing FRA rules discourage it.
Keeping it simple, here are a few rules that apply.
(1) 220 mph HSR trains are not FRA complaint. They're built too light structurally to meet FRA compliance, therefore they can't share tracks with any trains that are FRA compliant.
(2) The fastest HSR trains can go on share tracks with other trains, be they freight or slower passenger trains, is 150 mph. That's why Amtrak's Acela trains specifications say 150 mph max, while they have the horsepower to acheive 200 mph. The reason they can't go faster than 200 mph is because they are built heavier than their European sisters.
(3) Trains going faster than 90 mph require "Postive Train Control" along the corridor for all trains. That means every locomotive using that corridor, for both freight and passenger trains.
(4) Trains going faster than 110 mph require grade separations at every intersection. Both RR and highways intersections.
Keeping those 4 rules in mind; to reach Union Station in downtown Dallas and then proceed to DFW along the TRE route, several compromises must be made.
Using shared tracks limits the top speed of the HSR train to 150 mph because the HSR train would have to be FRA compliant in the shared corridors. They will be able to max out at 200 mph on dedicated tracks in the countryside, but they wouldn't be able to go much faster because they were built FRA compliant and heavier.
Doing what California plans to do to reach the CBDs, upgrading the share tracks to Quad tracks, two dedicated for HSR and two for everything else, eliminates the need for being FRA compliant. Building twice as many tracks is more expensive.
Since these trains will be going faster than 110 mph, grade separatation the line is a requirement, you'd reduce both the amount and size of the grade separations required significantly in a brand new corridor.
I'm not writing building the HSR to downtown and DFW isn't possible, because it can be done, but it will be far more expensive to do so. Avoiding downtown allows using lighter HSR trains, which means they can go faster and they are more efficient. Avoiding downtown allows the potential use of new technology, like MagLev, which can achieve 300 mph speeds.
California plans to use existing RR corridors into downtowns because the Public already owns those specific corridors. That's not true in Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, or Houston. What the Public owns in these cities are Highway corridors in the directions the HSR heads, and the Airports.
The existing downtown train stations aren't large enough to accommodate HSR trains. We're going to have to build brand new HSR train stations in every major city, why not build them where the Public already owns plenty of land?
The reasons the Airlines are for, or at least just neutral, to the present Texas T-Bone HSR proposal, is because the Airports are the proposed terminals.
Personally, I would like to see HSR terminate in all the CBDs. But I do understand why the Texas T-Bone supporters are suggesting terminals at the Airports.
Texas will never fund HSR publicly exclusively, it will be require a Public-Private partnership. The Private part of the partnership will want to build and operate a HSR system as cheaply as possible, not only to keep construction costs and risks down, but operation costs low too.
I don't think 110 mph trains using the existing freight corridors will attract major private investors needed to build and operate the HSR trains. The faster the trains can go will make it easier to find private investors. Too achieve that, new RR corridors will have to be built, might as well build and use them exclusively. Once you decide on new exclusive corridors, you can also look at building the faster MagLev instead.
Last edited by electricron; 28 March 2009 at 01:41 AM.
The only problem is that people don't want to travel from airport to airport by train. Having terminus stations, or at least the main stations in the city centre allows for more options in destinations, and are far better locations to arrive at. Bush Intercontinental and DFW are not exactly close to many destinations, and are on the outskirts of their cities. While DFW may be in between Ft. Worth and Dallas, the major destinations are not close by.
It seems to me to have greater potential if it is built on a better-working method.
Socialism - bringing a greater good to a greater many, one golden parachute at a time.
So where would you place the HSR terminals in downtown Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Waco, College Station, and Houston?
Look at downtown Dallas' Union Station for example.
The two east tracks are used by light rail trains, the two center tracks are used by TRE trains, and the one west track is used by Amtrak. The two freight tracks west of the Amtrak track are full with freight trains. Additionally, there's very little room for parking at Union Station. So where would you place the dedicated HSR tracks and platforms? Where would you place long term parking, and rent-a-car lots? You're not really expecting most passengers to arrive at Union Station by walking or taking the local trains?
Union Station's rail yard area can't be expanded much, you have Union Station to the east, and the Hyatt Regency Hotel to the west. There's only three passenger platforms, and only 5 passenger tracks.
The Convention Center is build over the RR corridors heading south, where will you place the dedicated HSR tracks to approach Union Station from the south?
Ideally, I would place the HSR terminal in the empty space west of the freight tracks and east of Reunion Arena parking lot. You'd have a long walk to Union Station to catch the TRE to Fort Worth, a shorter walk through the Convention Center to get to Dart light rail stop. But you'll be many blocks away from anyplace important in downtown Dallas getting off the train at the southwestern most part of downtown Dallas.
Last edited by electricron; 28 March 2009 at 06:17 AM.
Why shouldn't we? Cabs of course, are another huge option. This isn't a fairy tale. It's real. People get around like this all the time.You're not really expecting most passengers to arrive at Union Station by walking or taking the local trains?
I think most people come to union station via public transit. it is union station afterall.
Reunion arena is getting torn down anyway. There's plenty of space for a terminal in that case. And of course it could all be expanded. They could even tunnel under the convention center. No one said it was cheap. I just think it's probably the best long term solution.
So say if they do set it up to have the main terminals temporarily at the airports, then route the traffic so that it goes through the downtown stations for future service opportunities. Not exactly sure if the idea is bypassing them entirely to cut costs but it seems like it'd be more wasteful in the long run to do something like that.
Socialism - bringing a greater good to a greater many, one golden parachute at a time.
^ exactly. The Reunion site is the perfect site for a large, modern station for HSR. It could be connected via pedestrian bridge or tunnel to Union Station, but provide plentiful parking, shopping, and modern amenities.
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
San Francisco's planned high-speed rail station in the new Transbay Terminal would be obsolete within two decades, state transportation officials warn, forcing them to rethink the design. The proposed station would not be large enough to accommodate half the passengers expected to be using the system by 2030. Heminger has been tapped to mediate the dispute that involves the potentially competing interests of Caltrain, the California High Speed Rail Authority and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the agency overseeing construction of the new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets.
But even if Transbay officials put the train box on the fast track, there's still debate over whether the current design - one platform and two tracks for Caltrain and two platforms and four tracks for high-speed rail - would be sufficient. The High Speed Rail Authority now believes that the station would have to be able to handle 12 trains an hour, or one every five minutes. Under that scenario, eight to 10 tracks would be required, Alberti said. He said the Transbay team only learned of that three weeks ago.
A well used HSR train system will need much more than the existing track and platform at Union Station reserved for inter-city trains. Fort Worth's ITC only has three tracks in service, two of which are used by the TRE, again leaving just one track for inter-city rail. But, there is much more space available in Fort Worth to add more platforms and tracks at the ITC.
Of course, there will be no limitations at all at DFW. Regional rail access to DFW will be much better than Union Station in the future too. The TRE access from the south, T SW2NE access, Dart Cotton Belt access, and Dart light rail access to the north. At Union Station, just the Red and Blue light rail lines will visit, and the TRE. The Green and Orange lines will bypass Union Station.
Tunneling isn't going to happen if Texas sets up a Private-Public partnership for HSR. The Private part of the partnership isn't going to spend that much cash tunneling into Union Station. That idea of yours is financially irresponsible.
I doubt the State or the Feds will pick Dallas out to be different than the other cities for the HSR project. Tunneling into Dallas will cause San Antonio, Austin, Waco, and Houston to want tunnels too. Tunneling everywhere will make this HSR project unaffordable. Watch out opening Pandora's boxes and Trojan horses.
I think you are forgetting that we have Mayor Leppert who can find money anywhere to build anything he gets excited about for Dallas. The phrase used in council meetings is "we are looking at several pots of money"
If the HSR project in Texas would move forward and Downtown Dallas movers and shakers want it near their HQ's and office towers and hotels then Dallas will make it happen. HSR could chip in their money for what they are willing to provide and "Dallas" would chip in the rest of the balance. I am not saying its what I would prefer or whether its financially responsible but if the big guys in Downtown Dallas want it to happen they will make it happen.
Course the big guys in Downtown Dallas want the Trinity Tollway too and its not looking good right now.
I think we need a big referendum on the subject.
^If the Corona's bill in the senate makes it through the house, and Perry signs it (like he said he would earlier this year) then hopefully we will have just that.
So, not everything downtown Dallas wants happens.
To get into downtown Dallas using share tracks, you'll have to forget using 220 mph light non FRA compliant HSR trains. We'll be lucky to get 150 mph trains like Acela. The T-Bone route between downtown Dallas and downtown Houston via Temple will be 317 miles. Here's the projected travel times, assuming the trains travel the entire distance at full speed.
Some simple math:
317 miles / 220 mph = 1 hr, 26 minutes.
317 miles / 150 mph = 2 hrs, 07 minutes.
A difference of 41 minutes between 220 mph and 150 mph trains.
Most likely, if Amtrak built 110 mph trains using existing freight corridors, it'll take much longer.
More simple math:
317 miles /110 mph = 2 hrs, 53 minutes.
A difference of 46 minutes between 150 mph and 110 mph trains.
The total difference between 220 mph and 110 mph trains will be 87 minutes, 1 hr and 27 minutes.
Don't forget, the HSR trains can not possibly achieve those speeds along the entire route. I think it safe to assume the trains will take an additional half hour in time accelerating and de-accelerating, and stopping at train stations along the route to pick up and drop of passengers.
Will Texans adopt HSR trains with more riders with 220 mph trains vs 110 or 150 mph trains? You make the call!
Last edited by electricron; 30 March 2009 at 02:12 AM.
Wait, what bill? A HSR bill? I want links!
So, not everything downtown Dallas wants happens.
To get into downtown Dallas using share tracks, you'll have to forget using 220 mph light non FRA compliant HSR trains. We'll be lucky to get 150 mph trains like Acela. The T-Bone route between downtown Dallas and downtown Houston via Temple will be 317 miles. Here's the projected travel times, assuming the trains travel the entire distance at full speed.
Some simple math:
317 miles / 220 mph = 1 hr, 26 minutes.
317 miles / 150 mph = 2 hrs, 07 minutes.
A difference of 41 minutes between 220 mph and 150 mph trains.
Most likely, if Amtrak built 110 mph trains using existing freight corridors, it'll take much longer.
More simple math:
317 miles /110 mph = 2 hrs, 53 minutes.
A difference of 46 minutes between 150 mph and 110 mph trains.
The total difference between 220 mph and 110 mph trains will be 87 minutes, 1 hr and 27 minutes.
Don't forget, the HSR trains can not possibly achieve those speeds along the entire route. I think it safe to assume the trains will take an additional half hour in time accelerating and de-accelerating, and stopping at train stations along the route to pick up and drop of passengers.
Will Texans adopt HSR trains with more riders with 220 mph trains vs 110 or 150 mph trains? You make the call!
Believe me i trust that you know the math I'm just saying sometimes the impossible happens when certain Downtown people and groups get involved.
According to your numbers there I would take those time estimates over current time estimates. One number I looked at for reaching Houston was ten hours and or the same for Austin. I have to admit I would have to go do my research again but 3 hours is far better than 10 hours. Even a 4 hour trip would be preferred over the current system. Riding a train to another Texas major city today is like flying to Chicago then on to Houston no wonder Amtrak has been broke for so long.
I'll agree Amtrak trains in Texas travel slowly. They only average around 42 mph, assuming they are on schedule, which they aren't most of the time. The tracks Amtrak uses in Texas are fairly busy with freight trains. 110 to 150 mph trains using the same freight railroad corridors isn't going to help much when the faster trains must sit at passing sidings for freight trains. Double tracking the existing freight railroad corridors will help reduce waiting for freight trains, but will not completely eliminate that.
If you really want reliable high speed trains, the best solution is having new high speed rail corridors built exclusively for passenger trains. Not only could the high speed trains go much faster, you also eliminate waiting for freight trains. You also will provide dedicated passenger tracks for future commuter rail projects, for example Austin to San Antonio.
I would much rather build new high speed passenger rail corridors with government funds than spend as much money building new freight bypass corridors. Either way, we're eventually going to have to spend government funds building new railroad corridors. I would rather build 400 miles of new high speed rail corridors, than build 500 to 600 miles of new freight bypass corridors (~250 miles around DFW, ~150 miles around ASA, and ~150 miles around Houston).
Last edited by electricron; 31 March 2009 at 01:55 PM.
Looks like the French SNCF is "very interested" in building and operating high speed rail in the United States. I am sure that the neocons are going to whine about the French operating this system, but look at theirs, now look at ours. They know what they are doing.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/2009032...t-0de2eff.html
Well, the last Texas HSR system had a very heavy French influence. DB or SNCF would be a great choice. Throw in some of the new AGV trains and I'll sign on, French or not.
I totally agree and it appears the French quoted in that article above do to,
The bulk of the states are expected to propose incremental improvements to their rail systems by improving existing tracks in order to increase speeds from a maximum of 79 miles per hour to 110 or 150 miles per hour (127 kilometers per hour to 177 or 241 kilometers per hour.)
Loubinoux said the nation would be better off investing in a new, dedicated system with speeds of up to 217 miles (350 kilometers) per hour.
Outside of the NE corridor, Amtrak trains are operating 1950s and 1970s equipment on pre twentieth century tracks and right of way. America's passenger rail is obsolete compared to the Europeans. Texas is more than the size of France, and while a Texas T-bone of new right of way won't serve all of Texas, it would serve more than half the state's population.
As far as the Dallas Fort Worth area, an idea location for a high speed rail terminal would be on DFW Airport's property. We have the T and DART planning either electric light rail and regional light rail connections to DFW Airport. While it won't be easy to run hight speed rail there, it will be more difficult to run high speed rail to downtown.
I would prefer direct high speed railroad paths to each city, the Texas triangle. But if the Texas T-bone would reduce the price in half, or even a third, I am for the Texas T-bone. Houston may have to settle for its terminal near its International Airport, Austin may have to settle for its terminal near its airport, and San Antonio may have to settle for its terminal near its airport too. Or nearby those airports. Regional rail if not electric light rail can be built to its airport terminals as well providing rail access at a reasonable speed to their downtowns.
Through most of rural Texas the high speed right of way would only need to be about what, up to fifty feet across and as low as 20 feet across. This isn't any larger than a highway corridor. I believe the taxpayers would support a government/private business arrangement for high speed rail, well at least the Texas T-bone system.
While there may not be as many trains at first along such a corridor, in the future there will be without any doubt. And its these cities that are growing the quickest in the state. If we can run a profitable high speed system on the T-bone, other slower rail lines may eventually run to the Midland area, and further north to Amarillo, not to mention further south to the Valley area. But these lines will be far into the future. Its important to build the cornerstone first, the T-bone.
I just don't like the fact that HSR could only terminate at the airports. Then to have to get off and transfer to another train to get to downtown just adds to the hassle. If I'm going to a meeting in DTD from Austin for the day, I'd love to step off the train right in downtown rather then take another 20 or 30 minute ride from the airport station. I just think not serving the downtown just pretty much defeats the purpose almost. What if Acela stopped at Newark Airport only, then went around NYC up north to totally skip Manhattan?
Should the HSR stop at the airports? Absolutely! Fortunately for SA, the airport is right on the way. Almost for Austin too. For Houston, a slight jog would have to be made, but doable. DFW Area on the other hand has a weird layout. Perhaps the HSR should come in to FTW, make an airport stop, then go to DTD. Or come to DTD first and go the other way to FTW via the airport. I think the solution might be to come up the middle first to DFW, then some trains continue to DTD while others continue to FTW. If you want to go where your train isn't, just hop on the TRE.
So what I'm trying to say is, I think a big opportunity would be lost if HSR doesn't serve the downtown areas. Maybe at first it would be ok, but 50 or 100 years down the road, we might regret it. (Our children and grand-children will be mad at us) The stations might not have room at the moment, but I think room can be made eventually. Any good engineer can work something out. And yes, money always comes into play on what can be done, but I'm not thinking in terms of a realist.
Most of DTD office buildings are on the north side of DTD anyways, and require taking a light rail train from Union Station. So a train trip is just a little longer from DFW. DFW airport is going to almost an hour away from DTD by light rail, but will only 30 minutes away by TRE once the tracks are built to DFW. The same can be said for DFT, Carrolton, Addison, Richardson and Plano once the Cotton Belt line is built. They'll be like approximately a half hour away from DFW. Plano will be just as close to DFW as DTD.I just don't like the fact that HSR could only terminate at the airports. Then to have to get off and transfer to another train to get to downtown just adds to the hassle. If I'm going to a meeting in DTD from Austin for the day, I'd love to step off the train right in downtown rather then take another 20 or 30 minute ride from the airport station. I just think not serving the downtown just pretty much defeats the purpose almost. What if Acela stopped at Newark Airport only, then went around NYC up north to totally skip Manhattan?
Should the HSR stop at the airports? Absolutely! Fortunately for SA, the airport is right on the way. Almost for Austin too. For Houston, a slight jog would have to be made, but doable. DFW Area on the other hand has a weird layout. Perhaps the HSR should come in to FTW, make an airport stop, then go to DTD. Or come to DTD first and go the other way to FTW via the airport. I think the solution might be to come up the middle first to DFW, then some trains continue to DTD while others continue to FTW. If you want to go where your train isn't, just hop on the TRE.
So what I'm trying to say is, I think a big opportunity would be lost if HSR doesn't serve the downtown areas. Maybe at first it would be ok, but 50 or 100 years down the road, we might regret it. (Our children and grand-children will be mad at us
What I'm suggesting is that DFW is and will continue to be the center of the Metroplex. With fast TRE trains also connecting to DFW, the CBDs will be only a half hour away from a modern, brand new, high speed rail terminal. With plenty of parking at DFW near the HSR terminal, there probably be more passengers willing to take the cheaper train than jets.
I couldn't agree more!
In North Texas, DFW Airport is at the center of population for the region, just like Manhattan. But with 4 rail lines connecting to DFW Airport, it will be the second largest station in the region only to DTD which is at the southeastern section of the metroplex.
Out of the various plans for passenger train service between Texas population centers, I'm sure one will eventually surface as the best approach.
In regard to North Texas, if the intrastate winner puts fast trains on the old tracks, then I think downtown Dallas and Fort Worth stations will be at least as necessary as at the big airport. If the winner builds a new system with really fast trains, then I'm okay with a single station at the big airport.
Additionally, the passenger rail service must be prepped and ready for extension to population centers in neighboring states.
How many years out are we from station concepts/locations to be able to look at?
HSR rail stations are probably a decade away if federal funds are included.
It'll take that long to complete the Alternate Analysis and Environmental Impact Studies, plus get FRA approval and funding after each step of the process. If it's procedural funding, the HSR authority will get some funds every year. If it's ear-marked funding by Congress, there's no guarantee of having additional funds from one year to the next.
DCTA was started in 2002, a year after Chapter 460 of the Texas Transportation Code was enacted by the State Legislature. They didn't start the AA until 2004, which was finished in 2005. They started the EIS study in 2006, which was completed in 2008. Construction started in 2009, scheduled to be completed December 2010. The entire process, from the State Legislature enacting Chapter 460, to actually having trains in service will have taken 9 years. That's with DCTA funding the construction of the train and tracks locally without Federal and State funds. Who knows how long the delay there would have been if DCTA had waited for Federal and State final okay and construction funds?
A Texas HSR system will cost significantly more, and will probably need some Federal funding. So, at least a decade will be required before any construction could start on any HSR system in Texas. An official Texas HSR authority would require legislation enactment by the State Legislature, which meets every two years. If legislation isn't enacted this year, we'll have to wait at least until 2011 just to start this process.
Last edited by electricron; 06 April 2009 at 04:11 PM.
Some of what we've debating. Whether to spend the money to have 220 mph or spend the money to upgrade what we have, which is in dire need anyways. This says upgrading what we have us most important in the near future.
From Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...n/4312648.htmlRailroad Stimulus: How to Spend $14 Billion to Improve U.S. Rail
February's economic stimulus bill contained money for weatherizing houses, the expansion of rural broadband, improving the grid and upgrading the U.S. transportation infrastructure. For this last category, some money for highway and bridge construction has been spent, but what of the money for rail? The bill set aside $1.3 billion specifically for Amtrak and $8 billion for high-speed rail, with $5 billion more in the President's proposed budget. Rail is energy-efficient, environmentally sound and, if properly implemented, cheap. There are many ways to improve the country's passenger-rail network—from new high-speed designs to simple commuter efficiencies, investing in pricey maglev technology or improving signals on old lines. With $14 billion plus in hand, experts agree that to get more people off the roads and onto trains, the government must pick and choose projects wisely.
I'm going to agree with upgrading what we have for most of the country.
But, there will be areas where building new HSR lines will be cheaper on taxpayers because private firms will join a public-private patnership to build them. California is looking for private firms to build and operate theirs, and I believe the Texas T-Bone project can too.
If private firms are interested, and will pick up half or more than half the costs, it'll be better to build the new lines than upgrading the existing lines. On lines with no hope for private-public partnerships, let's aim for good service for far less public funds.
If it's going to cost taxpayers $5 Billion to just upgrade the existing lines for 110-150 mph trains without private funds, would you consider it worthwhile to spend that same $5 Billion with private firms adding another $5 Billion to build a 200+ mph trains? Private firms can raise significant funds to help build the faster rail system for Texas. They're only going to risk these amounts of funds on almost sure bets. Having 15 million plus potential passengers within 30 miles of the proposed corridor certainly makes the T-Bone very attractive to investors, and the faster the train goes makes it more attractive to passengers.
I don't think private investors will support lines to Little Rock, Oklahoma City, or South Texas. But I believe private investors will support the T-Bone.
Last edited by electricron; 10 April 2009 at 12:47 AM.
Another one from the Star Telegram:
http://www.star-telegram.com/189/story/1300567.htmlTexas may finally be ready to expand passenger rail service from Fort Worth to Central and South Texas and embrace the concept of high speed rail.
On March 20, the Texas Department of Transportation formally requested funding for a feasibility analysis for expansion of the rail corridor from Fort Worth to Killeen/Fort Hood, Houston and San Antonio.
A feasibility study was performed 15 years ago for a privately funded Texas HSR. Why spend the cash to do it again? All the data from 15 years ago is vaulted, and is easily accessible. Just dusting off the data and updating it seems more appropriate to me.Texas may finally be ready to expand passenger rail service from Fort Worth to Central and South Texas and embrace the concept of high speed rail.
On March 20, the Texas Department of Transportation formally requested funding for a feasibility analysis for expansion of the rail corridor from Fort Worth to Killeen/Fort Hood, Houston and San Antonio.
From the Austin American-StatemanBy Deborah Hastings
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sunday, April 12, 2009
To many Americans, high-speed trains evoke the gee-whiz factor of a trip to Tomorrowland: Ride futuristic cars that zoom you to a destination in a fraction of the drive time, without having to fight your way through an airport. Read a book, do paperwork, take a nap while you whoosh ahead in high-speed comfort.
To governments, high-speed trains evoke benefits to the common good: reduced freeway traffic, lower carbon pollution and more jobs.
But this country has never built a high-speed "bullet" train rivaling the successful systems of Europe and Asia, where passenger railcars have blurred by at top speeds nearing 200 mph for decades. Since the 1980s, every state effort to reproduce such service has failed. The reasons often boil down to poor planning and simple mathematics.
Perhaps because that study didn't come up with the desired answer? Sometimes you have to do these things over and over until you get them to come out the way you want.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks