Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 1/16/2023 at 3:23 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This is the most recent (October) article that I can find with new info about Texas Central Rail: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/27/texas-high-speed-rail-dallas-houston/

The lawyer fighting them seems to want to prove that they're not a going concern.  While the rail company says they're moving forward, they're also not actively buying properties as they had planned.

At some point, we need someone in the US to build a dedicated high speed line to determine the long term feasibility. Texas Central looked promising. They have purchased land and worked through the court cases and federal regulations. But then they halted. Not to get political but having a Dem President would seem to be a positive element for them. 

You haven't been paying attention to Florida.  Brightline is operating out of Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm.  And next month it opens its high-speed section to Orlando.  I think they're planning on extending the line to Tampa in a few years.

  • Like 1
Posted
You haven't been paying attention to Florida.  Brightline is operating out of Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm.  And next month it opens its high-speed section to Orlando.  I think they're planning on extending the line to Tampa in a few years.

Used it about a month ago. It’s great
  • 6 months later...
Posted
On 3/11/2024 at 11:22 AM, Dahobbs said:

On a train from Brussels to Hamburg right now. Would be really nice to have something similar for the major Texas cities. 

Seriously. US is a third world country in mass transit 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
20 hours ago, Guest said:

Speaking of smashing, how do they keep the deer and pigs off the tracks?

They use high speed trains to knock them off the tracks. Works great on deer, pigs, hippies, etc…

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Such a no-brainer to build this between Dallas and Houston, with future plans to expand to FW, Austin and SA. It effectively would bring these cities closer together in terms of time.

And while individual needs might still lead some to prefer to drive or fly, it will reduce the traffic with those options. It's a win for the vast majority of Texans.

Posted
6 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Such a no-brainer to build this between Dallas and Houston, with future plans to expand to FW, Austin and SA. It effectively would bring these cities closer together in terms of time.

And while individual needs might still lead some to prefer to drive or fly, it will reduce the traffic with those options. It's a win for the vast majority of Texans.

I think it will increase traffic congestion in cities.  Unless the rail is somehow going to be elevated.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I think it will increase traffic congestion in cities.  Unless the rail is somehow going to be elevated.

The original plan was that all road crossing would be elevated. You can’t have vehicles crossing high speed rail lines. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 7 months later...
Posted (edited)

image.png.c806966e12991bcc1b3f74ea6d13846e.png

 

food for thought. we used to build like crazy in this country. look at China and how quickly they've developed their infrastructure. i truly hope in my lifetime we see Texas connected with super highspeed rail. imagine being able to connect from Houston to Dallas in under 3 hours - the economic gains would be monumental. 

i don't get the arguments that texas is too big, or we can't do this or that - it sounds so defeatist. it doesnt matter how large Texas or the U.S. is, we can still build, and these corridors that are too long to drive but too short to fly make it perfect for trains. the argument of profitability is nonsense - airliners are the worst industries in the world, they're all unprofitable, they're basically government-owned entities at this point but they exist because humans need transportation. 

Edited by parkavenueguy
Posted

I see minimal to no broad public or political support for an infrastructure project focused on a rail system in Texas. 

Rural Texans will oppose the land usage.  Most Texans won't support any taxes for an infrastructure project.  Texans like using their cars to move around inside the state.

If Texas does anything infrastructure wise, I hope the state dramatically increases water reliability/availability. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
I see minimal to no broad public or political support for an infrastructure project focused on a rail system in Texas. 

Rural Texans will oppose the land usage.  Most Texans won't support any taxes for an infrastructure project.  Texans like using their cars to move around inside the state.

If Texas does anything infrastructure wise, I hope the state dramatically increases water reliability/availability. 

The only way that it gets built is if we can shuffle giant slugs of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of people who contribute to the gov/lt gov campaigns/personal pocketbook. You all know that.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


The only way that it gets built is if we can shuffle giant slugs of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of people who contribute to the gov/lt gov campaigns/personal pocketbook. You all know that.

In which case, I would prefer the state to do nothing.

Posted
2 minutes ago, swraith said:

In which case, I would prefer the state to do nothing.

You won't get that, either.

The current government of this state exists for one reason, and one reason only: to enrich and do the bidding of a handful of the wealthiest people on the planet.

Any other function is 1) entirely coincidental, and 2) likely on the chopping block in the next legislative session or two.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

It's been over 5 years and we're not really any closer. It's been a 17 years and tens of billions of dollars  and the California rail  isn't much further. 

We'll have self driving cars before we get a rail built

Posted
On 3/11/2024 at 10:22 AM, Dahobbs said:

On a train from Brussels to Hamburg right now. Would be really nice to have something similar for the major Texas cities. 

 

hou to sa please !!!!!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

High speed that isn't driven from a national level has zero chance. It just doesn't make sense. It would be like deciding on a high speed train from your house to your current place of employment (assuming you don't work at home). Would be great for a couple people and even they might want to go somewhere else sometimes. It's an air travel alternative and if it isn't it should be if we want it to work.

Posted
2 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

High speed that isn't driven from a national level has zero chance. It just doesn't make sense. It would be like deciding on a high speed train from your house to your current place of employment (assuming you don't work at home). Would be great for a couple people and even they might want to go somewhere else sometimes. It's an air travel alternative and if it isn't it should be if we want it to work.

When my father worked in Miami, he would park a shitty old car at the station and use that to drive to the office and then drive it back to the rail station.  Then he would hop back in his better car in the West Palm area and drive home.   He loved the train.  

Posted
12 hours ago, Viper said:

It's been over 5 years and we're not really any closer. It's been a 17 years and tens of billions of dollars  and the California rail  isn't much further. 

We'll have self driving cars before we get a rail built

i would guess that many studies have been commissioned and paid handsomely for to firms with the correct connections.  And some may even have been delivered. 
 

Making no progress isn’t free, you know. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
When my father worked in Miami, he would park a shitty old car at the station and use that to drive to the office and then drive it back to the rail station.  Then he would hop back in his better car in the West Palm area and drive home.   He loved the train.  

That yellow line or whatever it’s called is great. We use it when we visit w palm
  • 8 months later...
Posted

Still not dead?

 

Quote

The lead investor behind the proposed Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail project says the plan is “shovel-ready” and could become the fastest train in the world if built, while a state lawmaker vows to continue fighting it.

‘We’re not going away’: Texas high-speed rail investor says project is shovel-ready https://share.google/EkUdLeWYmDoxw3Us5

Posted
Still not dead?
 
The lead investor behind the proposed Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail project says the plan is “shovel-ready” and could become the fastest train in the world if built, while a state lawmaker vows to continue fighting it.


Is the world really seeking faster ways to get to College Station?
Posted
3 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

 


Is the world really seeking faster ways to get to College Station?

 

No, but shouldn’t we be encouraging faster ways to get away?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, BabaYaga said:
boondoggle
noun [ C ]
 US informal
us 
 /ˈbuːnˌdɑː.ɡəl/ uk 
 /ˈbuːnˌdɒɡ.əl/
an unnecessary and expensive piece of work, especially one that is paid for by the public:

Everywhere else in the world manages to get these things built. And riders really like them. It's fucking insane that we can't do it in the United States. But God forbid we do anything that doesn't funnel money to oil interests or automakers. 

Posted
8 hours ago, elfenix said:

Everywhere else in the world manages to get these things built. And riders really like them. It's fucking insane that we can't do it in the United States. But God forbid we do anything that doesn't funnel money to oil interests or automakers. 

They get them built - the majority being in Japan and China, with France, Germany and Spain trailing.  The biggest issue is that almost all rely on massive government subsidies and operate at a loss.  

There are TWO HSR lines that have fully covered both operating and construction costs.  One in Japan and one in France.  That's with a sample size of thousands world-wide.  TWO.  

Posted
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

They get them built - the majority being in Japan and China, with France, Germany and Spain trailing.  The biggest issue is that almost all rely on massive government subsidies and operate at a loss.  

There are TWO HSR lines that have fully covered both operating and construction costs.  One in Japan and one in France.  That's with a sample size of thousands world-wide.  TWO.  

let me tell you about I-45

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I’m all for metro/commuter rail as well as high speed that connects cities. My main objection is based on a lack of trust. Many countries get these things built quickly and they are marvels of engineering. In Austin we collect the money through taxes and have almost nothing to show for it. 

It’s been difficult to get an answer on where the money is going for the expanded metro rail in Austin. You know the one that was advertised as 386 new lines that’s down to 1 new one starting in 2045?

How is it possible that other countries pull this off routinely and we can’t? 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

The biggest issue is that almost all rely on massive government subsidies and operate at a loss.  

Honestly, shouldn't governments be putting up for large socialized costs that grant a large socialized benefit? That's kind of the point of a functional society

Edited by Captainant
missing a letter
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Honestly, shouldn't governments be putting up for large socialized costs that grant a large socialized benefit? That kind of the point of a functional society

Do bridges operate at a profit/pay for themselves?  Residential streets?  What about streetlights, sewers all that good shit.

Goddam socialists.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 8/13/2025 at 7:40 AM, BabaYaga said:

They get them built - the majority being in Japan and China, with France, Germany and Spain trailing.  The biggest issue is that almost all rely on massive government subsidies and operate at a loss.  

There are TWO HSR lines that have fully covered both operating and construction costs.  One in Japan and one in France.  That's with a sample size of thousands world-wide.  TWO.  

Remind me again, how many roads make money and aren't subsidized by taxpayers?

Posted
1 minute ago, Bolero88 said:

Remind me again, how many roads make money and aren't subsidized by taxpayers?

You hung up on subsidies or the amount of subsidies?  For example, total US subsidies for federal and state highways across the country are around $200B.

Just the single Merced to Bakersfield segment of the rail is projected to be between $30B-$35B.  Rail won't come close to covering similar distances, but when you look at coverage areas, the construction and operating costs are enormous.  Again, there are only two worldwide that break even.  That's over thousands of high-speed rail lines.  

Posted
15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

You hung up on subsidies or the amount of subsidies?  For example, total US subsidies for federal and state highways across the country are around $200B.

Just the single Merced to Bakersfield segment of the rail is projected to be between $30B-$35B.  Rail won't come close to covering similar distances, but when you look at coverage areas, the construction and operating costs are enormous.  Again, there are only two worldwide that break even.  That's over thousands of high-speed rail lines.  

How many federally or state controlled roads break even? Airports also seem to require a lot of tax dollars to operate. Why is rail held to a standard that other modes of transportation are counted as a common good?

Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

How many federally or state controlled roads break even? Airports also seem to require a lot of tax dollars to operate. Why is rail held to a standard that other modes of transportation are counted as a common good?

Maybe because our entire national infrastructure was originally designed on roads and air travel?  They aren't going away.  So we're already pouring subsidies into those, and now you want to overlay an exponentially more expensive option that has shown time and time again to have cost overrides that are orders of magnitude above forecasts to carve out routes that are often hundred +/- miles. 

See earlier example.  Merced to Bakersfield.  169 miles that costs almost a 5th of what it takes to operate our entire national highway system.  

Posted
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Maybe because our entire national infrastructure was originally designed on roads and air travel?  They aren't going away.  So we're already pouring subsidies into those, and now you want to overlay an exponentially more expensive option that has shown time and time again to have cost overrides that are orders of magnitude above forecasts to carve out routes that are often hundred +/- miles. 

See earlier example.  Merced to Bakersfield.  169 miles that costs almost a 5th of what it takes to operate our entire national highway system.  

They built airports in 1783? News to me.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...