Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours 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.  

The Pacific Railway Act signed in 1862 by Lincoln would disagree that roads and airplanes was the basis of our national infrastructure.

Where are you getting your numbers on rail expenses? Upfront costs are indeed higher for a railway, but the throughput is much higher at a lower cost per ton of cargo. It scales better

 

Edit: ah twice clarified it for me, high speed rail not just rail. Derp. That said, of course a single run isn't efficient! Rail lines benefit from network effects, and being isolated really reduces the utility of a specific line

Edited by Captainant
Posted

I think you can certainly argue that the HSR juice is not worth the squeeze, but that applies regardless of funding.  Subsidies aren't really the issue when it comes to transportation infrastructure.

Posted (edited)

i know that after decades and decades of all the carrots and sticks in society essentially making you buy a car if you want to participate in it, and after having bought one, the government changing those carrots and sticks feels like they've pulled the rug out from under you, but that's just sunk cost fallacy.

 

 

i also get a kick out of people who think that california does everything wrong using california doing something wrong as an example of why others should not do a thing.

Edited by elfenix
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
On 8/13/2025 at 7:40 AM, BabaYaga said:

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.  

I’m sorry, but that’s a very silly way to think about infrastructure. What percentage of American road and freeway construction “covers costs”?

On 8/14/2025 at 11:03 AM, BabaYaga said:

Maybe because our entire national infrastructure was originally designed on roads and air travel?

That’s false. About the strongest thing you could say is that our logistics system is reliant on roads and air travel, but that’s not really a problem because it scales fairly well and rail sits underneath roads and air in most of the stack anyway. 

 

On 8/14/2025 at 11:03 AM, BabaYaga said:

They aren't going away.

Holy strawman!!!

On 8/14/2025 at 11:03 AM, BabaYaga said:

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

Most of which is unnecessary bureaucratic friction supported by incumbent interests. 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s false. About the strongest thing you could say is that our logistics system is reliant on roads and air travel, but that’s not really a problem because it scales fairly well and rail sits underneath roads and air in most of the stack anyway. 

 

Reconcile this.

 

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Most of which is unnecessary bureaucratic friction supported by incumbent interests. 

With this?

You have less than a 200 mile stretch that costs more than a fifth of what our entire road system costs, and you think this is scalable?  Or that it's a one-off that won't replicate in other projects?  

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Reconcile this.

 

With this?

You have less than a 200 mile stretch that costs more than a fifth of what our entire road system costs, and you think this is scalable?  Or that it's a one-off that won't replicate in other projects?  

I’m not going to type a short history of the American transit and transportation infrastructure here, but the statement that “our entire national infrastructure was originally designed on roads and air travel” is false. Like that’s just not true. It became more reliant on roads and air from the 1950s-1990s as rail lines were decommissioned and policy barriers to new rail were put in place, even as land use policy changes were made at the federal level to explicitly promote automobile infrastructure and suburbanization. 
Along with the occasional light criminal conspiracy. 

As for the California example, it’s a an example of regulatory capture by economic interests opposed to high speed rail supported by unwitting accomplices in the environmentalist movement and the NIMBY-industrial complex. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

As for the California example, it’s a an example of regulatory capture by economic interests opposed to high speed rail supported by unwitting accomplices in the environmentalist movement and the NIMBY-industrial complex. 

And how do you propose to mitigate this going forward at scale?  You can't even build a simple, short route that is even remotely affordable.  The horse is out of the barn, people aren't giving up their cars at scale nor are these "regulatory capture" issues going to just go away.

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And how do you propose to mitigate this going forward at scale? 

You roll back regulatory barriers and bureaucratic bloat, and let the market due its thing. 

 

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

You can't even build a simple, short route that is even remotely affordable

Yes. That’s because rail obstruction is designed into the law. 
 

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The horse is out of the barn, people aren't giving up their cars

Good grief. You realize that the additional option of rail won’t take away your car, right? I’ve been to Europe. They have cars! Asia has cars. 
 

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

nor are these "regulatory capture" issues going to just go away.

Not if you have anything to say about it, right? We aren’t going to make rail easier and cheaper to build because rail is too hard and expensive to build. Come on man. 

What you don’t seem to understand is that when we used to have trains running regularly between the major Texas cities, they didn’t fail. It’s similar to our public school system right now. They were slowly squeezed to death by economic interests that benefited from their demise. 

Now look, I have no confidence in the political system to make things better in Texas. But there’s no reason why you should just accept a broken status quo. We don’t have to be dead last at everything. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You roll back regulatory barriers and bureaucratic bloat, and let the market due its thing. 

 

Nothing like a simple plan involving "rolling back regulatory barrier and bureaucrats".  Tell me how it goes

 

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes. That’s because rail obstruction is designed into the law. 

Then change the law and get back to us on your progress

 

22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Good grief. You realize that the additional option of rail won’t take away your car, right? I’ve been to Europe. They have cars! Asia has cars. 

This is simplistic.  I'm talking about city designs, specifically post WWII sprawl and the advent of the Federal-Aid Highway act.  Highway location and designs, infrastructure all geared for the automobile and cities zoned specifically to separate residential, commercial, & industrial specifically because everyone had cars.  If you want to pitch this in the much more congested and older NE cities, be my guest.

 

27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What you don’t seem to understand is that when we used to have trains running regularly between the major Texas cities, they didn’t fail.

So you want to bring back coal-fired steam engines.  Great point.  

Posted

I live in DFW and had a work meeting come up in Houston at 9 AM tomorrow. I elected to drive rather than fly because I'll need to get to a specific office in Houston and dont want to Uber to and from, especially from as I dont know when the meeting will end. I want my own car while there. 

The high speed train wont take you to the specific place you need to go in the respective cities. You will have to figure out transportation when you arrive making many people like myself just continue to take a personal car. 

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

This is simplistic.  I'm talking about city designs, specifically post WWII sprawl and the advent of the Federal-Aid Highway act.  Highway location and designs, infrastructure all geared for the automobile and cities zoned specifically to separate residential, commercial, & industrial specifically because everyone had cars.  If you want to pitch this in the much more congested and older NE cities, be my guest.

 

Yeah, you have the order backwards. Also, you seem unaware of the history of both urban and intercity passenger rail in Texas.
The cars followed the zoning. But again, that’s fine. The rail didn’t stop because of auto competition. It was taken out of service and new lines were prevented. 
 

But, sure we can always just build more roads, because right of way is free, highway construction is cheap and fast, and and once we build them 

image.png.d3fc2352f387646d84353f069b83d3b4.png

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
13 minutes ago, texashorne said:

I live in DFW and had a work meeting come up in Houston at 9 AM tomorrow. I elected to drive rather than fly because I'll need to get to a specific office in Houston and dont want to Uber to and from, especially from as I dont know when the meeting will end. I want my own car while there. 

The high speed train wont take you to the specific place you need to go in the respective cities. You will have to figure out transportation when you arrive making many people like myself just continue to take a personal car. 

 

 Counterpoint: I despise driving on 45. Give me a HSR option and I’ll take it every single time. Uber can take care of the final mile transportation. To me, time spent staring at a windshield is completely wasted time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, texashorne said:

I live in DFW and had a work meeting come up in Houston at 9 AM tomorrow. I elected to drive rather than fly because I'll need to get to a specific office in Houston and dont want to Uber to and from, especially from as I dont know when the meeting will end. I want my own car while there. 

The high speed train wont take you to the specific place you need to go in the respective cities. You will have to figure out transportation when you arrive making many people like myself just continue to take a personal car. 

 

Do you not understand that the existence of a high speed rail line would not prevent you from driving?

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Do you not understand that the existence of a high speed rail line would not prevent you from driving?

And that the presence of HSR would take traffic off the interstate.

Posted
24 minutes ago, texashorne said:

I live in DFW and had a work meeting come up in Houston at 9 AM tomorrow. I elected to drive rather than fly because I'll need to get to a specific office in Houston and dont want to Uber to and from, especially from as I dont know when the meeting will end. I want my own car while there. 

The high speed train wont take you to the specific place you need to go in the respective cities. You will have to figure out transportation when you arrive making many people like myself just continue to take a personal car. 

 

you can't possibly be fucking serious.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, royiv said:

And that the presence of HSR would take traffic off the interstate.

Almost certainly not, but it would be a very attractive option that would absorb additional demand more cost effectively and increase overall productivity. 
it’s a shame there’s such a leadership vacuum in this state. Once upon a time Texas was a destination for people with big ideas, it was a place that celebrated achievement and big things. We, Texans, literally tamed the western frontier and then immediately turned around and put a man on the moon.
But now we’re dominated by these myopic, cheap, fearful old men who live in terror of cities and wind up spending lots of money subsidizing shit that doesn’t work very well like the I-10 expansion while chaining the future to their prejudices. 
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I can understand wanting to drive over HSR or flying but what does an unexpected meeting end time have to do with uber in the 4th largest city in the country? It’s not like the Houston uber drivers all stop at 4pm.

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can understand wanting to drive over HSR or flying but what does an unexpected meeting end time have to do with uber in the 4th largest city in the country? It’s not like the Houston uber drivers all stop at 4pm.

 

I'm not getting an Uber from a client's office. That's not really the point though. My point is there are alot of people like me who want their car in these cities because you have to have them. Ridership will suck and the rail will be a money pit. 

Taking the high speed rail means a stop in college station, then getting to your destination, taking an uber to the rental car place, renting a car, then doing it all in reverse when its time to go home. Or spending a shitload of money on Ubers. I think too many will prefer to drive.

Posted
9 hours ago, texashorne said:

I'm not getting an Uber from a client's office. That's not really the point though. My point is there are alot of people like me who want their car in these cities because you have to have them. Ridership will suck and the rail will be a money pit. 

Do you listen to the music of Addison Rae, Tate McRae, or Peso Pluma? 

Posted
On 8/27/2025 at 12:28 AM, texashorne said:

I'm not getting an Uber from a client's office. 

Why not? I take Ubers to/from client's offices in various cities around the country. It's easier/faster/cheaper than renting a car. Even with a stop in College Station the travel time would be shorter than driving your own vehicle. And there would likely be some sort of hub at both ends of the line where you could handle the last mile with ride share or rental car options if you prefer that.

Yes, HSR is expensive af to build in the US. No, it's not likely to be profitable. But it is likely to increase productivity and reduce traffic on the Interstates in the major cities it connects. We should have been building it out over the last 50+ years like the Japanese.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/27/2025 at 1:28 AM, texashorne said:

I'm not getting an Uber from a client's office. That's not really the point though. My point is there are alot of people like me who want their car in these cities because you have to have them. Ridership will suck and the rail will be a money pit. 

Taking the high speed rail means a stop in college station, then getting to your destination, taking an uber to the rental car place, renting a car, then doing it all in reverse when its time to go home. Or spending a shitload of money on Ubers. I think too many will prefer to drive.

Why do you "have to have them" cars? I take the train from NYC to BBS, BOS, and RTE128 as example and find Ubering from the destination station to my meetings to easy and efficient. I do this going into Philly and DC as well.  I sometimes Uber to the LIRR which is 6min from my house to take a LIRR to NYC to catch said Amtrak

Posted
1 hour ago, next2naus said:

Why do you "have to have them" cars? I take the train from NYC to BBS, BOS, and RTE128 as example and find Ubering from the destination station to my meetings to easy and efficient. I do this going into Philly and DC as well.  I sometimes Uber to the LIRR which is 6min from my house to take a LIRR to NYC to catch said Amtrak

All of those cities have transportation infrastructure. I ride mass transit in Chicago, DC and Boston too. Its available there. In Texas, it is not. So when I live in Dallas and have meetings in Houston for a few days, I think its easiest to take my own car. I dont think this is unreasonable at all. 

Posted
1 hour ago, texashorne said:

All of those cities have transportation infrastructure. I ride mass transit in Chicago, DC and Boston too. Its available there. In Texas, it is not. So when I live in Dallas and have meetings in Houston for a few days, I think its easiest to take my own car. I dont think this is unreasonable at all. 

You never flew the SWA cattle cars from Dallas to Austin or Houston?  Presents the exact same problem and lawdogs and others been doing it for decades.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, texashorne said:

All of those cities have transportation infrastructure. I ride mass transit in Chicago, DC and Boston too. Its available there. In Texas, it is not. So when I live in Dallas and have meetings in Houston for a few days, I think its easiest to take my own car. I dont think this is unreasonable at all. 

Are you saying that we don’t have it, so we shouldn’t let somebody build it, because you wouldn’t use it?

Posted
On 8/31/2025 at 8:25 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Are you saying that we don’t have it, so we shouldn’t let somebody build it, because you wouldn’t use it?

You are almost there. Its my opinion that many business travelers wouldn't use it for the same reasons I indicated. The cities lack mass transit infrastructure and are close enough in proximity that driving a personal/company car is more cost effective and less of a hassle than the whole train/uber scenario. 

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, texashorne said:

You are almost there. Its my opinion that many business travelers wouldn't use it for the same reasons I indicated

But those reasons are just your preferences. My counterpoint is the fact that they do use it everywhere it does exist.  

 

35 minutes ago, texashorne said:

The cities lack mass transit infrastructure and are close enough in proximity that driving a personal/company car is more cost effective and less of a hassle than the whole train/uber scenario. 

But that’s manifestly untrue, based on the business travel by air between the three big Texas cities despite the fact that there is minimal time advantage. 
it’s fine that you prefer to drive, and many will, but right now the law and policy environment of the State of Texas and United States is what’s stopping high speed rail development, not the free market. The demand signal from business travelers is incredibly strong.

I’m a weekly business traveler also, by the way. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
On 8/31/2025 at 6:27 PM, texashorne said:

All of those cities have transportation infrastructure. I ride mass transit in Chicago, DC and Boston too. Its available there. In Texas, it is not. So when I live in Dallas and have meetings in Houston for a few days, I think its easiest to take my own car. I dont think this is unreasonable at all. 

That's fine but you're changing your words. Everyone came back at you when you said that you preferred having a personal car for a Houston 9am meeting and you didn't know when the meeting would end. It's reasonable that you were implying the meeting would end the same day, not days later.

Now if your plan is to drive around Houston a fair amount for those few days, then yes you might want a personal or rental car.

I can't speak for Dallas but the Houston end of the HSR was at a currently abandoned mall with a large parking lot. You can't tell me that rental car options wouldn't have sprung up there on Day 1, if the HSR had been built. It was also ~1 mile from a major Houston area transit center and a few miles from the Galleria. The train wasn't going to deposit people in the middle of nowhere without options including Ubers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, texashorne said:

You are almost there. Its my opinion that many business travelers wouldn't use it for the same reasons I indicated. The cities lack mass transit infrastructure and are close enough in proximity that driving a personal/company car is more cost effective and less of a hassle than the whole train/uber scenario. 

Thats dumb. I don't take the subway or T unless there is an alt, Uber/Car Serv./Cabs in the city. Mass Trans to get from Metro to Metro....it works. 
 

what's " hassle than the whole train/uber scenario." issue? threre is no hassle. 

Posted
1 hour ago, next2naus said:

what's " hassle than the whole train/uber scenario." issue? threre is no hassle. 

Exactly. If an air route between two places is viable, HSR is almost certain to thrive. 

Posted

I think you guys want a cool fast shiny train really badly. Its my opinion that it will be 20% utilized at best, except days when aggy plays football because it stops in College Station for god knows why. Weekend ridership I guess. I guess we'll see. 

Posted
1 hour ago, texashorne said:

I think you guys want a cool fast shiny train really badly. Its my opinion that it will be 20% utilized at best, except days when aggy plays football because it stops in College Station for god knows why. Weekend ridership I guess. I guess we'll see. 

No way, go to Europe.  They are awesome to hop between major cities.  
 

I’m half-joking, but I’ve said for years that San Antonio should offer to pay the cost of building one to Austin so they can capture tech overflow and weekender-type tourists.  

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, texashorne said:

I think you guys want a cool fast shiny train really badly. Its my opinion that it will be 20% utilized at best

It wont be utilized at all because the legislature, the governor, and their party won’t let it happen.

If you think the government should stop private industry from taking a risk on a product the market says it wants, you’re winning, because that’s what they are doing. 


But for the record every legitimate piece of market research that’s been done on this and every point of comparison where high speed rail exists makes the argument that it be popular in Texas. 

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, LCHorn said:

No way, go to Europe.  They are awesome to hop between major cities.  
 

I’m half-joking, but I’ve said for years that San Antonio should offer to pay the cost of building one to Austin so they can capture tech overflow and weekender-type tourists.  

Have you lived there? I would differ with you. They can be a good option. Or not. And I wouldn't call it "europe". Every country has its own system and therefore its own issues.

Edited by Thetexashammer
Posted
12 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Have you lived there? I would differ with you. They can be a good option. Or not. And I wouldn't call it "europe". Every country has its own system and therefore its own issues.

Yes, I’ve lived in San Antonio and I would definitely not call it Europe, you’re correct it has its own issues.

image.thumb.png.562bd3973956bbd81c41d420528b7cd0.png

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...