Texas High Speed Rail

[printman2000]

TCR has posted a section on their website called "Rumors vs Reality"

http://www.texascentral.com/rumors-vs-reality/

 

[printman2000]

http://texasrailadvocates.org/2017/02/07/texas-bullet-train-project-reaches-key-milestones-with-landowners/

Texas Central, developers of the state’s first high-speed train, announced today that it has marked a significant milestone in its land option program, the result of collaborative and ongoing engagements with property owners and stakeholders along the project’s potential route.

 

[saxman]

This is getting heated. All the anti-train bills made it out of committee and go to the Texas Senate floor TODAY! If you live in Texas call you state senator TODAY. These bills could not only kill the TCR, but will probably stop any normal commuter rail transportation in Texas if not already built.

https://www.tribtalk.org/2017/04/06/the-legislatures-all-out-assault-on-passenger-trains Passenger rail as a transportation option for Texans is usually ignored by the Legislature without a second thought. Not this session. More than two dozen bills filed would not only marginalize trains for Texas but could kill off both private and public projects.

http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/no-basis-for-conservative-opposition-to-the-texas-central-rail-project In Texas, some conservatives wrongly think that opposition to high speed rail is a conservative principle. This is like saying that opposition to trucks, or cell phones, is a conservative principle. These may be preferences, but they aren’t principles. A principle is a timeless truth or proposition that helps us make decisions or choose behaviors. And opposition to high speed rail is not a conservative principle.

Here's a link for to the Texas Senate. Calling takes less than 5 minutes. Tell them to vote NO on Senate bills 975, 977, 979, 980 and 981

 

[saxman]

So the Texas 2017 Legislative Session has wrapped up with bill 975 and 977 passing or at least are on the governors desk to be signed. Thankfully, the other bills did not get hammered out. Senate Bill 975 involves certain security measures take place in that law enforcement must be reimbursed for any costs they must endure "securing" the line. Senate Bill 977 says that no state money can be used on high speed rail. Texas Central seems unfazed by either and maintain that the project will continue "full steam ahead." I hope they can do what they say they can in the next two years. 2019 is the next legislative session.

What concerns me now is the fact that state money can't be used for high speed rail. TxDOT has had a passenger rail division since 2009. I've yet to see actual plans from them but it sounds like if Texas were to want to build any passenger rail above 110 MPH then tough luck. Thats against the law now. I suppose up to 110 mph is good for many of other corridors and maybe one day in my lifetime we can have conventional passenger rail down the I-35 corridor, a la Illinois, California, or North Carolina.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/traffic/your-commute/article153545889.html

 

[jis]

Well, I am almost certain that the Texas legislature will flip one or more times before the end of a lifetime of a young whippersnapper like you

 

[Anderson]

So the Texas 2017 Legislative Session has wrapped up with bill 975 and 977 passing or at least are on the governors desk to be signed. Thankfully, the other bills did not get hammered out. Senate Bill 975 involves certain security measures take place in that law enforcement must be reimbursed for any costs they must endure "securing" the line. Senate Bill 977 says that no state money can be used on high speed rail. Texas Central seems unfazed by either and maintain that the project will continue "full steam ahead." I hope they can do what they say they can in the next two years. 2019 is the next legislative session.

What concerns me now is the fact that state money can't be used for high speed rail. TxDOT has had a passenger rail division since 2009. I've yet to see actual plans from them but it sounds like if Texas were to want to build any passenger rail above 110 MPH then tough luck. Thats against the law now. I suppose up to 110 mph is good for many of other corridors and maybe one day in my lifetime we can have conventional passenger rail down the I-35 corridor, a la Illinois, California, or North Carolina.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/traffic/your-commute/article153545889.html

It depends on how the law is written. I'm sure that if there were significant will for it, someone would find a way to run a train no faster than 124.9 MPH;-)

Snark aside, 110 is pretty good...it's what FEC is doing on their shared tracks north of WPB, for example. I do suspect that if you got a successful 110 operation going somewhere that you'd find some pressure to carve out an exception if it could be bumped to 125, for example.

 

[SanDiegan]

More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project

 

[Anderson]

More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project

That's roughly my order of expectations. FL is happening MIA-WPB and I wouldn't be surprised if that line couldn't support itself then and there (at least vis-a-vis direct operating costs...you definitely need the run to Orlando to cover the capex). TX looks likely (right now I'd say there's a 75% chance of it passing and if it were legal to do so I'd be tempted to offer making book at 4:1). CA, in the version envisioned in the referendum, is a mess. There's a path there but I don't see it happening.

 

[cirdan]

More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project

That's roughly my order of expectations. FL is happening MIA-WPB and I wouldn't be surprised if that line couldn't support itself then and there (at least vis-a-vis direct operating costs...you definitely need the run to Orlando to cover the capex). TX looks likely (right now I'd say there's a 75% chance of it passing and if it were legal to do so I'd be tempted to offer making book at 4:1). CA, in the version envisioned in the referendum, is a mess. There's a path there but I don't see it happening.

I think CA will be completed, even if maybe not within the timeline and budget. There are sections under construction and that creates momentum. Even if the initial segments will at first just be used by existing trains rerouted, the time savings will be visible and people will want to see more. Florida is taking a similarly phased approach. One of the cjhallenges in Texas is that you can't easily break the project down into standalone phases. This is why it has become an all or nothing project and this of course encorages attacks by those who wih it to end as nothing.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Robert Moses method is pretty tried and tested.

 

[Anderson]

The main reason I consistently hesitate about CA is the fact that the project is so big (in terms of scope, cost, etc.), even compared to other "serious" HSR plans (the only ones that seriously challenge it are broad-vision projects like NEC Future) that I can see a "path to collapse" for it. In particular, with highways Moses was dealing with a mode of transportation that nobody was really questioning, etc. He was operating within a consensus but fudging the numbers. With CA there are actual "real" roadblocks to be had...

Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside. As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).

 

[Paulus]

Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside. As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).

To a certain extent, that's already happening. 25% of the current cap and trade revenues is being used for CAHSR.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

People might see Moses as consensus now, but in his day he was very contaversal and almost universally hated as a boss.

 

[seat38a]

The main reason I consistently hesitate about CA is the fact that the project is so big (in terms of scope, cost, etc.), even compared to other "serious" HSR plans (the only ones that seriously challenge it are broad-vision projects like NEC Future) that I can see a "path to collapse" for it. In particular, with highways Moses was dealing with a mode of transportation that nobody was really questioning, etc. He was operating within a consensus but fudging the numbers. With CA there are actual "real" roadblocks to be had...

Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside. As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).

Well CAHSR is real. The tracks are being built. I shot a video of it under construction in Fresno.

https://youtu.be/QORJh2XRQM0?t=4m36s

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Ignore

 

[DSS&A]

Texas Central Railway announced yesterday that they have awarded a Design-Build contract to complete the design work and build the railroad.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Texas-Central-inks-pact-with-Fluor-Lane-for-bullet-train-project--52432

 

[Bob Dylan]

Texas Central Railway announced yesterday that they have awarded a Design-Build contract to complete the design work and build the railroad.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Texas-Central-inks-pact-with-Fluor-Lane-for-bullet-train-project--52432

This is Good News, ( as opposed to "Fake News") but the NIMBYs in Texas ( Land Rights, not Tree Huggers)are very strong and will be heard from!
They actually kept Governor for Life Rick Perry from getting his Highways and Toll Roads to Everywhere Scheme from getting implemented in Texas!Earler they defeated several HSR Plans in Texas!

Texas: The Best Government Money Can Buy!

 

[frequentflyer]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-Dallas-bullet-train-clears-hurdle-with-12435074.php#photo-12466722

Clears another hurdle.

 

[neroden]

I wish them luck, but without (a) financing and (b) land acquisition complete, I'm guessing this will never happen. If it does, odds are they go bankrupt quickly, simply because their financing terms are likely to be too onerous for the slim margins of a single rail line to cover the interest (see: Channel Tunnel).

 

[Anderson]

Texas Central Railway announced yesterday that they have awarded a Design-Build contract to complete the design work and build the railroad.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Texas-Central-inks-pact-with-Fluor-Lane-for-bullet-train-project--52432

This is Good News, ( as opposed to "Fake News") but the NIMBYs in Texas ( Land Rights, not Tree Huggers)are very strong and will be heard from!
They actually kept Governor for Life Rick Perry from getting his Highways and Toll Roads to Everywhere Scheme from getting implemented in Texas!Earler they defeated several HSR Plans in Texas!

Texas: The Best Government Money Can Buy!

I think you forget that Southwest was also opposed to the previous HSR plans, whereas now I've gathered that they would rather use those scarce gates at DAL for something other than flights to Houston.

 

[user 1215]

I still don't get why they wouldn't follow the I-35 --> I-10 Corridor. They'd pick up three more major Texas cities and STILL be able to get to Houston from Dallas faster than driving I-45 (That is, if they are truly a Shinkansen-level HSR).

 

[cirdan]

I wish them luck, but without (a) financing and (b) land acquisition complete, I'm guessing this will never happen. If it does, odds are they go bankrupt quickly, simply because their financing terms are likely to be too onerous for the slim margins of a single rail line to cover the interest (see: Channel Tunnel).

The problem with the Channel Tunnel was that they were tunneling, and also that the governments of both countries kept upping safety demands which called for redesigns.

Texas Central is being built in open countryside where the situation is much more predictable and controllable.

 

[Anderson]

I still don't get why they wouldn't follow the I-35 --> I-10 Corridor. They'd pick up three more major Texas cities and STILL be able to get to Houston from Dallas faster than driving I-45 (That is, if they are truly a Shinkansen-level HSR).

There's been at least some speculation that they might put in some sort of line in that direction down the road. The issue is that they've said they need super-fast travel times to be able to really knock out the airline market (and/or to be able to claim a premium for folks not taking the highway).

Edit: Not to mention the mileage involved. Driving-wise, Dallas-Austin-Houston is 360 miles while Dallas-Houston is 240 miles. Dallas-San Antonio-Houston is 470 miles (though some of that mileage could probably be reduced if the Austin-San Antonio and San Antonio-Houston legs use the same tracks). 120-210 more miles of bullet train tracks, not to mention the costs of going into/through major cities, would probably have made the project unworkably expensive. Additionally, you're really pushing travel time up with the forced routing (240 miles at 160 MPH is 1.5 hours, 360 miles at 160 MPH is 2.25 hours, and 470 miles at 160 MPH is right under three hours assuming no transfers, etc.). One straightforward market at X cost is arguably easier to deal with than a half-dozen mixed markets at 2-3x the cost.

What seems most likely is that they would eventually build an Austin-San Antonio line which meets the existing line somewhere around the equivalent of College Station (they might even run by there), but Dallas-Houston really makes sense as an MOS.

 

[cirdan]

I agree.

They need to do one thing at a time. Only government-backed railroads have the luxury of being able to plan ultra long term and provide options for future expansion and variants that may or may not be built in several decades time.

The beauty of the present proposal is that most of it is located in open countryside where land is relatively cheap and construction can be commenced and completed quickly. I have my doubts about the routing at the Houston end. Would it have been possible to serve Goeorge Bush Intercontinental Airport? Would it be possible to establish a station closer to downtown? But these are huge cost factors and also involve planning processes with long time horizons. Sometimes the better can be the greatest enemy of the good.

 

[user 1215]

Railroads should not connect airports. That's what planes do, and is really one of the biggest irritations of flying: then having to get into town. No Japanese real line has a major termine or station at an airport. They are at population centers. Both ends of this project should connect to major ground transportation hubs.