Newswire: April 16, 2009

6 Comments

1. 
   Appetitus Rationi Pareat

   16 Apr 09 [ 12:09 ]
   Permalink

   Regarding high-speed rail

   This all sounds wonderful but it is not going to go anywhere except in a few places. The Northeast Corridor route will continue to be improved, California will probably start to move forward with their long planned (and long needed) connection between San Diego and San Francisco (through LA and Sacramento). Perhaps intercity service will improve in and around Chicago and the Pacific Northwest but you are simply dreaming if you think that high-speed rail is going to come to Texas anytime soon. Our state government and our federal representatives are completely and fundamentally sold on more highways and complete reliance on the automobile. They will never go to bat for this state in regards to improving our passenger rail service. Most of them would probably cut all federal funding for passenger rail and kill Amtrak altogether if given the chance.

   One other comment, reading through the “fact sheet” only reinforces my sense of pessimism. The amount of money that is needed to upgrade our rail infrastructure is in $100’s of billions. Throwing a billion there and a billion there, while admittedly an improvement, will hardly do anything to get most of these projects off the ground. Unfortunately, the Obama administration blew an enormous opportunity with the recent stimulus bill. Much of that money could have been used to make some fundamental changes to the way people in this country travel by using the money to improve high-speed, regional and local rail service around the country. Instead, the bulk of the infrastructure money went to roads and highways to encourage more sprawl and more unsustainable development. Exhibit A is the stupid Grand Parkway.

   Reply
2. 
   Dave Morris

   16 Apr 09 [ 12:21 ]
   Permalink

   Thanks for your comment. I couldn’t agree more, especially about the fact that a billion dollars isn’t going to do much for any state trying to get into high speed rail. What do you think we (non-politician Texans) can do help out the high speed rail cause? What if we thought longer term and got everyone to agree to have Texas (Houston, Austin, and Dallas) host the Olympics in the year 2050 or something like that? We could spread out a lot of the costs among the different levels of government and build up a high speed rail network that would be able to get people between those cities as fast as someone can drive into Downtown Houston from the Woodlands during rush hour.

   Maybe the Texas Olympics idea is a little far-fetched and ridiculous, but I guess the main point I want to stress is that we need to think about these things across a longer time line than 5, 10, or 15 years. How can we approach city, state and federal officials to get them into this longer term mindset?

   Reply
3. 
   Appetitus Rationi Pareat

   16 Apr 09 [ 14:02 ]
   Permalink

   While I can certainly see the need for some type of goal over the horizon in order to spur infrastructure investment, frankly, I see the chances of Houston (or any city in Texas) getting the Olympics anytime in our lifetime so far-fetched, it may do more bad than good.

   From things I have read, I know one of the biggest concerns for IOC is infrastructure and the ability for the host city to transport spectators, media, and athletes around the city efficiently. I know that the IOC was extremely unhappy with the way Atlanta refused to update MARTA for the games and relied heavily on buses. Traffic was terrible, athletes were late, and basically the entire city was a mess because everyone was on the roads to get anywhere during that period. Similar problems happened on a regional level because everyone relied on Hartsfield so you had all the people coming from overseas (who, of course, need to fly) but you also had people flying in from Memphis, Raleigh, Houston, etc. where a train is a realistic alternative if Atlanta had a rail system comparable with other post-industrial countries (France, UK, Spain, Germany, Japan, etc.). I have heard that the IOC really doesn’t trust cities that promise to update infrastructure after they have been given the games. I know Rio’s chances of getting the games in 2016 are pretty slim for that very reason.

   Personally, I don’t really know the answer on how to finally get the ball rolling in a place like Texas. This state is VERY conservative and thus it sometimes takes pushing and prodding from the national government before this state takes action. A higher national gasoline tax that would direct money to public transit and national rail (and not highways) would be a start. Perhaps if other states start to have success with such a system Texas residents will finally start to clamor for greater transportation options. Perhaps we just need to have a professional legislature (like most states, especially large ones like Texas) rather than having a state legislature that meets every two years for a very short session essentially passing laws for the groups that give them the biggest campaign donations (read oil companies and highway contractors).

   Reply
4. 
   Jessie M

   17 Apr 09 [ 13:43 ]
   Permalink

   ARP – Do conservatives drive vehicles and liberals ride public transportation? I don’t mean to defer the conversation or be nit-picky, but I don’t think just because Texas leans conservative that they’re anti rail. I would guess if they’re “anti-rail”, it’s just because they didn’t grow up with it, so they’re ignorant of its benefits and detriments.

   I have a couple of somewhat related questions.

   I wonder what the comparison is for the money intended for the TTC to a Texas High Speed Rail System? How much of a difference is it? Could we not simply transfer that money over to the rail project instead (I’m guessing probably not)?

   Has anyone ever attempted an unbiased study on the factors that benefit rail in Europe and certain Asian countries? Today, I talked to a coworker from Aberdeen, Scotland and asked him what an average European expected for travel by train when going far distances. For us (departing Houston), LA or the east coast is +- 3 hours by plane and 4 to 5 max if going to the far northeast or northwest. He said when living in Europe, he’d probably buy a plane ticket instead if it took more than 4-5 hours to arrive to his destination by train. So my question is, not theoretically, realistically, how long would it take us to get to our same destinations by train? Maybe we shouldn’t necessarily be comparing trains to planes but trains to cars instead? On the other hand, how much difference would a bus ride be? A non-refundable one-way bus ticket to San Antonio only costs $30. How would that compare to a train ride, and how much time would actually be saved, and is that time saved actually worth it?

   Basically, someone needs to do a study on why trains work other places and see if the USA has the same makeup to be successful too. If someone has already done that study and can show it to me, that’s be awesome.

   Reply
5. 
   Mike

   17 Apr 09 [ 18:27 ]
   Permalink

   >>Basically, someone needs to do a study on why trains work other places and see if the USA has the same makeup to be successful too. If someone has already done that study and can show it to me, that’s be awesome.

   In the Acela corridor, they have done studies that show that Amtrak has taken significant market share from auto, plane, and bus travel. But, there is still room for successful bus operators, airlines, and individuals who prefer to drive from Boston to DC. If cost is your main concern, BoltBus or other bus carriers are probably your best bet. I believe that others who are less sensitive to cost, or business travelers would tend to take the train or fly. And contrary to some people, I don’t think there is anything very special about the Northeast corridor as compared to other dense corridors like the Texas Triangle – if distance is less than 600 miles or so then HSR makes sense. Yes, we would also have to build local transit connections to the HSR to make it successful, but that is going to happen in the coming decades with or without HSR.

   Also, I agree that politically we should see HSR not as a Democrat or Republican issue, although much like the environment, at present it really is an issue where Democrats have the right idea, and most Republicans don’t.

   ARP, remember that Texas stands to gain 3-4 representatives after the 2010 Census, and all of these new Reps will be representing either centrist or slightly left-leaning areas like the western portion of Houston all the way to Beltway 8 – currently represented by Culberson who has been no friend to rail, his flip-flopping on the issue in the editorial pages of the Chronicle notwithstanding. Yes, other areas of Texas will remain reliably conservative, but I don’t think that should impede construction of HSR in the Texas Triangle, especially if Washington will be giving us billions of dollars for that purpose.

   Reply
6. 
   reality check

   01 Nov 09 [ 13:52 ]
   Permalink

   High speed rail can work in texas. In fact, with the number and location of major (and medium) cities in Texas it is PRIME for rail corridors.

   Just one problem: Southwest Air.

   I like rail, and I like Southwest, bur from a practical standpoint a proper high (or even medium) speed rail network in texas will put SW out of texas regional market. maybe not out of business outright, but in the Texas market they will be gone. I have no doubt they know this, and lobby state and local officials accordingly, so there we are.

   Reply