Comments on: The Routes

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:15:15 +0000

In my opinion you’ve got too many stops in the mini triangle plan. The appeal of high speed trains, to me at least, is that it could provide a reasonable alternative to short to mid range flights. While I can appreciate that Waco traffic would want to tag along on the 35 line, I don’t see a tremendous appeal to people in DFW or Austin in losing that much potential travel time to accommodate the extra stops as each stop requires the train to reaccelerate. The same goes for College Station, though maybe to a lessor extent. It seems to me that direct Mag Lev service following the 35 and 45 and 10 interstates complimented by a higher than standard speed steel rail service with some stops, perhaps utilizing your mini triangle, connecting the College Station and Waco to The hub in Austin. A direct Houston to Austin line could also be considered as an alternative to a line along the 10. Suburbs should be served by municipal rail systems. I believe that if the direct lines between the major hubs aren’t considered, the appeal over driving will be considerably lessened. The main benefit that I see selling this system to travellers is as an alternative to short range flights. Including towns like Temple, Killeen, College Station, and Waco seems to disproportionately favor the small towns (which are already more centrally located than the cities anyway) and may prevent the system from gaining the necessary traction where it is most needed, in DFW, Austin, SA and Houston.

By: Floyd

Floyd — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:28:25 +0000

If the train systems do not use the magnetic levitation system then this money spent will only push us as a nation behind other nations that have outpaced us in transportation technology. These trains that are being proposed will come off the tracks and kill many. The maglevs will not as they are secure. Who in their right mind would want a system that cost millions of dollars to build just to see it run off tracks? This idea is cave talk and the only way to get us into the future and stay abreast of other developing countries is to build only a maglev system for our transportation needs. We need a new leader with these ideas in mind and not a leader that continues to spread war and violence on our earth. Let us Americans spend that money on ourselves to promote magnetic propulsion systems and forget this oil and gas stuff which is only blood letting. Look at Japan, China, and a couple more countries that have taken their civilization into a more complacent atmosphere and is exceeding us drastically. Let only high speed maglev trains be used for this new idea of high speed trains. Vote for this only or we will be big time losers.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:47:58 +0000

I think both the Texas T bone and mini triangle are awesome ideas for Texas. How often do you get snarled in traffic that moves at a snail’s pace somewhere between Dallas and Austin on 35? Not to mention the construction jobs it would create for our state.

By: Pope

Pope — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 05:02:25 +0000

Frankly until Mexico cleans up its drug cartels why would we want to create a potential route for drug smuggling by connecting to Mexico or the border regions?

By: P Mac

P Mac — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:38:45 +0000

What about Houston,SanAntonio, Laredo and McAllen Corpus Christi, Houston

By: Max

Max — Sun, 23 May 2010 02:33:37 +0000

Nice Ideas! I always like to follow discussions on rail, especially high speed rail.

However, I believe what your mini triangle concept fails to address is the issue of initial infrastructure costs. Keeping these investments to a minimum means keeping rail miles (to be constructed) to a minimum. This is what the t-bone seems to do best. Another aspect that needs to be considered is of course right-of-way acquisition, which might be cheaper for a route following the highways, i.e. the (big) triangle.

Operating costs related to miles traveled or fuel costs play in fact a smaller role, as they can be balanced by fast travel speed and a natural advantage in environmental friendliness.

To goal should be to include as many potential riders on the least amount of miles possible, ideally only on one line. California’s plan seems to go in the right direction: http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:04:29 +0000

I took a map of Texas and I put a black dot at every city that had 50 thousand or more residents and then I put a red dot at every city between 50 thousand and 25 thousand and a picture emerged showing were the state is growing the most, everyone should try this, remember that were ever a station is placed a lot more growth will happen, also it should be noted that Corpus is booming and the Valley is booming, these destinations can’t be over looked, we should look at the whole state when the planning for rail is being done.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:24:00 +0000

Houston to Dallas is the largest traffic flow according to the traffic flow maps I’ve seen, freight and human traffic considered. I would like a system that went from Galveston to Houston to Dallas and north, then from Dallas down 35 to San Antonio and south to Corpus Christi, then a line from Brownsville back along the coast to Galveston, B/Cs could link with a middle route Fort hood to Houston. Then we should consider East Texas and West Texas lines, we should consider the whole state when picking routes because these lines and stations will bring tremendous growth wherever they are put and thats what we want, more growth, the whole state should grow from this.

By: The Mini Triangle

The Mini Triangle — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:09:23 +0000

[...] 19, 2009 by Andrew Burleson | neoHOUSTON Texas High-Speed RailIntroductionThe TrainsThe RoutesHouston – Part 1Houston – Part 2Houston – Part 3The Capital CorridorThe Brazos [...]

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:42:38 +0000

I just drew lines on Google Maps, and it turns out the IAH route is longer than the 290 route by less than a mile. See here.