See page 87 in the link below. See pages prior to page 87 for the alignments considered in the universe of alternatives
https://www.nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Transportation/Committees/STTC/2021/presentations-apr.pdf?ext=.pdf (https://www.nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Transportation/Committees/STTC/2021/presentations-apr.pdf?ext=.pdf)
They are recommending the path of least resistance, which is along IH-30. Of course this is no surprise. On the plus side, the alignment is very straight. There will be some complications getting through the interchanges at SH 161 and SH 360, so some alternatives are shown in the map.
The study has also limited the technology options to traditional high speed rail and hyperloop.
I thought the southernmost blue option on page 86 would be better since the Arlington station would be closer to the stadiums and Six Flags. In addition, the abandoned baseball stadium would be an ideal station site.
Of course this project would be prohibitively expensive under normal conditions, and also have low ridership like all other rail lines in DFW. But in the new world of the federal government wanting to dump piles of money into public transit regardless of ridership, we can't rule out that this can actually move forward. However, the Biden "infrastructure" plan seems to have little or no money specifically earmarked for high speed rail or similar technologies.
Quote from: Max ConcreteThe study has also limited the technology options to traditional high speed rail and hyperloop.
That's a really
stupid choice on their part. It appears they're only mapping out a regional rail system to hop between Dallas and Fort Worth. That's not nearly a far enough distance for a true high speed rail line, particularly if there are any stops at all in between. Even with a
higher speed conventional rail system it takes a good amount of distance just to get to cruising speeds over 100mph. True high speed trains running at current cutting edge speeds of 200mph (or over 300kph) only reach those speeds running significant distances in rural areas between cities. Any stops along the way require their own distances to slow down and stop and then get back up to speed again.
I'm not the slightest bit optimistic Elon Musk's Hyperloop thing is ever going to get into commercial production. Aside from the insane costs to build it
the thing is UGLY as hell. The thing looks like an elevated massive oil pipeline. I can just imagine the public revolts against a hyperloop line being built through an urban or suburban neighborhood (particularly any place with high property values). Most people are used to trains having things
like windows. Riding in a hyperloop train would be a bit like traveling in a submarine. I can't see anyone with the slightest bit of claustrophobia wanting to ride in a hyperloop. I think the best case scenario for a Hyperloop would be building city to city lines where the stations are located on the city outskirts (like most airports). I see zero chance for one being built between Dallas and Fort Worth. The train would never get up to the hyped speeds. It would be like riding on an ordinary subway train that seems like it's underground when it's really above ground.
As for President Biden's "infrastructure" plan I think the thing is DOA unless they can work out some kind of compromise with GOP lawmakers. That doesn't seem likely at all. The GOP wants a much lower cost plan and far more of the emphasis on roads and bridges. The Biden plan is just all over the place, such as the plan to build out Broadband Internet all over rural areas. Residential Internet and phone access is a giant mess of many companies covering their own pieces of territory. And even if such a rural high speed network can be fully built out it would be a big waste of money.
Small towns and rural areas are literally dying off. Young adults don't want to move to small towns for multiple obvious reasons and many businesses have their own cut-off point for city/town size requirements for them to build locations there.
Why this reminds me of "Supertrain" or "Monorail", the Simpsons one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUERtAe73NI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GcJsgqfxU8
HSR seems reasonable between Fort Worth and Dallas. If solely for the purposes of express trains between the two cities then I can see this being feasible. Yes many rail lines have low ridership in DFW but that is because Texas has a horrible mass transit system in general. It will take more lines and increase bus service to induce more ridership. One stop in Arlington would be okay as long as the station is directly in downtown and not on the freeway.
With that said, the fact this study includes hyperloop as an alternative makes me think this project is decades away. I suspect we'll have private real estate in space for sale by the time we see a real hyperloop network anywhere.
Considering acceleration and deceleration from low to high speeds, wouldn't having an intermediate stop in Arlington reduce the potential for such train to reach true higher speeds? Not against it, but would not work for high speed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 02:18:45 PM
Considering acceleration and deceleration from low to high speeds, wouldn't having an intermediate stop in Arlington reduce the potential for such train to reach true higher speeds? Not against it, but would not work for high speed.
If the average speed of the train is at least 120 MPH, then that is still a good thing. Could this not be achieved with a stop in Arlington? You could have an express system that bypasses Arlington every other train or so but I believe that'd be overkill here.
There is a high-speed rail in the Netherlands, where the Schiphol Airport - Rotterdam stretch is about the same distance as Dallas - Fort Worth. The high-speed train tops out at 300 km/h (185 mph), the regular express service at 160 km/h (100 mph). The travel time difference between those two is only 3 minutes.
It looks like it currently takes the TRE almost an hour to get from Fort Worth to Dallas. It has several stations and IIRC it's highest speed is about 70MPH or so.
Schedule: https://trinityrailwayexpress.org/eastbound-weekday/
With a straighter track, less stations, and potentially double the average speed, it should cut down end to end travel times.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 25, 2021, 09:42:29 AM
Why this reminds me of "Supertrain" or "Monorail", the Simpsons one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUERtAe73NI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GcJsgqfxU8
Hey, that got the towns of Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook on the map!
The use of high speed rail technology could make sense if it plugs directly into the Texas Central project, as it'd provide seamless interoperability and help enable the future construction of a Texas triangle HSR network going between all the cities, but otherwise it's hard to see why the money wouldn't be better used for improvements to TRE. If they're pursuing this for commuter service, HSR makes absolutely no sense.
Quote from: jadebenn on June 09, 2021, 10:07:25 PM
The use of high speed rail technology could make sense if it plugs directly into the Texas Central project, as it'd provide seamless interoperability and help enable the future construction of a Texas triangle HSR network going between all the cities, but otherwise it's hard to see why the money wouldn't be better used for improvements to TRE. If they're pursuing this for commuter service, HSR makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah, I use the TRE quite often and it could definitely be improved. It would definitely be nice to have HSR to cut down but the money for that would better be spent on Texas triangle HSR. I'd be more than happy with 110MPH average speeds, improved stations(I mean real transit stations not glorified American bus shelters), and a liquor/snack bar on one of the cars.
Shopping Malls and Food Courts and Travel Facilities would also be nice. Make regular Train Stations as large as Hubs.
The City of Arlington is apparently trying to plan something substantial for the Arlington station. At last month's NCTCOG meeting, item 9 at 12:30 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/05132021-665 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/05132021-665)), there was a discussion between Director Morris and the Arlington mayor, and Morris referred to a "proprietary situation" for which Arlington needed to cooperate with NCTCOG. Of course, Arlington has provided big money for the stadiums and it appears they're positioning to bring something big, and Arlington will surely be willing to contribute big money.
But I think this extension is still highly speculative. First, Texas Central between Houston and Dallas needs to proceed, and that's questionable due to escalating cost. Then funding needs to be found for the Dallas-to-Fort Worth connection. NCTCOG is very savvy about getting projects done one way or another, and they're probably getting the DFW link environmentally cleared so they can harvest federal money if and when the feds start directing money to high speed rail.
Quote from: In_Correct on June 09, 2021, 10:39:23 PM
Shopping Malls and Food Courts and Travel Facilities would also be nice. Make regular Train Stations as large as Hubs.
A big improvement would be making the Forth Worth station not feel like a desert. Because I've seen videos of it, and it's the opposite of inviting. Dallas Union Station has its issues as well (especially that train passengers aren't actually allowed to use the actual building for some inscrutable reason), but it at least feels like you've been deposited in a city, and not a deserted parking lot a few blocks away from the city.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 09, 2021, 11:10:50 PM
The City of Arlington is apparently trying to plan something substantial for the Arlington station. At last month's NCTCOG meeting, item 9 at 12:30 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/05132021-665 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/05132021-665)), there was a discussion between Director Morris and the Arlington mayor, and Morris referred to a "proprietary situation" for which Arlington needed to cooperate with NCTCOG. Of course, Arlington has provided big money for the stadiums and it appears they're positioning to bring something big, and Arlington will surely be willing to contribute big money.
But I think this extension is still highly speculative. First, Texas Central between Houston and Dallas needs to proceed, and that's questionable due to escalating cost. Then funding needs to be found for the Dallas-to-Fort Worth connection. NCTCOG is very savvy about getting projects done one way or another, and they're probably getting the DFW link environmentally cleared so they can harvest federal money if and when the feds start directing money to high speed rail.
My read of it's that Arlington's been a big driving force behind this thing. They're the only ones not currently serviced by TRE, and they definitely have big plans for their new developments around Globelife stadium. Which, incidentally, are actually quite nice and walkable, with the downside being that they're isolated from the rest of the city by literal acres of parking lots. Not that Arlington has much density outside of the UTA area...
Still, I can't help but suspect that Arlington sees $$$ if they could hook those new developments up with the HSR to Houston. I just hope (but know better than to expect) that the municipal leadership realizes that using this to visit Arlington is
not going to be very attractive option to those already living in Dallas and Fort Worth, and if that's their target customer base, then
higher-speed commuter rail (possibly a branch from the TRE line, or a new alignment) would be much better-suited for their needs.
I doubt TCR is complaining, though. The way I bet they see this, is that they're getting the state to potentially fund some very expensive real-estate acquisition that they'll probably get some very favorable terms to lease and operate. Plus, it increases their catchment area to almost the entirety of the DFW metro. It's a win-win for them.
Quote from: In_Correct on June 09, 2021, 10:39:23 PM
Shopping Malls and Food Courts and Travel Facilities would also be nice. Make regular Train Stations as large as Hubs.
Indeed. More amenities and TOD.
Quote from: jadebenn on June 09, 2021, 11:21:47 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 09, 2021, 10:39:23 PM
Shopping Malls and Food Courts and Travel Facilities would also be nice. Make regular Train Stations as large as Hubs.
A big improvement would be making the Forth Worth station not feel like a desert. Because I've seen videos of it, and it's the opposite of inviting. Dallas Union Station has its issues as well (especially that train passengers aren't actually allowed to use the actual building for some inscrutable reason), but it at least feels like you've been deposited in a city, and not a deserted parking lot a few blocks away from the city.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 09, 2021, 11:10:50 PM
The City of Arlington is apparently trying to plan something substantial for the Arlington station. At last month's NCTCOG meeting, item 9 at 12:30 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/05132021-665 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/05132021-665)), there was a discussion between Director Morris and the Arlington mayor, and Morris referred to a "proprietary situation" for which Arlington needed to cooperate with NCTCOG. Of course, Arlington has provided big money for the stadiums and it appears they're positioning to bring something big, and Arlington will surely be willing to contribute big money.
But I think this extension is still highly speculative. First, Texas Central between Houston and Dallas needs to proceed, and that's questionable due to escalating cost. Then funding needs to be found for the Dallas-to-Fort Worth connection. NCTCOG is very savvy about getting projects done one way or another, and they're probably getting the DFW link environmentally cleared so they can harvest federal money if and when the feds start directing money to high speed rail.
My read of it's that Arlington's been a big driving force behind this thing. They're the only ones not currently serviced by TRE, and they definitely have big plans for their new developments around Globelife stadium. Which, incidentally, are actually quite nice and walkable, with the downside being that they're isolated from the rest of the city by literal acres of parking lots. Not that Arlington has much density outside of the UTA area...
Still, I can't help but suspect that Arlington sees $$$ if they could hook those new developments up with the HSR to Houston. I just hope (but know better than to expect) that the municipal leadership realizes that using this to visit Arlington is not going to be very attractive option to those already living in Dallas and Fort Worth, and if that's their target customer base, then higher-speed commuter rail (possibly a branch from the TRE line, or a new alignment) would be much better-suited for their needs.
I doubt TCR is complaining, though. The way I bet they see this, is that they're getting the state to potentially fund some very expensive real-estate acquisition that they'll probably get some very favorable terms to lease and operate. Plus, it increases their catchment area to almost the entirety of the DFW metro. It's a win-win for them.
I think the NFL has said that DFW will not get another Super Bowl until there is convenient public transit available from at least Dallas and arguably Fort Worth.
Beyond this, Jerry (Jones) would absolutely love to bring the Olympics or the World Cup Final to Arlington.
The Texas Central high-speed rail project between Houston and Dallas appears to be dead.
https://thetexan.news/texas-central-high-speed-rail-ceo-carlos-aguilar-announces-departure/ (https://thetexan.news/texas-central-high-speed-rail-ceo-carlos-aguilar-announces-departure/)
The project was on life support in the last 6 months, with Texas Central reportedly not paying its bills. The recent inflation probably put the final nails in the coffin. Bids for large TxDOT projects are up around 33% in just the last few months. Texas Central was always too expensive to be financial feasible. Add another 33% to the cost and you can forget about it.
The rationale for the Dallas to Fort Worth link is greatly diminished without the connection to Texas Central. I'm thinking the in-progress study for the Dallas to Worth link will probably go on hold after its current phase is complete, and then eventually be forgotten.
That is very unfortunate. I think this line would've been very successful as Texas relies way too much on cars for travel offering alternative would've been very appealing to people. It's a damn shame high speed rail is so hard to build in the states. We're the second richest country in the world and we can't even build a fucking modern train line or road tunnels. It's just comedy hour here.
Texans depend too much on cars.
Houston to Dallas is further than Boston to NYC or Washington to NYC.
Austin is a little closer to Dallas and a good bit closer to Houston,
It isn't just we use our cars. We use them more. More miles on them , etc.
I would prefer an express bus service to a rail line along the above-mentioned corridors. Also, I'm not bothered by Texas (or anywhere else) depending "too much" on cars. People should use any mode of transportation that suits their needs.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 05, 2021, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 25, 2021, 09:42:29 AM
Why this reminds me of "Supertrain" or "Monorail", the Simpsons one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUERtAe73NI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GcJsgqfxU8
Hey, that got the towns of Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook on the map!
Yes sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bonified, electrified, six car monorail!
Honestly, there are very few parts of the United States where it is practical at all to live without an automobile. It isn't just Texans who "depend too much on cars." The overwhelming majority of American adults need them.
The more I look at the concept of New Urbanism the more I believe it's just a bunch of nonsense based on a mix of fantasy and nostalgia. I'm not opposed to building passenger rail lines for commuters or long distance city to city service. However, costs of planning and building such lines has blown way out of control to obscene extremes. The United States has zero hope at all of ever building any modern high speed rail network covering the nation as long as the costs continue to worsen to even more stupid levels. That thing out in California is a national embarrassment. The failure of this Texas project is now the latest example to show Americans can't do true high speed rail.
Even if we could manage to build an effective passenger rail network with all the modern features, like 200mph speeds, the vast majority of Americans would still be stuck using automobiles. We can't build rail lines everywhere. Even in an old metro like New York City you don't have to travel too far outside the five boroughs to find cities and suburbs where one needs a vehicle for everyday life.
Metros like Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston (not to mention several other rapidly growing Texas cities) are all newer cities built mostly with streets and automobiles in mind. Attempts to reverse that, getting people to move closer to city centers, aren't working. Not only is the cost of building new subway or light rail lines too expensive, but there is the much bigger problem of housing costs. For true New Urbanism to work the neighborhoods need housing for every income class. The bosses and workers need to live close to each other. American style urban planning is the opposite of that. If only business owners and other high income people can afford to live downtown then the New Urbanism dream is a LIE.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2022, 10:28:10 AM
I would prefer an express bus service to a rail line along the above-mentioned corridors. Also, I'm not bothered by Texas (or anywhere else) depending "too much" on cars. People should use any mode of transportation that suits their needs.
I am on your side about how much we use our cars. I am not a fan of the nanny state. Between my wife and i we drive over 80K a year.
There are multiple reasons why a " bullet train" is better than a bus (or busses).
Busses are subject to the same traffic issues that personal cars are affected by. A bullet train on a dedicated or at least prioritized rail line is much less likely to be affected by traffic issues.
A true bullet train can go faster than a bus. 120 mph versus an average of around 70 mph.
The train can carry more passengers than a single bus.
Now for a bullet train to work it needs to be on fully grade separated tracks. That is the big holdup. The expense is monstrous.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 14, 2022, 11:19:02 AM
Honestly, there are very few parts of the United States where it is practical at all to live without an automobile. It isn't just Texans who "depend too much on cars." The overwhelming majority of American adults need them.
Agreed, but it's not just about new urbanism or whether people can live without a car but rather offering an alternative for those that want it. And to me that's very important that we do so. There aren't very many places in the country either that I can honestly tell you that would justify spending billions on a train but Dallas to Houston is one of them in my opinion.
Quote from: jadebenn on June 09, 2021, 10:07:25 PM
The use of high speed rail technology could make sense if it plugs directly into the Texas Central project, as it'd provide seamless interoperability and help enable the future construction of a Texas triangle HSR network going between all the cities, but otherwise it's hard to see why the money wouldn't be better used for improvements to TRE. If they're pursuing this for commuter service, HSR makes absolutely no sense.
Texas Central CEO resigns and the management team is rumored to have done the same. Texas Central is sadly dead.............next.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaAgreed, but it's not just about new urbanism or whether people can live without a car but rather offering an alternative for those that want it. And to me that's very important that we do so.
Passenger rail is a niche alternative serving a niche need. It only works in the right locations, where population density and potential ridership is high enough to justify the cost of building the lines and operating them. And even in the few areas of the US where such conditions exists much of the rail corridors being used have existed for many decades, some dating back to the 1800's. If something new has to be built in a densely populated area the project can turn into a cost boondoggle. The 2nd Avenue Subway line project in Manhattan is a good example. The high speed line in California is another key example. So much of it has to be built on a brand new path due to the design speeds. A Dallas-Houston rail line wouldn't be any different. If the train has to use existing track to save money then it won't be high speed rail.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaThere aren't very many places in the country either that I can honestly tell you that would justify spending billions on a train but Dallas to Houston is one of them in my opinion.
Unless there are major breakthroughs in construction and engineering to dramatically lower the costs of building things like high speed rail lines the cost just isn't going to be worth it. City to city rail doesn't just compete with automobiles; it also has to compete with airlines. Driving your own vehicle from Dallas to Houston is slower, but it's relatively easy, less expensive and will get you to the door step of almost anywhere you need to go. Air travel is faster, but there's all the crap you have to go through at the terminals, plus the hassles of getting to/from the airports. Going to a train station isn't much different than going to an airport. But trains aren't as fast as planes. Depending on the route design a train may not be much faster than a car either. This is essentially why passenger train travel died out in the mid-late 1900's.
The high costs of downtown housing as well as the high costs of downtown office space are going to be negative drags on further growth of city centers where glitzy new high speed rail stations would preferably be built. The covid pandemic opened a lot of eyes to virtual work environments and also got people asking, "do we really need an office downtown?" As much as New Urbanism fans want city centers packed and booming the pressures of both housing/office cost and technology improvement may add more pressure to de-centralize things. I don't foresee many millions of Americans rushing off to live in the boonies or tiny towns. The rising cost of basic infrastructure and city services is killing small towns. The happy medium is going to be more in the way of spread out, suburban like environments. Those layouts aren't friendly to rail network design
The only place passenger rail might make sense is in the northeastern part of the country. Anywhere else it would be a hard sell, since unlike in Europe, American cities are too far apart for passenger rail to be as effective. It is more effective (though perhaps not less stressful) to fly between American cities.
I think passenger rail works better in Europe for multiple reasons. I've said this before, many European cities were already big and densely built before the advent of the automobile. These cities were expanding based on rail infrastructure. Many of those established rail routes have been built and re-built over the same space. The true high speed lines have required new rights of way, but those lines represent a small amount of the overall network. Also, many of those high speed lines were established 30+ years ago when getting stuff like that built was easier and cheaper. Japan's "bullet train" (Shinkansen) was introduced over 50 years ago.
We can't leave out government funding as a factor in this stuff. High speed rail efforts in the US have mostly been some mix of public-private partnerships or mostly plans in search of investors. European and Asian governments spend pretty big on their rail infrastructure systems.
According to the company they still plan on breaking ground with the project: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/texas-news/texas-central-ceo-resigns-company-plans-to-break-ground-on-high-speed-rail/2992264/?fs=e&s=cl&fbclid=IwAR2MfdUH5CVcBKf61gWHCYgYyUJOHCWL0P6Sv1PcmFHGTn2tb3tPK7t_P-8
There's also just the consistency and stress benefits of high speed rail. With driving, you are having to focus on that the entire time and there's also inevitable traffic delays (not to mention how frequent car accidents occur comparatively). With flying, it's usually the most expensive and there's a lot of downtime just waiting around (and little time for productivity on the plane). High speed rail fits that niche where you are able to work on things and be productive (like using a laptop), while also not having the stress of driving yourself or the delays that are frequent with those other mediums of transportation. This is what makes Amtrak so unsuccessful in this country, because the delays make it the least useful form of transportation between cities, in addition to its slow and often more expensive tendencies compared to driving. But, with the car-centric development of America, it does make it difficult to get projects like Texas Central off the ground because you have to not only overcome the biases of traditionalists, but there's all the land acquisition that must be done too.
One of the other issues with rail travel, particularly in states like Texas is excessive heat. If you are in a climate that has excessive heat for long periods of time, delays are normal because of rail expansion. Yes, there are ways around it, like extra reinforcement with concrete ties, but like everything else, that's $$. So the train can't travel on existing rails because they are not designed for high speeds, so you have to buy new right-of-way over new terrain to smooth out hills and flatten curves, but then you have to actually build the rail road to accommodate high speeds, because even if the current rails were straight and had no grades, the track itself can't handle that high of a speed or handle that type of speed with track expansion.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 15, 2022, 04:22:33 PM
One of the other issues with rail travel, particularly in states like Texas is excessive heat. If you are in a climate that has excessive heat for long periods of time, delays are normal because of rail expansion. Yes, there are ways around it, like extra reinforcement with concrete ties, but like everything else, that's $$. So the train can't travel on existing rails because they are not designed for high speeds, so you have to buy new right-of-way over new terrain to smooth out hills and flatten curves, but then you have to actually build the rail road to accommodate high speeds, because even if the current rails were straight and had no grades, the track itself can't handle that high of a speed or handle that type of speed with track expansion.
The bullet train from DFW to Houston is proposed to be on a new alignment on a totally new facility
Quote from: bwana39 on June 15, 2022, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 15, 2022, 04:22:33 PM
One of the other issues with rail travel, particularly in states like Texas is excessive heat. If you are in a climate that has excessive heat for long periods of time, delays are normal because of rail expansion. Yes, there are ways around it, like extra reinforcement with concrete ties, but like everything else, that's $$. So the train can't travel on existing rails because they are not designed for high speeds, so you have to buy new right-of-way over new terrain to smooth out hills and flatten curves, but then you have to actually build the rail road to accommodate high speeds, because even if the current rails were straight and had no grades, the track itself can't handle that high of a speed or handle that type of speed with track expansion.
The bullet train from DFW to Houston is proposed to be on a new alignment on a totally new facility
I know it is. My point is most, if not 99% of the knuckleheads in the world don't realize that a high speed train
HAS to be on a new alignment. They think, its a train, we have rail road tracks, slap it on that and call it a day.
Airplanes go faster than trains and don't require any dedicated right of way.
Quote from: CerlinThere's also just the consistency and stress benefits of high speed rail. With driving, you are having to focus on that the entire time and there's also inevitable traffic delays (not to mention how frequent car accidents occur comparatively). With flying, it's usually the most expensive and there's a lot of downtime just waiting around (and little time for productivity on the plane). High speed rail fits that niche where you are able to work on things and be productive (like using a laptop), while also not having the stress of driving yourself or the delays that are frequent with those other mediums of transportation.
Taking a longer distance train trip is not much less complicated than taking a plane flight. You have to travel to the train station, deal with parking hassles, go through the check-in/security process, etc. In the best case scenario a true high speed rail station would be conveniently located in a city center within close walking distance of slower commuter rail lines and other modes of transportation. Big airports are often on the outer fringes of a city. Unfortunately big train stations require pretty big footprints of their own. Any new railroad tracks will often have to be built on elevated bridges or put in tunnels deep underground. Obviously both of those options are really expensive. That situation may force the primary train stations for American high speed rail lines to be built on the outer edges of cities, just like airports.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I know it is. My point is most, if not 99% of the knuckleheads in the world don't realize that a high speed train HAS to be on a new alignment. They think, its a train, we have rail road tracks, slap it on that and call it a day.
True high speed rail has to be on dedicated alignments engineered specifically for speeds greater than 150mph. No railroad crossings can be allowed. The alignment also has to be secured to keep pedestrians and large animals from trying to cross the tracks. The closest thing the US has to anything like this is the electrified rail lines from Washington, DC to Boston.
Too often attempts to do high speed rail in the US end up being some kind of dopey compromise. There will be segments of true high speed rail. But some of the route (or a lot of it) has to end up using existing general-purpose rail corridors where passenger and freight service share the same rails.
The HSR project in California (if it ever gets fully built out) will end up being a mix of real high speed rail and conventional rail, particularly as the trains get into suburban and urban areas. It's not going to be an Asian or European style implementation where the high speed line is 100% isolated from other trains and isolated from any at-grade crossings. I'm afraid the Texas HSR project will end up being affected by the same compromises.
Quote from: kernals12Airplanes go faster than trains and don't require any dedicated right of way.
Airplanes in the air don't need any physical right of way
other than the flight path they follow when allowed to proceed by the control tower. On the other hand,
airports need a hell of a lot of physical space. Depending on the size of the airport the various modes of transportation going in and out of the airport may require a giant amount of space as well. Home owners living near the site of a proposed airport may raise all sorts of hell if their properties are under take-off and landing paths.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 21, 2022, 07:47:52 AM
Airplanes go faster than trains and don't require any dedicated right of way.
Yes, but trains tend to start closer to the city centers. A dedicated bullet train would make the time from city center to city center a wash or more less.
From the Hyatt to the Hyatt via car is less than 3.5 hours.
Via taxi and plane from Love and Hobby, it is 1 hr 19 min flight time. 15 minutes to Love and 25 minutes from Hobby. Let's keep it skinny and lets say 45 minutes in the two terminals. That is 2 hours and 40 minutes.
A BULLET train would probably be around an hour and a half terminal to terminal. Let's say 30 minutes in the terminals and 15 minutes each on both ends of the downtowns. Around an hour and a half. Trains are cancelled far less than planes and the inherent delays in trains on multiuser tracks are not in place with the dedicated tracks for a bullet train.
Quote from: bwana39Yes, but trains tend to start closer to the city centers. A dedicated bullet train would make the time from city center to city center a wash or more less.
The hardest part of the equation is building a real high speed rail station in a city center and having isolated high speed rail tracks reach that city center station in that form.
High cost, battles over ROW acquisition and general NIMBY opposition may force American implementations of high speed rail to have the trains operate on shared, conventional speed tracks within urban/suburban zones and only operate at high speed in rural areas. That will dramatically increase travel times and lessen the appeal of that kind of train service.
A train station that moved as many people as DFW airport, and provided parking and car rentals, would be absolutely enormous.
So basically, a "high speed" rail line with extreme compromises will feel exactly like that. People will realize it's exactly that after the chrome starts to dirty up. It will fail.
I rode the high speed train from Madrid to Malaga pre-pandemic. There were a couple sections where the AVE train traveled on a regular rail line, either approaching and leaving stations along the route and once through a tunnel. We also had to wait about five minutes at the tunnel entrance for the tunnel to clear. It didn't seriously slow down the train as it was only for those short segments. It's not like high speed rail can't use regular rail; they can as long as the gauge doesn't change. The only thing is the trains can't run at max speed. Obviously, you don't want high speed rail to use much regular rail like Acela does. HSR can also use the same ROW for new tracks as rural interstates as long as it's not too hilly.
Let's not forget airports also need a lot of dedicated infrastructure and land. Urban airports require several square miles of FLAT land not to mention buffers for approaches, often taking prime land that could be used for housing; DFW is a prime example. Other airports (e.g., JFK) are built in wetlands causing a lot of environmental destruction. I'm not saying HSR doesn't also use land; just saying all transportation infrastructure uses a lot of land.
Quote from: skluthHSR can also use the same ROW for new tracks as rural interstates as long as it's not too hilly.
At best, high speed rail could follow alongside or within the median of Interstate highways for only short distances.
Interstate highways, regardless if they're urban or rural, are not designed with the kind of geometry required by high speed rail. The hills are allowed to be built too steep, with grades as much as 6%. The roadway curves and bends are too tight for speeds over 100mph; some rural Interstate curves can drop below 70mph rated speeds and require warning signs. A train running at 150mph-200mph speeds can't operate parallel to that.
In a scenario of a hybrid transportation corridor where a freeway/turnpike shared the same ROW with a high speed rail line the corridor's path would have to be defined by the high speed rail line.
Quote from: skluthLet's not forget airports also need a lot of dedicated infrastructure and land.
One of the newer trends with airports is building them on artificial islands. Of course that's not a cheap thing to do at all. But in some locations, such as Hong Kong, there is no other choice.
Railroad stations don't have to be nearly as big as airports, but the passenger terminals can still end up eating a lot of space. Within downtown districts the cost of space runs at a high cost premium. Older American cities in the Northeast have been getting by with updating big old historic stations. But any true high speed rail connections to them would probably have to be built as very expensive deep bore tunnels farther below those stations. Newer American cities that were built up around the automobile don't have passenger rail terminals like Grand Central in Manhattan or Union Station in DC. A lot of new terminal construction would have to take place. Choosing the right locations would be very tricky.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 21, 2022, 02:42:44 PM
Quote from: skluthHSR can also use the same ROW for new tracks as rural interstates as long as it's not too hilly.
At best, high speed rail could follow alongside or within the median of Interstate highways for only short distances.
Interstate highways, regardless if they're urban or rural, are not designed with the kind of geometry required by high speed rail. The hills are allowed to be built too steep, with grades at much as 6%. The roadway curves and bends are too tight for speeds over 100mph; some rural Interstate curves can drop below 70mph rated speeds and require warning signs. A train running at 150mph-200mph speeds can't operate parallel to that.
In a scenario of a hybrid transportation corridor where a freeway/turnpike shared the same ROW with a high speed rail line the corridor's path would have to be defined by the high speed rail line.
I didn't say along every rural interstate. I added the caveat about being too hilly, yet you're saying HSR can't deal with 6% grades to dismiss my statement. If you've ever been on I-5 in the Central Valley, I-80 from Cheyenne to Cleveland, I-20 through West Texas, I-10 along the Gulf, and plenty of other places, you find most of these stretches almost entirely <1% grade with few steep grades. This doesn't mean steep grades don't exist there nor do I mean every interstate. But just claiming you know it often can't be done everywhere doesn't dismiss my case when I already said it can't be too hilly. I wouldn't attempt HSR along I-80 through Pennsylvania or along I-44 through Missouri.
I don't like the I-30 corridor for any Dallas-Ft Worth line as it's far too urban though it's flat enough. But HSR could run parallel to the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike from Chicago to Cleveland. It could run along I-55 most of the way from Joliet to East St Louis. I've thought about HSR running down the middle of I-55 several times when I drove between St Louis and Chicago. There's more than enough room and it's mostly flat. It would be difficult to go around Springfield and Bloomington, but the rail would probably need to go into those cities anyway.
[/quote]
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 21, 2022, 02:42:44 PM
Quote from: skluthLet's not forget airports also need a lot of dedicated infrastructure and land.
Railroad stations don't have to be nearly as big as airports, but the passenger terminals can still end up eating a lot of space. Within downtown districts the cost of space runs at a high cost premium. Older American cities in the Northeast have been getting by with updating big old historic stations. But any true high speed rail connections to them would probably have to be built as very expensive deep bore tunnels farther below those stations. Newer American cities that were built up around the automobile don't have passenger rail terminals like Grand Central in Manhattan or Union Station in DC. A lot of new terminal construction would have to take place. Choosing the right locations would be very tricky.
Rail stations are significantly smaller than any urban airport and smaller cities can fit their stations on less than an acre. It's not unusual to have stations in industrial park-like buildings or even doublewide trailers after cities lose use of their old terminal for other purposes; St Louis had what was sarcastically known as Amshack for a couple decades before their new intermodal terminal was built. Rail stations are also usually on the edge of downtown adjacent to a much larger commercial railyards making the land worth significantly less than other downtown properties. Yes, a deep bore tunnel will probably be needed for NYC, but that's the exception and not the rule. HSR can enter current stations on the same rail as current passenger rail does now; it just needs to switch to its own track within a short distance to run at full speed. The train I mentioned used the regular tracks for a short distance before switching to the HSR line in Madrid and switched back to the regular lines as it approached Malaga. Nobody had a problem with that.
It would also be simple to build new terminals for intermediate stops rather than running them into town. A new South Bend terminal for HSR along the Indiana Toll Road near an interchange would be more useable to the autocentric population of North Central Indiana than the current station which in the city but on the edge of an industrial park. Many cities like Phoenix no longer even have a train station as Amtrak does not run to their cities so new stations will be needed. It wouldn't surprise me to see private/public partnerships with some new stations where a hotel is built above the station essentially sharing the footprint and taking up no more land than a new station alone.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 21, 2022, 10:38:08 AM
Quote from: CerlinThere's also just the consistency and stress benefits of high speed rail. With driving, you are having to focus on that the entire time and there's also inevitable traffic delays (not to mention how frequent car accidents occur comparatively). With flying, it's usually the most expensive and there's a lot of downtime just waiting around (and little time for productivity on the plane). High speed rail fits that niche where you are able to work on things and be productive (like using a laptop), while also not having the stress of driving yourself or the delays that are frequent with those other mediums of transportation.
Taking a longer distance train trip is not much less complicated than taking a plane flight. You have to travel to the train station, deal with parking hassles, go through the check-in/security process, etc. In the best case scenario a true high speed rail station would be conveniently located in a city center within close walking distance of slower commuter rail lines and other modes of transportation. Big airports are often on the outer fringes of a city. Unfortunately big train stations require pretty big footprints of their own. Any new railroad tracks will often have to be built on elevated bridges or put in tunnels deep underground. Obviously both of those options are really expensive. That situation may force the primary train stations for American high speed rail lines to be built on the outer edges of cities, just like airports.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I know it is. My point is most, if not 99% of the knuckleheads in the world don't realize that a high speed train HAS to be on a new alignment. They think, its a train, we have rail road tracks, slap it on that and call it a day.
True high speed rail has to be on dedicated alignments engineered specifically for speeds greater than 150mph. No railroad crossings can be allowed. The alignment also has to be secured to keep pedestrians and large animals from trying to cross the tracks. The closest thing the US has to anything like this is the electrified rail lines from Washington, DC to Boston.
Too often attempts to do high speed rail in the US end up being some kind of dopey compromise. There will be segments of true high speed rail. But some of the route (or a lot of it) has to end up using existing general-purpose rail corridors where passenger and freight service share the same rails.
The HSR project in California (if it ever gets fully built out) will end up being a mix of real high speed rail and conventional rail, particularly as the trains get into suburban and urban areas. It's not going to be an Asian or European style implementation where the high speed line is 100% isolated from other trains and isolated from any at-grade crossings. I'm afraid the Texas HSR project will end up being affected by the same compromises.
Quote from: kernals12Airplanes go faster than trains and don't require any dedicated right of way.
Airplanes in the air don't need any physical right of way other than the flight path they follow when allowed to proceed by the control tower. On the other hand, airports need a hell of a lot of physical space. Depending on the size of the airport the various modes of transportation going in and out of the airport may require a giant amount of space as well. Home owners living near the site of a proposed airport may raise all sorts of hell if their properties are under take-off and landing paths.
Flight paths are less restrictive than you think. It's just like planning a route along highways. There's less hand-holding mid-route than media portrays.
Quote from: skluth on June 21, 2022, 04:43:40 PM
St Louis had what was sarcastically known as Amshack for a couple decades before their new intermodal terminal was built.
Iteration #1:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trainweb.org%2Fusarail%2Fstlouis01.jpg&hash=f82660f34e6587059bab2825de193cbc0ff964af) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trainweb.org%2Fusarail%2Fstlouis02.jpg&hash=1bc42fcfa4f6fde9483c46fe5e2a2a213c90dd0b)
Iteration #2:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trainweb.org%2Fusarail%2Fstlouis2.jpg&hash=ea3e18b9fc2ae374d381e5dc73731ee81f1507c9) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trainweb.org%2Fusarail%2Fstlouis4.jpg&hash=235328675bccd332150a74dc29630ed29dfedb46)
QuoteFlight paths are less restrictive than you think. It's just like planning a route along highways. There's less hand-holding mid-route than media portrays.
Yeah,
that is why I have flown from Shreveport to Houston over Possum Kingdom Reservoir and over Mexico going from Dallas to Houston. (Sarcasm intended)
Quote from: skluthI didn't say along every rural interstate. I added the caveat about being too hilly, yet you're saying HSR can't deal with 6% grades to dismiss my statement. If you've ever been on I-5 in the Central Valley, I-80 from Cheyenne to Cleveland, I-20 through West Texas, I-10 along the Gulf, and plenty of other places, you find most of these stretches almost entirely <1% grade with few steep grades. This doesn't mean steep grades don't exist there nor do I mean every interstate. But just claiming you know it often can't be done everywhere doesn't dismiss my case when I already said it can't be too hilly. I wouldn't attempt HSR along I-80 through Pennsylvania or along I-44 through Missouri.
Look closely at I-5 in California's Central Valley within Google Maps/Earth. Then look closely at some of the in-progress imagery of the high speed rail project there. While I-5 might seem as if it runs a very straight path through that region it does not run a path straight enough to hold something like a high speed rail line within its median or parallel to it. The I-5 path has a lot of minor angles to it. Those angles are nothing for vehicles going 80mph. But those angles are too sudden for a train going 150mph.
Even in a flat state like Kansas a corridor like I-70 has all sorts of little shifts in its path. It's not perfectly straight.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 22, 2022, 12:48:40 AM
Quote from: skluthI didn't say along every rural interstate. I added the caveat about being too hilly, yet you're saying HSR can't deal with 6% grades to dismiss my statement. If you've ever been on I-5 in the Central Valley, I-80 from Cheyenne to Cleveland, I-20 through West Texas, I-10 along the Gulf, and plenty of other places, you find most of these stretches almost entirely <1% grade with few steep grades. This doesn't mean steep grades don't exist there nor do I mean every interstate. But just claiming you know it often can't be done everywhere doesn't dismiss my case when I already said it can't be too hilly. I wouldn't attempt HSR along I-80 through Pennsylvania or along I-44 through Missouri.
Look closely at I-5 in California's Central Valley within Google Maps/Earth. Then look closely at some of the in-progress imagery of the high speed rail project there. While I-5 might seem as if it runs a very straight path through that region it does not run a path straight enough to hold something like a high speed rail line within its median or parallel to it. The I-5 path has a lot of minor angles to it. Those angles are nothing for vehicles going 80mph. But those angles are too sudden for a train going 150mph.
Even in a flat state like Kansas a corridor like I-70 has all sorts of little shifts in its path. It's not perfectly straight.
How tragic. A few curves may need to be rebuilt in the middle of nowhere. I guess that's definitive then. No building HSR where any minor reconstruction may need to be done.
I'm not making up this shit. The math is the math. No one is sticking a 200mph high speed rail line in the median of an existing freeway designed for 70mph automobile speeds.
The only examples I see of railroads being incorporated in the medians of freeways are railroads that operate at conventional "slow" speeds (freight rail, subways/light rail and regular speed passenger rail). And even those railroads don't follow in the median or alongside an Interstate for any more than just a short distance.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 22, 2022, 10:51:03 PM
I'm not making up this shit. The math is the math. No one is sticking a 200mph high speed rail line in the median of an existing freeway designed for 70mph automobile speeds.
He didn't dispute that... in those cases, realign the curves where necessary to accommodate those faster speeds.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2022, 04:00:51 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 22, 2022, 10:51:03 PM
I'm not making up this shit. The math is the math. No one is sticking a 200mph high speed rail line in the median of an existing freeway designed for 70mph automobile speeds.
He didn't dispute that... in those cases, realign the curves where necessary to accommodate those faster speeds.
Which (depending on the road and how close some of these curves are to each other) could mean full reconstructions on long stretches of highway, which would almost be like rebuilding the interstate system from scratch.
Quote
Texas Central CEO resigns and the management team is rumored to have done the same. Texas Central is sadly dead.............next.
They just acquired eminent domain rights from the Texas Supreme Court the other day. Not sure how a CEO leaving equates to dead?
Quote from: austrini on June 27, 2022, 01:19:48 PM
Quote
Texas Central CEO resigns and the management team is rumored to have done the same. Texas Central is sadly dead.............next.
They just acquired eminent domain rights from the Texas Supreme Court the other day. Not sure how a CEO leaving equates to dead?
The ability to get the Imminent domain could have been much easier.All they would have had to do was either buy or lease the Texas Utilities Railroad or Northeast Texas Rural Rail Transportation District (NETEX) lines and run trains on a periodic schedule. It literally could be a day excursion train a couple of weekends a month "in season". That would have made the test of being a "real" railroad.