I think - might need to hear more of the details before making a final decision...

But I guess the high speed train being proposed to connect Houston and Dallas is on Trump's list of infrastructure projects he approves. And the group trying to build the train just acquired key parcels of land in some of the counties that would connect the two cities. It would be the first high speed train in the US, and would allow you to travel from Houston to Dallas in about 90 minutes (with one stop along the way somewhere near Baylor maybe?).

The only thing I don't necessarily like is that the starting point in Houston would be just north of the loop and near 290, and that area is kind of a mess to get to due to ongoing construction for about the last 20-30 years.

http://www.texascentral.com/

(02-08-2017 08:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think - might need to hear more of the details before making a final decision...

But I guess the high speed train being proposed to connect Houston and Dallas is on Trump's list of infrastructure projects he approves. And the group trying to build the train just acquired key parcels of land in some of the counties that would connect the two cities. It would be the first high speed train in the US, and would allow you to travel from Houston to Dallas in about 90 minutes (with one stop along the way somewhere near Baylor maybe?).

The only thing I don't necessarily like is that the starting point in Houston would be just north of the loop and near 290, and that area is kind of a mess to get to due to ongoing construction for about the last 20-30 years.

http://www.texascentral.com/

Well they will be done in the next year with that construction. Downtown would be nice, but the people in the Heights objected and the last 6 miles would be the most expensive.

I'm sure it will eventually get ruined. Stops will be added and little towns popping up everywhere. Thats where the money is at and thats what will happen. In 10 years it won't be high speed rail, it will be mass transit.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

The hell if I'll ever get in an automated vehicle. But agree about the trains. Too expensive. Might as well take a short flight or drive.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

Yes they are. The U.S turned its nose up to railroads in the 70's. They though it would die off, which is why it took passenger travel away from railroad companies and started Amtrak. Amtrak was suppose to only exist for only 5 years. Then discontinue passenger service.

I think if the U.S had developed rail transportation like Europe, things would be a lot different and the country would be better with that kind of transportation.

Our freight rail is actually better than Europe's. But our passenger rail to theirs is like comparing hitchhiking to space travel.

I'd call that, in the balance, a poor investment.

Rail is a good idea in certain places. Especially in the northeast.

However, when talking about making a national high speed rail service that connects everything, you cannot possibly compare our situation to that of Europe. For instance, the entire country of Germany (which is a large European country) is the size of Montana. It's much easier for them to build such an infrastructure and using it is much more practical.

Right now, the cost of producing national rail outweighs the advantages and/or the desire for it.

Also, if you've ever read Atlas Shrugged....yeah. Trust me.....if the clamor for national rail really existed, private initiatives would've been all over it already.

(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

According to who? The interstate highway is the cheapest and fastest way to get anywhere until within 5 hours, when you get to the point that flying is faster, but driving is still cheaper.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If someone wants to finance this as a business? fine. Otherwise?...fix the damn potholes.

(02-08-2017 10:17 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

Yes they are. The U.S turned its nose up to railroads in the 70's. They though it would die off, which is why it took passenger travel away from railroad companies and started Amtrak. Amtrak was suppose to only exist for only 5 years. Then discontinue passenger service.

I think if the U.S had developed rail transportation like Europe, things would be a lot different and the country would be better with that kind of transportation.

Amtrak cost $90 round trip per person to DC from here and then you have to take a Metro to wherever you are going and hotels are more expensive within the Metro. I can drive for $30 gas and stay wherever I want. I can travel when I want. Amtrak, meanwhile, is insolvent.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(02-08-2017 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Our freight rail is actually better than Europe's. But our passenger rail to theirs is like comparing hitchhiking to space travel.

I agree; however, geographic distances make passenger rail travel in the US logistically annoying. I took the train all over Europe and loved it. However, in the States I can drive to a destination quicker than if I took the train to the same destination.

(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

I assume you mean for moving bulk freight.

It is the most efficient on a cost basis and environmental basis as well.

(02-09-2017 09:54 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

I assume you mean for moving bulk freight.

It is the most efficient on a cost basis and environmental basis as well.

Barges are the most efficient.

(02-09-2017 06:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:17 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

Yes they are. The U.S turned its nose up to railroads in the 70's. They though it would die off, which is why it took passenger travel away from railroad companies and started Amtrak. Amtrak was suppose to only exist for only 5 years. Then discontinue passenger service.

I think if the U.S had developed rail transportation like Europe, things would be a lot different and the country would be better with that kind of transportation.

Amtrak cost $90 round trip per person to DC from here and then you have to take a Metro to wherever you are going and hotels are more expensive within the Metro. I can drive for $30 gas and stay wherever I want. I can travel when I want. Amtrak, meanwhile, is insolvent.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

The 95 corridor line of Amtrak is actually profitable. It's the only one that is though.

Unless you're staying in the DC suburbs, you're not factoring in $25-30+ per night for parking. Even if you stay in the burbs, you're going to have to pay for parking when you get to the city. I lived in DC long enough to learn that trying to find parking was a time wasting and costly venture.

It depends on the amount of cargo and where it is going. Barges can't hold much and are useless in arriving at most inland locations.

One advantage to mass transit is you don't have to find, and pay for, a parking space downtown.

(02-09-2017 10:28 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:17 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.

trains really are the best form of transportation.

now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.

Yes they are. The U.S turned its nose up to railroads in the 70's. They though it would die off, which is why it took passenger travel away from railroad companies and started Amtrak. Amtrak was suppose to only exist for only 5 years. Then discontinue passenger service.

I think if the U.S had developed rail transportation like Europe, things would be a lot different and the country would be better with that kind of transportation.

Amtrak cost $90 round trip per person to DC from here and then you have to take a Metro to wherever you are going and hotels are more expensive within the Metro. I can drive for $30 gas and stay wherever I want. I can travel when I want. Amtrak, meanwhile, is insolvent.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

The 95 corridor line of Amtrak is actually profitable. It's the only one that is though.

Unless you're staying in the DC suburbs, you're not factoring in $25-30+ per night for parking. Even if you stay in the burbs, you're going to have to pay for parking when you get to the city. I lived in DC long enough to learn that trying to find parking was a time wasting and costly venture.

I stay in Fairfax and if I need to go into the city I drive a few miles and park in Vienna for $5. The only time I ever stay in the city is if I am at a multi-day conference taking place in the city, in which case I drive to Springfield and park there at $5 per day and take the Metro in. On top of that, if I take the train, the train coming home leaves Union Station at 2PM, which more often than not would cost another night and a wasted day since business and conferences won't allow me to leave at 2PM. It is much faster and cheaper to drive. The one time I did take the train, it sat idle in Richmond for an hour and the transit time was over 4 hours (takes 2.5 to drive). I have done the analysis many times.