Will Texas be the first in the country to have high speed rail?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Officials with a non-profit corporation that wants to bring high-speed rail through Central Texas were in Hillsboro last week to update local officials.

The Texas High-Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation (THSRTC) was formed to build grassroots’ support along the proposed route of the project.

Robert Eckels, who is the former county judge of Harris County and now a partner in the law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski, presented the program.

...

THSRTC has proposed a configuration that has become known as the "Texas T-Bone."

Eckels explained that a line would connect Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio and then a line would T off near Temple and go to Houston.

"The configuration reduces the number of miles of track needed from 764 down to 440," the judge said."That is quite a savings when you’re looking at construction costs of $20 to $50 million per mile."

The type of train, whether it be steel wheel or maglev, will dictate the cost.

"It’s expensive anyway you do it, but the project has been designed to attract private investment.

...

The dual-track line would be grade separated but, where possible, officials hope to have the line elevated to limit the amount of ground space it will occupy.

The overall price tag has been placed between $12 and $20 billion.

The state’s two major air carriers, Continental and American Airlines, are supporting the THSRTC.

The rail lines will connect D-FW International Airport in Irving and Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the third and sixth largest airports in the country.

"If there is problems getting flights off the ground in Dallas or Houston, the airlines could put their passengers on the train and have them to the other airport in an hour and a half to catch another flight," the judge pointed out.

...

The THSRTC has set a goal of 2020 to have trains operational in the state.

...

"High-speed rail will change the way we do business by shrinking the state.

"If you look at California, there are geographical hurdles; and on the East Coast, there are space limitations.

"We have a different plan for Texas, and hopefully we can leap frog these other areas and be the first in the country with high-speed rail," the judge added.

http://www.hillsbororeporter.com/default.a...ter&he=.com

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

They've been talking about this for at least 5 years now, and it's a great idea -- especially for these particular routes. The traffic up and down I-35 between San Antonio and DFW is nuts, and a lot of people make this trip once a week or even more. I'd definitely use it if it was cheaper than flying

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Up here in the NY area we already have high speed rail connections to DC and Boston. It isn't really cheaper than flying. But it is infinitely more comfortable and only marginally pricier.

Edited March 16, 2008 by VJ Troll

[Niels Bohr 72]

Up here in the NY area we already have high speed rail connections to DC and Boston. It isn't really cheaper than flying. But it is infinitely more comfortable and only marginally pricier.

Give me a plane anytime.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I hate flying -- trains are much more comfortable. But I also hate spending more money than I have to. SA to DFW is about 300 miles, and about 50 minutes in the air. You can get a roundtrip Southwest flight on special for about $100.

How does the distance/travel time/price of flight vs. high-speed rail compare in NY ?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Up here in the NY area we already have high speed rail connections to DC and Boston. It isn't really cheaper than flying. But it is infinitely more comfortable and only marginally pricier.

Give me a plane anytime.

I've taken the train to DC. I prefer it to flying or driving. Flying means getting to the airport an hour early, waiting in long lines, taking my shoes off and sitting in cramped seats and breathing stale air. The train is much roomier and I am about 5 miles from the Amtrak train station which means I have to leave home about 15 minutes before departure time.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I hate flying -- trains are much more comfortable. But I also hate spending more money than I have to. SA to DFW is about 300 miles, and about 50 minutes in the air. You can get a roundtrip Southwest flight on special for about $100.

How does the distance/travel time/price of flight vs. high-speed rail compare in NY ?

The train ride to DC is about 2 1/2 hours. A flight is quicker, obviously. By car it takes about 4 hours, 5 if there's traffic. When I went, I paid about $80 one-way, $160 round trip. A flight can be found for less.

[cmartyn 0]

The train between Boston and DC has a max speed of 125 mph. Most of the time it lolly gags around on old tracks shared by regular commuter trains. If they were to upgrade the rails then the trip time would get a lot shorter.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Running off what VJ Troll said, I figure the difference in overall time between a flight and a high-speed rail is marginal at best. The reason I say this is due to the variables beyond the trip itself.

Here's how I see the two, broken down:

Airlines

• Need to arrive at least an hour early to the airport (earlier if you need to check-in there, as opposed to doing so online and/or have bags to check).
• Have to deal with TSA's "security carnival."
• Will usually have to sit around the airport (after rushing there to make it on-time) while waiting for your plane to arrive and flight to board.
• Carry-on and checked baggage space is at a premium, especially on smaller regional jets.
• When sitting in Economy Class, the seating can be very cramped. This can be made worse if you have the "dreaded middle seat" and some planes, such as turboprops and regional jets, lack First Class or Business Class, so everyone is cramped (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your outlook).
• Once the plane has taken off, flying becomes the fastest way to travel (although not always the most hassle free).
• There are probably more airports and therefore more destinations covered by airlines in the U.S. than rail trains.

High-Speed Rail

• Don't need to arrive nearly as early or ahead of time in order to make it to your train.
• While I'm sure there's some form of security, I doubt there's TSA there performing the same ridiculous stunts.
• Instead of sitting around an airport while waiting for your plane, you get to sit around a train station and wait for your train.
• I don't know much about the luggage capacity of rail trains, but from what I gather, they have much more space allotted than planes do.
• On many trains, there are different "classes" in which to sit, but even in the rail version of Economy Class, there's still far more room to stretch and move about than on any jet.
• Even the fastest rail will take longer than a plane. Flying is simply very, very fast once up in the air.
• Since rail trains require tracks to move about (and can only travel on these tracks), these trains are somewhat limited in where they may travel, whereas planes can theoretically fly to any airport.

I'm sure there's some other comparisons I should have included as well, but I couldn't think of them. I didn't add in "price" because that varies by season, airline, rail, destination, etc. In other words, the prices are in a constant state of flux, so it's difficult to say what is definitively more expensive.