High Speed Rail Texas (Houston, Dallas: house, buy, schools)

[dallas,texas]

Hey everyone. If you read replys on my MASS TRANSIT in dallas post, many people were talking about making a high speed rail around major cities in texas (aka. dallas, houston, houston, SA, SA, Austin, Austin back to dallas or Ft. Worth)this would be a great idea but probalt wont happen for a long time, but it would be great!

Of course Dallas and Houston should improve theyre Light Rail Line 1st, but they already are but Dallas is doing a great job on that and so is Houston.


post replys on this idea and maybe something will happen in the future,

thanks

[cdelena]

With reasonable fares on SW airlines and close in airports (Love, Hobby, etc.) I am not sure I would care about using a train when back in Texas. The only reason that train travel continues anywhere in the country is because of federal subsidies and I would not be for more rail on the dole.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by cdelena

With reasonable fares on SW airlines and close in airports (Love, Hobby, etc.) I am not sure I would care about using a train when back in Texas. The only reason that train travel continues anywhere in the country is because of federal subsidies and I would not be for more rail on the dole.

For a weekend trip. If you want to leave Houston for Dallas to shop or dine or even sleep and than go to Austin to check out the capital to UT and then go to San Antonio and visit the Riverwalk and the Alamo then arrive back in Houston for to end your weekend. Would you want to get on a plane to do all that? I would think not. It is much more convenient to carry your shopping bags or whatever else you may have on the train than on the airplane. A HSR is mostly there for people who don't feel like driving all the time.

[Philip T]

High Speed Rail in Texas tends to be blocked by SW Airlines and others in the airline industry who lobby Austin severely to make sure it does not exist. Real swell folks with "favorable" pricing, huh?

High Speed Rail could easily be elevated along the Interstate Highway routes and connect Dallas/FW, San Antonio, and Houston, along with many towns that do not even have decent airline service now. This would consume no additional land, and create no road crossing conflicts. Been studied in high detail. The airline industry studied it in high detail, as well, and figured it would cut into their money. So they would rather pay lobbies in Austin to screw the rest of Texas. While of course, they suck down government money for their airports, security, the FAA, and fuel supplies.

[cdelena]

Originally Posted by Philip T

High Speed Rail in Texas tends to be blocked by SW Airlines and others in the airline industry who lobby Austin severely to make sure it does not exist. Real swell folks with "favorable" pricing, huh?

High Speed Rail could easily be elevated along the Interstate Highway routes and connect Dallas/FW, San Antonio, and Houston, along with many towns that do not even have decent airline service now. This would consume no additional land, and create no road crossing conflicts. Been studied in high detail. The airline industry studied it in high detail, as well, and figured it would cut into their money. So they would rather pay lobbies in Austin to screw the rest of Texas. While of course, they suck down government money for their airports, security, the FAA, and fuel supplies.

Sure rail can be built but where will the Billions of capital come from? I have not seen a proposal that makes finances come out without very large tax contributions. Should people in Texas or the rest of the country, most who will never even consider using this rail, be forced to pay for it?

[changeofpace]

This attitude and arguement of not paying for what you dont use drives me insane. Who and how would you decide what you pay for? We have no children, therefore, I should not have to pay for schools, parks and playgrounds? We dont use the library, so we should not have to pay for them? We on only use 3 streets to get to work, so we should not have to pay for any others? We dont hunt or fish, so we should not have to pay for lakes and public hunting land? Exactly what public highways, streets, facilities, schools, parks, etc., etc., would we have if only the people who used them paid for them, (to build and to maintain). If you dont want to pay for anything, then buy a house in the country, with a well and septic system, dont leave your property and enjoy your money. By the way, not electricity or phone service since what you pay directly does not pay for the cost of the lines going into you property. Ah, no fire or police protection either, sorry.

[cdelena]

Originally Posted by changeofpace

This attitude and arguement of not paying for what you dont use drives me insane. Who and how would you decide what you pay for? We have no children, therefore, I should not have to pay for schools, parks and playgrounds? We dont use the library, so we should not have to pay for them? We on only use 3 streets to get to work, so we should not have to pay for any others? We dont hunt or fish, so we should not have to pay for lakes and public hunting land? Exactly what public highways, streets, facilities, schools, parks, etc., etc., would we have if only the people who used them paid for them, (to build and to maintain). If you dont want to pay for anything, then buy a house in the country, with a well and septic system, dont leave your property and enjoy your money. By the way, not electricity or phone service since what you pay directly does not pay for the cost of the lines going into you property. Ah, no fire or police protection either, sorry.

Schools, libraries, parks, and paved streets are what make civilization work and we all pay a fair share locally. Mass transit in the NE corridor (the Amtrak money pit, or a proposed Texas line) requires substantial contributions from people many miles away that get no direct or even indirect benefit. A much different proposition.

[changeofpace]

You missed the point entirely. Who will decide what each tax payer pays for if we are allowed to pick what we use and pay for. I am not defending high speed rail since I am not familiar with the area and the need, I just get cant stand the rediculous arguement that "I dont use it so I shouldnt have to pay for it". If you are not in favor of the rail your reasoning should be based on need, resources available and an alternate way to move people without driving individual automobiles. Not everyone has a car, not everyone want to drive long distances and not everyone can afford either. Every mode of public transportation is subsidized and every single person who drives their own auto is benefiting from subsidized highways thru federal, state and county funding.

[cdelena]

Originally Posted by changeofpace

...
I just get cant stand the rediculous arguement that "I dont use it so I shouldnt have to pay for it".
...

Was not my argument at all... all I was saying is that projects should be funded by the appropriate interest group. National taxes to things that have national interest, state or area funding where appropriate and local as needed. My point was that the proposed Texas line would require such large capital investment that it would probably take taxation that is broader than appropriate, serving a narrow interest group but taxing many with no interest.

An example of a massive project that falls into that category (miss-funded) is the Boston big dig local road project where the Federal government spent 8.5 billion of the 13.6 billion. Local lobbying roped the country into paying for something (because if the Interstate highway designation) that takes an amazing stretch to find national interest.

I have and will continue to pay for things I will never use or even see, but we should not just assume that any project that provides mass transit is economically sound and that the public should be taxed without a vote to fund them.

[teatime]

As someone who goes to England fairly often and uses their rail system, I would LOVE to see a high-speed rail line in Texas!!! It's fast, inexpensive, clean and convenient. A lot more fun, too.

I can't stand Southwest Airlines -- with their stand in line and grab a seat, air bus service. YUCK! On a trip of any substance, there are 2-3 stops. Btw, Virgin America has gotten the go-ahead and is starting their cheap but classy air travel in California to the East Coast. All of the major Texas cities are included in their next expansion. I can't wait!!!!! (Southwest and the gang were big-time fighting Virgin America's permitting, LOL.)

Hey -- Sir Richard Branson (owner of the Virgin companies) put in high-speed rail in England. Wonder if he'd be willing to do a Texas line since his transportation group is here in the States? I wish!