High-speed rail line in Texas - Aye or nay? (Houston: to rent, neighborhoods)

[JBAinTexas]

Do you support a high-speed rail line in Texas, and why or why not?

[Campeador]

Originally Posted by JBAinTexas

Do you support a high-speed rail line in Texas, and why or why not?

Aye!

1. Because airline travel has gotten to be a dehumanizing and dreadful experience.

2. Because I've used high-speed trains to travel through Europe and China and it is very handy.

3. Because I tend to like city centers in general, not suburbia, and I think rail makes sense to connect Texas' urban centers.

4. Because single cars driving up and down I 35 is wasteful, bad for the air, and unaesthetic.

[Mr. Clutch]

Sure, it's a great idea. Now, I'd personally rather wait for the Hyperloop concept to mature, but in the meantime I don't see the point in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[gtt99]

No, I do not support the rail line:
1. We are not Europe - different mentality, different approach to life. We are not better or worse, we just have a different approach to transportation.
2. Lots of people will lose their lands / property due to eminent domain. I wouldn't want to be the one to lose my land or have a train station in my back yard.
3. We already have a train system in the US- AMTRAK. It's not widely popular.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by gtt99

No, I do not support the rail line:
1. We are not Europe - different mentality, different approach to life. We are not better or worse, we just have a different approach to transportation.
2. Lots of people will lose their lands / property due to imminent domain. I wouldn't want to be the one to lose my land or have a train station in my back yard.
3. We already have a train system in the US- AMTRAK. It's not widely popular.

It is on the east and west coasts. Almost every Acela I take is full and the Cascadia line I took a few weeks ago between Portland and Seattle was full too. The issue with Amtrak is that it can't compete with airlines over longer distance routes. But short distance routes 250 miles or less? It's better than the airlines in every single way.

If there was an Amtrak line, even at conventional speeds, from Houston to Dallas it would be popular, but it doesn't exist. High speed line will be extremely popular once built and drive development in both cities.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Campeador

Aye!

1. Because airline travel has gotten to be a dehumanizing and dreadful experience.

2. Because I've used high-speed trains to travel through Europe and China and it is very handy.

3. Because I tend to like city centers in general, not suburbia, and I think rail makes sense to connect Texas' urban centers.

4. Because single cars driving up and down I 35 is wasteful, bad for the air, and unaesthetic.

In other words, you're susceptible to the phony HSR propaganda directed toward Social Justice Warriors and similar wannabees.

The European and Asian systems of the present day are possible only because the possession and maintenance of a private vehicle have long been discouraged by discriminatory taxation, and because the taking of private property for "public" use via the "principle" of eminent domain is more common. In the case of Japan's shinkansen (conceived in the Fifties), the reduction of many urban areas to rubble via American bombing made the task easier in a culture where "the nail that sticks out must be hammered down".

With recent developments on the energy front, the possession of private vehicles by people of ordinary means now seems more sustainable than ever. (You can now rant about "global warming", and your cuddly polar bears if you like). There will be further improvements in mass transportation, but only in those cities where urban congestion, rather than direct expense, is the driving factor.

Most of us don't (or can't) participate in extensive foreign travel, and are more concerned about mobility in the real world, on our own schedule and at our own convenience, rather than chosen by bureaucratic fiat in the name of some supposed "greater common good".

As for Hyperloop, it's like the other Snowflake dream of "self-driving" automobiles -- a pretty fantasy possible only under tightly-controlled (there's that word again) conditions, but unlikely to be adaptable to everyday life without a great deal of time, expense, political infighting, and similar frustration.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

In other words...

I don't understand most of the philosophical objections you raise.

There are interstate highways between all the major and minor cities of Texas. Why couldn't a high speed rail line simply be added to the right-of-way? Trains aren't very wide.

The objective would be for high speed rail to replace flying, not driving. So, you would expect to rent a car at your destination.

If you have technical objections to raise, or if you want to make the argument that there would never be an ROI, those are valid grounds for rational people to disagree, but just assuming that everyone who supports alternative types of transportation besides airlines and personally driven vehicles is some kind of pinko Commie is not responsive to real issues that exist.

[ragnarkar]

Aye, as long as it's not gonna cost taxpayers a ridiculous amount.

I'd much rather invest in something like the Hyperloop, assuming it works, rather than get a high speed rail line only to have it become obsolete to the Hyperloop.

[centralaustinite]

I'm all for a high speed train but NOT a re-tread of Perry's ridiculous trans-Texas corridor plan that was going to require taking immense amounts of land by eminent domain.

If you have ever taken the Texas Eagle (Amtrak) that runs from SA to Chicago, you will find it is quite full. Despite the slow speed and unpredictability (freight trains take priority on the rails).

[kidicarus89]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

In other words, you're susceptible to the phony HSR propaganda directed toward Social Justice Warriors and similar wannabees.

The European and Asian systems of the present day are possible only because the possession and maintenance of a private vehicle have long been discouraged by discriminatory taxation, and because the taking of private property for "public" use via the "principle" of eminent domain is more common. In the case of Japan's shinkansen (conceived in the Fifties), the reduction of many urban areas to rubble via American bombing made the task easier in a culture where "the nail that sticks out must be hammered down".

You must've missed the freeway craze of the 1950s and 1960s where neighborhoods were sliced in half to make way for 8 lane freeways. All eminent domain. You also forget that the U.S. already has the world's most extensive railroad network - it's just used for freight. Europe and Japan are amenable to high speed rail because their cities are tightly laid out and are geographically small, relative to the U.S. Not because of any libertarian-revisionist nonsense.

I don't see high-speed rail connecting every city in America, but regional networks are promising.A 'Texas T-bone' style HSR that connects Dallas to Austin to Houston would work well. I for one would much rather hop on a train ride instead of fighting my way to the airport, going through security, and worrying about delays. I'm sure a lot of Texans would love to avoid the dreaded I-35 trek.