High speed rail for texas ain't a road!

[RogueIce]

Same can be said for those traveling by air between Dallas and Houston or for any place you would travel to; rent a car or Uber it.

That's not really going to help the daily commuters, though. Which I imagine accounts for most of the typical intended traffic between Dallas and Houston. Well, maybe Uber I guess.

Perhaps I see things a bit differently because many Long Islanders certainly drive to LIRR stations especially to the lines that have higher frequencies to take a train into NYC where there aren't a whole lot of free parking, but a whole lot of expensive garages.

But NYC itself actually has decent mass transit for when you get there, which is the key thing. When I was in Boston for a month, I did much the same thing; I was staying in one of the towns a ways away, and drove to the MTA light rail station in that town. When I got to Boston, I could use the Subway and such to get where I needed to go.

The problem is, if Dallas and Houston don't have decent mass transit to where the commuters need to go, they won't ride a high-speed rail only to walk 4 miles in the Texas summer or whatever. They'll just drive.

It's like my University professor who lives in Orlando example. If it takes the same amount of time to use mass transit when he gets to Tampa for a less than 10 mile journey as it would to just drive there in the first place, why would he take the high speed rail link? Especially if the schedule isn't terribly convenient between when the Orlando -> Tampa and Tampa -> Orlando trains run, whenever that would have been?

[Soontir C'boath]

Well yes, absent of mass transit, there is always the taxi which people in NYC by the way, still use pretty well despite the availability of the subway and buses.

People who come from NYC to go to work on Long Island certainly make use of the taxis waiting for them at the station as Nassau and especially Suffolk county mass transit can be found wanting. It's kind of a weird role reversal here where most would deem mass transit vile but here it seems the taxi cannot be seen as the de facto mode of getting around places with or without mass transit in place.

[Elheru Aran]

Taxis do work in an urban context. They aren't quite 'mass transit' as you can only fit so many people in a cab, but it's one way to avoid having to use your personal vehicle or renting one if you only need to do a few direct hops from point A to point B. Of course this is highly variable on context and can get expensive...

[Borgholio]

Of course this is highly variable on context and can get expensive...

Cost for taxis can be an issue, but it's always a good idea to spend a bit more to support your local Raw Shark. Without him, the "Conversations from the Professional front lines" thread would be far less entertaining.

[Elheru Aran]

Of course this is highly variable on context and can get expensive...

Cost for taxis can be an issue, but it's always a good idea to spend a bit more to support your local Raw Shark. Without him, the "Conversations from the Professional front lines" thread would be far less entertaining.

Sure, absolutely

But seriously though. For a lot of people, if they had to pay what train tickets currently cost to get from point A to point B... and then there's no public transit from Point B to their ultimate destination at C... either they spend money that they really can't afford to spend to get a ride there, or they have to phone around to arrange for a pick-up, or they walk. Not everybody can just call a taxi over, give them a destination, and sit back to pay casually when they get there.

To give a random example using stuff local to me, say a relative of mine arrives at Atlanta airport. He knows where I live, but he neglected to inform me that he's coming in, and for whatever reason I'm not picking up my phone. A taxi from Atlanta airport to my location would be ~$60-100, easy (given that Atlanta has one of the worst reputations for traffic in the South). That's a pretty good wad.

Whereas if there was a bus (or metro, or trolley-car, or what have you), or even a local commuter rail, the trip could probably be accommodated for less. The place of taxis is more rapid local transportation than it is longer trips. This is useful in urban centers, as I mentioned-- you can accommodate all your needs (work, lodging, shopping, eating) within a small radius, so it's easy to just drop a couple of bucks for a quick ride. For longer trips, no.

[Me2005]

I think the problem with this in Texas is similar to the problem out here in the Pacific Northwest - we're too spread out. NYC has about 3x the population in 1/3rd the land area as we do here in the Seattle/Tacoma greater metro areas in western WA, where traffic is now 4th worst in the country. Same thing with Europe vs. the US - they're about 3x more people in 1/3rd the area. Places with good transit are 9x higher density, because the solutions are cheaper to build (shorter routes) and can still accommodate more people.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Texas high speed rail is a PRIVATE COMPANY which has done economic studies convincing its investors that it will make a profit. They are the very epitome of capitalism. They simply want to use the same eminent domain process all traditional freight private railroads did to build their railroads in the 19th century. This is absurd and anti-capitalist; Texas is trying to disadvantage a modern railroad from using the same processes that built America, just because its legislators are brain dead morons scared the train might be more popular than cars. They understand nothing. The market is so dense that the DFW - Houston /San Antonio triangle is expected to be profitable, as some high speed lines around the world are, including amortized building costs, which are low because it's mostly open flat land, unlike in Europe or California or Japan.

[madd0ct0r]

I think the problem with this in Texas is similar to the problem out here in the Pacific Northwest - we're too spread out. NYC has about 3x the population in 1/3rd the land area as we do here in the Seattle/Tacoma greater metro areas in western WA, where traffic is now 4th worst in the country. Same thing with Europe vs. the US - they're about 3x more people in 1/3rd the area. Places with good transit are 9x higher density, because the solutions are cheaper to build (shorter routes) and can still accommodate more people.

Don't underestimate the ability of transport hubs to encourage denser population.

[Elheru Aran]

I think the problem with this in Texas is similar to the problem out here in the Pacific Northwest - we're too spread out. NYC has about 3x the population in 1/3rd the land area as we do here in the Seattle/Tacoma greater metro areas in western WA, where traffic is now 4th worst in the country. Same thing with Europe vs. the US - they're about 3x more people in 1/3rd the area. Places with good transit are 9x higher density, because the solutions are cheaper to build (shorter routes) and can still accommodate more people.

Don't underestimate the ability of transport hubs to encourage denser population.

Not sure if it's entirely applicable, but Atlanta (as noted, my general location) may qualify as one such-- rail, air, and highways all converge here. It's also the most populous urban area in Georgia, due to residents of the outlying towns and small cities being able to easily commute into town for employment while living outside the city proper in classic suburbia. Of course, it's got one of the worst records for traffic in the US... coincidence? Not really. Also bear note that all this happened in roughly the past 40-50 years or so, IIRC (possibly less). A long time-- but not all *that* long, considering.

[Me2005]

The Texas high speed rail is a PRIVATE COMPANY which has done economic studies convincing its investors that it will make a profit.

Did not realize this, in that case, let them do what they will - if they can make money AND provide a working transit system, go ahead and let them.

Don't underestimate the ability of transport hubs to encourage denser population.

I know that they do, but I'm concerned that the density simply doesn't exist in some of the areas mass transit solutions are being suggested, and won't for decades while the rest of us will be saddled with the cost of the system today.