yes but if you use a little brain power you can see a triangle will be ~600 miles. And if you look at other lines you will see 18 billion is a joke for that length of line.
Best thing about this is not having to arrive at the train station 1 - 1.5 hours before departure to check-in, get through security, etc. Ideally, this would help set the stage for expanding the rail network within Austin and Houston. Dallas is already ahead in this respect.
I want a high speed rail also. I rode on a mag-lev and it was freaking awesome but the cost is crazy.
OK, forget the triangle. If anything is built, they should start with Dallas to Houston and forget the others. I'm not saying anything should be built, only that the DFW-IAH lane is 90% of what they should focus on. If the goal is to reduce aircraft departures and automobile traffic in Texas, this is where the tire meets the road. Instead of 600 miles, it would be closer to 250 miles. If this section doesn't make sense, none of it does.
I'm with you on the Dallas/Houston route. Here's something I didn't know: http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=6753 In the past, the negative reaction to such proposals came from the airlines. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Texas worked with European companies to help develop the idea of the “Texas Triangle” — rail lines that would link the Metroplex, San Antonio, and Houston. But lobbying by American and Southwest airlines helped kill the project because the airlines thought high-speed rail would cut into their short-hop Texas business. This time around, however, T-bone supporters are courting the airlines’ support. American and Continental airlines have members on the THSRTC board and are monitoring the plan. The reason airlines are at least wiling to consider it now, according to industry sources, is that high fuel costs have made short-hop flights less profitable, and the airlines might want to link DFW to Austin passengers by train rather than by an airplane.
what about ticket prices? In the UK trains (non-high speed) are just as expensive as airline tickets.
I worked at Continental for 17 years and I'm familiar with what happened in the past. Southwest was, by far, the main airline culprit in lobbying against rail. Continental's issue was that it would serve DFW but not IAH, which would have given AA a competitive advantage. I seriously question the need for anything but Houston to Dallas. The airline and auto traffic between those two metro areas blows everything else away by a mile. Secondarily they could consider Dallas to Austin I suppose. A major project like this has to be done in conditional steps or it will end up being too much of a bloated pig.
hey, it's another cool train! let's throw money at it! yeah! trains are sooooo cool! you can get to all these cities easily by car and by airplane already. Seems like a waste of cash
The new California high speed rail is either going to be the next Big Dig, or it's going to be converted to normal speed rail really soon. The State government authorized ~$10 Billion for it. An independent analysis says it's going to cost $90 Billion.
I don't understand how all of these super lowball figures are out there. High speed trains are expensive as hell.
The state authorized $10 billion for the first line, connecting SF to LA. They're doing it in segments. I'd say that's a smart way to do it.
