Re: DALLAS to HOUSTON High Speed Rail
Posted: 12 Sep 2018 14:56
Iconic in this case could just be that we actually get a bullet train.
The HSR should very clearly replace Union Station.muncien wrote:Almost makes you question the need for Amtrak to even stop at Union Station anymore...tamtagon wrote:...just for fun:
There's your connection to Fort Worth! Amtrak & TRE, no problem.
I'd take the trench/deckpark over the reroute any day. I really hate how much nature that reroute plan would gobble up. It would be quite depressing...Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Slightly off topic. But what happened to CityMAP?
That plan of rerouting i-30 would be tremendous for the city of Dallas. Particularly for this area.
The Texas Bullet Train has inched closer to the goal of becoming a reality with the securing of a loan of up to $300 million.
Texas Central, the company implementing the high-speed train between Houston and North Texas, announced Thursday that it has secured the loan from the Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment Corp. for Transport & Urban Development, or JOIN, and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.
Texas Central will use the funds to move ahead on permitting, design and engineering, as well as other preliminary work needed to launch construction during 2019.
The interest-bearing loan along with the equity provided to date – mostly coming from Texas entrepreneurs – will provide enough funding for all activities required for the project to reach financial close, Texas Central said in a news release.
You are probably right, but I had no idea there was a 'rival' to Texas Central, legitimate or otherwise.I think you are overthinking headline writers.
The Chinese technology is only interchangeable because they stole theirs from the Europeanstamtagon wrote:At this stage of the game, the technology deal is really the only thing about Texas Central I've had concerned. IIRC, most/all the other HSR service providers are interchangeable and/or compatible (French, Chinese etc), but the Japanese is not. The presumption all along has bee that the Triangle and/or T will eventually connect DFW-Houston-SanAustintonio, so the Japanese route could end up being by itself or whatever.
tamtagon wrote:If/when HSR is confirmed and a station construction schedule starts webbing into the surrounding area, we'll begin to see exactly what roll Union Station will play. The Convention Center will have to sponsor/participate in a major TOD mixed use renovation reconfiguring the 'backside' into a frontside and moving the light rail station.
If the HSR actually gets built, the scale of the development shown in that presentation may be on small side.Tnexster wrote:
I just received that presentation this afternoon, saw that pic and had to look real close. At first I wasn't sure what city it was until I looked closer. That's pretty cool but also very ambitious.
I was watching the City Hall video feed for part of the presentation and when they showed the deck park, Sandy Greyson asked if that was a realistic proposal or just a concept, and was told that this was "dreaming", i.e. just a vision for something that could happen.Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Nice deck park.
The City of Dallas using Tax dollars to invest in developments at the TCR endpoint that improve connectivity with existing transit modes, enhance the vibrancy of the area, etc is very different than taxpayer funding of the actual HSR line itself. TCR was always going to develop the station itself, but the surrounding area, transit connections, etc are outside their purview. Turning Lot E into a transit hub makes a lot of sense, but it's not something TCR could "make happen" on their own.Hannibal Lecter wrote:So much for "no tax dollars".
You honestly think the Bridge will still operate when Smart City and more residential projects go up? Ha .. I don't think so.lakewoodhobo wrote:I'm betting there's a bit of an unspoken concern about the deck park connecting to St. Paul, where it would face the new entrance of The Bridge.
I'm all about designing the park for the next 100 years and hoping we'll solve the homeless problem well before then, but I think this is the big elephant in the room right now.
Learned something new about this project this week. The project manager for London's Crossrail project will or rather is the project manager for this project. He started October 1st.tamtagon wrote:tamtagon wrote:If/when HSR is confirmed and a station construction schedule starts webbing into the surrounding area, we'll begin to see exactly what roll Union Station will play. The Convention Center will have to sponsor/participate in a major TOD mixed use renovation reconfiguring the 'backside' into a frontside and moving the light rail station.If the HSR actually gets built, the scale of the development shown in that presentation may be on small side.Tnexster wrote:
I just received that presentation this afternoon, saw that pic and had to look real close. At first I wasn't sure what city it was until I looked closer. That's pretty cool but also very ambitious.
I also like that they referenced King's Cross station in London as an example of what ours could look like. We may never get a station quite as integrated into the neighborhood as that one, but the lobby and shops themselves are great.Tnexster wrote: Learned something new about this project this week. The project manager for London's Crossrail project will or rather is the project manager for this project. He started October 1st.
I still get promotional emails from Renfe from the time I took HSR from Madrid to Barcelona. Nice to see them join Texas Central.Tnexster wrote:Texas Bullet Train developer names new operating partner
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... ating.html
A Spanish rail operator and an Italian engineering contractor have recently partnered with developer Texas Central to build a bullet train between Dallas and Houston.
The Spanish company, Renfe, brings more than 25 years of experience in operating high-speed trains in Europe and other countries. Renfe operates 5,000 trains daily on 7,500 miles of track, from local commuter routes to high-speed national and international travel. It handled more than 487 million passengers and moved 19.6 million tons of freight in 2017.
Texas Central also has engaged the multinational firm Salini Impregilo – operating in the U.S. market with The Lane Construction Corp. – to lead the civil construction consortium that will build the passenger line.
The State of Texas is not going to subsidize a HSR train anywhere. If Brightline can build a higher speed train in Florida, and possibly in California as well, Texas will expect private enterprise to do so here too.tamtagon wrote:It's hard for me to think about the Dallas to Houston trains without including the rest of the triangle, so....
I'm okay with a state funding contribution to get San Antonio and Austin hooked-up. Neither probably has the traffic potential yet, and are too far apart (distance and existence) for a combined station, so the state could front the money to help weave the route connecting the two downtown's, and the state can pick-up the cost to put a station in Temple/Fort Hood, Waco maybe. The Laredo station is a real wildcard in my mind, but Monterrey is a given.
Get the I-35 and I-10 corridors rail in place before it fills up even more.
When the politicians see how popular the route is, they will be tripping over themselves to build at least the SAT-DAL part of the triangle.tamtagon wrote:It's hard for me to think about the Dallas to Houston trains without including the rest of the triangle, so....
I'm okay with a state funding contribution to get San Antonio and Austin hooked-up. Neither probably has the traffic potential yet, and are too far apart (distance and existence) for a combined station, so the state could front the money to help weave the route connecting the two downtown's, and the state can pick-up the cost to put a station in Temple/Fort Hood, Waco maybe. The Laredo station is a real wildcard in my mind, but Monterrey is a given.
Get the I-35 and I-10 corridors rail in place before it fills up even more.
Right. The maps that the state has provided for 2040 include lots of other potential raillines that are most likely state/federally funded. The group building the Dallas/Houston line hasn't mentioned any of the others that I've heard of.When the politicians see how popular the route is, they will be tripping over themselves to build at least the SAT-DAL part of the triangle.
They have, just not publicly. They need to prove this works first, then look out.The_Overdog wrote:Right. The maps that the state has provided for 2040 include lots of other potential raillines that are most likely state/federally funded. The group building the Dallas/Houston line hasn't mentioned any of the others that I've heard of.When the politicians see how popular the route is, they will be tripping over themselves to build at least the SAT-DAL part of the triangle.
What a couple of stupid laws... Question... Can we make highways meet 'minimum security requirements'? 3,000 fatalities per year in Texas alone...electricron wrote:While the state has studied expanding intercity passenger rail service in Texas, it has yet to commit any funding for them. In fact, in just the last session the Texas Legislature passed laws prohibiting TXDOT funding HSR.
Per https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/ ... 202560.php
"One of the two measures that will become law, Senate Bill 975, outlines minimum security requirements for the construction and operation of the privately funded proposed HSR line. The other, SB 977, prohibits the state from spending money to build or operate a high-speed rail line in Texas."
One can disagree with the public policy of SB977 (but just calling it stupid does not really make the policy case).muncien wrote:What a couple of stupid laws... Question... Can we make highways meet 'minimum security requirements'? 3,000 fatalities per year in Texas alone...electricron wrote:While the state has studied expanding intercity passenger rail service in Texas, it has yet to commit any funding for them. In fact, in just the last session the Texas Legislature passed laws prohibiting TXDOT funding HSR.
Per https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/ ... 202560.php
"One of the two measures that will become law, Senate Bill 975, outlines minimum security requirements for the construction and operation of the privately funded proposed HSR line. The other, SB 977, prohibits the state from spending money to build or operate a high-speed rail line in Texas."
Well, the stupidity of SB977 is so obvious, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out. HSR is a proven transportation technology that has been used extensively, and is far safer than road travel. TXDOT is a TRANSPORTATION agency for the state... not a HIGHWAY agency. Having bureaucrats actively PROHIBIT a transit agency from using a safe/proven mode of transportation can hardly be described as anything other than 'stupid'.Tucy wrote:One can disagree with the public policy of SB977 (but just calling it stupid does not really make the policy case).muncien wrote:What a couple of stupid laws... Question... Can we make highways meet 'minimum security requirements'? 3,000 fatalities per year in Texas alone...electricron wrote:While the state has studied expanding intercity passenger rail service in Texas, it has yet to commit any funding for them. In fact, in just the last session the Texas Legislature passed laws prohibiting TXDOT funding HSR.
Per https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/ ... 202560.php
"One of the two measures that will become law, Senate Bill 975, outlines minimum security requirements for the construction and operation of the privately funded proposed HSR line. The other, SB 977, prohibits the state from spending money to build or operate a high-speed rail line in Texas."
As to SB975, what is objectionable about requiring the railroad to (1) in the manner required by law for intercity passenger railroads, implement all security requirements of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or its successor agency; (2) conduct periodic risk-based threat and vulnerability assessments; and (3) in consultation with TSA, implement certain appropriate security measures in response to results of the assessments,etc?
Maybe you should read the law. It does not purport to require absolute safety without fail, and it's primarily speaking about security (from terrorism, crime etc.), not safety from crashes and the like.muncien wrote:Well, the stupidity of SB977 is so obvious, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out. HSR is a proven transportation technology that has been used extensively, and is far safer than road travel. TXDOT is a TRANSPORTATION agency for the state... not a HIGHWAY agency. Having bureaucrats actively PROHIBIT a transit agency from using a safe/proven mode of transportation can hardly be described as anything other than 'stupid'.Tucy wrote:One can disagree with the public policy of SB977 (but just calling it stupid does not really make the policy case).muncien wrote:
What a couple of stupid laws... Question... Can we make highways meet 'minimum security requirements'? 3,000 fatalities per year in Texas alone...
As to SB975, what is objectionable about requiring the railroad to (1) in the manner required by law for intercity passenger railroads, implement all security requirements of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or its successor agency; (2) conduct periodic risk-based threat and vulnerability assessments; and (3) in consultation with TSA, implement certain appropriate security measures in response to results of the assessments,etc?
SB975 sounds fantastic on the surface... Of course we want everything to be safe and secure. But forcing HSR to comply with something that other modes of transportation can't even come close to meeting is counterproductive. I'm not saying it shouldn't be safe... as I said in my original post, it should be the same for all. Imagine if 3000 Texans died every year in airplane crashes, or train accidents, as they do in the automobile.
Yes... Perhaps I should elaborate. My contention isn't with the contents of the bill itself, but more with the motivations behind it. Being that exactly zero people have ever been killed in Texas due to terrorist attacks on trains, 'safety' isn't exactly the bill author's motivation. This bill was submitted by representatives in areas that disagree with this project specifically (because it doesn't benefit them) in order to make life more difficult for those building it. Those who claim to oppose over regulation (I am one of them), cannot on the other hand impose regulation on something simply because they don't agree with it. It is hypocrisy at it's best...Tucy wrote:Maybe you should read the law. It does not purport to require absolute safety without fail, and it's primarily speaking about security (from terrorism, crime etc.), not safety from crashes and the like.muncien wrote:Well, the stupidity of SB977 is so obvious, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out. HSR is a proven transportation technology that has been used extensively, and is far safer than road travel. TXDOT is a TRANSPORTATION agency for the state... not a HIGHWAY agency. Having bureaucrats actively PROHIBIT a transit agency from using a safe/proven mode of transportation can hardly be described as anything other than 'stupid'.Tucy wrote:
One can disagree with the public policy of SB977 (but just calling it stupid does not really make the policy case).
As to SB975, what is objectionable about requiring the railroad to (1) in the manner required by law for intercity passenger railroads, implement all security requirements of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or its successor agency; (2) conduct periodic risk-based threat and vulnerability assessments; and (3) in consultation with TSA, implement certain appropriate security measures in response to results of the assessments,etc?
SB975 sounds fantastic on the surface... Of course we want everything to be safe and secure. But forcing HSR to comply with something that other modes of transportation can't even come close to meeting is counterproductive. I'm not saying it shouldn't be safe... as I said in my original post, it should be the same for all. Imagine if 3000 Texans died every year in airplane crashes, or train accidents, as they do in the automobile.
How do you know their motivations? And what about the motivations of all of the senators and representatives (including quite a few from areas the rail will benefit)?muncien wrote:Yes... Perhaps I should elaborate. My contention isn't with the contents of the bill itself, but more with the motivations behind it. Being that exactly zero people have ever been killed in Texas due to terrorist attacks on trains, 'safety' isn't exactly the bill author's motivation. This bill was submitted by representatives in areas that disagree with this project specifically (because it doesn't benefit them) in order to make life more difficult for those building it. Those who claim to oppose over regulation (I am one of them), cannot on the other hand impose regulation on something simply because they don't agree with it. It is hypocrisy at it's best...Tucy wrote:Maybe you should read the law. It does not purport to require absolute safety without fail, and it's primarily speaking about security (from terrorism, crime etc.), not safety from crashes and the like.muncien wrote:
Well, the stupidity of SB977 is so obvious, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out. HSR is a proven transportation technology that has been used extensively, and is far safer than road travel. TXDOT is a TRANSPORTATION agency for the state... not a HIGHWAY agency. Having bureaucrats actively PROHIBIT a transit agency from using a safe/proven mode of transportation can hardly be described as anything other than 'stupid'.
SB975 sounds fantastic on the surface... Of course we want everything to be safe and secure. But forcing HSR to comply with something that other modes of transportation can't even come close to meeting is counterproductive. I'm not saying it shouldn't be safe... as I said in my original post, it should be the same for all. Imagine if 3000 Texans died every year in airplane crashes, or train accidents, as they do in the automobile.
If indeed these folks cared about the safety of Texas's as much as they profess to, they should put more focus on automobile safety. The fact that we as a country are 'okay' with the fact that every year we loose as many people automobile accidents as we did for the entire Korean war, is just maddening. We should be promoting safer alternative modes of transportation, not discouraging them.
The bill AUTHOR himself couldn't talk about the bill without expressing his obvious opposition to the project in the same sentence...Tucy wrote:How do you know their motivations? And what about the motivations of all of the senators and representatives (including quite a few from areas the rail will benefit)?muncien wrote:Yes... Perhaps I should elaborate. My contention isn't with the contents of the bill itself, but more with the motivations behind it. Being that exactly zero people have ever been killed in Texas due to terrorist attacks on trains, 'safety' isn't exactly the bill author's motivation. This bill was submitted by representatives in areas that disagree with this project specifically (because it doesn't benefit them) in order to make life more difficult for those building it. Those who claim to oppose over regulation (I am one of them), cannot on the other hand impose regulation on something simply because they don't agree with it. It is hypocrisy at it's best...Tucy wrote:
Maybe you should read the law. It does not purport to require absolute safety without fail, and it's primarily speaking about security (from terrorism, crime etc.), not safety from crashes and the like.
If indeed these folks cared about the safety of Texas's as much as they profess to, they should put more focus on automobile safety. The fact that we as a country are 'okay' with the fact that every year we loose as many people automobile accidents as we did for the entire Korean war, is just maddening. We should be promoting safer alternative modes of transportation, not discouraging them.
The bill passed by wide margins in both the House and Senate (94-29 and 24-6, respectively)