DFW High-Speed Dispute: Airport vs. Downtown

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RobertB

Train Attendant
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Union Station, Dallas
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that a rift has developed between some of the backers of high-speed rail in Texas. It's a classic dispute, with a twist. I would think that many cities have had a debate about whether to run HSR into the downtown core vs. out to the airport... but Dallas and Fort Worth have downtowns that are separated by 30 miles, with the airport in between. And on top of that, the two cities very seldom come together on regional planning issues, with DFW airport itself being the notable exception (and one that was somewhat forced on the cities by the feds in the early '70s).

Here's some tidbits:

Tarrant County [Fort Worth side] Commissioner Gary Fickes is among those who favors 200-mph trains on elevated tracks -- possibly on right of way along Texas 360 in Arlington -- to one station at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. From there, a passenger could hop on a train and be in Houston in about 80 minutes, stopping only a few times to pick up passengers along the 250-mile journey.
Such a system would cost much more than other proposals but could be privately funded, and would be better for the state long term, Fickes argues. A Japanese company has already moved to Texas to put together a bullet-train proposal.
My thoughts on the matter: While I would love to see a high-speed rail terminal in downtown, it would require massive displacement of existing homes and businesses, and would be difficult to route around those damned freeways that choke off both downtown cores like a noose. Also, there's no long-term parking in either downtown core, and I think Texas high-speed rail will be much better off if it doesn't have to rely solely upon those city dwellers who have decided to go car-free. Each one of those issues is fully addressed by routing HSR to DFW Airport.

Also from the article:

On Monday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that $15 million had been awarded to Texas for design of a high-speed rail line connecting Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston.
It was part of a $2 billion program that included the redistribution of money initially awarded to Florida for development of a high-speed-rail line from Tampa to Orlando.
Please let me say a big Texas "Thank y'all" to Florida, for turning your backs on that awful Federal money. It's tainted, of course, but we'll make the great sacrifice of spending it for you. Y'all keep up the good work. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been living in Texas since the mid 1980's and I say with some confidence that there will never be a major HSR network in this state in my lifetime. Passenger rail is (rightly) viewed as a threat to our local airlines, bus lines & charter companies, rental car companies, and tollway operators. I've watched their lobbying groups kill similar projects in the past and I have no doubt they could kill any future attempt just as easily as the last one.
 
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that a rift has developed between some of the backers of high-speed rail in Texas. It's a classic dispute, with a twist. I would think that many cities have had a debate about whether to run HSR into the downtown core vs. out to the airport... but Dallas and Fort Worth have downtowns that are separated by 30 miles, with the airport in between. And on top of that, the two cities very seldom come together on regional planning issues, with DFW airport itself being the notable exception (and one that was somewhat forced on the cities by the feds in the early '70s).

Here's some tidbits:

Tarrant County [Fort Worth side] Commissioner Gary Fickes is among those who favors 200-mph trains on elevated tracks -- possibly on right of way along Texas 360 in Arlington -- to one station at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. From there, a passenger could hop on a train and be in Houston in about 80 minutes, stopping only a few times to pick up passengers along the 250-mile journey.
Such a system would cost much more than other proposals but could be privately funded, and would be better for the state long term, Fickes argues. A Japanese company has already moved to Texas to put together a bullet-train proposal.
My thoughts on the matter: While I would love to see a high-speed rail terminal in downtown, it would require massive displacement of existing homes and businesses, and would be difficult to route around those damned freeways that choke off both downtown cores like a noose. Also, there's no long-term parking in either downtown core, and I think Texas high-speed rail will be much better off if it doesn't have to rely solely upon those city dwellers who have decided to go car-free. Each one of those issues is fully addressed by routing HSR to DFW Airport.

Also from the article:

On Monday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that $15 million had been awarded to Texas for design of a high-speed rail line connecting Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston.
It was part of a $2 billion program that included the redistribution of money initially awarded to Florida for development of a high-speed-rail line from Tampa to Orlando.
Please let me say a big Texas "Thank y'all" to Florida, for turning your backs on that awful Federal money. It's tainted, of course, but we'll make the great sacrifice of spending it for you. Y'all keep up the good work. ;)
The original post has been edited to comply with the copy write guidelines found HERE
 
I think it would be very hard to do a 220 mph train in Texas. Using emminent domanin to get that much land will be very tough. Right now TXDOT plan is to use existing rail rightof ways between the cities. They know money isn't coming from the state and they are trying to do it as cheaply as possible.

I have no idea where you could build a HSR station in Houston. The place is pretty congested. A lower speed that would use an existing right of way could be built from downtown to downtown. The TXDOT grant application mentions running trains like this at 150mph. It also gives a strong implication the the while they will study three routes the most likely is the BNSF route which goes through nowhere between the cities.

Two week ago I sent a message to TXDOT asking some questions about the HSR plan but haven't gotten an answe back.
 
Using emminent domanin to get that much land will be very tough.
Imminent domain is unlikely to be used for long distance passenger rail as the cost would be far too great for a bankrupt state like Texas to purchase that much land. We simply don't have enough teachers left to fire to recoup that kind of outlay.

Right now TXDOT plan is to use existing rail rightof ways between the cities. They know money isn't coming from the state and they are trying to do it as cheaply as possible.
Existing ROW would be subject to the same delays our current service is subject to. If and when the economy ever picks up those delays are likely to return in full force. At that time our passenger rail network can either accept large numbers of late trains or they can pad the schedule to the point that trains will still arrive on time. Either way they open themselves to persistent ridicule.
 
So neither imminent domain or a current ROW can be used.

All that would be left is laying track up the center of the interstates.

I read the TXDOT grant proposal. 3 routes were proposed between Houston and Dallas. One on UP track which would pass through College Station. One on the BNSF route would doesn't pass through any cities. And one which would use the UP route up through Conroe and Huntsville then a new line would be built along I-45 to Corsicana.

It also said they were looking at 150 mph trains to run from downtown to downtown. It doesn't mention it but the Houston Station which is owned by UP would almost have to be rebuilt. At least there is room around the area to bring in an electrified line. Dallas' Union Station has no room for any extra track.

I sure wouldn't put a station in Arlington, they have made it very clear they do not want to spend a penny on mass transit so why give them a HSR station.
 
I've been living in Texas since the mid 1980's and I say with some confidence that there will never be a major HSR network in this state in my lifetime. Passenger rail is (rightly) viewed as a threat to our local airlines, bus lines & charter companies, rental car companies, and tollway operators. I've watched their lobbying groups kill similar projects in the past and I have no doubt they could kill any future attempt just as easily as the last one.
Southwest Airlines was a huge and vocal opponent of enhanced rail options in the '80s (which is also when I moved to Dallas, cool). But from what I read on the DallasMetropolis.com forums, they are no longer voicing opposition to the plan. Short-haul routes just aren't as profitable as they used to be, especially now that the time spent makin' whoopee with the TSA is now comparable to the drive time from Dallas to Austin on a good day (and that's before even arriving at the gate). With their purchase of AirTran, Southwest's focus may shift even more towards medium-haul domestic destinations as well as Mexico/Carribean... which means they may see HSR as a feeder, not a competitor.

The original post has been edited to comply with the copy write guidelines found HERE
Sorry about that! I pared the article down in my original post, but apparently this board's guidelines are more strict than I expected. Understandably so, given the board's nationwide scope and visibility. I'll be more circumspect in the future.

Imminent domain is unlikely to be used for long distance passenger rail as the cost would be far too great for a bankrupt state like Texas to purchase that much land. We simply don't have enough teachers left to fire to recoup that kind of outlay.
Texas, bankrupt? Hogwash. We haven't even gone through the firefighters and policemen yet! (Seriously, if Perry doesn't think this is enough of a "Rainy Day" to tap into the eponymous Fund, I'd hate to see his idea of stormy weather.) (But I'm afraid I will soon.)

ps: Eminent Domain :)
 
So neither imminent domain or a current ROW can be used. All that would be left is laying track up the center of the interstates.
Which was the core aspect of the last major proposal, and that one was quickly and easily felled by the lobbyists of competing interests. Bottom line, it isn't going to happen. I wish it wasn't so, but nothing I've read since the last big bust has given any indication that things are any different now than they were back then. We're still at the mercy of people who don't have our best interests at heart just like we were back then. The one and only chance for large scale HSR in America is along the West Coast. Those members who couldn't care less if California succeeds or fails must not yet realize that if California can't find a way to make it work then there will be no financial or political capital left over to restart the HSR bandwagon again afterward.
 
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that a rift has developed between some of the backers of high-speed rail in Texas. It's a classic dispute, with a twist. I would think that many cities have had a debate about whether to run HSR into the downtown core vs. out to the airport... but Dallas and Fort Worth have downtowns that are separated by 30 miles, with the airport in between. And on top of that, the two cities very seldom come together on regional planning issues, with DFW airport itself being the notable exception (and one that was somewhat forced on the cities by the feds in the early '70s).

Here's some tidbits:

Tarrant County [Fort Worth side] Commissioner Gary Fickes is among those who favors 200-mph trains on elevated tracks -- possibly on right of way along Texas 360 in Arlington -- to one station at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. From there, a passenger could hop on a train and be in Houston in about 80 minutes, stopping only a few times to pick up passengers along the 250-mile journey.
Such a system would cost much more than other proposals but could be privately funded, and would be better for the state long term, Fickes argues. A Japanese company has already moved to Texas to put together a bullet-train proposal.
My thoughts on the matter: While I would love to see a high-speed rail terminal in downtown, it would require massive displacement of existing homes and businesses, and would be difficult to route around those damned freeways that choke off both downtown cores like a noose. Also, there's no long-term parking in either downtown core, and I think Texas high-speed rail will be much better off if it doesn't have to rely solely upon those city dwellers who have decided to go car-free. Each one of those issues is fully addressed by routing HSR to DFW Airport.

Also from the article:

On Monday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that $15 million had been awarded to Texas for design of a high-speed rail line connecting Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston.
It was part of a $2 billion program that included the redistribution of money initially awarded to Florida for development of a high-speed-rail line from Tampa to Orlando.
Please let me say a big Texas "Thank y'all" to Florida, for turning your backs on that awful Federal money. It's tainted, of course, but we'll make the great sacrifice of spending it for you. Y'all keep up the good work. ;)
What on Earth can Texas do for $15 Mil (245 miles) that Florida can't do for $2 Bil (85 miles)? $15 Mil won't get you from Union Station to the Trinity River. Dallas and Houston are MUCH higher travelled city pairs especially when compared to Tampa - Orlando. The distance is just right, too. The biggest problem is there is ABSOLUTELY no viable city to service in between.
 
Southwest Airlines was a huge and vocal opponent of enhanced rail options in the '80s (which is also when I moved to Dallas, cool). But from what I read on the DallasMetropolis.com forums, they are no longer voicing opposition to the plan.
It's true that Southwest and Continental are a little busy right now, but that by no means should be interpreted as any sort of surrender. These groups are even stronger now as their size and scope of influence has grown tremendously compared to what it was during the last failed push for expanded passenger rail.

Short-haul routes just aren't as profitable as they used to be, especially now that the time spent makin' whoopee with the TSA is now comparable to the drive time from Dallas to Austin on a good day (and that's before even arriving at the gate).
I've yet to have a single flight to either Dallas or Houston that consumed as much time as driving there, TSA and all.

Texas, bankrupt? Hogwash. We haven't even gone through the firefighters and policemen yet!
Firefighters and Policemen tend to vote center-right so they are often spared many embarrassments more liberal unions must suffer. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. In any case thanks for the correction about the spelling of eminent domain!

What on Earth can Texas do for $15 Mil (245 miles) that Florida can't do for $2 Bil (85 miles)?
I don't think it's intended to actually do anything. Frankly I think even $15M is too much to waste on Texas. The feds need to get one single project up and running quickly rather than spreading miniscule funding across dozens of unrelated projects that won't add much if any momentum on their own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Planning and study money is for the purpose of looking like you are doing something without really doing anything. The other question is who is getting the job. Some of these are paybacks for political favors given to Joe Smucks business who knows nothing of significance on the subject. There are a few companies out there that do have people that really know what they are doing, but not many.
 
*sighs*

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I do see this sort of thing as why many rail projects should be handled at the federal level (where those local interests have less of a chance to muck up things). There are times and places that you've just got to make plans to stick the rail line in and run state-level opposition over. Florida is a wonderful case in point, as is Wisconsin...I would have loved to see Rick Scott and Scott Walker try to refuse the projects only to find that the feds had taken them entirely out of their hands and were putting them in anyway.

Of course, I say this because I do believe that once you get these lines in place and have them operating for 5-10 years, they'll become a lot harder to kill off, and you can start forcing at least some costs back to the states in question. The federal government is probably better-suited to getting projects built than a lot of states are...though even there, obviously, the mechanisms are far from perfect.
 
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I do see this sort of thing as why many rail projects should be handled at the federal level (where those local interests have less of a chance to muck up things). There are times and places that you've just got to make plans to stick the rail line in and run state-level opposition over. Florida is a wonderful case in point, as is Wisconsin...I would have loved to see Rick Scott and Scott Walker try to refuse the projects only to find that the feds had taken them entirely out of their hands and were putting them in anyway.
There are still several pro-rail states that would be thrilled to receive additional funding. Why not simply give that funding and the jobs that go with it to the states the actually want it? Maybe after all those states have functional systems we can worry about the anti-rail states. Keep in mind that Florida is one of those exceedingly rare swing states that the executive branch still pays attention to, so you probably won't see anyone pushing them around for the time being. Texas isn't a swing state but neither is there is anything to be gained by forcing passenger rail on us. Nothing ticks off a Texan more than being offered help from the federal government. Our governor has repeatedly threatened to secede from the union in retaliation for having to include uninsured and underinsured Texans in the upcoming universal health care system and for being asked to accept federal funds in the form of extended unemployment benefits on behalf of jobless recession era Texans. What I don't think most people outside of Texas understand is that Rick Perry isn't just another dumb-as-nails Bush appointee, he actually understands the Texan psyche perfectly. Here in Texas we'd rather go down in flames, literally, than let the federal government lend us a hand and Rick Perry gets that.
 
You know DFW-HOU HSR is off to a bad start when people think the $15 million grant is for the ACTUAL line, not the study for the line.

And then it'd take about 1-2 years for TxDOT to make a 150 page report that basically confirms MY GRAND IDEAS!!! :D

And then the question comes: Where will we get the money?

I dunno. I hope that Amtrak puts in some suggestions, as they actually know what they're doing.

Because Texas has very little intercity rail service and particularly NO direct service between Dallas and Houston, there's going to be a complex series of options.

This compares with the NEC where the only step is bringing the railroad up to a state of good repair and build a true HSR line.

Or in California where there's already corridor service, and the biggest bang-for-your-buck would be connecting the Central Valley line to LA.

In Texas, there are several places where borderline HSR (~200 km/h) or true HSR (250-350km/h) can be placed or paralleled: Railroads (which would have to have curve easements to allow higher speeds), Interstate Highways (Wide grassy mediums are the best for that, urban ones wouldn't be cheap), New ROW (almost all in the countryside), or next to high-voltage power lines (if they're straight as an arrow for dozens of miles).

HSR wouldn't have to knock down homes and businesses in populated areas because either a) The true HSR line bypasses the populated area or b) The HSR line goes along the existing railroads in the populated area, even if it has to go less than 200 km/h.

Also, references to speeds of HSR lines around the world have to be converted into imperial units, because there's too many cases where people confuse km/h with MPH. :help: No people, there aren't 300 mph high-speed trains around the world.

@Anderson, there are forces that could derail this plan at a federal level, plus the Feds need to reform their grant process for HSR (Hey, there's a lot of things that need to be reformed up in Washington! :p ).

If Texas designed the project, then they would probably aim for a 200 km/h design, as that's all that would be needed to connect the major cities within the Texas Triangle with travel times of 3.5 hours or less. If the feds were planning the system as part of a national network, they'd probably aim for 300-400 km/h, so that Oklahoma and Louisiana can have competitive travel times to cities in Texas.
 
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I do see this sort of thing as why many rail projects should be handled at the federal level (where those local interests have less of a chance to muck up things). There are times and places that you've just got to make plans to stick the rail line in and run state-level opposition over. Florida is a wonderful case in point, as is Wisconsin...I would have loved to see Rick Scott and Scott Walker try to refuse the projects only to find that the feds had taken them entirely out of their hands and were putting them in anyway.
There are still several pro-rail states that would be thrilled to receive additional funding. Why not simply give that funding and the jobs that go with it to the states the actually want it? Maybe after all those states have functional systems we can worry about the anti-rail states. Keep in mind that Florida is one of those exceedingly rare swing states that the executive branch still pays attention to, so you probably won't see anyone pushing them around for the time being. Texas isn't a swing state but neither is there is anything to be gained by forcing passenger rail on us. Nothing ticks off a Texan more than being offered help from the federal government. Our governor has repeatedly threatened to secede from the union in retaliation for having to include uninsured and underinsured Texans in the upcoming universal health care system and for being asked to accept federal funds in the form of extended unemployment benefits on behalf of jobless recession era Texans. What I don't think most people outside of Texas understand is that Rick Perry isn't just another dumb-as-nails Bush appointee, he actually understands the Texan psyche perfectly. Here in Texas we'd rather go down in flames, literally, than let the federal government lend us a hand and Rick Perry gets that.
Wisconsin is probably the poster child for where forcing rail makes sense: Minnesota and Illinois "get it", as does Michigan. Wisconsin is being difficult...it would have been far better, ultimately, to jam some of the Florida money onto the Wisconsin project.

As to why we can't just put it in where there's support, there are two reasons:

1) In the case of WI, you have one state in the middle that is blocking up a multistate project. To a lesser extent, Indiana could fall into this category if it started mucking up the Chicago-Detroit corridor. If you can get most of the states onboard a project, dragging one in the middle along makes sense. For another example of this, if you could get VA, NC, and GA to agree on a rail project from WAS-ATL and SC got in the way...the line goes in with or without SC's approval.

2) More importantly, though, I think we need to expand where there's good rail service beyond those areas where it has support at present. The NEC, CA, IL, and MI aren't quite enough...you've got to add some places to those core areas. Right now, it's basically a red-vs-blue issue...you need to push beyond that.

As to FL...I think the situation there is a bit more complicated: The legislature seemed to want the rail line. The people seem to want it. The only thing getting in the way was the Governor...and Rick Scott is the sort of guy you want on the other guy's team. As I understand it, he's not popular in Florida and he killed a popular project. If anything, I'd be wheeling and dealing with the legislature to commit to loading this into a later budget (FL is very rider-resistant) and pushing the project forward around the Governor's objection while pulling it from his jurisdiction. But in that case, you'd be "forcing" the project on the Governor but more or less acting at the behest of the legislature and the population at large (at least as I understand it).
 
I've been living in Texas since the mid 1980's and I say with some confidence that there will never be a major HSR network in this state in my lifetime.

Nor in mine and I have lived here all my life. I even rode trains between Houston and Dallas many times. They could start service right now if they wanted too. The BNSF line between Dallas and Houston is lightly used and in good shape. Until the mid 1960's service on this line was four hours between Dallas and Houston. With a little fixing up they could better that easily. Houston Metro has plans for a nice multi-modal transit facility on North Main that would serve it's light rail line, commuter trains and inter-city trains, all they have to do is build it. Dallas has it's Union Station and Fort Worth has it's practically new inter-modal station. The trains could stop at a DFW station on the way to Fort Worth from Dallas. It's not rocket science. These people simply have no common sense. Not only will this never 'fly', the $15 million will just be money burned up with no results.

All over Europe these so called high speed trains use conventional tracks to get into the downtown stations. Texas could do the same. It doesn't require some special elevated ROW to get into the downtowns. Suggestions like this from these so called 'experts' just display their total ignorance about the subject they are addressing.
 
Wisconsin is probably the poster child for where forcing rail makes sense: Minnesota and Illinois "get it", as does Michigan. Wisconsin is being difficult...it would have been far better, ultimately, to jam some of the Florida money onto the Wisconsin project.

As to why we can't just put it in where there's support, there are two reasons:

1) In the case of WI, you have one state in the middle that is blocking up a multistate project. To a lesser extent, Indiana could fall into this category if it started mucking up the Chicago-Detroit corridor. If you can get most of the states onboard a project, dragging one in the middle along makes sense. For another example of this, if you could get VA, NC, and GA to agree on a rail project from WAS-ATL and SC got in the way...the line goes in with or without SC's approval.

2) More importantly, though, I think we need to expand where there's good rail service beyond those areas where it has support at present. The NEC, CA, IL, and MI aren't quite enough...you've got to add some places to those core areas. Right now, it's basically a red-vs-blue issue...you need to push beyond that.

As to FL...I think the situation there is a bit more complicated: The legislature seemed to want the rail line. The people seem to want it. The only thing getting in the way was the Governor...and Rick Scott is the sort of guy you want on the other guy's team. As I understand it, he's not popular in Florida and he killed a popular project. If anything, I'd be wheeling and dealing with the legislature to commit to loading this into a later budget (FL is very rider-resistant) and pushing the project forward around the Governor's objection while pulling it from his jurisdiction. But in that case, you'd be "forcing" the project on the Governor but more or less acting at the behest of the legislature and the population at large (at least as I understand it).
There is/was a key distinction between WI & FL: The WI project was fully funded by the feds with respect to initial construction costs, but the state was expected to pay the ongoing operating costs/subsidies; whereas the FL project was not expected to need any ongoing operating subsidies. If it is simply a construction effort, funding the project through Amtrak would be a way around any "difficult" state, but it is the operating subsidies that can't exactly be forced upon that state. (I should mention that I am a WI resident who completely supported the MKE-MSN project, including state operating subsidies.)

As far as the CHI-DET corridor, so long as IN is not expected to contribute to the project, I see no reason why that state would muck it up. Frankly, the portion through northwest Indiana and into Chicago ought to be more of a federal/Amtrak-led effort anyway, given the extent to which it benefits nearly all trains that serve CHI from anywhere to the east (whether it's Detroit, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, New York, Washington, etc.).
 
I've been living in Texas since the mid 1980's and I say with some confidence that there will never be a major HSR network in this state in my lifetime.

Nor in mine and I have lived here all my life. I even rode trains between Houston and Dallas many times. They could start service right now if they wanted too. The BNSF line between Dallas and Houston is lightly used and in good shape. Until the mid 1960's service on this line was four hours between Dallas and Houston. With a little fixing up they could better that easily. Houston Metro has plans for a nice multi-modal transit facility on North Main that would serve it's light rail line, commuter trains and inter-city trains, all they have to do is build it. Dallas has it's Union Station and Fort Worth has it's practically new inter-modal station. The trains could stop at a DFW station on the way to Fort Worth from Dallas. It's not rocket science. These people simply have no common sense. Not only will this never 'fly', the $15 million will just be money burned up with no results.

All over Europe these so called high speed trains use conventional tracks to get into the downtown stations. Texas could do the same. It doesn't require some special elevated ROW to get into the downtowns. Suggestions like this from these so called 'experts' just display their total ignorance about the subject they are addressing.
Houston metro cancelled the plans for the intermodel station last year due to budget problems.
 
Houston metro cancelled the plans for the intermodel station last year due to budget problems.
I am quite aware of that. However, 15 million would go a long way toward building it wouldn't it. Just because it has been cancelled doesn't mean it has gone away or will never be built. Right now there is simply no need for it as Houston has no commuter trains or any plans to have any in the near future nor will it have any inter-city trains any time soon. We are doing good to just keep the Sunset Limited three times a week.
 
All over Europe these so called high speed trains use conventional tracks to get into the downtown stations. Texas could do the same. It doesn't require some special elevated ROW to get into the downtowns. Suggestions like this from these so called 'experts' just display their total ignorance about the subject they are addressing.
I totally agree with this! Although I've said many times that is disagree with building true HSR in Texas until we actually get some corridor service, but when/if it comes, you have to build to downtowns. Are people that ride the system going to want to go to the airport or go downtown? My non-scientific opinion is that most will want to go downtown. If they wanted to go to the airport they would have just flown from Houston, unless of course they got on at a smaller town and planned to fly.

However, this whole airport vs. downtown can easily be solved if the line stopped in DT Dallas and continued on the TRE ROW to make a stop at the airport and onto DT Ft. Worth. I'm no track engineer, but is there anything that stops a 200 mph trainset traveling on conventional rail? As Henry states, I don't think so. Acela does this all along the NEC.

Dallas Union Station has plenty of room for expansion. Somewhere I saw planners want to move the UP line and reroute freights outside of downtown. Not sure about that one though. There's also a big area right beside Union Station thats just a parking lot. And there's the area where Reunion Arena once stood on the other side of the tracks.
 
It's true that Southwest and Continental are a little busy right now, but that by no means should be interpreted as any sort of surrender. These groups are even stronger now as their size and scope of influence has grown tremendously compared to what it was during the last failed push for expanded passenger rail.
Still doesn't mean that Southwest WILL oppose it either. Plus so what if they do? HSR is being talked about more than ever before in this country. SW has a big presence in California now too, when they didn't in the 90's. Have you seen any indication that they oppose that? I haven't. Why would they not oppose California HSR and would oppose Texas HSR?

And Continental is really now part of United. They have many other money making markets they can be concentrating on. Not a couple of regional flights between IAH and DAL or College Station.

Short-haul routes just aren't as profitable as they used to be, especially now that the time spent makin' whoopee with the TSA is now comparable to the drive time from Dallas to Austin on a good day (and that's before even arriving at the gate).
I wish I had the numbers with me, but the number of passengers that Southwest carried between DAL and HOU back in 1990 is somewhat more than what it is today. They use to fly every half hour between the two all day long, but now you can see they've cut back their mid-day service to only once an hour. (morning and afternoon is still every half hour)
 
I think we may have a false dichotomy...why not run full-speed HSR into downtown Dallas, and then run the trains out to DFW (or both DFW and LUV), potentially on the way to Fort Worth (yes, I know the Dallas airport alignment makes a mess of this)? I know it would make TRE mostly redundant (and you'd probably want a slightly different alignment so you could actually run the train near the DFW terminal), but there's no reason you can't do a variation on both. Likewise, if you back down the speed (say, to a top speed of 110 MPH) within the DFW metro area, there's no reason you can't run other local trains on the route as long as you make pass-through allowances and/or juggle scheduling. There's also no reason you couldn't terminate some trains in downtown Dallas if track capacity became an issue.
 
By 2014 Dart, Dallas light rail will connect to DFW. It won't go straight from Union Station but one could make a connection from an Union Station light rail train to DFW.

When Fort Worth gets it's Tarrant Express going one could ride a commuter train from the Fort Worth ITC straight into DFW.
 
Something to think about in all this. California and Oregon/Washington get along just fine with conventional trains running at reasonable speeds on freight owned tracks. Texas could easily do the same. True high speed rail is extremely expensive and requires a separate and completely new row. When the Burlington/RI ran trains between Houston and Dallas on a four hour timing up into the 1960's they did it on jointed rail with only block signals, hand thrown switches for the sidings and written train orders. You would think that now 50 years later with space age technology they could easily do better just with conventional trains.
 
Something to think about in all this. California and Oregon/Washington get along just fine with conventional trains running at reasonable speeds on freight owned tracks. Texas could easily do the same. True high speed rail is extremely expensive and requires a separate and completely new row. When the Burlington/RI ran trains between Houston and Dallas on a four hour timing up into the 1960's they did it on jointed rail with only block signals, hand thrown switches for the sidings and written train orders. You would think that now 50 years later with space age technology they could easily do better just with conventional trains.
Add NC-VA and IL-MI-WI as well.

It's hard to imagine that a state (TX) that is unwilling/unable to operate 79-110mph Amtrak trains will suddenly be willing and able to build and operate 150-220mph HSR. If it is, then more power to 'em. But generally I'd think you'd want to establish at least a small network of conventional (79-90, maybe 110 mph) trains before embarking on a full scale HSR project.
 
Back
Top