329
Texas poised to get America's first bullet train
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
329 points (98.0% liked)
News
23413 readers
1675 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I still think NYC-Chicago is the real test of high speed rail in this country. A route people want to take, that’s far enough to fly, between two cities where car ownership is optional.
I’m glad Dallas-Houston is happening but I wonder how much traffic it will get. In my midwestern mind they’re both just “texas big city”
It's not surprising that the first city pair would be a commonly traveled route with cheap flat land in between. Once that's demonstrated to work, they can start trying it for cities where the need to purchase rights for the route will be more expensive, and on terrain where long straight segments are more challenging to construct.
This source says average, about 24,000 people drive between the two cities any given day, and there are about 30 commercial flights per day between the cities. That sounds like a decent amount of potential demand.
But how walkable are Dallas and Houston? I think the success of this is predicated on that, because if people can’t get around without a car, they’ll take one with them.
Still though, pretty cool. Sucks it’ll be in Texas but progress is progress.
Depends on where you are, but with that 30 flight number there's definitely plenty of people that aren't bringing their cars with them.
Texas is barely walkable from the back of the giant parking lot into the store.
Dallas proper has some light rail around downtown with a couple lines that travel outward, and even a train that goes from Downtown Dallas to downtown Fort Worth. It's still difficult to get to a lot of places outside downtown, the American Airlines Center, and the State Fair ground though.
Houston I think has some buses, but it would also be difficult to get too far from downtown.
Houston sometimes has sidewalks. Sometimes.
Houston has some light rail also.
Well fortunately we have Uber, so people can take Ubers around. It's less energy efficient than each person having their own car, but it's more parking efficient which leads to economic viability.
Are those flights because of hub relationships? Where it will still be somehow cheaper to fly with a hop than to fly direct out of the hub?
I once lived 1hr from an airport and 2hrs from a hub. It was always cheaper to drive to the closest airport and fly to the hub. Absolutely annoying.
Yes, a big chunk of the flight demand probably comes from the fact that each is a hub for a major airline (American Airlines has its big hub in DFW, and United has one of its major hubs in IAH).
Still there are a lot of flights between the two cities for passengers who are starting and stopping their journeys there.
I mean, getting out of Texas as fast as possible is an admirable goal for the future.
Crossing the great emptiness of it is a great starting point. Like building a river backwards, starting with a delta at multiple cities.
So, let's say such a train takes the same security as amtrack does, which is to say very little.
If the train is a viable option it would need to compete on time but there's a caveat. The flight between the two cities is 2 and a half hours. Not including getting to the airport early, going through security, and waiting for your flight. So we can reasonably say it's 4 and a half hours of down time.
The distance the train would travel is just over 700 miles. A 200 mile per hour bullet train at best possible speed does that in 4-5 hours. Assuming it's express, and there are no delays.
If the train is faster and similar in cost it's a no brainer, take the train every time. If it's more expensive, which is will be if it isn't subsidized, then it won't succeed. People will see the longer travel time and not consider security and waiting around, and just buy the cheaper ticket. Then curse ass spirit air gets them stuck on the tarmac.
I'd pay more to take a train in many situations. Much more comfortable, less hassle, lower emissions.
Same. I don't fly but love taking trains, even if it takes longer.
You know they'd somehow figure out how to make it more uncomfortable to eek out more $$$ by fitting more people.
I've taken some of the longer train routes on the east coast, and they're quite comfortable. Occasionally full, but it's a lot easier to add space comfortably on a train by adding a car than it is in an aircraft.
Seems like a pretty pessimistic view...
It is. I don't usually have a lot of faith in large scale projects
Depends how comfortable they make the train, too. Should be significantly better than coach on a plane.