Can we put an Epcot in the tine, Hollywood studios in Big d, and magic kingdom in Bryan???

Ag with kids said:

---

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

Maybe that's because our commuter infrastructure sucks.

---

Japan:

Area: 145,936 sq mi
Population: 126,440,000
Density: 865.1/sq mi

Texas:

Area: 268,58 sq mi
Population: 28,304,596
Density: 108/sq mi

Maybe, just MAYBE, there's a little difference between Japan and Texas when it comes to moving the population...

---

You might have a point if we were talking about rail coverage for the entire state - but the proposed bullet-train is between the state's major population centers. Houston and DFW both have population densities of 3000+/sq mile. Those may not be Tokyo/Osaka numbers, but they aren't exactly small. Texas and Japan are also pretty similar in that most of the population is concentrated in urban centers and the rural areas are experiencing population decline. Connecting major urban centers with convenient public transportation makes sense, especially as those areas continue to grow (and traffic congestion on the roads connecting them gets worse).

bmc13 said:

---

the way our urban areas are growing we need decent public transit and soon.

---

Our urban areas are still WAY too spread out.

Here are the population densities of the top 9 MSAs:

NY: 1,781.3/sq mi
LA: 2,744.0/sq mi
Chicago: 1,318/sq mi
DFW: 634/sq mi
Houston: 630.3/sq mi
DC: 1,084/sq mi
Miami: 1,004/sq mi
Philly: 2,746.32/sq mi
Atlanta: 624/sq mi

The population density just doesn't lend itself to the kind of public transportation that works in Japan or in the northeast...

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

Maybe that's because our commuter infrastructure sucks.

---

Japan:

Area: 145,936 sq mi
Population: 126,440,000
Density: 865.1/sq mi

Texas:

Area: 268,58 sq mi
Population: 28,304,596
Density: 108/sq mi

Maybe, just MAYBE, there's a little difference between Japan and Texas when it comes to moving the population...

---

You might have a point if we were talking about rail coverage for the entire state - but the proposed bullet-train is between the state's major population centers. Houston and DFW both have population densities of 3000+/sq mile. Those may not be Tokyo/Osaka numbers, but they aren't exactly small. Texas and Japan are also pretty similar in that most of the population is concentrated in urban centers and the rural areas are experiencing population decline. Connecting major urban centers with convenient public transportation makes sense, especially as those areas continue to grow (and traffic congestion on the roads connecting them gets worse).

---

You're off by a factor of 5...DFW/Houston are around 600 (see my earlier post).

And the Tokyo MSA is around 6000...

You're making lots of argument against a comprehensive commuter rail system within the big Texas metros, this proposed rail line isn't a commuter rail system. It would move people between the cities, not around them.

Sounds like a good hbo mini series...

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

You're making lots of argument against a comprehensive commuter rail system within the big Texas metros, this proposed rail line isn't a commuter rail system. It would move people between the cities, not around them.

---

I've responded to posts about commuter rail, soooooo...

I also think this HS rail idea is a bad idea too. The cost is HUGE and only addresses one issue, travel between Houston to Dallas.

So, travel between Houston and San Antonio and DFW and San Antonio are completely left out. And there is a LOT of traffic on I-35 for a reason...

And it also causes a LOT of land use issues.

The negatives far outweigh the positives IMHO....

Breezy bet against saints

BlueDeviledAg said:

---

Breezy bet against saints

---

wrong forum...go boys

Houston
https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop%20610%20Website/population.html

• At 4,743 persons per square mile, Loop 610 has similar population densities as Sacramento, CA.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/houstoncitytexas

• Population per square mile, 2010 - 3,501.5

Dallas
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dallascitytexas/PST045217

• Population per square mile, 2010 - 3,517.6

Ag with kids said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

You're making lots of argument against a comprehensive commuter rail system within the big Texas metros, this proposed rail line isn't a commuter rail system. It would move people between the cities, not around them.

---

I've responded to posts about commuter rail, soooooo...

I also think this HS rail idea is a bad idea too. The cost is HUGE and only addresses one issue, travel between Houston to Dallas.

So, travel between Houston and San Antonio and DFW and San Antonio are completely left out. And there is a LOT of traffic on I-35 for a reason...

And it also causes a LOT of land use issues.

The negatives far outweigh the positives IMHO....

---

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, there are definitely big negatives, and they may well outweigh the posotives.

But these projects arent built just to meet today's needs. DFW and Houston are ththe 4th and 5th most populous metros in the US. and are on track to be 3rd and 4th within the next decade or so. They're a couple hundred miles apart, with very little in between. Austin and SA arent slouches either.

Put all that together and this part of Texas is a rapidly emerging megalopolis. There is a TON of daily travel between these cities, and not really any good way to do it. Our highways are clogged with through traffic, and flights are expensive and inconvenient.

Rail may or may not be the answer, but this part of the country needs serious upgrade to its transportation infrastructure sooner than later, and if it isn't rail, then were going to need to come up with something else and fast.

Ag with kids said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

You're making lots of argument against a comprehensive commuter rail system within the big Texas metros, this proposed rail line isn't a commuter rail system. It would move people between the cities, not around them.

---

I've responded to posts about commuter rail, soooooo...

I also think this HS rail idea is a bad idea too. The cost is HUGE and only addresses one issue, travel between Houston to Dallas.

So, travel between Houston and San Antonio and DFW and San Antonio are completely left out. And there is a LOT of traffic on I-35 for a reason...

And it also causes a LOT of land use issues.

The negatives far outweigh the positives IMHO....

---

It's entirely possible that San Antonio could be added at a later date. You have to start somewhere.

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop%20610%20Website/population.html

• At 4,743 persons per square mile, Loop 610 has similar population densities as Sacramento, CA.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/houstoncitytexas

• Population per square mile, 2010 - 3,501.5

---

Oh...you want to do CITY density.

Toyko: 16000/sq mi

I was using MSA density, which is really what you want to use.

Using city data for Dallas, the population is 1.2 million. The DFW MSA has 7.4 million.

Using city data for Houston, the population is 2.3 million and the MSA has 6.7 million.

So, most of the population in the MSA is NOT in the actual city.

I lived in DFW for 30 years. I RARELY went to Dallas. In fact, most of DFW doesn't even like Dallas.

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

You're making lots of argument against a comprehensive commuter rail system within the big Texas metros, this proposed rail line isn't a commuter rail system. It would move people between the cities, not around them.

---

I've responded to posts about commuter rail, soooooo...

I also think this HS rail idea is a bad idea too. The cost is HUGE and only addresses one issue, travel between Houston to Dallas.

So, travel between Houston and San Antonio and DFW and San Antonio are completely left out. And there is a LOT of traffic on I-35 for a reason...

And it also causes a LOT of land use issues.

The negatives far outweigh the positives IMHO....

---

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, there are definitely big negatives, and they may well outweigh the posotives.

But these projects arent built just to meet today's needs. DFW and Houston are ththe 4th and 5th most populous metros in the US. and are on track to be 3rd and 4th within the next decade or so. They're a couple hundred miles apart, with very little in between. Austin and SA arent slouches either.

Put all that together and this part of Texas is a rapidly emerging megalopolis. There is a TON of daily travel between these cities, and not really any good way to do it. Our highways are clogged with through traffic, and flights are expensive and inconvenient.

Rail may or may not be the answer, but this part of the country needs serious upgrade to its transportation infrastructure sooner than later, and if it isn't rail, then were going to need to come up with something else and fast.

---

My problem with HS rail is that it is an ENORMOUS upfront cost in addition to a runtime cost that isn't that much cheaper than air in the aggregate. And then, it causes lots of land use issues.

And I understand that DFW and Houston are the 4th and 5th largest MSAs (and will be 3rd/4th soon). But, that doesn't mean that the travel between them justifies the cost. Just how much travel is there between the 2 metro areas. Sure, there's a decent amount of traffic on I-45, but a large part of it isn't DFW to Houston traffic.

Adding additional flights between the 2 would probably be a better solution. Much less infrastructure cost and much more flexible. If you're going to build infrastructure, building another airport or 2 would be a LOT cheaper.

Quote:

---

My problem with HS rail is that it is an ENORMOUS upfront cost in addition to a runtime cost that isn't that much cheaper than air in the aggregate.

---

Plus it locks us into expensive, old technology for the foreseeable future.

ChiliBeans said:

---

Quote:

---

My problem with HS rail is that it is an ENORMOUS upfront cost in addition to a runtime cost that isn't that much cheaper than air in the aggregate.

---

Plus it locks us into expensive, old technology for the foreseeable future.

---

This too!

Cars aren't old technology?

New HSR lines run about 160 mph. That's not old technology.

And the density of Texas's cities is rapidly increasing with all the recent growth and greater preference of up and coming generations to stay closer to city centers.

The layout of Texas's major cities today is a reflection of the preferences of Baby Boomers over the last 30 years. And I agree that this mode of transportation does not jive with the habits of Boomers. But the reality is this line wont be serving Boomers, and the arguments about how spread out and decentralized the cities are wont hold nearly as true by the time this gets done (if it ever is).

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

Cars aren't old technology?

---

No.

Roads are.

Uber wants to make an unmanned aerial taxi. (Yes, the Jetsons **** is coming).

BlueDeviledAg said:

---

---

So what you are saying is we have a lot more rail road to lay.

This rail is old tech. The system the Japanese are selling is over 50 years old.

Ive stated before... there are no rules and regs for hsr in the us. The Japanese want those written for their 50 year old trains. They want to use Huston and Dallas because the route is relatively flat and the land is relatively cheap.

That's the only reason.

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

New HSR lines run about 160 mph. That's not old technology.

And the density of Texas's cities is rapidly increasing with all the recent growth and greater preference of up and coming generations to stay closer to city centers.

The layout of Texas's major cities today is a reflection of the preferences of Baby Boomers over the last 30 years. And I agree that this mode of transportation does not jive with the habits of Boomers. But the reality is this line wont be serving Boomers, and the arguments about how spread out and decentralized the cities are wont hold nearly as true by the time this gets done (if it ever is).

---

Agreed. Lots of people are moving back to city centers. I also think our cities were laid out at the preference of automobile users rather than having some dense areas with public transit. Partly because Texas is an oil state and cars use more oil. Having a car is great, but if you had areas like you're starting to see in Midtown Houston or Uptown Dallas, that if you live, work, and can entertain yourself in a pretty small radius, then you don't always need a car. It may be nice to have if you need to go far away but you don't need to be reliant on that. As the population booms, we can't build out forever, we are going to get denser and as we do we won't have room for everyone to have a car. Trains and planes move people efficiently. The pro to trains is that they can flow all the way into these dense urban areas.

Drunk on the Shinkansen right now. Doesn't really make me think. Just more of just saying

Where are you headed?

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

Where are you headed?

---

Tokyo

riverrataggie said:

---

Drunk on the Shinkansen right now. Doesn't really make me think. Just more of just saying

---

Sober on the ICE here.

Ag with kids said:

---

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

Cars aren't old technology?

---

No.

Roads are.

Uber wants to make an unmanned aerial taxi. (Yes, the Jetsons **** is coming).

---

Spoken like a true aerospace engineer.

Millennials don't seem to care for cars much. They won't even go get drivers licenses. The future of cars might be automated, but there's also a decent likelihood they won't be individually owned. If that's the case, then taking automated cars on road trips might become more difficult to do, requiring another mode of transportation.

The route makes zero sense from an efficiency standpoint. The radical curve in Grimes & Waller counties will require the train to slow WAY DOWN. The flattest, most direct route is the I45 corridor but it doesn't connect to some worthless properties some of the original investors are desperate to unload (that's the reason neither station lies near a city center).

FriendlyAg said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

New HSR lines run about 160 mph. That's not old technology.

And the density of Texas's cities is rapidly increasing with all the recent growth and greater preference of up and coming generations to stay closer to city centers.

The layout of Texas's major cities today is a reflection of the preferences of Baby Boomers over the last 30 years. And I agree that this mode of transportation does not jive with the habits of Boomers. But the reality is this line wont be serving Boomers, and the arguments about how spread out and decentralized the cities are wont hold nearly as true by the time this gets done (if it ever is).

---

Agreed. Lots of people are moving back to city centers. I also think our cities were laid out at the preference of automobile users rather than having some dense areas with public transit. Partly because Texas is an oil state and cars use more oil. Having a car is great, but if you had areas like you're starting to see in Midtown Houston or Uptown Dallas, that if you live, work, and can entertain yourself in a pretty small radius, then you don't always need a car. It may be nice to have if you need to go far away but you don't need to be reliant on that. As the population booms, we can't build out forever, we are going to get denser and as we do we won't have room for everyone to have a car. Trains and planes move people efficiently. The pro to trains is that they can flow all the way into these dense urban areas.

---

Have you looked at a map of Texas and the big cities in it? There is a LOT of space to build out and in fact that is what has been happening. DFW has 7.4 million people in it and only 1.2 million are in Dallas. That phenomenon isn't going to change because the denser property is more expensive so why not get that 3000 sq ft house on 1.2 acres for the same price. Yeah, it's out in rural Parker county, but it's not THAT long of a commute.

Hagen95 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BackwardsInBoots said:

---

Cars aren't old technology?

---

No.

Roads are.

Uber wants to make an unmanned aerial taxi. (Yes, the Jetsons **** is coming).

---

Spoken like a true aerospace engineer.

---

I seriously wasn't joking

Even after the latest Japanese loan, "Texas" Central "Rail" lacks even 5% of the $18-20B needed to build, much less operate, this boondoggle. This 'privately funded" project will be built using federal taxpayer funded and guaranteed loans. The sad thing is that once this boondoggle goes belly-up, the US taxpayer gets to eat that loss and the Japanese retain the property and the required antiquated train technology.

This is a textbook scandal. Anyone supporting this needs to be deported for treason against the US (hyperbole but the federal government should not be in the capital finance business to begin with).

Ag with kids said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

New HSR lines run about 160 mph. That's not old technology.

And the density of Texas's cities is rapidly increasing with all the recent growth and greater preference of up and coming generations to stay closer to city centers.

The layout of Texas's major cities today is a reflection of the preferences of Baby Boomers over the last 30 years. And I agree that this mode of transportation does not jive with the habits of Boomers. But the reality is this line wont be serving Boomers, and the arguments about how spread out and decentralized the cities are wont hold nearly as true by the time this gets done (if it ever is).

---

Agreed. Lots of people are moving back to city centers. I also think our cities were laid out at the preference of automobile users rather than having some dense areas with public transit. Partly because Texas is an oil state and cars use more oil. Having a car is great, but if you had areas like you're starting to see in Midtown Houston or Uptown Dallas, that if you live, work, and can entertain yourself in a pretty small radius, then you don't always need a car. It may be nice to have if you need to go far away but you don't need to be reliant on that. As the population booms, we can't build out forever, we are going to get denser and as we do we won't have room for everyone to have a car. Trains and planes move people efficiently. The pro to trains is that they can flow all the way into these dense urban areas.

---

Have you looked at a map of Texas and the big cities in it? There is a LOT of space to build out and in fact that is what has been happening. DFW has 7.4 million people in it and only 1.2 million are in Dallas. That phenomenon isn't going to change because the denser property is more expensive so why not get that 3000 sq ft house on 1.2 acres for the same price. Yeah, it's out in rural Parker county, but it's not THAT long of a commute.

---

Your logic is very much in line with the Baby Boomer generation as a whole. It is not nearly as in line with the wants of Millenial & Gen Z buyers.