forJO said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Southwest round-trip Lovefield to Hobby $240.
Bullet train $30B / $240 = 125,000,000 round trips.
DFW and Houston metro combined populations: 15 million
Round trips per person: 8.3

For the same cost as building the bullet train we could give every single person living in the Houston and Dallas metros eight round trip flights on Southwest. What a bargain for the Texas tax payer.

---

While I probably shouldn't wade into this thread because I no longer live in Texas nor will this train impact me in anyway. But I feel this argument is flawed because you have not included the costs to the public to build Love Field or Hobby. While those are already sunk costs it doesn't change the fact that those airports cost tremendous amounts of money, and take up a lot of land, that should be factored into this argument, in the same way the cost of the future train ticket per person should be factored into the argument. I know in Europe when I visited 20 years ago the high speed trains were more expensive than low cost airlines. But the train ride was faster (especially when adding in times to drive to the airport, security, waiting, etc. ) but the train had more frequent travel options and was a much better way to see the country.

I feel the same when hearing people argue train service is not profitable. But yet they don't include the incredible amount of money spent to build and maintain roads and the interstate highway system. If you include these costs for highways then you could also argue driving an automobile is not "profitable".

As I said this train in Texas does not affect me and I don't have an opinion about if this train should be built or not. But I felt compelled to point out a different side of the argument.

---

m
Interestingly, the bridges and tunnels are the only profitable part of New York metro, and revenues from them fund other capital projects.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

forJO said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Southwest round-trip Lovefield to Hobby $240.
Bullet train $30B / $240 = 125,000,000 round trips.
DFW and Houston metro combined populations: 15 million
Round trips per person: 8.3

For the same cost as building the bullet train we could give every single person living in the Houston and Dallas metros eight round trip flights on Southwest. What a bargain for the Texas tax payer.

---

While I probably shouldn't wade into this thread because I no longer live in Texas nor will this train impact me in anyway. But I feel this argument is flawed because you have not included the costs to the public to build Love Field or Hobby. While those are already sunk costs it doesn't change the fact that those airports cost tremendous amounts of money, and take up a lot of land, that should be factored into this argument, in the same way the cost of the future train ticket per person should be factored into the argument. I know in Europe when I visited 20 years ago the high speed trains were more expensive than low cost airlines. But the train ride was faster (especially when adding in times to drive to the airport, security, waiting, etc. ) but the train had more frequent travel options and was a much better way to see the country.

I feel the same when hearing people argue train service is not profitable. But yet they don't include the incredible amount of money spent to build and maintain roads and the interstate highway system. If you include these costs for highways then you could also argue driving an automobile is not "profitable".

As I said this train in Texas does not affect me and I don't have an opinion about if this train should be built or not. But I felt compelled to point out a different side of the argument.

---

m
Interestingly, the bridges and tunnels are the only profitable part of New York metro, and revenues from them fund other capital projects.

---

That's what happens when you charge $12 to use a bridge built in 1927 or a tunnel in 1937.

RafterAg223 said:

---

There's really no point in engaging Lot Y, Shanked, Manhattan on anything anymore. It's a losing proposition. He's proven here that he's an O&G reservoir engineer, oil and gas production engineer, agricultural machinery expert, renewable energy expert, European culture expert, healthcare expert, and now mass transit expert.

---

Hardest working man in South African toxicology science.

Manhattan said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

forJO said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Southwest round-trip Lovefield to Hobby $240.
Bullet train $30B / $240 = 125,000,000 round trips.
DFW and Houston metro combined populations: 15 million
Round trips per person: 8.3

For the same cost as building the bullet train we could give every single person living in the Houston and Dallas metros eight round trip flights on Southwest. What a bargain for the Texas tax payer.

---

While I probably shouldn't wade into this thread because I no longer live in Texas nor will this train impact me in anyway. But I feel this argument is flawed because you have not included the costs to the public to build Love Field or Hobby. While those are already sunk costs it doesn't change the fact that those airports cost tremendous amounts of money, and take up a lot of land, that should be factored into this argument, in the same way the cost of the future train ticket per person should be factored into the argument. I know in Europe when I visited 20 years ago the high speed trains were more expensive than low cost airlines. But the train ride was faster (especially when adding in times to drive to the airport, security, waiting, etc. ) but the train had more frequent travel options and was a much better way to see the country.

I feel the same when hearing people argue train service is not profitable. But yet they don't include the incredible amount of money spent to build and maintain roads and the interstate highway system. If you include these costs for highways then you could also argue driving an automobile is not "profitable".

As I said this train in Texas does not affect me and I don't have an opinion about if this train should be built or not. But I felt compelled to point out a different side of the argument.

---

m
Interestingly, the bridges and tunnels are the only profitable part of New York metro, and revenues from them fund other capital projects.

---

That's what happens when you charge $12 to use a bridge built in 1927 or a tunnel in 1937.

---

Great thing about infrastructure, once it's built there's nearly zero ongoing maintenance ever required!
Just like older homes, what little you have to do is super easy and cheap!


Swing and a shanked!

techno-ag said:

---

forJO said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Southwest round-trip Lovefield to Hobby $240.
Bullet train $30B / $240 = 125,000,000 round trips.
DFW and Houston metro combined populations: 15 million
Round trips per person: 8.3

For the same cost as building the bullet train we could give every single person living in the Houston and Dallas metros eight round trip flights on Southwest. What a bargain for the Texas tax payer.

---

While I probably shouldn't wade into this thread because I no longer live in Texas nor will this train impact me in anyway. But I feel this argument is flawed because you have not included the costs to the public to build Love Field or Hobby. While those are already sunk costs it doesn't change the fact that those airports cost tremendous amounts of money, and take up a lot of land, that should be factored into this argument, in the same way the cost of the future train ticket per person should be factored into the argument. I know in Europe when I visited 20 years ago the high speed trains were more expensive than low cost airlines. But the train ride was faster (especially when adding in times to drive to the airport, security, waiting, etc. ) but the train had more frequent travel options and was a much better way to see the country.

I feel the same when hearing people argue train service is not profitable. But yet they don't include the incredible amount of money spent to build and maintain roads and the interstate highway system. If you include these costs for highways then you could also argue driving an automobile is not "profitable".

As I said this train in Texas does not affect me and I don't have an opinion about if this train should be built or not. But I felt compelled to point out a different side of the argument.

---

1. We're not Europe.

2. Sunk costs cannot be compared with future costs. It's apples to oranges. But if you want to go there you have to take ridership into account, starting from the days the past infrastructure began operating and compare that to (projected) future ridership of the new infrastructure.

(Hint: the roads and airports will be cheaper.)

---

1. I agree, we are not Europe and because of much lower population density the cost per ticket will probably need to be higher because of lower usage.

2. I would agree the roads would probably be less when ridership is taken into account. But I don't believe the difference will be as dramatic as the first simplistic example. But I don't think giant public works projects can appropriately argued based on profitablity. There has to be a cost benefit analysis. The cost isn't really changing other than going up like every other government project, but benefits include monetary gains, benefits to society, etc. And Texas residents hopefully get to decide if the benefits are worth the incredibly high cost. I would guess from this thread the Texas residents on here don't believe in the benefits. It probably comes down to if residents of Dallas and Houston can prove enough benefits that taking so much rural land and tax money are beneficial to the public.

So why is I45 always under construction from Dallas to Galveston?

Quote:

---

It probably comes down to if residents of Dallas and Houston can prove enough benefits that taking so much rural land and tax money are beneficial to the public.

---

THIS is truly the crux of the debate. Put another way...

It probably comes down to if cultured and wise urbanites can agree to kick a bunch of backwards uncouth rural trash off their land because they obviously aren't using it right.

Manhattan said:

---

So why is I45 always under construction from Dallas to Galveston?

---

What does that have to do with toll revenues of bridges and tunnels in NYC? Because you implied those old bridges and tunnels are profitable because of the tolls collected on long ago paid off infrastructure.

You chose an example of roads that is unrealistic for this discussion. So I compared the road this hypothetical train is parallel to.

Uhhhh... Go back and re-read the various quoted segments. In these 7 pages I've never once mentioned roads until you and others were at least 3 quotes into a discussion on NYC infrastructure.

forJO said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

forJO said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Southwest round-trip Lovefield to Hobby $240.
Bullet train $30B / $240 = 125,000,000 round trips.
DFW and Houston metro combined populations: 15 million
Round trips per person: 8.3

For the same cost as building the bullet train we could give every single person living in the Houston and Dallas metros eight round trip flights on Southwest. What a bargain for the Texas tax payer.

---

While I probably shouldn't wade into this thread because I no longer live in Texas nor will this train impact me in anyway. But I feel this argument is flawed because you have not included the costs to the public to build Love Field or Hobby. While those are already sunk costs it doesn't change the fact that those airports cost tremendous amounts of money, and take up a lot of land, that should be factored into this argument, in the same way the cost of the future train ticket per person should be factored into the argument. I know in Europe when I visited 20 years ago the high speed trains were more expensive than low cost airlines. But the train ride was faster (especially when adding in times to drive to the airport, security, waiting, etc. ) but the train had more frequent travel options and was a much better way to see the country.

I feel the same when hearing people argue train service is not profitable. But yet they don't include the incredible amount of money spent to build and maintain roads and the interstate highway system. If you include these costs for highways then you could also argue driving an automobile is not "profitable".

As I said this train in Texas does not affect me and I don't have an opinion about if this train should be built or not. But I felt compelled to point out a different side of the argument.

---

1. We're not Europe.

2. Sunk costs cannot be compared with future costs. It's apples to oranges. But if you want to go there you have to take ridership into account, starting from the days the past infrastructure began operating and compare that to (projected) future ridership of the new infrastructure.

(Hint: the roads and airports will be cheaper.)

---

1. I agree, we are not Europe and because of much lower population density the cost per ticket will probably need to be higher because of lower usage.

2. I would agree the roads would probably be less when ridership is taken into account. But I don't believe the difference will be as dramatic as the first simplistic example. But I don't think giant public works projects can appropriately argued based on profitablity. There has to be a cost benefit analysis. The cost isn't really changing other than going up like every other government project, but benefits include monetary gains, benefits to society, etc. And Texas residents hopefully get to decide if the benefits are worth the incredibly high cost. I would guess from this thread the Texas residents on here don't believe in the benefits. It probably comes down to if residents of Dallas and Houston can prove enough benefits that taking so much rural land and tax money are beneficial to the public.

---

Well said.

As has been stated multiple times in threads on this topic, passengers will still need a car at the end of the line, making most of the savings moot.

I've said it before the only way I see the train working is if they have flatbeds that will carry your car and you can drive away once you reach the terminus.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Uhhhh... Go back and re-read the various quoted segments. In these 7 pages I've never once mentioned roads until you and others were at least 3 quotes into a discussion on NYC infrastructure.

---

Look at the post you replied to and the post I replied to in that post, your reading comprehension is terrible for someone coming out with a personal attack.

Uber.

Manhattan said:

---

Uber.

---

Which is getting expensive and is not always practical. People like their cars.

Aside from all the logical arguments already. Why the h*** do so many people need to go back-and-forth from Dallas and Houston in the age of telecommuting?

Zarathustra said:

---

Aside from all the logical arguments already. Why the h*** do so many people need to go back-and-forth from Dallas and Houston in the age of telecommuting?

---

I get tired of making money just sitting behind a computer screen. It's nice to get out and see how the bacons made sometimes.

But a ton of it is lawyers, medical professionals, and those who cover both territories from one location or the other.

Problem with the train is that both places have multiple business areas and no local mass transit that people desire to use.

When you are still tearing down homes and businesses after 100 years and still have massive traffic, highway widenings aren't very practical either.

fka ftc said:

---

Zarathustra said:

---

Aside from all the logical arguments already. Why the h*** do so many people need to go back-and-forth from Dallas and Houston in the age of telecommuting?

---

I get tired of making money just sitting behind a computer screen. It's nice to get out and see how the bacons made sometimes.

But a ton of it is lawyers, medical professionals, and those who cover both territories from one location or the other.

Problem with the train is that both places have multiple business areas and no local mass transit that people desire to use.

---

The "problem" with the train is the same as with the plane. Those airports are in fixed locations requiring onward travel, yet there are plenty of flights between relatively close large cities

This will never turn a profit. And guess who will end up paying...

Not surprised OP supports this.

Manhattan said:

---

When you are still tearing down homes and businesses after 100 years and still have massive traffic, highway widenings aren't very practical either.

---

Self driving cars will alleviate a lot of that.

forJO said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Southwest round-trip Lovefield to Hobby $240.
Bullet train $30B / $240 = 125,000,000 round trips.
DFW and Houston metro combined populations: 15 million
Round trips per person: 8.3

For the same cost as building the bullet train we could give every single person living in the Houston and Dallas metros eight round trip flights on Southwest. What a bargain for the Texas tax payer.

---

While I probably shouldn't wade into this thread because I no longer live in Texas nor will this train impact me in anyway. But I feel this argument is flawed because you have not included the costs to the public to build Love Field or Hobby. While those are already sunk costs it doesn't change the fact that those airports cost tremendous amounts of money, and take up a lot of land, that should be factored into this argument, in the same way the cost of the future train ticket per person should be factored into the argument. I know in Europe when I visited 20 years ago the high speed trains were more expensive than low cost airlines. But the train ride was faster (especially when adding in times to drive to the airport, security, waiting, etc. ) but the train had more frequent travel options and was a much better way to see the country.

I feel the same when hearing people argue train service is not profitable. But yet they don't include the incredible amount of money spent to build and maintain roads and the interstate highway system. If you include these costs for highways then you could also argue driving an automobile is not "profitable".

As I said this train in Texas does not affect me and I don't have an opinion about if this train should be built or not. But I felt compelled to point out a different side of the argument.

---

Airports are financed through passenger taxes (distributed to airports in the form of FAA grants), local charges and leases for space in the airport. They aren't built with property taxes, or with highway fund (gas taxes) money. Effectively, they are funded by users. Same for highways -- the gas tax paid by users funds the highways. Yet, when it comes to passenger rail, no projects would ever be built (outside, perhaps, the northeast corridor) solely relying upon user fees, or even using a majority of user fees. Rail projects are invariably funded by taking money from other sources. Railroad advocates either ignore this fact, or claim that the lack of economic viability is overcome by other considerations.

You realize the population exploding is due to people fleeing CA, NY and IL, right?

And none of these projects are self sustaining and self funding. NY MTA is:

The amount of outstanding long-term debt issued by the MTA increased from $25.8 billion in 2010 to $35.4 billion in 2019 (37%) and rose an additional 13% to $40.1 billion in 2021.

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/2022/04/dinapoli-debt-adding-mtas-financial-pressures-riders-and-fare-revenue-slow-return

Outstanding debt will reach $47 billion by 2026 and could reach $57 billion by 2030, including all bonds backed by congestion pricing revenues to pay for its 2020-2024 capital program.

And consider the fleeing of high value taxpayers is so extreme NY and other states (CA and IL) are trying to figure out how to implement not only wealth taxes but income taxes and people who no longer live in the state.

Which will never pass SCOTUS. And then these systems enter death spirals. And this is in regions where mass Rail transit makes sense. And even then it doesn't work without annual bailouts.

Manhattan said:

---

When you are still tearing down homes and businesses after 100 years and still have massive traffic, highway widenings aren't very practical either.

---

Why does the I-45 expansion that is local to Houston keep being brought up in discussion of a 200 mile long bullet train?
Because a section of highway that was built in the 60s doesn't meet todays traffic demand, highway expansions aren't practical?

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

Didn't this fail epically in California? And with some federal funding?

---

Also, Amtrak needs tons of taxpayer funding in the NE of America, which is prime for a rail solution...or so one would think.

The bullet train idiocy needs to stop.

dead said:

---

Isn't the Hyperloop just a train with more steps?

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

When you are still tearing down homes and businesses after 100 years and still have massive traffic, highway widenings aren't very practical either.

---

Why does the I-45 expansion that is local to Houston keep being brought up in discussion of a 200 mile long bullet train?
Because a section of highway that was built in the 60s doesn't meet todays traffic demand, highway expansions aren't practical?

---

Because it is essentially parallel to the bullet train and we are spending billions of dollars for literally nothing.

Manhattan said:

---

When you are still tearing down homes and businesses after 100 years and still have massive traffic, highway widenings aren't very practical either.

---

The train doesn't change that, this train isn't going to have any impact on people driving into downtown Houston.

AggieCo2023 said:

---

https://original.newsbreak.com/@jalyn-smoot-1588339/2898655750882-texas-supreme-court-ruling-paves-way-for-30-billion-dollar-dallas-to-houston-bullet-train

Apologies if there already was a thread, but exciting news from the Texas Supreme Court who gave life to this project connecting Dallas and Houston. It also will include a stop in Brazos County which will be helpful for students from each of those cities which is probably 40% of the student body. Hopefully this is completed soon and gives Texans other (quicker) alternatives between the two cities. Should help further our economy as more and more companies are moving their HQ's and production here.

---

Bullet Train needs to use existing railroad right of ways and either build above the existing tracks or below them. OR, increase existing railroad right of ways by X% to accomodate bullet train beside existing tracks (and pay land owners of course).

Manhattan said:

---

Uber.

---

Yeah. 50 Uber drivers sitting and waiting for the train to roll in so they can fight over the 10 people wanting to go into town.

BNSF has existing main line rail that runs through the Houston Heights directly past the Convention Center in Dallas. Why does this need to be new construction or high speed? If there was profit to be had, would not BNSF add Metra along the route? They have the cars and locomotives.

The advocates of new high speed rail either don't know what they're talking about or stand to make a lot of money.

AggieCo2023 said:

---

https://original.newsbreak.com/@jalyn-smoot-1588339/2898655750882-texas-supreme-court-ruling-paves-way-for-30-billion-dollar-dallas-to-houston-bullet-train

Apologies if there already was a thread, but exciting news from the Texas Supreme Court who gave life to this project connecting Dallas and Houston. It also will include a stop in Brazos County which will be helpful for students from each of those cities which is probably 40% of the student body. Hopefully this is completed soon and gives Texans other (quicker) alternatives between the two cities. Should help further our economy as more and more companies are moving their HQ's and production here.

---

First thing you need a map. The "stop" is not in Brazos county. It's planned in Shiro. Last time I checked, that's Grimes County. Secondly it's a terrible waste of money and a giant boondoggle, that's probably double the cost now thanks to Bidenflation. This things need to die and I hope the circus will finally kill it this year.

Manhattan said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

When you are still tearing down homes and businesses after 100 years and still have massive traffic, highway widenings aren't very practical either.

---

Why does the I-45 expansion that is local to Houston keep being brought up in discussion of a 200 mile long bullet train?
Because a section of highway that was built in the 60s doesn't meet todays traffic demand, highway expansions aren't practical?

---

Because it is essentially parallel to the bullet train and we are spending billions of dollars for literally nothing.

---

The proposed I-45 expansion is local to Houston metro. Again, it and the bullet train do not serve the same purpose at all.
Why are you so sure it would not improve the traffic situation? How would expanding the capacity of a highway not improve travel times (ultimate goal).