3 ms·

One reason to be a bit more optimistic is Texas (http://www.thsrtc.com/ http://www.thsrtc.com/). Their equivalent plan to California's is loads cheaper thanks

by Empact 16y ago

One reason to be a bit more optimistic is Texas (http://www.thsrtc.com/ http://www.thsrtc.com/). Their equivalent plan to California's is loads cheaper thanks to their more agreeable geography (plains, mostly). More importantly, the lighter touch of the state government means rather than do a full-on government build and operate (ala California/Amtrak), they're looking at private build & operations under a long-term lease, with the government providing liability limitations and eminent domain, in return for owning the infrastructure after the lease expires in some decades of operation. This means the builder is subject to market forces: they can only recoup their build costs within the lease window by getting to operations as quickly and efficiently as possible. The incentives are the opposite for government construction: the milk flows during construction, so there's a disincentive to ever finish, and when things go over budget, it almost always means more money, rather than anyone cutting their losses. To get a sense what a difference this makes, consider that the NYC subway system was built by competing private concerns under the long-term lease model (ala Texas), between 1905 and 1940. In 1940 the system was unified under government control (ala California), and basically the system was frozen in time, with no expansion happening in the 70 years since (see: http://www.diametunim.com/shashi/nyc_subways/ http://www.diametunim.com/shashi/nyc_subways/).

_delirium 16y ago
I do think Texas's plan is one of the most promising, but I suppose my guess is that it'll still take a long time, partly because it's been looking promising for a long time now: the first feasibility study was launched in the 1980s. The state actually awarded a contract to a private group to build high-speed rail in the Dallas-San Antonio-Houston triangle, under terms like those you discuss, in 1991, but it was killed, largely by Southwest Airlines lobbying, in 1994. I went to high school in Texas 1996-2000, and a new high-speed rail plan was being discussed that entire time too, but the talk never went anywhere. In the early 2000s, it was revived once more, this time as part of an ambitious Trans-Texas Corridor (which would have had freight rail, high-speed rail, car-only freeways, and truck-only freeways), but that died a few years later as well, partly due to a nativist backlash against its role as the "NAFTA superhighway". Now there's yet another HSR plan, separated back out from the road plans, which might work this time, but I probably wouldn't put any money on this being the year the 20+-year impasse is broken. Honestly I haven't seen any of that supposedly lighter-touch, actually-functioning Texas state government on this issue, just a multi-decade series of special interests and politicking resulting in no rails being built.
- Empact 16y ago
  Fair enough, the special interest game is no fun[1]. But I'll take a bet on the stars aligning in Texas over California finding efficient building practices any day. In Texas, given all the immigration from other states, the prospect of the population doubling in a few decades and little place left to build freeways, I think there's a growing understanding among policymakers that higher-density transportation will be a necessity going forward. There's a long-term trend of immigration & congestion supporting the eventual adoption of a rail plan, it's just a matter of time. On the other side, I don't see any trends in California pointing towards sane governance, apart from the possibility of a constitutional convention (http://www.repaircalifornia.org/ http://www.repaircalifornia.org/), which is hardly a safe bet. So there's good reason to hope for Texas, I'd say, despite the history. [1] incidentally, I hear that to get the airlines on board, the new Texas HSR plan terminates at the airports specifically, while the earlier plan focused stops at city centers, which might have been better for TOD, but then this makes for inter-modality.
- narrator 16y ago
  I think rail doesn't get anywhere in the U.S because it makes it to easy for "undesirable elements" to get to places they're not wanted too easily. I think that's the incredibly sad but honest truth of it all. The class differences in the United States are far more extreme than most people realize, mostly because people stay inside their tight little class bubbles all day long in their private cars, driving to work and back and rarely venturing out to get a latte every once in a while.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I find this rather implausible. We don't build a Dallas/Houston or LA/San Fran train because we are afraid that a black guy might pay $80 to ride from Dallas to Houston? I can see this claim being plausible concerning short distance rail, i.e. "don't build a train to the ghetto", however.
    - mortenjorck 16y ago
      In my home town, there's certainly an instance of this fear for mid-distance runs. The Chicago-area Metra commuter train terminates about 15 miles away, and there's a boarded-up old station from the golden age of passenger rail in the middle of the downtown. Whenever the subject of negotiating a deal with Metra and renovating the station comes up, the crime threat is always second right after budget concerns. I can't say I've ever seen much of the thug life on Metra trains, though.

by Empact 16y ago

_delirium 16y ago

I do think Texas's plan is one of the most promising, but I suppose my guess is that it'll still take a long time, partly because it's been looking promising for a long time now: the first feasibility study was launched in the 1980s. The state actually awarded a contract to a private group to build high-speed rail in the Dallas-San Antonio-Houston triangle, under terms like those you discuss, in 1991, but it was killed, largely by Southwest Airlines lobbying, in 1994. I went to high school in Texas 1996-2000, and a new high-speed rail plan was being discussed that entire time too, but the talk never went anywhere. In the early 2000s, it was revived once more, this time as part of an ambitious Trans-Texas Corridor (which would have had freight rail, high-speed rail, car-only freeways, and truck-only freeways), but that died a few years later as well, partly due to a nativist backlash against its role as the "NAFTA superhighway". Now there's yet another HSR plan, separated back out from the road plans, which might work this time, but I probably wouldn't put any money on this being the year the 20+-year impasse is broken. Honestly I haven't seen any of that supposedly lighter-touch, actually-functioning Texas state government on this issue, just a multi-decade series of special interests and politicking resulting in no rails being built.

Empact 16y ago
Fair enough, the special interest game is no fun[1]. But I'll take a bet on the stars aligning in Texas over California finding efficient building practices any day. In Texas, given all the immigration from other states, the prospect of the population doubling in a few decades and little place left to build freeways, I think there's a growing understanding among policymakers that higher-density transportation will be a necessity going forward. There's a long-term trend of immigration & congestion supporting the eventual adoption of a rail plan, it's just a matter of time. On the other side, I don't see any trends in California pointing towards sane governance, apart from the possibility of a constitutional convention (http://www.repaircalifornia.org/ http://www.repaircalifornia.org/), which is hardly a safe bet. So there's good reason to hope for Texas, I'd say, despite the history. [1] incidentally, I hear that to get the airlines on board, the new Texas HSR plan terminates at the airports specifically, while the earlier plan focused stops at city centers, which might have been better for TOD, but then this makes for inter-modality.
narrator 16y ago
I think rail doesn't get anywhere in the U.S because it makes it to easy for "undesirable elements" to get to places they're not wanted too easily. I think that's the incredibly sad but honest truth of it all. The class differences in the United States are far more extreme than most people realize, mostly because people stay inside their tight little class bubbles all day long in their private cars, driving to work and back and rarely venturing out to get a latte every once in a while.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I find this rather implausible. We don't build a Dallas/Houston or LA/San Fran train because we are afraid that a black guy might pay $80 to ride from Dallas to Houston? I can see this claim being plausible concerning short distance rail, i.e. "don't build a train to the ghetto", however.
  - mortenjorck 16y ago
    In my home town, there's certainly an instance of this fear for mid-distance runs. The Chicago-area Metra commuter train terminates about 15 miles away, and there's a boarded-up old station from the golden age of passenger rail in the middle of the downtown. Whenever the subject of negotiating a deal with Metra and renovating the station comes up, the crime threat is always second right after budget concerns. I can't say I've ever seen much of the thug life on Metra trains, though.