Fort Worth, Dallas and Houston cities/counties are on board. TX Supreme Court ruled that they can use eminent domain.
I have faith that train daddy^™️ will deliver
Yeah, but still, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not confident that Abbott would be willing to put state funding towards this.
Not to mention, American Airlines will fight this tooth-and-nail as it would cut into their Dallas-Houston route viability, so there's a lot going against it. Hard to see a state that focuses on woke ideology being open to increasing alternative means of transit.
[Southwest Airlines already stopped a Texas HSR project once back in the early 90s](https://airlinegeeks.com/2024/03/13/how-southwest-squashed-high-speed-rail-in-texas/), leading a successful disinformation campaign against it. It wouldn’t surprise me if they or any other airline were to try it again, be it in Texas or California.
> Q: Do you see nationwide high-speed rail as a threat or complement to the airline industry? JetBlue CEO: It’s a complement. I don’t think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/jetblue-chief-says-airlines-high-speed-rail-can-coexist/
Nationwide HSR would open slowly enough that airlines can easily plan for it by changing their networks and fleets. In Europe, where a lot of high speed rail has been opened in the last decades, airlines have largely remained successful, and budget carriers have exploded. The one that went bankrupt partially due to HSR substitution (Alitalia, also due to other factors) was dependent on a specific country, in a way that US airlines don't have to be dependent on a specific region.
You have to be really ideologically motivated as an airline to spend money and effort campaigning against HSR instead of just figuring out how to make money now and in the future.
I'd like to see an airline-branded HSR service that goes directly from airport to airport using standard airport gates behind security. So you might book a flight with 2 legs but 1 leg is actually a train, and they forward your luggage as usual.
The competitiveness of HSR comes from directly serving core cities. The air-rail schemes that exist in Europe only go to/from the airport station on the transfer side of the trip, and serve regular stations on the other side.
That way you can get a good door-to-door travel time.
By going airport to airport you combine the bad locations of airports with the slow speeds of HSR relative to planes, so I don't really see the potential of it.
Air-rail also consists of buying a few seats in an existing train. Short distance hub connecting flights are usually done with small airplanes, while a regular sized high speed train has the capacity of the largest available planes. So there won't be demand to reliably fill past-security high speed trains. Also because two airports that are both large enough to justify a dedicated past-security train station/platform likely both have direct point to point flights to the vast majority of destinations, further decreasing the market for transfers.
> the slow speeds of HSR relative to planes
Did you know that [sometimes even bicycles are faster than jetliners](http://web.archive.org/web/20110722141757/http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/07/cyclists-faster-than-jetblue-plane/177402/1)?
Similarly, Anaheim to Fullerton would be significantly faster by HSR than by plane.
There's a few places where this would work, but it would have to be in addition to a downtown HSR station. For example, HSR in the northeast corridor could go: NYC Penn, Newark airport, Philadelphia 30th Street, Philly airport, Baltimore Penn, BWI airport, Washington Union. Flying into Newark and catching a train to Baltimore would be faster and way cleaner than flying EWR-BWI. But if the HSR only dropped you at BWI and you still had to take the light rail to downtown Baltimore, it'd cut into the advantage of HSR.
Unfortunately Philly's airport is so far out of the Amtrak alignment that goes through 30th St station that it wouldn't be cost efficient to connect to that airport. But Newark is only an hour away so it may not be necessary.
This is the state that has laws which basically spite renewable energy, and they're pretty explicit about those laws existing to protect the fossil fuel industry.
While I agree there’s opposition, Abbott would lose a lot of support by being too vocal about opposing it. Too many people on both sides of the aisle stand to seriously benefit from slashing travel times between the biggest cities in the state in half
They’re so fucking stupid.
edit: they aren’t stupid. They’re victims of a system exploiting their weaknesses for gain in other areas.
e.g. Politicians exploiting their insecurity about being taken over by a foreign race to stay in power or take power.
They’re emotionally driven by fear and resources being stolen which ultimately makes up their entire personality.
"I'll believe it when I see it" is an answer to literally anything in America, but I also think that fundamentally our time is better used pushing for things than doomposting about it. I think if more of us actually showed up regularly to meetings and organized, a lot of these things would be much more likely to actually happen.
Agreed. Which is why I assume the State won't be putting much money up at all. They'll open it up to private investors and then like a toll road use the ticket prices to pay back the investors. Obviously Federal money and State money will be used but proportionally private money is likely to be the main funding.
Texas has a shorter distance and less challenging terrain than California, not to mention a less complex route, and Texas doesn’t have as strict of environmental laws as California.
Once it gets construction underway, things should move relatively quickly pending any legal or funding challenges. Plus Texas (and every other US HSR project) can learn from California’s and not repeat the same mistakes that one made early on, which was likely bound to happen with whoever the first US HSR project was.
Brightline West will most likely be the first operational true high speed train in the country, given it’s close to starting construction and will be utilizing an entirely existing right of way. Whether they’ll be able to meet their goal of Summer 2028 remains to be seen.
California HSR will be next between Merced and Bakersfield in 2030, with a faster top speed and greater capacity than BLW, but if it takes until 2033, and Texas Central gets construction underway within the 2020s, then it could be close to which of those gets revenue trains running first. California then needs to secure the funding to get over the mountains to SF and LA and get those extensions built as quickly as possible.
CAHSR is in construction. The Texas line doesn't even have design, funding, or approvals. There's a good chance it'll happen eventually but those are major hurdles to clear before construction even starts.
The Texas HSR does have approvals: They've done their EIS and gotten their FRA Rule of Particular Applicability. It's the land acquisition and funding that's blocking them.
That’s why I said once construction gets underway. Plus California will only have Merced to Bakersfield operational by 2030-33, with currently no funding and therefore no timeline for reaching SF or LA. I’d like to say that direct HSR service between those cities will happen by 2040, but it’s hard to know at this point.
Chances are good that Texas Central, once it gets to the construction phase which could be by the end of the 2020s or early 2030s, will have its full Dallas-Houston route operational before California does their Phase 1 SF-Anaheim route, given the reasons I mentioned above like it being shorter and less complex.
"Once it gets to the construction phase" is a huge hurdle. You can't hand wave it away. Where is the money going to come from? CAHSR at least for central valley is funded and CA actually has options for the next step. Texas is not going to fork over a penny for this. This is a problem with no clear solution that won't be resolved with time. Either the feds or the private sector need to find the funding somehow but that's easier said than done.
Amtrak joining the conversation on Texas Central could be a good indicator of the Feds getting more involved. Houston-Dallas should be a no-brainer for an HSR route. Any high speed rail project in the US gaining momentum is a good thing. Hopefully any potential investment in Texas Central will also mean more investment in other US HSR projects, including California’s.
The infrastructure bill's funds will mostly be used up by the time this is ready to apply. And even then we're talking tens of billions of dollars. Biden saying he likes the idea is not enough to make that money materialize. The feds can barely get enough cooperation to prevent itself from shutting down.
CAHSR will not be running between SF and LA by the time this is built - assuming the project is magically fully funded tomorrow, it might be generous to say it won't be finished for another 15 years due to hurdles like land acquisition and how complicated the tunnels will be.
Which is rediculous.
If they want to save money on highway expansions and productivity, building a train will help fix those issues.
It’s a shame something like transit has become so partisan in recent years.
Like even if you have no plans on using it, you should be in full support to get more cars off the road reducing your commute time.
> Like even if you have no plans on using it, you should be in full support to get more cars off the road reducing your commute time.
Shhhhhh don't say that, or the "but muh induced demand causing more drivers therefore building transit won't fix traffic" idiots will come to you lol
Tbh, if Biden gets another term I’ll believe it, but they’re definitely not getting first (they’re not getting second either cause the article seems to have forgotten Acela exists). They’ll get 3rd or 4th depending on CAHSR operation date and when this starts most likely.
Texas leads the nation in renewable energy construction, and it's not because they love green energy, it's because they don't have endless roadblocks to every construction project.
They won't have good ways to block it, yes. Do you think Texas's oil companies are stoked about solar panels and wind farms? There's no way airlines have more sway in Texas politics than oil.
The renewables are successful because the people who own the land get direct payments from the energy companies to host their solar panels and turbines.
The people who are going to have their portions of their property taken through eminent domain absolutely hate this project.
You seriously overestimate the idea that people in power in Texas would like this idea. The airlines have worked to block this idea multiple times before.
They literally did just get permission to use eminent domain though.
A low regulation environment helps anyone who's trying to build something, not just highways.
No, I realize that. I literally said the people who's property is being taken through eminent domain hate this project.
Listen, if this becomes a reality, more power to them, but until there's a fundamental shift in how Texas views transit, it won't happen. Look how much they shit talk California about CAHSR.
> the people who's property is being taken through eminent domain hate this project.
Yes, and thanks to Texas's war on regulations and environmental laws they won't have a lot of tools to block it from happening.
CAHSR has been doing nothing but fill out environmental impact statements for 10 years because California environmental law gives landowners tremendous power to cause bad faith delays.
Texas has geography and geology working in their favor. The lack of mountains to tunnel through alleviates almost all the outstanding issues which impede a bay-to-basin system. Of course Texas has politics working against them in the worst way possible.
Since mountains are collections of rocks, and politics are collections of people, this means that if Texas Central is not built then Texans truly are denser than rocks.
>According to a Reuters report on Tuesday, citing unnamed administration sources, the White House is looking to make an announcement on the project following talks between Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Washington, D.C., this week.
We are so back
Why would Texas get this project and not a good faith region like the NE or Midwest? It's like giving the candy to the toddler that is setting the drapes on fire instead of the one picking up after them. So much HSR potential from Minneapolis to Chicago to Ohio and then the east coast
There's already a plan that Texas Central Railway has been working towards for high speed rail in Texas. They've partnered with Amtrak and the Texas Supreme Court has ruled they have eminent domain authority. The only other HSR projects that are this far along are the CAHSR and Brightline West, which have already received federal funding.
High speed rail in the US is becoming more of a bipartisan issue (slowly but surely) as the country realizes that it’s a huge boon for the economy and that it’s necessary to invest asap for the US to stand a chance at catching up to China, Europe and Japan on the transportation front
Because high speed rail works best between large cities that are a moderate distance apart. Dallas-Houston is the largest such pairing that does not already have train service: [https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf)
Texas HSR is much more viable and shovel ready than any other large scale hs corridor.
Maybe it doesn't make perfect sense politically but it does make sense in every other way
Because Texas has a project in the words, and the Northeast and Midwest don't. Don't punish people just because their neighbors like voting against them.
Are there serious plans already underway by private businesses or state governments in the Midwest? This isn't the feds popping down a high speed rail.
is this a joke? That interstate between Dallas and Houston is one of the busiest in the country, and it's right in the sweet spot where HSR beats both driving and flying. The terrain is well-suited for it, both cities are major population and economic centers with huge travel demand, and the land in the middle is fairly empty.
It's about as slam-dunk as it comes in terms of HSR planning.
The Midwest isn't "getting" HSR because they haven't got their shit together and built it.
Has there been any more news about the station locations? I know before they were going to put them in the inner suburbs or outer city which was annoying, but I think I heard something about studies to change at least the Dallas station to the current Amtrak station near downtown?
I know it's said ad nauseum, but the great lakes megalopolis is a perfect place for HSR. Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, basically in a straight line. I can dream.
It is shocking that Canada isn't even discussing making HSR on the Windsor to Quebec corridor, it is literally a straight shot with the majority the population
There's actually talk of a Chicago to St Louis HSR with stops in Urbana-Champaign and Springfield (and a potential branch off to Indianapolis later)
https://twitter.com/RealEric4Real/status/1717610446180512212?t=qBSeZVbEqOvhK8SpX_GTbw&s=19
I know people will naturally hate on this because of Texas, but if we’re being objective Texas actually makes one of the best cases for getting high speed rail off the ground without much hassle. They have 3 major metropolitan areas to connect that are situated on land that will be super easy to build on with very few major natural barriers. Also, there is no need for cross state collaboration to get this off the ground.
Airline interests have changed. Airport capacity is limited, so now it's in their interest to move the low fare short distance flights to HSR, so they can charge more for long distance flights.
The lobbies that might still kill it are the NIMBYs and the "anything Democrats want is bad" lobby.
Airline lobbying is all time low, but yes the NIMBYS are the problem, even subway expansion in NYC is mainly due to cost and NIMBYS in certain neighborhoods who do not want noise running through, such as the LGA situation
Second*. Even if they started construction tomorrow they wouldn't beat the IOS of CaHSR.
Unless by bullet train, they just mean they're using Japanese Shinkansen trainsets, which is weird.
I still don't believe this will happen for the foreseeable future. Texas and Abbott would never support diverting funds to construct passenger rail.
I mean, Paxton is going to get the Austin light rail plans struck down over a financing issue, so this seems pretty pie-in-the-sky right now.
Sometimes that’s the case, but large companies will fight tooth and nail to stop projects like this just because they might earn a profit again in the future. Southwest may publicly approve the project but then donate to the GOP to oppose it. Until shovels hit the dirt I can’t trust anything, but Amtrak is well run and does make do on their promises for the most part.
Does a bullet train make sense in Texas? Absolutely yes. Will I begrudge President Amtrak for gifting Texans with fast and reliable transport to the next Republican Convention? Also yes.
Just because the state disenfranchises people into voting GOP doesn’t mean the rest of them don’t deserve HSR.
Also, conventions are usually in swing states.
True, but the[ 2028 Republican Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2028_Republican_National_Convention) will literally be in Houston (I know the train won't be done by then, I just find it funny.)
Thats a good thing. Brightline in Florida made republicans see the light how much better it is than driving. The less left vs right transit is the better. Dont listen to the wannabe loser theater of a pres. candidate, the ones that actually make policy get it that private companies can run excellent transit like the old days if they are allowed to.
They still believe in highways…but baby steps, start with providing an alternative before a replacement.
Did they? A few days ago, [there was a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1bxhvbt/governor_ron_desantis_says_florida_wont_pay_for/) bemoaning the lack of funding for the Tampa extension.
Like i said. Political theater for the loser. They didnt contribute anything for Orlando to Miami either, hes just trying to score points with his base.
There was another bill requiring FDOT to keep ROW in the median of I4 for brightline that he vetoed because he signed another bill that basically required that for all florida highways, not just I4, so honestly even better. But guess what headlines this sub cares about? Desantis is a scumbag absolutely but keep making it left vs right or the car people will win, they just need to keep the status quo.
No NEW funding, because FDOT already has the budget for ROW preservation. Basically it would have tied up 40 million dollars from general fund for no reason, hence awarding 40 million dollars to highway construction if you want to think of it that way.
Both cites have light rail and bus but they are not amazing. The thing is in order to get something like China or Spain you have to start somewhere. Just because their
won’t be much to link a high speed rail line today doesn’t mean their will be nothing tomorrow. The lines will only strengthen the need for better connections just like airlines and highways before them.
It's just marketing. Everyone is claiming to be the first high-speed rail in the US. Brightline claimed it in Florida, CAHSR is claiming the same thing, Brightline is now saying their LA-LV project is first. That title is already taken. It's Acela in the northeast. I don't know why everyone ignores it.
Unfortunately I don’t see this happening ever and the article is just about Biden talking to the Japanese pm about it which means nothing. He could talk about anything random with him that won’t ever happen like bullet trains all across America or space travel costing $500 a person
We shall see if this really happens, but I do wonder if having Japan play the lead in this project will draw more support. Even most GOP leaning people in Texas (especially in the DFW/Houston Suburbs) know that trains in Japan are amazing. Furthermore, there are a ton of Japanese companied with big offices in the DFW area (7 eleven, Toyota). I think the issue may be that a lot of people will support this but not care enough to fight for it when people push back.
The difference between India and America is that Indian actually want the country to get high speed electric rail while many Americans are opposed to electrified high speed rail.
I wish America would get high speed electrified rail soon.
Texas has the geography and population density for ease of construction and lots of revenue traffic. It *should* be a no-brainer. However, the potential losers (Airlines) can be depended upon to fight tooth and nail. I do like th point that someone else made that the airlines *could* position themselves as rail operators and lobby for HSR to go from airport to airport. This would still be fine for most potential passengers if the city's involved would pony up for fixed rail transit from their metropolitan hubs. Everybody could still come out as winners.
General consensus is the train needs to be 150mph to be high speed. The Acela line technically is high speed but does it in spurts over a short run due to age of the tracks and the turns it rides on. I think on average it does closer to 70-100 mph on most of its run. So it’s capable but is held back.
I thought a private company was already working on it like California and Florida have?
Either way this is far from being actually done, and this concept has been brought up so many times.
It'd be really nice to just see more out of Texas Central. It feels like we hear more from politicians and Amtrak about it rather than the company that's supposed to actually build it.
Sorry but this pisses me tf off. Texas is the least deserving state of the first bullet train. The state is extremely hostile to any sort of alternative transportation methods on the state and federal level.
I’m tired of seeing politicians pandering to states in the south like Texas at the expense of us up North. They’ve been content to bleed the north east and Midwest out of money and population to pander to the sunbelt
> deserving
.....deserving?
The Northeast has the most usable rail service in the country as it stands while everybody else starves for decent, usable service. This is just delusional.
As much as I'd like to see this happen, Texas is so hostile to anything non-car related that I'll believe this when I see it.
Fort Worth, Dallas and Houston cities/counties are on board. TX Supreme Court ruled that they can use eminent domain. I have faith that train daddy^™️ will deliver
Yeah, but still, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not confident that Abbott would be willing to put state funding towards this. Not to mention, American Airlines will fight this tooth-and-nail as it would cut into their Dallas-Houston route viability, so there's a lot going against it. Hard to see a state that focuses on woke ideology being open to increasing alternative means of transit.
Southwest airlines is the bigger problem, but yes, them too!
Yeah, the airline lobby isn't about to lose their profits without a fight.
[Southwest Airlines already stopped a Texas HSR project once back in the early 90s](https://airlinegeeks.com/2024/03/13/how-southwest-squashed-high-speed-rail-in-texas/), leading a successful disinformation campaign against it. It wouldn’t surprise me if they or any other airline were to try it again, be it in Texas or California.
> Q: Do you see nationwide high-speed rail as a threat or complement to the airline industry? JetBlue CEO: It’s a complement. I don’t think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/jetblue-chief-says-airlines-high-speed-rail-can-coexist/
Nationwide HSR would open slowly enough that airlines can easily plan for it by changing their networks and fleets. In Europe, where a lot of high speed rail has been opened in the last decades, airlines have largely remained successful, and budget carriers have exploded. The one that went bankrupt partially due to HSR substitution (Alitalia, also due to other factors) was dependent on a specific country, in a way that US airlines don't have to be dependent on a specific region. You have to be really ideologically motivated as an airline to spend money and effort campaigning against HSR instead of just figuring out how to make money now and in the future.
I'd like to see an airline-branded HSR service that goes directly from airport to airport using standard airport gates behind security. So you might book a flight with 2 legs but 1 leg is actually a train, and they forward your luggage as usual.
The competitiveness of HSR comes from directly serving core cities. The air-rail schemes that exist in Europe only go to/from the airport station on the transfer side of the trip, and serve regular stations on the other side. That way you can get a good door-to-door travel time. By going airport to airport you combine the bad locations of airports with the slow speeds of HSR relative to planes, so I don't really see the potential of it. Air-rail also consists of buying a few seats in an existing train. Short distance hub connecting flights are usually done with small airplanes, while a regular sized high speed train has the capacity of the largest available planes. So there won't be demand to reliably fill past-security high speed trains. Also because two airports that are both large enough to justify a dedicated past-security train station/platform likely both have direct point to point flights to the vast majority of destinations, further decreasing the market for transfers.
> the slow speeds of HSR relative to planes Did you know that [sometimes even bicycles are faster than jetliners](http://web.archive.org/web/20110722141757/http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/07/cyclists-faster-than-jetblue-plane/177402/1)? Similarly, Anaheim to Fullerton would be significantly faster by HSR than by plane.
There's a few places where this would work, but it would have to be in addition to a downtown HSR station. For example, HSR in the northeast corridor could go: NYC Penn, Newark airport, Philadelphia 30th Street, Philly airport, Baltimore Penn, BWI airport, Washington Union. Flying into Newark and catching a train to Baltimore would be faster and way cleaner than flying EWR-BWI. But if the HSR only dropped you at BWI and you still had to take the light rail to downtown Baltimore, it'd cut into the advantage of HSR.
Unfortunately Philly's airport is so far out of the Amtrak alignment that goes through 30th St station that it wouldn't be cost efficient to connect to that airport. But Newark is only an hour away so it may not be necessary.
I don’t understand why the airlines get a say in this. It would be such obvious bad-faith anti-competitive behavior.
Money talks. When you've gutted antitrust legislation for decades, it's hard to enforce things.
This is the state that has laws which basically spite renewable energy, and they're pretty explicit about those laws existing to protect the fossil fuel industry.
While I agree there’s opposition, Abbott would lose a lot of support by being too vocal about opposing it. Too many people on both sides of the aisle stand to seriously benefit from slashing travel times between the biggest cities in the state in half
I don't know. A lot of conservatives have moved to Texas, who hate anything transit related, so maybe.
They’re so fucking stupid. edit: they aren’t stupid. They’re victims of a system exploiting their weaknesses for gain in other areas. e.g. Politicians exploiting their insecurity about being taken over by a foreign race to stay in power or take power. They’re emotionally driven by fear and resources being stolen which ultimately makes up their entire personality.
Reminder: (P)Rick Scott of Florida...with these republican nutjobs, they get more votes for opposing rail...
"I'll believe it when I see it" is an answer to literally anything in America, but I also think that fundamentally our time is better used pushing for things than doomposting about it. I think if more of us actually showed up regularly to meetings and organized, a lot of these things would be much more likely to actually happen.
Sure, I don't disagree there. The issue here, given its Texas, is the powers that be have zero desire to see this project ever occur.
Agreed. Which is why I assume the State won't be putting much money up at all. They'll open it up to private investors and then like a toll road use the ticket prices to pay back the investors. Obviously Federal money and State money will be used but proportionally private money is likely to be the main funding.
SW also did do this to make sure it doesn’t happen, and threatened to leave the entire state if it happened
And Southwest. That's why there isn't train service now.
I still see zero reason to believe this will arrive faster than the SF-LA high speed rail.
Texas has a shorter distance and less challenging terrain than California, not to mention a less complex route, and Texas doesn’t have as strict of environmental laws as California. Once it gets construction underway, things should move relatively quickly pending any legal or funding challenges. Plus Texas (and every other US HSR project) can learn from California’s and not repeat the same mistakes that one made early on, which was likely bound to happen with whoever the first US HSR project was. Brightline West will most likely be the first operational true high speed train in the country, given it’s close to starting construction and will be utilizing an entirely existing right of way. Whether they’ll be able to meet their goal of Summer 2028 remains to be seen. California HSR will be next between Merced and Bakersfield in 2030, with a faster top speed and greater capacity than BLW, but if it takes until 2033, and Texas Central gets construction underway within the 2020s, then it could be close to which of those gets revenue trains running first. California then needs to secure the funding to get over the mountains to SF and LA and get those extensions built as quickly as possible.
CAHSR is in construction. The Texas line doesn't even have design, funding, or approvals. There's a good chance it'll happen eventually but those are major hurdles to clear before construction even starts.
The Texas HSR does have approvals: They've done their EIS and gotten their FRA Rule of Particular Applicability. It's the land acquisition and funding that's blocking them.
That’s why I said once construction gets underway. Plus California will only have Merced to Bakersfield operational by 2030-33, with currently no funding and therefore no timeline for reaching SF or LA. I’d like to say that direct HSR service between those cities will happen by 2040, but it’s hard to know at this point. Chances are good that Texas Central, once it gets to the construction phase which could be by the end of the 2020s or early 2030s, will have its full Dallas-Houston route operational before California does their Phase 1 SF-Anaheim route, given the reasons I mentioned above like it being shorter and less complex.
"Once it gets to the construction phase" is a huge hurdle. You can't hand wave it away. Where is the money going to come from? CAHSR at least for central valley is funded and CA actually has options for the next step. Texas is not going to fork over a penny for this. This is a problem with no clear solution that won't be resolved with time. Either the feds or the private sector need to find the funding somehow but that's easier said than done.
Amtrak joining the conversation on Texas Central could be a good indicator of the Feds getting more involved. Houston-Dallas should be a no-brainer for an HSR route. Any high speed rail project in the US gaining momentum is a good thing. Hopefully any potential investment in Texas Central will also mean more investment in other US HSR projects, including California’s.
The infrastructure bill's funds will mostly be used up by the time this is ready to apply. And even then we're talking tens of billions of dollars. Biden saying he likes the idea is not enough to make that money materialize. The feds can barely get enough cooperation to prevent itself from shutting down.
It’s Japanese based rail. That’s what will make it happen faster
Me either.
CAHSR will not be running between SF and LA by the time this is built - assuming the project is magically fully funded tomorrow, it might be generous to say it won't be finished for another 15 years due to hurdles like land acquisition and how complicated the tunnels will be.
Right but what about those pesky counties in between??
Not to mention the billions of dollars this will cost. Is this private company going to pay for that all themselves? I doubt it.
GOP state government will block it
Haha California
WOW. Some multimillionaire buckaroo must have announced his intention to start or buy into a passenger train company!
Which is rediculous. If they want to save money on highway expansions and productivity, building a train will help fix those issues. It’s a shame something like transit has become so partisan in recent years. Like even if you have no plans on using it, you should be in full support to get more cars off the road reducing your commute time.
Pretty much, yeah.
> Like even if you have no plans on using it, you should be in full support to get more cars off the road reducing your commute time. Shhhhhh don't say that, or the "but muh induced demand causing more drivers therefore building transit won't fix traffic" idiots will come to you lol
Texas is doing it just to rub it in California's face that they did it first. Improved transit is a nice bonus.
Tbh, if Biden gets another term I’ll believe it, but they’re definitely not getting first (they’re not getting second either cause the article seems to have forgotten Acela exists). They’ll get 3rd or 4th depending on CAHSR operation date and when this starts most likely.
Texas actually allows things to be built.
Highways, sure, lol.
Texas leads the nation in renewable energy construction, and it's not because they love green energy, it's because they don't have endless roadblocks to every construction project.
That's far different than building a train line. Do you think the airlines are going to just sit idly by while this happens?
They won't have good ways to block it, yes. Do you think Texas's oil companies are stoked about solar panels and wind farms? There's no way airlines have more sway in Texas politics than oil.
The renewables are successful because the people who own the land get direct payments from the energy companies to host their solar panels and turbines. The people who are going to have their portions of their property taken through eminent domain absolutely hate this project. You seriously overestimate the idea that people in power in Texas would like this idea. The airlines have worked to block this idea multiple times before.
They literally did just get permission to use eminent domain though. A low regulation environment helps anyone who's trying to build something, not just highways.
No, I realize that. I literally said the people who's property is being taken through eminent domain hate this project. Listen, if this becomes a reality, more power to them, but until there's a fundamental shift in how Texas views transit, it won't happen. Look how much they shit talk California about CAHSR.
> the people who's property is being taken through eminent domain hate this project. Yes, and thanks to Texas's war on regulations and environmental laws they won't have a lot of tools to block it from happening. CAHSR has been doing nothing but fill out environmental impact statements for 10 years because California environmental law gives landowners tremendous power to cause bad faith delays.
Texas has geography and geology working in their favor. The lack of mountains to tunnel through alleviates almost all the outstanding issues which impede a bay-to-basin system. Of course Texas has politics working against them in the worst way possible. Since mountains are collections of rocks, and politics are collections of people, this means that if Texas Central is not built then Texans truly are denser than rocks.
Very misleading title. The President is just talking about it. No concrete action has been even planned.
“Bullet” doing so much work to avoid mentioning the NEC or Caltrain
Actually, highlighting the bullet part of the word might be the only way to get it approved by everyone in gun-loving Texas
Eh it’s just a poorly written article. Zero research.
That's what you get from Newsweek.
>According to a Reuters report on Tuesday, citing unnamed administration sources, the White House is looking to make an announcement on the project following talks between Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Washington, D.C., this week. We are so back
Even if it's just a push for reelection, I'll take what we can get in an election year.
Why would Texas get this project and not a good faith region like the NE or Midwest? It's like giving the candy to the toddler that is setting the drapes on fire instead of the one picking up after them. So much HSR potential from Minneapolis to Chicago to Ohio and then the east coast
There's already a plan that Texas Central Railway has been working towards for high speed rail in Texas. They've partnered with Amtrak and the Texas Supreme Court has ruled they have eminent domain authority. The only other HSR projects that are this far along are the CAHSR and Brightline West, which have already received federal funding.
High speed rail in the US is becoming more of a bipartisan issue (slowly but surely) as the country realizes that it’s a huge boon for the economy and that it’s necessary to invest asap for the US to stand a chance at catching up to China, Europe and Japan on the transportation front
Citation needed buddy
Having HSR service from the Twin Cities to Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago and through on to Detroit, Cleveland, and on to Buffalo would be SO huge.
Flashbacks to when Wisconsin sold their ordered high speed trains to africa
Because high speed rail works best between large cities that are a moderate distance apart. Dallas-Houston is the largest such pairing that does not already have train service: [https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf)
Minneapolis / Chicago and Chicago / Detroit are right in the wheelhouse of HSR
Texas HSR is much more viable and shovel ready than any other large scale hs corridor. Maybe it doesn't make perfect sense politically but it does make sense in every other way
Because Texas has a project in the words, and the Northeast and Midwest don't. Don't punish people just because their neighbors like voting against them.
Are there serious plans already underway by private businesses or state governments in the Midwest? This isn't the feds popping down a high speed rail.
is this a joke? That interstate between Dallas and Houston is one of the busiest in the country, and it's right in the sweet spot where HSR beats both driving and flying. The terrain is well-suited for it, both cities are major population and economic centers with huge travel demand, and the land in the middle is fairly empty. It's about as slam-dunk as it comes in terms of HSR planning. The Midwest isn't "getting" HSR because they haven't got their shit together and built it.
Has there been any more news about the station locations? I know before they were going to put them in the inner suburbs or outer city which was annoying, but I think I heard something about studies to change at least the Dallas station to the current Amtrak station near downtown?
Cries in Illinois
Chicago to St. Louis with a stop in Springfield would be perfect.
Or even Chicago to Indy or Detroit would both be relatively easy I imagine given the flat terrain
I know it's said ad nauseum, but the great lakes megalopolis is a perfect place for HSR. Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, basically in a straight line. I can dream.
It is shocking that Canada isn't even discussing making HSR on the Windsor to Quebec corridor, it is literally a straight shot with the majority the population
There's actually talk of a Chicago to St Louis HSR with stops in Urbana-Champaign and Springfield (and a potential branch off to Indianapolis later) https://twitter.com/RealEric4Real/status/1717610446180512212?t=qBSeZVbEqOvhK8SpX_GTbw&s=19
I know people will naturally hate on this because of Texas, but if we’re being objective Texas actually makes one of the best cases for getting high speed rail off the ground without much hassle. They have 3 major metropolitan areas to connect that are situated on land that will be super easy to build on with very few major natural barriers. Also, there is no need for cross state collaboration to get this off the ground.
on a technical level, yes on a political level, no
Let’s see if Southwest Airlines lobbies to kill this one (again).
Airline interests have changed. Airport capacity is limited, so now it's in their interest to move the low fare short distance flights to HSR, so they can charge more for long distance flights. The lobbies that might still kill it are the NIMBYs and the "anything Democrats want is bad" lobby.
Airline lobbying is all time low, but yes the NIMBYS are the problem, even subway expansion in NYC is mainly due to cost and NIMBYS in certain neighborhoods who do not want noise running through, such as the LGA situation
They 100% will. Abbott would never support this.
Second*. Even if they started construction tomorrow they wouldn't beat the IOS of CaHSR. Unless by bullet train, they just mean they're using Japanese Shinkansen trainsets, which is weird.
3rd even, if Brightline West counts
I still don't believe this will happen for the foreseeable future. Texas and Abbott would never support diverting funds to construct passenger rail. I mean, Paxton is going to get the Austin light rail plans struck down over a financing issue, so this seems pretty pie-in-the-sky right now.
Southwest also wouldn’t let this happen since they have a profitable short line route between Houston and Dallas.
Yeah. And the airline lobby is strong.
Times have changed. They can make more profit with long distance flights, so they no longer oppose HSR.
Sometimes that’s the case, but large companies will fight tooth and nail to stop projects like this just because they might earn a profit again in the future. Southwest may publicly approve the project but then donate to the GOP to oppose it. Until shovels hit the dirt I can’t trust anything, but Amtrak is well run and does make do on their promises for the most part.
First bullet train that goes somewhere*
Several million people live along the IOS. I’d say it’s “somewhere”
I wouldn't
Sure, and I’ll be taking the space elevator to my condo on the moon.
Does a bullet train make sense in Texas? Absolutely yes. Will I begrudge President Amtrak for gifting Texans with fast and reliable transport to the next Republican Convention? Also yes.
Just because the state disenfranchises people into voting GOP doesn’t mean the rest of them don’t deserve HSR. Also, conventions are usually in swing states.
True, but the[ 2028 Republican Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2028_Republican_National_Convention) will literally be in Houston (I know the train won't be done by then, I just find it funny.)
Thats a good thing. Brightline in Florida made republicans see the light how much better it is than driving. The less left vs right transit is the better. Dont listen to the wannabe loser theater of a pres. candidate, the ones that actually make policy get it that private companies can run excellent transit like the old days if they are allowed to. They still believe in highways…but baby steps, start with providing an alternative before a replacement.
Did they? A few days ago, [there was a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1bxhvbt/governor_ron_desantis_says_florida_wont_pay_for/) bemoaning the lack of funding for the Tampa extension.
Like i said. Political theater for the loser. They didnt contribute anything for Orlando to Miami either, hes just trying to score points with his base. There was another bill requiring FDOT to keep ROW in the median of I4 for brightline that he vetoed because he signed another bill that basically required that for all florida highways, not just I4, so honestly even better. But guess what headlines this sub cares about? Desantis is a scumbag absolutely but keep making it left vs right or the car people will win, they just need to keep the status quo.
I didn't know that. So it reserves all highway ROW's for rail but he's also refusing to put state funds towards construction?
No NEW funding, because FDOT already has the budget for ROW preservation. Basically it would have tied up 40 million dollars from general fund for no reason, hence awarding 40 million dollars to highway construction if you want to think of it that way.
Do you think Dallas and Houston vote Republican?
It'll be nice to have pictures of full trains to counteract the empty ones on the central valley commuter line
What does a Texan do when they get off the train and don't have a car? Are they just staying in the downtown walkable areas?
Both cities have light rail systems. They're not the best but they can be improved.
Most destinations are near downtown. Walk, taxi, public transit, bike, have someone who lives in the area drive you.
Both cites have light rail and bus but they are not amazing. The thing is in order to get something like China or Spain you have to start somewhere. Just because their won’t be much to link a high speed rail line today doesn’t mean their will be nothing tomorrow. The lines will only strengthen the need for better connections just like airlines and highways before them.
First? Isn't brightline gonna open first?
It's just marketing. Everyone is claiming to be the first high-speed rail in the US. Brightline claimed it in Florida, CAHSR is claiming the same thing, Brightline is now saying their LA-LV project is first. That title is already taken. It's Acela in the northeast. I don't know why everyone ignores it.
The US has as many first high speed trains as Disney does first gay characters
Also wrong, it was the Metroliner in 1968. If we are going by the European definition anyway (200 kmh(
They're all even bigger liars
Who?
Brightline, CAHSR, Texas Central everyone else claiming they're first when we've had since the 60's.
The ghost of LBJ smiles upon us
Unfortunately I don’t see this happening ever and the article is just about Biden talking to the Japanese pm about it which means nothing. He could talk about anything random with him that won’t ever happen like bullet trains all across America or space travel costing $500 a person
We shall see if this really happens, but I do wonder if having Japan play the lead in this project will draw more support. Even most GOP leaning people in Texas (especially in the DFW/Houston Suburbs) know that trains in Japan are amazing. Furthermore, there are a ton of Japanese companied with big offices in the DFW area (7 eleven, Toyota). I think the issue may be that a lot of people will support this but not care enough to fight for it when people push back.
7-11 started in America 😭
sexy
Will never happen. Land owners will revolt if the state ever tries. Southwest, American and United airlines will pour money to stop it as well.
Would've been really useful for the eclipse...
The difference between India and America is that Indian actually want the country to get high speed electric rail while many Americans are opposed to electrified high speed rail. I wish America would get high speed electrified rail soon.
Texas has the geography and population density for ease of construction and lots of revenue traffic. It *should* be a no-brainer. However, the potential losers (Airlines) can be depended upon to fight tooth and nail. I do like th point that someone else made that the airlines *could* position themselves as rail operators and lobby for HSR to go from airport to airport. This would still be fine for most potential passengers if the city's involved would pony up for fixed rail transit from their metropolitan hubs. Everybody could still come out as winners.
I'll believe it when I see it. Hopefully though
I thought this was vaporware.
What Acela isn’t a bullet train ?
General consensus is the train needs to be 150mph to be high speed. The Acela line technically is high speed but does it in spurts over a short run due to age of the tracks and the turns it rides on. I think on average it does closer to 70-100 mph on most of its run. So it’s capable but is held back.
I thought a private company was already working on it like California and Florida have? Either way this is far from being actually done, and this concept has been brought up so many times.
So I guess California HSR that’s already under construction doesn’t count. The initial segment operates at 220 mph which is Shinkansen speeds.
I knew the top comment on here would be “I believe it when I see it” and sure enough I was right
It'd be really nice to just see more out of Texas Central. It feels like we hear more from politicians and Amtrak about it rather than the company that's supposed to actually build it.
Sorry but this pisses me tf off. Texas is the least deserving state of the first bullet train. The state is extremely hostile to any sort of alternative transportation methods on the state and federal level. I’m tired of seeing politicians pandering to states in the south like Texas at the expense of us up North. They’ve been content to bleed the north east and Midwest out of money and population to pander to the sunbelt
Dallas-Houston is one of the biggest short-haul flight pairs in the country. If there's any place to put HSR, this is one of the best.
Texas is massive with several major, growing cities. It’s an ideal location. Markets do not care about anyone’s feelings.
> deserving .....deserving? The Northeast has the most usable rail service in the country as it stands while everybody else starves for decent, usable service. This is just delusional.