Notso_fastLane

In Germany, some of the train stations had the option of loading your car onto the train, then driving off when you got to your destination.

Of course, in Germany, that's rather redundant, since the local metro bus/rail systems are always so good, even in the smaller towns.

We lived there 18 months and never even rented a car.

Bandera

Yep, we will fight this misguided boondoggle all the way thorough the courts with considerable political organization, funding and the Texan ethos of individual rights over social engineering and will not be "steamrolled over" by the corporate greed that threatens our Heritage.

-Bandera

tandempower

What about the individual right to choose passenger rail over other long-distance modes?

Bandera

You'd have to be able to buy a ticket on the HSR to "choose" it over other long-distance modes, which is never going to happen since we are well organized and funded, politically solid and stand on our rights.
There is no "choice" between theory and reality, unless one is delusional and/or wants to ride Amtrak.

That being said I would't mind seeing commercial dirigible traffic overhead carrying huge loads of freight and passengers between Houston and Dallas, if didn't spook the cattle.

-Bandera

Mobile 155

Do you really think all those people driving to Disney world feel bad about themselves? Have you noticed how popular resorts are that are fed by Air and large parking lots? I can promise you people travel more by plane and car than by train. And from the Grand Canyon to Mount Rushmore people look pretty happy marching around with their car in the parking lot. I doubt that your hypothetical people that feel bad now about traveling will not feel bad about not traveling in the future.

It it would be like paying to go camping to them.

I-Like-To-Bike

Where and when did that option ever exist at German train stations? I lived in Germany for 10 years and never heard of such an option being available, let alone ever saw it at any train station.

Sounds like a fantasy plan to make passenger train travel even slower while cars are loaded and unloaded from specialized rail cars attached to passenger trains.

Rollfast

Maybe a Chick-Fil-A one.

FiftySix

I've heard that from every generation for the last three generations and it's probably been going on long before that. There is always a core group that doesn't want to bring more children into the horrible world we all live in. That's okay, the rest of human kind will fill in the gaps.

EDIT: Ever seen the intro to the movie Idiocracy?

cooker

There is such an option approaching the Matterhorn, but that is more of a holiday destination rather than normal travel, and located in Switzerland. There is or was a car train from Virginia to Florida

cooker

How did that work with I-45?

FiftySix

Comparing the Interstate Highway System (aka National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956) to low usage passenger rail?

Bandera

Didn't have a dog in that fight.
HSR is Apples & Oranges vs an Interstate Hwy from a legal & political standpoint, we're fighting it in the courts and in Austin.
The difference between those actively fighting HSR in TX in legal and political organized opposition and BF-LCF who are just kibitzing at best is taking Action vs moving Air.
No point in endless back 'n forth w/ bystanders on this issue, we have work to do.

-Bandera

cooker

There's no point in being on BF or LCF at all, unless you like debating with other people with different viewpoints. I have no influence on what happens in Texas, but I do find it interesting to discuss it.

cooker

No, comparing it to what I suspect would be a high volume rail, given the huge number of people who travel frequently between Houston and Dallas and the fact that the distance is ideal for this application.

InOmaha

High speed rail between two low density cities doesn't solve many issues. It's an alternative to airlines, not cars. People would drive to the rail line, park their car in a lot for $X/day, take the train, and rent a car for $X/day and drive to their ultimate destination. If reducing car travel is the goal then the money is better spent on low speed rail inside of each city from the urban center to the suburbs. This HSR option will reduce car use about as much as one connecting Lubbock to Waco.

Using higher density countries with higher density cities on other continents is not a valid comparison. Germany is the roughly the size of California with twice as many people. Texas would need to get to around 200,000,000 people to have a similar population density as Germany.

FiftySix

I agree that the distance would be good.

I don't think the time for hi-speed rail is here yet for Texas. Perhaps when our population has doubled and the percentage of car owners drops immensely due to the increased urbanization of our big cities here.

Right now, our big cities are really built with suburbs upon suburbs. Urban sprawl has run non-stop for decades.

What I'm saying is that our population density isn't up to the level of places like New York, Boston, and probably even Toronto. Which means too many people are too far from a starting point for hi-speed rail here. On top of the fact that gasoline is still relatively low priced here in Texas, compared to places like California or Europe.

Bandera

Gotta get that obsessive "Last-Word-In" don't you?
"Discussion" ends when one party indicates that they are done like:

Nope, it's LCF-land where the relentless bubble of babble just churns on.....and on and on...

And now more Last Words no doubt, because @cooker Just Has To, an irresistible LCF-think itch that just has to be scratched.

-Bandera

tandempower

That's my point. You are justifying obstruction of the train in the name of protecting individual choice, but then you admit that the 'individual choice' you are protecting requires blocking the individual choice to choose rail.

In that case, you're not really arguing for individual choice at all, but rather limitation of individual choice.

That's fine, but be clear about what you're actually arguing in favor of.

tandempower

Right now you have the baby boomer generation as the grandparents. They have raised children with flying and driving and the routes for trains and buses were largely eliminated through the decades, so currently people are maintaining family traditions by doing the fly/drive thing, but we are also hearing a lot about the climate changing and concern is growing even while people aren't yet ready to forego the traditions they've built up prior to really thinking about the harm caused.

So I think, yes, people are taking those Disney trips by plane and car, but I think they will taper as the baby boomer generation is dying off.

If options don't emerge that offer people a guilt-free way to travel, there is gradually going to be less travel. Your personal viewpoint allows you to imagine people indulging in whatever they want without thinking about harm caused, but there is research coming out all the time about climate change and many people want it to go away because it is raining on the their parade, but realistically it can only go away by coming up with truly sustainable technologies and not just by whitewashing or pulling the wool over their eyes.

tandempower

The ideal would be for any area, however low the density, to begin adapting to a future where land-use is intensive instead of extensive. Sprawl is something that people evolved into by living by car. When you start to realize how much time you spend sedentary while driving around sprawl, you realize it's wasting your time and health to live in such an area. People do it for the money or for other reasons, but it doesn't benefit them ultimately. Many are afraid of density for various reasons, but without that fear driving them to live in suburban sprawl, they wouldn't choose it because driving is a huge waste of time.

jon c. 

I live about 20 miles from my office because I want to live in a low density area. I'm surrounded by trees and have all manner of wildlife in my yard. I love it and don't consider the drive a waste of time. It's well worth it.

FiftySix

One thing's for sure, I hate being around masses of people. My days of not minding standing in long lines ended in my mid-thirties. I still try and leave very early in the morning to beat the 3 hour long "rush hour" on work days.

My little two lane suburban street only 1/8 mile long must have 1000 cars go by it everyday since it is one of the entrances to my neighborhood. Drives me nuts, no peace at all.

I chose to live as close in to the city as I can afford for easier access to jobs for my family. Yet, downtown is still 20 miles away, and the closest city bus route is 6 miles away.

I am not alone. There are millions of us in this scenario in Texas.

FiftySix

Anyway, this hi-speed rail isn't intended for people in the suburbs. It's intended for people near the city center.

In Houston, that will mean people that live within loop 610. Which is heavily gentrified* now, and still growing in that regard. So, in my opinion, mostly business professionals will be using Texas hi-speed rail.

The funny thing about gentrification here is a new 3-story condo will replace a small single story home built 60 years ago. Usually, the small single story home had more people in it than the new 3-story condo does now.

Which means that population density should be falling somewhat. However, many new condo neighborhoods are built on old manufacturing plant property, so the population density comes back up some.

*not all areas within the loop.

tandempower

How many hours (approximately) per week would you say you spend driving?

jon c. 

Probably 10 hours or so on average.

The closest supermarket is 8 miles and everything else is at least 10.