Andrew Burleson

Texas high-speed rail

Steve Hawley, Oct 01, 09.

Tagged with transportation, high speed rail, texas

Texas High-Speed Rail: Introduction:

Today I’m starting a series on high-speed rail. This first post contains my opening thoughts, and some of the background assumptions that inform the rest of what I’m going to write about.

The biggest thing I see missing from the debate is acknowledgements due to both sides.

For the pro-rail folks: realize and address the fact that if the service doesn’t save time or money compared to driving, then ridership will be very low. Also, if the system doesn’t connect to the right destinations, ridership will be low. In other words, it’s not worth building a system at all if we can’t build one that will be useful to people.

For the anti-rail folks: acknowledge that if a new system is built that offers better service, the environment will change in response. People will adapt by moving their homes or offices etc, or by demanding better local transit connections or park-and-ride facilities.

Lastly, on the issue of funding: highways and rail are both highly subsidized. I personally think that neither should be subsidized, but as long as one is they will both have to be. There’s no way that one method of transportation can sustain itself privately in an open marketplace against a subsidized competitor. So, I’ll happily propose an unsubsidized rail system just as long as we convert all freeways and/or long-distance highways to toll roads which collect fares based on their cost of operations, maintenance, and construction, and restrict gas taxes to use for local streets. If that’s not on the table, then we’ll have to consider some ways in which the public sector can support a high-speed rail effort.

Full story: Texas High-Speed Rail: Introduction
Source: neoHOUSTON, September 28, 2009

Texas High-Speed Rail: The Trains:

When considering a high-speed rail system one of the most important questions is, “What kind of train should we use?” There are a number of technologies in existence around the world that a high-speed rail system could be built with, and each of them has certain advantages and certain drawbacks.

First, there are conventional steel-wheel trains. Without a major change from the mixed freight and passenger track designs of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, many conventional trains can reach speeds of 90 to 110 miles per hour. ... [W]hile the capital cost would be lower, the operating cost would be higher. Still, this is typically the cheapest approach, with costs as low as $3-5 million per mile. Most commuter rail proposals are looking at this kind of technology.

Then there are high-speed variations of the steel-wheel train. These electric railroads are the dominant form of passenger rail around the world, and the vast majority of existing high-speed systems in Europe and Japan. ... The most common figures I’ve seen range from about $30 million per mile to $70 million per mile. The fastest high speed trains travel over 200 miles per hour.

Lastly, there’s maglev. At a cost of about $70 million per mile, the Shanghai Maglev Train is the world’s benchmark for this new technology. Unlike steel-wheel trains, Maglev runs on a different kind of track, and theoretically is capable of faster speeds than steel-wheel trains (though among currently built systems the top speeds are pretty comparable). The Shanghai Maglev has tested at 311 MPH.

Trains may be faster than cars, but if you have to wait twenty or thirty minutes for the next train then much of that advantage has been lost. Also, there’s no mental effort required to schedule a trip by car, you just hop in and go. Collectively these factors are a big reason why cars are more popular than trains in the US.

For that reason, I’m particularly interested in an emerging variant of maglev technology, being developed by American Maglev Technology (AMT) in Atlanta, Georgia. Their system can operate between 150 and 300 miles per hour, and can be built at a cost of $15-17 million per mile. But, most importantly, their system is specifically designed to run small trains at very high frequencies – as close as two minutes apart – all controlled by a computerized command center.

For the rest of the series I’m going to base my concepts on AMT’s technology. There are other technologies that could service our local needs, but I believe AMT has the best technology available.

Full story: Texas High-Speed Rail: The Trains
Source: neoHOUSTON, September 29, 2009

Texas High-Speed Rail: The Routes

The question of where to route a high-speed train in Texas is probably the most widely discussed aspect of the subject. There have been a number of proposals, from the fairly straightforward Texas TGV (following the basic route of the Interstate Highways between the Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston), to the outright asinine Trans-Texas Corridor (with high-speed rail looping 40 and 50 miles outside of the major cities as part of a vast ‘bypass’ network).

There is one plan that has recently been gaining a lot of traction. The “Texas T-Bone” plan, pushed by the Texas High Speed Rail Transportation Corporation, suggests connecting the three points on the triangle by taking a straight shot through the heavily populated I-35 corridor from Dallas to San Antonio, then intersecting it with a “Tee” that would extend from Fort Hood to Houston.

The T-Bone is designed to shave 250 miles of track off the “triangle” route, and therefore offer the possibility of much cheaper construction. The T-Bone also seeks to connect to Texas A&M by passing through College Station on it’s way from Houston to Temple.

In an attempt to combine the best elements of the “Triangle” and the “T-Bone” into a single system, I’ve come up with an alternate plan. I call it the Mini-Triangle.

The Mini-Triangle (MT) plan results in direct express routes to and from Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston. These routes branch in Austin, Waco, and College Station. If a high-speed train averaged a modest 150MPH (including stops), the travel time from Houston to Dallas would be 1:45. This represents about a 20-30 minute savings over the T-Bone if you factor in travel and transfer times. The savings would be about 25-35 minutes going from Houston to San Antonio.

Full story: Texas High-Speed Rail: The Routes
Source: neoHOUSTON, September 30, 2009

More Commentary