http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/dallas-to-houston-high-speed-rail-review-set-to-begin-following-feds-ok-today.html/ [activated]
Starting to sound more and more like a real possibility.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
JCR and a consortium of investors have said that they will be able to fund the project, although the specifics at this stage are vague.
Fort Worth and Arlington have weighed in on the proposal. They have claimed foul if they are not included. The promoters have said, OK, but you have to come up with the financing to connect Fort Worth and Arlington with Dallas.
Most of the betting money is that Fort Worth and Arlington will not be able to play unless they can get public money. And given the view of the state's conservative politicians, as well as the financial constraints of the U.S., it will be a slog to get public money for the Fort Worth, Arlington and Dallas connection.
I was in College Station last week to visit with some folks at the Texas A&M Foundation. They told me that the locals are upset that the proposed high speed train would not stop in College Station, and they are lobbying to force the promoters to include a stop in College Station as part of their planning. Whose next?
This is a classic me too argument. Texas needs a bullet train from Dallas to Houston? Becaue the other guys have one! The better option would be improved rail service from the Metroplex to Austin and San Antonio, with stops in Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio.
The interim cities along the I-35 corridor route don't have adequate commercial passenger options, unless one considers them to be Greyhound and Megabus, whereas Dallas and Houston have good air and intercity bus service. And both could be improved without a massive investment, i.e. larger airplanes for more frequent service between DFW and Houston as well as more and perhaps larger buses.
Lets see! The Japanese are supporting the project because they will be able to sell lots of the equipment needed for the rail line. No disinterested play here!
Sam1 JCR and a consortium of investors have said that they will be able to fund the project, although the specifics at this stage are vague. Fort Worth and Arlington have weighed in on the proposal. They have claimed foul if they are not included. The promoters have said, OK, but you have to come up with the financing to connect Fort Worth and Arlington with Dallas. Most of the betting money is that Fort Worth and Arlington will not be able to play unless they can get public money. And given the view of the state's conservative politicians, as well as the financial constraints of the U.S., it will be a slog to get public money for the Fort Worth, Arlington and Dallas connection. I was in College Station last week to visit with some folks at the Texas A&M Foundation. They told me that the locals are upset that the proposed high speed train would not stop in College Station, and they are lobbying to force the promoters to include a stop in College Station as part of their planning. Whose next? This is a classic me too argument. Texas needs a bullet train from Dallas to Houston? Becaue the other guys have one! The better option would be improved rail service from the Metroplex to Austin and San Antonio, with stops in Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio. The interim cities along the I-35 corridor route don't have adequate commercial passenger options, unless one considers them to be Greyhound and Megabus, whereas Dallas and Houston have good air and intercity bus service. And both could be improved without a massive investment, i.e. larger airplanes for more frequent service between DFW and Houston as well as more and perhaps larger buses. Lets see! The Japanese are supporting the project because they will be able to sell lots of the equipment needed for the rail line. No disinterested play here!
There, there now, of course your upset, this route might work and return a profit. What are the airlines going to do with the loss of traffic......right?
However, it is a private company and regardless of what you think they can spend their money on whatever they want and for whatever purpose.
Dallas to Ft. Worth is not critical to the project and the private company is unconcerned if that leg ever gets built..............so thats a non-issue.
College Station lobbying has been considered by the railway and they have clearly stated there will be NO STOP PLANNED there initially until they get better stats. They stated repeatedly that each stop costs them 20 minutes out of the one way schedule so before they would consider a stop there they would need to do a cost / benefit analysis of schedule impact vs revenue gain. If it were me I would skip College Station. College students can bus to Houston or Dallas. Railway company equally unconcerned about local community lobbying and stated they are not going to bow to local pressure for intermediate stations.
As for selling their equipment elsewhere, that maybe partly true but the consortium stated that Dallas to Houston was the BEST Corridor they could find in CONUS for this HSR system as far as cost of construction and population / distance. So I am not sure there will be others, this might be the only one for a while..
"There there now!" What is it with you? You cannot make a point without belittling someone who holds a different view? I am opposed to profit? You must not have read any of my posts.
I favor a private solution for all commercial passenger transportation. The government should not be involved in it. The federal government does not operate any airlines, intercity bus companies, barge lines, cruise ship lines, etc. I have never seen any economic justification for having the government sponsor Amtrak.
Initially promoters of DART said that the light rail system would be built without any federal money. Wrong! Did not work out that way. They have gotten billions of federal money to complete the system.
Whether the Dallas to Houston HSR can be built without any federal money is to be learned. To date the promoters have not released any proforma financial plans. If federal and state money is required, which is a possibility, Fort Worth, Arlington, and College Station will likely have a say in the outcomes, because the financing will be politicized, and once that happens all initial bets will be off.
JCR and SNCF claim at least one of their high speed lines is profitable. What they fail to mention is that they built their high speed rail systems with massive taxpayer supplied monies. Then, after the taxpayers had eaten most of the up front depreciation, they spun off the infrastructure at a substantially depreciated book value, which enabled the infrastructure operator to charge JCR and SNCF market rents that enable them to show a profit on their lines.
I don't have a problem with an equipment manufacturer promoting a system that will help it sell its stuff, as long as the outcome does not become a burden on the taxpayers.
Until the promoters of the Texas HSR show the public audited proforma financial statements, I am a skeptic. Moreover, as noted, my biggest concern is a better outcome could be generated for more Texans by upgrading passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor.
Sam1. I was in College Station last week to visit with some folks at the Texas A&M Foundation. They told me that the locals are upset that the proposed high speed train would not stop in College Station, and they are lobbying to force the promoters to include a stop in College Station as part of their planning. Whose next?
Did the locals lobby Southwest Airlines to land their Dallas-Houston flights at Easterwood airport, too?
Sam1 I favor a private solution for all commercial passenger transportation. The government should not be involved in it. The federal government does not operate any airlines, intercity bus companies, barge lines, cruise ship lines, etc. I have never seen any economic justification for having the government sponsor Amtrak.
And yet if I have a private plane and I land at a commercial airport I pay more in taxes and fees than a commercial Airline does on a commercial plane. We've been over the subsidy methodologies before between the various modes. You'll find the Commercial Airlines enjoy a lot of subsidies, some of them hidden quite well.
Sam1 I Initially promoters of DART said that the light rail system would be built without any federal money. Wrong! Did not work out that way. They have gotten billions of federal money to complete the system.
I Initially promoters of DART said that the light rail system would be built without any federal money. Wrong! Did not work out that way. They have gotten billions of federal money to complete the system.
I don't remember that promise and at any rate the last $1+ Billion grant was from the Feds at the initiation of President Bush who decided to live in Dallas, so I am not sure that was planned from the beginning. I don't know how they could get inside the mans head and plan that.
Sam1 Whether the Dallas to Houston HSR can be built without any federal money is to be learned. To date the promoters have not released any proforma financial plans. If federal and state money is required, which is a possibility, Fort Worth, Arlington, and College Station will likely have a say in the outcomes, because the financing will be politicized, and once that happens all initial bets will be off.
Every transportation system in this country is built with Federal or State Money at some point. Wisconsin & Southern case in point. Guess who started that railroad? A state highway contractor that knew he could shake down the state for money because he did it numerous times before with highways. He also knew he didn't really have to make a business case for the money he had the ability to persuade the state to spend money on just about anything he proposed.
Sam1 JCR and SNCF claim at least one of their high speed lines is profitable. What they fail to mention is that they built their high speed rail systems with massive taxpayer supplied monies. Then, after the taxpayers had eaten most of the up front depreciation, they spun off the infrastructure at a substantially depreciated book value, which enabled the infrastructure operator to charge JCR and SNCF market rents that enable them to show a profit on their lines. I don't have a problem with an equipment manufacturer promoting a system that will help it sell its stuff, as long as the outcome does not become a burden on the taxpayers.
Well it is yet to be proven you know what your doing with your financial analysis. Since your expressing an opinion thats fine and the detail really isn't necessary (I know I rarely read it all) but you shouldn't equate polite silence with acceptance of your financial analysis.
Sam1 Until the promoters of the Texas HSR show the public audited proforma financial statements, I am a skeptic. Moreover, as noted, my biggest concern is a better outcome could be generated for more Texans by upgrading passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor.
As a private company it is completely their option if they decide to do that. However, as a private company that would also be competitive suicide to an extent to do that if they are entering a new field without competitors and I am not sure their Bank backers would like that. Further, pro-forma financial statements in a lot of cases do not have the detail to do a proper financial analysis of a company. If you think they do, you obviously have never tried to purchase an existing company with ongoing operations using just pro forma statements (it's very dangerous and your the first accountant I have ever heard that would rely on those to figure out if a company is profitable........most people use the audited statements). At any rate, I would rather read an accountant's review that is getting PAID for the review that is standing behind their analysis via their stamp of approval then someone doing it as a hobby.
I just tried to buy a Dallas based company and they sent me their pro-forma financial statements, I did my two times cash flow plus fixed asset value formula to see if the purchase price was close. It wasn't. I asked for the audited financial statements along with his CASH account bank statements ans guess what? This company was maintaining two sets of books, one for the IRS and one for a potential purchaser. He had been in business for 20 years, never been audited. The giveway was labor was accounted for on the seller books but not the IRS books.......he was paying his employees under the table and without 1099's more than likely. Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements.
CMStPnP Sam1 I favor a private solution for all commercial passenger transportation. The government should not be involved in it. The federal government does not operate any airlines, intercity bus companies, barge lines, cruise ship lines, etc. I have never seen any economic justification for having the government sponsor Amtrak. And yet if I have a private plane and I land at a commercial airport I pay more in taxes and fees than a commercial Airline does on a commercial plane. We've been over the subsidy methodologies before between the various modes. You'll find the Commercial Airlines enjoy a lot of subsidies, some of them hidden quite well. Sam1 Initially promoters of DART said that the light rail system would be built without any federal money. Wrong! Did not work out that way. They have gotten billions of federal money to complete the system. I don't remember that promise and at any rate the last $1+ Billion grant was from the Feds at the initiation of President Bush who decided to live in Dallas, so I am not sure that was planned from the beginning. I don't know how they could get inside the mans head and plan that. Sam1 Whether the Dallas to Houston HSR can be built without any federal money is to be learned. To date the promoters have not released any proforma financial plans. If federal and state money is required, which is a possibility, Fort Worth, Arlington, and College Station will likely have a say in the outcomes, because the financing will be politicized, and once that happens all initial bets will be off. Every transportation system in this country is built with Federal or State Money at some point. Wisconsin & Southern case in point. Guess who started that railroad? A state highway contractor that knew he could shake down the state for money because he did it numerous times before with highways. He also knew he didn't really have to make a business case for the money he had the ability to persuade the state to spend money on just about anything he proposed. Sam1 JCR and SNCF claim at least one of their high speed lines is profitable. What they fail to mention is that they built their high speed rail systems with massive taxpayer supplied monies. Then, after the taxpayers had eaten most of the up front depreciation, they spun off the infrastructure at a substantially depreciated book value, which enabled the infrastructure operator to charge JCR and SNCF market rents that enable them to show a profit on their lines. I don't have a problem with an equipment manufacturer promoting a system that will help it sell its stuff, as long as the outcome does not become a burden on the taxpayers. Well it is yet to be proven you know what your doing with your financial analysis. Since your expressing an opinion thats fine and the detail really isn't necessary (I know I rarely read it all) but you shouldn't equate polite silence with acceptance of your financial analysis. Sam1 Until the promoters of the Texas HSR show the public audited proforma financial statements, I am a skeptic. Moreover, as noted, my biggest concern is a better outcome could be generated for more Texans by upgrading passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor. As a private company it is completely their option if they decide to do that. However, as a private company that would also be competitive suicide to an extent to do that if they are entering a new field without competitors and I am not sure their Bank backers would like that. Further, pro-forma financial statements in a lot of cases do not have the detail to do a proper financial analysis of a company. If you think they do, you obviously have never tried to purchase an existing company with ongoing operations using just pro forma statements (it's very dangerous and your the first accountant I have ever heard that would rely on those to figure out if a company is profitable........most people use the audited statements). At any rate, I would rather read an accountant's review that is getting PAID for the review that is standing behind their analysis via their stamp of approval then someone doing it as a hobby. I just tried to buy a Dallas based company and they sent me their pro-forma financial statements, I did my two times cash flow plus fixed asset value formula to see if the purchase price was close. It wasn't. I asked for the audited financial statements along with his CASH account bank statements ans guess what? This company was maintaining two sets of books, one for the IRS and one for a potential purchaser. He had been in business for 20 years, never been audited. The giveway was labor was accounted for on the seller books but not the IRS books.......he was paying his employees under the table and without 1099's more than likely. Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements.
Sam1 Initially promoters of DART said that the light rail system would be built without any federal money. Wrong! Did not work out that way. They have gotten billions of federal money to complete the system.
Proforma financials are what an entity expects to achieve or what it would have realized if circumstances had changed. They should be audited by an outside auditor, i.e. Deloitte & Touche, PWC, KPMG, etc. Who said anything about having the financial statements prepared by someone who does it as a hobby?
How do you know what M&A activities I was or was not involved with? In fact I was involved heavily in the acquisition of a Fortune 500 firm by the Fortune 250 company that I worked for. I was even more involved in the acquisition of an Australian company. In all three cases I worked with first class consultants (McKinsey, Booze...., Planmetrics, Hewitt & Associates, etc.) and accountants (Deloitte, PWC).
You don't provide any hard data to support your views, i.e. subsidies for commercial airlines, etc. Are you a pilot? What are the landing fees at Love Field for the commercial carriers, private pilots, etc.? What are the landing fees at Addison Airport?
The supporters of the Texas HSR have not presented any detailed financial projections. Ultimately, if they hope to be sell public debt or equity to raise the capital to build the system, they will need to present audited financial plans to the SEC as well as state regulators. It is unlikely, as the sponsors of the California HSR project have learned, that they will be able to raised all the required capital in the private equity or debt market.
Again, why to you feel compelled to belittle people with whom you disagree? Why can't you just state an opposing point of view without denigrating the people who hold opposing points of view? Ever hear of the notion of disagreeing agreeably?
This poster will leave the financials to others. The main concerns will be structure.
1. To run a reliable service almost 1/2 of track miles will need to be 2 MT at first with complete 2 MT within a couple years. That is required to allow for the planned and unplanned maintenance that will be necessary and cause one track to be closed for a maintenance window.
2. Stations. Where are the stations going to be ?
3. Only Dallas Union station has a half decent station interior if it is to be used. More ticketing stations could be easily built. The tunnel from the station underneath the station tracks could be used for separated access. If the station is used at least light rail serves the station. But parking is very limited at present. The government building next door might provide parking ? important questions ?
4. Houston Amtrak if used is an entirely different matter that many businessmen would not want to use. The station is located immediately NW of downtown business district. Just a $10. taxi drive to any downtown business Even the Roswell, NM airport ( only EAS ) has a larger waiting area, plenty of parking, and easier access. The only thing going for HOU is there is a police station close by. Parking is limited. Auto access is a convoluted drive from some directions. It Is not even located on a major street. Public transit closest bus appeared about 4 blocks ? Taxi parking limited. Drop off & pick up very limited probably only allowing 4 - 6 autos at one time. Interior has no room for expansion of passenger servicing. Interior was full even for just a Sunset trip. Platform canopy very poor.
5. If HOU is used as a terminating station major track work would be needed to allow stub end stops to the west. At present has several unused stub tracks there but are too short. Freight track to the north might be able to be moved north allowing more station tracks just north of station ?
6. For a Dallas - Ft. Worth - San Antonia route much the same items are in play.
7. Do not know anything about any of the stations en route. SAM1?
8. But San Antonia station --- Houston station is a palace compared to SAS. IMO the worse station by number of passengers per year in the USA. Located in a old freight house ? Parking unknown. Later arriving passengers have to stay outside. No ticking expansion possible? .
9. Platform lighting terrible with only dim CFLs in every other ancient broken fixtures . No lighting or canopies to the south of the station. present canopy only about 8 cars long. Only level access to eastern platform that can be blocked by a train on western track.
10. There is an old stub track adjacent to repurposed SP station that at present has a TNO streamer on display. Stub might be useable but crossing street north of station would need closing. Track work would need extensive rework + PRIIA notations as well.
11. If old SP station can be reused then the problems of interior might go away but outside is another matter.
Really, there is no such thing as Passenger Train financials in this country and there never was a case where they were broken out on any financial reports. So I think it is ridiculous to try to piecemeal them together with the very limited information available. Your never going to end up with a true picture of costs or revenues. The only company I think has really made it in the Passenger Train industry is the Rocky Mountaineer and they are not selling just Passenger Train fares they are selling hotel packages and tour packages mixed in.........so good luck pulling that mess apart and just seperating passenger train operations.
The DFW to San Antonio route would be much more expensive to upgrade to HSR than the new route between Dallas and Houston because of the land development along the rail route, in fact Billions more as they would need to shift most of the track Westward from it's current alignment. Further it would need to traverse the Texas Hill country which is roughly analagous to the topography along the Upper Mississippi river near La Crosse, WI........thats going to cost money. Currently ithe existing route can be used for rail comutter and potentially some speeds up to 100 mph between cities but those line segments are decreasing in length as the cities along the line grow. It will never see true HSR service unless the line is relocated and grade seperated...........it will cost Billions more to do that than Dallas to Houston.
Dallas to Houston is not planned for ANY intermediate stations. They stated they might consider one station if the ridership / revenue warrants a stop but they are even reluctant for one. Dallas station is projected to be a new station just East of Dallas Union Station at the former convention center site. Have no idea about Houston. Dallas Union Station does not currently have a lot of room for extra track space as the current track space is squeezed between the Hyatt and Union Station itself. They could add more by removing the rear parking lot behind DUT but I am not sure that is likely as they would have to also move the DART tracks inwards. They could also shift the mainline tracks closer to the Hyatt Regency and eliminate all rear access to the Hyatt. So it is still possible to accomodate more tracks at Dallas Union Station.. The best part of Dallas Union station is on the second floor, the first floor which is used as the station now.......used to be the baggage room. The second floor is now either leased or owned by the Hyatt Regency for catered dining events and they offer Wolfgang Puck catering there. They should return Union Station to the second floor, however that would again mean passengers ascending stairs to the waiting room........then decending stairs to the train platforms (this was the original design for Dallas Union).........................So with all that redesign and construction I can see why they want an all new station East of Dallas Union Terminal......probably cheaper to build new than fixing the existing mess at Dallas Union Station.
My image of (hope for) this service is that the creators aren't constraining themselves to what currently exists or what was. They are building tomorrow; they are creating a service that develops its own, new "universe", with its own magnetism. To have the passenger rail know-how of the Japanese involved to me is critical, something I've wished for for years. They cleaned our clocks in the auto world (which we sorely needed). That's what we need for travel by rail. The Europeans are too tradition-bound for us. The Japanese continue to work steadily toward commercializing maglev. The Europeans have an accident involving MOW equipment, and give up. And this service isn't about fitting in with our powerful freight rail system.
You don't need to have high speed rail along the I-35 corridor. You only need to improve the service to a point where it would be competitive with road traffic. Giving motorists an alternative probably is the best potential market for improved passenger rail between DFW and San Antonio.
Raising speeds to those comparable to the ones planned for Chicago to St. Louis or the regional trains in the NEC probably would be adequate. If the trains could average 80 mph, they would be able to run from DFW to San Antonio in approximately 3 hours.
No one knows how much it would cost to upgrade the existing rail lines between DFW and San Antonio for improved passenger service. However, there is no reason why the existing rights-of-way could not be used.
The best option would be to move the trains onto the old MKT route, which passes through Waco, thereby adding that sizable city to the route. Of the intermediate cities between DFW and San Antonio, Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, Taylor and San Marcos don't have adequate air or bus service. Therefore, a train that could compete with personal vehicles in the I-35 corridor probably would appeal to the residents of those communities.
The stations in Dallas, Fort Worth, and Temple would be adequate for improved service along the I-35 corridor. New stations and parking facilities would be required for Hillsboro, Waco, Taylor, Austin, San Marcos, and San Antonio.
Unfortunately, it ain't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime. I-35 is being rebuilt. More lanes are being added. This is what most Texans want, and they are not going to get out of their personal vehicles, at least in large numbers, to ride a train or a bus or an airplane.
Tx DOT already studied this Dallas to San Antonio route and they dispute many of the assertions you made above including that the existing right of way could be used for HSR. You need to Google or write Governor Perry for the study. Much of what I stated in my post came from the TxDOT review of this route.
Again, they stated the route has to be largely relocated West of it's current location. Now they were going to just give away the relocated roadbed to the frieght railways as compensation for taking control of the rail route that passes through the city centers for largely commuter rail. So in effect they were not studying HSR but they made the statement in their research that the line to San Antonio had such a bad current location that frieght was backing up on it do to slower speeds through the city centers (yard limits, rr crossings, slow orders, etc). So I really do not know how your plan is going to fix that. Amtraks current schedule along the route is hopelessly slower than the automobile by a factor of 2 hours or more.
CMStPnP Tx DOT already studied this Dallas to San Antonio route and they dispute many of the assertions you made above including that the existing right of way could be used for HSR. You need to Google or write Governor Perry for the study. Much of what I stated in my post came from the TxDOT review of this route. Again, they stated the route has to be largely relocated West of it's current location. Now they were going to just give away the relocated roadbed to the frieght railways as compensation for taking control of the rail route that passes through the city centers for largely commuter rail. So in effect they were not studying HSR but they made the statement in their research that the line to San Antonio had such a bad current location that frieght was backing up on it do to slower speeds through the city centers (yard limits, rr crossings, slow orders, etc). So I really do not know how your plan is going to fix that. Amtraks current schedule along the route is hopelessly slower than the automobile by a factor of 2 hours or more.
Why don't you give us the link to the TXDOT study?
I am not talking about HSR. I am talking about upgrading the former MKT route, using a public/private partnership to get it done. The former MKT route runs from Fort Worth to Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, and Taylor, although a better option would be to route it from Granger to Georgetown and Round Rock.
So, if you double tracked the line as per above, straightened out some of the curves, etc., you might possibly have a rail line that could support significantly higher speeds.
Those who support HSR, especially in Texas, want to go from zero to 185 or 220 mph. I think a better option is to walk before running and to serve more intermediate communities. The later approach is the one that has been used with success for the California corridors.
This past week I rode the Pacific Surfline from San Diego to LAX twice. I remember when it had just three trains a day each way. Now there are approximately 11 trains a day each way. As a result ridership on the Pacific Surfline trains topped reached 2.71 million last year. These trains carried more passengers in FY13 than any other State Sponsored and Other Short Distance trains. Only the NEC regional trains carried more passenger.
A bullet train from Dallas to Houston will be great for people who live close to the downtown areas in both cities. It may pay for itself. But better rail service along the I-35 corridor may be a better payoff for more people.
Sam1 Those who support HSR, especially in Texas, want to go from zero to 185 or 220 mph. I think a better option is to walk before running and to serve more intermediate communities. The later approach is the one that has been used with success for the California corridors. SAM1 --- Unfortunately that is the attitude of many throughout the US, HrSR can be built first, quicker, and less expensive. For those routes that demonstrate demand then HSR can be contemplated. This poster used to be all for HSR but now reality has set in. If all the NEC can be upgraded to 110 - 160 MPH then the travel time will be less than 2 hours NYP - WASH. That would t be not much longer for a very expensive 220 MPH route. The sweet spots appear to be 1 Hour and 2 hour total en route times ? A bullet train from Dallas to Houston will be great for people who live close to the downtown areas in both cities. It may pay for itself. But better rail service along the I-35 corridor may be a better payoff for more people. Since a route has not been set in stone any possible future intermediate stations are for present are only speculation. 1. Its either College station & maybe WACO or 2. Huntsville & Corsicana 3, Waco might have good possibilities since a split there could go to Ft. Worth as well ? But for the present the 2 biggest cities in Texas has to meet the sweet spot of less than two hours by not stopping en route.?.
SAM1 --- Unfortunately that is the attitude of many throughout the US, HrSR can be built first, quicker, and less expensive. For those routes that demonstrate demand then HSR can be contemplated. This poster used to be all for HSR but now reality has set in. If all the NEC can be upgraded to 110 - 160 MPH then the travel time will be less than 2 hours NYP - WASH. That would t be not much longer for a very expensive 220 MPH route. The sweet spots appear to be 1 Hour and 2 hour total en route times ?
A significant percentage of the Texas Central Railway leadership team appears to have vested interests in Japan. Tom Schieffer, Senior Advisor, was United States Ambassador to Japan, owns an international consulting firm that probably has Japanese clients, and probably has personal relationships with Japanese leaders. Ambassadors are noted for their ability to develop important relationships in the countries where they are stationed.
Japan, through JCR, has a vested interested in pushing its high speed rail technology. If it can build the equipment for a high speed railway line between Dallas and Houston, especially if most of its is assembled in Japan, it can export unemployment and spread its fixed costs over the incremental units, thereby reducing the cost of any new equipment for its domestic trains. It is not unlike the U.S. selling weapons systems, i.e. tanks, airplanes, naval ships, etc. to other countries, thereby reducing the cost per unit for the U.S. military.
Is the proposed high speed railway, which according to the TCR website will rely heavily on existing railway rights-of-way, i.e. the UP through College Station, the optimum solution for Texas' mobility problems, or is it a solution chasing a problem? The fact that the proponents, which includes JCR, have identified Dallas to Houston is the best route for deploying Japanese high speed railway equipment in the United States suggests that it may be a solution chasing a problem.
Supposedly the problem is getting people from the Dallas CBD to the Houston CBD quickly, conveniently, and comfortably. Is this really the most pressing mobility problem facing Texas?
Southwest Airlines has 48 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. Chock to chock time is 1 hour for most of the flights. It flies from Love Field, which is a 14 minute drive from downtown, according to Google Maps, to Houston's Hobby Field, which is a 22 minute cab ride to downtown. In addition, there are 68 flights a day from DFW to Bush Intercontinental. DFW is 31 minutes from downtown, and Bush is 25 minutes from downtown. The time required to get from DFW to downtown will be reduced appreciably with the opening of DART's Orange Line to the airport in August. Moreover, given the disbursement of both metro areas, i.e. most people are not going from downtown to downtown, a high speed railway running from downtown Dallas to downtown Houston will not appeal to the majority of the population. Whether it can attract enough customers is problematic.
The proponents of the TCR argue that their solution is not just for today. It is for tomorrow, when the skies will be crowded. Maybe! If the skies become crowded, SWA and the DFW carriers could do what Qantas did in the Melbourne/Sydney corridor. Increase the size of the airplanes. As noted in previous posts, I lived in Melbourne for more than five years. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and Airbus 330s on the Melbourne to Sydney runs. They can be configured to carry more than 300 passengers, which is nearly double what SWA's 737-700 models carry. It even uses a couple of 747-400s on the route. There is no reason why SWA and the other airlines could not use larger airplanes between Dallas and Houston if the traffic demanded. And the upgrades required for the existing facilities would be limited largely to the gates. Both fields can take any of the airplanes listed.
A push back on increased air service is the security issue. The TCA has implemented improved security measures at Texas' major airports. Pre-screened passengers, which could include all regular travelers, has reduced the time required to pass through security to just a few minutes. Moreover, it is unlikelly that there would be no security screening for passengers on high speed rail. Amtrak currently verifies every passenger boarding its trains in Texas. The crews have been trained to look for suspicious persons.
A better option would be moderate speed rail between the Metroplex and San Antonio, which would meet the needs of the intermediate communities mentioned above. It would not be as spectacular as the high speed rail proposal, but it may be a better outcome. Having said that, I know that once the momentum for the high speed rail gets going, there will be no stopping it.
Larger planes on a short distance route does not necessarily mean more profit, it costs more to take off and land and the larger engines consume more fuel, crew costs and maintenence is higher as well. Pretty sure the airlines have a model on what types of aircraft are feasible on what distance routes. You'll never see a 777 or a 767 flying between Houston and Dallas without some kind of longer distance leg after that. Further being a past frequent airline traveler myself, American used to have domestic 777 service in this country between DFW and ORD(Chicago O'Hare) and between DFW and MIA(Miami). Even though they had longer distance routes attached departing from Chicago and Miami they halted the practice. Why? Two hour min turn at each terminal made the profitability of even a short segment not worth the trouble. So your only going to see larger jets in the United States on longer routes than Houston to Dallas. Pretty sure the largest jet you'll see on Houston to Dallas or San Antonio to Dallas is a A310 or MD-80, likely they are going to stick with 737's for SWA though. Cramming more seats in while the size of the typical American passenger is getting larger isn't going to work either.
Also, on travel times between Dallas and Houston.......your never going to make it 1 hour and 30 minutes downtown to downtown on a commercial flight even with the TSA pass system (which I have). Thats a dream. Min time compares with driving and is closer to 3-4 hours sometimes 4 if the flight is cancelled or delayed. I used to work for a consulting company here in Dallas that had a large project with Waste Management in Houston. A good percentage of the consultants drove rather than flew and I asked them why........3 hours min they stated using Commercial plus the hassle of waiting on transportation on both ends of the trip..........compares favorably with a 4-5 hour drive and the luxury of not having to cart your luggage around.
I used to fly to San Antonio from Dallas for a project prior to 9-11, 50 min flight on a American MD-80, 45 min prior to the flight had to be at DFW, took 30 min to claim checked bags and check out a car rental (I would usually overlap the two getting the car rental first then picking up the bags). So approx just over 2 hours to complete that commercial flight and then it is depart the air terminal and fight San Antonio traffic to get where your going. That was before 9-11 so my guess is it takes longer now (possibly 2.5 hours entrance door at DFW to final exit door at San Antonio). No way is moderate speed rail at 5-6 hours going to compete with that transit time and thats being optimitistic on the time, it takes 9-10 hours now by train between Dallas and San Antonio. Your going to have to move freight trains off that line to get it down to 5-6 hours unless you triple track it, which, as I mentioned earlier is probably not feasible cost wise..........new right of way West is probably cheaper.
BTW, Brief and off topic comment on the TSA pass program. If you stop and talk to the agents you will hear the rumor that they have a LOT of gates accepting it at DFW because they are still in the trial period and have the budget. Thats going to stop if not enough people sign up for it and they will limit the gates at which the TSA frequent traveler pass system is accepted which will increase transit times........so we should probably not count the current system in use at DFW as how it will be in the future.
Also BTW, while it is true some business travelers use SWA, vast majority use Delta and American because their frequent traveler programs are worldwide and SWA's is not. Each trip on SWA for a frequent traveler such as a consultant costs both time and points. Time because their flight schedule has not fully changed from the Wright Amendment days requiring a intermediate stop somewhere and points because their FF program sucks so bad. So I would not use SWA in any airline example when it comes to business travelers.
Cost per seat mile is the key determinant in where an airplane can be deployed successfully, i.e. charge a price sufficient to recover the cost and provide a return to the shareholders.
If the seat mile cost for a Boeing 767 and Airbus 330 is equal to or less than that for a 737-700, and there is sufficient demand to recover the cost, using the larger airplane becomes feasible. This is exactly what Qantas has done on the Melbourne to Sydney run, which is somewhat longer than Dallas to Houston, i.e. 1 hour 30 minutes vs. 1 hour 5 minutes.
Bigger airplanes would be just one possible improvement. Because of improvements in the nation's air traffic control system, which are coming on-line in increments, the system will be able to handle many more flight operations. Thus, if SW, as an example, used some of its new 737-800s on the Dallas to Houston flights, which it is doing, and doubled the number of flights between Dallas and Houston, which probably would be possible, it would have significantly greater capacity.
If the existing air system could be expanded to transport the expected increase in passenger traffic between Dallas and Houston, that may be a better option than building a $2 billion plus railroad, although no one has shown us verifiable numbers regarding the cost of the railroad. Expanding the gates at Love Field and Hobby would be the major capital expenditure required to increase the air capacity. Would it cost as much as building a railroad? I don't know, but I doubt it. If gates can take a 737-800, in most instances they can take a 767 and 330.
How many business travelers choose a DFW carrier to fly to Houston vs. the number on SW? Do you have the figures? Had anyone in our company flown out of DFW to Houston to get frequent flyer miles, when they could have gotten a better price on SW, they would have need a robust explanation for why they chose the more expensive fare.
I have a TSA priority clearance. Nothing special. Practically anyone can get it if they meet the requirements and pay the fee, which is $85. Moreover, the TSA is expanding this program. It is in effect at 35 airports, with more planned, and 11 domestic air carriers. On my last flight, which was a week ago out of Austin, I cleared the TSA screening process in less than two or three minutes. According to the TSA website, more and more people are signing up for this program.
According to the TSA, during May, the average wait time at Houston Hobby was 8 minutes, followed by 10 minutes at George Bush Intercontinental, 14.5 minutes at Love Field and 18 minutes at DFW. Of course, the amount of wait times varies during the day and the year. According to FareCompare, the average wait time at DFW was 8 minutes whilst the average wait time at Intercontinental was 19 minutes.
Downtown to downtown on the airplane in one hour and 30 minutes would be tough, although not impossible. A key question is how many people travel from downtown Dallas to downtown Houston? Are there any verifiable passenger projections for the TCR.
Is 1 hour, 30 minutes a realistic time for the train? The promoters of the California High Speed Rail Project published optimistic times for LAX to SF, only to have to increase them for a variety of reasons.They also had to scale back their unrealistic cost projections. And it is still not clear that they will get the funding necessary to complete the project. Why should we believe that the TCR will not encounter many of the same problems?
The train passengers probably will be screened, as is the case between New York and Washington, where passengers are subject to random checks. Also, people taking the train will have to park, etc. So their door to door time is likely to be more than 1 hour 30 minutes.
Yeah, my opinion on Quantas management and your Austrailan example:
http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2014/03/letting-qantas-go-go-bankrupt-would-be.html
I'll stick with more efficiently run carriers like Delta and American Airlines and how I observe they manage their planes and routes vs using Quantas
Your never going to see a 767 or A330 fly between Houston and Dallas in your lifetime as a sole flight segment unless they start burning a cheaper / alternate fuel or are a heavily subsidized National Carrier like Emrites. Quite probable that SWA might even downgrade from 737's to regional jets on the route for more frequency and efficiency.
I for one cannot wait until they start to charge for carry-on bags, which is a new fee that is comming soon in the next few years. It will cut back on the fighting somewhat for overhead space and resulting delays to departure.
Sam1 The key point with respect to size of the airplane is the cost per seat mile and whether it can be recovered because of demand. If the cost for a B-767 and AB-330 is equal to or less than the cost per seat mile for a B-737-700, and the demand is there, then using the larger airplane becomes feasible. And the airlines turn the same tight margin that they turne with the smaller airplane. This is exactly what Qantas has done on the Melbourne to Sydney run, which is somewhat longer than Dallas to Houston but not by a great deal.
The key point with respect to size of the airplane is the cost per seat mile and whether it can be recovered because of demand. If the cost for a B-767 and AB-330 is equal to or less than the cost per seat mile for a B-737-700, and the demand is there, then using the larger airplane becomes feasible. And the airlines turn the same tight margin that they turne with the smaller airplane. This is exactly what Qantas has done on the Melbourne to Sydney run, which is somewhat longer than Dallas to Houston but not by a great deal.
SAM1: Unfortunately the seat mile cost of larger planes for short distances do not increase linearly but some what exponentially. The landing ( takeoff ) fees are based on maximum take off weight. The bigger ( long distance ) aircraft carry a very large amount of fuel that will be burned off on long 10 Hour + trips. Even B-737 ( 5 hour max stage length ) will not take off near max TO weight or B-777 ( 16 - 18 hours ).
2. Another problem of larger aircraft is their fuel requirements are much greater per seat while climbing or on low altitude flight.
3. A problem that Next Gen will not solve is landing and take off distance behind large aircraft. B-757 aircraft require 5 mile separations. A-340 B-777 and larger aircraft 7 mile separations. These separations needed for aircraft wake turbulence avoidance. small behind a small can reduce to 2-1/2 miles. Capacity constrained airports such as HOU Hobby may want to limit large aircraft.
4. Finally are Hobby runways even stressed for large aircraft ?
CMStPnP Yeah, my opinion on Quantas management and your Austrailan example: http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2014/03/letting-qantas-go-go-bankrupt-would-be.html I'll stick with more efficiently run carriers like Delta and American Airlines and how I observe they manage their planes and routes vs using Quantas Your never going to see a 767 or A330 fly between Houston and Dallas in your lifetime as a sole flight segment unless they start burning a cheaper / alternate fuel or are a heavily subsidized National Carrier like Emrites. Quite probable that SWA might even downgrade from 737's to regional jets on the route for more frequency and efficiency. I for one cannot wait until they start to charge for carry-on bags, which is a new fee that is comming soon in the next few years. It will cut back on the fighting somewhat for overhead space and resulting delays to departure.
Qantas has been financially stressed for a variety of reasons. It has had to face challenges similar to those face by America's legacy carriers.
Have you ever been to Australia? Have you ever flown Qantas between Melbourne and Sydney or vice versa?
What metrics do you have or can you point us to that show American, which has just emerged from bankruptcy, and Delta are better managed that Qantas?
There is nothing in the article that you referenced to link Qantas' financial problems with the use of Boeing 767s and Airbus 330s on the Melbourne to Sydney runs. When I was in Melbourne in February, I flew to Sydney and back on a 767. The flights were pretty full.
No one, especially people outside of the aviation community, knows what types of airplanes might be used by the carriers on any segment in Texas or anywhere else for that matter. Southwest's management has said frequently that it will not use of regional jet airplanes. Why would it? The 737-700 and 800 is idea for its segments.
You made the claim that many if not most business people in the Metroplex fly out of DFW, when they are going to Houston, to get the frequent flyer points. You said that most business people don't fly on SW between Dallas and Houston? Again, do you have any data to back-up this claim? How about some hard data?
blue streak 1 Sam1 The key point with respect to size of the airplane is the cost per seat mile and whether it can be recovered because of demand. If the cost for a B-767 and AB-330 is equal to or less than the cost per seat mile for a B-737-700, and the demand is there, then using the larger airplane becomes feasible. And the airlines turn the same tight margin that they turne with the smaller airplane. This is exactly what Qantas has done on the Melbourne to Sydney run, which is somewhat longer than Dallas to Houston but not by a great deal. SAM1: Unfortunately the seat mile cost of larger planes for short distances do not increase linearly but some what exponentially. The landing ( takeoff ) fees are based on maximum take off weight. The bigger ( long distance ) aircraft carry a very large amount of fuel that will be burned off on long 10 Hour + trips. Even B-737 ( 5 hour max stage length ) will not take off near max TO weight or B-777 ( 16 - 18 hours ). 2. Another problem of larger aircraft is their fuel requirements are much greater per seat while climbing or on low altitude flight. 3. A problem that Next Gen will not solve is landing and take off distance behind large aircraft. B-757 aircraft require 5 mile separations. A-340 B-777 and larger aircraft 7 mile separations. These separations needed for aircraft wake turbulence avoidance. small behind a small can reduce to 2-1/2 miles. Capacity constrained airports such as HOU Hobby may want to limit large aircraft. 4. Finally are Hobby runways even stressed for large aircraft ?
Use of a B-777 for relatively short flights probably is not feasible. In looking back through my posts on this thread, I don't see where I suggested using Triple 7s between Dallas and Houston, or that Qantas is using them for domestic flights within Australia, especially between Melbourne and Sydney.
If Qantas can use 767s and 330s between Melbourne and Sydney, why would it not be possible to use them between Dallas and Houston? What operating rule says that they have to carry a full load of fuel if they are only going a short distance?
Maybe using B-737-800s would be a better option. Or scheduling more flights. Or half a hundred other out of the box improvements that have not yet been thought about.
A key point, unfortunately, has been lost. Before investing $10 billion in a high speed railway between Dallas and Houston, could the existing air system be expanded to provide an equal or better service for the next several decades? Air travel is the preferred mode of commercial transport between the two cities for most business people as well as many leisure travelers. Whether they would switch to a train is problematic.
Air Force One lands at Love Field and Hobby.
As stated above, I believe there are better opportunities for rail, i.e. service for a broader population along the I-35 corridor, than a high speed railway between Dallas and Houston.
Aside from the cost, which the current developers seem to think is feasible, a train that can run most of the way at 160 mph (as they do in Europe a good deal) should be able to manage the 240 mile run in 1 hr, 45 min. That would take the lion's share of the downtown to downtown market for businessmen from air. Nudge the top speed up to 175 mph (again, done frequently in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, China) and the airlines would have to vacate the market.
Has any one considered that this might be a long term real estate deal as All Aboard Florida appears to be ? Then in future have train routes go to government agencies ?
Streak,
I do not think it is much of a real restate deal. I do think it is an attempt to sell Japanese rolling stock. If it were my project I would not have any intermediate stops as they slow the service down.
Mac
My hunch, and it's a hunch, is that younger Americans are ready for something new in transportation. Something they can see as part of their generation. That and I think a great number of people see airline travel today as a necessary evil. Lots of calluses formed to weather the travel experience. I think if the bullet train hits the true high tech, high touch sweet spot, people will flock to it.
To have this route work and make money you need on time operation. Much of that is not having any more train sets than possible. So turning the trains at the end terminating point is very important. 245 road miles average speed 120 MPH depart one city on the hour and other on the half hour every hour would require 5 operational train sets. with one spare at each terminal + 1 in medium maintenance makes a total of 8 sets.. More sets means more up front capital costs.
To keep the trains making OT turns the Japanese have devised a very smooth cleaning regimen. This link shows how to keep attracting repeat passengers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p020xlm1
schlimm Aside from the cost, which the current developers seem to think is feasible, a train that can run most of the way at 160 mph (as they do in Europe a good deal) should be able to manage the 240 mile run in 1 hr, 45 min. That would take the lion's share of the downtown to downtown market for businessmen from air. Nudge the top speed up to 175 mph (again, done frequently in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, China) and the airlines would have to vacate the market.
I suspect pretty strongly they are looking for both airline and automobile market share on this route. I think as in the NEC, they will capture more airline than automotive though based on what I said in my posts earlier (on peoples behaviors that actually travel the route). I can't get a good read on if their projected speed limit is firm or not. The higher it is the more expense to run though.
Per the Airline posts:
I stand by what I stated earlier. This isn't an airline cost accounting forum, no need to continue that line of conversation in this thread. .
"Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements."
A financial forecast based on pro-forma income statements, balance sheet and/or cash flows. Pro-forma forecasts are usually created from pro-forma financials, which are forecasted using basic forecasting procedures. Often, revenues will provide the initial groundwork for the forecast, while expenses and other income statement items will be calculated as a percentage of future sales.
If you forecasting you don't have audited financial statements. If you know what your are doing, you put together pro-forma financials and have them audited. The auditor will not attest to the financials, as in a normal audit, since there are no underlying source documents, but he can attest to the assumptions, formulas, consistency of principles application, estimates, etc.
The overwhelming majority of business people in the Metroplex don't work in downtown Dallas. They are scattered throughout the Metroplex, which has a footprint as large as LAX or perhaps larger. I don't know how many business persons work downtown Houston. I suspect it is more than downtown Dallas. Like Dallas, however, many business activities in Houston are located outside the CBD. NASA, for example, is 26.5 miles south of Houston.
As an example, one of the largest business centers in the Metroplex is Legacy Park. If I remember correctly, it is where Toyota plans to locate its headquarters. Whether the people from Legacy Park or any of the other North Dallas employment centers would go downtown to catch a train to Houston is problematic. Even more problematic is whether business persons or anyone for that matter in Fort Worth, Arlington, or the other mid-cities would go into Dallas to catch a train to Houston. DFW airport is much closer for them. Unfortunately, TCR has not presented any market studies of how its intends to attract people to its trains.
Sam1 "Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements." Definition of 'Pro-Forma Forecast' (Investopedia) A financial forecast based on pro-forma income statements, balance sheet and/or cash flows. Pro-forma forecasts are usually created from pro-forma financials, which are forecasted using basic forecasting procedures. Often, revenues will provide the initial groundwork for the forecast, while expenses and other income statement items will be calculated as a percentage of future sales. If you forecasting you don't have audited financial statements. If you know what your are doing, you put together pro-forma financials and have them audited. The auditor will not attest to the financials, as in a normal audit, since there are no underlying source documents, but he can attest to the assumptions, formulas, consistency of principles application, estimates, etc.
Well you selectively edited what was stated in that online article or definition via cut and paste. Why did you leave this relevant part out?........
"However, companies can also manipulate their financial results under the guise of pro-forma financial statements to provide a picture that is rosier than reality. Let's take a closer look at what pro-forma financial statements are, when they are useful and how companies can use them to dupe investors."
I stand by what I stated before and most CPA's will stand by the bolded statement above as well as what I posted earlier. I use two of them on a regular basis one in Texas and one in Wisconsin.
When you forecast financial statements and use the pro forma approach you should also start with audited financial statements as a base year (they should represent year zero) and describe what was the approach you used to forecast and extend the forecast including the use of benchmark growth rates, past earnings, etc. Thats if you want to be taken seriously.
You don't just flop pro forma statements out there with no base and say walla....these are pro forma statements. Like any forecast done in any field of study you need a solid base (or foundation) from which to start a forecast. Thats if you want to be taken seriously. If your just doing this as a hobby on the side with no deference to accuracy and just flopping them out there......I guess nobody cares but then........why go through all that trouble?.
CMStPnP Sam1 "Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements." Definition of 'Pro-Forma Forecast' (Investopedia) A financial forecast based on pro-forma income statements, balance sheet and/or cash flows. Pro-forma forecasts are usually created from pro-forma financials, which are forecasted using basic forecasting procedures. Often, revenues will provide the initial groundwork for the forecast, while expenses and other income statement items will be calculated as a percentage of future sales. If you forecasting you don't have audited financial statements. If you know what your are doing, you put together pro-forma financials and have them audited. The auditor will not attest to the financials, as in a normal audit, since there are no underlying source documents, but he can attest to the assumptions, formulas, consistency of principles application, estimates, etc. Well you selectively edited what was stated in that online article or definition via cut and paste. Why did you leave this relevant part out?........ "However, companies can also manipulate their financial results under the guise of pro-forma financial statements to provide a picture that is rosier than reality. Let's take a closer look at what pro-forma financial statements are, when they are useful and how companies can use them to dupe investors." I stand by what I stated before and most CPA's will stand by the bolded statement above as well as what I posted earlier. I use two of them on a regular basis one in Texas and one in Wisconsin. When you forecast financial statements and use the pro forma approach you should also start with audited financial statements as a base year (they should represent year zero) and describe what was the approach you used to forecast and extend the forecast including the use of benchmark growth rates, past earnings, etc. Thats if you want to be taken seriously. You don't just flop pro forma statements out there with no base and say walla....these are pro forma statements. Like any forecast done in any field of study you need a solid base (or foundation) from which to start a forecast. Thats if you want to be taken seriously. If your just doing this as a hobby on the side with no deference to accuracy and just flopping them out there......I guess nobody cares but then........why go through all that trouble?.
How could a start-up company start with base year financial statements? It does not have any financial statements. Everything is proforma at this stage of the game.
As noted clearly, the name of the game is to have the proforma statements audited by an outside auditor to prevent abuse. The purpose of the audit is to make sure that the sponsors are not gaming the statements, i.e. presenting fraudulent accounting statements.
Any accounting and financial statements can be manipulated. This is the reason why the financial statements of all public corporations and most private corporations are audited by outside auditors.
You don't appear to understand the difference between the financial statements for an on-going entity and the proforma statements (forecasts) for a proposed start-up.
Excerpt from Politico, June 6
Richard Lawless, Texas Central Railway’s chairman and CEO, said the company is now raising capital to fund the development stage of the proposed railroad, preferably without any federal or state money. He wouldn’t reveal the company’s investors but said that may come soon.
The company won’t be competing for any grant money from the public coffers, Lawless said, and it won’t look to the government to subsidize any part of the operational expense of the system.
“Absolutely not, we will not look to any government or public entity to subsidize the farebox,” Lawless said.
But he left the door open to looking to the feds for other kinds of help, such as financing for the project. Lawless did not address the costs of building the line, but some estimates have put construction at $10 billion.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/texas-central-sees-90-minute-dallas-houston-commute-at-205-mph-107392.html#ixzz36FLsjB9f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6igUibrfwc Texas Central video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrn2Vcmwqg lengthy talk video
Texas went through the trials and tribulations of high speed rail in the 90's. Southwest Airlines led the charge against hsr, assisted by landowners and NIMBYs, that effectively put an end to the concept.
Terminal points at the ends are crucial; airports at least have rental car agencies; parking structures, taxis and shuttles. All of the metro areas in Texas; Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio, suffer from urban spawl; a downtown terminal without local tranportation amenities is going to be a tough sell.
Pro-forma statements are a crucial part of any new business model. It is important to check the projected expenses against real world data to make sure that nothing is missing. Do the pro-formas match existing industry statements; are all the expenses listed and are they reasonable; are the projections for revenue realistic and obtainable; and many other points to compare? One of the most important tools for a proposed venture are the what ifs? What do we do if ridership does not meet expectations? What do we do if cost overruns deplete available capital? And so on...
Sam1 How could a start-up company start with base year financial statements? It does not have any financial statements. Everything is proforma at this stage of the game. As noted clearly, the name of the game is to have the proforma statements audited by an outside auditor to prevent abuse. The purpose of the audit is to make sure that the sponsors are not gaming the statements, i.e. presenting fraudulent accounting statements. Any accounting and financial statements can be manipulated. This is the reason why the financial statements of all public corporations and most private corporations are audited by outside auditors. You don't appear to understand the difference between the financial statements for an on-going entity and the proforma statements (forecasts) for a proposed start-up.
Oh I understand fully, I still don't think you do.
tin canPro-forma statements are a crucial part of any new business model. It is important to check the projected expenses against real world data to make sure that nothing is missing. Do the pro-formas match existing industry statements; are all the expenses listed and are they reasonable; are the projections for revenue realistic and obtainable; and many other points to compare? One of the most important tools for a proposed venture are the what ifs? What do we do if ridership does not meet expectations? What do we do if cost overruns deplete available capital? And so on...
Bingo! And that is based on a business model or prototype. For example before Zappos became an ongoing venture and to prove their forecasts they ordered shoes from area retailers and sold them on the internet as a "prototype" to prove their underlying assumptions and projections. The biggest one being that consumers would buy shoes on the Internet without being able to handle them, see them or try them on.
They didn't just flop out Pro Forma Statements and expect Investors to bite.
CMStPnP tin canPro-forma statements are a crucial part of any new business model. It is important to check the projected expenses against real world data to make sure that nothing is missing. Do the pro-formas match existing industry statements; are all the expenses listed and are they reasonable; are the projections for revenue realistic and obtainable; and many other points to compare? One of the most important tools for a proposed venture are the what ifs? What do we do if ridership does not meet expectations? What do we do if cost overruns deplete available capital? And so on... Bingo! And that is based on a business model or prototype. For example before Zappos became an ongoing venture and to prove their forecasts they ordered shoes from area retailers and sold them on the internet as a "prototype" to prove their underlying assumptions and projections. The biggest one being that consumers would buy shoes on the Internet without being able to handle them, see them or try them on. They didn't just flop out Pro Forma Statements and expect Investors to bite.
Who said anything about flopping out proforma financial statements, without their being audited? Who said anything about their being prepared in an unprofessional manner?
Checking the estimates, assumptions, calculations, formulas, etc. used to develop proforma statements is exactly why one should have them audited by an independent auditor.
The financial statements for an on-going entity are developed from the entity's accounting records. They can be audited and attested to by independent auditors. Proforma statements cannot be audited in the same way as the financial statements of an on-going entity. Because of the way they are prepared, the auditors can only verify the appropriateness of the estimates, assumptions, calculations, formulas, etc. This is the difference between audited financial statements and proforma statements.
CMStPnP Sam1 How could a start-up company start with base year financial statements? It does not have any financial statements. Everything is proforma at this stage of the game. As noted clearly, the name of the game is to have the proforma statements audited by an outside auditor to prevent abuse. The purpose of the audit is to make sure that the sponsors are not gaming the statements, i.e. presenting fraudulent accounting statements. Any accounting and financial statements can be manipulated. This is the reason why the financial statements of all public corporations and most private corporations are audited by outside auditors. You don't appear to understand the difference between the financial statements for an on-going entity and the proforma statements (forecasts) for a proposed start-up. Oh I understand fully, I still don't think you do.
"Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements." This is your statement word for word, copied straight out of your post.
How would you get fully stated audited statements from a start-up company that is yet to begin operations? It does not have any accounting records and, therefore, cannot generate any financial statements that can be audited. It can only produce proforma statements.
I surely understand the difference between the financial statements of an on-going entity, which can be audited, and the proforma statements of a start-up company. A start-up entity does not have any financial statements. It can only produce proforma statements.
I am still waiting for the support for your statement that most DFW business persons fly out of DFW to Houston, as opposed to going on Southwest out of Love Field, so that they can presumably collect the frequent flyer points. Surely this is not another unsupported statement!
What is your educational background? Are you an accountant, financial analyst, auditor? What certifications do you have?
wanswheel Excerpt from Politico, June 6 Richard Lawless, Texas Central Railway’s chairman and CEO, said the company is now raising capital to fund the development stage of the proposed railroad, preferably without any federal or state money. He wouldn’t reveal the company’s investors but said that may come soon. The company won’t be competing for any grant money from the public coffers, Lawless said, and it won’t look to the government to subsidize any part of the operational expense of the system. “Absolutely not, we will not look to any government or public entity to subsidize the farebox,” Lawless said. But he left the door open to looking to the feds for other kinds of help, such as financing for the project. Lawless did not address the costs of building the line, but some estimates have put construction at $10 billion. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/texas-central-sees-90-minute-dallas-houston-commute-at-205-mph-107392.html#ixzz36FLsjB9f http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6igUibrfwc Texas Central video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrn2Vcmwqg lengthy talk video
Interesting. I seem to remember at one point in the project they implied one or two of the Investors would be Japan based implying JCR or the Japanese Government via one of it's funding arms.
All the proponents of the TCR have put out for the public is a set of glossies describing the wonderful benefits to be realized by people traveling between Dallas and Houston on a high speed train. And they may be correct. Time will tell.
If the proponents of the TCR are able to build it without any federal money, I will be the first to lift my hat to them. Many of the members of the leadership team know their way around Washington, Austin, and Tokyo. Why?
What the proponents of the TCR have not made available to the public or anyone else, as far as I can determine, is any ridership, revenue, cost, etc. projections. Until that comes along, we will not know whether the project is sound. Based on the outcomes of the California High Speed Rail Project, we should be at least modestly skeptical.
From wanswheel
What the proponents of the TCR have not made available to the public or anyone else, as far as I can determine, is any ridership, revenue, cost, etc. information. Until that comes along, we will not know whether the project is sound. Based on the outcomes of the California High Speed Rail Project, we should be at least modestly skeptical.
end of quote
I don't think there will be any public numbers. They are looking for sophisticated investors, probably in $100 million increments. Even if they go for RRIF money, I think there is a provision to keep proprietary financial date private.
Just don't hold your breath is all I am saying.
PNWRMNM From wanswheel What the proponents of the TCR have not made available to the public or anyone else, as far as I can determine, is any ridership, revenue, cost, etc. information. Until that comes along, we will not know whether the project is sound. Based on the outcomes of the California High Speed Rail Project, we should be at least modestly skeptical. end of quote I don't think there will be any public numbers. They are looking for sophisticated investors, probably in $100 million increments. Even if they go for RRIF money, I think there is a provision to keep proprietary financial date private. Just don't hold your breath is all I am saying. Mac
As per RRIF money, here is brief statement from the FRA re: the program:
"Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and local governments, government-sponsored authorities and corporations, joint ventures that include at least one railroad, and limited option freight shippers who intend to construct a new rail connection." The TCR does not appear to meet any of these criteria.
To day, with the exception of Amtrak and the Mount Hood Railroad, all of the RRIF monies have gone to freight carriers.
This language is taken from the FRA Final Application Checklist:
"Upon acceptance of the Final Application, FRA will conduct the review process, which includes: financial analysis by an Independent Financial Advisor (IFA), a legal review, recommendation to the FRA by the Department Of Transportation’s Credit Council, negotiation of loan agreement and any associated security documents and opinions, approval of the Credit Risk Premium by the Office of Management and Budget and approval by the FRA Administrator."
The application requires amongst other things audited proforma financial statements, as well as audited financial statements from an on-going entity, i.e. Amtrak, Kansas City Southern, etc. detailing the financial benefits anticipated from the project. It also requires a market study, amongst other documents, a benefits statement, etc.
None of the language says anything about not disclosing the application for a RRIF improvement loan.If nothing else, I suspect one could get a copy of the application under the Freedom of Information Act.
Sam,
I strongly disagree with your first point. If the proponents go for RRIF, they will be a railroad by the time they make application, so they qualify on the face of it.
As to protection of financial information you may be correct, but I think there is some shield in place to protect it.
Any possibility that this is another Los Vegas Express ?
Certainly, but these guys business plan, what we have seen of it, makes more sense than the Lost Vegas bunch. Including the Japanese adds a lot of credibility in my opinion.
The problem will be capital. Who will put it up and what will ROI be. Even if ROI looks good, underwriters/market will be skeptical that anyone can make money competing against airlines whose capital cost is funded by the Govt.
PNWRMNMSam, I strongly disagree with your first point. If the proponents go for RRIF, they will be a railroad by the time they make application, so they qualify on the face of it. As to protection of financial information you may be correct, but I think there is some shield in place to protect it. Mac
From the 2014 Business Traveler
Fastest Growing Domestic carriers by revenue (using the latest year over year revenue figure...June 2014 / BTN news):
1. Jet Blue
2. Alaska
3. American
4. Delta
5. Southwest
Corporate Travel Buyers ranking of airlines in 2013 (November survey / issue of BTN)
1. Delta Airlines
2. American Airlines
3. United Airlines
4. Southwest Airlines (their passenger volume has declined recently and usually they have place 5th in past years)
5. U.S. Airways. (must be doing terrible to have Southwest out rank them this year)
So again, given the above rankings by folks that purchase Corporate Travel on our domestic airlines, I would rate Southwest Airlines a relatively minor player with business travelers. I would say that if your looking at the Business Traveler in Dallas, it is more relevant to look at DFW Airport than it is Dallas Love field for comparisons as the volumes of business travelers through DFW is much higher.
CMStPnPSo again, given the above rankings by folks that purchase Corporate Travel on our domestic airlines, I would rate Southwest Airlines a relatively minor player with business travelers. I would say that if your looking at the Business Traveler in Dallas, it is more relevant to look at DFW Airport than it is Dallas Love field for comparisons as the volumes of business travelers through DFW is much higher.
Perhaps Sam was only looking at business travelers between Houston and Dallas, as that is the relevant comparison when looking at the HSR service. I would think many of those would prefer Hobby to Love via SWA to save time.
Central Japan Railway originally had Florida in mind.
Excerpt from 2010 Wall Street Journal article:
The $8 billion "is oversubscribed by a factor of eight to one," said Richard Lawless, chief executive of U.S.-Japan High Speed Rail, a consulting company JR Central created to market the bullet train. "Of all the corridors we looked at, the one that looks the most promising and immediate is Florida."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704762904575024611266446690
Excerpt from Citylab:
"We will not structure this company in any way that will come back and be a burden to the state of Texas," says Lawless. "That is the risk that we take as a privately-funded, privately-owned and operated company."
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/06/the-big-texas-plan-to-copy-japans-high-speed-rail-success/372984/
Richard Lawless spent most of his career as a government bureaucrat. He was a CIA officer. How much he knows about running a business is unknown, as is the veracity of his projections for TCR.
Enthusiastic proponents of large projects tend to overstate the upsides of the project and understate the downsides, as noted by several GAO studies as well as at least one Swedish study.
If TCR fails without being a burden on Texas, JCR, as well as the investors, would have to eat the losses. Whether they would do that without seeking some direct or indirect relief from Texas and/or federal taxpayers is problematic.
The initial estimated cost for the California High Speed Rail Project (CHS) was approximately $33 billion. It ballooned to more than $98 billion before being scaled back to $68 billion, which is the most recent projection for the LAX to SF portion of the project. The estimated cost of the total project, which will extend the rail line to Sacramento and San Diego is $91.4 billion, as per numbers shown in Wikipedia and supported from various source documents.
The cost estimates do not include the cost to service the debt associated with the project.The CHS promoters proposed to fund the project from a variety of sources, including federal grants, state grants, A-1 bonds, etc. The cost of the debt is unknown, in part because only 13.2% of the estimated total cost has been funded.
If the project were funded mostly by California Municipal Bonds, at the current average Yield to Maturity for 30 year California municipal bonds of 4.3535 per cent, the total cost of the project could be as high as $124.1 billion. The rates were obtained via a download from Fidelity Investments Bond Center. This number may be conservative, because it assumes all the financing would be done up front, in one shot, which is unrealistic. It also overlooks the fact that interest rates are likely to increase and, therefore, subsequent tranches of debt would likely carry a higher interest rate, thereby boosting the cost of the project. Thus, it is possible that the total cost of the project could be considerably higher than $124.1 billion.
The initial route of the CHS is 492 miles. If the estimated total cost of the project, including financing, is reasonably close to my estimate, it works out to $252.2 million per mile. The bookends of the CHS go through some very congested and/or mountainous areas, which the TCR would not have to confront, except for north Houston, which is also congested.
If the same numbers were applied to the proposed TCR route, the cost of the project would be $60.5 billion. If the cost per mile for the TCR were half the cost per mile for the CHS, the cost of the project would be $30.3 billion. And if the cost per mile were just 1/3rd of the cost per mile for the CHS, the project would still cost $20.2 billion. These numbers include financing, which the TCR estimate does not appear to include.
I have a hard time, at least based on what we know now, believing that the TCR can be built for $10 billion, and there is no potential liability for Texans if the project sours.
schlimm CMStPnPSo again, given the above rankings by folks that purchase Corporate Travel on our domestic airlines, I would rate Southwest Airlines a relatively minor player with business travelers. I would say that if your looking at the Business Traveler in Dallas, it is more relevant to look at DFW Airport than it is Dallas Love field for comparisons as the volumes of business travelers through DFW is much higher. Perhaps Sam was only looking at business travelers between Houston and Dallas, as that is the relevant comparison when looking at the HSR service. I would think many of those would prefer Hobby to Love via SWA to save time.
The initial issue was the percentage of passengers on SW between Dallas and Houston who are flying for business as opposed to leisure. We don't know! And without access to Southwest Airlines bookings or passenger survey database, it is impossible to answer the question.
Periodically, SW queries its passengers to determine why they are traveling. If it make the information public, I have never seen it.
DFW probably does have more business persons traveling between the Metroplex and Houston. It has an average of 68 flights a day between DFW and the Houston area compared to 48 for Southwest.
Which raises an issue for the proponents of TCR! If a sizeable majority of the business people traveling between DFW and Houston prefer to go out of DFW, what makes the TCR proponents believe that they will all of a sudden flock into Dallas to get on a train or vice versa?
schlimmPerhaps Sam was only looking at business travelers between Houston and Dallas, as that is the relevant comparison when looking at the HSR service. I would think many of those would prefer Hobby to Love via SWA to save time.
In the case of many large companies, it is not up to the business traveler it is up to whom they sign their Corporate agreement with. So for example, IBM signed with Ameircan Airlines unless I can find a SWA flight offered cheaper, I have to fly American. In most cases the American fares are cheaper than SWA fares and before anyone on here tries to compare civilian fare to civilian fare.......it doesn't work that way due to the corporate agreement which lowers the business fare for advance purchase on most routes. The only time I have seen SWA competitve is with last min purchase like the day before and only sometimes. So most business travelers would stay with the airline whom their corporate agreement is with in most cases. Also have flown on corporate agreements of HP, Verizon (both were American). Flew on U.S. Airways once for an East Coast Client that had an agreement with them.
It's true that Corporate fares subsidize the commercial side in a lot of cases BUT the caveat is: #1 Last min purchases or changes, #2 Generally not on routes where SWA is in the competition, #3 Advance purchase tickets in a lot of cases that relationship is inverse........tourist subsidizing large corporate travelers. In the case of a last min change the airline such as American keeps you on their flight because they apply the refund of the old ticket to your new flight OR they offer you the option of a new ticket and to carry the refund on your account. The deal here is if you ever want to see that refund reimbursed via the expense report process, you need to apply it on the same airline towards another ticket. If you choose to carry the refund then YES, you could probably switch to SWA and find a cheaper last min ticket in some cases but then your screwing yourself unless you find a way to refund that unused ticket ASAP.
Oh yeah and it is actually IBM signing with American Airlines and American Express Travel. Travel reservations must be made via American Express Travel which monitors and looks over your shoulder for adherence to rules governing what your doing. So yeah, you can manipulate the system to an extent but you have to be crafty about it or American Express Travel will snitch to IBM and then IBM will refuse to reimburse you for the airline ticket.
One more item I will comment on. I am breaking the confidentiality rules here but I am no longer a consultant so I feel it is probably OK. RT between Dallas and Chicago ORD is $350-375 advance purchase and NON-REFUNDABLE for American but guess what? RT Dalas to Chicago FULLY REFUNDABLE was only $50 more RT on the same route. Now say your a traveling consultant, which fare do you choose? Obviously the FULL REFUNDABLE because the change fee is $200 per change plus the difference in airline ticket price. So the more expensive ticket is a better deal as it provides for insurance if the client wants you to stay longer or schedules a last min meeting plus you don't have to go through all the crap of airline ticket refunds and rescheduling a new reservation (takes time and seats might not be available on ORD to DFW usually the flights fill up 3-4 days prior to takeoff). On other less frequently flown routes by American the price difference between REFUNDABLE and NON-REFUNDABLE can be several hundred dollars in which case the change fee would be the lesser of two evils. For IBM travel when you have a change fee, IBM calls and asks the client if the change in flight was approved by them in advance (another rule), so in some cases you can't cheat with that either. Although I'll say most IBM clients always answer yes the change was approved instead of checking with the consultant because they are sick of IBM bothering them with ridiculous phone calls.
So there is another variable on why cheaper fare might not always apply.
Isn't it a case of, "Some things come before other things"? It's indicated that more information will become available once the EIS is completed. And I would think it would be an advantage to have people involved that are well-versed in navigating the political/regulatory thicket a project like this faces.
Excerpts from 2002 Taipei Times article:
The George W. Bush administration is about to name Richard Lawless, a long-time intelligence officer and businessman with strong commercial ties to Taiwan, as the Pentagon's next leading Asia expert, Pentagon sources say….
Lawless is the chairman of USAsia Commercial Development Corp, a firm he founded in 1987 whose main current focus is Taiwan and South Korea.
Before starting the firm, Lawless spent 15 years in the CIA, where he rose to director of operations. He also served in State Department positions in Seoul, Tokyo, Vienna and Washington. In addition, he has long-term ties to President Bush's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2002/08/05/159059
Excerpts from 2007 Taipei Times article:
Top US defense policymaker for Asia Richard Lawless has quit at a critical time for the administration of President George W. Bush, which is under pressure to devise a strategy to counter China's military ambitions…
Lawless's departure "is an extraordinary loss," said Daniel Blumenthal, the Pentagon's senior director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia until November 2004.
"He does not see Asia through Sino-centric lenses like so many in the administration. He is committed to a Japan and allies-first policy in Asia, where others think that what is good for China is good for America," Bluementhal said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/04/06/2003355486
Excerpt from Dallas News column by Mitchell Schnurman:
Lawless and his team have been meeting quietly for three years with local and state officials. But many details have not been disclosed yet, including the price tag and investors. Estimates for the project have been $10 billion to $12 billion, depending on the final route…
Another environmental study has begun for a separate, related project. A rail spur between Fort Worth and Dallas, with a stop in Arlington, is being considered. While the Texas Central Railway has agreed to operate that leg with high-speed trains, it won’t pay for construction.
Some of that would fall to federal and local government, and local officials are leading the effort.
The pitch will go something like this: Let’s leverage the private investment with maybe a 20 percent match from the feds and build something even more special.
The trip from Fort Worth to Dallas would be 20 minutes, slashing commute times. Sports fans would have easy access to football and baseball in Arlington.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/mitchell-schnurman/20140405-in-texas-even-high-speed-rail-may-work.ece
jclass Isn't it a case of, "Some things come before other things"? It's indicated that more information will become available once the EIS is completed. And I would think it would be an advantage to have people involved that are well-versed in navigating the political/regulatory thicket a project like this faces.
Well, IMO I wouldn't even expend any effort with funding until the EIS is completed because that is going to tell you how much in remediation needs to be added to the project.........and that is $$$. Also, keep in mind way back when this project was announced, pretty sure it's completion date was 2020 or before if my memory is correct and holding up. I suspect they slid the date once already although I am basing that only on memory.
The reason they have the politically connected people is exactly due to what you see here in this discussion. Lots of well meaning people that want their ideas accepted as sound. They need to navigate around a good portion of that if they want to keep their costs low and their marketabilty high. I would also suspect a good portion of their investment money will come from overseas vs the United States.
I think the $10-12 Billion cost estimate might be a little on the high side given they will follow existing ROW most of the way, the route is flat AND the two major station projects (Dallas and Houston) might be real estate plays that pay for themselves.
This is kind of off-topic, but as I’ve mentioned before, my father, Joe MacDonald, was a ‘consumer rep’ on the Amtrak board. Here’s a little news item from January 10, 1975.
Amtrak Chance Seen for Dallas
DALLAS (AP) - There is a "fair chance" Amtrak passenger train service from Chicago to Houston may be rerouted to include Dallas, an Amtrak board director said Wednesday. In a telephone interview with the Dallas Times Herald, Joseph V. MacDonald of Chicago said Amtrak's board has shown a "favorable reaction" to routing the train through Dallas. The train presently reaches Houston through Fort Worth and Temple. MacDonald said costs would be the primary reason for rerouting the train. "I feel the people of Dallas showed their interest in train service with the approval of the $6 million in bonds to buy and upgrade Union Terminal," he said. He said the board is likely to vote on the rerouting issue this month.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=43352
Mike MacDonald
November 13, 1974
Dear Mr. MacDonald:
It has come to my attention that you and your fellow members of the AMTRAK Board of Directors will consider initiation of Dallas-Houston service at your meeting of November 20, 1974. I want to strongly urge that you support the establishment of this new route for many pragmatic and economic reasons.
The City of Dallas is currently in the process of renovating its Union Terminal facility—a multi-modal downtown station which services both Surtran (buses from Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport) and AMTRAK. Additionally, Hunt Properties is in the process of building a $210 million office, shopping and hotel complex which will adjoin Union Terminal.
This continued interest in establishing excellent inter-city rail-passenger terminal facilities and accommodations, combined with our metroplex population of 2.3 million, leaves no doubt in my mind that our citizens would warmly welcome and generously support the addition of a Dallas-to-Houston route to our current AMTRAK service. I hope you will weigh our advantages for your passenger transportation system and agree with me.
If I may be of assistance in answering any questions you may have concerning the metropolitan Dallas area, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With my regards,
Wes Wise
***************************************************************************************************
November 16, 1974
Dear Mayor Wise:
Thank you for your letter of November 13.
I think it is pretty well known by now that I believe that we should have a National Railroad Passenger Service that truly meets the needs of our Country, not just one that concentrates on the Northeast Corridor.
I feel that there are a number of gaps in the Amtrak Basic System as originally established, that left it inadequate to that purpose. As you may know, I had something to do with plugging two of the gaps – Washington-New York-Montreal via my native state of Vermont, and Boston-Chicago via Cleveland – prior to my appointment to the Amtrak board.
I have been studying material on the Texas routes sent to me by Congessman Alan Steelman and Dr. Dan Monaghan. I concur on the essentiality of service between Dallas and Houston. I also admire the people of Dallas for having put their money where their mouths are, in getting the Dallas Transportation Center organized. If you don’t mind my saying so, you’ve acted just like the Vermonters, who rolled up their sleeves and fixed up the seven closed stations in Vermont so that they are now open, alive, and filling the restored Montrealer with cash customers.
Monday night I expect to spend the evening aboard the Broadway Ltd. enroute to our November 20 Board meeting, with Charlie Luna, to get more background on the matter.
Unless there is something overriding to the contrary that I don’t know about at this writing, I intend to support the rerouting of the Chicago-Houston Lone Star to run via Dallas to Houston.
Sincerely,
Joseph V. MacDonald
P.S. Any time the Great State of Vermont can be of assistance to its sister Great State of Texas, we’re always happy to do so. We got an unreserved coach added to the all-reserved Montrealer, and while we were at it, we got one added to the Lone Star, too!
Houston business journal article. Note long time to complete study. One grammar problem is article says 68 trips Dallas - Houston. actually it is 68 trips between the 2 cities or 34 round trips.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2014/07/bullet-train-goal-68-trips-a-day-from-dallas-to.html?page=all
My own feeling is if they stick to their business goals.........no stops or one stop and stick with their route and goal speed of at least 200 mph. I think they will kick it out of the ballpark as far as being profitable.
I watched Chicago-Milwaukee grow from just 2-3 trains each way and a horrendous loss to where it is today.....just below break even. People will amend their travel plans and drive downtown Milwaukee to catch a train vs driving to the airport to fly........proven in Wisconsin. Even with the airport stop they will still drive to downtown Milwaukee (I know I do when I ride).
They are even now trying to fund three additional train frequencies between Milwaukee and Chicago that would be non-stop express trains and shave 11 more minutes off the schedule. Perhaps those additional frequencies push the corridor above break even..........perhaps not. We'll see.
I think Dallas to Houston will be a winner if they stick with all their original goals.
Here is a column from the Dallas Morning News on the Texas Central Railway. It contains some interesting insights on the motives for the railway, as well as its objectives, risks, and challenges.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/mitchell-schnurman/20141101-mitchell-schnurman-texas-bullet-train-plan-banks-on-japan.ece
Smart article that is well-balanced and detailed.
Sam1 Here is a column from the Dallas Morning News on the Texas Central Railway. It contains some interesting insights on the motives for the railway, as well as its objectives, risks, and challenges. http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/mitchell-schnurman/20141101-mitchell-schnurman-texas-bullet-train-plan-banks-on-japan.ece
Here's the line that caught my eye: "Last month, officials from Japan and the U.S. were promoting an alternative system based on magnetic levitation. It’s much more expensive (and 100 mph faster), and an investor group is pushing a plan for the Northeast corridor. To help win support, the Japanese government offered to pay $5 billion of the $10 billion costs for a line between Washington and Baltimore."
Washington to Baltimore is 40 miles. Washington to Boston is 450 miles. Do the math. That would be $115B for a new NEC spine - done in maglev! I believe Amtrak's figure for a new HSR NEC spine was $170B?
Me thinks Amtrak is gold plating and not efficient. Japanese are low-balling to get in the game.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
081552 Smart article that is well-balanced and detailed.
Except for the Randall Otoole quote. He unbalanced nearly all the time. (if he can just chuck is opinion out there about HSR w/o supporting facts, I can do it about him, no?)
Time for some back of the envelope estimates.
Cost to build: $10B.
Payback period: 20 years. (Yes, I know payback period is the "wrong" way to do this - I told you it was "back of envelope")
Operating ratio (margin): 67% (33%).
Revenue needed per year: $1.5B
Revenue per passenger (250 miles at $1 per mile - typical of Acela) = $250
Daily pax to produce $1.5B in revenue: 165,000
Daily trains at 400 pax per train = 400, 200 in each direction.
Train freqency over a 20 hour day: one train every 6 minutes each way.
MARTA doesn't run this frequently - even at rush hour - in Atlanta.
I thnk there is money to be made in doing the engineering, building and sales of equipment. There may be good, solid reasons to build HSR between Dallas and Houston, but it's really doubtful they include "making money" unless you expand the project scope beyond just having fares cover capital expense and include land development (or some other thing) like AAF.
Don,
Agree, except you forgot about the time value of money. $10 B today is about twice the present value of $500 million for 20 years. That is a fine way to make a small fortune out of a big fortune.
Texas Central Railways is still working out the details of how the project will be financed. As I understand it, they won't have good cost estimates until the environmental impact study has been completed and a route has been chosen. Given the tendency of projects of this magnitude to come in late and over cost, estimating the final cost is a dicey exercise.
Whenever someone says that a large project will cost a number, e.g. $10 billion, I discount it. Having been involved in developing the cost estimates for several power plant construction projects, we never gave a specific number. We came up with a range of numbers based on scenario probabilities.
Ignorniing my own admonition, if the project were built for the quoted $10 billion and, furthermore, if the construction work in progress were funded with short term construction loans, whilst the permanent financing was funded at the current U.S. Treasury long bond rate, and the long term financing was placed at the time the construction work in progress was closed to plant and equipment in service, the cost of the project would be approximately $15.5 billion. To this one would need to add the cost of the construction work in progress loans. Needless to say, this is a lot of ifs.
If the project sponsors get substantial financial support from the equipment manufacturer, as well as the Japanese export/import bank, the total cost could be less because of the lower debt service cost.
This project is as much about giving Japanese high speed railway equipment manufacturers a platform to export their technologies to the United States as it is about meeting the passenger transport needs of Texas. If the project is successful, it could open wide the U.S. market for Japanese high speed rail technology. That's OK as long as the Japanese continue to buy Boeing airplanes.
PNWRMNM Don, Agree, except you forgot about the time value of money. $10 B today is about twice the present value of $500 million for 20 years. That is a fine way to make a small fortune out of a big fortune. Mac
If I started down the time value of money path, I'd have quit and gone for another cup of coffee! (That's why I just used a relatively long simple pay-back period as a proxy.) As my Engineering Economics professor said, "A bad economic analysis is better than none at all."
I have to say that I think the $10 Billion estimate is excessive given that they have a fairly firm estimate on how many acres of land will be impacted via emeninent domain (I think it was 3-5,000 acres). The route is going to largely follow existing railway ROW and probably even be on it. Some railway ROW in Texas are 200 feet wide with just one track on them............more than enough to add double track HS route. Can't speak for which route they are going to choose but I suspect it is the Union Pacific fomerly the Texas Central (exT&NO) route between Houston and Dallas AND that is definitely a 200 foot wide ROW for the majority of the distance.
I remember that once upon a time....Chicago-Milwaukee was estimated at $5 Billion for a measely 85 miles to upgrade to 150 mph.......that was an over estimate as well, more than likely.
Here are a couple of links to recent articles appearing in Houston and Dallas Business Journals.
The first one describes where public meetings have recently been held, and links to maps of the routes under consideration.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2014/10/possible-routes-revealed-for-bullet-train-between.html
The second article delves into DART's thinking regarding serving the influx of travelers the bullet trains would bring to central Dallas. Also, comment is made about Southwest Airlines offering long-haul flights from Love Field while reducing short-haul ones.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/2014/11/how-dart-is-getting-ready-for-high-speed-rail-in.html
Interesting to see how momentum builds.
Gramp Here are a couple of links to recent articles appearing in Houston and Dallas Business Journals. The first one describes where public meetings have recently been held, and links to maps of the routes under consideration. http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2014/10/possible-routes-revealed-for-bullet-train-between.html The second article delves into DART's thinking regarding serving the influx of travelers the bullet trains would bring to central Dallas. Also, comment is made about Southwest Airlines offering long-haul flights from Love Field while reducing short-haul ones. http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/2014/11/how-dart-is-getting-ready-for-high-speed-rail-in.html Interesting to see how momentum builds.
Another passenger rail advocacy group, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, sent this comment in their weekly e-mail:
"Midwesterners who want better public transit should pay attention to an unlikely role model. Texas, known better for its love of the automobile, is moving forward on what they hope will be America’s first operational high-speed rail line. The proposed bullet train between Dallas and Houston is a private enterprise in association with Japanese high-speed rail. The project’s planners recently announced route alternatives, and major decision-makers have taking notice. In response to the route alternatives, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) just decided to accelerate transit projects in downtown Dallas. The goal is to complete upgrades including a new light rail line and streetcar service by the time the bullet train is finished. DART is quickening these plans to convince the high-speed rail planners (Texas Central) to choose the route alternative that terminates in downtown Dallas over two other more distant options. Texas Central has stated a preference for locating the new station near public transit connections. The confluence of high-speed rail and public transit in Dallas shows how the two are so inextricably linked. A high-speed rail line can be the impetus for significant transit expansion because it can bring in millions of additional riders, and make the surrounding transit services more useful and attractive. Additionally, though not the case in Dallas, infrastructure from new high-speed rail projects can often be directly used by existing commuter trains. It's exciting to see other projects, like Dallas' new light rail or the Bay Area's Caltrain electrification, gain momentum because of high-speed rail. We shouldn't be surprised if high-speed rail makes all the difference for other American transit projects too."
Calculating the payback period for a project is a reasonable 50,000 foot technique to determine the likelihood of recovering the investment.
However, unless the project developers plan to pay cash for the project, which is highly unlikely, the debt service cost, which is always calculated using TVM factors, increases the cost of the project. The question of how much is a function of the funding plan.
What is unknown to outsiders are the financing variables that will impact the final cost of the project. Unless one has access to the debt financing plan, he is not able to calculate a tight estimate of the project cost. But he can say that it will be more than the stated cost of the project.
Whether the proposed Dallas/Houston High Speed Railway can be built for $10 billion is unknown. One might want to keep in mind the original cost projections for the California High Speed Railway. The initial project was approximately $32 billion. It grew eventually to nearly $98 billion, before some sanity swept through California, an unusual condition, and the cost of the project was scaled back to $68 billion. And that's before inclusion of the cost of financing.
Whether DART is accelerating transit projects near downtown Dallas or anywhere else in anticipation of the Texas Central Railway project is not clear. DART has a long wish list of projects that it would like to implement, but whether it can get the funding is problematic. In any case, completion of most of the projects, according to DART's executive director, may be decades away.
There are a number of enhancements underway that were started before the plan for the Texas Central Railway was announced, i.e. completion of the McKinney Avenue Trolley loop, the Oak Cliff streetcar line, and the replacement of the rail along the light rail transit way in downtown.
The extension of the McKinney Avenue Trolley tracks has reached Federal Street, which is one block short of the St. Paul light rail station. It will be another six to nine months before the project is completed, and cars can begin to run to Federal Street, where they will loop over to Olive Street, and run back towards McKinney Avenue. The line will not come close to any likely high speed railway station in Dallas, even if the Texas Central Railway uses Union Station.
The Oak Cliff streetcar line runs from Union Station - not the convention center - across the Houston Street Viaduct to Colorado Blvd, where it turns to go a block or two to North Beckley Avenue, where it ends. Which is great if one is gong to El. Fenix - one of the oldest Mexican restaurants in Dallas, Methodist Hospital, or CVS Pharmacy!
There is been a lot of chatter about building a second transit way through downtown Dallas for the light rail system. Unfortunately, no one has found the money to fund it. As the Dallas Morning News opined in a column several months ago that there is not likely to be any money for it.
If the Texas Central Railway uses Union Station, passengers would be able to connect to the TRE, Oak Cliff streetcar, and DART light rail, as well as several bus routes. How many of them would do so is problematic. As it is only 1.8 per cent of the people who live in the cities served by DART's light rail system use it.
If the Texas Central Railway decides on a terminal in the southern part of the county, the number of people who might want to connect to public transit is questionable.
To put it bluntly, most of those who will be able to afford to ride a high speed railway train from Houston to Dallas are not going to ride on a transit vehicle used largely by low income people, which is most of the population in southern Dallas County.
The number of airline passengers who use the Orange Line to get to and from DFW Airport to downtown and vice versa could provide some indication of whether people coming from Houston on a train would use public transport. I rode the Orange Line a month or so ago. Very few passengers went to the airport, although the service is still new, and many people probably are not aware of it.
Sam1 Whether DART is accelerating transit projects near downtown Dallas or anywhere else in anticipation of the Texas Central Railway project is not supported. There are a number of enhancements underway that were started before the plan for the Texas Central Railway was announced, i.e. completion of the McKinney Avenue Trolley loop along St. Paul, the Oak Cliff streetcar line, and the replacement of the rail along the light rail transit way in downtown. The extension of the McKinney Avenue Trolley tracks has reach Federal Street, which is one block short of the St. Paul light rail station. It will be another six to nine months before the project is complete, and cars can begin to run to Federal Street, where they will loop over to Olive Street, and run back towards McKinney Avenue. The line will not come close to any conceivable high speed railway station in Dallas, even if the Texas Central Railway uses Union Station. The Oak Cliff streetcar line runs from Union Station - not the convention center - across the Houston Street Viaduct to Colorado Blvd, where it turns to go a block or two to North Beckley Avenue and stops. Which is great if one is gong to El. Fenix or the CVS Pharmacy! There is been a lot of chatter about building a second transit way through downtown Dallas for the light rail system. Unfortunately, no one has found the money to build it. As the Dallas Morning News opined in a column, there is not likely to be any money for it. If the Texas Central Railway uses Union Station, passengers would be able to connect to the TRE, Oak Cliff streetcar, and DART light rail, as well as several bus routes. How many of them would do so is problematic. As it is only 1.8 per cent of the people who live in the cities served by DART's light rail system use it. If the Texas Central Railway decides on a terminal in the southern part of the county, the number of people who might want to connect to public transit is really questionable. To put it bluntly, most of those who will be able to afford to ride a high speed railway train from Houston to Dallas are not going to ride on a transit vehicle peopled largely by low income people, which is the predominate population in southern Dallas County. An interesting test case, in time at least, will be to see how many people ride the Orange Line from DFW Airport to downtown and vice versa. I rode it a month or so ago. Very few passengers went to the airport, although the service is still new.
Whether DART is accelerating transit projects near downtown Dallas or anywhere else in anticipation of the Texas Central Railway project is not supported.
There are a number of enhancements underway that were started before the plan for the Texas Central Railway was announced, i.e. completion of the McKinney Avenue Trolley loop along St. Paul, the Oak Cliff streetcar line, and the replacement of the rail along the light rail transit way in downtown.
The extension of the McKinney Avenue Trolley tracks has reach Federal Street, which is one block short of the St. Paul light rail station. It will be another six to nine months before the project is complete, and cars can begin to run to Federal Street, where they will loop over to Olive Street, and run back towards McKinney Avenue. The line will not come close to any conceivable high speed railway station in Dallas, even if the Texas Central Railway uses Union Station.
The Oak Cliff streetcar line runs from Union Station - not the convention center - across the Houston Street Viaduct to Colorado Blvd, where it turns to go a block or two to North Beckley Avenue and stops. Which is great if one is gong to El. Fenix or the CVS Pharmacy!
There is been a lot of chatter about building a second transit way through downtown Dallas for the light rail system. Unfortunately, no one has found the money to build it. As the Dallas Morning News opined in a column, there is not likely to be any money for it.
If the Texas Central Railway decides on a terminal in the southern part of the county, the number of people who might want to connect to public transit is really questionable. To put it bluntly, most of those who will be able to afford to ride a high speed railway train from Houston to Dallas are not going to ride on a transit vehicle peopled largely by low income people, which is the predominate population in southern Dallas County.
An interesting test case, in time at least, will be to see how many people ride the Orange Line from DFW Airport to downtown and vice versa. I rode it a month or so ago. Very few passengers went to the airport, although the service is still new.
Some of what you say seems to be in conflict with the recent Morning News article. But then we know the press doesn't always get it right!
By BRANDON FORMBY
Transportation Writer
Members of the Dallas City Council’s transportation committee Monday signaled strong support for a three-pronged $983.4 million expansion of downtown transit.
Meanwhile, the private developer of a high-speed rail line from Dallas to Houston said it’s now focusing on five potential stations, all of which are in the city’s central business district.
Texas Central Railway, the city and Dallas Area Rapid Transit hope to tie together several transit modes. DART sees this as a chance to dramatically reshape the southwest corner of downtown by 2021, when the first bullet trains could connect the state’s two largest metropolitan areas.
DART’s expansion plan includes the first phase of a second downtown light-rail line and a streetcar connection from Oak Cliff’s Bishop Arts District to Uptown’s M-Line trolley. And while that second downtown rail has long been on Dallas and DART’s wish list, officials now believe there’s a good shot at securing what’s long blocked construction: funding.
DART officials have pieced together a list of several funding sources to finance their expansion plans. A key component of the light-rail addition and streetcar extension is $400 million in federal funds earmarked for “core capacity” projects.
Federal authorities urged the agency to apply for the funds after hearing details about its expansion plan, DART president and executive director Gary Thomas told Dallas city leaders.
“We received a fair amount of push to submit on the core capacity bucket of money,” he said.
The other component of DART’s plan will probably be completed first. That piece of the overall expansion will lengthen 28 train stations outside of downtown. That will allow the agency to run an additional car on each train along the Red and Blue lines. That means carrying 493 riders per train instead of the current 329. The downtown stations and Orange and Green lines can already accommodate three cars per train.
DART and Dallas have struggled for years to find financing for a second downtown light-rail track. City Council members indicated excitement that at least a portion of the second line — from Victory to Union stations — could become a reality.
Thomas said the line would probably run underground south of Woodall Rodgers Freeway. The end of the first phase would probably be near Union Station or close by on Young Street. Thomas told city officials that the rest of the new line, which would connect the southwest corner of downtown to Deep Ellum’s existing Green Line, would still be decades away.
“It is extremely smart to go ahead with phase one while we have the potential for federal money,” said Vonciel Jones Hill, chair of Dallas’ Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee.
Bullet train
DART won’t pick the exact route and stations for the second downtown line until after Texas Central Railway announces where it plans to put the end point for its high-speed line from Dallas to Houston. The company originally said it was looking at three general areas — one in downtown and two along Interstate 45. But a company official said Monday the entity has zeroed in on downtown and has five potential spots in mind.
A downtown terminus would put the bullet train near the city’s convention center, its adjacent hotel, Union Station (which now serves two DART lines), the TRE commuter line to Fort Worth, Amtrak and a streetcar that will begin running to Oak Cliff next year.
“It would be speculative to discuss a specific location at this time, but the requirement for any location must include connectivity to existing intermodal transportation (DART, TRE, Amtrak) and future rail lines going to the west, as well as other forms of transportation,” said Travis Kelly, the company’s vice president for government relations.
DART documents show a massive transit-oriented development in that part of downtown that would connect several transportation modes with pedestrian bridges, a possible underground shopping concourse and new office and residential buildings.
The documents identify land occupied by The Dallas Morning News and WFAA-TV (Channel 8) as “potential redevelopment blocks.” Officials with DART and The News’ parent company said the illustrations are just the transit agency’s ways of showing what potential the possible transit hub has for transit-oriented development.
Officials with both entities said there have been no behind-the-scenes discussions about A.H. Belo Corp. selling the site. An A.H. Belo executive said the media company is not marketing the newspaper’s building and has not received any offers on it. Dan Blizzard, A.H. Belo’s senior vice president and secretary, said the company was not involved in DART’s plans for the downtown expansion or the presentation the agency gave to Dallas officials Monday.
“There’s a lot of ideas you could come up with for this site,” Blizzard said of DART’s presentation. “We’ve had zero involvement in those.”
Streetcar plans
DART’s presentation Monday also showed the planned streetcar expansion connecting the Oak Cliff line to the Uptown trolley by cutting across Main Street. But Thomas said that alignment is far from final. He said the line could eventually run along another downtown street.
“We’ve drawn the map to start the conversation,” he said.
Thomas said once the two modes connect on the north side of downtown, DART could run its streetcars on McKinney Avenue Transit Authority’s track through Uptown during the day. Thomas said the old-fashioned trolleys could still operate at night, on weekends and during special events.
MATA chairman and co-founder Phil Cobb said that’s one idea his organization currently opposes. Not that the two agencies are at war over the matter.
“We could be convinced down the road,” he said.
Follow Brandon Formby on Twitter at @brandonformby.
^^^ Not trying to get you in trouble but I can tell you as a long ago Moderator myself, you can't cut and paste a news article like that to the Trains website without exposing Kalmbach publishing to a lawsuit by either the author or original content owner. Linking is OK but a direct cut and paste is going to get this website in trouble fast.
I modified my original post re: DART's plans for expanded transit in downtown Dallas. I noted that most of the plans, at this point, are an unfunded wish list.
The Dallas Morning News article is mostly about DART's and the City Council's wish list for expanded rail in downtown Dallas. The list has been around for a long time. Funding is the biggest challenge.
Here is a test. Ride the light rail line late at night. The Red or Blue Lines will do nicely. Look closely at your fellow passengers. Then ask yourself this question? How many business people, arriving in Dallas on a late night high speed train from Houston, are likely to want to chance riding on public transit in Dallas, or any major American city for that matter, late at night? Or at anytime for many of them?
I lived in Uptown Dallas for more than four years. Most of my neighbors, who for the most part were pretty well off, did not use public transit, even though the McKinney Avenue Trolley was nearly at their doorstep. I was a rare exception. I rode it most days.
I don't believe that a significant percentage of people arriving in Dallas, either by rail or air, are going to use public transit, at least not as long as they have better options to get around.
CMStPnP ^^^ Not trying to get you in trouble but I can tell you as a long ago Moderator myself, you can't cut and paste a news article like that to the Trains website without exposing Kalmbach publishing to a lawsuit by either the author or original content owner. Linking is OK but a direct cut and paste is going to get this website in trouble fast.
dakotafredNot so, Milwaukee. Newspaper stories, at least, are fair game for free dissemination, even when "copyrighted" (as the rare story will claim, in a tag). Even attribution is a courtesy, not a legal requirement. I speak as 20-year newspaperman.
I would clarify that with the Moderators here because typically on other websites cut and pastes are grounds for suspension as well as a violation of the terms of service.
This is from the TRAINS TERMS OF USE thread in the first post of the first forum on the list:
The key, Milwaukee, is what is copyrighted material. Newspaper stories do not fall into that category.
dakotafred The key, Milwaukee, is what is copyrighted material. Newspaper stories do not fall into that category.
The key is, indeed, what is copyrighted material, and a newspaper (like other periodicals) can file in the Catalog of Copyright Entries... at which point its stories would, I think, indeed 'fall into that category."
And it would appear that there are copyright renewals for the Dallas Morning News in the online CCE up to 2010, which would strongly indicate to me that it would be wise to secure permission for that story before posting to a list that observes copyright (as I believe Kalmbach's do). I think, given the circumstances, you might want to edit the post to link to the content rather than copying or quoting it directly.
Personally, I appreciated having the whole article visible directly in the post, without having to click on it and then disable a bunch of associated site spam in NoScript, so this isn't intended as a criticism, just an observation.
My understanding is that newspaper articles under copyright qualify as 'works for hire' and have the associated 95-year protection. That's been the case at least since 1992, to my knowledge.
In an earlier post I expressed some doubt as to the extent people arriving in Dallas by high speed rail, or any other commercial mode for the matter, would use public transport to get to their final Dallas area destination. I suggested further that the results from the Orange Line, which goes to DFW International Airport, could provide an indication of how many passengers might connect to or from local transit.
Here are a few thoughts regarding the Orange Line from Roger Jones's Transportation Blog, which is a regular feature in the Dallas Morning News. This blog data was posted on November 7th.
According to DART, a little over 1,000 people per day are using the Orange Line to get to and from DFW International Airport. Whether it is 1,000 people or 1,000 riders is not clear. Since DART counts passengers when they get on a train or bus, I suspect the count is 500 people per day.
DART's spokesperson also said that they - DART - see a lot of people on the train with luggage, but he did not provide a count or explain what he meant by a lot of people.
According to DART Chief Gary Thomas, DART expects most of the people who use the Orange Line will be airport workers. DFW International has more than 60,000 on site workers, making it one of the largest concentrations of employees in the Metroplex.
The early figures suggest that the Orange Line is attracting a substantial number of riders to and from the airport. But the number of airline passengers appears to be small. This does not bode well for the argument that people arriving in Dallas or Houston on a high speed train will opt for public transport to reach their final destination.
Overmod dakotafred The key, Milwaukee, is what is copyrighted material. Newspaper stories do not fall into that category. The key is, indeed, what is copyrighted material, and a newspaper (like other periodicals) can file in the Catalog of Copyright Entries... at which point its stories would, I think, indeed 'fall into that category." And it would appear that there are copyright renewals for the Dallas Morning News in the online CCE up to 2010, which would strongly indicate to me that it would be wise to secure permission for that story before posting to a list that observes copyright (as I believe Kalmbach's do). I think, given the circumstances, you might want to edit the post to link to the content rather than copying or quoting it directly. Personally, I appreciated having the whole article visible directly in the post, without having to click on it and then disable a bunch of associated site spam in NoScript, so this isn't intended as a criticism, just an observation. My understanding is that newspaper articles under copyright qualify as 'works for hire' and have the associated 95-year protection. That's been the case at least since 1992, to my knowledge.
dakotafredas one congressman reproached another in the 19th century, "never opens his mouth without subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge."
Thanks for that great quip; now, unfortunately, more true than ever.
Sam1 In an earlier post I expressed some doubt as to the extent people arriving in Dallas by high speed rail, or any other commercial mode for the matter, would use public transport to get to their final Dallas area destination. I suggested further that the results from the Orange Line, which goes to DFW International Airport, could provide an indication of how many passengers might connect to or from local transit. Here are a few thoughts regarding the Orange Line from Roger Jones's Transportation Blog, which is a regular feature in the Dallas Morning News. This blog data was posted on November 7th. According to DART, a little over 1,000 people per day are using the Orange Line to get to and from DFW International Airport. Whether it is 1,000 people or 1,000 riders is not clear. Since DART counts passengers when they get on a train or bus, I suspect the count is 500 people per day. DART's spokesperson also said that they - DART - see a lot of people on the train with luggage, but he did not provide a count or explain what he meant by a lot of people. According to DART Chief Gary Thomas, DART expects most of the people who use the Orange Line will be airport workers. DFW International has more than 60,000 on site workers, making it one of the largest concentrations of employees in the Metroplex. The early figures suggest that the Orange Line is attracting a substantial number of riders to and from the airport. But the number of airline passengers appears to be small. This does not bode well for the argument that people arriving in Dallas or Houston on a high speed train will opt for public transport to reach their final destination.
I never understood why the speed limits on the Orange line as it approaches the Belt Line Road crossing are so slow or even for that matter so slow near Love Field on the elevated portion. Have my doubts the Orange Line will be trully successful unless they can increase speed limits on it. Especially in the areas where it is traversing the farmer fields...........I mean C'mon put the petal to the metal. It is sheer torture almost to ride it on some portions due to the slow speed......and watching common birds fly past the train in parallel at a faster clip.
I have ridden the Orange Line three times from DFW to downtown and back or vice versa. Two of the trips were during the week. One was on a Sunday morning.
According to DART's schedules, the average weekday time to get from the West End light rail station to DFW Terminal A on the Orange Line is approximately 50 minutes. The average time to get to Terminal A, using the TRE from Union Station, with connections at CentrePort and the south parking lot is approximately 60 minutes.
According to DART's Fact Sheet for 2013, the top speed of its light rail vehicles is 65 mph. The train appears to hit this speed at several points along the Orange Line.
One of the drawbacks to using the Orange Line or the TRE is the absence of dedicated luggage space on the trains. DART acknowledges this fact in its guide to using the Orange Line to get to or from DFW. It may not be a factor for people who are traveling light, but it could be a putoff for people with a large amount of luggage.
Excerpt from The Courier of Montgomery County
More than 800 people packed the Lone Star Community Center in Montgomery Monday night to learn what they can do to stop a proposed multibillion-dollar high-speed rail route that would cut through West Montgomery County and connect Houston with Dallas.
wanswheel Excerpt from The Courier of Montgomery County More than 800 people packed the Lone Star Community Center in Montgomery Monday night to learn what they can do to stop a proposed multibillion-dollar high-speed rail route that would cut through West Montgomery County and connect Houston with Dallas. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/pack-center-against-high-speed-rail-project/article_71a73a2b-7365-578d-9b99-d852dca1dfc0.html
This happens with every large project that has eminent domain rights. Local politicians and opportunists seeking to make more money whip up the locals on how it is an infringement on their land rights. They usually lose the battle of course and all it really does is slow the project down a little. The project has been very clear about when eminent domain will be invoked. First they will make a fair offer for the land. If that is refused they will look at costs of routing around the land, if the costs are unreasonable they will invoke eminent domain. Eminent Domain can be done in two ways. One is just granting of a land easement in which the property is only borrowed from the landowner as long as it is needed or their is a right of way. Another form is outright siezure in which the property ownership transfers. Legality of Eminent Domain has long been established by the Supreme Court and opponents typically lose their challenges but not before the opportunists can earn political points or a little money on the side.
DragomanDoesn't the Eminent Domain question, in this context, arise because it is a right of sovereign governments, and not of private entities? The state can exercise it in the interests of some private enterprise, if the state decides that it is in the public interest to do so, but I believe that is where the fight is fought
No because all along it can be legislatively delegated to a subordinate government unit or private entity. It was never an exclusive power, it was always a power that can be delegated via legislative decree.
I don't want to get political here because I am neutral on the Tea Party but some elements of the Tea Party have siezed upon eminent domain as an over reach of government. I totally disagree with that characterization, especially in Texas where the practice is to offer compensation or look for an alternative first. Eminent Domain has long been a practice of acquiring real estate in this country and honestly if anyone feels they have been mistreated by the practice.....thats why we have a Civil Court system with neutral judges.
CMStPnP Tx DOT already studied this Dallas to San Antonio route and they dispute many of the assertions you made above including that the existing right of way could be used for HSR.
Tx DOT already studied this Dallas to San Antonio route and they dispute many of the assertions you made above including that the existing right of way could be used for HSR.
Why not build a line to Houston that splits off from the DFW-San Antonio at Waco or Austin? It would not be so much longer in time than a direct line and would save huge amounts of infrastructure capital.
schlimm Why not build a line to Houston that splits off from the DFW-San Antonio at Waco or Austin? It would not be so much longer in time than a direct line and would save huge amounts of infrastructure capital.
I for one hope the Baltimore - Washington mag-lev project never gets off the ground. It represents a truly useless waste of resources, since the existing NEC-Amtrak line is doing a good job now, and can more economically be upgraded to do a far better job than almost any other location on the Amtrak system. The distance is so short that the time saving between maglev and 220mph HPS is trivial, 55 miles at 180mph average for 220 top speed gives 19 minuts, and maglev at 300 mph average for 350mph top speed gives 11 minutes. A bullion dollars for an eight-minute saving in travel time? (A billion being a guess as the difference between upgrading Amtrak and maglev.)
It would have to be heavily subsidized, and its main effect would be to reduce the ability of the NEC ti syooirt its operation from the farebox.
daveklepperThat depends on the newspaper and its policies. For example, in general, The Jerusalem Post has no objections for North American readership unless they are stated, as long as credit is given.
Actually your going to find it depends on how the owner of the website wants to enforce it's rules. It was already discussed earlier how Trains Magazine interprets the protections and will enforce the rules. Given their behavior on railroad property it would be reckless of Trains to trust the railfan community to come up with it's own interpretation of the rules. I have observed how that works on operating railfan trips.
I am pretty sure Trains has the practice prohibited in their rules. Really I don't care what folks do here I was trying to avoid someone getting suspended and then having to read through 10-15 posts complaining about it.
schlimmWhy not build a line to Houston that splits off from the DFW-San Antonio at Waco or Austin? It would not be so much longer in time than a direct line and would save huge amounts of infrastructure capital.
Interesting question. I have not looked at a topographical map but I am going to guess there is either a topographical issue or land ownership issue that would spike the costs of that type of route. One issue is it would increase the length of the line Dallas to Houston by 1/3.
The original Texas Central line also built direct Galveston-Houston to Dallas and reached Austin by a long branch off the mainline that was at least 1/3 as long as the total distance Dallas to Houston and the line went slightly NW but mostly W in direction. So they came upon the same decision point more than a Century ago. It's probably a combination of topography, distance and speed. Around Austin is the Texas Hill Country which, since your from Illinois, is almost identical to what you see along the Mississippi River in Wisconsin and Northern Illinois with large limestone bluffs........as well as along the Wisconsin Dells. We do not have any topography features as large as the glacieal outlier hills of rock surrounding Devils Lake, WI though until you head further South or West from Austin. The topography starts to get really choppy in places unless you follow a specific route, they seemed to do OK with the freeway to San Antonio to Austin but if you venture to far West from the freeway you run into topography issue costs.
Also, Dallas to Houston they decided on a route already. They are going to follow the utility lines vs using the BNSF rail right of way or the UP rail right of way. If you look at the choices the utility line routing has more straight rail, IMO. I think that also will impact speed.
Dallas to Houston directly = 239.3 miles
Dallas via Waco to Houston = 280.5 miles So you would save building some 50 miles of HSR and add 41 miles distance (about 15 minutes) to the schedule. Certainly should be considered.
The notion of a Texas Triangle apparently arose from the first high speed rail proposals in the state. Texas TGV (1991), Fastrak (1991), and TRHC (Triangle Railroad Holding Company) (2009) proposed systems with legs that had the label Texas Triangle attached to them.
Subsequently, as per Page 4-5 of the Texas Rail Plan, Chapter 4, Passenger Rail, 11 potential high speed rail corridors have been designated by USDOT. Five were authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and six were authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998.
Two of the USDOT designated corridors are in Texas. They are the “South Central” and “Gulf Coast”.
The South Central corridor runs from San Antonio to DFW, where it splits into two branches. One runs to Oklahoma City and Tulsa; the other runs to Texarkana and Little Rock.
The Gulf Coast corridor runs from Houston to Beaumont, New Orleans, and Mobile, with a branch from New Orleans to Atlanta.
Dallas to Houston was not included in the original 11 corridors. However, TXDOT recognized the potential for high speed rail between Texas two largest metropolitan areas, and it is facilitating the development of high speed rail in this corridor, as per Page 4-7 of the Texas Rail Plan.
“…TXDOT was awarded a $15 million grant from the Federal Railroad Administration for the Preliminary Engineering and NEPA work for new core express service (high-speed rail) in the DFW-Houston corridor.”
In June 2003, TXDOT ask the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to designate a corridor between Bryan-College Station and Temple as a high speed corridor to connect the DFW-Houston and DFW-San San Antonio corridors. Proposed as the Brazos Express Corridor, it would have formed the Triangle envisioned in the earlier proposals for high speed rail in Texas. The FRA rejected TXDOT’s request.
There are no plans at this point to build out the Texas Triangle as initially envisioned.
schlimm Dallas to Houston directly = 239.3 miles Dallas via Waco to Houston = 280.5 miles So you would save building some 50 miles of HSR and add 41 miles distance (about 15 minutes) to the schedule. Certainly should be considered.
Waco is not that large, and if your going to route via Waco I presume your going to stop there and the stop itself would take some time. Why not have the Waco folks travel North for 15 min to Dallas on the DFW to San Antonio line then travel on Dallas to Houston.
Isn't it the same thing but without the extra cost of the extra miles on Dallas to Houston leg?
No. You use the Dallas- San Antonio line for part of the journey to Houston, then split at Waco (or some other point), and build only a line from Waco to Houston rather than Dallas to Houston.
schlimm No. You use the Dallas- San Antonio line for part of the journey to Houston, then split at Waco (or some other point), and build only a line from Waco to Houston rather than Dallas to Houston.
I got it, I know thats what you were trying to communicate but do you then realize your inconviencing the Dallas to Houston passenger by the additional 15-20 min to accomodate the Dallas to Waco passenger? Why not just ask the Waco passenger to spend an extra 15-20 min on the train North to Dallas if they want to go to South to Houston? Thats probably the ratiionale.
However, I think TEXAS CENTRAL is more interested in real estate development than the bullet train itself and I think they see potentially easy financing from Japan if they can raise X amount in the United States. They will also try to milk out taxpayer money just like All Aboard Florida is doing with Florida Tri-Rail......then claim innocence in the affair. Hey if you build a monolith type station with several surrounding office towers in a convienent downtown location with rail access........of course the local train authority is going to want in on it and will probably add to your funds or construction.
We are already seeing a massive Dallas Station real estate development with this project and I am fairly certain we will see one with Houston as well with Texas Central being the primary landlord or developer in both terminus cities. The passengers and fares are just gravy on the top.
You know what? They could have just as easily built an elevated line into Dallas Union Station because the old and heavily decorated waiting room is on the second floor of Dallas Union station, the first floor was intended for baggage and thats the part Amtrak, Dart and TRE uses. Texas Central could have come in on a elevated platform over the Amtrak, Dart, TRE and UP/BNSF tracks and then just busted out the bricked in exit points on the second floor of the station for bullet train. Walla, everyone in one facility. Second floor of Dallas Union Station is currently owned by the Hyatt Regecy for special events but I am sure they would sell it.
The problem is that if they used the Dallas Union Station location they do not have enough other real estate to develope around the station thats not already in use. So they picked their current location to make more money on the real estate development. That right there tells me they are not terribly focused on just carrying passengers.
My point certainly was not to "serve" Waco and its environs. My point was to use the Dallas to San Antonio corridor with the addition of a spur to Houston. And the why is to avoid building a separate line from Dallas to Houston, thus saving money. The real estate development can occur along either RoW.
schlimm My point certainly was not to "serve" Waco and its environs. My point was to use the Dallas to San Antonio corridor with the addition of a spur to Houston. And the why is to avoid building a separate line from Dallas to Houston, thus saving money. The real estate development can occur along either RoW.
OK, it's a construction costs issue then. Well if thats the concern, if it was one entity involved in building both lines then I would say that might happen. But what I see Texas doing is allowing the Texas Central folks complete freedom and then attempting to fix it later with taxpayer money. Texas Central has not expressed an interest in any other route in the state (and here is where they differ from All Aboard Florida). What I find kind of appalling is the state is going to let Texas Central build something that is only partially adequate and then try to fix it to make it fully adequate with taxpayer money.
For example the Dallas to Fort Worth leg, sounds like the State is going to build that along with perhaps fixing the Mass Transit system in Dallas so that Dallas Union Station is not the only hub.........somehow tying the new HSR rail station into Dallas Mass Transit.........thats all comming from taxpayers and if I were Mayor of Dallas I would be assessing Texas Central for the costs because they are creating them with their decision making. Maybe they intend to recoup the money via taxes on the new real estate development which is largely derilict buildings and vacant lots now. Not sure what the plan is.
There really is not a good excuse for not using Dallas Union Station as the HSR station other than they want more acreage to develop from the ground up.
Interesting to note the All Aboard Florida plan has the FEC tracks being elevated in downtown Miami station with the level under the tracks at street level being retail lease space. Dallas will probably have a similar deal but just East of Union Station instead of at Union Station........no reason I can think of off hand for it other than available real estate to develop.
NARP has post in its blog that Texas legislature is trying to kill the HSR. Sort of gives pause to lie that oponents of Amtrak want private operation of passenger trains
http://www.narprail.org/hotline--blog/hotline-906#comments
It's not the "Texas Legislature" as you state because they have not voted on it yet. It's two or three legislative opponents of the project that are just opponents because they represent a select few that want more than fair market value for their land........basically a shakedown for more money. Thats all it is.
I'm willing to bet they are very large landowners vs run of the mill family farmers as well, to have that kind of legislative power.
Another article about Texas senate.
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/08/bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-moves-senate-f/
I would be surprised if they won and in fact it is likely they will lose. There are multiple forms of eminent domain and one of them reverts the land back to the original owner if the enterprise fails at somepoint.....which makes the Senators concerns about business failure in this case moot.
Oppponents are trying an end around by enlisting politicians to make it impossible for the corporation to build the line. Since no way can be found to find out who is supporting the legislators ( both state and congressional ) we cannot know who is behind the oppposition.
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/news/article_9017d060-e45c-11e4-bace-bfba547e611d.html
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/04/meet-the-opposition-to-texas-high-speed-rail/390576/
http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article18720000.html
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/dart-supports-high-speed-rail-project-but-its-austin-lobbyist-is-working-against-the-effort.html/
PNWRMNMI do not think it is much of a real restate deal. I do think it is an attempt to sell Japanese rolling stock.
Sounds likely to me. That and sell some management consulting, as well.
blue streak 1 Oppponents are trying an end around by enlisting politicians to make it impossible for the corporation to build the line. Since no way can be found to find out who is supporting the legislators ( both state and congressional ) we cannot know who is behind the oppposition. http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/news/article_9017d060-e45c-11e4-bace-bfba547e611d.html http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/04/meet-the-opposition-to-texas-high-speed-rail/390576/ http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article18720000.html http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/dart-supports-high-speed-rail-project-but-its-austin-lobbyist-is-working-against-the-effort.html/
JL ChicagoSam1 Why do you keep saying we must walk before we run??
Amtrak has 75 per cent of the NYC to DC air/rail market with trains that average a tad over 80 mph.
Amtrak has won its share of the NYC to DC rail/air market by incrementally upgrading the existing rail corridor as opposed to building a new railroad.
In FY14 the NEC had an operating profit of $482.2 million before depreciation, interest, etc. (capital charges). Assuming that it wears 80 per cent of Amtrak's capital charges - Amtrak does not reveal how it allocates the capital charges, it had a loss of $96.6 million in FY14. That's down from $504.7 million in FY10.
If Amtrak operated 205 mph trains in the NEC or elsewhere - average speed would be less than the top speed - would it turn in better numbers? Would it do a better job of meeting the travel needs of the people in its market? I suspect not.
The cost to build a high speed railroad from scratch probably is greater than making incremental upgrades to existing rail corridors. Moreover, the operating cost for a moderate high speed railway is less than the operating cost for a super high speed railway.
I don't recall saying that I am comfortable with an average speed of 80 mph, but perhaps I did.
If the current rail route between Dallas and Houston or along the I-35 corridor could be improved incrementally for passengers trains running an average of 100 to 110 mph, the outcome could be better for more people in Texas when costs, revenues, etc. are factored into the equations.
The Texas Central Railway has not presented any validated ridership, revenue, or cost projections. Without them it is impossible to know whether its proposed high speed railway between Dallas and Houston will be financially successful.
Southwest Airlines started with three airplanes. And built itself incrementally into the largest domestic carrier - volumes - in the United States. Its success story is a case study at many of the leading business schools. Presumably there is a lesson there.
Sam1The Texas Central Railway has not presented any validated ridership, revenue, or cost projections. Without them it is impossible to know whether its proposed high speed railway between Dallas and Houston will be financially successful.
Validated? How? When entering a totally new territory, any projections can not be validated, at least not in the generally used definition of the term.
schlimm Sam1 The Texas Central Railway has not presented any validated ridership, revenue, or cost projections. Without them it is impossible to know whether its proposed high speed railway between Dallas and Houston will be financially successful. Validated? How? When entering a totally new territory, any projections can not be validated, at least not in the generally used definition of the term.
Sam1 The Texas Central Railway has not presented any validated ridership, revenue, or cost projections. Without them it is impossible to know whether its proposed high speed railway between Dallas and Houston will be financially successful.
Ridership, revenue, and cost estimates can be validated by an independent auditor or consultant.
Amongst other things they would test assumptions and estimates against acceptable benchmarks; look for constistency in formula applications; and assess the robustness of the market analyses. They would also test the finance plan for reasonableness, compliance with accounting and financial standards, etc.
Project promoters tend to focus on the best case scenarios, i.e. they see their project through rose colored glasses. An independent auditor or consultant would draw attention to worse case and intermediate case scenarios. He would look for and validate (attest) the exist strategies.
Sam1Ridership, revenue, and cost estimates can be validated by an independent auditor or consultant. Amongst other things they would test assumptions and estimates against acceptable benchmarks; look for constistency in formula applications; and assess the robustness of the market analyses. They would also test the finance plan for reasonableness, compliance with accounting and financial standards, etc. Project promoters tend to focus on the best case scenarios, i.e. they see their project through rose colored glasses. An independent auditor or consultant would draw attention to worse case and intermediate case scenarios. He would look for and validate (attest) the exist strategies.
Now um.........when has a privately run and owned company thats not traded on any U.S. Stock exchange done any of the above in the past? Do you have an example?
CMStPnP Sam1 Ridership, revenue, and cost estimates can be validated by an independent auditor or consultant. Amongst other things they would test assumptions and estimates against acceptable benchmarks; look for constistency in formula applications; and assess the robustness of the market analyses. They would also test the finance plan for reasonableness, compliance with accounting and financial standards, etc. Project promoters tend to focus on the best case scenarios, i.e. they see their project through rose colored glasses. An independent auditor or consultant would draw attention to worse case and intermediate case scenarios. He would look for and validate (attest) the exist strategies. Now um.........when has a privately run and owned company thats not traded on any U.S. Stock exchange done any of the above in the past? Do you have an example?
Sam1 Ridership, revenue, and cost estimates can be validated by an independent auditor or consultant. Amongst other things they would test assumptions and estimates against acceptable benchmarks; look for constistency in formula applications; and assess the robustness of the market analyses. They would also test the finance plan for reasonableness, compliance with accounting and financial standards, etc. Project promoters tend to focus on the best case scenarios, i.e. they see their project through rose colored glasses. An independent auditor or consultant would draw attention to worse case and intermediate case scenarios. He would look for and validate (attest) the exist strategies.
Ownership has nothing to do with prudence.
JCR is a stock company. It appears to be a supporter of Texas Central Railway (TCR).
TCR has not revealed its financing plans, other than to say that it will not take public monies. That does not mean that it will not be floating debt in the public markets. Or taking a cue from its Japanese sponsor and selling shares in the market. That is exactly what JCR, as well as several other privatized Japanese railway companies have done.
Even if the company is privately held, it will have to obtain financing. It probably will do so from large investors, e.g. KKR, TPG, Goldman Sachs, Japanese Central Bank, etc. They are not going to put up the money for the project without some independent assurance that it is viable.
If TCR fails it probably will be dumped on the Texas taxpayers. The state is not likely to allow a failed railway between Dallas and Houston to go to seed. Accordingly, the people, represented by the regulators, have a vested interest in making sure that the project is viable. And the regulators will be using independent evaluators to assess the viability of the project.
Private investors built a merchant power plant in Midlothian, Texas. The developers got their money from a consortium of investment bankers. They insisted that the viability of the plant be evaluated by an independent assessor. It was done by one of the big four accounting firms.
As Sam says, not in so many words--any investor in a large scale project who does not thoroughly vet the project before putting his money into it is like one who is soon parted from his money.
Johnny
Fortunately visionaries such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, to name two, didn't have to have a "validated" plan.
schlimm Fortunately visionaries such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, to name two, didn't have to have a "validated" plan.
They did not have to raise billions of dollars either, and no one knows of the hundreds or thousands who failed.
They still had to raise money on totally speculative products. HSR is not anything new, except here. My point is that there is no such thing as a "validated" market analysis for a HSR in TX, just a careful prediction of growth based on the relevant factors. If a former accountant for a utility doesn't get it, that's not relevant.
Whether it is old technology or new technology is irrelevant. It is being applied in a different market.
One variable is revenue. It is the first item on the income statement. The project promoters probably will develop three or four revenue scenarios for their planned high speed railway between Dallas and Houston.
Ultimately, irrespective of how the project is financed, i.e. public, private placement or a combination thereof, they will have to take their revenue scenarios, along with all of their cost estimates, etc., to the investment bankers or the venture capitalists.
The bankers know that most project promoters tend to adopt the best case revenue scenarios. Before they accept them they will have an independent evaluation (validation) of the revenue numbers.
Goldman Sachs, for example, may use internal personnel to complete the evaluation. If it a smaller firm, they may use outside evaluators. The bankers are not going to take the project promoters scenarios without challenging them. Not when one is talking $10 to $12 billion for the project! And that is before the cost of debt service is factored into the equations.
That's a senior accounting and audit manager for a Fortune 250 corporation. Also included on the resume is eight years with a Wall Street Bank and four years with a major New England regional bank.
Deggesty As Sam says, not in so many words--any investor in a large scale project who does not thoroughly vet the project before putting his money into it is like one who is soon parted from his money.
You missed the point being made just like she did. A private company does not have to make public disclosures as she presumes. A private company can supply such information under confidentiality agreements to private investors or financiers. That means the disclosed information remains private not public. For decades and decades nobody on the planet knew what Readers Digest made as a company or what it's revenue was. They could not even approximate it. Why? It was a privately held company which did not have to publicly disclose anything.
Billions can be raised without public disclosure of much financial details. An IPO does not have to occur before billions can be raised. That assumption is pure foolishness.
Sam1If TCR fails it probably will be dumped on the Texas taxpayers. The state is not likely to allow a failed railway between Dallas and Houston to go to seed.
Really? Why not? Did the State jump in to save the partially constructed multi-billion dollar super collidor project? Where is the evidence the state will jump in to save this project and not let it fade away? Furthermore, where is the money for that type of rescue going to come from if the state did not have money to complete the super collidor project?
Sam1 Whether it is old technology or new technology is irrelevant. It is being applied in a different market. One variable is revenue. It is the first item on the income statement. The project promoters probably will develop three or four revenue scenarios for their planned high speed railway between Dallas and Houston. Ultimately, irrespective of how the project is financed, i.e. public, private placement or a combination thereof, they will have to take their revenue scenarios, along with all of their cost estimates, etc., to the investment bankers or the venture capitalists. The bankers know that most project promoters tend to adopt the best case revenue scenarios. Before they accept them they will have an independent evaluation (validation) of the revenue numbers. Goldman Sachs, for example, may use internal personnel to complete the evaluation. If it a smaller firm, they may use outside evaluators. The bankers are not going to take the project promoters scenarios without challenging them. Not when one is talking $10 to $12 billion for the project! And that is before the cost of debt service is factored into the equations. That's a senior accounting and audit manager for a Fortune 250 corporation. Also included on the resume is eight years with a Wall Street Bank and four years with a major New England regional bank.
Well, duh! Obviously if banks or other financial sources are involved they will check out the proposal. My objection to your statement, had you read as carefully as your lengthy resume would suggest you can, is in your choice of the term "validated" which I have now stated several times. The term strongly implies a high degree of certitude, which simply is not there with regard to revenue projections.
Validate as per Merriam-Webster: to support or cooroborate on a sound or authoritative basis. Auditors validate the numbers in a proposal. If you don't like validate, you can substitute verify, etc.
CMStPnP Sam1 If TCR fails it probably will be dumped on the Texas taxpayers. The state is not likely to allow a failed railway between Dallas and Houston to go to seed. Really? Why not? Did the State jump in to save the partially constructed multi-billion dollar super collidor project? Where is the evidence the state will jump in to save this project and not let it fade away? Furthermore, where is the money for that type of rescue going to come from if the state did not have money to complete the super collidor project?
Sam1 If TCR fails it probably will be dumped on the Texas taxpayers. The state is not likely to allow a failed railway between Dallas and Houston to go to seed.
Most of the super collider is underground and, therefore, did not have much of a visual presence. Moreover, it did not have a readily available commercial use, and Texas did not have the resources to take it over. In fact, the federal government did not have the resources or at least an interest it taking it over.
If TCR's infrastructure were shuttered, no one knows whether the taxpayers would be on the hook for it.
Under one scenario the project would be allowed to go to seed. Under an opposite scenario, the state or federal government would take it over, just as the federal government (Amtrak) took over operation of the Auto Train after it failed as a private enterprise.
"Well, duh!" You just can't help belittle people with whom you disagree, can you?
Do you think this is how mature business people talk to each other? Do you think, "Well, duh" is commonly used in big time negotiations? Not in the world that I experienced! Had I said that in an executive committee meeting or with the board of directors or told them that they just don't understand, I would have been gone. And rightly so!
Just what experience have you had with large capital projects? To what extent have you been involved with investment bankers?
CMStPnP Deggesty As Sam says, not in so many words--any investor in a large scale project who does not thoroughly vet the project before putting his money into it is like one who is soon parted from his money. You missed the point being made just like she did. A private company does not have to make public disclosures as she presumes. A private company can supply such information under confidentiality agreements to private investors or financiers. That means the disclosed information remains private not public. For decades and decades nobody on the planet knew what Readers Digest made as a company or what it's revenue was. They could not even approximate it. Why? It was a privately held company which did not have to publicly disclose anything. Billions can be raised without public disclosure of much financial details. An IPO does not have to occur before billions can be raised. That assumption is pure foolishness.
Whether the money is raised in the public markets or whether it is a private placement is irrelevant.
I don't believe that I even hinted at an IPO, which would be selling stock. My view was on debt financing.
The people putting up the money will want to know whether the project is sound, i.e. they have a reasonable probability of getting their money back. And they are going to want some independent verification of the plan's variables.
Since TCR has not disclosed it financing plans, no one knows what the source of the financing will be. The Japanese Central Bank has indicated that it will participate in the financing. It is a public institution, and it is required to shine a light on its activities.
Telling someone that they missed the point, by the way, is belittling. It adds nothing to the conversation.
Sam1 "Well, duh!" You just can't help belittle people with whom you disagree, can you? Do you think this is how mature business people talk to each other? Do you think, "Well, duh" is commonly used in big time negotiations? Not in the world that I experienced! Had I said that in an executive committee meeting or with the board of directors or told them that they just don't understand, I would have been gone. And rightly so! Just what experience have you had with large capital projects? To what extent have you been involved with investment bankers?
Actually, it does happen and sometimes with colorful metaphors sprinkled in so that the recieving end is clear on how their position is being seen. It really depends on the industry your in as well. Manufacturing.....like General Motors or General Electric tends to use the tougher language. So do Stock Brokerages.
Easy come, easy go company cultures such as Utilities, Insurance, Telecom, etc where they can just increase the rates if they are wrong and so......no harm done if they let CPT John Hazelwood at the helm for a while and they happen to start hemmoraging money. They tend to be more relaxed in their discussions about revenue projections and business positions.
I remember at General Motors a Senior Economist referring to another as "Fred the Di*khead" among his close friends and associates because he felt he was more of a yes man than doing his job as a Economist should.
I remember another Female Economist at General Motors being brought to tears after a Senior Executive exploded at her with a barrage of profanity and said "Jesus Ch***t, what are you telling me here?.....I feel like I am on Freddy Krugars roller coaster from hell........your stats should tell a story not jump all over the place and leave the audience in absolute confusion" (I cleaned this last part up a bit).....I got a snicker out of the last display because she was not very bright in the communication department despite the advanced degree from Wharton.
So yes it does happen.
CMStPnP Deggesty As Sam says, not in so many words--any investor in a large scale project who does not thoroughly vet the project before putting his money into it is like one who is soon parted from his money. You missed the point being made just like she did.
You missed the point being made just like she did.
I think you have missed their point far worse.
The issue is not public information or knowledge -- it's due diligence. Any investor in a project NEEDS to get independent verification of as much as they can -- assume nothing, take nothing on faith, make sure everything is substantiated in ways that make sense. Sure, that's carried out under tight NDAs if you're wise ... but if you don't understand how reality is going to reflect the pro formas you were presented with, or if you don't grasp how the technology works or how the investment will pay for itself, well ... as they said, expect to be parted. (If not parted out!)
WizlishThe issue is not public information or knowledge -- it's due diligence. Any investor in a project NEEDS to get independent verification of as much as they can -- assume nothing, take nothing on faith, make sure everything is substantiated in ways that make sense. Sure, that's carried out under tight NDAs if you're wise ... but if you don't understand how reality is going to reflect the pro formas you were presented with, or if you don't grasp how the technology works or how the investment will pay for itself, well ... as they said, expect to be parted. (If not parted out!)
Oh my gosh, are we really having this conversation?
Heh, again it's a private company. The investors of the company are the owners of the company as they own the full equity (that means all the stock) unless the company floats public stock....if it does float public stock it no longer is a private company it is a public company.
Otherwise I think you mean future creditors not future investor since Texas Central has not announced an IPO or even plans for one. For a creditor, yes, due dilligence plays a role but creditors play by a different set of rules altogether because they can secure part of what they loaned the company via expanded ownership rights, control, or securing the debt that is owed.
A creditor is NOT necessarily an investor, big difference in rights. As a creditor I would really NOT have to do that much due dilligence other than to ensure my money is backed by some form of collateral or partially secured via order of payback if the company seeks bankruptcy protection or a lien on assets. For example, if the company has a market value of $8 Billion and no debt. Really I could care less about it's revenue projections and I can lend it $2 Billion without losing sleep as long as I secure the debt.
I can do that by holding title on leased equipment, I can do that via property liens, I can do that by having the company officers sign a statement saying I am the first creditor above the others.
Some of you should at least attempt to run a business to understand these concepts instead of reading them from a textbook and reciting them back online in a mish mash. I have done so and guess what? Bankers never lent me money based on my revenue projections. They lent me money based on current debt levels and PAST revenue taken in because I was largely debt free. They didn't care one woot about future revenue projections.........AND that is real life. Now, if I was debt heavy, they would have asked for revenue projections and maybe investigated some more but I wasn't debt heavy and that extra step they viewed as irrelevant.
Another common misconception on you guys that read text books instead of experience this in real life. My ability to borrow was not constrained by my Net Worth, it was constrained by how much gross revenue the business would bring in. My personal Net Worth was irrelevant as the business was run as a C Corporation. All the bankers cared about was gross revenue and ability to pay (and they relied on past statements of income vs projections for that). Gross Margin is looked at as a somewhat elastic measure in that a different operator of the same business can have a larger gross margin than another based on how smart they are at running the business efficiently. The operator before me had a lower gross margin than myself because he didn't challenge the tax assessor, landlord, or the insurance guy on their figures (they were all incorrect).
I can massively lie about financial projections and a good portion of businesses do. I cannot lie about what I took in last month and certified to the State of Texas or the IRS without being thrown in jail (a good creditor will check, a landlord will definitely check and ask you to sign an agreement where they can review state records on a ongoing basis). So trust in current and past figures is a LOT higher than projections.
Back to the Texas Central Railroad since it is new and nobody has yet run a HSR rail line privately. They are probably going to need to obtain a large chunk of their financing outside of the United States. Now depending on how that financing is secured or not secured will determine what kind of deal they get from financiers within the United States.
The first fleet of Hiawathas was a past HS Passenger Train that was not privately financed. Might interest you to know the money for that came from the Roosevelt Administration as the Milwaukee Road wasn't in good financial shape at the time.
The "well, duh" was some light sarcasm directed at your ongoing tone of condescension and your apparent need to trumpet your corporate resume at least once in every thread. Others on here have experienced far saltier language emanating from the mouths of CEOs and business executives and other leaders in government and elsewhere.
Also, I really wish I could live in the world Sam1 is living in where projections are a determinant in financiing and banks spend a lot of time pouring over revenue projections and the business model. That would really be interesting to watch since most of them have never run a business themselves and would have no clue.
Sam1 Validate as per Merriam-Webster: to support or cooroborate on a sound or authoritative basis. Auditors validate the numbers in a proposal. If you don't like validate, you can substitute verify, etc.
In the area of scientific research design and experimentation, validity refers to whether a study is able to scientifically answer the questions it is intended to answer.
In clinical fields, the assessment of validity of a diagnosis and various diagnostic tests are extremely important. As diagnosis augments treatments, medications, and the patient's life, it is extremely important to know that when running diagnostic tests that clinicians are truly testing what they intend to test.
It is generally accepted that the concept of scientific validity addresses the nature of reality and as such is an epistemological and philosophical issue as well as a question of measurement.
This ongoing semantics discussion is interesting, even if its only real connection to a railroad board is that it appears to be turning into a train wreck. But I think a point that might be established here is that "validation" appears to be a technical term used by auditors, and has a meaning (as Sam1 said) related to 'verify information according to some accepted standard'. This is probably anathema to people who value 'validation' in its scientific meaning and context, and I don't know whether it would qualify as 'jargon' to those who don't recognize the special sense.
Here is an example I found -- admittedly not directly related to any of the uses of 'validation' in the discussion of the Texas high-speed proposal -- that discusses some of the semantic issues:
http://www.riskdynamics.eu/blog/bid/279643/Model-Validation-vs-Internal-Audit-So-similar-so-different
Might I also suggest that we tentatively accept the technical usage, refrain from ad hominem (or feminam) remarks, and get back to discussing HSR?
schlimm"The Texas Central Railway has not presented any validated ridership, revenue, or cost projections." So my question is how would anyone obtain validity on the above, give that there is no basis for comparison? You might obtain a good projection within some stated confidence interval, but that is hardly in the same league as a validated scientific test.
Exactly, nothing in this country to compare it against......period.
And thats why I think American creditors / financiers are not going to have anything to do with this project unless the company first obtains a large tranche of money from either overseas, Export-Import bank or some other international body. My guess is if the Japanese do not step in, might be the Export-Import bank.
A couple of major risks here:
1. Current management has almost zero business experience running a high speed railroad. So projections are going to be almost meaningless here for reasons I stated in posts above, primarily and pardon the pun.......no track record by any of the management folks.
2. No past proven high speed railroads in the United States that are trully profitable. This is a big one that unfortunately the first HSR in operation has to overcome. Being the first also means your risk premium is a lot higher without an example to point to that has been successful. That means higher interest rates, more skeptical equipment lessors, etc.
3. No hard evidence that Texans will leave their cars behind or abandon their favorite airlines even for a high speed maglev between those cities. Again kind of part of the above two points.
All Aboard Flordia will provide some validation ---- or some invalidation. We should wait and see......
I !wish it success. I thought my package transport idea might help, but I cannot be the judge even of that. I am as skeptical as anyone, but still I want it to succeed. After all, I am a railfan.
Three possibilities: 1. I succeeds and does better than break even including interest on borrowed money, etc. 2. It loses money but continiues to be valuable to its owners because of real-estate issues. 3. It loses so much money that even real-estate values cannot save it in the long run. The first outcome might provide some validation for the Texas HAR. The second and third could only provide invalidation.
Wizlish Might I also suggest that we tentatively accept the technical usage, refrain from ad hominem (or feminam) remarks, and get back to discussing HSR?
Fred, as you know, I have great respect for you. When arguments start to call people's use of English words into question, or make fun of their resume or name-dropping habits, I consider it a distraction from the actual discussion, and to have extended crosstalk purely about semantics, especially when it starts being waspish rather than merely pointed, contributes little to the 'meat'.
In the present case, which discusses a railroad far from the clickety-clack or whistling stage, we're discussing the politics and financial arrangements (including the finance of the necessary engineering) that will be needed for this particular HSR project. It could have taken all of about four sentences to establish that anyone putting the necessary number of billions of dollars into such a project would conduct, or insist on, a 'second opinion' from skilled experts regarding the details of the plan and the financial arrangements to be made. I find that so common-sense as not to require repetition. We should now move on to substantive details. (And I do not say this with the intent of being the Forum Police.)
Let me propose an alternative theme. We've been discussing the probable role of the Japanese both as contractors and a source of finance for the Texas project. Now, if I remember correctly from my reading of Old Man Thunder, Soto ran what was essentially a scam on the international bankers when he set up the New Tokaido Line. I don't remember the precise details and don't have the book to check, but surely there are people here who remember them. Perhaps it is time for the Japanese to 'pay that forward' and underwrite the construction of this new high-speed system whether or not the cold hard numbers of present analysis justify it...
daveklepperAll Aboard Flordia will provide some validation ---- or some invalidation. We should wait and see......
Maybe but AAF is almost an entirely different project in that:
1. AAF is Experienced railroaders and real estate developers.
2. If the passenger idea fails the freight railroad will still be generating revenue and so will the real estate developments.
3. Owning a freight railroad means they have access to Federal Programs giving them access to financing with perhaps less scruitiny than a new start-up and definitely lower interest rates.
4. It's not really HSR it is closer to near-HSR with a top speed of 125 mph. Less insurance premium and risk, in my opinion. The track infrastructure is not seperated between passenger and freight. In all honestly I think if Electronic Braking was standardized across the U.S. on both freight and passenger trains and once PTC is in place that the FRA might consider enough of a added safety margin to raise passenger train speeds by 10-15 mph on dual use track in this country.
5. The installed or new rail portion is not a long distance and is far less costly than Dallas to Houston.
6. AAF incremental approach and possibly future expansion plans. We have still not heard of any plans beyond Dallas to Houston for Texas Central and they have been asked repeatedly. They just want to focus on Dallas to Houston and in my opinion that is rather strange they have not outlined an expansion beyond that one line.
Effort to kill RR lost in Texas legislature. If the state DOT had not been able to help plan over and under various roads would have been very difficult. Was an ingenious way to stiffle the RR which fortunately did not work.l
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/news/Texas-lawmaker-fails-in-bid-to-end-DallastoHouston-rail-proposal--44565
re: where will the financing come from?
Example?
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/asia/japan-offers-low-interest-loan-for-first-indian-hs-line.html?channel=523
Gramp re: where will the financing come from? Example? http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/asia/japan-offers-low-interest-loan-for-first-indian-hs-line.html?channel=523
I would personally like to see Congress open the door more to true transportation companies that are intermodal in focus as a transportation company should be and not limited to just one mode.......it makes sense especially now that we are starting to privitize Space Vehicle production. The only global company I see with Railway, Space and Airline interests so far is Virgin Airlines and only because the CEO has built relationships with politians.......probably.
Would like to see more of that. It would really be impressive if we saw an American Airline step outside the box and invest in either a Bus Line or Rail Passenger Corridor.
BTW, I read recently they have raised $75 Million in Capital already on their own and have hired a CEO for this project.
It's a start. But a long way to go considering the price tag is probably what - $X trillion?
schlimm It's a start. But a long way to go considering the price tag is probably what - $X trillion?
Depends on whose estimate you use. I would estimate myself with zero experience at this project and considering most of the ROW is already secured as a power line right of way (lowers the cost of land acquisition). Additionally the fact they have several prominent developers on the board also lowers real estate project costs as.......of course those guys will come to the table with partial funding. So my guess is $7-10 Billion. If they can get to $5-6 Billion they can probably get the Japanese match on a discounted loan for a good portion of the rest. They might be able to fund up front from some of the real estate projects as well. The size of the station in Dallas is going to be very large and might pull in Federal Dollars at various points.
I would agree though $5-6 Billion is a steep hill to climb and they are going to need to really hustle to get that money from scratch with nothing operating now. FEC had an advantage with it's freight railroad as well as past real estate development experience. This company is starting from scratch which means higher interest rates and more capital protection measures by investors.
A safer approach here would have been to take over an existing rail passenger corridor, incrementally fix that up to a higher speed and milk all the real estate development you could along that line so you would have a model to show investors. I think Chicago to Milwaukee would have been the best candidate for that due to it's distance in length. It's mostly 80 mph now with mostly welded rail and it is very close to break even financially. Beef up that line with new equipment, new classes of service and passenger station improvements in Milwaukee and Chicago, a few more frequencies and it would be turning a profit.
Plus you could get CP to willing shift some of it's freights as it was willing to do with the past Wisconsin HSR proposal via the West Line to Savanna, IL.
Thats what I would have done. Chicago to Milwaukee with feeder Commutter rail lines between Sheboygan and Milwaukee and Watertown to Milwaukee.
CMStPnPA safer approach here would have been to take over an existing rail passenger corridor, incrementally fix that up to a higher speed and milk all the real estate development you could along that line so you would have a model to show investors. I think Chicago to Milwaukee would have been the best candidate for that due to it's distance in length. It's mostly 80 mph now with mostly welded rail and it is very close to break even financially. Beef up that line with new equipment, new classes of service and passenger station improvements in Milwaukee and Chicago, a few more frequencies and it would be turning a profit.
I disagree strongly. The marginal improvement path you propose has all of the burdens of dealing with the underlying freight railroad, whose capacity passenger trains steal with far below market compensation, and worse for proponents, with engineering standards that will not support the speeds trains need to be competitive with short haul air.
I think the Texas proposal hits the sweet spot for a start from scratch project that has the potential to demonstrate what a high speed train can do. First, the trip length is about right. Second, there is a large market at both ends. Third, they do not plan to waste resources serving small time intermediate points. Fourth, they will build from scratch, so can build to the engineering standards required to support the intended speed. Fifth, since they are building from scratch line will be all grade separated, a big improvement in safety and reliabillity. Hit a car on a grade crossing and your line is tied up for 3-4 hours if you do not get derailed. Bad for reliability, that.
As for financing, the Japenese will provide what ends up being necessary. They want to sell equipment so they have plenty of incentive.
I think that if this project gets built it will either kill the notion of high speed trains on dedicated right of way in the US, or more likely prove it.
Mac - NOT a fan of ATK, our national welfare railroad.
About the ROW along electric lines. Is the ROW owned ? If so are there any limitations of acquiring an easement ? If not owned but only an easement can easement holder issue a sub easement or will TEX Rail have to go to land owners ?
Power company will certainly like having a captive user and substatioln can provide the electricity by 3 phase - single phase 25 KV transformers.
.
Great discussion!!
Although the marginal/gradual approach of using existing RoWs, (as mentioned by CMStPnP and Don Oltmann) to move toward a goal of HrSR ->true HSR has worked well in Germany, even there for true HSR they have had to build several dedicated RoWs or sets of tracks in existing RoW once away from urban approaches using existing lines. As Fred pointed out, fast passenger service is not compatible with most freight lines, and I think this would be true even with better compensation.
The distinction between utility-owned land vs easements for power lines only is significant, but surely the TX HSR folks knew the answer at the outset.
schlimm Great discussion!! Although the marginal/gradual approach of using existing RoWs, (as mentioned by CMStPnP and Don Oltmann) to move toward a goal of HrSR ->true HSR has worked well in Germany, even there for true HSR they have had to build several dedicated RoWs or sets of tracks in existing RoW once away from urban approaches using existing lines. As Fred pointed out, fast passenger service is not compatible with most freight lines, and I think this would be true even with better compensation. The distinction between utility-owned land vs easements for power lines only is significant, but surely the TX HSR folks knew the answer at the outset.
Yes but before Germany had the new dedicated HSR routes built they had significant ridership on their near HSR lines (up to 110-120 mph). Which in my opinion were just fine for a country that size. They also built most of the HSR lines to connect the same cities as the near HSR lines. Some of them were new routes completely because of the collapse of Communism but a good portion of them paralleled the near HSR lines at a distance. Germany is pretty tiny. North Sea Coast to South Border what about a 8-10 hour drive and that would not be at excessive speed. East to West, don't have a good estimate yet.
Hamburg to Basel 430 miles as the crow flies, Aachen to Passau 390 miles, also as the crow flies. Europeans consider Rail competitive with air at a maximum of 6 hrs, but best at 4 hours or less. Fastest time for Hamburg Hbf to Basel SBB is 6:30 with no change via ICE with 9 stops. Runs via Hannover, Kassel, Fulda, Frankfurt am Main, Mannheim and Baden-Baden.
CMStPnPYes but before Germany had the new dedicated HSR routes built they had significant ridership on their near HSR lines (up to 110-120 mph). Which in my opinion were just fine for a country that size. They also built most of the HSR lines to connect the same cities as the near HSR lines.
True to some extent. German trains always had high ridership. Although the Hannover-Würzburg stretch (327 km/203 miles, speed limit 280 kmh/175 mph) was running in 1991, as was the shorter Mannheim-Stuttgart stretch. The Deutsche Reichsbahn operating in the former DDR actually ran pretty well, having had war damage on a level similar to the west. The problem was that the Russians removed 2nd tracks and catenary in electrified stretches as part of reparations. The economic system didn't have much of an effect since a policy of total employment tended to offset the lack of capital investment.
The gradual approach worked in Germany because both the BRD and DDR already had well-established networks of intensive passenger services.
A most interesting article about Jananeese HSR. It seems that Japan only wants to sell HSR as a whole package. Most telling which this poster cannot understand. Their trains can only run left had running. Not very realistic running into Dallas Union station and Forth Worth Station. Other items is Japaneese insistence that their way is best. Example 3-G.
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=211372.xml
blue streak 1 A most interesting article about Jananeese HSR. It seems that Japan only wants to sell HSR as a whole package. Most telling which this poster cannot understand. Their trains can only run left had running. Not very realistic running into Dallas Union station and Forth Worth Station. Other items is Japaneese insistence that their way is best. Example 3-G. http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=211372.xml
They have a YouTube video on the 700 series train. There is no power car per say, instead each series of axles under the passenger cars has motors to drive the train. Also some of the Japan track infrastructure we would not need in Texas particularly the part in the center of the track that clasps the flanges of the train if there is a violent earthquake to prevent the train from derailing.
Agree I don't like the other features of the trains that much in Japan. I am a firm believer in a National Standards body for trainsets as what Amtrak attempted to do. Drives down costs for everyone and removes the temptations for politicians to cherry pick based on political "sweetner" packages.
Although this is a private firm so really can't have a whole lot of influence on what they decide to go with unless you can beat the financing package. Personally I prefer the German and French HSR trainsets over Asian.
Since you are not going to build a station in our town NIMBY !!
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/in-ellis-county-officials-hatch-a-plot-to-kill-the-dallas-to-houston-bullet-train-7471216
FRA regulation review of Texas Central has IMHO bad news. Says system has to be completely separate of any Passenger or freight rail ines. Wonder if this is because of the Japan's signaling system requiring left hand running. See previous post.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/FRA-technical-report-reviews-corridor-alternatives-for-Texas-Central-Railway-project--45436
At least on the old C&NW (now UP West) line, it is still left-hand running, as always. Carl and Jeff could say more about that.
I would also suggest reading the actual FRA report. True HSR (not the NEC, which is not), whether in TX or elsewhere, must have a totally separate RoW. But existing terminal trackage can be used.
I don't think the project was planning on sharing terminal trackage or other rail's tracks. I think the intent all along was to buy the trainsets off the shelf with as little modification as needed. That should lower insurance costs and lessen some of the FRA trainset requirements applied to those trainsets that do share tracks. I think long-run this is a more costly approach in regards to expansion BUT I don't see any plan by Texas Central for expansion beyond Houston to Dallas.
Long article about opposition to the HSR line.
http://www.houstonpress.com/news/on-the-line-will-the-houston-dallas-bullet-train-revolutionize-texas-or-divide-it-forever-7679365
The point about left hand running in the article from the japaneese writer about the Japaneese bullet trains is that they can only run left hand. Don't know about yard and stations reversals. So if a track is out of service for whatever reason does that mean that directions is cancelled until problem fixed ?
I can not figure out why you are so concerned about left hand running. If you have double track, then you have to have a current of traffic and right hand is as arbitrary a choice as left. Obviously with two stations it is not hard to design stations to suit even if doors are on one side. I do not know if they plan doors on both sides of cars or only one, but that has nothing to do with running left or running right.
The more interesting question to me is whether or not they will have intermediate crossovers. At first glance I see no reason for them and some good reasons to avoid them, since crossovers implies signaling in both directions, that is two main tracks. More flexible, yes but also more costly. The other big thing to remember is that this railroad will only run daylight, so track maintenance can be done at night. That removes the need for intermediate crossovers to get around track gangs. If you have no intermediate crossovers, you will not have to maintain them whcih significantly simplifies and economizes on track maintenance. The choice of simple and relatively cheap vs. complicated and expensive is independent of running left or running right.
The Japenese have over 50 years experience. I believe they have it figured out by now.
+1
Doesn't seem to bother the C&NW, either, which it did since the 1860s and still does today.
It would bother me if only right hand running. Anythin that limits your operation has bad potential. Another is that Japan has a different culture about maintaining ite. Look how quickly they restored service after the earthquake. Main problem is complete incompatibility with USA operation practices and inability to operate even in station tracks of current USA RRs.
Not having to mess with current terminal trackage is one of this systems' great advantages.
PNWRMNM Streak, Not having to mess with current terminal trackage is one of this systems' great advantages. Mac
So instead of having interconnections in Dallas at Dallas Union station to TRE, DART & Amtrak you would require the HSR passengers to hike, ride taxi, bus, or other means to go between stations ? There have been many articles over the years asking for more inconnections not less. Of course maybe TEX Rail can get air right to build an elevated track system at Dallas Union station ? That would have to include elevated tail tracks for storage.
The Houston station situation is hopeless and maybe TEX rail needs to locate near or at A Houston light rail station
As far as a single direction operation on rails. That means even though 2 tracks are built it will not be 2 MT with crossovers but instead two one way single track operation with maybe one way passing sidings. So every time something happens to a track that directions will be shut down. Will Corman or Hertzog , etc. even have knowledge to clean up the mess and restore signaling ?
IMO this can be easily rectified although the Japanese signaling may not have capacity to run two way traffic. Anyone know ?
blue streak 1So instead of having interconnections in Dallas at Dallas Union station to TRE, DART & Amtrak you would require the HSR passengers to hike, ride taxi, bus, or other means to go between stations ? There have been many articles over the years asking for more inconnections not less. Of course maybe TEX Rail can get air right to build an elevated track system at Dallas Union station ? That would have to include elevated tail tracks for storage. The Houston station situation is hopeless and maybe TEX rail needs to locate near or at A Houston light rail station As far as a single direction operation on rails. That means even though 2 tracks are built it will not be 2 MT with crossovers but instead two one way single track operation with maybe one way passing sidings. So every time something happens to a track that directions will be shut down. Will Corman or Hertzog , etc. even have knowledge to clean up the mess and restore signaling ? IMO this can be easily rectified although the Japanese signaling may not have capacity to run two way traffic. Anyone know ?
You do realize the current proposal on the table for this system is to NOT share trackage or platforms with any of the above mentioned transit agencies, instead the new Bullet Train will have it's own new terminal and if the above transit agencies want in on the action they will have to find a way to extend to the new terminal. So the current Texas Central proposal is for an entirely enclosed system unless I missed something with what they proposed.
Your proposal for Dallas Union Terminal is an interesting one in that the station is currently setup for a second floor train terminal that used to have pedestrian stairways down to the first level platforms. What happened since was that the Second Floor of DUT was purchased by the Reunion Tower Hyatt for additional catering rooms and then I think resold to Wolfgang Puck. Much of the waiting room on the second floor remains intact. The first floor was the baggage handling area I believe but it has been readopted to serve Amtrak, TRE and DART. At any rate the HSR tracks could easily come into DUT on a elevated structure and exchange passengers on the second floor of DUT. Infrastruture is in place for that or at least most of it. The problem of course is that the Texas Central wants to use the Dallas Station as a real estate play much as how the Japanese Central Railway does. So not enough room for real estate development at DUT and that is why they are opting for a totally new station just South of the current DUT........they want a lot of room for real estate development rights.
In the current DUT there is a massive stairway that connects the second to first levels (a little narrower than what you find at Chicago Union Station) as well as elevators and integrating the second floor back into train station operation I think would be ideal.......but probably will not happen in this case.
Primary sources for information are preferred. Here is the actual FRA report link:
https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L16978
The Ft. Worth connection:
http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/news/d-fw-route-may-be-key-to-texas-high-speed/article_605ca738-45fa-11e5-8e8f-0f8b1da38280.html
First funds for a preliminary study for going Dallas - Ft. Worth. No indication if it will be an extension of Texas Central.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/dallas-–-fort-worth-hs-rail-gets-initial-funds.html?channel=535
The Dallas-Ft Worth UP RR alignment was always going to be a commutter rail line per NTCOG's long range plans so if the HSR falls apart, this money is still well spent towards the original goal.
NTCOG has quite an ambitious rail commutter plan with a final build out system in DFW that will probably be larger than Chicago's METRA in miles covered and routes but probably not so much with commutter train frequency. Also, they do not seem to be following Chicago's plan where all routes terminate and originate in a downtown of Dallas or Ft. Worth......opting instead for a point to point system, which should be interesting to see how that works.
Misleading headline. Story is Dallas - Ft. Worth will be slower speeds but read it for your self.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/latest-highspeed-rail-plans-for-texas-show-slower-speeds/35515402
Another link
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article36711414.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.