South Texas Agreed. We can accept responsibility for the corridors if other states do also. But, what about the long distance trains? Our grief with Amtrak is that they won't do that. Three times a week to the Nation's fourth largest city! No service at all between the State's two largest cities! That is way beyond shameful. Really. No wonder Amtrak has an image problem in Texas.
Agreed. We can accept responsibility for the corridors if other states do also. But, what about the long distance trains? Our grief with Amtrak is that they won't do that. Three times a week to the Nation's fourth largest city! No service at all between the State's two largest cities! That is way beyond shameful. Really. No wonder Amtrak has an image problem in Texas.
Amtrak used to have a Dallas-Houston section off the Texas Eagle.. Apparently SP didn't maintain it well, and ATK couldn't do much about it, and the service died. I understand they are building privatized tollways in Texas now, so it does not sound they want to spend much public money on infrastructure.
John I will repost. Note i am talking about the states, not individuals, over a 20 year period. I said they pay in far less than they pay in, in reference to Dakota Fred's concern developing 300 mile corridors in TX might cost him. IL has far more productive agriculture than the Dakotas. And until the last 5 years, there was no oil boom in the Dakota.area. Federal money may go there for airbases, etc. but that also goes into the local economy. Folks like Fred need to realize we all benefit ultimately from investments in infrastructure, wherever they are located in the US.
Federal taxes collected minus federal spending, 1990-2009 as a percentage of its GDP(which takes in to account population differences):
ND = -154% (negative)
SD = -118% (negative)
TX = 34%
NY = 87%
IL = 111%
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have to question your conclusion, Schlimm, that people in the Dakotas get far more from the Federal Government than they pay in.
You do submit evidence to show that more Federal dollars are paid out in those states than are paid in by taxpayers. However, with the exception of the people who work for the military it is not clear that the Federal dollars wind up in the pockets of individual Dakotans.
Generally speaking the states where the Federal Government makes payments to individual people are states that have high unemployment rates and a lot of poor people. The Dakotas have very low unemployment rates. North Dakota is 16th among the states in per capita income and South Dakota is 25th. That does not suggest that a lot of individual people collect a lot of Federal dollars.
Another factor in the Dakotas is both are agricultural states and both produce a lot of grain. Agricultural subsidies are a significant part of the payments to those states. Today, however, much or most of that kind of farming is done by corporations who receive the agricultural subsidies although there may be some family farms where the farm owner does that subsidy. But that is large amounts of money that goes to a relatively few people.
So while the Federal Government may send more money to those states than taxpayers pay in it is not at all clear that the money winds up in the pockets of individuals except those who own farms that receive subsidies and those who work for the military.
dakotafredThe last time Schlimm rolled out his snarky argument, he was bragging about (if I remember) a 10-cent superiority enjoyed by the Illinois ratio over the North Dakota ratio.
I guess facts are snarky only when you don't like them.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
schlimm corridors in TX would be largely state-financed, of course. you dakota folks won't be contributing, even though historically you all have gotten far more from the feds than you pay in.
corridors in TX would be largely state-financed, of course. you dakota folks won't be contributing, even though historically you all have gotten far more from the feds than you pay in.
Most people understand that the pay/receive ratio for federal tax dollars is affected by population. North Dakota, for instance (pop. 700,000), receives a lot of federal money for maintenance of two Air Force bases and two interstate highways that are for the benefit of more than just its own people.
The last time Schlimm rolled out his snarky argument, he was bragging about (if I remember) a 10-cent superiority enjoyed by the Illinois ratio over the North Dakota ratio. My guess then (and now) was that the difference was more than accounted for by the cost of those bases and interstates spread over a small population.
I'll say this: North Dakota has had a budget in healthy surplus since way before the oil boom, where Illinois is broke. And I'll let you guess which state is the bigger sinkhole for "social" spending, both state and federal.
The "Sunset" runs on a triweekly schedule in part because Union Pacific has been playing hardball with Amtrak over the improvements necessary to allow a daily schedule.
I ride it frequently. The Sunset Limited does not have poor ridership. Amtrak and the Congress simply believe that 3 times a week is all that Houston needs. There is no movement to increase it. So, now you are getting to the heart of Texas-Washington D.C. attitudes and politics.
Waco / McGregor is a stop on the Texas Eagle route.
Running a train 3X per week is simply unacceptable. Either run daily or give up in there if there is such low patronage.
I really do not know TX rail routes, but it occurs to me that TX might want to look at the IL model which serves the large universities. In addition to College Station (Texas A&M), could Waco (Baylor) also be on the route between the Metroplex and Houston? Or is it on the route to Austin (UT) from the Metroplex (SMU, TCU, et al.)?
On the Houston - Metroplex corridor: There might be several stops at each end. In between there is only Bryan / College Station for an intermediate stop. A foreign company (Japan?) is seriously looking at this right now. This is feasible with or without eventual continuation north beyond the Metroplex. (At the present time continuation south from Houston to Galveston is considered a local matter for Houston Metro, which currently terminates at Bay Area Boulevard.)
On the Sunset Limited, I'll be kind and not comment on running 3 times per week. But you know what I'm thinking ...
Dallas to Houston is 240 miles, entirely within the state. It is the ideal distance for a modern corridor, even at less than high speeds. If a train could average 80 mph (not many stops in between?) it would be very competitive at 3 hours. The Sunset should be daily or else discontinued. Running a service 3x/week is ridiculous.
South Texas Let's do it all. Start where you may.
Let's do it all. Start where you may.
I believe firmly there is ample market for both long distance and corridor (300 mile) trains in Texas - and I don't care who runs them. I try not to mention the word Amtrak (some Texans have indigeston with it). In addition to the long-distance routes around the Triangle and to other states as discussed earlier, supplemental corridor frequencies also make sense in many places. There are plenty of moderate-length routes with plenty of market within the State, including a second frequency to Laredo and to the Valley. Plus, places not potentially served by the six routes described: day trains to Victoria, Midland/Odessa, San Angelo, the Hill Country, and places within the sphere of larger cities - Galveston, The Woodlands, major airports, Irving, Arlington, and on and on.
Let's do it all. Start where you may. Sorry mentioning only the long-distance routes in the previous post may have been misleading.
Why make TX dependent on Amtrak LD trains? TX has several corridors of a competitive length that should work if you have frequent, fast and convenient services. Houston-Metroplex should be #! and several others could follow on that success.
You are right about the Texas triangle being the most discussed subject. And while there is a lot more to be said, the further you progress down the story to other issues, the more disagreement there could be as to strategy.
Here is my take: With over 25 million people, overcrowded freeways, and only three existing trains in the State (does 3 times a week even count?), we have an urgent need for better passenger rail service. The greatest existing vehicular traffic volumes are around the Texas triangle (Interstates 10, 35, and 45). To provide convenient schedules, two trains each way each day are required, although extensions to other locations also are certainly needed to accommodate outlying locations.
Having studied the map and the demographics at length I believe the minimum adequete strategy would be:
Houston / San Antonio: extending the Crescent west from New Orleans to terminate instead in San Antonio, plus making the Sunset Limited daily.
Dallas Metroplex / San Antonio: extending the Heartland Flyer to San Antonio and Laredo, plus extending the Texas Eagle to Corpus Christi and Harlingen.
Dallas Metroplex / Houston: creating two daily trains originating in Houston and traveling north, one eventually turning westward to Abilene, Lubbock, Amarillo, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Seattle; the other turning eastward to St. Louis, Cincinnati, D.C., and N.Y.C.
There is hope that the political time is coming. Wish us luck. Ironically, it will probably take a Republican president to listen to our Republican legislature.
North Carolina has taken a corridor which has never existed before as a corridor service and will soon have 4-5 trains a day on the route. ( back pre amtrak there were 5-6 long distance trains per day in the 1950's). They apparently know how to work the system for Federal and State funds and get the backing of local communities and the host railroad.
The rest of us can talk all we want but it seems only a few places are getting results.
All I have ever heard about in Texas was the Dallas-San Antonio-Huston triangle being suitable for corridor services.
In 1953, the SP had three trains Dallas-Houston; the Sunbeam (out in the afternoon), the Hustler (out in the morning), and the overnight Owl, and the B-RI had the Sam Houston Zephyr (north in the morning and south in the afternoon), and the Twin Star Rocket (south in the morning, from Minneapolis and north in the afternoon, to Minneapolis).
In 1958, the SP had only the Owl, but the B-RI still had both trains.
Johnny
So, there were three Ft. Worth - Houston trains each day each way and two (only SP) Dallas -Houston
Having only two sets of equipment, the Texas Zephyr was a Denver-Dallas train. It did connect to the Twin Star Rocket sb, (Minneapolis-Houston train) and from the Sam Houston Zephyr nb, (Houston-Fort Worth train). the latter two trains provided day service between Fort Worth and Houston on the B-RI.
In the 1950's the SP gave twice-daily daytime streamliner service between Houston and Dallas. Between Houston and Fort Worth one had the Texas Chief from Chicago and the Texas Zephyr from Denver.
This is the first time I have heard an explanation for Amtrak's refusal to provide passenger service between Texas' largest cities. I guess between Dallas and Houston there is just no design, market, price, or integrity. Been that way for years.
A 300 mile corridor does not have to be 300 miles. It can be any distance with a significant amount of population at both ends which will travel between those points plus a significant amount of population who live between those points and who will also use and support the service. Then the service has to be designed, marketed, priced, and operated with integrity.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
If you insisted on going by train between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, one would have to go via San Antonio! (Like Dallas to Denver via Chicago - which some people do!)
There is no passenger rail service of any kind between Dallas and Houston - just Interstate 45 and the airlines.
Trinity Railway Express operates solely within the Metroplex of Dallas / Fort Worth, etc. - and, yes, it's more than 32 miles across town. In fact, there is light rail within several Texas cities.
I thought we were talking INTERCITY transportation, not INTRACITY.
32 miles between Dallas and Houston????????????????
Dallas and Ft Worth, perhaps, but not Dallas and Houston.
- Erik
South TexasIf you like 300-mile increments, you have never tried to get across Texas. This is the dumbest idea ever.
Trinity Railway Express is a commuter train that operates between Dallas and Houston. I can't find the exact length of the rail journey but the internet lists the distance between the two cities as 32 miles. That suggests there is a place in Texas for intercity rail lines.
If you like 300-mile increments, you have never tried to get across Texas. This is the dumbest idea ever.
Dixie Flyer To the writer in the prior post a person would have the option to leave Cincinnati at 7:30AM Eastern Time in the morning and with a transfer in Nashville and Montgomery arrive in New Orleans at 9:30PM Central Time.
To the writer in the prior post a person would have the option to leave Cincinnati at 7:30AM Eastern Time in the morning and with a transfer in Nashville and Montgomery arrive in New Orleans at 9:30PM Central Time.
That would be me.
You seem unaware or unconcerned about the cost of your vision.
The last time that service was offered average speed was a bit over 40 MPH. You can assume that is what the line is capable of today, at best.
I pointed out the implications of a 60 MPH average speed. You might be able to get that for $1-3 billion in fixed plant capital cost.
To get to 80 MPH average speed, on the route you chose, you will have to build a new railroad. With luck that would be $30-40 billion. You might want to pick a reasonable target.
Mac
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.