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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
South Texas Let's do it all. Start where you may.
Let's do it all. Start where you may.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.