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. .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.