HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 7:53 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,253
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
I support their effort to stop this train.
Train to nowhere!
Citizens of the Houston and DFW metros don't consider themselves nowhere.
Dallas-Fort Worth MSA = 6,428,214
Houston-Galveston MSA = 6,313,158
Sub Total = 12,742,372
Total USA = 308,745,538
Your nowhere is over 4% of the total USA, hardly nowhere in any rational mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 9:24 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
The Supreme Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Citizens of the Houston and DFW metros don't consider themselves nowhere.
Dallas-Fort Worth MSA = 6,428,214
Houston-Galveston MSA = 6,313,158
Sub Total = 12,742,372
Total USA = 308,745,538
Your nowhere is over 4% of the total USA, hardly nowhere in any rational mind.
Of course this is flawed statement. People say this crap for CALHSR. Weren't you critical of HSR in CAL? This is what happens when out of state people meddle with other's transportation networks. Time to call for trump to stop this project!
__________________
nobody cares about your city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 10:13 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,253
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Of course this is flawed statement. People say this crap for CALHSR. Weren't you critical of HSR in CAL? This is what happens when out of state people meddle with other's transportation networks. Time to call for trump to stop this project!
I have never been against the California HSR project. I may have argued over which segments should be built first. I may have argued over the specific routing of the tracks. I might have argued over how expensive it is to build anything in California. I might have argued over how they are planning to pay for it. I am definitely thinking CHSR has been poorly managed. But that doesn't mean I am against having HSR in California.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 6:44 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Historic Core
Posts: 2,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
How to pay for Texas' $12 billion bullet train without asking the state for money

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/e...ng-texas-money
Yeah so like I said this is vapor ware right now. They've only got $115 million? Lmao. I do hope it gets built tho
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 6:55 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 30,013
I wonder how much Southwest is paying to lobby against this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 7:37 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,253
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
I wonder how much Southwest is paying to lobby against this.
Apparently nothing this time around. Convenient this time around that Hobby, Love, and Bergstrom have just had major refurbishments completed, there's little left for Southwest to wish for..........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 3:38 PM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Transport Planner
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eightball View Post
Yeah so like I said this is vapor ware right now. They've only got $115 million? Lmao. I do hope it gets built tho
Not really...it's clear they've been laying groundwork for Federal Financing (RRIF/TIFIA ), which is why I've consistently found it frustrating how they could get away with gloating that the wouldn't be asking for any public 'funding.' It's technically true: it would be partially financed by the public. Though, it's probably going to bite them in the butt.

In any case, given what we know about the Administration's desires for their infrastructure bill, the overtures Abe has made about using similar financing schemes for American infrastructure (namely, HSR), and the realities of increased funding from Congress, it's pretty certain these types of loan programs are going to be what's relied upon.

The real question is what this will look like from an operations standpoint. CAHSRA is a in a bit of a different negotiating position than TXCentral, because it would appear the latter is planning to operate service itself (so far as I've been led to believe) where the former will not.

Whichever party is granted the concession for CAHSR will not be the same party with the liabilities incurred by capital construction - and if they do acquire any such liability, it will be in return for the equity from the operations of the line, itself.

In other words: CAHSRA can potentially extract a higher value from their investment - in terms of the minimum bid for the concession - since the only risk incurred by an operator is that they don't make a return from the service. This might not be true for TXCentral, since both will be on their balance sheets (e.g. probably higher fares among other things). Unless they get a favorable financing package, acquire additional property for development, etc.

I'm much more concerned with finding out just what equity the Japanese partner (JR?) has in the joint venture, as I always found the insinuation that the Japanese government would finance this to be a bit iffy considering how that went with XpressWest and their Chinese partner: many indications point to a disagreement on the rate of return they were willing to accept/forgo.

It all depends on what JR's motivation is. If it's just angling to be the supplier for rolling stock, signaling, equipment/technology, etc to position themselves favorably for future projects, then I suppose there'd be less of a conflict.
__________________
"I'm not an armchair urbanist; not yet a licensed planner"
MCRP '16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 6:03 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,253
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
Not really...it's clear they've been laying groundwork for Federal Financing (RRIF/TIFIA ), which is why I've consistently found it frustrating how they could get away with gloating that the wouldn't be asking for any public 'funding.' It's technically true: it would be partially financed by the public. Though, it's probably going to bite them in the butt.

In any case, given what we know about the Administration's desires for their infrastructure bill, the overtures Abe has made about using similar financing schemes for American infrastructure (namely, HSR), and the realities of increased funding from Congress, it's pretty certain these types of loan programs are going to be what's relied upon.

The real question is what this will look like from an operations standpoint. CAHSRA is a in a bit of a different negotiating position than TXCentral, because it would appear the latter is planning to operate service itself (so far as I've been led to believe) where the former will not.
Seeking government backed loans doesn't mean there will be public financing, any more than my GI Bill, FHA backed mortgages involved any public financing. I guarantee that the government never had to pay a penny on my mortgage, that I paid it all myself.
What that government backed mortgage provided me was access to a home mortgage without any down payment and at a lower interest rate. The same should hold true with government backed bonds for transportation projects. The government is not acting as a co-signer to the leases or bonds.
Whether Texas Central operates the trains themselves, or hires another transportation operator to do so is immaterial. North Carolina has hired Amtrak to run its Carolinia subsidized train, and Hertzog to operate its Piedmont subsidized trains. So there are plenty of operators to choose from.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 11:05 PM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Transport Planner
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Seeking government backed loans doesn't mean there will be public financing, any more than my GI Bill, FHA backed mortgages involved any public financing. I guarantee that the government never had to pay a penny on my mortgage, that I paid it all myself.
What that government backed mortgage provided me was access to a home mortgage without any down payment and at a lower interest rate. The same should hold true with government backed bonds for transportation projects. The government is not acting as a co-signer to the leases or bonds.
Whether Texas Central operates the trains themselves, or hires another transportation operator to do so is immaterial. North Carolina has hired Amtrak to run its Carolinia subsidized train, and Hertzog to operate its Piedmont subsidized trains. So there are plenty of operators to choose from.
These financial instruments can be direct loans, federal guarantees, or extensions of credit (the way in which the federal government subsidizes home ownership employs these options and more).

In any case, the federal government is acting in the capacity of guarantor under such instruments as RRIF/TIFIA. Such a loan would very clearly be federal funding (even if we won't call it that), because the federal government is either 1) using it's superior credit to borrow from financial markets on behalf of TXC, 2) staking its credit to guarantee the repayment of the loan on behalf of TXC, or 3) extending credit, directly to TXC.

Pretending otherwise, as TXC has coyly done, is like saying your home mortgage isn't technically financed with the bank's money but that of its customer's (both can be true, but it's conceptually the former). This refrain of "we won't need public funding" is specious, at best, and may end up leaving them with egg on their faces if the public perception - incorrectly or not - comes to be that they have.

The main point I'm driving home about the operations is that their potential profits all depend on what terms they get for the financing: public funding doesn't need to be recouped but financing does. This changes some of the realities surrounding their revenue/profits, whether they choose to seek a franchisee or not.

CAHSRA will only face political pressure to appear to recoup their capital costs (they won't), but TXC will either definitely do so (very difficultly) unless it gets written off - via government [tax] subsidies/credits as part of the terms of potential federal/BoJ loans.

I may be wrong, but the latter action is one of the reasons JR et. al. have managed to be profitable: a lot of their capital costs were taken off of their books, at some point in the past (though on this, I'm not very knowledgeable on specifics).
__________________
"I'm not an armchair urbanist; not yet a licensed planner"
MCRP '16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2017, 8:52 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Remember
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Here
Posts: 52,830
So their excuse is that they're looking out for property rights and taxes. I'm betting lobbying had more to do with it. Take your pick, either the airline industry or the oil industry.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...e-used-to.html
Quote:
Texas senators don't want state funds to be used to build or plan Houston-to-Dallas bullet train

Mar 15, 2017, 2:56pm CDT Updated Mar 15, 2017, 4:09pm CDT

State lawmakers who oppose high-speed rail are trying to use a budget rider to stop the Texas Department of Transportation from assisting a private company that wants to build a high-speed rail line from Houston to Dallas.

The Senate Finance Committee approved the budget rider 14-1 Wednesday, with Sen. Royce West of Dallas opposed. It will next be heard on the Senate floor as part of debates related to the full budget.

Sen. Charles Schwertner has joined a group of rural lawmakers who are using both legislative and budgetary provisions to stop the progress on the high-speed train.

“This legislation will ensure that the property rights of our constituents are respected and guarantee that state taxpayers won’t be asked to bail out this project when costs inevitably exceed projections and ridership fails to meet expectations,” the Georgetown Republican has said of the rail line this session, citing a Reason Foundation study that projects potential long-term financial losses.
__________________
"The vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have." - US Congressman John Lewis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2017, 1:04 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,150
This Georgetown fellow has been hell-bent on killing the train from day one, it seems...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 12:52 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,150
Here's a link to email your Texas representatives et al regarding the bills being discussed TODAY that could harm or stop the HSR project altogether. Take action and shoot these folks a note.

http://www.texascentral.com/advocate...-bullet-train/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 12:54 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,150
delete - duplicate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2017, 5:50 AM
anday anday is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 35
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2017, 9:43 PM
anday anday is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 35
Texas Central Partners inks deal with city of Houston for bullet train

Quote:
The city of Houston and Texas Central Partners have confirmed the general site for the Bayou City’s passenger station for the proposed high-speed train between Houston and Dallas.

The city and company signed an agreement Aug. 17 to plan the economic development of the bullet train together, according to a press release.
Houston backs bullet train, inks deal to help progress

Quote:
Backers of a Texas high-speed rail line on Thursday announced for the second time this week what they called significant progress on the controversial line, inking an agreement with Houston officials, detailing the work to come.

At City Hall, Houston and Texas Central Partners announced the signing of an memorandum of understanding, which commits both sides to share environmental surveys, utility analysis and engineering related to the project and surrounding area and work together to develop new transit and other travel options to and from the likely terminus of the bullet train line.

Last edited by anday; Aug 18, 2017 at 3:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2017, 12:03 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 7,112
The FRA EIS is up with lots of juicy spec details for those interested: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1078

Progress should really start to accelerate in 2018!
__________________
IF I HEAR THAT HUMIRA SONG ONE MORE TIME I'M GOING TO TRAVIS BICKLE MY TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2017, 6:43 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,253
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The FRA EIS is up with lots of juicy spec details for those interested: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1078

Progress should really start to accelerate in 2018!
A very. very brief summary of the DEIS:
The preferred routing will be 1, 2A, 3A, 4, and 5.
The DEIS remaining alternates left are (1) the station location in Houston, and (2) whether to place the main maintenance facility near Dallas or Houston.
The preferred route will be 234 miles in length; 136 miles as a viaduct, 77 miles on an embankment, and 21 miles at grade (58% viaduct, 33% berm, and 9% at grade).
The DEIS didn't project the costs to build it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2017, 3:59 PM
matt777 matt777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 20
There's a lot of really good stuff here in these PDF's. It's Dallas' high speed rail station zone assessment. There is some serious effort to rebuild the urban fabric around where the station will go, and integrating it into present and future DART rail/streetcar/BRT/biking lines.

High speed rail station assessment:
http://dallascityhall.com/government...ort_111317.pdf

Updated Dallas 360 Plan guiding the continued development of a "Complete and Connected City Center." It's a really good presentation:
http://dallascityhall.com/government...ned_120417.pdf

---
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2017, 7:08 PM
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,374
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2017, 7:24 PM
R1070 R1070 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Citizens of the Houston and DFW metros don't consider themselves nowhere.
Dallas-Fort Worth MSA = 6,428,214
Houston-Galveston MSA = 6,313,158
Sub Total = 12,742,372
Total USA = 308,745,538
Your nowhere is over 4% of the total USA, hardly nowhere in any rational mind.
I think your metro numbers are a bit low.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:15 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.