You weren't paying attention then ;) because you could have been hearing about it as far back as the 80's, when Southwest first lobbied it to death (the twice-an-hour-takeoff Houston-Dallas route was their most profitable). I would love to be corrected on this by someone who was in State gov't at that time, but this is my understanding.
>The high speed rail was originally supposed to run from Dallas to San Antonio, and Austin to Houston.
When it was proposed to be federally-funded, yes. From what I recall it was a US-French collaboration that was going to fulfill that one? Unfortunately the politics at the time led to the state gov't to not seek any of the $8BB (iirc) the Obama administration was trying to give out to kick-start nationwide HSR. You can thank Rick Perry & Co. for that.
Now it is a (somewhat) different private group, and if you are posting on Hacker News, I expect you can appreciate how much harder it is to start out with a network connecting 4 cities, than a network connecting 2 cities, when you've not got federal backing. I too would love the "Texas T" network of routes as well, but that didn't happen. Again, you can thank the State administration of a decade ago for turning down the opportunity of federal assistance to build a transit network worthy of Texas.
You say it is "a joke", but it is going to take real work to build, provide real jobs, and deliver real value to people who ride it. Are you so cynical that you would you rather not have it at all, and have nothing to look to, to improve on later? If the route is successful, surely it would come to Austin and San Antonio next? What is the advantage, in your mind, of adopting an all-or-nothing framing?
From last few years, we are trying. Now look, I appreciate efforts to build such thing in democratic country. but honestly this can't be an excuse as someone is doing better job than us.
You weren't paying attention then ;) because you could have been hearing about it as far back as the 80's, when Southwest first lobbied it to death (the twice-an-hour-takeoff Houston-Dallas route was their most profitable). I would love to be corrected on this by someone who was in State gov't at that time, but this is my understanding.
>The high speed rail was originally supposed to run from Dallas to San Antonio, and Austin to Houston.
When it was proposed to be federally-funded, yes. From what I recall it was a US-French collaboration that was going to fulfill that one? Unfortunately the politics at the time led to the state gov't to not seek any of the $8BB (iirc) the Obama administration was trying to give out to kick-start nationwide HSR. You can thank Rick Perry & Co. for that.
Now it is a (somewhat) different private group, and if you are posting on Hacker News, I expect you can appreciate how much harder it is to start out with a network connecting 4 cities, than a network connecting 2 cities, when you've not got federal backing. I too would love the "Texas T" network of routes as well, but that didn't happen. Again, you can thank the State administration of a decade ago for turning down the opportunity of federal assistance to build a transit network worthy of Texas.
You say it is "a joke", but it is going to take real work to build, provide real jobs, and deliver real value to people who ride it. Are you so cynical that you would you rather not have it at all, and have nothing to look to, to improve on later? If the route is successful, surely it would come to Austin and San Antonio next? What is the advantage, in your mind, of adopting an all-or-nothing framing?