When I lived in Houston (1970s) they were talking about it then.  I hope it happens but the airlines, particularly Southwest, really oppose the idea now.  If they would do the triangle that got Southwest started (Dallas-Austin-Houston) they'd have a real moneymaker, too.

Southwest's resistance has become much more muted than it used to be. It's not a factor anymore. In any case, they've got plenty of pans in the fire now with the Wright Amendment being lifted in a few months.

The golden triangle that has been talked about for years would be Dallas-Houston-San Antonio-Dallas; Austin is directly between Dallas and San Antonio (I-35 runs Dallas/Ft. Worth to Austin to San Antonio), so it would be included in the triangle. Dallas-Houston leg will start if off; depending on how that goes, more of the triangle may get built.

What Big Brother has, and I am NOT in favor of involving him, is eminent domain.

Where does the right-of-way come from, that won't be fought in the courts acre by

acre, and for decades,and wasn't old T&P?? or whomever's right of way turned into bicycle trails?

T&P a bike trail?  Certainly not.  It's a busy main line, now Union Pacific.

Wasn't the New York Central running trains at over 100+mph? Why is it SOOOO expansive when all the NYC had to do was build a train? It Feels like when we go two steps in technology, we take one step back. I see what High Speed Rail can do but for that much money...

Another example of steam over diesel/electric.

Sorry but, those days were all prior to all the new federal rules & regulations brought by our friendly government, trying to protect us from ourselves.

Okay...so the plan is to use existing right of way between Dallas/FW and Houston?

All railroads have the same right of eminent domain as any other public utility.

200 mph is a whole different ball game from 100. Everything from refined track geometry to ballast to track security to avoidance of grade crossings and much, much more is different and has to be dealt with. And there had better be rules when trains are traveling 200 mph. There's not much room for error.

These kinds of speeds require expensive infrastructure and technology. Nonetheless, France, Japan, China and others have had theirs up and running for quite a while. So is America incapable of it?

Yes but the NYC didn't have to build electrical wires over head or special tracks. All they had to do, as I said before was build a train.

I must admit, I like speed, but at that cost... It's ridicules.  

Foreign high speed rail is government owned and government supported.  In those countries, public transportation is ingrained in their culture.  Many citizens in Europe and Asia do not own a car, and the highway network is inferior to that of North America.

We drive our automobiles for most transportation and are unwilling to raise taxes to provide high speed rail for a very small segment of the traveling public.

In spite of what is promised by proponents, if high speed rail ever comes to be, it will cost a lot more to build and operate than we are being told.  Private enterprise passenger transportation can't make it on fares alone, and this project would be huge money pit that we could not get rid of once we have built it.  

Is anyone paying attention to how much has been spent for so little on the California high speed rail project?

If you are going to build such a thing, maybe mag-lev might be a better route.  Might be more to build, but trains would be above the guideway, cuttin gown on ROW costs.

Having grown up in Southern California and being just old enough to see what happened during/after the demise of the PE and LARy, I can tell you that politicians playing with trains has been disastrous when it comes to spending and utility of the rail lines. While the LA-Long Beach Blue Line has been moderately successful (no surprise it runs down the old PE route), the other rail lines have been plagued with cost overruns and have failed to go where people wanted/needed them to go.

One line, the Green Line, was built down the middle of a freeway under construction. While that was the right way to do it, the problem is the freeway itself was built almost 40 years late and was completed when the aerospace industry in the area was in decline. Also, even though the turnouts are there, they never built the airport connection -- word being that the taxi, shuttle, limo groups lobbied MTA against it (911 sealed its fate).

Here's the big irony. In 1961, Alweg submitted a proposal to build monorails down the middle of the freeways. They just wanted the rights of way and would have operated the monorails which would run in the commute pattern. The Broadway Plaza at 7th and Flower was even constructed with a design toward being the monorail station (it was being built during that time and was literally where the trains would turn around. That proposal was turned down. Now they're talking about building one to shuttle through downtown Los Angeles to Staples Center/LA Live and LAUPT. Not holding my breath, but then again, I wouldn't be using it.

As much as I like rail, I voted against the High-Speed Rail Initiative as I knew it was going to be a give-away of state money to favored construction contractors and cost three times as much for one-third the planned speed.

In the case of the Texas proposal, it looks like they really did their homework in analyzing the route length and alternate modes of transportation. I've flown (3 hours+ including terminal) and driven (five hours) between Houston and Dallas and if they're correct, the train would beat both.