Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek
1. Again, _there's just not sufficient RoW_. Look in North Austin where it runs right through residential, the Domain, etc. Look at the bridge over the rail at Braker, 2222, etc. Look at where it runs through the middle of Mopac. If there was any extra room there, they would have tried to use it for the Mopac expansion (instead of the narrow lanes, no shoulder "solution" they came up with). I'm less familiar with South Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels, San Antonio, but I'm sure there's similar chokepoints there.
2. Let's imagine there was extra width, and you need to move the existing tracks "10 or so feet". So now you have the expense of building _2_ new lines adjacent to it, while simultaneously trying to keep the existing freight running the whole time.
3. They've been working on this for close to 10 years. The only reason UP is even _considering_ cooperating is that they'd actually get an improved freight line out of it. You want to throw out all of that, all the work, all that political capital, the ability to use the freight rail relocation fund, etc. Instead, you'll tell UP that they'll get nothing, no improvements, but they'll get headache and delays for years of construction.
They'll tell you to get lost.
4. You'll throw out _all_ the ancillary improvements. Instead of reduced congestion from getting freight out of the middle of the cities, you'll get more. Instead of reducing noise in residential areas, you'll get more. Instead of reducing localized emissions (Austin is close to non-attainment status), you'll get more.
|
It's true they have been working on it for 10 years, and it's true they want to build the UP a brand new freight corridor bypassing Austin. But there are no federal programed source of funds identified to accomplish it. D.C. is not going to magically fund a $2 Billion rail corridor just for freights without an existing established program. The likelihood that a rail corridor bypassing Austin will be their first example is extremely small.
I'm sorry I can't get really excited about this un-fundable plan. It's been 10 years in the planning and they still haven't found any construction funds.
The FEIS planning process, which is required for federal funds, was just initiated last December (2013). As far as the federal government is concerned, that's when the planning was started - not 10 years ago. Everything studied the last 10 years isn't on the table, the new study will start afresh without all that old baggage.
I disagree there isn't room for a two track alignment in the median of the MoPac freeway. I suggest checking out several medians on several freeways in LA and Cook Counties where double track rail corridors exist against the width of the MoPac median. You just might be surprised.
MoPac Freeway, median width
85 feet.
I-94 Dan Ryan Freeway, median width
40 feet.
I-105 Glenn Anderson Freeway, median width
45 feet.
I suggest the MoPac freeway's median width is more than capable of handling a double track rail corridor. What you'll find is the use of concrete safety barriers to separate freeway and railroad traffic that's not presently used on the MoPac, but they can be installed using FTA "New Starts" funding. The same concrete safety barriers can be used to protect bridge piers as well. Golly, how does Lone Star Rail plan to place a wider train station in the median of the MoPac if there isn't room? They can because there really is room.
The truth is it's the UP that objects. It's the UP that wants a brand new rail corridor. Believe it or not, they already own a corridor from Taylor to San Marcos (old MKT) via Smithfield they could reroute trains on. Apparently, it's got too many twists and grades and they don't want to use it even though they already own it. The official FEIS will find it because I will make sure they learn about it during the "public" participation process.
Prev
Linear Mode
