Texas On "Fast Track" To High Speed Rail
 

Surprised that no one has posted about this yet. It's big news in the Lone Star State. Via my blog Texas Leftist...

I believe it had been before, but if the thread isn't kept active it gets removed after approximately 4 months. Look at the oldest threads in this forum, you'll find I'm onto something.

It be easier to get excited after the environmental reviews are completed and financing has been found. Texas has been down this road before to see privately financed HSR wither away into nothing......

Yea, good idea Texas, but if I take this train from Dallas to Houston, and I get off in downtown Houston or wherever the terminus is...how the heck do I get to the Galleria/Tanglewood, Sugar Land, Galveston, Memorial Park, The Woodlands, even River Oaks/Montrose without having to transfer from one station to another and then take a multi-stop bus ride, as the light rail goes to NONE of those destinations. And there aren't honestly that many cabs in Houston just driving around looking for pickups, you have to call ahead unless you're at the convention center/large hotel/downtown office tower.

I'll just drive the 3.5 hours, thanks, and honestly, so would everyone else I know in Dallas or Houston.

If the new train service is established, then the cabbies would be idiots if there weren't some waiting at the train station when the trains come in.

Exciting, but talk is cheap.

Yea, that's a given, but my point was once I arrive at my destination outside of downtown Houston, then it's a joke using public transit getting back to downtown. 50 minutes on the bus from the Tanglewood/The Galleria back to downtown versus just 15 minutes driving in light traffic. No thanks.......that's why I'd rather just drive.

Well, I have to travel between Dallas and Houston about 10 times a year and I would take the train for most of these trips (except the 1 time a year I have to go to Splendora). In Dallas I can go from Dart to wherever the train goes from. In Houston relatives from Sugar Land to Humble usually have to pick up somebody from Hobby for every get-together anyways, so they would just have to pick us up somewhere else. People will use it, at least most people I know, and my family is far from "leftist" Texans. Even if I prefer I-45 over I-35, I would still use a rail alternative to both in most situations.

That's great you have family/friends in Houston or Dallas, but not everybody does to pick them up and cart them around :yes:

Most travelers travel to visit relatives, on vacation, or for business. Business can easily place taxi fares on their expense accounts, relatives are always happy to pick you up, and hotels will find a way to get vacationers to their hotels. You will not be stranded in either downtown Dallas or Houston - there will be a way to get where you need to go. Per the studies, 50,000 people travel between Dallas and Houston daily today - I have never seen even one of them stranded.

Having met with Eckels and his team personally, I think there's reason to be optimistic in this case, which is why I did a story about it, and undoubtedly why it was important enough for the Mayors of Dallas, Ft. Worth and Houston to have a joint press conference. They can't reveal anything officially, but the financing, to my understanding, is lined up already. The company from Japan has been trying to develop in the American market, and they've turned their eyes to Texas because the rail line is far cheaper to build here than in the other potential corridors.

I'm not going to disagree, and I am excited about the prospects. Never-the-less, I'm waiting for deeds before getting really excited. As another posted before me, talk is cheap.

ROFL thus why I used the phrase "reason to be optimistic". Posting on SSP is also cheap, which is why I did it. :rolleyes:

Same way people who fly get around to those areas. Take a taxi, rent a car, etc.

Fantastic news. Hope this private investment works out. The benefits are just too good to pass by.

:5:

With the generally easy terrain, there's no reason they can't crank it up to 250mph/400kph, like the UK is doing with their HS2. That would whittle the trip to 72-75 minutes.

While there have been trains tested at 400 km/h (250 mph), none have ever operated that fast with paying passengers aboard.

In 2008 China opened the "Wuhan – Guangzhou" high-speed line at 350 km/h (217 mph), the first line ever to operate at that speed. That is until July 2011, when the maximum speed was lowered to 300 km/h (186 mph), it was the fastest line in the world. There are many reasons why China lowered the maximum speed.

I don't think American would ever build or operate faster trains than China, even with Japanese equipment. So forget 250 mph max speeds, the best you should expect in daily operations is 186 mph. America is not going to crank the speeds higher than what has been achieved elsewhere.

That's why 90 minutes is their goal, not 75 minutes.

doesn't some chinese city have an airport train that runs at something like 500km/h?

That's the Shanghai maglev. Japan has been developing a maglev from Tokyo-Osaka that can travel up to 500kph.

Japan East is developing it, the same train company running the existing HSR train between.those two cities, and the same proposing to build this HSR line in Texas. Again, building a new HSR train inTexas with existing technology, not new technology. Every time new technology is introduced, more risk is introduced, lowering the possibility of finding private financing, decreasing the probability of it ever being built.

Using existing technology is the key to getting this train built.

Someone at the Dallas Morning News is convinced this is happening. I think, however, they are overselling the private sector's ability to come up with the money.

For high-speed rail's future in Texas, the private sector dares to go where government won't

It's actually not 100% privately financed. It's private insofar as there is limited direct investment by the US, Texas, or any local governments. So, little of your tax dollars are going into it. However, I believe that the government of Japan is providing at least some level of backing for the loans, actually placing taxpayers of Japan on the hook - but they are betting that this investment will pay off.

The segment between Houston and Dallas will be basically financed along these lines, but it's not like there will be exactly zero public participation.
Public agencies will expend man-hours during review and planning for the line. Probably some right-of-way already owned by the state such as highway medians will be given cheaply or free of charge. The railroad, as a public utility, will also have the power of eminent domain conferred to it by the state (existing freight railroads, power companies, and pipelines already have similar powers.)

And, finally, the extension from Dallas through the Arlington/DFW area and on to Fort Worth will be planned and built by the public sector.

The extension to FW will be studied, I 'm not so sure it will ever get that far to be planned, designed, and built. Especially when the public sector will be subsidizing regional trains, whatever their speed, paralleling I-35. The TRE route already exists and Amtrak will be moving to it soon, a two seat ride with a transfer in Dallas isn't going to make or break the Texas Central train. Likewise, a two seat ride with a transfer in Fort Worth hasn't made or broken the Heartland Flyer train. Once they discover how much the Dallas o Fort Worth HSR link is going to cost, they'll find other ways to spend that money wiser.

In urban and suburban Texas, there isn't room anymore for train tracks in the median - especially in I-30 and I-45. If Texas Central chooses the freeway alignment, the tracks will more likely be placed between the main freeway lanes and the adjacent service road, aka DART's Green Line in Irving.. The service road would provide better access to a future train station for both pedestrians and vehicles than one in a median.

The Federal Government has cleared this project for EIS...

http://blog.chron.com/kuffsworld/201...gh-speed-rail/

Couldn't they just have a car rental kiosk at or near the station? Most major airports and bus or train stations already have at least one don't they?

Yes, the last mile will be a problem in Texas. I think the HSR plan really aims to capture more passengers from air travel than from highways, since air travel has the same last mile problem.

If there is demand to be served at the new HSR station, then taxi drivers, shttke operators, and rental car companies will set up shop there just like they did at the airports, so there are a few easy solutions to the access problem.

That's not to say that local transit can't play a role, but the devil's in the details here... where are the terminal stations at each end of the line? If they are not in the downtowns of their respective cities, then connecting to local transit will be just as challenging as at the airports. Anyway, the terminal stations may very well be in the suburbs of each city; eg in Houston, building the separated corridor to bring HSR from Loop 610 to downtown may be too expensive, and certainly not worth the investment if you expect your passengers to drive from wealthy northern/western areas like The Woodlands and River Oaks anyway.

Where are the stations for the current rail service?

Texas Central is planning on running non FRA compliant Japanese built HSR trains. They will not be able to share tracks at the existing stations Amtrak visits anyways. They will not be using the current stations.

In Dallas, Amtrak visits Union Station located south of the historic famous triple underpass downtown. It has three platforms and 5 tracks for passenger trains. Two of the tracks are for light rail, two more of the tracks are for commuter rail, and one of the tracks is for Amtrak use. The commuter tracks can be shared with Amtrak. None of the tracks can be shared with non-FRA compliant HSR trains.
The downtown station in Houston lies north of Buffalo Bayou, on the outskirts if downtown Houston. It has one platform and one track for Amtrak to use. That sole track can't be used by non-FRA compliant trains, HSR or not.
Neither current downtown train station have a large enough footprint to include HSR.

Texas Central will be building brand new train stations for it's HSR trains along with entirely new HSR tracks in a corridor yet to be selected. The trains will not be sharing tracks at those stations. Where they will build the new stations hasn't been finalized. Their management have frequently stated having transit access in the future will be nice, but not a necessity. What they consider a major necessity is good highway access to their train stations.

I too am interested in potential station designs in Houston in particular. I find it strange that not a single conceptual design or rendering has been released. Personally, I'd like for the station to be at the Burnett Plaza light rail station, that seems like a perfect spot. HSR tracks can be completely separate still, and Amtrak can re-route trains through the existing freight rail line that goes up there on a separate platform (if that's possible).

Easy light rail access to downtown and points further, plenty of land for parking/future development, and it seems like a no-brainer.

In the process of the EIS, I think there will be pleasant surprises with how easy it is to access downtown Dallas from the south. Land is cheap and open, and the Trinity Corridor(which has been under study and levee strengthening for years) could provide a cheap and easy access to local trains and the confluence of North Central Texas highways. There is lots of available land in The Cedars area, right at the levee and this could even provide a direct link to DART. If they wanted to take that last mile to Union Station, the former Reunion Arena sight is sitting vacant and would also provide a large site to do build on. A couple of years ago, there was talk of the station being in south Dallas, but this is still a mistake when access to downtown Dallas remains easy. Going up the river corridor would be cheap, and the Army Corps has already given their recommendations and even construction to have the corridor freeway ready. This is basically being handed to them on a silver platter if they want this line to be successful.

As for the FW portion, the final study concluded that the I-30 median was the best path. This makes sense as there is a large median and the very straight geometry of most of that freeway.

Why not include Austin and San Antonio in a large loop?

I agree that access into downtown Dallas will be easy, but not into Union Station.
I disagree with you about I -30. First of all, I don't believe a study has been completed, it just started earlier this year. Secondly, there isn't a median in I-30 anymore in Dallas County, it's entirely concrete from shoulder to shoulder today. What used to be a grassy median is now HOV/Managed lanes. If a HSR corridor is placed within the corridor it would be better off adjacent to the service roads on either side, IMHO. I look unfavorably at tearing up recently installed, $2 billion, concrete HOV lanes to install HSR tracks 5 years into a 50 years life of the concrete.

If they build progressive in Texas, will they come?

Texas already has more and more people coming to the state, whether they build progressive, conservative, or liberally, it doesn't matter! People always flock to where the good paying jobs are.....

Texas has the 25th highest average wage in the US as of 2011 and the 43rd worst Gini coefficient (an indicator of income inequality). So no, the jobs are not "good paying" at all. Regardless, hopefully this project gets built so it will show the tea crazies that rail can work in this country.

I beg to differ, so what your implying is that all jobs coming and or created in Texas are low wages?

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. For one thing, a lot of the NEW jobs are high paying even if the existing ones aren't. More importantly though is the fact that you have to consider the cost of living in each state. For example, making a six figure salary in Texas will give you much more disposable income than making the same income in Silicon Valley so many tech companies decide to move because they can pay less (nobody is denying this part), but the employee is actually just as well off. Also, a lot of the new jobs are in the oil industry which is always one of the highest paying industries.

The area between Houston and Dallas is empty enough that this could be built on an entirely greenfield route, one that is also flat and would not cross any major water features either. Nor are there many environmentally vulnerable areas.

If it was acceptable to have Phase 1 end stations in say, Hutchins for Dallas and Cypress or Katy for Houston, this proposal might actually be rather sane. While central city stations would be desirable I think people will still mostly be driving to the stations and catching cabs from the other end, so a suburban location might not be bad to start with.

Maybe there could be lower cost shuttle buses that could run on the freeways and connect the suburban station to major nodes across the metro areas. Would definitely save money compared to the large cost of taking a cab all the way across the metro area. A person could pay the say, $5 to cross town, and then a short $10 - $15 cab ride to the final destination, compared to a $50+ cab ride across town.

And of course the major nodes may have decent transit connections as well.

I agree, leaving out SA and Austin is a pretty bad move. If they are going to do it, they need to bring it to all of the big 4.

Maybe they will in the future. When looking at the Texas Triangle, the only leg without train service today is the Houston to Dallas leg. It makes sense that's the leg they would want to build first. Even if they were seriously considering building the entire triangle, they would build it in phases anyways.

The intention is to build from downtown to downtown. Last I heard, Texas Central was fully committed to downtown stations.

Haven't they already stated their intentions to do a 2nd phase along I-35? to Austin/SA?


And that suburban station idea would be terrible for ridership. Eliminate it from your mind.

No, Texas Central hasn't stated any intentions to do a 2nd phase anywhere. They have concentrated all the efforts on HSR between Dallas and Houston.

There's three FRA environmental studies underway today in Texas for HSR passenger rail.
TXDOT is studying the HSR central (paralleling near I-35) corridor from the Rio Grande River to the Red River. http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/pr...l/history.html
(study started winter 2013)
Texas Central is studying the HSR eastern corridor (paralleling near I-45) between Dallas and Houston. (story dated June 26, 2014)
http://blog.chron.com/kuffsworld/201...gh-speed-rail/

NCTCOG is studying a HSR corridor (paralleling I-30) between Dallas and Fort Worth.
http://www.progressiverailroading.co...g-speed--40687

There are no other FRA approved environmental studies underway for HSR in Texas today.

Don't confuse government sponsored studies with private enterprise sponsored studies. Texas Central is a private company.

EXACTLY!!

HSR is a safer, more convenient and more comfortable alternative to AIR TRAVEL. Yes, there will be some who will switch from driving, but it's designed to take 80% of its traffic from those who would usually fly. It's priced accordingly.

There are some who don't want to/can't drive and will take transit at their destination or who have friends pick them up... or don't want to pay for luggage fees on the plane etc.

The Texas T-Bone configuration maps that I've seen would put stations in some of those suburbs anyhow. Seems like a pretty optimal layout when it comes to station spacing and distances. Seems almost PERFECT for HSR.

http://www.thestarshollowgazette.com...igh-speed-rail

The T-Bone strategy leaves Houston as an afterthought with much higher travel times. Any agency or company that would use this would start with an Austin to Dallas service or even Austin to San-Antonio. Then they would add Houston in afterwards. So I highly doubt we will ever see this format especially with so many stations.

HSR stations cost a fairly decent amount of money. If you build one in downtown Houston you get direct access to 2 million passengers who can use public transport to get to your station. If you build a station in the Woodlands you get access to another 200,000 passengers none of which have public transportation. (Out of all of the T-bone proposed stations outside of Waco, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio this one makes the most sense since you also have Conroe nearby). So you have to take into account what ridership boost you would get so plus 10% for proximity minus the amount of people willing to drive downtown to use HSR and minus those who would only use HSR if there was public transportation in the area. For a station that is likely to cost $75 - $100 million the bonus in ridership just doesn't make sense.

In addition to all of these extra costs you are also limiting service to those in the downtown cores. If every train either has to stop at another station you are looking at a 10 minute plus delay. (Estimate of Slowing, Boarding, Gaining speed) A ten minute delay on a trip aimed to be 90 minutes is highly significant. So overall I would guess that by building a station on a direct Dallas to Houston route no matter the city in between would probably not add any more riders than it would take away. All this for slower and more expensive service between Houston and Dallas.

The reason plans like T-bone are thought up with so many uneconomical stations has less to do with money and more to do with voters. If the state of Texas was to help support HSR it would need to eventually reach as many riders as possible. Otherwise why would representatives outside of the major cities allow so much money to be diverted out of their districts? Overall even if the political will was in favor of HSR in Texas it probably still wouldn't happen as a public effort. Too many people live outside of the possible service zone. Those along the border from El Paso to Brownsville would never see service and neither would Lubbock or Amarillo. The metropolitan areas of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Waco all still only represent ~ 65% of the population. Much of that 65% is also in the suburbs which would not be very well served by such a service.

So as a private effort to establish HSR at low cost (perhaps with some public support) the best and most profitable route is this. One station in downtown Dallas connected directly to one station in downtown Houston. From there the service would expand if successful but starting where I don't really know.

Environmental study on high-speed rail from Houston to Dallas begins

Read More: http://impactnews.com/houston-metro/...on-to-dalla_2/




http://impactnews.com/downloads/3048...812b28e76a8882

DEIS presentation news
 

Texas Central HSR looked at several possible routes and has identified two as the most viable for the project.

They are the BNSF (option 1) and Utility corridors. The other BNSF, UP, and I-45 alternatives scored low in three matrixes.

Here's a few pages from the presentation.
Three matrixes
http://oscarmail.net/photos/20141021_hsr_6393_800.jpg
Adding up the various alternatives points:
Utility = 57
BNSF (option 1) = 50
Utility with I-45 = 46
BNSF (option 4) = 46
BNSF (option 3) = 44
BNSF (option 2) = 43
UP = 42
I-45 = 37
I-45 with Hardy = 37
https://dallashoustonhsr.files.wordp...onsidered1.jpg
Note: BNSF option 1 corridor is red above, Utility corridor is gray above
Potential Houston station locations
http://oscarmail.net/photos/20141021...ouston_800.jpg
BNSF option 1 corridor is dark brown above, Utility corridor is light brown above
Potential Dallas station locations
http://oscarmail.net/photos/20141021_hsr_6396_800.jpg
BNSF option 1 corridor is dark brown above, Utility corridor joins BNSF around the Dallas-Ellis County line 10 miles or so off the map.

The Utility Corridor follows high voltage lines most of the way between Lancaster and Hockley, avoiding and bypassing every town between them. It basically follows the BNSF tracks into Dallas north of Lancaster, and UP tracks south of Hockley into Houston. BNSF option 1 follows BNSF tracks all the way between Dallas and Houston, what reduces its score somewhat is that the tracks would be routed through towns instead of avoiding them. The I-45 alternatives have the lowest scores - therefore I would place them last and very unlikely to be chosen.

Building a stop at Hutchins for Dallas and around beltway 8 for Houston should be considered. At the expense of downtown stations? No, but they should be part of the plan. Route 128(Boston), Metropark(NY), and New Carrolton(DC) are very busy stops along the NEC because they're positioned for suburban commuters to easily access without needing to drive into the central city.

^ That's one of the big issues when planning for this - the number of stops, travel time, and users. The preferred station is in downtown Dallas where it connects with the existing infrastructure and population density. This also affects DART funding in part when they look at there expansion plans (D2 - second downtown line). Putting additional stops in the burbs will slow the trip times and starts to be less competitive to alternate modes of transportation. Not saying it can't be done, but its a very strategic decision.

Regardless, they recently announced the preferred Dallas station will head to DTD. In the same breath DART is planning its first segment of D2 with this announcement. Here's the article.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/trans...nsit-plans.ece