Texas Rail

Eddie Bernice Johnson and Chet Edwards seek billions for rails and roads

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:38:40 PDT

By Associated Press - Sunday, June 14, 2009

DALLAS -- Some North Texas lawmakers are lining up huge transportation money requests as a congressional committee readies a highway bill.

The Dallas Morning News reported Saturday that U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the highest-ranking Texan on the House Transportation Committee, was asking for nearly $2.5 billion for 25 projects. Eighty percent of the Dallas Democrat's request would be for a dozen transit and rail projects. The remainder is for road and highway improvements.

Of some $660 million sought by Waco Democrat Chet Edwards, nearly two-thirds is for transportation or rail projects. One of Edwards' requests is money for a portion of a high-speed rail line, known as the Texas T-Bone, to connect Waco with Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

Arlington Republican Joe Barton is an exception. Of his nearly $116 million in project requests, only $3 million is for public transportation. Barton's request includes $42 million for improvements to Interstate 35E.

Johnson's largest request -- $593 million -- is for engineering and construction of the Cotton Belt Corridor commuter line, an east-west rail project involving Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. Another DART project, costing $483 million, would extend rail to D/FW airport.

The transportation bill undergoes committee scrutiny this month.

North Texas cities must wait for rail

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:42:22 PDT

By GORDON DICKSON - Fort Worth Star Telegram - June 1, 2009
Cities hoping for help from the state in paying for commuter rail service must now reassess plans after Texas lawmakers killed a proposed law that would have allowed local-option elections to raise taxes and fees for transit.

The Fort Worth Transportation Authority, also known as the T, has a service area that only includes about half of Tarrant County’s 1.8 million residents. Cities such as Arlington, North Richland Hills and Burleson must now find other ways to connect to the agency’s rail network.

In Arlington, elected leaders must now decide whether to ask city voters for permission to raise sales taxes for transit. Arlington has a quarter-cent available, but transit elections in the city have failed three times since 1980.

"Everything is back on the table. We’ll look at all the options and do the best we can do," said Arlington Councilwoman Kathryn Wilemon. "A decision will have to be made by the Arlington council."

Barring a sales tax increase for transit in Arlington, Wilemon said, "it just leaves Arlington out of the rail picture, pretty much. There’s no funding for that right now."

A quarter-cent would provide enough funding to build a Trinity Railway Express station near Farm to Market 157 in far north Arlington, and extend express bus service from that station to the entertainment district, said T President Dick Ruddell.

Projects continue

Other cities near Fort Worth are in much the same situation.

In Northeast Tarrant County, cities such as North Richland Hills and Haltom City may have to wait many years before building train stations on the proposed southwest to northeast commuter rail line that will cut through their city and is scheduled to have passenger service by 2013. Those cities don’t have any room under the state’s 8.25 percent sales tax limit, and were hoping for options such as a local gas tax or vehicle registration fee to generate revenue.

But several commuter rail projects already in the planning or construction phases will press on, and that’s good news for cities such as Fort Worth and Grapevine, which are combining forces to develop the rail line from southwest Fort Worth to the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport north entrance.

Grapevine voters already agreed to raise their sales tax by .375 cents to pay for commuter rail to their city.

Tough questions

As for the cities that can’t afford to join, the T will continue to keep their proposed stations in the master plan, Ruddell said. "It doesn’t cost anything to leave them in the plan."

The failure in Austin also won’t hurt the efforts of the Denton County Transportation Authority to get its A-train open from Denton to Carrollton by December 2010. The project is already funded, and rail cars have been ordered.

Private investment on the Cotton Belt portion of the southwest to northeast line could improve the financial picture — and Dallas Area Rapid Transit is actively seeking private partners. However, private funding likely would benefit cities such as Addison and Carrollton on the more densely populated North Dallas segment, Ruddell said.

County officials may now look at their options. In Tarrant County, officials in 2006 passed a $433 million bond package for roads.

"These are really tough questions, and we don’t have the answers for now," said Amanda Wilson, a council of governments spokeswoman. "If you’re not a member of the T, and not planning on it, I can imagine that rail is not in your future for the next two years."

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Railroads seek stimulus funds to ease congestionn: Tower 55 in Fort Worth included

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:07:32 PDT

By Gordon Dickson - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Friday, May 15, 2009
FORT WORTH, Texas — Two of the nation's largest railroads are seeking $70 million in federal stimulus money to lay tracks at the notoriously congested Tower 55 rail intersection near downtown Fort Worth.

Construction of a third north-south rail line at Tower 55 would reduce diesel emissions, speed traffic flow on area roads and improve safety at railroad crossings.

Officials from Fort Worth-based BNSF and Union Pacific, based in Omaha, Neb., say that although the new track would remain private property, the project enjoys wide support from public officials.

The request for funding will likely be made within weeks by the Texas Department of Transportation or another public agency on behalf of the railroads. The project will compete with other nationally strategic rail, port and road projects for $1.5 billion in discretionary funding to be disbursed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

"We won’t have trains sitting and people sitting and waiting for trains to get out of the way," said Nate Asplund, BNSF director of public private partnerships. "It will be a reduction in at-grade crossing delays and a definite improvement in air quality."

If the bid for federal funding is successful, it would be a rare sign of progress on Tower 55, which has been under study by regional planners for more than five years.

The intersection, which features two rail lines running east-west and two running north-south, is one of the most congested in the U.S. About 112 trains pass through the intersection each day, and trains are often queued up on side tracks across Tarrant County, their diesel engines idling, while waiting their turn to go through.

The long-term plan is to dig a trench and move one set of Tower 55 railroad tracks below the other — but no funding sources have been identified for that $700 million-plus project.

Read more in Fort Star-Telegram

Transportation bill clears first hurdle; opposition still lurks

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:08:56 PDT

By DAVE MONTGOMERY - Fort Worth Star Telegram - March 25, 2009

AUSTIN — Legislation aimed at funding billions of dollars in road and rail improvements in North Texas cleared its first hurdle in the Legislature on Wednesday, winning approval from a key Senate committee.

The 7-2 vote by the Transportation and Homeland Security Committee sends the bill to the Senate floor for a vote as early as next week.

"We’ll pass it," Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, the committee chairman and sponsor of SB 855, said of the likely outcome in the Senate. Approval there would send the issue to the House, where Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller, is sponsoring a companion measure.

Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Joan Huffman, R-Houston, voted against the bill.

City and county governments throughout North Texas, including Fort Worth and Arlington, have made the bill their top legislative priority to help the area escape traffic congestion and pollution they say endanger future development. But opposition has arisen on several fronts amid concerns that proposed fees and taxes in the bill would impose further hardships during the recession.

The legislation would allow countywide elections in which voters would decide on a menu of funding options to finance transportation improvements at the local level. North Texas officials want to use the revenue to improve roads and develop more than 200 miles of commuter rail throughout Dallas-Fort Worth, the fourth most populous region in the nation.

Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, secured an amendment that would spare users of Dallas/Fort Worth Airport from an added $2-a-day parking assessment at public lots. Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, questioned the exemption, but Carona noted that parking charges at the airport are already among the costliest in the region, about $12 to $15 a day.

"It seemed like a reasonable compromise," Carona said.

The committee also added an amendment by Carona that would prohibit the use of revenue raised for the transportation projects to be used for lobbying. The Dallas lawmaker said he wanted to include the restriction because "of public concern over taxpayer-funded lobbying."

Fort Worth, Arlington and the multicity Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition have agreed to pay $275,000 to a prominent Austin lobbying firm, HillCo Partners, to help push the transportation bill through the Legislature.

The bill was originally designed for North Texas but has been broadened to include local-option provisions for the Austin and San Antonio areas, and the committee accepted an amendment that would add El Paso to the mix. Gov. Rick Perry, who at first supported the measure, has raised concerns about the inclusion of regions other than North Texas.

Williamson County, near Austin, would be excluded from the bill under another amendment adopted on behalf of Senate Finance Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, who is cool to the legislation and whose district includes the county.

Under the measure, local voters would choose from a combination of proposed funding sources, including fees on parking, vehicle emissions and driver’s license renewals. The bill also includes an optional tax on gasoline or diesel fuel and "an impact fee" charged to new Texas residents.

Ellis said he fears that the bill would create a "system of city-states," but he acknowledged that cities may need to find new revenue sources for transportation because of inadequate funding from the state.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

An Inventory of Records at the Texas State Archives, 1970-1995 (bulk 1990-1994)

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:15:52 PDT

Records of the Texas High Speed Rail Corporation in the Archives of Texas

MegaRail High Speed Rail alternative to Trans Texas Corridor

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:12:02 PDT

Content from MegaRail Corporate website
Note: Claims have not been verified by DFWRCC or Texas Rail editors

120-mph Non-stop Passenger, Automobile & Cargo Service in Single System over Existent Highway Rights of Way
Low-cost alternate to costly projects such as Texas Corridor Plan

* High-speed, inter-city MegaRail can carry most inter-city passenger, cargo and automobile traffic on a single pair of small, low-cost guideways installed over interstate highway rights of way.
* Avoids the very high cost of additional highways and railroads and right-of-way.
* High-speed, inter-city MegaRail is low-cost, low-risk and near-term.
* Rubber tires in enclosed rail tubes and electric propulsion for noise-free operation.
* Electrically powered vehicles with rail-supplied power are non-polluting.
* Heavy-duty CargoRail guideways can be added over same interstate right-of-ways to transport large trucks and containers should future need arise.

Landowners question high-speed rail

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:47:23 PDT

By Peggy Fikac - San Antonio Express-News - 2/08/2009

AUSTIN — For travelers, a 200-mph train connecting San Antonio, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth may sound like a dream. But for some landowners along the proposed Texas T-Bone high-speed rail route, it's a question mark that they fear could easily turn into a nightmare.

“From a rural, agricultural standpoint, we're very concerned. It just seems like every time we turn around, someone's got us in their cross hairs,” said Central Texas farmer Richard Cortese, a Bell County commissioner and a leader in the Texas Farm Bureau.

Despite efforts by high-speed rail backers to build a partnership with local communities, some landowners are wary, partly because the fresh rail push comes after heated battles over the Trans-Texas Corridor, a massive proposal pushed by Gov. Rick Perry for a network of highways, tollways, pipelines and rails.

State officials recently buried the Trans-Texas Corridor's name after a backlash from property owners who feared their land would be devalued or taken. But “it hasn't gone away,” Cortese said.

“If you were to take a template of the Trans-Texas Corridor and lay it over this high-speed rail issue, I think you would find that many of the concerns would be very much the same,” said the Texas Farm Bureau's Gene Hall. “Fixing eminent domain (strengthening private property rights) is the first step toward increasing our comfort level with any of these projects.”

Several proposals are percolating in the Legislature to strengthen property rights. Hall said one key element is to ensure that property owners are compensated not only when they're forced to sell their land for a public project but when access to their property is diminished, affecting its value.

Besides the property-rights concern, Ralph Snyder of Snyder Salvage in Holland raised issues including train noise and who'd be on the hook for mitigating it.

He and Cortese said they understand the need for transportation in a growing state but that they want a detailed plan before making up their minds about the $12 billion to $18 billion rail proposal that would follow the Texas T-Bone — from Dallas-Fort Worth through Austin to San Antonio and branching off in Temple to go to Houston.

“We haven't seen any financial prototypes on this. I think that's our concern,” said Cortese, with questions including the expense to local governments if they're responsible for train stations.

Backers envision a project that's primarily privately financed but stems from a partnership with local governments. They'd like to have it running by 2020.

This legislative session, they're asking for state help, including tax exemptions for companies that would build the project.

“There's a perception about rural people that they are backward and they don't understand the problem. That's just simply not true,” Snyder said. “They want the studies done before a project is undertaken to make sure the right thing is being done.”

A key high-speed rail backer said details still are being developed because supporters want to ensure the proposal bubbles up from communities instead of being seen as handed down from the state capital.

“We want to involve the communities and the counties and the interest groups in that planning process, as opposed to ‘You bring this back when you have a plan and then we'll shoot at it,'” said Temple Mayor Bill Jones, vice chairman of the nonprofit Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp.

Local communities will decide whether to contribute financially to such things as building a train station, he said.

Among key points, Jones noted the consortium includes elected leaders, cities and counties, among others, and that backers have said they want to elevate the rail where necessary to reduce the effect on property.

“We are committing as best we can possibly commit at this stage to elevate as much of the system as we can where it's necessary,” Jones said.

Property owners said the prospect of the rail being elevated would help address their concerns because it would allow access to land on both sides of the track.

Former Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, chairman of the nonprofit corporation, said the group is sensitive to local concerns and would want to stay along existing routes and minimize the infringement on private property. “It's not only good politics,” Eckels said. “It's cheaper that way.”
Read more in the San Antonio Express-News

High speed rail plan put to sniff test

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:05:51 PDT

By Paul A. Romer - The Temple-Telegram Staff Writer - July 6, 2008

BELTON - The best way to describe a meeting between high speed rail proponents and Bell County commissioners last week may be to compare them to two dogs that approach each other, sniff around for a while and then choose to go in different directions.
Officials from both organizations used careful language after the Monday meeting to describe exactly what occurred but their words were measured, possibly to preserve political relationships for future considerations.

It may be more beneficial to the people of Bell County to know what didn’t occur.
The Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp. would like Bell County to become a dues paying member of the corporation, which is taking its message all around the state that now is the time for high speed rail in Texas. But an invitation for Bell County to come aboard for the ride was not extended.

Maybe it was the tepid response from commissioners that curtailed the invitation, but paperwork describing the benefits of such membership was contained in packets of information distributed to commissioners before the meeting.

Two Bell County cities, Killeen and Temple, are already spending taxpayer money to support the rail corporation’s efforts in bringing high speed rail, dubbed the Texas T-Bone Corridor, to the state. Each city pays annual membership dues of $25,000.
The rail corporation is proposing that two high speed rail lines be built: one from the Dallas-Fort Worth area to San Antonio and the other from Houston to Fort Hood. The lines would cross in the Temple area.

This fiscal year the rail corporation will bring in $210,000 in membership dues, according to officials. At this point the dues appear to be used almost exclusively to promote the idea.

“We are working to plan this,” Bill Jones III, Temple mayor and corporation vice chairman, said to commissioners. “We don’t have all the answers. We’re doing nothing but raising dues that support us to get the word out right now.”

None of the Bell County commissioners spoke in favor of the proposal. Each had questions that when considered together helped show the high speed rail project for what it is: a speculative proposal that is in its infancy.

Eddy Lange, commissioner in Precinct 3, spoke with the most passion against high speed rail.

“The timing could not be worse coming right off the tail of the Trans-Texas Corridor,” he said. “I’m open (to new ideas) but right now I’m not coming out in support of this. It would be political suicide for any of us.”

Lange said he felt sure his constituents in eastern Bell County would be against selling their land so that rail infrastructure could be built. He said his constituents would even be against an above ground rail that would help preserve farmland.

In its promotional materials the rail corporation identifies more than 20 congressional and legislative supporters - including U.S. Rep. John Carter - but it is unclear the level of support of these state and national leaders.

Some have written letters supporting the concept of high speed rail, encouraging the rail corporation to combine private and public resources to see if it has potential to benefit Texas. Others believe high speed rail is coming and want it in their state or district first.

Tim Brown, commissioner for Precinct 2, said the transportation model in Texas is very different from the model where similar trains are operating in Asia and Europe. The population in Texas is more spread out than other regions using high speed rail.
And Brown doesn’t believe the train would make a substantial impact on highway traffic. He said it would compete more directly with small airports.

“This could put our small airports out of business,” said Richard Cortese, commissioner for Precinct 1.

Brown said it is time that the corporation move past concepts and start compiling data to see if such a project is even feasible.

“I understand the concepts; I’d like to see the numbers,” he said. “We need to know if it can work. Right now there is a line on the map drawn up by the people who have given money.”

County Judge Jon Burrows intimated that the county would like to be involved early on with a venture that would relieve future highway congestion and provide more transportation options to residents but at this point he doubts that the organization would have the political clout to bring the T of the T-Bone through Bell County. He said a more logical route might be from Houston to Austin.
“My concern is the political realities,” Burrows said. “If this thing gets close to happening, Austin and San Antonio may come forward with fistfuls of money and Bell County could be left out.”

Comments made by John Fisher, commissioner for Precinct 4, seemed to support Burrow’s position. Fisher asked the group who they had spoken to at Fort Hood. He said he has not talked to a single official from the base who said high speed rail was an option for the Army moving its freight.

Jones said the rail line may prove most useful to families and soldiers traveling to and from Fort Hood.

The annual meeting of the rail corporation is scheduled for Aug. 13 in Irving. The meeting will include a year-end review, overview of fact-finding missions to areas with high speed rail and legislative planning for 2009.

The corporation has a goal of bringing high speed rail to the state by 2020, which critics say may not be possible.

Brown estimates that it would take 10 years to do an environmental analysis of the area where the track would run and another 10 years to build it.

To accomplish its objectives the rail corporation would have to move at a pace much faster than what government is generally accustomed to. Jones says the project can meet its objectives if the public and private sector work together.

“We’re out of the station. We’re quickly picking up momentum,” he said.
Read more in the Temple-Telegram

CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE HOLDS HEARING TO STRENGTHEN RAIL SECURITY

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:14:52 PDT

Jackson Lee Holds Hearing In New York City, Examining Rail Systems To Enhance Rail Security Nationwide

By Office of Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee - April 25, 2008

Brooklyn, New York- Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, released the following statement at a hearing, at the Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza Branch, in New York City entitled “Protecting the Mass Transit Critical Infrastructure in New York City and in the Nation:”

“As we all know, securing mass transit in this country is critical to ensuring that we protect the American public from terrorists. Each weekday, 11.3 million passengers in 35 metropolitan areas and 22 states use commuter rail. It is imperative that we in Congress continue to give those on the frontlines the tools they need to continue to protect the traveling public.

“Until recently, the Department of Homeland Security has focused almost exclusively on aviation security. However, we in Congress changed that focus with the enactment of the 9/11 legislation last August. The law now mandates that TSA put more focus on surface transportation security. The requirements of the 9/11 legislation include expanded transportation grant criteria, protocols for frontline employee training, authorization for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams, increases in surface transportation security inspectors, and many other improvements that will help to make our nation’s mass transit systems safer.

“Today, in New York City, home to the largest mass transit system in America, we are here to discuss how we can continue to make mass transit safe for Americans. New York has been on the forefront of securing mass transit for many years. As the site of ground zero, the State of New York, the NYPD, Amtrak, Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Port Authority, and all of the frontline workers who work the subways, the trains, buses, bridges and tunnels are all keenly aware of how important their jobs are, and what must continue to be done. We in Congress are your partners in ensuring that you have the tools needed to secure surface modes of transportation. We have already accomplished much in the passage of the 9/11 bill, but surely our work continues. The dialogue we have today gives those of us in Congress the opportunity to hear directly from those who work these issues on the ground, so that we can continue to be a resource for you. I would like to thank Commissioner Kelly and Deputy Secretary Balboni for sharing their perspectives with us today.

“The lessons we learn during this process can help secure transportation across the nation. In my district, in Houston TX, we have the METRO system that transports thousands of people around the downtown Houston area everyday. While that system is different in many ways from what exists here in New York, there are common threads that we can share to make sure all mass transit systems have access to the most effective and innovative methods of security. I am pleased that Chief Thomas Lambert is here today to share with us his perspective.

“However, as we focus on security operations, methods, and technology- we should not forget the frontline workers who are the eyes and ears of any security operation. We must continue to ensure that they get the training and worker protections they need to do their jobs effectively. I am pleased that James Little of TWU is here to share that perspective with us

“History has shown us that terrorists view rail and public transportation systems as potential targets. London, Madrid, Mumbai- have fallen victim to attacks on rail and mass transit. These attacks have killed and maimed thousands. Even more devastation could be caused by a successful attack on our mass transit system. Further, this threat is always present. In January of this year, a plot was thwarted to attack the Barcelona Public Transit system. This attempted attack is yet another reminder that we must remain vigilant.

“While we continue to make strides in securing our nation, we must not neglect any part of our transportation infrastructure, which includes our rail and mass transit systems. As we closely examine the New York City’s mass transit rail system, my goal is to extract important finds and lessons learned and create ways to apply them across the nation to strengthen rail security.”

Read press release

DART sees 5 percent rise in train passengers

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:06:44 PDT

By JUSTIN FARMER - WFAA-TV - Wed., June 25, 2008
DALLAS - The rising price of gasoline has more people in the Dallas area relying on mass transit.

That pleases DART but also offers challenges as it tailors routes to riders' needs.

North Texans love their trucks and SUVs but maybe with gas at $4 a gallon, habits are changing.

The number of passengers on DART trains was up 5 percent last month.

The number of passengers on the TRE which runs between Dallas and Fort Worth was up 7 percent.
May represented the busiest month ever for DART trains - so busy that the parking lots in Plano and Garland were often full.

DART says if this happens to you, then drive to the next DART stop.

DART's future was in doubt in the early 1990s but now is being talked about as brighter than ever.

"We have the largest rail system currently under construction in North America," said DART spokesperson, Mark Ball.

"The 28-mile system is seeing condominiums and restaurants and all kinds of development that DART has nothing to do with, adjacent to our rail system. It's exciting thinking about in the very near future, those are the areas we are going to be servicing and those are the people who are going to be riding on DART," he added.
Read more on WFAA NEWS

Suburban rail network causes friction

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:07:53 PDT

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER - The Dallas Morning News - Friday, April 11, 2008

Elected officials and business leaders appeared no closer to a consensus Thursday over how to find at least $400 million it would take annually to pay for a huge suburban rail network.

A push to get the Legislature to permit cities to increase sales taxes by up to a penny to pay for the 239-mile rail network has failed in the past two sessions, but supporters insist the plan is more necessary than ever. Many of its key backers are pressing to put the issue before the Legislature again next year, though key Dallas area senators have said it is likely to fail again.

Thursday's meeting in Arlington only underscored the deep differences between elected officials and leading business interests over how to pay for the plan.

Top businesses, including Texas Instruments and other North Texas corporate leaders, have flatly opposed an increase of any amount to the sales tax rates.

Bill Alloway, president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, said told those gathered Thursday that the business community remains flatly opposed to any sales tax increase. In a statement distributed at the meeting, the association said, "the case for increasing the cap on local sales taxes has not been made. We will continue to oppose any increase in that cap in light of the compelling state interest in the sales tax and the existence of other viable local options."

There were wide differences between elected officials as well.

"I don't think that there is a snowball's chance in you know where that the people of Collin County would support a sales tax increase," said Plano City Council member Loretta Ellerbe.

The leaders narrowed funding options to five options, and will meet again April 28 to discuss them. Those options range from continuing to push for a sales tax increase, to raising property taxes, to imposing car registration fees of more than $100.

The suburban rail service, if funded, would begin operating in 2025, or perhaps 2030, its backers said.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

European rail logistics firm buys Texas Railcar Leasing Co. (TRLX)

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:02:23 PST

ProgressiveRailroading.com news
Updates from Texas Railcar Leasing, Alstom, TÜVRheinland, David J. Joseph Co. and Brookville Equipment
Rail industry suppliers and service providers continue to be active in the United States and abroad:

• European rail logistics firm VTG Aktiengesellschaft has acquired Texas Railcar Leasing Co. (TRLX), which leases rail cars to railroads and shippers in the United States, Mexico and Canada. Investment bank Citi Capital Strategies served as financial advisor to TRLX. Terms weren't disclosed. VTG Aktiengesellschaft, which currently manages a fleet of 48,200 rail cars, plans to acquire additional cars.

Transit authority to spend $51,000 to repair faulty signs

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:07:09 PST

By GORDON DICKSON - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Jan. 18, 2008
At every train station in Tarrant County, electronic message boards hang from the platform ceilings. The signs are supposed to project helpful messages to Trinity Railway Express riders, such as "The next eastbound TRE will depart in 11 minutes."

But the signs have been dark for most of the past year because of mechanical problems, Fort Worth Transportation Authority finance officer Rob Harmon said.

On Thursday, the T board agreed to spend $51,215 to repair the signs over several months. The work will be performed by Inova Solutions, the only company to submit a bid.

Even without the signs, passengers can still check times the old-fashioned way: by consulting print schedules posted at each station.

The signs look fancy but don't actually track the precise location of trains, Harmon said.

That may change in the next year or two. Dallas Area Rapid Transit intends to install a more sophisticated passenger information system, which would use sensors to precisely monitor trains in Dallas County, Harmon said. Once that system is up and running, the T likely will tap into it on the Tarrant County side, he said.

Also at the meeting

In other action Thursday, the T board:

Hired Freese and Nichols to design the location of a second track at Richland Hills Station. An extra track stretching a half-mile in each direction from the station would allow faster, more frequent train service. The design will cost at least $129,000.

Discussed a potential First Amendment lawsuit in closed session but took no action. Last month, a passenger complained she was escorted off a bus for reading the Bible to her children. T officials said it was the volume of her voice, not the subject matter, that caused the problem.

ACTION ALERT: Tx House Committee on Transportation Public Hearing on role of MPO and Rural Planning Authorities within COGs

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham...) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:30:07 PST

Texas House of Represenatives Meeting Notice - Jan. 18, 2008
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

COMMITTEE: Transportation

SUBCOMMITTEE: Planning Authorities

TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Wednesday, February 06, 2008

PLACE: E2.012

CHAIR: Rep. Fred Hill

The Subcommittee will meet to consider the following:

Charge #5: Examine the role of metropolitan planning authorities in state law, as well as the creation of rural planning authorities to address the planning needs outside of metropolitan planning organizations but within council of government boundaries.

ACTION ALERT: Comments for Sunset Review of TxDOT due by Jan. 7, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:51:49 PST

December 5, 2007
Dear Recipient:

The Sunset Advisory Commission would like your help in reviewing and improving the State’s transportation system. The Legislature, through the Texas Sunset Act, has charged our Commission with reviewing the mission and performance of the Texas Department of Transportation.

In general, the Sunset Commission periodically evaluates state agencies to determine if the agency is needed, if it is operating effectively, and if state funds are well spent. Based on the recommendations of the Sunset Commission, the Texas Legislature ultimately decides whether an agency continues to operate into the future. Additional information on the Sunset Commission can be found on our website.

As part of this agency’s review, we seek the input of organizations and individuals who have an interest in the agency. Please take some time to comment on the attached preliminary issues identified by the Sunset Commission staff as potential research areas. Also, let us know of other issues of interest to you or your organization. Feel free to share copies of this e-mail and the attachment with any others who may have an interest in the Texas Department of Transportation. To help ensure the free flow of information, anything submitted to Sunset staff during the review until the staff report is released is confidential, and will not be shared with anyone outside of Sunset staff.

To give the staff time to consider your information during our review of the Texas Department of Transportation, we request you send your response by Monday, January 7, 2008. Please mail, e-mail, or fax your comments to the address or fax number provided in the attached Preliminary Issue List. Also, if you need more information or have questions about our process, please contact Jennifer Jones at (512) 463-1300. We greatly appreciate your assistance and look forward to hearing your ideas.

Sincerely,

Ken Levine
Deputy Director
Sunset Advisory Commission

Easing Fort Worth's Rail Jam

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:15:18 PST

By 5hd NBC5i.com, November 14, 2007
FORT WORTH, Texas -- Tower 55, the busiest at-grade railroad intersection in the United States, is the subject of an environmental assessment that could find ways to improve air quality, safety, and movement at the congested spot.

Named for a two-story wooden railroad building on the edge of downtown Fort Worth, the Tower 55 intersection is typically backed up with idling locomotives that sit there emitting clouds of diesel exhaust into the air.

The North Central Texas Council of Governments, NCTCOG, hosted two public meetings at the Fort Worth Central Library Tuesday to discuss issues surrounding Tower 55 and the plans for an estimated $300 million improvement of the rail intersection.

More than 100 freight trains and 70 passenger trains pass through and adjacent to Tower 55, and wait time for trains to use the crossing averages 90 minutes.

Several different rail lines converge at Tower 55, including the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Union Pacific Railroad, Fort Worth & Western Railroad, Amtrak, and the Trinity Railway Express.

In addition to creating air pollution, the rail jam impedes the distribution of goods and blocks the possibility of expanding commuter rail service in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

NCTCOG staff introduced eight improvement alternatives under consideration at the public meetings. They include a third north-south track at grade, a north-south track in a trench, an east-west fly-over elevated track, and a bypass for the Forth Worth and Western Railroad.

Even as locomotives pile up at Tower 55, NCTCOG planners are watching the demand for rail access to the intersection steadily increase.

If the rate of traffic at Tower 55 continues to grow, by 2010 all trains needing access in an average 24 hour period will not be able to pass through, the public meetings were told.

This growth is caused by the continuous increase in regional economic activity, changes to the national freight rail network, and international trade, which indicates demand for access to the Tower 55 interchange is likely to grow in the near future.

According to the Texas State Rail Plan, rail is the primary mode of moving goods in the region, and to and from the west coast. These goods must pass through Tower 55 before moving throughout the region, the nation, or internationally.

The North Central Texas Council of Governments says that if a remedy is not found for the problems at Tower 55, companies in freight oriented developments throughout the region will be faced with two options - stay in the region and deal with the congestion issues and unreliability of shipments or move out of the region to a more reliable, less congested location.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2007. All rights reserved

Metro Rail of Austin receives two rail cars

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:52:36 PDT

By Ed Sterling - Wilson County News - Oct. 31, 2007
Swiss trains
Austin’s Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority accepted delivery of two rail cars shipped in pieces from Switzerland. Four more cars are on order.

“MetroRail” is scheduled to begin in about a year, carrying passengers from Leander, north of Austin, to downtown Austin, with a few stops in between. What’s more, Austin Mayor Will Wynn is proposing a separate project — a light rail line — to connect Austin Bergstrom airport, downtown Austin, the University of Texas, and other stops. He wants to make it a November 2008 ballot issue.

Early voting
Registered voters can take advantage of early voting through Nov. 2.

Computer users can easily determine polling locations and hours, by going to the Secretary of State’s Web site. www.sos.state.tx.us.

Read more in the Wilson County News

Stop FTA's Plan to Raid Federal Transit Funding for Roads!

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:03:35 PDT

Commentary by The Overhead Wire • September 2007
The following commentary has been adapted from entries originally posted to The Overhead Wire Weblog on 10 September 2007 and the Daily Kos on 11 September 2007.
The US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has issued an extremely ominous and potentially retrogressive Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) for the New and Small Starts programs. These programs provide the basic new-starts funding for major fixed-guideway capital projects such as light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit (RRT, or "heavy rail"), and so-called bus rapid transit (BRT).

Rails to roads?
The proposed new rules are alarming on a number of levels. Most notably, they downgrade the importance of land use and economic development despite congressional direction to the contrary, and they propose to redefine the definition of "fixed-guideway" to include transit funding for highway lanes that use tolling schemes – thus diverting rail transit money into roadway (tollway) development.

Why is this important? To some extent, the FTA's proposed new rules would entrench policy positions advocated by notorious motor vehicle zealots and transit critics – folks such as the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Randal O'Toole/Wendell Cox cabal. The proposed rules ignore current transportation law regarding required project justification criteria and add new Federal intervention into the local decision-making process. If finalized, the new rule-making policy will hamper American cities' ability to build new transit lines for the next 5 years!
However, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill moving through congress is an opportunity to formally weigh in and stop or alter the proposed FTA rule. In a recent development, Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby have proposed an amendment to kill the FTA's new rules. Transit advocates may wish to communicate their views on this issue to their own Senators on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, which can be accessed at the Senate Transportation appropriations webpage.

UPDATE: Light Rail Now has been informed that the Dodd-Shelby amendment was passed and has been added to the appropriations bill. However, President George W. Bush is threatening to veto this legislation. It's currently unknown whether there are sufficient votes in the US Senate to override such a veto.

More details on the new rule-making

See full text of the FTA's proposed rule.

This would diminish the ability of cities to get funding from an already crowded grant program. HOT lanes qualify for funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ... and we all know there's a lot of funding there. Over 300 New Starts projects – light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit, regional passenger rail ("commuter rail"), bus rapid transit – were authorized by the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill, and the argument by the FTA as to why they have such an intensive scrutiny of proposals is based mainly on the high demand for limited funding. Adding High Occupancy Toll freeway lanes to the list of eligible projects further strains the FTA's ability to fund new transit projects.

2. FTA would make the dreadful (and misnamed) cost-effectiveness index (CEI) the primary factor in deciding the fate of funding for New Starts projects
This "index" is the same measure that is killing top-quality rail projects, such as the Tyson's Corner Metro extension (Washington, DC area) and has killed, or set back, light rail plans in Columbus, Ohio, Raleigh. NC, and elsewhere. Almost every city that is looking to build new transit projects is worried about qualifying under this seriously flawed measure, and now it's being made even stronger. This measure is the reason why Minneapolis's Central Corridor light rail project might not be able to tunnel under the University of Minnesota, and why locally backed expansion of light rail has been turned into less effective BRT projects in some Houston corridors.

3. FTA's rulemaking pushes cheap, not completely dedicated-guideway, bus projects

The irony of the cost-effectiveness index is that, in reality, it fails to capture the full benefits and cost-effectiveness of a project. The index evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a light rail project versus corridor improvements such as bus rapid transit or improved local bus service. What this does is force cities to choose bus rapid transit projects over citizen-backed light rail projects that may have greater community benefits but also a higher initial price tag. Also, the measurements for the Very Small Starts program are set using the Southtown rapid bus project in Kansas City (which runs on city streets), and not rail or fixed-guideway BRT projects such as Los Angeles's Orange Line busway.

4. FTA reduces or ignores the importance of land use and economic development measures

Congress elevated land use and added economic development as project justification criteria in SAFETEA-LU (the current federal transit authorization). The US Department of Transportation (DOT), however, ignores this and has combined them into one measure with a combined weight of 20% in the overall rating process. The FTA states that it is too costly to implement the economic development measure, but the cost and burden to grantees such as cities and transit agencies is not considered when local jurisdictions are required to adopt the FTA's travel demand models, which have many problems and questionable aspects. The fact that they use those models to determine the "cost-effectiveness" rating – which decides who gets funding – is a problem in itself, as this rating index can't address all the benefits of fixed-guideway transit.

Furthermore, FTA argues that it's too difficult to separate land use from economic development, and that the increase in property values associated with proximity to transit is merely a result of improved time savings alone. We're sure many zoning offices and developers would be surprised to have these effects categorized so simplistically.

5. FTA's new policy could lower ratings for cities who are trying to address future rather than current congestion issues

The FTA would like to measure the New Starts program by the benefits to highway users, but ignores the effect of induced demand, which means that, when you build a new transit project, the space from cars that are taken off the road by transit is filled by new cars. The aim of transit opponents – to push money from the transit program into congestion pricing schemes and not-so-rapid bus projects – would result in less useful transit projects in corridors that might have real future need.

What can be done?

Transit advocates and other proponents of improved public transportation might consider contacting their congressmen or senators, to request them to stop the FTA's proposed rule and give the Department of Transportation a clear directive that the FTA must:

1. Comparably weight all 6 project justification criteria (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, land use factors, and other factors – e.g., economic development, environmental justice considerations, livable communities initiatives, etc.), while recognizing the particular importance of transit-supportive land use and economic development in fostering successful and sustainable projects rather than considering just the direct costs of the project.

2. Maintain the current definition of "fixed-guideway transit" – i.e., focused on transit services operating on rails, special guideways, or busways.

3. Desist from raiding the federal transit program for road pricing schemes.

Light Rail Now! website

Here are details on what the FTA's new rules would do:

1. FTA would allow High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes to qualify for New Starts funding

Capital Metro Rails Rails first commuter rail cars arrive

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:41:51 PDT

First commuter rail cars arrive
By News 8 Austin Staff - Oct. 23, 2007
Two of the six rail cars that will make up the commuter rail service Capital MetroRail arrived Monday evening from Switzerland.

By fall 2008, the commuter rail line will run from Leander to downtown Austin, making nine stops along the way.

The 50-minute, 32-mile ride will stop at Plaza Saltillo in East Austin, MLK Boulevard, Highland Mall, North Lamar, Burnet Road at Braker Lane, Howard Lane and then Lakeline Boulevard before hitting Leander in Williamson County.

Each car can hold 200 passengers – 100 seated – and cost just under $6 million. They have high-back seats, bicycle and overhead luggage racks and Wi-Fi connections. The rail cars are considered hybrids because they run on both a gas and electrical engine. Capital Metro spokesperson Adam Shaivitz said they're "quieter than a bus."

But the commuter rail won't run on the same schedule as Cap Metro buses. Right now, they're just planning for peak service during morning and afternoon rush hour. Cars will run every 30 minutes with one midday round trip.

If demand is high, Cap Metro might expand the number of cars, the schedule and add more routes.

Fares have yet to be determined, but it would appear $2 seems to be the popular choice among officials.

Each car must be reassembled and go through 1,000 miles of test runs before they're ready for service next year. The four other cars will arrive by next spring.

Station platforms have already been built, and have bike racks, ticket vending machines and electronic signs announcing the arrival time of the next train.

Read more and see video on News8 Austin

Proposed Austin Bergstrom Light Rail plan resurrected

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:37:52 PDT

Wynn to resurrect light rail
AUSTIN News 8 Austin Staff - 10/25/2007
Austin Mayor Will Wynn is calling for a November 2008 election to build a Central Austin passenger rail system.

The announcement happened at the Mayor's annual State of Downtown luncheon on Thursday.

"Every peer city that's worth their salt has passenger rail service," he said.

The proposed rail line would connect Austin Bergstrom International Airport, downtown and the University of Texas, along with the Triangle and Mueller developments.

Back in 2000, voters shot down a plan for 52 miles of light rail.

"It took a lot of political courage for him to stick his neck out and make this proposal," Nancy Burns of the Downtown Austin Alliance said.

Under his plan, Wynn said there would not be a need for a new tax to pay for the trains. Instead the system would be paid for and run by a committee of city agencies, developers and private entities. Wynn also hopes the airport, which is doing well financially, can help with the burden.

"It benefits passengers, it benefits employees and I think the airlines and the airport operation will recognize the value," he said.

Wynn wants to assign a task force to come up with the cost, technology and logistics.

Creative financing between public and private entities would avoid a property tax increase.

Wynn hopes the task force can complete its projection in six months so an election can be held in 2008.

This light rail proposal through Central Austin is completely separate from Capital Metro's commuter rail line through Williamson County down to Austin.

Voters approved a commuter rail in 2004 and the trains are set to launch in Fall 2008.

For more information: Light Rail Now is an Austin-based nonprofit that promotes mass transit systems in cities across the globe.

Read more and watch video on News8 Austin

Local transit officials optimistic they can win federal funds, put project on fast track

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:43:35 PDT

By GORDON DICKSON - Star-Telegram Staff Writer -
Officials with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority are counting on Washington to pay nearly half the proposed $390 million needed to extend a commuter rail line from southwest Fort Worth to Northeast Tarrant County.

But securing federal money for such projects is so arduous, some transit agencies don't even bother applying for it.

Congress sets aside an average of about $1.7 billion a year for so-called new starts, an industry term for new rail or bus services - and 100 urban areas are competing for grants.

The Federal Transit Administration requires applicants to submit thousands of pages of documentation proving their project is justified. Many applicants are initially denied but are encouraged to make changes to their projects and resubmit the paperwork. By the time they are approved, projects are often years behind schedule.
"We're very appreciative of the funding but, boy, it takes a heck of an effort to get that money," said Stephen Salin, assistant vice president of capital planning for Dallas Area Rapid Transit. It took DART eight years to secure $700 million in federal funds for its light-rail line from Pleasant Grove to Farmers Branch, he said.

The T's project would connect southwest and downtown Fort Worth, Texas Christian University, the Stockyards, Grapevine and Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Some say getting the train up and running by 2012, the informal target date, will take a near-miracle.

"My belief is we will not be denied," said Dick Ruddell, president of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. "We have a good enough project because of the location and ridership projections. This is going to be viewed as very doable."

The ever-optimistic Ruddell says the T's proposal has several advantages that may speed up the funding.

nThe T wants about $175 million, far less than requests typically made by larger agencies such as DART. Local sources would provide an additional $215 million, including money already spent on two federal documents: an analysis of alternatives that was completed last year, and an ongoing environmental review.

The broad community support, as evidenced by Grapevine's successful 2006 sales tax referendum.

Trains would run on existing tracks owned by four railroad companies,
so few rights of way would need to be bought.

Denton gives up

Yet T officials need look no farther than one county to the north to
find an example of how similar projects have found federal funding
frustration.

In March, the Denton County Transportation Authority dropped its pursuit of federal funding for a commuter line from Denton to Carrollton. Denton County transit officials say they could eventually have proved that their proposed rail line, roughly parallel to Interstate 35E, was cost-effective. But it would probably have added years to the planning, and they didn't want to miss their self-imposed 2010 deadline to connect their trains with DART rail service in
Carrollton.

So the transit agency found other financial sources, including proceeds from the new Texas 121 toll road through Lewisville.

The project is still on schedule.

"We've been able to get down to the business of building a railroad rather than shuffle papers," said John Hedrick, president of the Denton County agency.

Transit officials in Raleigh, N.C., recently abandoned 11 years of planning for a Triangle Transit rail line connecting sprawling population and employment areas.

Why so complicated?

Many rail lines simply don't meet the Federal Transit Administration's definition of a cost-effective project.

The agency places a dollar value on the time commuters waste sitting in traffic jams in the proposal area. To come up with the value of adding rail or buses, the agency uses a complicated model that includes factors such as the cost of a project, the number of riders expected in a peak year (usually 2025 or 2030), and congestion data from buses and highways in the same area.

Even in cities the size of Dallas, proving a project's worthiness can be tough. DART's $700 million light-rail line, approved last year, didn't exactly pass with flying colors. It managed a slightly better than mediocre score, even though it is expected to have a whopping 40,300 riders a day by 2025.

The bureaucratic hurdles are necessary to ensure that rail projects are selected based upon scientific data rather than politics, federal officials say.

What if the T fails?

If the proposed Tarrant County rail line can't meet the federal agency's criteria, the T won't give up, Ruddell said. Instead, it will work closely with the agency to cut costs, find more ways to try to increase ridership and make any other changes. The worst case would be a delay of several years, he said.

Ruddell also said the rail line could be built in phases with local funds. Perhaps, he said, the first phase could serve central Fort Worth and Grapevine.

But he says he knows a cost-effective rail project when he sees it - and this one is it. Through most of the '90s, he was government affairs chairman for the American Public Transportation Association and helped draft legislation to grade rail projects.

"The federal government has clearly made it difficult to gain access to this money," Ruddell said.

"But we have incredible support from every part of the community. I've got local funding lined up. There's nothing to hold us back, except the process itself."

This week, the Star-Telegram is focusing on neighborhoods that might get a train station along the proposed commuter rail line from southwest Fort Worth to Northeast Tarrant County. Each day this week, part of the route will be featured on the Main Street page inside the newspaper's local section - starting Monday with a glance at the commuter rail plan near Sycamore School Road.

Train technology

The Fort Worth Transportation Authority wants to use a new breed of rail cars known as diesel multiple units. They are self-propelled, so they have no locomotive. They burn diesel fuel and offer riders the interior comfort of light-rail service.

When will it begin?

The rail line could open by 2012 if the ongoing environmental review goes smoothly and the federal government agrees to chip in $175 million in funding. An additional $215 million in local funds has been identified. Agreements must also be reached with up to four railroads whose tracks would be needed for passenger service.

The schedule

The roughly 40-mile line would serve 13 or 14 stations, depending on which of three routes is chosen. During morning and afternoon rush periods, about three trains per hour would operate on the line. The rest of the day, about one train per hour would operate. Some stations would be neighborhood-oriented, and others would be regional
park-and-ride lots. Each would have a platform, windscreens, canopies, walkways, wheelchair accessibility, ticketing, and bus and car drop-off areas.

Paying for the project

How the T proposes to pay for the $390 million Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor:

$70 million, local sales tax - $30 million from the T, and $40 million from Grapevine.

$60 million Texas Mobility Fund, state appropriation.

$20 million, Tarrant County bonds, part of voter-approved transportation package..

$55 million, North Central Texas Council of Governments - Partnership II congestion mitigation and other funds.

$10 million, other local funding.

$175 million, Federal Transit Administration grant.

Source: Fort Worth Transportation Authority

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Texas Rail Advocates board meeting scheduled in Dallas Nov. 12th

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:42:41 PDT

By Texas Rail Advocates - Oct. 2007

The next TRA Board Meeting will be held on Monday, November 12th, a Lincoln Center #1 (by the Hilton), 5400 LBJ Frwy, Suite 1300, Dallas, TX 75240 (if you get lost, phone Taylor Sharpe's cell phone at 214-522-5525).

Friends and members are welcome to attend. Call Paul Mangelsdorf for more information at (214) 823-4963. The last meeting was held Oct. 1st. Minutes are available for the Sept. 17th meeting.

2008 Corridor Conference to be held February 1st

The 2008 South Central High Performance Rail Corridor Conference will be held on February 1st! Mark your calendars and check out our Corridor Conference web page for more info.

Map of South Central High Performance Rail Corridor for passenger and frieght service.

Passenger rail privatization: A lesson from Japan

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:30:34 PDT

By Robert A. Letteney - TheHill.com - April 07, 2005

The Hill is a congressional newspaper that publishes daily when Congress is in session, with a special focus on business and lobbying, political campaigns ...

Even though passenger rail is supported by national governments in the rest of the world, the Bush administration has recently proposed shutting down U.S. intercity passenger rail service by zeroing out funding for Amtrak in fiscal year 2006.

The Bush budget proposal comes during a fierce debate over how to reform the U.S. passenger-rail system. Some proponents of privatizing Amtrak have pointed to privatization efforts in other countries, including Japan, as proof that Amtrak could also be privatized. Are there lessons U.S. policymakers can learn from the Japanese experience with privatization?

In the mid 1980s, Japan National Railways (JNR) was a monolithic national monopoly with an operating deficit, huge debt, declining ridership, high fares, poor service and political interference. In other words, JNR had many of the same problems that plague Amtrak today.

In its place, the Japanese government created six separate private passenger-rail companies to serve different regions of the country. Three of the six companies that served rural areas would be eligible for a yearly operating-deficit subsidy from a revolving government fund. The other three companies, which largely served urban areas, were expected to cover their operating costs. Each private company would be responsible for both rail operations and infrastructure management.

By most measures, privatization in Japan has been a success. Since privatization, yearly profits for the three main companies have increased to between $600 million and $2 billion, accidents have decreased by close to 50 percent, fares are stable, the number of rail employees has been reduced by 50,000 and ridership as measured by passenger-kilometers has risen by nearly 20 percent.

However, any discussion of Japan’s privatization efforts must also note the Japanese government’s role in financing rail infrastructure projects and the operating deficits of rural railroads.

While the Bush administration’s proposal would effectively destroy passenger rail in the United States, the Japanese government has launched an ambitious effort to expand high-speed rail service over the next 10 years. The cost, close to $30 billion, will be funded by the national government, local governments and revenues generated from existing high-speed lines. When construction is complete, the new lines will be owned by the government and leased to the rail companies. The same private rail company that manages operations will also manage maintenance for the new high-speed lines.

Obviously, there are limitations in comparing the U.S. and Japan rail systems. Japan is especially well-suited for rail because of its high population density and short distances between major cities. Furthermore, in the current budgetary climate it is impractical to believe that the United States could build the type of dedicated high-speed rail network in its high-density corridors that Japan possesses.

Yet the main difference between the Japan and U.S. rail systems is political. The United States has never had the political will to make the necessary infrastructure investments to create a competitive rail system. Instead, from the time Amtrak was created in 1971, Congress has given the struggling railroad barely enough to survive from year to year.

As a result, Amtrak does not have enough money to fix its growing backlog of capital maintenance or promote a true high-speed rail system. In the Northeast Corridor alone, it is estimated that $28 billion is needed for rail infrastructure over the next 20 years, and billions more would be needed to implement higher speed rail.

As U.S. highways and airspace become more and more congested, the lack of investment in rail infrastructure has made it difficult for passenger rail to compete successfully with these other transportation modes (all of which receive much more federal subsidy).

By contrast, Japan has consistently poured billions of dollars into its rail infrastructure (even after privatization) and has created a competitive transportation alternative to plane and automobile travel.

The lesson from Japan is obvious: Intercity rail systems, whether private or public, need stable sources of public investment to be successful. Unfortunately, this simple fact is often ignored by advocates of privatization in the United States.

The administration’s legislation to privatize Amtrak does not guarantee any specific amount of federal funding for rail infrastructure. Without a specific dollar amount of stable, guaranteed funding, promises from the administration to rebuild the nation’s rail infrastructure ring hollow. An empty federal financial commitment in the name of “flexibility” for the states is a recipe for disaster.

As Japan has shown, successful passenger rail systems need more government investment, not less.

Letteney was legislative director for Rep. John W. Olver (D-Mass.) and currently works in the Japanese Parliament and Ministry of Transport as a Mike Mansfield Fellow.

Read more

Fort Worth T grants gas drilling rights - Transportation authority agrees to take bids from drilling firms

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:14:24 PDT

By By GORDON DICKSON - Star-Telegram staff writer - Oct. 19, 2007
FORT WORTH -- The Fort Worth Transportation Authority agreed Thursday to seek bids from companies that want to drill for natural gas on or near T property, including bus and rail parking lots, the East Fort Worth transfer center and the T headquarters on East Lancaster Avenue.

Trinity Railway Express drilling rights were leased in 2006. Several companies have since approached the T about permission to drill nearby.

In other action, the T board:

Agreed to a new contract with Yellow Checker Shuttle to run the Airporter bus service from downtown Fort Worth to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport for up to five more years. The company has operated the service since 2002.

Yellow Checker will operate under a one-year contract, with four one-year renewal options. The company will pay the T $1,200 a year for use of the Airporter Park & Ride lot at 1000 Weatherford St.

Also, Super Shuttle will continue to run the Route 30 circulator bus service from the Trinity Railway Express' Centreport/DFW Airport Station to area employers.

That agreement also is a one-year contract with four one-year options. Super Shuttle has performed that service since '02.

Welcomed two new board members: Gary Cumbie, special assistant to the Tarrant County College chancellor, was appointed to the T board by Fort Worth Councilman Danny Scarth and replaces Paul Geisel; Rosa Navejar, president of the Fort Worth Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, was appointed by Fort Worth Councilman Sal Espino and replaces Ed Canas.

Agreed to help Burleson, Cleburne, Crowley and Joshua conduct a rail study.

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Texas Rail System Plan - TxDOT- Oct. 2005

noreply@blogger.com (Faith Chatham) — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:55:59 PDT

Download Report adobe acrobat

Some excerpts from the report:

The 78th and 79th Texas Legislatures passed legislation that enhances TxDOT’s ability to improve transportation safety and infrastructure in Texas. The major rail issues addressed by this legislation2 are:
• TxDOT assumes all powers and duties related to railroads from the Texas Railroad
Commission;
• TxDOT will be allowed to acquire, finance, construct, maintain and operate freight or passenger rail;
• TxDOT will administer most federal funding used on construction or maintenance of
rail infrastructure3;
• TxDOT may enter into Comprehensive Development Agreements for rail projects;
and
• TxDOT may enter into agreements with public or private entities using pass-through
fares for reimbursement of facility expenses.

This new legislation will increase TxDOT’s involvement in rail projects and the further development of the state’s multimodal transportation system via proposed new systems and railroad relocation projects.

Regarding the Trans Texas Corridor:

The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that will incorporate existing and new highways, railways and utility corridors. A detailed discussion on the status and plans for TTC development are included in Chapter 5.
Freight railroad relocation projects to optimize safety and system efficiencies are being actively discussed and negotiated between a governor’s transportation task force, TxDOT and some of the Class I railroads. It is hoped that negotiated agreements will assist the department with statewide freight rail study efforts aimed at examining key transportation corridors whose safety and mobility might be significantly improved to:
• Relieve heavily populated urban areas of freight related gridlock;
• Possibly open corridors for passenger rail development or other modal facilities;
• Reduce or eliminate highway-rail crossing conflicts; and
• Create mutually beneficial solutions for both the public and private sectors through improved efficiencies.

It has been proven that the TTC will not relieve urban congestion!
Since most passenger train delays are caused by the owners of the tracks, they avoid mentioning improving efficiency for passenger trains! (Most of the stakeholders who developed this report were representatives of the Rail Road.

FUNDING:

Funding for rail projects in Texas prior to the passage of HB 3588 and HB 2702 was limited to specific appropriations. Passage of these bills and HB 1546 has enabled the expenditure of non-dedicated funds for state-owned rail projects as well as funds from other sources, such as loans and grants. HB 1546 creates the possibility of establishing a dedicated regional rail relocation fund if this constitutional amendment is approved by voters in November, 2005. This legislation would allow TxDOT to improve statewide transportation system safety and efficiency through targeted improvements to the Texas rail system.

TxDOT’s Role in Local and Regional Rail Planning

The primary functions of both TxDOT district personnel and local and regional
government agencies involved with rail planning are to monitor local rail transportation needs and, when necessary, initiate rail development projects by either working directly with the railroad or contacting the TxDOT district or division rail planning staff for assistance and/or guidance. The evaluation and initiation of state purchases of faltering rail lines to protect area economies and preserve transportation alternatives begins with local citizen involvement. Additionally, local and regional governments serve as the “eyes and ears” for the implementation of improved safety measures for their highwayrail grade crossings. Through their efforts, recommended improvements to the local highway/railroad crossings can be executed to enhance the quality of life in their area.

TxDOT’s Role in Local and Regional Rail Planning

The primary functions of both TxDOT district personnel and local and regional government agencies involved with rail planning are to monitor local rail transportation needs and, when necessary, initiate rail development projects by either working directly with the railroad or contacting the TxDOT district or division rail planning staff for assistance and/or guidance. The evaluation and initiation of state purchases of faltering rail lines to protect area economies and preserve transportation alternatives begins with local citizen involvement. Additionally, local and regional governments serve as the “eyes and ears” for the implementation of improved safety measures for their highwayrail grade crossings. Through their efforts, recommended improvements to the local highway/railroad crossings can be executed to enhance the quality of life in their area.

Gee whiz! They don't mention citizen involvement!

Private Partnership Agreements:

TxDOT may accomplish system-wide improvements by entering into public-private partnership agreements to provide investments in freight rail relocation projects, rail facility improvements, rail line consolidations, or new passenger rail or intermodal facility developments. Numerous examples around the country have proven this type of strategy for transportation system improvements can be successful. According to a report on the state of the national rail system, “relatively small public investments in the nation’s freight railroads can be leveraged into rather large public benefits for highway infrastructure, highway users and freight shippers.”

Freight Rail:

The Class I railroads represent the major railroad companies moving significant amounts of freight over long distances and owning track spanning several states. Three Class I railroads serve Texas: the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), the Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS), and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP). The three Class I railroads operated on 11,432 (81 percent) of the state’s total track miles in 2003. Most of that mileage is used by BNSF and UP, with 4,645 miles and 6,408 miles, respectively.
Combined, BNSF and UP operate over 96 percent of the Class I track mileage in the
state. The widespread coverage of BNSF and UP allows them to connect to most of the
major markets statewide. By comparison, KCS operates on only 379 miles of track in
the state, and is limited to connections to Dallas/Fort Worth and Beaumont from the
east.
The Class II railroad presence in Texas is limited to only the Texas Mexican Railway
(TexMex), which operates on 544 miles of track. The 160 miles of track between Corpus
Christi and Laredo is owned by TexMex, while the remaining mileage is through
trackage rights over UP between Corpus Christi and Beaumont. KCS recently purchased TexMex, as detailed later in this chapter.
The majority of railroads operating within Texas are classified as Class III railroads.
Often referred to as “short lines,” the Class III railroads usually engage in specialized services and are typically geographically concentrated. One characteristic of short lines is that they may be privately owned to serve only a specific company or industry. For example, the Angelina & Neches River Railroad was founded by a paper mill and now connects shippers in the Lufkin area to UP rail lines. Short lines may also be created following the purchase of track formerly controlled by Class I railroads. For example, the Gulf, Colorado & San Saba Railway operates on 67.5 miles of track in Central Texas acquired from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (ATSF) following an abandonment proceeding.
Some Texas ports, such as Houston, Corpus Christi, and Orange, are served by
dedicated switching railroads (Port Terminal Railroad Association, Corpus Christi
Terminal Railroad, and the Orange Port Terminal Railway, respectively) that provide rail services in close proximity to the port areas. Switching railroads, such as the Dallas, Garland & Northeastern (DGNO), operate on Class I lines or on their own track and deliver or pick up goods (e.g., limestone, farm products, plastics, lumber, soybean oil, steel, paper, chemicals, and auto parts) within the region. The DGNO serves as a switching carrier for UP in the Dallas region and interchanges rail cars to provide crosscountry rail services to area shippers.

Growth in Freight by Rail in Texas:

In 1991, 230 million tons of rail freight were transported in Texas.
By 2003 this figure had increased to some 335 million tons – an increase of
over 45 percent. Figure 2.2 depicts commodity flows by rail throughout the state
...
During the same period, the number of railcars handled in Texas grew even more
quickly than the rise in tonnage, increasing from 4.1 million cars in 1991 to 8.3 million cars in 2003.
During the 1990s the growth in rail freight terminating in Texas moderately outpaced the increase in rail freight originating from the state.

Rail Safety - In dollars and cents:

The Freight Rail Bottom Line Report also discusses rail safety needs, estimated at $13.8 billion; short-line railroad improvement needs, estimated at $11.8 billion; Class I railroad infrastructure and maintenance requirements, estimated at $4 to $5 billion annually; and Class I infrastructure improvements, estimated at $3.5 billion annually.
These needs present a major problem to the railroad industry, which is extraordinarily capital-intensive. Railroad companies spend approximately 5 times more to maintain rail lines and equipment than the average U.S. manufacturing industry spends on facilities and equipment; resulting in a low level of investment in railroad stocks. Railroad revenues are such that the return on investment is lower than the cost of capital, which has resulted in very limited investments or rail system expansion projects. AASHTO has therefore recommended the development of public-private partnerships between railroad companies and public entities in order to identify, plan, and construct freight rail projects that would result in expansion or improvement to the freight rail system.

Rail System Characteristics by TxDOT District
and Fort Worth districts are provided rail service by all three Class I carriers (UP, BNSF, KCS) that operate in Texas. The El Paso, Austin, and Pharr Districts each have services from two Class I carriers, the UP and BNSF railroads, while the San Antonio district only has service from UP and trackage rights for BNSF.
Within the BNSF system, Fort Worth lies on a heavily traveled line connecting coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin with Central Texas and the Houston area. Also entering Fort Worth is a busy line originating in the grain-producing Plains states and then proceeding to Texas Gulf Coast Ports. These BNSF lines each carried more than 33 million gross tons (MGT) of freight in 2000. The BNSF’s Transcontinental Line traverses the Texas Panhandle carrying over 100 MGT each way in 2000, from Los Angeles to Chicago. Within the UP system, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio are each on the heavily used rail corridor connecting Laredo with the Upper Midwest. Houston is an UP hub for six lines, linking the region with the Louisiana Gulf Coast, Midwest, West Coast, and Mexico. El Paso, San Antonio, Dallas, and Fort Worth are also on main east-west corridors going across the southern tier of the United States.
Other major lines include BNSF’s main coal carrying line from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to the Houston area, and UP’s high volume major east-west lines that connect California with the Gulf Coast and Memphis, and their north-south NAFTA corridor connecting Mexico to the northeast United States and Canada.

NAFTA Rail – KCS & TFM

In December 2004, KCS purchased a controlling interest in one of Mexico’s three major rail lines, Grupo TFM. A new holding company, called “NAFTA Rail”, was created as a result of the transaction. KCS, TFM, and TexMex will all be under common control by NAFTA Rail, though each will retain its name and assets. The combined company, including trackage rights, will consist of approximately 6,000 miles of track in the U.S. and Mexico; with access to 13 seaports, 14 intermodal ramps, and 181 interchange points with other railroads. NAFTA Rail intends to market “seamless service” from southern Mexico to the heart of the U.S.

New Rail Construction
Railport Industrial Park

In February 2000, the Ellis County Rural Rail Transportation District (RRTD) filed a petition with the STB to construct and operate 4.8 miles of rail line in Ellis County. The rail line was proposed to provide alternate service to a 1,700-acre business and industrial park known as Railport, which is adjacent to a BNSF track. The proposed line would cross BNSF’s line and connect with the UP, providing shippers and industries at Railport with competitive, two-carrier rail service. In addition to constructing and owning the line, the RRTD also requested authorization to operate it after it was completed. The filing indicated that the RRTD expected to assign operating authority to an experienced operator once one was selected. The STB imposed environmental mitigation measures, but granted the petition.
After STB authorization was approved for the Ellis County RRTD to cross the BNSF line
and proceed with constructing the new line to UP, BNSF requested a meeting with the
RRTD to discuss the purpose of the district. Subsequently, a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) was signed by BNSF, UP, Ellis County, the RRTD, and the
Midlothian Development Agency (MDA). The MOU provides for track access, haulage,
switching, and reciprocal exchange between BNSF, UP, and the RRTD with respect to
rail service at Railport. The agreement stipulates that BNSF will accept railcars at their Alliance yard in Fort Worth from UP for delivery to Railport businesses. BNSF also committed to provide trackage and haulage rights to UP on the track serving the Railport facility. Railport switching work itself is to be carried out by BNSF. With the new agreement, the build-out consisted of only two miles connecting to the BNSF line adjacent to the Railport complex.3

The Calhoun County/Seadrift Rail Line Construction
In January 2001, BNSF filed a petition with the STB to construct a 7.5-mile rail line to connect the Union Carbide industrial complex at Seadrift, Texas, with a UP line that runs between Placedo and Port Lavaca, Texas. In January 2002, the STB granted final approval for the BNSF to construct the Seadrift build-out, subject to recommended environmental mitigation measures. Construction of the line was completed in May 2003. BNSF utilizes trackage rights along the UP line between Placedo and Port Lavaca to access Union Carbide via the Seadrift construction. The Union Carbide complex, which had been served exclusively by UP, is located approximately 120 miles southwest of Houston near the Gulf Coast. Union Carbide supported the build-out as a means of providing competitive access to their facility, and acquired the necessary rights of way for the build-out.

Alamo North Texas Railroad Construction
In August 2001, the Alamo North Texas Railroad filed a petition with the STB to
construct a 2.25-mile rail line in Wise County. The line would extend from a connection with UP to an aggregate quarry near Chico, which is operated by Alamo North’s parent company, Martin Marietta Materials Southwest. Alamo North estimated that when construction was completed, 40 percent of the products from the quarry would ship by rail, amounting to approximately three hundred 70-car trains per year. The STB granted the petition and imposed recommended environmental mediation measures.

Government Involvement in Freight Rail
Rural Rail Transportation Districts

Reductions in service and abandonments have had significant local effects in some of the state’s rural areas. Rail abandonment normally is associated with reduced options for transporting harvests and increases in costs, so that the economic livelihood of these areas becomes less certain. Grain producers are especially vulnerable (See the “Texas Grain Transportation Study” for an overview of the importance of rail for moving grain6).
In response to concerns about the loss of rail service in rural parts of Texas, the Texas Legislature passed legislation allowing the formation of Rural Rail Transportation Districts (RRTD’s) in 19817. RRTD’s were given the power of eminent domain as well as the authority to issue bonds to assist in their efforts to preserve rail infrastructure and promote economic development in the state.

Rail Freight Infrastructure Assessments

The extensive Class I infrastructure in Texas necessitates a continual investment by the Class I railroads to maintain and upgrade their lines. Generally, rehabilitation and repair of rail lines is determined, prioritized, and performed by the line owner. The following line conditions reflect concerns that have a significant effect on the efficient movement of rail freight through the state.
• Weight Limitations – Infrastructure conditions exist at many locations that do not
meet 286,000 pound capacity thresholds.
• Poor Track Conditions – Track conditions exist on various lines that limit train speeds to 25 mph and less. This not only affects system capacity and train speeds, but increases the probability of derailments occurring.
• Storage Yards – Currently, both BNSF and UP are evaluating their investments to
reduce bottlenecks within terminal areas and switching facilities in hopes of
managing the conflicts between trains and vehicle/pedestrian traffic.
• Rail Bridges – Evaluations of capacity needs should be performed on the six
international rail bridges between Texas and Mexico. Evaluations of capacity needs
should also be performed on the numerous rail bridges within the state. Many of
these bridges are over 50 years old, and may need upgrades to handle consistent
traffic with the increase in 286,000 pound capacity carloads.
• Directional Traffic – Single-track operational constraints reduce the train handling capability of rail lines. In areas where lines are single-tracked, trains must travel in both directions on the same railroad line, contributing to reduced capacity. By double tracking lines where possible and lengthening existing passing sidings elsewhere, the capacity of these lines would be greatly increased.
• Highway-Rail Grade Crossings – Where passive warning systems are present they
prevent increased speeds for both passenger and freight trains. Rail/vehicular traffic conflicts in urban areas reduce train speeds and increase congestion. Community and transportation planners must consider the location of rail lines and eliminate railhighway crossings when possible. Consideration must also be given to the location or relocation of rail lines through urban areas. The construction of additional at grade crossings when planning new developments should be avoided.
• Freight Rail Bottlenecks – Increasing freight rail volumes in Texas are straining the capacity of the existing infrastructure, causing bottlenecks where freight flows are heaviest.
• Ports - Rail access to most ports has become difficult due to infrastructure and
capacity constraints.
Table 2.9 summarizes the rail freight capital needs and the estimated annual costs of
those needs in Texas. Freight rail needs were extrapolated from national studies as a
percentage of needs as estimated for the nation.

Passenger Rail Systems

Passenger rail service in Texas is defined as intercity and commuter rail services
contributing to a multimodal strategy and providing people with choices for completing their travel needs. Passenger rail service in Texas is currently provided at the regional/intercity level by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and at the commuter level by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the “T”). There are also two light rail systems in Texas provided by DART, and Houston Metro (METRORail). Light rail systems are considered local transit, and as such are only covered in the TRSP as reference to their connectivity with regional and intercity rail services.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide:
• an overview of the demographic and transportation needs that are driving demand
for improved passenger rail in the state;
• an overview of existing and proposed passenger rail services in the state;
• an analysis of recent trends in passenger rail; and,
• identification of issues affecting passenger rail service in the state.
In general, much of this section is geared towards major urban areas as they dominate
the demand for intercity rail and have large enough populations to support commuter rail transportation. It is important to acknowledge, however, the important role of intercity passenger rail in some rural areas as the sole transportation alternative (at times complemented by intercity bus service) to the automobile.

3.2 - Need for Increased Emphasis on Passenger Rail in Texas
Alternative transportation service needs increase with population growth and the
subsequent congestion that it brings to the existing transportation system. The need for other transportation modes is especially apparent in Texas’ major urban areas. Several of these areas have implemented or studied passenger rail options to support their efforts to reduce congestion and improve regional mobility. Figure 3.1 shows the growth rates of key Texas metropolitan statistical areas that have either implemented or have considered implementing local passenger rail service since the 1994 Texas Transportation Plan. Over the decade between 1990 and 2000, each of these areas grew at a much faster rate than the United States as a whole. The Austin urban area led all of these cities with a growth rate of 48 percent during that time period.

Projected Growth in VMT in Intrastate Corridors

Fueled by population and economic growth, projected increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Texas cities and along key Texas corridors will contribute to increased roadway congestion and problems with air quality.1 Congestion and non-attainment status may also heighten demand for rail as a transportation alternative. Figure 3.2 provides projections of VMT increases in three key corridors between 2000 and 2025:
• Dallas-Fort Worth to San Antonio,
• San Antonio to Houston, and
• Houston to Dallas-Fort Worth.
Among these three corridors, the growth in VMT between Dallas-Fort Worth and San
Antonio is forecast to increase the fastest, by nearly 50 percent, while increases on the San Antonio-Houston and Houston-Dallas-Fort Worth corridors are projected to grow by 28 percent and 41 percent, respectively.

Concerns About Large Counties VMT

Increases in vehicle congestion along Texas’ major inter-city corridors between 2000
and 2025 may encourage people to seek alternatives to driving. The anticipated growth
in VMT within the state’s most populous counties and steadily escalating fuel prices may influence people to use transit (including commuter or light rail) or other transportation options (i.e.; carpooling) to reach jobs, schools, and shopping centers. Between 2000 and 2025, the VMT in large Texas counties are projected to expand by 21 percent in Harris County to as much as 60 percent in Tarrant County as shown in Figure 3.3.
Congestion concerns in each of these counties will heighten during this period. Multiple efforts, both highway and non-highway, must be made to alleviate the transportation impacts of the predicted increases in VMT. reported that the population of North Texas grew by 10 percent between 1995 and 1999.
During that same time, the total VMT increased by approximately 18 percent. Despite
the growth in population and VMT, road capacity increased by only 2 percent during the period. As expected, these trends are further corroborated by statistics showing that North Texans are spending 37 percent more time on congested roadways than they
were in 1995.3 One of the options for addressing this problem is to provide alternative transportation services such as increased passenger rail service.
With the forecast growth in VMT and the ensuing increase in congestion, rising demand
may emerge for rail transportation services in other cities. Presently most Texans either fly or drive for their inter-city travel. For example, in 2003, roughly 1.5 million air passengers flew between Dallas and Houston. Rail travel was not an available option in this corridor, but, in that same year, fewer than 50,000 total passengers used Amtrak trains to travel from either Houston or Dallas to all destinations. The distance between Dallas and Houston is less than 250 miles. Higher speed trains operating at reasonable frequencies could meet much of the travel demand, freeing up capacity on the airways and at Texas airports for other flights. In addition, it could ease vehicular traffic on I-45.
New Amtrak service, such as the Heartland Flyer between Fort Worth and Oklahoma
City, was introduced in spite of ridership projections that would give rail only a small share of the total travel between markets on this corridor. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) funded a share of the rail improvements on Oklahoma portions of this corridor. It was estimated that 25,000 riders would need to use the service annually for the Heartland Flyer to be considered successful.4 By comparison, in 2003 roughly 200,000 air passengers flew the route between Oklahoma City and Dallas-Fort Worth. During its first year of operations the Heartland Flyer, greatly exceeded the initial desired demand forecast, and the annual number of riders on the route in FY 04 was more than 50,000. To further increase passenger demand, Oklahoma is considering improvements to decrease run-times on the route. Presently, the Heartland Flyer takes approximately 4 hours and 15 minutes to travel from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, about 45 minutes more than the same trip by car.5
While demand for inter-city travel in Texas may warrant a much improved, high-speed
passenger rail system, the costs to make the necessary improvements to accommodate
such a system are steep and would require major changes in existing transportation
policy and funding priorities. Significant investments in passenger rail would need to be weighed against other transportation needs in the state. Additionally, financial performance on existing Amtrak routes through Texas require continued evaluation of the economic costs and viability of providing improved passenger rail service in the state, as the Texas Eagle continues to exhibit a fairly steady degree of ridership, while the Sunset Limited route struggles to retain riders

Amtrak Intercity System

Currently, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Inc. (Amtrak) is the sole
provider of intercity passenger rail service in Texas. It serves most of the state’s major urban areas. Amtrak’s partnership with Greyhound serves other areas of the state by providing bus connections where possible. Figure 3.4 includes a map of Amtrak passenger lines in Texas. Three Amtrak routes, the Sunset Limited, Heartland Flyer, and the Texas Eagle, provide intercity passenger rail service in Texas. A description of their services follows.

The Sunset Limited – Orlando to Los Angeles

The Sunset Limited is an east-west route that traverses Texas on its way from Orlando
to Los Angeles. Major stops prior to entering Texas from the east include Mobile and
New Orleans. In Texas, the Sunset Limited provides service to major cities and towns
such as Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso with stops in smaller towns and cities
including Beaumont, Del Rio, Sanderson, and Alpine. After leaving Texas the route
continues through New Mexico, Arizona and California before terminating in Los
Angeles. This route is currently scheduled to run three times a week in each direction providing transportation options for trips within the state as well as to destinations outside of Texas.
In total, the Sunset Limited travels 3,000 miles as it crosses eight states. Over 800 miles of this are within Texas. Based upon an average operating speed of less than 40 mph, the Texas portion is covered in 21 hours, 12 minutes. In 2000, Amtrak released a plan to increase its ridership by expanding its network. Included in Amtrak’s Network Growth Strategy was a plan to re-route the Sunset Limited through Texas. This plan was never implemented, but called for moving the route to a more northerly track serving larger population centers of the state. From Houston, the route would have gone to Dallas, Fort Worth, Abilene, Midland, Odessa, and on to El Paso. San Antonio would have lost service on the Sunset, but connections to it would have still been possible by taking Amtrak’s Texas Eagle to Fort Worth and switching over to the Sunset Limited there. Del Rio, Sanderson, and Alpine would have lost service altogether. At present, Amtrak is not actively pursuing this re-routing strategy with the freight railroads over which it would
potentially travel.

The Texas Eagle – San Antonio to Chicago
Amtrak provides daily service on the Texas Eagle between San Antonio and Chicago via
Fort Worth, Dallas, and St. Louis, a distance of over 1,300 miles. In Texas, the current stops on the Texas Eagle include San Antonio, San Marcos, Austin, Taylor, Temple, McGregor, Cleburne, Fort Worth, Dallas, Mineola, Longview, Marshall, and Texarkana.
Ridership on the Texas Eagle has grown in the past few years after facing several
threats of discontinued service.
In 1996, Amtrak announced that it would terminate the Texas Eagle, which at the time
ran three times a week from Chicago to Los Angeles and back. Several concerned
parties contacted TxDOT to see if the department could do something to retain service.
Amtrak pushed the termination date back several times until, in 1997, the 75th Texas
Legislature passed acts directing TxDOT to loan $5.6 million in general revenue funds to Amtrak with the provision that Amtrak maintain the Texas Eagle for a specified period.
The loan was to be repaid with interest by July 31, 1999. Amtrak repaid the loan in full two months prior to the deadline in May of 1999. During the period specified in the loan, Amtrak was able to increase the profitability of the Texas Eagle by adding the capability to carry mail and express freight, a practice it recently discontinued. Amtrak was also able to increase the number of Texas Eagle trains to daily operations between San Antonio and Chicago. Current service between San Antonio and Los Angeles continues as a three times per week connection with the Sunset Limited at San Antonio.

The Heartland Flyer – Fort Worth to Oklahoma City
Beginning in June 1999, Amtrak initiated service on the Heartland Flyer route, reinstating passenger rail service in North Texas and Oklahoma for the first time in over 20 years.
The Heartland Flyer, with service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, runs one trip
daily in each direction and serves the Texas cities of Fort Worth and Gainesville,
providing connections to the Texas Eagle at Fort Worth. This service is financed and
operated through a partnership between Amtrak and ODOT. The service transported
over 65,000 passengers in its first year of operation. This success resulted in ODOT
discussions with Amtrak officials regarding a possible service extension to Tulsa7.

Intercity Commuter Rail Services and Feasibility Studies

Currently, the only operational intercity commuter rail service in the state is the Trinity Railway Express between Dallas and Fort Worth. Three other urban or intercity
commuter rail services are in various stages of planning or study:
• An Austin-San Antonio intercity commuter rail system;
• An urban line from downtown Austin to the suburb of Cedar Park that will be
developed by Capitol Metro, the Austin transit agency; and
• A potential commuter rail system serving some of the suburbs in the Houston area.
Existing and Proposed Commuter Rail Systems
Trinity Railway Express—Dallas and Fort Worth
The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) commuter rail service is a service provided by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the “T”). The map in Figure 3.5 shows the TRE system. Phase one of the TRE (10 miles) was opened in December 1996, providing service between Dallas and Irving. The system now covers approximately 35 miles serving nine permanent stations and one special event station at the American Airlines Center sports arena. Ridership in FY 2004 totaled 2.2 million passenger trips, while average weekday ridership totaled 7,7009. The TRE represents one of the most significant joint services between the two largest metroplex cities since the construction of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in the early 1970s.

Read full 128 page report