TEXAS-OKLAHOMA PASSENGER RAIL STUDY

Transcription

1 TEXAS-OKLAHOMA PASSENGER RAIL STUDY Jennifer Moczygemba, P.E. Rail Division

2 Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (TOPRS) Study of the feasibility of various passenger rail options that will result in a service-level EIS and service development plan Led by Texas DOT (TxDOT) Funded by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the state of Texas Coordinated with the Oklahoma DOT (ODOT) Coordinated with North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)

3 Project Coordination Federal Railroad Administration Oklahoma DOT Texas Department of Transportation Stakeholder Workshops Public Agencies Study Team (Led by CH2M HILL) General Public

4 Types of passenger rail service Under consideration Intercity and high speed passenger rail improvements Various speed and service levels, capacity enhancements, and connections Not under consideration Commuter rail Light rail Streetcar Highways Airports Other non-rail modes

5 Types of Intercity Passenger Rail Maximum/ average speed Stops/ frequency Typical characteristics Conventional (Shared ROW & tracks) Max: mph Average: mph Stops every 15 to 60 miles 3-6 trains/day each direction Unreserved and Reserved seats, limited business class seating, limited café food service, limited checked baggage, diesel loco hauled Higher speed (Shared ROW: Dedicated Tracks) Max: mph Average: mph Stops 30 to 90 miles apart 6-12 trains/day each direction Reserved seats, business class seating, café food service, no checked baggage, diesel and electric loco hauled High speed (Fully dedicated Track& ROW) Max: mph Average: mph Stops 50 to 100+ miles apart trains/day each direction Reserved seats, business class seating, café and atseat food service, no checked baggage, electric multiple unit Common Attributes: Single or double deck trains, stations with parking and transit access.

6 Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Map Districts: Wichita Falls Fort Worth Dallas Waco Austin San Antonio Laredo Corpus Christi Pharr

7 TOPRS Schedule Winter 2013 Spring 2013 Summer 2013 Fall 2013 Winter 2014 Spring 2014 Summer 2014 Fall 2014 Alternatives analysis Set goals, gather data, develop and screen alternatives Analyze and select alternatives Refine analysis and secure agency approvals NEPA Scoping Draft service-level EIS Final service-level EIS Record of Decision Service Development Plan Scoping meetings Public Meetings Public hearings Key public involvement activities SW #1 SW #2 SW #3 Website SW #4 SW #5 Small group and community meetings

8 Scoping Summary More than 20 news stories referenced scoping meetings Received more than 1,200 comments More than 1,000 received online through the project s comment form Fewer than 100 comments were received via or mail 56 written comment forms were collected Comments were fairly evenly distributed along corridor with many online comments from Austin, Laredo and San Antonio

9 Scoping meeting attendance 240 people attended a scoping meeting: Oklahoma City: 31 Waco: 21 Ardmore: 14 Austin: 42 Fort Worth: 25 Belton: 28 San Antonio: 23 Sherman: 22 Corpus Christi: 19 Dallas: 29 Laredo: 31 Harlingen: 42

10 Scoping themes Strong support of rail service in Texas and Oklahoma; some urged for extension into Kansas Strong support of high speed rail; some felt that it was the only possible rail option Concern for increased traffic congestion on highways and associated impacts related to auto travel Strong opposition to rail service that increases taxes or uses highway funds; concerns about government spending Concern for the environment, wildlife, and agricultural impacts Concern for geographic equity; desire for some towns/cities to receive service that is not currently offered

11 Two-Step Process: Screening and Alternative Analysis Step 1 Step 2 Wide range of ideas Feasibility screen: physical constraints Range of feasible ideas Screen #2: screening criteria Range of alternatives to study in EIS Summer 2013/SW #2 Fall 2013/SW #3 Winter 2013

12 Northern Section Alternatives Guiding principles: Serve Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Serve both Dallas and Fort Worth Serve Oklahoma City Build on Heartland Flyer investment

13 Metroplex alternatives Guiding principles Three stop concept from RTC Potential high-speed alignment along IH-30

14 Central Section Alternatives Guiding principles Serve Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Serve both Dallas and Fort Worth Serve Waco Connect to Fort Hood via shuttle Serve Austin and San Antonio (either airport or downtown) Coordinated with Lone Star Rail District

15 Southern Section Alternatives Guiding principles: Connect to San Antonio at VIA Options to serve Rio Grande Valley, Laredo and Corpus Christi Consider connections to Monterrey, Mexico

16 Screening Criteria Development Developed screening criteria that: Link to Purpose and Need statement Reflect public and agency scoping comments Some criteria include a threshold that must be met for an alternative to move forward; others illustrate tradeoffs

17 Screening Criteria: Operations Revenue/operating cost ratio Ridership (in US and to Monterrey) Freight rail benefits Travel times Mode share on rail

18 Screening Criteria: Infrastructure Capital cost/passenger mile Right-of-way/real estate impacts System resiliency/redundancy Access to stations

19 Screening criteria: Environment Natural resources Wetlands Critical habitat Cultural/recreational resources National and state historic places River and stream crossings Parks and open space Social resources Prime farmland Environmental justice populations Sensitive receptors

20 Example matrix to compare alternatives Operational Criteria Maximize ridership/operating cost ratio Maximize annual ridership Ratio of ridership to operating costs (minimum threshold is 50% for conventional, 75% for higher speed, 100% for high speed) Estimated millions of passengers C1 C2/C2A C2/C2B C4/C4A C4/C4B Shared LSRD Greenfield to Austin Airport/Shared LSRD to downtown Austin CONV 60% HrSR 87% 89% 89% 89% HSR 114% 114% 114% 114% CONV 1.3 HrSR HSR CONV Maximize benefits to freight rail Qualitative assessment of freight rail benefits HrSR N/A HSR N/A Reduce travel times (rail min/auto min) CONV Comparison of rail travel times to auto travel times between selected city pairs HrSR 84% 63% 63% 63% 63% Enhance mode share on rail (% of trips using rail) Share of trips using rail between selected city pairs HSR 33% 33% 33% 33% CONV HrSR HSR Central Section Alternative Analysis Summary Legend: High Medium Low * Data under development Infrastructure Criteria Minimize capital cost/passenger mile Minimize right-of-way impacts (acres) Estimated capital costs per passenger mile CONV HrSR HSR Assessment of impacts to private property (same for all service levels) * * * * * * * * * CONV Qualitative assessment of benefits to Improve system resiliency/redundancy overall rail system in terms of redundant HrSR infras tructure N/A HSR N/A Access to stations Total population of cities served by an intermediate station (same for all service levels) 126, , , , ,000 Environmental Criteria (assessment is the same for all service levels) Qualitative assessment of possible impacts on Minimize impacts on natural resources natural resources Qualitative assessment of possible impacts on Minimize impacts on cultural and recreational resources parks and historic sites Qualitative assessment of impacts on Minimize impacts on social resources communities Overall recommendation Remove Advance Advance Advance Advance Results are for comparative purposes only. Model is designed to predict passenger rail demand, and so has limited ability to distinguish between different alternatives. Alternatives analysis results are not intended to be forecasts of anticipated ridership or cost.

21 TxDOT Coordination Districts POCs PIOs (through Communications) Divisions Environmental Division POC Communications (web, media, public involvement) SPD Check out TxDOT website (search TOPRS) Rail Division Project Manager: Mark Werner