TEXAS-OKLAHOMA PASSENGER RAIL STUDY TPP Planning Conference 2014
Funding for the Project Study is funded through a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Grant. Original grant application for the corridor running from Oklahoma City, OK to South Texas and was $14,000,000. FRA approved $7,000,000 for the corridor between Oklahoma City and Dallas/Fort Worth. We convinced the FRA that we needed to study the entire corridor and they agreed if we had a way to pay for the additional work. Agreements were signed with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the North Central Texas Council of Governments for in kind services for constraints mapping, ridership information and public out reach assistance along with other TxDOT contracts for infrastructure evaluation to allow us to complete the necessary work. 2
Public Outreach Public Outreach Goals Get the word out to as many people as possible Project Website Social Media Extensive stakeholder list Project News Letter Public Meetings Avoid Confusion with other studies and plans Identify groups that might oppose the project and reach out early Texas Farm Bureau South Texas Property Rights Assoc. Environmental Groups Class 1 Railroads Avoid confusion other studies and plans 3
Why study rail between Oklahoma and South Texas? IH-35 is congested and will continue to get more congested as Texas population and economy grow. Passenger rail service could fit the needs of many travelers and reduce demand on the state s roadways. Study will provide a blueprint for feasible rail improvements. 4
A big question about our process These questions will be answered through the study: Is improved passenger rail a good idea? What kind of passenger rail service is feasible? What are the costs, impacts, and benefits of passenger rail service? What cities would be served by passenger rail? These questions will not be answered through the study: Where would new rail be constructed? What would the impacts be to specific properties? When would new service be available? Exactly where would stations be located?
Different kinds of service Conventional rail (mostly uses existing tracks) Higher speed rail (some dedicated tracks) High speed rail (fully dedicated tracks) Speed (miles per hour) Maximum: 70-90 mph Average: 45-60 mph Maximum: 110-125 mph Average: 70-85 mph Maximum: 165-220 mph Average: 100-140 mph Stops/ frequency Stops 15 to 60 miles apart 3-6 trains/day each direction (no more than 12) Stops 30 to 90 miles apart 4-8 trains/day each direction (as many as 12) Stops 50 to 100+ miles apart 12-24 trains/day each direction Common Attributes: Single or double deck trains, stations with parking, operation on existing or dedicated tracks 6
How we got here Step 1: screening Wide range of ideas Feasibility screen: physical constraints Step 2: alternatives analysis Range of feasible ideas Step #2: evaluation criteria Range of alternatives to study in EIS 7
How we compared alternatives Green: Strength or benefit Yellow: Some benefit Red: Weakness or drawback 8
Public Meeting Display Boards 9
Screening criteria: operations Revenue/operating cost ratio Tells us if a route would require a subsidy to operate Minimum thresholds must be met for alternatives to move forward Travel times Comparison of rail travel time to auto travel time between cities Mode share on rail % of people who would choose rail as opposed to other modes for their trip 10
Screening criteria: infrastructure Capital cost Per passenger mile Right-of-way/real estate impacts A representation of possible impacts to private property based on whether or not a route uses existing transportation rights-of-way 11
Screening criteria: environment Natural resources Wetlands Critical habitat Cultural/recreational resources National and state historic places Potential archeological sites Parks and open space Social resources Prime farmland Sensitive receptors (homes, schools, hospitals) potentially affected by noise or vibration Environmental Justice populations 12
ALTERNATIVES Northern Section 13
Northern Section 14
Northern Section 15
Northern Section 16
ALTERNATIVES Central Section 17
Central Section 18
Central Section 19
Central Section 20
What could Metroplex train service look like?
ALTERNATIVES Southern Section 22
Southern Section 23
Southern Section 24
Southern Section 25
Southern Section 26
ALTERNATIVES Recommended for further evaluation 27
Proposed Alternatives 28
Study Products Service Level Environmental Document and ROD Tier 1 environmental planning level study Document corridor level environmental impacts of the service 30,000 foot look at the corridor impacts to specific locations are not part of the document Service Development Plan Detail the type appropriate type of service in the corridor Develop train schedules and frequencies Detail operation and maintenance cost for the service types Order of magnitude infrastructure costs www.txokrail.org 29
Questions? Questions? 30