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
Posts
