North Texas cities must wait for rail

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

Capital Metro Rails Rails first commuter rail cars arrive

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

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

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

Passenger rail privatization: A lesson from Japan

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

Texas Rail System Plan - TxDOT- Oct. 2005

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

Rail options split transit board - Cost, convenience among factors in deciding 2 routes

By JAY PARSONS - The Dallas Morning News - Thursday, March 31, 2005
Two long-awaited commuter rail options divide Denton County's landscape like scissors. They also have split a 12-member board that must select the best proposal for commuters craving efficient mass transit.
A divided Denton County Transportation Authority may be tilted by the municipalities least affected by commuter rail, notably The Colony and Little Elm. Officials from those areas say they would probably favor the cheaper route.
Which route that will be remains unclear. The authority will release a report next month outlining the costs and impacts of both routes. From there, the board will hold public hearings, choose a route and apply for federal funding in hopes of constructing most of the rail line by 2011.
Both start in Denton and connect to Dallas Area Rapid Transit in Carrollton, linking to a planned DART stop and connecting Denton County commuters with downtown Dallas. One route hugs Interstate 35E; the other traces the Kansas City Southern (KCS) rail line to the west, through Copper Canyon and Highland Village.
City councils in Denton and Highland Village didn't wait for the study's release to pass resolutions urging DCTA to choose a route.
Denton favors the I-35E option, hoping it will spur development. Highland Village wants the KCS line, believing it could lure shoppers to its future commercial corridor at FM407 and FM2499.
The two routes merge in northern Lewisville, so the county's second-biggest city will choose a route based on technology and costs, said DCTA Chairman Charles Emery, who represents Lewisville.
Choosing a route is more complicated than scanning a map. Each route has obstacles:
•Denton's choice is the former Missouri-Kansas-Texas rail line along I-35E. Most of that line was removed years ago, creating nine miles of nature trails through Corinth.
DART owns most of the right of way, leaving this route fewer obstacles.
"MKT serves the heart of the congestion," said Tom Spencer, who lives in Shady Shores and represents small cities on DCTA. "We're filled in here. My personal feelings are you serve the growth you have, that just
makes sense."
Highland Village's choice is the KCS rail line, still owned and operated by the rail company. DCTA could try to buy the line or lease it during certain hours. A second line would be built for two-way traffic.
This option is clouded by KCS. Freight lines are more crowded than ever, and KCS will not negotiate until DCTA chooses this route.

"It would be a great incentive for people to relocate to Highland Village," said City Manager Michael Leavitt, a DCTA member. "This is a very corporate city with people used to the L in Chicago or the Metro in D.C."
Highland Village also hopes a rail station near the FM407 and FM2499 intersection would attract shoppers – and sales tax revenue – to a planned commercial corridor.
Highland Village hopes the KCS line will woo Flower Mound and Corinth. The Highland Village station would be very close to the Flower Mound border.
A Flower Mound DCTA member said he will follow the orders of the City Council, which has yet to discuss the routes.
Corinth sides with Highland village. The city would keep its nature trail and be within easy driving distance of the Highland Village station once the FM2499 extension connects the cities.
"A Highland Village station will at least provide some access to Corinth commuters living on the western side of the city without hurting the lifestyle of people on the eastern side," said Paul Ruggiere, a Corinth DCTA member.
The Corinth City Council will vote Thursday on a resolution supporting the KCS line, said Mayor Vic Burgess, who said he strongly favors that route.
At least four DCTA board members indicated they would favor the MKT line. Most reasoned: That's where most of the population is. If Flower Mound sides with Highland Village, the KCS line should get at least three votes.
That leaves five other board members. Two could not be reached, and three said they are undecided. The biggest factor for the undecided cities will be cost, representatives from The Colony and Little Elm said.
"If we don't get matching funds, we're not going anywhere," said Randy Hunt, who lives near Krum and represents unincorporated territory. "A half-cent sales tax isn't enough to make anything happen."
A preliminary DCTA cost estimate for the rail line was $240 million.
Three cities – Denton, Highland Village and Lewisville – are contributing sales taxes for the commuter rail.
DCTA officials hope most of the money will come from state bonds and federal funding.

Read more

N. Texas cities can't hop on light-rail bill

Legislature: Bid to let voters decide sales tax to join transit systems fails
By JAKE BATSELL - The Dallas Morning News - Thursday, May 24, 2007

AUSTIN – A last-ditch attempt to add more cities to North Texas' commuter rail network failed to make it through the House on Wednesday.

An amendment authored by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, would have allowed cities to seek voter permission to raise the local sales tax by a penny to join transit systems. But after an objection Wednesday by Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, the amendment was struck down on a technicality.

House leaders ruled that Mr. Carona's amendment was not germane to the original bill, which would create a light-rail district in South Texas. Mr. Carona argued that both involved transit taxes.

Read more