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

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

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

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

In other action, the T board:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Texas Rail System Plan - TxDOT- Oct. 2005

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 safety bill may affect North Texas

By SCOTT STREATER - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Tue, Jul. 31, 2007
Federal legislation requiring trains carrying hazardous chemicals to avoid densely populated areas could significantly affect Dallas-Fort Worth, which receives more rail shipments of toxic chlorine gas than anywhere in the country.

Congress last week approved a broad Homeland Security bill that requires the U.S. Transportation Department to work with railroads and local leaders nationwide to find the safest routes for hazardous rail cargo, and to reroute it through less-populated areas if possible.

President Bush has pledged to sign the bill as early as this week.

The big concern in Dallas-Fort Worth comes from water and wastewater treatment plants, which store large volumes of chlorine for disinfection and could be an inviting target for terrorists. Chlorine gas released into the air can travel for miles close to the ground at concentrations that can cause permanent lung damage and death.

Millions of people from Fort Worth to Carrollton could be killed or seriously injured by chlorine leaking from a rail car or storage tank, according to federal records. A Star-Telegram review of federal Risk Management Plans in March showed that chlorine -- whether stored on site or shipped by rail car or tanker truck -- is by far the biggest toxic threat in the region, placing more than 1 million people in Tarrant County at risk each day.

Safety advocates praised the legislation, saying the federal government has long needed to address the issue.

A chlorine leak at the Tarrant County Water Supply Project plant in Euless could release 34,400 pounds of chlorine gas, forming a ground-level cloud traveling up to 12 miles and endangering 1.1 million people, according to federal records. At Dallas' Bachman water treatment plant, leaking chlorine could travel 14 miles and place 2 million people at risk.

Both plants have switched to a purification system that injects ozone gas into the water to kill bacteria, officials said. This significantly reduces, but does not eliminate, the chlorine transported to and stored on each site.

THE RISK

Why it's important

A chlorine leak, whether accidental or intentional, is a serious health threat.

A Homeland Security Council report last year concluded that blowing up a chlorine gas tank in a highly populated area could kill 17,500 people, severely injure 10,000 and hospitalize as many as 1 million.

About 100 plants nationwide store enough chlorine or other chemicals to harm at least 100,000 people, federal records say. Texas has 23, the most in the U.S.

What rail carriers say

The Association of American Railroads, an industry trade group, did not oppose the rail car stipulation in the bill. But the group said finding alternative routes is not always possible -- or necessary. The group argues that many of the routes for hazardous material transport are safe.

Instead, the railroad industry has pushed the federal government to require water and wastewater utilities to find alternatives to disinfecting with chlorine, and some high-risk utilities have started to do that.

"Obviously the long-term solution lies in the use of safer chemicals," said Tom White, a railroad group spokesman.

What advocates say

U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said there's no excuse for not addressing the issue.

"These shipments of toxic chemicals are literally 'Hell on Wheels' rolling through our communities," said Markey, D-Mass., in a news release. "This bill ensures that the safest and most secure route must be taken."

THE CHEMICAL

At room temperature, chlorine is a yellow-greenish gas that's heavier than air. It produces a strong, irritating odor, similar to bleach. It is mainly used as bleach in the manufacture of paper and cloth, as well as a disinfectant for drinking water and wastewater.

It was used as a weapon during World War I.

Exposure can cause burning of the eyes and skin, wheezing, blue coloring of the skin and fluid buildup in the lungs. At high levels, it can produce severe eye and skin burns, lung collapse and death.

Source: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Read more

Statistics show less need for Trans Texas Corridor than claimed and Greater use of mass transit in USA

By Faith Chatham - Aug. 4, 2007
Statistics from the FHWA on growth in number of containers shipped from Mexico focuses the question on the premises used to try to sell Texans on construction of the Trans Texas Corridor, one of the major legs of the NAFTA Super Highway.

Statistical evidence shows that traffic in rail containers from Canada has exploded more rapidly than growth in containers from Mexico during the past two decades. The increase in international truck traffic at the US Mexico and US Canadian borders has increased 25% from 1995-2005. During the same period, the increase in international truck traffic at the US Mexico and US Canadian borders increased 25% from 1995-2005. There was about 13% increase in truck traffic from Mexico and about 12% increase in incoming truck traffic from Canada.

Mexican truck traffic increased from 2,860,625 in 1995 to 4,675,887 in 1995; Canadian trucks coming into the US increased from 5,135,010 in 1995 to 6,783,944 in 2005. In 2005: 1,815,262 more trucks came into the US from Mexico than in 1995 and 1,651,934 more trucks came into the US from Canada than in 1995 than in 1995, yet over three times more containers entered the USA from Canada in 2005 by rail than entered from Mexico.

Although the number of miles of border between Canada and the USA is about the same as the miles of border between the USA and Mexico, a significantly larger number of rail containers and trucks enter the USA from Canada than from Mexico each year.
The need for improved freight shipment corridors from the Mexican border through Texas appears to be less critical to the economic welfare of Texas than linking Texas cities by rail and improving Texas’s internal traffic congestion.

INVESTMENTS IN MOVING PEOPLE
More transportation dollars are invested in highways and bridges in the United States than in any other mode of transportation. Statistical evidence proves that an increasing number of Americans who own automobiles are becoming users of mass transit. With air pollution escalating, local, state and national transportation planners and legislators need to devote more resources toward moving people than moving vehicles.

The safest mode of transportation per passenger mile traveled in the USA is shown statistically to be rail. A larger percentage of local, state and federal transportation dollars should be invested in passenger rail. Passenger rail in this nation needs to improve its on-time efficiency and infrastructure should be created to service more citizens, offering additional service between places where significant numbers of commuters currently travel by automobile.

PROBLEMS WITH EFFICIENCY
Efficiency in passenger rail in the USA is hampered by host railroads. Host railroads control the tracks. Statistics from 2000-2005 from the US Bureau of Transportation shows that the number of hours of delay for AMTRAK passenger trains rose from 70,396 annually in 2000 to 95,259 annually in 2005. Most of those delays (43,881 hours in 2000 and 64,097 hours in 2005) are attributed to operation delays of host railroads, such as track and signal related delays, power failures, freight and commuter train interference, routing delays, freight train interference, and track repair/condition delays. In 2005 25,549 hours of delay for AMTRAK passenger trains were attributed to AMTRAK's operating problems on AMTRAK's own tracks (delays for equipment or engine failure, passenger handling, holding for connections, train servicing and mail/baggage handling when on tracks of a host railroad). Problems caused by the host railroad resulted in 64,097 hours of AMTRAK passenger train delay during 2005. That same year, 5,613 hours of delay for AMTRAK Passenger trains were caused by weather, immigration, law enforcement or waiting for scheduled departure times. [SOURCE: 2000-2005 - AMTRAK, personal communication, November 2006 - U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Reported Dec. 2006]

Host railroads have decreased in efficiency. In 2000, 2001 and 2002 about half of the delays were caused by problems with the host railroad. The percentage of hours of delay for AMTRAK passenger trains attributed to host railroad problems escalated by 75% between 2000 and 2005.

AMTRAK TRAINS ARRIVING ON TIME - 1995-2005
In 1995 AMTRAK's system on-time performance was 76%. Shorter distance routes are more frequently on-time than routes over 400 miles. In 1995 long distance routes (over 400 miles) were only on-time 57% of the time while shorter routes were on-time 81% of the time. Performance has declined. In 2005 AMTRAK's on-time performance system-wide was 70%. Trains were on-time 74% of the time on routes under 400 miles and were on-time 42% of the time on routes over 400 miles. [SOURCES: 1995-1999 - National Railroad Passenger Corp. (AMTRAK), Amtrak Annual Report (Washington, DC annual issue). 2000-2005- Amtrak, personal communication, November 2006. US Bureau of Transportation Statistics Dec. 2006]

AMTRAK ridership increased about 25% from 1995 to 2005. From 1994 to 2004 the number of passenger miles for all modes of mass transit increased about 20% (from 39,585 passenger miles in 1994 to 49,073 passenger miles in 2004). Passenger rail ridership (all modes - heavy rail, commuter rail and light rail) increased over 25% from 1994 to 2005. In the early 1990ies buses carried more passengers than rail; by 1996 the number of rail passengers had exceeded the number of miles traveled by passengers on buses. Bus and rail ridership continues to grow. Passenger train ridership has grown more rapidly than bus ridership.

COST OF OWNING A VEHICLE
Operating an automobile has become more costly. Before the rapid rise in gasoline prices, the cost of operating a car had already increased. Data from 1994 shows the average cost per mile for owning and operating an automobile was 39 cents. In 2004 it had risen to 56 cents per mile. Gasoline price (regular) rose from $1.15 per gallon in 1995 to $2.30 per gallon in 2005. The increase in mass transit fares (all modes - domestic air, commuter rail, city and intercity buses and intercity rail) only rose 20% from 1995 to 2005 while the cost of operating a vehicle increased about 33% during the same period.

MASS TRANSIT RIDERSHIP INCREASED AMONG HOUSEHOLDS OWNING A CAR
While 2% fewer households were without a vehicle in 2005 than in 1993, mass transit ridership increased about 20% nationwide (1993-2005). [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States, H150 (Washington, DC: Biennial issues) and US Bureau of Transportation Statistics Dec. 2006 Report.]

MOST DEADLY MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
During the decade 1995-2005 fatalities in passenger cars and light trucks in the USA totaled 261,068. During that same decade 411 bus passengers died, and there were 72 fatalities on trains. (This does not include deaths at rail crossings). In the decade 1995-2005 there were 6,737 air carrier fatalities.

Injured passengers from air accidents numbered 4,146 during the 1995-2005 decade. On surface modes of transportation, rail passengers were less likely to be injured than bus or passenger car/light truck passengers. During the 1995-2005 decade a total of 108,871 rail passengers were injured in the USA while 191,000 bus passengers were injured. During that same time frame a total of 31,499,000 passengers in automobiles and light trucks were injured in the United States.

Federal, state and local governments continue to invest heavily in roads and bridges while statistics shows that all modes of mass transit are safer than personal automobiles. The safest mode of surface transportation is rail. During the decade (1995-2005) 31 million more passengers were injured in passenger cars and light trucks than were injured in all the air and mass transit accidents combined in the USA. (31,499,000 injuries in passenger cars and light trucks compared to 304,017 total injuries in the decade from air, rail and bus passengers combined). These statistics do not include injuries to non-passengers in the transit station or at rail crossings or airline terminals.

CONCLUSIONS
Greater investment in passenger rail and mass transit should produce greater safety per passenger mile traveled than investments in highways.

Although there has been less growth in the number of containers shipped from Canada in the last decade than those shipped from Mexico, shipping out of Canada into the USA exceeds that from Mexico. There has been a total 25% increase in trucks entering the USA (13% increase from Mexico and 12% from Canada) during the decade, yet the number of trucks entering from Canada each year far exceeds the number of trucks entering the USA from Mexico. Examining traffic flows from the USA to Mexico and Canada would give a fuller picture. Examination of the data shows that the Mexican/ Texas border is less critical to international shipping than the Canadian/USA border.

There appears to be greater need for increased investment in Texas to move people and goods within Texas than to move people and goods in and out of the Texas/Mexico border.

Greater investments should be made in rail infrastructure to link major Texas cities and trade centers. Investments in commuter rail, light rail and heavy passenger can minimize the need for highway expansion. Commuter rail between cities and light rail for inner city passenger transit service could relieve highway congestion, assist non-air quality attainment areas improving air quality, while reducing deaths and injuries per passenger mile traveled.
The cost per passenger mile traveled on mass transit has risen less rapidly than the cost per passenger mile traveled in personal automobiles and light trucks during the past decade. Without adding “surplus toll revenue” to fares to pay for toll road corridors, the cost per mile traveled by automobile has escalated rapidly during the past decade. Investment in efficient passenger rail can improve air quality, reduce the number of injuries and fatalities per passenger mile traveled in the USA, and help the economy by slowing the rate of inflation caused by transportation costs.

Faith Chatham is a retired policy analyst/ newspaper woman, who edits and publishes DFW REGIONAL CONCERNED CITIZENS, The Arlington Texan, Grassroots News U Can Use, Texas Rail and People, Power, Profit – Healthcare & Insurance. A graduate of The University of Texas at Arlington, she studied in a the UTA School of Business, Graduate School of Political Science, UTA Urban Institute and Center for Post Soviet and European Studies. She has researched policy at the Hoover Institute of War and Peace and in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics..

Minneapolis bridge collapses, seven dead - cuts freight train in half

REUTERS - The WEST.com.au - World news - 2nd August 2007
A bridge carrying a major highway in the US state of Minnesota has collapsed during rush hour, plunging vehicles into a river and killing at least seven people.

Many more are feared dead in the disaster in the city of Minneapolis, with up to 50 cars and other vehicles on the bridge when it suddenly buckled and plunged 20 metres.

Many of the vehicles were thrown into the Mississippi River when the 150-metre section of the structure collapsed.

"At this point we have seven confirmed fatalities, and we expect that number to go up as well," said Jim Clack, the Minneapolis Fire Chief.

Hospital officials say at least one of the dead drowned.

Clack said more than 60 people had been rushed to hospital. Earlier reports said at least six survivors had sustained critical injuries.

Rescue operations were called off when darkness fell, because it was simply too dangerous to continue.

"We have moved from a rescue mode ... to a recovery mode," Clack said, suggesting emergency crews did not expect to find anyone else alive.

Survivors have told of realising in horror that there were cars in freefall as the 40-year-old bridge - which was under repair at the time - came crashing down in a thunderous roar.

The structure plunged about 20 metres into the river and onto concrete embankments. It also fell across a rail line, cutting a freight train in half, WCCO television reported.

The collapse sparked fires among the debris of the bridge, and left trucks and cars clinging precariously to sections of the structure, which protruded from the river at alarming angles.

A group of school children managed to escape after their bus literally bounced along a section of the bridge before hitting a concrete barrier. The children fled to safety through the rear door, but news reports said some of the students had been injured, two critically.

Ryan Watkins, one of the children who was on the school bus, said the bus bounced twice and stopped, its front door wedged against a concrete traffic barrier. The students fled through the rear door.

Melissa Hughes, 32, who was driving home across the bridge in bumper to bumper traffic, said she experienced a moment of pure terror when she realised her car was falling.

"You know that free fall feeling? I felt that twice," said Hughes, who was not injured. A pickup truck ended up on top of her car, partially crushing the top and back end but she was able to escape.

Peter Siddons was also heading home when he heard "crunching" and saw the bridge start to roll and then crumple, he told the Star Tribune.

"It kept collapsing, down, down, down until it got to me."

His car dropped with the steel arch bridge but stopped when his car rolled into the car in front of him.

"I thought I was dead," Siddons said. "Honestly, I honestly did. I thought it was over."

Truck driver Charles Flowers, who saw the collapse from banks of the river, said he watched helplessly as water began to fill floating cars, and people - injured and dazed - yelled for help.

He and several others ran down the riverbank and he pulled a woman from the water, but he did not believe she survived.

In Washington, Department of Homeland Security officials said there was no sign that the eight-lane bridge's collapse was the result of terrorism, adding that it appeared to be linked to engineering problems.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said the bridge - which the state transport agency said carries 200,000 cars a day - was last inspected in 2006 and no significant structural problems were found.

"They notified us from an engineering standpoint the deck may have to be rehabilitated or replaced in 2020 or beyond," he said.

There was, however, construction taking place on the bridge "relating to concrete repair and rehabilitation and replacement, guard rail replacement, righting replacement and work on the joints," he said.

It was a disastrous scene as injured people crouched on bent and crumpled concrete with parts of the bridge submerged in the brown river as smoke and flames drifted from the wreckage.

Rescue workers tied with yellow rope waded through the water and used boats to reach people stranded in the middle of the river.

Sarah Fahnhorst, who lives in an apartment a block away from the bridge, heard a huge thud and then "the entire building shook. It shook the ground," she said.

Dr Joseph Clifton told reporters that his hospital, Hennepin County Medical Centre, had taken in 22 injured, six of them critical.

One man was dead on arrival, having drowned.

"Most were blunt-type injuries, in the face and extremities," Clifton said, adding many suffered internal injuries.

More patients, and deaths, were expected, he said.

There have been no reports of Australians involved in the horrific bridge collapse in the United States, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says.

"My condolences go to the Americans," Downer told reporters in Manila where he is attending a regional forum.

Some 8km of the Mississippi River on either side of the collapsed bridge have been shut to river traffic, the US Coast Guard said.

The river, the longest in the United States, is a major transportation route.

Trains involved in Minnesota Bridge Collapse - Timeline

Channel 4000 -August 1, 2007 - Updated August 2, 2007
MINNEAPOLIS -- 6:05 p.m. -- The entire span of the 35W bridge collapses where the freeway crosses the river near University Avenue. Tons of concrete collapse, and people are injured. Survivors are being carried up the riverbank.

6:08 p.m. -- Some people are stranded on parts of the bridge that aren't completely in the water. A tractor-trailer is on fire at the collapse scene. Dozens of rescue vehicles arrive. Divers are also in the water.

6:10 p.m. -- A school bus had just crossed the bridge before it collapsed. The bus did not go into the water, and broadcast reports indicate the children on the bus exited out the back door. Christine Swift's daughter, Kaleigh, 10, is on the school bus, returning from a field trip. Swift says her daughter called her screaming, "The bridge collapsed."

6:15 p.m. -- Aerial shots from local television stations show the entire span of Interstate 35W had crumpled into the river below.
Read entire timeline and see map
See slideslow at above link