Texas High Speed Rail

[BlackDiamond]

They obviously do transportation projects in Texas; I've driven on enough interstate highways across the state passing through rural areas. What's the nature of the opposition? Is it just ornery landowners who don't want a railway nearby, or leaders in the state government who are ideologically opposed to having any intercity passenger rail in Texas, aside from the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited? I can see, based on their political ideology, that passenger rail is not a high priority for spending their state and local tax dollars, but I can't imagine that they're opposed on principle to someone else paying for such a service.

It may be that people can see the advantages of a highway in something they can use so are willing to allow that but perhaps less likely to see the advantages of HSR since there are essentially no examples of one in this country yet.

 

[cirdan]

It may be that people can see the advantages of a highway in something they can use so are willing to allow that but perhaps less likely to see the advantages of HSR since there are essentially no examples of one in this country yet.

I don't know how Texas HSR went about approaching landowners, but I understand that in France and Spain they did a lot of land-swapping deals. So they listened to farmers for example to understand why cutting up this field was going to damage the economic prospects of the entire farm, and then they worked with landowners to re-arramge fields and often offered land instead of (or in addition to) money in compensation so the overall prodiuctivity of farms was not being compromised. On the contrary, many landowners ended up with more land than they had before. It's all fair and well to offer money for land, but from a farmer's perspective, money gets used up over time whereas its the land that supports farming families.

 

[frequentflyer]

I believe Brightline East did have problems with NIMBY's and other antirail types, but not as extreme as found in rural Texas, and because the people running the state government in Florida were supportive of the plan there were viable options for finding a reasonable compromise.


Ironically Disney World is perhaps the clearest and most obvious example of what can be done when you have the state government fully on your side. If Florida had turned on Disney at the stage that Texas turned on the HSR project it's reasonably conceivable there would be no theme parks in Florida.

If Texas Central had actual money to write checks the land owners would have gotten in line. Funny how landowners can deal with gas lines, pipelines, and utilities companies, entities that have money. The rural landowners have stated such. Why sign a contract with someone who promises to pay you someday? No thanks.

And I would not call Florida "passenger rail friendly".

 

[frequentflyer]

This is actually a great suggestion for a multi-use corridor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor

Trans Texas Corridor- Texas tried that idea and it failed. Then Gov. Perry lost the marketing message and it died a political death.

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

When high-speed rail was being implemented in Illinois, the original plan was to eliminate all but 1 railroad crossing in each town the high-speed tracks went through. This idea got a LOT of pushback from all of those towns, especially the small towns like mine, as it would have caused major disruptions to the economic life of those Illinois towns. The eventual compromise solution was to keep all of the crossings open, but to rework the streets so that only 1 street was actually crossing the tracks at each crossing (so no combinations of N/S and E/W streets forming an intersection, with train tracks going diagonally NE to SW through the intersection, as had been the case in my town). So my town now has 2 railroad crossings where a street which used to cross the tracks has been split into 2 sections which each enter the cross street to one side or the other of the tracks. I suppose it's safer, but it messes up the GPS navigation of out-of-town visitors a LOT.
Is the Texas high-speed rail project running into any similar issues with proposals to close most railroad crossings in small towns?

 

[MARC Rider]

When high-speed rail was being implemented in Illinois, the original plan was to eliminate all but 1 railroad crossing in each town the high-speed tracks went through. This idea got a LOT of pushback from all of those towns, especially the small towns like mine, as it would have caused major disruptions to the economic life of those Illinois towns. The eventual compromise solution was to keep all of the crossings open, but to rework the streets so that only 1 street was actually crossing the tracks at each crossing (so no combinations of N/S and E/W streets forming an intersection, with train tracks going diagonally NE to SW through the intersection, as had been the case in my town). So my town now has 2 railroad crossings where a street which used to cross the tracks has been split into 2 sections which each enter the cross street to one side or the other of the tracks. I suppose it's safer, but it messes up the GPS navigation of out-of-town visitors a LOT.
Is the Texas high-speed rail project running into any similar issues with proposals to close most railroad crossings in small towns?

To eliminate the grade crossings, in most cases, all you need is money to build bridges and underpasses. The NEC between Washington and New York used to have a bunch of crossings that are now bridges and underpasses. It costs money, but it's much safer for everybody concerned, and also allows more efficient operation -- one less source of delay to worry about.

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

To eliminate the grade crossings, in most cases, all you need is money to build bridges and underpasses. The NEC between Washington and New York used to have a bunch of crossings that are now bridges and underpasses. It costs money, but it's much safer for everybody concerned, and also allows more efficient operation -- one less source of delay to worry about.

Whether or not bridges & underpasses would work in a particular situation might depend on how close homes and businesses are to the existing crossings. In my town, there are businesses and local government buildings quite close to the tracks, so adjusting/splitting 1 of the streets at a 4-way intersection + tracks caused less displacement to existing structures than bridges & underpasses would have.
On the other hand, the county seat just 20 miles N of me (Morris, IL) has E/W freight tracks crossing just N of its downtown, so the N/S state highway goes over it with a bridge. (There may be N/S side streets with crossing gates still, but the vast majority of N/S traffic uses the state highway's bridge. Certainly no one from out-of-town like me ever crosses those freight tracks by anything but the state highway's bridge!) However, that state highway bridge is over freight tracks, not high-speed rail tracks, and was built a LONG time ago (it was there when the hubby & I first moved to this part of IL almost 40 years ago), so I wouldn't know how the local government in that town decided that a bridge over the freight tracks was the optimum solution in that situation.

 

[cirdan]

When high-speed rail was being implemented in Illinois, the original plan was to eliminate all but 1 railroad crossing in each town the high-speed tracks went through. This idea got a LOT of pushback from all of those towns, especially the small towns like mine, as it would have caused major disruptions to the economic life of those Illinois towns. The eventual compromise solution was to keep all of the crossings open, but to rework the streets so that only 1 street was actually crossing the tracks at each crossing (so no combinations of N/S and E/W streets forming an intersection, with train tracks going diagonally NE to SW through the intersection, as had been the case in my town). So my town now has 2 railroad crossings where a street which used to cross the tracks has been split into 2 sections which each enter the cross street to one side or the other of the tracks. I suppose it's safer, but it messes up the GPS navigation of out-of-town visitors a LOT.
Is the Texas high-speed rail project running into any similar issues with proposals to close most railroad crossings in small towns?

Texas HSR is planning to build everything from scratch. I do not think they will be crossing through any built up areas (except at the two ends). Thus conflicts with urban fabric will be at a minimum. Most of the alignment will be built on what is presently farmland. I do not think there will be any road crossings at grade. I guess existing roads will pass under the line using underpasses. This also enhances safety.

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

I do not think they will be crossing through any built up areas (except at the two ends).

I haven't yet seen a map of the proposed Texas HSR route/routes; does this mean no intermediate stops?

 

[cirdan]

I haven't yet seen a map of the proposed Texas HSR route/routes; does this mean no intermediate stops?

The current version of the plans feature one intermediate stop at Brazos Valley. I understand that stop will be served by a highway connection with parking facilities and that the proposal includes operating a shuttle bus to the nearby college. I do not think the rail line will come near many existing buildings.

 

[joelkfla]

When high-speed rail was being implemented in Illinois, the original plan was to eliminate all but 1 railroad crossing in each town the high-speed tracks went through. This idea got a LOT of pushback from all of those towns, especially the small towns like mine, as it would have caused major disruptions to the economic life of those Illinois towns. The eventual compromise solution was to keep all of the crossings open, but to rework the streets so that only 1 street was actually crossing the tracks at each crossing (so no combinations of N/S and E/W streets forming an intersection, with train tracks going diagonally NE to SW through the intersection, as had been the case in my town). So my town now has 2 railroad crossings where a street which used to cross the tracks has been split into 2 sections which each enter the cross street to one side or the other of the tracks. I suppose it's safer, but it messes up the GPS navigation of out-of-town visitors a LOT.
Is the Texas high-speed rail project running into any similar issues with proposals to close most railroad crossings in small towns?

I don't think you have true HSR in IL. The top speed is what, 110 or 115?

TX HSR is planned to use Shinkansen trains, "Capable of operating at speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour." From the website:

"The Texas High-Speed Train will operate on secure, separate, closed tracks dedicated fully to high-speed passenger trains with no sharing with freight or other passenger rail services, and no dangerous roadway intersections for vehicles, pedestrians or animals to have to cross."

https://www.texascentral.com/project/

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

I don't think you have true HSR in IL. The top speed is what, 110 or 115?

TX HSR is planned to use Shinkansen trains, "Capable of operating at speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour." From the website:

"The Texas High-Speed Train will operate on secure, separate, closed tracks dedicated fully to high-speed passenger trains with no sharing with freight or other passenger rail services, and no dangerous roadway intersections for vehicles, pedestrians or animals to have to cross."

https://www.texascentral.com/project/

True, there are still freight trains using the IL HSR tracks. The passenger trains are faster than they were pre-HSR, though, and one is reminded of that whenever approaching a railroad crossing, by the crossing gates which extend the full width of the street/road, plus crossing gates extending the full width of any adjacent sidewalks, plus fences on both sides of the tracks everywhere within town limits, except at the station platform. We used to have pedestrians take shortcuts crossing the tracks in the middle of a block when streets were closed during a parade (guilty as charged here!), and motorists steering their cars around crossing gates when they were down for extended periods for no obvious reason (NOT something I ever did). Both practices were major safety hazards (and the second was illegal), so the extra fencing and wider crossing gates were absolutely essential for IL "I wanna be HSR when I grow up" to be implemented.

 

[cirdan]

If anybody was willing and able they had a full decade to speak out and sign up so what stopped them? Since no white knight savior ever arrived maybe it's time that we accept what we can see with our own eyes instead of clinging to endless hypotheticals. In order for a company like Brightline to succeed they need a state government that is staunchly supportive of the project rather than one that turns completely against it to placate the NIMBY's.

My criticism is that Amtrak has no magic gold dust up its sleeve, but is weighed down by the drawbacks of being a government entity.

Amtrak may have deep pockets in principle, but needs to spread that money thinly over all its various activities, and so will not somehow be able to magically finance something like Texas HSR where other have failed. I don't know if Amtrak is better positioned to secure loans at advantageous rates than a private company would be (or going to the Texas legislature with a begging bowl for that matter - which would be very unlikely to be successful), but even if Amtrak can pull either of those two possibilities off, or both even, I don't think their advantage will be sufficient to tip the balance. You might think, well maybe Amtrak are not better at raising money but they can spend it more efficiently as they know what they are doing. Unfortunately, I don't see them having experience delivering major projects from scratch, and they don't exactly have a 1A track record of on-budget and on-time project delivery either.

So in short, I fear Amtrak will be encumbered by the same problems that would hold back a private developer, would not be better at raising funds, and would have the additional drawback that project management resources would be diverted from or competing with an already creaking and underfunded system.

The cynic is me says there is an element of opportunism and flavor of the day at play here, seeing (as I said before) the Houston to Dallas corridor has hitherto not even been on Amtrak's radar of potential priorities, with even the thruway bus being quietly discontinued.

It hurts the railfan in me to write this, but the realist says there is a time to stop flogging a dead horse. It is better to concentrate on the battles one can win. Maybe in 10 to 15 years time this project can be revived under better auspices.

 

[jadebenn]

New article from Bloomberg that sheds some insight into Amtrak's gameplan here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-plan-lurches-back-to-life-with-amtrak-s-help

Pay-walled, unfortunately, but there are ways...

Anyway, from Byford's comments here it sounds like they're hoping to get a coalition of Federal funds and grants, discounted bonds (think Brightline), and private investment to get this thing over the finish line. Unsurprisingly, the Texas state government is not expected to spend a single cent on this.

Byford still wants it to be part of the Amtrak "brand," though. My guess is that this might lead to a sort of American Eagle/American Airlines kind of situation where the trains have Amtrak logos, you book through the Amtrak website, but it's not "really" an Amtrak service - at least, not one directly run by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation itself. After all, if they want private investment, there's going to have to be some financial fire-walling between the Texas line and the rest of the network. That doesn't mean Amtrak wouldn't benefit financially, though...

 

[cirdan]

I believe Brightline East did have problems with NIMBY's and other antirail types, but not as extreme as found in rural Texas,

NIMBYs don't only fight back over eminent domain, but object over all sorts of perceived (or real) negative impacts, including noise, increased closing times at crossings. In Florida there were even boat owners trying to stop the project because of increased use of swing bridges. There were also some counties who used the dollars of their taxpayers to fight the project rather than cooperate to gain the greatest advantage.

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

NIMBYs don't only fight back over eminent domain, but object over all sorts of perceived (or real) negative impacts, including noise, increased closing times at crossings. In Florida there were even boat owners trying to stop the project because of increased use of swing bridges. There were also some counties who used the dollars of their taxpayers to fight the project rather than cooperate to gain the greatest advantage.

We had some of that when IL "wanna be HSR when it grows up" was being implemented. Locally, it was complaints about the state of Illinois building a new station (using funds better spent on other things) when local ridership was quite adequately served by the existing historic station. Also about the economic impact of closing small-town railroad crossings, even if they were to be replaced by overpasses/underpasses (which were NOT being offered as an alternative at the time).

 

[cirdan]

Byford still wants it to be part of the Amtrak "brand," though. My guess is that this might lead to a sort of American Eagle/American Airlines kind of situation where the trains have Amtrak logos, you book through the Amtrak website, but it's not "really" an Amtrak service - at least, not one directly run by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation itself. After all, if they want private investment, there's going to have to be some financial fire-walling between the Texas line and the rest of the network. That doesn't mean Amtrak wouldn't benefit financially, though...

Maybe there could also be a separation a bit like Eurotunnel vs Eurostar, with the infrastructure being built, owned and maintained privately and Amtrak paying access fees to run the trains.

 

[eldomtom2]

Maybe there could also be a separation a bit like Eurotunnel vs Eurostar, with the infrastructure being built, owned and maintained privately and Amtrak paying access fees to run the trains.

I was going to say that seems the most likely to me.

 

[George Harris]

If Texas Central had actual money to write checks the land owners would have gotten in line. Funny how landowners can deal with gas lines, pipelines, and utilities companies, entities that have money. The rural landowners have stated such. Why sign a contract with someone who promises to pay you someday? No thanks.

The primary difference between the utilities and the railroad is that the utilities may be a nuisance during construction, but after that is done, you carry on with your farming as if it was not there other than in the case of high voltage electrical lines the transmission towers. Pipelines and other underground utilities, no ponds or structures above them, but otherwise no restraint on normal farming. The nearest you can get to unrestrained crossing access with the railroad is for it to be elevated from end to end. Then you can work around the columns with your equipment , pasture across under it or whatever. You lose some value because of the shade of the structure reduces plant growth, but otherwise after construction is finished it is back to business as usual. My personal viewpoint is that high speed lines should be built elevated wherever they are in reasonably flat country and go to at-grade and tunnels only in mountainous areas as needed to have a high speed alignment. No, do not consider putting the railroad underground throughout. Aside from costing around four times as much to do it, the maintenance will be higher forever.

 

[cirdan]

he nearest you can get to unrestrained crossing access with the railroad is for it to be elevated from end to end. Then you can work around the columns with your equipment , pasture across under it or whatever.

Bridges / viaducts also need maintenance, inspections and site access and if the land underneath is being used by a third party there are liability issues towards the third party. Flat easements or earthworks, on the other hand, are on the railroad's own land (often with an additional buffer strip to either side, carrying an access road) and the railroad can go in when they like and as they like to do inspections and maintenance. In my view elevated alignments on pillars only make sense either if the land is extremely valuable or worthy of protection, making purchase unviable or unacceptable, or or if there are geographical constraints that make this a rational option. For example crossing land that is likely to be flooded frequently.

High voltage power lines face all sorts of issues for example with vegetation. You cannot simply go onto somebody else's land and prune back their trees.

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

High voltage power lines face all sorts of issues for example with vegetation. You cannot simply go onto somebody else's land and prune back their trees.

Someone should tell my local utility company (ComEd) that! Because the family business is next to the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle tracks, utility trucks park in our parking lot on a regular basis to trim tree branches and other vegetation encroaching upon power lines and the railroad's right-of-way -- and they never ask permission before parking in our parking lot.