# Texas high-speed rail: public scoping meetings; possible routes



## beautifulplanet

Three of six public scoping meetings for Texas high-speed rail already took place, in Dallas (October 21), Corsicana (October 22), Teague (yesterday, October 23).

Three meetings are still coming up.

- in Bryan on October 27, see here:

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/rail/102714.html

- in Huntsville on October 28, see here:

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/rail/102814.html

- in Houston on October 29, see here:

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/rail/102914.html

Here is TCR's invitation to the meetings:

http://texascentral.com/lets-talk-join-us-to-discuss-bringing-high-speed-rail-to-texas/

To some, the press coverage about the past meetings might be interesting, as possible routes and stations for Texas high-speed rail are being discussed.

The detailed route maps can be found not on TCR's website, but on a special website for the environmental impact statement (EIS):

http://dallashoustonhsr.com/maps-and-pictures/

For example, there are the two alternatives selected for detailed evaluation:







Regarding station locations, many people seem to think that the stations should be at Union Station in Dallas, and in the downtown of Houston as well. That's why some people might be disappointed to hear that while a station could be in downtown Dallas, it won't be at Union Station, according to a statement by a TCR official to be found in an article in the Texas Tribune:



> No Texas Central Railway officials spoke at the meeting, though company officials did speak with attendees and reporters before and after the hearing.
> 
> Travis Kelly, the company’s vice president of government relations, said Union Station was likely “too built out” for the train to have its station there, but he added that five other downtown Dallas locations were under review. He said the company considered potential ridership demand a central factor in selecting station locations, but that other issues — such as the company's ability to develop land around a station — were also playing into its decisions.


source:

First Bullet Train Meeting Focuses on Station Locations

Oct. 21, 2014

By Aman Batheja

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/21/first-bullet-train-meeting-station-locations/

Another very informative report comes from public media organization Kera News:

Possible Routes, Stops Unveiled For Dallas-Houston High-Speed Rail

Oct. 21, 2014

By Bill Zeeble

http://keranews.org/post/possible-routes-stops-unveiled-dallas-houston-high-speed-rail

Among other things, it states:



> With an estimated cost north of $10 billion, they’re also looking for more investors.
> 
> If all goes well, the first train will carry passengers by 2021.





Of course, the Fort Worth Star Telegram published an editorial, that high-speed rail should also offer service to Fort Worth, not only between Dallas and Houston:

FW must not be forgotten as Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail plans unfold

Wednesday, Oct 22, 2014

by Editorial Board

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/10/22/6222855/fw-must-not-be-forgotten-as-dallas.html

Some might think that it's good to be clear, that any high speed rail infrastructure between Dallas and Fort Worth will not be built with private funding by Texas Central Railway or their partners. Texas Central Railway and their partners will have enough to do between to raise $10 billion of private capital to build high-speed rail between Dallas and Houston. Probably Texas Central Railway would be willing to operate high-speed rail service between Fort Worth and Dallas as well once it is built, but it has to be built with public funding. Above Forth Worth Star Telegram editorial estimates that the cost for the segment between Fort Worth and Dallas could be $4 billion. Many may wish for all the public entities, no matter if the local communities, the state of Texas, as well as the federal level, to be able to allocate full funding for such high-speed rail infrastructure between Fort Worth and Dallas in a collaborative effort, as some might think it should be done for other routes mentioned in the editorial.


----------



## Tokkyu40

Fort Worth to Dallas is only 35 miles. It wouldn't be worth the trouble to put in HSR for such a short run.
If it were on the way to somewhere with a long enough run for the speed advantage to justify the expense it might be worth building.


----------



## Anderson

Tokkyu40 said:


> Fort Worth to Dallas is only 35 miles. It wouldn't be worth the trouble to put in HSR for such a short run.
> 
> If it were on the way to somewhere with a long enough run for the speed advantage to justify the expense it might be worth building.


Fort Worth and Dallas are probably large enough to at least consider service to both. You wouldn't have a lot of local traffic between the two unless Texas Central slashed fares to fill dead space (though to be fair, an actually-fast train running more or less express from downtown to downtown could drum up a modest pile of business to fill that space) and Fort Worth's service might actually be a separate line, but the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is massive enough to entertain some sort of expansion in this vein.


----------



## jis

A 35 mile line is crying out for a showcase Japanese Maglev :help:


----------



## Tokkyu40

Trinity Railway Express already runs between the two cities in about an hour. The time savings on such a short trip wouldn't justify the cost of building the ROW.
Abilene and Odessa aren't big enough to support a high speed run to El Paso and there aren't enough passengers to justify a run to the panhandle, although a conventional line through Wichita Falls and Amarillo to Pueblo or Denver might make sense. I don't see the passenger density to justify HSR.


----------



## Anderson

Tokkyu40:
Agreed on the panhandles. San Antonio is big enough to justify a connection, and that honestly seems more likely than not in the longer term (especially if the line can be run via Austin as well). Beyond that...well, if the Mexicans kick in, a Monterrey/Laredo line might make sense if Mexico ever settles down. The Mexicans do seem to want that line to happen. Beyond that, though, the big cities in Texas are a long way from anywhere major. Only Oklahoma City seems like it might work en route to elsewhere, and even that seems to be a bit of a stretch.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Thank you for your post.



Tokkyu40 said:


> Trinity Railway Express already runs between the two cities in about an hour. The time savings on such a short trip wouldn't justify the cost of building the ROW.


Correct, TRE runs between Dallas and Fort Worth. At the same time, many might disagree on the notion that the time savings wouldn't be significant. During the mid-day on weekdays, TRE only runs every 2 hours. On Saturdays, TRE in general only runs every 1 1/2 to 2 hours. There's no Sunday service at all. Practically that would mean, future travelers would be getting from Houston to Dallas in 90 minutes, and Central Texas Railway already pretty much indicated its Dallas terminus will not be at current station, possibly close to it, but not at it. This would leave passengers for Fort Worth to spend extra time for transportation from the high-speed rail station to the TRE platform. If future riders would be lucky, that could be 10 minutes. Then, there would be extra transfer time, as Central Texas Railway will run 34 times a day in each direction on weekdays, so probably every hour with extra runs during peak hours. In order to not mention the worst case of having to wait 2 hours for TRE, maybe the future rider will only have to calculate in 30 minutes as transfer time. And then, the passenger for Fort Worth would have to spend a full hour on a commuter train to Fort Worth. So 90 minutes from Houston to Dallas, and then 10+30+60 minutes from Dallas to Fort Worth. Many might think (f.e. the Forth Worth Star Telegram editorial board mentioned above) that the benefits of a quick 18 minute hop from Dallas to Forth Worth as part of a one-seat ride Houston to Forth Worth would be significant. With Fort Worth alone having a population of more than three quarters of a million, and whole Tarrant County more than 2 million, some might think that would be a significant ridership base to tap into.

About building the Dallas to Fort Worth high-speed rail infrastructure:



Tokkyu40 said:


> The time savings on such a short trip wouldn't justify the cost of building the ROW.


Many might think - "wouldn't justify the cost" is statement that might apply or not apply depending on to whom the cost would have to be justified. So as said above:



> Some might think that it's good to be clear, that any high speed rail infrastructure between Dallas and Fort Worth will not be built with private funding by Texas Central Railway or their partners. Texas Central Railway and their partners will have enough to do between to raise $10 billion of private capital to build high-speed rail between Dallas and Houston. Probably Texas Central Railway would be willing to operate high-speed rail service between Fort Worth and Dallas as well once it is built, but it has to be built with public funding.


Of course Dallas to Fort Worth high-speed rail will not be worth it for Texas Central Railway and their partners to build the infrastructure - understandably, they just look at the tens of thousands of people commuting between Dallas and Houston daily, and want to capture that market, and make a profit (many might think that of course high-speed rail between Dallas and Houston will show operating profits, still to be profitable when also considering in the $10 billion of infrastructure investment made first might be more challenging).

So many might think Texas Central Railway and their partners made it clear repeatedly that they will not construct any Fort Worth to Dallas high-speed rail infrastructure, instead - to say it once again  - it would have to be built with public funding.

Here's a quote out of a newspaper article from a couple of months ago about the possible future Fort Worth-Dallas high-speed rail line:



> “We have to put our big boy pants on and think of the entire state at one time,” said North Central Texas Council of Governments Director of Transportation Michael Morris.
> 
> If the high-speed rail is brought to DFW, the 200 mph train could get you from Fort Worth to Dallas in roughly 18 minutes. If you want to travel from Fort Worth to Houston your trip would be roughly 90 minutes.
> 
> Commissioners said the Metroplex, which is supposed to reach a population of 11 million by 2040, needs more options for transportation.
> 
> “You work hard because it’s important,” said Meadows. “It’s important for moving people of this region and this state."


source:

Plans Announced for High-Speed Rail to Houston
May 7, 2014

By Josh Ault

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Plans-Announced-for-High-Speed-Rail-to-Houston-258316161.html


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Why bother? When's it gonna get built anyway? I'm sick and tired of reading walls of text that don't really make a difference. You just got blocked, "beutifulplanet". I'm saving my IQ and my time!


----------



## beautifulplanet

This is about the local rail connection in Dallas and connections to high-speed rail, so it also could be posted in the commuter/light rail forum. Still, as the developments are due to high-speed rail, here is a link to a report including a map of a possible future high-speed rail station and rail improvements in downtown Dallas:

Possible high-speed rail quickens Dallas transit plans

November 9, 2014

By Brandon Formby

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20141109-possible-high-speed-rail-quickens-dallas-transit-plans.ece


----------



## Anderson

Looking at the map...well, at the very least it seems like while the HSR stop might not be _at_ Union Station, a stop a block or two away wouldn't be the end of the world, and moving things a block or two for a lot of money probably wouldn't be worth it. You'd still need an inter-station transfer, but this sort of one is eminently walkable.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anderson said:


> Tokkyu40:
> 
> Agreed on the panhandles. San Antonio is big enough to justify a connection, and that honestly seems more likely than not in the longer term (especially if the line can be run via Austin as well). Beyond that...well, if the Mexicans kick in, a Monterrey/Laredo line might make sense if Mexico ever settles down. The Mexicans do seem to want that line to happen. Beyond that, though, the big cities in Texas are a long way from anywhere major. Only Oklahoma City seems like it might work en route to elsewhere, and even that seems to be a bit of a stretch.


San Antonio's politicians are in the process of changing the city charter in order to permanently discourage future rail projects by adding new requirements and mandatory delays for passenger rail projects that no other form of transportation will be required to abide by. Is it possible for a city to prevent a state level project from being able to build tracks and/or stations within the city limits?


----------



## Anderson

Devil's Advocate said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tokkyu40:
> 
> Agreed on the panhandles. San Antonio is big enough to justify a connection, and that honestly seems more likely than not in the longer term (especially if the line can be run via Austin as well). Beyond that...well, if the Mexicans kick in, a Monterrey/Laredo line might make sense if Mexico ever settles down. The Mexicans do seem to want that line to happen. Beyond that, though, the big cities in Texas are a long way from anywhere major. Only Oklahoma City seems like it might work en route to elsewhere, and even that seems to be a bit of a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> San Antonio's politicians are in the process of changing the city charter in order to permanently discourage future rail projects by adding new requirements and mandatory delays for passenger rail projects that no other form of transportation will be required to abide by. Is it possible for a city to prevent a state level project from being able to build tracks and/or stations within the city limits?
Click to expand...

A lot of that depends on a whole lot of legalese going on in a state that I'm not familiar with. I could answer that question in Virginia (the short answer is that Richmond would have to sign on) and might have a shot in Florida depending on the circumstances, but not in Texas. I'm also not sure what's actually being planned...if this is aimed at light rail, commuter rail, etc. I strongly suspect that messing with light rail would be easier than screwing with an intercity project.


----------



## beautifulplanet

One could think, there are so many rail-related projects going on in the Dallas area, that sometimes it may be difficult to stay ahead of it.

There is:

1) Texas Central Railways' privately built high-speed rail in the planning phase right now, Dallas to Houston.

2) Seperate from that, there are studies for what's called the DFW Core Express, so a future publicly built high-speed rail connection from whereever TCR's station in Dallas might be, to Fort Worth via Arlington.

3) And then, finally, there are plans for local rail improvements by DART (see labove), so regarding light-rail and streetcar in downtown Dallas (see this post above).

Some might have the impression, it was also difficult to seperate all of these things for the Dallas Business Journal.

To make it clear, public scoping meetings took place recently for 1) TCR's private high-speed rail Dallas to Houston (see first post in this thread).

In the next days, public scoping meetings will take place for 2) DFW Core Express, a possible future public high-speed rail connecting to TCRs, from Dallas to Fort Worth.

The exact times and places for the meetings are mentioned in the following Dallas Business Journal article:

Meetings will show stations, routes for Dallas to Fort Worth bullet train

November 12, 2014

By Nicholas Sakelaris

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2014/11/12/meetings-will-show-stations-routes-for-dallas-to.html?page=all

Here is the link to the official DFW Core Express website by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT):

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/dfw-core-express.html

In other news, 1) Texas Central Railways' high-speed rail in the planning phase right now, Dallas to Houston - recently got its first official opposition:



> But at least one county is working to derail the project. Monday, Leon County approved a resolution protesting the railway.
> 
> Leon County Judge Byron Ryder says people in his area and neighboring counties are upset by the proposal for a number of reasons.
> 
> “It's not going to stop in Leon County, so it's not going to help Leon County whatsoever,” say Judge Ryder. “The other reason is that I've talked to two different appraisal people and they tell me without any hesitation that it'll definitely lower our property values because people are not going to move into the county if they're close to a high-speed rail."
> 
> Texas central railway is working with the federal railroad administration and TxDOT on an 18 month environmental study to see how it would impact communities. They hope to begin construction as soon as 2017 but will hold public hearings before they do.


source:

Area county opposes high-speed rail from Dallas to Houston

November 11, 2014

By Kristianna Gross

http://www.kxxv.com/story/27348595/county-opposes-high-speed-rail-from-dallas-to-houston


----------



## Bob Dylan

Typical attitude of rural politicians in Texas! We don't want any of that fancy modern stuff ruining our 1920s way of life!

Glad to see that "Conservative" Dallas

is going full steam on rail when " Liberal" Austin and San Antonio are turning into Anti- Rail/Public Transportation Cities!!

And people wonder why rural areas that arent within commuting distance to cities are dying!! ( see Kansas)


----------



## beautifulplanet

Some might think it is encouraging to read what some people write about Texas Central Railways' high-speed rail from Dallas to Houston on the Dallas Morning News website, f.e.



> Nicole LeBlanc, North Stonewall Terrace: The airlines won’t like it, but I think a high-speed rail network in Texas would be terrific. However, the terminus at both ends of any line must be where there is other public transit, at Union Station for Dallas. Building it is a pointless exercise if the entire journey cannot be completed using efficient public transportation to connect to the train station — both in Dallas and Houston, as well as in any city potentially served by a rail system like this. Dallas always has its eye on being a world-class city. Can you imagine not being able to take the Métro or bus to the Gare du Nord in Paris or the New York City subway to Penn Station?


And another statement:



> James Thomas, East Dallas: Yes. The high-speed trains in Europe are awesome. The terminus should integrate seamlessly with the DART. Preferably at the existing Union Station.


Finally:



> Will Springer, Lakewood: You bet. The Texas high-speed rail is a great idea and would be wonderful in promoting Texas pride. The terminals at each end should be in the center of Dallas and the center of Houston. This is a no-brainer. It would also be a stimulus for increased mass-transit use in both cities. Here’s an opportunity for Texas to hit a home run and show the nation how it can be done.


So at least some people in the Dallas metro area seem to like the idea of high-speed rail, and the idea of having a terminus in the Union Station area of downtown Dallas.

In order to view all comments, here is the link to the respective "Sounding Off" section of Dallas Morning News:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/white-rock-east-dallas/headlines/20141113-sounding-off-east-dallas-readers-discuss-high-speed-rail-terminus.ece


----------



## Anderson

jimhudson said:


> Typical attitude of rural politicians in Texas! We don't want any of that fancy modern stuff ruining our 1920s way of life!
> 
> Glad to see that "Conservative" Dallas
> 
> is going full steam on rail when " Liberal" Austin and San Antonio are turning into Anti- Rail/Public Transportation Cities!!
> 
> And people wonder why rural areas that arent within commuting distance to cities are dying!! ( see Kansas)


As has been noted before, a lot of this comes down to "who got started at the right time". From what I can tell, in places where major transit stuff is up and running it's become pretty hard to block it all out, so those political figures who might be softly inclined against transit generally sit on those views to keep their jobs. Thus, while Texas in general probably has an anti-rail bias built in, Dallas already has enough stuff up and running that said bias gets outweighed.


----------



## afigg

> But at least one county is working to derail the project. Monday, Leon County approved a resolution protesting the railway.
> 
> Leon County Judge Byron Ryder says people in his area and neighboring counties are upset by the proposal for a number of reasons.
> 
> It's not going to stop in Leon County, so it's not going to help Leon County whatsoever, say Judge Ryder. The other reason is that I've talked to two different appraisal people and they tell me without any hesitation that it'll definitely lower our property values because people are not going to move into the county if they're close to a high-speed rail."


Leon County, TX has a population of 16,800 and an area of 1081 square miles for ~16 people/sq mile. A HSR line is going to lower property values in the entire county? Yea, sure. But the Judge is being rather short-sighted. He should be looking at the jobs and money that building the HSR line will bring to his county. And the property tax revenue (if the HSR line doesn't get an exemption from the state legislature). The HSR line will need power stations and maintenance. Perhaps the backers of the HSR corridor can dangle the carrot of locating a power sub-station and a MOW crew station in his county. Won't be a lot of jobs, but with a population of 16.8K, even a few jobs count.
I'm encouraged by the quotes that the players in Dallas get it, that the HSR line needs to have a station in the city coreand be connected to the light rail system. Not everyone understands that. They think of HSR like an airport; the city HSR station can be way outside the city proper because that is where airports are (usually).

I'm also encouraged by the response in Dallas with the city planners looking to tie expansion of light rail with a 2nd line through the city center to the HSR plans. This time, the plans for a HSR corridor look real and not wishful thinking. The difference from the 1990s efforts is that Dallas now has a rail transit system for the HSR line to connect to. At 96K passengers/weekday, it is not yet a busy system for its 85 track miles and 61 stations. But an HSR corridor to Houston and Houston's starter stage light rail system could be a major boost to expansion and ridership growth of the transit systems in both cities.

I think we will see a similar effect in Miami with All Aboard Florida. The plans for the downtown AAF Miami station already appears to have helped to revive dormant plans for a light rail line to Miami Beach and prospects for expansion of the heavy rail Metro system.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Seems like some localities actually want Dallas-Houston high-speed rail close to them, in the hopes of possibly being able to build a future local station - as happened now with the census-designated place of The Woodlands, about 28 miles north of Houston:

The Woodlands courts high-speed rail route

November 14, 2014

By By Bridget Balch

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/the-woodlands-courts-high-speed-rail-route/article_31aa389c-6c84-11e4-b72d-a3db3c9c8873.html

The Woodlands would like Texas Central Railway (TCR) to reconsider regarding one of the original six route options, a corridor along I-45, which was dropped when only two alternatives were selected for detailed evaluation (see first post).

Here is an excerpt from the article:



> The Woodlands Township Ad Hoc Transportation Committee saw this as an opportunity to submit the letter asking the entities involved to reconsider the Interstate 45 corridor, highlighting that the population of Montgomery County is projected to more than double to 1.1 million by 2040 and that TxDOT is expecting the travel time from Dallas to Houston to increase from four to six hours.
> 
> Furthermore, the township emphasized the positive impact that providing a commuter service from South Montgomery County and North Harris County to downtown would have on traffic congestion.
> 
> “This corridor has very promising rail commuter potential which could possibly more than justify the higher capital cost of this route,” the township’s letter says. “The Township believes that TCR is not against the IH-45 route or adding commuter rail services if it serves to enhance their business plan through a public/private partnership agreement.”
> 
> “Whether we would need to help fund, that’s still open,” added Director Mike Bass. “Their own economics may justify that station, so we shouldn’t necessarily jump in on that too soon. What’s important is we go ahead and build our case that the demand exists in South Montgomery and North Harris Counties.”
> 
> Bob Leilich, a retired transportation consultant, spoke to the board about how he believes commuter rail service would be a lucrative business move, as well as help address the mobility problems the city is facing.
> 
> “Houston is the largest city in North America that doesn’t have heavy rail transit,” Leilich said. “Mass transit works ... and we continually see in editorials and letters how traffic congestion is a problem. We talk about it and we don’t do anything about it.”
> 
> The township suggested building a station near where the Grand Parkway, Interstate 45 and the Hardy Toll Road intersect in order to service riders from east, west and north of Houston.




Here in the following, the original map with all alternatives, including the I-45 alignment The Woodlands would like to advocate for. The I-45 alignment in in orange in this map. The two alternatives that were selected for detailed evaluation were the BNSF Option 1 (in red), and the Utility Alignment (brown in this map below, orange in the map in first post):






source:

http://dallashoustonhsr.com/maps-and-pictures/


----------



## beautifulplanet

Recent news regarding Texas High-Speed Rail:

1) Two locations preferred for Dallas station

2) "Utility corridor" selected out of last two routes

1) Two locations preferred for Dallas station (though officially, all 7 locations are still under considerations and a final decision will be made in the summer)











source:

South of downtown Dallas preferred site for rail station

February 6, 2015

By David Schechter and Jason Whitely

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/2015/02/06/high-speed-rail-step-closer-reality-texas/22972421/

Though some might think it is good how TCR stresses that these locations also leave open the door for an extended service towards Arlington and Fort Worth, some might also be wondering about the connections to local Dallas rail and bus service. Of course many may think it is great if transit-oriented development is created near the new station site, and that TCR wants to be close to downtown, versus some far-flung station in the suburbs, still it seems like the closest DART light-rail stop would be at the Convention Center, and still a significant walk away. So some might ask: In case the final destination of a rail traveler is not the TCR development itself or the Convention Center, how will a rail traveler be able to continue to the final destination, besides by car?

2) "Utility corridor" selected out of last two routes



> Texas Central Railway told federal officials Tuesday that it wants to build on what's called "the utility corridor." It includes a large amount of right-of-way already used for utilities.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Houston Mayor Annise Parker said Tuesday's announcement gives her confidence that TCR will review her request to have the I-10 corridor be considered as a route.
> 
> "I was an early supporter of high speed rail for Texas and believe it can be a significant addition to Houston's transportation network. I look forward to continuing to work with the Texas Central Rail group to make it a success," she said.


The location of the Houston station was not announced by TCR yet.

source:

Texas Central Railway focusing on one route for bullet train project

February 17, 2015

By WFAA

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/2015/02/17/texas-central-railway-focusing-one-route-bullet-train-project/23562365/


----------



## cirdan

beautifulplanet said:


> Though some might think it is good how TCR stresses that these locations also leave open the door for an extended service towards Arlington and Fort Worth, some might also be wondering about the connections to local Dallas rail and bus service. Of course many may think it is great if transit-oriented development is created near the new station site, and that TCR wants to be close to downtown, versus some far-flung station in the suburbs, still it seems like the closest DART light-rail stop would be at the Convention Center, and still a significant walk away. So some might ask: In case the final destination of a rail traveler is not the TCR development itself or the Convention Center, how will a rail traveler be able to continue to the final destination, besides by car?


Isn't DART still studying a second cross-city line. Proposals have seen that running in front of the Convention Center. Maybe that line could be redesigned to take a detour past the HSR station as well?

However, I think an elevated structure above the tracks of the present Union Station would be a good idea, while solving all these problems.

EDIT: looking at the site on Google Earth, it seems there is actually a DART line passing right by the proposed site, so no problem there


----------



## Guest

The Woodlands people wanting the HS line are not thinking things through. There is no public transportation worth mentioning (if any at all) in the Woodlands. It is sprawl on steroids. Any station would have to be surrounded by a huge parking lot or more likely multi-story parking structure.

Also, a freeway median line only sounds good. It is usually going to be more expensive and disruptive than a line elsewhere. essentially all overhead structure will have to be rebuilt with different spans and almost certainly with the road higher, which means rebuild the approach roads. Then there is the curve issue. Freeway curves are designed for 70 to 80 mph so will be far smaller in radius than needed for 200 plus mph.


----------



## Tokkyu40

Guest said:


> The Woodlands people wanting the HS line are not thinking things through. There is no public transportation worth mentioning (if any at all) in the Woodlands. It is sprawl on steroids. Any station would have to be surrounded by a huge parking lot or more likely multi-story parking structure.
> 
> Also, a freeway median line only sounds good. It is usually going to be more expensive and disruptive than a line elsewhere. essentially all overhead structure will have to be rebuilt with different spans and almost certainly with the road higher, which means rebuild the approach roads. Then there is the curve issue. Freeway curves are designed for 70 to 80 mph so will be far smaller in radius than needed for 200 plus mph.


A station in Woodlands with plenty of parking could be a good start for a serious transit system.

And 80 mph is minimal radius for highway curves in mountains. In Texas curves may not be needed on freeways.

The overhead structures are the real problem, but the rail line could be built in the ROW alongside the freeway where it can rise over the approaches.


----------



## beautifulplanet

cirdan said:


> beautifulplanet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though some might think it is good how TCR stresses that these locations also leave open the door for an extended service towards Arlington and Fort Worth, some might also be wondering about the connections to local Dallas rail and bus service. Of course many may think it is great if transit-oriented development is created near the new station site, and that TCR wants to be close to downtown, versus some far-flung station in the suburbs, still it seems like the closest DART light-rail stop would be at the Convention Center, and still a significant walk away. So some might ask: In case the final destination of a rail traveler is not the TCR development itself or the Convention Center, how will a rail traveler be able to continue to the final destination, besides by car?
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't DART still studying a second cross-city line. Proposals have seen that running in front of the Convention Center. Maybe that line could be redesigned to take a detour past the HSR station as well?
> 
> However, I think an elevated structure above the tracks of the present Union Station would be a good idea, while solving all these problems.
> 
> EDIT: looking at the site on Google Earth, it seems there is actually a DART line passing right by the proposed site, so no problem there
Click to expand...

DART's plans for downtown Dallas were also mentioned in this thread, in post #9.

When following the link in that post, and looking at the map of possible future DART improvements, one sees in the downtown map how there is no rail connection to the two sites recently mentioned as a possible high-speed rail Dallas station. In that map from last November, a different possible station location was still marked, that would have been much closer to Union Station, like close to where Reunion Park is.

Especially with the possible station location that would be completely south of the freeway, the connections to other rail and bus service would not seem so good.

- The possible Phase 1 of a second DART light-rail downtown line, a tunnel towards Union Station, wouldn't go close to these new possible stations at all.

- The streetcar (and it's future Central Dallas Streetcar Link) also would not directly go by the station location south of the I-30 freeway, and even with the other one that's on both sides of the freeway, it would be closest to it only on the Houston St bridge, and it's kind of unlikely that a streetcar stop for the high-speed rail station would be on that bridge, so the high-speed rail station surely would not be served by any streetcar, though the streetcars pass by kind of close.

Just because on Google Maps it looks like there might be some tracks somewhere close to the high-speed rail station, that does not mean that those are light-rail tracks. And for the location south of the freeway, the closest it seems to get is at least 200 yards, to the light rail line, not even to a light rail station, because the closest light rail station is the one that is underneath the Convention Center, or at Cedars Station. And if the high-speed rail station would be south of the freeway, then there would be 2 blocks of buildings, and some other rail line, inbetween high-speed rail and the light rail line. So that doesn't seem so close at all.

Some might just wish for Teas high-speed rail to have good transit connections, in order for high-speed rail to be a success. And so some might have wished, TCR would have selected something like depicted in the map of the November article, a location very close to Union Station, as Union Station is where a lot of transit will pass through anyway (existing light-rail service, new light-rail service with phase 1 of the Second Downtown light-rail line, and streetcar service, especially once the Central Dallas Streetcar Link would be in place). Still especially with a location south of the freeway, high-speed rail would still be kind of close to downtown, and many might think that is good. At the same time, there would be very few convenient transit connections, which many might think would not be as good.

Of course it is understandable though, that TCR being a private, for-profit company wants to maximize the money they can get out of development of the land surrounding the station. And so, if close to Union Station, with all the transit connections, there is less land to develop, and south of the freeway (or having the station both partially north and south of it) there is more land to develop and make money with, then of course TCR is going to choose this, even if there is little to none convenient transit around.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Tokkyu40 said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Woodlands people wanting the HS line are not thinking things through. There is no public transportation worth mentioning (if any at all) in the Woodlands. It is sprawl on steroids. Any station would have to be surrounded by a huge parking lot or more likely multi-story parking structure.
> 
> Also, a freeway median line only sounds good. It is usually going to be more expensive and disruptive than a line elsewhere. essentially all overhead structure will have to be rebuilt with different spans and almost certainly with the road higher, which means rebuild the approach roads. Then there is the curve issue. Freeway curves are designed for 70 to 80 mph so will be far smaller in radius than needed for 200 plus mph.
> 
> 
> 
> A station in Woodlands with plenty of parking could be a good start for a serious transit system.
> 
> And 80 mph is minimal radius for highway curves in mountains. In Texas curves may not be needed on freeways.
> 
> The overhead structures are the real problem, but the rail line could be built in the ROW alongside the freeway where it can rise over the approaches.
Click to expand...


Despite what may have been possible earlier (station in Woodlands), there will be no station in Woodlands anymore, because of the "utility alignment" corridor that was chosen. It is clearly visible when looking at the routes on the maps earlier in this thread. Woodlands might theoretically have gotten a station a station with any I-45 alignment. Then, from a total of 9 routes (4 BNSF options and 5 "alternative alignments") the selection was reduced to only two. So, with a BNSF option, there could have been a station somewhere near Woodlands though it wouldn't have been in the center like a I-45 alignment station. Then, the "utility alignment" route was chosen. So the route is going to be dozens of miles away from Woodlands. There definitely will be no Woodlands station.


----------



## Guest

Tokkyu40 said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Woodlands people wanting the HS line are not thinking things through. There is no public transportation worth mentioning (if any at all) in the Woodlands. It is sprawl on steroids. Any station would have to be surrounded by a huge parking lot or more likely multi-story parking structure.
> 
> Also, a freeway median line only sounds good. It is usually going to be more expensive and disruptive than a line elsewhere. essentially all overhead structure will have to be rebuilt with different spans and almost certainly with the road higher, which means rebuild the approach roads. Then there is the curve issue. Freeway curves are designed for 70 to 80 mph so will be far smaller in radius than needed for 200 plus mph.
> 
> 
> 
> A station in Woodlands with plenty of parking could be a good start for a serious transit system.
> 
> And 80 mph is minimal radius for highway curves in mountains. In Texas curves may not be needed on freeways.
> 
> The overhead structures are the real problem, but the rail line could be built in the ROW alongside the freeway where it can rise over the approaches.
Click to expand...

Don't know where you are getting your 80 mph. Here it is from the Federal Highway Administration web site:



> The standards are included in the AASHTO publication


_A Policy on Design Standards -- Interstate System_ available from the AASHTO web site. Examples of design standards for the Interstate System include full control of access, design speeds of 50 to 70 miles per hour (depending on type of terrain), a minimum of two travel lanes in each direction, 12-foot lane widths, 10-foot right paved shoulder, and 4-foot left paved shoulder. Initially, the design had to be adequate to meet the traffic volumes expected in 1975. Later, the requirement was changed to a more general 20-year design period to allow for evolution of the System.

Yes, some states do use 80 mph in easy terrain, but the Feds are not going to fund their share it this kicks up the cost more than minimally if at all. (Is known that parts of I-49 are designed for 80 mph for curves horizontal and vertical, but curves still superelevated for 70 mph.) Maybe I-45 is designed for 80 mph, but given the age of the alignment, doubtful.

80 mph in mountains? Nope, that is where 50 mph is used.


----------



## Tokkyu40

I live near some pretty convincing mountains and the speed limit is 70mph. This is nowhere near the limits imposed by the curves, which should handle 90-100 just fine.
Some of the old two lane sections of old highway 80 are a lot tighter.
Texas being Texas, they would have to add curves to design it for 80mph. The I-45 doesn't look too challenging on the map.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

Why is this schrade being discussed? We all knowit is not happening.


----------



## jis

Well, apparently you may think so, but how do you know what others know or not?


----------



## Tokkyu40

Shawn Ryu said:


> Why is this charade being discussed? We all know it is not happening.


Because the people building it don't know it's not happening. They're making good progress and have a high probability of completing the project and having good success with it.

And since everyone here is interested in trains, we talk about these projects.


----------



## afigg

The FRA posted a set of draft EIS documents on their eLibrary site with alignment alternatives. Link to the November 2015 environmental reviews for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project draft EIS documents. I have not looked at the documents yet, but figured should post the link for those interested.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Shawn Ryu said:


> Why is this schrade being discussed? We all knowit is not happening.


If you think a thread is devoid of purpose then why on Earth are you even in here? I don't think this project is going to happen myself but I still don't see the point of telling other people to stop discussing it. And besides there's always a possibility that I could be wrong and they could be right. The only thing I know for certain is that you don't have anything worthwhile to bring to the discussion because you just got done proving it.


----------



## cirdan

Tokkyu40 said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this charade being discussed? We all know it is not happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people building it don't know it's not happening. They're making good progress and have a high probability of completing the project and having good success with it.And since everyone here is interested in trains, we talk about these projects.
Click to expand...

In the early days I was pretty sceptical, suspecting this was a PR exercise by JR or their partners.

But it has been going for too long now and too much money has been invested in corridor studies for that to be the case.

I think it has a real and fair chance of being completed.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

I seriously doubt this isn't going to happen, especially with all the planning going into this. All I can say is, if this project can happen in Florida, it can happen in Texas as well.


----------



## jis

I think this has a significant likelihood of happening provided the THSR folks are able to take a couple of pages out of the FECI/AAF playbook and apply it to Texas to ward of the NIMBYs and show clear path to cash positiveness, while not using too much taxpayer funding. Getting funding in the form of loans and tax free bonds seems to be OK though. The game the AAF played with NIMBYs is to use very detailed knowledge of the wants of individual communities and address them, and not worry about a relatively small remaining group of NIMBYs, other than to outflank them at each turn.

THSR needs to get not only Houston and DFW on board with their plan but also several en route large urban/suburban communities. They will face NIMBYs from rural areas, that should be taken as a given. That has to be counterbalanced by strong visible support both on the ground and in local county commissions and state house.. Look at how AAF finally divvied things up. Basically they have the large relatively urban counties firmly on their side - Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Brevard and Orange), and small rural counties against (Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River). Thia has made it relatively hard for the NIMBYs to get enough traction to do much damage, though they have and continue to try mightily. They also partitioned the source of construction funding to make sure that only FECI sourced money is used in the opposed counties and the huge pile of bond money is used only in counties that support their effort. They have even tacitly promised favored treatment to supporting counties both on the service front and priority in addition of new stations front. It has all been about economic impact that the supporting counties foresee.

THSR will have a bit of a challenge in the sticks unless they can line up at least a few counties outside of Houston and Dallas to be on their side. Not an insurmountable problem but adds to the difficulty if they can't.

On the real estate front, to understand FECI/AAF's game, you have to understand that AAF is a passenger railroad attached to a huge real-estate empire, and the whole project is really supported by the projected growth in the real estate empire as a result of building this project. I am not sure how THSR is structured financially since I have not seen much on it. but if they are depending purely on rail revenues, they may have a difficult path to hoe. They need to bring in the real estate angle and figure out how to plow back some of the real estate growth resulting from the project into operating budget of the railroad. The Japanese passenger operations do this in spades. Purely on rail operations they'd barely make it.

But for now I am optimistic. but we'll see.


----------



## cirdan

I guess FEC has it easier as they alraedy have much of the real estate they are counting on developing. THSR will need to buy these first and the moment it becomes clear that that land is going to be a hub of profitable development, up goes the value and hence the price they will have to pay. So unless THSR has already been sneakily buying land ahead of their station and alignment announcements (especially at the Houston end) I don't see them making a big killing on the real estate.

FEC also has it easier in another respect in that they already have an operation railroad line. There's not very much you can do as a NIMBY to prevent somebody from running trains on their own railroad.

On the other hand, Miami has always had a fairly functional downtown with good land utilization wheres Houston has long been blighted by abandoned buildings and empty tracts of land and this has only really improved in the last couple of years as the light rail system made the downtown area attractive once again. So possibly land can still be bought at a bargain and then totally transformed.


----------



## jis

All those points further highlight the reality that the FECI/AAF experience may not be transferable as is to the THSR situation. But there still are some core lessons that can transfer.

Interestingly, FECR is no longer a subsidiary of FECI. AAF is a subsidiary of FECI. Both FECI and FECR are separate subsidiaries of the Fortress Group.


----------



## Palmetto

I just read that the FRA has nixed both possible routes into downtown Houston. They're not getting any closer to it that US290 and Loop 610, if I read it correctly. If so, why even bother? The advantage of the train is to take people to downtown.


----------



## cirdan

Palmetto said:


> I just read that the FRA has nixed both possible routes into downtown Houston. They're not getting any closer to it that US290 and Loop 610, if I read it correctly. If so, why even bother? The advantage of the train is to take people to downtown.


This would be very bad news indeed.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

cirdan said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read that the FRA has nixed both possible routes into downtown Houston. They're not getting any closer to it that US290 and Loop 610, if I read it correctly. If so, why even bother? The advantage of the train is to take people to downtown.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be very bad news indeed.
Click to expand...

The team is confident the project will still gain ridership even then.

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/developers-say-bullet-train-will-work-even-if-it-doesnt-reach-downtown-houston.html/


----------



## Palmetto

Does anyone know why the FRA will not allow going to downtown? The rails are there, so it's not a lack of infrastructure.


----------



## cirdan

Maybe the project will gain ridership even if it serves a peripheral car-centric site. But it won't have a significant effect on rebuilding Houston's downtown and it seems to me, this is what Houston is trying to do, for example with all the money that's gone into Metro Rail, plus all the various urbanist projects to make downtown attractive. Not having HSR go there would seem like a stab in the back of Houston, so maybe HSR is even hoping Texas will pony up the money for the downtown terminus and is using the out of town station as a negotiating piece.


----------



## Anderson

Well, and I suspect it is also plausible that there will be a "suburban" station and a "downtown" station (think Route 128 and South Station)...but I do agree that they probably want the city to at least help out on that front. Ah, negotiating stances...


----------



## CHamilton

How Important is "Downtown"?



> In Citylab, Eric Jaffe gives us the supposedly bad news that the proposed Dallas-Houston High Speed Rail (HSR) line won't go to "downtown" Houston. Instead it will end at Northwest Mall, just outside the I-610 loop in the northwest of the city.
> 
> But most of the Houston transit-advocates I've talked with aren't sounding nearly as upset. That's because:
> 
> the proposed terminal is close to the centroid of Houston as a whole. It's also very close to Uptown-Galleria, the region's second downtown, and to Northwest Transit Center, the busiest transit hub in the western 2/3 of the city.
> the terminal station area is massively redevelopable. You could easily build yet another downtown there, and if HSR is built, they probably will, and
> the project will provide great impetus for light rail or Bus Rapid Transit linking the station to the original downtown. These projects have been sketched many times and could include either I-10 nonstop links or a refurbishment of Washington Street, a promising old streetcar street linking the two nodes.
> in the US High Speed Rail, the cost of the last miles into an historic downtown can be a huge part of the cost and grief of the whole project. So if you want high-speed rail to happen at all, provoking this battle is not always a sensible part of Phase 1.


----------



## neroden

OK, I get these arguments, but...

(a) Northwest currently has no rail link to downtown at all. If the planned Uptown light rail line is built, it'll still require taking *three* light rail lines to get downtown (Uptown/University/Red), and it'll be an indirect route.

(b) Couldn't they run elevated over I-10 or the UP line to get downtown?

© or even eastward in the I-610 median to meet the Red Line at Melbourne North Lindale station.

(d) At least consider extending the LRT up Washington Ave, Old Katy Road, and Post Oak Road to meet the HSR line.

None of these proposals are on anyone's official project lists


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

A Japanese funding organization has announced that it will contribute some funding for this project. Here's a link to the article.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Japanese-fund-to-invest-in-Texas-Central-bullet-train--46625


----------



## cirdan

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> A Japanese funding organization has announced that it will contribute some funding for this project. Here's a link to the article.
> 
> http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Japanese-fund-to-invest-in-Texas-Central-bullet-train--46625


Small change in view of the overall price tag of the project, but every bit counts.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

I agree that it is a small amount now, bit the main activity is design engineering, completing the environmental sign-off, finalize the alighment and project details and lining up investors to contribute funds after receiving the environmental project approval. This now brings Texas HSR to over $100 million of contributions.

A similar Chinese organization contributed $100 million to the Press west Las Vegas HSR which should be enough for similar activities. They already have their environmental approval for the Victorville to Las Vegas segment, but they now have to get an environment approval for the just announced Victorville to Palmdale HSR segment.


----------



## Andrew

What are the updates regarding this project?


----------



## jis

Suggest use google and find out for yourself


----------

