Austin & San Antonio: - Moving freight line for commuter rail could cost up to $2.4B

[KevinFromTexas]

I hope we can get some discussion from both cities here. I'm curious to hear what the San Antonio forumers think about an Austin-San Antonio Commuter Train, and the steps to get there.

From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/31/0731rail.html

COMMUTER RAIL

Moving freight line for commuter rail could cost up to $2.4 billion
Study details cost of bypass to open up tracks for intercity commuters, but not how to pay for it.

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF


Thursday, July 31, 2008

Building a 145-mile-long freight rail bypass around Austin and San Antonio at a cost of $2.4 billion, making commuter rail possible between the cities, would generate about $1.4 billion in public benefits over 20 years, a study to be released today says.

That $2.4 billion, however, does not include the estimated $600 million cost of building passenger rail between Austin and San Antonio, or the $41 million annual operating costs estimated by the agency charged with running such a line.

And at this point, no matter the public benefit, it remains unclear how either the state or Central Texas governments will raise the money for the freight line bypass or the commuter line.

The Texas Department of Transportation, which did the study, and Union Pacific, which owns the existing freight tracks through the area, have been in talks for many years over whether such a bypass is necessary and feasible — and who would pay for it. The agency and the railroad would have to reach some sort of agreement before any sort of relocation occurs.

The Central Texas Rail Relocation Study looked at various alternatives to how freight currently moves through Central and South Texas. More than two dozen freight trains a day typically run on the Union Pacific corridor between Taylor and San Antonio, passing at street level past almost 200 city roads and highways.

The long, creeping trains cause delays for motorists at those crossings — San Marcos in particular is bedeviled — as well as a safety hazard. Four people died in various train accidents in San Antonio in 2004.

And the frequency and idiosyncratic scheduling of those freight trains on the current track, controlled by Union Pacific, would render commuter rail service nonviable, transportation officials say, because guaranteeing on-time departures and arrivals would be impossible.

Most of those trains are carrying loads destined for points beyond San Antonio and Taylor, so commuter rail advocates have been talking for years about a possible bypass. The 110-page report by TxDOT looks at each segment of such a bypass in detail, outlining the needs for overpasses, new track, straightening of some sections, smoothing out of areas too steep for greater freight speeds and a possible shortcut from Bastrop to Red Rock east of San Marcos.

The report also attempts to estimate benefits to the public from having a commuter rail system such as lower emissions from freight trains and reduction of waiting time for cars at rail crossings on the existing Taylor-to-Austin-to-San Antonio line. Property values in the vicinity of the line, for instance, would increase by $106 million, TxDOT estimates.

Officials had estimated in the past that a bypass of Austin would cost about $700 million. According to the TxDOT report, a bypass from Taylor, through Lockhart to south of San Marcos instead would cost about $883 million. If the bypass instead continued south from Lockhart to Seguin and then into San Antonio, the cost would be about $1.72 billion.

If the line were to go from Seguin around the south side of San Antonio, the total cost would be $2.4 billion, the report says.

A Union Pacific official, in a letter to TxDOT, said he does not like that last alternative. That more circuitous route would add 15 miles to many east-west routes, using about 1 million extra gallons of fuel annually, Union Pacific Vice President of Network Planning and Operations John H. Rebensdorf said in a letter.

Texans passed a constitutional amendment in 2005 creating a rail relocation fund. However, the Legislature in 2007 failed to appropriate any money for the fund. And, if it does, the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas have relocation needs of their own that would compete for any available money.

The Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District, created by the Legislature to build and run passenger trains between the two cities, has almost no taxing authority; it can collect some property taxes from development that might occur around train stations. In its decade-long existence, the agency has so far engaged only in planning, using federal grants.

Officials with the district have been talking to TxDOT and Amtrak, which runs a few trains a week between the two cities (and points beyond) and is often delayed by Union Pacific trains, about the possibility of using Amtrak trains for some sort of commuter service.

$2.4 billion

Estimated cost of building a freight rail bypass around Austin and San Antonio

$1.4 billion

Amount of public benefits over 20 years

$600 million

Estimated cost of building passenger rail between Austin and San Antonio

[jaga185]

I think both cities should cough up the money for this. We should work together to better our region. Since it says that many of the trains are for destinations beyond us, a bypass seems a no brainer.

[Jeeper]

$2.4 billion to reroute train tracks? Do you guys use golden spikes down there?

[M1EK]

Do you guys believe me now that this isn't going to happen? That's $2.4 billion to relocate the tracks, and no guarantee that UP will even go there (may have to pay them to get them to move; state can't force them to).

[oldmanshirt]

Ouch :( The prospects for this thing happening in the next couple of decades looks pretty bleak, to say the least.

[DruidCity]

The long, creeping trains cause delays for motorists at those crossings — San Marcos in particular is bedeviled —

That's the ever-lovin' truth. San Marcos gets like 24 trains of one sort or other going through a day.

[Schertz1]

The cost are substantial, but I think it is needed. San Antonio/Austin already has more pop. growth than Houston and is very close to DFW. New construction and corp. relocations are a different story. Rail will enhance the quality of life in the region and make it more competitive with DFW and Houston. I also think the public benefits are low balled.

[JACKinBeantown]

Why can't commuter and freight use the same rails? Don't trains run on schedules? They do in the northeast. And I seem to remember hearing train whistles at about the same time every night growing up on the northeast side of SA.

It seems a much simpler solution to just build a few bypass areas for those few times that a scheduled train is coming the other direction... and allow them to pass. That's a lot simpler than building a whole new railroad.

[priller]

$2.4 billion to reroute train tracks? Do you guys use golden spikes down there?

Really! I assume much of the cost is not just building the tracks but also acquiring land to for the new route. Still, it seems excessive to me.

[M1EK]

The reason Amtrak is often many hours late just between Austin and Dallas is the freight traffic on these very tracks. No, freight doesn't run on schedules.

[alexjon]

Do you guys believe me now that this isn't going to happen? That's $2.4 billion to relocate the tracks, and no guarantee that UP will even go there (may have to pay them to get them to move; state can't force them to).

This is why the state is trying to hurl Amtrak at them, so they can do the bare minimum of track relocation and just overrule UP on track priority later-- but if you pay attention to the way the cost estimates are listed, UP and associates are definitely trying to make this hard for the state.

$2.4 billion shouldn't scare the state... but it will definitely scare the living bajeezus out of the citizens and municipal gov'ts.

Also, on the topic of Amtrak: they're a tempest in a teacup. They have a legal right they refuse to exercise. Even in a place where the local rail conglom basically fluffs their pillows at night, they end up getting knocked around an awful lot. That's why the 2.5 hour Portland-Seattle run usually takes 2.75 hours, which is enough of a deterrent for some riders and why it hasn't been a big commuter link and won't be until 5 years of track relocation and bypasses are done this fall.

[Trae]

The cost are substantial, but I think it is needed. San Antonio/Austin already has more pop. growth than Houston and is very close to DFW. New construction and corp. relocations are a different story. Rail will enhance the quality of life in the region and make it more competitive with DFW and Houston. I also think the public benefits are low balled.

No it doesn't. Houston has more growth than SA's metro and Austin's metro combined. It's only that close this year because of the Katrina effect (everyone leaving back to NO). Check for yourself: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/

Anyway, I wish that the rail will happen though, but it looks to be VERY expensive and this is just to get UP to move. But, if it costs this much just for Austin to SA rail, I wonder what the "Texas T-Bone" looks like.

[alexjon]

I like the line about being more competitive with Houston and DFW, as though they compete with each other all the time.

[Trae]

I like the line about being more competitive with Houston and DFW, as though they compete with each other all the time.

I know right. A commuter rail line between the cities won't all of a sudden boost them to Houston and DFW's level either. Houston and DFW are building (or about the build) their fair share of new rail lines (light rail and commuter).

[alexjon]

I know right. A commuter rail line between the cities won't all of a sudden boost them to Houston and DFW's level either. Houston and DFW are building (or about the build) their fair share of new rail lines (light rail and commuter).

If transit-wise, Houston was 10 years behind Dallas, I imagine Austin will be 10 years behind Houston and San Antonio 10 years behind Austin. Just a ballpark guess. Austin rail in 2014! San Antonio rail in 2024! Yeehaw.

[sakyle04]

2.4 Billion?!?!?

The cities are less than 2 hours apart in moderate traffic. The economics will either have to get much better or the traffic much worse before someone feels the need to push this through...

[oldmanshirt]

$2.4 billion shouldn't scare the state... but it will definitely scare the living bajeezus out of the citizens and municipal gov'ts.

Hmm, I wonder how this compares to their planned expendatures for freeways over the next decade or so. . .

Not that I'm saying they should totally abandon freeway building in the two metros themselves. But once SH130 is completed, this rail link should become their main priority for the corridor, and they should call it a day (or a lifetime) on freeway building between Austin and SA.

[alexjon]

Hmm, I wonder how this compares to their planned expendatures for freeways over the next decade or so. . .

Not that I'm saying they should totally abandon freeway building in the two metros themselves. But once SH130 is completed, this rail link should become their main priority for the corridor, and they should call it a day (or a lifetime) on freeway building between Austin and SA.

Nobody knows how much roads cost, even though the state tries to tell people. They tell them so they'll take more care in their driving and such, yanno-- but if the media ever sided with rail, it could obviously be used to tell people how good a deal they'd be getting.

[STLtoSA]

Man you throw a "B" out there and people go nuts. Put it into perspective. This would be a huge project. The estimate does not seem "that" outlandish.

It cost St. Louis more than a billion to build a new runway at Lambert
Metro-Link (LRT): cost more than 1.3 billion
New Yankee Stadium: 1.3 billion


For this project, a minimum of about 1800 acres of ROW must be acquired.

UP wants to build a parallel line through San Antonio. I wonder how this would affect this estimate.

[KevinFromTexas]

The actual line itself isn't all that expensive, just $600 million. The biggest part would be having UP move their tracks east. I wonder though, couldn't they build the rail near 130? There's already a corridor in place with it, so it would make sense.

[JACKinBeantown]

Follow the European model: put a 50¢ tax on gasoline and use it to finance the rail system. It works in two ways: 1) it provides finances that the Bush administration is trying to divert away from trains, 2) gives people the added monetary incentive to finally get out of their cars and take the train, then walk a few blocks to their destination at the other end. Oh, which leads to #3) walk more... weigh less.

[Trae]

The actual line itself isn't all that expensive, just $600 million. The biggest part would be having UP move their tracks east. I wonder though, couldn't they build the rail near 130? There's already a corridor in place with it, so it would make sense.

That would miss places like New Braunfels and San Marcos though right?

[ahealy]

I am all for this. It's ironic this is subject for discussion today, Because I'm taking the amtrak to visit family in San Antonio from ATX this evening. I live downtown so the station is just a rocks throw from my place.

I gotta admit, I would love to see a rail line go back & forth more than ONCE a day. Wishful thinking? :bowtie:

[Jeeper]

Any way some of you guys can pull some strings and have that line extended to the Amarillo-Lubbock corridor? I love visiting SA, but I hate making the long drive. What's another few billion dollars anyway?
:D

[Schertz1]

No it doesn't. Houston has more growth than SA's metro and Austin's metro combined. It's only that close this year because of the Katrina effect (everyone leaving back to NO). Check for yourself: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/



My mistake on this years figures, I thought San Antonio/Austin was slightly higher than Houston. Still, the rate is higher for 2007. I don't think Katrina had anything to do with the 2007 numbers. Dallas, San Antonio, Houston and many other cities had evacuees and the numbers, in Texas, only fell in Houston.




I like the line about being more competitive with Houston and DFW, as though they compete with each other all the time.


I don't understand. Does Dallas compete with Houston? San Antonio with Austin or Dallas? Do all the major metros compete with each other? Is the competition only on specific days, like Mondays for DFW and Houston or San Antonio and Austin on Saturdays?

My point is more connectivity between San Antonio and Austin would be a catalyst for the area to behave more like the region of almost 4 million it is.

And yes, an area as dynamic as San Antonio/Austin would be more competitive with DFW and Houston.

[Trae]

The evacuees Houston got were a lot different than the ones in the other cities. Houston got the most out of all of Texas, and most of them started moving back the next year. Yes, Katrina had something to do with the numbers (July 06-July 07). There is no way only 20,000 or so people moved into Houston domestically. People moving back to Louisiana from both storms skewed the numbers. And rate? Going by rate, Melissa, Texas is the fastest growing city in Texas.

And San Antonio/Austin together still aren't on Houston or Dallas' level. A rail line would be great between them, but that doesn't put them on those two city's level. And the region of 3.5 million today does not compete with a Houston or Dallas, who are both larger and growing faster than it. Commuter rail will definitely help in the area becoming more attractive, but the two powerhouses in Texas are building commuter rail lines, too (or about to and not as expensive ;)).

[Schertz1]

The evacuees Houston got were a lot different than the ones in the other cities. Houston got the most out of all of Texas, and most of them started moving back the next year. Yes, Katrina had something to do with the numbers (July 06-July 07). There is no way only 20,000 or so people moved into Houston domestically. People moving back to Louisiana from both storms skewed the numbers. And rate? Going by rate, Melissa, Texas is the fastest growing city in Texas.

And San Antonio/Austin together still aren't on Houston or Dallas' level. A rail line would be great between them, but that doesn't put them on those two city's level. And the region of 3.5 million today does not compete with a Houston or Dallas, who are both larger and growing faster than it. Commuter rail will definitely help in the area becoming more attractive, but the two powerhouses in Texas are building commuter rail lines, too (or about to and not as expensive ;)).

You have no proof people moving back to Louisiana caused Houston's 07 numbers. You are also wrong about the pop. of the San Antonio/Austin region. San Antonio is around 2.1 million alone and Austin is about 1.6. You tend to twist the posts of others, I said San Antonio and Austin would better compete with DFW and Houston if they were marketed as one area. I also live in Houston and you can believe me, it is nothing special.

[Trae]

You have no proof people moving back to Louisiana caused Houston's 07 numbers. You are also wrong about the pop. of the San Antonio/Austin region. San Antonio is around 2.1 million alone and Austin is about 1.6. You tend to twist the posts of others, I said San Antonio and Austin would better compete with DFW and Houston if were marketed as one area. I also live in Houston and you can believe me, it is nothing special.

Using 2007's Census, SA is at 1.9 million and Austin at 1.5 million.

And I could care less what you think about Houston. Say what you want. It may not be nothing special to you, just like SA really isn't for me. Personal preference.

And I may not have all the facts in the world to prove the Louisiana thing, but Houston doesn't add the most jobs in the nation for the second year (100K I think again) in a row with only 20,000K moving in domestically.

[oldmanshirt]

Any notion that Austin/SA combined can rival DFW or Houston is a stretch, to say the least. If you want to compare them with other metros, think Denver-Boulder-CO Spgs or Minneapolis-St Paul. Even Seattle would be a stretch. Of course, this is assuming you can get SA and Austin to work together in the first place. While both do have attributes that compliment the other, they are two very separate, very independent areas, so much so that they even claim to belong to different regions of the state, despite being only about an hour apart. One commuter rail line, no matter how many billions it costs, isnt going to change that overnight, if ever.

[sakyle04]

San Antonio angle here, with maps: http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/traffic/archives/2008/07/trains_can_be_r.html

[KeepSanAntonioLame]

How does this affect freight going into San Antonio or Austin?

[alexjon]

Any notion that Austin/SA combined can rival DFW or Houston is a stretch, to say the least. If you want to compare them with other metros, think Denver-Boulder-CO Spgs or Minneapolis-St Paul. Even Seattle would be a stretch. Of course, this is assuming you can get SA and Austin to work together in the first place. While both do have attributes that compliment the other, they are two very separate, very independent areas, so much so that they even claim to belong to different regions of the state, despite being only about an hour apart. One commuter rail line, no matter how many billions it costs, isnt going to change that overnight, if ever.

Austin/SA don't quite have the infrastructure or business environment to rival places like Houston, DFW or Seattle-Tacoma or Minny. Denver is very appropriate, however. They're starting on a 10-20 year growth cycle that should kick off when the economy improves, and a lot of that is based on improving their local transportation and grooming business corridors intelligently.

That's assuming, of course, that they work together.

[Schertz1]

Any notion that Austin/SA combined can rival DFW or Houston is a stretch, to say the least. If you want to compare them with other metros, think Denver-Boulder-CO Spgs or Minneapolis-St Paul. Even Seattle would be a stretch. Of course, this is assuming you can get SA and Austin to work together in the first place. While both do have attributes that compliment the other, they are two very separate, very independent areas, so much so that they even claim to belong to different regions of the state, despite being only about an hour apart. One commuter rail line, no matter how many billions it costs, isnt going to change that overnight, if ever.


My post did not say it would rival DFW or Houston, I said it would be closer, more competitive. I also wouldn't begin to compare this hypothetical region to Denver, M/SP or Seattle, all of which are basically slow growth areas. San Antonio/Austin, IMO is already better. I also think the next five years will really show the difference.

[alexjon]

My post did not say it would rival DFW or Houston, I said it would be closer, more competitive. I also wouldn't begin to compare this hypothetical region to Denver, M/SP or Seattle, all of which are basically slow growth areas. San Antonio/Austin, IMO is already better. I also think the next five years will really show the difference.

You're basing this on population, obviously, since economically, SA/A as a region pale in comparison to the other examples. It would take an explosive amount of economic growth to boost them up to the level of M/SP or Seattle, but that won't happen-- not with things like AT&T's departure.

Having lived in Seattle for a while, I can't help but laugh. :)

[Trae]

My post did not say it would rival DFW or Houston, I said it would be closer, more competitive. I also wouldn't begin to compare this hypothetical region to Denver, M/SP or Seattle, all of which are basically slow growth areas. San Antonio/Austin, IMO is already better. I also think the next five years will really show the difference.

You're just going off population. Phoenix is growing faster than Chicago, but which would you consider more important? Population growth isn't everything. Hell, compare the companies in each city. Combined, Austin/SA have what, Whole Foods, Valero, USAA, Tesero, and Dell has the only national companies? In Seattle you have Starbucks, Microsoft, and Nordstom (top of my head), in Minny you have Target, Best Buy, and General Mills (top of my head). ANd guess what Denver/Seattle/Minny have that A/SA doesn't? Inner city light rail (well, at least Austin has some kind of rail coming forward this Fall).

[alexjon]

You're just going off population. Phoenix is growing faster than Chicago, but which would you consider more important? Population growth isn't everything. Hell, compare the companies in each city. Combined, Austin/SA have what, Whole Foods, Valero, USAA, Tesero, and Dell has the only national companies? In Seattle you have Starbucks, Microsoft, and Nordstom (top of my head), in Minny you have Target, Best Buy, and General Mills (top of my head). ANd guess what Denver/Seattle/Minny have that A/SA doesn't? Inner city light rail (well, at least Austin has some kind of rail coming forward this Fall).

In terms of Seattle-area corps: Microsoft, Nordstrom, Starbucks, WaMu, Paccar, Weyerhauser, the U.S. HQs of Nintendo and T-Mobile, Safeco, Amazon.com, Costco.

Seattle is totally expanding its inner-city rail, too. Our regional light rail starts next year. And we've had commuter rail since 2001.

Minneapolis is way up there, too.

[Trae]

Exactly. Population isn't everything. The commuter rail will definitely help the A/SA region and maybe companies would want to locate there solely because of the rail. But to say it pushed A/SA to Houston or DFW's level of competition is not true. First, A/SA needs to compete with the likes of Minny and Denver.

[Schertz1]

You're basing this on population, obviously, since economically, SA/A as a region pale in comparison to the other examples. It would take an explosive amount of economic growth to boost them up to the level of M/SP or Seattle, but that won't happen-- not with things like AT&T's departure.

Having lived in Seattle for a while, I can't help but laugh. :)


That's your opinion, too bad the Department of Commerce web site disagrees. If you look at the Gross Metropolitan Product of these cities, you will see San Antonio/Austin is growing faster, by rate or real numbers, than them all. And as of 2004 SA/A has surpassed Denver.

Several companies have moved or announced plans to move to San Antonio in the last few months. There is much more happening here, business wise then AT&T relocating. What about Boeing and the Sonics, are their departures from Seattle some indicator of thats city's strength?


http://www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmetro/action.cfm

[Schertz1]

You're just going off population. Phoenix is growing faster than Chicago, but which would you consider more important? Population growth isn't everything. Hell, compare the companies in each city. Combined, Austin/SA have what, Whole Foods, Valero, USAA, Tesero, and Dell has the only national companies? In Seattle you have Starbucks, Microsoft, and Nordstom (top of my head), in Minny you have Target, Best Buy, and General Mills (top of my head). ANd guess what Denver/Seattle/Minny have that A/SA doesn't? Inner city light rail (well, at least Austin has some kind of rail coming forward this Fall).

NuStar, Rush, Clear Channel. AT&T doesn't even move until years end, so AT&T as well.

[Trae]

But AT&T is moving, so why would you still count it?

And you have to add in a A/SA in order to beat just Denver (meaning, just one metro area). That should tell you right there. I'll give you Boeing, but the Sonics was a horrible example. Horrible.

[oldmanshirt]

My post did not say it would rival DFW or Houston, I said it would be closer, more competitive. I also wouldn't begin to compare this hypothetical region to Denver, M/SP or Seattle, all of which are basically slow growth areas. San Antonio/Austin, IMO is already better. I also think the next five years will really show the difference.

I wouldn't call Denver a slow-growth area, either in terms of population or economy. Sure its not growing as fast percentage-wise as TX cities, but who is?? What attracted me to the Denver comparison was the mixture of education, energy, high-tech, military, and telecom in the economies of both regions. To really say that SA/Austin is better than D-B-CS or vice-versa is purely hypothetical and academic at this point, because A/SA haven't shown any willingness to work together the way that region has.

Same thing with Seattle and M/StP. Those are both tight-knit regions with established, growing businesses and infrastructure. The population and job growth doesn't look as impressive as SouthCentral TX, sure, but they are both significant areas, and hubs for their respective regions of the U.S.

[oldmanshirt]

I'll give you Boeing, but the Sonics was a horrible example. Horrible.

Boeing still has most of the operations in Seattle, right? I thought only the HQ moved to Chicago, kinda like the way Exxon is structured.

[Trae]

Boeing still has most of the operations in Seattle, right? I thought only the HQ moved to Chicago, kinda like the way Exxon is structured.

Yeah, that's how Boeing is (and Exxon). Only a few execs live in Seattle (Exxon's case Irving), but the majority of the employees are in Seattle (and Houston for Exxon).

[alexjon]

Boeing still has most of the operations in Seattle, right? I thought only the HQ moved to Chicago, kinda like the way Exxon is structured.

Everett and Renton, yup.

They have one of the largest buildings in the world for their manufacturing of wide-bodies up north.

[oldmanshirt]

Thought so.

If I've learned anything so far from this forum so far, its that population numbers tell very little of the story. SA and Austin have a lot to be proud of in terms of how many people are relocating and calling the area(s) home, but in terms of comparing them to cities that weren't sleepy, overgrown country/college towns 20 years ago, you'll just have to wake me when New Braunfels looks like Bloomington, MN and Round Rock looks like Bellevue, WA ;)

[Schertz1]

But AT&T is moving, so why would you still count it?

And you have to add in a A/SA in order to beat just Denver (meaning, just one metro area). That should tell you right there. I'll give you Boeing, but the Sonics was a horrible example. Horrible.


First, the idea of my original post was, rail could help solidify the San Antonio/Austin region making it more competitive with larger metros like DFW and Houston. I never said Austin, never said San Antonio. I said the region, so why would I not include both. You should, perhaps, learn to read and understand what is being said before you spin threads out of control.

Second, your argument, evacuees leaving Houston caused the 2007 numbers to be low are, again unfounded. The Houston numbers are in line with the last few years, with the exception of 2006 when Houston, I believe, benefited from a large number of evacuees. If it were so, all cities with evacuees would have experienced the same effect, only on a smaller scale.

Third, you do not have to tell us you do not like San Antonio. We can all tell from your posts. Almost every San Antonio thread or mention of San Antonio is sure to become a debate with you in the negative.

[Schertz1]

I wouldn't call Denver a slow-growth area, either in terms of population or economy. Sure its not growing as fast percentage-wise as TX cities, but who is?? What attracted me to the Denver comparison was the mixture of education, energy, high-tech, military, and telecom in the economies of both regions. To really say that SA/Austin is better than D-B-CS or vice-versa is purely hypothetical and academic at this point, because A/SA haven't shown any willingness to work together the way that region has.

Same thing with Seattle and M/StP. Those are both tight-knit regions with established, growing businesses and infrastructure. The population and job growth doesn't look as impressive as SouthCentral TX, sure, but they are both significant areas, and hubs for their respective regions of the U.S.

The idea of my post was the rail could help this process along and put the area in a new league.

[alexjon]

Thought so.

If I've learned anything so far from this forum so far, its that population numbers tell very little of the story. SA and Austin have a lot to be proud of in terms of how many people are relocating and calling the area(s) home, but in terms of comparing them to cities that weren't sleepy, overgrown country/college towns 20 years ago, you'll just have to wake me when New Braunfels looks like Bloomington, MN and Round Rock looks like Bellevue, WA ;)

I constantly down Bellevue, but their growth is impressive. The entitlement could get the heave-ho, but they rock at getting things done.

Not like the "oh-but-its-not-sprawl-you-forget-this-is-texas-this-is-smart-growth-"sprawl of the Austin and San Antonio area that gets passed off as a MAJUR DEVELIPMINT

[oldmanshirt]

The idea of my post was the rail could help this process along and put the area in a new league.

My actual quote was "A/SA haven't shown any willingness to work together the way that region has". The commuter rail is a good start, but that's all it is, a start.

[oldmanshirt]

I constantly down Bellevue, but their growth is impressive. The entitlement could get the heave-ho, but they rock at getting things done.

Not like the "oh-but-its-not-sprawl-you-forget-this-is-texas-this-is-smart-growth-"sprawl of the Austin and San Antonio area that gets passed off as a MAJUR DEVELIPMINT

lol, I don't even know that so many people are calling it "smart growth", they're just satisfied with it, and don't want anything else. As long as folks can get their 3500 sq ft house on their little patch of Stone Oak or Alamo Ranch heaven, and then force a McDonalds and Super Target to follow them out there, everything's cool.

Not to single SA out, tho. Even before I was interested in urban planning, I came to despise sprawl every time I visited my ex-gf's house in Frisco. How some people can equate a mini-mansion on a half-acre lot with "luxury", I'll never know :rolleyes:

[Schertz1]

My actual quote was "A/SA haven't shown any willingness to work together the way that region has". The commuter rail is a good start, but that's all it is, a start.


And my original post didn't even mention those areas, only that rail could help SA/A to start behaving like a region. I know it's not currently marketed that way. I said this could be a start.

[alexjon]

And my original post didn't even mention those areas, only that rail could help SA/A to start behaving like a region. I know it's not currently marketed that way. I said this could be a start.

Here's your first post, unedited:

The cost are substantial, but I think it is needed. San Antonio/Austin already has more pop. growth than Houston and is very close to DFW. New construction and corp. relocations are a different story. Rail will enhance the quality of life in the region and make it more competitive with DFW and Houston. I also think the public benefits are low balled.

I fail to see how bringing other regions into the mix isn't appropriate, considering how far from DFW/Houston San Antonio is. They just brought the ceiling down for you :)

Going back to this:

That's your opinion, too bad the Department of Commerce web site disagrees. If you look at the Gross Metropolitan Product of these cities, you will see San Antonio/Austin is growing faster, by rate or real numbers, than them all. And as of 2004 SA/A has surpassed Denver.

105,821 millions - 132,819 millions increase for the SA/A region between '01 and '05. That's an increase of 26,998 million.
155,695 - 182,071 millions increase for Seattle region. That's an increase of 26,376.

So the SA/A region increases at a rate of 622 million per 5 years more than the Seattle Tacoma region.

How long til they catch up? At 50 years, they're still far apart!

[oldmanshirt]

And my original post didn't even mention those areas, only that rail could help SA/A to start behaving like a region. I know it's not currently marketed that way. I said this could be a start.

Good, then we agree :)

Let's end this mindless banter between fellow Texans, shall we?

[KevinFromTexas]

Let's stay on topic.

[DruidCity]

I think far too many people equate "bigger" with "better."

Whether this is a good project shouldn't be about "catching up" to Minnesota or God-knows-where in the census count, but about improving the quality of life and environment for the Austin-San Antonio area for generations to come.
:tup:

[Talon]

Back on topic...

The actual line itself isn't all that expensive, just $600 million. The biggest part would be having UP move their tracks east. I wonder though, couldn't they build the rail near 130? There's already a corridor in place with it, so it would make sense.

ASA has actually investigated this option but unfortunately from what I've read the designers of Segments 1-3 of 130 were not very familiar with the requirements of rail and designed too many turns and grade features to make putting the new rail alignment along that corridor. They were supposed to be coordinating with the design of Segment 4 (183 down to Seguin) so as to make this a possible option in the future which would greatly reduce the cost of RoW at least.

I don't know that much about the UP rail. Is the existing UP right of way large enough to accommodate double tracking portions of it to allow the freight and passenger trains to pass more easily at more locations as a compromise?

[Mikey711MN]

ASA has actually investigated this option but unfortunately from what I've read the designers of Segments 1-3 of 130 were not very familiar with the requirements of rail and designed too many turns and grade features to make putting the new rail alignment along that corridor. They were supposed to be coordinating with the design of Segment 4 (183 down to Seguin) so as to make this a possible option in the future which would greatly reduce the cost of RoW at least.

Just to lend some factual clarity to the discussion in regards to using the SH 130 alignment...

The designers knew/know plenty about rail geometrics, but the bottom line is that they were tasked to design a roadway and not a railway. Incorporating a railway was never in their scope, so they were never obligated to incorporate the essential features to facilitate a line therein. As it were, a rail study was included into a Change Order in the early stages of the project that dubbed any rail within the limits of SH 130 as generally unfeasible.

For your reference, Segments 1-4 were constructed by LSI for TxDOT Austin District from IH-35 to the north to the current terminus at US 183/SH 45SE to the south. Segments 5-6 were never given the NTP to continue construction on that contract as a result of the concession agreement to let CZ do it, which will extend "SH 130" to IH-10. In no case were there contractual requirements to include RR interests into the alignment.

In short, using the SH 130 alignment itself is a non-starter. But using a corridor roughly parallel to SH 130 as an entirely new one...? That's certainly a possibility, which is reflected in this recently released study.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't know that much about the UP rail. Is the existing UP right of way large enough to accommodate double tracking portions of it to allow the freight and passenger trains to pass more easily at more locations as a compromise?

I would think not. Perhaps in certain places, but there are too many narrow segments where it wouldn't allow for it.

[M1EK]

There is supposedly enough ROW even in the part where it runs in the Mopac median to allow double-tracking, but it would require a shutdown of freight service to accomplish (since the one track that exists runs smack down the middle of the rail ROW; and the hypothetical two tracks would have to run on either side of that line to fit).

Yet another one in the long series of fantasies which will never happen - commuter rail between A/SA isn't going to happen, folks (at least, nothing beyond the level of the joke Amtrak 'service'). I already bet Jeb Boyt a steak dinner on this.

[SecretAgentMan]

There is supposedly enough ROW even in the part where it runs in the Mopac median to allow double-tracking, but it would require a shutdown of freight service to accomplish (since the one track that exists runs smack down the middle of the rail ROW; and the hypothetical two tracks would have to run on either side of that line to fit).

Yet another one in the long series of fantasies which will never happen - commuter rail between A/SA isn't going to happen, folks (at least, nothing beyond the level of the joke Amtrak 'service'). I already bet Jeb Boyt a steak dinner on this.

I wouldn't get your saliva glands in an uproar just yet. Jeb could still be eating your steak. As usual, the Media got the story wrong. The $2.4B alternative includes a global relocation of all UP lines and yards within SA that UP is not interested in because it is less efficient than the current situation.

The recommended alternative costs $1.7B and consists of a rail bypass from Taylor to Seguin roughly parallel to the SH130/TTC alignment, and some upgrades of existing track within the SA MSA. Most significanlty, UP is actually interested in this scenario because the public/private (UP) benefits are much greater than just commuter rail feasibilility. (See letter below).

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9431/txdotletterws6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

For more info, see actual studies:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/ctr_rail_study.pdf

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/sarf_rail_study.pdf

[M1EK]

Our bet has a time limit - and anything which requires more than a billion in funding is likely going to push it past the limit, given the legislature's failure to fund last time around. I also think that in a few years, we're going to be too consumed with keeping our existing infrastructure running to make any more large investments, which is why we're running out of time on light rail and shouldn't waste any more energy on Rapid Bus, commuter rail, etc.

[oldmanshirt]

From today's Express-News

Interim commuter rail may be the way to go

The high cost of relocating freight rail lines out of San Antonio and other large Texas cities may push back plans for a 15-station San Antonio-Austin commuter rail service to perhaps five years from now.

That's disappointing, given the initial goal of commuter rail service by 2009-10 when the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District started planning in 2003.

An interim San Antonio-Austin commuter rail service is in the works, however, that could start in about two years if everything goes right.

The Texas Department of Transportation is working with the National Railroad Passenger Corp., also known as Amtrak, for a feasibility study, due by the end of this year. The service is projected to provide passenger service with between six and 17 trains per day between the two cities.

Once the yet-to-be-identified study contractor completes its report, TxDOT will seek bids to operate the service. Amtrak can be expected to bid because it has the federal statutory right to use freight rail lines for intercity service, including the San Antonio-Austin tracks Union Pacific Corp. operates.

Another bidder likely would be Herzog Companies Inc., based in St. Joseph, Mo., which operates several passenger lines.

The interim passenger service operator must pay UP market rates to run on UP's tracks.

The Austin-San Antonio rail district is taking a back seat on the formation of a possible interim service. UP tracks can be used by Amtrak for intercity passenger service, not commuter rail, district board Chairman Sid Covington said.

The district nevertheless hopes an interim service begins. It will take time for the state and UP to make plans to share the billions of dollars in costs to build new tracks that will steer freight trains on routes circumventing Texas' large cities.

The rail relocation is meant to avoid rail accidents in urban areas, but a beneficial side effect will be to free up freight tracks for passenger service.

The Austin-San Antonio rail district wants to start a 15-station commuter service stretching 112 miles from Georgetown to Port San Antonio. The passenger system no doubt would revitalize the real estate industry along the route. To start the commuter service, the district would need access to tracks in the right-of-way now owned by UP.

To offer the frequency of service necessary would mean UP would be limited in the amount of freight UP conveys on that line. All sides recognize UP needs additional tracks to increase its freight capacity in this region, especially because the area's population could double over the next two decades.

The state and UP have an agreement that the cost of new tracks could be shared by a public versus private benefits formula. UP, which competes with trucks for freight, will want to keep its share as low as possible.

Negotiations between the state and UP can start if the Texas Legislature starts allocating funds next year for freight rail relocations. Talk is centering on the possibility of annual $200 million state allocations, which could support about $2 billion in construction bonds. The rail companies' match could allow about $5 billion in rail relocation over the next three to five years.

The San Antonio-Austin area would have to compete with other Texas cities for priority. When freight rail relocation occurs, the ambitious 15-station commuter rail plan could move forward, using taxes on new real estate developments around the stations to finance a $600 million-plus plan.

A lot of “ifs” surround the commuter rail's permanent passenger service. “It all depends on Union Pacific,” Covington said. “It always has.”

Meanwhile, a simplified interim service, perhaps operated by Amtrak or Herzog, is the only passenger train service that can happen anytime soon.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/columnists/david_hendricks/interim_commuter_rail_may_be_the_way_to_go.html

~~~

[KevinFromTexas]

Build it! I would totally ride it.

[sakyle04]

UP tracks can be used by Amtrak for intercity passenger service, not commuter rail, district board Chairman Sid Covington said.

I am assuming that the difference between "commuter" and "intracity passenger" is that commuter has multiple stops along the way while intracity is just like a greyhound bus on rails - point a to point b...?

[oldmanshirt]

I am assuming that the difference between "commuter" and "intracity passenger" is that commuter has multiple stops along the way while intracity is just like a greyhound bus on rails - point a to point b...?

That was my assumption as well, which I guess would mean the interim line would run only downtown to downtown routes.

[M1EK]

Amtrak is often HOURS late due to freight traffic. (This is one of their least reliable segments in the entire country). You guys want to be hours late on a trip to San Antonio? Really?

[alexjon]

5 years isn't that long-- let's stop tying our hands and work on something useful, like LRT.

Skip the "intercity rail", too.

[electricron]

As I keep saying, it's too late; commuter rail precludes anything like this from ever happening in Austin (takes up the right-of-way the primary line in from the burbs needed and is incompatible with LRT trains).

LRT can get up to 55-65 pretty easily - so, yes, you can use it for interurban service. Doesn't matter - the ASA rail service will have to be DMU or even worse, FRA-compliant, because there's nobody with a few billion dollars handy to build UP a new freight corridor and convince them to move to it.

It would be much too expensive to run light rail transit over 90 miles in just one corridor. It would be much cheaper to run regional rail (DMUs and EMUs) that far. Light rail transit requires 600-1500 Volts DC rectifiers power units every 2 to 3 miles. Regional rail EMUs uses higher AC Volts power units every 25 miles. The higher the voltage on the line, up to 25 KV, the farther apart the power units can be...

Therefore, with a corridor that long, Diesel power will be the most likely choice in Texas.

I don't understand both ASA and DFW areas rail agencies preoccupation over realigning freight railroad lines in the short term. It'll be far cheaper to follow what Utah's did with the UTA Frontrunner commuter rail deal with the UP. Build a new passenger service rail line right next door to the freight lines in UP's corridor. Sure, it might require a 10-$20 million overpass every now and then, but it will be far less expensive than buying and building the UP a whole new corridor. Even if you bought and built the UP a brand new corridor, you'll still want to upgrade the existing rail line to maximize the train's speed. I really do believe in looking at and following what other transit agencies have done successfully. I don't think the UP would put up much hoopla if ASA built a parallel passenger track next to their freight tracks, especially if you paid for access rights sufficient enough for the UP to upgrade the parallel MKT corridor between San Antonio and San Marcus.

[electricron]

The simpliest and cheapest solution for the ASA is duplicate the deal UTA made with the UP. Specifically, buying long term access rights and building a brand new passenger only tracks right next to UP's freight tracks on that corridor. If UP balks, allow the UP to use the new passenger tracks when the ASA isn't. If the access rights UP asks is much higher than fair, make the UP spend that extra amount on the parallel MKT corridor between San Antonio and San Marcus, which effectively triple rails that corridor most of the way.....

[alexjon]

The simpliest and cheapest solution for the ASA is duplicate the deal UTA made with the UP. Specifically, buying long term access rights and building a brand new passenger only tracks right next to UP's freight tracks on that corridor. If UP balks, allow the UP to use the new passenger tracks when the ASA isn't. If the access rights UP asks is much higher than fair, make the UP spend that extra amount on the parallel MKT corridor between San Antonio and San Marcus, which effectively triple rails that corridor most of the way.....

I think we ought to bring up UTA as often as possible in the city of SA. Smaller city but far better infrastructure.

[M1EK]

There is not enough room "next to" the UP tracks in the difficult areas of the corridor - the original tracks would have to be ripped out, and two new tracks laid down. (This is still drastically insufficient for commuter rail as the 'difficult segment' in Austin is way too long to support single-track use on even hourly headways).

[TXlifeguard]

I don't understand both ASA and DFW areas rail agencies preoccupation over realigning freight railroad lines in the short term. It'll be far cheaper to follow what Utah's did with the UTA Frontrunner commuter rail deal with the UP. Build a new passenger service rail line right next door to the freight lines in UP's corridor. Sure, it might require a 10-$20 million overpass every now and then, but it will be far less expensive than buying and building the UP a whole new corridor. Even if you bought and built the UP a brand new corridor, you'll still want to upgrade the existing rail line to maximize the train's speed. I really do believe in looking at and following what other transit agencies have done successfully. I don't think the UP would put up much hoopla if ASA built a parallel passenger track next to their freight tracks, especially if you paid for access rights sufficient enough for the UP to upgrade the parallel MKT corridor between San Antonio and San Marcus.

Can't speak for DFW, but I've always gotten the sense that the relocation issue is a two birds/one stone kinda deal- if they get the tracks relocated, the cities get the commuter rail, and 2) they can boast of a major improvement to citizens' safety by not having 50,000 gallon liquid tank cars full of anhydrous ammonia or chlorine rolling down the tracks 20 feet from someone's bedroom at 3 am. Normally, rail traffic is incredibly safe- but from 1998 to 2004 or so, UP had a bit of a problem keeping the trains ON THE TRACKS. A few accidents were especially bad- people died in their sleep or trapped in their homes- rescue teams couldn't even get to them because of the toxic clouds kinda bad. It really jolted people and made them aware of what exactly was rolling down the tracks through town, and people started asking their officials why it couldn't be re-routed around town.

[electricron]

Can't speak for DFW, but I've always gotten the sense that the relocation issue is a two birds/one stone kinda deal- if they get the tracks relocated, the cities get the commuter rail, and 2) they can boast of a major improvement to citizens' safety by not having 50,000 gallon liquid tank cars full of anhydrous ammonia or chlorine rolling down the tracks 20 feet from someone's bedroom at 3 am. Normally, rail traffic is incredibly safe- but from 1998 to 2004 or so, UP had a bit of a problem keeping the trains ON THE TRACKS. A few accidents were especially bad- people died in their sleep or trapped in their homes- rescue teams couldn't even get to them because of the toxic clouds kinda bad. It really jolted people and made them aware of what exactly was rolling down the tracks through town, and people started asking their officials why it couldn't be re-routed around town.

If city officals were really worried about toxic chemical rail cars running through high denisty population corridors, they could banned them from the city. Take Austin, for example, the UP could take the spur from San Marcus to Balstop/Smithfield and on north to Taylor, bypassing Austin altogether. That line exists today. That's why I can't figure out why ASA wants to build another bypass closer to Austin....One bypass already exists.

Make UP upgrade their own tracks! UP has allowed the old MKT corridor deteriorate over the years, mainly because they were maintianing the old MP lines which serviced larger cities. It's far cheaper to maintain one rail line than two. But now these larger cities want the "through" freight traffic to go around them. Someone has to pay to maintain the second line.

Solution, make the UP upgrade and fully maintain the second line while ASA helps the UP maintain the first line with access rights fees for their passenger trains.

I still think it would be far cheaper to follow what UTA did in Utah, specifically adding an additional track to the existing line.

[electricron]

There is not enough room "next to" the UP tracks in the difficult areas of the corridor - the original tracks would have to be ripped out, and two new tracks laid down. (This is still drastically insufficient for commuter rail as the 'difficult segment' in Austin is way too long to support single-track use on even hourly headways).

Most railroad corridors, even in Texas, are 100 feet wide. There's plenty of room to double track that line.

Check Google Earth out, trace the UP line north of Salt Lake City to Ogden.
There's plenty of room for the second track and third passing tracks at stations.

Then check out the Carrollton to Denton MKT line going to be used by the DCTA. There's plenty of room for double tracks, AND a 10 feet wide concrete bicycle trail in that mostly 100 feet wide right of way. The ASA to Austin right of way isn't any smaller.

What you say is probably true, in places the existing rail line may have to be adjusted to fit two, or even three tracks in the right of way. UTA didn't have any difficulties with the Frontrunner accomplishing that when necessary, and neither should ASA.

[paulsjv]

You guys think if we do finally get light rail it will be extended to other areas of town like north to the domain and arboretum and somewhere south/southwest?

[M1EK]

Again, you can't just "add an additional track" - large sections of the line would require first removing the existing track in order to have enough room for 2 (the one line is running down the middle of a right-of-way which is wide enough for 2 tracks, but just barely).

[M1EK]

There's a dozen miles or so of such right-of-way in Austin alone (where the existing track has to first be removed in order to make room for 2 tracks). And 2 tracks, with freight on one, is still pretty crappy for commuter rail (probably fine for Amtrak twice-a-day, but not for 10 commuter rail trips a day).

[KevinFromTexas]

I live a quarter mile from the UP tracks in South Austin. I can see the trains from my backyard through the trees. I really doubt there would be enough room for double tracks there, even if they ripped the existing ones out. Not only that, but even if by some miracle there is room, they'd have to completely regrade the route through there. There's a 10 foot deep trench on both sides for almost 2 miles at least. There are double tracks to the north and south of here. To the north near West St. Elmo at James Casey, just north of Emerald Forrest near South Austin Hospital, and parallel to Manchaca Road to the north and south of Slaughter Lane.

Farther north there aren't any double tracks again until you get to a spur near the Amtrak station in downtown and along Mopac up in North Austin.

There may be places where they own right-of-way, extra land, but there are other areas where it's clear they don't. The spot I talked about near my house is bordered by an apartment complex, some of those units are less than 30 feet from the trains, and another building on the other side just as close. This is the crossing at Stassney.

[electricron]

I live a quarter mile from the UP tracks in South Austin. I can see the trains from my backyard through the trees. I really doubt there would be enough room for double tracks there, even if they ripped the existing ones out. Not only that, but even if by some miracle there is room, they'd have to completely regrade the route through there. There's a 10 foot deep trench on both sides for almost 2 miles at least. There are double tracks to the north and south of here. To the north near West St. Elmo at James Casey, just north of Emerald Forrest near South Austin Hospital, and parallel to Manchaca Road to the north and south of Slaughter Lane.

Farther north there aren't any double tracks again until you get to a spur near the Amtrak station in downtown and along Mopac up in North Austin.

There may be places where they own right-of-way, extra land, but there are other areas where it's clear they don't. The spot I talked about near my house is bordered by an apartment complex, some of those units are less than 30 feet from the trains, and another building on the other side just as close. This is the crossing at Stassney.

Engineering solution, lay storm lines to the city's sewer system, fill in the gulleys, and lay double track above. :whip:

The MP going north within the MoPac freeway will be a problem that will have to be dealt with. Since it's just 5 to 6 miles long, time spacing the trains 10 minutes apart solves that problem. Most commuter rail trains run at least 30 minutes apart, so that problem is solved by using a train schedule.

I would also like to add, is using the MoPac north really needed if CapMetro Rail uses the old MKT line right of way north to Plugerville, Round Rock, and Georgetown using the Stadler DMUs?
The Stadler units could operate easily with 20 minute headways on single track, with passing siding at stations. NJT uses them with 15 minute headways. Wouldn't 15 minute headways be better than 20 or 30 minute headways?

Get the passenger trains off the UP north may make it easier to get passenger trains on the UP south. South, there's room for double tracks.....;)

[M1EK]

The MoKan line would just be another example of Capital Metro spending an excessive amount of money providing service to people who don't pay Capital Metro taxes while ignoring Austin (like the existing commuter rail service, which provides more benefits to Cedar Park than to Central Austin). No Thanks.

And, no, you couldn't run commuter-with-freight in single-track on the central Austin stretch. Not even close. You can't even really run Amtrak there - as evidenced by the frequent delays of multiple hours just to get to Fort Worth.

[electricron]

Again, you can't just "add an additional track" - large sections of the line would require first removing the existing track in order to have enough room for 2 (the one line is running down the middle of a right-of-way which is wide enough for 2 tracks, but just barely).

A 100 foot right of way has plenty of room for 3 tracks in a railroad right of way.

Maybe a drawing will help! Check out this DCTA pdf.
http://www.dcta.net/Documents/CapitalProjectsPublicMeetingsMarch2008Combined.pdf

Then view to page 31. Important numbers on drawing are.

Minimum centerline distances between tracks = 15.5 feet
Minimum centerline distances between outer tracks and edge of right of way property line = 12 feet

Room required at property line: 2 x 12 feet = 24 feet
That leaves 76 feet for tracks: 100 - 24 = 76 feet.

In 76 feet, number of tracks capable of being squeezed within the right of way: 76 / 15.5 = 4.9 tracks.

I don't think ASA will need to squeeze in that many tracks.

So, how wide will the right of way have to be to squeeze in just two tracks?

It's in that same drawing, 39.5 feet.

Please don't suggest the UP MAINLINE right of way is less than 40 feet wide. You will not find any MAINLINE right of ways in the entire USA that slim. :whip:

So, stop suggesting it's impossible to lay double tracks in the UP right of way.

UTA did it, DCTA will do it, and DART does it all the time.

Besides, ASA doesn't have to be double tracked over the entire UP line, although I would expect the UP will demand it. The parallel MKT right of way between San Antonio and San Marcus already exists, and can be used by UP freight. Even it could be double tracked by the UP, potentially putting quad tracks between these two cities in this single corridor. All the ASA must do, to make the commuter rail project advance forward, is double track the UP line from the spur in San Marcus to downtown Austin, a distance of just 29 miles. Some of that 29 miles is already doubled tracked.

The total costs should be far less than the projected $Billions for building the suggested bypass rail corridor around both Austin and San Antonio.

To get an idea how much it would really cost to start commuter rail service, check out UTA's Frontrunner costs.

Purchasing 175 miles of UP right of way = $185 Million
Salt Lake City to Odgen = 44 miles

Total capital costs for first 44 miles of Frontrunner = $581 Million
That includes all the construction costs for the double track, trains, service facility, and stations.

I suggest, ASA should be funded "at most" with a similar cost per mile ratio:
UTA Frontrunner ratio is $581 Million / 44 miles = $13.2 Million per mile.
Therefore, the entire 112 miles of the ASA line would be "at most" $13.2 Million x 112 Miles = $1.478 Billion.

I would like to note UTA had to build double track over the entire 44 miles, and that ASA should only have to build the second track over just 29 miles. The $1.5 Billion assumes double tracking the entire 112 miles. So the total costs should be much, much less than $1.5 Billion.

UTA Frontrunner fare prices:
FrontRunner One-way Fare $3.00 - $6.00 (distance-based) (Includes a Fuel Surcharge of $0.50)
The FrontRunner One-way Fare cash payment is good on FrontRunner commuter rail with transfer to all buses and TRAX for two hours from the time of purchase. The fare applies to passengers ages 6-64. This fare is distance based with a base fare of $3.00 for travel to one station plus $0.50 for each additional station. The maximum fare from Ogden to Salt Lake City is $6.00 one way. Purchase FrontRunner one-way fare prior to boarding at a ticket vending machine.

Premium Day Pass $13.50 (Includes a Fuel Surcharge of $1.00)
A day pass is available for FrontRunner commuter rail, all buses, and TRAX. This pass must be purchased at a FrontRunner ticket vending machine. These machines are located at all FrontRunner stations. At the time of purchase, each ticket will be validated by the ticket vending machine and can be used for unlimited rides FrontRunner, bus and TRAX for that day.

ASA should charge approximately the same as UTA.

UTA service frequency over single passenger track:
FrontRunner will run every 30 minutes during daytime hours and hourly in the evening. In both directions!

[M1EK]

electricron, UP doesn't have 100 feet on a very long stretch in Austin. I wish you'd stop trying to mislead people here. One track for commuter rail, even if freight didn't exist, wouldn't work on a section that long - it wouldn't allow 30 minute headways if there were any stations in that stretch, which there are supposed to be.

[electricron]

electricron, UP doesn't have 100 feet on a very long stretch in Austin. I wish you'd stop trying to mislead people here. One track for commuter rail, even if freight didn't exist, wouldn't work on a section that long - it wouldn't allow 30 minute headways if there were any stations in that stretch, which there are supposed to be.

Really?

Let's check the right of way distance out using Google Earth's Tools.

Just south of the Colorado Bridge = 150 feet
Barton Spring's Rd = 100 feet
Mary St = 100 feet
Oltort St = 100 feet
*Banister Ln (including open concrete gutters) = 100 feet
*Banister Ln (between open concrete gutters) = 45 feet
* Note: Concrete gutters can be replaced with storm sewer lines and overfilled with soil, second track could then be placed on either side of existing track. Also, only the side with the second track requires overfilling.
Ben White Blvd = >100 feet
St. Elmo Rd = 100 feet
Not far south of St. Elmo Rd., double track already exists.
Lansing Dr = 132 feet guardrail to guardrail.
Stassney Ln = 100 feet
Stanley Ave = 150 feet
William Cannon Dr = 125 feet
*Matthews Ln (including abutment) = 100 feet
*Matthews Ln (excluding abutment) = 55 feet
*Matthews Ln has a drainage abutment just 10 feet west of centerline of track. Plenty of room for second track east of existing track.
Davis Ln = Already double tracked
Slaughter Ln = Already double tracked

There's just a few areas were more work than just laying double track is required. The longest area is between the concrete storm gutters near Bannister Ln. The distance requiring a new storm sewer and overfill is 1,700 feet, around a quarter mile. It's possible Austin may want more overfill. But that isn't that expensive to do, considering the hundred of millions of dollars being used to lay the second track and starting the passenger train service.
And it'll probably be cheaper to just move the single track to one side and lay the second track adjacent to it. Only 39 feet is needed for double track, as I mentioned before, and there's 45 feet clearance between the concrete gutters.

[alexjon]

Is that the literal measurement taking property lines and claims into consideration?

[electricron]

As an engineer by training, I don't believe in the words never ever :)

Actually, Streetcars, Light Rail Trains, and European DMU Trains (CapMetro's Stadler trainsets) are all non FRA compliant vehicles. Therefore, they can share the same track at the same time. But why would someone want to use a 45 mph Streetcars on the same tracks with 65 mph DMUs on the same single track?

Non FRA compliant trains and compliant trains can't use the same tracks at the same time. American built freight and passenger trains are FRA compliant.

So, never say never has already been turned upside down, because non FRA
trains can share the same tracks......

[M1EK]

Really?

Yes, really. Even in your cherry picked list, there were places where they couldn't simply add a track alongside, and you completely ignored anything north of the river - where the longest stretch of constrained space exists.

[electricron]

Yes, really. Even in your cherry picked list, there were places where they couldn't simply add a track alongside, and you completely ignored anything north of the river - where the longest stretch of constrained space exists.

My cherry picked list was at EVERY crossing intersection south of downtown Austin's railroad bridge over the Colorado River. I didn't pick places in between crossings because there was no way to identify those locations specifically. Check out Google Earth or Google Maps to discover that truth.

I didn't mention any locales north of downtown Austin mainly because I don't agree large, FRA compliant commuter rail is the appropriate solution for the MoPac Line in the center median of the MoPac freeway. Although I have no doubt that double tracking could fit anywhere along the line and there's plenty of room. But I think that line will be needed for freight service, and I also don't think stations in the freeway's center median is safe, or would encourage transit ordinated developments.
I suggest getting to Georgetown from downtown Austin using the abandoned MKT line instead. Between it and the existing Leander Line, both using the same 300 feet turning radius Stadler DMU non FRA compliant trainsets, with little to no freight trains on them, just about all Austin's suburbs will be connected to downtown Austin.
I only think compliant FRA trainsets like the TRE should be used from downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio. Therefore, I see no reason why Austin will ever need to use the MoPac line in the center median of the MoPac freeway.
If, at a later time train service along this MoPac corridor is needed, a streetcar down Lamar should suffice to move local traffic, not commuter traffic. Use freight train corridors for commuter traffic, and city streets for local city traffic is best, imho.

[M1EK]

Again, you're misleading people. The point was that there is not sufficient space to add a track alongside the existing track - in those places, the existing track must first be torn up, with the attendant service disruption, which UP absolutely will not tolerate, nor should they.

[SecretAgentMan]

Again, you're misleading people. The point was that there is not sufficient space to add a track alongside the existing track - in those places, the existing track must first be torn up, with the attendant service disruption, which UP absolutely will not tolerate, nor should they.

You're the only one attempting to mislead people. Since when is a software engineer an expert on railroad construction?

The fact is, a freight track requires 25 feet for dynamic envelope, light rail about half that much. So, a 100 foot wide ROW can contain 4 freight tracks or up to 8 light rail tracks. Even if a single freight track is located in the center of a 100 foot ROW, there is plenty of room to insert an additional track either side. As Electricron indicated, it might require drainage improvements to eliminate the open drainage ditches, but that is a minor issue.

Rail construction in active ROW is done all the time. Otherwise railroads would still be operating on the original infrastrucutre installed over 100 years ago. Where that is the case, it is more a matter of economics that construction feasibility. Upgrades and track expansion is routine railroad construction.

The only major constraint in Austin is the single-track Town Lake Bridge and the stretch of track along Third Street near Lamar. That is partly why ASAICRD will be required to operate FRA compliant vehicles. And even there it is more a matter of cost than engineering feasibility.

[M1EK]

SAM, there is less than 100 feet of right-of-way during the entire stretch where the railroad is in the center of the expressway. There is not sufficient width to add a track alongside of the existing track - the only way two lines can fit in that space is to first tear up the one line that's going down the middle.

Nobody said there wasn't room to install alongside in 100 feet. The point is that there isn't 100 feet in a lot of the corridor - the very same parts, in fact, that people are the most interested in operating rail service on.

http://www.texasfreeway.com/austin/photos/loop1/images/existing_row.gif
60 feet of right-of-way (http://www.texasfreeway.com/austin/photos/loop1/loop1.shtml) (follow the link and scroll way down). NOT enough to put a new freight track alongside an existing freight track which is operating in the middle of the 60 feet. With your ludicrous numbers (unsafe), you'd need at least 75 feet to put a new freight track alongside a center-running freight service.

This condition exists from essentially the river crossing to north of 2222. If this stretch can't be solved, there is no point even working on the rest of it. And what it will take is the complete removal of freight service from this corridor for a period of years - or continued operation in single-track in this section, which would continue to make it impossible to provide commuter rail service (which unlike Amtrak must operate many times each day).

Again, folks, you ought to be asking yourself why people who won't identify themselves insist on attempting to mislead you.

Thanks, Lyndon.

[donclark]

SAM, there is less than 100 feet of right-of-way during the entire stretch where the railroad is in the center of the expressway. There is not sufficient width to add a track alongside of the existing track - the only way two lines can fit in that space is to first tear up the one line that's going down the middle.

Nobody said there wasn't room to install alongside in 100 feet. The point is that there isn't 100 feet in a lot of the corridor - the very same parts, in fact, that people are the most interested in operating rail service on.

http://www.texasfreeway.com/austin/photos/loop1/images/existing_row.gif
60 feet of right-of-way (http://www.texasfreeway.com/austin/photos/loop1/loop1.shtml) (follow the link and scroll way down). NOT enough to put a new freight track alongside an existing freight track which is operating in the middle of the 60 feet. With your ludicrous numbers (unsafe), you'd need at least 75 feet to put a new freight track alongside a center-running freight service.

This condition exists from essentially the river crossing to north of 2222. If this stretch can't be solved, there is no point even working on the rest of it. And what it will take is the complete removal of freight service from this corridor for a period of years - or continued operation in single-track in this section, which would continue to make it impossible to provide commuter rail service (which unlike Amtrak must operate many times each day).

Again, folks, you ought to be asking yourself why people who won't identify themselves insist on attempting to mislead you.

Thanks, Lyndon.


Does a railway line have to go down the middle of a freeway? What's is wrong with existing railroad right of way? As I read Google Maps, there is plenty of right of way for another railroad track along Electricron's corridor. How did the railroads build double track or sidings to begin with decades ago? The answer, by laying another track in the same right of way besides the original track. A railroad track is 56 inches apart, not feet. A railroad track is less than 5 feet apart. With 60 feet of medium space along a freeway, surely there is 20 feet of usable right of way. 40 feet should be sufficient if the original railroad ran down the middle. The average railroad car is 10 feet wide.

[M1EK]

Does a railway line have to go down the middle of a freeway? What's is wrong with existing railroad right of way? As I read Google Maps, there is plenty of right of way for another railroad track along Electricron's corridor. How did the railroads build double track or sidings to begin with decades ago? The answer, by laying another track in the same right of way besides the original track. A railroad track is 56 inches apart, not feet. A railroad track is less than 5 feet apart. With 60 feet of medium space along a freeway, surely there is 20 feet of usable right of way. 40 feet should be sufficient if the original railroad ran down the middle. The average railroad car is 10 feet wide.

Using the own numbers of the two anonymous cowards, the current line takes 25 feet and runs right down the middle. On either side is active freeway, so you need at least that same 25 feet of space with which to do the work (I think more; but again, using THEIR NUMBERS). Thus, to get to 2 tracks in this part of the corridor without first tearing up the existing track, you'd need a minimum of 75 feet of right of way (3x25).

It's worth noting that the first siding north of the river is NOT in the middle of the freeway - it's north of 2222, where the rail right-of-way is wide and off to the east of the freeway.

[electricron]

Using the own numbers of the two anonymous cowards, the current line takes 25 feet and runs right down the middle. On either side is active freeway, so you need at least that same 25 feet of space with which to do the work (I think more; but again, using THEIR NUMBERS). Thus, to get to 2 tracks in this part of the corridor without first tearing up the existing track, you'd need a minimum of 75 feet of right of way (3x25).

It's worth noting that the first siding north of the river is NOT in the middle of the freeway - it's north of 2222, where the rail right-of-way is wide and off to the east of the freeway.


Double tracks would fit within the MoPac freeway median, but I will agree that the existing track would have to be moved to one side there. It'll cost around $1 million to $2 million per mile to move the existing track, and $10 million to $15 million per mile to lay the second track.

Double track clearance, including the buffer area on either side, is the same 39.5 feet requirement that DCTA drawings show that I provided a link to earlier. Here it is again http://www.dcta.net/Documents/Capita...08Combined.pdf

The UP runs in the median of the MoPac freeway for 4 miles, total cost at $17million per mile would be $68 million. There's three to four bridges to widen, so it'll cost more than $68 million. None the less, it'll will still be far cheaper than building the 100 mile or so bypass Austin and San Antonio desires.

If ASA uses "compliant" FRA trains, there's no need to double track the MoPac in the median of the MoPac freeway. To travel 4 miles at average freight speed of 30 mph, it'll take 8 minutes. At a slow average of 15 mph, no more than 16 minutes. I don't think ASA will want to run Commuter Rail twice an hour outside rush hours (30 minute headways). During rush hour, make the freight train wait. One can easily schedule the different trains to make single track for 4 miles work.

Besides, I'm more in favor using the abandoned MKT right of way in east Austin anyways, just to avoid the UP freight problem altogther. UP will ask a small fortune to use that 4 miles of their track. The point of going north on the MoPac's tracks is to get to Round Rock and Georgetown. But the unused abandoned tracks get to those two cities too.

I'm more worried about TXDOT's freeway clearance requirements than UP's freight clearance over that 4 miles.

[M1EK]

Double tracks would fit within the MoPac freeway median, but I will agree that the existing track would have to be moved to one side there. It'll cost around $1 million to $2 million per mile to move the existing track, and $10 million to $15 million per mile to lay the second track.

Which, of course, means it will never, ever, ever happen. UP would have to stop freight service for a year or two. How likely is that?

As for using MOKAN, it's even dumber - it gets you even farther away from the core of downtown than Seaholm would - and then you're stuck with the same asstastic "let's ask people who were never willing to ride nice express buses straight to work to hop on a shuttle bus twice a day" plan.