AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[electricron]

Originally Posted by drummer

Maybe there is another option yet...

http://kxan.com/2016/08/10/study-for...en-for-review/

To simplify the DEIS, it recommends 110 mph or less train speeds along the existing UP rail corridors from Hillsboro to San Antonio.

South of San Antonio there's three options; (1) following the UP corridor to Laredo, (2) following the UP corridor to McAllen, or (3) build a true 200 mph train to Monterrey via Laredo - in a brand new rail corridor.

North of Hillsboro, there's three options to reach Dallas and Fort Worth; (1) follow an abandoned MKT corridor to Dallas, then follow the TRE corridor to Fort Worth, (2) extend (1) above by following the UP corridor from Hillsboro to Fort Worth, running trains in a circlulous route after leaving Hillsboro, and (3) running north through Arlington to I-30 in a brand new rail corridor, where there will be a wye and individual trains could go either to Fort Worth or to Dallas.
North of Fort Worth, the existing Heartland Flyer will continue to run at existing speeds (mostly 79 mph but 90 mph in very short stretches).

This TXDOT DEIS plan does not envision 200 mph trains between San Antonio and DFW. and to top it all off, TXDOT would prefer to find private investors to raise the finances to build it.

If you are hoping for faster trains through Austin, don't look at this TXDOT plan to get it implemented.

[drummer]

I'm just happy that conversations are happening. Things can always be tweaked, and hopefully people with their heads on straight can influence TxDOT and other powers that be for the better.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by electricron

To simplify the DEIS, it recommends 110 mph or less train speeds along the existing UP rail corridors from Hillsboro to San Antonio.

If you are hoping for faster trains through Austin, don't look at this TXDOT plan to get it implemented.

Can these existing corridors not handle the higher speeds? I imagine that a combination of existing + new ROW (+money) could probably get us high speed rail one day.

[Jdawgboy]

I'm not fond of the OK/TX HSR plan because it clearly bypassed the heart of Austin. Why are we being treated like Waco and Temple? I'd rather have the Hyperloop of it means service into the heart of the city.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Can these existing corridors not handle the higher speeds? I imagine that a combination of existing + new ROW (+money) could probably get us high speed rail one day.

They can't. Just look at the Chinese HSR minimum horizontal curves radii specifications and compare them with TXDOT's and you'll understand why.
200 km/hr (124 mph)= 2000 m (6562 ft)
250 km/hr (155 mph)= 3500 m (11483 ft)
300 km/hr (186 mph)= 5500 m (18045 ft)
350 km/hr (217 mph)= 7000 m (22966 ft)
I wished

FYI, TXDOT's usual minimum highway curve radii:
80 mph = 4575 ft (1394 m)
75 mph = 3750 ft (1143 m)
70 mph = 3390 ft (1033 m)
65 mph = 2740 ft (835 m)
60 mph = 2195 ft (669 m)
55 mph = 1635 ft (498 m)
50 mph = 1050 ft (320 m)
45 mph = 810 ft (247 m)

Let's assume rail and highway minimum curve radii are the same for the same speeds, since the g forces experienced by both modes of transportation are the same. TXDOT's requirements are for keeping trucks from overturning, railroad requirements are to keep rail cars from overturning.

There's no way you an run a HSR train in most freeways faster than 80 mph, because somewhere along the corridor the highway engineers used the minimum curves allowed. And certainly most of the highways curves will not meet HSR minimums.
Likewise, existing rail corridors designed for even less max speeds the highways will not support HSR trains.

And we've just been discussing horizontal curves, vertical curves are just as restricting. The kid in KC wasn't tossed around in the tube by horizontal curves, it was a vertical curve that killed him.

[ivanwolf]

My point being that is there a market that can sustain or a need to build a commuter train from SA to Austin?

Sure people would like to go between these places for events, shopping, friends and such. But are there enough people who commute daily to really spend hundreds of millions on a commuter train to and from?

I'd rather Austin use its tracks on MoPac for a local commuter train similar to the CapMetro Red Line. That line should go from GT > PF > RR >Austin > South Austin to say the 71 spur. I think having 15 min between rush hour trains would be great 30 min other times and maybe 45min-1hr on weekends except events.

I am not a fan of the North Lamar/Guadalupe light rail. I think even with the bus lanes and even adding a train out of the core like my above description that car traffic is too much to overcome. Sure reducing/removing lanes for a light rail may force people to take that mode but I still think there will be to many people that will/must drive into the core. Starting with a Red Line like solution would help gauge the need for the light rail.

The UP tracks are there, lets use them for something local, which is what the majority wants. We don't want (last vote) to give a small number of people light rail and with Longhorn dead we don't want that either it seems. Lets get down to solve Austin Metro issues first.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

But are there enough people who commute daily to really spend hundreds of millions on a commuter train to and from?

Commute daily from Round Rock to Austin?

Again, you're making the _fundamental_ mistake of seeing the tracks go from Austin to SA and assuming everyone (or even more than a small fraction of riders) would be going that whole distance.

Edit: It's like the interstate highway system. It stretches from California to Maine. (approximately) NO ONE ever drives all the way from maine to california. So therefore we shouldn't have built any highways.

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

I'd rather Austin use its tracks on MoPac for a local commuter train similar to the CapMetro Red Line.

Again, it's not "Austin"'s tracks.

They're UP's.

And to even have a chance to use them (which basically is no chance anymore) they needed to provide the freight bypass the _whole_ way.

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

The UP tracks are there, lets use them for something local, which is what the majority wants.

WE CAN'T. Not unless UP plays ball. And they're not going to do so unless it's in their best interest.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Novacek

WE CAN'T. Not unless UP plays ball. And they're not going to do so unless it's in their best interest.

What would be required on a legislative level to make something happen without UP's cooperation? Is that a state or national issue? Is it something that can be done with simple legislation or does it get into SCOTUS's purview?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Tech House

What would be required on a legislative level to make something happen without UP's cooperation? Is that a state or national issue? Is it something that can be done with simple legislation or does it get into SCOTUS's purview?

It's a national issue and the ruling agency would be the Surface Transportation Board (STB), which by the way considers moving freight equally with moving passengers economically. As long as there are freight customers using the rail corridor, the STB will require freight trains servicing them. The only way to kick freight trains off this UP owned corridor is if the UP agrees.
And that is why the recent UP announcement to end the Lone Star Rail agreement to move to a new freight bypass has killed Lone Star Rail using this corridor.

What have other transit agencies or state transportation departments done to implement commuter rail on freight corridors? There's a few basic strategies;
(1) Invest in all the track improvements on the rail corridor needed to share the corridor with freight trains. Amtrak Cascades, Amtrak Downeaster, Sounder, Sprinter, WES, North Star, Music City, River Runner, VRE, and MARC.
(2) Assume existing passenger rail operations from the freight railroad companies. Amtrak, METRA, NJT, SEPTA, and MARC.
(3) Buy the entire railroad corridor needed from the freight railroad company. Caltrain, Metrolink, Coaster, Railrunner, CapMetroRail, TRE, TriRail, SunRail, MTA North, Long Island, and MBTA.
(4) Buy half the existing rail corridor from the freight railroad and build new dedicated passenger tracks in your half. Frontrunner, and BART.

There's only three other ways commuter rail lines have been built, but these don't displace or impact freight railroads at all. But let's include them in the options available for a new commuter rail operator.
(A) Buy your own brand new rail corridor. South-shore, just about all subways, metro rail systems.
(B) Build your own rail line within a highway right-of-way. Metrolink and Rail-runner.
(C) Build your own rail line immediately adjacent to an existing freight railroad corridor right-of-way. RTA

Note, light rail lines have used just about all the examples listed above.

For new commuter rail expansions near Austin;
B, C, and 3 are the viable remaining options without an UP buy in.
3 for running trains towards Manor on a corridor already bought by CapMetro, or toward Pflugerville on a corridor owned by TXDOT, not on the UP owned line anymore.

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Commute daily from Round Rock to Austin?

Again, you're making the _fundamental_ mistake of seeing the tracks go from Austin to SA and assuming everyone (or even more than a small fraction of riders) would be going that whole distance.

Edit: It's like the interstate highway system. It stretches from California to Maine. (approximately) NO ONE ever drives all the way from maine to california. So therefore we shouldn't have built any highways.





Again, it's not "Austin"'s tracks.

They're UP's.

And to even have a chance to use them (which basically is no chance anymore) they needed to provide the freight bypass the _whole_ way.





WE CAN'T. Not unless UP plays ball. And they're not going to do so unless it's in their best interest.

From my understanding the point of the Lonestar Rail was to get people from SA to Austin as a commuter train?

My point is if that was it's intent is there really that many people to create a rail system that serves those people. I though Lonestar Rail would not pick up anyone but in the big cities like SA, NB, SM, Kyle...and would not pick up anyone in the close metro area of Austin.

I thought the intend of making the UP tracks Lonestar Rail that Austin would build a new rail out near 130 or find a way to keep both on the same rails.

I think Austin build a new rail at 130 for UP and convert the current UP line to commuter, but for local use first such as GT, RR, PF, and parts in between plus the South Austin area that gets often ignored.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

From my understanding the point of the Lonestar Rail was to get people from SA to Austin as a commuter train?

My point is if that was it's intent is there really that many people to create a rail system that serves those people. I though Lonestar Rail would not pick up anyone but in the big cities like SA, NB, SM, Kyle...and would not pick up anyone in the close metro area of Austin.

I thought the intend of making the UP tracks Lonestar Rail that Austin would build a new rail out near 130 or find a way to keep both on the same rails.

I think Austin build a new rail at 130 for UP and convert the current UP line to commuter, but for local use first such as GT, RR, PF, and parts in between plus the South Austin area that gets often ignored.

This is all incorrect. It was useful for both cities to pursue because I-35 is a huge traffic nightmare for both of them, and commuter rail along the corridor helps to alleviate that by reducing the number of trips made daily throughout the corridor. Because that reduction in trips would come primarily from commuters from each of the city's suburbs into their central cores, the connection between the two cities therefore is only a nice byproduct (yes, there would doubtless be riders making the whole journey but everyone involved understands that those would be a small share of the total ridership).

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This is all incorrect. It was useful for both cities to pursue because I-35 is a huge traffic nightmare for both of them, and commuter rail along the corridor helps to alleviate that by reducing the number of trips made daily throughout the corridor. Because that reduction in trips would come primarily from commuters from each of the city's suburbs into their central cores, the connection between the two cities therefore is only a nice byproduct (yes, there would doubtless be riders making the whole journey but everyone involved understands that those would be a small share of the total ridership).

Well the project is dead so maybe they will stop trying to go so big and try something more local.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

From my understanding the point of the Lonestar Rail was to get people from SA to Austin as a commuter train?

wwmiv already addressed this.

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

I though Lonestar Rail would not pick up anyone but in the big cities like SA, NB, SM, Kyle...and would not pick up anyone in the close metro area of Austin.

It's basically dead, but this wasn't the case. They had proposed something like 5 or 6 austin stations. Slaughter and I think another south one. 35th or 45th. Anderson Lane. The Domain. Howard lane. 1 or 2 round rock stations, etc.

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

I thought the intend of making the UP tracks Lonestar Rail that Austin would build a new rail out near 130 or find a way to keep both on the same rails.

It was much further east than 130.

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

I think Austin build a new rail at 130 for UP and convert the current UP line to commuter, but for local use first such as GT, RR, PF, and parts in between plus the South Austin area that gets often ignored.

Again, UP won't play ball.
And Again, all of those _were_ served in the old plan (yes, including South Austin, which doesn't get ignored). Except Pf, which doesn't touch the UP line.

And where are you going to run the new bypass? And what does UP gain by it (other than extra distance and fuel expenditures)?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Well the project is dead so maybe they will stop trying to go so big and try something more local.

But local doesn't necessarily mean any cheaper, or easier.

Basically, there's a minimum distance where a freight bypass even makes sense and is valuable to UP (to whatever extent it ever did).


It just means spreading the cost over a smaller number of taxpayers. And having fewer municipalities throwing their political weight. And a less useful, shorter rail line.

[Cloud92]

I don't normally comment but heres my thing on the failed lone star rail. I would have loved using it to get to school in san marcos right now I car pool with roommates and im pretty sure there are many other students who travel from austin to san marcos or san antonio to san marcos. the train would have been great for us but oh well.

[drummer]

^ Case in point - students commuting to and from school (Southwestern/UT/St. Edward's/TXST/UTSA, etc.) via rail and local connections (buses, etc.) would have been a huge portion. Work commutes (locally especially and, to a lesser extent, regionally) would have been plentiful as well. LSR was far from perfect, but it would've absolutely been useful. I truly hope something worthwhile will replace this concept in the near future. There aren't any fewer cars on I-35.

[drummer]

Hey, rail-savvy folks.

Can someone explain to me why they haven't added cars to MetroRail? I've been through Austin a bit recently from China and have seen that they're still only using one car, essentially. I've never seen more than that. Friends of mine who frequent the train say that it's fairly packed during peak hours. Just curious, especially since it's single track the majority of the way.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

Hey, rail-savvy folks.

Can someone explain to me why they haven't added cars to MetroRail? I've been through Austin a bit recently from China and have seen that they're still only using one car, essentially. I've never seen more than that. Friends of mine who frequent the train say that it's fairly packed during peak hours. Just curious, especially since it's single track the majority of the way.

1) They have to expand some of the stations to support longer cars. Downtown is a case in point (though the downtown station construction they're about to start is supposed to support longer cars).

2) adding cars is still a significant capital expense. Remember, they're DMUs so you can't (I'm pretty sure) just hook on extra passenger-only cars. They include the propulsion.


For the expansion project they're doing, they had to buy 4 additional cars to support the increased frequency. For the same money (or maybe a bit more, since I think they started with 6) they could have doubled size instead of doubling frequency.

But doubling frequency provides the same total capacity increase, and probably is more valuable overall (for a semi-random distribution of riders, it decreases wait times).
Plus they aren't "forced" to increase capacity in the off peak times this way (unless hooking/unhooking those additional units is super easy, I don't know).

I'm sure they'll increase the length eventually (as I said, they seem to be planning/constructing for it). But this was the right first move, I think.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

1) They have to expand some of the stations to support longer cars. Downtown is a case in point (though the downtown station construction they're about to start is supposed to support longer cars).

2) adding cars is still a significant capital expense. Remember, they're DMUs so you can't (I'm pretty sure) just hook on extra passenger-only cars. They include the propulsion.


For the expansion project they're doing, they had to buy 4 additional cars to support the increased frequency. For the same money (or maybe a bit more, since I think they started with 6) they could have doubled size instead of doubling frequency.

But doubling frequency provides the same total capacity increase, and probably is more valuable overall (for a semi-random distribution of riders, it decreases wait times).
Plus they aren't "forced" to increase capacity in the off peak times this way (unless hooking/unhooking those additional units is super easy, I don't know).

I'm sure they'll increase the length eventually (as I said, they seem to be planning/constructing for it). But this was the right first move, I think.

CapMetroRail has ordered 4 more new Stadler Rail GTWs to add to the 5 they already own, allocating $28 million for them at the average price of $7 million per GTW. Stadler usually delivers trains around two years after they have been ordered. So I would expect them to arrive during the summer of 2018.

They will spend another $22 million of their own money with matching state money to rebuild the downtown Austin train station, going from one platform and one track to two platforms and three tracks.

They will be adding additional double tracking and signal improvements to the existing Red Line, which will take train frequency from every 34 minutes to every 15 minutes.

TXDOT has allocated $50 million of state money as its share (50% matching) to assist CapMetroRail accomplish all of its Red Line improvements.

Source: http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily...acts-crowding/

While it is true GTWs CapMetro has ordered are the 2/6 versions, a car section can be added to make them 2/8 versions, which can add 50% more capacity to every train. But within a GTW unit, all the cars are bolted together with bars, not with quick acting couplers. All GTWs can operate in multiple units, where an entire GTW is coupled to another and ran as a single train with just one driver, but both GTWs engines must be running to maintain speed.

Drawing of various GTW configurations
http://www.trainsimhobby.net/forum/f..._GTWconfig.jpg
From top to bottom; 2/6, 2/8, 4/8, 4/12

20 second youtube vdeo of GTWs coupling together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWTQ7ER7g-o
This just show the final conclusion, not the preparation steps done inside the cab and steps afterwards. The coupling process certainly takes longer than the 20 seconds shown here.

Additional considerations that come to my mind worth mentioning. the blocks in downtown Austin are fairly short squares with streets around 300 feet apart, not rectangles where streets in one axis are further apart. Blocking cross streets by trains at train stations is and should be discouraged, and that point alone will limit the length of Red Line trains. A 2/6 GTW is 128 feet in length, two 2/6 GTWs will be 256 feet long, a 2/8 GTW is 174 feet in length, two 2/8 GTWs will be 348 feet long, and to mix them up a 2/6 and 2/8 GTW coupled together will be 304 feet long.

With 2/6 GTWs, CapMetroRail could couple two of them together and fit within one city block in downtown Austin and not block cross streets. That would not be true with two 2/8 GTW models. But depending upon the specific city block location of train station downtown, a 2/6 and a 2/8 GTW might be able to run together as one train.

Another item that should be addressed in the planning stages now is how to run GTWs into south Austin. Obviously a bridge will be needed, and a corridor chosen that's not the MoPac corridor owned by UP. I would like to suggest I-35 South, or the MoPac Freeway South. The entire eBART line being built on the east side of San Francisco Bay area is entirely within the median of a freeway, and they will be using 2/6 GTWs.
Link to photos:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...4__ebart~1.JPG
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townn...dc4c.image.jpg

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

While it is true GTWs CapMetro has ordered are the 2/6 versions, a car section can be added to make them 2/8 versions,

Do you mean as a construction/order option, or as a post-construction retrofit?