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

[oldmanshirt]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

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]

Originally Posted by Trae

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]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

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]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

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]

Originally Posted by alexjon

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

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

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]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

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]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

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.

[Talon]

Back on topic...

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Talon

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]

Originally Posted by Talon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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).



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