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

[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/col..._commuter_rail_may_be_the_way_to_go.html

~~~

[KevinFromTexas]

Build it! I would totally ride it.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

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]

Originally Posted by sakyle04

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]

Originally Posted by M1EK

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]

Originally Posted by 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.....

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]

Originally Posted by electricron

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]

Originally Posted by TXlifeguard

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.