AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Tech House

To even begin to attempt to bring this back on topic is a feat requiring a futuristic transportation system capable of ferrying the remote suburban content of this comment back into the urban core. I'm somewhere twixt Florence and Briggs, help!!!

Here's how we bring this back:

I mostly get offended when people cut me off in traffic (relevant in China and/or Austin...more or less the same issues ). When I'm driving, I often listen to music from Tech House's generation...but, like Kevin, it's good to be awake when driving at night, so I sometimes listen to music from wwmiv's generation. While I'm driving, or rather, sitting in traffic while listening to music, I often consider how much more efficient it would be if I could get from one place to another without sitting in a never-ending traffic jam...I think of the possibilities...such as, LTR, commuter rail, HSR, street cars, gondolas, or even zip lines from Round Rock to downtown Austin. Anything other than more highways.

See, now we're back on track.

(no pun intended for the "track"....or was there?)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

TEX Rail commuter rail seems to have gotten state funds committed as well.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TX_...ofile_FY14.pdf

TexRail is planning to receive 10% (around $96 Million) from the Texas Mobility Fund. I'm not sure those funds have been received yet. ???

The Texas Mobility Fund revenue sources is from TXDOT selling bonds. As of August 31, 2015, $9.1 Billion of bonds have been issued. The Mobility Fund program is currently established in the aggregate principal amount of $7.5 billion outstanding at any one time. As of Aug. 31, 2015, the principal amount of debt outstanding is $6.4 billion.
For the FY ending August 31, 2015, here's what the Texas Mobility Fund spent its money on:
Transportation $147,483,000
Capital Outlay $59,631,000
Principal on State Bonds $62,355,000
Interest on State Bonds $258,358,000
Other Financing Fees $8,199,000
Total Expenditures $536,026,000

More money in the FY ending on August 31, 2015 was spent paying off the bonds than actually being used for transportation projects, at a 3 to 2 ratio (60% to 40%)
Debt Service $320,713,000
Capital Projects $215,313,000

I suggest the only people getting rich from the Texas Mobility Fund are the bondholders.

I don't believe a $3 Billion plus in total Lone Star Rail and the Freight bypass projects can be financed by it without other sources of local revenues.

Let's take your TexRail example as an example.
(2012 data)
Federal: (58%)
Section 5309 New Starts $479.56 (50.0%)
Section 5309 Bus/Bus Facilities $4.00 (0.4%)
FHWA Flexible Funds (CMAQ) $70.30 (7.4%)
FHWA Flexible Funds (STP) $2.0 (0.2%)

State: (10%)
Texas Mobility Funds $96.31 (10.0%)

Local: (32%)
The T’s Dedicated Sales Tax $138.86 (14.5%)
City of Grapevine Sales Tax $77.26 (8.1%)
Tarrant County Bonds $20.00 (2.1%)
Vehicle Capital Lease Proceeds $70.84 (7.3%)

Total: $959.13 (100.0%)

Therefore, Lone Star Rail will have to find around 32%-33% of its capital costs as well, and at a $3 Billion project, they're going to have to find around $1 Billion in local funding.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

TexRail is planning to receive 10% (around $96 Million) from the Texas Mobility Fund. I'm not sure those funds have been received yet. ???

So you admit the claim that the state won't finance commuter rail is incorrect? (especially since they already financed Austin's expansion).

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't believe a $3 Billion plus in total Lone Star Rail and the Freight bypass projects can be financed by it without other sources of local revenues.

How did 2.4 B become "$3 Billion plus"?

And you still seem to be ignoring the freight relocation fund.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

(1)So you admit the claim that the state won't finance commuter rail is incorrect?
(2)How did 2.4 B become "$3 Billion plus"?
(3)And you still seem to be ignoring the freight relocation fund.

(1)If you consider 10% share funding commuter rail, yes. It still doesn't answer where Lone Star Rail funds 33%. Can you name a dedicated funding sources for $800 Million to $1 Billion is coming from?

(2)Where did you find your $2.4 Billion figure? I found my $3 Billion figure at
http://watchdog.org/232022/lone-star-rail-taxpayers/
"A national transportation expert calls the proposed Lone Star Rail project between Austin and San Antonio a bust for taxpayers.
Carrying an initial price tag of $2 billion to $3 billion, the commuter line would take over existing Union Pacific tracks near Interstate 35 and shift freight onto new rails to the east."
Lone Star Rail FAQ states;
"It’s hard to say how much the LSTAR will cost until we figure out what that cost actually includes—vehicles, track improvements, stations, new freight rail infrastructure as needed, connections to other transit services."

At this stage of planning, before construction begins, I'm more inclined to believe the higher cost number than the lower because that's what usually happens.

(3)To date, the Legislature has appropriated just over $180 million to this fund, money that has been distributed throughout the state. Do you really believe the Legislature will grant an additional $800 Million to $1 Billion for just one rail bypass around Austin?
http://lonestarrail.com/index.php/fr...location-fund/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

(1)If you consider 10% share funding commuter rail, yes. It still doesn't answer where Lone Star Rail funds 33%. Can you name a dedicated funding sources for $800 Million to $1 Billion is coming from?

Who says it has to be limited to 10%?

Since the state is paying way more than that percentage for Austin's expansion.

Originally Posted by electricron

(2)Where did you find your $2.4 Billion figure?

In the phreaking presentation that we're discussing.
Which I already called you out for ignoring.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=245018
page 12

Originally Posted by electricron

(3)To date, the Legislature has appropriated just over $180 million to this fund, money that has been distributed throughout the state. Do you really believe the Legislature will grant an additional $800 Million to $1 Billion for just one rail bypass around Austin?
http://lonestarrail.com/index.php/fr...location-fund/

Again, it's not "an additional $800 Million to $1 Billion".

And what of that $180M "has been distributed throughout the state"?

And it's not "just one rail bypass around Austin"

It's around Austin, Round Rock, San Marcos, New Braunfels, San Antonio, etc.

That's a lot of voters.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Hey, but they did have good music. So I'll call us even.

Originally Posted by drummer

When I'm driving, I often listen to music from Tech House's generation...but, like Kevin, it's good to be awake when driving at night, so I sometimes listen to music from wwmiv's generation.

The irony is that my pseudonym, Tech House, is a music genre that belongs to wwmiv's generation. The first time I ever went to a rave, my reaction was "This blows away every Grateful Dead concert I've ever been to!" In my car, I listen almost exclusively to talk radio (Jeff Ward and NPR), but when I listen to music I only listen to classical or EDM --- electronic dance music.

Regarding the contents of this thread and staying on topic, I've gotten lost in the technical details of what's being discussed on the last couple of pages. It's important stuff but it's way outside my capacity to add anything useful.

But here's something that I only just realized (doh!) a few days ago --- Increasing the capacity of our freeways is a bit like widening part of a river. It can end up being a big parking lot if there's no way to channel all that traffic to downstream destinations. I know that this is like Transportation Planning 101, it's extremely obvious, but I hadn't ever thought it through before so it was a revelation to me. The reason I was thinking about it is that there are people who just want bigger freeways, and that's all well and good but what that achieves is to make it easier to deliver a larger volume of traffic from one part of the metro to another, without providing the necessary improvements on city streets in order to handle more traffic. I guess what I'm getting at is that we need a vastly improved public transit system, and this line of reasoning that I'm fumbling around with is what really alerted me to the fact that building better commuter arterials is only going to change the "where and when" of traffic headaches rather than actually solving the underlying problem.

[lzppjb]

The increased capacity of 35 downtown is needed because it's widening the bottleneck. Commuters and thru-traffic need more space. The extra capacity isn't needed as much on either side of town because commuters are thinned out and it's just people (and trucks) moving on through.

Like everyone and their brother has said, one of the biggest helps would be to detour thru-traffic, especially trucks, around town. 130 was supposed to help with that.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Tech House

In my car, I listen almost exclusively to talk radio (Jeff Ward and NPR)

What?! No Rush or Hannity or Savage??

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

The increased capacity of 35 downtown is needed because it's widening the bottleneck. Commuters and thru-traffic need more space. The extra capacity isn't needed as much on either side of town because commuters are thinned out and it's just people (and trucks) moving on through.

Like everyone and their brother has said, one of the biggest helps would be to detour thru-traffic, especially trucks, around town. 130 was supposed to help with that.

Right, bottlenecks should be targeted but I was targeting my comment more at transportation debacles like the 800-lane Katy freeway. I should have been more clear about that.

Speaking of Rush, I used to listen to him when I ran a courier route in the Bay Area, in the 80s when he was at a station in Sacramento. He was actually pretty funny and politically independent back then. He poked fun at all politicians, regardless of party affiliation. When he went national he sold out to the GOP right-wing talking points system and he suddenly turned into a horrific douchenozzle. I miss the original Rush.

[drummer]

I like Rush...you know...Working Man.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who says it has to be limited to 10%?

In the phreaking presentation that we're discussing.
Which I already called you out for ignoring.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=245018
page 12

It's around Austin, Round Rock, San Marcos, New Braunfels, San Antonio, etc.

That's a lot of voters.

10% is TXDOT's are for TexRail, that'll be its share for Lone Star Rail too.

Per your recent link:
Capital Expenses covered over time with a combination of:
Federal Grants & Loans (40%-60%)
State Rail Relocation/Other Funds (20%-30%)
Private Investment & Other (15%-40%

I'll grant the the Feds total funding could reach 60%. I strongly believe the TXDOT will max out at 10%, which still leaves 40% unfunded. Ever wonder why your link suggest 15% to 40% to come from Private Investment or Other? I believe I know why they included 40% in that line, because I believe very strongly that is what they will need.

I repeat again, there's no local funding sources identified for capital construction. Without that local funding share identified, you will not receive one penny in Federal funding. And that's what I've been trying to get across all along!

Population of
Bexar County 1,818,000
Travis County 1,121,000
Williamson County 471,014
Hays County 176,026
Coral County 118,480
Sub Total = 3,704,520

FYI (Other Texas Counties with passenger rail operations today)
Harris County 4,337,000
Dallas County 2,480,000
Tarrant County 1,912,000
Denton County 728,799
Sub Total = 9,457,799
Note: None of these counties received more than 10% TXDOT funding for their rail capital projects. NONE!

It will also be difficult to find private enterprise to provide the capital needed to build the bypass rail line. One would think the UP will step up to do this, but the existing "understanding" with UP suggests they expect someone else to pay for it. I don't foresee another private enterprise funding the building a bypass rail line for the UP to own and to profit exclusively.. And the bypass rail line is at least three times more expensive than converting the existing line for commuter rail. One might expect some private enterprise developer put some money into train stations; but not into rail cars, locomotives, or tracks.

Using your suggested numbers, 15% of $2.4 Billion is $360 Million, 40% of 2.4 Billion is $960 Million. And as of today, no funding sources have been identified or promised.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

10% is TXDOT's are for TexRail, that'll be its share for Lone Star Rail too.

Because the great electricon has spoken, so shall it be.

Originally Posted by electricron

I'll grant the the Feds total funding could reach 60%. I strongly believe the TXDOT will max out at 10%, which still leaves 40% unfunded.

Uh, 60% + 10% = 70%. 100% -70% = 30%.

And that's not even including any other possible state funding. Such as, for the third damn time, the relocation fund.

Originally Posted by electricron

I repeat again, there's no local funding sources identified for capital construction. Without that local funding share identified, you will not receive one penny in Federal funding. And that's what I've been trying to get across all along!

They say they don't need local government capital funding.
Seems like they would know more from you.

Originally Posted by electricron

And the bypass rail line is at least three times more expensive than converting the existing line for commuter rail.

No, you're wrong. Again, read the damn presentation. Still estimates, but I definitely respect their 2X estimate (based on knowledge) than your 3X claim (based on absolutely nothing).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

(2)Where did you find your $2.4 Billion figure? I found my $3 Billion figure at
http://watchdog.org/232022/lone-star-rail-taxpayers/
"A national transportation expert calls the proposed Lone Star Rail project between Austin and San Antonio a bust for taxpayers.
Carrying an initial price tag of $2 billion to $3 billion, the commuter line would take over existing Union Pacific tracks near Interstate 35 and shift freight onto new rails to the east."

Almost everything that link says is a lie. It's almost amusing, if you're relying on that. It explains a whole lot.



"Union Pacific bought 8,000 miles of Southern Pacific tracks for $3 billion"

FALSE. Union Pacific and Southern Pacific merged. In fact, technically the current UP is the old SP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southe...tation_Company


"Politicians love to cut ribbons on shiny new things and ignore basic bus service that helps the working poor"

FALSE. Because after all, Austin has no bus service. Oh, actually we spend hundreds of millions a year on buses. Between Capmetro and VIA, we'll spend more than this rail in just a few years.


"Meantime, the Cato expert maintained no rail system in America can move more people than a two-lane freeway."

And how much will it cost to add two more lanes to I35 between Georgetown and SA?


"Sales tax increases are also being considered."
FALSE. Where is it getting this? Austin, SA, SM, NB, none of them can even increase their sales tax rate anymore.


"Regional mobility authorities have the power to impose still more tax hikes while siphoning toll-road revenues into rail ventures."
FALSE. What tax hikes? They don't have taxing authority.


"Terri Hall, president of the nonpartisan Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, said local officials have already earmarked $20 million for two or more boarding platforms at unspecified sites. Approved without public hearings, the platforms will be funded by gasoline taxes"

FALSE.
What local officials? What gasoline taxes? Localities don't have gasoline taxes.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Almost everything that link says is a lie. It's almost amusing, if you're relying on that. It explains a whole lot.

I deliberately made an attempt to avoid posting a CATO link. I posted a link to a local advocacy web site.

Let's review some facts experienced in North Texas commuter trains.
DCTA built a 21 mile mostly single track commuter rail service in a corridor already owned by DART for $325 Million. That included $73 Million for 11 Stadler GTWs.
Therefore they spent $12 Million per mile on track using 115 pound steel, on land they didn't have to buy.

FWTA plans on spending $998 Million for 27 miles of mostly single track where 21 miles of the corridor is already owned by DART, and another mile is owned by the TRE. Around 5 miles will be ran in newly purchased right-of-way parallel to UP owned tracks. Only dedicated passenger tracks will use 115 pound rail, tracks shared with mainline freights will use the more expensive 136 pound rail. FWTA plans to buy 8 Stadler 4 car Flirts for $108 Million. Therefore FWTA will be spending around $33 Million per mile of track. That's 2.75 times more expensive per mile than DCTA. The reason why is that mainline freight trains require heavier rail.

Lone Star Rail needs to build a bypass rail corridor for mainline freight trains for UP that could be around 91 miles long (Taylor to Sequin). Using TexRail $/mile average, that's over $3 Billion. Lone Star Rail would have to purchase far more than 5 miles of right-of-way than TexRail will.

I'm not so sure, looking at recent past history within Texas, that 91 miles of mainline freight corridor can be built for the amount projected by Lone Star Rail.

Maybe they are planning to use the lighter rail? Using DCTA $/mile average, 91 miles of mostly single track will cost around $1.1 Billion.

Maybe they are planning to build a shorter bypass? Would UP accept that?

Maybe they aren't buying the land at full market value?
I don't know, but the dollars aren't adding up as they should.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Therefore FWTA will be spending around $33 Million per mile of track. That's 2.75 times more expensive per mile than DCTA. The reason why is that mainline freight trains require heavier rail.

Using slightly heavier rail doesn't triple the costs.

There's quite a few significant differences between those two projects, and several issues that increase costs for the TexRail project.

There is significant property acquisition for the texrail. Not only RoW for widening, but also for a number of park and ride lots. If DCTA acquired any land, it's land out in the suburbs (no central city land prices).

While single tracked, texrail has quite a few double track sections and passing sidings.

Texrail requires (by my count) ~30 new bridges. Including 1 almost a mile long, and several in the 1/2 -1/4 range.

While only 6 miles longer, Texrail has almost double the number of stations as A-train. More at-grade crossings, more crossing gates, etc.


http://www.texrail.com/Portals/0/Doc...escription.pdf


There is a fundamental difference between trying to put down a new track in a congested, already fairly urbanized environment and a new fright track in completely greenfield rural areas.

You can't use per-mile numbers from one for the other. Especially when the former still includes all the costs of the commuting infrastructure.


Edit: And it's not around 91 miles, it's around 80 miles.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't know, but the dollars aren't adding up as they should.

You're looking at the wrong numbers.

With just a little googling, I pulled up this.

http://www.acwr.com/economic-develop...l-siding-costs

1-2 Million /mile (the cost of the rails themselves being almost nothing in comparison).

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passenger...ethodology.pdf

Freight siding: ~1 Million/mile.

HSR : 15 Million /mile

Freight rail isn't going to cost double that.


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...9192918AASedYi

1.3 Million /mile.


There's also this, again HSR focused, but a freight line isn't going to cost _more_ than a 220 mph HSR line, like you claim it will.
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewco...92&context=etd

[urbancore]

http://gizmodo.com/hell-yes-obama-wa...r-r-1752965805

I can't wait to stop this talk of rail....the real future is point to point autonomous vehicles.

[drummer]

I think the future is definitely multi-modal. Some will use the autonomous vehicles (I'm a bit afraid these personally until they work out the kinks). I think rail will pick back up in the U.S., however, and the technology will only improve. Flights will continue, of course. Cars aren't going away anytime soon.

If some of you census trends gurus can help me out on this, it seems like more and more people are moving to urban centers, percentage-wise - is that a correct statement? If so, it seems like the autonomous cars may be useful within cities themselves (especially in areas without much current infrastructure for public transport). I see it as a stretch to be used a ton outside of urban areas due to cost (unless people own their own autonomous cars in the future, of course). Rail and flights seem to be the most cost-efficient way to get folks from urban center to urban center, while a multi-modal system is needed in cities themselves (cars, autonomous cars, various modes of mass transit, etc.).

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by drummer

I think the future is definitely multi-modal. Some will use the autonomous vehicles (I'm a bit afraid these personally until they work out the kinks). I think rail will pick back up in the U.S., however, and the technology will only improve. Flights will continue, of course. Cars aren't going away anytime soon.

If some of you census trends gurus can help me out on this, it seems like more and more people are moving to urban centers, percentage-wise - is that a correct statement? If so, it seems like the autonomous cars may be useful within cities themselves (especially in areas without much current infrastructure for public transport). I see it as a stretch to be used a ton outside of urban areas due to cost (unless people own their own autonomous cars in the future, of course). Rail and flights seem to be the most cost-efficient way to get folks from urban center to urban center, while a multi-modal system is needed in cities themselves (cars, autonomous cars, various modes of mass transit, etc.).

I totally agree with you about the kinks. But I'll bet that with the kinks it still is better than the distracted drivers on the road now.

Pretty much all commercial planes are flown "autonomously", and we accept that.

The problem with Austin is that our density is so low 2500 (Dallas 3500, Portland 8500..if memory serves). And even with all the construction going on now, i don't ever see us reaching the density of Portland. Without REAL density, we rely on the suburbs to vote FOR a rail system that will not directly impact their commute and because of the cost to homeowner's tax bill, looks unlikely to ever pass.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You're looking at the wrong numbers.

With just a little googling, I pulled up this.

http://www.acwr.com/economic-develop...l-siding-costs

1-2 Million /mile (the cost of the rails themselves being almost nothing in comparison).

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passenger...ethodology.pdf

Freight siding: ~1 Million/mile.

HSR : 15 Million /mile

Freight rail isn't going to cost double that.


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...9192918AASedYi

1.3 Million /mile.


There's also this, again HSR focused, but a freight line isn't going to cost _more_ than a 220 mph HSR line, like you claim it will.
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewco...92&context=etd

Not costing that much? First, freight sidings are usually built on land already owned by the railroad, so there's no additional property to buy. A new rail corridor, even in the middle of nowhere, the railroad has to spend to buy or get access to the corridor, 50 to 100 feet wide.
So, automatically its going to cost more than building a freight siding.

Additionally, freight sidings are not usually built or maintained for normal speeds, freight trains run very slowly on the sidings. If you don't believe me, ride the Texas Eagle or Sunset Limited, when they are routed to the passing sidings they go very slow (like 10 mph). The UP will want their trains going faster than 10 mph.

Two of TexRail stations in downtown Fort Worth are already built. The TRE using both of them every day they operate, and Amtrak using one of them every day. But I will admit building train stations will be expensive, but that's a chore Lone Star Rail will have to do too on the existing UP rail corridor. So the argument TexRail's station expenses add to their total cost but not for Lone Star Rail is also false.

Lets review the projected per mile cost of the proposed Texas Central HSR line. 250 miles long corridor projected to cost at least $10 Billion. That averages around $40 Million/mile. That's $40 Million/mile for double tracks - you can't assume it will be $20 Million/mile for single track because the width of the right-of-way will be the same in either case. A single track corridor will be between $20 and $40 Million/mile. I'll acknowledge that HSR includes double tracking and electrical catenaries that UP will not need. The idea that HSR can be built as cheaply as DCTA's A-Train can't possibly be true considering DCTA did not have to buy any land for the right-of-way, lay double tracks, nor install catenaries.

Again, I suggest the study is releasing false information when it comes to costs.