Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail

VOLUME I OF II

February 2012

Prepared by

In association with

Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000

Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail

FOR REVIEW ONLY FOR REVIEW ONLY

Do not use for permitting, bidding, or Do not use for permitting, bidding, or construction. construction. Engineer: Billy M. Cooke, P.E. Engineer: Thomas R. Munson, P.E. Engineer Reg. No.: 53555 Engineer Reg. No.: 92498 Klotz Associates - Texas P.E. Firm TranSystems Corporation - Texas P.E. Registration No. F-929 Firm Registration No. F-3557 Date: February 29, 2012 Date: February 29, 2012

Prepared by Klotz Associates, Inc. 1160 Dairy Ashford, Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77079

Texas P.E. Firm Registration No. F-929

Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 February 2012

Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail

Funding for this project was made possible by:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Through the U.S. Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Transportation and The Gulf Coast Rail District VOLUME I OF II TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1

SECTION 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………. . 1-1 1.2 Need ...... 1-2 1.3 Previous Studies ...... 1-3 1.4 Stakeholder Meetings / Outreach ...... 1-10

SECTION 2 RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Summary of Findings ...... 2-1 2.3 Representation of Commuter Rail Project ...... 2-2 2.4 Modifications to H-GAC Model ...... 2-3 2.5 Alternatives and Sensitivity Analysis ...... 2-7 2.6 Final Adjustments ...... 2-15 2.7 2035 RTP Update ...... 2-18

SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Signal System...... 3-2 3.3 Existing Freight Rail Traffic ...... 3-2 3.4 Sidings and Support Tracks ...... 3-4 3.5 Industries ...... 3-5 3.6 Track Chart Data ...... 3-5 3.7 Crossing Protection ...... 3-7

TOC-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

3.8 Alignment and Profile ...... 3-9

SECTION 4 SERVICE PLAN OPTIONS 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2 Operating Assumptions ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Temporal Separation ...... 4-2 4.2.2 UPRR Passenger Rail Policy ...... 4-2 4.2.3 Upgrade Signal System to Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)….. 4-6 4.2.4 Impact to Freight Operations ...... 4-7 4.2.5 Potential Intercity Passenger Rail Impacts ...... 4-7 4.2.6 Equipment Options ...... 4-9 4.3 Operating Scenario...... 4-11 4.3.1 Train Equipment ...... 4-11 4.3.2 Train Schedules ...... 4-12 4.3.3 Interim and 2035 Operation Plans ...... 4-19

SECTION 5 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 5.1 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.2 Track Infrastructure ...... 5-2 5.2.1 Track Upgrades ...... 5-2 5.2.2 Sidings...... 5-2 5.2.3 Roadway Crossings Upgrades/Signals ...... 5-3 5.2.4 Rail Signal Upgrade ...... 5-5 5.2.5 Bridge Replacements ...... 5-6 5.3 Stations and Facilities ...... 5-6 5.3.1 Station Platforms and Parking Facilities ...... 5-6 5.3.2 Rail Facilities ...... 5-8 5.3.3 Intermodal Facilities ...... 5-15 5.4 Constraints ...... 5-16

TOC-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

5.4.1 At-Grade Crossings ...... 5-17 5.4.2 Overhead Structures ...... 5-19 5.4.3 Rail Sidings and Spurs to Service Customers ...... 5-20 5.4.4 Floodplains and Environmental Issues ...... 5-21 5.4.5 Operational Constraints ...... 5-22

SECTION 6 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENTS 6.1 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.2 Capital Cost Estimate ...... 6-1 6.3 Operating Cost Estimate ...... 6-4 6.4 Revenue Projections...... 6-5 6.4.1 Draft Fare Structure ...... 6-5 6.4.2 Revenue Estimates ...... 6-6

SECTION 7 OTHER BENEFITS 7.1 Introduction ...... 7-1 7.2 Financial Benefits ...... 7-1 7.2.1 Potential Job Creation ...... 7-1 7.2.2 Sustainable Development Benefits ...... 7-4 7.2.3 Commuter Rail Comparison to Highway Widening ...... 7-4 7.3 Environmental Benefits ...... 7-7 7.4 Safety Benefits ...... 7-13

SECTION 8 LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING PROFILE 8.1 Summary ...... 8-1 8.2 Action Items ...... 8-4 8.3 Background ...... 8-6 8.4 Successful Federal/State/Local Funding Examples of Rail Projects ...... 8-9 8.5 Federal Funding Tools ...... 8-17 8.6 State and Local Funding Tools ...... 8-29 TOC-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

8.7 Near-Term and Long-Term Issues ...... 8-39

SECTION 9 ADMINISTRATIVE NEXT STEPS 9.1 Gulf Coast Rail District Actions……………………………………… .. 9-1 9.2 Passenger Interoperability Issues for the Houston Region Rail Network 9-2 9.2.1 Selection of Rolling Stock Train Equipment ...... 9-2 9.2.2 Interim Maintenance Strategies and Yard Locations ...... 9-3 9.2.3 Station Platforms ...... 9-4 9.2.4 Class of Track ...... 9-4 9.2.5 Train Operations and Dispatch ...... 9-5 9.2.6 Intermodal Connectivity with METRO ...... 9-6 9.3 Funding ...... 9-7 9.4 Coordination with Railroad...... 9-8 9.5 Coordination with Agencies ...... 9-9 9.6 NEPA Process ...... 9-9 9.7 Legislation...... 9-10

SECTION 10 CONCLUSIONS...... 10-1

TOC-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

TABLES

Table ES-1 Ridership Projections Compared to Previous Studies Table ES-2 Final Ridership Projections Table ES-3 Estimated Station Parking Demand Table ES-4 Commuter Rail Cost Comparison to Highway Widening Table 1-1 Level of Service (LOS) Ratings Table 2-1 Final Model Projections Table 2-2 Jersey Village TOD Growth Assumptions Table 2-3 Downtown Link Sensitivity Table 2-4 Fare Sensitivity Table 2-5 HOV Location Sensitivity Table 2-6 Commuter Bus Sensitivity Table 2-7 Additional Stations Sensitivity Table 2-8 Operating Speed Sensitivity Table 2-9 Station Combination Sensitivity - 2019 Table 2-10 Station Combination Sensitivity - 2035 Table 2-11 Station Alighting Volumes of Riders from the Extended Area Table 2-12 Final Ridership Projections Table 2-13 H-GAC 2035 RTP Update Rail Ridership Table 2-14 Final Adjusted Ridership Table 2-15 2019 and 2035 Modeling Results Table 3-1 Existing Siding and Support Tracks along the Eureka Subdivision Table 3-2 Existing Crossing Protection along Eureka Subdivision Table 4-1 Comparison of Bi-level and Single Level Equipment Table 4-2 Cost Comparison between Passenger Car Equipment Table 4-3 Proposed Year 2019 AM Commuter Rail Schedule Table 4-4 Proposed Year 2019 PM Commuter Rail Schedule Table 4-5 Proposed Year 2035 AM Commuter Rail Schedule

TOC-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 4-6 Proposed Year 2035 PM Commuter Rail Service with Intercity Rail Service Table 5-1 Estimated Station Parking Demand Table 5-2 Proposed At-Grade Crossings Table 5-3 Roadway Crossings - Anticipated Closures Table 5-4 Roadway Crossings - Potential Future Closures Table 5-5 Stream Crossings within 100-Year Floodplain at UPRR Table 5-6 Modeled Station Locations and Known Constraints Table 6-1 Estimated Capital Costs Table 6-2 Additional Commuter Service Options Peak Period Cost Comparisons Table 6-3 Additional Commuter Service Options Daily Peak Period (AM+PM) Cost Comparisons Table 6-4 Draft Fare Structure Table 7-1 Potential Construction Employment Benefits Table 7-2 Potential Long-Term Job Creation Table 7-3 Estimated Capital Costs of Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Build-out Table 7-4 Projected Annual Commuter Rail Operating Costs in 2035 Table 7-5 Cost Savings from Highway Commuters Transferring to Commuter Rail Table 7-6 Annualized Capital Cost of US 290 Widening Table 7-7 Annualized Capital Cost of Hempstead Toll Road Table 7-8 Incremental Operating Cost of US 290 Table 7-9 People per Day Benefiting from Adding 2 Highway Lanes to US 290 Table 7-10 People per Day Benefiting from the Proposed Hempstead Tollway Table 7-11 Commuter Rail Cost Comparison to Highway Widening

Table 7-12 Annual CO 2 Emissions Reduction Table 7-13 Annual NOx Emissions Reduction Table 7-14 Potential Accident Reduction Benefits Table 8-1 Examples of Existing Commuter Rail Systems – Operating Details and Funding Sources Table 8-2 Existing Funding Tools

TOC-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

FIGURES

Figure ES-1 Hempstead Commuter Rail Study Corridor Figure ES-2 Hempstead Commuter Rail Study Conceptual Station Locations Figure ES-3 Conceptual Commuter Rail Station Layout Figure 2-1 Jersey Village TOD Conceptual Plan Figure 3-1 Generalized Existing Typical Sections Figure 4-1 Single Level Passenger Coaches Figure 4-2 Bi-Level Passenger Coaches Figure 4-3 Proposed Year 2019 AM Commuter Rail Schedule Figure 4-4 Proposed Year 2019 PM Commuter Schedule Figure 4-5 Proposed Year 2035 AM Commuter Rail Schedule with Intercity Rail Service Figure 4-6 Proposed Year 2035 PM Commuter Rail Schedule with Intercity Rail Service Figure 5-1 Generalized Proposed Typical Section Figure 5-2 Potential Maintenance Yard Option 1 at Eureka Yard Figure 5-3 Potential Interim Maintenance Yard Option 2 near MP 29 (Hockley) Figure 5-4 Potential Interim Maintenance Yard Option 3 near MP 47 (Hempstead) Figure 5-5 Potential Interim Maintenance Yard Option 4 near MP 44 (Waller)

TOC-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Gulf Coast Rail District has undertaken this Conceptual Engineering Study for Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail to determine the feasibility of operating commuter trains along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Eureka Subdivision that runs parallel to US 290 through northwest Harris County to Hempstead in Waller County. This study, funded under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides data regarding potential ridership, station locations, connectivity to local transit and essential capital improvements. With the addition of data from UPRR regarding potential impacts on existing freight rail operations that may require mitigation and costs associated with use of the track, the Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD) will have defined the requirements for commuter rail in the Hempstead Corridor.

Background

Commuter rail in the Hempstead Corridor has been considered for several years. Most recently, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) listed the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail among the most likely to succeed in the region. According to the 2008 H- GAC Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study, the high level of commuter demand and low level of freight rail operations in the corridor made it a prime candidate for commuter rail operations. In addition, the congestion in the US 290 corridor, the recent availability of federal funding for passenger rail, and the willingness of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to consider partnering for shared operation of commuter rail with existing freight rail service along the Eureka Subdivision have made the Hempstead Corridor one of the most attractive for passenger rail.

ES-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Previous studies have identified the US 290 or Hempstead Corridor as a key component in the overall commuter rail network for Houston. Studies performed within the last ten years have also identified a need for high capacity transit in this corridor. The 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes additional transit investment in this corridor. The H-GAC Commuter Rail Study recommendations that the Hempstead Corridor and SH 3 freight rail corridor have the most potential available capacity for commuter rail was a catalyst for the GCRD to begin studies of these corridors.

The Hempstead Corridor including US 290 and the UPRR Eureka Subdivision rail line is one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Texas. The corridor population is projected to increase 64% or 345,182 new residents between 2006 and 2035 (US 290 Corridor FEIS – TxDOT 2009). Major new master-planned communities continue to develop along this corridor. In addition, existing communities along US 290 in Harris and Waller counties have begun plans for Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD) and Livable Centers that anticipate the development of commuter rail or other transit operations in the Hempstead Corridor.

Traffic congestion in this corridor is currently at unacceptable levels. Even with the proposed expansions of US 290 by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the proposed addition of the Hempstead Managed Lanes by the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA), increased travel demand is projected to exceed the proposed increased highway capacity. According to TxDOT studies, congestion levels along US 290 from FM 2920 in Waller to the IH 610 / IH 10 interchange currently are at or exceed the current roadway design capacity. With the proposed build-out of US 290 and the addition of the HCTRA Managed Lanes, the 2035 traffic congestion for US 290 and all three segments of the Managed Lanes inside of Barker-Cypress Road are projected to be at design capacity and worse. If any planned component from those recommended in the previous studies is eliminated or delayed, the congestion along US 290 is projected to be at virtual gridlock in 2035 (US 290 FEIS – 2009). Clearly, additional increased capacity

ES-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

in the corridor is warranted and the increased capacity should include a commuter rail component.

Currently, the 52 mile trip from Hempstead to downtown Houston takes about 63 minutes in off-peak hours. However, based on the 2009 Congestion Index of 1.25 for Houston developed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) for its 2010 Annual Urban Mobility Report, the trip takes commuters at least 78 minutes during the Peak Period hours. This TTI report also notes that the morning and evening ‘Rush Hours’ for Houston actually last for at least six hours every day.

Commuter rail offers several advantages for the commuters in the Hempstead Corridor. Commuter rail provides travel time reliability, increased travel safety and travel time options to rest, read, and safely use cell phones, electronics, and laptop computers. The increased cost and volatility of the price of gasoline and other motor fuels make commuter rail transit a more attractive alternative to roadway vehicles. As METRO has experienced at the Cypress Park & Ride, commuters enjoy the conveniences afforded by a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) such as restaurants, shops, offices, health clubs, dry cleaners, and other personal services as well as residential opportunities. Transit Oriented Developments are planned at Jersey Village and are in the concept phase for several locations along the corridor in anticipation of the commuter rail.

Commuter rail also provides commuters in the corridor a more energy efficient and sustainable alternative. Houston is a severe non-attainment region for air quality. The proposed Hempstead Commuter Rail Line is estimated to provide many environmental benefits to the community. Reducing carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by reducing the demand for auto travel and potentially reducing noise will be valuable. The Hempstead Commuter Rail will provide the opportunity for changes in modes of travel in the corridor which will result in positive environmental benefits due to reductions in air pollution by rail service replacing automobiles and diesel buses. Commuter travel on

ES-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

trains offers a lower-emission alternative to these other modes. The commuters choosing commuter rail travel over personal automobiles will decrease the pollutants generated by their travel to work, reduce personal exposure to pollutants, and contribute to the improved air quality of the entire region.

Hempstead Commuter Rail

As initially proposed for this study, commuter rail will start in Hempstead, Texas, and will parallel US 290 for approximately 45 miles until reaching a terminus near Loop 610 as indicated in Figure ES 1 . This study assumed a start-up year of 2019 and the build-out year of 2035. A build-out scenario was also developed for the year 2035 assuming commuter rail service will be completed with an additional five miles of travel directly into the downtown Houston central business district (CBD).

Figure ES 1 – Hempstead Commuter Rail Study Corridor

ES-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

This study also assumed passenger and freight operations will be accomplished through temporal separation, prohibiting passenger train operations from running concurrently on the track at the same time as freight operations. With temporal separation, a collision between a passenger train and a freight train would not occur as strict time separation exists between passenger and freight train operations.

Existing Rail Infrastructure

The UPRR Eureka Subdivision is currently a FRA Class 3 track. Track, bridge, signal and crossing protection improvements are necessary to bring this track up to Class 4 which is needed for commuter rail service. Besides the single mainline track centered within the 100-foot right-of-way, there are several locations where there are parallel tracks which are used to assist in freight rail operations.

The Eureka Subdivision is equipped with an Automatic Block Signal (ABS) system which is sufficient for the current slow speed freight trains but not for passenger train operations. Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) is a system in which signal indications supersede all other authority for the movement of trains. CTC is the safest and most efficient method of controlling train movements for a single main track railroad like the Eureka Subdivision where opposing passenger trains will need to meet and pass each other at normal operating speeds. CTC will need to be implemented within the Eureka Subdivision as part of the necessary upgrades to accommodate passenger rail operations.

Ridership Modeling

Demand for commuter rail along the Hempstead Corridor within the existing UPRR right-of-way is strong. A ridership model was developed using the H-GAC regional travel demand model to analyze potential commuter rail service on the Eureka subdivision in the Hempstead Corridor and be consistent with the 2035 RTP. This model

ES-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

was used to forecast ridership and revenue for alternative project concepts and to assist in the assessment of project benefits. For each station location, socio-economic data as well as conceptual station information including the representation of park-and-ride lots and connections to the surrounding area were updated in the model.

The station locations modeled, as shown in Figure ES 2, were based on previous studies, current METRO Park & Ride facilities, planned residential development and location of proposed Transit Oriented Developments (TODs). These locations were also consistent with current H-GAC Livable Centers initiatives along the corridor. A Prairie View station was added to the model to accommodate projected growth at Prairie View A&M University.

Figure ES 2 – Hempstead Commuter Rail Study Conceptual Station Locations

ES-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

The travel demand modeling results for commuter rail service extending from Hempstead to near IH 610 estimate 2,640 daily boardings at start-up in 2019 and 5,952 in 2035. Although no specific alignments for a CBD Link were studied or identified in this study, when the connection to the downtown Houston CBD is included in the model, daily boardings in 2035 increase threefold to 18,816.

Although previous Commuter Rail studies including the Hempstead Corridor were significantly different from this GCRD Hempstead Commuter Rail Study, these modeling results compare favorably with previous studies as shown in Table ES 1.

Table ES 1 – Ridership Projections Compared to Previous Studies

HGAC GCRD Commuter Rail Hempstead Assumption METRO Connectivity Commuter Rail Study Study Number of Stations 4 8 10

Headways (Peak/Off Peak) 15/30 20/30 20/30

Speed (MPH/Avg) 59* 45-50 45

Travel Time (minutes) 38* 84** 69**

* - Grand Parkway to Downtown ** - Hempstead to Downtown 2019 YR-2015 11,000- N/A N/A 12,000 10 2,700-3,000 N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A 2,640

ES-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

HGAC GCRD Commuter Rail Hempstead 1 MRO Connectivity Commuter Rail Study Study 2035 YR-2030 21,000- N/A N/A 22,000 N/A ,904 18,816 10 4,500-5,000 N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A 5,952

It should be noted that the METRO Solutions plan considered the commuter rail operations as an extension of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) operations to the Grand Parkway with only four stations, did not consider use of the existing UPRR right-of way, and produced ridership forecasts for FY 2015 and FY 2030. The HGAC Commuter Rail Connectivity Study was a ‘systems-level’ study for commuter rail for the entire Houston region. This study recommended further analysis of the Hempstead Corridor by the GCRD as a candidate for early implementation of commuter rail.

A number of roadway improvement projects are being eliminated from the 2035 RTP due to funding cutbacks. When these changes are considered, demand for commuter rail in this corridor increases another 20% in 2035 to 22,578 daily boardings. The results of the ridership projections are summarized in Table ES 2 .

Table ES 2 – Final Ridership Projections

No CBD No CBD CBD CBD Link Final Ridership Link Link Link (2035 RTP Projections (2019) (2035) (2035) Update)

Total Daily Boardings 2,640 5,952 18,816 22,578

ES-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Using the ridership projections and the conceptual operational plans, a prototypical commuter rail station conceptual layout was developed similar to concepts previously suggested in the Harris County Commuter Rail Study. The station platforms recommended have a 14-foot wide concrete pad 8 inches above the top of rail and a canopy covering 30% of the platform. The minimum platform length for start-up operations of 500 feet will provide operational flexibility and sufficient standing room for passengers waiting for the train. Additional rail cars could be easily added to the trains for increases in ridership or special events without needing to add to the platform length. The prototypical commuter rail station conceptual layout is shown in Figure ES 3.

Figure ES 3 – Conceptual Commuter Rail Station Layout

Parking demand was modeled for each of the station locations. Parking spaces at the downtown station are limited because it is assumed most riders will use other public

ES-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

transit options to get to and from this station. Ridership data indicate that passengers using the Prairie View station are bound for Prairie View A&M University. Therefore, it is assumed that shuttle bus service to the university would be available and a nominal number of spaces should be planned to be built as planning progresses. The ultimate parking needs based on projections for each of the stations are shown in Table ES 3 .

Table ES 3 – Estimated Station Parking Demand

Estimated Parking Estimated Parking Name of Station Demand (2019) Demand (2035) Hempstead 76 144 Prairie View 1 2 Waller 44 361 Fairfield 108 1248 Jarvis / Towne Lake 113 1054 N. Eldridge Pkwy 85 1487 Jersey Village 356 391 BW 8 / W Little York 75 577 IH610 / Eureka 171 838 Downtown 0 475

Project Costs

The Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail start-up service in 2019 is projected to cost approximately $290.7M to construct within the UPRR right-of-way and $6.6M to operate and maintain annually in 2010 dollars. These estimated construction costs include track replacement and upgrades necessary for passenger rail operations. The upgrades include bridge upgrades, safety improvements for crossings, signalization and train control, and drainage improvements. Any costs associated with the use of the UPRR ROW or mitigation costs for changes in UPRR freight operations were not included in the cost

ES-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

estimates developed for this study. Extension of commuter rail service into downtown Houston in 2035 is projected to cost an additional $254.2 M in both capital and right of way cost. This downtown extension would increase the annual O&M costs to $21.3M.

The cost estimates for this study have included the cost of only the station platforms for each station location. The costs for additional right of way, access, parking and infrastructure needs associated with the stations will be the responsibility of the local land owners, whether public or private. All of these costs could be eligible as part of the local matching funds that need to be provided when applying for federal funding.

Cost Comparison to Highway Widening

To provide a comparison of costs for Hempstead Commuter Rail to the US 290 Expansion or the Hempstead Toll Road, a cost per Peak Period commuter passenger served was developed to compare the cost of constructing and operating the Hempstead Commuter Project to IH 610 and Downtown to the proposed US 290 widening and proposed Hempstead Toll Road as shown in Table ES 4 . This analysis, developed in detail in Section 7.2.3 , compares the cost and ridership estimates for commuter rail from Hempstead to downtown Houston to the 2035 cost and usage estimates for widening US 290. The comparison is based on the incremental cost of adding the additional capacity to the existing transit system or to the existing freeway system. Because the anticipated ROW costs for the Hempstead Tollway and the Hempstead Commuter Rail cannot yet be defined, the incremental cost analysis does not include the ROW costs at this time.

The “Daily Users” column of TableES 4 shows that, with modeling constraints, commuter rail benefits more daily users than the additional highway/tollway lanes. Within the Hempstead Corridor, additional commuter rail capacity can be added to accommodate increased users with only additional rail cars and associated incremental

ES-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

increases in operating costs. Thus, the ridership increase and marginal operating cost increase could result in an overall reduction of cost per user for commuter rail.

Table ES 4 - Commuter Rail Cost Comparison to Highway Widening

Total Annualized Annual Annual Daily Cost per Capital Operating Cost Users Annual User (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) (2035) Users* (2010$) US 290 Widening $51.6M $8.1M $59.7M 11,704 29.8M $2.00 Hempstead Toll Road $79.1M $8.4M*** $87.5M 7,084 18.1M $4.84 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail $24.9M $13.9M $38.8M 11,289 28.8M $1.35 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail considering change in user cost $24.9M $2.5M $27.5M 11,289 28.8M $0.95 *Assuming 255 work day per year. **Note: The above comparisons only include capital and operating costs. Right of way costs are not included since they are undefined at this time. ***Hempstead Toll Road Annual Operating Cost based on 4 lane toll way for 23 miles at $90,914 per lane mile per year

The ability to add additional capacity on the commuter rail line when compared to widening the highway is another benefit that rail offers to the public within this corridor. Providing additional highway/tollway lane capacity will be constrained upon completion of the proposed US 290 improvements as all of the existing highway right of way will be used for the new lanes. Therefore, providing additional highway capacity based on future demand within this growth corridor will be challenging and very costly such that it may not be feasible to provide for more vehicular traffic. Therefore, increased highway users or traffic volumes will require construction of additional lanes with higher costs than listed in Table ES 4 versus the commuter rail’s potential to lower the cost per user. In contrast to the highway’s limited ability to add additional capacity, the commuter rail option can provide additional capacity – double tracking and additional trains - within the proposed rail right of way and the proposed station infrastructure. For example, the cost

ES-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

of adding capacity to provide for 10,000 additional vehicles to US 290 costs $892 million without right of way. The commuter rail can achieve this additional peak hour capacity by doubling the number of trains which has a rolling stock cost of $109 million or about $700 million less in capital costs.

A combination of infrastructure improvements will be required in this corridor as evidenced by various agencies’ planning and projects proposed in the 2035 RTP Update. This comparison is not intended to imply that any of the listed projects -- the US 290 widening, Hempstead Tollway or the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project -- should be eliminated. During this time of extremely limited funding for transportation infrastructure projects, the challenge becomes prioritization of projects. This cost comparison provides data regarding cost efficiency that can be used as a primary decision factor. This comparison shows that the anticipated costs associated with the Commuter Rail are similar to or lower than what would be spent providing the necessary infrastructure capacity for automobiles and buses.

Funding

Funding for the Hempstead commuter rail facilities may come from a variety of sources including public private partnerships, federal grants, and local operating subsidies. This study identifies the range of funding mechanisms that can be sought in order to develop plans to cover capital, operating, and maintenance costs. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds may be secured to cover up to approximately half of the capital costs. Under the traditional FTA process for the New Starts and Small Starts programs, local funding sources will need to be identified for the remaining half of the capital cost as well as the full operating and maintenance costs on an annual basis. Additional federal funding may be obtained through special federal grants such as the TIGER grants from the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) or the High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). These types of grants are not limited and may be structured to assist with track improvements or

ES-13 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

ROW acquisition. Strong local support for regional commuter rail will be required to fund the local share of the capital costs and annual operations and maintenance costs.

Next Steps

The Gulf Coast Rail District should initiate the following steps to move the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project forward and continue in the development of commuter rail in the Houston region. The following items should be considered to advance the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project:

• Policy Level Issues o Begin the FTA New Starts / Small Starts process as the most viable sources of significant federal funding to leverage local funds. This will include: - Begin required FTA process Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Studies. - Analyze of impacts of commuter rail operations and anticipated closures to existing and proposed at-grade crossings to develop practical solutions for mitigation prior to the initiation of any commuter rail traffic within the corridor. o Determine a funding mechanism for the local match to maximize the federal funding potential. o Advance this funding mechanism to allow the region to fund the engineering, capital cost share and operation and maintenance of commuter rail. o Work with TxDOT to coordinate the Hempstead Corridor segment into the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) project underway between Houston and Austin. o Advocate Corridor Preservation through preservation of the right-of-way and limiting development of at-grade crossings to maintain operational characteristics favorable to commuter rail and future intercity passenger rail within this corridor.

ES-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

• Project Development Issues o Address ridership modeling specific to the Hempstead Corridor utilizing data from the H-GAC 2035 RTP Update. o Determine the location of the interim end station for opening day 2019 operation until the commuter rail connects to downtown. o Determine the location for the interim commuter rail maintenance facility. o Develop a viable option for extension of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail into downtown. o Determine the location for the Downtown Intermodal facility.

ES-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

SECTION 1 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Harris County, the City of Houston, and Fort Bend County created the Gulf Coast Freight Rail District (GCFRD) under authority granted by the State of Texas in Section 171 of the Transportation Code (79 th Texas Legislature, 2005). In 2009 the name was changed to the Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD) and the GCRD was granted additional powers to develop and operate commuter rail within the District’s member counties and adjacent counties. The Houston Region allocated $2M from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009 to the GCRD for commuter rail feasibility assessments. Klotz Associates, Inc., in association with TranSystems Corporation, was awarded a contract to assess requirements for implementing commuter rail operations on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Eureka subdivision which runs parallel to Hempstead Road and US 290 through Harris County and into Waller County. The limits of this study are from the City of Hempstead to the Eureka Yard (near Tower 13), just inside IH 610 (Loop 610), a distance of approximately 45 miles. The scope of services for this work includes:

• Preparation of Ridership Estimates • Preparation of Conceptual Cost Estimates • Preparation of Conceptual Engineering Exhibits • Preparation of Implementation Plans • Identification of Potential Station Locations • Identification of Potential Maintenance Yards and Storage Facilities • Identification of Transit Connectivity & System Inter-Operability • Identification of Funding Options and Revenue Sources

1-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District 1.2 Need

The existing and planned development and growth along the US 290 / Hempstead Road Corridor have made this corridor one of the most attractive for investigation of the potential for passenger rail. This corridor is one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Texas. Many new master-planned communities are being developed along US 290. Existing communities in Harris and Waller counties along US 290 have begun initiatives to develop Livable Centers and Transit-Oriented Developments in anticipation of future commuter rail or other transit operations in this corridor. Traffic congestion and roadway operating characteristics are defined by Level of Service (LOS) as described in the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual and shown in Table 1-1. Traffic congestion and levels of service (LOS) in this corridor are currently at locally unacceptable levels.

Table 1-1 – Level of Service (LOS) Ratings

Approximate Level of Service Volume/Capacity Description Roadway (LOS)* Ratio (V/C) Speeds (mph)

Virtually free flow, A V/C ≤ 0.60 40+ unimpeded travel Stable flow with slight B 0.61 to 0.70 28 to 35 delays

C Stable flow with delays 0.71 to 0.80 22 to 28

High density but stable D 0.81 to 0.90 17 to 22 flow At or near capacity with E 0.91 to 1.0 13 to 17 unstable flow Forced flow with F V/C ≥ 1.0 Less than 13 breakdown conditions

* TRB Highway Capacity Manual (2000)

1-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Even with the expansion of US 290 by TxDOT and the proposed addition of the Hempstead Managed Lanes by HCTRA, there is still a need for a future transit component in this corridor to serve the overall travel demand. According to TxDOT studies, existing levels of service along the five segments of US 290 from FM 2920 in Waller to the IH 610 / IH 10 interchange are all at LOS C and worse. Even with the proposed build-out of US 290 and the addition of the managed lanes, the 2035 levels of service along the five segments of US 290 are all at LOS D and worse. Only the segment of the managed lanes from SH 99 to Barker-Cypress Road operates at a LOS B. All three segments of the managed lanes inside of Barker-Cypress Road are at LOS C and below. If any component of the recommended improvements in the TxDOT studies is eliminated in 2035, all levels of service along US 290 will continue to operate at LOS F (severely congested).

1.3 Previous Studies

Previous studies identified the US 290 corridor as a key component in the overall commuter rail network for Houston. A number of studies performed within the last ten years by agencies such as TxDOT, Harris County, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO), and the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), identified a need for a high-capacity transit component in this corridor. The 2035 Houston- Galveston Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes a high-capacity transit component in this corridor. A summary of the previous studies includes:

A. US 290 Major Investment Study (MIS) – TxDOT (2003)

In 1999, TxDOT commissioned a Major Investment Study (MIS) of the US 290/ Hempstead Road corridor from IH 610 to FM 2920 near the Waller County Line. The MIS was conducted in compliance with the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments requirements for major transportation investments, specifically

1-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District where a federally funded highway or transit improvement project is expected to have a significant impact within a transportation corridor. The study examined numerous alternatives for highway and transit improvements to address corridor capacity, traffic flow, level of service (LOS) and mode sharing. Completed in 2003, the study identified a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) which included general-purpose lanes, managed lanes, and Advanced High-Capacity Transit (AHCT). The LPA included:

• Five general-purpose lanes along US 290 from IH 610 to Beltway 8 • Four general-purpose lanes along US 290 from Beltway 8 to the proposed Grand Parkway (SH 99) • Three general-purpose lanes along US 290 from SH 99 to FM 2920 • Two- or three-lane frontage roads along US 290 • A four-lane, two-way managed (toll) facility along Hempstead Road from IH 610 to SH 99 • Advanced High-Capacity Transit (AHCT) along Hempstead Road from IH 610 to SH 99 • TSM / TDM / ITS improvements • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements

Advanced High-Capacity Transit (AHCT) was defined in this study as ‘a general term used to describe several types of high capacity, line-haul transit modes. AHCT is used to designate a future mode, such as LRT or BRT to serve the corridor prior to the selection of the specific mode.’ The AHCT component, although not specifically defined in the study, was a placeholder for a future transit system that could be built in the corridor, such as light rail transit (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT) or a transit technology not yet defined. The right-of-way for AHCT was included as a part of the overall footprint of the corridor carried

1-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District forward for more detailed engineering and environmental studies. The MIS did not consider use of the UPRR right-of-way.

The results of the TxDOT US 290 MIS (2003) recommends that TSM / TDM / ITS improvements should continue be implemented as important components of addressing the existing congestion and future mobility of this corridor. However, this study concludes that these strategies alone do not provide sufficient benefits to address the long term needs of the corridor. The projected growth in addition to the existing congestion will require new additional high capacity solutions to mitigate the demand in the corridor. The Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail can provide an integral part of the additional high capacity solution for the corridor.

B. Harris County Commuter Rail Analysis – Harris County (2003)

Harris County Commissioner’s Court, in September 2003, authorized a study to explore the potential for commuter rail operations on three existing railroad corridors along US 290 to Hempstead, SH 249 to Tomball, and US 90A to Richmond / Rosenberg. The scope of the study was to assess the ‘physical, operational, and relative cost characteristics of commuter rail operations’ within these existing freight rail corridors. Specifically, the study addressed:

• Willingness of railroads to allow commuter rail operations • Existing track conditions • Signaling • Maximum Speeds • Corridor Capacity • Rights-of-way • Ownership • Freight rail activity

1-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Relative Estimates of Cost

The Harris County Commuter Rail Analysis study identified relative preliminary capital costs to upgrade the corridors to allow for increased operating speeds to make commuter rail competitive within the corridor. Also identified were relative annual operating costs for commuter rail on the Eureka Subdivision and the Terminal Subdivision for connectivity into downtown. Costs developed were for a commuter rail operating segment between Prairie View and the AMTRAK station downtown only. The 2003 Harris County study indicated that the Union Pacific Railroad is interested in further discussions of the potential for commuter rail in this corridor as long as the commuter rail operations do not negatively impact the freight operations and the ability to continue to serve their customers. The 2003 Harris County study was conceptual and recommended that further development of the potential for commuter rail should be conducted on a regional basis. It is also recommended that further studies should include a comprehensive study of commuter rail feasibility with system modeling and addresses ridership, scheduling, operations, management, and funding. The Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail study is the next step in development of the potential commuter rail in this corridor and includes preliminary ridership modeling, operating scenarios and potential operational plans and funding strategies.

C. Metro Solutions – Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (2003)

Metro Solutions is a comprehensive transit system plan that was adopted by the METRO Board of Directors in July 2003 and approved by Houston area voters in November 2003. This plan identified major areas of multimodal transit improvements in the METRO service area and included the authority to issue up to $640M in bonds to fund the projects. In June 2005, METRO announced a $2 billion Phase 2 Implementation Plan which includes:

1-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

• Nearly 30 miles of Light Rail Transit (LRT) that includes: o University LRT Line – University of Houston to Uptown / Galleria (Hillcroft Transit Center) o North LRT Line – UH Downtown to Northline Mall o Southeast LRT Line – Downtown to MLK at Griggs o East End LRT Line – Downtown to Magnolia Transit Center o Uptown LRT Line – Westpark at South Rice to Northwest Transit Center • Twenty eight miles of Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) that includes: o US 90A connecting to Fannin South LRT Station o US 290 connecting to Northern Intermodal Facility o Galveston Line • Forty miles of Signature Bus / suburban Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Ten new transit facilities • HOV lane to HOT lane conversion

The US 290 corridor was identified for CRT from the Cypress Park & Ride facility to the future Intermodal Facility near North Post Oak Road at Hempstead Road. This intermodal facility was one of the ten transit centers in the Phase 2 plan. The METRO Solutions plan for CRT along US 290 did not consider use of the existing UPRR right-of-way and would require acquisition of a separate and exclusive right-of-way, independent of the UPRR.

The Uptown Corridor, one of five LRT corridors in the plan, connects the LRT system from the University Corridor to the NW Transit Center near IH 10 at IH 610 in Phase 2. Beyond Phase 2, an LRT connection from the NW Transit Center to an Intermodal Terminal in the vicinity of Northwest Mall has been discussed. Future long range plans beyond Phase 2 also consider an LRT line extension north of Hempstead Highway along Mangum Road.

1-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

D. Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study – H-GAC (2008)

The H-GAC Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study in 2008 examined the potential for a regional commuter rail network utilizing existing freight rail infrastructure. This study examined commuter rail on a “systems-level” for the entire Houston region. Within the system, five existing freight rail corridors (along US 90A, US 59, SH 3, SH 249, and US 290) were identified as “Principal Corridors” having the best potential of commuter rail operations as determined through a series of evaluation criteria. The existing freight rail corridor information in the H-GAC study was drawn from the 2007 TxDOT Houston Region Freight Rail Study and included freight rail industry information, infrastructure requirements, capacity restrictions, and other system data.

Two key findings of the H-GAC study were essential to GCRD undertaking the study of commuter rail in the Hempstead Corridor. These are:

• Recommendation No. 1. “Advance the previous studies into the advanced planning stage under the auspices of the Gulf Coast (Freight) Rail District, with the objective being to establish a comprehensive framework for developing a coordinated freight and passenger rail system that will serve the Houston metropolitan region’s needs over the next 50 years.”

• Recommendation No. 3. “Early implementation prospects exist for commuter rail deployment in highly congested commuter travel corridors where available capacity is available along the freight rail corridors. These corridors include the US 290 and SH 3 corridors.”

1-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District E. US 290 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) - TxDOT (2009)

In 2003, TxDOT authorized preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the US 290 corridor from IH 610 to FM 2920 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and in accordance with NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations and policies (23 CFR 771). The scope of the DEIS was to assess the impacts of the proposed improvements in the US 290 / Hempstead Road corridor as outlined in the MIS. The DEIS identified a recommended alternative. Based on the alternatives analysis, additional engineering analyses, and public / agency input, the preferred alternative was identified and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared. The recommendations of the FEIS are as follows:

• Construct general purpose lanes along US 290 as recommended in the MIS. • Construct managed lanes along Hempstead Road as recommended in the MIS. • Construct direct connectors from US 290 and the managed lanes to IH 610 and IH 10 via the Northwest Transit Center. • Provide a corridor for AHCT along US 290 from SH 99 to Beltway 8, and along Hempstead Road from Beltway 8 to IH 610. • Remove the HOV lanes from within the center of US 290 and allow for HOV traffic within the managed lanes.

The final schematic design prepared in conjunction with the FEIS contains a transit component within the US 290 corridor, shown as a 50-foot wide right-of- way reserved for advanced “High Capacity Transit” (AHCT). A specific transit mode was not identified in the FEIS, but the reserved right-of-way in this corridor

1-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District could be used for bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit (LRT), or a future unnamed transit technology. The FEIS did not consider use of the UPRR right- of-way for commuter rail.

Each of the previous studies, whether looking only at commuter rail, evaluating the corridor as a whole or future mobility needs on a regional level, identified a need for rail transit within the US 290 / Hempstead Road corridor. The specific recommendations of the H-GAC study to pursue the US 290 and SH 3 freight rail corridors was a catalyst for the GCRD to begin studies of these corridors with portions of the $2M in ARRA funding. This study will expand on the previous studies and explore the feasibility and constructability of commuter rail within the US 290 / Hempstead Corridor.

1.4 Stakeholder Meetings / Outreach

As a part of the agency coordination and data collection and in conjunction with the synthesizing of work previously completed within the Hempstead Corridor, a series of meetings were held with key stakeholders having an interest in this project. The purpose of these meetings was to allow local officials the opportunity to provide input into the study process. Issues discussed included station infrastructure requirements, local funding participation, parking needs, expansion, transit oriented development, connectivity to other transportation or transit facilities, environmental and physical constraints, and project schedules.

A stakeholder group was identified that consisted of representatives from state and local agencies, municipalities, and counties within the corridor that would be directly or indirectly impacted by any improvements or changes within the UPRR right-of-way. This group met to receive project updates and discuss key issues regarding design criteria, funding issues, ridership projections, and timelines. The following stakeholders

1-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District were included in the coordination meetings held during the data collection phase of this study:

• City of Hempstead – Michael S. Wolfe, Mayor • City of Prairie View – Frank D. Jackson, Mayor • City of Prairie View – Jeron Barnett, Police Chief • City of Prairie View – Carl L. Jones, City Secretary / Director of Operations • Prairie View Economic Development Corporation – Marie Herndon, Director • City of Prairie View – Courtney Poh • City of Waller – Danny Marburger, Mayor • City of Waller – Maurice Hart, Jr., Mayor Pro-Tem • City of Jersey Village – Russell Hamley, Mayor • City of Jersey Village – Mike Castro, City Manager • City of Houston – Mike Kramer, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department • City of Houston – Jeff Weatherford, Deputy Director, Traffic and Transportation Division, Public Works and Engineering Department • Waller County Economic Development Council – John Isom • Waller County – Orval Rhoades, County Engineer • Waller County – Yancey Scott, Assistant Engineer for Road & Bridge Department • Harris County – Charles Dean, Planning Manager, Public Infrastructure Department • Harris County – Richard Zientek, Assistant to Judge Emmett • TxDOT – Pat Nwachukwu – Project Manager • TxDOT – Jennifer Moczygemba, Rail Division • TxDOT – Larry Blackburn, US 290 Program Manager • TxDOT – Mark Patterson • HNTB – Steve Hrncir, US 290 Program Manager • Austin/Houston Inter-City Passenger Rail Team – Josh Mieth

1-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Austin/Houston Inter-City Passenger Rail Team – Craig Roco • HCTRA – Peter Key, Director • HCTRA – John Tyler, Assistant Director, Engineering • HCTRA – Scott Hoppman, Project Manager • METRO – Kim Slaughter, Senior Vice President, Service Design and Development • METRO – Pat Porzillo, Associate Vice President, Commuter rail • METRO – Mike Tegethoff, Project Director – Infrastructure Development • H-GAC – Alan Clark, Director of Transportation Planning • H-GAC – Earl Washington • H-GAC – Ashby Johnson • UPRR – Joe Adams, Vice President, Public Affairs • UPRR – Lyle Hamm

Results of these meetings, including agendas and presentation materials, are included in Appendix A .

In addition to the stakeholder group meetings, other outreach efforts included presentations of the project status and issues to the GCRD Passenger Rail Subcommittee, area civic groups, and local leaders within the study corridor. Results of these meetings were overwhelmingly favorable to the project. Major land developers within this corridor are supportive of commuter rail. Many of the planned communities within the corridor have land plan alternatives that include provisions for commuter rail stations and Transit-Oriented Development.

The City of Waller and the Waller Economic Development Council (Waller EDC) indicated strong support for the project. Having completed a “Livable Centers Study” funded by H-GAC, Waller and the Waller EDC are moving forward with drainage studies to develop alternatives to reduce flood plain issues in downtown Waller. The H-GAC

1-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Livable Centers studies are intended to foster development of city centers that are less dependent on automobiles for daily activities and local trips. The Waller Livable Centers Study recommends improvements that include a commuter rail station near Key Street and numerous pedestrian walkways and green space.

In May 2011, The Jersey Village City Council approved creation of the Jersey Village Crossing as a special zoning district within the city. This district is based on a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) master plan that includes both a commuter rail station and a light rail transit (LRT) station. The location for these stations is shown to be just west of the future Jones Road extension (currently under construction). The city is moving forward with Phase 1 of this development which has a 10-year build-out schedule.

Waller County officials are also strongly supportive of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter rail project. Waller County officials have discussed the possibility of donating a portion of their 61-acre tract adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way in Hempstead for a maintenance yard and storage facility for the train sets. This site is one of the alternative sites being evaluated for such a facility in both the start-up and final build-out scenarios.

Both the City of Prairie View and Prairie View A&M University are also interested in the development of commuter rail in the Hempstead Corridor. The City of Prairie View through the creation of the Prairie View Economic Development Corporation and Prairie View A&M University are committed to growth. The university anticipates that the majority of its anticipated growth will be from commuters. Each has indicated support for development of transportation alternatives for this corridor.

1-13 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District SECTION 2 RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction

Potential commuter rail ridership along the Hempstead corridor was modeled using the H-GAC regional travel demand model. This model provided ridership and revenue estimates for alternative project concepts. The study model used the start-up year of 2019 and the build-out year of 2035 to remain consistent with the H-GAC data and the current 2035 RTP. As initially proposed for this study, commuter rail will start in Hempstead, Texas, and will parallel US 290 for approximately 45 miles until reaching a terminus near Loop 610. A third scenario was also developed for the build-out year (2035) that assumed commuter rail service will be completed an additional five miles into the Houston central business district (CBD).

2.2 Summary of Findings

The ridership results for the startup year (2019) were based on a total of nine stations. Commuter rail service for the 2019 model year terminates near the IH 610/US 290 interchange. Connecting express bus service is provided from this terminus to four major employment centers: Galleria/Uptown, Greenway Plaza; Texas Medical Center (TMC); and downtown central business district (CBD).

The ridership results for the build-out year (2035) were based on a total of ten stations with commuter rail service terminating downtown. In the 2035 model year, the IH 610 station is connected to Greenway Plaza and the Texas Medical Center (TMC) by express bus and to the Uptown / Galleria area by Light Rail Transit as planned in Metro Solutions, Phase 2. The ridership model results are shown in Table 2-1:

2-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 2-1 – Final Model Projections

No CBD No CBD CBD Link CBD Link Link Link Final Projections (2035 RTP (2035) (2019) (2035) Update)

AM inbound 900 2,500 7,021 8,425

AM outbound 420 476 2,387 2,864

Total AM Boardings 1,320 2,976 9,408 11,289

PM inbound 420 476 2,387 2,864

PM outbound 900 2,500 7,021 8,425

Total PM Boardings 1,320 2,976 9,408 11,289

Total Daily Ridership 2,640 5,952 18,816 22,578

Table 2-1 also includes a fourth column showing an adjustment to the 2035 projections based on information provided by H-GAC from the 2035 RTP Update which was not modeled as a part of this study. The complete results, including the list of modeling assumptions and the breakdown of ridership by station location, is included in Table 2-16 at the end of this section.

2.3 Representation of Commuter Rail Project

The initial representation of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project in the model was based on the project concept as defined in the Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study, prepared by H-GAC in 2008. The alignment and station locations from that study were used initially as were a number of key assumptions from that study. The following assumptions define the initial system characteristics considered in the modeling forecasts:

2-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Average operating speed on the commuter rail is 45 to 50 mph. • Headway is 20 minutes in the AM and PM peak period and 30 minutes in the off- peak period. • Wait time is 4 minutes in the AM and PM peak period and 6 minutes in the off-peak period (20% of headway). • Sufficient train and passenger capacity is available to meet demand. • All suburban rail stations have auto, bicycle and pedestrian access. • The METRO Solutions Plan Phase 2 is fully implemented. • No changes were made to other LRT and bus transit routes or schedules, except that park and ride bus service outside Beltway 8 is discontinued in the US 290 Corridor.

The H-GAC model files currently reflect 2019 as the base model year, which was selected as the base model year for commuter rail start-up. The build-out coincides with the H-GAC 2035 conformity model currently in the long range RTP.

2.4 Modifications to H-GAC Model

A number of modifications were made to the H-GAC model that was previously used for the Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study. These modifications are as follows:

A. Connection to Downtown

Modifications were made to the initial project concept by extending the commuter rail service from the Eureka Yard to downtown Houston with the CBD Station at the University of Houston - Downtown. This change was incorporated in the model for 2035. Other differences between the analysis years 2019 and 2035 for the model reflect the socio-economic growth and network developments expected to occur during that time.

2-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District B. Express Buses Added

Because the Eureka terminus near the IH 610 / US 290 interchange is not readily accessible to some of the major employment centers in the Houston area, four express bus service lines were added to the H-GAC model to provide convenient connecting service to and from the commuter rail. These express bus lines link the Eureka station with the following locations:

• Galleria/Uptown – north of US 59 and west of IH 610 • Greenway Plaza – north of US 59 and approximately 2.5 miles east of IH 610 • Texas Medical Center (TMC) – south of US 59 and west of SH 288 • Downtown Houston – University of Houston station

These express bus links were coded so that minimal wait time and minimal transfer penalties would be incurred when connecting from/to the commuter rail line, representing an explicit policy of minimizing the inconvenience associated with a transfer between commuter rail and bus. All four of these express bus links were included in the 2019 model. The 2035 model included the express bus lines to the Texas Medical Center and Greenway Plaza, the commuter rail extension to downtown Houston and, the Metro Solutions Phase 2 Uptown Corridor LRT connection to the Uptown / Galleria area.

C. Additional Stations Modeled

Two areas of rapid development were identified along the corridor, Jersey Village with a planned Transit-Oriented Development and Prairie View with the planned expansion of the enrollment at Prairie View A&M University. Given the growth data and the interest shown by elected officials based on that data, the model was changed to include stations at these locations. These stations were not considered in the H- GAC Connectivity study. For these locations, zonal socio-economic data as well as 2-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District station information, including the representation of park-and-ride lots and connections to the surrounding area, were updated in the model.

D. Jersey Village Socio-Economic Data Added

Jersey Village has a planned Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) project located to the south of US 290 on Jones Road as indicated in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 - Jersey Village TOD Conceptual Plan

Source: Gateway Planning Group, TOD Conceptual Plan, March 11, 2010

The TOD is situated between two stations considered in the H-GAC study, the North Eldridge Parkway and Sam Houston Tollway stations. These stations are less than three miles to the east and west of the development. While the socio-economic data files in the H-GAC model recognize some growth in the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) 2-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District associated with Jersey Village, these do not currently reflect the full extent of the proposed growth. The model files were modified to account for the additional anticipated growth. The TOD project is expected to take up to 30 years to be fully developed and will be built in three phases. Project construction has already begun and Phase 1 will be complete by 2019. Therefore, the corresponding growth was added in the 2019 model files. Phases 2 and 3 will take an additional 20 years to complete, and that growth was added in the 2035 files. In both cases, the growth was added to the socio-economic forecasts in the H-GAC files for these zones. The TOD growth assumptions are indicated in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 - Jersey Village TOD Growth Assumptions

Phase 1, Phase 2 & 3, Total Growth Jersey Village TOD included in included in in Jersey Growth Assumptions 2019 model 2035 model Village

Number of Residential Units 378 546 924

Total Forecasted Population 892 1,288 2,180

Retail/Restaurant/Entertainment (SF) 345,000 237,000 582,000

Forecast Service Employees 2,075 1,425 3,500

Office Uses (SF) 188,000 128,000 316,000

Forecast Office Employees 625 425 1,050

2-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District E. Prairie View A&M Socio-Economic Data Added

Prairie View A&M University is located less than five miles east of Hempstead. The University is growing rapidly, and the H-GAC model’s socio-economic data for this area has not yet been updated to reflect this growth. Prairie View A&M University provided forecasts of enrollment and employment through 2019. Enrollment for the 2009 fall semester was 8,608 students. The University is projecting annual enrollment growth of 3%, reaching approximately 12,000 students by the 2020 fall semester. This growth was added to the model. Trips were distributed to and from the Prairie View traffic analysis zones (TAZs) based on the anonymous ZIP codes of the current students and employees provided by the University.

2.5 Alternatives and Sensitivity Analysis

A series of parameters were systematically evaluated. These parameters were addressed in the order presented here; and, as results for each parameter were obtained, subsequent model runs incorporated the latest results into the next series. The title of each subsection identifies the parameter analyzed.

A. Connection into downtown Houston (CBD)

The 2035 model was run with and without connections into the CBD. The results showed that the connection into downtown Houston in 2035 is critical. Therefore, this alternative was carried forward for further analysis.

The results are shown in the following Table 2-3:

2-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 2-3 – Downtown Link Sensitivity

MODEL YEAR No CBD CBD Link 2035 Link

AM inbound 2,500 6,936

AM outbound 476 1,333

Total AM Boardings 2,976 8,269

PM inbound 476 1,333

PM outbound 2,500 6,936

Total PM Boardings 2,976 8,269

Total Daily Ridership 5,952 16,538

B. Fare Structure

The next series of 2035 models included an analysis of fare structure. Five alternatives were modeled, changing the maximum end-to-end fare from $3.50 to $4.50, $5.00, $6.00, and $7.00. This analysis indicated a significant increase in ridership as the fares decrease. The $6.00 fare was selected to match that previously modeled in the H-GAC Study and METRO fare structure.

While the results of this analysis showed significantly higher daily boardings at a maximum fare of $3.50, the subsequent loss of daily revenue was not deemed cost effective. Therefore, a distance-based maximum fare of $6.00 was used going forward. The ridership results for these two of the alternative fares are as follows:

2-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 2-4 - Fare Sensitivity

MODEL YEAR $3.50 Max Fare $6.00 Max Fare 2035

AM inbound 10,619 6,936

AM outbound 1,703 1,333

Total AM Boardings 12,322 8,269

PM outbound 10,619 6,936

PM inbound 1,703 1,333

Total PM Boardings 12,322 8,269

Total Daily Ridership 24,644 16,538

C. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and Managed Lanes

The next parameter analyzed in the 2035 model was a US 290 capacity expansion alternative in which the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes were added within the US 290 Corridor rather than on the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes (ML) project. The basis for this analysis was to model the effects of not constructing the managed lanes as proposed and keeping two HOV lanes within the US 290 corridor.

These results showed no significant commuter rail ridership differences in the location of the HOV lanes within the corridor. Further analyses of alternative US 290 lane configurations were not considered, and the current proposed lane configuration reflected in the long range RTP was left intact for further analyses. The results are shown in Table 2-5 as follows:

2-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 2-5 – HOV Location Sensitivity

MODEL YEAR 4 HOV ML 2 HOV 290 2035

AM inbound 6,936 6,951

AM outbound 1,333 1,314

Total AM Boardings 8,269 8,265

PM inbound 1,333 1,314

PM outbound 6,936 6,951

Total PM Boardings 8,269 8,265

Total Daily Ridership 16,538 16,530

D. Commuter Bus Service

Another parameter modeled for 2035 was keeping commuter bus service in the US 290 corridor operational from the METRO Cypress Station at Jarvis Road. Previous corridor models for 2035 were run under the assumption that no commuter buses would be operating in the corridor. A significant drop-off in 2035 commuter rail ridership occurs if the commuter buses are allowed to compete for ridership in the corridor. Further analyses were made without competing buses.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2-6 as follows:

2-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 2-6 – Commuter Bus Sensitivity

MODEL YEAR No Commuter Commuter Bus 2035 Bus Added

AM inbound 6,936 5,215

AM outbound 1,333 1,259

Total AM Boardings 8,269 6,474

PM inbound 1,333 1,259

PM outbound 6,936 5,215

Total AM Boardings 8,269 6,474

Total Daily Ridership 16,538 12,948

E. Additional Stations

The next series of 2035 models included adding stations at the cities of Prairie View and Jersey Village without added socio-economic data. The additional ridership resulting from adding the two stations was insignificant. However, further analyses were performed with additional data for Prairie View and Jersey Village.

2-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District The 2035 ridership modeling results for adding only stations at Prairie View and Jersey Village without any new socio-economic data are shown in Table 2-7 as follows:

Table 2-7 – Additional Stations Sensitivity

PV& JV PV & JV MODEL YEAR No PV& JV Stations Stations and 2035 Stations Added SE Data added

AM inbound 6,936 6,586 6,983

AM outbound 1,333 1,792 2,039

Total AM Boardings 8,269 8,378 9,022

PM inbound 1,333 1,792 2,039

PM outbound 6,936 6,586 6,983

Total PM Boardings 8,269 8,378 9,022

Total Daily Ridership 16,538 16,756 18,044

Updated socio-economic data for Jersey Village and Prairie View A&M University was added for the next series of model runs. The earlier models were run with the data included from H-GAC before these adjustments were made. The additional data reflects the TOD and PVA&M enrollment projections that were provided by the respective officials at each location. Including this additional socio-economic data in

2-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District the model provides a significant increase in commuter rail ridership from the model. Further analyses were made including this data.

The ridership modeling results for including these stations and additional socio- economic data are shown in Table 2-7 above.

F. Operating Speed

Operational analyses were performed using the ten proposed station locations. Based on location of the stations, the overall operating speed would not average 50 mph when all ten stations are included in the model. A speed of 45 mph appears more realistic for this corridor. The ridership drop-off was insignificant. Further analyses were made only with the reduced operating speed of 45 mph.

The following model runs in Table 2-8 show the effects of reducing the operating speeds from 50 to 45 mph. The results are as follows:

Table 2-8 – Operating Speed Sensitivity

MODEL YEAR 50 mph 45 mph 2035

AM inbound 7,058 6,983

AM outbound 2,119 2,039

Total AM Boardings 9,177 9,022

PM inbound 2,119 2,039

2-13 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District PM outbound 7,058 2,039

Total PM Boardings 9,177 9,022

Total Daily Ridership 18,354 18,044

G. Station Combinations

The final model runs were performed to determine the best combination of stations in the Jersey Village area that would maximize ridership without compromising operations. Since the Jersey Village station is less than three miles from both the Sam Houston Tollway and the N. Eldridge Parkway stations, alternatives were modeled that included various combinations of these three stations. As shown in Table 2-9 and Table 2-10, the station combinations considered are as follows:

• North Eldridge, Jersey Village, and Sam Houston; • North Eldridge and Jersey Village stations only; • Jersey Village and Sam Houston stations only; and • Jersey Village station only.

Table 2-9 – Station Combination Sensitivity - 2019

MODEL YEAR NE & All 3 JV & SH JV only 2019 JV

AM inbound 866 753 840 734

AM outbound 302 240 213 149

2-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Total AM Boardings 1,166 993 1,053 883

PM inbound 302 240 213 149

PM outbound 866 753 840 734

Total PM Boardings 1,166 993 1,053 883

Total Daily Ridership 2,336 1,986 2,106 1,766

Table 2-10 – Station Combination Sensitivity - 2035

MODEL YEAR NE & All 3 JV & SH JV only 2035 JV

AM inbound 6,983 6,618 6,649 6,179

AM outbound 2,039 1,630 2,046 1,539

Total AM Boardings 9.022 8,248 8,695 7,718

PM inbound 2,039 1,630 2,046 1,539

PM outbound 6,983 6,618 6,649 6,179

Total PM Boardings 9.022 8,248 8,695 7,718

Total Daily Ridership 18,044 16,496 17,390 15,436

For these model runs, the average train operating speed was reduced to 25 mph between stations less than three miles apart to reflect the constraints on train speed imposed by limited acceleration and deceleration distances on short sections. Despite the slightly higher travel times resulting from the closely-spaced stations, the highest 2-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District commuter rail ridership occurred with all three stations included. Further analyses were performed with a combination of all three stations.

2.6 Final Adjustments

The terminus of the proposed Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail line will be at Hempstead in Waller County. The H-GAC forecasting model that was used to forecast ridership on the Eureka line includes Waller County but no counties further west. This section examines the ridership that might originate from locations outside of the H-GAC model area and generally to the west of Hempstead as the extended catchment area accessing the commuter rail at Hempstead station.

Forecast model outputs were examined to identify the commuter rail mode share predicted for journey to work (JTW) trips from Waller County to Harris County. This calculation was done using the 2035 model results for the final commuter rail alternative. Overall, a commuter rail mode share of approximately 2% was observed for journey to work (JTW) trips from Waller County to Harris County. Travelers from the extended catchment area might be expected to generate approximately 65 commuter rail trips in 2019 and 85 trips in 2035. All of these trips would likely use the Hempstead station. These boardings were manually added to the 2019 and 2035 models. Based on the distribution of station alighting volumes from the forecast model results in 2019 and 2035, the riders from the extended catchment area are expected to exit the system are shown in Table 2-11 as follows:

Table 2-11 - Station Alighting Volumes of Riders from the Extended Area

Station 2019 2035

Sam Houston 15 10

2-16 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Eureka 50 30

Downtown --- 45 Houston

Total 65 85

A second adjustment to the model was made after review of the projected enrollment figures for Prairie View A&M University and anonymous zip code information for current faculty, students, and employees provided by the University. These data were added to the model as additional socio-economic information previously discussed, and the subsequent model runs indicated very slight changes in ridership for PVA&M. As an additional follow-up to the model runs, a review of the reverse commute daily trips to the Prairie View TAZ 2343 in the H-GAC model is indicated in the tables in Appendix B.

Since the outbound or reverse commute in the model assigns transfer penalties for each mode switch and there are no feeder buses in the model that would allow for those students to easily make these transfers, the model generates little to no reverse commute activity to Prairie View. Instead, this analysis captures a small percentage of the daily trips from points east on the commuter rail as a reverse commute. Specifically, rounding the total daily trips to 12,000 and 35,000 in the model years, and assuming a mode switch capture rate of 2%, the additional boardings for the Hempstead Commuter Rail reverse commute will be 240 in 2019 and 700 in 2035. These additional boardings were also added to the previously selected model. The final ridership numbers are shown in Table 2-12 as follows:

Table 2-12 – Final Ridership Projections

MODEL YEAR 2019 2035

2-17 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District AM inbound 900 7,021

AM outbound 420 2,387

Total AM Boardings 1,320 9,408

PM inbound 420 2,387

PM outbound 900 7,021

Total PM Boardings 1,320 9,408

Total Daily Ridership 2,640 18,816 The detailed forecast results for the selected alternatives in 2019 and 2035 are shown in Table 2-16 at the end of this section. Appendix C presents detailed modeling results for the various alternatives.

2.7 2035 RTP Update

The forecasting work for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Study was based on the 2035 regional travel demand model from H-GAC, which reflected the current long range RTP. Recent cutbacks in major transportation funding have caused over $80B worth of projects to be removed from the 2035 RTP. A new model has been run by H-GAC to reflect the 2035 RTP Update.

The information provided by H-GAC indicates that the ridership for commuter rail along US 290 will increase approximately 20% in the 2035 RTP Update from the ridership predicted by the 2035 RTP model and is shown in Table 2-13 as follows .

Table 2-13 – H-GAC 2035 RTP Update Rail Ridership

2-18 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District US 290 Commuter Rail Ridership

Total

2035 RTP 12,823

2035 RTP Update 15,398

Source: Houston-Galveston Area Council, November, 2010

Applying this 20% adjustment to the final model results produces the Final Adjusted Ridership as shown in the following table, Table 2-14. The complete results, including the list of modeling assumptions and the breakdown of ridership by station location, is included in Table 2-15 at the end of this section.

Table 2-14 – Final Adjusted Ridership

No CBD CBD Link CBD Link Link (2035 RTP Final Adjusted Ridership (2035) (2035) Update)

AM inbound 2,500 7,021 8,425

AM outbound 476 2,387 2,864

Total AM Boardings 2,976 9,408 11,289

PM inbound 476 2,387 2,864

PM outbound 2,500 7,021 8,425

Total PM Boardings 2,976 9,408 11,289

Total Daily Ridership 5,952 18,816 22,578

2-19 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

2-20 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 2-15 – 2019 and 2035 Modeling Results

2019 and 2035 Modeling Results

2019 Selected Model Output 2035 Selected Model Output AM Boarding AM Boarding Direction of AM Alightings Volume on AM Alightings Volume on + PM + PM Stations + PM Boardings T rain + PM Boardings Train Commute Alightings Alightings Hempstead 194 - 194 370 - 370 Prairie View 2 1 195 8 1 377 Waller 110 6 299 919 8 1,288 Fairfield 265 7 557 3,174 15 4,447 Toward Houston Jarvis/Cypress 223 21 759 2,576 49 6,974 in AM and away N. Eldridge Pky 166 35 890 3,689 117 10,546 from Houston in PM Jersey Village 700 102 1,488 849 325 11,069 Sam Houston 141 281 1,348 1,253 1,088 11,234 I-610/Eureka - 1,348 - 1,205 3,873 8,566 Houston Center - - - - 8,567 - Houston Center - - - 3,167 - 3,167 I-610/Eureka 438 - 438 943 2,390 1,720 Sam Houston 52 170 320 228 862 1,086 Jersey Village 215 146 389 153 418 821 Away from Houston N. Eldridge Pky 51 215 225 124 264 681 in AM and toward Jarvis/Cypress 83 21 287 158 48 791 Houston in PM Fairfield - 287 - - 791 - Waller ------Prairie View ------Hempstead ------Total Ridership 2,640 18,816 AM inbound/ PM outbound 900 7,021 AM outbound/ PM inbound 420 2,387

Stations AM Boardings AM Boardings Hempstead 97 185 Prairie View 1 4 Waller 55 460 Fairfield 133 1,587 Jarvis/Cypress 153 1,367 N. Eldridge Pky 109 1,906 Jersey Village 458 501 Sam Houston 97 740 I-610/Eureka 219 1,074 Inputs: Houston Center - 1,584 End to End Travel Times 54.5 min (Hempstead-Eureka) 68.6 min (Hempstead-Houston) Fares distance based, $6.00 max distance based, $6.00 max Link to Houston NO rail link to Houston Rail link to Houston Headway Peak 20 min/ Off-peak 30min Peak 20 min/ Off-peak 30min Wait time Peak - 4 min/off peak 6 min Peak - 4 min/off peak 6 min Average Train Speed Links: < 3m = 25mph; > 3m = 45mph Links: < 3m = 25mph; > 3m = 45mph Bus Service in US290 Corridor Removed outside Beltway 8 Removed outside Beltway 8 Additional Express Buses Galleria, TMC, Greenway & Downtown TMC & Greenway Plaza HOV lane configuration NO change to H-GAC Network NO change to H-GAC Network US290 lane configuration NO change to H-GAC Network NO change to H-GAC Network Prairie View & Jersey Village Added growth Added growth

2-21 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Introduction

The following sections outline some of the major items related to the existing track and freight operations reviewed as part of this report. A general typical section of the existing track configuration on the Eureka Subdivision is shown in Figure 3-1. A review of the existing field conditions, operating timetable, and the track charts indicate that the main track is centered within the 100-foot right-of-way.

Figure 3-1 - Generalized Existing Typical Sections

Besides the single mainline track, there are several locations where there are parallel tracks which are used to assist in rail operations. These parallel tracks are called sidings and support tracks. Sidings are used to allow a train to switch from the mainline track and then have another train pass on the mainline track while the other train is on the siding.

3-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District The second type of parallel track is called a support track and is used to stage rail cars for later pick up and for servicing rail-served customers along the subdivision. Within the project area there are nine sidings and support tracks.

3.2 Signal System

The current signal system in operation within the Hempstead study area is an Automatic Block Signal (ABS) wherein signals are located approximately one mile apart and are illuminated to show the status of the block ahead, whether occupied or not occupied by a train. Since the ABS signal system does not authorize movement of trains, all train movements in this territory are authorized by radio from the Train Dispatcher in Spring, Texas. This type of operating system or movement authority is referred to as Track Warrant Control (TWC). A train is authorized by TWC to move over certain segments of the Subdivision. The limits are determined by Mile Post (MP) locations. Due to the way existing freight customers are served, the train operations within the study area require the issuing of Joint Limits so that more than one train may occupy a portion of a block or entire block(s) with another train(s). This type of TWC is necessary as two or three trains will often be in the same segment to service multiple customers at the same time or to “hand off” cars to each other on the support tracks as described in Section 3.3 “Existing Freight Rail Traffic”. Operating speed of the trains must be restricted under the issuance of Joint Limits.

3.3 Existing Freight Rail Traffic

There are currently three Union Pacific (UPRR) industry trains that work on the Eureka subdivision between Eureka Yard and approximately MP 8 near Gessner Road during the daylight hours from early morning until late afternoon. These trains occupy various portions of this section of track serving customers in this area. This area has a fairly dense concentration of industrial customers that receive rail shipments, particularly

3-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District between MP 0 near Eureka Yard and MP 2 near Long Point Road and between MP 6 near Pinemont Road and MP 8. The concentration of industry at these two locations along with the support tracks used for staging rail cars between these two locations requires sustained switching activity throughout the day by UPRR. In order to accomplish the freight rail car switching service, the trains utilize the mainline where commuter rail is proposed to operate.

The UPRR services a variety of steel, packaging and bulk material customers along the Eureka subdivision. Many of the customers are located between MP 0 and MP 8 which are located within Beltway 8. Some customers have their rail cars placed on sidings or unloading tracks near their facility which may make it possible to change the time of day that rail cars are delivered without impacting the companies’ business. However, at several locations, the UPRR trains switch the customers’ cars directly into buildings during the customers’ regular business hours. This service would be more difficult to modify. Further discussions with the UPRR and these customers will be required to determine how the delivery times for their rail cars can be adjusted.

TxDOT currently has plans to purchase certain properties along the Eureka subdivision which may result in fewer businesses in this area requiring UPRR to switch freight cars. The reconstruction of the highway interchange at IH 610 and US 290 is scheduled to begin in 2011. It has been assumed that these acquisitions will occur before the 2019 commuter rail operations begin. The proposed TxDOT acquisition of these properties will remove the two businesses located next to Loop 610 or between MP 1 and MP 2, which would reduce the number of freight customers along this subdivision. However, the switching that occurs north of Long Point Road out to MP 8 will still be occurring in 2019 and during the 2035 scenarios.

Additional discussions with the UPRR and the freight rail customers are necessary to determine how the switching activity may be reduced and modified and allow the

3-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District remaining industrial switching to be moved to night time operations. If these discussions result in the switching operations being rescheduled to outside of daytime commuting hours, then it may be possible to allow temporal separation for the entire corridor as originally envisioned.

Temporal separation inside Beltway 8, which had been previously assumed for the other commuter rail studies in this region, is assumed to be feasible for the purposes of this report. Further discussions between the UPRR and their freight customers will be required to develop a final determination on this point. However, for planning purposes, this report proposes infrastructure for temporal separation of daytime commuter operations and nighttime freight operations in this corridor, including this segment between Beltway 8 and 610.

3.4 Sidings and Support Tracks

Support tracks are used for staging cars and servicing the rail-served customers on the Eureka Subdivision. Sidings are used typically for meeting and passing trains. A review of the track charts, Zone Track Spot (ZTS) maps and field visits show several sidings and support tracks are within the study area. These tracks, MP locations, and overall lengths are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 - Existing Siding and Support Tracks along the Eureka Subdivision

Track MP Begin MP End Approx. Length, feet Number790 0.34 0.84 2,600 120 1.21 1.66 2,300 757 2.17 2.54 1,900 111 2.36 3.06 3,600 111 6.84 7.18 1,700 113 19.28 20.39 5,800 713 27.03 28.04 5,300

112 35.08 35.72 3,300 111 45.10 46.47 7,200 NOTE: Information in this chart is per Track Charts dated 02/04/07

3-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District 3.5 Industries

The Union Pacific services a variety of steel, packaging and bulk material customers along the Eureka subdivision. Many of the customers between the beginning of the line and the MP 8 area have cars switched directly into buildings during the customer’s regular business hours. In addition, certain customers along the line receive unit trains which are not operated according to a fixed schedule. A unit train is a train in which all rail cars carry the same commodity and are typically allowed to travel directly to the freight customer’s destination whenever the track is available. Due to the uncertain nature of the unit train arrival times, an operating plan and potential unit train siding locations will be determined in consultation with the UPRR to allow for temporal separation.

3.6 Track Chart Data

Track charts for the UPRR Eureka Subdivision were reviewed in order to approximate the condition of the rail, ties and ballast, the presence of signals, track curvature information and running speed of freight service. These track charts provided an inventory of the existing infrastructure. Copies of the current track charts are included in Appendix D. The following information is noted for the Eureka subdivision from Eureka Yard (MP 0) to Hempstead (MP 45):

• Rail – Varies from bolted rail to Continuously Welded Rail (CWR) varying in section from 112 to 136; • Ties - 100% are timber with major maintenance accomplished in 2006; and, • Ballast - 100% is crushed rock with surface and line work accomplished in 2006.

3-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District The track is currently being maintained and is appropriate to be classified as a FRA Class 3 track which is acceptable for primarily freight service. Currently within this corridor, the maximum authorized speed for freight and passenger are listed below:

• One curve south of Hempstead (mileposts: 44.41 to 46.47) - 25 mph; • The balance of the track mileage (i.e. 96% of the segment) - 40 mph; and, • Per Timetable – UPRR Passenger Trains: Between MP 65.2 (Navasota Junction) and MP 11.0 (Melendy), where no permanent or temporary speed restrictions are in effect for freight trains, may operate at five (5) mph above maximum authorized speed for freight trains. This means where Timetable speed is 40 mph, UPRR passenger trains may operate at 45 mph.

The review of the track charts indicate that the existing track conditions are suitable for trains to operate at speeds of 40 mph on the majority of the UPRR track. Based on the information presented in the track charts, certain track upgrades will need to be made to allow passenger trains to operate at planned speeds. This information also assisted in determining costs for the upgrades that are assumed to be required for passenger service to be implemented. Further review, detailed physical inspection, and surveying would be needed prior to the development of design plans beyond this study.

Railroad tracks are rated Class 1-9 by the FRA based on the how well the track’s infrastructure is maintained to operate at a certain speed. The lower the class of track, the lower the speed the railroad is able to operate. The UPRR Eureka Subdivision is considered to be a FRA Class 3 track. For a Class 3 track, the typical maximum allowable operating speed for freight trains is 40 mph and the maximum for passenger trains would be 60 mph. In this particular case, the UPRR Timetable for the Eureka Subdivision is more restrictive than FRA allowable maximums in terms of allowable speeds for UPRR Passenger trains. A Class 4 track maintains its ballast, rail, ties and bridges and other infrastructure to a standard that allows speeds for freight trains of 60

3-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District mph and passenger trains to 80 mph. Therefore, track, bridge, signal and crossing protection improvements are necessary to bring this track up to Class 4 which is needed for commuter rail service.

3.7 Crossing Protection

There are 65 at-grade road crossings located within the project limits. Table 3-2 summarizes the crossings and the protection located at the crossings, based on track charts and a field review at the time of this report. Grade-crossing warning devices are not equipped to operate with a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) System and must be replaced (Harris County Commuter Rail Analysis – 2003). Operation of passenger rail service within this corridor will require upgrades to the crossing protections. These costs to upgrade the signals are included within the cost estimate for the project. Ultimately, upgrades to quad gates may be required for the operation of intercity passenger rail and higher speed rail.

Table 3-2 - Existing Crossing Protection along Eureka Subdivision

Street/Industry Name Crossing MP Location Sign/Warning West 12 th Street 0.89 System BFG North Post Oak Road 1.62 BFG Long Point Road 2.12 BFG Antoine / Hammerly 3.08 BFG Wirtcrest Road 3.47 BFG West 34 th Street / Kempwood Drive 3.76 BFG Bingle Road 4.58 BFG Rayson Street 4.65 BFG West 43 rd Street / Clay Road 5.46 BFG Pinemont 6.24 BFG Fairbanks North Houston / Blalock 6.93 BFG Campbell Road 7.53 BFG Windfern 8.04 BFG Gessner Road 8.52 BFG West Little York Road 9.15 BFG Perimeter Road 9.56 BFG Brittmoore Road 10.28 BFG

3-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Street/Industry Name Crossing MP Location Sign/Warning Taylor Road / Wright Road 12.00 BFG Private Road 12.42 S West Road 12.78 BFG North Eldridge Parkway 13.01 BFG Entrance Road – Daniel Valve Co. 13.49 BFG Entrance Road – Houston Pipeline 13.70 S NB Frontage Road – SH 6 14.31 BFG SB Frontage Road – SH 6 14.35 BFG Huffmeister Road 14.99 BFG Entrance Road – Worthington Co. 15.92 S Berwick Drive 16.02 BFG Telge Road 16.66 BFG Entrance Road – Wyman Gordon Co. 17.00 BFG Cypress Drive 19.12 XS Private 20.27 X Fry Road 20.62 BFG House Hahl Road 20.77 BFG Private Road 23.40 XS Private Crossing 25.07 S Becker Road 27.00 BFG Katy Hockley Road / Roberts Road 28.06 BFG Plumlee (Westgreen Square) 28.44 S Badtke Road 29.17 BFG Grimes Road / Warren Street 29.91 X Warren Ranch Road (Heger Road) 30.04 BFG James Street 30.31 X Kermier Road 30.81 BFG Kickapoo Road 31.90 BFG Unnamed 33.57 X Mathis Stokes Road 34.18 BFG Weygand Street (Hamilton Street) 34.82 BFG Farr Street 35.18 BFG Key Street 35.30 BFG Alliance Street 35.43 BFG FM 362 35.76 BFG GH Road 36.48 BFG Rural Street 38.15 XS FM 1098 39.41 BFG Pine Island Road 40.54 BFG FM 359 42.33 BFG Grace Road (Cemetery Road) 44.06 BFG

3-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Street/Industry Name Crossing MP Location Sign/Warning 5th Street 44.41 BFG 9th Street 44.70 BFG Main Street 44.96 BFG Austin Street 45.08 BFG Wilkins Street 45.15 BFG New Orleans Street 45.22 X Zach Road 45.94 BFG Note: BFG – Bells, Flashers and Gates S – Stop signs Y – Yield Signs X, XS – Crossbucks

3.8 Alignment and Profile

A review of the track charts shows that the minimum grade appears to be flat, or zero percent, and the maximum grade is 0.90 percent between Eureka Yard and MP 45 near Hempstead. These grades will allow for the passenger rail service to operate within the assumed speeds shown in Section 4 for the commuter schedule and equipment. In addition, there is a horizontal curve where the line enters the City of Hempstead. The degree of curvature is a measure of how sharp the curve is. The lower the degree of curvature, the higher the allowable speed for a train operating through the curve. This horizontal curve is approximately 6 degrees, where the line enters City of Hempstead from the east and then turns north and becomes parallel to Main Street. This section of track has a posted freight rail speed of 25 mph. The freight trains for the most of this subdivision have a 40 mph operating speed limit on the mainline. The exceptions to this are at the Hempstead curve which has a 25 mph operating speed limit and the Special Timetable Instruction allowing UPRR Passenger trains a maximum speed of 45 mph, or 5 mph over the freight maximum between MP 11 and MP 65.2. Passenger trains entering Hempstead will be slowing to stop at the station, so this curve will not have a major impact on the commuter train operations.

3-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District SECTION 4 SERVICE PLAN OPTIONS

4.1 Introduction

This section outlines the assumptions and recommendations for commuter rail system operations and provides the UPRR’s Policy related to similar operations. In addition, proposed train schedules are presented along with the other assumptions related to rail operations within the corridor and interoperability between the freight rail operations and passenger rail (both commuter rail and higher speed intercity rail). These assumptions and recommendations should be further developed by the GCRD to become the System Service Standards for Passenger Rail Interoperability for a regional rail plan for freight and passenger rail.

4.2 Operating Assumptions

For the purpose of this report, the following assumptions have been made for opening day operations:

• Temporal separation is the assumed operating condition. • The Eureka Subdivision will be upgraded and signaled for Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). CTC is the minimum required in order to operate passenger trains at the speeds, frequencies, and schedule proposed. Positive Train Control (PTC) would be an addition to the CTC system and is included is the construction cost estimate. • The existing freight mainline from MP 0 to Hempstead will have track improvements to upgrade the track from jointed rail to Continuously Welded Rail (CWR). CWR is the current industry standard for mainline tracks and provides greatly improved safety, reliability, ride quality and reduces maintenance costs.

4-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • From MP 0 to Hempstead, four passing sidings will be constructed to allow passenger trains operating in opposite directions to meet and pass each other.

In addition to the above assumptions for opening day, it is assumed that the commuter rail connection to downtown will be completed for ultimate build out in 2035.

4.2.1 Temporal Separation

Due to the low number of freight trains currently operating on this corridor, the assumed operating concept for the joint passenger and freight operations is temporal separation. Temporal separation is defined for this report as prohibiting passenger train operations on the subdivision at the same time as freight train operations. With temporal separation, the likelihood is significantly reduced that a collision between a passenger train and a freight train would occur since a strict time separation exists between passenger and freight train operations.

4.2.2 UPRR Passenger Rail Policy

During the meeting between the UPRR and the GCRD in Omaha, NE, the following commuter access principles were provided by the UPRR. The operating plan and infrastructure improvements suggested in this report were developed to be consistent with these principles.

Union Pacific Commuter Access Principles

Union Pacific offers the following information to guide commuter rail planners and agencies in working with Union Pacific to develop new rail passenger service. Commuter rail service can provide substantial benefits to the public, including reducing traffic congestion and avoiding expensive highway construction. At the same time, Union

4-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Pacific has a responsibility to the nation and to its customers to protect the public benefits for freight transportation – energy efficiency, lower emissions, cost-effective cargo transportation for shippers and consumers, and private investment in the nation’s infrastructure.

Union Pacific will consider reasonable proposals for commuter rail service that appear to be viable and adequately funded. Commuter rail planners and agencies should recognize that agreements reached in the past, when railroads had excess track capacity and did not expect to grow, are not appropriate models for future agreements. Future agreements must balance the nations desire for additional commuter service with Union Pacific’s ongoing, critical role in carrying freight that otherwise would likely compete for space on the crowded and underfunded highway network.

Feasible separation of freight and passenger operation

• As in all our activities, safety must come first. • Passenger safety is best protected by separating freight and passenger tracks by 50 feet or more. Despite UPRR’s enormous progress in preventing freight train derailments, derailments will occur and could strike or be struck by passenger trains. Research demonstrates that most freight train derailments will remain within a 100- foot corridor. • One way to achieve separation is to move the majority of freight trains out of urban corridors entirely. UPRR will consider publicly funded relocations of freight operations that preserve UPRR’s customer service, competitive position, and access to current and future freight customers.

Where separation or relocation is not feasible, commuter trains must share our tracks.

4-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District We intend to apply the following principles in negotiating proposals by commuter agencies for joint operations:

Safety • Under federal law, all trains and tracks must in the future be equipped with interoperable Positive Train Control (PTC) systems if passenger trains are present. The commuter agency should fund PTC if UPRR would not otherwise install it on the affected track, or contribute the agency’s share of equipment and wayside costs if UPRR would install PTC on the affected track. • Commuter agencies should fund all other incremental safety requirements attributable to its service, including track quality upgrades, grade crossing warning signal improvements, new grade separations, and any required fencing. • Passenger vehicles must, at a minimum, meet FRA crash standards. • Passenger stations must meet Union Pacific and FRA design requirements to protect passengers from freight operations.

Service • Passenger equipment must be reliable and suitable for mainline operations. • Service to Union Pacific’s freight customers must also be reliable and protected and should not be compromised by new commuter rail service. UPRR cannot agree to curfews or other restrictions that would impact the quality or reliability of our freight service. • Commuter service design and infrastructure investment must protect UPRR’s ability to serve existing customers and locate new freight customers on our lines. • In order to preserve service quality for all types of customers, UPRR will retain dispatching and maintenance control over its lines. The parties must agree on standards for reliability. • Passenger operations must provide the flexibility to accommodate efficient track maintenance.

4-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Liability • UPRR cannot accept exposure to any additional liability associated with allowing commuter service on our lines that would not exist “but for” those operations. • Commuter agencies should be prepared to carry and provide evidence of insurance covering liability exposure up to $200 million, the limit of liability under federal law. Union Pacific expects to be indemnified for or protected against any and all liability resulting from the presence of commuter service.

Capacity • All projections call for rail freight growth to exceed rail capacity in the future. Commuter agencies should understand that existing capacity the UPRR funded – whether or not now used – is reserved for potential freight growth. • Commuter agencies therefore must fund all incremental capacity to accommodate commuter operations, as reflected in a study of capacity requirements and a resulting capacity plan. • The capacity plan must preserve the opportunity to expand freight service. • Because new capacity consumes the least expensive capacity opportunities and usually makes the next increment of capacity more expense, the capacity plan must include additional commuter agency investment at the outset that will leave UPRR cost-neutral when it needs to invest in additional freight capacity. • Infrastructure requirements will be determined by UPRR or a UPRR-designated and qualified third party. • On certain lines where freight growth is not expected, UPRR may allow commuter rail use of existing, unused capacity.

Compensation • The commuter agency should be prepared to pay for all costs associated with developing the capacity plan, including UPRR’s time and resources.

4-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • The capacity plan should be based on UPRR’s actual cost structures and operating conditions, not on idealized conditions or models. • To the extent commuter agencies use UPRR assets and property, they must provide UPRR with a reasonable return on Union Pacific’s investment. • If UPRR’s tax liabilities (income, franchise, sales and use, property, or any other tax) increase as a result of UPRR’s participation in a passenger project, UPRR expects to be made whole.

4.2.3 Upgrade Signal System to Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) is a signal system whereby signal indications supersede all other authority for the movement of trains. This means that the signal indication given to a train is the authority for train movement. CTC is the safest and most efficient method of controlling train movements, particularly in the case of a single main track railroad like the Eureka Subdivision where opposing passenger trains will need to meet and pass each other at normal operating speeds. When opposing trains meet on a single track, one train must enter a siding for the passing of the opposing train(s) to occur. The switch to the passing track must be operated and the appropriate signals must be displayed so that one train can enter the siding and then the switch must be operated again and appropriate signals displayed so the other train can pass. In CTC controlled territory, all of these functions are controlled remotely by the train dispatcher and the authority for the train movement is given by signal indication.

Presently, the Eureka Subdivision is equipped with an Automatic Block Signal (ABS) system. This means that the signals now in service display only the status (whether occupied or not occupied by a train) of the block ahead. The authority for the train movements under ABS are conveyed over the radio by the train dispatcher and copied on a form by the train crew and then repeated back to the Train Dispatcher via radio. All switches to sidings must be operated manually by the train crews. To accomplish this,

4-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District the train must stop; an employee must get off the train and operate the switch aligning it for the siding. The train may then proceed into the siding. After the train enters the siding, the switch behind the train must be operated back by hand. This system is sufficient for the current slow speed freight trains serving industrial customers but not for passenger train operations.

4.2.4 Impact to Freight Operations

Opening day commuter operations on the Eureka subdivision are envisioned with temporal separation of the existing industrial freight service and the proposed passenger service. The interoperability concept is to move the freight service to the night hours when passenger trains are not operating and operate passenger trains during the daytime. Initial meetings with Union Pacific were conducted; but further detailed discussions will be necessary to reach a final negotiated agreement.

4.2.5 Potential Intercity Passenger Rail Impacts

TxDOT is currently evaluating a potential intercity passenger rail line with service between Houston and Austin. This intercity line is envisioned to operate over the Eureka subdivision. Because the service line is conceptual in nature at this phase, it is assumed that it would be operational after the 2019 start date of this commuter rail service but would be in operation by 2035.

As part of the study, the intercity passenger rail schedule was provided by TxDOT. This intercity train schedule would consist of four train trips connecting Houston and Austin. The four train trips would consist of a train leaving Houston in the morning and afternoon and a train leaving Austin in the morning and afternoon. The service might be extended to provide service to College Station but those train operations are not currently developed and thus have not been included in this report.

4-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District The interoperability concept is based on the proposed train schedule for the intercity passenger trains provided by TxDOT and the schedule developed for the commuter train operations. The outbound intercity train would meet inbound commuter trains in the morning and the inbound intercity train would meet outbound commuter trains in the afternoon, both occurrences between Beltway 8 and downtown. To accommodate the meeting and passing of the intercity passenger trains and commuter trains, passing tracks or sidings would be required between the North Eldridge Station Area (MP 9) and the Eureka yard area (MP 0).

The intercity passenger rail service along this corridor would require the following additional infrastructure improvements to obtain a higher speed envisioned for intercity rail service. The costs for these additional improvements are not included in Section 6 Estimated Capital Costs for Commuter Rail Service and are identified to assist in determining the feasibility of the corridor for intercity passenger service. Detailed service plans would also need to be developed for the intercity rail service to confirm these assumptions:

1. Track and bridge improvements to bring the track that the intercity passenger service operates up to FRA Class 6 standards (maximum passenger train speed allowable of 110 mph). 2. Connection of the proposed passenger sidings developed as part of the commuter rail service plan outlined in this report into a single passenger track parallel to the existing freight track inside Beltway 8. 3. Additional fencing along the right of way to allow for speeds to be increased for the intercity rail. 4. Evaluate at-grade rail/highway crossings for proper signal timing and possible closure within the corridor. 5. Overhead structures currently provide sufficient clearance for commuter trains and diesel powered intercity trains. If future electrification of this corridor is to be

4-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District considered, future evaluation of some structures may be required. It is recommended that future structures be constructed with this in mind.

4.2.6 Equipment Options

Single level passenger coaches that are currenly used by New Jersey Transit (NJT) are shown in Figure 4-1. NJT, along with MARC Commuter Rail (Maryland), MBTA (Boston) and MetroNorth (New York) among other agencies, currently use single level passenger coaches pulled by a locomotive.

Figure 4-1- Single Level Figure 4-2 - Bi-Level Passenger Passenger Coaches Coaches

The bi-level passenger coach equipment manufactured by Bombardier is shown in Figure 4-2. This Bombardier model is currently in use by the TRE for the Fort Worth to Dallas service. Most push-pull commuter rail operators in North America use bi-level equipment and the majority of new passenger coaches on order are bi-level coaches. A comparison between single level and bi-level equipment with regard to capacity, cost, and height of the cars is shown in Table 4-1. The approximate estimated cost differential for the Hempstead Commuter Rail between purchasing single level and bi-level cars required for the proposed operating scenarios shown above is depicted in Table 4-2. The

4-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District number of passenger cars required as shown in Table 4-2 is based on ridership estimates developed as part of this study.

Table 4-1 - Comparison of Bi-level and Single Level Equipment

Comparison Parameter Equipment Type

Typical Single Level Typical Bi-Level

Approximate Passenger 90 150 Capacity (seats) Capital Cost Per Car $2.2 approx. $2.6 approx. (in millions) Typical Car Height 14'-8" 15'-11" NOTE: Costs are in 2010 dollars

Table 4-2 - Cost Comparison between Passenger Car Equipment

SINGLE LEVEL BI-LEVEL Cost Comparison CARS CARS Total No. of Cars for 5 Train Sets Per Day for opening day (2019) 16 10 Multiplied by Cost/Car $2.2 million $2.6 million TOTAL INITIAL COST (2019) $35.2 million $26 million Total No. of Cars for 5 Train Sets Per Day for 2035 operations 37 22 Multiplied by Cost/Car $2.2 million $2.6 million TOTAL YEAR 2035 COST $81.4 million $57.2 million

EQUIPMENT FINDINGS:

• Bi-level cars seat approximately 60 more passengers per car and are only 1’-3” taller than a typical single level car. • Bi-level cars are shorter (in height) than many existing freight trains currently running through the City of Houston. Freight trains range in height from 15’-6” for a covered

4-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District hopper or box car to 20’-2” for a double-stack container car, as compared to a 15’-11” bi-level passenger car. • The costs of the single level cars are approximately forty percent greater than the bi- level cars when comparing the cost per seat. • Single level equipment would require stations to have longer platforms to accommodate the additional cars to match passenger capacities compared to those needed for bi-level equipment. • Passenger trains with 7, 8, or more single level passenger coaches would likely require the addition of a second locomotive, raising capital and operating expenditures. • Single level equipment would consume more track storage length in both the layover and maintenance yards.

Based on the findings, the GCRD should use bi-level cars on its system. Since the passenger cars will be operating adjacent to or within freight rail corridors, the cars must meet all FRA construction guidelines to be fully FRA compliant.

4.3 Operating Scenario

4.3.1 Train Equipment

Based on the cost comparison between equipment shown in the previous section, the trains should use a push-pull operating scenario with an engine and a cab control car. Most push-pull commuter rail operators in North America use bi-level equipment and the majority of new passenger coaches on order are bi-level coaches. In addition, bi-level coaches can be modified to allow for a low entry to comply with ADA requirements. In order to meet the anticipated ridership demand and provide flexibility in scheduling, the number of passenger cars should be increased from two cars per train set in 2019 to six cars per train set in 2035. Therefore, the GCRD could acquire the passenger cars based

4-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District on demonstrated demand and continue to use the same number of engines and the same train schedule as ridership grows.

4.3.2 Train Schedules

A proposed schedule has been developed for both the opening day service in 2019 and for service in 2035 with a connection to downtown Houston. The 2035 schedule also assumes that the intercity passenger rail service between Austin and Houston is in operation. The schedule is predicated on serving the main trip purpose of the GCRD passenger rail service, i.e. the commuter traveling to work. The schedule was designed to serve morning and evening peak period demand between the Eureka area and Hempstead with the potential to easily interface with buses to major destinations in 2019 and between downtown Houston and Hempstead in 2035. The service plan has been developed based on five train sets with seven train trips inbound in the morning and seven outbound in the afternoon. Two “reverse commute” train trips are planned to the Fairfield Station during each period to provide additional service to riders and to improve equipment utilization. Reverse commuters bound for Prairie View A&M University could be served by a shuttle provided by the University until the demand can justify extending the ”reverse commute” train trips to the Prairie View station.

Since this project is only in conceptual planning, it is too early to know the most efficient use of equipment, crews or transfer potential to other passenger rail services such as METRO. The schedule for the proposed Uptown LRT has not been determined nor has the downtown connection to LRT. Subsequently, at the time of service implementation, it will be necessary to develop a schedule which reflects other transit service conditions at that time.

4-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District 2019 Train Schedules

The schedules that follow show the conceptual GCRD train services. Train trips shown in the proposed schedules are identified by Train Number and referred to in the discussion as Trains. It is assumed that Trains would travel south in the morning and north in the evening, laying over between peak periods at the storage tracks noted at the end-of-line station in 2019. Two reverse commute trips are planned in the morning and afternoon both in 2019 and 2035 as shown in the tables and figures below. The train sets making the reverse commute turn at the Fairfield Station and come back in the morning and go back out in the afternoon. This reduces the total number of train sets required for the service as well as providing reverse commute service for riders who desire that service. Since the largest ridership demand is from the Fairfield area and points closer to Houston, not all Trains are scheduled to go out to the end of the line at Hempstead.

Table 4-3 - Proposed Year 2019 AM Commuter Rail Schedule Northbound 2019 Southbound or towards Houston or towards AM Schedule Hempstead Train No. 2 4 6 8 10 22 12 21 1 Hempstead 5:28A 5:53A 6:13A 6:33A 7:08A Prairie View 5:37 6:02 6:22 6:42 7:17 Waller 5:44 6:09 6:29 6:49 7:24 Fairfield 5:55 6:20 6:40 7:00 7:35 9:57A 9:35A Jarvis Road 6:02 6:27 6:47 7:07 7:42 10:04 9:23 N. Eldridge 6:11 6:36 6:56 7:16 7:51 8:12A 10:13 7:54A 9:14 Jersey Village 6:14 6:39 6:59 7:19 7:54 8:15 10:16 7:49 9:11 Sam Houston 6:19 6:44 7:04 7:24 7:59 8:20 10:21 7:42 9:06 NW Mall 6:28 6:53 7:13 7:33 8:08 8:29 10:30 7:30 8:57

The AM schedule for a typical morning rush hour period is shown in Table 4-3. There are seven daily inbound trips proposed using the five train sets. The earliest Train would

4-13 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District leave Hempstead at 5:28 a.m., arriving at the end of the line near the Northwest Mall in Houston at 6:28 a.m. Service would run about every 30 minutes, with the last inbound Train leaving Hempstead at 7:08 a.m. and arriving at the end-of-line Station at 8:08 a.m. This schedule is shown graphically in Figure 4-3, which is known as a string-line diagram. It shows graphically where the Trains would meet and shows the basis for the recommended passing sidings.

Figure 4-3 – Proposed Year 2019 AM Commuter Rail Schedule

For the PM schedule, there are seven daily outbound Trains proposed. As shown, the earliest Train, Train 3, would leave the station at the end of the line or near the Northwest Mall at 3:57 p.m., arriving at the Fairfield area station at 4:33 PM. This Train set would turn and return inbound as Train 14 and then turn again and go out as Train 13. The Trains which would leave at the end of the line near the Northwest Mall and travel to Hempstead would leave at 5:07 PM and arrive at the End of Line Station at 6:09 p.m. The last evening Train would leave at 10:32 p.m. and arrive at the Hempstead area

4-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District around 11:34 pm. The PM schedule for a typical evening rush hour period is displayed in Table 4-4 and shown graphically in Figure 4-4.

Table 4-4 – Proposed Year 2019 PM Commuter Rail Schedule

Southbound 2019 or towards Northbound or towards Hempstead PM Schedule Houston Train No. 14 24 3 23 5 7 9 11 13 Hempstead 6:09P 6:34P 6:54P 7:25 11:34P Prairie View 5:58 6:23 6:43 7:13 11:23 Waller 5:51 6:16 6:36 7:06 11:16 Fairfield 4:45P 4:33P 5:40P 6:05 6:25 6:55 11:05 Jarvis Road 4:52 4:23 5:33 5:58 6:18 6:48 10:58 N. Eldridge 5:01 4:14 5:24 5:49 6:09 6:39 10:49 Jersey Village 5:04 4:11 5:21 5:46 6:06 6:36 10:46 Sam Houston 5:09 4:52P 4:06 4:42P 5:16 5:41 6:01 6:31 10:41 NW Mall 5:21 5:02 3:57 4:32P 5:07 5:32 5:52 6:22 10:32

Figure 4-4 – Proposed Year 2019 PM Commuter Schedule

4-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

2035 Train Schedules

To avoid the need for transfer, a “two-seat” ride, and the associated impact on ridership, the Hempstead Commuter Rail line should continue to the downtown area in the 2035 model year. In order to serve the 2035 riders, the previously developed 2019 schedules were modified to address the increased ridership demand between downtown Houston and the NW mall area station. This increased ridership is a reverse commute and required assuming a double track between downtown and the NW mall area. The 2035 AM schedule for commuter rail is indicated in Table 4-5 and shown graphically in Figure 4-5. Again, train trips are identified by Train number and referred to as Trains in the discussion. To show how the commuter Trains would interface with the proposed intercity passenger rail service during morning operations, the intercity Trains are included in Figure 4-5 and shown as Trains 101 and 102.

Table 4-5 - Proposed Year 2035 AM Commuter Rail Schedule

Northbound 2035 Southbound or towards Houston or towards AM Schedule Hempstead Train No. 2 4 6 8 10 22 12 21 1 Hempstead 5:28A 5:53A 6:13A 6:33A 7:08A Prairie View 5:37 6:02 6:22 6:42 7:17 Waller 5:44 6:09 6:29 6:49 7:24 Fairfield 5:55 6:20 6:40 7:00 7:35 9:57A 9:35A Jarvis Road 6:02 6:27 6:47 7:07 7:42 10:04 9:23 N. Eldridge 6:11 6:36 6:56 7:16 7:51 8:12A 10:13 7:54A 9:14 Jersey Village 6:14 6:39 6:59 7:19 7:54 8:15 10:16 7:49 9:11 Sam Houston 6:19 6:44 7:04 7:24 7:59 8:20 10:21 7:42 9:06 NW Mall 6:28 6:53 7:13 7:33 8:08 8:29 10:30 7:30 8:57 Downtown 6:43A 7:08A 7:28A 7:48A 8:23A 8:44A 10:45A 7:15A 8:45A

4-16 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Figure 4-5 – Proposed Year 2035 AM Commuter Rail Schedule with Intercity Rail Service

The proposed 2035 afternoon schedule is indicated in Table 4-6 and shown graphically in Figure 4-6. This table is for the commuter rail service and includes Trains from the downtown intermodal station. To show how the commuter Trains would interface with the proposed intercity passenger rail service during afternoon operations, the intercity Trains are shown in Figure 4-6 as Trains 105 and 106. It is assumed that the segment length for the segment from downtown to MP 0 on the Eureka Subdivision is about 6 miles as the actual alignment and location for this downtown station is outside of the limits of the scope of this study. As with the start-up schedule for 2019, the largest ridership demand is from the Fairfield area and points closer to Houston. Therefore, not all Trains are scheduled to go to the Hempstead terminus but travel to the Fairfield area. With the inclusion of the intercity passenger service, a train set turns around at the North Eldridge area to continue to provide service between the intercity Train schedules.

4-17 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 4-6 - Proposed Year 2035 PM Commuter Rail Service with Intercity Rail Service

2035 Southbound PM or towards Northbound or towards Hempstead Schedule Houston Train No. 14 24 3 23 5 7 9 11 13 Hempstead 6:09P 6:34P 6:54P 7:25P 11:34P Prairie View 5:58P 6:23 6:43 7:13 11:23 Waller 5:51P 6:16 6:36 7:06 11:16 Fairfield 4:45P 4:33P 5:40 6:05 6:25 6:55 11:05 Jarvis Road 4:52P 4:23P 5:33 5:58 6:18 6:48 10:58 N. Eldridge 5:01P 4:14P 5:24 5:49 6:09 6:39 10:49 Jersey Village 5:04P 4:11P 5:21 5:46 6:06 6:36 10:46 Sam Houston 5:09P 4:52 4:06P 4:42 5:16 5:41 6:01 6:31 10:41 NW Mall 5:21P 5:02 3:57P 4:32 5:07 5:32 5:52 6:22 10:32 Downtown 5:37P 5:17 3:45P 4:20P 4:55P 5:20P 5:40P 6:10P 10:20P

Figure 4-6 - Proposed Year 2035 PM Commuter Rail Schedule with Intercity Rail Service

4-18 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District 4.3.3 Interim and 2035 Operation Plans

Interim Operations

A. Bus Connections

With the planned opening day commuter rail service stopping prior to reaching a passenger terminal in downtown, an interim station is planned to allow easy cross platform transfer from the commuter rail service to express buses to continue service to the following locations: • Downtown Houston • Galleria/Uptown area • Greenway Plaza area • Texas Medical Center area

The bus connector network will be further refined as a part of the next phase of design for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project. Experience in other cities has shown that integrated fares should be available so that the cost of the combined trip is not significantly higher than a trip that only requires rail. For this study, this connector bus service was included in the train service fares and operating costs.

B. Service Plan

In order to maximize the equipment utilization, five locomotives and associated passenger cars would be arranged into five train sets. A set for the opening day Hempstead commuter service is comprised of the locomotive, the cab car, and one bi- level passenger car. The sets would be rotated throughout each week to average out wear. In order to provide the schedule shown in Table 4-3, the following train sets will serve these train numbers:

4-19 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Engine, Cars and Cab Set 1 --- Trains 2-21-22-3-14-13 Engine, Cars and Cab Set 2 --- Trains 4-23-24-9 Engine, Cars and Cab Set 3 --- Trains 6-5 Engine, Cars and Cab Set 4 --- Trains 8-1-12-7 Engine, Cars and Cab Set 5 --- Trains 10-11

2035 Operations

A. Downtown Connections

In 2035, a rail connection would be made to downtown Houston. When included in the 2035 model, this connection significantly increased ridership. The route was assumed for cost estimating purposes to be approximately 6 miles in length from the Eureka Subdivision to the downtown station.

B. Service Plan

With the downtown connection in the model, a large demand is projected for riders between the downtown station and a station near the NW Mall area where the model anticipated a connection to the future METRO Uptown LRT. In order to serve this demand, two additional trains were included in the schedules. These two trains would run outbound from downtown Houston in the AM and inbound from the NW Mall in the PM peak. The interim station location near the Northwest Mall has not been determined. There are three viable locations; but, during this preliminary study the final location was not identified. When the METRO LRT is extended from the Galleria/Uptown area, current plans show it running up Post Oak Road. For planning purposes for this study, the transfer station from commuter trains to LRT was considered to be near where Post Oak crosses the Eureka Subdivision.

4-20 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District In summary, the service plan for 2019 includes service from Hempstead to the interim station near the Northwest Mall. The 2035 service plan is for service from Hempstead to the downtown Houston area.

If temporal separation cannot be achieved due to service requirements of existing freight customers on the line as assumed in this report, additional track may be required between MP 0 and MP 8.5 to allow freight service and passenger service to be conducted at the same time but on separate tracks. This would allow freight service to continue during the day where necessary due to volume or due to shipper requirements. Discussions with the Union Pacific and their freight customers should continue to better determine the best operating strategy and required track infrastructure in keeping with the UPRR’s principles for sharing tracks and rights of way for freight and passenger service.

4-21 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District SECTION 5 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

5.1 Introduction

The various track improvements proposed for the Eureka subdivision, as well as within the yard facilities, are described in the costs table included in Appendix E . All proposed improvements for track and infrastructure have been provided in the cost estimate. The generalized typical section for the proposed improvements that are the basis of the cost estimate is shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 - Generalized Proposed Typical Section

The proposed passing sidings are to allow the commuter trains to operate efficiently in the corridor. Based on the assumed temporal separation operating scenario, the passenger trains will not be passing freight trains and thus are planned to have twenty-foot (20-ft) 5-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District track centers. Further negotiations with UPRR and detailed operations plans are required to determine the final siding configuration and locations that will be required. If temporal separation cannot be achieved, then additional main track will most likely be required to separate freight and passenger operations and increased track centers may be required, increasing costs.

5.2 Track Infrastructure

Track charts were examined and a cursory field visit was performed to determine the conditions of the existing infrastructure and what is needed to be added to provide the required capacity. Maintenance improvements along the corridor may be needed as well but it is assumed that the Union Pacific will continue to perform maintenance until the GCRD and the UPRR execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or a contract regarding who will perform maintenance along this line.

5.2.1 Track Upgrades

The existing track is bolted rail. Anywhere that passenger service is proposed on the existing freight track, the track should be upgraded to continuously welded rail (CWR). CWR is the current industry standard and will improve safety, reliability, and ride quality as well as reduce maintenance on the track structure.

No additional horizontal improvements are anticipated or included within this study. The horizontal curvature located south of the City of Hempstead is not seen as a limiting factor that would impact the anticipated commuter train schedule because the proposed City of Hempstead station will require trains to be slowing down.

5.2.2 Sidings

The proposed train schedules were developed to meet the basic needs of the passenger service for trip time and frequency. A track diagram was developed that supported the

5-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District proposed operation. Track and signal upgrades to the majority of the line from Hempstead to Mile Post 0 were considered for the opening day commuter service. Sidings near Mile Post 5, 10, 15 and 20 would be required for the passenger equipment to pass each other while providing reverse commute service or for repositioning equipment to make multiple commuter runs.

5.2.3 Roadway Crossings Upgrades / Signals

During site visits, several crossings with active protection (Bells, Gates and Flashers) were routinely ignored by drivers. With the gates down and the flashers and bells active, several cars would drive around the gates and cross the tracks.

The introduction of commuter rail traffic to the Eureka Subdivision could add significant safety and traffic congestion challenges to the existing vehicle users of Hempstead Highway. Although passenger train speeds are higher and the trains are shorter than typical freight trains, this does not always mean that the delays along the route will be less than with just freight service. Because of the higher speeds and the need to have a greater distance in front of the train cleared, the crossing gates are activated and closed farther ahead than for a slower moving freight train. In this corridor with the relatively close spacing of crossings, passenger train service will mean that the crossing warning devices at multiple crossings will be activated at the same time which could cause queuing along parallel roadways. In addition, the public is not accustomed to the speed at which the commuter trains will be operating.

The Hempstead Highway parallels this single main line track in an area that has experienced significant industrial and residential growth during the last decade. However, the capacity and condition of the many cross streets that intersect with the Hempstead Highway and cross the Eureka subdivision have not been improved during this period of growth. During site visits, long traffic queues were observed on both Hempstead Highway and the cross streets intersecting Hempstead and having at-grade

5-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District rail crossings. These queues sometimes result in drivers stopping their vehicles on the railroad track while waiting for the driver ahead to make a turn onto Hempstead Highway.

Because of the close proximity of some driveways south of the railroad tracks, long northbound traffic queues waiting to turn onto Hempstead block these driveways. When these NB traffic queues block access to the driveway, SB left turn drivers must then wait to turn which causes SB traffic to also backup over the tracks. Therefore, both NB and SB traffic is stopped on the tracks. Several crossings with active protection (Bells, Gates and Flashers) were routinely ignored by drivers.

To address several of these conditions, additional signs should be placed to warn motorists of the dangers of the railroad crossing and its proximity to traffic signals. For example a vehicle approaching a rail crossing may encounter a sign or series of signs that read:

DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS 30 FEET CLEAR SPACE BETWEEN CLEARANCE POINT OF RAILROAD TRACK AND HEMPSTEAD HIGHWAY DANGER – PASSENGER TRAINS

A traffic analysis should be conducted to ascertain and verify all of the traffic and safety issues and develop practical solutions for mitigation prior to the initiation of any commuter rail traffic within the corridor. Additional education and Operation Lifesaver should be implemented to raise the awareness of drivers of the need to observe these warnings. Operation Lifesaver is a nationwide non-profit organization that offers free rail safety education programs to school groups, driver education classes, community audiences, professional drivers, law enforcement officers, and emergency responders. This education process should be implemented prior to the introduction of passenger

5-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District service as well as periodically in the future as the area grows and new drivers move into the area.

5.2.4 Rail Signal Upgrade

The Eureka subdivision, between the Eureka Yard and its connection with the Navasota subdivision near Navasota, Texas, is presently equipped with an Automatic Block Signal System (ABS). At the time of the proposed commuter rail construction, the existing signal system will have to be upgraded to Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). The Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) Signal System will enable the UPRR Train Dispatcher to move passenger (GCRD commuter trains) and freight traffic through control of signals and switches. The cost estimate for this study includes signal upgrades.

The UPRR Passenger Principles indicate Positive Train Control (PTC) would be necessary. Positive Train Control would be an addition to the CTC system as discussed above. Currently, the PTC guidelines by the FRA are still evolving. Since CTC may be adequate for operations with temporal separation, the FRA may allow exceptions to PTC implementation in certain situations where temporal separation exists between passenger and freight operations. However, any FRA exception would require agreement from the host railroad, UPRR.

Currently, based on the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) figures, it is projected to cost approximately $5B to install PTC on the estimated 65,000 miles of Class I railroad track that will require PTC. The railroad industry and other groups have differing figures. Given the emerging nature of this technology and the location specific variables that will affect the final cost, it has been assumed that PTC could cost $5M to $10M to install on the approximately 45 miles of the Eureka subdivision that are being considered for passenger operations. This estimated cost range is based on the FRA cost estimate and the large number of highway crossings and turnouts along the route that must be integrated into the system which will raise the cost above the national average.

5-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Further study and detailed engineering will be required to develop a final cost. Because the requirement for PTC implementation along this corridor is uncertain, the PTC requirements and costs could change pending final implementation rules by the Federal Government and agreement on an operating plan with the UPRR. The current estimate for PTC is included in the cost estimate discussed in Section 6 of this study.

5.2.5 Bridge Replacements

Since the passenger rail service is proposed to operate at a maximum speed of 79 MPH which is higher than the current UPRR operations, bridge upgrades have been assumed to be required. For budgeting purposes for the cost estimate, it is assumed that 50 percent of the 21 bridges along the route will be upgraded; and, the remaining bridges will require complete replacement.

5.3 Stations and Facilities

5.3.1 Passenger Station Platforms and Parking Facilities

Low level platforms are recommended for the stations along this corridor. The platforms will have a height of eight (8) inches above the tracks. In order to provide adequate queuing areas and meet ADA requirements, the platform will extend to about 6’ 0” (six feet) from the centerline of the track to meet the UPRR clearance standards. In addition, the two feet closest to the platform edge will have a textured area to meet ADA requirements for the edge drop off. Any canopies which are proposed to be on platforms must be located a minimum of 9’- 6” from the centerline of the track to provide adequate clearance for trains passing through the station.

Using the ridership projections and the operational plans previously described, a prototypical station platform design was developed similar to that previously suggested in the Harris County Commuter Rail Study. The platforms recommended have a 14-foot wide concrete pad, are 8 inches above the rail height and have a canopy that covers a

5-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District minimum of 30% of the platform length. The minimum platform length for start-up operations is 500 feet, with an ultimate length of 1,000 feet, based on ridership projections. The bi-level passenger rail cars are approximately 85 feet long. The 500 foot long platform length provides some operational flexibility and sufficient standing room for passengers waiting for the train. Also, additional rail cars could be easily added to the trains for increases in ridership or special events without needing to add to the platform length.

Exhibits 15, 16, and 17 depicting the platforms and required parking facilities needed for small, medium, and large station operations are found in Volume II of this report. Parking spaces at the downtown station are limited because most riders will use other public transit options to get to and from this station. Ridership data indicate that passengers using the Prairie View station are bound for Prairie View A&M University. Therefore, it is assumed that shuttle bus service to the university would be available. Although the model shows only 1 and 2 spaces are required, a nominal number of spaces should be planned to be built as planning progresses. The parking needs for each station based on the model projections are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 – Estimated Station Parking Demand

Estimated Parking Estimated Parking Name of Station Demand (2019) Demand (2035) Hempstead 76 144 Prairie View 1 2 Waller 44 361 Fairfield 108 1248 Jarvis / Towne Lake 113 1054 N. Eldridge Pkwy 85 1487 Jersey Village 356 391 BW 8 / W Little York 75 577 IH610 / Eureka 171 838 Downtown 0 475

5-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

5.3.2 Rail Facilities

Interim End Terminal Facility

The commuter rail line would connect to the downtown area at a future date. Prior to that extension, an interim terminal is needed. The interim terminal’s location is critical to transit passenger interoperability to provide the best opportunity for a seamless transition between commuter rail and proposed express bus service. The end terminal in the interim condition can serve as a layover facility where the trains would remain parked between peak periods. The layover facility could also be used as a maintenance yard in the interim condition.

The opening day end station is proposed to be located at or near the Eureka Yard. This location allows for staging of equipment during the day so it is positioned for the afternoon commute and has sufficient property available for the amount of parking required. The site would allow for passenger platforms and a bus driveway so that a direct cross-platform connection could be made from the train to buses in the morning and buses to the trains in the afternoon. The site also allows convenient bus access to the Northwest Transit Center and to IH 610 and IH 10.

Several locations were examined and are described as follows:

Option 1- End terminal at Eureka Yard/Train storage at Eureka Yard

A. Build new connection from Eureka Subdivision to Eureka Yard. This will require a new bridge over Washington Avenue and modifying the profile for the roadway to provide vertical clearance for vehicles on Washington Avenue. B. Build new lead for commuter trains on north side of existing track. C. Build bus driveway, bus turnaround, passenger platform, rider parking, etc. on north side of new lead. 5-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District D. Build storage yard on north side of existing yard (if existing yard can’t be used). • Advantages o Cross platform transfer train to bus o Parking for commuters available o Negotiations with Union Pacific – single entity o Good bus access to Washington Avenue • Disadvantages o Cost – requires double track to allow UPRR switching and new connection to Eureka

Option 2 - End terminal at new location at MP 0.5 (Inside Loop 610)

A. Build new storage tracks off siding. B. Relocate one existing industrial lead. C. Build bus drive off Old Katy road. D. Build parking along bus drive. • Advantages o Lower construction cost than Eureka terminal if new connection to Eureka not necessary o Good bus access to I-10 and I-610 and METRO’s NW Transit Center • Disadvantages o Unknown or multiple negotiations with land owners o Requires double track to allow UPRR continued switching o If trains park or staged at Eureka Yard, new connection still required.

Maintenance Facilities

Several interim locations were examined for maintenance yards or overnight storage of train sets between Hempstead and Eureka. The following are the advantages and disadvantages for each of the four (4) sites examined.

5-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Maintenance Yard Option 1 – Eureka Yard

The facility would be constructed on the south side of the Eureka yard as shown in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2 - Potential Maintenance Yard Option 1 at Eureka Yard

This yard would be accessed via a new switch that would be located before the interlocking to the Terminal subdivision. Discussions with the Union Pacific would be needed to confirm this would not impact their switching operations. The following summarizes the major advantages and disadvantages with this site:

• Advantages o No new bridge required over Hempstead Highway 5-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District o No interference with existing Eureka Yard operations

o Stays clear of proposed detention pond areas

• Disadvantages o Requires property acquisition o No connection to Eureka Yard tracks o Possible noise issue with adjacent apartments

Maintenance Yard Option 2 - Hockley

A location closer to the center of the interim operating segment was examined. This location is near Hockley as shown in Figure 5-3.

The following summarizes the major advantages and disadvantages with this site:

• Advantages o Minimized width for train storage

o Easy access from either direction.

• Disadvantages o Requires property acquisition o Located near roadway interchange

5-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Figure 5-3 - Potential Interim Maintenance Yard Option 2 near MP 29 (Hockley)

Maintenance Yard Option 3 - Hempstead

A maintenance yard and storage facility was examined at the end of the line near Hempstead. This yard is located northwest of the US 290 and Highway 6 interchange in Hempstead near MP 47.0 and is shown in Figure 5-4.

The following summarizes the major advantages and disadvantages with this site:

• Advantages o Minimized width for train storage

o Proximity to recommended station site in business park

o Site would be western limit of current project. 5-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Disadvantages o Requires property acquisition o Possible noise issues with adjacent residences.

Figure 5-4 - Potential Interim Maintenance Yard Option 3 near MP 47 (Hempstead)

Maintenance Yard Option 4 – Waller County

During the stakeholders meeting, a site owned by Waller County near MP 44 was suggested by Waller County officials. The site has the same advantages and disadvantages of the yard north of Hempstead. However, this site would also require trains to backtrack from the site to the Hempstead station if the station is located within the city. While this can potentially be accommodated via operations, it does mean that the grade crossings at Grace Road, 5 th Street and 9 th Street in Hempstead will be impacted

5-13 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District more with the train traffic positioning to the station. The location of the second Hempstead Yard is shown in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5 - Potential Interim Maintenance Yard Option 4 near MP 44 (Waller)

At ultimate build-out beyond 2035, when the line connects to downtown and potentially to a commuter rail line to Galveston, the maintenance facility identified by the H-GAC study would be appropriate for further investigation given its more central location to a Houston area commuter rail network. The maintenance site proposed for the 2035 location in the H-GAC Study is located adjacent to IH 610, between US 290 and IH 10, and is not shown in this report. The interim maintenance yard would not be used as the primary or heavy maintenance facility in the future but could be available for minor maintenance if necessary. Since this study is conceptual, no recommendation has been made on a preferred maintenance facility site. Property availability and land costs will need to be researched further to assist in determining the preferred location. As more 5-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District detailed operating plans are developed, some sites may become more or less desirable than others. However, the cost of a maintenance facility has been estimated and included in the cost estimate for the project.

5.3.3 Intermodal Facilities

An intermodal facility is a station designed to facilitate transit passenger transfers or interoperability from one transit mode (commuter rail) to another mode such as Light Rail Transit (LRT) or bus. There are two types of intermodal opportunities envisioned along the commuter rail corridor – Commuter Rail to Bus and to LRT.

A. Bus Connectivity

Feeder bus opportunities would exist with the introduction of commuter rail. These feeder bus routes would be available to provide collection and distribution service. Express buses are planned in the interim condition to transfer passengers from the end of the commuter rail line near IH 610 to downtown, the Galleria/Uptown area, the Greenway Plaza area, and the Texas Medical Center area. A cross-platform connection in which riders leave the commuter rail car and quickly board a bus to their destinations, offers a potential means for reducing the delay to riders.

B. LRT Connectivity

METRO plans to build the Uptown LRT line with a station near the Northwest Mall. The actual location of this station has not yet been determined. Only general guidance can be offered on how the GCRD should plan for this interconnectivity at this time. The connection to LRT would provide an excellent opportunity to serve as a feeder line to the commuter rail service. The following are general criteria that should be used during station design:

5-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • The walking distance between the commuter rail and the LRT should be minimized. Ideally, the LRT would be on a different level or will be grade separated from the commuter rail. This configuration would allow for easy escalator service to transfer from one platform to the other.

• The commuter rail line may provide the largest single loading location for passengers for the LRT line. Pocket sidings for the LRT should be provided near the commuter rail line station. This configuration will allow staging of multiple LRT trains near the station with quick access across the platform and sufficient LRT capacity to carry all of the commuter rail passengers.

5.4 Constraints

Within the Hempstead Corridor, a number of constraints have been identified that will potentially affect commuter rail operations as well as station locations, future high speed rail operations, and transit interoperability. During the process of evaluating potential station sites the following constraints were identified and used to analyze the feasibility of each site:

• At-Grade Crossings • Overhead Crossings • Rail Sidings and Spurs • Floodplains • Wetlands • Pipelines • Power Lines • Hazardous Waste Sites

Most of these constraints can be eliminated through removal, relocation, or other mitigation methods, such as remediation or reconstruction. The most problematic 5-16 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District constraint to resolve is the at-grade crossings. Since many grade crossings are for roadways that are Major Thoroughfares as shown on the Greater Houston Major Thoroughfare Plan, these Major Thoroughfare crossings cannot be closed without replacement with overpasses or underpasses, which are costly and difficult to construct in limited right-of-way. The proximity of Hempstead Road and US 290 to the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail exacerbates this problem. At-grade crossings also present safety concerns and can cause delays to motorists during rail operations. Exhibit 20, pages 1- 120, included in Volume II of this report, show the known constraints along the UPRR right-of-way in the Hempstead Corridor.

5.4.1 At-Grade Crossings

A. Existing

Within the Hempstead Corridor there are 65 at-grade crossings, 48 in Harris County and 17 in Waller County. These include major thoroughfares, city streets, private roads, country roads, and unnamed roadways. A list of the existing at-grade crossings is found in Table 3-2 in Section 3 .

B. Proposed

In addition to the existing at-grade crossings, there are four known proposed crossings in Harris County that are major thoroughfares on the Greater Houston Major Thoroughfare Plan. These thoroughfares are in various stages of completion: one is under construction, one is permitted, and the remaining two are in litigation. These crossings are listed in Table 5-2.

5-17 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 5-2 – Proposed At-Grade Crossings

Roadway Name Mile Post Status Tanner Road 7.3 Permitted Jones Road 11.6 Under Construction

Mueschke Road / Westgreen 21.6 In Litigation

Mason Road 23.2 Permitted

C. Anticipated Closures

With the potential of the proposed construction of the Hempstead Managed Lanes by HCTRA and the 50-foot wide High Capacity Transit corridor proposed in the MIS and FEIS by TxDOT, a number of the existing at-grade crossings are scheduled to be closed. While the schematics for these improvements show specific closures, other crossings have been identified during this study as potential future closures due to proximity to other roadways or general operational considerations. The at-grade crossings scheduled to be closed as part of the Hempstead Managed Lanes construction are listed in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3 – Roadway Crossings - Anticipated Closures

Roadway UPRR Status Approving Agency Mile Post Notes Wirtcrest Road 3.5 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Windfern Road 8.0 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Perimeter Road 9.6 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Taylor/Wright Road 12.0 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Private Road 12.4 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Entrance Road – 13.7 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Houston Pipeline House Hahl Road 20.8 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Private Road 23.2 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics Private Road 25.1 To Be Closed HCTRA Schematics

The additional at-grade crossings that have been identified as potential future closure pending future agency action are indicated in Table 5-4. 5-18 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 5-4 – Roadway Crossings - Potential Future Closures

Roadway UPRR Approving Agency Mile Post Notes Rayson Street 4.7 City of Houston Campbell Road 7.5 City of Houston Entrance Road – 13.5 City of Houston Daniel Valve Entrance Road – 15.9 City of Houston Worthington Co. Berwick Drive 16.0 City of Houston Entrance Road – 17.0 City of Houston Wyman Gordon Cypress Drive 19.1 Harris County Westgreen Square 28.4 Harris County (Plumlee) James Street 30.3 Harris County Unnamed Street 33.6 Harris County Farr Street 35.2 City of Waller Alliance Street 35.4 City of Waller Rural Street 38.2 Waller County Pine Island Road 40.5 Waller County Wilkins Street 45.2 City of Hempstead New Orleans 45.2 City of Hempstead Street

5.4.2 Overhead Structures

A. Existing

There are four existing overhead roadway crossings within the Hempstead Corridor. These structures meet the current overhead railway clearance requirements of 23-feet, but could pose a future constraint if high speed rail operations with electric catenaries are considered. Two of the existing highway crossings, IH 610 and Beltway 8, will 5-19 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District be undergoing reconstruction as a part of the US 290 expansion and will remain in the same general location. Additional direct connectors will be constructed at each interchange but will not pose significant constraint issues due to the height of the proposed structures.

B. Planned

With reconstruction of US 290 and proposed construction of the Hempstead Managed Lanes and High Capacity Transit (HCT), there will be a total of 19 new overhead structures. These proposed overhead structures will consist of 10 direct connectors from SH 6, Beltway 8, and IH 610. They will also include two crossovers of the Managed Lanes beyond SH 99 and Beltway 8. Two connectors to the Northwest Station Park and Ride will be constructed at N. Eldridge Parkway and West Road and one HCT crossover east of Beltway 8 near Little York Road. Additional proposed overhead roadways that are major thoroughfare extensions include Fairfield Drive, Cypresswood Drive, and Fairbanks/North Houston. The proposed Grand Parkway (SH 99) will also add a mainline overpass and three direct connectors. The SH 99 frontage roads will be constructed as underpasses. These proposed structures should be designed and constructed to meet the current overhead railway clearance requirements of 23-feet, but could pose a future constraint if high speed rail operations with electric catenaries are considered.

5.4.3 Rail Sidings and Spurs to Service Customers

A proposed train schedule was developed that met the basic needs of the passenger service for trip time and frequency, and a track diagram was developed that supported that operation. Track and signal upgrades to the line from Hempstead to MP 0 were considered to be sufficient for the opening day commuter service to be implemented, assuming temporal separation of existing freight and proposed passenger services. Passing sidings near MP 5, 10, 15 and 20 would be required for the passenger equipment

5-20 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District to pass each other while providing reverse commute service or for repositioning equipment to make multiple commuter runs.

5.4.4 Floodplains and Environmental Issues

A. Floodplains

Floodplains pose a potential constraint at seven stream crossings within the Hempstead Corridor. According to the latest Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the following streams have the 100-year water surface elevations at or above the elevation of the tracks within the UPRR right-of-way. The stream crossing name, Harris County Flood Control District Unit No., and the UPRR Mile Post are indicated in Table 5-5. Mitigation is being proposed by Waller County for Mound Creek and its tributaries and at Cypress Creek.

Table 5-5 – Stream Crossings within 100-Year Floodplain at UPRR

Named Stream HCFCD No. UPRR MP Brickhouse Gully E115-00-00 4.34 Cole Creek E117-00-00 9.00 Cypress Creek K100-00-00 18.82 Mound Creek K166-01-00 35.03 Tributary to Mound Creek K166-02-00 35.75 Tributary to Mound Creek K166-03-00 36.29 Clear Creek K167-01-00 42.84

Wetlands

According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, wetlands are present near two potential station sites. These are at Cypress Creek near the Jarvis Road Station and at

5-21 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Mason Road near the Fairfield Station. Mitigation will be required at each of these locations to eliminate this constraint and to allow for consideration for a future station to be located there.

5.4.5 Operational Constraints

In addition to the physical and environmental constraints listed above, other constraints were evaluated that concerned operational issues such as parking, pedestrian access to the site, connectivity to other transportation modes, ingress and egress from the site, and future expandability. Many of the sites considered were located near existing Park and Ride facilities currently operated by METRO. These sites function well for auto and bus operations. However, the METRO Park and Ride lots are constrained for rail operations due to the lack of direct access to the rail facilities. These METRO Park and Ride lots are generally separated from the UPRR corridor by Hempstead Road and many are located on the north side of US 290 making the distance pedestrians must travel from the station platform to the parking lots or connecting modes of travel less desirable. In addition, the corridor for the proposed Hempstead Managed Lanes and High Capacity Transit Corridor would also separate the commuter rail station platforms from station parking south of the UPRR right of way.

A. Station Locations

The following stations locations were initially selected from previous studies and stakeholder interests. These station locations were modeled for operational considerations and ridership potential. After indications that modeling results were favorable in the 2019 start-up and 2035 build-out scenarios, specific constraint issues were identified for each site to be addressed by the local sponsoring agency to further the viability of each station location for inclusion in the overall operating plan of the Hempstead Corridor. The modeled station locations and associated constraints are shown in Table 5-6.

5-22 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 5-6 – Modeled Station Locations and Known Constraints

Station Known Constraints Parking Availability Hempstead At- grade Crossings Parking Availability Feeder Bus Service Prairie View Expandability At-Grade Crossings Parking Availability Waller At-Grade Crossings Floodplains High Capacity Transit / Managed Lanes Fairfield Wetlands At-Grade Crossings Floodplains High Capacity Transit / Managed Lanes Jarvis (Towne Lake) Pipelines Pedestrian Access At-Grade Crossings Pedestrian Access Pipelines N. Eldridge Parkway At-Grade Crossings High Capacity Transit / Managed Lanes High Capacity Transit / Managed Lanes Parking Availability Jersey Village At-Grade crossings Pipelines High Capacity Transit / Managed Lanes Pedestrian Access Sam Houston (W. Little York) At-Grade Crossings Floodplains High Capacity Transit / Managed Lanes Parking Availability IH 610 (Eureka) Pedestrian Access Overhead Structures At-Grade Crossings Downtown (CBD) Parking Availability

5-23 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District SECTION 6 COST AND REVENUE ESTIMATES

6.1 Introduction

This section presents the capital and operating cost and revenue estimates related to income from ridership as well as other cost and revenue benefits that are derived from the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail operation.

6.2 Capital Cost Estimate

Capital costs for the initial segment of the project has been prepared by examining subsections of the project, identifying the key elements of the project such as track reconstruction, siding track construction, bridges, and station platforms; the magnitude of the element such as track feet, linear feet, or square feet; and estimating a cost per unit for that element. The capital cost for the downtown extension was determined based on a unit cost per mile. The capital costs at start-up and the additional cost for full build-out in 2035, which includes allowances for engineering, planning, design and contingencies are summarized in Table 6-1, presented in 2010 dollars.

Table 6-1 – Estimated Capital Costs

Year Description Total Cost (2010 $) 2019 Track, Signals, Structures $182,000,000 Rolling Stock $45,100,000 Engineering & Contingencies $63,600,000 Total $290,700,000 Track, Signals, Structures, 2035 $171,000,000 ROW Rolling Stock $57,300,000 Engineering & Contingencies $25,900,000 Total $254,200,000

6-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District In this case, each station and the track leading to it, was considered a separate subsection. More detailed cost estimate information is included in Appendix E . These capital costs include only the construction cost for the station platforms at each station. Costs for other station facilities, infrastructure improvements, parking, and additional right of way are not included as these are to be provided by the local entity. The costs presented in Table 6-1 also do not include any payment to UPRR for use of UPRR right-of-way between Eureka Yard and Hempstead. The costs for use of the right-of-way will need to be negotiated with UPRR and added to the overall cost at a later date.

A capital cost of approximately $6.8 million per mile for the first stage of the project and $30 million per mile for the continuation to downtown Houston is estimated based on these assumptions. The 2035 build-out stage includes 1 additional cab car and 21 additional bi-level coach cars, new ROW for the corridor between Tower 13 and downtown, and substantial bridge sections.

To provide a comparison of construction costs for Hempstead Commuter Rail to the US 290 Expansion or the Hempstead Toll Road, a cost per Peak Period commuter passenger served was developed to compare the cost of constructing the Hempstead Commuter Project to IH 610 and Downtown to the cost of constructing an additional lane on US 290 or providing an additional Toll Road Lane as shown in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 – Additional Commuter Service Options - Peak Period Cost Comparison Cost per Rush Potential for Additional No. of Construction Hour Increased Commuter Passengers in 4 Cost (000) Passenger Capacity Service Hours ($000) 1 Additional Lane on US 6,650 $179,000 $26 No 290 (LOS D)

6-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Cost per Rush Potential for No. of Table 6-2 Construction Hour Increased Passengers in 4 (con.) Cost (000) Passenger Capacity Hours ($000) 1 New Toll Lane 6,650 $341,000 $51 No (LOS D) Commuter Rail 2035 Ridership to 2,976 $290,700 $98 Yes IH-610 2035 Ridership 9,408 $471,000 $50 Yes to Downtown

Since the improvements required for the Hempstead Commuter Rail project provide for two way traffic and serve both the AM and PM Peak Periods, the comparison to Highway and Toll Road was expanded to include costs and ridership for the AM and PM Peak Periods combined as shown in Table 6-3. These comparisons show the cost to construct the Hempstead Commuter Rail Project is similar in cost per Peak Period passenger to the US 290 Expansion and the Hempstead Toll Road. The commuter rail also has additional capacity for expansion not provided by the roadway expansion options.

Table 6-3 – Additional Commuter Service Options Daily Peak Period (AM+PM) Cost Comparison

No. of Peak Potential for Cost per Rush Additional Period Increased Hour Commuter Passengers per Cost (000) Capacity Passenger Service Day ($000) (AM + PM) 1 Inbound + 1 Outbound Lane 13,300 $358,000 $26 No on US 290 (LOS D)

6-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District No. of Peak Potential for Cost per Rush Period Increased Table 6-3 Hour Passengers per Cost (000) Capacity (con.) Passenger Day ($000) (AM + PM) 2 New Toll Lanes – 1 Inbound + 1 13,300 $682,000 $51 No Outbound (LOS D) Commuter Rail 2035 Ridership to 5,952 $290,700 $49 Yes IH-610 2035 Ridership 18,816 $471,000 $25 Yes to Downtown

6.3 Operating Cost Estimate

Annual operating costs for the commuter rail between the Eureka station and Hempstead are estimated in 2010 dollars for operating costs to be approximately $6.6M for the 2019 startup operations with two-passenger-car train sets and $21.3M projected for 2035 operations. This assumes 7 daily trains with two passenger cars in 2019 and 9 daily trains with six passenger cars in 2035. Operating costs for both 2019 and 2035 include the cost of the express bus service provided from the intermodal station near IH 610.

This estimate is based on actual operating costs from a selection of the commuter rail system data in the National Transit Database (NTD) for 2009. Peers were limited to the 11 operators of modern systems that include Salt Lake City, Oceanside, San Carlos, Los Angeles, Stockton, Pompano Beach, Nashville, Fort Worth, Dallas, Alexandria and Seattle with off-board fare collection, Proof of Payment. This estimate omits the two

6-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District outliers, Seattle on the high end and Salt Lake City on the low end. Total operating costs were divided by the total number of revenue vehicle (passenger railcar) miles operated by these systems. The typical average train size is four cars.

The number of revenue vehicle miles expected to be operated on the Eureka Commuter Rail Line was estimated by multiplying the number of trips by the number of route miles per trip to obtain train miles. These were multiplied by the average cost per revenue vehicle mile and then by the typical train size, adjusted down for the two-car trains at startup and adjusted up for the six-car train sets in 2035. A further adjustment was made to increase operating costs from 2009 dollars to 2010 dollars. Since this methodology is based on average costs for the system, it is not sensitive to relative efficiencies of a specific operating schedule.

6.4 Revenue Projections

6.4.1 Draft Fare Structure

A draft fare structure was developed based on METRO’s current fare structure for its park and ride lots for its long distance commuters. For consistency with the ridership modeling described in Section 2 , the draft fare structure is a distance based fare model and has a $6.00 maximum fare. METRO’s fares consist of 4 concentric zones, with the innermost zone fare applied to all trips made into Houston from within 11 miles of the central city, zone 2 applying to trips made from 11 to 16 miles, zone 3 to trips from 16 to 21 miles, and zone 4 applying to trips from over 21 miles.

While the modes may differ, a single form of payment that would be seamless to the riders on all systems is desirable. As part of this study, the team met with METRO to discuss this potential. There was general consensus that commuter rail riders could use the Q card, which is the electronic payment card used by METRO riders. The use of this

6-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District type of card would require an agreement between the operator of the commuter rail line and METRO. There could also be an opportunity for revenue sharing between the agencies. This type of agreement would need to be developed between all transit providers that would have access to the stations to provide for ease of transfer and minimize delays that may deter riders due to multiple transfers to get to the desired final destination.

The ridership model assumed that there would be a barrier-free transfer to the express bus service in both 2019 and 2035. To be consistent with METRO, it was assumed that riders using electronic fare media will earn 5 free trips after every 50 paid trips. Students, seniors, Medicare card holders, and individuals with disabilities were also assumed to receive a 50% discount on fares.

The draft fare structure is shown in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 – Draft Fare Structure

Zone Distance Fare

1 < 11 miles $3.00

2 11 – 16 miles $4.00

3 16 – 21 miles $5.00

4 > 21 miles $6.00

6.4.2 Revenue Estimates

Potential revenue estimates were based on the above fare structure and the 2019 and 2035 projected ridership. The projected ridership was converted to a set of trips with specific boarding and disembarking stations, by assuming that the riders disembark from the train

6-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District in the same order that they boarded, i.e., First On, First Off. As not all riders travel to downtown, the ridership modeling assumed a distance based fare where all fares are based on the station to station rail distance, i.e., that travel from one station to another station within 11 miles along the rail line will cost the 1 zone fare, while a 20 mile trip will cost the zone 3 fare. Base fare revenue was therefore estimated by multiplying the estimated ridership between each pair of stations by the assumed fare for that trip

To take into account the impact of fare discounts on ridership, it is necessary to estimate the share of riders that would be receiving a discount. In the draft fare structure there are two types of discounts, those based on the type of person such as students, seniors, Medicare card holders, and individuals with disabilities and discounts based on frequency of use. Although commuter rail operating agencies do not generally publish specifics, ridership by students, seniors, Medicare card holders and individuals with disabilities tends to be low because most commuter rail operations are primarily used by commuters. In Philadelphia, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has found that these types of riders, including all free riders, make up only 4.3% of all commuter rail riders based on FY 2008 data. In San Diego on the San Diego Coaster, these types of riders are estimated make up about 22% of all commuter rail riders based on ticket sales. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that discounted riders make up 20% of all riders, and that these riders will pay 50% of the fares otherwise applicable to their trips.

The second type of discount is that those riders who use the METRO’s Q card to take 50 or more rides will receive 5 rides free. Based on experience in other areas, the majority of commuter rail riders are repeat riders. Therefore, 70% of all riders on this commuter rail line were assumed to receive this discount, which amounts to about 10% for these riders. The combination of these two discounts means that the actual fare revenue generated should be about 84% of the full fare revenue for all trips. This compares with METRO’s estimate that actual fare revenue on park and ride service is 82% of what it

6-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District would be if all riders paid full fare and there were no discounts, free passes, loyalty trips, or transfer discounts. METRO also estimates that it would be 87% if transfers are ignored. The slightly more conservative figure of 82% was used for the revenue analysis for this study.

Based on the fare model developed, daily revenue for the 2019 operating plan would be $10,771 before discount and $8,832 after applying the discounts, for an average fare of $3.35. This daily revenue is then multiplied by 255 days per year, the industry standard assumption for number of work days per year, to produce annual revenue for 2019 of $2.2 million in 2010 dollars. When compared with the 2019 operating cost estimate of $6.6 million for commuter rail and $4.5 million for the associated express bus service provides a farebox recovery ratio of 20% of operating costs.

Daily revenue for the 2035 operating plan would be $89,600 before discounts and $73,400 after applying the discounts, for an average fare of $3.91. The average fare is higher because of the additional segment to downtown. This daily revenue is then multiplied by 255 days per year to produce annual revenue for 2035 of $18.7 million 2010 dollars. When compared with the 2035 operating cost estimate of $21.3 million for commuter rail and $2.1 million for the associated express bus service provides a farebox recovery ratio of 80% of operating costs.

Nationwide, the unweighted average fare revenue per trip is $4.55 and the percent of operating expenses covered by fare revenues is 33.6% based on NTD Report year 2009 data. The estimated ridership, revenue, and fare recovery ratio for the 2019 start-up therefore appears reasonable since this is the initial segment and it does not directly serve downtown Houston. The estimated average revenue per trip for the 2035 scenario seems reasonable. However, the farebox recovery ratio appears excessively high, as even Metro-North Railroad serving New York City, SEPTA serving Philadelphia, and VRE serving Washington DC only report a farebox recovery ratio of between 50% and 60%.

6-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Further refinement for the downtown connection which is estimated based on per mile costs and a refinement of the train operations will be of the next phases of development and design of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter rail project.

6-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District SECTION 7 OTHER BENEFITS

7.1 Introduction

An assessment of the likely costs and benefits to be gained from the proposed Hempstead Commuter Line was undertaken as part of this study. This analysis was conducted for two time periods: 2019 and 2035. The 2019 analysis is for the first phase of the commuter line operating from Hempstead to Northwest Mall. The 2035 analysis is for extension of the commuter line from Eureka to downtown Houston, assumed for the purposes of this study to be near the Downtown Light Rail Station at the University of Houston. These specific years were selected because the regional model had been developed and calibrated for each of these years. Each analysis year assumes that the applicable phase of the commuter rail line has been completed prior to the analysis year and that ridership has reached the estimated level. This section provides both qualitative and quantitative assessments of various Financial, Environmental, and Safety benefits.

7.2 Financial Benefits

7.2.1 Potential Job Creation

Significant creation of high quality jobs, both during the construction and implementation period and during revenue service, is a major economic benefit of the proposed Hempstead Commuter Line. Any major capital construction infrastructure project has a major positive impact on employment of skilled and unskilled labor, a value or benefit to the public well recognized in the highway industry. Similarly, the O&M labor needs to support the commuter rail service will also create long-term skilled jobs. These are referred to as “direct” employment impacts. As with other projects that produce prime job creation, this project will also 7-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District result in indirect employment as a result of the so-called “multiplier effect”. The “multiplier effect” accounts for the fact that spending by those employed directly on a project supports or creates additional employment which in turn supports or creates more employment throughout the economy.

In order to estimate the construction period job creation, the analyses developed for other rail construction projects was reviewed. 1 The 2007 analysis of a proposed $3.7 billion commuter rail project in Hawaii was estimated to create approximately 82,000 person years of direct and indirect employment during construction. 2 The $91 million Tower 55 Intermodal Improvement Project in Fort Worth, Texas is expected to create 1,783 person years of employment. 3 The Kenosha-Racine- Milwaukee (KCM) Commuter Rail Project is estimated to produce 3,560 person years of employment for a cost of $227 million (2009 dollars, excludes right-of-way costs). After considering inflation, each of these projects is estimated to result in between 15.7 and 21.9 person years of combined local direct and indirect employment per $1 million of construction cost (2009 dollars, excluding interest and right-of-way costs). 4

The mid-point of these three projects, or 19.1 person years of direct and indirect employment per $1 million in construction cost, was used for this analysis. Therefore, it is estimated that construction of this project would result in 8,858 person years of direct and indirect employment during the construction period as indicated in Table 7-1.

1 Data from federal grant applications for New Starts or other funding or from environmental / community impact assessments prepared as part of applying for federal grants. 2 Based on preliminary economic analysis by Parsons Brinkerhoff. The project is to construct a new commuter rail line. The cost of project was in 2006 dollars and included $70 million for right-of-way, $250 million for interest, and $200 million for contingencies. 3 The project is to install new track and sidings, and construct pedestrian crossings and overpass bridges at a chokepoint used by freight and commuter rail trains. This includes no significant cost for right-of-way. 4 Even though the purchase of rolling stock will not generate local employment, it has been included in the calculation of ratio of jobs per employment cost for the Honolulu and KCM projects, and so is also included in the construction cost for this project. 7-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 7-1 - Potential Construction Employment Benefits

Capital Est. Total Potential Construction Construction Construction Cost Employment Employment ($M) (Job-Years) Pre- 2019* $281.58 5,378 2019 – 2035 $182.20 3,480 TOTAL $463.78 8,858 *Excludes right-of-way costs.

The employment impact of the project O&M costs has been based on a review of NTD data for commuter rail operations for Report Year 2008. The seven commuter rail operations that reported directly operated service 5 had between 5.7 and 9.8 direct full time equivalent employees per $1 million of annual O&M cost. The average of the values for the seven systems was used to determine 7.135 FTE per $1 million of O&M expense. This direct employment will be primarily in the traditional train operations, station staffing, onboard services, train maintenance, and maintenance of way categories. The direct O&M employment estimated for the project is shown in the first column of Table 7-2. Indirect employment impacts for the rail operations, shown in the second column of Table 7-2, were estimated using a “multiplier” of 1.691 developed for local and interurban rail. 6

The commuter rail service will result in a reduction of METRO’s express bus operations in the corridor. The express bus service currently provided in this corridor has an operating and maintenance cost of $9,451,759 (FY 2010) which would be reduced to $4,466,221 in 2019 and $2,104,277 in 2035 with operation of the Hempstead commuter rail. 7 At METRO, bus service generates 9.9 FTE per $1

5 Metro North Railroad, Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, Metra, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation District, and Utah Transit Authority. 6 Updated Employment Modifiers for the U.S. Economy , Josh Bivens (2003) Working paper for the Economic Policy Institute. 7 All values are in 2010 dollars. 7-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District million in O&M expense using NTD data for FY 2008. To estimate indirect employment impacts from the bus operations, shown in the second column of Table 7-2, a “multiplier” 1.368 developed for passenger transportation systems was used. 8 Note that passenger transportation systems generally have a lower “multiplier” than local and interurban rail because of differences in the modes and differences in the use of contractors to provide services.

Total Operating and Maintenance costs including both commuter rail and express bus will increase by $1.6 million in 2019 and $13.95 million in 2035. The net change in employment would be an increase of approximately 9.8 annual positions in 2019 and an increase of 238.6 annual positions in 2035.

Table 7-2 - Potential Long-Term Job Creation

O&M Commuter Rail O&M Change in Express Bus Jobs Employment O&M Employment Net Change in Year Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Employment

2019 47.1 79.6 126.7 -49.4 -67.5 -116.9 9.8 2035 151.9 256.8 408.7 -71.8 -98.3 -170.1 238.6

7.2.2 Sustainable Development Benefits

In addition to the employment created directly by the commuter rail project and the resulting secondary employment, commuter rail can have a significant positive impact on commercial and residential vitality and development of more sustainable communities. Commuter rail helps a region’s economy and sustainability indirectly through providing opportunity for transit use by commuters and facilitating Transit Oriented Development. In other areas around the country, the benefits of commuter rail can be seen in increases in population and property values near the commuter rail facilities. Representative examples include:

8 Updated Employment Modifiers for the U.S. Economy , Josh Bivens (2003) Working paper for the Economic Policy Institute. 7-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

• Evanston, Illinois, served by the Metra system, reports that between 1990 and 2005, more than 2,472 housing units were added in the transit zone. In the four station area, the population increased by 6% compared to a 1.4% increase in the city overall from 1990 to 2000. • Research conducted by Robert Armstrong and Daniel Rodriquez 9 analyzing the home prices of 1,860 single family residential properties from four municipalities with commuter rail service and three municipalities without commuter rail service found that properties in municipalities with commuter rail stations exhibit values that are between 9.6% and 10.1% higher than properties in municipalities without a commuter rail station. • Arlington Towne Square in Arlington Heights, IL is one of five developments that are a part of a very recent major downtown redevelopment. In total, $200 million was invested near a new Metra station. Metra service existed before the new station was built. The Arlington Towne Square redevelopment, one part of the redeveloped area, used old housing/commercial real estate that was valued at 2.5 - $3 million and brought in $65,000 annually in property and sales tax. This property was transformed into the $65 million Arlington Towne Square mixed- use tower that includes residential, commercial, retail, underground parking and a theatre. Occupancy is near capacity in 2 years. $1.5 million in annual property and sales tax are realized from the Arlington Towne Square development alone.

There are a variety of methods for communities to capture some of the value created by commuter rail and related development. As shown by the Arlington Towne Square project, development can generate substantial additional property and sales taxes even without special taxes. Similarly, the research by Armstrong and Rodriquez discussed above shows that higher home prices and the resulting higher property tax revenue come from being near commuter rail stations. Also, there are a

9 “An Evaluation of the Accessibility Benefits of Commuter Rail in Eastern Massachusetts Using Spatial Hedonic Price Functions”, Armstrong, Robert and Rodriguez, Daniel, January 2006 7-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District wide variety of special tax arrangements, such as the use of special tax districts, with higher local property taxes, to fund specific improvements and development efforts. It is also possible to sell bonds supported by the anticipated increases in sales and property taxes through tax increment financing.

People and businesses want to locate near commuter rail stations and corridors that can serve as a revitalization catalyst for urban areas. Commuter rail is an important component in developing a vibrant regional economy by linking cities with the suburbs, where 48% of the American work force lives. Urban areas served by commuter rail are not the only beneficiaries of urban revitalization. Economic vitality in a city brings economic benefits to its suburbs. Studies show that a 1% increase in the city’s income growth rate would increase the suburban income growth rate 0.45% and increase suburban house appreciation 1.05% (American Public Transportation Association - APTA).

H-GAC’s Livable Centers effort shows the support of the Houston region for these types of development. The Goals of the Livable Centers Program seek to create neighborhoods that are: • Compact and mixed use • Designed to be walkable • Connected and accessible

In the 2008 – 2011 TIP, H-GAC committed $1.5 million for Liveable Centers planning studies, including one for the City of Waller. The Waller plan discusses how the Livable Centers Plan will benefit the city’s economic development efforts by leveraging new investment and improving mobility. It also discusses the potential Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail and how a Waller station would be well situated for Transit Oriented Development.

7-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District In addition to the HGAC Liveable Centers, projects including Transit Oriented Development (TOD) are being developed along the Hempstead Corridor in anticipation of future commuter rail. These include Jersey Village Crossing and a plan for TOD at Prairie View. There is currently a planning study being conducted in the City of Hempstead that incorporates the anticipated benefit of commuter rail to encourage economic development.

7.2.3 Commuter Rail Comparison to Highway Widening

This analysis compares the cost and ridership estimates for commuter rail from Hempstead to downtown Houston to the 2035 cost and usage estimates for widening US 290. The comparison is based on the incremental cost of adding the additional capacity to the existing transit system or to the existing freeway system. The costs are then divided by the number of people benefitting from the improvement to provide comparable unit costs. Because the anticipated ROW costs for the Hempstead Tollway and the Hempstead Commuter Rail cannot yet be defined, the incremental cost analysis in this section does not include the ROW costs at this time. Once the ROW estimated costs are better defined for these projects, these costs will be added to the overall costs at a later date. Therefore, this section will examine the capital costs and operating costs only.

Incremental Costs of Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail

Capital Costs

The capital cost for the proposed Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail, full build-out from Hempstead to downtown Houston, is shown in Table 7-3 below, based on the most recent estimates of the cost of track, signals, structures, rolling stock, and engineering. The capital cost was annualized based on an assumed discount rate of 4%, a 30 year lifespan of rolling stock, and a 50 year lifespan of all other capital investments. The annualized cost can be thought of as the amount of annual payment

7-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District on a bond to finance the construction project at an interest rate equivalent to the assumed discount rate.

Table 7-3 - Estimated Capital Costs of Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Build-out

Annualized Capital Cost Discount Cost (2010$) Rate Lifespan (2010$) Total Track, Platform Structures, etc. $399.7M 4% 50 $18.6M Rolling Stock $109.2M 4% 30 $6.3M TOTAL $508.9M $24.9M

Operating Costs

The Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project assumes that current Metro express bus service in this corridor outside of Beltway 8 would be eliminated. The bus operating cost would decrease from the current $9.45 million annually to a projected $2.1 million. Therefore, there would be a net reduction in bus subsidies of $7.4 million in the study corridor attributable to the project. The projected annual cost of commuter rail operations is $21.3 million as shown in Table 7-4 below. The net increase in transit costs, after the reduction in bus service, is $14 million annually.

Table 7-4 - Projected Annual Commuter Rail Operating Costs in 2035

Cost Item 2010$ Commuter Rail Operations $21.3M Hempstead Corridor Express Bus Savings -$7.4M Net Increase in Operating Cost $13.9M

The calculation in Table 7-4 does not consider the change in user costs. Commuters who switch from driving to taking transit due to the commuter rail project will be avoiding the costs of a long drive, balanced by the cost of a short drive to the commuter rail station and the cost of rail fares. These savings are calculated in Table 7-5 below. For commuters who were previously taking transit, their travel cost would not change due to the commuter rail project. 7-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 7-5 - Cost Savings Associated with Highway Commuters Transferring to Commuter Rail (2010$)

Item Amount Average trip length (miles) 15 Cost per mile of driving $0.55 Cost of car trip avoided (@15 mi. per trip) $8.25 Less driving to train station (2 miles average) $1.10 Less average commuter rail fare (per trip) $3.90 Savings per Trip $3.25 Trips per person per day 2 Savings per person per day $6.50 Number of daily commuter rail users 11,289 Those previously taking bus 4,400 Commuter rail riders from highway 6,889 Work day equivalents per year 255 Total annual savings to rail riders $11.4M Rail operating cost less savings to riders $2.5M

Incremental Costs of Widening the US 290 Corridor or Constructing the Hempstead Toll Road

Capital Costs

The projected widening of the US 290 proposed by TxDOT in the Hempstead Corridor also will affect commuters in the Corridor. The proposed US 290 project includes construction of additional main lanes in each direction. Using information from the “General Overview Handout for Stakeholders” located on the my290.com website, the number of lane miles added was determined. The number of new lane miles was divided by the total anticipated lane miles for the widened US 290 corridor to determine the percentage of new capacity and was estimated to be 32%. Therefore, 32% of the projected US 290 construction cost will be used in the annualized capital costs calculations for highway users. As with the commuter rail costs, the US 290 cost estimates were annualized based on an assumed discount rate and lifespan. 7-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 7-6 - Annualized Capital Cost of US 290 Widening

Cost Cost Discount Annualized Cost Component* ($2010) Rate Lifespan (2010$) Utilities $152M 4% 30 $8.8M Construction $602M 4% 30 $34.8M Eng/Admin $138M 4% 30 $8.0M TOTAL $892M 4% 30 $51.6M *Utilities cost is for expansion lanes only. All other costs were multiplied by 32% to estimate the portion of the TxDOT US 290 project due to the widening only based on the number of new lane miles divided by the total number of lane miles within the US 290 corridor.

The Hempstead Toll Road is also proposed as part of the Hempstead Corridor improvements outlined in the US 290 EIS. This project would provide an additional two lanes per direction of capacity. Table 7-7 below estimates the annualized costs of this proposed facility. The costs of providing capacity via the Hempstead Toll Road are significantly higher than that of widening 290 because the proposed toll road would require significant utility relocation and more roadways on structures.

Table 7-7 - Annualized Capital Cost of Hempstead Toll Road, millions of 2010$

Cost Cost Discount Annualized Cost Component ($2010) Rate Lifespan (2010$) Utilities $201M 4% 30 $11.6M Construction $930M 4% 30 $53.8M Eng/Admin $237M 4% 30 $13.7M TOTAL $1,368M 4% 30 $79.1M

Operating Costs

The additional lanes on US 290 or the Hempstead Toll Road will be classified as newly constructed urban freeways. The Texas Transportation Institute has recently estimated that the annual cost of maintenance new urban freeways is $90,914 per lane mile. Appendix B, p. 115, of the TTI report shows that, in the case of adding 7-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District 66.55 new urban freeway lane miles, there would be $6,050,358 of additional annual maintenance costs (http://texas2030committee.tamu.edu/documents/final_022609_report.pdf ). The total length of the US 290 roadway corridor to be widened is approximately 38 miles. For the purposes of comparison to commuter rail, we consider the cost of adding a single lane in each direction. As shown in Table 7-8 below, the incremental cost is $8.1 million per year for the additional lanes.

Table 7-8 - Incremental Operating Cost of US 290

Amount Unit $90,914 per lane mile per year 89.6 New lane miles $8.1 million per year

In addition to the public costs there are private user costs of operating vehicles. However, these costs will be essentially unchanged in the case of widening compared to not widening US 290 ignoring a slight reduction in vehicle wear and tear with reduced congested operating conditions. Therefore, changes in private vehicle operating costs were not assumed to contribute to the incremental operating costs of widening US 290.

Normalizing Costs

The costs need to be normalized for comparison to costs per user. For this purpose, it is reasonable to compare only peak-hour users, since there is little or no benefit from highway widening for those outside of the peak hours: “capacity improvements generate benefits only during times when the facility is congested. If congestion is limited to a few hours (peak hours), then capacity improvements will affect only a small portion of the daily users” (from Minnesota guidance on project evaluation). The US 290 EIS notes that lanes on US290 currently reach full capacity only during

7-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District the rush hour periods between the hours of 3 and 7 PM 10 . Traffic speeds typically return to normal after this four- hour period is over. Without rush hour congestion, expansion would not be necessary. Therefore, the project cost should be compared to the number of peak-period users. The proposed commuter rail system would only be operated during peak hours, and this constraint is reflected in the ridership estimates.

TxDOT policy is to design urban freeways using LOS D service levels. As per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Exhibit 11-6, the density for a freeway section with a LOS D is estimated at with 35 cars per lane per hour per mile of project. As shown in Table7-9 below, for the 38 miles of the US 290 roadway corridor, four peak hours per day, and assumed two new lanes per direction, this amounts to 11,704 people per day for additional 2 lanes.

Table 7-9 - People per Day Benefiting from Adding 2 Highway Lanes to US 290

Amount Item 35 pass cars per mile per hour 38 miles of freeway 1,330 pass cars per hour 1.1 people per car 1,463 people per hour 5,852 people over four peak hours 2 lanes per direction 11,704 people per day

As shown in Table7-10 below, for the 23 miles of the Hempstead Tollway, four peak hours per day, and assumed two new lanes per direction, this amounts to 7,084 people per day for additional 2 lanes. This is an estimate of the number of users benefiting per day on either US 290 or the Hempstead Tollway; peak-period users generally make both morning and evening trips, as with commuter rail. As noted

10 US 290 EIS, Section 1, “Need for and Purpose of Proposed Action”, 1.1.1 “Existing congestion” 7-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District above, at non-peak times the lanes may be used but they would not change average speeds or are not needed for the non-peak travel demand.

Table 7-10 - People per Day Benefiting from the Proposed Hempstead Tollway

Amount Item 35 pass cars per mile per hour 23 miles of freeway 805 pass cars per hour 1.1 people per car 886 people per hour 3,542 people over four peak hours 2 lanes per direction 7,084 people per day

For commuter rail passenger estimates, Table 2-16 , Final Modeling Results, shows an estimate of 22,578 daily rail boardings in 2035. Since one round trip is equivalent to two boardings, dividing by two gives an estimate of the number of persons benefitting by the service, or 11,289 people per day.

A summary of the combined capital and operating costs and cost per user benefiting is shown Table7-11 . For commuter rail, two estimates are shown. The first ignores any change in user costs. The second uses the figure calculated in Table 7-5 to provide an estimate that incorporates the dollar savings of those who switch from driving to taking transit. For both commuter rail and expressway, the capital costs are those required for both directions of travel.

The total estimated cost per user benefitting is lower for commuter rail than for widening US 290 or for building the proposed toll road. Considering the change in user out-of-pocket payments associated with the commuter rail project makes rail more attractive, but does not have a large impact.

7-13 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Table 7-11 - Commuter Rail Cost Comparison to Highway Widening

Total Annualized Annual Annual Daily Cost per Capital Operating Cost Users Annual User (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) (2035) Users* (2010$) US 290 Widening $51.6M $8.1M $59.7M 11,704 29.8M $2.00 Hempstead Toll Road $79.1M $8.4M*** $87.5M 7,084 18.1M $4.84 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail $24.9M $13.9M $38.8M 11,289 28.8M $1.35 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail considering change in user cost $24.9M $2.5M $27.5M 11,289 28.8M $0.95 *Assuming 255 work day per year. **Note: The above comparisons only include capital and operating costs. Right of way costs are not included since they are undefined at this time. ***Hempstead Toll Road Annual Operating Cost based on 4 lane toll way for 23 miles at $90,914 per lane mile per year

Table-11 shows the marginal cost benefits associated with development of commuter rail to address peak period volume increases. The “Daily Users” column of Table-11 shows that, with modeling constraints, commuter rail benefits more daily users than the additional highway/tollway lanes. Within this corridor, additional commuter rail capacity can be added to accommodate increased users with only additional rail cars and associated incremental increases in operating costs. Thus, the ridership increase and marginal operating cost increase could result in an overall reduction of cost per user for commuter rail.

The ability to add additional capacity on the commuter rail line when compared to widening the highway is another benefit that rail offers to the public within this corridor. Providing additional highway/tollway lane capacity will be constrained upon completion of the proposed US 290 improvements as all of the existing highway right of way will be used for the new lanes. Therefore, providing additional highway capacity based on future demand within this growth corridor will be challenging and very costly such that it may not be feasible to provide for more vehicular traffic. Therefore, increased highway users or traffic volumes will require

7-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District construction of additional lanes with higher costs than listed in Table-11 versus the commuter rail’s potential to lower the cost per user. In contrast to the highway’s limited ability to add additional capacity, the commuter rail option can provide additional capacity – double tracking and additional trains - within the proposed rail right of way and the proposed station infrastructure. For example, the cost of adding capacity to provide for 10,000 additional vehicles to US 290 costs $892 million without right of way. The commuter rail can achieve this additional peak hour capacity by doubling the number of trains which has a rolling stock cost of $109 million or about $700 million less in capital costs.

A combination of infrastructure improvements will be required in this corridor as evidenced by various agencies’ planning and projects proposed in the 2035 RTP Update. This comparison is not intended to imply that any of the listed projects -- the US 290 widening, Hempstead Tollway or the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project -- should be eliminated. During this time of extremely limited funding for transportation infrastructure projects, the challenge becomes prioritization of projects. This cost comparison provides data regarding cost efficiency that can be used as a primary decision factor. This comparison shows that the anticipated costs associated with the Commuter Rail are similar to or lower than what would be spent providing the necessary infrastructure capacity for automobiles and buses.

7.3 Environmental Benefits

The Hempstead Commuter Rail will provide the opportunity for changes in modes of travel in the corridor that will result in positive environmental benefits due to reductions in air pollution from rail service replacing automobiles and diesel buses. Commuter travel on trains offers a lower-emission alternative to these other modes, primarily because rail is more energy efficient in moving people, using less fuel and emitting fewer pollutants per passenger mile. This is of particular concern in the Houston region, a severe ozone non-attainment area, since on-road emissions must 7-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District be reduced to comply with air quality conformity. The availability of a lower emission transportation mode in the Hempstead corridor can reduce the environmental impact of the area’s commuter needs.

In the 2010 Update to the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the expected state funding for transportation projects was reduced by over $80B, increasing the anticipated annual travel time per person by about 50% and the annual delay per person by almost 100%, compared with the previously adopted 2035 RTP. If the Houston region is unable to meet federal air pollution standards, it could jeopardize future federal transportation funding.

A. Carbon Dioxide

Some air pollutants are also greenhouse gasses (GHGs) which contribute to climate change. The transportation sector is the largest source of domestic CO2 (one of the principal GHGs) emissions, and 99% of the energy used for this purpose comes from burning fossil fuels 11 .

To identify the potential air quality benefits of commuter rail, the total emissions

of carbon dioxide (CO 2) from the two modes supplanted by commuter rail travel, bus and auto, were estimated. This data was generated by multiplying the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from each mode by the per vehicle-mile carbon

dioxide emissions factor for each mode. For bus, the rate of CO 2 emissions per vehicle mile is 2.2 kilograms, and for automobile travel the rate is 0.4 kilograms

of CO 2 per vehicle mile.

11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the U.S. Transportation Sector, 1990-2003. March 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 7-16 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District The CO 2 emissions created by these modes were added to the carbon dioxide emissions from the operation of commuter rail to estimate the impact of the

commuter rail on total CO 2 emissions for the corridor. Commuter rail emissions

were estimated at 5.5 kilograms of CO 2 emissions per vehicle mile. The comparison shown in Table 7-12 reveals that building commuter rail in this

corridor will generate approximately 14% fewer metric tons of CO 2 per year in

2019 and 15% fewer metric tons of CO 2 per year in 2035 than if the commuter rail is not built. Note that in 2019, implementation of commuter rail and removal of the express bus service results in individuals switching from express bus to both auto and commuter rail. In 2035, the direct commuter rail connection to downtown results in individuals switching from both auto and express bus to commuter rail.

12 Table 7-12 - Annual CO 2 Emissions Reduction (metric tons/year)

2019 2019 2035 2035 Mode No CR with CR No CR with CR Auto 7,775 7,785 10,717 10,648 Express Bus 4,013 1,584 4,013 951 Commuter Rail 0 735 0 863 Total 11,788 10,104 14,730 12,462 Reduction 1,684 2,268

B. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

The total emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the two modes, bus and auto, that would be supplanted by commuter rail travel were also estimated. This data was generated by multiplying the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from each mode

12 This presents tailpipe emissions, pollutants released directly by these vehicles. 7-17 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District by the per vehicle-mile nitrogen oxides emissions factor for each mode. For bus travel, the rate of NOx emissions per vehicle mile traveled is 11.9 grams. For automobile travel, the rate was 1.56 grams of NOx per vehicle mile traveled 13 .

The amount of emissions created by these modes was added to the nitrogen oxide emissions from the operation of commuter rail. The NOx emissions were estimated to be 48.8 grams of NOx emissions per vehicle mile traveled for commuter rail. The comparison is shown in Table 7-13 and reveals that building the commuter rail service will generate approximately 14% fewer metric tons of NOx per year in 2019 and 17% fewer metric tons of NOx per year in 2035 than if the commuter rail is not built.

Table 7-13 - Annual NOx Emissions Reduction (metric tons/ year)

2019 2019 2035 2035 Mode No CR with CR No CR with CR Auto 30 30 42 42 Express Bus 22 9 22 5 Commuter Rail 0 6 0 6 Total 52 45 64 53 Reduction 7 11

When calculating the carbon dioxide or nitrogen oxides emissions of a commuter rail option, many factors influence the actual data, such as the selected train model, actual passenger load, and number of stops. The calculations used in this report are estimates of the environmental benefits of Hempstead Commuter Rail line based on the design described in this report (e.g., push pull, diesel powered operation with bi-level passenger cars and a maximum of 10 stops). Additional

13 Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation. American Public Transportation Association. July 2002. < http://www.publictransportation.org/reports/asp/energy.asp> 7-18 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District research and investigation is needed to further refine the actual environmental impacts.

C. Noise

Noise is also a factor when considering impacts on the environment. Concerns about the volume and frequency of noise are often a factor that leads some to oppose commuter rail. Noise level is described in decibels (dB) and uses an A- weighting (dBA) to indicate that the measurements have filtered out very low and very high frequencies in much the same way that the human ear works 14 . Typical A-weighted sound levels range from the 40s to the 90s, with the indoor sound of a refrigerator at a distance of three feet rating an approximate 40 dBA, and the sound of shop tools at three feet at approximately 95 dBA.

Noise levels generated from diesel powered commuter rail travel result from sources that include diesel engines, cooling fans, wheel/rail interaction, and horns and crossing gate bells at grade crossings. A general guideline for the expected noise level of rail transit at-grade operating at 50 mph is 78 dBA at 50 feet, roughly equivalent to the sound of an air compressor at 50 feet or a food blender at 3 feet. Train horn noise is louder, approximately 90 dBA at 50 feet, which is louder than a jack hammer at 50 feet.

The likely duration of the sound must also be considered. Train noise other than horn noise is not likely to last more than approximately one minute. Horn noise has a longer duration, but should only occur at crossing locations. Horn noise can be mitigated by implementing quiet zones, and GCRD has committed to work with interested jurisdictions to implement these. In addition, the decibel level decreases depending upon the distance of the receiver. By maintaining a

14 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration. May 2006. 7-19 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District certain distance from the tracks, the perceived noise level can be reduced. There are several options that exist for mitigating noise: • Ensuring quality track design • Installing sound walls or berms • Installing sound insulation for diesel mufflers • Modifying location and/or direction of train horns on commuter rail vehicles • Establishing Quiet Zones at crossings • Installing Wayside Horns at crossings

The decibel level of highway traffic at 50 feet is typically around 72 dBA or 6 dBA less than commuter rail; however, highway traffic is a source of continuous sound. 15 When considering the noise impact of commuter rail travel, the primary factor is the impact of a 78 dBA noise source over approximately one minute once per hour versus the consistent 72 dBA noise level of highway travel. While a commuter rail train will be louder than the sound of an automobile travelling the highway, the commuter rail noise event will be a singular occurrence lasting only a minute as opposed to the persistent noise level of highway traffic.

There are many other factors affecting the noise impacts on the local environment including the length of the train, travel speed, noise path, and existence of sound barriers. The importance of the noise impacts depends on what is close to the tracks to be impacted by the noise. These factors can be more fully examined in an expanded environmental study where individual circumstances can be examined and mitigated if necessary.

15 Miller, Nicholas. “Addressing the Noise from U.S. Transportation Systems: Measures and Countermeasures,” TR News , Sept-Oct 2005. 7-20 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District D. Financial Value of Environmental Benefits

The financial value of environmental benefits is affected by many factors, including the mortality and morbidity caused by pollutant exposure, the number of people exposed, the value placed on human lives, and the range of additional costs and damages such as crop losses, ecological degradation, and damages to buildings considered in the analysis. In a review of literature, a wide range of 16 estimates of the benefit per ton of CO 2 was found ($5 - $917 per ton) , based primarily on estimates of health risks, global warming risks, and discount rates. For this analysis, we have adopted the $21 per ton mid-point value developed by the US Interagency SCC Workshop as the social cost of carbon. 17 For NOx, a 18 value of $10,800 per ton was used. The annual benefits of reduced CO 2 and NOx are therefore $111,000 in 2019 and $164,.000 in 2035. The financial impacts of potential noise impacts could not be quantified.

7.4 Safety Benefits

A. User Accident Reduction Benefits

Commuter rail operations are very safe compared to the auto and bus. In order to best quantify the safety benefit to the former auto passengers, a simple linear statistical forecasting model based on average auto, bus, and commuter rail fatalities, injuries, and accidents per VMT was developed.

16 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II, Victoria Transport Policy Institute 17 Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses , Environmental Protection Agency (December 2010) 18 National value for reducing Nox was estimated as $10,000 in 2006 dollars, converted ton 2010 dollars based on CPI. The Influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution , Fann, Fulcher & Hubbel (2008). 7-21 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District In 2019, operating the Hempstead Commuter Rail could reduce injuries by 287 and accidents by 139 annually, and result in about 2 fewer fatalities. 19 In 2030, injuries would be reduced by 419, accidents by 227, and fatalities by 3 per year. These estimates are shown in Table 7-14.

At a cost of $500,000 per fatality, $50,000 per injury, and $2,000 per accident from the FHWA Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, the commuter rail line has an annual benefit of $17.6 million for 2019 and $22.9 million for 2030.

Table 7-14 - Potential Accident Reduction Benefits

Potential Accident Reduction Year Fatalities Injuries Accidents 2019 No CR 295.48 7636.56 23101.45 With CR 293.48 7349.53 22962.68 Reduction 2.00 287.03 138.76 2030 No CR 405.01 10316.24 31736.98 With CR 402.04 9897.05 31509.80 Reduction 2.97 419.20 227.18

B. Grade-Crossing Protection – Highway-User Safety Benefits

One of the significant benefits of the proposed Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project route will be the conversion of 52 existing highway grade crossings to crossings protected with quad gates. 20 The specific impacts of these crossing conversions will depend on the current grade crossing protection, the number of vehicles using the crossing roads, as well as the number of freight trains, commuter rail trains, and other passenger trains using the rail line.

19 Commuter rail accidents which involve automobiles ignoring warning flashers or gates or pedestrians trespassing on the tracks have a relatively high rate of fatalities. 20 Quad gates are a system of crossing gates provided along approaches to, as well as departures from, the crossing, to prevent any cars from entering the crossing. This generally requires four gates. 7-22 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

The FHWA Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook provides information on the effectiveness of alternative grade crossings. Table 44 of this Handbook indicates that quad gates have an 82% reduction in violations compared with a two-gate system. This should result in a similar reduction in accidents, fatalities, and injuries. Two-gate systems are a significant improvement over crossbucks alone, generally resulting in an 88% reduction in accidents, a 93% reduction in injuries, and an almost 100% reduction in fatalities.

The recent rate of accidents along the Eureka Subdivision has been about 3.5 accidents per year. This rate will be assumed to continue over the next 20 years. The majority of these accidents occur at gated crossings. Commuter rail averages 0.3 fatalities and 1.75 injuries per accident.

At a cost of $500,000 per fatality, $50,000 per injury, and $2,000 per accident from the handbook above, the impact of an accident has an estimated value of $706,000 per year. Assuming that all crossings along the Eureka Subdivision have a two-gate system that would be replaced with quad gates, the commuter rail project would reduce the average rate of accidents from 3.5 per year to 0.6 per year, a reduction of 2.9 accidents per year, and result in a savings of just over

$2 million per year.

7-23 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District SECTION 8 LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL FUNDING PROFILE

Funding for the Hempstead commuter rail facilities may come from a variety of sources including public private partnerships, federal grants, operating subsidies and the Federal Transit Administration. The following sections present the opportunities for funding.

8.1 Summary

This analysis identifies options at all levels of government for generating funding to design, construct, operate and maintain a financially viable commuter rail service along the UPRR Eureka Subdivision from Hempstead to Eureka Junction (Tower 13). The economic benefits associated with a commuter rail endeavor are critical to consider but must be compared with the funding required for construction and ongoing operation and maintenance of the system.

One of the most significant common factors among the successful commuter rail systems discussed in this study is the creation and implementation of a clearly articulated and publicly adopted commuter rail plan. This plan needs to include details on the service characteristics as well as a plan to fund the improvements and subsequent operations.

The GCRD has taken the mission to work with public and private partners to develop and implement a systematic approach to improvement of the regional rail network for the benefit of the region’s residents and economy. This section identifies the range of funding mechanisms that can be sought in order to develop plans to cover capital, operating, and maintenance costs. As shown in Section 8.4, every region finds an approach that is suitable for that area. Much of that approach is affected by the local circumstances, the political climate, and opportunities that emerge during planning and development of the project. This section provides a toolbox that can be used to begin the

8-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District discussions that are necessary with the many players and partners that must be involved to have a successful funding plan.

It is estimated that the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail service will cost $450 million to construct within the UPRR ROW and $9.2 million to operate and maintain annually. Federal funds may be able to be secured to cover approximately half of the construction cost, or $225 million. The local funding and partnership discussions that follow this study need to determine which federal sources provide the best opportunity to pursue for funding, how to fund the remaining half of the construction cost, as well as, how the full operating and maintenance costs will be raised on an annual basis. There is no single or simple solution to these funding issues. It is through active discussions and collaboration with state, local and federal agencies and elected officials that a viable funding plan will emerge.

In the funding environment of today, the development, implementation and operation of commuter rail requires more coordination, collaboration and cooperation between local, regional and state governments than had been previously necessary. One agency or entity cannot build new services without the support and collaboration with others. Creating the consensus necessary to gain acceptance of a Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project can be a catalyst to energizing needed economic support. There are many likely partners for commuter rail service in the Hempstead Corridor who have a stake in mobility through this corridor or other services seeking funding in the corridor. Broader conversations with potential funding partners should begin soon. Likely partners for commuter rail services in the Hempstead Corridor include, but are not limited to:

• TxDOT • H-GAC • METRO • Harris County Toll Road Authority

8-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) • HSIPR Potential Partners

Strategic discussions with these entities should begin soon to identify willingness to partner to achieve mobility goals in the Hempstead Corridor and what opportunities for funding each can provide for the project.

Major local funding of rail improvements can be a challenging undertaking. The citizens and stakeholders of the region have to be made fully aware of all the benefits that are afforded by commuter rail in the corridor. Jurisdictions of every type are faced with making important decisions over the coming years on how to respond to the region’s projected growth while maintaining and improving the quality of life and place for their constituencies. The creation and leveraging of capital and operating funds for commuter rail is a critical next step in the development of this region.

While the Hempstead Corridor commuter rail is one step to improving regional mobility, it is equally crucial that stakeholders understand that this project is an integral part of rail infrastructure that will become a much larger regional commuter rail network. Many of the challenges currently faced by the GCRD and its members could be addressed collectively under a regional commuter rail plan. This plan could begin with an assessment of what resources each city and county currently have available, and are willing to bring to the Project. The planning process and larger regional mobility discussions would provide a means to clearly identify, target and engage those potential public and private partners that are critical to the success of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project.

The materials presented in this section provide a starting point for GCRD to have conversations with other regional partners to determine possible partnerships and a basis for understanding the parameters of the funding discussions and plans going forward.

8-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

8.2 Action Items

The following list of actions to be taken, while not comprehensive of all of the funding options that may exist, is provided to assist the GCRD to maximize its funding exposure for this project and the local commuter rail network:

A. Federal Funding

• Continue to monitor the emerging federal sources such as TIGER Grants and Sustainable Communities Initiative; • Consider advancing the project following the FTA guidelines to keep this funding option available. o Comply with the planning and project development process set forth in FTA Circular C-9300.1B, Section V.5, which requires completion of 4 stages of planning prior to construction -- System Planning at a regional level, Alternatives Analysis at a corridor level, Preliminary Engineering, and Final Design. o Comply with the environmental protection process set forth in FTA Circulator C-9300.1B, Section V.6, which requires that prior to Final Design, the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the project, as well as reasonable alternatives, must be documented in an EIS or EA, as appropriate. o Comply with the clean air act requirements set forth in FTA Circulator C- 9300.1B, Section V.7, which requires completion of an analysis of the impact of the project on air quality in coordination with the MPO. o Establish that the applicant has the legal, financial, and technical capacity to construct, operate, and maintain the project, through legal opinions, an adequate project management plan, and an adequate financial plan. • Pursue partnership with TxDOT or other intercity rail operators to share cost for the corridor.

8-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Work with H-GAC to determine opportunities for 5307 funding. • Monitor the development of the proposed Federal Transportation Bill for opportunities for Transit or commuter rail funding.

B. Local Funding

• Consider development of a regional commuter rail corridor system plan to determine feasibility and acceptability of a system-wide funding mechanism. o Conduct a coordinated study of expected land use changes and local transportation needs focusing on the potential positive catalytic impacts of commuter rail on local municipalities. o Perform an economic development impact analysis to determine a reasonable projection of new revenues attainable from growth in the sales and ad valorem tax base of affected cities and counties. o Begin an aggressive effort to inform and educate residents and stakeholders on the local benefits and regional necessity of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project. • Work with the Texas Legislature to address the following: o Modify Texas Transportation Code, Title 5, Subtitle I, Chapter 171, Subchapter A. to allow the GCRD to assess fees to create a dedicated funding mechanism. o Modify the statute governing Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ) to specifically address the funding of costs associated with the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail. o Amend Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code to make hotel occupancy taxes applicable to commuter rail projects. o Consider raising the 8.25% state and local sales tax cap to allow for a local increase to fund the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail.

8-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District o Reintroduce a Local Option Transportation Act, similar to SB 855 in the 81 st Legislative Session that will include provisions for rail projects. o Introduce Legislation to create a designated funding source for the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund.

8.3 Background

Government subsidies of private railroads were federal policy until 1870. In the 1880s 70,000 additional miles of freight and passenger track were laid to link increasing numbers of towns and cities without government subsidies. However, government subsidies have continued to be the dominant source of funding for passenger rail systems. Over the years, government agencies have been established to oversee the funding, operation, and maintenance of transit services. Overloading of highways and airlines at the end of the 20th century has provided an increased incentive for expansion of train service. The recent federal and state discussions regarding both passenger rail and freight rail corridor improvements have resulted in a variety of new funding options.

Today, the primary source of federal funds for rail transit projects is the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). FTA funds require levels of approvals that can be lengthy and add delays that may increase costs. Historically, the FTA provided grants for rail planning, purchase of vehicles, construction of facilities, capital cost of contracting and some maintenance costs. Since the 1980s, the FTA has limited the use of federal funds to capital investment items, only allowing some of these funds to be used for operations in areas with small populations. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) has provided additional sources of federal funding for rail projects through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program, and non-commuter funding through the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).

8-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Every six years when a national transportation bill is passed, there are modifications to the Federal transportation program. While a new national transportation bill is currently being developed, the current bill, the ‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users’ (SAFETEA-LU), has been extended through the second quarter of FY 2011. The specific details of the next national transportation bill will not be fully clear until the associated guidance is subsequently developed. The new national transportation bill is anticipated to significantly grow the size of the overall program by nearly double and is likely to embody some of the current administration’s multi-modal considerations through the various ARRA programs.

While federal funding is critical to the total funding mix, significant gaps can exist between federal monies and total commuter rail construction and operational costs. Typically, approximately half of capital costs of approved projects can be funded through federal sources. Nearly all ongoing operating and maintenance costs must be locally generated. Subsequently, local, regional and state governments must step in to provide this required funding. Local funding that utilizes enabling legislation available to municipalities and counties is one of the most reliable and flexible financing sources available to the GCRD. The laws governing the generation and distribution of local funds are generally found in the Texas Tax Code, Texas Local Government Code and the Texas Transportation Code. These laws allow local, regional and state governments to apply ad valorem taxes, sales taxes, special assessments, user fees and various other lawful sources of public funding in providing creative financing solutions.

There is also a growing equity investment role for infrastructure, including rail expansions. This financing method requires latitude within the legislation, but also within the structure of the delivery methods. The private sector has created a new market for private investments with design, build, operate, and maintain models as well as simple equity investments. The structures of these deals are flexible to particular project needs, and are generally underwritten dependent on the amount of investment required. A

8-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District discussion with a major international bank that currently provides infrastructure financing indicated that transit financing is seen as their largest opportunity in the foreseeable future. This is supported by a belief that public pressure is moving mass transit foreword ahead of traditional highway and toll road projects and a belief that most government entities understand that a public subsidy will be required to make these projects feasible for consideration.

Rail transit funding and financing mechanisms vary greatly from one project to the next. The available funding mechanisms depend on such factors as the project’s specific location and institutional setting. The specific location may provide the opportunity to secure available state funding for such projects and available dedicated local tax revenue sources. The institutional setting may allow the entity that implements and manages the service authorization to receive and dispense funding. Commuter rail services in the U.S. operate within several different types of institutional setting:

• Some commuter rail services are managed & operated by multi-modal regional transit agencies such as Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia; Capital MetroRail – operated by Capital Metro in Austin; and Coaster – operated by North County Transit District in San Diego. In these cases, funding is typically provided to the agency as a whole. • A few commuter rail services are operated jointly by multiple transit agencies such as Trinity Railway Express by DART and Ft. Worth’s the “T”. In such instances, funding requirements are shared by the partner agencies. • A few other commuter rail services are operated by statewide transit agencies which are generally in smaller states and thus directly funded by the states such as New Jersey Transit Corporation and Maryland Transit Administration’s MARC service. • The majority of commuter rail services are single mode systems.

8-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District o Some of these are standalone systems that operate under an umbrella funding agency such as Long Island Railroad and Metro North Commuter Rail in the New York City area operate under the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, or Metra in Chicago operates under the Regional Transportation Authority. o Others are standalone systems funded through inter-local or inter-county master or “joint powers” agreements. Examples include Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s Metrolink established by transit agencies and MPO’s in six counties and Virginia Railway Express established by two transportation commissions and participating jurisdictions.

Many of the newer commuter rail operations fall within the last category above and most of these have specific funding streams that are either dedicated to commuter rail or were clearly created with the intent of funding commuter rail. The Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD), representing a partnership of several counties, would fall under this category – although it does not yet have a dedicated funding source.

The sections that follow present an explanation of the programs, policies and practices common to the financing of passenger rail development and operations. The descriptions provided are examples of the tools currently in use.

8.4 Successful Federal/State/Local Funding Examples of Rail Projects

Several localities around America have been successful in initiating and completing successful commuter rail facilities in the last decade. Cities, counties and regional MPOs and councils of government (COGs) have developed innovative policies and programs utilizing a wide range of tools and leveraging federal, state and local funds. This section details several examples and case studies and later sections provide some insight into how the tools referenced herein may be useful to the GCRD.

8-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Commuter rail systems currently use a wide range of sources, although the bulk of these fall into the federal assistance, fare revenue and traditional tax- and fee-based categories. This section reviews the sources of funding used to establish and operate several US commuter rail systems; as indicated above, the focus is on “newer” standalone services such as those developed within the last twenty years and not part of large multi-modal transit agencies. The systems reviewed here, with the largest city each serves, are:

• Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) – San Jose, CA; • Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail Authority) – Los Angeles, CA; • Northstar Commuter Rail – Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN; • New Mexico Rail Runner Express -- Albuquerque, NM; • Sounder Commuter Rail – Seattle, WA; • Tri-Rail – Miami, FL; • Virginia Railway Express – Washington, DC; and, • Music City Star – Nashville, TN.

Operating details and funding sources for these systems are summarized in Table 8-1 at the end of this section.

A. Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), San Jose, CA

The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) provides commuter rail service between Stockton and San Jose, CA. It is an 85-mile system, with 10 stations spread over three counties. Most of ACE’s service runs on lines owned by the Union Pacific RR. These lines are also used by Caltrain and Amtrak’s Capital Corridor service, which results in heavy congestion.

ACE is managed by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), with the trains operated by Herzog Transit Services, Inc. The SJRRC was created by San

8-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Joaquin County in 1995 to implement the commuter rail service. In 1997, the SJRRC, the Alameda Congestion Management Agency (ACMA), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) jointly created the ACE Joint Powers Authority (ACEJPA). The ACEJPA implemented the rail plan and created ACE. Service began about 1.5 years later in late 1998.

Altamont Commuter Express Highlights

Total Length of Systems: 85 miles Capital Costs: $10 million Operation Funds: $12 million Revenue sources: CMAQ federal funds ½ cent sales tax Station capital and operation responsibility of local agency where station located

B. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), Los Angeles, CA

Metrolink provides commuter rail service through six counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and San Diego. The system includes a total of 55 stations on 7 separate lines, covering a total of 512 route-miles. The Metrolink service area encompasses approximately 2,300 square miles, with a population of over 20 million.

SCRRA, a regional Joint Powers Agency (JPA), was formed in 1991. Voting members included Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). Ex-officio members of SCRRA include the Southern California Association of Governments

8-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District (SCAG), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). SCRRA is a separate entity, not part of any member agency.

SCRRA receives its primary funding from its member agencies. The majority of transportation funds in these counties come from local sales taxes (with the exception of Ventura County), State Rail Bond funds, State Transit Assistance funds, State Highway Account funds, State Transit Capital Improvement funds and FTA capital funds. Fares account for nearly half the operating funds.

Metrolink Highlights Total Length of Systems: 512 miles Capital Costs: $86 million Operation Funds: $142 million Revenue sources: FTA Capital Assistance local sales tax State Rail Bonds State Transit Assistance State Capital Improvement Funds Station capital and operation responsibility of local agency where station located

C. Northstar Commuter Rail, Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

The 40-mile Northstar commuter rail line was developed and implemented by the specially-created Northstar Corridor Development Authority, a joint powers board established by thirty cities and counties in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. The service, which opened in 2010, is managed and operated by Metro Transit. There are currently 6 stations.

8-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District The initial capital cost of building the Northstar Commuter Rail line was $320 million. This cost was shared by the State of Minnesota (31% of total), the FTA (51%), three counties (Anoka, Sherburne and Hennepin – total of 16%), the Metropolitan Council (2%) and the Minnesota Twins major league baseball team (<1% for funding for station improvements at the Twins’ stadium). A detailed breakout of operating revenues was not available, as the service did not begin until late 2009. However, 50% of the net subsidy after fares and FTA Section 5307 Preventive Maintenance grant funds was to be paid by the state and 50% by the three counties.

Northstar Commuter Rail Highlights Total Length of Systems: 40 miles Capital Costs: $320 million Operation Funds: $17 million Revenue sources: Shared by 30 cities and counties by local sources. Minnesota Twins capital for station located at the stadium

D. Rail Runner Express, Albuquerque, NM

The New Mexico Rail Runner Express was developed as a part of the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) rail initiative. Capital costs of the New Mexico Rail Runner Express commuter rail project were covered by state and local funds only; there were no federal funds used. The current line is 100 miles long (Phase I) and had a total construction and Right of Way (ROW) acquisition cost of $210 million.

Financing was secured through a $1.6 billion bond issue with $1.2 billion allocated for road and highway improvements; the remainder of the funds was applied to the

8-13 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Rail Runner line. To finance the projects, the state used a severance tax, essentially a tax paid by the energy industry to the state for extracting oil and gas.

Rail Runner Express Highlights Total Length of Systems: 100 miles (Phase I) Capital Costs: $135 million Operation Funds: $11 million Revenue sources: Federal funds – CMAQ

Capital funding came from state transportation package. Local sales tax for 0.5%

E. Sounder Commuter Rail, Seattle, WA

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Sound Transit, was established in 1993 by the State Legislature for the purpose of developing, implementing and operating a mix of transit services in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The Sound Transit Board adopted a comprehensive regional plan, Sound Move, in 1996. This plan, approved by voters in the region, included Sounder Commuter Rail, which opened in 2000, covers 82 route-miles, and includes 10 stations. A subsequent vote in 2008 called for improvements to the Sounder system that would greatly increase rail capacity.

Sounder Commuter Rail Highlights Total Length of Systems: 82 miles Capital Costs: $559 million Operation Funds: $159 million Revenue sources: Local sales tax for 0.9% Motor vehicle excise 0.3%

8-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Rental car tax of 0.8%

F. Tri-Rail, Miami, FL

Tri-Rail provides commuter rail service in three counties in south Florida: Miami- Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. The 72 mile line has 18 stations. The system was originally built by Tri-County Commuter Rail Organization (TCRO), which was created by Florida DOT as part of a traffic mitigation project. TCRPO became a state agency, Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, in 1988. Tri-Rail opened in 1989. In 1994, the Authority signed an interlocal agreement with FDOT and the three counties. State legislation in 2003 created the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) to manage the system. This legislation required the three counties served by Tri-Rail to each contribute $1.6 million in operating funds and $2.67 million for future projects.

Tri-Rail Highlights Total Length of Systems: 72 miles Capital Costs: $15 million Operation Funds: $57 million Revenue sources: Capital costs by FDOT for traffic mitigation project. 3 Counties served cover operating costs

G. Virginia Railway Express, Washington, DC

Virginia Railway Express (VRE) has provided commuter rail service between Northern Virginia and Washington, DC since 1992. The 90-mile system features 18 stations. In 1989, the Potomac-Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) and Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) executed a Master Agreement with their participating jurisdictions of Arlington, Alexandria,

8-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Fredericksburg and Manassas to establish VRE. Under the terms of this agreement, PRTC and NVTC jointly own and operate VRE. The participating jurisdictions agreed to pay for the system’s operations through a formula based on a combination of system ridership within the jurisdiction and population. State legislation also established a 2% motor fuels tax to support VRE and other transportation investments.

Virginia Railway Express Highlights Total Length of Systems: 72 miles Capital Costs: $58 million Operation Funds: $55 million Revenue sources: Capital costs joint agency Operation shared by jurisdictions based on ridership and population. A portion of 2% Motor fuels tax for operations.

H. Music City Star, Nashville, TN

The Music City Star is a commuter rail service operating in middle Tennessee, between Nashville and Lebanon. The 32-mile line with six stations opened in 2006. It serves Davidson and Wilson Counties, as well as the cities of Nashville, Mt. Juliet and Lebanon. There are five local entities involved in funding the commuter rail service: Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Wilson County, City of Mt. Juliet, City of Lebanon and Nashville Eastern Railroad Corporation (NERC).

A formula for sharing local operating costs was developed as part of the full funding grant agreement. The formula assigns costs by community with 60% of costs to be borne by Nashville-Davidson County and the remaining 40% shared by Wilson

8-16 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District County, Mt. Juliet, and Lebanon. However, Wilson County, Mt. Juliet, and Lebanon made specific commitments for their share of funding — each committing up to $100,000 in operating funding over the first five years of service — but have not committed funds after that time. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville has committed its share of local funding with no end date. The contribution from Wilson County, Mt. Juliet and Lebanon was to provide $75,000 in “in-kind” assistance yearly and additional cash contributions. The NERC pledged to assist with the cash contributions by providing up to $20,000 per suburban community per year for the first five years of the operation for a total of $300,000.

Music City Star Highlights Total Length of Systems: 32 miles Capital Costs: $41 million Operation Funds: $5 million Revenue sources: 5307 Funds Operating costs by Regional Transit and CMAQ

8.5 Federal Funding Tools

The following section discusses recent and current federal funding programs. Within the year, there could be significant modifications to these programs as the new national transportation bill is developed and refined. At the end of this section, a summary is provided of the various sources and an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

A. Recent Significant Developments

In a departure from previous administrations, the current administration has increased investment in rail and public transportation. While a large portion of these funds

8-17 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District have already been allocated to projects, this may provide insight into what might be expected when a new national transportation bill is passed.

Stimulus Funds

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), called the “Stimulus Bill”, was signed into law in February 2009. ARRA focused on jumpstarting the economy and creating sustained economic growth. Of ARRA’s $787 billion total investment, $48.1 billion was allocated for transportation. Transportation investment emphasized jobs, environmental quality, transit expansion and modernization, passenger rail and livability.

As of April 2010, USDOT had obligated over $37 billion in ARRA funds to over 14,000 transportation projects across the country. In addition to $8 billion for high speed passenger rail, the obligated funds have applied to the following modes:

• Highway - $25.9 billion • Transit - $8.8 billion • Rail (Amtrak) - $1.3 billion • Aviation - $1.2 billion • Maritime - $120 million

Of the milestones specified by ARRA, it stipulates that 50% of the allocated funds must be obligated within 120 days of the date the state received them, with remaining funds obligated within one year. Funds must be expended by September 2015.

8-18 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District TIGER Grants

In February 2010, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants were announced by USDOT. The TIGER Discretionary Grant Program was included in ARRA with an emphasis on innovative, multimodal and multi-jurisdictional transportation projects with significant economic and environmental benefits. Key points of this program include:

• USDOT received over 1,400 applications for almost $60 billion worth of projects from across the country. • Funds totaling $1.5 billion were awarded to 51 projects nationwide. • Sixty percent of the funding went to economically distressed areas. • The largest grant award was $105 million for a multi-state freight rail project, and the average award size was $30 million.

National Infrastructure Investment Grants (“TIGER II”)

A second round of TIGER grants authorized through the FY 2010 Appropriations Act began on April 26, 2010. Officially known as National Infrastructure Investment Grants, but referred to as “TIGER II” Discretionary Grants due to their similarity to previous TIGER grants, these grants were not a part of ARRA. Eligible applicants include state and local governments, including U.S. territories, tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), other political subdivisions of State or local governments and multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups applying through a single lead applicant. Projects that are eligible include capital investments for highway, bridge, public transportation, passenger and freight rail, and port infrastructure.

8-19 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District The TIGER II has $600 million available, less than half the amount of TIGER I. Up to $35 million of the total $600 million in available funds may be used for TIGER II Planning Grants for activities related to planning, preparation or design of transportation projects.

The pre-applications were due on July 16, 2010, with final applications (Stage 2) due on August 23, 2010. USDOT announced projects selected for funding in October 2010. Funds must be obligated by September 30, 2012. Applicants that submitted projects for the first round of grants must reapply for TIGER II. With the exception of rural projects, TIGER II will only provide up to 80% of the project costs, whereas TIGER I was 100% federal funding.

USDOT and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) jointly evaluated applications for TIGER II transportation planning grants and HUD’s $40 million “Community Challenge Grant” for projects that fund future transportation investments and local planning activities.

Selection Criteria for TIGER II Grants

• Primary Criteria: State of Good Repair, Economic Competitiveness, Livability, Environmental Sustainability, Safety, Job Creation and Economic Activity, Particularly in Economically Distressed Areas. • Secondary Criteria: Innovation, Partnership

Partnership for Sustainable Communities between USDOT, HUD and EPA

In June 2009, a partnership between the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was formed with the following goals:

8-20 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

• Provide more transportation choices • Promote equitable, affordable housing • Enhance economic competitiveness • Support existing communities • Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment • Value communities and neighborhoods

HUD’s 2010 appropriations include $150 million for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions and increase the local capacity to improve land use and zoning. These funds include:

• $100 million for Regional Integrated Planning Grants to support linking integrated housing, transportation, economic development and other land use planning. • $40 million for Community Challenge Grants to foster reform and reduce barriers to achieve affordable, economically vital, and sustainable communities

As previously referenced, the TIGER II grants and Community Challenge Grants are evaluated and awarded jointly between USDOT and HUD in order to encourage and reward projects that align transportation, housing, economic development and land use planning. Community Challenge Grants can apply to planning, land acquisition and other strategies to create walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented and affordable communities.

8-21 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District B. Federal Railroad Administration

Historically, the FRA had a purely safety and compliance function, and did not manage any funding programs. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) was the most sweeping Congressional action on intercity passenger rail since Amtrak was created in the 1970’s and allowed states to become directly eligible for federal funding to support intercity passenger rail service for the first time. PRIIA authorized three new Federal intercity capital assistance programs:

• Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Capital Assistance Program: USDOT can make grants for capital costs necessary to provide or improve intercity passenger rail transportation. Right of way costs associated with Intercity Passenger Rail projects are eligible for reimbursement. • High-Speed Rail Corridor Development: USDOT can establish and implement a high-speed rail corridor development program. Grants must be used for capital projects that are part of a State Rail Plan. High-speed rail is defined as intercity rail passenger service that will achieve operating speeds of at least 110 mph. • Congestion Relief: USDOT could make grants to states or Amtrak for capital costs to reduce congestion or facilitate ridership growth in intercity rail passenger transportation.

Eligible applicants include individual States and the District of Columbia, groups of States, Interstate Compacts and public agencies with responsibility for providing intercity passenger rail service established by one or more States.

PRIIA established the framework for future federal investments in intercity and high speed rail that followed in 2009 through ARRA.

8-22 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

In 2009, ARRA allocated $8 billion for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. FRA received 259 grant applications from 37 states and the District of Columbia for almost $57 billion in funding. In January 2010, funding was awarded to 79 projects from 31 states. The top awards went to California ($2.25 billion) and Florida ($1.25 billion). Awards were focused on:

• Building new high-speed rail corridors that will expand and improve passenger transportation in the geographic regions served; • Upgrading existing intercity passenger rail services; and, • Laying the groundwork for future high-speed passenger rail services through smaller projects and planning efforts.

In April 2009, USDOT released a plan for high-speed rail that called for a high-speed rail grant program of $1 billion per year for 5 years. In December 2009, the FY 2010 USDOT Appropriations Act appropriated an additional $2.5 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger rail grants. Up to $50 million can be used for planning activities. FRA solicited applications for this $50 million in FY 2010 planning funds.

Key Points

• Funding requires at least 20% non-federal match. • No predetermined minimum or maximum dollar thresholds for awards. • Planning grants are aimed to help establish a future HSIPR construction projects and corridor development programs by advancing planning activities for corridors that are at an earlier stage of the development process. • Eligibility: States, Amtrak, groups of states or public agencies responsible for intercity passenger rail service are eligible for these funds.

8-23 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Timeline

• Applications for the $50 million in FY 2010 funds for planning activities under FRA’s HSIPR Program were due by May 19, 2010, and submitted to www.grants.gov. • Applications for the $2.5 billion for high speed rail were also due on May 19, 2010.

C. Federal Transit Administration

FTA currently offers funding programs totaling over $10 billion to support public transportation systems. While FTA offers many programs, those relevant programs to the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project include the following:

Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307)

Funding for transit capital and operating assistance is available for areas of over 50,000 people in population. Operating assistance is not available to areas with populations greater than 200,000.

Eligibility requirements for Section 5307 include:

• Planning, engineering design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies • Capital investments in bus and bus-related activities • Capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems, including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications and computer hardware and software

8-24 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

At times, funding through Section 5307 can be used to fund small projects or to help fund larger projects. Section 5307 formula funds are distributed to eligible recipients, typically transit agencies, through a formula. As a result, these funds are difficult to use for large expansion type projects because, if these funds are used in this way, other projects such as standard vehicle replacements and other capital items are not eligible for funding.

New Starts/Small Starts Grant Program

The FTA’s discretionary program, New Starts, is the federal government’s primary financial resource for funding locally planned, implemented and operated transit fixed guideway investments. In SAFETEA-LU, $6.6 billion was allocated to support these projects nationwide. This included $6 billion for New Starts and $600 million for Small Starts. Historically and in current legislation, the New Starts program is presented as an 80% federal to 20% local match program for funding. In practice, however, it is highly unusual for New Starts to provide more than 50% of federal funding towards the capital cost. New Starts funding is not available for operations. Types of projects considered include:

• Fixed Guideway: A “fixed guideway” refers to any transit service that uses exclusive or controlled rights-of-way or rails, entirely or in part. The term includes heavy rail, commuter rail, monorail, trolleybus, aerial tramway, inclined plane, cable car, automated guideway transit, ferryboats, that portion of motorbus service operated on exclusive or controlled rights-of-way, and high-occupancy- vehicle (HOV) lanes. • New Starts: These projects are typically greater than $250 million in total project cost and request greater than $75 million in New Starts funding.

8-25 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Small Starts: This program supports projects smaller than the New Starts threshold of $250 million and has a maximum grant award of $75 million.

In order to be considered for New Starts funding, an Alternatives Analysis (AA) must be completed. The AA is a rigorous and prescribed process that the FTA uses to ensure that a standard evaluation process is conducted by projects across the country; and, the six key measures used as a basis for evaluation are compared consistently. These six key measurements are rated “low”, “medium”, or “high”:

• Mobility Improvements • Environmental Benefits • Operating Efficiencies • Cost Effectiveness • Transit Supportive Land Use • Other Factors

Projects must receive a rating of “medium” or higher for funding consideration. After the completion of an Alternatives Analysis, an application can be made for approval to enter Preliminary Engineering. Subsequent steps are final design with the ultimate goal of achieving a full funding grant agreement. Each step of the process is very specific and closely monitored. Some steps in the process are streamlined somewhat for Small Starts applicants.

The number of projects competing for New Starts funding far exceeds the available funding. As a result, it is a highly competitive process and one that is very time consuming. An optimistic timeframe from the beginning of Alternatives Analysis to the commencement of operation is 5-7 years. Many projects have taken much longer to successfully go through this process to qualify for funding.

8-26 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District In January 2010, the U.S. Transportation Secretary proposed a significant change in the way major transit projects are evaluated for funding under the New Starts/Small Starts programs. For the five prior years, there was an emphasis placed on the cost effectiveness measure of the Alternatives Analysis. The U.S. Transportation Secretary’s proposal takes a wider approach in evaluation to incorporate issues such as livability, economic development opportunities and environmental benefits. The formal change in rulemaking will be forthcoming in the near future.

D. Federal Highway Administration

FHWA has an annual budget of more than $30 billion. Relevant programs to the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project include the following:

Flexible Funds

The ability to "flex" funds between formula programs in FTA and FHWA has been in place since 1999. At the time, it was a new provision of ISTEA, the national transportation bill. “Flexing” funds between modes has been retained in subsequent transportation bills. The idea of ”flex” funds is that a local area can choose to use certain federal surface transportation funds based on local planning priorities rather than on a restrictive definition of program eligibility. The funds that are able to be ”flexed” are FHWA Surface Transportation Funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and FTA urban formula funds.

In an urban area like Houston, the decision to "flex" funds is made by local transportation planners through the MPO process. This process is slightly different from that in non-urban or smaller areas. When FHWA funds are transferred to the FTA, the funds go into the Urbanized Formula program, New Freedoms or non-urban

8-27 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District programs. When transferred to the FTA for a transit program, the funds are administered according to FTA requirements.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program

The objective of the CMAQ program is to help improve air quality and manage traffic congestion. Projects funded through this federal program source are often innovative solutions to common mobility problems. CMAQ permits the funding of both operating and capital expenses. Activities that are eligible for CMAQ funds include transit system capital expansion and improvements that are projected to create an increase in transit ridership, travel demand management strategies and shared ride services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and promotional activities that encourage commuting by bicycle. Other eligible activities are those that reduce specific pollutants from transportation sources. CMAQ funds are apportioned based on the severity of air quality problems. In FY 2008, the H-GAC Region received approximately $15 million in CMAQ funding.

The EPA is considering reducing the acceptable thresholds for several pollutants. This threshold change could serve to substantially increase the number of regions that are not in conformity. If this is the case, there would be a significantly increased level of competition for CMAQ funds.

E. Earmarks

Federal congressional earmarks present an additional avenue for federal funds to be sought. Earmarks are often considered outside of the standard merit selection or allocation process. Earmarks are included in appropriation bills and the annual spending bills that allocate discretionary spending, as well as in some authorization bills, such as the national transportation bill.

8-28 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

While there have been many recent public statements by elected officials that earmarks will no longer be included in new legislation, bills continue to include earmarks and many elected officials continue to solicit or accept requests for earmarks from constituents.

8.6 State and Local Funding Tools

The discussion below is provided to provide better understanding of the opportunities and restrictions attached to those locally sourced funding options most applicable to the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail as applied to funding commuter rail endeavors. Local and State funding options offer an alternative to the obligations often tied to Federal funding. Table 8-2 at the end of this section provides an overview of Texas’ available local, regional and state legislative funding tools.

A. Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) – A Financing Tool

Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) are created to finance public improvements in order to promote new development or redevelopment in an area that would not be expected to develop or redevelop in the near future without the zone. The Tax Increment Financing Act, Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, governs creation and criteria for designation as a TIRZ.

TIRZ can be created by a city or county, and are either created by an act of the governing body, or requested via petition by the owners of greater than fifty percent (50%) of the appraised value of the property contained in the Reinvestment Zone. There are minor differences in TIRZ created by city versus a county because the municipal authority to issue and service bonds is specifically outlined in the Texas Constitution. According to the Texas Attorney General, a TIRZ created by a county could potentially be subject to challenge on issuing bonds until the constitution is

8-29 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District amended. The 45-mile length of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail line includes several municipalities and an extensive area of unincorporated counties.

How does a TIRZ work?

1. Owners of property located in a reinvestment zone pay property taxes based on the assessed value of their property at the current tax rate of the taxing jurisdictions (city, county, school district, etc.) within which the property is located. The tax rate does not vary because property is located in a reinvestment zone. 2. New development that occurs within a reinvestment zone will result in increased taxable value of a property. Increase in taxable value above the value in the year the reinvestment zone was created, the “base year”, generates tax revenue above the “base year” valuation revenue. This incremental revenue is placed in a separate TIRZ fund designated to pay for public improvements in the zone. The taxing jurisdictions continue to receive the same property tax revenue based on the “base year” taxable value as before the improvements were made. 3. Under Sec. 311.017, after termination of the zone, the City and/or County receives all of the property tax revenue based on full appraised value of the improved area. Areas surrounding the TIRZ also benefit from the improvements to the area, and therefore further increase taxable value to the taxing jurisdictions. 4. TIRZ funds can be used to “pay as you go” for public improvements, or to finance the issuance of municipal bonds to cover capital improvements.

Further restrictions on composition of zones, costs associated with transportation or transit projects, powers and duties of boards of directors, and project and financing plans are also defined in Chapter 311.

8-30 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District In addition to ad valorem tax increment, Sec. 311.0123 defines how a “sales tax base” for a reinvestment zone can be established, and a portion of tax increment generated from municipal sales and use taxes may be attributed to the zone to be deposited into the tax increment fund.

Such funds as are generated by either ad valorem or sales tax increment may be used to issue bonds to cover allowable costs and expenses.

Sec. 311.0123 SALES TAX INCREMENT (a) In this section, "sales tax base" for a reinvestment zone means the amount of municipal sales and use taxes attributable to the zone for the year in which the zone was designated under this chapter. (b) The governing body of a municipality may determine, in an ordinance designating an area as a reinvestment zone or in an ordinance adopted subsequent to the designation of a zone, the portion or amount of tax increment generated from municipal sales and use taxes attributable to the zone, above the sales tax base, to be deposited into the tax increment fund. Nothing in this section requires a municipality to contribute sales tax increment into a tax increment fund.

Sec. 311.015 TAX INCREMENT BONDS AND NOTES (a) A municipality creating a reinvestment zone may issue tax increment bonds or notes, the proceeds of which may be used to pay project costs for the reinvestment zone on behalf of which the bonds or notes were issued or to satisfy claims of holders of the bonds or notes. The municipality may issue refunding bonds or notes for the payment or retirement of tax increment bonds or notes previously issued by it.

8-31 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District B. Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ)

A Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) is an innovative method of financing transportation projects by leveraging growth prompted by the creation of the new infrastructure. The purpose of a TRZ is to provide revenues that can create additional bonding capacity for a municipality to advance the costs to construct state highway projects on the state highway system with an agreed upon partial reimbursement of those costs from tolls collected by TxDOT, a toll road authority, or a county.

The TRZ does not translate into an increase in property taxes. Development of a new transportation corridor always brings growth. Land previously under-developed or classified as “ag-exempt” on the tax rolls becomes new subdivisions, industrial complexes, malls and business complexes. This is growth that would not have occurred without the development of the road project will generate tax revenue. A percentage of that revenue will be dedicated to finance the project.

TRZ financing is not applicable to rail projects as the law is currently written. The legislation specifically dictates that “the department may enter into an agreement with a private entity that provides for the payment of pass-through tolls to the department as reimbursement for the department's design, development, financing, construction, maintenance, or operation of a toll or non-toll facility on the state highway system that is financed by the department.”

There are a few notable procedural differences from tax increment reinvestment zone (TIRZ) creation. Many legislative restrictions for the conditions allowing for zone creation do not exist for the TRZ. Also, the creation of the TRZ is much simpler and faster due to reduced public hearing requirements. The municipality is given specific authority to designate its own criteria for what constitutes the “need” for the TRZ. It is only required to post a seven-day notice of hearing, hold a hearing seven days prior

8-32 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District to the vote, and vote to designate the zone “without further hearings or procedural requirements.” An example of an established TRZ for highway and thoroughfare projects can be found in El Paso.

The possible benefit to amendment of the TRZ legislation is the access to funds generated by tolled facilities across Texas. A potential disadvantage to the use of the TRZ concept is that the ridership of a commuter rail line funded by toll fees could actually reduce traffic and tolls paid to the facility providing the commuter rail funding. Although the revenues from tolled facilities can be reliable in the regions where these facilities exist, there are vast expanses of Texas that could benefit from commuter rail that do not have existing or planned toll roads from which to obtain revenue.

C. Taxes and User Fees

Local Option Transportation Tax

The Texas Legislature may grant authority to counties to create, adopt and attach additional revenue streams for the purpose of funding public infrastructure, such as commuter rail, provided that such measure would be approved at an election in which a majority of the qualified voters of the county would participate.

An unsuccessful attempt was made in the 2009 Texas Legislative Session to pass a Local Option Transportation Act (SB 855). The intent of the bill was to fund transportation projects, such as commuter rail, in the North Texas region with proposed revenue sources such as:

• New Resident Impact Fee • Mobility Improvement Fee

8-33 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Driver’s License Fee • Local Option Gas Tax • Parking Fee • Emissions Fee

A table describing the estimated revenue that could be generated in the H-GAC region from some of these sources is included at the end of this Section.

D. Special Districts

Special Districts are economic development tools which are created to help finance improvements that would not otherwise occur in a given area or under a certain timeframe. These districts are implementation tools to finance specific improvements that support development, to advance a vision or provide a catalyst to accomplish community goals. It is expected that new business or development may be more attracted to areas with adequate infrastructure, utility services and other public services and facilities.

Public Improvement Districts (PID)

The Public Improvement District Assessment Act, Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code, allows cities to levy and collect special assessments on property located within the city or its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Counties may levy and collect special assessments on property located within the county unless a home rule city objects to its establishment within its corporate limits or ETJ within 30 days of a county’s action to approve the PID. Since this is an assessment, it impacts the private sector development and is imposed in addition to the various taxes including MUDs where applicable.

8-34 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District PIDs are usually formed to accomplish improvements such as:

• Water, wastewater, health and sanitation, or drainage improvements including acquisition and construction • Street and sidewalk improvements including acquiring, constructing, improving, widening, narrowing, closing or rerouting sidewalks, streets or any other roadways or their rights-of way • Mass transit improvements including acquisition, construction, improvement or rerouting of mass transportation facilities • Parking improvements including acquisition, construction or improvement of off- street parking facilities • Park, recreation and cultural improvements including the establishment or improvement of parks • Landscaping and other aesthetic improvements including erection of fountains, distinctive lighting and signage • Creation of pedestrian malls including construction or improvement • Similar improvements to those listed above

Transportation Utility Districts

Because the GCRD and other Texas Rail districts are prohibited by Section 171.253 and Section 171.254 of the Texas Transportation Code to charge Sales, Ad Valorem, and Use Taxes or charge fees to the railroad, the District must obtain funding from the member counties unless this section of the code is modified. Therefore, this section examines a potential method for the counties to increase their revenue funding potential to help fund a new commuter rail system.

Transportation Utility Districts are special districts that are set up to collect user fees to fund transportation improvements within the defined district. The City of Austin

8-35 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District and the City of Bryan in Texas currently charge transportation user fees to their residents and businesses to fund transportation projects within their limits. The City of Austin funds approximately 85% of its public roadway infrastructure through this method. These fees are set by the City based on the necessary improvements to construct and maintain the transportation infrastructure. The fee is set annually by the City and is based on the anticipated costs for constructing new roadways and maintaining the existing roadway within the system. All residential property owners pay the same amount per year while businesses pay a higher amount based on the number of trips that typically go to the business. The Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip Generation Rate is typically used in setting the rates for businesses as this district addresses only roadway improvements.

While this may not be a direct way to fund the commuter rail system within the GCRD, this type of funding does offer a method for increasing the transportation revenue sources for the member counties and municipalities within the district. If the district members institute a transportation utility district as defined in the Pubic Improvement Districts in Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code, then the funds generated could pay for the majority of the existing roadway maintenance and planned improvements through the user fees. This could allow general revenue bonds that are currently directed towards transportation projects to be used to support the new commuter rail system.

Municipal Management Districts (MMD)

Municipal Management District defined by Chapter 375 of the Texas Local Government Code, enable an area to fund and maintain improvements made to benefit that local area. These districts are created within an existing commercial area to finance facilities, infrastructure and services beyond those already provided by individual property owners or municipality. The improvements may be funded by a

8-36 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District combination of self-imposed property taxes, special assessments and impact fees, or other charges against property owners within the district. Municipal Management Districts are created by an act of the Texas Legislature as special districts having limited municipal powers independent of the city or county in which the district is located.

E. Other Economic Development Tools

Private Funding Scenarios

The commuter rail systems discussed above have predominantly relied on traditional funding mechanisms, as described earlier. These projects have been built and are operated using various mixes of local, state and federal funding sources in addition to operating revenues such as fares. However, such funding sources have become increasingly difficult over the past couple of years. The current recession has had a strong negative impact on sales and other tax revenues as well as on fare revenue. However, there continues to be a growing public demand for new and expanded regional transit services throughout the country. This demand has further increased the competition and limited the availability of public funding for new transit and transportation projects. As a result, some commuter rail project sponsors are pursuing alternative financing and funding strategies that generally fall under the category of public-private partnerships. Two of these projects are described briefly below:

Eagle P3 Commuter Rail Project, Denver, CO

Denver Regional Transportation District (Denver RTD) is developing a new commuter rail system, as the first phase of a much larger regional transportation expansion plan called FasTracks. The commuter rail project, called “Eagle P3,” is being financed, developed and operated through a Design, Build, Finance, Operation

8-37 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District and Maintenance (DBFOM) contract with a private consortium known as Denver Transit Partners (DTP).

The public-private partnership arrangement will provide design and construction of three elements of the planned commuter rail system, the East Corridor, the Gold Line and the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility. Other elements of the planned system, the Northwest Rail and North Metro corridors will be designed and built by other teams to be selected in the future. However, DTP will be responsible for supplying and maintaining vehicles for all four corridors; for operating and maintaining the East Corridor, Gold Line and North Metro corridors; as well as stations and parking lots on the Northwest Rail Line.

DTP is also responsible for developing financing for the project. The consortium is arranging for over $450 million of private debt and equity financing and will receive payments based on the performance of system operations and maintenance. The public-private partnership allows a significant amount of risk to be transferred from the public to the private sector.

Cotton Belt Commuter Rail Line, Dallas, TX

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) has retained a consulting team to develop a financing plan for the proposed 62-mile DART Cotton Belt line. DART does not have sufficient capacity to finance the new commuter rail line from the sales tax revenue it would normally use, necessitating an alternative financing approach such as a private investment-based strategy.

The most promising model for possible private financing of the new line is the recent successful private sector partnerships with the North Dallas Tollway Authority and TxDOT in financing highway projects in North Texas. These projects include the

8-38 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Sam Rayburn Tollway, State Highway 161, IH 635 LBJ Freeway reconstruction and the North Tarrant Expressway. However, rather than using the promise of future toll revenue to repay investors, it will be necessary in this case to identify a variety of public mechanisms including fare revenue and new or expanded fees or taxes that could be pooled to provide funds to repay the private equity financing. If a large enough funding pool can be created, it could conceivably be used to support the issuance of traditional debt such as bonds issued by DART. However, the current assumption is that private financing would likely be required for the project.

8.7 Near-Term and Long-Term Issues

Federal programs provide large portions of the capital funding needed to construct commuter rail facilities. However, a significant local match of up to 50% of project costs is generally required. The individual funding programs are extremely competitive and can take many years to successfully pursue. Federal transit funds also provide very little support for operations and maintenance.

A. Assessment of Federal Funding Sources

Of the range of federal funding sources described in previous sections, each has pros and cons associated with that source. In this section, an assessment of each type of funding is made based on previous observations and experience as well as the relevance or apparent applicability of the source. Detailed knowledge of the local political climate and opportunities is essential in evaluating the information provided in this study in order to make a determination for the direction the GCRD or the region should select to seek federal funding for the development of commuter rail service in this corridor. The discussion should help identify the sources that might hold the most potential for funding this project. However, regardless of the federal funding program pursued for funding, local governments must come together to

8-39 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District create a local funding solution that will provide a steady stream of operating funding and the local match for any federal dollars received.

Stimulus Funds

The Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project could have been a solid candidate for a ‘stimulus’ type funding source and should be open to any similar funding programs should they arise. Given that the purpose of the stimulus funds was to ‘jump start’ the economy, there is no guarantee that these funding sources will be continued or repeated. Essentially, the stimulus funding added a year of program to the budget of many agencies. Should a new transportation bill get in place next year as is currently anticipated, the levels of funding that are proposed should create similar opportunities for funding at the federal level.

If this Project had been further advanced, the ARRA solicitation would have been a source of funds for which the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project was well suited. The TIGER I and TIGER II grant applications may not have been as well aligned with this Project as that of the ARRA program. To date, the stimulus projects have required projects that were “shovel ready.”

Since the stimulus program is not a standing program, the GCRD or the regional funding entities will have to monitor the status of any of these programs and pay close attention to the particular requirements in order to be able to capitalize on them. If new stimulus programs such as a TIGER III are extended, the selection criteria should be similar to the ARRA, TIGER I and TIGER II criteria. It is expected that future projects that emphasize innovative, multimodal and multi-jurisdictional transportation with significant economic and environmental benefits would be selected or given priority. In order to be strategically aligned with a future program such as TIGER III, the GCRD needs to advance this project to the point it is “shovel

8-40 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District ready”. Additionally, the economic competitiveness, viability, environmental sustainability, safety, and job creation and economic activity aspects of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project should be assessed and quantified as those factors are critical when making a selection of an eligible project. A continuous effort by the GCRD to keep the project in front of the public is also important. Promoting the project to the elected officials, funding agencies, media, and other entities will also strengthen support for the project and increase the potential of being selected in this very competitive process.

Partnership for Sustainable Communities is a partnership between HUD, DOT and EPA with goals to provide more transportation choices, enhance competition and promote affordable housing and increase value in communities and neighborhoods. However, this federal partnership has not been officially connected to any of the guidance of the other standing federal funding programs. The partnership is just a possible indication of the direction the current administration is moving with guidance that may emerge after the transportation bill is passed. Specific program criteria for this federal program have not been established yet, but the Hempstead Corridor project has the potential to be responsive to the type of issues that this partnership has identified.

The Hempstead Commuter Rail Project can sufficiently achieve the goals of this partnership. The planning work for the project should keep these principles in mind and structure analysis to highlight these issues. Future funding for subsequent phases of Hempstead Corridor development, such as planning studies and preliminary engineering, could potentially utilize any funding that might emerge as the partnership for sustainable communities matures.

8-41 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District Federal Railroad Administration

While the FRA has not traditionally been a funding agency, the FRA has been thrust into that position with the current administration’s focus on increasing the competitiveness of passenger rail as a travel mode in this country. There are several opportunities that could become relevant to the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project. The best opportunity for funding through the FRA would be the High Speed Rail Corridor Development program.

The first year of funding for this program was $8 billion. Applications must be submitted through the state DOTs. Applications for the second year of funding were submitted recently for an estimated total of $2.5 billion. TxDOT submitted the Austin-Houston intercity corridor that includes the Hempstead Corridor line for HSIPR funding in the current round of applications. At least $1 billion will be available for each of the next several years. Since the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project is located on a corridor that is being considered for intercity service and the project would represent a segment of independent utility as the first leg of the Houston to Austin Intercity Rail, there is the possibility for being competitively considered for this program.

Planning work in this corridor should collaborate with the potential intercity service as a key part of any strategy to leverage this funding source. There are many ways that a partnership with intercity rail may develop. Commuter rail may secure the right-of-way and upgrade the track to provide the conditions appropriate for commuter service to operate. In the future, if intercity rail is implemented in the corridor the intercity rail agency or operator could provide trackage rights payments to GCRD and be responsible for necessary upgrades to structures or crossings as needed. Should implementation of intercity rail occur first, other funding arrangements could be developed. In either scenario, funding synergies exist between

8-42 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District development of intercity service and commuter rail service in the Hempstead Corridor. Working with intercity rail would also provide additional reasons to extend the rail corridor to downtown and become part of the FRA program and the intercity rail project.

Federal Transit Administration

Access to FTA funds requires being a FTA designated recipient or being in a position to receive funds from a designated recipient through the MPO process. Pursuit of either FTA Section 5307 or New Starts funds have distinctly different issues associated with each. Section 5307 funds are formula funds available to the region through the local MPO, Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC) or designated recipients. The MPO determines the allocation to specific projects and agencies in the Houston Urbanized area. The designated recipient for Section 5307 funds in the Houston Urbanized area is currently METRO.

Since this project is within the urbanized area, it would be eligible for Section 5307 funds. GCRD would either need to become another designated recipient of FTA funds or apply through HGAC for funds allocated through the region. The competition for regional funds is high since the funds allocated to this region typically do not change much from year to year. Should funding levels increase significantly for transit through the national transportation bill, there may be an opportunity to access funds from this source without also reducing funding typically received by another entity.

New Starts and Small Starts are programs that are currently heavily over-subscribed. These programs are also revising how projects are evaluated. This makes these programs a difficult funding source to access. The general project development path required by these programs is:

8-43 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District • Conduct an Alternatives Analysis (an 18-24 month process). • Apply to be accepted into Preliminary Engineering (approximately 2-year process, if accepted). • Apply to be accepted into Final Design (approximately 1 year process, if accepted). • Apply to receive a Full Funding Grant agreement. This is when funding has been secured.

The process is highly competitive with many opportunities to be removed from the funding consideration. The full cost of following these steps for development of the project can be quite high. Additionally, GCRD would need to be a designated recipient of FTA funds or partner with a local agency to receive the funds on their behalf. It is probably inadvisable to rely on FTA funding as the only funding source for this Project. Following all of this process, the GCRD may eventually receive 40%-50% of the capital funds for the project from federal funding. The remaining 50%-60% of the project development and construction funding as well as all of the operating costs must be funded from other sources. The New Starts funding path has emphasized the level and existence of local financial capacity as a larger part of their assessment of project readiness to advance federal funding on new projects. Pursuit of New Starts funding will require a solid detailed plan for local financial commitment.

A key factor for consideration in the planning (AA) phase of the FTA process is that the performance of the service will be compared with the best alternative that can be developed that does not require a guideway. This might mean that the project would have to achieve great success versus a robust express bus service on the parallel highway to warrant the additional funding needed by a guideway based alternative. Transit projects will compare more favorably in the AA assessment when competing corridor roadways, such as US 290, are operating under congested conditions that

8-44 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District encourage more people to use the alternative mode. Further committed expansion of the roadways will reduce the competitiveness of commuter rail in this corridor.

FTA has been advocating confirmation that existing systems are achieving a “state of good repair” prior to looking to expand other services. Additionally, the FTA has been pushing for modes with the lowest possible capital cost to create the mobility improvements that are being sought by communities. This has led to many more communities to identify bus rapid transit (BRT) as the preferred mode to obtain funding. Not all corridors are well served by BRT. The Hempstead Corridor is anticipated to be a corridor where further analysis will find that these other modes are not logical solutions to the mobility problem. How FTA’s recent focus on ‘state of good repair’ and non-rail solutions will affect the federal transit funding program is not known. However, it is not viewed as a positive development for future funding. There should be an expectation that the New Starts “rules” will be in flux until the new transportation bill is passed and the subsequent regulations and guidelines are established.

Federal Highway Administration

Flexible funds and CMAQ funds may be good approaches to pursue locally. The willingness of the region to move funds from road projects to rail projects will be invaluable to the reality of pursuing these funds. Positioning the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project as an essential part of a corridor solution to congestion may be the most effective way to obtain funding through FHWA sources. The US 290 and Hempstead Road Major Investment Study identified high capacity transit as an important part of the corridor mobility solution. The Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail fills that description. CMAQ funds would not be adequate to fund the development of service, though this funding can be part of a multi-source funding solution.

8-45 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

B. Assessment of State and Local Funding Sources

The costs and values included in this section are strictly given for the purpose of demonstrating the performance capacity of the tools discussed. No assumptions should be made that the sources of funds referenced are representative of any agreement(s) from any city, county or public entity mentioned herein.

The State of Texas is facing tight budgets for the next several years, and has not historically funded passenger rail projects. Legislative creation of new funding tools and/or the modification of existing legislation can be as advantageous as dedicated state funds for the GCRD. Support may exist among locally-elected state representatives and state senators for achieving significant changes to state law. Serious consideration should be given to the possible need for statutory amendment by the 82 nd Legislature that began in January of 2011. Significant education and the creation of a campaign in support of any legislative amendments will be critical to any increase in funding, taxing or imposing fees in this economic slowdown.

Local tools are flexible and easily adapted for use in funding capital construction and/or operations and maintenance costs. The limiting factors of every local tool are the amount and intensity of tax base growth over the life of the tool, and/or the amount of additional taxes or fees that the affected communities are willing and able to support. The degree to which commuter rail can attract and provide incentives for the development of new tax base is the degree to which these tools can be effective.

An example of this would be for a corridor defined as including 2-miles on either side of US 290. An estimated project cost of $400 million over a twenty-year bond issue would require a $38.7 million annual debt service payment. Based on the current county tax rate of $0.0636/$100, this corridor would have to generate $6.08 billion in

8-46 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District new ad valorem tax base to cover the debt service obligation of $38.7 million annually.

Large master-planned communities are the most likely candidates to bring significant growth along the Hempstead Commuter Rail Corridor. For instance, Shadow Creek Ranch consists of 3,500 acres and was developed to include 6,200 homes which presently have an average home value of roughly $260,000 and an overall assessed value of $1.9 billion. This value was achieved in the last 10 years during the real estate boom. The plans for the Bridgeland development are comprised of 11,200 acres of land located south of US 290 with a projection for 21,000 new homes at completion. The assumption of an average home value of $260,000 would project a total value approaching $5.5 billion at completion of construction in approximately 30 years. These examples provide a comparison of what would have to be created in the corridor to generate revenue in the scale needed to cover debt service for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project.

The additional annual funds required for operations and maintenance facilities could exceed $10 million. If local ad valorem taxes are used to fund these expenses, an additional $1.58 billion in new ad valorem value would be needed to generate sufficient tax increment.

The Texas state sales and use tax rate is 6.25%, but local taxing jurisdictions, cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities, may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25%. In Houston, Hempstead, and Prairie View that cap has been met and obligated. which leaves very little capacity to fund large projects using sales tax revenues.

However, cities could be approached with the possibility of dedicating those sales tax funds to the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail due to the economic development

8-47 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District potential that commuter rail operations bring. Under this 0.5% configuration, the amount of annual retail sales required to sustain a $500,000 annual contribution to the Hempstead Commuter Rail Corridor would be $100 million. For comparison, Woodlands Township, a mature retail generator, is projecting retail sales of roughly $155 million for 2010. A more realistic contribution from smaller cities may be a 0.25% sales tax dedication. However, this would generate only $250,000 in annual revenue from the same $100 million in sales.

Funding assessments may also be levied via special district assessments or taxes. Management districts are not ideal vehicles for large-scale debt issuance, but can be used to provide funding operational costs. The Greater Southeast Management District levied an assessment of $0.115/100 on a tax base of $1.2 billion for FY2009 generating total revenues of $1.4 million.

The H-GAC Financial Forecast for 2011-2040 examined the revenue potential of several new funding sources. The following is an excerpted summary of the findings of that examination:

8-48 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

New revenue sources from additional taxes or fees are a very reliable form of finance. However, serious public opposition can arise when confronted with the issue of additional taxation. Elections are statutorily required for passage of new taxes or fees. A clearly articulated plan and a well-executed public outreach effort would be essential to make any new tax referendum successful.

The sources outlined in this section are flexible and can be combined in many scenarios. The two factors exerting the greatest influence on the probable of success these local funding tools are the amount of federal funds available and the scale of the total project costs. The overall health of the regional and national economy also weighs heavily on the ability of any local tool to perform.

8-49 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 8-1: Examples of Existing Commuter Rail Systems – Operating Details and Funding Sources

Virginia Railway Altamont Metrolink New Mexico Rail Sounder Tri-Rail Express (managed by Music City Star (managed Commuter Express (managed by Northstar Runner Express Commuter (managed by South Existing Commuter Rail Northern VA Trans. by Regional (managed by San Southern California (managed by (managed by Rail (managed Florida Regional Systems Comm. and Potomac Transportation Joaquin Regional Regional Rail Metro Transit) NMDOT and Mid- by Sound Transportation & Rappahannock Authority) Rail Commission) Authority) Region COG) Transit) Authority) Trans. Comm.) Largest city served San Jose, CA Los Angeles Minneapolis Albuquerque Seattle Miami Washington, DC Nashville Year service initiated 1998 1992 2009 2006 2000 1989 1992 2006 Route-miles 85 512 40 100 82 72 90 32 No. of Stations 10 55 6 12 10 18 18 6 Operating Funds Fares 37% 49% NA 29% 17% 15% 39% 15% Local funds 53% 40% NA 0% 66% 18% 22% 21% State funds 0% 0% NA 0% 0% 35% 15% 10% Federal assistance 6% 0% NA 71% 0% 31% 19% 54% Other funds 4% 11% NA 0% 17% 1% 5% 0% Total Operating Funds $12m $142m $17m $11m $159m* $57m $55m $5m Capital Funds Local funds 54% 46% 18% 7% 69% 55% 48% 5% State funds 0% 17% 31% 93% 2% 12% 26% 10% Federal assistance 46% 37% 51% 0% 29% 33% 26% 79% Other funds 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% Total Capital Funds $10m $86m $320m $135m $559m* $15m $58m $41m

implemented by ACE implemented by these were the these were initial funding created by FDOT as implemented through These were the initial Joint Powers regional Joint Powers initial capital costs; (Phase I) capital primarily from part of traffic Master Agreement with capital costs; RTA was Authority (created by Agency (created by LA implemented by costs; much of 3 tax sources: mitigation project; participating created in '88, supported by SJRRC, ACMA and Metro, OCTA., RCTC, Northstar Corridor capital funding came sales and use federal operating jurisdictions (i.e., member communities in 9- SCVTA); federal SANBAG, VCTC); Development from state tax of 0.9%, funds include FHWA members of NVTC and county region; RTA also funds: CMAQ; half- funding from local Authority (joint transportation motor vehicle $ (since originally part PRTC); state legis. operates regional bus rtes. cent sales tax funds sales taxes, State Rail powers board improvement excise tax of of a traffic mitigation established 2% motor 2% of operation in Bonds, State Transit created by 30 cities package (GRIP); 0.3% and rental project); state fuels tax to support Alameda Co.; capital Assistance, State & counties); federal funds: car tax of 0.8% legislation in '03 VRE (and other Notes on implementation funding for station Highway Account "other" capital CMAQ; gross created SFRTA and transportation of service and funding sources improvements is funds, State Capital funds: from receipts tax (0.5%) required the 3 cos. investments); member responsibility of Improvement funds, Minnesota Twins for transit approved served (Miami-Dade, jurisdictions pay for member agency in and FTA capital (for station by voters in 2 regions Broward, Palm Beach) VRE through formula co. where station assistance improvements at in '08 (needed to to each contribute based on ridership and located stadium) cover expected end operating funds population of federal funding)

8-50 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 8-2 - Existing Funding Tools

Does it Fund Capital Tools Using Existing How is it Applicable to GCRD? Costs or Operational Types of Project(s) Allowed Approval Required and En abling Legislation How Would the Tool Work? Action It ems Required Revenue Costs?

Tax Increment Finance

TIRZ revenues are commonly used to finance capital costs ass ociated with large public infrastructure projects.One or more TIRZs could be created a long the corridor to capture the A reinvestment zone is created that captures increases in City Council approval is required for zones inside a value from new development in the corridor. If 1,000 acres were developed as a master- Individual cities and counties in the GCRD Tax Increment Reinvestment tax values allowing a city or county use new incremental Improvements can include any lawful purposes that city, and Commissioners Court approval is required for Capital Costs planned community with six (6) dwelling units to the acre and an average home price of would have to dedicate or create TIRZs for Zones (TIRZ) sales and real property tax revenues to finance a series a City or County may finance. zones in unincorporated areas, pursuant to Chapter 311 $250,000, the increment captured by a TIRZ would be $1.5 billion in new value. Applying the purpose of funding commuter rail of the Texas Tax Code public improvements. Waller County's tax rate of 0.6288 would yield annual revenue s of $18,864,000 which could support approximately $150,000,000 in bond debt.

Provides that TxDOT may enter into an agreement with a public or private entity that provides for the payment of Transportation projects authorized under Section Transportation Reinvestment City Council approval under Subchapter E, Chapter This tool in its present state does not apply to commuter, but c ould be amended to include this Legislation should be amended for pass-through tolls to the public or private entity. There is Capital Costs 222.104 of the Transportation Code (Pass-Through Zones (TRZ) 222, Transportation Code provision. applicability to Commuter Rail interest in expanding the scope of this tool to include Tolls) commuter rail.

Local Grants and Incentives

Allows counties to offer a range of incentives designed to Transportation projects are allowable to the extent County Economic Development Commissioners Court Approval, Chapter 381 Local These local grants reimburse developers for the range of exp enses that may contribute to Counties would need to pass resolutions or promote state or local economic development. Bond Both that they can be tied to economic development or Grants and Loans Gov't Code making projects financially feasible. approve orders creating the individual grants issuance is generally precluded in the case of counties. job creation.

Allows cities to offer a range of incentives designed to Transportation projects are allowable to the extent Municipal Economic These local grants reimburse developers for the range of exp enses that may contribute to Cities within the GCRD would have to pass promote state or local economic development. This Both that they can be tied to economic development or City Council Approval, Chapter 380 Local Gov't Code Development Grants and Loans making projects financially feasible. ordinances creating the individual grants includes the option to issue bonds with voter approval. job creation.

Taxes and User Fees

Legislation would need to be introduced to A user fee based on land use type or other criteria could Transportation-related projects, or this tool may be A fee could be assessed for vehicle drivers, certain land uses , or any other criteria that would Transportation User Fee Both State Legislative Creation is required create the fee, and a local election would be provide a dedicated funding stream for commuter rail. created specifically to fund commmuter rail lead to an equitable base of payers. required to levy it

Additional use tax charged per occupied hotel room paid Typical tax is 6%. Per room revenue based on 75% occupancy of a 1 00-room hotel offering Could be amended to declare commuter rail an Making HOT taxes applicable to Commuter Municipal Hotel Occupancy by the guests of the hotel. Local taxing authorities are Operational Costs City Council Approval under Chapter 351 Tax Code an average daily rate of $150 would generate $246,375 annuall y. Can be used for debt service authorized to impose an additional local hotel tax of up to eligible project for HOT tax funding Rail projects Tax ( HOT Tax) on bonds. 6% of the cost of a room.

Additional use tax charged per occupied hotel room paid Typical tax is 6%. Per room revenue based on 75% occupancy of a 1 00-room hotel offering by the guests of the hotel. Local taxing authorities are Could be amended to declare commuter rail an Commissioners Court Approval under Chapter 351 Tax Making HOT taxes applicable to Commuter County Hotel Occupancy Tax Operational Costs an average daily rate of $150 would generate $246,375 annuall y. Can be used for debt service authorized to impose an additional local hotel tax of up to eligible project for HOT tax funding Code Rail projects on bonds. 6% of the cost of a room.

8-51 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Table 8-2 - Existing Funding Tools

Does it Fund Capital Tools that Create New How is it Applicable to GCRD? Costs or Operational Types of Project(s) Allowed Approval Required and En abling Legislation How Would the Tool Work? Action It ems Required Revenue Costs?

Special Districts

The district provides a flexible tool for cities to use in the financing and implementation of The district has the power to levy a special assess ment or commuter rail facilities. However, the revenue gene rated by a managemend district is limited Municipal Management Special State Legislation under Chapter 375 Local an ad valorem property tax for mass transit improve ments Operational Costs Mass transit improvements are elig ible due to its funding by special assessment or tax. Ev ery $100,000,000 in assessed value with a Legislative creation Districts Gov't Code that are located inside or outside the district. $.15/$100 assessment would yield $150,000 annually . This is an overlapping assessment or tax that is added onto the county or ISD taxes.

A Municipal Utility District (MUD) is a political Petition to Texas Commission for Environmental subdivision of the State of Texas authorized to pro vide MUD tax rates vary widely due to the differences in the type and scale of improvements Legislative amendment making MUDs Municipal Utility Districts Capital Costs Public roads and utilities Quality, or State Legislative creation Chapters 49 and services within the MUD boundaries. The current financed. The nature and intent to MUD creation is geared toward large public works projects. applicable to Commuter Rail projects 54 Water Code legislation does not apply to commuter rail.

Levies an assessment or fee and can create new reve nues Public improvements to promote new economic PID's create an overlapping assessment that is paid for by taxable real property. Levied Individual cities and counties in the GCRD from property owners and generally for any lease te nants growth, infrastructure development or re- City Council or Commissioner's Court Approval, Public Improvement Districts Both assessments are charged in addition to any other ta xes. A PID having $40,000,000 in taxable would have to dedicate or create PIDs for the including residential, commercial and industrial if set up development of a specific area of a city or county Chapter 372 Local Gov't Code value and a $.20/$100 assessment would yield $80,00 0 annually. purpose of funding commuter rail in that manner designated as a district.

Applies an additional sales tax over a designated p ortion Public improvements to promote new development Municipal Development The district provides a flexible tool for cities to use in financing the development and/or Legislative amendment making MDDs of a city or its ETJ for the purpose of financing Capital Costs or re-development of a specific area of a city Voter Approval under Chapter 377 Local Gov't Code Districts ongoing operations of commuter rail facilities. applicable to Commuter Rail projects development projects beneficial to the district. and/or its ETJ designated as a district

A district may impose ad valorem tax, hotel occupan cy Public improvements to promote new development tax, or sales and use tax to accomplish economic Commissioners Court Approval under Chapter 387 The district provides a flexible tool for counties to use in the financing and implementation of Clarification of applicability for Commuter County Assistance Districts Both or re-development of a specific unincorporated development projects subject to the approval of a s imple Local Gov't Code station development and/or ongoing operations of co mmuter rail facilities. Rail projects area designated as a district majority of the voters within the bounds of the dis trict.

This tool utilizes a dedicated sales and use tax of up to Crime prevention programs including law Can be used to assist in the operational funding of law enforcement in and around commuter Crime Control Districts Operational Costs Voter Approval under Chapter 363 Local Gov't Code none one half percent. enforcement services for commuter rail facilities rail facilities.

Governance and Revenue Distribution

A local government corporation may be created by on e or These non-profit corporations can be useful in prov iding a focal point for financing the By Local Petition under Chapter 431 Texas Local Government more local governments (if needed) to direct revenu es Both Commuter rail projects are allowable. construction and operation of public facilities com muter rail if the decision is made to layer none Transportation Code Corporations from various funding sources to the GCRD. several local funding sources

8-51 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

SECTION 9 ADMINISTRATIVE NEXT STEPS

The following section outlines next steps necessary to move the project forward.

9.1 Gulf Coast Rail District Actions

The Gulf Coast Rail District should initiate the following steps to move the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project forward and continue in the development of commuter rail in the Houston region. It is recommended that the GCRD begin the FTA process to ensure that federal funding sources, New Starts, Small Starts or other programs remain viable options because these programs are currently the most viable sources of additional funding to leverage local funds. The following items should be considered to advance the design for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail project into Preliminary Design:

• Advance the design to address ridership modeling specific to the Hempstead / US 290 corridor utilizing data from the H-GAC 2035 RTP Update. • Analyze impacts of commuter rail operations and anticipated closures to existing and proposed at-grade crossings to develop practical solutions for mitigation prior to the initiation of any commuter rail traffic within the corridor. • Determine the location of the interim terminal station for opening day 2019 operation until the commuter rail connects to downtown. • Determine the location for the interim commuter rail maintenance facility. • Develop a viable option for extension of the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail into downtown. • Determine the location for the location for the Downtown Intermodal Facility. • Work with TxDOT to coordinate the Hempstead Corridor segment into the HSIPR project underway between Houston and Austin.

9-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

• Advocate Corridor Preservation through preservation of the right-of-way and limiting development of at-grade crossings to maintain the operational characteristics favorable to commuter rail and future intercity passenger rail within this corridor.

9.2 Passenger Interoperability Issues for the Houston Region Rail Network

There are standards common to the passenger rail projects on the Houston Region Rail Network that will need to be established and coordinated with Union Pacific Railroad. The GCRD can take the lead in establishing these standards in the first phase of implementation of this project. These include selection of rolling stock; the maintenance yard layouts, station platform height and configuration, class of track, operations/dispatch, and short & long term strategies for repair. In addition, fare collection equipment, interoperability with METRO LRT and Bus connectors as well as station and system ITS will also benefit from standardization.

Preliminary interoperability recommendations have been developed in this study and are discussed in detail throughout this report and summarized in the following sections.

9.2.1 Selection of Rolling Stock Train Equipment

Based on the cost comparison between equipment shown in Section 4, the trains should use a push-pull operating scenario with an engine and a cab control car. Most push-pull commuter rail operators in North America use bi-level equipment and the majority of new passenger coaches on order are bi-level coaches. In addition, bi-level coaches can be modified to allow for a low entry to comply with ADA requirements. In order to meet the anticipated ridership demand and provide flexibility in scheduling, the number of passenger cars should be increased from two cars per train set in 2019 to six cars per train set in 2035. Therefore, the GCRD could acquire the passenger cars based on demonstrated demand and continue to use the same number of engines and the same train schedule as ridership grows.

9-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

9.2.2 Interim Maintenance Strategies and Yard Locations

The commuter rail line would connect to the downtown area at a future date. Prior to that extension, an interim terminal is needed. The interim terminal’s location is critical to providing the best opportunity for a seamless transition between commuter rail and proposed express bus service. The end terminal in the interim condition can serve as a layover facility where the trains would remain parked between peak periods. The opening day end station is proposed to be located at or near the Eureka Yard. This location allows for staging of equipment during the day so it is positioned for the afternoon commute and has sufficient property available for the amount of parking required. The site would allow for passenger platforms and a bus driveway so that a direct cross-platform connection could be made from the train to buses in the morning and buses to the trains in the afternoon. The site also allows convenient bus access to the Northwest Transit Center and to IH 610 and IH 10. Four interim locations were examined for maintenance yards or overnight storage of train sets between Hempstead and Eureka.

At ultimate build-out, where the line connects to downtown and potentially to a commuter rail line to Galveston, the maintenance facility identified by the H-GAC study would be appropriate for further investigation. The maintenance site for the 2035 location in the H-GAC Study is located adjacent to IH 610, between US 290 and IH 10, and is not shown in this report. The interim maintenance yard would not be used as the primary or heavy maintenance facility in the future but could be available for minor maintenance if necessary. Due to this being a conceptual study, no recommendation has been made on a preferred maintenance site. Property availability and land costs will need to be researched further to assist in determining the preferred location. As more detailed operating plans are developed, some sites may become more or less desirable than others. However, the cost of a maintenance facility has been estimated and included in the cost estimate for the project.

9-3 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

9.2.3 Station Platforms

Using the ridership projections and the operational plans previously described, a prototypical station platform design was developed similar to that previously suggested in the Harris County Commuter Rail Study. The platforms recommended have a 14-foot wide concrete pad, are 8 inches above the rail height and have a canopy that covers a minimum of 30% of the platform length. The minimum platform length for start-up operations is 500 feet, with an ultimate length of 1,000 feet, based on ridership projections. The bi-level passenger cars are approximately 85 feet long. The 500 foot long platform length provides some operational flexibility and sufficient standing room for passengers waiting for the train. Also, additional passenger cars could be easily added to the trains for increases in ridership or special events without needing to add to the platform length. Exhibits 15, 16 and 17 depicting the platforms and required parking facilities needed for small, medium, and large station operations are found in Volume II of this report.

9.2.4 Class of Track

The UPRR Eureka Subdivision is considered to be a FRA Class 3 track. The single mainline track is centered within the 100-foot right-of-way and there are several locations where there are parallel tracks which are used to assist in freight rail operations. Track, bridge, signal and crossing protection improvements are necessary to bring this track up to Class 4 which is needed for commuter rail service. Operation of intercity passenger service may require additional track and bridge improvements to upgrade the track to FRA Class 6 standards with maximum allowable passenger train speed of 110 mph.

The interoperability concept is based on the proposed train schedule for the intercity passenger trains provided by TxDOT and the schedule developed for the commuter train operations; the outbound intercity train would meet inbound commuter trains in the morning and the inbound intercity train would meet outbound commuter trains in the

9-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

afternoon between Beltway 8 and downtown. To provide for the meeting and passing of trains, passing tracks or sidings would be required between the North Eldridge Station Area (MP 9) and the Eureka yard area, MP 0.

9.2.5 Train Operations and Dispatch

This study assumed that passenger and freight operations will be accomplished through temporal separation, prohibiting passenger train operations from running concurrently on the track at the same time as freight operations. With temporal separation, the likelihood of a collision between a passenger train and a freight train would not occur as strict time separation exists between passenger and freight train operations.

If temporal separation cannot be achieved due to service requirements of existing freight customers on the line, additional track may be required to allow freight service and passenger service to be conducted at the same time but on separate tracks. This would allow freight service to continue during the day where necessary due to volume or due to shipper requirements. Continued discussions with the Union Pacific and their freight customers is highly recommended to better determine the best operating strategy and required track infrastructure in keeping with the UPRR’s principles for sharing tracks and rights of way for freight and passenger service

The Eureka Subdivision is equipped with an Automatic Block Signal (ABS) system which is sufficient for the current slow speed freight trains but not for passenger train operations. Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) is a system in which signal indications supersede all other authority for the movement of trains. CTC is the safest and most efficient method of controlling train movements for a single main track railroad like the Eureka Subdivision where opposing passenger trains will need to meet and pass each other at normal operating speeds. CTC will need to be implemented within the Eureka Subdivision as part of the necessary upgrades to accommodate passenger rail operations.

9-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

9.2.6 Intermodal Connectivity with METRO

There are two types of intermodal opportunities envisioned along the commuter rail corridor – Commuter Rail to Bus and LRT. While the modes may differ, a single form of payment that would be seamless to the riders on all systems is desirable. As part of this study, the team met with METRO to discuss this potential. There was general consensus that commuter rail riders could use the Q card, which is the electronic payment card used by METRO riders. The use of this type of card would require an agreement between the operator of the commuter rail line and METRO. There could also be an opportunity for revenue sharing between the agencies. This type of agreement would need to be worked out between all transit providers that would access to and from the stations to provide for ease of transfer and to minimize delay that may deter riders due to the two or three transfers to get to their final destination.

Feeder bus opportunities would exist with the introduction of commuter rail. These feeder bus routes would be available to provide collection and distribution service to transfer passengers from the end of the line to downtown, the Galleria/Uptown area, the Greenway Plaza area, and the Texas Medical Center area. A cross-platform connection in which riders leave the commuter rail car and quickly board a bus to their destinations, offers a potential means for reducing the delay to riders.

Connection to the METRO LRT would provide an excellent opportunity to serve as a feeder line to the commuter rail service. The following are general criteria that should be used during station design:

• The walking distance between the commuter rail and the LRT should be minimized. Ideally, the LRT would be on a different level or will be grade separated from the commuter rail. This configuration would allow for easy escalator service to transfer from one platform to the other.

9-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

• The commuter rail line may be the largest single loading locations for passengers for the LRT line; pocket sidings for the LRT should be near the commuter rail line station. This arrangement will allow for multiple LRT trains to be staged near the station, allowing quick access across the platform and sufficient LRT capacity to carry all of the commuter rail passengers.

9.3 Funding

Development of a Regional Commuter Rail Plan will enable identification of the full range of infrastructure required for most effective interoperability. This plan must followed by adoption of a plan to fund the improvements and include operations and maintenance of this and other commuter rail corridors. There is no single solution to the funding issues. Through active discussions and collaboration with state, local and federal agencies and elected officials, a successful funding plan can be developed.

Based on conceptual estimates, the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail service will cost approximately $465 million to construct through 2035 and $9.2 million annually in 2035 to operate and maintain. Currently, the largest pool of federal funds is New Starts funding from the FTA. At one time New Starts funds could provide up to 80% of the capital cost of a project. However, New Starts funding for recent projects has provided at most 60%, and generally 50% or less, of the capital cost of a project. This is largely a function of the Cost-Benefit ranking. The smaller the proposed federal New Starts share of total project funding, the higher the financial rating that the project will receive, increasing the potential for receipt of the federal funding requested.

Other sources of federal funds, such as JARC (Job Access and Reverse Commute), CMAQ (Congestion Management and Air Quality) and flexed STP (Surface Transportation Funds) can also be used to meet capital costs. In some cases, these funds can be used for operating and maintenance costs over a limited period. By starting to

9-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

follow the FTA guidelines for New Starts planning and development, the possibility of securing FTA funding will remain viable.

In the current funding environment, the development, implementation and operation of commuter rail requires more coordination, collaboration and cooperation between local, regional and state governments. One agency or entity cannot build new services without the support and collaboration of others. Creating the consensus necessary to gain acceptance of a Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Project can be a catalyst to energizing needed economic support. This consensus will also be important in seeking federal funds, especially under the New Starts program. Obtaining New Starts funds requires not only compliance with the FTA’s technical requirements but a consistent message from the region on its support for the project and its funding priorities.

9.4 Coordination with Railroad

The Gulf Coast Rail District should complete negotiations with the UPRR to develop a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the plan for freight and passenger rail operations in the corridor, as well as right-of way ownership, liability, and cost sharing for infrastructure upgrades. Options for rail access inside of IH 610 should also be discussed with UPRR so that the ‘one seat ride’ into downtown can be realized.

Operation Lifesaver should be implemented to raise the awareness of drivers of the need to observe the rail crossing warnings and rail safety. Operation Lifesaver is a nationwide non-profit organization that offers free rail safety education programs to school groups, driver education classes, community audiences, professional drivers, law enforcement officers, and emergency responders. This education process should be implemented prior to the introduction of passenger service as well as periodically throughout the years as the area grows and new drivers move into the area.

9-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

9.5 Coordination with Agencies

The Gulf Coast Rail District should coordinate with local communities and agencies within the corridor to develop inter-local agreements regarding station locations and the infrastructure needs required to develop these stations. These agreements will be subject to the implementation schedule developed in the MOU with UPRR and the identification of a funding source to begin construction.

9.6 NEPA Process

Consider advancing the project to follow the FTA guidelines.

• Comply with the planning and project development process set forth in FTA Circular C-9300.1B, Section V.5, which requires completion of four stages of planning prior to construction -- System Planning at a regional level, Alternatives Analysis at a corridor level, Preliminary Engineering, and Final Design. H-GAC has engaged in a significant amount of regional planning, including evaluating this corridor as likely to be one of the highest performing high capacity transit projects in the region. ( H-GAC Regional Transit Framework Study – Evaluation of Potential High Capacity Transit Corridor , June 30, 2010)

• Comply with the environmental protection process set forth in FTA Circulator C- 9300.1B, Section V.6, which requires that prior to Final Design, the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the project, as well as reasonable alternatives, must be documented in an EIS or EA, as appropriate. The EA or Draft EIS is generally completed concurrently or immediately subsequent to the Alternatives Analysis.

• Comply with the clean air act requirements set forth in FTA Circulator C-9300.1B, Section V.7, which requires completion of an analysis of the impact of the project on

9-9 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

air quality in coordination with the MPO. This analysis is normally completed as part of the EA / EIS process.

9.7 Legislation

The Gulf Coast Rail District should support the efforts of local elected officials to promote a legislative agenda that addresses issues of mobility in the Greater Houston Region specifically as it pertains to rail. In particular, the GCRD should identify existing legislation that could be amended, or new legislation that could be proposed that would allow for funding of commuter rail. The following are some of the legislative actions that could be supported to advocate for passenger rail funding:

• Work with the Texas Legislature to address the following: o Modify Texas Transportation Code, Title 5, Subtitle I, Chapter 171, Subchapter A. to allow the GCRD to assess fees to create a dedicated funding mechanism. o Modify the statute governing Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ) to specifically address the funding of costs associated with the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail. o Amend Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code to make hotel occupancy taxes applicable to commuter rail projects. o Consider raising the 8.25% sales tax cap (state and local) to allow for a local increase to fund regional Commuter Rail. o Reintroduce a Local Option Transportation Act, similar to SB 855 in the 81 st Legislative Session that will provide alternative funding sources for rail projects with local voter approval. o Introduce Legislation to create a designated funding source for the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund.

9-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

SECTION 10 CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study indicate that commuter rail along the Hempstead Corridor within the existing UPRR is both feasible and viable. Modeling results show a demand for ridership at start up in 2019 and in the build out year of 2035. Specifically, daily ridership is projected to be 2,640 total boardings at start up in 2019. This daily ridership is projected to grow to be 5,952 total boardings in 2035 if the terminus is maintained near Northwest Mall. When the connection is made into downtown, the 2035 daily ridership increases to 18,816 total boardings. With the elimination of a number of projects from the 2035 RTP, the demand for commuter rail in this corridor is projected to increase another 20%, bringing the projected daily ridership to 22,578 total boardings.

The US 290 MIS and EIS analyses performed by TxDOT show a need in this corridor for a transit element, in order to meet the overall total travel demand. Each of these studies identified an “Advanced High Capacity Transit” (AHCT) corridor, 50 feet wide that was outside of the existing UPRR right-of-way. No specific transit mode for ACHT was identified in the Locally Preferred Alternative. Construction of the commuter rail along the Eureka Subdivision within the existing UPRR right-of-way could meet this requirement.

The Eureka Subdivision, from Hempstead to Houston, is a segment of independent utility that can be expanded to become part of the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) corridor from Houston to Austin currently being studied by TxDOT. The willingness of the UPRR to consider passenger operations makes this corridor a candidate for a starter system in the next few years. The commuter rail, as well as the higher speed intercity passenger rail, can both be operational within the existing UPRR 100-foot wide right-of-way, subject to agreement from Union Pacific Railroad. The construction and operation of both commuter passenger rail and higher speed intercity passenger rail can be accomplished within this corridor with no additional right-of-way needed assuming freight and passenger operations are performed under temporal separation.

10-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Development of a regional commuter rail system or network will increase the viability of commuter rail in the Hempstead Corridor. Results from previous studies identified other candidate commuter rail corridors as well as potential terminal and maintenance facility locations that would serve the Hempstead corridor line and others. Coordination of facilities and interoperability of a future Houston area commuter rail corridors should be addressed through adoption of a regional commuter rail plan.

10-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District

Conceptual Engineering Study For the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail

VOLUME II OF II

February 2012

Prepared by

In association with

Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000

Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail

FOR REVIEW ONLY FOR REVIEW ONLY

Do not use for permitting, bidding, or Do not use for permitting, bidding, or construction. construction. Engineer: Billy M. Cooke, P.E. Engineer: Thomas R. Munson, P.E. Engineer Reg. No.: 53555 Engineer Reg. No.: 92498 Klotz Associates - Texas P.E. Firm TranSystems Corporation - Texas P.E. Registration No. F-929 Firm Registration No. F-3557 Date: February 29, 2012 Date: February 29, 2012

Prepared by Klotz Associates, Inc. 1160 Dairy Ashford, Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77079

Texas P.E. Firm Registration No. F-929

Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 February 2012

Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail

Funding for this project was made possible by:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Through the U.S. Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Transportation and The Gulf Coast Rail District

VOLUME II OF II TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 Study Corridor Exhibit 2 Modeled Station Locations Exhibit 3 Interested Parties’ Suggested Station Locations Exhibit 4 Hempstead Station Exhibit 5 Prairie View Station Exhibit 6 Waller Station Exhibit 7 Fairfield Station Exhibit 8 Jarvis Road Station Exhibit 9 N. Eldridge Parkway Station Exhibit 10 Jersey Village Station Exhibit 11 West Little York Station Exhibit 12 US 290 / Loop 610 Station Exhibit 13 Existing Typical Section Exhibit 14 Proposed Typical Section Exhibit 15 Station Layout – Small Exhibit 16 Station Layout – Medium Exhibit 17 Station Layout – Large Exhibit 18 Typical Railroad Bridge Crossing Exhibit 19 Overhead Constraints Exhibit 20 Constraints Maps (Pages 1 through 120)

TOC - 1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0111.001.000 Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail February 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District