Meeting Packet Policy Board Meeting July

Home , Hyperloop

MPO Policy Board Thursday, June 18, 2020 Dr Mae Jackson Development Center Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization 1st Floor Main Conference Room, 2:00 p.m. 401 Franklin Ave, Waco, Texas

Summary Notes DRAFT

In accordance with social distancing guidelines issued by the City of Waco and McLennan County, the Waco MPO Policy Board meeting was not open to the public. Board members attended virtually. The meeting was audio recorded and uploaded to the Waco MPO website following the meeting on June 18, 2020.

Members of the public were requested to submit comments on any agenda item no later than 10:00am on Thursday, June 18, 2020 via email, fax or phone call to the MPO office to be read into the official record as part of agenda item II. Members of the public desiring to address the Policy Board for specific public hearings were requested to register with MPO staff no later than 10:00am on Thursday, June 18, 2020.

Policy Board Members Present: Mr. Jacob Bell, P.E. Citizen Representative, City of Waco Mr. Keith Bond City Manager, City of Lacy Lakeview Mr. Josh Borderud Plan Commission, City of Waco Mr. Kevin Evans City Manager, City of McGregor Hon. Scott Felton County Judge, McLennan County Mr. Bradley Ford Assistant City Manager, City of Waco Hon. Jim Holmes Council Member, City of Waco Hon. Jim Jaska Mayor, City of Ross Hon. John Kinnaird Council Member, City of Waco Mr. Joseph R. Pace City Manager, City of Lorena Hon. Jim Holmes Proxy for Council Member, City of Waco Mr. Hector Sabido Mr. Stan Swiatek, P.E., District Engineer, Texas Dept. of Transportation, Waco District

Policy Board Members Absent: Hon. Kyle Deaver Mayor, City of Waco Hon. Bert Echterling Mayor, City of Robinson Hon. Travis Gibson Council Member, City of Bellmead Hon. Will Jones County Commissioner, Pct. 3, McLennan County Hon. Dillon Meek Council Member, City of Waco Dr. Shawn Oubre City Manager, City of Woodway Mr. Everett “Bo” Thomas City Manager, City of Hewitt

Staff Present: Mr. Christopher Evilia, AICP Director, Waco MPO Ms. Chelsea Phlegar, AICP Planner, Waco MPO Ms. Annette Shepherd Planner, Waco MPO

I. Call to Order, Roll Call of Members, Proof of Posting.

Chairman Jacob Bell called the June 18, 2020 meeting of the MPO Policy Board to order at 2:00 p.m. and conducted a roll call of members attending virtually. A quorum of members was met.

Meeting agendas were posted on the MPO website on June 12, 2020 and at the City of Waco website on June 12, 2020 for a possible quorum of the Waco City Council.

No quorum of the Waco City Council was met.

II. Reading of Public Comments regarding any item on this agenda.

Chairman Bell explained under social distancing guidelines, MPO staff requested visitors to submit written comments in advance to be read into the record, and to register in advance if they desired to address the Policy Board. He explained visitors were allowed to listen to the meeting but they would not have an opportunity to speak until prompted by the Chairman during specified Public Hearings.

Chairman Bell invited board members and visitors to view the staff presentation for the meeting via the MPO website under the ‘Meetings” page and follow along with the MPO Director. Chairman Bell stated the meeting would be audio recorded and uploaded to the MPO website as soon as possible.

Chairman Bell requested Director Evilia to read into the record comments received in advance. Director Evilia read one comment received from Andrea Zimmerman addressing speeding issues in the Castle Heights and Columbus Heights area. Director Evilia reported her comment was forwarded to the Waco Police Department.

Hello, I live between Castle Heights and Columbus Heights. I saw you were taking questions about speeding, but I wonder if you are also addressing drag racing? During the shut down, drag racing happened nightly. It normally happens Thursday-Sunday- at least this has been the case for almost seven years since we moved to the area. It keeps us up at night and I imagine is quite dangerous to the community. Thanks, Andrea Zimmerman

III. Approval of the April 16, 2020 meeting minutes.

Chairman Bell asked for any changes to the minutes. No changes were voiced. No visitors spoke for or against this item. Minutes were approved as submitted.

IV. Consideration and Action regarding approval of Resolution 2020-5: Adoption of Amendment 1 to Connections 2045: The Waco Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

a. Staff Presentation Background: Director Evilia stated MPO staff has processed Amendment 1 to the 2045 MTP to add several new project recommendations, based on recent funding awards from TxDOT and FTA: o TxDOT 2019 Bicycle & Pedestrian Program: . Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program [MTP Strategy 4 – Improve Regional Livability] • J H Hines Elementary School SRTS - $830,000 • Lorena Elementary & Middle Schools SRTS - $780,000 . Transportation Alternatives Program [MTP Strategy 4 – Improve Regional Livability] • Lorena Downtown Streetscape - $1.85 million • Elm Avenue Streetscape - $3.1 million o FTA Capital Funding Program . Waco Transit Systems, Inc. – Urban System [MTP Strategy 6 – Provide Equal Access and Benefits] • Purchase of transit vehicles - $1,318,300 Public Involvement Process: o 45 day public comment period: April 20, 2020 to June 5, 2020 plus 10 day comment review period o 2 public informational meetings conducted on May 20, 2020 o All related materials posted on the MPO website along with provision for electronic submittal of comment cards o No formal comments received Technical Committee Recommendation: o The MPO Technical Committee recommended the MPO Policy Board approve Resolution 2020-5: Adoption of Amendment 1 to Connections 2045: The Waco Metropolitan Transportation Plan Discussion o No concerns were discussed

b. Public Hearing

Chairman Bell opened the public hearing at 2:11 p.m.

No visitors spoke for or against this item. Chairman Bell closed the public hearing at 2:11 p.m.

c. Consideration and Action

RESULT: Motion Passed with a vote of 12 - 0 [Unanimous] MOVER: John Kinnaird, Council Member, City of Waco SECONDER: Jim Holmes, Council Member, City of Waco

V. Consideration and Action regarding approval of Resolution 2020-6: Adoption of the FY 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program.

a. Staff Presentation Background: Director Evilia described the following proposed projects included in the draft FY 2021-2024 TIP: • Categorical Highway Projects o Preventative Maintenance/Rehab, Safety, Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation, Landscape Development o Provides TxDOT flexibility to use funds on greatest needs • Highway Mobility Projects o Engineering Studies . SH 31 Overpasses at FM 2311 & FM 939 . East Loop 340: SH 6 (Marlin Hwy) to US 84 . Franklin / New Rd Interchange . US 84 Frontage Roads / Ramps: FM 1695 to SH 6 / Loop 340 o Right of Way Acquisition . SH 6 / Loop 340 (Mall to Mall): US 84 to IH-35 o Construction: FY 2021 . FM 2113: FM 1695 to FM 2063 . SH 31 Overpasses at FM 2311 & FM 939 . IH-35 • Valley Mills Dr to Irving Lee – Frontage Roads • SH 6 / Loop 340 to Irving Lee o Frontage Roads / Ramps o Main Lane Overpass Replacement at New Rd o Construction: FY 2023 . SH 6 / Loop 340 (Mall to Mall): US 84 to IH-35 . SH 6: McLaughlin Rd to FM 185 o Safe Routes to School Projects (Bicycle/Pedestrian Awards): . J. H. Hines Elementary School (City of Waco) – FY 2021 . Lorena Elementary & Middle School (City of Lorena) – FY 2022 o Transportation Alternatives Program Projects (Bicycle/Pedestrian Awards): . Lorena Downtown Streetscape Revitalization – FY 2022 4

o Appendix D - projects under development but without full financial commitment that will require a subsequent TIP amendment prior to construction; permits environmental clearance, right of way acquisition or other federal approvals short of construction: . East Loop 340: SH 6 (Marlin Hwy) to US 84 . Franklin / New Rd Interchange . US 84 Frontage Roads / Ramps: FM 1695 to SH 6 / Loop 340 . S Univ Parks Dr: LaSalle Ave to Garden Dr o Public Transportation (identified projected costs of operation for public transit in the Waco area for each of the 4 years included in the FY 2021-2024 TIP) . Urban: Waco Transit • Preventative Maintenance • ADA Expenses • Operating Expenses • Short Range Planning • Passenger Amenities

Public Involvement Process: o 45 day public comment period: April 20, 2020 to June 5, 2020 plus 10 day comment review period. o 2 public informational meetings conducted on May 20, 2020. o All related materials posted on the MPO website along with provision for electronic submittal of comment cards. o No formal comments received. Technical Committee Recommendation: o The MPO Technical Committee recommended the MPO Policy Board approve Resolution 2020-6: Adoption of the FY 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program.

Discussion: o Board members asked questions about the IH-35 breakout projects and possible project delays due to revised funding projections. Specifically, Board members were concerned about extending the timeframe beyond that of the IH-35 4B project. o Director Evilia explained funding is not compromised at the moment, but this could become a possibility due to impacts of COVID-19 (which will be reviewed in Agenda Item VI). He reminded members the FY 2021-2024 TIP can be amended if the IH-35 breakout projects are determined to be non-viable projects.

b. Public Hearing

Chairman Bell opened the public hearing at 2:27 p.m. No visitors spoke for or against this item. Chairman Bell closed the public hearing at 2:27 p.m.

c. Consideration and Action

RESULT: Motion Passed with a vote of 12 - 0 [Unanimous] MOVER: Jim Holmes, Council Member, City of Waco SECONDER: Scott Felton, County Judge, McLennan County

VI. Review and Discussion regarding the following topics related to COVID-19 impacts:

a. Analysis of travel pattern changes observed as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.

b. Review of anticipated changes in transportation funding resulting from COVID- 19 crisis and potential impacts to project timing.

c. Discussion of theoretical long term travel pattern impacts post COVID-19.

d. Discussion regarding conceptual short-term prioritization of regional transportation projects.

e. Discussion regarding conceptual changes to the Waco MPO Public Participation Plan.

Background: During the COVID-19 crisis, MPO staff has been tracking changes in travel patterns and revenues and assessing how these might impact transportation priorities and project development. MPO staff developed a white paper to document short-term travel behavior during the crisis and to begin the conversation regarding possible longer-term changes and potential impacts to regional priorities.

The May ridership report from Waco Transit Systems, Inc. documents their challenge in providing essential transit service during the crisis. The Waco MPO COVID-19 white paper and Waco Transit’s May ridership report are available for viewing on the MPO website by selecting ‘Meetings” and scrolling to the Policy Board section for June 18, 2020. Both the MPO white paper and the May ridership report are available upon request.

Presentation: Director Evilia presented 5 areas of impact to the Policy Board that MPO staff identified in items a through e listed above. Director Evilia’s presentation is included in a PowerPoint Presentation delivered to the Policy Board on June 18, 2020, available on the MPO website by selecting ‘Meetings” and scrolling to the Policy Board section for June 18, 2020. This information is also available upon request.

VII. Review and Discussion regarding proposed amendments to the FY 2020 – 2021 Unified Planning Work Program.

Director Evilia explained that due to COVID-19, most of the meetings staff had planned to attend during FY 2020 and 2021 have been cancelled, conducted online, or will be conducted online, so staff is requesting the current UPWP be amended to reflect this. In addition, staff is requesting the UPWP be amended to reflect work associated with the Waco Transit System

Fixed Route Realignment Study in FY 2021 rather than FY 2020. This study is dependent on recommendations from a Design and Engineering Study for the Bus Rapid Transit project for which a contract to begin work was just executed. As a result, work associated with this task will now begin in FY 2021.

o Amend Subtask 1.5 – Travel & Training  Reduce by $10,000 for FY 2020  Budget Total = $4,000  Reduce by $7,000 for FY 2021  Budget Total = $5,000

o Amend Subtask 5.1 – Waco Transit System Fixed Route Realignment Study  Reassign $76,870 dollars from FY 2020 to FY 2021  Includes FTA 5307 dollars and local match

The Policy Board gave MPO staff authorization to begin the public process for the proposed amendments to the FY 2020-2021 Unified Planning Work Program.

VIII. Discussion and Updates from the Texas Department of Transportation regarding significant highway construction within the Waco Metropolitan Area.

Background: The Waco District of TxDOT will provide a status briefing during each of the 2020 Policy Board meetings on each significant highway project within the Waco region.

Presentation: Mr. Clayton Zacha, Waco Area Engineer, TxDOT, Waco District, provided a status update on significant construction projects in the Waco region. Mr. Zacha’s presentation is available on the MPO website by selecting ‘Meetings” and scrolling to the Policy Board section for June 18, 2020, and upon request.

IX. Directors Report

A. Request for agenda items to be considered for future meetings. a. The next meeting of the Waco MPO Policy Board is scheduled for Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 2:00pm. Location and format to be determined. b. Discussion and updates from TxDOT regarding significant highway construction.

X. Adjournment

Chairman Bell adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m.

7 Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Meeting Date: July 16, 2020 Agenda Item: Consideration and Action regarding draft amendment to the FY 2020 / 2021 Unified Planning Work Program Comments: The UPWP represents the 2-year budget of the Waco MPO. The UPWP describes the work tasks expected to be performed by both the MPO & Waco Transit using federal planning funds and the estimated cost to perform those tasks. The FY 20/21 UPWP was approved by the MPO Policy Board on July 18, 2019.

The proposed amendment identifies the following changes:

• Training and Travel (Subtask 1.5) FY 2020 – Reduces costs by $10,000 to a total of $4,000 FY 2021 – Reduces costs by $7,000 to a total of $5,000 As a result of COVID-19, all conferences and training opportunities for the remainder of CY 2020 have either been cancelled or converted to a virtual platform for which associated costs are significantly less than originally budgeted. This includes the first quarter of FY 2021.

• Waco Transit System Fixed Route Realignment Study (Subtask 5.1) $93,750 is proposed to be carried over from FY 2020 into FY 2021 This study is dependent on recommendations from a Design and Engineering Study for the Bus Rapid Transit project for which a contract to begin work was just executed. As a result, work associated with this task will now begin in FY 2021. This includes $75,000 FTA 5307 funds and $18,750 local match.

MPO Staff conducted a 15-day public comment period and 4 public information meetings to solicit comment regarding the draft amendment. No formal comments were received regarding this amendment. The MPO Technical Committee recommended approval of the amendment at their July 9, 2020 meeting.

Action Required: 1.) Conduct Staff Presentation 2.) Conduct Public Hearing 3.) Approve, Approve with Changes or Disapprove Proposed Amendment

Motion By:

Seconded:

Content of Motion:

Vote:

Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization

Unified Planning Work Program For The Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization

Fiscal Years 2020 & 2021 October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2021

Proposed Amendment One

Submitted By

The Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared In Cooperation With The Member Governments Of

Bellmead Mart Beverly Hills McGregor Bruceville-Eddy Moody Crawford Riesel Gholson Robinson Golinda Ross Hallsburg Waco Hewitt West Lacy-Lakeview Woodway Leroy McLennan County Lorena and

The Heart of Texas Council of Governments Texas Department of Transportation US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration

The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the opinions, findings and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. TASKS

II. TASK 1.0 – ADMINISTRATION / MANAGEMENT

A. OBJECTIVE The objective for this task is to ensure continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning for the Waco Urban Transportation Study. This objective is accomplished by providing for the management and administration of work tasks and funding sources, and by providing for and soliciting public participation. In addition, this task requires that all federal, state, and local guidelines and regulations are followed and met.

B. EXPECTED PRODUCTS 1. Sustainment of the transportation planning process and enhancement of transportation planning services within the Metropolitan Area. 2. Preparation and adoption of the FY 2022 - 2023 Unified Planning Work Program. 3. Refining and improving the MPO Public Participation Plan. 4. Refining and improving the MPO Limited English Proficiency Plan. 5. Preparation and submission of FY 2020 & 2021 Annual Performance and Expenditure Reports (APER). 6. Preparation and submission of FY 2020 & 2021 Annual Project Listings (APL).

C. PREVIOUS WORK 1. Adoption of the FY 2018-2019 UPWP. 2. FY 2017 and FY 2018 Annual Performance & Expenditure Reports preparation and submission. 3. Ongoing Public Notification and Participation. 4. Annual Listing of Projects – Federal Obligations for FY 2017 and FY 2018. 5. Conducted Policy Board, Technical Committee, and Policy Board Subcommittee meetings during FY 2017 and FY 2018. 6. Attended local and statewide MPO meetings, various training courses, and annual conferences that occurred during FY 2017 and FY 2018. 7. Maintained data on minority and disadvantaged populations for Environmental Justice purposes during FY 2017 and FY 2018. 8. Translated several key documents into Spanish and advertised all public hearings conducted in FY 2017 and FY 2018 in Spanish. 9. Reviewed four factor analysis for the Limited English Proficiency Plan for the MPO during FY 2017.

D. SUBTASKS 1.1 Unified Planning Work Program – FHWA, FTA, TxDOT and MPO The MPO staff will maintain and revise the current UPWP (FY 2020 – 2021) to meet the changing dynamics of the MPO and its study area. In FY 2021, the staff will prepare a new UPWP for Fiscal Years 2022 & 2023, and ensure it is developed with sufficient input from all appropriate and interested parties. Prior to any revision or new UPWP’s adoption, it will be submitted to TxDOT for review. Once adopted or revised by the MPO Policy Board, USDOT is responsible for approval. All UPWP documents produced will be duplicated and distributed to appropriate agencies. Extra copies will be made available to all interested parties. A public hearing will also be conducted prior to adoption or any revisions.

1.2 Public Involvement – TxDOT and MPO The MPO will continue to evaluate its Public Participation Plan for effectiveness in soliciting public comment and will make appropriate changes when necessary. The MPO will conduct public meetings and hearings in accordance with its established policies and governing regulations. The purpose for this will be to inform the general public and receive their input on multi-modal transportation planning efforts in the Waco Metropolitan Area. When appropriate the MPO staff will prepare and present briefings and presentations on transportation issues. The MPO will post and advertise public notices of meetings as required. The MPO will maintain a website to further disseminate information to the public. In addition, the MPO will also more extensively utilize electronic media, including social media, in conjunction with the City of Waco as additional methods of soliciting public comment and feedback regarding various plans, programs and amendments under consideration by the MPO Policy Board. As requested the MPO will provide information to the public. The MPO will review and revise the public involvement procedures as necessary.

1.3 Administrative and Management Duties – TxDOT and MPO The MPO Director will administer all aspects of the day-to-day operation of the MPO. Administrative functions will include: preparation and submittal of reports, document management, recording of meetings, update and review of procedures, preparation of contract proposals and solicitation of services, supervision of contract performance, and the purchase of supplies, equipment, furniture, computer hardware and software. The MPO Director will obtain all necessary prior approvals prior to all purchases totaling over $5,000. The MPO Director will also prepare budgets, maintain financial records, and ensure funds are expended properly.

MPO staff members will maintain and enhance their knowledge of all governing regulations and procedures. The MPO staff will coordinate activities with participating agencies and other public and private interests and assist them, as needed.

1.4 Policy Board and Technical Committee Support, TxDOT, and MPO The MPO staff will coordinate and/or provide all aspects of support for both the Policy Board and the Technical Committee. In addition, the MPO will provide the same support for any other committee or sub-committee appointed by the Policy Board on a provisional basis.

1.5 Training and Travel – FHWA, FTA, TxDOT, and MPO To ensure professional development and appropriate representation, the MPO staff will attend relevant training, meetings, and conferences. Emphasis for staff training will be on the measurement of transportation performance and improving efforts to solicit public involvement. Sustaining knowledge on pertinent rules, required procedures, and regulations will also continue to be an area of emphasis. MPO staff will obtain TxDOT approval in advance of any out of state travel.

At a minimum, MPO staff are authorized by the MPO Policy Board for the following out of state travel but does not constitute TxDOT approval:

October, 2019 – Association of MPOs Annual Conference in Baltimore, MD Fall, 2020 – Association of MPOs Annual Conference at a location yet to be determined. Spring, 2021 – Association of MPOs Technical Symposium at a location yet to be determined.

MPO staff may travel to other out of state conferences or workshops as authorized in

FY 2020 / 2021 Waco MPO Unified Planning Work Program Page 2 of 7

advance through appropriate fiscal agent processes and by TxDOT.

1.6 Title VI Civil Rights Evaluation – FHWA, FTA, TxDOT, and MPO The MPO staff will maintain public involvement procedures with the goal of ensuring that citizens from minority ethnic or racial backgrounds, citizens with low incomes in the Waco Metropolitan Area and those who have limited proficiency in speaking the English language have an opportunity to participate in the planning process and to meet the requirements of U.S. Title VI compliance. The MPO staff will periodically review the Public Participation Plan to monitor its effectiveness in obtaining input from citizens with minority, ethnic, racial or low income backgrounds. The MPO will revise the Public Participation Plan as necessary based on these reviews. The MPO will review and utilize various analysis tools as related to Title VI and will base those strategies on selected performance measures and indicators as selected by the MPO. Potential analysis tool(s) will be integrated into project selection for the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and any subsequent revisions.

The MPO will also update as necessary the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan which identifies the potential need for translation services or the translation of MPO documents for those within the Metropolitan Area who have limited ability to speak English. The MPO will translate appropriate documents in Spanish or other languages as determined by the LEP Plan and provide interpretative services for Spanish, sign language or other languages as necessary.

E. FUNDING SUMMARY – TASK 1

Subtask Responsible Transportation FTA Section 5307 Local Total Agency Planning Funds (TPF)1 FY 20 FY 21 FY 20 FY 21 FY 20 FY 21 1.1 FHWA, FTA, $5,000 $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 TxDOT, MPO 1.2 TxDOT, MPO $22,000 $22,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 1.3 TxDOT, MPO $25,000 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,000 1.4 TxDOT, MPO $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 1.5 FHWA, FTA, $4,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 TxDOT, MPO 1.6 FHWA, FTA, $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 TxDOT, MPO Total $101,000 $102,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $203,000

TxDOT will apply transportation development credits sufficient to provide the match for FHWA PL-112 and FTA Section 5303 programs. As the credits reflect neither cash nor man-hours, they are not reflected in the funding tables.

(1) TPF – This includes both FHWA PL-112 and FTA Section 5303 funds.

FY 2020 / 2021 Waco MPO Unified Planning Work Program Page 3 of 7

VI. TASK 5.0 – SPECIAL STUDIES

A. OBJECTIVE To provide objective, thorough, and innovative solutions for meeting current and future transportation needs in the Metropolitan Study Area and to provide current analysis and data which assists in updating the Transportation Plan.

B. EXPECTED PRODUCTS 1. Complete work on a Study to Realign the Waco Transit System Fixed Route System.

C. PREVIOUS WORK 1. Completed work on the Waco Transit System Rapid Transit Corridor Feasibility study 2. Completed work on the McLennan County Transit Need Study

D. SUBTASKS 5.1 Waco Transit System Fixed Route Realignment Study – MPO, Waco Transit System, City of Waco, Consultant, TxDOT Waco Transit System, with the assistance of consultants and MPO staff, will conduct a study to redesign the urban fixed route system with the goals of increasing service frequency and reducing travel times while not significantly increasing operating costs. This study was recommended by consultants that produced the Waco Rapid Transit Corridor Feasibility Study. That study made 2 recommendations: 1.) Establishing a bus rapid transit line (BRT) along the US 84 / Franklin Ave corridor in place of a single point of transfer in Downtown Waco and 2.) Realigning the entire fixed route system to operate on 20 to 30 minute loops that begin and end at one of the BRT stops instead of all routes beginning and ending in Downtown Waco. As the BRT line will be nearing the completion of the engineering and design phase, this study will accomplish the 2nd recommendation of the earlier feasibility study.

In addition to recommending new fixed route alignments, this study is to accomplish the following tasks: 1.) Provide recommendations to transition from a flag stop system to a dedicated stop system along with identifying infrastructure needs to meet ADA accessibility requirements; 2.) Analyze new route and stop recommendations to ensure that access to proposed fixed routes by transit dependent populations are at least as good as the current system; 3.) Analyze anticipated ridership of the proposed new fixed routes and stops to determine best combination of ridership and reduced travel times.

FY 2020 / 2021 Waco MPO Unified Planning Work Program Page 4 of 7

E. FUNDING SUMMARY – TASK 5

Subtask Responsible Transportation FTA Section 5307 Local Total Agency Planning Funds (TPF)1 FY 20 FY 21 FY 20 FY 21 FY 20 FY 21 5.1 MPO, $0 $112,500 $0 $150,000 $0 $37,500 $300,000 Consultant, TxDOT Total $0 $112,500 $0 $150,000 $0 $37,500 $300,000

(1) TPF – This includes both FHWA PL-112 and FTA Section 5303 funds

FY 2020 / 2021 Waco MPO Unified Planning Work Program Page 5 of 7

BUDGET SUMMARY

FISCAL YEAR 2020 URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY

UPWP FTA Task Description TPF1 FTA Local Total Funds Task Funds Sec 5307 Funds

Administration- 1.0 44.21.00 $101,000 $0 $0 $101,000 Management Data Development 2.0 44.22.00 $115,000 $0 $0 $115,000 and Maintenance 44.24.00 Short Range 3.0 $123,000 $118,000 $29,500 $270,500 44.25.00 Planning Metropolitan 4.0 44.23.01 Transportation $148,500 $0 $0 $148,500 Plan 5.0 44.22.00 Special Studies $0 $0 $0 $0

FY 2020 Total $487,500 $118,000 $29,500 $635,000

FISCAL YEAR 2021 URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY

UPWP FTA Task Description TPF1 FTA Local Total Funds Task Funds Sec 5307 Funds

Administration- 1.0 44.21.00 $102,000 $0 $0 $102,000 Management Data Development 2.0 44.22.00 $136,000 $0 $0 $136,000 and Maintenance 44.24.00 Short Range 3.0 $141,000 $118,000 $29,500 $288,500 44.25.00 Planning Metropolitan 4.0 44.23.01 Transportation $121,500 $0 $0 $121,500 Plan 5.0 44.22.00 Special Studies $112,500 $150,000 $37,500 $300,000

FY 2021 Total $613,000 $268,000 $67,000 $948,000

FY 2020 / 2021 Waco MPO Unified Planning Work Program Page 6 of 7

TABLE 1 – FISCAL YEAR 2020 & 2021 TOTAL: URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY

UPWP FTA Task Description TPF1 FTA Local Total Funds Task Funds Sec 5307 Funds

Administration- 1.0 44.21.00 $203,000 $0 $0 $203,000 Management Data Development 2.0 44.22.00 $251,000 $0 $0 $251,000 and Maintenance 44.24.00 Short Range 3.0 $264,000 $236,000 $59,000 $559,000 44.25.00 Planning Metropolitan 4.0 44.23.01 Transportation $270,000 $0 $0 $270,000 Plan 5.0 44.22.00 Special Studies $112,500 $150,000 $37,500 $300,000

FY 2020 / 2021 Total $1,100,500 $386,000 $96,500 $1,583,000

1TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FUNDS

FHWA (PL-112)2 $563,538 FTA Section 5303 (Sect. 8)2 $172,448 Estimated Unexpended Carryover $364,514 TOTAL TPF $1,100,500

2Estimate based on prior years authorizations

By minute order, the Texas Transportation Commission authorizes the use of transportation development credits as TxDOT’s non-Federal share for FHWA (PL-112) and FTA 5303 funds.

FY 2020 / 2021 Waco MPO Unified Planning Work Program Page 7 of 7

RESOLUTION 2020-7

WHEREAS, the Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization was established to identify and support the implementation of regionally significant transportation projects to address future mobility needs of the Waco Region; and,

WHEREAS, the Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board is composed of representatives appointed by the elected City Councils and Counties located within the jurisdiction of the MPO as well as the Texas Department of Transportation; and,

WHEREAS, 23 CFR 450.314 requires that the Waco MPO adopt a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) to identify the goals, objectives and tasks the MPO intends to accomplish, the mix of necessary funding for those tasks and how the MPO intends to utilize federal planning funds during fiscal years 2020 and 2021; and,

WHEREAS, the UPWP is also required to identify the tasks for which Waco Transit System, Inc. intends to utilize FTA Section 5307 planning funds during fiscal years 2020 and 2021; and,

WHEREAS, the staffs of the Waco MPO and Waco Transit System, Inc. have cooperatively developed a draft UPWP for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 which complies with the requirements of 23 CFR 450.314 and have solicited input from interested citizens and stakeholders regarding proposed work tasks; and,

WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the MPO Director has prohibited work related travel outside of the MPO region by MPO staff through September 30, 2020 and all staff training opportunities through January 1, 2021 have either been cancelled or moved to a virtual platform; and,

WHEREAS, the design and engineering study for the Waco Transit Bus Rapid Transit project did not begin until June, 2020; and,

WHEREAS, the Waco Transit Route Realignment Study identified within Subtask 5.1 of the UPWP is dependent upon several recommendations from the Bus Rapid Transit Design and Engineering Study and therefore cannot commence until Fiscal Year 2021.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICY BOARD OF THE WACO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION: P.O. Box 2570, Waco, TX 76702-2570 (254) 750-5650 www.waco-texas.com/cms-mpo [email protected]

That the Waco MPO Policy Board hereby amends the 2020 & 2021 Unified Planning Work Program with the following changes:

Amend Subtask 1.5 • Training and Travel (Subtask 1.5) – Reduce by $10,000 for FY 2020 to a total of $4,000 and reduce by $7,000 for FY 2021 to a total of $5,000.

Amend Subtask 5.1 • Carryover $93,750 from FY 2020 into FY 2021 which includes $75,000 of FTA 5307 funds and $18,750 of local match.

That it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this resolution is passed is open to the public and that public notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting was given as required by law.

That all public participation requirements identified within the Waco MPO Public Participation Plan related to this action by the Policy Board were met and completed.

PASSED AND APPROVED this the 16th day of July, 2020.

______Jacob Bell Citizen Representative – City of Waco Chair – Waco MPO Policy Board

ATTEST:

______Christopher Evilia, AICP Director

P.O. Box 2570, Waco, TX 76702-2570 (254) 750-5650 www.waco-texas.com/cms-mpo [email protected] Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Meeting Date: July 16, 2020 Agenda Item: Review and Discussion regarding the final consultant report for the Laredo to Fort Worth High-Speed Transportation Study and possible next steps. Comments: Six MPOs along the I-35 corridor participated in a study to build from recommendations within the Texas Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (TOPRS), performed by TxDOT. The goals of the MPO study were to assess potential high-speed transportation options, conceptual alignments and potential station locations. Preliminary recommendations were presented by the consulting group, AECOM, to a joint Policy Board / MPO Technical Committee meeting on November 21, 2019.

A final report was submitted to each MPO for review this past April. That report included some differences from what was presented in November, some of which MPO staff expressed concern. The most significant difference was a change in conceptual alignments from greenfield to I-35 for the Hyperloop option between Temple and Fort Worth. This change potentially reduces development costs significantly and thus greatly improves the evaluation score for Hyperloop. Staff from both the Capital Area MPO (Austin) and the Waco MPO expressed concern that this would also significantly reduce travel speeds and thus negate the most important benefit for Hyperloop. MPO staff also expressed concerns regarding potential station locations identified in the report.

MPO staff will review the final report, staff comments and staff response from the North Central Texas Council of Governments and lead a discussion regarding next steps and possible policy considerations for the MPO Policy Board.

Action Required: 1. Review and Discuss final consultant report 2. Provide MPO staff direction on next steps for development of high-speed transportation along the I-35 corridor.

Motion By: Seconded: Content of Motion:

Vote:

This Page Intentionally Blank. Introduction The Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study purpose is to conduct a High-Speed Transportation (HST) study that connects Fort Worth, Waco, Killeen-Temple, Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo. The study evaluates a variety of technology options for modes of travel and assesses potential corridors and stations locations to include in a future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

The analysis is being led by the North Central Texas Council of Governments in partnership with the Central Texas Council of Governments, Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Laredo Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Project goals include:

• Review of technology and design criteria for six high speed transportation technologies. • Review of previous studies and comments. • Develop and screen alternatives for consideration. • Recommended alignments, technologies, and potential station locations to include in future NEPA document(s). Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria The technology review provides a summary of the transportation technologies evaluated in this study. This review includes a brief history of each technology, key design criteria, potential infrastructure integration solutions, and potential regulatory and financing feasibility. Technologies reviewed include: Guaranteed Transit, Conventional Passenger Rail, High-Speed & Higher-Speed Rail Technology, Magnetic Levitation, and Hyperloop (Next Generation Maglev). Full details and descriptions of these technologies can be found in Task 2: Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum. Task 3 Previous Studies Review The recommendations, alternative analyses, and public comments received during Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Fort Worth High-Speed Rail Station Area Planning Study, and other relevant plans were reviewed, and findings were consulted in relation to this study. Additional information regarding reviewed plans can be found in the Task 3: Previous Studies Review Memorandum.

The reviewed studies provided guidance for the Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study by providing methodology, technology data, screening criteria, and recommended station areas and alternatives that were considered in the Alternatives Analysis. Stakeholder Involvement Two rounds of stakeholder meetings were held with each MPO. Following stakeholder agreement on recommendations, a briefing was presented to each MPO Policy Board. Summaries for each meeting documenting attendees, information presented, items discussed, comments/questions, and resulting action items are documented in Task 4 Alternatives Analysis Appendix F and E.

The second round of engagement (including one or two presentations, depending on the area) updated stakeholders on the findings of the Alternative Development task, including screening results for technology and modes of travel, corridor recommendations and station locations. Stakeholders were also asked to review draft recommendations and provide comments to the project team.

Round one of stakeholder meetings introduced the study, goals and anticipated outcomes to participating MPOs. Feedback from this initial round of meetings generally concerned the following:

AECOM Executive Summary Pre -Final Page 1 of 6 • Questions regarding the capabilities, design and feasibility of high-speed transportation technologies • Questions regarding screening criteria particularly cost and engineering considerations • Questions regarding the operation and service details regarding transportation technologies • Questions regarding interagency coordination and the role of participating MPOs

Additionally, stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on the following:

• Environmentally sensitive locations the Project Team should consider in screening • Potential station location • Reasons why a technology may not work for each MPO

Round two of stakeholder meetings presented preliminary findings from the alternatives analysis. At this stage, stakeholders were aware of the study objectives and potential outcomes, therefore they received and provided feedback related to: Specific design and operational impacts such as noise, weather and disaster related events. Also, stakeholder questions generally concerned: What is realistic time frame for future studies and implementation, what would be realistic cost and funding sources, and what would be potential next steps. Additional meeting details can be found in Task 4 Alternatives Analysis Appendix F and E. Task 4 Alternatives Analysis The Task 4 Alternatives Analysis Memorandum builds upon and utilizes information identified in the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum and the Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum to conduct an alternatives analysis evaluating high-speed transportation options broadly along the I-35 corridor. The alternatives analysis evaluated high-speed technology and corridor pairs. Technologies considered included guaranteed transit, conventional passenger rail, higher-speed rail, high-speed rail, superconducting magnetic levitation (maglev), and hyperloop. For more specific information on these technologies, see Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum.

The analysis was conducted in three levels, beginning by assessing broad aspects of the study area and narrowing to evaluate alternatives against specific criteria. Figure 1 shows the progression of the analysis. The methodology used in each level of alternative analysis is summarized at the beginning of respective section. Additional details are provided in Appendix A. A station analysis was conducted concurrently and is presented in Appendix B. This memorandum presents the alternative analysis methodology, assessment, and findings

AECOM Executive Summary Pre -Final Page 2 of 6 Figure 1:Alternatives Analysis Framework

Level 1: City Pair + Technology Selection This level identified cities and metropolitan areas by population size and distance, and it assessed each technology’s optimal station distancing and the ability to provide travel time savings. Assessment criteria included: 1) City and MPO population size, 2) Technology mode optimal station distances, 3) City pair distances, and 4) Travel time savings compared driving and flying.

Technologies were categorized as “Primary” and “Infill” based on their optimal station distances, operating speeds, and design requirements. These considerations were overlaid with MPO populations sizes, distances and travel time savings to identify City Pair and Technology combinations to be further evaluated later in the alternatives analysis.

Figure 2: Primary and Infill technologies

AECOM Executive Summary Pre -Final Page 3 of 6 Level 2: Corridor & Technology Compatibility The objective of the level 2 analysis was to identify and rank end-to-end alternatives for each primary technology (from Fort Worth to Laredo) based on technology and corridor/routings.

• Step 1: Beginning with the results of Level 1 of the Alternatives Analysis, Level 2 used technology assumptions and corridors identified from previous studies to perform an initial compatibility analysis.

• Step 2: Each corridor and technology combination were evaluated and scored.

• Step 3: The top scoring corridor and technology combinations for each city pair were assembled to create ranked end-to-end alternatives for each primary technology.

• Step 4: Technology assumptions were used to perform a compatibility analysis of infill technologies and corridors for city pairs not captured by a primary technology.

Level 2 identified the highest scoring end-to-end alternative for each primary technology. These alternatives were made from the best scoring corridors between each city pair, as shown in Table X:

Table 1: Ranked End-to-End Alternatives by Corridor Type

AECOM Executive Summary Pre -Final Page 4 of 6 Waco to Technology Fort Worth Killeen/Temple Austin to San San Antonio Raw Rank Killeen/ Mode to Waco to Austin Antonio to Laredo Score Temple

1 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Utility I-35 127 Utility-or- 113 2 Maglev Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield Greenfield Utility-or- 99 3 HSR Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield Greenfield

Level 3: Other Factors to Consider The purpose of this level was to develop a discussion and ranking of difficult to quantify criteria applicable to technologies. Criteria include station location benefits, regulatory environment and constraints, operational requirements, convenience for passengers, opportunity for interoperability and safety and resilience of operating systems. Complete details can be found in Appendix D.

Station Analysis Suitability of station locations were assessed through the following metrics: 1) Multimodal connectivity, 2) Major activity centers and access to regional tourism 3) Environmental considerations and 4) Existing and future land use and available land. Station areas presented are generalized locations that do not identify specific site or parcel selections. Appropriate approaches for high-speed transit technologies would be dependent on specific station site.

Through a geospatial analysis, scores were aggregated based on these metrics for each block group within the MPO for all cities within the Study Corridor. The highest and high scoring block groups are presented in this study. Both urban and suburban locations were identified. Findings Summary Outcomes of the Level 2 Alternatives Analysis identified the highest ranking end-to end alternative for each primary technology mode. The following figures and discussion provide an overview of the top three scoring end- to-end alternatives.

Findings The highest ranking end-to-end alternative uses hyperloop generally following the following corridor: Traveling south from Fort Worth to Waco, this alternative would generally follow the I-35 corridor. From Waco to Killeen/Temple the alternative would continue along the I-35 corridor. Leaving Killeen/Temple towards Austin the corridor would uses a greenfield corridor before transitioning to a utility corridor for the trip from Austin to San Antonio. From San Antonio to Laredo, the alternative would generally follow the I-35 corridor. Figure 3 shows each of highest ranking end-to-end alternatives by technology.

High ranking maglev and HSR alternatives would utilize the same combination of greenfield and utility corridors within the study corridor. Also, both technologies have an optional corridor utility corridor from Fort Worth to Waco. . Although the HSR end-to-end alternative did not score as well as maglev in the same corridors, the technology is well established, operated throughout the world, and could be significantly less costly to construct. Therefore, any future studies should include HSR as a viable solution to high-speed transportation in the study corridor.

Figure 3: Top Ranking End-to-End Alternative (Hyperloop, Maglev, HSR)

AECOM Executive Summary Pre -Final Page 5 of 6

AECOM Executive Summary Pre -Final Page 6 of 6 Infill Consideration Infill technologies can serve as an intermediary as high-speed transportation systems are implemented throughout the IH-35 corridor. For some stops and technologies, these transportation services already exist in Amtrak and a variety of commuter bus services. End-to-end alternatives that did not have a primary technology stop at all cities were considered to utilize infill technology as a connector. Some examples would be utilizing guaranteed transit between Austin and San Antonio, or improved Amtrak service between Fort Worth and Austin.

Assumptions and Limitations The Task 4 Alternatives Analysis relied on publicly available information identified in the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum and the Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum to identify corridor and technology compatibility assumptions and design criteria. The project team was able to identify many aspects of all potential technology modes; however, certain aspects of technologies, particularly hyperloop, are unknown or still under development. Also, some aspects of existing technologies, such as maglev, have few operating examples and therefore have unreliable cost ranges. The project team has attempted to mitigate unknowns by conducting thorough research and by valuing analysis criteria equally.

The station area analysis utilized a generalized methodology to assess large areas. The analysis was conducted in this manner intentionally to avoid specifying locations for potential stations. At this planning-level stage of assessment, preferred alignments and specific routing are unknown. Additionally, on approach to any station, all technologies would reduce speed to maneuver into appropriate station locations; therefore, alignments could be more flexible in proximity to stations.

Next Steps The Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study conducted a planning level analysis of transportation technologies to evaluate and identify high-scoring possibilities for transportation in the I-35 corridor. The study was developed in collaboration with five metropolitan planning organizations and is intended to serve as a tool to build consensus on the consideration and future study of implementing high-speed transportation technologies from Fort Worth to Laredo.

This study has taken a first step in assessing new and emerging transportation technology feasibility throughout Texas. The Project Team’s preliminary findings suggest that a corridor utilizing hyperloop, maglev, or high-speed rail is feasible and should be further studied, through a NEPA process, as a viable solution for transportation issues throughout the state of Texas and particularly in the rapidly growing I-35 corridor.

AECOM Executive Summary Pre -Final Page 7 of 6

This Page Intentionally Blank.

Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Contents List of Tables ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 2 1. Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Overview ...... 3 1.1. Background ...... 3 1.2. Purpose of the Alternatives Analysis and Findings Memorandum ...... 3 1.3. Study Area ...... 4 2. Alternative Analysis Level 1: Screening City Pair and Technology ...... 4 2.1. Methodology Overview ...... 4 2.2. Analysis ...... 4 2.3. Outcomes of Level 1 ...... 9 3. Alternative Analysis Level 2: Corridor and Technology Compatibility ...... 11 3.1. Methodology ...... 11 3.2. Outcomes of Level 2 ...... 12 4. Alternative Analysis Level 3: Other Factors to Consider ...... 15 4.1. Methodology ...... 15 4.2. Analysis ...... 15 5. Findings ...... 16 5.1. Top Ranked End-to-End Alternatives ...... 16 5.2. Infill Consideration ...... 20 6. Stakeholder Engagement ...... 22 7. Study Assumptions and Limitations ...... 23 8. Next Steps ...... 24 Appendix A: Alternatives Analysis Level 2 Detailed Methodology and Analysis ...... 25 Appendix B: Station Analysis ...... 36 Appendix D: Level 3 Other Factors to Consider ...... 44 Appendix E – Stakeholder Engagement ...... 54 Appendix F – Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets and meeting Agendas ...... 57

Pre-Final 1 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

List of Tables Table 1: Study Area City and MPO Region Population Estimates ...... 5 Table 2: Technology Optimal Station Distances ...... 6 Table 3: Optimal Station Distances per Technology ...... 7 Table 4: Travel Time Compared to Driving ...... 8 Table 5: Scored End-to-End Alternatives ...... 12 Table 6: Ranked End-to-End Alternatives by Corridor Type ...... 14 Table 7: Infill Technology Analysis ...... 14 Table 8: Other Factors to Consider ...... 16 Table 9: Stakeholder Engagement Meetings ...... 22 Table 10: Identified Corridors ...... 26 Table 11 Level 2- Step 1: Technology and Corridor Compatibility ...... 28 Table 12: Corridor and Primary Technology Analysis Criteria ...... 29 Table 13: Step 2 Screening Criteria Table ...... 31 Table 14: Step 2 Screening Criteria Table -continued ...... 32 Table 15: Infill Technology and Corridor Compatibility Analysis...... 35 Table 16: Station Analysis Scoring Criteria ...... 37

List of Figures Figure 1: Alternative Analysis Framework ...... 3 Figure 2: Study Area and City Pairs ...... 4 Figure 3: Primary and Infill Technologies ...... 10 Figure 4: Potential Stopping Patterns ...... 10 Figure 5: Alternatives Analysis Level 2: Flow Chart ...... 11 Figure 6: Highest Ranking Hyperloop End-to-End Alternative ...... 17 Figure 7: Highest Ranking Maglev End-to-End Alternative ...... 18 Figure 8: Highest Ranking HSR End-to-End Alternative ...... 19 Figure 9: Hyperloop End-to-End Alternative with Guaranteed Transit as Infill Technology ...... 20 Figure 10: Hyperloop End-to-End Alternative with Conventional or Higher-Speed Rail as Infill Technology ...... 21 Figure 5: Corridors ...... 25 Figure 12: Example End-to-End Alternative Utilizing Primary and Infill Technology ...... 33 Figure 9: Waco Area Station Analysis ...... 38 Figure 10: Killeen/Temple Area Station Analysis ...... 39 Figure 11: Austin Area Station Analysis ...... 40 Figure 12: San Antonio Area Station Analysis ...... 41 Figure 13: Laredo Area Station Analysis ...... 42

Pre-Final 2 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

1. Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Overview

1.1. Background The purpose of the Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study is to study high-speed transportation options to connect six metropolitan areas in Texas: Fort Worth, Waco, Killeen/Temple, Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo. The study evaluates technology options and assesses potential corridors for a future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

The analysis is being led by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in partnership with the Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Killeen-Temple MPO, Capital Area MPO, Alamo Area MPO, and the Laredo MPO.

1.2. Purpose of the Alternatives Analysis and Findings Memorandum The Task 4 Alternatives Analysis Memorandum builds upon and utilizes information identified in the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum and the Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum to conduct an alternatives analysis evaluating high-speed transportation options broadly along the I-35 corridor. The alternatives analysis evaluated high-speed technology and corridor pairs. Technologies considered included guaranteed transit, conventional passenger rail, higher-speed rail, high-speed rail, superconducting magnetic levitation (maglev), and hyperloop. For more specific information on these technologies, see Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum.

Figure 1: Alternative Analysis Framework

Pre-Final 3 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

1.3. Study Area The study area generally follows the I-35 corridor and includes the metropolitan areas of Fort Worth, Waco, Killeen/Temple, Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo (Figure 2). The I-35 corridor is approximately 455 miles long and connects over 12 million people. The study area was based on the previous Texas- Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (TOPRS) combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, where a similar corridor was examined. However, this study does not extend north of Fort Worth or east to Dallas.

Figure 2: Study Area and City Pairs

2. Alternative Analysis Level 1: Screening City Pair and Technology The objective of the Level 1 analysis was to establish definitions and categories for technology modes and to identify optimal city pair stopping patterns to be utilized later in the analysis when defining end-to- end alternatives.

2.1. Methodology Overview Level 1 of the alternative analysis broadly evaluated cities and technologies. For cities, the evaluation examined items such as population of the metropolitan area. Distances were then assessed between each MPO area and compared to optimal station distances for each technology.

Additionally, technologies were evaluated for their operational characteristics and their ability to provide optimal travel time savings between cities based on optimal station distances and speed. Technologies were then classified into categories based on those operational characteristics and potential benefits.

2.2. Analysis Level 1 began with an assessment of the MPO area population and distances between metropolitan areas within the I-35 corridor study area. First, cities and MPO planning areas were assessed on their population sizes. Table 1 describes each city and MPO in the study area, its relative population, and service area

Pre-Final 4 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum population based the MPO planning area. Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio have the highest populations and therefore have the highest opportunity for use should a high-speed transportation system be developed.

Table 1: Study Area City and MPO Region Population Estimates

City Fort Worth Waco Killeen/Temple Austin San Antonio Laredo City Population* 850,000 140,000 150,000/75,000 975,000 1.5 million 270,000 (2019 rounded) MPO/Agency NCTCOG Waco MPO KTMPO CAMPO AAMPO Laredo MPO 7.4 million 250,000 380,000 2.2 million 2.2 million 275,000 MPO Population** (2018) (2017) (2015) (2018) (2015) (2017) Source: *Texas Demographic Center, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Estimates of the Total Populations of Counties and Places in Texas for July 1, 2019 and January 1, 2019. October 2019. Accessed March 2020: https://demographics.texas.gov/Resources/TPEPP/Estimates/2018/2018_txpopest_place.pdf **Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum, AECOM, 2020

Cities were then assessed on the relative distances between metropolitan areas in the study area. For each technology mode, an optimal station distance was identified from the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum and professional judgement and then applied to the study area. Identified distances are based on optimal operating scenarios in which technologies can reach their maximum operating speeds. Existing examples of technology modes, such as superconducting magnetic levitation (maglev) and high-speed rail, can vary greatly in their station distances, and for hyperloop there are still many unknowns about station distances and operational scenarios utilizing bypass tubes. Table 2 describes optimal station distances for each technology and Table 3 compares the distances between the metropolitan areas in the study area with the optimal station distances.

Pre-Final 5 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 2: Technology Optimal Station Distances Effective Optimal Station Technology Operational Technology Station Distances Service Characteristics Distance Typical intercity bus currently operates all over the U.S. In Texas, various service providers operate within the study area (Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio) and beyond to Laredo. Typical bus travel offers additional flexibility due Guaranteed 10 – 250 Miles None to a non-dedicated guideway; therefore, station distances Transit can vary greatly depending on the provided route. Guaranteed transit would differ by operating within managed lanes; however, operational characteristics are still unknown.

Most regional passenger rail service in the U.S. is Conventional operated by Amtrak, which serves both short- and long- Approximately Passenger 25 miles haul routes with intermediary stations. Short-haul routes 5-25 Miles Rail are typically under 750 miles with long-haul routes reaching up to thousands of miles.

Higher-speed trains operating in the U.S. typically share Higher-Speed Approximately track with freight rail and must abide by regulated speed 100 miles Rail 5-30 Miles limits, thereby reducing operational efficiency for long- distance travel.

Internationally, high-speed trains operate over long High-Speed Approximately 250 miles distances with intermediate stations that can range from Rail 10-20 Miles 20 miles to 100 miles.

Existing maglev systems like the Shanghai Maglev are generally short-distance lines providing service as Approximately Maglev 100 miles connectors. However, long-range maglev systems under 10-20 Miles development would provide more efficient operations with stations at greater distances.

System can be designed as point-to-point with pods that Approximately Hyperloop 250–500 miles bypass stops without compromising network 10 Miles performance.

Source: AECOM, 2020

Pre-Final 6 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 3: Optimal Station Distances per Technology Distance Conventional Higher- High- Between Guaranteed City-Pairs Passenger Speed Speed Maglev Hyperloop City-Pairs Transit Rail Trains Trains (miles) Fort Worth to Waco 90 Y Y Y Y Y Y Waco to 60 Y Y Y Y Y Y Killeen/Temple Killeen/Temple to 70 Y Y Y Y Y Y Austin Austin to San 80 Y Y Y Y Y Y Antonio San Antonio to 160 Y N N Y N Y Laredo Y = Within Optimal Station Range N= Outside of Optimal Station Range Source: AECOM, 2020

Tables 2 and 3 show that, generally, all reviewed technology modes would be suitable to connect cities and metropolitan areas within the study area. However, the distance between San Antonio and Laredo of approximately 160 miles is longer than the optimal station distance for maglev, higher-speed, and conventional passenger rail trains. While the distance is not outside the total corridor lengths for observed technologies (i.e., total corridor length for the Chuo Shinkansen Superconducting Maglev from Tokyo to Osaka is approximately 177.5 miles and the Washington, DC to New York, NY, Acela corridor is approximately 226 miles), these technologies would typically include intermediate stations between the long-distance destinations, reducing travel time for some passengers and providing passengers with additional destinations. The optimal station distance exercise shows that reviewed technologies are capable of operating within the city-pair distances.

The next step of the Level 1 analysis evaluated travel times between each metropolitan area and the potential savings each technology could provide compared to driving and flying. For each technology, travel time assumptions using acceleration, average operational speed, and deacceleration speed were assessed to develop a potential travel time profile. The speed profiles were developed using information reviewed for existing technologies and researched in the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum for maglev and hyperloop. These assumptions were applied to distances between metropolitan areas and calculated to identify travel time. Table 4 displays travel time savings compared to driving a personal vehicle. Vehicle driving times were calculated using Google Maps, ignoring traffic, to identify the fastest routes. A 25 percent buffer time was added to drive times to account for potential traffic delay in automobile travel.

Pre-Final 7 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 4: Travel Time Compared to Driving Drive Time + Conventional Guaranteed Higher- High- City Pairs 25% Buffer Passenger Maglev Hyperloop Transit Speed Rail Speed Rail (Minutes) Rail 70 60 45 30 20 15 Fort Worth to 105 (33%) (43%) (57%) (71%) (81%) (86%) Waco 50 40 30 25 15 10 Waco to 75 Killeen/Temple (33%) (47%) (60%) (67%) (80%) (87%) 55 45 35 25 15 10 Killeen/Temple 85 to Austin (35%) (47%) (59%) (71%) (82%) (88%) 65 55 40 30 20 15 Austin to San 100 (35%) (45%) (60%) (70%) (80%) (85%) Antonio 120 100 75 50 30 20 San Antonio to 185 Laredo (35%) (46%) (59%) (73%) (84%) (89%) Travel time (Percent time savings) Higher Lower Time Time Savings Savings Source: AECOM, 2020

Table 4 shows technologies operating at higher speeds provide more travel time savings than lower speed technologies. Compared to driving, higher-speed rail, high-speed rail, maglev, and hyperloop provide travel time savings of over 50 percent for all city pairs. Technologies providing lower than 50 percent travel time savings compared to driving were conventional passenger rail and guaranteed transit. These technologies, generally, have more variability for delay and lower operating speeds. Also, for higher- speed rail, most existing examples operate in shared corridors and are limited in speed, and therefore can be subject to travel time variability.

Table 5 shows the percent time savings for each technology compared to flight times. Note that most city pair combinations do not have direct flights available and as such, Table 5 primarily details flights from DFW International Airport and Dallas Love Field to other regions along the corridor.

Pre-Final 8 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 5: Percent Time Savings Compared to Direct Flights Conventional Flight Time Guaranteed Higher- High-Speed Direct Flights Passenger Maglev Hyperloop (Minutes) Transit Speed Rail Rail Rail Fort Worth to 45 -56% -33% 0% 33% 56% 67% Waco Killeen/Temple 60 -108% -67% -25% 8% 42% 67% to Fort Worth Austin to Fort 70 -157% -107% -57% -14% 29% 57% Worth San Antonio to 70 -250% -186% -114% -57% 0% 43% Fort Worth Laredo to Fort 95 -289% -216% -132% -68% -5% 37% Worth

Higher Lower Time Time Savings Savings Source: AECOM, 2020

Travel time savings compared to flights in the Table 6 assessment is less pronounced due to operational speeds and airline speeds. Overall, the reviewed technologies perform less favorably as travel distance increases. No time savings are observed for guaranteed transit, conventional passenger rail, or higher- speed rail. For high-speed rail, travel time savings would only be observed in the shortest trips. However, hyperloop would provide more than 40 percent time savings for all city pairs.

2.3. Outcomes of Level 1 The objectives of the Level 1 analysis were to establish definitions and categories for technology modes and to identify optimal city pair stopping patterns to be utilized in the Level 2 analysis.

After overlaying the assessment of population, metropolitan area distances, optimal station distances for each technology, and travel time savings, a categorization scheme for technology modes was identified, as shown in Figure 3. The following categories were defined for primary and infill technologies: • Primary technologies were defined as interregional travel modes with operating speeds above 150 miles per hour (mph), requiring dedicated or closed guideways. For this study, these technologies include high-speed rail, maglev, and hyperloop. In the travel time savings assessment, primary technologies provided at least 50 percent time savings over personal vehicle travel. While, higher- speed rail does provide some travel time savings over 50 percent, it does meet criteria outlined for operating speed and dedicated guideway. • Infill technologies were defined as intercity travel modes with operating speeds below 150 mph. Infill technologies can operate in shared corridors or managed highway travel lanes. For this study, these technologies include guaranteed transit, conventional passenger rail, and higher-speed rail. In the travel time savings assessment, infill technologies provided less than 50 percent time savings over personal vehicle travel.

Pre-Final 9 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Figure 3: Primary and Infill Technologies

Image sources: Virgin Hyperloop One; Shanghai Maglev; Central Japan Railway Company; Daimler/Mercedes-Benz; Stadler; Amtrak Acela Express

In addition to defining technology categories, Level 1 identified two stopping patterns based on city and service area populations, optimal station distances for technologies, and travel time savings. Figure 4 shows the two identified stopping patterns.

Figure 4: Potential Stopping Patterns

Source: AECOM, 2020

Service area population, station distances, and travel time savings were the primary drivers for identifying two stopping patterns for further evaluation in Level 2 of the alternatives analysis. From this assessment, primary technologies were identified to provide the most benefits.

Stopping Pattern One would utilize a primary technology, with potential stops at all MPO areas within the study area. All primary technologies have been identified to provide efficient travel time savings and could operate within optimal distances between potential station areas within the I-35 corridor.

Stopping Pattern Two would utilize a primary technology to connect the origin location of the Fort Worth Area to travel directly to the Austin Area, San Antonio Area, and on to the final destination of the Laredo Area. Using this stopping pattern, infill technologies could supplement primary technologies to serve locations with lower service area populations, where primary technologies provide provide less travel time savings.

Pre-Final 10 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

The Level 1 analysis shows primary technologies offer the most potential for each stopping pattern and are capable of connecting all potential stops within both stopping patterns. Comparatively, infill technologies offered fewer benefits and in some cases cannot provide efficient travel time savings. Based on the Level 1 analysis, primary technologies should be evaluated in Level 2 to identify high- scoring corridors and end-to-end alternatives. Infill technolgies should be used to to connect cities within end-to-end alternatives utilizing Stopping Pattern Two.

3. Alternative Analysis Level 2: Corridor and Technology Compatibility The objective of the level 2 analysis was to identify and rank end-to-end alternatives for each primary technology (from Fort Worth to Laredo) based on technology and corridor/routings.

3.1. Methodology Level 2 was conducted in four steps, as shown in Figure 5, details of the analysis can be found in Appendix A: Figure 5: Alternatives Analysis Level 2: Flow Chart

• Step 2: Each corridor and technology combination were evaluated and scored.

• Step 3: The top scoring corridor and technology combinations for each city pair were assembled to create ranked end-to-end alternatives for each primary technology.

• Step 4: Technology assumptions were used to perform a compatibility analysis of infill technologies and corridors for city pairs not captured by a primary technology.

Pre-Final 11 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

3.2. Outcomes of Level 2 Step 2 of the alternatives analysis developed scored technology and corridor combinations. Step 3 assembled end-to-end alternatives based on those combinations. A total of 60 iterations were possible. Table 5 shows each iteration and the raw score each end-to-end alternative achieved.

Table 5: Scored End-to-End Alternatives Corridor Between Metropolitan Area

Fort San Raw Technology Waco to Killeen/Temple Austin to San Worth to Antonio to Score Killeen/Temple to Austin Antonio Waco Laredo

Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Utility I-35 127 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Greenfield I-35 125 Hyperloop Utility I-35 Greenfield Utility I-35 125 Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 Greenfield Utility I-35 125 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Utility I-35 125 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Utility Greenfield 125 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF I-35 124 Hyperloop Utility I-35 Greenfield Greenfield I-35 123 Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 Greenfield Greenfield I-35 123 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield 123 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield I-35 123 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield Greenfield Utility I-35 123 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Utility I-35 123 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 123 Hyperloop Utility I-35 Greenfield Utility Greenfield 123 Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 Greenfield Utility Greenfield 123 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 122 Hyperloop Utility I-35 Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF I-35 122 Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF I-35 122 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF I-35 122 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 121 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield 121 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield 121 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield I-35 121 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield I-35 121 Hyperloop Utility I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 121 Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 121 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 120 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF I-35 120 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF I-35 120 Hyperloop Utility I-35 Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 120

Pre-Final 12 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Corridor Between Metropolitan Area

Fort San Raw Technology Waco to Killeen/Temple Austin to San Worth to Antonio to Score Killeen/Temple to Austin Antonio Waco Laredo

Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 120 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 119 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 119 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 118 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 118 Maglev Utility Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield 113 Maglev Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield 113 Maglev Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 110 Maglev Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 110 Maglev Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 108 Maglev Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 108 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 I-35 N/A I-35 100 HSR Utility Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield 99 HSR Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield 99 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield I-35 N/A I-35 98 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 I-35 N/A Greenfield 98 Hyperloop Utility I-35 I-35 N/A I-35 98 Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 I-35 N/A I-35 98 Hyperloop I-35 Greenfield I-35 N/A Greenfield 96 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield I-35 N/A I-35 96 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield I-35 N/A I-35 96 Hyperloop Utility I-35 I-35 N/A Greenfield 96 Hyperloop Greenfield I-35 I-35 N/A Greenfield 96 HSR Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 95 HSR Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield 95 HSR Utility Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 95 HSR Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield 95 Hyperloop Utility Greenfield I-35 N/A Greenfield 94 Hyperloop Greenfield Greenfield I-35 N/A Greenfield 94 Source: AECOM 2020

In general, end-to-end alternatives using hyperloop as the primary technology score higher than other technologies. Criteria in the analysis were not adjusted or normalized; therefore, high-scoring alternatives reflect strong performance in many different criteria. However, due to its operational speed and capabilities, hyperloop scores highest in reduction in travel time compared to all other primary technologies in all cases. Criteria considered for the evaluation included:

Pre-Final 13 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

• Capital Cost per Mile • Cost to Construct • Passenger Capacity • Reduction in Travel Time • Land Cover (High Development, Wetlands, Water, Pasture and Crops) • National and State Historic Places • Parks and Open Space As no specific alignment or route were to be chosen the evaluation was intended to generally score each corridor and technology based on a high-level assessment of publicly available data.

Step 3 culminated by identifying the highest scoring end-to-end alternative for each primary technology. These alternatives were made from the best scoring corridors between each city pair, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Ranked End-to-End Alternatives by Corridor Type Waco to Technology Fort Worth Killeen/Temple Austin to San Antonio Raw Rank Killeen/ Mode to Waco to Austin San Antonio to Laredo Score Temple

1 Hyperloop I-35 I-35 Greenfield Utility I-35 127 Utility-or- 113 2 Maglev Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield Greenfield Utility-or- 99 3 HSR Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield Greenfield Source: AECOM,2020

Although, hyperloop scored highest through the evaluation, many unknowns remain about the technology. Therefore, it is important for future studies to consider maglev and high-speed rail along the identified corridors as a high-speed transportation solution for the study area.

Step 4 of the Level 2 Alternatives Analysis evaluated infill technology and corridor compatibility high-level assumptions were utilized to evaluate the infill technology and corridors compatibility. The assumptions included: • No infill technologies were considered along utility or greenfield corridors. • Guaranteed transit was only considered for highway corridors, as it would utilize the highway and managed lanes. • Conventional and higher-speed rail could utilize shared railroad corridors.

This resulted in three Fort Worth Area to Austin Area corridor/infill technology combinations, one for each technology type, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Infill Technology Analysis Fort Worth to Waco to Technology Killeen/Temple to Austin Austin to San Antonio Waco Killeen/Temple Guaranteed I-35 (Highway) I-35 (Highway) I-35 (Highway) I-35 (Highway) Transit Conventional UPRR Corridor UPRR/BNSF BNSF (Amtrak Texas Eagle) UPRR Shared Corridor Rail Higher-Speed UPRR Corridor UPRR/BNSF BNSF (Amtrak Texas Eagle) UPRR Shared Corridor Rail Source: AECOM, 2020

Pre-Final 14 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

A complete account of technology assumptions, screening criteria, and evaluation for the Level 2 Alternatives Analysis can be found in the Appendix A.

4. Alternative Analysis Level 3: Other Factors to Consider The Level 3 analysis provides an opportunity to score qualitative aspects of the primary technology modes.

4.1. Methodology A set of qualitative criteria was identified using findings from the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum and existing literature. Relevant findings for each criterion were summarized, and a qualitative score of low, medium, high, or neutral was assigned. Topics included: 1) station location benefits; 2) operational characteristics; 3) interoperability; 4) regulatory factors; 5) convenience; and 6) safety and resilience. These topics were broken down into criteria evaluating additional qualitative aspects. This analysis was intended to provide additional qualitative comparison between technologies.

Limitations of the qualitative review came from the limited information available for hyperloop and maglev technologies. High-speed rail has a larger pool of available literature, case studies, and evidence. As noted in the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum, there are few maglev systems operating passenger service. Those that do carry passengers are relatively short distances. Literature for maglev came primarily from planning studies, such as the Northeast Corridor Maglev project from Baltimore to Washington, D.C., and the Chuo Shinkansen Superconducting Maglev Project from Tokyo to Nagoya. As hyperloop remains largely unproven and theoretical, research on the technology is ongoing.

4.2. Analysis Table 8 describes criteria and findings from Level 3. A summary of relevant supportive evidence from the literature review for each technology, and a full discussion of each category, is included in Appendix A. Only primary technologies were reviewed as many of the characteristics of regional bus systems (like guaranteed transit), conventional passenger rail, and HrSR are known or were covered in the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum.

Pre-Final 15 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 8: Other Factors to Consider Category Criteria Hyperloop Maglev High-Speed Rail

Urban vs. Suburban Location Medium Medium Medium Station Location Station Location Benefits Benefits Medium Medium Medium (Freight/Passenger-Oriented Uses)

Required Area for Ancillary Facilities High Medium Medium Operational Reliability/Technology Maturity Low Medium High Characteristics Operation and Maintenance Costs Neutral Neutral Neutral

Compatibility with Existing Interoperability Low Low Low Technologies

Regulatory Environment Low Low Medium Regulatory Factors Public and Institutional Plan Low Low Medium Consistency

Passenger Experience Neutral High High Convenience Travel Efficiency Low Medium High

Safety and Vehicle and Track Safety Measures Neutral Medium High Resilience Source: AECOM, 2020

The Level 3 analysis did not impact the quantitative alternative analysis conducted in Level 1 and 2; however, it provides an additional aspect of consideration for future analysis.

5. Findings This section outlines preliminary findings of the Task 4 Alternatives Analysis, including top-scoring alternatives, technologies, and infill technologies.

5.1. Top Ranked End-to-End Alternatives As discussed in Section 3.2: Outcomes of the Level 2, the highest ranking end-to end alternative was identified for each primary technology mode. The following figures and discussion provide an overview of the top three scoring end-to-end alternatives.

Utilizing Stopping Pattern One, the hyperloop alternative would have six potential major stops: Fort Worth, Waco, Killeen/Temple, Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo. The alternative would utilize a combination of utility, highway, and greenfield corridors scored in the Level 2 analysis. Traveling south from Fort Worth to Waco, this alternative would generally follow the I-35 corridor. From Waco to Killeen/Temple the alternative would continue along the I-35 corridor. Leaving Killeen/Temple towards Austin the corridor would uses a greenfield corridor before transitioning to a utility corridor for the trip from Austin to San Antonio. From San Antonio to Laredo, the alternative would generally follow the I-35 corridor. Figure 6 shows the highest ranking hyperloop end-to-end alternative.

Pre-Final 16 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Figure 6: Highest Ranking Hyperloop End-to-End Alternative

Source: AECOM, 2020

The selected maglev end-to-end alternative is shown in Figure 7. Beginning in Fort Worth, a greenfield corridor and a utility corridor ranked equally in the Level 2 assessment. From Waco to Austin, the

Pre-Final 17 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum alternative would use greenfield corridors. A utility corridor would be used between Austin and San Antonio. Continuing south from San Antonio to Laredo a greenfield corridor would be used.

Figure 7: Highest Ranking Maglev End-to-End Alternative

Source: AECOM, 2020

Pre-Final 18 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

The highest ranking HSR end-to-end alternative would utilize the same combination of greenfield and utility corridors as the selected maglev alternative discussed above. From Fort Worth to Waco a utility or greenfield corridor could be used. The alternative would utilize greenfield corridors from Waco to Austin before transitioning to a utility corridor from Austin to San Antonio. Lastly, the trip from San Antonio to Laredo would be made through a greenfield corridor. Although the HSR end-to-end alternative did not score as well as maglev in the same corridors, the technology is well established, operated throughout the world, and could be significantly less costly to construct. Therefore, any future studies should include HSR as a viable solution to high-speed transportation in the study corridor.

Figure 8: Highest Ranking HSR End-to-End Alternative

Source: AECOM, 2020

Pre-Final 19 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

5.2. Infill Consideration Other high-scoring alternatives included hyperloop technology using Stopping Pattern Two (Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Laredo). Connections to cities that would not include a primary technology stop were supplemented with infill technology. Figure 9 shows an end-to-end alternative utilizing hyperloop as a primary technology and guaranteed transit to supplement trips from Fort Worth to Waco, the Waco to Austin, and Austin to San Antonio.

Figure 9: Hyperloop End-to-End Alternative with Guaranteed Transit as Infill Technology

Source: AECOM, 2020

Pre-Final 20 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Similarly, an alternative could utilize existing conventional rail, or, with existing infrastructure improvements and coordination, higher-speed rail on shared railroad corridors. Figure 10 displays the same Hyperloop end-to-end alternative with conventional or higher-speed rail as the infill technology.

Figure 10: Hyperloop End-to-End Alternative with Conventional or Higher-Speed Rail as Infill Technology

Source: AECOM, 2020

However, the highest scoring alternatives identified in this study utilized a single primary technology stopping at all locations, which would potentially eliminate the need for an infill or supplemental technology mode.

Pre-Final 21 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

6. Stakeholder Engagement The project team worked with the MPOs and councils of governments within the study area to identify key stakeholders in each area, including elected officials, city and county staff, and transportation officials. Once identified, the project team organized meetings in each of the six areas with these key stakeholders, designed to allow the project team to share information about the project via a presentation and ask for feedback on community visions, technology, alignments, and station opportunities.

A second series of engagement (including one or two presentations, depending on the area) updated stakeholders on the findings of the alternative development task, including screening results for technology and modes of travel, corridor recommendations, and station locations. Stakeholders were asked to review draft recommendations and provide comments to the project team.

Following stakeholder agreement on recommendations, the project team presented a briefing to each MPO policy board. Summaries for each meeting, documenting attendees, information presented, items discussed, comments/questions, and resulting action items, are provided in Appendix E and F. Table 9 displays the date and location of each stakeholder engagement meeting.

Table 9: Stakeholder Engagement Meetings Meeting Date Meeting Name Meeting Location May 9, 2019 Waco MPO Workshop WebEx meeting TxDOT San Antonio District Office AAMPO Technical Advisory Committee May 10, 2019 4615 NW Loop 410 Workshop San Antonio, TX 78229 Central Texas Council of Governments May 15, 2019 Central Texas COG Policy Board Meeting 2180 N. Main Street Belton, TX 76513 CAMPO Office May 16, 2019 CAMPO Stakeholder Meeting 3300 N. Interstate 35 Austin, TX 78705 Burleson Public Library June 20, 2019 NCTCOG MPO Stakeholder Workshop 248 SW Johnson Avenue Burleson, TX 76026 Laredo MPO Technical Advisory Committee July 11, 2019 WebEx meeting Workshop Laredo Urban Transportation Study Technical Laredo City Hall July 15, 2019 Committee Meeting and Laredo MPO Policy 1110 Houston Street Committee Meeting Laredo, TX 78040 Burleson City Hall October 29, 2019 NCTCOG MPO Meeting 141 W. Renfro Street Burleson, TX 76028 TxDOT San Antonio District Office AAMPO MPO Technical Advisory Committee November 8, 2019 4615 NW Loop 410 Workshop San Antonio, TX 78229 CAMPO Office November 19, 2019 CAMPO Stakeholder Meeting 3300 N. Interstate 35 Austin, TX 78705 Central Texas Council of Governments November 20, 2019 Central Texas COG Policy Board Meeting 2180 N. Main Street Belton, TX 76513 South Waco Community Center Waco MPO Policy Board and Technical November 21, 2019 2815 Speight Avenue Committee Meeting Waco, TX 76711

Pre-Final 22 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Meeting Date Meeting Name Meeting Location VIA Metro Center December 9, 2019 AAMPO Transportation Policy Board Meeting 1021 San Pedro San Antonio, TX 78212 University of Texas Thompson CAMPO Transportation Policy Board Center December 9, 2019 Presentation 2405 Robert Dedman Drive Austin, TX 78705 Laredo Urban Transportation Study Technical Laredo City Hall December 10, 2019 Committee Meeting and Laredo MPO Policy 1110 Houston Street Committee Meeting Laredo, TX 78040

Source, AECOM 2020

Series One of the stakeholder engagement meetings introduced participating MPOs to the study, its goals, and anticipated outcomes. Feedback from this initial series of meetings generally consisted of questions regarding the following topics: • Capabilities, design, and feasibility of high-speed transportation technologies • Screening criteria, particularly cost and engineering considerations • Operational and service details regarding transportation technologies • Interagency coordination and the role of participating MPOs

Additionally, stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on the following: • Any additional corridors that should be assessed • Environmentally sensitive locations the project team should consider in screening • Potential station locations • Reasons why a particular technology may not work for each MPO

Series Two of the stakeholder engagement meetings presented preliminary findings from the alternative analysis. At this stage, stakeholders had questions related to specific design and operational impacts such as noise, weather, and disaster-related events. Because this study addresses high-level planning issues, no specific answers regarding environmental impacts and safety and security could be appropriately given. Stakeholders were also interested in the timeframes for future studies and implementation, costs and funding sources, and next steps.

7. Study Assumptions and Limitations The Task 4 Alternatives Analysis relied on publicly available information identified in the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum and the Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum to identify corridor and technology compatibility assumptions and design criteria. The project team was able to identify many aspects of all potential technology modes; however, certain aspects of technologies, particularly hyperloop, are unknown or still under development. Also, some aspects of existing technologies, such as maglev, have few operating examples and therefore have unreliable cost ranges. The project team has attempted to mitigate unknowns by conducting thorough research and by valuing analysis criteria equally.

The station area analysis utilized a generalized methodology to assess large areas. The analysis was conducted in this manner intentionally to avoid specifying locations for potential stations. At this planning- level stage of assessment, preferred alignments and specific routing are unknown. Additionally, on approach to any station, all technologies would reduce speed to maneuver into appropriate station locations; therefore, alignments could be more flexible in proximity to stations.

Pre-Final 23 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

8. Next Steps The Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study conducted a planning-level analysis of transportation technologies to evaluate and identify high-scoring possibilities for transportation generally in the I-35 corridor. This Task 4 Alternatives Analysis builds upon the previously completed Task 2 and 3 memoranda. The study was developed in collaboration with six MPOs and is intended to serve as a tool to build consensus on the consideration and future study of implementing high-speed transportation technologies from Fort Worth to Laredo.

This study has taken a first step in assessing the feasibility of new and emerging transportation technology throughout Texas. The preliminary findings suggest that a corridor utilizing hyperloop is feasible and should be further studied, through a NEPA process, as a real solution for transportation issues throughout the state of Texas, and particularly in the rapidly growing I-35 corridor.

Pre-Final 24 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Appendix A: Alternatives Analysis Level 2 Detailed Methodology and Analysis Appendix A provide additional detail to Alternatives Analysis Level 2. This section walks through the analysis steps and includes data tables used for evaluation criteria scoring.

Alternative Analysis Level 2 Methodology Step 1: Corridor and Technology Compatibility The overall objective of the alternatives analysis was to develop end-to-end alternatives consisting of technology mode and corridors. Corridors, for this study, refer to general geographic routes within the I- 35 study area that were analyzed in TOPRS, MPO mobility plans, or potential utility corridors, as shown in Figure 5. Corridors connecting each city pair were the foundation of the alternatives analysis and determined the general routing. Corridors were categorized by type to help determine feasible technologies. The following category types are present in the study area: • Greenfield (generally undeveloped for transportation infrastructure) • Shared-highway route • Railroad route • Utility corridor

Figure 11: Corridors

Source: AECOM, 2020

Pre-Final 25 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Corridors, combined with technologies, provide a geographic routing to the analysis, and therefore can be quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated based on assumptions and certain criteria. However, no detailed alignments or routes were identified in this study; corridors were given a 2,000-foot buffer that generalized where potential transportation infrastructure could be located in future studies.

Corridors were first evaluated for their compatibility with each technology based on assumptions developed from a review of the design criteria for each technology. A total of 20 corridors were identified from existing studies plans examined in Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum. Additionally, during stakeholder meetings, MPOs were asked if any additional corridors should be investigated as part of this study and no other corridors were suggested. Table 10 describes the corridors within the study area, their general routing, and classification type.

Table 10: Identified Corridors Corridor Along / Follows Type UPRR Railroad

Fort Worth to Waco I-35 Highway 345kV Utility Utility Greenfield Greenfield UPRR/BNSF Railroad Greenfield Greenfield Waco to Killeen/Temple I-35 Highway 345kV Utility Utility Fort Worth Area to Killeen/Temple BNSF (Amtrak Texas Eagle) Railroad BNSF (Amtrak Texas Eagle) Railroad Killeen/Temple to Austin Greenfield Greenfield UPRR Shared Corridor Railroad Greenfield Greenfield Austin to San Antonio 345kV Utility (east) Utility BNSF BNSF I-35 Highway Killeen/Temple to San Antonio 345kV Utility (west) Utility Greenfield Greenfield San Antonio to Laredo UPRR Railroad I-35 Highway *BNSF – Burlington-Northern Santa Fe – Railroad Corridor *UPRR – Union Pacific Railroad – Railroad corridor Source: AECOM, 2020

Technology assumptions were used to evaluate corridor and technology compatibility. The technology assumptions were developed based on plans reviewed in the Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum and professional judgement. Assumptions made to evaluate corridors and primary technology combinations were: • Primary Technology Assumption 1: Primary technologies are not compatible with shared corridors. Overhead catenary systems for electrical high-speed rail vehicles can interfere with freight signals and operations. High-speed transit systems require 100 percent grade separation (enclosed systems) to achieve high speeds.

Pre-Final 26 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

• Primary Technology Assumption 2: Maglev and high-speed rail are not compatible along highway routes. Both have more restrictive horizontal and vertical design criteria than highways. To follow an existing highway route, the speed of the technology would have to be greatly reduced. Hyperloop is theorized to be able to generally follow highway routes due to a smaller footprint and enclosed guideway, however, a reduction in speed would be necessary. • Primary Technology Assumption 3: Primary technologies are not compatible with existing freight railroad corridors. For primary technologies, the entire right-of-way would be fenced and fully grade separated (enclosed systems). Existing freight railroad alignments are neither compatible with the speeds required, nor do they have the required room for separation of freight and high- speed passenger services. the analysis resulted in 60 corridor and primary technology combinations, which are provided, as shown in Table 11. In general, primary technologies were feasible following utility corridors and favorable in Texas due to geography and long sections of uninterrupted linear paths.

Pre-Final 27 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 11 Level 2- Step 1: Technology and Corridor Compatibility

Level 1 - Single Mode Options Applicable Technology Combo Counts

Hyperloop Maglev HSR Segment Along/Follows Corridor Type From TOPRS Segment Hyperloop Maglev HSR (1, 2, 3, 4) (5, 6) (7, 8, 9, 10)

N3: Very similar to I-35. I-35 N3 (this is in C4C (NEPA UPRR Railroad C2A and C4C expected to be less impactful as N3 Preferred)); MA TBC Fort Worth to Waco: hyperloop would be in road ROW. (89) I-35 Highway C3 N2 N2 345V Utility Utility None 3 2 2 BNSF Railroad C2B/C4A N1 N1 N1 Dallas to Waco: (89) BNSF/Greenfield Railroad C4A N1 N1 N1 I-35 Highway C4C N1 N1 N1 6 2 2 Fort Worth Area to Waco: Greenfield Greenfield C4B (89) N3: Very similar to I-35. I-35 UPRR/BNSF Railroad C2A/C2B expected to be less impactful as N3 N3 hyperloop would be in road ROW. Waco to Killeen/Temple: Greenfield generally following 2 1 1 Greenfield/BNSF C4A, C4B, C4C (61) BNSF I-35 Highway C3 N2 N2 345V Utility Utility None N1: TBC BNSF (Amtrak Fort Worth to Killeen/Temple Railroad C1 N1 N1 N1 0 0 0 Texas Eagle) BNSF (Amtrak Railroad C1/C2A/C2B N3 N3 N3 Killeen/Temple to Austin Area Texas Eagle) 1 1 1 Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield C4A, C4B, C4C UPRR Shared Railroad C1/C2A/C2B N4 N4 N4 corridor Greenfield Greenfield C1/C2A/C2B/C4A/C4B Austin to San Antonio 3 4 3 3 3 3 345V Utility Utility None (east) Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield C4A/C4B/C4C I-35 Highway C3 N2 N2 Killeen/Temple to San Antonio 345V Utility 1 0 0 Utility None N1 N1 N1 (west) Greenfield Greenfield S6 San Antonio to Laredo On UPRR Railroad S2 N3 N3 N3 2 2 1 1 1 1 (157) I-35 Highway S1 N2 N2

Sum 48 6 6 Total 60 Notes for Corridor Assumptions N1: Rule out corridor (all modes) N4: No HSR, Maglev, or Hyperloop in shared corridors. N2: No HSR, Maglev, or Hyperloop along railroad routes

N3: No HSR, Maglev, or Hyperloop along Railroad Routes

Pre-Final 28 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Step 2: Scoring of corridor and technology combinations based on identified criteria. Technology assumptions and criteria were developed to score corridors and to work toward the overall Alternatives Analysis Level 2 goal of developing, scored, end-to-end alternatives consisting of city stopping pattern and technology mode. Therefore, in Step 2, screening criteria were developed and applied to the technology and corridor combinations.

Criteria developed to quantitatively evaluate the corridors and technologies are described in Table 12.

Table 12: Corridor and Primary Technology Analysis Criteria Criteria Unit of Measure Notes

Corridor Miles Mileage calculated with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software. Length

Guideway capital costs per mile based on estimates and review of existing and Capital Cost planned transportation systems. Capital costs were identified based on Dollars Per Mile publicly available data and did not include information if vehicles were included in costs.

Cost to Total approximate cost per corridor = Dollars Construct ([Corridor Length] x [Guideway Capital Costs per Mile])

Capacity based on a calculation of the number of passengers per typical Passenger Number of trainset multiplied by headway. Additional details are presented in Capacity Passengers Appendix A.

Travel time assumes technology top operating speed unless in a curve, in which case speed is based on acceleration. Maximum acceleration of 0.2 gravitational force (g) for hyperloop and 0.1g for high-speed rail and maglev Percent time were used. No passengers are expected to be standing; therefore, a higher Reduction in savings compared acceleration is feasible. The analysis did not consider stopping patterns, or Travel Time to driving how quickly a vehicle accelerates.

Calculation of travel time for primary technologies along each alignment is presented in Appendix A.

High Highly developed land cover based on the National Land Cover Database Acres Development (NLCD) 2016.

Wetlands Acres Wetlands land cover based on NLCD 2016.

Water Acres Water land cover based on the National Land Cover database 2016.

Pasture and Acres Pasture and crop lands (agriculture) based on NLCD 2016. Crop Lands

National and Number of Per National Register of Historic Places and data from the Texas Historical State Historic historic sites Commission. Places

Pre-Final 29 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Parks and Texas Parks and Wildlife, Land and Water Resources Conservation and Number of sites Open Space Recreation Plan. Statewide Inventory. 2015.

Source: AECOM, 2020

Corridor and technology combinations, carried over from Step 1, were then scored based on performance criteria. Criteria were developed from the review of previous studies and professional judgement for this high-level assessment.

The scoring analysis in Step 2 was conducted to identify high-scoring corridors within each city pair and technology combination. Some city pairs in the I-35 study area had multiple corridor and primary technology combinations advanced from Step 1. Therefore, each technology within a corridor was assessed individually and then compared to others in the same corridor to determine a relative score. Table X shows an example of how evaluation criteria were applied to corridors and primary technologies.

Pre-Final 30 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 13: Step 2 Screening Criteria Table Red = 1 point Orange = 2 points Fort Worth to Waco Corridors Waco to Killeen/Temple Green = 3 points Utility I-35 Greenfield Greenfield I-35 Primary Technology Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop Alignment Criteria Measure Length of Route Length of route in miles 78 86 84 33 37 Business Feasibility Measure Criteria Capital cost per mile $M / mile1 54 265 72 54 54 265 72 54 265 72 54 Cost to Construct 4,200 20,700 5,600 4,600 4,500 22,300 6,000 1,800 8,700 2,400 2,000 Alternative Total Capital Cost for Alternative ($M in 2019 USD) Points 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 Required ROW Approximate ROW need with Typical Section Width (ac)6 660 810 950 730 710 880 1020 280 340 400 310 ok Points 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 1 3 Passenger Capacity Passengers per Train/Vehicle2 1680 2400 1200 1680 1680 2400 1200 1680 2400 1200 1680 Points 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 Reduction in travel Percent time savings compared to auto 87% 79% 69% 75% 88% 81% 70% 88% 82% 72% 46% time (time saved/car time)3 Points 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 Natural Resources Measure Sensitivity Study Area Study Area Total Acres4 1891 2092 2032 812 810 Highly Developed Land Cover Acres within study area (per 1 388 28 1 119 High Development National Land Cover Database) Points 3 1 3 3 1 Wooded and Emergent Herbaceous Wetland Land Cover Acres 20 0 20 24 2 Wetlands within study area (per National Land Cover Database) Points 1 3 1 1 3 Water Land Cover Acres within study area (per National Land 8 0 6 4 0 Water Cover Database) Points 1 3 1 1 3 Pasture and Crops Land Cover Acres within study area (per 613 26 604 286 4 Pasture and Crop Lands National Land Cover Database) Points 1 3 1 1 3 National and State 0 0 0 0 0 Historic Places Number of Historic Sites in study area (per NRHP from THC) Points 3 3 3 3 3 Parks and Open Space Number in study area (per Texas Parks & Wildlife data). 0 0 0 0 0 Points 3 3 3 3 3

23 20 18 25 23 20 18 23 22 19 25 Score (out of 10*3 = 30 max points) Overall top score top score Hyperloop top score top score top (top top

Maglev score score) score top (top top

HSR score score) score

Pre-Final 31 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 14: Step 2 Screening Criteria Table -continued

Killeen/Temple to San Antonio San Antonio to Laredo Killeen/Temple Killeen/Temple to Austin, then Austin to San Antonio to San Antonio Killeen/Temple to Austin Austin to San Antonio Route Corridors Greenfield Greenfield Utility Greenfield/BNSF I-35 Greenfield I-35 Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop Hyperloop Maglev HSR Hyperloop

37 145 114 149 137 147 157

54 265 72 54 265 72 54 265 72 54 265 72 54 54 265 72 54 2,000 9,800 2,700 7,800 38,400 10,400 6,200 30,200 8,200 8,000 39,500 10,700 7,400 7,900 39,000 10,600 8,500 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 310 390 450 1230 1510 1760 970 1190 1380 1260 1550 1810 1160 1250 1530 1780 1330 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 1680 2400 1200 1680 2400 1200 1680 2400 1200 1680 2400 1200 1680 1680 2400 1200 1680 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 89% 83% 73% 89% 83% 72% 91% 86% 78% 84% 75% 67% 72% 75% 64% 55% 75% 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 3

896 3516 2767 3604 3321 3553 3797 7 79 24 77 1083 10 338 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 27 84 103 100 0 102 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 6 63 20 81 0 6 0 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 583 1447 1417 1556 10 247 103 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 4 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 29 30 26 21 19 16 23 22 20 20 17 16 25 23 19 16 25 top

score top score top score top score top score top score top

score top score top score top top top

score score score Source: AECOM, 2020

Pre-Final 32 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

When scoring for all criteria, a total possible score of 33 points was possible for each corridor and technology pair. Outcomes from this assessment produced an array of scored corridor and technology combinations, which were then assembled into full-length, end-to-end alternative that connected metropolitan areas within the study area. Overall, step two produced 60 scored end-to-end alternatives (see Task 4 Alternatives Analysis Memorandum Table 5).

For additional detailed information on the evaluated technologies, refer to the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum developed as part of this study. Assumptions and criteria were developed with consultation of the Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum.

Step 3: Preliminary Findings: ranked end-to-end alternative for each primary technology End-to-end corridor alternatives were assembled from corridor and technology combinations scored in the Step 2. After screening, the highest rank end-to-end alternative was selected as a preliminary finding for each primary technology mode (see Task 4 Alternatives Analysis Memorandum Table 6).

Step 4: Infill Technology Considerations The Level 1 analysis identified infill technologies and determined these technologies did not provide enough benefits to serve as a connector for all metropolitan areas. Therefore, infill technologies were evaluated for compatibility with corridors for end-to-end alternatives utilizing Stopping Pattern Two, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Example End-to-End Alternative Utilizing Primary and Infill Technology

Source: AECOM, 2020

Infill technologies were evaluated for their compatibility with corridors based on the following assumptions: • Infill Technology Assumption 1: No infill technologies were considered along utility corridors or greenfield routes.

o Typical examples of investment into conventional passenger rail and higher-speed rail involved renovating or upgrading existing infrastructure or shared freight railroad corridors. Examples identified in the 2016 Texas Rail Plan (reviewed in the Task 3 Previous Studies Review Memorandum) often determined passenger rail projects were not cost- effective due to a lack of freight rail capacity, passenger capacity, or investment.

o As guaranteed transit would utilize managed highway lanes; investment and approval of a greenfield or utility corridor highway project would be unlikely. • Infill Technology Assumption 2: Guaranteed transit was considered only along highway routes. As stated previously, a greenfield or utility corridor highway project would be unlikely and railroad corridors lack sufficient right-of-way. • Infill Technology Assumption 3: Rail technologies would not be considered in highway routes. Right-of-way would typically not be available for passenger rail, unless existing freight rail infrastructure were also located within the same corridor.

Pre-Final 33 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Outcomes of this assessment produced feasible end-to-end alternatives with an infill technology as a connector between cities not served by the primary technology.

Table 15 shows the infill technology and corridor compatibility analysis.

Pre-Final 34 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 15: Infill Technology and Corridor Compatibility Analysis Level 2A Analysis: Segments and Technology Level 1 - Single Mode Options Applicable Technology Combo Counts Conventional Guaranteed Guarante From TOPRS Passenger HrSR Conventional Rail HrSR Transit ed Transit Segment Along/Follows Corridor Type Segment Rail UPRR Railroad C2A and C4C N5 Pass Pass Fort Worth to Waco: (89) I-35 Highway route C3 Pass N3 N3 1 1 1 345V Utility Utility None N4 N4 N4 Fort Worth Area to N4 N4 N4 1 1 1 Waco:(89) Greenfield Greenfield C4B UPRR/BNSF Railroad C2A/C2B N5 Pass Pass Waco to Temple: (61) Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield/BNSF C4A, C4B, C4C N4 N4 N4 1 1 1 I-35 Highway C3 Pass N3 N3 BNSF (Amtrak Texas Eagle) Railroad C1/C2A/C2B N5 Pass Pass Killeen/Temple to Austin 0 1 1 Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield C4A, C4B, C4C N4 N4 N4 UPRR/Lonestar Shared N2 Pass Pass corridor Railroad C1/C2A/C2B C1/C2A/C2B/ N4 N4 N4 Austin to San Antonio Greenfield Greenfield C4A/C4B 0 1 1 1 1 1 345V Utility(east) Utility None N4 N4 N4 Greenfield/BNSF Greenfield C4A/C4B/C4C N4 N4 N4 Killeen/Temple to San I-35 Highway C3 Pass N3 N3 1 0 0 Antonio 345V Utility (west) Utility None N4 N4 N4 Notes: 1 1 1 N1: Rule Out Corridor With stopping Patterns 1 1 1 1 1 1 N2: No Guaranteed Transit in shared corridors 3 N3: Only Guaranteed Transit along highway routes N4: No infill Tech along greenfield or utility corridors N5: No Guaranteed Transit along railroad routes

Pre-Final 35 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Appendix B: Station Analysis A station analysis was conducted concurrent with the alternative analysis. The goal of the analysis was to identify suitable station locations in proximity to cities identified in Level 1 of this assessment. Fort Worth was excluded from the analysis as the city recently completed a separate study identifying preferred station locations for a high-speed rail station near downtown.

8.1. Methodology U.S. Census Bureau block groups were used as a geographic unit for this assessment. Available land use, demographic, transportation infrastructure, and environmental consideration data were assembled and scored to identify high-scoring block groups in the study area. Data was sourced primarily from participating MPOs and state and federal agencies where applicable. Tabular analysis and desktop research were used to overlay datasets within the identified block groups and evaluate a score based on a set of criteria.

This analysis sought to identify block groups with the highest suitability for developing a station based on analysis of the selected criteria. The analysis intentionally did not identify specific locations and/or parcels in which a station should be located. Results were mapped with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software and displayed graphically.

Scoring criteria were selected based on their ability to show multimodal connectivity to a station, employment and population density, environmental considerations, existing and future land use, and land availability. A brief description of these criteria is provided in Table 16.

Pre-Final 36 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Table 16: Station Analysis Scoring Criteria Criteria Definition Scoring Scoring Details - Number of transit stops 0 to 3 (Low to High) Multimodal - Type of transit service (flag stop/fixed route) 0 or 1 (Present/Not Present) Connectivity - Freight rail infrastructure – presence of transit 0 or 1 (Present/Not Present) hub or park-and-ride Modal suitability (combination of population and Employment and employment numbers to identify an index that is 0 or 1 (Low or High) Population Density calculated per mile) Using GIS data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Texas Natural Resources Percentage of block Information System, Texas Department of group covered by Transportation, and other sources, this measure environmental indicates the percentage of environmental features Environmental features: found within a block group that pose barriers to 0 to 3 Considerations station development. Block groups with higher 0 = >51% percentages of environmental features received 1 = 26% - 50% lower scores, while block groups with lower 2 = 11% - 25% percentages of environmental features received 3 = <10% higher scores. 0 = Not Conducive to Potential sites where existing or planned land uses station development are suitable for station locations were identified. (industrial, landfills, Where land uses were found to be compatible, single-family housing,) Existing and Future available land or open space for station locations 1 = Moderately Land Use/Land Use was assessed. To assess the transit-oriented 0 to 2 Supportive Availability development/redevelopment potential, locations (apartments/condos, that are prime for those opportunities based on offices/retail, etc.) connectivity and availability of developable land 2 = Highly Supportive were identified. (mixed-use, high- density residential) Total Possible Score 11

8.2. Analysis Station areas presented are generalized locations that do not identify specific sites or parcel selections. The analysis evaluated U.S. Census Bureau block groups in the areas in proximity to cities identified in the Level 1 city pair and technology analysis. Figure 9 displays cities and associated MPO areas within the study area. Each MPO area was evaluated for highly suitable block groups based on the criteria described in Table 16. The following discussion includes a brief summary and high-scoring block group map identified through the analysis.

In the Waco area, block groups rank highly near the central business district where employment and population density are highest. High-scoring block groups were also present north of the Brazos River, where numerous freight rail lines, a freight rail yard, and industrial land uses converge. South of the river, block groups rank highly due to favorable land uses and bus connectivity, as shown in Figure 11.

Pre-Final 37 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Figure 13: Waco Area Station Analysis

In the Killeen/Temple area, block groups generally score highly in areas of favorable land uses. Airports northwest of Temple and southwest of Killeen, at Fort Hood, add to block group scoring. The highest- scoring block group was centrally located and generally had mostly commercial uses with higher employment density, as shown in Figure 12.

Pre-Final 38 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Figure 14: Killeen/Temple Area Station Analysis

The Austin area had the most high-scoring block groups spread out across the region and in the central business district. High-scoring block groups also occurred southeast of downtown at the Austin- Bergstrom International Airport. Favorable land uses account for many high-scoring block groups north of Austin, as shown in Figure 13.

Pre-Final 39 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Figure 15: Austin Area Station Analysis

In the San Antonio area, population and employment density generally provided high scores to block groups around the downtown area. There were additional high-scoring block groups near San Antonio International Airport where connectivity and commercial and industrial land uses provided a favorable score. Block groups near Joint Base San Antonio also scored highly due to connectivity and favorable land uses, as shown in Figure 14.

Pre-Final 40 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Figure 16: San Antonio Area Station Analysis

Block groups in the Laredo area are generally larger, due to smaller population numbers than some of the more urban cities evaluated. Again, high-scoring block groups were generally centered near the central business district. The highest-scoring block group was near a large area of commercial and industrial uses with high population and employment density. Freight rail connectivity also added to the score, as shown in Figure 15.

Pre-Final 41 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Figure 17: Laredo Area Station Analysis

8.3. Outcomes In all locations analyzed, connectivity, favorable land uses, and employment and population density contributed to high-scoring block groups. These factors tend to converge in locations near city centers. Additional high-scoring block groups tended to be in locations adjacent to or within airports. Existing airports are nodes for transportation modes and are generally trip generators; therefore, adding high- speed transportation options to these nodes scored highly in the station analysis. Overall, additional study

Pre-Final 42 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum would be required to more specifically align station areas with specific routing to be utilized in the selected transportation technology mode.

Stations were analyzed independent of corridors and end-to-end alternatives. This choice was made because no specific routing or alignments were identified in the course of the Task 4 Alternatives Analysis. As the program for implementing a high-speed ground transportation option within the study area progresses through the project life cycle and into a NEPA process, project alignments and footprints will become more refined, with specific impacts identified.

Pre-Final 43 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Appendix D: Level 3 Other Factors to Consider Methodology The Level 3 analysis provided an opportunity to score qualitative measures following the Level 2 technical analysis. This provides another step of the process of “screening” the criteria in the alternative analysis. Findings from the Task 2 Technology Review and Design Criteria Memorandum as well as existing literature on the subject were analyzed and utilized to create qualitative scores for the chosen criteria. Relevant findings for each criterion were summarized and a qualitative score of low, medium, high or neutral was assigned. Topics included 1) station location benefits, 2) operations factors, 3) interoperability, 4) regulatory factors, 5) convenience, and 6) safety and resilience. These topics were broken down into criteria evaluating qualitative aspects intended provide additional comparison between technologies.

It is important to note of the three primary technologies, only high-speed rail has a large pool of research literature, case studies and empirical evidence whereas literature for maglev and hyperloop is sparse. Literature on maglev is primarily case studies of real-world examples. As hyperloop remains largely unproven and theoretical, research on the technology is ongoing.

Analysis The final step of the alternatives analysis sought to assess the qualitative aspects of the primary technologies. These topics did not factor into the quantified scores assessed in Level 2 of the analysis: however, the goal of this level was to provide an additional lens of evaluation. Relevant findings for each criterion was summarized through a robust literature review and a qualitative score of neutral, low, medium, or high was assigned to each technology.

Station Location Benefits Urban vs. Suburban Location • Urban centers have more transit and modal connectivity compared to suburban locations. Peripheral stations can suffer from lesser integration to the public networks of the urban areas they serve. The more complete the public transport supply to the station, the more this supply is used to reach the station. However, for suburban centers, connections by shuttles can help mitigate their remoteness. On the other hand, land is typically more available in suburban areas and is less expensive. The high- speed transit service speed would also be compromised when navigating from the suburban areas to the urban core. 1 Because both urban and suburban locations have advantages and disadvantages when compared, this criterion was scored medium across all technologies.

Freight Co-Benefit of Station Location Opportunity for co-locating stations with passenger-oriented uses or freight-oriented use • Hyperloop - This criterion scored as medium due to the following key findings: hyperloop technology can be designed to accommodate both passenger and freight transportation by sharing cost and operating within the same network. In Dubai, a collaboration between Virgin Hyperloop One and DP World has formed to create DP World Cargospeed, which aims to transport freight from Dubai to surrounding locations. Due to a decrease in travel time, DP World Cargospeed believes cost will be

1Facchinetti-Mannone, V. (2009, June). Location of high-speed rail stations in French medium-size city and their mobility and territorial implications.

Pre-Final 44 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

five-times cheaper than existing air freight. 2 Regarding details on freight capacity, literature does not provide exact detail. Early proposals have included pods at roughly 40-feet to mimic standard shipping containers (the tonnage limit will be a deciding factor when realized). 3 Regardless of freight type, Virgin Hyperloop One believes that hyperloop will be critical for the movement of time sensitive freight moving, impacting perceived freight sensitivity to time. 4 Further, hyperloop freight is most similar to air freight; however, would take an expansive network to be able to match air freight hub and spoke system. 5 • Maglev - This criterion was scored as Medium due to the following key findings: Maglev systems have the capability to move freight as well as passengers. Research shows maglev systems to be internally configured to accommodate standardized air freight or express shipping containers. For example, a full length Transrapid (20-sections) can hold roughly 19 U.S. tons per section (386 U.S. tons of air cargo). However, there is limited literature discussion on freight movement, and most of this is theoretical analysis. 6 • High-Speed Rail - This criterion scored as Medium due to the following key findings: The use of high- speed rail for freight is a growing practice. The Italian state-owned rail operator FS Italiane is currently leading the way by running light industry freight between Caserta and Bologna. Branded ‘Mercitalia Fast,’ 7 this includes time sensitive materials from express couriers (e.g., FedEx) and logistics operators. 8 Interporto Servizi Cargo plans to provide similar services between Florence and Bologna, as well as between Verona and Pomezia. Both entities plan to use the same high-speed rail infrastructure at night. Mercitalia will use 12 trainsets equivalent to the capacity of 18 freight trucks.

Operational Characteristics Required Area for Ancillary Facilities • Hyperloop – Hyperloop is still an evolving technology and depending on the company a variety of propulsion systems are being evaluated for freight and passenger movement. However, several systems would be necessary for operations. These facilities could include electrical power substations necessary to supply power to propulsion systems. Additionally, hyperloop is being designed as a net positive energy system, and many designs are incorporating the addition of solar energy production through paneling above the tube guideways or in solar farms along the right-of- way. Vacuum stations would be necessary along the alignment to maintain the low-pressure environment. Maintenance facilities would also be required as a rolling stock depot for maintenance, inspection and repair of vehicles. An operations and control center would also be needed. With ongoing design changes and relative unknowns, additional area for ancillary facilities regarding hyperloop has been scored as high.

2 Page, T. (2018, May). Hyperloop for Cargo Aims to Deliver at Over 600 mph. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/tech/hyperloop-dp-world-cargospeed-announcement/index.html 3 Taylor, C.L., Hyde, D.J., Barr, L.C. (2016, July). Hyperloop Commercial Analysis: High Level Overview. U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

4 Zhang, D. (2017, June). Hyperloop One’s Transport Economist Makes the Freight Case. Retrieved from https://hyperloop- one.com/blog/hyperloop-ones-transport-economist-makes-freight-case 5 Taylor, C.L., Hyde, D.J., Barr, L.C. (2016, July). Hyperloop Commercial Analysis: High Level Overview. USDOT, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 6 Blow, L.E. (2010). Dispelling the Top Ten Myths of Maglev 7 U.S. High-Speed Rail Association (USHSR). (2019). High-Speed Rail Light Freight. Retrieved from http://www.ushsr.com/hsr/highspeedfreight.html

8 Railway Technology. (January, 2019). Mercitalia Fast: the world’s first high-speed rail freight service. Retrieved from https://www.railway-technology.com/features/mercitalia-fast-service/

Pre-Final 45 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

• Maglev – Maglev technology would require typical rail facilities such as a rolling stock depot for maintenance, inspection and repair of vehicles, a rail/operations and control center, maintenance of- way-facilities, and general storage facilities. Additionally, for tunneled sections of guideway, ventilation buildings would be necessary. Electrical substations would be necessary to supply power to propulsion systems. This criterion was rated medium for additional property and systems that would be required for operation. • High-Speed Rail – High-speed rail requires the three key ancillary facilities positioned at locations along the rail right-of-way. These facilities are maintenance yards, maintenance-of-way facilities, and traction power substations. Maintenance yards are the largest of the facilities and generally are located near large station areas. Maintenance-of-way facilities are located along portions of the rail mainline and generally consist of additional parallel tracks used for maintenance vehicles and equipment. Traction power substations would be positioned approximately over 25 miles along the rail alignment to supply power to overhead catenary used to provide energy to the train propulsion systems. 9 Additionally, an operations and control center would also be needed. This criterion was rated medium.

Reliability / Technology Maturity • Hyperloop – No existing hyperloop systems are in operation. Reliability of the system is anticipated to be high with highly sophisticated vehicle and dispatch systems. Additionally, vehicle frequency at stations is anticipated to be rapid with less two minutes. However, this criterion is scored as low, as no existing systems are in operation. • Maglev – Existing maglev trains in operation in Shanghai have been operating since 2002, providing safe and reliable transportation. 10 However, as no other maglev systems are currently operating revenue service, some question remains about their reliability and economic feasibility; therefore, the reliability criterion is scored medium. • High-Speed Rail – High-speed rail has been in operation in Japan, China, and throughout Europe for over 50 years and is known for safe, fast, and reliable, on-time, service. 11 This criterion is rated high.

Operation and Maintenance Costs • Hyperloop – Initial studies and available information regarding operation and maintenance costing of hyperloops has generally been produced by hyperloop companies, and thus must be considered critically. Additionally, operating and maintenance costs seem to vary between companies. A recently completed feasibility study anticipated total operating costs in 2030 for one particular system could be approximately $435 million (approximately $1.4 million per mile) annually. 12 Comparatively, another hyperloop company anticipates their operating cost to be two-thirds that of high-speed rail. 13 Due to the uncertainty of this category the criterion has been scored as neutral. • Maglev – Publicly available information regarding the operations and maintenance costs of maglev systems are sparse. Additionally, only one maglev system is currently operating passenger service,

9 Federal Rail Administration, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Appendix F: Final Draft Conceptual Engineering Report – FDCEv7. Retrieved from https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/17677/31%20Dallas%20to%20Houston%20High%20Speed%20Rail%20DEI S%20Appendix%20F_TCRR%20FDCE%20v7%20REPORT.pdf 10 Shanghai Maglev Transportation Development Co., Ltd. About Maglev. Retrieved from http://www.smtdc.com/en/gycf2.html 11 Japan Railway Company. About the Shinkansen. Retrieved from https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/about_shinkansen/ 12 Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Great Lakes Hyperloop Feasibility Study, December 2019. Retrieved from https://www.glhyperloopoutreach.com/feasibility-study 13 Virgin Hyperloop One. Facts & Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://hyperloop-one.com/facts-frequently-asked- questions

Pre-Final 46 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

the Shanghai Maglev. Maglev systems in the U.S. are currently in planning stages and no publicly available operation and maintenance costing could be identified. Due to a lack of available information, this criterion has been scored as neutral. • High-Speed Rail – An operation and maintenance and lifecycle cost model was developed in 2018 for the California High-Speed Rail Authority for the Phase 1 system and Silicon Valley to Central Valley Line. The assessment included a risk assessment that evaluated ridership, fare recovery, system reliability and more. Based on the model, estimated operation and maintenance costs varied depending on each modeled year, early estimates ranged from approximately $240 to $280 million (approximately $900,000 per mile) annually, adjusted for 2017 dollars. Overall, the analysis showed an estimated 79 percent probability of farebox recovery necessary for breakeven. 14 However, in the U.S., there is no high-speed rail in passenger service. Therefore, no reliable or historical data exists in which to accurately assess lifecycle costs of the technology. Thus, this criterion is scored as neutral.

Interoperability Compatibility of technologies in shared corridors. • All evaluated primary technologies would require enclosed systems with their own proprietary guideways. Therefore, shared infrastructure with existing technologies would be incompatible. Potential interoperability with additional modes of transportation would occur at station locations where mode transfers could be made. All technology modes, at stations, would be designed to incorporate modal connectivity to local bus, airplane terminal, passenger rail, or personal vehicle. However, due to dedicated guideways, interoperability is scored as low.

Regulatory Factors Assessment of applicable state and federal statutes/regulations that could allow delivery of the technology. • Hyperloop - This criterion scored as Low due to the following key findings: at the federal level, hyperloop companies are gaining bipartisan support and public officials understand the need for regulations to permit the implementation of the technology. For example, current U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, has announced a new council to support hyperloop technology with the aim to explore regulations and permitting. 15 Virgin Hyperloop One recently unveiled its XP-1 test pod on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. as part of its national roadshow and has gained support form Representatives of the House Committee on Transportation. 16 At the state level, the Texas Rail Plan (2019) lists several projects examining hyperloop alternatives in the state such as the Dallas-Fort Worth Core Express Service Project Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement and the Fort Worth to Laredo Transportation Study. 17 With growing recognition and support, it is possible for scores to improve in this category.

14 California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2018 California High-Speed Rail Business Plan: Ridership and Revenue Risk Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/2018_BusinessPlan.pdf 15 Virgin Hyperloop (2019). U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao Announces New Council to Support Hyperloop Commercialization. Retrieved from https://hyperloop-one.com/us-secretary-transportation-elaine-chao-announces-new-council- support-hyperloop-commercialization

16 Virgin Hyperloop one. (2019). For First Time, Federal Lawmakers Gather in Support of Hyperloop Technology on Capitol Hill. doi: https://hyperloop-one.com/first-time-federal-lawmakers-gather-support-hyperloop-technology-capitol-hill 17 Texas Department of Transportation (2019). 2019 Texas Rail Plan. Retrieved from http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot- info/rail/texas-rail-plan-2019-draft-chapters.pdf

Pre-Final 47 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

• Maglev - This criterion scored as Low due to the following key findings: although the technology has been tested and successfully deployed in other parts of the world, literature shows that, regulatory standards have not yet caught up to the technology in the U.S. At the federal level, the technology has been researched by the U.S. Department of Transportation since the 1990’s, resulting in several corridors being identified across the country that might benefit from high-speed maglev trains. 18 However, maglev technology has largely stagnated in the United States, with no real revenue deployments. At the state level, the Texas Rail Plan (2019) lists one project examining maglev alternatives and this is the Fort Worth to Laredo Transportation Study.12 • High-Speed Rail - This criterion scored as Medium due to the following key findings: to date, the country has no clear-cut policy on high-speed rail development. Current efforts are very ad hoc at both the federal and state levels and lack clearly defined goals. Literature suggests that a more structured and long-term policy framework with clearly defined goals and a stable source of funding is needed. Through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, the Federal Railroad Administration has supported nearly 150 projects in 35 states and the District of Columbia. It has strategically invested in five mega-regions (Seattle-Portland, San Francisco-Los Angeles, Charlotte- Raleigh-DC, Midwest hub, and Northeast Corridor). 19 Since the 1960’s, government policies such as the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act, the Passenger Rail Service Act, and Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act set aside funding for the development and demonstration of high- speed rail technologies, the creation of the Amtrak passenger rail, mandating a national rail plan, and designation of 11 high-speed rail corridors. These acts, however, did not appropriate any funds for constructing high-speed rail lines along these corridors. 20, 21 At the state level, budgetary policies of the Texas Senate currently prevent the use of state funds to build high-speed rail lines 22 and may in the future even extend to barring the Texas Department of Transportation from helping coordinate access to rights-of-way on state highways for the high-speed rail project until there is a final unappealable court ruling on the eminent domain authority for the project.

Public and Institutional Plan Consistency Assessment of federal/state/local planning documents that provide input on high-speed transportation in the study area. • Hyperloop - This criterion scored as Low due to the following key findings: many potential hyperloop projects are not identified by institutional plans. Hyperloop is not mentioned in the current 2040 State of Texas Transportation Plan. The Texas Rail Plan (2019) lists only two projects in Texas considering hyperloop alternatives. 23 These are the Dallas-Fort Worth Core Express Service Project Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement and Fort Worth to Laredo study. The NCTCOG metropolitan transportation plan known as Mobility 2045 (2018) mentions that additional high-speed modes of

18 Lever, James H. Technical assessment of maglev system concepts. Final report. No. AD-A-358293/XAB; CRREL-SR-98-12. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab., Hanover, NH (United States), 1998. 19 Texas Department of Transportation (2020). High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/rail/high-speed.html 20 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Information - Legislation - Archive - Public Involvement - Planning - FHWA. (2020). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/archive/legislation/istea.cfm 21 High-Speed Rail Timeline | FRA. (2020). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://cms8.fra.dot.gov/passenger-rail/high-speed- rail/high-speed-rail-timeline 22 The Texas Tribune (2019). Texas high-speed rail developer doesn't want state money. But the Senate's state budget could still delay the project. Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://www.texastribune.org/topics/high-speed-rail/ 23 Texas Department of Transportation (2019). 2019 Texas Rail Plan. Retrieved from http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot- info/rail/texas-rail-plan-2019-draft-chapters.pdf

Pre-Final 48 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

travel, such as hyperloop, are being explored with public and private funding. 24 Potential routes include one from Dallas to Laredo through Fort Worth, which was identified through a private, internationally competitive assessment on potential routes. 25 • Maglev - This criterion scored as Low due to the following key findings: Many potential maglev projects are not identified by institutional plans. Maglev is not mentioned in the current 2040 State of Texas Transportation Plan. The Texas Rail Plan (2019) lists the Fort Worth to Laredo study as the only project in Texas considering maglev alternatives. 26 The NCTCOG Mobility 2045 (2018) mentions that additional high-speed modes of travel, such as maglev, are being explored with public and private funding.20 • High-Speed Rail - This criterion scored as Medium due to the following key findings: At the federal level, the national High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan (2009) Federal Railroad Administration provides a list of 11 federally-designated corridors. The South-Central High-Speed Rail Corridor encompasses the study area. 27

The Texas Rail Plan (2019) lists five projects examining high-speed rail alternatives. These are the TRE Valley View Double Track, TOPRS Corridor, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project, Texas Department of Transportation passenger route alternative studies, and the Dallas-Fort Worth Core Express Service.20 The Texas Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan 2035 supports high-speed intercity passenger rail to complement the long-term mobility strategy for the state. 28 It references the Texas Rail Plan for identifying the needed studies to determine the location and or improvement of existing routes.

NCTCOG Mobility 2045 (2018) includes plans for high-speed rail service that will connect North Central Texas to other regions. Plans include a high-speed rail system connecting City of Arlington activity centers (the University of Texas at Arlington, downtown, and entertainment district) with the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Trinity Railway Express corridors, proposed redevelopment areas near the airport, and downtown Fort Worth and Dallas. Recommendations for Mobility 2045 include at-grade and grade-separated high-speed passenger rail service within the region. 21

Federal and state plans indicate a need for high-speed passenger rail service to, though, and within the North Central Texas region. Corridors traveling through the region include proposed high-speed rail service to Oklahoma City, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Shreveport, and Little Rock Arkansas. Four proposed corridors would provide service from Oklahoma City to South Texas, Fort Worth to Shreveport, Fort Worth to Dallas, and Dallas to Houston.25

Convenience Passenger Experience General assessment of vehicle and station amenities and accessibility.

24 NCTCOG (2018), Mobility 2045. Retrieved from https://www.nctcog.org/trans/plan/mtp/2045 25 KUT, M., KUT, S., Hart, A., & KUT, N. (2020). It May Be More Hype Than Loop, But Texas' Hyperloop Proposal Is A Finalist. Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://www.kut.org/post/it-may-be-more-hype-loop-texas-hyperloop-proposal-finalist

27 Federal Railroad Administration (2009), High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. Retrieved from: https://cms8.fra.dot.gov/elibrary/high- speed-rail-strategic-plan 28 Texas Department of Transportation (2010). Texas Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan 2035. Retrieved from: https://www.txdot.gov/government/reports/statewide-plan/slrtp-2035-report.html

Pre-Final 49 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

• Hyperloop - This criterion scored as Neutral due to the following key findings: hyperloop technology is still under development hence no real-world case studies were analyzed. However, conceptual designs and prototypes developed by major investors, developers, and through design competitions of this technology were analyzed.

The Serge Roux Hyperloop Station Design Prototype is proposed to include solar panels, shops, restaurants, storage and maintenance systems, ticketing machines, escalators, elevators, and security screening areas. The passenger capsule is assumed to carry 28 passengers with comfortable seating and luggage storage. The station concept is a looped track to create an efficient and continuous stream of capsules that people can embark and disembark from in three parallel flows of traffic in a self-sufficient building with a reduced footprint. 29

The Hyperloop Transportation Technologies concept proposes capsules with augmented windows for enhanced experience and fusion of comfort and entertainment. Capsules would be designed to carry 28 to 40 passengers with a system designed for departures every 40 seconds at a maximum speed of 759 mph (capable of moving 164,000 passengers a day on one line, or 3,600 passengers per hour). The capsules are proposed to be silent, emission-free, with customized interior for user- based experiences. 30, 31

The UNStudio modular station concept could be easily expanded as needed to adjust for local conditions and demand. Stations would be flexibly designed to accommodate the needs of the community, including luggage and bike storage, daycare, ticket counters, information center, shopping, lounge, hotel, offices, and urban farming. 32 • Maglev - This criterion scored as High due to the following key findings: moderate speeds generate less noise/vibration than wheeled systems; speeds exceeding 155 mph can create uncomfortable riding scenarios for users. Literature suggests train separation from the guideway causes less friction, enhancing passenger comfort. Existing maglev (specifically the German Transrapid) contains an interior that is nearly one meter wider than conventional rail cars. 33

The Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Maglev EIS considered both above ground and underground stations in preliminary planning. Stations would include: Head House, Ticking Concourse, Mezzanine, and Platforms. The Head House would be the structure that interfaced with the surrounding community, highly visible and architecturally significant. Ticketing would include passenger circulation areas. The Mezzanine would include large open space dedicated to passenger circulation, waiting areas, restrooms retail and other features. The platforms would be where a trainset arrives for passenger boarding and alighting.

29 Hyperloop Passenger Station – Serge Roux | Design your life. (2020). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from http://dev.sergeroux.com/portfolio/hyperloop-passenger-station/ 30 HyperloopTT | The First Transportation Breakthrough in a Century. (2020). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://www.hyperlooptt.com/technology 31 Walker, R. (2018, June). Hyperloop: Cutting Through the Hype. TRL. 32 Ravenscroft, T. (2020). UNStudio unveils modular concept station for European hyperloop. Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://www.dezeen.com/2018/09/17/unstudio-hyperloop-concept-station-european-transport-architecture/ 33 Connor, P. (N/D). High-Speed Railway Capacity: Understanding the Factors Affecting Capacity Limits for a High-Speed Railway. Retrieved from http://www.railway-technical.com/books-papers--articles/high-speed-railway-capacity.pdf

Pre-Final 50 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

• High-Speed Rail - This criterion scored as High due to the following key findings: high-speed rail provides ample empirical evidence of passenger experience and comfort as the technology is widely deployed across the world. Current service includes different passenger/comfort classes, restrooms, an understanding of lateral and vertical acceleration to maximize passenger comfort. Some systems even include entertainment/internet, sleeping cars, dining cars, etc. Several existing high-speed rail examples provide substantially more room than commercial airplanes. One way to compare comfort between the two modes is to calculate floor area per passenger. A standard Boeing 737 provides roughly five to six square feet per passenger, whereas an E5 series Shinkansen has 731 seats, is roughly 8,000 square feet, and 12 feet high, generating an average of 12 square feet per person. The Amtrak Acela Express, which runs along the Northeast corridor from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts, provides passengers with 18 square feet per person, as well as first class, business class, sleeping, and café cars. 34, 35

Station areas for high-speed rail, include ticketing, passenger amenity and circulation areas, and platforms for boarding and alighting trains. Amenities could include information kiosks, bars, restaurants, coffee shops and additional retail or commercial space.

Travel efficiency General assessment of technology frequency, boarding, and convenience. • Hyperloop – This criterion scored as Neutral due to the following key findings: hyperloop technology is currently under development. Hence, no real-world examples can be analyzed. For this technology, conceptual design of prototypes and theoretical research was assessed. Elon Musk’s SpaceX Hyperloop Alpha concept proposes sealed capsules carrying 28 passengers each that travel along the interior of the tube departing on average every two minutes (up to 30 seconds during peak usage hours). 36 Due to short travel times envisioned, there would be a continual flow of passengers through stations designed with simpler and efficient layouts that would streamline security checks, wait times, ticketing, and baggage handling. 37 The Serge Roux Hyperloop Station Design Prototype details a station design that includes a continuous six-step looped loading/unloading sequence based on single compression and decompression airlocks, and the simultaneous management of three capsules during embarking and disembarking. The ground floor of the station includes the entrances/exits, ticketing machines, security check, amenities, and escalators to the second story arrival/departure terminals. The track loops host three docking platforms on both sides, allowing for passengers from three capsules to embark and disembark simultaneously. 38 • Maglev - This criterion scored as Medium due to the following key findings: literature and case studies of currently operating systems shows that frequencies, number of transfers, and lower operating speeds compared to other technologies like high-speed rail contribute to the scoring assigned. For the Shanghai Maglev Train, frequency is every 15-20 minutes. The line connects Shanghai Pudong

34 JR East E5 series shinkansen pre-series train]. Tetsudō Daiya Jōhō. Japan: Kotsu Shimbun. 38 (304): 68–69. August 2009.

35 "Acela Express." Trainweb.org. February 2001. Retrieved June 18, 2012. 36 Spacex. (2013, August). Hyperloop Alpha. Retrieved from https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf 37 Spacex. (2013, August). Hyperloop Alpha. Retrieved from https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf

38 Hyperloop Passenger Station – Serge Roux | Design your life. (2020). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from http://dev.sergeroux.com/portfolio/hyperloop-passenger-station/

Pre-Final 51 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

International Airport and Longyang Road Station (in the outskirts of central Pudong), where passengers can interchange to the Shanghai Metro to continue their trip to the city center. At full speed, the journey takes seven minutes and 20 seconds to complete the distance of 18.6 miles. Times can take slightly longer in the morning. The line has been operating at less than 20 percent capacity and reaches the highest speed of 267 mph. 39

Transrapid studies show 10-section, four across seating layouts with a five-minute headway assumption with seating capacity of 644 riders to generate an hourly capacity (one direction) as high as 7,728 passengers. 40

The Chuo Shinkansen superconducting maglev is anticipated to have similar capacities of the Central Japan Railway Company Shinkansen high-speed rail. Passenger capacities can range from 400 to 1300 passengers per trainset depending on configuration.

• High-Speed Rail - This criterion scored as High due to the following key findings: literature and case studies of currently operating systems shows that frequencies, number of transfers, and operating speeds compared are optimal for this technology. The Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen departs every 30 minutes at a 175 mph operating speed. It connects the four largest cities in Japan: Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, and Osaka, with 420,000 people per day daily ridership (2014). To ride, you can either buy a prepaid Japan Rail Pass for seven-day intervals (up to 21 days) or buy from the Shinkansen and Japan Rail Line station. Passengers can make a seat reservation and wait on the platform for the train to come. Japan is in testing for the ALFA-X version of the Shinkansen train, which could run at speeds of up to 224 mph by 2030, making it the fastest bullet train in the world. 41

Trainset configuration and the number of tracks available determine a potential passenger capacity for the high-speed rail systems. The Shinkansen N700 trainset can carry 400-1300 passengers depending on configuration. Headways for trains can vary depending on demand from every three minutes to 30 minutes.

Safety & Resilience Vehicle and Track Safety Measures Assessment of safety measures implemented per technology for various threats (vehicle, natural hazards, criminal activity). • Hyperloop - This criterion scored as Low due to the following key findings: the test track built by Virgin Hyperloop One in Nevada is the only example of the technology being tested in the country. Many safety issues have not been addressed, including whether it is possible to maintain the partial vacuum within the tubes over long distances and if airlocks can quickly and fully seal off the tubes when passengers exit a pod to prevent air leaks. Passenger safety and need to provide self-containing life support systems within the capsule are also concerns. Hyperloop creates an enclosure that is theoretically immune to weather, disturbance from outside events, and concerns about crossing traffic and wildlife. The technology can also be designed for digital control and communication to allow instantaneous reporting of capsule position, speed, and status; however, these theories have

39 Shanghai Maglev Official Website. (2020). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from http://www.smtdc.com/en/jszl1_4.html 40 Vuchic, V.R., Casello, J.M. (2002). An Evaluation of Maglev Technology and Its Comparison with High-Speed Rail. Transrapid 41 SCMAGLEV (2020). Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/

Pre-Final 52 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

not yet been confirmed with full testing and optimization. Virgin and other companies like Hyperloop Transportation Technologies and Elon Musk’s Boring Company have plans to begin testing full-sized hyperloop systems and conduct feasibility studies for implementation in the United Arab Emirates, India, Europe, South Korea, and in North America, but these studies have not yet been conducted. The private sector is beginning to show investment interest and has given over $400 million to Virgin Hyperloop One for example. As more test systems are developed, it is possible for scores to improve in this category. 42 • Maglev - This criterion scored as Medium due to the following key findings: technology has been in operation since the 1960’s with many test tracks built. The design of the powered guideway ensures that trains are safe from derailment, as magnetic force is exerted the further the train gets from its normal position, pushing it back into place. Crashes are unlikely as two trains traveling the same route cannot catch up and crash into one another because they are all being powered to move at the same speed. Vehicles are unmanned, eliminated driver error and allowing for more efficient routing and scheduling. 43 • High-Speed Rail - This criterion scored as High due to the following key findings: literature shows that high-speed rail is the safest form of transportation in the world proven by decades of safe operations. For example, Japan was the first nation to build high-speed rail in 1964 and has since transported over ten billion passengers without a single fatality. France has a similar record with their 30 years of high-speed rail operations, as do many other countries. Technological innovations have allowed for integrated approaches for electrification, communications, traction power and substations, as well as signaling and communications, supporting safe and efficient operation. Advanced safety systems (i.e., automatic braking), extensive maintenance, improvements in the design of German trains, and a review of best practices in design and operations have contributed to safety. 44

42 The New York Times (2019). A Real Tube Carrying Dreams of 600-M.P.H. Transit. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/technology/hyperloop-virgin-vacuum-tubes.html 43 Johnson, L. R., Rote, D. M., Hull, J. R., Coffey, H. T., Daley, J. G., & Giese, R. F. (1989). Maglev vehicles and superconductor technology: Integration of high-speed ground transportation into the air travel system (No. ANL/CNSV-67). Argonne National Lab., IL (U.S.). 44 Environmental and Energy Study Institute (2018). Fact Sheet: High-Speed Rail Development Worldwide. Retrieved from: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-development-worldwide

Pre-Final 53 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Appendix E – Stakeholder Engagement Engagement Approach The project team worked with the metropolitan planning organizations and councils of governments along the corridor to identify key stakeholders in each area, including elected officials, city and county staff and transportation officials. Once identified, the project team organized one meeting in each of the six areas with these key stakeholders designed to allow the project team to share information about the project via a presentation and ask for feedback on key decision points. A follow-up presentation was scheduled in each area near the end of the study to share analysis results. A third and final presentation was scheduled in a few areas so that the project team could share study results with the policy boards in areas where they had not previoulsy presented.

Engagement Goals Each series of engagement had different goals. : The first series of stakeholder engagement was designed to • Provide a review of potential technology options and modes of travel for the corridor. • Solicit feedback on community visions, previously adopted relevant plans, technology options, corridors, and station opportunities. • Identify needs and priorities in evaluating high-speed transit technologies and its impacts within the community.

The second series of engagement (including one or two presentations, depending on the area) updated stakeholders on the findings of the Alternative Development task, including screening results for technology and modes of travel, corridor recommendations and station locations. Stakeholders were also asked to review draft recommendations and provide comments to the project team.

Meeting Notifications The project team notified stakeholders of presentations in different ways, based on the preferences of the local COG/MPO. Some presentations were provided via established recurring meetings and did not require special notifications, and some were stand-alone events which required email notifications and calendar invitations. Notifications are shown in Appendix F.

Pre-Final 54 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Series One Meeting Details

Attendees Meeting Date Meeting Name Meeting Location Meeting Time

WebEx meeting May 9, 2019 Waco MPO Workshop 2 p.m. 14

TxDOT San Antonio District Alamo Area MPO TAC Office May 10, 2019 9:30 a.m. 19 Workshop 4615 NW Loop 410 San Antonio, TX 78229 Central Texas Council of Central Texas COG Governments May 15, 2019 10 a.m. 13 Policy Board Meeting 2180 N. Main Street Belton, TX 76513 CAMPO Office CAMPO Stakeholder May 16, 2019 3300 N. Interstate 35 8:30 a.m. 9 Meeting Austin, TX 78705 Burleson Public Library NTCOG MPO June 20, 2019 248 SW Johnson Avenue 2 p.m. 14 Stakeholder Workshop Burleson, TX 76026 Laredo MPO TAC July 11, 2019 WebEx meeting 2 p.m. 8 Workshop Laredo Urban Transportation Study Laredo City Hall Technical Committee July 15, 2019 1110 Houston Street 1:30 p.m. 19 Meeting and Laredo Laredo, TX 78040 MPO Policy Committee Meeting

A summary of the number of attendees for each meeting is provided in the previous table. Meeting materials are attached in Appendix F. This engagement included presentation by the project team which shared the purpose and need for the project and other project background information. A review of the five primary technologies was also included; the project team emphasized that the study was technology neutral to this stage. Station locations for passenger and freight transportation were discussed at a high level. In addition, the project team reviewed the project schedule and scope, sharing that a final report would be submitted in December 2019.

Pre-Final 55 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Series Two Meeting/Board Presentation Details

Meeting Meeting Date Meeting Name Meeting Location Attendees Time Burleson City Hall NCTCOG MPO October 29, 2019 141 W. Renfro Street 10 a.m. 4 Meeting Burleson, TX 76028 TxDOT San Antonio District Alamo Area MPO Office November 8, 2019 1:30 p.m. 19 TAC Workshop 4615 NW Loop 410 San Antonio, TX 78229 CAMPO Office CAMPO Stakeholder November 19, 2019 3300 N. Interstate 35 9 a.m. 7 Meeting Austin, TX 78705 Central Texas COG Central Texas Council of Governments November 20, 2019 Policy Board 9:30 a.m. 13 2180 N. Main Street Meeting Belton, TX 76513 South Waco Community Waco MPO Policy Center November 21, 2019 Board and Technical 2 p.m. * 2815 Speight Avenue Committee Meeting Waco, TX 76711 Alamo Area MPO Via Metro Center Transportation December 9, 2019 1021 San Pedro 1:30 p.m. 19 Policy Board San Antonio, TX 78212 Meeting University of Texas CAMPO Thompson Center, Transportation December 9, 2019 2405 Robert Dedman 6:00 p.m. 7 Policy Board Drive Presentation Austin, TX Laredo Urban Transportation Study Technical Laredo City Hall December 10, 2019 Committee Meeting 1110 Houston Street 2:30 p.m. 11 and Laredo MPO Laredo, TX 78040 Policy Committee Meeting *Attendee numbers were not recorded for this meeting.

A summary of the number of attendees for each meeting is provided in the previous table. Meeting materials are attached in Appendix F. The project team presented new information during this second series of engagement. The presentation reviewed the purpose of the project, the analysis methodology and preliminary findings. The presentation revealed Hyperloop with stops at all identified city pairs ranked highest for technology and alignment.

Pre-Final 56 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Appendix F – Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets and meeting Agendas

NCTCOG Meetings

Pre-Final 57 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 58 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Waco MPO

Pre-Final 59 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 60 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Killeen/Temple MPO

Pre-Final 61 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 62 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 63 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 64 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 65 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Capital Area MPO

Pre-Final 66 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 67 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Alamo Area MPO

Pre-Final 68 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 69 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 70 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 71 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 72 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 73 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 74 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 75 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 76 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 77 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 78 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 79 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 80 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 81 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 82 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Laredo MPO

Pre-Final 83 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 84 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 85 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 86 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 87 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 88 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 89 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 90 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 91 April 2020 Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study Alternative Analysis and Findings Memorandum

Pre-Final 92 April 2020 From: Kevin Feldt To: Chris Evilia Cc: Dan Lamers; Sandy Wesch Subject: RE: Laredo High Speed Transportation Study Comments - Waco MPO Date: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:24:52 PM

Chris,

Thank you for taking the time to review the documents. Yes, the time afforded for review was very short. Please accept my apologies. Unfortunately, we had a rather difficult time getting the documents to a point where we could provide them for review. Original versions (and even subsequent versions) were far from appropriate for review. The contract does expire next Thursday, April 30. At this point there is not a willingness on NCTCOG’s part to extend the expiration date. We had extended the contract previously from February 29 to April 30 and believe this should have sufficient. I wanted to provide this background for the responses I have below. Hopefully this information is helpful. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks.

Kevin Feldt, AICP Office: 817.704.2529 Email: [email protected]

 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

From: Chris Evilia Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 8:52 AM To: Kevin Feldt Subject: Laredo High Speed Transportation Study Comments - Waco MPO

Kevin,

I meant to send this out yesterday but got sidetracked. I hope it’s not too late to submit some comments. Please contact me either through email or cell if you have any questions.

1. I would like to request additional time for my staff to be able to perform a more thorough review of the final documents. The timeline given to us to complete this task was very short. Given that we had not previously seen some of the analysis and specific assumptions utilized by the consultants to develop their recommendations, additional time is needed. In addition, with COVID-19 impacting MPO staff hours and having MPO staff reassigned to other tasks, our ability to perform an in-depth review has been adversely impacted. Finally, I’m not aware of any effort to begin the formal development of the Tier II study of a high speed transportation service along the I-35 corridor, thus an extension of 2 to 3 weeks would not adversely impact any potential project development. I recognize that the current consultant contract expires on April 30th, but contacts can be extended and we feel that an extension in this situation is warranted. Correct, a specific path forward has not been identified. However, we are not in a position at this time to extend the contract. We do realize and apologize for the short review time. Additional comments could be submitted this week. We intend to have all documents finalized by April 30.

2. I am concerned with the corridor alignment recommendations, especially those between Fort Worth and Temple, which suggest that the Hyperloop technology could utilize the I-35 alignments with minimal deviations whereas Maglev could not. This is despite the higher operating speeds of Hyperloop. First, this appears counterintuitive. My understanding of the Hyperloop technology is that it is essentially a Maglev operation inside of a vacuum tube to significantly reduce or eliminate drag from air resistance. If this is close to correct, then at a minimum, similar speed and alignment limitations should apply to Hyperloop as that of Maglev. Second, I-35 was designed for a maximum speed of 80 to 85 mph. While some sections are straight enough to accommodate higher speeds and a fixed guideway can operate at slightly higher speeds with a similar radius, the benefits of Hyperloop are to operate at speeds close to that of a commercial airliner. This is not possible using an I-35 alignment. As a result, the consultant recommendations would either have to accept a much slower operating speed north of Temple which negates the Hyperloop advantages, or significant deviations from the I-35 alignment would be necessary. The result of the second option would be a much higher right of way cost than identified by the consultants and additional track length. Since it appears that cost and speed are important factors in the scoring of technology and alignment recommendations, a significant change in either would likely significantly change the final technology recommendations. Yes, the hyperloop technology is anticipated to travel at a much higher speed. For several reasons, hyperloop technology has a tighter curve radius than maglev or HSR vehicles. This is the design information we have received from the Virgin Hyperloop One staff.

3. Pages 38-42 of the Task 4 Memo regarding station location analysis: the maps do not line up with the text descriptions (e.g. the Waco map has text below referring to the Killeen-Temple area). This was very confusing. Yes, this will be corrected.

4. With regards to identifying locations for possible stations, the consultants did not use any criteria to assess whether a particular census tract could be realistically accessed by a high speed system without significant property acquisitions. I agree that criteria such as population and employment density and the potential for TOD or infill development are important considerations. With that said, such considerations are irrelevant if the census tract cannot be reasonably accessed due to engineering geometrics and/or resulting right of way costs. The consultants stated that station approaches can utilize slower geometrics and thus sharper curve radii, however this comes with a very important trade-off that was not sufficiently discussed. Such station approaches would require through services (e.g. a Fort Worth to San Antonio express) to also use significantly slower speeds through each urbanized area. This greatly reduces the advantages of the higher speed technologies and should have a more thorough vetting amongst the 6 MPO Boards. I understand that detailed alignment analysis is beyond the scope of this study, but a high level analysis to flag high scoring census tracts that have access challenges should have been part of this study. Yes, the intent was not to specifically locate a station but to provide a general location based on the selected criteria. Generally the study’s purpose is to identify if emerging technologies are viable for the corridor and to provide information for the Tier II NEPA study. Along with this purpose, we wanted to identify a very general potential station location. The potential station general location may in fact not be a good location for several reasons during future study. Or, it may be a very good location. The purpose is to simply indicate there may be a location in the area.

Christopher Evilia, AICP Director Waco MPO Cell: (254) 744-8254 TxDOT Waco Area Project Updates Building the Texas Transportation System

Footer Text JulyJuly 10, 9,2020 2020 US 84 SPEEGLEVILLE OVERPASS

ROADWAY: US 84 COST: $28,651,608.00 LIMITS: Harris Creek Rd. to Bosque River SCOPE: GRD, STRS & SURF TIMELINE: APRIL 2018 – AUGUST 2020

• Contractor opened new overpass bridges in early June.

• Completing signing and remaining frontage road and intersection work.

• Total project completion expected this Summer.

Footer Text July 10, 2020 2 FM 939

ROADWAY: FM 939 COST: $6,842,742.00 LIMITS: SH 31 TO FM 2937 SCOPE: REHAB/WIDEN TIMELINE: APRIL 2019 – Summer 2020

• Contractor has completed all paving and striping throughout project.

• Contractor installing permanent signs.

• Total project completion expected this Summer.

Footer Text July 10, 2020 3 FM 938 @ Tonk Creek

ROADWAY: FM 938 COST: $663,129.76 LIMITS: FM 938 @ Tonk Creek SCOPE: REPLC BR & APPRS TIMELINE: FEB 2020 – SUMMER 2020

• Roadway closed and bridge removed in early March.

• Contractor anticipates reopening bridge in July.

• Total project completion expected in Summer 2020.

Footer Text July 10, 2020 4 FM 1637 PH II

ROADWAY: CHINA SPRINGS HWY COST: $14,452,070.00 LIMITS: .37 MI W of FM 2490 to .482 MI W of FM 185 SCOPE: WDN GR SURF TIMELINE: JUNE 2018 – SPRING 2020

• Work complete with the exception of punch list items.

Footer Text July 10, 2020 5 FM 1637 PH III

ROADWAY: FM 1637 COST: $9,968,707.00 LIMITS: Bosque Co. Line/FM 185 TO FM 56 SCOPE: Hazard Elimination, shoulder widening, and overlay TIMELINE: AUGUST 2019 – FALL 2020

• Contractor has completed widening in Bosque County and will continue working in one mile sections towards China Spring.

• Total project completion expected in Fall 2020.

Footer Text July 10, 2020 6 IH 35 4B Update

. Contractor has completed over $150 million of work through June 2020 . Contractor’s schedule still projects on-time finish . Project Wide: – Water and Wastewater Relocations continue throughout the project – anticipate completing in next 4-6 months – 24” Waterline replacement scheduled for this summer and will impact 4th St for several weeks

Footer Text July 10, 2020 7 IH 35 4B Update

Southbound Frontage Road: – Installing storm drain between 5th and 12th St. Anticipate paving and opening new frontage road later this summer. Northbound Frontage Road: – Working subgrade from south end of project to U Parks. Anticipate paving later this summer. – Paving operations continuing north of Forrest St this week and will be ongoing through the summer. Cross Streets: – University Parks: Working on connection of NBFR and EB University Parks. – US 84: Opened new EB lanes on east side of IH 35. – Behrens: Beginning construction of intersection with new NBFR.

Footer Text July 10, 2020 8 IH 35 4B Update

. Mainlanes: – Continuing demo of UPRR bridge. – Constructing new bridges at 11/12th St, 4/5th St, University Parks, Brazos River, MLK Blvd, BU 77, US 84, Behrens Circle, and LP 340. Will start working on new bridge at UPRR this Summer. Installed new bridge beams at 11th/12th St and will continue setting beams at U Parks and 4th/5th St this week. Other locations to continue being set through the Summer. Will impact cross street and frontage road traffic. – Earthwork continues entire length of new mainlanes with retaining wall work started at several new bridges (LP 340, US 84, U Parks, 4th/5th St).

Footer Text July 10, 2020 9